far the /uufltSag nf a. CfflUgi m^ihqi Cetoty" u^ &3. :/90. ^ GENERAL INTEODTJCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT THE CANON Bv THE Same Author IN UNJFORM BINDING THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH. 8vo, $1.50 THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. Svo, $3.00 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT THE CANON BY WILLIAM HENEY GEEEN, D,D,, LL.D. PBOFXeSOB 07 OBIBNTAI, AND OLD 'TBSTAUBNT LITEBATURB IN PBINOBTOH THXOLOSICAI, SEMINABT NEW YORK CHAELES SCEIBNEE'S SONS 1898 COPTBISHT, 1888, BT CHAELES SCKIBNER'S SONS M wA-O 888g TROW DIREOTORY PRINTmo AND lOOKBINDlNQ COMPANT NEW YORK PREFACE Any one who addresses himself to the study of the Old Testament will desire first to know something of its character. It comes to us as a collection of books which have been and still are esteemed peculiarly sa cred. How did they come to be so regarded ? Is it due simply to a veneration for antiquity ? Is this a col lection of the literature of ancient Israel, which later generations prized as a relic of early ages? Is it a body of Hebrew literature to which sanctity was at tributed because of its being written in the sacred tongue ? Is it a collection of the books containing the best thoughts of the most enlightened men of the Israelitish nation, embodying their religious faith and their conceptions of human duty ? Or is it more than all this? Is it the record of a divine revelation, made through duly authorized and accredited messengers sent of God for this purpose ? The first topic which is considered in this volume is accordingly that of the Canon of the Old Testament, which is here treated not theologically but historically. We meet at the outset two opposing views of the growth of the canon : one contained in the statements of the Old Testament itself, the other in the theories of modern critics, based upon the conception that these books gradually acquired a sacredness which did not at first belong to them, and which did not enter into VIU PREFACE the purpose for which they were written. This is tested on the one hand by the claims which the various writers make for themselves, and on the other by the regard shown for these books by those to whom they were originally given. The various arguments urged by critics in defence of their position that the canon was not completed nor the collection made until sev eral centuries after the time traditionally fixed and currently believed are considered; and reasons are given to show that it might have been and probably was collected by Ezra and Nehemiah or in their time. The question then arises as to the books of which the Old Testament properly consists. Can the books of which it was originally composed be certainly iden tified? And are they the same that are now in the Old Testament as we possess it, and neither more nor less? This is answered by tracing in succession the Old Testament as it was accepted by the Jews, as it was sanctioned by our Lord and the inspired writers of the New Testament, and as it has been received in the Christian Church from the beginning. The Apoc rypha though declared to be canonical by the Council of Trent, and accepted as such by the Eoman Catholic Church, are excluded from the canon by its history traced in the manner just suggested as well as by the character of their contents, which is incompatible with the idea of their authors being divinely inspired. Princeton, N. J., October 8, 1898. TABLE OF CONTENTS PASS HISTORY OF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTA MENT 1 Introduction, the term and the science modern ; the early Christians, Origen, Augustin, Jerome, 1 ; Adrian,. Eucherius, Cassiodorus ; after the Reformation, Walther, Walton, Hobbes, Spinoza, Richard Simon, Carpzov, 3 ; Eichhorn, Jahn, Herbst, Welte, DeWette, 3 ; Hengstenberg, Haver- nick, Home ; Keil, Kurtz, Nosgen, Bleek, Stahelin, 4 ; Reuss, Wellhausen, Kuenen ; Strack, Eonig ; A. Zahn, Rupprecht, Hoedemaker, Stosch ; 8. Davidson, Robertson Smith, Driv er ; Douglas, Valpy French and his collaborators, 5. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTA MENT 7 Introduction defined and limited ; general and special ; canon and text, 7, 8. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. L The Canon 9 Derivation and meaning of the word canon, 9, 10. II. Tbstimont op the Bible in kegakd to the Formation OP the Canon 11 Directions by Moses respecting the law, 11 ; thenceforth divinely authoritative, 13, 13; addition by Joshua, 18; Samuel, 14 ; the law in the temple, other copies of the law, 15, 16 ; books of the prophets also canonical, recapitulation, 17, 18. ix X CONTENTS IIL FASE The Critical Theory op the Formation op the Canon . 19 Eichhorn admitted that the law was canonical from the time of Moses ; this denied by more recent critics, 19 ; Deu teronomy canonized under Josiah, the entire Pentateuch imder Ezra as the first canon, 30 ; a second canon of the prophets much later, 31 ; the hagiographa, a third canon, later still, 33 ; argued, 1, from late origin of certain books; 2, the threefold division of the canon, 23 ; 3, the Samari tan canon ; 4, the Sjmagogue lessons, 34 ; 5, the law, or the law and the prophets, used to denote the whole Old Testa ment ; 6, order of books in 3d and 3d divisions ; 7, books disputed, 25. IV. The Determining Prlnciple in the Formation op the Canon 36 Prime error of the critics, Ewald, Dillmann, 36, 37 ; Eichhorn, early national literature, 38 ; Hitzig, Hebrew lit erature, 39 ; religious character, Robertson Smith, 30, 31 ; claim made by the books of the Old Testament, 33 ; the law regarded from the first as a divine revelation, 33 ; so like wise the books of the prophets, 34 ; this not a theological speculation, but a historical fact, 35, 36. The Completion op the Canon 87 Testimony of Josephus, 37 ; not merely his private opin ion, 38 ; his mistake regarding the Persian kings, 39 ; he ascribes prophetic power to John Hyrcanus ; critical allega tions, presumption against them from the common belief of the Jewish nation, 40 ; Chronicles, no proof of late date from its genealogies, 41 ; Ezra and Nehemiah, the title King of Persia, 43-44 ; Jaddua, Darius the Persian, 45-48 ; the days of Nehemiah ; Ezra iv. 6-33, 49, 50 ; Ezra vii. 1-10, 51, 52 ; long periods passed over in silence, 53; Ec- clesiastes, governmental abuses, 53 ; its language and ideas, 54, 55 ; Esther, 55, 56 ; Daniel, statement of Delitzsch, 56 ; historical objections, a, put in the hagiographa, 57 ; b, not CONTENTS XI FASB mentioned by the son of Sirach, 58 ; c, third year of Je- hoiakim, '\.\; d, Chaldeans, a caste of wise men, 59 ; «, Belshazzar, king and son of Nebuchadnezzar, 60-65 ; /, Darius the Mede, 66 ; g, the books, ix. 3 ; h, other indica tions of late date, 67 ; language of the book, 68-70 ; pre dictions of the remote future, 71, 73; specific predictions do not end with Antiochus Epiphanes, 73 ; blends with Messiah's reign as usual in prophecy, 74 ; the compromise attempted is futile, 75; genuine predictions admitted and traditional basis assumed, 76 ; Maccabean Psalms, 77 ; the statement of Josephus and the belief of the Jews not dis proved, 78. VL The Thrbbpold Division op the Canon 79 The prologue to Ecclesiasticus, 79 ; fourfold division of the Septuagint ; the Hebrew division based, not on the character of the books, nor various grades of inspiration, but the official status of the writers, 80, 81; Dillmann's objection ; Moses Stuart, 83, 83 ; Ezra, Nehemiah, Chroni cles, Daniel, 84r-86 ; Lamentations, 87 ; Strack's objections, 88 ; origin of the number 33, views of critics, 89, 90 ; con clusion, 91, 92. VII. When and bv Whom Collected 93 Authority of the books not dependent on their collec tion ; Elias Levita ascribed the collection to Ezra and the Great Synagogue, 93 ; the passage from Baba Bathra, 94, 95 ; theory of modern critics, 96 ; its mistakes corrected, 97 ; critics urge, 1, Ezra only bound the people to obey the law, 98 ; 2, Samaritans only acknowledge the Pentateuch, 99 ; 3, Scriptures read in the Synagogue, 100 ; 4, usage of terms "the law" and "the law and the prophets," 101, 102; 5, arguments based on certain critical conclusions : (1) dis crepancies between Chronicles and Samuel or Kings ; (3) composite character of Isaiah, 103, 104 ; (3) Zech. ix.-xiv. ; (4) Daniel, 105 ; (5) books of prophets not canonical until prophecy had ceased, 106 ; it is alleged (1) that none of the k'thubhim were admitted until the second division was Ill CONTENTS FASB closed, 107 ; (3) late date of some books ; (3) Chronicles pre ceded by Ezra and Nehemiah, 108 ; (4) additions to Esther and Daniel ; canonization not to be confounded with col lection, Bellarmin, 109, 110; prologue to Ecclesiasticus, 111 ; attempts to weaken its force, 113 ; 2 Esdras *iv. 21 ff., 113 ; 3 Mace. ii. 13, 114; 1, Ezra the scribe, 115 ; 2, needs of the period following the exile, 116 ; 3, private collections already existed ; 4, all the sacred books then written ; 5, the cessation of prophecy, 117, 118. VIII. The Extent op the Canon— The Canon op the Jews . 119 Division of the subject; the Talmud, 119; Josephus, 120-138 ; the canon of the Samaritans, 122 ; the Sadducees, 133 ; Essenes, Therapeutse, 134 ; Alexandrian Jews, 124^ 136 ; the Septuagint, 127, 128 ; the notion that there was no defined canon in Alexandria, 139 ; Movers argues for an en larged canon in Palestine, 130 ; disputations in the Talmud, 131-136 ; Baruch and Ecclesiasticus have no sanction in the Talmud, 137; critical perplexity respecting the admission of Daniel and rejection of Ecclesiasticus, 138; passages from the Talmud, 138-140. IX. The Canon op Christ and His Apostles 141 They sanction the Jewish canon negatively ; and positive ly, 1, by express statements, 141 ; 2, general references, 143; 3, direct citation, 143 ; this the highest possible proof of its correctness, 144; use of Septuagint, 1, not sanction its in accuracies ; 3, not liable to be misunderstood ; 3, not quote the Apocrypha, 145 ; alleged traces of acquaintance with the Apocrypha, 146, 147 ; Jude vs. 14, 15 from Book of Enoch; Jude ver. 9, 148; James iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9, 149; Eph. V. 14; John vii. 38, 150; Luke xi. 49; 3 Tim. iii. 8, 151 ; Mat. xxvii. 9 ; Wildeboer's extravagant conclusion, 153 ; sacred books of the Jews distinguished from all others, 153 ; allegation that some books were still disputed, 154 ; at titude of the New Testament to the Old, 155, 156. CONTENTS xiil X. FASB The Canon of the Christian Chttroh 157 Question between Roman Catholics and Protestants, 157 ; decision of Christ the supreme authority ; meaning of ca nonical, 158 ; and apocryphal, 159, 160 ; catalogue of Melito, 160, 161 ; Justin Martyr, Syriac version, 163; Origen, Ter- tullian, 163; Council of Laodicea, 164; fourth century catalogues, 165, 166; Augustin, Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 167-174 ; testimony of the first four centuries 175 ; the Greek Church ; the Western Church, 176 ; Cardi nals Ximenes and Cajetan, 177; Innocent I., Gelasius 178 ; CouncU at Florence ; Council of Trent, 179 ; Apoc rypha in popular usage, 180 ; included in early versions 181, 183 ; read in the churches, 188-185 ; quoted by the fathers, 185, 186 ; under the same titles as the canonical books, 187-189 ; attributed to prophets or inspired men, 189, 190 ; proto-canonical, and deutero-canonical ; doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church ; the Greek Church, 191 ; Prot estant Churches, 193 ; the apocryphal controversy, 193, 194. XI. The Apocrypha Condemned by Internal Evidence . . 195 Value of internal evidence ; Tobit, Judith, 195, 196 ; Wis dom, Ecclesiasticus, 197, 198 ; Maccabees, 199 ; Additions to Esther and Daniel, 300. XII. Order and Number op the Canonical Books. ... - 301 Inferences from Eccles. xii. 12-14 ; Matt, xxiii. 35, 301 ; and Luke xxiv. 44, 303; Talmudic order of the prophets, 303-305 ; of the hagiographa; greater and lesser k'thubhim, 306 ; Maasoretic arrangement ; German manuscripts ; Je rome, 207 ; the Septuagint ; varied enumeration, 308, 309. TREATISES CONSULTED ON THE CANON These treatises are arranged in the order of their publication, that their position in the discussion may be seen at a glance. Bishop Cosin : A Soholastical History of the Canon, 1673. J. D. MiCHAELis: Review of Oeder's Freye Untersuchung iiber einige Bflcher des Alten Testaments, in the Orientalische und Bxegetische BibUothek, No. 3, 1773. J. D. MiCHAELis : Review of Semler's Abhandlung von freyer Unter suchung des Canon, in the same, No. 3, 1772. J. D. MiCHAELis : Review of Hornemann's Observationes ad illus- trationem doctrinse de Canone Veteris Testamenti ex Philone, in the same, No. 9, 1775. J. G. Eichhorn : Historische Untersuchung fiber den Kanon des Alten Testaments, in the Repertorium far Biblische und Morgen- landische Litteratur, No. 5, 1779. J. G. Eichhorn : Review of Corrodi's Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des Jildischen und Christlichen Bibel-Kanons, in the Allgemeine BibUothek der Biblischen Litteratur, Vol. 4, 1792. J. G. Eichhorn : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3d Ed., 1803 ; 4th Ed., 1833. G. L. Bauer : Einleitung in die Schriften des Alten Testaments, 3d Ed., 1806. L. Bertholdt : Einleitung in das Alte und Neue Testament, 1813. E. W. Hengstenbekg : Die Authentic des Daniel, 1831. H. A. C. Haveknick : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1836. J. G. Herbst: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, edited by B. Welte, 1840. F. C. Movers : Loci quidam Historise Canonis Veteris Testamenti illustrati, 1842. MoBEs Stuart : Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, 1845. XVI TREATISES CONSULTED ON THE CANON W. M. L. DE Wettb : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 6th Ed., 1845 ; 8th Ed. by E. Schrader, 1869. L. Hbszpeld : Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. I., 1847 ; Vol. III., 1863. A. McClelland : Canon and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, 1850. A. Alexander : The Canon of the Old and New Testaments, 1851. P. P. Kebkl : Die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments, 1853. K. F. Keil : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1853 ; 2d Ed. trans lated into English by G. C. M. Douglas, 1869. H. Ewald: Ueber das suchen und finden sogenannter Makka- baischer Psalmen, in the Jahrbucher der Biblischen Wissen- schaft, 1854. H. Ewald : Ueber die Heiligkeit der Bibel, in the same, 1855. B. Welte : Bemerkungen tlber die Entstehung des alttest. Canons, in the Theologische Quartalschrift, 1855. P. DE Jong : Disquisitio de Psalmis Maccabaicis, 1857. G. P. Oehler : Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Herzog's Real- Encyklopadie, Vol. VII., 1857. A. Dillmann : Ueber die Bildung der Sammlung heiliger Schriften Alten Testaments, in the Jahrbucher f iir Deutsche Theologie, Vol. III., 1858. P. Bleek : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1860 ; 4th Ed. by J. Wellhausen, 1878. B. P. Westcott : The Canon of Scripture, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1860. B. P. Westcott : The Bible in the Church, 1866. J. FtesT : Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Ueberliefer- ungen in Talmud und Midrasch, 1868. L. DiESTBL : Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen Kirche, 1869. C. Ehrt : Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters, 1869. J. Dbrenbourg : L'Histoire et la Geographie de la Palestine d'aprSs les Thalmuds et les autres Sources Rabbiniques, 1869. H. Steinbr : Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Schenkel's Bibel- Lexicon, 1871. I. 8. Bloch : Geschichte der Sammlung der Althebraischen Litera- tur, 1876. W. L. Alexander: Canon, in Kitto's Cyclopasdia of Biblical Literature, 1876. H. L. Strack : Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Herzog-Plitt's Real- Encyklopadie, Vol. VIL, 1880. S. Davidson : The Canon of the Bible, 1880. TREATISES CONSULTED ON THE CANON XVll W. Robertson Smith : The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1st Ed., 1881 ; 2d Ed., 1892. G. A. Marx (Dalman) : Traditio Rabbinorum Veterrima de Li- brorum Veteris Testamenti Ordine atque Origine, 1884. P. Buhl : Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments, 1891. 8. R. Driver ; An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa ment, 1st Ed., 1891; 6th Ed., 1897. H. E. Ryle : The Canon of the Old Testament, 1892. E. KoNiG : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1893. G. Wildeboer : The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament. Translated by B. W. Bacon, edited by G. P. Moore, 1895. HISTOEY OF INTEODUOTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENTI Inteoduction, as a technical term, is of comparatively modern date, and borrowed from the German. It was introduced as a generic designation of those studies, which are commonly regarded as preliminary to the interpretation of the Scriptures. As a science or a branch of systematic learning, Introduction is of mod ern growth. The early Christian writers were either not sufficiently aware of its importance, or imperfectly provided with the means of satisfactorily treating it. Their attention was directed chiefly to the doctrinal contents of Scripture, and it was only when the genu ineness or divine authority of some part or the whole was called in question, that they seem to have con sidered these preliminary subjects as at all impor tant ; as for instance, when the attack upon the Penta teuch by Celsus, and on Daniel by Porphyry, excited Origen and others to defend them, an effect extending only to the Evidences of Eevealed Eeligion and the Canon of Scripture. The most ancient writings that can be described as general treatises upon this subject are by the two most eminent Fathers of the fourth century, Augustin and Jerome. The four books of the ' This brief sketch is extracted from an unpublished lecture of my former friend, preceptor, and colleague, Dr. Joseph Addison Alex ander, for many years the ornament and pride of Princeton Theologi cal Seminary. It was written in 1843, and is here inserted as a memento of a brilliant scholar and in humble acknowledgment of indebtedness to his instructions. 1 2 HISTORY OF INTEODUCTION former de Doctrina Christiana contain, according to his own description, prsecepta tractandarum Scripturarum, and belong therefore chiefly to Hermeneutics. He was ignorant of Hebrew, but his strength of intellect and in genuity enabled him to furnish many valuable maxims of interpretation. Jerome's book was called " Libellus de Optimo interpretandi genere." It is chiefly contro versial and of much less value than Augustin's. The first work which appeared under the name of Introduction was in Greek, the Elaaymyf) et? ra? Seoa^ r/ptKpd'i of Adrian. Its date is doubtful, and its contents restricted to the style and diction of the sacred writers. An imperfect attempt to methodize the subject was made by Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, in the fifth cen tury ; but the first important advance was made in the sixth century by Cassiodorus, a Benedictine monk, in his work " De Institutione Divinarum Scripturarum," which treats especially the subject of the Canon and of Hermeneutics, and was the standard work in this de partment through the Middle Ages. The philological branches of the subject were first treated in detail after the Eeformation. The earliest important works of this kind were the " Officina Biblica of Walther "in 1636, and Bishop Walton's "Prolego mena to the London Polyglott " in 1657, which is par ticularly rich in reference to Biblical Philology and Criticism. The insidious attacks on the divine author ity of Scripture by Hobbes and Spinoza, in the latter part of the seventeenth century, called forth as its pro fessed defender Eichard Simon, a Eomish priest of great ingenuity and considerable learning, but of un sound principles. His Critical Histories of the Old and New Testaments provoked much censure, and gave oc casion to the first systematic Introduction to the Old Testament, that of Carpzov, which appeared in 1721, HISTOEY OF INTEODUCTION 3 and is chiefly occupied with the evidences of revealed religion and with hermeneutics. In the eighteenth century, Introduction rose to great importance, and the writers on it exercised great influ ence. The principles which Simon had obscurely rec ommended, were avowed and carried out by Semler and his followers, who introduced a general scepticism as to the canonical authority of some books and the in spiration of the whole. The Bible now began to be studied and expounded as a classic, with reference merely to the laws of taste. Upon this principle the great work of Eichhorn was constructed, the first com plete Introduction to the books of the Old Testament, the influence of which has been incalculably great in giving an infidel character to modern German exegesis. The counteracting influence of Jahn, a learned Eoman Catholic professor at Vienna, has been lessened by his great inferiority to Eichhorn, both in taste and genius, and his equal want of judgment as to some important points. Another valuable work on Introduction from a Eoman Catholic source is that of Herbst, Professor in Ttibingen, edited after the author's death by his col league Welte in 1840, and greatly improved by his sound conservative additions. Eichhorn's work, which first ap peared in 1780, and in a fourth edition more than forty years after, is in several volumes ; but the same general principles of imbelief are taught in a compendious form with great skill and talent by De Wette, one of the most eminent of living German theologians.^ His In troduction to the Old Testament, filling a moderate octavo, is convenient as presenting a compendious view of the whole subject, with minute and ample references to the best authorities. His views, however, as to in- ' De Wette died 1849. 4 HISTORY OF INTEODUCTION spiration are completely infidel. Hengstenberg, Profes sor at Berlin, a leading writer of the Christian or be lieving school, began a conservative reaction on the Protestant side by publishing at intervals a series of works upon detached paris of the subject ; and one of his pupils, Havernick of Eostock, with the same prin ciples as Hengstenberg, but less clear and judicious, has just finished a systematic work upon the whole of it. It may be proper to add that most of the works which have been described or mentioned comprehend only a part of Introduction in its widest sense, the appHcation of the name being different as to extent in different sys tems. Almost all the systematic works on Introduction exclude Antiquities or Archaeology, as so extensive and so unconnected with the others as to be treated more conveniently apart. This is not the case, however, with the only comprehensive work in English on the general subject, that of Home— a work which cannot be too highly recommended for the soundness of its principles, its Christian spirit, its methodical arrangement, and the vast amount of valuable information which it certainly contains. Its faults are that it is a compilation, and as such contains opinions inconsistent with each other, and in some cases even contradictory, and also that the style is heavy, and the plan too formal and mechanically systematic. Little need be added to this sketch, written more than fifty years ago. The reaction begun by Hengstenberg, was vigorously continued by Keil and Kurtz, and after them by Noesgen. Bleek and Stahelin, who still be longed to the elder school of critics, were disposed to take a moderate position, and to recede from some of the more advanced conclusions of their predecessors. This tendency was suddenly checked, however, by the rise HISTOEY OF INTEODUCTION 5 of the extreme school of Eeuss, Wellhausen, and Kue nen, which is now in the ascendant ; so that even evan gelical scholars, like Strack and Konig, largely accept their conclusions, and seek to reconcile them with faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures. An able and de termined revolt against these destructive opinions has of late been initiated by prominent university-bred pastors, such as Adolph Zahn of Stuttgart, Edouard Eupprecht of Bavaria, Hoedemaker of Amsterdam, and Stosch of Berlin, who stand on thoroughly conservative ground. In Great Britain a tenth edition of Home's Introduc tion was prepared by Dr. Samuel Davidson, and largely rewritten by him with a large infusion of German learn ing and critical ideas, though still maintaining conser vative positions. Subsequently he published an Intro duction of his own, in which his former conservative conclusions were completely reversed. It was, however, the brilliant and eloquent Eoberison Smith, Professor at Aberdeen and then at Cambridge, who was chiefly instrumental in introducing advanced critical opinions among English readers. Dr. Driver's Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament has contributed still further to spread these views, and give them that measure of popularity to which they have attained. Yet conservative views have not lacked stanch defenders, as in " Isaiah One and his Book One," by Principal Douglas of Glasgow, and " Lex Mosaica," edited by Dr. Valpy French, with nearly a score of able collaborators. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT Inteoduction to the Old Testament in the widest sense of the term would include whatever is preliminary or auxiliary to the exegetical study and correct under standing of this portion of the sacred volume. But the subjects which would thus be embraced within it are too numerous and of too heterogeneous a character to be profitably pursued together, or to be classed under a single name. It is accordingly in ordinary usage re stricted to a definite range of subjects, viz. : those which concern the literary history and criticism of the Old Testament. Other branches important to the interpre ter, such as Biblical Geography, Antiquities, and Nat ural History, Apologetics, and Hermeneutics can best be treated separately. Introduction, in the limited and technical sense already explained, is divided into General and Special. General Introduction has to do with those topics which concern the entire volume considered as a whole ; Special Intro duction with those which relate to its several parts, or to the individual books of which it consists, such as the questions of date, authorship, integrity or freedom from adulteration, the character of the composition, etc. General Introduction to the Old Testament, which is the subject of the present volume, is an inquiry into I. The Collection and Extent of the Canon. II. The History and Criticism of the Text. The history of the text must be traced both in respect 7 8 GENEEAL INTRODUCTION to its external form and its internal substance. In studying the former it is necessary to consider 1. The original form of the text, or the Languages in which it was written. 2. The mode of its transmission, viz., by Manuscripts. 3. The additional forms in which it exists, viz., Ancient Versions. This must be followed by an examination into 4. The internal history of the substance of the text and its present condition. The way is now prepared for 5. The Criticism of the text, or a consideration of the means available for the detection and correction of any errors which may have crept into it, the proper mode of their application and the result accomplished by them. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THE CANON The Old Testament consists of a number of separate books or treatises, which were written by different authors at various periods of time. The questions nat urally arise, Why have they all been united thus in one volume ? When and how did this take place ? Are all that it contains rightfully included in it ? Does it con tain all the books that properly belong to it ? This collection of books is naturally called the Canon of the Old Testament. This term is derived from the Greek word kuvcov, which originally denoted "any straight rod," whence it was applied to a rod used in measuring, as a carpenter's rule ; and thence metaphori cally to any rule whatever, " anything that serves to reg ulate or determine other things," as the rules or canons of grammar or of rhetoric ; and the best Greek writers were by the Alexandrian grammarians called " canons," as being models or standards of literary excellence.^ It occurs in two passages in the New Testament (Gal. vi. 16 ; 2 Cor. x. 13-16), in the sense of rule or measure. In the writings of the Christian Fathers the expressions " the canon of the church," " the canon of the truth," " the canon of the faith," are used to denote the body of I Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, s.v. 9 10 GENEEAL INTEODUCTION Christian doctrine as forming the recognized rule of belief. In like manner " the canon of Scripture," or " the canonical Scriptures," became the accepted designation of that body of writings which constitutes the inspired rule of faith and practice.^ The assertion of Semler, Eichhorn, and others, that "canon" simply means list in this connection, and that canonical or canonized books denotes the list of books sanctioned by the Church to be read in public worship, overlooks the primary and proper signification of the term. ' The history and usage of this word is very carefully traced by K. A. Credner. Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 1-68. II TESTIMONY OP THE BIBLE IN REGARD TO THE FORMATION OF THE CANON While the Bible does not profess to give a complete history of the formation of the Canon, it contains impor tant statements concerning it, which must have their place in any reliable account of the matter ; otherwise all will be left to vague conjecture and arbitrary theoriz ing. Express provision is said to have been made both for the careful custody of the first completed portion of the sacred canon, and for making the people acquainted with its contents. " And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, who bare the ark of the covenant of Jeho vah, saying. Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee " (Deut. xxxi. 24^26). It was thus placed in the charge of the priests to be kept by them along side of the most sacred vessel of the sanctuary, and in its innermost and holiest apartment. This was in accordance with the usage of the principal nations of antiquity. The Eomans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Babylonians, and Egyptians had their sacred writings, which were jealously preserved in their temples, and entrusted to the care of officials spe cially designated for the purpose. Moses also com manded the priests and elders of the people " At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of 11 12 GENERAL INTRODUCTION release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before Jehovah thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear Jehovah your God, and observe to do all the words of this law ; and that their children, which have not known, may hear, and learn to fear Jeho vah your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it " (Deut. xxxi. 10-13). And it was still further enjoined that the future king should " write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites ; and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life ; that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep aU the words of this law and these statutes to do them " (Deut. xvii. 18, 19). And the following direction was given to Joshua, the immediate successor of Moses in the leadership of the people : " This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein " (Josh. i. 8). According to the uniform testimony of aU the sacred historians, the law of Moses, thus carefully guarded and made obligatory upon the people and their rulers, was ever after regarded as canonical and divinely authorita tive, and that even in the most degenerate times. The punctilious obedience rendered to it by Joshua is re peatedly noticed in the course of his life {e.g., Josh. xi. 15). Canaanites were left in the land to prove Israel " whether they would hearken unto the commandments of Jehovah, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses " (Judg. iii. 4). Saul forfeited his king dom by failing to comply with a requu-ement of the law. TESTIMONY OP THE BIBLE 13 which Samuel had charged him to execute (1 Sam. xv.). David charged Solomon to obey the law of Moses (1 Kin. ii. 3). David is repeatedly commended for keep ing the law (1 Kin. iii. 14, ix. 4, xi. 34, 38). Solomon's compliance with the law of Moses in the worship insti tuted in the temple is noted (2 Chron. viii. 13) ; and he impressed upon the people their obhgation to obey it (1 Kin. viii. 56-58, 61). The prophet Ahijah denounced Jeroboam for his disobedience to the commandments of Jehovah (1 Kin. xiv. 7-16). King Asa commanded the people to keep the law (2 Chron. xiv. 4). Jehoshaphat sent a deputation throughout all the cities of Judah to teach the people the book of the law (2 Chron. xvii. 9). The law of Moses was observed under Joash (2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxiv. 6). Amaziah is said to have acted in ac cordance with the law of Moses (2 Kin. xiv. 6 ; 2 Chron. XXV. 4). Hezekiah kept the commandments which Je hovah commanded Moses (2 Kin. xviii. 6 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 16). Manasseh's gross transgressions of the law of Moses were denounced by the prophets (2 Kin. xxi. 2- 16). Josiah boimd the people in solemn covenant to obey the law of Moses (2 Kin. xxiii. 3, 24, 25 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, 30-32). The exile of both Israel and Judah is attributed to their infractions of the law of Moses (2 Kin. xvii. 7-23, xviii. 12 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 8 ; Dan. ix. 11, 13 ; Neh. i. 7-9, ix. 14^30). The first colony of returned exiles recognized the authority of the law of Moses (Ezra iii. 2, vi. 16-18). The book of the law was read and expounded to the people by Ezra and the Levites (Neh. viii, 1-8), and aU solemnly pledged themselves to obey it (Neh. x. 28, 29, xiii. 1-3). We read of an addition being made to the book of the law in Josh. xxiv. 26 : " And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God." The reference is to the covenant transaction at Shechem, in which 14 GENERAL INTEODUCTION the people are reminded of what Jehovah had done for their fathers and for themselves, and they in turn pledged to him their faithful service. It was an ap propriate appendix to the law, recording God's gracious leadings and the fulfilment of his promises, and the engagement of the people to obey his requirements. It would thus, like the law itself, be a witness against the people in aU time to come, if they forsook the LOED. No mention is made of any subsequent addition to the book of the law, but a fact is stated in 1 Sam. x. 25, which is of some consequence in this connection. It is there said that upon the selection of Saul to be king, "Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom," i.e., he expounded to them the regulations belonging to this new form of government, the rights and duties of both the king and his subjects, " and wrote it in a book and laid it up before Jehovah." This im portant paper relating to the constitution of the mon archy in Israel was deposited for safe-keepiag in the sacred tabernacle. It is an act analogous to that of Moses in making a similar disposition of the funda mental constitution of Israel as the people of God, and so far confirmatory of it. It has sometimes been in ferred that what was thus done vsdth a paper of national importance, must a fortiori have been also done with each fresh addition to the volume of God's revelation ; and as a complete canon of Scripture was preserved in the second temple,' so the pre-exUic sanctuary must have contained a standard copy, not merely of the law of Moses, but of the whole word of God,' as far as it was written. There is, however, no historical confirmation of this conjecture. > Josephus, Ant. , iii. 1, 7, v. 1, 17 ; Jewish War, vii. 5, 5 ; Life of Josephus, § 75. TESTIMONY OP THE BIBLE 15 When the temple of Solomon was built, the copy of the law previously kept in the tabernacle was without doubt transferred to it. The direction which placed it in the custody of the priests was still in force, and the change of the sanctuary made no alteration in the sacred ness of what had before been deposited in it. This is not disproved, as has been alleged,' by 1 Kin. viii. 9 and the parallel passage 2 Chron. v. 10, where it is declared that " there was nothing in the ark " when it was removed to the temple " save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb." The book of the law was put (^SB) " by the side of the ark," not within it. Whether it was stiU put by the side of the ark, af ter this was deposited in the temple and was no longer liable to be transported from place to place, cannot be certainly known. But that it was kept somewhere in the temple appears from the express mention of it in 2 Kin. xxii. 8. It is there stated that the book of the law, explicitly identified with the law of Moses (xxiii. 24, 25), which had been neglected and lost sight of dur ing the ungodly reigns of Manasseh and Amon, was found again in the temple in the reign of Josiah. This was but a short time before the destruction of the city and temple by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonish captivity. In all probability the book of the law belonging to the temple perished when the temple was burned (2 Kin. XXV. 9), but this did not involve the destruction of the law itself, numerous copies of which must have been in existence. Every king was required to have one for his own use (Deut. xvii. 18). The kings of Judah, who are commended for observing the law, must have possessed it. And it is explicitly stated that in the coronation of king Joash Jehoiada, the high priest, ' De Wette' 8 Einleitung (6th edition), § 14, note/. 16 GENERAL INTEODUCTION gave him " the crown and the testimony." The testi mony can only mean here as elsewhere the law as an authoritative declaration of the will of God (Ps. xix. 7, Ixxviii. 5 ; 1 Kin. ii. 3 ; 2 Kin. xxiii. 3). The transaction described was the formal presentation to a monarch, upon his accession to the throne, of a copy of the law to be the guide of his reign. The judges appointed by Jehoshaphat were to decide questions arising under the law (2 Chron. xix. 10), and must have been able to make themselves familiar with its contents. The com mission sent by him to visit the cities of Judah took a copy of the law with them (2 Chron. xvii. 8, 9). Solo mon's urgent admonition to the people to walk in the statutes of Jehovah and to keep his commandments as sumes their knowledge of what they were expected to obey (1 Kin. viii. 61). The numerous allusions to the law in all the subsequent books of the old Testament ^ indicate familiarity with it on the part of the sacred writers. Ps. i. 4 ^ describes the pious by saying " his delight is in the law of Jehovah, and in his law he doth meditate day and night." The admiration and affection for the law expressed in such passages as Ps. xix. 7-11, xl. 7, 8,' and the exhortations and rebukes of the proph ets based upon the requirements of the law imply an acquaintance with it such as could only be produced by its diffusion among the people. In the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes various persons were found to be in possession of the sacred books ; * the same was doubtless the case in the period now under review. The returning exiles governed themselves by the direc- ' See my Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 52-58. ' This Psalm is certainly older than Jeremiah, who makes use of ver. 3 in xvii. 8. 2 These Psalms are ascribed to David in their titles, the correctness of which there is no good reason for discrediting. * 1 Mace. i. 56, 57. Josephus, Ant., xii. 5, 4. TESTIMONY OP THE BIBLE 17 tions of the law of Moses (Ezra iii. 2, vi. 18) ; and Ezra came up from captivity with the law of God in his hand (vii. 14), facts which sufficiently prove that the law had neither perished nor lost its authority. But the law of Moses was not the only book that was invested with divine authority. It will be sufficient here to note the fact that the prophets were acknowl edged messengers of Jehovah, who spoke in his name and at his bidding. What they uttered was the word of Jehovah and the law of God (Isa. i. 10). The ca lamities which befel Israel and Judah are attributed to their disobeying the law, both that which was com manded their fathers and that which was sent to them by the prophets (2 Kin. xvii. 13 ; Neh. ix. 29, 30 ; Dan. ix. 5, 6 ; Zech. vii. 12). The word of Jehovah by the prophets had, of course, the same binding authority when written as when orally delivered. Eeference is made (Isa. xxxiv. 16) to "the book of Jehovah," in which the antecedent prophecy could be found and its exact fulfilment noted. Daniel ix. 2 speaks of "the books " in which a prophecy of Jeremiah, then on the eve of fulfilment, was contained. The books of the prophets from the time that they were first written formed a component part of the revealed will of God, and belonged of necessity to the canonical Scriptures. To this extent, then, the statements of the Bible are exphcit in regard to the formation of the canon. The law written by Moses was by his direction deposited in the sanctuary as the divinely obligatory standard of duty for Israel. To this was added by Joshua a solemn engagement on the part of the people to obey it. Though this law was grossly transgressed at times by the people and their rulers, its supreme authority found repeated and emphatic recognition, and was attended by divine sanctions culminating in the overthrow of 18 GENEEAL INTEODUCTION both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The book of the law, which was kept in the temple, probably per ished when the latter was burned. But other copies escaped, and the law was still in the hands of the people at the close of the exile. No intimation is given that the books of the prophets were as yet united with the law in the same volume, but they are classed with it as emanating from the same divine source, being equally the word and law of God, with a like claim to unfalter ing obedience. Ill THE CRITICAL THEORY OP THE FORMATION OF THE CANON EiCHHOEN,' who has been called the Father of Higher Criticism, did not hesitate to admit that the laws of Moses were deposited by his direction in the sanctuary by the side of the ark, as a divinely given and authori tative code agreeably to the statement in Deut. xxxi. 25, 26. But as the Pentateuch was more and more discred ited, and belief in its Mosaic authorship was abandoned, later critics changed their attitude accordingly. The present critical position in this matter is weU repre sented by Dillmann,^ and may be briefly stated as fol lows : If Moses had written the Pentateuch or any book of laws it would, as a matter of course, have been thence forward, in the proper and fullest sense of the word, canonical. His work, however, was not writing, but acting, establishing institutions, and enkindling a new spiritual life. After his death, attempts were made, from time to time, to reduce his statutes and ordinances to writing for public or private use without producing a body of laws universally accepted as authoritative, for these collections were liable to be superseded by others more complete or more perspicuous. The book of the law found in the temple in the reign of Josiah (2 Kin. xxii. 8) was the culmination of all attempts in this di rection, embodying both what was gained from the ' Einleitung, 4th edition, p. 20. ' Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Theologie, III., p. 4'32 ff. 19 20 GENEEAL INTEODUCTION experience of the past and the instructions of the proph ets with special adaptation to the needs of the present. This was at once accepted by both king and people, who solemnly bound themselves to obey its requirements. This book was Deuteronomy,' and was the first written law having canonical authority. During the exile the Pentateuch was completed in its present form by the addition of the priestly laws and other constituents. This was brought to Jerusalem by Ezra when he came up from the captivity, and, as is related in Neh. viii.-x., was read before the assembled people, who thereupon pledged themselves to observe aU that it commanded. By this transaction the Pentateuch, which was thence forth denominated the law, or the law of Moses, was made canonical, and was ever after, accepted as su premely authoritative. This is not only the first divi sion of the canon, but the critics insist that it constituted the first canon, and that it is all that was regarded as canonical and authoritative in the time of Ezra. He was a scribe of the law (Ezra vii. 6, 12, 21) ; he prepared his heart to seek the law and do it and teach it to Is rael (ver. 10) ; he went to Jerusalem with the law of God in his hand (ver. 14) ; he bound the people by a writ ten engagement (Neh. ix. 38) and a solemn oath (x. 29) to obey the law in every particular. This alone, it is urged, constituted at that time the pubHcly sanctioned and authoritative divine canon. The books of the prophets, which stand next in the ' In 1858, when the article was written from which the preceding statement has been condensed, Dillmann still held what was at that time the common critical opinion, that the book of the law found in the temple was the entire Pentateuch, which had recently been com pleted by the addition of Deuteronomy. The critical revolution intro duced by Graf and Wellhausen led to a sudden reversal of opinions in this respect, and it is now claimed that the completion of the Penta teuch was the work of priests in or after the Babylonish esdle. THE CRITICAL THEORY 21 order of the Hebrew Bible, are, in the opinion of the critics, not only a second division of the canon, but, historically speaking, were a second canon additional to the first, and incorporated with it at a later time. These books, it is said, were privately circulated at first, and were highly esteemed by the pious who possessed them. But they had no public official authority until they were formally united with the canon. This second collection included what are called the former and the latter prophets. The former prophets are the four his torical books according to the original enumeration, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which trace the history of the chosen people and of God's dealings with them in a direct line from the death of Moses to the Babylonish captivity. These follow immediately after the Pentateuch, as they continue the history from the point at which it closes. They are called the former prophets because in the order of the canon they precede the strictly prophetical books, which are accordingly termed the latter prophets. Of these there are hke- wise four in the original enumeration, viz.: three major prophets, so named because of their superior size, Isai ah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and twelve minor prophets, whose writings, on account of their inferior size, are classed together as one book. A considerable time after the formation of the first canon by Ezra this second canon of the books of the prophets was added to it, so that the canon, as thus constituted, consisted of the law and the prophets ; and for a length of time these are all that were reckoned canonical. At a stiU later period, however, a third canon was formed of other books which were thought worthy of being associated with the preceding collections. As these were of a somewhat miscellaneous character and incapable of being included under any more descriptive 22 GENERAL INTRODUCTION designation, they were simply called by the general name K'thubhim' (ni3in3) writings, or by the Greek equivalent, Hagiographa (aryioypacpa), sacred writings. These include the three large poetical books, Psalms (Diiinn), Proverbs {"htO'n), and Job (3i*S), from whose iaitials have been formed the memorial word nuas trvih; then the five small books called Megilloth, rolls, because they were written on separate roUs for syna gogue use, viz.: the Song of Solomon, Euth, Lamenta tions, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and, finally, the three books, as originally numbered, Daniel, Ezra (including Nehe miah), and Chronicles. Thus, by successive steps in the course of time, the canon reached its final form, em bracing the Law, the Prophets, and the K'thubhim,^ or Hagiographa. The critics acknowledge that there is no historical testimony to the existence of the successive stages, which they profess to find, in the formation of the canon.^ All the testimony in the case is, infact, directly ' Pronounced k'thiivim. , 'Bertholdt, Einleitung, p. 81, gives to this term the purely fanciful definition, " books lately inserted in the canon," on the false assump tion that the root nJl3, to ivrite, has the sense "to inscribe in the canon.'' K'thubliim, as the technical name of the third division of the canon, is not to be derived, as some have claimed, from SWS, ii is written, the common formula of citation from the Scriptures, nor from SnS in the sense of Scripture, as indicating that it is a part of the sacred volume. It is properly the passive participle of SriS, to write, used as a noun, and meaning " Writings," not in a depreciating sense, as Dillmann alleges (Jahrb. f. D. Theol., III., p. 430), " in con trast with the law and the prophets they were nothing but ' writings,' to which no such distinguishing quality as Mosaic or prophetic be longs." Their association with the law and the prophets in the canon sufficiently shows that they were equally regarded as the inspired word and vested with divine authority. They are "writings" by way of eminence, ranking above mere ordinary human productions. Com pare the Greek ypa