Part 2

Again, the new exegesis had to consider results in other departments of study, _e. g._, the Lower and the Higher Criticism. Something had been done in the Lower Criticism, or the discussion in detail of the text of the Sacred Books; but here the changes were comparatively unimportant; and even now our knowledge of this subject is very inadequate from the point of view of scholarship, though the text is determined with an accuracy sufficient for practical purposes. It was very different, however, in what is known as the Higher Criticism, _i. e._, the discussion of the date, authorship, and composition of the books of the Old Testament. Higher critics of one school, following those of former generations, were inclined, for the most part, to assign the books as they stood to the authors whose names were given as their titles. For instance the whole of the Pentateuch, with the exception of Deuteronomy, xxxiv, 5-8, was ascribed to Moses; the whole of _Isaiah_ to the prophet of the time of Hezekiah; and all the Davidic Psalms to David. But for about a century this subject had been studied from another point of view, by a school of critics who were inclined to neglect tradition, and to take for their motto "Prove all things." The principles of this school are clearly and eloquently set forth in the following quotation from Prof. Sayce;[2] the passage refers to the sacred books of Babylonia, but the principles are of universal application.

[2] The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p. 258.

"Before we can understand it (a collection of sacred books) properly, we must separate the elements of which it consists, and assign to each its chronological position.

"The very fact, however, that religious texts are usually of immemorial antiquity, and that changes inevitably pass over them as they are handed down in successive editions, makes such a task peculiarly difficult. Nevertheless it is a task which must be undertaken before we have the right to draw a conclusion from the texts with which we deal. We must first know whether ... they are composite or the products of a single author and epoch; whether, lastly, they have been glossed and interpolated, and their primitive meaning transformed. We must have a chronology for our documents ... and beware ... of interpreting the creations of one age as if they were the creations of another."

The application of these principles to the Hebrew Scriptures has had startling results. If two tables were compiled showing the date and authorship of the various books, one according to the traditional school of higher criticism,[3] the other according to the school with which we are now dealing,[4] the two would present a marked contrast to each other. The new school would hold, for instance, that the bulk of the Pentateuch is not in its present form the work of Moses; that the last twenty-seven chapters of our Book of Isaiah were not composed by that prophet; and that very few of the Davidic Psalms were really written by David. At the time when the first volumes of the Expositor's Bible were published this school had become large and influential; and public attention had been called to their teaching by the attacks on Prof. W. Robertson Smith, one of their leading representatives. The new criticism affected not only purely literary questions but also the views to be taken of the history and religion of Israel. The history before Saul, it was maintained, was not so fully and definitely known as had been supposed; and the religion of Israel had developed, under the influence of Revelation, from a primitive faith which had much in common with that of other Semitic peoples. Here again we can illustrate the alleged results of the new criticism by a passage from Prof. Sayce: "It is to Babylonia, therefore, that we must look for the origin of those views of the future world and of the punishment of sin[5] which have left so deep an impression on the pages of the Old Testament.... They were views from which the Israelite was long in emancipating himself. The inner history of the Old Testament is, in fact, in large measure a history of the gradual widening of the religious consciousness of Israel in regard to them and their suppression by a higher and more spiritual form of faith."[6]

[3] As represented for instance by the earlier editions of Dr. Angus's Bible Handbook, or by Keil's O. T. Introduction.

[4] As represented by Driver's Introduction.

[5] The belief in a dim, shadowy existence in Sheol, the Semitic Hades; and the belief in exact retribution for sin and reward for virtue in the present life.

[6] Religion of Egyptians, etc., p. 296.

In the Expositor's Bible both the old and the new schools of criticism are represented. Thus a great opportunity was offered to critics; and a crucial experiment was tried which was of the utmost importance to all Christian Churches. When the books of the Old Testament were read in the light of the new criticism, would it still be possible to derive from them a consistent and reasonable account of the history and religion of Israel; would they still stimulate and nourish Christians' faith, piety, and devotion, and minister to the needs of the spiritual life? The volumes of this series written by representatives of the new school of criticism have enabled us, it is claimed, to answer this question with an emphatic affirmative. For the general public the first volume of Prof. Geo. Adam Smith's _Isaiah_ was an epoch-making book, revealing undreamed-of possibilities in the way of fresh light breaking forth from the ancient Scriptures. _The British Weekly_ wrote of this work, "Isaiah is for the first time made perfectly intelligible to the people.... Mr. Smith has opened out a new line of work ... which will do more than many arguments to reconcile a timorous and misguided public to scientific scholarship and the newer criticism."

Another modern tendency which influences the interpretation of the Old Testament is the decay of ecclesiastical authority. There are still, and always will be, those who are willing to believe anything on the bare word of their favorite preacher. But in the long run this kind of faith does not count. On the other hand there are many, religious or capable of religion, to whom it would seem absurd to suggest that the decrees of Churches had any great value in matters of faith. As regards the Old Testament, for instance, neither the creeds of ancient councils nor the resolutions of modern synods, neither papal bulls nor episcopal edicts could seriously affect the attitude of such men to, say, _Canticles_, _Ecclesiastes_ and _Esther_. The testimony of the Church Universal--of which creeds, confessions, and other standards are the least important part--induces inquirers to read the Bible. But in religion, an authority is only effective by its own inherent force; it must be able to assert itself so as to win sympathy, to produce conviction, and to secure obedience. A distinguished Cambridge scholar is in the habit of saying, when he is asked how he "takes" a passage, that he does not take the passage, but the passage takes him. So the great sayings, discourses, and narratives of the Old Testament take hold of their readers and compel acknowledgment of the authority of Revelation. The best we can do for the Bible is to let it speak for itself; the only essential doctrine of Scripture is that it is the duty and privilege of every man to read it, and to read intelligently, taking advantage of all the light afforded by history, archæology and criticism. The great object of the Expositor's Bible has been just this--to let the Bible speak for itself.

III.--RECENT RELIGIOUS LITERATURE--GENERAL.

Criticism has powerfully stimulated public interest in the Bible, and the wealth of new information and new ideas has produced an extensive popular literature on the Sacred Scriptures. The traditional etiquette which demanded that the Bible should be marked off from all other books by its sombre binding and its arrangement in chapters and verses has been rudely set aside. Almost every possible variety of editions have been published of late years--Bibles of every shape and size, from the portly quarto for the lectern to the dainty series of duodecimo volumes for the pocket; Bibles with and without notes or illustrations; Bibles treated as classic literature; Bibles bound in cheerful colors with æsthetic tooling. It has become possible to read the Scriptures in a railway train without being guilty of pharasaic ostentation. At the same time there has been a deluge of "Helps," "Companions," "Teachers' Notes," etc., etc., intended to supply the latest information in popular, but sometimes a little misleading as to the critical results of modern, Biblical study.

But the most important feature of recent literature for ordinary Bible students is the publication of standard works of reference in which the real results of modern research are made accessible. For nearly thirty years Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, in its English and American editions, rendered invaluable service; and a revision of this work was published some time since. But just recently two entirely new Bible Dictionaries have been published in which British, American, Dutch, German and Swiss scholars of all the Evangelical Churches, together with one or two learned Jews, co-operate.

Dr. Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_[7] represents the more conservative position, while somewhat more advanced views find expression in the _Encyclopædia Biblica_,[8] edited by Prof. Cheyne and Dr. J. Sutherland Black.

[7] T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. Four Volumes, with a fifth supplementary volume.

[8] A. & C. Black. Four Volumes.

In all this literary activity, the various Bible Societies have taken an important part; chiefly through their instrumentality the Bible in whole or in part has been translated into over 400 languages, and probably since the invention of printing about 300,000,000 copies of the Scriptures or of portions have been put into circulation. An important feature in this work is the decision of the _British and Foreign Bible Society_ to circulate the Revised Version--a step all the more significant as it followed shortly after the publication of the American edition of the Revised Version, and the vote of the Anglican Convocation approving of the reading of the new translation in the services of the English Established Church.

The last fifteen or twenty years have seen a great growth of religious journalism. Popular periodicals have multiplied; and several important theological reviews have been started in England and America, notably the _Critical Review_, the _Hibbert Journal_, and the _American Journal of Theology_.

IV.---THE PROGRESS OF ARCHÆOLOGY.

The years since the publication of our series began, in 1887, have witnessed marked progress in the study of the Old Testament, of which we propose to give a brief sketch, beginning with the Archæology, _i. e._, chiefly the results of excavations in Egypt, and in Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, and Arabia. The last fifteen years have made immense additions to the known facts which have a bearing on the history and religion of Israel, and the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Assiduous exploration is continually pushing back our knowledge of the ancient East to a more and more remote antiquity, so that already we discern the dim outlines of history in what we have been wont to call prehistoric times. We seem to know something of life in Egypt in B. C. 7000 or it may be even B. C. 10,000. At the same time our knowledge of later periods is continually increasing, though comparatively little is found that directly and explicitly either confirms or contradicts the Old Testament. Perhaps the most relevant amongst recent discoveries is an inscription of Meneptah II. This king is often spoken of in popular handbooks as the "Pharaoh of the Exodus," and his father and predecessor Rameses II is referred to as the "Pharaoh of the Oppression." But in this newly found inscription Meneptah claims to have subdued Israelites in Syria.

But the most striking amongst recent discoveries is the collection known as the _Tell el'Amarna Tablets_, found at Amarna in the Nile Valley in 1887. They form a connecting link between Egyptology and Assyriology, and bring forth their relation with Palestine. For, though they are part of the archives of the Foreign Office of Amenophis IV, B. C. 1400, they are, for the most part, written in the cuneiform Babylonian, and consist of despatches to the Pharaohs from Babylonian, Hittite, and other Eastern kings, and from the Egyptian officials, and tributaries in Palestine, and the rest of Syria. These letters throw a flood of light on the condition of Western Asia. We see, for instance, that at that time Palestine and Phoenicia were provinces of the Egyptian Empire.

It is also maintained by many scholars that certain invaders of Palestine, the _Habiri_, who figure largely in these letters, are the Hebrews, although the period is at least a century earlier than the time of the so-called "Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus."

In Palestine, at Lachish and Gezer, the explorers have unearthed the remains of the successive races which one after another ruled in the land.

In Babylonia, there has been quite recently a great "find" of the laws, official letters and other documents of Hammurabi, B. C. 2300, usually identified with the Amraphel of Genesis XIV, the contemporary of Abraham. These and other discoveries have led Paul Haupt, Winckler, Sayce, Fried. Delitzsch and other scholars to attribute to Babylon a predominant influence, social, political, and religious in the ancient East. Hence Fried. Delitzsch's famous lectures before the German Emperor, in which that distinguished Assyriologist treated the religion of Israel almost as an inferior offshoot from that of Babylon, and initiated a controversy which is still raging. These discoveries are so frequent and so extensive that there is little encouragement to anyone to attempt to write an adequate and comprehensive account of them. However complete it might be when written, fresh discoveries would probably come to hand even before it was published, and it would rapidly become more and more out of date. Nevertheless a full statement up to certain dates may be found in the works of the scholars mentioned above and others such as Hommel, Jastrow, Jensen, Budge, Zimmern, Flinders Petrie, etc.; in the proceedings and transactions of the various American, English, French, and German Exploration Societies; in the most recent commentaries and works on the History and Religion of Israel.

What is specially known in Germany as Archæology, viz., the study of manners and customs, has been brought up to date in two standard German works by Nowack and Benzinger, respectively.

We may briefly refer here to the rapid development in recent times of the science of Comparative Religion, to which amongst others, Prof. C. H. Toy, of Harvard, has rendered important services. A marked feature has been the tendency to emphasize the legends and ritual of savage tribes, and their survivals in the literature and services of more advanced religions. Attempts are made to ascertain from such data how religions in general, and any given religion in particular, have developed; and thus lay down principles by which to interpret the available information in any special case. In reference to this branch of learning Prof. Morris Jastrow of the University of Pennsylvania writes thus[9]: "J. G. Frazer's great work more particularly, _The Golden Bough_, marks an epoch in the study of religious rites."

[9] The Study of Religion, p. 51.

V.--PROGRESS IN PHILOLOGY, ETC.

Many important additions have recently been made to the student's apparatus for the linguistic and textual study of the Old Testament. Numerous grammars, reading-books and lexicons of Assyrian and other Semitic languages have been published. In Hebrew itself a standard grammar has been provided by the translation of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth editions Gesenius revised by Kautzsch. Dr. Solomon Mandelkern has published a new Concordance to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. A new standard edition of Gesenius Lexicon by Profs. Brown, Driver, and Briggs is being issued by the Clarendon Press.

Biblical Hebrew has also had light thrown on it by the discovery of the original Hebrew text of large portions of _Ecclesiasticus_. It was indeed maintained by Margoliouth that the documents discovered were a retranslation into Hebrew from Greek and other versions; but, after much controversy, the verdict of scholarship is in favor of the originality of the Hebrew text in these documents.

As regards the Septuagint: Prof. Swete has edited a small edition in three volumes with the readings of the most important manuscripts, together with a fourth volume containing the Introduction. A large edition which will give the same text[10] "with an ample _apparatus criticus_ intended to provide material for a critical determination of the text," is being prepared. Messrs. Hatch and Redpath have compiled a new Concordance to the Septuagint; but a modern grammar and lexicon are still "felt wants."

[10] That of the "Vatican MS.," with its lacunæ supplied from the uncial MS. which occupies the next place in point of age and importance.

VI.--RECENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS.

The progress of Biblical knowledge has necessitated the publication of new series of commentaries. In English there is the International Critical Commentary;[11] and some of the later volumes of the Cambridge Bible, _e. g._, Prof. Driver's _Daniel_, are rather first-class commentaries for scholars than elementary works for general readers. In German there are Prof. Nowack's _Handkommentar zum Alten Testament_;[12] Prof. Karl Marti's _Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament_,[13] and the Old Testament sections of Profs. Strack and Zöckler's _Kurzgefaszter Kommentar_.[14] Later on reference will be made to some volumes of these series.

[11] T. & T. Clark. _Judges_ by Prof. G. F. Moore, _Samuel_ by Prof. H. P. Smith, etc., etc., only four or five O. T. volumes published as yet.

[12] Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen. _Job_ by Prof. Budde, _Psalms_ by Prof. Baethgen, _Ezra_, etc., etc., by Prof. Siegfried, etc.

[13] J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Freiburg, i. B. _Genesis_ by Holzinger, _Ezekiel_ by Bertholet, _Proverbs_ by Wildeboer, etc., etc.

[14] Oskar Beck, Munich, Orelli on _Isaiah_ and _Jeremiah_, etc., etc.

In addition to the above works, there are others specially intended to show how criticism has divided up the books of the Old Testament into the various older documents from which they are believed to have been compiled. This analysis is shown in the German translation edited by Kautzsch by means of initials in the margin; Dr. Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Testament_ (Hebrew text) and _Polychrome Bible_,[15] by means of colored backgrounds on which the text is printed; and in the _Oxford Society of Historical Theology_; _The Hexateuch_[16] by means of parallel columns. The introduction to the last named work is the most complete popular statement of the grounds for the modern theory of the Pentateuch. Technical details and a formal contrast of the arguments for and against this theory may be found in the discussion between Profs. W. R. Harper and W. H. Green in _Hebraica_, 1888-90. Numerous Introductions to the Old Testament have expounded the current critical views, notably for English and American readers the successive editions of Prof. Driver's _Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_.

[15] _Genesis_ by C. J. Ball; _Numbers_ by Prof. J. A. Paterson (Edinburgh), etc., etc.

[16] Edited by J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford Battersby.

Naturally these various works represent not merely the position of criticism and exegesis twenty years ago, but also the progress made since then. As regards the Historical Books critics have chiefly been engaged in the application of modern methods and principles which are now very generally accepted. Development has taken place in three directions. First, much labor has been given to the more exact distribution of the contents of the _Hexateuch_ between the main documents used by its compilers, _e. g._, Prof. B. W. Bacon's analysis of _Exodus_. Secondly, attempts have been made to divide up these main documents into still older documents from which they have been compiled. Steuernagel, for instance, regards _Deuteronomy_ as a mosaic of paragraphs and clauses from earlier codes, and finds a criterion between different sources in the use, respectively, of the singular or the plural form of address. So far his views have not met with much acceptance.[17] Thirdly, the theory has been very widely advocated that the historical books of _Judges-I Kings_ are partly compiled from the documents used by the editors of the Hexateuch.[18] Gunkel's commentary on _Genesis_[19] is of special importance; it pleads for a fuller recognition of the indebtedness of Israel to the religions of its neighbors, and maintains that, as the stories of the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood were derived from Babylon, so the Patriarchal narratives were mostly borrowed from the Canaanites after the settlement of Israel in Palestine. The account of Joseph, however, is largely taken from Egyptian sources.

[17] For other examples of the analysis of the main documents into earlier works, see Gunkel's _Genesis_, the Polychrome _Genesis_, _Joshua_, and Prof. H. G. Mitchell's _World Before Abraham_, etc., etc.

[18] See the Polychrome _Judges_ and _Samuel_.

[19] German.

As regards the Prophetical Books, there is little of general interest to record; the composite authorship of Isaiah XL-LXVI is more widely held.

When we come to the _Hagiographa_, or third or closing section of the Hebrew Canon, _Esther_ has been the subject of interesting speculations. Chiefly because Mordecai and Esther are the names of the Babylonian gods Merodach and Ishtar, it has been suggested that the book is based on a Babylonian myth which the Jews appropriated and adapted, as in earlier days, according to Gunkel, they made use of the legends of the Canaanites.

The origin and history of the _Psalms_ is still made the ground of much controversy, and the tendency of criticism is to deny the existence of any Pre-exilic Psalms;[20] and to assign a large number to the Maccabean period. It is even held[21] that, in the time of the Maccabees, the Psalm was the organ of political invective, and played the part of the leading article in a modern newspaper.

[20] _E. g._, Cheyne.

[21] Duhm.

In connection with _Canticles_ a theory put forward some time since has been revived in an emended form, and with a fuller discussion of the evidence.[22] This view is that "the book is a collection of songs, connected with a Syrian custom, called the 'King's Week.' During the first week after marriage the bride and bridegroom play at being king and queen, and are addressed as such by a mock court, in a series of songs similar to those of _Canticles_. Thus _Canticles_ would contain a specimen of the cycle of songs used at a seven days' village feast in honor of a peasant bride and bridegroom, the latter being addressed as 'Solomon,' the type of a splendid and powerful king."[23]

[22] Mainly by Budde, in the _New World_, 1894.

[23] _Biblical Introduction_, Bennett and Adeney, p. 169.

VII.--THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND ITS RELIGION.