º
::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
Fº
Rººz
sº
§§
§$%$##
#######
gjį， šį
。。、、、。
Ķº，
¿

*
J
3%
THE HIGHER CRITICISM
AND THE BIBLE.
Ame-
/ > 2 72
----------"
...~"
THE
H IG H E R CRITICISM
AND
THE BIBLE.
A M A M U A Z F O AE S T O Z) A2 AW 7"S.
BY
WILLIAM B. BOY CE,
WESLEYAN MINISTER,
LONDON:
PUBLISHED FOR THE Author at THE
wes LEYAN CONFERENCE OFFICE,
2, CASTLE STREET, CITY RöAD;
S O L D A T 66, P A T E R N O S T E R ROW.

I88I.
LONDON :
PRINTED BY BEveRIDGE AND co.,
Holborn PRINTING works, FULLwood's Rents, w.c.
S ºn- O
, B, 7%
TO
WILLIAM McARTHUR, Esq., M.P.,
THIS VOLUME
IS RESPECT FULLY INSCRIBED,
WITH SINCERE REGARD,
BY HIS OLD FRIEND
WILLIAM B. BOYCE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
-O-
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY-TWO SCHOOLS OF CRITICISM-THE CANON
AND THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
PAGE
The Old Evidential School . . & e º 'º e º e I
The Higher Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Extreme Views of the Critics . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sceptical Standpoint of the Higher Critics generally . 5
Opponents of the Higher Criticism . . . . . . . . . 6
The Canon of the Old Testament. . . . . . . . . . 12
The Text of the Old Testament . . I8
The MSS. of the Old Testament and the Various Readings. 23
Antiquity of the Art of Writing . . . . . . . . . . 25
CHAPTER II.
INTRODUCTORY — SCEPTICAL CRITICISM FROM THE FIRST
CENTURY TO THE NINETEENTH.
Early Ages of the Christian Church . . . . . . . . . 28
The Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Revival of Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Rise of Deism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
The English Deists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, Hume, Conyers, and Middleton . 45
The Deistical Controversy. Revival of Religion in the
Eighteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Continental Schools of Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . 53
Scepticism in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Philosophical Schools of Germany . . . . . . . . . . 61
Influence of German Philosophy in England and on the
Continent . . . . . 64
Influence of German Philosophy on Biblical Criticism. . . 72
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
THE THEORY OF ASTRUC, THE MAIN SUPPORT OF THE
HIGHER CRITICISM, FOUNDED ON A MISCONCEPTION
OF EXODUS VI. 3.
PAGE
Astruc's Theory of Elohistic and Jehovistic Documents . . 75
Misconception of the Meaning of Exodus vi. 3 . . . . . 76
Quotations from Bishop Patrick, Matthew Henry, Adam
Clarke, Bishop Wordsworth, Astruc, Kalisch, J. M.
Arnold, Dr. Wm. Kay, Quarry, Havernick, Arkman, and
Delitzsch . • * * * * * * * . 78–85
CHAPTER IV.
UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF ASTRUC’S
THEORY TO THE CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
“Biblical Criticism made Easy,” by Astruc's Theory. . . 86
The Result a Series of Hypercritical Hypotheses. . . . 87, 88
Absurdity of the Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Impossible to distinguish the Supposed Documentary
Sources . . . 89
Recension of the Text of the Bible: Remarks by Quarry,
Bishop Warburton, Dean Milman, Professor Stuart,
and Dr. W. Kay . . . . . . . . . . . 90-95
Structural Arrangement of the Book of Genesis by Quarry . 95
Arrangement of the Book of Exodus corrected by Rev. B.
Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Different Standpoints of the Rationalistic and Orthodox
Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Position of the German Critics, by Rev. Alfred Cave . . . IoI
Tables exhibiting the Complicated Composition of the Book
of Genesis according to the Hypotheses of the Leading
Higher Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Io2–112
CHAPTER V.
HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PENTATEUCH.
Battlefields of the Critics—the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and
Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II3
The Documentary Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . II3
TABLE of contents. ix
PAGE
The Fragmentary Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . II4
The Supplementary Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . II.5
Unclassified Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . II 7
The English Critics—Dr. Geddes, J. W. Donaldson, “Essays
and Reviews” . . . . . . . . . . I2 I, I22
Bishop Colenso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Dr. Samuel Davidson and Dr. M. Kalisch . . . . . . . 130
The Orthodox German Critics . . . . . . . . . . . I32
Replies to the German Critics, &c., by English Divines—
W. Paul, Perowne, George Warington, and Bishop
Browne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132–136
Reginald S. Poole on the Antiquity of the Pentateuch . . 137
CHAPTER VI.
THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Critical Hypotheses of German and English Scholars . . . I43
Objections to the Mosaic Authorship. tº e º I50
Strong Presumptive Evidence in Favour of the Mosaic
Authorship . . . 156
The Testimony of our Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . I59
CHAPTER VII.
THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
Five Reasons in Defence of the Traditional Belief of the
Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Objections to the Three Leading Assumptions of the Higher
Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IG5
Results following the Rejection of Astruc's Theory . . . 168
Influence of Dogmatic Foregone Conclusions in the Higher
Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I73
Conclusive Testimony of our Lord to the Pentateuch . . . I75
CHAPTER VIII.
THEORY OF THE POST-EXILIAN ORIGIN OF THE LEVITICAL
\ INSTITUTIONS.
Vatke, the First Originator of this Theory . . . . . . . 178
Retrospective Glance at the Theories of the Critical School. 179
Leading Advocates of the Post-Exilian Theory . . . . . 180
X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IX.
REVIEW OF THE THEORY OF THE POST-EXILIAN ORIGIN OF
THE LEVITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
The Middle Books: Are they Genuine Portions of the Pen- PAGE
tateuch P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
References to the Pentateuch from Joshua to Chronicles . 189
How met by the Higher Critics, Bishop Colenso, &c. 2 . . 191
Professor W. Robertson Smith’s Inference from Ezekiel . . 196
Max-Duncker on the Prophets and their Knowledge of the
Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I98
The Mosaic Laws neither a Growth nor a Development,
but a Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Historical Facts Opposed to the Probability of the Late
Origin of the Mosaic Law . . . . . . . . . . . 202
CHAPTER X.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM JOSHUA TO SECOND OF
KINGS.
The Book of Joshua a Supplement to the Pentateuch . . . 207.
The Books from Joshua to Kings are compilations from
Contemporary Records e tº e º & © tº º & 208
Great Fundamental Error of the Higher Critics to confound
the Period of the Final Editorship of the Books of the
Old Testament with the Time in which they were
originally composed . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Authorities Referred to in the Historical Books . . . . . 2 Io
Chronology of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Book of Şoshua, Authorship and Date . . . . . . . . 212
Bishop Colenso's Theory of Interpolations, &c. . . . 214–216
Book of 9%adges, Date and Authorship . . . . . . . . 216
Bishop Colenso's Theory of Interpolations, &c. . . . . . 218
Book of Æzeth, its Date • . . . . . . . . . 2 IQ
Books of Samuel, Date and Authorship. . . . . . . . 219
Bishop Colenso's Theory of Interpolations . . . . . . . 220
Books of Kºngs, Date and Authorship . . . . . . . . 221
Bishop Colenso's Theory of Authorship and of Subsequent
Interpolations . . . 222
His Opinion of the “Legend” of Elijah and Elisha . . 223, 227
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xi
|PAGE
His Opinion of the Temple of Solomon, the Model for the
Tabernacle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
His Opinion of the Origin of the Passover . . . . . . . 225
His Opinion of the Human Sacrifices not Forbidden by the
Original Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Ewald on Elijah and Elisha . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Dr. Allon on Elijah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
CHAPTER XI.
THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
Peculiar Character of these Books. . . . . . . . . . 230
Reform of Ezra and Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Moral Purpose of the Books of Chronzcles . . . . 233
Attacks on the Chronicles by the Higher Critics on Dog-
zmazºca/ Grozczzds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Bishop Colenso’s unqualified censure not Supported by
Graf or Kuenen, or by Professor W. R. Smith . . 236, 237
Corrupt Text of the Books of Chronicles g . 238
Book of Æzzra : Bishop Colenso’s Criticism . . . . . . 240
Book of ZVehemzah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Book of Æsther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
CHAPTER XII.
THE PROPHETICAL ORDER.
The Prophets the Ministers of the Theocracy . . . . . . 244
Schools of the Prophets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Proofs of the Knowledge of the Law in Israel . . . . . 246
Catholic character of the Prophetic Teaching . . . . . .247
Missionary Feeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Chronological Order of the Prophetical Writings . . . . 249
Prophecy implies Miracle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Dr. William Kay's striking Remarks on Prophecy and
• . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Miracles
CHAPTER XIII.
THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
Bishop Wordsworth on Isaiah's Position . . . . . . . 254
The Higher Criticism on Isaiah from Koppe to our Day. . 257
xii TABLE of contents.
PAGE
The Zazer Prophecies, Chapter xl. to Chapter lxvi . . . 263
The supposed “Great Unknown '' . . . . . . . . . 264
Internal Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
The Ideal Present . . . . . . . . . . 268
Allusions by Contemporary Prophets, &c. . . . . . . . 270
CHAPTER XIV.
THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.
The Leading Critical Controversy. . . . . . . . . . 273
Opinions of the Critics generally on the Disputed Chapters 275
CHAPTER XV.
THE PROPHET DANIEL.
Daniel's Peculiar Position . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Critical Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Attacks on the Authenticity and Genuineness of Daniel . 285
Daniel’s Place in the Canon . . . . . . . . . . . 288
References to Daniel in the Old Testament and Apocalypse 290
Our Lord’s Testimony to Daniel . . . . . . . . . . 294
Alexander the Great and Jadua . . . . . . . . . . 295
Objections of Bunsen, Arnold, Milman, and Stanley . . . 297
Historical Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300
Dr. Pusey’s Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . .301
CHAPTER XVI.
INTRODUCTORY-EARLY DATE OF THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS
—THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—THE LANGUAGE
AND THE TEXTS.
Early Date of the Synoptics . . . . . . . . . . . .
Competency of the Early Christians to judge between
Genuine and Apocryphal Writings . . . . . . . . .306
The Teaching of the Doctrines preceded the Documents .. 308
The First Christians well grounded in Christian Doctrine . .309
Proofs of the Extent of their Scriptural Knowledge from
Ellicott’s “Testimony of the Apostolical Epistles " .. 309
305
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiii
PAGE
Proofs of the same from Dr. Dykes' “Four Undisputed
Epistles of St. Paul”. • * * * * * * g e is e
Mistake as to the Scarcity and Cost of Books in the First
and Second Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . .
Testimony of Early Christian Fathers valuable to us as
Literary History • * * * * * * * * e o e
Two Plain Facts derivable from the “Four Undisputed
Epistles of St. Paul’’. . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Patristic Literature Used and Misused . . . . . . . . .319
3II
3I4
317
The Early Eathers Evangelical . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Great Extent of Christian Literature in the Second and Third
Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321
References to the Books of the New Testament in the Second
and Third Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322
Sifting of the Non-Canonical Books began 303 A.D.; the
First List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
The Text of the New Testament, with Dr. Bentley's Re-
marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326, 327
The Language of the New Testament—Character of the
Greek of the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . .328
The First Printed Edition of the Greek Testament. . . . .329
CHAPTER XVII.
INTRODUCTORY-SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
The “Mythical " Theory of Dr. Strauss • . . . . 33 I
The “Tendency” Theory of the Tübingen School of Baur. 335
Schwegler's Application of Baur's System to the New Testa-
ment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Mediation School of Criticism by Hilgenfield . . . . . . .339
The “Romancist’’ Theory of Renan . . . . . . . . .340
The Jesus of Renan not the Jesus of the Gospels . . . . .343
The “Hypercritical * Theory of the Author of “Super-
natural Religion ”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .345
Sundry Minor and Secondary Offshoots of the Sceptical
School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Cautionary Canon of Criticism from the “Church of Eng-
land Quarterly '' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353
xiv. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS, THEIR ORDER, ORIGIN, AND
COMPOSITION.
PAGE
Order of the Synoptical Gospels . . . . 356
Synoptical Gospels, why so called; their Verbal Agreements
and Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .357
Theories on the Origin and Composition of the Synoptical
Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Aºrs: Theory.—One Original Gospel in Aramean or Syro-
Chaldaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Second Theory—Several Original Gospels . . . . . . . .363
Zhird Theory.—The Supplementary Theory . . . . . . .364
Aozarth Zheory.—Oral Teaching of the Apostles . . . . .365
Tradition of a Wrzążen Gospel by St. Matthew . . . . . 365
Harmonising of the First, Third, and Fourth Theories Pos-
sible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Aºifth, or Union Hypothesis, founded on Dr. Thomas Town-
son’s “Discourses on the Gospels” (1778) . . . . . 368
Indications of the Names of the Evangelists in their Several
Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
The Latest Theory by Dr. E. A. Abbott . . . . . . . . 373
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
St. Matthew, a Gospel in Hebrew and Greek . . . . 376, 377
Advocates for a Hebrew, for a Greek, and for a Hebrew and
also a Greek Original tº e º 'º e 378
Origin and Source of Matthew's Gospel . . . . . . . . . 379
Reconciliation of the Synoptics and St. John on the Date of
the Last Supper. . . . 382
Differences between the Synoptics and St. John as to the
Aour of the Crucifixion . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
Genuineness of the Two First Chapters of St. Matthew's
Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
The Genealogies in St. Matthew and St. Luke . . . . . 386
The Gospel by St. Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . .388
Mark not a Mere Copyist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
The Higher Criticisms on Mark . . . . . . . . . . .391
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
PAGE
Disputed Portions of Mark's Gospel . 394
The Gospel by St. Zuke e e 395
Critical Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
The Conclusion of Luke's Gospel, its Peculiarity 400
CHAPTER XX.
THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
John, the Beloved Disciple . e - 403
Supplementary to the Synoptics . . . . . . . . . . 404
The Critical Controversy on the Authorship, &c., of this
Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Date of John’s Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Impossibility of the Reception of a New Gospel ascribed to
John by the Eastern Church • . . . . . . 4I5
Differences in the Contents of John’s Gospel and the
Synoptics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
The Discourses of our Lord refuted in John's Gospel . 4I9
Disputed Portions of John’s Gospel . 42O
CHAPTER XXI.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Value of the Acts . . . . . . e 422
The Writer a Companion of Paul . 423
Higher Criticism upon the Acts . . . . . . . . . . 425
Discrepancies in the Account of the Conversion of St. Paul 427
Canon Farrar on the Conversion of St. Paul . • . . 429
St. Paul’s Conversion in its Bearing upon the Evidence of
Christianity . tº o 432
Sundry Discrepancies . . . . . . . . 433
Relation of the Acts to the Epistles of Paul 435
Canon Farrar on the Acts. g 436
CHAPTER XXII.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.
Thirteen Epistles (exclusive of that to the Hebrews) 438
Chronology of the Life of St. Paul . . . . . . .
439
xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Order of the Epistles
Four Undisputed Epistles.
Epistle to the Romazes. & © tº tº dº º tº e º º
The Epistles (First and Second) to the Corinthians .
The Epistle to the Galaţians • * * * * * g e
The Epistle to the Epheszans . . . . . . . . . .
The Epistle to the Philºzans
The Epistle to the Colosszans . . . . . . . . .
The Epistles (First and Second) to the Zhessalozzans.
The Epistle to Philemon . &
The Fasāora! Efzsäles . . . . . . . . . . . .
Questions of Paul's First and Second Imprisonment .
The Epistle to the Hebrezws . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE.
Seven Epistles. tº e º &
The Epistle of 9ames . . . . . . . . . .
The Jameses mentioned in the New Testament .
The Brethren of our Lord .
The First Epistle of AEezer
The Second Epistle of Zºeter.
The First Epistles of 90%zz . . . . .
The Second and Third Epistles of Şohn
The Epistle of 9 ude . . . . . . . .
The Apocalypse, or Revelation of John.
NoTE on four passages supposed to have been corrupted by
the Jews tº e º 'º e
A.'rraža
PAGE
439
44I
44I
443
445
446
448
449
450
45I
45I
452
455
459
459
459
461
462
464
466
468
470
47I
472
475
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY-Two ScHools of CRITICISM-THE CANoN AND THE
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
I. THE controversy between the Sceptics and the The Two
Orthodox in the seventeenth and eighteenth century was s; ºr
generally conducted in accordance with the usages of Criticism.
the old historical evidential criticism, of which the cha-
racteristic trait is dependence upon accredited human
testimony, as being the most satisfactory of all evidence.
With this school of critics, internal evidence had a
subordinate place, rarely if ever to be received in oppo-
sition to direct testimony. The exemplification of these
safe critical principles is obvious in the writings of our
Lardners, and Paleys, and Whatelys. So we, on the
ground mainly of the testimony of our Lord and His
Apostles, receive the books of the Old Testament as
genuine and authentic. Other reasons cogent and The old
weighty are adducible in defence of our belief, but we *g.
feel that the testimony of credible witnesses is the surest
ground upon which we can take our firm stand in the
conflict with the Scepticism of our age.
2. But it may be said, that the wider and continually
enlarging mental horizon, and the consequent higher
standing point of the culture of our day, have changed
altogether the position of the controversy, and that
owing to the more extensive fields opened to investiga-
tion, together with the more varied learning and more
B
2 INTRODUCTORY.
minute research of the present century, our Science, our
philosophy, and our literature have already been revolu-
tionised. Why then should we be satisfied with the
proofs accepted by the men of the seventeenth and fol-
lowing century, who were placed in a less favourable.
position than we are for the thorough inquiry which the
subject demands 2 Admitting the truth in these re-
marks, so far as they apply to some of the writings of
the apologists of that period, we still object to their
relevancy in reference to the case of well-attested facts :
these can only be affected by a disproof of the testimony
on which they rest. Take, for instance, the one great
fact, which is the historical foundation of revealed reli-
gion, the fact that, “God who at sundry times and ine
divers manners spaße in time past to the fathers by the
prophets, ſat/ in these last days spoken unto us by His
Son" (Heb. i. 1, 2). Sceptics must disprove the record
of the life, character, death and resurrection of Christ;
short of this, all their arguments carry no conviction to
the believers in Christianity. We admit that this his–
torical evidence represents no more than the highest
degree of probability, which we term moral certainty:
and that this is not exactly equivalent to the absolute proof
afforded by mathematical demonstration. But as this
species of proof is confined to the sphere of pure mathe-
matics, and as on all other subjects mankind are satisfied
to take probability as “the very guide of life,” we must
acquiesce in the only proof of which the facts of revela-
tion are susceptible. To ask for more is unreasonable.
The evidences are sufficient for all who sincerely desire
to satisfy honest doubt, but there is full scope left for
the cavils of those who cultivate doubt as an intellectual
grace, or believe it to be a necessary result of Scientific
research. This class would not be “persuaded though
TWO SCHOOLS OF CRITICISM. 3
one rose from the dead!” (Luke xvi. 31). They would
regard a miracle as simply a new aspect of nature. To
this class of doubters, we may use the remonstrance
addressed by Zophar more than 3,000 years ago: “Canst
thou by searching find out God”? (Job xi. 7). This know-
ledge is not the reward of research, for it does not admit
of scientific proof. It is the revelation of a Spiritual
fact, which at once commends itself to the Spiritual
nature of man, which is desirous of discovering not a
philosophical abstraction, but of realising a personal God.
These Spiritual yearnings are graphically expressed in
the language of the Psalmist, “My soul thirsteth for God,
for the LIVING God. My heart and my flesh crieth out
for the LIVING God” (Psalms xlii. & lxxxiv.). No question
affecting man's faith and duty as a spiritual, rational and
moral agent can be settled by an infallible logic. It is
determined mainly by the ruling sympathies. The deci-
sion is with the will, the responsible will. No sincere
inquirer is left without Divine help. Our Saviour gives
us the law of this Spiritual administration. “If any
man will do His zwill, /e shall know of the doctrine
whether it be of God” (John vii. 17).
3. A large number of the Biblical scholars of Ger–
many, dissatisfied with the limitation imposed by the
requirement of historical testimony in proof of critical
conclusions, have chosen to conduct their inquiries for
the most part on other lines. They have created and
perfected what is generally called “the Higher Cri-
ticism.” It certainly has a fair claim to that title, for it
assumes on the part of the critic the possession of an
intuitive power of perception, and discrimination, the
possibility of which is denied by the learned generally.
One leading peculiarity of this criticism, is the reliance
upon internal evidence, supplemented by conjectural
The
Higher
Criticism.
B 2
4. INTRODUCTORY.
Extreme
views of
the critics.
assumptions to an extent which practically ignores ex-
ternal testimony. This characteristic subjectivity of the
Higher Criticism is logically its weak point, as it rests
the results of inquiry more upon the consciousness of
the individual critic than upon the evidence of facts, the
jury and the witnesses being secondary to the judge.
But on the other hand the freedom from the wholesome
restraints of the older school of criticism, is one main
Source of the power of the new school to excite and
interest the literary mind of the age. It has put forth,
as discoveries, a series of startling theories differing and
even contradictory in their principles and facts, and
agreeing only in their direct opposition to the generally
received opinions of the Churches. Occupying thus the
position of a Revolutionary and destructive force, this
delusive but fascinating criticism overleaped all the time-
honoured landmarks which the learning and experience
of the past had prescribed as the necessary limits to the
range of rational critical investigation : but in due time
the wild extravagances of the more advanced disciples
of the higher school naturally called forth a considerable
reaction, even in Germany itself. When, step by step,
these learned scholars having in their opinion demolished
the traditionary belief in the antiquity and unity of the
books of Moses, and in the foreknowledge of the Pro-
phets, proceeded to declare the most important and
hitherto undoubted documents which form the whole
framework of the Jewish dispensation to be little less
than “forgeries" or “pious frauds.”—then the most
careless of nominal Christians were roused from their
indifference, and led to inquire, “Are these things so 2°
Most Christians felt that there was an intimate connection
between the verity of the Old Testament and that of the
New—more intimate by far than criticism of itself can
TWO SCHOOLS OF CRITICISM. 5
perceive. There are, indeed, critics who wish to eman-
cipate Christianity from all connection with Judaism ;
but the Christian consciousness, aware of the obvious
results of such an experiment, is not disposed to place
the Christian Church in the position of Mary weeping at
the sepulchre, and crying, “They have taken away my
Mord, and / know not where they have laid Him" (John
xx. I3). With this feeling a large portion of the
Christian readers interested in Biblical studies sym-
pathise. Disappointed with the unsatisfactory results
of the conjectural criticism, they are now not SO anxious
to learn what may be imagined, as what can be proved.
The present work is an attempt to select from all sources
a series of facts, exhibiting briefly, yet comprehensively,
the controversies arising out of the conclusions of the
Higher Criticism in its application to the books of the
Old and New Testament. Such a compilation may be
useful to the educated youth of our Churches, as intro-
ductory to the study of the Biblical questions of the
present century especially: for those who desire a fuller
and more minute acquaintance with the great points at
issue in these discussions, the most important and avail-
able helps will be found in the various English and
Continental authorities quoted, or referred to, in the fol-
lowing pages.
4. Let it be clearly understood that nothing in these
pages is to be considered as depreciatory to the cha-
racter of the so-called “Rationalistic” critics themselves.
We shall have occasion to remark upon the intellectual
and spiritual atmosphere of the period in which these
great scholars lived and were trained : a period in which
the notion of a supernatural revelation, evidenced by
miraculous interpositions, was at once dismissed as im-
possible and therefore incredible. This was their stand-
Object of
the pre-
sent work.
Sceptical
standpoint
of the
Higher
Critics
generally,
6 INTRODUCTORY.
Opposers
of the
Higher
Criticism.
** British
Quarterly”
point, under the influence of which they thought and
wrote. Our standpoint and the influences under which
we live are widely different. While therefore gratefully
acknowledging their profound learning, by which all the
Churches have more or less benefited, their indomitable
unwearied industry, and also their undoubted honesty, as
beyond all question, we may yet in the exercise of Our
independent judgment presume to differ from their pre-
mises and from their conclusions. The old proverb that
“it is possible not to see the wood for the trees” is
pregnant with a meaning applicable to the case of these
great critics; their voluminous and varied learning helps
not unfrequently to darken the light. Common sense
has its uses even in the consideration of the complica-
tions of Biblical Criticism. We may urge as our apology
for our dissent from some of the dicta of so many of the
learned of Germany and elsewhere, that there are strong
reasonable grounds for objection to the principles upon
which the Higher Criticism proceeds in its investigation,
as well as to the conclusions at which it arrives; and
that our opposition is justified by the judgment of Com-
petent critical authorities, of which we give the following
as a specimen :—
5. We shall commence the list with—
(1) The “British Quarterly,” the organ of the Congre-
gationalists, a journal commenced in 1845, by the late
Dr. Vaughan, well known as Professor of History in the
London University, and author of several historical
works valued for their liberal and original views. He
was one of the first to introduce to English readers the
ever-changing phases of German Philosophy, Theology,
and Criticism. The Review under the editorship of
Dr. Allon, maintains its well-earned position as the first
* July, 1846, Vol. III. p. 134.
TWO SCHOOLS OF CRITICISM. - 7
of liberal, and yet Orthodox Reviews. “The advocates
of this system assume that their knowledge of Scriptural
language, and other facts of early Oriental history is so
complete, that they can decide with little hesitancy and
with absolute certainty on the genuineness or otherwise
of any passage in the Old or New Testament, on in-
ternal evidence alone, so as to overpower all the
authority of external proof.” And again, “the sub-
jective criticism is the most treacherous of all methods.” I
(2) The Rev. H. H. Milman, Dean of St. Paul's, well
known as a very advanced Biblical Critic, commonly
considered to be of the Rationalistic School (and who
on this ground was forty years ago severely handled by
his Orthodox contemporaries), makes the following re-
marks in the preface to the new edition of his “History
of the Jews:” “I must acknowledge as regards the modern
German School of Criticism, profane as well as sacred,
that my difficulty is more often with their dogmatism,
than with their daring criticism. If they destroy
dominant theories they rarely do not endeavour to com—
pensate for this by constructing theories of their own, I
must say in general on the most arbitrary conjectures,
and assert these theories, with as much certitude and
even intolerance as the most orthodox and conservative
writers.” Again, referring to Ewald's “Geschichte des
Volkes Israel,” Milman remarks upon his, i.e. Ewald's,
“dogmatism,” “contemptuous arrogance,” and “assumed
autocracy,” in the field of criticism, and then proceeds
to the special point under consideration. “That the
Hebrew records, especially the Books of Moses, may
have been compiled from various documents, and it may
be at an uncertain time, all this is assuredly a legitimate
subject of inquiry. There may be some certain dis-
* Vol. LXVI. p. 569. * Vol. I. 8vo, p. xxiii., &c. 1863.
Dean
Milman.
8 INTRODUCTORY.
Dr. Pusey.
cernible marks and signs of difference in age and author-
ship. But that any critical microscope in the nineteenth
century can be so exquisite and So powerful as to dis-
sect the whole with perfect nicety, to decompose it,
and assign each separate paragraph to its special origin
in three, four or five, or more independent documents,
each of which has contributed its part: this seems to me
a task which no mastery of the Hebrew language with
all its kindred tongues, no discernment however fine and
discriminating can achieve.”
(3) Dr. Pusey, a divine of a very different school, but
of whose learning and critical power there can be no
difference of opinion, in his Introduction to his Com-
mentary on Zechariah," referring to the Sceptical School
of Germany, remarks :-‘‘It is an infelicity of the
modern German mind, that it is acute in observing de-
tailed differences rather than comprehensive in grasping
deeper resemblances. It has been more busied in dis-
covering what is new, than in observing the ground of
what is true. It does not, somehow, acquire the power
of balancing evidence, which is habitual to the practical
minds of our own countrymen. To take an instance of
Criticism, apart from Theology, the genuineness of a
work of Plato. “The genuineness of the Laws,’ says
their recent translator (Professor Jowett) “is sufficiently
proved (I) by more than twenty citations of them in the
writings of Aristotle’ (whom Plato designated “the
intellect of the School,” and who must have been inti-
mate with him for some seventeen years, from B.C. 364
to 347), “who was residing at Athens during the last
years of the life of Plato, and who returned to Athens
at the time when he was himself writing his Politics and
Constitution. (2) By the allusion of Isocrates, writing
* “Minor Prophets,” pp. 510, 51.I.
TWO SCHOOLS OF CRITICISM. 9
B.C. 346, a year after the death of Plato, and not more
than two or three years after the Composition of the
Laws. (3) By the reference of the comic poet Alexis,
a younger contemporary of Plato, B.C. 356. (4) By the
unanimous voice of later Antiquity, and the absence of
any suspicion among ancient writers worth noticing.”
Yet German acuteness has found out reasons why the
treatise should not be Plato's. These reasons are
plausible, as most untrue things are; as put together
carefully by one who yet attaches no weight to them,
they look like a parody of the argument produced by
Germans to take to pieces books of Holy Scripture.
Mutatis mutandis, they have such an absurd, ludicrous
resemblance, that it provokes a smile. Some fifty years
ago, there was a tradition at Göttingen, where Heyne
had lived, that he attributed the non-reception of the
theories as to Homer, in England, to the English
Bishops, who ‘apprehended that the same principle
would be applied to Holy Scripture.' Now for half a
century more, both sets of Critics have had full scope.
The classical sceptics seem to me to have the ad-
vantage. Any one who knew but a little of the un-
critical criticism applied to the sacred books, could
imagine what a jubilee of triumph it would have occa-
sioned, could such differences as those pointed out
between ‘the Laws' and other treatises of Plato, have
been pointed out to detach any book of Holy Scripture
from its traditional writer. Yet it is held inadequate by
one, of whom an admirer said that ‘ his peculiar mode of
Criticism cut the very sinews of belief.’ 2 I insert the
criticisms (omitting the details of illustration) because
their failure may open the eyes of some to the utter
‘Jowett’s “Dialogues of Plato,” * “Pall Mall Gazette,” 28th
T. IV. p. 1. March, 1868.
IO INTRODUCTORY.
Canon
Rawlinson
valuelessness of this sort of criticism. The accuracy of
the criticism is not questioned ; the statements are not
said to be exaggerated: yet they are held invalid. The
question then comes with great force to the conscience:
“Why, rejecting arguments so forcible as to a treatise
of Plato, do I accept arguments very inferior, as to
Such or such a book of the Old or New Testament,
certain chapters of Isaiah, or Ecclesiastes, or these
chapters of Zechariah, or the Epistle to the Hebrews, or
the Revelation of St. John the Divine—except on
grounds of Theology not of Criticism ; and how am I
true to myself in rejecting such arguments as to human
books, and accepting them as to Divine books P’” Never
was the case more fully or fairly stated between His-
torical Criticism and the Higher Criticism. We have
not quoted the criticisms referred to (against the Laws),
but they may be found in Professor Jowett’s “Intro-
duction to the Laws of Plato,” or in the margin of
Dr. Pusey’s “Minor Prophets.””
(4) Rev. Canon Rawlinson (in his remarks on
Chronicles) shows the unsatisfactory character of
Internal Evidence, except under certain conditions:
“Internal evidence, where there is an abundant literature,
when a language can be traced from stage to stage,
and where each stage has been thoroughly mastered
by the critic, is no doubt a very sufficient guide : but
where the literature is scanty, where all its stages are not
known, where the critic is but half-master of the lan-
guage in any stage, nothing is more doubtful and
untrustworthy. . . . In cases where such extreme diver-
sity prevails among those who make internal evidence
their guide, it seems to be justifiable to fall back,
tentatively at any rate, upon the external evidence, and
* T. IV. pp. 11–16. * Pp. 510, 51.I.
TWO SCHOOLS OF CRITICISM. II
inquire what historical tradition says on the subject,
and what reasons, on the whole, there seem to be for
accepting or rejecting it.” I
(5) Another ground of objection to the Higher Criti-
cism, arising from the fallibility of these tests of style,
manner and tone of writings, ancient and modern, even
in the case of the most learned critics who claim this
sort of intuitive discernment, may be illustrated by a
few instances, as cases in point.
First, “The Amber Witch.” Dr. Meinbold, a clergy-
man in Usedom, an island at the mouth of the Oder,
composed this fiction (1843), the subject being a trial for
witchcraft, said to have taken place soon after the Thirty
Years' War (1648). The attractive character of the
book, and the royal patronage, Secured for it a wide and
rapid circulation. It was everywhere read and praised
as an authentic history. None of the neological critics
impugned its authenticity. The Tübingen reviewers
(the Bentleys of Rationalism) pronounced their infallible
sentence, grounded on their unerring skill in discrimi-
nating the character of any composition, in favour of the
book as a genuine ancient chronicle. When the matter
had gone so far, and the infallible Critics had fairly com-.
mitted themselves, the author at once owned the work
to be a fiction, got up and carried through solely by
himself. The critics refused to believe him, asserting
that the evidences of its antiquity were sooner to be
believed than his declarations. After this proof of the
fallibility of the Higher Criticism, how can we rely upon
it in respect to its power of making out all the author-
ships of a series of books more than three thousand
years old **
1, “Bible Educator,” Vol. III. Testament Canon,” 12mo, 1849,
p. I38. PP. 53, 54.
* See Stuart on “ The Old
Fallibility
of Tests
of Style,
&c.
I2 INTRODUCTORY.
Secondly : The bilingual inscription on the Maltese
stone said to be Greek and Phoenician, and of the Sup-
posed date the 85th Olympiad (436 B.C.), believed by
Gesenius and others to be genuine, but proved by Koppe
to be a forgery.
Thirdly: The dogmatic conclusions of F. A. Wolf
and other critics of his school, respecting certain writings
of Cicero, of Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Thucydides,
Arrian, &c., deemed by them to be spurious, but success-
fully vindicated by Weiske and others.
Fourthly: The case of Walter Scott and the ballad,
the “Raid of Featherstonhaugh,” which he deemed
genuine, and published as such, though it was the work
of a contemporary.
Lastly: The controversy in 1868 in the “Times”
respecting the authorship of a poem attributed to
Milton. If educated Englishmen found it difficult to
decide the point disputed, in respect to a writing only
200 years old, and in their own tongue, our faith in the
ability of any class of scholars to decide from internal
evidence on the authorship of the Pentateuch, and other
books written in Hebrew 3,300 years ago, must be
shaken.
The 6. The character and authority of the books of the
‘...." Old Testament being the main point to be considered,
Testament it is desirable to state briefly the views held by the
Christian Churches on the CANON, the TEXT, and other
matters connected with the criticism of the Text.
(1) The correspondence of the English translation of
the Old Testament with the Hebrew original. There is
at first sight an apparent diversity in the number of the
books, or distinct treatises of which the Bible is com-
posed, as presented in the Hebrew and English Bibles,
but this is merely a diversity of arrangement, the twenty-
THE CANON. I3
two books of the Hebrew corresponding exactly in their
contents to the thirty-nine of the English Bible. The
Hebrew arrangement was made by the Editors to cor-
respond with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew
Alphabet, and in order to effect this, the book of Ruth
was included in Judges, the two books of Samuel, Kings
and Chronicles, were reckoned as one each. The books
of Ezra and Nehemiah were included as one, the twelve
Minor Prophets were considered as one, so also Jeremiah
and the Lamentations. These were the Jewish Canonical
books, that is to say the books which the Canon or
authoritative rule of the Jewish Church recognised as
the Sacred books, and in that respect distinguished from
all others. Of these books our English Bible is the
honest representative. As Christians we are interested
in the identifying of the Hebrew Bible in our present
recension, with “the Scriptures” received by the Jewish
Church and people eighteen centuries ago, and recog-
nised as such by Our Lord and His Apostles. This
brings us to the question of (I) the Jewish Canon, and
the general testimony as to the books it embraced, and
the authority under which it was formed ; and (2) to the
important matter of the Hebrew Verity, as it was called
by the old divines, or in other words the condition of
the present text of the Hebrew Bible; and this prelimi-
nary information is absolutely necessary in our Biblical
inquiries.
(2) The Jewish Canon. That “ God—at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets” (see Hebrews i. 1), and that
the records of these revelations have been preserved in
a collection of writings, classified and generally known
and quoted as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,
was the universal opinion of the ancient Jewish Church
I4. INTRODUCTORY.
—-mºssºm"
and people at the beginning of the Christian era, and
for some centuries previous, of which the following
testimonies are satisfactory evidence —
(a) Jesus the son of Sirach, who is supposed to have
lived B.C. 247–226, or later, I69–13 I, B.C., in his “Pro-
logue” to the Book of “Ecclesiasticus,” refers to “the
Law and the Prophets and other books of our fathers:”
the former date is undoubtedly the correct one."
(5) Philo-Judaeus, the Philosophical Jew, B.C. 20, A.D.
40, in his treatise on the “contemplative life,” as prac-
tised by the Therapeutae, or Essenes, refers to their
possession and constant use of “the laws and oracles
predicted by the Prophets, and hymns and other
(writings), by which knowledge and piety are increased
and perfected.”
(c) Josephus, the warrior and historian, A.D. 38–97,
in his learned treatise against Apion, the most valuable
of his writings (Book I. chap. viii.), alludes to this classi-
fication of the sacred books, and bears witness to the
identity of the then Canon of the Jewish Scripture with
our own, by the details he gives, which are as follows:
“We have only twenty-two books which are believed to
be of Divine authority, of which five are the books of
Moses. From the death of Moses to the end of the reign
of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes the King of Persia, the
prophets who were the successors of Moses have written
thirteen books: the remaining four books contain hymns
to God, and documents of life for the use of men.” Of
these twenty-two books Josephus remarks, that “during
so many ages no one has been so bold as either to add
anything to them, to take anything from them, or to
make any change in them : but it became natural to all
* Pusey’s “Daniel,” pp. 297— of the Old Testament,” pp. 17,
305. Stanley Leathes’ “Structure 18. #
THE CANON. I5
Jews from their birth to esteem these books to contain
Divine doctrines, and to persist in them; and, if occasion
arise, be willing to die for them.” This evidence of the
Jewish scholar and Statesman appears indisputable as to
the Old Testament Canon. Josephus gives here the
opinions of the Pharisaic party as well as his own.
The popular belief that the Sadducees rejected all the
books of the Old Testament, except the Pentateuch, is
€ITO1162OllS.
(d) In the Evangelists and in the Epistles, our Lord
and His Apostles quote from “The Law of Moses, and
the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke xxiv. 44), more fre-
quently using the shorter formula, “ The Law and the
Prophets” (Romans iii. 21). In this threefold classifica-
tion all the Canonical books were included. (1) THE
LAW-the whole five books of Moses, the Pentateuch.
(2) THE PROPHETS — all the historical books from
Joshua to 2 Kings—the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, with the twelve Minor Prophets. (3) THE
PSALMs, being the first in order in the Ketubim (i.e. the
writings), gives the name to the entire collection which
comprised the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Songs,
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, Daniel,
Ezra, Nehemiah, I and 2 Chronicles. To this third
portion the term Hagiographa (Sacred Writings) is often
applied.
(e) The time when, and the authority upon which we
depend for the Canon of the Old Testament, may be
safely inferred from the statement of Josephus; that the
sacred books were twenty-two in number, all completed
“before the end of the reign of Artaxerxes”(424 B.C.),
and that since then “no one has dared to add to them.”
The Canon then must have been formed in the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah, a period in fact confirmed by tradi-
I6 INTRODUCTORY.
tion, and by the general opinion of the Jewish Rabbis as
contained in one of the oldest treatises preserved in the
Talmud.
(f) At that time three inspired prophets, Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi, were living, the latter being far
later than the two former. It is, more than probable
that by their assistance and recognised authority as
Prophets, i.e., Teachers inspired, the sacred books of the
Ancient Scriptures were collected and re-edited. At
no other time since, and by no other authority, could
such an important work have been accomplished, and
on no other supposition can we understand how it
was that this Canon of the Old Testament was
universally received by the Jewish Church and
people. Some, as De Wette, think that the present
Canon included the whole of Jewish literature then
extant : but Josephus refers to other books; and
in the books of the Old Testament there are reference
to fifteen books, sometimes as authorities for historical
facts, or referred to for further information. These were
no doubt in existence at the time when the Canon was
formed, from Ezra, 42O, down to Simon the Just,
3OO B.C. It does not seem possible that any books
written later than the time of Malachi could have been
admitted into the Canon, as no writing was accepted
as Divine, which had not the sanction of a prophet,
known to be an inspired authority. According to
Josephus, no such prophet had been known since the
days of Nehemiah. This is confirmed by Philo, Jesus
the son of Sirach," and by the author of the Book of
Maccabees.2
(g) Jewish traditions preserved in the Talmud, and
probably of so early a date as 200 B.C., which carry
* Ecclesiasticus xlix, Io. * iv. 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41.
THE CANON. 17
with them a strong evidence of credibility, relate that
the men of the Great Synagogue completed the work of
revision. This Synod consisted of one hundred and
twenty of the leaders of the different orders of the
Jewish people, and they say, that the first list of them
is found in Nehemiah, the tenth chapter. On the death
of Simon the Just, 292 B.C., the Sanhedrim (the Council
of Seventy) succeeded as the Ecclesiastical Court of
the nation. Simon, Michaelis, and other critics, dispute
the authority of this tradition, but it has been success-
fully vindicated by Graetz and Dr. Ginsburg. To the
Jews were committed the oracles of God."
(h) The word Apocrypha means hidden, secret, The Apo.
spurious, i.e., not canonical. The books which never *P*
formed part of the Hebrew Canon are styled apocry-
phal; they form no part of the Septuagint Version
(280–240 B.C.), many of them being not written at that
time, and others not being considered as inspired. Philo,
and Jesus the son of Sirach, clearly distinguish between
these books and the Canonical books. In after ages,
the Hellenistic Jews, and some of the Christian fathers,
even Augustine, unacquainted with Hebrew, looked
upon these books with favour, and they were read in the
Churches, and by Some regarded as inspired. Jerome,
in the fourth century, had juster views: but the Council
of Trent has declared them canonical, and as such the
Church of Rome receives them. Our Protestant Bible
is that of the Hebrew Church and people from Ezra to
the present time.
In conclusion, in reference to this important branch of
Biblical Criticism, let me refer the reader for further in-
formation on the classification of the sacred books, and
the reasons which justified their insertion in the Canon,
* St. Paul, Romans iii. 2.
C
I8 INTRODUCTORY.
The Text
of the
Old Tes-
tament.
to the information contained in Chapters V. to X. of this
volume. The most satisfactory writers on the Canon,
and the most likely to be read, are Keil in his “Critical
Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old
Testament” (translated by Douglas), Rev. Dr. W. L.
Alexander on the “Canon,” and Dr. Ginsburg on the
“Great Synagogue.”
(3) The Hebrew Verity is a phrase made use of by
the old divines to express the foregone conclusion and
presumption, that the original text of the Hebrew Bible
had by a special miracle been preserved to modern
times. From this dream they were startled by the
controversy as to the origin and date of the vowel
points, between the Buxtorfs and Morinus and Cappell,
in the seventeenth century; and by subsequent dis-
coveries of from 30,000 to 200,000 different readings in
the MSS. and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.
These variations are, however, very unimportant. The
Hebrew Bible of the present day is no doubt substan-
tially the same as the recension made by Ezra and
others, the text which was the textus receptus in the days
of our Lord and his apostles. It is, however, important
to keep in mind that in this text the old phraseology is oc-
casionally modernised, obscure passages being explained
by a glossary of a word or phrase; the chronologies and
genealogies especially have suffered through the errors of
transcribers; all this implies considerable though unim-
portant alteration in the language, yet not in the
meaning of the original writers.
(a) We have no autographs, and no perfect MSS. of
either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures, or of any Greek
or Latin classic author ; on the contrary there is no
ancient book, Sacred or secular, of which the text is not
1 Vol. II. pp. 137, &c. * In Kitto’s “Biblical Cyclopedia,” Third Edition.
THE HEBREW TEXT. I9
to some extent imperfect and incorrect. In this respect
the Hebrew Scriptures stand in the same, but in no
worse position than all other writings of antiquity. The
fact has been exaggerated by the Sceptical School, as for
instance Lord Bolingbroke in his “Letters on History,”
who asserts that “the Scriptures of the Old Testament
are come down to us broken and confused, full of addi-
tions, interpolations, and transpositions, made we neither
know when or by whom ; and such in sort as never
appeared on the face of any other book on whose
authority men have agreed to rely.” And further, it is
his opinion “that if the Scriptures had been given
originally by Divine inspiration, either such accidents
would not have happened, or the Scriptures would have
been preserved entirely in their genuine purity, notwith-
standing these accidents.” . His lordship, however,
refutes in part his own objection in the next page,
admitting “ that amidst all the changes—neither the
original writers or later compilers have been suffered to
make any essential alterations, such as would have
falsified the Law of God and the principles of the Jewish
and Christian religion in any other Divine fundamental
points.”
(b) The true state of the case is given by that most Dr.Bentley
learned father of modern English Criticism, Dr. Bentley
(in his “Remarks on a late Discourse on Free Think-
ing”):” “It is a fact undeniable that the Sacred Books
have suffered no more alterations than common or
classic authors, and have no more variations than what
must necessarily have happened from the nature of
things; and it has been the common sense of men of
letters, that numbers of manuscripts do not make a text
precarious, but are useful, nay, necessary to its estab-
* Wonks, Vol I. p. 95. * 1713.
C 2
2O INTRODUCTORY.
lishment and certainty. I have too much value for the
ancient classics, even to suppose that they are to be
abandoned, because their remains are sufficiently pure
and genuine to make us sure of the writer's design. If
a corrupt line or dubious reading chances to intervene,
it does not darken the whole context, nor make an
author's purpose precarious. Terence, for instance, has
as many variations as any book whatever in proportion
to its bulk, and yet with all its interpolations, omissions,
or glosses (choose the worst of them on purpose), you
cannot deface the contrivance and plot of one play—no,
not of one single scene; but its sense, design, and sub-
serviency to the last issue and conclusion shall be visible
and plain through all the mists of various lections. And
so it is with the Sacred Text. And why, then, must
the Sacred Book have been exempted from the injuries
of time, and secured from the least change 2 What
need of that perpetual miracle, if with all the present
changes the whole Scripture is perfect and sufficient to
all the great ends and purposes of its first writing * *
The opinions of this great critic, (to whose laborious in-
dustry his biographer testifies) are conclusive : he had a
claim to speak with authority, for it is said that “before
the age of twenty-four he had written with his own
hand a sort of Hexapla, a thick volume in quarto, in
the first column of which was every word of the Hebrew
Bible, alphabetically disposed, and in five other columns
all the various interpretations of those words in the
Chaldee, Syriac, Vulgate, Latin, Septuagint, and Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion, that occur in the whole
Bible. This he made for his own private use, to
know the Hebrew, not from the later Rabbins, but the
Ancient Versions.” "
* Chalmers “Biog. Dic,” Vol. IV. p. 501.
THE HEBREW TEXT. 2 I
(4) At the same time, we have reason to be thankful
that the text of Scripture is comparatively more correct
than that of any book which has come to us from
ancient times. In many classical authors there are
passages so faulty, that conjecture is the only remedy
for amending them. Let any one look at the pages of
AEschylus, Sophocles, Plato, Terence, and Lucretius, and
he will find, not only thousands of different readings—
scarcely a line without one—and many places at which
erudite skill can only guess at what the text might
be. Dr. Geddes; (a Romanist and Rationalist) remarks, G #.
“What work of antiquity is there, the text of which we CC1C1628.
have so many means of correcting as that of the Pen-
tateuch 2" and adds that by the help of the old ver-
sions, Greek, Syriac, &c., and the various MSS. readings,
“a really genuine copy of the Pentateuch may, by the
rules of a judicious criticism, be at length obtained.”"
To the learned and laborious drudgery of the indus-
trious Jewish doctors of Tiberias, commonly called
“Masoretes” (Traditionists), from their attempt to Masoretes.
restore the pure traditionary readings of the sacred
books, freed from the glosses and corruptions of past
ages, we are indebted for the present comparatively
correct text of the Hebrew books. This recension was
made in the period between the sixth and eleventh
century. The character of their criticism was conser-
vative rather than conjectural, preserving even a faulty
reading in the text, and correcting it by the marginal
notes Éeri and Ähetib. They no doubt introduced the
vowel points, and other diacritical marks, which never
were and are not even now used in the copies read in
the Synagogue. Their labours were founded on the
researches of their predecessors in the Mishna (oral
* Preface to “New Translation of the Bible,” p. xx.
22 INTRODUCTORY.
Industry
of the
Jewish
Scholars.
interpretation of the law) in the second century; in
the Gemara (a commentary thereon) of Jerusalem,
370–380, A.D.; and that of Babylon, 427–475, A.D.
The Gemara and Mishna are included in the Talmud.
The old Masorah (traditional interpretation) dates from
before the sixth century, and the new, extended to the
eleventh century, of which we have two recensions—the
one by Aaron Ben Asher, of Tiberias, the other by
Jacob Ben Naphtali, of Babylon. Our printed Hebrew
Bibles are from the Tiberias recension. We may men-
tion other Jewish scholars who, as commentators and
critics, helped to guard jealously the integrity of the
text of the Hebrew Bible : Solomon Jarchi, IO4o—I IO5;
Aben Ezra, III9—I I75 ; Maimonides, II3 I–I2O4 ;
Jacob Kimchi, II90—I24O ; and Elias Levita, I447–
I 530. Justice has never yet been done to the in-
domitable vigour and, laborious industry of the Jewish
scholars; we forget the men of the great Synagogue
(the Bible committee of the Jewish Church), from Nehe-
miah to the death of Simon the Just, 290 B.C.; the
labours of Antigonus of Socho, and of Hillel and
Gamaliel, are scarcely known to us. Few sympathise
with the literary zeal which immediately after the de-
struction of Jerusalem established a Biblical School at
Jamnia, and finally at Tiberias, and the words Targum,
Talmud, Masora, are to most Christian ears Strange and
inscrutable. “Basnages' History" is seldom read, but
the writings of that gifted Jew, Emanuel Deutsch (who
died in 1873), and his brief memoir, have helped to
give the English reading public more correct notions of
the character of Jewish literature, and of our indebted-
ness to that literature, especially in the preservation of a
substantially correct text of the Hebrew Scriptures. I
may add to the list of Oriental Biblical scholars, whose
THE HEBREW MSS. 23
writings have helped to call public attention to this
branch of literature, two names of Wesleyan ministers,
the only writers connected with that branch of the
Christian Church who, since the time of Dr. Adam
Clarke, have given special attention to this generally
neglected class of Rabbinical studies: Dr. James
Townley, whose illustrations of “Biblical Literature,”
3 vols. 8vo, and translation of the “More Nevochim "
of Maimonides, 1821—9, display no small amount of
learning and research, and Dr. J. W. Etheridge, whose
Histories of Hebrew and Syriac Literature, and trans-
lations of the Targums, and of the Syriac Gospels and
Acts, &c., have been recommended by the Edinburgh
and other reviews.
(5) In one respect the criticism of the text of the
Old Testament is placed at Some disadvantage, com-
pared with that of the New. In the Old Testament
we are confined to MSS. all of one class from the
original Masoretic copy: the various readings cannot
be judged by any special circumstance connected
with supposed exemplars, as in the case of the Greek
Testament; their number rather than any acknowledged
value attached to the MSS. must decide as to the cor-
rectness of the reading. Not any of the few most
ancient MSS. are of great antiquity. There are some
supposed to be of the sixth, eighth, and ninth cen-
turies, but their age is doubtful. The two oldest
Hebrew MSS., now the property of the Czar of Russia,
in the collection at St. Petersburg, are one containing
the Prophets, A.D. 916-7, and another of the entire Bible,
A.D. IOO9. The printed fert of our Hebrew Bible is
formed upon that of Opitius, published 1709, the labour
of thirty years, one of the most accurate ever printed :
this text is founded upon Bomberg’s edition, I 535, and
Old Testa-
mentMSS.
are all of
one class.
24 INTRODUCTORY.
e—
I547, and I568 ; and also upon Vander Hooght's, pub-
lished 1705. When the learned had recovered from
their erroneous belief in the Hebrew verity, attention
began to be paid to the collecting of various readings by
the collation of MSS. Kennicott and De Rossi, from
I776–1790, A.D., collated I,459 MSS., and 418 printed
documents, besides copies of the Talmud and other
variorum Jewish writings. Kennicott's Hebrew Bible, two vols.,
readings of
Kennicott
folio, contains 200,000 various readings, very few of
and De which affect the sense of the text. By these labours,
Rossi.
continued by other scholars, the text has been brought
under the eye of modern criticism, but can never reach
to the perfection which critics hope to attain in the case
of the text of the New Testament. It is obvious that
the translators of the Septuagint, the Samaritan Penta-
teuch and version, the Syriac, the old Italic, and the
Vulgate, had before them texts differing considerably
from our present received Hebrew text. These varia-
tions and differences do not affect any point of faith or
morals, but the fact of their existence has an important
bearing in relation to many of the theories of the
“higher criticism.” So also the errors which are ad-
mitted to have crept into the text by the mistakes of
copyists, and the interpolations and additions of editors
from Ezra to the days of Simon the Just, all of which
have to some extent modified the phraseology of the
original writers. These do not affect the genuineness
and antiquity of the writings, but they so far neutra-
lise Some of the most astounding assumptions of
certain “advanced ” critics, resting, as they do, upon
mere verbal peculiarities. Our Hebrew text, though
substantially the same as that of the recension ascribed
to Ezra, is not so in Some minor particulars. Since the
time of Simon the Just, other corrections (originally
THE ART OF WRITING. 25
placed as notes in the margin) have passed into the text.
To take these phrases and additions, and infer from
them conclusions unfavourable to the antiquity of the
documents (of which originally they formed no part), is
to reason in a circle. Here again we may quote Dean
Milman in reference to this class of criticisms: “There
seems to me a fatal fallacy in the ground-work of much
of their argument. Their minute inferences and con-
clusions, drawn from slight premises, seem to presuppose
an integrity and perfect accuracy in the existing text,
not in itself probable, and certainly utterly inconsistent
with the general principles of their criticism.” On the
whole, however, the Jews have been faithful guardians of
the purity of the text. The charge of designed cor-
ruption is confined to only four passages, Deut. xxvii.
4, Psalm xvi. Io, Psalm xxii. I6, 17, and Zechariah
xii. Io, to which we shall have occasion to refer. Dr.
S. Davidson has attempted to do for the Old Testament
text, what Griesbach and others have done for the
Greek Testament, in his valuable book on the Hebrew
text published 1865.
(6) The antiquity of the art of writing is a point of
no small importance in connection with the fert of the
Pentateuch, which is considered to have been written
about 1500 B.C. In 1795, F. A. Wolf, a learned German
professor, in his “Prolegomena” to a new edition of
Homer, advocated the opinion that the poems of Homer
were not committed to writing till the time of Pisis-
tratus, A.D. 560, and that writing was not known in
Greece long before that period. This, ºf true as regards
Greece, would not have affected the Oriental nations of
Phoenecia, Syria, the Hebrews, Babylonia, Egypt, but it
was at once taken for granted that the art of writing
* “History of the Jews,” Vol. I. pp. 132, 133.
Dean Mil-
In an .
The Art
Of
Writing.
26 INTRODUCTORY.
Wolfian
Theory.
f.A we xuf
Arrºw. &
42 y $17//s */
Remote
Antiquity
of the Art
º
—-º
could not have been known at the time of Moses, and
consequently that the Pentateuch could not have been
written by him. The generation of the learned after
Wolf, assumed, as a fact proved and admitted, these
consequences of the Wolfian theory, implying the com-
paratively modern origin of the earliest remains of
Hebrew literature, (for instance the Pentateuch) with
the same confidence as certain critics of the advanced
school now speak of the theory of the authorship of the
Pentateuch by Samuel, or by some one living about or
even after the captivity; and of the other theories of
the Maccabean date of the Book of Daniel, as well as
the twofold authorship of the Books of Isaiah and of
Zechariah, as facts firmly established by what has been
aptly called “that literary terrorist the most recent
criticism.” It was in vain for those who were not
converts to these theories to appeal to the many
references to the art of writing to be found in the
Pentateuch itself; that most ancient record being
considered as on trial, and not being permitted to
bear witness on facts bearing on its own veracity. These
views of the recent origin of the art of writing are no
longer maintained, the discoveries of our Egyptologists,
and of our learned labourers in the ruins of Nineveh
and Babylon, having proved beyond controversy the
remote antiquity of letters and of syllabic and alphabetical
writing. Baron Bunsen is satisfied that the art of
of Writ- writing was practised in Egypt in the time of Menes, the
ing.
first king, whose date is probably 27OO B.C., according to
Poole's “System of Chronology.” There is a list of old
Egyptian literature in Bunsen's first volume of “Egypt's
Place in Universal History,” comprising Science, Music,
&c. The earliest papyrus MS. is said to be of the age
* “Edin. Review,” Vol. CIV. p. 374.
THE ART OF WRITING IN EGYPT, ETC. 27
of Cheops, 2300 B.C.; there is another, containing the
“Moral Essays” of one Ptah-heft, a Prince of the fifth
Dynasty, 2200 B.C., in the Imperial Library at Paris.
The “Book of the Dead,” of which there is a papyrus
copy at Turin, and which is simply a portion of the old
“Sacred Ritual,” in forty-two Books, was taken from the
hands of a mummy, in which it had been placed long
before the time of Moses. Another papyrus, in the
British Museum, contains a so-called moral tale, written
by one Kagabu for the use of a royal prince, Selt-
Menophtha, who is supposed to be the Pharaoh of the
Exodus. In an article on “Hieratic Papyri,” written by
C. W. Goodwin in “The Cambridge Essays,” there are
translations of novels, histories, &c., written during the
period of the Israelitish bondage in Egypt. If, as the
most authentic records tell us, that man first existed as
a civilised being, and that civilised communities are the
original, and barbarous tribes the mere off-shoots, the
very backwoodsmen of ancient civilisation—an opinion
opposed to the Sceptical theory of man's rise from a
mere animal and degraded position—then it will be
easily understood that the art of writing may have been
known from the remotest antiquity, and that the Books
of Genesis and the other Books could have been written
at the times usually given as their date, and that the
notion to the contrary from the supposed ignorance of
the art of writing is altogether erroneous. The publica-
tion of “Records of the Past,” by Bagster & Son
(Egyptian and Assyrian), in the original characters, with
translations, of which already ten volumes are in the
hands of the public, must satisfy the most sceptical on
this point.
* Vol. II. p. 226. 1858.
* *ck/.4.
4ceſ..., 04/7”/
721 a.a. A/
28 INTRODUCTORY.
CHAPTER II.
INTRODUCTORY-Sceptical CRITICISM FROM THE FIRST CENTURY TO
THE NINETEENTH.
I. AEarly Ages of the Christian Church.-Within the
Christian Church, or, rather, outside of its pale (though
nominally accounted as Christian sects), the Ebionites,
and the various Gnostic philosophical parties, including
the writers of the Clementine Books, are noticed in the
first and second centuries, some of them as ignoring
the Old Testament, and others portions of the New
Testament, chiefly on account of their doctrinal views,
not on critical grounds. Of these sects and their
writings. Norton gives a full and rather a partial account
in his work on the Gospels. ' Towards the end of
the second century the Greek philosophers, under the
Roman rule politically, but themselves the rulers of
Roman thought, laid aside their apparent contemptuous
indifference, and began to examine the sacred writings
of the Jewish and Christian Churches. From the time
of St. Paul, Christianity at Rome had found its chief
centre in the Imperial household (Philip IV. 22). Flavius
Clemens, Consul in 95 A.D., a relation of the Emperor,
was put to death in Domitian's persecution, and another
relative, Domatilla, was banished—both of them on
account of their Christian profession. That the first
converts were mainly slaves or freedmen, is no proof of
* Two vols. 8vo. See also Burton and Mansel.
SCEPTICAL CRITICISM IN THE EARLY AGES. 29
their mental inferiority, for amongst this class were
frequently found the most intelligent and cultivated
men of that day, who were quite competent to under-
Stand the merits and claims of Paganism and Chris-
tianity. The new opinions spreading therefore rapidly
since the reign of Trajan, as certified by Pliny, had
become a fact and a power, recognised as such by the
heathen populace, and felt to be such more keenly still
by the philosophical “professors,” who, themselves
affecting to despise the vulgar polytheism, hated the
Christian teachers as rivals whose teachings were
opposed to theirs, and which seemed by their progress
to be far better adapted to meet the moral and spiritual
cravings of the higher as well as the lower classes of
society. Celsus, a philosopher who lived in the time of Celsus.
Antoninus Pius, and of Marcus Aurelius, A.D. I.40-176,
excited, perhaps, by the failure of the last Jewish
rebellion under Adrian, and by the persecution of the
Christians by Marcus Aurelius, wrote a work entitled
“The True Word,” in which he attacked the Old
Testament, and some of the Books which now form
part of the New Testament. The attacks of Celsus
are those of an able and determined opponent—one who,
like our own Gibbon, wrote as if he had a personal
enmity against Christ; he anticipates in principle every
objection which the learning and culture of “modern
thought” have in our age advanced against Christianity
and its precursor, Judaism. About the same time, the
satirist Lucian, in his “Life of Peregrinus,” an apostate
philosopher, ridicules the simplicity and kindness of
Christian professors. Porphyry, a philosopher of the
Neo-Platonic school, wrote, A.D. 270, “A Treatise
against the Christians,” in which he attacked the sacred
writings, and especially the genuineness of Daniel's
Porphyry.
30 INTRODUCTORY.
X
Christian
Apologists
prophecies, which he supposed were written in the
Maccabean age. This is the favourite theory of all
sceptics since the time of Porphyry, and of many who
are not sceptics, but who think this to be the easiest
method of cutting the knot of certain difficulties con-
nected with that Book, but which rather increases them.
It is much to be regretted that the works of Celsus and
Porphyry have been only partially preserved in the
replies of Origen to Celsus, and of Jerome to Porphyry;
the replies of Methodius, Eusebius, and others, being
also lost. Hierocles, Prefect of Bithynia, and afterwards
of Alexandria, a learned man, and cruel persecutor of
the Christians, under Diocletian, 308 A.D., revised
Philostratus’s “Life of Apollonius of Tyana,” written
about 2 IO A.D., and made use of the miracles attributed
to this obscure philosopher as a ground for preferring
him to Jesus Christ. The fragments of these and other
writers have been preserved by Lardner in a copious
analysis in his “Testimonies of Ancient Heathen
Writers.”" The influence of “the apologies” of Justin
Martyr and others, for Christianity, is manifested in the
altered tone of the defenders and expounders of
Paganism, especially in their ingenious and elaborate
attempts to rationalise its more palpable absurdities as
“ philosophical myths,” and to tame down its polytheism
into something like a respectable and rational theism.
Thus the Pagan world was preparing to throw away its
idols and to receive the teachings of Christ. Constantine
found little difficulty in establishing Christianity as the
state religion ; his successors followed in his steps, the
one exception being Julian (called the apostate), the
hero of Gibbon's earlier volumes. His writings against
Christianity are more satirical than critical or argu-
* Vol. VII. of his Writings, p. 210, &c.
CRITICISM IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 3I
mentative ; they derive their importance mainly from
the position of their author, and from the incidental
light they throw upon the position of the Christian
Church, and the gradually changing aspects of Pagan
and Christian society. When, in the fourth and fifth Fall of the
centuries, the barbarians from the North and East #.
overran and destroyed the once mighty fabric of Roman
power in the West, Christianity as a Church and its
various institutions remained intact, and, on the whole,
was rather benefited and strengthened by the revolution
which had changed every other relation of political and
social life. It was the means by which all that was
good in the ancient civilisation was preserved for
future generations, and it leavened by little and little
the seething mass of barbarism with religious and
intellectual light. The Savage chieftains adopted the
creed of the conquered, and Christianity became
(nominally at least) the established faith of all the new
barbarian kingdoms through all their changing dynasties
to our day.
2. The Middle Ages.—The eight centuries from the
close of the fifth, which witnessed the dissolution of the
Western Empire of Rome, to the commencement of the
fourteenth, from which we may date what is called the
Renaissance (the revival of letters) comprise what his–
torians usually call “the Middle Ages,” as intervening
between barbarism and civilisation. In the insolence of
our advanced but somewhat unsound material and
mental growth, we often miscall them “the Dark
Ages.” By a certain ecclesiastical party they are often
lauded as the “Ages of Faith,” of implicit, undoubted Ages of
* gº º Faith.
trust in Church dogma, in which no doubt the essen-
tials of Christian truth were taught—and something
more. Of this transition period of growth in which the
32 INTRODUCTORY.
Influence
of the
Romish
Church.
the pagan barbarians from Northern Europe and
The
Crusades.
nations of Europe were raised by Christianity (as
understood and carried out in the generally wise and
uncompromising administration of the Romish Church),
from barbarism to some perceptible amount of moral
and intellectual culture, we are bound to speak with
respect. We have no wish to ignore the beneficent
influence of the organisation of the Roman Catholic
Church in the great work of the conversion of our bar-
barian ancestors, and in the reconstruction of European
society after the fall of the Roman Empire. It is
pleasing to notice that the Protestant Guizot, in his
“History of Civilisation in Europe,” and yet more fully
in his “History of Civilisation in France,” delights to
acknowledge the debt which European society owes to
the Romish clergy of the Middle Ages; Catholic in-
deed, but identified generally with their respective
nationalities, and as such, opposed to the novel Ultra-
montane views of the recent CEcumenical Council. In
the discipline of these eight centuries, mainly eccle-
siastical in its character, the Western European became
what he is, and ever will be, a being quite distinct from
Central Asia, to whom we may trace his ancestry, and
yet more separate and farther still removed from the
weak, submissive races of Southern Asia. But, on the
other hand, the faith of these ages rested solely on
authority, denied the intellect its due share in the con-
sideration of religious questions, and was, therefore,
unfavourable to a healthy development of Christian
character. Diversity of opinion and controversy—the
natural consequences of the exercise of free thought—
are necessary to the healthy life and vigorous growth
of a Christian people. The Crusades which united
Christian Europe in one object from the eleventh to the
THE SCHOOLMEN. 33
thirteenth century, was one of these providential impulses
from without, which further the cause of progress. The
mental horizon of Europe was enlarged. The Crusaders
brought back with them from Asia aspirations after
a higher civilisation, and the germs of new ideas, which,
in due time brought forth abundant fruit. The tendency
to stagnancy of thought, among the limited class of
scholars in the Middle Ages, was also partially arrested
by the controversies of the schoolmen, from John Scotus
Erigena, 850—885, to Abelard, IO75—II42, and so on
to John Dun Scotus, 1265–1308; and by such theo-
logians as Anselm, IO3O—IIO7, Peter Lombard, IIoo—
II64, and St. Thomas Aquinas, I227—1274. To speak
of these men and of their writings, in the language of
Macaulay, as “words, and mere words, and nothing but
words,” “a sterile exuberance,” “a barren philosophy,”
is a shameful rhetorical exaggeration. These men, with
their “barren philosophy” raised and reared the thinkers
who, generation after generation, prepared the way for
the intellectual outbreak of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. The disentombing and editing of the meta-
physical discussions of the Middle Ages has not been
deemed a trivial or fruitless task by some of the first
continental scholars of this the nineteenth century, and
their influence on our modern literature has been the
subject of recent comment in our serials. In the later
schoolmen there are evident traces of the influence of
the pantheistic teachings engrafted on Aristotle by the
Arabian Averrhoes, II49–I2O6 (a charge confirmed by
Dr. Newman in his work on the Universities), through
which some of the Jewish rabbis, as well as Christian
doctors, were led from Orthodoxy to doubt. These
views were widely circulated among the limited class of
readers of that day. Not only the leading principles of
D
The
School-
Innen,
34 INTRODUCTORY.
the Modern Sceptical schools were fully developed in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but the special
points which are prominent in the theories of unrest in
our day, are the same as those discussed by the ad-
vanced schoolmen six centuries ago. Thus at Paris in
127o the following erroneous opinions were condemned,
i.e., the eternity of the world—the mortality of the soul
—the absolute necessity of all human actions—that the
Deity knows nothing but Himself and cannot give
immortality to a human being, and has no knowledge of
the future, &c., &c. In endeavouring to solve all the
problems of religious and philosophical thought, pro-
blems which to our present limited faculties and confined
range of thought are insoluble, these inquirers knew
just as much and as little as their better known suc-
cessors in the nineteenth century. What we really know
is in part and that only from revelation (I Corinthians
xiii. 9–12). In doubt itself there can be no merit, but
it has its uses when it is only preliminary to the arriving
at that which is certain, because true. The much
quoted, and equally misunderstood, lines of our laureate,
“There lives more faith in honest doubt, than in half the
creeds,” must not be wrested to excuse the indifference
of an idle sensual class, void of all earnestness and
sincerity, who long to cloak their dislike of serious con-
tinuous thought and of submission to law, under the
more dignified semblance of intellectual doubt. The
poet's friend belongs to a different order of mind; he is
“perplexed in faith,” but “fought his doubts and
gathered strength, faced these spectres of the mind,
and laid them.” To all concerned, we say, “Go, and
do likewise.” A visit to Doubting Castle may not have
been unprofitable, but to choose it for a permanent
Uses of
Doubt.
* Tennyson, “In Mem.” xcv.
THE REVIVAL OF LETTERS. 35
dwelling is a serious error, against which our old John
Bunyan warns us. To cultivate doubt as an intellectual
grace is the mistake of the weakest minds. Every in-
tellectual spiritually-minded man longs for the rest of
faith so beautifully described by the beloved disciple —
“We AEmozy that the Son of God is come, and hat/, given us
an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and
zwe are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and etermal life” (I John v. 20).
3. The Revival of Letters.-The gradual, though slow
and almost imperceptible, growth of intelligence in the
European peoples of the South and west is recognised,
from the beginning of the fourteenth century, as the period
of the “Revival of Letters,” to which various events in that
century and the fifteenth century largely contributed. The
invention of the art of printing, A.D. I.450, probably at
Mentz, and the cultivation of the Greek language and lite-
rature by the dispersion of learned Greeks after the taking
of Constantinople by the Turks, I453 A.D., gave an addi-
tional impulse to the cultivation and spread of literature
and knowledge. It was not unaccompanied by out-
breaks of religious dissatisfaction, even so early as the
fourteenth century. The rage for the exclusive study of
the classical authors was accompanied by a settled depre-
ciation of all ecclesiastical and Biblical studies; and by
some carried so far, as to indicate a desire for the re- Spread of
storation of pagan polytheism. Ranke quotes an Italian
authority for the statement that, “No one passed in
Italy for an accomplished man who did not entertain
heretical opinions about Christianity.” The philosophy
of Aristotle and Plato usurped the place and authority
of the New Testament; and, worse, than this, the pan-
theism of the Oriental sages, which had for centuries
Scepticism
* “History of the Popes,” Vol. I, p. 74.
in the
Renais-
Salil Ce
D 2
36 INTRODUCTORY.
lurked in the universities of France and Italy, was to
Some extent favoured by many of the learned, and after-
wards produced its natural fruit in the writings of Bruno
and Vanini, in the sixteenth century. So early as 1486,
the authorities at Mentz, where the art of printing was
invented and first exercised, felt it necessary to impose
a censorship on the Press, lest “the divine art of print-
ing” should be abused to the injury of mankind. A lax
latitudinarian unbelief, sometimes in the disguise of
Orthodoxy, and sometimes without such pretence, at that
time, and in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was
all but universal in Rome and other Italian cities. In
such a condition of religious and literary feeling, the
Reformation of the sixteenth century found the Churches
of Christian Europe. All old beliefs were being shaken,
the very foundations had been re-examined, men doubted
whether truth and certainty could be found in any
opinion, or utility in any old-established institution.
This unsettled feeling was increased by the enlarged
views of the extent of the globe itself, and of the uni-
verse of which it forms an apparently insignificant
portion. The Portuguese had in 148o discovered the
Cape of Good Hope, and in 1497 had doubled that
promontory, and accomplished the direct passage to
India, by which the trade of the East was secured to
the European nations; and a few years before, in I492,
Columbus had discovered America, and had thus given
a new world not to Castile only, but to Europe. In
this century also Copernicus, in his “Revolution of the
Heavenly Bodies,” published in 1542, explained the true
theory of the universe. All these new views tended to
enlarge the narrow circle of men's thoughts, and to dis-
credit not only the cosmology, but all the time-honoured
teachings of the old schools, whether of philosophy or
INCIDENTAL EVILS OF THE REFORMATION. 37
religion. Philosophical scepticism naturally became the
order of the day among the literary and higher classes,
and the masses, though not liable to such philosophical
influences, could not escape the infection of the lawless-
ness and irreverence for sacred things which accom-
panies all large and Sweeping changes in religious
opinions. These were, however, for the most part,
temporary evils. On the whole, the change in the
moral and intellectual character of the age was for the
better. The minds of men were directed to the serious
consideration of the relations of the Holy Scriptures to
the creeds and ceremonials of the Churches—the great
point at issue being, whether the Scriptures were of
themselves to be regarded as the supreme authority in
matters of theological controversy, or the Church, as the
natural and authoritative interpreter of Scripture. All
controversies as to the doctrines of the Churches were
subordinate to this question of the authority of the
Church. It is the fashion of a clique of literary men to Ignorant
treat with affected contempt not only the schoolmen of cºntempt
the Middle Ages, but also the important theological §.
controversies of the primitive Church of the first four º
centuries, and of the Reformation up to the close of the Divines of
characteristic Puritan theology in the latter years of the tº:
seventeerith century. On one occasion, Canning, fol- Century.
lowing in the wake of Gibbon, raised a laugh among the
wits and other loose members of the House of Commons
by a reference to “the theology of a diphthong,” as re-
presented in the “Homoousian and Homoiousian Con-
troversy,” leaving upon the ignorant the impression that
the labours of Bull, of Waterland, and others were
beneath contempt. The disposition to trifle with the
phraseology of the Nicene and Athanasian creeds
has been manfully rebuked by the Editor of the
38 INTRODUCTORY.
Deism.
—a-º-
“Spectator,” in the following remarks: “This technical
language of theology has not been a gratuitous invention
of ingenious divines, but was a necessary development
of thought. Each phrase is the record of some fierce
controversy, which had to be fought, if dogmatic truth was
to be preserved. Does think the battle that was
fought at Nicaea a purposeless strife 2 * The Fathers
and the Schoolmen have been judged by the repetition,
ad nauseam, of the trivialities which may be found in
their voluminous writings; and so with the controversial
divinity of Germany and Holland, and the Puritan
divinity of England, which a large class of our literary
men (from sheer ignorance of its nature) condemn as
useless and unreadable ; forgetting that, while much of
it may be irrelevant to the circumstances of the age
in which we live, it deserves to be remembered with
gratitude, as containing a full discussion of all the great
questions bearing upon our relations to God, and our duty
to man, which at the time when first written had no small
influence on the religion and morals of Christian Europe.
4. Rise of Deism.—Biblical criticism has been affected
by the controversies of the sixteenth century. The
Romish and Protestant critics agree on points connected
with their common Christianity, but differ in their treat-
ment of the various questions relating to the evidences, the
Canon, and the interpretation of Scripture. There are
Some doctrines advocated by Protestant divines, and em-
bodied in the Confessions of the Protestant Churches of
the sixteenth century, with which the more Scriptural
views and wider Scholarship of the nineteenth century can-
not concur, any more than in the decrees of the Council
of Trent of the sixteenth century or in the syllabus of
Pio Nono put forth in his Encyclical, 8th December,
1 May 22nd, 1880.
RISE OF DEISM. 39
1864. Very soon after that great religious crisis—the
Reformation, and as a natural consequence of the re-
laxation of the previous intellectual bondage, we hear of
the first whisper of what the advanced minds of our day
call “free thought,” in the epistle dedicatory to a work
entitled “Christian Instruction,” written by Peter Viret,
a Protestant Swiss minister, A.D. 1563. He refers to
“certain men who call themselves Deists, a new word in
opposition to that of Atheists.” No doubt this Deism
on the Continent and in England was the natural resis-
tance of the intellect and heart against Some dogmatic
assumptions in the confessions of the Protestant Churches,
especially in their extreme Calvinistic, or, rather, Augus-
tinian aspect, considered apart from the other truths with
which they are always connected. It is singular that this
Calvinistic theology has generally been taught in con-
nection with the truths received by all Evangelical
Churches, and that many of its advocates have been
remarkable, distinguished by their deep religious
experience, and by the exhibition of the graces of
the Christian character. Modern Calvinism, if more
inconsistent and illogical than that of , the past
century, is by far the more reconcilable with moral
feeling. For instance, Dr. Awater (in the “Princeton
Review,” 1875) regards “the Divine foreordination and
predestination of all events in a manner and within limits
exclusive of fatalism, but inclusive of the contingency of
Second causes, and the freedom of rational and account-
able creatures.” No doubt, in some such sense the
Calvinists of the sixteenth and following centuries under-
stood their creed; but it was not so understood by out-
siders. The danger of our Churches in the nineteenth
* See Leland’s “View of Deis- Bayle's “Historical and Critical
tical Writers,” Vol. I. p. 2; or Dictionary.” Art. “Viret.”
4O INTRODUCTORY.
century is not Calvinism, but its opposite, Pelagianism.
Protes. Protestant theology in the sixteenth and seventeenth
r; centuries was necessarily polemical, and it was not the
fashion of that day, while contending even for doubtful
points, to “speak the truth in love.” Good, loving men,
when drawn out as hot theologians, too often were
betrayed into the spirit of those who were ready to call
down fire from heaven on all opponents. The toleration
of dissidents from Established Churches, or of opinions
differing from those of the dominant Church or sect, was
for generations after the Reformation regarded as a sin.
Toleration A modified toleration was not secured in England until
nºr after the revolution of I688. Free and full liberty to
teach through the Press has only been fully established
in our day. It is the singular and distinctive honour
of the Baptist Churches to have defended from their
earliest history the rights of conscience. Not one sen-
tence in all their writings is to be found inconsistent
with the principles of religious liberty, now dear to all
Leonard Protestant Churches. Leonard Busher, a Baptist, citizen
Pusher of London, had the honour of being its first advocate in
England (A.D. 16IO). Next to the Baptists are the
John Independents. John Goodwin, minister of Coleman-
Goodwin. street, in 1644 advocated toleration in the fullest and
most unshackled degree. Milton, in November, 1644,
published his “Areopagitica,” in defence of the freedom
of the Press; Jeremy Taylor, his “Liberty of Pro-
phesying,” 1647; after which our philosopher, John
Locke, his treatise on “Toleration ; ” but none of these
great men have in their advocacy of this important
principle excelled their Independent forerunner, John
Goodwin. His life, by Thomas Jackson, is one of the
most valuable contributions to the history of the re-
* 8vo, 1822 and 1872.
THE ENGLISH DEIST.S. 4I
ligious controversies of the seventeenth century, of
which, and of the general ecclesiastical history of that
period, Dr. Stoughton’s able and impartial work is the
most full and fascinating record."
5. The English Deists.-The first of English Deists,
according to Dr. Leland, (Leland’s “View of Deistical
Writers,” Vol. I. pp. 1–35) was Lord Herbert, Baron of
Cherbury, elder brother of the pious poet, George Her-
bert, a name dear to the Church of England and to all
Christians. Lord Herbert is called by Robert Hall “the
first and purest of our English free-thinkers.” The diffi-
culty which was the stumbling-block and stone of offence
to him arose out of the narrow dogma of the Augustinian
Calvinistic theology of the Church of that age; this is
well and clearly put by the Rev. John Hunt in his “Reli-
gious Thought in England from the Reformation to the
end of last century.” “In his time the religious world
was divided into two parties, which seemed to him about
equally irrational, and both as corrupters of simple Christ-
ianity. These were the Sacerdotalists, who suspended all
on the Church ; and the Puritans, who resolved the ever-
lasting condemnation of the greater portion of the human
race into the mere will of God. If there is no salvation
out of the Church ; if God has left it to depend on the
mere accident of being baptised by a properly ordained
priest, or on having received the other sacrament accord-
ing to certain prescribed rites and ceremonies, where is
the goodness, not to say the justice, of God towards
the heathen and those who are out of the pale of the
Church 2 And if He is good and merciful and just, how
can He take pleasure in the eternal reprobation of them
1 See “Ecclesiastical History of 1867–1874, recently supplemented
the Civil Wars of the Common- by Two Vols.on the Georgian period.
wealth, of the Restoration, and of * Vol. I. p. 443.
the Revolution,” Five Vols. 8vo.
Lord
Herbert
42 INTRODUCTORY.
Thomas
Haly-
burton.
Hobbes.
to whom He never even offered salvation?” His system
of philosophical religion is developed in his works,
“De Veritate,” “De Causis Errorum,” “De Religione
Laici,” and “De Religione Gentilium,” published from
I624 to 1663, A.D. The sceptics of our day must
regard him as a weak unbeliever, not far advanced
beyond the theological mind of his age, for he believed
in the possibility of Divine illumination, and was con-
vinced that he himself had been favoured with a sign
from heaven expressive of the Divine approbation of
the book “De Veritate,” which he was about to publish.
He nowhere professed opposition to Christianity or
revealed religion, but desired to have the morals without
the facts and doctrines, and thus have a universal reli-
gion in which all men could agree. The four articles
are—(1) There is one Supreme God. (2) That He is
chiefly to be worshipped. (3) Piety and virtue the
principal parts of His worship. (4) That we must
repent of our sins, and if we do so God will pardon
them. (5) That there are rewards for good men, and
punishments for bad men in a future state. These
truths he regards as inscribed by God on the minds of
all men, and universally acknowledged. Baxter, Locke,
and Whitby replied to Herbert; but the most valuable
criticism upon his scheme, and of the claims of what is
called Natural Religion (in spite of some narrowness
and unnecessary dogmatism), was written by Thomas
Halyburton, Professor of Divinity in St. Andrews, a
man whose remarkable “Christian Experience” was
reprinted in 1740 by John Wesley. His work is entitled
“Natural Religion Insufficient and Revealed Necessary
to Man's Happiness.”" Thomas Hobbes, 1583–1679,
of Malmsbury, is sometimes reckoned among the English
* 4to, I7I4.
DEISTICAL ADVOCATES. 43
Deists, owing, no doubt, to the tendency of the
“Leviathan,” and other writings, slavish in their teach-
ings, and opposed to all English notions of either civil
or religious liberty. But he professed a belief in
Christianity; his remarks on the historical books of the
Old Testament identify him with the advanced school
of Biblical criticism. In the advocacy of the principle
of authority he was (as Warburton remarks) “the terror
of his age,” and was honoured with replies from Lord
Clarendon, and the two archbishops, Tennison and
Bramhall. His metaphysical writings, which advocate
pure sensationalism, have been edited by Sir W. Moles-
worth." A succession of Deistical advocates appeared
in the last half of the seventeenth century —Blount,
Tindal, Woolston, Toland, Collins, Morgan, Chubb,
Dodwell, and Annet, the latter in the eighteenth cen-
tury. A full account of their works may be found in
Leland’s “Deistical Writers,” “ and a very fair, perhaps
too partial an estimate of the literary character of their
writings in that valuable and most readable book,
“Hunt's Religious Thought in England.” “ The main
points maintained, sometimes in a reverential spirit, by
these men, were the sufficiency of natural religion, the
falsity or deficiency of proof, and the non-necessity of
the revelation of God's will in the Scripture, and the
impossibility of miracles; in fact, the usual objections
common to all the sceptical school, and which have been
reiterated with much greater ability, and with all the
advantages of deeper learning and a more extensive
acquaintance with the vagaries of human thought, by
the doubters of this generation. In the then imperfect
and narrow education of the middle classes, and through
* Eleven Vols. 8vo. 1839—45. * “Hunt's Religious Thought in
* Two Vols. 8vo. England,” Vols. II. & III. 8vo. 1871.
44 INTRODUCTORY.
Bishop
Butler.
Lord
Chester-
field.
the influence of the prejudices against religion created
by both High Church and Puritan excesses and wordy
controversies, these writings had for more than a gene-
ration a large circulation and considerable weight with
a respectable class of readers, especially as many of
those who replied to them were by no means competent
to the task. The statement in the advertisement to
Bishop Butler’s “Analogy of Religion,” that “by
many persons Christianity is not so much a subject for
inquiry, but that it is now at length discovered to be
fictitious,” is no doubt an exaggeration of the feeling
prominent in certain circles, and, so far, has some
foundation in fact. About this time, 1753—6, the witty
Lord Chesterfield, in “The World" (a series of popular
essays), ridiculed the prevalent unthinking and silly
Scepticism in his well-known satire, “The Creed of the
Free-thinkers,” which we give as applicable to our
day, and which one cannot help thinking of as we read
certain articles in the “Contemporary,” the “Fort-
nightly,” the “Nineteenth Century,” and other serials,
all of which practically belong to the school of un-
rest, or pander to its unhealthy cravings. Here it
is, for the benefit of those who never understood and
never believed in the Apostle's Creed:—
“I believe that there is no God, but that matter is
God, and God is matter ; and that it is no matter
whether there is any God or not. .
“I believe also that the world was not made ; that the
world made itself; that it had no beginning; that it will
last for ever, world without end.
“I believe that a man is a beast, that the soul is the
body, and the body is the soul, and that after death
there is neither body nor soul.
l
1736.
SHAFTESBURY, BOLING BROKE, AND OTHIERS. 45
“I believe that there is no religion; that natural
religion is the only religion; and that all religion is
unnatural.
“I believe not in Moses. I believe in the first philo-
sophy. I believe not the Evangelists. I believe in
Chubb, Collins, Toland, Tindal, Morgan, Mandeville,
Woolston, Hobbes, Shaftesbury. I believe in Lord
Bolingbroke. I believe not St. Paul.
“I believe not revelation ; I believe in tradition ; I
believe in the Talmud ; I believe in the Alcoran. I
believe not the Bible. I believe in Socrates; I believe
in Confucius ; I believe in Soncaniathon; I believe in
Mahomet. I believe not in Christ.”
Lastly, “I believe in all unbelief.”
6. Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, Hume, Conyers Middleton.
—Besides these minor Free-thinkers, now almost for-
gotten, we have to refer to three names which have left
their mark on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
—Lord Shaftesbury, I671–1733; Lord Bolingbroke,
I678–1751; and David Hume, 1738–1751. What Lord
Shaftesbury's fixed opinions really were is difficult to say ;
they all tended to unsettle believers rather than to deny
the truths of Revelation. There are two remarks of his,
one already well known, the other worth knowing : the
first—“Ridicule is the test of truth,” which no one
seriously believes ; the other, that religion is “still a
discipline and a progress of the soul towards perfection,”
alluded to by a recent writer as an anticipation of
Lessing's similar remark in his “Education of the
World.” “The Characteristics" are now little read,
though occasionally quoted. Of Lord Bolingbroke it is
difficult to speak; the contrast between the brilliancy of
his intellect and the hypocrisy and meanness of his
character is so painful. Professing the most ardent zeal
46 INTRODUCTORY.
for Christianity, and love for the established Church,
while disbelieving its doctrines | concealing his peculiar
views while living, yet, as Dr. Johnson rightly puts it,
“loading his blunderbuss, and leaving David Mallett,
his literary executor, to fire it off after his death.” His
* letters on History are an attack on the Jewish and
hºº! # hººd.Ghristian religion ; they, with his other works, are
ww “ſº seldom read by the men of this generation. Whatever
influence he and Shaftesbury exercise upon the men of
f our day is through the didactic poem, Pope’s “Essay on
Man,” the flimsy Shaftesburian philosophy of which is,
however, generally unnoticed in the melody and rhythm
of the versification. In David Hume we recognise
another man altogether. Hunt remarks, with truth,
that “Bolingbroke was the most worthless, Hume the
most sagacious of all the Deists.” His Deism was
rather that of a pagan “philosopher of the porch" than
of an anti-Christian. Amid his philosophical discussions
and metaphysical Sophistries and subtleties there is so
ar{ A much right feeling and good sense, that one cannot but
fzlº think that if he had been capable of deep feeling and
moral earnestness, he would have adorned the Christian
character. Another man has been classed as a covert
ally, if not an open professor of Deism—a name which
on many accounts deserves to be mentioned with respect
—that of Conyers Middleton, a clergyman, a shrewd,
acute, and courageous controversialist, not afraid of the
great critic Bentley, and ready to break a lance with the
dignitaries of his Church on points of divinity or Church
history. His best work is his “Letter from Rome” on
the conformity of Paganism and Popery, which is repub-
lished about every twenty years, and is a most readable
and able production; but another work, equallylearned, his
* 1729.
ANTI-DEISTICAL WRITINGS. 47
“Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powers,”—supposed to
have subsisted in the Church in the early ages"—though
generally in accordance with the convictions of most of
the intelligent Christians of the nineteenth century, was
warmly opposed a century ago by the clergy and laity
of all denominations. In the willingness to give up
facts, some of which were deemed necessary positions of
the outworks of the defences of Christianity, Middleton
resembled that amiable divine Dean Stanley (minus the
amenities and graces of the Christian temper, in which
he was lamentably deficient). Like the Dean, he lived
an example (not to be imitated) of how indifferent a
man may be to what is called “Christian Dogma,” and
yet retain, after a peculiar fashion, his sincere belief in
Christianity.
7. The Deistical controversy—revival of religion in the
eighteenth century.—One result of the Deistical writings
was the calling into existence a series of replies, some of
which, though now little read, contain powerful defences
of revealed religion against Deistical objections. In the
controversies of the nineteenth century they have small
place, as the adversaries of revealed religion have changed
their ground, and have, of course, adopted a different
mode of attack, which requires a change in the mode of
defence. Among these Christian advocates and apolo-
gists we may mention Bishops Stillingfleet, Sherlock,
Smallbroke, and yet a greater bishop—Butler. Bentley,
the famous critic; Sam Clark, the defender of natural
religion ; Lord Lyttleton, who wrote on the Apostleship
of St. Paul ; West, on the Resurrection ; Leslie, in his
Short and Easy Method with the Deists; G. Campbell,
and Beattie, of the Church of Scotland; Isaac Watts,
Howe, Lardner, Leland, and Doddridge—all of them
* First published 1748.
48 INTRODUCTORY.
magnates of Dissent. Some of these treatises are
included in the “Collection of Evidences of Chris-
tianity.” The works of Paley belong to a later period
of our history. Our sceptics tell us sometimes, “We are
tired of your Lardners, and Paleys, and Butlers; they do
not reach our case; they do not satisfy us.” Our answer
is, they ought to satisfy candid inquirers so far as the
external evidences of Christianity are in dispute, and
would, if carefully read and weighed ; they are not
specially adapted to grapple with the infidelity of the
heart, which requires another sort of treatment. In the
last century, as now, the spread of infidelity arose from
causes beyond the reach of argumentative treatises.
The disease was a spiritual one—the deadness of the
Churches. Sermons which are now found to be unread-
able, were no doubt felt to be unhearable. Christian
congregations were as the valley of dry bones described
by the prophet, AVo life in them, very dry (Ezekiel xxxvii.).
Nothing short of a powerful revival of spiritual experi-
mental religion could meet the case. To use the words
of Hunt:2—“The last echoes of the Deistical controversy
had not ceased when it was rumoured that Wesley and
Whitefield were attracting to the churches crowds of
people who professed to realise in themselves the truths
of that religion which the Deists were said to have
assailed.” Christianity was to them not only a faith,
but an experience. We are to taste and see that the Lord
is good (Psalm xxxiv. 8); and this personal experience
is the abiding satisfying evidence within us. He that
believeth hath the witness in himself (I John v. IO). Hence
the English Deism left no permanent mark on the mass
of the population. It never had a hold on the people,
and was chiefly influential among the wits of the coffee-
Wesley
and
Whitefield
* Five Vols. 8vo. 1815–1817. * Vol. III. p. 395.
EVANGELICAL REVIVAL IN ENGLAND. 49
house, the soirées of the fashionable, and the studies of
some of the learned. Unbelief among the masses
withered under the warmth of revived religious feeling
through the labours of the Methodists, which affected
not only the Dissenters, but the clergy of the Establish-
ment, from among whose ranks the Evangelicals, as
distinct from the dry and formal High Church clergy
formed a very considerable, influential, and valuable
body within the pale of the Establishment itself. It The Evan-
would, however, be unjust to leave the impression that ë.
the revival of religious feeling in the Church of England
was owing to Methodism, popularly so called, existing
beyond the pale of the English Church. On the con-
trary, the Methodist Churches—Wesleyan, Calvinistic,
and others—are obviously the result of a movement on
the part of certain clergymen, which was called by
opponents Methodism, and to which the Wesleys and
Whitefield were parties. There had been a previous
movement, a practical protest against the latitudinarian
theology and the laxity of the clergy, on the part of
certain associations called “The Religious Societies,”
formed in 1678 by young men connected with the con-
gregations of Dr. Horneck and another clergyman.
These meetings, held weekly for reading, prayer, and
exhortation, helped to satisfy the craving for spiritual
communion; they were the precursors of the Methodist
Class-meetings (though not the occasion which called
them forth). To these societies, purely spiritual in their The
object, and quite independent of all Nonconformity and sº
Methodism, the Evangelical clergy may trace their
origin—a more illustrious one than the delusive dogma
of what is called Apostolic succession, which can only
be dubiously traced at second hand through a question-
able channel. No doubt the labours of the Wesleys and
E

50 INTRODUCTORY.
Whitefield had no small effect upon the clergy and con-
gregations of the Establishment, but the fire by which
the Church was warmed had been kindled in its own
precincts. So much for the justification of the genuine
Church of Englandism of the Evangelical clergy; their
Gospel teaching was the salt which saved that Church
from corruption ; they were the men whose labours and
earnest piety did much to preserve it as an establish-
ment. It would be amusing, if it were not too painful,
to observe the attempts of their High Church and Broad
Church brethren to decry their past and present in-
fluence, and to deny the obligations of their Church to
them. Could any man of the great Church parties now
living, or any number of them, have accomplished the
work of the men of spiritual power—the early and later
Evangelical leaders ? Think of such men as Shirley,
Perronet, the Hills, Berridge, Grimshaw, Toplady,
Hervey, Romaine, Stillingfleet (Hotham), J. Venn
(Huddersfield), John Newton, John Scott, Richard Cecil,
Simeon (Cambridge), the Milners, S. Walker (Truro), J.
Venn (Clapman), Bishop Wilson, and more recently of
Henry Venn (of the Church Missionary Society). Let
no man revelling in the wider range of the mental horizon
of this nineteenth century attempt to call these apos-
tolical men “narrow !” We might not agree in all their
theological views, but there are two sorts of narrowness—
one, to which we are all prone, arising out of ignorance
and prejudice; the other, which is the result of the
absorption of mind and feeling, and the concentration
of effort on one great point in order to ensure one great
object. Was Richard Cecil narrow when he wrote
“Hell is before me; Jesus Christ stands forth to save
men ; He sends me to proclaim His ability and His
love; I want no fourth idea ; every fourth idea is con
THE GREAT ENGLISH HISTORIANS. 5I
temptible, every fourth idea is a grand impertinence”?
(See his Remains). So also St. Paul (Philip. iii. 13), “This
one thing I do, I press toward the mark;” and again (I Cor.
ii. 2), “I determined not to know anything among you
save Jesus Christ, and Him? crucifted.” The excesses of
the French Revolution (1793-6) helped also the reaction Influence
in favour of orthodoxy among the higher and middle #.
classes of society. The influence of these classes en-Revolution
forced at least the observance of the decencies and *:
outward forms of religion. Scepticism lost every vestige ing in
of respectability, and soon became the degraded thing England
represented by the low but vigorous writings of Tom
Paine. It is, however, much to be lamented that upon
the English literature of the eighteenth century the
Deism of the literary coteries has left its cankerous
stain. Hume's History of England (1754—61) and
Robertson's Scotland, Charles V., &c. (1753–77);
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(1776–88), works as imperishable as our literature,
worthy predecessors of the great historical writers of
this century, all of them even now exercising an anti-
Christian influence on the thoughts of the rising genera-
tion, not by their direct inculcation of infidel principles
—an offence against good taste of which these great
writers were generally incapable—but by the absence of
all reference to the Christian high standard of motives
and principles. Hume and Gibbon make no secret of
their unbelief. The severe and caustic remarks of the
learned Porson upon Gibbon are true to the letter, but
cannot be quoted here. Robertson, a Presbyterian
minister, has been unjustly termed an unbeliever ; he
was fearful of exposing himself to the ridicule of his
sceptical friends by any display of religious zeal. The
literary atmosphere of England would have been far
E 2
52 INTRODUCTORY.
more pure and spiritual, had these inimitable writers
entered into the spirit of the thoughtful Christian philo-
sophy of the great French historian Guizot, as manifested
in his “History of Civilisation in Europe and in France.”
The latter part of the eighteenth century was not fruitful
in sacred criticism, but from the beginning of the present
century there have been a series of sceptical Biblical
critics, and critics of the advanced and Broad Church
school. Their views will come before us in due course.
§. It may, however, be desirable to remark, in concluding
of the this reference to English thought and feeling, that the
ū question of the authority of the Scriptures is only one of
Century, the points, though a very important one, at issue between
the Sceptic and the Believer of the nineteenth century.
The sceptical advocates meet us with what seem to be
new theories, but which turn out to be “old foes with
new faces.” Science which can see no design in Nature
—and knows no intelligent first cause. Materialism
which ignores mind and moral responsibility. Pan-
theism and Atheism (which, though theoretically dif-
ferent, but morally identified) imply the notion of man's
unaccountability. Mental philosophy founded on sen-
sualistic principles, practically denying mind. On all
these old battle-fields, Christian learning has so far been
able for eighteen centuries past to hold its own. The
pull: even of educated Christians have neither the time
nor the taste for such studies; but happily the main
question, the authority of the Bible, is one of much lcs
difficulty to master—and the settlement of this prac
tically settles all the others. If we have a revelation
from God, it is decisive: all difficulties raised by science
of whatever character, must then be dealt with as arising
out of the present imperfection of our knowledge, whic
time will help to remove. The twofold revelation o
CONTINENTAL, PHILOSOPHY. 53
God, in His word, and in His works, cannot really differ;
and our inability at present to harmonise our theories
respecting them does not justify the vulgar notion of a
necessary conflict between science and religion. The
antagonism which now exists, is the result of the partial
ignorance of both theologians and philosophers; and
hence the rise of an intolerant dogmatism alike dis-
creditable to both parties.
8. Continental Schools of Philosophy.—England is but
a small, though a very important province of the
European commonwealth. The Continental thinkers
claim for themselves a more advanced position in philo-
sophical studies, and in critical investigations. Before
these speculators can be properly classified as either of
French or German nationality, there are certain great
names to the influence of whose teaching the philosophy
and criticism of both these countries may be traced.
Descartes (I637—74), well known for his maxim, oft Descartes.
repeated, “I think, therefore, I am,” whose systems both
of physical and mental philosophy were founded on
assumed d priori principles; he thought that the exist-
ence of God, and the nature of the soul ought to be
demonstrated by natural reason. The devout Male- . Male-
branche, a disciple of Descartes, published, in I674, his branche.
work on “Truth,” which is considered by able meta-
physicians to be logically but a half-way house between
Descartes and Spinoza. What a philosopher may mean
by such phrases as “seeing all things in God,” and what
he is able to impress as his meaning upon others are
two different things. From the imperfection of human
language, it is difficult for the most Orthodox writers,
especially in religious poetry or hymnology, to keep
clear of phrases which savour of Pantheism. Witness,
among others, Dante, Keble, Wesley, &c.—a lesson to
54 INTRODUCTORY.
Spinoza.
} ... --- - - - - *** * *-*.*. º:
has special reference to Biblical criticism, and as it con-
|
:
l
the founder of the “Higher Criticism.” Spinoza himsel
remarks worth preserving in this connection—one on
Christian critics not to make a man an offender on
account of a careless word or expression—nor to mis-
take metaphor for logic. Spinoza, a Dutch Jew, alienated
from the faith of his fathers by the study of Maimonides,
and of Aben Ezra, the rationalistic Rabbi of the twelfth
century, was the founder of a philosophical system,
Pantheistic in its nature, fascinating in its influence over
the speculative thinking of his own and future ages—
1660–1670. His work, “Tractatus Theologico Politicus,’
tains the germ of the advanced views of the sceptical
critics of the nineteenth century, he may be regarded as
was a sincere Theist, leading a self-denying and blame
less life; he has been absurdly vilified on account of th
tendency of his system, of which he seems to have been
unconscious; and with equal unreasonableness has been
lauded to the skies as “the God-intoxicated Spinoza,'
by his admirers. Herder and Schleiermacher claim him
as a Christian. His language is often quite Orthodox in
speaking of Christ as “the Eternal Wisdom of God,'
“The Way of Salvation,” but obviously in a sense whic
can only be understood by adepts in his philosophy.' I
an article in the “Edinburgh Review,” we find tw
Spinoza’s philosophy, which applies to all philosophy o
the intuitive and d priori school: “What can be expected
from an endeavour like Spinoza's to reduce a theory o
the Infinite from his own intuitive conceptions.” Th
other equally true. “It is no small tribute to the influ
ence of Christianity that such a man should have been
almost, though not altogether a Christian.” The same
remark applies to many enlightened and philanthropic
* Hunt's “Pantheism,” 8vo, pp. 214–240. * Jan. 1863, No. 239.


















FATHER SIMON, LE CLERC, AND BAYLE. 55
men of our day, who admire the moral teaching and
loving sympathies of Christianity, but who cannot receive
the one grand truth, the hope of the world—that Jesus
Christ came into the world to save sinners. The offence
of the Cross is now, as eighteen hundred years ago, “to
the Jews a stumbling-block, to the Greeks foolishmess”
(I Cor. i. 23). On Father Simon, 1678, and Le Clerc,
I685, and Peter Bayle, I681–96, we may trace the
influence of Spinoza’s philosophy, though they were
opposed to its logical results. The two former are
remarkable for their free inquiries in Biblical criticism,
and the latter for his all but universal scepticism.
Bayle's Dictionary, Historical and Critical, 3 vols., 1696
(the English edition, 5 vols. folio), is a storehouse of
sceptical stimulants, praised by Voltaire as “the book
which teaches a young man to think,” by which he
meant—to doubt. The work is useful for reference, as
it is a lumber-room of curious, and, for the most part,
useless literature. Except for its occasional studied and
obtrusive indelicacy, it would be a very innocuous work.
Leibnitz, the German philosopher, remembered best by
his theory of “Monads” and “Pre-established Harmony,”
was the opponent of what philosophers now call “Pessi-
mism.” He wrote his “Theodicée" in reply to some of
Bayle's speculations. In this he endeavours to explain
the origin of evil and the perfection of the Divine admi-
nistration in human affairs; which exposed him to the
ridicule of Voltaire, whose romance of “Candide,” is a
continuous laugh at the “best of possible worlds of Mons.
Leibnitz!” Many who laugh with Voltaire have never
read a line of Leibnitz's writings, which for learning,
variety of illustrations, dignified morality, deep thought,
and earnestness of purpose have never been excelled.
To Leibnitz, however, we are indebted for a correction,
Father
Simon,
Le Clerc, .
Peter
Bayle.
Leibnitz.
56 INTRODUCTORY.
John
Locke.
Bishop
Berkeley.
in the shape of an addition to the oft-quoted maxim of
the sensual philosophy, “Nihil in intellectu quid non
fuerit in sensu" (Nothing in the intellect which was not
first in the senses); to this he added, “nisi ipse intel-
lectus” (except the intellect itself), and by this addition
“spread a new light over intellectual philosophy,” in the
opinion of Sir James Mackintosh. We may add to these
the writings of our great philosopher John Locke (1690–
I7O6), whose theory of the origin of our ideas through
sensation, and his opposition to the then favourite theory
of “Innate Ideas,” seemed to refer the origin of all our
knowledge to sensation. This misinterpretation of Locke
has been general both in England and on the Continent,
where he has been regarded as one of the founders of
the modern Sensualistic School of Philosophy. From
this stigma he has been successfully vindicated by
Thomas E. Webb, in his treatise on “The Intellectualism
of Locke.” Berkeley, whose ideal philosophy (1710–
32) is by no means forgotten or neglected, together with
Hobbes, Shaftesbury, and the old English Deists, exercised
no small influence over Continental thought and specula-
tion. We may now treat of the progress of Sceptical
views and Scepticism in France and Germany separately.
9. In France, the scepticism of which Viret com-
plained in I563, spread covertly among the learned ; a
natural reaction against the dogmas and excesses of the
Romish and Protestant Churches, and from the injurious
effects of the religious wars and excited intolerant Sec-
tarian feeling. Montaigne's Essays (1563) are an
unconscious stimulation to doubt, and something more.
La Peyrere wrote a defence of Pre-Adamitism, 1655, and
Pascal, Huet, and Abbadie replied to Bayle's Sophisms,
1670–84. The writings of Fontenelle and his contem-
* 8vo. 1837
FRENCH PHILOSOPHY. 57
*–
poraries (1686) were mainly in their tendency unsettling;
So also Montesquieu (1721–48), though not professedly
opposed to Christianity. French infidelity derives its
power and peculiar character from One man, Voltaire—
the patriarch of doubt, the literary infallible pope of
Frenchmen; and with reason, judging from a French
point of view ; and it is only from that point of view
that we can do justice to one aspect of Voltaire's life
and writings. He was born in 1694, and became a
writer by the power of his unrestrainable genius.
Visiting England in 1726, he became acquainted with
the writings of Bolingbroke and the English Deists.
One of his admiring biographers informs us that “from
the armoury of these dead and unread free-thinkers”
he drew “the weapons which he made sharp with the
mockery of his own spirit.” This we much doubt.
Neither do we think with Ueberweg” that he was chiefly
led by the facts of modern astronomy (as revealed by
Newton) to the conviction that the dogmatic teachings
of the Church were untrue. It is not probable, either,
that the so-called sensationalism of Locke's philosophy
undermined his orthodoxy. The common-sense view of
the case is that the Romanism of the Continent, with its
abject superstition, and Protestantism, with its hard and
dry, unspiritual, unsympathising theology, had already
predisposed a keen wit, unattached to any school of faith,
to that hearty enmity against revealed religion which
was the leading characteristic of his literary career.
It is remarkable that almost every Frenchman of note
connected with the Revolution of I789–93 had either
visited England, or had been a student of English lite-
rature. We cannot deny the fact which his recent
biographer Morley puts forward somewhat exultingly,
* Morley, p. 88. * “History of Philosophy,” Vol. II. p. 184.
Montes-
quieu.
Voltaire.
58 INTRODUCTORY.
that “Protestantism was indirectly the means of creating
and dispersing an atmosphere of rationalism, in which
there speedily sprang up philosophical, theological, and
political influences, all of them entirely antagonistic to
the old order of thought and institutions" (p. 89). Pro-
testantism is not the only good thing the blessings of
which may be misused in the interests of evil. From
1726 to 1778 the life of this extraordinary man was,
with some few exceptions, devoted to the literature of
unrest and unbelief. Guizot's remarks are valuable, as
those of an experienced Christian philosopher, historian,
and statesman, and who, as a Frenchman, was not dis-
posed to depreciate the glory of modern French litera-
ture.” “The avowed materialistic theories revolted his
shrewd and sensible mind ; he sometimes withstood the
anti-religious passions of his friends, but he blasted
both minds and souls with his sceptical gibes ; his
bitter, and, at the same time, temperate banter disturbed
consciences which would have been revolted by the
doctrines of the encyclopaedists; the circle of infidelity
widened under his hands; his disciples were able to
go beyond him on the fatal path he had opened to
them. Voltaire has remained the true representative of
the mocking and stone-flinging phase of free-thinking,
knowing nothing of the deep yearnings any more
than of the supreme wretchedness of the human Soul
which it kept imprisoned within the narrow limits of
earth and time. After the Revolution, it was the infi-
delity of Voltaire which remained at the bottom of the
scepticism and moral disorder of the France of our
day. The demon which torments her is even more
Voltairian than materialistic.” Voltaire's direct attacks
on Christianity are found in the “Philosophical Dic-
Guizot on
Voltaire.
* “History of France,” Vol. V. pp. 291, 292.
VOLTAIRE'S ESSAI. 59
tionary,” I 764, in his “Essai sur les Meurs et l'esprit
des Nations,” I 756, which, with other of his historical
works, Lord Chesterfield so earnestly recommended to
his son as an example of the way in which history
should be written It is a clever sketch of the world’s
history, occasionally incorrect in details, and miserably
narrow in some of its speculations, displaying an
ignorance and misconception of the mediaeval ages,
arising out of his Parisian tastes and consequent want
of all intellectual and moral sympathy with that period
of transition between the old classic world, and the
Europe of modern times. It was made interesting to
the sceptical reader by the sarcastic remarks on reve-
lation and its supposed absurdities and contrarieties, and
is interesting to us as the first attempt in modern times
to combine philosophical research and teaching along
with the details of historical narration. In this it has
been a model to succeeding historians. Few English-
men of this generation have read it ; the translation
made of it nominally by Smollet (1761–9), and another
a few years afterwards (1779–80), have never been
reprinted. In fact, all the wit, and what there is of
beauty, elegance and finish in the French original,
evaporates in the translation. It is but right to give
Voltaire credit for his advocacy of the rights of humanity,
justice, and freedom. Occasionally he had glimpses of
religious feeling, witness the following lines from his
poem, “La Loi Naturelle : ”—
“O God! whom men ignore, whom everything reveals,
Hear Thou the latest words of him who now appeals;
'Tis searching out Thy law that hath bewildered me;
My heart may go astray, but it is full of Thee.”
One cannot help lamenting the one-sided action of this
great man’s powers of sarcasm and ridicule, unequalled
6o INTRODUCTORY.
since the days of Aristophanes. Had it been confined
to the exposure of the false in religion and in social
life; and had his moral sense and his faculty of dis-
cerning between the good and the evil in the Chris-
tianity of his day been equal to his ability to expose
and hold up to derision that which was faulty, and had
his marvellous influence been consecrated to sustain
and commend that which was true and beneficial in
the ecclesiastical and civil institutions of France, the
religious, Social, and political condition of that country,
and of Europe generally, might have been very different
from what it is at present. It is a singular fact that while
Lord Chesterfield and others of his caste perceived
clearly the tendency of the new philosophy to change
the political régime in France, and foresaw the near
approach of the great catastrophe of 1789–93, Voltaire
seems to have had no such forebodings. His mission
seemed to him confined to the higher and literary
classes, to put down superstition and bad taste, and to
correct glaring social evils. Of social reforms bearing
upon the elevation of the masses, and of political
changes of a radical and revolutionary character, he had
no conception, except as philosophical reveries, alto-
The Ency-
clopaedists
gether beyond the sphere of practical politics. The
great work of the sceptical literati, the famous “Ency-
clopædia,” twenty-eight volumes, with supplement of five
volumes, edited by Diderot and D'Alembert (1751–77),
received contributions from Voltaire, Holbach, Grimm,
Rousseau, and others. Guizot describes it as “unequal
and confused : a medley of various and oft ill-assorted
elements, undertaken for, and directed to the fixed end
of an aggressive emancipation of thought.” This is
substantially a fair description of a work which was at
first regarded with suspicion by ecclesiastics and rulers,
GERMAN PHILOSOPHY. 6I
but which our more educated and rational age looks
upon as comparatively harmless. This publication, with
the “Natural History” of Buffon, made science a means
of spreading infidelity among the educated classes, not
only in France, but in all Europe. Morelly, 1755,
Holbach, 1770, Condillac, 1746–64, Helvetius, I 758,
advocated the sensualistic School of philosophy as that
most consistent with Atheism. Rousseau (I 760—2), in
his sentimental Deism, and impracticable political and
social theories, did his part, some think the more influ-
ential part, towards the obliteration of old principles and .
current lines of thought. Of the French sceptics, from
the Revolution to the present time, it is unnecessary to
particularise, as they are all more or less of the school
of Voltaire, minus his ability and wit. Comte, the father
of the Positivist creed, and his followers, at present are
supposed to represent the most popular and influential
school of sceptical thought in France. But the outward
fashion of that philosophy is always changing, while its
substantial godlessness remains.
Io. Philosophical Schools of Germany.—In Germany,
especially, we may ascribe the origin and gradual
growth of scepticism, and its strong hold upon the
learned classes, to the reaction against the Confessions
of Faith and the dogmas of the Lutheran and Calvinistic
theology, which in their narrowness and exclusiveness
surpassed those of all other Protestant Churches. Theo-
logical controversy tended to destroy the spirituality and
practical character of Protestantism. It drove rational
men from orthodoxy in belief, and led the way to a
depraving laxity of practice. The Theosophists, Para-
celsus, Weigel, and Jacob Böhme, I550–162O, are
proofs of the reaction against dogma in favour of
cloudy speculation, which had the recommendation of
Rousseau.
62 INTRODUCTORY.
the semblance of spiritual aspiration. The miseries of
the Thirty Years' War, 1618–48, were felt not only in
the economical condition of Germany, but in the yet
further decay of religious principle, morals, and educa-
tion. An ineffectual attempt by Callixtus, Duraeus, and
Hartlib (1620–56) to reconcile the Protestant Churches
to each other, and with the Romish Church, helped
more the cause of religious indifference than of Christian
Syncre- charity, for Syncretism is rather the philosophy of
“ politicians than of Churches. Men in that day, as in
this, found it less difficult to be careless in matters of
belief, than to enter the polemical arena to contend for
logical niceties in religious truth, the bearing of which
they could not clearly see. The teachings of Spinoza,
as interpreted by the vulgar, bore fruit early. In 1674
a number of tracts were circulated in Jena by an obscure
fanatic, advocating “the apotheosis of conscience—no
God, no Devil.” The two latter points are favourite
topics with men of that class even now. Professor
Musaeus, the opponent of Spinoza, effectually answered
these ravings. A revival of religion, under Spener and
Francke, I675—I'730, to which ecclesiastical writers have
given the name of Pietism, for a brief period drew the
attention of Christians from controversy to the more
important points of Christian experience and practice.
Bengel, one of the soundest of New Testament Biblical
critics, was of this school (1687–1752). The Deism of
Wolfen- England, as exhibited in what are called “the Wolfen-
* büttel Fragments,” was sown broadcast over Germany
ments. (1774–8), and gave an additional impulse to Ra-
tionalism in Biblical criticism. There were in all seven
treatises, written by Reimarns, Professor of Oriental
Languages in Hamburg, who had died I768. He had
been disgusted with the popular Lutheran theology,
THE WOLFENBUTTEL FRAGMENTS. 63
and had, step by step, disowned the authority of the
revealed word. The excitement which followed the
publication of these “Fragments’’ was similar to that
which in Germany in this generation followed the
appearance of Strauss’s “Leben Jesu,” and, in England,
the publication of Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch ;
the alarm of the orthodox being in both cases equally
discreditable to their intelligence and faith. Lessing
himself, the editor, did not approve of the doctrines of
the “Fragments.” If not an orthodox believer, he was
“an almost Christian,” but a “broad and advanced ”
one. In one of his replies to an opponent, he remarks
that the Jewish and Christian Churches existed before
their sacred writings were composed, and that conse-
quently the Churches themselves were independent of
the documents. All this is true, but he ignores the im-
portance of a written revelation as a record and an
evidence, as well as necessary to the conservation of
the truth revealed. A favourite maxim of his was, that
the pursuit of truth is of far greater importance in the
education of the race than the knowledge of the truth
itself; hence, in accordance with this sentiment, his
avowed object in the publication of writings not in exact
accordance with his own convictions, was to put in
motion, to resuscitate into life and activity the theology
of the age, and this he certainly effected; for from this
time the theology and criticism of Germany, whatever
may have been their deficiencies in other respects, have
not been wanting in the interest which is excited by
novelty and variety. German speculation never rests
satisfied long with what is technically called “the latest
result of modern thought.” On the contrary, it is always
bringing forth some new thing ; novelty succeeds
novelty, as in a series of dissolving views, ephemeral
Lessing.
64 INTRODUCTORY.
and shadowy, which fade into nothingness as we at-
tempt to give definiteness to their fleeting forms.
Lessing was one of the most interesting of German
philosophers. His treatises on the “Education of the
Human Race,” and other writings of his, exhibit a
remarkable grasp and depth of thought, accompanied
by high moral feeling. In judging the German literary
and philosophical men of the eighteenth century, we
must not forget to notice the prevalent irreligiousness,
hypocrisy, and disgusting licentiousness and coarseness
of all classes of society, not excepting many of the
royal and princely families at that time. In the so-
called Protestant governing families, religion was merely
a matter of policy. Even the Electress Sophia, grand-
daughter of our James I., selected by the English
Parliament as a specially orthodox Protestant to main-
tain the Protestant succession and Church as by law
established, was herself altogether indifferent to reli-
gious belief; and her unmarried daughter was not
permitted to belong to any Church, until the religion
of her future husband had been ascertained.
II. Influence of German Philosophy in England and on
the Continent.—In no one thing is the influence of national
character more apparent than in the varied fortunes of
sceptical thought in England, France, and Germany.
The old English Deists were, for the most part, reli-
giously in earnest. In France, infidelity became a mere
fashion, a flippant thing, a mere outbreak of intellectual
flatulency, or, as Carlyle would say, a windbag—but, in
the long run, a political power. But in Germany, scep-
ticism became identified with its philosophy; a philo-
sophy in which the nation gradually invested the larger
portion of its intellectual capital. To think and to doubt
began to be considered as terms naturally synonymous;
&
PHILOSOPHY A POWER IN GERMANY. 65
the thought, and consequently the literature and philo-
sophy, of Germany henceforth, with some exceptions,
had one characteristic—that of unrest, a profitless acti-
vity, a ceaseless gyration, motion, but no progress; the
mind ever seeking, but never arriving at a serious con-
viction of truth. (Another generation may witness the
political influence of this philosophy upon the govern-
ment and social condition of Germany.) And while in
England and France the philosophical systems had no
perceptible influence upon the faith of the Churches, or
upon Biblical criticism, it was otherwise in Germany.
The education of the people in its various grades, from
the lower to the higher schools, has been practically
under the influence of the teachings of the University of
the State. And thus scepticism, instead of being a
literary plaything, as in England, became in Germany
poison for the schools in which young Germany is
trained. And here we may remark, that the complaints
of infidel teaching by Schoolmasters in the schools for
the lowest as well as the middle classes, which are found
in Rose's “State of Protestantism in Germany,” apply
to the present times, to a much greater extent than
is supposed. Recent demonstrations (March, 1878) of
atheistic Communists in Berlin are the result of the so-
called “philosophy” of the school teachers. Now that
property is endangered, the rulers of Germany may find
it wise to cease to patronise the Sophistical teachings
which defy not only Divine, but human laws. In Italy
also there is no religious teaching in the Schools—the
priest is excluded—and this is enough for “the Liberals,”
who fancy that secular teaching may be carried on with-
out dogma, and yet be free from scepticism. The
schoolmaster may teach “philosophy” in every lecture
' 8vo, 1829, pp. 174—178,
F.
Rose on
German
Protes-
tantism.
{-t.” A. 4xx ºr
-º-º:* {- 2.
/3 tº-tº- 4.
*fa.” 2
65 INTRODUCTORY.
Influence
of Scep-
tical Phi-
losophy
on the
Schools in
Germany,
Italy, &c.
What is
meant by
Philo-
sophy.
–s-
after School hours—and this teaching is generally of a
very advanced character, opposed to Revelation, of
course. Wherever there is, on political grounds, an abso-
lute necessity for a State education purely secular, owing
to Protestant sectarianism and Romish exclusiveness, the
friends of religion and of social order will do well to
watch narrowly and jealously the class of influences
brought to bear on the common school-teaching espe-
cially. The priest may not be desirable as a sole exclu-
sive teacher, but the sceptic is still less so. To teach
secular truths in a Christian spirit should be the object
of unsectarian education. No sceptic or Jew could
object to this. The universities of Germany in the nine-
teenth century are about twenty-eight in number. The
statistics vary, year by year, but the following are not
far from the truth :—Twenty-one universities are in the
Prusso-German empire, with 1,800 professors and teachers,
and 16,222 students, of which 6,077 are students in
philosophy, and 2,500 in theology: these 8,000 repre-
sent the future divines, professors, and school-teachers
of the population. From this may be inferred the influ-
ence of the universities and their teaching upon the men
of the higher and middle classes of society in the past
century, as well as in the present. The teaching is in
one word “philosophy,” which gives its tone to divinity
and all other topics, Biblical criticism included—thus
the mind of Germany is formed, guarded, and dominated
over by professional lecturers, whose teachings, what-
ever may be their character, cannot, in after life, be
easily effaced. The bearing of this teaching upon
Biblical criticism, and religious belief, makes it desirable
to give the opinions of some eminent men as to the
character of the philosophy itself, which is the life and
soul of German education. To define the protean word,
WHAT IS MEANT BY PHILOSOPHY. 67
we will refer to Dr. He try Calderwood, who explains it
to be “A rational explanation of things, obtained by
discovery of their existence, or by showing why they
exist.” Dr. William Fleming tells us that it is “the
science of causes and principles. It is the investigation
of those principles on which all knowledge and all being
ultimately rest. It is the exercise of reason to solve the
most elevated problems which the human mind can con-
ceive. How do we know 2 and what do we know 2 It
examines the growth of human certitude, and verifies
the trustworthiness of human knowledge. It inquires
into the causes of all being, and ascertains the nature of
all existences, by reducing them to unity.” So much
for scholarly definition. Now, in the case of the indi-
vidual man, what is his philosophy It is his theory of
being—his mode or principle by which he accounts for
all phenomena, for whatever seems to him to be—his
notions of the deep reasons which lie at the foundation
of all facts. Now, the difference between philosophy
and Christianity, as guides in the Search after truth, is
this—the former is restricted to the help of d priori
reasonings, or human subjectivity, that is to say, to man's
assumptions, or his consciousness; the other has the help
which the light of Divine Revelation throws upon the
mysteries of being and knowing.
Let us now turn to (1) the opinion of Blakey, in his
“History of Philosophy;” (2) that of Archbishop
Whately—both of them bearing hard upon our Teu-
tonic friends ; and then (3) an extract from an apologist.
(1) “The German philosophers had long disdained to
speak as other men speak. We have had no trouble to
decipher the language of the French, the Italian, the
Spanish, and the Flemish; but when we come to the
Calder-
wood.
Fleming.
* See Fleming’s “Vocabulary of Philosophy.”
Blakey.
F 2
68 INTRODUCTORY.
German metaphysician we find him bristling with such
an array of form and technicailties of speech, as render
him unapproachable unless we comply with his own
terms. We must attempt to think as he thinks, to speak
as he speaks, or there is no good to be done with him.
He has a way of his own with which strangers inter-
meddle not.” Blakey further describes the German
mode of philosophising as radically different from our
own. “We usually commence with analysing mental
faculties and feelings, the outward manifestation of mind,
and from these draw certain conclusions and inferences.
The German philosopher regards this as a very humble
and subordinate thing, and aims at doing greater things.
He plunges into the deepest recesses of what he calls
‘himself,’ his inward and living principle, and demands
why it is as it is 2 why he is stimulated to know the why
and the wherefore of his own individual existence, as
well as of existence in general. He feels himself per-
plexed and in doubt about the existence of Deity, the
universe, and the human soul, and feels convinced there
is a somewhere in nature when all this obscurity will be
removed, and when we shall be able to see everything
face to face, as in a glass.” (2) Archbishop Whately's
remarks bear mainly on the obscurity common to all
German philosophical phraseology. “These persons
have been long accustoming their disciples to admire as
a style truly philosophical what can hardly be described
otherwise than as a certain haze of words imperfectly
understood, through which some remote ideas, scarcely
distinguishable in their outlines, loom, as it were, upon
their view in a kind of dusky grandeur, which vastly
exaggerates their proportions. It is chiefly in such
Whately.
* “History of Philosophy,” Vol. III, p. 327. * Vol. IV. pp. Ioa, IoS.
KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. 69
foggy forms that the metaphysics and theology of Ger-
many, for instance, are every day exercising a greater
influence on popular literature.” (3) We now give an
able apology for German philosophy from “Aids to the
Study of German Theology,” by Matheson, a work of Matheson.
great value. The writer contends that the meaning of
a German writer cannot be conveyed merely by a
translation of his words into English or French words.
The mind of England and France differs radically from
that of Germany; with them the empirical (i.e., the facts)
predominate over the ideal ; the testimony of sense is
the standpoint. With the German it is otherwise ; his
thoughts flow not so much from without to within as
from within to without, arising not from the actual, but
from the resources of his internal consciousness ; hence
the characteristic subjectivity of the German mind and
of its philosophy. The writer takes credit justly for Kant.
Rant and his philosophy, by which the supposed im-
pregnable bulwarks of Scepticism raised by David Hume
were utterly overthrown and destroyed. This merit for
Rant's philosophy was first claimed in the articles on
Madame de Stael’s “Germany,” which are to be found
in the “Edinburgh Review ;” the remark on Kant is in
the portion of the essay not included in the works of Sir
J. Mackintosh, to whom the article is attributed. The
“Critical Account of the Philosophy of Kant,” by Ed.
Caird, 8vo, 1877,” in reference to this important point is
most satisfactory. In the “Critique of the Practical
Reason,” Kant uses the expression, “the Categorical
Imperative,” “to denote its (i.e. Reason's) d priori abso-
lute and universal pronouncement in favour of moral
* “Cautions for the Times,” p. * See pp. IIg, I2O — also
497. Abbott’s Translation of Kant's
* Vol. XXIII. p. 235, and Vol. Critique of Practical Reason,
XLVI. p. 347. I2mo, 1879.
70 INTRODUCTORY.
good and duty independent of all prudential considera-
tions.” Kant's admirers consider that his philosophy has
superseded the Wolffian demonstrative method, and the
shallow popular philosophy; it showed the inadequacy
of speculative reason in matters not cognisable by sense,
and referred men to the revelation of God within them.
Schlegel most extravagantly asserted that the probable
influence of Kant on the moral culture of Europe stands
on an equality with the Reformation On the other
side there are those who think that Kant, in upsetting
the scepticism of preceding sophists, cast away all the
foundations of belief and introduced universal scepticism.
It is a question whether the English mind is sufficiently
subtle fully to comprehend these speculations. Matheson
also states it to be his opinion that the work of German
theology (and of its philosophy, of course) “is a long
attempt to fill up the gulf between the natural and the
Supernatural which was left by the Kantian deluge.”
We doubt whether any philosophy is competent for this.
It is the virtue of faith alone (Heb. xi. 3). While, how-
ever, regretting the idolisation of human reason as the
only instrument and means of arriving at the truth, and
the consequent tendency in German philosophy (as also
in certain schools of English philosophy) to ignore the
claims of revelation, and to pander to scepticism, we
cannot join in that indiscriminate condemnation in
which many good people are apt to indulge. It will
ever be regarded as a monument of the power and
subtlety of the human intellect, wasted generally upon
inquiries and labours from which there can be no results
adequate to reward the outlay of mental power. As in
the case of the painting, supposed by the spectators to
* Gardner's “Dictionary of English Philosophic Terms,” 48mo, 1878.
GOETHE ON CHRISTIAN MORALITY. 71
be behind the curtain which appeared to hang before it,
we may say, the curtain is the picture; or, in other
words, the display and cultivation of mental acuteness
is the main result of German philosophy, and of all
philosophy which rests entirely on d priori foundations.
We believe that the philosophical schools of Germany
have exercised a most injurious influence on the thought
of Germany, as may be seen in much of its theology
and Biblical criticism. After these expressions of
opinion, it is a pleasure to refer to two gems of thought
taken from two of the German philosophers: one from
Kant—“There are two things which excite my admira–
tion—the moral law within me, and the starry heavens
above me.” The other from Goethe–" Let intellectual
culture continue to progress, let the natural sciences
increase in breadth and depth, and let the human mind
enlarge as it will, it will never go beyond the loftiness
and moral education of Christianity as it sparkles and
shines forth in the Gospel.” We can but mention the
names of the leaders of philosophical thought in
Germany after Liebnitz, beginning with Christian Wolff
(1679–1754), and his followers of the Liebnitz-Wolffian
school; Kant (1724—1804), and his school ; Schiller,
Jacobi, Fichte (1762–1814), and the Fichtians; Schlegel
(1775–1854); Hegel (1770–1831); Schleiermacher (1768.
—1834); Schopenhauer (1785–1860); Herbert (1776–
1841); Beneke (1798–1854); and we name them that some
may be induced to look through the elaborate record of
the strength and weakness, the wisdom and folly, of the
human intellect, in a brief sketch by Dr. A. S. Farrar,
exhibiting a classification of German theologians, sub-
stantially correct no doubt, and in Ueberweg.” It is not
Goethè.
* “Critical History,” p. 619.
* “History of Philosophy.” Two Vols. 8vo, 1876.
Dr. A. S.
Farrar.
72 INTRODUCTORY.
German
Biblical
Criticism.
necessary for our object to discuss the merits or other-
wise of the more modern scientific and metaphysical
sceptical philosophies, Continental or English. The
leading principles of these philosophies in their bearing
on Revelation, have been fairly handled by a Roman
Catholic layman, J. Stores Smith, Esq., in his lecture
“On the Intrusion of certain Professors of Physical
Science into the region of Faith and Morals,” and by a
Wesleyan minister, the Rev. James H. Rigg, D.D., in a
lecture on “Theism as postulated in Philosophy and
Science,” both of which have been largely circulated
through the daily and weekly journals; the latter has
since been presented in a more permanent shape in
“Discourses and Addresses on Leading Truths of
Religion and Philosophy,” 8vo, 1880.
12. Influence of German Philosophy on Biblical Cri-
ticism.—The sceptical Biblical criticism of Germany
dates from Semler (1715—97) to Baur, of the Tübingen
school, and Strauss, first of the mythic and then of the
Pantheistic school. The leaders of sceptical thought in
Germany pass away like Eastern dynasties—their
power is short-lived. Eichhorn improved upon Semler's
rationalism ; Paulus offered naturalistic explanations of
miraculous history. Strauss, at a later period, poured
contempt upon these half-and-half doubtings, and
courageously regarded the facts of sacred history as
myths; severely handled by the learned Tübingen
critics, he took refuge in atheism. The Tübingen school
is now the dominant one. It leaves us in possession of
certain portions of the sacred Scriptures which it deems
wndoubtedly genuine, and which of themselves are quite
sufficient to establish the facts and teachings of the
Christian religion . Thus Christianity is left master of
the field by the confessions of its most acute anta-
HUGH 3:AMES ROSE AND DR. PUSEY. 73
gonists. As the opinions of these critics as stated by
their more modern representatives will come before us
in the following chapters, it is needless to catalogue
them and their peculiar views. A full account up to
1827 of these critics and theologians may be found in
“The State of Protestantism in Germany,” by Hugh
James Rose." This book first introduced to the notice
of the English readers the critical Rationalists of Ger–
many. It is singular that the censures of Rose were
objected to by Dr. Pusey in his pamphlets, I828 and
I830, since then withdrawn from circulation. This
gentleman is now well known as an orthodox High
Churchman, the author of one of the best commen-
taries on Daniel and the minor prophets. It is yet
more singular that the article in the “Edinburgh
Review,” “ on German Rationalism, taking the treatises
of Rose and Pusey as the text, was written by Tom
Moore, well known as a poet, but not generally so well
known as a man of good sense and Sound principle, as
far as his light went. Nominally a Romanist, he was
really a man of very broad opinions, unattached to any
particular Church. In his article in the “Review,” the
rationalistic principles are fairly stated — (I) The
making human reason the sole arbiter in the doctrines
of Revelation, its morals and duties, as well as in the
evidences of Revelation. (2) The impossibility of the
supernatural, natural laws being uniform and invariable.
(3) Hence the rejection of all that is miraculous in the
Scripture. In the course of our investigations into the
application of “the Higher Criticism” to the interpre-
tation of the Old and New Testament, we shall notice
these assumptions, and examine in detail their appli-
cation by the critics of Germany and their English
* 8vo, 1828. * No. CVII. August, 1831.
Tom
Moore.
74 . INTRODUCTORY.
Duke of
Argyle.
copyists, from Dr. Geddes to our own time. It must
be observed that, admitting their premises, (I) a direct
revelation from God to man is impossible, for that
implies a miracle; (2) that man, gifted with faculties
and sensibilities of the highest order, has been left
without a word of direction from his Maker and Moral
Governor, notwithstanding the traditions of all ancient
people and their histories, especially that of the Jewish
people, a people whose separate existence, while Scat-
tered abroad, is a standing fulfilment of prophecy.
The difficulties of the rationalistic theorists commence
when they attempt to reply to the accumulation of
evidence on the other side; then they practically find
out the correctness of the remark of the Duke of
Argyle:—“The most difficult of all difficulties is to
believe that Christianity is not true.” Consistent
rationalism must be followed by universal scepticism.
Such anarchies of thought are always followed by
reaction to faith. Hence German rationalism has
driven, and is yet driving, men of education and reli-
gious feeling into the Romish Church. In 1813—I4
these perversions to Romanism began. About three
hundred respectable literary professors in those years
went over to Rome. If Biblical evidence is decried as
unsound, men will look to an authority which pro-
fesses infallibility. Hence the importance of a well-
grounded conviction that the Bible of our fathers is
the true and genuine written record of the Divine will.
We have on this point a word in season from an in-
spired prophet, addressed to all puzzled and anxious
inquirers: “Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways,
and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good
way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your
souls” (Jeremiah vi. I6).




























ASTRUC's THEORY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 75
CHAPTER III.
THE THEoRY OF Astruc, THE MAIN SUPPoRT of THE HIGHER
CRITICISM, FoundED on A MISCONCEPTION OF EXODUs v1.3.
I. IT may be easily seen, from the brief retrospect of
the progress of sceptical thought in Europe, contained in
the preceding chapter, that the literary men of Germany,
especially in the seventeenth and eighteenth century,
had been gradually prepared for the reception of a
latitudinarian and sceptical criticism. We must refer Astruc's
to the first important movement in that direction by the ...
e - documents
theory of Astruc, the French physician, propounded in distin-
the year 1753 A.D., the full title of which is, “ Conjectures º: t
sur les Memoires originaux dont il est permis de croire of º:
Sa CTC
que Möise s'est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genèse, names
avec des Remarques qui appuient on éclaircissent ces *."
Conjectures.” He imagined that the use of the names Jehovah.
Elohim (Dinºs) and Jehovah (TT) distinguished two
principal documents used by Moses, that there were ten
other documents employed, and that these were originally
arranged in twelve columns, which, through the care-
lessness of transcribers, became promiscuously mingled ;
and that to this is ascribable the frequent repetitions and
dislocations in the narrative. This theory, innocent
enough in itself, has been made the main foundation of
£he Higher Criticism in its modern aspects. At first,
Astruc's work produced but little impression, so that
Scharbav, who replied to it in 1758, felt it necessary to
76 THE THEORY OF ASTRUC.
J. G.
Eichhorn
adopts this
theory.
theory of Astruc rests, as it is the origin of the so-calle
apologise for having employed his leisure hours in
refuting such a “systema ineptissimum conjecturarum.”
The age was not then fully prepared for what then
appeared to be so extreme a vivisection of the Sacred
Books. J. G. Eichhorn first brought the theory into
notice in his “Introduction to the Old Testament,” 1780.
Its advocates boasted that it opened “a new era in the
criticism of the Pentateuch,” and it certainly led to th
introduction of a new nomenclature into the critica
vocabulary. This diverse use of the Divine names had
not escaped the notice of St. Augustine and Chrysostom
among the Fathers, and of Peter Lombard among th
Schoolmen. The Jewish Rabbi Jehudah Hallevi, Mai
monides, and Abarbanel, had referred to it with grea
sobriety, as may be seen by a reference to Hengsten
berg." Let us examine the formation upon which th
“Elohistic and Jehovitic theory” of modern critics.
2. The theory rests upon a misconception of the mean
ing of the passage Exodus vi. 3, as imperfectly translate
in the authorised English version. “And God spake unt
Moses, and said unto ſlim, I am the Cord: and / appeare
wnto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by (the nam
of) God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah was / no
Ánown to them.” On this passage, as thus rendered, th
advocates of the principles of Astruc's theory take thei
stand, whether Rationalistic or Orthodox. Most of th
German critics, with Professor Lee,” the Rev. William
Paul,” interpret it as asserting that the name Jehova
was then, for the first time, made known to th
Israelites through Moses ; and consequently, that th
Founded
on a mis-
concep-
tion of the
meaning
of Exodus
vi. 3.
* Introduction, Vol. I. 216, &c., * “Hebrew Text of the Boo
Clark’s Translation. of Genesis,” 8vo, 1852,
* Hebrew Lexicon, 8vo, 1840, p. xxxviii.
24O.
















INTERPRETATION OF EXOD US VI. 1. 77
occurrence of this name in the previous narrative in
Genesis and Exodus must be accounted for on the
supposition of another writer distinct from Moses, or
else that Moses used the name proleptically. They
contend that this is the natural meaning of the passage
“which would be ascribed to it by simple-minded
readers, who have never had their attention awakened
to the difficulties in which the whole narrative becomes
involved thereby.” I Now these very “difficulties”
of themselves, apart from other reasons of a critical
character, render it all but impossible that this is the
meaning intended to be conveyed to his readers by the
writer.
Is it likely that the author of this portion of Exodus
intended to contradict his own use of the name Jehovah
as already known to his brethren in Egypt, and put
into their mouths as a familiar name 2 (chap. iv. 1).
Can we suppose that the Jewish critics among the
Priests and Levites in succeeding ages would have
passed by this contradiction without notice, had any
uch contradiction existed 2 But is it not more pro-
º that to them the natural meaning of the passage
would be that given by a more exact translation ?
Literally we should read : “I appeared unto Abraham,
wnto Isaac, and unto Jacob as El-Shaddai (God
Almighty); as for My name Şehova/, / was not known
to them.” The insertion of the name in the second
clause of the sentence in the Authorised Version obscures
the sense, and forms no part of the Hebrew text. The
words My name in the second clause, put absolutely,
and followed by a verb with which they are not gram-
matically connected, should, in accordance with the
usage of the Hebrew language, be rendered “as for My
Bishop Colenso’s “Pentateuch,” &c., Chap. viii.
Natural
meaning
of that
passage.
78 THE THEORY OF ASTRUC.
Bishop
Patrick.
name.” We have an instance of this in Exodus xxxii. 1,
“as for this Moses,” &c. The legitimate inference is
that as the name El Shaddaï in the first member of the
sentence suggests rather the character which the name
denotes (Almightiness—all-sufficiency) than the mere
name itself, so in the second member of the sentence,
it is the peculiar character and relation implied in the
word Jehovah, rather than the mere making known of
the word itself. This meaning of the passage is given
by all the Orthodox critics of Germany, as Hengstenberg,
Havernick, Keil, Kurtz, Delitzsch, and others, and also
in the leading English commentaries; for instance, in
“The Holy Bible and Commentary by bishops and
other clergy of the Anglican Church, commonly called
“The Speaker’s Commentary,” which may be supposed
to be a fair representation of the scholarship and of the
opinions of the English clergy. -
3. That this interpretation of Exodus vi. 3 is not the
result of an overstrained exegesis to meet the difficulties
of modern criticism, but is that maintained by the older
divines, will appear from the following extracts from the
commentaries of Bishop Patrick and of Matthew Henry,
written and published more than sixty years before
Astruc had made the obvious meaning of the text a
matter of controversy. (I) Bishop Patrick on Exodus
vi. 1 : “But by My name Jehova/, was / not known to
Žhem 2 ° Which name, however it was pronounced, some
of the Jews imagine was concealed till Moses' time,
who was the first to whom it was revealed. But this is
evidently false, as appears from the whole book o
Genesis, and particularly from chap. xv. 7, where, before
He calls Himself El Shaddai, he saith to Abraham, “
am jehovah, which brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees.”
In short, the opinion of Renchlinus (in his “Verb

















THE OLDER COMMENTATORS. 79
Mirificum”) is far more justifiable; which is, that it was
revealed to our first parents, &c. . . . . And it is to be
noted that he did not say to Moses in this place, “My
name Jehovah was not known to them,” but “I was not
ęnown to them by this name,” that is, by that which it
imparts, namely, the giving being (as we may say) to
His promises by the actual performance of them, i.e., by
bringing them into the land of Canaan ; and in order to
it, delivering them out of Egypt; both of which He had
promised in the forenamed chapter—Genesis xv. 14–18
—and now intended to make good. And thus, Rabbi
Solomon interprets this place, as P. Fagius notes, “I
have promised, but have not yet performed.” So also
(2) Matthew Henry on Exodus vi. 3–"I am jehovah, Matthew
he same with I am that I am, the fountain of being *
and blessedness, and infinite perfection. The patriarchs
knew this name, but they did not know Him in this
matter by that which this name signifies. God would
now be known by His name Şehovah, that is, first a God
performing what He had promised, and so inspiring
ponfidence in His promises; second, a God perfecting what
He had begun, and finishing His own work.” 2
4. In the present generation, the full meaning of this
passage has been given by Dr. Adam Clarke, and by
the present Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Wordsworth, in their
respective commentaries. (I) Dr. Adam Clarée.—“I be- Dr. Adam
lieve the simple meaning is this, that though from the Clarke.
beginning the name Jehovah was known, as one of the
names of the Supreme Being, yet what it really implied
:hey did not know. El-Shaday, (nºs.) God All-suff-
tient, they knew well, by the continual provision He
* Patrick, Lowth, &c., Commen- 2 Commentary, Vol. I. pp. 294,
ary 4to. Bagster's Edition, Vol. I. 295. Royal 8vo, 1866.
p. I98, Igg.
8o THE THEORY OF ASTRUC.
º, "º ; * *-* – “...~~
made for them, and the constant protection. He afforded
them ; but the name (TTT) JEHOVAH, is particularly
to be referred to the accomplishment of promises
already made ; to the giving them a being, and thus
bringing them into existence, which could not have been
done in the order of His Providence sooner than here
specified : this name, therefore, in its power and signi-
ficancy, was not known unto them, nor fully known unto
their descendants, till the deliverance from Egypt, and the
settlement in the promised land,”’ (2) The Bishop of
Bishop Lincoln, Dr. Wordsworth– “Jehovah was known by
Wº: name to the patriarchs, but was not understood in the
fulness of His attributes by them, as the Eternal I am
that I am, the Redeemer of His people.” ”
So important is a right conception of the meaning
of this passage (Exodus vi. 3), that it is desirable to
quote from a few distinguished authorities in confir-
mation of the views here advocated. We begin (I) with
John the learned physician, John Astruc (1753), the origi-
* nator of the theory founded upon the exclusive use of
the Divine names. “Le passage de l'Exode bien
entendu ne prouve point que le nom de Jehova fut un
nom de Dieu inconnu aux Patriarches, et revélé à
Moyse le premier : mais seulement que Dieu n'avait
pas fait connoitre aux Patriarches tout l'etendue de la
signification de ce nom, au lieu qui il a manifestée à
M. Kalisch Moyse.”8 (2) M. Kalisch, a learned Jewish grammarian
and commentator.—“Although the sacred name of God
(ITT) was already mentioned to them (Gen. xv. 7,
xxii. I4, xxviii. I3, &c.), yet the true and deep pur-
port of this designation was not understood and com-

* Commentary. 4to Edition. . * Quoted by J. M. Arnold in
1836. Vol. I. p. 329. English Biblical Criticism. “The
* Commentary. Royal 8vo, Vol. Pentateuch from a German point
I. p. 216. of View,” p. 50. 8vo, 1864.
%OHN M. ARNOLD. 8I.
prehended by them. . . . The knowledge of this name
(Jehovah) was henceforth not the exclusive privilege of
a few favoured individuals, but it became the desig-
nation of the national God of Israel, the appellation
of the God of the eternal covenant.”’ (3) ×ohn M.
Arnold—“It must be borne in mind (in common with the
passage Exodus vi. 3) that we have twice a solemn iden-
tification of the name Jehovah and Elohim, once at the
beginning, when God entered into covenant with man-
kind, in Genesis ii., and again in Exodus iii., when God
entered into covenant with Israel. It was, however, on
the opening of a fresh dispensation on the latter occa-
sion, that the name Jehovah became the momen proprium
for future ages. The expression, “I was not known to
them, Exodus vi. 3, cannot mean, as some suppose,
that the name was altogether unknown before that pas-
sage was written, whenever that may have been. On the
contrary, the sense is simply that this covenant name
was not known to the fathers in its full meaning as
momen proprium by actual experience. This is the em-
phatic sense in the original, and is confirmed by
Ezekiel xx. 9, and xxxviii. 23. The name of Jehovah
was indeed known to the fathers, but the experience
of the gracious significance was only revealed with the
Exodus, when Elohim makes Himself known as the
Redeemer of Israel : Jehovah then only becomes the
name of the God of the chosen people, just as Jehovah,
verse I5, was the God of the fathers, of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.” (4) The Rev. Dr. Williamz Kay,
Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, and Principal of
Bishop's College, Calcutta.--To do justice to the re-
i “ Notes on Exodus,” p. Igo. &c., from a German Point of View,”
8vo, I855. * - ºn tº $ _ º ſº. pp. 49, 50. 8vo.
* “English Biblical Criticism,
G
John M.
Arnold.
Dr. W.
Kay.
82 THE THEORY OF ASTRUC.
marks of this gentleman, it will be necessary to give
nearly the whole of the third chapter of his “Crisis
Hupfeldiana” (8vo, 1865). Referring to the erroneous
interpretation of Exodus vi. 3, he remarks: “The chief
cause of the mistake has been want of attention to the
meaning of the Hebrew verb (VTS). The exact ren-
dering of the passage is, “God spaße unto Moses and
said, I am Yahweh . and / appeared to Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob in (quality of, or as 1) God Almighty :
and (in regard to) my name Ya/ve/, / made not Myself
Änown (ºny"))) to them.” The patriarchs had lived under
the guardian care of the Almighty; but, as regarded
the special name of covenanted Mercy, God had not
manifested in act what He had promised. That this
actual manifestation of Himself by experimental proof is
signified by (VT) is made perfectly certain by such
passages as the following: Psalm lxxvi. I. “A nown
(VT) in Şudah is God; in Israel great is His name: ”
—the reason of which is given in the remainder of the
Psalm. He “had arisen into judgment, to help all the meek
ones of earth.” He had manifested Himself by fact.
Psalm xlviii. “God in her palaces is known (or ascer-
tained) as a fortress. For lo! the kings assembled—and
were dismayed—and fied.” This sense of the word
may be almost said to be formulised in Psalm ix. I? :
“Anown (VT) is the Lord; He has executed judg-
7ment.” These passages show that the verb denotes, not
the communication of a new name, but the making good
in fact that which had previously been associated with the
Mame. This interpretation is all but expressly put into
our hands by the prophet Ezekiel (xx. 9): “I wrought
for My Name's sake, that it might not be polluted in the
Sight of the heathen, among whom they were ; in whose
* Compare the use of the French em.
DR. WILLIAM KAY. 83
sight I made Myself known ('nyT) to them, in bringing
them forth out of the land of Egypt.” With so express
a comment by a canonical writer, on the history of
Exodus, there ought to be no further controversy as to
the meaning of (VT)). The whole context, moreover,
requires this sense. When Moses was bidden (Exodus
iii. I5, 16) to go and say to the children of Israel,
“Yahveh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Şacob, has appeared to me: ” he answered,
“Lo / they will not give credence to me, nor hearken to
my voice; for they will say, Yahweſ, /as not appeared to
thee.' It never occurred to him that the people might
say, “Who is Yahveh 2 We never heard of any such
name. Why think to comfort us under our over-
whelming Sorrows, by bringing us a strange, unheard-of
name 2" His fear was, lest they should not believe that
the Person so designated had communicated with him. . . . .
Thus the passage, read along with the context, is not
only not in contradiction with the passages in Genesis
which use the name Yahveh, but presupposes that the
name had been known to the patriarchs. Over and over
again it is, “Yahveh, your fathers' God, is about to make
Himself known to you.” So also Quarry and others,” Quarry.
whom it is unnecessary to quote.
6. The consideration of the import of the Divine
names Elohim and Jehovah may help us to account in
part for their diverse use. Elohim is a plural of majesty,
expressing the absolute fulness of the conception of Havernick
Deity, and designates that Supreme Being who is to be
feared—the Creator, the Preserver, the Governor of the
world ; the name, plural in form, though used as a
1 “Crisis Hupfeldiana,” pp. Authorship,” pp. 294–297. 8vo,
18—20. I866.
* Quarry’s “Genesis and its
G 2
84 THE THEORY OF ASTRUC.
Aikman.
singular, was fitted to be a protest against polytheistic
views, as in Him, the one God, all Divine powers exist.
Jehovah (from the verb to be, to exist) is a proper name,
denoting the essence of the Godhead in its concrete
relation to mankind. This concrete idea of God is found
only where there is a living revelation of God, when
man is conscious of personal communion with his God.”
Elohim is the genuine name of God, God as the infinite
Creator and Governor of the Universe, holding the same
relation to all creatures whatsoever. It is not necessary
to endeavour to fix by etymology the meaning of
the term. Such etymological endeavours are more
or less unsatisfactory and often illusive. The word
is employed to designate the Supreme Being ; the word
Jehovah comprehends this general idea, but has also a
special and more limited signification—God brought
into near and personal relations to men, and especially
to His covenant people. While this distinction may not
be always clearly defined, and while confessedly the
one name is used interchangeably with the other, yet the
difference between them is clearly evident in the Holy
Scriptures.” It is, in fact, no more trouble for us to
account for the occasional apparent indiscriminate use
of these names by the Israelitish writers, than for our
similar interchange and varied use of their names in
theological writings or in ordinary converse.
7. The brief survey of this varied usage of the Divine
names given by Delitzsch” is to the point, clear and
satisfactory. “Whereas in chapter i. Genesis, the Crea-
tor of the heaven and the earth is called Elohim simply;
in the history of Paradise and the fall, not to mention
Delitzsch.
* Havernick (Clark's Tran.), p. kinson's Theological Quarterly,
59. 8vo. - No. XVIII. p. 295.
* Aikman “On the word Elohim * Delitzsch, Pentateuch, Vol.
and Jehovah in Genesis” in Dic- III. pp. 511, 512. (Clark's Tran.)
DELITZSCH. 85
other differences, we meet with the composite name
Je/hovah Elohim ; and after this, the two names Elohim
and Jehovah are used interchangeably, so that in many
chapters the former only occurs, and in others again
only the latter, until the statement in Exodus vi. 3, that
God appeared to Moses, and commissioned him to bring
the people of Israel out of Egypt; after which the name
Jehovah predominates, so that henceforth, with but few
exceptions, Elohim is only used in an appellative sense.
Upon this interchange in the names of God in the book
of Genesis, modern critics have built up their hypotheses
as to the composition of Genesis, and in fact of the
entire Pentateuch; either from different documents, or
from repeated supplementary additions, in accordance
with which they discover an outward cause for the
change of names, namely, the variety of editors, instead
of deducing it from the different meanings of the names
themselves; whilst they also adduce in support of their
view the fact that certain ideas and expressions change
in connection with the name of God. The fact is obvious
enough. But the change in the use of the different
names of God is associated with the gradual develop-
ment of the saving purposes of God. . . . . The names
Elohim and Jehovah are expressive of different relations
on the part of God to the world. Now as God did not
reveal Himself in the full significance of His name
Jehovah till the time of the exodus of Israel out of
Egypt, and the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, we
could expect nothing less than what we actually find in
Genesis, namely, that this name is not used by the
author of the book of Genesis before the call of Abraham,
except in connection with such facts as were directly
preparatory to the call of Abraham to be the father of
the Covenant Nation.”
36 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
CHAPTER IV.
UNSATISFActory . Results of THE APPLICATION OF ASTRUC's
THEORY TO THE CRITICISM of THE OLD TESTAMENT.
I. The theory of Astruc, at first neglected and held up
to contempt as “the most stupid of all conjectures,”
when countenanced by a great authority, became at once
fashionable, and from that time gave the tone to the
speculative criticism of Germany. The royal road, impos-
sible in geometry, had been discovered in Biblical Science.
Every tyro was now in a position to frame theories of
the origin of the sacred books. The scholars have, how-
ever, in their zeal gone far beyond the master, in the
application of his theories of the use of the Divine names,
as indication of the existence of Divine authorship in
Genesis and the other books of the Old Testament. To
an observant student of the critical writings of the past
century, it must appear as if the whole art and mystery
Biblical of Biblical criticism was to divide and subdivide the
Criticism, tº º
made easy earlier books of the Old Testament into separate por-
;Nº. tions, and to point out at will, section by Section, as the
Theory, productions of certain writers, unknown to the history of
*...* the past, the mere creations of critical necessity, to
a series
of Hyper- whom the uncouth names of Elohist Senior and Junior
critical º * to - 2.
#y. Jehovist Senior and Junior, Deuteronomist, and Redactor
*s have been given. The early historical books, as de-
livered to us by the Jewish Church, are distinguished by
the clearness and simplicity of the narrative, but in this
CRITICISM MADE EASY. 87
process become so many pieces of tesselated workman-
ship ; the order and manner peculiar to Oriental author-
ship is disturbed, and each book, without regard to the
Scope and object of the writer, is treated as a composition
of brief passages, single verses, sentences, and even
clauses, and phrases of one or two words, interlaced or
interwoven in the original text, all of which have been
Selected from the several imaginary documents upon
which they are supposed to be based. In the process
of this critical anatomy, Quarry and Kay have shown
that the subjectivity of the critics is sufficiently apparent.
They imagine “cancellings,” the object of which is to
get rid of “difficulties;” they see “omissions” which
might have been inserted ; “inadvertences” which might
have been corrected ; doubtful points are settled ea:
cathedrá. Bishop Colenso is so acute as to perceive the
gradual improvement of the style of Elohist Junior. This
is something like the power “to hear the grass growing,”
referred to by a learned philosopher. To give a sort of
coherence to the several portions assigned to the Elohist,
Jehovist, &c., the critics are compelled to resort to
separations, not merely of chapters, but of verses, and of
one and the same verse. Let any one examine and test
by actual reference the tables of passages assigned to .
their several supposed authors, given by Quarry, slightly é. -
altered from Dr. Davidson ;” and again tables given by assigned
Ayre;” and lastly, “the Synoptical Table of the Hexa- .#
teuch,” appended to the appendix of part vii. of Bishop Aº
Colenso's large work," from which the portion relating to Quary,
the book of Genesis is taken. After this comparison, Fº
let the reader pause awhile, and ask himself whether he
can admit the possibility of any such complete literary
1 Pp. 622—626. * Ayre's Vol. of Horne's Introduc-
* Vol. I. pp. 57–63. . tion, p. 551. * Vol. VII. 8vo, 1879.
88 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
Absurdity
of the
Theories.
manipulation in the composition of any books, much less
in the sacred books of any people 2 If in any section of
our printed Bibles the respective fragments of chapters,
verses, and parts of verses assigned by the critics to the
Elohist, Elohist Junior, Jehovist, Deuteronomist, and to the
Levitical legislators, were distinctly marked by different
colouring, the practical absurdity of the theory would be
as obvious to the eye as to the judgment. No ancient
writing has ever been subjected to such tortuous treat-
ment. The unity, age, and composition of the Homeric
poems have been topics of earnest and sharp discussion
among the learned, but no critic has yet attempted a
wholesale subdivision of sentences. The theorists have
kept within the boundary line which separates the
probable from the impossible. This has not been the
case in the Biblical controversy, as may be seen by a
reference to the tables at the end of this chapter, which
are themselves the best refutation of the systems of their
originators. To imagine the existence of two Elohists,
one Jehovist, a Deuteronomist, and a school of Levitical
legislators, employed at different periods in recasting
the Jewish history and laws, and to have accomplished
their work without the slightest allusion to their labours
or their names, taxes too largely our capacity for belief.
In the apocryphal writings, in Philo, in Josephus, and in
the voluminous traditional literature of the Jewish
people, there is no mention of them. The translators of
the Septuagint Version do not seem to have had any
knowledge of the bearing of the use of this or that
Divine name upon the authorship of the books, and
seem to have sometimes read Elohim where the Hebrew
text gives Jehovah ; their Hebrew text differed in many
particulars from ours, which comes to us from the
Masoretic redaction of the seventh century of our era.

PATRIARCHAL DOCUMENTS. 89
Had we no other reasons, these are of themselves suffi-
cient to shake our confidence in the conclusions drawn
from the Astruc theory.
2. As the writer of the Pentateuch must have received
his information of events previous to his own time,
either by direct revelation from God, or from documents
embodying ancient revelations made to the patriarchs,
Probable
Patri-
archal Do-
CulmentS
preserved
and used
as well as the family histories of the patriarchal families; by Moses.
and as no reference is made to express revelation of the
history, we must, with Vitringa, suppose the existence of
patriarchal documents, and it is possible that in Some
of these documents the name Elohim was more often used
than the name Jehovah : but to point out precisely the
Elohistic or Jehovistic portions, or to recognise the
patriarchal documents made use of in the composition
possession of the original text of the Books of the Old
Testament, in the ipsissima veróa of the writers, even
doubtful and unsatisfactory. Our present text is an
unsafe guide on points in which verbal accuracy and
minute niceties are essential.” We have reason to infer
that the phraseology of the earlier books has been
modified from time to time, to some extent, by the
removal of obsolete words and expressions, their place
being Supplied by others of modern date and usage.
And although our present text is a recension based upon
a thorough revision of the text by Ezra after the Cap-
tivity, yet it is obvious from the differences in the
phraseology, and in occasional omissions and additions
found in the Septuagint Version, that of this recension
there must have been various exemplars, from one or
more of which, varying considerably from our text, the
* See Chap. I. par. 6.
of the present narratives, is impossible. Were we in Impossible
to distin-
guish
these do-
then the task would be difficult and the conclusion *****
SOLITCCS,
Recension
of the
Text of
Bible.
go UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
Quarry.
Bishop
War-
burton.
occasion or temptation to alter the diction of suc
–9
Greek translation was made. It is not necessary, how-
ever, to suppose with the learned Quarry' that there has
been a complete modernisation of the old Hebrew.
That such mere verbal alterations in the letter do not
affect the substantial accuracy of the Sacred Writings is
obvious, as they do not touch the facts or the teachings
therein contained. Bishop Warburton has some valuable
observations bearing on this point, in his defence of
the genuineness of the laws of Zaleucus (660 B.C.) by
Timaeus, 3IO B.C., against which had been pleaded the
use of certain words belonging to a later period. “Let
us See, then, the most that can be made of this sort O
argument. And because it is the best approved and
readiest at hand for the detection of forgery, and Sup-
posed by some not a little to affect the Sacred Writings
themselves, we will inquire into its force in general.
It must be owned, that an instrument offered as the
handwriting of any certain person or age, which hath
words or phrases posterior to its date, carries with it the
decisive marks of forgery. A public deed or diploma,
so discredited, is lost for ever. And to such was this
canon of criticism first applied with great success. Thi
encouraged following critics to try it on writings O
another kind ; and then for want of a reasonable dis
tinction, they began to make very wild work indeed.
For though in compositions of abstract speculation, or O
mere fancy and amusement, this touch might be applie
with tolerable security, there being, for the most part, n
writings, especially in the ancient languages, whic
suffered Small and slow change, because one sort O.
these works was only for the use of a few learned men
and the principal curiosity of the other consisted in th
* Pp. 255–263.

















BISHOP WARBURTON. 9I
original phrases; yet in public and practical writings of
law and religion, this would prove a very fallacious test.
It was the matter only that was regarded here. And as the
matter respected the whole people, it was of importance
that the words and phrases should be neither obscure,
ambiguous, nor equivocal. This would necessitate
alterations in them. Hence, it appears to me that the
answer commentators give to the like objection against
the Pentateuch is founded in good sense, and fully
justified by the solution here attempted. The religious
law and history of the Jews were incorporated ; and it
was consequently the concern of every one to under-
stand the Scriptures. Nor doth the superstitious regard,
well known to have been long paid to the words, and
even letters of Scripture, at all weaken the force of this
argument ; for that superstition arose but from the time
that the Masored doctors fixed the reading, and added
the vowel points. I have taken the opportunity the
subject afforded me to touch upon this matter, because
it is the only argument of moment urged by Spinoza
against the antiquity of the Pentateuch, on which anti-
quity the general argument of this work is supported.” I
3. For this reason, we are satisfied that all conclusions
as to the age and composition of the Pentateuch and of
the other earlier books of the Old Testament based on
purely verbal niceties, or on the occurrence of explana-
tory additious obviously of a later date (which have by
the carelessness of copyists been introduced from the
margin into the text), are most unsatisfactory. The
xercise of the subjective faculty on points of minute
icety by critics may be used with some advantage in
he case of a Greek or Latin author, as these languages
* “The Divine Legation of Edition. 8vo, 1755. Vol. I. pp.
oses in Seven Books.” Fourth 117, 118.
Age of the
ooks of
the Old
Test. not
62 2S-
certained
by minute
criticism
of mere
phrases.
92 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
possess a voluminous literature, which permits the
Opportunity of an exhaustive comparison, and thus
affords peculiar facilities towards the arriving at pro-
bable conclusions: but in the case of the Biblical histories
it is far otherwise ; there is no contemporary literature
with which to compare them, and the books themselves
Comprise but a small portion of the words and phrases
of the Hebrew language—a mere fragment, the remains,
however, of what was once a voluminous literature.
Dean Dean Milman, whose liberalism as a Christian and a
*" critic no one can doubt, expresses the common sense of
the English mind on this point, in a passage to which
reference is made, chap. i., pp. 7, 8, in this volume.
Great 4. Another and very obvious reason for Our Scepti-
variety, cism as to the truth of the Elohistic and Jehovistic
of Critical g º tº s
opinions theory, is to be found in the opposite and discordant
º conclusions to which the critics have arrived, as will be
&c., of the seen by a reference to the “Hypotheses of the Critics on
i. the Construction of the Pentateuch " (Chap. V.). So
great is the variety of these deliverances (all of them
given as absolute truth), that it is no exaggeration to
say that the reader may select out of half a dozen
hypotheses of date and authorship, and, backed by the
authority of great names, may be able to justify his
preference to his own satisfaction at least. The theory
in its application is what is vulgarly termed “a nose
of war.” It may be made to prove anything.
Professor Professor Stuart on this point remarks: “Each o
* these writers is confident in his critical power of discri
minating, that he proceeds boldly to point out all th
respective portions of the Pentateuch assignable to eac
author or supplementarist, not doubting in the least that
the internal indicia exhibited by the style and matter
are plain and decisive in regard to their several theories.






















MOSES STUART. 93
But here arises a difficulty. Let us admit (as we must)
that both of these critics are fine Hebrew scholars,
and very well read in all matters pertaining to the
history or philology of the Hebrews ; still the question
comes up, how can these writers, each being sure that
he sees everything so clearly, differ so widely from
each other ? Ewald finds internal evidence of a ground-
work, from Narrators, a Deuteronomist, and of many
miscellaneous compositions of others, that have been
introduced by them into the Pentateuch. Lengerke sup-
poses a ground-work, a Supplementarist and a Deutero-
nomist. The respective periods of each (some laws,
&c., excepted) are different. And yet each judges from
internal evidence and subjective feeling. Each is sure
that he can appreciate all the niceties and slight diver-
sities of style and diction, and therefore cannot be
mistaken. Each knows (in his own view with certainty)
how many authors of the Pentateuch there are, while
still one reckons six, and the other three. And all this—
ev cathedra, like a simple avtos eq\m or dirit Magister.””
Now we cannot believe in obvious contradictions, and
therefore must withhold our assent to the conclusions
of this class of critics and to the theory of Astruc,
upon which they are founded.
We shall conclude this reference to the “Elohistic and
Jehovistic” theories by a summary of the “arbitrary
strength of this unreasoned criticism.” The satire is no
exaggeration, but the literal truth. These “resolves”
school of criticism, and in their line as characteristic of
that school of critics as “the creed of a free thinker,”
“On the Old Testament,” pp. 47, 8. Davidson Edition, 1849.
resolves,” in which, according to Dr. Kay, “lies the Dr. Kay's
we may call the Ten Commandments of the destructive ...,
94 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
given in a preceding chapter, is of the class to which it
refers. They are as follows:—
“It has been resolved by them—(1) To consider the
Sacred names, Elohim and Jahveh (the proper pronun-
ciation of what we read as Jehovah), to belong to dif-
ferent writers, contrary to the evidence of the Book of
Genesis itself, and to that of all later writers.” (2) That
no author shall be supposed capable of writing on dif-
ferent subjects, so that, for example, an account of the
creation could not have been written by the person who
wrote the history of Joseph ; because the same words
are not used ! (3) That the above difference of lan-
guage shall be called a difference of “style,” though it
has nothing whatever to do with style. (4) To fix
upon certain words as “Elohistic,” and then to rend
out of all “Jehovistic” sections every passage which
contains these words, so as to “secure " it for the
“Elohist,” a vicious circle which pervades the so-called
critical analysis of Dr. Colenso from beginning to end.
(5) To assume from the commencement of the “Ana-
lysis” that Genesis is made up of two documents, each
of them a work of fiction | What wonder if one who
looks through a tinted glass sees things in other than
their true colours ? (6) To overrule all difficulties
which facts may place in the way of the “critical '
theory, by supposing, ad libitum, the existence of lacuna
where there are none; of intended cancellings where non
occurred ; of interpolations, inadvertences, “clumsy."
and “half mechanical” writing, and even contradiction
(7) That no events which would ruffle the smooth sur
face of d priori probability shall even be admitted to b
historical, though genuine history is full of such event
(8) To considerga prophetic prediction to be impossibl
and therefore to suppose that “all prophecies must hav
QUARRY ON GENESIS. 95
>een posterior to the event to which they refer,” a mere
Inreasoned assumption. (9) To hold that any notion,
however destitute of evidence, if only it be in the way
yf abstract possibility conceivable, shall be treated
under cover of the word may) as an admissible, pro-
bable, and at last, natural premiss, of our destructive
argument. (IO) That at all events we will hold the
Book of Genesis to be non-Mosaic and its contents to be
anhistorical.—In these and the like resolutions, not in
logic or philosophy, lies the whole strength of (self-
styled) criticism.
6. Astruc's theory, as applied by the higher criticism
of Germany, and more especially by the more recent
and extreme school, destroys the unity of all the books
f the Pentateuch, as may be seen by the various
hypotheses (at the end of this chapter and in Chapter V.).
The English critics have improved upon their German
teachers. Davidson sees four distinct authorships, and
Bishop Colenso five. In opposition to this literary
patchwork, many trustworthy critics, as Quarry, Keil,
and Kurtz, think that there is observable in these books,
and more especially in the Book of Genesis, a marked
and consistent structural arrangement, consisting of a
series of “generations,” or histories, founded on genea-
ogical relations, but in most cases embracing much
more than the relations of family kinship. In one case
he word (“Toledoth") generation, is used in a highly
igurative sense. “ These are the generations of the
leavens and of the earth’ (Genesis ii. 4). Besides the
xordium in the Book of Genesis, which consists of chap-
ers i. and ii. I–3, Quarry makes eleven sections, the
eginning of each section being marked, for the most
art, by a brief repetition of so much of the previous
* See Dr. Kay’s “Crisis Hupfeldiana,” pp. 94. 95. Parker. I865.

A struc-
tural ar-
rangement
in the
Book of
Genesis
given by
Quarry.
96 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
account as is necessary to make it an intelligible narra
tive in itself. There is also generally some note of time
at the commencement of these sections to indicate the
date of the narrative. This structural organisation, and
especially the repetitions, so diverse from our usages
are so many proofs of the Oriental authorship, as well aſ
of the unity of the book. Whatever documents may
have been used by the author, they have been so weldec
together as to be practically one book, bearing th
impress of one mind ; this is a fact altogether at varianc
with the supposed complex authorship of the Astruc
school of critics. The twelve sections (including th
Exordium) are as follows: (1) The Exordium. (2) Th
generation of the Weaven and the eartſ, from chap. ii.
to chap. iv., which concludes with the birth of Seth. (3
The book of the generation of Adam, chap. v. to vi.
where Noah is introduced. (4) The generations of Noa/
containing the history of Noah and his family until hi
death, from chap. vi. 9 to the end of chap. ix. (5) Th
generations of the sons of Moah, describing their descen
dants, the dispersion of the race over the earth, fron
chap. x. to xi. 9. (6) The generations of Shem, in th
line of Arphaxad to Abram, Nahor and Haran, the son
of Terah, from chap. xi. IO to 26. (7) The generations o
Tera/, containing the history of Abraham to his death
Terah, not Abraham, being made the head, as the chose
race was to be derived—not merely from Abraham i
the male line, but from Terah in the female line, al
through Sarah and Rebekah ; this section extends fro
chap. xi. 27 to chap. xxv. II. It seems strange th
the generations of Abraham should not form a distin
title ; if that title had ever existed, its probable pla
was immediately before the last clause of chap. xii.
(8) The generations of Ishmael, from chap. xxv. 12 to I




STREET ON EXODUS. 97
(9) The generations of Isaac, from chap. xxv. 19 to the
end of chap. xxxv. (IO) The generations of Esau, from
chap. xxxvi. I to 8. (II) The generations of Esau, the
father of the Edomites in Mount Seir, from chap. xxxvi.
9 to chap. xxxvii. (I2) The generations of Jacob, con-
taining the remaining history of Jacob and his sons to
the date of his own death and that of Joseph, from xxxvii.
2 to the end of chap. 1. and the close of the book.
7. When we come to the Book of Exodus, we find
great need for rearrangement ; and much light has been
thrown upon the right order of the narrative and laws,
which in our present Hebrew Bible and English trans-
lation are evidently not arranged in the order of time.
We quote from the work of the Rev. Benjamin Street,
B.A., Vicar of Barnetby-le-Wold :' “The dislocation
of texts is such, that he who would understand what he
reads must either frame an order of sequence for himself,
or adopt one suggested by some liberal critic. For
instance, in the book of the Law, as it now stands, the
law of divorce and the law of marriage run parallel ; the
impression given by the common arrangement of the
Street on
the
arrange-
ment of
the Book
text is, that the Law contemplated divorce at the same of Exodus.
time that it hallowed marriage, for Exodus xxi. Io,
referring to concubines and divorce, is placed as though
it were a supplement to the seventh commandment.
Our Lord Himself had to interfere on this point, and
tell the Jewish expounders of the law, that marriage had
been from the beginning, but divorce tolerated, only on
account of the inveterate perverseness and hardness of
heart of the people. But the Jews had the book on the
Law as we have, in such disordered arrangement, that
they naturally supposed divorce as lawful a thing as
marriage” (p. 49). “As the Book of Exodus is now
* “The Restoration of Paths to Dwell In.” 1872.
H
98 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
ordered, we are required to believe that Moses wrote the
book of the Covenant before he had been commanded
to do so, but wrote none after he had been instructed to
do it” (p. 65). A still greater evil is the confusion of
the moral with the ceremonial law, “for in Exodus
the separate and distinct sources of the moral and
of the ceremonial law are indicated, or would be if
the order of events governed the order of matter"
(p. 55). “Now that the kingdom of God has been
given to the Gentiles, and now that all nations are
invited to enter into it, it is above all things necessary
that it should be made to appear as plainly as it did at
first, that the Lord set forth the moral law for His
people wherever, and in whatever nation such might be
found. These when He spake He called My people.
But the ceremonial law was imposed on those whom the
Lord called the people of Moses, Thy people whom thou
broughtest up out of the land of Egypt (Exodus xxxii. 73).”
(p. 55). In the view of Dr. Street, the law given on
Mount Sinai recorded in Exodus xix. and xx. to verse
17 refers exclusively to the ten commandments and the
moral law ; and that the ceremonial law which follows
the second giving of the tables is that which is recorded
Exodus chap. xxxiv.; but that, by a “confusion of
matter, the first abode of Moses on Mount Sinai, and
the eternal moral law then re-enacted, are interpolated
with passages describing his second abode on the Mount,
and the subsequent temporal institutions of the Levitical
Code” (p. 57). This opinion of Dr. Street's appears to
throw a clearer light on the narrative in the Book of
Exodus, and his views of the ceremonial law appear to
be confirmed by the Prophet Ezekiel, who, referring to
the ceremonial law as given after the idolatry of the
Israelites in the matter of the molten calf, declares in the
.* tº Jºs
-- ***ś ..? &
** ~

& "Sº
#.
*/ Sºº
...” P. ޺
EZEKIEL ON THE LA W. \@º
ZGAA ºz.
AN
name of Jehovah, Whereupon I gave them also salºº.
that were not good, and judgments w/ereby they should not
live (chap. xx. 25); so also in St. Paul's Epistle to the
Galatians (chap. iii. 19), Whereunto then servet/, the law 2
It was added because of transgressions. The arrangement
proposed by Dr. Street removes many apparent incon-
gruities. He accounts for the dislocation and derange-
ment of the original order, by a careless misplacement of
the rolls by the priests in charge, by the fact that “in
very early times the various precepts in the Book of
Exodus were arranged in such order, as to exhibit pre-
cepts and statutes provided for particular cases of infrac-
tion of a law, in juxtaposition with the original law; so
that the book was made one of ready reference for the
judge who had to decide cases. The Temple copy
exhibiting the original order and continuity would decay
or perish, and the only copies current would be then
used by the judges on their circuits, or by the priests
in adjudicating” (p. 50). The original order was pro-
bably Exodus xix., xx. chapter, verses I to 26; xxiv.
chapter 1, 2, 9–18; chapter xxxi. verse 18; chapters
xxxii., xxxiii., xxxiv.; then turn back to chapters xxi., xxii.,
xxiii., xxiv. verses 3 to 8; chapters xxv, xxvi., xxvii., xxviii.,
xxix., xxx., xxxi. I to 17; xxxv, xxxvi., xxxvii., xxxviii.,
xxxix., xl. the end of the book. -
8. It is difficult for those who accept in all sincerity,
what is sometimes called contemptuously “the tradi-
tional belief” of the Christian Church (because of the
evidence by which it is established, and which cannot be
set aside except on grounds which would justify univer-
sal scepticism), to realise the position and give due
credit to the sincerity of the sceptical critics of Germany.
That men of undoubted learning and ability, and of
whose honesty we can have no reason to doubt, should
H 2
see e o o
e • : •
• *e" s
Different
stand-
points of
the Ra-
tionalistic
and
Orthodox
Critics.
roo UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
The
Orthodox
trained in
the School
of Faith.
The Ra-
tionalistic
in the
School of
Doubt.
:
:
have arrived at conclusions so thoroughly opposite to
those almost universally received by their learned pre-
decessors, and by many of their equally learned con-
temporary labourers in the field of Biblical criticism, is a
startling fact. It admits, however, of satisfactory ex-
planation. In discussions affecting the character of the
Sacred Books, the disputants occupy diverse stand-
points. The one belongs to the school of faith, the
other to the school of doubt; the respective advocates
start from a different position, they reason from different
premises, and they naturally arrive at different con-
clusions. Take the case of the Pentateuch as an
example: the question being, Is it to be ascribed sub-
stantially to Moses and his age, or to a much later
period 2 The critic who as a Christian believer accepts
the testimony of our Lord and of His Apostles on this
point, enters upon the inquiry with strong preposses-
sion. Nothing but the most positive proof to the con-
trary can shake his convictions: he is prepared to
make all allowances and concessions as to interpolation,
or omission of transcribers, or of revision by successive
editors to meet the changes in the language, and by
these he explains difficulties which to another remain
inexplicable. It is otherwise with the rationalistic critic.
Generally his training has been in the school of doubt,
the literary and academical atmosphere of Germany has
for the last century been redolent with scepticism. The
first principles of natural religion are open questions.
When the existence of God, of man's possession of a
spiritual nature, and of immortality, are also regarded as
doubtful points, the notion of the miraculous, and con-
sequently the fact of an objective revelation, appears to
him not only unphilosophical but impossible. The pre-
possession of the critic unconsciously affected by this
e e º e
tº . ~~
©
©
tº
e
©
CAVE ON THE GERMAN CRITICS. IOI
philosophy, must be decidedly averse to the claims of the
Pentateuch as an inspired record. And so with respect
to the authorship and age of these books, ascribed to
Moses; the critic, thus prepossessed, will be disposed to
attach a disproportionate weight and value to every
word, and phrase, and fact in the text of the Pentateuch,
which appears to point to a different authorship, and to
a later date and origin, than that which is fixed by
Orthodox critics. This condition of the critical mind in
Germany has been fairly stated by the Rev. Alfred
Cave," in a review of Wellhausen’s “Geschichte Israel,”
to the following effect —“There is one great diff-Rº."
culty in appreciating these theories of German birth. the posi-
The premises do not seem to warrant the conclusions, º
and that, from two causes: the most dispassionate Critics.
and unbiassed investigator seems to be in the position
of the man who opens Euclid at random, and from
ignorance of the preceding propositions, axioms and
postulates, is unable to judge of the cogency of the
propositions which meet his eye, apparently a logical
sequence of solemn trifling. German writers assume
too readily that because their views are rejected, they
are unknown. . . . Only a laboured effort of the his–
torical imagination can help us to barely understand
these hypotheses. . . . With all their boasted scientific
precision, these theories are the products of two fac-
tors, data and danda, reasons and bias, positions and
prepossessions. For a well-learned Englishman, or
Scotchman, or American, who is ignorant of recent Con-
tinental thought, to take up this book of Wellhausen's
for example, is to breathe new air. He is an emigrant
in a new world. His sense of proportion is awry. His
judgment is at fault. Respect makes him patient, and
* “British and Foreign Evangelical Review,” No. 112, p. 253.
Io.2 UNSA TISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
Quarry's
Tables of
supposed
Author-
ship of
Genesis.
respect alone; respect for his own truthfulness and
respect for a great name. He feels that he can only
breathe freely and judge rightly after a somewhat
different constructive process. As he makes a laborious
investigation into the sources of conviction, his mind
clears, and he moves as a free man in the midst of this
new environment, able to accept or reject at the bidding
of evidence. Then two things become manifest: first,
that the inferences drawn are not warranted by the
reasons assigned ; second, that the inferences drawn
Only appear warranted by the reasons assigned upon
certain presuppositions. The historical investigator
sees a subtle rationalistic element veiling its distaste
for the supernatural under the fact of science; he
becomes aware of a growing antagonism to the
Mosaic authorship because of its supernatural claims ;
he comprehends the widespread and semi-paralysing
influence of great reputations, reader and pupil receiv-
ing with too loyal a love and too hasty an assumption
the dicta of teachers of European fame.”
These remarks will help the reader to understand the
secret of the marvellous hypotheses of the critics on
the origin and composition of the Pentateuch in
chapter v.
9. The following are the tables referred to (in para-
graph I of this chapter).
TABLE I.—From “Genesis and Its Authorship,”
by Rev. John Quarry. 8vo, 1866. This and the
following represent the Book of Genesis, partitioned
among its supposed authors. In this table E. stands
for Elohist; J. for Jehovist; J.E. for Junior Elohist;
and R. for Redactor. The Elohist is supposed to
have been Samuel. The Jehovists wrote, according to
these theories, in the time of David or Solomon. The
TABLE BY QUARRY AND DAVIDSON. IO3
second Elohist is placed somewhat later, and by Bishop
Colenso is considered to be the Jehovist somewhat im-
proved by practice (J.E). The Redactor, or final Editor,
is placed later still, and is by Bishop Colenso iden-
tified with the Prophet Jeremiah, who is called the
Deuteronomist (D.); this writer, with (L.L.) Levitical
Legislators, are adopted by Bishop Colenso mainly. The
table itself is formed by Quarry from that of Dr. S.
Davidson, which is mainly taken from BöHMER.
CH. i., ii. I —3 E. : CH. viii. 2 second clause, 3 first
4-9 . . . . . J. clause J.
9, “tree of life.” . R. 3 second clause . E.
ii. 9–25, iii. I-2I J. 4, “the ark rested ” . J.
iii. 22–24 . R. dates. . . . E.
iv. . . . . . . . . J. “on the mountains,”
v. I—28, to “begat” E. &c. . . . . . . J.
28, “a son ’’ R. 5 . . . . E.
29, “Noah " E. 6—12 J.
remainder . R. I3–Ig E.
30—32 E. 20–22 J.
vi. I–3 . e tº R. iX. I—I7 . . . . E.
4 first clause . J. 18, to “Japheth’’ J.
remainder R. last clause . R.
5–8. J. I9 . . J.
9–22 E. 20–27 R.
vii. 1–5. J. 28, 29. . . . . E.
6–8 . . . E. x. I—5 first clause J.
8, “clean, and of 5, “every tongue,” R.
beasts that were remainder — 8 first
not clean.” . R. clause . . . . J.
9 - . E. 8 second clause . . . R.
IO . . J. g—20 to “families” . . J.
II . E. 20, “after their tongues” R.
I2 . . J. remainder . J.
13–16 E. 2.I . . . . . . . R.
16 last clause, 17 J. 22–25, to “Peleg”. J.
I8–2I E. 25 next clause . . . R.
22, 23 . . . . . . J. last clause—31 as far
24, viii. 1, 2, first clause E. as “families” . J.
ro4 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
CH. X. 31, “after their tongues”
remainder, 32.
xi. I–9 . . . .
IO-32 . . . .
4 last clause, 5 .
6–20, xiii. I—5. . .
xiii. 6 . . . . . . . .
7—II to “east ’’
II last clause, I2 to
“place” *
I2 last clause, 13–18,
xiv .
XV. I . tº ºt
2—21, xvi. I .
xvi. 2 . . . . . .
3 . . . . .
4—I4 . . .
I5 first clause . &
remainder, 16, xvii..
xviii., xix. I–28
xix. 29 .
30–38
xx. I—I7
I8 .
xxi. I . gº º in
2 first clause .
second clause.
last clause . . .
J
J
J
J&º
3
4, 5 -
6, 7 .
8, 9 ę
2 e * * * *
Io—16, 17 first clause . J.
I7 second clause .
remainder, 18–20 to
* { grew 3 y c
2O remainder .
2I-34, xxii. I–13 .
xxii. 14–18. . . .
I9 . .
20–24.
xxiii. .
<e
#
R
J.
R
xii. 1–4 to “with him " . J.
E
J.
E
J.
E.
l
i
CH. xxiv. 1–67, except last
clause .
67 last clause
xxv. I—6 & ºn tº
7—II to “Isaac’”
II last clause . . . J
I2–16 . . . . .
17
I8, 19
2O . . . . . .
21–26 to “Jacob’”
26 last clause . .
27, 28 ſº
29–34, xxvi. I—5.
xxvi. 6 .
7–I2 . . . . . .
13, 14 to “servants’’ J.E.
I4 last clause, I5 . . R.
I6, 17 . . . . . . J.E.
18 . . . . . . . R.
I9–22 . . . . . . J.E.
23, 24 . . . . . . R.
25 to “these " . . . J.E.
last clause . . . . R.
26–33 first clause . E
last clause . R
34; 35 E
xxvii. I-45 J
46 . . R
xxviii. 1–9 . º . . E.
IO—I2 . . . . . J.E.
R
E
J
R
J
R
l
º
i
13–16
I7–22 . . . . . J.E.
XXix., XXX. I—I3.
XXX. I4-16 . . . .
I7—4o first clause
40 second and third .
remainder, 41–43
and
XXXi. I . J
2 . J.E.
3 . J.
4–9 & . J.E.
IO5
TABLE BY QUARRY AND DAVIDSON.
CH. XXXi. Io . . . . . .
II first clause . . J.E.
remainder, I2 . . R.
13–17 first clause . J.E.
I7 second clause . . J.
I8 . . . . . . . E.
I9 first clause . . J.E.
second clause . . J.
20 . . . . . . . J.E.
21–23, to “journey” J.
23, thence, to “him "J.E.
“in the Mount Gi-
lead " . . . . R.
24 . . . . . . . J.E.
25, 26 first clause . . J.
26 remainder . J.E.
27 . . . . . . . J.
28, 29 . J.E.
30, 31, first clause . . J.
31 remainder . J.E.
32–37 . . . J.
38–41 first clause . J.E.
41 intermediate part. R.
last clause, 42 . . J.E.
43-45. . . . J.
46–48 first clause . J.E.
48, remainder, 50 to
“ daughters” R.
5o remainder J.
51, to “heap” . . . J.E.
to “pillar”. R.
last clause, 52 to
“witness '' . J.E.
52, thence to “pillar” R.
thence to “heap "J.E.
“and this pillar”. R.
remainder . . J.E.
53, to “us” . . . J.
last clause, 54 to
“bread'? . . J.E.
54 last clause, 55
first . . . . . J.
55 intermediate part. J.E.
R. CH. XXXi. 55, last clause
xxxii. 1, 2 . . . . . . J
3–21 tº
22 first clause .
intermediate part.
J.
.E.
. J.
. R.
J.
E.
23 last clause . . . J.
23 first clause . R.
remainder J.
24 first clause . R.
second clause . . J.E.
25 . R.
26–31 first clause . J.E.
3I last clause, 32 . R.
XXXiii. I—I6 J.
I7 . º ºg R.
I8 first clause . J.
to “Aram ” . R.
last clause J.
I9 . R.
2O, XXXiv. I to
“out ’’ . . .
xxxiv. I concluding words
2, to “saw her ”.
remainder
3, 4 • . . . .
5 • & ſº
6 .
7 . o
8–13, to “said ''
13 last clause . .
14–18
I9 • - - - - - -
20–26 first clause .
26 remainder, 27 .
28–30 . . . . .
3I, XXXV. I-4 .
XXXV. 5 . . . .
6, 7, to “him " . . J.
7 remainder, 8 . .
9, to “Jacob’” . .
“again" . . . .
remainder—I5. .
16 first clause . . .
:
g
Ioë UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
CH. XXXV. 16 remainder, 20 first
clause . . . .
2O second clause .
2.I . . .
22—26
27, to “father”
“unto Mamre *
thence to “He-
bron. . .
last clause .
28, 29 . . .
XXXvi. I . . . .
2, to “Anah
“daughter of Zi-
beon” . g
“the Hivite,”3–5
6, as far as “went’’
“to a country” .
remainder—8 .
9
IO e
II-I4 .
15–18, as far as
“Jaalam”.
ſº * *
º
2 3
tºtº
J
J.
R.
J.E.
E.
18, “duke Korah’”
19 two first clauses
last clause—28.
18 second clause .
last clause . .
29, 3O . R.
3I–43. J.
xxxvii. I . . . . E.
2 º . J.
3, to “age'' . J.E.
last clause . J.
4-IO . J.E.
II first clause . J.
second, I4, to
“again '' . . J.E.
I4, thence to “He-
bron’’. R.
last clause, 18
to “off” . . J.E.
R.
J.
J.
R.
J.
J.E.
CH. xxxvii. 19–22, to “upon
him '' . . J.E
22 remainder . R
23 first clause . . J.E.
last clause J
24–28 to “pit” . J.E
28 next clause . J
last—31 . J.E
32 first clause . J
second J.E
remainder, 33 to
“ said " . J
33 thence to
“ him.” . J.E
last clause—35. J
35 last clause, 36,
to “Egypt”. J.E.
36 “unto Potiphar” R
remainder . . J.E
xxxviii., xxxix. I to “Poti-
phar’’ . J
xxxix. 1, “officer—guard,” R
remainder—2O,
“to prison”. J
20, “place—bound" R
last clause—23 . J
xl. 1–3 first clause. . J.E.
3 remainder . R
4, 5, to “bound ’’ . J.E.
5, “in the prison” . . R.
6, 7, to “were ". . J.E
7, “with him " . R
8—15 first clause . . J.E.
I5 remainder R
16 — 23, xli. I, to
“dreamed ” . . . . J.E.
xli. I last clause, 2–5, to
“behold” . R
5 remainder, 6–14, to
“Joseph " . . . J.E.
14 “and—hastily’’. J
thence to “rai-
ment” . . . . R
TABLE BY QUARRY AND DAVIDSON. 107
CH. xli. last clause, I5 to
“dream ” . . . J.
I5 remainder—I7 first
clause. . . . . J.E.
17 remainder, 18–21 . J.
22 “and” . . . . . R.
22 remainder—24 first
clause . . . . . J.E.
24 remainder . . . . R.
25 first clause . . . . J.E.
second clause . . . R.
remainder . . . . J.
26 first clause . . . . R.
second clause . . . J.E.
last clause, 27, to .
{ { years 75 e
J
39 first clause .
remainder .
40 first clause .
remainder — 42, to
“ hand '' .
42 remainder, 43.
44 •
45 - . J
46, 47. * -
48 . . . . . . . . J.
49 - - - - - - -
50–52 . . .
53, 54, to “said
54 remainder .
55–57, xlii. I–5.
xlii. 6 two first clauses .
remainder .
. R.
27 remainder . . J.E.
28–31 . J.
32 . . . . . R.
33 . . . . . . . . J.
34 two first clauses . . J.E.
last clause . . J.
35 first clause . . J.E.
second . J.
last . J.E.
36–38 J.
.E.
J.
.E.
J
J.
e
37
º
J.
CH. xlii. 7 three clauses . . . J.
remainder — 9, to
“ said unto them "J.E.
9, “ye are spies,” . . J.
last clause, Io . . J.E.
ºr . . . . . . . . J.
12 . . . . . . . . J.E.
I3—2O -
21–23
24–38, Xliii. . .
xliv, I, 2 . . . . . .
3–34, xlv. I . . .
xlv. 2, 3 . tº e º 'º
4–28 . . . . .
xlvi. I—5 first clause.
5 remainder .
6, 7 . . . . . .
8—I2, to “Zarah ".
I2 remainder .
I3–27 . . . . . .
28–34, xlvii. I—II first
clause -
xlvii. II second clause .
remainder-—27, to
“Goshen ‘’
27 remainder, 28 .
29–31, xlviii. I first
clause . . . . . R.
xlviii. I remainder, 2 . . J.E.
3—5, to “mine” . E.
5, “as Reuben and
Simeon”.
last clause—7.
8, 9
Io, to “see *
remainder, II .
12 first clause .
second clause .
I3; I4 .
I5–Ig
2O . . . . . . .
xlviii. 21, 22, xlix. I–28, to
“unto them ’’ . . J.
J.
#
J
#.
*
J
|
IoS UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC'S THEORY.
Ayre's
Tables,
&c.
CH. xlix. 28 remainder R. CH. l. I4 . R.
29–33 first clause E. I5–21 . . . . . . . J.
33 second clause . . J.E. 22, to “house " . . . J.E.
remainder . . . E. remainder, 23 . J
1. I–II. R. 24–26. e
I2, I3 . E. *
-
TABLE II.-Table from Rev. John Ayre's “Introduc-
tion to the Criticism of the Old Testament,” included in
º © -
Horne's Introduction, 8vo, I860, containing the arrange-
ment of the supposed authors of the Book of Genesis, by
DE WETTE.
CH. i., ii. 3. e E. CH. xxiv. . . . . . . . J.
ii. 4—iv. 26 * * J. xxv. I–21, 24–34 . . . E.
v. (29 interpolated) . E. (4, 21, 25, 262 interpo-
vi. I–8. J. lated) .
9–22 . . . E. 22, 23 J.
vii. I–Io, 17, 23. . . . J. xxvi. I–33 . J.
II—I5 (16 interpolated) 34; 35 E
I8–22, 24 E. xxvii. I–45 . . . . . J.
viii. I—I9 E. 46, xxviii. I—I2, I7, 20
2O-22 J. –22. . . . . . E.
ix. I-17, 28, 29. E. xxviii. (21 interpolated).
20–27 J. 13–16, 18, 19. J.
x., xi. 9 J. xxix. (31—35 interpolated) E
xi. 10–32 E. xxx. 1–13, 17–24 first half E
xii. 1–4, 7–20 J. 14–16, 24 second half. J.
5, 6 . E. 25–42 tº º J.
xiii. xvi. I6, . J. xxxi. 1–4 to xxxii. 3. E
xiv. (a fragment). E. xxxi. (49 interpolated) .
xvii. e e º & E. xxxii. 4–21 2 22–32 J.
xviii., xix. 28, 30–38. J. xxxiii., xxxvi. 43 . . . . E
xix. 29. . . . . . E. xxxvii. (23–30 worked in). E
xx. (18 interpolated). E. xxxviii. e - J.
xxi. (I, I7? 33,34 interpola- xxxix. I—5, 2I–23 J.
ted) . E. 6–20 . . . . . E
xxii. I—I3 (II interpola- xl.—xlvii. to 12, 27–1. 26 . E
ted) 19 . . . . . E. xlvii. 13–26. . . . J
I4–18 . . . . . . J. xlix. (18 interpolated)
xxiii. . . . . . . . E.
The remark which accompanies this table applie:

DE WETTE–TUCH-STA HELIN. IOg
- ºr
more or less to all of them : “It is not easy to construct
this table with proper accuracy.”
TABLE III.-Table from the Rev. John Ayre, &c., Tuch's
containing the arrangement of the Book of Genesis by ...;
TUCH. Author-
ship of
CH. i., ii.3 . . . . . E. CH. xxiii. . E. Genesis.
ii. 3, iv. 26 . . . . . J. xxiv. e e - e. e. J.
v. I—29 first half, 30—32 E. xxv. I–II, Ig, 20, 24–34 E.
29 second half . J. I2–18, 2I–23. J.
vi. I—8 . . J. xxvi. I—33. J.
9–22 . . . . . . E. 34, 35 . E.
vii. I—Io, 16 second half. J. xxvii. I—45. J.
II—I6 first half, I7— xxvii. 46, xxviii. 12, 17 . E.
viii. Ig . E. xxviii. 13–16, 21 second
viii. 20–22. • J. half J.
ix. I—I 7, 28, 29. E. 2I first half, 22 E.
18–27 . . J. xxix., xxx. 13, 17–24 first
x., xi. 9 . J. half . . E.
xi. Io–32 . E. xxx. I4—16, 24 second half
xii. I–4, 7, 9–20 J. –43 e . J.
5, 6, 8 . E. xxxi. I–3, 49 . . J.
xiii. 1–17 . J. 4–48, 50–54 . E.
I8 . . . . . E. xxxii. I–I2, I4, 33 E.
xiv.–xvi. 16 . J. I3, I5–32 . . J.
xvii. . . . . . . E. xxxiii.—xxxvi. 43 ... . E.
xviii. I, xix. 28, 30–38 . J. xxxvii. I . . J.
xix. 29, xx. I—I7. . E. 2—36 . E.
xx. 18, xxi. I, 33, 34. J. xxxviii. tº ºn . J.
xxi. 2–32 . E. xxxix. I—5, 2I–23 . J.
xxii. I–I3, 19—24: . E. 6—2O . E.
I4—18. J. xli.—l. 26 . E.
TABLE IV-Table from the Rev. J. Ayre, &c., con- Ståhelin's
faining the arrangement of the Book of Genesis, accord- .
P • tº supposed
ing to STAHELIN. Author-
ship of
CH. i., ii. 3 . . . . . . . E. | CH. v. 29, vi. I-8 . . . . . J. Genesis.
ii. 3—iv. 26 o tº º e e J. vi. g–22 te tº º g c & E.
v. I–28, 30–32 . . . E. vii. I–Io, 23 . . . . . J.
IIo UNSATISFA CTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC’S THEORY.
Bishop
Colenso's
Synoptical **
Table
of the
Author-
ship of
Genesis.
I3, I5–Ig
6—I2 uncertain .
viii. I4, 20–22.
iX. I—I'7, 28, 29 .
18–27 . . . . e
X. I–7, 20, 22, 23, 30, 3.I
8–19, 2I, 24–29, 32 .
Xi. I–9. -
Io—26
27–32 uncertain .
xii.-xvi. 16.
xvii. - g
Xviii.-Xix. 38 .
XX., xxi. 34 .
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiv.
XXV. I—2O
TABLE V.—Synoptical table of the Hexateuch sepa-
ted according to the different sources.
Genesis: from Dr. Colenso’s “Pentateuch and Book of
supposed Joshua Critically Examined.” Appendix, Part VII., 8vo,
1879.
CH. i., ii. I—4* º
ii. 49–25, iii., iv.
v. I–28, 30–2 .
29 . . . . . . .
vi. I–3, 5–8, 15, 16 .
4 • e g
9–I4, I7—22
vii. 1–5, Io, I2, 16°, 17
18b, Iga, 20, 23* .
3.
6–9, II, 13–16°, 18a,
Ig", 21, 22, 23°, 24 .
viii. 1, 2*, 3°, 4b, 5, 13°, 14
—Ig • * tº º 'º
2*, 3°, 4*, 6–12, 13°,
2O-2 2 © º © o
e
.
i
J.
E.
CH. xxv. 21—XXvi. 33.
xxvi. 34, 35 .
XXV11. I—45.
46
xxviii. I—Ig
20—XXXi. I5 . . .
XXXi. I7—44 worked over .
XXXi. 45–XXXiii. 16 .
XXXiii. I'7—XXXvi. 43.
xxxvii. worked over .
XXXviii.-XXXix. 5.
xxxix. 6—20 uncertain .
2I–xliii. 38 .
xliii. worked over .
xliv.–xlvi. 30 . e
xlvi. 31 to xlvii. 6 uncertain
xlvii. 7–12, 27–31.
I3–26.
xlviii. to l. 26 .
. CH. ix. I—I 7, 28, 29 .
18–27
X. I–7, 13–32 .
8—I2
Xi. I–9 . . .
IO—27, 32 .
28–30
xii. 1–4a
4°, 5.
6—2O . .
xiii. 1–5, 7”, 14—17 . .
6, I2* . . . . . .
7a, 8–11, 12°, 13, 18 .
xiv. I—24, by a contempo-
rary of . . . . .
The Book of
J.
:
.
º
i
;
E.
#
J.
BISHOP COLENSO'S TABLE. 1I II
}H. Xv. I-2I . . . . .
xvi. I, 3, I.5, I6 . . .
2, 4-9, II-I4. . . .
IO • • • • • • • •
xvii. I-I6, I8-27 . . .
I7 • • • • • -
· xviii. I-I2, 2o-22 . . .
I3-IQ, 22, 23 .
xix. I-26, 3o—38
27, 28 . . . . .
29 .
xx. I-I7 . J
I8 e！ e ， e • © ©
xxi. I, 6, 7, 2I, 27º, 28-3I,
33» 34 ¢
2-5 • • • • • •
8—2o, 22-27a, 32 .
xxii. I-I3, Ig . . .
I4-I8 . . . . .
2O-24 . . . . .
xxiii. I-2o . . . . .
Xxiv. I-3, 9-37, 42—58,
…#e¢e«！
6I-67 . . . . . J.
4-8, 38—4I, 59, 6o . D.
xxv. I—6, II", 18, 2I°-23,
27-34 . . • •
7-Io, I2-I7, Ig-
2Iº, 24-26 . . E.
II° . . . . . . . J.E.
xxvi. I, 6-16, Ig-23, 25º
• -33 . . . . . J.
2-5, 24, 25 . . . . D.
I7, 18 . . . . . . J.E.
34, 35 . . . . . . E.
xxvii. I-46. . . . . . J.
xxviii. I-9 . . . . . . E.
Io-I2, I6-Ig . . . J.
I3-I5, 2O-22 . . . D.
xxix. I-23, 25-28, 3o, 3I,
32ea, 33be, 34,bea
35°* · · · · ·
24, 29, 32ºº, 33°º, 34º,
35ºd © o 0 © e. E.
CH. xxx. Ia, 4*, 5» 6a, 7, 8ae· 9
-I3, I7, I8ae, I9,
2oae, 2I—24a . . E
Iº, 2, 3, 4º, 6b, 8b, I4
-16, 18º, 2ob, 24b,
25-27°, 28—43
27° . . . . . .
XXxi. I, Io-I2, 48b, 49
2°, 4-9, I4-I7, Ig
J.
D.
J.
-48°, 5o-55 . . J.E.
3» I3 . . . . . . D.
I8 . . E.
Xxxii. I, 2 • • . J.E.
3-6, I3-32 · J.
7-I2 D.
xXxiii. I-I7, Ig, 2o · J.
I8 . . . . . . . J.E.
Xxxiv. Iº, 2º, 3°, 4, 6, 7º, 8
-I3°, Ig-24 . J.
2b, 5» 7b, I3b, 25-
3I . • • D.
Xxxv. I, 5—7, 16°-18, 2oº,
2I, 22° . . · J.
2-4, 8 . . . . . D.
9-16°, 19—2oº, 22b
-29 . . . . . E.
xxxvi. I-Ig, 3I-35ºbd, 36
-43 . . . . . E.
2O-3o, 35º . . . J
xxxvii. 2º—27, 28º—35 . .
I, 2º, 28°, 36 . . .
XXXviii. I-3o . . .
J.
· · J.
Xxxix. I, 2, 4, 6-23 . . J.
3, 5, 23 • . D.
xl. I, 3º, 5° . . . . . J.
2, 3º, 4, 5º, 6-23 . . J.E.
xli. I-3o, 32-34, 36-39,
44, 45, 47, 56, 57 . J.E.
3I, 35, 4O-43, 46, 48
—55 . . . . . J.
xlii. I-4, 8-38, 7b, 6º . J.
5, 6°, 7° . . . . . J.E.
xliii. I-34 . . . . . . J.
|E
E
II2 UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS OF ASTRUC’S THEORY.
----------------- ºr ..., , ,
CH. xliv. I–34 . J.
xlv. 1–15, 19—21°, 22–
28 . . . J.
16–18, 21* . J.E.
xlvi. 1–5, 12°, 20°, 26*, 28
-34 . . . . J.
6–12°, 13–20°, 27 . E.
xlvii. 1–4, 6", 12—27*, 29,
30°, 31 . . . J.
4°, 5, 6°, 7–-II, 27",
28 tº a
CH. xlvii. 30°. . . . D.
xlviii. 1, 2, 8–14, 17–2O . J.
3—7 . . E.
I5, 16, 21, 22 D.
xlix. I*, 28°, 29–33 E.
I6–28* . J.
1. I—I2, I4–2I, 26 J.
I3 . E.
22, 23, 25 . . J.E.
24 • D.

HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS. II3
CHAPTER V.
HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITIcs on THE Construction of THE
PENTATEUCH.
I. The battle-fields specially chosen by the higher Battle-
criticism of the last generation in its contest with the old †. -
evidential school, are the Pentateuch, and the Prophecies critics; the
of Isaiah and Daniel. Recently, however, the critics º:
have taken a still more advanced position, questioning iº
not merely the genuineness of this or that book of the
Old Testament, but relegating the Levitical laws, and
all the characteristics of the Mosaic economy, to the
period of the exile. For the present our business is with
the Pentateuch, respecting which the leading critics are
susceptible of a rough classification, each class being dis-
tinguished from the other by the leading principle in the
theory advocated : these classifications referring to the
earlier stage of the higher criticism, of which the fullest
particulars may be found in Keil; the more advanced
stage, scarcely mentioned by Keil, being exhibited and
considered in its proper place. The three leading hypo-
theses of the German critics are the Documentary, the
Fragmentary and the Supplementary.
2. The Documentary /ypothesis did not originate with Poºl.
struc. Le Clerc, Father Simon, and Vitringa advo- Hypo-
ated this theory; the latter expresses his opinion that *
‘schedas et scrinae patrum, apud Israelites conservata,
1 See Keil’s “Historical and Critical Introduction to the Old Testa-
ent,” Vol. I. 1869. (Clarke's Ed.)
I
II.4. HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
Frag-
mentary
Hypo-
thesis.
Mosem collegisse, digessisse, ornasse, et ubi deficiebant
complesse” (Observationes Sacrae). Eich/lorn's patron-
age of Astruc's theory gave it currency and popularity.
Michaelis, while accepting the theory, inclined towards
the Fragmentary hypothesis. Ilgen (1798) found two
Elohistic and one Jehovistic document. Kelle (1812)
supposed an original document enlarged at a later period.
Gramberg (1828) contends that in Genesis there are three
documents, one Jehovistic, one Elohistic, and one by the
compiler, by whom the others have been modified.
Ståhelin (1830) sees two documents in Genesis, all
arranged by the compiler, who when unable to har-
monise the several accounts left them as he found them.
Bertholdt thought the original substance of Genesis was
to be found in chaps. v. to xxxiii., but that these have
undergone subsequent enlargement, while the other
books were brought into their present form by various
writers. Hupfield has recently (1853) returned to his
original view, which scarcely differs from that of Ilgen.
It is difficult to classify the opinions of the critics, from
the difficulty of perceiving the exact line of demarcation,
and from the natural occurrence of changes of opinion in
the critics themselves.
3. The Fragmentary hypothesis was suggested by
Möller in 1798. It assumes that the Pentateuch origi-
nated in a series of old laws and of old fragments collected
and put together in the time of David and Solomon,
and that the work so compiled was the basis of the
present Book of Deuteronomy, which is thought to be
the book discovered in the reign of Josiah; the rest of the
Pentateuch being compiled between the time of Josiah
and the exile. Vater advocated this theory in 1805, and
Aſartmann in 1818. Vater thought that a considerable
part of Deuteronomy was in writing in the age of David
SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESES. I (5
or Solomon. Augusti agreed with Vater, 1806. Baron
Bumsen and the Dutch critic Kueneſe may be classed as
the supporters of this hypothesis, as they think the
Pentateuch was first composed in the days of the kings
(800 B.C.) from fragments of laws and records.
4. The Supplementary Jaypothesis supposes one docu-
ment to be the basis of the Pentateuch, to which sup-
plementary additions have been made, and in which
various particulars of later date had been incorporated ;
the Elohist document being the most ancient and the
foundation of the work; the Jehovist making use of
the preceding, adding to it or abridging, and incorpo-
rating with it his own material. There is, however, no
agreement among the advocates of this theory in the
details of these processes. Stå/elize assigns the first
four books of the Pentateuch to the Elohist in the time
of the Judges, the Book of Deuteronomy to the Jehovist
in the time of Saul. De Wette traces the Elohistic
document to the time of David or Solomon, the Jeho-
vist to the period of the later kings (624 B.C.). Lengerée
places the Elohist in the time of Solomon, the Jehovist
in that of Hezekiah. Tucſº places the Elohist in the
time of Saul, the Jehovist in the time of Solomon.
Rilliscſ, places the Elohist in the time of David.
Hupfield finds traces of three authors in Genesis: an
earlier and later Elohist, a Jehovist quite independent
of the others, and all these welded into one by a later
editor. Vaiſhinger agrees with Hupfield as to the first
four books and chaps. xxxii. and xxxiv. of Deuteronomy,
but ascribes the rest of Deuteronomy to a later writer;
the earlier Elohist he supposes to have written 1,200 B.C.,
the later I,000 B.C., the Deuteronomist in the days of
Hezekiah. With a great variety of opinion as to the
precise number, order and date of these documents and
Supple-
mentary
Hypo-
thesis.
I 2
II6 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
Supplements, this theory may claim for its advocates
Gesenius, Von Bohlenz, Wegscheider, Doederlin, Knobel,
Boe/mer, Hitzig, and others. Bleek thinks that there is a
considerable portion of the Pentateuch which cannot be
later than the Mosaic age, such as the songs and the
laws, and that there is nothing to lead us to infer that
the last redaction took place after the exile. He thinks
that the Elohist must have been written before the tribe
of Judah attained to pre-eminence, and that the Deu-
teronomist wrote either in the age of Ahaz or Hezekiah.
Von Boſa/en, Vatée and George assign Deuteronomy to
the age of Josiah, and therefore it was the earliest of the
five books. Bertheau (1840) thinks that the three middle
books, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, are a genuine
collection of laws, either written by Moses or preserved
by tradition; all these made seven groups, each of seven
series of ten laws: the other laws he considered to be
later, and the history much later. Ewald has a plan
peculiarly his own. In his opinion it is the result of a
compilation of several authors found in “The Great Book
of Origins or Primitive History,” which comprise the
present Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. Thus: (1) the
book of the wars of Jehovah ; (2) a life of Moses (of
these two only a few fragments remain); (3) the book
of the Covenant, written in the time of Samson ; (4)
the book of Origins, written by a priest in the time of
Solomon ; (5) a subject of the Northern kingdom, who
wrote in the days of Elijah, and Joel ; (6) the sixth
author lived about 800–700 B.C.; (7) the seventh author
lived not long after Joel, and collected the writings of
his predecessors; (8) then a writer at the beginning of
the seventh century before Christ; (9) then the Deu-
teronomist who flourished in the time of Manasseh and
lived in Egypt ; (IO) in the time of Jeremiah the poet
UNCLASSIFIED HYPOTHESEs. I17
lived who wrote the blessing of Moses which we now
find in Deuteronomy; (II) a later editor incorporated
Deuteronomy and the other works of his predecessors,
and thus the whole Pentateuch was the production of
eleven writers, of whom the Jewish records and traditions
know nothing. And yet we are required to believe that
such a bundle of anonymous writings somehow obtained
general acceptance among the Jewish priests and people!
At one time Ewald's hypothesis was considered as
having exhausted the power of critical imagination.
But this is far from being the case. Since Ewald, we
have had wilder and more improbable theories from
Graf, Kuenen, Schultz and Well/lausen (of which more
hereafter in chapters viii., ix.).
5. There are a fair number of learned critics of the
last and present generation whose views scarcely admit
of being classed with either of the three leading theories;
for instance, Fulda (1788), Corrodi (1792), Nachtigal
(1794), who first dared to hint that Jeremiah was the
author of the Pentateuch including Deuteronomy (1794),
Bauer (1801), Paulus (1804), and others, all of whom
objected either on dogmatic or critical grounds to the
commonly-received opinion of the Churches. The theory
of De Wette-Schrader, as given in Maa-Duncker’s “History
of Antiquity” (1877), supposes a Judean text of the
Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua to have been com-
posed in the first decade of the reign of David, within
the circle of a priestly family which claimed to have
sprung from Aaron, the brother of Moses. This text
deals with the career and connection of Israel and its
fortunes, with the covenant between Jehovah and Israel,
and the Law. The unity of religious worship, through
the centralisation of the altar at one place, could not
have taken place until political unity had been obtained.
Unclas-
sified
Hypo-
theses.
De
Wette-
Schrader.
II.8 HYPOTHESEs of THE CRITIcs.
The law for the priests, and the minute details of ritual,
were, in the view of the priests, coeval with the departure
from Egypt, though in reality only a few of the funda-
mental precepts reached so far back. In the latter half
of Solomon’s reign (970–950 B.C.) a second text arose,
which could hardly have been composed in priestly
circles, and certainly did not come from Judah. It lays
stress upon the Divine guidance and manifestation to the
race, and ascribes peculiar importance to the tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh. A century afterwards, about
the middle of the ninth century before Christ, both these
texts were combined into one work by the Jahvist, who
was guided by the feelings and views of the prophets.
He has added some sections collected from tradition or
written records. In this shape were compiled the first
four books of the Pentateuch, and the beginning and
end of the fifth book, with the Book of Joshua in the
time of the prophets Amos and Hosea ; Deuteronomy,
from chap. iv. 44 to chap. xxxviii. 69, was written in the
time of Josiah by some one who had revised the Book
of Joshua. After this statement in agreement with the
fashionable theories of the critics, the historian proceeds
with comments which rather point to a conclusion some-
what different from that of his authority, De Wette-
supe. Schrader. “If we compare the Hebrew account of the
†. Creation with the cosmogonies of Berosus and Philo,
Hebrew and the narrative of Noah's deluge with the description
º. of the flood on the Assyrian tablets and in Berosus, we
and reli see at the first glance how far asunder the conceptions
gion. e e e
lie—with what clearness and vigour the Hebrews have
succeeded in purifying and exalting the rude fancies of
the nations so closely akin to them—the ancient common
possession of the Eastern Semitic tribes, from whom the
Hebrews were sprung. This power—the patient labour,
PURITY OF HEBREW THEOLOGY. II9
the serious and thoughtful effort to deepen the traditions
of the past into an ethical significance, to sublimate
legends into simple moral teachers, and transplant the
myth into the region of moral earnestness and moral
purpose—to pass beyond the rude naturalism of their
kinsmen into the Supernatural—from the varied poly-
theism of Babel and Canaan to monotheism—this it is
which gives to the Hebrews the first place, and not
among Semitic nations only, in the sphere of religious
feeling and development. At a later period the Greeks
understood how to breathe life, beauty, and nobility
into the gods of the Phoenicians, whose rites came over
to Hellas; they could change Ashera-Bilit, the goddess
of prostitution, into the youthful Aprodite, the goddess
of blooming grace, and the highest charm of love; but
the Hebrews practised the severer, sterner, and loftier
task of carrying religious feeling beyond the life of
nature—of conceiving the highest power as morally in
opposition to natural impulses and forces, of publishing
the Supremacy of the intellectual and moral over the
natural being.” After these eloquent and striking
remarks it is marvellous that the historian had not asked
himself, What caused this remarkable difference between
the Hebrew theology and that of their neighbours and
conquerors 2 How was the Hebrew enabled to purify
and exalt their rude fancies, and give them an ethical
significance 2—or to transplant the myth into the region
of moral earnestness and moral purpose 2 What made
them capable of “the loftier task of carrying religious
feeling beyond the life of nature, and of conceiving the
highest power as morally in opposition to natural im-
pulses and forces, and of publishing the supremacy of
the intellectual and moral over the natural being 2 ”
* Max Duncker's “History of Antiquity,” Vol. I. pp. 387–8.
I2O HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
De-
litzsch's
Irenicon.
Again, when referring to the “moral rules set up in
Egypt,” the historian states that, “For his people, Moses
collected the foundations of moral and religious law into
a simpler, purer, deeper, and more earnest form in the
ten commandments. In connecting the moral law with
the worship of Jehovah, its inseparable foundation, and
Setting it up with passionate earnestness as the im-
mediate command of the God of Israel, Moses imparted
to his people that character of religious earnestness and
ethical struggling which distinguishes their history from
that of any other nation.” Is there not a mystery about
this evident spiritual and moral superiority of the Mosaic
law, a mystery inexplicable except in the admission of a
higher teaching from Him from whom Moses received
his call to be the leader and legislator of the Israelitish
people 2 It is singular that with these convictions of
the superiority of the Mosaic teachings, the historian
follows the old beaten course of the sceptical critics, and
sets aside all the Hebrew records of the past history of
the people as productions of a later age, and, contrary
to the well-founded opinion of most chronologists, lowers
the date of the entrance of the Israelites into Egypt and
of their departure by several centuries. Another criticism,
which may be regarded as a sort of Irenicon, is by
Delitzsch, according to whom Moses wrote Deuteronomy
in the presence of the people of Israel (Deut. xxxi.,
Joshua viii. 32); the intermediate books attribute to
Moses only the recording a series of laws and the
summary of the encampments. Hence he thinks it
obvious that the kernel, or first groundwork of the Pen-
tateuch, is the Book of the Covenant, which was written
by Moses himself, now wrought up into the connected
history of the legislation (Exodus xix.-xxiv). The rest
* Duncker's “History of Antiquity,” Vol I. pp. 484–5.

THE ENGLISH CRITICS. I2I
of the laws in the wilderness of Sinai, and on the plains
of Moab, were published by Moses orally, but were
recorded in the written form by the priests, whose busi-
ness this was (Deut. xvii. II, &c.), yet not necessarily
during the journey through the wilderness. It was on the
soil of the Holy Land that the history of Israel, which
had now reached one termination, had to be written.
But to write the history of the Mosaic age, it became
necessary, of course, to take up, and so to record the Mosaic
legislation in its entire compass. A man like Eleazer, the
son of Aaron, the High Priest, wrote the whole book,
which began with Genesis 1. I., into which he introduced
the Book of the Covenant, and perhaps gave only a short
account of the last addresses of Moses, since Moses had
recorded these with his own hand. Another, like
Joshua, or one of those elders upon whom the spirit of
Moses rested, supplemented this work, and incor-
porated with it the whole of Deuteronomy, which
indeed had been his own model. This now has been
substantially adopted by Kurtz (1855), who objects to
the supposed earlier origin of Deuteronomy, and thinks
that the rest of the Pentateuch was written in the desert
and not in the Holy Land. Schultz, in an earlier work,
and in 1869, recognises the original documents in the
Pentateuch, the Elohist being the base and groundwork
of the whole, but contends the Jehovist portion of the
first four books, as well as Deuteronomy (excepting the
concluding portion), was written by Moses. He has,
however, considerably altered his views, and to this, his
present opinion, we shall refer in due course.
6. Before adding to this catalogue of the German
:ritics, the more recent and more advanced class (alluded
o in the close of the fourth paragraph), it will be
esirable to refer to the English critics, for the most part
Kurtz.
English
Critics.
I22 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
Geddes, mere copyists of the German school. (1) Dr. Alexande
Geddes, a Romish priest, of whom an interestin
biography has been written by J. Mason Good. “Th
Commentary and Critical Remarks,” 1 is the first C
English commentaries which refers to Astruc, Eichhorr
and Michaelis. Dr. Geddes thinks that the Pentateuc.
in its present form was not the work of Moses, but tha
it was written in Jerusalem between the time of Davi
and Hezekiah. This commentary was severely handle
pl. by Bishop Horsley in the “British Critic.” (2) Dr. 3
Donald- W. Donaldson, a classical scholar and philologist of hig
“” character, somewhat rashly and prematurely put fort
the results of his Biblical studies in the publication (
what he entitled “The Book of Jasher,” so called afte
the document referred to in Joshua x. 13, which he cor
sidered to be the pith and marrow of the Old Tºmº
the rest being a “farrago of many ages.” This co
pression of the whole Bible into the space now occupie
by about twenty-four chapters, found no favour with th
learned. Being written in Latin, we may charitab
hope that it was intended, like the well-known “Epistol
Obscurorum Virorum,” of the early part of the sixteent
century, to be a satire on the extreme views of th
* * Eºs critical school. (3) The writers of the “Essays a
Reviews.” Reviews,” the writers being seven members of t
University of Oxford, and some of them clergym
They advanced nothing which had not been advocat
by the advanced school of that day, but which t
same school would now regard as out of date. At fi
these essays created no remarks, until public attenti
was called to the fact of such extreme views bei
advocated by distinguished clergymen of the Church
England. The replies, like the “Essays” themselv
* Three vols., 4to. 1792–1800. * Published in 1861.
BISHOP COLENSO. I23
—-mºs-
were numerous, and of very unequal merit. These
“Essays” drew the attention of the Churches to the
large amount of speculative literary Scepticism prevalent
among a certain class in the higher walks of society.
The stagnancy of the Churches, and the indifference to
the criticism of the Scriptures, were disturbed by this
ublication, and yet more so by a work written by an
nglican bishop, an attack nominally on the Books of
OSes and the Book of Joshua, but in reality upon the
ntire series of the historical books of the Old Testa-
ment. (4) Dr. J. W. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, pub-
ished in 1862 the first part of a series, entitled “The
*entateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined.”
Five additional parts followed in rapid succession in
863—72. After these six large treatises appeared,
87I—4, containing an examination of the Bible Com-
mentary sanctioned by the bishops and clergy of the
stablished Church, commonly called the “Speaker's
ommentary ; ” then lectures on the Pentateuch and
oabite Stone; and in 1879 the last part of his critical
ook appeared, in which he has completed his re-
earches, and hopes they may clear the way for the
ore thorough knowledge of the composition and age
f the different books of the Pentateuch.
Briefly but fully we shall endeavour to present Bishop
olenso's views, advocated with great learning and
arnestness, the result of a minute investigation of the
ld Testament records, carried on during the Space of
ighteen years, and published in eight parts, i.e. 8vo
olumes, besides the seven treatises on the Bible Com-
entary. However we may differ from the bishop's
nclusions, we must in justice admit the marked ability
d sincerity of purpose which characterise all his
ritings. So far as we can judge, there is nothing in
Bishop
Colenso.




















I24 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
the whole range of German critical inquiry into th
Origin and character of the Sacred Books so thoroug
full, and exhaustive on the rationalistic side, as th
work entitled “The Pentateuch and Book of Joshu
Critically Examined.” Availing himself (as eve
Biblical critic must) of the labours of his predecesso
in Germany, and Holland, and England, he is no me
copyist or servile 'imitator, differing freely at times º
his learned collaborateurs in the same field. Unli
many of the higher critics of Germany, he writes as
he knew his own meaning; and as he writes in pla
English, it is satisfactory that, whether we agr
with him or not, we cannot fail to understand w
he means.
a. Dr. Colenso assumes the correctness of the E
histic and Jehovistic theory, the result of that
Astruc's ; and mainly, but not exclusively, on this disti
use of the Divine names, he points out the vario
authors to whose labours we are in his opinion indebt
for the larger portion of the earlier books of the
Testament. It is desirable to give his own full sta
ment: “What I mean is this, that the Elohistic mat
in Genesis is not distinguished from the rest by crit
merely by noting the use of the Divine name ; for h
(Genesis ix. 28, 29) we find the verses which are clea
seen, from a comparison with Genesis v., to belong
the Elohist; but which do not contain Elohim at all.
the other hand, there are passages in which Elo
frequently occurs, sometimes even exclusively, with
any mention of the name of Jehovah, but which
clearly seen not to belong to the older writers, beca
their style and phraseology differ entirely from his.
is the combination of two things, the constant use
* Seven volumes, 8vo, 1862–1879.















colleNSO'S SUBSECTIVITY. I25
lohim, or the deliberate suppression of Jehovah, and
le agreement in thought and expression with that of
he older writers, which alone can determine whether
my particular passage belongs to the Elohist or not.” "
1 Genesis xvii. I, where Jehovah is used in what is
2nsidered an Elohistic passage, Dr. Colenso has his
xplanation for this break in the theory. “It is plain
lat its occurrence in this single instance must be
cribed either to a slip of the copyist, or else to the
ct of the writer himself having inadvertently broken
S rule, and used Jehovah, a name with which he was
miliar.” Here we have a specimen of the working of
e subjective criticism, which throws the decision of a
ubtful point entirely upon the bias of the critic him-
lf; a pure arbitrary selection of authorship according
his private judgment, in a case altogether opposed to
e judgment of the Jewish Church. Are the guesses
r such they are merely) of a critic in the nineteenth
ntury of sufficient value to be received in opposition
the judgment of the Jewish Church 2 Is not this an
stance of the abuse of Subjective or conjectural
iticism 2 And yet this is the main ground of all Bishop
lenso's minute criticisms, the foundation on which
ey mostly rest.
Ö. The results of this criticism on the Pentateuch are Supposed
follows: (1) The Elohist, the oldest writer, is sup- *...* s
sed to be Samuel. (2) The second Elohist, who º
ote about the end of Saul's reign, or early in that Bishop
David. (3) The Jehovist or Jahvist, who wrote at 9°.
end of David's reign, or beginning of Solomon's,
obably Nathan, or perhaps identical with the second
ohist. (4) The Deuteronomist, supposed to be Jere-
ah, and the Levitical Legislators who wrote after the
* “Lectures on the Pentateuch,” &c., 8vo, 1873. P. 31.















I26 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
captivity. The portion ascribed to each, as ascertaine
by the application of the Elohistic and Jehovistic test
helped not a little by the critic's assumed possession o
a peculiar power of perception and discriminatio
(which will not be readily conceded), varies in amount
The Elohist is responsible for 350 verses in Genesis an
Exodus. The Elohist, junior, for 377 verses in Genesis
Exodus, and Numbers. The Jehovist for 1,264; verse
in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, and for 6% in Deute
ronomy. The Deuteronomist (the Prophet Jeremiah
wrote (or rather forged) the whole Book of Deutero
nomy, except the 6% verses attributed to the Jehovis
and IO verses added afterwards by the Levitical Legis
lators. To these Levitical Legislators after the captivi
are assigned 621 verses in Exodus, 859 in Leviticus, an
1,009; in Numbers, besides Io in Deuteronomy. Th
statement of this scheme carries with it its own refut
tion; practically it is an impossibility. There is n
material in the Hebrew Bible from which such resul
could be arrived at by the most consummate critic
acumen. It is a specimen of critical conjecture in i
wildest display. If any man could give plausibility t
the scheme, Dr. Colenso is the man ; but even he h
failed to impress his convictions upon the critical School
How and by what means was this diverse authorshi
interlaced and welded into one narrative, and that narr
tive received as the Law of Moses, a revelation fro
God 2 How is it that we have no record of the gre
writers who were the real authors of the Pentateu
according to this theory
c. As to the other books of the Old Testament, the Bo
of Şoshuais ascribed to the Jehovist, who wrote 21.2% vers
the Deuteronomist 306%, and the Levitical Legislators I3
the Book of Judges chiefly the Elohist, with additions























COLENSO’S SPECULATIONS. 127
leDeuteronomist, and a redaction by the Levitical Legis-
tors; the 1st Book of Samuel to I Kings xi. by the
shovist, with interpolations by the Deuteronomist ; the
ook of Chronicles and Ezra, and most of Nehemiah,
‘e regarded as compositions of little authority, the work
the Levitical Legislators. These criticisms will be
pted in the proper place. All the assumptions, (we
nnot call them arguments) upon which the reality of
ese extensive interpolations and forgeries is attempted
be established, will fail to convince students accus-
med to deal with critical investigations.
d. The “real history of the Exodus,” as given by
r. Colenso, admits that “some real movement out of
ypt must underlie the story of the Exodus.” And this
eal event,” he thinks, is that related by Josephus as given
Manetho about the expulsion of the shepherd kings
d their allies, “the lepers,” a story treated by Josephus
a calumny, and which all recent discoveries in Egyp-
logy refute.
e. The early history of the Old Testament is, in Dr. cº,
lenso's opinion, purely legendary, the patriarchs, and view of the
en Moses, probably, mythical persons; the Israelites i. #.
re not a chosen peculiar people, to whom was given the people in
asures of a revelation from God. The call of Abraham, º
recorded in Genesis xii. 1–3, is an invention of the ment.
uteronomist ; their original worship was that of Baal
d the gods of the Canaanites; human sacrifices were
ered by them. The name Jehovah or Yahveh is that
the sun-god of the Phoenicians and Syrians, with which
Israelites became acquainted about the time of the
odus ; “not by means of a miraculous revelation to
ses, and an audible voice, but by contact with the
bes of Canaan as soon as they had crossed the
rdan and settled down as inhabitants in that land.”




















I28 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
We may remark that the miraculous is ignored in this
work, but nowhere expressly denied.
Hypo. f. The hypotheses of Vatke, put forth forty years ago
dº on the post-exilian origin of the Levitical Legislation,
adopted by and recently revived by Graf, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and
d. others, is adopted by Dr. Colenso, whose sixth and
Seventh volumes contain an elaborate exposition and
defence of this theory, which implies the late origin
of the major part of Exodus, and Leviticus, and
Numbers.
Object of g. The critical analyses of the Hebrew text of the
cº, older books, and some of the Psalms, exceedingly minute
minute and elaborate, are found in the body and in the appen-
*.*... dices of Parts II. to VII, inclusive. Their object is to
Hebrew establish—(1) By a display of similarity of vocabulary
Text of the o •. • * 1 s º
older and phraseology in Some cases, and by a dissimilarity in
ºº these respects in others, the Elohistic and Jehovistic,
&c., authorship of the early historical books. (2) To
show the resemblance between the language of portions
of Leviticus with the prophecy of Ezekiel, and also
the resemblance between the language of the Book of
Deuteronomy with that of the Book of the Prophet
Jeremiah ; the inference being that Ezekiel wrote cer.
tain portions of Leviticus, and Jeremiah the Book of
Deuteronomy. This is the view of a critic too full of
his theory to yield to the common-sense conclusion
that Ezekiel and Jeremiah, pious students of the Law
would naturally be led to use the language of the Olde
books. (3) To point out minutely the interpolation
introduced first by Jeremiah (the Deuteronomist) in hi
assumed re-editing of the older books, and the equall
assumed wholesale interpretation and recasting of th
Pentateuch by the Levitical Legislators after the retur
from captivity. The practical impossibility of thes

REPLIES TO COL ENSO. I29
assumed authorships of either Ezekiel or Jeremiah in the
cases in question, seems not to have occurred to the critic.
Verbal and phraseological resemblance or otherwise, carry
little conviction, except when they are confirmatory of
evidence of a more direct and satisfactory character; nor
are we sure that our present text of the books of the
Hebrew Bible represents to the letter the verbal niceties
which existed in the ipsissima veróa of the original MS.,
so as to afford us the material requisite for such com-
parisons. These critical analyses of Bishop Colenso,
though failing to support his theory, abound in acute
remarks, and may be studied with advantage by future
critics. We have not thought it necessary to refer to the
first part of Bishop Colenso's work, which is an attack
mainly on the historical credibility of the Pentateuch.
This volume was the most popular of the series, because
more easy to be understood by the general reader. It is,
however, the least important, and as it contained nothing
new, would have excited no interest, except from the
fact of its being from the pen of an Anglican bishop.
About three hundred replies issued from the press, the
most valuable of which possess an interest in themselves
part from their relation to the controversy. We may
ention “The Exodus of Israel ” and “The Bible and Replies to
odern Thought,” by the Rev. T. R. Birks; “The º,
istorical Character of the Pentateuch " and “The Colenso.
osaic Origin of the Pentateuch,” by George Wa-
rington; “Replies to First and Second Parts of Bishop
Colenso on the Pentateuch,” by Frank Parker; “Moses or
he Zulu,” by W. Weekes; Dr. Will. Smith (a Romanist)|
‘On the Pentateuch ; ” with others, by McCaul, &c.
The critical portions of Bishop Colenso's work are not
ikely to attract general readers. With all respect for
One vol. 8vo, 1868.
- K
I3o HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
The
Jesuit
Hardouin.
Dr.
Samuel
Davidson.
Kalisch.
the bishop's learning and industry, the conclusions arrived
at by himself and his Continental collaborateurs, are so
foreign to the opinion of the most judicious German and
English scholars, and so irreconcilable with the general
tenor and character of the Jewish dispensation, and
its relation to Christianity, that they cannot be re-
ceived by any Christian Church which accepts, on the
faith of well-accredited testimony, the authenticity
and genuineness of the books of the Old Testament.
The speculations of Bishop Colenso are without any
parallel in modern times, except what is afforded by the
vagaries of the learned Jesuit Hardouin, set forth in
his work “Chronologiae ex nummis Antiquis Restituta,”
in which he endeavours to prove that the major portion
of the Greek and Latin classics are forgeries by th
monks of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. His
reasons are precisely those of the “advanced ” critics,
and seem as if intended as a parody upon them. (4) Dr.
Samuel Davidson, in his “Introduction to the Old Tes-
tament,” gives us in a condensed and readable form the
speculations of the advanced German critics in con-
nection with his own. To the early labours of this
distinguished critic, the students in Biblical criticism are
much indebted ; his present advanced views are best me
by a reference to his own earlier writings, especially hi.
“Biblical Criticism.” Dr. Davidson supposes that ther
are signs of an earlier and later Elohist, a Jehovist, and
a Redactor in the first four books of the Pentateuch, and
that Deuteronomy was written in the reign of Manasseh
(5) Dr. M. Kaliscſ, a learned Jewish grammarian an
critic—author of commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, º

Leviticus*—though opposed to the vivisection criticis
* Two vols. 4to, Paris, 1693 * Published 18
* Three vols., 8vo, pub, 1862–3. * Published # 7.

KALISCH ON EXODU.S. I31
of the German School, agrees with them generally as to
the late date assigned to the Pentateuch in its present
state. With him, the Book of Deuteronomy is the
earliest work, and contains the early legislation, and yet
was not known until the Seventh century B.C.; Leviticus,
containing the later legislation, characterised by a severe
and rigid ceremonialism, must, therefore, be placed still
later; it did not exist, or had at least no Divine authority,
in the earlier years of the Babylonish captivity. With
these views, the testimony of this learned Jew to the
Book of Exodus is remarkable. “The authenticity of Testimony
Exodus has been less exposed to the attacks of criticism fººt
than that of the other books of the Pentateuch, especially Exodus.
Genesis. Even the most radical Sceptics have admitted
that an historical kernel lies at the bottom of the accounts
concerning the Exode, and that Moses is the author at
least of the Decalogue. It is generally admitted that
both the details of the Egyptian plagues and the jour-
neys of Israel manifest the most accurate acquaintance
with the phenomena and localities described ; and that
rare unanimity makes again this book one of the most
interesting parts of the holy record. But its unity has
been questioned, not only by that school of Biblical
critics which dismembers the sacred writings quite as
arbitrarily and bluntly as many hypercritical philologists
of the last century dissected Homer's songs into inco-
Herent fragments, but even more moderate interpreters
believe that one book is disfigured by spurious interpre-
tations. . . . We have in all such passages tried to refute
this very questionable opinion : we see the completest
harmony in all parts of Eatodus ; we consider it as a
perfect whole, penned throughout by one spirit and the
same leading ideas.”"
* “Introduction to Exodus,” pp. ix., x.
R 2
I32 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
The
orthodox
German
Critics.
7. So far our references to German and English critics
have been confined to writers exclusively identified with
the school of the Higher Critics. On the orthodox side
are Bertheau, Eckerman, Hengstenberg, Havernic#,
Prec/sler, Ranke, Sacſ, Welte, Baumgarten, Keil, Hug,
and numerous others. The importance attached to the
opposition of these critics to the theories of the Higher
Criticism may be estimated by the strong language used
by Dr. S. Davidson, and Ewald. As a sample, Ewald
remarks: “ Hupfield and Knobel are unsatisfactory—the
Opinion of such men as Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil, and
Rurtz stand below and outside all science.” The general
tendency of German thought is said to be at this time
partially reactionary, in opposition to the wild specula-
tions of the advanced school. In England there were
not wanting replies to the Rationalistic criticism of
Germany, and its reproduction by Bishop Colenso
(accompanied by much original matter of his own).
Many of these were of great value, but few of them
cicalt with the critical bearings of the questions at stake.
From the critical replies we select for notice five. It
will be seen that of these defenders of the authenticity
of the Pentateuch, three of them, while not opposed to
the theory of Astruc, arrive at conclusions as orthodox
as those who set aside that theory as not proven.
(1) The Rev. William Paul” admits the existence of
the two authorships, but infers that the documents in
which the name of Jehovah is often found are from the
hand of Moses himself; that those in which that name
is but sparely used are documents revised by Moses;
and that when the name of Jehovah is not found, these
are documents simply used by Moses.
Replies
to the
German
Critics.
Rev. W.
Paul.
o
* See History, Vol. I. p. 64. * “Hebrew Text of Genesis,” 8vo, 1852.

3. Y. S. PEROWNE. I33
(2) The Rev. 3. 5. S. Perowne' thinks that “while the Rev.J.J.S.
distinct use of the Divine names could scarcely of itself Perowne.
prove the point,” there is other evidence, “the same
story told by two writers, and these two accounts mani-
festly interwoven,” as in the history of Noah and the
narrative of the flood : he thinks, too, that “generally the
Elohistic and Jehovistic writers have their own distinct
and individual colouring.” (It is singular how the learned
differ, for Quarry takes the very passages respecting the
deluge as a proof in point of the unity of the narrative.)
His view of the composition of the Pentateuch is as
follows: “(a) The Book of Genesis rests chiefly on docu-
ments much earlier than the time of Moses, though it
was probably brought in very nearly its present shape
either by Moses himself or by one of the elders who
acted under him. (5) The Books of Exodus, Leviticus,
and Numbers are to a great extent Mosaic; besides
those portions which are expressly declared to have
been written by him, other portions, and especially the
legal sections, were, if not actually written, in all proba-
bility dictated by him. (c) Deuteronomy, except the
concluding part, is entirely the work of Moses, as it pro-
fesses to be. (d) It is not probable that this book was
written before the three preceding books, because the
egislation in Exodus and Leviticus, as being the more
formal, is manifestly the earlier, whilst Deuteronomy is
he spiritual interpretation and application of the law.
ut the letter is always before the Spirit; the theory
efore its interpretation. (e) The first composition of
he Pentateuch as a whole could not have taken place
ill after the Israelites entered Canaan. It is probable
hat Joshua and the Elders who were associated with
him could provide for its formal arrangement, custody,
1 In “Smith's Biblical Dictionary,” Vol. II. p. 775. 1863.
I34 HYPOTHESEs of THE CRITIcs.
and transmission. (f) The whole work did not finally
assume its present shape till its revision was undertaken
by Ezra after the return from the Babylonish captivity.”
wº (3) The third, Mr. George Warington, under the
" signature of a “Layman of the Church of England,” is
the author of “Historical Character of the Pentateuch
Vindicated,” I and also of “The Mosaic Origin of the
Pentateuch Considered.”2 Both of these are replies to
Dr. Colenso (parts I. to III). These works, like Quarry's
work on Genesis, are remarkable for a minuteness of
research which even the persevering indomitable industry
of Germany cannot excel. We give in full the Layman's
conclusions taken from “Mosaic Origin, &c.,” pp. I49–
I51. “The materials of which the first four books are
composed, appear thus to be of very various dates and
characters, the larger portions, however, being almost
certainly Mosaic: they may be arranged as follows: (1) A
series of annals, embracing the chief features of primeval
and patriarchal history down to the death of Joseph, date
and authorship unknown, but some probably written in
Egypt, and all certainly pre-Mosaic. As already re-
marked, there are some of the Elohistic sections which
seem to reach back into a still greater antiquity, and
especially the narrative of the Deluge, with its niceties
of dates, and the account of the purchase of the cave of
Machpelah (Genesis xxiii.), which has all the appearance
of a contemporaneous record (see Genesis i., ii. 4, v. I to
28, 30 to 32, &c.). (2) Additional matter referring to
the same periods from the pen of Moses, variously in-
serted among these, to enlarge, supplement, or replace
different portions of them (as Genesis ii. 4, iv., v. 29, &c.).
(3) An Elohistic narrative of the sojourn in Egypt, and
the Exodus, date and authorship unknown (Exodus i., ii.,
* 8vo, 1863. * 8vo, 1864.
WARINGTON. I35
xiii. I7, 19). (4) A Jehovistic narrative of the Exodus
and passage through the wilderness, up to the erection
of the Tabernacle, including the earlier portion of the
Sinaitic laws; also a list of the journeyings in the wil-
derness written by Moses (Exodus iii., iv. 18, 20, &c.).
(5) A series of laws delivered during the last thirty-nine
years of the journey through the wilderness, recorded
probably by Moses (Leviticus i. to vii., &c., &c.). (6)
A narrative of the events of the second and fortieth years
with which these laws have been incorporated, written
shortly after the conquest of Canaan; author unknown
(Leviticus viii., x., &c.). (7) Three isolated narratives
concerning Abraham's war with the four kings, Jethro’s
visit to Moses, and Balaam’s prophecies, probably (in
part at least) of foreign origin. (8) A variety of ex-
planatory notes, additions, and occasional alterations,
with a few passages of greater length, chiefly from other
ancient narratives, introduced by a writer of much later
date, very probably in the days of Saul. Out of these
diverse materials we believe the first four books of the
Pentateuch to have been compiled. The proportion in
which they are found may be roughly expressed as
follows:–If these four books were divided into one
thousand equal parts, then (1) the pre-Mosaic annals
would make up one hundred and sixty-four of them ;
(2, 4, and 5) the Mosaic portion five hundred and
seventy-six; (6) the later narrative two hundred and
fourteen ; (7) the foreign records twenty-six; (3 and 8)
the Elohistic exodus and the last reviser ten each.
About three-fourths of the whole matter contained in
them may be ascribed therefore to Moses, or still earlier
writers; and nearly the whole of the remainder to his
contemporaries. There is only about one per cent.
which can fairly be assigned to a later period. The
I36 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
books may justly then be termed the Books of Moses,
whether we regard their date, their author, or their
subject ; and the testimony of tradition to their origin be
admitted as substantially correct.”
(4) Dr. Harold Browne, Bishop of Winchester, gives in
the Introduction to the Pentateuch, in the “Speaker's
Commentary,” a condensed epitome of the results of
modern criticism and common sense, in which the
following points are fairly established—(1) that Moses
could have written the Pentateuch ; (2) that the con-
current testimony of all subsequent times proves that he
did write the Pentateuch ; (3) that the internal evidence
pointed to him and to him only as the writer of the
Pentateuch. The “Speaker's Commentary,” and es-
pecially Bishop Browne's Introduction, has called
forth Bishop Colenso’s “New Bible Commentary,
by Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church,
Critically Examined,” 2 in which he combats the
views of Bishop Browne and the other writers of the
Commentary: as might be anticipated, when we consider
the assumptions upon which his criticisms are founded :
admit the premises that—(1) the Elohistic and Jehovistic
theory is true ; (2) that the Elohist wrote in the days
of Samuel ; (3) the second Elohist in the days of David's
reign ; (4) the Jehovist in the days of Joshua ; (5) that
their portions comprised what Dr. Colenso calls “the
old story,” and constituted the whole Bible up to (6) the
Deuteronomist (Jeremiah), who forged Deuteronomy, and
interpolated all the other books ; and that (7) the priests
and others during and after the captivity composed the
middle books of the Pentateuch, and the entire ceremonial
of the Mosaic law: if so, Bishop Browne's Introduction,
with the rest of the Commentary, is as useless as waste-
Dr.
Browne.
* Vol. I. pp. 2—36. * Seven Parts, 8vo, 187I.
|
|

R. S. POOLE. I37
paper. But then, we do not admit any of Bishop Colenso's
premises, and thus to us his conclusions are worthless.
(5) Reginald Stuart Poole (well known as the author
of sundry works on Egyptian Archaeology) states his
opinion on the question of the antiquity of the Penta-
teuch in the third article upon Ancient Egypt in the
“Contemporary Review.”
“The date of the Hebrew documents, in general, has
been assumed to be that assigned to them by the older
scholars. This position is justified by the Egyptian
evidence. German and Dutch critics have laboured with
extraordinary acuteness and skill upon the Mosaic
documents alone, with such illustrations as they could
obtain from collateral records, using, be it remembered,
such records as all the older, and too many of the later,
classical scholars out of Germany and France have used
oins and inscriptions, not as independent sources, but
mere illustrations. The work has been that of great
literary critics, not of archaeologists. The result has
been to reduce the date of the documents, except a few
fragments, by many centuries.
“The Egyptian documents emphatically call for a
reconsideration of the whole question of the date of the
entateuch. It is now certain that the narrative of the
istory of Joseph and the Sojourn and exodus of the
sraelites, that is to say, the portion from Genesis xxxix.
o Exodus xv., so far as it relates to Egypt, is substan-
ially not much later than B.C. 1300 (this is the date
iven by Brugsch for the exodus from Egypt); in other
words, was written while the memory of events was fresh.
he minute accuracy of the text is inconsistent with any
ater date. It is not merely that it shows knowledge of
gypt, but knowledge of Egypt under the Ramessides
* Vol. XXXIV. pp. 757—9. * Note inserted.
R. S.
Poole.
138 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
and yet earlier. The condition of the country, the chief
cities of the frontier, the composition of the army, are
true of the age of the Ramessides, and not true of the
age of the Pharaohs contemporary with Solomon and
his successors. If the Hebrew documents are of the
close of the period of the kings of Judah, how is it that
they are true of the earlier condition, not of that which
was contemporary with those kings 2 Why is the Egypt
of the Law markedly different from the Egypt of the
Prophets, each condition being described consistently
with its Egyptian records, themselves contemporary with
the events Why is Egypt described in the Law as
One kingdom, and no hint given of the break-up of the
Empire into the small principalities mentioned by Isaiah
(xix. 2) Why do the proper names belong to th
Ramesside and earlier age, without a single instance O
those Semitic names which came into fashion with the
Bubastite line in Solomon's time 2 Why do Zoan-
Rameses and Zoar, take the places of Migdol and
Tahpanhes 2 Why are the foreign mercenaries, such as
the Lubim, spoken of in the constitution of Egyptian
armies in the time of the kingdom of Judah, wholly
unmentioned 2 The relations of Egypt with foreign
countries are not less characteristic. The kingdom o
Ethiopia, which overshadowed Egypt from befort
Hezekiah's time and throughout his reign, is unmen
tioned in the earlier documents. The earlier Assyriar
Empire which rose for a time on the fall of the Egyptian
nowhere appears.
“These agreements have not failed to strike foreigi
* The discovery of a great frontier parenthesis, “the plain of Jordan
fort, Zar, perhaps, as Brugsch being there described “as th
thinks, identical with Tanis, ex- garden of the Lord, like the lan

plains the passage in Gen. xiii. Io, of Egypt, as thou comest unt
which otherwise involves a long Zoar.”
DEUTSCH. I39
Egyptologists, who have no theological bias.
These
independent scholars, without actually formulating any
ge.
iew of the date of the greater part of the Pentateuch,
ppear uniformly to treat its text as an authority to be
ited side by side with the Egyptian monuments. So
epsius in his researches on the date of the Exodus, and
rugsch in his discussion of the route, Chabas in his
aper on Rameses and Pithom. Of course it would be
nfair to implicate any one of these scholars in the in-
erences expressed above, but at the same time it is
mpossible that they can, for instance, hold Kuenen's
heories of the date of the Pentateuch so far as the part
elating to Egypt is concerned. They have taken the
wo sets of documents, Hebrew and Egyptian, side by
ide, and in the working of elaborate problems found
verything consistent with accuracy on both sides; and
f course accuracy would not be maintained in a tradi-
ion handed down through several centuries.
“If the large portion of the Pentateuch relating to the
gyptian period of Hebrew history, including as it does
lohistic as well as Jehovistic sections, is of the remote
ntiquity here claimed for it, no one can doubt that the
rst four books of Moses are substantially of the same
The date of Deuteronomy is a separate question.]
eaving this problem aside, the early age of the first
our books does unquestionably involve great difficulties,
ut not nearly so great as the hypothesis of late date
hen they are confronted with the Egyptian records.
* The lamented Deutsch, re-
arkable among Hebraists for his
ute literary perception, remarked
the writer that he could not ex-
lain the origin of Deuteronomy
any other hypothesis than its
iginal Mosaic authorship, redac-
on being enough to account for
speculiarities. This opinion may
not have been maintained, and
therefore it is merely stated as a re-
markable hint thrown out in con-
versation. Many scholars would
not believe that Deutsch could
have held the view for a moment:
this is why the recollection deserves
to be put on record.
















I4O HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
-- —
“Those who refuse to accept the results of the most
advanced school of Hebrew critics on the ground that
they are inconsistent with the evidence of the Egyptian
documents, must beware of throwing themselves into the
arms of the other extreme party, who deny the value of
criticism, and refuse to accept the evidence of partial
compilation and redaction patent in the Biblical texts. . . .
Of this criticism it may be said that its excellences
in analysis are marred by its defects in constructive skill.
Its facts are admirably chosen, but its theories are
hastily put together, their very multitude being sufficient
to arouse the keenest mistrust. For if a school has pro-
duced from the same evidence many distinct hypotheses
of the date of a set of documents, all but one ...
must be false, and therefore the great majority are in
error, and if we trust ourselves to a guide he is in a
minority of one.” -
(6) Dean Milman.—The opinions of this Broad-Church
divine and finished scholar on the authenticity and age
of the Pentateuch, are especially useful, as coming from
one who kept himself singularly aloof from the contro-
versies of his day. We select from his “History of the
Jews.” (a) Age of the Pentateuch.--"The laws of a
settled and civilised community were enacted among
a wandering and homeless horde, who were traversers of
the wilderness, and more likely, under their existing cir.
cumstances, to rank below the pastoral life of their fore
fathers, than advance to the rank of an industrious agri
cultural community. Yet at this time (at Mount Sinai)
judging solely from its internal evidence, the law mus
have been enacted. Who but Moses ever possessed suc
authority as to enforce submission to statutes so sever
and uncompromising? Yet as Moses incontestably die
Dean
Milman,
* “History of the Jews,” Vol. I. pp. 130—1. 8vo, 1863.


















DEAN MILMAN. I4I
-
Jefore the conquest of Canaan, his legislation must have
:aken place in the desert. To what other period can
the Hebrew constitution be assigned 2 To that of the
Judges 2 a time of anarchy, warfare, or servitude ' To
that of the Kings 2 when the republic had undergone a
:otal change : To any time after Jerusalem became
:he metropolis 2 When the holy city, the pride and
glory of the nation, is not even alluded to in the whole
law . After the building of the Temple 2 when it is
equally silent as to any settled or durable edifice After
the separation of the kingdoms 2 when the close bond of
rotherhood had given place to implacable hostility
nder Hilkiah 2 under Ezra 2 when a great number of
he statutes had become a dead letter | The law de-
ended on a strict and equitable partition of the land.
t a later period it could not have been put into prac-
ice without the forcible resumption of every individual
roperty by the State ; the difficulty, or rather impos-
ibility, of such a measure may be estimated by any
eader who is not entirely unacquainted with the history
f the ancient republics. In other respects the law
reathes the air of the desert. Enactments intended
r a people with settled habitations, and dwelling in
alled cities, are mingled with temporary regulations
nly suited to the Bedouin encampment of a nomad
ibe." I can have no doubt that the statute-book of
oses, with all his particular enactments, still exists, and
hat it recites them in the same order (if it may be called
rder) in which they were promulgated.”
* Dean Milman, in a note, refers raneous with the events, or how
Leviticus iv. I2 –2O, xvi. Io, they are to be reconciled with the
–28, xiii. 46, xiv. 3–8, and adds: recent theories of the late inven-
I cannot understand how these tion, or even compilation of the
ovisions at least can be con- law.” Vol. I. p. 131.
ered anything but contempo-


















I42 HYPOTHESES OF THE CRITICS.
(5) Offections of the Critical School of Germany, &c.—
“On the age and authorship of the books ascribed tº
Moses there is an infinite diversity of opinion. Indee
an adversary of such opinions might almost stand aloo
in calm patience, and leave the conflicting theorists tº
mutual slaughter. . . . To examine them all in detai
(and the whole force of the argument lies in detail) i
obviously impossible in this work. But there is on.
criticism which I trust it may not be presumptuous t
submit to the critical school. There seems to me a fata
fallacy in the groundwork of their argument. Thei
minute inferences and conclusions, drawn from º
premises, seem to presuppose an integrity and perfe
accuracy in the existing text, not in itself probable, an
certainly utterly inconsistent with the general principl
of their criticism.” "
* Vol. I. pp. 132—3.

THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY." 143
CHAPTER VI.
THE Book of DEUTERONoMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
THE non-Mosaic origin of this book is an article of †.
faith among the Higher Critics. . Whether reasonable or &;
not will appear after a careful examination of the º:
leading points in the controversy. It may be desirable
to give—I. The critical hypotheses. II. The objections
to the Mosaic authorship. III. The strong presumptive
evidence in favour of that authorship.
I. Critical Hypotheses, various and contradictory,
tend to prove the unsatisfactory character of modern
theories opposed to the generally received opinion of the
Churches.
I. Ståhelin (1843) thinks it was written in the time of
Saul. Vater (1805) supposes it to have existed as a
written document since the time of David and Solomon,
but the concluding portion so late as the Babylonian
captivity. Von Bohlen, Vatée, George (1835), fix the
earliest date in the reign of Josiah, the latest about the
time of the Babylonian captivity. Bleek, Vaihinger,
Hartman, Kalisch, Riehm, Reuss, Kuenen, Knobel (1861),
contend for a late date not earlier than the reign of
Manasseh or Josiah. Lengerke (1844) thinks that from
the writer in the time of Josiah, who at the same time
re-edited Joshua, we have all the book except chap.
xxxi. I4–23, and perhaps chap. xxxii., which is from
the Jehovist, under Hezekiah. De Wette (1806—52), De Wette.
I44 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Ewald.
Davidson,
Bishop
Colenso's
theory of
the au-
thorship
of
Jeremiah,
seventh edition, thinks that, according to the redaction
of the Jehovist, the Elohistic essential portions of the five
Books of Moses, including perhaps Deut. xxxi. I4—22,
close the fourth Book. The writer of Deuteronomy inter-
polates the Mosaic hortatory discourses, the new law-
giving, and the obligation to keep the law, and then
places the closing part of the fourth Book at the end, in
the time of Josiah. The passages chap. iv. 27, xxviii.
25–36, 49–64, xxix. 27, &c., xxxii. 5–33, were written
in the most unfortunate time of the State, in the
Assyrian period, and with reference to the exile of the
ten tribes. Ewald (1864), third edition. The main por-
tion of Deuteronomy, chaps. i. to xxx., is, in his opinion,
an entirely independent writing; and from thence on-
ward, the original history follows the work of the “fifth
narrator,” and runs close to the death of Joshua. The
great song, chap. xxxii., is taken from an unknown poet,
in the place of an older one, which was less suitable. It
is, as a book formed from many sources, now entirely
lost. Written, perhaps, during the second half of the
reign of Manasseh in Egypt, through a peculiar event it
became an instrument in the reformation under Josiah.
Chap. xxxiii. was written by the true latest collector and
publisher of our present Pentateuch, who connected
Deuteronomy with the work of the “fifth narrator,”
before the end of the seventh century, B.C. Davidson
thinks it was written in the time of Manasseh. Bishop
Colemaso identifies the author' with the prophet Jeremiah,
the Deuteronomist, to whom he assigns chaps. i. to ix.,
x. I—5, 8–22, xi. toxxx., xxxi. I—I3, I6–3O, xxxii. I–43,
45–7, xxxiv. 1, 2—4, II, I2. In support of this view
the adduces striking parallelisms between passages in the
Books of Kings and Jeremiah, precisely the same as
* Part III. chap. xxiv. Part VII. p. 69; appendix, p. iv.
sº
9.EREMIAH. ~145
exist between the language of Kings and Deuteronomy,
and hence infers, that Jeremiah, who is supposed to have
written a large portion of the Book of Kings, wrote also
the Book of Deuteronomy. But is it not quite as easy to
suppose, and much more likely to be true, that the
study of Deuteronomy by such a prophet as Jeremiah,
so zealous for the law, influenced his style both in the
Books of Kings, and in his own book of prophecy 2
Chap. xxxiii. is supposed to be from the hand of a con-
temporary of the supposed Deuteronomist. To simple
Christians it seems strange that an inspired prophet,
Jeremiah, should write a book and "present it to the
Jewish priests and people as if actually written by
Moses under the inspiration of the Spirit of God.
This appears to them to be an example of a literary
forgery, of all forgeries the most 'to be deprecated, and
as utterly inconsistent with the unblemished character of
Jeremiah. But Bishop Colenso’ most ingeniously recon- Bishop
ciles this conduct with the honesty and truthfulness of °.
the prophet, admitting that “to us, with our inductive ;
training and scientific habits of mind, the correct state- tº,
ment of facts appears of the first necessity; and con- Jeremiah.
sciously to misstate them, or to state as fact what we
do not know or believe from external testimony to be a
fact, is a crime against truth; but to a man like Jeremiah,
who believed himself to be in immediate communication
with the Source of all truth, this condition must have
been reversed. The inner Voice, which he believed to
be the Voice of the Divine Teacher, would become all-
powerful, and silence at once all doubts and questionings.
What it ordered him to do, he would do without hesi-
tation, as by direct command of God; and all consi-
derations as to morality or immorality, would either not
Part III, chap. vi.
L
146 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
The
supposed
original
Book of
the Law.
*
*
amºs--"
be entertained at all, or would only take the form of
misgiving as to whether possibly, in any particular case,
the command itself was literally Divine. Let us
imagine, then, that Jeremiah, or any other contemporary
Seer, meditating upon the condition of his country, and
the means of weaning his people from idolatry, became
possessed with the idea of writing to them an address,
as in the name of Moses, of the kind which we have
just been considering, in which the laws ascribed to
him, and handed down from an earlier age, having
become in many respects unsuitable, should be adapted
anew to the circumstances of the present times, and,
reinforced with solemn prophetical utterances. This
thought, we may believe, would take in the prophet's
mind the form of a Divine command. All questions of
deception or fraus pia would vanish.” We may contrast
this lenient dealing with the prophet Jeremiah with the
Bishop's severe remarks on the supposed “falsity” of
the Chronicles. He certainly does not administer his
censures “indifferently,” without regard to persons.
The original Book of the Law is by the Bishop supposed
to be found in chap. iv. 44, and to xxvi., xxviii., xxix.,
xxxi. 9–13; but there are additions made afterwards, as
chap. i. to chap. iv. 43, 45–9, xxix., xxx., xxxi. 1–8,
23–30, xxxii. I-43, xxxiv. II, I2, all of which are later
passages, written after the original Book of the Law;
chap. xi. 29, 30, xxvii. I–26, xxxi. 16–22, xxxii. 44, are still
later passages by the Deuteronomist. The Jehovist (who
lived in the time of David or Solomon) is the supposed
author of chap. x. 6, 7, xxxi. 14, 15, xxxiv. 5, 6, Io.
Levitical additions made by the priestly party after the
return from captivity, are chaps. x. 6, xxxii. 44, 48–52,
xxxiv. I*, 7–9, and perhaps xxxi. 2P."
Part VII. App. IV.
&
asſ'
RLEINERT’S POSITION. - 147 tº
—#—
wº
2. Delitzsch, Kurtz, Havernic#, Hengstenberg, Keil, A. The
and others, remain faithful to the traditions of the Jewish º: X.
Church, and consider the book to be, as it professes to
be, the work of Moses. Discussions have arisen as to
the position of the book among the Higher Critics: Van
Bohlen, Water, Vatée, Genge, Reuss, Kalisch, Kuenen,
think it was earlier than the other books of the Penta-
teuch, while the older critics and De Wette, Ezwald,
Waihinger, Ståhelin, and Bleek, think it was the last of
the four concluding books of the Pentateuch.
3. Recently a mediate position in reference to the Kleinert's
date, &c., of this book has been taken by Kleinert rºi.
(1872), and his work may be regarded as a specimen of a critic.
the gradual retrocession of learned opinion towards the
old views. He holds that the writer of Deuteronomy
never claims that it was written by Moses in its present
form, but simply that he wrote “this law,” the law found
in chap. iv. 44 to xxvi. I5, which form the main part of
the book, to which the author refers in the preceding
and following chapters. Chronologically this part of .
Deuteronomy occupies a middle portion between what
seems the earlier fundamental portion of the central books,
f.e., Exodus xx, to xxiii. 34, Leviticus xviii. to xx, and
the remaining parts. He thinks the Book of Deutero-
nomy forms an essential part of the Book of the Law,
discovered in the reign of Isaiah (2 Kings xxii); but there
is clear testimony of its earlier composition in the
reference to the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c., in the
marked Egyptian colouring, in the Deuteronomic legis-
lation, and in other like references. That the book was
known to Hosea and Amos is decisive as to its not being
written in the time of Josiah, and all the conditions as
to time and the character of the book point out the
period of the Judges as the only one in which Deuter-
t
L 2
C 148 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
*e.
onomy could have received its present form. This
fourfold book consists of discourses, law, covenant, and
blessing, and is the work of one writer whom he identifies
with Samuel.
Dean . 4. The confident assertions of learned critics require
Milman in * e dº & a tº tº ſº
direct" to be considered in juxtaposition with the directly oppo-
º; site opinion of men equally learned. Take, for instance,
p & tº
Colenso the authoritative ruling of Dr. Colenso on this question :
#. “It is one of the most certain results of modern criticism
Critics. that Deuteronomy was written in the later period of the
Jewish monarchy.” On the other hand, Dean Milman,
in reference to Ezwald's dicta on the authorship and
age of Deuteronomy, remarks –“ He assumes the com-
position of the book at this time with the same peremp-
tory—I had almost said arrogant—confidence as if he
were writing of the composition of the AEneid in the
time of Augustus, or of the Code and Pandects in the
reign of Justinian. Having carefully examined all his
alleged reasons, I confess that I cannot discern the
shadow of a sound or trustworthy reason even for con-
jecture. To historical authority there is no pretence.””
“. . . Ewald's assignment of Deuteronomy to the reign
of Manasseh, on which reign we are almost in the dark,
seems to me more utterly wild and arbitrary, and its
Egyptian origin wilder still.”
jº. 5. The monstrous supposition of a pious fraud, in
previous which Hilkiah the Priest, and Huldah the Prophetess,
º and the prophet Jeremiah were partners in the discovery
covery of of a copy of the Book of the Law, as related in 2 Kings
..., xxii. 13, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 21, is adopted by Bishop Colenso,
by. Hººh but is certainly not deducible from the text. It must
High ºf have been “read between the lines” (as Professor
* vol. III. chap.xxiv. * “History of the Jews,” Vol. I.
* “History of the Jews,” Vol. I. 136.
PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH. I49
Delitzsch remarks), “for the narrative presupposes that
the book which was drawn from its hiding-place was of
recognised authority.” Its recognition and the effects
which followed are proofs of its being a copy of the law
given by Moses, the memory of which had not been
utterly effaced. See also Professor Watts :-"The book
found is not described as “a written law-book,” but as
‘the book of the law.” It is true the article is wanting
before “book, but it is before the word ‘law, with
which it is in construction where it ought to be, and the
phrase is properly rendered, ‘the book of the law.” This
usage is in harmony with the rule that “the article is not
prefixed to a noun in construction with a definite noun.’
. . . It is not then “an obvious fact,’ as Professor Smith
alleges (in his article ‘Bible' in the “Encyclopaedia
Britannica ’2), ‘that the law-book (the reader will mark
that law-book is a translation in the interest of the
theory) found at the time of Josiah contained provisions
which were not, up to that time, an acknowledged part
of the law of the land.’ Could any theory be more
absurd 2 On such a theory how account for the wrath
threatened against Judah by Huldah the Prophetess,
speaking in the name of Jehovah 2 What ground could
there be for wrath against a people for not obeying a
book hitherto unknown 2 . . . . So far is Josiah from
regarding this book as containing provisions hitherto
unknown to Judah, that he recognises it as containing
an old law zwhich has been neglected by their fathers ”
(2 Kings xxii. 13).” The theory of the Rev. Professor
Robertson Smith (who in his theological views is at one
Remarks
by
* Curtiss's “Levitical Priests,” * Rev. Professor Watts, Brit.
p. ix º and For. Evan. Rev., No. CXII.,
2 . Brit., Vol. III., article April, 1880, pp. 223, 226, 227,
“Bible.”
Professor
Delitzsch.
Professor
Watts
OI).
Professor
Smith's
“Theory
of the
Origin of
Deutero-
nomy.”
150 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
with the Presbyterian Church, to which he belongs) is
singular, considering his high character as a scholar.
Professor In his opinion the Book of Deuteronomy is “beyond
Rºbertson doubt a prophetic legislative programme, and if the
mith ſe tº tº
announces author put his work in the mouth of Moses instead of
the hºok giving it, with Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did
Deutero- so, not in pious fraud, but simply because his object was
nºyº not to give a new law, but to expound and develop
#. Mosaic principles in relation to new needs.” Nothing
p.” can exceed the improbability of this theory. It has
8’”.” called forth the sarcasm of an able writer (Hon. Lione!
A. Tollemache) on what he calls “the theory of inspired
personation,” by which the author of Deuteronomy, who
was not Moses (according to Professor Smith), was in-
spired to say that he was Moses.
oºns II. The objections to the Mosaic authorship, all of which
Mosaic we think admit of a satisfactory reply.
*...* I. As to style. The difference between the style of
Style. Deuteronomy and the central books of the Pentateuch
is obvious, but it is simply the difference between the style
of the historian and that of the orator. The aged leader
and lawgiver, under the influence of a peculiar deep
spiritual sympathising concern for his people, and in the
certainty of his own speedy removal from them, is dis-
charging, his last duty to them. We need not wonder
that all the restraints of that slowness of speech, his
early infirmity, are swept away, and that all the warm,
deep feelings of his nature find full expression. The
differences in phraseology arise out of the subjects
discussed, as Warington has proved through fifty-four
pages of details which cannot be abridged ; while on
the other hand, the enormous differences in language
and tone of thought between Deuteronomy and the
* “Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch,” 8vo, pp. 154–208.
ANACHRONISMS. I5I
prophecies of Jeremiah, must convince the most cursory
reader that the authorship of the prophet, supported by
Bishop Colemso, has no foundation in the fancies of the
Higher Critics. Kaenig.” “after a complete and ex-
haustive discussion of this subject, which has never been
and cannot be answered, lengthened argument on this
point is needless.” It is to be observed also that all
classes of archaisms, whether in vocabulary or in gram-
matical forms, which have been pointed out as charac-
teristic of the Hebrew of the Pentateuch, are found in
Deuteronomy.
2. Startling anachronisms, which appear to negative Anachro
at once all idea of Mosaic origin. All these, pointed out *
by Dr. Colenso, are carefully investigated by Warington
in forty-seven pages;2 also by Dr. Murphy, of Belfast, in
a minute account and explanation of twenty-one Sup-
posed irreconcilable facts;” and again by an anonymous
writer,4 as well as by several others. To give a list of
these objections and replies is out of the question in
the necessary brevity to which this volume must be con-
fined; but we may briefly refer (I) to the prophetical direc- Refe-
tions as to the choice of a king, and the establishment at “...”
a future period of a central altar in connection with a King.
national capital. Viewed as prophetical intimations of
the natural course of events, to be realised at a future
period, these passages can occasion no difficulty except
to those who deny the possibility of a supernatural gift
of prophecy. (2) In the directions respecting a central Reſe-
altar and the concentration of sacrificial services at one *:::::::*
central
place, Deut. xii. 5–14, there is no contradiction to altar.
* “Speaker's Commentary,” * “British and Foreign Evan-
Vol. I. p. 795. gelical Review,” January, 1878.
* “Mosaic Origin of the Penta- * “Church of England Quar-
teuch,” 8vo, pp. 209–256. terly,” October, 1877.
I52 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Exodus xx. 24, which was given while the sanctuary was
moving with the people in their journeyings. The
promise which preceded the directions as to the altar was
accompanied by the promise, “In all places where / re-
cord My name, I will come unto thee and I will bless thee.”
A central altar would naturally follow the establishment
of a national capital. It was not realised fully until the
time of Solomon and the Mosaic law was in actual
usage, interpreted as applying not more to the actual
Sanctuary than to every place in which it had been tem-
porarily fixed. Special occasions appeared to justify a
departure from the strictness of the law. We agree with
Dr. Gossman (see his Appendix to Lange's Deuteronomy,
p. 253), “On the whole we must not attribute to these
wise and good men’’ (who are stated to have offered
sacrifices at Sundry places, and to whose conduct in this
respect reference has been made by the critics in order
to disprove the existence of the law itself) “the narrow
and slavish views of the later Jews; they were not
bound to the letter in every case ; there was a flexibility
and susceptibility of adaptation in all their regulations to
the special exigences in which they lived.” But the
notion of Kuenen that during David's reign and that
of his immediate successors, the competence of every
Israelite to offer sacrifices as priests was not doubted, is
without foundation in law. He himself admits that the
cases quoted simply show that certain privileged persons
were allowed to offer sacrifices. Besides, it is not im-
probable but that in the instances referred to the prin-
cipal person may have simply directed the sacrifice and
furnished the sacrificial beast, while the actual sacrificer
Difference may have been a priest. (3) Great stress is laid by
in the
phraseo-
logy of
opposing critics on the differences in the phraseology of
the Ten Words, i.e., the Ten Commandments, as recorded
THE TEN WORDS. - I53
in Exodus, chap. xx, from the record in Deuteronomy, the Ten
the force of the argument lying in this, that both .
versions appear to profess to state the identical words tºº.
spoken by Jehovah from the top of Sinai. It is obvious, narration
however, that the phrase “these words,” does not refer "*
to the exact language, but simply to the laws themselves,
to the Ten Words, by which is meant the ten laws them-
selves, apart from the reasons given, or other remarks
appended, which are the comments of the historian.
Incidentally this variation is a proof of the identity of
the writer of Deuteronomy with the writer of Exodus.
A later writer professing to write in the name of Moses,
would have been careful to copy the record as in Exodus.
Moses felt at liberty to vary both the phraseology and
the comment. (4) Dr. Colemaso complains of discrepan- Discre.
cies between the narratives and laws recorded in Deu- Pº
º * between
teronomy and in the earlier books; the reply of the narra-
Waringtone is that “in no case do these involve the Bº.
slightest contradiction in respect to the events spoken .
of, but rather, by furnishing us with proofs of the perfect other
independence of the two records, tend to establish more *
firmly the truthfulness of their statements. The only
point is in the chronological order of certain details,
which is explained by the fact that Moses in these
addresses was not merely narrating a history, but illus-
trating from history his exhortations. The differences
in the laws are in appearance merely; they are such as
arise from greater fulness and circumstantiality in one
or other of the laws compared, and, therefore, compatible
with common origin; or else from alterations arising
out of the change of the times and circumstances since
the first laws were promulgated. There is no reason
for ascribing the laws in Deuteronomy to a later date
than the conquest of Bashan, or to any other lawgiver
54 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
than Moses.” In reference to alteration in the law
arising out of altered circumstances, we may notice how
the restriction in Lev. xvii. 3, 4, is removed in Deut.
xii. I5, the former law being unsuitable to the people
about to enter Canaan, though well adapted for the
wilderness and the camp.
3. But the objection which has excited most interest,
because connected with the theory which is now popular
in Germany, as to the comparatively late origin of the
Levitical laws, is that which deals with the relative
positions of the Priests and Levites as represented in the
earlier books of the Pentateuch, and supposed to be
otherwise stated in Deuteronomy. Professor Robertson
Relative . Smith * remarks: “The Levitical laws give a graduated
position of , . º - &b 35
the Priests hierarchy of Priests and Levites. Deuteronomy regards
Lºs all Levites as at least possible priests. Round this
difference difficulty and points allied to it the whole discussion
º: turns.” So also Kueneme. “The Deuteronomic law
from that makes no distinction between those who belong to this
QIVēn 1m. - g e e
£eviticus, tribe, i.e. Levi ; they are not all priests, but they can all
become priests. Not so the laws recorded in Exodus
(chap. xxv.) and in the following books. They confine
the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants, and make
all the rest of the Levites subordinate to them.” The
ruling idea in the mind of this critic is, that Deu-
teronomy is the earlier book, and that in the interval
between it and the central books of the Pentateuch—a
period, according to their views, extending from the
time of Manasseh or Josiah to the time of the reforma-
tion carried on in Jerusalem by Ezra after the return
from exile, that is to say, within so short a period
as two hundred years—the family of Aaron had fully
* “Mosaic Origin of the Penta- * Article “Bible,” Encyclo. Brit.
teuch,” pp. 209—256. Ninth Edition.
iº
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. I55
succeeded in monopolising the priestly office and
honours. It is the desire to support this novel view
of the religious history of the Jewish people (a view
never hinted by any Jew or Gentile until within the
present century) which lies at the root of the earnestness
thrown into this discussion of the supposed differences
in the teaching of Deuteronomy from the other books
of the Pentateuch in regard to the relative position of
the Priests and the Levites. The phrase “the Priests
the Levites” is found in Deuteronomy, chaps. xvii. 9,
I8, xviii. I, xxiv. 8, xxvii. 9–14. Apart from all pre-
judice in favour of the new theory, these passages would
be interpreted as meaning “the Levitical priests" (so
called to distinguish them from the family priests, which
were universal before the separation of Aaron and his
Sons, and which held its ground for many years after ;
to the perversity of the people in this respect Moses
appears to allude in Deuteronomy xii. 8, 9). Taken in
Connection with the history in the preceding books, in
which the distinction in the position of the Priests
and the Levites is plainly set forth, viz., the Levites
ministering to the Priests, and the Priests ministering to
God; then the fact of Moses speaking generally of the
Levitical tribe, without adverting to the distinction of
Orders, is easily accounted for. In England we speak of
the clergy of the Church of England, in which phrase
the bishops are included. Every bishop is a clergyman,
but not every clergyman a bishop ; So every priest was
a Levite, but not every Levite a priest. It is lamentable
to read the discussion on this simple question, and it is
not specially profitable to know that the phrase “the
Priests the Levites” is used in nineteen places in one
recension of the Hebrew text and in twenty-four in
another, while in thirty-four places the phrase “the
156 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
*
Priests and Levites” is used. It will be noticed that
this dispute greatly depends upon the presence or
absence of the conjunction and, expressed in Hebrew by
a single letter (vau), which the carelessness of a copyist
might easily insert or omit; but there are other matters
relating to the duties of Priests and Levites, the bearing
the ark, the right to discharge certain official acts, the
claims of the Levites to certain portions of the tithes
and free-will offerings, in all of which there is much
obscurity to us, owing to the absence of explicit in-
formation. The Jews had no difficulty in understanding
and carrying out the laws respecting these matters; they
saw no difficulty in reconciling Deuteronomy with the
other books—a sufficient proof that the difficulties our
critics See arise out of the meagreness of our information.
So also with respect to various remarks inserted in
Deuteronomy, relating to past events in the history of
the covenants, or geographical and topographical notices:
these, which have been stumbling-blocks to our modern
critics, were known by the older Jewish writers to have
been simply insertions or glosses to aid to the better
understanding of the old text; these correspond with our
notes at the foot of the page. Prideaux’s “Connection
of Sacred and Prophetic History” gives much useful
information on this point." Such liberties taken with
ancient books were deemed perfectly correct, and in the
case of Ezra warranted (it was generally believed) by
a special Divine authority. *
ºf III, 7.he strong presumptive evidence in favour of the
t º e
D. Mosaic authorship.
º I. The evident connection of the book with the pre-
ceding ceding Book of Numbers. “The first sentence of the
* book is, These be the words which Moses spake unto al/
* Vol. II., Book V., sect. 3, 4, p. 416. Ed. 1808.
MOSAIC A UTHORSHIP. I57
Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain
over against the Red Sea, between Param, and Tophel, and
Laëan, and Hazeroth, and Diga/aff, eleven days from
Aſored by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea
(chap. i. 1, 2). The commentators in general take this
to be the heading of the following discourses of Moses,
but this cannot be, for two reasons: first, the real
heading of these communications is given in verses 3 to
5, from which it appears that they were delivered in the
eleventh month, and on this side Jordan, in the land of
Moab; secondly, the scene of these words in the first
verse is altogether different. It is said to be in the
wilderness, &c., . . . points that manifestly belong to
the peninsula, and eleven days from Horeb. These
zwords, then, are plainly not the following address, but the
contents of the previous books of the Pentateuch. In
the interval of time, commencing at the farthest eleven
days from Horeb, and terminating before the eleventh
month of the fortieth year, these books were made
known to the people. This opens up to us a new view
of the relation of this book to the preceding part of the
Pentateuch. The division into books was a mere after
arrangement for the convenience of the reader. The
present sentence binds this book to what goes before as
an integral part of a greater whole. These two verses
might have been more logically placed by the divider
as a genuine subscription at the end of Numbers, in the
same manner as we have a major after a minor subscrip-
tion in the seventh chapter of Leviticus. But the effect
of the actual division is to make it clear to us that
Deuteronomy was an original and integral part of the
* This is clearly proved also by The Pentateuch, &c., 8vo, 1868.
Dr. W. Smith (a Roman Catholic). Pp. 46, 47.
I58 DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Pentateuch.” There seems to be a special reference in
Amos iv. 9, v. II, and vi. I2 to Deut. xxviii. 22, 30, 39,
xxix. I8. If, therefore, according to the favourite hypo-
thesis of some of the Higher Critics, the prophet Jeremiah
wrote Deuteronomy, he must have had at least the Book
of Numbers before him ; whereas, according to some of
these critics, Deuteronomy is the oldest book, and pre-
cedes the others.
2. The book claims Mosaic authorship—the author of
the Law—which is not merely the law repeated in Deu-
feronomy, but the whole law contained in the preceding
four books which constitute the Pentateuch, of which
Deuteronomy is a necessary part, and without which the
law (Thorah) would be incomplete. By itself, Deu-
teronomy is also an incomplete statement of the law, a
commentary which implies the existence of a text, that
is to say, the laws in the preceding books. It is not
properly a compendium of the law; for many important
matters in the law, and among them the laws respecting
sacrifice, are not noticed. “It is an authoritative and
inspired commentary on the law, serving in some
respects also as a supplement and codicil to it.” The
first and great commandment of the law, Matthew
xxii. 27—3o is found in Deuteronomy vi. 5, and the
second is found in Leviticus xix. I8. Every passage in
the Old and New Testament which refers to the law as
given by Moses attests at the same time the genuineness
of Deuteronomy. “In the historical books of the Old
Testament, the law of the Lord is directly mentioned on
at least thirty different occasions. . . . In at least fifteen
of these instances Moses is mentioned as the giver of
Moses re-
presented
as the
author in
the book
itself, and
in the Old
and New
Testa-
ment.
* Rev. Dr. Murphy, of Belfast, cal Review,” No. CIII, pp. III;
on the Book of Deuteronomy, in II2.
“British and Foreign Evangeli- *“Speaker's Com.,” Vol.I.p. 792.
TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD." I59.
the law. In fifteen the law is affirmed to be written,
and in more than nine it is said to be written, by Moses.
It is also to be remarked that Moses is named eighty
times in the New Testament, and among these twenty-
four times as the author, and fifteen times as the writer,
of the whole or part of the law.” The three texts
quoted by our Lord in reply to the Tempter are taken
from Deuteronomy chap. viii. 3, vi. I3, I6. The formula Testi-
used by our Lord, “It is written" (Matthew iv. Io), im- º:
plies that the book (Deuteronomy) is a portion of
the Word of God. The critics whose theories relegate
the Pentateuch to the time of the later kings of Israel
or Judah, assume that “It may fairly be made a question
whether Moses left in writing any other laws than the
commandments on the tables of stone;” yet in the
article in which this opinion is expressed it is admitted that
“the Semitic people possessed the art of writing and an
alphabetical character from a date so remote as to be lost
in the mists of antiquity.”2 Why should Moses have been
ignorant of the art of writing, or have neglected to use
it 2 The only documents existing which have any pre-
tensions to be received as evidence as to what Moses
did or did not, speak expressly of his writing himself, or
commanding others to write. Our Lord says expressly
that Moses “wrote ” (Mark x. 5), and again in John v.
46 more emphatically, and referring not merely to the
Law, but to his prophetic character. “There is one that
accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust, for had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed in Me, for he
wrote of Me.” The pertinent remark of the Rev. T. E.
Espin, in the “Introduction to the Book of Deu-
teronomy,” is conclusive.” “It is in vain to urge in reply
* Rev. Dr. Murphy, p. 113. * “Speaker's Commentary,”
* “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” Vol. I. p. 800.
Vol. XI. pp. 597,598.
I6O DEUTERONOMY AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Objections that the inspiration of the Apostles, and even the in-
OIl the d Ili f } ** * * dº tº *
ground of dwelling of the Spirit without measure in the Saviour,
the limia- would not necessarily preserve them from mistakes on
tion of e º tº a -
our Lord's such subjects as the authorship of ancient writings, or
knºe to fortify such assertions by remarking that our Lord,
human as the Son of Man, was Himself ignorant of some
a. things. Even were we warranted in inferring from St.
Luke ii. 54, St. Mark xiii. 32, that some things were not
known to the Lord as the Son of Man, because His
human faculties must have been finite, yet the answer
Overlooks the important distinction between ignorance
and error. To be conscious that much truth lies beyond
the range of the intelligence is compatible with the per-
fection of the creature, which of course must be finite
perfection;' but to be deceived by the fraud of others and
to fall into error is not so. To assert then that He who
is “the Truth believed Deuteronomy to be the work of
Moses, and quoted it expressly as such, though it was
in fact a forgery introduced into the world seven or
eight centuries after the Exodus, is in effect, even though
not in intention, to impeach the perfection and sinless-
ness of His nature, and seems thus to gainsay the first
principle of Christianity.”
3. The remarks of Dr. Gossman in reference to this
book are worthy of the notice of the reader. “It shows
the skill, the genius, the ceaseless watch and care, the
high literary culture, the vast resources of the author,
if later than Moses, that he has so constructed his work,
breathed into it so largely the Mosaic spirit, that there
should be so little to awaken suspicion ; that he should
have imposed upon his contemporaries, and upon all the
succeeding ages, until the sharp eyes of the modern
critics detected the imposition. It is an instance
* Cf. “Butler's Analogy,” Part I, chap. v.
DR. MURPHY. I6I
which has no parallel in the literary annals of the
world.”
4. The conclusion may be given in the language of
Dr. Murphy. “We believe, therefore, that with the ex-
ception of the thirty-fourth chapter, and possibly the
thirty-first and thirty-third, it was written by Moses in
the Book of the Law in the eleventh month of the
fortieth year of the wandering of Israel in the wilderness;
and we are profoundly thankful for the light it sheds on
the way of God with man.”
* Lange's Com. Numbers and Deut., imp. 8vo, p. 246.
I62 THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
Tradi-
tional be-
lief of the
CHAPTER VII.
THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESEs ConsiderED.
I. In order to estimate rightly the validity and weight
of the objections of the Higher Criticism, to the com-
Churches, monly received opinions respecting the age and Mosaic
Five
reasons in
defence of
the
authorship of the Pentateuch, they must be considered
in connection with the reasons given by the orthodox in
defence of the traditional belief of the Church. “The
calm acquiescence of three thousand years”" in the age
and Mosaic authorship of the books will be found to
rest on foundations too strong, and too deeply grounded,
to be shaken by the speculative unbelief of the sceptical
critics of the last two centuries. The reasons assigned
by the orthodox are:—
First. The unanimous teaching of the Jewish Church,
without variation or exception, from the period of the
Exode to the present time: (the fact that within the last
few centuries there have been individual rabbis scep-
tically influenced is no exception to this statement.)
Second. There is no antecedent improbability to be
pleaded, why Moses should not have written the books
ascribed to him. It is now universally admitted that the
art of writing alphabetically, or something tantamount to
it, was known to the Egyptians and the Shemitish nations
in Syria, and on the Euphrates, for many ages before
Moses. The art of writing is ascribed to Moses, and to
orthodox
belief.
* Dr. Smith's (Roman Catholic) “Pentateuch,” Vol. I, pp. II, 228.
ANTIQUITY OF WRITING. 163
others in the Pentateuch, as an ordinary custom, an art
in common use, at least, among the higher or learned
classes of the Jewish people, as a reference to any con-
cordance will show. Ewald admits that Israel knew it
and used it in Egypt before the time of Moses. There
are Egyptian MSS. (papyri) extant, earlier than the time
of Abraham, and records in Stone and brick of equal
antiquity are being dug out of the ruins of Nineveh and
|Babylon; proofs sufficient of the prevalence of the art of
writing, and of the existence of a learned class and of a
literature, ages before the Exode. This being the case,
when the five books, or rather the five portions of the
one book ascribed to Moses, are presented to us with the
evidence of the consent and authority of the Jewish
Church, we have every reason to receive the testimony.
So far from there being any antecedent improbability
against Moses having written, it would be very strange
if Moses had not written, considering his position as the
divinely-appointed leader and legislator of the Israelitish
people. We might naturally expect from him a record
of contemporary history, preceded by a resumé of the
history and origines of the race, and a detailed account of
the legislation, adapted to the present condition and future
spiritual relations of the “peculiar people of God,” to the
world at large. The existence of such a book at such a
time is what might be anticipated as most probable, and
the absence of such a book would excite surprise rather
than its existence. We have the book, and it must in
all fairness be admitted that the so-called “traditional
belief” as to its origin is, of all suppositions, the most
probable, and that it is supported by evidence which it
is all but impossible to gainsay.
Thirdly. The evidence afforded by the sacred and
other books of the Jewish Church to the antiquity of the
M 2
I64 THE CRITICAL, HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
Pentateuch, “is one continuous unbroken chain of
testimony from Joshua to Josephus.” Let any one take
the references in our English Bible and judge for them-
selves. These references have been most luminously
exhibited by Dr. Browne, the Bishop of Winchester, in the
Introduction to the Pentateuch." It is remarkable, and
may be fairly quoted as a proof of the fairness and
impartiality of these remains of the sacred literature of
the Jewish people, that they are singularly free from
the self-laudation generally conspicuous in the national
literature of other nations ; on the other hand, these
writings which testify to the unfaithfulness, corruption,
and punishment of the Jewish people, are transmitted
by them to us as of Divine authority. We may also
add, that the credibility of the Jewish annals, when
brought in contact with those of Egypt and the Eastern
nations, is confirmed by their general agreement. -
Fourthly. The anachronisms, discrepancies, differences,
and obscurities which are supposed to exist in the Pen-
tateuch, can be satisfactorily accounted for, as in the
case of writings of a similar character. For ages they
had passed under the eyes of the Jewish critics, and
were regarded by them as trivialities and difficulties only
because of the deficiency of more minute information,
and as having no bearing upon the general fidelity of the
books themselves: their existence raised no doubt in the
Jewish mind, and they were not tempted to tamper with
the text, in order to remove these apparent contra-
dictions.
Fifthly. The testimony of our Lord and His Apostles,
to which reference has been already made, and on which
we need not enlarge : one quotation from Mark xii. 26
will be sufficient, “AZave ye not read in the Book of Moses,
* “Speaker's Commentary,” Vol. I., Introd, pp. 4-14.
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRITICS. I65
/kozy in Že bush God spake uſeto Aime, saying, I am the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of jacob 2°
The testimony of our Lord, no critical sophistry can
weaken or set aside. The fact of the voluntary limita-
tion of our Lord's omniscience in the days of His humi-
liation as man, has nothing to do with this point. He
could not possibly, even as man, teach error, by giving
the sanction of His authority to books as written by
Moses, which, according to the critics, were in reality the
product of a later age.
2. Before entering upon the further consideration of
the objections of the Higher Critics to the genuineness
of the Pentateuch, it will be necessary to premise that
there are three leading foundation principles of criticism
openly, or tacitly assumed by most of the critics of that
Objec-
tions to
the three
Heading
assump-
tions of
the
igher
school, to which we demur as not having any legitimate critism.
place in the discussions respecting the Pentateuch, or, in
fact, in any part of the sacred Scriptures, when con-
sidered from a profoundly Christian standpoint. These
are—(1) the denial of, or, what is practically the same, the
ignoring of the miraculous, as an interference with the
laws of nature, altogether impossible ; (2) the denial of
the possibility of prophecy, which is in all cases
regarded as a “vaticinium ex eventu " (a foreseeing after
the event); (3) the indifference shown to the evi-
dence of the New Testament, by which the Higher
Critic is left to decide any question regarding the books
of the Old Testament on internal evidence, without any
reference to the most important external authority. If
we admit the first two principles, we must give up not
only the Old and New Testament, but the reality of any
direct revelation from God. The accepting of the
third would shut us out from the most valuable of all
our sources of information—the infallible testimony of
I66 THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
the Holy Spirit, stamping His own imprimatur upon the
writings of the “holy men of God” who “spake and wrote
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter i. 21).
We do not regard the miracles recorded in the Penta-
teuch as “the exaggerations of a later age.” We can-
not deal with prophecy in the fashion of the most learned
and able of these critics. “The Deity does not see fit,
as far as we can judge, to impart to any man like Jacob,
the foreknowledge of future and distant events. . . . The
true way of dealing with the prophecy is simply to
ascertain by internal evidence the time in which it was
written ; on the only tenable and philosophical ground
of its having been put into the mouth of the dying
patriarch by a succeeding writer.” Neither can we
agree to exclude the New Testament as an authority in
Biblical criticism, which would be “to shut out the sun,
in order to enjoy the luxury of groping and stumbling
by the light of a hazy moon.” We assume as an essential
evidence of any revelation from Heaven, the miracles
which appear to interfere with natural law and
which are manifested in the supernatural foresight of
prophecy, and we gladly avail ourselves of the light
which the New Testament throws upon the older reve-
lation given to the Jewish Church.
3. The hypotheses exhibited in the fifth chapter are all,
more or less, theories which are opposed to the views
hitherto held by the Churches: differing and discordant
as they are, they agree in setting aside what they are in
the habit of regarding as the mere “traditionary belief.”
of the Churches; in which phrase is implied that this
belief of the Churches is little better than a blind re-
* Davidson’s “Int. O. Test.,” Vol. * Dr. Smith's “ Pentateuch,”
I. p. 131. -j- Vol. I. p. 26.
* Ibid. p. 198.
THE OLD DEIST.S. 167
ception, without inquiry, of the notions existing in com-
paratively dark and ignorant periods of the world’s
history; as if the questions in dispute had not been
discussed from the very beginning of Christianity, and
especially during the last three centuries, as has been
shown in the second (Introductory) chapter. The advo-
cates of the “traditional belief" are not unacquainted
with the old deistical arguments of a past generation ;
which they recognise as revived with some important
modifications, accompanied by the taking up of new
positions and the raising of new points by the opposing
critics of the present day. The difference in the mode
of procedure between the old and new opponents is
marked ; the former, kept within a more limited range of
inquiry, discussed questions of historical and docu-
mentary evidence, examined with critical acumen the
authorities for the facts of the sacred history, enlarged
greatly upon discrepancies, contradictions, and ana-
chronisms, making the contest a sort of hand-to-hand
fight, as f to secure some petty positions which seemed
to them to be the key of the vantage ground and the
way to victory, but seldom appealing to the principles of
critical interpretation. The case is far otherwise with
the Higher Critics of our day: without entirely dis-
regarding the points upon which their predecessors
placed the whole stress of the contest, they go far
deeper, questioning not merely what appears to them,
as to their predecessors, unhistorical and untrustworthy
in the narrative of the sacred books, but the very ground-
work and composition of the books themselves. To
them, none of these books is in itself the production of
one mind, but each is a composite creation of varied
authorſhip, and of uncertain date, knowing no Divine
authorty—in other words, a purely human growth, in
I68 THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
Astruc's
theory the
founda-
tion of the
Higher
Criticism.
Results
following
the rejec-
tion of
Astruc’s
theory.
Bishop
Colenso's
which human infirmity and even human untruthfulness
are frequently prominent. The entire weight of the
Higher Criticism rests, in fact, upon Astruc's theory,
amplified indeed, and presented in a multiplied variety
of details in its application, but still the identical theory
of the old French physician. Take away the “Elohistic
and Jehovistic” scheme of authorship, and the rough-
and-ready manipulation and disintegration of the
sacred books, which is the result of the application
of the theory, and the Higher Criticism is of no value;
the foundation destroyed, the whole superstructure
collapses.
4. Having already noticed (in the fifth chapter) the
peculiar theories advanced by the Higher Critics, in-
cluding Bishop Colenso and others, we may now refer to
the logical consequences of the rejection of the ‘Elohistic
and Jehovistic” theories, in their application by the
critics to the settlement of the authorship and the dates
of the books of the Pentateuch. In the first place, the
notion of the plurality of authorships in the Pentateuch,
viz., the Elohist, Jehovist, Elohist Second, Deuteronomist,
Tedactor, is at once set aside. Second/y, the ni:e critical
perception of Bishop Colemaso, Z)r. S. Davidson, De Wette,
Ewald, and others as to the peculiar styles and mental
idiosyncrasies of these creations of the critical faculty,
are proved to be freaks of the imagination : Samuel is
cleared from the charge of being the Elohist and as
having collected the legendary stories which were current
in his day, the tales of the Hebrew tribes, and making them
the foundation of the Elohistic narrative, according to
Bishop Colenso. “In this work he has set the example
account of of introducing, into the narrative, the Divine Being
Samuel
as the
Elohist.
Himself, as conversing with their forefathers, and mpart-
ing laws to Moses, . . . but in this respect he has only
SAMUEL NOT THE ELOHIST. I69
acted in conformity with the spirit of his age, and of his
people, which recognised, in their common forms of lan-
guage, a direct Divine interference with the affairs of
men : the case indeed would have been different, if the
writer had stated that these Divine communications had
been made to himself;” but most singularly Dr. Colenso
supposes that Samuel never professed “to be recording
infallible truth, or even actual historical truth. . . . Why
may not Samuel have composed this narrative for the
instruction and improvement of his pupils, from which
it would gradually find its way, no doubt, more or less
freely among the people at large, without even pre-
tending that it was any other than a historical experiment,
an attempt to give them some account of the early
annals of their tribes 2 In later days, it is true, this
ancient work of Samuel's came to be regarded as in-
fallibly Divine. But was it so regarded in the writer's
days, or in the ages immediately following?” The
Jehovist, who is supposed to be the same with the
Second Elohist in a more advanced stage of his intel-
lectual growth, was (according to Bishop Coſenso) pro-
bably a disciple of Samuel: his work is now incorporated
with that of the Elohist, not as a mere appendage, but
so interwoven and welded in, that both have been read
for above three thousand years as the work of one author.
Yet in the nineteenth century of our era, Bishop Colenso
sees “characteristic peculiarities,” besides the use of the
Divine names, which have been discriminated and
assigned to their respective authors, “by a vigorous
process of deduction, from a great variety of conspiring
peculiarities, . . . . a process which, to our own mind,
has the force of an absolute demonstration.” Dr. Dr. David-
Davidson advocates the existence of a junior Elohist, tº.
* Part II. Concluding remarks.
17o THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
Failure
of the
mode of
fixing the
date of the
Sacred
Books.
who lived in the time of Elisha ; a Redactor, who lived
some time before the Deuteronomist. This is an illus-
tration of the treacherous nature of subjective Criticism,
which both to Bishop Colenso and Dr. Davidson has been
“the most fascinating of literary illusions.” Thirdly, the
attempt to gather from the use of the sacred name of
God, by the supposed writers, the means by which the
late date of the books of the Pentateuch can be proved,
also falls to the ground. There are, according to the
Bishop, traces of the Elohist perceptible to the critics
up to the time of Samuel, and there are two Elohistic
passages in Genesis; one, chap. xxxvi. 39, referring to
kings reigning in Edom before there was any king
reigning in Israel, is a proof that the Elohist lived after
or in the days of Saul; the other passage relates to the
field of Machpelah, Genesis xxiii. 17, 18, and was in-
tended by the Elohist to give peculiar dignity to that
city ; and, comparing it with what is recorded 2 Samuel
ii. I—3, it is obvious that Hebron was no longer the
royal city. Dr. Colenso thinks that David's priestly
and prophetical advisers wished him to keep Hebron as
his capital, and hence the passage in Genesis. The
Jehovist is placed in the reign of David and the early
days of Solomon—(1) because of the prophecy respecting
Canaan's posterity, Genesis ix. 25—27, a Jehovistic
passage which was intended to justify Solomon's treat-
ment of the Canaanites, I Kings ix. 20, 2I ; (2) on account
of the prophecy respecting the fate of Esau's race,
Genesis xxv. 23–27, a Jehovistic passage which was
fulfilled in the account of the conquest of Edom, and its
rebellion and liberation, recorded in 2 Samuel viii. I4,
I Kings vi. 21, 22. These specimens of subjective
criticism lose even the appearance of plausibility, when
deprived of the slender measure of support which the
CRITICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. 171
—”
connection with the Elohist and Jehovist gives to them.
. . . . . Fourthly, the absurd and incredible theory of
the peculiar complex character of the composition of the
books of the Pentateuch falls with the “Elohistic and
Jehovistic” theory. According to the critics, the Pen-
tateuch consists of partially alternate layers of historical
matter—(1) the composition of the Elohist; (2) this
supplemented by the Jehovist; (3) certain additions by
the Elohist Junior or the Jehovist Junior; (4) then the
Deuteronomist, having forged the Book of Deuteronomy,
and while editing the writings of his predecessors, inter-
polates seven hundred and eighteen verses and a half
verse in the books from Genesis to Numbers (as far as
Numbers was then extant), and also in the Book of
Joshua ; (5) within less than two centuries the Jewish
priesthood forged almost the entire Book of Leviticus,
with additional interpolations in Exodus, Numbers, and
Joshua, amounting to seventeen hundred and seventy-
nine verses and half a verse ! It is marvellous to note,
in Bisſºop Colemaso, the absence of all consciousness of the
absolute impossibility of such a series of literary manipula-
tions and forgeries being applied to the law books of a
nation. We may easily admit the probability of addi-
tions, glosses, and corrections of a minor character, but
to suppose such a series of systematic forgeries, for
which there is not a shadow of proof (beyond the neces-
sities of a wild hypothesis), is impossible for any man
not wedded to a theory.
5. The appeals made by the orthodox critics of the
old school, to the evidence of the existence of the Penta-
teuch, from the references to it in the books from Joshua
to Malachi, have been rudely derided by the Higher
Critics, and by Bishop Colemaso and Davidson especially.
This is the natural consequence of the necessity of Sup-
Absurd
theory
of the
complex
composite
character
of the
Sacred
Books.
172 THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
Dr. David-
son’s ob-
jections
to the
evidence
of the
writers of
the other
books of
the Old
Testa-
ment to
the anti-
quity of
the Penta-
teuch.
porting their theory, according to which portions of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, are of various
dates, from the age of Samuel to the period of the cap-
tivity; and the Book of Deuteronomy is a forgery by
Jeremiah ; the historical books following the Pentateuch
in the order of our Bibles being also, according to this
theory, of a later date than generally supposed. The
references to the Pentateuch which have certainly been
recognised in the later historical books, in the Psalms
and prophetical writings, are by them explained away
as being made to the traditional common law of the
nation, or to a fragment of the law in circulation, or
to a mere extract of an ancient law; in fact, to anything
but the Pentateuch itself. To those who adopt these
views of the Higher Criticism, and to those only, the lan-
guage of Dr. S. Davidson on this point must appear
natural. “Nothing can be more fallacious or inconse-
quent than the statements of Hengstenberg and his
followers. In the historical books, from Joshua to
Chronicles inclusive, passages are collected referring to
places in the Pentateuch. All the prophetical literature
is treated in the same manner. Obadiah, Joel, Isaiah,
Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos,
Hosea, are made to yield abundant testimony. The
poetical literature, such as the Book of Psalms and the
Proverbs, is adduced for the same purpose. By such a
process an imposing array of passages is made out. Its
very length and largeness are deceptive. It serves to fill
up pages in English books into which it is transferred
in the lump. But, when sifted, its importance vanishes.
All that is really relevant amounts to little. . . . It is
convenient for Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, Caspari,
&c., to overlook all the late dates of almost all the his-
torical books in which they find quotations from, or
MARGINAL REFERENCES. I73
allusions to, the Pentateuch. It is also convenient to
ignore the fact that unwritten historical tradition may
have supplied another with many things which are also
recorded in the Books of Moses. It is highly conducive
to their cause to ignore the separate existence of the
Elohim and Jehovah documents, before they were incor-
porated in the present Pentateuch. It suits their pur-
pose to amass everything in the other books that have
a semblance to the Pentateuch, and say, ‘Here are
plain allusions to the written Pentateuch we now
have.”" Without noticing the slighting reference to
Hengstenberg and other critics (who are in all
respects the equals of Dr. Davidson in learning and
position, though advocating opposite views), our reply to
this “tirade” (for such it is) is, that these learned
critics and the whole of the orthodox school do.
not admit Dr. Davidson's premises, but deny the ex- .
istence of separate Elohistic and Jehovistic, &c., por-
tions in the Sacred Books, or of any written histories
and traditions received as authorities by the Jewish
Church, except those in the Canon ; they believe also
in the existence of a series of authentic writers from
Moses to Malachi, in whose writings there are many
continuous distinct references to the Pentateuch; as also
in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelations, as
may be seen in the marginal references of the English
Bible. Their procedure is in perfect consistency with
their premises, though utterly opposite to Dr. Davidson's
theory.
6. One great defect observable in the speculations of º:
Bishop Colemso, Dr. Davidson, and their Continental tic fore-
authorities, is that common to all the higher critical *...
school, when dealing with the question of the origin º.º.
Higher
* Davidson, Vol. I. p. 55. Criticism...
I74 THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
and composition of the books of the Old Testament,
namely, the overpowering influence of a dogmatic pre-
possession. Under this influence, the critic invariably
finds in the books under examination what he is looking
for. As in a Spanish auberge, the traveller can always
be supplied out of his own stores, so the critic revels in
his own preconceived and foregone conclusions, and
zwhat he brings wit/, /im, he naturally finds, as he
anticipated. And so, in the defence of their system;
having already assumed, as facts proven, the truth of
the Astruc theory, the authorship of Deuteronomy in
the reign of Josiah, and the post-evilian origin of the
Mosaic legislation; then, as the natural result of these
assumptions, every passage in our Pentateuch and in the
succeeding books, which appear to confirm the “tradi-
tionary belief’ in the Mosaic authorship, the priesthood
of Aaron and his family, and the existence of the
Levitical law, is at once branded as an interpolation of
the Deuteronomist, or the post-exilian Levitical legisla-
tion. To confront and reply to such criticism, is like
reasoning on an arithmetical question, with one whose
numeration table differs from that of the authorised text
books. So also in the exercise of their microscopic
criticisms, occasionally so strict, and at other times so lax,
it is difficult to ascertain their principles of judgment:
they seem to be such as, if applied to the history of any
nation, or to any statements in the current journals,
would be rejected by the common sense of mankind as
mere quibbling, unworthy of notice. If all events re-
lated by one author, but omitted by another are to be
regarded as doubtful—if a difference in the details of a
narrative on the part of the narrators be a reason for re-
jecting it as untrustworthy—if apparent discrepancies, or
apparent blank contradictions are to shake our faith in
THE CONCLUSIVE TESTIMONY. I75
the verity of the historian, then, on Dr. Colenso's prin-
ciples of criticism, the books of the Old Testament are
unhistorical—and so are all the histories ever written.
But the contrary view is universally admitted by all
critics uninfluenced by preconceived theories; they are
aware that these so-called discrepancies and contradic-
tions have passed through the critical alembic of Jewish
scholars for the last two thousand years, and yet these
men, many of them broad in their religious opinions,
and tinged with the sceptical tendencies of the Arabian
School of philosophy, although they must have noticed
the points which have proved stumbling-blocks to
Modern Critics, appear to disregard them as diffi-
culties only apparent, arising out of the absence of
further and more detailed information.
7. Again we remind the reader of the greatest and
most conclusive of all testimonies.
Is it irreverent to suppose that the “GREAT TEACHER,” Conclu.
knowing the perplexities into which the speculations of º
the learned would involve the simple and unlearned of §:
His followers in future years, mercifully took occasion tateuch.
to clear away by His plain, unmistakable, and decided
testimony, the cloudy indistinctness which Modern
Criticism has thrown around this important question ?
(1) While some learned scholars have decided that the
Patriarchs are mythical personages, our Lord refers to
them as real persons. See Matthew iii. 9, viii. II, xxii.
32; Luke xiii. 28; John viii. 37, 56–58. (2) He repre-
sents Abraham as having had a glimpse of His office
and work. Compare John viii. 56, “Your father Abra-
Jam rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad,”
with the following verse (57), and with Genesis xxii. 8,
13, I4, and Hebrews xi. 17–19. (3) While Bishop
Colenso intimates that the name of Moses may be “re-
176 THE CRITICAL, HYPOTHESES CONSIDERED.
garded as merely that of the imaginary leader of the
people out of Egypt, a person quite as shadowy and
unhistorical as AEneas in the history of Rome, and our
own King Arthur,” our Lord, “THE GREAT TEACHER,”
expressly refers to Him as a real living actor and law-
giver at the period of the Exodus, and of the residence
of Israel in the wilderness. Look at the following
passages. “Pſe saith unto them, Moses, because of the
/hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your
wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew
xix. 8 ; Mark x. 3). “The scribes and the p/arisees sit in
Moses' seat” (Matthew xxiii. 2). “And He said unto
Žim, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, ſleither will
they be persuaded though one rose from the dead!” (Luke
xvi. 31). “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses
showed at the bush, when he calletſ, the Lord the God of
Aöraſam, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ;
for he is not a God of the dead but of the living ; for
all live unto Hime ’’ (Luke xx. 37, 38). “And as Moses
Afted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Some
of Man be lifted up" (John iii. I4). “There is one that
accuset/. Wou, even Moses in whom ye frust ; for had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for ſhe wrote
of Me (referring to Deuteronomy xviii. 15); but if ye
believe not his zwritings, ſhow shall ye believe My words 2"
(John v. 45–47). “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily,
verily, / say aunto you, Moses gave you not that Öread from
/heaven, but My Father givetſ. Vote the true Öread from
heaven " (John vi. 32). “Did not Moses give you the
ſaw 2° (John vii. 19). “Moses therefore gave unto you
circumcision ” (John vii. 22). (4) Our Lord pays special
deference to the writings of Moses, i.e. the Pentateuch,
making it the foundation of His discourse to the disciples
on the road to Emmaus : “And beginning at Moses and
TESTIMONY THE MOST CONCLUSIVE. 177
all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scrip-
zures the things concerning Himself,” and again to the
assembled disciples, when He told them that “all things
must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses
and in the prop/ets, and in the Psalms concerning Me”
(Luke xxiv. 27, 44). (5) Our Lord refers in Matthew
xxii. 37–40 to Deuteronomy vi. 5, as containing the
first and great commandment, and to Leviticus xix. I8,
as containing the second. “Theſe one of theme which was a
Zawyer, asked Him a guestion, tempting Him, and saying,
Master, z0/hich is the great commandment in the law Ż
Şesus said zanto /aim, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
zwit/, all thy /eart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
Żyself. On these two commandments ſang all the law and
the prophets.” But our Lord's highest testimony to the
Book of Deuteronomy is found in the fact, that in His
great temptation after His baptism (as recorded in
Matthew, chap. iv.) He repels the Tempter by three
quotations from that book: the quotations are in Deu-
teronomy viii. 3 and vi. I6 and 13. Well may we apply
to the Sadducees of the nineteenth century, the words
addressed by our Lord to the Sadducees of His day: “Ye
do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”
(Matthew xxiii. 29).
178 THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
CHAPTER VIII.
THEORY of THE Post-ExiliaN ORIGIN of THE LEviticAL
INSTITUTION.
I. The question of the authorship and age of Deute-
ronomy is connected with what is considered by the
Higher Critics as “the leading controversy of the day.”
We are told that the critics, having proved the non-
Mosaic origin of Deuteronomy, have taken up the old
Vatke the theory of Watke, first propounded in 1835, respecting the
oº: post-exilian origin of the major portion of Exodus,
§ this Leviticus and Numbers (the three middle books of the
Theory. e * * *> * >
Pentateuch). According to this theory, the legislation
attributed to Moses, by the Jewish Church and by our
Lord, is not that of ancient Israel, but “a priestly recon-
struction : ” one class of critics considers this “recon-
struction ” to have originated in a conspiracy of the
priestly class to exalt the prerogatives and worldly
position of their order, regardless of the just claims of
the Levites; this is the view substantially taken by
Graf, Kuenen, Schultz and Wellhausen in Germany, and
by Bishop Colenso in England. A more sober and less
unfavourable estimate of the moral bearing of this
procedure is however taken by Professor William
Robertson Smith. Before entering upon this new phase
of the critical questions respecting the Pentateuch, it
may be well to quote, from an able writer, a retrospective
record of the lines of progress in which the Higher
Criticism has marched in our day. The quotation is
RE V. AL FRED CA VE. I79
from an article in the “British and Foreign Evangelical
Review,” by the Rev. Alfred Cave.
2. “There have been many changes in the object of Retro-
attack. At one time it was the unity of Genesis; at º:
another of Genesis and Exodus; at another of the entire Tº: S
Pentateuch ; yet again, of the Pentateuch and Book of of the
Joshua, or the so-called Hexateuch. . . . The method of §.
attack has undergone many changes. First there was
the adoption of the rough-and-ready test of the Divine
names; then additional linguistic considerations were
introduced; yet more refined methods were subsequently
brought to bear, and apparent anachronisms, supposed
omissions, too congruous repetitions, and too incon-
gruous contradictions, peculiarities of phrase, and pe-
culiarities of thought, differences in lexicology, and
differences in literary style, psychological assumptions,
and theological bias, the conclusions of philosophers,
and the intuition of experts, even the data of the
modern theory of evolution, and a presumptively axio-
matic conception of the origin and growth of religion—
this whole armoury of weapons has been ransacked to
enliven and press the controversy; and different results
have been successively claimed. To some it seemed
proven that the Pentateuch was a compilation from
several documents, whether two or three or four or many
in number ; to their successors the so-called Book of the
Law was the ultimate product of various supplementings
and revisions of an original story. As for the age of the
various writers or editors, opinions very widely differed.
Nevertheless, regarded in mass, there has been a sort of
progress in their critical views, marked by three distinct
phases. In the first phase, the Pentateuch was regarded
as a compilation from two or more writers of an earlier
* No. CXII., April 1880, pp. 249, 250.
N 2
I8O THE POST-ExILIAN THEORY.
Well-
hausen’s
Stand-
point.
The
Leading
Advocates
of the
Post-
Exilian
Theory.
age, the time of the compilation being variously stated
to be as early as the days of Samuel, and as late as the
exile. In the second phase, the former contention was
discarded, and the Pentateuch came to be looked upon
as the final outcome of successive editings of a Ground-
sc/riff, or original narrative; the original narrative being
considered to belong to an early age of the Jewish
history, Deuteronomy being accepted as the latest of
the five books; and the ecclesiastical system of Exodus,
Leviticus and Numbers (Exodus xxv.–xl. except xxxii.
—xxxiv.; all Leviticus and Numbers i.—x., xv.—xix.,
xxv.–xxxvi, with a few exceptions), the Priester-Codex
of Weſ//ausen, being included in the original narrative
and being of high antiquity, in all probability an oral
tradition from the days of Moses. The third phase has
in its turn revolutionised the second : the conception of
a series of editors is retained, but Deuteronomy is
supposed to succeed the Groundschrift in age, but to
precede the Priester-Codex, which in the form in which
we now possess it, is described as certainly posterior
to the exile. It is this third view that Wellhausen
maintains.”
3. The critics whose opinions we now proceed to
state have been reserved for a separate account of their
views, though agreeing for the most part with the
supporters of the hypotheses already noticed. They
give in addition a peculiar prominence to the new and
popular theory of the late origin of the Levitical system,
and are its main supporters in Germany and the Con-
tinent generally, as well as in England. (1) Graf, the
leading originator of this last theory, 1864, refers to
1Watke, who in 1835, “looking at the gap between
Genesis and Exodus, was convinced that Mosaism was
a product of the prophetic period; ” his work, “The
GRAF, KUENEN. I8I
Religion of the Old Testament,” is considered by
Well/lausen to be “the most important contribution ever
made to the history of ancient Israel.” In the same
year, George, in his treatise “On the Ancient Feasts,”
expressed his conviction that the Book of Deuteronomy,
though late, contained an older form of the law than
Leviticus ; this opinion was unheeded until adopted by
Graf. Riehm, in his “Treatise on Deuteronomy,” 1850,
ascribes the book to a writer in the time of Manasseh,
667–640 B.C., but always opposed Graf's opinion as to
his late legislation in Leviticus, &c. Graf began his
theory by recognising Genesis as the oldest portion of
the Pentateuch, and Leviticus, &c., as more modern; but
on Riehm showing, that the history of the legislation
belonged to the same age, Graf remarked that “nothing
but custom required us to regard the history as ancient,”
and then placed the whole after the exile. With Vazz
Bo/Aler, Hitzig, and Kemp, Graf thinks that all passages
in the Pentateuch referring to the Levitical sacrifices,
&c., are forgeries of a later date; that Deuteronomy was
a forgery by the prophet Jeremiah ; that Ezra invented,
after the exile, the laws respecting the tabernacle, the
sacrifices and feasts, &c. He also inclines to the opinion
that Leviticus, chaps. xviii. to xx., xxvi., are the product
of Jeremiah's pen. (2) Kuenen (the Dutch critic), in his
“Introduction to the Old Testament,” I866, in his
“Religion of Israel,” translated into English, I874, and in
inis work “On the Prophets,” translated into English in
1877, agrees generally with Graf. In his opinion, the
books containing the early history of Israel are largely
legendary, consisting for the most part of garbled and
modified statements, up to the middle of the eighth cen-
tury B.C., a mere mass of unreliable tradition. The
patriarchs are not historical persons, but myths ; the
Graf.
Kuenen.
I82 THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
twelve tribes are not descended from the sons of Jacob.
It is possible that Moses was the author of the ten com-
mandments, but not in their present form ; and that the
Israelites were slaves led out from Egypt by him, but in
much smaller numbers than those stated in the narrative.
The Book of the Covenant, Exodus xxi. to xxii., con-
tained the oldest collection of laws. The Book of
Deuteronomy was written by the high priest Hilkiah,
625 B.C., as a reform programme, and was foisted upon
Moses, though it does not rest on any reliable Mosaic
tradition. Leviticus, chaps. xviii. to xxvi., were composed
by Ezekiel, the latter portion of whose prophecy forms
the connecting link between Deuteronomy and the
middle books of the Pentateuch (Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers); these were planned by Ezra as his pro-
gramme of legal restoration after the return from
exile. The prophets, the true spiritual teachers of
Israel, who had from the eighth century withstood the
corruption of the kings and people, and from whom
we receive our only reliable information, were silenced
by the growing legalism of the times; and the
Books of Chronicles were written last of all—long after
Ezra-to modify the old histories so as to suit the
ends of the priestly legislation of Ezra. So far
from the Israelitish religion originating in a revela-
tion from God, it was at first a low, degraded fetichism,
which by the teaching of the prophets was raised to
monotheism. It is, then, the result of a natural
development. In a word, instead of the Levitical laws
being the earliest, they came after the prophetic
period, and they originated in the narrow Sacerdotal
spirit of Ezekiel, which pervaded the régime of Ezra and
Nehemiah, and to which we owe the peculiarities of modern
Judaism, as seen in the Pharisaism of the New Testament
SCHULTZ, WELLHAUSEN. 183
and the Rabbinism of a later period. (3) Schultzi has
recanted his former views in reference to the Levitical
laws being a part of the oldest laws in the Penta-
teuch; he now thinks that ritual laws existed early in
Israel (legendary, yet, according to his views, a
legend is an appropriate bearer of the birth of a revela-
tion); but the laws in the Pentateuch, as it now is, were
not known in the times of the older prophets. Neither
Deuteronomy nor the Jehovist had any knowledge of
the Pentateuch. The whole history of the cultus, as it
may be traced in the oldest historical writings, is incom-
patible with the assumption that a law book could have
existed, presenting a form so developed and fixed, of the
religious practice in its minute details: he therefore
places the Pentateuch after the exile. (4) Wellhausen”
in the main agrees with Graf, and carries out his views
to a fuller development. In the Pentateuch, he thinks
there is a portion by the Jehovist (Genesis and Exodus)
of early date ; a combination of a Jehovist and Elohist
document. The earlier historical books, Judges, Samuel,
and the Books of Kings, are complex in their structure ;
their final redaction was by the writer of Deuteronomy,
and reflects the opinion of that first simple legislation :
then follows the priestly codex, i.e., the Levitical
ordinances (part of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers),
introduced and established after the return from exile,
when the last editor, from a priestly standpoint, revised
the whole: he admits that behind the redaction of the
Deuteronomist are older elements, which existed before
the recognition of any written Thorah, and that, going
down to the earlier strata of the narrative, we get beyond
even the influence of prophetic ideas and find ourselves
* In his “Alt Testamentlich Theologie.” 1878.
* “Geschichte Israels.” 1878.
Schultz.
Well-
hausen.
184 THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
Bishop
Colenso.
in contact with a naïve habit of thought, such as the
earliest religious ordinances of Israel presuppose. The
date of the Jehovist work is supposed to be between the
decline of the kingdoms and the Assyrian captivity.
Deuteronomy, either in the time of Isaiah or in the
Assyrian age. The object of Wellhausen’s “Critical
History of the Pentateuch and Historical Books,” is to
show, that the successive phases of historical traditions
in Israel, were parallel to the successive developments of
the sacred ordinances; for instance, that the prophets of
the Assyrian period reflect the Jehovist standpoint,
those of the Chaldaean period that of the Deuteronomist,
and that the post-exile writers equally bear witness to
the influence of the priestly codex. It certainly requires
the prepossession of the critic, to detect these signs of
correspondence between those prophets and their Sup-
posed religious standpoint. In this case the eye sees
what it brings with it. The latest example of this
influence of the priestly codex is found in the Books of
Chronicles, which, according to the same critic, are
thoroughly saturated with the unhistorical spirit of the
priestly legislation ; in short, Mosaism, in his opinion,
was not a revelation to Moses, but an evolutionary
development during many ages; that the law was not
known until the return from captivity, and that then,
and not before, were made known the ideal history of
the tabernacle, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the
festivals. Beyond this, what more is possible 2 the
Higher Criticism must have exhausted its fertile imagina-
tion. (5) Bishop Colenso's views are in accordance with
those of Graf, Kuenen, &c. In Part VI. of his voluminous
work, and in the concluding part VII., he has laboured
most diligently to prove the non-existence of the Levi-
tical laws before the return from captivity. He con-
PROFESSOR ROBERTSON SMITH. 185
siders it to be “the most important result of his criticism
upon the Pentateuch " that “it strikes a death-blow
at the whole system of priestcraft, which has mainly
been based upon the notion that the Levitical laws in
the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, were
really of Mosaic, or rather of Divine, origin. We have
now seen that these laws are all, without exception, the
product of a very late age, during or after the captivity—
the expression of the ambitious hopes and pretensions
of the very numerous priestly tribe, lording it over the
consciences of the comparatively small number of
devoted laity, who returned from the captivity to Jeru-
Salem, and making the position of the priest, his rank
and power, his action and influence, his income and
privileges, of the most Supreme importance to the whole
community, so that actually one half of the whole Pen-
tateuch is employed in enforcing them in some form or
other.” I (6) Professor W. Robertson Smith, a man of un-w.Robert-
doubted learning and strict orthodoxy, differs materially **
from his brethren in the Free Church in regard to the
Book of Deuteronomy, and the antiquity of the Levi-
tical laws. In his opinion, “the religious institutions of
Israel have not been stationary, fixed by the Mosaic
legislator in the wilderness, but a growth. The Penta-
teuch embodies ordinances which belong to a very dif-
ferent stage in the progress of law and worship. The
exclusive priesthood and the power of Aaron is a secon-
dary growth, gradually developed out of the institution
in the wilderness of a peculiar Levitical priesthood, to
which the care of the sanctuary and the ark was com-
mitted; but which did not immediately issue in the
abolition of the old family priesthood, or making it
unlawful for an Israelite to offer sacrifice, with proper
* Part VI. p. 631.
I86 THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
"--> ----------- - - - - - --—- - - - --—- -- ~~~~------------- ~ * ~ *- -->
precautions, at any sacred place which had received
patriarchal consecration, or had otherwise been marked
out by God Himself as a place where He had set a
memorial of His name; Exodus xx. 24–26 being a law
not for the priests, but for all Israelites. The centrali-
sation of all worship at the Aaronic sanctuary of the
ark was of gradual growth. The institutions of Israel
after the captivity are not a mere literal renewal of the
laws of Moses, but the product of a long contest for the
purity of religious worship, in which each victory of
spiritual religion over opposing forces was embodied in
a new development of the national ordinances. It was
necessary in the interests of purity of worship to place
formal restrictions on the exercise of altar privileges.
Hence Ezekiel, a true prophet, sketches in his Book a
new system of theocratical and ritual ordinances for the
Israelites of the future, which was not without influence
in the restored Jerusalem after the captivity.” The
objections which arise out of the Book of Deuteronomy
have been already referred to in Chapter VI.
It will be seen that this young scholar, though
agreeing with Graf and Bishop Colenso, in reference to
the comparatively modern date of the Levitical system,
regards that system, as established by the Jewish leaders
after the captivity, as a “triumph of spiritual religion
over opposing forces.” He looks upon “the hierarchical
theory as the latest fruit of liturgical development; that
the Levitical element is the latest theory in the Penta-
teuch, or in the Levitical series to which the Pentateuch
belongs; or, admitting the opposite view, that the
hierarchical theory existed as a legal programme long
before the exile, yet it was not fully carried out until
after Ezra's reforms.” This latter statement considerably
modifies Professor Smith's theory, and brings it more
REPLIES TO PROFESSOR SMITH. 187
in accordance with the generally received opinions of the
Churches. An exposition and candid examination of
Professor Smith's views may be found in articles by
the Rev. Professor Watts, of Belfast, in the “British and
Foreign Evangelical Review,” and by the Rev. A. F.
Simpson, of Dalkeith, and the Rev. F. L. Patton, in
“Dickinson's Theological Quarterly.””
* No. CXII., April, 1880. “Stric- thorship of Deuteronomy,” by
tures on the Article ‘Bible,” in the Rev. A. F. Simpson. “Rationalism
• Encyclopaedia Britannica.’” in the Free Church of Scotland,”
* No. XXII., April, 1880. “Au- by Rev. Doctor Patton.
I88 REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
The
CHAPTER IX.
REVIEW OF THE THEORY OF THE POST-ExILIAN ORIGIN of THE
LEVITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
I. The object of the criticism set forth in the pre-
ceding chapter, is to prove that the middle books of the
Pentateuch, namely, portions of Exodus, with Leviticus,
and portions of Numbers, which contain the Levitical
ordinances, the foundation of the Mosaic economy, were
written and promulgated during the period of the cap-
tivity or soon after the return from Babylon. The
theory and its consequences are put honestly, and with-
out any qualification, by Well/lausen : “Is the Mosaic
law the starting-point for the history of ancient Israel,
or for the sect which survived the annihilation of the
nation by the Assyrians and Chaldaeans ?” This bold
speaking out, brings the controversy to a point which
can be understood. In comparison with this issue, all
before has been a mere skirmishing. “Upon points of
language, apparent anachronisms, dual or triple or
multiple repetitions, seeming contradictions, and all the
paraphernalia of negative criticism, there has been too
long a delay: they are but outworks and mural towers.
Mosaism itself is the central citadel, and this, Well-
hausen recognises.” If these “middle books” can be
proved to be of post-exilian origin, then there is some
Middle
Books:
are they
genuine
portions
of the
Penta-
teuch P
* Rev. A. Cave, in “British and hausen's theory, and a valuable
Foreign Evangelical Review,” No. sketch of the character and uses
CXII. ; an article which contains of Judaism.
an able examination of Well-
BISHOP BROWNE'S REFERENCES. I89
foundation for the charge, that not only Jeremiah, but
Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the writer of the Books of
Chronicles have been, directly or indirectly, parties in
the forgery of certain writings purporting to be a reve-
lation from God to Moses: we are also compelled to
admit that about one-fourth of the books of the Old
Testament is unhistorical and without authority; and if
we add to these, other portions of the Old Testament
decried by modern critics, the authorised Bible will be
reduced to one-half of its present size.
2. The most obvious reply to this, the most startling, References
the most original, the most recent, and we may add the #:
most fallacious, of the theories, is by turning to the telcºm
ſº * Joshua
references to the facts of the Mosaic history and to the to Chro-
ritual and laws, which are found in all the books of the *
Old Testament from Joshua to Kings, not excluding
the Chronicles; for although the Books of Chronicles,
like the Books of Kings, were written after the captivity,
they are books compiled from older, and for the most
part contemporary, writers. These references may be
found in the margins of our English Bibles. An epitome
of these, accompanied by terse and pertinent remarks, is
to be found in the Introduction to the Pentateuch, by
the Bishop of Winchester (Harold Browne).2 This
epitome is of itself a satisfactory refutation of the
assertion repeatedly made by the Higher Critics, to the
effect that there are few (if any) references to the facts
of the Mosaic history and the Levitical ordinances, in
the subsequent books of the Old Testament. The
argument from the supposed silence of the writers from
Joshua downwards is thus disproved by facts; there are
as many allusions to the history and the institutions of
the Mosaic period, in the later books as could be ex-
* “Speaker's Commentary,” Vol. I. pp. 4–12.
Igo REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
pected from the nature and object of the books them–
selves, quite as many, in proportion, as can be found to
the ecclesiastical affairs (not immediately connected with
political events) in the popular compendium of our
English history. How few, even, are the references to
the Roman, Saxon, and Norman periods of our history,
or to Magna Charta, or to the Act of Settlement; not
that these events are regarded as questionable, but that
the mention of them is foreign to the narrative of the
history of following years, and these facts are supposed
Occasional to be of general notoriety. That there had been many
º: long continued breaches in the continuity of the Mosaic
Continuity ritual and worship, accompanied by a great and all but
§: total neglect of the teachings of the Mosaic Pentateuch
Riº (the Law), is apparent by the narrative in the historical
books. “If we divide the period from the days of Eli
to the birth of Christ into two equal parts, we shall find
that the half nearest to our own time, from 586 B.C.
downwards, presents a series of quickenings and fallings
away in the nation's life, exactly parallel to those which
formed the outstanding features of Israel's history
during the earlier half from II70 B.C. to 586 B.C. The
number of the series would seem to be almost the same
in both halves. The results were clearly the same.
The house of God deserted ; its dues unpaid ; the
Levites turning to what was not their own work, or
becoming lost among the other tribes; idolatry preva-
lent. But the law of Moses, as we now have it, was in
priests’ and pastors’ hands through the latter half of that
long period of II 70 years, although it was a dead letter
until the heart of the nation was touched by a sense of
duty and of danger. How then can there be a doubt in the
mind of any student of history, that the quickenings and
the fallings away in the earlier half, II/O B.C. to 586 B.C.,
REFERENCES FROM 3:OSHUA, &c. Ig I
resulted from the same causes as in the more recent—
regard for, and neglect of, the well-known four books?”
The same reasoning applies to the period preceding
the year II.70 B.C. down to the entrance into the land of
Canaan about forty years before ; and the fact that a
nation may possess, in the hands of its priests and rulers,
a system of law and worship and duties connected there-
with, acknowledged by them to be Divine while practi-
cally neglected as if altogether unknown, may be seen
in our day in the case of Abyssinia. In this nominally
Christian land, the books of the Old and New Testa-
ment are in the possession of the leading priests and
leaders of the people ; and yet the ordinary priests are
ignorant, and as low in the scale of morals and civilisa-
tion as the people themselves, and Christianity as a moral
power is utterly unknown.
3. But, to the evidence of the existence of the Penta- The Re-
teuch, adducible from the references in all the following *:::
books, from Joshua downwards, the Higher Critics Books
make the following objections. (I) That the said Jo from
shua,&c.
references do not relate to the Pentateuch as ſlow to the
existing, but to the older portions, including “ the .
priestly codex;” and that these more ancient documents
do not imply the genuineness of the rest of the Penta-
teuch, which, according to their theory, originated in
the composition of the Book of Deuteronomy by Jere-
miah in the time of King Josiah, and of “the middle
books,” i.e., portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers,
by “the Levitical Legislators” after the captivity.
(2) That the references in the later books to the facts of
the early history of the Israelites, contained in the Pen-
tateuch, are really to old traditions, current among the
people. All these objections are founded upon the
* “Deuteronomy the People's Book,” pp.61, 62. 1877.
I92 REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
assumed correctness of the critical theories of certain
learned men, to which we demur, as contrary to the
evidence of facts. Nothing less than clear, undoubted
evidence to the contrary, can set aside the testimony
of the Jewish Church and people to the antiquity of
the laws of Moses, i.e., the venerable Thora/, identified
zwith the Pentateuch. No such proof is attempted to be
given. We therefore, aware that the art of writing had
been long known to the Shemitish races, have no diffi-
culty in admitting the contemporaneous character of a
large portion of the Pentateuchal narrative. In oppo-
sition to the theories, founded on the supposed existence
of documents distinguished by the diverse use of the
Divine names, and having no faith in the possibility of
the forgery of Deuteronomy, or of “the middle books,”
at a later period; we cannot set aside the evidence of
the early existence of the Pentateuch, adducible from
the references in the later books from Joshua down-
wards, which of all species of proof is most easy to be
apprehended by the most cursory readers of the Bible.
Bishop Colenso's mode of dealing with this question is
most unsatisfactory, and destroys all confidence in his
critical acumen, when under the influence of his par-
tisan views. For instance, the Book of Deuteronomy,
which the Bishop ascribes to Jeremiah, contains, as
shown by him, thirty-five quotations from, or references
to, the other books of the Pentateuch; 1 but the natural
inference is, that in this case the Bishop admits the exis-
tence of the first four books of the Pentateuch in the time
of Josiah : there is, however, no such admission; the ut-
most concession on his part is, that “the writer must have
had the older records in his hand, and been familiar
with their contents.” . . . In other words, we may infer
* “Pentateuch Examined,” Vol. VI. pp. 34–36.
BISHOP COLENSO’S CRITICISMS. I93
from all this, that a written account of the main facts
of the Exodus, did undoubtedly exist in the time of
Josiah, of some antiquity, which would be known to the
more devout and learned, and could be referred to as a
venerable record of the ancient history of Israel.” Lest
we should build too much upon these concessions,
we are warned “that the Deuteronomist does not treat
this record as an infallible Divine record, nor does he
by any means always adhere to the statements of the
older narratives.” Again, we ask, why should “the
written records,” “the older records,” be deemed sepa-
rate and distinct from the venerable Thorah, which the
Jewish Church has delivered to us 2 In another in-
stance the Bishop comes to Sweeping conclusions on
very small premises. Chapters ir. and x. Of the Book
of Deuteronomy give an abridged account of the
making of the ark, and Sundry circumstances connected
with it—a mere reference, as might be expected in an
address. The Bishop regards the omission of the details
respecting the ark, and the priestly ceremonial, as con-
clusive against the antiquity of Exodus xxv.–xxxi. I7,
and xxxv. to xl., which he asserts were a portion of the
interpolations of the Levitical legislators after the cap-
tivity. Admit this new principle, that omissions of the
details of a larger narrative, in a mere reference, are to be
regarded as implying disbelief of the larger narrative,
what would become of our historical compendiums ?
So also the allusions to Moses and Aaron in Judges
iii. 4; I Samuel xii. 6–8.; I Kings viii. 51, 56–9, are
declared to be Deuteronomist interpolations ! And the
references in Judges ii. 6–8, 21–23, xx. 38, to Joshua
and Phineas, are by him regarded as either Deutero-
nomical or Levitical additions. And, in fact, all the
references to the law (the Thorah) in the Prophets are
O
I94 REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
supposed to be to the abridgment called the Old Story,
or to the so-called “priestly Codex,” or to some tradi-
Žions of laws ascribed to Moses | These wild conclusions
have one object in view, the supporting a notion (a
favourite one with the Bishop), that Moses, Aaron, and
others of the old worthies were but the shadows of
names, Scarcely remarked or recognised in Judah and
Israel, until after the time of Josiah, and the forgery
of the Book of Deuteronomy.
4. The testimony afforded by the prophetical writings
is disposed of in the same fashion. Kuenen and Duhm,
with whom Bishop Colenso agrees, are of opinion that
the writings of the Prophets are antagonistic to all
ceremonial observances, and that, therefore, the Mosaic
ritual cannot have been known to them ; they see also
an opposition to the priesthood itself, and intimate that
when the Levitical legislation was established after the
return from the captivity—according to their novel
theory—the prophetic office at once ceased, “there being
no room for the Prophet in the society established by
Ezra and Nehemiah.” To these assertions it is not
difficult to reply. A fair and candid perusal of the
writings of the Prophets will be conclusive that the
opposition of the Prophets was not to the priesthood,
but to false and wicked priests; not to the ceremonial
law, but to its abuse in being regarded as in itself
acceptable to God, apart from obedience to the moral
law. So far as the special work of the Prophets was the
opposition to the tendency to idolatry, this work ceased
after the return from the captivity, and so far there was no
room for its exercise in the post-exilian community. In
the great work of moral teaching, the reproof of sin, the
stimulation to the discharge of the duties specially
necessary at the time, we can discern no restraint of
TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS. I95
spirit in the writings of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
That the Prophets before the captivity were ignorant of
the Mosaic laws is not the impression left on the mind of
an impartial student. It is obvious that, to use a military
phrase, the base line of all their operations is some body
of law acknowledged generally as obligatory, and that
this law is the law of Moses. To begin with the oldest,
say JOEL ; placed by Keil, Bleek and Kuenen between
878–800 B.C., though Kuenen has since adopted the
date of Merx, 518–548 B.C. Bishop Colenso follows Oort,
a Dutch critic (1866), who places him in the reign of
Zedekiah, and infers from chapter iii. I, compared with
Jeremiah xxviii. 1–4, that he was one of the prophets
opposed to Jeremiah, consequently a false prophet:
yet the author of the splendid prophecy quoted by
Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts xi. I6—21). He
refers to the priests, the altar, the elders, the congre-
gation and solemn assembly, and is full of phrases
which imply acquaintance with the Pentateuch. AMOS,
790 B.C., refers to the Pentateuch, chaps. ii. 4, 9, IO-I2,
iii. 1, 2, 14, iv. 4, 5, II, v. 25, vii. 9, ix. 7 ; but these are
all placed by Bishop Colenso to the credit of the “Old
Story,” and not to the Pentateuch as we have it.
HOSEA, 785–743 B.C., refers to the Pentateuch in chaps. ii.
I5, iv. 6, vi. 7, viii. I, I2, ix. 3, 4, xi. I, xii. 3, 4. MICAH,
725 B.C., refers in chaps. vi. 4, 5, viii. I 7, 20. ISAIAH,
who lived 758–71 I B.C., refers in the whole of the first
thirty-nine chapters to the sacrificial system and the
facts of the Israelitish history, as for instance chaps. i.
Io—I4, ii. 7, iii. I4, V. 24, 26, xxix. I2, xxx. 9, I6, I7.
JEREMIAH, 626–587 B.C., enters into the very spirit and
phraseology of the Pentateuch, especially the Book of
Deuteronomy; in chap. xxxiv. 9–II, he quotes Deu-
teronomy xv. 12, which would imply that the book was
O 2
Igó REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
True im-
port of
Ezekiel’s
vision of
the Tem-
ple, &c.
no recent composition. The passage, chap. vii. 22, 23,
has been cited in proof that the sacrificial system was
not of Divine origin; whereas he simply teaches the
great truth common to all the Prophets, the inutility of
all sacrificial and ceremonial observances in themselves,
apart from the devout and sincere feelings of the
worshipper. This is obvious from chaps. vi. 19, 20, xiv.
I2, xvii. 23–26. EZEKIEL, 595—573 B.C., is SO
thoroughly imbued with the Mosaic spirit that he has
been most irrationally thought to be the author of
Leviticus xvii. to xxvi, and that through his influence
part of the Levites were degraded from the priesthood,
which was still retained by their brethren, the sons of
Zadok, chap. xliv. IO-I4; but this passage refers to
the priests of the line of Ithamar, excluded by Solomon,
(I Kings ii. 27), who though degraded are still recognised
as “brethren” (2 Kings xxiii. 8, 9). Very singularly
Dr. W. Robertson Smith sees in chap. xliv. Io—14, “that
before the exile the strict hierarchical law was not in force,
apparently never had been in force,” though modifying
this sweeping assertion by the remark that, “on the
opposite view the hierarchic theory existed as a legal
programme long before the exile, though it was fully
carried out only after Ezra.” It is difficult to see what
the learned professor sees in that chapter. The singular
vision of the last chapters was never to be under-
stood literally as relating to a temple to be built for
Jewish worship ; the dimensions and the accompanying
arrangements were such as the physical features and
limited extent of Judea rendered impossible. It pre-
figured a worship which would occupy an extent far
beyond the narrow limits of Israel. In interpreting this
vision, “we do not, therefore, err in taking the holy
* Ency. Brit., Vol. III. p. 638.
DR. PUNSHON AND OTHERS ON EZEKIEL XLIV. 197
waters to be the emblems of that wondrous scheme of
mercy, perfected by the atonement of Christ, made vital
by the ever-present Spirit, and adapted to the salvation
of the world.” To the Christian it is obvious that the
vision is intended to depict the perpetual worship of the
God of heaven, in the kingdom of Christ, represented
under the old familiar symbols of the Mosaic dispensa-
tion : these were the lines in which the thoughts of the
Prophets moved ;” and in Ezekiel, especially, the ex-
pressions which refer to the law “were woven into the
warp and woof of his discourses.”3 So far we may infer
that there are as many direct references to the Penta-
teuch in the Prophets, as from the nature of their
writings we might expect. The difficulty is to suppose
a reason or foundation for the discourses of the Prophets,
had there been no Pentateuch, no book of the law
already in existence, and received as an authority by
the kings and people of Judah and Israel; hence Max
Duncker, in “The History of Antiquity,” in tracing the
origin of the prophetic order from the earliest periods of
the Jewish history, admits their acquaintance with the
Pentateuch (save and except the middle portion of Deu-
teronomy), which existed in two forms—the older
account (the Judean text) composed in the first decade
of the reign of David; and the second text, which arose
in the latter half of Solomon's reign, both of which had
been combined in one book by the Jahvist whose sym-
pathies were with the Prophets.” So far from thinking
that the Prophets were the inventors of Mosaism, he
traces the strength and permanency of their convictions to
the influence of these writings. “To the oldest account
* Dr. W. Morley Punshon's * Curtiss’s “Levitical Priests,”
Sermon at the reopening of City- p. 73.
road Chapel, 25th June, 1880. * See Chap. V. sect. 5.
*“Speaker's Com.” Vol.VI. p. 183.
198 REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
Max
of the fortunes of Israel which arose in priestly circles,
Pungker and of the covenant which his God had once made with
ascribes
the spirit- him, to the collection and establishment of the law which
ual power
of the
formed the contents of this covenant, was soon added
Prophets the Second text, which described in a more lively manner
to their
study of
the Pen-
tateuch.
the manifestations of the tribal God, His guidance of the
patriarchs and forefathers of the nation, and, like the
older text, it was for a long time in the hands of the
Prophets. Even before JOEL (at the time when the
High Priest Jehoiada was regent for King Joash in
Judah) urged the nation to repentance and introspection,
the hand of a prophet had united these two texts.
Penetrated by their contents, he had, as might be
expected from his point of view, laid the main stress on
the promises and prophecies, on the relation of man to
God, on the nature of man and his duty in life. In this
form the books of the fortunes of the patriarchs, of the
covenant of Jehovah and Israel, of the promises of
protection and blessing in return for the observation of
this covenant, must have exercised an especial influence
on the circle of the Prophets: they showed them the
past in the closest relation to the present; they
strengthened their conviction that the external relation
was insufficient, that the essential point was the internal
relation of man to his God.” The historian, though by no
means orthodox in his adoption of the De Wette-
Schrader theory of the origin and antiquity of the
Pentateuch, sees clearly that the prophetic teaching
necessarily implies the previous possession of the facts
and teachings of the Pentateuch.1
5. The references in the Psalms to the Pentateuch are
numerous, but to those in the first book (Psalms i. to xli.),
generally admitted to have been written by David him-
* Max Duncker’s “History of Antiquity,” Vol. III. pp. 23, 24.
THE PSALMS. I99
—-º
self, we shall confine our appeal, though we might go on
to the second book (Psalms xlii.-lxxii.), some of which
were by David, and others before the reign of Hezekiah.
Bishop Colenso admits that in Psalms i. 2, xviii. 22, xix.
7–9, xxxvii. 31, xl. 7, 8, also in xxxiii. 4–6, there is the
assumption apparently of “the existence of a written
law, though in some of these passages, e.g., xviii. 22, xix.
7–9, the expressions may refer merely to Divine instruc-
tion.” The Bishop's sympathy with the spiritual feeling
in the Psalms causes him to dissent from the opinion of
Ruenen, that none of David's Psalms are to be found in
their Criginal forms in the present psalter; his remarks
on the character of David, his sins and his repentance,
are worthy of his position as a Christian bishop. But
on the Psalms in question he gives us the opinions of
Hupfield, Ewald, Kuenen, Hitzig, and Olshausen.
Psalm i. belongs to the last days of the kingdom of
Judah, to the age of the Deuteronomist (Ewald), post-
exilian (Āuenen), Maccabean (Hitzig and Olshausen).
Psalm xviii., a later psalm (Hupfield and Olshausen) of
the Chaldec period (Kuenen), Davidic (Ewald and Hitzig).
Psalm xix. 7–14 is a later addition, during the exile,
to verses I-6 (Ewald and Hupfield), post-exilian
(Kuenen, Olshausen), Davidic (Hitzig).
Psalm xxxvii., post-exilic (Ewald), age of Jeremiah
(Hitzig), or even later (Kuenem).
Psalm xl., the time after Josiah's reformation (Ezwald),
to Jeremiah (Hitzig), to the Assyrian or Chaldaean
period (Auerten), Maccabean age (Olshausen).
Psalm xxxiii., one of the latest psalms (Ewald), of
Jeremiah's age (Hitzig), post-exilic (Kuenen), Macca-
bean (Olshausen). i
The above is a fair specimen of the subjective feeling
* Pentateuch, Vol. VII. pp. 475—477.
2OO REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
in the Higher Criticism: each critic differs from his
neighbour, the only agreement being in opposition to
the testimony of the Jewish Church.
To the statements of Kuenen that the religion of the
Israelites was originally a low, degraded fetichism, from
which it was raised by the labours of successive genera-
tions of prophets, and that the Mosaic religion was a
compromise between idolatry and the priesthood—that the
early history of the Israelites up to 800 B.C. is purely
legendary, that the patriarchs are myths, and that the
twelve tribes are not descended from Jacob, &c., we
cannot again reply, as the iterated assertions are not
accompanied by further proofs.
The 6. An argument, founded on what is stated to have
* been the universal experience of all ages, is put forward
Laws
neither, as establishing incontestably the fact, founded upon a
..º. philosophical view of man's religious nature, which
'º' underlies all past history; namely, that in all nations
velation. the religious as well as the civil institutions have been
the result of a growth, according to the law of develop-
ment. Such, it is inferred, must have been the case in
ancient Israel, and hence it follows that the Mosaic laws
were not the stereotyped dead letter of a special legis-
lation at a given period, but a living growth. So Kuenen,
and others whose philosophy always leads them to
measure and limit the spiritual by the natural ; his
notion is, that “the Israelitish religion is one of the
principal religions, nothing less, but also nothing more;”
and, like other religions, to be treated simply as “one of
the many manifestations of the religious spirit of man-
kind.” This dogmatic assertion is a mere assumption
of the point at issue. The Israelitish religion, so far
from being in accordance with, is in direct opposition to,
the “manifestation of the religious spirit of mankind.”
MOSAISM NOT A DEVELOPMENT. 2OI
It claims to be not of man, but from God—a Divine reve-
lation, not a growth ; and on this account the Israelitish
people became a peculiar people, while obedient to their
law; differing in their polity from all other nations, and
kept apart to a very great extent from other nations; the
reason of their existence being the conservation of great
spiritual truths by them in their religious institutions for
the future benefit of the human race. The religious
ritual, the tabernacle, the ark, the priesthood, sacrificial
institutions, the jubilee, and the national feasts, were
pre-arrangements, under Divine guidance, as the fittest
and most expressive symbols of the relations between
man and his Maker, which were to be more clearly and
fully revealed in the Christian dispensation. Hence in
Israel there was no room for development or natural
growth, as in the case of merely human institutions.
Modifications of the mere details of the ceremonial laws
by David, Solomon, or Hezekiah, never interfered with
the principles of the law itself. Only as a Divine dis-
pensation, an exceptional interference on the part of the
Moral Governor of the world, can the peculiarities of
the truth and history of the Israelitish people be under-
stood. Those who believe in a revelation from God,
and in the cheering fact of a Divine interference and
overruling power exercised over human affairs, will find
no difficulty in understanding this peculiar position of
this peculiar people. To those whose views are other-
wise, the case of the Jewish people must continue to
present difficulties; the facts of their history and ex-
istence cannot be denied ; the why and the wherefore,
apart from revelation, must remain a mystery. Well
might the chaplain of Frederick the Great reply to the
demand to give in one word the evidence of the truth
of the Old Testament-THE JEws.
2O2 REVIEW OF THE POST_EXILIAN THEORY.
7. Let us, however, appeal to the facts of history, in
reference to this monstrous theory of the late origin of
the Levitical ordinances, which instead of being, as
generally supposed, a revelation of God to Moses in the
wilderness, are now relegated to about a thousand
Historical years later. Instead of being substantially the work of
facts op-
posed to
Moses, they are supposed to be forgeries begun by the
the proba- Prophet Ezekiel, and continued by the restored priest-
bility of
the late
hood after the return from the Babylonish captivity, and
origin of that these forgeries had been preceded by the forgery
Mosaic
law.
of the Book of Deuteronomy by Jeremia/. In addition,
we must believe that this new ritual, and other cove-
nants ascribed to Moses, had at least the sanction of
Agra, Nehemia/, the author of the Books of Chronicles, and
the prophets Haggai, Zecharia/, and Malachi, and other
parties holding high positions in the Jewish Church.
Let it be observed that we have no reference to any
such change in any of the said books, nor in any
Jewish writer. The only books which were written
immediately after the captivity, the Books of Kings, say
nothing of any such change. Neither can it be inferred
from such of the Psalms as are placed by critics as
written after the captivity. All the details of the refor-
mation carried on by Ezra and Nehemiah, so far from
implying that the law then enforced was a novelty,
imply the contrary. And as to the Books of Chronicles,
they suppose no break in the continuity of the same law
as that which David and Solomon, and the good kings,
supported in Israel and Judah; neither do Haggai, nor
Zechariah, nor Malachi, the Prophets—and as such, the
special advocates (as the critics tell us) of a spiritual
teaching beyond the letter of the law—make any allusion
to any change. Within fifty years after the destruction
of the first Temple (B.C. 586), the second Temple began
FACTS OPPOSED TO GRAF-S THEORY. 2O3
to be rebuilt under Zerubbabel, 536 B.C.; there were
then living “many of the priests and Levites, and chiefs of
the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first
/louse, when the foundation of this ſlouse was laid
Öefore their eyes, wept with a loud voice, and many
s/outed for ſoy” (Ezra iii. 12). Surely these ancient
men, priests, Levites, and the chiefs of the fathers, knew
thoroughly the old temple service, its whole ritual, and
the general laws of the old Jewish state; and when
Zerubbabel, the prince of the family of David, and
Joshua, the high priest, began to establish again the
Temple service, and carry out in detail the Mosaic legis-
lation as to worship, the priesthood, and other matters,
they must have recognised in these re-establishments,
the Order and usages of their earlier years in Jeru-
Salem. The vessels of gold and of silver (Ezra i. II)
restored by Cyrus for the use of the Temple, and the
reference to the altar, the burnt sacrifice, money, and
ivory, offered by number, according to the custom,
as the duty of every day required, the feast of
tabernacles, and all the set feasts of the law, in
chap. iii., are proofs of the continuity of the old law of
Moses, well known and in practical use before the cap-
tivity. So also when the Temple was completed and
dedicated seventeen years afterwards, the sacrifices were
offered, the priests set in their divisions, and the Levites,
in their courses, for the service of God, “as it is zwritten
in the Book of Moses.” The passover and the feast of
unleavened bread were also observed (chap. vi.). It is
obvious that these Jews, when in Babylon, had learned
to value the law of Moses contained in the Pentateuch,
and that all these ritual observances must have been in
accordance with that law—the same law known before
the captivity—and the disobedience to which had been
2O4. REVIEW OF THE POST_EXILIAN THEORY.
the occasion of their bondage. Hence this law, studied
in Babylon with greater earnestness, was especially dear
to the little company now brought back to the land of
their fathers. Is it possible that under such circum-
stances, any one ruler as Ezra, or any company of
priests, could introduce a new ritual, and a new law dif-
ferent from what they had read in the Law at Babylon,
and recognised by the older returned captives as that
practised by their fathers before the captivity ? How
could any body of men manage to introduce into the
Pentateuch additions which doubled its bulk, and which
totally changed the character of the Temple service 2
And is it possible to suppose that such alterations
would be accepted without opposition ? Ezra was sent
to Jerusalem 457 B.C., and Nehemiah followed 444 B.C.
The history of the administration of these zealous
reformers, is in itself a sufficient proof of the impossi-
bility of the introduction of any novelties in the laws
and ceremonial observances, which had been hitherto
received on the authority of the law of Moses. There
was much in the law which went counter to the interests
and wishes of many of the rulers, of the priests, and of
the influential classes among the general population.
The astringent carrying out of the law against marriages
with the heathen, especially in the case of the priests
and rulers; the sacrifices required from the wealthier
class in the abandonment of their usurious interest due
to them by their poorer brethren ; the compelling one
in ten of the population to build in Jerusalem; the
offence given to influential persons (including the high
priests) by the expulsion of their foreign friends and
relations from their occupancy of lodgings in the out-
chambers of the Temple; the enforcement of the law of
the Sabbath—all these reforms, carried out strictly by
THE LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW. 2O5
Ezra and Nehemiah, naturally excited enmity and
opposition ; and had there been any ground for the
supposition that the laws of Moses appealed to by
Ezra and Nehemiah in defence of their reforms were
but recent novelties unknown to their fathers, there
would have been a contest and successful resistance,
and the novelties exposed to ridicule and contempt.
But when Manasseh (the son of Joiada, the high priest)
had married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite,
and refused to put away his wife, yet unable to resist
the reforming ordinances, fled to Samaria, of which
Sanballat was governor (409 B.C.), he took with him
the Pentateuch, the book which the Higher Critics
think had been so thoroughly changed by Ezra and
Nehemiah.”
8. In concluding this chapter, we cannot do better
than give the pertinent and clinching remarks of a writer
in the “London Quarterly Review "2 on “Colenso's
Last Volume.” “The theory of the attack is one of
the wildest and most improbable kind. It amounts to
this, that at a most solemn time of the national history,
when they had recovered from the heaviest chastise-
ments ever inflicted upon them, there was a general
conspiracy of the leaders of Judaism, prophets, and
scribes, and men of God, to palm off upon the people
the most gigantic figment ever conceived. . . . The
result was that the Mosaic legislation, with its Penta-
teuch, was invented in the name of God, and woven
around a small thread of early legends. . . . But here
we have a strange inconsistency in the destructive hypo-
thesis. Long before these dishonest removers of the
old landmarks, or forgers of landmarks that never
* Prideaux's Connection, Vol. I. p. 396.
* No. CV., Oct. 1879, p. 113.
2O6 REVIEW OF THE POST-EXILIAN THEORY.
existed, had pursued their secret labours, the way had
been paved for them by Jeremiah himself, who is Sup-
posed to be mainly responsible for Deuteronomy, and
had much to do with the Books of Kings.” So, then, it
really appears that, just before the hand of the Lord
was turned against His people, or, at any rate, is Sup-
posed to have been turned against them, to send them
into captivity—that is to say, on the very eve of their
national chastisement—their Bible and ours was in its
essential character and historical soul, forged, and pre-
served during the captivity to be the nucleus of still
more forgeries.” It is certainly more difficult to believe
this, than to accept the plain and consistent “traditional
account” of the Canon as preserved by the Churches.
HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM #OSHUA To II. KINGS. 207
CHAPTER X.
THE HISTORICAL Books FROM Joshu A To 2 KINGs.
I. The natural supplement to the Pentateuch is the Joshua a
Book of Joshua, which records the occupation and
partial conquest of Canaan, and the settlement of the
Israelites in that land, by which the promised grant
made to their great ancestor Abraham by Jehovah was
fulfilled. (Genesis xii. 7, xiii. I5–17, xv. 18–21.) Then
follow the Books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel I and 2,
Rings I and 2, which give the history of the Israelites
as a nation in their own land up to the captivity. That
some one writer edited the Books of Judges, Ruth,
Samuel, and Kings, as a connective work, so that one
book seems but part of a whole, is the general opinion
of the most learned critics. This redaction probably
took place soon after the captivity—the last redaction
was by Ezra ; but it is obvious that each book was
originally an independent work, and has its own date.
The remaining historical books—Chronicles I and 2,
Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah—belong to the period of
the exile, the return of the remnant of the people from
Babylon, and their resettlement in and around Jerusalem.
We have in these remaining historical books which
follow the Pentateuch, the brief chronicle of the events
of more than a thousand years. The names of the
authors of the several books are not given, and the date
of the authorship can only be inferred from internal
supple-
Iment to
the Pen-
tateuch.
208 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM #0SHUA TO II. KINGS.
evidence, and the testimony of the Jewish Church.
Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, and Samuel were probably
edited and generally known not later—perhaps earlier—
than the period immediately following the division of
the kingdom, the remaining books after the captivity.
All the books from Joshua to the end of the Chronicles
are more or less compilations from contemporary docu-
ments, in which the original words of the writer are fre-
quently given, retaining the references and allusions to
times and events as they were expressed in these docu-
ments. This is one cause of the apparent anachronisms,
discrepancies, and dislocations in our present text, which
have exercised the patience and learning of our com-
mentators, some of which cannot be satisfactorily
reconciled, in the absence of that minute and detailed
information which we do not possess, but which in
other histories is frequently afforded by the oppor-
tunity of comparison with the fuller statements
of contemporary narratives. With the exception of
the Books of Chronicles, all these historical books
appear to have undergone a special revision, in which
additional glosses and comments have been introduced
by some competent person, probably Ezra (Ezra vii.
6, Io, II). The object of these books is to give the
history of God's relations specially to Israel, and through
Titº Israel to the world at large. In the controversy with
Joshua to the literary scepticism of the Higher Criticism these works
* occupy a position of Secondary importance. Here we
tions from have the mere skirmishing work of the critics, the real
º decisive battle-fields being the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and
histories. Daniel. The sceptical objections are relatively of less
importance, and may be dealt with briefly, especially as
they are of the same character as those to which we
have already referred. In fact, the admissions of the
CONTEMPORARY CHRONICLES. 209
most candid of the Higher Critics leave little room for
controversy ; they do not deny the antiquity and con-
temporaneous character of the documents upon which
the historical narratives are founded ; and the question
of the time when, or the person by whom the compila-
tions were made, or that of the final editor, is of small
importance. So far as we can rely upon the only evi-
dence—that given by the Jewish Church—these books
have come down to us substantially as they existed in
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. But while the general
results of criticism may be satisfactory, we cannot but
regret the wild speculations of many of the critical school
as to the origin and authorship of this and that chapter
and verse, or even portion of a verse, on grounds purely
Subjective and in opposition to other evidence. On
these points we can prove nothing ; and mere guess
work may be spared by the critic, as the reader can,
after that fashion, form a theory for himself quite as
probable as that of the critics. The irreverence of some
of them is painful, and their dogmatism intolerable in
the infallibility assumed, for opinions which contradict
other opinions claiming to be equally infallible, and in
reference to points on which scarcely two of these critics
agree.
2. The historical books from Joshua to Chronicles
inclusive, whatever may be the opinion of critics as to
the period of their final editorship, represent to us the
feelings and opinions and evidence of the contemporary
chroniclers, from whom the compilers took their facts.
The period of the final editorship has, by some critics,
been confounded with the time of the original compo-
sition of the books; this accounts for the wildness of
some of their conclusions. We have reference to original
authorities, especially in the Books of Kings and Chro-
P
2IO HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM goSHUA TO II. KINGS.
Autho-
rities
quoted in
the
historical
books.
nicles. Most of the earlier of these authorities were
accessible to the writer of the Books of Samuel. There
are other documents and records which form the basis
of the narratives in Joshua and the Judges. Upon these
original records we rely as the authorities for the facts
contained in the historical books, and can now under-
stand the reason why these books are placed in the
Canon of the Old Testament, as containing the testi-
monies of the ancient prophets to God's dealings with
His people; an unbroken link under the Patriarchal
and Mosaic dispensations, ending only with Malachi,
4OO B.C. There was also a large literature of a miscel-
laneous character among the Israelites for many ages
before the captivity. So also in Egypt, Assyria,
Babylonia, and among other less important Eastern
people, a fact not known to our ancestors. The books
quoted as authorities in the historical books are the
following:—(1) The Book of the Wars of the Lord
(Numbers xxi. I3); (2) Book of Jashur (Joshua x. I2 ;
2 Samuel i. 18); (3) The Manner of the Kingdom, by
Samuel (I Samuel x. 25); (4) The Acts of David in the
Book of Samuel the Seer, Book of Nathan the Prophet,
Book of Gad the Seer—three works supposed to be
absorbed in the Book of Samuel (I Chronicles xxix. 29);
(5) Acts of Solomon in the Book of Nathan the Prophet,
in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the
Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles ix. 29); (6) Book
of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41); (7) Acts of
Rehoboam, in the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet, and
of Iddo the Seer, concerning genealogies (2 Chronicles
xi. I5); (8) Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of
Judah (I Kings xv. 7); (9) Book of the Chronicles of
the Kings of Israel (I Kings xiv. 19); (10) Book of the
Rings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles xxviii. 26);
AUTHORITIES QUOTED. 2II
–º
(II) Acts of Jehoshaphat, in the Book of Jehu, the son of
Hanani (2 Chronicles xx. 34); (I2) Acts of Uzziah, by
Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amos (2 Chronicles xxvi.
22); (13) Acts of Hezekiah, in the Vision of Isaiah the
Prophet, the Son of Amos, probably embodied in the
Book of Isaiah (2 Chronicles xxxiii. 12); (14) Acts of
Manasseh, and his prayer, in the Book of the Kings of
Israel (2 Chronicles xxxiii. I8); (15) Lamentations of
Jeremiah over Josiah (2 Chronicles xxxv. 25); (16)
Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles xxxiii. 19). There
are also two books mentioned in Exodus—one a
memorial which Moses was to write for Joshua (Exodus
xvii. 14), and the other the Book of the Covenant
(Exodus xxiv. 7), both of which are supposed to be
incorporated in the Pentateuch. The character of these
books may be gathered from their titles, with the ex-
ception of the Book of Jashur, which appears to have
been a collection of national songs, the patriotic poetry
of the Israelites.
Chronological disquisitions are foreign to the object
of this work; but it may be desirable to remark that the
learned in these matters are apparently adopting the
long calculation of the Septuagint, in preference to the
Hebrew, as to the epoch of the creation and the deluge;
but that the period of 430 years of the residence of the
Israelites in Egypt, as given in Exodus xii. 40, is now
generally regarded as beginning with Jacob's settlement
in Egypt: the addition of the words, “and in the land
of Canaan,” which appears in the Septuagint, is not re-
ceived as being part of the original text, but as con-
tradictory to facts, such as the genealogy of Joshua,
I Chronicles vii. 23–27, which makes him the twelfth in
succession from Ephraim. Jochebed, the mother of
Moses, is not to be considered as literally a daughter of
Chrono-
logy of
the Bible.
P 2
212 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3'OSHUA TO II. KINGS.
Levi, but simply that she was of that tribe. Hales as
well as Ussher (in the chronology in the English Bibles)
follow the old system, and limit the residence in Egypt
to 215 years, commencing with the entrance of Jacob
and his family; and this is defended in an able article in
the “London Quarterly,” No. 106. With respect to the
chronology of the later period of the Jewish history,
from the monarchy to the captivity, there is much
valuable matter in Lange's Volume on Kings, with
a table by the Rev. W. G. Sumner, of Morris Town.
Also in the chronological tables by F. R. Conder in the
“Bible Educator,” 2 and reprinted in the work entitled
“Handbook of the Bible.” The additional light which
is being thrown upon the dates of the reign of the kings
of Israel and Judah by the discoveries in Assyrian
archaeology, will solve most of the disputed points
within another generation.
Book of 3. THE BOOK OF JOSHUA is a continuation of the
Joshua. Pentateuch, though a distinct work; formerly it was
united with the Pentateuch, which it connects with the
succeeding books. Chapters i. to xii. narrate the history
of the conquest of a large portion of the land of Canaan;
then follow a series of chapters, which may be called “the
Domesday Book” of Israel, specifying the partition of
the land among the tribes. The last ten chapters are sup-
plementary, and give an account of the death of Joshua.
Opinions as to the authorship and date of the book differ
Author, greatly. (a) The Jewish Talmud, the Christian Fathers,
sº Gerlach, Ger/lard, Diodati, Huet, Bishop Patrick, Dr.
Adam Clarke, Kaenig, Baumgarten, Havernic#, think that
Joshua himself was the author of the main portion of the
* Lange’s “Book of Kings,” imp. * “Handbook to the Bible,” by
8vo, 2nd Part, pp. II, 161, &c., to 309. F. R. and C. R. Conder. Cr. 8vo,
* “Bible Educator,” Vol. III. 1880.
pp. 361—365.
BOOK OF 9. OSHUA. 2I3
work, and that the concluding chapters were written by
Eleazer and Phineas. (5) Keil ascribes it to the elders
after Joshua, Matthew Henry to Jeremiah, Moldenhauer
and Van Tell to Samuel. (c) Masius, Spinoza, Le Clerc,
Płasse, Mauer, De Wette, and most critics of the
advanced school, think the period of the exile the most
probable. (d) Ståhelin, De Wette, Lengerée, Bleek,
A nobel, Noldeke, with Ewald, have applied the Elohistic
and Jehovistic theories with the Documentary, Frag-
mentary, and Supplementary Hypotheses, with, of
course, very discordant results. The unity of the book
has been defended by Ståhelin, Steudel, Havernicé, Keil,
and others. (e) Bleek's theory is, that in the days of
Saul, the Elohist compiled from traditions, written laws,
histories, songs, census rolls, &c., a narrative up to the
death of Joshua, with a brief account of events up to the
time of Saul. This older work was enlarged and re-
written in the time of David by the Jehovist; the last
revision was made by the Deuteronomist in the reign of
Josiah. (f) Knobel thinks that there was an Elohist
foundation document, obviously written by a priest, from
the special reference to the ark, the tabernacle, and the
ordinances of public worship : this writer lived in the
days of Saul, in the southern part of the land ; his work
received additions from two other works called the Lazv
book and the War book, which had been used by the
Jehovist, who wrote in the kingdom of Israel in the
days of Hezekiah ; after this the Deuteronomist com-
pleted the book in the days of Josiah. (g) Noldeke
thinks that there was a plain systematic ground text,
written about the ninth or tenth century B.C.; then
another which had two sources, one a writing by the
Second Elohist, another by the Jehovist, who had
absorbed into his narrative the writing of the Second
214 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3:OSHUA TO II. KINGS.
Elohist, so that it could not be separated from his own :
this view is opposed by Hupfield; after this, a Redactor
about 800 B.C.; lastly, the Deuteronomist.
4. Bishop Colenso's theory differs from all the pre-
ceding. His view is that the Jehovist in the time of
Solomon laid the foundation of the work by writing two
hundred and twelve and a half verses; then the Deu-
teronomist added, or rather inserted or interpolated,
three hundred and six and a half verses; and last of all,
the Levitical legislation interpolated one hundred and
thirty-nine verses. The great use of the laborious
ingenuity of all the critical hypotheses, and the fruitless
results of these inquiries, is to convince the sober student
of the wisdom of resting content with the “traditional
view” of the Churches, that the book was compiled from
records contemporary with the age of Joshua, but by
whom is not known. We may guess that Samuel was
the editor. Dr. Davidson assigns to the Elohist certain
chapters which Bishop Colenso appropriates variously:
for instance, chapters iv. I5—17, 19, to the Deuterono-
mist and Levitical legislation; chapter v. to Levitical
legislation ; chapter xiii. 15–33, to the Deuteronomist
and Levitical legislation ; chapter xiv. I—5, to Levitical
legislation ; chapter xv. I—I3, 20–44, 48, 62, to the
Jehovist, Deuteronomist, and Levitical legislation;
chapters xvi. I—9, xvii. I—IO, xviii. 1, 2, II and 28, to the
Jehovist; chapters xix., xx., to the Jehovist, Deuteronomist,
and Levitical legislation ; chapters xxi. I—4O, xxii. 9–II,
I3—15, 21, 30–33, to Levitical legislation :' all these
chapters are, according to Dr. Davidson, by the Elohist.
So different are the conclusions of two of the most
learned of our critics, not from the absence of learning
or research, but from the fact that there is no material
Bishop
Colenso’s
view.
* “Pentateuch, &c., Examined,” Vol. II., Appendix.
DR. PLUMPTRE. 2I5
in the book itself for such a minute dissection and
appropriation of its several portions.
5. Bishop Colemaso's strong prepossession against the
authenticity, &c., of the Pentateuch may be illustrated
by a reference to a passage in his large work." Mr.
Plumptre says in the “Dictionary of the Bible,” “What-
ever question may be raised as to the antiquity of the
whole Pentateuch in its present form, the existence of a
book bearing this title (Book of the Law) is traceable to
an early period in the history of the Israelites (Joshua,
chap. i. 8, viii. 34, xxiv. 26).” Answer : Unfortunately,
the above are all Deuteronomist or later passages, only
carrying up the title in question to Jeremiah's days,
shortly before the captivity.” We can by this under-
stand the use of the notion of the Deuteronomist and
Levitical interpolations in Dr. Colenso's theory, for
they cut off all the evidence from the older books against
Graf's, and his theory of the post-exilian origin of the
Mosaic institution. These Deuteronomist passages, and
those of the Levitical legislators, were, according to
Dr. Colemaso, inserted in the Book of Joshua, in the one
case about 627 B.C., in the other in the fifth century
B.C. According to this arrangement of supposed author-
ship of this Book of Joshua, the name of Moses, which
occurs twenty-four times, is, in these passages in which it
occurs, referred to the Deuteronomist or Levitical legis-
lation : this removal of the name of the great law-giver
is obviously to help Dr. Colemso's favourite notion that
“the Pentateuch, as we now have it, cannot have been
familiarly known to the people; that the ‘Law of Moses’
was not a household book among them; and that not even
Moses himself, much less Aaron and Joshua, occupied
* “Pentateuch Examined,” Vol. VI. p. 360.
* Smith's “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vol. I. p. 210.
216 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3 OSHUA To II. KINGS.
a very prominent place before the time of the Deu-
teronomist.” In our Book of Joshua the name of Moses
is mentioned fifty-six times
ZŽe Deuteronomist. Chaps. i. 3–18, ii. IO, II, 24, iii.
2–5, 7, 8, IO, I2, I 5", 16", 17, iv. I—II, I4–18, 20–24,
v. I–8, I3—I5, vi. 2–5, 17, 18, 20", 21, 24", 25, 27,
vii. 2–17, 18*, 19—24, 25*, 26, viii. I*, 2*, 3"—9, I4”, I8°,
22–35, ix. I, 2, 6°, 7, 9", IO, 24, 25, 27", x. I—5, 7", 8,
II—27", 28–43, xi. 2, 3, 6, 8*, 9—23, xii. I—24, xiii. I—
7 (8 LXX.), 8–21°, 23, 24–27, 29–31, 33, xv. 45–47,
63, xvi. IO, xvii. II—I8, xviii. 3", 6, 7, 8", IO, xix. 9, 47,
XXi. 43–44, xxii. I—7, xxiii. I—I6, xxiv. I– 25, 3I,
except interpolation by L.L. as below.
The Levitical Legislation. Chaps. iv. I2, I3, 19, v.
IO-I2, vi. 19, 24", vii. 1, 18*, 25", ix. I4, I5°, I7—21,
x. 27", xiii. 14" (LXX), 21", 22, 23", 28, 32, xiv. I—I5,
xv. 12", 20, xvi. 8", xvii. 3–6, xviii. 20", 28", xix. 8", 16, 23,
3I, 39, 48–51, xx. I–9, xxi. I–42, xxii. 8–34, xxiv. 26,
27, 33, with matteſ. (Hebrew for tribe) in xiii. I5, xv. I,
2O, 2I, xvi. 8", xviii. II, xix. I, 8°, 23, 24, 31, 40, and “to
the matteſ, of Gad,” xiii. 24, “and it belonged to the
half matteſ, of the children of Manasseh,” xiii. 29, “for
the matteſ, of Manasseh, for he was the first-born of
Joseph,” xvii. 1, “and the half matteſ, of Manasseh,” xxii. I.
N.B.-The LL. has inserted Joshua xv. I3 and IQ
(with some modification of its own) from Judges i. IO-
I5, with reference to its own previous insertions, Joshua
xiv. 6—15.
In Joshua xx. 3–6 interpolations have been made in
a very late age, which are not found in the LXX.
6. THE BOOK OF JUDGES (i.e., Shophetime in Hebrew,
a word similar to the term used to designate the
Bishop
Colenso’s
theory of
interpo-
lations in
Joshua.
Book of
Judges.
* “Pentateuch,” Vol. VII. p. 71. See also Appendix, Synoptical
Tables of the Hexateuch.
BOOK OF 3 UDGES. 217
Phoenician and Carthaginian dictators, who were styled
Sufetes). The Hebrew Judges were leaders raised up
by Divine impulse to deliver the Israelites in times of
peculiar danger. In this respect as patriots, and not
with special reference to their religious character, they
are held up to our admiration in the Old and New
Testament. The book is unmethodical, abounding in
dislocations; the chronology confused, in which respect
it resembles the Egyptian and other ancient chronologies.
The first seventeen chapters were apparently written
before Jerusalem had been taken by David (compare
Judges, chap. i. 8, 2I with 2 Samuel, chap. v. 6, 7). The
last five chapters form an appendix, the date of which
was probably in the time of the early kings. There is
one passage in chap. xviii. 30 which appears to refer to
the Assyrian captivity: the phrase is used in connection
with the graven image which the sons of Gershon had
set up in the tribe of Dan, and which continued “until
the day of the captivity of the land.” Some think that
the proper reading should be “the captivity of the ark,”
the word TTXIT for ark, having by some copyists been
mistaken for Yºsh, land. In this case the reference
would be to the captivity of the ark by the Philistines,
recorded in I Samuel.iv. II—22, at which time Shiloh is
supposed to have been destroyed, and the whole land
involved in great calamities through the Philistines and
other tribes, to whom there is a reference in Psalm
lxxviii. 60, 61. This great calamity was not forgotten
by the people of Israel and Judah, and is referred to by
Jeremiah as a striking proof of God's indignation with a
place in which He had once set His name, but which
He had abandoned to destruction “for the wickedness"
of His people Israel (Jeremiah, chap. vii. I2). In the
original construction of the book, it is probable “that
Date and
author-
ship.
218 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3 osh UA to II. KINGs.
the main narrative existed in a distinct form before it was
incorporated, together with the preface (chap. i. to iii. 3),
in the series of historical books.” The critics generally
place the book at the period of the captivity, the period
of all others the least likely: (1) De Wette and Keil
regard the song of Deborah as a production of the period
to which it is assigned in the book; but (2) Bishop Colemso
ascribes it to “the golden age of Hebrew literature,” the
reign of David.
7. Bishop Colenso thinks that the book was written by
some one of the school of the Prophets established by
Samuel, but that it had received large additions in its
re-editing by the Deuteronomist and Levitical legis-
lators. The respective portions ascribed to these Sup-
posed writers, are those which refer to the past history
of Israel, which are not included in Dr. Colemaso’s “Old
Story.” For instance, the passages chaps. i. I6, iv. II,
xi. I6–28, which plainly allude to portions of Numbers
and Deuteronomy, are supposed to refer to the “Old
Story.” So also the passages chaps. xviii. 30, xx. 18, 27,
28, xxi. 5–I4, are assigned to the Levitical legislators,
because of the mention of “P/lineas the some of Eleazer,
the some of Aaron,” whose name occurs in Numbers xxvi.
6–18, which, according to Dr. Colemso, belongs to the
Levitical legislation. To the Deuteronomist are as-
signed passages chaps. ii. IO-23, iii. 7, iv. I, vi. I–7,
IO, viii. 22, 23, 33–35, x. IO-I6, xiii. I, all of which
refer, more or less, to Moses and the deliverance from
Egypt, events which, in the opinion of the Bishop, were
not generally known to the Israelitish people, until the
Book of Deuteronomy had been put forth by the
Prophet Jeremiah. By this means he attempts to cut
off all appeal to these references in the Book of Judges
Bishop
Colenso’s
theory of
interpo-
lations.
* “Speaker's Commentary,” Vol. II. p. 116.
BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 2I9
which tell against his theory, Moses being mentioned
four times.
8. THE BOOK OF RUTH is generally assigned to the
age of David. The genealogy at the end of chap. iv.
appears to be a very natural appendage to the narrative,
but Bishop Colenso ascribes it to the Levitical legis-
lators.
9. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL (I and 2) connect the
period of the Judges with that of the monarchy. They
are composed from documents contemporary, or nearly
So, with the events which they relate; but when first col-
lected in the form in which we now possess them, it is
difficult to say. Well may the author of the article
Samuel (Book of), in Smith’s “Dictionary,” remark:
“More questions can be asked than can be answered, and
the results of a dispassionate inquiry are mainly nega-
tive.” The style of these books is considered by Hebraists
as perfect, free from foreign admixture and pronuncia-
tion ; but being a compilation from various contemporary
writers by one who lived probably several generations
later, there are discrepancies, obscurities, and apparent
contradictions which critics have laboured to explain and
reconcile with varied success. It is well for us to keep in
mind the judicious remarks of Dr. S. Davidson, that “dis-
crepancies are only another word for our ignorance.”
Except to those who delight in antiquarian researches
into minute matters of Hebrew history, it is not im-
portant to settle these doubtful questions. We receive
the book with other historical books on the faith of the
Jewish Canon, confirmed by our Lord and His Apostles.
We give the opinions of the learned :-(a) The Talmud-
isis and the Fathers, as well as the old divines, regarded
Samuel as the author of the first twenty-four chapters,
* “Biblical Dictionary,” Smith's, Vol. III. p. 1125.
Book of
Ruth.
Books of
Samuel.
Date and
author-
ship.
220 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3:OSHUA To II. KINGS.
Bishop
Colenso’s
theory of
interpo-
lations.
and Wathan of the rest. (b) Abarðamel, and sundry of
the Jewish doctors, with Grotius, fix upon Jeremiah.
(c) Jaſºn, Herbst, Vaihinger, Palfrey, that Samuel and
the Kings were written after the captivity. Stå/elin
thought with Şahn, but ascribed chaps. i. and ii. to
Samuel. (d) Eichhorn, Bertholet, Thenius, supposed dif-
ferent Series of documents, two of Saul and David, as
the foundations of the work. (e) Gramberg supposed two
narratives, partly differing, welded into one. (f) Graf
supposes a foundation work, to which sundry hierarchical
additions were made. (g) Ezwald supposes a grand, com-
prehensive Book of Kings, of which the Books of Samuel
and Kings are portions. (/) Bleek thinks that there were
certain written manuals, besides the poems used by the
compiler, but does not think it possible to identify
them. (i) Dr. S. Davidson ascribes the work to the time
of Asa. (AE) De Wette, Havernick, and Keil, fix the date
as that of the generation after the division of the
kingdom.
IO. Bishop Colenso thinks that the author is one of
“the school of the Prophets,” an opinion which is highly
probable. He regards the following passages as inter-
polations by the Deuteronomist : I Sam. chap. vii.
3—I4, ix. 9, x. 8, 18, 19, 25, xii., xiii. 8–I5," xiv.
2 Sam. Chap. ii. IO, II, iii. I8, v. 4, 5, II, I2, vii.
It will be seen that the reference to Moses, Aaron,
and Jacob, which occurs in chap. xii. 6–8, are ascribed
to the date of the supposed Deuteronomist in the reign
of Josiah, in support of the theory referred to in para-
graph (5) of this chapter. The fact that there is no
reference to the law of Moses expressly by name in the
Books of Samuel, is no proof of the non-acquaintance
with the laws themselves, although there was no doubt
much irregularity in their observance, and occasionally
THE BOOKS OF KINGS. 22 I
a total neglect of them. The books abound in allu-
Sions to the Pentateuch. Even De Wette and others
are obliged to admit this, and they ascribe them to the
final editors. In Keil and Havernick these allusions
are brought out and illustrated. Various apparent con-
tradictory statements are investigated by Keil, and
Satisfactorily explained, but there are dislocations in
the narrative which cannot be accounted for, and which
must remain." The title MESSIAH, i.e., anointed, is used
in I Sam. ii. Io for the first time, and in seventeen other
places in these books, with the meaning ascribed to it in
Luke ii. 26. - e
II. THE BOOKS OF KINGS (I and 2) were probably
written in the interval between the captivity and the
return from Babylon. Like the preceding historical
books, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, they are for the
most part compilations from the records of the kingdom,
and from that numerous body of historical and memoir
writers, a list of whom is found in the second paragraph
of this chapter. The prevailing opinion is that the two
books were written by Jeremiah, or so revised by him
as to be recognised as his, and that there was in these
books, as in the historical books generally, a revision by
Ezra. It would require a large volume to discuss the
real or supposed contradictions and discrepancies in
the narrative, arising mainly out of the diversity of the
materials from which the books were compiled. These
points have been fully considered, according to our
present light, in the valuable “Dictionary” of Smith
and Kitto, and in “Lange's Commentary,” in the
“Speaker's Commentary,” and in Ayre's volume of
“Horne's Introduction; ” also by Davidson, Keil, and
others. The truth of the narrative is not affected by
| Keil’s “Introduction to the Old Testament,” Vol. I. pp. 235—244.
Books of
Kings.
Date and
author-
ship.
222 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3:OSHUA TO II. KINGS.
Bishop
Colenso's
theory of
interpo-
lations.
these variations. The text is very imperfect, and varies
much from the text which the Septuagint translators
possessed. The chronology is imperfect; “no authori-
tative, correct, systematic chronology was originally
contained in the Books of Kings; and the attempt to
supply such afterwards led to the introduction of many
erroneous dates, and probably to the corruption of Some
true ones which were originally there.” Already con-
siderable light has been thrown upon chronological
difficulties through the opening up of the records of
Assyria and Babylon, and further discoveries may make
all clear to the next generation : for their “religious
teaching and the insight they give us into God’s provi-
dential and moral government of the world are above
all valuable.”
I2. Dr. Colemaso's theory is ; that chapters i. to xi. of
I Kings are the production of the Old Jehovistic writer
of Judges and Samuel—Say Nathan or Gad; and that
the remainder is mainly the work of Jeremiah (as Deu-
teronomist). Canon Rawlinson thinks they were a com-
pilation by Jeremiah, as was the rest of the book.” One
reason confirmatory of Jeremiah's authorship is, that
being himself so important a personage during the reigns
of the four kings preceding the captivity, his name is not
once mentioned in these books.” (a) The following are
considered by Bishop Colenso to be Deuteronomist
interpolations in chaps. i. to xi. of I Kings: chaps. i. 48,
ii. 3, 4, IO-I2, 24, 26, 32, 33, 44–46, iii. 2, 3, 5–15,
iv. I3,” 21–23, V. I–I4, viii. 8, 9, 12–6 I, 66, ix. I—24,
26–28, X. I-29, xi. I—I3, 27,” 29–39, 41–43.
(b) The following are the supposed insertions by the
Smith’s “Dictionary,” Vol. II. Sumner in “Lange's com. of
pp. 25, 38. Kings,” Part II. p. 287.
* “Bible Educator,” Vol. III.3.
BISHOP COLENSO ON KINGS. 223
e-
Levitical legislators after the captivity, in the first eleven
chapters of r Kings: chaps. iii. I6–28, iv. 24–28, 29–
34, v. I5–18, vi. I, II—I4 (reference to holy places), 16,
vii. (reference to most holy places), 50, viii. 1, 4, 5, Io,
II, 63, 64, and clauses in 2, 6, 65. (c) The remainder
of the two Books of Kings are accredited to Jeremiah,
save and except some Levitical additions, and Sundry
chapters which are supposed to be “legendary.” The
Levitical additions are supposed to be I Kings, chaps.
xii. 21—24, 32, 33 ; xiii. is either a Levitical addition or
by another writer; xx. is a Levitical legislation, to which
belongs verse I of chap. xxii.; 2 Kings, chaps. xii. 4–16,
xvi. 13–16. (d) The following are considered as
“legendary :” I Kings, chapS. xvii. to xix., taken from an
old narrative or tradition, and retouched by the Deu-
teronomist; these relate to the history of Elijah. So
also 2 Kings, chapS. i. 5–16, ii., iii. 4–27, iv. to vii., viii.
I—I 5, are supposed to be from “legendary” traditions
about Elijah and Elisha. Some chapters are taken
from Isaiah, as 2 Kings xviii. I3, 17–37, xix., xx. I5–19,
which are the same as Isaiah xxxvi. to xxxix, ; but
2 Kings, chaps. xxiv, I8 to xxv. are taken from Jeremiah lii.
I3. Some criticisms are evidently the result of an
endeavour to confirm Bishop Colenso's theories of the
late additions to the Pentateuch. (a) In 2 Kings, chap.
xviii. 4, the removal and destruction of “the brazen
serpent that Moses had made” is recorded, with the
remark of Bishop Colenso that this verse is by the Deu-
teronomist, and is a reference to Numbers, chap. xxi.
6, 9, which is a Deuteronomist interpolation, and
cannot therefore be quoted as a proof that the Penta-
teuch was known in Israel at that time as we generally
suppose.” (b) In I Kings, chaps. vi. I6, vii. 50, viii. 6, the
* “Pentateuch,” Part VI. p. 540.
Elijah
and
Elisha.
224 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3:OSHUA TO II. KINGS.
Criticisms phrase most ſoly place (literally ſoly of Żolies) is found.
of Bishop
Colenso
made to
Support
his
theory.
This phrase, the Bishop remarks, is added by a later
hand, by the Levitical legislators, as it is “used nowhere
else in the Book of Kings, nor in any one of the Psalms
or Prophets, except Ezekiel in his scheme of the second
Temple after the captivity, and Daniel ix. 24. It is used,
however, by the Levitical legislators repeatedly in the
Pentateuch, Exodus xxvi. 33, 34, &c. . . . Leviticus ii.
3, IO, &c. . . . Numbers iv. 4, 19, &c. . . and nowhere
else except in post-captivity writings.” Here the
Bishop assumes that in the narrative of the building of
the Temple by the old Jehovist narrator, the Levitical
legislators have interpolated the passage in question,
and he proves this to his own satisfaction by assuming
that this phrase, as it is used in the Pentateuch, is found
in passages which he assumes to be later additions
by the Levitical legislators: this cool assumption im-
poses on the careless reader. It is one assumption
supported by another, without the pretence of evidence.
(c) In the account of the building of the Temple, I Kings,
chaps. vi., vii., the Bishop remarks,” “in comparing the
Temple of Solomon and the tabernacle as described in
Exodus xxv., &c., it is found that all the arrangements
are identical, and the dimensions of every part of the
former exactly double those of the latter. From this,
coupled with the fact that not a hint is given, even by
the chronicler, as to the Temple being copied from the
Divine model set in the tabernacle, it is plain that the
idea of the latter structure was suggested by the former ;
in other words, that the account of the construction
of the tabernacle in Exodus xxv., &c., is of later date
than the age of Solomon, and belongs, in fact, to the
The
Temple.
1 “Pentateuch,” Part VII. pp. * “Pentateuch,” Part VI. p. 51,
VII. p. 158.
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 225
Levitical legislation.” Nothing but an overwhelming
prepossession, amounting almost to a judicial blind-
ness, can account for such an illogical deduction.
Common sense would infer that the true state of the
case was that the tabernacle was the model upon which
the Temple was designed and built. The Bishop's con-
clusion is as absurd as the objection quoted from Graf.”
that in the narrative in I Kings, chap. vi., vii., “we have
no account of the costly vessels of the tabernacle, since
entirely new ones were made for the Temple.” Such
trivialities are not generally recorded in grave histories.
If the critic must think about such minor matters, his
imagination might lead him to suppose that the gold
and silver in the old vessels would be recast for material
for the new ones; but whether or not is of no importance.
(d) The Passover (Pascah) observed by Josiah, 2 Kings Bishop
xxiii. 21—23, was, according to Bishop Colemso, “the º:
first and perhaps the only time before the captivity kept the origin
by all the people.”3 He supposes that the Israelitish rº.
passover did not originate as recorded in Exodus, chap.
xii. (which is by him supposed to be an interpolation of
the Levitical legislation), but was received by the Israel-
ites from their hated enemies the Canaanites, and was,
in fact, identical with the feast in which unleavened
cakes had been eaten and bloody sacrifices of men and
beasts had been offered by the Canaanitish tribes to the
sun-god—the Baal, or Lord of the Land. That the
Hebrews were only too ready to adopt their customs
we know from Judges ii. II—13, iii. 5–7, viii. 33, x. 6;
I Samuel vii. 3, &c., &c.; and that human sacrifices were
offered in idolatrous times is witnessed by the testimony
* “Pentateuch,” &c., Part VII. * See “Pentateuch,” Vol. V. pp.
p. I58. 285–304; Vol. VI. pp. 4II-433;
* Ibid. Part VI. p. 51. Vol. VII. p. 221.
Q
226 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3:OSHUA To II. KINGS,
Bishop
Colenso’s
notion
that
human
sacrifices
Were not
forbidden
by the
original
Law.
of the historical books; for instance, 2 Kings xvi. 3,
xxiii. 4—IO, xxi. 6, and by the prophets, Micah vi. 7;
Isaiah lvii. 4, 5 ; Jeremiah vii. 31, xix. 5, xxxii. 35 ;
Ezekiel xvi. 20, 21, and confirmed by Psalm cvi. 37, 38.
To the facts of Israelitish compliance with the abomina-
tions of the heathen, we must agree with the Bishop ; but
that the Israelitish passover was an imitation of a
Canaanitish festival, and not a commemoration of the
great deliverance, and of the preservation of the
Israelitish first-born in the night when the first-born
of Egypt perished, it is impossible for any one to admit
who receives the Pentateuch as it is, and not as modified
by the supposed Deuteronomist and the Levitical legis-
lators. The whole tone of the Pentateuch and of all
the historical books is directly opposed to Dr. Colenso's
notion that the law of the first-born (Exodus xiii. 1, 2,
xxii. 29, 30) placed the first-born of man and of cattle in
exactly the same position in all respects, and that there
was no redemption mentioned in these passages, which
he considers as Jehovistic and belonging to the Old
Story. When we quote Exodus xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20, “All
the first-born of man among thy children shalt thou
zedeem,” we are told that these are interpolations of
the Deuteronomist seven centuries afterwards, the result
of the humanising influences of prophetic teaching; but
that in the interval, there had been no express forbidding
of human sacrifice in the law, though the practice was
discouraged by the more enlightened Israelites. This
dark view of the religious teaching and moral feeling of
the ante-Deuteronomist age (the age of Josiah), un-
supported by historical testimony, is intended to support
the novel theory of the gradual reformation of the
original harsh law of Moses, through the influence of the
prophetical teaching, and especially of the new law (Deu-
COLENSO ON ELISAH. 227
teronomy) introduced by Jeremiah. We do not believe
in the composition of the new law (Deuteronomy) in the
days of Josiah, and we do believe that the prophetical
teaching had for its foundation the laws of Moses as
existing in the Thoraſ, so that we cannot receive the
strange theory.
I4. Bishop Colemaso's remarks on the histories of the
prophets ELIJAH and ELISHA, as related in the two
Books of Kings, in the chapters considered by him to be
purely legendary, or copied from an older writing ; in
which he agrees with Baron Bunsen in his Bible work.
With him Elijah “is an ideal character, the representa-
tive prophet, the type of what all prophets should be,
. . . . or there may have been a living prophet named
Elijah, whose memory was retained in the kingdom of
Israel, . . . and became transfigured in their legendary
lore, with a traditional glory, like that of King Arthur
in our own English history.” The reader may judge
of the difference between the plain, striking history of
Elijah and Elisha, as related in the Books of Kings, and
the cloudy, contradictory glimpses of the mythical
personality of King Arthur, for which we have no
authority except in bardic songs. Ezwald, the great
German critic and historian of Israel, by no means
“Superstitiously addicted to orthodoxy,” though “re-
garding the miraculous portion of the history as unhis-
torical,” as might be expected from his known character,
has by far a more just appreciation of the position of
Bishop
Colenso
on the
Prophets
Elijah
and
Elisha,
these great prophets.” “In dealing with the labours of Ewald on
Elijah, as well as with those of his successor Elisha, the
stream of extant records of those centuries, at cther
times narrowly hemmed in, suddenly spreads out, and
* “Pentateuch,” VII. pp. 173, * “History of Israel,” Vol. IV.
I74. p. 63.
Elijah and
Elisha.
Q 2
228 HISTORICAL BOOKS FROM 3:OSHUA TO II. KINGS.
the most marvellous forms rise before our eyes, as
though from some mysterious abyss. And our wonder
at the appearance of Elijah, in particular, increases in
proportion to the abruptness which, in the extant
historical work, marks the opening of the whole nar-
rative of the career of this hero; so that his first entry
within the province of the history seems almost as
unique and inexplicable as his final disappearance. It
is really impossible to have any doubt of the extra-
ordinary nature of the prophetic career of Elijah. It is
exhibited sufficiently forcibly in the whole course of the
history; for it was he, and he alone, with no other
instrument than the simple form of his spirit and his
speech, who achieved no less a marvel than a complete
revolution of the existing condition of the kingdom of
the Ten Tribes. Had he not produced the most extra-
ordinary effect, and had not his contemporaries at the
same time experienced and acknowledged in him the
activity of a marvellous power, none of the extant stories
about him would have arisen, and the recollections of
his career would not have preserved the entirely peculiar
colouring in which they are now immortalised. More-
over, however grand much that is related of him may be,
no narrative can supply anything but a feeble picture of
the original grandeur, and the all-conquering power of
the greatest prophetic hero of the kingdom of the Ten
Tribes; if only because it can place nothing before us
but single acts, and only few of these, from which we
have to reason backwards to gain any general idea of his
real aim. His successor Elisha was, it is equally certain,
a prophet of great influence; , but in all recollections he
appears to occupy a lower position than his master,
although even more particulars have been preserved of
his career than of Elijah's.” Justice has been done to
DR. ALLON ON ELIYAH. 229
this portion of Jewish history in three able articles on
these Prophets, in the “Bible Educator,” by the Rev.
Henry Allon, D.D., from which we quote the following
striking remarks: “The distinctive inspiration of Elijah
was religious conviction and sentiment, and not mere
patriotism. Against all the organised powers and social
forces of his age he stands in the simple might of his
religious convictions. Through all history no inspiration
has been so mighty. The impelling and sustaining force
of patriotism, of natural affection even, gives place to
that of religion. The sense of Divine Supremacy, the
depth and sanctity of religious feeling, and the strength
of religious convictions, together with the consciousness
of a Divine commission, and the involuntary reverence
inspired by it, have over and over again made weak and
solitary men revolutionary powers in Society. . . . Among
them Elijah, although not the first, is perhaps the
supreme instance. No man ever fought the battle of
God against greater odds or under more arduous con-
ditions, or achieved a more signal and momentous
victory. No inspiration that the human experience
knows is so noble and strong and irresistible as religious
inspiration, and the purer the religious faith, the greater
is its power.””
* “Bible Educator,” Vol. III. pp. 74, 93, 154. * Ibid. Vol. III. p. 77.
23o THE Post-ExILIAN BOOKS.
Peculiar
character
of these
books.
CHAPTER XI.
THE Post-ExILIAN Books.
I. These are the Books of the CHRONICLES, EZRA,
NEHEMIAH, and the Book of Esther, which are the only
historical books fairly belonging to the period of the
exile, and to the generation after the return from
Rabylon. It is true that the first and second Books of
Kings were written after the destruction of Jerusalem,
and the carrying away of the king and people; but the
author appears to have written at an early period of the
captivity, and to have been altogether unaffected by the
opinion and feelings of the generation which grew up
under the intellectual and moral discipline of the cap-
tivity under Babylonian and Persian rule. He writes as
a Jew of the old kingdom, whose sympathies are with
the captive king Jehoiachin, and with the past history
of the monarchy (2 Kings xxv. 27–30). The chronicler,
with the writers of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,
while not insensible to the past glories of the kingly
race, are wholly devoted to one object—the restoration
and establishment of the religious polity and institution
set forth in the law of Moses. The leading master
spirits of the generations immediately succeeding the
return from captivity had awoke to a deep conviction of
the true source of the strength and stability of the newly-
restored community. Empire and extent of territory
were out of the question; but that Israel stood in a
THE LESSONS OF THE CAPTIVITY. 23.I
peculiar relation to Jehovah, and occupied a place in
His plan and purpose of human regeneration, was dimly
seen by them. All their past history testified to a pur-
pose, which their disobedience as a people had frustrated.
They had been punished and yet preserved ; their ruth-
less conquerors had in their captivity befriended them.
The great hero of the past age, the founder of the
empire under which they lived, had pleaded the com-
mand of Jehovah as the cause of their release; the
hopes of restoration held out by the prophets had been
realised, and these same prophecies pointed to a future
yet more glorious than all they could conceive of the
past. The visions of Daniel had extended the sphere of
the spiritual vision of the thoughtful and meditative of
the men of the restoration, and Haggai and Zechariah,
in the spirit of the ancient prophets, had held out the
picture of a glory to be realised in the Temple then
building, which should exceed the glory of the former
house, accompanied by the significant words which gave
an additional interest to the Temple and to Jerusalem :
“And in this place will / give peace, saith the Lord of
Hosts” (Haggai ii. 9).
2. No one can read the history of the return and the
condition of the small party which were placed in and
near Jerusalem without being convinced that nothing
less than the religious convictions of the immigrants
could have sustained them in their trying position.
Through the influence of the high character and honour-
able conduct of Jeremiah and of Daniel, the Babylonian
monarchs had favoured the exiled Jews; and afterwards
Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, had publicly
announced his peculiar call to favour them. Thus the
captivity of the Jews had been overruled to their tem-
poral benefit. It required an effort of the leading and
Religious
character
of the
return
from
Babylon.
232 THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
Reforms
of Ezra
and
Nehemiah.
more enthusiastic men to gather together a party of about
50,000 to accompany Zerubbabel and Joshua to re-
establish Jerusalem and to rebuild the Temple, 536 B.C.
With a limited territory confined to the small tribe of
Benjamin, and a portion of the tribe of Judah, threatened
continually by the heathen communities around them,
and liable at any time to attacks upon their defenceless
city, their outward circumstances were far from satisfac-
tory; but they rebuilt the Temple, and re-established
the priesthood and the sacrificial and other ordinances
of the law of Moses—the law recognised by them as that
of their nation, preserved and studied while in Babylonia,
and not a new law, of which they and their fathers had
been ignorant. Eighty years afterwards, 456 B.C., EZRA
arrived, accompanied by a large party; and twelve years
afterwards NEHEMIAH, 444 B.C., who had been appointed
as Governor by the Persian king. By these energetic and
Self-denying devoted men, the spirits of the community
were revived, order established, and grievances redressed.
These reforms, timely effected, related to the then
present necessities of the population, the relief of the
poor from the usurious claims of the wealthy, the
enforcement of the obligations of the payments required .
for the purpose of the Temple services, the support of
the priests and Levites, and the safety of the city and
Temple. The law respecting mixed marriages, which
originally pointed against such unions with the
nations of Canaan, and which had not been regarded as
absolute in the case of other neighbouring people, was
enforced with a strictness which required painful sacri-
fices of feeling on the part mainly of the priests and
higher classes of Jewish society. For this astringent
measure, Ezra and Nehemiah have been censured by the
critics occupying the standpoint of modern liberalism.
THE MIXED MARRIAGES. 233
But we must judge these re-founders of Judaism, not by
the liberality of our expansive Christianity, but by the
critical position of the small community at Jerusalem.
The danger of being absorbed by their heathen neigh-
bours, and the consequent effacement of any line of
demarcation between the only visible Church of the
true God and the heathen world, could not be doubted.
It was imminent, and humanly speaking, nothing but the
disruption of all social ties between Jew and Gentile
could save the nationality and religion of Judaism.
This catastrophe was prevented. From the memorable
day (recorded in Nehemiah the viii. chap) when Ezra
“read in the book the law of God distinctly, and gave the
sense, and caused them to understand the reading,” the
Jewish people have been remarkable for their adherence
to the law, and faithful guardians of the oracles of
God.
3. THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES, I. and II.-These
books, originally united as one, are called in Hebrew the
books “of the daily acts.” The Septuagint translators,
with reference to their supplementary character, applied
to them the term paraleipomena, or “things omitted.”
In one respect these books differ from the other histories:
they relateafresh and from a somewhat different standpoint
the narrative which had been already given by others.
The object of the writer is (1) To present the leading facts
from the genealogical tables of the leading families,
most important to be known as connected with the
correct apportioning of the land. (2) To give special
information respecting the ritualistic and religious
ordinance of the Mosaic economy, and more especially
those relating to the Temple and the priesthood. (3) º:
A moral purpose, to enforce the lessons taught by of the
the past history of the Israelitish nation, namely, that d;
234. THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
The date.
the prosperity and even the existence of the nation were
connected with, and dependent upon, the faithful main-
tenance of the religious truths received from the fathers,
and from their great law-giver Moses. The question of
authorship is not easily settled. It is thought by some
eminent critics that these books, with the Books of Ezra
and Nehemiah, are in reality one work by the same
writer; others, with more probability, contend for a
diversity of books and writers, retouched by a later
editor by whom the genealogies, I Chronicles iii. 22–
24, and Nehemiah xii. II, 22, 23, were inserted. If so,
there would be no difficulty in supposing that Ezra
wrote the Chronicles as well as his own book, which is a
continuation of the Chronicles. The last chapter of
2 Chronicles from verse 8 is attributed to Daniel, as it is
thought to fill up a gap between chaps. ix. and x. in his
book. If Ezra or some contemporary be the author,
then the date may be about 450 B.C.—435 B.C. Ewald,
who thinks the genealogies referred to are part of the
original, thinks the books were written so late as 336 B.C.
—323 B.C., while Zunz would go lower to 260 B.C., and
Spinoza through the line of the Maccabees, I60 B.C.
The testimony of Josephus is so clear as to the closing
of the Canon against the reception of any new work after
the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, about 400 B.C., as is
sufficient to set aside the late dates of Ewald and Zunz,
&c., though it is probable that there was a final redaction
by Jadua, the High Priest, and the addition of the
genealogies, I Chronicles iii. 22 to 24, about that time, say
300 B.C., in which it is possible some additions were
made to the genealogical tables.
4. The attacks upon the genuineness and correctness
of the author of the Chronicles have been peculiarly
rabid, mainly from dogmatic reasons. These have been
DOGMATICAL OB}ECTIONS. 235
stated by Bishop Lord A. C. Hervey. “It has been
clearly shown that the attack was grounded, not upon
any real marks of spuriousness in the books themselves,
but solely upon the desire of the critics in question, to
remove a witness whose evidence was fatal to their
favourite theory as to the post-Babylonian origin of the Attacks
Books of Moses. If the accounts in the Books of :...;
Chronicles of the courses of priests and Levites, and the of the
gº tº º º § Chronicles
ordinance of Divine service as arranged by David, and
restored by Hezekiah and Josiah are genuine, it neces-
Sarily follows that the Levitical law, as set forth in the .
Pentateuch, was not invented after the return from the
captivity. Hence this successful vindication of the
authenticity of Chronicles has a very important bearing
upon many of the very gravest theological questions.”
To the same effect S. 9. Curtiss writes,” “If it (the
Chronicles) can be conclusively proved to be veritable
history, then the theories of Graf, Kuemen, and Kayser fall
to the ground;” and, if possible, still more conclusively we
may quote the words of the leading opponent of the
genuineness of the Chronicles, De Wette: “As the entire
Jewish history, on its most interesting and important
side, namely, that of religion, and the manner of
observing the worship of God, after the accounts in the
Chronicles have been put out of the way, . . . assumes
quite a different shape; so, also, the investigations about
the Pentateuch take a different turn all at once; a
multitude of troublesome proofs, difficult to put out of the
way, that the Mosaic books were in existence at an
earlier time vanish,” &c.” The principal objectors are:
(a) De Wette, who accuses the chronicler of distorting
* Smith's “Dict.,” Vol. I. p. 309. * Quoted by Keil, Vol. II. p. 81,
* Curtiss’s “Levitical Priests,” Clark's translation.
p. IOO.
236 THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
Bishop
Colenso’s
attack
on the
chronicler.
and falsifying true history, of his partiality for the tribe
of Levi, his similar predilection for Judah, and his hatred
of Israel. (b) Gramberg charges the chronicler with
systematically falsifying the history in a manner the
most audacious. (c) Graf accuses him (1) of writing ficti-
tious genealogies to prove the Levitical descent of the
men in ancient times, in order to maintain their right to
participate in the Divine services; (2) of partiality for
the exclusive priesthood of the family of Aaron ; (3) of
referring everything that had in his time become estab-
lished in law and usage to Moses, and of tracing all the
arrangements of the Temple as they existed at his time
(So far as they were not already in the law of Moses) to
David as the founder of the Temple. So also Kuenen,
A aſser, and Wellhausen. The defenders of the author
of Chronicles against De Wette, Graf, &c., have been
Dähler, Movers, Keil, and others. (d) Bishop Colemso
ascribes the Books of Chronicles to a Levite who lived
after Nehemiah's government, and probably so late as 336
—323 B.C. His reasons are that the Daric is mentioned,
a Persian coin first issued by Darius Hystaspes, 521—
486 B.C., and therefore not likely to be in common cir-
culation in Judaea in the time of Ezra. This is certainly
most inconclusive, even if we accept as indubitable, the
fact that the Daric was not in circulation earlier than the
time of Darius Hystaspes. It seems singular that the
Bishop, who considers the chronicler to have written in
order to support the usurpation of the priesthood and to
heighten its prestige, should fix upon a date so long
after the restoration of the Temple service, on the
return from captivity—nearly 200 years—since by that
time the priestly system would have acquired all the
prestige of antiquity. The Bishop uses language of the
most unqualified character, to the disparagement of the
UN}:Ust ATTACK ON CHRONICLES. 237
writer of the Book of Chronicles, remarking as follows:
“When, however, we consider that for 2,000 years the
whole course of Jewish history has been thrown into
confusion, mainly by the acts of these writers, and that
Christianity itself owes much of its past and present
corruptions and Superstitions, such as the idea of the
priestly office and the popular notion of the atonement,
based upon the supposed Divine origin of the sacrificial
laws in the Pentateuch, to the existence of these
priestly and Levitical fictions, it is not easy to speak
lightly of a fraud which has had such enormous and far-
reaching evil consequences: while we find here another
warning—unhappily by no means unneeded in the
present age—that ‘lies spoken in the name of the Lord’
(Zechariah xiii. 3), however well meant, can never work
out the good of man or the righteousness of God.”"
5. In this unjust attack on the character of the
chronicler it is but just to state that Graf and Kuenen do
not join ; they urge in extenuation, that which, however,
leaves a sting behind almost as severe as Dr. Colemso's
wholesale censure. Graf remarks that he arranged and
coloured events after the popular legends, according to
the end which he had in view. Kuenene blames the
whole priesthood, the writer being their tool: “The
individual (the chronicler) cannot, or can hardly, be held
responsible for such representations, which, for the chief
part, he received from others, and at most worked out
and trimmed a little more.” It is but just to state that
Professor Robertson Smith, in his disquisitions bearing
upon this theory of the late origin of the middle books
of the Pentateuch, is always cautious and guarded in his
expressions, and reverential in his tone. We refer with
pleasure to an able vindication of the character of
* “Lectures on the Pentateuch,” 8vo, 1873, p. 346.
238 THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
these books to an article in the “London Quarterly
Review.”!
Corrupt 6. The corruption of the text of the Chronicles has
‘; brought no small discredit upon the authority of the
Chronicles narrative. The exaggerations as to numbers arising out
of the mistakes of copyists, rendered especially more
easy by the use of letters to represent numerals, the
discrepancies and apparent contradictions to the state-
ments contained in the other historical books, cannot be
denied ; but they have been exaggerated, and can, most
of them, be reconciled and accounted for without damage
to the historical verity of the narrative. They have all
been fully and exhaustively discussed in Keil,” Lange,8
and “Speaker's Commentary,” and, as will be seen on
investigation, to relate mainly to numbers, genealogies,
minute circumstances differing in details, which only
require more information to be reconciled. Objections
have been made by Graf and Bishop Colenso to
2 Chronicles, chaps. xxix. to xxxii., which record the piety
of Hezekiah as fictitious. The Bishop's reason is charac-
teristic of his consistent adhesion to his theory of Deu-
teronomist and Levitical interpolation. The cities of the
priests are mentioned in chap. xxxi. I6, referring to
Judges xxi. 9—19, “which cities” are, in his opinion,
“a mere fiction of the Levitical legislators.” Chapter
xxiii. II—37 is also rejected, as the narrative of
Manasseh's repentance and restoration is, regarded by
him and by Dr. Davidson as “unhistorical additions.”6
This gentleman has fully and fairly discussed the con-
* No. CV. pp. IO4, &c. * “Pentateuch,” &c., Vol. VII.
2 Keil, Introd., Vol. II. pp. 82-IOI. p. 352.
* Lange’s “Com. Chron...” pp. * Davidson’s “Introduction to
82—IOg. Old Testament,” Vol. II. pp. Ioo,
* “Speaker's Com.,” Vol. III. Io9, 206.
pp. 169–173.
DELITZSCH ON THE CHRONICLES. 239
troverted points connected with the Books of Chronicles.
He thinks the text “is more corrupt than that of any
other sacred book, but that there is a favourable im-
pression left on the reader's mind of the fidelity of the
chronicler in the sections and particulars peculiar to
himself.” We suppose that these chapters were regarded
as integral portions of the history when the Canon was
finally closed, and that the textual corruptions had
not then been introduced by careless copyists.
7. The style of the Chronicles is that of the later
books as regards orthography and grammar, and in the
use of words and phrases unknown in the age of the
Pentateuch : of this a striking instance is given by Pro-
fessor Delitzsch in the preface to Curtiss's “Levitical
Priests.” “It is known that four colours were used for
the coverings and curtains of the sanctuary, as well as
for the clothes of the priests. All the portions of the
Thorah in which the four colours occur are Elohistic.
If they had been written after the exile, it might
naturally be expected that at least here and there, if not
throughout, those designations of colours which occur in
later periods of the language would be found; but there
is no trace of these. One of these four names of colours,
nºon (techéleth), blue-purple, has remained the same
throughout all the periods of the language. But the name
of red-purple, bank (argaman), has been assimilated by
the Aramaic language, so that it has been transformed
into illnR (argewan), as if it were confounded with gawna,
Persian guna, the colour. The chronicler has adopted
this word in its Aramaic form into the Hebrew (2 Chron.
ii. 6). The Thorah, however, in the parallel passages
(Ex. xxxv. 35, xxxviii. 23), and throughout, recognises
the old Hebrew form. The scarlet or crimson in the
* Curtiss’s “Levitical Priests,” 12mo, 1877, preface, pp. xi., xii.
Style and
phraseo-
logy,
240 THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
Thorah is everywhere called "Jø nyºn (tolà ath shani),
and vice versd; in the laws which relate to the cleansing of
lepers, and of those who have become unclean through
contact with a dead body, where a strip of wool which is
coloured with this pigment is intended, nyºn ºw (sheni
tholā ath). This designation, which is not only taken
from the name of the worm, namely, the insect of the
guercus coccifera, but also from the intensity of the rays
of light, and which is without doubt the complete and
original designation, is exclusively Elohistic. In other
places only "Jºy (shani) or yºn (tolá) occurs. The
chronicler represents the youngest period of the language,
since he gives the Persian name of 9-pºn-l (karmil) to this
colour (2 Chron. ii. 6, 13, iii. I4). The designation of
the white vegetable material of linen or cotton with tº
(shesh) has also disappeared from the post-exilic lan-
guage. The chronicler uses in its place Yi (bus), Greek
Atooros (2 Chron. ii. I3, iii. I4; I Chron. xv. 27; 2 Chron.
v. 12), and the author of the Book of Esther says
Tºx) Y) (bus we-argaman), where the older language
would say (bj"Nº wº) (shesh we-argaman), as in the
Pentateuch and also in Prov. xxxi. 22. The post-exilic
language has, besides, as a designation for white linen
nīn (chur) and DETE (karpas): the influence of the
Aramaic and Arian is everywhere evident, of which
there is not a trace in the Elohistic language.”
8. THE BOOK OF EZRA with Nehemiah was con-
sidered as one work, and until the time of Jerome the two
books were united as such. Both are to a certain extent
comprised of fragmentary records. The first part of the
Book of Ezra (chaps. i. to vi.), from 536 B.C. to 516 B.C.,
gives the history of the return from Babylon, and the
troubles of the returned exiles for a period of twenty-
three years, during which Zerubbabel (of the house of
EZR.A. 24I
David) was governor, and Joshua high priest, while
Zechariah and Haggai were prophets. The second part
(chap. vii. to the end of the book) begins about sixty
years later (with the commission given to Ezra by
Artaxerxes Longimanus, King of Persia, 456 B.C.), the
narrative portion of which contains the history of the
events of only one year, to 455 B.C. The text is not in
good condition, and abounds in Chaldaisms, like the
Chronicles, with a few Persian words. The incorrections
are chiefly in names and numbers. Chapters iv. 8 to
vi. IO, vii. I2–26 are written in Chaldee. The Jewish
writers, with Keil and most Christian critics, regard Ezra
as the author, while Bertheate and De Wette would
confine his authorship to the portion from chaps. vii. 12
to ix. I5, and Bishop Lord A. C. Hervey thinks he only
wrote the last four chapters. The change of person from
that of an autobiographer to the use of the personal pro-
noun has led to the supposition of a diversity of author-
ship, but this enal/age personazm is common in ancient
writers, as well as in the Old Testament. Bishop Colemaso,
following Graf and others, sets aside as altogether in-
accurate the previous notions of the Churches received
from the Old Testament, of the peculiar position of
Ezra and the importance of his labours; he thinks that
the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are forgeries of the
Chronicler. His specific objections are—(a) He doubts
the authenticity of the edict of Cyrus, because of the
title “King of Persia,” whereas, in chap. v. 13 he is called
Ring of Babylon ; he assumes that the edict was written
in Hebrew, and therefore not likely to have been pro-
mulgated through the empire. These are frivolous
objections: as if it were not a matter of notoriety that
the titles of Eastern kings were varied, and as if there.
were no means of translating the royal edicts, and
R
Bishop
Colenso’s
objec-
tions.
242 THE POST-EXILIAN BOOKS.
Book of
Nehe-
miah.
–-º
giving publicity to them in the several countries in which
they were promulgated, in a language understood by the
people. Witness the inscription at Behistan (b) He
assumes that the reference to Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes
(chap. iv. 6, 7) is a reference to Xerxes and Artaxerxes
Longimanus, whereas by Ahasuerus is undoubtedly meant
Cambyses, and by Artaxerxes Smerdis the impostor, who
reigned only a few months, 521 B.C. (c) He thinks that
the writer supposed Darius Hystaspes to have followed
Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus; but if the Arta-
xerxes of the writer be Smerdis, then Darius is simply
the successor of Smerdis according to the Persian history.
(d) He regards as untrue the statement in chap. vi.
that the Temple was finished according to the decree of
Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, since it was really
completed in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, 50 years
before Artaxerxes. “But it is obvious that the writer
simply intended to indicate Artaxerxes, as having by his
splendid gifts completed the work of his predecessors,
and therefore deserved to be recorded.
9. THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH may be divided into
four distinct parts. The first, chaps. i. to vii. by
Nehemiah himself, then simply called a pechań, the
origin of the official title pasha now used in Turkey.
The second, chap. viii. to x., written probably by Ezra ;
in them Nehemiah is called Tirshatha (governor or
cup-bearer). The third, chaps. xi. to xii. 26, contains
six lists of great value, archaeologically and genealogi-
cally. The fourth, chap. xii. 27 to the end of chap. xiii.,
probably by Nehemiah. No one doubts that the lists
first and second, in part the third, are of Nehemiah's age.
It is possible that the third list, chap. xii. I—9, and the
fifth list, chap. xii. I2—21, and the sixth list, chap. xii.
* “Pentateuch,” Vol. VII., pp. 389, 411.
NEHEMIAH. 243
24–26, may have been added also by some one under
the direction of Nehemiah ; but the list of the high
priests, verses Io and II, continued up to Jadua, with
verses 22 and 23, are obviously additions, probably made
by Jadua, who was high priest at the time of Darius
Codomanus and Alexander the Great, 330 B.C. Bishop
Colenso considers the first six chapters alone to be
mainly the work of Nehemiah, the rest being by the
Chronicler, and in his opinion of no authority."
THE BOOK OF ESTHER has been incorporated by the #; of
StilèI.
Jewish Church in the Canon, and is the authority fºr the T-s
institution of the feast of Purim.
* “Pentateuch,” Vol. VII., pp. 439, 440.
244. THE PROPHETICAL, ORDER.
The
CHAPTER XII.
THE PROPHETICAL ORDER.
I. The existence of a prophetical class among the
rºt Israelites, supplementary to the legal priesthood, is a
ministers remarkable fact. At every periód of the national his-
of the
Theo-
Cracy.
tory we find this irregular order, Divinely called to act
as patriotic deliverers, wise rulers, or as religious re-
formers, to protest against idolatrous tendencies on the
one hand, and against the opposite error so common to
the religionists of all ages, that of resting in pharasaic
ritualism, and thus honouring the letter of the law,
while neglecting “ the zweightier matters of the law, judg-
ment, mercy, and faith.”
The prophets were, in fact, the extraordinary, Divinely
appointed, though irregular ministers of the Theocracy.
2. From the division of the kingdom to the captivity,
the prophetic order occupied a most important position
in the Jewish State; they were the main preservers of the
Israelitish religion; for, though provision had been made
by the institution of the Aaronic priesthood and the
Levitical ministry for the carrying out the sacrificial
system and the service of the Temple, the result seems
to have been limited to the maintenance of the ritual,
with the spiritual meaning of which the greater part of
the priests and people had but small sympathy. No
class of religious teachers appear to have been so gene-
* Matthew xxiii. 23.
SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS. 245
rally unfaithful as the priesthood of the Israelitish
people. At certain periods of peculiar trial, they are
described to us in terms which place them almost as
low as the so-called priests of some of the Eastern
Christian Churches. There were of course glorious ex-
ceptions to this general deterioration. In Samuel's days
God raised up others to take the place of the unfaithful
officials by the institution of “Schools of the Prophets,”
sacred colleges for the training of young men whose
hearts were influenced by a desire to maintain the old
truths of the Mosaic Law. These men became the
poets, historians, the expounders of the law, displaying
especially the spiritual bearing of its teachings, and
enforcing the necessity of a vital, deep personal reli-
gion. (Micah vi. 8; Hosea vi. 6; Amos vi. 21 ; Isaiah
i. Io—2O.) The prophets were also a conservative poli-
tical power in the State, and not without reason in a
theocratic government which existed solely for a reli-
gious purpose; and, strong in their religious position,
they were able to withstand the most powerful of the
idolatrous rulers of Judah and Israel. The histories of
Blijah and Elisha are proofs of their singular influence
The writings of sixteen of these prophets, covering :
period of nearly five centuries, from Jonah to Malachi,
have been preserved by the Jewish Church, which has
thus handed down for the instruction of all ages the
evidences of its own unfaithfulness, corruption, and
punishment. Incidentally, the prophetical writings
point to the spasmodic character of the piety of the
kingdom of Judah, and the fortunes of the schismatical
and heretical corruption of Mosaicism in the Israelitish
kingdom, the result of the policy of Jeroboam. No
greater proof can be given of the hold which the
Mosaic institutions possessed over the people, than the
Schools
of the
Prophets.
246 THE PROPHETICAL ORDER.
Proofs
of the
knowledge
of the
Law in
Israel.
fact that Jeroboam's system was a close imitation of
it. The priests and Levites had sacrificed their lands
and houses in Israel, and had taken refuge in the
orthodox territory of Judah. Yet Jeroboam dared not
attempt to set aside the worship of Jehovah, but merely
to alter the symbols, to substitute the calves at Dan,
&c., in the place of the manifestation of the Divine
presence in the Temple at Jerusalem. All the ordi-
nances of the law were maintained—its feasts and
festivals, the sacrificial system, the pecuniary obligations,
and the new priesthood. There was toleration for the
votaries of the old faith. The schools of the prophets
remained in Israel, and appear to have been confined
to that kingdom, though there may have been such in
Judah, which have not been mentioned by the Jewish
chroniclers. The Mosaic Law was taught, and con-
fronted the new system in Samaria, Bethel, and Gilgal,
the head-quarters of the Schism. The existence of a
written Law, and known as such by the people, is evident
from the allusion in Hosea viii. I2, and from the fact
that the language of the prophets, abounding in reference
to its peculiar teaching, could only have been understood
by a people familiar zwith its language and precepts.
There were false prophets claiming to be true prophets
of Jehovah—counterfeits very numerous, and always
opposed to the genuine prophets—but none of their
writings have been preserved. By some of the Higher
Critical historians these prophets are regarded as the
true patriots, because they advocated resistance to the
Assyrian and Babylonian powers, which resistance was
followed by the destruction of the Hebrew monarchies,
and the captivity of the people. The attempt to
nationalise the foul and cruel abominations of Phoe-
nician and Syrian idolatry into Israel and Judah,
PROPHETIC TEACHING. 247
was by the prophets of Jehovah most religiously and
patriotically resisted. But it is to the teaching of
the prophets to which we would direct attention, a
teaching far in advance of the age in which they lived.
It is distinguished by three things:–First, a jealous
regard for the purity of the monotheistic faith, a hatred
of every form of idolatry; secondly, the prominence
given to the spirituality of religious worship, and to the
practical character of its precepts; thirdly, and the
most remarkable, considering the intense Judaism of
the prophets (which our philosophers would call fana-
ticism), the grand catholic views and doctrines which
predominate in all their writings—in the earliest
deliverances of Jonah and Joel, as well as in those of
Micah and Isaiah. It is, in fact, a carrying out the full
meaning of the first promise in Eden (Genesis iii. I5),
and the subsequent covenant with Abraham (Genesis
xxvi. 4), by which a share in the blessing, through the
Seed of Abraham, was guaranteed to all mankind.
“The two oldest written prophecies are those of Jonah
and Joel ; the object of the former of these books is to
set before us the nature of prophecy itself, while Joel
strikes the keynote of that spiritual teaching which has
made the prophets the instructors not of one age only,
but of all ages and people. . . . . If there be anything
plainly taught in the prophets, it is that Judaism was
to give place to a universal religion; and the first thought
that strikes us in the Book of Jonah is that this earliest
book of written prophecy is a narrative of a mission to a
Gentile city, and that city the sworn foe and enemy of
Israel. . . . . Surely such a prophecy was a fit preface
and introduction to the whole prophetic Canon, for it
gives the outline and measure of that which succeeding
prophets did but fill up and complete.” “The Book of
Catholic
character
of the
prophetic
teaching.
248 THE PROPHETICAL ORDER.
Mis-
Sionary
feeling.
Jonah teaches us the conditionality of the Divine threats
and promises. In the moral government of God
prophecy announces no irrevocable destiny, no blind,
impending, irresistible fate, but is a warning given by an
omniscient but merciful Ruler to beings capable of
repentance, and of thereby reversing the decrees of
justice. }oel's teaching is equally spiritual and catholic;
the immediate occasion is the twofold calamity of a
long-continued drought, followed by a plague of locusts.
His prophecy enforces the lesson which we are slow to
learn, that the so-called laws of mature meaze only the
presence of God’s almighty zwill, the immanence of Deity,
but that God from the first so willed them that they
should minister to man's probation, and to the individual
good of all who love Him. In all the dealings of God's
providence there is a moral purpose; the object designed
is to move man to repentance, and wean him from sin,
that the door of spiritual life may be opened, sin par-
doned, and man restored to the favour of God. Whence
had these men, Jonah, Joel, and the Succeeding prophets,
their advanced and more capacious and more spiritual
views of God's merciful purpose for man.” There was
nothing in the influences around them to account for
this originality. The “light shining in a dark place’
was from heaven ; this is the only rational conclusion.””
3. It is remarkable that from the time of the early
prophets there is observable an increasing consciousness
among the more thoughtful and pious Israelites of the
spiritual purpose of the existence of their nation, and of
the eventual triumph of the religion of Jehovah, the God
of their father Abraham. In the sixty-seventh Psalm,
which has been aptly called “the Paternoster of the Old
Testament Church,” the missionary feeling prepon-
* “Bampton Lectures,” 1869, by Dr. R. Payne Smith, 8vo.
MISSIONARY SPIRIT. 249
derates and culminates in the prayer, that “Thy way
may be known upon the earth, Thy saving health among
all nations” (verse 2). We have too much overlooked
the fact of the absorption of heathens into the house-
holds of the Patriarchs, and afterwards in the time of the
regular Israelitish state. The Mosaic Law made pro-
vision for such cases. In the genealogical tables we find
individuals of this class adopted into Israelitish families,
and occupying positions of the highest importance. The
Babylonish captivity not only benefited the cause of true
religion, by the dispersion of the Jews over the East,
and eventually in Southern Europe; but also by the
light from the Jewish sacred books, perceptible in its
influence upon the subsequent literature of the Greeks.
This has been fully shown by Bishop Gray, in his
“Connection between the Sacred Writings and the
Literature of Jewish and Heathen Authors.”
4. To the mass of readers it is a great misfortune that
the prophetical books are not arranged chronologically,
as in their present order they cannot be well read in-
telligently. It is not difficult to fix their relative
positions with sufficient exactness for our purpose.
(I) Jonah, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Hosea, more or
less contemporary from 856 to 725 B.C. (2) Isaiah,
Micah, and Nahum, from 785 to 700 B.C. (3) Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel, from 606 to
534 B.C. (4) Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, from 52O
to 420 B.C. Their zwritings were made public and circulated
at the time, as zwe may gather from the peculiarities of
style and expression, and one common circle of thoughts
observable in all the prophetical writings. Amos quotes
Joel, Isaiah quotes Micah, Zechariah quotes Habakkuk,
Nahum refers to Jonah, Jeremiah takes from Obadiah,
* Two Vols, 8vo, 1819.
Chrono-
logical
order of
the pro-
phetical
writings.
25o THE PROPHETICAL ORDER.
Daniel understood by books the approaching end of the
seventy years' captivity foretold by Jeremiah (Daniel ix.
2), which would have been all but impossible had these
prophecies not been in circulation among the more
educated classes of Israel. Into the distinctive pecu-
liarities of each of these prophets we cannot enter, the
limits of this work forbidding such an attempt. We
must refer to the standard commentaries, of which there
are several of great merit devoted to each prophet, and
to the writings of Bishop Newton, Mede, Sir Isaac
Newton, Bishop Sherlock, John Smith, Davison, J. Pye
Smith, Josiah Conder, Fairbairn, W. L. Alexander,
Strachey, Sam Lee, Tregelles, Urwick, Auberlin, Dr.
Rule, Birks, Stanley Leathes, T. K. Cheyne, and others,
not forgetting R. Payne Smith (now Dean of Canter-
bury), from whose valuable Bampton Lectures for 1869
we have largely quoted. The important work of Dr.
Pusey on the “Minor Prophets,” 4to, is now completed.
Ewald on “The Prophets,” and Rowland Williams,
represent the views of the Higher Criticism. It is not
necessary to give the names of the prophetical inter-
preters of the Millennial School. We may read some of
them, as Elliott, Ben Ezra, and Edward Irving, with
profit, without accepting all their conclusions.
5. The objections of the sceptical school are not con-
fined to the genuineness of a portion of particular books,
as Isaiah, Zechariah, or Daniel, in which critics of the
most undoubted orthodoxy have occasionally coincided,
but with prophecy itself. The foundation of their
“Higher Criticism * is the dogmatic assumption to
which Spinoza first gave currency, that prophecy, as
commonly understood, is a miracle, and consequently an
impossibility, and that all which we call prophecy in the
sacred books is vaticinium er eventu, a prediction of an
PROPHECY IMPLIES MIRACLE, 25I
event already fulfilled. Hitzig expresses the opinions of
this school in the assertion that “we cannot attribute to
the prophets any proper foreknowledge, but that their
foreknowledge must be confined within the limits of
what we call anticipation and inference from fact.” If,
however, miracle is impossible, there can be no direct
Divine communication to man, and the notion of a
religion resting upon revelation is an absurdity. This
point has been fully considered and disposed of by
Christian divines; and even men opposed to Christianity,
as Lord Herbert and Lord Bolingbroke, agree with the
divines, and regard the assumption of the impossibility
of a Divine communication with man as untenable.
“On the clear tablets of the Eternal Mind are inscribed
all occurrences, past, present, and to come, known with
equal exactitude and minuteness. And why should it
be thought incredible that He should impart some of
this knowledge to His servants” 1 for wise purposes, and
as evidences of their Divine mission ? To the Christian
mind prophecy is a fact intimately interwoven with the
whole course of the Divine economy. The first promise
(Gen. iii. I5) is a prophecy, so also that to the patriarch
Abraham (Gen. xii. 3), and the last words of Moses in
Deuteronomy are a full and detailed prophecy. All the
prophecies of the sixteen prophets whose writings are
contained in the Old Testament, presuppose the leading
prophetic declarations contained in the earlier Scriptures,
as, for instance, in Leviticus xxvi. I4—40; Deuteronomy
xxviii. 32, 34, 36, 37, 49 to 57, 62 to 68, which speak of
the chastisement and captivity of the Israelites; those
also which point to their restoration on repentance,
found in Leviticus xxvi. 40–45, Deuteronomy xxx. I, IO,
to which also King Solomon referred in his prayer,
* Ayre's “Horne's Introduction,” 8vo, 1860, p. 790.
Prophecy
implies
miracle.
252 THE PROPHETICAL ORDER.
I Kings viii. 46—50, ix. 6, 9. The force and peculiar
adaptation of the latter prophetic writings cannot be
understood unless we keep in mind the general reception
by their hearers of these earlier prophecies contained in
the Divine revelations given to the Jewish people.
Dr. 6. The objection to the possession of foreknowledge
wº implied in the writings of the prophets is met by Dr.
àng William Kay in his “Introduction to the Book of
º: Isaiah,” in reply to Knobel's remarks on chap. liii.
phecy and “As to its being a prophecy, how could it *" he argues:
* “the writer lived five hundred years before Christ—as if
the length of time by which the prediction is separated
from the event were not the very circumstance that gives
eminence to the prophecy. What if one argued against
the scientific view of the solar system thus 2 (1) That
matter should exercise such a force as gravitation is
inconceivable. (2) As for the earth's being kept in its
orbit by the sun's attraction—how can it 3 Science
answers: the mysteriousness of the fact is admitted ;
the deeper we go into nature, the more mysterious it
becomes, but the fact itself remains beyond reach of
doubt.” So also with respect to the objections made
to the prophetic designation of Cyrus (chap. xlv.).
“Thus it has been said, “If in any other book you
saw the name of Cyrus, you would say at once that
the book was not written before the time of Cyrus ;
then you must in consistency say so here.' In
other words, a prophetic book must in consistency
be treated as if it were not prophetic.” With respect
to the assumption that it is inconceivable that God
should communicate to man any foreknowledge or
prevision of future events, Dr. Kay remarks: (1) “The
dictum is generally introduced as if it were an axiomatic
* “Speaker's Com.,” Vol. V. pp. Io, 11.
DR. KAY ON PROPHECY. 253
truth. This, however, it cannot be, for a large portion
of mankind, including not a few who have been eminent
for scientific ability, philosophic insight, and practical
intelligence, have believed that such communication has
actually taken place. It can have no claim, therefore,
to being an axiom. (2) Nor yet can it be established
by reasoning, whether deductive or inductive. For a
deductive proof, it would have to be shown either that
God has not the power to impart such knowledge, or
that it did not enter into His all-wise plan for the
government of the world to do so. To assert the
first (it could be but assertion), would be to limit the
Almighty. To assert the second, a man must needs
be himself omniscient. . . . As to induction, we may say
boldly that an inductive process, legitimately per-
formed on the facts supplied by the Bible, establishes
incontestably that men have foretold future events
which lay beyond merely human ken ; that a succession
of such men professed to be sent by God to deliver
such predictions; that their utterances were in many
cases in direct opposition to the whole tendeney of
thought and feeling which prevailed in their age ; that
this exposed them to much outward suffering. . . .
That as regards the leading points of their testimony—
those which relate to the coming in of a new dispen-
sation—their words have, at any rate, found a most
remarkable amount of verification in the history of
Jesus Christ, and the formation of Christendom.””
* “Speaker's Com.,” Vol. V. pp. 3, 4.
*
254 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
C H A P T E R XIII.
THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
I. Of the personal history of Isaiah, the son of
Amos, we know nothing beyond what may be gathered
from his writings, and from the old traditions of his
martyrdom by Manasseh, to which the passage, Hebrews
xi. 37, is supposed to refer. His prophetical life began
either four years before Uzziah's death, 762 B.C., or in
the last year of Uzziah, 759 B.C. He ceased to prophesy
either in the seventeenth yearof Hezekiah's reign,7IO B.C.,
or in his last year, 698 B.C., the latter the most probable.
The lowest calculation gives him a ministry of forty-nine
years; the highest sixty-four years, extending over the
reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
Judd. Bishop Wordsworth sets before us the position
of this, the greatest of the four leading prophets.
“Providentially Isaiah was called to the prophetic
office before the destruction of the kingdom of Israel.
He had, therefore, a vast future before him. The
kingdom of Syria was still standing, but that monarchy
was soon about to fall. Assyria was arising to the zenith
of its glory. Egypt was its rival in the south;
Babylon was in the far off future. Observe, therefore,
Isaiah's prophetic position ; he was at Jerusalem, the
religious centre of Israel and Judah. Judah itself was
called in the Scriptures “the midst of the nations’
(Ezekiel v. 5) : on the north-east was Assyria, and
* “Commentary,” Vol. V. p. 7.
WORDSWORTH ON ISAIAH. 255
r—
after it Babylon; on the north were the kingdoms of
Israel and Syria, and the rich commercial city of
Tyre on its island rock, the queen of the seas; on
the east and south-east were Ammon, Moab, and
Edom, connected by community of origin with Israel,
but Israel's bitter foes ; and further to the south-
east the desert of Arabia, where his fathers had
wandered ; and on the South-west was Philistia, Judah's
near neighbour and inveterate enemy; on the south
was the great kingdom of Egypt, distinguished by arts
and arms, and ever and anon making hostile inroads
into Judah, or alluring it to ‘court its alliance as a
defence against its northern enemy, Assyria ;' and still
further south, the tribes of Ethiopia, stately in stature,
and renowned and feared for their warlike prowess.
Isaiah looked forth on these empires and kingdoms
from his watch-tower in Zion; he contemplated them as
a Divine astronomer, with his prophetic telescope, from
his spiritual observatory; and he was enabled by the
Spirit of God to foretell the rising and setting of all
these stars and constellations. He looked down also
upon what was at his feet, ‘the Valley of Visions,’ as it
is called, Jerusalem, and he foretold her destiny. And
far beyond all these he beheld and described the dread
transactions of the Day of Doom.”
Considering the important bearing of Isaiah’s pro-
phecies, it would be well for the student to read care-
fully the article Isaiah in Smith's “Biblical Dictionary”,
and in Kitto’s “Biblical Cyclopaedia" (third edition);
and the “Introduction to the Book of Isaiah" by Dr. Kay
in the “Speaker's Commentary,”* and the magnificent
account of Isaiah’s times in Dean Stanley's “History of
* “Bib. Dict.,” Vol. I. p. 875. * “Speaker's Com.,” Vol. V. pp.
* “Bib. Cyc.,” Vol. II. p. 410. I-24,
256 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
the Jewish Church,” in which the downward course of
the Israelitish and Jewish kingdoms is exhibited with a
pictorial power which rivets the attention. Another
remarkable work by Sir Edward Strachey, entitled
“Jewish History and Politics in the times of Sargon
and Sennacherib; an Inquiry into the Historical Meaning
and Purpose of the Prophecies of Isaiah ;” a work which,
with some minor defects, “grasps the real meaning of
Jewish history, and throws upon its various incidents
the light derived from a wide and careful study of
politics and statesmanship.” Cheyne's last work on
Isaiah is not yet completed, but so far as we may judge
from the first volume, will be a great addition to the
critical library.
2. The position of Isaiah, as the first in the order of
the four great prophets as they stand in the Hebrew
Bible, has been disputed. In a tradition preserved in
the Talmud, it is said to have been preceded by Jere-
miah and Ezekiel, and this order is observed in the
German and French MSS. The reason assigned is,
that Jeremiah and Ezekiel being minatory prophets,
Isaiah was placed after them as a consolatory prophet,
and as an antidote. The more probable reason is from
the intimate connection of the Books of Kings with
Jeremiah, and from the notion that Jeremiah was their
author. Some of the Higher Critics think that “many
later prophecies had been incorporated with those of
Isaiah, and therefore the first place was not due to him.”4
This notion, which would convert the Book of Isaiah's
prophecies into a sort of Hebrew anthology, has been
* “Commentary,” Vol. II. pp. * “London Quarterly,” Vol.
450–482. XLIII. p. 475.
* One Vol. 8vo. New Edition. * Davidson,’s “Int, to O. T.,”
I874. Vol. III. I.
EARLIER AND LATER PROPHECIES. 257
fairly disposed of by Professor J. A. Alexander, of
Prince Town, New Jersey." In the Masora, which
represents the Jewish criticism of the sixth century, and
in the Spanish MSS., and in the two oldest Hebrew
MSS., and in all the ancient versions, the order of the
Hebrew Bible and of the modern versions is observed.
3. Within the last century, from the year 1797, con-
jectural criticism has revelled at will in the creation of
theories bearing upon the authority, the order, and the
composition of almost every chapter of the prophecy of
Isaiah. Koppe in that year translated Bishop Lowth's
notes into German, and was the first in modern times
who questioned the claims of chapters xl. to lxvi. to be
conceded as a portion of the original prophecy of Isaiah.
Before Koppe, one Jewish rabbi alone, Abem Egra, in
the eleventh century, had obscurely hinted a similar
conclusionºthis theory, asserted and defended on prin-
ciples which, with strange inconsistency, have not been
applied to Micah and other prophetical writings, has
been largely accepted by Continental critics, and to this
day quoted in works of general literature as if it were
an indisputable fact. It has been the fruitful parent of
a large number of various and contradictory criticisms,
the principal of which will be stated in the order of the
chapters to which they refer. If we were to receive
these guesses as proved results of sober criticism, the
genuine prophecies of the great evangelical prophet
would be confined to the following chapters, i. to xii., xiv.
to verse 24, xv. to XX., xxi. to verse II, xxii., xxiii., xxviii.
to xxxiii.; and even of these limited remains, admitted
generally to be genuine, it will be seen that exceptions
are taken, which, if admitted, would reduce the Book of
1 “Prophecies of Isaiah.” Two Vols. 8vo, 1847. Preface to Intro-
duction, p. xvii.
S
Koppe's
notes on
Lowth.
258 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
the prophecies of Isaiah to a mere collection of miscel-
laneous predictions; a sort of prophetical anthology,
ascribed by ignorance or carelessness to Isaiah.
Early 4. The earlier prophecies of Isaiah comprise the first
prophecies thirty-nine chapters. The dates and authorships of the
respective chapters and portions of chapters, as given
by the Higher Critics, are in the following sections
placed under the portions to which they are assigned.
Chapter I. verse I, is considered as an introduction to the
entire book by Le Clerc, Michaelis, Hitzig, Scholtz, Schroeder,
Henderson, and Cheyne: on the contrary, Vitringa, Eichhorn,
Rosenmüller, Maurer, and Koppe, regard it as simply an intro-
duction to the first chapter. The time of the composition of this
chapter is referred, as follows, to the periods of the reigns of the
several kings as below.
1. Uzziah, latter part of his reign, or under the regency of
Jotham, by Caspari and the older critics, Grotius, Cocceius, and
by Kay.
2. Jotham, by Calvin, Lowth, and Hendewerk—the latter
doubts the genuineness of the first verse.
3. Ahaz, by Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel, De Wette, Havernick,
Hensler, Movers, Davidson.
4. Hezekiah (after the invasion of Sennacherib), by Eichhorn,
Michaelis, Paulus, Ewald, Hitzig, Umbreit, Bleek, Alexander,
Keil: also by Jarchi and Vitringa.
Chapters II., III., IV., form one prophecy.
I. Jotham (as regent), by Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Caspari,
Keil: Uzziah by Kay.
2. Jotham (when king), by Michaelis, De Wette, Knobel,
Henderson.
3. Ahaz, by Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Maurer, Movers, Hitzig,
Ewald, Umbreit, Ståhelin, and Cheyne.
4. Hezekiah, by Kleinert, Roorda.
N.B.-The verses 2, 3, 4 of the second chapter agree almost
verbally with Micah iv. I to 4, the one prophet quoting the other,
but to which the priority is due cannot be decided. Vogel and
Ewald think that both quoted from an old prophet supposed to be
Joel. - *
N.B.-Roorda thinks that chapters 1 to v., excepting chapters
i. I and ii. I to 4, belong to Micah : this opinion is combated by
THE EARLY PROPHECIES. 259
r—
Havernick: these prophets were contemporaries and fellow
labourers.
Chapter V. is a distinct prophecy, of the same date as the
chapters i., iii., iv., though a little later, not to Jotham’s reign, as
supposed by Vitringa, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, but to Ahaz; this
is the opinion of Davidson and Cheyne : to Uzziah by Kay.
Chapter VI. I. The year in which King Uzziah died, by Keil
and Cheyne: Jotham by Kay.
2. After Sennacherib's invasion, by Hitzig, who regards the
vision as a fiction. g
3. Ahaz or Hezekiah, by Ewald, Credner, Knobel, but based
on the history of the vision: so also Davidson, who does not deny
the reality of the vision.
Chapters VII., VIII., IX., X., XI., XII. belong, according
to Keil, Havernick, Drechsler, and Davidson, to the first year of
Ahaz, the last three discourses being about three-quarters of a
year later than the first. Time of Ahaz by Kay.
I. Verses I to 16 of chapter vii. are doubted by Gesenius as
not written by Isaiah ; his opinion refuted by Kleinert, Hitzig,
Havernick.
2. Chapters ix. 7 to x. 4 are supposed by Gesenius and Knobel
to date from the captivity of a part of Israel by Tiglath Pileser,
King of Assyria; but this does not appear from chapter ix. 9, 10.
Cheyne thinks that this section only assumed its present form
long after the original utterances in the days of Jotham.
3. Chapters x. 5 to xii. 6 are by Rosenmüller, Gesenius,
Maurer, De Wette, and Knobel, dated after the taking of Samaria
by Shalmaneser; by Ewald, after Sennacherib's expedition to
Egypt; by Havernick, between the sixth and fourteenth year of
Hezekiah ; these two latter opinions are not supported by x. 24.
All the matter from viii. 5 to xii. 6 presupposes one and the
same date of composition.
4. Koppe disputes the genuineness of chapters xi., xii.; so also
Vater, and Rosenmüller; their views are replied to by Gesenius
and Beckhans. Verses xii. I to 6, are disputed by Ewald, but
defended by Umbreit and Havernick.
Chapters XIII. to XIV. 23, and XXI., verses I to Io, which are
prophecies against Babylon, are disputed as not forming part of
Isaiah’s genuine prophecy by the following critics : Rosenmüller,
Justi, Paulus, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt, Gesenius, De Wette,
Maurer, Ewald, Hendewerk, Knobel, Umbreit, Hertzfield, Bleek,
and Davidson. They are, on the other hand, vindicated by
S 2
26o THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
Quoted
by later
prophets.
J. D. Michaelis, Hensler, Uhland, Beckhans, Jahn, Dereser,
Havernick, Drechsler, Nagelbach, and Cheyne.
I. These chapters are attributed by Rosenmüller, &c., to a
“great unknown '' prophet about the time of the exile. Yet
they are quoted by the later prophets, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Nahum, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, which is a sufficient proof of
their earlier date.” But Davidson thinks that Habakkuk and
Nahum are the originals from which Isaiah copied. Of this there
is no proof.
2. Chapters xiii. and xiv. are ascribed to the earlier part of the
reign of Ahaz; but xiv. 28 to 32, against Philistia, to the latter
year of Ahaz, by Keil, Vitringa, Drechsler. In these chapters
there are evident references to Joel and Amos.”
3. Chapter xiv. 24 to 27, against Assyria: before Sennacherib's
army was destroyed, by Keil; but supposed to be a fragment of a
longer prophecy by Davidson.
4. Chapters xii.-xiv. 27, time of Ahaz by Kay; chapter xiv. to
the end, in the first half of Hezekiah’s reign by Kay.
Chapters XV., XVI., a prophecy against Moab, is by some
critics attributed—1, to an ancient prophet, but repeated by
Isaiah with the addition of verses 13, 14 of chapter xvi. This is
the view taken by Gesenius, Ewald, Umbreit, Maurer, and
Knobel, but opposed by Nagelbach.
2. To Jeremiah by Koppe, Augusti, Bertholdt, opposed by
Beckhans. -
3. To Jonah, the son of Amittai, by Hitzig, opposed by Credner
and others.
4. These opinions, opposed by Hendewerk, Havernick, Bleek,
Drechsler, Kleinert, Keil, seem to confirm the old opinion main-
tained by Vitringa and others, that the germ of this prophecy is
in the old prophecy against Moab, in the Pentateuch (Numbers
xxiv. 17). The date assigned by Keil is after the carrying away
of part of the Israelites by Tiglath Pileser to Assyria, about the
time of Shalmaneser’s expedition against Samaria. -
5. Henderson thinks that the verses 13 and 14 of chapter xvi.
were added by an inspired prophet a century after Isaiah;
Alexander thinks in the days of Nebuchadnezzar.
6. Hitzig, Credner, and Kay suppose this prophecy against
Moab to have been repeated by Isaiah in the reign of Hezekiah
717 B.C. Knobel much earlier, 744 or 745 B.C., in the reign of Ahaz
or Jotham.
* Keil, Vol. I, p. 303. * See Keil, Vol. I. p. 303.
THE EARLY PROPHEcies. 261
7. Cheyne thinks that this prophecy is one edited and added
to by Isaiah.
Chapters XVII., XVIII., against Syria and Ephraim are
one, not to be separated; so Drechsler, in opposition to Haver-
nick.
I. The date, according to Keil, Drechsler, and Kay, 1s about
the time of the accession of Hezekiah.
2. Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Ewald, place chapterzvii. I to II, to
the earlier part of the reign of Ahaz.
3. Hitzig and Havernick place the whole of chapter xvii. to the
early part of the reign of Ahaz, and chapter xviii. to the time of
Hezekiah. -
Chapter XIX. against Egypt.
I. Verses 18 to 20 are disputed by Koppe, Eichhorn, and
Gesenius, and defended by Beckhans.
2. Verses 16 to 25 are attributed by Hitzig and Zunz to the Onias
Priest Onias, who built the Temple at Heliopolis, in Egypt. It and the
is defended as genuine by Rosenmüller, Hendewerk, Ewald, Tº. II?
Umbreit, Knobel, Caspari, Drechsler, Bleek, and doubtfully by gypt.
Cheyne. The dates assigned are—
I. To the reign of Manasseh, by Gesenius and Rosenmüller.
2. To 717 B.C., when So (Tirhakah) began to reign, by
Knobel. -
3. To the time of the latest of Isaiah’s prophecies, by Cheyne,
672 B.C., or perhaps 720 B.C. Cheyne has an interesting reference
to the then condition of Egypt.”
4. About the time of Hezekiah’s accession, with chapters
xvii. and xviii., by Keil and Kay.
Chapter XX., a little later than the date of the preceding
chapter (Keil).
Chapter XXI., verses I to Io (see chapters xiii., xiv.).
Verses II to 15 attributed to an older prophet by Davidson, and
ascribed to the date of the reign of Jotham, 745 B.C. (as only pro-
bable); but by Keil to the early part of Hezekiah's reign; so
also Kay.
Chapter XXII., written after the fall of Samaria, but before
Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, according to Keil; first half of
Hezekiah’s reign by Kay.
Chapter XXIII., against Tyre, considered by certain critics as
not genuine, on account of the events being foretold so long
before ; especially verses 15 to 18, which are supposed by Eich-
* Vol. I. pp. Io9, IIo.
262 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
horn and Ewald to be a later edition of the Persian period. It is
attributed—
I. To Jeremiah by Eichhorn, Rosenmüller, Movers, and Bleek;
but Movers afterwards thought it was originally from Isaiah,
re-edited by Jeremiah
2. To a younger contemporary of Isaiah, by Ewald.
3. Defended as genuine by Gesenius, De Wette, Knobel,
Hendewerk, Drechsler, Keil, Alexander, Kay, and Cheyne. The
date is probably 709 B.C. The style is attacked by Hitzig and
Ewald, but defended by Umbreit and Drechsler.
4. This chapter is probably soon after the fall of Samaria.
Prophetic Chapters XXIV., XXV., XXVI., XXVII., are considered as
º e not genuine, because their standpoint is the Babylonish captivity,
.# which could not be foreseen by Isaiah (prophecy being denied so
far as future distant events are concerned), by Eichhorn, Gesenius,
Hitzig, Ewald, Vatke, Bleek, Davidson, Bertholdt, Rosenmüller,”
Umbreit, Knobel. Its genuineness is defended by Rosenmüller,”
Arndt, Welte, Drechsler, Delitzsch, Havernick, Kleinhardt, Keil,
Henderson, Alexander, Nagelbach, and Cheyne. Various dates
are assigned.
I. After the fall of Babylon (to which it refers), by Gesenius,
Umbreit and Knobel.
2. After the destruction of Nineveh (to which it refers), according
to Hitzig, by an Ephraimite and eye-witness.
3. When Cambyses was about to invade Egypt, by Ewald.
4. The Maccabean age, by Vatke.
5. After the fall of Assyria, by some Jewish prophet in Judaea,
by Bleek.
Jeremiah 6. The 24th chapter is by Jeremiah in the opinion of Herzfield.
7. Soon after the fall of Samaria, by Keil and the Orthodox
critics generally. The first half of Hezekiah's reign by Kay.
Chapters XXVIII., XXIX., XXX., XXXI., XXXII., XXXIII.,
almost commonly held as genuine, and believed to be written
within the first fourteen years of Hezekiah by Kay and others—
not all at once, but at various times. Chapter xxviii., within the
first three years of Hezekiah : chapter xxxiii. in the fourteenth
year, and chapters xxix., xxx., xxxi., xxxii., in the intervening years.
Koppe doubts the genuineness of chapter xxx. 1 to 27, and Ewald
thinks chapter xxxiii. may have been written by a younger
disciple of Isaiah; this has been refuted by his fellow critics.
Chapters XXIV., XXXV., form one prophecy of the destruc-
* “Scholia,” 1st Ed, * “Scholia,” 2nd Ed.
“THE GREAT UNKNOWN," 263
tion of Babylon, and are of course considered as by a late author,
“the great unknown '' of chapters xl. to lxvi., by Gesenius and
Hitzig, while Ewald thinks they are by another prophet. As in
reference to chapters xiii., xiv., and xxi., the reason assigned is
founded on the impossibility of a prediction of future events by an
inspired prophet Davidson lays down the maxim, “No prophet David.
throws himself absolutely, ideally, and at once, into a later period son's f
than his own.” Caspari proves that these chapters were used by :
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah. The date is about the time
of Sennacherib's invasion (Keil): so also Kay.
Chapters XXXVI., XXXVII., XXXVIII., XXXIX., are almost
identical with 2 Kings, chapter xviii. 13 to chapter xx. 19, and 2
Chronicles, chapter xxxii., and relate to the history of Sennacherib's
invasion. It is probable that both the narratives are taken from
a third account, fuller in its historical statements, such as is
noticed in 2 Chronicles xxxii. 32: chapters xxxviii. and xxxix. of
Isaiah, in order of time, preceding xxxvi. and xxxvii.
5. The second portion of the Book of Isaiah, chapters
xl. to lxvi., is by the Higher Critics generally attributed to
“the great unknown '' prophet, who lived about the time
of the Babylonian captivity. The unity is also questioned.
I. The unity is denied by Koppe, who thought Ezekiel, The later
* prophecies
or some of the prophets of the exile, wrote some of these ºf saiah.
prophecies, and of the earlier ones also, Martini,
Bertholdt, Eichhorn, and Knobel. Ewald thinks that
chapters liii. I to I2, lvi. 9 to lvii. II, are from older
prophets, and chapters lxiii. 7 to lxvi. from a later
prophet: this view is opposed by Meier, Caspari,
Delitzsch, and Drechsler. The unity is affirmed by
Gesenius, Hitzig, De Wette, as well as by Hengstenberg
and the advocates of the genuineness of this portion of
the prophecy, and is now generally admitted by critics
of every school.
II. The authorship of this second portion of the Book
of Isaiah is denied as the production of the prophet
himself, mainly on dogmatic grounds, to which we have
* Vol. III. p. 29.
264 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
The
supposed
“great
unknown”
prophet.
already referred (in paragraph six of the preceding
chapter). The objectors suppose that chapters xiii., xiv.
to verse 23, xxi., verses I to Io, xxiv. to xxvii, with
chapters xl. to lxvi., belong to some unknown prophet
who lived about a century after Isaiah, in the period of
the exile. We may mention as the principal of these
the names of Koppe, with whom in modern times the
notion originated, 1797, Eichhorn, justi, Bauer, Paulus,
Bertholdt, Koster, Augusti, Gesenius, De Wette, Hitzig,
Anobel, Umbreit, Davidson, Ewald, Bleek. (2) Bleek
thinks that chapters lvi. 9 to lvii. II were from an older
prophecy, possibly by Isaiah, and inserted by the un-
known writer who composed chapters lxiii. to lxvi., or
perhaps lviii, to lxvi., after his return to Canaan. (3)
Ewald thinks the writer was a Jew who lived in
Pelusium, Egypt, having gone there with Jeremiah
On the other hand, a large number of critics as respect-
able as their opponents, advocate the genuineness of this
Second portion, as part of the original prophecy of
Isaiah, namely ja/en, Möller, Kleinert, Hensler,
Piper, Beckhams, Dereser, Drechsler, Greve, Schleier,
Meier, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, J. Pye Smith,
Aſenderson, Alexander, and others. Most of the English
critics are of this opinion, the writers in Smith’s “Biblical
Dictionary,” and the “Speaker's Commentary,” and
Ritto’s “Biblical Encyclopaedia,” Birks, H. Browne
(Bishop of Winchester), Dr. Payne Smith, Urwick, &c.
These concluding chapters were no doubt written in the
old age of the prophet; they are supposed by Möller
not to have been delivered orally, but to have been
written when Manasseh was in captivity. With Cheyne
the authorship is yet an open question, but the work “is
in the fullest sense of the word prophetic.”
* “Prophecies of Isaiah,” by T. K. Cheyne, Vol. I. 1880, p. 232.
LINGUISTICAL TEST.S. 265
6. The linguistical character of these chapters has
been considered as a ground sufficient to justify the
notion of their later origin by Gesenius, De Wette,
Anobel and Davidson. To them, Keil and other
critics have replied most satisfactorily. The details are
not possible in the limits of this work, as they consist of
lists of words supposed to be peculiar, or not to Isaiah.
We simply give the conclusions of the Rev. Williame
Orwick, in his “Dissertations upon the Authorship of
chapters x1. and lxvi. of Isaiah,” prefixed to his work
entitled “The Servant of Jehovah,” a commentary
grammatical and critical upon Isaiah lii. I3 to liii. I2."
“In examining in detail the testimony of the language,
we have twenty-eight words and expressions represented
as peculiar to the later chapters, and indicating, accord-
ing to some, a later and different authorship, different
from that of chapters i. to xxxix. : of these only two are
not found in the earlier portions; all the rest do occur
in both portions, though not always in the same form or
conjugation ; and there is not sufficient warrant for
assigning a signification to any in the later portion,
different from the natural and usual meaning in the
earlier: the peculiarity assigned to any is simply a new
meaning suggested by the critics who would argue for
the exile date. (2) As to Chaldaisms, we have exa-
mined twenty-two examples suggested by the advocates
of the late authorship. Of these, not one can fairly be
called a clear and unmistakable Chaldee form ; they can
hardly be called later Hebraisms, because we find the
very same words and forms in the earlier books. Our
chapters are as free from Chaldaisms or late Hebraisms
as any other twenty-six consecutive chapters in the
Bible. (3) We have named twenty-two words and
* “The Servant of Jehovah,” by Rev. W. Urwick, 8vo, 1877.
Urwick.
Chal-
daisms.
266 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
*-
phrases common to and distinctive of both the earlier
and the later portions, many of them comparatively rare
in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, expressions
which we may take to be peculiar to Isaiah the son of
Amoz, foremost among which stands the striking phrase,
‘the Holy One of Israel, a title which is a fit echo of
the vision of the prophet's call. The natural inference is
(apart from all external evidence, and even if the two
portions had come down to us in two separate parts)
that both came from one writer, or at least, that the
Under later copied from and imitated the earlier. (4) We
. have traced a striking undesigned coincidence between
...: the two portions in the acquaintance which the writer of
etWeen º ſº tº tº *
the earlier both had with trees and with farming pursuits, the cultiva-
#. tion of the soil, peculiarities of climate, tending of domes–
tic animals, gardens and vineyards, as these were known
and carried on in Palestine. Many technical expressions
and names occur, some common to both portions, of
which we have given a list of thirty-eight, some peculiar
to each, but all affording subsidiary and cumulative
proof of identity of knowledge and circumstances in the
writer of both portions.” In conclusion Dr. Urwick
remarks, “Each of the four topics of our inquiry, the
external testimony, the locus standi of the writer, as
witnessed by the prophecy itself, the relation of the
prophecy to other Old Testament books, and the testi-
mony of the language—leads us to the conclusion that
chapters xl. to lxvi. are, as the Jews believed, and as
they placed them, part and parcel of the genuine pro-
phecies of the great Isaiah the son of Amoz.”
7. The objection to the genuineness of the last twenty-
two chapters of Isaiah, founded on the impossibility of a
supernatural foresight into the future, which of course
applies to the whole Book of Isaiah, and to all the other
THE PROPHET'S STAND POINT. 267
books of the Old Testament Scriptures, has been already
considered in paragraph six of the preceding chapter.
It is obvious that the Jewish people had very different
views of the nature of prophecy, or with what assurance
could Isaiah have referred to his prophetic gift in the
following passages: chapters xli. 21 to 23, xlii. 9, xlv.,
xlvi. Io, xlviii. 62 Appeals which must have appeared to
them most mendacious, if not felt to be true. The
objections founded on internal evidence, are of a more
specious character as presented to the non-Oriental type
of thought, which characterises the mind of the Western
nations. It is affirmed by some leading critics that, “as
witnessed by the prophecy itself,” the writer's standing
place is in the Babylonish exile; that he writes as one
of them either at Babylon or in Egypt; that all the
allusions presuppose that Jerusalem is already destroyed,
and the Jews already in captivity; that Babylon is in its
full power and authority, and Cyrus and his conquests
already known. They refer to the following passages
as describing the people in captivity, and the cities of
Judah laid waste’: chapters xlii. 22, 24, xliii. 28, xliv.
26, li. 3, lxiv. Io, II ; but similar descriptions are found
in the earlier prophecies of Isaiah, and refer, un-
doubtedly, to the results of the Assyrian invasion and
conquest and desolation of Israel, and of the disastrous
effects of the Assyrian invasion of Judah : take, for
instance, chapters i. 7, 8, iii. 8, v. I3, vi. II, I2, x. 20, 2I, xi.
12, xxii. 2. If the prophet could so express himself in
reference to the calamities which followed the Assyrian
and other less important invasions of the enemies of
Judah, we need not wonder at the language employed
in describing, as if already accomplished, the future
desolation of Judah, which would be realised in the
Babylonish captivity. The prophet uses an ideal
Internal
evidences.
268 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
The ideal present, more familiar to Orientals than to us, though
* sometimes used by our poets, in which the future is
represented as past and already accomplished ; the use
of the preterit to express the future is sanctioned by
the peculiarity of the Hebrew language, but our English
translators, adhering to the letter, rather than to the
meaning, have given a past, instead of the future signifi-
cation, which was in the mind of the writer. “The
most special and remarkable use of this (past) tense is
as the prophetic perfect; its abrupt appearance in this
capacity confers upon descriptions of the future a most
forcible and expressive touch of reality, and imparts in
the most vivid manner a sense of the certainty with
which the occurrence of a yet future event is contem-
plated by the speaker.” There can be no mistaking the
prophet's real standpoint as distinguished from his
ideal, by hose who believe the last twenty-seven chap-
ters of the book to be the work of that Isaiah who wrote
and prophesied in “the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz
and Ht:zekiah, Kings of Judah” (chapter i. 1), and who
are ignorant of the wonderful discovery of Modern
Critifs of “a great unknown,” a pseudo Isaiah, who
flour shed in the time of the captivity, but of whom the
Jewish and the Christian Church knew nothing until the
las, quarter of the eighteenth century | The prophet
himself points out his own times; his real present, “he has
immersed himself into that future.” That he lived
when Jerusalem and the Temple were still standing
under the kings of Judah, and while the usual sacrifices
were offered, although idolatry was common, appears
from the following passages: chapters xl. 2, 9, 19, 20,
xli. 7, 27, xliii. 22–24, xliv, 9–17, xlvi. 6, 7, xlviii. I–
* Driver “On the Hebrew Tenses,” 12mo, 1874, p. 15.
* Keil, Vol. I. p. 321.
CY RUS. 269
5, li. I7, lvii. I, 3–7, lviii. I–3, 13, lix. 3, lxii. 1, lxv. 2
–7, II, I2, lºvi. 3, 6. So also the allusions to Egypt,
Ethiopia and Seba, quite unsuitable to the political
condition of these countries at the period of the exile,
chapters xliii. 3, xlv. I4. It is most natural that the
Babylonish captivity should be pointed out as an event
certain though future, for already this had been foretold
to Hezekiah by the prophet (Isaiah xxxix. 6–8).
Micah, Nahum, and Zephaniah, contemporary with
Isaiah, use similar language respecting the Babylonish
captivity and the restoration. If on this account we
reject the latter portion of Isaiah, we must also in the
application of this sweeping criticism reject the writings
of these prophets. The mention of Cyrus (Koresh, i.e.,
the Sun) is now thought to be a title of dignity, just
as Pharaoh was applied to the rulers of Egypt; but
even if used as a proper name, by the prophet as by
later writers, pointing out the very individual, there is a
similar instance given (2 Kings xiii. 2) in which Josiah
is spoken of by name as the future destroyer of idolatry;
so that there is nothing specially singular in this respect.
The supposed differences in style and manner which are
disputed, may be explained by the difference between
youth and age, between spoken addresses and carefully-
written discourses. There is an obvious natural con-
nection between the later and the earlier prophecies, as
Bishop Wordsworth has clearly shown in his commen-
tary, who has also pointed out the use of Isaiah's
language by Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
8. Setting aside the hypothetical author, “the great
unknown,” for whom the authorship of the last twenty-
seven chapters of Isaiah is claimed, we have no name
except Isaiah the son of Amoz, or any other person
indicated in the whole course of Jewish or Christian
The style
that of
Isaiah’s
old age.
27o THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
—º
literature up to the eighteenth century, with the excep-
tion of Aben Ezra in the eleventh century. There is no
genuine personal claimant, but simply an ideal one, the
creation of a narrow dogmatic assumption, resting on
principles of criticism, which, if admitted as true, would
be the destruction of all confidence in the veracity of the
Allusions writers of the Old and New Testaments. On the other
º, hand, we have a series of allusions to these last twenty-
prophets, seven chapters of the prophecy in the writings of Sundry
prophets who lived before, or in the early part of the
c..ptivity, as for instance the following –
Isaiah, chap. xliv. II–20, with . . . . Habbakukii. 18, 19.
2 3 xliv. 23 ,, . . . . Jeremiah li. 48.
32 xlv. I, 2 ,, . . . . Jeremiah li. 30.
3 y xlvii. 1–3 ,, . . . . . Jeremiah xlviii. 18, 20, 26.
> 2 xlvii. 8 , , . . . . Zephaniah ii. 15.
2 3 xlviii. 20, lii.2 , , . . . . Jeremiah 1.2, 8.
5 7 li. I5 ,, . . . . Jeremiah xxxi. 35.
3 y li. 17 ,, . . . . Jeremiah xxv. 15–29.
3 3 liii. 7 ,, . . . . Nahum i. 15.
* 3 lvi. 9 ,, . . . . Jeremiah xii. 9, 14.
2 3 lvi.-lvii. 9 ,, . . . . Ezekiel xxxiv.
2 3 lix. I, 2 ,, . . . . Jeremiah v. 25.
3 y lix. 9–II ,, .... Jeremiah xiii. 16.
2 y lxvi. 6 ,, . . . . Jeremiah li. 55, 56.
5 y 1xvi. I6 ,, . . . . Jeremiah xxv. 21, 23.
3 3 lxvi. 19–20 ,, .... Zephaniah iii. 10.
See also—
Isaiah, chap. xl. 19, 20, with .... Jeremiah x. 3–5, 8, 9.
9. We have, what ought to satisfy us, the fact of our
Lord and His apostles having given their testimony to
the authorship of these last twenty-seven chapters by
Isaiah the prophet, by no less than twenty-six quota-
tions in the Gospels and Epistles, which are pointed out
in the marginal references of most editions of the
English New Testament. This is sufficient for all who
**
TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271
profess to believe in Christ as a Divine teacher. In
reference to our Lord's testimony we must call attention
to the remarks in Chapter VI., pp. I59, 16o. In the
interval between the close of the Canon of the Jewish
Church and the first century of the Christian era, we
have the testimony of Jesus the son of Sirach (who pro-
bably wrote in the third century before Christ), in
Ecclesiasticus (chap. xlviii. 20–25), of which we simply
give verses 24 and 25 as specially relevant. “He saw
by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the
last, and he comforted them that mourned in Zion ” (a
reference to chapter xl. of Isaiah, the first of the dis-
puted chapters of the later prophecy). “He showed
what should come to pass for ever, and secret things or
ever they came.” In addition we have that of Josephus,"
who states that it was made known to Cyrus, through
the prophecy of Isaiah, that he should rebuild Jerusalem,
and that this prophecy was given one hundred and forty
years before the Temple was demolished. These re-
ferences are of use as indicating the views of the
literary class among the Jews, apart from the influence
of Christianity.
Io. The interpretation of the Messianic and other
prophecies of Isaiah is no part of our task. That
work has been done by Dr. Payne Smith, J. Pye Smith,
Alexander, Urzwick, and many others. We will simply
refer, as a fair specimen of the general character of the
expositions of the Higher Critics, to their theories re-
specting “The Servant of Jehovah,” chapter xlii. 1, 2,
xlix. I—8, 1.4, lii. 13, to the end of liii., all of which
Christians in general apply to our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Messiah. But these are referred –
(1) To the people of Israel in their attitude towards
* “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book XI. chap. ii.
Jesus
the son of
Sirach.
Josephus.
272 THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
the heathen during their captivity, by Rosenmüller and
Hitzig.
(2) To the youth of the nation as opposed to the
incorrigible old, by Hendezverk.
(3) To Israel in its prophetic calling, suffering for the
Gentiles, and partly to the Messiah, by Hoffmann.
(4) To the prophetic class or order, by Gesenius, De
Wette, Umbreit.
Of course these views are opposed by Havernick,
Delitzsch, and Drechsler, and by all the critics of the
orthodox school. Further remarks are unnecessary.
*gºr
4
THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 273
CHAPTER XIV.
THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.
I. The prophet ZECHARIAH, the son of Berechiah, the
son of Iddo, one of the priests who returned with Zerub-
babel from Babylon (Nehemiah xii. 4), was probably
porn in Babylon, and began to prophesy when young, in
the second year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 52O ; he was
contemporary with Haggai. The first six chapters of
his prophecy consist of a series of visions bearing upon
the future of the Jewish Church and people. Chapters
vii. and viii. refer to the settlement of some important
questions two years later. Until the middle of the
seventeenth century, the unity and authenticity of the
entire book were universally received on the authority
of the Jewish Canon. The critical controversy from
that period refers to the last six chapters, ix. to xiv., and
is remarkable for two peculiarities. First, that the critics
contend that these chapters are of greater antiquity than
the times of Zechariah, whereas the general tendency
of the “Higher Criticism” is to throw doubts on the
antiquity of the sacred books. Second, that the first
objection to the genuineness of the last six chapters, as
forming no part of Zechariah's prophecy, came from
English critics of the orthodox school. Joseph Mede, in
1653, was led to apply to Jeremiah the last six chapters,
from the fact that in the Gospel of St. Matthew (chapter
xvii. 9) the citation from Zechariah xi. I2, 13, is ascribed
to the prophet Jeremiah. He thought that these chap-
T
274 THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.
*
ters of Jeremiah were found after the captivity, and
added by Zechariah to his prophecy. He was followed
by Kidder, 1700 ; Hammond, 1681; Whiston, 1722;
and Wewcombe, 1788. The latter was the first to advo-
cate the theory that the six chapters, ix. to xiv., of
Zechariah are the work, not of Zedekiah, but of two
distinct prophets. This supposition of two distinct
prophets, which Bunsen considers “the greatest triumph
of Modern Criticism,” is an answer to the supposed
bigoted, traditional, conservative character of orthodox
British critics. In this case, the evidence arising out of
the prophet's standpoint, appeared two centuries ago, to
this abused class of critics, to imply the earlier date of
the last six chapters, and they were not afraid to advo-
cate a theory then very unpopular. It is singular that
in the English Bible (King James's translation) the
dates affixed to sundry chapters, taken generally from
“Ussher's Chronology,” lead to the same conclusion.
The beginning of the prophecy has B.C. 52O, which is
the true date of the earlier prophecies appended in the
margin, while the date beginning with the ninth chapter
is 586 B.C., which is that of the captivity. In Germany,
Fligge, Döderlein, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Seiler, G. L. Bauer,
Augusti, and others advocated this theory, with their
own variations. As a specimen —(1) Bertholdt, Gesenius,
Maurer, Bunsen, Forberg, Rosenmüller, Hitzig, Knobel,
Bleek, Ewald, Ortenberg, Davidson, Wellhausen, Herzfield,
Hupfield, Thenius, Movers, and Schrader, attributed chap-
ters ix. to xi. to one Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah,
whose name occurs in Isaiah, chapter viii. 2. Chapters
xii. to xiv. they ascribe to some one living in the time of
Uzziah, though Bunsen thinks the writer of these chap-
ters was Urijah, the son of Shemaiah, mentioned in
Jeremiah xxvi. 20. (2) Rosenmüller and Davidson place
CRITICAL OPINIONS. 275
the writer under King Uzziah. (3) Hitzig and Credner,
from about the age of Ahaz, or earlier. (4) Knobel
places chapters ix. to xi. under the reign of Jotham and
Ahaz, (5) Newcombe thought that chapters ix–xi. were
written before the Assyrian captivity, and xi. and xii. soon
after Josiah's reign. (6) Ewald thinks chapters iz., xi., xiii.,
vii.-ix., belong to the time of Ahaz. All these, with
Dr. J. Pye Smith and Dr. Adam Clarke, suppose an
earlier period than that of the return from exile. There
is much in their arguments to justify their views, which
have been, and are yet, held by men of learning, ability,
and piety. Differences of opinion on critical points are
not inconsistent with strict orthodoxy of faith in the
great truths of revealed religion. By the writer of the
article Zechariah in Smith's “Dictionary of the Bible,”
and by the writer of the introduction to this prophet in
the “Speaker's Commentary,” the conclusion arrived at
is, that “it is not easy to say which way the weight of
evidence preponderates.” It is, however, a singular fact
that some of the German critics, as Eichhorn, Paulus,
Corrodi, Gramberg, Ståhelin, Geiger, Böttcher, and Vatke,
in direct opposition to the theories of their learned
brethren, who contend for a much earlier period than
that of the exile, go to the other extreme, and ascribe
these later prophecies to the period of Alexander's con-
quests. Corrodi thought that chapter xiv. was written
so late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the
Maccabees.
2. To exhibit more clearly the views of the critics of
the present century in reference to the dates assigned to
the disputed chapters, Zechariah ix. to xiv., we give Dr.
Pusey's table, with which he has enriched his intro-
duction to Zechariah in his “Minor Prophets.” The
* “Minor Prophets,” 4to, pp. 511,512.
T 2
276 THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.
regular order of the chapters is followed as far as possible
for convenience of reference.
Chapters IX. to XIV.
(a) At the earliest, in the first half and middle of the fifth
century B.C., by Watke.
(b) “The younger poet, whose visions were added to those of
Zechariah,” by Geiger.
(c) Last years of Darius Hystaspes, or first of Xerxes, by
Gramberg.
(d) After the battle of Issus, 333 B.C. Eichhorn.
(e) After 303 B.C. Bottcher.
(f) Uzziah, 772 B.C. Hitzig, Rosenmüller.
Chapter IX.
(a) To Hyrcanus the First, as Messiah. Paulus.
(5) To the time of Alexander the Great. Corrodi.
(c) Perhaps the time of Zephaniah. Gesenius.
(d) Uzziah. Bleek, Forberg.
(e) Between the carrying away of the two tribes and a half
and the fall of Damascus. Maurer.
(f) Under Uzziah and Jeroboam. Ortenberg.
(g) After the capture of Damascus by Tiglath Pileser.
Movers.
Chapters IX. to XI.
(a) Under Ahaz, during the war with Pekah. Bertholdt.
(b) Beginning of Ahaz. Credner.
(c) Latter time of Hezekiah. Bauer.
(d) Between the invasion of Pul and Tiglath Pileser’s con-
quest of Damascus, B.C. 771–740. Knobel.
(e) “Very probably Uzziah's favourite prophet in his pros-
perous days.” Dean Stanley.
(f) Contemporary with Isaiah under Ahaz. Bunsen.
Chapters IX. to XI., and XIII. 7 to 9. The first ten years of
Pekah. Ewald. -
Chapters IX, and X.
(a) Perhaps contemporary with Zephaniah, in the time of
Josiah. De Wette. *
(3) Not before Jeroboam, nor before Uzziah’s accession, but
before the death of Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam. Hitzig.
Chapter X.
(a) Ahaz, soon after the war with Pekah and Rezin. Bleek.
(b) Soon after the death of Hosea, and before Pekah’s acces-
sion, B.C. 739–731. Maurer.
IRRECONCILABLE CRITICISMS. 277
(c) The anarchy after the death of Jeroboam the Second,
B.C. 784–772. Ortenberg.
Chapter XI.
(a) Might be in the time of Ahaz. De Wette,
(b) In the reign of Hosea, Maurer.
(c) Possibly contemporary with Hosea. Bauer.
(d) Beginning of the reign of Menahem. Hitzig.
Chapter XI., verses I to 3.
(a) Invasion of some Assyrian king. Bleek.
(8) B.C. 716. Ortenberg.
Chapter.XII., verses 4 to 17. Menahemandend of Uzziah, Maurer
Chapter XI., verses 4 to 17, XIII., verses 7 to 9. Shortly after
the war of Pekah and Rezin. Ortenberg.
Chapters XII. to XIV.
(a) Manasseh, in view of a siege by Esarhaddon. Hitzig.
(3) Between B.C. 607—604, not fulfilled. Knobel.
(c) Soon after Josiah’s death, hy Uriah, Jeremiah’s contem-
porary, B.C. 607 or 606. Bunsen.
(d) Most probably while the Chaldees were already before
Jerusalem, shortly before 599 B.C. Schrader.
Chapters XII. to XIII. verse 6.
(a) Under Joiakim or Jeconiah, or Zedekiah, in Nebuchad-
nezzar's last expedition, not fulfilled. Bertholdt.
(3) The last years of Jehoiakim, or under Jehoiachin, or
Zedekiah. Bleek.
(c) Fourth year of Jehoiakim. Maurer.
(d) The latter half of 600 B.C. Ortenberg.
(e) Shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. Ewald.
Chapters XII., XIII. verse 6, XIV.
(a) Zedekiah, beginning of the revolt. Stanley.
(b) After the death of Josiah. Kahnis.
Chapter XIII., 7th verse to the end.
(a) Probably under Josiah or Jehoiachin. Bleek.
(3) Soon after Josiah’s death. Bertholdt.
(c) Fifth year of Jehoiakim. Maurer. *
Chapters XII., XIII. 6th verse to the end. Prophecies of
fanatical contents, which defy all historical interpretation, but
mustrather be conceived as future than past. De Wette, Bertholdt.
Chapter XIV. Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees.
Corrodi and others.
3. The following German critics contend for the
genuineness of chapters ix. to xiv., as part of the
i
278 THE PROPHET 2ECHARIAH.
original prophecy of Zechariah : Carpzovius, Jahn,
Koster, Hengstenberg, Binger, De Wette (last edition),
A. Theiner, Herbst, Umbreit, Havernick, Keil, Ståhelin,
Von Hoffman, Ebrard, Schegg, Baumgarten, Neumann,
Rlieforth, Köhler, and Sandrock. Among the English
Critics who adopt the same conclusion are Blaney, Hen-
derson, Wordsworth, Pusey, and others. Looking at the
various and discordant opinions of the critics, Dr. Pusey
remarks, with great reason, on the boasted unity of the
results of this “Modern Criticism " (claimed in the
“Essays and Reviews,” by Professor Jowett), that in
this assertion the Professor “must have been thinking of
the agreement of its negations.” And in addition
observes, that “there must be some mistake either in
the tests applied, or in their application, which admits of
a variation of at least 450 years, from some time in the
reign of Uzziah, say 770 B.C., to later than 330 B.C.;” a
period equal to that which intervenes between the reign
of Henry the Fifth and Queen Victoria. The Rev. C.
H. H. Wright, in his exhaustive work entitled “Zecha-
riah and his Prophecies,” remarks: “Just as able scholars
are to be found in the ranks of the defenders, as in those
of the opposers of the traditional view ; and the reckless
taunts thrown out by some, as to the lack of scholarship
on the part of the defenders of the genuineness of the
book, are as unfounded as they are ungenerous. Indeed,
one cannot help remarking that in such disputes a dis-
position quietly to bow to the authority of those “held
in reputation,’ is as remarkable a characteristic of the
‘rank and file’ of the followers of the school which
opposes the traditional view, as of those on the con-
servative side.”
* “Zechariah and his Prophecies.” Bampton Lecture for 1878, 8vo,
1879, pp. 27, 28.
THE PHILOLOGICAL ARG UMENT. 279
4. The philological argument on the likeness or dis-
similarity of language, as a test of identity of authorship,
or the contrary, and to which so much deference has
been paid, is now admitted to be worthless, except
negatively. It may afford a reasonable ground for
doubt, but of itself can determine nothing. Tables of
words exhibiting in full detail lists of those used, or not
used, by this or that author make a show, and carry with
them the impression of a profound study, which is really
nothing but a careful manipulation of one or other of the
grand Hebrew concordances; they prove little ; the use
of like and unlike words, will of necessity depend upon
the subjects treated ; the application of this fancied
Critical test has been found wanting when applied to
well-known English writers. With respect to the last
six chapters of Zechariah, there seems to be no difference
in style between them and the preceding chapters.
Pressel, an opponent of the genuineness of these
chapters, remarks, that the man who professes to see a
contrast in that respect between the two portions of this
prophet, “must have an ear fine enough to hear the grass
when it grows.” The fact, that in Zechariah there are
not only allusions to the earlier prophets, but also to
the later prophets, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, seemed so
convincing to De Wette that, after having in the first
three editions of his “Introduction” denied the oneness of
the prophecy, he found himself compelled to admit that
the latter chapters must also belong to the age of
Zechariah. This recantation of De Wette's is a fact
which must tend to counteract the influence of much of
the adverse criticism of his class of critics. No one can
compare chapters iz. 2 of Zechariah with Ezekiel xxviii.
I Stanley Leathe’s “Witness of the Old Testament to Christ,” 8vo,
pp. 282, 283.
28o THE PROPHIET ZECHARIAH.
3, without noticing the allusions. So also ix. 3 with
I Kings xvii. 27, or x. 3 with Ezekiel xxxiv. I7—24, or
xiii. 8, 9 with Ezekiel v. I2, or xiv. 8 with Ezekiel xlvii. I
—I2, or verses Io and II of chapter xiv. with Jeremiah
xxxi. 38–40, or verses 20 and 21 of chapter xiv. with
Ezekiel xliii. I2 and xliv. 9. It is difficult to account for
these on the supposition of an earlier date than that
usually assigned.
5. While firmly believing in the unity of the Book of
Zechariah's prophecy, it must, however, be admitted that
there are references and allusions sufficient to justify
doubt, as to the date commonly assigned to the last six
chapters, and to call forth inquiry and discussion. Two
especially: (1) The fact of Matthew's allusion to the
passage Zechariah xi. I2, in chapter xxxii. 8—IO, as if
from Jeremiah the prophet. We think that Scrivener.
and Bishop Lightfoot account for this apparent dis-
crepancy by a reference to the fact that, according to
the Talmud, Jeremiah's prophecy was placed first in the
order of the prophetic books, and thus gave its name to
the whole body of the prophetical writings. This is in
accordance with the ordinary mode of reference to
quotations from the Sacred Books by the Jews, which
was to the technical name of the section, rather than to
the particular book from which the quotations were
taken. Thus the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
chapter iv. 7, quotes Psalm xcv. 7, as “in David,” re-
ferring to the general title of the collection of Psalms,
and not to David as the author of that Psalm which
was evidently written long after the time of the sweet
singer of Israel, though before the captivity. If the
reading in Matthew be incorrect, from an error of a
transcriber, it must have been committed very early, as
all the more ancient MSS. contain it, except two of the
zechARIAH's STANDPoint. 281
old Italic version (before Jerome's Vulgate). It is
remarkable that Matthew, though he quotes from
Zechariah twice in other places, and from Micah once,
does not mention the name of the prophet. (2) The
second objection is taken from the prophet's apparent
standpoint in the last six chapters; he speaks as if the
old empires of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt, and the
kingdoms of Judah and Israel, Philistia, &c., &c., were
yet in all their glory as before the Persian conquests.
Ståhelin remarks in reply, that even under the Persian
government the political relations of the Jewish people
continued much the same as before. The old political
estrangement and prejudices between them and their
neighbours remained, though the actual warfare in the
field was prevented by the Persian rule. All these
subject provinces of Persia were ready to assert their
independence, and occasionally by so doing provoked
the punishment which the prophet foretold in respect
of Damascus, Phoenicia, Philistia, &c. He tries to
tranquillise the people, and encourage them to remain
faithful to the Persian Supremacy, holding out the pro-
mised union of Israel and Judah in the times of the
Messiah. The moral condition of Jerusalem had also
deteriorated ; there was a falling off in the zeal for the
rebuilding of the Temple; the old vices had reappeared
in full vigour, covetousness, oppression of the poor, and
every form of selfishness; hence much of the language
employed by the prophet is applicable to a time long
past, as well as to the time in which he lived. The last
six chapters are probably the production of the prophet's
old age, in which, like his predecessor, Isaiah, he takes a
wider range, and sets forth the future destinies of the
Church, for the comfort and instruction of believers in
all ages. It must be admitted that these prophecies,
282 THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH.
both the earlier and the later, are the most difficult to
understand of all the prophetical writings. Centuries
hence, the course of events may help to a right inter-
pretation of them. The Messianic prophecies cannot
be misunderstood as to their general bearing. Dr.
Pusey’s “Commentary on the Minor Prophets,” 4to, and
the Bampton Lecture, “Zechariah and his Prophecies,”
by the Rev. C. H. H. Wright, are the most recent con-
tributions towards a right understanding of this, the
most important of the minor prophets. We may also
notice, as remarkably full and comprehensive, the
Commentary of Dr. J. W. Chambers, in Lange's
“Commentary,” edited by Schaff, royal 8vo; also
McCaul's translation of David Kimchi's “Commentary
on Zechariah,” which is an instructive specimen of the
ultra antichristian class of Jewish interpreters.
THE PROPHET DANIEL. 283
C H A P T E R XV.
THE PROPHET DANIEL.
I. We now come to the Book of the Prophet Daniel,
which furnishes the occasion for the last and not the
least important of the great battle fields of the “Higher
Criticism * bearing upon the Old Testament. Daniel Daniel's
occupies a singularly peculiar and marked position, in all "...”
respects differing from the other prophets of the Old position.
Testament dispensation. A noble youth of the family
of King Zedekiah, distinguished for his piety and in-
tellectual power, is taken away a captive to Babylon,
rises from the position of a slave to that of a statesman,
endures persecution, and is a confessor for the truth ;
exercises no small influence over his Babylonian,
Median, and Persian sovereigns, for the benefit of the
Israelitish race, especially in reference to the permission
to return to the land of their fathers, and in the rebuild-
ing of Jerusalem and of the Temple; he is also honoured
as the medium of communicating to mankind, the most
important and comprehensive series of prophecies, ex-
tending through the future history of the human race, to
the consummation of all things. His position is one of
sympathy for Israel, but independent, identifying himself
more particularly with the course of “the world powers,”
present and future, in their relation to the Church of
the coming Messiah. In his recorded prophecies we
first find the germ of the philosophy of universal history
284 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
Critical
hypo-
thesis.
as the manifestation of a Divine plan and purpose,
gradually unfolding, and amid all the changes of
dynasties and powers, training the human race for the
advent of King Messiah, and for the teachings and
spiritual influences of the Christian dispensation. To
him was revealed more clearly than to preceding
prophets, that progress was the law of our redeemed
race, and that all the great changes and revolutions,
however apparently adverse at the time to the interests
of humanity, would culminate in the triumph of righteous-
ness, and in the rule of sanctified intellect. The pro-
phecies of Daniel are God's protest against the pseudo-
philosophical pessimism of our diseased antichristian
civilisation. The prophet Daniel, the man greatly beloved
(chapter x. II), stands, as Baumgarten remarks, as “the
official seer of Jehovah in the world kingdom,” pointing
towards the grand result, “ the kingdom of God.” In
the discharge of his office, his prophecies are at once so
comprehensive as to take in the whole range of human
history, and yet some of them are so minute and exact
in their details, as to provoke attacks upon their genuine-
ness, from the time of Porphyry in the third century to
our day.
2. The Book of Daniel is written partly in Chaldee,
chapter ii. from verse 4 (latter half) to the end of chapter
vii.; the language is said to be older than the Chaldee of
Ezra. The Hebrew resembles the Hebrew of the con-
temporary writers, with such modifications as might be
looked for in one brought up from his youth in Babylon.
The Greek words, which have been supposed to indicate
a later age, were received, no doubt, through the Greek
population in Asia Minor, with which there was at that
time an increasing intercourse ; one instance of this is,
that the Greek poet Alcaeus had a brother who served
PORPHYRY. 285
in the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar. The unity of the
book, tersely and ably vindicated by Dr. S. Davidson,1
is now generally admitted, with some few exceptions; as,
for instance—(1) Spinoza, and after him Hobbes, Sir
Isaac Newton, and Beausobre, regard chaps. i. to vii. as
not written by Daniel, but by some other prophet. (2)
Eichhorn imagines one writer of chapS. i., ii. verses 4 to
the end, and of chaps.vii. to xii.; the other, being the author
of chap. ii. verse 4 to chap. vi. 29. (3) Bertholdt and
Augusti fancy they can recognise nine writers! (4)
Michaelis thinks that chapS. iii. to vi. are of later date.
(5) Sack, Herbet, Speil, and others advocate a twofold
authorship. (6) Zoëkler regards chaps. X. to xii. as largely
interpolated by a writer of the Maccabean age. Hitzig,
De Wette, Gesenius, as well as Bleek, with all the olden
critics, admit the unity of the book. Some think that
Daniel also wrote 2 Chron. xxxvi. from verse 8 to the
end, and also the first chapter of Ezra, which fills up a
gap between chaps. ix. and x, of Daniel's book; but
these are simply guesses without authority or evidence,
though not improbable. Whether the book, in its
present arrangement, be the work of Daniel, or whether
he simply preserved the records, state papers, and his
own memoranda, which were edited by Ezra or some
other authorised person, is a point of little importance.
3. The first attack on the genuineness and authenticity
of Daniel was made by the learned Porphyry, towards
the conclusion of the third century of our era, in the
twelfth of his fifteen “Treatises against Christians.”
A full and detailed account of his objections may be
found in the Seventh Volume of Lardner's Works.” In
ability and fulness of statement and acuteness he is not
1 “Introduction to the Old Testament,” Vol. III, p. 162.
* 8vo edition.
Porphyry.
286 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
surpassed by the learned who have since followed in his
wake; his strongest objection is to the particularity of
the details in chapter xi., which refers to the history of
the Ptolemies and Seleucidae in their relation to the
Jewish people, and which being so clear and exact must,
according to his views, have been written after the event;
he supposed the writer to have lived soon after the reign
of Antiochus Epiphanes: hence, the prophecies of the
four kingdoms, which are generally interpreted as refer-
ring to Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, he would
close with Alexander's successors. “The argument of
Porphyry is an exact anticipation of the position of
many modern critics. It involves this twofold assump-
tion : first, that the whole book ought to contain pre-
dictions of the same character; and secondly, that definite
predictions are impossible. Externally the book is as
well attested as any book of Scripture, and there is
nothing to show that Porphyry urged any historical
objections against it; but it brings the belief in miracle
and prediction, in the Divine person and foreknowledge,
as active among men, to a startling test; and according
to the character of this belief in the individual must be
his judgment upon the book.” The Neo-Platonic
philosopher is paraded in our day as unanswerable.
“When the objections of Porphyry have since been from
time to time started afresh, the reply has often been
that they are merely Porphyry's old objections re-
appearing. On this rejoinder it was once remarked by
a venerable scholar and divine of our day, “they have
always reappeared, because they have never been
answered.’ This is substantially true.” It is surprising
that a man of Dean Stanley's penetration could not see
Dean
Stanley.
* Westcott-Smith’s “Dictionary * Stanley's “Jewish Church,”
of the Bible,” Vol. I. p. 393. Vol. III. p. 69.
MIRACLES. 287
that on Porphyry's assumed principles, applied to the
question of the authenticity of the whole revelation of
God in the Old and New Testaments, we could not
answer any objections. If a Divine foreknowledge and
a revelation of the Divine plan to man is admitted as
impossible, then, not only the Book of Daniel, but the
whole Bible must be given up. This was clearly seen by
scholars and divines up to the seventeenth century, and
hence Porphyry's objections with them had no weight;
and in our day they can have no weight with those who
believe in the fact of miracle and prophecy. Uriel Acosta
(a Jewish atheist), Collins and the English deists, with
the learned Germans, Semler, Michaelis, Eichhorn,
Bertholdt, De Wette, Lengerke, Maurer, Gesenius,
Ståhelin, Nöldeke, Hilgenfield, Rosenmüller, Knobel,
Lucke, and Baron Bunsen, also adopted what they re-
garded as “a natural result of historical criticism.”
Corrodi opposed the genuineness of the whole book:
Hitzig declared its contents “irrational and impossible.”
The great stumbling-block to Hitzig and his class of
sceptical critics, is the record of miraculous interpositions
in the Book of Daniel. To those who believe in the
greatest and yet most natural of miracles, a Divine reve-
1ation, nothing appears more reasonable than the three
special miracles recorded in Daniel. If ever any Divine
interposition might be hoped for and expected, it was at
that time when the calamities of the Jewish Church had
culminated in the fall of the monarchy, the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the carrying away of
the population to Babylon. To many it then appeared
as if the covenant God of their father Abraham had cast
off His people, and given them up to the control of the
heathen. These special manifestations of the power of
Jehovah in defence of the faithful among His servants,
Miracles.
288 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
Daniel’s
place in
the Canon.
and as vindicating against idolatry the doctrine of the
Divine Unity, must have been a comfort and support to
the Jewish captives, as well as admonitory to the heathen.
The immediate influence of these miraculous revelations of
the future, and of the supernatural deliverances accorded
to the prophet and his friends, was manifested in the
favour shown by the Babylonian and Persian monarchs
to the Jewish captives. Apart from Daniel's agency,
and the position which he occupied, the favour shown to
the Jewish nation by their powerful conquerors is alto-
gether unaccountable. However “irrational” to the
sceptic, the miracles recorded are to all believers proofs
of the wisdom, as well as of the goodness of God. In
England Dr. Davidson, Dr. Arnold, Dr. Milman and
Dean Stanley are the principal writers who follow
Porphyry. On the other side, among the Germans who
advocate the old orthodox opinion are to be found
Lüdewald, Statidlein, Jahn, Lask, Stendel, Hengsten-
berg, Havernick, Dereser, Pereau, Sack, Herbst, Scholz,
Delitzsch, Klieforth, Zündel, Beckhans, Volk, Auberlen,
Hug, Speil, Kranichfeld, and Keil ; among the English
the vast majority of the critics and divines, as for
instance, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Dr. Pusey,
Tregelles, Bishop Horsley, Birks, Elliott, Stuart, Rule,
Fuller, &c. So far as mere critical logomachy is con-
cerned, the defenders of the authenticity of Daniel's
prophecies are able on purely critical grounds to hold
their own.
4. The place in which the Book of Daniel is found
in the Jewish Canon, has been employed as an argument
against its acceptance by the Jewish Church, as equal in
authority to the other prophets, who are placed in the
second division, which comprises the historical books
from Joshua to 2 Kings, and the prophetical writings;
-****
HIS PLACE IN THE KETUBIM. 289
while Daniel is placed among the Ketubim (the writings),
called also the sacred writings (Hagiographa). Davidson
remarks: “It is not among the prophets, but in the
Hagiographa, and there too as one of the last books.
The second division of the canonical Scriptures was not
made till the time of Ezra, at least. If, therefore, the
book had been written in the time of the exile by
Daniel, why was it not put there with the other pro-
‘phets? The answer is, that it did not then exist.”
And again : “One division of the Jewish writings con-
sists of the prophets. Why is Malachi in that division,
and Daniel not ?” I There is another answer, far more
satisfactory than that given by Davidson to the first
question. The fact of a threefold division of the books
is undeniable, and also that the division took place
soon after the settlement of the Canon; but the precise
contents of the two last divisions appear to have varied
at different times. “No two are alike. Even the
Masorites and the Talmudists differ from each other.
Jerome differs from both, and Origen from him ; and so
if we compare Melito, the Laodicean Council, the
Apostolic Canons, Cyrill, Gregory, Nazianzen, Athana-
sius, Hilary, Epiphanius, the Council of Hippo, Jerome,
Rufinus, &c., Scarcely any two of them are alike
throughout. And this is almost the case even with MSS.
and editions in later times. . . . Josephus's arrangement
necessarily includes Daniel among the prophets. Of
course, when this is settled, it follows with almost abso-
lute certainty that the son of Sirach, Philo, and the
New Testament writers do the same, inasmuch as they
classify the Sacred Books in the same manner as he
* Davidson's “Introduction to the Jewish Church,” vol. III. p.
Old Testament,”, Vol. III, pp. 169, 7.1, &c. -
170. Dean Stanley’s “History of
U
290 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
does. We know for certainty this fact in respect to
the Book of Daniel, as it concerns the later writers, for
we have their lists, both of the names and the order of
all the books.” . Too much importance seems to be
placed by the critics on this point, whether rationalistic or
not. The arrangement of the books was probably a
mere matter of convenience with reference to the public
reading in the Synagogue. In the Septuagint, Daniel
follows Ezekiel, as in the English version. No intention
of disrespect or charge of inferiority could attach to
Daniel in assigning his prophecies a place among the
Psalms in the Hagiographa, in which he stands among
other writings relating to the captivity. It has been
supposed by Hengstenberg that though Daniel had the
gift of prophecy, yet he never held the office of prophet
in Israel or Judah, and was therefore not placed among
the prophets in the arrangement of the Sacred Books.”
These remarks from Stuart and Hengstenberg may
explain why, in one particular Talmudical list, Malachi
is in the one division, and Daniel not.
Refe- 5. The references to Daniel in the Old Testament are
i. important. (a) The prophet Ezekiel (chap. xiv. 20):
Daniel in
hºld “Though Noah, Daniel, and job were in it, they shall
men and deliver neither son, nor daughter; they shall but deliver their
Apocrypha own souls by their righteousness.” This was written in the
sixth year of Jehoiachin's captivity, about 594 B.C.,
twelve years after Daniel had come to Babylon, when
Daniel had already for several years acquired the repu-
tation and position which made him to be regarded with
peculiar affection by the Jewish exiles, to which Ezekiel
belonged. “Ezekiel is the first witness to the Book of
Daniel. No other explanation can be given of Ezekiel's
1 Moses Stuart’s “Old Testa- * “Authenticity of Daniel,” &c.,
ment Canon,” pp. 258–263. 8vo (Clark's Trans.). *
“...…”
REFERENCES IN THE PROPHETS. 29I
words. Ezekiel manifestly refers to one, as well known
to those to whom he spoke, as the great Patriarchs Noah
and Job.” The second mention of Daniel by Ezekiel
is in chapter xxviii. 3, when, addressing the “Prince of
Tyrus,” he ironically remarks, “Behold, thou art wiser than
Paniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee.”
This was written about five years later, when Daniel's
character for wisdom had become generally known. (b)
Mehemiah's prayer, chap. ix. 6–17, apparently refers to
Daniel, chap. ix. 4, I4. (c) The prophecy of Zechariah
in two of his visions, chaps. i. I2, I8–21, vi. I—3, pre-
supposes a knowledge of Daniel’s vision of the four
world monarchies.
6. The remains of Jewish literature found in the
Apocrypha furnish also some confirmation of the
decision of the Canon. Upon these writings the Book
of Daniel exercised a perceptible influence, but it is dis-
tinguished from them by its freedom “from the errors
and anachronisms, the religious ceremonial, and moral
development which mark the apocryphal literature of
the Book of Esdras, the additions to Daniel, Tobit, the
Sibylline books, and the like.” But none of these
apocryphal writings say anything of a personal Messiah,
from which we may infer the non-existence of a pseudo-
Daniel in the days of the Maccabees. In the Book of
Baruch, supposed by Ewald to have been written during
the Persian period, there are references to the Pen-
tateuch, Isaiah, and Daniel. The Book of Jesus, the
son of Sirach, which is of the third century before our
era, makes no mention of Daniel, but is indirectly a
strong proof of the conviction that Daniel's prophecy
must have possessed undeniable claims, as one of the
1 Pusey’s “Daniel the Pro- * “Speaker's Commentary,”
phet,” p. 108. Vol. VI. p. 212.
U 2
292 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
recognised Oracles of God, and for this reason had been
included in the Sacred Writings; for if the Canon had
been formed so late as the time of the Maccabees, and
So carelessly, as to admit a book hitherto unknown,
ascribed to Daniel; how is it that such a book as that
of the son of Sirach was not included ? Men do not
canonise their contemporaries, and if the Jews at Jeru-
salem had placed the work of a pseudo-Daniel among
the Sacred Writings, would the Jews of Babylon and of
the Dispersion have received it as canonical ? To
believe this, is harder than to accept the decision of the
Jewish and Christian Churches. The first Book of
Maccabees expressly indicates that there was no prophet
at that time (I Maccabees iv. 44–46, ix. 27, xiv. 41).
The third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, written by a
Jew of the Maccabean age, quotes the prophecy of the
ten horns (Daniel vii.), and refers to Isaiah and Zechariah.
The first Book of Maccabees, written about IOO to I2O
years B.C., originally in Hebrew, records an address, the
dying words of old Mattathias to his sons (167 B.C.), in
which reference is made to the faithfulness of the three
Jewish Confessors and of Daniel (chapter ii. 59, 60), and
(in chapter 1. 54) to the remarkable phrase, “the abomina-
tion of desolation " (Daniel xi. 31). “Two points have
been observed in that speech of Mattathias, as bearing
on the Book of Daniel: (1) His mention of Daniel's
companions and of Daniel, in the same simple way in
which he had named other Scripture examples before
them,-Abraham, Joseph, Phineas, Joshua, Caleb, David,
Elias, and that in the order in which their deliverances are
related in the book, Daniel's companions being named
before himself. Their histories, too, are touched on in a
single word, as recorded in Daniel : “Annanias, Azarias,
and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flames
REFERENCES IN THE APOCRYPHA. 293
º
(Daniel iii. 17, 18, 28); Daniel, for his innocency, was
delivered from the mouth of lions (Daniel vi. 22).’ (2)
His acknowledgment that a time of destruction was
come, such as Daniel had foretold (chaps. viii. 19, xi. 35);
and his absolute certainty as to the issue, such as the
knowledge of the prophecies of Daniel would justify.”
As one of the apocryphal writings, we may regard the
version of Daniel, which was made for the Septuagint
Greek scriptures of the Old Testament; among other
instances of incorrect renderings and glosses, it so alters
the original prophecy of the Seventy Weeks as to make it
suit the times of Antiochus Epiphanes; while the original
TJaniel, in Hebrew and Chaldee, is an encouragement to
the Jews to persevere in a time of trial, the Greek copy,
made probably in the Syrian period, stimulates to
political revolution. It contains additions which were
never known in any but the Greek language, and, there-
fore, certainly much later than the time of Daniel. In
the place of this incorrect translation, the version of
Theodotian was substituted. The Book of Enoch,
which is supposed to be quoted by the Apostle Jude,
was written, according to Ewald, between I44 B.C. to
50 B.C., but contains fragments of an earlier date, as well
as interpolations of a later date. Westcott thinks that
this book “ may be regarded as describing an important
phase of Jewish opinion in the generation shortly before
the coming of Christ.” It is evident enough that the
writer was familiar with the language of Daniel.
7. There is no mention of Daniel in Ezra, Nehemiah,
Zechariah, or Haggai, nor in the catalogue given by the
son of Sirach (xlix. 8–10);” neither is there of many
* Pusey’s “Daniel,” pp.323,370. * Stanley’s “Hist. of the Jews,”
* Westcott in “Dictionary of Vol. III. p. 7i. Davidson’s “Int.
the Bible,” Vol. I. p. 557. to the Old Test.,” Vol. III. p. 171.
294 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
great names which stand foremost in Jewish history.
There are, however, what appear to some critics, obvious
references in Nehemiah and Zechariah, which we have
noticed in paragraph 5. With respect to the son of
Sirach, the passage xvii. 17 seems to allude to Daniel x.
I3–21, but more probably to the Septuagint rendering
of Deuteronomy xxxii. 8. The omission of Daniel's
name in the list of worthies in Ecclesiastes xlix. cannot
be accounted for any more than the omission of Ezra,
the scribe, the expounder of the law, and one of the
second founders of the Jewish ecclesiastical polity.
There are, however, two references in the Gospel of
Matthew and Luke, in which the GREAT TEACHER, our
Lord, gives His testimony to the pophecies of Daniel.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, Stand in the holy place (whoso
readeth, let him understand): Matthew xxiv. I5 and Mark
xiii. I4, clearly pointing to the passage in Daniel xi. 31.
To Dean Stanley, “The force of this reference is weakened
by the omission of the name in the Syriac version of
Matthew xxiv. I5, and by its entire absence from the
best MSS. of Mark xiii. I4, and in all the MSS. of Luke
xxi. 24. And under any circumstances, it could only
prove what is not doubted, that at the time of the
Christian era the book had been received into the .
Canon—in Palestine without the Greek additions, at
Alexandria with them.” To these objections it has
been replied that the phrase is found in the Syriac version
of Matthew xxiv. I5; and though there may be an
Omission in Mark xiii. I4, yet both passages contain the
impressive words, “Whoso readeth, let him understand,”
which gives our Lord's testimony to the book itself. In
Luke xxi. 24 the passage never existed, and its absence
Our
Lord’s
reference
to Daniel,
* Stanley's “Jewish Church,” Vol. III. p. 73, Ed. 1876.
ALEXANDER THE GREAT. 295
from our text is the consequence. The fact that there
was a Greek translation of Daniel in the days of our
Lord has nothing to do with the point in dispute, which
is, whether or not Daniel is a true prophet: this question
had been decided by the language used by our Lord,
Matthew xxiv. I5, “The words have but one plain
meaning and one plain reference. As spoken by Christ,
they invest with dignity and inspiration the author He
is quoting. This can be maintained, without for a
moment excluding the legitimate use of intelligent and
Scientific criticism. Christ has said nothing which shall
bind us to believe that Daniel reduced the book to its
present form ; but He has said that which forbids us to
believe its author (to have been) a Maccabean scribe or
an Egyptian enthusiast.” "
8. There is a fact recorded by Josephus alone, which, *:::::::
as it bears directly upon the genuineness of Daniel's and jagua
prophecies, is regarded with suspicion by most Modern tºº
Critics as a mere popular tradition, but even as such it e
proves the general opinion of the reality of Daniel's pro-
phecies, recognised as such, from the time of the return
from captivity. In the “Antiquities,” Josephus’ relates
the visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem, after the
battle of Issus, and that he was met by Jadua, the high
priest, who showed to him Daniel's prophecy of the
conquest of Persia by the Greeks. It is possible, and
even probable, that the narrative in Josephus is correct.
Jerusalem was a strategic position not to be neglected
by Alexander, though somewhat out of the usual direct
route to Egypt. It was deemed of importance by the
rival kings of Egypt and Assyria in their later wars, and
the high priest had refused to assist, by supplies, the
* “Speaker's Commentary,” Vol. * “Antiquities,” Book XI, chap.
VI., Int. by Fuller, p. 22I. viii. Sec. 5.
296 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
enemy of the King of Persia when besieging Tyre. It
is very natural that Alexander, who had just made such
a terrible example of the Governor of Gaza, should pro-
pose to punish the high priest for his fidelity to his
proper sovereign ; and it was equally natural and pro-
bable that the rapid conquests of Alexander should open
the eyes of the high priest to the meaning of Daniel's
prophecy (chap. viii. 6, 7, 21), and that he should en-
deavour to conciliate the conqueror by a reference to the
prophecy: it is also quite consistent with the character
of Alexander and his susceptibility to spiritual impres-
sions, as recorded by historians, that the prophecy would
be reverentially believed. The facts that Alexander
favoured the Jews, that he enlisted many of them into
his army, restored to them privileges of which they had
been long deprived, and allotted to them a valuable and
large quarter in his new city of Alexandria, are ac-
counted for, if Josephus’ statement be true. Westcott,
Derenburg, Palmer, De Wette and Schrader, think that
the main fact is true, though it may have been embel-
lished by the fancy of the historian. Others, as Ewald,
Bleek, Reuss, reject the narrative : yet, if not true, there
were in Josephus’ time histories of Alexander, now lost,
from which it would have been proved by the enemies of
the Jews to be a falsehood. But whether we receive it
as true or not, the testimony of Josephus to Daniel is
decisive; he does not confound his prophecies with
apocryphal Maccabean writings, of which he appears to
have known nothing, but challenges admiration for the
prophet. “Let those who read Daniel's prophecies
marvel at one so highly honoured. He is one of the
greatest of the prophets. Kings and nations combined
to pay him honour while living ; and though dead his
memory shall never perish.” We may conclude the list
BARON BUNSEN. 297
of historical and other evidences, which bear upon this
Subject, by a quotation from Dr. Pusey, characteristic of
his reverential piety, and of his thorough deference and
Submission to “the authority which stands alone:” his
words are, “I cannot, as some religious and eminent
defenders of Daniel have done, add to these human
evidences the testimony of our Lord, or use Divine
authority as a makeweight to human proof. There we
are altogether on different grounds, in a different atmo-
sphere. What I have proposed to myself in this course
of lectures, is to meet a boastful criticism upon its own
grounds, and to show its failures where it claims to be
most triumphant. The authority of our Lord stands
alone. It is the word of Him Who, being God, spake
with a Divine knowledge, perfect, infallible !”.'
9. The objections impugning the genuineness and
authenticity of the Book of Daniel, which are found in
the writings of the late Baron Bunsen, Dr. Arnold and
Dean Milman, and of Dean Stanley (who happily
survives), have a claim to special and separate notice
from the high literary position and the personal worth
of these gentlemen. We omit Dr. S. Davidson, as his
late writings throw no new light or darkness on the con-
troversy; the best reply to Dr. Davidson in 1863 to
I88O, is to be found in Dr. Davidson in 1839, 1843,
1854, and 1856; certainly in his case “the old wine is
better than the new.” (1) Baron Bunsen has adopted
and modified the theory of Ewald that the real Daniel
lived at the court of the Assyrian king in Nineveh, about
700 B.C.; that a Jew of the time of Alexander the
Great invented the prophecies of the “four world king-
doms,” and attributed them to Daniel, while another Jew
of the era of the Maccabees added the rest. Bunsen
* Pusey’s “Daniel,” p. 394.
Bunsen.
298 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
thinks that this supposed Daniel at Nineveh, who lived
under Pul and Sargon, about 750 B.C., left behind him
figurative prophecies concerning the destruction of
Asshur (the winged lion) by the Babylonian empire (the
devouring bear); that these prophecies, together with the
legends of Daniel's life, were placed by a writer of the
Maccabean period in their present form. Of these
theories there are no facts in proof, and all testimony is
to the contrary. (2) Dr. Arnold's preconceived notions
of the nature of prophecy, made his opinion of the
genuineness of Daniel a mere record of a foregone con-
clusion. In his letter to Tucker,2 we have his views
clearly expressed : “I think that with the exception of
those prophecies which relate to our Lord, the object of
prophecy is rather to delineate principles and states of
opinion which shall come than external events. I grant
that Daniel seems to furnish an exception.” Again in
his letter to Sir Thomas Pasley : “I am very glad,
indeed, that you like my Prophecy Sermons; the points
in particular on which I do not wish to enter, if I could
help it, but which very likely I shall be forced to touch
on, relate to the latter chapters of Daniel, which, if
genuine, would be a clear exception to my canon of
interpretation, as there can be no reasonable spiritual
meaning made out of the kings of the north and South.
But I have long thought that the greater part of the
Book of Daniel is most certainly a very late work of the
time of the Maccabees, and the pretended prophecy
about the kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the north
and south, is mere history like the poetical prophecies
in Virgil and elsewhere.” (3) Dean Milman” more
Dr.
Arnold.
Dean
Milman.
* Bunsen’s “God in History.” * “History of the Jews,” Vol. I.
* Dr. Arnold’s “Life,” 8vo, pp. p. 413.
59, 394.
MILMAN AND STANLEY. 299
guardedly expresses similar views: “That the early part
(of the Book of Daniel) contains the traditions of the
captivity and the life and times of Daniel seems probable;
but the prophecies down to Antiochus read so sin-
gularly like a transcript of the history, and are in this
respect so altogether unlike any other in either Testa-
ment, that they might almost be used, so plain are they
and distinct and unvisionary, as historical documents.”
(4) Dean Stanley, in his “Lectures on the History of the
Jewish Church,” I fairly states the argument for and
against the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, all of
which we have already noticed ; his crowning objection
is “the matter-of-fact descriptions of the leagues and
conflicts between the Graeco-Syrian and Graeco-
Egyptian kings, and of the reign of Antiochus IV., in
Daniel xi. 45.” He sums up the result, which is that
“the arguments incline largely to the later date.” To
these remarks it is not difficult to reply. Admitting,
with Dr. Arnold, that “the object of prophecy is rather
to delineate principle and states of opinion which shall
come than external events,” we would ask how these
changes of opinion and the development of mind can
be shown, without a reference to the political changes
with which all historians connect them. Certainly, in
sacred prophecy, the political changes foretold are all
pointed as subservient to the spiritual ends and aims of
prophecy, the establishment of the rule of the Messiah :
our ability to discern “a reasonable spiritual meaning ”
is no test of the character of a prophecy. There may be
a real “spiritual meaning,” though it may not be to us
at once perceptible. The main argument is drawn from
the minuteness of the detail, in the history of the
Ptolemies and Seleucidae up to the time of Antiochus
" Vol. III. pp. 71–4.
Replies.
3OO THE PROPHET DANIEL.
Epiphanes, as being contrary to the usual tone of pro-
phecy. The character of prophecy varies; it is some-
times plain and palpable, at other times indistinct.
Was there no spiritual purpose in forewarning the pious
and patriotic section of the Jews, plainly and with un-
mistakable particularity, of the last and greatest per-
secution “of the world power,” which aimed at the
destruction of the Temple, and the utter obliteration of
the records of their religion and of their faith, with the
avowed object of setting up in its place the idolatries of
Greece, and of the yet more corrupt worship of their
neighbours ? Surely this prophecy was to the Jews as
“a light shining in a dark place” (2 Peter i. 19). Never
did the Jewish religion, and nationality appear nearer
extinction, than when Antiochus (the type of all future
Antichrists) made this last attempt to efface Judaism
and establish the Syro-Greek heathenism. It is obvious,
from the Book of Maccabees, that at that time of dark-
ness and peril, the prophecy of Daniel was a comfort to
the persecuted people, and a support to them in the firm
resistance they made to their oppressors; and it is obvious
that its very particularity would help the definiteness of
its application to that time of trial. The whole subject
is fully discussed in the “Warburton Lectures” for 1876
–80, by Stanley Leathes.
IO. Some miscellaneous objections remain to be noted.
Two so-called “historical inaccuracies; ” the first re-
lating to an apparent discrepancy between Daniel and
Jeremiah, in the statement in Daniel (chap. i.) of
Nebuchadnezzar having besieged Jerusalem in the third
year of Jehoiakim. Nebuchadnezzar, then, was subor-
dinate to his father, who died the next year, so that the
first year of Nebuchadnezzar as sole ruler, is the fourth
Historical
State-
ments.
* “Old Testament Prophecy,” 8vo, 1880, pp. 257–274.
HISTORICAL OBSCURITIES. 3OI
of Jehoiakim, as given by Jeremiah (chap xxv. 1).
So also Berosus, quoted by Josephus contra Apion
(I. chap. I9). The second relates to Daniel's account
of Belshazzar, and of Darius the Mede, names stated
as not to be found in other ancient historians. Since
this charge was made, the name of Belshazzar has been
found in the Babylonian cylinders, which describe him
as the son of Nabunahit (the Nabonides of Berosus,
though called by Herodotus Labynetus). He is called
the Son of Nebuchadnezzar, according to Oriental usage,
which applies the term to any descendant of a remote
ancestor. He was probably a grandson, and associated
with his father Nabonides, whose wife was a daughter of
Nebuchadnezzar, as second king in the government.
At the time of the siege of Babylon, Nabonides was in
Command of an army at Borsippa, and thus escaped the
slaughter when the Medes and Persians took the city.
This fact of two kings over Babylon explains why
Daniel was known by the title of “the third in the
kingdom” by Belshazzar (Daniel, chap. v. 16, 29).
There is some difficulty in identifying Darius the
Mede. He is mentioned as one who “took the king-
dom” (Daniel, v. 31); as one who “was made king of the
Chaldaeans” (ix. I)—a reference apparently to a special
appointment by the conqueror Cyrus, it may be, to
please the Medes. He has been confounded with
Astyages and Cyaxeres, but, until recently, the general
opinion was that, from his political unimportance, his
name had escaped the notice of historians. “The
Scholium to Aristophanes,” quoted in the “Speaker's
Commentary,”’ refers to a Darius older than Darius
Hystaspes. This was probably “Darius the Mede,”
from whom the Persian Daric received its name. The
* Vol. VI. p. 312; note 2, p. 314.
Dr.
Pusey's
conclud-
ing re-
marks.
302 THE PROPHET DANIEL.
conflicting opinions of the learned may be found in
Lange's “Commentary.” "
II. We may conclude this chapter by two valuable
extracts from the learned work of Dr. Pusey, justifiable
by the importance of the question at issue in the
character of Daniel's prophecies, and specially valuable
as the outpourings of one of the most able and devout
of our commentators. With some of his interpretations
of Daniel's prophecy we have no sympathy. The first
extract refers to the cumulative evidence of the genuine-
ness of Daniel. “I have pointed out to you that, place
the Book of Daniel where men will, it contains undeni-
able prophecy; that its prophecy is at once vast and
minute, relating both to the natural events of God’s
Providence, and the supernatural order of His Grace; that
its minute prophecy is in harmony with that of the rest of
Holy Scripture; so that they who reject it do, either
nakedly or on the one or other plea, reject all definite
prophecy, leaving of Holy Scripture only what they will.
That whereas the minute prophecies of the Book of
Daniel exclude any date between its real date, that of
the close of the captivity, and that which must have
been its date, had it been a human book, that of
Antiochus Epiphanes, the later date is precluded, both
by the history of the closing of the Canon, and by the
references to the Book of Daniel, as well in books of the
Canon, Nehemiah, and Zechariah, as also in other books,
before, in, or soon after the date of Epiphanes, and also
by the character of its first Greek translation. That
neither its language, nor its historical references, nor its
doctrines, imply any later date than that of Daniel
himself; but that, contrariwise, the character of its
Hebrew exactly fits with the period of Daniel, that of
* “Daniel,” Imp. 8vo, pp. 32—36.
DR. PUSEY'S CONCLUSION. 303
its Chaldee excludes any later period. That the minute,
fearless touches, involving details of customs, state-insti-
tutions, history, belong to a contemporary; and that what
are, Superficially, historical difficulties, disappearing upon
fuller knowledge, are indications of the accurate, familiar
knowledge of one personally acquainted with customs or
events. I have shown, too, how its doctrines are in har-
mony with those of other Scriptures, earlier and later.”
The second extract is a striking picture of the
Scepticism of our day. “It is not, for the present, a day
of naked blasphemy. The age is mostly too soft for it.
Voltaire's &craseg l’infame shocks it. Yet I know not
whether the open blasphemy of the eighteenth century
is more offensive than the cold-blooded patronising ways
of the nineteenth. Rebellion against God is not so
degrading, nor so deceiving, as a condescending acknow-
ledgment of His Being, while it denies His rights over
us. Be not then imposed upon by smooth words. It
is an age of counterfeits. Look not only at what is
said, but look for what is suppressed and tacitly dropped
out of the creeds. The rationalism of this day will give
you good words as far as they go, but will empty them
of their meaning ; it will give as plausible a counterfeit
as it can, but the image and superScription is its own
(Matthew xxii. 20). It will gild its idols for you, if you
will accept them for the Living God. It will give you
sentiment instead of truth, but as the price at which you
are to surrender truth. It will praise Jesus as (God
forgive it), in fact, an enlightened Jew, a benefactor to
mankind; and it will ask you in exchange to consent
not to say that He was God. It will extol His
superiority to Judaism, and include under ‘Judaism’
truths of God. It will praise His words as full of truth,
and will call them, in a sense, Divine truths, and will
3O4. THE PROPHET DANIEL.
ask you in exchange not to say that it is the infallible
truth. It will say, in its sense, that ‘the Bible contains
the Word of God,' and will ask of you to give up your
belief that “it is the Word of God.' It will say, in its
sense, that the prophets spake by the Holy Ghost (i.e.,
as all which is good and true is spoken by inspiration of
the Spirit of God), and will ask of you in exchange to
drop the words—or at least the meaning—of the Creed,
that God the Holy Ghost ‘spake by the prophets.” It
will say to you that the prophets were ‘elevated by
Divine impulsion,' and grant you ‘an intensified pre-
sentiment,’ but only in the sense common to the higher
conditions of humanity, even unaided by the grace of
God. It will acknowledge a fallible inspiration—fallible
even as to matters of every-day morality—and will ask
of you to surrender the belief in the infallible. It will
descant on the love of God, if you will surrender your
belief in His awful holiness and justice: it will speak
with you of Heaven, if you, with it, will suppress the
mention of Hell. It will retain the words of revelation,
and substitute new meanings, if you will be content with
the sound, and will part with the substance of the Word
of God.
“The battle must be fought. It is half won when any
one has firmly fixed in his mind the first principle, that
God is All-wise and All-good, and that man's own
wisdom, although from God, is no measure for the
wisdom of God, and cannot sound its depth. The criti-
cism of rationalism is but a flimsy transparent veil,
which hides from no eyes except its own (if, indeed, it
does hide it altogether from its own) the real ground of
its rebellion, its repugnance to receive a revelation to
which it must submit, in order that it may see.”
* Dr. Pusey’s “Daniel the Prophet,” 8vo, 2nd Ed., pp. 563, 566.
EARLY DATE OF THE SYNOPTICS. 305
CHAPTER XVI.
INTRODUctoRY — EARLY DATE of THE SYNoPTICAL Gospels — THE
CANON of THE NEW TESTAMENT—THE LANGUAGE AND THE TEXTs.
I. Two questions, quite distinct in their nature, are
too often mixed up and so connected in the mind of the
student that they appear as if they were one and the
same thing : these are (a) the period of the first writing
of the Gospels, and (b) the time of the first notice of their
existence and use in the Christian Churches. We are
apt to confound the latter period with the former, and to -
infer that Christian communities existed for at least two Early date
e º º of the
or three generations without a written Gospel; whereas sºn. .
the uniform tradition of the Churches ascribes the three cº,
Synoptical Gospels to the Apostle Matthew and the
Evangelists Mark and Luke ; the former of these Evan-
gelists being the companion of Peter, and the latter of
Paul. Internal evidence decidedly confirms the testimony
of tradition, as may be seen by a reference to the pro-
phecy of the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem,
and of the events immediately following, as recorded in
Matthew xxiv. I—42, Mark xiii. I—37, Luke xxi. 5–36.
It is obvious that the immediate impression left on the
minds of the Apostles was that this great event would be
speedily followed by the end of the world and the day
of judgment. Had these Gospels been written after the
destruction of Jerusalem, it is highly probable that some
remark corrective of these misconceptions would have
been appended : of this we have an instance in the
X
306 INTRODUCTORY.
Compe-
tency of
the early
Christians
to judge
between
genuine
Gospel of John, chap. ii. 19—21. Our Lord had replied
to the Jews who asked for a sign, “Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it again.” Lest this should
be misunderstood, the Apostle adds, “But He spake of the
temple of His body.” The expectation common to the
early Christians of the speedy coming of Christ referred
to in I Thessalonians ii. 2, probably originated in the
literal explanation of this prophecy.
2. The exact date of the composition of these Synop-
tical Gospels, or the period in which they were circulated
among the Christian Churches, cannot be ascertained.
Such remote “origines” anticipate the chronology of
ecclesiastical antiquity. But one can no more imagine a
Christian Church without a Gospel than the existence
of a man without a distinct personality. At first, the
preached Gospel, known and familiar from frequent
repetition by the Apostles and Evangelists, would supply
the want, but would soon create a desire for a per-
manent written record. If the inquiry be, What Gospel ?
our reply is that at no period of the history of the early
Churches were any Gospels generally received—though
many imperfect memoirs were in circulation—except
those which have come down to our times. They all
carry with them the imprimatur of the representatives
of the primitive Churches, the result of that expression
of the Christian consciousness which is the ground and
foundation of the Canon of the New Testament. The
exact date of the reception of the separate books by the
various Churches cannot be ascertained.
3. The competency of the early Christian Churches to
form a right decision as to the claims of the books cir-
culated among them, whether inspired or not, has been
doubted by certain critics. The first Christians have
been represented as consisting almost entirely of an
EARLY CHRISTIANS NOT ILLITERATE. 307
uneducated class, taken from the slave or freed popula-
tion of the great cities of the Roman empire, and, of
course, educationally deficient, and unable to distinguish
between the genuine and apocryphal productions of the
day. This notion is contrary to all evidence. The
early Churches contained persons of wealth and sub-
stance, to whom special admonitions were given
(I Timothy ii. 9; I Peter iii. 3), also persons of education,
who needed to be cautioned against the fallacy of the
Greek and Oriental schools of philosophy (1 Timothy
vi. 20; Colossians i. 8). Among some of the early
converts were such men as Dionysius the Areopagite
(Acts xvii. 34), Erastes, the chamberlain of Corinth
(Romans xvi. 23), those of Caesar's household (Philippians
iv. 23: see also Bishop Lightfoot's “Philippians”). No
one can read the Epistles without being convinced of
the advanced culture of a considerable portion of the
Church members to whom they are addressed. They
were evidently far from being illiterate, neither were
they without the information supplied by a current
literature. The fact of the circulation of so many books,
bearing upon the life and miracles of Christ, to which St.
Luke alludes (chap. i. I–5), and of forged epistles
attributed to Paul, against which he warns the Churches
(2 Thessalonians ii. 2, 3, iii. 17; Galatians i. 6), besides
the numerous productions of the Jewish and Gnostic
heretics, prove that there was a demand for information
on the part of a large reading public in the Christian
Churches. To say that the Apostolical age was not an
age of criticism is nothing to the purpose. In our day
there are few private Christians, or even Christian
ministers, competent as Bentley to deal with Boyle, but
most of us, laity and clergy, are competent to decide on
* Pp. 22, 169, I75.
and apo-
cryphal
Gospels,
&c.
X 2
308 INTRODUCTORY.
—- sºm-º.
the general tone of the teachings of the productions of
the religious press, whether they be orthodox or
heterodox, whether High Church or Low, whether
Evangelical or Ritualistical. So with the early Chris-
tians: they had been fully indoctrinated by the teachings
tºns of the Apostles and Evangelists. The doctrines of
of the Christianity preceded the documents; Christian truth,
: orally communicated and reiterated day after day, in the
the docu- meetings of the faithful, had a firm hold on the judg-
* ment and affections of the first Christians. Apostolic
teaching was the test, the canon of criticism, to which
they appealed as enjoined by St. Paul. “But though we
or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I again, If any maſt
preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed ” (I Gal. viii. 9). Here we
have a direct appeal to a standard of judgment created
by Apostolic teaching, and so sound has been the judg-
ment of these misrepresented early Christians, that no
writings accepted by them as genuine have been repudiated,
and none rejected by them have been accepted by the
Christian Churches. A comparison of the pseudo-gospels
and other apocryphal writings with the genuine Gospels
and Epistles in the New Testament, will justify the
critical acumen and spiritual instincts of the early
Christians. We have a case in point, illustrating the
jealous care of the ancient Church, in the fact, recorded
by Tertullian, of the definition of a presbyter who had
written “The Acts of Paul and Thecla.”
4. But were the Christian Churches, especially those
of the first century, competent, from their knowledge of
the history and teachings of our Saviour and of His
Apostles, to form a correct judgment of the character of
TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTOLICAL EPISTLES. 309
the books which claimed to represent the history and
teachings of our Lord 2 This is a very important
question, and deserves more attention than has usually
been given to it. It bears upon the competency of the
real judges, and of the origin and nature of that
Christian consciousness, which has vouched for the
genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels, the Acts,
and the Epistles and other writings which comprise the
New Testament. We have a satisfactory reply. The
Epistles of Paul especially, by their references and
appeals, enable us to form a correct estimate of the in-
tellectual culture and the religious knowledge of the
early Churches. These Epistles were written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, some of them before Mark and
Luke—the second and third Gospels—were written.
They are addressed apparently to assemblies of re-
spectably educated people, and allude to all the leading
facts and teachings of our Lord, as recorded in the three
Synoptical Gospels, and are thus an undeniable chain of
testimony to the literary and spiritual qualifications of
the major part of the members of these early Churches.
We copy two statements bearing on this point, one
from a little work by the Rev. E. B. Elliott," the
other from an article? written by the Rev. 9. Oswald
Dykes, D.D., entitled “Testimony of St. Paul to Jesus
Christ.”
I. The testimony of the Apostolical Epistles to the
knowledge of the early Churches, of the facts and
teachings of Christianity, is thus given by the Rev. E.
B. Elliott.
(1) Jesus Christ's eternal pre-existence and equality with
#he Father. Colossians i. I5–20 ; Philemon ii. 6; He-
* “Confirmation Lectures,” IV., * “British and Foreign Evan-
8vo, 1859. gelical Review,” No. CXI. p. 51.
The first
Christians
well
grounded
II]
Christian
doctrine.
Elliott’s
testimony
of the
Aposto-
lical
Epistles.
3IO INTRODUCTORY.
brews i. 2, 3, Io; I Timothy vi. I5, 16; I John i. I ;
I Corinthians i. 24, ii. 8 ; Romans xi. 36.
(2) His incarnation : truly man yet uniting the Divine
with the human nature. Galatians iv. 4; Romans i. 3, 4,
viii. 3 ; Philippians ii. 7, 8; Colossians ii. 6–9; Hebrews
i. 2, 3, ii. I4; I Timothy iii. 16.
(3) His descent as man from David. Romans i. 3;
2 Timothy ii. 8.
(4) His character. Holiness, Hebrews iv. 15, vii. 26,
ix. I4; I Peter i. I5, 19 ; 2 Corinthians v. 21 ; I Peter
ii. 22. Love, Ephesians iii. I9 ; Galatians i. 20; Titus
iii. 4. Sympathy, Hebrews i. 18, iv. I5. Humility,
Philippians ii. 7, 8; 2 Corinthians viii. 9. Obedience,
Philippians i. 8 ; Hebrews iii. 2, v. 8.
(5) His temptation. Hebrews ii. 18, iv. I5, v. 2, 7.
(6) His miracles. Acts x. 22.
(7) His transfiguration. 2 Peter i. 16–18.
(8) His institution of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Ephesians iv. 5 ; Galatians ili. 27 ; I Corinthians x. I6,
xi. 23–26. -
(9) Betrayed by Judas. Acts i. I5—20.
(IO) Examined before Pilate. I Timothy vi. 13.
(II) Death on the cross for sinners. Romans v. 6, xiv. 9;
I Corinthians xv. 3; 2 Corinthians v. I5 ; Galatians iii.
I3; Ephesians v. 2; Philemon II, 8; Colossians il. I4 ;
I Thessalonians il. I5; I Timothy i. I5 ; Titus ii. I4;
Hebrews vii. 27, ix. 28, x. Io-I4 ; I Peter ii. 24;
I John ii. 2.
(I2). His burial. Romans vi. 4; I Corinthians xv. 4.
(I3) His resurrection. Romans i. 4, iv. 25; I Corin-
thians xv. 4, 6, &c.; 2 Corinthians iv. I4; Ephesians i.
2O.; Philippians ii. 9; Colossians i. 12; 1 Thessalonians
iv. I4; 2 Timothy ii. 8 ; Hebrews xiii. 20; I Peter i. 3.
Witnessed by angels, I Timothy iii. I6.
CREED OF ST. PAUL THAT OF THE CHURCHES. 311
(I4) His ascension. Romans viii. 34; Ephesians iv. 8;
Philippians ii. 9; 1 Timothy iii. I6; Hebrews iv. I4, vi.
2O, ix. 24, x. I2; I Peter i. 21.
(I5) His giving of the Holy Ghost. Acts ii. 33 ;
Ephesians iv. 8 ; Philippians i. 19 ; Titus iii. 5, 6; He-
brews il. 4. *
(16) Present work of intercession. Hebrews iv. I4—16,
vi. 20, viii. 25; Romans viii. 34; I John ii. I.
(17) Christ the life of Christians. Colossians iii. 4;
Galatians ii. 20.
(18) Future coming to take the kingdom. Romans viii.
17; I Corinthians xi. 26, xv. 23–25; 2 Corinthians
v. Io; I Thessalonians iv. I4—17 ; I Timothy vi. I4—
I6; I Titus ii. 13 ; Hebrews ix. 28.
5. II.--Dr. Dykes gives us the creed which St. Paul Dr. Dykes’
taught and the Churches received concerning Jesus
creed of
St. Paul
Christ, taking his stand upon the four undisputed received
Corinthians, and Romans—and only appealing to these.
“The result I find is this: ‘the Jesus whom Paul preached,’
and whom all the Churches accepted for the Messiah, was
born a Jew, and a lineal descendant of the royal house
of David (Romans i. 3, ix. 5). He was made of a woman
in respect of His human birth ; at the same time, He
was in some superior sense “the Son of God,' sent forth
from the Father in the likeness of fallen humanity, for
the purpose of human redemption (Galatians iv. 4;
Romans i. 4, viii. 3). He is the counterpart of our race's
first head, a second Adam, destined to restore the life
forfeited in the lapse of the race (Romans v. 12–21;
I Corinthians xv. 45–49). While on earth, nevertheless,
He was placed (by circumcision ?) under the Mosaic law
(Galatians iv. 4), and was a member of a family which
counted several brothers, of whom one was named
Epistles of St. Paul–Galatians, First and Second cº
hes.
3I2 INTRODUCTORY.
James (I Corinthians ix. 5; Galatians i. I9). His per-
sonal ministry was restricted to the Hebrew people
(Romans xv. 8), although His Gospel was destined
ultimately to embrace all men (Romans i. I6, iii. 29, 30,
xv. 8–12). On a few subjects His teaching is expressly
alluded to ; such as marriage (I Corinthians vii. IO), the
law of unclean meats (Romans xiv. 14), the support of
Christian teachers (I Corinthians ix. I4), and the love
which fulfils all the law (Romans xiii. 8, 9). Some who
were afterwards His disciples, were known to have en-
joyed in His lifetime His personal acquaintance (2
Corinthians v. I6). To the order of the Apostles He
delegated authority in His Church (2 Corinthians x. 8,
xiii. IO). He Himself was a poor man (2 Corinthians
viii. 9), and repudiated in the propagation of His cause
the employment of physical force (2 Corinthians x. 4).
With this agreed the characteristic features of His con-
duct, in which chiefly He became an example to His
followers. These were gentleness and meekness of
spirit (2 Corinthians x. 1), self-renunciation and self-
denial (Romans xv. 3; I Corinthians x. 33, xi. 1), for-
bearance towards those who abused Him (Romans xv. 3).
At length. He was betrayed to death (I Corinthians xi.
23). On the eve of His betrayal, He instituted a sym-
bolical meal of bread and wine, to be observed by His
followers in memory of His passion (ibid.). He
was put to death upon a cross—a mode of death
esteemed accursed among His countrymen (Galatians
iii. I3)—and this was done in ignorance, by the lawful
civil authorities (I Corinthians ii. 8). At the same time,
this great event was really a fulfilment of the Divine
counsel for our redemption (Romans iii. 25, v. 8, viii.
32) as foretold in the Scriptures of the Old Testament
(I Corinthians xv. 3). It is by the blood of His cross
DR. DYKES’ CREED OF ST. PA UL. 3I3
we have been redeemed from the curse of the Divine
law on account of sin, and reconciled to God, so that we
obtain forgiveness of our sin and peace with God
(Romans ili. 24–26, v. 6—II; 2 Corinthians v. I4—21 ;
Galatians iii. 13). Of His Divine mission from the
Rather, as well as of the acceptance of His death as an
expiation for sin, the supreme proof was afforded when,
by the power of God, on the third day after His cruci-
fixion, He was raised again to life (Romans i. 4, iv. 24–
25, viii. 31–34; I Corinthians xv. 4, 17, &c.), passing
out of the tomb in which He had been buried (I Corin-
thians xv. 4). He showed Himself alive after His re-
Surrection on repeated occasions, five in number at least
—now to single disciples, again to the twelve Apostles,
and once to over five hundred persons (I Corinthians xv.
5–7). He ascended into heaven, where He is to be
conceived of as seated at the right hand of His Father
in glory, as Lord both of the living and the dead
(Romans viii. 34, xiv. 9). Through Him it hath pleased
God to bestow upon the disciples of Jesus a special
supernatural gift—the gift of the Holy Spirit of God,
who manifested His sacred indwelling in the members
of the Church, both by acts of religious confidence,
desire and joy, and by holy supernatural endowments of
various kinds (Galatians ii. 2, 5, 14, iv. 6, v. 22 ; 2 Co-
rinthians i. 21, 22, v. 5; I Corinthians xii. I3, I4 ;
Romans viii. 9—16, 26; I Corinthians xi. I9, &c.).
Meanwhile Jesus Christ continued in His celestial
absence to intercede for His disciples upon earth
(Romans viii. 34). These when they die go into His
immediate presence (2 Corinthians v. 8). Such as still
remain on earth, absent from their Lord, are taught to
await His future advent (I Corinthians i. 7), when He is
to be the Judge of all mankind, before whom all secrets
3I4. INTRODUCTORY.
Mistakes
as to the
scarcity
and cost
of books
in the
first and
second
centuries.
shall be disclosed, and at whose bar every one of us
must give account of himself to God (Romans it. I6, xiv.
IO—22 ; I Corinthians iv. 5; 2 Corinthians v. Io).” So
far Dr. Dykes' beautiful and comprehensive analysis of
Paul's teaching, which is a fair specimen of the “faith
which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude, 3rd verse).
Surely under such teaching, a large number of Christians
were to be found in all the Churches, whom we may
confidently believe to have been not babes, but of full-
age, of the number of “those who by reason of use have
their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (He-
brews v. 13, I4).
6. The mistaken supposition of the scarcity and high
cost of books, has led many to question the possibility
of the possession of any literary competency on the
part of the early Christians, to discriminate between the
true and the false Gospels and Epistles offered to them.
It is often asserted that the MS. copies of books were at
that time sold at prices which altogether precluded their
circulation among the poorer classes to which the first
Christians belonged, and that, having so limited an access
to books, they could not possess or exercise the critical
faculty. But this is a conclusion drawn merely from
the state of literature in the Middle Ages, when various
circumstances had co-operated to lessen and almost
destroy an interest in literature; for instance, a popu-
lation almost entirely illiterate, a paucity of copyists, a
scarcity of material for transcripts, owing to the dear-
ness of parchment—a state of things differing widely
from the condition of society in the larger cities espe-
cially of the Roman empire, in the first centuries of the
Christian era. There was then a numerous educated
class, and the knowledge of writing was common at
least to the inhabitants of the towns. The multipli-
BOOKS PROCURABLE BY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. 315
cation of books by transcript was a very large and
important branch of business, carried on by proprietors
possessing educated slaves, employed by them as pen-
men, writing by the ear from the dictation of a reader,
and thus a large number of copies of any work could
be made simultaneously ; parchment in the West, and
papyrus in the East, and chartes, a paper made from
papyrus, used also in the West, furnished abundant
material. It is probable that a larger number of copies,
say one hundred, could be written off at one time from
dictation, than a single one could be set up by a printer.
There was a time in England, when an edition of five
hundred copies was thought a fair and sufficient supply
for the probable demand. Such a limited demand
would be almost as easily met in Rome and other large
towns, almost as speedily and cheaply in the first three
centuries, as in the sixteenth or seventeenth in Europe.
One book of the poet Martial, containing 540 verses,
could be transcribed in an hour. Another book of the
same author, 7oo lines, highly finished, was sold for
three shillings and fourpence of our money, a plainer
copy for one shilling and sixpence, or even for four-
pence, and yet left a profit to the publisher. It was
therefore quite possible for the early Christians to pro-
cure copies of the Gospels, Epistles, and the productions
of the early Fathers, and of the pseudo gospels and
epistles, and thus be placed in a position for judging
of the respective claims of these writings on their
confidence. (The Apostles wrote on papyrus, 2 John xii.;
3 John xiii) Norton supposes that towards the end of
the second century, there must have been at least sixty
thousand copies of the Gospels in circulation among the
1 “ Merivale’s “History of the Article Book, “Ency. Brit.,”Vol. IV.
Romans under the Empire,” and 9th Ed. p. 37–9.
316 INTRODUCTORY.
The
Canon
of the
New Tes-
tament a
growth.
three millions of professing Christians in the Roman
Empire."
7. It will appear, then, from these considerations,
that there was nothing in the condition of the first
Christians to prevent the exercise of a free and critical
judgment on the Christian literature offered to their
perusal. And as not only the three Synoptical Gospels,
but also the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, were
written before the fall of Jerusalem, and as all the re-
maining books—the Gospel of St. John, the Apocalypse,
and the Epistle of St. John—were written before the
conclusion of the first century, the Churches were well
supplied with Christian literature. It is also highly
probable that some of the Apostles besides St. John
survived the destruction of Jerusalem ; and while any
of the Apostles were living, or those originally appointed
by them to the oversight of the Churches, it is not easy
to imagine that spurious Gospels or Epistles could be
imposed upon the Christian community. The Churches
to whom the second epistles were addressed could not
be deceived. A jealous, careful criticism was exercised,
as is proved by the fact that some of the books now
forming part of the Canon were for a time excluded,
from the deficiency of evidence, though afterwards
admitted when the doubts were removed. Many
writings of undoubted value, which at certain times
and in sundry localities had been received as canonical,
were rejected because of the absence of Apostolical
authority. Thus the Canon of the New Testament is a
growth, the product of the matured Christian con-
sciousness of the Churches of the Apostolic age ; and
as such, and on this ground alone, has been recognised
and accepted by the general councils of the Church.
* Andrew Norton’s “Gospels,” Vol. I. p. 12.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON A GROWTH. 317
Let it be clearly understood that the books constituting
the New Testament have not been imposed upon the
Churches by the decrees of any Church Council, or by
any other authority whatever. The utmost that has
been done by any of the earlier Councils is to declare
what books had already been received by the
Churches, and which consequently should be read in the
Churches. & *
8. At one time great stress was laid upon the quota-
tions in reference to the various books of the New Testa-
ment, as a branch of the evidence of Christianity itself.
Taken as a whole, these evidences are most conclusive,
and, in fact, indisputable, when the father quoted is
admitted to be the author of the work ascribed to him,
or the book quoted by him admitted to be one of the
canonical books. But the fragmentary condition of
many of these writings, the corruptions and interpola-
tions in the texts, difficult to correct owing to the
paucity of MS. copies, the loose method of quotation
common to all writers who quote from memory, the
vagueness at times of the allusions, which render it
difficult in some cases to decide whether a Gospel or a
pseudo-gospel or a traditionary belief is referred to,
render appeals to this class of testimony less clear and
evident to the general reader than to those deeply read
in ecclesiastical literature. To the special controversies
respecting these writings we shall have to refer in due
course. We wish to be understood that while believing
in the genuineness and the value of the testimony of
the Apostolic and subsequent Fathers of the first three
centuries, to the truth of the great facts of the Gospel
history, and to the early existence and circulation of the
Gospels and Epistles, we regard them to be mainly
useful as illustrating the literary history of early
Testi-
mony of
early
Christian
Fathers.
318 INTRODUCTORY.
Christianity. To treat them as main witnesses seems a
needless heaping up of testimonies, which encumbers
º Fº the memory, and throws into the background the two
... plain and indisputable facts which afford the highest
.. moral proof, bordering upon absolute demonstration, of
évidence the truth of the events recorded in the Gospels. These
wº are, first, the existence of numerous Christian societies,
denied. established from Judaea westward and northward, from
Jerusalem to Rome itself, within the space of a quarter
of a century after the date assigned to the death and
resurrection of our Lord. Secondly, the substantial
agreement of these societies in the reception of the
great truths revealed by Christianity, and in their belief
in the miracles which accompanied the first promulgation
of Christianity, and especially of that the most striking
of all, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth
The four from the dead. These two facts rest upon the authority
º, of the four undisputed Epistles of St. Paul, namely, the
Epistles of Epistle to the Galatians, First and Second of Corinthians,
St. Paul and the Romans, which are admitted by Baur, Renan,
and others to be indisputably genuine. The earliest,
that to the Galatians, is assigned to A.D. 54; the latest,
to the Romans, to about A.D. 58. The whole argument
for these Epistles is set forth with great beauty, per-
spicuity and power, by Dr. J. Oswald Dykes, in his
“Witness of St. Paul to Jesus Christ.” These facts
cannot be denied. The sceptical school are left to
explain the inexplicable, in attempting to account for
Christianity and Christ, without admitting the miraculous
history in the four Gospels; and what that Christianity
was in its beginning, they must admit from the earliest
testimony, and one handed down by evidence which is
not disputed. This confinement of the discussion on
* “British and Foreign Evangelical Review,” No. CXI, pp. 51–74.
USE OF PATRISTIC LITERATURE. 3I9
r–
the evidences of Christianity appears to us to clear up.
many difficulties and prepare the way for the acceptance
of the truth.
9. It is then mainly as a literary question connected
with the “origines” of the documents of Christianity,
that we shall briefly glance at the vast mass of patristic
literature. In the writings of the APOSTOLIC FATHERS,
Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of
Smyrna, we mark the striking difference between the
style of thought of the inspired writers, and the ordinary
average mind and thought of their immediate followers.
The tendency of our day is to undervalue these primitive
productions of the mind of the early Church, the result
of a reaction against the idolatrous and most unrea-
sonable prepossession of preceding ages, in which an
attempt was made to place these excellent but fallible
men in the position of authoritative teachers, co-ordinate
with the inspired Apostles. The work of the Rev. J. J.
Blunt, D.D., on the Early Fathers," is an able reply to
some doubtful points in the oft quoted work of Daillé,
“De usu patrum ” (16II); the one writes from a high
episcopal standpoint, while the other is in direct oppo-
sition to Church authority; both should be read and
compared. James Donaldson, in his “Critical History
of Christian Literature and Doctrine, from the Death
of the Apostles to the Ante-Nicene Council,” and in
his brief sketches prefixed to the translation of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers,” has expressed some opinions
which imply on his part dogmatic prepossession which
ought not to have found expression in connection with
the works in question. One is, “The Evangelistic
* “Blunt on the Fathers,” 8vo, * Published by Clark and Co.,
1817. Twenty-one Vols. 8vo. Vol. I. p.
2 Three Vols. 8vo, 1864—6. 6I.
Patristic
literature
used and
misused.
32O INTRODUCTORY.
–-º
theology is widely different from that of the early
Christian writers,” a statement which has called forth a
severe censure from a reviewer who has done full justice
to the work in general. We quote from the “British
The early Quarterly:” “There is one subject on which Mr.
Fathers gº de tº tº
Eva. Donaldson appears to us to write with an obvious bias,
getical and on which he displays some of the feelings of a par-
tisan : this appears in his extreme anxiety to eliminate
from these writings, any dogmatic admission of value on
the person of Christ, or the distinction between the
Logos and the Spirit of God, or on the relation of the
death of Christ to the forgiveness of sins.” In opposition
to this erroneous opinion of Donaldson, the “London
Quarterly ’2 quoted a number of passages clearly
proving that the Apostolic Fathers were in perfect agree-
ment with modern Evangelical theology. The Epistle
of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle to
Diognetus, are probably within the first century, but their
connection with the Barnabas and Hermas mentioned
in the New Testament is doubtful. It is remarkable
that Barnabas refers to Matthew as Scripture. Atten-
tion has been lately drawn to a neglected but im-
portant apocryphal writing : “The Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs,” written, according to Ewald, between
90—IIO A.D., Vorstman soon after 70 A.D., Lange and
De Groot at the end of the first or beginning of the
second century, Wieseler, I2O A.D., Dorner and Cruden,
IOO–135 A.D. The genuineness and integrity of the
book are indisputable, as proved by Vorstman. The
conclusion drawn by the Rev. B. B. Warfield (in the
“Presbyterian Review,” United States) is as follows:
“The complete evidence warrants us in saying that the
‘Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs' evinces almost
" Vol. XLIII. p. 591. * Vol. XXVIII, p. 224.
WRITINGS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES. 321
indubitable dependence on, and hence the prior existence
of, the following New Testament books, Matthew, Luke,
John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Philip-
pians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, I Timothy, Hebrews,
James, I Peter, I John, and Revelations.” Hilgenfield
admits that “this book reckons already the Pauline
Epistles, together with the Acts, as part of the Holy
Scripture.” Dr. Lumby quotes a passage from the
Talmud, dating from the generation which had seen the
destruction of the Temple, where “the book” is so
spoken of by the Christian speaker as to evince the fact
that it contained both Old and New Testaments (i.e.,
the Books of Numbers and Matthew), and was consi-
dered equally authentic in all its parts. (Quoted from
Dickinson’s “Theological Quarterly,” a most valuable
collection of theological and critical articles, and the
cheapest of all that class of publications.)
Io. Few students of the nineteenth century are aware
of the extent of the Christian literature, and of the
literature bearing upon Christianity, in the second and
third centuries of our era. Besides Lardner as a stan-
dard and exhaustive reference, no one should be
ignorant of Paley's characteristic, brief, and comprehen-
sive account of these writers; * B. F. Westcott's * “His-
tory of the Canon of the New Testament; ” Bishop
Lightfoot's articles in the “Contemporary” in reply to
“The School of Supernatural Religion ; ” M. F. Sadler's
“The Lost Gospel” and its contents; * W. Sanday,;
“The Gospels in the Second Century.” Our reference
to the writings of the Fathers of the second and third
* No. XXII., April, 1880, pp. the New Testament,” edition
270–287. 1875.
* Whately’s “Paley's Evi- * “The Lost Gospel” (1876).
dences,” 8vo, pp. I2I–18O. * “Gospels in the Second Cen-
* “History of the Canon of tury” (1876).
y
Great
extent of
Christian
literature
in the
second and
third cen-
turies.
322 INTRODUCTORY.
centuries is not to their statements as proof of the truths
of Christianity, but as an incidental proof that certain
writings now included in the New Testament were
known and used in the early Church, and were con-
sequently of the antiquity which they claim. We select
especially those whose writings testify to the Canon
Reference of the New Testament. (1) The Greek apologists,
to the
Books of Quadratus and Aristides, who presented to the Emperor
the New
Testament
in the
writers of
Adrian two Apologies on behalf of Christianity, A.D.
126–130. (2) Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, a hearer
t.'... of John and companion of Polycarp (A.D. IIo—II6),
and third who wrote an “Explication of the Oracles of the Lord,”
centuries.
and mentions Matthew, Mark, and the Epistles of
John. (3) In the fragments relating to the Elders,
quoted by Irenaeus, and the Evangelists, in the reign of
Trajan, are references to Matthew, John, the Epistle
to the Ephesians, I and 2 Corinthians, and Peter.
(4) Basilides and his sect made use of the Gospels
Luke and John. (5) Marcion (another heretic) rejected
the Old Testament, all the Gospels except Luke, which
he mutilated, and certain of Paul's Gospels (A.D. 140).
(6) justin Martyr, the author of two “Apologies,”
and of the “Dialogue with Typhon " (A.D. Io9—165).
Under the title of “Memoirs of the Apostles,” or “The
Memoirs,” he refers sixty-seven times to all our Gospels
(except John), the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans,
I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colos-
sians, I and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the
Apocalypse. The author of “Supernatural Religion”
attempts to prove that the quotations from or reference
to the Gospels found in Justin Martyr and others of the
Fathers, are taken from apocryphal gospels now lost.
That the “Memoirs” must have been our Gospels, is
evident from the fact that Justin tells us they were
CELSU.S. 323
read in the assemblies of the Churches; and if not so,
how could our Gospels have so soon superseded them 2
It is possible to reconstruct from his quotations a fairly
connected narrative of the incarnation, birth, teaching,
crucifixion, and resurrection and ascension of our Lord.
There is also a reference which would naturally be
referred to John's Gospel, but it is doubtful." After a
careful perusal of the remarks of Westcott, Sanday,
Sadler, and Bishop Lightfoot, it is impossible to doubt
but that the most of the quotations are from our
Gospels, probably however from copies which had
readings somewhat different from our present text.
(7) The Muratorian Canon, fragments preserved in
Muratori's Italian antiquities (which were probably
written soon after I.47 A.D.). In them the four Gospels,
expressly John, are recognised ; also the Acts, the thir-
teen Epistles of Paul, Jude, Second and Third Epistles
of John, and the Apocalypse. (8) Celsus, a learned
philosopher and writer against Christianity (about
176 A.D.). His work is called “The Word of Truth; ”
he gives eighty quotations and references to the four
Gospels, to the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Gala-
tians, Timothy, First Epistle of Peter, and I John. He
wrote also an epitome of the life of Christ, and quotes
none but our four Gospels. (9) Irenaeus, Bishop of
Lyons (I30 A.D.), a disciple of Polycarp, who was a
disciple of John—was Bishop of Lyons, 174 A.D. He
quotes the four Gospels, Acts, twelve Epistles of Paul,
the Hebrews, I Peter, First and Second John, and the
Apocalypse; in fact, all the books of the New Testa-
ment except 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude. This Father's
testimony to the Canon is most important, as when
very young he was Presbyter in the Church of Smyrna,
1 Sanday’s “Gospels in the Second Century,” pp. 91–8.
Y 2
324. - INTRODUCTORY.
The
Syriac
and old
Italic ver-
sions.
Asia Minor, of which the aged Polycarp was bishop
—one who had lived in the generation which had
seen the Apostle John. (IO) Then Tertullian, I60–
24O A.D., the zealous, fiery African, refers to our
four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen of Paul's Epistles,
I Peter, I John, Hebrews (which he attributes to Bar-
nabas), Jude, the Apocalypse—all our books except
James, 2 Peter, Second and Third John. Lardner remarks
that Tertullian first called the Church's books the New
Testament or Instrument. There are perhaps more and
larger quotations of that small volume of the New
Testament in this one Christian author, than of all the
works of Cicero in the writers of all sorts for several
ages." (II) Clement of Alexandria (I65–22O A.D.)
recognises all the books of the New Testament except
James, 2 Peter, and Third of John ; and this silence of
Clement, and of others before him, is no proof of his
or their condemnation of these books, from the fact
that they had no occasion to quote them. He regards
the Hebrews as the work of Paul. (I2) Origen (185—253
A.D.), Presbyter of Alexandria, received all the books
of the New Testament except the Epistle of James, the
Second of Peter, Second and Third of John, and Jude,
which he describes as well known, but not generally
received.
II. We are now come to the middle of the third
century. Before this time all the Churches of Europe,
Asia and Africa had borne their testimony to the
genuineness of the Christian Scriptures. The Syriac
version of the Scriptures for the Eastern Churches, the
old (Italic) Latin translation in North Africa for the
Latin population. It will be seen that there were some
books which up to the end of the third century, and even
* Lardner, Vol. II, p. 306.
THE DISPUTED WRITINGS. 325
later, were not generally received ; these were called the
Antilegomena (disputed writings), viz., the Second
and Third Epistles of John, the Second of Peter, the
Epistles of James and Jude, the Hebrews, and the
Apocalypse, but eventually they all found a place in
the Canon. We might also have referred to the
apocryphal Clementine Homilies, &c., and to other
heretical productions of the second century; but this
pelongs more to the work of a writer of ecclesiastical
history. By all the Churches, the four Gospels have
always been received as one narrative, never to be sepa-
rated. Some heretical sects used only one Gospel.
Marcion that of Luke, only greatly altered by him.
At Rhossus, in Cilicia, a Gospel of Peter was for some
time used. The Jewish Ebionites used a Gospel of
St. Matthew (in Syro-Chaldaean). In Alexandria the
Gospel of the Egyptian was for a time used on dogmatic
grounds.
I2. The persecution of Diocletian was accompanied Sifting of
by an attempt to destroy the sacred books of the .
º, a tº © Canonical
Christian Church, 303 A.D. ; this led to a thorough books
sifting of the non-Canonical books, and their complete 3.
separation from the works authorised to be read in the
Church assemblies. From this time lists of the Canoni-
cal books are numerous; the Canon of Eusebius was
already admitted by the Council of Nice. The Synod First list
of Laodicea contains in its last Canon (363 A.D.) a list º ...
of all our books, except the Apocalypse. In the Council †: New
of Carthage (393 A.D.) the books of the New Testament ..".
are exactly the same as ours. A catalogue of the Apoca-
tº º © º * * lypse.
Scriptures during the first eight centuries of our era is
inserted in the grand work of Westcott on the Canon,"
in the original Latin and Greek of the records from
* Appendix D., p. 523.
326 INTRODUCTORY.
which they are taken ; also, a very valuable apparatus
for critical use, which gives a synopsis of the historical
evidences as furnished by different authors, with reference
to the books of the New Testament. The admirable
work of Sanday, “The Gospels of the Second Century,”
contains in its Appendix” an index “taken from
Volkmar, with some change of plan.” It gives, first, the
name of the author, then works extant, the date, and the
evangelist books referred to by the writer. If it were
possible to add to the value of the works of Westcott
and of Sanday, we might refer to these useful additions.
No Christian student can do justice to himself and to
the character of his library, without including these
works among the books which he regards as indis-
pensable.
The text 13. The substantial correctness of THE TEXT of the
Nº. "... books of the New Testament found in the most ancient
tament, copies extant, cannot be doubted, notwithstanding
verbal discrepancies, more or less. Of these ex-
emplars the Vatican MS. and the Sinaitican M.S.,
are probably as early as the middle of the fourth cen-
tury, 350 A.D. The Alexandrian M.S. about 400 A.D.
The Codex Ephrami M.S. and the Codex Bezae Can-
tabrigiensis MS. about the fifth century. They are
all written in the uncial (inch or capital) letters, and
are esteemed the most important of all the MSS.
None of them contain the whole of the books of the
Mew Testament, portions of each manuscript being
deficient. A large number of MSS., uncial as well
as cursive (small character), have been examined by
scholars, Say I27 uncial and I,463 cursive, and it is
calculated that in all about 2,000 MSS. are in existence.
* Index, No. II., p. 532.
* Index, No. II., Chronological and Analytical.
BENTLEY ON VARIOUS READINGS. 327
Besides these MS. copies of the New Testament, there
are early translations of the Syriac, the old Italic, the
version of St. Jerome, and others—besides the quotations
from the New Testament found in the writings of the
early Fathers—all of which have been used as means to
ascertain the most correct readings, and to bring the
present text to the state in which it came from the
original writers. The importance of these learned and
laborious efforts of Biblical scholars cannot be over
estimated. The variations of the text in all the extant
MSS. are numerous, in all, perhaps, 200,000 in number;
most of them very trivial in themselves, and plainly the
result of mistakes in copying, to which all MSS. are
liable. Valuable as are these recensions from readings,
they do not affect any, even the least, important truth.
Dr. Bentley, the most thorough and exact of critics,
remarks in reference to these variations in the readings
of the MSS. : “The real text of the sacred writers does
not now—since the originals have been so long lost—lie
in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It
is competently exact, indeed, in the worst MS. now
extant ; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either
perverted or lost in them, choose as awkwardly as you
will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole heap
of readings.” He further regards the number and
variety of these readings as an advantage: “Make your
30,000 (variations) as many more, if the number of copies
can ever reach that sum ; all the better to a knowing
and a serious reader, who is thereby more richly fur-
nished to select what he sees genuine. But even put
them into the hands of a knave, or a fool, and yet with
the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not ex-
tinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise
Christianity but that every feature of it will still be the
Bentley's
remarks
on the
various
readings.
328 INTRODUCTORY.
same.”" The New Testament writings—Gospels, Epis-
tles, &c.—are substantially the same as originally
written ; there is a general agreement in all the copies
of portions, or of the whole of the New Testament,
though written in different countries and at different
periods. The numerous quotations in the writings of
the Fathers, the correspondence of the ancient transla-
tions with our present New Testament—all of which
point to one common Source—and their variations in
words or in expressions, are naturally accounted for from
errors of transcription. To impose an altered Gospel
upon the early Church was as difficult a matter as the
introduction of a new unauthorised version would be in
the nineteenth century.
T4. THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT is
Greek; not the classical Greek of Thucydides, Plato
or Aristotle, but the common popular Greek of the
East, as spoken by Asiatic Syrians and Jews, more
or less affected by the idioms of the vernacular lan-
guages of the people, who used it as the most
convenient, and, in fact, the only medium of general
intercourse. Here we may quote, with some alteration
which no one will dispute, the writer of an article
in the “Quarterly Review” on the New Testament.”
“A simple style, is that simple arrangement of words
in a consecutive series, calling up the ideas, as it is
desired to arrange them in a chain in the mind of
the reader; this is called the natural style. The
style peculiarly Greek is far otherwise; it broke up
this continuous string into separate portions of various
lengths, and then twisted and coiled up these lengths,
each, as it were, into a curiously-arranged knot, with one
Character
of the
Greek of
the New
Testa-
ment.
* Bentley’s “Remarks on a Late Essay on Freethinking,” A.D. 1713.
* Vol. CXVIII. pp. 108—9.
THE GREEK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 329
nominative case and one verb to give unity to the whole,
and with all the other portions thrown into subordinate
clauses, concatenated by conjunctions and participles,
practically arranged as a puzzle, the key to which was
reserved for the last word. In this way the two passions
of the Greek mind, the one for unity and the other for intel-
lectual enigmas, were fully gratified. The Greek inflexions
made the style feasible. From Greece it was transferred
to Rome; from Rome it passed into our English litera-
ture, as in the style of Milton and Hooker; and to this
the attention of the classical student is now exclusively
addressed in our schools and universities. Now, had
the style of the New Testament been constructed on
this model, how could it have admitted accurate trans-
lation into every language, adaptation to popular usage,
and access to simple minds incapable of following the
riddle of long and involved periods 2 How could it have
expressed or inspired feelings, which bursts away at
once from the restriction of such artificial intricacies 2
But by a merciful arrangement of Providence, the
writers of the Greek Testament were not exclusively
Greek; their native tongue retained much influence
over their habits of thought and speaking. Some
portions were orally delivered; much of it dictated.
Full of feeling and earnestness and intensity, and
absorbed in thought, to the exclusion of the mere
style, their 'diction broke away from the cold and
chilling elaborateness of Greek art; and thus, while it
still retains all the regular precision and accuracy of
the Greek inflexions, it became a language for all
nations.” { First
15. THE FIRST PRINTED EDITION OF THE GREEK ..."
edition of
TESTAMENT was that by the learned Erasmus, 1516 A.D.; the Greek
four other editions followed in 1519, 1522, 1527, and .
33O INTRODUCTORY.
1535 A.D. What is generally called Textus Receptus is
the Elzevir edition of 1633 A.D., which is derived from
the Complutensian Polyglott and the fifth edition of
Erasmus. Various recensions of this text by Mill,
Bengel, Wetstein, Scholz, Lachmann, Griesbach, Tre-
gelles and others, are preparing the way for a yet more
correct edition of the Greek Testament.
SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS. 33 I
CHAPTER XVII.
INTRODUCTORY—Sceptical, ATTACKS ON THE Gospels.
I. Numerous as these have been since the commence-
ment of the nineteenth century, they may be classified
as originated in schools of thought of a very distinct
and diverse character, agreeing only in a negation of the
traditional orthodox opinions of the Christian Churches.
We have, FIRST, the Mythical theory of Dr. J. P. Sceptical
Strauss; SECONDLY, the Tübingen “Tendency” theory jº.
of Dr. F. C. Baur ; THIRDLY, the Romancist theory of
Ernest Renan ; FOURTHLY, the Hypercritical theory of
the author of “Supernatural Religion;” and FIFTHLY,
Sundry minor and secondary offshoots of the Sceptical
school. All these are fairly representative of the
varying sceptical thought of the literary criticism of our
day.
2. First. The Mythical theory of Dr. 9. C. Strauss Mythical
was originally developed in his “Life of Jesus.” It ‘.
was immediately hailed as a fatal blow to Christianity
by the sceptical school, who boasted that at last the
great problem which “freethought" had been trying to
solve had yielded to the learning and critical acumen of
the German philosophical divines. This great problem
is the accounting for the origin and establishment of
Christianity in the world, without admitting the Divine
* Published 1836, the English translation in three vols. 8vo, 1846.
332 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
g
and supernatural element in the four Gospels. Little did
these premature boasters imagine that within a few
years this theory would be abandoned, and its author
seek for rest in absolute atheism. The charm of his
book was in the new ground taken up. Hitherto the
English and French Deists had employed both ridicule
and argument bearing on the details of the Gospel
narrative, and the German Rationalists had gone far
beyond, but in the same track, in their hypotheses, in
which the amount of learning displayed was more
evident than the rationality. Strauss despised such
half-and-half scepticism, and cut away the materials
upon which the criticism of his predecessors had so long
laboured with such unsatisfactory results. For him, the
Gospel histories are a myth, the four Gospels and Acts
a collection of myths—“a conglomerate, as geologists
would say, of a very slender portion of facts and truths,
with an enormous accretion of undesigned fictions,
fables, and superstitions, gradually framed and insensibly
received, like the mythologies of Greece and Rome, or
the ancient systems of Hindoo theology.” Strauss
supposes that in the period between the death of Christ
and the appearance of the first Gospel, which, according
to his chronology, was from 30 to 50 years, a series of
notions respecting Jesus had grown up and had been
received by the early Christians.” Jesus Christ had thus
been the nucleus around which these imaginative
creations had clustered and found a resting-place. In
nis “Examination of the Gospels,” Strauss displays a
frivolity and malice unequalled by the most indecent of
his predecessors in the field of negative criticism. In
every narrative he finds impossibilities and absurdities.
* Essays by H. Rogers, Vol. III. p. 323, 12mo ed.
* Ebrard, p. 474.
STRA USS: THE MYTHICAL THEORY. 333
*-rº-
Such of the discourses of Our Lord as rise above the
contracted Judaism of His age could not, in Strauss's
opinion, have been uttered by Jesus, although this fact is
noticed in the Evangelists as calling forth the surprise of
His hearers (Luke iv. 22 ; Matthew xiii. 54–56; Mark
vi. 2). This wholesale denial of a series of well-authen-
ticated facts, resting on evidences in all other cases
deemed sufficient, found few believers among the learned
and thoughtful. It seemed to them as if Strauss's theory
was simply “the triumphant exercitation of a scholar
bent on trying what can be made by the help of
sufficient learning out of the most helpless hypothesis.
. . . . To declare that the whole evangelical narrative
is but one continual fable, that the writers of the Gospels
intended them to be received as avowedly fictitious
compositions, is much more like a caricature of the
audacities sometimes attributed to German speculations
than a possible example of the degree to which a scholar,
overmastered by an idea, can even have bewildered
himself, or sought to bewilder others.” To attempt to
deal seriously with a theory like this is to fight with a
bubble. We may, however, observe that the Apostolic
age, that is to say, the first century of our era, was as
little suitable for the growth of a myth as our own nine-
teenth century. In the four “undisputed ” Epistles of
Paul, we learn that fourteen or seventeen years before
the date of the Epistle to the Galatians, that is to say,
either four or seven years after the crucifixion, Christ was
recognised as the risen Saviour, and worshipped as God
at Jerusalem : there was no time left for the rise of a
myth.” Well might Bunsen exclaim at the absurdity of
the “idea of men writing mythical histories between the
* “Edinburgh Review,” Vol. * Dr. Dykes, “ Brit. and For,
LXXXVI. p. 416. Evan. Rev.,” No. CXI. p. 60.
Oswald
Dykes.
Bunsen.
334 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
times of Livy and Tacitus, and of St. Paul mistaking
them for realities.” A fact, the date of which is thrown
back into a distant and dim past, may, in the course of
centuries, originate a myth, but a period not exceeding a
generation is far too short for the growth of a mythic
theory. Dr. H. H. Milman sensibly remarks that “the
best answer to Strauss is to show that a clear, consistent,
and probable narrative can be formed out of that of the
four Gospels, without more violence, I will venture to
say, than any historian ever found necessary to har-
monise for contemporary chronicles of the same events,
and with accordance with the history, customs, habits,
and opinions of the times, altogether irreconcilable with
the poetic character of mythic history.”2 The most
singular fact connected with Strauss's theory is that, in
his opinion, the essence of Christianity is entirely inde-
pendent of it. “The supernatural birth of Christ, His
miracles, His resurrection and ascension, remain eternal
truths, however their reality as historical facts may be
called in question.” Strauss's new theory appeared in
1872, in a work entitled “The Old Faith and the New,”
which has been fitly described as “a virtual negation of
all Christianity and of all Theism, and a bold, arrogant
assertion of a downright godless Materialism, as the
only religion worthy of a scientific age.”4 Strauss's
theory was considerably modified by Wasse, Gfrörer, and
by Bruno Baur ; the latter regarded the mythical theory
as a castle in the air, but insisted on the unhistorical
character of the Gospels, while admiring their beauty
from an aesthetical point of view, as exhibiting poetic
Milman.
Bruno
Bauer.
* Arnold's Life by Stanley, p. * Preface to “Leben Jesu,”
396. * “Edinburgh Review,” Vol.
* “History of Christianity,” Vol. CXXXVIII. p. 539. t
I. p. I2I.
THE TENDENCY THEORY. 335
truth. In his opinion, the Evangelists invented their
Gospels with free consciousness, and yet were not im-
postors in the old sense of the term, for the ideas in the
Gospels were the true representation of their feelings."
The Mythical Theory, abandoned by its author and ex-
plained away by his friends and advisers, though it
enjoyed a temporary popularity, as a theory easy to
understand and refer to in the daily talk of the super-
ficially learned in the small wares of sceptical literature,
at last perished under the searching criticism of the
Tübingen school.” -
3. Secondly. The Tendency theory of the Tübingen
school, of which Dr. F. C. Baur was the founder, is no
doubt the most learned of all the German schools.
Baur commences his inquiries fettered by his own philo-
Sophical system, along with those of Schleiermacher, Fichte,
and, above all, of Hegel. These philosophies are said to
be apparent in his historical treatises, upon which his
critical conclusions are founded. We Englishmen find
it very difficult to understand the brief sketch of the
leading principles of the Hegelian philosophy as given
by Baur. “The most general presupposition of Hegel's
system of religious philosophy, is the idea that history is
a process by means of which, as it were, God, the
absolute Spirit, comes to Himself, and gains the know-
ledge and possession of the contents of His own being.
Tendency
theory
of the
Tubingen
school.
God cannot be considered as a living concrete God, *::::::
without ascribing to Him an inner movement belonging lian philo-
essentially to His nature; and the finite mind is merely
one other form assumed by the absolute mind in its
passage to the full knowledge and possession of
* Ebrard, pp. 482, 483. Origin of Christianity,” pp. 339—
* Dorner’s “History of Pro- 432; Christlieb's “Modern Doubt,”
testant Theology,” Vol. II. pp. 8vo, 1874, pp. 379–425.
416, 417; Fisher’s “Supernatural
sophy.
336 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
itself.” In Hegel's opinion our intellect is moulded by the
“ideas” of Christianity; and that the “ideas,” the meta-
physical and eternal truths, are the only important
things : the facts as recorded, and the persons by
whom they are recorded, being of little importance. All
religions, even Christianity, are simply the manifesta-
tions in time, of certain religious conceptions which
incarnate themselves in facts. Thus the ideas are the
foundation of Christianity; Jesus regarded as the Mes-
siah, and His resurrection believed by the disciples.
The essential truth of Christianity is the recognition in
the human consciousness of Christ; and of His followers
of the grand, permanently-existing idea of a perfect
union of the human and Divine nature, and of a re-
demption which is accomplished thereby, which Chris-
tianity has presented to the world, and has developed
into a religion by associating it with the faith in the
unearthliness of Jesus. But to have originated the idea,
it was not necessary for the perfect union of the Divine
and human to have existed in Jesus; it was only neces-
sary for Him to have been the first to conceive the idea
of it, and to have awakened to the consciousness of
such a union. Hence the idea, not Jesus, is the foun-
dation of Christianity. How Christianity originated, is
decided in accordance with this philosophy. It is the
ripe fruit of movement in the Eastern world, manifesting
itself in the Greek philosophy, in some of the Jewish
sects, and in the enlargement of the mental horizon
favoured by the extent of the Roman empire. It was
aided not by miracles—which cannot be accepted as
facts, even if metaphysically proved to be possible—but
by the belief in miracles; or, in other words, by the
* “British Quarterly,” Vol. XLV. Christlieb's “Modern Doubt,” 8vo,
p. 330 (on “Christian Gnosis”); 1874, p. 167.
schwegler. 337
ſidea. Christianity, in fact, according to Baur, “ contains
nothing which was not conditioned by a previous series
of causes and effect; nothing that had not already
previously secured recognition as a result of rational
thought, as a need of the human heart, as a require-
ment of the moral consciousness.” In Baur's criticisms
on the New Testament, he is obliged, for the sake of his
theory on the origin of the sacred books, to remodel the
entire history of the early Church. Noticing the fact of
the existence of differences in the opinions of the dis-
ciples of Christ on some minor points, he exaggerates
them beyond all evidence. Stephen and the Hellenists
are the forerunners of Paul and the liberal party, James
and Peter the leaders of the Jewish party, and that all
the books of the New Testament are more or less in-
fluenced by, and are in some cases the product of, this
partisanship of the early Christian sects. Hence the
school of Baur, under the influence of what is called “the
Tendency criticism,” gives up many books of the New
Testament, because it thinks they contain doctrines
which do not agree with the character of the teaching it
assigns to each Apostle; while, on the other hand, Renan
would retain them for the precise reason that they
exhibit natural and legitimate variations of doctrine."
4. The results of this system of Biblical criticism in Schweg-
the application of its leading principle to the books of #.
the New Testament is given by Schwegler, and made of Baur's
clear to English readers in the classical work of West- º
cott on the Canon of the New Testament, the substance Testament
of which is as follows.2
(1) The genuine and Apostolical books are: the Apoca-
* Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin “Protestant Theology,” 8vo, Vol.
of Christianity,” pp. 205–338; II. pp. 4Io–413.
Bishop Lightfoot on the Gala- * “Westcott on the Canon,” 4th
tians, pp. 283-355; Dorner's Ed. pp. 6, 7.
Z
338 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
lypse (the Ebionite school), four Epistles of Paul—the
Corinthians Ist and 2nd, Galatians and Romans, except
the last chapter. These books belong to the Pauline
school.
(2) The original sources of the Gospels are: the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, of which our Gospel of St.
Matthew is supposed to be a revision, made so late as
A.D. 130–134, both of which favour the views of the
Ebionites. In opposition to these the Pauline party
acknowledge the Gospel adopted by Marcion, and the
Gospel by Luke.
(3) Supplementary writings forged for party purposes.
The Epistle of James, about 150 A.D., with the Clementine
Homilies, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the second Epis-
tle of Clement, are all intended to conciliate the Ebionites.
The Gospel by Mark, published soon after that of
Matthew, the second Epistle of Peter and jude, with the
Clementine recognitions, are supposed to occupy a neutral
position. On the Pauline side appeared the first Epistle
of Peter, the preaching of Peter, the Gospel of Luke and
the Acts, about IOO A.D.; Romans I5th and I6th
chapters, the Epistle to the Philippians, and the first
Epistle of Clement. After these appeared the Pastoral
Epistles, and those of Polycarp and Ignatius, I30–150
A.D.; the Epistle to the Hebrews, about IOO A.D.; the
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians a little later; the
Gospel and Epistles of John, about 150 or 169 A.D., which
are considered as exhibiting a peculiarly Asiatic de-
velopment. Thus, according to this theory, all the
books of the New Testament are simply party pam-
phlets, characterised by tendencies for or against the
conservative Ebionite Judaising party, or the liberal
party represented by Paul's Epistles. There is much in
this trenchant criticism that reminds one of the last
MEDIATION SCHOOL.
results of “the Higher Criticism” as applied by Graf,
Kuenen, Wellhausen, Scholtz and by our English critics,
Davidson and Bishop Colenso, to the Old Testament.
According to them the Book of Deuteronomy is a forgery
in aid of a revival of Mosaicism ; while the Books of
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra and parts
of Nehemiah, are forgeries in favour of the extension of
the priestly power and the ritualism of the Temple service.
All these romances vanish before the touchstone of fact.
The placing most of the books of the New Testament in
the second century cannot for a moment be admitted
by those who compare them with the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers, or of their successors in the second
century. De Wette's remarks on the Tübingen school
are to the point. “Extravagant criticism of this sort
nullifies itself; and the only benefit arising from it is,
that by exceeding all bounds, it awakens the feeling of
a necessity for imposing self-restraint.” "
5. Baur's school is, however, no longer the ruling power Mediation
in German criticism : Zeller and Schwegler, his most ;
thorough followers, have given up both theology and by ºn
< * * * * * tº * a s g º º tº eld.
Christianity. Ritsch and Köstlin, especially the latter,
assume a position not in accordance with the Tendency
theory, and the learned are gradually convincing them-
selves that the Gospels and Epistles are, after all that
has been objected, the products of the first century:
this is apparent from the rise of the Mediation school of
criticism, of which Hilgenfield is the representative. He
admits that the majority of the books of the New
Testament were of the age of the Apostles. First, the
genuine writings of the Apostle Paul—I Thessalonians,
Galatians, I and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, and
the Philippians; secondly, the original Epistles by Apos-
* Dickson's Preface to Meyer’s “Romans,” Vol. I, p. 9.

Z 2
34O SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELs.
and the
tolic men—john, i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse,
Matthew, Mark, and James; these represent a later
School of reaction against the too free tendency of Paul's
writings; thirdly, the union writings, conceived in the
spirit of Paul, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts; fourthly,
the writings of the post-Apostolic period—the two
Epistles of Peter, the second to the Thessalonians, the Epistle
to the Ephesians and Colossians, ºude, the Pastoral Epistles,
and the Gospel and Epistles of the Deutero-3'ohn. This
school, and all the varied forms of the Baur school,
make St. Paul the real founder of Christianity. It will
share the fate of its predecessors. Either we have a
Divinely-inspired collection of documents in the New
Testament, or we have nothing which can lay claim to
the obedience of faith. When we turn aside from the
well-accredited historical testimony of the three first
centuries, we miss the element of certainty; and as one
guess is as good as another, we may fix upon any date
we please up to the end of the second century for the
appearance of the Gospels and Epistles of the New
Testament.
6. Thirdly. The Romancist theory, so called from the
Romancist peculiar character of the writings of Ernest Renan, the
theory
Beyond
accomplished Orientalist, author of the “Life of Jesus,”
criticism. the Apostles, St. Paul, &c., &c., which refer to the early
history and literature of the Christian Church, to all of
which, amid much that is valuable, he has given the
tinge of romance and unreality, more creditable to the
richness and vigour of his imagination than to the
sobriety and correctness of his critical faculty. It
would be as childish to criticise the facts of his “ Vie de
Şesus” by a reference to received authorities, as it would
be to deal with Walter Scott and other historical
* “London Quarterly,” Vol. XLIV. p. 330.
RENAN. 34I
novelists as not confining themselves to strict historical
truth. The romance writer must not be impleaded
before the bar of the historical authorities. He had
originally intended to write a history of doctrine, in
which “the name of Jesus would hardly have been men-
tioned,” as if “the religious revolution which bears the
name of Christ could have happened without Christ.”
He was saved from this grand omission by a year's
residence in Palestine in 1860. It was in Galilee, he tells
us, that “all that history which while I was at a distance
seemed always to float in some unreal cloudland, assumed
a body and a solidity which astonished me. The
striking agreement of locality with text, the marvellous
harmony of the evangelical ideal with the landscape
which served it for a frame, were for me like a new
revelation. I seemed to have before my eyes a fifth
Gospel, torn, and yet legible; and henceforth, amid the
narratives of Matthew and of Mark, instead of an abstract
Being whom no one could say had even really existed,
I saw an admirable human form actually live and move.”
His faith in the mythical theory of Strauss, so far as
respects the personality of Jesus, is evidently shaken, but
for the complete emancipation of his intellect from the
bonds of a refined Pantheism we have yet to wait.
There are passages in his writings so eloquently touching
in reference to the awakening of Christian sympathies
in a noble and tender nature by the influence of the
character and teaching of Christ, that we are led to
think of him as saying, like one of old, “almost thou per-
suadest me to be a Christian.” But the principles assumed
at the beginning of his work are incompatible with a
* Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin 425—440; “Row’s “Christian
of Christianity,” 8vo, 1870, p. 433; Evidences,” &c., 8vo, 1877.
Christlieb's “Modern Doubt,” pp.
Renan’s
visit to
Galilee.
342 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
Renan’s
critical
opinions.
candid examination of evidence: the first being, that
there neither is nor can be a miracle, consequently the
Gospel histories are “legendary;” the second is, that no
history whatever, sacred or profane, can be strictly true,
a notion which justifies the working up of fragmentary
history into a romance; and thirdly, that the test of a
true representation is its coherence and consistency,
which is, in fact, no test at all : the true history, from the
paucity of our information, may appear incoherent, while
a fiction may be perfectly clear and perspicuous to the
most critical reader. The critical opinions of M. Renan
are unimportant; his common sense and refined taste
rejected the Higher Criticism of the Rationalistic School
as to the date and genuineness of the Gospels. He
regarded them as the products of the first century,
written for the most part by the men whose names they
bear : Matthew before the destruction of Jerusalem,
Mark and Luke shortly after, John at the close of the
century, or, if not by him, by his disciples. But criticism
is not the strong point in M. Renan's work. It owes its
popularity to the beauty of its style; every page shines
and sparkles, reflecting his own brilliant imagination.
To a large proportion of the reading population of
France the subject was altogether novel, and to them it
gave a tangible notion of the main facts of the Gospel
history, though a very imperfect one. To the educated
English reader the “Vie de §esus” is a sort of prose
epic, and as such, a work of imagination founded on fact,
not amenable to the ordinary laws of historical criticism.
As a faithful history and picture of Jesus Christ, it is a
failure in spite of its artistic form. No one who has any
acquaintance with the Gospels and early Christian
literature will believe that Jesus was merely an unedu-
cated Jewish peasant, whose mind rapidly developed
REMARKS ON RENAN. 343
through the contemplation of Jewish history and pro-
phecy, until He was so far influenced by His deep feeling
to regard Himself as the Messiah foretold by the pro-
phets, to give Himself out as a Teacher sent from God,
and to call to His attendance the disciples and others,
much less that after He had been crucified by the priests
and rulers, the fiction of His resurrection arose from the
hallucination of Mary Magdalen, who fancied she had
seen Him. The Jesus of M. Renan is not the Jesus of The Jesus
the Gospels—the Man—the God-Man—tempted in all º
respects as we are, “yet without sin.” In all the Jesus of
Quarterly Reviews there have appeared articles of great gº.
power on M. Renan’s “Romance”—articles which ought
to be reprinted for the benefit of a large class of the
indiscriminate worshippers of intellect, whose religious
Susceptibilities are satisfied when a polished sceptic
admires and Compliments, and in his way appears to
patronise Him whom Christians are bound to receive as
the Lord Jesus Christ. A weekly journal, which has
won its high position by the force of principle and talent,
entered its protest against the “religious syrup" which
M. Renan's admirers called the “constructive and
sympathetic criticism” in his Hibbert lectures. We
quote verbatim: “We are weary, we confess, of these
honeyed phrases, when they are lavished upon a religion
the kernel of which is regarded by their coiner as some-
thing essentially untrue. It is all very well to assail
Gibbon, and compare Renan with him, to the latter's
advantage, and to Gibbon's great disadvantage. But
after all, was not Gibbon, if in many respects the
narrower, in many respects also the sincerer historical
teacher of the two 2 He, like M. Renan, thought the
Christian revelation founded in the deepest error. And
he sneered at the error, where M. Renan falls into rap-
344 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELs.
- …"
-- º
tures at the sweetness and radiance of the natures it dis-
plays. Now, we do not mean to say for a moment that
those who regard Christianity as justified only by the
ideal sentiments in which it is so rich, are obliged,
because they regard these sentiments as closely bound
up with a mass of historical illusions, to despise the
golden fruit which, in their opinion, the credulity
of the first disciples bore. Let them do justice,
by all means, to the noble ideal extracted from what
they think so strange and wild a dream. But Surely
for those who regard even the Christian morality and
spiritual teaching as nothing more than one partial and
rather arbitrary aspect 9f the eternal substance of the
universe, and who think Christian belief, as a representa-
tion of the Divine intellect, character, and will, ludi-
crously imperfect and credulous, it is hardly becoming
to speak of it as if it were impossible to love it too
much, even though they patronise it condescendingly.
Whether Christ were what He held Himself to be, or
what M. Renan regards Him as being, in neither case is
the vision which inspired His life fitly described as ‘the
sweet Galilean vision.” If Christ were really what we
hold Him to be, one who, being in the form of God,
thought it not a thing to be grasped at to be equal with
God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took on
Him the form of a servant, in order to raise human life
up to His own level,-there was much more in His
teaching that was not sweet than that was sweet,
much more that was severe, much more that savoured of
the fire which He came to send on earth, and which He
saw in Spirit already kindled, than of that mere fragrant
and gorgeous lily of Eastern imagination, to which
M. Renan is so much in the habit of comparing it.
There is something in the honeyed words which these
THE HYPERCRITICAL THEORY. 345
Pantheists of the new culture use about Christianity,
that seems to us worse than the bitterest sneers of the
old infidelity.”
7. Fourthly. The Hypercritical theory of the author of Hyper.
“Supernatural Religion” (an inquiry into the reality of dº
Divine revelation)" met at first with a jubilant reception, the author
not only from professed sceptics, but from others from of.
whom a more just and impartial judgment might have Religion.”
been expected. We may account for this from the
character of the work, which gives the result of varied
reading and research in reference to topics not of general
interest, and with minute criticisms upon writings fami-
liar only to a limited section of ecclesiastical writers.
Hence, in the judgment of charity, without an attempt
to test the accuracy or fitness of the references, or to
weigh the conclusions, there were found those who
declared the work to be not only erudite and elaborate,
which is not far from the truth, but also logical, fair, im-
partial, and correct in its references and quotations,
which is far from being the case. The first volume com-
mences with a dissertation on the impossibility of the
supernatural, which if proved would render all inquiries
into the verity of the Gospels unnecessary, as in all of
them the narrative is specially miraculous. In this and
the following volume, the evidences in favour of the
existence of the Synoptical Gospels in the early age of
Christianity, and which we suppose are found in the
writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers, are subjected to a
most minute examination, and the result to which he
comes is that he cannot find “a single distinct trace of
any of the Gospels during the first century and a half
* “Spectator,” April 19th, 1880, Vol. 1877. A new edition in Three
No. 2702. Vols. in 1879.
* Two Vols. 8vo, 1872. Third
346 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
after the death of Jesus.” The remainder of the second
volume is devoted to the fourth Gospel, and again the
result of his investigation is, that “whilst there is not
One particle of evidence, during a century and a half after
the events recorded in the fourth Gospel, that it was
composed by the son of Zebedee, there is on the other
hand the strongest reason for believing that he did not
write it.” The third volume applies a similar criticism to
the Acts of the Apostles, especially to the fact of the
resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and with similar
results. The author is of opinion that the sublime
morality of the Gospels embodied in the teachings of
Christ, remain unaffected by the results of his destructive
criticism, and that Christianity, minus the miraculous
and the Divine and supernatural elements, will find a
more easy access to the belief of the human race. A
work of such pretensions, written from the standpoint of
pure Naturalism, in which the author professed to have
made discoveries which had escaped the notice of the
Lardners, Paleys, Westcotts, Zightfoots, and others of our
age and of that preceding, as well as that of all the
Scholars of ancient and modern times, must appear to all
intelligent persons as a case of Self-confidence, pro-
mising too much. One might believe in a flaw in the in-
ferences, a mistake as to the bearing of this or that pass-
age on the part of previous critics, but to suppose that
the great Scholars of past ages had not perceived what the
author of the “Supernatural” asserts he has discovered,
viz., the universal failure of the evidences in favour of
the existence of the Gospels, &c., which had been drawn
from the well-known Fathers and others of the first I5O
years of our era, was beyond the belief of all readers
with any pretensions to scholarship.
8. These pretensions were soon submitted to a rigid
CRITIQUES UPON “SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.” 347
Scrutiny. (1) Dr. §oseph B. Lightfoot, then Hulsean Bishop'
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and now Bishop of *
Durham, commenced in 1875 a series of articles in the
“Contemporary Review,” in which the following points
were considered with the wit and sarcasm of Pascal, and
the learning of a Bentley of the nineteenth century.
The first article was devoted to an examination of the
learning of the author of the work, “Supernatural
Religion,” and other qualifications which careless re-
viewers had liberally imagined him to possess ; the
second article was an examination of the silence of
Eusebius in reference to many points of importance in
the chain of literary evidence; the third, fourth, fifth,
and sixth are occupied with the controversies respecting
the Ignatian epistles, Polycarp, and Papias; the seventh
with the later school of St. John ; the eighth with the
Church in Gaul; and the ninth with Tatian’s “Diates-
saron.” The articles, we hope, will be continued ; but we
fear more than we dare hope.
(2) The Rev. C. A. Row, M.A., Prebend of St. Paul's C. A. Row.
Cathedral, in his work, “The Supernatural in the New
Testament Possible, Credible, and Historical,”’ and in
his subsequent Bampton Lecture for 1877, entitled
“Christian Evidence Used in Relation to Modern
Thought,”* has at some length, and with great acute-
ness, though incidentally, met the charges of the author
of “Supernatural Religion.”
(3) The Rev. W. Sanday, M.A., in his work, “The wº
Gospels in the Second Century,” has examined the Y.
critical portion of the “Supernatural Religion,” in which
the authorities quoted and the criticism are fully dis-
cussed. 7
(4) The Rev. F. M. Sadler, M.A., in his work “The ſº
* . % Sadler.
* 8vo, 1875. * 8vo, 1877. * 8vo, 1876.
348 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
The
leading
Lost Gospel and its Contents: or, The Author of
‘Supernatural Religion’ Refuted by Himself.” These
works are of the highest importance.
(5) Valuable articles appeared in the leading Quar-
terlies : “The Edinburgh Review,” 2 the “British Quar-
terly,” the “British and Foreign Quarterly,” 4 the
“London Quarterly,” and in Westcott's “Canon of
the New Testament.”" All these replies refer to the
first and second volumes of the “Supernatural Religion.”
The third volume has not called forth any special notice,
as it contained no new evidence in favour of the author's
views which had not been met by Christian apologists
and commentators. *
9. The grand argument of the author of the “Super-
Quarterlies natural Religion,” and which occupies so large a part of
is work, is that “a supernatural religion is an essen-
tially incredible and impossible thing; for it involves
the idea of a personal God interfering with the estab-
lished order of the world, an idea which ‘science’
forbids us to entertain.” The subsidiary argument is
quite unnecessary if the first be admitted as con-
clusive; it is that “there is no local evidence of the
actual appearance of a personage displaying such
power, wisdom, and goodness as belong to our concep-
tions of God, as the four Gospels to which Chris-
tians appeal as authentic, were not compiled till the
second century.” The denial of miracles is consistent
with those who deny the possibility of supernatural
interference, and with such only. Some men of science
have said rash things on this subject, but modern science
and
Westcott,
* 8vo, 1876. * Fourth Edition. Preface.
* Vol. CXLI. p. 432. * “Edinburgh Review,” Vol.
* Vol. LX. p. 278. CXLI. p. 507; “London Quar-
* Vol. XXIV. p. 169. terly,” Vol. XLIV. p. 372.
* Vol. XLIV. p. 327.
ACCURACY OF THE FATHERS. 349
has not committed itself to such an absurd negative.
The critical portion of the work consisted of a minute
examination of twenty-three documents, the writings of
the Fathers and others of the first one hundred and fifty
years of our era, documents to which the orthodox
School had been accustomed to appeal as evidences of
the knowledge of the early existence of the Gospels and
Epistles ; the conclusions arrived at by the author have
peen already stated, and is such as might be expected
from the author's mode of procedure. His inquiry is a
continual begging the question on the points at issue.
If the quotation from the Fathers under examination be The ques-
one professedly taken by name from one of our Gospels, º:
then it is asserted that the names Matthew, Mark, &c., , , and
honesty of
refer to some gospels so called, but not to our Gospels, he early
If a quotation from a gospel vary ever so little from the Fathers.
words of our Gospels, it is assumed that the quotation is
taken from Some lost or apocryphal gospel, though it is
notorious that this free mode of quotation from memory
was the rule in those days. If, on the other hand, the
reference is to passages which are identical with those in
our Gospels, then the quotation is assigned to some old
authority used by the compilers of the Gospels. With
such a logician, who reasons in a circle, it is impossible
to deal as on fair grounds. The long list of references
to authorities has excited the suspicion of the learned
and led to their examination. Some appear to have
peen taken second-hand, without acknowledgment, from
well-known publications, as, for instance, twenty-six from
Bleek's “Introduction to the New Testament,” and
twenty-five from Cureton’s “Ignatian Epistles.” Some
references in proof of the writer's position assert the very
contrary to that which they are quoted to support. The
name of Canon Cook is mistaken for a German writer,
35o SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
Inac-
curacy of
the refer-
ences in
“Super-
natural
Religion.”
and a name and a work assigned to him with a German
title ; the same, also, in the case of Reuss, the French
critic. These blunders and the mistranslations which
have been so thoroughly exposed by Bishop Lightfoot
and Westcott are not creditable to the scholarship of
the author of “Supernatural Religion.” The reply to
his criticism and the inferences drawn from them is to
be found in the catena of authors quoted by Lardner
and Westcott, and again clearly set forth in the chrono-
logical and analytical list of Christian writers from
Clement to Tertullian, which is contained in the appen-
dix to Sanday’s “Gospels in the Second Century.” The
utter uselessness of such a line of argument as is con-
tained in the work, “Supernatural Religion. Examined,”
&c., and its unfitness to shake the foundations of
Christianity, are obvious, from a consideration of the
unimportant results which would follow were all his
points fully proved. They would be simply a conviction
that the early Christian writers were very incompetent
critics, and that their testimony afforded no satisfactory
proof of the existence of the books of the New Testament
in their day. We have already remarked in the preced-
ing chapter that these references on the part of the early
Fathers are mainly of importance in their bearing upon
the literary history of the early Church; on the truth or
otherwise of the narrative of the four Gospels, their
value is but secondary. With the four undisputed
Epistles of St. Paul, we can meet our adversaries
in the gate, but they are bound to explain, on their
principles, the fact of the existence of the books of
the New Testament, their general, and at last
their universal, reception by the Christian Church.
Whether our Gospels be so early as all evidence would
imply, or whether they be the product of the second
MINOR OPPONENTS. 35I
century, we have four Epistles of St. Paul, which the
Higher Criticism, and even scepticism, admits to be
genuine. These writers, just after the first half of the
first century, allude to all the leading facts and teachings
contained in the Synoptical Gospels, and are of them-
selves sufficient to prove, not only the early origin of
Christianity, but also the fact, which has not been suffi-
ciently noticed, that the doctrines taught by Paul, and
the miracles believed by Paul, were also accepted and
taught by the Apostles Peter and James and John,
within four to seven years after the resurrection. So
far as Christian evidences are concerned, too much im-
portance has been attached to the disquisition of the
author of “Supernatural Religion.” Its bearing is pro-
perly upon matters of literary evidence, rather than of
Christian belief.
IO. Fifthly. Among minor and secondary offshoots Duke of
of the sceptical school which, from the position of the Some set
tº sº º tº te and other
writers, obtained a brief circulation and then were for- of the
gotten, Shenkel and Keim, though they contain much #:
that is valuable, differ little from the Rationalistic school.” against
The Duke of Somerset, in 1872, published a small volume, ...,
entitled “Christian Theology and Modern Scepticism,” hiº,
in which, while admitting the Divinity of Christianity •
and its moral power, he objects to the miraculous narra:
tive in the Gospels, and to much of the dogma of Chris-
tian theology. Earl Russell, in 1873, published an essay
on the Christian religion, in which, despite the feebleness
of a prolonged old age, he settles, to his own satisfaction,
questions the most profound: this outbreak of the
estimable friend of civil and religious liberty removes
* Dr. Oswald Dykes, in “British * See Christlieb's “ Modern
and Foreign Evangelical Review,” Doubt,” pp. 353, 373,
No. CXI. p. 6I.
352 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
one of Sydney Smith's alarms at the absence of all
moral fear in the Lord John of his day, ready at a
moment's notice to operate on a patient for the stone, or
to take the command of the Channel fleet ! What would
not the witty friend have said could he have known of
this additional instance of the absence of moral fear !
Lord Amberly, the eldest son of Earl Russell, is the
author of a posthumous work, entitled “The Analysis
of Religious Belief,” published by his executors after
his death. These works have been mercifully treated by
all the critics, from a natural regard for the memory of
a family which has deserved well of the State. They
are not without their use as exhibiting the shallow
current of thought on religious subjects, which is observ-
able in many educated persons whose early culture had
been under the influence of the scepticism of the last
century. Some remarks from one of our leading
quarterlies are pertinent to this subject, and may be read
with advantage by our advanced minds. “The whole
system of pseudo-critical scepticism begins at the wrong
end. The true critic examines first the evidence by
which the genuineness and authority of the Bible is
established, and then he approaches the difficulties
suggested by its contents. Internal evidence on the
negative side must be absolutely overwhelming to out-
weigh the direct evidence of testimony; and even in
such a case the negative conclusion is not fully justified
till at least the chief flaws in the external evidence are
exposed. But modern scepticism passes over the
question of testimony, resting its case on internal diffi-
culties alone.” “In conclusion, we repeat that our only
reason for noticing a book (the Duke of Somerset's
‘Christian. Theology,’ &c.) which has so little to recom-
* Two Vols. 8vo, 1876.
CAUTIONARY CANONS OF CRITICISM. 353
mend it to the serious inquirer—whether sceptic or not—
is to hold up to the light of day the intolerance and dog-
matism which characterise some of the sceptical school.
The bigotry which was formerly imputed to the theo-
logian is very often now observable in the sceptic.
But “it is not to be endured,” to use the words of Dr.
Arnold, “that scepticism should run at once into dog-
matism, and that we should be required to doubt with as
little discrimination as we were formerly called upon to
believe.” 1 -
II. Christianity has nothing to fear from the utmost Caution-
freedom of legitimate criticism. This has been shown §:
in an article in the “Church of England Quarterly.” #2.
“We may make our way through all the minute subtleties of England
of such investigations unharmed and undisturbed if we 3.
lay hold on certain broad principles, implicitly held in
earlier Christian times, and brought into the position of
axioms, by believing investigation. Such principles are
these :
(i) “The sacred historians reproduce historical events,
not with a minute and slavish literality, but with that
larger and freer truth which interprets the spirit and
reproduces the life of every transaction. Their work
resembles the freedom of the painter rather than the
stiff rigid lines of the mechanical draftsman.” -
“Corollary A.—Believing criticism is not concerned with
forcing every detail of the Gospels into an unnatural
harmony. Inspiration, such as it is in fact, may and
does coexist with two or three ways of telling an incident
in parallel passages: e.g., the number of the cock-
crowings, or the words of the title placed over the
cross.”
* “Quarterly Review, Vol. CXXXII. p. 435.
* No. XVIII. p. 326.
A. A
354 SCEPTICAL ATTACKS ON THE GOSPELS.
“Corollary B.-Inspiration, such as it is in fact, may
and does coexist with omissions, and incompleteness
of detail. We have no right to assume that an Evan-
gelist is ignorant of that which lies outside the leading
ideas of his narrative. Thus M. Renan more than
Once says that St. John knew nothing of the birth
of Jesus at Bethlehem.” (See, on the contrary, John
vii. 42.) -
“Corollary C.—Inspiration, such as it is in fact, may
and does coexist with defects of texts; nay, with
defects of style and literary form. The difficulty of
St. Paul is noted by St. Peter (2 Pet. iii. I6).”
“Corollary D.—Inspiration, such as it is in fact, may
and does coexist with the ordinary conditions of careful
historical research (Luke i. 1–4.)”
“Corollary E.-Inspiration, such as it is, may and
does exist without any exact, formal, elaborate defi-
nition of its nature and extent. Those who receive
the Gospels, receive indeed the assurance that the Holy
Ghost brought to the remembrance of the Apostles all
things whatsoever Christ had said (John xiv. 26). We
are sure that we have the very sum and substance of the
words of Jesus.”
(II) We have indicated above that if all the written
Gospels were placed at the latest date that has ever been
assigned them, if it could be proved that St. John's
Gospel was written many years after the beloved
disciple's death, by some one who took up the pen to
write in his name, and for his honour, a Gospel which
might be considered to represent his tradition, enough
of evidence would still be left for the life of Christian
faith. Much more does it follow, that if all the deduc-
tions were made which have been definitely called for by
the most severely captious criticism, within the limits of
EIGHTY-ONE CHAPTERS INDISPUTABLE. 355
reasoning, as distinct from mere negation, that which
has been called the pragmatic, i.e., the primitive his-
torical Gospel, would still exist, minus matter to the
amount of about eight chapters. That is, we should
still have eighty-one chapters admitted to be authentic
by the most frigid professor of the severest modern
exegesis.”
A A 2
356 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE SYNoPTICAL Gospels—THEIR ORDER, ORIGIN, AND COMPOSITION.
The I. We have four Gospels, all of them brief memoirs of
sº our Lord, not full biographies; three of them are mainly
devoted to the ministry in Galilee, while the fourth gives
a large space to the ministry in Judaea, which Matthew
scarcely notices. All of these give an account of our
Lord’s baptism, only one refers to His childhood ; many
discourses recorded by Matthew and Luke are not found
in John. The history of our Saviour's public life begins
in His thirtieth year. Of the transactions of the three
and a half years succeeding, the history of the last six
months takes up about one half of the contents of the
Gospels, and that of the last week forms about the third
or fourth part of the narrative. Nothing appears to
have been written by our Lord Himself. Of His
sayings there are twenty-two reported which are not
found in the Gospels ; the list of these may be seen in
Westcott's “Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.”
One is quoted by St. Paul (Acts xx. 35), “It is more
blessed to give than to receive.”
order of 2. The order in which the several Gospels are
sº a generally placed in the collection called the New Testa-
Gospels, ment, is that in which they now stand in the Greek Textus
Receptus, and in the English Versions. In a few MSS. of
the old Vulgate, and in a Codex, Greek and Latin
(Cantabrig.), and in the MS. of the Gothic Version, the
* “Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,” crown 8vo, 1867.
ORDER OF THE GOSPELS. 357
order is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In one MS., and
in Several Latin versions, the order is Matthew, John,
Mark, Luke. Origen and the Syriac MSS. give the
Order as Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke. Modern
Criticism differs on this point, as may be seen by the
following arrangements proposed, and the authorities by
which they are supported, viz.:-
(1) The generally received order: Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John ; advocated by Grotius, J. Mill, Bengel, Wet-
stein, Hug, Augusti, Seiler, Crediter, Hengstenberg, Hil-
genefield, Da Costa, Tozemtson, Greszwell, Birks, and most
English critics.
(2) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John; advocated by Henry
Owen, Griesback, Bleek, Olshausen, De Wette, Strazass,
Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Döllinger, Köstline, Kahnis,
Saunier, Theile, Fritºshe, Sieffert, Stroth, Gfrörer, Welt-
decker, Kern, Schwartz. -
(3) Mark, Matthew, Luke, John ; advocated by Smith,
of Jordan Hill, Sãoor, Ewald, Reuss, 7%iersch, Schenkel,
Eichthel, Weisse, Caspari, Zachmann, Wittichen, Holtå-
mann, Weissäcker, E. A. Abott.'
(4) Mark, Luke, Matthew, John ; advocated by Wilke,
. . Bruno Baur, Hitzig, Volkman. -
(5) Luke, Matthew, Mark, John ; advocated by
Busching, Edward Evanson.
(6) Luke, Mark, Matthew, John ; advocated by Vogel.
These “examples in permutations,” as Fisher calls them,
are instances of the uncertain results of subjective, con-
jectural criticism.” -
3. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are termed the Synoptical Synoptical
Gospels, because they relate the history of our Lord's º:
life on one general plan from one point of view, in which, tj
€11 Ver-
* “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” * Fisher's “Supernatural Origin ...:
article “Gospels,” Ninth Edition. of Christianity,” p. 154. differences
358 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
while the same narrative is severally exhibited, they yet
present the history of our Lord under the same aspect.
The verbal agreements and differences in the phraseology
of these three Gospels are equally striking, and the more
So as these writers are perfectly independent of each
other in the selection of their subjects. The extent of
these agreements and differences may be estimated from
the minute calculations of modern critics; for instance,
(1) Suppose the Synoptical Gospels to be harmonised in
One common narrative, and divided into eighty-nine
Sections, then, in forty-two of these all the narratives
coincide both in the facts and the language in which
they are expressed, twelve more are given by Matthew
and Mark only, five are common to Mark and Luke
alone, and fourteen to Matthew and Luke ; five are
peculiar to Matthew, two to Mark, and nine to Luke."
(2) Reuss, quoted by Archbishop Thomson, gives another
calculation, which he deems more exact. Matthew Con-
tains three hundred and thirty verses, Mark sixty-eight,
and Luke five hundred and forty-one, which are peculiar
to them. Matthew and Mark have from one hundred
and seventy to one hundred and eighty verses which are
not found in Luke ; Matthew and Luke have two
hundred and thirty to two hundred and forty verses
which are not in Mark; Luke and Mark have fifty verses
which are not found in Matthew. (3) Dr. S. Davidson
divides these Gospels into one hundred and thirty-three
sections, of which fifty-eight are common to all, twenty-
six to Matthew and Mark, seventeen to Mark and Luke,
thirty-two to Matthew and Luke. Chronological order
is not strictly followed, but in the arrangement of facts,
Mark generally agrees with Luke rather than with
* Archbishop Thomson's Introduction to the New Testament,
“Speakers' Commentary,” Vol. I. p. viii.
ORIGIN OF THE SYNOPTICS. 359
Matthew. (4) Professor Andrew Norton remarks that
“by far the larger portion of this verbal agreement is
found in the recital of the words of others, and par-
ticularly of the words of Jesus.” The minute calcula-
tions as to the proportion of the narrative portion of each
Gospel, in comparison with the portion taken up by the
reports of the words of our Lord and others, curious and
possibly useful, but the correctness of which it is very
difficult to verify, may be found in the work of Norton.
Where the Evangelists speak in their own persons, the
verbal agreement is rare and scarcely perceptible."
4. Great stress has been laid upon the agreement and Origin and
differences found in the phraseology and other matter .
found in the Synoptical Gospels, as data for the forma- Synoptical
tion of sundry theories on the origin and composition of ospels.
the Gospels: to these we must now refer.
I. The theory of one original Gospel in Aramean, or First
Syro-Chaldaic, advocated by Lessing first, then by tº
Corrodi, Weber, Niemeyer, Thiess, Herder, &c. j. F. original
Bleek” advocates an Ur-evangelium, a primitive Gospel Gospel.
written in Galilee, and in Greek, from which, as a basis,
Matthew and Luke were formed. Lessing fixed on the
Gospel of the Hebrews as the common source. Schweg-
ler, of the Tübingen school, inclines to this theory, and
thinks that our Gospel of Matthew is formed upon this
Gospel of the Hebrews. The following are the modi-
fications of this theory of one original Gospel in
Aramean.”
(a) Eichhorn supposes that by a series of revisions of
this original Gospel there arose—No. 1, the basis of
Matthew; No. 2, the basis of Luke; No. 3, combined with
* “Norton on the Gospels,” Vol. * Davidson’s “Introduction to
I. p. 240. the New Testament,” Vol. I. p.
* “Intro. to the New Test., Vol. 386.
I. pp. 279-292; Eberard, p. 21.
360 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Nos. I and 2, formed the basis of Mark; No. 4, used by
Matthew and Luke when they agree with one another
and differ from Mark. This scheme does not account
for the verbal agreement in the Greek Gospels.
(b) Bishop Marsh, in order to meet this obvious ob-
jection, put forth another hypothesis of great complexity.
No. 1, an Aramean Gospel ; No. 2, a Greek translation;
No. 3, a translation with additions; No. 4, another Greek
translation ; No. 5, a use of Nos. 3 and 4 as a basis for
Mark; No. 6, a version of No. 3 with additions as a basis
for Matthew ; No. 7, a version of No. 4 with other
additions as a basis for Luke ; No. 8, a supplementary
Hebrew writing used by Matthew and Luke.
(c) Eichhorn's second hypothesis, framed to remedy the
deficiencies of his former one, is approved by Ziegler,
Hänlein, Kuinóel, and Bertholdt. It is as follows: No. 1,
an Aramean Gospel ; No. 2, a Greek translation ; No. 3,
a recension of No. I for Matthew ; No. 4, a Greek trans-
lation of Nos. 3 and 2, used at the same time; No. 5, an-
other recension of No. I for Luke ; No. 6, a writing
springing out of Nos. 3 and 5 for Mark ; No. 7, a third
recension of No. I for Matthew and Luke; No. 8, a trans-
lation of No. 7, using No. 2 at the same time; No. 9, an
Aramean Gospel of Matthew from Nos. I and 7; No. Io,
a Greek translation from No. 9, with Nos. 4 and 8; No.
II, Mark formed out of No. 6 with Nos. 4 and 5; No. 12,
Luke out of Nos. 5 and 8.
(d) Gratz simplified this complex hypothesis by sug-
gesting—No. I, a Hebrew original Gospel; No. 2, a Greek
original Gospel arising out of it with many additions;
No. 3, shorter evangelical documents ; No. 4, Mark and ,
Luke were composed from Nos. 2 and 3 being consulted;
No. 5, the Hebrew Matthew, which sprung from No. 1,
with additions partly independent and partly from the
Double AND TRIPLE TRADITIONS. 361
document agreeing partially with the genealogy in Luke;
No. 6, a Greek version of the Hebrew Matthew, in which
Mark was used ; No. 7 interpolations in the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, by a transference of sections from
the one to the other.
(e) Rev. E. A. Abbott, D.D.," supposes (1) “A document
containing words of the Lord, which had existed long
enough, and had acquired authority enough, to induce
two editors or writers of Gospels (Matthew and Luke),
apparently representing different schools of thought, and
writing for different Churches, to borrow from it inde-
pendently. This last conclusion is of the greatest
importance ; for though the document (which he calls
“The Double Tradition ') may be and certainly was later
than ‘The Triple Tradition, yet it would have the advan-
tage of preserving the original utterances of the Lord
comparatively unimpaired by traditional transmuta-
tions.” (2) An original document, the embodiment of
early traditions (which he calls “The Triple Tradition”), on
which he supposes the three Synoptical Gospels are
based. Mark is the earliest Gospel, then Matthew, both
of them written before the fall of Jerusalem ; Luke long
after, say A.D. 80, Both Matthew and Luke were
enriched by additions from “The Double Tradition.”
To this latter document, which, as before stated, has pre-
served the original utterances of the Lord, the highest
character is given. “When to this consideration is
added the authoritative nature of the words of the Lord
in this document, their direct reference to events, and the
extreme improbability that any disciple would have or
could have invented them,-for which of the Apostles or
subordinate disciples could have invented the discourse
* Article “Gospels,” “Encyclopædia Britannica,” 9th Ed., 1879, pp.
8OI, 842. x -
362 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
on ‘the lilies of the field,' or the lamentation over
Jerusalem, or the speech which likens John to “a reed
shaken by the wind,” and pronounces him the greatest
of the prophets, yet less than the least in the kingdom
of God —we are led to infer that in all probability we
have in these additions of Matthew and Luke, a very
close approximation to some of the noblest and most
impressive utterances of Jesus Himself.” In “The Dou-
ble Tradition * we have simply a record of something
like Papias's Aoyua of Matthew, and “The Triple Tradi-
tion " is only another name for a supposed original
Gospel in Aramean or Greek. A friendly critic in the
“Academy,” one of our most valuable weekly literary
journals, expresses what is probably the general opinion:
“Dr. E. A. Abbott, in his article on the Gospels, ex-
pounds at great length, and with every show of pre-
cision, a theory which we believe has not found favour
with his brother theologians either here or in Germany.
His main position is that, from a verbatim comparison of
the three Synoptical Gospels, it is possible to reconstruct
an original text, prior to all three, from which they
borrowed in various amounts. If a layman may be
allowed to express an opinion, we are inclined to think
that he has made out his case, subject always to this
qualification—that no textual criticism of this word-by-
word character can ever be conclusive. The fatal ob-
jection to these theories, founded on the supposition of
the existence of an original Aramean Gospel, or of any
other (equivalent to a Double or a Triple Tradition)
independent of the Gospel of St. Matthew,' is that
antiquity furnishes no evidence in support of the fact
assumed. How is it, that while so many apocryphal
Gospels have come down to us, these most important of
* Meyer’s “Matthew,” Vol. I. pp. 29, 30.
INDEPENDENT GOSPELS. 363
all (if they ever existed) can nowhere be found 2 No
eye seems to have seen them, and no pen has referred to
them ; their existence is purely hypothetical.”
5. The theory No. II., which assumes the existence of
several independent original Gospels, such as those referred
to by Luke (chap. i. 1), as the common source of the
Synoptical Gospels, has been advocated by Le Clerc,
Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Schleiermacher (as to the third
Gospel), Kaiser, Rettig, and others. It has recently
assumed a definite form in the “Leben Jesu ’’ of Wit-
tichen (1876), which we give as quoted by the Archbishop
of York in his “Introduction to the Speaker's Com-
mentary of the New Testament:”—“When the need of
a written record forced itself on the Church at Jeru-
salem, content hitherto with the traditional preaching of
the Gospel which had gradually grown up, three sepa-
rate writings embodying the traditional preaching were
drawn up in Palestine, the ground-work of the future
Gospels. The earliest of these was probably the
original of St. Mark's Gospel. Next to this, and partly
dependent on it, the work which was used in common
for our present Matthew and Luke ; and thirdly, a work
used by John alone, and unknown to the compiler of
the original Matthew. It is convenient to designate.
them as A, B, and C. The next step is, that some
other writer in Palestine, just before the destruction of
Jerusalem, composed a Gospel by means of A as the
groundwork, somewhat altered, however, as to its order,
and with a few portions omitted, B being employed to
furnish several insertions; this Gospel he calls Mat-
thew I. ; somewhat later, when Jerusalem had fallen,
there was composed outside of Palestine a new Gospel,
grounded on A, with numerous omissions, in combi-
nation with B and C, not without a few additions of
Second
theory:
several
original
Gospels.
364 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
the compiler, and with a new introduction. This Wit-
tichen would designate as Luke I. ; it is the fifth in the
series of contributions. Somewhat later still, the first
Matthew was altered in Palestine, the first Luke in
Rome. In this edition of Luke, use has been made of
Matthew I., and also of the works of Josephus. Both
received additions and alterations. Amongst these a
listory of the childhood was added to each. The last
editor of Luke was also the author of the Acts, and
through him this Gospel was used over the districts
where St. Paul's preaching had come. The short pre-
face was added by the same hand ; thus our present
Gospels according to Matthew and Luke came to com-
pleteness, and the number of documents mount up to
Seven. Somewhat later, the writing marked A under-
went the process of editing, in which a number of small
adaptations to the familiar expressions of Matthew II.
were made, and several explanations added. Hence
our present Gospel of St. Mark, the eighth docu-
ment in the series, and happily the last.” We cannot
sketch more of the various schemes, the product of the
ingenuity of scholars, by which they endeavour to
account most unnaturally for the verbal agreement or
disagreement of the writers of the first three Gospels.
With respect to the supposition of these several original
Gospels, we ask’ for something like the shadow of a
proof. There is none offered.
6. The supplementary theory, No. III., supposes that
the writers of the first three Gospels copied from one
another, the second in order from its predecessor,
and the third from the other two, and that the discre-
pancies are to be traced to the endeavour of each
writer to correct the others. This theory does not differ
Third : the
supple-
mentary
theory.
* “Speaker's Commentary, New Test.,” Int., p. xviii.
.*
ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. 365
much from the theory No. V., and has been coun-
tenanced (with some variations) by Townson, Gresswell,
and Birks.
The theory No. IV., which regards the oral teaching of Final
the Apostles as the source of the Gospels, finds in Gieseler tº :
(1818) its ablest exponent." One part of this theory, tºg
quite unsupported by evidence, is that this oral tradition Apostles.
was fixed by Apostolic authority. Apart from this
unfounded opinion, Gieseler's views are those of Westcott
and other able critics. We may believe, with Bishop
Gleig, that this oral teaching was the real document, and
that much of it was from the remembrance of the very
words spoken by our Lord Himself.
But have we no written Gospel by an Apostle 2 It may Tradition
be true that the work of the Apostles was to preach. ...it.n
So was this the case with St. Paul, “ in labours more Gospel by
abundant’ (2 Cor. xi. 23), and yet he wrote at least Matthew.
thirteen Epistles. Though, compared with Paul, the
other Apostles were, in the Rabbinical sense of the term,
unlettered men, they were not illiterate, nor ignorant,
and their natural faculties had been enlarged under the
training of the Great Teacher. Matthew especially, by
his position in “the customs,” must have been a ready
penman. Tradition, and the imperfect scraps of history
which have come down to our times, point to him as the
author of a Hebrew, i.e., Syro-Chaldee Gospel. There
may be difficulties in connection with this supposition,
but they are trifling compared with those which sur-
round all the preceding hypotheses. We are the more
inclined to believe in the old traditional history, from a
conviction that it accords with the highest probability.
Is it likely that for any lengthened period the Christian
Churches would be content to rest on the oral teaching
1 Westcott’s “Study of the Gospels,” pp. 152—5.
366 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
—-mºss-
even of the Apostles, or their immediate agents 2 We
know from Luke (chap. i. 1), that many written memoirs
of our Lord's teaching, life, &c., were already current.
Can we suppose that the Hebrew Christians, the mother
Church, would be left without a memoir or Gospel by
an Apostle 2 The common sense of Le Clerc led him to
write his opinion to the contrary. “Those who think
that the Gospels were written so late as Irenaeus states
(i.e., 57—64 A.D.), and who suppose that for about the
space of thirty years after our Lord's ascension there
were many spurious Gospels in the hands of the Churches,
and not one that was genuine and authentic, do unwisely
cast a very great reflection upon the wisdom of the
Apostles. For what could have been more imprudent
in them than tamely to have suffered the idle stories
about Christ to be read, and not to contradict them by
some authentic history?”* The testimony to the fact of
Matthew's authorship is given loosely by Eusebius.
“Matthew also having first proclaimed the Gospel in
Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other
nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue,
and thus supplied the want of his presence by his
writings. . . .” Eusebius also informs us on the authority
of a tradition, handed down to Apollonius, who lived at
the close of the first and the beginning of the second
century, “that the Saviour commanded His disciples
not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years.” Epipha-
mius, who wrote early in the fourth century, asserts that
Matthew wrote his Gospel, by the advice of the Apostles,
while he was yet in Palestine, eight years after the
ascension of our Lord. On the other hand, Irenaeus,
who lived I75 A.D., states in a fragment preserved by
* “Clerici Hist. Ecc. Secula,” A.D. 62, sec. g. See also Dr. Townson's
Works, Two Vols. 8vo, 1810, Vol. I. pp. 68–82.
MAT THEW'S GOSPEL. 367
Eusebius, that “Matthew produced his Gospel written
among the Hebrews in their own dialect, whilst Peter
and Paul preached the Gospel and founded the Church
at Rome" (that is to say, about 57 to 64 A.D.). Sub-
'stantially, there is no contradiction in these statements
of Apollonius, Epiphanius, and Irenaeus. The date assigned
by the latter to Matthew's Gospel, probably refers to
the translation of it into Greek, as a Syro-Chaldaean
Gospel . would have been useless at Rome. Eusebius
himself fixes the date of Matthew's Gospel as in the
third year of Claudius, and the eighth after the ascension. Harmo-
We think that the first, third, and fourth of the theories ...?"
the first,
may be to a great extent harmonised in connection with third, and
the old hypothesis of Eckerman and others, who thought #.
that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew embodied the oral possible.
account of our Lord's history and teachings, so that
Mark and Luke, when collecting materials, received from
eye-witnesses or from teachers such information as bore
a striking resemblance in matter and form to the Gospel
of Matthew. It seems more likely that Matthew's
Gospel was the ground-work, the first written Gospel,
rather than to suppose, with the Rev. E. R. Conder, that
Peter's preaching at Rome was the foundation of the
Synoptics.” All the remarks of this able divine are
valuable in his Introduction to the New Testament in
the “Biblical Educator.” With one of them especially
we heartily concur. “Mr. Westcott seems to have over-
estimated the exclusion of literature in that age by oral
teaching. It is true that the disciples of the Rabbins
were forbidden to commit to writing their traditionary
interpretations of the Mosaic law. But the books of
Josephus may afford proof, if needed, that no such
1 Eusebius's “Eccles. History,” * “Biblical Educator,” Vol.
Book V. III. p. I46.
368 THE SYNO PTICAL GOSPELS.
...—
restriction could apply to memoirs of public events and
discourses; and any such restriction would have been at
variance with the whole spirit and purpose of our Lord's
ministry.” We may add, that the Apostolical Epistles,
and the reference in St. Luke's Gospel to the “many” who
had undertaken to write histories of Christ, are proofs that
no such restrictions had any weight with the first
disciples.
7. The hypothesis which appears most probable, and
which is to a great extent consistent with the first, third,
and fourth of the theories, is that of Dr. Thomas Townson,
author of “Discourses on the Gospels.” It is, therefore,
the fifth or union hypothesis (No. V.), and with him,
and with that most respectable and industrious writer
josiah Conder, in his “Literary History of the New
Testament,” we think it highly probable that the Syro-
Chaldaic Gospel of Matthew, sometimes referred to
by Eckerman, &c., as the Gospel to the Hebrews, is that
which we have in the Greek translated, or re-written, in
our Canonical Gospel of Matthew. We refer with some
pride to these works of our learned countryman, as
specimens of plain sense, as well as of Sound learning.
On a point in which absolute proof is not possible, they
have come to conclusions which are in substance recon-
cilable with the results of subsequent criticism. Views
similar to those of Townson and Conder are advocated
by the writer of an article in the “Edinburgh Review;”
Dr. Townson's theory is fully stated with great clear-
ness in the “Quarterly Review,”* from which we give
the following pertinent extracts. “Dr. Townson's theory
is this, that the four Gospels have been almost invariably
Fifth or
Union
Hypo-
thesis of
the origin
of the
Gospels.
* “Lit. Hist. New Test.,” 1850; * “Edinburgh Review,” Vol.
Townson’s “Discourses on the CXLI. pp. 493–5oo; “Quarterly
Gospels,” 1778, in his Works, Two Review,” Vol. XLIV. p. 440.
Vols. 8vo, 181o.
DR. TOWNSON ON THE GOSPELS. 36g
placed, from the earliest times, in the order in which
they were originally published. Again, the progress of Dr. Town-
Christianity was this (the history of it given in the Acts ††
of the Apostles, were there no other written, testifies as
much): it began with the Jews, who were the first
Christian congregation; it proceeded to a mixed society,
consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who were the next;
and it ended with a body composed of Gentiles chiefly,
or altogether. Let us, then, observe whether the his-
torical order of the Gospels does not tally with the
historical progress of the cause which the Gospels
advocate, deducing our argument from internal evidence
only. Now, ST. MATTHEW, as compared with St. Mark,
writes as though he was living in Judaea, amongst people
who knew all the Jewish customs just as well as himself;
who had the Temple before their eyes, and the offerings
made in it; to whom the phraseology, the geography,
and the local peculiarities of the Holy Land were per-
fectly familiar; above all, who partook of the Jewish
expectations of a Messiah, and understood the numerous
prophecies which were thought to relate to Him ; for to
them St. Matthew points the more frequently than the
other Evangelists, and, indeed, makes it a very primary
object to develop the prophetical Christ in Jesus of
Nazareth. ST. MARK makes much more limited de-
mands upon his reader's foreknowledge of this kind ; he
explains where St. Matthew is silent, and he accommo-
dates—as it would seem—the narrative of the latter, in
very many instances, to a different audience. . . . . The
changes to which texts in St. Matthew are subjected,
when they reappear in St. Mark, are of a kind to show
no less that he made them in accommodation to the
Gentiles, than that he wrote after St. Matthew, . . . . and
for a new assembly consisting both of Jews and Gentiles.
B B
370 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
The
“Edin- .
burgh
Review.”
. . . . But as years rolled on after the ascension of our
Lord, the Church waxed more and more Gentile in its
members; whilst by internal evidence we determine
ST. LUKE to have written after St. Mark, by internal
evidence we determine him to have written chiefly, if not
altogether, for a Gentile community. Thus, while St.
Matthew traces up the genealogy of our Lord to David,
(through David to Abraham), St. Luke goes on to
Adam—the one being the Evangelist of the Jews, the
other of all mankind. St. Luke marks the date of the
Saviour's birth and of John's preaching by the reigns of
the Roman Emperors; he speaks with peculiar accuracy
and frequency of the ejection of unclean spirits, the gods
of the heathen ; he purposely waives an appeal to the
Jewish law, where another Evangelist has introduced it
(compare Luke vi. 31 and Matthew vii. I2; Luke xi. 42
and Matthew xxiii. 23); he sinks in his narrative cir-
cumstances which would have no interest for the
Gentiles,” &c.
8. The able writer in the “Edinburgh Review” l is
in substantial accordance with Dr. Townson, as will
appear from the summary of “all that has been brought
together relating to the literary condition of the Church
at the middle of the second century.” Those results are
as follows: “The three Synoptical Gospels . . . were not
only extant but in public use in different sections of the
Church at that time : they were, however, all considered
as only one history—one ‘Gospel 'under various aspects;
the name given to them was simply “Memoirs?—material
for history, as we should say—and they were not regarded
as orderly and regular biographies or ‘Lives of Christ.”
ST. MATTHEW was the Palestinian version of that
narrative. It was written in the current tongue of the
* “Edinburgh Review,” Vol. CXLI. pp. 493–501.
GRESWELL ON THE GOSPELS. 371
East, Syro-Chaldee, and was attributed to this obscure
Apostle, the ex-taxgatherer, because (no doubt) he
really wrote it, and thus applied for the Church’s benefit
his previously acquired skill with paper and ink. The
many private translations of the work seem to have
slightly varied in detail. . . . As to that particular recen-
sion of it that has come down to us, it is stamped with
the unanimous approval of the Church only twenty-
five years later on. . . . ST. MARK is the Roman form
of the same story. It has accordingly very much in
common with St. Matthew, is very full of Latinisms,
and was apparently one of the two Gospels read publicly
in the churches at Rome in Justin Martyr's time. ST.
LUKE was the Pauline version of the same fundamental
narrative. It was current only in churches where St.
Paul's name was held in honour, and it was no doubt
the work of that otherwise obscure follower and medical
attendant on St. Paul to whom it has always been
attributed. It belonged, therefore, especially to the
Greek Christians, and was read (no doubt with slight
variations) in the churches of Achaia, Macedonia, and
Asia Minor.” The same view of the order and character
of the Gospels is taken by Greswell in his learned
“Dissertation on the Principles and Arrangements of a
Harmony of the Gospels,” four vols. 8vo, 1830–1834.
The “fundamental” principle of his work (the Harmony)
is stated in the following propositions: (1) “That the
three last Gospels are regular compositions; (2) That St.
Matthew's Gospel is partly regular and partly irregular;
(3) That each of the Gospels was written in the order
in which it stood ; (4) That the Gospels last written in
any instance were supplementary to the prior.”
9. On this hypothesis of the acquaintance of the
- * Greswell, Vol. I. p. 13.
Dr.
Greswell.
B B 2
372 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
writers of the second and third Gospels with the pre-
ceding one, and the supplementary character of the
Inspira- latter to the former, we refer to the Gospels in their
'é.tº human element, especially. As Divinely inspired, ac-
cording to the promise given (John xiv. I6, 17, 26, xv.
26, xvi. I2–15), the writers rise above the position of
ordinary human fallible witnesses. Their testimony is
one and the same, not of man merely, but of the Holy
Spirit. Their own individuality and independency as
Inuman beings is noticeable in the supplementary facts,
and prudent modifications of phraseology, to meet the
various classes for whose use and thought they were
particularly written. They do not contradict or correct
one another ; their apparent differences arise out of each
possessing a separate knowledge of minor facts and
circumstances, and so telling the story each in his own
way, and not as the mere copyist of his predecessor.
To suppose that all the three first Evangelists were
unacquainted with the Gospels of one another, appears
to be an assumption which has obtained currency from
the supposed advantage of considering the Evangelists
as separate and independent witnesses of the facts and
truths of the Gospel history. This witness is not looked
for from them. The Church looks to the one testimony
of the Holy Spirit in the Synoptics and in the Gospel
Indica- of John—a fourfold narrative, but the one testimony. It
*:::::: is, nevertheless, pleasing to contemplate the human
of the feeling in the writers of the Gospels. There is some
#º reason to believe that each of the four Evangelists has
their, ventured to insert into his Gospel a single story, a mere
several cº * º e ©
Gospels, hint of his own personality: Matthew, in the publican,
whom Jesus called from the receipt of custom (Matthew
ix. 9); Mark, in the young man who left his sindon (linen
* Nares' “Veracity of the Evangelists.”
DR. E. A. ABBOTT. 373
robe) in the hands of the guard (Mark xiv. 51, 52);
Luke, in the unnamed disciple who accompanied Cleopas
to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. I3); and john, in the Apostle
whom Jesus loved (John xxi. 20)."
IO. Before concluding these remarks on the origin
and composition of the Synoptical Gospels, it may be
desirable to give the latest views of the position of the
Higher Criticism, presented by the writer of the article
“Gospels” in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica:”* “The truth
is, that the question of oral or documentary sources is
not to be settled without a great deal more of labour
and of judgment than the subject has hitherto received.
For a statement of the oral hypothesis, which is generally
adopted by English scholars, the reader is referred to
Westcott's ‘Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 161—208.
It has been pointed out, however, by Dr. Sanday
(‘Academy, September 21, 1878), that there has been
of late an increasing tendency in the three theories—the
Tübingen, or Adaptation theory; the Documentary
Mark theory; the Oral Tradition theory—to approxi-
mate to each other; so that the Tendency theory has
given less weight to dogmatic tendencies, and more
weight to literary considerations. The Documentary
Mark theory allows the previous influence of tradition,
only stipulating for some lost documentary links between
the oral tradition and our Mark, while the Oral theory
approaches to the Documentary Mark theory in assuming
that the oral Gospel is represented most nearly by our
present Mark. ‘Nevertheless,’ says Dr. Sanday,
* between the two last theories (for the Tübingen theory
may be left out of account) the struggle has yet to come.
The division between them is almost national. In
J it Expositor,” by Dr. Cox, Vol. * “Encyclopaedia Britannica,”
I. p. 436. article “Gospels,” Vol. X. p. 842.
Dr. E. A.
Abbott.
374 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELs.
Germany, no one of any significance as a critic holds the
oral theory. In England, none of our prominent writers
hold anything else. France is divided : Godet ranges
himself on the side most popular in England; Réville
was an early supporter of a view like that which is
gaining the ascendency in Germany, and the same is
substantially adopted by M. Renan.' . . . Nevertheless,
it will probably be hereafter found that the phenomena
of our present Synoptists are due, not to one, but to all
of the causes advocated by the various disputants of
the eighteenth century. Traditions, documents, theo-
logical tendencies, literary modifications, misunderstand-
ings of metaphorical parables, misunderstandings of
eucharistic language, misunderstandings of spiritual
language—all these causes will be found to have con-
tributed to produce the present Synoptic result; and
it will not improbably be found, as Dr. Sanday shrewdly
suggests, that early documents have been much more
modified, and early traditions much less modified, than
modern associations might have led us to suppose.
Future investigations will receive a considerable stimulus
and help as soon as a harmony of the Synoptists, show-
ing ‘The TripleTradition, as well as ‘The DoubleTradition,”
becomes a recognised text-book for all students of the
Gospels.” The reference to ‘The Double Tradition’ is to the
notion (to which reference has already been made) of the
writer, “that before the time of Matthew and Luke, a
document containing words of the Lord had existed long
enough, and had acquired authority enough, to induce
two editors, or writers of Gospels (Matthew and Luke),
apparently representing different schools of thought,
and writing for different Churches, to borrow from it
independently.”! We rather think that the fertility of
* “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” article “Gospels,” Vol. X. p. 8or.
FURTHER THEORIES UNNECESSARY. 375
the critical imagination is already well-nigh exhausted,
and that a future succession of new theories on the
origin of the Gospels is problematical. But, whether or
not, the indications of the failure of interest on the part
of critics and theologians in these barren speculations is
evident; and future attempts in this direction are likely
to be received with indifference.
II. Alford, Schaff, and many other orthodox critics,
think that it is “the most natural hypothesis,” to suppose
that every one of the three Evangelists were unacquainted
with each other's writings. On the supposition that these
three Gospels were written so late as the date assumed
by Dr. Schaff, such ignorance is possible. But if
Matthew, as there is every reason to suppose, wrote
his Syro-Chaldaic Gospel within twelve years after the
ascension, and if Mark and Luke wrote their Gospels.
during or soon after the imprisonment of Paul at Rome,
then the hypothesis appears most unnatural. The fact of
this acquaintance or the contrary, cannot be proved ; it
is a question of mere probability. We know that they
were independent witnesses, and had in view the benefit
of particular classes in the Jewish and Gentile societies,
and that most remarkably they do in fact supplement
each other. The reader can choose between the complex
theories of the Higher Criticism, and the more natural
hypothesis of Dr. Townson.
376 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Matthew
the same
as Levi.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE SYNOPTICAL Gospels.
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
I. Matthew, called the Publican (Matt. x. 3), is un-
doubtedly the same as Levi, mentioned in Mark. ii. I4,
Luke v. 27 ; but, in the opinion of Heracleon, Origen,
Grotius, Michaelis, Sieffert, Ewald, Keim, and Grimm, two
different persons are there referred to. By Mark he is
called the son of Alphaeus, and as this was the name of the
father of James the Less, the supposition of the identity
of this Alphaeus with the Clopas (Cleophas) of John
xix. 25, and the Cleopas mentioned in Luke xxiv. I8,
has been entertained by many. But this, like the true
relations of the brethren of our Lord, the Jameses and
the Marys, cannot be ascertained, and must remain
matters of conjecture, as particulars omitted, because
not necessary to mention, at the time the Gospels were
written, when the parties were well known. We in the
nineteenth century remain ignorant of these precise
relationships, because the Christians of the first half of
the first century needed no information on these points.
Incidentally, this absence of all explanation is one addi-
tional proof of the early date of the Synoptical Gospels.
Of the subsequent history of Matthew we know nothing,
beyond the traditions alluded to in the previous chapter.
Faustus, the Manichaean bishop (fourth century), is the
only writer opposed to the authorship of Matthew,
because in the Gospel the writer calls him by name, as
MAT THEW’S HEBREW GOSPEL. 377
if he were a distinct person, different from the writer—
but this is a childish objection. Papias, according to
Eusebius, speaks of Matthew as the author of a Gospel
in Hebrew, containing the Aoya, which the old scholars
understood to mean the life of Christ; but in modern
times, Schleiermacher, Lachmann, Credner, Weisse, Wie-
sler, Ewald, Meyer, and Holtzmann, explain the word
as meaning simply a collection of Christ's discourses; but
this is not its meaning in classical or Hellenistic Greek (see
Acts vii. 38; Romans ii. 2; Hebrews v. I2; I Pet. iv. II.)
2. The Gospel of Matthew which appears in our A Gospel
Canonical New Testament is written in Greek ; but the º:
almost unanimous opinion of antiquity, up to the six-
teenth century, was in favour of an original Gospel in
Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaean), of which the present Greek is
a translation. Since then the very existence of a
Hebrew Gospel has been denied. The discussion of
these questions occupies some hundreds of pages in the
writings of modern critics, for instance, S. Davidson,
Bleek, Meyer, and others. The arguments of the advo-
cates of each opinion fail to leave a decided conviction,
and no conclusion is satisfactory. At present there is a
disposition on the part of the learned to believe—(1) That
there was a Hebrew Gospel by Matthew, written at
a very early period, say 37 A.D. (2) That this was fol-
lowed by an original Gospel in Greek, about 60 A.D.;
and (3) That as the Hebrew Christian Church disap-
peared, as no longer possessing a distinct organisation,
the Hebrew Gospel was lost. There is a parallel case
in the history of Josephus of the “Jewish Wars,” which
was originally written both in Hebrew and Greek; the
Hebrew has perished, the Greek remains, as in the case
of the Gospel of Matthew. The importance attached to
this comparatively unimportant matter may be seen by
378 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
the following list of the leading advocates on each side
in this controversy, which we give in alphabetical order,
premising, however, that the agreement of these authors
is in every case a general one, with specified qualifi-
cations and minute distinctions common to all critics.
Advocates A.—On the side of a Hebrew original : Alber, Baur,
Hºw Bellarmine, Bertholdt, Calmet, Campbell, Cassant, Cave,
original. Chrysostom, Clarke (A.), Corrodi, Cyril, Davidson (S.),
Du Pin, Ebrard, Eichhorn, Epiphanius, Gratz, Grawitz,
Greswell, Grotius, Guder, Guericke, Hammond, Har-
wood, Hanlein, Horne (T. H.), Jerome, John (the Pres-
byter), Irenaeus, Klener, Kuinóel, Lange, Luthardt,
Marsh, Michaelis, Mill, Olshausen, Owen, Origen, Papias,
Pritius, Schmidt, Sieffert, Simon, Story, Thiersch, Tho-
luck, Tillemont, Tomline, Tregelles, Walton, Weisse,
Westcott, and Ziegler.
For a B.—On the side of a Greek original : Alford, Basnage,
Greek, BeauSobre, Beza, Bleek, Burslav, Cajetan, Calov, Calvin,
original. Credner, Crusius, De Wette, Delitzsch, Edelmann,
Erasmus, Fabricius, Flacius, Fritzsche, Gerhard, Hales,
Hailes, Hewlett, Hey, Hilgenfield, Hoffmann, Holtz-
mann, Hug, Jones (J.), Jortin, Keim, Kostlin, Kuhn,
Lardner, Le Clerc, Lightfoot (J.), Masch. Majus, Molden-
hauer, Neudecker, Paraeus, Paulus, Pfeiffer, Ritsch,
Rumpaeus, Schott, Schubert, Theile, Tischendorff, Volk-
mar, Visir, Wetstein, and Whitby.
For a C.—On the side of both a Hebrew and Greek original:
a.º. Benson (Dr.), Cleaver (Bishop),Gleig (Bishop), Hey, Kitto,
original. Lee (W.), Meyer, Thiersch, Dr. Townson, and Whitby.
3. Dr. Townson's reasons for supporting the opinion of
two originals, express the general opinion of our day.
He thinks that there seems to be more reasons for
allowing two originals, than for contending for either ;
the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for the He-
ORIGIN OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 379
brew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek."
The classification of authorities in the preceding para-
graphs is not absolutely correct to the letter, but to be
understood with many qualifications; for instance,
Klener, Siefferi, Schleiermacher, Lachmann, Weisse, Nean-
der, Schneckenberger, Credner, Kern, Schott, and others,
advocated (with some minor differences in detail) the
theory of an Aramean Gospel, containing our Lord's
discourses, as the basis of Matthew's Greek Gospel, in
connection, however, with various opinions, more or less
differing from the views of orthodox Churches. The
opinion of Canon Cureton, that a version in Syriac of
St. Matthew, published by him, is more ancient than the
Peshito, and in the main identical with the original
Aramaic, has not met with general acceptance.
4. With respect to the origin and sources of Matthew's
Gospel, the opinions of the critics are manifold : Schultz
denies that Matthew is the author, so also the Straussian
School, with Bruno Baur and Gfrörer, declare it to be
unhistorical ; but Heydenreich, Theile, Fritzsche, Kleiner,
Sieffert, Schleiermacher, Lachmann, Weisse, Neander,
Schneckenberger, Credner, Kern, Schott, Olshausen, Guericke,
Ebrard, Heine, support the generally received opinion,
but with a great variety in their views respecting points
of importance. (2) Bleek thinks “that our Greek
Gospel of Matthew originated in a pseudo-Greek Gospel,
and that So far from being based upon an Aramean
“Gospel of the Hebrews, it was the original from which
that Gospel was taken. It was not written by Matthew
as supposed, as it differs from John in the date of the
crucifixion, and is silent respecting our Lord's earlier
journey to Jerusalem, and other important facts. It
takes a stand lower than John, but still ranks side by
* Dr. Townson’s “Discourses,” Vol. I. p. 31, 1810.
Bleek.
38o THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Meyer.
Baur.
side with Luke, and remains a trustworthy and most
valuable spring from which Christian faith may draw,
and by which it may be strengthened and confirmed.”
(3) Meyer thinks that “in the form in which the Gospel
of Matthew now exists, it cannot have proceeded from
the hands of the Apostle Matthew. . . . . Nevertheless, it
must be regarded as a fact, placed beyond all doubt by
the traditions of the Church, that our Matthew is a
Greek translation of an original Hebrew (Aramean)
writing, clothed with the Apostolic authority of Matthew
as the author, so ancient and unanimous is this tradition.
. . . . That the original Hebrew writing, however, from
which our present Matthew proceeded, through being
translated into Greek, must, apart from the language,
have been in contents and form, in whole and in part,
substantially the same as our Greek translation; . . . .
that the Apostle Matthew must have had in the Hebrew
composition so substantial a part, that it could on suffi-
cient historical grounds vindicate its claim to be regarded,
in the ancient and universal traditions of the Church, as
the Hebrew Gospel according to Matthew." . . . . Finally,
Meyer concludes that the share of the Apostle in the
Gospel which bears his name is confined to a collection
of the discourses of our Lord, according to Papias in
Hebrew, and so far the book as a whole cannot be called
Apostolic in the narrow sense, but already a secondary
narrative according to Baur.” Meyer is evidently led to
this depreciation of Matthew, like Bleek, by the apparent
difference in the time assigned to the celebration of the
Last Supper, and in the date of the crucifixion, from that
given by John. (4) Baur considers that there was an
original Matthew, written from a strictly Jewish point of
view, reflecting the primitive Christianity of the twelve
* Meyer’s “Matthew,” Vol. I. pp. 4, 16, 17.
CONTRADICTORY CRITICISMS. 381
Apostles and of the Church at Jerusalem—this, the basis
of our Matthew, about A.D. 130–134. (5) Hilgenfield
“denies the opposition, which Baur supposes to have
existed, between the original Matthew and Luke which
preceded ours. In the bosom of the primitive Apostolic
Catholic Church, there was an intense development at
work from the first century in a Pauline direction, the
result of such events as the fall of Jerusalem, and the
increase of Gentile converts; and that this is proved by
the numerous universalist passages in our Canonical
Matthew, which witness to the changes in the original
Matthew; this was written 70–80 A.D.” (6) Volkmar
places Mark before Luke, as the first Gospel, and Mat-
thew as a result from both. (7) Weiss thinks that there
were—an Apostolical Matthew, then Mark, and
lastly, our Matthew, compiled from the Apostolical
Matthew and Mark. (8) Klostermann thinks that
Matthew was first in order, that Mark copied from
it, and Luke from Mark. (9) Abbott, in the article
“Gospels” in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” 1 places
Matthew after Mark. We cannot help quoting the
following remarks, bearing upon all the various and
opposing opinions of the critics upon this and the other
Gospels. “Criticism is of course possible on all these
points; it may make work for itself anywhere ; nay, its
work may be useful anywhere, to a certain degree. But
perhaps one of its uses is to teach us what it cannot do;
and here its witness agrees not together. According to
divers writers, Matthew is the oldest writer and not the
oldest; a Greek writer but a Hebrew ; his work is the
foundation of the Gospel of Mark, but drawn from that
simpler record; it is the work of an Apostle, but there
are positive reasons against regarding it from an
* Ninth Edition.
Hilgen-
field.
Volkmar.
Weiss.
Kloster-
IIla III].
Abbott.
382 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Apostle's hand. Its line of teaching is clear and consis-
tent; yet with skilful knife we can dissect out the
various fibres of tendencies, which make it so manifold
and so little consistent with itself. Its unity is self-
evident; and yet it never continued for two decades the
same, so active were the editors in making it afresh. Its
inconsistencies with the other Gospels start out to care-
less eyes; and yet many hands were constantly at work
bringing one Gospel to bear on another, and altering
each by the light of the other. These being the results,
we have a right to suspect the method; it is even allowable
to doubt whether there can be any true principles on which
results so discordant can be based ” (Archbishop Thomp-
son's “General Introduction to the Gospels”). In all
probability the Hebrew Gospel was written early, A.D.
37; the Greek later, A.D. 60—thus reconciling the
opinions of the learned on this question.”
#. 5. It is singular that a reconciliation of Matthew and
thesºnoſ. the Synoptists with 3 ohn in reference to the Lord's Supper,
; Yº. which Meyer and Bleek deemed impossible, and which, in
the date of their opinion, the greatest writers, including Augustine,
§: Osiander, Chemnitz, Gorhard, Calvin, Bengel, Stoor,
Caspari. Wiesler, &c., had in vain attempted to reconcile, should
be regarded by Caspari (a German critic, 1868) and by
some other moderns, as a comparatively trifling matter.
(1) Caspari asserts that the Synoptists and St. John are
perfectly agreed in the date as well as in the fact of the
Lord's Supper, but not in the phraseology. In his
opinion the Lord's Supper was not eaten by our Lord
and His disciples, but simply the Magoth, i.e., the un-
leavened bread, lettuce, &c., not a word being said in the
* “Speaker's Commentary on the * Tregelles in Horne, Introduc-
New Testament,” Vol. I. p. xxxi, tion, Vol. IV. p. 416. -
Introduction.
THE SYNOPTISTS AND 9:OHN. 383
Synoptics of a lamb, or the buying or killing an offering,
or the eating of it; this meal was the Passover as ob-
served by all Israelites without distinction, when most
convenient to them. In case of the lamb being pre-
sented to and slain by the priest in the Sanctuary, then
the eating of the lamb was necessary; but our Saviour
had a special reason for eating the Magoth : “With de-
sire / have desired to eat this Passover with you before I
suffer" (Luke xxii. 15): as He knew that otherwise His
death would prevent. The eating of the Paschal lamb
took place on 15th Nisan, A.D. 30 ; Our Lord partook of
the Magoth on Thursday evening, on which the I4th
Nisan began ; He was seized and tried early on the
morning of Friday, and crucified the same day before the
evening, when the I5th Nisan began." (2) De Wette,
Meyer, Neander, Greswell, Alford and Westcott think
that the Passover eaten by our Lord and His disciples
was not the ordinary Jewish Passover, but a meal par-
taken of by them on the previous evening, at which time
the I4th Nisan had already commenced. This meal was
intended to supersede the Jewish festival by one of far
deeper and diviner signification. So, also, Farrar in his
“Life of Christ.”* (3) }. Brown McClellan, with Heng-
stenberg, Tholuck, Wiesler, Lange, Robinson, Kitto, &c.,
thinks that the Paschal supper was eaten by our Lord
and His disciples on the evening of Thursday, 14th
Nisan, on which the 15th of Nisan began, and that our
Lord was crucified on the same 15th Nisan, or Friday,
A.D. 30. He thinks that the references in John, chaps.
xviii. 28 and xix. I4, which seem at first sight to imply
that the Passover was not yet eaten, refer to the
De Wette,
&c.
McClellan
Chaggigal or Peace Offerings, which were originally
* Chronological Introduction to * Farrar, Vol. II, pp. 277–482.
“Life of Christ,” pp. 492, 493. -
384 - THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
George
Brown.
Differ-
€1) CeS
between
the
Synoptics
and John
as to the
hour of
the Cruci-
fixion.
killed and eaten with the Paschal lamb, but which had
latterly been deferred to the next day. For the elabo-
rate calculations by which McClellan supports this
view, we must refer to his “New Testament.”” (4) The
Rev. George Brown, in an article in the “British and
Foreign Evangelical Review,” suggests a reconciliation
between the language of John in the chapters just
referred to, by an extension of the meaning of the word
pdryev, which, though in the majority of cases is used in
the sense of “to eat food,” may in a secondary sense be
applied to the observance of a festival in which eating of
food formed an important part. He believes that our
Lord and His disciples ate the Passover.”
6. With respect to the apparent contradiction as to
the time of the Crucifixion. All the Synoptists agree
that the great darkness commenced in the sixth hour.
Matt. xxviii. 45 ; Mark xv. 33; Luke xxiii. 44; Mark
xv. 25, state that “it zwas the third hour, and they
crucifted Him.” John says, xix. I4, “about the sixth
Žour.” It is highly probable that the Evangelists Mark
and John, referring to the two broad divisions of the
day among the Jews, i.e., the third and the sixth hour
(with us, nine and twelve), refer to some period not
exactly given between the two extremes, the one taking
the earlier, and the other the later term. John says
about the sixth hour; the time was probably equivalent.
Bengel, Robinson, Wilkinson, Webster, Hales, think that
the text of John should be corrected from sixth to third;
other critics would alter Mark from the third to the
sixth, as Jerome and Caspari. Some again, as Olshausen,
Hug, Tholuck, Wordsworth, and Turner, think that the
Evangelist John has adopted the Roman mode of
* McClellan’s “Gospels,” Vol. I. * “British and Foreign Evan-
pp. 473-494, gelical Review,” October, 1879.
FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF MATTHEW. 385
reckoning from midnight, but this would not agree with
Mark's third hour from sunrise, according to the Jewish
computation. Alford, cautiously, while agreeing with
Mark as the most consistent with the whole narrative,
imagines that John has adopted a different mode of
calculating time.
7. The genuineness of the two first chapters of Mat- §.
thew's Gospel, which contain the account of the mira- first and
culous conception and birth of Christ, have been *::::::
objected to by critics of the Socinian school ; the objec- Mattthew.
tion originated in dogmatic considerations. The whole
controversy is given fully and dispassionately in Dr. S.
Davidson’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” in
Horne,” and in Archbishop Magee's “Dissertation on
the Atonement, &c.”” The writers on both sides in this
controversy are numerous. Against the genuineness of
these chapters, Williams, who first began the discussion
in 1771 in his “Free Inquiry,” Stroth, Hess, Ammon
Eichhorn, Schleiermacher, Bertholdt, AVorton, and Priestley,
who all of them, “if they do not absolutely reject,
throw out doubts at least of the Apostolic origin of
these two chapters.” In favour of the genuineness of
these chapters we have Fleming, in his reply to Wil-
liams, 1771, Velthusen, Theiss, Rau, G. P. Schmidt,
Piper, Griesbach, Schubert, Miller, Hug, Credner, Paulus,
Fritzsche, Kuimóel. The summary of the results of the
evidence, taken from Davidson and Meyer, is thus given
in Horne's “Introduction.” “The commencement of
the third chapter of Matthew's Gospel shows that some-
thing had preceded analogous to what we read in
chapter ii. All the ancient MSS. now extant, as well
* Davidson’s “Introduction to IV. pp. 421 — 427. Edition
the New Testament,” Vol. I. pp. 1856.
III, I27. * Magee's “Atonement,” Vol. II.
* Horne's “Introduction,” Vol. pp. 437–454.
C C
386 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
*
as all the ancient versions (some of which are of extreme
antiquity), contain the first chapters. Sºustin Martyr,
Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria, who all flourished
in the second century, have referred to them, as also
have Irenaeus, and all the Fathers who immediately suc-
ceeded him, and whose testimony is undisputed. Celsus,
The Ge-
nealogies.
Porphyry, and julian, the most acute and inveterate
enemies of the Gospels in the second, third, and fourth
centuries, likewise admitted them. Thus we have ‘one
continued and unbroken series of testimony,’ of Christians
as well as of persons inimical to Christianity, from the
days of the Apostles to the present time; and in oppo-
sition to this, we find only a vague report of the state
of a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, said to be
received amongst us as obscure and unrecognised de-
scriptions of Hebrew Christians, who are admitted, even
by the very writers who claim the support of their
authenticity, to have mutilated the copy which they pos-
sess by removing the genealogy. The doxology, chapter
vi. end of verse 16, is regarded as an interpolation.”
8. The Genealogical Table in the first chapter of Mat-
thew traces the descent of our Lord from Abraham
through David, but differs materially from that which is
given in Luke's Gospel (chap. iii. 23 to 38), which carries
the pedigree up to the first man, Adam, and apparently
through another line. In Matthew's pedigree Joseph
is the son of Jacob, the son of Matthan. In Luke's he
is the son of Heli, the son of Matthat (i.e., Matthan).
Joseph cannot be the son naturally both of Heli and
Jacob. In one case he must be the son legally.
Various explanations are advocated by learned men,
some of them most elaborate, the result of much
research. The first, which supposes both genealogies to
be those of Joseph, accounts for his double parentage
GENEA LOGIES IN MA TTHEW AND LUKE. 387
by the supposition of a levirate marriage (Deut.xxv. 5, 6),
Jacob and Heli being the sons of the same mother by dif-
erent fathers—the latter being the legal father of Joseph,
the former his real father by marriage with the half-
brother's widow. This view is advocated, among others,
by the Rev. J. B. M'Clellan." The second, which supposes
that Matthew intended to give the table of royal succes-
Sion and heirship to the throne of David, while Luke
gives the actual descent. If this hypothesis be carried
through the tables, we must suppose that the royal line
through Solomon became extinct in Jeconias, whence the
right of succession passed to the younger branch in the
collateral line of Nathan, in Salathiel ; and again, that the
elder branch of Zorobabel's posterity became extinct in
Eleazer or in Jacob, when the succession passed to the
younger branch in Matthan, or in Joseph, the son of
Heli. This view is maintained in part by Grotius, and
recently by Dr. Mill, and is carried out more fully by
Bishop Lord A. Hervey.” According to Bishop Hervey's
theory, Joseph is the natural son of Heli; Mary is his
Cousin, the daughter of Jacob—the only daughter—and
her child Jesus the rightful heir to the throne of David.
With this view Bishop Ellicott and Wordsworth and
Alford concur. The third is that of Dr. Peter Holmes
(given in Kitto’s “Encyclopaedia of Biblical Literature),”s
to the effect that in Matthew we have the genealogy
of Joseph, and in Luke that of Mary, the daughter of
Heli, who became the wife of Joseph, the reputed father
of our Lord. These theories are interesting, even if not
convincing. The Jews of the time of the Evangelists,
when the genealogical tables were extant and accessible,
* “Gospels,” Vol. I. p. 417. * Kitto’s “Biblical Encyclo-
* “Speaker’s Commentary on paedia,” Vol. II. pp. 92—IOI.
the New Testament,” Vol. I. p. 2.
C C 2
388 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Mark’s
Gospel.
understood and could reconcile difficulties which we can
only perceive, and they never attempted to deny that
Jesus was of the house of David by His mother Mary.
THE GOSPEL BY ST. MARK.
9. Maré, the Evangelist, has been generally identified
with the John Mark mentioned in Acts xii. 25, and the
John of Acts xiii. 5, 13, and the Mark mentioned in
Acts xv. 39 ; Colossians iv. Io; 2 Timothy iv. II :
Philemon verse 24 ; and I Peter v. 13. This identity is
disputed by Grotius, Calovius, Du Pin, Tillemont,
Schleiermacher, Campbell. Da Costa thinks that the
devout soldier of Acts x. 7 is the same person as the
Evangelist. With some probability he is considered to
be the “young man having a linen cloth about his
naked body,” who, on being laid hold of by those who
came to seize Jesus, “left the linen cloth (sindon) and
fled from them naked ” (Mark xiv. 51, 52); others, as
Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Bede, Bengel, Townson,
Greswell, Olshausen, Lange, Neander, Crediter, Hottinger,
Tholuck, and Stanley, imagine him to have been the son
of Peter in the ordinary sense of the term, taking literally
the expression, “Marcus, my son " (I Peter v. I3); but
this is contrary to the view of the early writers, Eusebius,
Origen, and Jerome. The general opinion first noticed
appears the most probable. Mark was the son of one
“Mary,” who lived in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 22), cousin of
Barnabas (Colossians iv. Io); he attended Paul and
Barnabas as their helper on their first journey, but
turned back at Perga (Acts xiii. 13, xii. 25), and was the
cause of a “sharp contention” (Acts xv. 36–40) between
Paul and Barnabas. The estrangement from Paul was
not permanent, for we find Mark with Paul during his
first imprisonment at Rome (Colossians iv. Io; Philemon
verse 24). Some time later he was with Peter at Babylon
MARK'S CONNECTION WITH PETER. 389
(I Peter v. I3). He appears to have been with Timothy
at Ephesus (2 Timothy iv. II), when Paul in his second
imprisonment expressed a desire to see him at Rome.
Here, according to a general tradition, he was afterwards
with Peter as his “interpreter,” and compiled his Gospel
under the direction of Peter (A.D. 60 to 63).
IO. By the unanimous voice of antiquity, the Gospel
according to Maré is ascribed to the Evangelist whose
name it bears. Papias, on the testimony of John the
Elder, states that “Mark, being Peter's interpreter, wrote
exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order
wherein the things were spoken and done by the Lord,
for he was not himself a hearer or follower of our Lord ;
but he afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who gave
instructions as Suited the occasion, but not as a regular
history of our Lord's teaching.” Hence it has been
called the Gospel of Peter by some, and by others
regarded as taken from an earlier Gospel by Peter, or a
mere recasting of Matthew in the interest of the Petrine
party in the Churches. Clement of Alexandria thinks it
was written at Rome by the request of Peter's hearers,
who desired a permanent record of his teaching.
Chrysostom thinks it was written at Alexandria, and a
recent writer, Storr, fixes upon Antioch, but these are
mere conjectures. That the Gospel was written under
the guidance of Peter, although doubted by Alford, is
highly probable. On this ground we may account for
the omission of many facts creditable to Peter; on the
other hand, reproofs of our Lord addressed to Peter are
inserted (chap. viii. 33), while the blessing pronounced
upon him (Matt. xvi. I7—2O) is omitted : there is a full
and circumstantial account of Peter's denial (Mark xiv.
66–72), but the bitterness of his repentance is not dwelt
upon ; yet with all his modest reticence he could not
Papias.
390 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Mark not
a mere
copyist.
Da Costa.
Wescott.
–4°
keep back the comforting message from the sepulchre,
“tell His disciples and Peter” (chap. xvi. 7), the proof
of the Saviour's special condonation of Peter's cowardly
denial. The date of the Gospel cannot be later than
63 A.D., but is placed at 49 A.D. by others.
II. Great injustice has been done to the Gospel by
Mark by an opinion carelessly expressed by St. Augustine
that he was a servile copyist of Matthew ; this opinion
has been adopted with some variety by Simon, Calmet,
Adler, Owen, Harwood, Koppe, Michaelis, Griesbach,
Saunier, Thiele, Strauss, Von Ammon, and others; but it
is inconsistent with the fact that Mark, while he omits
much that is important in Matthew, adds to our informa-
tion on many very interesting points. Certain passages
imply that the testimony is that of an eyewitness, of
even Peter himself, related by him in his preaching.
Among other remarks which abound in that most
striking illustration of the peculiarities of the Evangelical
histories in the work of Da Costa, “The Four Wit-
nesses,” we may quote one referring to this Evangelist:
“If any one desire to know an evangelical fact, not only
in its main features and grand results, but also in its
more minute and, so to speak, more graphic delineations,
he must betake himself to St. Mark.” That “in sub-
stance and style and treatment the Gospel of St. Mark
is essentially a transcript from life,” is the opinion of
Westcott, whose remarks are to the point. “The course
and the issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest
outline. If all other arguments against the mythic origin
of the Evangelical narrative were wanting, this new and
simple record, stamped with the most distinct impress of
independence and originality, totally unconnected with
the symbolism of the Old Dispensation, totally indepen-
* “Introduction to Gospels,” p. 344. -
THE HIGHER CRITICISM IN MARK. 391
dent of the deeper reasonings of the New, would be suffi-
cient to refute a theory subversive of all faith in history.”
I2. This Gospel was originally written in Greek, an
undoubted fact, though some Romish writers of high
repute—Baronius, Bellarmine, and Inchofer—have put in
a claim for the Latin language being that used by the
Evangelist. But it was written for the Gentile converts
at Rome, most of whom used the Greek language; for
their benefit were inserted explanations of Jewish topo-
graphy and of Hebrew expressions. Much of the
Higher Criticism on this Gospel is included in that
which has already come under our notice in the chapters
On the Canon and Synoptists. The more recent criticism
is, like the preceding, remarkable for its contradictions.
(1) Keim thinks that Mark aims at uniting Matthew
and Luke. Weisse and Volkmar have each devoted a
volume to this Gospel, and arrive at different and oppo-
site conclusions. (2) Volkmar considers Mark to be
the first of the Gospels, and the source of the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke ; he regards it as Pauline in its
spirit, and as specially aimed to counteract the Judaic
tendency of the Apocalypse, which was opposed to Paul;
he fixes the date at A.D. 68. (3) Hilgenfield, who places
Mark after Matthew, contradicts these opinions of Volk-
anar, and regards the Gospel by Mark as an attempt to
harmonise the two principles represented by Peter and
Paul, following the changed Gospel of Matthew, but
modified by the oral traditions of the Church of Rome
derived from Peter A.D. 100. (4) Herder, Storr, Wilke
Ewald, Reuss, Réville, Holtzmann, and Ritsch, consider
(with Volkmar) Mark to be the originator of the Synop-
tists. (5) Baur regards Mark as derived from Luke,
through Matthew as the fountain. (6) Köstlin, following
with additions Baur and Schwegler, has a very complex
The
Higher
Criticisms
on Mark.
392 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
theory to account for the origin of Mark's Gospel.
There were, first, the oldest Proto-Evangelion or Proto-
Mark; then, secondly, this last composed with the Xoyua.
of Matthew, preceded our Mark ; then, thirdly, a Gospel
of Peter which closely resembled the original proto-Mark;
after this, fourthly, Luke, to which all the preceding
helped ; fifthly, then our Mark by the help of Canonical
Matthew and Luke. (7) Rev. Dr. E. A. Abbott considers
Mark to be the earliest Gospel, “one proof of which is
the rudeness and even vulgarity of his Greek. He uses a
great number of words which are expressly forbidden by
the grammarian,” and which would have so “jarred upon
the ear of an educated Greek as almost to correspond to
our slang.” The reference is to certain words used by
Mark, some of which, however, are found in Luke ; and
these, on the authority of Phrynicus, are condemned as
anongrel Greek, words only bearable by Greek slaves and
freedmen who formed the first congregation of the Church
in Rome. (?) Now as Phrynicus lived in the time of
Aurelius and Commodus, A.D. I70–18O, and wrote to
point out the proper use of certain words and of certain
forms of words, as alone authorised by the writers of
pure Attic diction ; words which, to refined Atticeans,
might appear vulgar, might on the contrary be used by
those who spoke the common Greek universally used in
Greece, Italy, and the East. In the three generations
which had lived between Mark and Phrynicus, great
changes may take place in the use of particular words.
There are good English words used by all classes a
century ago which are now regarded as obsolete. We
cannot, therefore, receive Dr. Abbott's dicta from
Phrynicus as proving the vulgarity of Mark. In his
opinion Mark's Gospel is “inartistic and uncouth,” yet
“it has a unity derived from its natural simplicity
MARK'S LANGUAGE. 393
*-
and singlemindedness in recording whatever it records,
as it was delivered from the earliest sources in its
entirety.” As to the character of the Church at Rome,
the Epistle of Paul was certainly not addressed to ignorant,
uneducated persons. So much for the antagonistic
theories of the Higher Criticism. The natural result is a
conviction on the part of sober and independent thinkers,
who have no theory to support, that there is not sufficient
evidence in the records of Christian antiquity to justify
the fine wire-drawn conclusions of the learned. Common
Sense is every day bringing us to acquiesce in the old
traditions of the Churches on these points. That there
is much in the Gospel of Mark in common with Matthew,
and Something also only common to Mark and Luke,
Dr. Plumpire remarks,” may be accounted for naturally ; Dr. Plump-
in the case of Matthew, by the fact that the matter “
common to both, represents the substance of the infor-
mation generally known to the Jewish commentator
directly, or indirectly, under the teachings of Peter, the
Apostle of the Circumcision ; in the case of Luke we find
a natural and adequate explanation in the fact that the
two Evangelists were, at least at one time of their lives,
brought into contact with each other. Dr. Abbott has
failed to do justice to the graphic power of Mark, to
which, however, Dr. Edward Venables has called attention
in his article on “Mark” in Kitto’s “Encyclopaedia:”
“His Gospel is a rapid succession of vivid pictures,
loosely strung together, . . . . without much attempt
to bind them into a whole or give the events in their
natural sequence. This pictorial form is that which
especially characterises this Evangelist, as has been well
* “Encyclop. Brit.,” Vol, X., * Kitto’s “Encyclopaedia of Bib-
article “Gospels,” pp. 792, 802. lical Literature,” Vol. III. pp.
* “New Testament,” Cassell's 71, 72.
Edition, Vol. I. p. 4 to p. 191.
394. THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
said by Da Costa (quoted already in p. 390). This power
is especially apparent in all that concerns our Lord
Himself. Nowhere else are we permitted so clearly to
behold His very gesture and look—see His very position
—to read His feelings, and to hear His very words. It
is to St. Mark, also, that we are indebted for the record
of minute particulars of persons, places, times, and
number, which stamp on his narrative an impress of
authenticity.”
Disputed 13. Portions of Mark’s Gospel have been rejected by
Pº ‘some critics. (1) Chap. i. I—I3, have been objected to
Gospel by Reuss and others without any discernible reason,
as they are found in all the MSS. (2) Chap. xvi.
9—2O, which forms the concluding part of the narrative
in our Canonical edition, has occasioned much discus-
sion among the learned. The internal evidence is by
some considered decidedly against its genuineness, yet
this passage must have been added by some authority
recognised by the early Church, as it is found in many
MSS. and versions from the time of Irenaeus and Hippo-
lytus, and also in the Alexandrian MS. and in the
Syriac Version. Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor,
jerome (though not always), and others testify that this
passage is not found in the best copies. They are
omitted in the “Codex Vaticanus,” and in the “Sinaitic.”
The different sides taken by the learned prove the uncer-
tainty of the point in dispute.
(1) On the side of the non-genuineness of the verses we have
Michaelis, Teller, Bolton, Theiss, Griesbach, Bertholdt, Schul-
thess, Scholt, Henneberg, Fritzsche, Credner, Schultz, Hitzig,
Wieseler, Norton, Neudecker, Reuss, Ewald and Meyer.
(2) On the theory that they were added by some other
hand, authorised more or less, Alford, Westcott, Hort,
Bishop Lightfoot, and Tregelles.
LUKE'S GOSPEL. 395
(3) On the side of their genuineness—Osiander, Simon.
Fabricius, Glassius, Wolf, Mill, Bengel, Storr, Matthaei,
Paulus, Rosenmüller, Kuinöel, Hug, Eichhorn, Olshausen,
De Wette, Feilmoser, Water, Saunier, Guericke, Lange,
Scrivener, Stier, Ebrard, Archbishop Thomson, and Bishop
Wordsworth. The Rev. 3. Brown M'Clellan “unhesitat-
ingly and with entire conviction’’ retains the whole
section as genuine." It has been suggested with some
plausibility that the abrupt conclusion of this Gospel
(say the end, verse 8 of chap. xvi.) may be accounted
for from the sudden death of the Evangelist in the great
conflagration in the time of Nero, at Rome. This may
be true; the guess is fully as valuable as nineteen-
twentieths of the haphazard criticisms on this and other
of the sacred books.
THE GOSPEL BY ST. LUKE.
I4. Luke, “the beloved physician’” (Coll. iv. I4),
was probably a native of Antioch, a freedman of one
Theophilus, a wealthy and distinguished inhabitant of
that city; probably also of mixed parentage, but a Jew
in religious profession, before converted to Christianity
(Banage, Fabricius, Lardner), though Michaelis thinks he
was of Gentile parents, and Bolton that he was a prose-
lyte. }osiah Conder, in his excellent “Literary History
of the New Testament,”* identifies him with Silas, but
this conjecture has not met with acceptance, though
Kohbrief adopts it. Whether he was a disciple and eye-
witness of our Lord's miracles is a doubtful point.
Theophylact thinks him to have been the companion of
Cleopas in the memorable walk to Emmaus (Luke
xxiv. 13–35). Origen, Epiphanius, and Bishop Gleig
think that he was one of the seventy disciples. Cer-
tainly he was a companion of Paul (Acts xvi. 9—II,
* “Gospels,” Vol. I. p. 680. ” “Literary Hist, of the New Test.,” 8vo.
Luke.
396 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
xxi. I5—I'7). Tertullian assumes that he was one of
Paul's converts. We first hear of his joining Paul at
Troas (Acts xvi. 9): through life he was the companion
and fellow labourer with Paul, and is not without reason
supposed to be “the brother whose praise is in the Gospel
throughout all the Churches” (2 Cor. viii. I8). This
Gospel was probably written before Paul's liberation
from imprisonment at Rome.
I5. It is obvious that this Gospel was written origi-
nally in Greek, almost classical as to style, as we have
it, and mainly for the use of the Gentiles, from the geo-
graphical explanation as to localities in Palestine, which
no Israelite needed to be told. Abbott thinks that the
style, especially of passages which may be regarded as
translations from the Aramean, is excellent Greek—
differing from that of Mark, which was only suited to the
early Church (freemen and slaves). Very natural that
the “better Greek should in the prosperous days of the
Church be substituted for the worse.” The influence of
Paul upon the writer has been generally admitted. In a
quotation made by Paul (1 Timothy v. 18) the latter
part is found nowhere but in Luke's Gospel (x. 7), i.e.,
“The labourer is worthy of his hire.” Some think that by
the words “my Gospel,” mentioned in 2 Timothy ii. 8,
the Apostle refers to this Gospel of Luke, but the
passage admits of another interpretation. The reference
to the Census of Cyrenius, Luke ii. I, for some time
appeared irreconcilable with the statements of profane
chronology and history of those times, according to
which Cyrenius (Quirinus) did not become President of
Syria for ten years after the period specified by Luke.
Justin Martyr had stated thrice the fact as Luke had
stated it; but then he was a Christian l and supposed to
* “Encyclopædia Britannica,” Vol. X., article “Gospels,” p. 802.
CENS US OF CYRENIUS. 397
be anxious to justify the Gospel of Luke Zumpt has
recently brought to light the fact that Quirinus was at
the time Governor of Cilicia, to which the government of
Syria was at that time an appendage, thus justifying the
accuracy of the narrative. Within the last few years,
the Gospel by St. Luke has been the object of a
remarkable eulogy: Renan calls it “the most
beautiful book in existence,” owing to “the hearty
sympathy of the writer with the deep tenderness which
breathes in the words and acts” of our Saviour." The
first two chapters have been questioned, on the same
grounds as have influenced the Unitarian scholars to
reject the first and second chapters of Matthew. They
were left out of Marcion's Gospel, but have been
vindicated by the early Fathers, and by Lardner,
Nares, and others. So, also, chapter viii. 27–30 has
been regarded as an interpolation ; and chapter xxii.
27–30 omitted in many MSS., but without very
satisfactory evidence, as it is referred to by Irenaeus,
J. Martyr, and others, and received by Griesbach as
genuine.
I6. The opinions of sundry critics on the origin,
authority and sources of this Gospel are various.2
(1) “An Anonymous Saxon,” 1845, attributes the
Gospel to Paul, and considers it to be a tissue of false-
hoods, a pamphlet composed out of hatred of Peter and
the Twelve.
(2) Mayerhoff attributes the Gospel and the Acts,
when we occurs, to Timothy (1835).
(3) Schleiermacher considers Luke to be a mere com-
piler: the portion from chap. ix. 5 to xix. 48 he ascribes
to two distinct writings—the one a journal by a com-
panion of Jesus up to Jerusalem to the feast of Dedi-
* “Les Evangiles,” chap. xiii. * Godet, “Int. Luke.”
Critical
theories.
398 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Ewald.
cation, the other by a companion of Jesus to the feast of
the Passover.
(4) Marsh and Kuinóel regard chapters is. 51 to xviii.
I4 as a more ancient document, containing the precepts
of Jesus and other matter. So, also, Hilgenfield.
(5) Köstlin thinks that the basis of Luke is from
materials from Jewish and Samaritan sources.
(6) Keim ascribes Luke to a Jewish-Christian Gospel,
related to St. Matthew and also to St. Paul, especially
the account of the Last Supper.
(7) Ewald's theory is very complicated : he supposes
(a) a Gospel written by Philip the Evangelist in the
Aramean language ; (b) Matthew Aoyua or discourses;
(c) the proto-Marc, composed by the aid of the two pre-
ceding ; (d) a Gospel treating of certain critical points in
Our Lord's life, which he calls the Book of the Higher
History; (e) our Canonical Matthew, combining the
Aoyua of this Apostle, with all the other writings; (f)
(g) (h) three writings now lost—one of a familiar tender
character, another somewhat brusque and abrupt, the
Baur.
third containing the narrative of the infancy; lastly (i)
our Canonical Luke, composed by the aid of all the
preceding materials.
(8) Bleek refers both Matthew and Luke to a Greek
Gospel written in Galilee as the basis.
(9) Reuss, Réville, and Holtzmann think a proto-Marc
Gospel to be the origin of Luke and the other
Synoptics.
(IO) Baur makes Luke proceed from Matthew, re-
flecting the primitive Christianity of the Jewish Church
of the Twelve. In opposition to this original Matthew,
a Gospel of Luke altogether Pauline was written, which
was Marcion's Gospel, and from which proceeded our
Canonical Luke, which was the result of a revision
MARCION. 399
designed to harmonise it with the Jewish-Christian views
(I4O A.D.).
(II) Hilgenfield denies the opposition admitted by
Baur, between the original Matthew and Luke which
preceded ours. Luke proceeds from Matthew and
Mark, and takes a step forward in the Pauline direc-
tion. It was written before Marcion's time (A.D.
IOO—IIO). - -
(12) Marcion, Son of a Bishop of Pontus (A.D. I.40—
170), endeavoured to purify the Gospel from Jewish
elements ; was opposed to the Old Testament as not
being the revelation of the Supreme God, who had
revealed Himself in Christ. He believed Paul alone
nad understood Jesus. The only Gospel he received was
that of Luke, which he altered by the exclusion of all
passages which appeared contrary to his system. This,
of course, presupposes the existence of Our Luke before
Marcion : but this is contested by Semler and Eichhorn,
in the eighteenth century, and by Ritsch, Baur, Schwegler,
and Zeller in the present century. Ritschl, Hahn, Ols-
hausen, De Wette, Harting, Hilgenfield, and Volkmar
have opposed this common view, and have maintained
the accuracy of the statements of the early Fathers,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, that Marcion used and
altered for his purpose the Gospel of St. Luke. Dr.
Davidson remarks, that “the old opinion will not be
seriously disturbed again, as long as the treatises of
Volkmar exist.”
(13) The author of “Supernatural Religion ” has, with
the rashness of an imperfect knowledge, which comes
very near to thorough ignorance, advanced the following
opinion. “If we except the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, however, Marcion's Gospel is the oldest Evan-
gelical work of which we hear anything, and it ranks far
Marcion.
“Super-
natural
Religion ”
4OO THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Conclu-
sion of
Luke's
Gospel.
above our third Synoptic in this respect.” In sup-
port of this assertion we have references to Volkmar,
Holtzmann, and Hilgenfield. These references, when
examined, prove the very contrary.” So much for the
maze of tangled hypotheses apart from testimony.
The contradictions of the critics inspire distrust in
the possibility of the establishment of any satisfactory
conclusions. The dates assigned are as diverse as
possible. Tholuck, Gueriche, Ebrard, think the Gospel
was written before the fall of Jerusalem ; Meyer, De
Wette, Bleek, Reuss, after that event. Holtzmann fixes
upon 70 to 80 ; Keim, 90 ; Volkmar, IOO ; Hilgenfield,
IOO to IIo; Baur about 130 ; Zeiler at the beginning
of the second century. We believe that the Synoptics
and the Acts were written, and in circulation, before the
fall of Jerusalem, for which opinion our Saviour's pro-
phecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, as related by the
Synoptics, is one and a very powerful reason.
(I4) Abbott places Luke so late as A.D. 8o most
absurdly, and contrary to all the facts of Paul's history.
The Acts follow the Gospel, and they conclude before
the conclusion of Paul's imprisonment.
17. Luke's narrative of the events of the evening of
the day of the resurrection ends with either verse 44 or
48 of chap. xxiv. In the opinion of Dr. Hanna (“Life
of Christ”) the narrative from verse 44 refers to the last
appearance of our Lord to His disciples just before
His ascension, especially as the command to remain at
Jerusalem until they received power from on high was
unsuitable to the position of the Apostles on the first
day of the resurrection, and to their proceedings after-
* “Supernatural Religion,” Vol. Vol. I. p. xiv.; Bishop Lightfoot's
III. p. 139. Third Edition. articles in “Contemporary Re-
* “Speaker's Commentary,” view.”
THE LAKE OF TIBERIAS. 4 4OI
wards, as they did leave Jerusalem, and saw the Lord in -
Galilee (Matthew xxviii. 16; I Cor. xv. 6). Some
think, and with great probability, that verses 44–48
are a summary of various teachings of our Lord in His
training of the Apostles for their future work, and that
the last address commences at verse 49. It appears as
if the Evangelist is more intent upon connecting our
Lord's deliverance during the whole forty days, than in
stating the precise locality or time. To these he adverts
in the supplementary work, the Acts of the Apostles,
chap. i. The fact that to a cursory reader all these facts
would “seem to have taken place on the day of the
resurrection,” is no proof that the writer expected so to
be understood, especially as he gives other and fuller
information in the Acts. Such rapid transitions are not
infrequent in Oriental composition, when the details are
assumed, as in this case, to be known to the reader.
18. Among the undesigned proofs of the genuineness
of the Gospels is the different names given by the Evan-
gelists to the same lake. The lake in the midst of
Switzerland, between Pilatus and the Rigi, used formerly
to bear the name of the four cantons. But the town
of Lucerne, on its banks, has risen into importance, and
given its name to the lake. Formerly the lake was
generally spoken of as the Lake of the Four Cantons;
now it is almost universally called the Lake of Lucerne.
Any one writing of it formerly, called it “the Lake of
the Four Cantons; ” any one describing it now, would
certainly speak of it as the Lake of Lucerne. In the
time of the writing of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, the Lake of Galilee was called sometimes the
Sea of Galilee, and sometimes the Lake of Gennesaret.
Hence Matthew and Mark speak of it as “the Sea of
* “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” Vol. III. p. 124.
D ID
4O2 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Galilee"—Matt. iv. 18, “Jesus walking by the Sea of
Galilee; ” Mark i. I6, “Now as He walked by the Sea
of Galilee ;” Matt. xv. 29, “Jesus came nigh unto
the Sea of Galilee"—and Luke as “the Lake of
Gennesaret.” Luke v. 1, “Jesus stood by the Lake of
Gennesaret.”
But John always speaks of it as “the Sea of
Tiberias.” -
In the interval between the writing of the other three
Gospels and that by John, the town of Tiberias had
been rapidly built on the shores of the Sea of Galilee.
The town had risen into importance, and given its name
to the lake. At the time when John wrote his Gospel,
the ordinary name of the lake was the Sea of Tiberias.
John adopts the name in common use.
John vi. 1, “Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of
Tiberias; ” 23, “Howbeit there came other boats from
Tiberias;” John xxi. 1, “After these things Jesus
showed Himself to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias.”
If the Gospels had been fabrications of a later age, the
writers would have been careful always to have used the
same name in speaking of the same lake. The very dif-
ference, therefore, of the name used, is an undesigned
coincidence in favour of the truth and genuineness of
the Gospels."
* Communicated by Rev. William Gibson, Paris.
THE GOSPEL OF YOHN. 403
C H A P T E R X. X.
THE Gospel of John.
I. John, “the beloved disciple,” was the son of Zebedee John, the
and the brother of James ; his mother's name was beloved
Salome, supposed in later traditions to have been the disciple.
daughter of Joseph by his first wife; by others the
sister of Mary, the mother of our Lord. The family
resided in their own house at Bethsaida, on the Lake of
Galilee, and from the fact of their having servants and
substance appear to have been in comfortable circum-
stances (Mark i. 20 ; Luke viii. 3.; John xix. 27).
John obeyed our Lord's call (Matt. iv. 21, 22), together
with his brother. After our Saviour's death and resurrec-
tion he probably resided either at Jerusalem or in Galilee,
until his departure to Ephesus, and there died in good
old age, A.D. 96 or IOO. His claim to the title, “the
disciple whom jesus loved,” is disputed by Liitzelberger
in favour of Andrew, while Späth prefers Nathanael.
Litgelberger, Keim, Scholten, and Vogel deny John's resi-
sidence in Ephesus, in order to support their views of the
date of the Gospel: while, for the same reason, in Sup-
port of their theory respecting the Apocalypse and
earlier controversy, Baur, and Hilgenfield, and others
are obliged to defend the fact of John's residence in
Asia Minor. Some have contended that John the
Apostle, and John the Presbyter, mentioned by Euse-
bius, are the same. Of this opinion are Zahn, Riggen-
D ID 2
4O4. THE GOSPEL of goHN.
bach, Limbach, and Milligan (of Aberdeen). Godet deems
their reasons inconclusive, and Meyer regards “the
attempt to make the presbyter, in the quotation from
Papias, no other than an Apostle,” as leading “only to
useless controversy.” " -
2. John's Gospel stands in a supplementary relation to
the three Synoptists, and purposely so; this is the
opinion of Ewald, Ebrard, Godet, Bishop Wordsworth,
and most of the orthodox commentators. It seems
necessary to the completeness of the narrative, and this
was one reason of its composition, according to Euse-,
bius.” This is confirmed by a tradition preserved in the
commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 350–428),
quoted in Smith's “Dictionary,” “ in which also there is
a reference to the peculiarly spiritual and doctrinal
character of John's Gospel, in his special testimony to
the Divinity of our Lord, and the great fact of His
incarnation. This Gospel has been the object of the
enthusiastic love and admiration of great and good men
in every age and country. Calvin says: “It reveals the
soul of Christ, the others seek rather to describe His
body.” Ernesti calls it “the heart of Christ;" Clement
of Alexandria “the spiritual Gospel.” On the other
hand we may notice the abuse it has received, in
striking contrast to the commendations. Evanson calls
it “a mixture of heathenism, Judaism, and Chris-
tianity;” Luther, “the one true, tender, main Gospel; ”
the superintendent Vogel, “a production without value
or use for our time.” Others call it “mystic, confused, a
dissolving view, least authenticated, decidedly spurious,
mixed with Gnosticism, &c.; ” while, since Irenaºus, it has
remained for the sons of the Apostolic Spirit the crown
Supple-
mentary
to the
Synoptics.
* Meyer, “John,” Vol. I. p. 7. * Vol. I. p. III.3.
* Book III. chap. 24.
EVANSON, MARCION. 405
of the Apostolic Gospels.' The genuineness of this
Gospel had been universally accepted except by the
A logi, the heretical sect mentioned by Irenaeus and
Epiphanius, who attributed it to Cerinthus, the opponent
of St. John at Ephesus. It was defended against them
by Hippolytus at the end of the second century. The
English deists in the 17th century impugned its character
and accuracy, and were replied to by Le Clerc and Lampi,
as well as by the numerous English divines and others.
3. The modern controversy respecting the authorship
and genuineness of this Gospel, which commenced in
the last decade of the eighteenth century, has been the
ImOSt prolific in writers, and, to some extent, in the
variety of the matter, the ingenuity of the objections,
and the amount of learned research. This is the more
singular, considering that this fourth Gospel of St. John,
if it had been a mere secular history, would have been
accepted without contradiction as genuine, for it is better
attested than any ancient classic whatever. The con-
troversy commenced with (I) Evanson, a clergyman who
had seceded from the English Church, and had become
“one of the most decided enemies of revealed religion,”
..who published in 1793, “Dissonance of the Four Gene-
rally Received Evangelists, and the Evidence of their
Authorship Examined.” Like Marcion, he rejects all the
Gospels except Luke, which he mutilates, but remained,
we are told, “a firm believer in the Divine mission of
Christ. Replies in England were published by Dr.
Priestley, Rev. Thos. Falconer, and Simpson. Evanson's
special objections to John's Gospel are its difference from
the Apocalypse, and its resemblance to the Platonic
philosophy, from which he imagined it to be a work of
the second century by a Platonist.
* Lange’s “Introduction to John,” p. 24. Imp. 8vo.
The
critical
COntro-
versy.
Evanson.
406 THE GOSPEL OF YOHN.
(2) Ekerman in 1798 controverted the authority of the
Gospel, but admitted certain Johannine traditions as
the foundation of our present Gospel. So also Schmidt,
Claudius, Ballenstädt (1812), Horst, who urged (a) non-
agreement with the Synoptics; (b) the exaggerated
character of the miracles; (c) the metaphysical tone of
the discourses; (d) the relation of the theology with
that of Philo; (e) the scarcity of literary evidence in the
second, century. Such was the effect of these reasons
upon some individuals, that in 18OI Vogel, a Lutheran
superintendent, first denied the tradition that John in his
later days resided in Asia Minor, and went so far as to
cite “the Apostle John and his interpreters to the
bar of the last judgment.” Storr and Siiskind replied
to Ekermann, who, with Schmidt, professed to retract
their doubts. Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, Wegsheider, and
Geisler defended the authenticity of John.
(3) Bretschneider (1820), in his “Probabilia,” &c., sup-
posed the author to have been a Christian, of Pagan
origin, who wrote in the middle of the second century.
He was replied to by Calmberg, Hemsen, Olshausen, Crome,
Hauff, Lucke, Schleiermacher, Schott, and Credner. Paulus
and Rettig endeavoured to distinguish between John the
Apostle, and a disciple by whom his genuine statements
had been manipulated. Bretschneider, however, after-
wards recanted his opinion.
(4) De Wette, in his “Introduction” (1826), confessed
the impossibility of demonstrating the authenticity of
the Gospel, but did not oppose it.
(5) Gfrörer is inconsistent, at one time calling it
“the sanctuary and the truth,” at another time “a
product of dotage and decay;” while on the other hand,
Meyer, the most severe and exact of all orthodox critics,
regards the Gospel of St. John as “a phenomenon So
STRA USS, BAUR. 407
sublime and unique among the productions of a Christian
spirit, that if it were the creation of an unknown author
of the second century, it would be beyond the range of
all that is historically conceivable.”
(6) Reuterdahl, in 1826, with Vogel, assailed as a
forgery, the tradition of John's residence in Asia Minor.
In this he was followed by Lützelberger in 1840, who
thought John was a Samaritan whose parents had
emigrated to Mesopotamia about I30 — 135 A.D.
Donaldson has examined this theory, and refuted the
arguments advanced in its support.”
(7) Strauss adopted Bretschneider's views, then on his
Mythic theory he settled after his fashion the origin of
all the Gospels (1835). But in 1864, in his new “Life of
Jesus,” he lays aside his notion of a poetic myth, for one
of Baur's notions, that the Gospel was an invention, a
writing for a special party purpose.
(8) Bruno Baur (1840) regarded the Gospel as a philo-
sophical and poetic romance, the reflective work of a
thinker with a purpose. Strauss and Bruno Baur were
replied to by Tholuck and Neander, Hase and Ebrard.
(9) Weisse, C. H., cannot reconcile this Gospel with
the Synoptics, but admits it to have an Apostolic foun-
dation, especially in the discourses.
(IO) Baur, F. C., in accordance with his theory, that
all the writings of the New Testament are in reality
polemical treatises, to support or combat certain theo-
logical tendencies in the early Christian Church, Sup-
poses the fourth Gospel to be a treaty of peace about
160 A.D., Supporting the spiritual reaction of Montanism
against the Episcopate, and settling the Paschal con-
troversy in favour of the Western Church. Zeller sup-
* Meyer's “John,” Vol. I. P. * Donaldson’s “Introd. to New
136. - Testament,” Vol. I. pp. 244—253.
Lützel-
berger.
Baur.
408 THE GOSPEL OF YOHN.
Ewald.
g—-
ported Baur's view, so also Köstlin. Schwegler carried
out more fully Baur's views, assigned to each writing of
the New Testament its place in the controversy between
Apostolic Judaean Christianity and Paulinism, and pre-
sented the fourth Gospel as “the final and rich product
of that long elaboration of the primitive Christian
thought, which was brought about in the controversy
between the Pauline and Jewish parties.” In reply to
Baur's theories we have Ebrard, Thiersch, Bleek, Gueriche,
Meyer, Hauff, Weitzel, Steits, Bindermann, Semisch, Nier-
meyer, Hengstenberg, Lange, Astie, Godet, Luthardt,
Sabastien, Tischendorff and De Pressensé. Hase, Reuss, and
Ewald defend the authorship of John, but not the his-
torical reality of the miracles or of the discourses. Such
equivocal defences of the Gospel prove by their admis-
sions, the influence of the work in checking a disposition
towards an absolute denial, and compelling a middle
Baron
Bunsen.
view, however illogical and unsatisfactory. We see this
in Baron Bunsen, “who views the Gospel of John as the
only memorial of Evangelical history which proceeded
from an eye-witness; who declares that otherwise, “there
is no longer an historical Christ,’ and who yet consigns
to the domain of fable, a fact so decisive as that of the
Resurrection.”
(II) Volkmar, in supporting Baur's date of 155 or 16o
A.D. for “the Gospel of the Logos" (i.e. John), makes the
author a disciple of Justin Martyr. This Meyer calls
“the most extravagant judgment.” -
(12) Hilgenfield followed, but modified, the opinion of
Baur, and fixed the date of the Gospel 130 to 140 A.D.
He supposed the Gospel to be intended to introduce a
modified form of Gnostic teaching into the Church.
Volkmar.
* Godet's “John,” Vol. I. p. * Godet's “John,” Vol. I. p. 22.
I4. * Vol. I. p. 40.
SCHOLTEN, KEIM. 409
(13) Scholten (a Dutch professor, 1864) revised the date
to I50 A.D., supposed the author to be a Christian of Pagan
origin, who aimed at making Gnosticism profitable to
the Church. It contained within wise limits the Antino-
mian reaction of Marcion and the Montanist spiritualism,
thus appropriating the truth in all the tendencies of that
epoch (the middle of the second century), and presenting
to the world “under the figure of a purely ideal disciple
of him whom Jesus loved, the perfect spiritual Christianity,
which alone could become the universal religion.” "
(14) Réville, D'Eichthal, and Stap, agree in the main
with the Tübingen school; the two former with Scholten.
(I5) Keim (1865) opposes the authenticity of the
Gospel on the ground of its philosophical character and
non-agreement with the Synoptics. He ridicules Volk-
mar's notion of its dependence upon justin Martyr. He
dates it first from about IOO A.D., then to II.7 A.D., and
lastly to I30 A.D. The author was a Christian of Jewish
origin belonging to the “dispersion ” of Asia Minor.
With Liitzelberger, he regarded the residence of John
in Asia Minor as a fable, thus opposing himself to the
essential point in the theory of Baur, viz., the authenticity
of the Apocalypse and the sojourn of John in Asia.
Wittichen agrees mainly with Keim, so also Holtzmann
and Scholten, but are opposed by Steitz, Hilgenfield,
Krenkel, &c.
(I6) Schweizer, in 1841, thought that the narratives
which have Galilee as their locality, and especially the
miracles recorded, were not genuine; that the discourses
formed the primitive work. The author has since then
withdrawn his hypothesis.
(17) Weizsäcker thinks there is in the whole narrative
an historical character on the one side, also a considerable
* Godet's “John,” Vol. I. p. 65.
Keim.
4IO THE GOSPEL OF john.
amount of historical substance in the discourses; a
speculative one on the other, the one author giving the
facts, and the other the philosophy, in this respect fol-
lowing Paulus. 4.
(18) Schenkel thinks the Gospel originated about
IIO—I2O A.D., under the influence of the Christian
doctrine of “wisdom" prevailing in Asia Minor. It
consists of a number of “cycles of Evangelical tradition,
separated from their historical framework, and forced up
into the region of eternal thought,” &c."
(19) Tobler thinks that Apollos, whom he calls the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, wrote this Gospel,
embodying with the ideal character of the narrative
matter truly historical, chronological, and geographical,
received from the Apostle John.
(2O) j. Taylor 2 supported Keim's view, so also Dr.
S. Davidson, in his second edition of “Introduction to
the New Testament,” in direct opposition to his former
able vindication of the orthodox view in his “Introduction
to the New Testament” (1848). “This great unknown
(as he calls the author), in departing from Apostolic tra-
dition, teaches us to rise above it. He has seized the
spirit of Christ better than any Apostle, and if, like him,
we ascend through their material setting to ideas that
bring us into close contact with the Divine ideal of
purity to mankind, we shall have a faith superior to that
which lives in the visible and miraculous.” These are
“great swelling words” (Jude v. I4). How is it that this
road to the grandest and most sublime ideas is opened
to us by an unknown person, and not by one of the
Divinely-commissioned Apostles 2
Schenkel.
J. Taylor.
* Meyer's “John,” Vol. I. p. 41. * Davidson’s “Introduction to
* J. Taylor's “Attempts to As- the New Testament,” Vol. II. p.
certain the Character, &c., of the 323. I868.
Fourth Gospel,” 8vo, 1867.
SCHAFF, E. A. ABBOTT. 4II
(21) The author of an anonymous tract, entitled “Was
St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel?” by a Layman,
(1868), takes a similar view, and after a superficial dis-
cussion of the difference between the fourth and the
Synoptical Gospels, decides that the fourth Gospel is the
product of an author of the second century. On this, Dr.
Schaff remarks, “The discrepancies between the antago-
nists of John are far more serious and fatal than the dis-
crepancies between John and the Synoptists. In one
thing only they agree—in rejecting the Johannean origin
of the fourth Gospel, and, ascribing this sublimest of all
literary compositions to an unknown impostor, they
make it the greatest mystery in the history of litera-
ture.”
(22) The Rev. E. A. Abbott, D.D.,” gives us the latest
theory of the origin of St. John's Gospel. He writes in
a reverent spirit, as might be expected from his position
in the Church of England : looking, however, merely at
the human element in the four Gospels, and apparently
ignoring the presence of the promised help of the Holy
Spirit (John xvi. I2—I6), he falls short of a right con-
ception of the character of the Gospel, and of the nature
of the problem as to the origin of such a work at so late
a period, and so long after the Synoptists had written.
Leave out of the discussion the Divine inspiration
bestowed upon the Apostles and Evangelists, and the
reasonableness of the miraculous in common with a
revelation from God, and it will then be impossible to
judge fairly and truly of the Gospels, whether the
Synoptists or the Gospel ascribed to John. The
deficiency and obscurity of the human element when
rightly considered, only tend to bring into clearer light
1 Lange's “John,” Imp. 8vo, * “Ency. Brit.,” Ninth Edition,
p. 25- Vol. IX. p. 841.
E. A.
Abbott.
412 THE GOSPEL OF 3 oh N.
the marvellous excellency of the spiritual revelation, of
which the human element is but the material framework.
We give his conclusion in his own words: “It is more
easy to arrive at negative than at positive results, when
evidence is so slight; but it seems probable that the
author, attempting to give the spiritual essence of the
Gospel of Christ, as a Gospel of Love, and assigning the
Ephesian Gospel to the beloved disciple who had pre-
sided over the Ephesian Church, by way of honour and
respect, . . . and being at the same time conscious that
the book (though representing the Ephesian doctrine
generally, and in part the traditions of John the Apostle,
as well as those of Andrew, Philip, Aristion, and John
the Elder) did not represent the exact words and teach-
ings of the disciple, added the words, “We know,’ &c.,
partly as a kind of imprimatur of Andrew, Philip, and
the rest, partly in order to imply that other traditions
besides those of John are set forth in the book; partly
to characterise the book as a Gospel of broader basis
and greater authority than the less spiritual traditions
issuing from non-Apostolic authors, which our Evangelist
desired to correct or supplement. Nor is it the least
unlikely that this Gospel does represent the teaching of
Andrew and Philip, and Aristion and John the Elder, as
well as that of John. If Papias of Hierapolis gathered
up the traditions of these Apostles and elders, why not
also our author, writing in Ephesus perhaps several
years before Papias It is assuredly not for nothing
that the name of ‘Matthew,' mentioned in Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, is not found in the fourth Gospel, nor
is it without significance that the Gospel begins and
ends with an inner Apostolic circle. The Twelve are
indeed mentioned, but as in the background. The
beloved disciple, Andrew and Peter, Philip and Nathanael–
HOLTZMANN. 4I3
these and these only are mentioned as called by Jesus
in the beginning. Peter and Thomas, Nathanael, and
the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples (presumably
the same list as those above, with the addition of James,
the son of Zebedee, and Thomas), are mentioned as
alone admitted to the sacred meal which closes the
Gospel. This fact marks the whole character of the
book; it is esoteric and eclectic, and designedly modifies
the impression produced by the tradition previously
recorded by the Synoptics.” The fact here admitted,
that “it is more easy to arrive at negative than positive
results,” tells in favour of the commonly received opinion
of the Churches, which ascribes the authorship to the
Apostle John. No such a book could have appeared at
the close of the first century, and found acceptance
among the Churches, unless the authorship had been
known. The existence of “a great unknown,” the
author of the fourth Gospel, is even more unlikely than
that of the “great unknown " to whom the same class
of critics ascribe the authorship of the latter portion of
Isaiah. Neither is there the least foundation for the
implied petty jealousy and self-magnification of John
and his supposed “inner circle" of friends. All this is
as purely imaginative as much which we read in Renan's
romance called “Vie de Jésus.”
(23) The unwillingness on the part of the learned of
the nineteenth century to admit anything like culture as
possible among the early Christians, is expressed by
Holtzmann, who admits, nevertheless, that “the funda–
mental ideas of the fourth Gospel lie far beyond the
horizon of the Church in the second century, and indeed
of the whole Church of Christ to the present day.” "
Others solve the difficulty in another fashion, by suppos-
* Schenkel’s Biblical Lexicon.
Holtz-
Iſlallil.
4I4. THE GOSPEL OF joHN.
Date of
John's
Gospel.
Godet.
ing a duality of authors in this Gospel, one who narrates,
and another who philosophises.
4. The date assigned to the production of the fourth
Gospel depends upon the character of the theories
respecting its origin. While the earlier rationalists, as
Semler, with Tittman and others, considered it to be
written first of all, their successors generally place it in
the second century. Baur assigns it to A.D. I60—17O.
This late date is necessary to the consistency of his so-
called “tendency system.” Volkmar fixed upon 150—
I6O A.D. ; Zeller (since 1853) and Scholten (since 1867),
I50 A.D.; Hilgenfield (1875) I3O—I4O A.D.; Keim (since
I875) I30 A.D., in I867, IOO—I2O A.D.; Holtgmann at the
beginning of the second century. The opinion hitherto
received by the Churches, is that the Gospel was written
in the later years of the Apostle, in the last decade of
the first century.
5. The method of procedure on the part of the op-
ponents of the genuineness of St. John's Gospel, is
opposed to all and every document which refers to the
history of the first two centuries of the Christian era. If
their views are correct, it would seem, to use the words
of Godet, “that at that epoch all men capable of writing
anything permanent were forgers, and that all trust-
worthy writers knew only how to compose books
destined to sink into oblivion.”’ “Does not the whole
of that literature of the second century, and even of the
first, whose spuriousness, in order to maintain its asser-
tions,” the pseudo “criticism is compelled unsparingly
to deride, raise its voice against such a procedure,”
which would “sweep away true history to make way for
an imaginary one, constructed in accordance with d
priori critical and dogmatic views 2 *. Again we must
* Godet, Vol. I. p. 241. * P. 246.
GODET. 4I5
-*
quote the weighty words of Godet: “When we calmly
pause in presence of all these opinions which fix the
composition of this Gospel in the second century, we are
struck by the number and diversity of the devices which
are necessarily called into action, in order to explain
that writing. Here its object is to translate the aeons of
Valentinus into Christian ideas, there to correct the
dualism of Marcion. On the one hand, to adopt the
zvord of Justin ; on the other, to attribute to the Para-
clete of Montanus a more sublime and more general
import. Here, definitely to deprive Easter of its Jewish
element; there, finally, to catholicise the Church. What
How clear, on the contrary, does everything become if
we recognise that the Gospel, instead of being the result
of all these heterogeneous tendencies, is the common
soil on which they were born, and from which they have
developed on all sides by the exaggeration of one of the
elements of the truth, which they had borrowed from it,
and with which they had each exclusively connected them-
selves.” One of the most able defences of the genuine-
ness of St. John's Gospel is found in Hutton’s “Essays,”
Vol. II., and in Westcott's “Introduction to John's
Gospel,” in the “Speaker's Commentary,” New Test.,
8vo, Vol. II., 1880.
6. The impossibility of procuring admission for a new Impossibi-
Gospel, falsely put forth as that of John, is placed in a "...;
striking point of view by Fisher. “The Church, as of a New
Meyer forcibly observes, had a physical and spiritual Gospel,
ascribed
continuity of life. There was a close connection of its tº J.
members one with another. . . . The Church was a #:
community—an association. A body of this kind, says Churches.
Meyer, recognises that which is new as new. It is pro-
* Godet, Vol. I. p. 246.
416 THE GOSPEL OF YOHN.
tected from imposition. How would it be possible, he
inquires, for a new Augsburg Confession to be palmed
upon the Lutheran Churches, as a document that had
long been generally accepted 2 In estimating the force
of this reasoning, we must take notice of the number of
the early Christians. . . In every part of the Roman
empire, in all places of consideration, and even in rural
districts, Christian assemblies regularly met for worship.
And in all these weekly meetings the writings of the
Apostles were publicly read, as we learn from so early a
writer as Justin Martyr. Now we have to look at the
Christian Churches in the second century, and ask if it
was possible for a history of Christ, falsely pretending to
be from the pen of the Apostle John, to be brought for-
ward twenty, thirty, or forty years after his death, to be
introduced into all the Churches east and west, taking its
place everywhere in the public services of Sunday ?
Was there no one of the many who had personally
known John to expose the gigantic imposture, or even
to raise a note of surprise at the unexpected appearance
of so important a document, of which they had never
heard before ? How was the populous Church at
Ephesus brought to accept this work on the very spot
where John had lived and died? The difficulty, nay, the
moral impossibility, of Supposing that this Gospel first
saw the light in 160, or I40, or I2O A.D., or at any of the
dates which are assigned by the Tübingen critics,
will be rendered apparent, if we candidly look at the
subject. We have spoken of Irenaeus, of his testimony
to the undisputed, undoubted reception by all the
Churches of the fourth Gospel. If this Gospel first
appeared as late as, or later than, I2O A.D., how does it
happen that he had not learned the fact from the aged
presbyters whom he had known in Asia Minor 2 Irenaeus,
IRENAEUS AND POTHINU.S. 4I7
before becoming bishop, was the colleague of Pothinus
at Lyons, who perished as a martyr, having, as the letter
of his Church states, passed his ninetieth year. Here
was a man whose active life extended back well-nigh to
the very beginning of the century, who was born before
John died. Supposing John’s Gospel to have appeared
as late as I2O A.D., the earliest date admitted by any
part of the sceptical school, Pothinus was then upwards
of thirty years old. Did this man, who loved Christianity
so well that he submitted to torture and death for its
sake, never think to mention to Irenaeus an event of so
great consequence as was this late discovery of a life of
the Lord from the pen of His most beloved disciple, and of
its reception by the Churches 2 Polycrates, Bishop of
Ephesus, at the time of his controversy with Victor,
describes himself as being “sixty-five years of age in
the Lord,” as having conferred with the brethren
throughout the world, and studied the whole of the
Sacred Scriptures; as being also of a family seven of
whose members had held the office of bishop or pres-
byter. According to this statement, his own life began
as early at least as the year 125 A.D., while through his
family he was directly connected with the contemporaries
of John. How is it that Polycrates appears to have
known nothing about this late appearance of the
wonderful Gospel which bore the name of John, but was
the work of a great unknown 2 &c., &c.”
7. The differences in the matter of St. John's Gospel
from that contained in the Synoptists, implies no con-
tradiction, and presents no difficulty in the way of
Harmonious agreement. The main topic of the fourth
Difference
in the
COntentS
of John's
Gospel
and the
Gospel is the Judaic ministry of Jesus, while that of the Synoptics.
Synoptics is the Galilean ministry. There is an indirect
* Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin of Christianity,” pp. 76–78, 8vo, 1870.
E E
418 THE GOSPEL OF YOHN.
The
Gospel,
the Epis-
tles, the
Apoca-
lypse all
by John.
but distinct proof of a protracted ministry of Jesus in
Judaea in the first three Gospels, which is not by them
recorded. They refer to a repeated residence of Jesus in
Jerusalem (Matthew xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34). So in
Acts x, 37, 39, St. Peter declares Christ to have preached
“ throughout all judaea,” and the Apostles are called
“witnesses of all things which He did, both in the land
of the Jews and in 9erusalem.” John was acquainted
(unquestionably, says Luthardt) with the Gospel history
as reported by the Synoptics, and refers to various facts,
John ii. 12, iii. 24, xi. 2, xviii. 24–28; he presupposes,
also, and confirms Jesus' Galilean ministry, chapter vi. 6."
8. That the author of the first Epistle is the Apostle
John, may be considered as settled by the almost
unanimous testimony of the Churches of antiquity. On
internal grounds it has been questioned by Lange,
C/udius, Bretschneider, and Zeller. With regard to the
second and third Epistles, while the external testimony
is not decidedly in their favour, the internal evidence is
peculiarly strong. Their probably private character
may be the reason of their not being readily received
by the early Church. The impossibility of the Apo-
calypse being written by the author of the fourth
Gospel is maintained by Bleek, De Wette, and Baur.
Some of these think the Apocalypse to be by John and
the Gospel by another; others give the Gospel to John,
and the Apocalypse to another. The authorship of the
Apocalypse by John is the testimony of all antiquity;
the difference in style, &c., may be easily accounted for—
the Apocalypse was probably written thirty or forty
years before the Gospel.
9. The different character and scope of the discourses
* See Fisher's “Intro,” pp. xxxiii., xxxiv. See Davidson, “Int, New
Test,” Vol. I. pp. 293–299.
OUR LORD’S DISCOURSES. 4I9
of our Lord in the Synoptics and in John's Gospel,
arise out of the spiritual necessities of the Churches
differing at two different periods. The Synoptics give
the more simple elements of Christian teaching; St.
John, writing for a more matured condition of the
Church, dwells mainly upon the higher nature of Christ.
But in the discourses recorded in Matthew xi. 27, xxii.
4I, and in Mark xii. 25, and in Luke xx. 41, the high
claims of Christ are, also, fully set forth. The paral-
lelisms in style and thought in the discourses of the
Synoptists and those recorded in John, are exhibited in
Godet in his “Commentary.” There is also another
matter to notice. It is a matter of no small interest to
us, whether the discourses of our Lord in St. John are
“a verbally accurate report, or the result of a thorough
inward digestion and assimilation on the part of the
Evangelist, consequent on the length of time that had
elapsed since they were heard.” It is evident that
Jesus must have spoken very much more than what is
embraced in the Synoptical reports. How obvious, for
instance, that in that last long interview with His disci-
ples, extending from the time when they sat down at
the table to the moment of His arrest in the garden, He
must have spoke vastly more than the first three Gospels
record. It is certain, from isolated passages found in the
Synoptists, that He conversed at times in the style of the
Johannean discourses. St. John's report of the dis-
courses is faithfully given, and presents to us, guaranteed
by the Divine inspiration of the writer, the very pith and
essence of Our Lord's teachings. To give us them word
by word was impossible, but no doubt the very words
of our Lord are mostly retained ; so that the very out-
ward expression to a large extent is preserved for us.
* Vol. I. pp. I43—162. * Fisher, p. 113.
E E
The dis-
courses of
our Lord
reported
in John's
Gospel.
42O THE GOSPEL OF YOHN.
Disputed
portions
of John's
Gospel.
-º-º-º-º:
The language and style of the Gospel is that of the
Hellenistic Greek of the Apostolical writers generally,
modified by the peculiar character of the writer's in-
tellect. Dr. Schaff happily describes it “as altogether
unique; it is pure Hebrew soul in a pure Greek body;
thus I reconcile the apparently contradictory judgments
of two of the most eminent Oriental scholars.” “In its
true spirit and afflatus,” says Ewald, “no language can
be more genuinely Hebrew than that of John.” “His
style,” says Renan, “has nothing Hebrew, nothing
Jewish, nothing Talmudic.” Renan looks to the surface,
Ewald to the foundation.” I
IO. The genuineness of chapter viii. I—II, has been
doubted (1) by Erasmus, Bega, Grotius, Le Clerc,
Wetstein, Semler, Paulus, Schultze, Knapp, Liicke, Tho-
Auck, Olshausen, Bleek, De Wette, Baur, Reuss, Luthardt,
Meyer, Morus, Haenlein, Schmidt, Ezwald, Hengstenberg,
Scrivener, Godet, Lachmann, Tischendorff, Hort, Tregelles,
Alford, and Westcott. Not as a forgery but as an in-
terpolation of a true history, Calvin is disposed to reject
it. It is considered as genuine by Mill, Whitby, Fabricius,
Zange, Maldoſtatus, Cornelius d Lapide, Bengel, Michaelis,
Middleton, Heitmann, Zangius, Deltmers, Storr, Kuimóel,
Pług, S choltz, Klee, Maier, Staild/in, Horne, Owen,
Webster, Bloomfield, Wilkinson, Wieseler, Eörard, Stier,
and Lange. The question is not as to the truth of the
narrative, but whether it formed originally a portion of
the Gospel of John. It is not found in the Alexandrian,
Vatican, Sinaitic, and other ancient MSS., nor in the
early Italic and Syriac versions. (2) Chapter xxi.
verses I–23, has been doubted. Ewald thinks that
the first twenty chapters were written by the Apostle,
A.D. 80, and that chapter xxi. was added afterwards by
* Lange's “John,” Introduction, p. xi,
l
CANON FARRAR AND DR. GEIKIE. 42I
himself. Among the doubters are Grotius, Le Clerc,
Pfaff, Semler, Paulus, Gurlett, Bertholdt, Seyffrath,
Läcke, De Wette, Schott, Credner, Bleek, Baur, Keim,
and Schotten. Among those who regard it as genuine
are Father Simon, Lange, Wetstein, Osiander, Michaelis,
Beck, Eichhorn, Hug, Wegsheider, Schleiermacher, Ham-
dschke, Weber, Westcott, Tholuck, Gueriche, Meyer, Ols-
hausen, Luthardt, Godet, and Alford. (3) Chapter xxi.
verses 24 and 25, are considered generally as added
by the elders of the Ephesian Church. Professor Cassel
thinks that the Apostle John wrote the last chapter,
and endorsed the rest, which was written by his brother
James; while Dr. Schaff called this last supposition
about James “a worthless fancy.”
II. Among the many helps to the understanding of
the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, we may refer
to the admirable works recently published by Canon
Farrar and Dr. Geikie. The Lives of Christ and of St.
Paul by the former, and the “Life of Christ” by the latter,
supply information previously inaccessible to the general
reader, and are indispensable to the student. They
must be studied to be rightly appreciated. These works
have given an impetus to the study of the Gospel
history, from which the Churches will largely profit.
* Lange's “John,” p. 629.
422 A CTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Luke the
Author of
the Acts.
Value of
the Acts.
CHAPTER XXI.
ACTs of THE APostLEs.
I. That the writer of this book is LUKE, is evident
from the reference to the Gospel (chap. i. 1) as addressed
to the same Theophilus, to whom the Acts is also
addressed. With few exceptions, this is admitted as
confirmed by the results of Modern Criticism. The title
is of high antiquity, being found in the oldest MSS. and
the most ancient versions, the Syriac and the Coptic, in
the Canon Muratori, and in the earliest Apocryphal
writings. It gives generally the object of the work,
which was to continue a history of the work which jesus
ðegan to do and to teach (chap. i. 1), and which His dis-
ciples were enabled to continue by the help of the Holy
Spirit which Christ had promised (chap. i. 8). It was
this “power from on high. " which enabled them to be
His witnesses “in jerusalem, in all judæa, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth '' (chap. i. 8).
Hence it is called by Chrysostom “the Gospel of the
Spirit.” -
2. The importance of the Acts cannot be exaggerated.
“It is the only source from which we derive any direct,
nay, in many points, any positive, knowledge of most
momentous facts which belong to the very foundation of
the Christian Church. . . . The first twenty years would
be,so to speak, a blank so far as regards the history of
the first Christians—a blank with some rays of scattered
light from the Epistles, of which the earliest was written
LUKE A COMPANION OF PA UL. 423
A.D. 52—had not St. Luke been moved by the Spirit to
record what he learned touching that period during his
intercourse with St. Paul." The abrupt conclusion of the
Acts, as it appears to Canon Farrar and others,” will not
appear such to others who remember that it testifies to
the rejection formally by the Jews at Rome of the Gospel,
and the consequent transference of the Church to the
Gentiles (chap. xxviii. 25–28, 30).
3. That the writer was the companion of Paul, and The writer
writes that portion of his history which refers to Paul rºof
from personal knowledge, will appear clearly by a Paul.
reference to his narrative : “The first person gives place
to the third at chap. xvii. I, as Paul and Silas left
Luke behind at Philippi. The non-mention of Luke in
Paul’s Epistles is due to his not having been with him
at Corinth (chap. xviii.), whence the two Epistles to the
Thessalonians were written, nor at Ephesus (chap. xix.),
whence he wrote to the Romans, nor at Corinth again,
whence he wrote to the Galatians. The first person is
not resumed till chap. xx. 5, 6, at Philippi, the very place
where the first person implies he was with Paul two
years before (chap. xvi.). . . . . Thenceforward to the
close, which leaves Paul at Rome, the first person shows
Luke was his companion (Colos. iv. I4). Philemon
(verse 24), written there and then, declares his presence in
Rome. The undesigned coincidence remarkably con-
firms the truth of his authorship and of the history.
Just as in those Epistles written from places where in the
Acts the first person is dropped, Luke is not mentioned,
but Silas and Timothy are (I and 2 Thessalonians,
chap. i. ; I and 2 Corinthians, chap. i. 19, compared with
Acts xxvii. 5). But in the Epistles, written when we
* “Speaker's Commentary, New * Farrar’s “Life of St. Paul,”
Test.,” Acts, p. 31.I. Vol. II. p. 51O.
424. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Unity of
the Acts.
know from Acts xxviii. the writer was with Paul, we find
Luke mentioned. Alford conjectures that as, just before
Luke's joining Paul at Troas (chap. xvi. IO), Paul had
passed through Galatia, where he was detained by sick-
ness (Galatians iv. I3), . . . Luke became Paul's com-
panion owing to the weak state of the Apostle's health,
and left him at Philippi, when he was recovered, which
would account for the epithet “beloved.” The book
was most probably written at Rome before Paul's release
from his first imprisonment, or soon after. The style of
the book after the twelfth chapter is in purer Greek than
in the previous chapters; this arises from the probable
incorporation of Aramaic documents in the earlierchapters
literally translated. These may have been received
through James and the Elders of the Jewish Church, or
others. Credner thinks these chapters were written by
John Mark; Feilmater and Schneckenberger think that
Philip is the main authority for the first twelve chapters.
j. Hambler Smith thinks that “especial and frequent
reference is made to Thucydides, and that the large
number of words and phrases common to the six books
of Thucydides and the Acts can only be accounted for
by the writer's familiarity with at least a part of
these.”
4. The unity of the book is contended for by Meyer,
Gersdorf, Credner, Zeller, Lakebusch, Klostermann, Oertel,
De Wette, &c., on the ground of “the uniformity in the
character of its diction and style, . . . from the mutual
references of indirect passages, and also for that unity in
the tenor and connection of the essentially leading ideas
which pervades the whole. This similarity is of such a
nature, that it is compatible with a more or less inde-
Fausset's, “Bib. Cyclopaed.,” * “Short Notes on the Greek
pp. I3; I4. Text of the Acts,” 1879.
Luke's Descriptive Power. 425
pendent manifestation of different documentary sources,
which are strung together with little essential alte-
ration.”’’ This fact is ingeniously regarded by Canon
Cooke, as an anticipation of the improved mode of
historical writing, as presented to us in the history of
M. A. Thiery, who first ventured “to give life and variety
to his narrative, not to speak of picturesque effect, by
the insertion of long passages differing in style and local
colouring from his own composition ; ” “but this practice
had already helped to give a large degree of life to the
historical books of the Old Testament, though it may
have contributed to increase to us the difficulty of
explaining occasionally the cohesion of the narrative.
There are, however, specific objections to this unity.
(1) Dr. S. Davidson thinks that the thirteenth and four-
teenth chapters are from a journal of the parties con-
cerned; that in chap. xix. I6, something has been omitted;
that there is a wantof pragmatical connection between the ...The
{º Higher
eleventh and twelfth chapters, and a certain looseness criticism
of junction between several paragraphs of the book, on “”
which imply that Luke used his material carelessly;
that the letters in chap. xv. 23–29, and xviii. 26–30,
must have been taken from written documents, and that
the leading discourses and speeches were taken from
written sources.” Eichhorn thought that the speeches
were the composition of Luke himself; and De Wette,
quoting from Tholuck, thinks “that the discourses of Paul
are narrated more in the language of Luke than of Paul.”
It is, however, admitted that all the speeches recorded
are in character with the persons to whom they are attri-
buted; and as to the peculiarities of the style of Luke's
* Meyer’s “Acts,” pp. 3, 4. * “Intro. to the New Testa-
* “Speaker's Com.,” “Acts,” ment,” 1848, Vol. II. p. 22.
p. 330.
426 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
report of Paul's speeches and discourses, Dr. Davidson
remarks that “these are largely to be attributed to the
moulding influence of the Apostle.” Most of the apparent
difficulties noted by Davidson may arise from the imper-
fect condition of the text of this book, which has suffered
greatly from the carelessness of copyists, and from
interpolations on the part of critics. Some of these are
chap. viii. 37, part of chap. ix. 5, 6, the middle part of
chap. xxiv. 6–8, to which some add chap. xxviii. 29.
(2) Schwanbeck makes some objection to portions of the
narrative, which appear to him not to agree with others.
He thinks there was a document by Silas, another by
Barnabas, of Stephen's address, and that these materials
were worked up by an editor who lived long after Luke.
This reference to supposed documents and supposed
editors has been sharply reproved by Heinrichs : “Of
documents whose names, nature, language, as well as the
extent to which they were used by a writer who is said
to have been indebted for his material to them, can be
gathered only out of the shadowy region of conjecture,
one would think no mind that is accustomed to weigh
evidence would think it worth while to take any notice.”
This reproof applies to most of the Higher Criticism of
the Old and New Testament. To reply to such guesses
would be simply to oppose one guess to another.
(3) Schleiermacher, Bleek, Ulrich, De Wette, have added
to the critical and useless guesses and suppositions,
and think that Timothy was the eye-witness of the
Apostolical journeying, and not Luke ; and he who thus
employs the first person in some portions, is the same
who elsewhere uses the third person singular when not
himself present. (4) Mayerhoff, consistently ascribes the
whole book, and especially chaps. xiii., xiv., xv. to
* Kitto’s “Biblical Encyclopædia,” W. L. Alexander, Vol. I. p. 51.
DAVIDSON AND MEYER. 427
Timothy; but De Wette, Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Köstlin,
Hilgenfield, think the Acts was not composed by any
companion of the Apostle. In reference to these hypo-
theses, we may remark, in the words of Davidson, Davidson.
“Surely all this is mere trifling, utterly unworthy of
Serious notice; but it shows the self-delusion of theorists,
who succeed in persuading themselves of anything, when
Once they resolve to be wise above and even contrary
to that which is written. There is no possibility in
grasping such shadowy conjectures. To call them
evidence, or even slight presumption, were to dignify them
with a title to which they have no pretension. With
Meyer, we may safely conclude that “on the whole, the Meyer.
book remains, in connection with the historical references
in the Apostolical Epistles, the fullest and surest source
of our knowledge of the Apostolical times, of which we
always attain most completely a trustworthy view when
the Book of Acts bears part in this testimony, although,
in many respects, the Epistles have to be brought in,
not merely as supplementary, but also in various parts
as decidedly against particular statements of our
book.” The last remark needs to be explained : Meyer
thought that Acts xi. I2, was “in part unhistorical,”
and that Paul probably went only part of the way with
Barnabas.”
5. Certain discrepancies in the narrative in the Acts Account
º tº $ y g of the
may be noticed in the history of St. Paul's conversion. conversion
We put it as stated by a writer of high character, J. %.
Donaldson, but whose desire to be fair leads him always
to give the objection as forcibly as possible, while par-
tially ignoring the replies which have appeared satisfac-
* “Introduction to the New * Meyer’s “Galatians,” pp. 63—
Testament,” 1848, Vol. I. p. 1g. 65.
* Meyer’s “Acts,” Vol. I. p. 8.
428 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
tory to all the more reasonable and learned critics. “In
the Acts we have three accounts of the conversion of St.
Paul : the first by the writer himself, the other two by
St. Paul in his speeches. The writer states (ix. 4–7)
that when the light shone round Paul, he fell to the
ground, “but the men who were journeying with him
stood dumb ; St. Paul himself says (xxvi. I4) that they
all fell to the ground. The writer says (ix. 7) that
Paul's companions heard the voice, but saw no one ;
St. Paul himself says (xxii. 9) that his companions saw
the light, but did not hear the voice of him who spake
unto him. And, finally, all these accounts differ in their
report of what was said on the occasion.” We may
remark, that probably St. Paul's addresses in the Acts
are abridged by the writer, hence we may easily account
for trifling discrepancies as only apparent and which
would not appear in a full and more detailed narrative,
and especially for the briefer or more lengthened account
of the words spoken by our Lord, in which there is no
discrepancy but simply a difference in length and ful-
ness. The men might have fallen to the ground and
afterwards have stood speechless; they might have heard
a Sound as of a voice, and yet not have heard distinct
articulations of Him who spake to Paul. The variations
are “natural in the records of a manifestation which was
partial to some and complete to one only.” The
general truth of the narrative is admitted by the writer
in the “Encyclopaedia.” “Notwithstanding these dif-
ferences, even these very accounts contain evidence in
them that they were written by the same writer, and
they do not destroy the force of the rest of the evidence.”
* “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” “English Commentary on th
9th Ed., Vol. I. p. 124. New Testament,” Three Vols.
* Dr. Plumptre on Acts ix. 3, 4to, Cassell.
THE CONVERSION OF ST. PA UL. 429
We may add, that the state of the text of the Acts is
considered by all scholars as most unsatisfactory. One
MS. of this book, that of the Codex Bezae, has six
hundred interpolations and has been compared from its
diffusiveness to a Targum, or paraphrase, while other
Critics regard it as being the nearest approach to the
original text. These variations, however, in the text do
not affect any point of importance, whether historical or
doctrinal.
6. So important are the fact and the narrative also of Canon
the conversion of St. Paul that we give with great satis-
faction the account (abridged) in Canon Farrar's “Life
of St. Paul.” “But that which happened was not
meant for those who journeyed with Saul (Acts ix. 7 ;
Daniel x. 7). It was meant for him, and of that which
he saw and which he heard, he confessedly could be the
only witness. They could only say that a light had
shone from heaven, but to Saul it was a light from Him
who is the Light of the City of God—a ray from the
light which no man can approach unto (I Tim. vi. I4—
I6; 2 Cor. xii. 1). And about that which he saw and
heard he never wavered. It was the Secret of his inmost
being ; it was the most unutterāble conviction of his
soul; it was the very crisis and most intense moment of
his life: others might hint at explanations or whisper
doubt (as in the Clementine Homilies, xvii. I3). Saul
Ämezy. At that instant God had shown him. His secret
and His covenant. God had found him, had flung him
to the ground in the career of victorious outrage to lead
him henceforth in triumph a willing spectacle to angels
and to men. . . . From that moment Saul was converted.
A change—total, utter, final—had passed over him, had
transformed him. God had called him, had revealed His
* Two Vols. 8vo, 1879.
Farrar's
remarks
on the
COI) Ver-
sion of
St. Paul.
43O ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Son in him, . . . . had shone in his heart to give “the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of
jesus Christ” (2 Cor. iv. 6). And the means of this mighty
change all lay in this sure fact—at that awful moment
he had seen the Lord Jesus Christ. To him, the per-
secutor—to him as to the abortive-born of the Apostolic
family, the risen, the glorified Jesus had appeared. He
had been apprehended by Christ. On that appearance,
all his faith was formed ; on that pledge of resurrection,
of immortality to himself, and to the dead who die in
Christ, all his hopes were anchored. . . . . The strength
of this conviction became the leading force in Paul's
future life. . . . For though there may be trivial varia-
tions, obviously reconcilable, and absolutely unimportant,
in the thrice-repeated accounts of the events, yet in the
narration of the main fact there is no shadow of variation,
and no possibility of doubt. . . . As we read the story
of it, if we have one touch of reverence within our souls,
shall we not take off our shoes from off our feet, for the
place whereon we stand is holy ground 2" Canon Farrar
supposes (with great reason) that Saul had been for
Some time under strong misgivings as to the truth
taught by the Apostles in Jerusalem. “In his speech
before Agrippa it might seem as if much had been
spoken there. But in this instance again it may be
doubted whether, after the first appalling question,
‘Shaul, Shaul, why persecutest thou Me 2' which
remained branded so vividly upon his heart, Paul
could himself have said how much of the revelation,
which henceforth transfigured his life, was derived from
the actual moment when he lay blinded and trem-
bling on the ground, and how much from the sub-
sequent hour of deep external darkness and brighten-
ing in new light. In the annals of human lives
CANON FARRAR. 431
there have been other spiritual crises analogous to
this in their startling Suddenness, in their absolute
finality. To many the resurrection from the death
of sin is a slow and lifelong process; but others pass
with one thrill of conviction, with one spasm of energy,
from death to life, from the power of Satan unto God.
. . . As the anatomist may dissect every joint, and lay
bare every nerve of the organism, yet be infinitely distant
from the discovery of the principle of life, so the critic
and grammarian may decipher the dim syllables, and
wrangle about the disputed discrepancies, but it is not
theirs to interpret. If we would in truth understand such
spiritual experiences, the records of them must be read
by a light that never was on land or sea.” The history
declares positively that the glorified Christ appeared to
him, and we cannot interpret it in any other light. But
Paul's own accounts show that the objective manifes-
tation of Christ was mediated by a visionary or ecstatic
elevation of Saul himself (Acts ix. 7, xxii. 9). Baur at
first regarded the event as a purely subjective process in
Paul’s own mind, but after a renewed investigation,
arrived at the conclusion that the conversion of Paul
was an enigma which cannot be satisfactorily solved by
any psychological or dialectical analysis. . . . The
character and Apostolic life of Paul, and the very origin
and continued existence of the Christian Church, are an
inexplicable mystery, without the miracle of the actual
resurrection of our Saviour.' We are constrained to
quote the following most convincing statement of the
bearing of Paul's conversion upon the evidences of
Christianity. “Henceforth to Paul Christianity was
summed up in the one word Christ. And what does
he testify about Jesus 2 To almost every single,
1 Schaaf’s “Notes to Lange's Romans,” imp. 8vo. p. 5.
432 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
St. Paul’s
COIn Ver-
sion in its
bearing
upon the
evidences
of Chris-
tianity.
primary, important fact respecting His incarnation,
life, sufferings, betrayal, last supper, trial, crucifixion,
resurrection, ascension, and heavenly revelation. We
complain that nearly two thousand years have passed
away, and that the brightness of historical events is apt
to fade, and even their very outline to be obliterated as
they sink into the “dark backwood and abyss of time.”
Well, but are we more keen-sighted, more hostile, more
eager to disprove the evidence, than the consummate
legalist, the admired rabbi, the commission of the
Sanhedrim, the leading intellect in the schools—learned
as Hillel, patriotic as Judas of Gaulon, burning with
zeal for the law as intense as that of Shimmai 2 He was
not separated from the events, as we are, by the dazzling
glimmer of a victorious Christendom. He had mingled
daily with men who had watched from Bethlehem to
Golgotha the life of the Crucified—not only with His
simple-hearted followers, but with His learned and
powerful enemies. He had talked with the priests who
had consigned Him to the cross ; he had put to death
the followers who had wept beside His tomb ; he had
to face the unutterable horror which to an orthodox Jew
was involved in the thought of a Messiah who “ had
hung upon a tree.' He had heard again and again the
proofs which satisfied an Annas and a Gamaliel that
Jesus was a deceiver of the people. The events on
which the Apostle relied in proof of His divinity, had
taken place in the full blaze of contemporary knowledge.
He had not to deal with uncertainties of criticism, or
assaults on authenticity. He could question, not ancient
documents, but living men ; he could analyse, not
fragmentary records, but existing evidence. He had
thousands of means close at hand whereby to test
the reality or unreality of the resurrection, in which up
DISCREPANCIES. 433
to this time he had so passionately and contemptuously
disbelieved. In accepting this half crude and wholly
execrated faith, he had everything in the world to lose—
he had nothing conceivable to gain ; and yet, in spite of
all—overwhelmed by a conviction which he felt to be
irresistible—Saul, the Pharisee, became a witness of the
resurrection, a preacher of the cross.” (We would also
recommend to the reader Lord Lyttleton's pamphlet on
the “Resurrection,” ” of which, strange to say, we seldom
find any notice in modern works, some of which are of
far less value to the Christian reader.)
7. Another apparent discrepancy between the history
in the Acts, and the reference in the Epistle to the
Galatians, is pointed out by the writer in the “Encyclo-
paedia Britannica,” already referred to.” An omission of
the second private mission of Barnabas and Paul to
carry relief to the Church at Jerusalem is found in the
Epistle to the Galatians, chapter ii., though recorded
in Acts xi. 30. That visit had nothing to do with Paul's
argument as to his equality with the Apostles at
Jerusalem; as they appear to have been absent, Scattered
by the then prevailing persecution, it is not by any
means inconsistent with the statement in Galatians ii.
The third visit, related in chapter xv. 2, is undoubtedly
that referred to in Galatians il. I, 2.4 The two visits to
Jerusalem mentioned by Paul are the visits which had
brought him in contact with the other Apostles. Be-
tween the period of his conversion and his flight from
Damascus, Paul had been in Arabia and had returned
to Damascus; but after three years had visited Jerusalem,
when he saw Peter and James and the Lord's brother
* Canon Farrar’s “Life of St. * “Encyclopaedia Britannica,”
Paul,” Vol. I. pp. 180–2O4. “Acts,” Vol. I. p. 124.
* The best edition is that pub- 4 Farrar’s “Life of St. Paul,”
lished by the Tract Society. Vol. I. p. 405.
F F
Sundry
discre-
pancies
between
Acts xi.
30, and
Galatians
ii. I, 2.
434 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Historical
differences
Death of
Herod
Agrippa.
(compare Acts ix. I9—25 with 2 Corinthians xi. 32, 33,
and Galatians i. 17—19). It is further objected that
Paul in the Acts is only called an apostle in connection
with Barnabas, who was not one of the Twelve. Paul
himself admits that he was not one of the original
Twelve, but “one born out of due time” (I Corinthians
xv. 8), but claims himself to be duly qualified ; he had
seeſe the Lord, and was a witness to His resurrection and
kingly glory. He had recognised Him—“Who art Thou,
/lord 3" (Acts ix. 5)—and asserts his Apostleship partly
on this ground (I Corinthians ix. I—6). So, also, the
account in Acts i. 18 of the mode of Judas's death,
is not contrary to Matthew xxvii. 5, but simply an
addition.
8. There are some historical blunders charged upon
the author of the Acts, to which we must briefly refer.
(a) The account of the death of Herod Agrippa the First,
in Acts xii. 21–23, differs in some particulars from the
account of the same event in Josephus." Josephus says
Herod entered the theatre, celebrating a festival in
honour of Caesar, and robed in a garment entirely of
silver, upon which the rays of the sun fell, and that such
an impression was produced on the people that his
flatterers called out he was God, and that he, affected by
the presence of an owl, regarded this as the harbinger of
evil, and was immediately attacked with pains in his
bowels and died. Luke's account is perfectly recon-
cilable, though there is an additional circumstance not
mentioned by Josephus, viz., that Herod was giving
audience to deputies from Tyre and Sidon, which is
quite compatible with his being in the theatre attending
to the games; the supposed difference has no existence.
(b) In Acts chapter xxi. 38, there is an allusion to an
* “Antiquities,” xix. 8. #
HORAE PA. ULINAE. 435
Egyptian, “which before those days” had made “an uproar
and had led ” “out into the wilderness four thousand men
that were murderers.” It is to this that Josephus refers,
giving herein the number as 3O,OOO, which is probably
that of the massed multitude, while in Acts the number
of the Sicari—the leaders—are only mentioned. (c) In
Acts v. 35–39, Gamaliel Speaks of one Theudas, who
had “before these days” made an insurrection, and after
him “Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,” &c.
Here the dates differ from the statement of Josephus,
who fixes the rebellion of Theudas in the reign of
Claudius, ten years after Gamaliel had spoken of him,
while Judas appeared at the time of the registration,
considerably before Theudas. The reply of Lardner is,
that there were two Theudases, just as there were several
impostors of the name of Simon and of Judas.
9. The relation of the Acts to the Epistles of St. Paul
is that of mutual correspondence in a series of facts to
which both refer—the one in the regular narrative of
events, the other in incidental notices in a series of
epistles addressed to the Churches. It is obvious that
the writer of the Acts had no acquaintance with the
Epistles, and the writer of the Epistles had never seen
the Acts, which were probably not written till after his
death. In the HORAE PAULINAE of Paley, these coin-
cidences are noted and counted up in a way peculiarly
that of Paley. . . To refer to them would be to rewrite
the “Horae Paulinae,” which is, or ought to be, in the
hands of every one interested in the criticism of the
New Testament. We may also refer to Birks' HORAE
APOSTOLICAE. The impression left on the mind by the
diligent study of this sort of incidental evidence, coming
as it does to confirm the direct testimony of history, is
* “Antiquities,” xx. 8, and in the “Wars of the Jews,” xiii. 5. .
Theudas
and
Judas.
Coinci-
dences
between
the Acts
and the
Epistles
of Paul.
F F 2
436 ACTS OF THE APOSTL ES.
one which cannot be shaken. External testimony,
accompanied by this internal evidence, comes as near as
possible to absolute certainty. Professor Jowett, in his
“Epistles of Paul,” has endeavoured to show that some
of Paley’s “undesigned coincidences” are not quite
clear, but even admitting this, the major part of them
remain unaffected by his criticism.
Io. The Acts of the Apostles was from the first
generally received by the Christian Church, the only
opposition being from the heretical sects—the Ebionites,
Manicheans, Encratites, Marcionites, &c. The opinion
of the ante-Nicene Church is given by Eusebius, who
places the Acts among the uncontested books. Canon
Farrar, the last biographer of St. Paul, thus records his
opinion : “Of the Acts of the Apostles . . . . I will at
present only express my conviction that even if we admit
that it was “an ancient Eirenicon,’ intended to check the
strife of parties by showing that there had been no
irreconcilable opposition between the views and ordi-
nances of St. Peter and St. Paul, . . . . yet the Acts of
the Apostles is in all its main outline a genuine and
trustworthy history. Let it be granted that in the Acts
we have a picture of essential unity between the followers
of the Judaic and the Pauline schools of thought, which
we might conjecture from the Epistles to have been less
harmonious and undisturbed ; let it be granted that in
the Acts we more than once see Paul acting in a way
which, from the Epistles, we should d priori have deemed
unlikely. Even these concessions are fairly disputable.
Yet in granting them we only say, what is in itself suffi-
ciently obvious, that both records are confessedly frag-
mentary. They are fragmentary, of course, because
neither of them even professes to give us any continuous
Canon
Farrar on
the Acts.
* Vol. I. pp. 7, 8.
BLEEK. 437
narrative of the Apostle's life.” The theories of Baur's
Criticisms, and of the Tübingen school's notions of the
various tendencies of the Acts, and of all the books of
the New Testament alluded to by Canon Farrar, have
been already noticed in chap. xvii. pp. 135–139. The
comment of Bleek upon these theories is pertinent to this
subject.’ “Such a notion (i.e. that of the partisan
character of the Acts) presupposes such deliberate
purpose and calculated cunning on the author's part as
must appear altogether unlikely, if we submit without
prejudice to the impressions which a simple perusal of
his work makes upon us.”
* Bleek's “Introduction to the New Testament,” Vol. I. pp. 353, 354.
438 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
Epistles
of Paul.
CHAPTER XXII.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.
I. Thirteen Epistles are ascribed to St. Paul in the
Canon of the New Testament (exclusive of that to the
Hebrews, the authorship of which is disputed). Other
Epistles have been supposed. (I) One to the Corinthians,
written before the first of the canonical Epistles (alluded
to in I Cor. v. 9). (2) Another, supposed to have been
written between the sending of the first and second
Epistles; and that this is the letter referred to in the
second Epistle is the opinion of Neander, Olshausen,
Ewald, Bilroth, Bleek, Credner, and the Rev 3. L.
Davies, but opposed by Kling, Müller, Wurm, Ruckeri,
De Wette, Baur, Reuss, Wieseler, Davidson, and Stanley ;
while Alford, Conybeare and Horne, and Bishop Ellicott,
write as if undecided on this point. (3) The Epistle to
the Laodiceans, referred to in Colossians iv. I6, is, after
a full discussion of the various theories, identified with
the Epistle to the Ephesians by Bishop Lightfoot * and
Professor Milligan.” It is known to have been despatched
at the same time with the Epistle to the Colossians.
(4) The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is com-
posed of extracts from the Epistles to the Galatians
and Ephesians. (5) A second Epistle to the Philippians
exists only in the imagination of the critics.
* Smith’s “Biblical Dictionary,” * “Encyclopaedia Britannica,”
Vol. II. p. 750. article “Ephesians,” Volume
* Bishop Lightfoot's “Colos- VIII.
sians,” &c., pp. 347 and 340.
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES. 439
2. Chronological systems, affecting to give the exact
dates of the narratives in the Gospels and the Acts of the
Apostles, and the time when the several Epistles were
written, vary a few years as to dates, though there is a
general agreement as to the order of the events nar-
rated, and of the Epistles. Some scholars make the
year of our Lord to synchronise with the year of our
Lord's birth ; others, with greater reason, consider the
birth of our Lord to have taken place four or five years
before the common era from which we reckon. Hence,
the year of the crucifixion, as given by historians, varies
from A.D. 29–33; the conversion of Paul, from A.D.31—4O;
Paul's first journey to jerusalem, from A.D. 33–43; second
journey to jerusalem, from A.D. 4I–46; first missionary
journey, from A.D. 42–5I ; the third journey to jerusalem,
from A.D. 46–55; second missionary journey, from A.D.
46—55; the fourth journey to jerusalem, and third mis-
sionary journey, from A.D. 50–56; the fifth journey to jeru-
salem and Paul's imprisonment at Casarea, from A.D.
58–60; Paul's imprisonment at Rome, from A.D. 56—58,
or from A.D. 63–65. -
3. The order in which the Epistles were written, as
given in Lange,' Farrar, and Godet, is generally ac-
cepted. (1) During the second missionary journey (Acts
xv. 36), the first and second Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians from Corinth. (2) During the third missionary
journey (Acts xviii. 18–23, xix), the Epistle to the
Galatians was sent from Ephesus ; the first of Corin-
thians from Ephesus ; the second from Macedonia or
Ephesus, and that to the Romans from Corinth.
(3) During Paul's first imprisonment at Rome (Acts
xxviii.), the Epistles to the Colossians, Philemon, the
Ephesians, and Philippians. (4) After the release, and
Chrono-
logy of
the life of
St. Paul.
* “Romans,” p. 14, imperial 8vo.
Order of
the
Epistles.
44O THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
during the second imprisonment, the Epistle to Titus and
the first and second of Timothy. Those who think
that there was no release from the first imprisonment,
must place these Epistles at an earlier date.
4. The objections to this order must be noticed.
(I) Conybeare and Howson, with Bishop Lightfoot,
place the Epistle to the Galatians between the second
Corinthians and the Romans; but Hug, De Wette,
Olshausen, Usteri, Winer, Neander, Greswell, Meyer,
Wieseler, are for the earlier date. (2) Marcion (the heretic)
placed the Galatians, the Epistles to the Corinthians,
and Romans, first of all, before the Epistles to the
Thessalonians. (3) Michaelis placed Galatians as the first
of the Epistles. (4) Schrader places the first and second
Corinthians and Romans before the Thessalonians,
being of opinion that the Apostle went to Jerusalem
after his two years' stay at Ephesus (Acts xix.), and
that this journey, in which he supposes Paul to have
visited Thessalonica, took place in the interval between
the events recorded in the twentieth and twenty-first
verses of that chapter. (5) Schott is warmly opposed to
this theory, and places the Epistle to the Galatians last
of all the Epistles, on the assumption that the journey
from Ephesus to Jerusalem, recorded Acts xxiii. I9–21,
is that mentioned in Galatians ii. 2; and further, that
the passage, Galatians vi. 17, has a reference to the
Apostle's approaching martyrdom. These opinions are
not received by the critics. (6) Schultz, Schneckenberger,
Schott, Reuss, Thiersch, Meyer, and Schenkel think that the
Epistle to the Ephesians, Colossians, and to Philemon,
were written during the captivity of Paul at Caesarea
(Acts xxiii. 33 to end of chap. xxvi.).
5. The testimony of antiquity is all but unanimous in
* Bishop Lightfoot on “Galatians,” pp. 41—5.
FOUR UNDISPUTED EPISTLES. 44I
ascribing thirteen Epistles to St. Paul. In modern
times the authenticity of some of them has been dis-
puted. Baur regards only four of them as indisputably
genuine, i.e. the first and second Epistles to the Corin-
thians, and those to the Romans and Galatians.
6. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS was received not
only by the orthodox Church, but by Marcion, the
Gnostic and Basilidean sects, the Ophites, &c., and only
rejected by the Judaising sects. There are in the writings
of the first and second centuries allusions and references
in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
and the Epistle to Diognetus, Melito, Irenaeus, the Canon
of Muratori, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and
Lyons, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria,
and Tertullian; the fact of its being found in the old Itala
and Syrian versions is also an additional evidence of its
general reception by the Church, if any such were
necessary. Evanson, in 1792, in his “Dissonance,” &c.,
expressed what Meyer calls his “worthless scruples,”
and Bruno Baur his “frivolities;” but these found no
supporters." It was undoubtedly written in Greek, but
Bertholdt and Bolten fancy that its original language was
Syriac. Inchofer, Hardouin, Cornelius Lapide, and
Bellarmine advocated the notion of a Latin original, but
all these theories are now rejected by all critics. There
is a Commentary on this Epistle by Bishop Colenso, on
Broad and almost Universalist principles, which was
ably criticised by the Rev. Dr. Osborn, Theological
Tutor at the Wesleyan College, Richmond, in the
“London Quarterly.”
7. The unity and integrity of the Epistle has been
questioned by many. (1) Marcion rejected the last two
chapters, xv. and xvi., on dogmatic grounds. (2) Hen-
* Meyer’s “Romans,” Vol. I. p. 37. No. XXXV., April, 1862.
Four un-
disputed
Epistles.
Epistle to
the Ro-
Iſla Il S.
Unity of
the
Epistle.
442 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
mann, xii. to xv. to be of themselves a later Epistle;
and that xvi. is a conclusion to chap. xi. (3) }. F.
Semler supposes xv. to be a separate writing, intended
for any Christians with whom the bearer of the Epistle
came in contact, and xvi. as a list of persons to be
saluted by the bearer on his way from Corinth to Rome.
(4) Eichhorn thinks that xvi., verses I and 2, was a letter
of recommendation for Phoebe; and (5) Ammon thinks it
was given by the Apostle after his release from the first
Captivity; SO Ewald, Laurent, Lucht, Ritschl, with Some
variations, partly agree with Schutz and Schott. (6)
Schube, that xvi. was written from Rome to the Ephesians.
(7) Schott, that it was a fragment of a smaller Epistle by
Paul from Corinth to some Asiatic Church. On these
notions Tholuck remarks that “they remain the conclu-
sive property of their originators.” (8) Weisse suggests
“a number of interpolations as interwoven throughout
the Epistle,” but Meyer observes that these “rest simply
on a subjective criticism of style, which has discarded
all weight of external evidence.” (9) Baur declares
the chaps. xv. and xvi. not genuine, no doubt because
they are opposed to his theory of the Ebionistic con-
dition of the Romish Church. Volémar and Schwegler
followed, with some variations, their great leader. All
these trivialities, purely conjectural, are as endless in a
certain class of critics as they are worthless and purpose-
less; and require no farther notice. (IO) The doxology,
chap. xvi. 25–27, is undoubtedly genuine, though
variously placed in some MSS. and wanting in others.
E. C. Schmidt, Reiche, and Krehl reject it, though Schott
and Fritzsche regard it as “wholly Pauline.” Eichhorn,
Griesbach, and Flatt think that from the different posi-
tions in which the doxology is found in the MSS. it is
* Meyer’s “Romans,” Vol. I. p. 37.
EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 443
probable that St. Paul's conclusion, after xiv. 28, was
written on another smaller piece of parchment, which
was afterwards shifted and arranged in different ways.
8. The Epistle was written from Corinth about A.D. 57
—59, according to Meyer; according to Bishop Lightfoot,
during St. Paul's third missionary journey, 58 A.D."
9. THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES TO THE
CORINTHIANS were written, the first from Ephesus,
about A.D. 58, the second soon after, from some part of
Macedonia, perhaps Thessalonica. Their genuineness
and authenticity have been universally admitted. They
are referred to by Clement, Polycarp, Athanagoras,
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and there are
allusions to passages in the first Corinthians in Barnabas,
Herman, and Ignatius, and to the second Corinthians in
Irenaeus. The only opponent in modern times after
Evanson is Bruno Baur, who “ alone, in his wanton
fashion,” has sought to dispute it.” The unity and
integrity of the first Epistle are not disputed.
Io. The second Epistle has been dissected and separated
by the ingenuity of certain critics. (1) Semler thinks that
(a) chap. i.-viii., with Romans xvi., and then chap. xiii.
II—I3, to the end of the second Epistle, constitute of
themselves one Epistle; that (b) chap. x., as far as verse IO
of the last chapter, are a second Epistle; (c) that chapter ix.
is a circular to the Christians of Achaia. Semler was re-
futed by Gabler and rejected by Eichhorn and Bertholdt.
(2) Webber considers (a) chap. i. to ix, with xiii. II—13,
to make one Epistle; (b) the rest, a second Epistle.
(3) Von Greeve regards (a) chap. i-viii., with xiii. II—13,
as one epistle; (b) the remainder of the Epistle is
another. (4) C. H. Weisse thinks it is composed of three
circulars, the last of which is chap. i.-viii., xiii. II—I3,
1 Smith's “Dict.,”Vol. III. p. 1054. * Meyer’s “II. Corinthians,” p.g.
Corin-
thians,
first and
second
Epistles.
444 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
all put together by some one, perhaps Timothy.
(5) Paulus regards the second half to be a separate
epistle. (6) Wieseler thinks the first part, chap. i-vii.,
to have been written under great depression ; the rest of
the Epistle after Paul had been refreshed by the assent
of Titus. (7) Schraeder thinks chap. vi. I4 to vii. I to
be an interpolation, as the sentiments are unworthy of
Paul’s liberal opinions. Such men cannot see any dif-
ference between the world and the Church. (8) Schleier-
inacher thinks it difficult to reconcile the allusion to
Titus viii. 23, 24, with xii. 18, forgetting that Titus had
been at Corinth before. He sees a difference in the
Apostle's style in ix. 4 with xii. I4, and xiii. I, 2, for-
getting that in the first the Apostle addresses the whole
church, in the latter the offenders only. On these arbi-
trary dissections and displacements, Lange remarks that
they are founded on the conceded fact that two or three
subjects of a very different character are discussed, and
that a spirit of an almost opposite nature pervades the
different parts of the Epistles, partly explained by the
remarks of Wieseler. These dismembering theories are
opposed by the best critics, and will not bear a thorough in-
vestigation. The writers are blind to the masterly manage-
ment of the subject by the Apostle, and thus their obtuse-
ness has converted a peculiar excellence into a defect.
II. The style of the second Epistle has been censured
by Eichhorn and Zimmerling as harsh and obscure. In
the opinion of Davidson, “they have unduly, not to say
unjustly, depreciated the style of this Epistle.” Meyer
remarks, “the excitement and varied play of emotions
with which Paul wrote this letter, probably also in haste,
certainly make the expression not seldom obscure and the
sentences less flexible, but only heighten our admiration
* Davidson’s “Introduction to the New Test.,” Vol. II. p. 273.
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 445
of the great delicacy, skill, and power with which this
Outpouring of Paul’s spirit and heart (possessing as a
defence of himself a high and peculiar interest) flows and
gushes on, till finally, in the last part, wave on wave
overwhelms the hostile resistance." Some think that a
visit to Corinth by the Apostle, not recorded in the Acts,
may be inferred from 2 Corinthians xiii. I4, xii. 1, 2, &c.
If so, this visit may have taken place during the Apostle's
stay at Ephesus.
I2. THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS is of all Galatians
Paul's Epistles the most characteristic. The utmost
possible variety of opinion exists among critics as to
its date and position. Marcion, the heretic, Michaelis,
Baumgarten, Schmidt, Mynster, Niemeyer, Koppe, Böttger,
and Ulrich, placed it first in date. (I) Schraeder and
Köhler the last (A.D. 64—A.D. 69). (2) Beza and Wein-
gart think it was written before the Council of Jerusalem
(Beza thinks at Antioch). (3) Macknight thinks it was
written after the Council, but before the second mis-
sionary journey. (4) Michaelis and Townsend think it was
written during the second missionary journey, perhaps
from Thessalonica. (5) Drusius, L'Enfant, Beausobre,
Lardner, Benson, Barrington, Tomline, &c., fix upon
Corinth, on Paul's first visit (Acts xx. 2, 3). (6) Mill
fixes upon Troas as Paul was going to Jerusalem
(Acts xx. 6). (7) Theodoret, Flacius, Sixtus of Siene,
Baronius, Bullinger, Lightfoot, Calov, Hammond, date it
from Rome according to the Superscription. (8) Capellus,
Wilsius, Wall, Rosenmüller, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hänlein
Ruckert, Hug, F eilmoser, Schott, De Wette, Olshausen,
Usteri, Winer, Neander, Burton, Greswell, Auger, Guericke,
Reuss, Lange, Schaff, Meyer, Wieseler, Alford, Ellicott,
Turner, and S. Davidson date it from Ephesus, his second
* Meyer's “II. Corinthians,” p. 129.
446 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.
Epistle
to the
Ephesians.
visit (Acts xix. I). (9) Grotius, Fabricius, Pearson, Stein,
De Wette, Bleek, Conybeare, and Howson, with Bishop
Lightfoot, date it from Corinth during Paul's second
visit (Acts xx. 2, 3). (IO) Wordsworth dates it at
Paul’s first visit to Corinth, A.D. 53.
I3. The external testimonies are found in Irenaeus,
J. Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, &c. It was
also acknowledged by Marcion and the Valentinians,
and other Gnostic sects. The Tübingen school not only
admit its genuineness, but endeavour to make it their
instrument from which to attack most of the other
Epistles. Only one man, Bruno Bauer, supposes the
Epistle to be a compilation from the first and second
Corinthians, for which absurdity he has been severely
reproved by Meyer. Bishop Zăg/affoot's distinct treatises
on the Colossians, Galatians, and Ephesians are ex-
haustive, and should be studied by all who desire to
understand the life and times of the great Apostle, and
the early history of the Church.
I4. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. This was
written while Paul was a PRISONER (chap. iii.); his impri-
sonment was at Caesarea and at Rome; from one of these
places he wrote this, and the Epistle to the Colossians
and Philemon about the same time. That this Epistle
was written at Caesarea is the view of Schutz, Schraeder,
Schneckenberger, Reuss, Schott, Schenkel, Böttigen, Wiggers,
Thiersch, and Meyer. On the other hand, the opinion
that it was written from Rome has been the general
belief, and is the most probable. Alford, Davidson,
and Lange agree with the generally received opinion.
(1) Some think this Epistle is the same as that to
the Laodiceans mentioned by Paul, Colossians iv. 16.
This is the opinion of Mill, Du Pin, Wall, Vitringa,
TVenema, Wetstein, Whiston, Pierce, Benson, Paley,
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 447
Greswell, Bishop Zightfoot, and Professor Milligame.
(2) Others think it was a circular letter to the Church
of Asia Minor, including Ephesus and Laodicea, or
restricted to those alone, or excluding that at Ephesus:
of this opinion in the main, though differing in minute
details, are Bengel, Moldenhauer, Michaelis, Koppe, Ziegler,
Hänlein, justi, Schmidt, Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt,
Aemsen, Feiſmoser, Neander, Schneckenberger, Kiickert,
Matthiei, Crediter, Guericke, Böttger, Ols/ausen, and
Burton, who think the received reading “ in Ephesus ” as
suspicious. (3) Some admit the authenticity of the
reading “in Ephesus,” and yet argue for the circular cha-
racter of the Epistle, as Bega, Hammond, Ellies, Whitty,
Flatt, Boehmer, Schott, Harless, Schraeder, Wiggers, and
Lünemann.
I5. There is a great similarity between this and the
Epistle to the Colossians, as is obvious to the reader.
The particulars may be seen in Davidson." The two
Epistles are complementary to each other, and we can
see how it was that St. Paul directed that the two should
be read together (Coloss. iv. 61). The external testi-
monies are found in Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the
Canon Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, &c.,
also the heretics Marcion and Valentinus.
I6. The character of the Epistle is objected to by
(1) De Wette, who considers it to be “a spiritless expan-
sion of the Epistle to the Colossians, compiled in the
Apostolic age, by some pupil of the Apostle's, writing in
his name. His views were refuted by Rückert, Hemsen,
Meyer, Harless, and Neander. (2) Baur (with Schwegler
and Zeller), on the ground of passages which he thinks
savour of Gnosticism and Montanism, places the Epistle
at a later period. His views have been combated by
* Davidson’s “Introduction to the New Testament,” Vol. II. p. 344.
448 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
Epistle
to the
Philip-
pians.
Lechler. (3) Usteri follows a conjecture of Schleier-
macher, that this Epistle was written by an attendant of
Paul under his suggestion. (4) Haussath considers this
a letter to the Laodiceans by another hand. (5) Ewald
thinks it is by a friend and pupil of the Apostle.
17. Dr. S. Davidson (1847) refers to De Wette's argu-
ments as illustrating his and some other critics’ “German
subjectivity.” “It is sometimes instructive to look at
the sort of evidence by means of which men can per-
suade themselves that a writing is supposititious. What
minute learning and laborious diligence do they Squander
away in trying to show something that cannot be proved.
In the present instance, it is obvious to the practical
common sense of any calm inquirer, that testimony and
the degree of weight attaching to it are very imperfectly
apprehended by the learned critic.”
I8. THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS is almost
unanimously admitted to have been written from Rome
towards the conclusion of Paul's imprisonment, A.D. 63.
In modern times there have been conjectures hazarded
as to Corinth or Caesarea, but they have found no accep-
tance. The external testimony is found in Polycarp,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Canon
of Muratori, &c. The objections in modern times are
(1) from Schraeder, who doubts the authenticity of chaps.
iii. I—iv. 9. (2) Baur, with Schwegler, objects to the
whole Epistle, by an “insanity of hypotheses,” as con-
taining Gnostic ideas, which belong to a later age.
He has been refuted by Lünemann, Bruckner, Risch,
Ernesti, and Hilgenfield. (3) Heinrichs considers the
Epistle to be made up from two letters—one to the
Church, chapters i. and ii. as far as ili. I, and iv. 21–23;
the other from iii. I to the end of what remains. His
* Davidson's “Introduction to the New Testament,” Vol. II. p. 356.
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 449
scheme has been replied to by Bertholdt, Flatt, Schott,
Kraum, and Rheinwold. (4) Hitzig and Hinsch oppose
the genuineness of the Epistle, the latter on grounds
similar to Baur, the former (as Meyer remarks) on no
ground whatever."
19. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS was written Epistle
at the same place and about the same time as that to “...º.º.
the Ephesians (at Rome or Caesarea, as before noticed).
Which of the two Epistles was first written has been
warmly contested. (I) On behalf of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, we have the opinions of Theodoret, Flacius,
Baronius, AE’etavius, Ussher, Heidegger, Zºg//foot, Pearson,
F/ammond, Mill, Hottinger, Michaelis, Schmidt, Hug,
Fichhorn, Feilmoser, Schott, Koehler, Schrader, Lardner,
Crediter, Galericke, Burton, and Greswell. (2) On behalf
of the Epistle to the Colossians we have Capellus, j. j.
Lange, De Wette, Neander, Harless, Olshausen, Steiger,
Wiggers, Meyer, Wieseler, Davidson, and others. These
two Epistles are no doubt the most profound of all the
Pauline Epistles, and both are characterised by a marked
peculiarity of style.
20. The external evidence is to be found in Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, the Canon of Muratori, Theophilus of
Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen,
besides that of the heretic Marcion. The integrity of
the Epistle has been opposed. (1) Baur (with whom
substantially agree Schwegler, Plancé, Köstline, Hilgen-
field, Hochstra) considers this Epistle, with that to the
Ephesians, which he thinks secondary and counterpart
to it, to be non-Pauline, and of the date of the Gnostic,
&c., heresies. (2) Mayerhoff assumes the genuineness
of the Epistle to the Ephesians to the prejudice of this
Epistle, which he thinks belongs to the second century.
* Meyer's “Philippians,” p. 7.
G. G.
450 THE EPIST LES OF ST. PA UIL.
First and
second
Epistles
to the
Thessa-
lonians.
(3) De Wette assumes that this Epistle is the first to the
prejudice of the Epistle to the Ephesians. (4) Weisse,
Aſ itsi.g., Holtzmann, and Haenig profess to have found
out numerous interpolations. (5) Ewald thinks the
Epistle was planned by Paul, but written by Timothy.
/Saur's views, and most of his School's, are opposed by
De Wette, Meyer, O/s/ausen, and Huther.
2I. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS was
undoubtedly written from Corinth about A.D. 52 or 53.
It was probably the earliest of all the Apostolical
Epistles of Paul, as Lardner thinks. A few critics place
it later, as Wurm, Schrader, Kohler, Benson, Michaelis,
Whiston, and Böttger. The Second Epistle to the Thessa-
Ionians was also written from Corinth soon after the
first. Grotius thinks the second Epistle was the first
written, but this is not generally admitted, though
supported by Ewald, who thinks it was written
from Berea. The external testimonies to these
Epistles are found in Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp,
and Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
and Tertullian.
22. The opponents to the genuineness, &c., of these
Epistles are (I) Schmidt, who, from 2 Thess. iii. 17,
contends that the first Epistle is deficient in this
mark of its being a genuine production of Paul ; and
that 2 Thess. chap. ii. I—I2 is a Montanist interpolation.
With this De Wette at first coincided, but afterwards
refuted his own doubts. (2) Hilgenfield thinks the first
Epistle alone to be genuine. (3) Kerm thinks the second
Epistle to be not genuine, because of the prophecy re-
specting Antichrist. (4) Bater's system naturally leads
him to reject both Epistles, and they are so rejected by
his followers. A large number of the German critics
have opposed Baur's views, as Koch, Lünemann, Grimm,
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 451
Laznge, Reuss, Guericke, Hofmann, Bleek, Reiche, &c.,
also by Davidson, Alford, &c., in England.
23. Two matters referred to in these Epistles have
Occasioned much controversy. (I) The notion of the im-
mediate coming of our Lord, which the Apostle corrects in
the second Epistle. (2) “The man of sin”—Antichrist:
fairly interpreted, the Epistle speaks of the second
coming of our Lord, without reference to the precise
period, but rather in connection with the moral lesson
and warning. The explanation of the prophecy of “the
man of sin” belongs rather to the commentator than to
the critic; most expositions so far appear unsatisfactory.
24. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON was written from Epistle to
Rome, thesameyear asthose to the Colossians, Ephesians, *
and Philippians, and was probably the first of these in
point of order (A.D. 62). Philemon was a person of dis-
tinction, a member of the Church at Colosse. The
Epistle has for its object to reconcile him to his repen-
tant slave, who desired to return to him. It may be
compared with that of Pliny to Sabinian (Epistles, Book
ix. 21) greatly to the advantage of St. Paul. Wieseler
and Thiersch imagine this Epistle to be identical with
the one to the Laodiceans (Coloss. iv. I6): this is a mere
assumption, without any proof. The Epistle is referred
to by Tertullian, Marcion, the Canon of Muratori,
Origen, &c. Baur and the Tübingen school alone deny its
authenticity; with them it is a mere romantic story,
originating in a desire to veil a truly Christian idea in
an appropriate dress (Lange).
25. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES are, in the annals of . The
tº . º $ ſº a º e Pastoral
criticism, intimately connected with the controversy as Epistles.
to whether Paul's death followed his first imprisonment
at Rome; or whether he was released about 63 A.D., and
after Sundry labours, again returned to Rome, was again
G G 2
452 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
Question
of Paul's
first and
second
imprison-
ment.
imprisoned, and then put to death in the thirteenth or
fourteenth year of Nero (Eusebius and Strauss), A.D. 67
or 68. On this matter the best of critics differ. The
difficulty, as put by Alford, is “to assign during the life
of the Apostle a time for the writing which will suit the
phenomena of these Epistles;” he “cannot consent
to place them in any portion of St. Paul's Apostolic
labours recorded in the Acts; all the data which they
themselves furnish us are against such a supposition.”
It is therefore obviously necessary to accept the general
opinion of the early Church, handed down to us in the
Canon of Muratori and the Epistle of Clement, and
confirmed by the statements of Eusebius and Jerome,
who had access to the most early records extant. This
view is confirmed by the evident anticipations of Paul
himself in his first imprisonment, Philippians i. 25—6,
ii. 24; Philemon, verse 22; which were no doubt realised
after his release. But the language of resignation in
2 Timothy iv. 6–8, 16–18, implies the drawing near of
the end of all his earthly labours, when in the thirteenth
or fourteenth year of Nero–67 or 68 A.D.—he was put
to death at Rome. Between A.D. 63 and 67 or 68, there
is sufficient time for the visits to Asia Minor, Greece,
and even Spain, which are alluded to in the Pastoral
Epistles. This literature and a period of labour between
the first and second imprisonments are advocated by the
great majority of Christian critics. Theophylact, CEcu-
menius, Nicephorus Callistsus, Ussher, Pearson, Heidegger,
Mill, Le Clerc, Tillemont, Cave, Fabricius, Basmage,
Whitby, Rosenmüller, Mynster, Breutano, Wegscheider,
• Sandhagen, Hofmann, Schnappinger, Paley, Macknight,
Feilmoser, Guericke, Böhl, Köhler, Flatt, Mack, Wurm,
Neander, Baumgarten, Huther, Leo, Lange, Ruffert, Giesler,
and Oosterzee; SO also Alford, Ellicott, Conybeare, Howson,
THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY. 453
and Wordsworth ; on the other hand, Petavius, Lardner,
Winer, Baur, Niedmer, Wieseler, Schrader, Hemsen, De
Wette, Otto, Reuss, De Pressensé. Schaff, and S. Davidson :
for the full and exhaustive discussion see Davidson, and
Alford.” In the great variety of dates assigned to each
of these Epistles, only two are of importance, whether
written in the period included in the Acts of the
Apostles, or in or before the last imprisonment, and
these are doubtful; while all the minor circumstances
are mere suppositions to fill up the absence of recorded
facts.
26. The following dates have been assigned by critics.
(1) For the First Epistle to Timothy: by Paulus, from Paul
while imprisoned at Caesarea, A.D. 59 ; by Davidson,
after Paul's three years at Ephesus, A.D. 54, while Dr.
Plumpire (in Smith's “Dictionary") and Alford (in his
“Commentary") place it between the release from the
first and the beginning of the second imprisonment at
Rome, say 64 or 65 A.D. W. L. Alexander (in Kitto's
“Encyclopaedia ") is not quite decided, but inclines to
this latter date. (2) For the Second Epistle to Timothy,
Davidson fixes the date 62–63 A.D., during the first im-
prisonment at Rome, but Dr. Plumpire and Alford con-
sider it to be from Rome in the last year of the Apostle's
life, A.D. 67 or 68. (3) For the Epistle to Titus : Michaelis,
Hales, and Townsend give the period of Paul's first
Sojourn at Corinth (Acts xviii. 18), A.D. 52; Hemsen and
Wieseler think it was sent from Ephesus, A.D. 53 ; Ba-
zonizes, Calovius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Lardner, Heinrichs,
Schmidt, and others, differ much as to the place and cir-
cumstances, but agree in the date about 56 A.D. Dr.
Davidson fixes upon the period of the sojourn at Ephesus,
* Davidson’s “Introduction to * Alford’s “ New Testament,”
the New Testament,” Vol. III. Vol. III. pp. 69—108.
pp. IOO-I53.
Critical
opinions.
454 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
A.D. 57, while Dr. Howson, Benson, Pearson, Paley, and
Alford place it in the latter years of Paul's life, just
before his last imprisonment.
27. The external evidence from the Fathers, &c., is
from Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Ter-
tullian. Tatian rejected Timothy. Marcion, and some
other heretics, seem to have rejected these Epistles on
dogmatic grounds. In modern times we may notice the
following objections. (I) Evanson was opposed to the
Epistle to Titus. (2) Schmidt doubted the first Epistle to
Timothy. (3) Schleiermacher denied that Paul wrote the
first Epistle to Timothy (in which he was opposed by
Eichhorn, De Wette, Planck, Wegscheider, and Beckhams).
(4) Eichhorn soon after denied the authenticity of the
second Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus. (5) He
was followed by De Wette, Schrader, and virtually by
Schott. These views were combated by Bertholdt, Hug,
Siskind, Curtius, Vanderhess, Guericke, Wolf, Böhl,
Feilmoser, Kling, Heydenreich, and Mack. (6) Loeffler,
Neander, and Usteri followed, with doubts as to the
first Epistle of Timothy. (7) Crediter, Neudecker, and
Reuterdahl denied the authenticity of all three Epistles.
The objections of Eichhorn, De Wette, and Baur are—
(1) The difficulty of finding a place and time for these
Epistles in the recorded life of St. Paul in the Acts
of the Apostles. To this it is replied that the diffi-
culty is not impossible, as several speculations of the
critical school prove ; and that the acceptance of the
ecclesiastical tradition of a release of the Apostle, and
of a second imprisonment, removes these difficulties alto-
gether. (2) That these Epistles present a more deve-
loped state of Church organisation than belongs to the
lifetime of Paul ; which is a mere assumption, without
proof, and opposed to the reference to order and govern-
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 455
ment found in the Acts and the Epistles. (3) That there
are references to heresies peculiar to the Gnostics Valen-
tinian and Marcinatus, of the second century; as if the
germs, the first beginnings of most of the heresies
which became more known in the second and third
centuries were not discernible in the Apostolical age.
These objections cannot for a moment be placed in com-
petition with the universal testimony of the ancient
Church. A full and most weighty consideration of the
objections of Baur and others may be found in the
“General Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles” by
Wiesinger.
28. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS is commonly
classed with those of Paul, but its canonicity as a por-
tion of the Scriptures, and its authorship especially, have
been matters of controversy, not yet, as regards the
authorship, fully settled. (I) The question of its right
to a place in the Canon is the most important. In the
Eastern Church it was from the first generally received
as an Epistle of Paul, as may be seen from Pantaenus,
Justin Martyr, the Peshito (Syriac) version, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. Origen thought
that the language was un-Pauline, but the ideas were
those of Paul, and that the actual writer was some
disciple of Paul. In the Western Church it was received
by the only sub-Apostolic writer extant, Clement
of Rome, who quotes it as “Scripture.” After this it
was little noticed in the West until the fourth century.
The possible cause of this neglect in the early Western,
Churches may be, that after the first century the con-
troversy with the Jewish party in the Church had alto-
gether ceased among them, though lingering for some
time in the East. (2) The language in which the Epistle
was first written is disputed. Certain of the Fathers
Epistle
to the
Hebrews.
456 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
The
author-
ship.
=====
thought it was written in Hebrew, as Clement of Alex-
andria, Euthalius, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Jerome;
but the major part of the authorities, ancient and
modern, are in favour of the Greek. It is useless to give
their names.
29. The question of the authorship has called forth
a series of wild conjectures and hypotheses, which form a
large addition to the useless literature of Biblical
Criticism, being mere guesses of individuals, without the
shadow of evidence either of fact or of authority. We
give the names of the theorists and then their views.
Olshausen.—A hortatory discourse of the Presbyters of
Asia Minor, to which Paul had given his name, and the
Sanction of his Apostleship. Eichhorn, Baumgarten,
Crusius, Schott, and Seyffrath.-It is one of a class
of interpolated writings, and the author, an Alex-
andrian, has remodelled the Epistle to the Ephesians
and Colossians for the Jewish Christians. Schwegler
and Zeller.—A treatise of the pseudo-Johannine school
of the second century. Köstlin and Ritschl.—It pre-
sents an advanced stage of the primitive Apostolical
Judaism. Weiss and Riehm.—An independent mis-
Sionary labourer connected with Paul. Ewald (partly
anticipated by Wetstein).-By some Jewish teacher re-
siding at Jerusalem, to a church in some important
Italian town, which had sent a deputation to Palestine.
Neander.—Some Apostolic man of the Pauline school,
whose training and method of stating doctrinal truths dif-
fered from St. Paul's. Sundry contemporaries of Paul are
put forth as the possible authors of this Epistle, viz.:
BARNABAS, by Tertullian, J. E. C. Schmidt, Wieseler,
Tweesten, and Ullman. APOLLOS, by Luther, Alford, Le
Clerc, Semler, Dindorf, Ziegler, De Wette, Tholuck,
Olshausen, Bleek, and Bunsen. Osiander, Heumann, L.
PA UL OR A POLLOS P 457
Müller, Dindorf, Credner, Reuss, Feilmoser, Lünemann,
and Lutterbeck think St. Paul wrote the last nine
verses, and that the rest was by Apollos and others,
as Luke, &c. Rev. Dr. Moulton, in the “New Testa-
ment Commentary,” ascribes the Epistle to Apollos.
SILAs, by Boehm, Mynster, and Riehm. LUKE, by
Grotius, Hug, Delitzsch, Köhler, Weitzsacher.
3o. The tendency of modern criticism is to fall
back upon (I) either Paul himself solely, or (2) upon
Paul as the furnisher of the matter of the Epistle,
together with the assistance of some one of his friends
as the actual writer. For the first opinion, Stuart,
Sampson, Turner, Barnes, Lindsay, Conybeare and Howson,
Hug, Klenker, Riga, Stendel, Gelpke, Paulus, Klee, Stein,
Gaussen, Wordsworth, and yet more recently, Forster.
For the second, Guericke, Stier, and Eberard. To decide
between the contending opinions is scarcely possible.
Within the last three centuries every word and
phrase of the Epistles has been examined, with an
acuteness and strictness far beyond the demands of
rational criticism, and in some cases throwing rather
darkness than light upon the discussion. Alford gives
sixty-two pages 8vo, Davidson sixty-Seven, and Eberard
fifty, on the question of authorship. D. W. L. Alex-
ander gives the result of his inquiries in Kitto,” which
is pertinent to the point in hand. (1) “There is no
substantial evidence, external or internal, in favour of
any claimant to the authorship of this Epistle except
Paul.” (2) There is nothing incompatible with the sup-
position that Paul was the author of it. (3) The pre-
ponderance of the internal and of the direct external
evidence goes to show it was written by Paul. Dean
Alford and Dr. Moulton have decided in favour of the
* Cassell. * Kitto’s “Biblical Encyclopaedia,” Vol. III. p. 253.
458 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PA UL.
authorship of Apollos. Dr. S. Davidson (1851) and
Eberard think that Paul furnished the matter, and that
Luke worked out the Epistle for Paul. The doctrine
is Pauline, the language is thought to be that of a
Subordinate assistant.
31. Professor W. Robertson Smith' is of opinion that
“Scarcely any sound scholar will be found to accept
Paul as the direct author of the Epistle, though such a
modified view, as was suggested by Origen, still claims
adherents among the lovers of compromise with tradi-
tion. . . . . The style of thought is quite unique ; the .
theological ideas are cast in a different mould, and the
leading conception of the high priesthood of Christ,
which is no mere occasional thought, but a central point
in the author's conception of Christianity, finds its
nearest analogy, not in the Pauline Epistles, but in
John xvii. 19. . . . The book has manifest Pauline
affinities, and can hardly have originated beyond the
Pauline circle to which it is referred, not only by the
author's friendship with Timothy (xiii. 23), but by many
unquestionable echoes of the Pauline theology, and even
by distinct allusion to passages in Paul's Epistles’
(Heb. x. 30, refer to Rom. xii. 19). The Professor con-
cludes by making, like his predecessors, a “compro-
mise with tradition ; ” he supposes that either Barnabas
or Apollos was the writer, but that “Barnabas will claim
the preference if we are entitled to give any weight to
tradition.” We rather think that the balance of proba-
bility is quite as much in favour of Apollos, as advocated
by Dr. Moulton, Principal of the Wesleyan College,
Cambridge, in his “ Notes on Hebrews,” in “The New
Testament Commentary for English Readers.”
* Dr. Robertson Smith," Ency. Brit,” Ninth Edition, Vol. XI. Article
“Hebrews.” .
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 459
C H A P T E R XXIII.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLEs.
I. These seven Epistles—one of James, two of Peter, Seven
three of John, and one of Jude—are usually known as Epistles.
the CATHOLIC EPISTLES: this term was first used by
Origen in reference to I Peter, I John and Jude. In
the time of Eusebius, the other four Epistles were
already classed with the preceding. Why they were
specially called Catholic is disputed. If by this de-
signation their Canonical character is implied, the term
is not specially distinctive from the other books Com-
prising the Canon. Probably these Epistles were so
called from their ENCYCLIC character, as not written
(with the exception of the second and third Epistles of
John) to one person or to one particular church, but to
all Christians. In the old MSS. these Epistles are
placed after the Acts of the Apostles and before the
Epistles of Paul.
2. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. To ascertain which of Epistle of
the Jameses mentioned in the New Testament is the *
author of this Epistle, it will be necessary to refer to the
tedious and unsatisfactory discussions on the brethren of
our Lord. The fact that men of profound learning and
deep research have differed so decidedly, is a proof that
the information incidentally given in the New Testament
is not sufficient to ensure certainty in any of the con-
clusions of the critics. In the Apostolic age, the various
Jameses and Marys were all well known, and easily
460 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
distinguished by the readers of the Gospels, and the
Acts, and Epistles. Exclusive of James the son of
Zebedee, who was put to death by Herod Agrippa
(Acts xii. 2), and who dying so early could not be the
author of the Epistle, there are six others of the name
mentioned in the New Testament. The Rev. F. Mey-
'rick' seems to have thoroughly investigated the question
of the Jameses: his list is as follows:–
(I) James, the Apostle, the son of Alp/laus (or its
Synonym Cleopas): Matthew x. 3; Mark iii. 18 ; Luke
vi. I5 ; Acts i. I3.
(2) James, the brother of the Lord : Matthew xiii. 55;
Mark vi. 3; Galatians i. 19.
(3) James, the son of Mary : Matthew xxvii. 56; Luke
xxiv. IO. Also called the little, Mark XV. 40.
(4) James, the brother of jude : Jude, verse I.
(5) James, the brother (?) of jude : Luke vi. I6; Acts
i. I3.
(6) James: Acts xii. I7, xv. 13, xxi. I8; I Corinthians
xv. 7; Galatians i. 9, 12.
There can be no doubt as to the names in numbers
two to six. They refer to one person, but whether num-
ber one—James, the son of Alphaeus—can be identified
with the brother of our Lord, is, according to Neander,
the most difficult of problems. This identity is sup-
ported by Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome,
Augustine, and the Western Church generally ; also by
Eusebius, Baronius, Lardner, Pearson, Gabler, Hug,
Meier, Galericke, Gieseler, Mombert, and Thiele ; but
Davidson, Herder, De Wette, Neander, Kern, Schaff,
Winer, Stier, Grotius, Hammond, Simon, Fritzsſie,
Mayer/off, Crediter, Bloom, Wieseler, Ols/lausen, Lange,
Åothe, and Alford deny this identity.
* Smith’s “Biblical Dictionary,” Vol. I. pp. 920–926.
THE BRETHREN OF OUR LORD. 46I
3. Respecting “ the brethren of our Lord” there are
four hypotheses. (1) That they were ſhe natural children
of Joseph and Mary, supported by Jovinian, Bonosus,
Helvidius, Winer, Wieseler, Stier, Schaff, Neander,
Meyer, Mombert, Davidson, Alford and Farrar. (2)
That they were the sons of Josep/, by a former wife,
Supported by Hilary, Epip/antius, Chrysostom, Gregory
of Nysa, and by the Greek Fathers generally, Cave,
Basmage, and recently by Bishop Lightfoot. (3) That
they were the children of Josep/, by a Levirate marriage
zwith the widow of /ais brother Cleopas, supported by
Epiphanius and Theophylact. (4) That they were our
Lord's first cousins, the sons of Alphaeus or Cleopas, and
of Mary the sister of the Virgin Mary ; this opinion is
supported by Papias, Jerome, Augustine, and the Latin
Church generally; also by Dr. Plumptre in his “ Notes on
Matthew’’ (in the “New Testament Commentary’),
and by Canon Cook (in the notes appended to Matthew,
“Speaker's Commentary”).”
4. If then, James, “the Apostle,” be a different person
from James, “the brother of the Lord ” (who is identi-
fied with the persons number two to six), the question
is, Which of these is the author of this Epistle 2 %ames,
the Apostle (the just), is regarded as the author by
Davidson, Stanley, and Meyerick. James, the Lord's
brother (not the Apostle), is thought to be the author by
Herder, De Wette, Credner, Neander, Kern, Winer, Rothe,
Stier, Schaff, and Alford. Luther singularly attributed
the Epistle to the son of Zebedee. The traditions pre-
served by Eusebius and Origen from Hegesippus and
Josephus are not generally accepted as trustworthy.
5. The Epistle is referred to by Clement of Rome,
Shepherd of Hermas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of
| Three Vols, 4to, Cassell's Ed. * “New Test.,” Vol. I. p. 73.
The bre-
thren of
Our Lord.
462 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius and Didymus of Alexandria,
Cyril and jerome; was accepted by Eusebius, and by the
Church of his day, but not universally. It is found in
the Peshito early Syriac version. The date assigned to
it by Neander, Schneckenberger, Thiele, Thiemer, Huther,
Davidson, and Alford is 45 A.D., a short time before the
so-called Council of Jerusalem ; but Michaelis, Pearson,
Mill, Guericke, Bleek, Burton, Macknight, and the critics
generally, place it about 60 A.D., just before the martyr-
dom of the writer. Lange thinks A.D. 62–63, Hug and
De Wette think it was not circulated until after the
appearance of the Epistle to the Hebrews. At the time
of the Reformation the genuineness of the Epistle was
doubted by Erasmus, Cajetan, Cyril Lucas, Luther, the
Magdeburg Centuriators, Hunnius, Althamer, and others.
Luther went so far as to call it “an Epistle of straw,”
chiefly, however, on the supposition that the teaching of
the Epistle was contrary to that of Paul. Since then the
principal objectors have been Faber, Bolten, and Bertholdt,
who think that James wrote in Aramean, and that our
Greek copy is a translation by another hand; also by
De Wette, Schleiermacher, Kern, Baur, Schwegler, and
Ströbel.
6. It does not appear clearly to what special portion
of the Church this Epistle was addressed. It obviously
refers to the whole Jewish nation, whether believers or
not, but is specially intended to warn the Jewish believers
against any participation in the approaching revolu-
tionary movement of the Jewish zealots against Rome;
and against the temptation to fall away through the
persecution to which they would be exposed from the
fanatical patriotism of their unbelieving countrymen.
First 7. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. “In all Christian

Epistle of * e º
%. antiquity,” says Olshausen, “no one doubted the genuine-
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 463
ness of this Epistle.” The external evidence is from
Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, the Syriac Peshito version,
Tertullianus, Valentine, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
and Eusebius. The Paulician fanatics in the seventh
century did not receive it. In modern times the Tübingen
School of Baur and others alone reject it on the ground
of its opposition to their system. It was undoubtedly
written for the believing Jews in Asia Minor, as stated
in I Peter i. 1, either in 64 to 67 A.D. or towards the end
of the Apostle's life.
8. The place from whence the Epistle is dated is a
Subject of controversy. We give the opinions in order.
(1) The Babylon mentioned by the Apostle is supposed
to be the BABYLON 77: Chaldata, rebuilt near the old site;
by Erasmus, Drusius, Basmage, Beza, Cave, Beausobre,
Welstein, Lightfoot, Dr. Benson, Wordsworth, A. Clarke,
Tregelles. Michaelis thinks the place was Seleucia on the
Tigris, and not Babylon itself. (2) BABYLON in Egypt :
Pearson, Mill, Le Clerc. (3) BABYLON, the mythical
designation of Rome: Grotius, D. Whitby, Lardner, Mac-
knight, Tomline, and Horne. (4) Some deny that Peter
was ever at Rome, as Salmasius, Scaliger, T. Spanheim ;
but this has been disputed by Cave, Pearson, Le Clerc,
Basmage, and Lardner, and by all the Romish critics and
ecclesiastical historians.
9. There is a similar variety of opinion as to *e
parties to whom it was addressed, though one would
think the language of chapter i. verse I is decisive
enough, and as precise as was necessary for our infor-
mation. (I) In the opinion of Bede, Bega, CEcumzenius,
Grotius, Cave, Mill, Tillemout, Hales, Rosenmiller, Hug,
and others, it was addressed to Jewish Christians. (2)
Lord Barrington and Dr. Benson think it was to the
proselytes of the gate. (3) Michaelis thinks it was
4. . . . .
464 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Second
Epistle of
Peter.
written to native heathens, who had been at first proselytes
to Judaism and then to Christianity. (4) Estius, Whitby,
Lardner, Macénight, and Tomline think it was written
to Christians in general.
IO. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. The genuine-
ness of this Epistle has been denied, mainly on the
ground of its not having been received generally until
late in the fourth century, by the Council of Hippo, 393
A.D. The amount of evidence to its existence found in
the earlier writers is less than the evidence to the other
books. Eusebius placed it among the books not gene-
rally received, so also Origen, yet he and Clement of
Alexandria treat it as genuine, the one calling it
“Scripture,” and the other writing a commentary upon it.
It is not in the Peshito (Syriac) version. The supposed
references to it in Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Poly-
carp, and Ignatius, are perhaps too vague to be depended
upon, but there is a notice of it in a fragment of Mileto pre-
served in the Syriac. That it was received in the second
century, though not generally, is probable from allusions
to it in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch,
and the Shepherd of Hermas. The doubts of the early
Church prove the great care exercised in the admission
of writings, claiming Apostolical origin, into the Canon.
No book could be less exceptional in its matter or more
worthy of the Apostle, and it claims expressly to be the
work of Peter; yet because it had not been so generally
1<nown from the first, and because of differences in style,
&c., not difficult to account for, its reception was long
delayed. No reason can be assigned to account for a
forgery by a later writer. It is all but impossible to
believe that the writer of such passages as those in
chapter i. 3–8, 16–21, can be an impostor, who is
endeavouring to impose a pseudo-Epistle of Peter upon
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 465
the Churches. In all the writings of the early Fathers,
there are no passages equal to these and other portions
of the Epistle. (1) Hence, the authenticity of the Epistle
is advocated by Michaelis, Pott, Augusti, Storr, Flatt,
Hug, Schmidt, Lardner, Guericke, Feilmoser, Windisch-
1mann, and Thiersch ; Olshausen and Davidson are not
decided. (2) The Epistle is doubted or rejected by
Cain, Grotius, Cajetan, j. j. Scaliger, Salmasius,
Erasmus, Semler, Schmidt, Welcker, Eichhorn, Credney,
Neander, Mayerhoff, Neudecker, De Wette, Reuss, Schweg-
ler, and others. (3) Mayerhoff thinks it was written by
a Jewish Christian of the second century. (4) Bertholdt
thinks the second chapter an interpolation. (5) Lange
thinks that a portion of the Epistle of Jude was inserted
in this Epistle, originally as a gloss, confirmatory of the
text. (6) Hilman ascribes only chapter i. to Peter.
(7) Bumsen thinks that the first eleven verses of the first
chapter, and the doxology at the end of the third
chapter, are an Epistle written before the first Epistle.
(8) Grotius thinks it was written by Simon, or Simeon,
Bishop of Jerusalem, who had himself seen the Lord,
and that it was afterwards ascribed to the Apostle. (9)
Bleek thinks it was written by a good Christian, but not
by the Apostle.
II. The Epistle was written probably in the last year
of Peter's life; those who relegate it to the second cen-
tury “forget that the intellectual strength which charac-
terises this Epistle is not found elsewhere in the second
century; that the appearance of the seducers, against
whom this Epistle is directed, coincides, according to the
notices found in the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul, and in
the Revelation of St. John, with the very period to which
the Epistle introduces us.”
* Lange, imp. 8vo, p. 8.
H H
466 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
First
Epistle of
John.
12. THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN was
undoubtedly written by the author of the Gospel. Its
style, matter, and the numerous passages which are
parallelisms, show this. (1) Hug, Grotius, and Eberard
think it was written from Patmos. (2) Macknight from
Some city in Judaea, while Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Matthaei,
and Davidson think it was written at Ephesus. (3) Some,
as Davidson, think it was written after the Gospel. (4)
Others, as Huther, Reuss, and Thiersch before the Gospel.
(5) While Tregelles wisely thinks it impossible to decide.
13. The date of the Epistle is variously estimated from
68 A.D. to the end of the first century. (I) Giesler,
Hammond, Whitby, Michaelis, Macknight, and Horne,
before the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. before A.D. 70,
so also Benson, Hales, and Tomline. (2) Lampe think
after the destruction of Jerusalem, but before the exil
of John to Patmos. (3) Lardner fixes upon 80 A.D. (4)
Braune about 90 A.D. ; Mill and Le Clerc 91 A.D. (5)
Beausobre, Du Pin, L'Enfant, and Davidson towards th
end of the first century. The Baur (Tübingen) schoo
place it in the Second century.
I4. To whom it was especially addressed is equall
matter of discussion. (I) To the Parthians, according to
some Greek and Latin MSS., and hence supported b
Augustine, Cassiodorus, and Bede, and defended by Estius
(2) To the jewis/. Christians in judaea and Galilee by
Benson. (3) To the Church at Corinth by Lightfoot, and
more recently by an anonymous writer. (4) To the
Gentile Church by Davidson. (5) To Ephesus by Hug
(6) To the whole Church by CEcumenius, Lampe, Du Pin
Lardner, Michaelis, and Tomline.
I5. The object of the Epistle is also variously stated
(1) Anti-jewish by Semler and Loeffler. (2) To jewish
Christians who had apostatised to judaism by Lange














FIRST EPISTLE OF YOHN. 467
Eichhorn, and Hänlein. (3) Against the Sabians (dis-
ciples of John the Baptist) by Barker, Storr, and Keim.
(4) Against the Gnostics by Klenker. (5) Against Cerin-
thians, Gnostics, and Magi, by Michaelis. (6) A peculiar
kind of Gnosticism, which was allied to a Parsee-Magi-
Dualism, by Paulus. (7) A Didactical Treatise on
Christianity, both devotional and practical, Bishop
Horsley. (8) Against the early Doceta, who denied the
humanity of Christ, by Tertullian, Dionysius, Alexander,
Credner, Scott, Lucke, De Wette, Schleiermacher, Neander,
ilgenfield, Reuss, Huther, and Davidson."
I6. The external evidence is indisputable. There are
eferences to this Epistle in the Shepherd of Hermas,
apias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,Tertullian, Origen,
yprian, Eusebius, Athanasius—also the heretic Carpo-
rates. It is included in the Syrian Peshito. The internal
vidence is conclusive, and points out the Apostle John,
he writer of the Gospel, as the author of this Epistle.
17. Two interpolations. (I) The first, chapter ii., latter
alf of the twenty-third verse, is not found in the Textus
eceptus, and is printed in italics in our English version,
s now acknowledged as genuine by Griesbach, Lach-
mann, Tischendorff, Schultz, and most critics. (2) The
econd, the verses on the heavenly witnesses, chapter v.
, 8, are generally believed to be an interpolation,
hough the controversy has not yet quite died out.
18. In modern times, joseph Scaliger first asserted
hat this Epistle was not the work of the Apostle John;
ater, S. G. Lange thought it not worthy of the Apostle.
retschneider also attacked it as not genuine, on account
f the Logos and anti-Docetic doctrine, but afterwards
etracted. Claudius thought it the fabrication of a
Jewish Christian. Then follow Horst and Paulus, who
* “Introduction to New Testament,” Vol. III. p. 24.










H H 2
468 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
The
disputed
passage
chap. v.
7, 8.
Second
and Third
Epistles
of John.
added nothing material beyond what had been already
advanced ; and lastly, the Tübingen school of Baur.
Baur (1848) called it a weak imitation of the Gospel,
and ascribed it to a Montanist origin. Hilgenfield, of
the same school, regarded it as a splendid type of the
Gospel, but too material in its views of the Divine
Nature as light, which implies relation to space. Zeller,
in reply to Köstlin, considers that the Epistle and
Gospel are by different authors, and that the Logos and
anti-Docetic doctrines delegate it to the second century,
with other minor objections. Such, to use the words of
Dr. Davidson,' are “the flimsy arguments which hyper-
criticism is not ashamed to adduce.” The doctrine of
the Logos, as taught by John, and the germ of the
essence of the Docetae, were not first known in the
Second century.
19. We may just notice the fact of the controversy
respecting the genuineness of the passage chap. v. verses
7, 8 (the three heavenly witnesses). All external evidence
is against their being part of the original text. They
are most probably an ancient gloss placed in the margin,
which crept, through a careless copyist, into some MSS.
As such, though spurious, it is a proof of the doctrinal
views of the early Church, which rest upon a large
number of texts the genuineness of which has never been
disputed, as well as upon the whole teaching of the New
Testament.
20. The Second and Third Epistles of john are distin-
guished from the first by their being addressed not to a
Church, but to individuals, and also by their brevity.
The writer calls himself the Elder (not the Apostle).
This might have arisen from the Apostle's humility, but
it has led to a general impression, both in the primitive
* “Introduction to New Testament,” Vol. III. p. 456.

SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLEs of yoHN. 469
Church as well as in our day, by several eminent critics, of
the orthodox as well as of the Rationalistic school, that
the Epistles second and third are most probably to
be ascribed to john the Presbyter. The fact of these
Epistles being written to private individuals caused
them to be kept in private hands, and not to be deli-
vered to the Church until years had passed away, and
the difficulty of ascertaining their authorship thereby
increased.
2I. The external testimonies are references to the
second Epistle in Irenaus. Origen mentions the three
Epistles, so also Eusebius and jerome, but accompanied
by a statement that they were doubted by many.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius of
Alexandria, Athanasius, Cyril, and Epiphanius, received
them as John's. In the Muratorian Canon two Epistles of
john are mentioned. Aurelius, Bishop of Chollabi, quoted
the second Epistle in the Council of Carthage, 256 A.D.
Clement of Alexandria speaks of the first Epistle as the
larger, implying the existence of at least another
Epistle. -
22. Modern opponents of the genuineness of these
Epistles as the production of John the Apostle are
Grotius, Erasmus, Beck, Fritzsche, Bretschneider, Paulus,
Credner, jackmann, Schleiermacher, and the Tübingen
critics. Baur thinks the second Epistle was ad-
dressed to the Montanistic party in the Church of
Rome; and again, that it was addressed to the church
to which Caius belonged. Hilgenfield regards the second
Epistle as an excommunicatory writing repudiating
false teachers (Gnostics); and the third as emanating
from the church of John for the purpose of vindicating
their right to issue such epistles of commendation, in
opposition to the Jewish Christians, who thought this
470 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Epistle
of Jude.
to be the sole prerogative of James, their head | Other
objections have been made to the reference to the doc-
trine of the Logos, and of the Doceta, as implying a date
of the second century, as if these doctrines had not been
matter of discussion in the "Apostolic days. Eberard
conceives the writer to be john the Presbyter.
23. THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE. The writer
is Judas, the brother of James (Luke vi. I6), which,
perhaps, would be more correctly understood to be the
Son of James. If so, he cannot be identified with Jude
the Apostle, called also Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus, neither
does he seem to identify himself with the Apostles
(verse I7). The Apostleship of the writer is not clear;
Clement of Alexandria, Arnaud, Bengel, Hug, jessieu,
Olshausen, and Tregelles ascribe it to Judas, the Lord's
brother, not the Apostle. % |
24. The external testimony is to be found in allusions
in the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, Ter-
tullian, Eusebius, Origen, and Jerome; but these are
not decisive as to their full conviction of its canonicity.
Eusebius mentions the doubts as to its genuineness
common among many in his day. Since it appeared
in the catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 363, it
has been generally admitted by the Christian Churches.
Since the Reformation, doubts as to its canonicity have
been expressed by Grotius, Luther, Calvin, Bergen,
Bolten, Dahl, the Magdeburg Centuriators, and Michaelis.
25. The Epistle contains a quotation from an Apocry-
phal writing, Enoch, and has a large portion of its
contents almost identical with the second Epistle of
Peter. These circumstances have stood in the way of
its general reception by the Church, and are not even
now fully overcome. It was probably written before the
second Epistle of Peter, and in Palestine.
|
|
THE APOCALYPSE. 47 I
26. THE REVELATION OF JOHN, called also the
APOCALYPSE, is, in the opinion of J. P. Lange, “one of
the most strongly authenticated of the books of the
Bible ; authenticated by its superscription, its historical
statements (chapter i. 9), and the historical evidences
accompanying it.” It claims to be written by one
jo/in, evidently the beloved Apostle. (I) It is referred
to as such by Hermas, Papias, Melito, Theophilus of
Antioch, Apollonius, Irenaeus, the letter of the Churches
of Vienne and Lyons, Justin Martyr, the Canon of
Muratori, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Jerome, Victorinus, Methodius, Ephrem-Syrus,
Epiphanius, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory, Didy-
mus, Ambrose, and Augustine ; in modern times by
Flacius, Twells, C. F. Schmidt, J. F. Reuss, Knittel,
Storr, Süderwald, Harting, Klenker, Herder, Donker-
Curtius, Hänlein, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, Feilmoser,
Kolthoff, Olshausen, J. P. Lange, Dannemann, Haver-
nick, Guericke, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Bunsen, Wood-
house, Elliott, and most English commentators. The
Tübingen school attribute it to the Apostle, as necessary
to their theory of the non-Apostolic origin of the fourth
Gospel. (2) It has been denied or doubted to be the work
of the Apostle by the Alogi (Antinomians), who place
the work to the heretic Cerinthus ! Caius of Rome
agreeing with them. Dionysius of Alexandria thought
the work might be by John the Presbyter; he, with
Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzenus,
and most of the Greek Churches, being to Some degree
influenced by their anti-millennian views. In more
recent times the following, though differing on many
points, and influenced by very different reasons, agree
in doubting the Apostolical genuineness of this book.
- * Lange's “Apocalypse,” imp. 8vo, p. 1.
The Apo-
calypse.
472 THE APOCALYPSE.
Luther, Zwingle, Carlstadt, Erasmus, Older, Semler,
Stroth, Merkel, Corrodi, Cludius, Michaelis, Hemriche,
Bretschneider, Bleek, Ewald, Schott, Lucke, Credner,
Neudecker, Reuss, Hitzig, Schleiermacher, Tinius, and
De Wette. (3) It has been ascribed to John the Pres-
byter by Dionysius of Alexandria, Bleek, Credner, and
Jachmann. (4) To John the divine (but not John the
Apostle or Presbyter) by Ballenstadt. (5) To john
Maré by Rittig ; this was first proposed by Beza.
27. The time when written depends upon the period
of John's banishment to Patmos. (1) That the exile there
zwas in the time of Domitian, and that the date is pro-
bably A.D. 97—95–96, is the opinion of Du Pin, Basnage,
Turretin, Spanheim, Le Clerc, Mill, Whitby, Lange,
Lardner, Tomline, Burton, Woodhouse, Elliott, Eberard,
Hofmann, Thiersch, Hengstenberg, and also by the
Fathers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Victorinus, Origen, Eusebius, and Orosius. (2) The
period of the exile to Patmos is placed in the time of
Claudius, by Epiphanius; (3) but in the time of
Nero, A.D. 65–69, by Sir J. Newton, Stuart, Elliott,
Guericke, Stock, Tilloch, and by the earlier writers,
Epiphanius and Theophylact.
NOTE.
The four passages which are supposed to have been
corrupted by the Jewish teachers (to which reference is
made in page 25) are as follows:—
I. DEUTERONOMY, chapter xxvii. 4. “Therefore it
shall be, when ye be gone over jordan, that ye may set up .
these stones, which I command you this day in Mount Ebal.”
FOUR SUPPOSED CORRUPT TEXTS. 473
The Samaritan Pentateuch and version here read Gerizim,
and charge the Jews with having corrupted the text.
The Septuagint and the ancient versions follow the
Hebrew, but Kennicott, Geddes, and others, support the
Samaritan reading.
II. PSALM xvi. Io. “Neither wilt Thou suffer Thine
Holy One to see corruption.” The reading of the Hebrew
is contested whether Holy ones or Holy One. St. Peter,
in Acts i. 27, 31, xiii. 35, obviously adopts the reading
which is followed in our version, which has the Support
of all the ancient versions and most of the MSS.
III. PSALM xxii. 16. “They pierced My hands and My
feet.” Our translators have followed the Ketib, or mar-
ginal reading, “they pierced,” instead of the Keri, or tex-
tual reading, “as a lion.” In support of both readings
there are both MSS. and eminent critics (A. Clarke and
others). -
IV. ZECHARIAH, chapter xii. Io. “They shall look
upon Me whom they have pierced.” In St. John's Gospel,
chapter xix. 37, it is quoted, “They shall look on Him
whom they pierced,” which is the reading advocated by
many critics on the authority of sundry MSS. The
change in the reading is of no importance. In the one
case the Prophet speaks in the name of the Messia/, in
the other case the Evangelist is speaking of Häme.
In all these cases there is no foundation for any charge
of falsifying the text ; they are simply instances of
various readings in the MSS.
ERRATA.
Page 15, line Io, “(a)” should be “(d).”
,, 39, ,, 19, “remarkable” should be “remarkably.”
,, 78, ,, the last, “Renchlinus” should be “Reuchlinus.”
,, 199 ,, 21, “Chaldee” should be “Chaldaean.”
,, 307, , 13, “Erastes” should be “Erastus.”
,, , , 15, “iv. 23’” should be “iv. 22, 23.”
,, 308, , 29, “definition” should be “deposition.”
,, 321, , 27, “school of" should be “author of.”
,, 325, note, bottom of the page, “D., p. 523” should be “D., p. 531.”
,, 326, note, bottom of the page, “II., p. 532” should be “II., p. 582.”
,, , , line 9, “Evangelist books” should be “Evangelical books.”
,, 351, ,, the last, “removes” should be “reminds.”
,, 365, side index, “Final Theory” should be “Fourth Theory.”
,, 368, line 22, “countryman” should be “countrymen.”
,, 396, , 14, insert “with the exception” between “style” and “especially.”
,, 401, , , 8, “deliverance” should be “deliverances.”
,, 415, , 9, “word of Justin” should be “words of Justin.”
,, 418, , , 11, “iii. 24” should be “iii. 23, 24.” º
,, 427, , , 23, “Acts xi. I2 ” should be “Acts xi., xii.”
,, 443, , , 15, “Herman’” should be “Hermas.”
y
There may be others, but none but which the context itself will help to correct.
ſº ſae ,
∞∞∞
§§
&&3
§§
ſº sº.
º-ºº:
º
º
º:
º
###
#####
#####
º
######
¡¡ ¿
gº:
ſae
Š&
; ſ.
}
º
};:
¿
¿¿.*
g
šķ
Ř
§.
;ſ
。
șºſ
،
§§
ſae
、、、、、
§§
§§
§
§.
§§
¿?

#####iff}ſ
################
ſae;}}###
ķğ########
aeſ
~ ！
�
#§§
-###
ſae;######
■**
¿$
¿ğ###8%ſiſ！
########
&###############
###########
############
#ff;#####§§
###########
įff;،ſ.
Ķķ};
ſºſ
●
{*: №ſſº;$ſ;
º ，|׺§;};·
§§#???!！！
§§§-§§§
‘a’º,
ſae
§§§
:，：№ſ
####{##
#########
¿
ſºſ
ģ
§§§
sº
- º
* **** wºrs
º
ºw-ºr
ºr.
ºx’sº
***-
**
******
º
sº
wº
_º
ºº:
#######
##
Eºs
º-
●
§§、、。
¿?, ¿
#ffffffff;"
#
####
#######
####
º
º
Fº
º
§
tº:
#:
ſffff
º
§
[]
{
º
º
º
º
É
*~s
-**
º
:
§
sº
EFE
§
pº
º:
Sº º
§
º-ºº-ºº-
§
º
º:
º
º
º
º:
Sºº
º
E--->
º
tº:
******
§
:
ºº::
§:
º
Fº
ow.
º
º
*
Xº
º
º:
º
sº
&
sº
º
Fº
ºº::
&#šºſ
§§§§ſae
§§§;&ºffſ.*
， ！
¡ ¿ $¢
Ķ#####
#####¿§§§
º ， ， , ， ， ， ， º
§§§§§
№. ！！ ！！ ！！ ！！ ！!
Ķ;&#ý
●
*
ºk.
&. ，
- 5 ******）
§§§
ſ.º ºſ
Ķ
##
;8
ſaeiķºſ，
######
¿?
ſae
¿??¿
§§§§§
-№ſſſſſſſſſſſſſöğ :
¿iff
ģ
E-
º:
}
º-º-º:
ºº-º-º:
ºs.
Fº
ºr-º-
---------
º
jºgº
º
ſºſ:
∞
， ， №8
º.
$:
tº:
:#5
º
&:
§§§
*C.
#:
§
º
ſº-
*:
§
ºrº-
º
º
º
§:
*w
Sºº
º
º
tº
º
sº
§3
º
ſº-
ſº
º:
º
§
Fº vº
º:
##
##·œ Œ}Ķ
-šķ##į
############
#########
#############
º
º
#
į####
####
####
######
######
įſae
º:
*
º
|-ſae ºf
§¶√∞'，
■■■■
±5， ±, ±， ±
§§§
: （...）
■ ■ ■ ■ş° * * * * *
¿ºſ;À ，
%
º.º.）
|×
sºm º wºj.
§§§
ſaeº （
#ff;&
****
¿
∞ √
ºſſºſ
ºº::
Fº
**
º
º
gº
º
ſae:
#########
ſſſſſſäſae;$
ſaeſae
#ț¢;};$$$$$
ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ
####$;';
§##$$$
（±√（√≠√∞
$$$$}}};};{
º º
º
§:
º
º
**º
ººtae
{
§
**º-
$$$$$$$§§§ģ
wae，ſaeaeae
ſae ，ſaeae,
Ķī£5;ºſº， №ſſae
·ſae
ſae
“...': '（×）'， ，''，！ 3ſae§###
·…·:：:：：:·
§§§·-·ſae，ºğģ#|##
ț¢·-·§;，&
-#####55
ºrae;
ģ###
#
$ffff;ț¢
§§#Ģº
*****.***
ſwae,ae.
§§ ¶√∞'，
jº.
*：）*）“）.
º ſº ºº ：
-|-！,
∞a s√≠√∞wae，
A'..?.?.?º ae aerºſ.ſ.¿!
¿?，
ſaeº.&#9;&#
… … -∞∞∞
№, º•∞ 1.
ſºgº，·¿
©®°¶√3, √3，ſae, ſaeº，-
2，\;3， ±,±,±）,·ſaeº.
ſaeº，º， ºſ º aeſ ） iſ：ſae·
¿;
！№ſſº, №8
！！！！！！
§§
， ， ， ，
yºk：：:：::...?*ae
ſaevaeſſº
ſºſ.:
ſººſ：
-¿:
ſaeËW：
~：·-ſae
¿?-įėſ#####
ſae
·ſº??
ſº：
ſaeaeae
§§§§
§;
º:
º:
tº.
º
Sº
ſae
####
¿
:，：
ËĒģ-）}§§
、-º*******?
ſaegſ#wyr};，
##################
§5sae：- ·§§§§§§§§
ģ######ț##
? ！·gaeaeae
#################
··§，-
：ſaeſſae;ſae¿?§§
##############§§§§§§
}}#ffff;#########$$$$§§
§§§$;;;;;;$$$$$·######
##############}}#{{{{ſ}}};{{{ſ}
،sae
#############
ſae
）
}
§§
Ķ
§
sae-
##}}§§
##$%$§$%$§$%
§§#####
ži