Old Testament Literature. BY PROF. W. HENRY GREEN. FROM NOTES OF THE LECTURES BEFORE THE MIDDLE CLASS. COMPILED BY THE CLASS OF '79 FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE STUDENTS OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 3 » J , 3 ) , > 1 2 3 '■.■,'■,''' J J 3 J ) ' J 3 5 » ' » 3 > ) ) ' , J 1 > PRINTED NOT PUBLISHED. TRENTON, N. ]■■ JOHN L. MURPHY, PRINTER. MDCCCLXXVIII, Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1878, by W. H. GREEN, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, 6'3l ^75683 Special Literature of Old Testament. MIDDLE YEAR. Subject Defined. — 0. T. Literature is used in wider and narrower sense. In its wider sense, it embraces all studies which pertain to this portion of the Word of God, and includes exegesis, history, and theology of 0. T, In its narrower sense, however, it is limited to an inquiry into whatever concerns the books of the 0. T. as such — their contents, form, and history. Its object is to trace the origin, character, structure, and rela- tion of the works of 0. T. authors. Also called Introduction to 0. T. ; designation vague ; in practice, limitations are arbitrary ; more precisely described as Historico-critical. Eange of Subject. — 0. T. Literature, like Greek and Roman, confines itself to a single field of general literature and treats of the works of the various authors in this domain. Not limited (1) by nationality : i. e., not Jewish, because it excludes Josephus, Philo, Apocrypha ; (2) nor by language : not literature of He- brew tongue, excludes Talmud and Eabbinical writers ; but (3) by extent of canon, (0. T.) It embraces a definite circle of works with one character, viz. : that they are inspired. 0. T. Literature is divided into General and Special. Former concerns the 0. T. as a whole — its external form ; latter con- cerns its several parts or books, their internal character and substance. We now enter upon the Special Literature of the 0. T. ; into the consideration of the inward character of the books. We must presuppose their inspiration. Objected, that it destroys the critic's impartiality. Eeply : 1. To ignore divine origin. 4 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. is to preclude possibility of correctly apprehending the Bible, even as a literary phenomenon. 2. The alleged impartiality, is really a prejudice against it. 3. The conviction gathered from previous study is not a blind prejudice, but a rational conclu- sion which is confirmed afresh by critical investigation. Three questions in regard to each book : 1, Authorship ; 2. Integrity ; 3, Structure and Eolations. 1. Authorship. — By whom written? — not an idle question — gives us date, place and reason why written ; suggests a mea- sure of a book's trustworthiness and helps to a just comprehen- sion of it. Ascertained : (1) By direct statements : book claims its author, e.g. Pentateuch, Deut. 31 : 24, — many Psalms, Song of Solomon, some of the prophets — sometimes author in first person, as, " I, Daniel." (2) Incidental evidence, Eccl. 1: 1. Joshua, "When we crossed the Jordan," Many of Psalms could only have been written by David. (3) Testimony of other writers (0. T.) Joshua ascribes Pentateuch to Moses, Josh. 1 : 7. Isaiah referred to, 2 Chron. 26 : 22 and 32 : 32. Jer. 26 : 18, quotes Micah. — Ezra refers to Jeremiah. (4) Our Lord and N. T. (5) Current tradition — this too remote to be of conclusive value. (6) Other indications; internal evidence may agree with reputed origin ; compare Egyptian words in Pentateuch, Chaldee pas- sages in Dan. (Exile), Chron. closing with same sentence with which Ezra opens, favors opinion that Ezra is its author. The question of authorship closely bears upon that of canonicity ; if written by a man of known inspiration, the book is likely to be canonical, — the converse not true, — if anonymous, it is not, therefore, uncanonical. It is sufficient that the whole book was accepted as true by those who did know its authorship, and that it has the sanction of our Lord. If it could be shown that the book was not written by its reputed author, it would disprove its canonicity ; but no book of 0. T. sanctioned by our Lord can be so proved. 2. Integrity. — The freedom of a book from mutilations, adulterations or additions. Have we the identical book which the author wrote ? To decide this, is the function of criticism, which asks : Are these books the genuine productions of their OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 5 authors ? This work of purification is not arbitrary, but a sober discussion and the ofispring of a reverent regard for the 0. T. writings. We deal especially with a priori criticism as vs. a posteriori, which belongs to General Introduction and which seelis, by a comparison of MSS. versions, &c., the true text. But a priori criticism goes behind this comparison, and finds arguments for genuineness in the passages themselves. It asks : 1. Is there any anachronism, words used which did not arise till later? 2. Is there anything here at variance with the known views or style of author? 3. Or anything which is contrary to its position in the book ? Does it agree with context, or break sense or argument ? If so, it is spurious. There is no objection to the impartial application of these critical rules ; but we do object to it as a covert for infidelity. False canons have been set up, every prophecy has been called an anachronism, every miracle, an interpolation or mistake. And these objections, bolstered up by arguments from language and style. It is unreasonable to demand that every separate paragraph should be proved internally to be genuine. Where all the external evidence is for the genuineness of a passage, the burden of proof rests with the objectors. Passages in all literature, that, a priori, could not be established, if omitted, could not be missed, nor replaced by an a priori method. A priori and a 'posteriori criticisms have been called Eational and Mechanical, (this term unfortunate, as much rational work comes in mechanical criticisms, e. g., judging MSS.) Internal and External, Higher and Lower, Book and Word criticism. 3. Relation and Structure. — Each book, though complete, is a single member of the entire literature of the 0. T., and must be viewed in its relation to antecedent and subsequent productions ; what are the points of its connection with these, and what its function in the general scheme of the 0. T. ? Structure of a book concerns its design and plan, revealing its inner harmony and the connection. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. OLD TESTAMENT. Considerations in regard to the 0. T. as such^should General or Special precede ? Some recent writers insist that Special should precede General 0. T. literature ; because this is the historical order — books being written before the volume was compiled. But the other method is more convenient ; more natural to ask about a volume as a whole, before the parts. The literature of S. S. divided into literature of 0. and N. T. This division enters into General Introduction, because the two testaments are distinct in their origin and in formation of canon, and are diflferent in language. This division belongs also to Special Introduction, because of the real internal differ- ences between them. We must now inquire into the relation of the 0. to the N. T. The Bible is a unit in so far as it con- tains the one self-consistent and complete revelation of God's will. Its unity is not that of a uniform mass, but of an organ- ized body, whose parts differ in character and function, yet mutually complete each other and contribute to one end. The O. and N. T. agree : 1. In their plenary inspiration. 2. In containing essentially the same system of religious doctrine and duty— Acts 26 : 22 ; Rom. 3:21; Gal. 3 : 14. The two testaments differ — 1. In externals : (1) Language — 0. T. in language of single people ; N. T. in generally spoken language. (2) Length of time occupied in their composition — 0. T. 1000 years, from Moses to Malachi ; N. T. written in lifetime of one generation, 50 years. (3) In the period to which they belong— 0. T. before, N. T. after Christ. They differ — 2. In internals : (1) 0. T. progressive ; varieties in N. T. from the personality of different writers, but not progressive advance. (2) The 0. T. has only an inchoate or partial reve- lation, as compared with N. T. This inspiration is not incon- sistent with its plenary inspiration and is not derogatory, because it perfectly answered the end for which it was designed. The only inferiority of 0. T. is such as belongs to all the works of God which require time for their completion. That the 0. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 7 T. was thus incomplete is sliown : (a) By hints in 0. T., Jer. 31:31; (6) declaration of the N. T., "shadow," Heb. 10:1, Coll. 2 : 17 ; " weak and beggarly elements," Gal. 4:9; N. T., "more glorious," 2 Cor. 3: 6-11; Epistle to Heb., passim. Such being the differences, what is the precise relation of the 0. and N. T. ? Different views : 1. Some hold no relation beyond that of priority of time ; that the New supersedes and does away with the 0. T., revealing a new religion. Thus, the Mani- chseans, who held that Christianity was directly antagonistic to Judaism. So some modern rationalists, that the N. T. is entirely a new system, and quotes from the 0. T. merely to accommodate Jewish prejudice. 2. Some modern religious philosophers assert a relation between Judaism and Christian- ity — the former as preparatory to the latter, but only as co-ordinate and equal to the other ancient religions which, like it, contain elements of truth. No view is right, which ignores the divinity of the 0. T. and puts on a par God's and man's religions. Heathenism, in preparation for Christ, negative, teaching the inadequacy of all human systems. Judaism, a positive, conscious preparation, declaring the true plan of salvation and pointing forward to a fuller revelation. That the gospels found more converts from heathenism than from Jews, shows that they had less to rely upon in their religion, and im- plies the more positive nature of Judaism. 3. Others identify both testaments, starting from the truth of their ultimate connec- tion, they virtually obliterate all differences. They deny that the 0. T. was inchoate or incomplete. The allegorizers found all N. T. teaching in the 0. T. Ultra typologists in modern times attempt the same thing. 4. True view — Mean between the last two views : The 0. T. must be neither unduly depreciated nor exalted. They are different economies or dispensations of the same scheme of grace. 0. T. less clear and full, giving in shadow and type, what the N. T. more clearly reveals. The great fact which divides them, is the Advent of Christ. The one is prospective, the other retrospective of it. All that con- cerns the plan of redemption, therefore, is purposely left imper- fect, till the condition necessary to understand it was present, 8 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. viz., the advent. But such truths, as the Infinitude and Holi- ness of God, man's fall and all extra-redemptive truths are set forth in the 0. T. with equal distinctness from the first; while the person of the Redeemer and all redemptive truth, together with their dependent doctrines were progressive and but dimly and gradually revealed. Distinction between 0. and N. T. is relative, not absolute. The two may be variously contrasted. They contain the same religion — the difference lying in the mode of administration : 1. The 0. T. is a dispensation of law, the N. T. of gospel. God was ready to save before Christ, and the moral law is still in force, but these were the prominent features of the two dispen- sations. Therefore 2 Cor. 2 : 7, speaks of the former as " minis- tration of death," and the present dispensation as " ministration of the spirit." So John 1 : 17, " Law by Moses," &c. 2. 0. T. was ritual and outward, as vs. the more spiritual character of the N. T. This, too, is a relative distinction. Gospel rites now, and religion of the heart then, required ; but the pomps and rites of Judaism are in contrast to the more simple worship of N. T. 3. The N. T. was a dispensation of the Spirit. Holy Spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified, Isaiah 63 : 10 ; Ps. 51 : 11-12; even Gen. 6 : 3, indeed, speaks of a previous par- tial dispensation, but the extent and power of the Holy Spirit's operations were limited and inferior to what they have been since Pentecost, John 16 : 7. 4. 0. T. time of bondage, N. T. ■of freedom, and fuller sense of Sonship. Church not only in bondage, but individual seekers could not attain to so high a degree of fellowship with God. Gal. 4 : 2-3. 5. 0. T. dispen- sation restricted to one people, N. T, confined to no nation — universal. Proselytes from other nations submitting to the prescriptions of Judaism, show it to be only a temporary limi- tation, to a final universal dispensation. Gal. 3 : 28. If the 0. T. is inferior to the N. T., is it still binding on us ? Ans. Its ceremonial and political institutions, being temporary and preparatory, are now done away. Shown: 1. prophetic intima- mations, " ark of covenant shall be forgotten," Jer. 3 : 16 ; "Gentiles will be taken as Levites," Is. 66 : 21 ; 19: 19, Mai. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 9 1 : 11. 2. Declarations of N. T. Compare Peter's vision, Acts 9, with Acts 15; "law as schoolmaster," Gal. 3: 24-25; 5: 1-2; Peter rebuked, Gal. 2: 11-21 ; Ileb. throughout. 3. The divinely sanctioned example of the Apostles and early Church, Peter, Paul, Acts 10 : 28 ; 15 : 3 ; 18 : 18 ; 21 : 26 ; Gal. 2 : 3. 4. God's providence has abolished the Jewish ritual and state, temple destroyed, nation scattered, the genealogies lost, Levites and house of David can be no longer recognized. But as a revelation of God, the 0. T. is of perpetual validity, notwith- standing the abolishment of its rites and theocratic institutions: 1. From repeated declarations of our Lord and Apostles, Matt. 5:17; John 5 : 39 ; Rom. 15 : 4 ; 2 Tim. 3 : 16 : 1 Peter 1 : 19. 2. Contains laws which are unchangeable, based on the nature of God, nature of man and their relations. 3. Ceremonial itself still valid as an emblem of Christ, The 0. T., therefore, remains forever, one of the means God uses to reveal Christ. Two modes of regarding it : (1) As to its value and meaning to the Jews. (2) As to its full meaning intended by the Holy Spirit for us who have the disclosures of the N. T. TYPICAL CHARACTER OF O. T. The 0. T. is a preparation for the N. T., and that not as co-ordinate with heathen religions or negatively and unconsci- ously, but positively and consciously, shaped with reference to this end by God. A scheme of instruction, designed to pre- pare for further information, might be made, either 1. directly preparative with statements about things to be more fully dis- closed ; or, 2. indirectly preparative by laying the ground-work to be built upon — principles and ideas which are preliminary and fundamental to the understanding of the great objects of the future. The mind, if familiarized with these, will under- stand the revelations to come. Both these ways are, in fact, used. The first, mostly in the prophecies, second, in types. Types. — The word occurs only in the margin, (A. V.) 1 Cor. 10 : 11 ; but the Greek ro/TOc from TO~Tio is of frequent occur- 2 10 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. rence — equals : 1. a mark, as produced by a blow, " print of the nails," John 20 : 25. 2. pattern, as the mark is like the object which produces it, " pattern in the mount," Heb, 8 : 5 ; 1 Tim. 4 : 12 ; 1 Pet. 5:3. 3. image or form, Acts 7 : 43 ; 23 : 25. 4. technical sense, prejlguration, as Adam of Christ, Rom. 5: 14; and ensamples, 1 Cor. 10: 6, 11. Types may be fashioned in conformity with the objects prefigured, or the reverse. The O. T. types were of former class, receiving their shape from Christ to come. The N. T. of latter class, as Christ prefigures in his own person future character and condition of his people. But TUT^oi is never in N. T. in this latter sense. Antitype — the thing prefigured, 1 Pet. 3 : 21. Type and Symbol. — A symbol is a sensible sign or repre- sentation of some great truth, and when it is a natural, not an arbitrary, or conventional one, it is founded on resemblance to the object represented. Letters e. g., are arbitrary symbols. Types differ from symbols in that they have reference to the future. When a symbol represents an idea afterward to be realized in a higher form, it becomes a type. Types, therefore, are prophetic symbols ; and it is in this symbolical character, that the typical resemblance resides. Thus sacrifices were symbolic of the great truth that '' without shedding of blood is no remission," but they were, also, types of that great sacri- fice by which remission was possible. This truth, symbolized, was to be realized in the future, in a grander form than in 0. T. dispensation. So we speak of the type of a great coming event, the symbol of a great truth. Tabernacle symbolized that God was dwelling among His people ; but was a type, in that this truth was to have a future realization in Christ, and in the Church, as kingdom of God on earth and in its final consummation in heaven. Tabernacle and temple, therefore, symbols of spiritual truth — types of grand events in which that truth found its exemplification. An allegory is a similitude, in which moral or spiritual truth is conveyed by a fictitious narrative and imaginary persons or things. Truth of allegory lies in its spiritual significance ; while type is as real and true literally, as its antitype, e. g., " Pilgrim's Progress," allegory ; Canaan and David, types. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 11 Discrimination between typical and allegorical interpreta- tions : allegorical interpretation of 0. T. either denies, or makes no account of the literal and historical occurrences of what is recorded, regarding them as a sign of the truth. The narrative of 0. T. is not a record of facts, but the veil of spiritual truths. The aim of allegorical interpretation was to do away with parts of 0. T, which seemed unworthy of revelation ; held by Origen and others. Typical interpretation insists on literality of facts as if there were no other meaning; but at the same time they are regarded as prefigurations of certain spiritual truths, to find a higher realization. Old alle- gorical method is to be distinguished from modern mythical and legendary. They agree in undervaluing the literal truth of scripture narrative. The Tnyth may be defined as an idea compacted into the form of a history. The legend is a history whose form has been controlled and moulded by an idea. In both myth and legend, abstract ideas assume concrete forms ; and this assumption of forms is done, not by conscious intelligent selection, as in allegory, but in gradual and inseparable blending. These different modes of interpretation differ, also, in other important respects : all explain away some real truths and accept others. Mythical and legendary make the narrative the form of popular notions, often neither scriptural nor true, and their aim is to expunge divinity of O. T. But while 0. T. abounds in types, its divine reality precludes allegories, except when given as such. That types existed is proved : 1. Express statements of sacred writers, declaring objects in 0. T. to be prefigurations of Christ, viz: references to Psalms in N. T., Eph. to Heb. 2. Numerous and striking resemblances in objects of 0. T. to truths and facts of N. T. ; although many fanciful analogies, this does not affect the above fact. The likenesses are too many to be casual and penetrate into the very nature of the objects. God must have intended them to be types. 3. Analo- gies in nature. God's ordinary method in nature is that of types. Every stage in growth predicts the future; the seed contains the germ in undeveloped form, in type. Infancy points 12 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. to manhood. All nature is formed according to a law of typical progression. Manifest structure of development according to type all through geological records. Dr. McCosh, in " Typical Forms : " " Geology reveals a typical system. Lower animals are prognostications of future ones. There is an order succes- sive in nature ; but as one plant does not produce its neighbor plant, so the plants of one epoch do not produce those of another." Hence nothing singular in existence of types in 0. T. 4. From relation of 0. T. to N. T. ; same scheme, 0. T. prepara- tory ; N. T. its completement. There must be links of connec- tion, these are types. The former must contain simpler and primitive ideas which await a fuller disclosure. 5. Permanent factors in this scheme. There are certain permanent factors in God's revelation which give it a fixed character for all time, and which bring about the incessant repetition of like forms and thus furnish types. The three main factors are : (1) Nature of man; (2) God's character; (3) God's gracious purpose of salvation. Thus even in Adam's family, we find in type two great classes which still exist: Cain vs. Abel, 1 Jno. 3:12; so Gal. 4 : 29, Ishmael vs. Isaac. Also, God changes not, and what he has once done he will, in like circumstances, do again, therefore, every act of his is typical. 6. The purpose of this scheme of divine grace, as far as related to people of 0. T., demanded existence of types. The 0. T. had an immediate end to answer, viz.: to effect the salvation of those then on the earth. This it could only do by showing forth some truths and lessons which are now connected with salvation. The way by which sinners have returned to God has ever been the same. Therefore, if the 0. T. was to accomplish its mission, its lessons, however dim, must be the lessons, substantially, of the gospel — hence types. 7. The applicability of this scheme of gracious training for the generations in the period of transition between 0. T. and N. T., made types neces- sary. Men must be prepared to receive Christ. Israel trained by exhibiting these ideas again and again typically. As long as the great objects of salvation were not seen, their place must be filled by patterns. The present value of the 0. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 13 T. is due to the fact that under evanescent -forms, it presents abiding truths. THE EXTENT OF TYPES. To what extent are types used ? By what criteria can they be ascertained and identified? Nothing in scriptural interpre- tation has suffered more from fancies. The Fathers generally were allegorizers — allegory, however, used in wide sense, including types as well as allegory, Gal. 4 : 2'L Starting with the conviction that N. T. was foreshadowed in 0. T., they laid down no general theory, but were content with such particulars as fell in their way, as if anything in the O. T. might signify anything in N. T. Hence, while their christian instinct led them largely right, their fancy led them largely wrong. Thus the scarlet cord of Rahab prefigured blood of Christ ; 4 lepers at Samaria, 4 Evangelists; 12 oxen of Elijah, 12 Apostles; love of David for Bathsheba, that of Christ for Church. Reformers recalled attention to the strict historical sense, discriminating between type and allegory, refusing allegory as basis of doctrine. Types were allowed and largely studied, especially by John Cocceius, of Holland, who, however, went to great extremes, often whimsical. " Cur Christus Quadratus f " growing out of square form of altar, thought to typify Christ. All these errors due to two causes : 1. Attended too exclusively to details, instead of seeking the underlying idea. 2. Did not reach a clear idea of what constituted the typical relation. This led to a multitude of unimportant resemblances. Certainty and clearness grew out of conflicting and discordant views. Palpa- ble incongruities brought the doctrine of types into disrepute and led to opposite error: 1. Types rejected. 2. Others not prepared for this, claimed only those types to be admitted which the Bible declared to be such. Bishop Marsh: "admit only those especially declared to be types in N. T. Types involve divine intent, therefore God must tell what he intends. We are in danger of making typical what God did not so design." But, 14 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. (1) This would be'desirable, i. e., to have an explicit declaration, e. g., if the conversation on the road to Emmaus were recorded, it would have been of great value, but where is there such a professed revelation of types, as to warrant the assertion that none other existed ? (2) Types are referred to in the most casual and incidental way, and those thus mentioned have nothing in common as distinguished from other objects of 0. T. to account for these alone being types. (3) Upon this view, Typology loses all its importance and design ; reduced to a mere enumeration of so many instances of Divine fore-knowledge; no preparation for coming of Christ. (4) This hypothesis of Bishop Marsh assumes that the Divine intention in this matter, can be disclosed, only by express and individual statements ; unfounded assumption. As well say the predictions concerning Christ were not such, because not declared fulfilled in N. T. (5) Destroys the meaning and value of much of the 0. T. 3. In order to escape these difficulties, others say : there are t^o kinds of types, or two grounds by which they can be dis- tinguished, Ti/piinnati a.nd Typiillati: Innati — those declared to be such by scripture. Illati — those whose typical character is directly deducible from the innati; serviceable as a trans- ition, but unsatisfactory : (1) admits more types, and (2) con- fesses underlying principles; but (1) still matter of details. (2) resting on mere authority, with no thorough investigation of its rational basis. True View. — This principle was first announced by Bengel, and is, that individual objects under 0. T. derive their charac- ter and true significance from the system in which they are found, and are, therefore, to be studied with reference to their position in God's great plan. The character of individual objects, determined by the entire scheme. The whole prepara- tory and prefigurative. This view, self-evincing, also proved from scripture : 1. By practice of the sacred writers. Inspira- tion safest guide. If from the methods used by Christ, true inductions can give us this general principle, it is as true as if it were expressly stated. The inspired expositions are not dicta, but hints for our guidance from which we ascertain OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 15 principles. 2. The result thus reached by induction is fur- ther confirmed by comprehensive statements of scripture : " Shadow," Heb. 10 : 1 ; "law, schoolmaster," Gal. 3 : 24 ; " Law," Gal. 4 : 1-5 ; if the law is such, all pertaining to it must partake of the same character. As to the history of the 0. T. as well as ceremonies, 1 Cor. 10 : II, " ensamples," and E,om. 15:4. 3. Actual resemblances between objects of two Testaments. Every- thing in 0. T. has its plan and function in the general work of preparation for N. T. We are to discover that particular function which will show us its typical bearing. The existence of a pervading system of analogies, shows that we are dealing with what is designed, and that by God; casual resemblance would not show this, but the general unity of plan and amount of resemblances between the two Testaments do. SCHEME OF O. T. TYPES. Distribution and how governed. 0. T. has two chief functions, one present and one prospective. The former was to lead tlie then existing generations to God, latter to prepare for N. T. These two ends, though distinct, not separate in point of fact, so that some parts of 0. T. would have special reference to the present, and others would be prospective. But the aim of the 0. T. for the present was the same as for the future ; the setting forth of the gospel in embryo was needed for that specific gen- eration, at the same time prepared way for N. T. Everytliing in it partakes of this preparatory character. On examination of 0. T. we discover two lines of preparation ; by utterances and objects. 1 Vfirl-inl /Direot-rrr.phPGy. i.. V ex Uctl, \ Indirect— Duclriiie. f T 1 I Ritual. 2. Eeal— Types, i „i,^„,i,,i_|}^^r...s p,,^«„. 1. Verhal.—{1) Direct and explicit; (2) indirect and implicit; according as utterances have an immediate or mediate reference to future objects. Direct preparation is the work of prophecy, 16 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. includes all that is exclusively Messianic. Indirect preparation is found in all other utterances of 0. T., all its teachings, doctrines, &c. ; not full revelation of doctrine, but outlines, germs, suggestions. 2. Real. — Preparation (accomplished by things), is the func- tion of types which comprise every object belonging to the former dispensation, and with the words embrace the whole 0. T. Types : (1) Legal, or (2) historical. The legal owe existence to divine enactment — (a) ritual or ceremonial, connected with divine worship ; (6) civil or theocratic, belonging to the state. Historical types are such as come into being in the course of history ; persons or events — either divine events, wrought by God, or human. The utterances and objects constitute together the whole 0. T. as a scheme of gracious instruction. Each has its lesson, secured in each case by the fact that all either originated from God — shaped or controlled by Him. This sug- gests two modes by which the 0. T. instruction was conducted All has either, 1. proceeded from revealing Spirit ; or, 2. been guided by Superintending Providence. It is palpable that what is wholly from God will answer perfectly its end ; from man, will have the admixture of human frailty and fail in its ideal and antitype. The human part of historical types is under God's providential control. They are in this way made to fulfill His purpose and teach His lessons. But they belong to the sphere of human freedom. In so far as men conform to God's will, they identify themselves with His scheme of grace. But when they transgress the will of God, violate the fundamental law of 0. T., renounce its spirit, separate themselves from it, the predictive power is obscured. Thus Moses, interceding, is an emblem of Christ, but not when he spake unadvisedly. So Aaron in sacrificing; not in case of golden calf. Solomon, in rearing temple ; not in his idolatry. Sampson, in his war vs. the Philistines; not in his connection with Delilah. Not Ahaz's and Manasseh's anti-theocratic reigns, but David's and Asa's. What stands opposed to the spirit of 0. T. does not belong to it as a divine scheme, but to man's wickedness. Sins are but types of corruption and the kingdom of darkness. These human types OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 17 are, nevertheless, recorded for us in the inspired Word, and, so far, are brought under control of the spirit of revelation. As types, they are just as they are recorded ; what is insignificant, is left in the back ground, what is typical, is made prominent, e. g., bondage in Egypt, few chapters — emancipation, many. Because latter had detailed spiritual significance. The very omissions, significant. Apostle lays stress upon omissions as well as assertions, e. g., Melchizedek, " without father and mother," Heb, 7 : 3. Legal types belong to the domain of the divine and human ; as instituted of God, perfect; as performed by man, imperfect. Thus the ceremonial was of divine ordain- ing, theocratic dignities of divine appointment, therefore infalli- bly prognostic; but, as they were carried out by fallible men, they failed of their antitype. The rest of the preparatory scheme, divine utterances and acts came right from God, and are, therefore, perfect types. Interpretation of Types. — Of what objects in N. T. are the 0. T. types typical ? How is the proper significance of each type to be attained ? If types have any value, they must have a distinct and settled meaning. Need of fixed principles. Type does not directly represent its antitype ; but through the medium of a common idea embodied in both. Mere points of likeness do not constitute a type. Twelve stones from Jordan not typical of 12 Apostles ; 7 blasts of trumpet, — 7 Epistles of Paul. Accidental, no common idea pervades them. Unless type and antitype contain same idea, the former would convey no instruction to those living under the 0. T. itself. 1. They had no means of knowing the features of resem- blance, which are often so remote and obscure as to be of little use if they were known. 2. Instruction so given not simple, but difficult and perplexing, needing an inspired commentary. 3. With all the aid of fulfillment, there is endless doubt and disagreement among typologists who take this view. (In what utter darkness must the 0. T. people have been). Natural method of instruction ; first familiarize with truth in lower forms. Yet features of external similitude superadded as indexes, 3 18 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. while common idea — essential to typical reality — is the main thing. The points of extreme likeness may be added to lead to the recognition of antitype. Thus, Melchizedek's official positions, as priest and king, are the leading feature of his typi- calness of Christ. Yet subordinates are added, as significance of name, "King of righteousness," — of kingdom, "King of peace." Joshua, as leader, type of " Captain of our Salvation." Yet there are other points of similitude : correspondence of names ; both received divine attestation on banks of Jordan. Each class of types has a specific design. The ritual type set forth the restoration of communion with God, and the method. Theocratic, the immediate oversight and government of God. Human types, on human side denote the part to be played by God through human agency. In temporal blessings, God showed what he would do for his people through the instru- mentality of men, e. g., seed of Abraham, son of David. On divine side, the miracles of 0. T. represent salvation, show what Jehovah was prepared to do in order to save his people. Both the human and divine branches of all these types meet in Christ the God-man. Types may be such by comparison or contrast, — may be direct and positive, or inverse and negative. Every temporal good foreshadows eternal blessings. Evil events stand in contrast and are negatively typical. They create a want, a hunger, which points forward to Christ as a supply. The same object in 0. T. may typify more than one object in N. T. 1. When the type embodies an idea destined to more than one realization, which may repeat itself succes- sively, as the Exodus, or in different forms, as the tabernacle and temple embody the truth of God's dwelling among men. This had individual realization in person of Christ, universal earthly realization in the Holy Spirit in the church, and, heavenly, when God's dwelling shall be with men. Temple therefore type, (1) of Christ; (2) of church on earth; (3) of heavenly mansions. 2. A type may have difierent senses not only when a single idea has successive or distinct realizations, but also when the type embodies distinct ideas which are separately realized — the OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 19 flood, type of baptism, 1 Pet. 3 : 21, and type of final judgment, 2 Pet. 2 : 2-5. So sacrifices have double typical meaning : (1) Expiation, by shedding of blood, typical of sacrifice of Christ ; (2) idea of oblation to God, typical of surrender of his people to him, Kora, 12 : 1. Belongs to the nature of types that they should be imperfect, necessarily inferior to antitype. Hence no one type can be an adequate representation ; cannot set forth Christ on every side, nor can it completely, on any one side, therefore they are multiplied. From their combined and sup- plementary character we get a more adequate amount of typical testimony, " tapers, till day dawn." A satisfactory treatise of typology would need : 1. An explanation of the function of each type in the general plan. 2. Its relation to the entire group of types which give the same general phase. 3. Relation of each group to other groups. 4. The general resultant of the whole, and the total of the impressions. Such a treatise has never been made. But it is well to have an ideal. A type cannot in all its parts represent its antitype. Not every particular in a type significant ; wood of tabernacle, rings of ark, snuff'ers of candle-stick. The rule is, the main part of the analogy is to be seized, and whatever belongs to this central idea, but everything which conflicts or distracts or is far-fetched or trifling, has no typical significance. Discretion indispensable. POSITION OF TYPES IN PLAN OF O. T. The function especially given to the types in the general plan of 0. T. is now before us. Two chief lines of 0. T. inter- pretation : 1. Objects; 2. Utterances. Objects — all types. Utterances — prophecies and doctrines. The latter, partly independent of the work of redemption. These extra-redemp- tive doctrines, revealed with equal clearness from first. But the redemptive doctrines, e. g., Trinity, incarnation, suff"erings of the righteous, everlasting life, &c., are progressive. In this, is the whole system of 0. T. doctrinal development. The 20 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. ceutral doctrine is that of the Messiah himself, and the progress of divine revelation in 0. T, utterances is most accurately determined by estimating the progress of Messianic revelation. Therefore we consider types in relation to the one doctrine of Messiah. Relation of types to prophecies : 1. Types are but implicit predictions concerning Christ, prophecies explicit, awakening a conscious expectation of his coming and work. Types, shadows, do not necessarily direct the people to the coming substance or antitype. Prophecies in themselves fore- cast the future. If understood at all, must give information concerning Christ. But types have their own historical and legal value as 0. T. objects in and of themselves. Further, the common idea is essential to their setting forth any other and future object. Three stages in understanding types : (1) Purely external, their literal or ritual value; (2) Symbolical and religious truth taught. This, the types were intended to communicate. The spiritual doubtless penetrated into these truths, yet, they might not apprehend ; (3) The typical mean- ing. Thus while the formal worshipers in Israel saw in the sacrifice nothing but external ceremony, the pious learned the doctrine of expiation and substitution ; and this preliminary training was serviceable to the reception of Christ. Therefore the N. T. uses largely the 0. T. symbols to set forth who Christ was and his relation to us. Were types understood in 0. T. times ? Difficult to say how far. Their aim was to familiarize the minds of the people with the truths common to both dispensations. Probably difi'erent grades of knowledge in different generations and persons. Many not known to be types or misinterpreted. An inkling of the leading types was possessed. This shown : (1) The gen- eral knowlege of prospective character of 0. T. would naturally be extended to its principal objects. (2) The unsatisfying nature and deficiencies of types in themselves would raise expectation of something better. Vicarious substitution — ani- mal insufficient. Something better needed. (3) Partial inter- pretation furnished by 0. T. itself. Typical character of Mel- chizedek shown in Ps. 110, Joshua, Ps. 95, sin offering, Is. 53. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 21 (4) Express statements of N. T., Abraham and patriarchs, Heb. 11 : 16, Canaan, type of Heaven. 2. No relation of prophecies to types — chronological succession. Types predomi- nate in the beginning and prophecies in the end. This is in accordance with the general plan of 0. T. that the obscure should precede the more explicit. 3. Contemporaneous relation between types and prophecies, both in the mode of representa- tion and in the amount of truth they convey. Not precise equality between them in all periods. It is as great an error to convert prophecy into mere interpretation of co-existing types as to overlook the fact of the relation between them. The spirit is not limited in mode or extent of revelation. The revelation by type and prophecy does not tally with mechanical exactness. Yet general agreement. This corres- pondence due to the fact that they form co-ordinate and con- nected parts of the same scheme. Both tended to same result, and the lessons of each, therefore, had a substantial agreement. 4. Mutual dependence. (1) Prophecy predicts type, temporal good — every prediction of which foretells the blessings of Messiah's reign. Both the type and the antitype are regarded at once by the prophet, e. g., Babylonish captivity and salvation by Christ. So every prediction of the removal of evil foretells the final overthrow of the kingdom of darkness — fall of Baby- lon, Nineveh, &c. (2) When types suggest form of prophecy. Not until in Moses, had the idea of mediator been set forth ; became then prophecy of Christ, Deut. 18 : 15. So David and Solomon in Psalms; sin offering, Isaiah 53. 5. Types, like prophecies of 0. T. not (1) exclusive relation to N. T. Some found a preliminary fulfillment in the former dispensation, e. g., Exodus fulfilled in the deliverance from Babylon, (Isaiah); wilderness and dispersion among Gentiles, (Ezekiel) ; Moses type of prophets, (Deuteronomy); judges and other deliverers, (Obadiah) ; nor (2) cease with the close of N. T. ; whole king- dom of grace typical of the kingdom of glory ; primitive and universal church, seven churches in Asia, typical of the condi- tion of the church in all future ages; Christ, of his people glorified. 6. No types or prophecies in heathen world. As 22 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. there were no miracles, so, strictly speaking, no types. All positive spiritual preparation for Christ made in the bosom of the Church. Their positive preparation for Christ, not spiritual but only forms of wordly culture — negative, showing the insuf- ficiency of human systems. Yet blind gropings and cravings of the human heart, for which Christ the only adequate satisfac- tion. Occasional expressions in heathen writings and forms of thought seem to stand in remarkable relation to gospel truth. Thus the incarnation of the Hindus shows longing for God in the flesh. Great deliverer, as Hercules, that only one who was both son of God and man could free men. [See Trench's " Christ, the Desire of All Nations"]. Section VII. Structure of the Old Testament. Some who have contemplated the Sacred Scriptures only on the human side, have viewed them as the works of different authors, arranged without regard to order or method. This is a very superficial view, even if they be regarded only as Hebrew writings. Considered merely as the product of the human mind, these books must have their own characteristics and laws. Art and Literature have each their development in history. Hence, on the hypothesis which regards the Scriptures as of human origin, they must possess a unity and a regular structure. Others, surveying them from the divine side, have merely con- sidered them as reservoirs, into which successive communica- tions of divine truth have been poured. But there is something more than this ; the order and symmetry found in all God's works, would lead us to expect the same order in His Word. If, then, these partial conceptions, taken singly, compel the conclusion of a unity in structure, how much more is this the case when they are combined. Human agents were employed in the production of the books, but there was one controling mind guiding and directing them. All the parts are disposed in harmonious unity. Here is unity in multiplicity ; singleness of aim with diversity of opera- tion. The Scriptures must, therefore, be one organic whole ; all the parts in unity with one another and with the entire volume. In the bodv of evidences for an organic unity, we shall be 24 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. obliged to classify, or be lost in details. Every fact related, every institution enacted, every utterance recorded, has its place and function in the plan of the whole work. AIDS IN CLASSIFICATION. 1. The Separate Books of Sceiptuee. — ^These are not arbitrary divisions, but each book in form, dimensions, and contents represents a special task allotted to a human organ by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, etc., exhibit that part of God's plan, which each of them was to reveal. The Psalms exhibit that portion of truth which the sacred singers were employed to communicate. The 3 books of Sol. (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon) have each a differ- ent aim, and respectively show what God would reveal in that particular way. So every book has an individual and fit char- acter. They are organic parts constituting units, with each a purpose, and all taken together forming one whole. 2. Arrangement of these Books. — Every distribution is not a true classification. The books of the Bible are grouped in various ways : A. As to extraneous matters. For example : 1. The acci- dents of language. In this way the 0. T. would be distinguished from N. T., a very superficial division, but, in this instance, an index of a real separation. Each collection was in the language of those for whom it was intended; the 0. T. in Hebrew, for the inhabitants of Palestine ; the N. T. in Greek, for the whole civilized world. Again, if we divide the 0. T. itself with respect to language (viz. : Hebrew and Chaldee), it would be a false division. The Chaldee portions do not rank as a separate class. As compared with the rest of 0. T. there is no organic difference. 2. The current division of Hebrew Bible is three-fold : The Law, the Prophets, and the Kathuvim or Hagiographa. This distribution appears to rest, not on the nature of the writings themselves, but on the official standing of their authors. Moses, the law-giver and mediator, and thus OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 25 occupying a unique position, comes first. Then follow the writings of the prophets, i. e., those persons who were invested with the prophetical office. Some of these books are historical and others prophetical ; but their position is due to the fact that their authors were prophets. Then come the writings of those who, though inspired, were not prophets in the strict technical sense. Thus Daniel, although he uttered many strik- ing prophecies, is put in the third division. He was not properly a spiritual, but a civil officer. 3. The books might be grouped in respect to locality. Then those whose scene is laid outside of Palestine [Pentateuch; Esther, in Persia; Job, in Idumea; Ezekiel and Daniel, in Babylon; Jonah, in JSlineveh ; etc.,] would form one division. Again, the books whose scene was laid within Palestine [Joshua, Judges, Kuth, Sam., Kings, David and Solomon, etc.,] would form the other division. And again, the latter might be sub-divided into (1) those books which relate to all the people, and (2) those which belong to only one division of the people ; e. g., those referring (a) to kingdom of Judah, and (6) to kingdom of ten tribes. But this gives no hint as to the true structure of the 0. T. It is only a geographical distinction — a division, but not a classification. 4. The books might be classified with respect to time of their composition, i. e., arranged in their chronological order. 5. The books might be classed with respect to diff"erences of style, e. g., into legal, historical, poetical and prophetical. This is a true basis of division, as will be seen hereafter. Now each of these methods of division, whether accidental, official, territorial, chronological or rhetorical, contains some elements of value ; but we must penetrate deeper in order to find the real principle of arrangement. There are but two methods of procedure in investigating the structure of the O. T. We must make either the beginning or the end our point of departure. Here all the lines of progress must meet. Everything which belongs to the organic structure will be gathered up in its end. For example : in the study of botany, we start either from the seed in which the whole plant is unde- veloped and trace its growth in roots, leaves, etc., or else by 4 26 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. reverse process, we survey the plant from its consummation, and view each part as performing its function in producing fruit. B. In studying 0. T. according to the first of these methods, ^. e., proceeding from the beginning, it is contemplated as a course of training to which the people of God were subjected for many ages. Regarded in this light, there is little difficulty in fixing the Law of Moses as the starting point of this great lesson. God chose Israel from among the nations, to be a peculiar people for himself. He led them out of Egypt, and as a first step in training them up for himself, he entered into special and formal covenant with them at Sinai, and gave them a constitution and laws containing all the germs of what He meant to teach them. The Pentateuch {i. e., the law, with its historical introduction) is thus the first division of the 0. T. The next step was to engage the people in the observance of this law. Their divine constitution was set in operation and allowed to work out its fruits among them. The law of God shaped their history, and their history added confirmation and enlargement to the law. The' history of Israel is thus the second divison of the 0. T., and the office of the historical books was to record the providential expansion and enforcement of the law. The third step in divine training was to have the law, origin- ally given and applied, wrought out, not only in their outward practice, but into their inward life and intellectual convictions. This is the purpose of the poetical books, which form the third division. Here we have the subjective expansion and enforce- ment of the law. The law thus set to work in the national life, came to be wrought into the individual life, e. g., The Psalms. These are devout meditations on the law of God. It is a personal application of the law. In order that this outward and inward development, though conducted by the divine superintendence, and under the inspira- tion of the divine spirit, might not fail of its end, that end must be held up to view. Prophets, therefore, were raised up to reiterate and unfold the demands of the law ; to expand the OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 27 germs and seeds of a better era. Hence the Prophetical Books, in which we have an objective expansion and enforcement of the law, form the fourth division of the 0. T. Thus the 0. T. has four clearly marked organic parts, viz. : 1. The Pentateuch. 2. The Historical Books. 3. The Poetical Books. 4. The Prophetical Books. C. The other mode of investigating the structure of the 0. T. is to survey the book from its end, which is Christ. While this would bring everything into review under a different aspect, it reveals substantially the same divisions, and hence method B. does not give merely a fanciful division. And further, this mode is attended with three important advantages : (1) The Historical, Poetical and Prophetical Books were previously considered as separate lines of development, though springing from the same source. But by this second method, they are exhibited as inter-related, and converging to one common end. (2) This mode makes Christ the common figure and adjusts the 0. T. to Him. Christ thus becomes the end and controling principle of the whole. (3) This mode also gives unity to the study of the Bible. Everything in the 0. T. tends to Christ, and everything in the N. T. unfolds Christ, and thus all our knowledge is to be estimated from Christ. This method gives unity and consistency to the whole Bible. According to the first method, the 0. T. was regarded as a scheme of training. According to the second, it is reviewed as a scheme of training with a definite end in view, viz. : to pre- pare the way for the coming of Christ. When we look at the O. T. from this point of view, we see that, though it is predic- tive of Him, it is not such in the same manner or degree throughout. Types and prophecies of Christ are found to accumulate at particular epochs. Then follows an interval in which typical and prophetical predictions are few. Then fol- lows another brilliant epoch, succeeded by another decline. Thus there are periods of rich instruction, followed by periods of study on the part of the people. 28 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. These times of marked predictions are never mere repetitions. Each has its own distinctive character and quality. Each gives prominence to certain characteristics of Christ's coming. One serves as the complement of another, and hence all must be combined to give a complete conception of the Messiah and His work. Christ may be predicted negatively as well as positively, i. e., evils endured or foretold, or imperfections in the existing form of good, suggest Christ by way of contrast. They awaken a sense of need or deficiency, and point to Christ as the means of supply. Christ is predicted positively, when directly set forth. Each predictive period expresses the resultant of all its types and prophecies, and the character of each is determined by the character of the types and prophecies peculiar to it. If these be chiefly negative, then it is a negatively predictive period. With this idea in view, sacred history, from the call of Abraham to the close of the 0. T,, naturally divides itself into a series of periods alternatively negative and positive. First, there is a period of want, then one devoted to the supply of that want. (1) The period of the Patriarchs was a negative one. It was a time of need. Promises were given and the people were kept looking forward to the time when their seed should fill the land. (2) These wants were supplied and expectations realized in the time of Moses and Joshua, which marks a positive period. Here the people get possession of Canaan. (3) The period of the Judges was negative in character. The bonds of the nation were too weak to bind the tribes together. They needed a king. (4) This want is supplied in the time of David and Solomon, which is a positive period. (5) Then follows another negative ■ period, embracing the schism and final captivity of the rival kingdoms of Judah and Israel. (6) The period of the restora- tion is again positive. Now guided by these features, and combining each negative with each positive period, three great preparatory epochs in 0. T. history present themselves, viz. : 1. Call of Abraham to death of Joshua. 2. To death of Solomon. 3. To close of Old Testament. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 29 This partitions the history from the time of Abraham to the close of the 0. T., that portion which precedes the call, being merely intro'ductory to the first period. Transferring these obvious divisions to the 0. T. books, they fall into three parts : 1. Pentateuch and Joshua. 2. Historical Books to death of Solomon, Poetical Books, (except Lamentations), and Job. 3. Eest of Historical Books, Prophetical Books, and Lamenta- tions, (appended to Jeremiah). Comparing then this triple division of 0. T. with the quadru- ple one before made and based upon a different ])rinciple, the two are found to be closely allied, with only enough diversity to show that the alliance is not mechanical. The real difference is that in the former, the Historical Books are partitioned rela- tively to the other classes of books, since at the end of each division, there is really a new revelation from God. The first portion of the History, (from Moses to Joshua, inclusive), ends with a revelation of the Law ; the second, with the Poetical Books ; and the third, with the Prophetical Books. There is thus, just difference enough to reveal the unity of the whole 0. T., and to show that the books separated under one aspect, are united under the other. Joshua, for example, according to method C, continues and completes the History of Pentateuch. The promises to the Patriarchs were not fulfilled until the premised land was given. According to method B, it is a new development! So Joshua, according to the different modes of conception, may belong either to the end of the one, or the beginning of the other division ; and, in fact, it does belong to both periods. So again, Lamentations may belong either to the second or third class. If regard is had to its style, it must go with the Poetical Books ; if it is viewed as recording and developing a great Providential lesson, it belongs to the period of Jeremiah. Again, the reign of Solomon may be regarded, either as the sequel to David's reign, in that he carried the kingdom to the highest pitch of prosperity, or the book of Kings, recording that reign, and containing in it the seeds of the dissolution that followed, may be made the beginning of a new division. 30 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. As to the general relation of the parts, note (1) the general correspondence between the first and the two following divisions. The Pentateuch and Joshua fulfill their purpose in t\^o spheres — individual experience and training, followed by national train- ing. These spheres repeat themselves; the former in the second, and the latter in the third division. Judges and Samuel are historical biographies of great men. The latter contains the lives of three leading characters, (Samuel, Saul, and David), by whom the character of the people was shaped. Euth is a biographical sketch from private life. So the poeti- cal books are personal. The third division resembles the closing portion of the first period, in being national in character. Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Prophets have all regard to the nation. (2) The number of organs by which the truth was communicated, is increased with each division. In the first classification, there are only two writers ; in the second the historians are separated from the poets ; while the third embraces the greatest number of writers, viz., both historians and prophets. (3) A progress in the style of instruc- tion adopted in each division, (a) The Pentateuch and Joshua are purely typical. The few prophecies they contain are lost in the mass of types, [h] The history from Judges to the death of Solomon, together with the poetical books, is of a mixed character; but types predominate and are the basis of predictions, (c) The books of the third division (historical and prophetical) also embrace a mixture of types' and prophecies, but here the latter predominate, and the types are almost lost. (4) These three divisions of the 0. T. severally render promi- nent the three offices of Christ. The first division, i. e., the law, where sacrifice is the central object, points to Christ as a Priest. The second division revolving about the kingdom, under David and Solomon, regards Christ as King. In the third division, the prophets rise to prominence, and the people (scattered among foreign nations) take upon them a prophetic character. This sets forth Christ as a Prophet. Section VIII. Historical Books of Old Testament. The common element here is history, which constitutes almost all of the first section, fully half of the second, and much of the third. The importance of sacred history in divine revelation consists in three particulars : (1) It is preliminary to and forms the framework in which all Grod's revelations are set, exhibiting the occasion and circumstances of the people's train- ing. (2) History itself is the medium of instruction. It is exemplary in its character. (3) History is the basis of doc- trines. These are not mere abstractions, but great cardinal facts, or deductions from such facts. In studying history, one of three methods may be followed, viz. : the Periodological, the Biographical, or the Bibliograph- ical. According to the first mode, history is distinguished into periods, marked off by decisive and memorable events. It is treated of in large portions, minor details being overlooked. The breaks are just rests or pauses in the entire history. But there are no actual breaks in history, which is continuous. Such partitions are only imaginary lines of division. Besides, such periods may be differently constituted, with or without intrinsic merit. In following the Biographical Method, a number of promi- nent characters is selected. These are collected, if possible, in a continuous series, and the events of their times are made to cluster around them. This method has advantanges in that it is simple, natural, aids the memory, has unity ; and it excites interest, in that it pertains to the experience and character of a 32 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. living subject. Still it is insufficient, because some events do not belong to the life of any one individual, however prominent, and thus the chain of the narrative is broken. The Bibliographical Method partitions history according to the contents of the several books. This method is of value in sacred history because it comes from God. The books are sacred not only as books, but in their very form. Their divisions, as such, are themselves sacred. Inconvenience arises when one book seems to infringe upon another, either in respect to time or ground, as for example : Euth and Judges, Kings and Chronicles, etc. But the aims and characters of these books are quite distinct. If we include the Pentateuch, there are 17 Historical Books in 0. T. The titles, " Historical," " Poetical " and " Propheti- cal," are given to the several books on account of their prevail- ing character. Thus Job is history in poetry ; Jonah, though historical, is yet, from its types, prophetical. Ezekiel and Daniel, in giving an account of the Babylonish exile, contain much material for history ; yet they are properly put with the Prophetical Books. The 17 books above mentioned are not so many disconnected histories, but constitute only ten distinct works ; the five books of Moses forming one work; and Sam., Kings and Chron. each being reckoned as a separate book. These separate writings, though each has its own plan and author, are most intimately related, and succeed one another in order — one taking up the history where the last dropped it. Thus the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Sam. and Kings form such a connected and consecutive history from the creation to the end of the captivity, that some urge that they are the work of one writer. That each book begins where the preceding one left off is not a mere accident, because each book makes express allusion to its predecessor, and the subject is formally resumed, e. g., Pentateuch closes with Moses' death, and book of Joshua begins with " now after the death of Moses," etc. So Joshua closes with Joshua's death, and Judges begins with " now after the death of Joshua," etc. Judges 2 : 6-9, refers to Joshua 24 : 28-31 ; thus con- OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 33 necting itself afresh with the book preceding it. Ezra repeats the last verse of Chronicles at the beginning of his book ; hence the reference to preceding books is intentional. Further, each of the historical books, succeeding the Pentateuch, begins with the copulative conjunction and (Heb.) A seeming, though not real, exception to this rule is found in Chronicles. Here Chap. 10: 1, begins with and; and since all the preceding chapters relate merely to genealogies, this is the real beginning of the book. This conjunction usually translated, in our English version, "now" serves to link together the contents of the several books. It should rather be tranvslated " and." It shows that what follows is not a new work, but a resumption of some preceding narrative. So Ruth and Esther, beginning with "and," are evidently the continuation of some earlier work. Hence the books of the Bible are linked as successive. The names of the Historical Books are generally derived from their principal theme. Thus Genesis, Exodus, etc. Samuel is so called because he is the principal figure. The Vulgate calls our I and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and our i and 2 Kings, 3 and 4 Kings, because in them begins the history of the kingdom. Our version gives this book both titles. In Ezra, Nehemiah, and probably in Joshua, the leading actor is also the author, and thus the name is doubly appropriate. The Historical Books are variously numbered and classified. There are, in all, 17 books, or 10 distinct works. In the ancient catalogues, the five books of Moses counted separately, but Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, one each, i. e. 14 Historical Books. If Ruth be combined with Judges, and Ezra with Nehemiah, [or Samuel with Jeremiah] the whole number is 12. Our Hebrew Bibles, which contain the Mazoretic divisions, are separated into three parts, viz. : 1. The five books of Moses. 2. The former Prophets, being six books of history, written by prophets, viz. : Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings. 34 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 3. The Hagiographa (written by inspired men who were not strictly prophets) including the other six historical books, viz. : Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles. Dr. J. Addison Alexander divided the historical books into three Pentateuchs. Of the 17, 1 and 2 Chronicles are not so much continuations as parallel and supplementary, viz. : to Samuel and Kings. Omitting these there remain 15 continuous books. These he forms into three groups of five books each. Group 1 consists of the five books of Moses, i. e., the history from the creation to death of Moses. Group 2 contains Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, i. e., the death of David. Group 3 is made up of 1 and 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, i. e.. to the close of the 0. T. canon. Each of these Pentateuchs contains one book of an episodical character. Thus, in group 1 it is Leviticus, i. e., the history of legislation ; in group 2, Euth, i. e., the history of David's family ; and in group 3, Esther, i. e., the history of the deliverance of the Jews in Persia. This division of the historical books is only a modifi- cation of one that was proposed by Epiphanius in the 4th cen- tury, and which he applied to the whole 0. T. He reckoned the total number of books as 22 ; and, neglecting Ezra with Nehemiah and Esther, divided the whole into four Pentateuchs. 1. Five books of Moses, or Pentateuch proper. 2. A Pentateuch of historical books : Joshua, Judges and Euth, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. 3. A Pentateuch of poetical books, viz. : Job, Psalms, Pro- verbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. 4. A Pentateuch of prophetical books, viz. : Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and minor prophets. According to another distribution, the historical books are divided into three groups with reference to the three great periods of preparation for Christ's coming. 1. Pentateuch and Joshua. 2. Judges, Euth, and Samuel. 3. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Kings and Chronicles belong partly to the 2d, but mainly to the 3d group. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 35 Again : if the Pentateuch be excluded, and Samuel, Kings and Chronicles be each counted one book, then the historical books form three groups of three each, or triplets, viz. : 1. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. 2. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles. 3. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Group 1 covers the period of the Hebrew Commonwealth. Group 2 covers the history of the Hebrew Monarchy. Group 3 covers the period subsequent to the captivity, i. e., the period of foreign domination. Several Historical Books are anonymous, and therefore their authorship can only be conjectured, viz. : Judges, Ruth, Sam- uel, Kings, Chronicles, and Esther. In the Pentateuch and Joshua, the names of the writers are mentioned at the close, and they speak of themselves in the third person. Nehemiah is the only Historical Book which has an inspired title contain- ing the name of the author prefixed. Ezra and Nehemiah are the only Historical Books in which the author speaks in the first person. The third person is of course used also. The Historical Books thus stand in remarkable contrast with the Prophetical Books, which have always a title containing the author's name. They differ in the character of their con- tents, for (1) the authentication of a prophecy rests upon the divine commission of the prophet. The prophet must be known before the prophecy can be received as true. With history it is difi"erent. Its credibility rests not upon personal authority, but upon the general acceptance, by contemporaries, of the event recorded. (2) The attitude of the prophet and the whole posture of his mind is different from that of the historian. The latter is only the reporter of facts as they occurred, and the narrative is objective. The question of moment is, what are the facts ? not who is the writer ? On the other hand, the prophet is not a simple reporter ; he is delivering his message, and fulfilling his own personal commission. Hence Daniel, ia the six . Historical Chapters, uses the third person, but in the Prophetical Chapters, the first person. So with other books, e.g., Isaiah. The like phenomenon occurs in the N. T. The 86 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. gospels were originally anonymous, and their present titles, containing the names of their authors, are derived only from tradition. The writers speak of themselves only in the third person. In the Epistles, however, (Hebrews alone excepted), and in the book of Revelation, the first person is used. The credibility of an historian may be tested by two criteria : (1) His intention to relate the facts truly, and (2) his ability so to do, i. e., opportunity for knowing the facts. If the historian have both of these qualifications, his work will be reliable his- tory ; if either be absent it will be untrustworthy, e. g., no one expects to find in Homer a faithful narrative of the siege of Troy. He accepted legends and embellished them. It was not his aim to record the simple historical truth. On the other hand, Livy desired to give the true history of Rome; but though he had the intention, he had not the opportunity to relate facts. He wrote so long after the events occurred that much he has related must be regarded as fabulous. But these criteria meet in the 0. T. Historians. I. It is universally admitted that they believed what they wrote, and their intention was to record facts. If this be denied, then, (1) these books ofi'er themselves as true histories of the periods to which they relate, and such is the impression always produced upon readers. (2) This being the profession of their writers, their intention must have corresponded with this avowal, else the writers are guilty of fraud, which is incredible. (3) If these writers had attempted to practice a fraud, it would have been impracticable, because the facts were matters of general history. At least they represent the truth as it was then received. II. If it was the intention of the sacred writers to relate the truth, they had abundant means of ascertaining it. For (1) in some instances, the writers were themselves eye-witnesses or contemporaries of the events recorded ; e. g., in Exodus, Leviti- cus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ezra, Nehemiah. (2) In other cases, the writers were in possession of pre-existent v/ritings and records, both official and private. Thus Kings and Chronicles constantly refer to previous accounts, and there may OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 37 have been others not referred to. (3) Popular tradition is, to a certain extent, a reliable source of history, especially when confirmed by ancient monuments. (4) The truth and accuracy of these historical writings is corroborated by the agreement of sacred writers among themselves, in the way of casual and undesigned coincidences, and harmonizing with all that can be learned from profane sources. (5) In addition toother guaran- tees, these writings have a special sanction in their divine inspiration. The only matters whose credibility has ever been questioned are the supernatural facts it records. Hence it is claimed in some quarters that it is only mythical in character. But, [a) Though this is an admissible objection in profane history, even there it is allowed, not because the supernatural is incredi- ble, but because there is no adequate evidence that the alleged event occurred. (6) Supernatural events cannot be pronounced impossible, except on atheistic and pantheistic grounds. The former says : " There is no God," the latter, " Everything is God." If then it is not impossible, it may have occurred, and sufficient evi- dence may be adduced to prove its reality. The 0. T. books are not to be judged prior to a candid examination. (c) Miracles are not only not impossible, but there is no greater antecedent improbability against their occurrence in sacred history than lies against the occurrence of natural events due to ordinary causes. The entire scheme of God's revelation viewed as a whole, is supernatural. {d) The miracles of the 0. and N. T. are recorded under such circumstances, as to give the highest degree of credibility to the record. The miracles of the Pentateuch occurred when Moses was an eye-witness, e. g., The plagues in Egypt ; the miracles in the wilderness. So the miracles in the days of Joshua are recorded by a contemporary and eye-witness. In the book of Judges all the miracles are Samson's, and are recorded by the writer of the book. In like manner the super- natural in the book of Daniel is recorded by the writer [Daniel]. So with the miracles of Elijah and Elisha. These are detailed 375683 m OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. in the books of Kings, which, although not written till after the capitivity, are compiled from contemporaneous annals. The same is true of the N. T., which is also written by men who were contemporaries of the events recorded. Section IX. Authorship of Pentateuch. Pentateuch claims to have been written by Moses. For this see its own statements, viz. : three in Exodus and one in Num- bers, where (1) Moses is directed by God to record various individual transactions which actually exist in the Pentateuch. In Exodus 24 : 4 and 7, after God had announced the funda- mental laws of his covenant, Moses told the people the words of the law, and (v. 4), " Moses wrote all the words of the Lord ;" and in verse 7, " he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people," who promised to obey it. Now according to some, the "book of the covenant" means the Pentateuch as far as then written ; but from the connection, it evidently refers to the laws just given as the basis of God's covenant with Israel, viz. : the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, and the special ordinances contained in Exodus 21-23. Again after the covenant had been broken by the worship of the golden calf, and God, in Exodus 34 : 10-26, had renewed that covenant, God says to Moses, in verse 27, " Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." Again : in Exodus 17 : 14, after the victory over Amalek, the Lord said to Moses, " Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under Heaven." And, once again, in Numbers 33 : 2, Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord. The question arises whether Moses' authorship is to be confined to these passages, and 40 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. whether they were simply incorporated in the Pentateuch. This has been claimed by some, who urge that the explicit mention of Moses' having written these specific passages is a proof that he wrote no others. But (2) the falsity of this assertion appears (a) from the terms of Exodus 17 : 14, where, " Write this for a memorial in the Book " [Th§ Heb. definite article being used], implies some well know volume. Hence, Moses had begun, or was about to begin, the preparation of the Book, in which to record God's dealings with the people ; and it is evident that he was not to record individual passages as separate and detached statements, but to enter them in a volume already commenced. From the four passages, above quoted, it is evident that the book contained matters both of legislation and history, for each of these departments is repre- sented by two of the citations. It is objected in Exodus 17 : 14, that the article is merely represented by a vowel point and these points do not belong to the original text. But the sense of the passage requires "The Book," and it is natural to sup- pose that "The Book " was the Pentateuch. There is no record of a monograph by Moses. (5) The direction given to Moses to write these things shows that it was deemed important to commit them to writing, and that Moses was the right person to do it. This makes it probable that other important matters would also be preserved in writing, (c) The mention of writing in these four passages carries no presumption that Moses wrote nothing else. The respective writers in Isaiah 30 : 8 ; Jere- miah SO : 2 ; Ezekiel 43 : 11 ; Habakkuk 2:2; etc., are said to write certain things, only because those particulars were specially important; not because they embraced all they ever wrote. {d) It is admitted by those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that he wrote more than these four passages. But (3) we have explicit testimony that Moses wrote the whole book, for in Deut. 31:9, it is recorded that " Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests and the sons of Levi, which bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel." And in v. 24, it is said, " It OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 41 :arae to pass that when Moses had made an end of writing the kvords of this law in a book, until they were finished," etc. Every thing here depends upon what is meant by " The Law " md " Book of the Law." Some allege that it refers only to the Pen Commandments ; others, to some paragraph in Deuter- Dnomy, or to all the laws in Deuteronomy, or to the entire book of Deuteronomy, but not to any of the preceding books, Dr to all the Pentateuch, save Deuteronomy, or to the entire Pentateuch. This is not a question to be left to caprice, for (a) the usage of the terms, " Law " and " Book of the Law " invariably signify the entire Pentateuch, unless they are specially limited. (6) The same thing appears from the unity of the Pentateuch which has one theme, one plan, and contains a uniform and continuous history. This creates a presumption for a unity of authorship. No proof can be adduced that ainy of its parts were ever independent of the rest. If Moses wrote any of it, he wrote the whole. Besides, Deuteronomy implies the exist- ence of the four preceding books, (c) This passage at the end of Deuteronomy must be taken along with Exodus 17 : 14. For the book being prepared in Exodus is the same book which is completed in Deuteronomy, {d) The same conclusion is reached by considering that the law here spoken of was that law which was kept in the side of the ark, i. e., the Pentateuch, which constituted the code of the nation. Some object to this conclusion (1) because in Deuteronomy 27 : 3-8, Moses directs the people to set up two great stones, and plaster them with plaster, and " write upon them all the words of this law when thou are passed over Jordan." They say that it is inconceiv- able that the entire Pentateuch could have been written on these stones, and therefore that it is not the Pentateuch that is referred to. But (a) this is only an argument addressed to our ignorance. We know nothing about the possibilities of the case. (6) It is a common opinion that the law here denotes only Deuteronomy, or perhaps only the legal parts of that book. This view is confirm.ed by the context in verse 1st, where it reads : " keep all the commandments which I command you this 6 42 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. day." One cannot argue from a passage linaited by its context to another that is not thus limited, (c) In Joshua 8 : 32, this direction is carried into effect, and a distinction is drawn between the words written on the stones, and those written in the book of the law. It is further objected (2) that the testimony derived from Deuteronomy 31, is self-contradictory. For in v. 9, Moses is said to have written the law and delivered it to the priests and elders ; but in v. 24-26, it reads : " When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished," Moses commanded the Levites to put the book in the side of the ark. The difficulty urged is : How could Moses have written further, after handing the book over to the Levites ? This objection is a gross absurdity, for no one ever held that Moses wrote the later portions of Deuteronomy, where his own death and burial are recorded. The only real question is: How far did he write? Three solutions have been sug- gested : (1) Baumgarten believes that the portion written by Moses closed with the end of chap. 30. Then the testimony to the Mosaic authorship would be given by some one else than Moses. (2) Havernick holds that Moses wrote to the end of chap. 31, and that he himself gave an account of the delivery of the law to the priests and Levites. Indeed, he supposes that Moses may have written to the end of chap. 32, and that he himself, having received back the book after its formal transfer, inserted his final song, and the divine summons to go up into Mount Abarim, and die there. (3) Hengstenberg's opinion, which lies midway between these two, is the best. He supposes that the first delivery of the law (v. 9) took place publicly, and was intended as a formal symbolic act. They were to be guided by this law. This public act having been performed, Moses receives the law back again, and added up to chap. 31 : 23, concluding the charge to Joshua. The Levites then get it finally, and the record of this last delivery is made by another. This view accords with the exact words used in verse 24. Thus there are two independent testimonies to the Mosaic authorship : that of Moses himself in verse 9, and that of some OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 43 other writer in verse 24. The altered tone of the closing verses of Deuteronomy is noticeable. Thus in chap. 31 : 1, Moses is called the " Man of God ;" in chap. 34 : 5, the " Servant of the Lord," and in chap. 34 : 10, " there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." This peculiarity in the application of epithets to Moses is not found in the early parts of the book. This is an incidental proof of Mosaic authorship, and is there- fore most valuable. There are other passages in Deuteronomy not expressly mentioning that Moses wrote, which imply the existence of a written law. Thus, Deut. 17 : 18, the king, in addressing his people, refers to the law as written ; for every king had to copy the law in a book out of that which was before the priests and Levites. If the law was written in Moses' time, Moses wrote it. So in Deut. 28: 58 and 61, we read, "the words of this law which are written in this book;" in chap. 29 : 20, 21 and 27, " all the curses that are written in this book ; " in chap. 30 : 10, " commandments and statutes which are written in this book of the law," etc. These passages imply that the book was then written, and therefore written by Moses himself. Some object that Moses could not speak of the curses he was then uttering as already written, but (1) they may have been written and then [Ex. 24 : 7] read before the people ; or (2) it may refer to the preceding part which was written ; or (3) Moses may have spoken by way of anticipation, and after- wards, in reducing his language to writing, he may have modi- fied it to suit the occasion ; or (4) it may have been spoken of his purpose. In Deut. 1:5," Moses began to declare this law." Some argue that this means " to write down " the law ; but its true significance is " to expound." We may not have the precise portions that Moses used. It is objected (3) to the Mosaic authorship that Moses is spoken of in the third person. But many instances of this occur, for which see Joshua, Ezra, the Evangelists, the histori- cal passages in prophetical books, Caesar, Xenophon, etc., etc. It is a common usage, and arises from the attitude of the writer as an historian, in which he speaks of himself as he does of others. 44 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. (4) Another objection is drawn from Numbers 12 : 3, (" Now the man, Moses, was very meek," etc.) viz. : That Moses would not have spoken thus of himself. To this it may- be answered, [a) that if Moses be not the author, it is remarka- ble that this should be the only passage of the kind. For other cases of the seeming laudation of Moses, see Exodus 11 : 3. (" The man Moses was very great," etc.) Where it is the simple statement of a fact; Numbers 12: 7-8, ("My servant Moses is faithful,") etc. This latter is merely a repetition of the Lord's words. (6) The apparent difficulty is reduced by observing its purpose. It is not empty self-praise, but a proper vindication of himself. It was necessary to show that the arro- gance of Aaron and Miriam was unwarranted. Besides Moses showed no passion, for Numbers 12 : 13, he prayed that Miriam might not be destroyed but healed, (c) It is a characteristic of the sacred writers to lay aside all self-consciousness. They live so entirely in the presence of God, that they lose all idea of self, which they neither praise nor depreciate. No false modesty excludes them from speaking the truth. Thus Moses in Exodus 2 : 12, confesses that he slew an Egyptian ; Exodus 3 : 11, and 4 : 1 and 10, his unwillingness to obey God's command to go to Pharaoh ; Exodus 4 : 24-26, that he neglected the rite of cir- cumcision in his own family; Numbers 20: 12, his and Aaron's sin that kept them from entering the promised land, etc. [d) Parallels are found in the cases of other inspired men. Thus Paul, 1 Cor. 15 : 10, says : "I labored more abundantly than they all" So John, (21 : 20), speaks of himself as " the disciple whom Jesus loved." So Daniel, 1 : 20 and 21, speaks of the Hebrew youth as being " ten times better than all the magi- cians" of Persia. This implies no vanity in the men who make use of these expressions. They take no praise to themselves, but refer it to the grace of God. As Paul says, " yet not I, but the grace of God, which was with rae." If this fact about Moses was true, and the occasion called for it, and if it would have been proper for another to write it, why might not Moses record it about himself? (g) If the objection be insuperable, and if Moses could not himself have made the statement, it OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 45 would not follow that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch would be overthrown. For (1) the word translated meek in our version may also be translated afflicted, and this rendering was adopted by Luther. (2) This verse may not have been in the original text, but may have been afterwards added. It is possi- bly a verse out of one or more passages introduced by Ezra. This last expedient need only be resorted to in a case of obvious necessity, but the passage involved presents no insuperable difficulty. The Pentateuch, therefore, claims to be the production of Moses. There must be some real cause for its falsity, before this claim can be set aside. Now there is prima facie evidence of Moses being the author. If the Pentateuch makes this claim, it must be well founded. For : I. Note the character of the book itself. The Pentatuch is not merely a private record of notorious facts, like Herodotus', or Thucydides', Histories ; nor simply a sacred and canonical book, like those of the prophets; but it is more than both combined. It is the basis of the national organization of Israel. It contains their con- stitution, and religious laws. It contains minute particulars as to the government of their daily life, in respect to meat and drink, sacrificial offerings, and very many observances, both of a public and private nature. Now it is inconceivable that such a system could have been imposed upon the people, if it did not come from Moses as it professed to do. If it were written in another age, and by another pen than that of Moses, it could never have been accepted by the people, any more than a pretended act of the Congress of United States. No people could imagine that they were under laws of which they never heard. Hence the character of the work precludes all ideas of forgery. II. The impossibility of the Pentateuch being a forgery is evident from the chain of connected testimony, extending back to the death of Moses. This is found in all the books of 0. T., beginning with Joshua and extending to the close. Examine (1) the Historical Books, where sufficient evidence is found in various particulars, (a) Express mention is made of the volume 4r, OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. of Pentateuch. Thus, it is written in Joshua 1 : 7 and 8, " observe the words of this book of tlie law." A written record is referred to. See also Joshua 8:31 and 32, which quotes Deut. 27 : 5 and 6 ; Jos. 23 : 6 ; etc. In addition to these general references to the Pentateuch as a whole, there are also (6) special references to individual laws. Thus, Jos. 3 : 3, alludes to the ark; Jos. 18: 1, to the tabernacle of the con- gregation ; 22 : 29, to various offerings uf the law ; 21:4, to the priesthood in the house of Aaron ; 21 : 2, to the Levites' having cities to dwell in ; 20, to cities of refuge ; 5 : 2, to circumcision; 5 : 10, to theannual passover, etc. (c) References are made to historical statements of the Pentateuch which are presupposed to be true. Joshua finds the peoph just where the Pentateuch leaves them. Thus, in Joshua 24 : 1-13, there is described the descent of Israel from Terah down to its own day. In Joshua 2 : 10, there is a reference to certain public matters, viz. : the drying up of the Red Sea ; the overthrow of the Amorites, In Joshua 14 : 6, the sending out of the spies is alluded to. See also 22: 17; 24: 9-13; 13 : 22-33. [d) There are exact citations of, or allusions to, the Pentateuch. Thus, Joshua 1 : 3-5, is quoted from Deut. 11 : 24 and 25. These above illustrations, taken solely from the book of Joshua, are equally true of all the 0. T. books. The whole of Joshua is built upon the Pentateuch, which it everywhere pre- supposes. So with all the succeeding books of the 0, T. All the subsequent history of Israel rests upon the Pentateuch, which is constantly referred to as an historical basis. (2) Like arguments may be drawn from the poetical books. Psalms 1, and indeed the whole book of Psalms, consists of devout medi- tations on the law of God. Several Psalms, such as 78, 105, 106, 135, 136, give a summary of the early history of the people, and this account is really cited from the Pentateuch. Festivals are repeatedly referred to. The law was in written form, and was not handed down by oral tradition, as is declared by Psalms 40 : 7, viz. : " In the volume of the book it is written of me." (3) The prophetical books likewise abound in allusions to facts and revelations contained in the Pentateuch. The OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 47 argument, therefore, for its Mosaic authorship is irresistible. The allusions found, while only indirect and incidental, occur in every part. There are not a few express statements which might have been interpolated. Pentateuch, therefore, can be traced back to the death of Moses ; and since its authority has always been recognized, it must be what it professes to be. III. A separate consideration is due to the esteem and rever- ence with which the Pentateuch is regarded in the schismatical kingdom of Israel, e. g., the Ten Tribes. The leaders of this movement were under the strongest temptation to deny the genuineness and authority of these books, which required that there should be but one people, one sanctuary, that the sovereignty should belong to Judah, etc. The idolatry of the Ten Tribes in their worship of the golden calf, and their priest- hood which was not of the Tribe of Levi, were gross violations of the Laws of Moses. Thus the hostility between the rival kingdoms of Judah and Israel was very strong. Still the latter, though greatly tempted, never denied the Pentateuch. And this in itself is a sufficient proof that Moses wrote it. If the Pentateuch had been later than the schism of Jeroboam, and had originated in Judah, the Ten Tribes would never have accepted it. But if it existed then, and was recognized, it must have originated long before, and have been regarded with such veneration that the Ten Tribes did not attempt to dispute its claims. That such was the case is easily proved. The Samari- tan Pentateuch was once considered a strong point in this argu- ment. This people admitted as genuine only the Five Books of Moses, with a mutilated form of the Book of Joshua. It was argued, therefore, that as the most bitter hostility existed between Jews and Samaritans, the latter would never have adopted the Pentateuch from the Jews ; therefore they must have obtained it from the Ten Tribes. The MSS. of the Pen- tateuch, which still existed among the Samaritans, were consid- ered to have come from the Ten Tribes and not from Judah. If this argument held good it would materially aid in establish- ing the Mosaic authorship, but it is not now considered valid. It is conceded that the Samaritan Pentateuch is much later in 48 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. date than the schism, and that it was derived from Jewish copies subsequent to the exile. The Samaritans were not descendants of the Ten Tribes, but of heathen colonists, intro- duced into Samaria by the king of Assyria, [2 Kings 17 : 24, Ezra 4: 10]. These Samaritans claimed to be brethren of the Jews, whom they offered to assist in rebuilding their temple. This advance was repulsed, and hence arose the deadly feud between these two peoples. The Samaritans, however, still asserted that they were the descendants of the Patriarchs, and in order to establish this claim, they eagerly seized upon the Pentateuch, rejecting, however, all those books, which taught that Jerusalem was the only place of worship. Though this argument has to be given up, there is other evidence that the Pentateuch was reverenced among the Ten Tribes. This is evident from the historical account of the schism ; from the lives of the prophets, Elijah, Elisha, etc., and from Hosea and Amos. From these latter two books, it incidentally appears that the ceremonial service of the Pentateuch continued among the Ten Tribes through all their apostasy. Its laws, festivals and prescriptions ; even its technical terms and phrases, were minutely adhered to. Only changes required by idolatry were introduced. The denunciations of the prophets imply that this idolatry was a known apostasy from the true worship 6f God. In addition to allusions to the Hitual, the knowledge of certain historical facts is presupposed. Take for example, Hosea — in regard (a) to the ceremonial, it is seen 2: 11, and 9 : 5, that the anqual feasts. Sabbaths, and festivals, were observed, and retained their legal names : in 12 : 9, the Feast of Tabernacles is referred to. The place of holding it, (and in one instance, the time), is changed, but the institution itself remains the same. The day of the month is also unaltered. The festival was held, 1 Kings, 12 : 27-33, in the eighth month, instead of the seventh, as the law required ; for the Feast of Tabernacles, or, as it is called in Ex. 23 : 16, the " Feast of Ingathering," was more properly held at a later date in the north than in the south, where the harvest was earlier ; and also, by so doing, Jeroboam seemed to consult the convenience of the people. His OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 49 real design, however, was to wean the hearts of the people away from king of Judah. The sacrificial offerings were also retained. Thus, the drink offering is referred to in 8 : 13 ; 9 : 4, etc. ; the sin oflFering, in 4:8. Again, Hosea 4 : 4, (viz. : that a man must not strive with a priest), is an allusion to Deut. 17 : 8-13. See 4 : 4 for the law of clean and unclean, {h) With regard to prophetic denunciations, see 4: 13; 8: 11; 12: 11; where the erection of many altars is denounced. This tendency, although apparently a good token to any one unacquainted with the law, was really a violation of the unity of the sanctuary, which that law required. Hosea says the people had a long written law (8 : 12), and not merely the specific commandments. For the expression in our version is, " I have written unto him the great things" {i. e., the multitudes) "of My law." The K'ri reads, " the ten thousand things of My law." Looking at the context, V. 11 reads, " because Ephraim hath made many altars to sin, altars shall be unto him to sin." Then in v. 12 it states that in spite of this, " I have written to him the great things of My law, but they were counted as a strange thing." Therefore, v. 13, the sacrifices so offered are only so much flesh used as ordinary food. Other ceremonial regulations are referred to : as the moving of a neighbor's landmarks, in 5 : 10 ; the muz- zling of the ox that treadeth out the corn [Deut. 25: 4], in 10: 11; God is the protector of the fatherless [22: 23], in 14 : 3, etc. (c) The knowledge of facts contained in the Penta- teuch is presupposed by Hosea; e. g., in 1: 10, the blessing recorded in Genesis 22 : 17, and 32 : 12 is repeated ; again, 11 : 8 refers to the destruction of the cities of the plain ; 12 : 3 and 4, to Jacob's prevailing over the angel ; 12 : 12, to Jacob's flight into Syria; to the bringing of Israel out of Egypt, in 11: 14 and 15; 12: 9; 13: 4 and 5 ; to Israel's return into Egypt, 9:3; to the sin of Baalpeor, in 9 : 10; to the worship of the calves, in 8 : 5 and 6. This latter was probably an imi- tation of the golden calf worship inaugurated by Aaron. See 1 Kings 12 : 33 and Exodus 32 : 4 and 8. The places for setting up the calves were chosen not from their convenience, but because they were such as ancient association with the 7 50 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Patriarchs had rendered sacred, e. g., Bethel, where God appeared three times to Jacob. This Hosea calls (4 : 15,) not the " house of God," but the " house of wickedness." In 12 : 11, there is an allusion to Gilead, spoken of in Gen. 31 : 48 ; and to Gilgal, where the stones taken out of the Jordan where pitched, and which event is recorded in Joshua 4 : 20. {d) These allusions to the laws and historical facts are re-enforced by forms of thought and speech, drawn from the Pentateuch. Many of the ideas expressed are evidently suggested by and based upon the Pentateuch. Indeed Hosea would have been quite obscure to the people if they had not possessed the Pen- tateuch. What has been said of Hosea applies with equal truth to Araos. Like proofs of genuineness and existence of the Pentateuch may be drawn from the histories of Elijah and Elisha, and of the schism. Consult Hengstenberg. That these prophets were tolerated in denouncing the national worship is a proof that the public conscience confessed that they were right. The authorship of the Pentateuch is everywhere admitted, and especially was it so at the time of the schism. Hence it must be what it claims to be. IV. The various positive arguments already stated may be supplemented by certain negative ones. The institutions and primeval history of the 0. T. are complete from the time of Moses. There is no trace in its history, poetry or prophecy, of their subsequent adoption or growth. If the Pentateuch be not the genuine production of Moses ; if its laws were not originated by him, and if its histories were not recorded by him and given to the people as a whole, then the only alterna- tive is that these institutions represent the growth of centuries. That such a body of laws could have been imposed upon the people, unless in the time of Moses, is absurd. But according to this view, the Pentateuch was written at a late period long posterior to Moses, and falsely imputed everything therein recorded, including the code of that time, to the great legisla- tor. On this hypothesis, the history in the Pentateuch ceases to be the record of Moses as an eye witness, but is found to be made up of myths and fictions, so interblended that the real OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 51 cannot be distinguished from the fanciful. And all this, the later writer of the Pentateuch assumed to be true. This view cannot be sustained. We have a compact connected history, together with a complete literature, reaching back to the time of Moses. There is no trace of a gradual formation of these institutions. In the laws and myths of Greece and Eome, it is otherwise. They are always simplest in their earlier forms. But the Mosaic institutions and narratives are always complete and entire, and references imply that they always existed in that form in which the Pentateuch records them. The only thing supporting a contrary theory is derived from those periods of apostasy among the people, when these institutions were dis- regarded. That they were not observed is no proof that they did not exist. And besides history relates that the people forsook the institutions of their fathers, , V. There is no period in the history of Israel, subsequent to the time of Moses, to which such a work as the Pentateuch can be referred. It could not have been written (a) in the weak- ness and dissolution of the period of the Judges. It could not have been brought into existence in such a time of anarchy, for the age was opposite in character to that which the Pentateuch exhibits. Nor could it have been produced {b) in the days of Solomon and David, for we have full histories of that period, and the state of things then existing does not correspond with what is recorded in the Pentateuch. Besides the plan of the temple erected by Solomon does not correspond exactly with the tabernacle of Moses. Further, David introduced certain changes regarding the courses of the priesthood, and the singers of the temple. Hence we see the sanctuary, here spoken of, is not a transcript of that in the Pentateuch. If it originated during the exile, it could not have been introduced into Judah (c) while the schism lasted, for then the Ten Tribes would not have received it; nor could it have arisen {d) during the Babylonish exile, for that was no time to attempt a National reconstruction when the people were in an enemy's land ; nor was it (e) after the exile, because their zeal on their return was not for new institutions but for old. It was a period of reformation — a- 52 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. return to the faith of former days. Ezra merely recalled the people to the institution of their fathers, and Luther might as well be said to have written the Bible as Ezra to have written the Pentateuch. The difficulty of accounting for the Penta- teuch's origin, if it was not written by Moses, is insuperable. Objectors too must show that there are fewer difficulties in the way of its being written at some later date. VI. To these arguments add the inspired and infallible testi- mony of Christ and His Apostles in the N. T. Christ says " Moses wrote of Me," and He said to the Jews, John 5 : 47, " if ye believe not Moses' writings, how shall ye believe My word ?" Numerous passages in N. T. assert or imply the correctness of the popular faith, viz. : that Moses was the author. It was not the aim of Christ and the Apostles to teach scientific criticism, but they were inspired teachers of the truth ; and to authenti- cate the Pentateuch, if it were really spurious, would have been to prove themselves fallible. VII. The universal belief of Jews and Christians from the earliest period to the present day, confirms the Mosaic author- ship. There is no rebutting testimony. The doubts advanced rest on no basis of tradition, but on a skeptical predetermina- tion not .to believe in the reality of any divine revelation. If the Pentateuch be authentic, then the opposite must follow as a consequence, viz. : that there are real prophecies and real miracles. Hence, skeptics refuse to accept the Pentateuch. A spirit of unbelief in an immediate and supernatural revela- tion lies at the basis of the whole denial. Hence, these objec- tions have little weight. VIII. A final argument may be drawn from the entire com- patibility of the Pentateuch, as a whole and in all its parts, with the circumstances of its alleged origin. This may be seen Ih the fact that : (a) The knowledge of writing belonged to the time of Moses. It is objected that this art was not known and in common use at this early period, and that the matter of the book could never have been remembered. But the art of writing was familiarly known in Moses' day. It was not divinely communicated to him as those suggest, who hold that OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 53 God's writing the commandments upon the tables of stone was the first recorded instance of written characters. Egyptian and other monuments, together with hints in the Pentateuch itself, prove that writing was even ancient in the days of Moses. (6) The language of the Pentateuch contains certain archaisms or peculiarites which distinguish it from the Hebrew of later days. Many terms used in the Pentateuch, are, in later times, used only in poetry. It is objected that its language is that of the time of Isaiah or even later, and that it must have under- gone more change if it had really belonged to the age of Moses. But it must be remembered that oriental languages are very stable, (c) The unity and harmony of the law as shown by the careful study of its provisions. It composes one system, and is the outgrowth of one idea. It has no such discordant parts as it must have exhibited if produced by the accretion of many minds and ages, (d) Its Egyptian relations, viz. : Egyptian words, allusions to Egyptian objects, &c. Many of its symbols stand related to Egyptian customs and topics. The writer was evidently familiar with the land of Egypt, and so were the people to whom he wrote, (e) Certain prescriptions and particulars in the law show that it had its origin in the wilderness and not in the settled state of Canaan. (/) Some weight is to be given to external or profane traditions, e. g., Manetho, an Egyptian priest, tells of the church in Israel, the circumstances of the people in Egypt, &c., &c. UNITY OF PENTATEUCH. Objections to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch affect : (1) the form, i. e., they deny its unity, alleging that it is not the product of one author but of several ; some of whom were of a period later than Moses, and therefore, the Pentateuch must be post-mosaic ; (2) the contents, i. e., they allege that the Pentateuch contains such inaccuracies, contradictions and ana- chronisms, that it cannot be the work of one author, Moses. A. As to unity. In its present form the Pentateuch is one 54 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. continuous work of one author ; this assertion does not deny that there may have been written sources from which he drew his facts, provided the composition be his own. These facts, whether from preexisting writings, from tradition, from per- sonal knowledge, or from divine revelation, would still prove its unity if moulded by Moses, e. g., Bancroft's history composed from pre-existent material, yet a unit ; if it were a mere weaving together of separate a,ccounts, it would be a compilation ; so, also, a gospel history might be composed from the language of the four evangelists. The question is whether the Pentateuch is a continuous pro- duction of a single author or the product of various authors woven together and which can be taken apart without destroy- ing unity. The conjecture of ante-Mosaic records is ancient, but hypotheses which deny unity of Pentateuch and assert that it is a mere compilation from these ante-Mosaic records are of modern date. These hypotheses are, I. Documentary, 11. Frag- mentary, III. Supplementary. I. The Documentary Hypothesis, — Which supposes two separ- ate documents written by two distinct authors, supported by the following arguments : 1. The singular interchange and alternate use of names Jehovah and Elohim in successive sections, e. g., in Gen. 1-2 : 3, Elohim alone is used ; in chap. 2 : 4-3, Jehovah- Elohim; in chap. 4, Jehovah; in chap. 5, Elohim; chap. 6 : 1-8, Jehovah ; chap. 6 : 9-22, Elohim, &c. 2. The alleged fact is that if Elohist be taken out, they would form a complete and unbroken narrative ; the same affirmed less confidently of Jehovist sections. 3. Alleged existence of parallel sections in Jehovist and Elohist documents, e. g., in Gen. 1-2 : 3, Elohist gives account of creation, and in next section chap. 2 : 4, Jeho- vist gives a new account of same thing ; in Gen. 6 : 1-8, Jeho- vist gives account of flood and wickedness of man, and purpose to destroy him ; in chap. 6 : 9, Elohist gives same account, but adds command to Noah to enter the ark; in chap. 7: 1-5, Jehovist repeats this command. 4. Alleged diversity of style, diction, ideas and aim in these two documents. It is said that examination shows that each section has distinguishing charac- OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 55 teristics : (1) Diversity of style. Elohist uses the phrase " beast of the earth," Jehovist " beast of the field. Elohist says God "created" man, Jehovist says "formed." Elohist uses the words " male and female," Jehovist " man and his wife." (2) Diversity in range of ideas. Jehovist said to show fond- ness for recording details of history which seem preparatory to Mosaic ritual, while Elohist gives merely general historical features, Jehovist mentions sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Elo- hist speaks of Enoch and Noah walking with God, but does not mention sacrifices. Jehovist in reeording the taking of animals into the ark, distinguishes between the clean and unclean. Elohist gives the account in more general terms. Jehovist records Noah's sacrifice. These four arguments, as at first propounded, did not conflict with Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, and were at first con- fined to Gen. Astruc first suggested this theory. Eichhorn adopted it. Both still held Mosaic authorship. This hypothesis soon extended to remainder of Pentateuch, and then first con- flicted with Mosaic authorship. If the later books of Penta- teuch could thus be compounded of separate documents, these documents must have been prior to the time of Moses, or the Pentateuch must have been produced after the time of Moses, and hence he could not have been its author. If supposable that these original documents could have been produced at the time of Moses, it is unlikely that a third history would have been written. Delitzsch adopts this hypothesis and supposes that Pentateuch was put in its present form in the time of Joshua, and was compiled from two histories, written in Moses' lifetime, one of them perhaps written by Moses. Kurtz follows Delitzsch, but says that the compilation itself was made in Moses' lifetime. The establishment of this hypothesis as thus extended to whole Pentateuch would be a confutation of Mosaic authorship ; all we could say would be that certain parts were written by Moses. To support this hypothesis, appeal is made to Exodus 6 : 3, which it is alleged proves that the name Jehovah was not used 56 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. in the time of patriarchs, and was first used in days of Moses, and, therefore, the Jehovist document is not prior to time of Moses ; they say Jehovist document is post-Mosaic, because it contains anachronism in putting into mouths of patriarchs a name not known in their day. This anachronism led to suspi- cion of others. Jehovist document mentions sacrifices (chiefly of patriarchs) which belong to Mosaic economy; it was sus- pected that Jehovist had thus transferred to that age what was current in his day. The Elohist was more accurate. These diversities took on, more and more, the character of contraditions, as one or other of the authors was held in most esteem. The text was tortured to bring forth difficulties ; par- allel passages were greatly multiplied and points of resemblance shown to be identical passages. Diversities were magnified into contradictions, e. g., in the genealogy of Cain, Gen. 4 : 17- 22, a Jehovist section, the names are similar to those in the list of Seth's descendants in Gen. 5, an Elohist section. Said that these are only varying accounts of the same genealogy. So in Gen. 12, Jehovist records Abraham's prevarications about Sarah, and says it occurred in Egypt. In Gen. 20, Elohist relates same story, but says it occurred in Gerar. In chap. 26, Jehovist relates same story, but says Isaac and not Abraham. In chap. 21 : 21 and 22, Elohist records altercation between Abimelech and Abraham. In chap. 26 : 17-33, Jehovist records same, but says Isaac and not Abraham. This destructive course at length reacted on itself. Docu- ments themselves examined, and it was found : a That like repetitions occurred in each distinct document, b That like contradictions occurred in each. It was found impossible to fix diflerent criteria of style so that they could be distinguished throughout, e. g., characteristics of one author would be found in the other. Attempts to settle age, aim, style, &c., of each resulted difi'erently in difierent parts of the same document. The only conclusion was that the documents themselves were separable, and the work of difierent authors. Some supported two Elohist and one Jehovist. DeWette supposes several difierent writers. The division thus became infinite. The OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 67 documentary hypothesis was given up, and displaced by a second hypothesis, viz. : //. The Fragmentary Hypothesis. — This is the documentary hypothesis run mad. It supposes that every separate para- graph has a distinct author and is a fragment taken from more extended writings ; two or more fragments may have been from the same source. This hypothesis also extensively adopted : same arguments used as in documentary, only more vigorously applied. No limit to its application ; has been applied to Judges and might be to any work, ancient or modern. In addition to the arguments in support of documentary hypothesis, they refer to the titles and subscriptions found in these different sections in Pentateuch, e. g., titles, Gen. 2 : 4, Gen. 5 : 1, Ex. 6 : 16, Lev. 7 : 1, Lev. 11 : 1, Num. 3 : 1, Num. 33 : 1, Deut. 1:1; subscrip- tions, Gen. 10 : 32; 46 : 15, 18, 22, Lev. 7 : 37, 38, Lev. 11 : 46, Lev. 13 : 59. These mark beginnings and ends of paragraphs, but they never prove that these sections are independent or had separate authors. These titles and subscriptions are attached (1) to genealogies, (2) to laws forming sections complete in themselves ; they merely tend to clearness and form connecting links, e. g., Num. 1 : 5, Gen. 10 : 1, sometimes preceded by " and " Gen. 46 : 1, 8; 36 : 1 ; 26 : 1. There are ten of these in Genesis forming a series, each referring back to a previous his- tory, and thus making an unbroken line. This cannot be acci- dental, and indicates one author. Gen. 6:9; 10 : 1 ; 11 : 10 ; 11 : 27; 25 : 12; 25 : 19; 36 : 1, distinguished by separate titles. Gen. 19 : 37; 22 : 20; 25 : 1, not so distinguished. The number ten seems intentional, for like stress given to it elsewhere, e.g., 10 commandments, 10 acts of creation, 10 generations from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham. In reference to this hypothesis we remark, 1. It may be regarded as a reductio ad absurdum of the partition theory. 2, This principle might be applied to any works with like destructive result. 3. It requires an assumption of an unsup- posable amount of literature at the time of the composition of Pentateuch. No facts to support this theory ; no fragments of these lost books extant, nor any allusion to them. Author of 8 58 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Chronicles did not know of their existence. No formula of quotation from these ancient books in Pentateuch, except Num. 21 : 14. 4. Impossible to form so large a work as Pentateuch from so many books, in such a continuous narrative and so complete in its plan. No instance of such compilation in history of literature. In oriental, successive portions are more loosely connected than in modern. Pentateuch a complete whole; no variation of thought ; no abrupt transitions ; seeming omissions are not breaks, but omissions of irrelevant matter. 5. There are such allusions and cross references from one part of Penta- teuch to another, that the writer must have known of the para- graphs alluded to. Those who deny the Unity of Pentateuch are now compelled to shift their ground and resort to another hypothesis, viz. : III. The Supplementary Hypothesis. — A modification of Documentary in the direction of closer union ; a reaction in the right direction. This hypothesis retains theory of Jehovist and Elohist, but they are not made to be authors of distinct and independent documents. It supposes the Elohist to have made an original history constituting a groundwork, then this history was adopted and enlarged by Jehovist, retaining the language and form of this older book, supplying omissions and introducing sections of his own as he thought necessary. This provides for evidences of unity in both Elohist and Jehovist passages by themselves ; it also accounts for the fact that Jehovist sections are related to those of the Elohist, pre- supposing and containing allusions to them. The Jehovist is supposed to have the Elohist document in his hand. The hypothesis fails (1) because it cannot account for allusions to Jehovist passages by the Elohist, since the hypothesis supposes that Elohist wrote before Jehovist. It is impossible to deter- mine what the Jehovist intends to do ; the proof lies in the diversity of style and thought in the two writings ; Jehovist must therefore retain the language of Elohist and expresses his own ideas in his own style and language where he thinks neces- sary. Frequently ideas and diction said to belong to one, are found in the other. Elohist sections are found to contain OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 59 language, views and opinions expressed in Jehovist ; inference is that Jehovist has interpolated in these places. Again, char- acteristics said to belong to Elohist are found in Jehovist passages ; here it is said that Jehovist imitates Elohist. Again there are passages in which it is impossible to mark the divi- sion ; here it is said Jehovist uses artifice to cover up his addi- tions so skillfully that the points of connection cannot be discerned. All these explanations are subterfuges to evade the difficulty which they create. It is bringing unproved hypothe- ses to support hypotheses. (2) It makes Jehovist inconsistent with himself; in one place the sections are skillfully connected, in another not connected at all ; he is at the same time skillful and bungling, artless and artful, an honest reporter and a dis- honest interpolater. This hypothesis has been variously modi- fied, but remains essentially the same. The arguments adduced in its support are the same as those given to support the documentary. 1. The alleged alternation of the names Elohim and Jehovah. So far as this is remarkable, it is confined almost entirely to Genesis and chiefly to earlier parts of that book. But same writer might use both names ; they are intermingled in almost every book of the Bible. It is here alleged (1) that the names alternate in successive sections. Arts. Impossible to divide the sections so as to correspond precisely with the alleged alterna- tion, for both names are constantly cropping out in each section. This destroys the whole argument ; hence, if the name Jehovah appears in Elohist section, and vice versa, the interchange must depend on something else than diversity of authorship. To evade this it is said that Jehovist introduces the name Jehovah in place of Elohim in Elohim sections, and uses both names, in either section, whenever he choses. (2) Appeal is made to Exodus 6:3, to show that Elohist avoids using the name Jehovah, until the time of Moses. Ans. (a) Even supposing the name Jehovah to have been first used at the time of Moses, it might still be used in recording the history of the patriarchs. It was the name of the Being whom the patriarchs worshiped, and the writer may have inserted the name here, as showing 60 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. the identity of the God of Abraham with the God who led the Israelites from Egypt. In the same way we speak of the " call of Abraham," whereas his name at that time was Abram ; so also " converson of Paul," instead of Saul. (6) This is the only passage adduced, and it would be easier to erase this one verse than to throw out so many sections of Genesis. But this is unnecessary because, (c) author of Pentateuch in writing this verse saw no contradiction between it and the occurrence of the name in Genesis, and there is none, because {d) the verse does not assert that the name Jehovah was not known, but that God did not reveal himself in the character denoted by that name; its meaning was to be unfolded as never before. The whole reason for the change in the names is found in the radical dis- tinction in their import. Elohim is the general name for God, derived from " Alah," to worship, reverence. It is also applied to heathen divinities. Jehovah, derived from " Hayah," to be, belongs to the true God alone; it is a proper noun. God reveals himself to Israel, by this name, as being his own covenant people. He is Jehovah to Israel alone. He is Elohim to other nations also. The writers of 0. T. use the names according as God is contemplated in one or other point of view, e. g., Genesis 14 : 18 ; 21 : 22 ; 41 : 38. So also Israel is the sacred name, and Jacob the ordinary name applied to Hebrew people. Hengstenberg, Kurtz and others have pursued this subject through Genesis and other books to show that there are not different writers, but only discrimination on the part of one writer in using these names. The names being different in meaning and usage. Hengstensberg's theory is that Elohim denotes a lower, and Jehovah a higher stage in knowledge and apprehension of God. The knowledge advances from God in creation, to Jehovah at Sinai, and in the interval between these two extreme periods, He may be designated by either ; if writer wished to use a more glorious name, he used Jehovah. 2. The alleged fact that Elohim sections form a connected whole when Jehovist sections are eliminated. Ans. This alleged con- tinuity is only held by those who have a theory to uphold and OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 61 is not well founded: (1) Because it is unwarrantable to suppose the existence of a chasm by the removal of some passage ; the same might be done to any modern book, e. g., Gen. 1, i.s Elohist section giving account of creation, then next Elohist section would be chap. 5 : 29, making no allusions to any change in man's condition. He speaks of the ground being cursed. Next Elohist section is chap. 6 : 9. But all this requires and presupposes the account of the fall, &c., which is given by Jehovist in chap. 3. The whole account would be unintelligi- ble without Jehovist sections. Same might be shown all through the Pentateuch. (2) This alleged continuity is in part factitious, for the authors of the hypothesis aimed to ascribe to the same writer what appears to form a connected narrative, but some of the discrepancies occur in the same document. 3. The alleged existence of repetition and parallel sections in Jehovist and Elohist documents. This is no proof of diversity of authorship because (1) many of these are not parallel pass- ages, but narratives of distinct events, e. g., Abraham might have prevaricated twice, and Isaac might have imitated him. (2) When narratives are apparently repeated, it is merely the same event viewed in a different aspect, or giving a different lesson. (3) Eepetition and enlargement more characteristic of Hebrew and Oriental writings, than of our own. (4) Like parallelisms and repetitions occur in each document when taken alone. 4. Alleged diversity of style and ideas. Two given sections are compared, and then the comparison extended to other books. This argument from diversity of style is plausible but fallacious. (1) Because this difference is first created, and then argued from. (2) The proofs are factitious, and might be applied to any book. Words found in one section are singled out and shown to be wanting in another ; this, however, proves nothing unless it can be shown that the writer had occasion to use these words. Where words occur two or three times in one and not in another section, it is accidental, e. g., twelve out of thirteen of the poetic passages are assigned to the Jehovist. This falla- cious, because the writer would naturally use poetic words in 62 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. these sections, not found elsewhere in prose. (3) When synony- mous expressions occur to express one idea, it is not to be referred to diversity of style or authorship, but may arise from the nature of the subject and aspect in which it is viewed. The choice of words is determined by appropriateness ; synonyms are never exactly equivalent. (4) Alleged criteria of style fre- quently conflict with each other, or with criteria alleged from use of divine names. Critics say predominating criteria must prevail, but they differ as to what criteria do predominate, and the occurrence of opposite criteria destroys their argument. They in vain resort to assumption of interpolation or imitation of the Elohist by Jehovist. (5) What has been said of style is applicable to ideas said to characterize one or other section : (a) The difference is factitious ; first created, and then argued from. (6) Since there is distinction between fundamental mean- ing and current usage of the divine names, one is more appro- priate in certain cases than the other. Natural, therefore, that one of these names will be found associated with a difierent class of ideas from the other, e. g., Jehovah associated with sacrifice, (c) Alleged that anticipations of Mosaic law are char- acteristic of Jehovist; but these same are found in Elohist sections, e. g., allusions to sacrifice, altars, angel of God, vows, &c., Gen. 46 : 1 ; 35 : 1, 7 ; 21:17; 22 : 11-15. Some exclude these passages because these ideas are not characteristic of Elohist, but see, also, Gen. 35 : 1, 7, 9 ; 17 : 1-22 ; 35 : 15 ; 28 : 20-22. (d) Elohist goes beyond Jehovist in some particulars, e.^.,Gen.2: 3; 9: 4; 17: 22-27; 35: 3,14. (e) While Jehovist does record facts in Patriarchal times, anticipating Mosaic ritual, he also records facts at variance with it, Gen. 4 : 38 ; 8 : 12-36; 20: 12; 29: 23-28. Also said that Jehovist embellished narrative, but he also records faults. (/) Mosaic legislation could not have been wholly new. Must expect writer to record current usage. Presumption, therefore, is in favor of accuracy of these correspondences, (g) Critics bring forward only what is favorable to their hypothesis, ignoring all else. These various hypotheses exhaust the possibilities of the case. One or other of the three is the only way to account for any OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. G3 theory, except that the Pentateuch is the work of one author. Any hypothesis must be mere conjecture, unless unity of Pen- tateuch is shown to be impossible or absurd. These hypotheses although baseless, have done good. (1) They prove that the alleged partition of Pentateuch is impos- sible. (2) They prove positively that it is a unit. (3) These investigations have resulted in elucidation and vindication of Pentateuch by careful analysis. XII. CONTENTS UNMOSAIC. It is alleged — 1. There are false and incredible statements. 2. Contradictions. 3. Anachronisms. These statements concern — (1) Matters of inferior moment. (2) Their combined presentation exaggerates the importance of their number and strength ; they are apt to be counted rather than weighed. There are advantages in considering them in their proper place in the con- secutive study of each book. (3) Difficulties are frequently created by our own ignorance. (4) Positive proofs of Mosaic authorship must not be left out of view. (5) Even if it could be shown that a few passages were not from the pen of Moses, this would not discredit his authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Interpolations are found in many ancient books ; these may have been authoritatively supplied by Ezra. Yet they are not to be admitted without necessity. Illustrate from Gen. 36 : 31, "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." The kingdom in Israel is alluded to, but as expected, not as existing. Moses might so speak of it, for it was — 64 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 1. Promised to the patriarchs, (see Gen. 17 : 6, 16 ; 35 : 11 ; 49 : 10). 2. Again by Balaam, (Num. 24 : 7, 17). 3. Provided for by Moses, (Deut. 17 : 14). 4. Involved in complete national organization. It viras natural to remark that Esau had kings, and Jacob the heir of promise, as yet had none. There is nothing to show that the kings named were posterior to the Mosaic age. Scientific objections afi"ect inspiration and authority of Penta- teuch rather than its Mosaic authorship. Though these are connected. The conflict is chiefly in the first seven chapters of Genesis which narrate the origin of the world, man, nations, languages, &c. Contact with geology, astronomy, ethnology, philology, chronology, &c. 1. It is not the design of the Bible to teach or anticipate physical science. 2. Its authority is independent of scientific deductions, rest- ing on its own evidence. 3. The Bible is the Word of God, physical science is based on His works, each is supreme in its own domain, and neither can contradict the other. 4. Though science has not reached its- last results, enough is already ascertained to show that whatever they may be, they can be satisfactorily harmonized with the Scripture. XIII. ETHNOLOGICAL REGISTER. Genesis X. This chapter does not exhibit relationship of individuals, but of nations. 1. Design of the chapter, as seen in verses 5, 20, 31, 32. 2. Plural and Gentile form of some names, (verses 13-18). 3. Others occur as names of nations or communities. Even such as are individual appear here as ancestors or heads OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 65 of tribes or nations, as Canaan, &c. Other Scripture examples of name of ancestor given to tribe or nation springing from him. Roman and Greek mythical per- sonages prove antiquity of usage. 4. Otherwise devoid of meaning and value. 5. Plan of Genesis exhibits divergent lines of descent before tracing that of the chosen seed. 6. So universally understood. SOURCES. I. Not immediate revelation. 1. Contrary to analogy of Scripture. 2. Of other Scriptural genealogies. II. Not mythical. 1. No inconsistencies or variations. 2. Not local or national. It is alleged there is a tendency to exalt Israel as descended from the eldest son of Noah. But — (1) It makes all men brethren. (2) It is a question whether Shem was the eldest, 10 : 21 is ambiguous ; usual order of names not decisive ; com- pare 9 : 24; 5 : 32, with 11 : 10. Certainly no stress is laid on his primogeniture. Compare also Isaac and Jacob. (3) Elam and Asshur, 10 : 22, older than Arphaxad. Pre- cisely seventy names — a symbolical but not mythical, designed yet not untruthful correspondence with the number of Jacob's family, who came into Egypt, Gen. 46: 27. Referred to Deut. 32: 8; seventy elders, tradition, New Testament. III. Not scientific deduction. IV. Primeval family registers and national tradition. AGE. 1. Internal grounds not adequate to determine. 2. Most probable period of preparation, Knobel says was in the time of Solomon. That of Moses better. 66 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. INCIDENTAL PEOOFS OF ANTIQUITY. 3. Its position in Genesis is uncontradicted. Tiiere are diffi- culties in interpretation, arising from antiquity, lack of contemporaneous information, imperfection of other and later accounts, change of names and location, diversity of language. AIDS. 1. Tradition. 2. Tenacity of names, etymology. 3. Particulars to be sought for under generals. The unknown determined by what is known. XIV. PLAN AND CONTENTS. History. Gen. 1-Ex. 19. Preliminary, f Antediluvian. Gen. 1-5. Gen. 1-11. [ Noachic. Gen. 6-11. ^ Family. Gen. i2_.50. { ^bf ham, Isaac and Preparatory. Gen. 12-Ex. 19. Nation. - ■ ( Jacob. ■ Transition from family. Ex. 1 : 1-7. Preparation for Exodus. Ex. 1 : 8-ch. 13. Exodus and March to Sinai. Ex. 14-19. r Negative. 1 : 8-22. Oppression. Preparation for Exodus. J^ f Instrument-Moses. 12-6. L positive. I Plagues. 7-13. Legislation. Israel in Wilderness. Ex. 20-Deut. 34. At Sinai. f From giving Law to setting up Tab. J Ex. 20-40. Ex. 20- 1 Ordinances at Sinai. Lev. 1-27. Num. 10:10. [ Preparation lor departure. Num. 1-10:10. In Paran. Num. 10:11- chap. 21. In Plains of MOAB. Deut. 1-34. From Sinai to Kadesh. 10 : 11-14. Forty years wandering. 15-29. Kadesh to Plains of Moab. 20-36. Moses' 1st Address, (Historical), 1^ : 40. .d (J.aw) I Special, 12-26. " 3d , Conclusion, 31-34. (Blessing and Cursing). 27-30. The first five books of Moses are known under the names, Law, (Josh. 1 : 7), Law of Moses, (Josh. 8 : 32), Pentateuch. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 67 The rabbinical title is " the five-fifths of the Law." " Penta- teuch " is from the Alexandrian Greek, nivze, five, and reuxo'::, an implement — book. The five-fold division some have supposed to be original and as old as Moses ; a natural division determined by plan of book. Others think that the division was from the Greek translators. It was used by Josephus and Philo and is found in the LXX. The titles of the several books are not of Hebrew but of Greek origin. The Hebrew names are merely taken from the first words of each book, and in the first instance designate only sections and not books. The Pentateuch contains six hundred and sixty-nine para- graphs, distinguished into open and closed. Those in which a new line opened were called open ; those in which the same line after an interval was continued were said to be closed. The former were marked with a " pe " standing in the open space between the paragraphs, the latter with a " samech." Besides these paragraphs was a division into verses. It was also divided into fifty-four larger parashoth or lessons for reading in syna- gogue. The present division into chapters originated with the Christians in 13th century, is ascribed to Cardinal Hugo by some, by others to Stephen Langton, Archb. of Canterbury. THEME. The Pentateuch has one theme — the Theocracy in Israel. Two parts : /. Historical. — Tracing the steps by which they were brought into being as a nation, and their segregation from other nations, (Gen. 1-Ex. 19). //. Legislative. — Divine Constitution under which organized as the people of God, (Ex. 20-Deut. 34). Part I. Historical. Of the two main sections, the first is not only precedent to the second, but preparatory to it. For though in the latter the 68 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. history is insignificant and subordinate, yet it is allied to the first because the history itself was a part of the training. Everything bears on the theme. The Historical period is sub-divided by the call of Abraham : 1. Preliminary period — Creation to call of Abraham, (Gen. 1-12). 2. Preparatory period — Call of Abraham to end, (Gen. 12- Ex. 19). The Preliminary Period is divided by the flood into (a) Antediluvian ; and (6) Noachie. The failure of both primeval covenants with Adam and Noah, made necessary the establishment of a peculiar people. The covenant with Adam was broken by the fall, then the world was destroyed by the flood. A fresh beginning is made — new covenant enacted with Noah ; this is followed by idolatry, and again there appears the necessity for a new process. Then a call is made to Abraham, and he is separated from all other men to be the father of a peculiar people. These two periods furnish the justification of God's establish- ing a kingdom in Israel. This separation presents the ideas of: 1, Segregation. 2. Inward character. 3. Outward destiny. 4. Direct relation to God of Children of Israel. Preparatory Period. Gen. 12-Ex. 19. Divided into the (1) Family stage ; (2) National stage. (1) Family stage embraces the period of patriarchs. God chose out Abraham and covenanted to give him — (a) Numerous seed. (6) Canaan. (c) To make him a blessing to all mankind. During this period the work of separation carried on. First, narrowed down to the family of Terah. Abraham called out of this family. Lot parted from him and his descendants traced. Then Ishmael is sent away (Gen. 21) and the divergent lines of Ishmael and Keturah (Gen. 25) traced. The direct line through Isaac traced (Gen. 25 : 10,) and in the family of Isaac the divergent line of Esau, (Gen. 36). OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. G9 No further elimination being necessary, the history of the chosen family is traced in the land of Canaan and the events which led them to Egypt. Genesis closes with death of Jacob. Family period ends and National begins. (2) National stages. EXODUS. Exodus opens with the multiplication of the Children of Israel. Then follows : (1) Preparation for the Exodus, (Ex. 1 : 8 ;-13). (2) Exodus and March to Sinai, Ex. 14-19. The preparation was (a) Negative, (1: 8-22). [h] Positive. First, in choice of Moses as instrument, (2-6) ; second, in breaking the bonds by plagues, (7-13). These having taken place the actual Exodus occurs, (14-19). Israel is now ready to be organized, therefore, the Historical period closes and Legislative opens. Part II. Legislative, Has three parts corresponding to three periods and three dis- tinct localities : (1) Sinai, period one year, (Exodus 20 — Numbers 10 : 10). (2) Wandering in Wilderness of Faran, forty years, (Num- bers 12-21). (3) Flains of Moah, one month, (Deut. 1-34). At Sinai God proclaims the Decalogue, (Exodus 20), then gives ordinances as basis for the covenant, (21-23) ; ratifies the covenant, (24). When this has been done God can take up his abode with them, hence directions for building the tabernacle are given, (Exodus 25-31). Execution of the order is postponed by the sin of golden calf, (32-34), requiring a renewal of the covenant. Exodus closes with an account of the actual setting up of tabernacle. 70 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. LEVITICUS. Next the Law is given, mainly in Leviticus : 1. Various sacrifices, (1-7). 2. Consecration of Aaron and his sous, and death of Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire, (8-10). 3. Law of clean and unclean meats, and purifications, (11-15). 4. Services of Day of Atonement, (16). These are followed by ordinances for the people : Miscella- neous, (17-20); Priests, (21-22); Festivals, (23); Sabbatical year and year of Jubilee, (25) ; Blessings and Cursings, (26) ; Supplementary chapter, (27). NUMBERS Begins with arrangements for the camp and preparations for march, (1-10 : 10). People first numbered, (chapter 1). Order of march, (2). Duties of Levites in transporting the tabernacle, (3-4). Ceremonial regulations, (5-6). Offerings of princes, (7). Levites consecrated, (8). Passover celebrated, (9). Signal trumpets made, (10). Actual march to Kadesh where they were condemned to v/andering, (15-19). Assembly at Kadesh on the first month of fortieth year, and march to Plains of Moab, (20-36). DEUTERONOMY Contains last addresses of Moses in eleventh month of fortieth year of wandering. He endeavors to engage the people to a faithful observance of the law. 1st Address [(1-4 : 40), Historical in character. Reviews the march and argues for faithfulness. Between this and second address is recorded the selection of three Cities of Refuge on the east of Jordan, (4 : 41-49). OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 71 2d Address. First recapitulates the law in general terms — recites the Decalogue, (5-11), then enters more into detail, (12-26). Sd Address. Consists of two sections. (1) Blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience, (27-28). (2) Promises on condition of repentance and obedience, (29-30). Then the law is delivered into the custody of the Priests, Moses' last song and blessing, and death, (31-34). Thus the Pentateuch has one theme, one definite plan, one history ; the chasms alleged are only apparent not real and necessary. Alleged chasms are such, e. g., the lives of the Patriarchs are given minutely while a large part of the four hundred and thirty years in Egypt are passed over in silence. Again, the escape from Egypt is given minutely, but the forty years wandering almost a blank. Reply. These periods passed over so lightly are unnecessary to the purpose of the writer in giving the history. He only relates what belongs to the development of the children of Israel as a nation. This is prima facie evidence that these books are from a single hand and consistently treated. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC LAW. It is not a civil code — its omissions. Objection from this source. The divine imposition of such a code was not necessary nor desirable. It is not supplementary civil enactments. 1. Many of its enactments are above and beyond the sphere of the civil mag- istrates. 2. It is general, not specific. 3. Its penalties and rewards flow directly from God. It is not composed of distinct codes, political, moral and cere- monial. Particulars might be so classified, but all form one law of God, all religious. Kitual worship is the centre of the 72 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. whole, expressing the reciprocal relations of God and man in the most direct manner. Objections to its external character : 1. It differs from N. T. only in degree. 2. The forms are intended to express and foster spiritual religion. 3. No forms of prayer, not that this was undervalued, but not to fetter utterances of the heart. INTERPRETATIONS. I. Materialistic. Object : 1. This opposed to Moses' teach- ing of the spirituality of God. 2. It destroys religion. 3. It degrades it beneath the heathen. 4. It was not so understood by the people. II. Ultra-typical, immediate and sole design to represent objects of the N. T. It is typical. 1. The whole 0. T. is so, and this part especially. 2. N. T. is but the development of 0. T. 3. Express statements of N, T. declare it to be typical. The error is in making it represent objects rather than truths, and this mostly at random without fixed principles, overlook design for people of 0. T. III. Symbolic of religious truths or ideas. Similarity to heathen forms. 1. Heathen forms not borrowed from the Mosaic. 2. Neither is the Mosaic borrowed from heathen. 3. Nor yet is the Mosaic developed out of the heathen. 4. But both are alike symbolical and express wants of human nature, as interpreted by God and by man himself. IV. Kadical principles are antagonistic. The ritual of 0. T. also is : 1. A barrier of intercommunication. 2. Also impos- ing and attractive. 3. It carries the distinction of sacred and profane into ordinary matters. 4. It awakens a sense of sin. 5. It is a yoke of bondage and thus prepares for the freedom of the Gospel. Book of Joshua. The book of Joshua may stand either at the beginning or end of a period. May bring the preceding period to a close, inasmuch as it is the complement and conclusion of all that precedes. We have seen the segregation, preparation and establishment of the people of God. They are yet to be fur- nished with a land. This is provided in the book. At the same time it may be considered as the opening of a new period. Its theme is God's gift of Canaan to Israel. Book may be divided into four parts : I. Preliminaries of the conquest, chaps. 1-5. II. Actual conquest, chaps. 6-12, III. Division of the land, chaps. 13-22. IV. Two final addresses of Joshua, reminding the people of all that God had done for them ; that He had fulfilled all His promises to them, and urging them to new obedience. Some critics allege that Joshua is part of the Pentateuch. JRefly : 1. It has never been so regarded, even from the earliest times. 2. Moreover, it is rendered impossible by the statement near the close of Deuteronomy, that Moses wrote the Penta- teuch, (Deut. 31 : 9 and 24). 3. Peculiarities of language in Joshua distinguish it from the Pentateuch, e. g., the personal pronoun of the third person is written " hu " in the Pentateuch, never so in Joshua. "J'reho," (Jericho), in Pentateuch, is written " J'riho " in Joshua. The expressions, " Lord of the whole earth," and " the Treasury of the House of the Lord," are found in Joshua and not in Pentateuch. A. DATE. Opinion is divided as to why the book is called Joshua. Some say because Joshua wrote it ; others, because he is the principal 10 74 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. theme. The book is obnoxious to a certain class of critics : I. Because of the supernatural in it. II. Because it renders so much testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. They desire to overturn its date, put it at a much later date than that of the events recorded, and so destroy its credibility. Make it legendary. It has been placed by different critics, at the time of the Babylonish exile, in the reign of Josiah, in that of Jeroboam, in that of David, &c. Some apply the devisive hypotheses which have been brought against the Pentateuch, to Joshua also. One acute critic says it is made up of two parts : 1. Part written by an Elohist before the time of Samuel. Wrote the geopraphical part of the book, giving the boundaries of dif- ferent tribes. 2. The book was then completed in the time of Samuel. J5^ee^ supposes three different writers : 1. An Elohist; 2. A Jehovist ; 3. A writer in time of king Manasseh, who also wrote Deuteronomv. Another says there were five writers; 1. An Elohist; 2. Book of Jasher, existing in two successive forms, the first in time of Solomon, then rewritten ; 3. Books of wars, still later ; 4, A Jehovist; 5. A writer in the time of Manasseh. The last writer brought the book to its present form, and also wrote Deuteronomy. In order to come to any conclusion as to the date, we must examine the data given in the book itself. 1. Josh. 16 : 10. When Joshua was written, the Canaanites were still dwelling in Gezer. But we are told (1 Kings 9 : 16), that they were destroyed by the king of Egypt, and Gezer was given to Solomon's wife. So Joshua must have been written before this. 2. 15 : 63, at the date of this book the Jebusites were still dwelling at Jerusalem. The book must have been written before David captured the stronghold of Zion. (2 Sam. 24 : 5-8), Jebusites could not be driven out at first ; but this could not be said after the capture by David, though a Jebusite king is mentioned as dwelling there. 3. Zidonians were to be driven out, had not been yet, 13 : 6. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 75 But in David's time they were not to be driven out. He bad an alliance with them. Again, in 11 : 8; 19 : 28, the adjective " great " is connected with Zidon, which was no longer the case in the time of David, since Tyre had so far outstripped Zidon that the epithet was dropped, (2 Sam. 5 : 11 ; 1 Kings 5:1). 4. A place hrt,d not yet been chosen for permanent sanctuary. " Should choose," (9 : 27). But in Ps. 78 : 68, and 1 Chron. 21 : 18, a place is designated as already chosen. The same pas- sage (9 : 27), declares that the Gibeonites were still " hewers of wood and drawers of water." This must have been prior to Saul, as they ceased to be so then. 5. Rahab was still living in Israel, (6 : 25), Caleb also, who was eighty years old when they came into Canaan, was living, (14 : 14), which would bring the date of the book still higher up. (" Caleb," however, in this verse may mean a family). 6. The writer, using " we " and " us," (5 : 1, 6), distinctly includes himself among those who came into Canaan. 7. Some forms of expression occur which aflford incidental corroboration. " Eber ha-yarden " denotes the country east of the Jordan. But in the days of Moses it meant the west. In Joshua it is used ambiguously ; may mean beyond from the wilderness, or from the land itself. It was in the period of transition. The east had not yet obtained priority, (Josh. 5:1; 12: 1 ; 13 : 8). Same ambiguity occurs in 1 Chron. — : — . Accounted for by the fact that the people had just returned from exile. Again, in Judges 20 : 1, and from that on (2 Sam. 24 : 2), the utmost limits of the land were designated by the phrase " from Dan to Beer-sheba." But in Joshua by the ex- pression, Mt. Halak to Baal-gad," (11: 17 and 12: 7). The other expression had not yet come into use. 8. Joshua gives minute details with greatest precision, with reference not only to the boundaries of each tribe, but also to changes made. The territory, e. g., first assigned to Judah (15 chap.) being too large, was never taken up, but afterward given to another tribe, (19 : 1). The record of such changes indicates that the writer was contemporary with the events, as they would be unimportant to a writer coming at a later date. 76 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Also, a number of old Canaanitish names are retained which were afterward supplanted by Israelitish names. Joshua gives both. Shows him to be contemporary, (14 : 15; 15; 18: 13, 14, 16, 28). Same thing may be argued from the exactness with which numbers are given, (4:13; 7 : 4, 5 ; 8 : 25). 9. Represents state of things different from that of subse- quent period ; e. g., enumeration of Levitical cities (Joshua 21 and 1 Ohron. 6), and cities of Simeon, (Joshua 19 : 1-9, and 1 Chron. 4 : 28). In 1 Sam. 22 : 19, Nob is spoken of as a city of priests. Not so in Joshua ; Ziklag, in Joshua, belongs to Simeon, but in time of David, to the king of Gath. These are not discrepancies, but changes which took place in course of time. So the city of Ai had been destroyed (Joshua 8 ; 28) but had been rebuilt before Isaiah, (Isaiah 10 : 28). These positive arguments derived from the book itself, show its great antiquity. There are two classes of objections urged against this conclusion, one direct, the other indirect; one affecting the matter, the other the form. I. As to the first, it is alleged that a number of passages rebut this evidence, and prove later date. 1. Joshua cursed any one who should rebuild Jericho, (6 : 26). This curse was fulfilled in 1 Kings, 16 : 34. It is said so clear and exact a prediction could not have been written before the event. Joshua must then be as late as Ahab. But (1) this rests on the assumption that prophecy was impossible. (2) 1 Kings, 16 : 34, declares it a fulfillment of the word of Joshua. (3) While Joshua mentions curse, he mentions no fulfillment. Would if it had occurred. Joshua, 18 : 21 ; 2 Samuel, 10 : 5 ; Judges, 1 : 16 and 3 : 13, are not inconsistent with Joshua 6 : 26. Jericho existed only as an unwalled village. 2. A distinction is made between the mountains of Judah and those of Israel, which implies the existence^of the two king- doms, (11 : 16-21). Book must have been written after the schism. Ans. (1) The schism had been long in preparation. Germ as far back as the blessing of Jacob, and promise of pre- eminence to Judah. Three times was the kingdom rent, under David. Judah remained faithful. (2) These names are explained OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 77 ia the book of Joshua itself. Judah first received his inherit- ance in Canaan. It would be natural to call the mountains in the region of Judah, " Mountains of Judah," and those where the camp of Israel was located, " Mountains of Israel." 3. In Joshua 10 : 1 ; 12 : 10 and 15 : 63, the name Jerusalem occurs. But, it is said, this name was not given before its capture by David. It was previously called Jebus, from the Jebusites, (Judges, 19 : 10). Therefore the book was not wriiten before time of David. Ans. (1) There is no proof for the assumption that the name originated in time of David. No such intima- tion in history. It was called Jerusalem in the days of Saul, (1 Samuel, 17 : 54). Based on the name Salem, (Genesis, 14 : 18), which the Israelites reimposed and prolonged upon entering Canaan. (2) The argument might with better reason be reversed ; and it might be urged that the use of the name " Jebus " in Joshua (15 : 8 ; 18 : 16 and 28) proves antiquity of the book, since the name was discontinued by the time of David. 4. In Joshua 13 : 30, mention is made of the towns of Jair. The number of cities is given as sixty. But in Judges 10 : 34, these cities are connected with the name of a judge (time of Judges) from whom it is alleged, they received their name, and the number is given as thirty. Later, in the time of Solomon, number is given as sixty, (1 Kings 4 : 13). Hence, taking the two things together, the " Havoth Jair " of Joshua is posterior to Judge Jair. The number sixty, of 1 Kings 4 : 13, implies that the cities had multiplied. But, we reply, this is an utter perversion of facts. (1) This name occurs in the books of Moses (Num. 32 : 41, Deut, 3 : 4, 14), The latter passage expressly says there were sixty cities called after the name of Jair. (2) This is confirmed by the genealogy of Jair, (1 Chron. 2: 21). He belonged to the fourth generation in descent from Manasseh. Zelophehad belonged to the same line and generation (Joshua 17 : 3). But he was contemporary with Moses and Eieazer (Num. 27 : 2). So Jair must have been also. (3) An inciden- tal confirmation is found in Joshua 19 : 34. Territory of Naphtali is said to extend to " Judah upon Jordan toward the 78 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. sun rising." But Judah had no territory east of Jordan, Jair •however, was a descendant of Judah, and had these cities, which he had conquered, opposite the border of Naphtali, and in the border of Judah. A reference to Jair is the only plausible explanation of this obscure passage. (4) The word " Havoth," from root, meaning to live, signifies dwellings, denotes high antiquity. The alleged contrariety to Judges 10: 34, is only apparent. In the days of Moses there was a Jair who con- quered and gave names to sixty cities. In time of the Judges there was also a Jair who renewed these names. Analogous cases, Beer-sheba was twice named, (Gen. 21 : 31 and 26 : 33). Also, Bethel, more than once, (Gen. 28 : 19, and 35 : 7, 15). 5. A fifth argument is based upon Joshua 10 : 13, where the book of Jasher is quoted. This book, say objectors, was not written before the time of David, because it contains David's lament for Saul and Jonathan, (2 Sam. 1 : 17, 18, &c). Ans. The book of Jasher did not take its name from an individual. " Jasher " means upright, and the " book of Jasher " is the " book of the upright." It appears to have been a collection of poems celebrating the names and deeds of upright men. Additions were made to it from time to time, and in course of time David's lament was incorporated in it. 6. It is said that the repeated occurrence of the phrase " unto this day " shows later origin of Joshua. Considerable time must have elapsed in order to allow the expression. It occurs seventeen times. Ans. Several of these are incorporated in speeches made by Joshua himself, and others of his time, (22 : 3 and 17 ; 23 : 8 and 9). Twice it is used in connection with the lives of persons in Joshua's time, (6 : 25 ; 14 : 14). Twice it is used with names of places, (5 : 9 ; 7 : 26), and several times with heaps of stones, (7 : 26 ; 4 : 9, &c.), for which use the lapse of a few years would be sufficient to account. The same is true of other passages, (15 : 63 ; 16 : 10 ; 9 : 27 ; 8 : 28, &c). All may be accounted for by the lapse of only a few years. II. The second mode of invalidating the testimony of Joshua, is to deny its unity. It is asserted that certain parts of it were written by eye witnesses, while others were added by later OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 79 writers. But if the book is composed of different sections, written by different persons and at different times, proofs only establish the date of particular sections, not of the entire book. It is argued : 1. That the book is a continuation of the Pentateuch ; that it contains parallel narratives of the same events, by different authors. The account of the choosing twelve men from the tribes, (3 : 12 and 4 : 2), and of the passing over Jordan, (3 : 6 and 3 : 17), are given as examples. But, we reply, these repe- titions grow out of the simple style of Hebrew narrative. In the preparation for crossing, the writer gives Joshua's order. Afterward, when they came to cross, he gives the account in more detail. Also, in regard to the selection of the stones, when he describes their setting up, he goes back again to the selection of the men to carry them. Again, the two addresses of Joshua in 23d and 24th chapters, are said to be the same. The assertion is unfounded, supported by no evidence. 2. There are contradictions in the book. (1) In 11 : 15-23, it is said the whole land was taken. But, later, in 13 : 1, a portion of the land still remains to be possessed. Reply : There is no inconsistency here. The land had been overrun and imperfectly conquered. Much remained to be done in detail. Canaanites were to be expelled, but gradually, in accordance with the promise in Ex. 23 : 28-29. (2) In 10 : 36-39, Joshua is said to have destroyed Hebron and Debir ; but 15 : 14-17, ascribes this to Caleb. Reply : The accounts are not contra- dictory, but supplementary. The cities were conquered more than once. (3) The assignment of Ekron, Ashdod and Gaza to Judah, (15 : 45-47), is said to conflict with 13 : 3, which says they remain to be conquered. Reply: No inconsistency. Only shows that the territory of each tribe was assigned before it was conquered. The several tribes were then to conquer their portion. (4) The lists of cities given in 15: 21-32, 33-36; 19 : 35-38, do not correspond with the sums given at close of each. This is not accidental, as it occurs four times. Reply : The most that could be proved would be that the men did not know how to count. Absurd; the differences may be accounted 80 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. for. Some places may have more than one name ; or some may have been small villages, and not counted in summing up ; or some may have sprang up afterwards. 3. It is alleged that there are such differences of language, style and mode of treatment between the geographical and historical parts, that they could not have come from the same hand. Reply. These differences grow out of the difference of subjects. The geographical part is divided into distinct sec- tions, the historical is not. The reason is, that the boundaries of the twelve tribes were to be described in the former. Again, great prominence is given in geographical parts to Eleazer the high priest, (14 : 1 ; 19 : 51 ; 21 : 1), while he is not mentioned in historical part. Accounted for by the fact that the high priest had nothing to do with the conquest under Joshua, but was to take part in the distribution of the land, (Numbers 34 : 17-18). Slight verbal differences also occur in different sections. They are trivial, e. g., the different words used for "tribe." In one section is " Matteh," in another " Shebet." The first means a stick or rod, hence a sprout, and then branches as springing from a root. The second is scepter, tribe as a sovereignty. There is no evidence for a later date and we conclude that the book was written by a person contemporary with the events recorded, and by the one who claims to be its author. B. AUTHORSHIP. I. In favor of Joshua as author. 1. Near the close of the book (24: 26) occurs the sentence: " Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law." The " book of the law " is the same that was committed to the care of the Levites in Deut. 31 : 24. To what does " these words " refer ? If to the previous part of the book, then Joshua wrote it ; but if only to the last two chapters, he wrote them. The probability is that the whole book is meant. 2. In 24 : 29, an honorary epithet is added to his name, " servant of the Lord." This expression is not used previously OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 81 in regard to him, and is naturally explained here by the sup- position that Joshua wrote the book, and some writer after him appended this title at its close. The same thing occurs with regard to Moses near the close of Deut. (34 : 5). 3. There is an antecedent presumption that Joshua would record the events of interest transpiring in his own life, as Moses did of himself. 4. The traditions of the Rabbins and Talmud favor the authorship of Joshua ; but the argument is not of much weight. II. Against Joshua. The principal difficulty in the way of the conclusion that Joshua is the author, arises from the fact that events are recorded which seem to have occurred after his death. The book of Judges, e. g., opens with the death of Joshua, and then proceeds to relate what occurred after his death. But the facts narrated in this passage (1 : 1-15), are the same as those recorded in Joshua 15 : 13-19. Again, in the 18th chap, of Judges, the same thing is recorded as in Joshua 19 : 47. Some critics on this account have assumed that the book could not have been written by Joshua. He was only a participant. Keil says it was written by a contemporary and elder, who outlived Joshua. Another critic says Joshua wrote the historical part, (first twelve chapters with last two), while the intervening chapters (geographical part) were inserted subsequently by a person authorized to do so ; probably com- piled from papers prepared as a basis (18 : 6-9). The things mentioned in Judges must have occured before Joshua's death. A few fiicts besides the notice of his death may have been added by some one afterward. C. RELATION OF JOSHUA TO THE PENTATEUCH. Joshua bears frequent testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. But this is said to be discredited by three passages : I. The first has reference to the law of circumcision. In 5 : 11 82 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 2-7, Joshua is commanded to circumcise all the Israelites, because those that had left Egypt had died. It is said if the law in Gen. 17 : 12-14 and Lev. 12 : 3, had been enforced from the days of Abraham, such a total neglect of circumcision could not have occurred. But, we reply, 1. That circumcision was not a novel rite, in the opinion of the writer, appears from 5 : 2 and 5. He says " again " and " all the people that came out were circumcised." 2. The high antiquity of the rite is shown by the fact that stone knives were used (5 : 2). See also, Ex. 4 : 25. 3. The circumstances under which the rite was per- formed show its importance. Disabled and imperiled the whole army, (5 : 8). Parallel case in Gen. 34 : 25. Why was the rite neglected in the wilderness ? Some say on account of the peril and inconvenience to which they would be exposed in their wanderings. But sometimes the camp remained in one place for months, (Num. 9 : 22). The true reason seems to be found in 5 : 6-7. They had forfeited their rights and been condemned and rejected. Had forfeited their rights to this seal, also to Passover. There is no mention of it after the second year from Egypt, (Num. 9 : 1-2), until renewed by Joshua in 5 : 10. So there is no mention of circumcision until they are about to enter Canaan. Moses pleads the reproach of Egypt when God is about to destroy, (Ex. 32 : 12 ; Num. 14 : 13). In 5 : 9, this " reproach of Egypt " is rolled away. God's covenant is renewed, and circumcision is restored. 11. In Josh. 24 : 1, all the people are summoned to Shechem, and they present themselves " before the Lord. Also, in 24 : 26, Joshua set up a stone " under an oak that was by the Sanctuary of the Lord." It is argued from these two verses that there was a tabernacle at Shechem, while Josh. 18 : 1, places it at Shiloh. There would then be two places of worship contrary to Deut. 12 : 5-14. Early Greek translators recognized this difficulty, and translated "Shiloh" instead of "Shechem," in the first verse. But the difficulty is only apparent. The expres- sion, "before the Lord," does not necessarily imply a tabernacle. It was used in reference to the sanctuary, but also in other con- nections, (Gen. 10 : 9 ; Ex. 20 : 3 ; Dan. 6 : 10 ; Ps. 56 : 13). OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 83 When, in the 26th verse, sanctuary is mentioned, it need not imply that there was there a tabernacle or altar. "T/ie oak in the sanctuary," (literal translation), shows that it was only sacred ground. That oak was sacred. Here Abraham built his first altar, (Gen. 35 : 2^; Gen. 12: 6-7). "Plain" is here to be translated oak. Called sanctuary because it was sacred ground. In memory of this, on account of previous solemnities here, Joshua commands the people at Shechem to put away strange Gods. See mention of the oak (plain) again in Judg. 9:6. III. Josh. 7 : 24-26, Achan's whole family is put to death for his sin. This is said to be inconsistent with the law in Deut. 24 : 16. But the latter was a rule for human judgment. Not to be confounded with God's dealings. He expressly says He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation, (Ex. 20 : 5). Constantly acts on this principle. This was not a human judgment, but God's command, (7 : 15). If we question it, we must question God. Vouchers for the credibility of the book : 1. It was written by a contemporary and eye witness. 2. Memoranda (18 : 8, 9). 3, Appeals to extant monuments (4:9; 7 : 26). 4. It appeals to contemporary names of places, Gilgal (5:9); Achor (7 : 26). 5. To existing institutions (9 : 27). 6. Confirmation from other books of Scripture. 7. Accuracy of its geographical details is verified by the researches of modern travelers. D. MORALITY. A standing objection is made to book of Joshua as to its morality. It is urged that it not only justifies a bloody and cruel war, but also attributes it directly to God. This is not to be accounted for : 1. By the fact that ancient wars were more cruel than modern. 2. Nor by the fact that Israel had no land and had a right to seize one if possible. But, 1. God as sovereign had the right to reclaim the land from the idolatrous Canaanites and give it to whom He pleased, to Israel who had once forfeited it. 84 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 2. The Canaanites, from the testimony of Scripture, were among the most wicked and godless of heathen nations, (Gen. 15 : 16, &c.) God had a right to punish them as He did Sodom and Gomorrah. Had he destroyed them in the same manner, no complaint would be made. But He chose to make Israel the executioner of his judgment against them. It was not a fanatical crusade, but a holy war. The miracles attending it show that Israel was under immediate divine guidance, e. g., the crossing of Jordan, falling of the walls of Jericho, &c. The Canaanites were devoted to destruction by divine command, and the war was not carried on in a vindictive or selfish spirit, but in obedience to that command. All that was seized was seized in the name of the Lord. God constantly makes one nation the executor of his will upon another, as Persia upon Babylon, Greece upon Persia, &c. Wicked nations are often his unconscious agents ; here a holy nation was his conscious agent. Israel comprised all the holiness that existed in the earth. Served the Lord all the days of Joshua, (24 : 31). Shown also by the rarity of such cases as that of Achan's and its punishment. The old idolatrous generation had died in the wilderness, and a new and pious generation had been trained up by Moses. The charge against Israel cannot be a charge against a people as guilty as the Canaanites. Their action (Israel) was a confession of like desert of punishment if they forsook God. 3. It is said that such indiscriminate slaughter of men, women and children is inconsistent with the character of God. But it is a fact of every day's providence. In earthquakes, wars, pestilence, none are spared. Moreover, a partial exter- mination would not have secured the safety and purity of Israel. Book of Judges. The book of Judges contains the history of the Children of Israel from the death of Joshua to the death of Samson. The people had now been segregated and organized under a divine constitution. From the death of Joshua they had no visible acknowledged head. He had been their head. He had now no successor. There was no central government. God was their only king. The sanctuary was His place of meeting with His people. His law was their only bond of union. The question that now arises is, could the theocracy be maintained ? This depended entirely upon their piety and conduct. If faithful, they would be the happiest of people. If unfaithful, they would fall asunder and be delivered over to their enemies and punishment. The Lord would avenge His neglected service. The experiment proved that they were not fit for such a govern- ment. They would not govern themselves nor conquer their enemies. Crimes could not be suppressed nor invasions warded off. Downward tendencies were checked by the Judges for a time. But decline still progresses until the time of Jeptha and Samson, when it reached its lowest point. The providential design in all this was to show the necessity of a kingdom. A type of Christ's kingdom. To develope a longing for a Ee- deemer. A fullness of narrative not necessary, therefore this book does not present a continuous narrative, but a series of selected facts, specially adapted to enforce the great lesson conveyed. PROOF. 1. From plan of writer, (2 : 11-19). He proposes to narrate a series of relapses, punished by conquest, and restoration again 86 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. succeeding. He steadily adheres to this plan. Intervals of rest, (3 : 11, forty years ; 3 : 30, eighty years), are passed over in silence. Of three judges, the names are merely mentioned: Ibzan, Elon and Abdon, (12 : 8-15). In regard to some, there is more detail, e. g., Abimelech 9 ; Samson 14. The same law of retribution held for all, and applied to individuals as well as to the nation. 2. Brevity of the book. It covers more than 300 years, which shows that no detailed history could have been entered into. 3. Arrangement. The last five chapters belong to an earlier period of the Judges, but were passed over in their proper place, because not appropriate, and put in their present position. They were too important to be entirely omitted. If omitted in their proper place, we may infer that others were omitted entirely. 4. Facts which belong to this period are mentioned in other books and never referred to in this, (1 Sam. 12 : 11). Bedan mentioned as a judge. The entire narrative of the Book of Ruth belongs to this period. There is also uo mention of Eli and Samuel, while the former was very probably contemporary with Samson. A knowledge of the design is important to a correct apprehension of the period covered by the book. It was, upon the whole, one of decline, yet not proper to conclude that it was one of unrestrained license. For (1) long intervals, con- stituting greater and best part of the period, are passed over in silence, in which the land had rest from war and contest. (2) The design of writer led him to single out worst features of the period. (3) The book was written from a point of view of strictly legal requirement. It does not form ground of com- parison with other periods. (4) Stands in tacit contrast with the piety prevailing under Joshua, and the reformation wrought by Samuel and David. So Luther's reformation shines forth all the brighter from contrast with the surrounding darkness. (5) The picture of lovely piety in Ruth shows what scenes might have been depicted. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 87 Book is divided into three parts : 1. Duplicate introduction, (1-3 : 6). 2. History of the twelve judges, (3 : 7-16 : 31). 3. Duplicate appendix, (17-21). A question comes up here in regard to unity of the book. Do all parts form one whole, or are they parts of separate works ? The first objection is drawn from nature of introduction. Consists of two parts different in style and each apparently complete in itself. It is said one of these must be superfluous. But both are needed to set forth the history in its true light. There are two great sources of evil here exhibited. 1. Neglect to exterminate Canaanites, (1-2 : 5), shows what each tribe had done in the way of exterminating its enemies. These chapters show weakness of tribes and the want of concert of action, hence Canaanites were permitted to remain in the land. This division among themselves made them weaker and a prey to their enemies. It also increased the sense of the need of con- solidation. 2. 2 : 6-3 : 6 is occupied with second great evil, viz. : Idolatry. Hengstenberg says, first chapter details what tribes had done before the death of Joshua. 2-3 : 6 is a general survey of what took place after his death. Opening words refer to contents of book in general. Alleged contradictions in the introduction are only apparent. Capture of Jerusalem by Judah in 1 : 8 not inconsistent with 1 : 21. Nor is 1 : 18 in conflict with 3:3. A second objection bears upon the main body of the book. Maintained that distinct sections of book corresponding to the Judges mentioned are of diverse origin. Argued from the formal headings — conclusions — style. But the unity of the book is evinced, (1) By strict adherence to announced plan, (ch. 2). (2) By recurrence of phrases such as " the Children of Israel did evil;" "the Lord delivered them;" "the land had rest;" &c., &c. Variety of expression is easily accounted for from the fact that the writer was free to use what expressions he desired, and had free choice of language : or he may have drawn his material from preexisting written documents, and so may have been influenced by their phrases. 88 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. A third objection has reference to the appendix. Did the last five chapters proceed from the same writer as the first ? They contain a narrative of two events : 1. Idolatry of Micah, (17 and 18). 2. The vile affair of Gibeah and its consequences. That these form an appendix appears from the fact that events recorded belong to an earlier period. (1) 18 : 1 and 2 referred to in Josh. 19 : 47. Event must have occurred before Book of Joshua was written. (2) The second event occurred during high priesthood of Phineas, son of Eleazer, (20 : 28). Eleazer was contemporary with Joshua, (Josh. 24 : 33). So this must have been in next generation. That both parts were written by same person appears from the following reference : 17 : 6 ; 18 : 1 ; 19 : 1 ; 21 : 25, where same expression is used. That the writer was the same with the author of other parts, is shown by coincidences of expression and by fact that from the earliest times, it has formed part of Judges. DATE. Approximately determined from a number of statements. EARLIEST LIMIT. 1. Chap. 18 : 30. Idolatry established by Danites and con- tinued " until the day of the capivity of the land." Book written after that captivity. What captivity ? Some have in- ferred that it was the Assyrian ; or even Babylonish captivity is referred to. But apart from the fact that the idolatry could not have existed after Jeroboam set up the golden calf at Dan, such an interpretation would bring this verse into conflict with 31st V. Shiloh was abandoned when the ark was taken by the Philistines, (Ps, 78 : 60), and not occupied again by it. The Philistine captivity must be referred to. Book could not have been written until after the death of Eli. He died when the ark was taken. 2. (13 : 1). The Philistine domination lasted until their great defeat under Samuel, forty years, (1 Sam. 7 : 17). Book could not have been written until after the captivity was over. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 89 3. In 17 : 6 ; 18 : 1 ; 19 : 1 ; 20 : 25, the writer declares that there was no king in Israel, in those days. This suggests a contrast with his own time, implying that in his time there was a king. It must, therefore, have been written at least after Saul began his reign. LATEST LIMIT. 1. It may be inferred that it was written prior to the degen- eracy of the kingdom. "In those days every man did what was right in his own eyes," implies a prosperous period in his own time. The language is of one who would commend the kingdom, and contrast it with former period. 2. Chap. 1 : 21 and 19 : 11, the Jebusites were dwelling with Benjamin ; but after this David seized Jebus and expelled the Jebusites ; the book, therefore, must have been written before the end of his reign. 3. Confirmatory. Several places mentioned in connection with their old Canaanitish names, (1 : 10-11 ; 1 : 23 ; 18 : 29). This phenomenon does not appear in later books, not even in Samuel. Delicate difference of expression between Joshua and Judges. Joshua mentions old Canaanitish names first as more familiar to the writer than the new ones. Judges mentions the Israelitish name first as being more familiar than the old, shows the old names were becoming obsolete. Hence we conclude that the book was not written before establishment of kingdom, nor after the time of David. Talmud says it was written by Prophet Samuel. Mere conjecture. Can only infer from posi- tion of book that its author was an inspired man, and an official prophet. CHRONOLOGY. If we sum up all the judgeships and intervals of rest, the aggregate is 410 years ; but we are informed in 1 Kings, 6:1, that from coming out of Egypt to building of the Temple was 480. Now there were 40 years of wandering in wilderness ; 7 in conquest of Canaan ; 40 in judgeship of Eli ; 40 of Saul's reign ; 40 of David's ; 4 of Solomon's, when the temple began 12 90 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. building, making a total of 171 years, without counting the several intervals of rest and judgeship of Samuel. From this it would appear that not quite 300 years intervene between Joshua and Samuel. Paul says the period of Judges compre- hended about 450 years, which is obtained by adding 410 above mentioned to the 40 years of Eli, The chronology of this period is very difficult. Some critics say the numbers given are mythical and not reliable. The opinion is based upon the fact that the number 40 occurs so often. Thus the period from the Exode to the building of the temple was 12 x 40 = 480. Forty years of wandering, of Saul, of Eli, &c., remarkable series of round numbers. Not necessary to assume, however, that they are exact, only approximate. For 1. They do not occur together but are selected from a series. 2. The chrono- logical difficulty shows that the numbers were real, otherwise they would have been made to tally. Others suppose 1 Kings, 6 : 1, erroneous, and substitute 592 on the authority of Josephus, (Ant. Bk. 10 ch. 8, sec. 6). But we answer: 1. Josephus not consistent with himself. In book 20, chap. 10 he gives the num- ber as 612. 2. No various readings on this passage. The only discrepancy is in LXX. But here the number is made less, 440. Mistake accounted for by letters. 1 Kings, 6 : 1, is confirmed by Egyptian monuments recording the exploits of Shishak who invaded Palestine. Some assume an error in 1 Kings, 6:1; assumption based on Acts 13 : 20. 450 years, rule of Judges from Joshua to Samuel, number made out by adding to the aggregate of years mentioned in Judges, the 40 years of Eli's judgeship, bringing time down to Samuel. Paul did not design to give exact chronology, but simply gives a hasty review of God's dealing with His people. Precise state- ment not necessary. Many years in one as in case of modern Bible, and Tract Societies. If one man works 6 months, another 8, another 10, they sum up the whole as 2 years' work, though it was done in less than 1 year. The remaining assumption is, that the whole sum must be abbreviated. Some numbers must be included in others, or cover the same period. There are various ways of abbreviating. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 91 1. Some think periods of oppression are not additional to judgeships, but included in them, e. g., 3 : 8, states that Israel served Mesopotamia eight years : verse 11 gives a rest of forty years; but period of rest includes time from beginning of oppression. Difficulty here ; it does not agree with the text. 2. Line of chronological succession is to be computed by line of the six Judges mentioned in detail, omitting those merely mentioned. This is untenable. 3. Most favorable : — The assumption of parallel lines of judges in different parts of the book. Simplest is that numbers given succeed in chronological order until judgeship of Jair (10: 3). In 11 : 26, it is said Israel had occupied the land for 300 years up to this time. Then began the oppression of Ammon- ites in the easi; and Philistines in the west, (10 : 7). Jeptha in the east was contemporaneous with Samson in west. The forty years oppression under the Philistines in the days of Sam- som lasted till victory of Samuel. So Eli was contemporaneous with events of book of Judges and with Samson. This is in accord- ance with text. The general credibility accepted for most part. Offence, however, is taken at the parts relating to the superna- tural events recorded. These are attributed to legends. At- tempts have been made to separate the natural from the miraculous. Reply : 1. The natural is so interwoven with the miraculous that it is impossible to separate them. 2. The extraordinary character of the period called for divine interposition. If Israel be confessed to be the covenant people of God and needed special aid at this period, it is not surprising that God should raise up special deliverers and endow them in a special manner. The appearance of the angel of the Lord in 2:1; 6 : 12 ; 13 : 3, is in accordance with 0. T. analogy. 3. Gross sins and imperfections of some of the Judges not inconsistent with their being divine instruments. This applies especially to Jeptha and Samson, as they represented the office in its lowest form. They show us how low the morals of the people must have been. The theocratic spirit had almost died out. 15 : 11 and 13, show the extent of this debasement. 92 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. They gave up their deliverer to their worst enemies. Samson was appointed to arouse the people from despair and inflame their national enthusiasm. He was to begin the reformation (13 : 5). Samuel completed what Samson had begun. Although all good had almost vanished, yet God did not disdain to lend a helping hand to His people. 4. These imperfections of Samson show him to be not an ideal, but a real person, and facts related of him are not ficti- tious. We should not have seen in him such a mixture of good and bad had he been an ideal person. He would not have married a Philistine woman, nor would he have died on account of his own gross sins. 5. As to his deeds of superhuman strength, they belong to the close of the period near the time of the writing of the book, and so we have a fresh voucher for their reality. 6. They were not mere deeds of superhuman strength. Some have compared them with those of Hercules. A certain writer has gone so far as to institute a comparison between the two, and has brought out twelve deeds of greatness in each case; this is forced. The people were too weak to act for themselves. Samson was their great champion in whom was fulfilled the prediction, "one should chase a thousand." He awakened a new consciousness of 'nationality among the people, and prepared them for their coming deliverance under Samuel. These acts might seem to stand alone, but when we consider the character of the period, we find them the best adapted to the end in view. Alleged further, that the state of things under Judges is inconsistent with the assertion that the Pentateuch with its regulations was then in existence. This the stronghold of those who deny the Pentateuch. I. In regard to the sanctuary. It is contended that sacrifices were offered in a multitude of places, instead of one place as prescribed by the Mosaic law. Hence, that law could not have existed then or been in force. Places mentioned are in 2 : 15 ; 6:18; 13 : 16 ; 20 : 18 and 26 ; 1 Sam. 6 : 14 and 15 ; 7:9; 7: 17; 9: 12; 10: 8; 11: 15; 16: 2; 20: 6. Two passages OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 93 are omitted from this list, Judges 11: 11 and 20: 1, because there is no implication of the fact asserted. If we examine the above passages, we will find nothing in them but certain irregu- larities due to an anomalous state of things. No evidence of violation of law by true worshipers of God. There is abundant evidence of the existence of the law. Two do not contradict the letter of the law, Bethel and Bethshemesh. Explanation of sacrifice at Bethel is in 20 : 27. The ark was there, and where it was located there God made His abode. The only- lawful place of sacrifice was where God was. Indications that the ark was only temporarily there: 1. "In those days," (20 : 27) ; also, " Build an altar," (21 : 4), which would not be necessary if that was its permanent place. 2. After the war was over the whole camp repaired again to Shiloh, (21 : 12 and 21 : 19 ; 18 : 31). 3. Confirmed by the position of Bethel. It was in the territory of Benjamin, near the seat of war, at Gibeah. The ark was carried there for convenience during the war, (1 Sam. 4 : 4). In regard to Bethshemesh, sacrifices are justified here because it was in the presence of the ark on its return from the Philis- tines. All other passages refer to sacrifices made upon some extraordinary manifestation of God's presence. Ordinarily sacrifice was limited to the tabernacle. But wherever God manifested Himself specially, worship was to be rendered. When manifestation ceased, at that point sacrifice ceased. This principle will explain all the passages. In no instance was sac- rifice offered unless God's presence was known to be there. At Bochim, (Manoah, &c.), "the" not "an" "Angel of the Lord appeared," God Himself. If it be said that these manifestations were mythical, then the sacrifices were also. Objections. — Alleged that Gideon established a permanent Sanctuary at Ophrah (6 : 24) ; and it is inferred that sacrifices continued there. But the writer does not say so. Altar might remain, but this does not imply its use. We have no evidence that Gideon used it. He built another, (26). It seems to have been only a memorial altar, Joshua 22 : 26. Observe also the lancruage of the Angel at Bochim, (2 : 2-3). Allusion to the 94 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. Pentateuch (Dent, 7 : 2 and 5, Num. 33 : 55). This shows that Pentateuch then existed. The sacrifices offered by Samuel in different parts of the land require a different explanation, because a different state of things existed. The ark had been taken by the Philistines, Israel con- sequently had no sanctuary. When it was again brought back it was not again set up at Shiloh, but deposited in a private house at Kirjath Jearim until David's time. It remained there in obscurity. No sacrifices were offered ; no sanctuary. In the time of David the Lord chose Mt. Zion, (1 Sam. 21 : 1-6). Ark also taken to Nob, then to Gibeah, but only temporarily. Ps. 78 : 60-63, indicates that the Lord forsook Shiloh and chose Zion. No other place mentioned during the interval. Israel was without a sanctuary and sacrifices were necessarily offered elsewhere, specially at holy places. This explanation is suffi- cient without saying that the ark was present everywhere Sam- uel offered sacrifices. It was in retirement at Kirjath Jearim when David sent for it. It is expressly said that the ark was not resorted to in time of Saul, (1 Chron. 13 : 3). Presence of the ark in 1 Sam. 7 : 6, not necessary. Chap. 7 : 2, does not indicate that the ark was taken to Mizpah. It was taken after- wards to Mt. Zion. The only violation of Pentateuch is in 17 : 5, when Micah established a sanctuary in his own house. The writer shows his estimate of this in 6 v. Such a deed by a renegade does not prove the non-existence of the law. On the contrary, there are clear proofs that it did exist. In 19 : 18, mention is made of the House of the Lord ; 18 : 31, " House of God at Shiloh ;" 21 : 9, annual feast; 1 Sam. 1 : 7-24, " House of the Lord;" 3:15; 1:9; 3:3; 2:22, "Temple of the Lord," applied to the Mosaic sanctuary, but afterwards to the Temple of Solomon. To this spot, all offerings were brought. Here the people offered before the Lord ; here feasts were kept ; here ark rested. 1 Sam. 3 : 21 ; 2 : 28 and 33 ; 1 : 22, in accordance with Deut. 16 : 16. Candle-stick was at Shiloh, (1 Sam. 3 : 3). Also, the ark and Cherubim, 4:4; 4:7; 2 Sam. 7 : 6. Mosaic Taberacle was the Dwelling of God, (Ps. 78 : 60 and 68). God had but two sanctuaries in Israel, Shiloh and Mt. Zion, (Jer. 7: 12-14). OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 95. II. Objections raised in reference to the existence of the Mosaic Priesthood in the time of Judges, because sacrifices were ofi"ered by others. But the priests existed then as described in the Mosaic Law. Offering sacrifice was not the exclusive ofiice of the priest. Reference is made by objectors to the case of Manoah and Gideon. No evidence that they did so permanently. Only on one occasion, and this only when a special divine manifestation authorized them so to do. This was their authority for offering, just as when there was a special manifestation in certain places sacrifices were ofi'ered. So also is the case of Samuel referred to, who it is claimed was not even a Levite, but an Ephraimite (1 Sam. 1 : 1). This is explained by the provisional state of things during his life. On account of the corruption of the priesthood (1 Sam. 2 : 22), Samuel was clothed with authority from God to ofi"er in the place of the priests (1 Sam. 2 : 35). No others were allowed to do so unless authorized by God (1 Sam. 12 : 12-14). Samuel would not have been allowed to do so unless a Levite. His father is called an Ephrathite (1 Sam. 1 : 1), but this proves nothing. He was a Levite (1 Chron. 6 : 22-28). This genealogy is real and not invented, else he would be repre- sented as a son of Aaron. Confirmed by fact that his father was named Elkanah. All of this name belonged to the Levites. Meaning of name in Num. 3 : 12. Objected, that he would be obliged to serve in the sanctuary without the need of the vow of his mother. But the service did not begin until 25th year. He was given to the Lord from his youth. Objected again, that the men of Bethshemesh offered sacri- fices, (1 Sam. 6 : 15). But there is no difficulty here as Beth- shemesh was a city of priests, (Josh. 21 : 16), and the men were priests. Another objection taken from 1 Sam. 2 : 13, 15, where it is said any man offered sacrifice. But: 1. The same expression is used in the law, (Lev. 17 : 5 and 7 ; Deut. 16 : 2). 2. Persons charged with burning fat were different from those who brought the victim, (I Sam. 2 : 15). 3. Not necessary to suppose that 96 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. the men themselves oflFered. Persons are often said to do things which they do through others, e. g., Joshua built an altar though perhaps not with his own hands. Objected again, that there could not have been a numerous priesthood as only Eli, his sons, and Samuel are mentioned. But : 1. The narrative does not imply that these were the only ones. 2. Hophni and Phineas are spoken of as priests, not the priests of the Lord, (1 Sara. 1 : 13), implying that there were others. Also, in 2 : 14, 15, others are implied. Objection derived from the history of Micah, who made his own son priest, (Jud. 17 : 5). But we answer that he after- wards appointed a Levite to fill his place, (12 v). He also knew that his son had no authority to ofier, which is proved from 13 v., "now I know,'' &c. 1 Sam. 7 : 1, (Abinadab) does not show that others than the descendants of Aaron could perform sacred functions. Abinadab only took care of the ark and did not perform priestly duties. III. Dress of priests objected to in Judges. Discrepancies are alleged between Pentateuch on one hand, and Samuel and Judges on the other, in regard to dress of priests, (Exodus 28 : 4 and 18; 2: 28). In the latter passage the Ephod is only mentioned because it belongs exclusively to H. P., 1 Sam. 37 : 7 ; 14 : 3 ; 23 : 9. Definite article used in two of these passages associated with H. P. In these following passages, 1 Sam. 2 : 18 ; 22 : 18 ; 2 Sam. 6 : 14, it refers to other priests, in which not the Ephod is spoken of but the linen Ephod. The dignity of the H. P.'s Ephod shown by its use in Num. 27 : 21 ; also a superstitious use made of it, (Judges 8: 27 ; 17 : 5). There is positive evidence for the existence of Mosaic institu- tions in time of Judges. Three grades of priests are found performing their functions : 1. Levites. 2. Priests. 3. High Priest. 1. Levites, (Judges 17: 13). — Levites had their residence within the limits of the other tribes, (17 : 7 ; 19 : 1). They had their duties at the House of the Lord, 19 : 18. When the ark returned from the Philistines the Levites received it, (1 Sam. 6 : 15). OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 97 2. Priests. — Their prerogatives accorded with the Mosaic regulations, (1 Sam, 2 : 28). There was only one priesthood ; V. 36 implies that there were priests in considerable numbers. 3. High Priest. — His office was perpetual, (Judges 20 : 28 ; Num. 25 : 13). At close of the period Eli was High Priest, (1 Sam. 1:9 and 2: 11). One of the most perplexing questions in the book is the vow of Jeptha, (Jud. 20 : 28; Num. 25 : 13). There is a difficulty as to its precise purport. Not that there is obscurity in text or ambiguity of language, for there is neither. The fact in itself is revolting, and shocks the sensibilities of our nature. So much so, that we can scarce avoid disbelieving and explain- ing it away. Jeptha was an Israelite and a prominent man. Human sacrifices did occur sometimes and that of one's own child. This, however, was only when Israel was led away (2 Kings 17 : 17) into idolatry and worshiped Moloch. If Jeptha had been an idolater, the difficulty would be explained ; but he was not. His vow was made to the Lord, and for this reason was considered binding. It is said that the spirit of the Lord came upon him, (11 : 29). Besides, his faith is commended in Heb. 11 : 32. Could a worshiper of Jehovah have ofi'ered his own child ? It seems abhorrent, but is narrated without any apparent feeling by the writer. The temptation at first is to pass from the obvious sense and find relief elsewhere. Various explanations have been made : 1. The marginal reading of the common version makes vow disjunctive: "Or" I will ofi^r it to the Lord. It depended on what came forth to meet him. If a clean animal, it was to be sacrificed; if not, it was to be consecrated in some other way. Jeptha's daughter was conse- crated to a life of virginity. " And she knew no man," (39th v.), i. e., in consequence of vow. Such vows were customary. " Lament," in 40th v., is then interpreted, " to talk with." She was not sacrificed, but forced to lead a secluded life. The diffi- culties to this view are insuperable. The radical one is, from the language, Jeptha could have meant nothing else but a per- son ; xohosoever, and not whatsoever. For : 1. He spoke of a coming forth from the door of his house. 13 98 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 2. " To meet him." This language could only be used of an intelligent welcome and not that of any brute. It most naturally would be the one that loved him the best. Herein consists the greatness of the vow. His daughter must have been in his mind, but he hoped that it would be some one else, a slave perhaps. 3. The vow would be insignificant were it a mere animal. A stray animal, not even best of the flock. The peculiar form of the vow would have no meaning unless it referred to a per- son. It was customary to meet returning victors with singing, timbrels and dancing. Another view is that of Clark. He renders last clause, " I will offer him a burnt offering," referring the suffix to God, making it dative instead of accusative. The one meeting him should be consecrated to God and a burnt offering offered. This is unworthy the occasion. A burnt offering would be offered of course. Still another view is the interpretation of Moses, Kimchi, Hengtsenberg, &c. As the vow contemplated a person and not an animal the language must be interpreted according to the necessities of the case and as permitted by the law. It could be only in the sense of figurative or spiritual sacrifice. Human sacrmce was out of the question. He was acquainted with the Pentateuch. His very language was borrowed from it, (Num. 30 : 2). He could not have been so ignorant as to break the law. It must have meant life-long consecration to God. Hengs- tenberg justifies this sense by figurative use of word " sacrifice" in Scripture, (Eom. 12 : 1 ; 15 : 16 ; Phil. 4 : 18 ; Heb. 13 : 15-16 ; Ps. 51 : 17 ; 40 : 7-9 ; Hosea 14 : 2). Jeptha thus considered his daughter as surrendered to the Lord, as was Samuel, (1 Sam. 1 : 11-28). Hengstenberg then attempts to show that such vows were not unusual. Law of vows. Lev. 27. Persons might be released by paying ransoms. But persons might go beyond the law on unusual occasions and give up their right of release. So Jeptha. Hengstenberg goes still further and appeals to Nazarite vows, (Num. 6). Vows were extended to women. It was limited generally, but could extend over the whole life, as in case of Samson and Samuel. Marriage per- mitted to men but not to the women. Bo OK OF Ruth. Position of Euth in the Hebrew and English bibles, and ancient catalogues. It is not an appendix to Judges ; pecu- liarity of character. A. DESIGN. The design is not (1) to maintain the obligation of the Levirate marriages ; nor (2) to exhibit the reward of piety ; nor (3) to correct Jewish illiberality ; but (4) to preserve incidents connected with the ancestry of David (4 : 17). B. TIME. The events recorded took place in the time of Judges. " Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled that there was a famine in the land " (1 : 1). This is more pre- cisely determined, not (1) by identifying the famine of 1 : 1 with the ravages of the Midianites recorded in Judges 6 : 3-7 ; nor (2) by reference to the genealogy of Boaz, grandson of Nahshon (4 : 20-21), a contemporary of Moses (Num. 1 : 17), for the genealogy is abridged ; nor (3) under Eli and after death of Samson (Josephus). But (4) time is more definitely deter- mined by 4 : 17. Obed was the grandfather of David, and the son of Ruth. C. DATE. 1. That it was written after the erection of the kingdom is implied in the expression " in the days when the judges ruled " (1 : 1). 2. It was written after David's accession to the throne (4 : 17-22). Alleged Chaldaeisms and altered usage (4 : 7) do not prove late date, in or after the time of the captivity. 1. Interest of the subject diminished or lost. 2. Marriage with the Moabitess not condemned. Book of Samuel The period of transition from the Judges to the kingdom is grouped about three lives : I. That of Samuel, contained in 1 Sam. chaps. 1-12. II. The public life of Saul, contained in chaps. 13-31. III. The public life of David, contained in 2 Samuel, chaps. 1-24. The two books form one work. The division into two books was first made by the LXX, and was first adopted into the Hebrew text by Bomberg in 1518. They do not form one work with Kings. This has been argued : 1. Because they are connected by a common title in the LXX, but not 80 in the Hebrew. 2. They form a continuous history but are distinct in plan and in the period which each covers. 3. Samuel is no fitting termination since it does not record David's death ; but it completes his public life. His last words recorded in 23 : 1-7. The transfer of the kingdom to Solomon opens a new period upon which the writer did not design to enter. They are shown to be distinct from Kings : 1. By a difi^rence in the plan. Kings is not biographical and therefore has fewer details. 2. By a citation of sources. 3. By exact chronology. 4. By the time of their composition. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 101 DATE. This is not hefore David's death, though that is not men- tioned. The criteria are somewhat indefinite, owing doubtless to : 1. A change in terms and customs, 1 Sam. 9 : 9, Prophet, Seer, 2 Sam. 13 : 18, dress of the king's daughter. 2. 1 Sam. 27 : 6, Kings of Judah, after the schism, but not necessarily long after. Book 'of Kings. Name. — The period covered. Divisions. — I. Eeiga of Solomon, 1 Kings 1-11. II. The schism and the synchronous history of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, 1 Kings 12 and 2 Kings 17. III. History of Judah, alone, until the time of the Babylo- nish captivity, 2 Kings 18-25. The division into two books was made by the LXX. The books were not written piecemeal, but are one continuous production. Shown in — 1. Unity of plan. 2. Careful chronology. 3. Recurring expressions. 4. Sameness of language and style. God's fidelity to his covenant with David, even in the midst of His just judgment for Israel's provocations, here receives illustration. Sources from which the books are written. 1. Book of the acts of Solomon, 1 Kings 11 : 41. 2. Book of Chronicles of the kings of Judah. 3. Book of Chronicles of the kings of Israel. About these there are different opinions. Note the expression " unto this day," 1 Kings 8 : 8, etc. Date. — 1. It was after the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's captivity. 2. It was before the close of the captivity. Author. — Tradition ascribes it to Jeremiah. There is a similarity of style and language to be noticed between Jeremiah 52 : 1, and 2 Kings 24 : 18, etc. But it is doubtful whether Jeremiah lived so long. They were probably written in Babylon by some author now unknown. Book of Chronicles. Give the different names in Hebrew, Greek and English. One work, though divided into two books by LXX. Date inferred. A. From the limit of the history, 2 Chron, 36 : 22 and 23, first year of Cyrus, proclamation made to build house at Jeru- salem. B. Limit of genealogies, 1 Chron. 3 : 19-21, grandsons of Zerubbabel, not descendants of seventh generation ; also, verses 22-24, grandsons of Neariah, brother of Hattush, comp. Ezra, 8:2. a 1 Chron. 9 : 17 and 18, comp. Neh. 12 : 25 and 26, refers to the porters who wait at the king's gate. D. 1 Chron. 29 : 7, mention of Darics not spoken of as exist- ing in the days of David. Objected that first coined by Darius Hystaspes. Answer : I. Sufficient time had elapsed for them to have been circu- lated through the empire. XL Mentioned in Ezra 2 : 69 ; 8 : 27 ; Neh. 7 : 70-72. III. Perhaps named from Darius, the uncle of Cyrus, or as the general term for king. JS. 1 Chron. 29 : 1, 19, the word Bira is applied to temple ; hence, before the castle so called was built, Neh. 2:8; 7:2. F. Collection of the canon. G. 2 Chron. 36 : 22 and 23, comp. Ezra 1 : 1-3, both refer to building of house at Jerusalem. Book of Ezra not a continuation of Chronicles, but perhaps Chronicles written by Ezra. Because : I. Tradition. II. Verses repeated. III. Similarity of style and expression. 104 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. CONTENTS. A. Genealogies, 1 Chron. 1-9 : I. Chap. 1 is preliminary. II. Chap. 2 to 8, genealogies of the various tribes of Israel. III. Chap. 3 supplementary. B. History. I. 1 Chron. 10-29, reign of David. II. 2 Chron. 1-9, reign of Solomon. III. 2 Chron. 10-36, schism and subsequent history of Judah. Chap. 1 from Adam to Israel, its double design, plan, drawn from Genesis. A. All found there. B. Forms and expressions. C. Improbable that other genealogies were preserved from that early period. Abridgement, 1 : 1, 4 ; sons of Shem, verse 17 ; Timna, verse 36. Chaps. 2-8, not from preceding books of S. S. A. Most of names new ; or B. Merely in historical passages not genealogical lists. C. Variations, yet not irreconcilable, many undesigned coin- cidences and corroborations. D. Eepetitions in Chron., e. g., Sam. 6 : 22-28; comp. verses 33-38, Saul. S. Facts not elsewhere recorded. G. If already found in previous books, their transcription needless. No fictitious : A. No motive for their invention. B. Lack of uniformity, not conformed to other books of S. S. C. Practical needs of the times. Derived from public and family registers ; few from Ten Tribes, none from Zebulon, and Dan., chap. 9, list of prominent residents of Jerusalem and those connected with ministry of temple. Correspond with Neh. 11, discrepancies how explained : verse 35-44 family of Saul, pre- paratory to the history. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 105 Two series of historical sections : A. Parallel to Samuel and Kings ; B. Peculiar to Chron- icles. A. Parallel sections probably not taken directly from those books, but in both drawn from a common source. I. Transpositions, e. g., 1 Chron. 11-15. XL Additions. III. Variations. IV. References in both to other works as sources. B. Peculiar sections based on reliable authorities. I. Contrary supposition incredible. II. Analogy of genealogies. III. Incidental corroboration in Psalms and Prophets. IV. " Unto this day." 2 Chron. 5:9, " And they drew out the staves of the ark, that the ends of the staves were seen from the ark before the oracle ; but they were not seen without. And there it is unto this day." 2 Chron. 8:8, " But of their children, who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel consumed not, them did Solomon make to pay tribute until this, day." V. Existence of and frequent references to other accredited histories. Deviations from Samuel and Kings prove the independence of Chronicles, but not discredit it if capable of being harmo- nized ; also show distinct design, not in period treated, nor class of readers addressed, but the point of view from which the history is contemplated and the objects rendered prominent. Samuel biographical history. Kings national theocratic history of both kingdoms. Chronicles liturgical history, hence omits reign of Saul, personal history of David and Solomon, kingdom of ten tribes, but full details respecting temple and its worship, adapted to necessities of returning exiles. 14 Book of Ezra. This book is divided into two parts : I. The first part includes chapters 1-6. This part contains an account of the first colony that returned from the Babylonish captivity under the lead of Zerubbabel. See Ezra 2 : 1, 2. It extends to the completion of the temple in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes. II. The second part includes chapters 7-10. We have here an account of the second colony that returned from the Baby- lonish captivity under Ezra's leadership in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Between these two parts there is an interval of fifty-eight years, during which time the events recorded in the book of Esther occur. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 1. In part I, are : (a) Decree of Cyrus, 1:4. • (6) List of exiles who went up with Zerubbabel, 2 chapter. See also Nehemiah 7 : 6//, where the account is repeated. (c) Discrepancies accounted for. Chaldee section, 4 : 8-6: 18, which was probably written by one who partici- pated in the transactions which it records, (chap. 5 : 4), and this was incorporated by Ezra in his book contain- ing the correspondence between the Samaritans and the kings Artaxerxes (Smerdes) and Darius 4 : 11-16, 17-22; 5: 7-17; 6: 2-12. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 107 2. In part II, are : (a) Letter of Artaxerxes empowering Ezra to take a colony of exiles to Jerusalem, 7 : 12-26. (6) List of those who went up with Ezra, 8 : 1-14. (c) List of those who had married foreign wives, 10: 18-44. The book claims to have been written by Ezra, Ezra 7 : 28, and also 8 and 9 chapters. The writer uses the first person. It is no objection to this proof that he sometimes used the third person when speaking of himself as in chap. 7 : 1-11, and chap. 10. Nor is it any objection that he is called " a ready scribe in the law of Moses." 7 : 6, etc. Book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah, who was a cup-bearer, during his captivity, to Artaxerxes Longimanus, (2 : 1), came up in the twentieth year of this monarch's reign, and thirteen years after Ezra's return to Jerusalem. This book is divided into three parts : I. The first part includes chapters 1-7. It gives an account of Nehemiah's prayer, and permission from the king to go up to Jerusalem, and of his labors for the defence and rebuilding of that city. II. This part includes chapters 8-10. It gives an account of the religious services conducted by Ezra and the Levites, and the covenant sealed by the people under the lead of Nehemiah. III. This includes chapters 11-13, and gives an account of the subsequent acts of Nehemiah. The book is announced (1 : 1) as "the words of Nehemiah." The f,rst person is used throughout, except in chaps. 8-10. Some without sufficient reason, refer these chapters to Ezra. Objection to the genuineness is based on 12: 10, 11, 22. Some suspect interpolation. It might have been written by Nehemiah. Book of Esther. The plot for the destruction of the Jews in Persia was brought to nought ; and their deliverance was accomplished. In commemoration of this the feast of Purira was instituted by Esther and Mordecai. The book covers a period of nine years, extending from the third to the twelfth year of the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes). We note confirmations from profane history, the character of Ahasuerus, extent of his kingdom, assembly of princes in the third year of his reign. Esther was not made queen until the tenth month of the seventh year, 2 : 16. " So Esther was taken unto king Ahas- uerus, into his house royal in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign," Explained by an expedition to Greece in the interval. Splendor of the palace in Susa, 1 : 2, 6, consulting the magi on all occasions, 1 : 13. The seven princes mentioned, 1 : 14. The harem men- tioned also in 2 : 8. The monarch was regarded as the incarnation of Deity. The Grand Vizier was the representative of the monarch, and on this account the people were to prostrate themselves before him, 3 : 2. Mordecai, for religious reasons, refused to do this. Hence the plot by Haman to put all the Jews to death, 3 : 6. This is formulated into a decree, at Haman's request, by the king's scribes, 3 : 12 ; 8:9; and is proclaimed throughout all the 127 provinces by the posts of the king, 3 : 13 ; 8 : 14. The truth of all this is confirmed by the existence of the feast of Purim and its universal celebration, even to this day, by the Jews. Mentioned in 2 Mace. 15 : 36, as " Mordecai's no OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. day," and is said by Josephus to be observed by Jews in all the world. The writer of the book is not Mordecai, as has been inferred from 9 : 20. On the contrary the writer is unknown. Proba- bly the book was written by a resident of Persia, and soon after the occurrence of the events described therein. Mention is made, 10 : 2, of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia ; details are given, language and close of the canon referred to. Objections have been made to the book from explanations given of 1 : 1, 13 ; 8:8. The name of God does not occur in the book, though there is a mention of fasting as a religious observance, 4 : 1-3, 16. Allusion is made to providential deliverance and ordering for the Jews in chap. 4 : 14. Mor- decai's refusal, on religious grounds, of adoration to Haman, as Grand Vizier (3 : 2), shows that religion was known and pre- valent, although the name of God is not mentioned. There are to this book certain apocryphal sections. Book of the Psalms. XXIX. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER. Each book of the Prophets represents the work of one inspired servant of God. But the Psalms consist of 150 dis- tinct compositions, each complete in itself, varied in style and subject, and proceeding from different authors of different dates. From the age of Moses until after the Babylonish cap- tivity, these Psalms continued to be written. Still, in study- ing the plan of the 0. T., this book, like all the rest, must be regarded as a unit. They were written by Moses, David, Solomon, Asaph, Ethan, Heman, and the sons of Korah. Besides those of known authorship, 41 are anonymous, and the time of production unknown. Some critics hold that some of the Psalms belong to the period of the Maccabees, and are descriptive of the trials and triumphs of God's people at that time. But though this position is untenable, because the canon was closed in the time of Ezra, still some were written during and after the Babylon- ish exile. The collection was carried on during the whole formation' of the canon. This book must be studied as a unit, because : I. The form and compass of books are authoritative, as well as their contents. II. It is impossible to determine in all cases the age and authorship. The correctness of the titles, once called in ques- tion, is now conceded by the best critics. Nearly one-third either have no titles, or none aflfording a hint as to the author or the occasion of the composition. If the absentee of titles could be compensated for by internal proof of date, we might 112 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. be able to locate them, in time and authorship, and so clear up the difficulty. But the wide diflference of opinion among critics shows that it is impossible to ascertain the date. These inter- nal grounds of proof are meagre except in a very few cases. Such an identification is unnecessary for practical purposes. Such minor questions are not of sufficient importance to mar the unity of their plan and contents. III. More than one-half were composed by David. A sub- stantial truth is conveyed in the title popularly given to the whole collection, " The Psalms of David." Those written by David gave the key note, which the others followed. They wrote in his vein and spirit, and yet were not servile imitators. A general sameness of style justifies us in calling them Davidic in character. A later date than David is known only by a minute criticism. To this uniform Davidic character of the collection, is due the frequent absence of explanatory titles. The absence of titles in some cases proves the truth of titles where they do occur. If they were fictitious they would have been given to all. I. The absence cannot be accounted for by the ignorance of the collectors. The oldest have titles and the more recent have none. If this fact were just the reverse, then it might be possi- ble to suppose the compiler did not know who was the author, and so attached no title. II. Some post-Davidic Psalms have no titles, though their occasions are indicated by their contents, e. g., Psalms 137, 83. In 137 we read, " By the rivers of Babylon, &c." In 83 we read that the occasion was the confederation of the Edomites, Ishmaelites, &c., against Israelites in time of Jehosaphat (2 Chron. 20), to cut them off from being a nation, &c. It was possible for the collectors of the canon to have given the theme of the Pslams as a heading or title if they had chosen so to do. III. Analogy of other books. No prophecy, however short, is anonymous, though the books of history generally are, not from ignorance but from the nature of the writing. Facts authenticate history, but prophecy calls for authority and personel of the prophet, the servant of God who delivers it. The OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 113 names of the Psalms are preserved so far as any important end was to be subserved thereby. IV. With the exception of Ps. 90, attributed to Moses, the names of no Psalmists are preserved but those of David and a^ series connected with and dependent on him, viz. : Solomon' and the Levitical singers appointed by David, or their descend-- ants. The rest introduce no new element, and their personality would answer no practical purpose, and so is omitted. V. The Psalms of different writers and ages are not kept distinct, but are mingled promiscuously together, except in a' general way referred to in Ps. 72: 20, "the prayers of David/ the son of Jesse, are ended." Of the seventy-two Psalms preceding this, sixty-two are by David. Only seventeen of the seventy-eight which follow, are' David's. The Psalms of David, after being gathered in a solid- nucleus at the beginning of the book, are scattered through the' book. Hengstenberg and Dr. Alexander say that these scat- tered Psalms of David are texts or centres around which others- are clustered. They refer to the grouping of the minor pro- phets in the early catalogues of the canon, as an analogous case. These minor prophets are separate books and are chrono-- logically arranged with reference to each other, yet as a whole' they are regarded and treated as one book. If there had been* a similar reason for the chonological arrangement of the Psalms- they would have appeared so, but as the historical element is' not predominant, the chronological arrangement is not followed.' The function of the Psalms is to be found in the separate^' Psalms themselves, and not in their authors or dates. The Psalms are not a heterogeneous miscellany. They all' belong to the same species of composition. They are not only poetical, lyrical, inspired and canonic>)l, but are also for public- and devotional use. They do not contain all the lyrics of the^ ancient Hebrews, nor all their extant poetry. For instance, the 1005 Songs of Solomon, the Song of Moses at the Red Sea,- poetical productions of Habakkuk, Jonah, Jeremiah, David's lament over Saul, and many others. The Psalms are inspired- songs /or devotion, being used in the temple service. 15 114 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 1. They were intended to guide and express the devotions of all God's people whether in public or in private worship. 2. They are not merely meditations, confessions and prayers for pardon and praise. They are the religion of the Old Testa- ment practically realized in the heart and life. They abound in thanksgiving and in crying out to God for deliverance when in affliction. I. They are thus negatively distinguished : 1. From the Prophets, &c., with whom they form the most marked contrast. While the Psalmist speaks to God in his own name and that of other men, the Prophets speak to men from and in the name of God. The function of a Prophet is the objective enlargement of revealed truth by fresh communica- tions ; that of the Psalmist, the subjective appropriation of truth already revealed, and thus a deeper spiritual realization is had. The Prophet has primary reference to the needs of others, mostly to national necessities. The Psalmist has reference to his own needs and those of the class to which he belongs. 2. From the Aphoristic poetry of the Old Testament. There are six strictly poetical books in Old Testament ; three lyrical, viz. : Psalms, The Song of Solomon, and Lamentations. Their contents deal with the domain of reflection, satisfying the reason as to the harmony and conformity of God's law with his providence. Of the other three, Proverbs emphasize the fact that human welfare is found as a general truth in obedience to the will of God, though the remaining two constitute apparent exceptions. For in Job we have set forth piety without pros- perity, and in Ecclesiastes, prosperity without piety. 3. From other lyrical poetry of the Old Testament which is not the language of worship, as Song of Solomon. Private and individual songs or supplications, as those of Hannah, Jonah, Hezekiah, and such as are intended only for a single occasion, as the national song of Moses, are not grouped as Psalma, being not intended for public and permanent devotions of the sanctuary. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 115 II. Positively, the unity of the book is that of self-contained completeness, embodying the religion of the Old Testament as seen in the sum of its devotional utterances. XXX. SPECIAL FUNCTION. I. The first function is found in the expansion of the Mosaic law. 1. Their use constitutes a method of teaching which comes nearer to the individual man. Various methods are employed in 0. T. with different degrees of particularity of impressing truth. History speaks of remote facts once transacted. The ritual was constantly repeated in public, but only at the sanc- tuary. The Psalms were not only associated with the solemni- ties and pomp of the temple service, but were repeated and sung in every habitation. The Proverbs are more brief and pointed, and therefore more familiar and general in their appli- cation. The Prophets communicated specific lessons for emer- gencies as they arose, and usually for the entire nation. 2. The Psalms are a medium of conveying instruction more clearly to the understanding. They are often verbal interpre- tations of the mute lessons of history, whether past or present, national or individual. They often enforce a spiritual truth by a comparison with some permanent object or relation, and also with transient facts. The Psalms serve in some measure to interpret the ritual symbols, (1) by embodying in words the same direct acts of worship, and for this reason they were suitable for public use in the worship of the sanctuary. (2) By using language often borrowed from, or shaped by, the ceremonial, not in the way of general exposition as the Epistle to Hebrews, but for instruc- tive allusion. (3) By stimulating reflection and inquiry by partial disclosures of the meaning of the symbolic ritual. 3. There is an expansion of the law, not in didactic state- ments or ritual forms, but by practically realizing religion in the heart and life. 116 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. II. In addition to expanding the law, the Psalma serve to create further preparation for Christ's coming. The positive accession made to our knowledge of the Messiah is less here than in the Prophets. This results from the different aims of the books. The leading aim of the prophetical books is to set forth prophecies and to place before the inner consciousness of God's people some new truths. The leading aim of the poetical books is not so much to make new disclosures of truth as to bring home truth already communicated, explicitly or implicitly. But new elements of truth are not wanting. This growth of ideas previously imparted is not the same as a logical develop- ment of ideas or principles already laid down, but a process of unfolding regularly from stage to stage. There is an increment as well as an evolution. The former must precede the latter. Tearing open a bud does not give us a flower. There must be a constant addition of substance to the bud as it gradually unfolds under the operation of the laws of growth. In Prophecy the new predominates, in the Psalms and other poets, the old ; yet each occurs in both. Opinions held as to the doctrine of Messiah in Psalms. There are three opinions : 1. That there is no explicit reference to the Messiah in the whole collection. 2. Not only every Psalm, but every poetical book has refer- ence to the Messiah. 3. Middle ground between these extremes. There are Messianic references only in particular Psalms, and these do not form a distinct class. They are not to be sun- dered from the rest. Instead of being reduced to the level of the other Psalms, they are to be regarded as an integral part of a system of thought and feeling. They are the crowning point of a pyramid supported by all beneath. They are the foci where all the rays meet in luminous points of light. The Messianic teachings of the Psalms have not been arbitrarily or spasmodically injected, but interwoven as radical parts of the texture, and form the most important part of the whole book. The entire Old Testament is preparatory to the coming of OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 117 Christ, and all revelatioa tended to this point. Sudden glimpses into the future do not stand apart from the other teachings of the Prophets, and so it is also easy to trace currents of thought running through the Psalms, setting toward the Messianic Psalms and culminatinc: in them, thus makingr the whole book an integral part in the one continuous scheme of Messianic preparation. XXXI. MESSIANIC CONTENTS OF THE PSALMS. The Messianic element is not suddenly injected into the book of Psalms, but is interwoven most intimately and connectedly with the whole, to which indeed it is related as the heart, the seat and center of vitality. Preparation for the Messiah's coming was made not so much by isolated passages as by the entire teaching of the 0. T. This is true alike of the Psalms and Prophetic writings. The mode of each Prophetic presen- tation of the Messiah is shaped by the character of the entire book in which it occurs ; while on the other hand, the Prophetic writings may be arranged according to the Christological con- tents. The whole 0. T. presents one continuous scheme of preparation for the coming of the Son of God. It is easy to trace in the book of Psalms currents which set and issue in the direction of the Messianic idea. And in the 0. T. we find a completeness in this scheme of thought to which each Poetical book contributes its part. The Psalms are utter- ances of worship where distracting thoughts are excluded. God and man are brought face to face. We have two domains presented — man's relations to God and God's relation to man. These are distinct but correlative. Man may be regarded : (1) Passively in his privileges, as a creature endowed of God. Or, (2) Actively in his duties as a servant of God, the subject of His law. In this latter aspect he may be viewed either as in 118 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. the heat of conflict or a.s in the position of a conqueror of evil. The triple correlates in the sphere of God's relation to man may be thus tabulated : I. (a) Man the creature endowed of God. (b) God the creator and benefactor of man. II. (a) The righteous beset by foes. ib) God his deliverer. III. (a) The righteous victorious by God's delivering aid. (6) Man without God failing, though possessed of every earthly advantage. Those six ideas are the foundations of the Messianic teach- ings. These and these only culminate positively or negatively in the poetical books in the Messianic idea. The Messiah is approached both from the divine and human side. Those Psalms which approach from the divine side are less consciously Messianic ; and though they contain Messianic ideas, it is not clear that the writer so intended them. Let us see how these remarks are borne out by a consideration of particular Psalms. 1. (a) Man lifted into the Messianic sphere by super-human endowments. When limits are lost sight of and the divine bounty takes its dimensions only from the power of God to give, the subject rises above the sphere of ordinary men and can apply only to the Messiah. Thus Psalms 8, at least trembles on the verge of the Messianic idea and is certainly developed into full Messianic dimensions by Paul. The Psalms which are predominantly practical approach most naturally from the human side; other poetical books which are more speculative, from the divine side. (6) But the thought of God relative to His creatures comes within the range of what belongs to God's Son. Ps. 102, Ps. 97, are quoted in Hebrews in application to Christ. This is done not merely by accommodation but Christ's claims are argued from them. Jehovah coming into relation to man in 0. T. is the Son of God. So are the Angel and the Word of Jehovah which we find more developed in the wisdom of God (Prov. 8) — regarded by many able commentators as a distinct person, viz. : Christ. II. (a) The righteous beset by foes with attributes or results transcending the human, shaped largely by the typical experi- ence of David himself. In Ps. 22, which Strauss pronounced OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 119 the programme of the crucifixion, the removal of limitations is absolute. It is partial in Pa. 16, declared by Peter to be ful- filled only in the Resurrection of Christ ; in Ps. 40, from which Hebrews develops the inherent merit of Christ's sacrifice ; in Pa. 69, Ps. 109, which likewise mediate between the merely human and the exclusively Messianic. Those which represent the Messiah as a sufferer, exhibit His priesthood, and, in connection with it. His prophetic office. His extreme sufferings issue in the salvation of the world, Ps. 22, but are not explicitly said to be vicarious ; and it is obedience rather than substitution which is predicted of Him, (compare Ps. 22 : 22 with Ps. 40 : 7). Tho vicarious character of His sufferings is reserved for Is. 53. (6) Correlative to a suffering righteous one is a delivering God. Job, as a sufferer, was a distinguished type of the Mes- siah ; but the outburst of his faith, (Job i'J), though not perhaps consciously directed to Christ, has been in all ages applied to Him as the true Redeemer by the church. III. The struggle between the serpent and the seed of the woman was to reach its acme in Christ, whose contest, though different in manner and result from that of the ordinary descendants of Adam, would be similar in kind. The serpent was to bruise His heel ; the strife would not terminate in this, but in the full triumph of the seed of the woman. Thus, in the Psalms, we meet with : (a) The triumphant righteous. David and Solomon, from personal experience and official position, are eminent types of Christ in this respect. They were the divinely appointed heads of the kingdom while at the zenith of its prosperity, temporal and spiritual. The conflict with evil carried on by God's help issued in success. Thus, in Ps. 2, the Lord's Anointed is repre- sented as triumphant over the combined hosts of his enemies. Ps. 72 pictures the peace of Messiah's reign in the tranquility of Solomon's; and as the submission rendered to Him is volun- tary and loyal, it is represented in Ps. 45 and in Solomon's Song under the figure of a marriage. In Ps. 110 new dignity is added to the monarch who is set forth not only as a trium- phant king but as a priest like Melchizedek, one with unre- 120 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. stricted sacerdotal privileges, of near approach to God, one who has a permanent seat at God's right hand and is a priest forever. {b) Again the kingdom may be viewed as worldly and tran- sitory, and used not as a comparison with but as a contrast to Messiah's kingdom. This is the method followed in Ecclesi- astes and Lamentations, which represent the kingdom as unsatisfactory amid all its splendor and as tending to ruin. To sum up, we have in the Psalms a man raised far above the rank of humanity ; a Righteous Sufferer who brings salvation to the world; a Triumphant Monarch ruling over all, wedded to His people in holy love and related to them as Priest as well as King. He is the same as the Wisdom of God in Proverbs ; the Redeemer in Job and the Founder of that empire which is not unsatisfactory and transient like that depicted in Ecclesiastea and Lamentations. Song of Solomon. Song of Solomon is very attractive even from a literary point of view ; its naturalness, delicacy of portrayal, lend to it a charm. Many judges call it a very gem of art. It has all the attractions of an unsolved mystery. It is one of ihe great puzzles of the Bible. Every thing about it has been disputed. I. As to its unity : Is it a number of independent sonnets, by one author, on one theme? Or is it a mere congeries of different songs ? II. As to kind of poetry : Epithalamiun, Epic, Bucolic, or Drama, divisible in acts and scenes, or a partial drama ? III. As to its author : Is it of one or many ? In same or different ages ? Is Solomon its author, or is he excluded by the contents ? IV. As to its contents : Is it the loving language of Solomon to his bride, the daughter of Pharaoh, or some rustic beauty ? Or is the lover another from whom Solomon steals his love ? Are the persons speaking few or many ? V. Is the interpretation to be literal ? Is it unworthy of the canon? Is it prophetic? Outward Form. — Before plunging into the whirlpool of interpretation or discussions as to date, or authorship, let us seek to comprehend the book as to its outward form, and most literal and obvious sense. UNITY. Opinion of Bossuet (died 1704) ; he thought it an Epithala- mium in honor of Solomon's wedding with Pharaoh's daughter, 16 122 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. composed in seven parts for seven days of his wedding feast (Gen. 29 : 27 ; Judges 14 : 12). His proofs are : 1. The personages suggest a wedding. a. Solomon and his bride are the chief speakers, h. The bride's companions who speak to her, and to whom the bride- groom speaks (Ps. 45 : 14 ; Mt. 45 : 1). c. Male companions of the groom who say nothing (5:1; 8 : 13) ; (Judges 14 : 11 ; Mt. 9 : 15). 2. There are certain expressions in song which imply a change of day and night. The bride is supposed to have been brought to his chamber the evening of the first day. The groom goes out as a shepherd at dawn to his work. Soon the bride awakes and breaks out in longing lore. Here the song begins. So every day he goes out at dawn and tells her com- panions not to awake her (2:7: 8 ; 4). Each of these verses marks the beginning of a new day. So the formula, " Who is this ?" marks the beginning of a day and the greetings of her friends to the bride as she leaves her room. Mention is twice (3:1; 5:2) made of the night ; and twice (2:6; 8 : 3) of the bride in the husband's arms. First day — chap. 1-2 : 6 ; second day, 2 : 7-2 : 17 ; third day, 3-5:1; fourth day, 5:2-6:9; fifth day, 6 : 10-7 : 11 ; sixth day, 7 : 12-8 : 3 ; seventh day, 8 : 4-8 : 14. This view of Bossuet was at first well received. Objections. — (1) It is against Oriental ideas and usages ; music and song accompanied marriage feasts, but the bride was always veiled and silent. (2) Recurring formulas do not indicate the morn of a fresh day. The utmost that can be claimed is their consistency with a succession of days, which must be otherwise proved. They mark the close and beginning of new scenes in the Song. (3) One, at least, of Bossuet's divisions is not justified by the form. The eleventh and twelfth verses of the seventh chapter are in one connected speech of the bride, and do not justify separation. (4) The whole character of the Song does not suggest a suc- cession of the days. That the bridegroom should go out every OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 123 day, supposes very pressing business. The parties are repre- sented as meeting and speaking in the open air and not at a banquet. THE IDYLLIC THEORY. Herder's view, (1778): He ranks these songs above all other idyls. According to Herder, the book contains sonnets of Solomon on love, portray- ing different people and various scenes, as Eclogues of Virgil. We are told in Kings that Solomon's songs were one thousand and five ; and of these he supposes we have a few in canticles. In ihe first sonnet (1:2-1:4) a King is portrayed who is loved by many, without jealousy. In the second (1:5-1:8) there is a country lass and shepherd lover. In the third (1:9-1:14) another change — he speaks of the pride and splendor of the royal bride — addressed by him who praises her and promises ornaments. In the fourth (1:15-2:7) a loving pair on the green turf, under an apple tree — she sinks into his arms and he sings a soft lullaby. In the fifth (2:8-2:14) the situation changes. The lover long absent, the fair one like a dove is in the clefts of the rock. His visit is the first spring visit of love. In the sixth (2:15) a chasing song, which has no connection with the preceding or the following. In the seventh (2:16-2:17) the lover is at his occupation but will come again. In the eighth (3:1-3:5) is a night song. A maiden seeks her lover in her dreams but finds him not. On waking, she rises and wanders through the city, and brings him to her mother's house. The collector inserts the usual lullaby. Other night pieces follow. In the ninth (3 : 6) we have a fragment with the customary formula. A maiden in the twilight, tall and slender, her form in the dark is like pillars of smoke. 124 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. The tenth (3 : 7-3 : 11) begins with the fear in the night and three strangers follow : the first, celebrating the martial force of Solomon ; the second, his bed of love ; the third, his wedding crown and his joy of heart on occasion of his nuptials. The eleventh (4 : 1-5 : 1) describes the mutual love of those betrothed. He praises her beauty until at mention of her breasts, the bride checks him by a change of scene. He arouses her modesty and, by figures, says how she has emboldened him to go with her anywhere, and calls on the winds to blow on the garden of her beauty. She interrupts him again, and inter- preting his language literally asks him to come into his garden and eat his pleasant fruits. The twelfth sonnet (5 : 2-6 : 9) is another night scene, but with no reference to what precedes. It is not a royal, but a country girl sleeping alone in her cottage. Her lover knocks, and trys to open the door. She delays in dressing, then seeks him as he has turned and gone. She meets the daughters of Jerusalem, and praises him, not so much for his personal charms, as for his dress. It is probable two different pieces have been put together by the collector. The thirteenth sonnet (6 : 10-8 : 4) is the crown of the song. New scenes with the usual formula. The bride appears not as dimly seen, but as the morning, as the moon, as the sun, as an army with banners, singing a shepherd song in memory of her former country simplicity. It then changes to a dance like that of angels, two choirs. Then follows a description of an elegant form in the dance. The fourteenth sonnet (8 : 5-8 : 7). The bride appears as walking on the arm of her husband. The converse is of wedded fidelity. By the old trysting tree they pledge love. The seal of love here is the seal of love to the whole book. The book would well end here. The fifteenth sonnet (8 : 8-8 : 12) is a haughty talk of a sister with her brothers. They are consulting about the care of her purity. If she is a wall they will adorn her with turrets of silver, &c. She says her person inspires respect, and she scorn- fully relates a little story to show what comes of guarding her- OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 12.5 self. Solomon lets out his vineyard to keepers ; she keeps her own vineyard. The sixteenth sonnet (8 : 13-8 : 14), a fragment of a conver- sation between a young lover and his fair one, who will not let him flee. Herder, however, does not throw the sixteenth altogether as unconnected, but they are united (1) in authorship, all are by Solomon and are models ; (2) the collector of these forms of Solomon has also woven a unity through the whole by tracing love from its beginning to its growths to ripened fruits. The sonnets are so arranged as to amount to six scenes and an appendix. The first scene begins at the first verse with a desire for a kiss. The love is not exclusive, but shared by others. The loved is at a distance. In the second sonnet, a higher certainty of reciprocated love ; but now there is envy on the part of the daughters of Jerusa- lem. Her fault is her poverty, and she seeks her one friend. In the third sonnet, love^ shows itself in presents, so far advanced is it. He sees himself in the ornaments ; she, him in the nosegay. In the /owri^ sonnet there follows the fond rivalry of love, the first moment of expressed love, and the first scene closes. The second scene begins with a beautiful spring morning. The lover comes but gives only a morning greeting, and each goes to his work. We have the fox song and the song of long- ing. She seeks him and finds him. The third scene comprises three sonnets. Who is this fair one in the dusky twilight ? Then he sings of the glories of the king's bed, then of the wedding crown, and the glad day of his espousals. The fourth scene (5 : 2-6 : 9). He comes to seek his love. Before she opens to him, he is gone. She seeks him. She is sure of his love, and is rewarded by a laudatory song. The fifth scene comprises one sonnet, introducing beauty and pleasure and love. In the sixth scene we have the sealing of early vows. Here the book properly ends. 126 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. In the appendix, there is a renewal of the idea in their off- spring ; the daughter plays the part her mother played. So then according to Herder, we have a number of distinct pieces by one author, so united by the collector as to give one progressive theme. This view has been widely adopted, was introduced into England by Good, in 1803. He gives two versions of the song; first, an exact rendering and the other a metrical translation. He modifies Herder's view, insisting that the sonnets concern the same parties throughout. The bride is not Pharaoh's daughter ; that marriage was one of state policy. Good finds the bride of this song to be another. In 2 : 1, Sharon is her birth-place; 7: 1, shows she is of noble rank ; 8 : 11-12, that she had a noble marriage portion at Baal-hamon ; 3 : 4, shows her father's probable death ; 8 : 5, that her mother betrothed her ; 1 : 6, her mother was twice married ; 8 : 1, had an own brother ; 8 : 8, had an own sister. Good finds twelve sonnets. Prof. Noyes, of Cambridge, divides it into twelve, though he agrees with Herder as to there being different parties involved. This idyl theory is held by different kinds of people ; some thinking it a mere amatory poem, others finding in it an alle- gory. A fragmentary hypothesis has also been held in regard to it, that it is the work of different writers in different ages. Mag- nus of Breslau, 1842, held such a theory. According to him there are fourteen complete sonnets and eight fragments, which, however, together make three complete sonnets. Thus the two instances of search by night are really one sonnet. Besides these eight fragments there is one fragment, 2 : 15, which he cannot account for. Then there are two supplements to two of these sonnets by later authors. Thus the description in 4 : 1-7 is supplementary to 1 : 15. Counting these it makes twenty different pieces of composition. Of these, eight are written about fifty years after Solomon, six in the age of Jeremiah, four in the age of Ezekiel — two he does not account for. His conclusions are so absurd as to need no refutation. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 127 CONSIDERATIONS WHICH TEND TO ESTABl^ISH THE UNITY OF THE BOOK. I. Title — " Song of Songs, which is Solomon's." " Song of songs " is a Hebraic superlative, and is equivalent to " most excellent of Solomon's songs." This argument is evaded by : (1) By forced construction, as though it meant a song com- posed of songs ; or by giving a distinct meaning to the first noun from Chaldee and Arabic analogies, as " a chain or series of songs ;" but this is against Hebrew usage. (2) By denying its genuineness, (a) Because it refers com- position to Solomon, which is impossible. (6) Because in the title a'sher is used, and in the body of the discourse she, it is argued that the title is not genuine. But the title is prose, and the book poetry. That there should be no title, or that the title should be changed, is an improbable supposition. Whoever put the title there, wished to give his testimony that the work •was by Solomon. If the title proceeded from the collectors of the canon, they must have had good reason. II. The actors and speakers in the song are the same throughout. III. Eepetition of same verse in different parts to mark the beginning and end of sections. IV. The recurrence of similar 'expressions. V. The diction is peculiar, being like that of no other 0. T. book. The abbreviated relative (she) only occasionally occur- ring in other books, uniformly occurs in this book. Opher occurs only in this book ; but here five times. Other illustra- tions might be given. VI. Similarity of long passages. VII. Great abundance of figures from nature : Lebanon used five times, apple four times, myrtle seven times. An argument from style is more easily felt than stated. Many attempts have been made to find the internal unity of the matter. This was the aim of the dramatic hypothesis ably defended by Ewald (1825-1867). He was not the originator of this theory. It was not intended for the stage, but has all the 128 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. essentials of a dramatic composition. There is a story not narrated, but progressively unfolded. He maintains that the theme is not merely love in general, but the charming deline- ations of love are subordinated to a high ethical aim. The theme is the praise of innocence resisting all enticements. A Shulamite, brought up at Bngedi, is the subject. As this woman was walking with her lover, she is surrounded with chariots of a royal party. The king takes her to his palace, flatters her, seeks to turn her aside from virtue. She repels him, triumphing over all his arts like an impregnable wall. She keeps her own vineyard. He sends her home. He divides the whole into four acts, separated by the adjura- tion to the daughters of Jerusalem. I. 1:2-2: 7. II. 2:8-3: 5. III. 3:6-8: 4. IV. 8 : 5- 8: 14. The dramatic form is not rigorously adhered to. The speaker weaves in the speeches of others. Ewald, in a later view, regards it as intended for actual rep- resentation on the stage, dividing the third act into two. He thinks it is an opera and thirteen scenes or songs. Two of them to each of the first two acts, four to the third, four to the fourth and one to the fifth. Each act is a successive day. Act I, Scene 1, (L: 2-1 : 8). The Shulamite in Solomon's palace. She has observed the luxury, her heart is far away. She addresses her lover, 1:2," Thy love is better than wine." Her longing increases and she says, " draw me after thee." The ladies of the court wonder. She thinks they are looking on her brown face with contempt. She justifies her appearance which she thinks still is beautiful. She imagines him feeding his flocks. The court ladies are amazed, and in verse 8 reply sarcastically, though confessing her beauty. Scene 2, (1 : 9-2 : 7). Solomon enters, addresses the Shula- mite. Each speaks three times. The Shulamite repels him in figurative language. She refers to her absent lover. He is as a bundle of myrrh to her. The king again praises her beauty. She applies his words to her absent lover, and describes the spot in which she had enjoyed his society in the green wood. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 129 At length, wearied, she falls into a swoon, and imagines her lover by her side. Act II, (alone with the ladies of the court, thoughts still with her absent lover). Scene 1, He is conceived of as near and about to take her away. She recalls how he came to her house, called her forth, called her his dove. Her present inaccessibil- ity to her lover blends itself with memories of the past. She recalls the ecene at her mother's house. She wishes that her lover would hasten to her over the mountains. Scene 2, (3 : 1-3 : 5). Her dreams, also, are of her absent lover. She tells her dreams. She arises to find him. The watchman takes her home. Here she swoons again. Act III (3 : 6-5 : 8), Scene 1. In front of gate at Jerusalem, a splendid procession is coming. She has been raised to rank of Queen consort. Their approach is vividly depicted by the language of the spectators. All have seen the highest honor heaped upon the Shulamite. Scene 2. King renews his suit, addressing her in picturesque language. Scene 3. Shulamite alone. Temptation is now at its height. Her thoughts are still with her absent lover. If she were on Lebanon. She calls her spouse to come from Hermon. In her dreamy state, she is unable to restrain herself and calls for the north wind to blow on her garden (i. c, herself). She hears his response, " I am come into my garden." This imaginary conversation breaks ofi" with a swoon. Scene 4. She relates a fresh dream similar to the preceding, but with sadder termination. Act IV (5 : 9-8 : 4), Scene 1. The court ladies begin to sym- pathize with her. They ask as to her lover, and she minutely describes him. Scene 2. King enters. Only one resource left : the witchery of words. His flatteries surpass all that has gone before. Her power over him, he describes, is like an army with ban- ners. The women of his royal court, he says, are inferior to her. Scene 3. After a pause, he renews his praises. He particu- 17 130 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. larizes portions of the body, neck and head. He becomes more urgent and desires her love. Scene 4. Her heart is with her lover. " I am my beloved's," and addresses him absent. Remembering her present position, she alludes to her own home. She wishes he was her brother, whom she might meet and kiss as though she were at home with him. She again swoons. Act V (8:5; 8: 14), Scene 1. An entirely different state of things. Solomon will not employ force. Permits her to return. The scene opens with the language of the rustics in the region of her home. Restored to her lover she is merry and joyous. She says " set me as a seal upon thine heart." She jestingly refers to the way in which Solomon's proposition was managed seeking to gain her love by money. She alludes to the language of her brothers before she was grown. But she had found favor in his eyes. In verse 13, the shepherd lover speaks for the first time. His "gardens" are opposed to the palace of Solomon. The song which she sings is to her lover. Ewald's theory — several things may be said in commenda- tion : I. Great ingenuity is shown in producing a captivating story and exciting play. The utmost skill is shown in weaving together all the parts of the song. II. It shows the unity of the song. III. It is not improbable from what we know of Solomon and his times that such an event might easily have occurred. IV. The song is made to yield an acceptable sense ; a definite moral end is reached, the commendation of virtue is the object. She cleaves to the lowly and true shepherd. Objections : (1) Its novelty ; it gives a meaning which none of its readers have ever seen in it. An hypothesis in contra- diction to all antiquity should prove itself. The title is incon- sistent with this view. Ewald himself says that the Lamedh indicates an author. The reception of the book in the Jewish canon implies an understanding of it differing from this. Ewald says it was written in the revolted kingdom and breathes hos- OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 131 tility to Judea and Solomon. There is no hint of this interpre- tation by any ancient writer. It was broached first by Jacobi in 1751. We are required to suppose that the true sense was lost very early. (2) The whole hypothesis rests on slender and precarious foundation. (3) The hypothesis requires a great number of gratuitous assumptions. Many forced interpretations are necessary. (4) The hypothesis has not satisfied subsequent interpreters and has been variously modified. (5) The advocates of this idea subject the whole song to much arbitrary treatment. ALLEGORICAL HYPOTHESIS. I. It contains a spiritual truth : (1) The bridegroom is addressed as such, and again as a simple swain. The bride once as a prince's daughter, and again as a keeper of a vineyard. (2) The literal sense burdens it with indecorous incongruities. (3) Many parts indicate that the bride is not an individual person, and the same thing is shown by similes inap- propriate to set forth the charms of a beautiful woman. II. That the love of Christ to his people is meant is estab- lished : (1) By the position of the book. Those who received it into the canon must have conceded its spirituality. (2) The title: what distinguishes it is the loftiness of its subject. (3) The figure of a marriage is frequently used in the Bible to show the relation of Christ to his people. The argu- ment is two-fold. (a) As it is a common metaphor it is probable that it is used here. (&) The more frequent use 'of this figure in later times seems due to the influence of this song. (4) In Ps. 45 a similar figure is used. (5) Names of persons are suggestive of spiritual meaning. Some say that Shulamite is the feminine of Solomon. 132 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. (6) Eev. 3 : 20 is supposed to refer to Solomon. Eph. 5 : 27 may refer to the song. In Mt. 22: 2-14, 25: 1-13, Christ explicitly calls himself the bridegroom. (7) Spiritual interpretation has even been prevalent. Thus it appears evident that the literal sense is subordinate to the true sense. Those holding to a deeper meaning differ as to what it is. Hug thought it written with political design in the time of Hezekiah. The bride represents the people of the ten tribes, a remnant who wanted to be taken under protection. 2 Chron. 30 : 1. The citizens of Judea oppose this union as untimely, and represent the bride's brother. Rosenmuller's view is based on the figures of Proverbs, as Wisdom is there personified as a female; he makes the bride represent "Wisdom. Scriptural analogies show the marriage to represent the relation of God to his people. The only question is in what aspect is this marriage to be viewed here. The view given in the old Targums that the song denotes the relation of Jehovah to Israel historically and prophetically. The words "draw me" refer to the coming out of Egypt. Black- ness is induced by the sin of the golden calf. The bride is still comely because restored from sin by penitence. The last chapter is Messianic, and refers to the resurrection. A like view differing in details is that of Weiss. Moody Stuart makes it an epitome of gospel history. Song opens with a longing for the advent. Then (1 : 9-7 : 2) allude to the birth at Bethlehem. The shepherds and wise men are compared to horses. (2 : 8-2 : 15). John is alluded to as heralding the coming of Christ. The bridal chariot equals the holy human body. The mother represents the Jewish people. The sleeping and the search refer to Gethsemane and the bewilderment of the disci- ples at the cross. "The little sister" refers to the Gentile Church. The vineyard let out to keepers is an allusion to the transmission of the gospel to the Gentiles. The song ends with a cry for the second coming. Thrupp finds the Messianic advent in the 5:1. What pre- OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 133 cedes is anticipation of and waiting for Clirist's coming. What follows alludes to times subsequent to the ascension. Hengstenberg finds the advent alluded to in the middle of the book. The bride is the Jewish Church. The daughters of Jerusalem refer to the Gentile Christians. The nightly search refers not to the withdrawal of Christ's bodily presence, but of his favor and love from the Jews since they rejected him. " He puts his hand in the door," manifesting his power by the church. Israel rises to open the door, but too late. The watch- men refer to the judgments on the Jews. Some have sought phases of experiences of Christian believers as the spiritual truth implied as its spiritual meaning. The fault with all is, they are too specific and exclusive. The true mode is to take the relations of earthly love and make this the symbol of heavenly love. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. That it was written by Solomon is seen (1) from the title, (2) internal corroborations. Frequent allusions to David and Solo- mon, (4:4; 3:7; 3:9; 8 : 11). A writer later than Solomon, who knew only by history, would be led by 1 Kings 11 : 3, and not by the facts of this earlier period. (3) Frequent men- tion of locality in all parts of the land is such as to make the impression that the division of the kingdoms had not yet been made. (4) The abundance of figures from nature agrees with what we know of Solomon. Solomon is known to have delighted in horses, 1 Kings 10 : 28, and in gardens. (5) Prosperity and peace abounding, point to Solomon's reign. (6) Solomon did compose many books. Objections : (1) From the use of the relative, {she for asher). It is not found in Proverbs nor in the two Psalms of Solomon. It is found in Ecclesiastes. But they say Ecclesias- tes is not by Solomon. This form is not of late date since it occurs in Genesis, (Gen. 6 : 3). (2) Aramean forms. The poetry of the Bible is full of such forms even in early times. (3) The use of particular words. (4) Solomon praises himself too much. But the praises are uttered by his beloved, and it is not of himself or earthly love that Solomon is writing. Book of Job. Job is a real person. I. Localities are real. II. Names are not significant except that of Job. III. There is no analogy for such a fiction. IV. Ezek. 14 : 14. " Though these three men, Noah, Dan- iel and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God." James 5 : 11. '"'Ye have heard of the pa- tience of Job." It is not necessary to assume literality of all the details. It is not an allegory, representing the calamities of the Jews. The period is the patriarchal. The author and age of the book are unknown. The book has been referred : I. To the time near or after the exile, but without good reason. II. To the time of Moses, which has hitherto been the most common opinion. This opinion is based chiefly on the absence of allusions to facts or revelations of Mosaic age. But the subject may not have called for such allusions. III. To the age of David and Solomon. This is favored by the most able and recent continental scholars : 1. This age was the golden age of Hebrew poetry. 2. There is an advance on the teachings of the law. 3. There is a resemblance to the Psalms and Proverbs. OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 135 Theme of the book is the sufferings of the righteous. Job's trials are not only to test his constancy as stated at the outset, but also to correct inward corruption. I. God would not have so dealt with a sinless being. II. Self righteousness is seen in Job's vindication and complaints. III. Confirmed by Elihu. IV. Job is brought to penitence and this is the condition of his restoration. Satan accomplishing the purpose of God, is represented by his appearing among the sons of God. Solution of problem : I. Confidence in God's perfections. II. Uses of affliction. The dramatic character of the book is not for scenic repre- sentation. The action is not external, but inward and spiritual, and all centres about the temptation of Job. ANALYSIS. Theme. — Temptation of Job. Introduction, 1 : 1-5. Job's pious character and happy estate. First stage of the temptation, 1 : 6-22. The loss of his property and children ; Job victorious over the temptation. Second stage of the temptation, 2 : l-IO. The infliction on his own person ; Job still victorious. Third stage of the temptation, 2:11; 42 : 17. The persist- ance of suffering ; Job's struggle and ultimate deliverance. I. Preliminary statement, 2 : 11-13. The coming of Job's three friends. II. The struggle, 3-31. 1. Job's complaint, 3. 2. Discourses of Job and his three friends, 4-31. First series, 4-14. Job in unrelieved despair. Second series, 15-21. Job rises from despair to hope and 136 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. vanquishes the temptation in his second reply to the second friend. Third series, 22-31. Job silences his friends, but the enigma remains. III. The Deliverance, 32-42. 1. Elihu's theoretical solution, 32-37. Which is prelim- inary to ■ 2. The J ord's practical solution, or intervention for the rescue of Job, 38-42. (1) Spiritual, 38 : 1 ; 42 : 6. The Lord manifests himself to Job, thereby bringing him to humility and penitence. (2) External, 42 : 7-17. Job righted before his friends, and his former prosperity doubled. Argument turns on the^question of Job's right to complain as he does, chap. 3. Growing harshness of his friends. Job's discourse divided by chap. 19 ; reference to vindication in the future state : 1. Climax of former speeches. 2. Formality of introduction. 3. Terms employed. 4. History of interpretation. Vindication in present life opposed to : 1. Job's view of his own condition. 2. His position in the argument. Refutation of his friends. Two-fold decision. Elihu's speech not an interpolation, nor does it represent human reason or Btand on the platform of the friends : I. Space devoted to it. II. His position not identical with that of the friends, 32 : 3. " Against his three friends was his wrath kindled because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job." III. The discourse of the Lord is then made to inculcate simply resignation to an inscrutible allotment, which is no solution at all. Elihu, theoretical decision, he agrees with the friends in asserting connection between suffering and sin; he differs, OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. 137 first, suffering is disciplinary as well as penal ; second, regards sin no less than sins. The Lord, practical decision. Sublimity of discourse ; no explanation nor arguments inferred from the issue. 1. Internal. 2. External. Discourse subordinated to the effect to be produced on Job. The lesson not simply submission to a power which man cannot resist, or to a wisdom which he cannot fathom, but to him who is infinitely perfect. Design of God is inferred from the result which was not only to exhibit Job's constancy, but to advance his holiness, and his welfare. 18 Bo OK OF Proverbs. Harmony of God's word, and Providence as a general fact : not, however, 1. Making utility the basis of obligation. 2. Subordinating goodness to temporal prosperity, nor, 3. Inculcating a merely outward morality. Advantages in teaching by Proverbs. These differ from all others ; first, in being religious, and second, inspired. Three divisions : 1. Chapters 1-9. 1. Introductory verses, chap. 1:7. A connected discourse, commendation of wisdom, coun- sels of a parent to a son. 2. Personal wisdom, chap. 7. 11. Chapters 10-24. Proverbs, brief, disconnected, without arrangement. III. Chapters 25-29. Copied out by men of Hezekiah. IV. Appendix — Chapters 30-31. Question respecting Agur and Lemuel. Book of Ecclesiastes. Name of book. — The preacher is identified with Solomon. Author. — I. Declared to be the words of Solomon, 1 : 1. " The words of the preacher the son of David, king in Jerusalem." II. It has always been regarded as his. Not only unbelieving critics, but some Evangelical interpre- ters think it a fiction in Solomon's name. • I. The book is said to speak of Solomon as he could not have spoken of himself. The preacher was king, 1 : 12. " I, the preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem." 1 : 16. '"' I have gotten more wis- dom than all they that have been before me, in Jerusalem." 11 : 7-9. II. The writer speaks of other matters, as neither Solomon nor any contemporary could have done. 1. Vanity is ascribed to human endeavors and implies a period of depression and discouragement. But (1) Subject here discussed is appropriate in any state of public affairs. (2) These views are quite as naturally connected with a sur- feit of earthly prosperity, as with depression and dis- courasiement. O 2. The injustice of judges and oppression of rulers complained of in 3 : 16 ; 4:1; 5:8; 10 : 5-7, would be a satire on his own administration. But (1) No ruler can correct all the abuses arising from his sub- ordinates. 140 OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. (2) Human experience is here viewed in general, not during his own reign merely. (3) There were burdens even under Solomon. 1 Kings, 12 : 4. 3. Ecc. 7 : 10. " Say not then what is the cause that the former days were better than these, for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this." But this does not prove that things were less prosperous then than formerly. III. The Aramaic character of the language. The peculiarity of the Hebrew is explained in part by the nature of the subject and mode of treatment. Aramaicisms are not always a criterion of age. Solomon's foreign connections. The proverbs of this book bear a close resemblance to those in the Book of Proverbs. DESIGN. Not conflicting opinions of various sages, not enquirer and teacher, nor same speaker in various states of minds, but con- tinuous and consistent discussion. Not designed to teach merely the vanity of earthly pursuits nor epicureanism, nor fatalism, with future judgment, nor wis- dom in general ; but, that outward prosperity is no certain index of happiness or real welfare, these are only for the good. This is explicitly stated, 1. 8: 12-13. 2. 12: 13-14. 3. Man's happiness again and again declared to be found not in material accumulations which are vain, but in quietly serving God in the lot in which he has placed him. /i n University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. DISCH ' JAN i^ J. Form L9-Series AA 000 619 784 2 V^ 3 1158 00133 7921 3S 531 3820 Iw,;^r^;^:.m^:a!li|ntil^^i!f^^