{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_6928/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_6928","id":"gutenberg_6928","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6928","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Curtis A. Weyant, Charles Franks, and the\nDistributed Proofreading Team.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWHO WROTE THE BIBLE?\n\nBY\n\nWASHINGTON GLADDEN\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n   I. A LOOK INTO THE HEBREW BIBLE\n  II. WHAT DID MOSES WRITE?\n III. SOURCES OF THE PENTATEUCH\n  IV. THE EARLIER HEBREW HISTORIES\n   V. THE HEBREW PROPHECIES\n  VI. THE LATER HEBREW HISTORIES\n VII. THE POETICAL BOOKS\nVIII. THE EARLIER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS\n  IX. THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS\n   X. NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY AND PROPHECY\n  XI. THE CANON\n XII. HOW THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN\nXIII. HOW MUCH IS THE BIBLE WORTH?\n\n\n\n\nWHO WROTE THE BIBLE?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nA LOOK INTO THE HEBREW BIBLE.\n\n\n\nThe aim of this volume is to put into compact and popular form, for the\nbenefit of intelligent readers, the principal facts upon which scholars\nare now generally agreed concerning the literary history of the Bible.\nThe doctrines taught in the Bible will not be discussed; its claims to a\nsupernatural origin will not be the principal matter of inquiry; the\nbook will concern itself chiefly with those purely natural and human\nagencies which have been employed in writing, transcribing, editing,\npreserving, transmitting, translating, and publishing the Bible.\n\nThe writer of this book has no difficulty in believing that the Bible\ncontains supernatural elements. He is ready to affirm that other than\nnatural forces have been employed in producing it. It is to these\nsuperhuman elements in it that reference and appeal are most frequently\nmade. But the Bible has a natural history also. It is a book among\nbooks. It is a phenomenon among phenomena. Its origin and growth in this\nworld can be studied as those of any other natural object can be\nstudied. The old apple-tree growing in my garden is the witness to me of\nsome transcendent truths, the shrine of mysteries that I cannot unravel.\nWhat the life is that was hidden in the seed from which it sprang, and\nthat has shaped all its growth, co\u00f6rdinating the forces of nature, and\nproducing this individual form and this particular variety of\nfruit,--this I do not know. There are questions here that no man of\nscience can answer. Life in the seed of the apple as well as in the\nsoul of man is a mystery. But there are some things about the apple-tree\nthat may be known. I may know--if any one has been curious enough to keep\nthe record--when the seed was planted, when the shoot first appeared above\nthe ground, how many branches it had when it was five years old, how\nhigh it was when it was ten years old, when this limb and that twig were\nadded, when the first blossom appeared, when that branch was grafted and\nthose others were trimmed off. All this knowledge I may have gained; and\nin setting forth these facts, or such as these, concerning the natural\nhistory of the tree, I do not assume that I am telling all about the\nlife that is in it. In like manner we may study the origin and growth of\nthe Bible without attempting to decide the deeper questions concerning\nthe inspiration of its writers and the meaning of the truths they\nreveal.\n\nThat the Bible has a natural as well as a supernatural history is\neverywhere assumed upon its pages. It was written as other books are\nwritten, and it was preserved and transmitted as other books are\npreserved and transmitted. It did not come into being in any such\nmarvelous way as that in which Joseph Smith's \"Book of Mormon,\" for\nexample, is said to have been produced. The story is, that an angel\nappeared to Smith and told him where he would find this book; that he\nwent to the spot designated, and found in a stone box a volume six\ninches thick, composed of thin gold plates, eight inches by seven, held\ntogether by three gold rings; that these plates were covered with\nwriting in the \"Reformed Egyptian\" tongue, and that with this book were\n\"the Urim and the Thummim,\" a pair of supernatural spectacles, by means\nof which he was able to read _and translate_ this \"Reformed\nEgyptian\" language. This is the sort of story which has been believed,\nin this nineteenth century, by tens of thousands of Mormon votaries.\nConcerning the books of the Bible no such astonishing stories are told.\nNevertheless some good people seem inclined to think that if such\nstories are not told, they might well be; they imagine that the Bible\nmust have originated in a manner purely miraculous; and though they know\nvery little about its origin, they conceive of it as a book that was\nwritten in heaven in the English tongue, divided there into chapters and\nverses, with head lines and reference marks, printed in small pica,\nbound in calf, and sent down to earth by angels in its present form.\nWhat I desire to show is, that the work of putting the Bible into its\npresent form was not done in heaven, but on earth; that it was not done\nby angels, but by men; that it was not done all at once, but a little at\na time, the work of preparing and perfecting it extending over several\ncenturies, and employing the labors of many men in different lands and\nlong-divided generations. And this history of the Bible as a book, and\nof the natural and human agencies employed in producing it, will prove,\nI trust, of much interest to those who care to study it.\n\nMr. Huxley has written a delightful treatise on \"A Piece of Chalk,\" and\nanother on \"The Crayfish;\" a French writer has produced an entertaining\nvolume entitled \"The Story of a Stick;\" the books of the Bible,\nconsidered from a scientific or bibliographical point of view, should\nrepay our study not less richly than such simple, natural objects.\n\nA great amount of study has been expended of late on the Scriptures, and\nthe conclusions reached by this study are of immense importance. What is\ncalled the Higher Criticism has been busy scanning these old writings,\nand trying to find out all about them. What is the Higher Criticism? It\nis the attempt to learn from the Scriptures themselves the truth about\ntheir origin. It consists in a careful study of the language of the\nbooks, of the manners and customs referred to in them, of the historical\nfacts mentioned by them; it compares part with part, and book with book,\nto discover agreements, if they exist, and discrepancies, that they may\nbe reconciled. This Higher Criticism has subjected these old writings to\nsuch an analysis and inspection as no other writings have ever\nundergone. Some of this work has undoubtedly been destructive. It has\nstarted out with the assumption that these books are in no respect\ndifferent from other sacred books; that they are no more a revelation\nfrom God than the Zendavesta or the Nibelungen Lied is a revelation from\nGod; and it has bent its energies to discrediting, in every way, the\nveracity and the authority of our Scriptures. But much of this criticism\nhas been thoroughly candid and reverent, even conservative in its temper\nand purpose. It has not been unwilling to look at the facts; but it has\nheld toward the Bible a devout and sympathetic attitude; it believes it\nto contain, as no other book in the world contains, the message of God\nto men; and it has only sought to learn from the Bible itself how that\nmessage has been conveyed. It is this conservative criticism whose\nleadership will be followed in these studies. No conclusions respecting\nthe history of these writings will be stated which are not accepted by\nconservative scholars. Nevertheless it must be remembered that the\nresults of conservative scholarship have been very imperfectly reported\nto the laity of the churches. Many facts about the Bible are now known\nby intelligent ministers of which their congregations do not hear. An\nanxious and not unnatural feeling has prevailed that the faith of the\npeople in the Bible would be shaken if the facts were known. The belief\nthat the truth is the safest thing in the world, and that the things\nwhich cannot be shaken will remain after it is all told, has led to the\npreparation of this volume.\n\nI have no doubt, however, that some of the statements which follow will\nfall upon some minds with a shock of surprise. The facts which will be\nbrought to light will conflict very sharply with some of the traditional\ntheories about the Bible. Some of my readers may be inclined to fear\nthat the foundations of faith are giving way. Let me, at the outset,\nrequest all such to suspend their judgment and read the book through\nbefore they come to such a conclusion. Doubtless it will be necessary to\nmake some readjustment of theories; to look at the Bible less as a\nmiraculous and more as a spiritual product; to put less emphasis upon\nthe letter and more upon the spirit; but after all this is done it may\nappear that the Bible is worth more to us than it ever was before,\nbecause we have learned how rightly to value it.\n\nThe word \"Bible\" is not a biblical word. The Old Testament writings were\nin the hands of the men who wrote the books of the New Testament, but\nthey do not call these writings the Bible; they name them the Scriptures,\nthe Holy Scriptures, the Sacred Writings, or else they refer to them\nunder the names that were given to specific parts of them, as the Law,\nthe Prophets, or the Psalms. Our word Bible comes from a word which\nbegan to be applied to the sacred writings as a whole about four hundred\nyears after Christ. It is a Greek plural noun, meaning the books, or the\nlittle books. These writings were called by this plural name for about\neight hundred years; it was not till the thirteenth century that they\nbegan to be familiarly spoken of as a single book. This fact, of itself,\nis instructive. For though a certain spiritual unity does pervade these\nsacred writings, yet they are a collection of books, rather than one\nbook. The early Christians, who honored and prized them sufficiently,\nalways spoke of them as \"The Books,\" rather than as \"The Book,\"--and\ntheir name was more accurate than ours.\n\nThe names Old and New Testament are Bible words; that is to say we find\nthe names in our English Bibles, though they are not used to describe\nthese books. Paul calls the old dispensation the old covenant; and that\nphrase came into general use among the early Christians as contrasted\nwith the Christian dispensation which they called the new covenant;\ntherefore Greek-speaking Christians used to talk about \"the books\nof the old covenant,\" and \"the books of the new covenant;\" and by and by\nthey shortened the phrase and sometimes called the two collections\nsimply \"Old Covenant\" and \"New Covenant.\" When the Latin-speaking\nChristians began to use the same terms, they translated the Greek word\n\"covenant\" by the word \"testament\" which means a will, and which does\nnot fairly convey the sense of the Greek word. And so it was that these\ntwo collections of sacred writings began to be called The Old Testament\nand The New Testament. It is the former of these that we are first to\nstudy.\n\nWhen Jesus Christ was on the earth he often quoted in his discourses\nfrom the Jewish Scriptures, and referred to them in his conversations.\nHis apostles and the other New Testament writers also quote freely from\nthe same Scriptures, and books of the early Christian Fathers are full\nof references to them. What were these Jewish Scriptures?\n\nAt the time when our Lord was on the earth, the sacred writings of the\nJews were collected in two different forms. The Palestinian collection,\nso called, was written in the Hebrew language, and the Alexandrian\ncollection, called the Septuagint, in the Greek. For many years a large\ncolony of devout and learned Jews had lived in Alexandria; and as the\nGreek language was spoken there, and had become their common speech,\nthey translated their sacred writings into Greek. This translation soon\ncame into general use, because there were everywhere many Jews who knew\nGreek well enough but knew no Hebrew at all. When our Lord was on earth,\nthe Hebrew was a dead language; it may have been the language of the\ntemple, as Latin is now the language of the Roman Catholic mass; but the\ncommon people did not understand it; the vernacular of the Palestinian\nJews was the Aramaic, a language similar to the Hebrew, sometimes called\nthe later Hebrew, and having some such relation to it as the English has\nto the German tongue. There is some dispute as to the time when the Jews\nlost the use of their own language and adopted the Aramaic; many of the\nJewish historians hold the view that the people who came back from the\ncaptivity to Jerusalem had learned to use the Aramaic as their common\nspeech, and that the Hebrew Scriptures had to be interpreted when they\nwere read to them. Others think that this change in language took place\na little later, and that it resulted in great measure from the close\nintercourse of the Jews with the peoples round about them in Palestine,\nmost of whom used the Aramaic. At any rate the change had taken place\nbefore the coming of Christ, so that no Hebrew was then spoken\nfamiliarly in Palestine. When \"the Hebrew tongue\" is mentioned in the\nNew Testament it is the Aramaic that is meant, and not the ancient\nHebrew. The Greek, on the other hand, was a living language; it was\nspoken on the streets and in the markets everywhere, and many Jews\nunderstood it almost as well as they did their Aramaic vernacular, just\nas many of the people of Constantinople and the Levant now speak French\nmore fluently than their native tongues. The Greek version of the\nScriptures was, for this reason, more freely used by the Jews even in\nPalestine than the Hebrew original; it was from the Septuagint that\nChrist and his apostles made most of their quotations. Out of three\nhundred and fifty citations in the New Testament from the Old Testament\nwritings about three hundred appear to be directly from the Greek\nversion made at Alexandria. Between these two collections of sacred\nwritings, the one written in Hebrew, then a dead language, and the other\nin Greek,--the one used by scholars only, and the other by the common\npeople,--there were some important differences, not only in the\nphraseology and in the arrangement of the books, but in the contents\nthemselves. Of these I shall speak more fully in the following chapters.\nIt is to the Hebrew collection, which is the original of these writings,\nand from which our English Old Testament was translated, that we shall\nnow give our attention. What were these Hebrew Scriptures of which all\nthe writers of the New Testament knew, and from which they sometimes\ndirectly quote?\n\nThe contents of this collection were substantially if not exactly the\nsame as those of our Old Testament, but they were arranged in very\ndifferent order. Indeed they were regarded as three distinct groups of\nwritings, rather than as one book, and the three groups were of\ndifferent degrees of sacredness and authority. Two of these divisions\nare frequently referred to in the New Testament, as The Law and The\nProphets; and the threefold division is doubtfully hinted at in Luke\nxxiv. 44, where our Lord speaks of the predictions concerning himself\nwhich are found in the Law and the Prophets and in the Psalms.\n\nThe first of these holy books of the Jews was, then, THE LAW contained\nin the first five books of our Bible, known among us as the Pentateuch,\nand called by the Jews sometimes simply \"The Law,\" and sometimes \"The\nLaw of Moses.\" This was supposed to be the oldest portion of their\nScriptures, and was by them regarded as much more sacred and\nauthoritative than any other portion. To Moses, they, said, God spake\nface to face; to the other holy men much less distinctly. Consequently\ntheir appeal is most often to the law of Moses.\n\nThe group of writings known as \"The Prophets\" is subdivided into the\nEarlier and the Later Prophets. _The Earlier Prophets_ comprise\nJoshua, the Judges, the two books of Samuel, counted as one, and the two\nbooks of the Kings, counted also as one. _The Later Prophets_\ncomprise Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets, the\nlast books in our Old Testament,--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah,\nMicah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. These\ntwelve _were counted as one book_; so that there were four volumes\nof the earlier and four of the later prophets. Why the Jews should have\ncalled Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and the Kings books of the Prophets is\nnot clear; perhaps because they were supposed to have been written by\nprophets; perhaps because prophets have a conspicuous place in their\nhistories. This portion of the Hebrew Scriptures, containing the four\nhistorical books named and the fifteen prophetical books (reckoned,\nhowever, as four), was regarded by the Jews as standing next in\nsacredness and value to the book of the Law.\n\nThe third group of their Scriptures was known among them as Kethubim, or\nWritings, simply. Sometimes, possibly, they called it The Psalms,\nbecause the book of the Psalms was the initial book of the collection.\nIt consisted of the Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon,\nRuth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and\nthe Chronicles. This group of writings was esteemed by the Jews as less\nsacred and authoritative than either of the other two groups; the\nauthors were supposed to have had a smaller measure of inspiration.\nRespecting two or three of these books there was also some dispute among\nthe rabbis, as to their right to be regarded as sacred Scripture.\n\nSuch, then, were the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of our Lord, and such\nwas the manner of their arrangement.\n\nThey had, indeed, other books of a religious character, to which\nreference is sometimes made in the books of the Bible. In Numbers xxi.\n14, 15, we have a brief war song quoted from \"The Book of the Wars of\nJehovah,\" a collection of which we have no other knowledge. In Joshua x.\n13, the story of the sun standing still over Gibeon is said to have been\nquoted from \"The Book of Jasher,\" and in 2 Samuel i. 18, the beautiful\n\"Song of the Bow,\" written by David on the death of Saul and Jonathan,\nis said to be contained in the \"Book of Jasher.\" It is evident that this\nmust have been a collection of lyrics celebrating some of the great\nevents of Hebrew history. The title seems to mean \"The Book of the\nJust.\" The exploits of the worthies of Israel probably furnished its\nprincipal theme.\n\nIn 1 Chronicles xxix. 29, we read: \"Now the acts of David the king,\nfirst and last, behold they are written in the History of Samuel the\nSeer, and in the History of Nathan the Prophet, and in the History of\nGad the Seer.\" There is no reason to doubt that the first named of these\nis the history contained in the books of Samuel in our Bible; but the\nother two books are lost. We have another reference to the \"History of\nNathan,\" in 2 Chronicles ix. 29,--the concluding words of the sketch of\nKing Solomon's life. \"Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and\nlast, are they not written in the History of Nathan the Prophet, and in\nthe Prophecy of Abijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the\nSeer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?\" Here are two more books of\nwhich we have no other knowledge; their titles quoted upon the page of\nthis chronicle are all that is left of them. A similar reference, in the\nlast words of the sketch of Solomon's son Rehoboam, gives us our only\nknowledge of the \"Histories of Shemaiah the Prophet.\"\n\nIn the Kings and in the Chronicles, reference is repeatedly made to the\n\"Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel,\" and the \"Books of the\nChronicles of the Kings of Judah,\" under which titles volumes that are\nnow lost are brought to our notice. Undoubtedly much of the history in\nthe biblical books of Kings and Chronicles was derived from these\nancient annals. They are the sources from which the writers of these\nbooks drew their materials.\n\nWe are also told in 2 Chronicles xxvi. 22, that Isaiah wrote a history\nof the \"Acts of Uzziah,\" which is wholly lost.\n\nOther casual references are made to historical writings of various\nsorts, composed by prophets and seers, and thus apparently accredited by\nthe biblical writers as authoritative utterances of divine truth. Why\nwere they suffered to perish? Has not Emerson certified us that\n\n  \"One accent of the Holy Ghost\n   The heedless world has never lost\"?\n\nBut this is a fond exaggeration. Mr. Emerson was certainly not himself\ninspired when he uttered it. Many and many an accent of the Holy Ghost\nhas been lost by this heedless world. And it is not at all improbable\nthat some of these histories of Nathan and Gad and Shemaiah held vital\nand precious truth,--truth that the world has needed. The very fact that\nthey are hopelessly lost raises some curious questions about the method\nof revelation. Is it to be supposed that the Providence which suffers\nwhole books to be lost by men would infallibly guarantee those that\nremain against errors in the copies, and other imperfections? As a\nmatter of fact, we know that He has not so protected any of them.\n\nStill I doubt not that Providence has kept for us the best of this\nHebrew literature. To say that it is the best literature that the world\nhas produced is to say very little. It is separated widely from all\nother sacred writings. Its constructive ideas are as far above those of\nthe other books of religion as the heavens are above the earth. I pity\nthe man who has had the Bible in his hand from his infancy, and who has\nlearned in his maturer years something of the literature of the other\nreligions, but who now needs to have this statement verified. True it is\nthat we find pure maxims, elevated thoughts, genuine faith, lofty\nmorality, in many of the Bibles of the other races. True it is that in\nsome of them visions are vouchsafed us of the highest truths of\nreligion, of the very substance of the gospel of the Son of God. But\nwhen we take the sacred books of the other religions in their entirety,\nand compare them with the sacred writings of the Hebrews, the\nsuperiority of these in their fundamental ideas, in the conceptions that\ndominate them, in the grand uplifting visions and purposes that vitalize\nthem, can be felt by any man who has any discernment of spiritual\nrealities. It is in these great ideas that the value of these writings\nconsists, and not in any petty infallibility of phrase, or inerrancy of\nstatement. They are the record, as no other book in the world is a\nrecord, of that increasing purpose of God which runs through the ages.\nI hope that it will appear as the result of our studies, that one may\ncontinue to reverence the Scriptures as containing a unique and special\nrevelation from God to men, and yet clearly see and frankly acknowledge\nthe facts concerning their origin, and the human and fallible elements\nin them, which are not concealed, but lie upon their very face.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nWHAT DID MOSES WRITE?\n\n\n\nWe are now to study the first five books of the Bible, known as the\nPentateuch. This word \"Pentateuch\" is not in the Bible; it is a Greek\nword signifying literally the Five-fold Work; from _penta_, five,\nand _teuchos_, which in the later Greek means roll or volume.\n\nThe Jews in the time of our Lord always considered these five books as\none connected work; they called the whole sometimes \"Torah,\" or \"The\nLaw,\" sometimes \"The Law of Moses,\" sometimes \"The Five-fifths of the\nLaw.\" It was originally one book, and it is not easy to determine at\nwhat time its division into five parts took place.\n\nLater criticism is also inclined to add to the Pentateuch the Book of\nJoshua, and to say that the first six books of the Bible were put into\ntheir present form by the same hand. \"The Hexateuch,\" or Six-fold Work,\nhas taken the place in these later discussions of the Pentateuch, or\nFive-fold Work. Doubtless there is good reason for the new\nclassification, but it will be more convenient to begin with the\ntraditional division and speak first of the five books reckoned by the\nlater Jews as the \"Torah,\" or the Five-fifths of the Law.\n\nWho wrote these books? Our modern Hebrew Bibles give them the general\ntitle, _\"Quinque Libri Mosis_.\" This means \"The Five Books of\nMoses.\" But Moses could never have given them this title, for these are\nLatin words, and it is not possible that Moses should have used the\nLatin language because there was no Latin language in the world until\nmany hundreds of years after the day of Moses. The Latin title was given\nto them, of course, by the editors who compiled them. The preface and\nthe explanatory notes in these Hebrew Bibles are also written in Latin.\n\nBut over this Latin title in the Hebrew Bible is the Hebrew word\n\"Torah.\" This was the name by which these books were chiefly known among\nthe Jews; it signifies simply \"The Law.\" This title gives us no\ninformation, then, concerning the authorship of these books.\n\nWhen we look at our English Bibles we find no separation, as in the\nHebrew Bible, of these five books from the rest of the Old Testament\nwritings, but we find over each one of them a title by which it is\nascribed to Moses as its author,--\"The First Book of Moses, commonly\ncalled Genesis;\" \"The Second Book of Moses, commonly called Exodus;\" and\nso on. But when I look into my Hebrew Bible again no such title is\nthere. Nothing is said about Moses in the Hebrew title to Genesis.\n\nIt is certain that if Moses wrote these books he did not call them\n\"Genesis,\" \"Exodus,\" \"Leviticus,\" \"Numbers,\" \"Deuteronomy;\" for these\nwords, again, come from languages that he never heard. Four of them are\nGreek words, and one of them, Numbers, is a Latin word. These names were\ngiven to the several books at a very late day. What are their names in\nthe Hebrew Bible? Each of them is called by the first word, or some of\nthe first words in the book. The Jews were apt to name their books, as\nwe name our hymns, by the initial word or words; thus they called the\nfirst of these five books, \"Bereshith,\" \"In the Beginning;\" the second\none \"Veelleh Shemoth,\" \"Now these are the names;\" the third one\n\"Vayikra,\" \"And he called,\" and so on. The titles in our English Bible\nare much more significant and appropriate than these original Hebrew\ntitles; thus Genesis signifies origin, and Genesis is the Book of\nOrigins; Exodus means departure, and the book describes the departure of\nIsrael from Egypt; Leviticus points out the fact that the book is mainly\noccupied with the Levitical legislation; Numbers gives a history of the\nnumbering of the people, and Deuteronomy, which means the second law,\ncontains what seems to be a recapitulation and re\u00ebnactment of the\nlegislation of the preceding books. But these English titles, which are\npartly translated and partly transferred to English from older Latin and\nGreek titles, tell us nothing trustworthy about the authorship of the\nbooks.\n\nHow, then, you desire to know, did these books come to be known as the\nbooks of Moses?\n\n\"They were quoted,\" answer some, \"and thus accredited by our Lord and\nhis apostles. They are frequently mentioned in the New Testament as\ninspired and authoritative books; they are referred to as the writings\nof Moses; we have the testimony of Jesus Christ and of his apostles to\ntheir genuineness and authenticity.\" Let us see how much truth this\nanswer contains. It confronts us with a very important matter which may\nas well be settled before we go on.\n\nIt is true, to begin with, that Jesus and the Evangelists do quote from\nthese books, and that they ascribe to Moses some of the passages which\nthey quote. The soundest criticism cannot impugn the honesty or the\nintelligence of such quotations. There is good reason, as we shall see,\nfor believing that a large part of this literature was written in the\ntime of Moses, and under the eye of Moses, if not by his hand. In a\ncertain important sense, which will be clearer to us as we go on, this\nliterature is all Mosaic. The reference to it by the Lord and his\napostles is therefore legitimate.\n\nBut this reference does by no means warrant the sweeping conclusion that\nthe five books of the law were all and entire from the pen of the\nLawgiver. Our Lord nowhere says that the first five books of the Old\nTestament were all written by Moses. Much less does he teach that the\ncontents of these books are all equally inspired and authoritative.\nIndeed he quotes from them several times for the express purpose of\nrepudiating their doctrines and repealing their legislation. In the very\nfore-front of his teaching stands a stern array of judgments in which\nundoubted commandments of the Mosaic law are expressly condemned and set\naside, some of them because they are inadequate and superficial, some of\nthem because they are morally defective. \"Ye have heard that it was said\nto them of old time\" thus and thus; \"but I say unto you\"--and then\nfollow words that directly contradict the old legislation. After quoting\ntwo of the commandments of the Decalogue and giving them an\ninterpretation that wholly transforms them, he proceeds to cite several\nold laws from these Mosaic books, in order to set his own word firmly\nagainst them. One of these also is a law of the Decalogue itself. There\ncan be little doubt that the third commandment is quoted and criticised\nby our Lord, in this discourse. That commandment forbids, not chiefly\nprofanity, but perjury; by implication it permits judicial oaths. And\nJesus expressly forbids judicial oaths. \"Swear not at all.\" I am aware\nthat this is not the usual interpretation of these words, but I believe\nthat it is the only meaning that the words will bear. Not to insist upon\nthis, however, several other examples are given in the discourse\nconcerning which there can be no question.\n\nJesus quotes the law of divorce from Deuteronomy xxiv. 1,2. \"When a man\ntaketh a wife and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour\nin his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he\nshall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send\nher out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house she may\ngo and be another man's wife.\" These are the words of a law which Moses\nis represented as uttering by the authority of Jehovah. This law, as\nthus expressed, Jesus Christ unqualifiedly repeals. \"I say unto you that\nevery one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of\nfornication, maketh her an adulteress, and whosoever shall marry her\nwhen she is put away committeth adultery.\"\n\nThe law of revenge is treated in the same way. \"Ye have heard that it\nwas said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.\" Who said this? Was\nit some rabbin of the olden time? It was Moses; nay, the old record says\nthat this is the word of the Lord by Moses: \"The Lord spake unto Moses,\nsaying [among other things], If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor,\nas he hath done so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for\neye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it\nbe rendered unto him.\" (Lev. xxiv. 19,20.) So in Exodus xxi. 24, \"Thou\nshalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,\nburning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.\" It is\nsometimes said that these retaliations were simply permitted under the\nMosaic law, but this is a great error; they were enjoined: \"Thine eye\nshall not pity,\" it is said in another place (Deut. xix. 21); \"life\nshall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for\nfoot.\" This law of retaliation is an integral part of the moral\nlegislation of the Pentateuch. It is no part of the ceremonial law; it\nis an ethical rule. It is clearly ascribed to Moses; it is distinctly\nsaid to have been enacted by command of God. But Christ in the most\nunhesitating manner condemns and countermands it.\n\n\"Ye have heard,\" he continues, \"that it was said, Thou shalt love thy\nneighbor and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies,\nand pray for them that persecute you.\" \"But this,\" it is objected, \"is\nnot a quotation from the Old Testament. These words do not occur in that\nold legislation.\" At any rate Jesus introduces them with the very same\nformula which he has all along been applying to the words which he has\nquoted from the Mosaic law. It is evident that he means to give the\nimpression that they are part of that law. He is not careful in any of\nthese cases to quote the exact words of the law, but he does give the\nmeaning of it. He gives the exact meaning of it here. The Mosaic law\ncommanded Jews to love their neighbors, members of their own tribe, but\nto hate the people of surrounding tribes: \"An Ammonite or a Moabite\nshall not enter into the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth\ngeneration shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of the\nLord for ever.... Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity\nall thy days for ever.\" (Deut. xxiii. 3-6.)\n\n\"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest\nto possess it, and shalt cast out many nations before thee, ... then\nthou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them,\nnor show mercy unto them.\" (Deut. vii. 1,2.) This is the spirit of much\nof this ancient legislation; and these laws were, if the record is true,\nliterally executed, in after times, by Joshua and Samuel, upon the\npeople of Canaan. And these bloody commands, albeit they have a \"Thus\nsaid the Lord\" behind every one of them, Jesus, in the great discourse\nwhich is the charter of his kingdom, distinctly repeals.\n\nSuch is the method by which our Lord sometimes deals with the Old\nTestament. It is by no means true that he assumes this attitude toward\nall parts of it. Sometimes he quotes Lawgiver and Prophets in\nconfirmation of his own words; often he refers to these ancient\nScriptures as preparing the way for his kingdom and foreshadowing his\nperson and his work. Nay, he even says of that law which we are now\nstudying that not one jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from it till\nall things be accomplished. What he means by that we shall be able by\nand by to discover. But these passages which I have cited make it clear\nthat Jesus Christ cannot be appealed to in support of the traditional\nview of the nature of these old writings.\n\nThe common argument by which Christ is made a witness to the\nauthenticity and infallible authority of the Old Testament runs as\nfollows:\n\nChrist quotes Moses as the author of this legislation; therefore Moses\nmust have written the whole Pentateuch.\n\nMoses was an inspired prophet; therefore all the teaching of the\nPentateuch must be infallible.\n\nThe facts are, that Jesus nowhere testifies that Moses wrote the whole\nof the Pentateuch; and that he nowhere guarantees the infallibility\neither of Moses or of the book. On the contrary, he sets aside as\ninadequate or morally defective certain laws which in this book are\nascribed to Moses.\n\nIt is needful, thus, on the threshold of our argument, to have a clear\nunderstanding respecting the nature of the testimony borne by our Lord\nand his apostles to this ancient literature. It is upon this that the\nadvocates of the traditional view of the Old Testament wholly rely.\n\"Christ was authority,\" they say; \"the New Testament writers were\ninspired; you all admit this; now Christ and the New Testament writers\nconstantly quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament as inspired and as\nauthoritative. Therefore they must be the infallible word of God.\" To\nthis it is sufficient to reply, Christ and the apostles do quote the Old\nTestament Scriptures; they find a great treasure of inspired and\ninspiring truth in them, and so can we; they recognize the fact that\nthey are organically related to that kingdom which Christ came to found,\nand that they record the earlier stages of that great course of\nrevelation which culminates in Christ; but they nowhere pronounce any of\nthese writings free from error; there is not a hint or suggestion\nanywhere in the New Testament that any of the writings of the Old\nTestament are infallible; and Christ himself, as we have seen, clearly\nwarns his disciples that they do not even furnish a safe rule of moral\nconduct. After this, the attempt to prove the inerrancy of the Old\nTestament by summoning as witnesses the writers of the New Testament may\nas well be abandoned.\n\nBut did not Jesus say, \"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye\nhave eternal life, and they are they that testify of me?\" Well, if he\nhad said that, it would not prove that the Scriptures they searched were\nerrorless. The injunction would have all the force to-day that it ever\nhad. One may very profitably study documents which are far from\ninfallible. This was not, however, what our Lord said. If you will look\ninto your Revised Version you will see that his words, addressed to the\nJews, are not a command but an assertion: \"Ye search the Scriptures, for\nin them ye think ye have eternal life\" (John v. 39); if you searched\nthem carefully you would find some testimony there concerning me. It is\nnot an injunction to search the Scriptures; it is simply the statement\nof the fact that the Jews to whom he was speaking did search the\nScriptures, and searched them as many people in our own time do, to very\nlittle purpose.\n\nBut does not Paul say, in his letter to Timothy, that \"All Scripture is\ngiven by inspiration of God?\" No, Paul does not say that. Look again at\nyour Revised Version (2 Tim. iii. 16): \"Every Scripture inspired of God\nis also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for\ninstruction, which is in righteousness.\" Every writing inspired of God\nis profitable reading. That is the whole statement.\n\nBut Paul says in the verses preceding, that Timothy had known from a\nchild the Sacred Writings which were able to make him wise unto\nsalvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Was there not, then, in his\nhands, a volume or collection of books, known as the Sacred Writings,\nwith a definite table of contents; and did not Paul refer to this\ncollection, and imply that all these writings were inspired of God and\nprofitable for the uses specified?\n\nNo, this is not the precise state of the case. These Sacred Writings had\nnot at this time been gathered into a volume by themselves, with a fixed\ntable of contents. What is called the Canon of the Old Testament had not\nyet been finally determined.[Footnote: See chapter xi] There were,\nindeed, as we saw in the last chapter, two collections of sacred\nwritings, one in Hebrew and the other in Greek. The Hebrew collection\nwas not at this time definitely closed; there was still a dispute among\nthe Palestinian Jews as to whether two or three of the books which it\nnow contains should go into it; that dispute was not concluded until\nhalf a century after the death of our Lord. The other collection, as I\nhave said, was in the Greek language, and it included, not only our Old\nTestament books, but the books now known as the Old Testament Apocrypha.\nThis was the collection, remember, most used by our Lord and his\napostles. Which of these collections was in the hands of Timothy we do\nnot certainly know. But the father of Timothy was a Greek, though his\nmother was a Jewess; and it is altogether probable that he had studied\nfrom his childhood the Greek version of the Old Testament writings.\nShall we understand Paul, then, as certifying the authenticity and\ninfallibility of this whole collection? Does he mean to say that the\n\"Story of Susanna\" and \"Bel and the Dragon,\" and all the rest of these\nfables and tales, are profitable for teaching and instruction in\nrighteousness? This text, so interpreted, evidently proves too much.\nDoubtless Paul did mean to commend to Timothy the Old Testament\nScriptures as containing precious and saving truth. But we must not\nforce his language into any wholesale indorsement of every letter and\nword, or even of every chapter and book of these old writings.\n\nSo far, therefore, as our Lord himself and his apostles are concerned,\nwe have no decisive judgment either as to the authorship of these old\nwritings or as to their absolute freedom from error. They handled these\nScriptures, quoted from them, found inspired teaching in them; but the\nScriptures which they chiefly handled, from which they generally quoted,\nin which they found their inspired teaching, contained, as we know,\nworthless matter. It is not to be assumed that they did not know this\nmatter to be worthless; and if they knew this, it is not to be asserted\nthat they intended to place upon the whole of it the stamp of their\napproval.\n\nWe have wandered somewhat from the path of our discussion, but it was\nnecessary in order to determine the significance of those references to\nthe Old Testament with which the New Testament abounds. The question\nbefore us is, Why do we believe that Moses wrote the five books which\nbear his name in our Bibles? We have seen that the New Testament writers\ngive us no decisive testimony on this point. On what testimony is the\nbelief founded?\n\nDoubtless it rests wholly on the traditions of the Jews. Such was the\ntradition preserved among them in the time of our Lord. They believed\nthat Moses wrote every word of these books; that God dictated the\nsyllables to him and that he recorded them. But the traditions of the\nJews are not, in other matters, highly regarded by Christians. Our Lord\nhimself speaks more than once in stern censure of these traditions by\nwhich, as he charges, their moral sense was blunted and the law of God\nwas made of none effect. Many of these old tales of theirs were\nextremely childish. One tradition ascribes, as we have seen, to Moses\nthe authorship of the whole Pentateuch; another declares that when,\nduring an invasion of the Chaldeans, all the books of the Scripture were\ndestroyed by fire, Ezra wrote them all out from memory, in an incredibly\nshort space of time; another tradition relates how the same Ezra one day\nheard a divine voice bidding him retire into the field with five swift\namanuenses,--\"how he then received a full cup, full as it were of water,\nbut the color of it was like fire, ... and when he had drank of it, his\nheart uttered understanding and wisdom grew in his breast, for his\nspirit strengthened his memory, ... and his mouth was opened and shut no\nmore and for forty days and nights he dictated without stopping till two\nhundred and four books were written down.\" [Footnote: 2 Esdras xiv. See,\nalso, Stanley's _Jewish Church_, iii, 151.] These fables had wide\ncurrency among the Jews; they were believed by Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian,\nAugustine, and others of the great fathers of the Christian Church; but\nthey are not credited in these days. It is evident that Jewish tradition\nis not always to be trusted. We shall need some better reason than this\nfor believing that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.\n\nI do not know where else we can go for information except to the books\nthemselves. A careful examination of them may throw some light upon the\nquestion of their origin. A great multitude of scholars have been before\nus in their examination; what is their verdict?\n\nFirst we have the verdict of the traditionalists,--those, I mean, who\naccept the Jewish tradition, and believe with the rabbins that Moses\nwrote the whole of the first five books of the Bible. Some who hold this\ntheory are ready to admit that there may be a few verses here and there\ninterpolated into the record by later scribes; but they maintain that\nthe books in their substance and entirety came in their present form\nfrom the hands of Moses. This is the theory which has been generally\nreceived by the Christian church. It is held to-day by very few eminent\nChristian scholars.\n\nOver against this traditional theory is the theory of the radical and\ndestructive critics that Moses wrote nothing at all; that perhaps the\nten commandments were given by him, but hardly anything more; that these\nbooks were not even written in the time of Moses, but hundreds of years\nafter his death. Moses is supposed to have lived about 1400 B.C.; these\nwritings, say the destructive critics, were first produced in part about\n730 B.C., but were mainly written after the Exile (about 444 B.C.),\nalmost a thousand years after the death of Moses. \"Strict and impartial\ninvestigation has shown,\" says Dr. Knappert, \"that ... nothing in the\nwhole Law really comes from Moses himself except the ten commandments.\nAnd even these were not delivered by him in the same form as we find\nthem now.\" [Footnote: _The Religion of Israel_, p. 9.] This is, to\nmy mind, an astounding statement. It illustrates the lengths to which\ndestructive criticism can go. And I dare say that we shall find in our\nstudy of these books reason for believing that such views as these are\nas far astray on the one side as those of the traditionalists are on the\nother.\n\nLet us test these two theories by interrogating the books themselves.\n\nFirst, then, we find upon the face of the record several reasons for\nbelieving that the books cannot have come, in their present form, from\nthe hand of Moses.\n\nMoses died in the wilderness, before the Israelites reached the Promised\nLand, before the Canaanites were driven out, and the land was divided\namong the tribes.\n\nIt is not likely that he wrote the account of his own death and burial\nwhich we find in the last chapter of Deuteronomy. There are those, it is\ntrue, who assert that Moses was inspired to write this account of his\nown funeral; but this is going a little farther than the rabbins; they\ndeclare that this chapter was added by Joshua. It is conceivable that\nMoses might have left on record a prediction that he would die and be\nburied in this way; but the Spirit of the Lord could never inspire a man\nto put in the past tense a plain narrative of an event which is yet in\nthe future. The statement when written would be false, and God is not\nthe author of falsehood.\n\nIt is not likely either that Moses wrote the words in Exodus xi. 3:\n\"Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the\nsight of all the people;\" nor those in Numbers xii. 3: \"Now the man\nMoses was very meek above all the men which were on the face of the\nearth.\" It has been said, indeed, that Moses was directed by inspiration\nto say such things about himself; but I do not believe that egotism is a\nsupernatural product; men take that in the natural way.\n\nOther passages show upon the face of them that they must have been added\nto these books after the time of Moses. It is stated in Exodus xvi. 35,\nthat the Israelites continued to eat manna until they came to the\nborders of the land of Canaan. But Moses was not living when they\nentered that land.\n\nIn Genesis xii. 6, in connection with the story of Abraham's entrance\ninto Palestine, the historical explanation is thrown in: \"And the\nCanaanite was then in the land.\" It would seem that this must have been\nwritten at a day when the Canaanite was no longer in the land,--after\nthe occupation of the land and the expulsion of the Canaanites. In\nNumbers xv. 32, an incident is related which is prefaced by the words,\n\"While the children of Israel were in the wilderness.\" Does not this\nlook back to a past time? Can we imagine that this was written by Moses?\nAgain, in Deuteronomy iii. 11, we have a description of the bedstead of\nOg, one of the giants captured and killed by the Israelites, just before\nthe death of Moses; and this bedstead is referred to as if it were an\nantique curiosity; the village is mentioned in which it is kept. In\nGenesis xxxvi. we find a genealogy of the kings of Moab, running through\nseveral generations, prefaced with the words: \"These are the kings that\nreigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the\nchildren of Israel.\" This is looking backward from a day when kings were\nreigning over the children of Israel. How could it have been written\nfive hundred years before there ever was a king in Israel? In Genesis\nxiv. 14, we read of the city of Dan; but in Judges xviii. 29, we are\ntold that this city did not receive its name until hundreds of years\nlater, long after the time of Moses. Similarly the account of the naming\nof the villages of Jair, which we find in Deuteronomy iii. 14, is quite\ninconsistent with another account in Judges x. 3, 4. One of them must be\nerroneous, and it is probable that the passage in Deuteronomy is an\nanachronism.\n\nMost of these passages could be explained by the admission that the\nscribes in later years added sentences here and there by way of\ninterpretation. But that admission would of course discredit the\ninfallibility of the books. Other difficulties, however, of a much more\nserious kind, present themselves.\n\nIn the first verse of the twentieth chapter of Numbers we read that the\npeople came to Kadesh in the first month. The first month of what year?\nWe look back, and the first note of time previous to this is the second\nmonth of the second year of the wandering in the wilderness. Their\narrival at Kadesh described in the twentieth chapter would seem, then,\nto have been in the first month of the third year. In the twenty-second\nverse of this chapter the camp moves on to Mount Hor, and Aaron dies\nthere. There is no note of any interval of time whatever; yet we are\ntold in the thirty-third chapter of this book that Aaron died in the\nfortieth year of the wandering. Here is a skip of thirty-eight years in\nthe history, without an indication of anything having happened meantime.\nOn the supposition that this is a continuous history written by the man\nwho was a chief actor in it, such a gap is inexplicable. There is a\nreasonable way of accounting for it, as we shall see, but it cannot be\naccounted for on the theory that the book in its present form came from\nthe hand of Moses.\n\nSome of the laws also bear internal evidence of having originated at a\nlater day than that of Moses. The law forbidding the removal of\nlandmarks presupposes a long occupation of the land; and the law\nregulating military enlistments is more naturally explained on the\ntheory that it was framed in the settled period of the Hebrew history,\nand not during the wanderings. This may, indeed, have been anticipatory\nlegislation, but the explanation is not probable.\n\nVarious repetitions of laws occur which are inexplicable on the\nsupposition that these laws were all written by the hand of one person.\nThus in Exodus xxxiv. 17-26, there is a collection of legal enactments,\nall of which can be found, in the same order and almost the same words,\nin the twenty-third chapter of the same book. Thus, to quote the summary\nof Bleek, we find in both places, (_a_) that all the males shall\nappear before Jehovah three times in every year; (_b_) that no\nleavened bread shall be used at the killing of the Paschal Lamb, and\nthat the fat shall be preserved until the next morning; (_c_) that\nthe first of the fruits of the field shall be brought into the house of\nthe Lord; (_d_) that the young kid shall not be seethed in its\nmother's milk.[Footnote: _Introduction to the Old Testament_, i.\n240.]\n\nWe cannot imagine that one man, with a fairly good memory, much less an\ninfallibly inspired man, should have written these laws twice over, in\nthe same words, within so small a space, in the same legal document. In\nLeviticus we have a similar instance. If any one will take that book and\ncarefully compare the eighteenth with the twentieth chapter, he will see\nsome reason for doubting that both chapters could have been inserted by\none hand in this collection of statutes. \"It is not probable,\" as Bleek\nhas said, \"that Moses would have written the two chapters one after the\nother, and would so shortly after have repeated the same precepts which\nhe had before given, only not so well arranged the second time.\"\n[Footnote: _Introduction to the Old Testament_, i. 240.]\n\nThere are also quite a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in\nthe legislation, all of which may be easily explained, but not on the\ntheory that the laws all came from the pen of one infallibly inspired\nlawgiver. We find also several historical repetitions and historical\ndiscrepancies, all of which make against the theory that Moses is the\nauthor of all this Pentateuchal literature. A single author, if he were\na man of fair intelligence, good common sense, and reasonably firm\nmemory, could not have written it. And unless tautology, anachronisms,\nand contradictions are a proof of inspiration, much less could it have\nbeen written by a single inspired writer. The traditional theory cannot\ntherefore he true. We have appealed to the books themselves, and they\nbear swift witness against it.\n\nNow let us look at the other theory of the destructive critics which not\nonly denies that Moses wrote any portion of the Pentateuch, but alleges\nthat it was written in Palestine, none of it less than six or seven\nhundred years after he was dead and buried.\n\nIn the first place the book expressly declares that Moses wrote certain\nportions of it. He is mentioned several times as having written certain\nhistorical records and certain words of the law. In Exodus xxiv., we are\ntold that Moses not only rehearsed to the people the Covenant which the\nLord had made with them, but that he wrote all the words of the Covenant\nin a book, and that he took the book of the Covenant and read it in the\naudience of all the people. After the idolatry of the people Moses was\nagain commanded to write these words, \"and\" it is added, \"he wrote upon\nthe tables the words of the Covenant, the ten commandments.\" In Exodus\nxvii. 14, we are told that Moses wrote the narrative of the defeat of\nAmalek in a book; and again in Numbers xxxiii. 21, we read that Moses\nrecorded the various marches and halts of the Israelites in the\nwilderness. We have also in the Book of Deuteronomy (xxxi. 24-26) a\nstatement that Moses wrote \"the words of the law\" in a book, and put it\nin the ark of the covenant for preservation. Precisely how much of the\nlaw this statement is meant to cover is not clear. Some have interpreted\nit to cover the whole Pentateuch, but that interpretation, as we have\nseen, is inadmissible. We may concede that it does refer to a body or\ncode of laws,--probably that body or code on which the legislation of\nDeuteronomy is based.\n\nThese are all the statements made in the writings themselves concerning\ntheir origin. They prove, if they are credible, that portions of these\nbooks were written by Moses; they do not prove that the whole of them\ncame from his hand.\n\nI see no reason whatever to doubt that this is the essential fact. The\ntheory of the destructive critics that this literature and this\nlegislation was all produced in Palestine, about the eighth century\nbefore Christ, and palmed off upon the Jews as a pious fraud, does not\nbear investigation. In large portions of these laws we are constantly\nmeeting with legal provisions and historical allusions that take us\ndirectly back to the time of the wandering in the wilderness, and cannot\nbe explained on any other theory. \"When,\" says Bleek, \"we meet with laws\nwhich refer in their whole tenor to a state of things utterly unknown in\nthe period subsequent to Moses, and to circumstances existing in the\nMosaic age, and in that only, it is in the highest degree likely that\nthese laws not only in their essential purport proceeded from Moses, but\nalso that they were written down by Moses or at least in the Mosaic age.\nOf these laws which appear to carry with them such clear and exact\ntraces of the Mosaic age, there are many occurring, especially in\nLeviticus, and also in Numbers and Exodus, which laws relate to\nsituations and surrounding circumstances only existing whilst the\npeople, as was the case in Moses' time, wandered in the wilderness and\nwere dwellers in the close confinement of camps and tents.\" [Footnote:\nVol. i. p. 212.] It is not necessary to draw out this evidence at\nlength; I will only refer to a few out of scores of instances. The first\nseven chapters of Leviticus, containing laws regulating the burnt\nofferings and meat offerings, constantly assume that the people are in\nthe camp and in the wilderness. The refuse of the beasts offered in\nsacrifice was to be carried out of the camp to the public ash heap, and\nburned. The law of the Great Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.) is also full\nof allusions to the fact that the people were in camp; the scapegoat was\nto be driven into the wilderness, and the man who drove it out was to\nwash his clothes and bathe, and afterward come into the camp; the\nbullock and the goat, slain for the sacrifice, were to be carried forth\nwithout the camp; he who bears them forth must also wash himself before\nhe returns to the camp. Large parts of the legislation concerning\nleprosy are full of the same incidental references to the fact that the\npeople were dwelling in camp.\n\nThere are also laws requiring that all the animals killed for food\nshould be slaughtered before the door of the Tabernacle. There was a\nreason for this law; it was intended to guard against a debasing\nsuperstition; but how would it have been possible to obey it when the\npeople were scattered all over the land of Palestine? It was adapted\nonly to the time when they were dwelling in a camp in the wilderness.\n\nBesides, it must not be overlooked that in all this legislation \"the\npriests are not at all referred to in general, but by name, as Aaron and\nhis sons, or the sons of Aaron the priests.\"\n\nAll the legislation respecting the construction of the tabernacle, the\ndisposition of it in the camp, the transportation of it from place to\nplace in the wilderness, the order of the march, the summoning of the\npeople when camp was to be broken, with all its minute and\ncircumstantial directions, would be destitute of meaning if it had been\nwritten while the people were living in Palestine, scattered all over\nthe land, dwelling in their own houses, and engaged in agricultural\npursuits.\n\nThe simple, unforced, natural interpretation of these laws takes us\nback, I say, to the time of Moses, to the years of the wandering in the\nwilderness. The incidental references to the conditions of the\nwilderness life are far more convincing than any explicit statement\nwould have been. Can any one conceive that a writer of laws, living in\nPalestine hundreds of years afterwards, could have fabricated these\nallusions to the camp life and the tent life of the people? Such a\nnovelist did not exist among them; and I question whether Professor\nKuenen and Professor Wellhausen, with all their wealth of imagination,\ncould have done any such thing. Many of these laws were certainly\nwritten in the time of Moses; and I do not believe that any man was\nliving in the time of Moses who was more competent to write such laws\nthan was Moses himself. The conclusion of Bleek seems therefore to me\naltogether reasonable: \"Although the Pentateuch in its present state and\nextent may not have been composed by Moses, and also many of the single\nlaws therein may be the product of a later age, still the legislation\ncontained in it is genuinely Mosaic in its entire spirit and character.\"\n[Footnote: Vol. i. p. 221.] We are brought, therefore, in our study, to\nthese inevitable conclusions:\n\n1. The Pentateuch could never have been written by any one man, inspired\nor otherwise.\n\n2. It is a composite work, in which many hands have been engaged. The\nproduction of it extends over many centuries.\n\n3. It contains writings which are as old as the time of Moses, and some\nthat are much older. It is impossible to tell how much of it came from\nthe hand of Moses, but there are considerable portions of it which,\nalthough they may have been somewhat modified by later editors, are\nsubstantially as he left them.\n\nI have said that the Pentateuch is a composite work. In the next chapter\nwe shall find some curious facts concerning its component parts, and the\nway in which they have been put together. And although it did not come\ninto being in the way in which we have been taught by the traditions of\nthe rabbins, yet we shall see that it contains some wonderful evidence\nof the superintending care of God,--of that continuous and growing\nmanifestation of his truth and his love to the people of Israel, which\nis what we mean by revelation.\n\nRevelation, we shall be able to understand, is not the dictation by God\nof words to men that they may be written down in books; it is rather the\ndisclosure of the truth and love of God to men in the processes of\nhistory, in the development of the moral order of the world. It is the\nLight that lighteth every man, shining in the paths that lead to\nrighteousness and life. There is a moral leadership of God in history;\nrevelation is the record of that leadership. It is by no means confined\nto words; its most impressive disclosures are in the field of action.\n\"Thus _did_ the Lord,\" as Dr. Bruce has said, is a more perfect\nformula of revelation than \"Thus said the Lord.\" It is in that great\nhistorical movement of which the Bible is the record that we find the\nrevelation of God to men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSOURCES OF THE PENTATEUCH.\n\n\n\nIn the last chapter we found evidence that the Pentateuch as it stands\ncould not have been the work of Moses, though it contains much material\nwhich must have originated in the time of Moses, and is more likely to\nhave been dictated by him than by any one else; that large portions of\nthe Mosaic law were of Mosaic authorship; that the entire system of\nLevitical legislation grew up from this Mosaic germ, though much of it\nappeared in later generations; and that, therefore, the habit of the\nJews of calling it all the law of Moses is easily understood. We thus\ndiscovered in this study that the Pentateuch is a composite book.\n\nThe Christian Church in all the ages has been inclined to pin its faith\nto what the rabbins said about the origin of this book, and this is not\naltogether surprising; but in these days when testimony is sifted by\ncriticism we find that the traditions of the rabbins are not at all\ntrustworthy; and when we go to the Book itself, and ask it to tell us\nwhat it can of the secret of its origin, we find that it has a very\ndifferent story to tell from that with which the rabbins have beguiled\nus. A careful study of the Book makes it perfectly certain that it is\nnot the production of any one man, but a growth that has been going on\nfor many centuries; that it embodies the work of many hands, put\ntogether in an artless way by various editors and compilers. The\nframework is Mosaic, but the details of the work were added by reverent\ndisciples of Moses, the last of whom must have lived and written many\nhundred years after Moses' day.\n\nSome of the evidences of composite structure which lie upon the very\nface of the narrative will now come under our notice. It is plain that\nthe whole of this literature could not have been written by any one man\nwithout some kind of assistance. All the books, except the first, are\nindeed a record of events which occurred mainly during the lifetime of\nMoses, and of most of which he might have had personal knowledge. But\nthe story of Genesis goes back to a remote antiquity. The last event\nrelated in that book occurred four hundred years before Moses was born;\nit was as distant from him as the discovery of America by Columbus is\nfrom us; and other portions of the narrative, such as the story of the\nFlood and the Creation, stretch back into the shadows of the age which\nprecedes history. Neither Moses nor any one living in his day could have\ngiven us these reports from his own knowledge. Whoever wrote this must\nhave obtained his materials in one of three ways.\n\n1. They might have been given to him by direct revelation from God.\n\n2. He might have gathered them up from oral tradition, from stories,\nfolk-lore, transmitted from mouth to mouth, and so preserved from\ngeneration to generation.\n\n3. He might have found them in written documents existing at the time of\nhis writing.\n\nThe first of these conjectures embodies the rabbinical theory. The later\nform of that theory declared, however, that God did not even dictate\nwhile Moses wrote, but simply handed the law, all written and\npunctuated, out of heaven to Moses; the only question with these rabbins\nwas whether he handed it down all at once, or one volume at a time. It\nis certain that this is not the correct theory. The repetitions, the\ndiscrepancies, the anachronisms, and the errors which the writing\ncertainly contains prove that it could not have been dictated, word for\nword, by the Omniscient One. Those who maintain such a theory as this\nshould beware how they ascribe to God the imperfections of men. It seems\nto me that the advocacy of the verbal theory of inspiration comes\nperilously near to the sin against the Holy Ghost.\n\nThe second conjecture, that the writer of these books might have\ngathered up oral traditions of the earlier generations and incorporated\nthem into his writings, is more plausible; yet a careful examination of\nthe writings themselves does not confirm this theory. The form of this\nliterature shows that it must have had another origin.\n\nThe only remaining conjecture, that the books are compilations of\nwritten documents, has been established beyond controversy by the most\npatient study of the writings themselves. In the Book of Genesis the\nevidence of the combination of two documents is so obvious that he who\nruns may read. These two documents are distinguished from each other,\npartly by the style of writing, and partly by the different names which\nthey apply to the Supreme Being. One of these old writers called the\nDeity Elohim, the other called him Yahveh, or Jehovah. These documents\nare known, therefore, as the Elohistic and the Jehovistic narratives.\nSometimes it is a little difficult to tell where the line runs which\nseparates these narratives, but usually it is distinct. Readers of\nGenesis find many passages in which the name given to the Deity is\n\"God,\" and others in which it is \"LORD,\" in small capitals. The first of\nthese names represents the Hebrew Elohim, the second the Hebrew Yahveh\nor Jehovah. In one important section, beginning with the fourth verse of\nthe second chapter, and continuing through the chapter, the two names\nare combined, and we have the Supreme Being spoken of as \"The LORD God,\"\nJehovah-Elohim. It is evident to every observing reader that we have in\nthe beginning of Genesis two distinct accounts of the Creation, the one\noccupying the first chapter and three verses of the second, the other\noccupying the remainder of the second chapter with the whole of the\nthird. The difference between these accounts is quite marked. The style\nof the writing, particularly in the Hebrew, is strongly contrasted; and\nthe details of the story are not entirely harmonious. In the first\nnarrative the order of creation is, first the earth and its vegetation,\nthen the lower animals, then man, male and female, made in God's image.\nIn the second narrative the order is, first the earth and its\nvegetation, then man, then the lower orders of animals, then woman. In\nthe first story plant life springs into existence at the direct command\nof God; in the second it results from a mist which rose from the earth\nand watered the whole face of the ground. These striking differences\nwould be hard to explain if we had not before our faces the clear\nevidence of two old documents joined together.\n\nI spoke in the last chapter of certain historical discrepancies which\nare not explicable on the supposition that this is the work of a single\nwriter. Such are the two accounts of the origin of the name of\nBeersheba, the one in the twenty-first and the other in the twenty-sixth\nchapter of Genesis. The first account says that it was named by Abraham,\nand gives the reason why he called the place by this name. The second\naccount says that it received its name from Isaac, about ninety years\nlater, and gives a wholly different explanation of the reason why he\ncalled it by this name. When we find that in the first of these stories\nGod is called Elohim, [Footnote: In the last verse of this narrative the\nword Jehovah is used, but this is probably an interpolation.] and in the\nsecond Jehovah, we can readily explain this discrepancy. The compiler\ntook one of these narratives from one of these old documents, and the\nother from the other, and was not careful to reconcile the two.\n\nA similar duplication of the narrative is found in chapters xx. and\nxxvi., with respect to the incident of Abimelech; in the first of these\nnarratives a serious complication is described as arising between\nAbimelech King of Gerar on the one hand and Abraham and Sarah on the\nother; in the second Abimelech is represented as interfering, in\nprecisely the same way and with the same results, in the domestic\nfelicity of Isaac and Rebekah. The harmonizers have done their work, of\ncourse, upon these two passages; they have said that there were two\nAbimelechs, and that Isaac repeated the blunder of his father; but it is\na little singular, if this were so, that no reference is made in the\nlatter narrative to the former. It is altogether probable that we have\nthe same story ascribed to different actors; and when we find that the\none narrative is Elohistic and the other Jehovistic, the problem is\nsolved.\n\nMore curious than any other of these combinations is the account of the\nFlood, in which the compiler has taken the narratives of these two old\nwriters and pieced them together like patchwork. Refer to your Bibles\nand note this piece of literary joiner-work. At the fifth verse of the\nsixth chapter of Genesis this story begins; from this verse to the end\nof the eighth verse the Jehovistic document is used. The name of the\nDeity is Jehovah, translated LORD. From the ninth verse to the end of\nthe chapter the Elohistic document is used. The word applied to God is\nElohim, translated God. With the seventh chapter begins again the\nquotation from the other document, \"And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto\nNoah.\" This extends only to the sixth verse; then the Elohistic\nnarrative begins again, and continues to the nineteenth verse of the\neighth chapter, including it; then the Jehovistic narrative begins\nagain, and continues through the chapter; then the Elohist takes up the\ntale for the first seventeen verses of the ninth chapter; then the\nJehovist goes on to the twenty-seventh verse, and the Elohist closes the\nchapter. It is true that we have in the midst of some of these Elohistic\npassages a verse or two of the other document inserted by the compiler;\nbut the outlines of the different documents are marked as I have told\nyou. If you take this story and dissect out of it the portions which I\nhave ascribed to the Elohist and put them together, you will have a\nclear, complete, consecutive story of the Flood; the portions of the\nJehovistic narrative inserted rather tend to confusion. \"The\nconsideration of the context here,\" says Bleek, \"quite apart from the\nchanges in the naming of God, shows that the Jehovistic passages of the\nnarrative did not originally belong to it. It cannot fail to be observed\nthat the connection is often interrupted by the Jehovistic passages, and\nthat by cutting them out a more valuable and clearer continuity of the\nnarrative is almost always obtained. For instance, in the existing\nnarrative certain repetitions keep on occurring; one of these,\nespecially, is connected with a difference in the matters of fact\nrelated, introducing no slight difficulty and obscurity.\" [Footnote:\nVol. i. p. 273.]\n\nHear the Jehovist: \"And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great\nin the earth\" (ch. vi. 5). Now hear the Elohist (vi. 11): \"And the earth\nwas corrupt before Elohim, and the earth was filled with violence.\" The\nJehovist says (vi. 7): \"And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have\ncreated from the face of the ground.\" The Elohist says (vi. 13): \"The\nearth is filled with violence through them, and behold I will destroy\nthem with the earth.\" In the ninth verse of the sixth chapter we read:\n\"Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his generations; Noah walked\nwith Elohim.\" In the first verse of the seventh chapter, we read, \"And\nJehovah said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for\nthee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.\" These\nrepetitions show how the same story is twice told. But the\ncontradictions are more significant. Here the one narrative represents\nElohim as saying (vi. 19): \"And of every living thing of all flesh, two\nof every kind shalt thou bring into the ark to keep them alive with\nthee; they shall be male and female. Of the fowl after their kind and of\nthe cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after\nits kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee to keep them alive.\"\nBut the other narrative represents Jehovah as saying, \"Of every clean\nbeast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and the female;\nand of the beasts that are not clean, two, the male and the female; of\nthe fowl also of the air seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed\nalive upon the face of all the earth.\" The one story says that of every\nkind of living creature one pair should be taken into the ark; the other\nsays that of _clean_ beasts, seven pairs of each species should be\nreceived, and of unclean beasts only one pair. The harmonists have\nwrestled with this passage also; some of them say that perhaps the first\npassage only meant that they should _walk in_ two and two; others\nsay that a good many years had elapsed between the giving of the two\ncommands (of which there is not a particle of evidence), and we are left\nto infer that in the mean time the Almighty either forgot his first\norders, or else changed his mind. It is a pitiful instance of an attempt\nto evade a difficulty that cannot be evaded. One of the very\nconservative commentators, Dr. Perowne, in Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\"\nconcludes to face it: \"May we not suppose,\" he timidly asks, \"that we\nhave here traces of a separate document, interwoven by a later writer,\nwith the former history? The passage has not, indeed, been incorporated\nintact, but there is a coloring about it which seems to indicate that\nMoses, or whoever put the book of Genesis into its present shape, had\nhere consulted a different narrative. The distinct use of the divine\nnames in the same phrase (vi. 22; vii. 5), in the former Elohim, in the\nlatter Jehovah, suggests that this may have been the case.\" [Footnote:\nArt. \"Noah,\" iii. 2179, American Edition.]\n\n\"May we not suppose,\" the good doctor asks, that we have traces of two\ndocuments here? Certainly, your reverence. It is just as safe to suppose\nit, as it is to suppose, when you see a nose on a man's face, that it is\na nose. There is no more doubt about it than there is about any other\npalpable fact. The truth is, that the composite character of Genesis is\nno longer, in scholarly circles, an open question. The most cautious,\nthe most conservative of scholars concede the point. Even President\nBartlett, of Dartmouth College, a Hebraist of some eminence, and as\nsturdy a defender of old-fashioned orthodoxy as this country holds, made\nthis admission more than twenty years ago: \"We may accept the traces of\nearlier narratives as having been employed and authenticated by him\n[Moses]; and we may admit the marks of later date as indications of a\nsurface revision of authorized persons not later than Ezra and\nNehemiah.\" And Dr. Perowne, the conservative scholar already quoted, in\nthe article on the \"Pentateuch\" in \"Smith's Bible Dictionary,\" sums up\nas follows:--\n\n  \"1. The Book of Genesis rests chiefly on documents much earlier than\n      the time of Moses, though it was probably brought to very nearly\n      its present shape either by Moses himself, or by one of the\n      elders who acted under him.\n\n  \"2. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are to a great extent\n      Mosaic. Besides those portions which are expressly declared to\n      have been written by him, other portions, and especially the\n      legal sections, were, if not actually written, in all probability\n      dictated by him.\n\n  \"3. Deuteronomy, excepting the concluding part, is entirely the work\n      of Moses, as it professes to be.\n\n     .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .\n\n  \"5. The first _composition_ of the Pentateuch as a whole could\n      not have taken place till after the Israelites entered Canaan.\n\n  \"6. The whole work did not finally assume its present shape till its\n      revision was undertaken by Ezra after the return from the\n      Babylonish captivity.\"\n\nThe volume from which I have quoted these words bears the date of 1870.\nTwenty years of very busy work have been expended upon the Pentateuch\nsince Dr. Perowne wrote these words; if he were to write to-day he would\nbe much less confident that Moses wrote the whole of Deuteronomy, and he\nwould probably modify his statements in other respects; but he would\nretract none of these admissions respecting the composite character of\nthese five books.\n\nThe same fact of a combination of different documents can easily be\nshown in all the three middle books of the Pentateuch, as well as in\nGenesis. This is the fact which explains those repetitions of laws, and\nthose singular breaks in the history, to which I called your attention\nin the last chapter. There is, as I believe, a large element of purely\nMosaic legislation in these books; many of these laws were written\neither by the hand of Moses or under his eye; and the rest are so\nconformed to the spirit which he impressed upon the Hebrew jurisprudence\nthat they may be fairly called Mosaic; but many of them, on the other\nhand, were written long after his day, and the whole Pentateuch did not\nreach its present form until after the exile, in the days of Ezra and\nNehemiah.\n\nThe upholders of the traditional theory--that Moses wrote the\nPentateuch, just as Blackstone wrote his Commentaries--are wont to make\nmuch account of the disagreements of those critics who have undertaken\nto analyze it into its component parts. \"These critics,\" they say, \"are\nall at loggerheads; they do not agree with one another; none of them\neven agrees with himself very long; most of them have several times\nrevised their theories, and there seems to be neither certainty nor\ncoherency in their speculations.\" But this is not quite true. With\nrespect to some subordinate questions they are not agreed, and probably\nnever will be; but with respect to the fact that these books are\ncomposite in their origin they are perfectly agreed, and they are also\nremarkably unanimous in their judgments as to where the lines of\ncleavage run between these component parts. The consensus of critical\nopinion now is that there are at least four great documents which have\nbeen combined in the Pentateuch; and the critics agree in the main\nfeatures of the analysis, though they do not all call these separated\nparts by the same names, nor do they all think alike concerning the\nrelative antiquity of these portions. Some think that one of these\ndocuments is the oldest, and some give that distinction to another; nor\ndo they agree as to how old the oldest is, some bringing the earliest\ncomposition down to a recent period; but on the main question that the\nliterature is composite they are at one. The closeness of their\nagreement is shown by Professor Ladd in a series of tables [Footnote:\n_The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture_, Part II. chap. vii.] in which\nhe displays to the eye the results of the analysis of four independent\ninvestigators, Knobel, Schrader, Dillmann, and Wellhausen. He goes\nthrough the whole of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua,--the\nHexateuch, as it is now called,--and picks out of every chapter those\nverses assigned by these several authorities to that ancient writing\nwhich we have been calling the Elohistic narrative, and arranges them in\nparallel columns. You can see at a glance when they agree in this\nanalysis, and when they disagree. I think that you would be astonished\nto find that the agreements are so many and the disagreements so few. So\nmuch unity of judgment would be impossible if the lines of cleavage\nbetween these old documents were not marked with considerable\ndistinctness. \"The only satisfactory explanation,\" says Professor Ladd,\n\"of the possibility of accomplishing such a work of analysis is the fact\nthat the analysis is substantially correct.\" [Footnote: _What is the\nBible?_ p. 311.]\n\nProfessor C. A. Briggs, of the Union (Presbyterian) Theological Seminary\nin New York, bore this testimony three years ago in the \"Presbyterian\nReview:\" \"The critical analysis of the Hexateuch is the result of more\nthan a century of profound study of the documents by the greatest\ncritics of the age. There has been a steady advance until the present\nposition of agreement has been reached, in which Jew and Christian,\nRoman Catholic and Protestant, Rationalistic and Evangelical scholars,\nReformed and Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal, Unitarian, Methodist,\nand Baptist all concur. The analysis or the Hexateuch into several\ndistinct original documents is a purely literary question in which no\narticle of faith is involved. Whoever in these times, in the discussion\nof the literary phenomena of the Hexateuch, appeals to the ignorance and\nprejudices of the multitude as if there were any peril to faith in these\nprocesses of the Higher Criticism, risks his reputation for scholarship\nby so doing. There are no Hebrew professors on the continent of Europe,\nso far as I know, who would deny the literary analysis of the Pentateuch\ninto the four great documents. The professors of Hebrew in the\nUniversities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, and tutors in a large\nnumber of theological colleges, hold to the same opinion. A very\nconsiderable number of the Hebrew professors of America are in accord\nwith them. There are, indeed, a few professional scholars who hold to\nthe traditional opinion, but these are in a hopeless minority. I doubt\nwhether there is any question of scholarship whatever in which there is\ngreater agreement among scholars than in this question of the literary\nanalysis of the Hexateuch.\"\n\nI have but one more witness to introduce, and it shall be the\ndistinguished German professor Delitzsch, who has long been regarded as\nthe bulwark of evangelical orthodoxy in Germany. \"His name,\" says\nProfessor Ladd, \"has for many years been connected with the conception\nof a devout Christian scholarship used in the defense of the faith\nagainst attacks upon the supernatural character of the Old Testament\nreligion and of the writings which record its development.\" In a preface\nto his commentary on Isaiah published since his recent death, he speaks\nwith great humility of the work that he has done, adding, \"Of one thing\nonly do I think I may be confident,--that the spirit by which it is\nanimated comes from the good Spirit that guides along the everlasting\nway.\" The opinion of such a scholar ought to have weight with all\nserious-minded Christians. When I give you his latest word on this\nquestion, you will recognize that you have all that the ripest and most\ndevout scholarship can claim. Let me quote, then, Professor Ladd's\nabstract of his verdict:--\n\n\"In the opinion of Professor Delitzsch only the basis of the several\ncodes... incorporated in the Pentateuch is Mosaic; the form in which\nthese codes... are presented in the Pentateuch is of an origin much\nlater than the time of Moses. The Decalogue and the laws forming the\nBook of the Covenant are the most ancient portions; they preserve the\nMosaic type in its relatively oldest and purest form. Of this type\nDeuteronomy _is a development_. The statement that Moses 'wrote'\nthe Deuteronomic law (Deut. xxxi. 9, 24) _does not refer to the\npresent Book of Deuteronomy, but to the code of laws which underlies\nit_.\n\n\"The Priest's Code, which embodies the more distinctively ritualistic\nand ceremonial legislation, is the result of a long and progressive\ndevelopment. Certain of its principles originated with Moses, but its\nform, which is utterly unlike that of the other parts of the Pentateuch,\nwas received at the hands of the priests of the nation. Probably some\nparticular priest, at a much later date, indeed, than the time of Moses,\nbut prior to the composition of Deuteronomy, was especially influential\nin shaping it. But the last stages of its development may belong to the\nperiod after the Exile.\n\n\"The historical traditions which are incorporated into the Hexateuch\nwere committed to writing at different times and by different hands. The\nnarratives of them are superimposed, as it were, stratum upon stratum,\nin the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. For the Book of Joshua is\nconnected intimately with the Pentateuch, and when analyzed shows the\nsame composite structure. The differences which the several codes\nexhibit are due to modifications which they received in the course of\nhistory as they were variously collected, revised, and passed from\ngeneration to generation.... The Pentateuch, like all the other\nhistorical books of the Bible, is composed of documentary sources,\ndiffering alike in character and age, which critical analysis may still\nbe able, with greater or less certainty, to distinguish and separate\nfrom one another.\" [Footnote: _What is the Bible?_ pp. 489-491.]\n\nThat such is the fact with respect to the structure of these ancient\nwritings is now beyond question. And our theory of inspiration must be\nadjusted to this fact. Evidently neither the theory of verbal\ninspiration, nor the theory of plenary inspiration can be made to fit\nthe facts which a careful study of the writings themselves bring before\nus. These writings are not inspired in the sense which we have commonly\ngiven to that word. The verbal theory of inspiration was only tenable\nwhile they were supposed to be the work of a single author. To such a\ncomposite literature no such theory will apply. \"To make this claim,\"\nsays Professor Ladd, \"and yet accept the best ascertained results of\ncriticism, would compel us to take such positions as the following: The\noriginal authors of each one of the writings which enter into the\ncomposite structure were infallibly inspired; every one who made any\nchanges in any one of these fundamental writings was infallibly\ninspired; every compiler who put together two or more of these writings\nwas infallibly inspired, both as to his selections and transmissions\n[omissions?], and as to any connecting or explanatory words which he\nmight himself write; every redactor was infallibly inspired to correct\nand supplement and omit that which was the product of previous\ninfallible inspirations. Or perhaps it might seem more convenient to\nattach the claim of a plenary inspiration to the last redactor of all;\nbut then we should probably have selected of all others the one least\nable to bear the weight of such a claim. Think of making the claim for a\nplenary inspiration of the Pentateuch in its present form on the ground\nof the infallibility of that one of the Scribes who gave it its last\ntouches some time subsequent to the date of Ezra!\" [Footnote: _The\nDoctrine of Sacred Scripture_, i. 499]\n\nAnd yet this does not signify that these books are valueless. When it\nwas discovered that the Homeric writings were not all the work of Homer,\nthe value of the Homeric writings was not affected. As pictures of the\nlife of that remote antiquity they had not lost their significance. The\nvalue of these Mosaic books is of a very different sort from that of the\nHomeric writings, but the discoveries of the Higher Criticism affect\nthem no more seriously. Even their historical character is by no means\noverthrown. You can find in Herodotus and in Livy discrepancies and\ncontradictions, but this does not lead you to regard their writings as\nworthless. There are no infallible histories, but that is no reason why\nyou should not study history, or why you should read all history with\nthe inclination to reject every statement which is not forced on your\nacceptance by evidence which you cannot gainsay.\n\nThese books of Moses are the treasury, indeed, of no little valuable\nhistory. They are not infallible, but they contain a great deal of truth\nwhich we find nowhere else, and which is yet wonderfully corroborated by\nall that we do know. Ewald declares that in the fourteenth chapter of\nGenesis Abraham is brought before us \"in the clear light of history.\"\nFrom monuments and other sources the substantial accuracy of this\nnarrative is confirmed; and the account of the visit of Abraham to Egypt\nconforms, in all its minute incidents, to the life of Egypt at that\ntime. The name Pharaoh is the right name for the kings reigning then;\nthe behavior of the servants of Pharaoh is perfectly in keeping with the\npopular ideas and practices as the monuments reveal them. The story of\nJoseph has been confirmed, as to its essential accuracy, as to the\nverisimilitude of its pictures of Egyptian life, by every recent\ndiscovery. Georg Ebers declares that \"this narrative contains nothing\nwhich does not accurately correspond to a court of Pharaoh in the best\ntimes of the Kingdom.\" Many features of this narrative which a rash\nskepticism has assailed have been verified by later discoveries.\n\nWe are told in the Exodus that the Israelites were impressed by Pharaoh\ninto building for him two store-cities (\"treasure cities,\" the old\nversion calls them), named Pithom and Rameses, and that in this work they\nwere made to \"serve with rigor;\" that their lives were embittered \"with\nhard service in mortar and brick and all manner of hard service in the\nfield;\" that they were sometimes forced to make brick without straw. The\nwhereabouts of these store-cities, and the precise meaning of the term\napplied to them, has been a matter of much conjecture, and the story has\nsometimes been set aside as a myth. To Pithom there is no clear\nhistorical reference in any other book except Exodus. Only four or five\nyears ago a Genovese explorer unearthed, near the route of the Suez\nCanal, this very city; found several ruined monuments with the name of\nthe city plainly inscribed on them, \"Pi Tum,\" and excavating still\nfurther uncovered a ruin of which the following is Mr. Rawlinson's\ndescription: \"The town is altogether a square, inclosed by a brick wall\ntwenty-two feet thick, and measuring six hundred and fifty feet along\neach side. Nearly the whole of the space is occupied by solidly built,\nsquare chambers, divided one from another by brick walls, from eight to\nten feet thick, which are unpierced by window or door or opening of any\nkind. About ten feet from the bottom the walls show a row of recesses\nfor beams, in some of which decayed wood still remains, indicating that\nthe buildings were two-storied, having a lower room which could only be\nentered by a trap-door, used probably as a store-house, or magazine, and\nan upper one in which the keeper of the store may have had his abode.\nTherefore this discovery is simply that of a 'store-city,' built partly\nby Rameses II.; but it further appears from several short inscriptions,\nthat the name of the city was Pa Tum, or Pithom; and thus there is no\nreasonable doubt that one of the two cities built by the Israelites has\nbeen laid bare, and answers completely to the description given of it.\"\n[Footnote: Quoted by Robinson in _The Pharaohs of the Bondage_, p.\n97.]\n\nThe walls of Egypt were not all laid with mortar, but the record speaks\nof mortar in this case, and here it is: the several courses of these\nbuildings were usually \"laid with mortar in regular tiers.\" More\nstriking still is the fact that in some of these buildings, while the\nlower tiers are composed of bricks having straw in them, the upper tiers\nconsist of a poorer quality of bricks without straw. Photographs may be\nseen in this country of some of these brick granaries of this old\nstore-city of Pithom, with the line of division plainly showing between\nthe two kinds of bricks; and thus we have before our eyes a most striking\nconfirmation of the truth of this story of the bondage of the Israelites\nin Egypt. Quite a number of such testimonies to the substantial\nhistorical verity of these Old Testament records have been discovered in\nrecent years as old mounds have been opened in Egypt and in Chaldea, and\nthe monuments of buried centuries have told their story to the wondering\nworld. The books are not infallible, but he who sets them all aside as a\ncollection of myths or fables exposes his ignorance in a lamentable way.\n\nBut what is far more to the purpose, the ideas running all through the\nold literature, the constructive truths of science, of ethics, of\nreligion, are pure and lofty and full of saving power. Even science, I\nsay, owes much to Genesis. The story of the Creation in the first\nchapter of Genesis must not indeed be taken for veritable history; but\nit is a solemn hymn in which some great truths of the world's origin are\nsublimely set forth. It gives us the distinct idea of the unity of\nCreation,--sweeping away, at one mighty stroke, the whole system of\nnaturalistic polytheism, which makes science impossible, when it\ndeclares that \"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.\"\nIn the same words it sets forth the truth by whose light science alone\nwalks safely, that the source of all things is a spiritual cause. The\nGod from whose power all things proceed is not a fortuitous concourse of\natoms, but a spiritual intelligence. From this living God came forth\nmatter with its forces, life with its organisms, mind with its freedom.\nAnd although it may not be possible to force the words of this ancient\nhymn into scientific statements of the order of creation, it is most\nclear that it implies a continuous process, a law of development, in the\ngenerations of the heaven and the earth. This is not a scientific\ntreatise of creation, but the alphabet of science is here, as Dr. Newman\nSmyth has said; and it is correct. The guiding lights of scientific\nstudy are in these great principles.\n\nSimilarly the ethical elements and tendencies of these old writings are\nsound and strong. I have shown you how defective many of the Mosaic laws\nare when judged by Christian standards; but all this legislation\ncontains formative ideas and principles by which it tends to purify\nitself. Human sacrifices were common among the surrounding nations; the\nstory of Abraham and Isaac banishes that horror forever from Hebrew\nhistory. Slavery was universal, but the law of the Jubilee Year made an\nend of domestic slavery in Israel. The family was foundationless; the\nwife's rights rested wholly on the caprice of her husband; but that law\nof divorce which I quoted to you, and which our Lord repealed, set some\nbounds to this caprice, for the husband was compelled to go through\ncertain formalities before he could turn his wife out of doors. The law\nof blood vengeance, though in terms it authorized murder, yet in effect\npowerfully restrained the violence of that rude age, and gave a chance\nfor the development of that idea of the sacredness of life which to us\nis a moral commonplace, but which had scarcely dawned upon the minds of\nthose old Hebrews. Thus the history shows a people moving steadily\nforward under moral leadership, out of barbarism into higher\ncivilization, and we can trace the very process by which the moral\nmaxims which to us are almost axioms have been cleared of the crudities\nof passion and animalism, and stamped upon the consciousness of men. Is\nnot God in all this history?\n\nThose first principles which I have called the guiding lights of science\nare also the elements of pure religion. Science and religion spell out\ndifferent messages to men, but they start with the same alphabet. And\nthe religious purity of that hymn of the Creation is not less wonderful\nthan its scientific verity. Compare it with the other traditional\nstories of the origin of things; compare it with the mythologies of\nEgypt, of Chaldea, of Greece and Rome, and see how far above them it\nstands in spiritual dignity, in moral beauty. \"We could more easily,\nindeed,\" says Dr. Newman Smyth, \"compute how much a pure spring welling\nup at the source of a brook that widens into a river, has done for\nmeadow and grass and flowers and overhanging trees, for thousands of\nyears, than estimate the influence of this purest of all ancient\ntraditions of the Creation, as it has entered into the lives and revived\nthe consciences of men; as it has purified countries of idolatries and\nswept away superstition; and has flowed on and on with the increasing\ntruth of history, and kept fresh and fruitful, from generation to\ngeneration, faith in the One God and the common parentage of men.\"\n[Footnote: _Old Faiths in New Light_, p. 73.]\n\nAbove all, we find in all this literature the planting and the first\ngermination of that great hope which turned the thought of this people\nfrom the earliest generations toward the future, and made them trust and\npray and wait, in darkest times, for better days to come. \"Speak unto\nthe children of Israel that they go forward!\" This is the voice that is\nalways sounding from the heights above them, whether they halt by the\nshore of the sea, or bivouac in the wilderness. They do not always obey\nthe voice, but it never fails to rouse and summon them. No people of all\nhistory has lived in the future as Israel did. \"By faith\" they worshiped\nand trusted and wrought and fought, the worthies of this old religion;\ntowards lands that they had not seen they set their faces; concerning\nthings to come they were always prophesying; and it is this great hope\nthat forms the germ of the Messianic expectation by which they reach\nforth to the glories of the latter day. This attitude of Israel, in all\nthe generations, is the one striking feature of this history. No\nsoulless sphinx facing a trackless desert with blind eyes--no impassive\nBuddha ensphered in placid silence--is the genius of this people, but\nsome strong angel poised on mighty pinion above the highest peak of\nPisgah, and scanning with swift glances the beauty of the promised land.\nNow any people of which this is true must be, in a large sense of the\nword, an inspired people; and their literature, with all the signs of\nimperfection which must appear in it, on account of the medium through\nwhich it comes, will give proof of the divine ideas and forces that are\nworking themselves out in their history.\n\nIt is in this large way of looking at the Hebrew literature that we\ndiscover its real preciousness. And when we get this large conception,\nthen petty questions about the absolute accuracy of texts and dates no\nlonger trouble us. \"He who has once gained this broader view of the\nBible,\" says Dr. Newman Smyth, \"as the development of a course of\nhistory itself guided and inspired by Jehovah, will not be disconcerted\nby the confused noises of the critic. His faith in the Word of God lies\ndeeper than any difficulties or flaws upon the surface of the Bible. He\nwill not be disturbed by seeing any theory of its mechanical formation,\nor school-book infallibility broken to fragments under the repeated\nblows of modern investigation; the water of life will flow from the rock\nwhich the scholar strikes with his rod. He can wait, without fear, for a\ncandid and thorough study of these sacred writings to determine, if\npossible, what parts are genuine, and what narratives, if any, are\nunhistorical. His belief in the Word of God, from generation to\ngeneration, does not depend upon the minor incidents of the Biblical\nstories; it would not be destroyed or weakened, even though human\ntraditions could be shown to have overgrown some parts of this sacred\nhistory, as the ivy, creeping up the wall of the church, does not loosen\nits ancient stones.\" [Footnote: _Old Faiths in New Light_, p. 59.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE EARLIER HEBREW HISTORIES.\n\n\n\nWe found reasons, in previous chapters, for believing that considerable\nportions of the Levitical legislation came from the hands of Moses,\nalthough the narratives of the Pentateuch and many of its laws were put\ninto their present form long after the time of Moses. The composite\ncharacter of all this old literature has been demonstrated. The fact\nthat its materials were collected from several sources, by a process\nextending through many centuries, and that the work of redaction was not\ncompleted until the people returned from the exile about five centuries\nbefore Christ, and almost a thousand years after the death of Moses, are\nfacts now as well established as any other results of scholarly\nresearch.\n\nNevertheless, we have maintained that the Israelites possessed, when\nthey entered Canaan, a considerable body of legislation framed under the\neye of Moses and bearing his name. Throughout the Book of Joshua this\nlegislation is frequently referred to. If the Book of Joshua was, as we\nhave assumed, originally connected with the first five books,\nconstituting what is now called the Hexateuch, if these six books were\nput into their present form by the same writers, we should expect that\nthe Mosaic legislation would be clearly traced through all these books.\n\nBut when we go forward in this history we come at once upon a remarkable\nfact.  The Book of Judges, the Book of Ruth, and the two books of Samuel\ncover a period of Jewish history estimated in our common chronology at\nmore than four hundred years, and in these four books there is no\nmention whatever of that Mosaic legislation which constituted, as we\nhave supposed, the germ of the Pentateuch. The name of Moses is\nmentioned only six times in these four books; twice in the early\nchapters of the Judges in connection with the settlement of the kindred\nof his wife in Canaan; once in a reference to an order given by Moses\nthat Hebron should be given to Caleb; twice in a single passage in I\nSamuel xii., where Moses and Aaron are referred to as leaders of the\npeople out of Egyptian bondage, and once in Judges iii. 4, where it is\nsaid that certain of the native races were left in Canaan, \"to prove\nIsrael by them, whether they would hearken to the commandments of the\nLord which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.\" This last\nis the only place in all these books where there is the faintest\nallusion to any legislation left to the Israelites by Moses; and this\nreference does not make it clear whether the \"commandments\" referred to\nwere written or oral. The word \"law\" is not found in these four books.\nThere is nothing in any of these books to indicate that the children of\nIsrael possessed any written laws. There are, indeed, in Ruth and in the\nJudges frequent accounts of observances that are enjoined in the\nPentateuch; and in Samuel we read of the tabernacle and the ark and the\noffering of sacrifices; the history tells us that some of the things\ncommanded in the Mosaic law were observed during this period; but when\nwe look in these books for any reference or appeal to the sacred\nwritings of Moses, or to any other sacred writings, or to any laws or\nstatutes or written ordinances for the government of the people, we look\nin vain. Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul and afterward David as Kings\nof Israel; but if, on these solemn occasions, he said anything about the\nwritings of Moses or the law of Moses, the fact is not mentioned. The\nrecords afford us no ground for affirming that either Samuel or Saul was\naware of the existence of such sacred writings.\n\nThis is a notable fact. That the written law of Moses should, for four\ncenturies of Hebrew history, have disappeared so completely from notice\nthat the historian did not find it necessary to make any allusion to it,\nis a circumstance that needs explanation.\n\nIt is true, as I have said, that during this period certain observances\nrequired by the law were kept more or less regularly. But it is also\ntrue that many of the most specific and solemn requirements of the law\nwere neglected or violated during all these years by the holiest men.\nThe Mosaic law utterly forbids the offering of sacrifices at any other\nplace than the central sanctuary, the tabernacle or the temple; but the\nnarrative of these early historical books shows all the saints and\nheroes of the earlier history building altars, and offering sacrifices\nfreely in many places, with no apparent consciousness of\ntransgression,--nay, with the strongest assurance of the divine approval.\n\"Samuel,\" says Professor Robertson Smith, \"sacrifices on many high places,\nSaul builds altars, David and his son Solomon permit the worship at the\nhigh places to continue, and the historian recognizes this as legitimate\nbecause the temple was not yet built (I Kings iii. 2-4). In Northern\nIsrael this state of things was never changed. The high places were an\nestablished feature in the Kingdom of Ephraim, and Elijah himself\ndeclares that the destruction of the altars of Jehovah--all illegitimate\naccording to the Pentateuch--is a breach of Jehovah's covenant.\"\n[Footnote: _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, pp. 220, 221.]\n\nAccording to the Levitical law it was positively unlawful for any person\nbut the high priest ever to go into the innermost sanctuary, the holy of\nholies, where the ark of God was kept; and the high priest could go into\nthat awful place but once a year. But we find the boy Samuel actually\nsleeping \"in the temple of the Lord where the ark of the Lord was.\" The\nold version conceals this fact by a mistranslation. These are only a few\nof many violations of the Pentateuchal legislation which we find\nrecorded in these books.\n\nFrom the silence of these earlier histories concerning the law of Moses,\nand from these many transgressions, by the holiest men, of the positive\nrequirements of the Pentateuchal legislation, the conclusion has been\ndrawn by recent critics that the Pentateuchal legislation could not have\nbeen in existence during this period of history; that it must have been\nproduced at a later day. It must be admitted that they make out a strong\ncase. For reasons presented in the second chapter, I am unable to accept\ntheir theory. It is probable, however, that the code of laws in\nexistence at this time was a limited and simple code--no such elaborate\nritual as that which we now find in the Pentateuch; and that those\nparticular requirements with respect to which the earlier Judges and\nSamuel and David appear to behave themselves so disorderly, had not then\nbeen enacted.\n\nMoreover, it seems to be necessary to admit that there was a surprising\namount of popular ignorance respecting even those portions of the law\nwhich were then in existence. This is the astonishing phenomenon.\nAttempts are made to illustrate it by the ignorance of the Bible which\nprevailed among our own ancestors before the invention of printing; but\nno parallel can be found, as I believe, in the medi\u00e6val history of\nEurope. It is true that many of the common people were altogether\nunfamiliar with the Bible in medi\u00e6val times; but we cannot conceive of\nsuch a thing as that the priests, the learned men, and the leaders of\nthe church at that time, should have been unaware of the existence of\nsuch a book.\n\nOn his death-bed David is said to have admonished Solomon (I Kings ii.\n3), that he should keep the statutes and commandments of the Lord,\n\"according to that which is written in the law of Moses.\" This is the\nfirst reference to the Mosaic law which we find in connection with the\nhistory of David; the first mention of a written law since the death of\nJoshua, four centuries before. After this there are three other casual\nallusions to the law of Moses in the first book of Kings, and four in\nthe second book. The books of Chronicles, which follow the Kings,\ncontain frequent allusions to the law; but these books, as we shall see\nby and by, were written long afterward; and the tradition which they\nembody cannot be so safe a guide as that of the earlier histories. It is\nin Chronicles that we learn of the attempt which was made by one of the\ngood kings of Judah, Jehoshaphat, to have certain princes, priests, and\nLevites appointed to teach the law; they went about the land, it is\nsaid, teaching the people, \"and had the book of the law of Jehovah with\nthem.\" I think that this is the first intimation, after the death of\nMoses, that the law delivered by him had been publicly taught or even\nread in connection with the ordinances of worship. The earlier narrative\nof Jehoshaphat's reign, which we find in the Book of the Kings, makes no\nallusion to this circumstance.\n\nNearly three hundred years after Jehoshaphat, and nearly five hundred\nyears after David, the young King Josiah was reigning in Jerusalem. The\ntemple had fallen into ruin, and the good king determined to have it\nrepaired. Hilkiah, the high priest, who was rummaging among the rubbish\nof the dilapidated sanctuary, found there the Book of the Law of the\nLord. The surprise which he manifests at this discovery, the trepidation\nof Shaphan the scribe, who hastens to tell the king about it, and the\nconsternation of the king when he listens for the first time in his life\nto the reading of the book, and discovers how grievously its\ncommandments have been disobeyed, form one of the most striking scenes\nof the old history. \"How are we to explain,\" asks Dr. Perowne, \"this\nsurprise and alarm in the mind of Josiah, betraying, as it does, such\nutter ignorance of the Book of the Law and the severity of its\nthreatenings,--except on the supposition that as a written document it\nhad well-nigh perished?\" [Footnote: Smith's _Bible Dictionary_,\nart. \"Pentateuch.\"] Undoubtedly \"the Book of the Law\" thus discovered\nwas that body of legislation which lies at the heart of the Deuteronomic\ncode; and this was never again lost sight of by the Jewish people. It\nwas less than fifty years after this that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the\ncity and the temple and carried the people away into captivity. And it\nwas not until their return from the Captivity, seventy years later, that\nthese sacred writings began to assume that place of eminence in the\nreligious system of the Jews which they have held in later times. The\nman by whom the Jews were taught to cherish and study these writings was\nEzra, one of the returning exiles. This Ezra, the record says, \"was a\nready scribe in the law of Moses which the Lord God of Israel had\ngiven,\" and \"he had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and\nto do it and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.\" He it was, no\ndoubt, who gave to these laws their last revision, and who put the\nPentateuch substantially into the shape in which we have it now.\nDoubtless much was added at this time; ritual rules which had been\nhanded down orally were written out and made part of the code; the\nPentateuch, after the Exile, was a more elaborate law book than that\nwhich Hilkiah found in the old temple. Under the presidency of Ezra in\nJerusalem, and in the days which followed, the Book of the Law was\nexalted; it was the standard of authority; it was read in the temple and\nexplained in the synagogues; its writings were woven into all the\nthought and life of the people of Israel; there never has been a time\nsince that day when the history of the reign of any king could have been\nwritten without mentioning the law of Moses; there never has been a\ndecade when any adequate account of the life of the Jewish people could\nhave been given which would not bring this book constantly into view.\n\nThis Book of the Law, as finally completed by Ezra and his co-laborers,\nwas the foundation of the Hebrew Scriptures; it possessed a sacredness\nin the eyes of the Jews far higher than that pertaining to any other\npart of their writings. Next to this in age and importance was the great\ndivision of their Scriptures known by them as _\"The Prophets.\"_\n\nAfter the Book of the Law was given to the people with great solemnity,\nin the days of Ezra, and the public reading and explanation of it became\na principal part of the worship of the Jews, it began to be noised\nabroad that there were certain other sacred writings worthy to be known\nand treasured. The only information we have concerning the beginning of\nthis second collection is found in one of the apocryphal books, the\nsecond of Maccabees (ii. 14), in which we are told that Neemias\n(Nehemiah), in \"founding a library, gathered together the acts of the\nkings, and [the writings of] the prophets, and of David, and the\nepistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts.\" These last named\ndocuments are not now in existence. They appear to have been the letters\nand commissions of Babylonian and Persian kings respecting the return of\nthe people to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. The other\nwritings mentioned are, however, all known to us, and are included in\nour collection. It is not certain that Nehemiah began this collection;\nit may have been initiated before his day, and the \"founding\" of the\nlibrary may have been only the work of providing for the preservation\nand arrangement of books already in his possession. This second\ncollection of sacred writings, called The Prophets, was divided, as I\nhave before stated, into the Earlier and the Later Prophets; the former\nsubdivision containing the books of Joshua, [Footnote: Joshua, although\noriginally a portion of the pentateuchal literature, was, about the time\nof the Exile, separated from the first five books, and put into this\nlater collection.] Judges, Samuel, and Kings; the latter, the books\nwhich we now regard and class as the prophecies. Ruth was at first\nconsidered as a part of the Judges, and was included among the \"Earlier\nProphets,\" and Lamentations was appended to Jeremiah, and included among\nthe \"Later Prophets.\" These two books were afterward removed from this\ncollection, for liturgical reasons, and placed in the third group of\nwritings, of which we shall speak farther on.\n\nIt is probable that the prophetic writings proper were first collected;\nbut it will be more convenient to speak first of the books known to the\nJews as the \"Earlier Prophets,\" and to us as the Old Testament\nHistories,--Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and the Kings.\n\nThese books take up the history of Israel at the death of Joshua, and\ncontinue it to the time of the Captivity, a period of more than eight\ncenturies. Some of the critics are inclined to connect them all together\nas successive volumes of one great history; but there is not much\nfoundation for this judgment, and it is better to treat them separately.\n\nThe Book of Judges contains the annals of the Israelites after the death\nof Joshua, and covers a period of three or four centuries. It was a\nperiod of disorder and turbulence,--the \"Dark Ages\" of Jewish history;\nwhen every man, as the record often says, \"did that which was right in\nhis own eyes.\" There is frequent mention of the keeping of various\nobservances enjoined in the laws of Moses; but there is no express\nmention of these laws in the book. The story is chiefly occupied with\nthe northern tribes; no mention is made of Judah after the third\nchapter; and it is largely a recital of the various wars of deliverance\nand defense waged by these northern Hebrews against the surrounding\npeoples, under certain leaders who arose, in a providential way, to take\ncommand of them.\n\nThe questions, Who wrote it? and When was it written? are not easily\nanswered. It would appear that portions of it must have been written\nafter the time of Saul, for the phrase, frequently repeated, \"there was\nthen no king in the land,\" looks back from a period when there\n_was_ a king in the land. And it would appear that the first\nchapter must have been written before the middle of the reign of King\nDavid; for it tells us that the Jebusites had not yet been driven out of\nJerusalem; that they still held that stronghold; while in 2 Samuel v. 6,\n7, we are told of the expulsion of the Jebusites by David, who made the\nplace his capital from that time. The tradition that Samuel wrote the\nbook rests on no adequate foundation.\n\nThe evidence that this book also was compiled, by some later writer,\nfrom various written documents, is abundant and convincing. There are\ntwo distinct introductions, one of which comprises the first chapter and\nfive verses of the second, and the other of which occupies the remainder\nof the second chapter. The first of these begins thus: \"And it came to\npass after the death of Joshua that the children of Israel asked of the\nLord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites, to fight\nagainst them?\" The second of these introductions begins by telling how\nJoshua sent the people away, after his farewell address, and goes on\n(ii. 8) to say, \"And Joshua the son of Nun the servant of the Lord died,\nbeing an hundred and ten years old.\" After recounting a number of events\nwhich happened, as it tells us, after the death of Joshua, the narrative\ngoes on to give us as naively as possible an account of Joshua's death.\nIf this were a consecutive narrative from the hand of one writer,\ninspired or otherwise, such an arrangement would be inexplicable; but if\nwe have here a combination of two or more independent documents, the\nexplanation is not difficult. It is a little puzzling, too, to find the\ncircumstances of the death of Joshua repeated here, in almost the same\nwords as those which we find in the Book of Joshua (xxiv. 29-31). It\nwould seem either that the writer of Joshua must have copied from\nJudges, or the writer of Judges from Joshua, or else that both copied\nfrom some older document this account of Joshua's death.\n\nAnother still more striking illustration of the manner in which these\nold books are constructed is found in the account given in the first\nchapter of the capture of Debir, by Caleb (i. 11-15). Here it is\nexpressly said that this capture took place after the death of Joshua,\nas a consequence of the leadership assigned by Jehovah to the tribe of\nJudah in this war against the Canaanites. But the same narrative, in the\nsame words, is found in the Book of Joshua (xv. 15-19), and here we are\ntold no less explicitly that the incident happened during the lifetime\nof Joshua. There is no doubt that the incident happened; it is a simple\nand natural story, and carries the marks of credibility upon its face;\nbut if it happened after the death of Joshua it did not happen before\nhis death; one of these narrators borrowed the story from the other, or\nelse both borrowed it from a common source; and one of them, certainly,\nput it in the wrong place,--one of them must have been mistaken as to\nthe time when it occurred. Such a mistake is of no consequence at all to\none who holds a rational theory of inspiration; he expects to find in\nthese old documents just such errors and misplacements; they do not in\nthe least affect the true value of the book; but it must be obvious to\nany one that instances of this nature cannot be reconciled with the\ntheory of an infallible book, which has been generally regarded as the\nonly true theory.\n\nThe book is of the utmost value as showing us the state of morals and\nmanners in that far-off time, and letting us see with what crude\nmaterial the great ideas committed to Israel--the unity and spirituality\nand righteousness of God--were compelled to work themselves out.\n\nThe Book of Ruth, which was formerly, in the Jewish collections,\nregarded as a part of the Book of Judges, is a beautiful pastoral idyl\nof the same period. Its scene is laid in Judea, and it serves to show us\nthat in the midst of all those turbulent ages there were quiet homes and\ngentle lives. No sweeter story can be found in any literature; maternal\ntenderness, filial affection, genuine chivalry, find in the book their\ntypical representatives. The first sentence of the book gives us the\napproximate date of the incidents recorded: it was \"in the days when the\njudges judged.\" The concluding verses give us the genealogy of King\nDavid, showing that Ruth was his great-grandmother; it must, therefore,\nhave been written as late as the reign of David,--probably much later;\nfor it describes, as if they belonged to a remote antiquity, certain\nusages of the Jews which must needs have shaped themselves after the\noccupation of Canaan. Yet it could scarcely have been written so late as\nthe Captivity, for the marriage of Ruth, who is a Moabitess, to Boaz, is\nmentioned as if it were a matter of course, with no hint of censure. In\nthe latter days of Israel such an alliance of a Jew with a foreigner\nwould have been regarded as highly reprehensible. Indeed the\nDeuteronomic law most stringently forbids all social relations with that\nparticular tribe to which Ruth belonged. \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall\nnot enter into the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation\nshall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of the Lord for\never.... Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy\ndays for ever.\" (Deut. xxiii. 3, 6.) But Ruth, the Moabitess, becomes\nthe wife of one of the chief men of Bethlehem, with the applause of all\nthe Bethlehemites, and the highest approval of the author of this\nnarrative; nay, she becomes, in the fourth generation, the ancestress of\nthe greatest of all the kings of Israel. This certainly shows that the\npeople of Bethlehem did not know of the Deuteronomic law, for they were\na God-fearing and a law-abiding people; and it also makes it probable\nthat the incident occurred, and that the book which describes the\nincident was written, before this part of the Deuteronomic code was in\nexistence. It is therefore valuable, not only as throwing light on the\nlife of the people at that early period, but also as illustrating the\ngrowth of the pentateuchal literature.\n\nThe two Books of Samuel and the two Books of Kings appear in the\nSeptuagint and in the Latin Vulgate as one work in four volumes,--they\nare called the Four Books of Kings. In the recent Hebrew Bibles they are\ndivided, however, as in our Bible, and bear the same names. They\nconstitute, it is true, a continuous history; but the supposition that\nthey were all written at one time and by one author is scarcely\ncredible. The standpoint of the writer of the Kings is considerably\nshifted from that occupied by the writer of Samuel; we find ourselves in\na new circle of ideas when we pass from the one book to the other.\n\nThe Books of Samuel are generally ascribed to Samuel as their author.\nThis is a fair sample of that lazy traditionalism which Christian\nopinion has been constrained to follow. There is not the slightest\nreason for believing that the Books of Samuel were written by Samuel any\nmore than that the Odyssey was written by Ulysses, or the \u00c6neid by\n\u00c6neas, or Bruce's Address by Bruce, or Paracelsus by Paracelsus, or St.\nSimeon Stylites by Simeon himself. Even in Bible books we do not hold\nthat the Book of Esther was written by Esther, or the Book of Ruth by\nRuth, or the Book of Job by Job, or the Books of Timothy by Timothy. The\nfact that Samuel's name is given to the book proves nothing as to its\nauthorship. It may have been called Samuel because it begins with the\nstory of Samuel. The Hebrews were apt to name their books by some word\nor fact at the beginning of them, as we have seen in their naming of the\nbooks of the Pentateuch.\n\nIt is true that certain facts are mentioned in this book of which Samuel\nwould have better knowledge than any one else; and he is said to have\nmade a record of certain events, (I Sam. x. 25.) But his death is\nrelated in the first verse of the twenty-fifth chapter of First Samuel;\nand it is certain, therefore, that considerably more than half of the\ndocument ascribed to him must have been written by some one else.\n\nAs to the name of the writer we are wholly ignorant, and it is not easy\nto determine the date at which he wrote. If we regarded this as a\ncontinuous history from the hand of one writer, we should be compelled\nto ascribe it to a date somewhat later than the separation of the two\nkingdoms; for in I Sam. xxvii. 6, we read of the present made by the\nking of Gath to David of the city of Ziklag, at the time when David was\nhiding from Saul; \"wherefore,\" it is added, \"Ziklag pertaineth unto the\nkings of Judah even unto this day.\" Now there were no \"kings of Judah\"\nuntil after the ten tribes seceded; Rehoboam was the first of the kings\nof Judah, therefore this must have been written after the time of\nRehoboam. Doubtless this sentence was written after that time; and in\nall probability the books of Samuel did not receive their present form\nuntil some time after the secession of the ten tribes. The materials\nfrom which the writer composed the book are hinted at here and there; it\nis almost certain that here, as in the other books, old documents are\ncombined by the author, and not always with the best editorial care.\nSeveral old songs are quoted: the \"Song of Hannah,\" David's exquisite\nlament over Saul and Jonathan, which is known as \"The Bow;\" David's\n\"Song of Deliverance,\" after he had escaped from Saul, which we find in\nthe Psalter as the Eighteenth Psalm, and \"The Last Words of David.\" The\nbooks contain a vivid narrative of the times of Eli and Samuel and Saul,\nand of the splendid reign of King David. No portion of the Old Testament\nhas been more diligently studied, and the moral teaching of the books is\nclear and luminous. The ethical thoroughness of these writings when\ncompared with almost any literature of equal antiquity is always\nremarkable. Take, as an example, the treatment which David receives at\nthe hands of the writer. He is a great hero, the one grand figure of\nHebrew history; but there is nothing of the demigod in this picture of\nhim; his faults and crimes are exposed and denounced, and he gains our\nrespect only by his hearty contrition and amendment. Verily the God of\nIsrael whom this book reveals is a God who loveth righteousness and\nhateth iniquity.\n\nThe Books of the Kings were originally one book, and ought to have\nremained one. The manuscript was torn in two by some scribe or copyist\nlong ago, in the middle of the story of the reign of King Ahaziah; the\nfirst word of Second Kings goes on without so much as taking breath,\nfrom the last word of First Kings. There is no excuse for this bisection\nof the narrative; it must be due to some accident, or to the arbitrary\nand unintelligent act of some person who paid no attention to the\nmeaning of the document. As the Books of Samuel carry the history from\nthe birth of Samuel down to the end of David's reign, so the Books of\nthe Kings take up the story in the last days of David and carry it on to\nthe time of the Exile, a period of four hundred and fifty years. The\nname of the author is concealed from us; there is a tradition, not\naltogether improbable, that it was written by the Prophet Jeremiah. If\nyou will compare the last chapter of Second Kings with the last chapter\nof Jeremiah, you will discover that they are almost verbally the same.\nHere, again, if Jeremiah was not the author, either writer may have\ncopied the passage from the other, or both may have taken it from some\nolder book. But this passage gives us a note of time. It tells us that\nEvil-Merodach, king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, released\nthe captive king of Judah, Jehoiachin, from his long confinement, and\ngave him a seat at his own table. The book must have been written, then,\nafter the beginning of the reign of Evil-Merodach; and there is plenty\nof history to show that his reign began 561 B.C. And inasmuch as the\nbook gives no hint of the return of the Jews from their captivity, which\nbegan in 538 B.C., we may fairly conclude that the book was written some\ntime between those dates. Let us suppose that Jeremiah wrote it; even\nhe, as prophet of the Lord, certainly used the materials of history\nwhich had accumulated in the archives of the two nations.\n\nIt is evident that, after the establishment of the kingdom, considerable\nattention was paid to the preservation of the records of important\nnational events. The kings kept chroniclers who not only preserved and\nedited old documents, but who wrote the annals of their own times. In I\nKings xi. 41, at the conclusion of the narrative of Solomon's reign, we\nread, \"Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his\nwisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?\" For\nhis history of Jeroboam the writer refers in the same way to \"The Book\nof the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel,\" and for his history of\nRehoboam to \"The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.\" The same\nis true of the reigns of other kings. These were not, of course, our\nBooks of Chronicles, for these were not written for two hundred years\nafter the Book of Kings was finished. It is thus evident, as one modern\nwriter has said, \"that the author laboriously employed the materials\nwithin his reach, very much as a modern historian might do, and further\nthat he was as much puzzled by chronological difficulties as a modern\nhistorian frequently is.\" [Footnote: Horton's _Inspiration and the\nBible_, p. 182.] Prophet or not, he took the materials at his hands,\nand put them together in this history.\n\nThe splendid but corrupt reign of the son of David; the secession of the\nten tribes under Jeroboam; the hostile relations of the two kingdoms of\nIsrael and Judah for two hundred and fifty years, by which both were\nweakened, and through unholy alliances corrupted, and the result of\nwhich was the final destruction of both, are described in this book in a\nspirited and evidently veracious manner. The two great prophets, Elijah\nand Elisha, are grand figures in this narrative; much of the story\nrevolves around them. As witnesses for the righteous Jehovah they stand\nforth, warning, rebuking, counseling kings and people; the moral\nleadership by which Israel is chastened and corrected and led in the way\nof righteousness expresses itself largely through their ministry. The\nwords of Lord Arthur Hervey, in Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\" none too\nstrongly convey the historian's sense of the value of this part of the\nOld Testament:--\n\n\"Considering the conciseness of the narrative and the simplicity of the\nstyle, the amount of the knowledge which these books convey of the\ncharacters, conduct, and manners of kings and people during so long a\nperiod is truly wonderful. The insight which they give us into the\naspect of Judah and Jerusalem, both natural and artificial, with the\nreligious, military, and civil institutions of the people, their arts\nand manufactures, the state of education and learning among them, their\nresources, commerce, exploits, alliances, the causes of their decadence,\nand finally of their ruin, is most clear, interesting, and instructive.\nIn a few brief sentences we acquire more accurate knowledge of the\naffairs of Egypt, Tyre, Syria, Assyria, Babylon, and other neighboring\nnations than had been preserved to us in all the other remains of\nantiquity up to the recent discoveries in hieroglyphical and cuneiform\nmonuments.\" [Footnote: Vol. iii. p. 1561, American Edition.]\n\nThe substantial historical veracity of these books has been confirmed in\nmany ways by these very monuments to which Lord Hervey refers. And yet\nthis substantial historical accuracy is found, as in other histories of\nthe olden time, in the midst of many minor errors and discrepancies. It\nwould seem as if Providence had taken the utmost pains to show us that\nthe essential truth and the moral and religious value of this history\ncould not be identified with any theory of verbal or even plenary\ninspiration.\n\nTake, for example, some of the chronological items of this record. Mr.\nHorton's clear statement will bring a few of them before us:--\n\n\"The author seems to have been content, in dealing with an Israelite\nking, to give the date reckoned by the year of the reigning king in\nJudah just as he found it stated in the Israelite chronicles, and then\nto do the same in dealing with the dates of the reigning kings of\nIsrael; but he did not consider whether the two chronicles harmonized.\nWe may take some illustrations from the latter part of the work. Hoshea\nbegan to reign in Israel (2 Kings xv. 30) in the twentieth year of\nJotham the king of Judah. So far writes our author, following the\nrecords of the Northern Kingdom. For his next paragraph he turns to his\nrecords of the Southern Kingdom, and naively tells us that Jotham never\nreached a twentieth year, but only reigned sixteen years (xv. 33); but\neven this is not the end of the difficulty; in chapter xvii. he goes\nback to the Northern Kingdom and tells us that Hoshea began to reign,\nnot in Jotham's reign at all, but in the reign of Ahaz, Jotham's\nsuccessor; and if now he had said, 'in the fourth year of Ahaz,' we\nmight see our way through the perplexity, for the fourth year of Ahaz\nwould, at any rate, be twenty years from the beginning of Jotham's\nreign, though Jotham himself had died after reigning sixteen years; but\nhe says, not in the fourth, but 'in the twelfth year of Ahaz king of\nJudah.' We may give it up, and exclaim with the Speaker's commentator,\n'The chronological confusion of the history, as it stands, is striking,'\nand then perhaps we may exclaim at the Speaker's commentator, that he\nand the like of him have given us so little account of these\nunmistakable phenomena, and the cause of them, in the history.\n\n\"One other illustration may suffice. King Ahaz, according to one\nauthority, lived twenty years and then came to the throne and reigned\nfor sixteen years. (2 Kings xvi. 2.) At his death, therefore, Ahaz was\nthirty-six years of age. In that year he was succeeded by his son\nHezekiah, who was twenty-five years of age. This would mean that King\nAhaz was married at the age of ten, which, making all allowance for the\nearlier puberty of Eastern boys, does not seem probable; and the\nexplanation is much more likely to be found in the chronological\ninaccuracies of our author, to which, if we have been observantly\nreading his book through, we shall by this time have become quite\naccustomed.\" [Footnote: Inspiration and the Bible, pp. 189-191.]\n\nObserve that we are not going to any hostile or foreign sources for\nthese evidences of inaccuracy; we are simply letting the book tell its\nown story. Such phenomena as these appear throughout this history. They\nlie upon the very face of the narrative. Probably few of the readers of\nthese pages have noted them. For myself, I must confess that I read the\nBible through, from cover to cover, several times before I was thirty\nyears old, but I had never observed these inaccuracies. The\ncommentators, for the most part,--the orthodox commentators,--carefully\nkeep these facts out of sight. Sometimes they attempt, indeed, to\nexplain or reconcile them, but such explanations generally increase the\nincredibility of the narrative. The latest verdict of ultra-conservatism\nis that these dates and chronological notes are interpolated by some\nlater hand; but this, too, is quite out of the question. The only true\naccount of the matter is, that the author took these records from the\nChronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of\nIsrael, and pieced them together without noticing or caring whether they\nagreed. His mind was not fixed upon scientific accuracy of dates. He was\nthinking only of the great ethical and spiritual problems working\nthemselves out in this history,--of the question whether or not these\nkings \"did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,\" and of the\neffects of their right doing and their evil doing upon the lives of the\npeople. What difference, indeed, does it make to you and me whether\nJotham reigned sixteen years or twenty years? It seems to me that these\ninaccuracies are suffered to lie upon the face of the narrative that our\nthoughts may be turned away from these details of the record to the\ngreat principles of morality and religion whose development it reveals\nto us.\n\nThese errors which appear upon the surface are obvious enough to any\ncareful reader. But other facts, most important and suggestive, are\nbrought to light when we compare these narratives of Samuel and Kings as\nwe find them in the Hebrew text with the same narrative in the Greek\ntext, the Septuagint. The Old Testament, as we have seen, was translated\ninto the Greek language, for the benefit of those Jews who spoke only\nGreek, early in the third century before Christ. Undoubtedly it was a\npretty faithful translation at the time when it was made. But a careful\ncomparison of the two texts as they exist at the present time shows that\nconsiderable additions have been made to both of them; and that some\nchanges and misplacements have occurred in both of them. Sometimes it is\nevident that the Hebrew is the more correct, because the story is more\norderly and consistent; and sometimes it is equally evident that the\nGreek version, which, as you remember, was commonly used by our Lord and\nhis apostles, is the better. This comparison gives us a vivid and\nconvincing illustration of the freedom with which the text was handled\nby scribes and copyists; how bits of narrative--most commonly legends\nand popular tales concerning the heroes of the nation--were thrust into\nthe text, sometimes quite breaking its continuity; they make it plain\nthat that preternatural supervision of it, for the prevention of error,\nwhich we have frequently heard about, is itself a myth. It is in these\nbooks of Samuel and the Kings that these variations of the Septuagint\nfrom the Hebrew text are most frequent and most instructive.\n\nIn the story of David's introduction to Saul, for example, our version,\nfollowing the Hebrew, tells us (I Sam. xvi. 14-23), that when David was\nfirst made known to Saul he was \"a mighty man of valor, and a man of\nwar, and prudent in speech, and a comely person.\" He comes into Saul's\nhousehold; Saul loves him greatly, and makes him his armor-bearer. In\nthe next chapter David is represented as a mere lad, and it appears that\nSaul had never seen or heard of him. Indeed, he asks his general, Abner,\nwho this stripling is. The contradiction in these narratives is palpable\nand irreconcilable. When we turn now to the Septuagint, we find that it\nomits from the seventeenth chapter verses 12-31 inclusive; also from the\n55th verse to the end of the chapter and the first five verses of the\nnext chapter. Taking out these passages, the main difficulties of the\nnarrative are at once removed. It appears probable that these passages\nwere not in the narrative when it was translated into Greek, but that\nthey embodied a current and a very beautiful tradition about David which\nsome later Hebrew transcriber ventured to incorporate into the text.\n\nIn the Books of the Kings the variations between these two versions are\nalso extremely suggestive. You can see distinctly, as if it were done\nbefore your eyes, how supplementary matter has been inserted into the\none text or the other, since the Greek translation was made. In the\nsixth chapter of First Kings, the Septuagint omits verses 11-14, which\nis an exhortation to Solomon, injected into the specifications\nrespecting the temple building. Omit these verses, and the description\ngoes on smoothly. Similarly in the ninth chapter of the same book the\nSeptuagint omits verses 15-25. This passage breaks the connection; the\nnarrative of Solomon's dealings with Hiram is consecutively told in the\nGreek version; in the Hebrew it is interrupted by this extraneous\nmatter. You can readily see which is the original form of the writing.\n\nNow what does all this signify? Of course it signifies most distinctly\nthat this history must not be judged by the canons of modern historical\ncriticism. Mr. Horton quotes some strenuous advocate of the traditional\ntheory of the Bible as maintaining that \"when God writes history he will\nbe at least as accurate as Bishop Stubbs or Mr. Gardiner; and if we are\nto admit errors in his historical work, then why not in his plan of\nsalvation and doctrine of atonement?\" It is this kind of reasoning that\ndrives intelligent men into infidelity. For the errors are here; they\nspeak for themselves; nothing but a mole-eyed dogmatism can evade them;\nand if we link the great doctrines of the Bible with this dogma of the\nhistorical inerrancy of the Scriptures, they will all go down together.\n\nBut what, after all, do these errors amount to? What is the meaning and\npurport of this history? What are these writers trying to do? \"It\nseems,\" says Mr. Horton, \"as if their purpose was not so much to tell us\nwhat happened as to emphasize for us the lesson of what happened. It is\n_applied_ history, rather than history pure and simple; and on this\nground we can understand the tendency to irritation which critical\nhistorians sometimes betray in approaching it.... The prophetic\nhistorian would never dream, like a modern historian, of writing\ninterminable monographs about a disputed name or a doubtful date; he\nmight even take a story which rested on very doubtful authority, finding\nin it more that would suit his purpose than the bare and accurate\nstatement of the fact which could be authenticated. The standpoint of\nthe prophetic historian and of the scientific historian are wholly\ndifferent; they cannot be judged by the same canons of criticism. ...To\nthe prophetic eye the significance of all events seems to be in their\nrelation to the will of God. The prophet may not always discern what the\nwill of God is; he may interpret events in a quite inadequate manner.\nBut his predominant thought makes itself felt; and consequently the\nstudy of these histories leaves us in a widely different frame of mind\nfrom that which Thucydides or Mr. Freeman would produce. We do not feel\nto know, perhaps, so accurately about the wars between Israel and Judah\nas we know about the wars between Athens and Sparta; we do not feel to\nknow, perhaps, so much about the monarchy of Israel as we know about the\nAnglo-Norman monarchy; but, on the other hand, we seem to be more aware\nof God, we seem to recognize his hand controlling the wavering affairs\nof states, we seem to comprehend that obedience to his will is of more\nimportance than any political consideration, and that in the long course\nof history disobedience to his will means national distress and national\nruin. The study of scientific histories has its advantages; but it is\nnot quite certain that these advantages are greater than those which the\nstudy of prophetic history yields. Perhaps, after all, the one fact of\nhistory is God's work in it; in which case the scientific histories,\nwith all their learning, with all their toil, will look rather small by\nthe side of these imperfect compositions which at least saw vividly and\nrecognized faithfully _the one fact_.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE HEBREW PROPHECIES.\n\n\n\nIn the last chapter the opinion was expressed that the first books\ncollected by Nehemiah, when he made up his \"library,\" a century after\nthe Exile, were the writings of the prophets. We studied the historical\nbooks first, because they stand first in the Hebrew Bible, and are there\nnamed the \"Earlier Prophets;\" but the probabilities are that the\nprophetical writings proper, called by the Jews the \"Later Prophets,\"\nwere first gathered.\n\nWhen was this collection made? If it was made by Nehemiah (and there is\nnothing to discredit the statement of the author of 2 Maccabees that he\nwas the collector), then it was not compiled until one hundred years\nafter the Exile, or only about four hundred and twenty years before\nChrist. Most of the prophets had written before or during the Exile.\nJoel, Hosea, and Amos had flourished three or four hundred years before\nthis collection was made; Isaiah, the greatest of them all, had been in\nhis grave almost three centuries; Micah, nearly as long; Nahum,\nHabakkuk, and Zephaniah had been silent from one to two hundred years;\nJeremiah, who was alive when the seventy years' captivity began, and\nEzekiel, who prophesied and perished among the captives on the banks of\nthe Euphrates, were more remote from Nehemiah than Samuel Johnson and\nJonathan Edwards are from us; even Haggai and Zechariah, who came back\nwith the returning exiles and helped to build the second temple, had\npassed away from fifty to one hundred years before the time of Nehemiah.\nMalachi alone,--\"The Messenger,\"--and the last of the prophets, may have\nbeen alive when the compilation of the prophetic writings was made.\n\nIt may be safely conjectured that the Jews, although they had never\npossessed any collection of the books of the prophets, had known\nsomething of their contents. Several of the prophets had foretold the\ndesolation and the captivity, and there had been abundant time during\nthe Exile to recall the words they had spoken and to wish that their\nfathers had heeded them. These remembered words of the prophets, passing\nfrom lip to lip, would thus have acquired peculiar sacredness. It seems\nclear, also, that copies of these books must have been kept,--perhaps in\nthe schools of the prophets; for the later prophets quote, verbally,\nfrom the earlier ones. It may, therefore, have been in response to a\npopular wish that this collection of their writings was undertaken.\nWords so momentous as these ought to be sacredly treasured. Furthermore,\nthere were reasons to apprehend that the holy flame of prophecy was\ndying out. Malachi may have been speaking still, but there was not much\npromise that he would have a successor, and the expectation of prophetic\nvoices was growing dim among the people.\n\nThe Levitical ritual, now so elaborate and cumbersome, had supplanted\nthe prophetic oracle. The ritualist is never a prophet; and out of such\na formal cult no words of inspiration are apt to flow. With all the\ngreater carefulness, therefore, would the people treasure the messages\nthat had come to them from the past. Accordingly these prophetic\nwritings, which had existed in a fragmentary and scattered form, were\ngathered into a collection by themselves.\n\nIt must be admitted that when we try to tell how these writings had been\npreserved and transmitted through all these centuries, we have but\nlittle solid ground of fact to go upon. The Scriptures themselves are\nentirely silent with respect to the manner of their preservation; the\ntraditions of the Jews are wholly worthless. We must not imagine that\nthese books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Hosea were written and published\nas our books are written and published; there was no book trade then\nthrough which literature could be marketed, and no subscription agencies\nhawking books from door to door. You must not imagine that every family\nin Judea had a copy of Isaiah's Works,--nor even that a copy could be\nfound in every village; it is possible that there were not, when the\npeople were carried into captivity, more than a few dozen copies of\nthese prophecies in existence, and these were in the hands of some of\nthe prophets or literary dignitaries of the nation, or in the archives\nof some of the prophetical schools. The notion that these works were\ndistributed among the people for study and devotional reading is not to\nbe entertained. No such general use of the prophetical writings was ever\nconceived of by the Jews before the Captivity.\n\nIndeed, many of these prophecies, as we call them, were not, primarily,\nliterature at all. They were sermons or addresses, delivered orally to\nthe individuals concerned, or to assemblies of the people. You can see\nthe evidence, in many cases, that they must have been thus delivered.\n\nWe speak of the \"prophecy\" of Isaiah, or the \"prophecy\" of Jeremiah; but\nthe books bearing their names are made up of a number of \"prophecies,\"\nuttered on various occasions. The division between these separate\nprophecies is generally indicated by the language; in all Paragraph\nBibles it is marked by blank lines. In each of these earlier prophetical\nbooks we thus have, in all probability, a succession of deliverances,\nextending through long periods of time and prepared for various\noccasions.\n\nAfter the oracle was spoken to those for whom it was designed, it was\nwritten down by the prophet or by his friends and disciples, and thus\npreserved. This supposition seems, at any rate, more plausible than any\nother that I have found. Manifestly many of these prophecies were\noriginally sermons or public addresses; it is natural to suppose that\nthey were first delivered, and then, for substance, reduced to writing,\nthat a record might be made of the utterance.\n\nIt is sometimes alleged that these prophecies, as soon as they were\nproduced, were at once added to a collection of sacred Scriptures which\nwas preserved in the sanctuary. There was a \"Book\" or \"Scripture,\" it is\nsaid, \"which from the time of Moses was kept open, and in which the\nwritings of the prophets may have been recorded as they were produced.\"\n[Footnote: Alexander on Isaiah, i. 7.]\n\nThe learned divine who ventures this conjecture admits that it would be\nas hard to prove it as to disprove it. My own opinion is that it would\nbe much harder. If there had been any such official receptacle of sacred\nwritings, the prophets were not generally in a position to secure the\nadmission of their documents into it. They were often in open\ncontroversy with the people who kept the sanctuary; the political and\nthe religious authorities of the nation were the objects of their\nseverest denunciations; it is not likely that the priests would make\nhaste to transcribe and preserve in the sanctuary the sermons and\nlectures of the men who were scourging them with censure. This national\n_bibliotheca sacra_ in which the writings of the prophets were\ndeposited as soon as they were composed is the product of pure fiction.\nIt was not thus that the prophetical utterances were preserved; rather\nis it to be supposed that the pupils and friends of the prophet\nfaithfully kept his manuscripts after he was gone; that occasional\ncopies were made of them by those who wished to study them, and that\nthus they were handed down from generation to generation.\n\nWhen Nehemiah made his collection he found these manuscripts, in whose\nhands we know not, and brought them together in one place. We may\npresume that the writings of each prophet were copied upon a separate\nroll, and that the rolls were kept together in some receptacle in the\ntemple. Most of these prophets had now been dead some hundreds of years;\nthe truth of their messages was no longer disputed even by the priests\nand the scribes; their heresy was now the soundest orthodoxy; the\ncustodians of orthodoxy would of course now make a place for their\nwritings in the national archives. The priests have always been ready to\nbuild sepulchres for the prophets after they were dead, and to pay them\nplenty of _post mortem_ reverence.\n\nThe books of the prophets stand in the later Hebrew Bibles in the same\norder as that in which they are placed in our own; they occupy a\ndifferent place in the whole collection: they are in the middle of the\nHebrew Bible, and they are at the end of ours; but their relation to one\nanother is the same in both Bibles. This order is not chronological; in\npart, at least, it seems to represent what was supposed to be the\nrelative importance of the books. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are\nplaced first, perhaps because they are longest, although several of the\nminor prophets are of earlier date than they. \"Daniel\" is not among the\nprophets in the Hebrew Bible; the book which bears this name is one of\nthe books of the third collection,--the Hagiographa,--of which we shall\nspeak at another time.\n\n\"When we follow further the same collection,\" says Professor Murray, \"we\nfind Hosea immediately following Ezekiel [although Hosea lived more than\ntwo centuries before Ezekiel] and in turn followed by Joel and Amos,\nmainly on the principle of comparative bulk. Haggai, Zechariah, and\nMalachi were placed at the end for reasons purely chronological, after\nthe rest of the collection had been made up. We cannot see any clear or\nconsistent reason for the position of Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,\nHabakkuk, and Zephaniah, which stand together in the middle of the\ncollection.\"\n\nAn examination of the chronological notes on the margin of our English\nBibles (which are not always correct though they are approximately so)\nwill show that these prophetical books are not arranged in the order of\ntime. It would be a great improvement to have them so arranged. Pupils\nin the Sunday-schools who attempted a few years ago to follow the\n\"International\" lessons through these prophecies, _seriatim_, found\nthemselves skipping back and forward over the centuries in a\nhistory-defying dance which was quite bewildering to all but the clearest\nheads. We could understand these prophecies much better if they were\narranged in the order of their dates. And as no one supposes that the\npresent arrangement, made by Jewish scribes, is in any wise inspired,\nthere seems to be no good reason why the late revisers might not have\naltered it, and set these books in a historical and intelligible order.\n\nWho were these prophets and what was their function? To give any\nadequate answer to this inquiry would require a treatise; it is only in\nthe most cursory manner that we can deal with it in this place.\n\nThe prophet is the man who speaks for God. He is the interpreter of the\ndivine will. By some means he has come to understand God's purpose, and\nhis function is to declare it. Thus in Exodus iv. 16, Jehovah says to\nMoses, \"Aaron thy brother ... shall be thy spokesman unto the people,\nand it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee a mouth and thou\nshalt be to him as God.\" And again (vii. i), \"See, I have made thee a\ngod to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.\" These\npassages indicate the Biblical meaning of the word. The prophet is the\nspokesman or interpreter of some superior authority. In Classic Greek,\nalso, Apollo is called the prophet of Jupiter, and the Pythia is the\nprophetess of Apollo. Almost universally, in the Old Testament, the word\nis used to signify an expounder or interpreter of the divine will.\n\n\"The English words 'prophet, prophecy, prophesying,'\" says Dean Stanley,\n\"originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical use of the word. The\ncelebrated dispute about 'prophesyings' in the sense of 'preachings' in\nthe reign of Elizabeth, and the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The\nLiberty of Prophesying,' _i.e._, the liberty of preaching, show\nthat even down to the seventeenth century the word was still used as in\nthe Bible, for preaching or speaking according to the will of God. In\nthe seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the word to the\nsense of prediction had gradually begun to appear. This secondary\nmeaning of the word had by the time of Dr. Johnson so entirely\nsuperseded the original Scriptural signification that he gives no other\nspecial definition of it than 'to predict, to foretell, to\nprognosticate,' 'a predicter, a foreteller,' 'foreseeing or foretelling\nfuture events;' and in this sense it has been used almost down to our\nown day, when the revival of Biblical criticism has resuscitated, in\nsome measure, the Biblical use of the word.\" [Footnote: _History of\nthe Jewish Church_, i. 459, 460.] The predictive function of the\nprophet is not, then, the only, nor the prominent feature of his work.\nBy far the larger portion of the prophetic utterances were concerned\nwith the present, and made no reference to the future.\n\nThe prophet exercised his office in many ways. Moses was a prophet, the\nfirst and greatest of the prophets; but we have from him few\npredictions; he interpreted the will of God in the enactment of laws.\nSamuel was a great prophet; but Samuel was not employed in foretelling\nfuture events; he sought to know the will of God, that he might\nadminister the affairs of the Jewish commonwealth in accordance with it.\nElijah and Elisha were great prophets, but they were not\nprognosticators; they were preachers of righteousness to kings and\npeople, and they delivered their message in a way to make the ears of\nthose who heard them to tingle. And this, for all the prophets who\nsucceeded them, was the one great business. The ethical function of\nthese men of God came more and more distinctly into view.\n\nWhen Paul admonished Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 2) to \"preach the word; be\ninstant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all\nlong-suffering and teaching,\" he was calling on him to be a follower of\nthe prophets. When kings became profligate and faithless, when priests\ngrew formal and greedy, when the rich waxed extortionate and tyrannical,\nthese men of God arose to denounce the transgressors and threaten them\nwith the divine vengeance. They might arise in any quarter, from any\nclass. They were confined to no tribe, to no locality, to no calling.\nNeither sex monopolized this gift. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah were shining\nnames upon their roll of honor. To no ecclesiasticism or officialism did\nthey owe their authority; no man's hands had been laid upon them in\nordination; they were Jehovah's messengers; from him alone they received\ntheir messages, to him alone they held themselves responsible.\n\nNo such preachers of politics ever existed as these Hebrew prophets;\nwith all the affairs of state they constantly intermeddled; bad laws and\nunholy policies found in them sharp and unsparing critics; the\nentangling alliances of Israel with the surrounding nations were\ndenounced by them in season and out of season. The people of their own\ntime often stigmatized them as unpatriotic; because they would not\napprove popular iniquities, or refrain their lips from rebuking even\n\"favorite sons,\" or the idols of the populace, they often found\nthemselves under the ban of public opinion; they lived lonely lives; not\na few of them died violent deaths. \"Which of the prophets did not your\nfathers persecute?\" demanded Stephen, \"and they killed them which showed\nbefore of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become\nbetrayers and murderers.\" [Footnote: Acts vii. 52.]\n\nThe relation of the prophets to the political life of the Jewish people\nis brought out in a striking way by John Stuart Mill in his book on\n\"Representative Government.\" In that chapter in which he discusses the\ncriterion of a good government, he shows how the Egyptian hierarchy and\nthe Chinese paternal despotism destroyed those countries by stereotyping\ntheir institutions. Then he goes on:--\n\n\"In contrast with these nations let us consider the example of an\nopposite character, afforded by another and a comparatively\ninsignificant Oriental people, the Jews. They, too, had an absolute\nmonarchy and a hierarchy, and their organized institutions were as\nobviously of sacerdotal origin as those of the Hindoos. These did for\nthem what was done for other Oriental races by their institutions,\nsubdued them to industry and order, and gave them a national life. But\nneither their kings nor their priests ever obtained, as in those other\ncountries, the exclusive moulding of their character. Their religion,\nwhich enabled persons of genius and a high religious tone to be regarded\nand to regard themselves as inspired from heaven, gave existence to an\ninestimably precious unorganized institution,--the Order (if it may be\nso termed) of Prophets. Under the protection, generally though not\nalways effectual, of their sacred character, the Prophets were a power\nin the nation, often more than a match for kings and priests, and kept\nup in that little corner of the earth the antagonism of influences which\nis the only real security for continued progress. Religion,\nconsequently, was not then what it has been in so many other places, a\nconsecration of all that was once established, and a barrier against\nfurther improvement. The remark of a distinguished Hebrew, M. Salvador,\nthat the Prophets were in church and state the equivalent of the modern\nliberty of the press, gives a just but not an adequate conception of the\npart fulfilled in national and universal history by this great element\nof Jewish life; by means of which, the canon of inspiration never being\ncomplete, the persons most eminent in genius and moral feeling could not\nonly denounce and reprobate, with the direct authority of the Almighty,\nwhatever appeared to them deserving of such treatment, but could give\nforth better and higher interpretations of the national religion, which\nthenceforth became part of the religion. Accordingly, whoever can divest\nhimself of the habit of reading the Bible as if it was one book, which\nuntil lately was equally inveterate in Christians and unbelievers, sees\nwith admiration the vast interval between the morality and religion of\nthe Pentateuch, or even of the historical books (the unmistakable work\nof Hebrew Conservatives of the Sacerdotal order), and the morality and\nreligion of the Prophecies. Conditions more favorable to progress could\nnot easily exist; accordingly, the Jews, instead of being stationary\nlike other Asiatics, were, next to the Greeks, the most progressive\npeople of antiquity, and, joint with them, have been the starting-point\nand main propelling agency of modern civilization.\" [Footnote:\n_Considerations on Representative Government,_ pp. 51-53, American\nEdition.]\n\nNot only in the sphere of politics, but in that of religion also, were\nthey constantly appearing as critics and censors. The tendency of\nreligion to become merely ritual, to divorce itself from righteousness,\nis inveterate. Against this tendency the prophets were the constant\nwitnesses. The religious \"machine\" is always in the same danger of\nbecoming corrupt and mischievous as is the political \"machine;\" the man\nwith the sledge-hammer who will smash it and fling it into the junk-pile\nhas a work to do in every generation. This was the work of the Hebrew\nprophets. \"I desired mercy, and not sacrifice,\" cries Hosea, speaking\nfor Jehovah. \"I hate, I despise your feast days,\" says Amos, \"and I will\nnot smell in your solemn assemblies,...but let judgment run down as\nwaters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.\" \"Your new moons and your\nappointed feasts my soul hateth,\" proclaims Isaiah; \"they are a trouble\nunto me; I am weary to bear them. Wash ye, make you clean; cease to do\nevil; learn to do well. Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to\nloose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burden, and to let the\noppressed go free?\"\n\nThis is, then, the chief function of the Hebrew prophet; he is the\nexpounder of the righteous will of God, not mainly with respect to\nfuture events, but with respect to present transgressions and present\nobligations of kings and priests and people. And yet it would be an\nerror to overlook or disparage his dealings with the future. As a\nteacher of righteousness he saw that present disobedience would bring\nfuture retribution, and he pointed it out with the utmost fidelity. Any\nman who carefully studies the laws of God can make some predictions with\ngreat confidence. He knows that certain courses of conduct will be\nfollowed by certain consequences. Some of the predictions of the Hebrew\nprophets were of this nature. Yet predictions of this nature were always\nconditional. The condition was not always expressed, but it was always\nunderstood. The threatening of destruction to the disobedient was\nwithdrawn when the disobedient turned from their evil ways. The\npredictions of the prophets were not always fulfilled for this good\nreason. The rule is explicitly laid down by the Prophet Jeremiah: \"At\nwhat instant I shall speak concerning a nation...to destroy it; if that\nnation...turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought\nto do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a\nnation...to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it\nobey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I\nwould benefit them.\" [Footnote: Jeremiah xviii. 7-9.]\n\nAnd there is something more than this. Instances are here recorded of\nspecific predictions of future events, which came to pass as they were\npredicted,--predictions which cannot be explained on naturalistic\nprinciples. \"Of this sort,\" says Bleek, \"are the prophecies of Isaiah as\nto the closely impending destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and\nSyria, which he predicted with great confidence at a time when the two\nkingdoms appeared particularly strong by their treaty with each\nother,...besides the repeated predictions as to the destruction of the\nmighty hosts of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, which besieged Jerusalem,\nand the deliverance of the state from the greatest distress. Among these\npredictions, those in Isaiah xxix. 1-8, appear to me particularly\nnoteworthy, where he foretells that a long time hence Jerusalem should\nbe besieged by a foreign host and pressed very hard, but that the\nlatter, just as they believed they were getting possession of the city,\nshould be scattered and annihilated; for this prediction, from its whole\ncharacter, appears to have been uttered before any danger showed itself\nfrom this quarter.\" [Footnote: _Introduction to the Old Testament_,\nii. 27.]\n\nBeyond and above all this is the gradual rise in Israel of that great\nMessianic hope, of which the prophets were the inspired and inspiring\nwitnesses. We find, at a very early day, an expectation of a future\nrevelation of the glory of God, dawning upon the consciousness of the\nnation, and expressing itself by the words of its most devout spirits.\nEven in prosperous days there was a dim outreaching after something\nbetter; in times of disaster and overthrow this hope was kindled to a\npassionate longing. Of this Messianic hope, its nature and its\nfulfillment, no words of mine can tell so eloquently as these words of\nDean Stanley:--\n\n\"It was the distinguishing mark of the Jewish people that their golden\nage was not in the past, but in the future; that their greatest hero (as\nthey deemed him to be) was not their Founder, but their Founder's latest\nDescendant. Their traditions, their fancies, their glories, gathered\nround the head, not of a chief or warrior or sage that had been, but of\na King, a Deliverer, a Prophet who was to come. Of this singular\nexpectation the Prophets were, if not the chief authors, at least the\nchief exponents. Sometimes he is named, sometimes he is unnamed;\nsometimes he is almost identified with some actual Prince of the present\nor the coming generation, sometimes he recedes into the distant ages.\nBut again and again, at least in the late prophetic writings, the vista\nis closed by this person, his character, his reign. And almost\neverywhere the Prophetic spirit in the delineation of his coming remains\ntrue to itself. He is to be a King, a Conqueror, yet not by the common\nweapons of earthly warfare, but by those only weapons which the\nProphetic order recognized; by justice, mercy, truth, and goodness; by\nsuffering, by endurance, by identification of himself with the joys, the\nsufferings of his nation; by opening a wider sympathy to the whole human\nrace than had ever been offered before. That this expectation, however\nexplained, existed in a greater or less degree amongst the Prophets is\nnot doubted by any theologians of any school whatever. It is no matter\nof controversy. It is a simply and universally recognized fact that,\nfilled with these Prophetic images, the whole Jewish nation--nay, at\nlast, the whole Eastern world--did look forward with longing expectation\nto the coming of this future Conqueror. Was this unparalleled\nexpectation realized? And here again I speak only of facts which are\nacknowledged by Germans and Frenchmen no less than by Englishmen, by\ncritics and by skeptics even more than by theologians and ecclesiastics.\nThere did arise out of this nation a Character as unparalleled as the\nexpectation which had preceded him. Jesus of Nazareth was, on the most\nsuperficial no less than on the deepest view of his coming, the greatest\nname, the most extraordinary power that has ever crossed the stage of\nHistory. And this greatness consisted not in outward power, but\nprecisely in those qualities in which from first to last the Prophetic\norder had laid the utmost stress,--justice and love, goodness and\ntruth.\" [Footnote: _History of the Jewish Church_, i. 519, 520.]\n\nThis is the great fact from which the student of the Old Testament must\nnever remove his attention. That this wonderful hope and expectation did\nsuffuse all the utterances of the prophets is not to be gainsaid by any\ncandid man. That the expectation assumed, as the ages passed, a more and\nmore definite and personal form is equally certain. Isaiah was perhaps\nthe first to give distinct shape to this prophetic hope. Ewald thus\nsummarizes the Messianic idea in the writings of Isaiah:--\n\n\"There must come some one who should perfectly satisfy all the demands\nof the true religion, so as to become the centre from which all its\ntruth and force should operate. His soul must possess a marvelous and\nsurpassing nobleness and divine power, because it is his function\nperfectly to realize in life the ancient religion, the requirements of\nwhich no one has yet satisfied, and that, too, with that spiritual\nglorification which the great prophets had announced. Unless there first\ncomes some one who shall transfigure this religion into its purest form,\nit will never be perfected, and its kingdom will never come. But he will\nand must come, for otherwise the religion which demands him would be\nfalse; he is the first true King of the community of the true God, and\nas nothing can be conceived of as supplanting him, he will reign forever\nin irresistible power; he is the divine-human King, whose coming had\nbeen due ever since the true community had set up a human monarchy in\nits midst, but who had never come. He is to be looked for, to be longed\nfor, to be prayed for; and how blessed it is simply to expect him\ndevoutly, and to trace out every feature of his likeness. To sketch the\nnobleness of his soul is to pursue in detail the possibility of\nperfecting all religion; and to believe in the necessity of his coming\nis to believe in the perfecting of all divine agency on earth.\"\n[Footnote: _The History of Israel_, iv. 203, 204.]\n\nIt is precisely here that we get at the heart of the Old Testament; this\nwonderful fore-looking toward the Messianic manifestations of God upon\nthe earth, which kindled the hearts of the people and found clearest\nutterance by the lips of its most inspired men, which binds this\nliterature all together, histories, songs, precepts, allegories. This it\nis which reveals the true inspiration of these old writings, and which\nmakes them, to every Christian heart, precious beyond all price.\n\nSuch being the character of these prophetic books, let us glance for a\nmoment at a few of them, merely for the purpose of locating the prophecy\nin the history, and of discerning, when it is possible, the providential\ncauses which called it forth.\n\nIt is difficult to tell which of these fifteen prophets, whose\nutterances are treasured in this collection, first appeared upon the\nscene. The probability seems to be that the earliest of them was Joel.\nOpinions differ widely; I cannot discuss them nor even cite them; but\nthe old theory that Joel lived and preached about eight hundred and\nseventy-five years before Christ does not seem to me to be invalidated\nby modern criticism. He was a native of the Southern Kingdom; and at the\ntime we have named, the King of Judea was Joash, whose dramatic\nelevation to the throne in his seventh year, by Jehoiada the priest, is\nnarrated in the Book of Kings. It was a time of disturbance and disaster\nin Judah and Jerusalem; the boy-king was but a nominal ruler; the regent\nwas Jehoiada; and incursions of the surrounding tribes, who carried away\nthe people and sold them as slaves, kept the land in a constant state of\nalarm. Worse than this was the visitation of locusts, continuing, as it\nwould seem, for several years, by which the country was stripped and\ndevastated. This visitation furnishes the theme of the short discourse\nwhich is here reported. The description of the march of the locusts over\nthe land is full of poetic beauty; and the people are admonished to\naccept this as a divine chastisement for their sins, and to do the works\nmeet for repentance. Then comes the promise of the divine forgiveness,\nand of that great gift of the Spirit, whose fulfillment Peter claimed on\nthe day of Pentecost: \"In the midst of the deepest woes which then\nafflicted the kingdom,\" says Ewald, \"his great soul grasped all the more\npowerfully the eternal hope of the true community, and impressed it all\nthe more indelibly upon his people, alike by the fiery glow of his clear\ninsight and the entrancing beauty of his passionate utterance.\"\n[Footnote: _The History of Israel_, iv. 139.]\n\nThe next prophet in the order of time is undoubtedly Amos. He tells us\nthat he lived in the days of Uzziah, King of Judah, about seventy years\nafter Joel. He was a herdsman of Tekoa, a small city of Judah, twelve\nmiles south of Jerusalem. In these days the Northern Kingdom was far\nmore prosperous and powerful than the Southern; under Jeroboam II.\nIsrael had become rich and luxurious; and the prophet was summoned, as\nhe declares, by the call of Jehovah himself to leave his herds upon the\nJudean hills, and betake himself to the Northern Kingdom, there to bear\nwitness against the pride and oppression of its people. This messenger\nand interpreter of Jehovah to his people is a poor man, a laboring man;\nbut he knows whose commission he bears, and he is not afraid. Stern and\nterrible are the woes that fall from his lips: the words vibrate yet\nwith the energy of his righteous wrath.\n\n\"Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to\ncome near; that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon\ntheir couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of\nthe midst of the stall; that sing idle songs to the sound of the viol;\nthat devise for themselves instruments of music, like David; that drink\nwine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments; but they\nare not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.\"\n\nSuch luxury always goes hand in hand with contempt of the lowly and\noppression of the poor; it is so to-day; it was so in that far-off time;\nand this prophet pours upon it the vials of the wrath of God:--\n\n\"Forasmuch therefore as ye trample upon the poor, and take exactions\nfrom him of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not\ndwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not\ndrink the wine thereof. For I know how manifold are your transgressions\nand how mighty are your sins; ye that afflict the just, that take a\nbribe, and that turn aside the needy in the gate from their right.\"\n\nIt is no wonder that Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, writhed under the\nscourge of the herdsman prophet, and wanted to be rid of him: \"O thou\nseer,\" he cried, \"go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there\neat bread, and prophesy there: but prophesy not again any more in\nBethel.\" But the prophet stood his ground and delivered his message, and\nit still resounds as the very voice of God through every land where the\ngreed of gold makes men unjust, and the love of pleasure banishes\ncompassion from human hearts.\n\nThe nearest successor of Amos, in this collection, seems to have been\nHosea, who tells us in the opening of his prophecy that the word of the\nLord came unto him in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,\nkings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of\nIsrael. There is some doubt about the genuineness of this\nsuperscription; but it was about this time, undoubtedly, that Hosea\nflourished. To which kingdom he belonged it is not known; probably,\nhowever, to Israel, with whose affairs his teaching is chiefly\nconcerned. He must have followed close upon the herdsman of Tekoa;\npossibly they were contemporaries. His prophecy, too, is a blast from\nthe trumpet of the Lord our Righteousness. Such an indictment of a\npeople has not often been heard.\n\n\"Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a\ncontroversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth,\nnor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. There is nought but\nswearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and committing\nadultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood.\"\n\nEspecially severe is the prophet in his denunciation of the priesthood.\n\n\"They feed on the sin of my people, and set their heart on their\niniquity. And it shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish\nthem for their ways, and will reward them their doings.\"\n\nThese prophecies of Hosea are instinct with a severe morality; the\nethical thoroughness with which he chastises the national sins is\nunflinching; but it is not all threatening; now and again we hear the\nword of tenderness, the promise of the divine forgiveness:--\n\n\"I will heal their backsliding. I will love them freely; for mine anger\nis turned away from him. I will be as the dew unto Israel; he shall\nblossom as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon.\"\n\nMicah follows Hosea, at an interval of perhaps fifty years. He lived in\na little village of Judah, west of Jerusalem, and exercised his ministry\nin both kingdoms, testifying impartially against the wickedness of\nJerusalem and Samaria, though the weight of his censure seems to rest\nupon the Judean capital. His strain is an echo of the outcry of Amos and\nHosea; it is the same intense indignation against the violence and\nrapacity of the rich, against corrupt judges, false prophets, rascally\ntraders, treacherous friends. For all these sins condign punishment is\nthreatened; and yet, after these retributive woes are past, there is\npromise of a better day. The great Messianic hope here begins to find\nclear utterance; the former prophets have seen in their visions only the\nrestoration of the people of Israel; to Micah there comes the\nanticipation of an individual Leader and Deliverer.\n\n\"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, which art little to be among the\nthousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth that is to be ruler\nin Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.... And he\nshall stand and shall feed his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the\nmajesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide; for now\nshall he be great unto the ends of the earth.\"\n\nThus slowly broadens the dawn of the Messianic hope.\n\nThe first part of the fourth chapter of Micah, which is a prediction of\nthe glory that shall come to Zion in the latter day, is verbally\nidentical with the first part of the second chapter of Isaiah. One of\nthe prophets must have quoted from the other or else, as Dr. Geikie\nsuggests, both copied from some older prophet.\n\nAfter Micah comes the greatest of the prophets, Isaiah. He appeared upon\nthe scene in his native city of Jerusalem about the middle of the eighth\ncentury before Christ. His work was mainly done during the reigns of\nAhaz, \"the Grasper,\" one of the vilest and most ungodly of the Judean\nmonarchs, and of Hezekiah, the good king, about a century and a half\nbefore the destruction of Jerusalem.\n\nAbout this time Judea was constantly exposed to the rapacity of the\ngreat Assyrian power before whose armies she finally fell; sometimes her\nrulers entered into coalitions with the surrounding nations to resist\nthe Assyrian; sometimes they submitted and paid heavy tribute. Egypt, on\nthe south, was also a mighty empire at this time, constantly at war with\nAssyria; and the kings of Judah sometimes sought alliances with one of\nthese great powers, as a means of protection against the other. They\nproved to be the upper and nether millstones between which the Jewish\nnationality was ground to powder. It was in the midst of these alarming\nsigns of national destruction that Isaiah arose. Of the prophetic\ndiscourses which he delivered in Jerusalem we have about thirty; his\nwords are the words of a patriot, a statesman, a servant and messenger\nof Jehovah. He warned the kings against these entangling alliances with\nforeign powers; he admonished them to stand fast in their allegiance to\nJehovah, and obey his laws; yet he saw that they would not heed his\nword, and that swift and sure destruction was coming upon the nation.\nAnd his expectation was not like that of the other prophets, that the\nnation as a whole would be saved out of these judgments; to him it was\nmade plain that only a remnant would survive; but that from that remnant\nshould spring a noble race, with a purer faith, in whom all the nations\nof the earth should be blessed. Of the Messianic hope as it finds\nexpression in these words of Isaiah I have already spoken.\n\nThis Book of Isaiah contains thirty-one prophetic discourses, some of\nthem mere fragments. There is reason for doubt as to whether they were\nall spoken by Isaiah; when they were gathered up, two hundred years\nlater, some utterances of other prophets may have been mingled with\nthem. Indeed it is now regarded as well-nigh certain that the last\ntwenty-seven chapters are the work of a later prophet,--of one who wrote\nduring the Captivity. Professor Delitzsch, in the last edition of his\ncommentary on Isaiah, finally concedes that this is probable. The Book\nof Isaiah, he is reported as saying, \"may have been an anthology of\nprophetic discourses by different authors; that is, it may have been\ncomposed partly and directly by Isaiah, and partly by other later\nprophets whose utterances constitute a really homogeneous and\nsimultaneous continuation of Isaian prophecy. These later prophets so\nclosely resemble Isaiah in prophetic vision that posterity might, on\nthat account, well identify them with him,--his name being the correct\ncommon denominator for this collection of prophecies.\"\n\nThese words of the most distinguished and devout of the Old Testament\ncritics throw a flood of light on the structure not only of Isaiah, but\nof other Old Testament writings; they show how unlike our own were the\nprimitive ideas of authorship; and how the Pentateuch, for example,\ndrawn from many sources and revised by many editors, could be called the\nlaw of Moses; how _his_ name may have been the \"common denominator\"\nof all that collection of laws.\n\nI have shown, perhaps, in these hasty notices, something of the nature\nand purpose of five of these prophetic books. Of the rest I must speak\nbut a single word, for the time fails me to tell of Zephaniah, who in\nthe time of good King Josiah, denounced the idolatry of the people, the\ninjustice of its princes and judges, and the corruption of its prophets\nand priests, threatened the rebellious with extermination, and promised\nto the remnant an enduring peace; of Jeremiah, who about the same time\nfirst lifted up his voice, and continued speaking until after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem,--from whose writings we may derive a more\ncomplete and intelligible account of the period preceding the Exile than\nfrom any other source; of Nahum, who, just before the fall of Jerusalem,\nuttered his oracle against Nineveh; of Obadiah, who, after the fall of\nthe holy city, launched his thunderbolts against the perfidious Edomites\nbecause of their rejoicing over the fate of Jerusalem; of Ezekiel, the\nprophet of the Exile, who wrote among the captives by the rivers of\nBabylon; of Haggai and Zechariah, who came back with the returning\nexiles, and whose courageous voices cheered the laborers who wrought to\nrestore the city and the temple; of Malachi, whose pungent reproofs of\nthe people for their lack of consecration followed the erection of the\nsecond temple, and closed the collection of the Hebrew prophets.\n\nThe limits of this small volume forbid us to enter upon several\ninteresting critical inquiries respecting the component parts of Isaiah\nand Zechariah, and especially the matter of the variations of the\nSeptuagint from the Hebrew text in the Book of Jeremiah. In this last\nnamed book we find the same phenomena that we encountered in our study\nof Samuel and The Kings: the Greek version differs considerably from the\nHebrew; a comparison of the two illustrates, as nothing else can do, the\nprocesses through which the text of these old documents has passed, and\nthe freedom with which they have been handled by scribes and copyists.\nThe Hebrew text, from which our English version was made, is generally\nbetter than the Greek; but there are several cases in which the Greek is\nmanifestly more accurate.\n\nThere is one book, reckoned among these minor prophets, of which I have\nnot spoken, and to which I ought to make some reference. That is the\nbook of Jonah.\n\nIt is found among the minor prophets, but it is not in any sense\nprophetical; it is neither a sermon nor a prediction; it is a narrative.\nProbably it was placed by the Jews among these prophetical books because\nJonah was a prophet. But this book was not written by Jonah; there is\nnot a word in the book which warrants the belief that he was its author.\nIt is a story about Jonah, told by somebody else long after Jonah's day.\nJonah, the son of Amittai, was a prophet of the Northern Kingdom in the\ndays of Jeroboam II., far back in the ninth century. The only reference\nto him contained in the Old Testament is found in 2 Kings xiv. 25. But\nthis book was almost certainly written long after the destruction of\nNineveh, which took place two hundred years later. One reason for this\nbelief is in the fact that the writer of the book feels it necessary to\nexplain what kind of a city Nineveh was. He stops in the midst of his\nstory to say: \"Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days'\njourney.\" That explanation would have been superfluous anywhere in\nIsrael in the days of Jeroboam II., and the past tense indicates that it\nwas written by one who was looking back to a city no longer in\nexistence. \"Nineveh was.\" The character of the Hebrew also favors the\ntheory of a later date for the book. We have, therefore, a tale that was\ntold about Jonah probably three or four hundred years after his day.\n\nIs it a true tale, or is it a work of didactic fiction? I believe that\nit is the latter. It is a very suggestive apologue, full of moral beauty\nand spiritual power, designed to convey several important lessons to the\nminds of the Jewish people. I cannot regard it as the actual experience\nof a veritable prophet of God, because I can hardly imagine that such a\nprophet could have supposed, as the Jonah of this tale is said to have\nsupposed, that by getting out of the bounds of the Kingdom of Israel, he\nwould get out of the sight of Jehovah. This is precisely what this Jonah\nof the story undertook to do. When he was bidden to go to Nineveh and\ncry against it, \"he rose up to flee unto Tarshish _from the presence\nof the Lord;_ and he went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to\nTarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with\nthem unto Tarshish _from the presence of the Lord\"_ (ch. i. 3). Is\nthis actual history? Is this the belief of a genuine prophet of the\nLord? What sort of a prophet is he who holds ideas as crude as this\nconcerning the Being with whom he is in constant communication and from\nwhom he receives his messages? If Jonah did entertain this belief, then\nit is not likely that he can teach us anything about God which it is\nimportant that we should know.\n\nThus, without touching the miraculous features of the story, we have\nsound reasons for believing that this cannot be the actual experience of\nany veritable prophet of God; that it is not history, but fiction. Why\nnot? Can any one who has read the parable of the Prodigal Son or the\nGood Samaritan doubt that fiction may be used in Sacred Scripture for\nthe highest purpose?\n\nBut it is argued that the references to this story which are found in\nthe words of Christ authenticate the story. Our Lord, in Matt. xii,\n39-42, refers to this book. He speaks of the repentance of the Ninevites\nunder the preaching of Jonah as a rebuke to the Jews who had heard the\nword of life from him and had not repented; and he uses these words: \"An\nevil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and there shall no sign\nbe given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three\ndays and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man\nbe three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.\"\n\nThis confirms, say the orthodox commentators, the historical accuracy of\nthe story of Jonah. \"If,\" says Canon Liddon, \"he would put his finger on\na fact in past Jewish history which, by its admitted reality, would\nwarrant belief in his own resurrection, he points to Jonah's being three\ndays and three nights in the belly of the whale.\" This use of the\nincident by our Lord clearly authenticates the incident as an actual\nhistorical fact. So say the conservative theologians. And so say also\nthe men who labor to destroy the authority of Christ. Mr. Huxley\nperfectly agrees with Canon Liddon. He praises the Canon's penetration\nand consistency; he agrees that there can be no other possible\ninterpretation of Christ's words. The ultra-conservative and the\nanti-Christian critics are at one in insisting that Christ stands\ncommitted to the literal truth of the narrative in Jonah. The inference\nof the ultra-conservative is that the narrative is historically true; the\ninference of the anti-Christian critic is that Jesus is unworthy our\nconfidence as a religious teacher; that one who fully indorsed such a\npreposterous tale cannot be divine. It is instructive to observe the\nultra-conservative critics thus playing steadily into the hands of the\nanti-Christian critics, furnishing them with ammunition with which to\nassail the very citadel of the Christian faith. It is a kind of business\nin which, I am sorry to say, they have been diligently engaged for a\ngood while.\n\nNow I, for my part, utterly deny the proposition which these allied\nforces of skepticism and traditionalism are enlisted in supporting. I\ndeny that Jesus Christ can be fairly quoted as authenticating this\nnarrative. I maintain that he used it allegorically for purposes of\nillustration, without intending to express any opinion as to the\nhistorical verity of the narrative. It was used in a literary way, and\nnot in a dogmatic way. Our Lord speaks always after the manner of\nmen,--speaks the common speech of the people, takes up the phrases and\neven the fables that he finds upon their lips, and uses them for his own\npurposes. He does not stop to criticise all their stories, or to set\nthem right in all their scientific errors; that would have been utterly\naside from his main purpose, and would certainly have confused them and\nled them astray. He speaks always of the rising and the setting of the\nsun, using the phrases that were current at that time, and never hinting\nat the error underneath them. He knew what these people meant by these\nphrases. If he knew that these phrases conveyed an erroneous meaning,\nwhy did he not correct them? So, too, he quotes from the story of the\nCreation in Genesis, and never intimates that the six days there\nmentioned are not literal days of twenty-four hours each. He knew that\nthose to whom he was speaking entertained this belief, and put this\ninterpretation upon these words. Why does he not set it aside?\n\nThese questions may admit of more than one answer; but, taking the very\nhighest view of Christ's person, it is certainly enough to say that any\nsuch discussion of scientific questions would have been, as even we can\nsee, palpably unwise. There was no preparation in the human mind at that\nday for the reception and verification of such a scientific revelation.\nIt could not have been received. It would not have been preserved. It\nwould only have confused and puzzled the minds of his hearers, and would\nhave shut their minds at once against that moral and spiritual truth\nwhich he came to impart. And what we have said about scientific\nquestions applies with equal force to questions of Old Testament\ncriticism. To have entered upon the discussion of these questions with\nthe Jews would have thwarted his highest purpose. In the largest sense\nof the word these Scriptures were true. Their substantial historical\naccuracy he wished to confirm. Their great converging lines of light\nunited in him. He constantly claimed their fulfillment in his person and\nhis kingdom. Why, then, should he enter upon a kind of discussion which\nwould have tended to confuse and obscure the main truths which he came\nto teach? If, then, he refers to these Scriptures, he uses them for his\nown ethical and spiritual purposes,--not to indorse their scientific\nerrors; not to confirm the methods of interpretation in use among the\nJews.\n\nBut Mr. Huxley insists, and all the ultra-conservative commentators join\nhim in insisting, that Christ could not, if he had been an honest man,\nhave spoken thus of Jonah if the story of Jonah had not been\nhistorically accurate. This is the way he puts it: \"If Jonah's three\ndays' residence in the whale is not an 'admitted fact,' how could it\n'warrant belief' in the 'coming resurrection'?\" [Footnote: _The\nNineteenth Century_, July, 1890.] Mr. Huxley is using Canon Liddon's\nphrases here; but he is using them to confute those for whom, as he\nknows very well, Canon Liddon does not speak. Those who say that the\nstory of Jonah is an \"admitted reality\" may, perhaps, be able to see\nthat it \"warrants belief\" in the \"coming resurrection.\" To my own mind,\neven this is by no means clear. I do not see how the one event, even if\nit were an \"admitted reality,\" could \"warrant belief\" in the other. No\npast event can warrant belief in any future event, unless the two events\nare substantially identical. The growth of an acorn into an oak in the\nlast century \"warrants the belief\" that an acorn will grow into an oak\nin the present century; but it does not \"warrant the belief\" that a city\nplanted on an eligible site will grow to be a great metropolis. The one\nevent might illustrate the other, but no conclusions of logic can be\ncarried from the one to the other. It is precisely so with these two\nevents. There is a certain analogy between the experience of Jonah, as\ntold in the book, and that of our Lord; but it is ridiculous to say that\nthe one event, if an \"admitted reality,\" \"warrants belief\" in the\nother,--whether it is said by Mr. Huxley or Canon Liddon. Our Lord's\nwords convey no such meaning. In truth, if we are here dealing with\nscientific comparisons, the one event, if taken as an \"admitted\nreality,\" _warrants disbelief_ in the other. What are our Lord's\nprecise words? \"_As_ Jonah was three days and three nights in the\nwhale's belly, _so_ shall the Son of man be three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth.\" We are told by Mr. Huxley and his\northodox allies that we must take this as a literal historical parallel,\nor not at all; that if we treat it in any other way, we accuse our Lord\nof dishonesty. What, then, was the condition of Jonah during these three\ndays and nights? Was he dead or alive? He was certainly alive, if the\ntale is history--very thoroughly alive in all his faculties. He was\npraying part of the time, and part of the time he was writing poetry. We\nhave a long and beautiful poem which he is said to have composed during\nthat enforced retirement from active life. It would appear that his\nrelease took place immediately after the poem was finished. If, now,\nthese events are bound together with the links of logic, if the one\nevent is the historic counterpart of the other, the Son of man, during\nthe three days of his sojourn in the heart of the earth, was not dead at\nall! He was only hidden for a little space from the sight of men. He was\nalive all the while, _and there was no resurrection!_ It is to this\nthat you come when you begin to apply to these parables and allegories\nof the Bible the methods of scientific exposition. This may be\nsatisfactory enough to Mr. Huxley. I should like to know how it suits\nhis orthodox allies.\n\nThe fact is, that you are not dealing here with equivalents, but with\nanalogies; not with laws of evidence, but with figures of rhetoric: and\nit is absurd to say that one member of an analogy \"warrants belief\" in\nthe existence of the other. There is no such logical nexus. The leaven\nin the meal does not \"warrant belief\" in the spread of Christianity, but\nit serves to illustrate it. The story of the Prodigal Son does not\n\"warrant belief\" in the fatherly love of God, but it helps us to\nunderstand something of that love, and it helps us precisely as much as\nif it had been a veritable history, instead of being, as it is, a pure\nwork of fiction.\n\n\"What sort of value,\" asks Mr. Huxley, \"as an illustration of God's\nmethods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never\nhappened?\" Such an admonition, he says, is \"morally about on a level\nwith telling a naughty child that a bogy is coming to fetch it away.\"\nLet us apply this maxim to some of Mr. Huxley's homilies:--\n\n\"Surely,\" he says in one of his \"Lay Sermons,\" \"our innocent pleasures\nare not so abundant in this life that we can afford to despise this or\nany other source of them. We should fear being banished for our neglect\n_to that limbo where the great Florentine tells us are those who\nduring this life wept when they might be joyful_.\" [Footnote: _Lay\nSermons and Addresses_, p. 92.] This limbo of Dante's is not, I dare\nsay, an \"admitted reality\" in Mr. Huxley's physical geography. \"What\nsort of value,\" therefore, has his reference to it? Is he merely raising\nthe cry of bogy? He certainly does intend what he says as a dissuasive\nfrom a certain course of erroneous conduct. I venture to insist that he\nhas a real meaning, and that, although the limbo is a myth, the\ncondition which he intends to illustrate by his allusion to it is a\nreality.\n\nOnce more: \"I do not suppose that the dead soul of Peter Bell, of whom\nthe great poet of nature says,--\n\n  'A primrose by the river's brim\n   A yellow primrose was to him,\n   And it was nothing more,'\n\nwould have been a whit roused from its apathy by the information that\nthe primrose is a Dicotyledonous Exogen, with a monopetalous corolla and\na central placentation.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_. p. 91.]\n\nDoes Mr. Huxley believe that Peter Bell was a historical person? If he\nwas not, how, in the name of biological theology, could his dead soul\nhave been roused by any information whatever? Yet these sentences of his\nhave a real and valuable meaning. It is evident that Mr. Huxley does\nunderstand the uses of allegory and fable for purposes of illustration;\nthat he can employ characters and situations which are not historical,\nbut purely imaginary, to illustrate the realities which he is trying to\npresent,--speaking of them all the while just as if they were historical\npersons or places, and trusting his readers to interpret him aright.\nSuch a use of language is common in all literature. To affirm that our\nLord could not resort to it without dishonesty is to deny to him the\nordinary instruments of speech.\n\n\"We may conclude, then,\" with Professor Ladd, \"that the reference to\nJonah does not cover the question whether the prophet's alleged sojourn\nin the sea monster is an historical verity; and that it is no less\nuncritical than invidious to make the holding of any particular theory\nof the Book of Jonah a test of allegiance to the teachings of the\nMaster.\" [Footnote: _The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture_, i. 67. ]\n\nIt is evident enough, as Professor Cheyne has said, that the symbolic\nmeaning of the book was the most important part of it in the New\nTestament times. But other and more obvious meanings are conveyed by the\nnarrative. Indeed, there is scarcely another book in the Old Testament\nwhose meaning is so clear, whose message is so divine. Apologue though\nit is, it is full of the very truth of God. There is not one of the\nminor prophecies that has more of the real gospel in it. To the people\nwho first received it, how full of admonition and reproof it must have\nbeen! That great city Nineveh--a city which was, in its day, as Dr.\nGeikie says, \"as intensely abhorred by the Jews as Carthage was by Rome,\nor France under the elder Napoleon was by Germany\"--was a city dear to\nGod! He had sent his own prophet to warn it of its danger; and his\nprophet, instead of being stoned or torn asunder, as the prophets of God\nhad often been by their own people, had been heard and his message\nheeded. The Ninevites had turned to God, and God had forgiven them! God\nwas no less ready to forgive and save Nineveh than Jerusalem. What a\nwonderful disclosure of the love of the universal Father! What a telling\nblow, even in those old days, at the \"middle wall of partition\" by which\nthe Jew fenced out the Gentile from his sympathy!\n\nAnd then the gentle rebuke of Jonah's petulant narrowness! How true is\nthe touch that describes Jonah as angry because God had forgiven the\nNinevites! His credit as a prophet was gone. I suppose that he was\nafraid also, like many theologians of more modern times, that if\nthreatened penalty were remitted solely on the ground of the repentance\nof the sinners, the foundations of the divine government would be\nundermined. How marvelously does the infinite pity and clemency of God\nshine out through all this story, as contrasted with the petty\nconsistency and the grudging compassion of man; and how clearly do we\nhear in this beautiful narrative the very message of the gospel: \"Let\nthe wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and\nlet him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our\nGod, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your\nthoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.\"\n\nMay I say, in closing, that the treatment which the Book of Jonah has\nreceived, alike from skeptics and from defenders of the faith,\nillustrates, in a striking way, the kind of controversy which is raised\nby the attempt to maintain the infallibility of the Bible. The\n_crux_ of all the critics, orthodox and heterodox, is the story\nabout the fish. The orthodox have assumed that the narrative without the\nmiracle was meaningless, and the heterodox have taken them at their\nword. In their dispute over the question whether Jonah did really\ncompose that psalm in the belly of the fish, with his head festooned\nwith seaweed, they have almost wholly overlooked the great lessons of\nfidelity to duty, of the universal divine fatherhood, and the universal\nhuman brotherhood, which the story so beautifully enforces. How easy it\nis for saints as well as scoffers, in their dealing with the messages of\nGod to men, to tithe the mint, anise, and cummin of the literal sense,\nand neglect the weightier matters of judgment, mercy, and truth which\nthey are intended to convey!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE LATER HEBREW HISTORIES.\n\n\n\nAfter the Book of the Law had been revised by Ezra, and the Book of the\nProphets had been compiled by Nehemiah, there still remained a body of\nsacred writings, not Mosaic in their origin and not from the hands of\nany recognized prophet, but still of value in the eyes of the Jews. We\ncannot tell the time at which the work of collecting these Scriptures\nwas begun; possibly it was going on while the Books of the Prophets were\nbeing compiled. This third collection was called from the first by the\nJews, \"Ketubim,\" meaning simply writings; the Greeks afterward called it\nby a name which has been anglicized, and which has become the common\ndesignation of these writings among us, \"The Hagiographa,\" or the Holy\nWritings. The adjective holy was not a part of the Jewish title; it\nwould have overstated, somewhat, their first estimate of this part of\ntheir Bible. For while the degree of sacredness attached to these books\ngradually increased, they were always held as quite inferior to the\nother two groups of Scriptures. For convenience the list of books in\nthis collection may be here repeated:--\n\n   The Psalms.\n   The Proverbs.\n   Job.\n   The Song of Solomon.\n   Ruth.\n   Lamentations.\n   Ecclesiastes.\n   Esther.\n   Daniel.\n   Ezra.\n   Nehemiah.\n   1 Chronicles.\n   2 Chronicles.\n\nThe arrangement is topical; first, three poetical books, The Psalms, The\nProverbs, and Job; then five so-called Megilloth, or Rolls, read in the\nlater synagogues on certain great feast days,--The Song of Songs at the\nPassover, Ruth at Pentecost, Lamentations on the anniversary of the\nburning of the temple, Ecclesiastes at the Feast of Tabernacles, and\nEsther at the Feast of Purim; lastly, the historical and quasi-historical\nbooks, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles.\n\nOf Ruth I have already spoken in its proper historical connection,\ntaking it with the Book of Judges.\n\nIn treating of the remaining books I shall not follow the order of the\nHebrew Bible, which I have given above, but shall rather reverse it,\ntreating first of the historical books, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the\nChronicles, also of Esther and Daniel; then, in a subsequent chapter, of\nthe poetical books, the Lamentations, the books attributed to\nSolomon,--Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song,--and finally of\nJob and the Psalms.\n\nThe histories which, under the title of the \"Earlier Prophets,\" are\ncontained in the middle group of the Hebrew Scriptures, have been\nstudied in a former chapter. In this later group of writings we find\ncertain other historical works which cover the same ground. In the words\nof Mr. Horton:--\n\n\"Taking historical excerpts from the first six books of the Bible, and\nthen going on in a continuous narrative from the beginning of Judges to\nthe end of the Second Book of Kings, we have a story--true, a story with\nmany gaps in it, still a connected story--from the earliest times to the\ncaptivity of Judah. Then, starting from the First Book of Chronicles and\nreading on to the end of Nehemiah, we have, in a very compressed form,\nthough enlarged in some parts, a complete record from Adam to the return\nfrom the Captivity; at the end of this long sweep of narrative comes the\nBook of Esther, which is a brief appendix containing a historical\nepisode of the Captivity. Taking these two distinct histories, we have\ntwo lines of narrative, an older and a later, which run together up to\nthe Captivity; the older, though covering a shorter time, is much the\nlarger and fuller; the later, very thin in most parts, becomes very full\nin its account of the Temple-worship and Temple-kingship at Jerusalem,\nand then continues the story alone up to the end of the Captivity, and\nthe re\u00ebstablishment of the Temple-worship after the return.\" [Footnote:\n_Inspiration and the Bible_, pp. 159, 160.]\n\nThe older history, contained in Samuel and Kings, breaks off abruptly in\nthe time of the Captivity; we know that it must have been written during\nthe Exile, and could not have been written earlier than about 550 B.C.\nThe later history, in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, begins with Adam,\nand goes on, by one or two genealogical tables, for almost two centuries\nafter the Captivity. In 1 Chronicles iii. 19, the genealogy of\nZerubbabel, who came back with the captives, is carried on for at least\nsix generations. Counting thirty years for a generation, the table\nextends the time of the writing of this record to at least one hundred\nand eighty years after the return of the exiles. This occurred in 538\nB.C., and the book must therefore have been written as late as 350 B.C.,\nor very nearly two centuries after the earlier history was finished.\n\nThere are conclusive reasons for believing that the four books now under\nconsideration, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, were\noriginally but one book. In the Hebrew Canon the Chronicles is now but\none book; and in the old Hebrew collections Ezra and Nehemiah were but\none book. It was in the Septuagint that they were first separated. Thus\nwe have the four certainly reduced to two. And it is not difficult, on\nan inspection of the documents, to reduce the two to one. If you will\nopen your Bible at the last verses of Second Chronicles, beginning with\nthe twenty-second verse of the last chapter, and, fixing your eyes on\nthis passage, will ask some one to read to you the first three verses of\nthe Book of Ezra, you will see how these two books were formerly one;\nand how the manuscript was torn in two in the wrong place; so that the\nBook of Chronicles actually ends in the middle of a sentence. The period\nat the end of this book ought to be expunged.\n\nThe explanatfon of this curious phenomenon is not difficult. The last\ngroup of sacred writings, what the Jews call the Ketubim, was kept open\nfor additions to a very late day. After this history was written\n(Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah) the question arose whether it should be\nadmitted into the canon. The first answer to this question evidently\nwas: \"We do not need the first part of the history,--the Book of\nChronicles,--for we have the substance of it already in the Books of\nSamuel and Kings and in the earlier writings; but we do need the last\npart of it, 'Ezra-Nehemiah,' for this carries the history on beyond the\nCaptivity, and gives the account of the return of the exiles and the\nrebuilding of the city and the temple.\" So they tore the book in two,\nand put the last part of it into the growing collection of \"Ketubim,\" or\n\"Writings.\" The careless division of the manuscript, not at the\nbeginning of a paragraph, but in the middle of a sentence, made it\nnecessary, of course, for the scribe to copy at the beginning of the\nEzra-roll the words belonging to it which had been torn off; but they\nwere not erased from the first part, and have been left there, as the\nold historians say, \"unto this day.\"\n\nBy and by there were requests that this first part--the Chronicles--be\nadmitted to the Ketubim. The priests and the Levites of the temple would\nbe sure to urge this request, for the Chronicles is the one book of the\nOld Testament in which their order is glorified; and at length the\nrequest was granted; the Chronicles were added to the collection, and as\nthey went in last they follow Ezra-Nehemiah, although they belong,\nchronologically, before it. They stand to-day at the end of the Hebrew\nBible, and thus testify, by their position, respecting the lateness of\nthe date at which they were admitted to the canon. Thus the Hebrew Bible\nends with an incomplete sentence.\n\nWhat this later history may have been called before it was torn in two\nwe have no means of knowing; but the Jews called the last part of it\n(which stands first in their collection) by the name of Ezra, and the\nfirst part of it (which is last in their canon) they named, \"Events of\nthe Times,\" or \"Annals.\" In the Septuagint this book of the Chronicles\nwas called \"Paraleipomena,\" \"Leavings,\" \"Things Left Over,\"\n\"Supplements.\" Jerome first gave it the name of \"Chronicles,\" by which\nwe know it.\n\nThe name of the author of this book is unknown. The strong probabilities\nare that he was a Levite, connected with the temple service in\nJerusalem. The Levites had charge of the public religious services of\nthe temple, especially of its music; and the fullness with which this\nwriter expatiates upon all this part of the ritual shows that it was\nvery dear to his heart. [Footnote:  See 1 Chron. vi. 31-48; xv. 16-24;\nxvi 4-42; xxv.2 Chron. v. 12, 13; vii. 6; viii. 14; xx. 19-21; xxiii.\n13; xxix. 25-30; xxxi 2; zxxiv. 12; xxxv. 15.] Everything relating to\nthe Levitical priesthood and its services is dwelt upon in this book\nwith emphasis and elaboration; as the histories of Samuel and the Kings\nare written from the prophetical standpoint, this is most evidently\nwritten from the priestly point of view.\n\nIn these books of the Chronicles the author constantly points out the\nsources of his information. He tells us that he quotes from the \"Book of\nthe Kings of Judah and Israel,\" from the \"Acts of the Kings of Israel,\"\nand from \"The Story of the Book of the Kings.\" The identity of these\nbooks is a disputed question. It is supposed by some critics that he\nrefers to the Books of Kings in our Bible; others maintain that he draws\nfrom another and much larger book of a similar name which has been lost.\nThe latter theory is generally maintained by the more conservative\ncritics; and it is easier to vindicate the author's trustworthiness on\nthis supposition; yet even so there are serious difficulties in the\ncase; for it is hard to believe that he could have written these annals\nwithout having had before him the earlier record, and between the two\nare many discrepancies. The main facts of the history are substantially\nthe same in the two narratives; but in minor matters the disagreements\nand contradictions are numerous. It is part of the purpose of this study\nto look difficulties of this kind fairly in the face; it is treason to\nthe spirit of all truth to refuse to do so. Let us examine, then, a few\nof these discrepancies between the earlier and later history.\n\nIn 2 Samuel viii. 4, we are told that in David's victory over Hadadezer\nking of Zobah, he took from the latter \"a thousand and seven hundred\nhorsemen.\" In 1 Chronicles xviii. 4, he is said to have taken \"a\nthousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.\" In 2 Samuel xxiv. 9,\nDavid's census is said to have returned 800,000 warriors for Israel, and\n500,000 for Judah. In 1 Chronicles xxi. 5, the number is stated as\n1,100,000 for Israel, and 470,000 for Judah. In 2 Samuel xxiv. 24, David\nis said to have paid Araunah for his threshing-floor fifty shekels of\nsilver, estimated at about thirty dollars of our money; in 1 Chronicles\nxxi. 25, he is said to have given him \"six hundred shekels of gold by\nweight,\" amounting to a little more than thirty-four hundred dollars. In\n2 Chronicles xiv. i, we read that Asa reigned in the stead of his father\nAbijah, and that in his days the land was quiet ten years. Again in the\n10th and the 19th verses of the following chapter we learn that from the\nfifteenth to the thirty-fifth year of Asa there was no war in the land.\nIn 1 Kings xv. 32, we are explicitly told that \"there was war between\nAsa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.\" In 1 Chronicles xx. the\nstory of the taking of Rabbah seems to be abridged from 2 Samuel xi.,\nxii.; but the abridgment is curiously done, so that the part taken by\nDavid in the siege and capture of the city is not brought out; and the\nwhole narrative of David's relation to Uriah and Bathsheba, with the\nrebuke of Nathan and the death of David's child, is not alluded to. The\nrelation of the two narratives at this point is significant; it deserves\ncareful study. One more curious difference is found in the two accounts\nof the numbering of Israel. In 2 Samuel xxiv. 1, we read, \"And the anger\nof the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them,\nsaying, Go, number Israel and Judah.\" In 1 Chronicles xxi., we read,\n\"And Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.\"\nThe numbering in both narratives is assumed to be a grievous sin; and\nthe penalty of this sin, which was David's, was visited upon the people\nin the form of a pestilence, which slew seventy thousand of them. I\nobserve that the commentators try to reconcile these statements by\nsaying that God _permitted_ Satan to tempt David. I wonder if that\nexplanation affords to any mind a shade of relief. But the older record\nutterly forbids such a gloss. \"The anger of the Lord against Israel\"\nprompted the Lord to \"move David against them,\" and the Lord said, \"Go,\nnumber Judah and Israel!\" It was not a permission; it was a direct\ninstigation. Then because David did what the Lord moved him to do, \"the\nLord sent a pestilence upon Israel,\" which destroyed seventy thousand\nmen. We are not concerned to reconcile these two accounts, for neither\nof them can be true. Let us not suppose that we can be required, by any\ntheory of inspiration, to blaspheme God by accusing him of any such\nmonstrous iniquity. Let no man open his mouth in this day to declare\nthat the Judge of all the earth instigated David to do a presumptuous\ndeed, and then slew seventy thousand of David's subjects for the sin of\ntheir ruler. Such a view of God might have been held without censure\nthree thousand years ago; it cannot be held without sin by men who have\nthe New Testament in their hands. This narrative belongs to that class\nof crude and defective teachings which Jesus, in the Sermon on the\nMount, points out and sets aside. We may, nay we must apply to the\nmorality of this transaction the principle of judgment which Jesus gives\nus in that discourse, and say: \"Ye have heard that it hath been said by\nthem of old time that God sometimes instigates a ruler to do wrong, and\nthen punishes his people for the wrong done by the ruler which he\nhimself has instigated; but I say unto you that 'God cannot be tempted\nwith evil, neither tempteth he any man;' moreover the ruler shall not\nbear the sin of the subject, nor the subject the sin of the ruler; for\nevery man shall give account of himself unto God.\" It is by the higher\nstandard that Christ has given us in the New Testament that we must\njudge all these narratives of the Old Testament, and when we find in\nthese old writings statements which represent God as perfidious and\nunjust, we are not to try to \"harmonize\" them with other statements; we\nare simply to set them aside as the views of a dark age.\n\nSuch blurred and distorted ideas about God and his truth we do certainly\nfind here and there in these old writings; the treasure which they have\npreserved for us is in earthen vessels; the human element, which is a\nnecessary part of a written revelation, all the while displays itself.\nIt is human to err; and the men who wrote the Bible were human. We may\nhave a theory that God must have guarded them from every form of error,\nbut the Bible itself has no such theory; and we must try to make our\ntheories of inspiration fit the facts of the Bible as we find them lying\nupon its pages.\n\nThe second portion of this history, the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah, presents\nfewer of these difficulties than the Book of Chronicles. It is a\nfragmentary, but to all appearance a veracious record of the events\nwhich took place after the first return of the exiles to Jerusalem. The\nfirst caravan returned in the first year of King Cyrus; and the history\nextends to the last part of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus,--covering\na period of more than a hundred years. The documents on which\nit is based were largely official; and there is no doubt that\nconsiderable portions of the first book came from the pen of Ezra\nhimself, and that the second book was made up in part from writings left\nby Nehemiah. The language of the second book is Hebrew; that of the\nfirst is partly Hebrew and partly Chaldee or Aramaic. We read in the\nfourth chapter of Ezra that a certain letter was written to King\nArtaxerxes, and it is said that \"the writing of the letter was written\nin the Syrian character.\" The margin of the revised version says\n\"Aramaic.\" We find this letter in our Hebrew Bibles in the Aramaic\nlanguage. And the writer, after copying the letter in Aramaic, goes\nright on with the history in Aramaic; from the twelfth verse of the\nfourth chapter to the eighteenth verse of the sixth chapter the language\nis all Aramaic; then the historian drops back into Hebrew again, and\ngoes on to the twelfth verse of the seventh chapter, when he returns to\nAramaic to record the letter of Artaxerxes, which extends to the\ntwenty-seventh verse. The rest of the book is Hebrew. With the exception\nof some short sections of the Book of Daniel, this is the only portion of\nour Old Testament that was not written originally in the Hebrew tongue.\n\nThe contents of these two books may be briefly summarized. The first\nbook tells us how the Persian king Cyrus, in the first year of his\nreign, issued a proclamation to the Jews dwelling in his kingdom,\npermitting and encouraging them to return to their own country and to\nrebuild the temple in Jerusalem. The conquest of the Babylonians by the\nPersians had placed the captive Jews in vastly improved circumstances.\nBetween the faith of the Persians and that of the Jews there was close\naffinity. The Persians were monotheists; and \"Cyrus,\" as Rawlinson says,\n\"evidently identified Jehovah with Ormazd, and, accepting as a divine\ncommand the prophecy of Isaiah, undertook to rebuild their temple for a\npeople who, like his own, allowed no image of God to defile the\nsanctuary.... The foundation was then laid for that friendly intimacy\nbetween the two peoples of which we have abundant evidence in the books\nof Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.\" The words of the decree of Cyrus, with\nwhich the Book of Ezra opens, show how he regarded the God of the Jews:\n\"Whosoever there is among you of all his people, his God be with him,\nand let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house\nof the Lord, the God of Israel, (he is God,) which is in Jerusalem.\" The\nparenthetical clause is a clear confession of the faith of Cyrus that\nJehovah was only another name for Ormazd; that there is but one God.\n\nIn consequence of this decree, a caravan of nearly fifty thousand\npersons, led by Zerubbabel, carrying with them liberal free-will\nofferings of those who remained in Babylon for the building of the\ntemple, went back to Jerusalem, and in the second year began the\nerection of the second temple. With this pious design certain Samaritans\ninterfered, finally procuring an injunction from the successor of Cyrus\nby which the building of the temple was interrupted for several years.\nOn the accession of Darius, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred up\nthe people to resume the work, and at length succeeded in getting from\nthe great king complete authority to proceed with it. In the sixth year\nof his reign the second temple was completed, and dedicated with great\nrejoicing. This closes the first section of the Book of Ezra. The rest\nof the book is occupied with the story of Ezra himself, who is said to\nhave been \"a ready scribe in the law of Moses,\" and who, \"in the seventh\nyear of Artaxerxes, king of Persia,\" led a second caravan of exiles home\nto Jerusalem, with great store of silver and gold and wheat and wine and\noil for the resumption of the ritual worship of the Lord's house. The\nstory of this return of the exiles is minutely told; and the remainder\nof this book is devoted to a recital of the matter of the mixed\nmarriages between the Jewish men and the women of the surrounding\ntribes, which caused Ezra great distress, and which he succeeded in\nannulling, so that these \"strange women,\" as they are called, were all\nput away. To our eyes this seems a piece of doubtful morality, but we\nmust consider the changed standards of our time, and remember that these\nmen might have done with the purest conscientiousness some things which\nwe could not do at all.\n\nThe Book of Nehemiah is in part a recital by Nehemiah himself of the\ncircumstances of his coming to Jerusalem, which seems to have taken\nplace about thirteen years after the coming of Ezra. He was the\ncupbearer of Artaxerxes the king; he had heard of the distress and\npoverty of his people at Jerusalem, and in the fervid patriotism of his\nnature he begged the privilege of going up to Jerusalem to rebuild its\nwalls. Permission was gained, and the first part of the book contains a\nstirring account of the experiences of Nehemiah in building the walls of\nJerusalem. After this work was finished, Nehemiah undertook a census of\nthe restored city, but he found, as he says, \"the book of the genealogy\nof them that came up at the first,\"--the list of families which appears\nin Ezra,--and this he copies. It may be instructive to take these two\nlists--the one in Ezra ii. and the one in Nehemiah vii.--and compare\nthem. After this we have an account of a great congregation which\nassembled \"in the broad place that was before the water gate,\" when Ezra\nthe scribe stood upon \"a pulpit of wood\" from early morning until\nmidday, and read to the assembled multitude from the book of the law.\n\"And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people (for he was\nabove all the people); and when he opened it all the people stood up,\nand Ezra blessed Jehovah the great God. And all the people answered,\nAmen, Amen, with the lifting up of their hands; and they bowed their\nheads, and worshiped Jehovah, with their faces to the ground.\" Other\nscribes stood by, apparently to take turns in the reading; and it is\nsaid that \"they read in the book, in the law of the Lord distinctly [or,\n'with an interpretation,' Marg.], and they gave the sense, so that they\nunderstood the reading.\" From this it has been inferred that the people\nhad already become, in their sojourn in the East, more familiar with\nAramaic than with their own tongue, and that they were unable to\nunderstand the Hebrew without some words of interpretation. It is\ndoubtful, however, whether all this meaning can be read into this\npassage. At any rate, we have here, undoubtedly, the history of the\ninauguration of the reading of the law as one of the regular acts of\npublic worship. And this must have been about 440 B.C.\n\nThe narrative of the first complete and formal observance of the Feast\nof Tabernacles since the days of Joshua; the narrative of the solemn\nleague and covenant by which the people bound themselves to keep the\nlaw; the narrative of the dedication of the wall of the city, and the\naccount of various reforms which Nehemiah prosecuted, with certain lists\nof priests and Levites, fill up the remainder of the book.\n\nTaking it all in all it is a very valuable record; no historical book of\nthe Old Testament gives greater evidence of veracity; none excels it in\nhuman interest. The pathetic tale of the return of this people from\ntheir long exile, of the rebuilding of their city and their temple, and\nof the heroic and self-denying labors of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, the\ngovernors, and Haggai and Zechariah, the prophets, and Ezra the scribe,\nwith all their coadjutors, is full of significance to all those who\ntrace in the history of the people of Israel, more clearly than anywhere\nelse, the increasing purpose of God which runs through all the ages.\n\nThat portions of the first book were written by Ezra, and of the second\nbook by Nehemiah, is not doubted; but both books were revised somewhat\nby later hands; additions were undoubtedly made after the death of\nNehemiah; for one, at least, of the genealogies shows us a certain\nJaddua as high priest, and tells us that he was the great grandson of\nthe man who was high priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem. It is not\nprobable that Nehemiah lived to see this Jaddua in the high priest's\noffice. It is probable that the last revision of the Bible was made some\ntime after 400 B.C.\n\nI have now to speak, in the conclusion of this chapter, of two other\nbooks of this last group, concerning which there has always been much\nmisconception, the Book of Esther and the Book of Daniel. Esther stands\nin our Bibles immediately after Ezra-Nehemiah, while Daniel is included\namong the prophets. But in the Hebrew Bibles both books are found in the\ngroup which was last collected and least valued.\n\nI have styled these historical books; are they truly historical? That\nthey are founded upon fact I do not doubt; but it is, perhaps, safer to\nregard them both rather as historical fictions than as veritable\nhistories. The reason for this judgment may appear as we go on with the\nstudy.\n\nThe Book of Esther may be briefly summarized. The scene is laid in\nShushan the palace, better known as Susa, one of the royal residences of\nthe kings of Persia. The story opens with a great feast, lasting one\nhundred and eighty days, given by the King Ahasuerus to all the nabobs\nof the realm. It is assumed that this king was Xerxes the Great, but the\nidentification is by no means conclusive. At the close of this\nmonumental debauch, the king, in his drunken pride, calls in his queen\nVashti to show her beauty to the inebriated courtiers. She refuses, and\nthe refusal ought to be remembered to her honor; but this book does not\nso regard it. The sympathy of the book is with the bibulous monarch, and\nnot with his chaste and modest spouse. The king is very wroth, and after\ntaking much learned advice from his counselors, puts away his queen for\nthis act of insubordination, and proceeds to look for another. His\nchoice falls upon a Jewish maiden, a daughter of the Exile, who has been\nbrought up by her cousin Mordecai. Esther, at Mordecai's command, at\nfirst conceals her Jewish descent from the king. An opportunity soon\ncomes for Mordecai to reveal to Esther a plot against the king's life;\nand the circumstance is recorded in the chronicles of the realm.\n\nSoon after this a certain Haman is made Grand Vizier of the kingdom, and\nMordecai the Jew refuses to do obeisance to him; in consequence of which\nHaman secures from the king an edict ordering the assassination of all\nthe Jews in the kingdom. His wrath against Mordecai being still further\ninflamed, he erects a gallows fifty cubits high, with the purpose of\nhanging thereon the testy Israelite. The intervention of Esther puts an\nend to these malicious schemes. At the risk of her life she presents\nherself before the king, and gains his favor; then, while Haman's\npurpose halts, the king is reminded, when the annals of his kingdom are\nread to him on a wakeful night, of the frustration of the plot against\nhis person by Mordecai, and learning that no recompense has been made to\nhim, suddenly determines to elevate and honor him; and the consequence\nis, that Haman himself, his purposes being disclosed by the queen, is\nhanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai, and Mordecai is\nelevated to Hainan's place. The decree of an Eastern king cannot be\nannulled, and the massacre of the Jews still remains a legal\nrequirement; yet Esther and Mordecai are permitted to send royal orders\nto all parts of the realm authorizing the Jews upon the day of the\nappointed massacre to stand for their lives, and to kill as many as they\ncan of their enemies. Thus encouraged, and supported also by the king's\nofficials in every province, who are now the creatures of Mordecai, the\nJews turn upon their enemies, and slay in one day seventy-five thousand\nof them,--five hundred in the palace of Shushan,--among whom are the ten\nsons of Haman. On the evening of this bloody day, the king says to\nEsther the queen: \"The Jews have slain five hundred men in Shushan the\npalace, and the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest\nof the king's provinces? [From this sample of their ferocity you can\njudge how much blood must have been shed throughout the kingdom.] Now\nwhat is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee; or what is thy\nrequest further? and it shall be done.\" It might be supposed that this\nfair Jewish princess would be satisfied with this banquet of blood, but\nshe is not; she wants more. \"Then said Esther, if it please the king,\nlet it be granted to the Jews which are in Shushan to do to-morrow also,\naccording unto this day's decree, and let Haman's ten sons be hanged\nupon the gallows.\" The request is granted; the next day three hundred\nmore Persians are butchered in Shushan the palace; and the dead bodies\nof the ten sons of Haman, weltering in their gore, are lifted up and\nhanged upon the gallows, and all to please Queen Esther! If a single Jew\nloses his life in this outbreak, the writer forgets to mention it. It is\nidle to say that this is represented as a defensive act on the part of\nthe Jews; the impression is given that the Persians, by the menacing\naction of their own officials under Mordecai's authority, were\ncompletely cowed, and were simply slaughtered in their tracks by the\ninfuriated Jews.\n\nAs a memorial of this feast of blood, the Jewish festival of Purim was\ninstituted, which is kept to this day; and the Book of Esther is read at\nthis feast, in dramatic fashion, with passionate responses by the\ncongregation.\n\nIs this history? There is every reason to hope that it is not. That some\ndeliverance of the Jews from their enemies in Persia may be commemorated\nby the feast of Purim is possible; that precisely such a fiendish\noutbreak of fanatical cruelty as this ever occurred, we may safely and\ncharitably doubt. The fact that the story was told, and that it gained\ngreat popularity among the Jews, and by some of those in later ages came\nto be regarded as one of the most sacred books of their canon is,\nhowever, a revelation to us of the extent to which the most baleful and\nhorrible passions may be cherished in the name of religion. It is\nprecisely for this purpose, perhaps, that the book has been preserved in\nour canon. If any one wishes to see the perfect antithesis of the\nprecepts and the spirit of the gospel of Christ, let him read the Book\nof Esther. Frederick Bleek is entirely justified in his statement that\n\"a spirit of revenge and persecution prevails in the book, and that no\nother book of the Old Testament is so far removed as this is from the\nspirit of the gospel.\" [Footnote: Introduction to the Old Testament, i.\n450.] For it is not merely true that these atrocities are here recited;\nthey are clearly indorsed. There is not a word said in deprecation of\nthe beastliness of the king or the vindictiveness of the hero and the\nheroine. It is clear, as Bleek says, \"that the author finds a peculiar\nsatisfaction in the characters and mode of acting of his Jewish\ncompatriots, Esther and Mordecai; and that the disposition shown by them\nappears to him as the right one, and one worthy of their nation.\"\n\"Esther the beautiful queen,\" whose praises have been sung by many of\nour poets, possesses, indeed, some admirable qualities; her courage is\nillustrious; her patriotism is beautiful; but her bloodthirstiness is\nterrible.\n\nAs to the time when this book was written, or who wrote it, I am not\ncurious. Probably it was written long after the Exile, but by some one\nwho was somewhat familiar with the manners of Oriental courts. The name\nof God is not once mentioned in the book; and it seems like blasphemy to\nintimate that the Spirit of God could have had anything to do with its\ncomposition. It is absolutely sickening to read the commentaries, which\nassume that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost, and which labor to\njustify and palliate its frightful narrative. One learns, with a sense\nof relief, that the Jews themselves long disputed its admission to their\ncanon; that the school of Schammai would not accept it, and that several\nof the wisest and best of the early fathers of the Christian church,\nAthanasius and Melito of Sardis among the rest, denied it a place in\nsacred Scripture. Dr. Martin Luther is orthodox enough for me, and he,\nmore than once, expressed the hearty wish that the book had perished.\nThat, indeed, we need not desire; let it remain as a dark background on\nwhich the Christian morality may stand forth resplendent; as a striking\nexample of the kind of ideas which Christians ought not to entertain,\nand of the kind of feelings which they ought not to cherish.\n\nThe Book of Daniel brings us into a very different atmosphere. Esther is\nabsolutely barren of religious ideas or suggestions; Daniel is full of\nthe spirit of faith and prayer. Whether the character of Daniel, as here\npresented, is a sketch from life or a work of the imagination, it is a\nnoble personality. The self-control, the fidelity to conscience, the\nheroic purposes which are here attributed to him, make up a picture\nwhich has always attracted the admiration of generous hearts.\n\n\"As in the story of the Three Children,\" says Dean Stanley, \"so in that\nof the Den of Lions, the element which has lived on with immortal vigor\nis that which tells how, 'when Daniel knew that the writing was signed,\nhe kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks\nto God, as he did aforetime.' How often have these words confirmed the\nsolitary protest, not only in the Flavian amphitheatre, but in the\nordinary yet not more easy task of maintaining the right of conscience\nagainst arbitrary power or invidious insult! How many an independent\npatriot or unpopular reformer has been nerved by them to resist the\nunreasonable commands of king or priest! How many a little boy at school\nhas been strengthened by them for the effort, when he has knelt down by\nhis bedside for the first time to say his prayers in the presence of\nindifferent or scoffing companions.... Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego\nin the court of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel in the court of Darius, are the\nlikenesses of 'the small transfigured band whom the world cannot tame,'\nwho, by faith in the Unseen, have in every age 'stopped the mouths of\nlions, and quenched the violence of fire.' This was the example to those\non whom, in all ages, in spirit if not in letter, 'the fire had no\npower, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats\nchanged, nor the smell of fire passed upon them;' but it was 'as it were\na moist, whistling wind, and the form of the fourth, who walked with\nthem in the midst of the fire, was like a Son of God.'\" [Footnote:\n_History of the Jewish Church_, pp. 41, 42.]\n\nWas Daniel a historical person? The question has been much disputed, but\nI think that we may safely answer it in the affirmative. It is true that\nin all these writings of the later period of Israel Daniel is mentioned\nbut twice, both times in the Book of Ezekiel (xiv. 14; xxviii. 3). The\nfirst of these allusions is a declaration that a few righteous men\ncannot save a wicked city, when the decree of destruction against it has\nbeen issued; \"though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it,\nthey should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith\nthe Lord God.\" The other is in a prophecy against the King of Tyre, in\nwhich he is represented as saying to himself that he is wiser than\nDaniel; that there is no secret that can be hidden from him. Whether\nthese casual uses of the name of Daniel for purposes of illustration can\nbe regarded as establishing his historical character may be questioned.\nAnd it is a singular fact that we have not in Ezra, or Nehemiah, or\nHaggai, or Zechariah, or Malachi, any reference to the existence of\nDaniel. Nevertheless, it is hardly to be supposed that such a character\nwas wholly fictitious; we may well suppose that he existed, and that the\nnarratives of his great fidelity and piety are at any rate founded upon\nfact.\n\nThe first six chapters of the book are not ascribed to Daniel as their\nauthor; he is spoken of in the third person, and sometimes in a way that\na good man would not be likely to speak about himself. The remainder of\nthe book claims to be written by him. The question is whether this claim\nis to be taken as an assertion of historical fact, or as a device of\nliterary workmanship. Ecclesiastes was undoubtedly written long after\nthe Exile, yet it purports to have been composed by King Solomon. The\nauthor puts his words into the mouth of Solomon, to gain attention for\nthem. It is not fair to call this a fraud; it was a perfectly legitimate\nliterary device. It is entirely possible that this may be the case with\nthe author of this book. Daniel was a person whose name was well-known\namong his contemporaries, and the author makes him his mouthpiece. There\nmay have been a special reason why the author should have desired to\nsend out these narratives and visions under the name of a hero of\nantiquity, a reason which we shall presently discover.\n\nThe Book of Daniel is not what is commonly called a prophecy; it is\nrather an apocalypse. It belongs to a class of literature which sprang\nup in the last days of the Jewish nationality, after the old prophets\nhad disappeared; it is designed to comfort the people with hopes of\nfuture restoration of the national power; its method is that of vision\nand symbolic representation. Daniel is the only book of this kind in the\nOld Testament; the New Testament canon closes, as you know, with a\nsimilar book. I shall not undertake to interpret to you these visions of\nthe Book of Daniel; they are confessedly obscure and mysterious. But\nthere is one portion of the book, the eleventh chapter, which is\nadmitted to be a minute and realistic description of the coalitions and\nthe conflicts between the Gr\u00e6co-Syrian and the Gr\u00e6co-Egyptian kings,\nevents which took place about the middle of the second century before\nChrist. These personages are not named, but they are vividly described,\nand the intrigues and vicissitudes of that portion of Jewish history in\nwhich they are the chief actors are fully told. Moreover the recital is\nput in the future tense; \"There shall stand up yet three kings in\nPersia; and the fourth shall be richer than they all; and when he is\nwaxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm\nof Greece.\" If, now, the Book of Daniel was written in the early days of\nthe Exile, this was a very circumstantial prediction of what happened in\nthe second century,--a prediction uttered three hundred years before the\nevent. And respecting these predictions, if such they are, we must say\nthis, that we have no others like them. The other prophets never\nundertake to tell the particulars of what is coming to pass; they give\nout, in terms very large and general, the nature of the events which are\nto come. No such carefully elaborated programme as this is found in any\nother predictive utterance.\n\nBut there are those--and they include the vast majority of the leading\nChristian scholars of the present day--who say that these words were not\nwritten in the early days of the Exile; that they must have been written\nabout the middle of the second century; that they were therefore an\naccount of what was going on, by an onlooker, couched in these phrases\nof vision and prophecy. The people of Israel were passing through a\nterrible ordeal; they needed to be heartened and nerved for resistance\nand endurance. Their heroic leader, Judas Maccabeus, was urging them on\nto prodigies of valor in their conflict with the vile Antiochus; such a\nringing manifesto as this, put forth in the progress of the conflict,\nmight have a powerful influence in reinforcing their patriotism and\nconfirming their faith. It might also have appeared at some stage of the\nconflict when it would have been imprudent and perhaps impossible to\nsecure currency for the book if the reference to existing rulers had\nbeen explicit; such a device as the author adopted may have been\nperfectly understood by the readers; although slightly veiled in the\nform of its deliverance, it was, perhaps, for this very reason, all the\nbetter fitted for its purpose.\n\nIt might, then, have been written when the Ptolemies and the Seleucid\u00e6\nwere wasting the fields of Palestine with their conflicts. But was it\nwritten then? How do we know that it was not a circumstantial prediction\nmade three hundred years before? We do not know, with absolute\ncertainty, when it was written; but there are strong reasons for\nbelieving that the later date is the true date.\n\n1. The book is not in the Hebrew collection of the Prophets. That\ncollection was made at least a hundred years after the time at which\nDaniel is here said to have lived; if so great a prophecy had been\nexisting then, it is strange that it should not have been gathered with\nthe other prophets into Nehemiah's collection. It is found, instead,\namong the Ketubim,--the later and supplementary writings of the Hebrew\nBible.\n\n2. It is strange also, as I have intimated, that no mention of Daniel or\nof his book is found in the histories of the Exile and the return, or in\nany of the prophecies uttered in Israel after the return. That there\nshould be no allusion in any of these books to so distinguished a\npersonage can hardly be explained.\n\n3. Jesus, the son of Sirach, one of the writers of the Apocrypha, who\nlived about 200 B.C., gives a full catalogue of all the great worthies\nof Israel; he has a list of the prophets; he names all the other\nprophets; he does not name Daniel.\n\n4. The nature of this prediction, if it be a prediction, is\nunaccountable. Daniel is said to have lived in the Babylonian period,\nand looked forward from that day. His people were in exile, but there is\nnot a vision of his that has any reference to their return from the\ncaptivity, to the rebuilding of the temple, or to any of the events of\ntheir history belonging to the two centuries following. It is strange\nthat if, standing at that point of time, he was inspired to predict the\nfuture of the Jewish people, he should not have had some message\nrespecting those great events in their history which were to happen\nwithin the next century. Instead of this, his visions, so far as his own\npeople are concerned, overleap three centuries and land in the days of\nAntiochus Epiphanes. Here they begin at once to be very specific; they\ntell all the particulars of this period, but beyond this period they\ngive no particulars at all; the vision of the Messianic triumph which\nfollows is vague and general like the rest of the prophecies. These\ncircumstances strongly support the theory of the later date.\n\n5. Words appear in this writing which almost certainly fix it at a later\ndate than the Babylonian period. There are certainly nine undoubted\nPersian words in this book; there are no Persian words in Ezekiel, who\nlived at the time when Daniel is placed at the Babylonian court, nor in\nHaggai, Zechariah, or Malachi. There are several Greek words, names of\nmusical instruments, and it is almost certain that no Greek words were\nin use in Babylonia at that early day. This philological argument may\nseem very dubious and far-fetched, but it is really one of the most\nconclusive tests of the date of a document. There is no witness so\ncompetent as the written word. Let me give you a homely illustration.\nSuppose you find in some late history of the United States a quoted\nletter said to have been written by President Zachary Taylor, who died\nin 1850, respecting a certain political contest. The letter contains\nthe following paragraph:--\n\n\"On receiving this intelligence, I called up the Secretary of State by\ntelephone, and asked him how he explained the defeat. He told me that,\nin his opinion, boodle was at the bottom of it. I determined to make an\ninvestigation, and after wiring to the member of Congress in that\ndistrict, I ordered my servant to engage me a section in a Pullman car,\nand started the same night for the scene of the contest.\"\n\nNow of course you know that this paragraph could not have been written\nby President Taylor, nor during the period of his administration. The\ntelephone was not then in existence; there were no Pullman cars; the\nwords \"boodle\" and \"wire,\" in the sense here used, had never been heard.\nIn precisely the same way the trained philologist can often determine\nwith great certainty the date of a writing. He knows the biography of\nwords or word-forms; and he may know that some of the words or the\nword-forms contained in a certain writing were not yet in the language\nat the date when it is said to have been written. It is by evidence of\nthis nature that the critics fix the date of the Book of Daniel at a\nperiod long after the close of the Babylonian empire.\n\nThis verdict reduces, somewhat, the element of the marvelous contained\nin the book; it does not in any wise reduce the moral and spiritual\nvalue of it. The age of the Maccabees, when this book appeared, was one\nof the great ages of Jewish history. Judas Maccabeus is one of the first\nof the Israelitish heroes; and the struggle, in which he was the leader,\nagainst the dissolute Syrian Greeks brought out some of the strongest\nqualities of the Hebrew character. The genuine humility, the fervid\nconsecration, the dauntless faith of the Jews of this generation put to\nshame the conduct of their countrymen in many ages more celebrated. And\nit cannot be doubted that this book was both the effect and the cause of\nthis lofty national purpose. \"Rarely,\" says Ewald, \"does it happen that\na book appears as this did, in the very crisis of the times, and in a\nform most suited to such an age, artificially reserved, close and\nsevere, and yet shedding so clear a light through obscurity, and so\nmarvelously captivating. It was natural that it should soon achieve a\nsuccess entirely corresponding to its inner truth and glory. And so, for\nthe last time in the literature of the Old Testament, we have in this\nbook an example of a work which, having sprung from the deepest\nnecessities of the noblest impulses of the age, can render to that age\nthe purest service; and which, by the development of events immediately\nafter, receives with such power the stamp of Divine witness that it\nsubsequently attains imperishable sanctity.\" [Footnote: Quoted by\nStanley, _History of the Jewish Church_, iii. p. 336.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE POETICAL BOOKS.\n\n\n\nThe poetical books of the Old Testament now invite our attention,--\"The\nLamentations,\" \"Proverbs,\" \"Ecclesiastes,\" \"The Song of Solomon,\" \"Job,\"\nand \"The Psalms.\" Ecclesiastes is not in poetical form, but it is a\nprose poem; the movement of the language is often lyrical, and the\nthought is all expressed in poetic phrases. The other books are all\npoetical in form as well as in fact.\n\nLAMENTATIONS, called in the Hebrew Bible by the quaint title \"Ah How,\"\nthe first two words of the book, and in the Greek Bible \"Threnoi,\"\nsignifying mourning, is placed in the middle of the latest group of the\nHebrew writings. In the English Bible it follows the prophecy of\nJeremiah. It is called in our version \"The Lamentations of Jeremiah.\"\nThis title preserves the ancient tradition, and there is no reason to\ndoubt that the tradition embodies the truth. \"In favor of this opinion,\"\nsays Bleek, \"we may note the agreement of the songs with Jeremiah's\nprophecies in their whole character and spirit, in their purport, and in\nthe tone of disposition shown in them, as well as in the language.... As\nregards the occasion and substance of these songs, the two first and the\ntwo last relate to the misery which had been sent on the Jewish people,\nand particularly on Jerusalem; the middle one, however, chiefly refers\nto the personal sufferings of the author.\" [Footnote: Vol. ii. p. 102. ]\n\nThese five parts are not the five chapters of a book; they are five\ndistinct poems, each complete in itself, though they are all connected\nin meaning. You notice the regularity of the structure, which is even\nexhibited to some extent in the Old Version. The first and second, the\nfourth and fifth, have each twenty-two verses or stanzas; the third one\nhas sixty-six stanzas. All but the last are acrostical poems. There are\ntwenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet; each of these letters, in\nregular order, begins a verse in four of these songs; in the third\nlamentation there are three verses for each letter.\n\nThe time at which these elegies were written was undoubtedly the year of\nthe capture of Jerusalem by the army of Nebuchadnezzar, 586 B.C. The\nChaldean army had been investing the city for more than a year; the\nwalls were finally broken down, and the Chaldeans rushed in; as they\ngained entrance on one side, the wretched King Zedekiah escaped on the\nother with a few followers and fled down the Jericho road; he was\npursued and overtaken, his sons and princes were slain before his face,\nthen his own eyes were put out, and he was led away in chains to\nBabylon, where he afterward died in captivity. After a few months' work\nof this sort, a portion of the Chaldeans under Nebuzar-adan returned to\nthe dismantled and pillaged city and utterly destroyed both the city and\nthe temple. It is supposed that Jeremiah, who was allowed to remain in\nthe city during this bloody interval, wrote these elegies in the midst\nof the desolation and fear then impending. \"Never,\" says Dean Milman,\n\"was ruined city lamented in language so exquisitely pathetic. Jerusalem\nis, as it were, personified and bewailed with the passionate sorrow of\nprivate and domestic attachment; while the more general pictures of the\nfamine, common misery of every rank and age and sex, all the desolation,\nthe carnage, the violation, the dragging away into captivity, the\nremembrance of former glories, of the gorgeous ceremonies, and of the\nglad festivals, the awful sense of the Divine wrath, heightening the\npresent calamities, are successively drawn with all the life and reality\nof an eye-witness.\" [Footnote: _History of the Jews_, i. 446.]  The\nethical and spiritual qualities of the book are pure and high; the\nwriter does not fail to enforce the truth that it is because \"Jerusalem\nhath grievously sinned\" that \"she is become an unclean thing.\" And in\nthe midst of all this calamity there is no rebellion against God; it is\nonly the cry of a desolate but trusting soul to a just and faithful\nRuler.\n\nTHE PROVERBS, in the Hebrew Bible, is called \"Mishle,\" or sometimes\n\"Mishle Shelomoh.\" The first word signifies Parables or Proverbs or\nSayings; the second word is the supposed name of the author, Solomon. By\nthe later Jews it is sometimes called \"Sepher Chokmah,\"--the Book of\nWisdom,--the same title as that which is borne by one of the apocryphal\nbooks.\n\nHere, doubtless, we have again, in the name of the author, what\nDelitzsch calls a common denominator. On this subject the words of\nWilliam Aldis Wright, in Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\" express a\nconservative judgment:--\n\n\"The superscriptions which are affixed to several portions of the Book\nof Proverbs in i. 1, x. 1, xxv. 1, attribute the authorship of those\nportions to Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel. With the\nexception of the last two chapters, which are distinctly assigned to\nother authors, it is probable that the statement of the superscriptions\nis in the main correct, and that the majority of the proverbs contained\nin the book were uttered or collected by Solomon. It was natural and\nquite in accordance with the practice of other nations that the Hebrews\nshould connect Solomon's name with a collection of maxims and precepts\nwhich form a part of their literature to which he is known to have\ncontributed most largely (1 Kings, iv. 32). In the same way the Greeks\nattributed most of their sayings to Pythagoras; the Arabs to Lokman, Abu\nObeid, Al Mofaddel, Meidani, and Samakhshari; the Persians to Ferid\nAttar; and the northern people to Odin.\n\n\"But there can be no question that the Hebrews were much more justified\nin assigning the Proverbs to Solomon than the nations which have just\nbeen enumerated were in attributing the collections of national maxims\nto the traditional authors above mentioned.\" [Footnote: Art. \"Book of\nProverbs.\"]\n\nThis is, undoubtedly, as much as can be truly said respecting the\nSolomonian authorship of these sayings. Professor Davidson, writing at a\nlater day, is more guarded.\n\n\"In the book which now exists we find gathered together the most\nprecious fruits of the wisdom of Israel during many hundreds of years,\nand undoubtedly the later centuries were richer, or at all events\nfuller, in their contributions than the earlier. The tradition, however,\nwhich connects Solomon with the direction of mind known as 'The Wisdom'\ncannot be reasonably set aside.... Making allowances for the\nexaggerations of later times, we should leave history and tradition\naltogether unexplained if we disallowed the claim of Solomon to have\nexercised a creative influence upon the wisdom in Israel.\" [Footnote:\nArt. \"Proverbs,\" _Encyc. Brit._]\n\nThe book is divided into several sections:\n\n1. A general introduction, explaining the character and aim of the book,\nwhich occupies the first six verses.\n\n2. A connected discourse upon wisdom, not in the form of maxims, but\nrather in the manner of a connected essay, fills the first nine\nchapters.\n\n3. The next thirteen chapters (x.-xxii. 16) contain three hundred and\nseventy-four miscellaneous proverbs, each consisting of two phrases, the\nsecond of which is generally antithetical to the first, as \"A wise son\nmaketh a glad father, but a foolish son is a heaviness to his mother.\"\nThere is only one exception (xix. 7), where the couplet is a triplet.\nProbably one phrase has been lost. The heading of this section is \"The\nProverbs of Solomon;\" the section ends with the twenty-second chapter.\n\n4. From xxii. 17 to xxiv. 22 is a more connected discussion, though in\nthe proverbial form, of the principles of conduct. This is introduced by\na brief exhortation to listen to \"the words of the wise.\"\n\n5. At xxiv. 23, begins another short section which extends through the\nchapter, under this title: \"These also are sayings of the wise.\"\n\n6. The next five chapters (xxv.-xxix.) have for their caption this\nsentence: \"These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of\nHezekiah, king of Judah, copied out.\"\n\n7. Chapter xxx. is said to contain \"The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh,\nthe oracle.\" The author is wholly unknown.\n\n8. Chapter xxxi. 1-9, contains \"The words of King Lemuel, the prophecy\nthat his mother taught him.\" He too stands here upon the sacred page but\nthe shadow of a name.\n\n9. The book closes with an acrostical poem---twenty-two verses beginning\nwith the Hebrew letters in the order of the alphabet--upon \"The Virtuous\nWoman.\" The word \"virtue\" here is used in the Roman sense; it signifies\nrather the vigorous woman, the capable woman.\n\nOf these sections it seems probable that the one here numbered 6 is the\noldest, and that it contains the largest proportion of Solomonian\nsayings. Professor Davidson thinks that it cannot have taken its present\nform earlier than the eighth century.\n\nThe character of the teaching of the book is not uniform, but on the\nwhole it is best described as prudential rather than prophetic. It\nembodies what we are in the habit of calling \"good common sense.\" There\nis an occasional maxim whose application to our own time may be doubted,\nand now and then one whose morality has been superseded by the higher\nstandards of the New Testament; but, after making all due deductions, we\nshall doubtless agree that it is a precious legacy of practical counsel,\nand shall consent to these words of Professor Conant:--\n\n\"The gnomic poetry of the most enlightened of other nations will not\nbear comparison with it in the depth and certainty of its foundation\nprinciples, or in the comprehensiveness and moral grandeur of its\nconceptions of human duty and responsibility.\" [Footnote: Smith's\n_Bible Dictionary_, iii. 2616. ]\n\nEcclesiastes, or the Preacher, bears in the Hebrew collection the name,\n\"Koheleth,\" which means the assembler of the people, and therefore,\nprobably, the man who addresses the assembly. Ecclesiastes is the Greek\nname of the book in the Septuagint; we have simply copied the Greek word\nin English letters.\n\nThe first verse is, \"The words of Koheleth (the Preacher), the son of\nDavid, King in Jerusalem.\" The only son of David who was ever king in\nJerusalem was Solomon; was Solomon the author of this book? This is the\napparent claim; the question is whether we have not here, as in the case\nof Daniel, a book put forth pseudonymously; whether the author does not\npersonate Solomon, and speak his message through Solomon's lips. That\nthis is the fact modern scholars almost unanimously maintain. Their\nreasons for their opinion may be briefly stated:\n\n1. In the conclusion of the book the author speaks in his own person,\nlaying aside the thin disguise which he has been wearing. In several\nother passages the literary veil becomes transparent. Thus (i. 12), \"I\nKoheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.\" This sounds like the voice\nof one looking backward and trying to put himself in Solomon's place.\nAgain, in this and the following chapter, he says of himself: \"I have\ngotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in Jerusalem;\" \"I\nwas great, and increased more than all that were before me in\nJerusalem,\" etc.,--\"all of which,\" says Bleek, \"does not appear very\nnatural as coming from the son of David, who first captured Jerusalem.\"\nNobody had been before him in Jerusalem except his father David.\n\n2. The state of society as described in the book, and particularly the\nreference to rulers, agree better with the theory that it was written\nduring the Persian period, after the Captivity, when the satraps of the\nPersian king were ruling with vacillating arbitrariness and fitful\nviolence.\n\n3. The religious condition of the people as here depicted, and the\nreligious ideas of the book represent the period following the\nCaptivity, and do not represent the golden age of Israel.\n\n4. More important and indeed perfectly decisive is the fact that the\nbook is full of Chaldaisms, and that the Hebrew is the later Hebrew, of\nthe days of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther. It could not have been\nwritten by Solomon, any more than the \"Idylls of the King\" could have\nbeen written by Edmund Spenser. There are those, of course, who maintain\nthat the book was written by Solomon; just as there are those who still\nmaintain that the sun revolves around the earth. The reason for this\nopinion is found in the first sentence of the book itself. The book\nannounces its own author, it is said; and to question the truth of this\nclaim is to deny the veracity of Scripture. On this question we may\ncall, from the array of conservative writers who have given us Smith's\n\"Bible Dictionary,\" such a witness as Professor Plumptre:--\n\n\"The hypothesis that every such statement in a canonical book must be\nreceived as literally true is, in fact, an assumption that inspired\nwriters were debarred from forms of composition which were open, without\nblame, to others. In the literature of every other nation the form of\npersonated authorship, when there is no _animus decipiendi_, has\nbeen recognized as a legitimate channel for the expression of opinions,\nor the quasi-dramatic representation of character. Why should we venture\non the assertion that if adopted by the writers of the Old Testament it\nwould make them guilty of falsehood?...There is nothing that need\nstartle us in the thought that an inspired writer might use a liberty\nwhich has been granted without hesitation to the teachers of mankind in\nevery age and country.\" [Footnote:  Art. \"Ecclesiastes,\" vol. i. p.\n645.]\n\nThat such is the character of the book and that it appeared some time\nduring the Persian age are well-ascertained results of scholarship.\n\nThe doctrine of the book is not so easily summarized. It is a hard book\nto interpret. Dr. Ginsberg gives a striking _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the\ndifferent theories of its teaching which have been promulgated. There is\nno room here to enter upon the great question. Let it suffice to say\nthat we seem to have in these words the soliloquy of a soul struggling\nwith the problem of evil, sometimes borne down by a dismal skepticism,\nsometimes asserting his faith in the enduring righteousness. The\nwriter's problem is the one to which Mr. Mallock has given an\nepigrammatic statement: \"Is life worth living?\" He greatly doubts, yet\nhe strongly hopes. Much of the time it appears to him that the best\nthing a man can do is to enjoy the present good and let the world wag.\nBut the outcome of all this struggle is the conviction that there is a\nlife beyond this life and a tribunal at which all wrongs will be\nrighted, and that to fear God and keep his commandments is the whole\nduty of man. There are thus many passages in the book which express a\nbitter skepticism; to winnow the wheat from the chaff and to find out\nwhat we ought to think about life is a serious undertaking. It is only\nthe wise and skillful interpreter who can steer his bark along these\ntortuous channels of reflection, and not run aground. Yet, properly\ninterpreted, the book is sound for substance of doctrine, and the\nexperience which it delineates, though sad and depressing, is full of\ninstruction for us. Dean Stanley's words about it are as true as they\nare eloquent; they will throw some light on the path which lies just\nbefore us:--\n\n\"As the Book of Job is couched in the form of a dramatic argument\nbetween the patriarch and his friends, as the Song of Songs is a\ndramatic dialogue between the Lover and the Loved One, so the Book of\nEcclesiastes is a drama of a still more tragic kind. It is an\ninterchange of voices, higher and lower, mournful and joyful, within a\nsingle human soul. It is like the struggle between the two principles in\nthe Epistle to the Romans. It is like the question and answer of 'The\nTwo Voices' of our modern poet.... Every speculation and thought of the\nhuman heart is heard and expressed and recognized in turn. The\nconflicts, which in other parts of the Bible are confined to a single\nverse or a single chapter, are here expanded into a whole book.\" And\nafter quoting a few of the darker and more cynical utterances, this\nclear-sighted teacher goes on: \"Their cry is indeed full of doubt and\ndespair and perplexity; it is such as we often hear from the melancholy,\nskeptical, inquiring spirits of our own age; such as we often refuse to\nhear and regard as unworthy even a good man's thought or care, but the\nadmission of such a cry into the Book of Ecclesiastes shows that it is\nnot beneath the notice of the Bible, not beneath the notice of God.\"\n[Footnote: _History of the Jewish Church_, ii. 283, 284.]\n\n\"THE SONG OF SONGS\" is another of the books ascribed to Solomon. It may\nhave been written in Solomon's time; that it was composed by Solomon\nhimself is not probable.\n\nIt has generally been regarded as an allegorical poem; the Jews\ninterpreted it as setting forth the love of Jehovah for Israel; the\nChristian interpreters have made it the representation of the love of\nChrist for his Church. These are the two principal theories, but it\nmight be instructive to let Archdeacon Farrar recite to us a short list\nof the explanations which have been given of the book in the course of\nthe ages:--\n\n\"It represents, say the commentators, the love of God for the\ncongregation of Israel; it relates the history of the Jews from the\nExodus to the Messiah; it is a consolation to afflicted Israel; it is an\noccult history; it represents the union of the divine soul with the\nearthly body, or of the material with the active intellect; it is the\nconversation of Solomon and Wisdom; it describes the love of Christ to\nhis Church; it is historico-prophetic; it is Solomon's thanksgiving for\na happy reign; it is a love-song unworthy of any place in the canon; it\ntreats of man's reconciliation to God; it is a prophecy of the Church\nfrom the Crucifixion till after the Reformation; it is an anticipation\nof the Apocalypse; it is the seven days' epithalamium on the marriage of\nSolomon with the daughter of Pharaoh; it is a magazine for direction and\nconsolation under every condition; it treats in hieroglyphics of the\nsepulchre of the Saviour, his death, and the Old Testament saints; it\nrefers to Hezekiah and the Ten Tribes; it is written in glorification of\nthe Virgin Mary. Such were the impossible and diverging interpretations\nof what many regarded as the very Word of God. A few only, till the\nbeginning of this century, saw the truth,--which is so obvious to all\nwho go to the Bible with the humble desire to know what it says, and not\nto interpret it into their own baseless fancies,--that it is the\nexquisite celebration of a pure love in humble life; of a love which no\nsplendor can dazzle and no flattery seduce.\"\n\nThese last sentences of Canon Farrar give the probable clew to the\ninterpretation of the book. It is a dramatic poem, celebrating the story\nof a beautiful peasant girl, a native of the northern village of Shunem,\nwho was carried away by Solomon's officers and confined in his harem at\nJerusalem. But in the midst of all this splendor her heart is true to\nthe peasant lover whom she has left behind, nor can any blandishments of\nthe king disturb her constancy; her honor remains unstained, and she is\ncarried home at length, heart-whole and happy, by the swain who has come\nto Jerusalem for her rescue. This is the beautiful story. The phrases in\nwhich it is told are, indeed, too explicit for Occidental ears; the\ncolor and the heat of the tropics is in the poetry, but it is perfectly\npure; it celebrates the triumph of maiden modesty and innocence. \"The\nsong breathes at the same time,\" says Ewald, \"such deep modesty and\nchaste innocence of heart, such determined defiance of the\nover-refinement and degeneracy of the court-life, such stinging scorn of\nthe growing corruption of life in great cities and palaces, that no\nclearer or stronger testimony can be found of the healthy vigor which,\nin this century, still characterized the nation at large, than the\ncombination of art and simplicity in the Canticles.\" [Footnote: _History\nof Israel_, iv. 43.]\n\nThe Book of Job has been the subject of a great amount of critical\nstudy. The earliest Jewish tradition is that it was written by Moses;\nthis tradition is preserved in the Talmud, which afterward states that\nit was composed by an Israelite who returned to Palestine from the\nBabylonian Captivity. It is almost certain that the first of these\ntraditions is baseless. The theory that it was written after the\nCaptivity is held by many scholars, but it is beset with serious\ndifficulties.\n\nThe book contains no allusion whatever to the Levitical law, nor to any\nof the religious rites and ceremonies of the Jews. The inference has\ntherefore been drawn that it must have been written before the giving of\nthe law, probably in the period between Abraham and Moses. It seems\ninconceivable that a devout Hebrew should have treated all the great\nquestions discussed in this book without any reference to the religious\ninstitutions of his own people. It is equally difficult to understand\nhow the divine interposition for the punishment of the wicked and the\nrewarding of the righteous could have been so fully considered without a\nglance at the lessons of the Exodus, if the Exodus had taken place\nbefore the book was written. But these arguments for an early origin are\nquite neutralized by the doctrine of the book. The view of divine\nprovidence set forth in it is very unlike that contained in the\nPentateuch. It is not necessary to say that there is any contradiction\nbetween these two views; but the subject is approached from a very\ndifferent direction, and the whole tone of the book indicates a state of\nreligious thought quite different from that which existed among the\nHebrews before the Exodus. \"If we are to believe that Moses wrote it,\"\nsays a late critic, \"then we must believe that he held these views as an\nesoteric philosophy, and omitted from the religion which he gave to his\npeople the truths which had been revealed to him in the desert. The book\nitself must have been suppressed until long after his day. The ignorant\nIsraelites could not have been trained under the discipline of the Law\nif they had had at the same time the fiery, cynical, half-skeptical, and\nenigmatical commentary which the Book of Job furnishes. There is nothing\nabnormal or contrary to the conception of an inspired revelation in the\ndevelopment of truth by wider views and deeper analysis through\nsuccessive sacred writers. But it is repulsive to conceive an inspired\nteacher as first gaining the wider view, and then deliberately hiding\nit, to utter the truth in cruder and more partial forms.\" [Footnote:\nRaymond's _The Book of Job_, p. 18.] The fact that neither the\nperson nor the Book of Job is mentioned in the historical books of the\nJews, and that the first reference to him is in the Book of Ezekiel,\nwould indicate that the date of the book must have been much later than\nthe time of Moses. This argument could not be pressed, however, for we\nhave noted already the silence of the earlier historical books\nconcerning the Mosaic law.\n\nThe dilemma of the critics may be summed up as follows:--\n\n1. The absence of allusion to the history of the Exodus and to the\nMosaic system shows that it must have been written before the Exodus. 2.\nThe absence of all reference to the book in the Hebrew history, and more\nespecially the doctrinal character of the book, shows that it could not\nhave been written before the age of Solomon. The latter conclusion is\nheld much more firmly than the former; and the silence respecting the\nhistory and the Law is explained on the theory that the book is a\nhistorical drama, the scene of which is laid in the period before Moses,\nand the historic unities of which have been perfectly observed by the\nwriter. _The people of this drama_ lived before the Exodus and the\ngiving of the Law, and their conversations do not, therefore, refer to\nany of the events which have happened since. The locality of the drama\nis the \"Land of Uz,\" and the geographers agree that the descriptions of\nthe book apply to the region known in the classical geographies as\n\"Arabia Deserta,\" southeast of Palestine. It is admitted that the\nscenery and costume of the book are not Jewish; and they agree more\nperfectly with what is known of that country than with any other. That\nJob was a real personage, and that the drama is founded upon historical\ntradition cannot be doubted. It is probable that it was written after\nthe time of Josiah.\n\nI need not rehearse the story. Job is overtaken by great losses and\nsufferings; in the midst of his calamities three friends draw near to\ncondole with him, and also to administer to him a little wholesome\nreproof and admonition. Their theory is that suffering such as he is\nenduring is a sign of the divine displeasure; that Job must have been a\ngreat sinner, or he could not be such a sufferer. This argument Job\nindignantly repels. He does not claim to be perfect, but he knows that\nhe has been an upright man, and he knows that bad men round about him\nare prospering, while he is scourged and overwhelmed with trouble; he\nsees this happening all over the earth,--the good afflicted, the evil\nexalted; and he knows, therefore, that the doctrine of his miserable\ncomforters cannot be true. Sin does bring suffering, that he admits; but\nthat all suffering is the result of sin he denies. He cannot understand\nit; his heart is bitter when he reflects upon it; and the insistence of\nhis visitors awakes in him a fierce indignation, and leads him to charge\nGod with injustice and cruelty. They are shocked and scandalized at his\nalmost blasphemous outcries against God; but he maintains his\nrighteousness, and drives his critics and censors from the field.\nFinally Jehovah himself is represented as answering Job out of the\nwhirlwind, in one of the most sublime passages in all\nliterature,--silencing the arguments of his friends, sweeping away all\nthe reasonings which have preceded, explaining nothing, but only\naffirming his own infinite power and wisdom. Before this august\nmanifestation Job bows with submission; the mystery of evil is not\nexplained; he is only convinced that it cannot be explained, and is\ncontent to be silent and wait. The teaching of the book is well\nsummarized in these words of Dr. Raymond:--\n\n\"The current notion that calamity is always the punishment of crime and\nprosperity always the reward of piety is not true. Neither is it true\nthat the distress of a righteous man is an indication of God's anger.\nThere are other purposes in the Divine mind of which we know nothing.\nFor instance, a good man may be afflicted, by permission of God, and\nthrough the agency of Satan, to prove the genuine character of his\ngoodness. But whether this or some other reason, involved in the\nadministration of the universe, underlies the dispensation of temporal\nblessings and afflictions, one thing is certain: the plans of God are\nnot, will not be, cannot be revealed; and the resignation of faith, not\nof fatalism, is the only wisdom of man.\" [Footnote: _The Book of\nJob_, p. 49.]\n\nI have reserved for the last the most precious of all the Hebrew\nwritings, the _Book of Psalms_. The Hebrews called it \"Tehillim,\"\npraise-book or hymn-book, and the title exactly describes it; in the\nform in which we have it, it was a hymn-book prepared for the service\nof the later temple.\n\nIf the question \"Who wrote the Psalms?\" were to be propounded in any\nmeeting of Sunday-school teachers, nine tenths of them would\nunhesitatingly answer, \"David.\" If the same question were put to an\nassembly of modern Biblical scholars some would answer that David wrote\nvery few and perhaps not any of the psalms; that they were written\nduring the Maccabean dynasty, only one or two hundred years before\nChrist. Both these views are extreme. We may believe that David did\nwrite several of the psalms, but it is more than probable that the great\nmajority of them are from other writers.\n\nSeventy-three psalms of the book seem to be ascribed to David in their\ntitles. \"A Psalm of David,\" \"Maschil of David,\" \"Michtam of David,\" or\nsomething similar is written over seventy-three different psalms.\nConcerning these titles there has been much discussion. It has been\nmaintained that they are found in the ancient Hebrew text as constituent\nparts of the Psalms, and are therefore entitled to full credit. But this\ntheory does not seem to be held by the majority of modern scholars. \"The\nvariations of the inscriptions,\" says a late conservative writer, \"in\nthe Septuagint and the other versions sufficiently prove that they were\nnot regarded as fixed portions of the canon, and that they were open to\nconjectural emendations.\" [Footnote: _Speaker's Commentary_, iv.\n151.] Dr. Moll, the learned author of the monograph on the Psalms in\nLange's \"Commentary,\" says in his introduction: \"The assumption that all\nthe inscriptions originated with the authors of the Psalms, and are\ntherefore inseparable from the text, cannot be consistently maintained.\nIt can at most be held only of a few.... There is now a disposition to\nadmit that some of them may have originated with the authors\nthemselves.\"\n\nThe probability is that most of these inscriptions were added by editors\nand transcribers of the Psalms. You open your hymn-book, and find over\none hymn the name of Watts, and over another the name of Wesley, and\nover another the name of Montgomery. Who inserted these names? Not the\nauthors, of course, but the editor or compiler of the collection.\nCompilers in these days are careful and accurate, but they do make\nmistakes, and you find the same hymn ascribed to different authors in\ndifferent books, while hymns that are anonymous in one book are credited\nin another, rightly or wrongly, to the name of some author. The men who\ncollected the hymn-book of the Jews made similar mistakes, and the old\ncopies do not agree in all their titles.\n\nBut while the inscriptions over the psalms do not, generally, belong to\nthe psalms themselves, and are not in all cases accurate, most of them\nwere, no doubt, suffixed to the psalms at a very early day. \"On the\nwhole,\" says Dr. Moll, \"an opinion favorable to the antiquity and value\nof these superscriptions has again been wrought out, which ascribes them\nfor the most part to tradition, and indeed a very ancient one.\"\n\nEven if the titles were rightly translated, then, they would not give us\nconclusive proof of the authorship of the Psalms. But some of the best\nscholars assert that they are not rightly translated. The late Professor\nMurray of Johns Hopkins University, whose little book on the Psalms is\nvouched for as one of the most admirable productions of Biblical\nscholarship which has yet appeared in this country, says that \"whenever\nwe have an inscription in our version stating that the psalm is 'of\nDavid' it is almost invariably a mistranslation of the original.\" It\nshould be written \"to David,\" and it signifies that the compilers\nascribed the psalm to a more ancient collection to which the name of\nDavid had been appended, not because he wrote all the poems in it, but\nbecause he originated the collection and wrote many of its songs. This\nolder collection was called \"The Psalms of David\" something as a popular\nhymn-book of these times is called Robinson's \"Laudes Domini,\" because\nDr. Robinson compiled the book, and wrote some of the hymns. This old\nDavidic collection is not in existence, but many of the psalms in our\nbook were taken from it, and the titles in our version are attempts to\ncredit to this old book such of them as were thus borrowed.\n\nThis method of crediting is not altogether unknown in this critical age.\nIn the various eclectic commentaries on the Sunday-school lessons I\noften find sentences and paragraphs credited to \"William Smith\" which\nwere taken from Dr. Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\" the articles from which\nthey are taken being signed in all cases by the initials of the men who\nwrote them. I find, also, quotations from the \"Speaker's Commentary,\" of\nwhich Canon Cook is the editor, ascribed to \"F. C. Cook,\" or to \"Cook,\"\nthough the table of contents in the volume from which the quotation was\ntaken bears in capital letters the name of the writer of the commentary\non this particular book. In like manner \"Lange\" gets the credit of all\nthat is written in his famous \"Bibelwerk,\" though he wrote very little\nof it himself. The power to distinguish between editorship and\nauthorship was not, probably, possessed by ancient compilers in any\ngreater degree than by modern ones; and the inscriptions over the psalms\nmust be estimated with this fact in view.\n\nI have spoken of the present collection of the Psalms as one book, but\nit is in reality five books. It is so divided in the Revised Version.\nThe concluding verse of the Forty-first Psalm is as follows: \"Blessed be\nthe Lord God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and amen.\"\nThis doxology marks the close of the first hymn-book prepared by the\nJews for the worship of the second temple. It was probably formed soon\nafter the first return from the Exile. All the Psalms except the first,\nthe tenth, and the thirty-third are credited to the old Davidic Psalm\nBook. The title of the thirty-third has probably been omitted by some\ncopyist; the ninth and tenth in some old Hebrew copies are written as\none psalm, and there is an acrostical arrangement which shows that they\nreally belong together. The psalm may have been divided for liturgical\npurposes, or by accident in copying. The title of the ninth, therefore,\ncovers the tenth. The first and second are, then, the only psalms that\nare not ascribed to the old book of which this book was simply an\nabridgment.\n\nAt the end of the Seventy-second Psalm is the doxology which marks the\nclose of the second of these hymn-books. After a while the psalms of the\nfirst book grew stale and familiar, and a new book was wanted. \"Gospel\nHymns No. 1,\" of the Moody and Sankey psalmody, had to be followed after\na year or two by \"Gospel Hymns No. 2,\" and then by \"No. 3\" and \"No. 4\"\nand \"No. 5,\" and finally they were all bound up together. I may be\npardoned for associating things sacred with things not very sacred, and\npoetry with something that is not always poetry, but the illustration,\nfamiliar to all, shows exactly how these five hymn-books of the Jews\nfirst came to be, and how they were at length combined in one.\n\nThe last verse of the Seventy-second Psalm has puzzled many readers:\n\"The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.\" After this you find\nin our collection several psalms ascribed to David, some of which he\nundoubtedly wrote. The probable explanation is that the Seventy-second\nPsalm was the last psalm of the old Davidic hymn-book; the compiler made\nit the last one of this second book, and carelessly copied into this\npsalm the inscription with which the old book ended.\n\nThe second of these hymn-books begins, therefore, with Psalm xlii., and\nends with Psalm lxxii., a collection of thirty-one songs of praise.\n\nNumber three of the temple-service contains eighteen psalms, and ends\nwith Psalm lxxxix; this book, as well as the one that precedes it, is\nascribed by a probable tradition to Nehemiah as its compiler.\n\nThe last verse of Psalm cvi. indicates the close of the fourth book. It\ncontains but seventeen psalms, and is the shortest book of the five. The\nfifth book includes the remaining forty-four psalms, among them the\n\"Songs of David,\" or Pilgrim Songs, sung by the people on their journeys\nto Jerusalem to keep the solemn feasts. It is probable that this fifth\nbook was compiled by the authorities in charge of the temple worship,\nand that they at the same time collected the other four books and put\nthem all together, completing in this way the greater book of sacred\nlyrics which has been so precious to many generations not only of Jews,\nbut also of Christians.\n\nVarious unsuccessful attempts have been made to classify these books\naccording to their subject-matter. It is plain that the first two are\ncomposed chiefly of the oldest psalms and of those adapted to the\ngeneral purposes of worship; the third book reflects the grief of the\nnation in the Captivity; the fourth, the joy of the returning exiles;\nthe fifth contains a more miscellaneous collection.  The Jewish scholars\nrecognize and sometimes attempt to explain this arrangement of the\nPsalms into five books. The Hebrew Midrash on Psalm i. I., says: \"Moses\ngave the five books of the law to the Israelites, and as a counterpart\nof them, David gave the Psalms consisting of five books.\" This is, of\ncourse, erroneous; the present collection of Psalms was made long after\nthe time of David; but it is not unlikely that some notion of a\nsymmetrical arrangement of the Psalms, to correspond to the five-fold\ndivision of the Law, influenced the compilers of this Praise Book.\n\nOf the contents of this book, of the peculiar structure of Hebrew\npoetry, and of the historic references in many of the psalms, much might\nbe said, but this investigation would lead us somewhat aside from our\npresent purpose.\n\nIt may, however, be well to add a word or two respecting some of the\ninscriptions and notations borne by the Psalms in our translation. Many\nof them are composed of Hebrew words, transliterated into\nEnglish,--spelled out with English letters. King James' translators did\nnot know what they meant, so they reproduced them in this way. There has\nbeen much discussion as to the meaning of several of them, and the\nscholars are by no means agreed; the interpretations which follow are\nmainly those given by Professor Murray:--\n\nFirst is the famous \"Selah,\" which we used to hear pronounced with great\nsolemnity when the Psalms were read. It is a musical term, meaning,\nperhaps, something like our \"Da Capo\" or, possibly, \"Forte\"--a mark of\nexpression like those Italian words which you find over the staff on\nyour sheet music.\n\n\"Michtam\" and \"Maschil\" are also musical notes, indicating the time of\nthe melody,--metronome-marks, so to speak; and \"Gittith\" and \"Shiggaion\"\nare marks that indicate the kind of melody to which the psalm is to be\nsung.\n\n\"Negiloth\" means stringed instruments; it indicates the kind of\naccompaniment with which the psalm was to be sung. \"Nehiloth\" signifies\npipes or flutes, perhaps wind instruments in general.\n\nThe inscription \"To the Chief Musician\" means, probably, \"For the Leader\nof the Choir,\" and indicates that the original copy of the psalm thus\ninserted in the book was one that had belonged to the chorister in the\nold temple. \"Upon Shemimith\" means \"set for bass voices;\" \"Upon\nAlamoth,\" \"set for female voices.\" \"Upon Muthlabben,\" a curious\ntransliteration, means \"arranged for training the soprano voices.\"\nProfessor Murray supposes that this particular psalm was used for\nrehearsal by the women singers.\n\nSome of these inscriptions designate the airs to which the psalms were\nset, part of which seem to be sacred, and part secular. Such is \"Shushan\nEduth,\" over Psalm lx., meaning \"Fair as lilies is thy law,\" apparently\nthe name of a popular religious air. Another, probably secular, is over\nPsalm xxii., \"Aijeleth Shahar,\" \"The stag at dawn,\" and another, over\nPsalm 1vi., \"Jonathelem Rechokim,\" which is, being interpreted, \"O\nsilent dove, what bringest thou us from out the distance?\"\n\nThese inscriptions and many other features of this ancient Hebrew poetry\nhave furnished puzzles for the unlearned and problems for the scholars,\nbut the meaning of the psalms themselves is for the most part clear\nenough. The humble disciple pauses with some bewilderment over\n\"Neginoth\" or \"Michtam;\" he classes them perhaps among the mysteries\nwhich the angels desire to look into; but when he reads a little farther\non, \"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want;\" or \"God is our refuge\nand strength, a very present help in trouble;\" or \"Create in me a clean\nheart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,\" he knows full well\nwhat these words mean. There is no life so lofty that these psalms do\nnot lift up a standard before it; there is no life so lowly that it does\nnot find in them words that utter its deepest humility and its faintest\ntrust. Wherever we are these psalms find us; they search the deep things\nof our hearts; they bring to us the great things of God. Of how many\nheroic characters have these old temple songs been the inspiration!\nJewish saints and patriots chanted them in the synagogue and on the\nbattle-field; apostles and evangelists sung them among perils of the\nwilderness, as they traversed the rugged paths of Syria and Galatia and\nMacedonia; martyrs in Rome softly hummed them when the lions near at\nhand were crouching for their prey: in German forests, in Highland\nglens, Lutherans and Covenanters breathed their lives out through their\ncadences; in every land penitent souls have found in them words to tell\nthe story of their sorrow, and victorious souls the voices of their\ntriumph; mothers watching their babes by night have cheered the vigil by\nsinging them; mourners walking in lonely ways have been lighted by the\ngreat hopes that shine through them, and pilgrims going down into the\nvalley of the shadow of death have found in their firm assurances a\nstrong staff to lean upon. Lyrics like these, into which so much of the\ndivine truth was breathed when they were written, and which a hundred\ngenerations of the children of men have saturated with tears and\npraises, with battle shouts and sobs of pain, with all the highest and\ndeepest experiences of the human soul, will live as long as joy lives\nand long after sorrow ceases; will live beyond this life, and be sung by\npure voices in that land from which the silent dove, coming from afar,\nbrings us now and then upon her shining wings some glimpses of a glory\nthat eye hath never seen.\n\nNOTE. The reference on pages 200 and 201 to the Gospel Hymns is not\nstrictly accurate. \"Number Five\" has not been bound up with the other\nnumbers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE EARLIER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS.\n\n\n\nThe books of the New Testament are now before us. Our task is not\nwithout its difficulties; questions will confront us which have never\nyet been answered, and probably will never be; nevertheless, compared\nwith the Old Testament writings, the books of the New Testament are\nwell-known documents; we are on firm ground of history when we talk\nabout them; of but few of the famous books of Greek and Latin authors\ncan we speak so confidently as to their date and their authorship as we\ncan concerning most of them.\n\nWe have in the New Testament a collection of twenty-seven books, by nine\ndifferent authors. Of these books thirteen are ascribed to the Apostle\nPaul; five to John the son of Zebedee; two to Peter; two to Luke; one\neach to Matthew, Mark, James, and Jude, and the authorship of one is\nunknown.\n\nOf these books it must be first remarked that they were not only written\nseparately but that there is no trace in any of them of the\nconsciousness on the part of the author that he was contributing to a\ncollection of sacred writings. Of the various epistles it is especially\nevident that they were written on special occasions, with a certain\naudience immediately in view; the thought that they were to be preserved\nand gathered into a book, which was to be handed down through the coming\ncenturies as an inspired volume, does not appear to have entered the\nmind of the writer. But this fact need not detract from their value;\noften the highest truth to which a man gives utterance is truth of whose\nvalue he is imperfectly aware.\n\nIt must also be remembered that these books of the New Testament were\nnearly all written by apostles. The only clear exceptions are the Gospel\nof Mark, the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle\nto the Hebrews; and the authors of these books, though not apostles,\nwere undoubtedly in the closest relations with apostolic men, and\nreflected their thought. These apostolic men had received a special\ntraining and a definite commission to bear witness of their Master, to\ntell the story of his life and death, and to build up his kingdom in the\nworld.\n\nWe must admit that they possessed unusual qualifications for this work.\nThose who had been for three years in constant and loving intercourse\nwith Jesus Christ ought to have been inspired men. And he promised them,\nbefore he parted from them, that the Spirit of truth should come to them\nand abide with them to lead them into all truth.\n\nNow although we may find it difficult to give a satisfactory definition\nof inspiration; though we may be utterly unable to express, in any\nformularies of our own, the influence of the Infinite Spirit upon human\nminds, yet we can easily believe that these apostolic men were\nexceptionally qualified to teach religious truth. No prophet of the\nolden time had any such preparation for his mission as that which was\nvouchsafed to them. No school of the prophets, from the days of Samuel\ndownward, could be compared to that sacred college of apostles,--that\ngroup of divine peripatetics, who followed their master through Galilee\nand Perea, and sat down with him day by day, for three memorable years,\non the mountain top and by the lake side, to listen to the words of life\nfrom the lips of One who spake as never man spake.\n\nTo say that this training made them infallible is to speak beyond the\nrecord. There is no promise of infallibility, and the history makes it\nplain enough that no such gift was bestowed. The Spirit of all truth was\npromised; but it was promised for their guidance in all their work, in\ntheir preaching, their administration, their daily conduct of life.\nThere is no hint anywhere that any special illumination or protection\nwould be given to them when they took the pen into their hands to write;\nthey were then inspired just as much as they were when they stood up to\nspeak, or sat down to plan their missionary campaigns,--just as much and\nno more.\n\nNow it is certain that the inspiration vouchsafed them did not make them\ninfallible in their ordinary teaching, or in their administration of the\nchurch. They made mistakes of a very serious nature. It is beyond\nquestion that the majority of the apostles took at the beginning an\nerroneous view of the relation of the Gentiles to the Christian church.\nThey insisted that Gentiles must first become Jews before they could\nbecome Christians; that the only way into the Christian church was\nthrough the synagogue and the temple. It was a grievous and radical\nerror; it struck at the foundations of Christian faith. And this error\nwas entertained by these inspired apostles after the day of Pentecost;\nit influenced their teaching; it led them to proclaim a defective\ngospel. This is not the assertion of a skeptic, it is the clear\ntestimony of the Apostle Paul. If you will read the second chapter of\nhis Epistle to the Galatians you will learn from the mouth of an\nunimpeachable witness that the very leaders of the apostolic band, Peter\nand James and John, were greatly in error with respect to a most\nimportant subject of the Christian teaching. In his account of that\nfamous council at Antioch, Paul says that Peter and James and John were\nwholly in the wrong, and that Peter, for his part, had been acting\ndisingenuously:--\n\n\"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he\nstood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat\nwith the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated\nhimself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the\nJews [the Jewish Christians] dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that\neven Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw\nthat they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I\nsaid unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the\nGentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to\nlive as do the Jews?\"\n\nNow it is evident that one or the other of these opposing parties in the\napostolic college must have been in error, if not greatly at fault, with\nrespect to this most vital question of Christian faith and doctrine.\nWhen one apostle resists another to the face because he stands\ncondemned, and tells him that he walks not uprightly, according to the\ntruth of the gospel, it must be that one or the other of them has, for\nthe time being, ceased to be infallible in his administration of the\ntruth of the gospel. And if these apostolic men, sitting in their\ncouncils, teaching in their congregations, can make such mistakes as\nthese, how can we be sure that they never make a mistake when they sit\ndown to write, that then their words are always the very word of God? We\ncan have no such assurance. Indeed we are expressly told that their\nwords are not, in some cases, the very word of God; for the Apostle Paul\nplainly tells us over and over, in his epistles to the Corinthians (1\nCor. vii.; 2 Cor. xi.), that upon certain questions he is giving his own\nopinion,--that he has no commandment of the Lord. With respect to one\nmatter he says that he is speaking after his own judgment, but that he\n\"thinks\" he has the Spirit of the Lord; two or three times he distinctly\ndeclares that it is he, Paul, and not the Lord, that is speaking.\n\nAll of these facts, and others of the same nature clearly brought before\nus by the New Testament itself, must be held firmly in our minds when we\nmake up our theory of what these writings are. That these books were\nwritten by inspired men is, indeed, indubitable; that these men\npossessed a degree of inspiration far exceeding that vouchsafed to any\nother religious teachers who have lived on the earth is to my mind\nplain; that this degree of inspiration enabled them to bear witness\nclearly to the great facts of the gospel of Christ, and to present to us\nwith sufficient fullness and with substantial verity the doctrines of\nthe kingdom of heaven I am very sure; but that they were absolutely\nprotected against error, not one word in the record affirms, and they\nthemselves have taken the utmost pains to disabuse our minds of any such\nimpression. That is a theory about them which men made up out of their\nown heads hundreds of years after they were dead. We shall certainly\nfind that they were not infallible; but we shall also find that, in all\nthe great matters which pertain to Christian faith and practice, when\ntheir final testimony is collected and digested, it is clear,\nharmonious, consistent, convincing; that they have been guided by the\nSpirit of the Lord to tell us the truth which we need to know respecting\nthe life that now is and that which is to come.\n\nFurthermore, it is a matter of rejoicing when we take up these books of\nthe New Testament to find their substantial integrity unimpeached. There\nis no reason to suspect that any important changes have been made in any\nof these books since they came from the hands of their writers. Whatever\nmay be said about the first three Gospels (and we shall come to that\nquestion in our next chapter), the remaining books of the New Testament\nhave come down to us, unaltered, from the men who first wrote them.\nThere is none of that process of redaction, and accretion, and\nreconstruction whose traces we have found in many of the Old Testament\nbooks. There may be, here and there, a word or two or a verse or two\nwhich has been interpolated by some officious copyist, but these\nalterations are very slight. The books in our hands are the very same\nbooks which were in the hands of the contemporaries and successors of\nthe apostles.\n\nI shall not attempt any elaborate discussion of these twenty-seven\nbooks. I only propose to go rapidly over them, indicating, with the\nutmost brevity, the salient facts, so far as we know them, respecting\ntheir authorship, the date and the place at which they were written, and\nthe circumstances which attended the production of them.\n\nFrom the fact that the Gospels stand first in the New Testament\ncollection it is generally assumed that they are the earliest of the New\nTestament books, but this is an error. Several of the Epistles were\ncertainly written before any of the Gospels; and one of the Gospels,\nthat of John, was written later than any of the Epistles, except the\nthree brief ones by the same author.\n\nThe first of these New Testament books that saw the light was, as is\ngenerally supposed, the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. It was in\nthe year 48 of our era that St. Paul set out on his first missionary\njourney from Antioch through Cyprus and Eastern Asia Minor, a journey\nwhich occupied about a year. Two years afterward, his second journey\ntook him through the eastern part of Asia Minor and across the \u00c6gean Sea\nto Europe, where he preached in Troas, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens,\nand Corinth. His stay in Thessalonica was interrupted, as you will\nremember, by the hostility of the Jews, and he remained but a short time\nin that place; long enough, however, to gather a vigorous church.\nAfterward, while he was in Corinth, he learned from one of his helpers\nthat the people of Thessalonica had misunderstood portions of his\nteaching, and were in painful doubt on certain important subjects. To\nset them right on these matters he wrote his first epistle, which was\nforwarded to them from Corinth, probably about the year 52.\n\nThis explanation was also misunderstood by the Thessalonians, and it\nbecame necessary during the next year to write to them again. These two\nletters are in all probability the first of the Christian writings that\nwe possess. They contain instruction and counsel of which the Christians\nof Thessalonica were just then in need. The question which had most\ndisturbed them had relation to the second coming of Christ. They\nexpected him to return very soon; they were impatient of delay; they\nthought that those who died before his coming would miss the glorious\nspectacle; and therefore they deplored the hard fate of some of their\nnumber who had been snatched away by death before this sublime event. In\nhis first epistle the apostle assures them that the dead in Christ would\nbe raised to participate in their rejoicing. \"We who are alive when the\nLord returns,\" he says, \"will have no advantage over those who have been\ncalled to their reward before us; for they will be raised from their\ngraves to take part with us in this great triumph.\" It is manifest that\nPaul, when he wrote this, expected that Christ would return to earth\nwhile he was alive. Alford and other conservative commentators say that\nhe here definitely expresses that expectation; others deny that these\nwords can be so interpreted, but concede that he did entertain some such\nexpectation. \"It does not seem improper to admit,\" says Bishop Ellicott,\n\"that in their ignorance of the day of the Lord the apostles might have\nimagined that he who was coming would come speedily.\" [Footnote: _Com.\nin loc._] \"It is unmistakably clear from this,\" says Olshausen, \"that\nPaul deemed it possible that he and his contemporaries might live to see\nthe coming again of Christ.\" \"The early church, and even the apostles\nthemselves,\" say Conybeare and Howson, \"expected their Lord to come\nagain in that very generation. St. Paul himself shared in that\nexpectation, but being under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, he did\nnot deduce any erroneous conclusions from this mistaken premise.\"\n[Footnote: _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_, i. 401.] It is evident,\nthen, that St. Paul and the rest of the apostles were mistaken on this\npoint; this is one of the evidences which they themselves have taken\npains to point out to us of the fact that though they were inspired men\nthey were not infallible.\n\nPaul's first letter to the Christians at Thessalonica was interpreted by\nthem, very naturally, as teaching that the return of the Lord was\nimminent; and they began to neglect their daily duties and to behave in\nthe same foolish way that men have behaved in all the later ages, when\nthey have got their heads full of this notion. His second letter was\nwritten chiefly to rebuke this fanaticism, and to bid them go right on\nwith their work making ready for the Lord's coming by a faithful\ndischarge of the duties of the present hour. St. Paul might have been\nmistaken in his theories about the return of his Master, but his\npractical wisdom was not at fault; it was his spirit that survived in\nAbraham Davenport, the Connecticut legislator, who, in the \"dark day\" of\n1780 when his colleagues thought that the end of the world had come,\nrefused to vote for the adjournment of the House, but insisted on\ncalling up the next bill; saying as Whittier has phrased it:--\n\n  \"'This well may be\n   The Day of Judgment which the world awaits;\n   But be it so or not, I only know\n   My present duty, and my Lord's command\n   To occupy till he come. So at the post\n   Where he hath set me in his providence,\n   I choose, for one, to meet him face to face,--\n   No faithless servant frightened from my task,\n   But ready when the Lord of the harvest calls;\n   And therefore, with all reverence, I would say,\n   Let God do his work, we will see to ours.\n   Bring in the candles.' And they brought them in.\"\n\nThese two letters are, then, the earliest of the New Testament writings.\nLike most of the other Epistles of Paul they begin with a salutation.\nThe common salutation with which the Greeks began their letters was\n\"Live well!\" that of the Roman was \"Health to you!\" But Paul almost\nalways began with a Christian greeting, \"Grace, mercy, and peace to\nyou.\" In these letters he associates with himself in this greeting his\ntwo companions, Timothy and Silas.\n\nThe last words of his epistles are almost always personal messages to\nindividuals known to him in the several churches,--to men and women who\nhad \"labored with him in the gospel,\"--casual yet significant words,\nwhich \"show a heart within blood-tinctured, of a veined humanity.\" The\nletters were written by an amanuensis,--all save these concluding words\nwhich Paul added in his own chirography. He seems to desire to put more\nof himself into these personal messages than into the didactic and\ndoctrinal parts of his epistles. At the end of the second of the letters\nto the Thessalonians we find these words: \"The salutation of me Paul\nwith mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write;\"\nbetter, perhaps, \"This is my handwriting.\" This signature and this\nconcluding greeting are to be proof to them of the genuineness of the\nletter. It appears from other references in the same epistle (ch. ii. 2)\nthat some busybody had been writing a letter to the Thessalonians, which\npurported to be a message from Paul; he puts them on their guard against\nthese supposititious documents. At the end of the letter to the\nGalatians you find in the old version: \"Ye see how large a letter I have\nwritten unto you with my own hand;\" but the right rendering is in the\nnew version: \"See with how large letters [what a bold chirography] I\nhave written unto you with my own hand.\" \"These last coarse characters\nare my own handwriting.\" It is almost universally assumed that Paul was\na sufferer from some affection of the eyes; the large letters are thus\nexplained. Mr. Conybeare, in a foot-note on this passage, speaks of\nreceiving a letter from the venerable Neander a few months before his\ndeath, which illustrates this point in a striking manner: \"His letter,\"\nsays Mr. Conybeare, \"is written in the fair and flowing hand of an\namanuensis, but it ends with a few irregular lines in large and rugged\ncharacters, written by himself and explaining the cause of his needing\nthe services of an amanuensis, namely the weakness of his eyes (probably\nthe very malady of St. Paul). It was impossible to read this autograph\nwithout thinking of the present passage, and observing that he might\nhave expressed himself in the very words of St. Paul: 'Behold the size\nof the characters in which I have written to you with my own hand.'\"\n[Footnote: _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_, ii. 149.]\n\nThere is another touching sentence at the end of Paul's letter to the\nColossians which was written from Rome when he was prisoner there: \"The\nsalutation of me Paul with mine own hand. Remember my bonds. Grace be\nwith you. Amen.\" This seems to say: \"There is a manacle, you remember,\non my wrist. I cannot write very well. Grace be with you.\" I will only\nadd that the subscriptions which follow the epistles in the old version\nare no part of the epistles, and in several cases they are erroneous.\nThey embody conjectures of later copyists, or traditions which are\nwithout foundation. These letters to the Thessalonians, for example, are\nsaid to have been written from Athens; but we know that they were\nwritten from Corinth. For Paul expressly says (iii. 6) that the letter\nwas written immediately after the return of Timothy from Thessalonica,\nand we are told, in Acts xviii. 5, that Silas and Timothy joined him at\nCorinth after he had left Athens and had gone to Corinth. Besides, he\nassociates Silas and Timothy with himself in his greetings, and they\nwere not with him at Athens. The evidence is therefore conclusive, that\nthe subscription is incorrect. You will not find any of these\nsubscriptions in the new version. Some of them are undoubtedly correct,\nbut some of them are not; and in no case is the subscription an integral\npart of the epistle. The excision of these traditional addenda was one\nof the first results of what is called the \"Higher Criticism,\" and\nadmirably illustrates the uses of this kind of criticism, which, to some\nof our devout brethren, is such a frightful thing. Why should it be\nregarded as a dangerous, almost a diabolical proceeding, to let the\nBible tell its own story about its origin, instead of trusting to\nrabbinical traditions and medi\u00e6val guesses and _a priori_ theories\nof seventeenth century theologians?\n\nThese two letters were, no doubt, read in the assemblies of the\nThessalonian Christians more than once, and were sacredly treasured by\nthem. They were the only Christian documents possessed by them; and\nthere was, at this time, no other church so rich as they were. The\nGospels, as we have them now, were not then in the possession of any\nChristian church. The story of the gospel had been repeated to them by\nPaul and Silas and Timothy, and had been diligently impressed upon their\nmemories; but it was only an oral gospel that had been delivered to\nthem; the written record of Christ's life and sayings was not in their\nhands. They remembered, therefore, the things which had been told them\nconcerning the life and death of Jesus Christ; they repeated them over\none to another, and they explained and supplemented these remembered\nwords by the two letters which they had received from the great apostle.\n\nThe next year after Paul wrote these letters to the Thessalonians from\nCorinth, he returned to Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts xviii. 18-23), and\nthe year following, probably 54, he set out on his third missionary\njourney, which took him through Galatia and Phrygia in Asia Minor to\nEphesus, where his home was for two or three years. While there, perhaps\nin the year 57, he wrote the first of his letters to the Christians in\nCorinth. Shortly after writing it he went on to Macedonia, whence the\nsecond of his letters to the Corinthians was written; presently he\nfollowed his letters to Corinth, and while there, probably in 58, he\nwrote his letter to the Galatians. Galatia was a province rather than a\ncity; there may have been several churches, which had been established\nby Paul, in the province; and this may have been a circular letter, to\nbe handed about among them, copies of it to be made, perhaps, for the\nuse of each of the churches. It was in the spring of the next year,\nwhile he was still in Corinth, that he wrote his letter to the Romans,\nthe longest, and from some points of view, the most important of his\nepistles. He had never, at the time of this writing, been in Rome (ch.\ni. 13), but he had met Roman Christians in many of the cities of the\nEast where he had lived and taught; and, doubtless, since all roads led\nto Rome, and the metropolis of the world was constantly drawing to\nitself men of every nation and province, many of Paul's converts in Asia\nand Macedonia and Achaia had made their way to the Eternal City, and had\njoined themselves there to the Christian community. The long list of\npersonal greetings with which the epistle closes shows how large was his\nacquaintance in the Roman church, and, doubtless, by his correspondence,\nhe had become fully informed concerning the needs of these disciples. He\ntells the Romans, in this letter, that he hopes to visit them by and by;\nhe did not, however, at that time, expect to appear among them as a\nprisoner. This was the fate awaiting him. Shortly after writing this\nepistle he returned from Corinth to Jerusalem, bearing a collection\nwhich had been gathered in Europe for the poor Christians of the mother\nchurch; at Jerusalem he was arrested; in that city and in C\u00e6sarea he\nwas for a long time imprisoned; finally, probably in the spring of 61,\nhe was sent as a prisoner to Rome, because he had appealed to the\nimperial court; and here, for at least two years, he dwelt a prisoner,\nin lodgings of his own, chained by day and night to a Roman soldier.\nDuring this imprisonment, probably in 62, he wrote the letters to the\nColossians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, and Philemon. From the first\nimprisonment he seems to have been released; and to have gone westward\nas far as Spain, and eastward as far as Asia Minor, preaching the\ngospel. During this journey he is supposed to have written the first\nletter to Timothy and the letter to Titus. At length he was re-arrested,\nand brought to Rome where, in the spring of 68, just before his death,\nhe wrote the second letter to Timothy, the last of his thirteen\nepistles.\n\nMuch of this account of the late years of Paul's life, following the\nclose of his first two years at Rome, where the narrative in the Acts of\nthe Apostles abruptly leaves him, is traditional and conjectural; I do\nnot give it to you as indubitable history; it furnishes the most\nreasonable explanation that has been suggested of that productive\nactivity of his which finds its chief expression in the letters that\nbear his name.\n\nOf these letters it is impossible to give any adequate account in this\nplace. Let it suffice to say that the principal theme of the two\nepistles to the Thessalonians is the expected return of Christ to earth;\nthat those to the Corinthians are largely occupied with questions of\nChristian casuistry; that those to the Galatians and the Romans are the\ngreat doctrinal epistles unfolding the relation of Christianity to\nJudaism, and discussing the philosophy of the new creed; that the\nEpistle to the Philippians is a luminous exposition of Christianity as a\npersonal experience; that those to the Colossians and the Ephesians are\nthe defense of Christianity against the insidious errors of the\nGnostics, and a wonderful revelation of the immanent Christ; that the\nEpistle to Philemon is a letter of personal friendship, embodying a\ngreat principle of practical religion; and that the letters to Timothy\nand Titus are the counsel of an aged apostle to younger men in the\nministry.\n\n\"May we go farther,\" with Archdeacon Farrar, \"and attempt, in one or two\nwords, a description of each separate epistle, necessarily imperfect\nfrom the very brevity, and yet perhaps expressive of some one main\ncharacteristic. If so we might perhaps say that the First Epistle to the\nThessalonians is the epistle of consolation in the hope of Christ's\nreturn; and the second of the immediate hindrances to that return, and\nour duties with regard to it. The First Epistle to the Corinthians is\nthe solution of practical problems in the light of eternal principles;\nthe second, an impassioned defense of the apostle's impugned authority,\nhis _Apologia pro vita sua_. The Epistle to the Galatians is the\nepistle of freedom from the bondage of the law; that to the Romans of\njustification by faith. The Epistle to the Philippians is the epistle of\nChristian gratitude and of Christian joy in sorrow; that to the\nColossians the epistle of Christ the universal Lord; that to the\nEphesians, so rich and many-sided, is the epistle of the 'heavenlies,'\nthe epistle of grace, the epistle of ascension with the ascended Christ,\nthe epistle of Christ in his one and universal church; that to Philemon\nthe Magna Charta of Emancipation. The First Epistle to Timothy and that\nto Titus are the manuals of a Christian pastor; the Second Epistle to\nTimothy is the last message of a Christian ere his death.\" [Footnote:\n_The Life and Work of St. Paul_, chap. xlvi.]\n\nThe genuineness of several of these books has been assailed by modern\ncriticism. The authorship of Paul has been disputed in the cases of nine\nout of the thirteen epistles. The Epistle to the Galatians, that to the\nRomans, and the two to the Corinthians are undisputed; all the rest have\nbeen spoken against. I have attended to these criticisms; but the\nreasons urged for denying the Pauline authorship of these epistles seem\nto me in many cases far-fetched and fanciful in the extreme. Respecting\nthe pastoral epistles, those to Timothy and Titus, it may be admitted\nthat there are some difficulties. It is not easy for us to understand\nhow there could have been developed in the churches at that early day so\nmuch of an ecclesiasticism as these letters assume; and there is force\nin the suggestion that the peculiar errors against which some of these\ncounsels are directed belong to a later day rather than to the apostolic\nage. To this it may be replied that ecclesiasticism is a weed which\ngrows rapidly when once it has taken root, and that the germs of\nGnosticism were in the church from the earliest day. And although the\nvocabulary of these epistles differs in rather a striking way, as Dr.\nHarnack has pointed out, [Footnote: _Encyc. Brit._, art. \"Pastoral\nEpistles.\" ] from that of Paul's other epistles, I can easily imagine\nthat in familiar letters to his pupils he would drop into a different\nstyle from that in which he wrote his more elaborate theological\ntreatises. One could find in the letters of Macaulay or Charles Kingsley\nmany words that he would not find in the history of the one or the\nsermons of the other. Putting all these objections together, I do not\nfind in them any adequate reason for denying that these epistles were\nwritten by St. Paul. Indeed, it seems to me incredible that the Second\nEpistle of Timothy should have been written by any other hand than that\nwhich wrote the undoubted letters to the Corinthians and the Romans.\n\nWhen we come to the other disputed epistles, those to the Thessalonians,\nthe Ephesians, the Philippians, and the Colossians, I confess that the\ndoubts of their genuineness seem to me the outcome of a willful\ndogmatism. What Archdeacon Farrar says of the cavils respecting the\nepistles to the Philippians applies to much of this theoretic criticism:\n\"The T\u00fcbingen school, in its earlier stages, attacked it with the\nmonotonous arguments of their credulous skepticism. With those critics,\nif an epistle touches on points which make it accord with the narrative\nof the Acts it was forged to suit them; if it seems to disagree with\nthem the discrepancy shows that it is spurious. If the diction is\nPauline it stands forth as a proved imitation; if it is un-Pauline it\ncould not have proceeded from the apostle.\" [Footnote: _Life and Work\nof St. Paul_, chap, xlvi] One grows weary with this reckless and\ncarping skepticism, much of which springs from a theory of a permanent\nschism in the early church,--a theory which was mainly evolved from the\ninner consciousness of some mystical German philosopher, and which has\nbeen utterly exploded.\n\nWe may, then, receive as genuine the thirteen epistles ascribed to St.\nPaul; and we have good reason for believing that we have them in their\nintegrity, substantially as he wrote them.\n\nThe title of one of these epistles, that to the Ephesians, is, however,\nundoubtedly erroneous. As Mr. Conybeare says, the least disputable fact\nabout the letter is that it was not addressed to the Ephesians. For it\nis incredible that Paul should have described a church in whose\nfellowship he had lived and labored for two years as one of whose\nreligious life he knew only by report (ch. i. 15); and it is strange\nthat he should not have a single word of greeting to any of these\nEphesian Christians. Several of the early Christian fathers testify that\nthe words \"at Ephesus\" are omitted from the first verse of the\nmanuscript known to them. The two oldest manuscripts now in existence,\nthat of the Vatican and that known as the Sinaitic manuscript, both omit\nthese words. The destination of the epistle is not indicated. The place\nfilled by the words \"at Ephesus\" is left blank. Thus it reads: \"Paul, an\napostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints which are\n            and the faithful in Christ Jesus.\" Some of the old fathers\nexpatiate on this title, drawing distinctions between the saints which\n_are_ and the saints which _seem to be_,--an amusing example of\nexegetical thoroughness. Undoubtedly the letter was designed as a\ncircular letter to several churches in Western Asia,--Laodicea among the\nnumber; and a blank was left in each copy made, in which the name of the\nchurch to which it was delivered might be entered. Some knowing copyist\nat a later day wrote the words \"at Ephesus\" into one of these copies;\nand it is from this that the manuscript descended from which our\ntranslation was made.\n\nThat these letters of Paul were highly prized and carefully preserved by\nthe churches to which they were written we cannot doubt; and as from\ntime to time messengers passed back and forth between the churches,\ncopies were made of the letters for exchange. The church at Thessalonica\nwould send a copy of its letter to the church at Philippi and to the\nchurch at Corinth and to the church at Ephesus, and would receive in\nreturn copies of their letters; and thus the writings of Paul early\nobtained a considerable distribution. We have an illustration of these\nexchanges in the closing words of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv.\n16): \"And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be\nread also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that you also read the\nepistle from Laodicea.\" It is probable that the last-named epistle was\nthe one of which we have just been speaking, called in our version, the\nEpistle to the Ephesians.\n\nThe Epistle to the Hebrews is ascribed in its title to \"Paul the\nApostle.\" But the title was added at a late date; the Greek Testaments\ncontain only the brief title \"To the Hebrews,\" leaving the question of\nauthorship unsettled. Of all the other epistles ascribed to Paul his\nname is the first word; this epistle does not announce its author. In\nthe early church there was much controversy about it; the Eastern\nChristians generally ascribed it to Paul, while the Western church,\nuntil the fourth century, refused to recognize his authorship. One\nsentence in the epistle (ch. ii. 3) is supposed to signify that the\nwriter was of the number of those who had received the gospel at second\nhand, and this was an admission that Paul always refused to make; he\nsteadily contended that his knowledge of the gospel was as direct and\nimmediate and copious as that of any of the apostles. For these and\nother reasons it has been contended that the letter was written by some\none not an apostle, but an associate and pupil of apostolic men; the\nmost plausible conjecture ascribes it to Apollos. The date of it is not\neasily fixed; it was probably written before the destruction of\nJerusalem; such an elaborate discussion of the Jewish ritual would\nscarcely have been made after the temple was destroyed, without any\nreference to the fact of its destruction.\n\nFollowing the letter to the Hebrews in our New Testament are seven\nepistles ascribed to four different authors, James, Peter, John, and\nJude. These are commonly called the \"Catholic Epistles,\"--catholic\nmeaning general or universal,--since they are not addressed to any one\ncongregation, but to the whole church, to Christians in general. Two of\nthem, however, the Second and Third of John, hardly deserve the\ndesignation, for they are addressed to individuals.\n\nThe author of the Epistle of James is not easily identified. There are\nnumerous Jameses in the New Testament history; we do not readily\ndistinguish them. It was not James the son of Zebedee, for he was put to\ndeath by Herod only six or seven years after the death of our Lord (Acts\nxii. 2). Probably this was the one named James the Lord's brother, who\nwas a near relative of Jesus, brother or cousin, and who was the leading\nman--perhaps they called him bishop--of the church at Jerusalem. He may,\nalso, be identical with that James the son of Alpheus, who was one of\nthe apostles. The letter was issued at an early day, probably before the\nyear 60. It was addressed to the \"twelve tribes which are of the\nDispersion,\"--that was the name by which the Jews scattered through Asia\nand Europe were generally known. To Christians who had been Jews,\ntherefore, this letter was written; in this respect it is to be classed\nwith the letter to the Hebrews; but in the tenor of its teaching it is\nwholly unlike that letter; instead of putting emphasis on the ritual and\nsymbolical elements of religion, it leaves these wholly on one side, and\nmakes the ethical contents of the Christian teaching the matter of\nsupreme concern. There is more of applied Christianity in this than in\nany other of the epistles; and both in style and in substance we are\nreminded by it of the teaching of our Lord more strongly than by any\nother portion of the New Testament.\n\nThe First Epistle of Peter is addressed to the same class of persons,--to\n\"the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion\" in various provinces\nof Asia Minor. The only intimation of tha locality of the writing is\ncontained in one of the concluding verses: \"She that is in Babylon,\nelect together with you, saluteth you.\" What Babylon is this? Is it the\nfamous capital of the Euphrates? So some have supposed, for there is a\ntradition that Peter journeyed to the distant East and founded Christian\nchurches among the Jews, who, in large numbers, were dwelling there.\nOthers take it to be the mystical Babylon,--Rome upon her seven hills.\nThis theory helps to support the contention, for which there is small\nevidence, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. The first conjecture\nhas a firmer basis. But who is \"she\" that sends her salutations to these\nAsian saints? Was it the church or the wife of the apostle? Either\ninterpretation is difficult; I cannot choose between them. Of the origin\nof this letter we know little; but there is nothing in it inconsistent\nwith the unbroken tradition which ascribes it to the impetuous leader of\nthe apostolic band. Like the Epistle of James it is full of a strenuous\nmorality; while it does not disregard the essentials of Christian\ndoctrine it puts the emphasis on Christian conduct.\n\nThe Second Epistle of Peter is the one book of the New Testament\nconcerning whose genuineness there is most doubt. From the earliest days\nthe canonicity of this book has been disputed. It is not mentioned by\nany early Christian writer before the third century; and Origen, who is\nthe first to allude to the book, testifies that its genuineness has been\ndoubted. The early versions do not contain it; Eusebius marks it\ndoubtful; Erasmus and Calvin, in later times, regarded it as a dubious\ndocument. It seems almost incredible, with such witnesses against it,\nthat the book should be genuine; but if it is not the work of St. Peter\nit is a fraudulent writing, for it openly announces him as its author\nand refers to his first epistle. There is a remarkable similarity\nbetween this letter and the short Epistle of Jude; it would appear that\nthis must be an imitation and enlargement of that, or that a\ncondensation of this. There are some passages in this book with which we\ncould ill afford to part,--with which, indeed, we never shall part; for\nwhether they were written by Peter or by another they express clear and\nindubitable verities; and even though the author, like that Balaam whom\nhe quotes, may have been no true prophet, he was constrained, even as\nBalaam was, to utter some wholesome and stimulating truth.\n\nThe three epistles of John are the last words of the disciple that Jesus\nloved. The evidence of their genuineness, particularly of the first of\nthem, is abundant and convincing; Polycarp, who was John's pupil and\nfriend, quotes from this book, and there is an unbroken chain of\ntestimony from the early fathers respecting it. Of course those who have\ndetermined, for dogmatic reasons, to reject the Fourth Gospel, are bound\nto reject these epistles also; but that procedure is wholly unwarranted,\nas we shall see in the next chapter. These epistles were probably\nwritten from Ephesus during the last years of the first century. The\nfirst is a meditation on the great fact of the incarnation and its\nmystic relation to the life of men; it sounds the very depths of that\nwonderful revelation which was made to the world in the person and work\nof Jesus Christ. The other two are personal letters, wherein the\nfragrance of a gracious friendship still lingers, and in which we see\nhow the spirit of Christ was beginning, even then, to transfigure with\nits benignant gentleness the courtesies of life.\n\nThe Book of Jude, the last of the epistles, is one of whose author we\nhave little knowledge. He styles himself \"the brother of James,\" but\nthat, as we have seen, is a vague description. Of the close relation\nbetween this letter and Second Peter I have spoken. It is not in the\nearly Syriac version; Eusebius and Origen question it, and Chrysostom\ndoes not mention it; we may fairly doubt whether it came from the hand\nof any apostolic witness. One feature of this short letter deserves\nmention; the writer quotes from one of the old apocryphal books, the\nBook of Enoch, treating it as Scripture. If a New Testament citation\nauthenticates an ancient writing, Enoch must be regarded as an inspired\nbook. We must either reject Jude or accept Enoch, or abandon the rule\nthat makes a New Testament citation the proof of Old Testament\ncanonicity. The abandonment of the rule is the simplest and the most\nrational solution of the difficulty.\n\nI have now run rapidly over the history of twenty-one of the twenty-seven\nbooks of the New Testament,--all of the Epistles of the inspired\nbook. The end of the first century found these books scattered through\nEurope and Asia, each probably in possession of the church to which it\nhad been sent; those addressed to individuals probably in the hands of\ntheir children or children's children. Some exchanges, such as I have\nsuggested, had taken place; and some churches might have possessed\nseveral of these apostolic letters, but there was yet no collection of\nthem. Of the beginning of this collection of the New Testament writings\nI shall speak in the chapter upon the canon.\n\nI said at the beginning that these writers probably had no thought when\nthey composed these letters that they were contributing to a volume that\nwould outlast empires, and be a manual of study and a guide of conduct\nin lands to the world then unknown, and in generations farther from them\nthan they were from Abraham. But each of them uttered in sincerity the\nword that to him seemed the word of the hour; and God who gives life to\nthe seed gave vitality to these true words, so that they are as full of\ndivine energy to-day as ever they were. It is easy to cavil at a\nsentence here and there, or to pick flaws in their logic; but the\nquestion always returns, What kind of fruit have they borne? \"By their\nfruits ye shall know them.\" One of the most precious gifts of God to men\nis contained in these twenty-one brief letters. It is not in equal\nmeasure in all of them, but there is none among them that does not\ncontain some portion of it. The treasure is in earthen vessels; it was\nso when the apostles were alive and speaking; it is so now; it always\nwas and always will be so; but the treasure is there, and he who with\nopen mind and reverent spirit seeks for it will find it there, and will\nknow that the excellency of the power is of God, and not of men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS.\n\n\n\nWe have arrived in our study of the Sacred Scriptures at the threshold\nof the most interesting and the most momentous topic which is presented\nto the student of the Biblical literature,--the question of the origin\nof the Gospels. These Gospels contain the record of the life and the\ndeath of Jesus Christ, that marvelous Personality in whom the histories,\nthe prophecies, the liturgies of the Old Testament are fulfilled, and\nfrom whom the growing light and freedom and happiness of eighteen\nChristian centuries are seen to flow. Most certain it is that the\nhistory of the most enlightened lands of earth during these Christian\ncenturies could not be understood without constant reference to the\npower which came into the world when Jesus Christ was born. Some\ntremendous social force made its appearance just then by which the whole\nlife of mankind has been affected ever since that day. The most powerful\ninstitutions, the most benign influences which are at work in the world\nto-day, can be followed back to that period as surely as any great river\ncan be followed up to the springs from which it takes its rise. If we\nhad not these four Gospels we should be compelled to seek for an\nexplanation of the chief phenomena of modern history. \"We trace,\" says\nMr. Horton, \"this astonishing influence back to that life, and if we\nknew nothing at all about it, but had to construct it out of the\ncreative imagination, we should have to figure to ourselves facts,\nsayings, and impressions which would account for what has flowed from\nit. Thus, if the place where this biography comes were actually a blank,\nwe should be able to surmise something of what ought to be there, just\nas astronomers surmised the existence of a new planet, and knew in what\nquarter of the heavens to look for it by observing and registering the\ninfluences which retarded or deflected the movements of the other\nplanets.\" [Footnote: _Inspiration and the Bible,_ p. 65.]\n\nThat place is not a blank; it is filled with the fourfold record of the\nLife from which all these mighty influences have flowed. Must not this\nrecord prove to be the most inspiring theme open to human investigation?\nIs it any wonder that more study has been expended upon this theme than\nupon any other which has ever claimed the attention of men?\n\nWhat do we know of the origin of this four-fold record? Origin it must\nhave had like every other book, an origin in time and space. That there\nare divine elements in it the most of us believe; but the form in which\nwe have it is a purely human form, and it would be worthless to us if it\nwere not in purely human form. The sentences of which it is composed\nwere constructed by human minds, and were written down by human hands on\nparchment or papyrus leaves. When, and where, and by whom? These are the\nquestions now before us.\n\nLet us go back to the last half of the second century and see what\ntraces of these books we can find.\n\nIren\u00e6us, Bishop of Lyons, in France, who died about 200, speaks\ndistinctly of these four Gospels, which, he declares, are equal in\nauthority to the Old Testament Scriptures, and which he ascribes to the\nfour authors whose names they now bear. With the fanciful reasoning then\ncommon among Christian writers, he finds a reason in the four quarters\nof the globe why there should have been four Gospels and no more.\n\nClement of Alexandria was living at the samq time. He also quotes\nliberally in his writings from all these four books, of which he speaks\nas \"the four Gospels that have been handed down to us.\"\n\nTertullian, who was born in Carthage about 160, also quotes all these\nGospels as authoritative Christian writings.\n\nIt is clear, therefore, that in the West, the East, and the South,--in\nall quarters where Christianity was then established,--the four Gospels\nwere recognized and read in the churches in the latter half of the\nsecond century. Let us go back a little farther.\n\nJustin Martyr was born at Rome about the year 100, and was writing most\nabundantly from his fortieth to his forty-fifth year. In one of the\nbooks which he has left us, in describing the customs of the Christians,\nhe uses the following language: \"On the day which is called Sunday there\nis an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country\ndistricts, and the records of the apostles or the writings of the\nprophets are read as long as we have time. Then the reader concludes,\nand the president verbally instructs and exhorts us to the imitation of\nthese excellent things. Then we all rise up together and offer our\nprayers.\" In another place he speaks of something commanded by \"the\napostles in the records which they made, and which are called Gospels.\"\nJustin does not say how many of these Gospels the church in his day\npossessed, but we find in his writings unmistakable quotations from at\nleast three of them. Dr. Edwin Abbott, of London, whom Mrs. Humphry Ward\nrefers to as master of all the German learning on this subject, says\nthat it would be possible \"to reconstruct from his (Justin's) quotations\na fairly connected narrative of the incarnation, birth, teaching,\ncrucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord;\" that this\nnarrative is all found in the three Synoptic Gospels, and that Justin\nquotes no words of Christ and refers to no incidents that are not found\nin these Gospels. [Footnote: _Encyc. Brit.,_ vol. x. p. 817.]\n\nWe may fully accept Dr. Abbott's testimony so far as the quotations of\nJustin from the first three Gospels are concerned; but his arguments,\nwhich are intended to prove that there is no certain reference to the\nfourth Gospel in Justin's works, appear to me inconclusive. When Justin\nsays: \"For indeed Christ also said, 'except ye be born again, ye shall\nnot enter into the kingdom of heaven,' but that it is impossible for\nthose who were once born to enter into their mother's womb is plain to\nall,\" he is quoting words that are found in the fourth Gospel, and not\nin any of the other three. The attempt to show that he found these and\nsimilar citations in the same sources from which the author of the\nfourth Gospel derived them is not successful.\n\nSeveral indirect lines of evidence tend to confirm the belief that\nJustin possessed all four of our Gospels. This, then, carries us back to\nthe first half of the second century. Between 100 and 150 Papias of\nHierapolis, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp of Smyrna were writing.\nPapias, who wrote about 130-140 A. D., composed five books or\ncommentaries on what he calls \"The Oracles of the Lord.\" He gives us\nsome account of the origin of at least two of these Gospels. \"Mark,\" he\nsays, \"was the interpreter of Peter;\" \"Matthew wrote his scriptures\n(_logia_) in Hebrew, and each man interpreted them as best he\ncould.\" \"Interpreted\" here evidently means translated. Elsewhere he\nrepeats a tradition of \"the elder,\" by which word he apparently means\nthe Apostle John, whom he may have known, in these words: \"Mark, having\nbecome Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately all that he\nremembered,--not, however, in order,--both the words and the deeds of\nChrist. For he never heard the Lord, nor attached himself to him, but\nlater on, as I said, attached himself to Peter, who used to adapt his\nlessons to the needs of the occasion, but not as though he was composing\na connected treatise of the discourses of our Lord; so that Mark\ncommitted no error in writing down some matters just as he remembered\nthem. For one object was in his thoughts, to make no omissions and no\nfalse statements in what he heard.\" [Footnote: Quoted by Abbott, as\nabove.] This is a perfect description of the Gospel of Mark as we have\nit in our hands to-day. And the testimony of Papias to its authorship,\nand to the spirit and purpose of the author, is significant and\nmemorable. Evidence of this nature would be regarded as decisive in any\nother case of literary criticism.\n\nPolycarp, who was the friend and pupil of John the Apostle, was born\nabout the year 69, and suffered martyrdom about 155. In his writings we\nfind no express mention of the Gospels, but we do find verbally accurate\nquotations from them. It is clear that he was acquainted with the books.\nPolycarp was the teacher of Iren\u00e6us of Lyons whom I first quoted, and\nhe was the pupil and friend of St. John and the other apostles; and\nIren\u00e6us, who quotes all these Gospels so freely, bears this testimony\nrespecting Polycarp, in a letter which he wrote to Florinus.\n\n\"I saw you, when I was yet a boy, in Lower Asia with Polycarp.... I\ncould even point out now the place where the blessed Polycarp sat and\nspoke, and describe his going out and coming in, his manner of life, his\npersonal appearance, the addresses he delivered to the multitude, how he\nspoke of his intercourse with John, and with the others who had seen the\nLord, and how he recalled their words, and everything that he had heard\nabout the Lord, about his miracles and his teaching. Polycarp told us,\nas one who had received it from those who had seen the Word of Life with\ntheir own eyes, and all this in complete harmony with the Scriptures. To\nthis I then listened, through the mercy of God vouchsafed to me, with\nall eagerness, and wrote it not on paper, but in my heart, and still by\nthe grace of God I ever bring it into fresh remembrance.\"\n\nThese living witnesses give us solid ground for our statement that the\nGospels--the first three of them at any rate--were in existence during\nthe last years of the first century. Indeed, not to prolong this search\nfor the origin of the books, it is now freely admitted, by many of the\nmost radical critics, that the first three Gospels were written before\nthe year 80, and that Mark must have been written before 70.\n\nIt is interesting to contrast the course of New Testament criticism with\nthat engaged upon the Old Testament. In the study of the origin of the\nPentateuch the gravitation of opinion has been steadily downward, toward\na later date, so that the great majority of scholars are now certain\nthat the books must have been put into their present form long after the\ntime of Moses. In the study of the origin of the Gospels the date has\nbeen steadily pushed upward, to the very age of the apostles. The\nearlier critics, Strauss and Baur, insisted that they must have appeared\nmuch later, far on in the second century; but the more recent and more\nscientific criticism has demolished or badly discredited their theories,\nand has carried the Gospels back to the last part of the first century.\n\nAre we entitled, then, to say that these Gospels were written by\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John? We should be cautious, no doubt, in\nmaking such a statement. The Gospels themselves are not so explicit on\nthis point as we could desire. Their titles do not warrant this\nassertion. It is not \"The Gospel of St. Matthew\" or \"The Gospel of St.\nMark;\" it is the \"Gospel according to St. Matthew\" or St. Mark. The\nimport of the title would be fully satisfied with the explanation that\nthis is the story as Matthew or Mark was wont to tell it, put into form\nby some person or friend of his, in his last days, or even after his\ndeath. But the testimony of Papias, to which I have referred, is to my\nown mind good evidence that these Gospels were written by the men who\nbear their names. In the case of Luke, as we shall presently see, the\nevidence is much stronger. And after going over the evidence as\ncarefully as I am able, the theory that the four Gospels were written by\nthe men whose names they bear, all of whom were the contemporaries of\nour Lord, and two of whom were his apostles, seems to me, on the whole,\nthe best supported by the whole volume of evidence. The case is not\nabsolutely clear; perhaps it was left somewhat obscure for the very\npurpose of stimulating study. At all events, the study which has been\ngiven to the subject has confirmed rather than weakened the belief that\nthe Gospels are contemporary records of the life of Christ. Mr. Norton,\na distinguished Unitarian scholar, sums up the evidence as follows: \"It\nconsists in the indisputable fact that throughout a community of\nmillions of individuals, scattered over Europe, Asia, and Africa, the\nGospels were regarded with the highest reverence, as the works of those\nto whom they are ascribed, at so early a period that there could be no\ndifficulty in determining whether they were genuine or not, and when\nevery intelligent Christian must have been deeply interested to\nascertain the truth.... This fact is itself a phenomenon admitting of no\nexplanation except that the four Gospels had all been handed down as\ngenuine from the apostolic age, and had everywhere accompanied our\nreligion as it spread throughout the world.\"\n\nWhen we turn from the external or historical evidence for the\ngenuineness of the Gospels to study their internal structure and their\nrelations to one another, we come upon some curious facts. These\nGospels, in the form in which we possess them, are written in the Greek\nlanguage. But the Greek language was not the vernacular of the Jews in\nPalestine when our Lord was on the earth; the language which was then\nspoken by them, as I have before explained, was the Aramaic. It is true\nthat Palestine was, to some extent, a bilingual country,--like Wales,\none writer suggests, where the English and the Welsh languages are now\nfreely spoken,--that Aramaic and Greek were used indifferently. I can\nhardly imagine that a people as tenacious of their own institutions as\nthe Jews could have adopted Greek as generally as the Welsh have adopted\nthe English tongue. Even in Wales, if a Welshman were speaking to a\ncongregation of his countrymen on any important topic, he would be\nlikely to speak the Welsh language. And much more probable does it seem\nto me that the discourses and the common conversation of Jesus must have\nbeen spoken in the vernacular. The discourses and sayings of our Lord,\nas reported for us in these Gospels, are not therefore given us in the\nwords that he used. We have a translation of his words from the Aramaic\ninto the Greek, made either by the writers of the Gospels, or by some\none in their day. We have quoted the testimony of Papias, that the\nGospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (by which he\nundoubtedly means Aramaic), and that each one interpreted it as best he\ncould; and if this be true, then that copy first made by Matthew did\ncontain many of our Lord's very words. But that Aramaic copy has never\nbeen seen since that day; we have no manuscript of any New Testament\nbook except in the Greek language. There are a few cases in which the\nwriters of the Gospels have preserved for us the very words used by\nChrist. Thus in the healing of the deaf man in the neighborhood of\nDecapolis, of which Mark tells us (vii. 34), Jesus touched his ears, and\nsaid unto him, \"Ephphatha,\" that is, \"Be opened.\" The Evangelist gives\nus the Aramaic word which Jesus used, and translates it for his readers\ninto Greek. Likewise in the healing of the ruler's daughter (Mark v. 41)\nhe took her by the hand, and said unto her, \"Talitha cumi, which is,\nbeing interpreted,\" the Evangelist explains, \"Damsel, I say unto thee,\nArise.\" Doubtless most readers get the impression that our Lord used\nhere some cabalistic words in a foreign tongue; the fact is that these\nare the words of the common speech of the people; only the Evangelist\nseems to have thought them especially memorable, and he has given us not\nmerely, as he generally does, a translation into the Greek of our Lord's\nwords, but the Aramaic words themselves, with their meaning appended in\na Greek phrase. The same is true of our Lord's words on the cross: \"Eli,\nEli, lama sabachthani?\" These are Aramaic words, the very words that\nJesus uttered. The Roman soldiers who stood near might not know what he\nmeant; but every Jew who distinctly heard him must have understood him,\nfor he was speaking in no foreign tongue, but in the language of his own\npeople.\n\nWhen we speak, therefore, of the Greek as the original language of the\nGospels, we do not speak with entire accuracy. The Greek does not give\nus our Lord's original words. These we have not, except in the cases I\nhave named, and a few others less important. No man on earth knows or\never will know what were the precise words that our Lord used in his\nSermon on the Mount, in his conversation with the woman at the well, in\nhis last discourses with his disciples. We have every reason to believe\nthat the substance of what he said is faithfully preserved for us; the\nfourfold record, so marvelously accordant in its report of his\nteachings, makes this perfectly clear. But his very words we have not,\nand this fact itself is the most convincing dis-proof of the dogma of\nverbal inspiration. If our Lord had thought it important that we should\nhave his very words he would have seen to it that his very words were\npreserved and recorded for us, instead of that Greek translation of his\nwords, made by his followers, which we now possess. These evangelists\ncould have written Aramaic, doubtless did write Aramaic; and they would\ncertainly have kept our Lord's discourses and sayings in the Aramaic\noriginal if they had been instructed to do so. The fact that they were\nnot instructed to do so, but were permitted to give his teachings to the\nworld in other words than those in which they were spoken, shows how\nlittle there was of modern literalism in Christ's conception of the work\nof revelation.\n\nThe first three of these Gospels exhibit many striking similarities;\nthey appear to give, from somewhat different standpoints, a condensed\nand complete synopsis of the events of our Lord's life; therefore they\nare called the Synoptic Gospels. The fourth Gospel differs widely from\nthem in matter and form. It will be more convenient, therefore, to speak\nfirst of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.\n\nThe singular fact respecting these Gospels is the combination in them of\nlikeness and difference. A considerable portion of each one of them is\nto be found, word for word, in one or both of the others; other\nconsiderable portions of each are not found in either of the others;\nsome passages are nearly alike, but slightly different in two or in all\nof them. Did these three authors write independently each of the other?\nIf so, how does it happen that their phraseology is so often identical?\nDid they copy one from another? If so, why did they copy so little? Why,\nfor example, did each one of them omit so much that the others had\nwritten? And why are there so many slight differences in passages that\nare nearly identical? If we accepted the theory of verbal inspiration,\nwe might offer some sort of explanation of this phenomenon. We might say\nthat the Holy Ghost dictated these words, and that that is the end of\nit; since no explanation can be offered of the reason why the Holy Ghost\nchose one form of expression rather than another. But the Gospels\nthemselves contain abundant proof that the Holy Ghost did not dictate\nthe words employed by these writers.\n\nThe two genealogies of our Lord, one in Matthew and the other in Luke,\nare widely different. From Abraham to David they substantially agree;\nfrom David to Christ, Matthew makes twenty-eight generations, and Luke\nthirty-eight; only two of the intermediate names in the one table are\nfound in the other; the one list makes Jacob the father of Joseph, and\nthe other declares that the name of Joseph's father was Heli. All sorts\nof explanations, some plausible and others preposterous, have been\noffered of this difficulty; the one explanation that cannot be allowed\nis that these words were dictated by Omniscience. In the story of the\nhealing of the blind near Jericho, Matthew and Mark expressly say that\nthe healing took place as Christ was departing from the city; Luke that\nit was before he entered it. Matthew says that there were two blind men;\nMark and Luke that there was but one. About these details of the\ntransaction there is some mistake,--that is the only thing to be said\nabout it. The various explanations offered are weak and inadmissible.\nBut what difference does it make to anybody whether the healing took\nplace before or after Jesus entered the city, or whether there was one\nman healed or two? The moral and spiritual lessons of the story are just\nas distinct in the one case as in the other; and it is these moral and\nspiritual values only that inspiration is intended to secure.\n\nSimilarly, Luke (iv. 38-39) expressly tells us that the healing of\nPeter's wife's mother took place before the calling of Simon and Andrew;\nwhile Matthew and Mark tell us with equal explicitness that the calling\ntook place before the healing. No reconciliation is possible here;\neither Luke or Matthew and Mark must have misplaced these events.\n\nSo in Matthew xxvii. 9, certain words are said to have been spoken by\nJeremiah the prophet. These words are not in Jeremiah; they are in\nZechariah xi. 13. It is simply a slip of the Evangelist's memory.\n\nSo in the record of the inscription on the cross when Jesus was\ncrucified. Each of the four Evangelists copies it for us in a different\nform. The meaning is the same in all the cases, but the copy was not\nexactly made by some of them, perhaps not by any of them. If the Holy\nGhost had dictated the words, they must, in a case like this, have been\nexactly alike in all the Evangelists. The substance is given, but the\ninexactness of the copy shows that the words could not have been\ndictated by Omniscience. It is sometimes explained that this inscription\nwas in three languages, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and that we may have\nthe exact translations of the different inscriptions. This might account\nfor three of them, but not for four.\n\nFrom these and many other similar facts, we know that the theory of\nverbal inspiration is not true; but that these Evangelists were allowed\nto state each in his own language the facts known by him concerning our\nLord, and that nothing like infallible accuracy was so much as\nattempted. The only inspiration that can be claimed for them is that\nwhich brought the important facts to their remembrance, and guarded them\nagainst serious errors of history or doctrine.\n\nBut now the question returns, if they wrote these Gospels in their own\nlanguage and independently of one another, how happens it that they use\nso often the very same words and phrases and sentences? Take, for\nexample, the following verses from parallel narratives in Matthew and in\nMark, concerning the calling of the first apostles:--\n\nMATTHEW iv. 18-22.\n\nAnd walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is\ncalled Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for\nthey were fishers. And he saith unto them, Come ye after me, and I will\nmake you fishers of men. And they straightway left the nets, and\nfollowed him. And going on from thence he saw two other brethren, James\nthe son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their\nfather, mending their nets; and he called them. And they straightway\nleft the boat and their father, and followed him.\n\nMARK i. 16-20.\n\nAnd passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the\nbrother of Simon casting a net in the sea: for they were fishers. And\nJesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become\nfishers of men. And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.\nAnd going on a little further, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John\nhis brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets. And straightway\nhe called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the\nhired servants, and went after him.\n\nThere are slight verbal variations, but in general the words are the\nsame, and the corresponding sentences are in precisely the same order in\nboth narratives. Now, as Archbishop Thomson says, in Smith's \"Bible\nDictionary,\" \"The verbal and material agreement of the first three\nEvangelists is such as does not occur in any other authors who have\nwritten independently of each other.\"\n\nBesides many such passages which are substantially alike but verbally or\nsyntactically different, there are quite a number which are identical,\nword for word, and phrase for phrase. These verbal agreements occur most\nfrequently, as is natural, in the reports of our Lord's discourses and\nsayings; but they also occur in the descriptive and narrative portions\nof the gospel. This is the fact which is so difficult to reconcile with\nthe theory that the books were produced by independent writers.\n\nSuppose three competent and truthful reporters are employed by you to\nwrite an exact and unvarnished report of some single transaction which\nhas occurred, and which each of them has witnessed. Each is required to\ndo his work without any conference with the others. When these reports\nare brought to you, if they are very faithful and accurate for\nsubstance, you will not be surprised to find some circumstances\nmentioned by each that are not mentioned by either of the others, and it\nwill be strange if there are not some important discrepancies. But if on\nreading them, you find that the reports, taken sentence by sentence, are\nalmost identical,--that there is only an occasional difference in a word\nor in the order of a phrase,--then you at once say, \"These reporters\nmust have been copying from some other reporter's note-book, or else\nthey must have been comparing notes; they could not have written with\nsuch verbal agreement if they had written independently.\" Suppose, for\nexample, that each of the three reports began in just these words: \"The\nfirst object that attracted my notice on entering the door was a chair.\"\nNow it is extremely improbable that all these writers, writing\nindependent reports of a transaction, should begin in the same way by\nmentioning the first object that attracted the attention of each. And\neven if they should so begin, it is wholly beyond the range of\npossibilities that they should all select from all the multitude of the\nwords in the English language the very same words in which to make this\nstatement; and should put these words in the very same order, out of the\nmultitude of different orders into which they could grammatically be\nput. There is not one chance in a million that such a coincidence would\noccur. But such coincidences occur very often in the first three\nGospels. How can we account for it? We say that they wrote\nindependently, that their words were not dictated to them; how does it\nhappen that there is so much verbal agreement?\n\nWe may get some hint of the manner in which these biographies were\nproduced if we turn to the beginning of Luke's Gospel:--\n\n\"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning\nthose matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered\nthem unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers\nof the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all\nthings accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most\nexcellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning\nthe things wherein thou wast instructed.\" The marginal reading of this\nlast phrase is, \"which thou wast taught by word of mouth.\" This is the\nmore exact meaning of the Greek. The passage contains these statements:--\n\n1. Theophilus had been orally taught the Gospels.\n\n2. Many persons, not apostles, had undertaken to write out parts of the\ngospel story, as they had heard it from eyewitnesses and ministers of\nthe word.\n\n3. Luke also, as one who had full and accurate information, had\ndetermined to reduce his knowledge to an orderly written narrative, for\nthe benefit of his friend Theophilus.\n\nIt appears from this clear statement that written memoranda of the\ndiscourses of our Lord and of the incidents of his life had been made by\nmany persons. Numbers of these had undertaken to combine their memoranda\nwith their recollections in an orderly statement. This fact itself shows\nhow powerful an impression had been made by our Lord's life and death\nupon the people of Palestine. Everything relating to him was treasured\nwith the utmost care; Luke, for his part, believing that he had gained\nby careful investigation sufficient knowledge to warrant the\nundertaking, sets out to collect the facts and present them in a\nconsecutive and intelligible literary form. Yet Luke, in this\nannouncement of his purpose, betrays no consciousness that he is using\nany different powers from those employed by the many others of whom he\nspeaks. Rather does he most clearly rank himself with them, as one of\nmany gleaners in this fruitful field. He does claim thoroughness and\npainstaking accuracy; I believe that every honest man will concede his\nclaim.\n\nThis, then, was the way in which Luke went to work to write his Gospel.\nThis is not guesswork; it is the explicit statement of the author\nhimself. Have we not good reason for believing that the Gospels of\nMatthew and Mark were composed in much the same way?\n\nIn addition to the written memoranda of Christ's life which were in the\nhands of the apostles, and of many others, there was another source from\nwhich the Evangelists must have drawn. Luke alludes to it when he speaks\nof the fact that Theophilus had received much of his narrative \"by word\nof mouth.\" There was, unquestionably, an oral gospel, covering the\nlarger part of the deeds and the words of Jesus, which had been widely\ncirculated in Palestine and in the whole missionary field. When it is\nsaid (Acts viii. 1-4; xi. 19) that they which were scattered abroad by\nthe early persecutions went everywhere preaching the word, it must be\nunderstood that they went about simply telling the story of Jesus, his\nbirth, his life, his deeds, his words, his death upon the cross.\nSometimes, when preaching to Jews, they would show the correspondence\nbetween his life and the Old Testament prophecies, to prove that he was\nthe Messiah; but the substance of their preaching was the telling over\nand over again of the story of Jesus. It was upon this oral gospel that\nthe apostles and the first missionaries mainly relied. What they desired\nto do was to make known as speedily and as rapidly as possible the words\nof his lips and the facts of his life. And it is highly probable that\nbefore they set out on these missionary tours, they took great pains to\nrehearse to one another the story which they were going forth to tell.\n\"The apostles,\" says Professor Westcott, \"guided by the promised Spirit\nof truth, remained together in Jerusalem in close communion for a period\nlong enough to shape a common narrative, and to fix it with requisite\nsurroundings.\"\n\nIt was these concerted recollections and rehearsals that gave to so many\npassages of the gospel its identity in form. Some of the sentences often\nand devoutly repeated were remembered by all, word for word; in some of\nthem there were verbal differences and discrepancies, as they were\nrepeated by one and another. The verbal resemblances as well as the\nverbal differences are thus explained by this theory of an oral gospel,\nprepared at first for preaching by the apostles, and held only in their\nmemory.\n\nThe preservation of so many passages in words and sentences nearly or\nexactly similar is nothing miraculous. Even in our own time there are,\nas we are told, secret societies whose ritual has never been written,\nbut has been handed down with nearly verbal accuracy, from generation to\ngeneration. For the Hebrews, who were a people at this time greatly\ndisinclined to write, and thoroughly practiced in remembering and\nrepeating the sayings of their wise men, this task would not be\ndifficult.\n\nThe apostles and the early evangelists, as Westcott suggests, were\npreachers, not historians, not pamphleteers. They believed in living\nwitnesses more than in transmitted documents. They did not write out the\nrecord at first, partly because they were naturally disinclined to\nwrite, and partly, no doubt, because they expected the immediate return\nof our Lord to earth. Their gospel was therefore for many years a spoken\nand not a written word. As they went on repeating it, changes would\noccur in the repetition of the words; to the remembrance of one and\nanother of them the Spirit of truth would bring facts and circumstances\nthat they did not think of at first; words, phrases, gestures of our\nLord would reappear in the memory of each, and thus the narrative became\nvaried and shaded with the personal peculiarities of the several\nwriters.\n\nYears passed, and the expected return of the Lord to earth did not take\nplace. The churches were spreading over Asia and Europe, and the\napostles were unable personally to instruct those who were preaching the\ngospel in other lands. Thus the need of a written record began to make\nitself felt; and the apostles themselves wrote out the story which they\nhad been telling, or it was written for them by their companions and\nfellow-helpers in the gospel. The oral gospel as it lived in their\nmemories would form, no doubt, the substance of it, and the written\nmemoranda of the discourses and incidents, to which Luke refers, would\nbe drawn upon in completing the biography. The oral gospel thus\ncarefully prepared and transmitted by memory would be substantially the\nsame, yet many differences in arrangement of words and phrases would\nnaturally have crept in; the written memoranda would in many cases be\nverbally identical. And each Evangelist, gleaning from this wide field,\nwould collect some facts and sayings omitted by the others.\n\nThere are other explanations of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels, some\nof which are ingenious and plausible, but I shall not burden your minds\nwith them, since the theory which I have presented appears to me the\nsimplest, the most natural, and the most comprehensive of them all.\n\nThe Fourth Gospel, it is evident, must have had a different origin.\nBeyond question it is a consecutive narrative, composed by a single\nwriter, and not, like the Synoptics, a compilation of memoranda, oral or\nwritten. It appears to be, in part at least, a supplementary narrative,\nomitting much that is contained in the other Gospels, supplying some\nomissions, and correcting, possibly, certain unimportant errors. Mr.\nHorton illustrates the supplementary work of this Evangelist by several\ninstances. \"The communion of the Lord's Supper,\" he says, \"was so\nuniversally known and observed when he wrote that he actually does not\nmention its institution, but he records a wonderful discourse concerning\nthe Bread of Life which is an indispensable commentary on the unnamed\ninstitution, and by filling in with great detail the circumstances of\nthe last evening, he furnished a framework for the ordinance which is\namong our most precious possessions. On the other hand, because the\ncommon tradition was very vague in its date he gave precision to the\nevent which they had recorded by fixing the time of its occurrence....\nIn Matt, iv. 12 and Mark i. 14, the temptation, immediately following\nChrist's baptism, is immediately followed by the statement, 'When he\nheard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving\nNazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum.' But this summary narrative had\nexcluded one of the most interesting features of the early ministry of\nJesus. Accordingly the Fourth Gospel enlarges the story and emphasizes\nthe marks of time. After the Baptism, according to this authority, Jesus\n'went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his\ndisciples, and there they abode not many days' (ii. 12). Then he went up\nto the Passover at Jerusalem, where he had the interview with Nicodemus.\nAfter that he went into the country districts of Judea, where John was\nbaptizing in \u00c6non, and then the writer adds, as if his eye were on the\ncondensed and misleading narrative of the common tradition, 'For John\nwas not yet cast into prison.' The two great teachers, the Forerunner,\nand the Greater-than-he, were actually baptizing side by side, and it\nwas because Jesus saw his reputation overshadowing John's that he\nvoluntarily withdrew into Galilee, passing through Samaria. So that\nwhile there had been two journeys to Galilee before John was imprisoned,\nand that early period of the life was full of unique and wonderful\ninterest, all had been compressed and crushed into the brief statement\nof Matt. iv. 12 and Mark i. 14. In this case we seem to see the\nEvangelist deliberately loosening and breaking up the current history in\norder that he might insert into the cramped and lifeless framework some\nof the most valuable episodes of the Lord's life. If the fourth\nEvangelist had treated the triple narrative in the way that many of us\nhave treated it, regarding it as a sin against the Holy Spirit to\nsuggest that there was any incompleteness or any misleading\nabbreviations in it, we should have lost the wonderful accounts of the\nconversation with Nicodemus and with the woman at the well.\" [Footnote:\n_Inspiration and the Bible,_ pp. 95-99.]\n\nIf such is the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics, it\nfollows that it must have been the work of one who was thoroughly\nfamiliar with the events recorded. That the narrative bears evidence of\nhaving been written by an eyewitness is to my own mind clear. That the\nwriter intends to convey the impression that he is the beloved disciple\nis also manifest. Either it was written by John the Apostle, or else the\nwriter was a deliberate deceiver. There can be no such explanation of\nhis personation of John as that which satisfies our minds in the case of\nDaniel and Ecclesiastes; the book is either the work of John, or it is a\ncunning and conscienceless fraud. And it seems to me that any one who\nwill read the book will find it impossible to believe that it is an\nimposture. If any book of the ages bears in itself the witness to the\ntruth it is the Fourth Gospel. It shines by its own light. Any of us\ncould tell the difference between the sun in the heavens and a brass\ndisk suspended in the sky reflecting the sun's rays; and in much the\nsame way the fact is apparent that the book is not a counterfeit gospel.\n\nIt is true that historical criticism has raised difficulties about it;\nthe battle of the critics has been raging around it for half a century;\nbut one after another of the positions taken by men like Strauss and\nBaur have been shown to be untenable; and it can truthfully be said, in\nthe words of Professor Ladd, \"that the vigorous and determined attacks\nupon the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel have greatly increased instead\nof impairing our confidence in the traditional view.\" [Footnote: _What\nis the Bible?_ p. 327.] And I am ready to go farther with the same\nbrave but reverent scholar, and say, \"Having thus grounded in historical\nand critical researches the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, we have no\nhesitation in affirming what position it must take in Sacred Scripture.\nIt is the heart of Jesus Christ with which we here come in contact.\nInspiration and reflection uniting upon the choicest and most undoubted\nmaterial of history, and fusing all the material with the holy\ncharacteristics of revelation, are nowhere else so apparent as in the\nGospel of the Apostle John.\" [Footnote: _Doctrine of Sacred\nScripture_, i. 573]\n\nSuch, then, is the fourfold biography of Jesus the Christ preserved for\nus in the New Testament. If this study has removed something of the\nmystery with which the origin of these writings has been shrouded, it\nhas, I trust, at the same time, made them appear more real and more\nhuman; and it has shown the providential oversight by which their\nartless record, many-sided, manifold, yet simple and clear as the\ndaylight, has been preserved for us. Of these four Gospels we are\ncertainly entitled to say as much as this, that whatever verbal\ndiscrepancies may be detected in them, and however difficult it may be\nsatisfactorily to explain all the phenomena of their structure and\nrelations, in one thing they marvelously agree, and that is in the\npicture which they give us of the life and character of Jesus Christ. In\nthis each one of them is self-consistent, and they are all consistent\nwith one another. And this, if we will reflect upon it, is a marvelous,\nnot to say a miraculous fact. That four such men as these Evangelists\nincontestably were should have succeeded in giving us four portraitures\nof the Divine Man, without contradicting themselves, and without\ncontradicting one another,--four distinct views of this wonderful\nPerson, which show us different sides of his character, and which we yet\ninstantly recognize as the same person, is a very great wonder. No such\ntask was ever laid on any other human biographer as that which\nconfronted these men; no character so difficult to comprehend and\ndescribe ever existed; for one man to preserve all the unities of art in\ndescribing him would be notable; for four men to give us, independently,\nfour narratives, from the simple pages of which the same lineaments\nshine out, so that no one ever thinks of saying that the Jesus of\nMatthew is a different person from the Jesus of Mark or Luke or\nJohn,--this, I say, is marvelous.\n\nAnd it is this character, majestic in its simplicity, glorious in its\nhumility, the Ideal of Humanity, the Mystery of Godliness, that these\nGospels are meant to show us. If they only bring him clearly before us,\nmake his personality real and familiar and vivid before our eyes, so\nthat we may know him and love him, that is all we want of them.\nInfallibility in details would be worthless if this were wanting; any\nsmall discrepancies are beneath notice if this is here. And this is\nhere. Read for yourselves. From the page of Matthew, illuminated with\nthe words of prophecy that tell of the Messiah's coming; from the vivid\nand rapid record of Mark, in which the Wonder-worker displays his power;\nfrom the tender story of Luke, speaking the word of grace to those that\nare lowest down and farthest off; from the mystical Gospel of the\nbeloved disciple opening to us the deep things that only love can see,\nthe same divine form appears, the same divine face shines, the same\ndivine voice is speaking. Behold the man!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nNEW TESTAMENT HISTORY AND PROPHECY.\n\n\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles contains the history of the Christian church\nfrom the time of the ascension of our Lord to the end of the second year\nof Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. The period covered by the history\nis therefore only about thirty years. The principal events recorded in\nit are the great Pentecostal Revival, the Martyrdom of Stephen, the\nfirst persecution of the church and the dispersion of the disciples, the\nconversion and the missionary work of Paul, with the circumstances of\nhis arrest at Jerusalem, his journey as a prisoner to Rome, and a brief\naccount of his residence in that city. In the first part of the book\nPeter, the leader of the apostolic band, is the central figure; the last\npart is occupied with the life and work of Paul.\n\nWho is the writer? Iren\u00e6us, about 182, names Luke as the author of the\nbook, and speaks as though the fact were undisputed. He calls him \"a\nfollower and disciple of apostles,\" and declares that \"he was\ninseparable from Paul and was his fellow-helper in the gospel.\" This is\nthe earliest distinct reference to the book in any ancient Christian\nwriting. After this, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and\nEusebius bear the same testimony. But these are late witnesses. The\nearliest of them testified a hundred years after the death of Luke. The\ndirect testimony to the existence of this book in the first two cenuries\nis not, therefore, altogether satisfactory. The indirect testimony is,\nhowever, clear and strong.\n\nThat the Acts was written by the author of the Third Gospel is scarcely\ndoubted by any critical scholar. The fact of the identity of authorship\nis stated with the utmost explicitness in the introduction of the Acts.\n\"The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus\nbegan both to do and to teach\" (Luke i. I, 2). The author of the Acts of\nthe Apostles certainly intends to say that he is the writer of the Third\nGospel. If he is not the author of the Third Gospel he is an artful and\nshameless deceiver. But the whole atmosphere of the book forbids the\ntheory that it is a cunning imposition. And the internal evidence that\nthe two books were written by the same author is ample and convincing.\nThe style and the method of the treatment of the two books are\nunmistakably identical. Every page bears witness to the fact that the\nauthor of the Third Gospel and the author of the Acts are one and the\nsame person. Now we know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Gospel\nof Luke was written certainly as early as the year 80 A. D. And there is\nas good reason, as we have seen already, for accepting the ancient and\nuniversal tradition of the church that Luke was its author. If Luke\nwrote the two books, the date of both of them is carried back to the\nlast part of the first century. But the concluding portion of the Acts\nof the Apostles seems to fix the date of that book much more precisely.\nThe author, after narrating Paul's journey to Rome, his arrival there,\nand his first unsatisfactory interview with the Jewish leaders, closes\nhis book with this compendious statement:--\n\n\"And he abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received\nall that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching\nall things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none\nforbidding him.\"\n\nThis is the last word in the New Testament history respecting the\nApostle Paul. Now it is evident that this writer was Paul's friend and\ntraveling companion. It is true that he keeps himself out of sight in\nthe history. We only know when he joined Paul by the fact that the\nnarrative changes from the third person singular to the first person\nplural; he ceases to say \"he,\" and begins to say \"we.\" Thus we are made\naware that he joined Paul at Troas on his second missionary journey, and\nwent with him as far as Philippi; rejoined him at the same place on his\nthird missionary tour, and accompanied him to Jerusalem; was his\nfellow-voyager on that memorable journey to Rome, and there abode with\nhim for two years. The Epistle to the Colossians and the Epistle to\nPhilemon were written during this imprisonment at Rome, and in both of\nthese Epistles Paul speaks of the fact that Luke is near him. In the\nsecond letter to Timothy, which is supposed to have been written during\nthe second imprisonment at Rome, and near the close of his life, he says\nagain, \"Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him unto me, for he\nis useful to me for ministering.\" If the common opinion concerning the\ndate of this letter is correct, then Luke must have remained with Paul\nat Rome until the close of his life. But the narrative in Luke does not\ngive any account of the closing years of Paul's life. It breaks off\nabruptly at the end of his two years' residence in Rome. Why is this?\nEvidently because there is no more to tell at this time. The writer\ncontinues the history up to the date of his writing and stops there. If\nhe had been writing after the death of Paul, he would certainly have\ntold us of the circumstances of his death. There is no rational\nexplanation of this abrupt ending, except that the book was written at\nabout the time when the story closes. This was certainly about 63 A. D.\nAnd if the Book of Acts was written as early as this, the Gospel of\nLuke, the \"former treatise\" by the same author, must have been written\nearlier than this. Thus the Book of Acts not only furnishes strong\nevidence of its own early date, but helps to establish the early date of\nthe third Gospel.\n\nThese conclusions, to my own mind, are irresistible. No theory which\nconsists with the common honesty of the writer can bring these books\ndown to a later date. And I cannot doubt the honesty of the writer. His\nwritings prove him to be a careful, painstaking, veracious historian. In\nmany slight matters this accuracy appears. The political structure of\nthe Roman Empire at this time was somewhat complicated. The provinces\nwere divided between the Emperor and the Senate; those heads of\nprovinces who were directly responsible to the Emperor and the military\nauthorities were called propr\u00e6tors; those who were under the\njurisdiction of the Senate were called proconsuls. In mentioning these\nofficers Luke never makes a mistake; he gets the precise title every\ntime. Once, indeed, the critics thought they had caught him in an error.\nSergius Paulus, the Roman ruler of Cyprus, he calls proconsul. \"Wrong!\"\nsaid the critics, \"Cyprus was an imperial province; the title of this\nofficer must have been propr\u00e6tor.\" But when the critics studied a little\nmore, they found out that Augustus put this province back under the\nSenate, so that Luke's title is exactly right. And to clinch the matter,\nold coins of this very date have been found in Cyprus, giving to the\nchief magistrate of the island the title of proconsul. Such evidences of\nthe accuracy of the writer are not wanting. It is needless to insist\nthat he never makes a mistake; doubtless he does, in some small matters,\nand we have learned to take such a view of the inspiration of the\nScriptures that the discovery of some small error does not trouble us in\nthe least; but the admission that he is not infallible is perfectly\nconsistent with the belief that he is an honest, competent, faithful\nwitness. This is all that he claims for himself, this is all that we\nclaim for him, but this we do claim. We do not believe that he was a\nconscienceless impostor. We do not believe that the man who told the\nstory of Ananias and Sapphira was himself a monumental liar. We believe\nthat he meant to tell the truth, and the whole truth, and nothing but\nthe truth. Therefore, we believe that he lived in the times of the\napostles, and received from them, as he says that he did, the facts that\nhe recorded in his Gospel; that he was the traveling companion and\nmissionary helper of Paul, as he intimates that he was, and that he has\ngiven us a true account of the life and work of that great apostle.\n\nThe constant and undesigned coincidences between the Acts of the\nApostles and the Epistles of Paul--the many ways in which the personal\nand historical references of the latter support the statements of the\nformer--are also strong evidence of the genuineness of the Acts. Putting\nall these indirect and incidental proofs together the historical verity\nof the Acts seems to me very firmly established. That there are critical\ndifficulties may be admitted; some passages of this ancient writing are\nnot easily explained; there are discrepancies, for example, between the\nstory of the resurrection and ascension of Christ as told in Luke and\nthe same story as related in the Acts; possibly the writer obtained\nfuller information in the interval between the publication of these two\nbooks by which he corrected the earlier narrative. In the different\naccounts of the conversion of Paul there are also disagreements which we\ncannot reconcile; nevertheless, in the words of Dr. Donaldson, \"Even\nthese very accounts contain evidence in them that they were written by\nthe same writer, and they do not destroy the force of the rest of the\nevidence.\" [Footnote: _Encyc. Brit._, i. 124. ]\n\nThe theory of Baur that this book was written in the last part of the\nsecond century by a disciple of St. Paul, and that it is mainly a work\nof fiction, intended to bring about a reconciliation between two\nbitterly hostile parties in the church, the Pauline and the Petrine\nsects, need not detain us long. Baur contends that the church in the\nfirst two centuries was split in twain, the followers of Peter insisting\nthat no man could become a Christian without first becoming a Jew, the\nfollowers of Paul maintaining that the Jewish ritual was abolished, and\nthat the Gentiles ought to have immediate access to the Christian\nfellowship. Their antagonism was so radical and far-reaching that at the\nend of the apostolic age the two parties had no dealings with each\nother. \"Then,\" in the words of Professor Fisher, who is here summarizing\nthe theory of Baur, \"followed attempts to reconcile the difference, and\nto bridge the gulf that separated Gentile from Jewish, Pauline from\nPetrine Christianity. To this end various irenical and compromising\nbooks were written in the name of the apostles and their helpers. The\nmost important monument of this pacifying effort is the Book of Acts,\nwritten in the earlier part of the second century by a Pauline Christian\nwho, by making Paul something of a Judaizer, and then representing Peter\nas agreeing with him in the recognition of the rights of the Gentiles,\nhoped, not in vain, to produce a mutual friendliness between the\nrespective partisans of the rival apostles. The Acts is a fiction\nfounded on facts, and written for a specific doctrinal purpose. The\nnarrative of the council or conference of the Apostles, for example\n(Acts xx.), is pronounced a pure invention of the writer, and such a\nrepresentation of the condition of things as is inconsistent with Paul's\nown statements, and for this and other reasons plainly false. The same\nground is taken in respect to the conversion of Cornelius, and the\nvision of Peter concerning it.\" [Footnote: _The Supernatural Origin of\nChristianity,_ pp. 211,212.]\n\nFor this theory there is, of course, some slight historical basis. It is\ntrue, as we have seen, that Peter and Paul did have a sharp disagreement\non this very question at Antioch. It is also true that both these great\napostles behaved quite inconsistently, Peter at Antioch, and Paul\nafterwards at Jerusalem, when he consented to the propositions of the\nJudaizers, and burdened himself with certain Jewish observances in a\nvain attempt to conciliate some of the weaker brethren. That the story\nof the Acts unflinchingly shows us the weaknesses and errors of the\ngreat apostles is good evidence of its veracity. But the notion that it\nis a work of fiction fabricated for such purposes as are outlined above\nis utterly incredible. Those Epistles of Paul which Baur admits to be\ngenuine contain abundant disproof of his theory. There never was any\nsuch schism as he fancies. Paul spends a good part of his time in his\nlast missionary journey in collecting funds for the relief of those poor\n\"saints,\" for so he calls them, at Jerusalem; and every reference that\nhe makes to them is of the most affectionate character. Paul recognizes\nin the most emphatic way the authority of the other apostles, and the\nfellowship of labor and suffering by which he is united to them. All\nthis and much more of the same import we find in those epistles which\nBaur admits to be the genuine writings of Paul. In short, it may be said\nthat after the thorough discussion to which his theory has been\nsubjected for the last twenty-five years, it has scarcely a sound leg\nleft to stand on. It may be admitted to be one of the most brilliant\nworks of the historical imagination which the century has produced. It\nis supported by vast learning, and it has thrown much light on certain\nmovements of the early church; but, taken as a whole it is unscientific\nand contradictory; it raises two difficulties, where it disposes of one,\nand it ignores more facts than it includes.\n\nWe return from this excursion through the fields of destructive\ncriticism with a strong conviction that this narrative of the Acts of\nthe Apostles was written by Luke the Evangelist, the companion and\nfellow-worker of Paul, and that it gives us a veracious history of the\nearliest years of the Christian church.\n\nThe last of the New Testament books does not belong chronologically at\nthe end of the collection. There was a tradition, to which Iren\u00e6us gives\ncurrency, that it was written during the reign of Domitian, about 97 or\n98 A. D. But this tradition is now almost universally discredited.\nCritics of all classes date the book as early as 75-79 A. D., while the\nbest authorities put it nearly ten years earlier, in the autumn of 68 or\nthe spring of 69. As Archdeacon Farrar suggests, it would be vastly\nbetter if these books of the New Testament were arranged in true\nchronological order; they could be more easily understood. The fact that\nthis weird production stands at the end of the collection has made upon\nmany minds a wrong impression as to its meaning, and has given it a kind\nof significance to which it is not entitled.\n\nThe authorship of the book is quite generally ascribed to John the son\nof Zebedee, brother of James, and one of the apostles of our Lord. Even\nthe destructive critics agree to this; some among them say that there is\nless doubt about the date and the authorship of this book than about\nalmost any other New Testament writing. In making this concession they\nintend, however, to discredit the Johannine authorship of the Fourth\nGospel. The more certain we are that John wrote the Revelation, they\nargue, the more certain are we that he did not write the Gospel which\nbears his name; for the style of the two writings is so glaringly\ncontrasted that it is simply impossible that both could have come from\nthe same writer. This does not seem nearly so clear to me as it does to\nsome of these learned and perspicacious critics. A great contrast there\nis, indeed, between the style of the Revelation and that of the Gospel;\nbut this contrast may be explained. It is said, in the first place, that\nthe Greek of the Apocalypse is very bad Greek, full of ungrammatical\nsentences, abounding in Hebraisms, while that of the Gospel is good\nGreek, accurate and rhetorical in its structure. But this is by no means\nan unaccountable phenomenon. The first book was written by the apostle\nvery soon, probably, after his removal to Ephesus. He had never, I\nsuppose, been accustomed to use the Greek familiarly in his own country;\nhad never written in it at all, and it is not strange that he should\nexpress himself awkwardly when he first began to write Greek; that the\nAramaic idioms should constantly reproduce themselves in his Greek\nsentences. After he had been living for twenty-five years in the\ncultivated Greek city of Ephesus, using the Greek language continually,\nit is probable that he would write it more elegantly.\n\nBut it is said that the rhetorical style of the one book differs\nradically from that of the other. Doubtless. The one book is an\napocalypse, the other is a biography. John may not have been a practiced\n_litterateur,_ but he certainly had literary sense and feeling\nenough to know how to put a very different color and atmosphere into an\napocalyptical writing from that which he would employ in a report of the\nlife and words of Jesus. Without any reflection, indeed, he would\ninstinctively use the apocalyptic imagery; his pages would flare and\nresound with the lurid symbolism peculiar to the apocalypses. How\ndefinite a type of literature this was we shall presently see; no\nwriter, while using it, would clearly manifest his own personality. And\nif through all this disguise we do discern symptoms of a temper more\nfervid and a spirit more Judaic than that which finds expression in the\nFourth Gospel, let us remember that the ripened wisdom of the old man\nspeaks in the latter, and the intense enthusiasm of conscious strength\nin the former. This John, let us not forget, was not in his youth a\nparagon of mildness; it was he and his brother James who earned the\nsobriquet of Boanerges, \"Sons of thunder;\" it was they who wanted to\ncall down fire from heaven to consume an inhospitable Samaritan village.\nMoreover, we shall see as we go on that the times in which this\napocalypse was written were times in which the mildest, mannered men\nwould be apt to forget their decorum, and speak with unwonted intensity.\nA man with any blood in him, who undertook to write in the year 68 of\nthe themes with which the soul of this apostle was then on fire, would\nbe likely to show, no matter in what vehicle of speech his thought might\nbe conveyed, some sign of the tumult then raging within him.\n\nAll these circumstances, taken together, enable me to explain the\ndifference between the literary form of the Revelation and that of the\nGospel. But when we come to look a little more deeply into the meaning\nof the two books, we shall find that beneath all this dissimilarity\nthere are some remarkable points of agreement. Quite a number of the\nleading ideas and conceptions of the one book reappear in the other; the\nidea of Christ as the _Word_ or _Logos_ of God, the representation\nof Christ as the Lamb, as the Good Shepherd, as the Light, are peculiar to\nJohn; we find them emphasized in the Gospel and in the Revelation. The\nunity of the two books in fundamental conceptions has been admirably\nbrought out by Dr. Sears, in his volume entitled \"The Heart of Christ.\"\nAnd after weighing the evidence, I find neither historical nor\npsychological reasons sufficient to overthrow my belief that the Fourth\nGospel, as well as the Revelation, was written by John the Apostle.\n\nThe Greek name of the book means an uncovering or unveiling, and is\nfairly interpreted, therefore, by our word Revelation. It belongs to a\nclass of books which were produced in great numbers during the two\ncenturies preceding the birth of Christ and the two centuries following;\nand no one can understand it or interpret it who does not know something\nof this species of literature, of the forms of expression peculiar to\nit, and of the purposes which it was intended to serve.\n\nWe have in the Old Testament one Apocalyptic book, that of Daniel, and\nthere are apocalyptical elements in two or three of the prophecies. The\nfact that the Book of Daniel bears this character is a strong argument\nfor the lateness of its origin; for it was in the last years of the\nJewish nationality that this kind of writing became popular. We have six\nor seven books of this kind, which are written mainly from the\nstandpoint of the old dispensation, part of which appeared just before\nand part shortly after the beginning of our era; and there are nearly a\ndozen volumes of Christian apocalypses, all of which employ similar\nforms of expression, and are directed towards similar ends. Doubtless\nthese are only a few of the great number of apocalyptical books which\nthose ages produced. Their characteristics are well set forth by Dr.\nDavidson:--\n\n\"This branch of later Jewish literature took its rise after the older\nprophecy had ceased, when Israel suffered sorely from Syrian and Roman\noppression. Its object was to encourage and comfort the people by\nholding forth the speedy restoration of the Davidic Kingdom of Messiah.\nAttaching itself to the national hope, it proclaimed the impending of a\nglorious future, in which Israel freed from her enemies should enjoy a\npeaceful and prosperous life under her long-wished-for deliverer. The\nold prophets became the vehicle of these utterances. Revelations,\nsketching the history of Israel and of heathenism, are put into their\nmouths. The prophecies take the form of symbolical images and marvelous\nvisions.... Working in this fashion upon the basis of well-known\nwritings, imitating their style, and artificially reproducing their\nsubstance, the authors naturally adopted the anonymous. The difficulty\nwas increased by their having to paint as future, events actually near,\nand to fit the manifestation of a personal Messiah into the history of\nthe times. Many apocalyptists employed obscure symbols and mysterious\npictures, veiling the meaning that it might not be readily seen.\n[Footnote: _Encyc. Brit._, i. 174. ]\n\n\"Every time,\" says Dr. Harnack, \"the political situation culminated in a\ncrisis for the people of God, the apocalypses appeared stirring up the\nbelievers; in spirit, form, plan, and execution they closely resembled\neach other.... They all spoke in riddles; that is, by means of images,\nsymbols, mystic numbers, forms of animals, etc., they half concealed\nwhat they meant to reveal. The reasons for this procedure are not far to\nseek: (1.) Clearness and distinctness would have been too profane; only\nthe mysterious appears divine. (2.) It was often dangerous to be too\ndistinct.\" [Footnote: _Encyc. Brit._, xx. 496. ]\n\nThat these writings appeared in troublous times, and that they dealt\nwith affairs of the present and of the immediate future, must always be\nborne in mind. Certain symbolical conceptions are common to them;\nearthquakes denote revolutions; stars falling from heaven typify the\ndownfall of kings and dynasties; a beast is often the emblem of a\ntyrant; the turning of the sun into darkness and the moon into blood\nsignify carnage and destruction upon the earth. We have these symbolisms\nin several of the Old Testament writings as well as in many of the\napocalyptical books which are not in our canon; and the interpretation\nof such passages is not at all difficult when we understand the usage of\nthe writers.\n\nOf these apocalyptic books one of the most remarkable is the Book of\nEnoch, which appears to have been written a century or two before\nChrist. It purports to be a revelation made to and through the patriarch\nEnoch; it contains an account of the fall of the angels, and of a\nprogeny of giants that sprung from the union of these exiled celestials\nwith the daughters of men; it takes Enoch on a tour of observation\nthrough heaven and earth under the guidance of angels, who explain to\nhim many things supernal and mundane; it deals in astronomical and\nmeteorological mysteries of various sorts, and in a series of symbolical\nvisions seeks to disclose the events of the future. It is a grotesque\nproduction; one does not find much spiritual nutriment in it, but Jude\nmakes a quotation from it, in his epistle, as if he considered it Holy\nScripture.\n\n\"The Fourth Book of Esdras\" is another Jewish book of the same kind,\nwhich may have been written about the hundredth year of our era. It\npurports to be the work of Ezra, whom it misplaces, chronologically,\nputting him in the thirtieth year of the Captivity. The problem of the\nwriter is the restoration of the nation, destroyed and scattered by the\nRoman power. He makes the ancient scribe and law-giver of Israel his\nmouthpiece, but he is dealing with the events of his own time.\nNevertheless, his allusions are veiled and obscure; he speaks in\nriddles, yet he speaks to a people who understand his riddles, and know\nhow to take his symbolic visions. This book is in our English Apocrypha,\nunder the title 2 Esdras.\n\n\"The Book of Jubilees,\" which assumes to be a revelation made to Moses\non Mount Sinai, \"The Ascension of Moses,\" \"The Apocalypse of Moses,\" and\nthe \"Apocalypse of Baruch,\" are other similar books of the Jewish\nliterature.\n\nOf apocalyptical Christian writings, I may mention \"The Sibylline\nBooks,\" \"The Apocalypse of Paul,\" \"The Apocalypse of Peter,\" \"The\nRevelation of Bartholomew,\" and \"The Ascension of Isaiah,\" and there is\nalso another \"Apocalypse of John,\" a feeble imitation of the one with\nwhich our canon closes. These books appeared in the second, third, and\nfourth centuries of our era; they generally look forward to the second\ncoming of Christ, and set forth in various figures and symbols the\nconflicts and persecutions which his saints must encounter, the\ndestruction of his foes, and the establishment of his kingdom.\n\nIt will be seen, therefore, that the Revelation of St. John is not\nunique; and the inference will not be rash that much light may be thrown\nupon its dark sayings by a careful study of kindred books.\n\nIt may be answered that the writer of this book is inspired, and that\nnothing can be learned of the meaning of an inspired book by studying\nuninspired books. I reply that no inspired book can be understood at all\nwithout a careful study of uninspired books. The Greek grammar and the\nGreek lexicon are uninspired books, and no man can understand a single\none of the books of the New Testament without carefully studying both of\nthem, or else availing himself of the labor of some one else who has\ndiligently studied them. An inspired writer uses language,--the same\nlanguage that uninspired writers use; the meaning of language is fixed\nnot by inspiration, but by usage; you must study the grammar and the\nlexicon to learn about the usage. And the case is precisely similar when\nan inspired writer uses a peculiar form of literature like the\napocalyptical writings. He knows when he uses symbolisms of this class\nthat they will be interpreted according to the common usage; he expects\nand desires that they shall be so understood; and, therefore, in order\nto understand them, we must know what the usage is.\n\nWhen our Lord, speaking of the calamities which were about to fall upon\nthe Jewish people, said, \"Immediately after the tribulation of those\ndays, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,\nand the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens\nshall be shaken,\" he was speaking to people who were perfectly familiar\nwith language of this sort, because the same expressions occur over and\nover again in their prophets, and are there distinctly declared to mean\ngreat political overturnings. He used the apocalyptic phraseology, and\nhe expected them to give it the apocalyptic signification. If we wish to\nunderstand the Scripture, we must understand the language of Scripture,\nand this means not only the grammatical forms, but also the symbolic\nusages of the language.\n\nWe have seen that the apocalypses are apt to appear in times of great\ncalamity, and we have accepted the verdict of later scholarship, that\nthis Apocalypse of St. John appeared about 68 or 69 A.D. Was this a time\nof trouble in that Eastern world? Verily it was; the most appalling hour\nperhaps in the world's history. The unspeakable Nero was either still\nupon the throne of the Roman Empire, or had just reeled from that\neminence to the doom of a craven suicide. The last years of his life\nwere gorged with horror. The murder of his brother, the burning of Rome,\nprobably by his connivance, if not by his command, in order that he\nmight sate his appetite for sensations upon this horrid spectacle;\nfollowing this the fiendish scheme to charge this incendiarism upon the\nChristians, and slaughter them by tens of thousands in all the cities of\nthe Empire,--these are only instances of a career which words are too\nfeeble to portray. Those who succeeded him in this supreme power were\nnot much less ferocious; the very name of pity seemed to have been\nblotted from the Roman speech; the whole Empire reeked with cruelty and\nperfidy. While such men ruled at Rome it could not be supposed that the\nimperial representatives in the provinces would be temperate and just.\nSome of them, at any rate, had learned the lesson of the hour, and were\nas perfidious, as truculent, as base as their master could have wished.\nSuch a one was that Gessius Floras who was the procurator of Judea, and\nwho seemed to have exhausted the ingenuity of a malignant nature in\nstirring up the Jews to insurrection. By every species of indignity and\ncruelty he finally stung the long-suffering people into a perfect fury,\nand the rebellion which broke out in Palestine in the year 66 was one of\nthe most fearful eruptions of human nature that the world has ever seen.\nFlorus had raised the demon; now the legions of Rome must be called in\nto exorcise it. It was a terrible struggle. All the energies of Jewish\nfanaticisms were enlisted; the Zealots, the fiercest party among them,\nnot content with slaughtering their Roman enemies, turned their hands\nagainst every man of their own nation who ventured to question the\nwisdom of their desperate resistance. In Jerusalem itself a reign of\nterror raged which makes the French Revolution seem in comparison a calm\nand orderly procedure.\n\nAt the beginning of the outbreak Nero had sent one of his trusted\ngenerals, Vespasian, and Vespasian's son Titus, to put down the\ninsurrection. Neither of these soldiers was a sentimentalist; both\nbelieved as heartily as did Wentworth in later years that the word of\nthe hour was Thorough. They started with their armies from Antioch in\nMarch, 67, resolved on sweeping Palestine with the besom of destruction.\nCities and villages, one by one, were besieged, captured, destroyed;\nmen, women, and children were indiscriminately massacred. The Jewish\narmy fought every inch of the ground like tigers; but they were\noverpowered and beaten in detail, and steadily forced southward.\nBlackened walls, pools of blood, and putrefying corpses were all that\nthe Romans left in their rear; ruthlessly they drove the doomed people\nbefore them toward their stronghold of Jerusalem. In the autumn of that\nyear Vespasian withdrew his army into winter-quarters, and left the\nZealots in Jerusalem to their orgy of brigandage and butchery. He could\nwell afford to rest and let them do his deadly work.\n\nIn the spring of the following year, the siege of Jerusalem began. The\nChristians of the city had fled to Pella, east of the Jordan; the\nremnant of the Jews held their sacred heights with the courage of\ndespair.\n\nIt is at this very juncture that this book of the Revelation was\nwritten. John testifies that it was written on Patmos, a desolate islet\nof the \u00c6gean Sea, west of Asia Minor, to which he had either been\nbanished by some tool of Nero, or else had betaken himself for solitude\nand reflection. To him, in this retreat, the awful tidings had come of\nthe scourge that had fallen on the land of his fathers; added to this,\nthe conflagration at Rome, the Neronian persecution, all the horrors of\nthe past decade were fresh in his memory. May we not say that the time\nwas ripe for an apocalyptic message?\n\nIt is in these events, then, that we must find the explanation of much\nof this symbolical language. Such is the law of the apocalypse, and this\napocalypse may be expected to conform to the law. St. John is instructed\nby the angel to write \"the things which thou sawest, and the things\nwhich are, and the things which shall come to pass hereafter,\"--\"the\nthings which must _shortly_ come to pass,\" the first verse more\nexplicitly states. It is the past which he has seen, the present, and\nthe immediate future with which his visions are concerned. It is not any\nattempt to outline the whole course of human history; it is the picture,\nin mystic symbols, of the present crisis and of the deliverance which is\nto follow it. There is no room here for a commentary on the Apocalypse;\nI will only indicate, in a rapid glance, the outline of the book.\n\nThe first three chapters are occupied with the epistles to the seven\nchurches which are in Asia, administering reproof, exhortation, comfort,\nand counsel to the Christians in these churches,--faithful, stirring,\npersuasive appeals, whose meaning can be easily understood, and whose\ntruth is often sorely needed by the churches of our own time.\n\nThen begins the proper Apocalypse, with the first vision of the throne\nin heaven, and sitting thereon the Lamb that was slain, who is also the\nLion of the tribe of Judah. The book sealed with seven seals is given to\nhim to open, and the opening of each seal discloses a new vision. The\nfirst seal opened shows a white horse bearing a rider who carries a bow\nand wears a crown, and who goes forth conquering and to conquer. This is\nthe emblem of the Messiah whose conquest of the world is represented as\nbeginning. But the Messiah once said, \"I came not to bring peace, but a\nsword,\" and the consequences of his coming must often be strife and\nsorrow because of the malignity of men. And therefore the three seals\nwhich are opened next disclose a fiery horse, the symbol of War, a black\nhorse, whose rider is Famine, a pale horse in whose saddle is Death. The\nopening of the fifth seal shows the martyred multitude before the throne\nof God. The sixth discloses the desolation and the ruin taking place\nupon the earth. Thus the mighty panorama passes constantly before our\neyes; the confusion, the devastation, the woes, the scourges of mankind\nthrough which Messiah's Kingdom is advancing to its triumph. The seals,\nthe trumpets, the vials bring before us representations of the\nretributions and calamities which are falling upon mankind. Sometimes we\nseem to be able to fix upon a historical event which the vision clearly\nsymbolizes; sometimes the meaning to us is vague; perhaps if we had\nlived in that day the allusion would have been more intelligible.\n\nThere is, however, one great central group of these visions round about\nwhich the others seem to be arrayed as scenic accessories, whose\ninterpretation the writer has taken great pains to indicate. These are\nthe visions found in chapters xii., xiii., xvi., and xvii. The woman,\nsun-clad, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars upon\nher head (chap, xii.), is beyond all question the ancient Jewish church;\nthe child which is born to the woman is the Christian church; the great\nred dragon that seeks to devour the child is the Satanic power, the\nPrince of this world. The Dragon is here on the earth because he has\nbeen expelled from heaven. The war of the Dragon against the woman\nindicates the persecutions of the church; the flight of the woman to the\nwilderness may symbolize the recent escape of the mother church from\nJerusalem to Pella.\n\nThe next vision shows a Beast, coming up out of the sea, with seven\nheads and ten horns, and on his horns ten diadems, and on his heads\nnames of blasphemy. Here we have an instance of that confounding of\nsymbols, the merging of one in another, which is very common in the\napocalyptic writings. The beast is, primarily, Nero, or the Roman\nEmpire, as represented by--Nero. The ten horns are the ten chief\nprovinces; the seven heads are seven emperors. \"It is a symbol,\" says\nDr. Farrar, \"interchangeably of the Roman Empire and of the Emperor. In\nfact, to a greater degree than at any period of history, the two were\none. Roman history had dwindled down into a personal drama. The Roman\nEmperor could say with literal truth, _'L'Etat c'est moi'_. And a\nwild beast was a Jew's natural symbol either for a Pagan Kingdom or for\nits autocrat.\" [Footnote: _The Early Days of Christianity_, p.\n463.] I can do no better than to repeat to you a small part of Dr.\nFarrar's further comment upon this vision.\n\n\"This wild beast of Heathen Rome has ten horns, which represent the ten\nmain provinces of Imperial Rome. It has the power of the Dragon, that\nis, it possesses the Satanic dominion of the 'Prince of the power of the\nair.'\n\n\"On each of its heads is the name of blasphemy. Every one of the seven\nKings, however counted, had borne the (to Jewish ears) blasphemous\nsurname of Augustus (Sebastos, one to be adored); had received\napotheosis, and been spoken of as _Divine_ after his death; had\nbeen crowned with statues, adorned with divine attributes, had been\nsaluted with divine titles, and, in some instances, had been absolutely\nworshiped, and that in his lifetime....\n\n\"The diadems are on the horns, because the Roman _Proconsuls_, as\ndelegates of the Emperor, enjoy no little share of the C\u00e6sarean\nautocracy and splendor, but the name of blasphemy is only on the heads,\nbecause the Emperor alone receives divine honors and alone bears the\ndaring title of Augustus.\" [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 464.]\n\nOne of the heads of this Beast was wounded to death, but the deadly\nwound was healed. It was the universal belief among Pagans and\nChristians that the world had not yet seen the last of Nero. Either his\nsuicide was feigned and ineffectual, and he was in hiding, or else he\nwould come to life and resume his savage splendors and his gilded\nvillainies. To make it certain that the writer here refers to this\nexpectation, we find, in chapter xvii., another reference to the Beast,\nwhich seems at first a riddle, but which is easily interpreted. \"The\nfive are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come\"; \"The Beast that\nthou sawest was and is not, and is about to come out of the abyss.\" \"The\nBeast that was and is not, even he is an eighth, and is of the seven.\"\nThe head and the Beast are here identified. The meaning is that five\nRoman Emperors are dead, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero;\n\"one is,\"--Galba is now reigning; \"the other\" (Otho) \"is not yet come;\"\nbut he must come soon for Galba is an old man and cannot long survive,\nand \"the Beast that was and is not,\"--Nero,--who is \"about to come out\nof the abyss,\"--to return to life,--\"even he is an eighth, and is of\nthe seven.\" He is one of the seven, for he was the fifth, and he will be\nthe eighth. It was the universal Christian belief that Nero, raised from\nthe dead, would be the future Antichrist, and it is this belief which\nthe vision reflects. To make the case still clearer the writer gives us,\nby the current Hebrew Kabbalistic method, the number of the Beast, that\nis to say, the numerical value of his name. Each letter of the old\nalphabets has a numerical value. Thus the writer of the Sibyllines\npoints out the Greek name of Jesus--[Greek: Iesous],--by saying that its whole\nnumber is equivalent to eight units, eight tens, and eight hundreds.\nThis is the exact numerical value of the six Greek letters composing\nthe Saviour's name, 10+8+200+70+400+200=888. Precisely so John here\ntells us what is the numerical value of the letters in the name of\nthe Beast. If we tried the Latin or the Greek names of Nero the clue\nwould not be found; but John was writing mainly for Hebrews, and the\nHebrew letters of _Kesar Neron_, the name by which every Jew knew\nthis Emperor, amount to exactly 666.\n\nMany other of the features of this veiled description tally perfectly\nwith the character of this infamous ruler; and when the evidence is all\nbrought together it seems as though the apostle could scarcely have made\nhis meaning more obvious if he had written Nero's name in capital\nletters.\n\nThis is the central vision of the Apocalypse, as I have said; round\nabout this the whole cyclorama revolves; and it has been the standing\nenigma of the interpreters in all the ages. The early church generally\ndivined its meaning; but in later years the high-soaring exegesis which\nhas spread this Apocalypse all over the centuries and found in it\nprophetic symbols of almost all the events that have happened in\nmedi\u00e6val and modern history, has identified the Beast with countless\ncharacters, among them Genseric, King of the Vandals, Benedict, Trajan,\nPaul V., Calvin, Luther, Mohammed, Napoleon. All this wild guessing\narises from ignorance of the essential character and purpose of the\napocalyptical writings.\n\nI can follow this enticing theme no further. Let it suffice to call the\nattention of all who desire to reach some sober conclusions upon the\nmeaning of the book to Archdeacon Farrar's \"Early Days of Christianity,\"\nin which the whole subject is treated with the amplest learning and the\nsoundest literary judgment.\n\nThe Book of Revelation has been, as I have intimated, the favorite\ntramping ground of all the hosts of theological visionaries; men who\npossessed not the slightest knowledge of the history or the nature of\napocalyptic literature, and whose appetite for the mysterious and the\nmonstrous was insatiable, have expatiated here with boundless license.\nTo find in these visions descriptions of events now passing and\ncharacters now upon the stage is a sore temptation. To use these hard\nwords, the Beast, the Dragon, the False Prophet, as missiles wherewith\nto assail those who belong to a school or a party with which you are at\nvariance, is a chance that no properly constituted partisan could\nwillingly fore-go. Thus we have seen this book dragged into the\ncontroversies and applied to the events of all the centuries, and the\nhistory of its interpretation is, as one of its interpreters confesses,\nthe opprobrium of exegesis. But if one ceases to look among these\nsymbols for a predictive outline of modern history, \"a sort of\nanticipated Gibbon,\" and begins to read it in the light of the\napocalyptic method, it may have rich and large meanings for him. He will\nnot be able, indeed, to explain it all; to some of these riddles the\nclue has been lost; but, in the words of Dr. Farrar, \"he will find that\nthe Apocalypse is what it professes to be,--an inspired outline of\ncontemporary history, and of the events to which the sixth decade of the\nfirst century gave immediate rise. He will read in it the tremendous\nmanifesto of a Christian seer against the blood-stained triumph of\nimperial heathenism; a p\u00e6an and a prophecy over the ashes of the\nmartyrs; the thundering reverberations of a mighty spirit struck by the\nfierce plectrum of the Neronian persecution, and answering in\nimpassioned music which, like many of David's Psalms, dies away into the\nlanguage of rapturous hope.\" [Footnote: _Early Days of Christianity_,\np. 429. ]\n\nFor we must not forget that this is a song of triumph. This seer is no\npessimist. The strife is hot, the carnage is fearful, they that rise up\nagainst our Lord and his Messiah are many and mighty, but there is no\nmisgiving as to the event. For all these woes there is solace, after all\nthese conflicts peace. Even in the midst of the raging wars and\npersecutions, the door is opened now and again into the upper realm of\nendless joy and unfading light. And he \"whose name is called The Word of\nGod,\" upon whose garment and whose thigh the name is written, \"King of\nKings and Lord of Lords,\" will prevail at last over all his foes. The\nBeast and the Dragon, and the False Prophet and the Scarlet Woman (the\nharlot city upon her seven hills whose mystic name is Babylon) will all\nbe cast into the lake of fire; then to the purified earth the New\nJerusalem shall come down out of heaven from God. This is the emblem and\nthe prophecy, not of the city beyond the stars, but of the purified\nsociety which shall yet exist upon the earth,--the fruition of his work\nwho came, not to judge the world, but to save the world. It is on these\nplains, along these rivers, by these fair shores that the New Jerusalem\nis to stand; it is not heaven; it is a city that comes down out of\nheaven from God. No statement could be more explicit. The glorious\nvisions which fill the last chapters of this wonderful book are the\npromise of that \"All hail Hereafter,\" for which every Christian patriot,\nevery lover of mankind, is always looking and longing and fighting and\nwaiting. And he who, by the mouth of this seer, testifieth the words\nof the prophecy of this book saith, \"Yea, I come quickly. Even so, come,\nLord Jesus.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE CANON.\n\n\n\nWe have studied with what care we were able tee historical problem of\nthe origin and authorship of the several books of the Old and New\nTestament; we now come to a deeply interesting question,--the question\nof the canon.\n\nThis word, as used in this connection, means simply an authoritative\nlist or catalogue. The canon of the Bible is the determined and official\ntable of contents. The settlement of the canon is the process of\ndetermining what and how many books the Bible shall contain. In the Old\nTestament are thirty-nine books, in the New Testament twenty-seven; and\nit is a fixed principle with Protestants that these books and no others\nconstitute the Sacred Scriptures,--that no more can be added and none\ntaken away.\n\nThe popular belief respecting this matter has been largely founded upon\nthe words with which the Book of Revelation concludes:--\n\n\"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of\nthis book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the\nplagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away\nfrom the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his\npart from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written\nin this book.\"\n\nThe common notion is that the \"book\" here referred to is the Bible; and\nthat these sentences, therefore, are the divine authorization of the\npresent contents of the Bible, a solemn testimony from the Lord himself\nto the integrity of the canon. But this is a misapprehension. The book\nreferred to is the Revelation of St. John,--not the Bible, not even the\nNew Testament. When these words were written, says Dr. Barnes in his\n\"Commentary,\" \"the books that now constitute what we call the Bible were\nnot collected into a single volume. That passage, therefore, should not\nbe adduced as referring to the whole of the Sacred Scriptures.\" In fact,\nwhen these words of the Revelation were written, several of the books of\nthe New Testament were not yet in existence; for this is by no means the\nlast of the New Testament writings, though it stands at the end of the\ncollection. The Gospel and the Epistles of John were added after this;\nand we may trust that no plagues were \"added\" to the beloved disciple\nfor writing them.\n\nNevertheless, as I said, it is assumed that the contents of the Bible\nare fixed; that the collection is and for a long time has been complete\nand perfect; that it admits neither of subtractions nor of additions;\nthat nothing is in the book which ought not to be there, and that there\nis nothing outside of its covers which ought to be within them; that the\ncanon is settled, inflexibly and infallibly and finally.\n\nThe questions now to be considered are these: Who settled it? When was\nit settled? On what grounds was it determined? Was any question ever\nraised concerning the sacredness or authority of any of the books now\nincluded in the canon? Did any other books, not now included in the\ncanon, ever claim a place in it? If so, why were these rejected and\nthose retained?\n\nThis is, as will be seen, a simple question of history. We can trace\nwith tolerable certainty the steps by which this collection of sacred\nwritings was made; we know pretty well who did it, and when and how it\nwas done. And there is nothing profane or irreverent in this inquiry,\nfor the work of collecting these writings and fixing this canon has been\ndone mainly, if not wholly, by men who were not inspired and did not\nclaim to be. There is nothing mysterious or miraculous about their\ndoings any more than there is about the acts of the framers of the\nWestminster Confession, or the American Constitution. They were dealing\nwith sacred matters, no doubt, when they were trying to determine what\nbooks should be received and used as Scriptures, but they were dealing\nwith them in exactly the same way that we do, by using the best lights\nthey had.\n\nAs we have learned in previous chapters, the beginning of our canon was\nmade by Ezra the scribe, who, in the fifth century before Christ, newly\npublished and consecrated the Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses, as the\nHoly Book of the Jewish people.\n\nAfter Ezra came Nehemiah, to whom the beginning of the second collection\nof Jewish Scriptures, called the Prophets, is ascribed in one of the\napocryphal books. But this collection was not apparently finished and\nclosed by Nehemiah. The histories of Joshua and Judges, of Samuel and\nKings, and the principal books of the Prophets were undoubtedly gathered\nby him; but it would seem that the collection was left open for future\nprophecies.\n\nAbout the same time the third group of the Old Testament Scriptures,\n\"The Hagiographa,\" or \"Writings,\" began to be collected. No book of the\nBible contains any information concerning the making of these two later\ncollections, the Prophets and the Hagiographa; and we are obliged to\nrely wholly upon Jewish tradition, and upon references which we find in\nJewish writers. Professor Westcott, who is one of the most conservative\nof Biblical scholars, says that \"the combined evidence of tradition and\nof the general course of Jewish history leads to the conclusion that the\ncanon in its present shape was formed gradually during a lengthened\ninterval, beginning with Ezra and extending through a part, or even the\nwhole of the Persian period,\" or from B.C. 458 to 332. Without adopting\nthis conclusion, we may remark that this last date, 332, was nearly a\ncentury after Nehemiah and Malachi, the last of the prophets; so that if\nthe canon was closed at a date so late as this, it must have been closed\nby men who were certainly not known to have been inspired. If it was\nforming, through all this period, then it must have been formed in part\nby men in behalf of whom no claim of inspiration has ever been set up.\n\nAccording to Jewish tradition the work of collecting, editing, and\nauthorizing the sacred writings was done by a certain \"Great Synagogue,\"\nfounded by Ezra, presided over by Nehemiah, after him, and continuing in\nexistence down to about the year 200 B.C. This is wholly a tradition,\nand has been proved to be baseless. There never was such a synagogue;\nthe Scriptures know nothing about it; the apocryphal writers, so\nnumerous and widely dispersed, have never heard of it; Philo and\nJosephus are ignorant concerning it. None of the Jewish authors of the\nperiod who freely discuss the Scriptures and their authority makes\nmention of this Great Synagogue. The story of its existence is first\nheard from some Jewish rabbin hundreds of years after Christ.\n\nWe have proof enough in the New Testament that the Jews had certain\nSacred Scriptures; the New Testament writers often quote them and refer\nto them; but there is no conclusive proof that they had been gathered at\nthis time into a complete collection. Jesus tells the Jews that they\nsearch the Scriptures, but he does not say how many of these Scriptures\nthere were in his day; Paul reminds Timothy that from a child he had\nknown the Holy Scriptures, but he gives no list of their titles. If we\nfound all the books of the Old Testament quoted or referred to by the\nNew Testament writers, then we should know that they possessed the same\nbooks that we have. Most of these books are thus referred to; but there\nare seven Old Testament books whose names the New Testament never\nquotes, and at least five to which it makes no reference whatever:\nEcclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. To Judges,\nChronicles, and Ezekiel it refers only in the same way that it refers to\na number of the apocryphal books. Some of these omissions appear to be\nsignificant. The New Testament gives us therefore no definite\ninformation by which we can determine whether the Old Testament canon\nwas closed at the time of Christ, nor does it tell us of what books it\nwas composed.\n\nWe have seen already that two different collections of Old Testament\nwritings were in existence, one in Hebrew, and the other a translation\ninto the Greek, made by Jews in Alexandria, and called the Septuagint.\nThe latter collection was the one most used by our Lord and the\napostles; much the greater number of quotations from the Old Testament\nfound in the Gospels and the Epistles are taken from the Septuagint.\nThis Greek Bible contained quite a number of books which are not in the\nHebrew Bible: they were later in their origin than any of the Old\nTestament books; most of them were originally written in Greek; and\nwhile they were regarded by some of the more conservative of the Jews in\nEgypt as inferior to the Law and the Prophets, they were generally\nranked with the books of the Hagiographa as sacred writings. This is\nevident from the fact that they were mingled indiscriminately with these\nbooks of the older Scriptures. You know that I am speaking now of the\napocryphal books which you find in some of your old Bibles, between the\nOld and New Testaments. These were the later books contained in the\nSeptuagint, and not in the Hebrew Bible. But they were not sorted out by\nthemselves in the Septuagint; they were interspersed through the other\nbooks, as of equal value. Thus in the Vatican Bible, of which we shall\nlearn more by and by, Esdras First and Second succeed the Chronicles;\nTobit and Judith are between Nehemiah and Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon\nand Sirach follow Solomon's Song; Baruch is next to Jeremiah; Daniel is\nfollowed by Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, and the collection closes\nwith the three books of Maccabees.\n\nAll the old manuscripts of the Bible which we possess--those which are\nregarded as above all others sacred and authoritative--contain these\napocryphal writings thus intermingled with the books of our own canon.\nIt is clear, therefore, that to the Alexandrian Jews these later books\nwere Sacred Scriptures; and it is certain also that our Lord and his\napostles used the collection which contained these books. It is said\nthat they do not refer to them, and it is true that they do not mention\nthem by name; but they do use them occasionally. Let me read you a few\npassages which will illustrate their familiarity with the apocryphal\nbooks.\n\nJames i.19: \"Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak.\" Sirach v.\n11; iv. 29: \"Be swift to hear.\" \"Be not hasty in thy tongue.\"\n\nHebrews i. 3: \"Who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image\nof his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power.\"\nWisdom vii. 26: \"For she (Wisdom) is the brightness of the everlasting\nlight, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his\ngoodness.\"\n\nRom. ix. 21: \"Hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same\nlump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?\"\nWisdom xv. 7: \"For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every\nvessel with much labor for our service; yea, of the same clay he maketh\nboth the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also such as\nserve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter\nhimself is the judge.\"\n\nI Cor. ii. 10, 11: \"The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep\nthings of God. For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the\nspirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none\nknoweth save the Spirit of God.\" Judith viii. 14: \"For ye cannot find\nthe depth of the heart of man, neither can ye perceive the things that\nhe thinketh: then how can ye search out God, that hath made all these\nthings, and know his mind, or comprehend his purpose?\"\n\nSeveral similar indications of the familiarity of the New Testament\nwriters with these apocryphal books might be pointed out. These are not\nexpress citations, but they are clear appropriations of the thought and\nthe language of the apocryphal writers. We have, then, the most\nindubitable proof that the apocryphal books were in the hands of the New\nTestament writers; and so far as New Testament use authenticates an Old\nTestament writing, several of the apocryphal books stand on much better\nfooting than do five of our Old Testament books.\n\nIt is true that the Hebrew or Palestinian canon differed from the Greek\nor Alexandrian canon; the books which were written in Greek had never\nbeen translated into the Hebrew, and could not, of course, be\nincorporated into the Hebrew canon; and there was undoubtedly a strong\nfeeling among the stricter Jews against recognizing any of these later\nbooks as Sacred Scriptures; nevertheless, the Greek Bible, with all its\nadditions, had large currency among the Jews even in Palestine, and the\nassertion that our Lord and his apostles measured the Alexandrian Bible\nby the Palestinian canon, and accepted all the books of the latter while\ndeclining to recognize any of the additions of the former, is sheer\nassumption, for which there is not a particle of evidence, and against\nwhich the facts already adduced bear convincingly. Paul, in his letter\nto Timothy, refers to the \"Scriptures\" as having been in the hands of\nTimothy from his childhood; and we have every reason to believe that the\nScriptures to which he refers was this Greek collection containing the\nApocrypha. Whatever Paul says about the inspiration of the Scriptures\nmust be interpreted with this fact in mind. To find in these words of\nPaul the guarantee of the inspiration and infallibility of the books of\nthe collection which are translated from the Hebrew, and not those which\nare written in Greek, is a freak of exegesis not more violent than\nfantastic. We know that Paul read and used some of these apocryphal\nbooks, and there are several of the books in our Hebrew Bible that he\nnever quotes or refers to in the remotest way. The attempt which is\noften made to show that the New Testament writers have established, by\ntheir testimony, the Old Testament canon, as containing just those books\nwhich are in our Old Testament, and no more, is a most unwarrantable\ndistortion of the facts.\n\nIt is true that at the time of Christ the Palestinian Jews had not, for\na century or so, added any new books to their collection, and were not\ninclined to add any more. Their canon was practically closed to this\nextent, that no new books were likely to get in. But it was not yet\nsettled that some later books, which had been trying to maintain a\nfooting in the canon, should not be put out. Esther, Ecclesiastes, and\nSolomon's Song were regarded by some of the Palestinian Jews as sacred\nbooks, but their right to this distinction was hotly disputed by others.\nThis question was not settled at the time of our Lord.\n\n\"The canon,\" says Davidson, \"was not considered to be closed in the\nfirst century before and the first after Christ. There were doubts about\nsome portions. The Book of Ezekiel gave offense, because some of its\nstatements seemed to contradict the Law. Doubts about some of the others\nwere of a more serious nature--about Ecclesiastes, the Canticles,\nEsther, and the Proverbs. The first was impugned because it had\ncontradictory passages and a heretical tendency; the second because of\nits worldly and sensual tone; Esther for its want of religiousness; and\nProverbs on account of inconsistencies. This skepticism went far to\nprocure the exclusion of the suspected works from the canon and their\nrelegation to the class of the _genuzim_. But it did not prevail.\nHananiah, son of Hezekiah, son of Garon, about 32 B.C., is said to have\nreconciled the contradictions and allayed the doubts. But these traces\nof resistance to the fixity of the canon were not the last. They\nreappeared about 65 A. D., as we learn from the Talmud, when the\ncontroversy turned mainly upon the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, which the\nschool of Schammai, which had the majority, opposed; so that that book\nwas probably excluded. The question emerged again at a later synod in\nJabneh or Jamnia, when R. Eleaser ben Asaria was chosen patriarch, and\nGamaliel the Second, deposed. Here it was decided, not unanimously,\nhowever, but by a majority of Hillelites, that Ecclesiastes and the Song\nof Songs 'pollute the hands,' _i. e._, belong properly to the\nHagiographa. This was about 90 A. D. Thus the question of the canonicity\nof certain books was discussed by two synods.\" [Footnote: _Encyc.\nBrit_., v. 3.]\n\nBy such a plain tale do we put down the fiction, so widely disseminated,\nthat the canon of the Old Testament was \"fixed\" long before the time of\nChrist, and, presumably, by inspired men. It was not \"fixed,\" even in\nPalestine, until sixty years after our Lord's death; several of the\nbooks were in dispute during the whole apostolic period, and these are\nthe very books which are not referred to in the New Testament. Whether\nthe men who finally \"fixed\" it were exceptionally qualified to judge of\nthe ethical and spiritual values of the writings in question may be\ndoubted. They were the kind of men who slew our Lord and persecuted his\nfollowers. When we are asked what are our historical reasons for\nbelieving that Esther and Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Song are sacred\nbooks and ought to be in the Old Testament canon, let us answer: It is\nnot because any prophet or inspired person adjudged them to be sacred,\nfor no such person had anything to say about them; it is not because our\nLord and his apostles indorsed them, for they do not even mention them;\nit is not because they held a place in a collection of Sacred Scriptures\nused by our Lord and his apostles, for their position in that collection\nwas in dispute at that time; it is because the chief priests and scribes\nwho rejected Christ pronounced them sacred. The external authority for\nthese books reduces to exactly this. Those who insist that all parts of\nthe Old Testament are of equal value and authority, and that a\nquestioning of the sacredness of one book casts doubts upon the whole\ncollection, ought to look these facts in the face and see on what a\nslender thread they suspend the Bible which they so highly value. These\nlater books, says one, \"have been delivered to us; they have their use\nand value, which is to be ascertained by a frank and reverent study of\nthe texts themselves; but those who insist on placing them on the same\nfooting of undisputed authority with the Law, the Prophets, and the\nPsalms, to which our Lord bears direct testimony, and so make the whole\ndoctrine of the canon depend on its weakest part, sacrifice the true\nstrength of the evidence on which the Old Testament is received by\nChristians.\" [Footnote: _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_,\np. 175.]\n\nSuch, then, is the statement with respect to the Old Testament canon in\nthe apostolic age. The Palestinian canon, which was identical with our\nOld Testament, was practically settled at the synod of Jamnia about 90\nA. D., though doubts were still entertained by devout Jews concerning\nEsther. The Alexandrian collection, containing our apocryphal books,\nwas, however, widely circulated; and as it was the Greek version which\nhad been most used by the apostles, so it was the Greek version which\nthe early Christian fathers universally studied and quoted. Very few if\nany of these Christian fathers of the first two centuries understood the\nHebrew; they could not, therefore, use the Palestinian manuscripts; the\nGreek Bible was their only treasury of inspired truth, and the Greek\nBible contained the Apocrypha. Accordingly we find them quoting freely\nas Sacred Scripture all the apocryphal books. Westcott gives us a table,\nin Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\" of citations made from these apocryphal\nbooks by fifteen of the Greek fathers, beginning with Clement of Rome\nand ending with Chrysostom, and by eight Latin writers, beginning with\nTertullian and ending with Augustine. Every one of these apocryphal\nbooks is thus quoted with some such formula as \"The Scripture saith,\" or\n\"It is written,\" by one or more of these writers; the Book of Wisdom is\nquoted by all of them except Polycarp and Cyril; Baruch and the\nAdditions to Daniel are quoted by the great majority of them; Origen\nquotes them all, Clement of Alexandria all but one, Cyprian all but two.\nIt will therefore be seen that these books must have had wide acceptance\nas Sacred Scriptures during the first centuries of the Christian church.\nIn the face of these facts, which may be found in sources as\nunassailable as Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\" we have such statements as\nthe following, put forth by teachers of the people, and indorsed by\neminent theological professors:--\n\n\"We may say of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament that, while\nsome who were not Jews and who were unacquainted with Hebrew used them\nto some extent, yet they never gained wide acceptance, and soon dropped\nout altogether.\"\n\n\"Certain apocryphal writings have since been bound up with the\nSeptuagint, but _there is no reason to think that they made any part\nof it in the days of our Saviour_\"!\n\n\"These books were not received as canonical by the Christian fathers,\nbut were expressly declared to be apocryphal\"!\n\nThe last statements are copied from a volume on the Bible, prepared for\npopular circulation by the president of a theological seminary!\n\nIt is true that some of the most inquisitive and critical of the\nChristian fathers entertained doubts about these apocryphal books;\nMelito of Sardis traveled to Palestine on purpose to inquire into the\nmatter, and came back, of course, with the Palestinian canon to which,\nhowever, he did not adhere. Origen made a similar investigation, and\nseems to have been convinced that the later books ought to be regarded\nas uncanonical; nevertheless, he keeps on quoting them; Jerome was the\nfirst strenuously to challenge the canonicity of these later Greek books\nand to maintain a tolerably consistent opposition to them. While,\ntherefore, several of these early fathers were led by their\ninvestigations in Palestine to believe that the narrower canon was the\nmore correct one, their opinions had but little weight with the people\nat large; and even these fathers themselves freely and constantly quoted\nas Sacred Scripture the questionable writings.\n\nIn 393 the African bishops held a council at Hippo, in which the canon\nwas discussed. The list agreed upon includes all the Old Testament\nScriptures of our canon, and, in addition to them, Wisdom,\nEcclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. In 397\nanother council at Carthage reaffirmed the list of its predecessor.\nAugustine was the leader of both councils.\n\nIn spite of the protests of Jerome and of other scholars in all the\ncenturies, this list, for substance, was regarded as authoritative,\nuntil the Council of Trent, in 1546, when the long debate was finally\nsettled, so far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, by the\nadoption of the Augustinian canon, embracing the apocryphal books, the\nlist concluding with the following anathema. \"If any one will not\nreceive as sacred and authoritative the whole books with all their\nparts, let him be accursed.\" This determines the matter for all good\nCatholics. Since 1546, they have known exactly how many books their\nBible contains. And if usage and tradition are and ought to be\nauthoritative, they have the strongest reasons for receiving as sacred\nthe books of their Bible; for it is beyond question that the books which\nthey accept and which we reject have been received and used as Sacred\nScriptures in all the ages of the church. Most of us who do not accept\nusage and tradition as authoritative will continue, no doubt, to think\nour own thoughts about the matter.\n\nThe Council of Trent marks the definite separation of the Roman Catholic\nChurch from the Protestant reformers. Up to this time there had been\namong the reformers some differences of opinion respecting the Old\nTestament books; when they were excluded from the Holy Church and were\ncompelled to fall back upon the authority of the Bible, the present\nlimits of the canon at once became an important question. They did not\nsettle it all at once. Luther, in making his German version of the\nBible, translated Judith, Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2\nMaccabees, the Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, with the Prayer of\nManasseh. Each of these books he prefaces with comments of his own.\nFirst Maccabees he regards as almost equal to the other books of Holy\nScripture, and not unworthy to be reckoned among them. He had doubted\nlong whether Wisdom should not be admitted to the canon, and he truly\nsays of Sirach that it is a right good book, the work of a wise man.\nBaruch and 2 Maccabees he finds fault with; but of none of these\napocryphal books does he speak so severely as of Esther, which he is\nmore than willing to cast out of the canon. The fact that Luther\ntranslated these apocryphal books is good evidence that he thought them\nof value to the church; nevertheless, he considered the books of the\nHebrew canon, with the exception of Esther, as occupying a higher plane\nthan those of the Apocrypha. Gradually this opinion gained acceptance\namong the Protestants; the apocryphal books were separated from the\nrest, and although by some of the Reformed churches, as by the Anglican\nchurch, they were commended to be read \"for example of life and\ninstruction of manners,\" they ceased to be regarded as authoritative\nsources of Christian doctrine. Since the sixteenth century, there has\nbeen little question among Protestants as to the extent of the canon.\nThe books which now compose our Old Testament, and no others, have been\nfound in the Bible of the Protestants for the past three hundred years.\nThe apocryphal books have sometimes been printed between the Old and the\nNew Testaments, but they have not been used in the churches, [Footnote:\nThe English Church uses some portions of them.] nor have they been\nregarded as part of the Sacred Scripture.\n\nThe history of the New Testament canon is much less obscure, and may be\nmore briefly treated. The Bible of the early Christians was the Old\nTestament. They relied wholly upon this for religious instruction; they\nhad no thought of any other Sacred Scripture.\n\nI have explained in a former chapter how the Epistles and the Gospels\noriginated; but when these writings first came into the hands of the\ndisciples there was not, it is probable, any conception in their minds\nthat these were sacred writings, to be ranked along with the books of\nthe Old Testament. They read them for instruction and suggestion; they\ndid not at first think of them as holy. But their conviction of the\nvalue and sacredness of these writings soon began to strengthen; we find\nthem quoting Gospels and Epistles with the same formula that they apply\nto the Old Testament books; and thus they began to feel the need of\nmaking a collection of this apostolic literature for use in the\nchurches. It is not until the second half of the second century that any\nsuch collection comes into view. It consisted at first of two parts, The\nGospel and The Apostle; the first part contained the four Gospels, and\nthe second the Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, one of Peter, one of\nJohn, and the Revelation. It will be seen that this twofold Testament\nomitted several of our books,--the Epistle to the Hebrews, two of\nJohn's Epistles, one of Peter's, and the Epistles of James and Jude.\n\nAbout this time there was also in circulation certain writings which are\nnot now in our canon, but which were sometimes included by the\nauthorities of that time among the apostolic writings, and were quoted\nas Scripture by the early fathers. There was a book called \"The Gospel\naccording to the Egyptians,\" and another entitled \"The Preaching of\nPeter,\" and another called \"The Acts of Paul,\" and another called \"The\nShepherd of Hermas,\" and an epistle attributed to Barnabas, and several\nothers, all claiming to be sacred and apostolic writings. It became,\ntherefore, a delicate and important question for these early Christians\nto decide which of these writings were sacred, and which were not; and\nthey began to make lists of those which they regarded as canonical. The\nearliest of these lists is a fragmentary anonymous canon, which was made\nabout 170. It mentions all the books in our New Testament but\nfour,--Hebrews, First and Second Peter, and James.\n\nIren\u00e6us, who died about 200, had a canon which included all the books of\nour New Testament except Hebrews, Jude, James, Second Peter, and Third\nJohn. First Peter, Second John, and \"The Shepherd of Hermas\" he put by\nthemselves in a second class of writings, which he thought excellent but\nnot inspired.\n\nClement of Alexandria (180) puts into his list most of our canonical\nbooks, but regards several of them as of inferior value, among them\nHebrews, Second John, and Jude. In the same list of inferior writings he\nincludes \"The Shepherd of Hermas,\" the \"Epistle of Barnabas,\" and the\n\"Apocalypse of Peter.\"\n\nTertullian (200) omits entirely James, Second Peter, and Third John, but\nincludes among useful though not inspired books, Hebrews, Jude, \"The\nShepherd of Hermas,\" Second John, and Second Peter.\n\nThese are the greatest authorities of the first two centuries. No\nChristian teachers of that day were better informed or more trustworthy\nthan these, and it will be seen that they were far from agreeing with\none another or with our canon; that each one of them received as sacred\nsome books which we do not possess, and rejected some which we receive.\n\nComing down into the third century, we find Origen (250), one of the\ngreat scholars, wrestling with the problem. He seems to have made three\nclasses of the New Testament writings, the authentic, the non-authentic,\nand the doubtful. The authentic books are the Gospels, the Acts, the\nthirteen Epistles of Paul, and the Apocalypse; the non-authentic ones\nare \"The Shepherd of Hermas,\" \"The Epistle of Barnabas,\" and several\nother books not in our canon; and the doubtful ones are James, Jude,\nSecond and Third John, and Second Peter. It will be seen that Origen\nadmits none that are not in our collection, but that he is in doubt\nrespecting some that are in it.\n\nFacts like these are writ large over every page of the history of the\nearly church. And yet we have eminent theological professors asserting\nthat the canon of the New Testament was finally settled \"during the\nfirst half of the second century, within fifty years after the death of\nthe Apostle John.\" A more baseless statement could not be fabricated. It\nis from teachers of this class that we hear the most vehement outcries\nagainst the \"Higher Criticism.\"\n\nEusebius, who died in 340, has a list agreeing substantially with that\nof Origen.\n\nCyril of Jerusalem (386) includes all of our books except the\nApocalypse, and no others.\n\nAthanasius (365) and Augustine (430) have lists identical with ours.\nThis indicates a steady progress toward unanimity, and when the two\ngreat councils of Hippo and Carthage confirmed this judgment of the two\ngreat fathers last named, the question of the New Testament canon was\npractically settled. [Footnote: It is noted, however, that the reception\nof the doubtful books into the canon does not imply a recognition of\ntheir equality with the other books. The distinct admission of their\ninferiority was made by all the ecclesiastical authorities of that\nperiod. None of the early fathers believed that all these writings were\nequally inspired and equally authoritative.] Nevertheless, considerable\nindependent judgment on the subject still seems to have been tolerated,\nand writings which we do not now receive were long included in the New\nTestament collection. The three oldest manuscripts of the Bible now in\nexistence are the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian Bibles,\ndating from the fourth and the fifth centuries. Of these the Sinaitic\nand the Alexandrian Bibles both include some of these doubtful books in\nthe New Testament collection; the Sinai Bible has \"The Epistle of\nBarnabas\" and \"The Shepherd of Hermas;\" the Alexandrian Bible the\nEpistle of Clement and one of Athanasius. These old Bibles are clear\nwitnesses to the fact that the contents of the New Testament were not\nclearly defined even so late as the fifth century. Indeed, there was\nalways some freedom of opinion concerning this matter until the\nReformation era. Then, of course, the Council of Trent fixed the canon\nof the New Testament as well as of the Old for all good Catholics; and\nthe New Testament of the Catholics, unlike their Old Testament, is\nidentical with our own.\n\nThe Protestants of that time were still in doubt about certain of the\nNew Testament books. Luther, as every one knows, was inclined to reject\nthe Epistle of James; he called it \"a right strawy epistle.\" The letter\nto the Hebrews was a good book, but not apostolic; he put it in a\nsubordinate class. Jude was a poor transcript of Second Peter, and he\nassigned that also to a lower place. \"The Apocalypse,\" says Davidson,\n\"he considered neither apostolic nor prophetic, but put it almost on a\nlevel with the Fourth Book of Esdras, which he spoke elsewhere of\ntossing into the Elbe.\" Luther's principle of judgment in many of these\ncases was quite too subjective; he carried the Protestant principle of\nprivate judgment to an extreme; I only quote his opinions to show with\nwhat freedom the strong men of the Reformation handled these questions\nof Biblical criticism.\n\nZwingli rejected the Apocalypse. OEcolampadius placed James, Jude,\nSecond Peter, Second and Third John and the Apocalypse along with the\nApocryphal books, on a lower level than the other New Testament\nScriptures.\n\nThe great majority of the Reformers, however, speedily fixed upon that\ncanon which we now receive, and their decision has not been seriously\ncalled in question since the sixteenth century.\n\nI have now answered most of the questions proposed at the beginning of\nthis chapter. We have seen that while the great majority of the books in\nboth Testaments have been universally received, questions have been\nraised at various times concerning the canonicity of several of the\nbooks in either Testament; that many good men, from the second century\nbefore Christ until the sixteenth century after Christ, have disputed\nthe authority of some of these books. We have seen also that quite a\nnumber of other books have at one time and another been regarded as\nsacred and numbered among the Holy Scriptures; we have seen that the\nfinal judgment respecting these doubtful books is different in different\nbranches of the church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Catholic\nChurch admitting into their canons several books that the Reformed\nchurches exclude from theirs.\n\nWe have seen that the decision which has been reached by the several\nbranches of the church respecting this matter has been reached as the\nresult of discussion and argument; that the canonicity of the disputed\nbooks was freely canvassed by the church fathers in their writings, by\nthe church councils in their assemblies, by the Reformers in their\ninquiries; that no supernatural methods have been employed to determine\nthe canonicity of these several books; but that the enlightened reason\nof the church has been the arbiter of the whole matter.\n\nThe grounds upon which the Jews acted in admitting or rejecting books\ninto their Scriptures it might be difficult for us to determine. In some\ncases we know that they were fanciful and absurd. But the grounds on\nwhich the Christians proceeded in making up their canon we know pretty\nwell.\n\nThe first question respecting each one of the Christian writings seems\nto have been: \"Was it written by an apostle?\" If this question could be\nanswered in the affirmative, the book was admitted. And in deciding this\nquestion, the Christians of later times made appeal to the opinions of\nthose of earlier times; authority and tradition had much to do in\ndetermining it. \"Was it the general opinion of the early church that\nthis book was written by an apostle?\" they asked. And if this seemed to\nbe the case, they were inclined to admit it. Besides, they compared\nScripture with Scripture: certain books were unquestionably written by\nPaul or Luke or John; other books which were doubted were also ascribed\nto them; if they found the language of the disputed book corresponding\nto that of the undisputed book, in style and in forms of expression,\nthey judged that it must have been written by the same man. Upon such\ngrounds of external and internal evidence, it finally came to be\nbelieved that all of the New Testament books except four were written by\napostles, and that these four, Mark, Luke, The Acts of the Apostles, and\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews, were written by men under the immediate\ndirection of apostles.\n\nBut, it may be said, there have been great differences of opinion on\nthis matter through all the ages, down to the sixteenth century; how do\nwe know but that those good and holy men, like Ignatius and Clement and\nTertullian and Origen in the early church, and Luther and Zwingli and\nOEcolampadius in the Reformed church, were right in rejecting some books\nthat we receive and in receiving some that we reject?\n\nIf you were a good Catholic, that question would not trouble you. For\nthe fundamental article of your creed would then be, The Holy Catholic\nChurch, when she is represented by her bishops in a general council, can\nnever make a mistake. And the Holy Catholic Church in a general council\nat Trent, in 1546, said that such and such books belonged to the Bible,\nand that no others do; and the council of the Vatican, in 1870, said the\nsame thing over again, making it doubly sure; so, that, as a good\nCatholic, you would have no right to any doubts or questions about it.\n\nBut, being a Protestant, you cannot help knowing that all general\ncouncils have made grave and terrible mistakes; that no one of them ever\nwas infallible; and so you could not rest satisfied with the decisions\nof Trent and the Vatican, even if they gave you the same Bible that you\nnow possess, which, of course, they do not. What certainty has the\nProtestant, then, that his canon is the correct one? He has no absolute\ncertainty. There is no such thing as absolute certainty with respect to\nhistorical religious truth. But this discussion has made one or two\nthings plain to the dullest apprehension.\n\nThe first is that the books of this Bible are not all of equal rank and\nsacredness. If there is one truth which all the ages, with all their\nvoices, join to declare, it is that the Bible is made up of many\ndifferent kinds of books, with very different degrees of sacredness and\nauthority. For one, I do not wish to part with any of them; I find\ninstruction in all of them, though in some of them, as in Esther and\nEcclesiastes, it is rather as records of savagery and of skepticism,\nfrom which every Christian ought to recoil, that I can see any value in\nthem. As powerful delineations of the kind of sentiments that the\nChristian ought not to cherish, and the kind of doubts that he cannot\nentertain without imperilling his soul, they may be useful. It is not,\ntherefore, at all desirable that these ancient records should be torn\nasunder and portions of them flung away. That process of mutilation none\nof us is wise enough to attempt. Let the Bible stand; there are good\nuses for every part of it. But let us remember the lesson which this\nsurvey has brought home to us, that these books are not all alike, and\nthat the message of divine wisdom is spoken to us in some of them far\nmore clearly than in others,\n\nRichard Baxter is an authority in religion for whose opinion all\nconservative people ought to entertain respect. He cannot be suspected\nof being a \"New Departure\" man; he was a stanch Presbyterian, and he\npassed to the \"Saints' Rest\" nearly two hundred years ago. With a few\nwords of his upon the question now before us, this chapter may fitly\nclose:--\n\n\"And here I must tell you a great and needful truth, which Christians,\nfearing to confess, by overdoing, tempt men to infidelity. The Scripture\nis like a man's body, where some parts are but for the preservation of\nthe rest, and may be maimed without death. The sense is the soul of the\nScripture, and the letters but the body or vehicle. The doctrine of the\nCreed, Lord's Prayer and Decalogue, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, is\nthe vital part and Christianity itself. The Old Testament letter\n(written as we have it about Ezra's time) is that vehicle which is as\nimperfect as the revelation of those times was. But as, after Christ's\nincarnation and ascension, the Spirit was more abundantly given, and the\nrevelation more perfect and sealed, so the doctrine is more full, and\nthe vehicle or body, that is the words, are less imperfect and more sure\nto us; so that he which doubteth of the truth of some words in the Old\nTestament or of some circumstances in the New, hath no reason therefore\nto doubt of the Christian religion of which these writings are but the\nvehicle or body, sufficient to ascertain us of the truth of the History\nand Doctrine.\" [Footnote: _The Catechizing of Christian Families_,\np. 36.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nHOW THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN.\n\n\n\nThe books of the Old Testament were originally written upon skins of\nsome sort. The Talmud provided that the law might be inscribed on the\nskins of clean animals, tame or wild, or even of clean birds. These\nskins were usually cut into strips, the ends of which were neatly joined\ntogether, making a continuous belt of parchment or vellum which was\nrolled upon two sticks and fastened by a thread. They were commonly\nwritten on one side only, with an iron pen which was dipped in ink\ncomposed of lampblack dissolved in gall juice.\n\nThe Hebrew is a language quite unlike our own in form and appearance.\nNot only do we read it from right to left, instead of from left to\nright, but the consonants only of the several words are written in\ndistinct characters on the line; the vowels being little dots or dashes\nstanding under the consonants, or within their curves. These vowel\npoints were not used in the original Hebrew; they are a modern invention,\noriginating some centuries after Christ. It is true that it was the\nbelief of the Jews in former times that these vowel points were an\noriginal part of the language; their scholars made this claim with great\nconfidence, which shows how little reliance is to be placed on Jewish\ntradition. The evidence is abundant that the Hebrew was originally\nwritten without vowels, precisely as stenographers often write in these\ndays. We know from the testimony of old students and interpreters of the\nHebrew that they constantly encountered this difficulty in reading the\nlanguage. Write a paragraph of our own language without vowels and look\nat it. Or, better, ask some one else to treat for you in the same way a\nparagraph with which you are not familiar, and see if you can decipher\nit. Undoubtedly, you could with some difficulty make out the sense of\nmost passages. It would puzzle you at first, but after you had had some\npractice in supplying the vowels you would learn to read quite readily.\nStenographers, as I have said, have a somewhat similar task.\nNevertheless, you would sometimes be in uncertainty as to the words.\nSuppose you have the three consonants _brd_, how would you know\nwhether the word was bard, or bird, or bread, or board, or brad, or\nbroad, or bride, or braid, or brood, or breed? It might be any one of\nthem. You could usually tell what it was by a glance at the connection,\nbut you could not tell infallibly, for there might be sentences in which\nmore than one of these words would make sense, and it would be\nimpossible to determine which the writer meant to use. Now the old\nHebrew as it came from the hands of the original writers was all in this\nform; while, therefore, the meaning of the writer can generally be\ngained with sufficient accuracy, you see at a glance that absolute\ncertainty is out of the question; that the Jewish scholars who supplied\nthese vowel points a thousand years or more after the original\nmanuscripts were written may sometimes have got the wrong word.\n\nJerome gives numerous illustrations of this uncertainty. In Jer. ix. 21,\n\"Death is come up into our windows,\" he says that we have for the first\nword the three Hebrew consonants corresponding to our _dbr_; the\nword may be _dabar_, signifying death, or _deber_, signifying\npestilence; it is impossible to tell which it is. In Habakkuk iii. 5, we\nhave the same consonants, and there the word is written pestilence.\nEither word will made good sense in either place; and we are perfectly\nhelpless in our choice between them. Again, in Isaiah xxvi. 14, we have\na prediction concerning the wicked, \"Therefore hast thou visited and\ndestroyed them and made all their memory to perish.\" The Hebrew word\nhere translated \"memory\" consists of three consonants represented by our\nEnglish _zkr_; it may be the word _zeker_, which signifies memory,\nor the word _zakar_, which signifies a male person. And Jerome says\nthat it is believed that Saul was deceived, perhaps willingly, by the\ndifference in these words (I Sam. xv.); having been commanded to cut\noff every _zeker_--memorial or vestige--of Amaiek, he took the word\nto be _zakar_, instead of zeker, and contented himself with\ndestroying the males of the army and keeping for himself the spoil.\nJerome's conjecture in this case is sufficiently fanciful; nevertheless\nhe illustrates the impossibility of determining the exact meaning of many\nHebrew sentences. This impossibility is abundantly demonstrated by the\nSeptuagint, for we find many undoubted errors in that translation from\nthe Hebrew into the Greek, which have arisen from this lack of precision\nin the Hebrew language.\n\nWhen, therefore, we know that the Bible was written in such a\nlanguage--a language without vowels--and that it was not until six\nhundred years after Christ that the vowel points were invented and the\nwords were written out in full, the theory of the verbal inerrancy of the\ntext as we now have it becomes incredible. Unless the men who supplied the\nvowel points were gifted with supernatural knowledge they must have made\nmistakes in spelling out some of these words. I do not believe that\nthese mistakes were serious, or that they affect in any important way\nthe meaning of the Scripture, but the assumption that in this stupendous\ngame of guess-work no wrong guesses were made is in the highest degree\ngratuitous. The substantial truthfulness of the record is not impeached\nby this discovery, but the verbal inerrancy of the document can never be\nmaintained by any honest man who knows these facts.\n\nIt is unsafe and mischievous to indulge in _a priori_ reasonings\nabout inspiration; we have had too much of that; but the following\nproposition is unassailable: If the Divine Wisdom had proposed to\ndeliver to man an infallible book, he would not have had it recorded in\na language whose written words consist only of consonants, leaving\nreaders a thousand years after to fill in the vowels by conjecture. The\nvery fact that such a language was chosen is the conclusive and\nunanswerable evidence that God never designed to give us an infallible\nbook.\n\nWe are familiar with the fact that the Old Testament writings in general\nuse among the early churches were those of the Septuagint. The\nChristians from the second to the sixteenth centuries knew very little\nHebrew. But during all these ages the Palestinian Jews and their\nsuccessors in other lands were preserving their own Scriptures; it was\nthey who added at a late day--probably as late as the sixth century--the\nvowel points, which were invented in Syria; and when, at length, under\nthe impulse of Biblical study which led to the Reformation, Christian\nscholars began to think of going back to the original Hebrew, they were\nobliged to obtain from the Jews the copies which they studied. It is\nsomewhat remarkable that the Jews, who were the exclusive custodians of\nthe Hebrew writings up to the sixteenth century, had not been careful to\npreserve their old manuscripts. After the vowel points had been\nintroduced into the text, they seem to have been willing that copies not\nwritten in this manner should pass out of existence. Accordingly we have\nfew Hebrew manuscripts that are even supposed to be more than six or\nseven hundred years old. There is one copy of the Pentateuch which may\nhave been made as early as 580 A. D., but this is extremely doubtful;\naside from this I do not know that there are any Hebrew Bibles which\nclaim to be older than the ninth century. Of these Hebrew manuscripts\nnearly six hundred are now known to be in existence, but the greater\npart of these are only fragmentary copies of the Pentateuch or of single\nbooks. There are two classes of these--synagogue rolls, prepared for\nreading in the way that I have described, and manuscripts in the book\nform, some on parchment and some on paper.\n\nThe variations in these manuscripts are few. Compared with the Greek\nmanuscripts of the New Testament, the accuracy of these Hebrew codices\nis remarkable. It is evident that the care of the Scribes to guard their\nScriptures against error has been scrupulous and vigilant. Doubtless\nthis intense devotion to the very letter of the sacred books has been\nexercised for many centuries. We know that in the earliest days this\nprecision was not sought; for the Septuagint translation, made during\nthe second and third centuries before Christ, gives us indubitable\nproof, when we compare it with the Hebrew text, that changes, some of\nthem radical and sweeping, have been made in the text of the Hebrew\nbooks since that translation was finished. But it is evident that the\nScribes at an early day, certainly as early as the beginning of the\nChristian era, determined to have a uniform and an unchangeable text.\nFor this purpose they chose some manuscript copy of the Scriptures,\ndoubtless the one which seemed to them most accurate, and made that the\nstandard; all the copies made since that time have been religiously\nconformed to that. Consequently, all the Hebrew manuscripts now in\nexistence are remarkably uniform. The Old Testament contains more than\nthree times as many pages as the New Testament; but while we have more\nthan one hundred and fifty thousand \"various readings\" in the Greek\nmanuscripts and versions of the New Testament, we have less than ten\nthousand such variations in those of the Old Testament. It must be\nremembered, however, that this uniformity has its source in some copy\nchosen to be the standard hundreds of years after most of the Old\nTestament books were written; and it does not guarantee the close\ncorrespondence between this copy and the autographs of the original\nwriters. [Footnote: For an interesting discussion of the preservation\nand transmission of the Hebrew text, the reader is referred to Mr.\nRobertson Smith's _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_,\nLectures ii. and iii.]\n\nOur chief interest centres, however, in the Greek manuscripts of the\nBible preserved and transmitted by Christians, and including both\nTestaments. All the oldest and most precious documents that we possess\nbelong to this class.\n\nThe original New Testament writings which came from the hands of the\napostles and their amanuenses we do not possess. These were probably\nwritten, not on skins, but upon the papyrus paper commonly used at that\nday, which was a frail and flimsy fabric, and under ordinary\ncircumstances would soon perish. Fragments of this papyrus have come\ndown to us, but only those which were preserved with exceptional care.\nJerome tells us of a library in Cassarea that was partly destroyed,\nowing to the crumbling of its paper, though it was only a hundred years\nold. Parchment was sometimes used by the apostles; Paul requests\nTimothy, in his second letter, to bring with him, when he comes, certain\nparchments that belong to him. But these materials were costly, and it\nis not likely that the apostles used them to any extent in the\npreparation of the books of the New Testament. At any rate the\nautographic copies of these books disappeared at an early date. This\nseems strange to us. Placing the estimate that we do upon these\nwritings, we should have taken the greatest care to preserve them. It is\nclear that the Christians into whose hands they fell did not value them\nas highly as we do. As Westcott says, \"They were given as a heritage to\nman, and it was some time before men felt the full value of the gift.\"\n\nAt the close of the second century there were disputes concerning the\ncorrect reading of certain passages, but neither party appeals to the\napostolic originals,--showing that they must before that time have\nperished. In after years legends were told about the preservation of\nthese originals, but these are contradictory and incredible.\n\nNo manuscript is now in existence which was written during the first\nthree centuries. But we have one or two that date back to the fourth\ncentury; and from that time through all the ages to the invention of\nprinting many copies were made of the Sacred Scriptures, in whole or in\npart, which are still in the hands of scholars. It is from these old\nGreek manuscripts that our received text of the New Testament is\nderived; by a comparison of them the scholars of the seventeenth century\nmade up a Greek New Testament which they regarded as approximately\naccurate, and from that our English version was made.\n\nThe number of these old manuscripts is large, and the first general\ndivision of them is into \"uncials\" or \"cursives,\" as they are called;\nthe uncial manuscripts being written in capital letters, the cursives in\nsmall letters more or less connected, as in our written hand. The\nuncials are the oldest, as they are the fewest; there are only one\nhundred and twenty-seven of them in all; while of the cursives there are\nabout fifteen hundred.\n\nYet most of these manuscripts are fragmentary. Some of them contain only\nthe Gospels or portions of them; some of them contain the Acts and the\nCatholic Epistles; some of them the Epistles of Paul or a single\nepistle; some are selections from the Gospels or the Epistles, prepared\nto be read in church, and called lectionaries.\n\nProfessor Ezra Abbot gives us a classification of these manuscripts\nwhich will be found instructive.\n\n\"For the New Testament,...we have manuscripts more or less complete,\nwritten in uncial or capital letters, and ranging from the fourth to the\ntenth century; of the Gospels twenty-seven, besides thirty small\nfragments; of the Acts and Catholic Epistles ten, besides six small\nfragments; of the Pauline Epistles eleven, besides nine small fragments,\nand of the Revelation five. All of these have been most thoroughly\ncollated, and the text of the most important of them has been published.\nOne of these manuscripts, the Sinaitic, containing the whole of the New\nTestament, and another, the Vatican, containing much the larger part of\nit, were written probably as early as the middle of the fourth century;\ntwo others, the Alexandrian and the Ephraem, belong to about the middle\nof the fifth, of which date are two more, containing considerable\nportions of the Gospels. A very remarkable manuscript of the Gospels and\nActs--the Cambridge manuscript, or Codex Bez\u00e6--belongs to the sixth\ncentury.... I pass by a number of small but valuable fragments of the\nfifth and sixth centuries. As to the cursive manuscripts ranging from\nthe tenth century to the sixteenth, we have of the Gospels more than six\nhundred; of the Acts over two hundred; of the Pauline Epistles nearly\nthree hundred; of the Revelation about one hundred,--not reckoning the\nlectionaries, or manuscripts containing the lessons from the Gospels,\nActs, and Epistles, read in the service of the church, of which there\nare more than four hundred.\" [Footnote: _Anglo-American Bible\nRevision_, p. 95.]\n\nOut of all this vast mass of extant manuscripts, only twenty-seven\ncontain the New Testament entire.\n\nThe three oldest and most valuable manuscripts among those named by\nProfessor Abbot, in the passage above, are the Sinaitic, the Vatican,\nand the Alexandrian manuscripts.\n\nOf these old Bibles perhaps the oldest is the one in the Vatican Library\nat Rome. It was enrolled in that library as late as the year 1475; what\nits history was before that time is unknown. By whose hands or at what\nplace it was written, no one can tell. Some have supposed that it was\nbrought from Constantinople to Rome, in the fifteenth century, by John\nBessarion, a learned patriarch; some that it was written in Alexandria,\nwhen that city was the metropolis of the world's culture; some that it\nwas produced in Southern Italy when that region was celebrated for its\nlearning. The signs favor the latter theory. The form of the letters is\nlike those found on papyri in Herculaneum; and other manuscripts of the\nBible found in southern Italy agree remarkably with this one in many\npeculiar readings. But this is all guess-work. Nobody knows where the\nold Bible came from or who brought it to Rome.\n\nSome things, however, the old book plainly tells us about its own\nhistory. It bears the unmistakable marks of great antiquity. The scholar\nwho is familiar with old Greek manuscripts can judge by looking at a\ndocument something about its probable age. By the form of the letters,\nby the presence or absence of certain marks of punctuation, by the\ngeneral style of the manuscript, he can determine within a century or so\nthe date at which it was written.\n\nThis old Bible is written in the uncial or capital letters; this would\nmake it tolerably certain that it must be older than the tenth century.\nWe have scarcely any uncial manuscripts later than the tenth century.\nBut other unmistakable marks take it back much farther than this. The\nwords are written continuously, with no breaks or spaces between them;\nthere are no accents, no rough or smooth breathings, no punctuation\nmarks of any sort. These are signs of great age. Another peculiarity is\nthe manner of the division of the books into sections. I cannot stop to\ndescribe to you the various methods of division adopted in antiquity.\nThe present separation into chapters and verses was, as you know, a\nquite modern device. But the divisions of this old Bible follow a method\nthat we know to have been in use at a very early day; and the conclusion\nof all the scholars is that it must have been written as early as the\nyear 350, possibly as early as 300.\n\nIt is not, however, a roll, but a book in form like those we handle\nevery day. Before this date manuscripts were generally prepared in this\nway. Martial, the Latin poet, who died about 100, mentions as a novelty\nin his day books with square leaves, bound together at the edges.\n\nThe Vatican Bible is a heavy quarto, the covers are red morocco\ndiscolored with age, the leaves, of which there are 759, are of fine and\ndelicate vellum. It contains the Septuagint translation of the Old\nTestament, except the first forty-five chapters in Genesis and a few of\nthe Psalms, which have been torn out and lost. Of the New Testament\nwritings, the last five chapters of Hebrews, First and Second Timothy,\nTitus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse are wanting. Otherwise both\nTestaments are complete.\n\nWe may recall another fact, to which allusion has been made, that this\nold Bible contains among the Old Testament books those books which we\nnow call apocryphal, and that these apocryphal books, instead of being\ndivided from the rest in a separate group, are mingled with them, the\n_order_ of the books being quite unlike that of our Bibles or of\nthe Hebrew canon. The apocryphal First Book of Esdras _precedes_\nour Book of Ezra; while our Book of Ezra is united with Nehemiah,\nforming the Second Book of Esdras. Judith and Tobit follow Esther, and\nnext comes the twelve minor prophets, and so on.\n\nThe same thing is true of all these oldest Bibles; they all contain the\napocryphal books, and these books are mingled with the other books,\neither promiscuously, or by some system of classification which accepts\nthem as equal in value with the other Old Testament writings. There is\nno indication in these old Bibles that the apocryphal books are any less\nsacred or authoritative than the others.\n\nAnother manuscript Bible, scarcely less venerable and no less precious\nthan the Vatican Bible, is the one known as the Sinaitic manuscript This\nwas discovered by Constantine Tischendorf, a German scholar, in an\nancient convent at the base of Mount Sinai. The first journey of\nTischendorf to the Sinaitic peninsula was undertaken in 1844, for the\nexpress purpose of searching in the old monasteries of this neighborhood\nfor ancient copies of the Scriptures that might be preserved in them.\nThe monks of this old convent admitted him to their ancient library,--a\nplace not greatly frequented by them,--and there in the middle of the\nroom he found a waste basket, filled with leaves and torn pieces of old\nparchment gathered to be burned. In looking them over he discovered one\nhundred and twenty leaves of a Bible that seemed to him of great\nantiquity. He asked for these leaves, but when they found that he wanted\nthem, the monks began to suspect their value, and permitted him to take\nonly forty-three of them. In 1853 he returned again, but this time could\nnot find the rest of the precious manuscript. He feared that it had been\ndestroyed long before, but this was not the case. Stimulated by his\ndesire to possess the loose leaves, the monks had made search for the\nrest of the volume, and, using as samples the leaves they had refused to\ngive him, they had found them all and secreted them. Upon his second\nvisit they did not show him the book, however, nor reveal to him in any\nway its existence.\n\nSix years later, in 1859, he returned again, this time fortified with a\nletter from the Emperor of Russia, the head of the Greek Church; and\nthis mighty document made the monks open their treasures for his\ninspection. He obtained permission, first, to carry the old Bible to\nCairo to be copied, and finally, under the imperial influence, the monks\nsurrendered it, and suffered it to be removed to St. Petersburg, where\nsince 1859 it has been sacredly kept.\n\n\"The Sinai Bible,\" says Dr. F. P. Woodbury, \"contains the New Testament,\nthe Epistle of Barnabas, a portion of the Shepherd of Hennas, and\ntwenty-two books of the Old Testament. The whole is written on fine\nvellum made from antelope skins into the largest pages known in our\nancient manuscripts. While most of the oldest manuscripts have only\nthree columns to the page, and the Vatican Bible has three, the Sinai\nBible alone shows four. The letters are somewhat larger than those of\nthe Vatican and much more roughly written. The book contains many\nblunders in copying, and there are a few cases of willful omission. Its\nremote age is attested by many of the same proofs that have been\nmentioned in the description of the Vatican Bible.\" [Footnote: From an\ninteresting sketch of \"Three Old Bibles,\" in _Sunday Afternoon_,\nvol. i pp. 65-71.]\n\nIt is known that the Emperor Constantine, in the year 331, authorized\nthe preparation of fifty costly and beautiful copies of the Holy\nScriptures under the care of Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea. Tischendorf himself\nthinks--and his conjecture is accepted by other scholars--that this is\none of those fifty Bibles, and that it was sent from Byzantium to the\nmonks of this convent by the Emperor Justinian, who was its founder. At\nall events, it is incontestably a manuscript of great age, certainly of\nthe fourth century, and probably of the first half of that century.\n\nThe other great Bible is the one known as the Alexandrian, which was\npresented, in 1628, to King Charles I of England by Cyril Lucar,\npatriarch of Constantinople, who had brought it from Alexandria. It was\ntransferred in 1753 from the king's private library to the British\nMuseum, where it is now preserved. It is bound in four folio volumes,\nthree of which contain the text of the Old and one of the New Testament.\nThe portion which contains the Old Testament is more perfect than that\nwhich contains the New, quite a number of leaves having been lost from\nthe latter. \"The material of which this volume is composed is thin\nvellum, the page being about thirteen inches high by ten broad,\ncontaining from fifty to fifty-two lines on each page, each line\nconsisting of about twenty letters. The number of pages is 773, of which\n640 are occupied with the text of the Old Testament and 133 with the\nNew. The characters are uncial, but larger than the Vatican manuscript.\nThere are no accents or breathings, no spaces between the letters or\nwords save at the end of a paragraph, and the contractions, which are\nnot numerous, are only such as are found in the oldest manuscripts. The\npunctuation consists of a point placed at the end of a sentence, usually\non a level with the top of the preceding letter.\" [Footnote: _Encyc.\nBrit._, i. p. 496.] The general verdict of scholars is that this\nmanuscript belongs to about the middle of the fifth century.\n\nThe contents of this old Bible are curious, and they are curiously\narranged. The first volume contains the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,\nRuth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, and the two books\nof Chronicles. The second contains, first, the twelve minor prophets\n(from Hosea to Malachi), then Isaiah, Jeremiah, _Baruch_, Lamentations,\n_The Epistle of Jeremiah_, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, _Tobit_, _Judith_,\n_Esdras I._ (the apocryphal Esdras), Esdras II. (including our\nNehemiah and part of our Ezra), and _the four books of the Maccabees_.\nThe third volume contains An Epistle of Athanasius to Marcellenus on\nthe Psalms; The Hypothesis of Eusebius on the Psalms; then the Book of\nthe Psalms, of which there are one hundred and fifty-one, and fifteen\nHymns; then Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom of Solomon,\nand Ecclesiasticus, or Sirach. The fourth volume contains the four\nGospels, the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles (one of James, two of\nPeter, three of John, and one of Jude), fourteen Epistles of Paul\n(including the one to the Hebrews), The Revelation of John, two Epistles\nof Clement to the Corinthians, and eight Psalms of Solomon.\n\nThis, it will be admitted, is a generous Bible. It contains most of the\napocryphal books, and several others that we do not find in the other\ncollections. It is probable that the works of Athanasius and Eusebius on\nthe Psalms were admitted rather as introduction or commentary than as\ntext; but the rest, judging from the positions in which they stand, must\nhave been regarded as Sacred Scriptures.\n\nThese, then, are the three oldest, most complete, and most trustworthy\ncopies of the Sacred Scriptures now in existence. By all scholars they\nare regarded as precious beyond price; and any reading in which they\nagree would probably be regarded as the right reading, if all the other\nmanuscripts in the world were against them.\n\nI have suggested that these old manuscripts do not always agree. The\nfact is that no two of them are exactly alike, and that there are a\ngreat many slight differences between those which are most closely\nassimilated. Of these differences Professor Westcott says that \"there\ncannot be less than 120,000,--though of these a very large proportion\nconsists of differences of spelling and isolated aberrations of\nscribes.\" It is not generally difficult for the student on comparing\nthem to tell which is the right reading. A word may be misspelled, for\nexample, in several different ways; the student knows the right way to\nspell it, and is not in doubt concerning the word. \"Probably,\" says Mr.\nWestcott, \"there are not more than from sixteen hundred to two thousand\nplaces in which the true reading is a matter of uncertainty, even if we\ninclude in this questions of order, inflection, and orthography; the\ndoubtful readings by which the sense is in any way affected are very\nmuch fewer, and those of dogmatic importance can be easily numbered.\"\n\nThe ways in which these errors and variations arose are easily\nexplained. The men who copied these manuscripts were careful men, many\nof them, but all of them were fallible. Sometimes they would mistake a\nletter for another letter much like it, and change the form of a word in\nthat way; sometimes there would be two clauses of a sentence ending with\nthe same word, and the eye of the copyist, glancing back to the\nmanuscript after writing the first of these words, would alight upon the\nsecond one, and go on from that; so that the clause preceding it would\nbe omitted. Sometimes in copying the continuous writing of the uncial\nmanuscripts, mistakes would be made in dividing words. For example, if a\nnumber of English words, written in close order, with no spaces between\nthem, were given you to copy, and you found \"infancy,\" you might make\ntwo words of it or one; and if you were a little careless you might\nwrite it \"in fancy\" when it should be \"infancy,\" or _vice versa_. A\ncase might arise in which it would be difficult for you to tell whether\nit should be \"in fancy\" or \"infancy.\" Such uncertainties the copyists\nencountered, and such mistakes they sometimes made.\n\nMistakes of memory they also made in copying, just as I sometimes do\nwhen I undertake to copy a passage from Mr. Westcott or Mr. Davidson\ninto one of these chapters. I look upon the book, and take a sentence in\nmy mind, but perhaps while I am writing it down I will change slightly\nthe order of the words, or it may be put a word of my own in the place\nof another that much resembles it, as \"but\" for \"though,\" or \"from\" for\n\"out of,\" or \"doubtless\" for \"without doubt.\" I try to copy very\nexactly, but there are, unquestionably, now and then such slips as these\nin my quotations. And such mistakes were made by the copyists of the Old\nScriptures.\n\nThere are some instances of intentional changes. Sometimes a copyist\nevidently substituted a word that he thought was plainer for one that\nwas more obscure; a more elegant word for one less elegant; a\ngrammatical construction for one that was not grammatical.\n\nOther differences have arisen from the habit of some of the copyists or\nowners of manuscripts of writing glosses, or brief explanatory notes, on\nthe margin. Some of these marginalia were copied by subsequent scribes\ninto the text, where, in our version, they still remain. Some of them,\nhowever, were removed in the late revision.\n\nThe great majority of these errors are, however, as I have said,\nextremely unimportant; and nearly all of them seem to have arisen in the\nways I have suggested--through simple carelessness, and not with any\nintent of corrupting the text.\n\nThe translations of the Bible which were made in early days into other\nlanguages than our own must be dismissed with the briefest mention. The\nmost important version of the Old Testament was the Septuagint, of which\nnothing more needs to be said.\n\nYou will remember that the Hebrew was a dead language while our Lord was\non the earth, the Jews of Palestine speaking the Aramaic. For their use,\ntranslations of the Hebrew into the Aramaic, called Targums, were made.\nThere is a great variety of these, and there are many opinions about\ntheir age; but it is not likely that the oldest of them was committed to\nwriting before the second century A. D. They are curious specimens of\nthe translator's work, combining text and commentary in a remarkable\nmanner. Additions and changes are freely made; the simple sentences of\nthe old record are greatly expanded; not only is a spade generally\ncalled a useful ligneous and ferruginous agricultural implement, but\nmany things are said concerning the aforesaid spade which Moses or David\nor Isaiah never dreamed of saying.\n\nFor example, in Judges v. 10, the Hebrew is literally translated in our\nEnglish Bible thus: \"Speak, ye that ride on white asses, ye that sit in\njudgment and walk by the way.\" The Targum of Jonathan expatiates thereon\nas follows: \"Those who had interrupted their occupations are riding on\nasses covered with many colored caparisons, and they ride about freely\nin all the territory of Israel, and congregate to sit in judgment. They\nwalk in their old ways, and are speaking of the power Thou hast shown in\nthe land of Israel,\" etc. This may be pronounced a remarkably free\ntranslation; and the Targums generally evince a similar liberality of\nsentiment and phraseology.\n\nBesides these, the ancient translations of the Bible, which must be\nmentioned, are the Old Latin, made in the second century, out of which,\nby many revisions, grew that Latin Vulgate which is now used in the\nCatholic ritual; an ancient Syriac version of about the same age; two\nEgyptian versions, in different dialects, made in the third century; the\nPeshito-Syriac, the Gothic, and the Ethiopic in the fourth, and the\nArmenian in the fifth; besides several later translations, including the\nArabic and the Slavonic. These ancient translations are all of value to\nmodern scholars in helping them to reach more certain conclusions\nrespecting the nature of the Sacred Scriptures and the right reading in\ndisputed passages.\n\nThe ages which we have been traversing in this chapter--when the Bible\nwas a manuscript--were ages of great darkness. The copies of the book\nwere few, and the common people could neither possess them nor read\nthem. It is hard for us who have had the book in our hands from our\ninfancy, who have gone to it so freely for light in darkness, for\ncomfort in sorrow, for wisdom to work with, for weapons to fight with,\nto understand how men could have lived the life of faith without it; how\na godly seed could have been nourished in the earth without the sincere\nmilk of the word for them to feed on.\n\nIt was indeed a great privation that they suffered, but we must not\nsuppose that they were left without witness. For there is another and\neven a clearer revelation than the written word, and that is a godly\nlife. Godly lives there were in all these dark times; and it was at\ntheir fires that the torch of gospel truth was kindled and kept burning.\nThere may be reason for a question whether we have not come to trust in\nthese times too much in a word that is written, and to undervalue that\nother revelation which God is making of his truth and love in the\ncharacters of his children. For it is only in the light that Christ is\nconstantly manifesting to the world in the lives of men that we can see\nany meaning in the words of the book. \"The Christian,\" says Dr.\nChristlieb, \"is the world's Bible.\" This is the word that is known and\nread of men. Let it be our care to make it, not an infallible, but a\nclear, an adequate, and a safe revelation of the truth and love of God\nto men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nHOW MUCH IS THE BIBLE WORTH?\n\n\n\nOf the Bible as a book among books, of the human elements which enter\ninto its composition, some account has been given in the preceding\nchapters. But in these studies the whole story of the Bible has not been\ntold. There is need, therefore, that we should enlarge our view\nsomewhat, and take more directly into account certain elements with\nwhich we have not hitherto been chiefly concerned.\n\nOur study has, indeed, made a few things plain. Among them is the\ncertainty that the Bible is not an infallible Book, in the sense in\nwhich it is popularly supposed to be infallible. When we study the\nhistory of the several books, the history of the canon, the history of\nthe distribution and reproduction of the manuscript copies, and the\nhistory of the versions,--when we discover that the \"various readings\"\nof the differing manuscripts amount to one hundred and fifty thousand,\nthe impossibility of maintaining the verbal inerrancy of the Bible\nbecomes evident. We see how human ignorance and error have been suffered\nto mingle with this stream of living water throughout all its course; if\nour assurance of salvation were made to depend upon our knowledge that\nevery word of the Bible was of divine origin, our hopes of eternal life\nwould be altogether insecure.\n\nThe book is not infallible historically. It is a veracious record; we\nmay depend upon the truthfulness of the outline which it gives us of the\nhistory of the Jewish people; but the discrepancies and contradictions\nwhich appear here and there upon its pages show that its writers were\nnot miraculously protected from mistakes in dates and numbers and the\norder of events.\n\nIt is not infallible scientifically. It is idle to try to force the\nnarrative of Genesis into an exact correspondence with geological\nscience. It is a hymn of creation, wonderfully beautiful and pure; the\ncentral truths of monotheistic religion and of modern science are\ninvolved in it; but it is not intended to give us the scientific history\nof creation, and the attempt to make it bear this construction is highly\ninjudicious.\n\nIt is not infallible morally. By this I mean that portions of this\nrevelation involve an imperfect morality. Many things are here commanded\nwhich it would be wrong for us to do. This is not saying that these\ncommands were not divinely wise for the people to whom they were given;\nnor is it denying that the morality of the New Testament, which is the\nfulfillment and consummation of the moral progress which the book\nrecords, is a perfect morality; it is simply asserting that the stages\nof this progress from a lower to a higher morality are here clearly\nmarked; that the standards of the earlier time are therefore inadequate\nand misleading in these later times; and that any man who accepts the\nBible as a code of moral rules, all of which are equally binding, will\nbe led into the gravest errors. It is no more true that the ceremonial\nlegislation of the Old Testament is obsolete than that large portions of\nthe moral legislation are obsolete. The notions of the writers of these\nbooks concerning their duties to God were dim and imperfect; so were\ntheir notions concerning their duties to man. All the truth that they\ncould receive was given to them; but there were many truths which they\ncould not receive, which to us are as plain as the daylight.\n\nNot to recognize the partialness and imperfection of this record in all\nthese respects is to be guilty of a grave disloyalty to the kingdom of\nthe truth. With all these facts staring him in the face, the attempt of\nany intelligent man to maintain the theoretical and ideal infallibility\nof all parts of these writings is a criminal blunder. Nor is there any\nuse in loudly asserting the inerrancy of these books, with vehement\ndenunciations of all who call it in question, and then in a breath\nadmitting that there may be some errors and discrepancies and\ninterpolations. Perfection is perfection. To stoutly affirm that a thing\nis perfect, and then admit that it may be in some respects imperfect, is\nan insensate procedure. Infallibility is infallibility. The Scriptures\nare, or they are not, infallible. The admission that there may be a few\nerrors gives every man the right, nay it lays upon him the duty, of\nfinding what those errors are. Our friends who so sturdily assert the\ntraditional theory can hardly be aware of the extent to which they\nstultify themselves when their sweeping and reiterated assertion that\nthe Bible can _never_ contain a mistake is followed, as it always\nmust be, by their timid and deprecatory, \"hardly ever.\" The old\nrabbinical theory, as adopted and extended by some of the post-Reformation\ntheologians, that the Bible was verbally dictated by God and\nis absolutely accurate in every word, letter, and vowel-point, and that\nit is therefore blasphemy to raise a question concerning any part of it,\nis a consistent theory. Between this and a free but reverent inquiry\ninto the Bible itself, to discover what human elements it contains and\nhow it is affected by them, there is no middle ground. That it is\nuseless and mischievous to make for the Bible claims that it nowhere\nmakes for itself,--to hold and teach a theory concerning it which at\nonce breaks down when an intelligent man begins to study it with open\nmind--is beginning to be very plain. The quibbling, the concealment, the\ndisingenuousness which this method of using the Bible involves are not\nconducive to Christian integrity. This kind of \"lying for God\" has\ndriven hundreds of thousands already into irreconcilable alienation from\nthe Christian church. It is time to stop it.\n\nHow did this theory of the infallibility of the Bible arise? Those who\nhave followed these discussions to this point know that it has not\nalways been held by the Christian church. The history of the canon, told\nwith any measure of truthfulness, will make this plain. The history of\nthe variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew shows, beyond the\nshadow of a doubt, that this theory of the unchangeable and absolute\ndivinity of the words of the Scripture had no practical hold upon\ntranscribers and copyists in the early Jewish church. The New Testament\nwriters could not have consistently held such a theory respecting the\nOld Testament books, else they would not have quoted them, as they did,\nwith small care for verbal accuracy. They believed them to be\nsubstantially true, and therefore they give the substance of them in\ntheir quotations; but there is no such slavish attention to the letter\nas there must have been if they had regarded them as verbally dictated\nby God himself. The Christian Fathers were inclined, no doubt, to accept\nthe rabbinical theories of inspiration respecting the Old Testament; but\nthey sometimes avoid the difficulties growing out of manifest errors in\nthe text by a theory of an inner sense which is faultless, frankly\nadmitting that the natural meaning cannot always be defended. As to the\nearly Reformers, we have seen how freely they handled the Sacred\nWritings, submitting them to a scrutiny which they would not have\nventured upon if they had believed concerning them what we have been\ntaught. It was not until the period succeeding the Reformation that this\ndogma of Biblical Infallibility was clearly formulated and imposed upon\nthe Protestant churches. As taught by Quenstedt and Voetius and\nCalovius, the dogma asserts that \"not only the substance of truth and\nthe views proposed in their minutest detail, but even the identical\nwords, all and in particular, were supplied and dictated by the Holy\nGhost. Not a word is contained in the Holy Scriptures which is not in\nthe strictest sense inspired, the very interpunctuation not excepted....\nErrors of any sort whatever, even verbal or grammatical, as well as all\ninelegancies of style, are to be denied as unworthy of the Divine Spirit\nwho is throughout the primary author of the Bible.\" [Footnote: _The\nDoctrine of Sacred Scripture_, ii. p. 209.] This view was long\nmaintained with all strictness, and many a man has been made a heretic\nfor denying it. Within the last century the form of the doctrine has\nbeen somewhat modified by theologians, yet the substance of it is still\nregarded as essential orthodoxy. Dr. Charles Hodge, in his \"Theology,\"\nvol. i. p. 152, says, \"Protestants hold that the Scriptures of the Old\nand New Testaments are the word of God, written under the inspiration of\nGod the Holy Ghost, and are therefore infallible, and consequently free\nfrom all error, whether of doctrine, of fact, or of precept.\" And again\n(p. 163), \"All the books of Scripture are equally inspired. All alike\nare infallible in what they teach.\" Such is the doctrine now held by the\ngreat majority of Christians. Intelligent pastors do not hold it, but\nthe body of the laity have no other conception.\n\nWhence is it derived? Where do the teachers quoted above get their\nauthority for their affirmations?\n\nNot, as we have seen, from any statements of the Bible itself. There is\nnot one word in the Bible which affirms or implies that this character\nof inerrancy attaches to the entire collection of writings, or to any\none of them.\n\nThe doctrine arose, as I have said, in the seventeenth century, and it\nwas in part, no doubt, a reflection of the teaching of the later\nrabbins, whose fantastic notions about the origin of their sacred books\nI have before alluded to. It was also developed, as a polemical\nnecessity, in the exigencies of that conflict with the Roman Catholic\ntheologians which followed the Reformation. The eminent German scholar\nand saint, Professor Tholuck, gives the following account of its origin:\n\n\"In proportion as controversy, sharpened by Jesuitism, made the\nProtestant party sensible of an externally fortified ground of combat,\nin that same proportion did Protestantism seek, by the exaltation of the\noutward authoritative character of the Sacred Writings, to recover that\ninfallible authority which it had lost through its rejection of\ninfallible councils and the infallible authority of the Pope. In this\nmanner arose, _not earlier than the seventeenth century_, those\nsentiments which regarded the Holy Scripture as the infallible\nproduction of the Divine Spirit--in its entire contents and its very\nform--so that not only the sense but also the words, the letters, the\nHebrew vowel points, and the very punctuation were regarded as\nproceeding from the Spirit of God.\" [Footnote: _Theological\nEssays_, collected by George R. Noyes.] The fact that the doctrine\nhad this origin is itself suspicious. A theory which is framed in the\nheat of a great controversy, by one party in the church, is apt to be\nsomewhat extreme.\n\nThe strength of the doctrine lies, however, in the fact that it is a\ntheological inference from the doctrine of God. \"God is the author of\nthe Bible,\" men have said; \"God is omniscient; he can make no mistakes;\ntherefore the Book must be infallible. To deny that it is infallible is\nto deny that it is God's book; if it is not his book it is worthless.\"\nOr, putting it in another form, they have said, \"The Bible is an\ninspired book. God is the source of inspiration. He cannot inspire men\nto write error. Therefore every word of the inspired book must be true.\"\nThis is what the logicians call an _a priori_ argument. The view of\nwhat inspiration is, and of what the Bible is, are deduced from our\ntheory of God. It amounts to just this: If God is what we think him to\nbe, he must do what seems wise to us. This is hardly a safe argument.\nDoubtless we would have said beforehand that if God, who is all-wise and\nall-powerful, should create a world, he would make one free from\nsuffering and every form of evil. We find, however, that he has not made\nsuch a world. And it may be wiser for us, instead of making up our minds\nbeforehand what God must do, to try and find out what he has done. It\nmight seem to us, doubtless, that if he has given us a revelation, it\nmust be a faultless revelation. But has he? That is the question. We can\nonly know by studying the revelation itself. We have no right to\ndetermine beforehand what it must be. We might have said with equal\nconfidence, that if God wished to have his truth taught in the world, he\nwould certainly send infallible teachers. He has not done so. The\ntreasure of his truth is in earthen vessels, to-day. Has it not always\nbeen so?\n\nThe trouble in this whole matter arises from the fact that men have made\nup their theories of the Bible out of their ideas about God, and have\nthen gone to work to fit the facts of the Bible to their preconceived\ntheories. This has required a great deal of stretching and twisting and\nlopping off here and there; the truth has been badly distorted,\nsometimes mutilated. The changed view of the Bible, which greatly alarms\nsome good people, arises from the fact that certain honest men have\ndetermined to go directly to the Bible itself and find out by studying\nit what manner of book it is. They have discovered that it is not\nprecisely such a book as it has been believed to be, and the answer that\nthey make to those who hold the old theory about it is simply this: \"We\ncannot believe what you have told us about the Bible, because the Bible\ncontradicts you. It is because we believe the Bible itself that we\nreject your theory. We believe that the Bible is an inspired book, nay,\nthat it is by eminence The Inspired Book; but when you ask us 'What is\nan inspired book?' instead of making up a definition of inspiration out\nof our own heads, we only say, 'It is such a book as the Bible is,' and\nthen we proceed to frame our definition of inspiration by the study of\nthe Bible. Therefore, when you say that inspiration must imply\ninfallibility, we answer, No; it does not; for here is The Inspired Book\nand it is not infallible.\"\n\nIn what sense the book is inspired we may be able, after a little, to\nsee more clearly. For the present I only desire to point out the sources\nof the traditional doctrine of the Bible, and the sources of the new\ndoctrine. The one is the result of the speculations of men about what\nthe Bible must be; the other is the result of a careful and reverent\nstudy of the Bible itself.\n\nWhat, then, do we find the Bible to be?\n\nI. It is the book of righteousness. No other book in the world fixes our\nthoughts so steadily upon the great interest of character. Whatever else\nthe Bible may show us or may fail to show us, it does keep always before\nus the fact that the one great concern of every man is to be right in\nheart and in life. Righteousness tendeth to life; righteousness is\nsalvation; Jehovah is He who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity,\nand in his favor is life; these are the truths which form the very\nsubstance of this revelation. It is quite true that in the application\nof this principle to the affairs of every day, the early records show us\nmuch confusion and uncertainty; the definitions of righteousness which\nsufficed for the people of that time would not suffice for us at all;\nbut the fact remains that the only interest of this Book in the\nindividuals and the races which it brings before us is in their loyalty\nor disloyalty to that ideal of conduct which it always lifts up before\nus. Righteousness is life; righteousness is salvation; this is the one\nmessage of the Bible to men. There are rites and ceremonies, but these\nare not the principal thing; \"To obey is better than sacrifice, and to\nhearken than the fat of rams.\" \"He hath showed thee, O man, what is\ngood; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to\nlove mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?\" This great truth of the\nBible has been but imperfectly apprehended, even among modern\nChristians; there is always a tendency to make the belief in sound\ndogma, or the performance of decorous rites, or the experience of\nemotional raptures the principal thing; but the testimony of the Bible\nto the supremacy of character and conduct is clear and convincing, and\nthe world is coming to understand it.\n\nNow for any man who cares for the right, to whom character is more\nprecious than anything else in the world, this book is worth more than\nany other book can be. Even the Old Testament narratives, indistinctly\nas they reveal the real nature of true conduct to us in this day, show\nus plainly the fact that nothing else in the world is to be compared\nwith it; and the struggles and temptations of the heroes of that old\nbook are full of instruction for us; their failures and follies and sins\nadmonish and warn us; their steadfastness and fidelity inspire and\nhearten us.\n\nII. The Bible is the record of the development of the kingdom of\nrighteousness in the world. Man knows intuitively that he ought to do\nright; his notion of what is right is continually being purified and\nenlarged. The Bible is the record of this moral progress in the one\nnation of the earth to which morality has been the great concern. We\nhave seen, clearly enough, the imperfection of the ethical standards to\nwhich the early Hebrew legislation was made to conform; we have also\nseen that this legislation was always a little in advance of the popular\nmorality, leading it on to purer conceptions and better practices. The\nlegislation concerning divorce, the legislation regulating\nblood-vengeance, recognizes the evils with which it deals and accommodates\nitself to them, but always with the purpose and the result of giving to\nmen a larger thought and a better standard. Laws which conformed to our\nmoral ideal would have been powerless to control such a semi-barbarous\npeople as the Hebrews were when they came out of Egypt. The higher\nmorality must be imparted little by little; one principle after another\nmust be drilled into their apprehension; they could not well be learning\nmore than one or two simple lessons at a time, and while they were\nlearning these, other coarse and cruel and savage practices of theirs\nmust be \"winked at,\" as Paul says. Against any rule more strict at this\nearly time the Hebrews would have revolted; the divine wisdom of this\nlegislation is seen in this method which takes men as they are, and does\nfor them the thing that is feasible, patiently leading them on and up to\nhigher ground. If you would seize a running horse by the rein and stop\nhim, you had better run with him for a little. This homely parable\nillustrates much of the Old Testament legislation which we find so\ndefective, when judged by our standards.\n\nIt is in this larger sense that we see the signs of divinity in this old\nBook. It is a book of inspiration because it is the record of an\ninspired or divinely guided development; because the life it shows as\nunfolding is divine; because the goal to which we see the people\nsteadily conducted in its vivid chapters is the goal which God has\nmarked for human progress; because it gives us the origin and growth of\nthe kingdom of God in the world.\n\n\"Whence came,\" asks one, \"and of what manner of spirit is this\n_anti-historic_ power in Israel and the Bible? Some inner principle of\ndevelopment struggles against the outward historical environment, and\nwill not rest until it prevails. What was it which selected Israel, and\nin one narrow land, while all the surrounding country was sinking,\nlifted man up in spite of himself? which along the course of one\nnational history carried on a progressive development of religious life\nand truth, while other peoples, though taught by many wise men and\nseers, and not without their truths, still can show no one connected and\nprogressive revelation like this?\" [Footnote: _Old Faiths in New\nLight_, p. 81.]\n\nWhat is the power that has wrought all this but the divine Power? If you\nask for a proof of the existence of God, I point you to the life of the\nJewish people as the Bible records it. _That history is the revelation\nof God._ In the record of this nation's life, in its privileges and\nits vicissitudes, its captivities and its restorations, its blessings\nand its chastenings, its institutions and its laws, its teachers and its\nlegislators, its seers and its lawgivers, in all the forces that combine\nto make up the great movement of the national life, I see God present\nall the while, shaping the ends of this nation, no matter how perversely\nit may rough-hew them, till at last it stands on an elevation far above\nthe other nations, breathing a better atmosphere, thinking worthier and\nmore spiritual thoughts of God, obeying a far purer moral law, holding\nfast a nobler ideal of righteousness,--polytheism gradually and finally\nrooted out of the national consciousness; the family established and\nhonored as in no other nation; woman lifted up to a dignity and purity\nknown nowhere else in the world; the Sabbath of rest sanctified; the\nprinciples of the decalogue fastened in the convictions of the people,\nthe sure foundations laid of the kingdom of God in the world.\n\nWe are quite too apt unduly to disparage Judaism. Doubtless the\nformalism that our Lord found in it needed rebuke; its worship and its\nmorality were yet far away from the ideal when Jesus came to earth;\nnevertheless, compared with all the peoples round about them even\nthen--compared with classic Greeks and noble Romans--the ethical and\nspiritual development of the Jews had reached a higher stage. It is not\nextravagant to claim for this race the moral leadership of the world.\nHear Ernest Renan, no champion of orthodoxy, as you know: \"I am eager,\ngentlemen,\"--I quote from a lecture of his on \"The Share of the Semitic\nPeople in the History of Civilization,\"--\"to come at the prime service\nwhich the Semitic race has rendered to the world; its peculiar work, its\nprovidential mission, if I may so express myself. We owe to the Semitic\nrace neither political life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. _We\nowe to them religion._ The whole world--we except India, China,\nJapan, and tribes altogether savage--_has adopted the Semitic\nreligions.\"_ Speaking then of the gradual decay of the various pagan\nfaiths of the Aryan races, Renan continues: \"It is precisely at this\nepoch that the civilized world finds itself face to face with the Jewish\nfaith. Based upon the clear and simple dogma of the divine unity,\ndiscarding naturalism and pantheism by the marvelously terse phrase, 'In\nthe beginning God created the heavens and the earth,' possessing a law,\na book, the depository of grand moral precepts and of an elevated\nreligious poetry, Judaism had an incontestable superiority, and it might\nhave been foreseen then that some day the world would become Jewish,\nthat is to say, would forsake the old mythology for monotheism.\"\n[Footnote: _Religious History and Criticism,_ pp. 159, 160.]\n\nHere is the testimony of a man who can be suspected of no undue leanings\ntoward the religion of the Bible, to the fact that the world is indebted\nfor its great thoughts of religion to the Semitic races, and chiefly to\nthe Hebrew race; that the religion of Judaism, brought into comparison\nwith the other religions, is incontestably superior. Now any man who\nbelieves in religion and in God must believe that the people to whom\nsuch a task was committed must have been trained by God to perform it.\nThe history of this nation will then be the history of this training.\nThat is exactly what the Old Testament is. No disputes over the nature\nof inspiration must be suffered to obscure this great fact. The Old\nTestament Scriptures do contain in biography and history, in statute and\nstory and song and sermon, the records of the life of the nation to\nwhich God at sundry times and in divers manners was revealing himself;\nwhich he was preparing to be the bearer of the torch of his own truth\ninto all the world. And now I ask whether anybody needs to be told that\nthese records are precious, precious above all price? Are there any\nauthentic portions of them that any man can afford to despise? Is not\nevery step in the progress of this people out of savagery into a\nspiritual faith, matter of the profoundest interest to every human soul?\nEven the dullness and ignorance and crudity of this people,--even the\ncrookedness and blindness of their leaders and teachers, are full of\ninstruction for us; they show us with what materials and what\ninstruments the divine wisdom and patience wrought out this great\nresult. What other book is there that can compare in value with this\nbook, which tells us the way of God with the people whom he chose, as\nRenan declares, to teach the world religion? And when one has firmly\ngrasped this great fact, that the Bible contains the history of the\nreligious development of the Jewish people under providential care and\ntuition, how little is he troubled by the small difficulties which grow\nout of theories of inspiration! \"We can listen,\" says Dr. Newman Smyth,\n\"with incurious complacency while small disputants discuss vehemently\nthe story of the ark or Jonah's strange adventure.... After all the work\nof the critics, the Bible still remains, the great, sublime, enduring\nwork of the Eternal who loves righteousness and hates iniquity.\"\n[Footnote: _Old Faiths in New Light_, pp. 60, 61.]\n\nBut what have I been vindicating? The Bible? Nay, I have carefully\nrestricted my argument to the Old Testament. It is in behalf of the Old\nTestament writings alone that I have sought to establish this exalted\nclaim. What I have shown you is only the pedestal on which the beauty\nand strength of the Bible rests, the enduring portals which open into\nthe glory that excelleth. The Old Testament shows us the progressive\nrevelation of God to the Jewish people; the New Testament gives us the\nconsummation of that work, the perfect flower of that growth of\ncenturies. After shadows and hints and refracted lights of prophecy,\nbreaks at last upon the world the Light that lighteth every man! When\nthe fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son. It was for this\nthat the age-long discipline of this people had been preparing them.\nTrue, \"He came to his own, and they received him not,\" but where else in\nthe world would the seed of his kingdom have found any lodgment at all?\nThe multitude rejected him, but there was a remnant who did receive him,\nand to whom he gave power to become the sons of God. So the word of God,\nthat had been painfully and dimly communicated to the ancient people in\nlaws and ordinances and prophecies, in providential mercies and\nchastenings, in lives of saints and prophets and martyrs, was now made\nflesh, and dwelt among men full of grace and truth, and they beheld his\nglory.\n\nIt is here that we find the real meaning of the Bible. \"The end,\" as\nCanon Mozley has so strongly shown, \"is the test of a progressive\nrevelation.\" Jesus Christ, who is himself the Word, toward whom these\nlaws and prophecies point, and in whom they culminate, is indeed the\nperfect Revelation of God. From his judgment there is no appeal; at his\nfeet the wisest of us must sit and learn the way of life. With his words\nall these old Scriptures must be compared; so far as they agree with his\nteachings we may take them as eternal truth; those portions of them\nwhich fall below this standard, we may pass by as a partial revelation\nupon us no longer binding. He himself has given us, in the Sermon on the\nMount, the method by which we are to test the older Scriptures. When we\nrefuse to apply his method and go on to declare every portion of those\nold records authoritative, we are not honoring him. The mischief and\nbane of the traditional theory is that it equalizes things which are\nutterly unlike. When it says that \"all the books of the Scripture are\nequally inspired; all alike are infallible in what they teach,\" it puts\nthe Gospels on the same level with Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes and\nEsther. The effect of this is not to lift the latter up, but to drag the\nformer down. They are not on the same level; it is treason to our Master\nChrist to say that they are alike; the one is as much higher than the\nother as the heavens are higher than the earth.\n\nIt is here, then, in the simple veracious records that bring before us\nthe life of Christ, that we have the very Word of God. Whatever else the\nfour Gospels may or may not be, they certainly do contain the story of\nthe Life that has been for many centuries the light and the hope of the\nworld. It is the same unique Person who stands before us in every one of\nthese narratives,--\n\n  \"So meek, forgiving, godlike, high,\n   So glorious in humility.\"\n\nWhat fault has criticism to find with this Life? What word or deed is\nhere ascribed to him that is not worthy of him, that is not like him? Is\nit any wonder to us when we read this record through, that the guileless\nNathanael cried out as he communed with him, \"Rabbi, thou art the Son of\nGod, thou art the King of Israel.\"\n\nIf, then, the New Testament gives us the artless record of the life and\nwords of this divine Person, the Son of God and the Saviour of the\nworld; if it brings Him before us and manifests to us, so far as words\ncan do it, his power and his glory; if it shows us how, by bearing\nwitness to the truth in his life and in his death, he established in the\nworld the kingdom which for long ages had been preparing; if it makes\nknown to us the messages he brought of pardon and salvation; if it gives\nus the record of the planting and training of his church in the early\nages, is there any need that I should go about to praise and magnify its\nworth to the children of men? If light is worth anything to those who\nsit in darkness, or hope to those who are oppressed with tormenting\ndoubt; if wisdom is to be desired by those who are in perplexity, and\ncomfort by those who are in trouble, and peace by those whose hearts are\nfull of strife, and forgiveness by those who bear the burden of sin; if\nstrength is a good gift to the weak, and rest to the weary, and heaven\nto the dying, and the eternal life of God to the fainting soul of man,\nthen the book that tells us of Jesus Christ and his salvation is not to\nbe compared with any other book on earth for preciousness; it is the one\nbook that every one of us ought to know by heart.\n\nThe value of the Bible, the greatness of the Bible, are in this Life\nthat it discloses to us. \"It is upon Jesus,\" says a modern rationalist,\n\"that the whole Bible turns. In this lies the value, not only of the New\nTestament, a great part of which refers to him directly, but of the Old\nTestament as well.\" Rationalist though he is, no man could have stated\nthe truth more clearly. \"It is upon Jesus that the whole Bible turns.\"\nThe Old Testament shows us the way preparing by which the swift feet of\nthe messengers approach that tell us of his coming; the New Testament\nlifts the veil and bids us, Behold the man! The Bible is of value to us,\njust in proportion as it helps us to see him, to know him, to trust him.\nYou may have a cast-iron theory of inspiration with every joint riveted;\nyou may believe in the infallible accuracy of every vowel point and\nevery punctuation mark; but if the Bible does not bring you into a vital\nunion with Jesus Christ, so that you have his mind and follow in his\nfootsteps, it profiteth you nothing. And if, by your study of it, you\nare brought into this saving fellowship, your theories of inspiration\nwill take care of themselves.\n\nI fear that we do not always comprehend the fact that it is this divine\nLife shining out of its pages that makes the Bible glorious. We strain\nour eyes so much in verifying commas, and in trying to prove that the\ndot of a certain i is not a fly-speck, that we fail to get much\nimpression of the meaning or the beauty of the Saviour's life. See those\ntwo critics, with their eyes close to the wonderful \"Ecce Homo\" of\nCorreggio, disputing whether there is or is not a visible stitch in the\ngarment of Christ that ought to be seamless. How red their faces; how\nhot their words! Stand back a little, brothers! look away, for a moment,\nfrom the garment's seam; let the infinite pain and the infinite pity and\nthe infinite yearning of that Face dawn on you for a moment, and you\nwill cease your quarreling. So, not seldom, do the idolaters of the\nletter wholly miss the meaning of the sacred book, and remain in\nmournful ignorance of him who himself is the Word.\n\nThere are those to whom the view of the Bible presented in these\nchapters seems not only inadequate but destructive. \"If the Bible is not\ninfallible,\" they say, \"it is no more than any other book; we have no\nfurther use for it.\" In one of the leading church reviews I find these\nwords, the joint utterance of two eminent American theologians: \"A\nproved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine but the\nScripture's claims, and therefore its inspiration in making those\nclaims.\" [Footnote: _Presbyterian Review_, vol. ii. p. 245.] A\nproved error in Scripture stamps the book as fraudulent and worthless!\nWorthless it is then! Proved errors there are, scores of them. It is\nfatuity, it is imbecility, to deny it. And every man who can find an\nerror in these old writings has the warrant of these teachers for\nthrowing the book away. Tens of thousands of ingenuous and fair-minded\nmen have taken the word of such teachers, and have thrown the book away.\nMay God forgive the folly of these blind guides!\n\nBut what stupid reasoning is this! \"If the Bible is not infallible, it\nis worthless.\" Your watch is not infallible; is it therefore worthless?\nYour physician is not infallible; are his services therefore worthless?\nYour father is not infallible; are his counsels worthless? Will you say\nthat the moment you discover in him an error concerning any subject in\nheaven or on earth, that moment you will refuse to listen to his\ncounsel? The church of God is not infallible, and never was, whatever\ninfatuated ecclesiastics may have claimed for it; are its solemn\nservices and its inspiring labors and its uplifting fellowships\nworthless?\n\n\"A ship on a lee shore,\" says one, \"in the midst of a driving storm,\nthrows up signal rockets or fires a gun for a pilot. A white sail\nemerges from the mist; it is the pilot boat. A man climbs on board, and\nthe captain gives to him the command of the ship. All his orders are\nobeyed implicitly. The ship, laden with a precious cargo and hundreds of\nhuman lives, is confided to a rough-looking man whom no one ever saw\nbefore, who is to guide them through a narrow channel, where to vary a\nfew fathoms to the right or left will be utter destruction. The pilot is\ninvested with absolute authority as regards bringing the vessel into\nport.\" [Footnote: _Orthodoxy; its Truths and Errors_, by James\nFreeman Clarke, p. 114.] Is this because the man is infallible, because\nhe has never been detected in holding an erroneous opinion? Doubtless\nany of these intelligent passengers could find out, by half an hour's\nconversation with him, that his mind was full of crass ignorance and\nmisconception. And nobody supposes that he is infallible, even as a\npilot. He may make a mistake. What then? Will these passengers gather\naround the captain, and demand that he be ordered down from the bridge\nand thrown overboard if he disobeys? Will they say, \"A pilot who is not\non all subjects infallible is one whom we will not trust?\" No; they\nbelieve him to be, not omniscient, but competent and trustworthy, and a\ngreat burden is lifted from their hearts when they see him take command\nof the ship. On all other subjects besides religion, people are able to\nexercise their common sense; why can they not use a modicum of the same\ncommon sense when they come to deal with religious truth?\n\nIt is not true, as a matter of fact, that the Bible no longer has any\nvalue for those who have ceased to hold the traditional view of it. Not\nseldom, indeed, those who have been compelled by overwhelming evidence\nto relinquish the traditional view have been driven by the natural\nreaction against it to undervalue the Bible, and even to treat it with\ncontempt and bitterness; but even some of these have come back to it\nagain and have found in it, when they studied it with open mind, more\ntruth than they ever before had known. Let me cite an extreme case. I\ncould take you to a society of free-thinkers, consisting of people who\nhave long been outspoken in their rejection of all the doctrines of\nhistorical Christianity, many of whom formerly flouted the Bible as a\nbook of fables, but who are now studying it diligently week by week, in\nthe most sympathetic spirit. They do not now accept its supernaturalism;\nbut they believe that as a manual of conduct, as a guide to life, it\nexcels all other books. The young people of their Sunday-school are told\nthat the Bible is not like other books; that the men who wrote it knew\nmore about the human soul and its struggles and its aspirations after\ngood than any other men who ever lived; and they are besought to attend,\nmost carefully, to the lessons of life which this ancient book teaches.\nI should like to take some of our ultra orthodox friends, who are\npettishly crying out that the Bible, if not infallible, is good for\nnothing, and set them down for a Sunday or two in the midst of this\nfree-thinking Sunday-school; they might learn some things about its\nvalue that they never knew before.\n\nThis incident ought to be of service, also, to those who, having\ndiscovered that the Bible contains human elements, have rushed to the\nconclusion that it is no more than any other book, and who, although\nthey do not cast it from them, hold it off, at arm's length, as it were,\nand maintain toward it an attitude of critical superiority. Even these\nfree-thinkers treat it more fairly. They are learning to approach it\nwith open mind; they sit down before it with reverent expectancy. The\nBible has a right to this sympathetic treatment. It is not just like\nother books. Do not take my word for this; listen rather to the\ntestimony of one who was known, while he was alive, as the arch-heretic\nof New England:--\n\n\"This collection of books has taken such a hold on the world as no\nother. The literature of Greece, which goes up like incense from that\nland of temples and heroic deeds, has not half the influence of this\nbook, from a nation alike despised in ancient and in modern times. It is\nread of a Sabbath in all the ten thousand pulpits of our land. In all\nthe temples of religion is its voice lifted up week by week. The sun\nnever sets on its gleaming page. It goes equally to the cottage of the\nplain man and the palace of the king. It is woven into the literature of\nthe scholar, and colors the talk of the street. The bark of the merchant\ncannot sail the sea without it; no ships of war go to the conflict, but\nthe Bible is there. It enters men's closets; mingles in all their grief\nand cheerfulness of life. The affianced maiden prays God in Scripture\nfor strength in her new duties; men are married by Scripture. The Bible\nattends them in their sickness, when the fever of the world is on them.\nThe aching head finds a softer pillow when the Bible lies underneath.\nThe mariner escaping from shipwreck clutches this first of his treasures\nand keeps it sacred to God. It goes with the peddler in his crowded\npack; cheers him at eventide when he sits down dusty and fatigued;\nbrightens the freshness of his morning face. It blesses us when we are\nborn, gives names to half Christendom; rejoices with us; has sympathy\nfor our mourning; tempers our grief to finer issues. It is the better\npart of our sermons. It lifts man above himself; our best of uttered\nprayers are in its storied speech, wherewith our fathers and the\npatriarchs prayed. The timid man, about awaking from this dream of life,\nlooks through the glass of Scripture and his eye grows bright; he does\nnot fear to stand alone, to tread the way unknown and distant, to take\nthe death angel by the hand and bid farewell to wife and babes and home.\nMen rest on this their dearest hopes; it tells them of God and of his\nblessed Son, of earthly duties and of heavenly rest.\" [Footnote:\nTheodore Parker, _Discourses on Religion_.]\n\nThis is not mere rhetoric; it is simplest truth of human experience. How\nis it possible for any man to treat this book just as he would any other\nbook? He ought to come to its perusal with the expectation of finding in\nit wisdom and light and life. He must not stultify his reason and stifle\nhis moral sense when he reads it; he must keep his mind awake and his\nconscience active; but there is treasure here if he will search for it;\nsearch he must, yet the only right attitude before it is one of\nreverence and trust. Any man of ripe wisdom and high character, who has\nbeen known to you all your life, whose judgment you have verified, whose\ngoodness you have witnessed and experienced, commands your respectful\nattention the moment he begins to speak. You do not believe him to be\ninfallible, but you listen to what he says with trustfulness; you expect\nto find it true. To say that you listen to him as you do to every other\nman is not the fact; the posture of your mind in his presence is\ndifferent from that in which you stand before most other men. It ought\nto be. He has gained, by his probity, the power to speak to you with\nauthority. The Bible has gained the same power. You do not use it fairly\nwhen you use it as you do every other book.\n\nThere is the nation's flag proudly flying from the summit of the\nCapitol. It may be a banner that was borne upon the battlefield,\ndecorated now with well-mended rents, and with stains of carnage.\n\"Behold it!\" cries the idolater. \"It is absolutely faultless in\nperfection and beauty! There is not a blemish on its folds, there is not\nan imperfection in its web; every thread in warp and woof is flawless;\nevery seam is absolutely straight; every star is geometrically accurate;\nevery proportion is exact; the man who denies it is a traitor!\"\n\n\"Absurd!\" replies the iconoclast. \"See the holes and the stains; there\nis not one straight seam; there is not a star that is in perfect form;\nravel it, and you will find no thread in warp or woof that is flawless;\nnay, you may even discover shreds of shoddy mixed with the fine fibre.\nYour flag is nothing more than any other old piece of bunting, and if\nyou think it is, you are a fool.\"\n\nNay, good friends, you are both wrong. The blemishes are there; it would\nbe fanaticism to deny them; and he who says that no man can be loyal to\nthe nation who will not profess that this banner is immaculate is\nsetting up a fantastic standard of patriotism. But, on the other hand,\nthis flag is something more than any other old piece of bunting, and he\nwho thinks it something more is not a fool. It is the symbol of liberty;\nit is the emblem of sovereignty; it is the pledge of protection; it is\nthe sign and guarantee of justice and order and peace. What memories\ncluster round it, of dauntless heroism, and holy sacrifice, and noble\nconsecration! What hopes are gleaming from its stars and fluttering in\nits shining folds--hopes of a day when wars shall be no more and all\nmankind shall be one brotherhood! The man to whom the flag of his\ncountry is no more than any other piece of weather-beaten bunting is a\nman without a country.\n\nIs not my parable already interpreted? Are not the idolaters who make it\ntreason to disbelieve a single word of the Bible, and the iconoclasts\nwho treat it as nothing better than any other book, equally far from the\ntruth? Is it not the part of wisdom to use the book rationally, but\nreverently; to refrain from worshiping the letter, but to rejoice in the\ngifts of the Spirit which it proffers? The same divine influence which\nillumines and sanctifies its pages is waiting to enlighten our minds\nthat we may comprehend its words, and to prepare our hearts that we may\nreceive its messages. Some things hard to understand are here, but the\nSpirit of truth can make plain to us all that we need to know. No man\nwisely opens the book who does not first lift up his heart for help to\nfind in it the way of life, and to him who studies it in this spirit it\nwill show the salvation of God.","title":"Who Wrote the Bible? : a Book for the People","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":94109}