Part 3
Many works have appeared expounding these subjects in the light of modern criticism.[24] Here again recent work has largely been a development on lines already laid down.[25] Much attention has been given to the hints furnished by the Pentateuch as to the early history of Israel, and these have been compared with recent discoveries from the monuments. Many scholars[26] maintain that the Twelve Tribes of later history represent groups of ancient nomadic clans who wandered in Western Asia long before the time of Moses; that only a section of these groups went down into Egypt and escaped with Moses, and that these invaded Canaan at one period, while other kindred clans reinforced them at a later time. Israel and the Twelve Tribes, as we know them, arose in Palestine after the conquest, by the subdivision and regrouping of the invading clans, and their combination with the Canaanites.
[24] For instance, in English or translated into English, Histories of Israel by Cornill, Kittel, and Wellhausen, Prof. J. F. McCurdy's _History, Prophecy, and the Monuments_, etc. O. T. Theologies by Piepenbring, Duff, etc.; and in German Smend's Textbook of the History of O. T. Religion, and the latest edition of Marti's revision of Kayser's O. T. Theology; G. A. Smith's _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_.
[25] Cf. above, p. 19.
[26] _E. g._, Steuernagel in his Immigration of the Israelites into Palestine.
Cheyne and Winckler have lately advocated theories which almost revolutionize the history of Israel. The grounds of these theories are largely as follows: The cuneiform inscriptions mention a kingdom of _Musri_ in Northwestern Arabia. For this reason, and for various technical considerations of textual and historical criticism, it is proposed in many passages to substitute _Musri_ for Egypt, _Geshur_ for Assyria (Asshur) and to restore very numerous references to _Jerahmeel_--according to our present text an obscure tribe to the south of Palestine.[27] With such alternatives and resources at the critic's disposal, history would seem to become anything that a taste or fancy may dictate; so far these views[28] have not met with much acceptance. In the later history the more recent developments are chiefly concerned with the interval between the Return and the Maccabees. Some time since Prof. Kosters denied that the account of the Return in _Ezra_ was historical. According to him there was no Return in 538 B. C., and the Temple was rebuilt by the remnant of Jews left behind in Judea at the time of the Captivity. Kosters has had many followers and many adverse critics, but opinion inclines to accept the substantial historicity of the account of the Return.[29] It is also maintained that various sections of _Ezra-Nehemiah_ do not stand in correct chronological order, and that the first mission of Nehemiah preceded that of Ezra. Another interesting discussion has arisen in connection with Zerubbabel, Haggai, and Zechariah.[30] Zerubbabel is supposed, at the instigation of Haggai and Zechariah, to have declared Judah independent of Persia, and to have ascended the throne as the promised Messiah. He was promptly crushed and put to death by the Persian government, and--according to this view--he is the "Servant of Jehovah" whose fate is described in Isaiah LIII. There may be a measure of truth in all this, but these views are not likely to be adopted in their entirety.
[27] Only mentioned I Samuel xxvii. 10, xxx. 29 and I Chron. ii. 9-42.
[28] See Cheyne's _Critica Biblica_, and his articles in the _Encyclopædia Biblica_.
[29] See discussion in G. A. Smith's _Book of the Twelve Prophets_ (Expositor's Bible).
[30] See Sellin, _Serubbabel_, etc.
Another important suggestion as to the history of Israel after the Exile comes from Prof. Cheyne, following to some extent in the footsteps of Robertson Smith and earlier scholars. It is that the Jews took part in the great rebellion against Artaxerxes III, Ochus _circa_ B. C. 350; that their rising was caused by religious enthusiasm, and led to the desecration of the Temple. This calamity is supposed to have been the occasion of the composition of certain Psalms and other passages,[31] which most scholars either connect with the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar or refer to the Maccabean period.
[31] Especially Psalms XLIV, LXXIV, and LXXIX.
The progress of the historical study of Old Testament Theology is hindered by the lack of agreement, even amongst scholars of the modern school, as to the date of many important passages. It is impossible to write certainly as to the teaching, for instance, of Isaiah and Amos, or as to the stages of development of the Religion of Israel while authorities of the first rank are divided as to whether the Messianic sections in Isaiah and the monotheistic verses in Amos were composed by those prophets, or are post-exilic additions. Moreover there is no immediate prospect of a settlement of these questions, for the data are meagre and ambiguous, and the grounds on which individual writers arrive at decisions are largely subjective.
Nevertheless a great deal is clear and certain; and even where dates are doubtful, much of the teaching is independent of chronology. Within these limits the _Expositor's Bible_ and other works have done much to bring popular theology into line with the results of larger knowledge and fresh research and discussion. This process has now reached a point which may enable us to say with the Bishop of Winchester,[32] "The period of transition, the period of anxious suspense of judgment, is drawing to a close. It is seen and felt that the interpretation of Holy Scripture is not less literal, not less spiritual, not less in conformity with the pattern which the Divine Teacher gave, when it is rendered more true to history by the fiery tests of criticism and literary analysis."
[32] Dr. H. E. Ryle, in his _Early Narratives of Genesis_, published when he was Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, p. IX.
VIII.--CONCLUSION.
This brief survey has necessarily been occupied for the most part with the developments of recent research. But in these years as in previous periods the Old Testament has been the subject of much searching, preaching and writing which has taken little or no account of changes in criticism, or, indeed, of any criticism at all; but have taken the narratives as they found them, and, as far as authorship has been concerned, have made the assumptions which seemed easiest and most edifying. Such work, too, is most valuable. The spiritual life which speaks to us through the Hebrew Scriptures is so full of energy, variety, and truth that even the simplest methods of treatment yield great results. These results, moreover, have sometimes a special quality which is absent from more studious exposition. Even after many centuries the inspired books are like rich virgin soil which yield a harvest even to the crudest methods of cultivation. Thus the scribes of our day, instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven, are still bringing out of their treasures things new and old; and both alike minister to the coming of the Kingdom, both the new and the old, both the influence of ancient association and venerable tradition, and the new life and power and hope that spring to birth in dawning light of a new day of the Lord.
"At last, but yet the night had memories Sad in their sweetness, noble in their pain, Which, looking backward half regretfully In longing day-dreams oft we live again. At last, but this new day, that slowly dawns, Shall satisfy with its meridian fires Alike the longing born of fond regret And deeper yearnings that our hope inspires."
That the Old Testament will still hold its place of power in any new dispensation is guaranteed by its significance for Christ and His Gospel. As Prof. G. A. Smith has said in a work which states the religious position in the light of recent Biblical study,[33] Christ accepted the history recorded in the Old Testament "as the preparation for Himself, and taught His disciples to find Him in it. He used it to justify His mission and to illuminate the mystery of His Cross.... Above all, He fed His own soul with its contents, and in the great crises of His life sustained Himself upon it as upon the living and sovereign Word of God. These are the highest external proofs--if indeed we can call them external--for the abiding validity of the Old Testament in the life and doctrine of Christ's Church. What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed."
W. H. BENNETT.
[33] Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 11.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
NEW TESTAMENT
BY WALTER F. ADENEY, M. A.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Lancashire College, Manchester
I.--CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPOSITION
When we pass from the volumes of the Expositor's Bible that deal with the Old Testament to those which expound the books of the New Testament we discover less departure from the traditional attitude. And yet a very little knowledge of the enormous amount of research which has been prosecuted during recent years in the fruitful field of primitive Christian literature and its surrounding scenes must convince us that here also was a clamorous call for a fresh treatment of the whole subject. It is much to have the books taken one by one and treated each as a distinct entity; in this way we are led on to perceive that richer harmony of the various apostolic notes which means so much more than the unison of the older methods: First, instead of the familiar treatment of minute phrases commonly known as "text," we have the wider survey and broader handling of the arguments of the books, which to those who have not been accustomed to it appears as a revelation, so that these books become new things to them. Then we have that individual treatment, that temporary isolation of the books, which enables us to understand their limitations as well as the amplitude of their contents. Lastly, we come to see the specific teaching of the several New Testament writers, so that we can no longer confuse the distinctive message of the author of _Hebrews_ with that of St. Paul, or confound the ideas of St. Peter with those of St. James.
II.--TEXT AND TRANSLATION
The Expositor's Bible is based upon a more accurate text and more exact renderings of the New Testament than were available for previous works of exposition. The discovery of one of the two oldest known manuscripts at the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, in the middle of the nineteenth century, is only one, though perhaps the greatest, of the steps in advance towards obtaining a correct Greek Testament which have been taken during the last hundred years. The immense labors of Tischendorf in the collation of manuscripts and readings from the Fathers, following the earlier work of Mill, Griesbach and others, but with a much richer mine of materials to draw upon, laid a foundation on which later experts have been laboring with the aim of producing the purest possible text.[34] Westcott and Hort went further in working out a scientific theory with canons of interpretation which at first appeared to sweep the field and claim almost universal assent.[35] More recently, however, it has been felt that these scholars were tempted to rely too much on one or two old manuscripts--chiefly, indeed, on a single manuscript, the Vatican, and to treat too contemptuously the claims of what is known as the "Western Text," represented among other authorities by the great Cambridge MS., the _Codex Bezae_. Accordingly their text cannot be regarded as final.[36] Meanwhile perhaps the soundest working Greek Testament is that edited by Nestlè for the "British and Foreign Bible Society," which strikes the mean of several critical editions. The more accurate text has been accompanied by more correct translations, of which the most conspicuous are the English and American Revised Versions. This may be described as substantially one and the same revision of the so-called "Authorized Version"; but there are several emendations of the American revisers which were not accepted by their more conservative English coadjutors, although in nearly every case they must be allowed to be improvements both as regards scholarship and also in lucidity. Since the Revised Version appeared several completely new translations of the New Testament into modern English have been published.[37]
[34] See Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum Græce_, 8th edit.
[35] See Hort, _Introduction to Westcott and Hort's N.T._
[36] See Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_; Nestlè, _Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament_; Kenyon, _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_.
[37] See especially Weymouth, _The New Testament in Modern English_; Moffatt, _The Historical New Testament_; _The Twentieth Century New Testament_.
III.--RECENT CRITICISM
The most remarkable characteristic of the latest Biblical criticism is the application to the New Testament of those disintegrating processes with the results of which on Old Testament studies we have long been familiar. This, however, is by no means so alarming as the claims of the more radical critics might suggest. It is true that some scholars carry their destructive criticism to an extreme--for instance, Schmiedel with the gospels, refusing to allow full assurance for the authenticity of more than five of our Lord's sayings, and Van Manen with the epistles, repudiating the authenticity of all those ascribed to St. Paul.[38] But these critics stand almost alone; at all events they do not represent anything like the normal position of New Testament scholarship. The accident of their prominence in one of the great Bible dictionaries, which is simply due to editorial sympathies, must not disguise the fact of their eccentricity. Nothing is more remarkable in recent criticism than the fact that while the more conservative of the two new dictionaries[39] accepts the main critical position of advanced scholarship with regard to the Old Testament, it differs _toto coelo_[40] from its rival in its treatment of the New Testament. In these respects it fairly corresponds to the position taken up by most of the writers of the Expositor's Bible.
[38] See _Encyclopædia Biblica_; also Cheyne, _Bible Problems_.
[39] Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_.
[40] The _Encyclopædia Biblica_.
A remarkable approach towards unanimity is to be seen in the views of scholars of various types with reference to what is known as the "synoptic problem," the problem of the origin of our first three gospels occasioned by the perplexing phenomena of their frequent close resemblance and signally frequent striking divergence. Fifty years ago opinions about this question were in a perfectly chaotic condition; indeed, there were about as many opinions as the highest possible arithmetical variation in the mutual relations of the gospels would permit. Some put Matthew first, some Mark, some Luke; and all conceivable theories as to their relation one to another, the use of earlier documents, and the degree of reliance on tradition or on written sources to be detected in their authors found eager advocates. But gradually the turbid waters settled and certain definite, generally accepted ideas were crystallized. In the present day it is almost universally agreed that _Mark_ was written by the man whose name it bears, although when Pfleiderer gave his adhesion to this view such a confession from one who was regarded as a leader of the "left wing" of criticism occasioned some surprise.[41] Further, it is the generally accepted opinion that the bulk of the narrative portion of Matthew--the chief exceptions being the Infancy and Resurrection narrative--is based on Mark, and that the same is true to a considerable extent with regard to _Luke_. There has been much discussion as to whether St. Mark's gospel has undergone revision. But the ripest results of study on this subject are represented by the conclusions of Dr. Abbott who has shown that our _Mark_ is really the earlier edition of the gospel which in a later and slightly modified form, its ruggedness being smoothed, was used in the construction of _Matthew_ and _Luke_. In the second place, it is very generally admitted that the discourses in _Matthew_, which are inserted in five blocks of sayings, like five wedges driven into the narrative as that stands in _Mark_, are the contents of a work consisting of the "oracles," or "sacred sayings," of Jesus which a very ancient church writer, Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, tells us that Matthew compiled.[42] Thus we get two of our gospels well authenticated, _Mark_ being admitted to be the work of the man to whom it is ascribed and _Matthew_ being acknowledged as in the main a combination of St. Matthew the Apostle's collection of the teachings of Jesus with the standard narrative in _Mark_. The infancy and resurrection narratives must have been derived from other primitive authorities.
[41] See Pfleiderer, _Urchristentum_, First Edition (1887).
[42] It is interesting to observe that, as Eusebius informs us, Papias's commentary on the _Logia_, or "Oracles of the Lord," was composed in five books. These might correspond to the five sections of the teachings of Jesus in our _Matthew_.
The case of our third gospel is somewhat different. As we might expect from his preface, St. Luke has availed himself of a wider range of materials. But he too, like the author of our first gospel, is now admitted to have used _Mark_ as his primary basis, though not to so great extent, or so almost exclusively. In particular in that rich section which is commonly, though perhaps erroneously, ascribed to our Lord s Peræan ministry, he has a store of precious materials that are not met with in any other gospels. Similarly, while some verbal coincidences lead us to the conclusion that he also used St. Matthew's collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is evident that he had other collections of our Lord's teachings, from which, for instance, he got the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Good Samaritan, and many other choice utterances the characteristic beauty and originality of which constitute their own authentication.
Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we see that this wonderful book has been subjected to the most searching criticism during recent years with very interesting results. Half a century ago Baur declared that it could not have been written before the Year A. D. 160. Since then the finding of primitive Christian Documents[43] which bear testimony to the use of this gospel in earlier times, together with the proofs of its archaic character brought out by a comparison of its contents with second-century literature, has forced the date of its origin steadily back and yet further back, till the latest possible date that can be assigned to it is quite early in the second century. But more than this, there is a growing tendency to connect this gospel with the son of Zebedee. Some scholars[44] would assign the actual writing of the book to another person, perhaps John the Elder; but then they allow that this somewhat shadowy personage, referred to by Papias as a contemporary of the Apostles, derived his information from the Beloved Disciple. One leading scholar[45] holds that the teachings of Jesus in our Fourth Gospel came from the Apostle John, while he thinks that most of the narrative portions are due to another hand. But in one of the latest works on the subject, Dr. Drummond ascribes the whole book to the Apostle and meets the adverse views of recent criticism with masterly replies. Even if the final verdict should be to ascribe the literary form of the work to John the Elder or some unknown scholar at Ephesus, the growing consensus of opinion is toward assigning the substance of it to St. John himself.
[43] Especially Hipollytus _The Refutation of All Heresies_, and Tatian's _Diatessaron_.
[44] _E. g._, Harnach, McGiffert.
[45] Wendt.
The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment of the _Acts of the Apostles_. The "Tübingen School," represented in this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St. Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism. That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the primitive character of the first half--especially as illustrated by the speeches of St. Peter and others,[46] and later by the collection of many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book, namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay--the greatest living authority on the antiquities and history of Asia Minor in the first century--that many local and contemporary facts have been brought to light confirmatory of the accuracy of St. Luke as a historian.[47]
[46] See Lechler, _Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times_.
[47] See Ramsay, _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman citizen_.
With regard to St. Paul's epistles the case stands thus: A few extremists reject them all, partly on the ground of their supposed inconsistency with the _Acts_--thus reversing Zeller's argument, but mainly because of the advanced condition of Christian experience which they illustrate, as though the pace of spiritual development in the white heat of the greatest religious "revival" the world has ever seen could be measured by the ideas of a Dutch professor in his chill lecture room! But the mass of critical opinion--British, German, and American--is tending toward a wider recognition of the genuineness of these writings than was allowed a generation ago. Baur's admittedly authentic group of four, which has been called "the great quadrilateral of Christianity," still stands--viz., _1 and 2 Corinthians_, _Galatians_ and _Romans_. Next come _Philippians_ and _I Thessalonians_ now accepted as virtually beyond question. Then _Colossians_ has been vindicated in schools of severe criticism.[48] If _Colossians_ is allowed, there can be no doubt as to receiving its companion epistle, the beautiful little letter to Philemon. There are still many who are unable to admit _2 Thessalonians_, chiefly because of its apocalyptic contents. But of late years it has been shown that the primitive church was possessed with the hope of the coming of Christ in glory to a remarkable extent, as a perfectly dominating idea. There remains _Ephesians_ as now the most questioned of all the epistles that bear the name of St. Paul, except the Pastorals. But when it is seen that one of the chief objections to it is that it is said to be "a _weak_" (!) imitation of _Colossians_ we may be allowed to regard this judgment as a matter of personal taste rather than a decision of objective criticism. Luther does not stand alone in holding this epistle to be one of the choicest books of the New Testament.
[48] By Von Soden and Jülicher, although some interpolations are allowed. Even Pfleiderer admitted that it contained fragments of St. Paul's genuine writings, after Hilgenfeld had followed his leader Baur in rejecting it altogether. Lightfoot, T. K. Abbott, Zahn, and Sanday all defend its claims.