Division BS llbo i ir Digitized by the internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/oldtestamentcritOOgray OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Its Rise and Progress From the Second Century to the End of the Eighteenth A HISTORICAL SKETCH BY A Edward McQueen Gray AS? of ms n / ^ I JAN 15 19$ V %^fieiCAL stvs HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS NEW YORK AND LONDON OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Copyright, 1923 By Harper & Brothers Printed in the U.S.A. First Edition To THE MOST REVEREND DANIEL SYLVESTER TUTTLE, D.D. Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America The Writer Respectfully Dedicate* This Volume On August 7th, 1922, Bishop Tuttle wrote: 4 'As Presiding Bishop I accept in humility and with thanks the honor which you propose to do me in dedicating your forthcoming book on the ‘History of Old Testament Criticism’ to me. "Faithfully and gratefully, DANIEL S. TUTTLE.” On April 17th, 1923, the Presiding Bishop passed onward to the world to come, and this book is now inscribed to the blessed memory of that good and faithful servant of his Lord. May 14, 1923. E. McQUEEN GRAY. CONTENTS chapter page Introduction 1 II. The Hebrew Scriptures in the Early Christian Church . 13 The position of the Jewish canon in the early Church: the attacks of Porphyry and Celsus: St. Jerome’s attitude in the matter: Origen on Celsus: the Nazarite heresy: Clement of Alex¬ andria misquoted: the Clementine Homilies: the burning of the Pentateuch. III. The Story of Ezra, the Reproducer of the Law 26 The Jewish tradition of the rewriting of the Pentateuch: its acceptance by the Christian Church: various forms of the legend: Irenaeus on the miraculous origin of the Septuagint: Jerome’s noncommittal attitude: Photius: the Amphilochia concerning the Ezra tradition: general acceptance throughout the Middle Ages: Humphrey Prideaux regards Ezra as corrector and editor: the Buxtorfs definitely oppose the Ezra tradition. IV, Jextuau Criticism in Patristic Literature. 34 St. Jerome and St. Augustine in textual diver¬ gence : “Until this day”: Andreas van Maes on “Divus Augustinus”: Theodoret on the titles of Samuel and Kings: Procopius of Gaza to similar effect: Theodore of Mopsuestia: the anathema of the Fifth (Ecumenical Council: extracts from the proceedings: criticism of the book of Job: Theodore’s blunder regarding Keren Happuch: criticism of the Song of Solomon: Junilius the Quaestor concerning the titles and writers of the sacred books: Leontius of Byzantium upholds Mosaic authorship: Anastasius the Sinaite reports “difficulties” brought to his notice in regard to the Penta¬ teuch. Vy From the Days of the Fathers to the Sixteenth Century . 50 The secondary position of the Old Testament in the Church Catholic: Andreas Bodenstein the first literary critic: his views on the evidence of style: Calvin’s exposition on Joshua: his view that Eleazar was the compiler thereof : Andreas van Maes, first Roman Catholic critic: offense given by his preface: his book on Joshua placed CHAPTER CONTENTS PAGE on the Index: Benedict Pereira’s commentary on Genesis: the “Great Glosses on Genesis” of Ascanio Martinengo: Bonfrere’s single criti¬ cism. ,VI. The Theory of the Verbal Inspiration of the Old Testament ... 61 The Rabbinical legends concerning the origin of the sacred writings: divine origin includes the vowel points and accents: “every jot and tittle of the Law”: Natronai of opinion these were added by the Massoretes: the Massoreth Hamassoreth: general acceptance of Levita’s theory: subsequent reaction in Protestant circles: William Fulke’s “Defense”: John Piscator takes the same stand: Lightfoot re¬ gards belief in the Jewish tradition a test of piety: Brian Walton adopts Levita’s view: Protestant belief in the divine origin of the vowel points cannot be shaken: the two Bux- torfs firmly uphold the orthodox view: Jean Morin of the Oratory challenges the integrity of the Hebrew text: Louis Cappel discovers the Aramaic origin of the Hebrew script: his Ar¬ canum published anonymously at Leyden: Cappel’s Critica Sacra: the attack upon the integrity of the Hebrew text: the Protestants defend the theory of verbal inspiration: the consensus of scholarly opinion on the Continent supports Cappel’s views: the Protestant party maintains the theory of literal inspiration. VII. The Latter Half of the Seventeenth Century. John Hobbes. 75 John Hobbes’s Leviathan : the first English literary criticism of the Bible: his rationalistic attitude includes all the books of the old Testa¬ ment in his criticism: the most advanced criti¬ cism up to that time: the orthodox attack him violently: his opinions carry no weight in Eng¬ land : the Preadamite hypothesis: Peyrere’s criticism of the Pentateuch. VIII. Benedict Spinoza . 86 Baruch Spinoza: his attitude toward the religion of his fathers: his expulsion from the Jewish community: characteristics of the writer of the Tractatus: object of the treatise: freedom of CONTENTS CHAPTER opinion a common right: the fate of the Tracta- tus: treatment of the Hebrew text: the com¬ ments of Ibn Ezra: contents of Pentateuch material for history rather than history: Spinoza’s declaration of faith. IX., Richard Simon Richard Simon, priest, scholar, and critic: his differences with Port Royal: publication of the “Histoire Critique” forbidden: Simon expelled from the Congregation of the Oratory: Preface to the “Critical History”: Moses cannot be the author of the books attributed to him: variety of style a convincing argument: the State Reg¬ istries: his remarks on St. Augustine. X. The End of the Seventeenth Century. Jean le Clerc, opponent of Simon, is himself a critic: Episcopius, Remonstrant Theologian, criticizes the Book of Joshua: Vitringa’s “Ob- servationes Sacrse”: Antony van Dale discusses the origin of the Pentateuch. XI. The First Half of the Eighteenth Century. Biblical Criticism almost at a standstill for fifty years: Etienne Fourmont’s “Lettre a Monsieur • XII. The Second Half of the Eighteenth Century —Jean Astruc .... The “Conjectures” of Astruc: his misgivings: The “Preliminary Reflections”: The Elohim, Jehovah, and Jehovah Elohim narratives: The partition of Genesis on that basis: fundamental importance of Astruc’s discovery: Peter Brouwer’s dissertation on Genesis. XIII. The Emergence of German Criticism. Michaelis. Eichhorn. Michaelis of Gottingen, the first of the poly¬ historians : his comments on the “Reflexions Preliminaires ”: his Introduction to the Old Testament, 1787: Eichhorn, so-called “Founder of Biblical Criticism”: his Introduction to the Old Testament rapidly becomes popular: Eich¬ horn much indebted to previous critics: birth of the new movement in Biblical criticism: the moment propitious: Herder, poet, philosopher, PAGE 101 116 124 129 148 CHAPTER CONTENTS PAGE and divine: his influence on Eichhorn: his Adrastea: the Pentateuch “highly epic”: the “Fragments of an Unknown”: Nachtigal’s “Fragments”: Buttmann and the Myths of Mosaic History. XIV. The Last Decade. Johann Jahn.... 159 Jahn publishes his “Introduction” to the Old Testament, 1792: censured by his ecclesiastical superiors: his book placed on the Index: his “Definition of the Limits of Inspiration.” XV. Carl David Ilgen Ilgen, Eichhorn’s successor at Jena: publishes the “Documents of the Archives,” 1798: a fresh partition of Genesis: the two Elohists and the Jehovist: Ilgen’s critical faculty often subject to preconceptions: lasting effect of his criticism. 169 XVI. Alexander Geddes....... 173 Alexander Geddes, Scottish Roman Catholic Priest: his difficulties with his superiors: his impatience of official authority: first British Biblical critic in the modern sense: his Translation of the Bible, 1792: his views on the Pentateuch: Critical Remarks on the Holy Scriptures, 1800: his defense against his critics. XVII. Summary . 184 Endeavor of the writer to present an accurate report: the “ipsissima verba” of the critics sub¬ mitted : nothing quoted that does not bear upon the question: the Fathers aware of the early criticism: reverence for the books of the Jewish Canon gradually increases: the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church after the Reformation: the story of the theory of verbal inspiration: the volte-face of both Churches in regard to in¬ spiration : a reason for the ecclesiastical attitude. Chronological Summary Bibliography . Appendices. Index 1 189 193 209 251 DIVUS HIERONYMUS LOQUITUR: Uterque enim adversarius apud se ^estimat OPTIMAM ESSE DOCTRINAM. SlCUT ENIM MATUTINA LUX SOLVIT TENEBRAS, ITA LUMEN SCIENTLE ET VERITATIS OMNES ER- RORES FUGAT. Si EX VERITATE NASCITUR SCANDALUM, MELIUS EST NASCI SCANDALUM QUAM UT VERITAS OC- CULTETUR. PUBLISHERS’ NOTE This book, the result of an enquiry begun in the early eighties, and continued more or less fitfully as opportunity offered, was brought into its present form in the summer of 1914; the author’s intention being to return to Germany in the autumn for the purpose of dealing with the history of the nineteenth century. The war made this plan impossible; and after the manuscript had been offered to and refused by several publishers it was laid aside. In September, 1921, the author received an invi¬ tation from an American publishing firm to send over the manuscript for examination. The offer made by this firm was not acceptable; but the manuscript was finally placed in the hands of Mr. Francis Arthur Jones, New York. Should the reception of this volume warrant it, a second will probably be ready within the next two years. *•» / OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION /N T“ V HE outcome of the last hundred and thirty years of Old Testament criticism challenges in the most direct manner the traditional belief of Christianity in regard to the Hebrew Scripture. Looked upon at the first by the majority of people either as a mere scholars’ and doctors’ question— concerning which the scholars and doctors them¬ selves were widely at odds—or as an infidel ar¬ raignment of the revealed Word of God, to be treated with deserved contempt, it has grown with the passage of the years into a matter of the high¬ est import and one that intimately concerns the whole body of Christian people. As such, it is no longer possible for the people to stand aloof from it; or even any longer to regard it, as many— perhaps most-—of us have done, as a determinedly hostile attack designed to impugn and even subvert doctrines warranted by the consent of ages and hallowed by centuries of belief; it is no longer pos¬ sible for it to be either repudiated with abhorrence or contemptuously ignored. For, while during the first part of the nineteenth century the so-called higher criticism was markedly speculative and theoretical, the most important points were vari¬ ously presented and debated, and the distinctive 2 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM feature of the movement, as it appeared to the onlooker, was the salient differences of opinion expressed by its various exponents, the last fifty years have witnessed the gradual approach of an agreement among those engaged in the scientific investigation of the books of the Old Testament as to the most serious of the questions involved—the date, composition, and sources of the early histor¬ ical books of the Hebrew canon; and the agreement thus arrived at makes the whole subject one, the consideration of which we can no longer either evade or defer. We are confronted with the re¬ sponsibility of deciding for ourselves whether to abide by the ancient tradition which tells us that the first five books of the Bible, commonly called the five books of Moses, or the Pentateuch, were written entirely, or nearly so, by Moses, at the command and under the direct inspiration, even dictation, of God Himself, and that in consequence every statement made therein is to be received as an immediate communication of divine truth; or to accept the standpoint of this new doctrine which would have us believe that those same books are the work of several hands, set down, compiled and edited at widely separated epochs; that in the process of repeated copying and editing they ran the s^me risk of loss and alteration as would inev¬ itably attend any other literary production; that they probably received their final recension about a thousand years after the death of Moses, and INTRODUCTION 3 that the great lawgiver himself contributed but little, if anything at all, to their actual contents. This is the crux of the matter; for the main ques¬ tions with which the new criticism concerns itself originated in regard to the Pentateuch. The question of the authenticity, credibility, source and authority of the sacred books of Chris¬ tianity—in which from the earliest times the Hebrew Scriptures have been included—is a ques¬ tion that concerns us all. No one, belonging to & Christian community, can say in regard to such a matter, “it touches me not”; the sacred books of every nation are an integral and operant part of the national life; and the value attached to them by the people to whom they belong affects in no small degree the national character. They fill a special place in the nation’s history, not merely as repre¬ senting its best ideals in thought and conduct, but also as giving expression to its highest concept of the relation between the human and the divine; for the people who accept them they furnish the rule for the life present and point the way to the life to come. Moreover, in every nation the respect paid to the sacred books and the authority conceded to the utterances contained in them are largely, possi¬ bly chiefly, due to a belief in their divine origin and connection. Such a view, therefore, as that pre¬ sented in regard to the Old Testament by the leaders of the new criticism, supported, as it now is, by a consensus of scientific opinion to which it OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 4 is impossible to refuse respect, seems to many of us to undermine the time-honored structure of traditional belief and even to shake the very foun¬ dation of the Christian's faith. And since the matter is so urgent, and one withal that concerns us so closely, is not each one of us bound to look into it, and that without delay ? Should we not endeavor to ascertain, as far as we can, and with as little prejudice as may be, the grounds for the arguments on which this new view of the Hebrew Scripture rests, before coming to a decision about it? When and where did this criticism arise? In what shape did it first present itself ? What befell thereafter? How did it assume its present form? And, in particular, what are the reasons for the conclusions of the critics? These are questions that must be answered before we can begin to form a real opinion on the subject. We cannot rest satisfied with being shown results; we must understand for ourselves how these results have been achieved. It is our business to know all this; for we are the people most concerned. I said, with as little prejudice as may be; yet to be without preconception in such a matter is not possible. We are the offspring of generations of believers in the verbal, even literal, inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; we are born into a heritage of traditional belief. No INTRODUCTION 5 one knows better than those who have themselves experienced it how such an inheritance involves the judgment; how the innermost sanctities of our being, the secret springs of human spirituality, marshall themselves against the entrance of a ques¬ tioning thought; how such thoughts seem as trait¬ ors to the consciousness of divinity within us; how instinctively and stubbornly the door of the mind closes against their admission; and how, in spite of all, the question and the doubt will in and, once in, we can be satisfied with nothing short of the most searching scrutiny, the most complete anal¬ ysis ; which if we shirked, we should not be worthy to be called believers. Doubt calls for proof; inquiry becomes a necessity of our being, if we are to hold true to the image in which we were made. Something over a hundred and twenty years ago —in 1800, to be precise—a certain Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Scottish Catholic priest, wrote a book (of which more anon) entitled Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures, in the introduction to which he said, among other things: “A very small number, of curious and learned men only, have thoroughly examined the motives of their religious belief, in my communion.Without ranking myself with the learned, I may safely class myself with the curious” “Curious” (in the modern connotation, at any rate) may seem a weak word to use in such a context, but all of us must at least be that; for to be incurious in regard to the chal- 6 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM lenge of the new criticism is to confess ourselves indifferent, and how can indifference be compatible with belief? We must know the truth about this business; without proof, of one kind or other, there is no rest for mind or spirit. There are several ways in which we can set about our inquiry. We can begin, for instance, at the end, so to speak, and study the question by a perusal of the works of the leading modern ex¬ ponents of the new criticism. This would be a short and direct way enough, and an interesting one; it would also probably be the way which many have followed. But it would hardly be the way to bring us to a full understanding of a subject of which we are presumably ignorant. It would be something like forming an opinion of the philoso¬ phy of Bergson from a perusal of Evolution Creatrice without any previous knowledge of the history of philosophy itself; and such an opinion, whether favorable or the reverse, would be of little value to ourselves or others. Or it would be like attempting to read a technical work in a language of which we do not know more than the rudiments; of which we have not even studied the grammar. For when we reflect that these writers have but presented to us the results of a scientific investiga¬ tion that has been in progress, in its latest stage, for more than a century; that theirs is the final report, up to the present, of an acute and searching analysis conducted by generation after generation INTRODUCTION 7 of scholars, the synthesis of contributions fur¬ nished by a great company of individual workers, we see how impossible it becomes to form an ade¬ quate opinion on so incomplete a presentation. Of course, if it is to be a question of the weight of authority on one side or the other, well enough —or rather, bad enough; but we are not to be the subjects of authority in an issue of this sort; reason revolts at the thought of such compulsion. Besides, that would bring us no further; it would but mean the exchange of one blind allegiance for another; and who would choose to barter the higher for the lower on such terms: the Mosaic tradition, with its centuries of reverent acceptance, for a mosaic of constructive criticism, without studying for ourselves the history and progress of that criticism itself ? Certainly we must go farther back than the critics of to-day. Should we start, then, with Vater, the protagonist of the Fragment theory, at the beginning of the last century, or with his pred¬ ecessor Eichhorn, of whom it has been said that he was the first to treat the subject of Old Testa¬ ment criticism in a scientific manner? That would take us some way in the right direction, yet not far enough. For while the conclusions of the German scholars of the nineteenth century were reached by methods essentially distinct from those of their forerunners and with the aid of far wider 8 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM and deeper knowledge of the subject under investi¬ gation and deserve for that reason, if for no other, to be called independent, yet their labors do not stand alone; they are, as it were, the last and strong¬ est links in a chain that reaches far back into the early centuries of the Christian era, and in order to estimate their criticism aright we must have some knowledge of that earlier criticism also. Moreover, to judge from personal observation and experience, there used to exist in some quarters, and may exist still, a peculiarly British prejudice against the new criticism as having been more or less, to use an expression lately current, “made in Germany"; and it may be that if we go back as far as the records will take us and find that our inves¬ tigation reveals the fact that the so-called higher criticism is, after all, but the modern expression, more definite and comprehensive, of a similar attitude which, making its first appearance in the days of the early Fathers of the Church, was maintained after a fitful and sporadic fashion, to which various causes contributed, until the begin¬ ning of the modern inquiry, this perhaps not unnatural prejudice may be lightened, if not re¬ moved. True, this older criticism bears about the same relation to the new as the work of a mediaeval alchemist to that of a modern natural scientist; but] it exists, it forms a part, and than an important] one, of the story of Biblical criticism; it is right; that it should be known and that we should know INTRODUCTION 9 it. Besides, the history of this early criticism has been variously represented, according to the stand¬ point of the relater; for, while the defenders of the orthodox tradition have confidently claimed to be supported by the consensus of ecclesiastical literature, disciples of the new criticism have sug¬ gested that the same literature, if severely scru¬ tinized, reveals a continuous under-current of misgiving as to the authenticity of certain of the sacred writings. In such cases the truth is usually found to lie between either extreme; independent investigation alone will discover it; let us therefore set about it. And in doing so, if we are really seeking after the truth and not merely endeavoring to elicit support for one side or the other of a much-vexed question, we will surely endeavor, if we cannot be wholly free from prejudice of some sort, to prose¬ cute our inquiry from first to last in the spirit of true sympathy; by which is meant sympathy, not merely with those with whom we are disposed to agree, but also with those from whom we feel compelled to differ. Robertson Smith once said that the first essential for a critic was to be in sympathy with his subject; may it not be added that if he is to be a critic, and not an advocate, it 'is even more essential for him to be in sympathy with his opponent ? It seems hardly possible for anyone to form a just estimate of the cause he serves unless he can regard it from the side opposed to his 10 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM own and give to the arguments of his opponents all the credit they deserve; and how can anyone, in a question with which our highest concepts of truth and justice are inalienably associated, expect to obtain fair treatment for his own point of view, unless he is willing to accord generous considera¬ tion to his opponent's? In the long and trying course of the dissensions, more or less embittered and acute, which marked the advance of the higher criticism of the Old Testament during the greater part of the nineteenth century, nothing seems more noteworthy to the impartial observer than the loss to the cause of piety and true learning due to the unwillingness shown by the exponents of opposing views to concede to the adherents of the other side the same sincerity and devotion to the service of truth which they claimed for their own party. Representatives of the higher criticism too often regarded those who defended the orthodox view as temperamental reactionaries who were either in¬ competent, through defective learning, to adjudi¬ cate adequately the merits of the case they attacked or, their scholarship being granted, too much under the influence of mental preconception to admit the truth when they recognized it, if to do so would weaken their position; while defenders of the traditional doctrine frequently found themselves unable to admit that a sincere desire for the dis¬ covery of the truth held any share in the motives that influenced the new critics, whom they re- INTRODUCTION 11 garded as wolves in sheep’s clothing, more dan¬ gerous to the cause of true religion than even professed atheists; and the faith of the multitude suffered at the hands of both. We will not be so foolish as to doubt that both higher critics and orthodox opponents were equally sincere and con¬ scientious in their defense of the cause they upheld; and thus we may possibly arrive at a truer estimate of the position taken by both parties than was vouchsafed to the partisans themselves. It has been said that the modern analytical crit¬ icism of the Old Testament deals with questions of too technical and abstruse a character for the layman to understand; the proper course being for him to be guided in such matters by the opinion of the more competent. This, however (setting aside the fact that such a course would mean but the exchange of one unthinking allegiance for an¬ other), is hardly the case. Certainly, some highly technical questions are involved—-about several of which the doctors themselves disagree; but the chief issues that are concerned are quite within the layman’s grasp; and most, if not all, of the others may be so presented as to offer no great difficulty to his comprehension. Such, at least, was the writer’s personal experience during the course of his own inquiry; and, to quote Doctor Geddes, yet with far more cause, he can only claim to be curious, rather than learned. It is indeed to the perusal of a recapitulation of the main stages of 12 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM this inquiry that the reader is invited; and if he obtains from the excursion but a small portion of such benefit as the writer conceives himself to have derived from it, he will feel that his time and at¬ tention have not been wasted. Unlearned though we admit ourselves to be, we can at any rate acquaint ourselves with the main facts on either side and, in possession of these, should be able to arrive at a decision. It may be that in the process of our investigation we shall go astray a little; but even then we shall find ourselves in good company; for, as our inquiry will show, the most learned are sometimes mistaken. We may have to retrace our steps; but that will make us more heedful of our ways; and if we finally arrive at a conclusion we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that it has not been formed rashly or unreflectingly, but after due examination, mature consideration and rever¬ ent meditation, as befits the subject concerned and our own share in it. CHAPTER II THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH The position of the Jewish canon in the early Church: the attacks of Porphyry and Celsus: St. Jerome’s attitude in the matter: Origen on Celsus: the Nazarite heresy: Clement of Alexan * dria misquoted: the Clementine Homilies: the burning of the Pentateuch . 117 HEN the sect of the Christians finally sep- * * aratecl from the commonwealth of Israel, its adherents carried with them into the new Church the sacred books of the Hebrews, which the Apostles had inherited from their forefathers. Before long, as the Christian writings multiplied, the question of their respective inspiration and authority became a matter of supreme importance to those responsible for the guidance of Christian thought and the formulation of Christian belief; and the regulation of the Christian canon 1 —that is, the selection of those books which were to be re- 1 The word Canon signifies properly in classical Greek a straight rod, especially a carpenter's rule. Thus it came to be used figuratively as a testing rule in art, logic, grammar, and ethics.—Its first direct application to the Holy Scriptures occurs in the “imprimatur” appended by Amphilochius to his Catalogue (A. D. 380) ; though Origen seems to have termed those books canonical which Christians regard as genuine and of divine au¬ thority.—The Bible is the canon, or authoritative standard of religion and morals r~Helps to the Study of the Bible , p, 1. 14 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM garded by Christians as having been written through the direct inspiration of God, and their collection into a sacred library vested with author¬ ity in matters of faith and conduct, to the exclusion of others not adjudged to be divinely inspired, gave for many years the gravest concern to the Fathers of the Church. In respect of the sacred books of the Hebrews, however, they do not appear to have found it nec¬ essary to exercise so strict a discrimination, at any rate during the early centuries; for we find them making use of apocryphal and other Jewish writ¬ ings without apparently recognizing any essential difference between them and the twenty-two ca¬ nonical books of the Hebrews. 1 Clement of Alexandria quotes from Tobit, Judith, Jesus ben Sirach, Baruch, and the Fourth Esdras; Irenseus from the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Bel and the Dragon and Susannah; Enoch is cited by Origen, 1 The Jewish canonical books are identical with our own, but are considered by the Jews as being twenty-two in number, cor¬ responding with the number of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet ( cf. Ps. cxix) ; the twelve Minor Prophets being counted as one book, Ruth being coupled with Judges, Ezra with Nehemiah, Lamentations with Jeremiah, while the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are reckoned as one book each. St. Jerome notes that the number of the books coincides with that of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet and that the five double letters stand for the five double books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations). The tradition that the Hebrew canon was determined by the action of the so-called “Great Synagogue,” under the presidency of Ezra, while without historical foundation and indeed incompatible with what we have learned concerning the probable date of certain portions of the canonical books, rests in all likelihood upon an actual collation and recension of certain of the sacred books at or about the period of the Return. IN THE EARLY CHURCH 15 and Tertullian makes use of extracts from a number of noncanonical books. Other instances might be added; for it is clear that for the early Church the question of the canonicity or noncanon- icity of the Hebrew writings had little importance. Origen seems to have been the first to call the attention of the Church to this laxity, and probably the reproaches made in this regard to the Christian apologists by certain Jewish controversialists were not without effect; for by the middle of the fourth century we find several of the Fathers—Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius and others—beginning to confine themselves in their doctrinal disputa¬ tions to the books of the Hebrew canon. There was still, however, a good deal of latitude taken: and even in the eighth century John Damascenus, after reciting the titles of the Hebrew canonical books, goes on to laud the book of Jesus ben SiracH and the Wisdom of Solomon as being excellent and beautiful writings, although not recognized as canonical by the Jews. The point is of some value as tending in a meas¬ ure to explain the loose manner in which the question of the authenticity of the Hebrew Scrip¬ tures appears to have been handled by the Fathers. Still, in all probability the chief reason was that early Christian writers valued the Jewish writings mainly, if not entirely, for the support to be derived from them for Christian doctrine. The Law was to them but a schoolmaster to bring men 16 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM to Christ; they searched the Scriptures of the Old Testament for metaphor, parallel, and prophecy that might be applied to the New; Moses was to them the great Lawgiver, in that he had written of Christ in the Law; it was as the foreteller of the Messiah, the redeemer of his people from bondage, the type of Christ, that his title to veneration was accorded, Cyril of Alexandria likens the five books of the Law to the five barley loaves; and throughout the whole course of patristic literature the chief use to which the Hebrew Scriptures are put is to inculcate the Christian doctrine, rein¬ force the Christian argument, and establish the Christian faith. The first definite attacks upon the Hebrew Scriptures of which a record has come down to us were made by two heathen philosophers, Porphyry and Celsus, writing in the second century. Por¬ phyry, a neo-platonist and inveterate opponent of the new religion, wrote fifteen books against the Christians and their doctrines, 1 and drew copious replies from three of the Fathers. According to Jerome, the answer of Eusebius filled twenty-five books, that of Apollinarius thirty, and Methodius indited ten thousand verses to the same end. Of all these writings nothing but a few insignificant fragments remain. Jerome himself, writing when the controversy had passed into history, does not 1 For an interesting account of this attack, see Porphyrins, Neuplatoniker und Christenfeind, by A. L. Kleffner (Berlin, 1896). IN THE EARLY CHURCH 1 7 appear to attach as much importance to the matter as his predecessors had done, although it is to him that we owe the only record of a definite charge against the authenticity of one of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures; and his treatment of the ques¬ tion shows a reserve not without dignity. According to Jerome, Porphyry had impugned the authenticity of Daniel, asserting that the book bearing the prophet’s name was composed in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, or about four hundred years after the time of Daniel. Special interest attaches to this statement, as it records the first known instance of the application of the principles of what is known as the higher criticism. In the preface to his commentary on Daniel, Jerome alludes to this criticism, and for his abstin¬ ence from comment on it, if for no other reason, his remarks are well worth quoting: 1 Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophet Daniel, asserting that the book inscribed with his name was written, not by him, but by some one who lived in Judaea in the days of Antiochus Ephiphanes, and that Daniel did not so much foretell future events as relate what had already taken place. That in fine all his narra¬ tive up to the time of Antiochus contained a true history; whatever opinions he advanced with respect to later events were false, since he did not know the future. Eusebius has replied to him very skillfully in three books, Apol- linarius in one large volume, and before these, in part, Methodius. But as what I have set before me is, not to 'See Appendix A. 18 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM reply to the calumnies of an adversary—for that would require a lengthy discourse—but to expound unto my people, that is, to the Christians, the things that have been spoken by the prophet, I impress this upon them in the preface, that not one of the prophets has spoken so openly concerning Christ. With respect to the strictures of Celsus our information is more extensive and definite and, although it comes to us at second hand, is to be regarded as reliable; for Origen, who at the request of Ambrosius undertook the Christian defense, quotes so freely from the epicurean philo¬ sopher that it is possible to reconstruct his general argument from the copious extracts contained in Origen’s apology. From this it would appear that Celsus had asserted: that (1) the whole of the early Hebrew history and genealogies were myth¬ ical in character, (2) both the Jewish and Chris¬ tian religions were irrational and foolish, and (3) Christianity in particular had entirely failed to establish adequate standards of conduct either in ethics or politics. The following passages appear to have some bearing upon the question of the Mosaic writings: Thereafter Celsus [says Origen ], 1 attacking the first book of Moses, which is called Genesis, says: So they undertook to construct genealogies from the first seed (of mankind), calling to witness the obscure and ambigu¬ ous expressions of cheats and impostors, darkly hidden sayings, falsely interpreting them to foolish and ignorant folk. *See Appendix B. IN THE EARLY CHURCH 19 And again: Then Celsus carped at the story of the dove, that He might appear to have read the book Genesis, but could say nothing to prove that the tale of the dove was an invention. Next, turning the Scriptures into ridicule, as his wont is, he changes the raven into a crow, and sup¬ poses that Moses wrote down the story (of the Flood), fraudulently corrupting the Deucalion narrative current among the Greeks. Unless forsooth he does not believe the writing to be the work of Moses, but of several per¬ sons : which this expression “they, falsifying and corrupt¬ ing the Deucalion story,” shows; and this: “for I suppose they did not expect that these things would come to light.” On the authority of these passages Celsus haS been very generally represented as having made a direct attack on the Mosaic authorship of Gen¬ esis ; indeed, one modern writer 1 goes so far as to say: Thus we find that already in the second century Celsus, as we learn from the writing of Origen against this ‘eclectic’ (?) philosopher, denied the Mosaic authorship and, from a difference in the accounts, especially in Genesis, decided upon a plurality of authorship. But the text, as quoted by Origen, hardly bears out so sweeping and definite a statement. True, Celsus speaks of the compilers of Hebrew history and genealogies in the plural number; but thaf may reasonably be understood in contemptuous reference, ut sui moris est, to the Jews in general, rather than with any definite intention of impugn- 1 Dr. Hermann G. Priess, in his Preface to Wilhelm Vatke’s Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (1886). 20 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM ing the Mosaic authorship; and an extensive exam¬ ination of the other excerpts warrants this view. Origen himself appears to have so regarded it, and in his many other references to Celsus throughout the eight books of the apology, the question of authorship appears to have been taken for granted on both sides. It is hardly credible that, had Origen understood Celsus to have specifically at¬ tacked the Mosaic tradition, he would have passed the matter over so casually—unless, indeed, he were himself dubious on the point; and this, by the evidence of his other writings, is not to be thought of. In reference to the mythical character of the early history and genealogy, however, as alleged by Celsus, a remark made by Eusebius, in his life of Constantine, is of interest. Referring to the Pentateuch, he says: The same olden story, received by most in the form of a myth, filled the ears of all. Testimony of a more direct character comes to us from the Nazarites, that struggling and perse¬ cuted community of Christians in Palestine, which seems to have had scant justice dealt it by the orthodox. It does not appear that in their beliefs they differed materially from other Christians, except in regard to the Pentateuch; and this, ac¬ cording to the orthodox writers, they steadily refused to accept. Epiphanius, who wrote three IN THE EARLY CHURCH 21 volumes against eighty different heresies* formu¬ lates their offense in this direction as follows \ And they accepted the Fathers named in the Penta¬ teuch, from Adam until Moses, as evidently abounding in true piety.—But the Pentateuch itself they did not accept, though they acknowledge Moses, and believe that he received the Law; yet not this one, they say, but another. And John Damascenus, writing of them in the eighth century, says: The Nazarites dogmatically deny that the books of the Pentateuch are the work of Moses, and maintain other writings in their stead. In reference to another heretical sect, that of the Ptolemaitanes, or followers of Ptolemseus, the gnostic disciple of Valentinus, Epiphanius gives the substance of a letter addressed by Ptolemaeus to Flora, whom he calls his sister, in which the writer states that the Law (sc., the Pentateuch) did not proceed from a single lawgiver, but was tripartite in character, ascribing one part directly to God, another to Moses, and the third to the elders of the people. Celsus is not the only writer whose criticisms have been somewhat liberally edited by the sup¬ porters of the higher criticism. Clement of Alex¬ andria is another. It has been confidently asserted 1 In this work he was surpassed by Philastrius, Bishop of Brixen, in the fourth century, whose Liber de Hceresibus enumer¬ ates no less than one hundred and fifty-six different heretical sects. “See Appendix C. 22 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM that He expressed doubt as to the Mosaic author¬ ship of the Pentateuch. Yet he distinctly says in the Psedagogus, 1 “The Law was given by the Lord through Moses.” The citation from Epiphanius has been under¬ stood as referring to the Decalogue alone; but this contention cannot be maintained, as far as Clement of Alexandria is concerned; for in the first book of the Stromata he devotes a chapter to an account of a quadripartite division of the “Law” into legal, historical, and liturgical sections, together with a fourth theological section which he calls “Epopteia,” or dealing with hidden mys¬ teries. The word technically refers to the third degree of initiation in the Eleusinian mysteries. Once again, in a different context, has Clement of Alexandria been summoned to bear witness on behalf of the higher criticism, and this time also, in my judgment, with no better success. In 1806, Augusti, professor of Oriental literature at Jena, arguing in the introduction to his Historico-critical Introduction to the Old Testament that the early historical portion of the Old Testament should be regarded as an epic, rather than a history, cites him in support of his contention as follows: The frequent parallels which Clement of Alexandria draws between Moses and Homer are of great interest from this point of view. ■Psedagogus, lib. 1, cap 7. 'O vojxog 6ia Moovoccog ISddtu IN THE EARLY CHURCH 23 Doubtless, if the authority of so learned a Father of the Church and withal so liberal-minded a Christian as to declare that the educational system and philosophy of the Greeks came down to them from heaven, could justly be invoked in support of the epic contention, it would have direct bearing on the question. But here again the text does not warrant any such inference. Clement, indeed, in the fifth book of the Stromata, quotes a number of passages, not merely from Homer, but from other Greek poets, as instances of thought remarkably similar to those contained in certain parts of the Pentateuch; but he does so, not because he saw evidences of poetic diction and treatment in the books of Moses, but in support of his argument—which is the main purpose of the book—that the religion and philosophy of the Greeks were borrowed wholesale from the sacred writings of the Hebrews—a very different con¬ tention. Among the quotations of Clement is the half line from Aratus, “For we are his offspring,” introduced by St. Paul in his Mars Hill address. 1 Cyril of Alexandria might have been called to witness in this regard just as fitly as Clement of the same city, for in his treatise against the Emperor Julian he draws similar parallels between the story of the Creation and Hesiod's Theogonia. *For the more pertinent quotations, see Appendix D. 24 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM This same book of Cyril's, by the way, has been cited frequently as a specific defense of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, supposed to have been attacked by Julian; but neither the epistles of the emperor nor the argument of Cyril furnish ground for the assertion. If, however, the writings of Clement of Alexan¬ dria are found to have little bearing on the subject of Pentateuchal authenticity, certain of those to which the name of that other and earlier Clement, bishop of Rome, has been attached, touch the question directly enough. Whatever view may be taken on the moot question of the origin of the Clementine Homilies this, at any rate, may safely be predicated concerning them, that they furnish testimony as to current thought and opinion in the second century without which our knowledge of the period would be notably less comprehensive. In the dialogue in the third book of the Homilies, purporting to have taken place between St. Peter and Simon Magus, the Apostle is represented as saying, in answer to a question of Simon's con¬ cerning the various contradictory statements in Genesis with respect to the Creation : a The Law of God was given through Moses orally to seventy wise men, to be transmitted by them, in order that it might be administered by word of mouth; but after the assumption of Moses, it was written down by some one, J The quotation is taken (according to the custom general in patristic literature) from 'the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. IN THE EARLY CHURCH 25 but not by Moses; for it is written in the Law: “And Moses died; and they buried him near the house of Phogor, and no one knows his sepulchre until this day.” 3 Was it possible for Moses, being dead, to write “Moses died” ? But, in the times after Moses, some five hundred years or thereabouts, the Law deposited at the time of the building of the Temple was found, and was preserved for another five hundred years, and was destroyed by fire in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. And its destruction after having been written proved the prophetic knowledge of Moses, who, foreseeing its disappearance if it were committed to writing, did not so commit it; but they who wrote it, not foreseeing its disappearance, were convicted of ignorance and were no prophets. This mention of the burning of the Pentateuch will serve to introduce the famous story of Ezra the Restorer, or rather, the Reproducer of the Law. ’Appendix E. CHAPTER III THE STORY OF EZRA, THE REPRODUCER OF THE LAW The Jewish tradition of the rewriting of the Pentateuch: its acceptance by the Christian Church: various forms of the legend: Irenceus on the miraculous origin of the Septuagint: Jerome’s noncommittal attitude: Photius: the 'Amphilochia concerning the Ezra tradition: general acceptance throughout the Middle Ages: Humphrey Prideaux regards Ezra as corrector and editor: the Buxtorfs definitely oppose the Ezra tradition. J EWISH tradition concerning the authorship and composition of the Hebrew Scriptures centers in and derives from the story of the work of the Great Synagogue, which is said to have had Ezra for its first president, and to have included Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi among its members. In the selection and revision of the ancient writings and the preparation of the canonical library which, according to Jewish tra¬ dition, constituted the chief work of that famous body, the share assigned to Ezra was the editing, or rather, the rewriting of the Pentateuch; and this he was enabled by divine inspiration to dictate to five secretaries at once precisely as Moses had first set it down. For the tradition involved the disappearance of the Mosaic autograph to begin EZRA THE REPRODUCER 27 with, and a subsequent reproduction by Ezra the Scribe. The Christian Church appears to have taken over this story of the reproduction of the Scrip¬ tures and Ezra’s share therein, along with the sacred writings themselves; and the Fathers ex¬ perienced little or no difficulty in reconciling a belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch with an acceptance of a miraculous account of its reproduction by Ezra. Indeed, it seems that this legend of the partial or entire destruction of the Mosaic writings (or even, according to some, of the whole of the sacred volumes) and their later restoration through Ezra, was made use of later to explain any ambiguities or discrepancies en¬ countered in the canonical books. Here are some of the different forms which this tradition assumed in patristic literature. Clement of Alexandria says :* For the Scriptures having been destroyed in the Captiv¬ ity under Nebuchadnezzar, Ezra the Levite, the priest, in the days of Artaxerxes the king of the Persians, being inspired, uttered afresh the whole of the ancient Scriptures. Basil the Great, in a letter to his disciple Chilo, says : a Next behold the plain to which Ezra withdrew, and where, at the command of God, he poured forth the divinely inspired books. 1 Appendix F. 1. a Appendix F. 2. 28 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM John Chrysostom, in his eighth homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, says : 1 And look upward, that ye may learn the ineffable love of God towards man. He inspired the blessed Moses, He graved the tables, He kept him forty days upon the mount, and as many days again, in order to give him the Law. Thereafter He sent the prophets, who endured myriad sufferings. War came upon them, they carried the people away, they slaughtered them, the books were burned. Again He inspired an admirable man—I speak of Ezra— so that they were exhibited afresh, and caused them to be put together again out of the fragments. Tertullian is brief, but to the point. In his De Culiu Feminarum he says : 2 It is agreed that after Jerusalem had been taken by storm and destroyed by the Babylonians, every document of Jewish literature was restored by Ezra. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyros in the fifth century, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, is quite explicit on the subject . 8 For when the sacred writings had been partly burned under Manasses (who in wickedness and impiety cast into the shade all who went before or came after him) and perished entirely at the time of the Captivity, when the Babylonians set the Temple on fire, overthrew the city and enslaved the people, the blessed Esdras, man of dis¬ tinguished virtue, being filled with the Holy Spirit, as the facts themselves declare, wrote out many years after, when the recall of the people had taken place, the Scriptures necessary for our salvation, and not merely the books of 1 Appendix F. 4. 3 Appendix F. 5. 8 Appendix F. 6. EZRA THE REPRODUCER 29 Moses, but also Joshuah and Judges, and the history of the Kings, and the story of high-minded Job, and the sacred chants of David, the delight of the Church, and the sixteen prophets, and the Proverbs of Solomon the Wise, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Irenseus, in the third book of his treatise Against Heresies, combines the story of the re¬ production by Ezra with an account of the making of the Septuagint version which, though differing in several particulars from that given in the letter of Aristeas, is not less miraculous : x For before the Romans were established in their gov¬ ernment, while the Macedonians were yet in possession of Asia, Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, being ambitious of adorning the library which he had gotten together in Alexandria with as many of the important writings of all mankind as were in existence, besought the people of Jerusalem to furnish him with a translation of the Scrip¬ tures into the Greek tongue; and they, being at that time still subject unto the Macedonians, sent to Ptolemy the most learned among them in the Scriptures in both tongues, being seventy elders, to do according as he wished. And he, desiring to make private trial of them, took precautions lest they might agree together to conceal through their interpretation the truth contained in the Scriptures and, separating them one from the other, bade each write the same interpretation. And this they did with regard to all the books. And when they met together in the presence of Ptolemy and compared each of them his own interpretation, God was glorified and the Scriptures were acknowledged to be verily divine; as all of them displayed the same readings with the same diction 1 Appendix F. 3. 30 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM and the same names, from the beginning unto the end; so that the heathen who were present knew that the Scrip¬ tures had been interpreted according to the inspiration of God. And it is no wise marvelous that God did bring this about, for also in the Captivity under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Scriptures had been destroyed, and the Jews returned to their own country seventy years after, in the days of Artaxerxes the king of the Persians, He inspired Ezra, the priest of the tribe of Levi, to set in order all the utterances of the former prophets, and to restore completely unto the people the Law promulgated through Moses. Jerome alone among the Fathers appears to have maintained a noncommittal attitude with regard to the Ezra tradition. In his treatise on the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, writ¬ ten against Helvidius, in discussing the meaning of the words “until this day” (which will be re¬ ferred to later), he says: Whether you choose to call Moses the author of the Pentateuch, or Ezra the reproducer of the same work, I raise no objection. This remark of Jerome’s has been interpreted by supporters of the higher criticism to mean in effect a repudiation of the Mosaic authorship; but such a rendering of the expression (non recuso ) is to strain the meaning of the words. Rather is it evident that Jerome was resolved not to commit himself on the subject and preferred to leave the question open as far as he was concerned. EZRA THE REPRODUCER 31 The Fathers have been freely quoted with re¬ spect to the Ezra tradition, because later writers have sometimes represented them as believing him to have been the possible author, in part at least, of the Pentateuch; but neither Jewish tradition nor patristic literature so depicts him. In both he figures as the restorer, or rather the renewer, of the sacred books, enabled by divine inspiration to reproduce them in the very words in which Moses, under the same direction, had first set them down. It is obvious, however, that a tradition of this kind might come to be held as accounting for such obscurities in the text as presented themselves to the ecclesiastical exegetes; and, indeed, to the disasters that were said to have befallen the sacred writings many difficulties were referred by later writers. Thus in the ninth century the ecclesias¬ tical politician or political ecclesiastic, Photius, patriarch of Constantinople (the same who was called by the Western Church the father of schism), relates in his Amphilochia , 1 after enumer¬ ating a number of causes, such as the stupidity and ignorance of the Jews, that had rendered the text of the Old Testament obscure, a strangely con¬ fused story of the burning of the sacred books, the theft of the oracles of God while on their way from Jerusalem to Babylon (probably designed to refer to the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch), and their reproduction there by strangers ignorant appendix G. 32 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM of the Hebrew characters (to account, it may be, for the appearance of the square Aramaic letters), whereby a general obscurity resulted, that lasted until Ezra took in hand the interpretation and re¬ writing of the Scriptures. Although the Ezra tradition has been generally either ignored or belittled by modern orthodox writers, particularly on the Protestant side, as having never had any real importance, an impartial scrutiny of earlier ecclesiastical literature proves beyond doubt that it was generally accepted by the Church. During the Middle Ages it does not appear to have been questioned either by ecclesias¬ tics or schoolmen. Bede, in his allegorical expo¬ sition of Ezra, appears to have regarded it as an established fact; and Abelard, writing on Deutero¬ nomy xxxiii and xxxiv in his Helo’issae Proble- mata, repeats the story of the renewal of the books, with a significant variant to the effect that Ezra made several additions, including the chapters in question, to the sacred text. Here is the passage:* Ezra himself, who not only rewrote the Law, but also, according to the common report of the ancients, the whole series of the sacred Scriptures, which had likewise been burned, in such wise as seemed to him suitable for his readers, made this and several other additions to the writings of the Old Testament. The Ezra legend, in fact, maintained itself during the succeeding centuries with undeniable 1 Appendix P. EZRA THE REPRODUCER 33 persistence. The Catholic orthodox writers, and even the critics, appear to have accepted it ; 2 and it is even now not wholly discredited in Roman Catholic quarters, as having possibly been founded upon actual disaster and subsequent recension. In Protestant ecclesiastical circles it was, however, soon discarded, chiefly owing to the influence of the two Buxtorfs, most probably because the tra¬ dition stood in the way of the Protestant theory of direct verbal inspiration, which was shortly to become an accepted, if not officially recognized, Protestant doctrine, and it may be that the more receptive attitude of the Roman Catholic writers can thereby be partly accounted for; at any rate it must be admitted that the connection of Ezra with the Hebrew Scriptures, as editor and possibly part author of certain of the canonical books, remained for long an open question with these commentators. 2 Cardinal Bellarmine, the Jesuit scholar and controversialist, writing in the seventeenth century, appears to have been the first to combat seriously the Ezra legend; opposing it as resting merely on the authority of a quotation from a book not merely apocry¬ phal, but permeated throughout with the spirit of Jewish fable. Humphrey Prideaux, dean of Norwich, in his The Old and New Testaments connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbour¬ ing Nations (1716), while rejecting the tradition of the destruc¬ tion of the sacred books and their divinely inspired dictation by Ezra, accepts the theory that Ezra, in forming the canonical collection of the sacred writings, corrected many errors and added much by way of elucidation to the original documents. In his list of such additions and alterations, Prideaux included most of the passages to which critics had called attention. CHAPTER IV Textual criticism in patristic literature St. Jerome and St. Augustine in textual diver¬ gence: “Until this day”: Andreas van Maes on “Divus Augustinus”: Theodoret on the titles of Samuel and Kings: Procopius of Gaza to similar effect: Theodore of Mopsuestia: the anathema of the Fifth (Ecumenical Council: extracts from the proceedings: criticism of the hook of Job: Theodore's blunder regarding Keren Happuch: criticism of the Song of Solomon: Junilius the Qucestor concerning the titles and writers of the sacred books: Leontius of Byzantium upholds Mosaic authorship: Anastasius the Sinaite reports “difficulties” brought to his notice in regard to the Pentateuch. *T\HE view taken in a previous section of the attitude of the Fathers of the early Chris¬ tian Church toward the Hebrew Scriptures finds confirmation in the manner in which they treated the question of the difficulties involved in the text of the Jewish canonical books, such as have been rendered familiar to most modern readers. Of these textual questions they seem to have made but little mention and taken equally little heed. One of them concerned the interpretation to be placed upon the words ‘‘until this day/’ so frequently found in the his¬ torical books: and was answered variously, PATRISTIC CRITICISM 35 according to the personal view of the writer. A comparison of the opinions of Jerome and Augustine in this regard will be found not with¬ out interest. When the question came before the former, he made no attempt to avoid the issue; but his manner of handling it shows that he does not look upon it as of any great im¬ portance . 1 In the treatise against Helvidius already referred to, he says : a The Word of God says in Genesis: “And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hands and all the earrings which were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Schechem, and caused them to be lost (perdidit): until this day.” And at the end of Deuteronomy: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord, and they buried him in Geth, near the house of Phogor; and no man knoweth his sepulchre until this day .” 8 Of course, “this day” must be taken to refer to the time at which the history itself was composed, whether you choose to call Moses the author of the Pentateuch, or Ezra the renewer of the same work, I raise no objection. Augustine, however, dealing with the same question in his treatise on Joshua, in relation to the story of Rahab, and of the twelve stones laid in the bed of the Jordan when the Israelites passed over, does not so easily extricate himself 1 See his remarks concerning Porphyry, already noted. 2 Appendix I. “The quotations are from the Septuagint version. 36 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM from the difficulty. His explanation of the passages, iv:9 (And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of the covenant stood; and they are there unto this day) and vi:25 (And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had, and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day), is as follows: 1 And Joshua saved Rahab and her father’s house alive, and she dwelt in Israel unto this day. The meaning of the expression “unto this day,” frequently used in Scripture, is to be noted, for the same expression is used concerning those twelve stones which were placed where the Jordan had flowed away downstream and stood still above, while the ark and people were passing over; and this seems to mean that these things are related in the Scripture after a long period, and that these books were not composed at the time when the events were of recent occurrence. But what will whosoever may think so say concerning that harlot, who lived for the space of one man’s life and yet it is said “unto this day” ? This is said concerning mat¬ ters which are so appointed that they may not be after¬ ward altered by those who have appointed them; as when it is said that some one has been condemned to perpetual exile; which is not to be taken as meaning that his exile was actually perpetual (the man himself being finite), but that no term was placed to it. Thus, no term being set for Rahab’s sojourn in Israel, it was written that it endured “unto this day.” The Flemish sixteenth-century critic, Andreas van Maes, whose scholarly edition of 1 See Appendix J. PATRISTIC CRITICISM 33 Joshua will be noticed later, handles the same question after a different manner, and shows scant respect for the critical faculty of Augus¬ tine. In his notes on the same passages he says: ‘Divus Augustinus’ interprets the words “and they have been there unto this day,” as if they merely signified that these stones had been placed in the river by Joshua with the intent that they should remain there forever. But since he thinks that these are the words of Joshua himself, writing the account of his own deeds, he is very far from correct. For who could understand that a man, when he put up a monument and at the same time made a record of it in writing, would say that it remained in its place unto the day on which he had set it up ? Of course the phrase “Rahab remained in Israel unto this day” is to be so understood, according to my certain opinion, that the posterity of Rahab was living even at that time among the Israelites, in the enjoyment of their laws and their religion, at the time when this history was being compiled from the sacred annals, either by Ezra or some other, several ages after the time at which the events took place. But ‘Divus Augustinus,’ after his manner, ex¬ plains it as if Rahab was presented with the right of communion with Israel in such a manner that both she and her posterity could enjoy it in perpetuity; and to show the liberality of the donors, the gift was not confined to a definite or limited period. From an account given by Theodoret (the Bishop of Cyros already referred to) of the manner in which, in his opinion, the titles of the books of Samuel and of the Kings were ascribed, it is evident that it was generally understood at that time that such an assign- 38 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM ment did not necessarily imply authorship. In view of the importance which has attached upon the question in modern times, Theodoret’s reasonable explanation is worth recording. In his preface to the first book of the Kings he says There have been very many prophets whose books we have not found, and whose names we have learned from the history of Chronicles, or the Things Omitted . 2 It was the custom of 'each of these writers to set down such things as took place in his own times; the first book of the Kings, for example, is called by both the Hebrews and the Syrians the prophecy of Samuel, which can easily be understood by anyone who chooses to read the aforesaid book. Then they who wrote the books of the Kings, taking the former books as a starting point, wrote after a considerable period. For how could a contemporary of Saul and David write concerning events of the time of Ezechiel or Josiah, and of the expedition of Nebuchad¬ nezzar and the siege of Jerusalem and the captivity of the people and removal to Babylon and the death of Nebu¬ chadnezzar? It is clear that each of the prophets recorded the events that had taken place in their own times; and others, collecting those writings, compiled the book of the Kings. About a century after Theodoret, Procopius of Gaza expressed himself similarly in the preface to his own commentary on the first book of the Kings; 3 but as he did little more than copy the 1 Appendix K. 2 In the Septuagint version the books of Chronicles are entitled Paraleipomena, or Things Omitted. The title in the Hebrew text is Acts of the Days (or Doings of the Times), from which the title in the English version is derived. 3 Appendix H. 39 PATRISTIC CRITICISM words used by Theodoret, his opinion need not here be quoted. The name of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (about forty miles from Tarsus) in the fifth cen¬ tury, is familiar to all biblical students, and many modern scholars regard his commentaries on the books of the Old Testament as the only patristic views on the subject that may be called critical. Of the keenness of Theodore’s criticism there is no doubt, but the value of his estimates suffers from the evident fact that they are temperamental rather than judicial. Typically representative of the grammatico-historical exegesis of the Antio¬ chene school, of which he was the most distin¬ guished exponent, he regarded accuracy as the prime essential of all historical writing, the Scrip¬ tures not excepted. The trend of his mind was strongly toward the actual and concrete; and this, with a consequent aversion from allegory and hyperbole in any form, determined his criticism of the Scriptures. Although the number of books anciently attrib¬ uted to him was probably greatly exaggerated, Theodore was a most voluminous writer; and during his life his works were held in high reputa¬ tion throughout a large section of Christendom, in particular by the Syrian Church, which had attached itself to the doctrines of the Antiochene school; but his reputation declined after his death; 40 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM and in consequence of the anathema pronounced against him and his writings at the fifth General Council (Second of Constantinople) in 553, about a century and a quarter after his decease, his works fell gradually out of use, and but few fragments of them are extant. As the excerpts from the writings of Theodore by his ecclesiastical opponents furnish our data for the opinions he expressed, they may be re¬ ceived with some reservation; yet, although his adversaries may have exaggerated even grossly the case against him by their own deductions, there is no reason for doubting the general correctness of their quotations. From the report of the proceedings of the (Ecu¬ menical Council, at which numerous extracts from Theodore’s writings were read in support of the indictment against him, the following extracts are taken: 1 LXIII. Concerning the same Theodore condemning the Book of Job also and its author, that is, the Holy Spirit, saying that a pagan scholar wrote this book. Among those which have been written for the instruc¬ tion of mankind may be reckoned the books of Solomon, that is, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, which he composed out 1 See Appendix L. As the gravamen of the charges against Theodore and his consentients (Theodoret and Ibas) did not primarily rest upon his views concerning the Hebrew Scriptures, the further proceedings of the Council, which culminated in the decree of the Three Chapters, need not be gone into. PATRISTIC CRITICISM 41 of his personal experience for the benefit of others; though he had not received the gift of prophecy, but the gift of knowledge; which is evidently, according to the statement of the blessed Paul , 1 different from the former. From the criticism of Job: As to the very words with which the author makes him (Job) begin, what deliberate thinker or speaker can think or say that they are at all in conformity with the mind of the righteous man? For to heap together so many curses at the outset and charge them to circumstances which cannot be responsible for them and whose very existence is incredible, who can think that such things are in keeping with a man who had governed his life with so much wisdom and virtue and reverence? But that disgraceful act is trifling compared with the one placed at the end of the book. For his saying that he called his third daughter the “Horn of Amalthea,” what else is it but to show him in agreement with pagan fables and holding in high esteem the fictions of idolaters; since it is perfectly certain that the blessed Job, a barbarian and Edomite by race, could know nothing of the pagan fables concerning Jupiter and Saturn and Juno. This last criticism is an interesting example of the blunders which patristic writers were led to commit through their ignorance of Hebrew. In the Hebrew text the name given to Job’s third daughter is Qeren Happuk, which is rendered in English “Horn of Antimony” or “Beautifier” (deriving from “puk,” antimony, used to darken the eyebrows and eyelids). In the Septuagint ver¬ sion the rendering is “Horn of Plenty” or “Abund- 1 I. Cor. xii:4 sqq. 42 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM ance” (deriving evidently from “Qeren-Happuq,” from “puq,” to furnish or produce ), a more reasonable appellation, by the way, than the one in the Hebrew. Now the common name in Greek for a horn of plenty, or cornucopia, was “Horn of Amalthea,” that being the name of the she-goat said to have fed the infant Zeus with an unfailing supply of milk from her horn; and so Qeren- Happuq was rendered by the Septuagint inter¬ preters. Theodore, being entirely dependent in his criticism, as it would appear, upon Lucian's version of the Septuagint, jumped to the conclusion that the original author of the book of Job had represented Job as giving a name to his daughter taken from Greek mythology; and on that blunder founded at considerable length an argument (quoted in the proceedings, see Appendix) ( in support of his assertion that the writer of the book was a pagan scholar. Theodore's commentary on the Song of Solomon (also recited at the Council; see Appendix L) is an excellent example of his critical attitude. The mere reading of it, he writes, was extremely irk¬ some to him; yet at the urgent request of a friend he managed, sometimes keenly interested, some¬ times dozing off during the perusal, to get through with it. He refuses to ascribe any prophetical character to the book, as it makes no mention of the divine name; it is certainly, according to him, of no historical value; nor can it be regarded as an PATRISTIC CRITICISM 43 incentive to zeal. He looks upon it as an extrava¬ gant epithalamium composed by Solomon in honor of his marriage with an Egyptian princess and in defense of an alliance which, by reason of the race and color of the bride, was cordially detested by the Jewish people. Some further details concerning the critical comments of Theodore are furnished by Leontius of Byzantium, the foremost of the Mopsuestian’s posthumous critics, who cites him frequently. In his treatise Contra Nestorianos he writes :* He (Theodore) abused Job, the great servant of God, and rejected the writing of the Holy Spirit which James, the Lord’s brother, uttered in confirmation of him in his Catholic epistle: “Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and ye have seen the end of the Lord.” “For nowhere else, says Theodore, have we heard of his patience or seen his end, except in the Scripture concerning him.” He entirely rejected the inscription of the most sacred Hymns, Psalms, and Canticles, referring them (like the Jews) to writers of the period of Zerubbabel and Heze- kiah, assigning only three to the Lord. He even removed from the Holy Books the Holiest Song of the Holy Songs. In addition to those spoken of, he also rejected the book of Chronicles, both the first and the second, and Esdras, heaping wickedness upon wickedness. It is unfortunate that the disappearance of the writings of Theodore himself makes it impossible for us to ascertain the grounds upon which these 1 Appendix M. 44 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM critical decisions of his rested; but the information furnished by his adversaries is sufficient to show that the modern estimate of him cannot be far wide of the mark. In spirit and expression he comes nearer to the modern attitude than any other writer for more than a thousand years after. Interesting information on the subject of the authenticity of the historical books is furnished by Junilius, quaestor at the imperial court during the reign of Justinian, 1 and author of Instituta Regu - laria divince Legis, better known as De Partibus divince Legis, from the title of the first section. In his preface Junilius states that the book repre¬ sents the views of a Persian named Paul, a teacher at Nisibis. The following extract is taken from the eighth section. 2 CONCERNING THE WRITERS OF THE DIVINE BOOKS Disciple. How do you know who are the writers of the divine books? Master. In three ways. Either from the titles and prefaces, as the prophetical books and the Epistles of the Apostles; or from the titles alone, as the Gospels; or from the tradition of the ancients, as Moses is believed to have written the first five books of the History; al¬ though the title does not say so, nor does he himself write, “The Lord spake unto me,” but as of another, u The Lord 1 The identification of Junilius as an imperial official (he was previously believed to have been an African bishop) is due to the labor of Dr. H. Kihn, whose interesting book Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten (1880), is the most authoritative work on the subject. 2 Appendix N. PATRISTIC CRITICISM 45 spake unto Moses” Similarly the book of Joshua is ascribed by tradition to him after whom it is named, and Samuel is held to have written the first book of the Kings. You must know, moreover, that the authors of several books are entirely unknown, such as those of the Judges, Ruth, and the third and last books of the Kings, and others likewise; and believe that this has taken place by divine dispensation, that the other divine books also may be known to have attained to such a height of authority not by the merit of their authors, but by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Leontius of Byzantium (the opponent of Theo¬ dore), reciting the canonical books, says concern¬ ing the historical books: As for these five books, all bear witness that they are (the work) of Moses. But for those that follow, no one knows whose they are. The only categorical criticism of the Old Testa¬ ment which has come down to us from patristic times is reported by Anastasius the Sinaite, patri¬ arch of Antioch at the end of the seventh century, in his Hodegos, or Guide of the Way. Anastasius tells us that while he was making a visitation in the East, a number of so-called “difficulties” were submitted to him by some recent deserters from the orthodox Church, and gives a long list of these “aporia,” nearly all of which refer, as might be expected, to the New Testament. The Antiochene patriarch does not inform us whether he made any reply to those who presented the questions; and it is not unlikely that he has recorded them mainly 46 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM with the intention of showing, by their own words, the animosity of those renegades from the Chris¬ tian faith against the gospel which they had renounced. The questions which refer to the Old Testament are as follows :* Who tells me that Genesis is the composition of Moses ? For it has no title, such as the rest of the books, those of the prophets, have; besides, most of it appears not to be in accordance with truth; such as the declaration of God concerning the eating; and that concerning the four hundred years of the tribulation of Israel in Egypt; for they suffered hardship for one hundred and forty years, that is, after the death of Joseph. And similarly, the term which God fixed for the life of man was not observed in the case of Noah; for he said that the men of that time until the Flood should live one hundred and twenty years. Again, when He had given order for the complicated Levitical meat-offering, God says afterward througjh Isaiah and Jeremiah that He had given no commandment unto Israel concerning sacrifices or concerning burnt- offerings. Again, having promised that the Law should be a statute forever, why did He not make His ordinances everlasting laws ? And, having promised to give to the seed of Israel the land from Egypt unto the Euphrates in possession, He did not give them the tenth part of the promise. These “difficulties” cover a wide field in Penta- teuchal criticism. The Mosaic authorship; the Appendix Q. PATRISTIC CRITICISM 47 discrepant statements in Genesis; the absence of a prohibition extended to the woman concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the chronological difficulty involved in the contradictory statements in Genesis and Exodus (according to the Septuagint) concerning the duration of the bondage in Egypt; the nonobserv¬ ance of the term of human life fixed before the Flood; the contrast between the will of God in respect of sacrifice communicated through the prophets and the complicated Levitical system of oblation and burnt-offering. While the evidently hostile character of the questions (virulently so as far as the attacks on the New Testament are con¬ cerned) will sufficiently account for their presenta¬ tion, this does not detract from their value as an expression of criticism based on apparent contra¬ dictions and incongruities in the sacred text; and they are to be recorded as the first appearance in Christian literature of criticism of a definitely categorical character in regard to the Pentateuch. The extracts given in these three sections repre¬ sent the main results of an exhaustive examination of patristic literature during the first seven cen¬ turies of the Christian era. Several other instances might be given; but enough quotations have been made to enable the reader to form an opinion for himself as to their value and significance. 1 Some, 1 Several instances quoted by modern critical writers have been found to be without warrant from the text, and are therefore omitted. 48 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM it may be, will be surprised to learn of their exist¬ ence; but more so, it is probable, to find that the exegetical labors of so many learned men during so long a period have contributed so little to the elucidation of the undoubted difficulties in the sacred text. The reason for this, as I take it, is, not that the Fathers were devoid of the critical faculty, as has/ been asserted; for their work in regard to the formation of the canon of the New Testament amply proves the contrary; but that the specific question of the authorship of the several books and the logical congruity of their contents was never seriously considered by them. As they apparently accepted no direct responsibility for the canonical standing of the Hebrew Scriptures, at any rate in the early centuries, it probably never occurred to them to apply to the sacred books of the Jews such critical tests as they employed when determining the question of the relative inspiration and value of the Christian writings; for to have done so would have implied a doubt as to their divine origin; and such a doubt never entered their minds. Besides, their life work, as they under¬ stood it, was of a different order. To establish the Faith, to define its tenets, to organize and regulate the churches, to refute the heathen, to combat heresy, to quell schism, and to spread the evangel of Christ throughout the world, these were the tasks that lay before them and in the pursuit of which they spared neither themselves nor others; PATRISTIC CRITICISM 49 for theirs was an age of conflict. Moreover, they did not feel that they held at the beginning any brief, so to speak, on behalf of the Hebrew writ¬ ings. On points of Christian doctrine, and the faith delivered to the Apostles and communicated by them, they could be earnest, zealous, heroic, even savage and vindictive on occasion; in main¬ taining the truth of the Gospel they could fill volume after volume with argument and apology; in defense of the faith they lived by and the sacred memorials of their Master they were found ready to undergo contumely, imprisonment, tor¬ ture, even death itself; but their treatment of the books of the Old Covenant was that of persons whose chief interest in the subject was dependent on the amount of support to be derived from it for their own cause. Jerome, certainly the ripest scholar and acutest critic of his day, who appears to care little whether the Pentateuch be ascribed to Moses or to Ezra, and considers the question of the authorship of the Book of Daniel of small moment as compared with the fact that the prophet testified most openly concerning Christ, fairly represents the attitude of the early Church on the subject of the Hebrew Scriptures. CHAPTER V FROM THE DAYS OF THE FATHERS TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY The secondary position of the Old Testament in the Church Catholic: Andreas Bodenstein the first literary critic: his views on the evidence of style: Calvin's exposition on Joshua: his view that Eleazar was the compiler thereof: Andreas van Maes, first Roman Catholic critic: offense given by his preface: his book on Joshua placed on the Index: Benedict Pereira's commentary on Genesis: the “Great Glosses on Genesis" of Ascanio Martinengo: Bonfrere's single criticism. A SSIGNED at the outset to a secondary posi- ^ ^ tion in the divine library of the Church Catholic, the books of the Old Testament never really emerged from it until after the Reformation; and we search in vain through the commentaries of the schoolmen and ecclesiastics of the period for anything resembling literary criticism of their contents. Even when the study of the Hebrew text, neglected for more than a thousand years, began once more to occupy the attention of Chris¬ tian scholars, their attitude was very much the same as of old; the main value of the Old Testa¬ ment was its significance for Christianity, and the search among its pages for allegory and hidden TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 51 meaning, darkly pointing to the New, remained the chief purpose of their work. This limitation of the function of scholarship may properly be ascribed to the official attitude of the Catholic Church toward the interpretation of the Scriptures. The responsibility which had devolved upon it in the early centuries, of deter¬ mining the limits of the sacred canon implied, according to the unanimous opinion of the age, authority with respect to the interpretation of the books thus recognized as canonical; and this implicit authority soon became explicit, as the Church became not merely the official depository of tradition and interpretation, but also the only authentic channel of promulgation. If in the history of this great institution, the Bible seems to take a second place and to stand, as it were, behind the cathedra Petri, it needs no wresting of the facts to see that such a position was the natural result of the circumstances themselves; the organization that had prescribed the canon assumed as a matter of course the right to direct and govern the inter¬ pretation of its contents; and from this perfectly logical position the Roman Catholic Church has never receded. It may be noted, moreover, that after the subsidence of the ebullition of untram¬ meled expression of doctrinal opinion which marked the early years of the Protestant revolt, the various ecclesiastical organizations which, in whatever else they 'might differ, were united in 52 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM their refusal to acknowledge the supremacy of the Holy See, soon found it necessary to adopt a similar attitude, in some respects even more strin¬ gent, in regard to the interpretation of the Bible. From among the extravagant and incoherent, even hysterical doctrinal treatises on the Protest¬ ant side, which appeared at that troublous time, and did so much to obscure and confuse the real issue, we may distinguish one small volume em¬ bodying the first criticism of Scripture of the sort which the humanists of the Renascence had already applied to classical literature, and coming from the pen of one of the early Reformers; one indeed who, in respect of a doctrine soon to prove cardinal, may have been in advance of all; for it appears that Andreas Bodenstein (or Carlsbad, as he was also called, after his native place) was the forerunner of Luther in proclaiming salvation by faith. Brilliant and emotional, his name was for a time in all men’s mouths; but his defeat by Eyck, for whom he proved no match as a disputant, was a blow from which he found it difficult to recover; and a growing jealousy of Luther gradually ren¬ dered him useless to the party of reform. Boden- stein’s subsequent erratic career need not here be followed; but to his other claims to distinction may be added that of having been the first to apply to the sacred text that most delicate test of all, the test of style. TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 53 In this respect the following extract from his treatise On the Canonical Scriptures, published in 1520, is of extreme interest. 1 Let us add that many books are to be trusted as far as the facts are concerned, but in regard to the narrator of the transactions, we can but speak with uncertainty con¬ cerning many canonical books. It is certain that Moses divinely received and gave to the people the Law of God; but doubt can be entertained as to whose is the composition of the five books of Moses and the thread of the narrative. For in the same way that we recognize a man before we see him, by the shape of his body, we also decide in other matters. Thus, from the manner of a treatise we con¬ jecture it to be that of an author whom we have previously been in the habit of reading. Now the manner of the narrator appears to be different when Moses speaks and when the historian relates a transaction in a simple way. Therefore the painstaking reader who weighs within himself with a true judgment the books of authors, will finally discern what value the style has, in order that he may form a conjecture. Of course he does not gather from ambiguous arguments that a certain one of the books is the work of this or that author, for verily I think that it is impossible to trace an author by the style, unless I have previous knowledge of other volumes by the same author. Wherefore if anyone desire to maintain that the Law was written by Moses, let him show it after a careful examin¬ ation of the Mosaic diction. * * * For the style of a treatise includes not the words alone, but the matter and the opinions—that is, the soul of the words; and if anyone will examine them with judicial severity, he will easily find the spirit of the author dwell¬ ing under the writing, as within the bark. 1 See Appendix Q. 54 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Setting about it with toil of this sort, we shall decide more rightly concerning the authors of the books. Burning with such zeal, I arrived at the point when I began to be so doubtful about the writer of the last two books of Ezra that I was forced to a complete standstill. Reflecting on the historian of the five books of Moses, I wavered in my opinion as to who had written the five volumes of the Law, who was the author of them. The actions themselves were without doubt transacted by those to whom they are assigned, either by Moses or others; but in regard to the writer of the history, influenced by no light conviction, I have thought it to be the work of some other than Moses. First, I am urged by this reason, that after the death of Moses, the history is composed with the same phrase and diction as had begun to be used concerning previous occurrences. But it is most clear that Moses, being dead, neither wrote nor spoke anything afterward; whence the style of the history must be assigned to another author than Moses. Besides, we may see things in Deuteronomy which Moses did not put forth; these and others may be looked upon as the narrative of the historian of the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Here follow the last eight verses of Deuteron¬ omy, which relate the death, burial, and character of Moses, taken from the Vulgate version: From which it is shown that it can be maintained that Moses was not the writer of the five books; since after the burial of Moses we see the same thread of the narrative, not the same Moses; for it were indeed ridiculous if a defunct Moses were speaking these words. Calvin completed his exposition on Joshua in 1564 (the year in which he died) ; and wrote in his argument as follows on the question of authorship: TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 55 As to the author of this book, it is better to suspend our judgment than to make random assertions. Those who think that it was Joshua, because his name is prefixed to the book, rest on weak and insufficient grounds. The name of Samuel is inscribed on a part of the sacred history containing a narrative of events which happened after his death; and there cannot be a doubt that the book which immediately follows the present is called Judges, not because it was written by them, but because it re¬ counts their exploits. Joshua died before the taking of Hebron and Debir, and yet an account of it is given in the fifteenth chapter of the present book. The probability is that a summary of events was framed by the high priest Eleazar, and furnished the material out of which the volume was composed. * * * And before the Levites be¬ came degenerate, their order included a class of scribes or notaries who embodied in a perpetual register every¬ thing connected with the governance of the Congregation that was worthy of record. While the attitude assumed by the ecclesiastical authorities, both Catholic and Protestant, shortly after the Reformation, rendered any exhaustive inquiry into the date and composition of the books of the Old Testament impossible, yet, owing to the subordinate position occupied by the Jewish Scriptures in the canon of the Roman Catholic Church, criticism of a minor character might be directed toward them with comparative safety by Catholic scholars; and this condition of affairs will account for the appearance of those tentative remarks which commentators began to permit themselves to make toward the end of the six¬ teenth century. 56 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM The first writer on the Roman Catholic side who can be termed critical is the Fleming Andreas van Maes already mentioned, better known as Andreas Masius. Learned cleric, traveler and politician, a man of wide attainments and balanced judgment, acquainted with all sorts and conditions of men, he handles the Hebrew Scripture in his folio com¬ mentary on Joshua with a freedom not previously ventured on. The erudition which his work dis¬ played commanded respect 1 and it was several times reprinted; but the boldness of the opinions it expressed exposed it to the attacks of Catholic and Protestant alike, and it was after a while placed on the Index. 2 The preface of Masius, from which the following passage is extracted, gave particular ofifense to the orthodox; and English theologians 1 Matthew Pole of London, in his Synopsis Criticorum dliorum- que Sacrce Scnpturce Interpretum et Commentariorum, summo studio et fide adornata indicibusque necessariis instructa (Frank¬ fort, 1678), says of Masius: “Vir longiore vita & immortali memoria dignus; Interpres cui parem ingenio, judicio, rerum ac linguarum peritia, candore & modestia, haud facile reperies.” 8 The Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or list of books the perusal of which is officially forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church, was instituted in modern times by Pope Paul IV in 1557, although the names of such books had been irregularly promulgated since the end of the fifth century. The present regulations of the Index are contained in the Institute (in forty- nine articles) of Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1897, and a body, styled the Congregation of the Index, is charged with the carrying out of the regulations of the Institution. The current edition (the fourth) of the modern Index, was issued in 1922 by the Congregation of the Index. Works of the following writers cited or referred to in this book, are placed on the present issue: Agobard, Beausobre, Berruyer, Cappel, Carpzov, Clericus, D. Le Clerc, Descartes, Dupin, Episcopius, Fleury, Gramberg, Grotius, Hobbes, Jahn, Lightfoot, Piscator, Prideaux, Reuss, Serry, Simon, Van Dale, Van Helmont, Vitringa. TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 57 at the end of the eighteenth century are credited with saying that it ought to be expunged from the volume. 1 Masius’s book 2 was published in 1574; but as the commentary of Calvin did not appear until some time after his death, it is quite likely that the Catholic scholar was unacquainted with it. His treatment of the subject is, moreover, in¬ dependent throughout: It [the book in question] is inscribed with the name of Joshua because, as I have said, it deals with his military government. For he is not the writer, as we shall show by many arguments in the proper places. Wherefore the opinion of the Jews, which they have recorded in writing in their Talmud concerning the authors of the sacred books, is worthless and false. My own opinion certainly is that I think that Ezra, either alone or together with his contemporaries, men distinguished by piety and erudition, inspired with the heavenly spirit, compiled from the various annals preserved in the Congregation of God, not merely the book of Joshua, but also of the Judges and the Kings, and other books which we read of in the sacred Biblia, as they call them, and arranged them in the order which has been so long observed. Nay, good conjectures may easily be adduced that the very work of Moses which they call the Pentateuch, was padded ( farcitum ) as it were, and generally rendered more explicable, long after the time of Moses, by the introduction at least of clauses of words and sentences. 1 Johann Vogt, in the issue for 1793 of his Catalogus Historico- Criticus Librorum Rariorum, says of it: “Rettulerunt quidem Theologi Angli pereruditum hunc Commentariurn in Biblia Critica, sed Praefatione, quod dolendum, truncatum.” 2 See Appendix R. 58 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM In support of this view Masius cites the use of the name Hebron in Genesis for the town Kiriath- Arba (Gen. xxiii:2; cp. Joshua xiv:14 and 15) and quotes the opinion expressed by Jerome in his treatise against Helvidius (here, in common with others, straining the sense of the words) ; and states his belief that journals and annals were compiled in the Congregation from early times, in which, men who at every epoch were distinguished for learning and piety among the people of God committed to writing in unbroken sequence all events that appeared to be most worthy of note. As instances of this custom, Masius cites the books of the Kings, the book of the Wars of the Lord, and the book of the Just, 1 for, as he says: Who, pray, but a dull and foolish person can think that Samuel when about to quote the very words used by Saul when seeking him, began thus: “Him who is now called a prophet they formerly styled a seer”? and that these are not rather the words of a writer narrating by¬ gone events, far removed from his own period? Masius concludes his preface by saying: But in truth there is no great need for contending con¬ cerning the writer, as long as we believe that God is the author, both of the events themselves and of the words wherewith they have been communicated to us; to the end that we may learn the rule of living in accordance with 1 Joshua x:13 “Is not this written in the book of Jasher?” (or “the book Jasher”). Theodoret, commenting on this passage, makes a curious blunder (for which see the Appendix), reading, probably through the error of a copyist, Eugdfsv for and explaining the reference in Joshua to a book which had been found, and that in II Sam, i;18 to a righteous book. TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 59 His will, may more clearly recognize His eternal provi¬ dence and may thereby be stirred to love, venerate and worship Him more and more. In 1589, a commentary on Genesis appeared, the work of the Jesuit Benedict Pereira. In his preface to his work Pereira states that while he finds reason to believe, on the authority of Exodus xvii:14 (“And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua”) and xxiv:3 and 4 (“And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments, * * * And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord”), and Deuteronomy xxxi:24 (“And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing all the words of this law in a book”), that Moses had left much behind him in writing, yet he approves the opinion of those who believe that the Pentateuch was added to in many different ways long after the time of Moses. From his use of the word “padded” ( farcitum ) in this context, it is possible that Pereira had the commentary of Masius (whose work had appeared fifteen years before) particularly in mind. The last critical note of the sixteenth century was furnished by the Great Glosses on Genesis (Padua, 1597) of Ascanio Martinengo. This author comes to the conclusion that Moses derived the material for the books of the Pentateuch from ancestral and other ancient records, which he 60 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM proceeds to enumerate. After the publication of Martinengo’s book biblical criticism seems to have rested for more than half a century; and it was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that it made its reappearance with the publication of Hobbes’s Leviathan. It is true that the learned and orthodox Bonfrere, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, published in 1625, permits himself to make a single critical remark in regard to Mosaic authorship; but there does not appear to be any other instance of published criticism extant. Bon¬ frere concludes his note on Genesis xxxvi:31 (“And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the people of Israel”) by saying: However, I would rather say that some author had made subsequent additions to the Hagiographa (holy writings ), 1 than ascribe everything to Moses in the char¬ acter of a prophet. But while with this exception textual criticism of the Old Testament was in abeyance during the first half of the seventeenth century, the discussion of another subject of controversy, possibly even more serious, connected with the Hebrew Scrip¬ tures, came to a head during that period. 1 The word Hagiographa, which Bonfrere probably uses in its general signification, technically refers to the third division of the books of the Hebrew canon (the first two being the Law, sc. Pentateuch, and the Prophets), viz., Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, in the order given; Chroni¬ cles being the last of the canonical books. The name in Hebrew is Kethubim, or Writings. CHAPTER VI THE THEORY OF THE VERBAL INSPIRATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The Rabbinical legends concerning the origin of the sacred writings: divine origin includes the vowel points and accents: “every jot and tittle of the Law”: Natronai of opinion these were added by the Massoretes: the Massoreth Hamassoreth: general acceptance of LevitcVs theory: subsequent reaction in Protestant circles: William Fulke’s “Defense”: John Piscator takes the same stand: Lightfoot regards belief in the Jewish tradition a test of piety: Brian Walton adopts Levita’s view: Protestant belief in the divine origin of the vowel points cannot be shaken: the two Buxtorfs firmly uphold the orthodox view': Jean Morin of the Oratory challenges the integrity of the Hebrew text: Louis Cappel discovers the Aramaic origin of the Hebrew script: his Arcanum published anonymously at Leyden: CappeVs Critica Sacra: the attack upon the integrity of the Hebrew text: the Protestants defend the theory of verbal in¬ spiration: the consensus of scholarly opinion on the Continent supports CappeVs views: the Protestant party maintains the theory of literal inspiration. T> EFORE proceeding to the consideration of the ^ important critical treatises which mark the latter half of the seventeenth century, it is neces¬ sary to take note of a matter that gave rise to controversy of a peculiarly acute and embittered character; one, too, which was destined to exert a most serious effect upon the attitude of both 62 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Catholic and Protestant Churches, the latter especially, toward the Hebrew Scriptures, for more than three hundred years—that is, from the earlier portion of the sixteenth century to the latter part of the nineteenth; the question of the verbal inspiration of the canonical books of the 'Old Testament. For many hundred years the rabbinical writers, grammarians and philosophers alike, had vied with one another in weaving round the history of the sacred writings a web of legend and tradition designed to increase still further the veneration with which the ancient Scriptures were regarded by investing them with that glamor and attraction which, in the oriental mind, belongs to the mar¬ velous and supernatural. Among the many tra¬ ditions connected with the historical books were certain that ascribed an immediately divine origin, not merely’ to the sacred writings themselves as such, the structure and wording of the sentences contained in them, but also to every letter of the same, and even to the points and marks by which the vowels and accents were indicated in the re¬ ceived text. 1 According to one account, the mys¬ tery of the vowel points and the accents was revealed by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden; 1 For the information of those unacquainted with Hebrew, it may be stated that the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet (the names of which are used as the headings of the sections of the 119th Psalm) are considered as consonants; and certain points and dashes are added to the consonantal text to signify the vowel sounds. VERBAL INSPIRATION 63 according to another, to Moses on Sinai; while yet another affirmed that the revelation was vouch¬ safed to the men of the Great Synagogue. Widely, however, as the traditions might vary as to the date or recipients of the revelation, they met on the same common ground of belief that every “jot and tittle of the Law,” every vowel-point and ac¬ cent, had been set down by the will of the Most High, was charged with the same divine authority as the rest of the Scriptures, and was coeval with their earliest writing. This tradition, dear to the heart of the pious Jew, had been rarely disputed. True, in the ninth century, Natronai ha-Sheni ben Hilai, one of the great Hebrew scholars and controversialists of his day, had maintained that the vowel-points and accents had been added to the text by the Masso- retes; 1 and in the twelfth century Ibn Ezra (of whom more anon) had left on record a similar opinion. But the orthodox tradition was too se¬ curely fixed in the hearts of the people to be easily shaken; as time went on, the rabbinical legend, in one form or another, was practically accepted by Jew and Christian alike; and no serious opposition presented itself until the sixteenth century. 1 The Hebrew scholars who collected and committed to writing the mass of tradition (Massorah) connected with the sacred Sariptures. The work of the Massoretes is estimated to have begun three centuries before the Christian era and to have con¬ tinued for 1,300 years (Ginsburg). The received text of the Hebrew Scriptures is known as the Massoretic text, being read with the vowel-points and other markings added to the unpointed consonantal text by these scholars, in accordance with the tra¬ ditional reading. 64 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM In the year 1538, a Jewish scholar named Elijah ben Asher ha-Levi, known to the Gentiles as Elias Levita, a man of vast learning and held in deserv¬ edly high repute both by Christians and by Jews, set up and printed in Hebrew at the press of Bomberg in Venice a book entitled Massoret ha-Massoret, or A Mass or ah of the Mass or ah, in which he advanced the opinion that the vowel- points and accents, far from being contempo¬ raneous with the first written text, were of comparatively modern origin, although none the less inspired, and the work of the Massorete critics of the school of Tiberias, not earlier than the sixth century. Levita’s view was supported by evidence and argument conclusive, to any open mind, of the justice of his contention. When the astonishment which was the first result of the publication of Levita’s book and the consequent dissemination of his views had settled down, his standpoint found general acceptance both with Catholics and with Protestants; the former seeing in it an additional source of strength for the Roman Catholic claim for the authoritative tradition of the Church in matters of interpreta¬ tion, while the leaders of the Protestant party welcomed a theory that would free the Old Testa¬ ment from the control of rabbinical tradition. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others readily dis¬ claimed the antiquity of the vowel-points; and it seemed for a time as if the Massoretic pointing would fall into general disrepute. VERBAL INSPIRATION 65 But in the succeeding age, thoughtful men among the Protestant bodies began to perceive that while the new view undoubtedly strengthened the claims of the Roman Catholics for the authorita¬ tive tradition of the Church, the instability which it gave to the Word of God in the Old Testament definitely weakened the position of the Protestants, whose interests, as it was seen by that time, were inseparable from the preservation of the authority of the received text, as the divinely communicated Word of God; for the Protestant controversialists had begun to understand that in their disputes with the Catholics the most efifective counterstroke to the doctrine of an infallible Church was the theory of an infallible Bible. In the reaction which en¬ sued, English divines appear to have played an important part. In 1583, William Fulke published A Defense of the Sincere and True Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tong , in which the inspiration of the pointed text was main¬ tained; Hugh Broughton, in his commentary on Daniel, published in 1596, upheld the same view; and the great scholar John Piscator, 1 in his Analysis Logic a Evangelii secundum Matthceum (1594), in his exposition of Matthew v:18 (“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”) ac- 2 Johannes P. Piscator (Fischer), at that time professor of Theology in the newly-founded Hohen Landesschule at Herborn (where Buxtorf the Elder was one of his discipuli). See Ap¬ pendix S 1. 66 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM tually interpreted the word “tittle” (in the Greek xepcxia meaning the small projection or “horn” at the head of several Hebrew letters, rendered apex in the Vulgate) as referring to the vowel- points, which he consequently asserted to have been in existence in the time of Christ and ap¬ proved by Him, thus claiming Divine sanction and support for the inspiration theory. Among later defenders of the infallibility of the Hebrew text was Dr. John Lightfoot, whose repu¬ tation as a Hebrew scholar was the highest in England in his day, and who, scorning to debate or discuss a question which he felt it was impious to doubt, issued a sort of pronunciamiento to the faithful, according to which belief in the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew text was at once a proof of common sense and a test of piety. To him succeeded John Owen, the eminent Puritan divine, with a trenchant vindication of the vowel-points in his Of the Divine Originall, Authority, Self- Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures, published in 1659. To the influence of these two writers the general belief among British Protest¬ ants in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, which maintained itself for more than two hundred years, may chiefly be ascribed. True, Dr. Brian Walton (afterward Bishop of Chester), in his Prolegomena to the London Polyglot, published *Westcott and. Hort read xeqeo,. If this reading (here and Lu. xvi. 17) can be justified, it probably is, ut spero, out. Xey. VERBAL INSPIRATION 67 in 1657, adopted Levita’s view of the Massoretic origin of the vowel-points—which included that of their divine inspiration; injuring thereby his own reputation for orthodoxy without affecting public opinion; for the will of the people to believe in the theory of literal inspiration was too strong to be shaken by argument. The writings of the English divines on this question have been referred to particularly because in England the common belief in verbal inspiration has generally been ascribed to the influence of the two Johann Buxtorfs, father and son, renowned Hebrew scholars and professors at the Protestant university of Basle. Johann Buxtorf the elder, a devoted and enthusiastic student of Jewish litera¬ ture, was so deeply versed in the doctrines and liturgical observances of that people as to have been styled “the Master of the Rabbins,” His in¬ tense interest in the rabbinical literature and his close intimacy with the Jewish scholars of the place affected his judgment; for in his Tiberias, or a Massoretic Commentary , published in 1620, he vigorously defended (with arguments singularly feeble) the high antiquity of the vowel-points against the evidence adduced by Elias Levita. Dying in 1629, he was succeeded in the chair of Hebrew by his son, Johann Buxtorf the younger, equally renowned as a Hebrew scholar and still more distinguished as a controversialist. That the two Buxtorfs, especially the younger, who was 68 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM regarded by the Protestants as the champion of orthodox views, exercised immense influence on the question of verbal inspiration, is indubitable; but as far as England was concerned, the defense of the vowel-points had been successfully carried out by their own scholars many years before the Buxtorfs came into the field; and in that country they did but confirm the prevailing opinion by the high authority of their acknowledged scholarship. It was probably not without the idea of furnish¬ ing the Catholics with an effective counterblast to the Protestant doctrine of verbal inspiration that Jean Morin, the erudite priest of the Congre¬ gation of the Oratory, put forth in 1633 his Exercitationes Biblicce / which, despite the learning displayed by its author, resolves itself into little more than a virulent attack upon the integrity of the Hebrew text, which Morin asserted to be replete with errors and corruptions of different kinds. He stigmatized the Jewish historians as utterly unworthy of credence, and regarded the Talmud' as a farrago of contemptible legends, worse than old wives’ tales (fabularum plusquam 1 See Appendix S. 2 The Talmud, the treasury of Rabinnical lore handed down orally from generation to generation and finally, during the first six centuries of the Christian era, gathered together in two parts; I. The Mishnah, a systematically compiled record of rules and decisions dealing with and developing the laws of the Old Testa¬ ment. II. The Gemara, containing later and supplementary material, legal and social. Of this body of laws, regulations, and commentaries there are two recensions—the Palestinian and the Babylonian, the latter being the more important and authoritative. VERBAL INSPIRATION 69 anilium textura). The excessive animosity shown by Morin detracted from the real value of his book as a contribution to the history of the text, and his contemptuous allusions to the Protestants deprived the work in their eyes of any merit whatever. Far more important, therefore, because more restrained in character, was the critical work of Louis Cappel, Professor of Hebrew at a Protest¬ ant Institute at Saumur, and an Oriental scholar as deep, if not as renowned, as the elder Buxtorf. In the first quarter of the century CappePs re¬ searches in rabbinical literature had brought him into substantial agreement with the view of Levita as to the date and origin of the Hebrew vowel- points and accents; later on, he discovered for himself that the square Hebrew characters, which were everywhere looked upon as the original script of the sacred books, were Aramaic, and had been substituted for the older pointed letters (since known as Samaritan) at the time of the captivity. When Cappel communicated his discovery to the elder Buxtorf, the latter endeavored to persuade him not to publish it, representing to him the serious damage to the Protestant cause which would therefrom ensue. A copy of the manu¬ script, however, had been sent by Cappel to his friend Erpenius, professor of Oriental languages at Leyden, who caused it to be published anony¬ mously in 1624 (with his own name attached as 70 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM editor) under the title Arcanum Punctationum Revelatum, or The Mystery of the Vowel-points Revealed . Meanwhile Cappel had been at work for many years upon another and more important volume, dealing with the text of both Testaments, which he completed in 1634; but owing to the odium which attached upon him in consequence of the opinions expressed in the Arcanum, he was re¬ fused permission to publish it. The work circu¬ lated, nevertheless, in manuscript among scholars for several years, and the boldness of Cappel’s views made the Protestant authorities determined to prevent the printing of a treatise they regarded as not merely audacious, but pernicious. Richard Simon, who looks upon Cappel as “to be preferred to all others who have treated of the same subject,” says that he applied in vain for an imprimatur at Geneva, Leyden, and Sedan. After nearly fifteen years of unsuccessful endeavor on the part of the author, his son, who had meanwhile become a Roman Catholic, was able to interest several of the Paris clergy in his father’s behalf; and, with the support of Fathers Petau the Jesuit, Morin of the Oratory and Mersenne of the Minimi, the necessary privilege du roi was obtained and the book published in 1650. 1 In the Critic a Sacra Cappel advances from his criticism of the Hebrew vowel-points contained in 1 See Appendix T. For a curious blunder in regard to this date, see Appendix Z. VERBAL INSPIRATION 71 tHe Arcanum to that of the text itself; and brings forward a multitude of instances to show that the received text of both Old and New Testaments had become in many places corrupt and inaccu¬ rate ; that many different readings of the text of the New Testament were in existence; that the readings of the Septuagint and other versions were in many cases to be preferred to those of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament; and finally, that none of the existing texts of either Old or New Testaments could be called in any sense “autographic.” In the tenth book of the Critica Sacra, after discussing a number of alleged lapses and errors and impugning afresh the accuracy of the Masso- retic vowel-points, Cappel concludes as follows: Wherefore let this remain agreed upon and settled, that the sacred codices underwent in the copying those varied and manifold mishaps which are common to all other books, arising from the ignorance, carelessness and inattention of the copyists, and at times from the boldness and rashness of amenders; from which not even our present Hebrew codex is exempt, nor could be, save by some stupendous and incredible miracle, whereby it should come about that all the copyists of the whole of the sacred books, from the days of Moses to our own, were— like the prophets themselves in speaking and writing—* divinely inspired and incapable of error.” The opinions expressed by Cappel in the Critica Sacra amounted to nothing less than the repudia- 72 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM tion of the theory of verbal inspiration; and the defenders of that doctrine—by that time fully accepted and regarded as orthodox by the Pro¬ testant organizations—rallied to its defense. A number of Protestant publications appeared, the authors of which distinguished themselves rather by their talent for vituperation than by their learning, for indeed the knowledge of Hebrew in Protestant ecclesiastical circles at that time was extremely scanty. The scholarly qualifications of the younger Buxtorf were indeed in notable con¬ trast to the ignorance of the other Protestant writers; yet in his Vindication of Hebrew Truth he did not scruple to present, instead of a learned argument, a violent personal attack upon the offending critic, and fulminated in no measured terms against the audacious scholar. The latter’s arguments, indeed, were too strong to be success¬ fully opposed; and the abuse indulged in by his adversaries did not mend their cause. The Catholics did not mingle directly in the fray; it was to them a very pretty Protestant quar¬ rel; and they were probably not sorry to see so stout a blow delivered at one of the main tenets of the Protestant party, particularly when the flail was wielded by one of their own divines. Richard Simon’s remarks on this head may be taken to represent fairly the Catholic standpoint in the matter. 1 1 Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, Book I, Chap. i. p. 9. VERBAL INSPIRATION 73 The Catholicks, who are perswaded their religion de¬ pends not onely on the text of Scripture, but likewise on the tradition of the Church, are not at all scandalized, to see that the misfortune of Time and the negligence of Transcribers have wrought changes in the Holy Scriptures as well as in prophane Authours; there are none but prejudic’t Protestants or ignorant people that can be offended at it. I say, prejudic’t Protestants or ignorant people, because the most understanding among them have made no scruple to acknowledge them as well in the Old as in the New Testament. Again, referring to the two Buxtorfs, Simon says: The reason of the wilfulness of the German Protestants, as also those of Geneva , is because they have blindly fol¬ lowed the opinion of the two Buxtorfs, concerning the sincerity of the Hebrew text. Buxtorf the Father, who apply’d himself wholly to the studying of the Hebrew tongue, and the reading of the Rabbins Books, en¬ deavour’d by all means possible to authorize this text. Which he did by the help of the Massoret, which we have before spoke of. And he publish’d upon this account a little treatise concerning the Antiquity of Points. As Buxtorf was look’d upon a a an Oracle by the modern Plebraicians, most of them followed his Opinion, and not being able to search thoroughly into so difficult a business as that was, they rely’d rather upon his Authority than his Arguments. And that which made Buxtorf’s opinion to be the more esteem’d, was because it favour’d the principles of the New Reformation, the Providence of God, said they, being herein to be admir’d, who had pre¬ serv’d the Scriptures free from the least faults; and they observed not that this so extraordinary a Providence was grounded only on, the Superstition and Dreams of the Rabbins, with which the two Buxtorfs, the modern Hebraicians Patriarchs, have fill’d their books. Cappellus 74 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM who had joyn’d the reading of the ancient Interpreters with that of the Rabbins, went a clear contrary way to work, and very plainly shew’d that the Opinion of Buxtorf the Father, which the Son afterwards defended, was grounded onely upon the Rabbins fancies. In a word, what is there else in the Book writ by Buxtorf the Son, in answer to that of Cappellus’s, entitled Arcanum Punctationis, what is there I say else in this book of Buxtorf s, but some insignificant Jewish learning? As the study of Hebrew advanced, the consensus of scholars confirmed the main positions taken by Cappel; but the theory of verbal inspiration, al¬ though never recognized as doctrinal, continued to be sedulously maintained by Protestant ecclesi¬ astics, who found in it an effective argument against the pretension of the Roman Church to supreme authority in scriptural interpretation. CHAPTER VII THE LATTER HALF OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. JOHN HOBBES. John Hobbes’s Leviathan: the first English literary criticism of the Bible: his rationalistic attitude includes all the books of the old Testa¬ ment in his criticism: the most advanced criti¬ cism up to that time: the orthodox attack him violently: his opinions carry no weight in Eng¬ land: the Preadamite hypothesis: Peyrere’s criti¬ cism of the Pentateuch . TN 1651, the year after the appearance of A Cappers Critica Sacra, John Hobbes’s Levia¬ than, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Com- wealth Ecclesiastic all and Civill was published in London. Into the purpose of this well-known book, or its relation to the philosophy which preceded and followed it, it is not within our province to enter; bet as it contains not merely the first English criticism of the Bible as a literary production, but also the first presentation of the rationalistic atti¬ tude toward the sacred text, the passages relating to the Old Testament are given in extenso, in order that the reader may judge for himself concerning them: 76 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Who were the originall writers of the severall Books of Holy Scripture has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History (which is the only proof of matter of fact) ; nor can be by any arguments of naturall Reason; for Reason serves only to convince the truth (not of fact, but) of consequence. The light there¬ fore that must guide us in this question, must be that which is held out to us from the Rookes themselves; and this light, though it show us not the writer of every book, yet it is not unusefull to give us knowledge of the time, wherein they were written. And first, for the Pentateuch, it is not argument enough that they were written by Moses, because they are called the five Books of Moses, no more than these titles, the Book of Joshua, the book of Judges, the Book of Ruth, and the Books of the Kings are arguments sufficient to prove, that they were written by Joshua, by the Judges, by Ruth, and by the Kings. For in titles of Books, the subject is marked, as often as the writer. The History of Livy, denotes the writer; but the History of Scanderbeg, is denominated from the subject. We read in the last chapter of Deuteronomie, ver 6. concerning the sepulcher of Moses, that no man knoweth of his sepulcher to this day, that is, to the day in which these words were written. It is therefore manifest, that those words were written after his interrement. For it was a strange interpretation, to say Moses spake of his own sepulcher (though by Prophecy), that it was not found to that day, wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps be alledged, that the last chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written by some other man, but the rest not; Let us therefore consider that which we find in the Book of Genesis, chap. 12 . ver. 6. And Abraham passed through the land to the place of Sichem, JOHN HOBBES 77 unto the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in the land; which must needs bee the words of one that wrote when the Canaanite was not in the land; and conse¬ quently, not of Moses, who dyed before he came into it. Likewise Numbers, 21. ver. 14. the Writer citeth another more ancient Book, Entituled, The Book of the Warres of the Lord, wherein were registered the Acts of Moses, at the Red-sea, and at the brook of Arnon. It is there¬ fore sufficiently evident, that the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after is not so manifest. But though Moses did not compile those Books entirely, and in the form we have them; yet he wrote all that which he is there said to have written: as for example, the Volume of the Law, which is contained, as it seemeth, in the II of D enter onomie, and the following chapters to the 27 , which was also commanded to be written on stones, in their entry into the land of Canaan. And this also did Moses himself write, and delivered to the Priests and Elders of Israel, to be read every seventh year to all Israel, at their assembling in the feast of Tabernacles. And this is that Law which God commanded, that their Kings (when they should have stablished that form of govern¬ ment) should take a copy of from the Priests and Levites; and which Moses commanded the Priests and Levites to lay in the side of the Arke; and the same which having been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah, and sent to King Iosias, who causing it to be read to the people, renewed the Covenant between God and them. That the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time of Joshua, may be gathered out of many places in the Book itself. Joshua had set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, for a monument of their passage; of which the Writer saith thus: they are there unto this day: 78 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM for unto this day is a phrase that signifieth a time past, beyond the memory of man. In like manner, upon the saying of the Lord, that he had rolled off from the people the reproach of Egypt, the Writer saith, The place is called Gilgal unto this day; which to have said in the time of Joshua had been improper. So also the name of the valley of Achor, from the trouble that Achor raised in the Camp, the Writer saith, remaineth unto this day: which must needs bee therefore long after the time of Joshua. Argu¬ ments of this kind there bee many other; as Josh. 8. 29. 13. 13.14. 14. 15. 63. 1 The same is manifest by like arguments of the Book of Judges chap. I. 21, 26. 6.24. 10.4. 15.19. 17,6. and Ruth 1.1. 2 but especially Judges 18.30. where it is said that Jonathan and his sonnes were Priests to the Tribe of Dan, until the day of the Captivity of the land. 1 Joshua viii :29. Joshua commanded that they should * * * raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day. xiii :13. The Geshurites and the Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this day. xiv:14. Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Pephunneh the Kenizite unto this day. xv:63. The Jebusites dwell with the children of Israel at Jerusalem unto this day. “Judges i:21. The. Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. i :26. * * * and called the name (of the city) Luz; which is the name thereof unto this day. vi :24. Then Gideon built an altar * * *; unto this day it is in Opbrah of the Abi-ezrites. x: 4. Thirty cities, which are called Havoth Jair unto this day. xv:19. He called the name thereof En-hakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day. 3 xvii :6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Ruth. i:l. Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled. 79 JOHN HOBBES That the Books of Samuel were also written after his own time, there are the like arguments 1. Sam. 5.5. 7.13.15. 27.6. and 30.25. 1 where, after David had adjudged equall part of the spoiles, to them that guarded the Ammunition, with them that fought, the Writer saith, he made it a statute and ordinance to Israel to this day. Again, when David (displeased, that the Lord had slain Uzzah, for putting out his hand to sustain the Ark,) called the place Perez-Uzzah, the Writer saith, it is called so to this day: the time therefore of the writing of the Book, must be long after the time of the fact; that is, long after the time of David. As for the two Books of the Kings, and the two Books of the Chronicles, besides the places which mention such monuments, as the Writer saith, remained unto his own days; such as are I. Kings 9.13. 9.21. 10.12. 12.19. 2 Kings 2.22. 8.22. 10.27. 14.7. 16.6. 17,23. 17,34. 17,41, I Chron. 4.41. 5.26. 2 it is argument sufficient that they *1 Samuel v: 5. vii :13. 15. xxvii: 6. xxx :25. "I Kings ix:13. 21 . x :12. xii :19. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon’s house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel. And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. Ziklag pertaineth unto the Kings of Judah unto this day. And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day. And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day. Upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of bond service unto this day. There came no such almug trees, nor were: seen unto this day. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. 80 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM were written after the captivity in Babylon, that the History of them is continued till that time. The Facts registered are alwaies more ancient than the Register; and much more ancient than such Books as make mention of and quote the Register; as these Books doe in divers places, referring the reader to the Chronicles of the Kings of Inda, to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, to the Books of the Prophet Samuel, of the Prophet Nathan, of the Prophet Ahijah; to the vision of Iehdo, to the Book of the Prophet Serveiah, and of the Prophet Addo. The Books of Esdras and Nehemiah were written cer¬ tainly after their return from captivity; because their return, the re-edification of the walls and houses of Jerusalem, the renovation of the Covenant, and ordination of their policy are therein contained. The history of Queen Esther is of the time of the Captivity; and therefore the writer must have been of the same time, or after it. The Book of lob hath no mark in it of the time wherein it was written: and though it appear sufficiently (Ezekiel II Kings ii :22. viii :22. x :27. xiv: 7. xvi: 6. xvii :23. 34. 41. I Chron. iv:41. v :2 6. So the waters were healed unto this day. Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. And brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house unto this day. Took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day. The Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day. Unto this day they do after the former manners. As did their fathers, so do they unto this day. And destroyed them utterly unto this day. And brought them unto the river Gozan, unto this day. 81 JOHN HOBBES 14,14. and lames 5.11.) that he waa no fained person, yet the Book it self seemeth not to be a History, but a Treatise concerning a question in ancient time much dis¬ puted, why wicked men have often prospered in this world, and good men have been afflicted; and it is the more probable, because from the beginning to the third verse of the third chapter, where the complaint of lob beginneth, the Hebrew is (as St. Jerome testifies) in prose; and from thence to the sixt verse of the last chap¬ ter in Hexameter Verses; and all the rest of that chapter again in prose. So that the dispute is all in verse; and the prose is added, but as a preface in the beginning, and an Epilogue in the end. But Verse is no usual stile of such, as are either in great pain, as lob; or of such as come to comfort them, as his friends; but in Philosophy, especially morall Philosophy, in ancient times frequent. The Psalmes were written the most part by David, for the use of the Quire. To these were added some songs of Moses, and other holy men; and some of them after the return from Captivity, as the 137, and the 126. where¬ by it is manifest that the Psalter was compiled, and put into the form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon. The Proverbs, being a collection of wise and goodly sayings, partly of Solomon, partly of Agur the son of Jakeh, and partly of the Mother of King Lemuel, cannot probably be thought to have been collected by Solomon, rather than by Agur, or the Mother of Lemuel; and that, though the sentences be theirs, yet the collection or com¬ piling them into this one Book, was the work of some other goodly man, that lived after them all. The Books of Ecclesiastes and the Canticles have nothing that was not Solomon’s, except it be the Titles, or Inscriptions. For The Words of the Preacher, the Son 82 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM of David, King in Jerusalem; and The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's, seem to have been made for distinc¬ tion’s sake, then, when the Books of Scripture were gathered into the body of the Law; to the end, that not the Doctrine only, but the Authors also might be extant. Of the Prophets, the most ancient, are Sophoniah, Jonas, Amos, Ho sea, Isaiah and Michaiah, who lived in the time of A mama h, and Azariah, otherwise Osias, Kings of Judah. But the Book of Jonas is not properly a Register of his Prophecy, (for that is contained in these few words, Fourty dayes and Ninivy shall be destroyed,) but a History or Narration of his frowardnesse aand dis¬ puting God’s commandments; so that there is small prob¬ ability he should be the Author, seeing he is the subject of it. But the Book of Amos is his Prophecy. Jeremiah, Abdias, Nahum, and Habbakuk prophecyed in the time of Josiah. Ezekiel, Daniel, Aggeus, and Zacharias, in the Captivity. When Joel and Malachi prophecyed, is not evident by their writings. But considering the Inscriptions, or Titles of their Books, it is manifest enough, that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, was set forth in the form we have it, after the return of the lews from their Cap¬ tivity in Babylon, and before the time of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, that caused it to bee translated into Greek by seventy men, who were sent him out of Iudaea for that purpose. And if the Books of Apocrypha (which are recommended to us by the Church, though not for Canon¬ ical!, yet for profitable Books for our instruction) may in this point be credited, the Scripture was set forth in the form wee have it in, by Esdras; as may appear by that which he himself saith, in the second book, chapt. 14. verse 21,22,&c. where speaking to God, he saith thus, Thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things which thou hast done, or the works that are to begin . 83 JOHN HOBBES But if I have found Grace before thee, send down the Holy Spirit into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world, since the beginning, which were written in thy Law, that men may find thy path, and that they) which will live in the latter days, may live. . And verse 45. And it came to passe when the forty dayes were fulfilled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written, publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them onely to such as be wise among the people . And thus much concerning the time of the writing of the Bookes of the Old Testament. The limitations of Hobbes’s criticism were those of the most advanced scholars of the age he lived in; and while he was at fault in regard to some of his estimates, such as in the case of Zepha- niah (whom he makes contemporary with Isaiah), his general conclusions vary but little from the views of modern critics. His statements were violently attacked by the orthodox, but no serious investigation of the date and authorship of the books of the Old Testament ensued in England; and the common report of him as a freethinker and an evil liver rendered it impossible for any devout ecclesiastic to give his views serious con¬ sideration, much less approve his opinions. From a remarkable book by Isaac de la Peyrere, entitled A Theological System from a Preadamite Hypothesis, published in 1655, and designed to show the existence of man upon the earth previous to the creation related in Genesis, the following 84 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM extracts 1 are of interest in connection with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: I know not by what author it is found out, that the Pentateuch is Moses his own copy. It is so reported, but not believ’d by all. These reasons make me believe, that these Five Books are not the Originals, but copied out by another. Because Moses is there read to have died. For how could Moses write after his death? They say, that Joshuah added the death of Moses to D enter onomie. But, who added the death of Joshuah to that book which is so call’d; and which is reckon’d as being written by Joshuah himself, as the Pentateuch by Mosesf De la Peyrere also refers to Deuteronomy i:l, “Beyond Jordan, 2 Deuteronomy iii: 11 (“For only Og King of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?”); iii: 14 (“Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called it after his own name, Bashan-Havoth-Jair, unto this day”) ; also ii: 12 and 22 (concerning the defeat of the Horim by the descendants of Esau and their settle¬ ment in Seir) ; from which latter verse, by a com¬ parison with Psalm cviii :9, and other references 1 The extracts are taken from a contemporary English version. 3 This, the regular meaning of the Hebrew (with which the Septuagint and Vulgate concur), is the rendering given in all the earlier English versions, from those of Coverdale and Tyndale to the Great and Bishops’ Bibles. In the Geneva version it is rendered “on this side Jordan”; and this rendering was adopted in the Authorized Version. The significance of the alteration is obvious. In the Revised Version, however, the earlier rendering was resumed. 85 JOHN HOBBES to Edom, he concludes that the date of that por¬ tion of Deuteronomy was subsequent to the reign of David: Hence it is gather’d that these essayes of Deuteronomie were written long after David’s time, a great while after Moses. I need not trouble the reader much further, to prove a thing in itself sufficiently evident, that the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses, as is thought. Nor need any one wonder after this, when he reads many things confus’d and out of order, obscure, deficient, many things omitted and displaced, when they shall consider with themselves that they are but a heap of copie confusedly taken. The observations quoted in de la Peyrere’s book mark a definite advance in the literary criticism of the Pentateuch, and it is somewhat remarkable that they seem to have made little or no impression upon critical scholars of the day. The explanation probably is that the whimsical character of his main argument rendered the book ridiculous in the general opinion, and that no significance was at¬ tached to any part of it. CHAPTER VIII BENEDICT SPINOZA Baruch Spinoza: his attitude toward the religion of his fathers: his expulsion from the Jewish community: characteristics of the writer of the Tractatus: object of the treatise: freedom of opinion a common right: the fate of the Tractatus: treatment of the Hebrew text: the comments of Ibn Ezra: contents of Pentateuch material for history rather than history: Spinoza's declaration of faith. T N 1670, twenty years after the publication of Cappers Critica Sacra, appeared the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus of Benedict Spinoza, 1 and with it the first serious analytical criticism of the Old Testament. If we would estimate aright the work of the Jewish philosopher, we must have some knowledge of the circumstances that produced it and of the man himself; for the Tractatus is a very human document. The descendant of one of those Jewish families that fled from Spain and Portugal in the previous century, to seek in the Dutch provinces a refuge from the religious persecution to which their people were subjected in the Peninsula, Baruch Spinoza was early trained in the learning f See Appendix U. BENEDICT SPINOZA 87 and doctrines of the Hebrews; a later acquaintance with Latin opened up to him the language, litera¬ ture, and philosophy of the Gentiles (in the last Des Cartes was for a while his guide), and devel¬ oped the powers of his severely mathematical mind, in which a reverent attitude toward the Diety was combined with the clear vision of the scientist and the devotion of the seeker after truth; and as his horizon expanded, he came gradually to see in the religious organization of his people a mon¬ strous hieratic structure superimposed upon faith, to the crushing of the spirit and the enslavement of the understanding, turning for its own ends even the worship of the living God into a lifeless ritual. Such an attitude toward the religion of his fathers inevitably bred in him a spiritual revolt against its tenets; he found himself at length unable to accord even an outward conformity to its practices, and the synagogue saw him no more. Yet his was no militant spirit, and he would have gratefully ac¬ cepted permission to live his life in peace and in the pursuit of Philosophy. But this alternative was denied him; the doubter must conform or be thrust forth. Spinoza chose the latter issue; and after a period of harassment, which he bore with philosophic patience, he was solemnly cut off from the commonwealth of Israel. It seems from his writings that he had hoped to find in the Protes¬ tant community (among which, changing his Hebrew name of Baruch into its Latin equivalent' 88 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Benedictus, he dwelt after his expulsion) that con¬ cession to liberal thought and opinion which had been denied him in his own; yet there too he met with disappointment; and he finally came to see in organized religion itself a wall of formal dogma interposed in the interests of sacerdotalism be¬ tween man and God. It is impossible not to feel sympathy with Spinoza, for his sincerity, unselfishness and single- minded devotion to the truth as he perceived it, are manifest; but the age was alien to his thought, and his thought out of keeping with the age; the conditions of his existence reacted on his charac¬ ter, and his treatise, in such circumstances, could not fail to be highly subjective. Yet, though neither purely philosophical nor strictly critical, the fierce experience of which it was the fruit gives it a force and vitality peculiarly its own; to men like ourselves, born to the enjoyment of that intel¬ lectual freedom whose cause Spinoza urged in vain, his pathetic, eloquently rendered plea for liberty of thought and opinion in speculative and religious affairs, strikes home; and if his attitude is that of the partisan advocate rather than the philosopher, it may be remembered that he had suffered much at the hands of men incapable of comprehending the purity of his motive or ap¬ preciating the dignified altruism that governed his thought. BENEDICT SPINOZA! 89 The title to the Tractatus gives in brief the pur¬ pose of the book. It is a theological and political treatise, designed to demonstrate that the domain of philosophy is separate and distinct from that of theology (by which term, at that age, was under¬ stood organized religion), and that each may be pursued independently of the other; also that the free practice of philosophy may not merely be permitted without injury to true piety and the well-being of the State, but that it cannot be pro¬ hibited without damage to the common weal In the preface of the treatise, Spinoza states the reasons that led him to write it. 1 I have often wondered within myself, that men who boast of the great advantages they enjoy under the Christian dispensation, the peace, the joy they experience, the brotherly love they feel towards all in its exercise should nevertheless contend with so much acrimony and show such intolerance and unappeasable hatred toward one another. If faith had to be inferred from action rather than profession, it would indeed be impossible to say to what sect or creed the majority of mankind belonged. Christian, Turk, Jew, and Heathen, in fact, are not to be recognized save by the complexion or habiliment, or by their frequenting this or that place of public worship, and the profession of this or that system of opinion, each being wont to swear by the dictates of one’ master or another. (iurare in verba magistri). As regards life and conversation, it is the same with all. Inquiring into such a state of things, I have been led to conclude that it is due to this; the majority of mankind regard the ministry 'The quotations are taken from the English translation of the Tractatus by N. Willis, London, 1862. 90 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM of their Church as a dignity, its offices benefices, and its priests or pastors as objects of the highest reverence. With the vulgar, such is the sum and substance of religion. As soon, indeed, as abuses had crept into the Christian Church, every worthless person seemed seized with a desire to administer its offices, and the propagation of a Divine Religion was made to subserve the ends of sordid avarice and base ambition. * * * I do not wonder, therefore, that nothing by and by was found to remain of the primitive religion but its chattels and outward forms, in which the vulgar seem rather to flatter God than to adore Him, and their faith degenerates into mere credulity and prejudice. Piety, great God! and religion are thus turned into foolish mysteries, and men who contemn reason and reject understanding as corrupt in nature are strangely believed to be possessed of heavenly light. Had they in truth one spark of that divine fire, they would not babble as they do, but would cease from their arrogant ravings, learn to worship God with rev¬ erence and understanding, and as they now excel in hate would seem distinguished among all for humility and loving-kindness; they would no longer persecute those who conscientiously differ from them in opinion; and were it the eternal salvation of these, and not their own fame and worldly estate, that was in question, they would rather be found to pity and compassionate them. Did a single ray of the divine light reach these men, it would moreover show itself in their doctrine; but I confess that while with them I have never been able sufficiently to admire the unfathomable mysteries of Scripture, I have still found them giving utterance to nothing but Aristo¬ telian and Platonic mysteries, artfully dressed up and cunningly accommodated to Holy Writ, lest the speakers should show themselves too plainly to belong to the sect of the Grecian heathens. * * * The more they have BENEDICT SPINOZA 91 abandoned themselves, indeed, to their mystical reveries, the more plainly have they shown that they do not so much believe in, as assent to the Scriptures; a conclusion that further appears in this, that they mostly assume as a basis of their inquiry into the meaning of the Bible, that it is everywhere inspired and literally true. But this is the very matter in debate, and should first appear from a careful examination and close criticism of the text; where¬ by, indeed, a right understanding of Scripture is much more certainly attained than by any amount of human ingenuity and gratuitous speculation. Weighing these things in my mind, and seeing that our natural understanding was not only despised as a guide, but even condemned as the wellspring of impiety by many, and further that human commentaries were fre¬ quently substituted by many for divine decrees, that credulity was accounted faith, that philosophical contro¬ versies were waged with the utmost heat, both in the pulpit and before the judge, and that out of these sprang the most cruel hatreds and dissensions, seditious movements, and other acts which it were tedious to enumerate here, I resolved with myself forthwith to examine the Scrip¬ tures anew, in a spirit of entire freedom and without prejudice, to affirm nothing as to their meaning and affirm nothing in the shape of doctrine, which I did not feel plainly set down in their pages. * * * But when I had found nothing that Scripture taught which expressly contradicted, nay, nothing which did not entirely accord with reason and understanding, and saw, moreover, that the prophets taught nothing but plain and simple things which could readily be apprehended by all, and that their communications were made in style and manner, and enforced by references and reasons that are most apt to move the popular mind to devotion to God, I fully persuaded myself that Scripture left reason abso- 92 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM lutely free, and had nothing in common with, no depen¬ dence on philosophy, but that this, as well as that, must support itself on its own footing. Now that I may demonstrate these conclusions system¬ atically, and set the whole matter at rest, I first show in what way Scripture is to be interpreted, insisting that the whole of our knowledge of the spiritual matters con¬ tained therein is to be derived from Scripture itself, and not from what is known to us by the light of our natural understanding. I then speak of the prejudices that have arisen from the vulgar having worshiped the book of Scriptures rather than the Word of God.—the vulgar, abandoned to superstition and loving the relics of time more than eternity itself. After this I show that the Word of God was revealed in no set or certain number of books, but as the simple conception of the Divine mind imparted to the prophets, and that it is proclaimed to con¬ sist mainly of love and obedience to God with the whole heart and mind, and in the practice of justice and charity to our neighbour. The foundations of faith next made known, I conclude that the end and object of revealed knowledge is nothing but obedience, and it is so distinct from humane knowl¬ edge as well in its objects as in its grounds and means, as to have nothing in common with it, but that each may possess its own province without clashing, and neither be subordinate to the other. Further, as one man differs notably from another in capacity and disposition, as one agrees and another disagrees with this or that opinion, as one is moved to devotion by that which disposes another to laughter, I conclude that freedom of opinion belongs of right to all, and the privilege of determining the articles of faith is to be left to every man according to his capacity, no one being adjudged pious or impious save by his works. On this footing will all be able to obey God with uncon- BENEDICT SPINOZA 1 93 strained mind, and justice and charity be held in universal estimation. Spinoza then proceeds to say that he presents his treatise to the consideration of persons of philosophical and inquiring minds, but does not commend it to others: “there being nothing in it which I could hope would by any possibility give them pleasure”; and terminates the preface as follows: I invite not the vulgar, therefore, nor those whose minds like theirs are full of prejudices, to the perusal of this book. I would much rather they neglected it en¬ tirely than, by misconstructing its purpose and contents after the fashion usual with them, that they proved them¬ selves troublesome and while advantaging themselves in nothing, became obnoxious to those who would show a freer spirit in their philosophy, stood not this obstacle in their way; the idea that reason should be subordinate to Theology. 1 To these I would fain believe that my work may indeed prove serviceable. In spite of this exordium, however, the treatise met the fate that has invariably attended all such writings; to serve as a weapon in the hand of the aggressive atheist and as an infidel’s argument against religion. To this unforseen yet inevitable result may be ascribed much of the enmity that pursued Spinoza throughout his life and the obloquy that attached upon his name after death. His life was several times threatened, and he is said to have twice narrowly escaped assassination. ‘Theology: sc. organized religion. 94 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM The treatise was condemned by Catholics and Pro¬ testants alike; within six years after its publication (which was anonymous, a false place of origin being moreover printed on the title-page) no less than thirty-seven edicts had been issued against it. In the eighth chapter of the Tractatus, Spinoza deals directly with the Hebrew text, and endeavors to show, by the testimony of the writings them¬ selves, that neither the Pentateuch nor the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings are “autographic,” and that many of the statements contained in them are inconsistent and conflicting. He bases his introductory remarks on certain crit¬ ical notes written by Aben Ezra (whose correct name was Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra), a He¬ brew commentator of the twelfth century. This distinguished man, scholar, sage, and poet, one of the greatest of the Hebrew writers in the Middle Ages, had ventured in his commentary on the Pentateuch upon several cautiously worded critical notes on the text, couched in somewhat cryptic terms, which have generally been taken to imply a doubt on the part of the writer as to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Spinoza supposes Ibn Ezra to have been the first Jewish scholar to venture on such criticism of the sacred text; but that commentator himself, in a note on Genesis xxxvi:31 (referring to the kings of Edom), censures a certain Izaak for suggesting BENEDICT SPINOZA! 95 that the verse was probably written in the times of JehoshaphatA The comments of Ibn Ezra, quoted by Spinoza are as follows: “Beyond the Jordan , etc/' Deuteronomy, i: 1, already referred to. “Provided thou understand - est the mystery of the twelve/' Spinoza refers this to either (1) the twelve stones of the altar on which the Law was incised, and argues that this could, therefore, not have been the Pentateuch; or (2) to the twelve curses; or (3) to the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which consists of twelve verses. It is possibly more likely that Ibn Ezra was referring to the twelve stones placed at Joshua’s command in the bed of the Jordan. “And Moses wrote/' These words, says Spinoza, referring to Moses in the third person, could not have been written by him. “And the Canaanite was then in the land ” The Canaanites were still in possession of the promised land at the time of the death of Moses. “In the mount of the I^ord it will be revealed/' 1 This Izaak has never been identified. Geiger believes him to be the same Izaak ben Salomi, or Israeli, a prolific writer, physician, and philosopher who lived from the latter part of the ninth to the middle of the tenth century. 96 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Genesis xx:14, where the mount is called Moriah, a name not attributed to it until the building of the Temple. “Then also behold his bed, a bed of iron ” Referring to Deuteronomy iiirll, to which attention had already been called by de la Peyrere. “Then shall thou know the truth” In discussing the words, “the Canaanite was then in the land,” Ibn Ezra says: “There is in this a mystery , and lei$ him that comprehendeth be silent” From these obscure hints of Ibn Ezra’s Spinoza argues that the famous commentator himself was convinced that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, and proceeds to cite a number of other instances in support of the same contention, such as: 1. The frequent references to Moses in the third person. 2. The statements concerning Moses in the last chapter of Deuteronomy. 3. The calling of places in Genesis and else¬ where by names which did not come into use until a later period ( e.g . Genesis xiv:4, “And Abraham pursued as far as Dan,” the name of the place being at that time Laish.) BENEDICT SPINOZA! 97 4 . The prolongation of the history beyond the time of Moses, ( e.g . Exodus xvi:34, “And the children of Israel did eat manna until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan,” in conjunction with Joshua v:12, “And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land,” and the mention of the kings of Edom in Genesis xxxvi:31). From Joshua x:14 (“And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord heark¬ ened to the voice of man; for the Lord fought for Israel”), he argues that this book also was written long after the days of Joshua; a similar argument in regard to the books of Samuel is founded on I Samuel ix:9 (“Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake. Come, and let us go to the Seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer”) ; and in regard to the books of the Kings, on I Kings, xi:41 (“And all the rest of the acts of * * * are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?”). Finally, from a fixed adherence to certain formal phrases throughout the different books, he con¬ cludes that the twelve books were collected together at the same time, and by one person, whom he believes to have been Ezra, the Scribe skilled in the Law of Moses. 98 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM With reference to the chronological difficulties involved in the story of Judah and Tamar, Spinoza writes: Such a series of events is plainly impossible within the time specified in Genesis, and must therefore have occurred at some other time; Ezra, our historian, however, gave the story of Judah and his sons and Tamar as he found it, without examining the matter very particularly, or making sure that it accurately fitted in with the other circumstances with which it is connected. But this is not the only tale that is/ derived from different records or traditions; the entire history of Jacob and Joseph appears to be similarly derived, so little do the several parts agree with one another. Thus in the forty-seventh chapter of Genesis it is recorded that Jacob, when first presented by Joseph his son to Pharaoh, was one hundred and thirty years old; from which, if twenty-two be taken, which he passed in sorrow, on account of the loss of Joseph, and seventeen for Joseph’s age when he was sold by his brethren, and lastly seven which he served for Rachael, Jacob is found at a very advanced age, namely eighty-four, when he took Leah to wife; while, on the contrary, Dinah could scarcely have been seven when she was violated by Shechem; and Simeon and Levi, again scarcely twelve and eleven when they ravaged a city and put all the inhabitants thereof to the sword. But there is no occasion here to pass the whole of the Pentateuch under review; anyone who but observes that in these five books precept and narrative are jumbled together without order, and that one and the same story is often met with again and again, and occasionally with very important differences in the incidents—whosoever observes these things will certainly come to the conclusion that in the Pentateuch we have merely notes and collations BENEDICT SPINOZA 99 to be examined at leisure; materials for history rather than the digested history itself. Continuing his examination into the other his¬ torical books, Spinoza cites similar instances o£ inconsistency, from which he feels warranted in stating, “They have been collected from a variety of sources, and transmitted to us in a crude and undigested condition/’ and further adds: I set down nothing here which I have not long and seriously meditated; and although from my youth I was imbued with the common opinions concerning the Scrip¬ tures, I have been compelled in my manhood to abandon these, and to espouse these views which I promulgate in this place. In regard to the alleged imperfections and blemishes in the text he says: I regard these as of lighter moment, to those at least who read the Scriptures with unbiased judgment; and this much I can safely affirm, that I have not met with any error, nor any variety of reading in connection with the moral doctrines, which would thereby render them ob¬ scure or doubtful. The citations from the Tract at us might be con¬ siderably extended; but sufficient have been given to show that Spinoza’s criticism of the Pentateuch is not merely the most exhaustive of any up to that time, but also the most serious and impressive, being marked throughout by that restraint and moderation in statement which befits the philoso¬ pher. Indeed, in manner and method his exposition differs little from those of the modern critics, and 100 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM readers previously unacquainted with his work may be surprised to find that he has forestalled a number of the so-called discoveries of the last cen¬ tury. It may safely be affirmed that, had biblical criticism formed the main part of the treatise, instead of being merely ancillary to the theological argument, Spinoza would have left still less for later scholars to discover; and to say that none of these have excelled him in respect for the Word of God and in veneration for divine revelation is a moderate acknowledgment of the attitude of the Jewish scholar toward Holy Writ. In view of the bitter attacks that were directed against him as the enemy of Christianity and religion, our notice of him may well conclude with the following sum¬ mary of his views and religious belief, taken from the twelfth book of the Tractatus: They who hold the Bible, as it is, to be the handwriting of God, sent from heaven to men, will doubtless exclaim that I am guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, in contending that the Word of God is in parts imperfect, corrupt, erroneous, and inconsistent with itself, and that we possess but fragments of it; and finally, that the covenant God made with the Jews has perished. Yet I cannot but think, if those persons will only consider the subject calmly, that they will cease from their clamor. For the voice of reason and the declaration of the Prophets and Apostles alike proclaim that the eternal word and covenant of God—the true religion—is divinely in¬ scribed on the heart and mind of man, and that this is the true covenant on which God has set His seal and impressed with the idea or likeness of His divinity. CHAPTER IX RICHARD SIMON Richard Simon, priest, scholar, and critic: his differences with Port Royal: publication of the if Histoire Critique” forbidden: Simon expelled from the Congregation of the Oratory: Preface to the “Critical History”: Moses cannot be the author of the books attributed to him: variety of style a convincing argument: the State Regis¬ tries: his remarks on St. Augustine. F very different fiber from the Jewish philoso¬ pher was the man whom the French call the father of biblical criticism, Richard Simon, priest of the Congregation of the Oratory. A thorough Norman, with the typical merits and defects of the race, confident and astute, quick to note the short¬ comings of others, an eager and aggressive critic, he carried his own load of learning as lightly as his contemporaries bore theirs heavily. Steeped in the lore and literature of the Hebrews, he was as much at home with a Jewish rabbi as with a Catholic doctor (which thing was made a reproach unto him) ; yet while his erudition commanded respect and his acumen made him an adversary to be feared, the somewhat malicious enjoyment which he seems to have derived from exposing error earned him many enemies. Even his virile 102 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM virtues helped to bring him into disrepute; for the courage and honesty which had led him to espouse the cause of a Jew convicted at Metz of a ritual murder on conspicuously flimsy evidence, and to indite in his behalf a brief that included an uncompromising exposure of the methods employed by churchmen to secure con¬ victions in like cases, seriously offended the ortho¬ dox and damaged his reputation as an ecclesiastic. Moreover, the bent of his mind urged him to the opposition of fact rather than theory in his dia¬ lectic, contrary to the practice of the theologians of the day; and although ranked among the Augustinians, he was strongly suspected of being at heart a Molinist, and admitted himself that he saw much that was commendable in the views of the Thomists. He regarded the somewhat casuistic defense of the Jansenist propositions offered by Arnauld and Nicole, the protagonists of the Port Royal views (recently rendered popular by the adven¬ titious support of the distinguished author of the Provincial letters) against the Jesuit Thomists, as a victory of manner over matter; and while the Perpetuity of Faith was being acclaimed as a marvel of erudition and a masterpiece of dialectic: while scholars admitted the profundity of Ar- nauld’s learning and the fashionable world of letters applauded Nicole’s (C art de bien dire ”: while the Port Royal cause was momentarily in the RICHARD SIMON 103 ascendant, even with the court, Simon was bold enough to dissent from the general verdict. Victrix causa deis placuit, sed victa Simoni! the “hardi” Norman disclosed somewhat maliciously the fundamental weakness of the Jansenist argu¬ ment, and the solitaries of Port Royal never forgot or forgave the too discerning critic. Their opportunity for revenge came nine years later, in 1678, when Simon was about to publish his Critical History of the Old Testament. It was known that he had been busied for years in the preparation of this, his most important work; a prospectus of the book had been widely circulated among institutes of learning, libraries and scholars, and general interest was aroused: in expectation of unusual demand an impression of thirteen hundred copies had been struck off; all the requisite formalities had been complied with except the procuring of the privilege du roi, the final necessary preliminary to publication; when a copy of the prospectus, with the table of contents of the book, came into the hands of Bossuet. That leader of the Church, already deeply incensed against Simon on account of his suspected con¬ nection with a projected Protestant translation of the Bible, was ready enough to perceive in part of the matter submitted to him (probably the title of the fifth chapter of the first book, “Moses cannot be the author of everything contained in the books attributed to him”) justification for drastic and 104 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM immediate action. By his influence an order sus¬ pending publication was secured forthwith; and he and Nicole were each furnished with a copy of the book to examine and report upon. The ver¬ dict of the Port Royalist was foregone; that of Bossuet, who stated later that he regarded the work as “a mass of impiety,” coincided with Nicole’s; and after some weeks of futile discussion between the author and his judges, the suppression of the whole edition was ordered by the Royal Council. Of the thirteen hundred copies six are stated to have escaped the pyre, two of which found their way to London. 1 The English version, from which our extracts are taken, appeared in 1682, rendered by “A Person of Quality.” This is understood to have been the brilliant and un¬ fortunate John Hampden, son of the Chancellor and grandson of the parliamentary leader, who was well known as a Hebrew scholar and was at that time an admirer and follower of Simon. 2 The suppression of the Critical History was fol¬ lowed by the appearance during the next six years, of three pirated and defective editions, issued 1 The article on Richard Simon in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) contains several erroneous statements. See Appendix Y. 2 Some years later Hampden, in a written recantation and confession, formally repudiated the opinions he had held in common with Simon, which he ascribed to the reading- of the Critical History. This was in 1688, probably shortly before his release from the Tower. This recantation of Hampden’s is referred to in the Dictionary of National Biography as a death¬ bed confession (Hampden died by his own hand in 1696), but the testimony of the Bishop of Ely is to the effect that the paper was conveyed to him for safe keeping in 1688. RICHARD SIMON 105 under misleading titles, from the Elzevir Press in Amsterdam. In 1685 the fifth edition, with Simon’s name prefixed to it (and probably, in spite of his disclaimer, supervised by himself) appeared from the Leers Press at Rotterdam. By 1700 thirteen editions altogether, four in Latin, two in English, and seven in the original French, had been published, and not less than fifty different polemical publications, more or less inspired by the book, had appeared. The decision of the King’s Council was followed by the expulsion of the author of the Critical History from the Congregation of the Oratory. Simon retired to his cure at Bolleville, and there embarked on a course of theological controversy with some of the many opponents whom the opin¬ ions expressed in his book had stirred up against him. Into Simon’s career as a polemist we need not enter, but this much may be noted: Bossuet’s attack and the consequent suppression of his book took him completely by surprise; for, astute though he was, he had committed the irremediable blunder of ignoring and undervaluing his opponents; and moreover he does not seem to have ever considered the possibility of his being assailed as an enemy to religion, of which he believed himself to be one of the most zealous defenders. That his religious sentiments were of a different order from those of Bossuet he would have been the first to admit; but he looked upon them as none the less sincere 106 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM and his convictions just as real as those of the distinguished prelate. Simon divides his treatise into three books, the first being entitled: “Concerning the Hebrew text of the Bible from Moses to our time”; the second: “Wherein the chief translations of the Bible are spoken of”; and the third: “Wherein the method of the well translating of the Scriptures is treated of, and at the same time is shown how obscure the Scripture is. There is also added a criticism of the best Authours, either Jews or Christians, who have writ upon the Bible.” In an interesting preface to the Critical History, Simon sets forth the design of the work. From this preface the following passages are taken : x First, it is impossible to understand thoroughly the Holy Scriptures unless we first know the different states of the text of these Books according to the different times and places, and be instructed of the several changes that have happened to it. This we may understand by the first Book of this Critical History, when I have taken notice of the, several revolutions of the Hebrew Text of the Bible from Moses to our time. Secondly, it is to be observ’d that I, considering onely their benefit who desire thoroughly to understand the Holy Scriptures, have inserted many usefull principles for the resolving of the greatest difficulties of the Bible, at the same time answering the Objections which are usually brought against the Authority of the Holy Scriptures. 1 The extracts are taken from the London edition of 1682. RICHARD SIMON 107 For example, having established in the Hebrew Common¬ wealth the Prophets or publick Writers who took care of collecting faithfully the Acts of what pass’t of most importance in the State, we need not too curiously inquire, as usually men do, who were the Authours of each partic¬ ular Book of the Bible, because it is certain that they were all written by Prophets, which the Hebrew Commonwealth never wanted as long as it lasted. Besides, as these same Prophets, which may be call’d publick Writers, for the distinguishing them from other private Writers, had the liberty of collecting out of the ancient Acts which were kept in the Register of the Republick, and of giving a new form to these same Acts by adding or diminishing what they thought fit; we may hereby give a very- good reason for the additions and alterations in the Holy Scriptures without lessening of their Authority, since the Authours of these Additions or Alterations were real Prophets directed by the Spirit of God. Wherefore their alterations on the ancient Acts are of as great Authority as the rest of the Text of the Bible. * * * By this principle we may also easily answer several objections which are usually made, to show that Moses is not the onely Author of the Books which we have under his name; for they prove onely that something has been added in series of time, which destroys not the Authority of ancient acts which were wrote in Moses time. Plerein Spinoza has shown his ignorance, or rather malice in crying down the authority of the Pentateuch , by reason of alteration therein, without considering the quality of the Authours of these alterations. We ought, however, to take heed of multiplying these additions or corrections, as Spinoza and some others have 108 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM very injudiciously done: but on the contrary we ought not absolutely to deny them or too subtilly or nonsensically explain them, for the Additions are of the same Authority as the rest of the Scripture; or else we must confess the whole not to be equally Divine and Canonical, as a Divine of Paris seems too boldly to have asserted . 1 As for the Writers of our times, whether Catholic or Protestant, I have found none that are wholly free from prejudice. The two Buxdorfs, who have got much repu¬ tation, especially among the Protestants, have in most of their works onely shown that they were biass’d in favour of the Rabbins opinions, without having consulted any other Authors. Father Morin on the contrary was prejudic’d against the Rabbins before he had read them; and under pretense of defending the ancient Translations of the Church, he has collected all the proofs he could find to destroy the originals of the Bible. In the fifth chapter of the first book, Simon gives the reasons which show, in his opinion, that “Moses cannot be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him.” The following are among ^ the more relevant passages. There are many repetitions of the same thing in the Pentateuch which are evidently not Moses’s, but rather theirs who have made a collection of the Holy Scriptures 1 This was in all probability Dr. Henry Holden, who wrote in his Divina Fidei Analysis, sen de Fidei Christiana Resolutione: The special aid divinely accorded to the author of any writing which the Church has received as the Word of God merely extends to such matters as are either purely doctrinal or have a close and necessary relation to doctrinal matters; but as to those which form no part of the main purpose of the writer or refer to other matters, we decide God was merely of the same assistance to them as to the rest of the most pious writers. Bibliotheca Regu- larnm Fidei: Ed. Josephus Braun. Bonn, 1844. RICHARD SIMON 109 and have joined together several readings or explanations of the same word, not thinking it convenient to leave out of their Copies what might illustrate the Text. We may place in the number of these repetitions, the description of the Deluge, as it is in the 7th chapter of Genesis from the 17th verse to the 24th. It is said in the 17th Verse that the waters encreast and bare up the Ark, and it was lift up above the earth, then in the 18th Verse that the waters prevailed and were encreased greatly upon the earth, and that the high hills were covered; which is again repeated in the 20th Verse, when it is said that the waters encreased fifteen cubits, whereby the mountains were covered. It is probable that if only; one Authour had composed this work he would have explained himself in fewer words, especially in a history. The 21st, 22d, 23d. Verses observe nothing but the same thing in synonimous terms. It is said in the 21st Verse that all flesh which moved on the face of the earth died, afterwards in the 22d. all in whose nostrils was the breath of life upon the earth dy’d, and 23d. Verse, Every living substance was de¬ stroyed. The number of the Animals which died is likewise repeated in the 21st and 23d. Verses. * * *” After citing a number of similar repetitions in Exodus and Leviticus, Simon proceeds as follows: But there is another sort of repetition in the books of Moses which renders the text obscure, which is when the same thing is repeated in diff erent places, at little distance one from the other; for then, to bring order into the words, the sense is often changed: whereas it is to be suppos’d as certain that the order is very often neglected in the Scripture. For example, the History of the Deluge is very confus’d, chiefly in what relates to the time that the waters remained upon the earth; and it is likewise the same in the narration of the Rod which Jacob used 110 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM to divide his flock from Laban's; and abundance of such like places, the explanation of which is hard, by reason of certain repetitions with some changes, which make one believe they are different things, although for the most part it is one and the same thing differently exprest in several places.* * * I question like wise whether one should attribute to Moses or to the publick Writers which were in his time the little order which is to be found in some places of the Pentateuch; it is more probable that as in those times the Books were written upon little Scrolls or separate Sheets that were sow’d together, the order of these Sheets might be changed. And besides the Books of the Bible we have now, being onely an abridgment, the order of matters contained in them has not always been re¬ garded. The Rabbins have endeavoured to excuse this by a Figure, which they call Mukedam Meuhar, and is the same thing with Hysteron Proteron with the Greeks. 1 * * The great many places in the Books of the Law where the order is confus’d make me think that these books were not originally compos’d in that method. For example, can any one believe that one Historian should write the History of the Creation of Man with so little order as there is in the first Chapter of Genesis, where the same things are several times repeated without method, and as it were besides the purpose? And moreover after the Man and the Woman were created in the first Chapter and 27th Verse, the Woman is supposed not to be made, and in the following Chapter the manner how she was taken from Adam’s side is described, nevertheless in the same Chapter it was before forbidden him, as he was her 1 ‘llTlXD D*Tp1D. To charges of inaccurate chronology the Rabbis had a formal answer: ni’lDl 'UTlKftl DTP ID pX with which compare in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah, ch. viii). mim YiD 5 k niDN xipd px. RICHARD SIMON 111 husband, whom she accompanied in the Garden, to eat of the fruit of a certain Tree. There is not more method observed in the other part of the Narration, which explains the Creation of other things, than in that of Man, and I do not know whether it is sufficient to say that all these repetitions are recapitu¬ lations, because they are very little remote one from the other. * * * The variety of the style we meet with in the Books of Moses seems to be a convincing argument that one and the same man was not the Authour. Sometimes we find a very curt style and sometimes a very copious one, although the variety of the matter does not require it; w r e ought nevertheless to acknowledge that the Hebrews very often speak but by halves (a demi-mot) and that they sometimes begin a matter without ending of it and that they are not exact in the placing of their words. In the seventh chapter Simon deals with the manner in which he supposes the Pentateuch to have been written. It will be seen that his theory of public writers develops into the organization of an official chancery or public records office. The Jews assure us, as we have already observ’d, that God dictated to Moses word for word the five Books of the Law, but because it cannot be imagined that Moses receiv’d from God upon the Mount, the History of what fell out for forty years in the Desert, the most judicious among them believe that God told Moses the things in the time as they happened. ’Tis true that God oftentimes commands Moses to write certain things which the Law makes mention of, but that ordinarily relates to the Com¬ mandments onely or Ordinances, or things of that nature. As to what past every day in his own presence it was not 112 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM necessary that God should dictate it to him: he had under him persons who put in writing all the considerable ac¬ tions, and had the care of preserving them to posterity. We need but cast our eyes upon the method that the Pentateuch is compos’d in to be perswaded of this truth and to see that some other than Moses has collected the historical parts. The Laws which God ordain’d him to write are distinguished from the body of the History. There were then in that time Registries where was writ not onely what of importance past in the State, but even what God commanded Moses, as appears in the 17th Chapter of Exodus; when God says, Write this for a memorial in a Book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua. By these words God commands Moses to make the affair of the Amalekites be writ in the publick Registry, where were writ the acts of what past. Most of the Interpreters of the Scripture concern themselves very much to explain which is the Book this place relates to, but the natural sense is that Moses commanded the publick Writers to inregister that day’s work against the Amalekites which this place speaks of; we ought likewise in the same manner to explain the 19th Verse of the 31st Chapter of Deuteronomy, where it is said ( write now this Song and teach it the children of Israel). God would that this Song should be writ with other publick Acts and that every one should have a copy of it as well as the Law. We may not however apply to the Books of Genesis what we have already said touching the manner of the inregistering the publick Acts in the time of Moses. These Books contain the Creation of the World, and many things which happened many ages before him, and in all Genesis there is no observation of God’s dictating to Moses what is there related; ’tis not likewise said that he writ it by the spirit of Prophecy; but all these Histories RICHARD SIMON 113 and Genealogies are simply related, as if Moses had taken them from some authentic Books, or else had had a constant tradition. Simon’s purpose in criticism was as markedly distinct from that of his predecessors as his habit of thought from that of his contemporaries. His aim was not so much to discover fresh subject for criticism in the sacred text as to collate and discuss the commentaries and criticisms of others. In regard to the instances adduced by himself, he believed that the theory of the institution of public writers not merely accounted satisfactor¬ ily for the presence of the incongruities in the text, but also successfully defended the accredited inspiration of the Scripture. The theory was bitterly and variously attacked; and even his modern supporters—for none of his contempor¬ aries were bold enough to break a lance in his behalf with the champions of orthodoxy—admit that such a departure into speculative conjecture was out of keeping with the spirit of a critical history. It should be remembered, however, that the theory did not originate with him; others be¬ fore him—Masius in particular—had suggested it as a means of accounting for conflicting state¬ ments. Still, Simon is responsible for the exten¬ sion of the idea of diaries or annals into nothing less than an official chancery; and such a digres¬ sion into theory unsupported by facts was one he would have been the first to censure in another. 114 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Simon’s method is seen at its best in the third book of the History, in which he deals with the writings of previous commentators, from Origen to Brian Walton. He goes about his work with the certitude of the scientist untrammeled by dog¬ matic restrictions; and although his language is studiously restrained, his criticisms are not less severe for being based on the logic of facts rather than the dialectic of controversy. In regard to literary values it was not in him to be a respecter of persons; and in the course of his analysis he handled the Fathers as freely as he did the rest of the expositors. The intellectual cast of his mind imbued him with a strong distaste for the allegorical in lieu of the literal and historical ex¬ position of the text; and in the following observa¬ tions concerning Augustine, who in his opinion erred grievously in this respect, we can find ample justification, in view of the spirit of the time, for the bitterness of the odium theologicum which every Augustinian, and Bossuet in particular, must have felt for the man who had dared to criticize the sainted exponent of the Doctrine of Grace. After Origen and St. Jerom, I am of Opinion that St. Augustin deserves the next place, who had not indeed so much learning as these two first Fathers; besides, he was not vers’d in this kind of study when he undertook to write upon the subject. * * As he understood but very indifferently Greek, and was utterly ignorant of Hebrew Tongue, the work he undertook upon Genesis, RICHARD SIMON 115 to answer the Manichaees, seems to be above him. * * * Instead of searching for the Literal Sense to answer exactly the Manichaees, he runs upon Allegorical Sences, foreign to the History and Letter of the Text. He had besides many prejudices of Philosophy or Divinity, which he puts down in all his works. He ought indeed to have expounded the Psalms other¬ wise than he has done; he has in his Allegories deviated too much from his Text. There are few at present who would imitate St. Augustine’s Method in his Exposition of the Psalms. Most of the Allegories and Quirks which this Work is full of, would please us no more than they did St. Jerom. St. Augustin, who had not sufficiently considered the new Translations of St. Jerom, ask’d him why his last translation from the Hebrew was not so exact and true as the former, where he had put little stars to mark what was wanting in the Septuagint, and was in the Hebrew. As this question could not be put but by one who was wholly ignorant of the Subject he spoke of, St. Jerom was oblig’d to answer him, Pace tua dixerim, videris mihi non intelligere quod qucesisti. In effect St. Jerom had in his first translation from the Septuagint, added Supplements taken from the Hebrew Text; and as for his second Translation, made wholly from the Hebrew, he could not add Stars to mark the Supplements taken from the Hebrew, since he had translated it wholly from the Hebrew. * * * So 1 we may say that St. Augustin had not thoroughly examin’d St. Jerom’s new Translation; or rather, not being capable of examining it, he, according to his custom, rely’d upon his own Notion of the little necessity there was of a new Translation of the Bible from the Hebrew; and this Notion of his not being true, all the consequences from thence drawn are likewise false.” CHAPTER X THE END OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY Jean le Clerc, opponent of Simon, is himself a critic: Episcopius, Remonstrant Theologian, criticises the Book of Joshua: Vitringa’s “Obser- vationes Sacrce”: 'Anton van Dale discusses the origin of the Pentateuch . /CONSPICUOUS among, Simon’s Protestant adversaries was the voluminous writer and theological philosopher, Jean Le Clerc, professor of Hebrew at the Remonstrant college at Amster¬ dam, who put forth anonymously in 1685 his Sentiments of some Theologians of Holland Con¬ cerning the Critical History of the Old Testament . In this, while opposing the conclusions of Simon, he brings forward a number of instances of incon¬ gruities in the Hebrew text and thus in effect places himself on the side of the critic. In the sixth of the letters of which the book consists he says, in reference to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: But here is a far stronger proof, taken from Genesis xxxvi:31, where we find these words which cannot come but from an author who lived after the establishment of the kings in the Hebrew commonwealth: “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” Father END OF SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 117 Simon has quoted this passage after certain scholars who had already remarked that these wordsi could not have been written by Moses. Thereunto M. Huet replies that Moses foresaw that Israel would have kings. But there is a great difference between a plain narrative and a prophecy; and no one who reads this can fail to see that it is a plain history and that the writer is speaking of a past event. This appears clearer than day by the number of the generations of the children of Edom, which the writer recounts here, and who are much greater in number than those from Jacob the brother of Edom unto Moses. Shall it be said that Moses predicted the names of those who were to reign in Idumaea after his death ? And what possible need was there for Israel to know the names of the kings of Edom after the time of Moses, until a like government had been established in the Hebrew common¬ wealth? If we are permitted to suppose the existence of prophecies without need or probability, I see nothing to prevent us from saying that Moses is the author of all the historical Books of the Bible except those of Ezra and Nehemiah, the authors of which are known. In the following chapter, verse 14, we find the name of Hebron, which was not in use in the time of Moses. While the Canaanites were masters of the country this town was called Kirjath Arba. A great man of the present century has held the opinion in common with several others that the verses in which new names are found were inserted in the Books of Moses by Ezra. He quotes as an example Genesis xxxv: 19 and xlviii:7, where the author, referring to Ephrath, adds parenthetically, this is Bethlehem . The same thing must have happened in chapter xl:15, where Joseph says: “I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews”: for it is clear that Joseph could not call Canaan the land of the Hebrews, since his father, Jacob, 118 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM owned only the burying place there which Abraham had bought. The writer could not be Moses, since in his time the country of Canaan was not called “the land of the Hebrews/’ as the Hebrews were not yet the masters of it. These, Sir, are clear indications that Moses did not write the Book of Genesis, at least such as we now have it. If we find nothing in the succeeding books which could not be written by Moses, it does not follow that they are authentic, since, being by the same author as Genesis, if the latter, such as we now have it, is not by Moses, the others are not either. But there are many things in these Books which we cannot conceive Moses to have written. Here Le Clerc cites the following passages in support of his views: Exodus vi :26 and 27 (“These are that Aaron and Moses,” etc.); the frequent use of the word Nabi to signify a prophet, such a word not being in use before the time of Samuel at the earliest; the statements in Exodus xvi:35 and Joshua v:12 concerning the period of the eating of the manna; the mention of the rela¬ tion of the omer to the ephah (Exodus xvi:36), and the gerah to the shekel (Exodus xxx:13, Leviticus xxvii:25, and Numbers iii:47). In regard to Deuteronomy Le Clerc maintains that the words “beyond Jordan” in the first verse furnish conclusive evidence of the non-Mosaic authorship of the Book, controverting on this point the argument of Huet, who upheld the ren- END OF SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 119 tiering, “on this side”; and also cites the expres¬ sion “unto this day” (Deuteronomy iii: 14) to the same effect. Le Clerc then proceeds to bring forward at con¬ siderable length a theory which he ascribes to a friend (probably the same referred to later as Monsieur N.) to the effect that the author of the Pentateuch may have been the priest who came from Babylon to Bethel (II Kings xvii :27 and 28) to teach the people of the strange nations how they should fear the Lord. He merely puts this theory forward as being the conjecture of a friend, and not without some probability; yet it is possible that it was his own and that he was not disposed to assume responsibility for it. In the important matter of the witness of Christ himself Le Clerc again follows Simon’s lead. The latter had written in the course of his criticism of Walton’s Prolegomena: This other argument of Walton’s, in the same place, That our Saviour and His Apostles would not have quoted the Old Testament for the confirming of their Doctrine, if the copies of those Times had not agreed with the first Originals, seems not to me to be wholly convincing. The Apostles quoted the Books of Scripture as they then were, and whether they were corrupted or no, these quotations work’d no alteration therein; and therefore we ought to search for other proofs than this, to show that the copies of the Bible in our Saviour’s time agreed with the ancient Originals. 120 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM^ And Le Clerc writes as follows: One may perhaps say that Jesus Christ and the Apos¬ tles frequently quote the Pentateuch under the name of Moses, and that their authority ought to be of greater weight than all our conjectures. But Jesus Christ and His Apostles not having come into the world to teach criticism to the Jews, we need not be surprised \f they spoke according to the general opinion. Similarly, we find the Apostles quoting the Septuagint version, not be¬ cause they believed it to be always in perfect conformity with the original, but because, as it contained nothing contrary to piety, it was unnecessary to scandalize those who regarded' it with respect, by refusing to make use of it. Eight years later Le Clerc practically repudiated the advanced views he had promulgated in the Sentiments. In the dissertation, “Upon the Author of the Pentateuch/’ prefixed to his trans¬ lation and paraphrase of Genesis which appeared in 1693, he returns to the orthodox view. His manner of doing so is interesting, to say the least of it; for he there brings forward a number of incongruities, eighteen altogether, including those he himself had cited in the anonymous Sentiments, and proceeds to controvert them in detail, without making any allusion to his former skeptical attitude. The “great man of the present century” alluded to by Le Clerc was Episcopius, the foremost theo¬ logian of the Remonstrants, who in his Institu- tiones Theologicce (L. iii. sec. v. c. 1.) writes as END OF SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 121 follows concerning the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua: They (the Hebrews) say the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not even excepting the last six verses of the fifth Book (that is, of Deuteronomy) which contain the story of the death of Moses. For they maintain that part was written by Moses himself in the Spirit of Prophecy, although it is more likely they were added by Joshua himself or by Eleazar son of Aaron; while in my opinion at any rate, many others have been added here and there by Ezra, as in various places in the rest of the Books. For reason forbids me to believe that these were written by Moses. For example, in Numbers xii :3, “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.” Who can believe that Moses could write this of himself? Or all those verses (or those words which occur in the verses) that contain names of places which came into use long after the time of Moses? As Genesis xxxv:19 and xlviii:7, and very many others. * * * The book of Joshua was written first after the manner of a diary either by Joshua or by the priests or by those men who are called (Numbers xxi:27) “balladists”; a but afterward, as is likely, compiled into one Book by Ezra. For the more modern nomenclature of certain places (which we mention as having taken place in the Penta¬ teuch) is abundant proof of this. Add to this the unde¬ niable fact that the last five verses of chapter xxiv could not have been written by Joshua or his contemporaries, but by Samuel, more than three hundred years later; or, as appears to me more probable, added by Ezra a long time afterward. Mrleb. ; Sept. alviY^aTicrxcu. 122 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM But two more critics of this century call for notice; Campegius Vitringa and Antony van Dale. Vitringa, the erudite and orthodox professor of Hebrew at the state university of Franeker in Friesland, wrote as follows in his Sacred Observa¬ tions published in 1689, concerning the events narrated at the beginning of the second chapter of Genesis: They belong without doubt to the history of the sixth day of the Creation. But who can furnish a reason why the historian did not include the matters which belong to the description of the work performed on the sixth day, but, after describing the rest taken on the seventh day, com¬ posed as it were a fresh treatise furnished with a fresh title, in which he begins to set forth with a few repetitions certain of the matters already mentioned, which had not been sufficiently declared, unless the reason be this: that Moses, in order to confirm the truth of this history, wished to hand down to posterity these ancient memorial scrolls of the Patriarchs as complete as possible, along with his own descriptions. And again: When faith, integrity, and perseverance in the investi¬ gation of sacred matters began gradually to fall away among mankind, it seems probable that the pious survivors consigned to posterity those matters a knowledge of which they deemed not merely profitable but also necessary; and we are of opinion that Moses gathered the material for the first of his books from these scrolls and muniment chests. In one of the letters appended to his dissertation On the Rise and Progress of Idolatry (published END OF SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 123 in 1696) and addressed to Stephen Morin, Antony van Dale of Haarlem writes: You perceive however, distinguished Sir, that I make a distinction between the Books of the Law and the Pentateuch; for I believe that the Book or Books of the Law were, before the Captivity, in the custody of the Priests and Levites (however I by no means exclude the Prophets), to which class the sacred scribes belonged. As concerning the Pentateuch (of which we find no mention even in the books of Ezra or Nehemiah or those of the Maccabees themselves), it appears to me (as to Jerom and other most learned men) to have been com¬ piled by Ezra the Scribe; and that this Ezra by divine direction and inspiration composed it as the Book of the Law (which he inserted in its entirety) and the other historical and truly prophetical books. Finally, if we suppose that Ezra Was merely the restorer of the Pentateuch, and that those matters which Moses himself could not have written were (as Aben Ezra, Masius, Richard Simon and even Huet himself believe) inserted or added by Ezra: it is certain that the Samaritans could not have had any Pentateuch before this restoration by Ezra. CHAPTER XI THE FIRST HALF OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Biblical Criticism almost at a standstill for fifty years: Etienne Fourmont’s u Lettre a Monsieur )} /CONTRARY to what might have been expected from the advance made in biblical criticism during the latter part of the seventeenth century, no progress of importance took place during the first fifty years of the eighteenth. To this result various causes were contributory. In France, ecclesiastical thought and activity were chiefly en¬ grossed by the rivalries of the different bodies within the Roman Catholic Church; while in Eng¬ land the close connection between Church and State that had rapidly developed during the reign of Anne involved the clergy of the national Church in social and political intrigues and controversies to which the interests of scriptural scholarship and biblical investigation were sacrificed. Moreover, the advantage taken of the critical publications of ecclesiastics by the free-thinkers and skeptics of the day, who employed the arguments of the clerics as a weapon against organized religion, made it impossible for a Churchman to advance any crit¬ ical theory without incurring the suspicion of the FIRST HALF OF 18th CENTURY 125 orthodox and risking the loss, not merely of the reputation of orthodoxy, but of the means of livelihood. In the steady growth of rationalistic doctrines—of which the Deistic movement was the most notable and the general skepticism that fol¬ lowed it the most formidable instance—the ecclesi¬ astical authorities, both Catholic and Protestant, perceived a serious menace to the Church’s control over public morality; and thus the determination of the ruling powers in both communions to uphold the authority and inspiration of Scripture as a bul¬ wark against the spread of rationalism and infidel¬ ity was definitely strengthened. A further and sufficient reason for the silence of the critics may be found in the fact that they had, to all appearance, run their course. Indeed, this seventeenth-century criticism, which was in effect but a series of superficial, if logical, deduc¬ tions from observation of the various incongru¬ ities in the sacred text, had achieved all that it could be expected to achieve, and reached the cul-du-sac. Undoubtedly these early critics, in one direction at any rate, had accomplished much. Attention had been called to many incompatible and inaccurate statements in the Hebrew text; it had been shown that the reputed authorship of several of the sacred books rested on no founda¬ tion beyond a vague tradition; and something like conclusive proof had been furnished that the theory of the divine inspiration of the text of the 126 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Hebrew Scriptures could not be reconciled with the actual history of that text itself. But while the critics had gone far toward the pulling down of the traditional theory, they had effected nothing toward the setting up of another and more satis¬ factory one in its place. Although Richard Simon, the most distinguished representative of critical thought among the clergy of the age, had declared, “The object of criticism is to build up, not to de¬ stroy,” his own work was thus condemned out of his own mouth; for the theories which he and others 1 endeavored to promote rested, to say the least, on no more secure basis than the traditional beliefs which they felt themselves unable to accept. To attempt to replace the ancient traditional theory of a divine origin, even though unsupported by historical evidence, by a new hypothesis insus¬ ceptible of proof, is no function of criticism; and in this material respect the critics of the seven¬ teenth century must be judged to have failed in their task. That such criticism, however reverent and well intentioned its original propounders might be, could be turned in a destructive direction, was 1 In addition to the authorities already cited who, like Simon, maintained the theory of a series of public records dealing with the history and tradition of the Israelites, from which the material for the composition of the Pentateuch was drawn, may be mentioned Steuchus Eugubinus, Bishop of Kisamos in Crete (in his Cosmopceia, 1578) ; Spanhem the younger (1673-1701), in his History of Job; F. Burman the elder (1628-79) in his Synopsis Theologice; and, in the eighteenth century Vriemot (1700-70) in his Observations Miscellanea, and Venema, Dis¬ sertations Quinque ad Librum Geneseos, 1747. FIRST HALF OF 18th CENTURY 127 shown by the use made of their arguments by the avowed opponents of established religion. Thus the chief results of the critical writings of biblical scholars was, in the main, to unsettle the minds of many whose faith was dependent upon tradition and authority and to place a powerful weapon of offense in the hands of the enemies of the Church; while the knowledge that the weapon had been sharpened by the labor of ecclesiastics rendered the result none the less distasteful to those in au¬ thority. The only contribution of any importance to biblical criticism during the first half of the eighteenth century is connected with the name of Etienne Fourmont, the French Oriental scholar, who was the first of their academic critics. Four¬ mont, who later held the chair of Arabic at the College de France (his brother was professor of Syriac at the College Royal), published in 1709, when a young and comparatively unknown man, a short pamphlet entitled Lettre a Monsieur - (a second letter appeared in the following year) in which he combated the views expressed by the orthodox and erudite Benedictine, Dom. Calmet, in his commentary on Genesis; and showed in his treatise a discreet audacity supported by sound learning. Without directly denying the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, Fourmont maintained that the alleged proofs cited by Calmet were merely a rhetorical way of begging the question at issue; 128 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM that the truth of a theory is not proved by either the number or the authority of its supporters, but by the evidence of the facts; that the antiquity of a belief is no warrant for its historical truth; that no proof of the Mosaic authorship of the Penta¬ teuch exists; that it is more likely that the books were called by his name because they contained his laws; and that, if the authorship is to be proved, better reasons than those which the theo¬ logians support must be adduced. CHAPTER XII THE SECOND HALF OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY -JEAN ASTRUC The “Conjectures” of Astruc: his misgivings: The “Preliminary Reflections”: The Elohim, Jehovah, and Jehovah Elohim narratives: The partition of Genesis on that basis: fundamental importance of Astruc 3 s discovery: Peter Brouwer's dissertation on Genesis. HE emergence of analytical biblical criticism A from the destructive to the constructive stage, and the consequent development of the principles which were to guide the progress of modern criticism, must be ascribed not to an ec¬ clesiastic, but to a layman; one, however, who by virtue of his racial descent may be said to have come rightly by his knowledge of the Hebrew lan¬ guage and his interest in the Hebrew Scriptures. In 1753, Jean Astruc, a scion of a Christian branch of a great Jewish family settled and widely spread in Southern France for more than five cen¬ turies, himself a distinguished doctor of medicine and for more than twenty years consulting physician to Louis XV and professor at the Col- 130 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM lege de France/ published anonymously at Brus¬ sels, in his seventieth year, the little duodecimo volume on Genesis which was to prove the starting point for modern biblical criticism. 1 2 Astruc felt considerable misgiving about pub¬ lishing his book. Although convinced of the soundness of his deductions, he feared that they might be misused, as those of others had been, to the prejudice of religion and, being a reverent and devout believer in the inspiration of the Scriptures, took advice on the subject. The person to whom he communicated his misgivings reassured him by saying, as stated in the “Avertissement,” or Preface to the book, that: “far from being _ able to work any prejudice to Religion, it could not but be, on the contrary, very advantageous to it, by serving to remove or clear up several difficulties which presented themselves in reading this Book (Genesis), and under the weight whereof Com¬ mentators have hitherto almost been overwhelmed. “On his advice,” continues Astruc, “I decided to publish this Work, and submit it to the judgment of enlightened Persons, to whose Remarks I will 1 Born in 1684 at Montpellier, son of a Huguenot pastor (who, like many others at the period, later became a Catholic), Astruc had been professor of anatomy at Toulouse and in his native place; later, he was appointed physician in ordinary to the Duke of Orleans and afterwards body physician to the King of Poland. He was the author of numerous medical works (one of which, on venereal diseases, was for long the standard authority) and was one of the most highly esteemed physicians of his day. 2 See Appendix V. 131 JEAN ASTRUC gladly listen. I protest beforehand very sincerely, that if those who have the right to decide and whose decisions I should respect, find my Conjec¬ tures either false or dangerous, I am ready to abandon them; or rather, I abandon them from the present moment. Never shall a preconception in favour of my own ideas prevail with me over the love of Truth and Religion.” Astruc begins the Conjectures 1 with a chapter entitled “Reflexions Preliminaires,” in which he sets forth his system and the reasons which led him to adopt it. In view of the important position which his work occupies in the History of Old Testament criticism, I feel justified in quoting this chapter at considerable length. Preliminary Reflections. Moses relates in Genesis events which happened 2,433 years before his birth. Such, in fact, according to the chronology of Usher, taken from the original Hebrew, is the interval between the Creation of the world, with which Genesis begins, and the birth of Moses; 2 and this interval is almost as great as that from the Founding of 1 The title-page of the original work is as follows: Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese. Avec des Remarques, qui appuient ou qui eclaircissent ces Conjectures. “Avia Pieridum peragro, loca nullius ante “Trita solo. A BRUXELLES, MDCCLIII. Avec Privilege et Approbation. “According to the Septuagint, this interval would amount to nearly 4,000 years. 132 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Rome to our times. It is true that, as the thread of the narrative advances, the events approach the times of Moses; but there is not one of them, not even the last, which is the death of the patriarch Joseph, which did not precede by several years the time at which Moses was born, and still more the time at which he wrote, since he only began to write after he had brought the People of God out of Egypt, at the age of eighty years, or perhaps even later. It is therefore impossible that Moses could have him¬ self known the facts he recounts in Genesis, and con¬ sequently he must either have been informed concerning them by revelation, or learned them from the report of those who had themselves been witnesses of them. I know of no one who has advanced the former opinion, and I believe that no one will ever undertake to bring it forward. 1 Moses always speaks in Genesis as a simple historian; he nowhere states that what he relates has been inspired in him. Therefore, revelation in this case should not be asserted without any foundation. When the Prophets have spoken of matters which had been revealed to them they have never failed to make it known that they were speaking in the name of God and on His behalf; and this is what Moses himself has done in the other Books of the Pentateuch, when he has had some revelation to communicate to the Hebrew people, or some divine command to intimate to them. Would he have neglected the same precaution, in composing the Book of Genesis, if he had found himself in the same circumstances? It must therefore be admitted that Moses could only have written the History of the events related in Genesis, which include a space of 2,369 years, according to Usher, 1 Astruc is evidently acquainted merely with the Catholic litera¬ ture on the subject of inspiration. JEAN ASTRUC 133 from a knowledge of them that he had received from his ancestors, who had successively been witnesses of them. But at the same time it must also be admitted that Moses has been enlightened in a special manner and through inspiration in the choice of the facts he received from his ancestors, and in the circumstances connected with them; and this furnishes the ground for the Divine Faith which we owe to the History he has left us. This first point once established, the rest offers little difficulty. There are but two means whereby the knowl¬ edge of bygone events can have been transmitted to Moses; either by a wholly oral tradition; that is to say, from mouth to mouth; or by a written tradition; that is to say, by narratives or records left in writing. Those who adopt the former opinion—and I admit that they are the larger number—do not fail to take ad¬ vantage of the long lives of the Patriarchs to show that this oral tradition could be transmitted from Adam, to Moses by a very small number of persons, because: “Shem, who saw Lantech, who saw Adam, saw at least Abraham, and Abraham saw Jacob, who saw those who saw Moses A 1 This reflection, which is correct, was put forward long ago, and has been adopted by all those who have written on this subject. They maintain that the tradition is thereby rendered easier and surer by avoiding its transmission through a great number of hands, where¬ by it might be obscured, enfeebled, or altered. But were the number of those through whom the events could be handed down to Moses even smaller, it is difficult to persuade oneself that in a tradition several times re¬ peated an exact recollection could be retained of the 1 Pascal, Pensees, Art. XI. 134 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM topographical description of the terrestrial Paradise; of the names of the four rivers that watered it; of the names and distinctive properties of the countries through which they passed ; of the age of each Patriarch; of the precise age at which they began to have children and at which they died; of the order of their genealogies and the names of their descendants; of the names of the kings who made war upon those of the Pentapolis and were conquered by Abraham, and several similar events, recounted in Genesis in a circumstantial manner and with details as to numbers and names unlikely to be preserved if they had merely been entrusted to the memory of those who related them. M. Le Clerc, and M. Simon, who have felt these diffi¬ culties, have both declared that it was very evident that Moses, in writing his Genesis, had the assistance of some ancient records, which had guided him in regard to the circumstances, dates, and chronological order of the events which he records, as well as the genealogical details. To these two authorities, whom I merely indicate, I can add two others still more conclusive, whom I think I ought to cite in the actual terms of the authors. The first is taken from the Abbe Fleury, who, after having stated, in his Manners of the Israelites and the Christians, 1 that “in these primitive times the memory of past events could easily be preserved by the tradition of the aged, who have a natural liking for narration, and had plenty of leisure for it,” continues thus: “However, it seems difficult that as many numbers as Moses reports could have been preserved in men’s memory; the age of all the Patriarchs from Adam, the precise dates of the beginning and end of the Deluge, and the dimensions of the Ark. I see here,” he adds, “no necessity to have l Moeurs des Israelites et des Chretiens. Paris, 1737. 135 JEAN ASTRUC recourse! to miracle and revelation; it is more probable that writing had been invented before the Deluge, as well as musical instruments, which were not so necessary.” M. le Francois furnishes us with the second authority in his excellent book, The Proofs of the Christian Re¬ ligion. In this he examines “The Sources from which Moses may have derived his History and after having recounted several from which Moses might well have obtained some knowledge of his ancestors, but from which he certainly could not have taken the history of Genesis, as we have it, he finally comes to the only one from which Moses could have derived sufficient information. “It is more than likely,” he says, “that by the race in which the knowledge of God was preserved, records of the ancient times were also preserved in writing; for men,” he adds, “have always been careful about these matters.” Fundamentally, I am in agreement with these authors, but I carry my conjectures further and am more definite. I maintain that Moses had in his hands ancient records containing the history of his ancestors, from the Creation of the world; that in order to lose no part of these records, he divided them into portions, according to the events recounted in them; that he inserted these portions in their entirety, one after another, and that from this compilation the book of Genesis has been composed. The following are the grounds for my belief. I. There are in Genesis frequent and glaring repeti¬ tions of the samel events. The Creation of the world, and that of the first man in particular, is related there twice; the story of the Deluge is told twice over, and even three times in regard to certain circumstances. Several other similar instances are found in the rest of the book. What are we to think of such repetitions ? Can we believe that Moses would have let them pass in a work as brief 136 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM and as concise, if he had composed it himself ? Is it not more apparent that the repetitions are due to the fact that Genesis is merely a simple compilation of two or three older records that reported the occurrences, and which Moses thought he ought to put together piece by piece, inserting them in their entirety, in order to preserve what he had received from his Fathers concerning the history of the earliest times of the world, and the history and origin of his Nation in particular? II. In the Hebrew text of Genesis, God is regularly designated by two different names. The first which pre¬ sents itself is that of Elohim Although this word has several significations in Hebrew, or has at least been employed to signify several things, it is certain that it is particularly used to designate the Supreme Being, and in this sense all the Versions have rendered it; that of the Septuagint by 0e6g, the Vulgate by Deus, and all the French Versions, formed upon the Vulgate, by the word Dieu, which has been followed in the Geneva Version. The other name of God is that of Jehovah, HUTS and is, according to all Commentators, the great name of God, the name which expresses His essence. Out of reverence, the Jews did not pronounce this name, and they read in its place that of Adonai, > and for that reason the Massoretes have placed under the consonants of this name, the vowel points of Adonai. It is the name Adonai, which signifies in Hebrew Dominus, Lord , that the Sep¬ tuagint interpreters and the Author of the Vulgate have read, after the example of the Jews, and that is why they have regularly translated Jehovah, the Septuagint by Rug tog, the Vulgate by Dominus, and all the French Versions, which follow the Vulgate, by Seigneur. * * * Sometimes the name Jehovah is found together with that of Adonai, and then the Jews, in order to avoid the 137 JEAN ASTRUC repetition of the same word, did not read Adonai instead of Jehovah, but Elohim, and then to draw attention to it, they put the vowel points of Elohim under the letters of Jehovah, and read Elohim Adonai. Hence it comes that the Septuagint interpreters translate these words by those of 0so£ Kupiog, the Vulgate by those of Dominus Deus, and the French Versions, rendered from the Vulgate, by those of Seigneur Dieu; instead of which the Geneva Version, following the Hebrew text, by those of the Eternal God, reading as it is written, Jehovah Adonai. It might be thought from those remarks, that these two names, Elohim and Jehovah, are employed without dis¬ tinction in the same places in Genesis, as synonymous terms, and appropriate for varying the style; but this would be an error. These names are never confounded; there are whole chapters, and the greater portions of chapters, where God is always named Elohim, and never Jehovah; there are others, at least as numerous, where the name of Jehovah alone is given to God, and never that of Elohim. If Genesis had been the composition of Moses himself, these strange and odd variations would have to be charged to his account. But can it be imagined that he would have carried negligence to such an extent in the composition of a book so short as Genesis ? Can any similar example be cited, and can we dare to impute to Moses, entirely without proof, a fault which no writer has ever com¬ mitted ? Is it not, on the contrary, more natural to explain these variations by supposing, as we have done, that the book of Genesis is formed of two or three records, joined and mingled together in portions, the several Authors of which had always given one single name to 138 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM God, but each a different name; one that of Elohim, and the other that of Jehovah, or Jehovah ElohimJ * * * IV. Finally, all the Commentators are agreed that in Genesis events are found related before other events, although they have taken place after them; that is to say, there are narratives evidently misplaced, whereby the Chronological order is reversed. I will not enter here into a discussion of these facts, but shall cite later on more than one incontestable example. Shall we attribute these faults to Moses, and believe that in composing Genesis he did his work with so little consideration as to allow mis¬ takes of that character to slip in ? I declare that I cannot persuade myself of it, and greatly prefer to think, as I have already said more than once, that Moses composed Genesis out of several different records cut up into por¬ tions which have been inserted entirely one after the other; that the chronological order was preserved in each of these portions independently; but by the insertion of them piece by piece, this order is disarranged in several places, which has given rise to these alleged anti-chronisms . Upon these considerations, it was natural that I should try to decompose Genesis, to separate the different por¬ tions mingled together there, to reunite those which are 1 In his Critica Sacra, or a Short Introduction to Hebrew! Criticism (London, 1774), Benjamin Kennicott calls attention to this difference in usage in another part of the Old Testament, as f ollows: “There is one difference indeed between the language of Chronicles and Kings, respecting the ineffable Name of God, which is apparently owing to design; and savors not a little of superstition. The differences I mean is that the name in Kings is often changed in the correspondent places of Chroni¬ cles intoD'H^K. At what time this Superstition of substituting DbH^K&c. for mrP began to take place among the Jews, I cannot pretend to say. Perhaps some time after the Captivity.” In another passage Kennicott remarks upon the regular use of in place of nippby Ezra and Nehemiah; and wonders if this might be a Chaldaic idiom. 139 JEAN ASTRUC of the same character and appear to have belonged to the same records, and to re-establish by this means these original records which I believe Moses was in possession of. The undertaking was not so difficult as one might have thought. I had merely to join together all the places where God is constantly called Elohim; these I have placed in one column, which I have named A, and I have looked upon them as so many portions, or if one will, fragments of a first original record, which I will designate by the letter A. Beside it I have placed in another column, which I call B, all the other places where no other name is given save that of Jehovah, and I have assembled there all the portions, or at any rate all the fragments, of a second record B. In making this dis¬ tribution I have paid no attention to the division of Genesis into chapters, or that of the chapters into verses, because it is certain that these divisions are modern and arbitrary. As I proceeded, I perceived that yet more records must be admitted. There are certain passages in Genesis, in the description of the Deluge, for example, where the same things are repeated up to three times. Since the name of God is not employed in these passages, and there is in consequence no reason to assign them to one of the first two records, I thought that I ought to place these third repetitions under a third column C, as belonging to a third record C. There are still other records, where similarly the name of God is not used, and which consequently do not belong to either the column A or the column B. When the events narrated therein appeared to me foreign to the history of the Hebrew people, I decided to arrange them under a fourth column D and assign them to a fourth record. I am even in doubt as to all these passages belonging to the same record, and I should perhaps have distributed 140 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM them among several, but the matter is not of sufficient importance as to require discussion here. I will examine it later. * * * After all these observations, which have appeared to me necessary, it is time to offer an opportunity for the examination of the plan which I submit. But I beg those who will give themselves this trouble, to suspend their judgment until after the reading of the Remarks which are placed at the end of the Work, and where I have endeavoured to meet the chief difficulties. I would even wish that a definite judgment might not be formed upon the first perusal. When we have to rid ourselves of a preconceived motion in which we have been brought up, we must accustom ourselves gradually to the con¬ trary opinion and allow time for the action of the reasons which we are to adopt; because prejudice never gives way without difficulty, and for a long time counterbalances the strongest proofs. Following immediately upon the conclusion of the “Preliminary Remarks/’ Astruc prints the Book of Genesis in full, according to the Geneva Version (which he selected in preference to any of the French versions as being more scholarly and adhering more closely to the original) dividing the text into the four columns described above; the resulting arrangement being as follows: RECORD A. Chap. i:l-ii:3; v:l-end; vi:9-end; vii:6-10; vii: 19; vii:22; viii:1-19; ix:l-10, 12, 16, 17; xi: 10-26; xvii:3-end; xx:l-17; xxi:2-32; xxii:l-10; xxiii, xxv:l-ll; xxx:l-23; JEAN ASTRUC 141 xxxi:4-27; 51—xxxii:2; xxxii:24—xxxiii:16; xxxv: 1-27; xxxvii, xl-xlviii; xlix:l-28. RECORD B. Chap. ii:4-end of iv;vi:l-8; vii: 1-5; vii: 11-18; 21; viii:20-end; ix:ll, 13-15; 18-27; x:l-xi:9; xi:27-end of xiii; xv:l-xvii:2; xviii:l-xix:28; xx:18-xxi:l; xxi:33-end; xxii: 11-19; xxiv; xxv: 19-ocxvi: 3 3; xxvii: 1 -xxviii: 5; xxviii: 10- end of xxix; xxx:24-xxxi:3; xxxi:48-50; xxxii:3-23 xxxiii: 17-20; xxxviii; xxxix; xlix: 1-28. RECORD C. vii:20; 23. RECORD D. xiv; xix: 19-end; xxii:20-24; xxv: 12-18; xxvi:34, 35; xxviii :6-9; xxxiv; xxxv:28-end of xxxvi. RECORDS A, B, and C. vii :24. RECORDS A and B. ix :28, 29. From the last two entries it will be seen that Astruc’s investigations led him to believe that certain passages could not be definitely assigned to a single record, but might be common to two or even three of the original documents, in which the same events were described in identical terms. 142 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Astruc's supposition was that Moses arranged his compilation in parallel columns, and that the disorder in the narrative is to be ascribed to copy¬ ists, who substituted a continuous story for the original columnar arrangement. Specimens of this supposed arrangement by Moses are exhib¬ ited by means of tables at the end of the book, and from them the two following are extracted. TABLE I RECORD A. RECORD B. RECORD C. 1 . Ch. xxiii. Sarah's death and funeral. Ch. xxiv. 2 . Journey of Abraham’s servant to Mesopotamia. Return with Rebecca. Marriage of Isaac. 3. Ch. xxv: 19-26 Posterity of Isaac. Birth of Esau and Jacob. 4. Ch. xxv: to v, 11. Abraham's second marriage. His death and funeral. 5. Ch. xxv: 12-18 Posterity of Ishmael. JEAN ASTRUC 143 6 . Ch. xxv :27-end. h Esau's sale of his birthright to Jacob. TABLE II RECORD A RECORD B RECORD C RECORD D 1 . Ch. xxxiii:l-16. Interview between Esau and Jacob. 2 . Ch. xxxiii: 17-end. Sojourn of Jacob at Succoth and Shechem. 3 . History of Judah and his children. 4. Ch. xxxv: 1-27. Jacob's journey to Bethel. Delivery and death of Rachel at Bethlehem. Sojourn of Jacob at the tower of Eder. His settlement at Hebron. 144 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 5. Ch. xxxvii: Sale of Joseph by his brothers. 6 . Ch. xxxiv. Story of Dinah. 7. Ch. xxxv :28, 29 Death and funeral of Isaac. 8 . Ch. xxxvi. Posterity of Esau. 9. Ch. xxxix. Story of Potiphar’s wife. 10 . Ch. xl. Continuation of the story of Joseph. Astruc assigned also the first two chapters of Exodus to the Elohim record, and believed that in addition to the two main records which were dis- 145 JEAN ASTRUC tinguished by the use of different names to signify the Deity, traces of a number of other original documents were to be found in Genesis. To such a source he ascribed the history of the war of the kings in chapter xiv; the incest of Lot and his daughters in xix; the genealogy of the children of Ishmael in xxv; the story of the children of Milcah by Nahor in xxii; the rape of Dinah in xxxiv; three passages relating to Esau, viz., xxvi:34 to end (concerning his first two marriages), xxviii:S to 9 (concerning his third marriage) and xxxvi, concerning his posterity. Altogether, he found grounds for thinking that fragments of no less than ten minor documents were traceable in Gene¬ sis, in addition to the Elohim and Jehovah records. Later critics, however much they have varied in opinion with respect to particular questions, have agreed in regarding Astruc’s discovery as of fund¬ amental importance in the regard to the composi¬ tion of the early historical books of the Old Testament; and at the present day there is hardly a biblical scholar of note who is not in substantial agreement with the French physician’s main con¬ tention; the separate identity of the Elohim and the Jehovah documents. Yet the book seems to have passed almost unobserved at the time; it certainly attracted little public notice. True, the erudite Michaelis in Germany published in his Rclatio de Novis Libris an elaborate review of the 146 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Conjectures in the year following their ap¬ pearance, of which more anon; but no other contemporary comment is on record, and the eccle¬ siastical literature of France at that period is silent on the subject. The reason is not far to seek. The little book, unlike the Critical History, which had achieved notoriety long before it went to the press, came out unheralded; the opinions it contained were advanced with singular timidity, and at first sight appeared to express nothing that had not essentially been maintained by a number of pre¬ vious writers; and in particular they were but the views of a layman from whom, as such, however learned he might be in other matters, ecclesiastics, who arrogated to themselves the sole right to criticism in biblical questions, were not likely to accept instruction. It is more than probable that they overlooked altogether the cardinal distinction between fact and hypothesis, which gave their value to the Conjectures. In the same year that Astruc’s book appeared, Peter Brouwer defended at Leyden his disserta¬ tion : “Whence did Moses learn the facts described in the book of Genesis ?” in which he maintained that the Hebrew leader had access to previous documents, chiefly historical or genealogical, in compiling his history; and cited such introductory titles as: “These are the generations of,” or: “This is the book of the generations of,” as show- 147 JEAN ASTRUC ing the existence of ancient records introduced in this manner, from which Moses composed the account contained in Genesis. 1 1 In 1761 Heinrich Scharbav defended, in the Miscellanea Lube- censia of that year, the traditional views concerning the Mosaic authorship of Genesis in an essay entitled: “Vindiciae Genesis contra auctorem anonym! libri cui titulus: ‘Conjectures sur la Genese.’ ” CHAPTER XIII THE EMERGENCE OF GERMAN CRITICISM. MICHAELIS. EICHHORN Michaelis of Gottingen, the first of the poly historians: his comments on the “Reflexions Preliminaires”: his Introduction to the Old Testament, ij8j: Eichhorn, so-called “Founder of Biblical Criticism”: his Introduction to the Old Testament rapidly becomes popular: Eich¬ horn much indebted to previous critics: birth of the new movement in Biblical criticism: the moment propitious: Herder, poet, philosopher, and divine: his influence on Eichhorn: his Adrastea: the Pentateuch (< highly epic”: the “Fragments of an Unknown”: NachtigaVs (f Frag¬ ments”: Buttmann and the Myths of Mosaic History, TOURING the latter part of the eighteenth century no man occupied a higher position in Germany as a scholar and a critic than Johann David Michaelis, professor of Oriental languages at Gottingen for nearly fifty years, and for the greater part of that time the ruling influence, not merely in the life of the struggling university, but also in the civic affairs of the community. The share which properly belongs to Michaelis in the genesis of the new criticism has never been definitely assigned, but it was assuredly no small GERMAN CRITICISM 149 one, even if the ultimate direction of his teaching was never recognized by the great instructor. The most distinguished representative of a family of scholars, trained in the stern intellectual discipline and the pietist doctrines of the new university of Halle, he was yet by no means unaffected by the liberal thought of the day, and found a freer scope for his genius at Gottingen, where for nearly forty years he exercised a greater influence upon theological thought and biblical exegesis than any other academic teacher of the day; indeed, owing to the far-reaching results achieved by the his- torico-critical principles of which he was Georgia Augusta’s leading exponent, he has possibly a better right to be called the founder of modern bib¬ lical criticism than others for whom the title has been claimed. His Oriental and Exegetic Library, which appeared in 1771, was the precursor of those periodical publications dealing with the lan¬ guages and literature of the East, and of the Hebrews in particular, that did so much to awaken interest throughout Germany in critical questions relating to the Hebrew Scriptures. His Introduc¬ tion to the New Testament, the first historico- critical work of the kind in Germany, was for long the ftextbook for the German student and the model for later writers. While the conservative character of his exegesis may be ascribed to the influence of his early training, the respect shown to his opinions by his contemporaries appears to 150 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM have favored his becoming a dogmatic and some¬ what intemperate critic of those with whom he was not in sympathy. Thus, in his review of Astruc’s book, he furnished an illustration of the truth conveyed in the last paragraph of the Reflexions Preliminaires by showing scant respect for either the learning or the logic of the nonaca¬ demic author of the Conjectures . On the title- page of his little volume Astruc had placed a quotation from Lucretius: “ Avia Pieridum pera- gro, loca nullius ante Trita solo” (“The Muses’ pathless realms I traverse, till now by mortal foot untrodden”), and this ingenuous assumption was strongly resented by Michaelis, as conveying a slur upon the German exegetes, by whom, he asserted, the so-called “pathless realms” had al¬ ready been traversed; but the works cited by the erudite critic do not touch at any point Astruc’s main issue, the separate identity of the Elohistic and Jehovistic records. In his Introduction to the Divine Writings of the Old Covenant, published in 1787, Michaelis firmly upholds the Mosaic authorship of the Pen¬ tateuch, subject to the addition of those passages which Moses could not possibly have written, and a few later interpolations; and summarises his argument by saying that Moses owed his material to: (1) written memorials, (2) historical poems, (3) hieroglyphics and (4) folklore. This volume, which appeared more than thirty years after his GERMAN CRITICISM 151 review of Astruc’s book, represents in all likelihood his final recension of opinions and convictions that had been gradually and insensibly affected by the spirit of the age and the works of other scholars; although Michaelis himself would probably never have acknowledged the latter influence. Long before the publication of Michaelis’s book, however, a work on the Old Testament had ap¬ peared whose influence upon the critical thought of the day was far more widespread and immediate than any of the writings of the older scholar, when in 1770-73 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn put forth the three volumes of his Introduction to the Old Testament . Eichhorn, who has been called by one authority at least “the Founder of modern biblical criti¬ cism, deserves more than a passing notice. He was one of the most remarkable men of his time, and occupied among his contemporaries a distin¬ guished position as a profound scholar and yet prolific writer. His literary output was indeed extraordinary, and testified at once to the preco¬ city and versatility of his talents. Appointed to a university professorship at twenty-two, and holding a chair in Oriental languages—first at Jena and later at Gottingen—for fifty-two years, the wide range of his literary interests, a strenu¬ ous and ardent temperament and a facile pen 1 Dr. T. K. Cheyne in Founders of Old Testament Criticism. 152 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM enabled him to produce, while engaged in an active teaching career during fully half a century, more than forty volumes dealing with the whole domain of history, literature and science, past and pres¬ ent; and in his treatment of all these subjects he exhibited extraordinary powers of acquisition and a gift for literary transfusion of no mean order. He was the typical polyhistorian of his age; his powers as a writer enabled him to present his views in an interesting and attractive form; his works consequently speedily became popular, and he came to be looked upon generally by his con¬ temporaries as a marvel of almost omniscient erudition. But in truth Eichhorn was fundamentally neither erudite nor scientific. His gifts were of a differ¬ ent order. Qui trop embrasse , mal etreint; the unswerving scrutiny of the scientist and the patient toil of the scholar were denied him by the temper of his mind; and while he could assemble and adapt with singular skill the results of the research and observation of others, his own con¬ clusions were frequently unconvincing, founded as they were upon superficial examination of the material and unsupported by sound argument. Yet his work was undoubtedly of great effect; and if he has no real claim to be called the founder of modern biblical criticism (from which his own method essentially differed) or to have provided, GERMAN CRITICISM 153 like Astruc, the starting point for a new exegesis, it may be said of him that he gave the first definite impetus toward the investigation of the Hebrew Scriptures in the universities of Germany and thus laid the foundation of that scientific analysis of the Scriptures which has since been recognized as the only reliable method of biblical criticism. The three volumes of the young Jena professor (the first was published in his twenty-seventh year and the third before he was nine and twenty) were widely perused. Five editions of the book were eventually published; it rapidly became the text¬ book in the evangelical faculties of the Protestant universities; and the promulgation of Eichhorn’s views effectually prepared the way for the more scientific work which followed. In the second volume of his Introduction to the Old Testament Eichhorn deals specifically with the authorship and composition of the sacred books. In regard to Genesis he argues: (1) only such a man as Moses could have been the author; (2) the book is compiled from ancient written records ; (3) among these are certain independent documents; (4) most of the book is composed of parts of two distinct histories, whose separate identity is discernible from the repetitions in the text and also from the variation in the style of the divine appellation. In his assignment of the ma¬ terial of the two accounts he follows in the main 154 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM the division of Astruc, with a few unimportant variations. In regard to the rest of the Pentateuch, Eich- horn follows the orthodox tradition. The book of Joshua he ascribes, like Masius, to a period much later than that of the events narrated. It is indubitable that Eichhorn was indebted to others for much, if not for most of the opin¬ ions expressed in his Introduction. Michaelis, in a review of the book published in his “Exegetical Library” (No. xvi, year 1771) hints very broadly that the writer reproduced statements made by Michaelis himself in lectures attended by the younger man; and indeed the author’s youth pre¬ cludes the possibility of his conclusions being the result of individual study and research. But even if the matter was largely the work of others, the manner was wholly Eichhorn’s; and to the literary style of the presentation, which some of his con¬ temporaries criticized as unscholarly, may be mainly ascribed the general interest which his work aroused and its consequent influence upon the history and progress of Old Testament criticism. The moment of its introduction, moreover, was propitious. It was a time of intellectual growth and movement in many different directions; and while sociological and political questions absorbed most of the public interest, yet in the universities, GERMAN CRITICISM 155 scientific philology, the new humanism (as it was called), the exact study of antiquity, and the appli¬ cation of philosophical principles to historical records, were among the stirring topics of the hour; and the investigations of the academic theo¬ logians of the last quarter of the eighteenth cen¬ tury were carried on with an enthusiasm and a fervor that offered a striking contrast to the incuriousness and torpidity of the preceding age. Also, the influence of the Kantian principles was by this time beginning to pervade every depart¬ ment of learning; exact definition was gradually taking the place of loose metaphor and inadequate analogy; the methods of the humanist began to be applied to the study of the Holy Scriptures; and the sacred writings of Christianity were in process of being subjected to the same close scrutiny that had been applied to the classical documents of antiquity. It was characteristic of the rationalistic tendency with which the intellectual movement of the age was associated, that general ideas of all kinds, the inherited subjective appurtenance of centuries, hitherto accepted without question, were brought to the bar of public opinion under a writ; of moral, sociological, or intellectual quo warranto, and called upon to prove their case or suffer es¬ cheat. Liberal thought and opinion were coming to the front; and if, in throwing off the trammels of orthodox authority, the disciples of the new movement frequently distinguished themselves by 156 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM an excessive repugnance to accredited views, such an attitude may not unjustly be regarded as the instinctive revolt of the intellect against an au¬ thority that had been too often exercised for the purpose of oppressing and keeping in subjection the higher faculties of the mind. Among those whose attitude affected the thought of the age in regard to the Old Testament criticism may be mentioned J. G. Herder, the poet, philo¬ sopher and divine, who undoubtedly exercised con¬ siderable influence upon Eichhorn at the outset of his career and was probably as strongly influenced by him in later life. Herder, a man of rich and varied mental endowment, a voluminous and widely read writer, was one of the most popular literary men of his day. His treatment of the Hebrew Scriptures might be called that of an aesthetic theologian; his poetic instinct filled him with admiration for the beauty and harmony of the writings of the Old Testament, the majesty of the diction, the dramatic character of the narra¬ tives, the vigor and brilliancy of the imagery; but what he admired as a poet he criticised as a phil¬ osopher. He regarded the ancient story as a marvel of literature, a national epic without a peer; but found himself unable to accept it as a history of actual occurrences. As a specimen of his atti¬ tude in this respect the following extract from his “Adrastea” 1 will serve: 1 Adrastea, x, p. 300 ff. GERMAN CRITICISM 157 The living Word of the Hebrew nation draws nearer to us in this epic communion of God and man. The occa¬ sion is furnished by that earliest conception of humanity, the ancestor of the race. He appears as the vicegerent of Elohim, the one to whom the created world is solemnly assigned and who is entrusted with its governance and advancement. With him and the chosen ones of the race moves forward his tutelary deity and his messengers, rescuing, punishing, testing, blessing. The redemption of this people is the outcome of a close covenant between God and the patriarch of a shepherd tribe, on which all their fortunes turn, from which all their hopes emanate. The deliverance of the people, the lawgiving of Moses, what a glorious epic! Wondrously is the Deliverer pre¬ served, and his vocation, the deliverance of the people and foundation of the nation, is announced to him by wondrous signs, perfectly appropriate to place and purpose. The God of his fathers makes him known to the oppressors by avenging plagues. The Exodus of the people, the giving of the Law on Sinai, the preparation of the Taber¬ nacle, the organization of the prospective state, their visible leader before them, his vengeance upon his adver¬ saries, the manna, the budding of the high priest’s rod, the death of the hero—are they not, more than Vulcan’s shield, or the gods in conflict before Troy—highly epic? Even more far-reaching in their influence than the aesthetic! views of Herder were the skeptical essays of Samuel Reimarus, issued by Lessing in his Introduction to History and Literature under the title of Fragments by an Unknown / This posthumous work, which afterward became cele¬ brated under the title of the Wolfenbiittel Frag- 1 Fragmente eines Unbekannten. Aus: Einleitung zur Geschichte und IJteratur, 1774 - 78 . 158 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM merits (the manuscript having been discovered by Lessing in the ducal library at Wolfenbuttel), deals with the New rather than the Old Testa¬ ment ; but the skeptical views it expressed undoubt¬ edly influenced the minds of many in their attitude toward the Holy Scriptures in general. In 1793 the brilliant and original writer, J. C. C. Nachtigal, published in Henke’s Magazine (under the homoeonym of Otmar) the first of a series of three important papers entitled: “Fragments con¬ cerning the gradual development of the writings sacred to the Israelites” (the other two papers appeared in 1795 and 1796), in which he brought forward and supported with interesting argu¬ ments the suggestion that the origin of the early historical narratives in Genesis might be found in the primitive myths of the Hebrew people. 2 2 “Fragmente fiber die allmalige Bildung der den Israeliten heiligen Schriften.” Henke’s Magazin fiir Religionsphilosophie, Band II., IV, and V. This is the first record (as far as I have been able to discover) of a suggestion of this sort, and it marks an important step in Old Testament criticism. In this connection (although the publi¬ cation belongs chronologically to the nineteenth century) mention may here be made of an essay by August Buttmann, which ap¬ peared in the Berlinische Monatschrift , March and April 1804, entitled: “A Treatise concerning the two first myths of the Mosaic primeval History,” in which the author argued, inter alia , that those mythsi did not originate 'with the people in whose sacred books they were found, but were probably borrowed from the mythical literature of neighboring and more important nations. Concerning the narratives in Genesis he says, “No one will any longer seek for historical data in them; the whole is purely philosophical.” Buttmann had published in the preceding year his Aelteste Erdkunde des Morgenlandes, dealing with the same subject. CHAPTER XIV THE LAST DECADE. JOHANN JAHN Jahn publishes his “Introduction” to the Old Testament, 1792: censured by his ecclesiastical superiors: his book placed on the Index: his <( Definition of the Limits of Inspiration!* npHE last decade of the eighteenth century A witnessed the appearance in Germany of a large number of works, critical and anticritical, dealing with the literature and language of the Hebrew people. The majority of these were of merely ephemeral significance; but three of the writers, one a professor in a Catholic, another in a Protestant university and the third a Scottish Roman Catholic priest, have earned a lasting place in the history of Old Testament criticism. These writers are Johann Jahn, Carl David Ilgen, and Alexander Geddes. No more scholarly contribution was made to the biblical criticism of the eighteenth century than that furnished by Johann Jahn, professor of Oriental languages, Old Testament exegesis, bibli¬ cal archaeology and dogmatics in the imperial University of Vienna. Jahn was generally ac¬ knowledged to be one of the foremost scholars of his time; but while his learning commanded uni- 160 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM versal respect, the liberal character of his opinions and the friendly relations which existed between him and the more advanced biblical critics in the Protestant universities of Germany caused anxiety to the authorities of his Church; and this was felt by them to have been justified by the publication in 1792 of the first volume of his Introduction to the Divine Books of the Old Testament. In this important work Jahn relegated two at least of the canonical books (Job and Jonah) to the position of such deutero-canonical works as Tobit and Judith. In his hermeneutics he appears to have been much influenced by the writings of Ernesti (who may be said to have revived for modern scholars the Antiochene system of exegesis), the professor of theology at Leipsic; and his views on inspiration and interpretation represented Prot¬ estant academic opinion rather than those of a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic. Shortly after the appearance of the first volume of the Introduction, a commission was appointed to inquire into the alleged heretical character of Jahn’s opinions, con¬ cerning which a complaint had been addressed to the emperor by the cardinal-archbishop. The commission found that such questions as those raised by Jahn could not be avoided in a book deal¬ ing with scientific exegesis, and absolved the author of technical heterodoxy, but required him to avoid collision with his ecclesiastical superiors and to abstain from arousing doubts in the minds THE LAST DECADE 161 of his hearers. He was also required to make such alterations in his exegetical works as should be designated by the cardinal-archbishop, and a gen¬ eral order was issued that for the future episcopal approval must be obtained for the use of theolog¬ ical textbooks. An ecclesiastical promotion (he was appointed a canon of the cathedral) secured his removal from the university and terminated his career as a professor; eventually his Latin exegetical works were placed on the Index. « Jahn’s excursus on the “Definition of the Limits of Inspiration” is well worth quoting, both as an example of his manner and as an expression of the views of a liberal Roman Catholic scholar at the end of the eighteenth century: As a rule, the Fathers merely express themselves in general terms to the effect that these Scriptures (the Hebrew canonical books) are divine or possess divine authority. Some, like Athenagoras 1 and Justinus , 2 3 4 explain the term “divine inspiration” in the strongest sense, and extend it to cover everything, so that the Holy Ghost is understood as governing the writer in the same manner as a musician does his flute, a view which they derived merely from the etymology of the word 'O’eoJWS'UdTOgk Others, such as Clement of Rome, Ep. I ad cor * and 1 Apologia I “Pro Christianis.” 2 Legatio pro Christianis. 3 Inspired or breathed into by God. 4 The text of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians does not confirm Jahn’s statement. Cf. per contra, Keqp. ME'. ’Eyxu- sixexe el g xat; Tgcupag, xa<; QricrEi? IIvEijipaTog tow dyiou. (Search the Scriptures, the true utterances of the Holy Spirit). 162 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM \ r Dionysius of Alexandria, Ep. ad Basilid., 1 restrict inspira¬ tion to the prevention of errors. However, even those who in some places interpret inspiration in the strictest sense, return in other places to a mere prevention of mistakes, especially when they are furnishing the reason of the variation in style and the choice of events. In proof of this remark Augustine may speak for all: in de Consens. Evangel . Lit., c. ult. he adopts the strictest view of inspiration in the following words: “When they (the Apostles) wrote what He (Christ) showed and spake, it is in no wise to be said that He did not write it. For in truth His members carried into effect that which they learned at the dictation of His head /’ 2 In spite of this Augustine writes: de Doctr . Christ ., L.ii, c. 12: “It is manifest that they explained what was nevertheless the same opinion, either with brevity or prolixity, according to the memory or disposition of each of them .” 3 Jerome writes at times still more freely, as, for instance, in Prcef. in Comment, in Epist. ad Philemonem, and admits some unimportant slips of memory on the part of the sacred writers; even although he may in all such places present not his own opinion, but, as his frequent custom is, the opinion of others without reminding the reader. Never¬ theless, this much is at any rate evident, that some others took a far more moderate view of the meaning of inspir- 1 Dionysius, in the Epistle ad Basilidem, makes but one refer¬ ence to inspiration (and that an indirect one) : Per Moysem Deus Judseis divinas voces in monte audituris praecepit, etc. 2 Quum illi (Apostoli) scripserunt, quod ille (Christus) ostendit et dixit, nequaquam dicendum, quod ille non scripserit. Quando- quidem membra ejus id operata sunt, quod dictante capite cognoverunt. 3 “Ut quisque meminerat, et ut cuique cordi erat, vel brevius vel prolixius eandem tamen explicare sententiam, ita eos explicasse manifestum est.” THE LAST DECADE 163 ation. And as the defenders of the strict interpretation themselves are sometimes contented with the more mod¬ erate interpretation, it is evident that they did not accept in the strict sense their own strong expressions and strong interpretation, and were at bottom in agreement with those who merely affirmed the inerrability of the holy books; or that they regarded the difference in their views as a trifle devoid of significance. This is doubtless the reason why, in spite of the different explanations of in¬ spiration, no quarrel arose over the exact definition of it, since in truth all of them were saying in fine the same thing. Thus, even in the ninth century, Agobard, bishop of Lyons, does not hesitate to write that it was absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit had inspired the words of the prophets and Apostles. 1 The scholastic theologians followed partly the passages in the Fathers which demonstrated the strict interpretation of inspiration quite verbally, and overlooked the other places in which inspiration is not construed so compre¬ hensively; partly they adopted the latter view and ex¬ plained the former by it. Thus two parties arose. The first extended inspiration to: (1) the determination of the author to write a certain thing; (2) the selection of the facts; (3) the selection of the words; (4) the selection ©f the order of the facts; (5) the selection of the order of the words. The second party did not advance beyond divine assist¬ ance for the prevention of errors. Since both parties and the Protestants also defended the inspiration and the divine authority of the books, the Council of Trent, which justly refused to take part in scholastic contro¬ versies, made no ruling in the matter. The quarrel 1 The extant writings of Agobard fail to confirm this statement. In his treatise Against Fredegisus, the archbishop indignantly repudiates the accusation. 164 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM therefore continued, and grew at times fiercer. In some districts the former, in others the latter party prevailed. In the universities of the Low Countries the strict inter¬ pretation of inspiration was for a long time taught; hence the theological faculties at Louvain and Douai were stirred up when the Jesuits Lessius and du Hamel at Louvain openly defended, among other matters, the more moderate interpretation of inspiration. The doctors of these faculties, chiefly through the activity of the learned Estius, passed censure in 1586 on (in addition to certain of their views concerning Grace and Predestination) the following three tenets regarding inspiration and the divine authority of the holy books. 1. For a writing to be Holy Scripture, it is not nec¬ essary for each word to have been inspired. 2. It is not necessary for each truth and opinion to have been immediately inspired to the writer himself by the Holy Ghost. 3. Any book, such as is, it may be, the second of Macchabees, written by human industry without the assist¬ ance of the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit afterwards’ bear witness that there is nothing false in it, becomes Holy Scripture. 1 Acting on the censure of the two faculties, the bishops of the Netherlands made preparations for assembling an ecclesiastical council of the province, in order to banish these tenets from their dioceses. But Sixtus V, to whom 1 1. Ut aliquid sit Scriptura sacra, non est necessarium, singula verba ejus esse inspirata. 2. Non est necessarium ut singulse veritates et sententise sint immediate a Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae. 3. Liber aliquis, qualis est fortasse secundus Macchabseorum, humana industria sine assistantia spiritus sancti scriptus, si spiritus sanctus postea testetur ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur scriptura sacra. THE LAST DECADE 165 the Jesuits had meanwhile appealed, caused the bishops to understand through his nuncio that he reserved the whole matter for himself, and thus the disturbance was stilled; for Sixtus also did not find it necessary to have the controversy examined into, although the censured theses appeared soon after in a new edition with the addition: Acknowledged for their own and illustrated with Scholia by the same professors themselves. Richard Simon, in his critical history, p. 280, writes concerning these theses: “they certainly appear to be in accordance with common sense and are not at all removed from the theology of the ancient Fathers of the Church, to whom one must in such a case accord more obedience, than to the holy faculty at Louvain.” Consequently, not merely the Jesuits, such as Cornelius a Lapide, Suarius, Bonfrerius, Bellarmine, but other learned theologians, such as Bishop Huet, du Pin, Calmet, Serry, etc., paid thereafter no attention to this censure, and Richard Simon, in his Critical History of the New Testament , has con¬ troverted it point by point. As a matter of fact, this strict interpretation of inspiration, which the theologians of Louvain defended, can in no satisfactory manner be recon¬ ciled with the variation in style in different books, and especially with the difference in the words of speeches which were spoken but once, and are reported twice in the Bible, with different words; not to mention that so ex¬ tended a divine assistance would have been superfluous and wholly needless for the final purpose, namely, the in- errability and the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. Erasmus, Albert Pighius, Pereira, Gordon Huntley, and Joseph Adam, a French Jesuit, went still further and maintained that the sacred writers had at times committed unimportant errors of memory without their inspiration being thereby affected; in fact such errors could hardly 166 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM be ranked higher than the false readings and variants which crept in afterward through the fault of copyists. However, Erasmus, in his Apologia adversus Monachos Hispanienses, withdrew this assertion of his. Henry Holden, doctor of the faculty at Paris, denied inspiration to all that is not doctrine or immediately or essentially connected with doctrine, when he wrote his Analysis of Divine Faith / There were several doctors in the Sorbonne who agreed with Holden in this, and signified their approval to him in writing; therefore the book was frequently reissued without objection and reprinted in 1685 with the approval of Coquelin, doctor of theology and chancellor of the university. It may be that Holden had in mind the beginning of that ordinance of the Council of Trent con¬ cerning the sacred and canonical books, Session IV, which runs: ‘‘This sacrosanct synod, perceiving that this truth and doctrine is contained in Scriptures and in unwritten traditions/’ 1 2 whereupon the Holy Scriptures are cited by name; from this Holden may have concluded that the Council had declared the books divine in regard to their doctrine of faith and morality; but Holden, according to Simon, has drawn from Antonius de Dominis who, how¬ ever far he may have gone in other points, is far behind in this; for, although in his Christian Commonwealth he excuses the theologians who have ascribed trifling errors of memory to the sacred writers, and admits that there are several places in the Bible where the writers appeared to have been mistaken in unimportant matters, and the explanations of the difficulties are not, strictly considered, satisfactory, yet he adds: “I, verily, as far as I am con- 1 Already quoted; see page 110. 2 Perspiciens haec sacrosancta synodus, hanc veritatem et doctri- nam contineri in scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus. Sessio IV. THE LAST DECADE 167 cerned, lay aside this strictness and would rather accept the pious interpretation accompanied with difficulty, than admit a lapse of that kind even in single instances.” In the Protestant Churches the strictest theory of in¬ spiration prevailed shortly after their formation, although their original founders had not taught it. 1 The few who thereafter came forward against this theory were zeal¬ ously combated. Only by the middle of the eighteenth century a few began to form a more moderate conception of inspiration. After Tollner’s truly searching investiga¬ tion of divine inspiration in 1772, and Sender’s clever but not thorough examination of the canon had appeared, the doctrine concerning inspiration was tested anew by many, and several works appeared against Semler. From this time onward the strict interpretation of inspiration gradually lost ground. Inspiration was con¬ fined, as had been done already by Grotius and Leclerc, to the meaning, then to the doctrine, finally to the prophe¬ cies; until it was at length abandoned, so that at the present day but few defend it, while others, if pushed to it, maintain that the books possess divine authority merely because they contain, among other things, divine doc- 1 Luther’s celebrated sermon (see Appendix W) “Instruction for the attitude of Christians towards Moses,” delivered in 1526, furnishes an interesting illustration of the Reformer’s position in regard to the Mosaic dispensation. The following extracts are of special significance: “The law of Moses does not bind the Gentiles, but the Jews only.” “We will not have Moses any longer for a regent or lawgiver; yea, God Himself will not have it. Moses is a Mediator of the Jewish people alone, to whom he gave the Law. We must stop the mouths of the turbulent spirits (rotten geister ) who say: ‘Thus spake Moses.’ Then do you say: ‘Moses does not affect us.’” “So when one of these brings forward Moses with his laws and will force you to keep to them, say: ‘Be off to the Jews with your Moses; I am no Jew; trouble me not about Moses. If I accept Moses in one part (as Paul says to the Galatians in the fifth chapter) I am obliged to keep the whole law. But not a tittle (of the Mosaic law) affects us.’” 168 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM trine; 1 whereby they overlook the fact that the original divine doctrine must also be written down under divine inspiration, if it is to retain divine authority when con¬ tained in a book. 2 1 John’s remarks must of course be taken as referring to the Protestant Churches of Germany and the northern countries of the Continent. Writing in 1771, the conservative critic Michaelis could say: “In my day no one any longer regards the Pentateuch as possessing historical value.” 2 Michael Wittmann (see Appendix X) in his Annotations on the Pentateuch of Moses (Annotationes in Pentateuchum Moysis. A Michaele Wittmann, Episcopalis Ratisbonensis Seminarii Cle- ricorum, Subregente, etc. Ratisbon, 1796), says: “We have no dogma of faith concerning the author of the Pentateuch. The Church has never plainly and clearly stated that the whole Pentateuch was composed by Moses. Rather, the Church has shown that she concerned herself but lightly about the authors of the books of the Old Testament, when, for example, in the Council of Carthage, III, she names the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus Solomon’s, although it is certain on the testimony of Augustine himself that she had refused to attribute these books to Solomon. See Principia Catholica de Sanctis Scripturis, sec. 9: also where in the Council of Trent, session 4, she calls the Psalter David’s, although it is certain that many psalms are not by David. Therefore while the Councils and the Fathers in general attribute these five Books to Moses, this cannot be held to be a clear and certain definition, constituting a dogma of faith, that Moses is the author of the whole of these Books In the same manner the mention made by Christ of these Books as being Mosaic is not necessarily to be taken strictly. Even although it would seem to be strictly received, when He says: John v: v. 46: “He (Moses) wrote concerning me. If ye believe not his writings, how will ye believe my words?” Nothing more would follow, than that some portions were written by Moses. CHAPTER XV CARL DAVID ILGEN Ilgen, Eichhorn s successor at Jena: publishes the “Documents of the Archives ” 1798 : a fresh partition of Genesis: the two Elohists and the Jehovist: Ilgen’s critical faculty often subject to preconceptions: lasting effect of his criticism. a very different order from the conservative ^ criticism of the Roman Catholic professor was the work of his younger contemporary, Carl David Ilgen, who in 1794 succeeded Eichhorn in the chair of Oriental languages at Jena, and in 1798 published a small volume bearing the some¬ what magniloquent title of: Documents of the Archives of the Temple of Jerusalem in their Original Form. This book, which carried on its second page the subtitle, “Documents of the First Book of Moses in their Original Form,” consists of a division of Genesis into three independent narratives, assigned to three writers, whom the author styles respectively: “The First Elohist,” “The Second Elohist,” and “The First Jehovist.” 1 1 Sopher Eliel Harischon, Sopher Eliel Haschscheni, Sopher Elijah Harischon, in Ilgen’s book (Eliel, “my God is El”; Elijah, “My God is Jah,”) indicate the divine Name used by the respective writers. 170 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Following a process of reasoning which he en¬ deavored, not always successfully, to establish, Ilgen divided Genesis into seventeen separate nar¬ rations, ten of which were assigned to the First Elohist, five to the Second Elohist and two to the Jehovist, who does not appear until the twelfth chapter; the previous Jehovistic (according to the division of Astruc) records being ascribed to the Second Elohist. Ilgen’s argument is in general sound, and shows in several instances an advance in critical method over previous writers; but he permitted his critical faculty to become subject to a preconceived notion of the functions of the different writers, and car¬ ried his theory of the characteristic distinctions between the two Elohists and the Jehovist to un¬ justifiable, almost ridiculous excess. This led him to see the hands of two different writers in seven¬ ty-five verses, sometimes on reasonable grounds, but often for no apparent purpose save to support his theory. As a specimen of Ilgen’s method may be cited chapter xxx, which he distributes as follows: To both the Elohists: vv. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23. To the First Elohist only: vv. 9, 10, 12, 21. To the Second Elohist only: vv. 2, 3, 26. CARL DAVID ILGEN 171 To the Jehovist only: vv. 24, 25, 28 to 34, 36 to 38,41 to 43. To the Second Elohist and the Jehovist: vv. 27, 35, 39, 40. His theory concerning the use of the names Jacob and Israel 1 led him to assign in chapter xlv, v. 27 to the First Elohist and v. 28 to the Second; and in chapter xlvi, vv, 2 and 5 to both. He took considerable liberty with the text itself and even altered occasionally the Divine appellation in order to bring passages into accordance with his views. Ilgen also divided a number of verses between different writers, many of them for the first time; displaying in this task a more than ordinary dis¬ cernment (as in his discrimination between narra¬ tives relating to Joseph) and a prejudice equally remarkable. His method as applied to chapter ii :4, xii:4, xiii.Tl, 12, xxi:l and xxv:26, shows sound judgment and discrimination, and the verdict of subsequent investigators has confirmed his view; but his similar treatment of chapter i:5, 8, 31, vii: 10, 11, viii: 13, xix:29, xxi:6, 7, and xxvi:l, evidences an unscholarly preconception and an almost unscrupulous indifference to any considera¬ tions save the advancement of his theory. 1 Ilgen’s distinction contains the possible germ of the later theory of the separate identity of the “Jacob” and “Israel” connected with Egyptian history which is confirmed by the discoveries of Egyptologists. 172 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Ilgen did not follow up his excursus into biblical criticism. Not long after the publication of the Urkunden he resigned his professorial chair for the wider scope of influence offered by the rector¬ ship of the famous Pforta School; and it is as an educational administrator and organizer that he has made his mark among his countrymen, not as an Old Testament critic. But his contribu¬ tion to the subject was of lasting effect in two important directions. By the confident and arbi¬ trary manner in which he settled to his own satis¬ faction critical questions of extreme nicety, he earned for himself an unenviable reputation among more serious-minded scholars, and thus furnished a warning to later critics to proceed more cautious¬ ly with the sacred text; yet undoubtedly, by the discernment which he showed in various matters and in particular with regard to the share in the narrative which he assigned to the third writer, whom he was the first to discover, he indicated the path which subsequent and more careful investiga¬ tion was to follow. CHAPTER XVI ALEXANDER GEDDES Alexander Geddes, Scottish Roman Catholic Priest: his difficulties with his superiors: his im¬ patience of official authority: first British Biblical critic in the modern sense: his Translation of the Bible, 1792 : his views on the Pentateuch: Critical Remarks on the Holy Scriptures, 1800 : his de¬ fense against his critics. VI7HILE the spirit of modern criticism was * thus making its way among the universities of Germany, the acutest and most daring, if not the deepest thinker, among the biblical critics of his time was a certain Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Scottish Roman Catholic priest, whose learning earned the respect of all continental scholars, while the quickness of his temper, the uncompro¬ mising character of his liberal views, and his friendly relations with Protestants brought him into disrepute with his ecclesiastical superiors, and caused him to pass the greater part of his sa¬ cerdotal life under episcopal censure, and to engage in a controversy with the higher officials of his Church that terminated only with his death. Geddes, with his intolerance of opposition and impatience of official authority, was out of place as an officer of any organized religion of the day; 174 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM a freethinker in a cassock, he rebelled persistently and vainly against what he regarded as the moral coercion of the Roman Catholic Church; a devoted Catholic, yet a convinced antipapist, he spent his strength beating against the bars of Rome; and the bitter personalities in which he indulged suffi¬ ciently account for the disciplinary measures that were taken against him. The ill repute that attached upon him as a freethinker and even an infidel consigned his writings to an undeserved oblivion, as far as his own country was concerned; but on the Continent, where they furnished the starting point for the criticism of the nineteenth century, their effect was momentous. Geddes, indeed, has as good a right as any to be called the founder of modern Old Testament criticism, if by such criticism we are to understand a reverent atti¬ tude toward the Hebrew Scriptures, freedom from prejudice and superstition, and the conviction that the contents of the Bible, if we are to comprehend them aright, must be subjected to the same literary tests as any other book. To understand the critical position of Geddes (and the general mental attitude of the man, of which his criticism is the most notable expression), it will be necessary to quote at some length from his writings; and this, in view of the fact that he is not only the first British Old Testament critic in the modern sense, but also the only one of whom it can be said that he was not merely in advance of ALEXANDER GEDDES 175 contemporary German criticism but also was fol¬ lowed by German scholars, we are justified in doing. The works on which Geddes’s reputation as a scholar and a critic rest are his Translation of the Bible (carried dnly to the end of the Book of Joshua) and his Critical Remarks on the Holy Scriptures / The following extract is taken from the transla¬ tion of the Bible, published in 1792. !^Authorship of the Pentateuch. From intrinsic evidence, three things seem to me in¬ dubitable. 1st, The Pentateuch, in its present form, was not written by Moses. 2dly, It was written in the land of Chanaan, and most probably at Jerusalem. 3dly, It could not be written bofore the reign of David, nor after that of Hezekiah. The long pacific reign of Solomon (the Augustan age of Judaea) is the period to which I would refer it; yet, I confess, there are some marks of a posterior date, or at least of posterior interpolation. But though I am inclined to believe that the Pentateuch was reduced into its present form in the reign of Solomon, I am fully persuaded that it was compiled from ancient documents, some of which were coeval with Moses, and some even anterior to Moses. Whether all these were 1 The Holy Bible, or the Books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Testament: faithfully translated from corrected texts of the Originals with various Readings, Explanatory Notes, and Critical Remarks, by the Rev. Alexander Geddes, LL.D. London, 1792. Critical Remarks on Holy Scriptures, corresponding with a new translation of the Bible . London, 1800. 176 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM written records, or many of them only oral tradition, it would be rash to determine. From the time of Moses, I think, there can be no doubt of their having written records. From his Journals, a great part of the Penta¬ teuch seems to have been compiled. Whether he were also the original author of the Hebrew cosmogony, or of the history prior to his own days, I would neither confidently assert, nor positively deny. He certainly may have been the original author or compiler;—but it is also possible, and I think more probable, that Solomon was the first collector; and collected from such documents as he could find, either among his own people or among the neighbour¬ ing nations. Some modem writers, indeed, allowing Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, maintain that he composed the book of Genesis from two different written documents; which they have attempted to distinguish by respective characteristics. Although I really look upon this as a work of fancy, and will elsewhere endeavor to prove it so; I am not so self-sufficient to imagine that I may not be in the wrong, or that they may not be in the right. The reader who wishes to see the arguments on which they ground their assertion may consult Astruc or Eichhorn. * * * To the Pentateuch I have joined the book of Joshua, both because I conceive it to have been compiled by the same author and because it is a necessary appendix to the history contained in the former books. The translation was published by subscription; but as the episcopal censure which attached upon Geddes extended to his literary labors, and the members of his communion were officially warned against supporting the publication of the work, very few; Roman Catholics inscribed their names, ALEXANDER GEDDES 177 and the expense of the production was almost en¬ tirely borne by Protestant subscribers. Eight years later, in 1800, Geddes produced his second and more important work, entitled: ‘Critical Re¬ marks on the Holy Scriptures. The story of Old Testament criticism furnishes no more interesting document than the preface to the Critical Remarks, regarded as an illustration of the position into which an open-minded cleric and acute observer found himself forced through the adoption of liberal views, which were regarded at that time by the hierarchy of both communions as even more dangerous to religion than positive infidelity. In consequence of the attacks made upon him (which need not be here gone into) Geddes felt compelled to state a case for himself; and it must be confessed that he has done so with acumen, freedom and vigor: It remains to give some account of the volume which I now offer to the public.—I have throughout acted the critic, and occasionally the commentator; although the office of the latter has always been made subservient to that of the former. In both these characters I have fully used mine own judgment (such as it is) without the smallest deference to inveterate prejudice or domineering authority. The Hebrew Scriptures I have examined and appretiated, as I would any other writings of antiquity; and have bluntly and honestly delivered my sentiments of their merit and demerit, their beauties or imperfections; as becomes a free and impartial examiner. I am well aware that this freedom will, by the many, be considered 178 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM as an audacious licence; and the cry of heresy! infidelity! irreligion! will redound from shore to shore. I only enter my protest against downright misrepre¬ sentation and calumny. I disclaim and spurn the imputa¬ tion of irreligion and infidelity. I believe as much as I can find sufficient motives of credibility for believing, and without sufficient motives of credibility, there can be no rational belief. Indeed, the great mass of mankind have no rational belief. The vulgar Papist and the vulgar Protestant are here on almost equal terms; few, very few of either class ever think of seriously examining the primary foundation of their faith. The vulgar Papist rests his on the supposed infallibility of his Church; although he knows not where the infallibil¬ ity is lodged, nor in what it properly consists. He reads in his catechism, or is told by his catechist, that the Church cannot err in what she teaches; and then he is told that this unerring Church is composed only of those who hold communion! with the bishop of Rome, and believe pre¬ cisely as he, and the bishops who are in communion with him, believe. From that moment, reason is set aside; authority usurps its place, and implicit faith is the neces¬ sary consequence. He dare not even advance to the first step of Des Cartes’ logic; he dares not doubt; for in his table of sins, which he is obliged to confess, he finds doubting in matters of faith to be a grievous crime. But, on the other hand, is the faith of the vulgar Protestant better founded ? He rests it on a book called the Holy Bible, which he believes to be the infallible word of God. Is it by reading the Bible, or unbiassedly exam¬ ining its contents, that he is led to this precious discovery ? No: he is taught to believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, before he has read, or can read it; and sits ALEXANDER GEDDES 179 down to read it with this prepossession in his mind. His belief, then, is as implicit as that of the vulgar Papist, and his motives of believing even less specious. Both give up their reason, before they are capable of reasoning; the one on the authority of his parents, or of his priest; the other on the authority of his parents, or of his parson; but the priest urges his plea with more dexterity, and with a fairer outside show of probability. If the parson be asked how he himself knows that the book which he puts in the hand of his catechumen is the infallible word of God, he cannot, like the priest, appeal to an unerring Church; he acknowledges no such guide, and yet it is hard to conceive what other better argument he can use. If he say, the book manifests its infallibility by its own intrinsic worth, he begs the question. If he affirm, that he knows it to be infallible by the workings of the Holy Spirit in his own heart, he plays the enthusiast; and his enthusiasm can be no rational motive of credibility for any other individual, who feels not the like operations of the same spirit. Twenty other difficulties surround his hypothesis, which it certainly is not easy to remove; and the best solutions he can give are but gilded sophisms. * * On reading the popish controversy, as it is called, from the days of Elizabeth to the present day, one is apt, at least I am apt, to think, that the Romanists had, on this point, the better side of the question; by some of their contro¬ versialists not improperly called the question of questions. * * * Yet this same question of questions has never been properly solved by the Romanists themselves. They always reasoned in what is termed a vicious circle; and proved the infallibility of the Church from the authority of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture from the Church’s infallibility. I know what shifts have been made by Bellarmine, and many others, to get out of this coil; but I have never met with any one who had succeeded. 180 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM On the whole, then, I think, it may be laid down as an axiom, that the bulk of Christians, whether Papists or Protestants, cannot be said to have a rational faith; be¬ cause their motives of credibility are not rational motives, but the positive assertions of an assumed authority, which they have never discussed and durst not question; their religion is the fruit of unenlightened credulity. A very small number, of curious and learned men only, have thoroughly examined the motives of their religious belief, in my communion. * * * Without ranking myself with the learned, I may safely class myself with the curious. I have been at great pains to examine every system of theology that has come in my way, in order to fix my religious belief upon something like a sure foundation. I have searched the Scriptures; I have studied tradition; I have read ecclesiastical history; and the result of my search, my study, and my reading has been, that reason, reason only, is the ultimate and only sure motive of credi¬ bility; the only solid pillar of faith. I cannot then be charged with infidelity, since I firmly believe all that reason tells me I ought to believe; nor can I be charged with irreligion; because I am conscious that Religion, genuine Religion, is both reasonable, and con¬ ducive to human happiness. So far from wishing to hurt the interests of this Religion, I have the most ardent desire to promote her injured cause; to exhibit her in her native, divine charms; divested of every vain and useless trapping and tinsel decoration, in which the busy hand of superstition hath officiously attired her; and at the same time to rescue her, if possible, from the sacrilegious fangs of gloomy fanaticism, that would clothe her in the sable weeds of forbidding austerity, and expose her as a haggard scarecrow, to deter the liberal and generous part of man¬ kind from her sweet embrace. ALEXANDER GEDDES 181 The gospel of Jesus is my religious code; his doctrines are my dearest delight; “his yoke (to me) is easy, and his burden is light”; but this yoke I would not put on; these doctrines I could not admire; that gospel I woud not make my law, if Reason, pure Reason, were not my prompter and preceptress. I willingly profess myself a sincere, though unworthy, disciple of Christ; Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname . 1 Rather than renounce these glorious titles, I would shed my blood; but I would not shed a drop of it for what is neither Catholic nor Christian. Catholic Christianity I revere wherever I find it, and in whatever sect it dwells; but I cannot revere the loads of hay and stubble which have been blended with its precious gems; and which still, in every sect with which I am acquainted, more or less tarnish or hide their lustre. I cannot revere metaphysical unintelligible creeds, nor blasphemous confessions of faith. I cannot revere perse¬ cution for the sake of conscience, nor tribunals that en¬ force orthodoxy by fire and faggot. * * * I cannot revere formulas of faith made the test of loyalty, nor penal laws made the hedge of church-establishments. In short, I cannot revere any system of religion, that, for divine doc¬ trines, teacheth the dictates of men; and; by the base inter¬ mixture of “human traditions maketh the commandment of God of none effect.” This I say even of Christian systems: and shall I grant to systematic Judaism what I deny to systematic Christianism? Shall I disbelieve the pretended miracles, the spurious deeds, the forged char¬ ters, the lying legends of the one, and give full credit to those of the other? May I, blameless, examine the works of the Christian doctors and historians by the common rules of criticism, explode their sophistry, combat their rash assertions, arraign them of credulity, and even some- 1 A well-known quotation from Pacian, Ep. I. ad Sempronianum, Novatianum, “Christianus mihi liomen est, Catholicus vero cognomen.” 182 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM times question their veracity; and yet be obliged’ to con¬ sider every fragment of Hebrew Scripture, for a series of 1,000 years, from Moses to Malachi; every scrap of prophecy, poesy, minstrelsy, history, biography, as the infallible communication of heaven, oracles of divine truth? Truly, this is to require too much of credulity itself. In the Hebrew scriptures are many beauties, many excellent precepts, much sound morality; and they deserve the attentive perusal of every scholar, every person of curiosity and taste. All those good things I admire, and would equally admire them in the writings of Plato, Tully, or Marcus Aurelius; but there are other things in great abundance, which I can neither admire nor admit, without renouncing common sense, and superseding reason: a sacrifice which I am not disposed to make, for any writ¬ ing in the world. This language will, I doubt not, seem strange to the systematic Christian, who has founded his creed, not upon reason or common sense, but upon the prejudices of education; who is a Papist at Rome, a Lutheran at Leipsic, and a Calvinist at Geneva; a Prelatist in England, and a Presbyterian in Scotland; a Nestorian in Syria, in Ar¬ menia an Eutychian—for such local nominal Christians my remarks are not intended; they would spurn them with zealous indignation. But if there be, as I trust there are, in each of these communions, men who have learned to think for themselves, in matters of faith as well as in matters of philosophy, and who are not Christians merely because they were born of Christian parents, and bred up in Christian principles; but because, on the most serious and mature examination, they find Christianity a rational, a most rational religion—to such I address myself with confidence; and by such I expect to be listened to with patient candor. ALEXANDER GEDDES 183 With this survey of the work of the Scottish divine our examination of the criticism of the Old Testament in the eighteenth century comes to a conclusion. CHAPTER XVII SUMMARY Endeavor of the writer to present an accurate report: the “ipsissima verba” of the critics sub¬ mitted: nothing quoted that does not bear upon the question: the Fathers aware of the early crit¬ icism: reverence for the books of the Jewish Canon gradually increases: the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church after the Reformation: the story of the theory of verbal inspiration: the volte-face of both Churches in regard to inspira¬ tion: a reason for the ecclesiastical attitude . T N this sketch of the earlier criticism of the Old A Testament up to the end of the eighteenth cen¬ tury the writer has endeavored to present a true relation, and one that might be found to be as far as possible impartial. To this end the ipsissima verba of the critical writers have been offered to the reader, and argument for or against the question—which has not infrequently clouded the real issue—has been studiously avoided, and only so much extraneous matter has been introduced as was requisite for a connected narrative and to enable the reader to form an adequate judgment upon the criticisms themselves, aided by some ac¬ quaintance with the circumstances that accom¬ panied or affected their production. The excerpts SUMMARY 185 given have been made as brief and as few as was compatible with a fair presentation of the critical argument; and nothing has been quoted that did not, in the writer’s opinion, contribute directly to such a presentation. Many more authors might have been cited; but little or nothing would have been added thereby to the argument, and the writer’s desire throughout has been to avoid re¬ dundancy or prolixity. For the study of this earlier criticism must chiefly serve as an aid to the student in forming a just estimate of the criticism which follows it, and to which it is the logical introduction. The inquiry we have pursued may be summed up as follows: It is evident that the Fathers of the Church were made aware from very early times—certainly from the earlier part of the second century—that certain portions of the canonical books of the Old Testament had been subjected to criticism at dif¬ ferent hands; it is also evident that, owing prob¬ ably to the secondary position occupied by the books of the Jewish Canon in the divine library of the Church Catholic, these attacks were not considered of cardinal importance by the leaders of Christian thought; the foundations of the Catholic Faith not being, as they deemed, touched by them. 186 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM As time went on, the veneration accorded to the Christian writings adjudged divinely inspired and canonical definitely increased the respect paid to the books of the ancient Canon, and critical com¬ ment on any part of them was severely censured; which did not, however, prevent certain orthodox writers from being unwilling to affirm positively that the so-called Mosaic writings were auto¬ graphic. The period following the Reformation wrought a definite change in the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward biblical criticism, due in all probability to the wild theories put forward by many of the Reformed party, which appeared likely, if not checked, to produce similar disregard of authority in their own communion and thus to place a powerful weapon in the hands of the enemies of the Faith; and thereafter any such offense was severely punished. Finally the Roman Church included in its claim to supreme authority in regard to the interpretation of the Scriptures the whole body of the Jewish Canon; and from that time until toward the close of the eighteenth century no orthodox Roman Catholic ventured to put forward criticism that tended to impugn in any manner the sacred books of the Old Covenant. The story of the theory of the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament is an interesting illustration of the official attitude of organized religion. We SUMMARY Have seen at the outset How the Jewish Canon was accepted without scrutiny by the Christian Church; how the miraculous tale of the reproduction of the lost books by Ezra was apparently credited by all the Fathers—with the possible exception of St. Jerome; how the Hebrew tradition which main¬ tained that the received text, with its square Aramaic letters, its vowel points and accents, was autographic, and coeval with the times of the great Lawgiver, was generally believed in; how the evi¬ dence to the contrary brought forward by Levita was at first accepted by Catholics and Protestants alike, next rejected by the latter; and how finally, both Churches practically, although not officially, resolved to support the doctrine of direct verbal inspiration. In regard to this volte-face, it is the merest justice to ascribe it, not to a defect in learning or scientific acumen on the part of the leading men in either Church, but rather to their appreciation of the pernicious effect upon public morality which they felt assured would ensue if the authority of the Bible and the veneration accorded it on account of its Divine origin, were to be in any degree less¬ ened or undermined by the adoption of views which, if logically followed out, would in their opinion relegate the Sacred Writings to the category of profane literature. They should also be credited with the conviction that they were defending, not the cause of the Old Testament Scriptures alone, 188 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM but that of morality itself, which received direc¬ tion, sanction, and authority from the Word of God as revealed in Holy Writ; and they deemed it their duty as Christians and Churchmen alike to combat by any means in their power a movement that seemed likely to threaten the position which the Bible held in Christian society and the influence it exerted upon Christian life. CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY Second Century. Porphyry criticizes the Book of Daniel. Celsus criticizes Genesis. Third Century. Clementine Homily disputes the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Fourth Century. The Nazarites criticize the Pentateuch. The Ptolemaitanes refuse to ac¬ cept the Pentateuch as divine. St. Jerome adopts a noncom¬ mittal attitude in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch. Fifth Century. Theodoret regards the histor¬ ical books as the work of vari¬ ous hands, compiled by later writers. Procopius of Gaza follows the opinion expressed by Theo¬ doret. Theodore of Mopsuestia criti¬ cizes the Book of Job and the Song of Solomon. 190 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Sixth Century. Junilius the Quaestor doubts the Mosaic origin of the Penta¬ teuch. Seventh Century. Anastasius Sinaiticus reports a number of criticisms concern¬ ing the Pentateuch. Eighth Century. John Damascenus reports that the Nazarites deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Sixteenth Century. 1520. Andreas Bodenstein vel Carlstadt de¬ tects differences of style. 1538. Elias Levita: Massoreth Hamassoreth. 1564. Calvin: Joshua. 1574. Masius (Andreas van Maes) : Joshua. 1578. Steuchus Eugubinus: Cosmopoeia. 1589. Benedict Pereira: Genesis. 1597. Ascanio Martinengo: Genesis. 1625. Bonfrere: Pentateuch. 1628. F. Burman the Elder: Synopsis Theo- logise. 1633. Jean Morin: Exercitationes Biblicae. 1634. Louis Cappel: Arcanum Punctationum Revelatum. Louis Cappel: Critica Sacra. 1650. Episcopius: Institutiones Theologicae. CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY 191 1 1651. John Hobbes: Leviathan. 1655. Isaac de la Peyrere: Preadamite Hy¬ pothesis. ^ 1657. Bryan Walton (Bp. of Chester) : Prole¬ gomena to London Polyglot. *1670. Benedict Spinoza: Tractatus Theologi- co-Politicus. 1673. Spanhem the Younger: Job. -1678. Richard Simon: Histoire Critique. 1682. John Hampden: Translation of the His¬ toire Critique. 1685. Jean le Clerc: Sentimens de quelques Theologiens. 1689. Campegius Vitringa: Observationes Sacrae. 1696. Antony van Dale: Rise and Progress of Idolatry. 1709. Etienne Fourmont: Lettre a Monsieur Vriemot: Observationes Miscellaneae. 1716. Humphrey Prideaux: The Old and New Testaments. 1747. H. Venema: Dissertationes ad Genesim. .-1753. Jean Astruc: Conjectures. Peter Brouwer: DLsertatio. 1754. J. D. Michaelis: Relatio de Novis Libris. * 1770-73. J. G. Eichhorn: Introduction to the Old Testament. 1774. Benjamin Kennicott: Critica Sacra. 192 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 1774-78. Samuel Reimarus: Fragmente ernes Unbekannten. 1787. J. D. Michaelis: Introduction to the Old Testament. 1792. Johann Jahn: Introduction to the Old Testament. Alexander Geddes: The Holy Bible. 1793. J. C. Nachtigal (Otmar) : Fragmente. 1796. Michael Wittmann: Annotations on the Pentateuch. 1798. C. D. Ilgen: Documents of the Archives. 1800. Alexander Geddes: Critical Remarks. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbey, C. J., English Church and Bishops, 1700 to 1800. London, 1887. Abelard, Opera, Migne. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra. Commentationes quinque praecipuorum Rabbinorum. 1710. Einleitung zu seinem Pentateuch Commentar beleuchtet von W. Bacher. 1876. Abravanel, Isaac ben Judah. Selections from the Com¬ mentaries. 1764. Commentaires sur la Bible, Hebreux et Frangais. Paris, 1831. Agobard, Saint, Archbp. of Lyons. Adversus Fredegi- sum. Migne. Ambrose, Saint. Opera. Migne. Anastasius Sinaiticus. Opera. Migne. Apollinaris Opera. Paris, 1599. Apollinarius Laodicenus. Quae supersunt dogmatica. 1892. Apollinarius und seine Schule. Tubingen, 1894. Arnaud, Antoine. Dissertation Critique touchant les ex- emplaires Grecs, etc. Paris, 1691. La Perpetuite de la Foi. Paris, 1699. Astruc, Jean. Conjectures sur les Memoires, etc. Bruxelles, 1753. Muthmassungen in Betreff, etc. 1782. Augusti, J. C. W. Grundriss einer historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Leipzig, 1806. Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. Opera. Migne. Babor, J. Allgemeine Einleitung in die Schriften des Alten Testaments. Wien, 1794. Barge, Hermann. Andreas Bodenstein. Leipzig. 1905. Basil the Great, Saint. Opera. Migne. 194 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Bauerus, G. L. Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti. Leip¬ zig, 1795. Entwurf einer Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Niirnberg, 1784. Entwurf einer his- torisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Schriften des A. T. Niirnberg, 1806. Beausobre. Histoire Critique de Manichee. 1734. Bede. Commentarius in Pentateuchum. Migne. Beeri-ha-Mochla; Sive notse selectse in loca dubiora Pen- tateuchi. Leipzig, 1714. Bellarmine, Cardinal. Dottrina Christiana. Augsburg, 1614. Opera. Koln, 1620. Bernus, A. Notice bibliographique sur Richard Simon. Paris, 1892. Berruyer, I. J. Histoire du Peuple de Dieu. Paris, 1728, Bible. Coverdale, 1535. Geneva, 1560. Bishops’, 1568. Bischoff. Dissertationes de Abrabaniele. 1708 Bodenstein, A. (Carlstadt). De Canonicis Scripturis Li- bellus. Wittenberg, 1520. Welche biicher Biblisch seynt. Wittenberg, 1520. Bohm, F. Mysterium Magnum. 1640. Bonfrerius, J. Pentateuchus Mosis. Antwerp, 1625. Briefe liber die Mosaischen Schriften. Braunschweig, 1783. Broughton, Hugh. Commentary on Daniel. London, 1596. Brouwer, P. Dissertatio qua inquiritur, etc. Leyden, 1753. Bruno of Asti. Expositio in Pentateuchum. Migne. Burmann, F. (the elder). Synopsis Theologiae. 1699. Buttmann, A. Abhandlungen uber die beiden ersten My then der mosaischen Urgeschichte. Berlin. 1804. BIBLIOGRAPHY 195 Buxtorf, J. (the elder). Tiberias, sive Commentarius Massorethicus. Basel, 1620. (the younger). Dissertationes Philoligico-theolo- gicae. Basel. Anticritica; seu Vindiciae Veritatis Hebraicae, etc. Basel, 1653. Calmet, Dom Augustin. Prolegomena et Dissertationes in omnes Sanctas Scripturas. Lucca, 1729. Commentarium literale in omnes Testamenti Libros. Augsburg, 1734. Histoire de l’Ancien et Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1737. Dissertationes de Pentateucho. 1739. Calvinus, J. Commentaries on Joshua. 1854. Commentarius in Genesin. Geneva, 1559. Commentarii in quinque libros Mosis. Geneva, 1583. Cappel, L. Arcanum Punctationum Revelatum. Leyden, 1624. Critica Sacra. Paris, 1650. Carpzov, G. Critica sacra veteris Testamenti. Leipzig, 1728. Cartwright, Ch. Electa thargumico-rabbinica super anno- tationes in Genesin. London, 1648. Celsus. Arguments of Celsus, Porphyry, etc. against the Christians. London, 1833. Chevallard, P. L’Eglise et l’Etat en France au neuvieme siecle. Lyon, 1869. Chrysostom, Saint. Homiliae in Genesin. Migne. Chytraeus, David. In genesin Enarratio. Wittenberg, 1558. Clemens Alexandrinus. Opera. Migne. Clemens Romanus. Opera. Migne. Clericus, D. Quaestiones Sacrae. 1685. 196 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Clerc, Jean le. Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de la Hollande, etc. 1685. Five Letters, etc. London, 1690. Genesis, sive Mosis Prophetae Liber Primus. Tiibingen, 1693. Free and important disquisitions, etc. London, 1750. The compleat History of the Old and New Testa¬ ment. London, 1752. Cooper, Joseph. Domus Mosaicae Clavis. 1683. Cornelius a Lapide. Commentarius in Pentateuchum Mosis. Antwerp, 1616. Corrodi, H. Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des liidischen und Christlichen Bibelcanons. Halle, 1792. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Opera. Migne. Dale, Anton van. De Origine et Progressu Idolatriae. Haarlem, 1711. Dictionnaire Historique des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques. 1767. Dieckmann. Lessing als Theolog. Diodorus Siculus. Opera. Basel, 1531. Dionysius of Alexandria. Epist. ad Basilidem. Draschke, J. Apollonarii quae supersunt omnia, 1892. Drusius, J. Commentarius ad loca difficiliora Pentateuchi. Franeqer, 1617. Du Pin, Elie. Dissertation Preliminaire sur la Bible. Paris, 1701. Eichhorn, J. G. Einleitung in’s Alte Testament. 1780. Treatise on the Authenticity of the Old Testament. 1829. Aus Herder’s Briefwechsel mit Eichhorn. 1861. Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, 1888. Elijah, ben Asher. Sepher Massoret ha-Massoret. 1867. Epiphanius. Opera. Migne. BIBLIOGRAPHY 197 Episcopius. Verdidiging van de Confesie der Remon- stranten, etc. Leyden, 1627. Opera Theologica. 1650. Erasmus, Desiderius. Apologia ad Monachos quosdam Hispanos. Basel, 1528. Apologia ad Libros Alberti Pii. Basel, 1531. Opera omnia. Basel, 1540. Ernesti, J. H. Institutio Interpretis. 1809. Estius, G. Commentarii in Biblia Sacra. Douay, 1643. Eusebius. Opera. Migne. Fabricius. Commentarius in Genesim. Leipzig. 1584. Ferus, J. In totam Genesin Enarrationes. Louvain, 1564. Fleury, Claude. Opuscule de M. l’Abbe Fleury. Paris, 1780. Les Mceurs des Israelites. Paris, 1683. Historical Account, etc. London, 1698. Fourmont, Etienne. Lettres a Monsieur -. Paris, 1709, ’10. Fulda, F. K. Das Alter der heiligen Schriftbucher des Alten Testaments (Paulus’s Memorabilien), Jena, 1791. Resultate freimuthiger Untersuchungen uber den Canon des A. T. Jena, 1795. Fulke, W. A. Defense of the sincere true translations, etc. London, 1583. Gaab, J. F. von. Beitrage zur Erklarung des ersten, 2, 3, u. 4, Buch’s Moses. Tubingen, 1796. Galton, A. Church and State in France in the Eigh¬ teenth Century. London, 1907. Gandari. Examina Scripturistica in librum Genesim. Ghent, 1780. Geddes, A. Answer to the Bishop of Comara, etc. 1790. The Holy Bible, translated, etc. London, 1792. Address to the Public, etc. 1793. 198 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Letter to the Right Rev. J. D. Douglas, 1794. Critical Remarks on the Holy Scriptures, 1800. Memoirs, By F. M. Good. London, 1803. Geiger, A. Das Jiidenthum und seine Geschichte. Bres¬ lau, 1865. Nachgelassene Schriften. Berlin, 1875. Gerhardus, J. Commentarius super Genesin. Jena, 1653, Gerold, C. Th. Luther considere comme Exegete. Paris, 1866. Ginsburg, C. D. The Massoreth ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita. London, 1867. Gordonus Huntlaeus (Jacobus). A treatise concerning the Church, etc. Douay, 1614. Groot, Hugo de (Grotius). Opera Omnia Theologica. Amsterdam, 1679. Giite, H. E. Entwurf zur Einleitung in’s Alte Testament. Halle, 1797. Haitsma, A. Curae philologico-exegeticae in Genesin. Franeqer, 1753. Hasse, J. G. Aussichten zukunftigen Erklarungen uber das Alte Testament. Jena, 1785. Helmont, F. Mercur ab. Quaedam praemeditatae et consi- deratae cogitationes super quatuor priora capita libri primi Moysis. Amsterdam, 1697. Hensler, C. G. Bemerkungen uber Stellungen in— der Genesis, Hamburg, 1791. Herder, J. G. Aelteste Urkunden des Menschenge- schlechts. 1774. Sammtliche Werke. Tubingen. 1805-20. Hezel. Ueber die Quellen der Mosaischen Urgeschichte. Lemgo, 1780. Hieronymus, Saint. Opera, Migne. Hieronymus, ab Oleastro. Opera. 1556. Hilgenfeld, K. Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, etc. London, 1655. BIBLIOGRAPHY 199 Holden, H. Divinae Fidei Analysis (Bibliotheca Regu- larum Fidei). Bonn. 1844. Holstenius, L. De Vita Porphyrii. 1723. Honoratus de S. Maria. Animadversiones in Regulas et Usum Critices. Venice, 1738. Houbigant, C. F. Prologomena in Scripturam Sacram. Paris, 1746. Notae Criticae. 1777. Huet, P. D. Demonstratio Evangelica. 1690. * Hugh of St. Cher. Postilla. Venice, 1588. Ilgen, C. D. Die Urkunden Des Ersten Buchs Mosis in ihrer Urgestalt. 1798. Irenaeus. Opera. Migne. Jablowsky, P. E. Pantheon 2Egyptiorum. 1750. Jachmann, C. K. De Celso Philosopho. Fragmenta Libri. Regensburg. 1836. Jahn. J. Einleitung in die gottlichen Bucher des Alten Bundes. Vienna, 1792. Encheiridion, etc. Vienna, 1812. Introduction to the Old Testament, London, 1827, Jarchi, Salomon. Commentarius in Pentateuchum Latine versus. Gotha, 1710. Jerusalem, J. D. Briefe iiber die Mosaischen Schriften und Philosophic. 1772. Betrachtungen iiber die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der Religion. 1772. Jervis, W. H. History of the Church of France, 1872. John Damascenus. Opera. Migne. Josephus, Flavius. Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion. Basel, 1877. Works of Flavius Josephus (Whiston’s transla¬ tion), 1893. Julian, Emperor. Opera. 1696. Arguments of the Emperor Julian, etc. 1829. Junilius. Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis. Migne. 200 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Kennicott, B. Critica Sacra. London, 1774. Kettner, G. Lessing’s Religious Development. 1898. Kihn, H. Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africa- nus als Exegeten. 1880. Kleffner, A. L. Porphyrius, der Neuplatoniker und Christenfeind. Berlin, 1896. Kommershausen, J. F. Vorlesungen iiber seinen Entwurf zu einer Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Mar¬ burg, 1771. Labbe, P. Sacrosancta Concilia, 1671. etc. Leontius Byzantinus. Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos. Migne. Lessing. Zur Geschichte und Literatur. (Fragmente eines Unbekannten). Braunschwieg. 1773-81. Lessius, Leonardus. Opuscula Varia. Venice, 1617. Lippomanus, Alois. Catena in Genesin. Paris, 1536. Luther, Martin. Ein Vnterrichtung wie sich die Christen ynn Mosen sollen schicken. Wittenberg, 1526. Pentateuchus, Liber Josue. Wittenberg, 1529. In primum librum Mose Enarrationes. Witten¬ berg, 1544. Nervosus Luther in totam Scripturam. 1708. Schriften. 1864. Marckius, J. In praecipuas quasdam partes Pentateuchi commentarius. Louvain, 1713. Margival, H. Essai sur Richard Simon. Paris, 1900. Marius, L. Commentarius in Pentateuchum. Coin, 1621. Martinengo, Ascanius. Glossae Magnae in Genesim. Padua, 1597. Masius, Andreas. Josuae Imperatoris historia illustrata, etc. Antwerp, 1574. In Josuam Commentarium, 1839. Melancthon, P. In obscuriora aliquot capita geneseos annotationes. Tubingen, 1522. Methodius. Opera. Migne. BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 Michaelis, J. D . Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des alten Bundes. 1777. Zerstreute kleine Schriften gesammelt. Jena, 1793. Morin, Jean. Exercitationes Biblicse. Paris, 1633. Diatribe elenctica. Paris, 1639. Biblia polyglotta. Paris, 1645. Morinus, S. Oratio de linguarum orientalium ad intelli- gentiam sanctse Scripturse utilitate. Leyden, 1686. Mucerus, J. Commentarius in Genesin. Geneva, 1598. Miiller, J. G. Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion. Basel, 1877. Musculus, Wolfgang. In Mosis Genesim Commentarii. Basel, 1554. Nachtigal, J. C. C. (Otmar) Fragmente fiber die allmalige Bildung, etc. 1794. Neander. General History of the Christian Religion. 1850. Nicholas of Lyra. Postilla. Rome, 1471. Noris, Henricus de, Cardinal, Historia Pelagiana. 1673. Dissertatio Historica de Synodo Sancta. 1673. Nysa, oder philosophisch-historische Abhandlungen fiber Genesin, etc. 1790. Origenes. Opera. Migne. Contra Celsum libri. 1609. Osiander, J. A. Commentarius in Pentateuchum. Tubin¬ gen, 1676. Overton, J. H. Life in the English Church, 1660 to 1714. Owen, John. Of the Divine Originall, Self-Evidencing Light, etc. of the Scriptures. London, 1659. Pacianus. Epistolse tres ad Sempronianum. 1609. Palladius, P. Librorum Moisi quas sunt fons doctrinse ecclesiae explicatio. Wittenberg, 1559. Pareus, David. In Genesin Mosis Commentarius. Frank¬ furt, 1609. 202 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Pereira, Benedict. Commentarius in Genesin. Ingold- stadt, 1590. Peyrere, Isaac de la. Systema Theologicum ex praeada- mitarum hypothesi. 1655. Pfeiffer, A. Critica Sacra. Altdorf, 1759. Philastrius, Saint. Liber de Hseresibus. Migne. Photius, Patriarch. Opera. Migne. Vie de Photius, pere du Schisme. Constantinople, 1848. Pighius, Albert. Adversus M. Buceri Calumnias. Mainz, 1543. Heirarchiae ecclesiasticse assertio. Coin, 1538. Piscator, J. Analysis logica Evangelii secundum Mat- thaeum. Herborn. 1594. Quaestiones in Pentateuchum. Herborn, 1624. Pole, M. Synopsis criticorum aliorumque Sanctae Scrip- turae Interpreturn, etc. Frankfort. 1672. Prideaux, Humphrey. The old and New Testaments con¬ nected. 1716. Procopius Gazaensis. Opera. Migne. Reiff, F. Xavier. Commentarius in Genesim dimidiatam. Ulm, 1772. Remigius, David. Praelectiones in Genesin Mosaicam. Wittenberg, 1608. Rhabanus Maurus. Commentarius in Genesim. Migne. Schmidt, Sebastian. Super Mosis librum primum Gene¬ sis dictum annotationes. Strassburg, 1697. Selneccerus, Nic. In Genesin Commentarius. Leipzig, 1569. Semler. Apparatus ad liberalem Veteris Testamenti In- terpretationem. Halle, 1773. Serry, J. H. Exercitationes historicae criticae polemicae de Christo, etc. Venice, 1719. BIBLIOGRAPHY 203 Simon, Richard. Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. 1678. A Critical History, etc (Hampden). London, 1682. Reponse au Livre entitule Sentiments, etc. 1685. Histoire Critique du nouveau Testament. 1689. Histoire Critique des principaux Commentateurs, etc. 1693. Sirmond. Paris, 1542. etc. 1693. Spanhem, F. (the younger). Historia Tobi. Geneva, 1670. Opera. 1701. Specht, F. A. Die exegetische Standpunkt des Theodor von Mopsuestia und Theodor von Kyros, etc. 1871. Spencer, J. De Legibus Hebrseorum ritualibus. Cam¬ bridge, 1685. Spinoza, Benedict. Tractatus Theologico- Policitus, 1670. Tractatus (Willis’s translation). London, 1862. Staudlin, K. F. Geschichte der Christlichen Sittenlehre. Gottingen, 1799. Sterringa, J. Animadversiones philoligico-sacrse in Pen- tateuchum. Louvain, 1696. Steuchus Eugubinus, Cosmopoeia. 1578. Stummer, F. Die Bedeutung Richard Simons, etc. Swete, H. B. Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarii, etc. 1880. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge, 1902. Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc. 1880. Talmud, The. Le Talmud de Babylone. Paris, 1900. Jerusalem Talmud (Thesaurus Antiquitatum), 1744, etc. Tertullian. Opera. Migne. Toellner. Katechetischer Text, 1772. Theologische Untersuchungen. 1772-74. Varenius, A. Decades Mosaicse in Genesin et Exodum. Rostock, 1659. 204 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Venema, H. Dissertationum sacrarum libri tres. Haar¬ lem, 1731. Dissertationes quinque ad librum Geneseos. 1747. Institutiones historicse veteris et novi Testamenti. Leyden, 1777. Vitringa, C. Observationum sacrarum liber. Franeqer, 1683. Observationum sacrarum libri duo. 1689. Vogt, J. Catalogus historico-criticus librorum rariorum, etc. 1793. Vriemot. Observationes Miscellaneae. 1740. Vulmus. De sex diebus conditi orbis. Venice, 1575. Walter, M. Officina Biblica. Leipzig, 1636. Walton, Bryan. Prolegomena to London Polygot. 1657. Biblia Sacra Polyglotta. 1657. In Biblia Polyglotta prolegomena. Leipzig, 1777. Wittmann, M. Annotationes in Pentateuchum Moysis. Regensburg, 1796. GERMAN PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur (Eich- horn). Leipzig, 1787-1800. Allgemeine Literaturzeitung. Jena, 1785-1803. Altes und Neues aus dem Schatz Theologischer Wissen- schaften. Wittenberg (latterly Leipzig), 1704-61. Annales Litterarii. Helmstadt. 1782. Archiv fiir die neueste Kirchengeschichte (Henke). Weimar, 1795-99 Berlinsche Monatschrift. Berlin, 1783-1811. Commentarii de Rebus Novis Literariis (Henke). Helm¬ stadt, 1799-81. Commentarii Lipsienses Literarii. Leipzig, 1754. Ephemerides Literarine Helmstadtienses. Helmstadt, 1770. / BIBLIOGRAPHY 205 Gottingische Bibliothek der neuesten Theologischen Lite- ratur. Gottingen, 1795-99. Journal fur Prediger (Sturm). 1770. Magazin fur Kirchengeschichte und Kirchenrecht des Nordens (Munster). Altona, 1792-96. Magazin fur das Kirchenrecht (Bohmer). Gottingen, 1787-93. Magazin fur die Religion (Semler). Halle, 1780-81. Magazin fur die Religionsphilosophie, Exegeses und Kir- chengeschicte (Henke). Helmstadt, 1793-97. Miscellanea Duisburgensia dicta classica. Duisburg, 1732, Miscellanea Lipsensia. Leipzig, 1716-23. Miscellanea Lipsiensia Nova. Leipzig, 1742-52. Miscellanea Lubecensia. Rostock, 1758-61. Neue Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek (Michae- lis). Frankfurt, 1786-93. Neues Theologisches Magazin. Altona, 1766-68. Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek (Michaelis). Frankfurt, 1781-85. 1789. Relatio de Novis Libris (Michaelis). Gottingen, 1752, etc. Repertorium fur biblische und morgenlandische Literatur (Eichhorn). Leipzig, 1777-86. Theologisch-kritische Betrachtung neuer Schriften. Er¬ langen, 1779-86. / APPENDICES APPENDIX A PORPHYRY S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Stridonensis Presbyteri Commentariorum in Danielem Prophetam. Ad Panmachium et Narcellam, Liber unus. PROLOGUS “Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum; sed a quodam qui temporibus Antiochi qui appelatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Judaea et non tarn Danie¬ lem ventura dixisse, quam ilium narrasse praete- rita. Denique quidquid usque ad Antiochum dixerit, veram historiam continere: si quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quia futura nescierit, esse men- titum. Cui solertissime responderunt Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus tribus voluminibus, id est octavo decimo, et nono decimo, et vicesimo; Apol- linarius quoque uno grandi libro, hoc est, vicesimo sexto, et ante hos ex parte Methodius. Verum quia nobis propositum est, non adversarii calumniis respondere, quae longo sermone indigent; sed ea quae a propheta dicta sunt nostris disserere, id est, Christianis, illud in praefatione commoneo, nullum prophetarum tarn aperte dixisse de Christo.” Migne. 210 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM APPENDIX B OPirENHS KATA KEA 20 Y. T 6 [iog 5 '. 33 . 'E^rjg 8 s xovtolg 6 KsA-aog ejtitqexcdv xa ajio xrjg jiQcotrjg |3i6^ov MooajoECog, rjxig EjriysyQa- 3 trai TsvEaig, qpr] 0 iv 'Qg aQa £Jt£X£iQT] 0 av yEVEa^oyEiv airco'ug ajto jTQcotrjg ajtoQdg yorj- tcov xal ji^dvcov dv&Qcojtcov, dpii^Qag xal djxcpt- 66tayug qpo)vag, ev axotco jiou XQuquo'ug, ejii- piaQTUQopiEvoi, xal xolg apiadEOi xal avo^xoig jtaQ£|r]y g^evoi’ xal xafixa ^r| 8 £ jtcojtot 5 ev JtoMcj) TCQ JTQO0&EV XQ^VCp XOV TOIOXjSe ^8’ cxptq)La6r]TT|^evx o g. 42 . ’'EqquJje 8’ 6 Kstarog xa jteqI xfjg JtEQiaxEQag, iva 86 ^r| avayvcoxEvai to ( 3 i 6 Mov xr)v PEYsaiv, oijSev 8 wryfr£lg EiJiEiv jtQog xa kXiy^ai jt^aapia- xcoSEg to xaxa xr]v jtEQioxEQav. EuF, cog efrog yEypafA^iEva, xov xoQaxa Eig xoqoE)vt]v jxexei- Xr]qps* xal oiExat xavxa MoyuoEa dvaysyga- qpsvai, QQiSioDQyoDvxa xa xaxa xov Jta q’ f 'EA,- Xr] 0 i AEuxaXicova* ei fxrj aQa otiSs Moaijascog oiExai Eivai xr]v yQacpilv, alia xivcov Jttaio- vcov* xoioDxo yaQ 8r)A,ot xo, «jiaQaxaQaxxovx£g s>xal Q^diouQyoovxEg xov A£ , uxaXCcova», xal toxjxo* «Oij yap, otjxai, jtQO0£86xr]0av, oxi Tain;’ »elg qp&S jiqoeutl*. Migne. APPENDICES APPENDIX C 211 Epiphanius Adversus Haereses. Haer. XVIII. Lib. I Tom. I. Adversus Nazaraeos Nazaraeos Kal Jtaxspag psv bSe^cxo xoug bv xfj Ilsvta- xbiS%g) djto xou ’A8ap pixpi Mcouaecog, xoug bv apiaxsia ftsoaebBiag 8iacpavxBlg ujtdp^av- tag * * * * * airxrjv 5 b ou jraQsbBXSto xr|V IIsvtdtBuxov, alXd opoXoyBi psv xov McoiitfBa, xai oxi sbe^axo vopo&soiav, smaxEUBV oxj xau- xtjv 8b qpr]crLV, d'kV BXBpav. Migne. APPENDIX D Certain of the citations given by Clement of Alexandria in support of his contention that the Greeks largely derived their religious conceptions from the Hebrews. Homer. ’AM/upstg [isv jtdvxEg, u&cop xa\ yata yevotafte 5, H8r] yap Srjpov xpovov aMfjtaov ajiBXovxai Euvfjg xal cpdoxrjxog. ’Ev psv yalav bxeu|’, bv 8’ oupavov, bv 8b fra- taxacrav, ’Ev 8 b xb xBipBa jtavxa, xax’ oupavog Baxsqpa- vcoxai, 'E68opdxp 8’ BJtBixa xaxfjtaifrBV iBpov rjpap, 'E686pr| rjv Is pip f, E68opov fjpap btjv, xai xco xbxbA,b>; gjtei} ev xco jiexa Mconaea xqovco, cog ye exr] jxon jtev- xaxoaia i] xal JtQog, ev x vdfxcp, bx rcapaSociBOog McoDaecog ovxa xai a^frrj x'uyxavovxa xai xotg xjjBiSSEcn ^spuyfieva EJtiyva)vai saxi Sirvaxov; Kai 6 IIsTQog £cpr)* IIsQixojtrj xig bv xg> yga- cpsvxi vojxco piExa xr]v xov ©boo jtQovoiav ajtxai- axcog BJtB^mifxovBii^T], (Sax’ av aaqpwg 8sil;ai xcov yByQa[i[X£vcav jtoia £crciv jcoia 8 b 'ijJE'uSfj. Migne. APPENDIX F F. 1. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Lib. I. Cap. 22 ’Ejtbi xav xfj Na6oDXo8ovoaoQ aix|xataoai$ 8iaqp&aQBiao5v xcbv Tpacpcav, xaxa xoug ’Agxa- ^eq^ou, xaW IlEQcrcbv BaadBcag, XQdvo'ug, bju- jcvoirg ? 'Ea8()ag 6 Afimxrig, 6 iBQEijg, ysvofiEvog, jtacrag xag rcaAmag aufrig avavBO'UfXBVog jtqo- qprjxeuae rpacpag. F. 2. BA2IAEI02. ’EmaxoM] MB'. jcQog Xi- taova xov auxoD piaihixriv. ’Evxax$a xo jteSiov bv § avaxcoQ^aag *Ea- 8@ag ftdaag xag &EOJTVEiS(Txo'ug Pifi^oug jiqoo- xayjxaxi fl'BO'u B^r|QBv|axo. F. 3. EIPHNAI02. Adversus Haereses, Lib. Ill, Cap. XXL IIqo yap xobg Pcojxaiovg xQaxuvai rf]V aQXTjv auxciov, bjii xguv MaxsSovcov xryv ’Aaiav APPENDICES 215 xaxexovxoov, IIxoXs|iaTog 6 Aaycru, qpdoxifxoij- |xevog tt]v t&ji 5 aiitoi} xaxaaxema^tevryv | 3 i 6 A,io- Oi^xTjv ev ’Ata^avSQeia xoafirjaai xoig jcavxcov av&Qcojtcov cruyyQdfXfiaaiv, oaa ys a^ouSaia 'UjefjQX^'V, fjxrjaaxo Jiaga xcov 'IeQoaoAujxixcov eig xrjv *E^Ar]vixr]v 8 iaXexxov a^eiv auxcov |iexa 6 e 6 A,r]^&vag xag rgaqpag. Oi Se (jtr}- xovov yd q 8 Xi xoig MaxeSoai xoxe) xoijg jia^o’ aiixoig 8 jiJt 8 iQoxaxoig xcov Epacpcov, xal djxcpo- X 8 QCOV xcov 8 iaAixxcov, 868 ofxrjxovxa jtQ 8 a 6 i)- xeQovg ejte^av IlxoA^epiaicp Jioirjaavxog xoD © 8 oi 3 ojt 8 q e 6 oi>^sxo. '0 Se 18 jielQav aiixcov ^.a 6 etv freW|aag, eij^a 6 y]§eig xs [xrjxe aQa cuv- frepievoi, djtoxQm|}coai xt]V sv xaig rpacpalg 8 ia xfjg 8 Qjxrjv 8 iag a^&eiav, auxovg arc’ aMrjAxov, sxeta'ue xovg jtavxag xrjv amrjv sq^t]- veiav ygacpeiv. Kal xotjx’ ejtl rtavxoov xcov ( 3 i- 6^100v ejToirjcrs. SirveMMvxcov 8s avxcov ejtl t(p TtaQa xco Ilxotapiaicp, xal auvavxi6aM6v- xcov exaaxov xrjv eoruxau 8Q[XT]veiav, 6 jisv @eog e&o^ dafrr], at 8s T gacpal ovxcog freiai syvob- crSrjaav, xcov jidvxcov xa airca xaig axrtaig \&- |eai, xal xoig amoig ovofiaaiv avayoQeuadv- xxov djc’ dQX^£ M^X*? 1 Tetaug, coaxe xal xa jtaQ- ovxa s^vt] yvcovai, oxi xax’ emjrvoiav to# @80\j eiolv 8 Qjxr]vsvji&vai al TQaqpai. Kal qtj8sv ye fraupiaaxov, xov 0 eov xouxo evrjQyrjxsvai, og ye xal ev xfj em N aftovyobo- voaoQ aixfxaAcoai$ xou ^aou 8iaqp&aQ8iacov xcov Tgacpoov, xal [xexa e68o^r]xovxa exrj xcov 216 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM ’IouSaicov dveTdtovx'cov eig Tryv ^copav arrow, Eiceixa £V xoig xpovoig ’Apxa^ep^or xoD IleQ- gojv Baaiiicog, eveorveraev "'Ea8pg xcp lepei sx xrjg cprXrjg Aem, xong raw ftpoyeyovoxcov jtpo- (pyjxaw Jtavxag avaxa^aaxlai taSyorg, xai ajto xaxaaxfjaai xcp ?ia(p xi]V Sia Mcmjaeoog vojxo- freoiav. F. 4. St. John Chrysostom. Epistle to the Hebrews, Horn. VIII. Kai opdxe avcofrev, iva pd{b]xe xon ©eor xr]v dcpaxov cpiAocv&QOOJxtocv. ’Evejtveras xcp |ia- xaptcp Mooraei, xag jdaxag exo^a^e, xaxea%ev arxov xeaaepaxovxa r|[iepag em xon oporg, xai jta^iv xoaauxag ripipag, (Saxe 8oirvai xov vojxov. Mexd 8s xaSxa Jtpoqxntag 8Jt8|M|}8 jirpia jtaQbvxag Seiva. ’EjifjWle jcotapog, avei^ov jtavxag, xaxexoi^av, 8V£jrpi]o&Y]aav at ( 3 i 6 Xou 'Exepcp jraJiiv avSpl &arjxaaxcp evejiveraev, oSaxe anxag exlleafrai, xcp 3, Ea8pg Aiyoo, xai ajco tai^avcov arvxidfjvai ejtoiriaev. F. 5. Tertullian. De Cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. Cap. 3. Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis, omne instrumentum Iudiacse litteraturse per Es- dram constat restauratum. F. 6. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyros. From the “Praefatio in Canticum Canticorum.” ’EjteiSr] yap at xielai rpacpai, at pev vtco Mavaaaor, xou Jtcmipig xai 8uaae6eig xorg xs jtap’ ai>xor xai [iex’ amov ajtavxag ajioxpr- APPENDICES 217 ojjavxog, 8 V 8 JTQT]CT&T]crav* ai 8s xaxa tov xrjg ai%|xataoc?iag xaigov qpQooSoi Jtavxetaog eys- vovto* tcov Ba 6 aAcovtcov xal tov dsiov vaov sfxJtQriadvTcov, xal xr]v jto^iv avdaxaxov tcsjcoi- tjxotcov, ‘xal tov A,aov e^av 8 ()a:xo 8 iaa{xevcov jxsxa jtoMrv excov aQiifyiov, xoD ^aoo jca?av ava- xAxjcrecog xex'uxoxog, 6 jxaxaQiog ’'EaSgag, dvr]Q aQsxfj 8 iajtQ 8 Jtcov xal toD jravayiou Ilvsdjxa- tog jdrjQTig yevopievog, cog (loa xd jiQdyjiaxa, xag avayxaiag fjpiiv xal oXoxT]Qiag jtaQsxxixdg dvayQaqpsi rQatpag* xal ov govov xd Mcoi 3 - crscog (pQOoruvy]v, xal xoxjg sxxaiSexa jtQoqpr[- xag, xal too oocpoti 2 oXo[xcovxog xag jragoi- piiag, xal xov ’Exx?a](Jiacn;rjv, xal xo 5 'Aafxa xcov ’^ofxdxcov. Migne. APPENDIX G Photii Amphilochia. Quaestio 152. Ti 8cTxiv fj dcrdqpsia xfjg rpaq^g; ★★★*★★ Asxaxov 8 s oxi sv xrj ai^M-a- XcootQt 8[xjtqt|ct0 , 8io'cov xd>v (3l6Acov, elxa Sia- jtejutovxcov xcov ajro ^IsQoma^rjix eig Ba 6 u- taova xd Xoyia xo \3 0 soi 3 , Xo^covreg dqpr|Q0uv xdg (IiS^oug* ol 8 s jtaAiv 8 id crofx 66 Acov, d>v oxrx e 8 dvavxo Igsvot voeiv, syQOtcpov, s§ cov fj 218 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM dactqpeior eoog xioxegov epcvemfrelg ’'EaSgag ^aacov efxvrjfxoveuae xai ygaqprj jtagaSe&coxev. Migne. APPENDIX H nPOKOIIIOY TAZAIOY XPLSTIA- NOY 20$I2T0Y EIX THN TENE2IN EPMHNEIA * * * * Tfjg 8e xaxa xrjv Tla^aiav Pgaqpriv aaaqpeiag aixia [lev fj xcov Jtataxicov dafreveia &8opi8vr] ;xg6g xr]v aijxoov a^iav jtagajtexacr^ia- xog. * * * * 'H 8e xrjg jtgoqpiTteiag aaaqpeia, 8 ia Tfjg exSdaecog egjxrjveijexai. EI2 THN nPQTHN TQN BASIAEIQN nPOOIMION nkiatoi jtgocpfjtai yeyevrjxai, fiv xag ^iev |3i6tanjg oxjx 8 i 5 go[i 8 v, xag 8s Jtgoarjyogiag ex xfjg xcov jtagataiTtofievcov fX8[Aadrjxa|X£v icrto- giag. Tv, xal f| jigcoxi] xcov Baadeicov xal jraga 'E6gaioig xai jraga Xugoig, jrgoq>TlTeia 2 a[xow]?i ovopid^exai. Oi xoivuv xag Baai- Xeiag avyyga^avxeg, 8^ exeivcov ^a66vxeg xag dqpogjidg, fxexa jdelaxov oweygai^av XQ^vov. nc 5 g yag oiov xe Xaixoiirj^, xov xco XowyuA, r\ xal xco Aa6i8, mrvrjxfxaxoxa, xa jxexa xama auyyga\|)ai fxexgi xfjg xoD Na6oi)xo8ov6aog teA,8Dxfig, og aixfxataoxov e’dfjcpei xov ’IagarjA,; xa 8e xoig cruvayayowi jragataicp^ma. "Exe- APPENDICES 219 qoi tiveg latoQioYQacpoL jtaQeSoaav, to fhSAIov IIaQaXeiJio[X8Vcov xodeaavteg. Migne. APPENDIX I EUSEBII HIERONYMI STRIDONENSIS PRESBY- teri, De Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae, Ad- versus Helvidium. ,, Liber unus. 7. “Loquitur in Genesi sermo divinus: Et tra- diderunt Iacob deos alienos, qui erant in manibus eorum, et inaures quce erant in auriculis eorum. Et abscondit ea Jacob subter terebinthum, quce est in Sichimis, et perdidit ea usque in hodiernum diem ( Gen . xxxv 4. seq.). Item in fine Deuteronomii: Et de functus est Moyses servus Domini in terra Moab per verbum Domini, et sepelierunt eum in Getk, prope domum P hog or, et nemo scit sepid- crum ejus usque in diem istum (Deut. xxxiv, 6, sec. Ixx). Certe hodiernus dies illius temporis aestimandus est, quo historia ipsa contexta est, sive Moysen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Ezram ejusdem instauratorem operis, non recuso. ,, Migne. APPENDIX J Lucutio Divi Augustini de Jesu Nave. vi. 25 and iv. 9 Et Rahab meretricem et domum paternam vivi- ficavit Iesus, et conmorata est in Israel usque in hodiernum diem. Notandum est quemadmodum 220 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM dicat Scriptura usque in hodiernum diem, quod assidue dicit; nam et de lapidibus illis duodecim qui positi sunt ubi Iordanis ex ima parte defluxerat et ex superiore parte constiterat area transeunte vel populo, ita dictum est, quod essent ibi usque in hodiernum diem : quod videtur ita sonare, tanquam post plurimum temporis per hanc Scripturam ista narrentur, nec eo tempore ii libri conscripti fuerint quo erant haec recentissima. Quisquis autem putat hoc, quid de ista meretrice dicturus est, quae utique quantum est aetas unius hominis vixit, et tamen (dicitur, usque in hodiernum diem? De his itaque rebus hoc dicitur, quae non ita constitutae sunt, ut postea mutarentur ab iis qui constituerunt: quo- modo dicitur aliquis in exsilium perpetuum missus, quia non ad tempus praefinitum hoc supplicio plec- titur; non quia quisquam potest esse perpetuus in exsilio, cum homo ipse non possit esse perpetuus. Sic ergo et ista meretrix non est praecepta ad tempus habitare in Israel; ideo dictum est, usque in hodiernum diem, APPENDIX K Theodoret. 1 EI2 THN TIPQTHN TQN BA2IAEIQN npoAoros p. 354. nAelatoi JtQoqpfjtai yeyevYivtai, aw tag \ihi ov% eupopev, xa<; 8s JiQoaqyoQiag ex 1 Simond’s Complete Works of Theodoret. Paris, 1542. APPENDICES 221 :cf]g xcov IIaQa^8iJco[i8Vcov [leptaflrjxapisv iaxo- Qiag. Toxixcov exacxxog eicofrei auyyQaqpsiv oaa cwvsfiaive yiveaflm xaxa xov oixeiov xaiQov. A'uxixa yoiiv xal fj jxqcoxtj xoov Baadeicov, xal jhxq’ 'E6()aioig, xai jtaQa SoQoig, jcQocpT]- ma 2afxow|^ ovo^id^exai. ’AXXa xoijxo yvco- Vai QaSlOV XCO (3oi)A;0]X8VCp XO JtQ 08 lQr}[X 8 V 0 V avayvcovai (3i6^iov. Oi xoivuv xcov BacnAsicov xt]v |3i6Aov cruyyeyQacpoxeg, exsivcov xcov |3i6Mcov xag aqpoQfiag e’drjcpoxsg, jxexd Jttai- axov GW8yQaa|jav %qov ov. ITdog yd q oiovxe fjv xco 2aodA,, f\ xco Aa6lS axrvrjxfxaxoxi xd 8Jil ’E^rpuo'u xal ’Icoaiou yeyovoxa cruyyQa^ai xai xrjv xoo Na6o r uxo8ovoaoQ axQaxiav, xal xfjg 'Ie^ovaaM]^ xrjv Jio^ioQxiav, xal xoi) ^aoii xov av8Qajio8i0|xov, xal xrjv 8ig xrjv Ba6uA,cbva [isxdcrxaaiv, xal xou Na6ouxo8ovoaoQ xrjv xe- Aeraiv; AfjA,ov xoivuv, cbg xcov jtQocpT]xcov exa- axog ODvsyQa^e xd sv xoig oixsioig jtejiQaypieva xaiQOig. 5 AAA,oi 8s xiveg exei/va auvayayovxeg, xfjv xcov Baadsioov cruvefreixaai pi6Aov. Kal au jiaAiv, xcov ujio xouxcov jcaQaA,8icp&8vxcov sxe- qoi xiveg taxoQioyQacpoi y&yeviyvxar xal xrjv jtaQa croqxov oweyQacpeicrav riaQa^eiJtofxevcov jTQ007]y0Q8uaav (3i6ta>v* cog xd jtaQa xcov jtqo- xbqcov ftaQataicpilevxa 8t8acrxouaav. 222 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM Quaestiones in Jesum Nave. EPQT. 18 '. Ti 8 ’ 8 v 8T8- ga g (3i6Aoo Tag aqpogpidg. QU^STIONES IN LIBRUM II REGUM. EPQT. A'. IIoiov scrti to ( 3 i 6 A(ov to &ofreg; ArjAov 80Ti xavr&ofrev, cog sx jioAAdav rcgo- cpTjTixcov | 3 i 6 Aicov f) tcdv BaaiAeicov iarogia aoveygdcpT]. Eirnov ydg 6 ooyygaqpsog Ta rcegl too &grjvoo, jtqoo89tix8V T5oo yeygajrcai 8 Jii too pi 6 Aioo too eofroog. QU^STIONES IN LIBRUM III REGUM. EPQT. An'. * * * * *0 §8 ioTogioygacpog Ta xaTa rov EoAojKovra jiSTtArig^xoig sju^yaye. «Kai Ta »Aoura tcdv Aoycov too EoAojicovrog, xal jtavra »ooa 8 jtoit] 08 , xal Jtaoa fj qpgovrjoig aoroo, »oox 1800 TaoTa ysygamtai ev | 3 i 6 Acp Aoycov 'euqeOev. Probably a copyist’s blunder for evO-eg; but Theodoret, not having detected it has, in this and the succeeding extract, given two different explanations of the same thing. APPENDICES 223 »tc 5 v 'H{xsqo5v 2 oAopcovxog;>> Touxo 8e xal f| xcbv naQaAeijrofxsvcov ( 3 i 6 Aog St]Xol 9 exepav sivai PC6A0V xauxa aripaivoijaav. ’E6aaiA,8\)as 8e xaxa pev xqv rQacprjv xeaaegdxovxa err)' xaxa 8e xov ’Icocriqjiov oySofjxovxcr exeAeucrs 8e, cog sxeivog £(pr]ae, xexxapcov xai swevrp xovxa. APPENDIX L THEODORUS MOPSUESTENUS Excerpta ex codicibus Theodori Mopsuestae Episcopi quae in Collatione quarta Synodi Genera- lis Constantinopolitanae secundae recitata sunt. LXIII. His quae pro doctrina hominum scripta sunt, & Salomonis libris connumeranda sunt, id est, Pro- verbia & Ecclesiastica, quae ipse ex sua persona ad aliorum utilitatem composuit, cum prophetiae qui- idem gratiam non accepisset, prudentiae vero gra- tiam, quae evidenter altera est praeter illam, secundum beati Pauli vocem. (I. Cor. xii. 4. sqq.) LXIV. Et post alia. Erat igitur satis idoneum, supervacua quidem omnia verba auferre Scripturae; quae autem ad significationem vitae ejus necessaria exponere quae omnia sufficiebant quemlibet ad meliora conver¬ ter, et aemulatorem facere boni. Nunc vero cum hoc non fecisset ad vani honoris amatorem non necessarium respiciens, non in minimis existima- tioni justi nocuit apud eos, qui divinas Scripturas non cum debit a devotione judicare solent, et ex hoc 224 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM multos fecit scripta inculpare, et ad accusationem ea trahere beati Job. LXV. Et post alia. Ipsa statim verba, ex quibus eum incipere dicit conscriptor, cum pervenissent amici, quis conside- ranter omnia videns, omnia vel dicens, putet aut dicat, justi unquam menti convenire? Maledicta enim tarn multa colligere statim ab initio, et rebus ea imponere quae maledictum suspicere non pos- sunt, quae nec subsistere creduntur, quis existimet viro convenire, qui cum tanta sapientia & virtute & reverentia suam vitam gubernasset? LXVI. Et per omnia reprobans Scripiuram Job, et conscriptori male dicens (idem autem est, dicere Sancto Spiritui), in fine interpreta- tionis blasphemice suce it a dicit: Parvum autem istud flagitium ad hoc quod in fine positum est. Hoc enim quod dixit, tertiam filiam suam Amaltheae cornu 1 eum vocasse, nihil aliud est quam ostendere eum paganicis fabulis assentientem, et idolatrise figmenta diligentem, certo quidem constituto, quod nec scire quidem de Jove et Saturno et Junone paganicas fabulas pote- rat Job beatus, homo barbarus et Edomitanus genere. Quod si et aciret, sed non et filise suae mirabiliter divinitus natae, ex idolatriae paganis fabulis nomen imponeret, decorare earn existimans * 1 AnaHsiag x£q ag, LXX: sed Hebr. “part 1VT , cornu anti- monii. Hie, quia linguam Hebraicam ignoret, omnino in errore versatur Theodorus. (E.M.G.). APPENDICES 225 si ita nominata fuisset. Hoc enirn erat paganis fabulis concententientis, et filiam decorare per ea volentis, et desiderantis et sibi et filiae suae ad fa- bularum figmenta communionem esse videri. Sed quod omne hoc figmentum est, omnibus certum est. LXVII. Et post alia. Et conscriptor quidem manifestus est, ex amore magno et importuno vani honoris hoc passus. Ut enim semetipsum ostenderet extranea eruditum esse doctrina, et paganorum fabularum scientiam habuisse, quas de illis quos deos puta- bant, firmas habebant, minimum existimavit nomi- nationem istam inde acceptam justo imponere, quasi per earn filiam suam decorare volenti. Mihi vero ex tota libri conscriptione liquet conscripto- rem paganica scientia esse eruditum, ad cujus imi- tationem praesentem volens scripturam componere, nocuit historiae pulchritudini. Qui enim apud illos tragoedias componunt, causas quidem accipiunt ab his quae multi loquuntur, quando etiam eas conti- gerit quodammodo apud plurimos opinionem veri- tatis habere: pura autem causa utentes, suam artem et sapientiam in compositione ostendere festinant, et personas introducentes sibi placitas, et voces circumponentes eis, a quibus clariores fieri arbitrantur & decorari, ut & querimoniam & lau- dem quae a scriptis infertur, sive per intellectum, sive per ipsa verba scriptor peccaverit, non ad personas quarum verba confingit, legentes refe- rant, sed ad fabulae conscriptorem. Et iste autem 226 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM tionem impudicitiae?) nec collaudare codicem, sicut habentem propheticam dictationem bonorum eccle- siae. Si enim propheticam gratiam meruisset, mentionem alicubi Dei fecisset (in nulla enim pro- phetica scriptura Deus non nominatur), sed scire debent omnes, aemulationis nuptialis codicem men- sale canticum esse, sicut et de amore postea convi- vium Plato conscripsit. Unde nec Judaeis, nec nobis publica lectio unquam Cantici Canticorum facta est, tanquam domesticus & nuptialis Salomo- nis conviviis cantus opprobria sponsae sonans. APPENDIX M Leontius Byzantinus- Contra Nestorianos. ir'. Tov ts [isyav xov ©sou frepobrovta, xov Tco6, jtKSvcov xat 8iayQa\)xxpsvog xqv sig avxov xov Ilvsvpaxog avyy()aq)fjv, qv 6 piyag Taxco6og sv xrj xax’ avxov xaftolixq smaxo^fj ( 3 s 6 aicbv eXeysv. Tqv vjtopovqv Ta)6 qxovaaxs, xat xo xsAog Kdqiou ibsxs. Ov yap aMofrsv Jtofrsv, Ou8s XT)V mopOVriV qxovcrapev, ou8s xo xax’ afrrbv xeA-og laxopqcrapev, oxi pq ex xqg xax’ avxov rpaqpfjg. IE'. Tag xs ernypacpag xcov ispotaxcov w YpvcDv xat \PaA,po)v xal ’Q8a>v Jtavxq sx6ataov, xoug atavtag Ta^povg TovSaixoog xoig jisqi xov Zooo6a6e^ xat ’E^exiav avedqxe, xpsig povovg xco Kupicp jtQoaQuJjag. APPENDICES 227 IP'. ’AMd yap xai to to 5 v dyicov dyiooxaxov xo 5 v ’^afxaToyv r ^apa.ex xaW dyicov Bi- 6 Xcov djtexefxev. IZ\ Tag youv (mpataiJtopivag cbaaijxcog, xax$ xaxau jtQoaxifreig, jtQcoxqv xe xai Seurepav, "EaSpav xe jrpog xaig eiQrjfxevaig e§e6atav. APPENDIX N JUNILIUS! DE PARTIBUS DIVIN^E LEGIS. Lib. I. C. viii. De Scriptoribus divinorum Librorum. D(iscipulus). Scriptores divinorum Librorum qua ratione cognoscimus ? M(agister). Tribus modis. Aut ex titulis et proemiis, ut Propheticos Libros, et Apostolorum Epistolas: aut ex titulis tantum, ut Evangelistas: ex traditione veterum, ut Moyses creditur scrip- sisse quinque primos libros historise; cum non dicat hoc titulus, nec ipse referat, Dixit Dominus ad me : sed quasi de alio, Dixit Dominus ad Moy - sen. Similiter ex Jesu Nave Liber, ab eo quo nuncupatur, traditur scriptus. Et primum librum Regum Samuel scripsisse perhibetur. Sciendum prseterea quod quorundam librorum penitus igno- rantur auctores, ut est Judicum, et Ruth, et Regum III et ultimus, et csetera similia: quod ideo credendum est divinitus dispensatum, ut alii quo- que divini libri non auctorum merito, sed sancti Spiritus gratia tantum culmen auctoritatis obti- nuisse noscantur. 228 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM cum invenisset & de beato Job historiam maximam & claram, quae in ore omnium similiter ferebatur non solum Israelitici generis, sed & aliorum quam etiam clariorem Dei testimonium faciebat quod factum est ad prophetam, gloriam ex magnitudine causae volens suscipere, hanc scripturam compo- suit, non cogitans, quod multa differentia est, inter historiam justi secundum divinae Scripturae & sim- plicitatem & subtilitatem propositam, et inter verba superflua, et ad probationem conficta. Inde & illas plasmationes fecit, in quibus certamen ad deum fecit diabolum, et voces sicut voluit circumposuit, alias quidem justo, alias vero amicis: in quibus Vocibus quantum competenti excessit, dictum est in superioribus. Ilium autem Eliam in postremo introduxit, tantae injuriae plena dicentem adversus justum & in fine personae magnitudinis divinae naturae circumposuit talem dictionem, in qua non piguit etiam figmentum cetus addere. Ex hoc autem importuno vani honoris amore, & nomina- tionem hanc ex fabulis paganicis correptam, beato Job applicavit. LXVIII. Ad hcec autem despernit idem Theodo- rus et Canticum C' anticorum, et sicut ad ama- tam sibi Salomonem scripsisse dicit, infanda christianorum auribus de hoc exponens . Ha- bet autem sic : Cum me piguisset Cantica Canticorum perle- gere, quoniam neque secundum propheticam APPENDICES 229 speciem exposita sunt, neque secundum historia- rum traditionem, sicut scriptura regnorum, neque demonstrativa admonitione studii utuntur, nescio quomodo tuarum litterarum praeceptum de Cantico Canticorum exigens a nobis irrecusabiliter causam, fecit me circa eum diligentiorem, violenter quidem. Et sic nec enim cessavi, & initio ipso lectionis quasi studiosa alacritate oscitans frequenter, et dormi- tans, sicut convivio codices nuptiali, & hoc regali, percantatus. LXIX. Et post pauca. Sed sic per sapientiam, gentibus & Judaeis prae- dicabilem & terribilem exsistentem ut solertem. Unde & pax ei firmior, quam in anterioribus tern- poribus erat, timore summae circa ea prudentiae frenatis gentibus bella amantibus, ^Egyptiacum convivium facit, Salomonem apud Judaeos vitio- sum, tanquam legum paternarum praevaricatorem, abdicantium alienigenas nuptias, & ad puellae con¬ vivium cecidit f ugiendae quidem ipso patrio def ormi colore, (nocturnorum enim colorum ^Egyptus ge- netrix), magis vero fugiendae, quoniam genus habehat ex Cham, qui haeres fuit antiquae male- dictionis Noe, ex quibus passus est aliquid Salomon circa conjugis desiderium, et opprobrio praevari- cationis irritatus, componit canticam excusatio- nem, ut gratior etiam uxori sit, canticis delectatus pro ea factis: & improperantes sapienter percussit, tanquam conscripti causam illi dantes laetitiarum, 230 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM APPENDIX O Sancti Anastasii Sinaitae Yiae Dux. Cap. 22. * * * * Tig |xoi Aiyei, on Mcowecog ecrt! GTJYYQa|X|xa f) Feveaig; ov y olq kmy&y qo- jttai, xa&djtsQ xal ai Xoutal (3i6Xot, at xcov jtgoqpiixcbv* jdrjv oxi xal jdeloxa (paivexai, pir] dXr]{^8^>owa• 8§ x eoxrjcxe xa jtQoaxaY* jtaxa axjxof) xa vojujxa akovia; Kai auvxa^dfxevog 8i8ovai xco ojt8Q|taxi ’IaQafiX ajto Aiy'ujtxo'u scog xov EvqpQaxou Kaxaoyzovv, 008s xo 8sxaxov pegog xfjg xjjto - A ; " 2005 B" a l ! ; k \J |T rl \ * U L 1 8 JE 15 ’53 faculty Mil Wft «sw wCF'T 5 ^ % jkJCjJ^EjTsi Vj. -i a. ‘ JX ’' f * , , ^TT* *■* j £ & ■ BjFC^jL- .? A NOV 2 2 'S3 i— ■'y BS1160.G77 Old Testament criticism, its rise and Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00115 8452