THE BIBLE AND
CRITICISM
BENNETT & ADENEY

1

THE PEOPLES BOOKS

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE
COLLEGE OF MISSIONS LIBRARY
at the
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE
PEOPLE'S BOOKS

THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM

THE BIBLE AND
CRITICISM
By W. H. BENNETT, M.A., D.D., Litt.D.
SOMETIME FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, HACKNEY
AND NEW COLLEGES, LONDON
And WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D.
PRINCIPAL OF LANCASHIRE COLLEGE, MANCHESTER

LONDON: T. C. & E. C. JACK, Ltd.
35 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C., & EDINBURGH
NEW YORK : DODGE PUBLISHING CO.

CONTENTS

PREFACE .......
INTRODUCTION: BIBLICAL CRITICISM .
BY W. H. BENNETT, M.A., D.D., LITT.D.

PAGE vi
vii

PAET I
THE OLD TESTAMENT
BY W. H. BENNETT, M.A., D.D., LITT.D.
CHAP. I. HIGHER CRITICISM, PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL
RESULTS . . . . . .
II. HIGHER CRITICISM, RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL
BOOKS . .....
III. HISTORICAL CRITICISM 
IV. TEXT, CANON, APOCRYPHA 
V. CONCLUSION 

19
45
4850

PART II
THE NEW TESTAMENT
BY WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D.
I. TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM
II. THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL
III. HEBREWS AND THE GENERAL EPISTLES
TV. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
V. THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS .
VI. THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....
INDEX 

52
566573
82899193

PREFACE
This little book has been written in the faitli that the
better understanding of the nature and history of the
Bible which has been attained in the last century and
a half is a gift of God to the Church, a gift which
provides the Christian with clearer light and a firmer
assurance for his own spiritual life, and furnishes him
with new weapons for his warfare with sin and
unbelief.

INTRODUCTION BIBLICAL CRITICISM
By W. H. BENNETT, M.A., D D., LITT.D
" Criticism," as the technical name of a science applied to the
Bible, should be carefully distinguished in some respects from
the word " criticism " in its other uses. Of course in all its uses,
"criticism " means forming or expressing a judgment. Human
nature being what it is, the judgment is generally assumed to
be adverse, so that for many people " criticism " is synonymous
with " finding fault." But " Biblical Criticism '' does not in the
least mean " finding fault with the Bible."
Again, " criticism " often means forming or expressing a
judgment as to merits or demerits ; the word is thus used in
such phrases as " Art Criticism," " Dramatic Criticism," and
also in " Literary Criticism " in common usage. J3ut this is
not its meaning in the phraJse we are considering ; " Biblical
Criticism" does not mean "sitting in judgment on the Bible,"
as regards merit or demerit.
" Biblical Criticism " in its widest sense consists of forming
and expressing judgments on such matters as the books to be
included in the Bible, the exact contents of such books, their
date, authorship, and manner of composition, the character
of their contents, whether prose or verse, whether history,
parable, symbolic narrative, or apocalypse. We may say a
word or two as to the various branches of criticism.
The first point to decide about the Bible is the books to be
included in it, or the Canon.
Then we have to determine the Text, i.e. the exact contents
and wording of each book. The books come to us in a number
of manuscripts of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Til

viii THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
works, in manuscript translations of those works, and in quota
tions from them. These various authorities differ considerably
in detail ; we have to weigh the conflicting evidence and decide
between alternative readings. This is the Lower or Textual
Criticism. Next we come to the Higher Criticism.
" Higher " here does not mean " superior,'' or belonging to
the superior person ; it is a technical term, as in " Higher
Algebra." "Higher Criticism" forms and expresses judgments
as to the date, authorship, and mode of composition of a book.
When Mr. Spurgeon expressed such judgments he was a
"Higher Critic." This branch is sometimes called "literary
criticism," but is quite different from the criticism of the merits
of a novel or a poem. " Higher Criticism " is often used in a
very elastic sense. For one thing, it is used popularly to
denote the views of most modern scholars, as distinguished from
the traditional views formerly held and still adhered to by
some persons on dogmatic grounds. Again, " Higher Criticism "
is often used to include the two remaining branches dealing
with the character of a work, and its historical value. Thus
we use criticism to determine whether a work is a collection
of scientific formulae, a history, a poem, and so forth.
Finally we have Historical Criticism, which examines the
data provided by the various books of the Bible, and attempts
to construct from them a history of Israel and its religion.

THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
PART I
THE OLD TESTAMENT
By W. H. BENNETT, M.A., D.D., LITT.D.
CHAPTER I
HIGHER CRITICISM, PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL RESULTS
The public interest in criticism has been mainly fixed on
Higher Criticism.1 This term is often used in a loose way
to include any departure, from those traditional views whiah
are sometimes popularly supposed to be orthodox. Yet most
of the outstanding features of the modern views of the Old
Testament which have specially attracted attention are con
cerned with the date, authorship, and manner of composition
of certain books.
First as to the nature and history of the traditional views.
They are views which, until the last quarter of the nineteenth
century, were usually taken for granted in popular preaching,
teaching, and text-books. In very wide circles they are still
taken for granted ; the presuppositions of popular religion can
only be changed very slowly. These views generally assume
that if a personal name of a man is connected with a book the
whole of that book in the form in which we now have it was
written by that man.8 To take the controversies which have
1 Of. above, p. viii.
* It was apparently assumed that women were incapable of writ
ing an inspired book ;. Ruth and Esther were -not ascribed to these
women. An exception was made of Deborah and the Song of
Deborah. 9

10 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
attracted most attention : it was supposed that Moses wrote
the Pentateuch ; David the Psalms ; Solomon the whole of
Proverbs, Eccksiastes, and Canticles/ Isaiah the whole of Isaiah;
and Daniel, Daniel. There were, however, many varieties of
these views. As a rule those who were in any degree thought
ful and well-informed admitted that Moses did not write Deut.
xxxiv. 5-12, and that the very principle they were applying
prevented their ascribing to David the psalms which were not
connected with his name. They also saw that the principle
could not be applied to the books of Samuel. \
Moreover, the traditional views in some form or another
were supposed to rest on an authority which could not be
called in question. All criticism was regarded as superfluous
and impertinent. There seems to have been an impression
that these views had been communicated by a definite and
explicit revelation, or that they had been established beyond
all doubt after a careful examination of full, express, and con
vincing evidence by Jewish And Christian scholars in the
centuries before and after the beginning of the Christian Era.
There is no foundation for either opinion.
There is no express evidence as to how the traditional views
arose. All that we know is that we find the titles in the
earliest extant manuscripts, which, however, were not written
till from three to eight centuries after Christ, and that we
find these titles in use in the New Testament and other
literature of the same period. We have no express statements
as to when or by whom or in what sense these titles were
first connected with the books, or as to how far the books
have been modified since that time. We gather that towards
the beginning of the Christian Era and somewhat earlier, the
titles were commonly used as if they meant that the persons
named wrote the books. Much later we find express state
ments to that effect. This absence of explicit early testimony
has led to the supposition that the books appeared originally
in the form in which we now have them, with the names
of Moses, Isaiah, &c, connected with them as authors of the
whole books, and that information to that effect was handed-
down by continuous tradition for some hundreds of years
until we find the first traces of the tradition in the literature.

PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL RESULTS 11
In the case of many of the books this supposed tradition has
never been properly investigated till modern times. Hence
we speak of these views as traditional. We first meet with
them as a tradition ; they continued to be a mere tradition until
they were either verified or disproved by modern criticism.
It is easy to see how they arose. Sometimes one book is
substantially the work of the person after whom it is called —
its eponym, so to speak — as in the case of Amos; sometimes a
large proportion of the book is the work of the eponym, as in
the case of Isaiahs sometimes the book is largely occupied
with the sayings or doings of the eponym, e.g. Samuel. In
other cases the book is written in the name of the eponym,
e.g. Ecclesiastes. Once the name and the book had become
associated, the usage would give rise to the popular impression,
in all possible cases, that the person named was the actual
author of the book, and the impression would persist, however
the book was supplemented or otherwise altered. Scholars
would absorb the popular impression as part of the training
of their childhood, and would take the traditional views for
granted so long as nothing occurred to compel discussion.
So much for the traditional views and their history. Higher
Cliticism is commonly thought of as a denial of some of these
views, more especially as regards the books mentioned above.
Many people have been so startled and absorbed by this denial
that they have not realised that criticism has provided a
positive reconstruction of the history of the composition of the
books of the Old Testament. Higher Criticism as it is generally
understood might be roughly summed up in a few lines. This
summary would run somewhat as follows :
Moses did not write the Pentateuch ; David did not write
the Psalms; Solomon did not write Proverbs, Canticles, or
Ecclesiastes; the Book of Isaiah was not wholly written by
Isaiah, chapters xl.-lxvi. being written by a "Second
Isaiah " ; Daniel did not write Daniel; the " Second Isaiah "
and the books once ascribed to Moses, David, Solomon, and
Daniel were composed long after the times when those worthies
lived. Sueh a statement would fairly represent in a simple and
crude form the leading changes which modern criticism has

12 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
made in the views as to date, authorship, and composition.1
A fuller and more correct statement, but still a statement
which is only a brief, imperfect, and approximate sketch, is
given in the following chapter. Any attempt to give an exact
and exhaustive account of the results of Higher Criticism would
occupy many times the space available in this small volume,
and the reader is referred to the works mentioned in the
Bibliography. But to return to our general statement; the changes set
forth in it are wide and sweeping, and are often misunderstood
and therefore misrepresented by popular exponents of traditional
views. For instance, we hear a good deal about forgery ; but
it is not necessarily part of the modern views that these works
were forged in the names of ancient worthies with intent to
deceive. The explanation of the ascription of these books
to Moses and others is threefold. Much of this literature was
originally anonymous, and was ascribed to ancient worthies
by unfounded but perfectly honest conjecture. Other works
were written in the name of some ancient worthy simply as a
matter of literary form; e.g. Ecclesiastes in the name of Solomon;
this method is familiar amongst all peoples with an advanced
literature. Thirdly, certain portions of the Pentateuch are
connected with the name of Moses as being the outcome,
application, or interpretation of laws which had been ascribed
to him by tradition ; just as we speak of many things as
Christian, or even the will, or the mind of Christ, which are
not found in the Gospels.
But the fiudings of the Higher Criticism are startling to
those who hear them for the first time, however carefully and
impartially they may be stated. These findings have been
familiar to scholars for more than half a century, but in spite of
the growth of education, probably a majority are still allowed
to grow up under the impression that the traditional views of
the Old Testament are the only possible views, the only views
1 The clause, " David did not write the Psalms," is the way in
which that point is often stated popularly. Of course a mere glance
at the Psalter shows that it is not claimed that David wrote all the
Psalms. A more accurate statement would be, " Few, if any, of the
Psalms with Davidic titles were written by David."

PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL RESULTS 13
consistent with loyalty to Christianity; and that these views
are only challenged by the enemies of the faith. After this un
fortunate education a man may be confronted by the critical
position in its entirety, he may realise its wholesale repudiation
of traditional views, and get some idea of the conclusive evi
dence by which its main positions are supported. Unless he
obtains careful guidance at such a crisis, the results are often
disastrous; they are the fruit of the mistakes of his early
training. It would often help the student of the Bible if he would
consider that though these changes seem to him a sadden,
overwhelming revolution, because they burst upon him all at
once, yet in reality they have accumulated gradually ; they are
the result of a long process ; they are due to the patient
and devout study of generations of Christian scholars; and
have long proved themselves helpful and inspiring to multi
tudes of Christian ministers and other devout believers.
In criticism, as in other matters, the truth has prevailed
partly through the persecution of its apostles. The general
public first became aware of the modern views on the Penta
teuch through the controversies concerning Bishop Colenso of
Natal. The first part of his Pentateuch and Book of Joshua
critically Examined was published in 1862 ; this work made
important contributions to the criticism of the Pentateuch.
Further, his denial of the Mosaic authorship and the histori
city of certain portions of the Pentateuch exposed him to fierce
attacks, and hio right to continue a bishop of the Church of
England was more or less successfully challenged.
The older generation of those now living will remember the
immense stimulus which the public interest in the critical
study of the Old Testament received from the controversy
roused by W. Robertson Smith's expositions of the modern
view in the Encyclopaidia Britannica, and his expulsion from his
professional chair at Aberdeen. But the history of modern
criticism goes far back before Colenso ; indeed modern criticism
is only the successor and heir of a process which is almost as
old as the earliest documents of the Old Testament. These
ancient Scriptures only reaehed the form in which they were
known to our Lord and His Apostles, and later on the differing

14 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
forms in which they are current in the various churches of
Christendom, through repeated applications of the various forms
of criticism described in the previous chapter. Again and again
scribes and editors have had to decide between the different
wordings of the same passage which they found in earlier manu
scripts and editions. The titles and headings ascribing psalms
or prophecies to David, Isaiah, and others, are the relics of the
Higher Criticism of Biblical scholars during many centuries
before and after the coming of Christ. Their criticism may
not always have been sound, but it was as " high " as that of
Wellhausen. Dr. Duff in his History of Old Testament Criticism has pointed
out that much of the Old Testament is the result of a long
process of a still more drastic criticism. Many of the books
have reached their present form through a series of revisions in
which each successive editor handled the work of his predecessors
with the utmost freedom. For instance, the earliest extant
edition x of the law connected with Moses was freely expanded
and modified to form the code which we find in the central
chapters of Deuteronomy ; and again, many of the ordinances
in the second code were set aside in favour of others by the
later edition of the Mosaic law known as the Priestly Code.
At the same time the reasons for observing the Sabbath and
other laws are altered. Again we find that the form of the
narratives was often changed ; Chronicles, for' instance, differs
widely from Kings, both in its general view of the history and
in numerous details. Thus it appears that the inspired writers
did not hold that the inspiration of their predecessors guaranteed
the absolute and final accuracy of their statements on law,
history, and religion, whether as to wording or substance.
Speaking generally, in the great crises of the history of Re
vealed Religion, when the Church was full of vitality, Jewish
and Christian scholars handled the views of their prede
cessors with great freedom, revising them in the light of fuller
knowledge and a deeper understanding of the truth. But
usually after each crisis there came a dead, scholastic period,
when sacred learning ceased to be living and original; the
position reached at the close of the crisis was supposed to be
1 See below, pp. 23 ff.

PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL RESULTS 15
absolute and final, an orthodox tradition whose authority
barred all progress, and remained a hindrance to further
advance even when the creative energies of the Divine Spirit
once more troubled the stagnant waters.
Thus Christ Himself and the New Testament writers criti
cise the teaching of the Old Testament in the most drastic
fashion. " It was said by them of old time, but I say unto
you." The great fathers of the early Church, Origen, Jerome,
Augustine, were much occupied with Higher Criticism, such
questions as the authorship of the Wisdom of Solomon or the
canonicity of Esther.
The Renascence and the Reformation quickened the interest
of scholars in all branches of Biblical criticism. For instance,
Luther deals with the Higher Criticism of the Apocrypha.
He also had more than doubts about Esther, which he coupled
with II. Maccabees thus : "lam so hostile to this book and to
Esther, that I would that they had not remained extant ; for
they judaize too much and have much heathen naughtiness." 1
For the most part, however, the great Reformers were too
much occupied with other matters to attempt any thorough
independent investigation of the Higher /C(iticism of the
canonical books of the Old Testament Ljthey simply handed on
the accepted views of the Middle Ages.
The great movement of modern criticism had its effective
beginning about the middle of the eighteenth century, and has
continued without break' or, check ever since; before dealing
with this, however, we must say a word or two about the fore
runners of this movement in regard to the books specially
concerned in the controversies of the last century and a half.
First, however, we must again emphasize the fact that
modern criticism is the natural and legitimate development of
the work of Jewish Rabbis, Christian Fathers, and the Pro
testant and Romanist divines of the Renascence and the
Reformation. Modern criticism may revise views once accepted
through lack of knowledge and the defective methods of the
primitive science of criticism, but none the less it owes an
immense debt to the scholars of past centuries ; it is carrying
1 Quoted in Bleek's Introduction to the O.T., Eng. tr. 1875, i. 449.

16 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
on their work with a like devotion to truth and to Christian
faith. We turn, therefore, to the earlier suggestions of the modem
views as to the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Davidic Psalms, and
Daniel. The Fourth Book of Ezra, an apocalyptic work of the first
century a.d., told how the law had been burnt and Ezra was
inspired to dictate to five companions the contents of the
twenty-four books (presumably of the Old Testament) i and
seventy others. This story represents an opinion that the Old
Testament as we have it rests on the authority of Ezra, as
editor and publisher, so to speak, rather than that of the
original writers. Other traces are found of this idea. More
over, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was occasionally
discussed in the early centuries of the Christian Era, rather,
however, on doctrinal grounds than on the lines of sound
criticism. In the fifth century A.D., Theodore of Mopsuestia
and Theodoret of Cyrus did something to prepare the way for
the modern criticism of the Psalter. Theodore rejected the
authority of the titles, so far as they connected psalms with
definite events in the history of David. A number of psalms
refer to the Maccabean period according to both Fathers.2 In
the third century the Neo-Platonist, Porphyry, in his attack
on the' Christian Church, ascribed Daniel to the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes.
In the early Middle Ages, the view that the Pentateuch as
a whole was not the work of Moses was frequently hinted at
by Ibn Ezra (1088-1167), one of the great Rabbis who did so
much for the interpretation of the Old Testament. Ibn Ezra
also indicates pretty clearly that he was inclined to ascribe
Isaiah xl.-lxvi. to the period of the Exile.
We turn next to the Reformation, and to the period of the
sixteenth and seventeenth. centuries. Luther held that it did
not matter whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not.' The
Mosaic authorship was questioned by Carlstadt, Hobbes, and
1 The Minor Prophets count as one book, and there are other
combinations. * Cheyne, The Origin of the Psalter, pp. 33, 207, 455.
3 Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, p. 247.

PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL RESULTS 17
others and denied by Spinoza. - Luther rejected the Solomonic
authorship of Ecclesiastes. Calvin seems to have recognised
the exilic date of Isaiah xl.-lxvi.1 He acknowledged the
existence of Maccabean psalms. These are only a few names
amongst many ; from the outset of the Reformation onward,
the preparation for the work of modern criticism, or indeed
the beginnings of that criticism, made steady progress.
When we come to the modern period, the great scholars who
have contributed to the establishment of sound views of the
Old Testament are legion ; we can only mention one or two
in addition to those already referred to. The keynote of the
criticism of the Pentateuch was struck by Astrue of Mont-
pellier in 1753 in his Conjectures sur lesmimoires originaux dont
il paroitf que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genise.
Observing that some sections of Genesis used Yahweh and
others Elohim, Astrue made use of this alternation of Divine
names to determine the documents from which the book had
been compiled. Starting with this idea, and supplementing it
with other sound critical principles, a numerous succession of
scholars carried on the work till the modem theory was sub
stantially completed and established by Kuenen and Well-
hausen about 1870-80. The composition of Isaiah xl.-lxvi.
after the Captivity, and of Daniel in the late Greek period,
were practically established by about the beginning of the
nineteenth century.
The reader will naturally ask why scholars have so largely
rejected traditional views. The answer is that it is almost
entirely through internal evidence, through a careful examina
tion of the books themselves; the modem view is the Scrip
tural view, it is derived from the evidence which the Bible
itself supplies as to its own nature, origin, and history. Much
of the evidence is cumulative, and is discovered by the study
of countless details. But we may btiefly indicate some leading
features. The critic notes the historical standpoint from which a book
or a section of a book is written, the political, social, and
religious conditions which the writer assumes as existing in
his own time. A book whose contents imply the existence
1 G. A. Smith, The Book of Isaiah, xl.-lxvi., pp. 14 f.
B

18 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
of certain conditions at the time when it was written, virtually
claims to have been composed in the period when those
conditions prevailed.1 Such a claim is far more real and
conclusive than any title; which may be a mere conjecture
of a late editor. Thus sections of the Pentateuch assume
that those addressed are an agricultural people living in
Canaan ; clearly therefore in their present form they were
composed after the conquest of Canaan. By the application
of such tests 2 the traditional views have been in some cases,
e.g. Amos, confirmed, in others altered in the way we have
indicated. Another important principle is the necessity of considering
the question of integrity. We often unconsciously assume that
because a book, say Isaiah, comes to us as a single work, with
one heading,3 that therefore it was composed at one time by
a single author, i.e. that it has what is technically called
integrity. A moment's thought will show that this is not
necessarily true. An author may embody extracts from earlier
works; an editor may supplement his author by notes and
appendices. It is well known that such practices were
common in ancient literature and in the Old Testament. It
was not customary to distinguish quotations or notes from
the original text or to indicate their sources. Hence if certain
sections of the Pentateuch seem to be Mosaic, it by no means
follows that Moses wrote the whole book. .We must therefore
be prepared to investigate separately the date and authorship
of separate sections.
Another principle has already been alluded to more than
once, namely, that headings, titles, subscriptions, statements as
to date and authorship, even in the body of an Old Testament
book in its present form, are by no means conclusive and
unquestionable evidence, because they were in all probability
not part of the original work, nor is there any certainty that
they were first added to the books by persons who had real
information on the subject ; they may be mere conjectures.
1 Unless, of course, it is an entirely successful pieoe of historical
fiction. • Cf. p. 36.
* This is not strictly true of Isaiah ; cf. p. 33.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 19
The free application of these principles, and the public
exposition of the consequent changes in views, were only
possible after the Reformation had cast off the dead weight
of Church authority, which crushed any criticism of the
current usages and opinions of the Church. The relief from
this incubus only came gradually, and is still partial, so
that criticism only did its work amongst scholars in the course
of the nineteenth century, and its general acceptance is still
hindered by popular prejudice.
We started with a rough statement of the leading results
of Higher Criticism, as they impress the popular mind at
first hearing. We may conclude by a more positive summary
of these results, thus: — The Pentateuch and the longer
historical books, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles (including
Exra and Nehemiah), are the result of series of successive
editings and revisions, in the course of which more or less
verbatim extracts from earlier works have been embodied in
these books. The earliest sources go back to the time of the
Judges. Several of the prophetical and other books are
similarly compiled ; they are collections made after the Exile
and based on earlier collections. This class includes Isaiah,
Micah, Psalms, and Proverbs; while Daniel, Canticles, and
Ecclesiastes are late post-exilic works.1

CHAPTER II
HIGHER CRITICISM, RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS
(A) Narrative Books
The title used for this class of books is substantially correct,
but it does not apply to all their contents. These books in
clude not only narratives, but also laws (especially in the
Pentateuch), lyrics, and sermons.
1 For a more detailed statement see next section.

20 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
These books may be divided into four groups :
(a) Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
(6) Chronicles.
(ej Exra and Nehemiah.
(a) Ruth, Jonah, Esther, and Dan. i., Hi., v., vi.
All these books are anonymous ; they make no statement as to
when or by whom they were written. The use made of them
in the New Testament, and other similar considerations, makes
it practically certain that all these books were completed before
the beginning of the Christian Era, and probably before 100 B.C.
Otherwise there is no external evidence worth speaking of con
cerning their date and authorship. We have no express state
ment by any early authority that any one of these books in its
present form was written by So-and-so at such a date. The
earliest extant statements were written centuries after the time
of the authors to whom they ascribe the books ; they do not
seem to rest upon any real information, but to be mere guesses.
Books are ascribed either to the persons who were most promi
nent in them, e.g. the Book of Joshua to Joshua, or to those
who seemed most likely to have known about the events
described. When these guesses or theories had once been
made they were copied by one writer after another, so that
they, are found in a long series of Jewish and Christian authors ;
and this has been dignified by the name of a " continuous and
unanimous tradition."
A very good example of these traditional statements is a
" baraitha " or early tradition found in the Babylonian Talmud.1
Though this Talmud was not compiled till about a.d. 500, the
" baraitha " is as old as about a.d. 200, and probably represents
the opinions of the Rabbis in fhe time of Christ ; it runs thus :
" But who wrote the books of the Bible ? Moses wrote his
own book, and the section about Balaam and Job. Joshua
wrote his own book and (the last) eight verses of the Pentateuch.
Samuel wrote his own book and the books of Judges and Ruth.
David wrote the book of Psalms by the ten venerable elders,
Adam the first man, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Haman,
Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah
1 *laba Bathra, f. 14b.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 21
wrote his own book, the books of Kings, and Lamentations.
Hezekiah and his friends wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and
Ecclesiastes. The men of the great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel,
the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote
his own book and continued the genealogies of the books of
Chronicles down to his own times. . . . But who completed
them (the books of Chronicles) ? Nehemiah ben Hachaliah."
This passage can have no weight as evidence for the author
ship of the books of the Old Testament. Note only one point.
"His own book" clearly means "the book which bears his
name"; accordingly, Samuel is credited with the authorship
of the books of Samuel,1 but these books contain the account
of the death and burial of Samuel, and of the events of a long
period after his death.
Similarly, references in the New Testament and elsewhere to
books as "Moses," &c, or as written or spoken by "Moses"
or " David," amount to little more than the use of these names
as convenient titles, or at the most to the otiose acceptance of
a current view. Such references do not imply a deliberate,
considered judgment. A modern preacher may quote Henry VI.
as Shakespeare without in any way staking his reputation as a
scholar or a religious" teacher on the accuracy of such a statement.
Hence, if we wish to determine how much earlier than
100 B.C. any of these books were written we must have recourse
to internal evidence. One obvious principle is that a book in
its present form must have been written some time after the
last event recorded in it. Thus the death and burial of Moses,
Joshua, and Samuel are recorded in the Pentateuch and in the
. books of Joshua and Samuel respectively. Clearly, therefore,
these Israelite leaders were not the authors of the books which
bear their names ; and the persons who compiled these books
did not intend it to be understood that these leaders had
written them.
But the question when the books were completed in their
present form is only one of the problems of Old Testament
criticism. Careful examination shows that all the longer
historical books have been compiled from older documents.
The various editors pieced together verbatim extracts from these
1 These were originally one book, " Samuel."

22 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
sources, making various changes and additions. Thus the
narrative books preserve material older by centuries than the
dates at which these books were completed. This method of
compilation is not peculiar to the Old Testament ; the Gospels
of St. Luke and St. Matthew are similarly compiled from
St. Mark and other sources, and numerous harmonies of the
four gospels have been made by piecing together verbatim
extracts from the original gospels.
The use of this method is obvious in Chronicles, which is
largely made up of verbatim extracts from Samuel and Kings.
We may state briefly the general results of criticism with
regard to the historical books.
(a) Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings. — The composi
tion of these books is best understood in the light of the
history of the law and institutions of Israel. Let us state a
few of the main points of this history. The Pentateuch
includes three chief codes of law, the Book of the Covenant,
Exodus xx. 22-xxiii. 19; Deuteronomy j1 and the Priestly
Code.' The Deuteronomic Code can be identified with the Code
found and cauonised by Josiah ; 3 the Book of the Covenant
is clearly earlier and more primitive ; the Priestly Code' a later
development. The various narratives in these books can be
shown to agree in language, style, ideas, and historical stand
point with one or other of these codes.
Hence the general history of all these books may be stated
very roughly thus ; the present books are the conclusion of a
literary process, which had four chief stages :
(i.) A period during which laws and narratives existed as
oral tradition or in primitive poems and documents which, as a
rule, are no longer extant, or at any rate cannot now be identified.
Exceptions to the rule are the Song of Deborah, Judges v.,
and the Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan, 2 Samuel
i. 19-27, which are substantially contemporary with the
events they describe.
1 Strictly the Kernel of Deuteronomy, Deut. xii.-xxvi.
* i.e. the legal portions of that document ; i.e. the laws in Exod.
xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl. ; Leviticus; Num. i.-x., xvii.-xix., xxv.-
xxxi., xxxiii.-xxxvi., &c.
8 2 Kings xxii. i.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 23
(ii.) Early collections of laws and narratives made before
the publication of Deuteronomy in 621 : we may call these the
pre-Deuteronomic editions of the Law and the History.
(iii.) The Deuteronomic editions of the Law and the History,
i.e. Deut. xii.-xxvi. and the editions of the History made
under the influence of Deuteronomy. These new editions took
the place of the pre-Deuteronomic editions, which they supple
mented and for the most part included.
(iv.) The Priestly editions of the Law and the History, *•«.
the Priestly Code and the editions of the History made under
its influence. These editions of the History supplemented and
included the Deuteronomic editions.
This general statement may be further illustrated by some
details as to the several books of this group.
The Pentateuch and Joshua originally formed a single -work,
composed thus : x
(i.) At some time in the early Monarchy, say between
900 and 750 B.C., two independent collections were made of
the laws and of the narratives concerning the history of Israel
up to the death of Joshua. These collections are known as
the Jehovistic Document, so called because it uses the Divine
Name Jehovah in Genesis, and denoted by the symbol J, and
the Elohistic Document, so called because it uses the Divine
Name Elohim in Genesis, and denoted by the symbol E.
In several instances the same narrative occurs in both
documents in different forms.
Towards the close of the Monarchy, about 650 B.C., these
two documents were combined so as to form a single work,
thus J + E = JE.
Where the same narrative was found in both, the compiler
sometimes' inserted both versions as separate narratives, e.g.
the two accounts of the expulsion of Hagar, Gen. xvi. 4-8, J ;
xxi. 8-21, E. Sometimes, however, the compiler pieced
together sentences and clauses from the two narratives so as
to form a single connected story, e.g. the story of Joseph. JE
included the Book of the Covenant.
1 The following account is greatly simplified as compared with
a full statement of the critical position.

24 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
(ii.) A second edition of the Law, based upon the Book
of the Covenant, was made, also about 650 B.C. This second
edition is Deut. xii.-xxvi. ; possibly other portions of Deuter
onomy were also included. This document is denoted by
D. Somewhat later, probably during the Exile, D was en
larged and combined with JE, the editor adding various notes,
&c, thus :
JE+D-JED.
The laws in D are partly repeated or modified from those
in E, so that JED includes many laws twice over.
(Hi.) After the Exile, about 500 B.C., a third edition of
the Law and History was compiled in Babylonia. This is
the Priestly Code.1 It included a revised version of the
history from the Creation onward, and numerous laws, very
largely concerned with ritual, with the priesthood and their
vestments, the tabernacle and its furniture, and the division of
the land. Even the narratives of this document are really
legal material, case-law, or precedents. Thus the Priestly
isocount of the Creation, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4a, is really an account
of the institution of the Law of the Sabbath.
This document is called P ; it is partly based on the docu
ments already mentioned, partly on custom and tradition ; it also
includes a code, the Law of Holiness, H, which was compiled
during the Exile or shortly before or after.
Many of the narratives in P are modified versions of narra
tives in JE.
Some time after the Exile, perhaps about 400 B.C., the
Priestly Code was combined with JED, the result being our
Hexateuch, i.e. the Pentateuch + Joshua, thus :
JED + P- Hexateuch.
Here again the editor sometimes placed parallel accounts
of the same event side by side as separate narratives, e.g. the
two Creation stories, Gen. i.-ii. 4a, P, and Gen. ii. 46-25, J.
Sometimes he pieced them together into a single narrative;
thus the story of the Flood is a mosaic of sections from
P and J.
Later on the Hexateuch was divided into the Pentateuch
1 See p. 22.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 25
and Joshua, and finally the Pentateuch was divided into the
present five books.
There is no absolute proof that any part of the Pentateuch
comes to us from Moses, but it is quite possible that some
sections may be based on material which either originated
with him or received his sanction.
The remaining books of this group are the result of a similar
process of composition.
Judges includes a number of ancient stories, current during,
or before, the Early Monarchy. Some of these were current
in alternative versions ; thus we have one account of the defeat
of Sisera in the Song of Deborah, chap, v., and another in
chap. iv. The story of Gideon is pieced together from two
separate narratives, chaps, vi.-viii. The Deuteronomic edition
of this book was made during the Exile ; it added the chrono
logy, the statements about the alternate apostasy and repentance
of the Israelites, and some other material. The book was com
pleted in its present form by Priestly editors after the Exile.
Samuel, again, is based on a number of early narratives, and
has passed through Deuteronomic and Priestly editions.
Similarly, Kings was compiled by Deuteronomic editors from
earlier documents ; these editors provided the chronology, the
statements as to the characters of the kings, and other material.
A few other additions and modifications were made after the
Exile by the Priestly editors who gave the book its present
form. There is no evidence as to the names of these various com
pilers and editors. The interest taken by some documents in
Solomon's Temple and other sanctuaries suggests that these
works may have been written by priests; and it is quite
probable that other documents may have been written by
members of tha guilds of prophets.
History is represented in the Apocrypha by I and 2
Maccabees, which give an account of the successful revolt
against Antiochus Epiphanes. 1 Maccabees is excellent history,
2 Maccabees is of less value.
Our second group consists of a single work :
(6) Chronicles. — Originally Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah
formed a single work, containing a history of Israel and its

26 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
ancestors from the Creation to the time of Nehemiah. But it
is convenient to follow the present division of the books and
treat Chronicles separately.
Chronicles is a more complete revision of the history from
the standpoint of the Priestly Code. The author assumes that
the provisions of the Priestly Code and the other institutions of
his own time had been in operation from the time of David
onward. He reproduces verbatim much of the earlier litera
ture, but makes many changes and additions in order that he
may tell the story in terms of the circumstances and practices
of his own time. His marked interest in the Levites and the
Temple choirs suggests that he was a Levitical chorister or
musician. The book was probably compiled about 250 B.C.
We have just mentioned the relation of our next group to
Chronicles ; it consists of :
(c) Ezra and Nehemiah. — There is a good deal of controversy
as to the accounts of the Return and the Rebuilding of the
Temple ; according to some, they have little historical value ;
but this view is only held by a minority. The account of the
work of Ezra and Nehemiah is largely given in verbatim
extracts from memoirs by these two Jewish leaders.
The Apocryphal book known as 1 Esdras (E.V.) or S Esdras
(yulgate) or the Greek Esdras is the Greek edition of our
Ezra, including sections of Chronicles and Nehemiah with
other additions.
2 Esdras (E.V) or Jf. Esdras (Vulgate) is an Apocalyptic
work. (d) Ruth, Jonah, Esther, and Daw. i., iii., v., vi. are usually re
garded as " moralising tales," which have more or less founda
tion in fact, but are not historical in the sense in which the
early narratives in Samuel and Kings are historical. They are
of the same character as Judith and TobU, Bel and the Dragon,
and Susannah in the Apocrypha.
Ruth may be pre-exilic, but is more often dated in or after
the Exile. Its purpose has been variously explained as simply
to tell an interesting story; to illustrate the genealogy of
David ; to preserve a discription of an instance of the custom of
marrying the widow of a kinsman ; or finally to protest against
prohibition by Ezra and Nehemiah of marriages with foreigners.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 27
Although Jonah is included amongst the " Prophets " in the
Jewish Canon, it is quite different in character from the other
prophetical books ; it is simply a narrative.
The hero, Jonah ben Amittai, is mentioned in 2 Kings xiv.
25 as ministering in Israel in the time of Jeroboam II. The
work is post-exilic, 500-400 B.C. or later, and is a protest
against the exclusive spirit dominant amongst the Jews of
the period after the Exile.
Esther was composed about 300-150 B.C., to explain the
origin of the Jewish Feast of Purim. It is suggested that it
is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth, Mordecai and Esther
being the god Marduk and the goddess Ishtar reduced to
the dimensions of human beings. The Greek version of
this book contains many additions, which form part of the
Apocrypha. It will be convenient to deal with the narrative sections
of Daniel in discussing the book as a whole.1

(B) The Prophetical Books2
These books are mostly provided with titles which make
statements with regard to their date and authorship.
There are, to begin with, the bare names "Isaiah,"
"Jeremiah," &c., used as headings; but such titles in them
selves are not necessarily assertions that the book was written
by the persons named, any more than the titles " Samuel,"
" Ruth," " Kings," &c.3 But we have more explicit statements
than these mere names.
Sometimes we have a phrase or sentence indicating that
what follows is the message or teaching of a certain prophet.
Thus Obadiah begins "The vision of Obadiah." Similar
introductory formulae are found at the beginning of Nahum,
Habakkuk, Joel, and Maladri.1 As the information thus given
1 Chapter II., p. 45.
' Danitl and Jonah are not really prophetical books ; Jonah has
already been dealt with above ; Danid will be dealt with in
Chapter II., p. 45.
» Cf. p. 21. 4 Cf. p. 39.

28 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
is limited to the name of the author and the character of his
work, we are left to determine the dates by internal evidence.
In other cases the introductory formula specifies generally
the period of the prophet's ministry. Thus at the beginning
of Isaiah we find :
"The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw
concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."
Hosea and Micah are also ascribed by their introductory
formulae to the same or about the same period. Zephaniah is
ascribed to the reign of Josiah.
In other cases the introductory formulae specify the exact
date at which the prophet began his ministry ; Jeremiah in
the thirteenth year of Josiah ; Ezekiel in the thirteenth year
(possibly of the prophet's life), in the fourth month, on the fifth
day ; Amos, in the days of Uzziah, King of Judah, two years
before the earthquake ; Haggai, in the second year of Darius
the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month ;
Zechariah, in the eighth month, in the second year of Darius.
There is no evidence to show that these introductory formulae
were prefixed by the prophets themselves ; or that the books
to which they were prefixed contained all that is found in our
present books. In several of the books similar formulae occur
within the books, each formula clearly referring to a single
section. It is probable that the very detailed dates in Ezekiel,
Haggai, and Zechariah, and some of those in Jeremiah, come
from the prophets or their contemporaries ; the other headings
are probably the work of editors. Nevertheless in all cases
there is reason to believe that the statements of these intro
ductory formulae are correct as regards substantial portions of
the books to which they are prefixed.
Thus the names attached to the prophetical books denote
real persons,1 who lived at the times specified in the titles, and
were the authors of much of the material contained in the
books. Of these prophets, several — namely Joel, Obadiah,
Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Malachi — are mere
1 For Malachi, see p. S'J.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 29
names ; we know nothing about them except that they wrote
certain passages.
In the case of the rest, the books give some account of the
prophets whose names they bear ; and there are references to
Isaiah and Jeremiah in the historical books. The narrative
portions of the prophetical books are mostly good material
for history.
As regards the prophetical books the work of criticism has
been threefold :
(i.) To determine how much of each book belongs to the
prophet whose name it bears.
(ii.) Where it appears that portions of the book are not the
work of that prophet, to determine whether they are the work
of one author or of more than one.
(iii.) To determine the date at which each prophet wrote, or
to which each section belongs.
To begin with (iii.), where the introductory formulae specify
dates or periods for a prophet, these may usually be accepted ;
and so far our task is simple. In many other cases the
internal evidence gives certain and definite results. But there
is often considerable uncertainty in distributing the contents of
a book between different writers and periods.
For our special purpose we may arrange the books in three
classes : —
(a) Books which have come to us substantially in their
original form : Exekiel, Haggai.
(6) Books where the original work has been supplemented
by various notes and other additions : Hosea, Amos, Nahum,
Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, Malachi, Joel.
(c) Books which are collections^ of material by different
authors, the book receiving its name from the author whose
work stands first in the collection : Isaiah, Micah, Habakkuk,
Zechariah. To begin with :
(a) Doubtless there are a number of small alterations -which
have crept into Exekiel and Haggai in the course of copying and
recopying ; but these works have suffered hardly any appreci
able change as far as substance and teaching are concerned.
For all practical purposes we can take Exekiel and Haggai as

30 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
the work of the prophets of the beginning of the Exile and of
the Return respectively.
Passing to our second class :
(6) In these works there is a substantial substratum which
comes from the prophet whose name has been attached to the
book; but this substratum has been supplemented in two
ways. First, various short notes, glosses, or interpolations have
been added by later writers ; there has been what we may call
annotation. Secondly, compositions by other unknown authors
have been added to the books ; these are mostly short. Thus
Hosea and Amos are substantially the work of prophets who
ministered shortly before the Fall of Samaria. The extent to
which they have been annotated is much disputed.1
In the case of Nahum it is widely held that Nahum's oracle
on the Fall of Nineveh, composed somewhere about 600 B.C.,
has been variously supplemented, more especially by prefixing
to the oracle a post-exilic psalm which now forms the bulk of
the first chapter.
Zephaniah, again, is mainly an oracle uttered by that prophet
in the reign of Josiah concerning the judgment of Yahweh on
Judah and other nations. This also is believed by many to
have been annotated, more especially by the addition at the
end of a prophecy of restoration.
Jeremiah presents many difficult problems, as to which there
is great diversity of opinion; some scholars would place the
book in our third class.
We may notice, to begin with, the general character of the
book ; it is not merely a collection of prophecies ; much of the
book is made up of narratives concerning Jeremiah and con
temporary history. Such a book would be called nowadays
the " Life, Times, and Sermons of Jeremiah," and the title-
page would probably add, " Edited with notes and other ex
planatory and illustrative matter by  , together with
some anonymous poems referring to the period of Jeremiah."
Such title-pages, however, were not in fashion in those
days. Some of the narratives are in the first person, and probably
come to us from the prophet himself; some are identical with
1 On Amos and Rosea, cf. also p. 34.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 31
sections of Kings, and have been inserted from that book.1
We know nothing of the origin of the other narratives ; many
of them are often ascribed to Baruch, Jeremiah's disciple and
secretary. This is a probable theory, but the evidence in its
favour does not amount to anything like proof. In saying
that such a theory is probable, we obviously imply that
these narratives as a whole may be accepted as substantially
historical. As regards the prophecies included in the book, there is
no doubt there are many verses and paragraphs which are not
the work of Jeremiah scattered up and down these prophecies.
There are also some longer additions. Allowing for these
latter, the majority of scholars would agree that the prophecies
as they stand give us a substantially correct impression of the
teaching of Jeremiah, during a ministry which included the
close of the Jewish monarchy and the beginning of the Exile.
They faithfully represent his zeal for the pure worship of
Yahweh and for social righteousness, his repeated predictions
of the coming ruin of his country, and his hopes for her future
restoration. Of the longer additions just referred to, the most
important is chapters 1., Ii., the prophecies of the ruin of
Babylonia. These are certainly not Jeremiah's, but were pro
bably composed during the Exile and supplemented later.
Some distinguished scholars, - however, attribute much less
of the book to Jeremiah. The passages in dispute involve the
teaching of the prophet in two important respects.
In the first place, as to foreign nations. Nearly all3 the
longer prophetical books include a group of oracles on Foreign
Nations"; such a section is found in Jer. xlvi.-li. We have
already pointed out that chapters 1. and li. are not by
Jeremiah ; some scholars also hold that the whole or the bulk
of chapters xlvi.-xlix. are later additions.
Secondly, our book of Jeremiah contains a series of Pro
phecies of Restoration, chapters xxx.-xxxiii., including the
great passage' on the New Covenant,3 in which we read, " I
will put my law in their inward parts and in their heart will
1 Jer. Iii. 1-27, 31-34=2 Kings xxiv. 18-xxv. 21, xxv. 27-30.
* Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, also Zephaniah and Joel.
3 Chap. xxxi. 31-34.

82 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
I write it . . . they shall teach no more every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
Lord : for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto
the greatest of them." These chapters- also are sometimes
held to be later additions.
The former, the more prevalent view, is the more probable ;
but however we may decide on these disputed points, some
of the most valuable features of the book are beyond contro
versy, especially the account of the career and experiences of
Jeremiah and the revelation of his inner spiritual life. We
know more of Jeremiah than we do of any other Old Testa
ment character except perhaps David ; and some of his utter
ances provide us with a wonderful description of the wrestling
of his soul with God ; so that the book contains one of the
earliest and most classical examples of individual religion.
The Book of Obadiah, short as it is, seems to have had a
complicated history ; an ancient oracle on Edom seems to have
been applied to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C., and variously
supplemented at different times.
The Book of Malachi may really be anonymous. Malachi
is the Hebrew for " my angel " or " my messenger." The
editor who supplied the heading given in i. 1, finding no name
associated with the book, may have supplied Malachi from
iii. 1, as a description of the author. Haggai is also called J
" the messenger of Yahweh."
The book comes to us in its original form without any
appreciable alteration, unless, as some suppose, the concluding
verses as to the Return of Elijah are a later addition.
Malachi affords us a vivid picture of the laxity of morals
and of religious observance in the middle of the Persian period,
about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Joel is mainly occupied with the "Day of Jehovah," the
discipline, penitence, and restoration of Israel, and the divine
judgment on the nations. Most scholars regard- Joel as a late
post-exilic writer who borrowed freely from his predecessors.
Some scholars hold that the book comes to us almost exactly
as it was written, but according to others it has been consider'
ably annotated. 1 Hag. i. 13.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 33
(c) The history of the composition of our third group
Isaiah, Micah, Habakkuk, and Zeclmriah — is more complicated.
These books are not merely expanded and annotated editions
of a single author, each of them is a collection of works by
different authors, and the name of the author whose work
stands first in the collection is used as a title for the whole.
There are also expansions and annotations.
We may begin with Isaiah, the longest and most important
of these collections.
A glance at the book shows that it falls into three main
divisions. (i.) Isaiah i.-xxxv. — A collection of prophetic utterances,
including a few brief narratives concerning Isaiah. At the
beginning and up to xx. 2, there are at intervals titles1
ascribing various sections to Isaiah. Most of the sections of
this division show a keen interest in the circumstances, persons,
and events of 740-701 B.C., in Judah and Israel, Egypt and
Assyria ; in Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah ; in Pekah,
King of Israel ; in Rezin, King of Damascus ; iD Sennacherib,
King of Assyria ; in the attack made by Pekah and Rezin on
Ahaz ; in the Assyrian invasions of Palestine ; and in the
intrigues of Egypt with the Palestinian states.
(ii.) Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix. — A series of narratives chiefly
dealing with the invasion of Sennacherib and the deliverance of
Jerusalem in 701 B.C.
(iii.) Isaiah xl.-xlvi. — A series of prophetic utterances,
showing a keen interest in the circumstances, persons, and
events of the close of the Exile, and the period after the Exile ;
in Babylon and the Chaldaeans; in the ruined Temple and
wasted land of Judah } in the captive Jews and their prospects
of deliverance ; in Cyrus and his conquests.
We may deal first with the Narrative Section, Isaiah xxxvi.-
xxxix. The bulk of this is identical with portions of Kings,2
from which it was borrowed by an editor to serve as an Historical
Appendix to i.-xxxv., just as Jer. Iii. was added at the close of
Jeremiah. 1 Viz., i. 1, ii. 1, vii. 3, xiii. 1, xx: 2<
• Cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. 19.

34 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
We turn next to the first division of the book, Isaiah i.-xxxv.
The presence within these chapters of various headings,
together with other considerations, show that they are a com
pilation from earlier and shorter collections. The greater part
of these chajJters consist of prophecies by Isaiah and narratives
concerning him ; these prophecies and narratives are in three
groups — they form the bulk of i. 1-xi. 9, xiv. 24-xxiii. 18,
xxviii. 1-xxxii. 20. Here again there are expansions and
annotations,1 the extent of which is matter of controversy.
In the sections written by or about Isaiah the historical,
social, and religious standpoint is that of 740-701 B.C., or,
roughly speaking, the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Isaiah
deals freely and forcibly with the domestic and international
politics, the social problems, and the religion of his times. In
common with the other prophets of the eighth century, Amos,
Hosea, and Micah, he protested against the social corruption
and the superstition of the times. In earlier days the Israelite
farmers had mostly owned their own lands, but in the eighth
century a period of material prosperity tended to promote the
formation of large estates by the expulsion of the farmers from
their holdings ; and against this tendency the prophets protested.
These prophets also insisted that character* and conduct were
far more important than external religious observances; that
sacrifices, sabbaths, and other ritual matters were worthless
apart from justice and benevolence.
Isaiah laid stress on the " holiness," i.e. the unique deity and
the " glory " or majesty of Yahweh ; his watchword was " the
Holy One of Israel." Probably some, at any rate, of the
descriptions of the Messianic King and the Messianic Era a are
the work of Isaiah ; though according to some they are post-
exilic. It was largely due to Isaiah's influence that Hezekiah refused
to surrender Jerusalem to Sennacherib; a refusal which was
justified by the catastrophe which shortly after befel the Assy
rian army.
The concluding division, Isaiah xl.-lxvi. is often called the
1 The most important is the post-exilic Oracle on Babylon,
xxi. 1-10.
J Viz. ix. 2-7, xi. 1-9.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 35
Second Isaiah. The arrangement of the book1 shows that
xl.-lxvi. once existed as a separate work, and was not connected
with Isaiah i.-xxxv., or considered as the work of Isaiah, when
the first division of the book was compiled or when the Histo
rical Appendix, xxxvi.-xxxix. was added to it. Further, there
was not prefixed to this separate work, Second Isaiah, or included
in it, any heading or headings ascribing it to Isaiah. At one
time this work seems to have been associated with Jeremiah ;
Ezra i. 1 f. quotes Isaiah xliv. 28 as from Jeremiah. These
various items of external evidence not only afford no support
for the authorship of xl.-lxvi. by Isaiah, but are quite incom
patible with any such theory. Moreover, these chapters differ
markedly in style, vocabulary, and ideas from those portions of
i.-xxxv. which are the work of Isaiah.
The Second Isaiah again falls into three divisions, the bulk of
xl.-lv.,2 the Servant Passages,8 and lvi.-lxvi.
The contents of the bulk of xl.-lv., sometimes called the
Deutero-Isaiah, show that they were compiled towards the close
of the Exile ; they are occupied with the controversy between
Yahweh, the God of Israel, and the gods of Babylon, and with
the promise of deliverance from captivity. They do not pre
dict Cyrus, and the circumstances of this period, but treat them
as contemporary.
The Servant Passages are a series of poems concerning the
missionary work, the martyrdom, and the resurrection of the
Servant of Yahweh. It is doubtful whether they were com
posed by the author of Second Isaiah, or whether they are
independent poems, exilic or post-exilic, and owe their present
position to an editor. The Servant is probably Israel, his death
being the Exile and his resurrection the Return. Some,
however, regard the Servant as either a historical personage,
possibly Jeremiah, or an ideal figure, i.e. the Messiah. The
Christian Church recognises that Christ fulfilled the ideals set
forth in these poems.
The concluding chapters, Isaiah lvi.-lxvi., are sometimes
called the Trito-Isaiah. They are a collection of passages
1 Cf. above, p. 33.
2 Viz. xl.-lv. less the Servant Passages.
» Viz. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, 1. 4-9, Iii. 13-liii. 12.

36 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
composed after the Exile, and are largely occupied with the
misfortunes and misconduct of the Jews, probably about the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah or somewhat earlier; they are
thus parallel to Malachi.
It will have been seen that our Book of Isaiah is the result
of ,a long process of editing. The process begins with the
sayings and doings of Isaiah ; these were formed into three or
four collections. Then, some time after the Exile, an editor
or editors 'united these collections, adding various notes, and
preserving a number of short anonymous poems and' prophecies
by inserting them between, or at the close of these -collections,
thus forming Isaiah i.-xxxv. ; this work was completed by
the addition of the Historical Appendix, xxxvi.-xxxix.
During this period, a parallel process was going on. First
towards the close of the Exile, that is long before the com
pletion of i.— xxxix., the Deutero-Isaiah was written, the
Servant Passages being perhaps added later. After the Exile
the various sections of lvi.-lxvi. were written, and ultimately
appended to xl.-lv., thus constituting the important anonymous
work, Isaiah xl.-lxvi., often called the Second Isaiah. Later
still this was attached to Isaiah i.-xxxix., probably by acci
dent.1 This process was probably complete, and our Book of
Isaiah existed substantially in its present form, by about 200 B.C.
Ecclesiasticus, 180 B.C., quotes part of Second Isaiah as an utter
ance of Isaiah.
The Ascension of Isaiah is a late apocalyptic work, includ
ing the account of the martyrdom of Isaiah by being sawn
asunder; parts of it may be older than the beginning of the
Christian Era.
The history of the Book of Micah is obscure and doubtful.
Chapters i.-iii., apart from some slight additions, are the work
of a contemporary of Isaiah, and closely resemble in spirit and
teaching the utterances of Amos and Hosea and Isaiah. It is
possible that the remaining chapters also include passages
which were the work of Micah. The section vi. 1-viii. 6
may have been composed by the prophet, late in life, in the reign
of Manasseh. Some would even hold that practically the
1 See below, p. 38.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 37
whole book comes from Micah ; it is more probable that it
includes works by different authors, belonging to different
periods. Habakkuk includes chapters i. and ii., the deliverance of
Judah and the punishment of its wicked oppressor, together
with a psalm, chap. iii. The former section may be a com
pilation from two documents, one pre-exilic, the other exilic ;
the psalm is probably a separate work. It is not certain
which section or sections were the work of Habakkuk.
The Book of Zechariah falls into two parts, i.-viii., ix.-xiv.
The first part, chapters i.-viii., is the work of Zecha
riah, a prophet who was associated with Haggai in stirring
up the Jews to rebuild the Temple, 520-518 b.c His
utterances deal with the political and religious circumstances
of his time. They are largely in the form of a series of
visions. The second part, chapters ix.-xiv., is anonymous ; it consists
of pictures of the punishment of the Gentiles, and the glory
of Israel in Messianic times. It is generally divided between
two authors, ix.-xi. with xiii. 7-9, being a separate work
from xi. 1— xiii. 6 with xiv. It is dated about 300-250 b.c.
We may conclude this chapter by a general sketch of the
literary history of the prophetic literature as it appears in
the light of modern criticism.
This literature had its origin in the preaching of the various
prophets; the earlier prophets were in the first instance
preachers and not authors ; they exercised a ministry of public
speaking. It is possible that they made notes in preparation
for their work. As most of their utterances are in poetical
form, it seems probable that they composed these poems and
then recited them in public.
Later on leaflets and pamphlets, as we should say, were
circulated containing individual utterances or small collections.
Gradually editors made collections, each of which embodied
all the available work of a single prophet. We should gather
that by the time these larger collections were made, informa
tion as to the authorship of particular prophecies had often
become meagre. A curious feature as to the literature of
ancient Israel is the lack of interest in questions of authorship ;

38 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
writers were not careful to see that their names were attached
to their work, and people generally were indifferent as to who
the writers were. Some of the most important books of the
Old Testament are entirely anonymous, e.g. the narrative books
and Job.
When the prophetical books were being edited it seems that
many anonymous leaflets and pamphlets were in circulation.
In order to preserve this material it was included in the col
lections which were being made.1 In many instances there
may have been no idea of ascribing it to the prophets after
whom the collections were named. Sometimes an anonymous
passage was written as a kind of appendix at the end; some
passages may have been written to fill up gaps at the bottom
of pages or a blank space at the end of the parchment on
which the manuscript was written. Sometimes the anonymous
passages would be attached to prophecies which they seemed
to resemble in style or subject-matter.
The distribution of this anonymous material between the
various books cannot have been left to chance and independent
action. Contemporary editors must have arranged some sort
of division, and later editors must have examined earlier works
so as to avoid including the same passage in more than one
collection. On the whole the editing has been very successful
in this respect ; only in a very few instances 2 is the same
passage found in more than one of the prophetical books.
Our books are the result of some such process. Later on
the larger works were formed into a group arranged probably
at one time in order of length — Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah i.-
xxxix., and finally as a separate book, the anonymous Isaiah
xl.-lxvi. This last, having no heading, came to be written con
secutively with the previous chapters, and thus attributed to
Isaiah. The insertion of Daniel among the prophets has been
adopted from the Septuagint.
The shorter prophetical books, including Jonah, formed a
collection which was often treated by the Jews as a single
1 Some of our books, however, have not been tlyis supplemented ;
see p. 29.
2 E.g. Isaiah ii. 2-4 = Micah iv. 1-3; Jeremiah xlix. 7-16 is
largely identical with Obadiah 1-9.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 39
book, "The Twelve."1 The anonymous works Zech. ix.-
xiv. and Malachi were placed at the end of this group. Malachi a
being provided with a title, though " Malachi " was originally
a description and not a name, preserved a separate existence ;
but Zech. ix.-xiv., having no title, came to be written consecu
tively with Zech. i.-viii. and attributed to Zechariah.
(0) Lyric Poems
The term " Poetical Books " is often applied to Job, Proverbs,
and Ecclesiastes as well as to Psalms and Canticles because all
five books are poetical in form. We treat the former group
separately in the chapter on " Wisdom literature." We include
in this chapter Lamentations as well as Psalms and Canticles ; it
comes better under this heading than under any other.
The poetry in the Old Testament is by no means limited to
these books. The narrative works include many poems, and
most of the contents of the prophetical books are in poetical
form. Like the Pentateuch and the Book of Isaiah, the Psalter is
a collection of material composed by various authors in different
periods. But each section is a separate poem complete in
itself, and retains this character, having its own number and in
most cases its own title.
The Psalter was finally divided into five books,8 each con
cluding with a doxology. The fivefold character of this divi
sion is probably an imitation of the Pentateuch. The Psalter,
like the Book of Isaiah, was based on earlier collections, and
the existing books partly correspond to some of these earlier
collections. Thus probably each of the following — I. ; II. ;
lxxiii.-lxxxiii. ; lxxxiv.-brxxix. ; IV. and V. — once had a
separate existence in one form or another, or was compiled as
a supplement to our earlier collection.
The Psalter was probably completed by about 100 B.C., and
the various collections that can still be recognised were made
between this date and the return from the Exile.
1 Cf. p. 21. 2 Cf. p. 32.
* I., Psalms i.-xli.; II., xlii.-lxxii. ; III.,lxxiii.-lxxxix. ; IV. , xc-
cvi. ; V., cvii.-cl.

40 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
It is difficult to come to any certain or precise conclusion as
to the date and authorship of individual psalms ; many have
titles which include one or more personal names. Many others
have no titles or there are no personal names in the titles.
We have already seen that the use of a personal name as a
title of a document, or the presence of such a name in a title, is
not equivalent to an authoritative statement that the docu
ment was composed by the person in question. We have no
information as to the history and original meaning of the titles
in the Psalter. Some of them are clearly late conjectures. A
comparison of the titles in the Hebrew, and in the Septuagint
and other versions, with the references to the Psalter in the
New Testament and elsewhere, shows that there was a growing
tendency to use " David " as a title for the whole Psalter and
to ascribe anonymous psalms to David. In other cases the
titles of individual psalms seem to have been originally titles
of collections. There were collections with the titles " David,"
" Asaph," " Sons of Korah " ; and when these collections were
included in a larger work, the title of the collection was
written at the head of each psalm taken from it. In few
cases, if any, can a psalm be ascribed with certainty or even
much probability to the person whose name occurs in its title,
or, indeed, to any known name. The great bulk of the psalms
were composed during the period from the beginning of the
Exile till the time of the Maccabees.
It is matter of controversy whether any psalms are Davidic
or even pre-exilic. We know, however, that religious lyrics
were composed before the Exile, and it seems reasonable to
suppose that some of them are preserved in our Psalter.
Further, it is quite possible that it includes material composed
by David. But hymns, from their frequent use in public
services and for devotional purposes, are constantly abridged,
supplemented, and otherwise altered to adapt them to the
tastes, ideas, or needs of successive generations. We know
that such editing of older documents was common amongst the
Jews. It is therefore probable that any pre-exilic material
present in the Psalter has been thoroughly revised ; some of
our psalms may be based upon or adapted from such material.
Psalm xriii. and Psalm xxiv. 7-10 are often ascribed to David.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 41
Dr. Driver writes,1 with regard to psalms 2 which Ewald had
ascribed to David, " On the whole, a non liquet must be our
verdict ; it is possible that Ewald's list of Davidic Psalms is
too large, but it is not clear that none of the psalms contained
in it are of David's composition. The question, however,
whether any of the psalms are David's, possesses in reality
little but an antiquarian interest." Dr. Briggs writes,8 "Ps.
xviii. in its original form was probably Davidic, and possibly
Pss. vii., lx."' On the other hand, Dr. Cheyne writes,6
" That the song of triumph in 2 Sam. xxii. (-Vs. xviii.), and
the 'last words of David' in xxiii. 1-7 (both highly religious
compositions) are Davidic, is not, on grounds of criticism, ten
able. Nor can any of the psalms in the Psalter be ascribed
with any probability to David."
A collection of eighteen psalms was made about 70-30 B.C.,
and received the title, " Psalms of Solomon." The apocryphal
" Song of the Three Children " is a psalm. The Septuagint
Psalter has an additional psalm, not in the Hebrew, which it
ascribes to David. Other books of the Apocrypha, the later
Jewish literature, and the New Testament include psalms.
We may deal next with a book which has various titles,
Song of Songs in the Hebrew6 and R.V., and Song of Solomon
in the A.V. ; it is also often spoken of as Canticles. This
was originally a purely secular work, a cycle of love-songs, or
a drama in which Solomon, the Shunamite, and others are
characters; but it was included in the Bible on the under
standing that it was to be read as a religious allegory dealing
with the relation of Yahweh and Israel, according to the Jews,
but the relations of Christ and His Church according to
Christians. The book begins with a heading, "The Song of
Songs which is Solomon's," but is generally regarded as post-
exilic, though some scholars assign it to the Northern Kingdom
after the division of the two kingdoms.
1 Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 8th edition,
1909, p- 380.
2 Psalms iii., iv., vii., viii., xi., xv., xviii., xix. 1-6, xxiv., xxix.,
xxxii., oi., lx. 6-9, lxvill. 13-18, oxliv. 12-14.
3 The International Critical Commentary, Psalms i.— lxiv.
* Verses 1-4. 6 Encyclopaedia Biblica, i. 1035.
* Shir hash-Shirim.

42 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
Lamentations contains five dirges on the Fall of Jerusalem ;
these were composed, perhaps by more than one author, during
or soon after the Exile. The first four are alphabetic acrostics.
There is nothing in the Hebrew to connect this book with
Jeremiah; and internal evidence does not show that he was
the author of any part of it. In the Hebrew Bible it does not
follow Jeremiah, but is one of the " Five Rolls," which belong
to the Hagiographa, the third and latest division of the Hebrew
canon. The ascription to Jeremiah is found in the Septuagint
and in Rabbinical literature ; 1 and the title used in the English
Versions, "Lamentations of Jeremiah," originated with the
Septuagint (D) The Wisdom Literature
The title " Wisdom Literature " includes certain books
which are clearly marked off from the rest of the Old Testa
ment by certain common characteristics; which, however,
cannot easily be stated in a few words. One external feature
is that most of them 2 include a description of " Wisdom."
They are largely occupied with the practical conduct of life,
the dominant note of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus being that
" Honesty is the best policy." This involves the theological
dogma that Divine justice is invariably and exactly manifested
in material circumstances and happenings, health and disease,
wealth and poverty, premature death and long life, honour and
disgrace. Job is a formal discussion and emphatic repudiation
of this doctrine ; while the ground is cut from under it by
Ecclesiastes, which asserts that material advantages are " Vanity
of Vanity." The features which these books have in common,
and their relation to each other, together with other considera
tions, seem to indicate that they are all post-exilic.
A few words may be said about each of the books by itself.
Job was at one time supposed to be one of the oldest or even
the oldest book in the Bible, written by Moses 3 or even by a
predecessor of Moses. Such views were suggested by the
absence of any obvious reference to the Law or to the history
1 Cf. p. 21. z Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom,
8 Cf. p. 21.

RESULTS AS TO INDIVIDUAL BOOKS 43
of Israel. But a careful examination indicates a late date,
towards the close of the Monarchy at the earliest, and more
probably some time after the Return.
The book is anonymous, and we have no evidence as to the
name of its author or authors. It has long been recognised,
even by conservative scholars, that it is not a historical record
of facts and utterances.
There is much controversy as to the process of composition
of Job. Some still maintain that it is substantially the work
of a single author; but it is more generally held that the
original work has been supplemented by later additions.
The kernel of the book is the discussion between Job and
the Three Friends, chapters iii.-xxxi. The speeches of Elihu,
chapters xxxii.-xxxvii., are most often regarded as an addition
intended to reinforce the arguments of the Friends in favour
of the view that a man's fortunes corresponded to his character
and conduct, a view which Job had shown to be untenable.
These chapters would be inserted by some one who held the
traditional view and wished to correct the effect made by the
book in its original form.
The argument concludes with a series of speeches by Shaddai
or " the Almighty." These speeches do not attempt to solve
the problem under discussion ; they virtually admit that the
moral government of the world is an inscrutable mystery. An
ignorant and helpless creature like Man must expect to find
mysteries in the dealings of Providence, and should accept them
in submissive faith. It is sometimes supposed that these
speeches or part of them are later additions.
This discussion is set in a framework of narrative, the
Prologue and Epilogue; here again some suppose that these,
or at any rate the Epilogue, did not belong to the original
book. The transactions in the Prologue between God and
Satan are ignored in the discussion, and the happy ending of
the Epilogue is incongruous with Job's arguments. But it is
more- likely that the narrative was part of the original book ;
the lack of consistency may be explained thus. The story of
Job was familiar and popular, so that the author of our book
did not venture to alter its stereotyped traditional form, though
it did not altogether suit his purpoce.

44 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
Proverbs includes a few poems of some length, but it is
mostly made up of the " proverbs " from which it derives its
name, for the most part couplets, in which the same idea or
one of two similar ideas is set forth in each of the two lines,
after the method of Hebrew poetry known as parallelism. It
has a general heading, i. 1, "The proverbs of Solomon the
son of David, King of Israel," and also includes special head
ings ascribing portions to Solomon, to "the Wise Men," to
Agur, and to Lemuel, also a statement apparently referring
to chapters xxv.-xxix, " These also are the proverbs of Solomon,
which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." 1 The
history of this book is similar to that of the Psalter ; it is
based upon earlier collections. Opinion inclines to the view
that the collections a which can be traced in our present book,
and also the bulk of the material, is post-exilic, but it is quite
possible that a proportion of the proverbs and perhaps some
of the collections are pre-exilic ; and that some of the proverbs
may come from Solomon. The book was completed somewhere
between 400-250 B.C.
The apocryphal Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus ben
Slra, c. 180 B.C., is a longer and inferior work of the same
nature as Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes also has a heading, " The words of Qoheleth, the
son of David, king in Jerusalem," i.e. clearly Solomon.3 What
Qoheleth means and why the term is applied to Solomon are
unsolved problems. One theory is that of the English Version,
which renders the word by "the Preacher" or "the great
orator." Qahal is Hebrew for " assembly " or " ecclesia," hence
" Ecclesiastes." But the putting of the book into the mouth
of Solomon is simply literary form ; there is no serious attempt
to maintain the character throughout. The book is remarkable
for its cynical pessimism, which is very imperfectly disguised
by the additions of an orthodox editor. It is usually dated
about 200 B.c.
The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon., after spoken of as
Wisdom, is occupied with the subject from which it is named.
It has, of course, no connection with Solomon, but was composed
probably some time in the first century B.C.
1 Prov. x. 1, xxii. 17, xxiv. 23, xxv. 1, xxx. 1, xxxi. 1
1 In spite of xxv. 1. » Of. i. 12.

HISTORICAL CRITICISM 45
(E) The Book of Daniel
The Book of Daniel stands alone amongst the books of
the Old Testament as a representative of the apocalyptic
literature. The formula of the apocalypse proper is as follows :
the apocalypse is couched in the form of a series of predictions,
but on examination it appears that these fall into two classes.
The first set of predictions is really history couched in figurative
language, and reaching to the time when the book was written ;
then follows a description of the Last Things, the Day of
Judgment, or the Advent of the Messiah. The apocalypse
is put into the mouth of some conspicuous leader or prophet.
Thus this book is put into the mouth of Daniel, and contains
visions describing periods of history ending with the struggles
of the Jews against the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes,
175-164 B.c. Its date is about 168-164 B.C.
The Apocrypha and the New Testament also include an
apocalypse apiece, 4 Ezra and Revelation; but during the
period 200 b.c to a.d. 100 large numbers of apocalypses were
composed, including those written in the names of Enoch,
Baruch, Moses, and the Twelve Patriarchs.
The apocalypses often include narratives and didactic
material in addition to predictions. Thus Daniel contains
various stories about Daniel and his companions, which may
be classed with the stories of Ruth and Jonah.1
The Septuagint Daniel also contains the Prayer of Azariah,
the Song of the Three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.
These are given as separate books in our Apocrypha.

CHAPTER III
HISTORICAL CRITICISM
The results sketched in the previous chapter necessarily
modify our views of the history of Israel and its religion. Our
conception of the successive stages of Revelation is seriously
1 Cf. p. 26.

46 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
altered when we transfer Leviticus from Moses, who may
possibly be dated about 1300 B.C., to, say, Ezra about 450 B.C.
Again, one of the influences which induced men to ascribe the
Old Testament narratives to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and so
forth, was a desire to believe that these narratives were written
immediately after the events by the persons who seemed most
likely to be well informed and otherwise well qualified to write
authoritative records. If these narratives had been so written
their value as historical evidence would have been in some
ways much greater than it can be according to the modern
view. There are, however, gains which compensate for this
apparent loss. We have seen that most of the narrative books
preserve verbatim extracts from older sources, so that much of
our material rests on the authority not only of the editor of
the book in its present form but also on that of much more
ancient witnesses. Kings, for instance, was not compiled in
its present form till after the Exile, but the account of the
accession of Solomon is probably contemporary.
But, of course, the most important change in this matter is
not critical but doctrinal. According to the crude, popular
distortion of the idea of inspiration still often held and taught,
every narrative in the Old Testament is to be taken in its
literal sense as an exactly accurate account of real events and
persons. If that were guaranteed by inspiration, it would not
matter who wrote any inspired book. The modern view of
the history of Israel is partly due to the application of the
principle that inspiration is concerned with spiritual edification,
and does not affect historical or scientific accuracy. Hence a
narrative is not regarded as an exact, scientific record merely
because it is in the Bible ; the extent of its accuracy is decided
by the ordinary methods of historical study.
Thus, certain books and portions of books would be regarded
as what might be called symbolic narratives, belonging to the
same class as parables or allegories, whose value, like that of
our Lord's Parables, lies in their religious teaching and not in
their historical accuracy. It has long been recognised even by
the most conservative scholars1 that Job belongs to this class ; and
modern scholars would add the narratives in Genesis up to and
1 E.g. Keil. following certain Rabbis and early Christian scholars.

HISTORICAL CRITICISM 47
including the story of the Tower of Babel, Ruth, Esther, Jonah
and the narratives in Daniel.
There is much controversy as to where actual history begins.
According to some, Abraham and other patriarchs are historical
personages; according to others, the patriarchal narratives
really deal with tribes and not persons. Probably Moses and
the Exodus are historical, though this is not unquestioned.
At any rate, the facts of an Israelite conquest of Canaan and
a series of struggles such as those described in Judges are
historical. From the time of Saul onwards the main lines
of the narratives in Samuel, Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah are
generally regarded as historical. Our information is specially
full and certain for some critical periods, e.g. the reign of
David ; the period from about 750 b.c. to the Fall of Jerusalem
in 586 B.C., i.e. the times of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and the contemporary prophets ; and the period of
Ezra and Nehemiah. For the periods of the later Monarchy
and the Exile we are able to interpret, confirm, correct, and
supplement the Israelite literature by the Assyrian, Babylonian,
and Egyptian records. These records illustrate earlier periods,
but furnish little explicit, definite information about Israel in
those periods.
Only a word or two can be said as to the effects of criticism
upon the history of the religion of Israel. One result is that
the analysis of the books shows that inspiration has been more
widely diffused and more continuously bestowed. Works
which were attributed to a few great names, Moses, David*
Solomon, Isaiah, are distributed between a host of inspired
writers spreading over many centuries.
It follows from this that the growth of the religion was
slower, more gradual, and more continuous than was once
supposed. Once Israel was thought to have entered Canaan
with a complete Pentateuch, and that work was thought of
as a basis and a starting-point for the more spiritual teaching
of the prophets. Now we see the Law and the Prophets
developing side by side, sometimes iu alliance, sometimes in
conflict. The Law is only complete and dominant when
prophecy has spent its force. Once it was supposed that the
theology of the Old Testament, especially the explicit exposi-

48 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
tion of monotheism, was practically complete in Deuteronomy,1
in Davidic Psalms,2 in prophetic utterances of Isaiah;8 now
we know that this stage was not reached till the Exile and
later. Statements are often made in apologetic works that the
discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and elsewhere are
inconsistent with the results of criticism. These statements
have no real foundation in fact, and are due to strong dogmatic
bias. The majority of Egyptologists, Assyriologists, &c, are
in substantial accord with modern views.

CHAPTER IV
TEXT, CAtfON, APOCRYPHA
We need say little with regard to the Lower or Textual Criti
cism. Much work has been done in this matter, and it is
recognised that in very numerous instances the ancient authori
ties are at variance as to the wording of a sentence, the exact
contents of a paragraph, and even larger matters. There are
two chief authorities for the text of the Old Testament.
There is the Hebrew Massoretic Text,1 which was made
by Jewish scholars of the period a.d. 400-600. The oldest
extant manuscripts of this text were written, i.e. copied from
older manuscripts not now extant, in the ninth century of
the Christian Era. When once this text was constituted,
it was embodied apparently in a standard manuscript, and the
most elaborate precautions were taken to -secure that when
it was reproduced it should be copied with rigid accuracy.
These precautions were on the whole successful, so that the
various manuscripts of the Massoretic Text usually only differ
in trivial details, mostly matters of spelling.
1 Deut. vi. 4. s Psalm cxxxix. 8 Isaiah xl.-lv.
* So called because it is the work of the Massoretio editors, or
students of the Massoreth, " the tradition as to the proper way of
reading and writing " the Old Testament.

TEXT, CANON, APOCRYPHA 49
There is the Greek version known as the Septuagint. This
translation was made at different times between 250 B.C. and
the beginning of the Christian Era, The oldest extant manu
scripts of this text were written about a.d. 300-350.1 The
New Testament writers most often quote the Old according
to the Septuagint, but in many cases they follow the Masso
retic Text, and sometimes they differ from both.
At one time it was quite usual to regard the Massoretic
Text as possessing special inspired authority ; thus with very
few exceptions the Authorised Version scrupulously follows
this text. But scholars nowadays recognise no such claim ;
the text must obviously be determined by considering all
available evidence.
In spite of the numerous cases in which our authorities are
at variance, it is roughly correct to say that recent textual
criticism has not brought about any startling changes.
The many controversies and uncertainties do not appreciably
affect the general view of the history of Israel and its religion,
or the moral, devotional, and spiritual value of the Old Testa
ment. As far as these are concerned the work of recent
criticism has shown that neither the Massoretic Text nor that
of the Septuagint differs materially or substantially from that
of the Old Testament as it was known to Christ and His
Apostles, or even from the text of the final revisions of the
books made by the post-exilic authors and editors.
There is still less to be said as to the Canon. This is
practically a matter of the general usage of the churches and
not of criticism. The Christian Church has always been, and
still is, divided as to the Canon ; the Roman Church accepting
the Apocrypha,2 which Protestants reject. Recent discussion
has not altered this ; no book has been added to or omitted
from either the Protestant or the Romanist Old Testament.
1 There are other Greek versions and versions in other languages,
but they are less important.
2 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom
of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Song of
the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel aid the Dragon, Prayer of
Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The attitude of the Greek Church to the Apocrypha is a little
ambiguous. D

50 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
But recent studies have emphasized the fact that, in addition
to the canonical books and the Apocrypha, a mass of some
what similar literature was current in the period before and
after the beginning of the Christian Era and was practically
treated as canonical in some quarters, though later on it was
formally excluded from the Old Testament. These books are
often spoken of as the Pseudepigrapha.
Some very brief accounts of the more important of these
books is given in connection with the classes of Old Testament
literature to which they belong. See footnote to previous page
and Index.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
We have seen that the Text of the Old Testament is practi
cally unchanged as far as regards matters of life and faith, and
the general history of Israel and its religion; and that the
Canon remains the same. In other words the Old Testament
consists of the same books, and these books have substantially
the same contents. The Old Testament in itself remains what
it was before the work of modern criticism. It still possesses
whatever moral and spiritual power it had through the intrinsic
value of its contents ; it is still commended to the world by
the Church as an essential portion of the Sacred Scriptures.
Traditional views as to date, authorship, and mode of com
position have been seriously modified ; but there is no reason
why these changes should lessen the appeal which the Old
Testament makes to the conscience, the will, and the emotions.
We have also learnt that many of the narratives can no
longer be regarded as historical or scientific records, but must
rather be classed with our Lord's parables; but that surely
does not detract from their religious value.
On the other hand, Christian faith owes many important
gains to the criticism of the Old Testament.
In the first place, criticism has placed our views on a firm
basis. So far as the older position merely rested on ecclesiasti-

CONCLUSION 51
cal tradition and authority, it offered no security to the intelli
gent inquirer; he was left defenceless to the most superficial
objections of the sceptic, and often succumbed to them. Modern
criticism rests its case on conclusive evidence and arguments
both where it confirms the older position and where it corrects it.
Again, the discovery that the Pentateuch and other narrative
books have been compiled largely by combining extracts from
older works, removes a host of difficulties at a stroke. These
books teem with discrepancies. Older apologetics devoted
much painful labour to explaining away these discrepancies by
elaborate, artificial, improbable adjustments of the conflicting
statements, the chief result being to discredit Christian apolo
getics. It is now seen that these discrepancies simply arise
from the fact that the editors preserved inconsistent narratives
without removing their divergencies. Thus, as we are now
aware that, according to an enlightened theology, inspiration
does not guarantee detailed historical accuracy, these discrepan
cies cease to be difficulties.
Again, modern criticism assures us that we may accept with
out hesitation the main lines of the Biblical statements as to
the history of the periods which are most important in the
development of the faith.1 Moreover, the, critical account of
the composition of the books affords a sure basis for the history
of the religion of Israel. 1 Page 47.

PART II
THE NEW TESTAMENT
By WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D.
CHAPTER I
TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM
During the course of the last generation the discussion of
Old Testament problems, raised in England especially by the
works of Colenso and Wellhausen, and the famous "heresy"
case of Robertson Smith, diverted attention for the time being
from questions concerning the New Testament. But in the
present day the most significant fact in connection with
Biblical studies is the turning of the searchlight of critical
inquiry on to the Christian Scriptures, especially the gospels,
in which the Church has recognised the very citadel pf the
faith. This movement in the campaign may be traced to two
causes. In the first place it is now generally recognised among
scholars that in the case of the Old Testament the principal
business of criticism and. reconstruction has already been
accomplished. No doubt there are still many outstanding
problems of Hebrew literature that perplex the inquirer, nor
can it be said that absolute unanimity has been obtained even
with regard to the fundamental facts' and principles. But
then absolute unanimity and a final, unquestioned settlement
is never to be expected in any region of human investigation
where the data are not all clear and unmistakable. Mean
while, however, the very general acceptance of the main critical
position has greatly relieved the situation, and left us free for
other subjects. Then, in the second place, it was inevitable
that the scientific methods which had been applied to the
Old Testament with such fruitful results should be brought
to bear on the New Testament also. This is what we have
been witnessing as going on with ever-increasing minuteness
of examination and courage of decision during recent years

TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM 53
So now it is the turn for the New Testament, and already
we are asked, What results have been obtained in this field?
Of course we must remember that New Testament criticism
is not really a new thing. It was pressed with much in
sistence, even before the end of the eighteenth century, and
the middle of the nineteenth century saw it carried to ex
travagant issues at the hands of the Tubingen school. Then
came a conservative reaction, seen in Germany in Neander,
Ritschl, Bernard Weiss and others, and later with some modi
fication and much width of view in Professor Harnack, and in
England in ^ the writings of Lightfoot, Hort, and Dr. Sanday
who holds a position with regard to the New Testament
something like that of Dr. Driver in Old Testament studies.
More recently still a younger generation has returned to the
methods of disintegrating criticism ; but side by side with
this there has been a vigorous reconstructive movement of
which Professor Harnack is the most conspicuous leader, while
Blass and Zahn represent conservative tendencies.
The two branches of criticism, the Lower as well as the Higher,
have both made vigorous progress during the last hundred years.
To begin with the Lower Criticism, the study of the original
text of the New Testament. A clever printer, by putting
the term " Textus Receptus " on the title-page of his edition
of the Greek Testament, did much to secure a measure of
fixity, if not of sanctity, for his form of the text. This was
virtually a re-issue of Stephens' text, which had been in the
main that on which our Authorised Version of the New
Testament had been founded, and which had closely followed
Erasmus, who was the first to publish a printed copy of the
New Testament. Now Erasmus only had two Greek manu
scripts to work on, and the oldest of these had been written
in the tenth century of the Christian era. Neither of them
was perfect. But Erasmus' publisher was so eager to have
the edition pushed on in order to be out before the rival pro
duction, Cardinal Ximenes' polyglot, that Erasmus retranslated
out of his Latin version the passages necessary to fill up the
lacunae. The last page was missing. Accordingly the last
verses of the book of the Revelation in the Textus Receptus
consist of Erasmus' Greek translated back out of the Vulgate.
In the present day there are known to be about 3000

54 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
manuscript New Testaments and Lectionaries, of which some
100 are of the old type known as " Uncial," among them the
Sinaitic and the Vatican, both of the fourth century, and the
Alexandrian of the fifth. Here, then, is an immense mass of
material from which to correct the text. To it is to be
added the testimony of versions, and also that of patristic
quotations. Thus we have Syriac and Latin versions of the
second century, more amply preserved in the former than in
the latter. The patristic quotations are more precarious as
authorities on account of a very common habit of verbal laxity
with regard to them. Still, they have their place. These three
sources — ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations —
furnish the materials with which the textual critic works.
For a time there was a strong tendency to rely mainly on
the most ancient manuscripts. Tischendorf published the
Greek Testament with an elaborate critical apparatus, in the
form of notes giving the variant readings and their several
authorities. His own text leaned heavily on the Sinaitic
manuscript which he had himself discovered in the Monastery
of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The text of Westcott and
Hort has been very widely used in England. This too relies
mainly on the more ancient manuscripts, but with references
to a very important classification of the manuscripts generally,
and the several types they represent, together with the
versions and patristic quotations. The classification has
brought out three main types — (1) the Alexandrian, repre
sented by the two oldest manuscripts, the Vatican and the
Sinaitic ; (2) the Western — an unfortunate title — seen especi
ally in the Codex Bezae, and in the old Latin and Syriac
versions ; and (3) the Syrian, representing a compromise and
a settlement of the text perhaps made at Antioch, on the basis
of which most of the later manuscripts were founded. Westcott
and Hort believed that they could make out a fourth type of
text which they called the "neutral." But this was very
close to the Alexandrian, and the title has been thought by
more recent scholars to be rather question-begging.
There is now less readiness to accept Westcott and Hort's
conclusions as final than was once the case. They are seen to
rely much too exclusively on the one or two oldest manuscripts.
It is well known that many corruptions came in long before

TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM 55
these manuscripts were written, some of the worst of them as
early as the second century. Origen, writing before a.d. 250,
had occasion to study difficult questions of textual criticism.
Plainly, then, it is not enough to go back merely to our oldest
manuscripts, since they are to be dated a century later than his
time. Then there has been more respect for the " Western "
text shown in recent criticism. Professor Blass even suggests
that, in the case of the Acts of the Apostles, both texts are
original, one having been issued in Rome and the other in the
East by St. Luke himself, as two editions of the work. On
the other hand, however, there are so many curious additions
to the generally accepted text in the " Western " type which
look like the marginal notes of copyists, that most scholars
regard it as secondary and not so pure as the texts that omit
them. While this text cannot be preferred to the Alexandrian,
and while the Syrian text, the text of almost all the later
manuscripts and versions, must be regarded as a sort of com
promise later than both, and while, therefore, on the whole the
most ancient manuscripts still hold the field as of predominant
importance, it is now felt that more weight must be given to
ihe testimony of the various witnesses than was allowed by
Westcott and Hort. Dr. Weymouth's Resultant Greek Testament
is a useful attempt to combine the verdicts of several textual
critics ; this has been done more thoroughly by Prof. Nestle ;
and now that the latest form of Prof. Nestle's Greek Testament
has been issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society we
may take this as giving us as nearly as possible the original
text of the New Testament books as far as scholars have been
able to recover it. When we compare this with the Textus
Receptus, we find that all the alterations taken together, striking
and important as some of them are in themselves, do not materi
ally alter the contents of the New Testament. Both narrative
and teaching remain substantially intact. Thus from the
point of view of textual criticism the most searching scholarship
has gone to confirm the correctness of our copies of the New
Testament books as genuine reproductions of the original works
in all that is vital and essential, and even in most of the minor
details. It was Eichhorn at the end of the eighteenth century who
called this process of textual criticism the. "Lower Criticism,"

56 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
and who gave the title " Higher Criticism " to the examination
and analysis of the contents of the several books of Scripture
for indications of their characteristics, historical relationships,
and origins. Since the former term is now seldom used it
might be well to drop the latter also, because this is liable to
absurd misunderstandings. So we find people irritated at the
very mention of it, as though it implied a supercilious assumption
of superiority on the part of the scholars who practised the
method. The " Higher Critic " is rebuked for his arrogance
when the poor man may.be as modest as he is sincere in simply
trying to apply a certain method of literary study to the books
he is dealing with.
This is the criticism the" results of which now call to be
appraised. In trying to gather up those results we must not
expect to meet with unanimity or finality of judgment. It
will be much if we are able to discover what -questions are now
fairly settled, what are still under dispute with different views
of them still contending for acceptance, and, if possible in these
cases, in what direction the greater probability seems to lie.
Two general characteristics of the more recent criticism may
be noticed at this point, as they will appear again and again
while we are surveying the field of inquiry.
The first is the greater importance now given to the witness
of the books to themselves, in contrast to the older method of
making more of external testimony to their authenticity and
genuineness. The second is the effort that is being made by means of this
very process to get behind the books to their sources in earlier
documents, traditions, floating sayings, and the intellectual
conditions of their authors ; to realise the atmosphere in which
they were produced ; and to discover the influences under which
they attained their present form, when they show signs of
growth or modification.

CHAPTER II
THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL
With the doubtful exception of the Epistle of James — which
will be considered in the next chapter -the letters of Paul

THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL 57
must be taken as the earliest writings of the New Testament.
The gospels have precedence in our Bible, partly because of
their inherent importance, partly also because they narrate
the foundation facts of the faith. In the order of history the
events recorded in those books come first ; the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ which they describe are presupposed
in all the apostolic literature. If we were discussing the
development of ideas in the early Church we should have to
begin with our Lord's teachings, and this subject would also
send us back to the gospels for our materials. A fifth book,
the Acts of the Apostles, goes naturally with the four gospels
as the second volume of Luke's work and as completing the
historical element. This of course is written later than the
epistles, since it follows Luke's gospel. In dealing with the
books as books (that is to say, in considering the construction
of the New Testament itself— not its subject-matter — which is
our present concern), all these five works come later than Paul's
epistles. It is not impossible that Matthew's collection of the
sayings of Jesus, with some connective narrative, and perhaps
other notes of the sayings and doings of our Lord, had been
written earlier. The Apostle's rare references to utterances by
Christ, and his account of the Lord's Supper, may well have
been drawn from documentary sources. But if so, those sources
have been lost, or more probably absorbed in our gospels. The
gospels themselves appeared later. While the actual witnesses
were living people did not think of writing down the story of
Jesus. They preferred to give it by word of mouth. It was
in the next generation, when the personal testimony was getting
thinned off by death, that this precious testimony was gathered
up by wise men, for whose industry and forethought we cannot
be too thankful, and so preserved in literature.
We have thirteen letters attributed to Paul. If we followed
the titles in our Bibles we should add a fourteenth, the Epistle
to the Hebrews. But the titles are late additions, not parts
of the original compositions, and unlike all the other letters,
this epistle does not claim, anywhere in its contents, to come
from the great Apostle. We shall see that it has been errone
ously ascribed to him, as is now universally admitted.
All these thirteen epistles have been subjected to searching
criticism. There is a Dutch school of critics that rejects them

58 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
all, and it has a few allies in some other quarters. The fact
that an article by Marti advocating this negative conclusion
has been admitted into the Enoylopadia Bihlica, has given it
a significance in the eyes of English readers altogether out
of proportion to the position it has really attained in the
world of scholarship. With the exception of a handful of
extreme men, scholars of all shades of critical opinion are
opposed to the notion. Indeed, the general trend of recent
criticism has moved in the opposite direction. Baur, in the
middle of the last century, rejected all. but four of the Pauline
writings, accepting as genuine only Romans, 1 and 2 Corin
thians, and Galatians. Since then the claims of four more —
viz. Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Philemon
— have, been amply vindicated. This leaves 2 Thessalonians,
Ephesians, and the three Pastoral epistles still under dispute.
Coming to look at the situation more closely, we see that
these thirteen letters fall into four groups, which arrange them
selves as follows : (1) 1 and 2 Thessalonians
(2) 1 and 2 Corinthians
Qalatians
Romans
(3) Colossians
Philemon Ephesians
PhiMppians
(4) 1 and 2 Timothy
Titus
This arrangement seems to imply the genuineness of all the
epistles. But even if that is not admitted, similarities of
style, thought, and historical allusions favour the maintenance
of the same grouping for the sake of literary study and
theological classification.
These groups are chronologically arranged. The Apostle did
not spread his literary activity evenly over the whole course
of his ministry. He was not an author continuously engaged
in writing, like Anthony Trollope, who tells us that the very
day after he had finished one novel he began another. Paul
wrote laboriously, and only when it was necessary. In fact

THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL 89
he scarcely wrote anything with his own hand. He dictated
his letters as they were required, and that did not seem to
him to be very often. There were long intervals of epistolary
silence. He had been engaged for about eighteen years in
active missionary labour before he wrote the first of his letters
— at all events before he wrote the first that we possess or
know anything about. Then, after writing two short letters
(some say only one) he did not trouble his scribe — as far as
we know — for another four years. A burst of inspired
writing, provoked by serious troubles in Achaia and Asia
Minor, now followed, and the result was his four greatest
epistles, the very core and kernel of apostolic theology. This
outburst was succeeded by another interval of four years, after
which we have four (some say only three) letters written from
prison in Rome, then comes yet another interval of perhaps
two or three r years, followed by the two letters to Timothy
and one to Titus, if these can be accepted as genuine.
The relative dates of the four groups may now be considered
as quite fixed and certain. But there is some question as to
the absolute chronology. According to the reckoning which
has prevailed until recent years, the" first group is dated in
a.d. 53, the second in a.d. 57-58, the third in a.d. 62,
63, and the fourth in a.d. 65. Now we have proposals for
earlier dates, Professor Harnack going back to a.d. 48, or
even 47, for the first group, and pushing the rest back accord
ingly. Others incline to some intermediate periods. At
most there is a difference of only six years between the various
estimates. This is remarkable, considering that we are dis
cussing the dates of letters admittedly nearly two thousand
years old.
Let us look now at each of these four groups.
We begin with the first group, comprising the two letters
to the newly founded Church at Thessalonica. The first of
these letters is now almost universally admitted to be genuine.
Rejected by Baur, it was accepted by his successor Hilgenfeld,
and it has since been defended by scholars of various schools,
among whom may be named Davidson, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann,
Harnack, Julicher, Bacon, Moffatt, as well as the conservative
scholar Zahn. Some have thought the letter to contain evi
dences of too late development for its garly date. But it

60 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
should be noticed that Paul was no novice at this time. He
was nearing the end of the second decade of his apostolate.
He had already come through his great contest with those
Jewish Christians who would have confined Christianity within
the narrow limits of Judaism, and he had secured freedom for
a world-wide gospel. It may seem remarkable that the
Church at Thessalonica should have developed to the extent
indicated by this letter, in less than a twelvemonth from the
introduction of Christianity to the city. It is on considera
tions of this sort that Marti founds his principal objections
to all the Pauline epistles. These objections reject a rate of
progress that we should not think normal to-day. But if we
can throw ourselves back in imagination to the apostolic age,
and realise in some degree the wonderful enthusiasm, the keen
vitality, the vigour, the Uan of the new movement, we shall
see that any such comparison is beside the mark. It was
an era of phenomenally rapid growth.
Our attention has been called of late to the great importance
of apocalyptic ideas in the early Church. It is now seen that
we must give them a much larger and more prominent place in
our conception of primitive Christianity than has generally been
allowed hitherto. The Christians of those days, it would seem,
lived on the tiptoe of expectation. They looked for the
return of their Lord to earth in clouds of glory, and confidently
expected this wonder during their own lifetime. There can he
no doubt that Paul cherished this anticipation. He did not/
think he would have to die. He expected (and his followers
shared his expectation) that Christ would soon appear, and then,
that he and they would be first caught up to meet their Lord in
the air, and subsequently live on earth a deathless life in the
triumph of the kingdom of God together with the blessed dead
restored to life by a glorious resurrection from their graves.
It was not to be a mere revival of present conditions at
their best. Paul rejected the grossly materialistic notions of
popular Judaism, and gave no encouragement for their revival
as we meet with them in the second century under the name
of " Chiliasm." The resurrection body was to be a spiritual
body — not of flesh and blood, and the kingdom of God was
not to consist in eating and drinking ; still, it was to be on
earth and that speedily. In 2 Corinthians and from the time

THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL 61
of that letter onward we meet with a change. It has been
suggested that the danger of the riot at Ephesus, which had
occurred just be/ore the Apostle wrote that letter — when, as he
put it graphically, he " fought with wild beasts at Ephesus "
— made him think that after all he might have to die.
In writing to the Philippians later still, he definitely contem
plates the possibility of death. But he continued to cherish
the hope of the speedy coming of Christ — the Parousia, that
is " the presence " — to the last.
Now both the Thessalonian epistles are principally concerned
with this expectation.' Evidently the Apostle's preaching on
the subject had made a great impression at Thessalonica.
Subsequently troubles had arisen directly connected with it.
When Paul had moved on in a southerly direction from
Thessalonica, after founding and establishing a church in that
important Macedonian city, he had left his travelling com
panions, Timothy and Silas, to complete his work there, and
then to follow him. His stay at Athens was too short for
them to meet him in that city, and he had passed on to Corinth
before they came up with him. Learning that they brought
disconcerting news, the Apostle would have hastened back to
set things right. But he found that impossible. "Satan
hindered," he says, referring either to some illness, or more
probably to the magistrates' order that had banished him
from Macedonia. So he did the next best thing ; he wrote a
letter, as far as we know his first letter to a church, never
dreaming at the time that this was to be the beginning of
a new volume of Scripture, a " New Testament," nor that
scholars and critics would be scanning every word and wrangling
over the minutest phrases. Had he suspected any such
subsequent proceedings it is likely enough that he would have
shrunk from putting pen to paper, and would have dealt with
the situation by means of a verbal message. Happily he had
no suspicion, and so all unconsciously he began his invaluable
contributions to Christian instruction and edification for all
subsequent ages. The trouble at Thessalonica arose from the
fact that some of the new converts had died. Are these
unfortunate people to miss the glory of the Parousia? Paul
writes to say that they will not miss it — that on the contrary,
they will be raised from the dead, and then will have prece-

62 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
dence over the living. What an old-world atmosphere we have
here, how redolent of the hopes and fears of the most primitive
Christian times ! Such a question as is here discussed, if
it arose at all, must have come up very early, with the first
deaths in the Church.
Although the genuineness of 2 Thessalonians is'not allowed
by Schmiedel, Holtzmanu, Pfleiderer, and many other critics,
it is not left only to the more conservative theologians to
defend it. Thus Professor Bacon argues definitely in favour
of the Pauline authorship of the epistle, and Dr. Moffatt,
while considering that the historical situation, the "singular
eschatology," and the style have roused suspicion, shows how
well it fits into the situation if viewed as written by Paul
a short time after the first epistle. The trouble about the
Parousia had taken a new form, which was very natural under
the circumstances. People were neglecting their work in the
feverish expectation of the great wonder. The Apostle has to
warn them that it will not come about yet. Certain things,
mysteriously connected with " the man of sin " — perhaps a
fragment of some lost Jewish apocalyptic imagery, but here
apparently used to represent the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem
— must happen first. Meanwhile the busybodies are to learn
to " work with quietness " and " eat their own bread." " If
any will not work, neither let him eat."
The second group consists of the great doctrinal epistles.
Except among a few extremists serious criticism does not say any
thing against their genuineness. They speak for their own
historicity, and they are amply supported by external testimony.
Forming, as has been said, " the great quadrilateral of Christi
anity," they give us the substance of the Christian facts and
truths, which might be seen resting on them alone even if all
the rest of the New Testament were abandoned. But important
as they are in this way, they do not call for special considera
tion in the present connection, i.e. in relation to criticism, for
the simple reason that criticism has had very little to say
about them except to justify their claims as genuine writings
of the Apostle Paul.
These four epistles — 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and
Romans — were written in the midst of the Apostle's contest with
the anti-Liberal Judaisers. This is seen especially in Galatians,

THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL 68
where Paul vindicates the freedom of Gentile Christians from
the law, and maintains the essential character of the gospel as
being a religion of faith and spirituality. 1 Corinthians was
written from Ephesus in reply to a letter from Corinth in
which the Church of that city asked the Apostle's advice about
celibacy and marriage, the eating of food that had been offered
as a sacrifice to idols, the use of spiritual gifts, and the collec
tion for the poor Christians at Jerusalem. Before proceeding
to answer these four questions — with which he deals seriatim
later on — Paul expostulates with his correspondents, and ad
monishes them sternly with regard to some grave abuses concern
ing which their letter was discreetly silent, but of which he had
got information from some members of the Corinthian Church.
2 Corinthians is probably an amalgam of two distinct epistles.
It opens with affectionate, consolatory, and commendatory
words, and this tone is continued to the end of chapter ix.
Then the Apostle suddenly changes his style, and launches out
into vigorous self-defence and grievous reproaches. We must
reverse the order of the two sections, and take chapter x. to the
end as part of an epistle written amid painful, strained relations
with the church addressed, and chapters i. to ix. as a subse
quent letter of full reconciliation, after the earlier letter had
done its work.
Criticism has nothing fresh of importance about Romans, the
greatest of Paul's writings, pronounced by Renan to be the
most important theological treatise ever written. Under the
influence of Lightfoot, some still regard chapter xvi. as an in
tegral portion of the epistle ; others take it to be a commen
datory letter to Ephesus to introduce Phoebe, who was going to
that city from Cenchraea.
There is some question whether the Galatian letter should
come just before the Roman, as Lightfoot argued, or earlier in
the Apostle's career. Its close resemblance to Romans seems
to point to their conjunction. Lastly, with regard to this
epistle it should be added that Sir William Ramsay's geographi
cal researches have strongly confirmed the view of Renan,
Mommsen and others, as against Lightfoot, namely, that the
Galatia of this epistle is South Galatia, and that the churches
addressed are those of Paul's first missionary journey, Antioch,
Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra.

64 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
In the third group, as has been pointed out, the Epistle to
the Colossians is now generally accepted, and with it the com
panion letter to Philemon. It is difficult to think of that
beautiful little private note as other than an evidently genuine
composition. Doubt as to the Ephesian epistle is largely
based on its resemblance to Colossians, of which some critics
regard it as a weak imitation. But if Paul, not being a
literary man by profession and composing laboriously, had
occasion to write two letters near together he might well
repeat himself in the second. A comparison of the Roman and
Galatian epistles may supply an analogy. Yet they are both
genuine. The question of weakness is a matter of taste, or
rather of perception. Not a few Bible readers have come to
regard this Epistle to the Ephesians as one of the most inspired
and inspiring books of Scripture. If, as seems possible, we
should judge it to be a circular letter written, not to meet an
emergency, but to promote the general edification of the
churches of the Lycus Valley, the absence of the vehement
style and the personal note, so characteristic of Paul's earlier
letters, may be perhaps accounted for.
The greatest doubt is felt as to the last group, consisting of
the Pastoral epistles — 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus — and that
for several reasons. They are not in our oldest New Testament
Canon — the Canon of Marcion. It is difficult to find a place
for them in the life story of Paul. The language and style are
remarkably un-Pauline. The church order presupposed is later
than that known to prevail in the Apostle's lifetime. But if,
as Sir William Ramsay argues, Paul would almost certainly
have been acquitted on his appeal to Caesar, time for later
developments and movements might be found, and so many of
these difficulties disappear. Still, while elsewhere Paul argues
against those who differ from him, here he denounces them and
in an ex cathedrd manner orders them to be put down. This
looks more like somebody else writing in the Apostle's name.
On the other hand there are little personal matters — the
"cloak left at Troas," "the books," "especially the parch
ments " — that point to a genuine correspondence. So also the
affectionate expressions that appear in the course of the letters,
so like the warm-hearted apostle addressing his friends. Har
nack agrees with those who recognise genuine fragments' of

THE GENERAL EPISTLES 65
Paul's writings in these letters. Possibly we may go a step
further, and say that the Apostle sanctioned the letters, but did
not directly dictate them, as in the case of his earlier epistles.

CHAPTER III
HEBREWS AND THE GENERAL EPISTLES
It has been pointed out already that, while our Bibles still
have the name of Paul attached to the title of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, this is now universally admitted to be a
mistake. The book makes no claim to come from the Apostle,
as is the case with all Paul's acknowledged epistles, every one
of which opens with his name — " Paul, a servant of Jesus
Christ," " Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ," and
so on, in every case, with slight variations of terminology.
Then the style is quite different from that of the Apostle.
Paul writes vigorously, but ruggedly, as though his thoughts
were struggling for utterance, with the result that we some
times find it difficult to trace the grammatical structure of
his sentences. But this epistle is a good example of the
literary Hellenistic dialect, with rhetorical forms and high-
sounding phrases, all skilfully knit together in an orderly
composition. Language and thought have close affinities to
the Alexandrian school, especially to the Book of Wisdom and
the writings of Philo. In its ideas this epistle follows Paul
to a great extent, but with marked differences. The Divine
Sonship of Christ, His atoning sacrifice, and the importance
of faith which are here prominent, are characteristically
Pauline ; so also is the rejection of the Jewish religious system,
or rather its supersession by Christianity. But here differ
ences appear. While Paul as a Pharisee is concerned with
the moral law and its requirements, and therefore anxious
about justification, the author of Hebrews is thinking of the
ceremonial law, with the priestly and sacrificial functions at
the tabernacle, and his aim is sanctification, the cleansing of
the worshipper so that he may draw near with boldness to the
throne of grace. In Hebrews, and in this epistle only, we
have the idea of the priesthood of Christ. Then the operation

66 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
of faith, so eloquently exemplified in the eleventh chapter,- is
there seen as the inspiration of energy, heroism, and martyrdom,
rather than as the condition of justification. All these differ
ences — while they involve no contradiction, no opposition to
Paul — indicate quite a different theological atmosphere from
that in which the Apostle's mind lived. When we turn to
the ancient Church writers we find them divided and uncertain
as to the authorship of the epistle. Tertullian, the first to
attach any name to it, writing about a.d. 200, takes for
granted that Barnabas was its author, apparently never having
met with any doubt on the subject ; but Origen, with a much
wider range of scholarship, writing in the next generation,
after carefully examining the question gives it up in despair,
saying that as to who wrote it God only knows. Various
names have been suggested — Barnabas again, Apollos, Luke,
and the author of the Book of Wisdom, and now as the latest
conjecture, Priscilla and Aquila — especially the former.
This is a suggestion of Professor Harnack's, which Dr. Rendel
Harris and others favour. It has been pointed out that the
name of Priscilla appears before that of her husband more
frequently than in the usual order. They1 were teachers of
the Alexandrian convert Apollos and associated with Paul.
If the epistle were written by a woman this fact might explain
its anonymity.
Whoever may have been the author of this work, we must
assign it to early times. It was known to Clement of Rome,
who wrote soon after a.d. 90. There is good reason to suppose
that it is at least twenty years older than this fact would
require, because it makes no reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Seeing that the main argument of the
epistle is concerned with the supersession of the Levitical
system of priests and sacrifices by the coming of Christ and
His work, if the temple had been destroyed and the sacrifices
brought to an end, as happened when Titus stormed Jerusalem,
this catastrophe to the old system could not fail to have
been noticed, because the author must have regarded it as
a providential act in entire agreement with the contention
of his argument. Many think that we have a reference to
the Neronian persecution in the tenth chapter. But the
writer's language is too mild. His readers had not " resisted

THE GENERAL EPISTLES 67
unto blood " ; the simple statement that they had been made
a " gazing-stock " cannot be meant to point to exposure in
the amphitheatre, where the wild beasts were let loose on
the Christians, nor to the horrors of the illumination of Nero's
garden, where they were smeared with pitch and burnt as
torches. We cannot fix the destination of this epistle with any
assurance. It could not have been sent to the Hebrew
Christians at Jerusalem, because, whereas the parent church
in that city was poor and in receipt of aid from other churches,
the Christians here addressed are commended for their bounty.
It may have been sent to some Jewish-Christian community
in Palestine or Syria. But there is a growing disposition
to look upon Rome as its destination. If that is correct,
perhaps a brotherhood of Jewish Christians rather than the
whole church at Rome, which was mainly Gentile, would be
the recipient of the letter. Wrede thought that it was not
a letter at all in its original form, but a theological treatise,
and that some editor subsequently gave it an epistolary form
in order to pass it on as an epistle of Paul's. But if so, why
did not this editor complete his work by adding a piece at
the beginning also, with the usual form of the commencement
of a letter1? Still, though probably sent as a letter to some
one body of Christians, this epistle is more carefully elaborated
than is the case with any other New Testament book. Criti
cism has in no way affected its inherent worth as a grand
exposition of the priesthood of Christ and of the New Covenant
in which that central truth is enshrined.
The General Epistle of James is in the singular condition
among the critics of being regarded as either the earliest
written or nearly the latest book in the New Testament. No
intermediate place can be found for it. The chief reason is its
treatment of faith in relation to justification. This is not
really in antagonism to Paul's doctrine of justification by faith,
as Baur saw clearly enough, so that he rejected the idea of
authorship by James of Jerusalem for the very reason that the
epistle was too Pauline. Nevertheless, verbally and in form,
some of its arguments do appear on the surface to contradict
what Paul was saying. Certainly no friend of Paul would
have written like this in the midst of the anxious controversy

68 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
with the Judaising party that the Apostle maintained so
vehemently in his letter to the Galatians. On the other hand,
no member of that party could write in the manner of the
author of this epistle, who, while commending the law of
liberty and contending for works as the signs of a living faith,
has no word to say about circumcision, sabbath-keeping,
ablutions, and the other ceremonies of Judaism, but on the
contrary declares that the true ritual of religion is for one to
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world. If the epistle were written
before the controversy with the Judaisers this difficulty would
not arise.
Professor Mayor, the author of the best English commentary
on the Epistle of James, argues for its authorship by the
brother of our Lord. There is much in the condition of
Christian life implied by the author that points to an early
date. He refers to elders; but he does not mention the
bishop, and the anointing of a sick person by the elders strikes
us as quite primitive. When it is objected that the corrup
tions of the Church point to a later time we may think of
Corinth. The stern admonition of the rich seems out of keep
ing with our ideas of the brotherly relations of the early
Christians. Might it be that a synagogue of Jews had adopted
Christianity by a vote of the majority,,although many of its
members still remained unconverted and alien to the spirit
of the gospel 1 In that case we should have quite a mixed
congregation to be addressed in the letter.
Spitta has argued in a very elaborate discussion of the
subject that this epistle is really a Jewish work, and not
Christian at all. He points out that Jesus Christ is only
mentioned by name in two places. These references he takes
to be insertions by an editor who wanted to introduce the com
position into Christian circles, and adapt it to Christian uses.
The death and resurrection of Christ are not mentioned in the
' epistle, nor is there any reference to our Lord's saving or
atoning work, nor indeed to any specifically Christian doctrine.
Spitta has been able to match nearly every phrase in this
epistle with a corresponding phrase in some Jewish work.
Nevertheless his ingenious theory has met with little favour.
The spirit of the book is not rabbinical, whatever we may say

THE GENERAL EPISTLES 69
about its phraseology. Taken as a whole, it comes much
nearer to the Sermon on the Mount — which indeed, in phrases
and sentences, has many Jewish parallels — than to a Jewish
writing. Indeed it contains more echoes of the teachings of
Jesus than any other New Testament book, except the gospels
which expressly record those teachings. Von Soden takes an
intermediate position, holding that some sections of the epistle
which are peculiarly Jewish in character may have a Jewish
origin. Knowing how common was the custom for an author
to appropriate, embody, and work over materials that he had
found in an earlier writer, we may well allow Von Soden's
conjecture to help us out of some of the difficulties of the
epistle. On the other hand, Professor Harnack holds that the
work is a collection of extracts from several Christian homilies,
made some time well down in the second century of our era,
and his view is accepted by Professor Bacon. The name
" James " is common enough, and the author makes no claim
to be more than "a servant of God and of Jesus Christ." It
cannot be said that the question is settled. But the preponder
ance of opinion is for a late date. It has been well said that
if we are led to the conclusion that the production of our
Scriptures was spread over a longer time and divided among a
greater number of writers than was formerly supposed, this
should not be a disquieting result, for it would show that the
divine gift of inspiration was more freely and continuously
given than we had imagined.
The two epistles that bear the name of Peter have both
been subjected to a severe critical handling, but with very
different results. 1 Peter is one of the best attested books of
the New Testament. It was known to several writers of the
sub-apostolic age. Inherently it has much in its favour. It
must impress us as one of the greatest, most truly inspired
apostolic writings. The authors of the two principal English
commentaries on this book, Dr. Bigg and Dr. Hort, ascribe it
to the Apostle. Professor Harnack has recently rather favoured
this view as conceivable, and so have Professors Peake, Bacon,
and Moffatt, though with hesitation. But it is not so assuredly
adopted by many scholars. Altogether, therefore, we must admit
serious difficulties in the way of accepting Peter as the author.
These are of three kinds— linguistic, doctrinal, and historical.

70 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
It is difficult to think of the provincial fisherman having the
ability to produce this eloquent Greek composition, and a
middle course has been proposed in ascribing the actual writing
of the epistle to Silvanus, by whom its author expressly says
it is being sent. This allows of all degrees of association, from
dictation to an amanuensis to the mere use of the Apostle's
name, with or without his authority. Many scholars incline
to some form of this theory.
The doctrinal difficulty is found in the close resemblance of
the epistle to writings and teachings of the Apostle Paul. It
seems to contain distant allusions to some of the Pauline epistles,
especially Romans and Ephesians. Harnack considers that it
must have been written by a disciple of Paul, and could even
have been written by Paul himself. Now we know that the
contention of Baur, that there was direct antagonism between
Paul and Peter, has been abandoned as erroneous. It would
seem that Peter was of a yielding, receptive disposition ; and
possibly, in his later years, he came much under the influence
of the more powerful mind of Paul. But it is easier to think
that Silvanus, who had been one of Paul's travelling companions,
had been thus influenced by that great Apostle. The doctrinal
position is not exactly that of Paul. Thus, while the divinity
of Christ and the sacrifice on the cross are distinctly set forth,
there is no reference to justification by faith, nor to the anta
gonism of law and gospel,, which meant so much for the
Apostle to the Gentiles. On the other hand, while with Paul
prophecy is the greatest of the gifts of the Spirit for Christians,
another kind of prophecy is important in this epistle, namely
Old Testament prophecy in anticipation of Christ. The dis
position to appeal to Messianic prophecy is also seen in Peter's
speeches in Acts; and there are other resemblances between
thode speeches and the epistle. >
Then we have the historical difficulties. We find it hard
to understand how Peter could be supervising the churches of
Asia Minor to which the letter is addressed, and that without
making any reference to the labours of Paul among them.
For those churches were at some of that Apostle's chief centres
of work. Assuredly the epistle was not written during the
time of Paul's travels. Then did Peter survive the Neronian
persecution and did he work as a missionary in these regions

THE GENERAL EPISTLES 71
at a subsequent period 1 Sir Wjlliam Ramsay thinks that the
letter points to this conclusion, and he holds that the situation
implied is just that of the Flavian emperors. Some have
thought that it points to the later persecution under Domitian.
But Dr. Moffatt has shown that the only persecution referred to
is spasmodic and sporadic — such as might have been met with in
Asia Minor after the time of Nero and before that of Domitian.
In all these matters the situation is much eased if we assign
a considerable share in the composition of the letter to Silvanus.
Von Soden thinks that Silvanus is the sole author, writing
some years after the Apostle's death. Now it is to be observed
that a mass of pseudonymous writing has been ascribed to
Peter — the Second Epistle as \fre shall see directly, a gospel, an
apocalypse, teachings and preachings, etc. This would be but
one more work to add to the pseudo-Petrine library. On the
other hand this epistle is incomparably greater than all those
books ; it is on quite a higher plane. Besides, if Peter had
left one great work that would serve as a sort of nucleus for
the later literature, he would he known as an author of
fame. Then, if the historical reasons for a late date are
not to be pressed — and we have seen that they need not be
pressed — we must think it unlikely that Silvanus would write
so distinctly in the name of Peter unless the Apostle had
a hand in the work. All the other so-called Petrine literature
dates from fhe second-century. The writer's friendly attitude
towards the Government and the general tone and spirit of
the letter point to an earlier period — certainly before Trajan,
probably before Domitian — that is to say, to the possible
lifetime of Peter.
Dr. McGiffert has suggested Barnabas as the author. But
Barnabas has not so good a claim as Silas. The letter comes
from Babylon, which could scarcely be old Babylon by the
Euphrates, where the Jewish colony at this time was in a
depressed state, nor the Babylon in Egypt, near Cairo, claimed
for it by the Copts, since we have no reason to think that Peter
was ever there, although the founding of the church at
Alexandria is ascribed to Mark, who, as Papias, writing in the
second century, informs us, was the interpreter and companion
of Peter. More probably Babylon is a cryptic name for Rome
here, as in the Apocalypse,

72 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
The case of 2 Peter is entirely different. No church writer
of the early period -refers to this epistle. It is absent from
our oldest Catholic New Testament Canon — the "Fragment
of Muratori" — which may be dated about a.d. 170. In
referring to a collection of Paul's epistles and treating them
as "Scripture" side by side with the Old Testa
ment, the writer certainly reveals quite a late date; no
such reference would have been possible in apostolic times.
Then the language, style, and thought differ entirely from
what we have in 1 Peter. That epistle is written in quite
good Greek of the colloquial kind used at the time. But this
is crabbed and awkward. A beginner might Write in this way
and improve later. But the reverse would be impossible.
Yet we cannot change the order of the epistles, because 2, Peter
actually refers to 1 Peter and describes itself as "the second
epistle " (2 Peter iii. 1). A further objection to the idea of
ascribing the epistle to the Apostle Peter is found in the fact
that it has absorbed the greater part of the Epistle of Jude
without acknowledgment. The case is not to be put the
other way, as a careful comparison of the passages will show.
The Epistle of Jude is complete in itself, and it will afford
clarifying explanations of allusions in 2 Peter, The reverse is
not the case. We cannot explain Jude by 2 Peter. Now it
is not at all probable that" Peter would make this use of
another Apostle's work, and that Apostle a much less prominent
personage than himself.
It does not much help us to have Zahn's suggestion that
2 Peter was written by the Apostle himself — not, like 1 Peter,
by the aid of Silvanus — and earlier than 1 Peter, the other
epistle referred to in 2 Peter having been lost. The defenders of
the genuineness of the epistle are very few. It is not necessary
to point to the decided verdict of the more advanced critics ;
quite moderate scholars, who by comparison might be deemed
conservative, concur in the judgment that this work cannot
have come from the hand of Peter, and must have been written
some way down in the second century.
This is not to condemn it as unprofitable or uninspired. As
we have seen before, the extension of the time and personelle
of the authorship of the New Testament leaves the reader free
to recognise the Divine Spirit's work as covering a larger area

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 73
than had been supposed. The recognition of pseudonymity as
a legitimate form of literature in the times when so many
works of this character appeared forbids us to use the ugly
word " forgery," which used to be often on the lips of the older
writers in dealing with these critical questions, nor does it
exclude an honest purpose or a high religious value in the
books concerned.
The Epistle of Jude describes its author as " a servant of
Jesus Christ and brother of James." This can scarcely be
Jude the Apostle, since the writer makes no claim to be one
of the Twelve and refers in the third person to " the apostles
of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is more probable that he was a
brother of James, the head of the church of Jerusalem. There
is a suggestion that he might be "Judas called Barsabas,"
classed in Acts (xv. 22) with "the chief men among the
brethren." Apparent references to Gnostic heresies have led
critics to put the letter later — as late as the second century.
But there was Gnosticism in the first century. The reference
to this, however, and the way the Apostles are referred to,
indicate the latter part of this century.
This does not forbid us to think of Jude the brother of the
Jerusalem James in his old age. The very obscurity of this
man points to genuineness. There was no motive for pseudony
mity here.

CHAPTER TV
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
We now come to the most important subject of Biblical criti
cism, and, at the present moment, the most urgent. The
gospels are of primary importance, since in them we find the
fundamental facts on which the faith of Christendom is based,
and the searchlight of critical inquiry is now being concen
trated on them more penetratingly than at any previous period
of Church history. Origen found them attacked by Celsus in
the third century, and only a little later Porphyry discovered
some of the sharpest weapons that Voltaire subsequently used.
But that was in the pre-scientific age, and the criticism was

74 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
prejudiced by unbelief and antagonism. To-day we see the
instruments of scientific inquiry perfected by Niebuhr,
Mommsen, and other leading investigators in the field of
secular history, brought into use in Biblical criticism. In
both cases the attempt is to find the sources of the docu
ments under examination ; and in the latter as much as in
the former it should be allowed that the aim is to arrive at
truth without any consciously unfriendly bias, even when the
results may seem to be of a negative or destructive character.
Therefore the Christian believer must be careful not to attack
the critic as an enemy of religion, or his blows may recoil on
his own head if it should appear that a more Christian spirit
is manifested on the other side.
The investigation is still in progress, and, although certain
clear results have appeared already, it must be perceived that
as yet we have more materials presented to us than can be
immediately digested. Sir John Hawkins' Horm Synopticce,
published several years ago, is still a quarry out of which
students derive materials for their inquiries, and Studies in the
Synoptic Problem, edited by Dr. Sanday, is a book that gives us
the results of years of later research and seminar discussion, but
in a form that provokes further inquiry. Harnack, Well-
hausen, Loisy, quite recently Wendland, and indeed a host of
explorers in this fertile field have both brought to light facts,
and also suggested theories worthy of consideration. In a
brief survey such as this only a few general features can be
noticed. The title "synoptic" is now fully confirmed and more
significant than ever. It marks the common view taken by
the first three evangelists in distinction from the quite dis
tinctive treatment of his subject by the fourth. More than
that, it is now an established conclusion that the similarities
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not accidental, nor are they
merely due to the fact that we have in them the testimony
of three honest witnesses to the same events. Plainly there
is a literary connection between them; there are verbal
identities, identities of phrase, not merely in reported sayings
of Christ, but in descriptive passages. These identities being
in the Greek, indicate some literary association in that language.
If this were all we might come to the simple conclusion that

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 7S
one gospel was based on another, and that this was the whole
explanation of their resemblances. But, while there are some
passages that admit of this view, there are others that go
clean contrary to it, passages in which the gospels markedly
diverge from one another. We might compare the case to
that of two railways, sometimes running side by side and
using the same stations, and at other parts of their routes
deflecting and separating, to join and run parallel again later
on, and so for their whole course. It is this peculiarity that
has given rise to the synoptic problem. It has raised the
question, How shall we account for the resemblances, even
verbal identities, found in these three gospels, side by side with
the divergences, even in some cases the seeming contradictions 1
One position which we may regard as quite established is
the priority of Mark to the other synoptic gospels, together
also with its peculiar relation to both of them as constituting
the base of their narratives. There is a common synoptic
tradition running through all three. This is evident to every
intelligent reader, and it has been often observed. But now
we may be quite sure that there is more than tradition, that
there is literary relationship of the most intimate kind, the
relationship of parentage between Mark and Matthew, and
also between that gospel and Luke. The general conclusion
of scholarship is that both the author of our Matthew and
also Luke made use of Mark in the first place. Here was
the outline of the facts of the life of Christ ready to hand.
The ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, His
early Galilean ministry centred in Capernaum, retirement to the
north, a crisis at Caesarea Philippi when Peter made his great
confession of Christ, a ministry no longer centred in Capernaum
but carried on in various parts of the country, often in less
publicity than before, the journey to Jerusalem, the last week
and the crucifixion treated with quite exceptional fulness of
detail, followed by the burial, and then the empty tomb —
these items of the Galilean tradition are taken over from
Mark. So also are the detailed accounts of many incidents,
miracles, and other scenes.
Now turning to Matthew we see at once that its main
difference from Mark consists in the large amount of teaching
that it introduces which we had not met with in our second

76 THE BIBLE AND' CRITICISM
gospel. We may explain what has happened in a general
way thus. The author of our first gospel took Mark and
split it at five places, inserting in each of the gaps a block of
teaching — the Sermon on the Mount ; a group of parables ;
a charge to the Apostles; denunciation of Pharisees; and
teachings about the, great Day of Judgment. In addition
Matthew prefaces) his gospel with the story of the birth of
Jesus ; he also adds an account of the resurrection.
Thus the question arises, Can we trace the sources of these
additions to Mark which we find in Matthew ? It would seem
that there must have been some collection of the sayings of
Christ which the author of our gospel reproduced in this
way. Similarities between some of the sayings of Jesus
iu Luke and Matthew confirm this impression, and point
to the conclusion that both these evangelists used this col
lection. Now according to Eusebius, Papias,. the Bishop of
Hierapolis early in the second century, wrote an exposition
of the " Oracles of the Lord," in which he states that " Matthew
composed the Oracles (Logia) in the Hebrew tongue." Hence
it has been a widely accepted opinion that Matthew's Oracles,
or Logia, consisted of a collection of the sayings of Jesus.
But it will not do to assume this as certain. Some suppose
that Papias' expression, " Oracles of the Lord," refers to a collec
tion of Messianic prophecies. In order to avoid any begging
of the question scholars now refer to the collection of sayings
used by Matthew and probably in part by Luke under the
sign "Q" (German quelle, source), although there is still a
strong disposition to attribute Q to Matthew. Various
attempts have been made to extract Q from the gospels —
the most striking being that of Professor Harnack. But if
anybody will consider how difficult it would have been to have
extracted Mark from Matthew and Luke if our second gospel
had been lost he will see how hazardous is the corresponding
attempt in the case of Q. Possibly Q existed in two or three
forms. If first written in Hebrew, as Papias says ofthe Logia —
or rather in Aramaic, the popular language of Palestine at the
time — it must have been translated into Greek before it was
used by our evangelists; that is evidenced by the verbal identities
of the reproduction of it in some instances by more than one
evangelist. A further probability with reference to Q must

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 77
be noted. It seems clear that Mark knew Q and used it,
though very sparingly. Therefore we must conclude that Q
was earlier than Mark — was, as far as we know, the earliest
written record of anything concerning the life and teaching
of Christ. This is what we might have expected. The
teachings would be written down to be preserved and handed
on before a connected narrative of our Lord's doings was
composed. The story of these doings might well have been
left to oral tradition so long as the witnesses of it were alive.
It is now generally agreed that Q contained a certain amount
of connecting matter and probably one miracle story, that of
the cure of the centurion's servant. Professor Harnack con
siders that it ended short of the account of our Lord's suffer
ings, death, and resurrection; from which he draws the
inference that its author — whom he inclines to accept as
Matthew — did not include those events in his gospel message.
Surely that is a very precarious inference. The Oracles might
only have been designed to give the teaching ministry of
Christ for its own sake, without pretending therefore to
uontain the whole of Christianity. We know too little about
the lost book to be able to indulge in inferences of this
character with safety.
In this way we account for the bulk of our Matthew. It
is Mark plus Q. There remain the opening and closing
passages to be accounted for. We do not know what were
the author's sources for his birth and his resurrection
stories. Were the latter based on Mark ? It is now quite
settled that the last verses in our copies of Mark (from
xvi. 10 to the end) were added by some later hand. Yet the
book could not have ended with the concluding words of
verse 9. Therefore the last page or pages have been lost.
The' great differences between Luke's account of the risen
Christ and Matthew's account indicate that Luke did not
know the account in our first gospel. But he knew and
used Mark; both the first and the third evangelists had
Mark. Then it does not seem probable that either of them
derived their resurrection narratives from that evangelist. In
other words, it would seem that there were three separate
sources for the synoptic accounts of the resurrection. If we add
John and Paul (in 1 Corinthians xv.) we have five hi all.

78 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
We must conclude that our Gospel of Matthew was not
written by Matthew the publican, and this for two reasons.
First, because Matthew, being an Apostle and eye-witness,
would not have gone to Mark, who wrote at second-hand,
for the greater part of his narrative ; and second, because
Papias tells us that Matthew wrote Oracles in Hebrew, while
our gospel is certainly not a translation from a Hebrew
original, as scholars are now agreed. But if Matthew com
posed Q, we can account for the name of our first gospel,
for it is the additions from Q to Mark that constitute the
main part of the new material in it.
When we turn to Luke we see some very similar features.
Mark againris used extensively. Between them the author
of Matthew and the evangelist Luke absorb nearly the whole of
Mark. Then in addition Luke seems to have made use of Q,
but to a much smaller extent. Until recently many scholars
thought that Q was the chief source of the sayings of Jesus
in the third gospel as well as in the first. This view, however,
implied that one or other, if not both of these evangelists,
took great liberties in their treatment of what they should
have regarded as the most sacred document in the world.
The remarkable differences between the Beatitudes in Matthew
and in Luke, between the Parable of the Talents and the
Parable of the Pounds, the two Parables of Feasts, and the
two versions of the Lord's Prayer, not to mention many other
cases, are too great for this theory. Plainly Luke had a second
collection of the teaching of Jesus which he used freely, more
freely than Q, while the author of Matthew probably confined
himself to Q for the teachings. There is reason to suppose that
more than one enthusiastic disciple of Christ would attempt
to preserve his Master's teachings in writing. In his preface
Luke refers to many attempts to write the life of Christ.
Another peculiarity of Luke is seen in the large insertion
of narrative as well as teaching matter that begins at ix. 51.
The teaching could not have been taken from Q, if Matthew
wrote Q, because the publican would surely not have omitted
the story of the Prodigal Son and all the teaching of the
chapter in which that greatest of the parables is found, if he
had found these things in his document. The preface indicates
that Luke, who was probably the best educated of the synoptic

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 79
writers, collected his materials from various sources. Among
these sources must be that of the birth and infancy stories and
also that of the resurrection incidents^hich he connects with
Jerusalem, while according to Matthew, and probably Mark also,
Christ appeared to His apostles in Galilee.
Professor Burkitt has some other scholars with him in
the opinion that Luke's peculiar source for the teachings of
Christ was Q, and that our first gospel used some other
Bource. But if so, and if, as Professor Burkitt holds, probably
Matthew was the author of Q, how came Matthew's name
to be attached to our first gospel 1
Recent scholarship has gone strongly to confirm the uniform
tradition of antiquity that Luke, the physician, Paul's travel
ling attendant, was the author of our third gospel. Linguisti
cally it seems proved that the writer of the portions of Acts
in which the first person plural appears — the " We " portions
— also wrote the whole book. It is beyond question that the
author of Acts, who refers to the gospel as his "former
treatise," was also the author of our third gospel.
Professor Harnack argues for a very early date for AeU,
as early as the close of Paul's imprisonment at Rome. If he
is right the gospel of Liake must come earlier, Mark earlier
still, and Q even more early. It cannot be said that Professor
Harnack's view is as yet widely adopted. But it has many
points in its favour.
Sir William Ramsay's researches and Professor Harnack's
critical studies have gone far to raise the reputation of Luke
as a sound historical writer, and to give validity to that
author's account of the travels of Pauf. Not long ago we
were told that only a small group of Paul's epistles could be
relied on for authentic information about the great Apostle.
We have seen that a number of genuine epistles has been
considerably increased ; now we learn that Acts, once discarded
as a historical source, may be trusted.
There are greater difficulties with the earlier chapters in
Acts. Here Luke was not an eye-witness or companion of
the persons referred to, as he was when writing about Paul.
For this part of his work he seems to have had at least two
sources, either oral or written — a Peter source, and a Philip
source. Manifestly we are less near the fountain-head with

80 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
this first part .of Acts. But the speeches of Peter have an
archaic flavour; they contain none of Paul's characteristic
teachings, though they must have been well known to Luke.
Their primitive theology is an evidence of their genuineness.
In concluding this survey^ of the early historical part of the
New Testament we must return to Mark Papias informs us
that Mark was the interpreter and companion of Peter, from
whose preachings he derived his materials. Latei Church
writers repeat the statement in various forms. But it is
pointed out that Mark's gospel does not read like sermon
notes. Further, Papias says that Mark wrote " not in Order " ;
but our second gospel is written in some measure of chronologi
cal order. That, however, cannot be the case in all its details,
for we find groupings of subjects, such as a succession of
grounds of offence in the eyes of the religious leaders, all
brought together. Mark may have got facts from Peter's
preaching without merely giving notes of Peter's sermons. His
arrangement may well have been on other lines.
The latest criticism has endeavoured to push its investiga
tions further back, to the sources of Mark, and to the personal
element in the several evangelists. This is seen in Professor
Bacon's work on Mark, in Loisy's elaborate work on the
synoptic gospels, and more recently in Dr. Paul Wendland's
book on primitive Christian literature. Much of this writing
would plunge the historical narrative into a perfect chaos if
its conclusions were adopted. Bacon and Loisy see legend and
metaphor treated as history, Wendland takes a similar view ;
in particular, he points out that traditions of detached sayings
and incidents are carried down without any chronological
arrangement. So he supposes that Mark first formed his own
framework and then fitted his materials into it. To accept
that view would be to lose all idea of a consecutive life of
Christ. Nobody could write a life of Christ. The materials
for its development would not exist.
On the other hand, even if we went as far as this in analytic
criticism, the main purpose of the evangelists would stand.
For this was not to compose a biography, but to paint a por
trait. Their aim was to make the real Jesus known, not merely
to give a string of events, and the loss of chronological order,
fatal to a biography, would leave the portrait fairly distinct.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 81
But good reasons for not coming to this conclusion have
been pointed out. The order of the development of the
Christ idea in Mark — first the prophetic preaching of Jesus,
then various surmises about His person and mission, next
Peter's great confession at Csesarea Philippi followed by our
Lord's command to keep it quiet, the subsequent retreat and
comparative seclusion, and the open admission by Jesus
Himself in the carefully-planned triumphal entry into Jerusalem
— all these things in their regular order indicate a distinct pro
gression and development, and yet they do not stand out on
the surface, as in the clearly-marked sections of a work con
sciously designed to produce an impression. Mark is too naive
and objective a writer to be credited with the subtlety that
such a scheme would involve. His story follows this course
because it follows a tradition he has received. That points to a
genuine historicity not only in the events, but also in the order
of them. The same may be said of three other obscurely hinted
and yet unmistakable developments — the development of op
position on the part of the Jewish authorities, the development
of our Lord's announcement of His own approaching death,
and the development of the picture of coming judgment.
With regard to the last item we have our attention called
to " The Little Apocalypse " in chapter xiii. This is thought
by some to embody a fragment of some Jewish apocalypse.
Dr. Sharman maintains that throughout the gospels Christ's
teaching about "the last things" have been worked over
under the influence of the eschatological notions that exercised
a predominating influence among the Christians of apostolic
days. On the other hand Johann Weiss and Schweitzer, with
not a few associated scholars, appear to give an exaggerated
importance to the apocalyptic elements of the teachings of
Christ, taking them as the key for the interpret: tion of every
thing else. While considering this to be an extravagant
position, we may thank this school for calling our attention
to a phase in our Lord's teaching that has been too much
neglected hitherto. If Christ did not base all on a cata
strophic conception of the future, He did make much of the
more essential elements of the apocalyptic scheme, viz. the great
idea of God's concern with the world and in particular with
His faithful people, God's purpose to enter more fully into the

82 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
scheme of things to set them right, the Kingdom of God coming
from hdaven, judgment on all things evil, and the final triumph
of the good. Here the very idea of gospel which has given
their titles to the four primitive portraits of Christ finds its
consummation, and vindicates a superhuman source of optimism.

CHAPTER V
THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS
There remains to be considered the group of writings associated
with the name of the Apostle John. This presents some of
the most difficult problems of criticism. But it must be
admitted that during recent years the atmosphere has cleared
to some extent with regard to some aspects of these problems.
We have five books — the gospel, three epistles, and the
Revelation — comprised under the heading " Johannine .writ
ings." The questions of the authorship of these several com
positions are in a measure mutually self-involved.
It was among these writings that the Higher Criticism first
appeared in circles of Biblical study. Dionysius, the successor
of Origen as teacher of the catechetical school in Alexandria,
and also the bishop of the church in that city in the third
century of the Christian era, pointed out the remarkable
differences in style between the fourth gospel and the Revela
tion. These led him to the conclusion that they were not
written by the same author. He had no doubt that the
gospel was the work of the Apostle John. Accordingly he
thought that the Apocalypse must have been composed by
some other John, and he referred to two monuments or tombs
in Ephesus bearing the name of John. Papias, writing early
in the second century, had referred to a certain "John the
jElder " among personal disciples of Christ, clearly distinguish
ing him from the Apostle John.
Dionysius' critical views were not accepted by his con
temporaries, nor by the scholars of subsequent centuries, till the
re-awakening of criticism at the end of the eighteenth century
revived interest in their subject-matter and in the method that
this pioneer of literary criticism in its application to Scripture
had opened out.

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 88
Dionysius' arguments have weight in the present day. But
the whole Johannine problem has spread out and ramified, and
immense research and thinking have been bestowed upon it.
To sum up conclusions in such a discussion, especially while
the discussion is going on, is really an impracticable task.
The following points, however, may be noted.
In the first place, the great weight of the primitive testi
mony to the antiquity of the fourth gospel and to the name
of the Apostle John as that of its author cannot be dis
puted. The late date in the second half of the second century,
assigned it by Baur, is seen to be impossible. There is
strong reason for putting it back near the end of the first
century. On the other hand, much has been made of one
piece of evidence as disconcerting to the upholders of apos
tolic authorship. This is found in a fragment attributed
to Papias, according to which both James and John were
" slain by the Jews.'' From this it has been inferred that the
Apostles James and John suffered martyrdom together. If so
John could not have been the author of the gospel, which at
earliest could only have been written very late in the apostolic
age, and then, according to all the evidence, in Ephesus or its
neighbourhood. But it has been pointed out that the frag
ment attributed to Papias may not be genuine ; that Papias
may have been in error — perhaps comfusing the murder of
John the Baptist with the fate of the Apostle ; and that the
martyrdom of both brothers by the Jews may not have taken
place at the same time — John perhaps having been killed
much later than James and possibly in Asia Minor, where a
little later Jews took the lead in the martyrdom of Polycarp.
Anyhow, the evidence for the residence of John at Ephesus
down to extreme old age is so ancient, definite, and unanimous
— apart from this fragment, to the contents of which no refer
ence is made by any contemporary writer known to us — that
this cannot be fairly set aside on so precarious a ground.
It is with the internal characteristics of the book, however,
that criticism has had most to do. Now here, too, the positive
evidence remains virtually unshaken. This has been arranged
in concentric circles, gathering in the identification of the
author closer and closer, by showing that he was (1) a Jew,
(2) a Jew familiar with Palestine, (3) a contemporary, (4) one

84 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
of the inner circle of disciples. Further, the lofty spiritual
character of the book, the most sublime of all the books of the
Bible, and therefore the most sublime work in the world's
literature, has not been affected by a hundred years and more
of drastic criticism, and this bespeaks an adequate authorship.
Schleiermacher, who struck the keynote of nineteenth century
theology, in contrast with the arid rationalism of the eighteenth
century, centred his Christian teaching in the fourth gospel.
Both Ewald and Renan based their lives of Christ mainly on
it. Wendt and Beyschlagg have shown that the teaching of
Jesus contained in this book is essentially in harmony with
that of the synoptics. Dr. Drummond in an elaborate study
of the gospel argued for its apostolic authorship.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the difficulties
are serious. It is hard to think that a fisherman from the
lake shore in Galilee could have written the prologue with its
references to the Logos, though not impossible if John had
spent many years in Asia Minor. Graver questions rise in the
region of history, and if the historicity of the gospel is doubted,
the apostolic authorship must share the dubiety. Here we
are brought to the vexed question of the differences between
the fourth gospel and its predecessors. Some of these have
been shown to have been less than was once supposed. For
instance, it was pointed out that, while the synoptics locate our
Lord's ministry in Galilee, according to John it is largely
carried on at Jerusalem. But it has been replied that the
synoptics contain hints of visits to Jerusalem. On one point
the superior historicity of the fourth gospel has been vindicated.
There is -now a growing tendency to admit that this gospel
must be right with its date of the Crucifixion as on the day
preceding the Jews' passover meal, and that the synoptic
writers were in error when they thought that the Jewish pass-
over took place on the previous evening.
While mauy critics reject the Johannine authorship of the
fourth gospel altogether, and repudiate its historicity, and
some still defend it in its integrity, there is an intermediate
position, allowing that the actual writer was an Ephesian
scholar, but holding that this man was in close touch with the
Apostle John, who is taken to be " the disciple whom Jesus
loved " of the book. Professor Harnack is inclined to accept

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 85
John the Elder as the author, and Professor Moffatt says that
"Unless John the Presbyter is brought in . . . the author
of John i.-xx. and the editor who revised it and added the
appendix are both unknown."
Every thoughtful reader must have been struck with the
peculiarity of the style of the fourth gospel and the difference
between this style and that of the synoptics. Now we find
this peculiar Johannine style running through the sayings of
Christ, the sayings of John the Baptist, and the author's com
ments. So identical is this style that there are cases — as in
the third chapter — where we cannot determine at what point
the quoted speech ends and the evangelist's reflections begin.
Then, in turning to the epistles of John, we find the same
peculiar style there also. The inference is inevitable. This
is a Johannine style, the author's style. Following the idea
thus engendered, we notice that, whereas in the synoptics
John the Baptist is never seen going beyond his Jewish stand
point as the forerunner, never found uttering a specific Christian
truth, in the fourth gospel he gives us advanced teaching
— about the Lamb of God and the sin of the world, &c.
Further we observe that in John there is no progressive
declaration of truth about Christ, at first hidden, then gradu
ally revealed, which, we saw, was so striking a feature of
Mark. The most open declarations of Messiahship are made
at the very first. Again, while in the synoptics the dominant
theme is the Kingdom of God, in John it is the person of
Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says to His
disciples, " Ye are the light of the world " ; in John He says,
"I am the light of the world." There is no contradiction
here. Both sayings may be true. It may be said that
Christians shine by containing and revealing Christ who is the
essential light. Nevertheless, all this means quite a different
attitude of mind and manner of procedure in public teaching.
The only possible conclusion to be derived from these con
siderations is that the author of the fourth gospel — the Apostle
John, John the Elder, some unknown Ephesian Christian
using materials supplied by the Apostle, whoever he was —
worked up his materials in his own mind and reproduced them
in his own way. If Jesus had been a lawgiver, the value of
any report or whose utterances depended on verbal accuracy,

86 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
the fourth gospel would not be so valuable to us as the
synoptics. But if He came as the founder of the Kingdom of
God and the Saviour of the world — and so the New Testament
generally represents the situation — this question is not of
primary importance. We may state the case thus. While
Mark endeavours to give us a photograph of Christ, John
paints a portrait, in his own style, which we might compare
to Whistler's remarkable portrait of his mother — impressionist,
but all the more true for this reason, because what so rare a
soul as the author of the fourth gospel saw in Jesus Christ and
reproduced in his own way is much more important, and in
the deepest sense more true as a revelation of Christ, than the
most accurate reporter's notes without his insigh^ would have
been. Like the fourth gospel, the first epistle of John is anony
mous. But it was certainly ascribed to the Apostle as early as
the second century by Papias and Irenaeus, and it seems to
have been known to Ignatius quite early in that century. It
has generally been held that its author was the writer of the
fourth gospel. Some leading scholars have denied this. But
the resemblance in style — that unique Johannine style— are too
close to allow the identification of authorship to be rejected on
such grounds as have been relied on by its opponents, and we
may fairly conclude that criticism leaves it as a sort of intro
ductory letter going With the gospel
There are scholars who assign the first epistle to the author
of the gospel, but deny this of the s,econd and third epistles.
If John the Elder is to be considered the author of the gospel
it will be more easy to assign these two epistles to him be
cause the writer of them appears with that designation. Be
that as it may, we have here also the remarkable " Johannine
style." Quite evidently the gospel and the epistles belong
to the same group of writings.
When we turn to the Book of the Revelation we find our
selves in a very different atmosphere. Here Dionysius's acute
criticism, ancient as it is, still holds good. The spirit and
tone, the literary style, even the very grammar are quite
different from what we meet with in the other Johannine
writings. It is true that there are also certain resemblances.
We have a very, exalted conception of Christ as the " Alpha

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 87
and Omega." He is even called " the Word," and " the Lamb "
frequently (though not the same Greek term that is used in
the gospel). There are indications of the same Ephesian
atmosphere. But this does not outweigh the importance of the
difference. If the Apocalypse were written early, before the
destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps during the persecution insti
gated by Nero, and the gospel some twenty or thirty years later,
it might be supposed that in the interval John had lived in
Ephesus and imbibed something of the thought and culture of
that literary and commercial centre. Accordingly for some
time it was generally agreed among defenders of the apostolic
authorship of the two books that this was the order of their
production. But it has since been shown that the Revelation
contains indications of the later date which was assigned to
it by the most ancient tradition, according to which it was
written during the reign of Domitian, when John was banished
to Patmos.
More recently a new light has been thrown on the problem
of the Apocalypse which has entirely altered its aspect. It
has long been suspected that there were Jewish elements in it.
The Old Testament at all events furnishes much of its material.
In Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and various prophets we have
pictures, images, predictions, and other elements, that have
been taken over by the author of this book and worked into
the gorgeous fabric of his great composition. But the question
has been raised as to whether we may not have much more
than this, as to whether there may not be a Jewish Apocalypse
at the back of this Christian Apocalypse, absorbed by its
author, utilised in his own way, and adapted to Christian ideas.
More than that was brought forward by Gunkel in his original
work, Creation and Chaos. Here we have some of the most
mysterious imagery in the Revelation and also in various parts
of the Old Testament traced back to ancient Babylonian
mythology. In particular the extraordinary picture of the
woman with her child in flight from the Dragon to the
wilderness is attributed to that source. Bousset accepted this
position in his commentary on our Apocalypse. It is not
supposed that the author was consciously adopting anything out
of the pagan myths of Babylon. The idea is that in the Baby
lonian mythology we have a primitive stratum which affected

88 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
first Jewish thought and fancy, and subsequently the ideas and
language of the Christian writer through that medium. This
is not to deny the essential Christianity of the book as it
stands. But it goes far to account for its bewildering imagery,
which in many cases we now see we cannot explain simply
because the key is lost in a cloud of far off Babylonian
myths. From yet another quarter light has been thrown on the
difficult literary problem of the Revelation. This book stands
alone in the New Testament, in a class by itself, although we
have apocalyptic passages of somewhat similar character in our
Lord's discourse about the destruction of Jerusalem and the
coming judgment, in 2 Thessalonians, and in some other more
or less fragmentary phrases treating of the same subject. But
now we know that our Apocalypse is by no means the solitary
specimen of its species. It still stands alone in its lofty in
spiration and moral grandeur. But it was preceded and it has
been followed by other Apocalypses, both Jewish and Christian.
Thus it is seen to "belong to a whole school of apocalyptic
literature. The first volume of this class is the Book of
Daniel. Then we have such works as the Book of Enoch,
the Book of the Secrets of Enoch-, the Book of Jubilees, the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs — all Jewish — and also
the Apocalypse of Peter and other Christian Apocalypses,
apocryphal in character, but of the first or second centuries.
All of these books have much in common in their cryptic style
and their wild, often grotesque, imagery. Most of them were
written in times of trouble to encourage the faithful with the
assurance of God's interference to judge, condemn, and over
throw the cruel oppressor and to bring in a new age of peace
and happiness.
Lastly, it seems to be proved that the book has undergone
revision, or perhaps we should regard it as a growth, not all of
one date.
Chapter xi., referring to "the great city, which spiritually is
called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified,"
seems to indicate that Jerusalem was standing at the time, and
on the verge of the horrors of the siege, perhaps actually
undergoing them. Other parts describing the sufferings and
martyrdom of Christians carry us on to Domitian's reign, the

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 89
period assigned to the book in the most ancient traditions.
Then some passages of the book are intensely Jewish in spirit,
e.g. the close of ii. 20 referring to " things offered to idols,"
the "hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the
children of Israel" (vii. 4). But other parts indicate the
large gospel of a Christian missionary, as in the " great multi
tude ... of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and
tongues " (vii. 9), and again " the nations of them which are
saved" (xxi. 24).
Putting all this together, we come to the conclusion that the
book in its present form dates from the latest decades of the
first century, and is due in this form to the inspired revision
and completion of a Christian of the more liberal school, work
ing over an earlier edition by a more Jewish Christian, who
in turn had used materials of still more ancient apocalyptic
literature. There is no clear agreement among scholars as to
whether the John who appears here was the Apostle or some
other Christian, bearing the same name, probably in that case
John the Elder. He calls himself a " prophet," and he refers
to the Apostles in a way that does not include himself among
them. If we may conclude that the Apostle John did at least
furnish the traditions for the gospel that now bears his name,
it is easier to think that such a very different composition as
the Apocalypse came from John the Elder than to assign both
works to one and the same author.

CHAPTER VI
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
The foregoing brief, survey of the origin and characteristics of
the several books of the New Testament requires to be supple
mented with a statement of the collection of them in one
volume and the treatment of this as a second portion of
Scripture, not merely as an addendum to the ancient Jewish
Scriptures, but as held by Christians to be the highest and
best part of the one Bible that for them now contains the two
Testaments — the Old Testament and the New Testament.
There is no reason to believe that any of the writers of these

90 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM
books ever dreamed that they were contributing to this process.
The reference in 2 Peter to Paul's epistles as " Scripture " is
one of the reasons for concluding that this book could not
have been written till far down in the second century. No
where else in the New Testament is the term applied to any
but Old Testament writing. The first use of it for any
Christian writing occurs in the Epistle of Barnabas, which we
must daie in the second century, and there it is used for some
sayings of Christ, not apparently for a New Testament book.
With Irenaeus, about a.d. 185, we first find New Testament
passages cited as of Scriptural authority.
This does not mean that great weight was not given to the
New Testament books much earlier. But they were not put on
a level with the Old at first, nor for some time. The process
was largely determined by use in public worship. In the
middle of the second century Justin Martyr tells us of two
lessons, as in the synagogue, not law and prophets, but gospels
and prophets. The three synoptic gospels were the earliest
books to be promoted to this place of honour. But before this
Marcion was using one gospel — a mutilated Luke — and ten
epistles of Paul. Unless this heretic actually began the larger
New Testament Canon, epistles as well as gospel — and that is
not probable — the epistles muBt have been collected earlier in
the Church. But we> have no account of the process. Pro
fessor Harnack thinks that the bishops of Asia Minor met and
drew up a list of Christian authoritative books as a defence
against heretics. There is no direct evidence for this con
clusion ; but it would account for the great step implied in
Irenaeus's use of the New Testament books. We have an
anonymous list called " the Canon of Muratori " dating from
the latter part of the second century. The third century
shows the New Testament books severally in use in the
Church. But there is no authoritative settlement of the
Canon. Two local councils — at Carthage (a.d. 393) and at
Laodicea (c. a.d. 363) settle the Canon for their own churches.
The great authority of Athanasius and Augustine follow later
to confirm it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. GENERAL
The series of commentaries which form the Century Bible (T. 0. and
E. C. Jack) give a full popular account of the Introduction,
Interpretation, &c, and the Analysis into original sources, of
the several books in a form suitable to the English reader.
Further information of a popular character is given in the Century
Bible Handbooks (T. C. &, E. C. Jack).
The Biblical Introduction, by W. H. Bennett and W. F. Adeney
(Methuen), is a concise text-book, dealing with all leading
points and many details as to Date, Authorship, Composition,
&c, of the several books.
The General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, by Dr. Briggs
(T. & T. Clark), deals with the " principles, methods, history
and results " of the various branches of Biblical Study, but not
separately, with the Introduction to individual books.
The various volumes of the International Critical Commentary
(T. & T. Clark) provide complete first-olass commentaries on
the Hebrew Text and on all questions of Introduction, Inter
pretation, Analysis, &c.
A wealth of information of all kinds as to the Bible is given in
The Dictionary of the Bible, editor Dr. Hastings (T. & T. Clark).
The Encyclopaedia Biblica, editor Dr. Cheyne (A. & C. Black).
H. THE OLD TESTAMENT
Some account of the history of Modern Criticism will be found in
the various commentaries, introductions, dictionaries, &c, and
also in the following : —
History of Old Testament Criticism, by Dr. DuS (Watts).
Founders of Old Testament Criticism, by Dr. Cheyne (Methuen).
A full acoount of Old Testament Introduction is given in Dr. Driver's
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (T. & T. Clark) ;
also W. Robertson Smith's Old Testament in the Jewish Church
(A. & C. Black) has permanent interest and value.
The volumes of th*. Polychrome Bible (James Clarke) give a new
translation, based on a revised text, and indioate the original
sources by printing them in different' colours.

92 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Hexateuch, by J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford Battersby
(Longmans), gives a very full account of the criticiBm of the
Pentateuch and Joshua.
The relation of Criticism to Assyriology, Egyptology, &c, is dealt
with in Dr. Driver's Authority and Archceology (Murray).
HI. THE NEW TESTAMENT
Much excellent guidance will be found in Dr. Peake's A Critical
Introduction to the New Testament (Duckworth). Dr. Moffatt's
Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (T. & T. Clark)
is the latest important work on the subject. A smaller, but
brilliant work is Professor Bacon's An Introduction to the New
Testament (The Macmillan Company). There are also trans
lations of Jvllicher's Introduction to the New Testament (Smith,
Elder, & Co.), and a more conservative work, Zahn's Intro
duction to the Neio Testament (T. & T. Clark). For the Synoptic
Problem we have Horos Synoptical, by Sir J. C. Hawkins
(Oxford, Calendar Press), The Gospels as Historical Documents,
by Stanton (Cambridge), Burkitt's Gospel History and Trans
mission (T. & T. Clark), and Oxford Studies in the Synoptic
Problem, edited by Dr. Sanday (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
Among works on the Fourth Gospel may be mentioned The
Fourth Gospel, by Dr. Drummond (Williams & Norgate),
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, by Dr. Sanday (Oxford, Clarendon
Press), Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel, by Dr. E. H.
Asquith (Hodder & Stoughton).

INDEX

Abraham, 47
Acts, 79 ff.
Amos, 30
Analysis of historical books, 21
Apocalypse, 86 ff.
- the Little, 81
Apocalyptic literature, 45
Ascension of Isaiah, 36
Assyriology autl criticism, 48
Astrue, 17
Barueh, Book of, 49
Eel and the Dragon, 26, 45
Calvin, 17
Canon, O.T., 49
— N.T., 89 ff.
Canticles, 41
Chronicles, 25
Colenso, 13
Colossians, 64 *
Composite character of books of O.T. ,21
Corinthians, 60, 63
Criticism, vii
— Historical, viii, 45
— Lower or Textual, viii. 53
— Higher, O.T., viii, 9
— Higher, N.T., 52
— and Assyriology, &c, 48
D, 24
Daniel, 16 f., 27, 46, 47
— Additions to, 45
Davidic Psalms, 40
Deborah, Song of, 22
Deuteronomio Code, 22
— Edition of historical books, 23
Deuteronomy, 22
Duff, Dr., 14
E, 23
Ecclesiastes, 17, 44
Ecclesiasticus, 44
iitohistic Document (E) of reuta-
teuch, &c„ 23
— combined with J., «
Enoch, Book of, 45

93

Ephesians, 64
Esdras, Books of, 26
Esther, 27, 47
— Additions to, 27
Exodus, 22
Ezekiel, 29
A'zra, 26, 47
— (Esdras) 4, 16
Galatians, 63
Genesis, 22, 46
Gospels, 73 ff.
H, 24
Habakkuk, 37
Hagoai, 29
Hebrew MSS. of O.T., 48
Hebrews, 67, 65 ff.
Hexateuch, 24
Historical books of O.T., 19
Hosea, SO
IBN EZKA 16
Internal evidence on books of O.T., 17
Isaiah, 33
— i.-xxxv., 33 f.
— xxxvi.-xxxix. , 33
— xl.-lxvi. (Second Isaiah), 17, 33 f.
— xl.-lv. (Deutero- Isaiah), 35
— lvi.-lxvi. (Trito-Isaiah), 35
— Servant of Yahweh, 86
J, 23
.IE, 23
JED, 24
James, 87 ff.
Jehovlstic Document (J)of Pentateuch,
23
— combined with E, 23
Jeremiah, 30
Job, 42
Joel, 82
John 82 ff.
Jonah, 26, 47
Joshua, 23
Jude, 73
Judges, 25, 47
Judith, 26

94

INDEX

Kings, 25, 47
Kronen, 17
Lamentations, 42
Law, 22
— of Holiness (H), 24
Leviticus, 22, 46
Luke, 78 ff.
Luther, 15 t
maooabean Psalms, 17, 40
Maccabees, 25
Malachi, 32
Manuscripts, 48
Mark, 75 ff., 80
Massoretic Text, 48
Matthew, 57, 75 ff.
Messianic passages, 34
Micah, 86
Minor Prophets : see The Twelve
Moses, 47
Mosaic material in the Pentateuch, 25
Muratori, Fragment, 72, 90
Nahum, SO
Nehemiah, 26, 47
Numbers, 23
Obadiah, 82
O.T., Canon, 49
— Text., 48
PAPIAS, 76, 85
Parousia, 61
Pastoral Epistles, 64
Paul, St, 68 ff.
Pentateuch, 16, 22
— complete, 24
— Mosaic material in, 25
1 Peter, 69
* Peter, 72
Philemon, 64
Philivpians, 61
Porphyry, 16
Pre-exilic psalms, 40
Priestly Code, 22
— combined with JED, 24
Proverbs, 44

Psalms, 39
— xviii., 40
— Davidic, 40
— Maccabean, 17, 40
— Pre-exilic, 40
— of Solomon, 41
Q, 76 ff.
Qoheleth, 44
Religion of Israel, 47
Revelation, 86 ff.
Romans, 63
Ruth, 26, 47
Samuel, 25, 47
Septuagint, 48
Servant of Yahweh, 35
Smith, W. E., IS
Solomon, Psalms of, 41
— Song of, 41
— Wisdom of, 44
Song of Deborah, 22
— Solomon, 41
— the Three Children, 41
Susannah, 26, 45
Synoptics, 73 ff.
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch
ib
Text of O.T., 48
— N.T.. 63 ff.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 16
Theodoret, 16
Thessalonians, 69 ff.
Three Children, Song of, 41, 45
Timothy, 64
Titus, 64
Tobit, 26
Twelve, The, 39
Weuhausen, 17
Wisdom of Solomon, 44
— Jesus the Son ofSira, 44
Wisdom Literature, 42
Zechariah, 37
Zephaniah, 30

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

OPINIONS OF WEIGHT

THE NATION
"A wonderful enterprise, admirably planned, and deserving
the highest success."
WESTMINSTER GAZETTE
"We have nothing but the highest praise for these little
books, and no one who examines them will have anything
else."
TIMES
"The undertaking bids fair to prove of real value as an
educative influence. . . . The information that they give, far
from being scrappy, is wonderfully complete and clearly pre
sented, and the judiciously chosen bibliographies at the end of
each volume will help their readers to pass on from these
capable treatises, which are something more than introductions
to a fuller study of the several subjects."
NATURE
"The People's Books represent an independent and signi
ficant venture, which we cordially hope will meet with success.
In this series we are provided with dainty volumes, written
by people whose lives have been devoted to the subjects which
they survey."
PALL MALL GAZETTE
" A leries with a great and popular future."
MEDICAL TIMES
"We can imagine nothing better than these books for the
use of evening science classes or for private study . . . every
volume is well worth possessing."
ACADEMY
"The series bids fair to provide a liberal education at a
nominal cost to all who are fortunate enough to possess it.*
OBSERVER
"They seem to be taking the world for their parish "

DAILY CHRONICLE
"One volume, an anthology of verse, is entitled Pure Gold.
This surely would be a not improper name for the whole series."
SUNDAY TIMES
"Here are volumes which throw open all the treasures of
science, philosophy, history, and literature, as they are known
to scholars of the present generation, books which are planned
to cover the whole range of knowledge, and summarise some
particular branch in an easy and simple style that is sure to
urge the reader to closer study of the subject. Was I not right
in declaring that education is within everyone's reach to-day ?
With the 'People's Books' in hand there should be nobody
of average intelligence unable to secure self-education. His
library — this library — should be his all-sufficing university."
THE STAR (JOHANNESBURG)
" Probably this bold undertaking by Messrs. Jack is the first
attempt to throw open all the treasures of science, philosophy,
history, and literature known to scholars of the present genera
tion. We have selected the series for special mention in our
leading rather than in our review columns, because we are con
vinced that it is precisely what is wanted in South Africa and
other British Colonies, whose peoples are profoundly interested
in the new knowledge, but whose chances of obtaining accurate
information on the subject are few and far between."
THE EXPOSITORY TIMES
"The most amazing of all the issues of cheap books which
have astonished our day and generation."
NOTES AND QUERIES
"They are not only well 'up-to-date,' and the work of com
petent authors, but are clearly printed on sufficiently good
paper and quite prettily bound."
MR. WILL CROOKS, M.P.
"The simple, homely language in dealing with a scientific
subject is such a rarity that at first sight one took to reading
without effort."