General Introduction
to the Old Testament:
The Canon
William Henry Green
Digitized by Ted
Hildebrandt,
originally
published by:
Charles
Scribner's Sons
1898
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
vii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii 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
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 3, 1898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
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, 2; Eichhorn,
Jann, Herbst, Welte, DeWette, 3;
Hengstenberg, Haver-
nick, Horne; Keil, Kurtz, Nosgen,
Bleek, Stahelin, 4; Reuss,
Wellhausen, Kuenen; Strack, Konig;
A. Zahn, Rupprecht,
Hoedemaker, Stosch; S. 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.
I.
THE
CANON 9
Derivation and meaning of the word
canon, 9, 10.
II.
TESTIMONY
OF THE BIBLE IN REGARD TO THE FORMATION
OF THE CANON 11
Directions by Moses respecting the law, 11; thenceforth
divinely authoritative, 12, 13;
addition by Joshua, 13;
Samuel, 14; the law in the temple,
other copies of the law,
15, 16; books of the prophets also
canonical, recapitulation,
17, 18.
ix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
III.
PAGE
THE
CRITICAL THEORY OF THE FORMATION OF 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
under Ezra as the first canon, 20; a
second canon of the
prophets much later, 21; the
hagiographa, a third canon,
later still, 22; argued, 1, from
late origin of certain books;
2, the threefold division of the
canon, 23; 3, the Samari-
tan canon; 4, the Synagogue lessons,
24; 5, the law, or the
law and the prophets, used to denote
the whole Old Testa-
ment; 6, order of books in 2d and 3d
divisions; 7, books
disputed, 25.
IV.
TILE
DETERMINING PRINCIPLE IN THE FORMATION OF THE
CANON 26
Prime error of the critics, Ewald, Dillmann, 26, 27;
Eichhorn, early national literature,
28; Hitzig, Hebrew lit-
erature, 29; religious character,
Robertson Smith, 30, 31;
claim made by the books of the Old
Testament, 32; 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.
V.
THE
COMPLETION OF THE CANON 37
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
the days of Nehemiah; Ezra iv. 6-23,
49, 50; Ezra vii.
1-10, 51, 52; long periods passed
over in silence, 52; 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
PAGE
mentioned by the son of Sirach, 58;
c, third year of Je-
hoiakim, i. 1; d, Chaldeans, a caste
of wise men, 59; e,
Belshazzar, king and son of
Nebuchadnezzar, 60-65; f,
Darius the Mede, 66; g, the books,
ix. 2; h, other indica-
tions of late date, 67; language of
the book, 68-70; pre-
dictions of the remote future, 71,
72; 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.
VI.
THE
THREEFOLD DIVISION OF 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, 82, 83;
Ezra, Nehemiah, Chroni-
cles, Daniel, 84-86; Lamentations,
87; Strack's objections,
88; origin of the number 22, views
of critics, 89, 90; con-
clusion, 91, 92.
VII.
WHEN
AND BY WHOM COLLECTED 93
Authority of the books not dependent on their collec-
tion; Elias Levitt 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; (2)
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xii CONTENTS
PAGE
closed, 107; (2) 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,
112; 2 Esdras xiv. 21
ff., 113; 2 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 OF THE CANON-THE CANON OF THE JEWS 119
Division of the subject; the Talmud, 119; Josephus,
120-122; the canon of the Samaritans,
122; the Sadducees,
123; Essenes, Therapeute, 124;
Alexandrian Jews, 124-
126; the Septuagint, 127, 128; the
notion that there was no
defined canon in
larged canon in
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 OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES 141
They sanction the Jewish canon negatively; and positive-
ly, 1, by express statements, 141;
2, general references, 142;
3, direct citation, 143; this the
highest possible proof of its
correctness, 144; use of Septuagint,
1, not sanction its in-
accuracies; 2, 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; 2 Tim. iii. 8,
151; Mat. xxvii. 9; Wildeboer's
extravagant conclusion,
152; 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 xiii
PAGE
THE
CANON OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 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, 162; Origen, Ter-
tullian, 163; Council of Laodicea,
164; fourth century
catalogues, 165, 166; Augustin,
Councils of Hippo and
175; the Greek Church; the
nals Ximenes and Cajetan, 177;
Innocent L, Gelasius,
178; Council at
rypha in popular usage, 180;
included in early versions,
181, 182; read in the churches,
183-185; 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-
XI.
THE
APOCRYPHA CONDEMNED BY INTERNAL EVIDENCE 195
Value of internal evidence; Tobit, Judith, 195,196;
dom, Ecclesiasticus, 197, 198;
Maccabees, 199; Additions
to Esther and Daniel, 200.
XII.
ORDER
AND NUMBER OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS
201
Inferences from Eccles. xii. 12-14; Matt. xxiii. 35, 201;
and Luke xxiv. 44, 202; Talmudic
order of the prophets,
202-205; of the hagiographa; greater
and lesser k'thubhim,
206; Massoretic arrangement; German
manuscripts; Je-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Costri: A. Scholastical History of the Canon, 1672.
J.
D. MICHAELIS: Review of Oeder's Freye Untersuchung uber
einige Bucher des Alten Testaments,
in the Orientalische und
Exegetische Bibliothek, No. 2, 1772.
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 doctrines de Canone
Veteris Testamenti ex Philone, in
the same, No. 9, 1775.
J.
G. EICHHORN: Historische Untersuchung uber den Kanon des
Alten Testaments, in the Repertorium
fur Biblische und Morgen-
landische Litteratur, No. 5, 1779.
J.
G. EICHHORN: Review of Corrodi's Versuch einer Beleuchtung
der Geschichte des Jfidischen und
Christlichen Bibel-Kanons, in
the Allgemeine Bibliothek der
Biblischen Litteratur, Vol. 4,
1792.
J.
G. EICHHORN: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3d Ed., 1803;
4th Ed., 1823.
G.
L. BAUER: Einleitung in die Schriften des Alten Testaments, 3d
Ed., 1806.
L.
BERTHOLDT: Einleitung in das Alte und Neue Testament, 1812.
E.
W. HENGSTENBERG: Die Authentie des Daniel, 1831.
H.
A. C. HAVERNICK: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1836.
J.
G. HERBST: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, edited by B.
Welte, 1840.
F.
C. MOVERS: Loci quidam Historix Canonis Veteris Testamenti
illustrati, 1842.
MOSES
STUART: Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament
Canon, 1845.
xv
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xvi
TREATISES CONSULTED ON THE CANON
W.
M. L. DE WETTE: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 6th Ed.,
1845; 8th Ed. by E. Schrader, 1869.
L.
HERZFELD: Geschichte des Volkes
1863.
A.
MCCLELLAND: Canon and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,
1850.
A.
ALEXANDER: The Canon of the Old and New Testaments, 1851.
P.
F. KEERL: Die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments, 1852.
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-
schaf t, 1854.
H.
EWALD: Ueber die Heiligkeit der Bibel, in the same, 1855.
B.
WELTE: Bemerkungen uber die Entstehung des alttest. Canons,
in the Theologische Quartalschrift,
1855.
P.
DE JONG: Disquisitio de Psalmis Maccabaicis, 1857.
G.
F. 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
fur Deutsche Theologie,
Vol. III., 1858.
F.
BLEEK: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1860; 4th Ed. by J.
Wellhausen, 1878.
B.
F. WESTCOTT: The Canon of Scripture, in Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible, 1860.
B.
F. WESTCOTT: The Bible in the Church, 1866.
J.
FURST: Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Ueberliefer-
ungen in Talmud und Midrasch, 1868.
L.
DIESTEL: Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen
Kirche, 1869.
C.
EHRT: Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters, 1869.
J.
DERENBOURG: L'Histoire et la Geographic de la Palestine d'aprês
les Thalmuds et les autres Sources
Rabbiniques, 1869.
H.
STEINER: Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Schenkel's Bibel-
Lexicon, 1871.
I.
S. BLOCH: Geschichte der Sammlung der Althebraischen Litera-
tur, 1876.
W.
L. ALEXANDER: Canon, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical
Literature, 1876.
L.
STRACK: Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Herzog-Plitt's Real-
Encyklopadie, Vol. VII., 1880.
S.
DAVIDSON: The Canon of the Bible, 1880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TREATISES CONSULTED ON THE CANON xvii
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.
F.
BUHL: Kanon and Text des Alten Testaments, 1891.
S.
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. F. Moore, 1895.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD
TESTAMENT1
INTRODUCTION, 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 Revealed Religion 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
1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 HISTORY OF INTRODUCTION
former
de Doctrina Christiana contain, according to his
own
description, praecepta 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 Ei]sagwgh> ei]j ta>j qei<aj
grafa<j of
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 Reformation. 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 Richard Simon, a Romish 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,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OF INTRODUCTION 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 Roman
Catholic
professor at
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
Roman
Catholic source is that of Herbst, Professor in
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 unbelief are taught in a compendious form
with
great skill and talent by De Wette, one of the
most
eminent of living German theologians.1 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-
1 De Wette died 1849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 HISTORY OF INTRODUCTION
spiration
are completely Hengstenberg, Profes-
sor
at
lieving
school, began a conservative reaction on the
Protestant
side by publishing at intervals a series of
works
upon detached parts of the subject; and one of
his
pupils, Havernick of Rostock, 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 application
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 Horne—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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OF
INTRODUCTION 5
of
the extreme
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
of
In
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 Robertson Smith, Professor
at
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
INTRODUCTION 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 GENERAL 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
I
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 kanw<n, 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.1 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
1 Liddell and Scott's
Greek Lexicon, s.v.
9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
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.1 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.
1 The history and usage
of this word is very carefully traced by K
A.
Credner. Zur Geschichte des Kanons, pp. 1-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II
TESTIMONY
OF 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 Romans, 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
come
to appear before Jehovah thy God in the place
which
he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all
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
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
all
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 all 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
"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 requirement of the law,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF 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 obligation 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
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 bound the people in solemn covenant to
obey
the law of Moses (2 Kin. xxiii. 3, 24, 25; 2 Chron.
xxxi
v. 14, 30-32). The exile of both
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. 16-48). The book of the law was read
and
expounded to the people by Ezra and the Levites
(Neh.
viii. 1-8), and all 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 INTRODUCTION
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 all time to come, if they forsook the
LORD.
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
sacred
tabernacle. It is an act analogous to that of
Moses
in making a similar disposition of the funda-
mental
constitution of
so
far confirmatory of it. It has sometimes been in-
ferred
that what was thus done with 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,1 so the pre-exilic 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.
1 Josephus,
Josephus,
§ 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE 15
When the
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,1 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 (dc.ami)
"by the side of the ark," not within
it.
Whether it was still 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,
1 De Wette's Einleitung
(6th edition), § 14, note f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
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,
lxxviii.
5; 1 Kin. 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
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 Testament1
indicate
familiarity with it on the part of the sacred
writers.
Ps. i. 42 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, 8,3 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;4 the same was
doubtless
the case in the period now under review.
The
returning exiles governed themselves by the direc-
1 See my Higher Criticism
of the Pentateuch, pp. 52-58.
2 This Psalm is certainly
older than Jeremiah, who makes use of
ver.
3 in xvii. 8.
3 These Psalms are
ascribed to David in their titles, the correctness
of
which there is no good reason for discrediting.
4 1 Macc. i. 56, 57.
Josephus,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE 17
lions
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
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. Reference 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
explicit
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
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 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
both
the kingdoms 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III
THE
CRITICAL THEORY OF THE FORMATION OF
THE CANON
EICHHOIRN,1 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 Dent. 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 well repre-
sented
by Dillmann,2 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
1 Einleitung, 4th
edition, p. 20.
2 Jahrbucher fur Deutsche
Theologie, III., p. 432 ff.
19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
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,1 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
up
from the captivity, and, as is related in Neh. viii.–x.,
was
read before the assembled people, who thereupon
pledged
themselves to observe all 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
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 publicly sanctioned
and
authoritative divine canon.
The books of the prophets, which
stand next in the
1 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 exile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 like-
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 still 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 1 (MybiUtK;) writings,
or by the Greek
equivalent,
Hagiographa (a[gio<grafa), sacred writings.
These
include the three large poetical books, Psalms
(Myl.hiT;), Proverbs (ylew;mi), and Job (bOy.xi), from whose
initials
have been formed the memorial word tmx
truth; then the five small
books called Megilloth, rolls,
because
they were written on separate rolls for syna-
gogue
use, viz.: the Song of Solomon, Ruth, 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,2 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.3
All the testimony in the case is, infact, directly
1 Pronounced kethuvim.
2 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 btaKA to write, has the sense "to
inscribe in the
canon."
K'thubhim, as the technical name of the
third division of the
canon,
is not to be derived, as some have claimed, from bUtKA, it is
written, the common formula of
citation from the Scriptures, nor
from
btAK; in
the sense of Scripture, as indicating
that it is a part of
the
sacred volume. It is properly the passive participle of btaKA, 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 grafai< and the English "Bible."
3 Wildeboer, The Origin
of the Canon, p. 114: "We have not at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CRITICAL THEORY 23
opposed
to it. It is claimed, however, that there are
other
proofs sufficient to establish it.
1. It is alleged that there are
several books in the
canon
which were not yet in existence when the law was
made
canonical by Ezra, nor at any time during his life.
Ezra,
Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes are referred by crit-
ics
to a time shortly before or after the downfall of the
tion,
and Daniel and several of the Psalms to the period
of
the Maccabees, nearly three centuries after the can-
onization
of the law.
2. It is argued that the three-fold
division of the
canon
of itself affords a clue to the mode of its forma-
tion;
it is of such a nature that it can only represent
three
successive stages in the work of collection. There
is
no consistent principle of classification such as we
would
naturally expect to find if the canon had been
arranged
at any one time by any man or body of men.
There
are books in the third division which are homo-
geneous
with those in the second, and which, if prop-
erly
classed, would have been put in the second divi-
sion.
And the only explanation of their standing where
they
do is that the second division was already closed
when
these books were added, so that there was no re-
source
but to put them in the third and last division,
which
must, accordingly, have been formed after the
second
division was complete. Thus, while the prin-
cipal
books containing the post-Mosaic history of the
chosen
people are in the second division of the canon,
viz.:
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, there are
our
command for the history of the canonization of the second divi-
sion
of the Old Testament books, any such historical testimony as we
have
for those of the law." Page 136: Direct historical statements
about
the third collection of the Old Testament Scriptures are want-
ing,
as in the case of the second."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
other
books continuing this same history and of like
character
in the third division, such as Ezra and Nehe-
miah,
and particularly Chronicles, which is parallel to
the
history in Samuel and Kings, covering, to a con-
siderable
extent, the same period, extracted in part
from
the same sources, and in numerous sections or
paragraphs
identical in language. Further, the book of
Daniel,
instead of standing in the second division with
the
rest of the books of the prophets, is put in the third
division
along with books of quite a different descrip-
tion.
It is claimed that the only satisfactory solution
of
these facts is that these books only found admission
to
the canon after the second division, with which they
had
affinity, was already regarded as complete and in-
capable
of being reopened. They were, accordingly,
put
at the end of the third, which was the only division
then
remaining open.
3. The Samaritans recognize the
canonicity of the
Pentateuch,
but of no other part of the Old Testament.
From
this it is inferred that their reception of the Pen-
tateuch
dates from a time when the law of Moses was all
that
was canonical with the Jews; and that the subse-
quent
hostility between them and the Samaritans has
prevented
the latter from accepting the additions after-
ward
made to the canon.
4. The synagogue lessons were, in
the first instance,
taken
exclusively from the law; afterward, lessons from
the
prophets were read in conjunction with it. The
K'thubhim
are used only on special occasions, and not
in
the regular sabbath reading of the Scriptures. This
is
best explained by assuming that the law alone was
canonical
at first, that the prophets were next added,
and
the K'thubhim last of all.
5. The term law is sometimes used,
both in Jewish
writings
and in the New Testament in a comprehensive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CRITICAL THEORY 25
sense,
embracing the entire Old Testament. At other
times
the law and the prophets are spoken of either as
the
principal parts of the Old Testament or as compre-
hending
the whole. This is again regarded as a remi-
niscence
of the time when first the law, and afterward
the
law and the prophets, constituted the entire canon,
so
that it became natural to use these names to signify
the
whole revealed word of God.
6. There are said to be indications
in the order of
the
books in both the second and third divisions of the
canon
that these were formed gradually in the course
of
time and not by a single act.
7. The canonicity of certain books,
particularly the
Song
of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, was long
disputed
among the Jews, and the question was not fi-
nally
decided in their favor until the council at Jamnia,
about
A.D. 90, or, as some have maintained, even later.
The
canon, in its present form and compass, could not,
it
is said, have been definitely fixed until then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV
THE
DETERMINING PRINCIPLE IN THE FORMATION
OF THE CANON
THE critical theory of the formation
of the canon
rests
upon a false notion regarding the real character
of
the canon and the determining principle in its col-
lection.
The fundamental error which underlies all the
arguments
of the critics on this subject, and vitiates
their
conclusion, is the assumption that the books of
the
Old Testament were not written with the design of
being
held sacred and divinely authoritative; but in the
course
of time they came to be treated with a venera-
tion,
which was not at first accorded to them. This is
explicitly
avowed by Ewald:1 "It
lies in the original
nature
of all sacred writings that they become sacred
without
intending it, and without in human fashion being
planned
to become so. . . . When the first active
life
ceases, and men have to look back upon it as the
model,
conform their lives to its regulations and pre-
scriptions,
repeat its songs, and carefully consider its
whole
history, then they look about eagerly for the best
writings
which can be serviceable in this respect; and
for
the most part these have already imperceptibly by
their
own merit separated themselves from the less suit-
able,
have already been gathered piecemeal, and it only
requires
some superior oversight to combine them in an
enduring
manner, and consecrate them more definitely
for
their present purpose. In respect to a few of the
1 Jahrbucher der
Biblischen Wissenschaft, VII., pp. 77, 78.
26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE 27
less
necessary there may for a time be uncertainty and
strife;
but the need of the time and their own intrinsic
value
will long since have decided in respect to the
principal
books. And so what was not itself intended
to
be sacred, nevertheless becomes sacred as the vehicle
of
sacred truths and spiritual forces."
To the same purport Dillmann:1
"For a certain class
of
theologians the several books of the Old Testament
were
from the first written with the view of being re-
vered
and used by the church and handed down to
future
generations as sacred; the canon was being
formed
and enlarged by each new book that was added
in
the course of centuries; so soon as the last book of
this
sort had appeared, the canon was completed, and it
was
now only necessary to collect these books which
had
appeared one after another, combine them into one
whole,
and bring them into the fine order in which they
now
lie before us. This office was performed by some
public
person or authority qualified for the same by
a
special divine illumination. This conception of the
course
of the matter is, to be sure, very simple, and in-
ferred
with great logical exactness from certain precon-
ceived
dogmatical ideas, but it is unhistorical and there-
fore
untrue. How the canon was formed can only be
ascertained
in a historical way. And history knows
nothing
of the individual books having been designed
to
be sacred from their origin; it also knows nothing of
an
authority by which, or of a point of time at which,
all
the writings of the Old Testament were at once united
and
published as a collection of sacred writings forever
closed.
On the contrary, all that has hitherto been as-
certained
and laboriously enough investigated respect-
ing
the origin of the books and the transmission of their
text
forbids us to believe that these writings were from
1 Jahrb. D. Theol., III.,
p. 420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
the
first regarded sacred and inviolable, as they were in
the
opinion of later generations. A historical survey
of
these relations shows that these books bore indeed in
themselves
from the first those characteristics, on ac-
count
of which they were subsequently admitted into
the
sacred collection, but yet always had first to pass
through
a shorter or longer period of verification, and
make
trial of the divine power resident within them
upon
the hearts of the church before they were out-
wardly
and formally acknowledged by it as divine
books."
If now in the opinion of the critics
the books of the
Old
Testament were written with no intention of their
being
held sacred, and they were not in actual fact so
regarded
at first, what is the source of the sacredness
which
was afterward attached to them? How did they
come
to be regarded with that veneration which dis-
tinguished
them from all other books, and led to their
being
formed into a sacred canon? In other words,
what
was the guiding principle in the formation of the
canon?
To this question different answers have been
given.
Some have held with Eichhorn1
that the canon was
simply
a collection of the early national literature. All
books
written before a certain date were highly prized
because
of their antiquity, and regarded with a venera-
tion
which was not felt for more recent productions.
And
as the gathering up of ancient writings would be a
1 Einleitung, § 5: "Soon after the end of the Babylonish
exile
.
. . and in order to give to the newly built second temple all the
advantages
of the first, a library of its own was founded in it of the
remains
of Hebrew literature, which we commonly call the Old Testa-
ment."
Allgem. Bibliothek d. bibl. Litteratur, IV., p. 254: "Evi-
dently
everything was collected, which they possessed from the times
before
Artaxerxes, or which it was believed must be referred to so
high
an antiquity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE 29
slow
and laborious process, and a prolonged search
would
be necessary and considerable time must elapse
before
it could be certified that the collection was com-
plete,
and no more books remained to be discovered, it
is
contended that the canon could not have been
ered
at once, but must have been the work of time. All
this
is, however, palpably at variance with the fact that
the
books of Chronicles make mention of several writ-
ings
then extant, to which readers are referred for
further
information, and which must, therefore, have
been
of earlier date than Chronicles; yet this latter was
admitted
to the canon, while the former were not.
Others have maintained with Hitzig1
that the de-
termining
feature was the language in which the books
were
written. Those in the sacred Hebrew tongue were
accounted
sacred, those in Greek were not. But this is
disproved
by the same argument as the preceding. The
books
referred to in Chronicles as historical authorities
were
of course in Hebrew, yet were not admitted to the
canon.
And some of the apocryphal books, which never
had
a place in the canon, were written in Hebrew. This
was
the case with Ecclesiasticus, the prologue to which
speaks
of its having been translated out of Hebrew into
Greek,
and so far from the Hebrew original having been
lost
at the time of the collection of the canon, a frag-
ment
of it is still in existence. Tobit also and 1 Mac-
cabees,
according to Jerome, were written in Hebrew, and
1 Die Psalmen, 1836, II.,
p. 118: "All Hebrew books originating in
the
time before Christ are canonical, all canonical books are Hebrew,
while
all written in Greek are reckoned as belonging to the apocrypha.
.
. . Greek books were excluded from the collection of national
writings;
no matter whether they had never existed in a Hebrew
original,
or this was no longer extant." Thus he insists that the He-
brew
originals of Ecclesiasticus and Baruch had already been lost
when
the canon was collected, and they were then only extant in a
Greek
translation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
he
says that he had seen the Hebrew originals. As
Dillmann1
truly says, "Wherever and however the al-
leged
point of time may be fixed from the days of Ezra
down
to those of Josephus, we always find, besides those
which
became canonical, other books written in the
sacred
tongue still extant, which did not come into the
canon,
and which were not then lost, but subsequently
came
to be lost after the final and complete close of the
canon,
and for the reason that they had not been ad-
mitted
to it."
But their religious character is so
prominent a feature
of
these writings, and enters so essentially into the ex-
alted
position assigned to them and the profound ven-
eration
which has been felt for them, that the great
majority
of critics have confessed that this must be
taken
into the account in estimating the Old Testament;
and
that it can neither be regarded as a mere collection
of
ancient literature nor of writings in the sacred He-
brew
tongue. The measure of influence assigned to
this
pervading characteristic of the sacred writings
ries
with the spirit of the individual critic all the way
from
the shallow suggestion of Corrodi2 that they con-
1 Ubi supra, p. 422.
2 The author of the
Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des
Judischen
and Christlichen Bibelkanons, published anonymously in
1792.
G. L. Bauer, Einleitung, 3d edition, page 33, claims that
there
is no real difference in the various conceptions of the canon.
"The
common opinion is: All the religious writings inspired of God.
Eichhorn
says: All the fragments of Hebrew literature. Corrodi:
Only
such writings as concerned national religion or history, and the
criterion
of divinity and inspiration was introduced later from the
time
of Sirach onward. In our opinion, all these views may be united.
All
the fragments of the ancient Hebrew literature were collected, for
almost
all had a religious form or concerned sacred history. And that
these
books were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit the old
world,
according to their notions, had little doubt, since they even al-
lowed
that a goldsmith and embroiderer was filled with the Spirit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE 31
cern
the national religion to the far more reverent atti-
tude
of Ewald and Dillmann in the extracts before
quoted,
who appeal to their normative character as pre-
senting
the loftiest models and setting forth in their
purity
the requirements of the religion of
their
spiritual power to nurture and elevate the religious
life;
to which Robertson Smith adds that all the books
of
the canon were in full accord with the law of Moses.
But
even when this view is presented in its highest and
best
form, it is seriously defective, and completely in-
verts
the order of cause and effect. It is true, as the
apostle
declares (2 Tim. iii. 16), that every Scripture is
profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction
which is in righteousness, that the man of
God
may be complete, furnished completely unto every
good
work; but it is because it is inspired of God. It
is
not the religious profit derived from these books
which
led to their admission into the canon, but it is
their
being inspired of God to guide the faith and
practice
of the church—in other words, their canonic-
ity—which
makes them profitable to the religious
life.
They were included in the canon because they
were
written by men inspired of God for this very
purpose.
In order to ascertain the true
import of the canoniza-
of
God." To the same purport De Wette, Einleitung, 6th edition,
section
16: "The two assumptions that the
Old Testament was in-
tended
to constitute a collection of national writings and that it was a
collection
of sacred writings, are really one in view of the contents of
most
of the Old Testament hooks and the theocratic spirit of Jewish
antiquity;
for the truly national was also religious. In either case
the
authors were regarded as inspired, and their writings as the fruit of
sacred
inspiration."
1 The Old Testament in
the Jewish Church, 2d edition, page 181:
"The
ultimate criterion by which every book was subjected lay in the
supreme
standard of the law. Nothing was holy which did not agree
with
the teaching of the Pentateuch."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
tion
of the Old Testament, we must examine (1) the
claims
which its several books make for themselves, and
(2)
the esteem in which they were held by the people.
In
Ex. xx. 2, 3, Jehovah announces himself to
as
their God, who brought them out of the land of
And
the people solemnly engage to obey all his com-
mands
(xix. 8), and enter into formal covenant with him
as
his people (xxiv. 7, 8). At every subsequent period
of
their history the people are reminded of their obli-
gation
to Jehovah for delivering them from the bond-
age
of
and
to serve him as their God (Josh. xxiv. 16-18; Judg.
vi.
8-10; 1 Sam. xii. 6, 7; 2 Sam. vii. 23, 24; Hos. xii.
9,
4; Am. ii. 10, iii. 2). Nothing is plainer on the
very
surface of the Old Testament from first to last than
the
recognized fact that Jehovah was the God of Israel
and
that
claims
in all its parts to be the law of Jehovah given
through
Moses. The entire legislation of the Penta-
teuch
asserts this for itself in the most positive way and
in
the most unambiguous terms. The prophets through-
out
claim to speak in the name of Jehovah and by his
authority,
and to declare his will. What they utter is
affirmed
to be the word of Jehovah; their standing for-
mula
is, Thus saith Jehovah. To yield to their require-
ments
is to obey Jehovah; to refuse submission to
them
is to offend against Jehovah. Jehovah is further
the
recognized king of
rewards
their obedience, punishes their transgression.
The
historical books reveal his hand in every turn of
their
affairs; they authoritatively declare his will and
purposes,
as they are manifested in his providential
dealings
with them. The law, the prophetical books
and
the historical books thus alike profess to give an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE 33
authoritative
declaration of the will of Jehovah, the sov-
ereign
God of Israel.
The reception of these books into
the canon was not
merely
the acknowledgment of their superior excellence
and
their uplifting spiritual power, but a recognition
of
the rightfulness of their claim to be a revelation of
the
will of God. We have already seen (p. 12) that
according
to the uniform testimony of all the sacred
historians,
the law of Moses was regarded as divinely
obligatory
upon
Whatever
extent of meaning be given to the expression,
"the
law of Moses," it is manifest that there was a
body
of law attributed to him, and believed to be from
a
divine source which the people and their rulers were
bound
to obey, and upon the faithful observance of
which
the prosperity of the nation and its continued
existence
were dependent. When Josiah and all the
people
of
selves
by covenant to a steadfast adherence to the book
of
the law found in the temple in all its requirements,
this
was not the first sanction given to a law which had
never
been considered obligatory before, but the recog-
nition
of a law of long standing, that was not only bind-
ing
upon them, but had been equally so upon their
fathers,
who had incurred serious guilt by transgressing
it
(2 Kin. xxii. 13), in fact the very law of Moses (xxiii.
25),
which their duty to Jehovah required them to keep.
This
was not the first step toward the formation of a
canon,
but bowing to an authority coeval with the origin
of
the nation itself.
And the law which Ezra read to the
assembled
people,
and which by a written and sealed engagement,
ratified
by an oath they promised to observe, was not,
in
the intent of Ezra or of the people according to the
only
record that we have of the transaction, a new book
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
of
the law then for the first time accepted as sacred and
made
canonical. It was (Neh. viii. 1) the book of the
law
of Moses which Jehovah had commanded to
(ix.
14, x. 29), God's law which was given by Moses the
servant
of God, the trangression of which by former
generations
had been the cause of all the calamities
which
had befallen them (ix. 26, 29, 32-34).
The prophets were recognized
expounders of the will
of
Jehovah, who were commissioned by him to deliv-
er
his messages to the people. And, as we have seen
(p.
17), the prophets are in numerous passages associat-
ed
with the law, as together constituting the divine stand-
ard
obligatory upon the people, the disregard of which
brought
upon them accumulated evils. Later prophets
also
bear abundant testimony to the divine commission
of
their predecessors by general statements, as Hos. vi.
5,
Jer. vii. 25, by the repetition and enforcement of their
predictions,
by citations of their language, or by evident
allusions
to them. Thus Ewald:1 "Even
such old
prophets
as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, like to build
upon
the words and writings of older true prophets,
borrow
many a passage from them, and many a striking
clause,
and refer back to them without mentioning them
by
name. Yet in Jeremiah's time appeal was made by
name
to the book of Micah, a hundred years before (Jer.
xxvi.
17, 18)." Wildeboer2 quotes from von Orelli with
approval:
"To judge from the citations of
older proph-
ets,
in younger authors, the writings of an Amos, an
Isaiah,
etc., were regarded in a certain sense as holy
scriptures,
as the word of God"; and adds, "Of
course
as
the spoken words of the prophets were the word of
God;
they were equally so when committed to writing."
It
is evident that the writings of the prophets, as soon
1 Jahrb. d. Bibl. Wiss.,
VII., p. 74.
2 Canon of the Old
Testament, p. 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE 35
as
they were issued, would have precisely the same
authority
as their discourses orally delivered, and would
be
accepted as in precisely the same sense the word of
God.
No formal declaration of their canonicity was
needed
to give them sanction. They were from the first
not
only "eagerly read by the devout," but believed to
be
divinely obligatory; and this without waiting until
there
were no more living prophets, and a complete col-
lection
could be made of all their writings. Each indi-
vidual
book of an acknowledged prophet of Jehovah, or
of
anyone accredited as inspired by him to make known
his
will, was accepted as the word of God immediately
upon
its appearance. It had its own independent author-
ity,
derived from the source from which it came, irre-
spective
of its being united in a collection with the
other
books of the same character. And thus the canon
gradually
grew, as such books were produced from time
to
time, until the last was written, when consequently
the
canon was complete.
This view of the formation of the
canon is not, as Dill-
mann
supposed, a theological speculation, but a neces-
sary
historical deduction. The question with which we
are
at present concerned is not as to the reality of the
inspiration
of the sacred writers, but as to the faith of
were
accepted as the divine standards of their faith
and
regulative of their conduct which were written for
this
definite purpose1 by those whom they believed to
1 Books written by
inspired men with a different design, or only for
some
temporary purpose, and with no claim to divine authority or
permanent
obligation, could not, of course, be placed on a par with
their
professed divine communications. Expressions in which prophets
simply
utter their own thoughts are clearly distinguished from what
they
say in the name of God (1 Sam. xvi. 6, 7; 2 Sam. vii. 3, 4, 17).
No
record has been preserved of what Solomon spake on subjects of
natural
history (1 Kin. iv. 33). Annals of the kingdom, if written by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
be
inspired of God. It was this which made them
canonical.
The spiritual profit found in them corre-
sponded
with and confirmed the belief in their heavenly
origin.
And the public official action, which further
attested,
though it did not initiate, their canonicity, fol-
lowed
in the wake of the popular recognition of their
divine
authority.1
prophets,
would have their historical value, even though they might
not
be in any sense the product of divine inspiration. The same may
probably
be said of the historical sources referred to in the books of
Chronicles
(1 Chron. xxix. 29, 30; 2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15), which are
no
longer extant for the reason, doubtless, that they were not intended
to
form part of the permanent rule of faith. See Alexander on the
Canon,
pp. 84-93.
1 "When the Jewish
doctors first concerned themselves with the prep-
aration
of an authoritative list of sacred books, most of the Old Testa-
ment
books had already established themselves in the hearts of the
faithful
with an authority that could neither be shaken nor confirmed
by
the decision of the schools." Robertson Smith in the Old Testa-
ment
in the Jewish Church, p. 163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON
WE have explicit testimony
respecting the time of
completing
the canon from the Jewish historian Jo-
sephus,
who was born at
descent.
In his treatise against Apion, an Alexandrian
grammarian,
hostile to the Jews,
following
manner of the sacred books: "We have
not
tens
of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting,
but
only twenty-two, containing the record of all time,
which
have been justly believed [to be divine1]. And
of
these, five are the books of Moses, which embrace the
laws
and the tradition from the creation of man until
his
[Moses'] death. This period is a little short of
three
thousand years. From the death of Moses to the
reign
of Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes, king of
was
done in thirteen books. The remaining four books
embrace
hymns to God and counsels for men for the
conduct
of life. From Artaxerxes until our time every-
thing
has been recorded, but has not been deemed
worthy
of like credit with what preceded, because the
exact
succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith
we
have placed in our own writings is evident by our
conduct;
for though so long a time has now passed, no
1 Eichhorn (Repertorium
f. Bib. u. Morg. Litt., V., p. 254) remarks,
"The
word ' divine' was not in the old editions of Josephus; it has in
recent
times been inserted from Eusebius." Later editors are inclined
to
expunge it.
37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
one
has dared either to add anything to them, or to
take
anything from them, or to alter anything in them.
But
it is instinctive in all Jews at once from their very
birth
to regard them as commands of God, and to abide
by
them, and, if need be, willingly to die for them."
According to Josephus, therefore,
the period in which
the
books esteemed sacred by the Jews were written,
extended
from the time of Moses to the reign of Artax-
were
made to the canon. Artaxerxes Longimanus, the
monarch
here referred to, reigned forty years, from B.C.
465
to B.C. 425. In the seventh year of his reign Ezra
came
up to
and
in the twentieth year of the same Nehemiah followed
him
(Neh. ii. 1, 5, 6).
Strenuous efforts have been made to
discredit this
statement
of Josephus, but without good reason. It has
been
said that it is not based on reliable historical in-
formation,
nor the general belief of his time, but is
merely
a private opinion of his own. It is obvious,
however,
that this cannot be the case. Josephus was a
man
of considerable learning, and had every facility for
acquainting
himself with the history of his own nation,
upon
which he had written largely in his "Antiquities."
His
priestly origin afforded him special opportunities
for
becoming familiar with the religious opinions of his
countrymen.
He is here arguing with a scholar of no
mean
pretensions, which would naturally make him
cautious
in his statements; and he gives no intimation
that
what he here says is simply his own opinion. It is
stated
as a certain and acknowledged fact. And we
have,
besides, additional evidence that this was the cur-
rent
belief of his contemporaries. Ryle gives utterance
to
the common sentiment of scholars, when he says:1
1 The Canon of the Old
Testament, pp. 162-164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 39
"We
must remember that Josephus writes as the spokes-
man
of his people, in order to defend the accuracy and
sufficiency
of their Scriptures, as compared with the
recent
and contradictory histories by Greek writers. In
this
controversy he defends the judgment of his people.
He
does not merely express a personal opinion, he
claims
to represent his countrymen. . . . In the
first
century A.D. the impression prevailed that the books
of
the canon were all ancient, that none were more
recent
than Ahasuerus (Artaxerxes), and that all had
long
been regarded as canonical."
It is further urged that Josephus
makes the mistake
of
identifying the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah
with
Xerxes ("Antiq.," xi. 5, 1, 6), and the Ahasuerus of
Esther
with Artaxerxes ("Antiq.," xi. 6, 1), whereas the
real
fact is the reverse of this. The events related in the
book
of Esther took place in the reign of Xerxes, and
Ezra
and Nehemiah lived in the reign of Artaxerxes.
It
is hence inferred that he regarded Esther as the latest
book
of the Old Testament, and for this reason makes
the
reign of Artaxerxes the limit of the canon in the
passage
quoted above. But it is evident that this error
on
the part of Josephus does not affect the correctness
of
his general statement. Whether Esther was prior
to
Ezra and Nehemiah, or they were prior to Esther,
one
or the other lived under Artaxerxes, and after his
time
no book was added to the canon. It is by no means
certain,
however, that this was in his mind. As the
saying
was common among the Jews that Malachi was
the
latest prophet,1 it is more probable that the time of
closing
the canon was fixed by the date of his ministry,
particularly
as the reason given by Josephus himself is
1 Strack, in Herzog-Plitt
Encycl., vii., p. 428, note, quotes from
the
Talmudic treatise Sanhedrin, "After the latter prophets Haggai,
Zechariah,
and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
because
then the exact succession of the prophets ceased.
As
the continuous line of the prophets terminated then,
no
inspired book could be written afterward.
It does not invalidate Josephus'
testimony that he
finds
sporadic instances of prophetic power at a later
time,
such as he attributes to John Hyrcanus,1 who be-
came
high priest, B.C. 135, for he has no idea of placing
him
on a par with the continuous line of prophets who
were
the authors of the sacred books. He evidently
regards
him as standing on a much lower plane.
The most serious objection to the
truth of Josephus'
statement,
however, if it could be substantiated, is the
allegation
that there are books in the Old Testament
which
were not written until long after the time of Ar-
taxerxes.
If this be so, of course it must be acknowl-
edged
that Josephus was mistaken. This allegation
rests
upon critical conclusions which are deduced en-
tirely
from certain supposed criteria in the books them-
selves,
but have no external historical support, and are
at
variance with what has been the generally reputed
origin
of the books in question. The testimony of Jo-
sephus
and the common belief of the age in which he
lived
create a strong presumption against these critical
positions,
unless some very clear and decisive evidence
can
be adduced in their favor. As Welte2 truly says,
"The
rise of the opinion that with Malachi the Holy
Spirit
departed from
books
acknowledged to be inspired and universally re-
garded
as sacred, which proceeded from a later time, are
found
in the sacred collection."
l Antiq., 161 10, 7,
"He was esteemed by God worthy of the three
greatest
privileges, the government of his nation, the dignity of the
high
priesthood, and prophecy, for God was with him, and enabled
him
to know futurities."
2 Theologische
Quartalschrift, 1855, p. 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 41
It will not be possible here to
enter upon a full dis-
cussion
of the date of the books of Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Daniel, which the
critics
contend were not written until after the time of
Artaxerxes.
It will be sufficient for our present pur-
pose
to examine briefly the grounds upon which this
contention
rests, as they are stated by Dr. Driver in his
"Literature
of the Old Testament."
Of Chronicles he says, p. 518:
"The only positive
clue
which the book contains as to the date at which it
was
composed is the genealogy in 1 Chron. iii. 17-24,
which
(if ver. 21 be rightly interpreted) is carried down
to
the sixth generation after Zerubbabel. This would
imply
a date not earlier than cir. 350 B.C.; iii. 21, is,
however,
obscurely expressed; and it is doubtful if the
text
is correct." And he adds in a note that if the ren-
dering
of the LXX., Pesh., Vulg. be adopted, it will
bring
down the genealogy to the eleventh generation
after
Zerubbabel.
The actual fact is that Zerubbabel's
descendants are
traced
in iii. 19-21a for two generations only, viz.: Zer-
ubbabel,
Hananiah, Pelatiah. There are then added,
in
a disconnected manner, four separate families, whose
origin
and relation to the preceding are not stated, and
one
of these families is traced through four generations;
but
there is no intimation whatever that this family or
either
of the others belonged in the line of descent
from
Zerubbabel. They were, doubtless, families known
at
the time who belonged, in a general way, among the
descendants
of David, which is the subject of the entire
chapter.
But their particular line of descent is not
indicated.
That by gratuitously assuming them to be
sprung
from Zerubbabel six generations can be counted,
or
eleven by a conjectural alteration of the text in the
manner
of the ancient versions, is no secure basis for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
the
conclusion that the book belongs to a later date
than
has always hitherto been believed.
Dr. Driver tells us that "more
conclusive evidence is
afforded
by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which cer-
tainly
belong to the same age, and are commonly as-
sumed
to be the work of the same compiler." As we
are
not concerned at present about the internal consti-
tution
of these books, but simply with the question
whether
they are posterior in date to the reign of Ar-
taxerxes,
we pass over the alleged "indications of their
compilatory
character," and proceed to consider the
"marks
of their having been compiled in an age long
subsequent
to that of Ezra and Nehemiah," p. 545.
These
are thus stated:
a. "The phrase King of
iv.
2, 3, 7, 24, vii. 1); the addition would, during the
period
of the Persian supremacy, be at once unneces-
sary
and contrary to contemporary usage; the expres-
sion
used by Ezra and Nehemiah, when speaking in
their
own person (Ezra vii. 27 f., viii. 1, 22, 25, 36; Neh.
i.
11, ii. 1 ff., 18 f., v. 4, 14, vi. 7, xiii. 6), or in passages
extracted
from sources written under the Persian rule
(Ezra
iv. 8, 11, 17, 23, v. 6 f., 13 f., 17, vi. 1, 3, 13, 15,
vii.
7, 11, 21; Neh. xi. 23, 24) is simply the king.'" In
a
note on the next page it is added, "
and
lost in the wider empire of which by Cyrus' con-
quest
of
hence
after that date their standing official title is not
‘King
of Persia,’ but ‘King of Babylon,’ or more com-
monly
the King, the great King, King of kings, King of
the
lands, etc."
But (1) the assumption that the
Persian monarchs are
in
the book of Ezra simply called "the King" by con-
temporaries,
and that the phrase "King of Persia" in-
dicates
a late compiler, will not account for the facts of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 43
the
case. For both designations occur together in con-
texts
incapable of division; thus "Cyrus the king," i. 7,
but
"King of
vii.
7, but " King of Persia," ver. 1.1
(2) If i. 2 has preserved the
language of Cyrus' edict,
he
calls himself "King of Persia," as he is likewise en-
titled
in the inscription of Nabuna'id, the last king of
and
Jewish point of view" disprove its "literal exact-
ness."
But it is no more surprising that Cyrus should
ascribe
his victories to Jehovah and promise to aid in
building
his temple in a proclamation freeing the Jews,
than
that he should seek to ingratiate himself with the
people
upon his entry into
successes
and his universal empire to Merodach, the
patron-god
of that city, and declaring himself his wor-
shipper,
and inscribing his name on bricks as "builder
of
Esakkil and Ezida," the temples of Merodach and
Nebo.
It is true that of the few inscriptions of Cyrus
thus
far discovered there is no one in which he styles
himself
"King of Persia"; but this casts no suspicion
upon
the accuracy of this record in Ezra. Darius twice
entitles
himself "King of Persia," in his Behistun in-
scription,
though this title has not yet been found upon
any
other of his inscriptions. Why may not Cyrus have
done
the same thing in this one instance? and for the
reason
that while the title "King of Babylon" was in
the
experience of the Jews associated only with oppres-
sion
and injury, they were prepared to hail as their de-
liverer
the "King of Persia," by whom their enemy was
overthrown.
1 If vi. 13-15 is copied
from a document written before the arrival
of
Ezra, Dr. Driver is right in his contention that "Artaxerxes king
of
ample
of the combination of both phrases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
(3)
In the letters to Artaxerxes (iv. 8-23) and to and
from
Darius (v. 6-vi. 13), these monarchs are simply
called
"the king." Artaxerxes is called "the king" in
the
Book of Nehemiah, and in that of Ezra after vii. 1.
But
in the narrative prior to the coming of Ezra the
title
"King of Persia" is repeatedly applied to Cyrus,
Darius,
and Artaxerxes. Now it is said that after the
conquest
of
the
title "King of Babylon," which is given them (Ezra
v.
13; Neh. xiii. 6; cf. Ezra vi. 22 "King of
but
the title "King of Persia" implies a writer subse-
quent
to "the period of the Persian supremacy." This
seems
to be a sweeping conclusion from very slender
premises.
If Darius could call himself "King of Persia,"
as
he does in his Behistun inscription, and Cyrus give
himself
the same title, as is attested (Ezra i. 2), and there
is
no good reason for discrediting, why might they not
be
so called by others? It is said that after the fall of
the
ceeded
them. A precisely similar reason applies to the
Jewish
exiles on their first return to
was
natural for them to speak of the "kings of
who
had freed them from exile in distinction from the
kings
of
ii.
1); in distinction likewise from their own native
princes
the kings of
longer
under kings reigning in
fathers
had been, but under foreign domination (Neh. ix.
36,
37), which was a distressing situation, even though
they
were ruled by a friendly power, "the kings of Per-
sia,"
as Ezra himself calls them (ix. 9, see ver. 5), which
is
of itself a sufficient refutation of the critical conten-
tion.
b. "Neh. xii. 11, 22 Jaddua,
three generations later
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 45
than
Eliashib, the contemporary of Nehemiah, high
priest
B.C. 351-331, is mentioned."
c. "Neh. xii. 22 ‘Darius the
Persian’ must (from the
context)
be Darius Codomannus, the last king of
B.C.
336-332; and the title ‘the Persian’ could only
have
become a distinctive one after the Persian period
was
past."
As Jaddua was high priest at the
time of the invasion
of
Darius
Codomannus, it would appear as though these
verses
indicate a date nearly or quite a century after
Artaxerxes
Longimanus. From this the critics infer
that
the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah must
all
be referred to a compiler living at this late period.
But
(1) this conclusion is much too broad for the
premise
on which it is built. The Book of Nehemiah is
preceded
(i. 1) by a title of its own referring it to him as
its
author. And, as Keil remarks, its being counted
with
Ezra as together forming one book in early lists
of
the canon no more establishes unity of authorship
than
the fact that the twelve Minor Prophets were reck-
oned
one book in the same lists proves that they had a
common
author. A conclusion with regard to the date
of
Nehemiah, if well founded, would have no bearing
upon
the determination of the age of the books of Ezra
and
Chronicles.
(2) It is further to be observed
that the list of priests
and
Levites in xii. 1-26 is a section complete in itself,
and
with no very close connection either with what pre-
cedes
or follows.2 The utmost that the critical argu-
ment
of date could prove, if its validity were confessed,
1 Josephus,
2 It is not wholly
unconnected, for the introduction of this list at this
place
appears to be due to the prominent part taken by priests and Le-
vites
in the dedication of the wall of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
would
be that this section could not have been a pre-ex-
isting
document, which Nehemiah inserted in the body
of
his narrative, as he did the similar list in vii. 5b ff.
If
xii. 1-26 really contained internal evidence of be-
longing
to a century after the time of Nehemiah, this
would
not invalidate his authorship of the rest of the
book,
in which no indication of late date is to be found.
It
would merely show that this section did not belong
to
the book as originally written, but was a subsequent
interpolation.1
(3) If, however, xii. 1-26 be
examined more closely, it
will
be found that the condemnation of even this pas-
sage
is more than the critical argument will justify.
The
section begins (vs. 1-9) with "the priests and the
Levites
that went up with Zerubbabel and Jeshua." It
proceeds
(vs. 12-21) with the priests "in the days of
Joiakim"
the son of Jeshua. Then follow (vs. 24, 25)
"the
chiefs of the Levites," concluding with the words
(ver.
26), "these were in the days of Joiakim, the son of
Jeshua,
and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and
Ezra
the priest the scribe." This is accordingly a
tabular
statement of the priests and Levites, including
both
those who came up with the first colony of exiles
under
Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and those of a subse-
quent
generation, who lived during the high priesthood
of
Joiakim, the son of Jeshua, and were contemporaries
of
Ezra and Nehemiah. This being the declared design
of
this section, one of two things must follow, either vs.
10,11,
and vs. 22,23 do not have the meaning attributed
to
them by the critics, or else they are out of harmony
with
the section in which they are found, and so are no
proper
part of it. Each of these alternatives has had its
advocates.
1 This is maintained
among others by Bertholdt, Einleitung, III., p.
1031,
and Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected, i., p. 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 47
(1.) Havernick 1
endeavors to show without much suc-
cess
that Nehemiah might have lived until Jaddua be-
came
High Priest. Keil relieves the matter by remark-
ing
that ver. 11 merely traces the line of descent to
Jaddua,
without attributing to him any official position;
and
even ver. 22, "Levites in the days of Eliashib,
Joiada,
Johanan, and Jaddua," need not be intended to
embrace
four distinct bodies of Levites, living severally
under
one or other of four different high priests, but a
single
body of men with whom these four generations
of
sacerdotal rank were contemporaries, Eliashib in ad-
vanced
age, his great-grandson Jaddua in early youth.
According
to xiii. 28, Nehemiah expelled a grandson of
Eliashib,
who had married a daughter of Sanballat. It
is,
therefore, quite supposable that he lived to see Jad-
dua,
the great-grandchild of Eliashib. The adjustment
of
this hypothesis to other known facts only requires
that
Nehemiah, who came to
perhaps
twenty years of age, and Jaddua, who lived
until
the visit of Alexander, B.C. 332, could have been
contemporaries
for say eighteen years. If each of them
attained
the age of seventy-five, which is surely no vio-
lent
supposition, the period is covered.2
1 Einleitung, II., i.,
pp. 320-322.
2 There is much
uncertainty in regard to the terms of office of the
high
priests after the return from exile in consequence of the conflict-
ing
statements of authorities. See Herzfeld, Geschichte, II., Excursus
xi.,
p. 368. Keil needlessly infers from Neh. xiii. 4, 7, that Eliashib
died
between Nehemiah's return to the king in the thirty-second year of
Artaxerxes,
B.C. 433, and his second visit to
ing
Jaddua to be ten years old at the time of his great-grandfather's
death,
he would have been one hundred and ten when Alexander came
to
Joash,
living to the age of one hundred and thirty (2 Chron. xxiv. 15).
But
if with Prideaux, p. 321, the death of Eliashib is put twenty
years
later, B.C. 413, Jaddua would on the same supposition have been
ninety
when he met Alexander.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The inference "from the
context" that the Darius
of
Neh. xii. 22b is Darius Codomannus, is based on
the
assumption that in ver. 22a Jaddua is spoken of
as
high priest. If, on the other hand, his boyhood
is
intended, Darius Nothus, B.C. 424-405, would be
meant.
The assertion that "the title 'the Persian'
could
only have become a distinctive one after the Per-
sian
period was past," is contradicted by the Nakshi-
Rustan
inscription of Darius Hystaspes, which in re-
cording
his foreign possessions calls him "a Persian,
son
of a Persian," and speaks of him as the "Persian
man
who fought battles far from his land
significance
of the title lies in his bearing rule over non-
Persian
lands, not in distinguishing him from a non-
Persian
successor.
(2.) If, however, in vs. 10, 11, 22,
23, Jaddua is re-
garded
as high priest, and Darius Codomannus is in-
tended,
these verses cannot properly belong in a list,
which
limits itself to "the priests and Levites that went
up
with Zerubbabel and Jeshua," and those who were
“in
the days of Joiakim, Nehemiah, and Ezra.” They
must
have been added at a later time to extend the list
beyond
its original dimensions. Eichhorn1 truly says:
"That
these are a foreign addition by a later hand can
not
only be made probable, but as rigidly proved as can
ever
be expected in regard to books so ancient and with
critical
aids so recent. The contents of these verses
destroys
the unity of the entire chapter, and presents
something
that the author did not mean to give. They
give
a genealogy of the high priests from Jeshua on-
ward;
and no other passage in this chapter is genea-
logical."
Dr. Driver refers in a footnote to this ready
reply
to the alleged indication of late date, but adds
even
supposing this to have been the case, the other
1 Einleitung, 4th
edition. III.. p. 631,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 49
marks
of late composition which the books contain
would
still remain." We shall see whether there is any
more
force in "the other marks" than in this which he
seems
willing to surrender.
d. "Neh. xii. 26, 47, the 'days
of Nehemiah' are
spoken
of in terms clearly implying that the writer
looked
back upon them as past."
"The days of Nehemiah" is
manifestly an expression
that
could be used indifferently by a contemporary of
Nehemiah,
or by one who lived subsequent to his time.
There
is nothing in the expression itself or in the con-
nection
in which it stands to give the preference to the
latter
alternative. The famous men and the remarkable
events
that have added lustre to the reign of Queen
beneficent
reign is ended.
e. "Other indications of the
same fact will appear
below;
e.g., the position of Ezra iv. 6-23 (which refer-
ring,
as it does, to what happened under Xerxes and
Artaxerxes,
could not possibly have been placed where
it
now stands by Ezra, a contemporary of the latter), the
contents
and character of vii. 1-10," etc.
First as to iv. 6-23. Ch. iv. 1-5
opens with an ac-
count
of the vexatious conduct of the Samaritans, who,
when
their proffered aid was declined in building the
temple,
obstructed the work in every possible way dur-
ing
the entire reign of Cyrus, and until the reign of Da-
rius
Hystaspes, who held their hostility in check for a
time.
Before explaining the action of Darius in this
matter
the author proceeds to tell how this hostility
broke
out afresh in the beginning of the very next reign,
that
of Ahasuerus (=Xerxes, ver. 6), and in the following
reign
succeeded in obtaining from Artaxerxes an edict
forbidding
the construction of the city walls (vs. 7-23).
The
writer then reverts to the first stage of this hostility
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
(ver.
5), the stoppage of the work upon the temple, and
relates
in detail how the favor of Darius was secured,
and
how effectually he thwarted the designs of the
Samaritans
(iv. 24–vi. 15), an intimation being given (vi.
14)
of an edict of Artaxerxes of a different tenor from
that
first issued, without explaining how it was brought
about.
The way is now prepared for the mission of
Ezra
and his reformatory labors (Ezra vii.–x.) and for
that
of Nehemiah, to whom it was left to explain how
the
favor of Artaxerxes was obtained, and how he was
induced
to give orders for the rebuilding of the walls
(Neh. ii.).
Opinions may differ as to the wisdom
of the plan
which
the writer has seen fit to adopt. I agree with
those
who think it carefully considered and well carried
out.
Dr. Driver and others are utterly dissatisfied with
it.
They complain that "the notice of the letter to
Ahasuerus
and the correspondence with Artaxerxes re-
late
to a different and subsequent period, and is out of
place,
as they relate to the interruptions to the project
of
rebuilding, not the temple, but the city walls, occur-
rences
some eighty years later than the period he was
describing."
The writer might, indeed, if he had so
chosen,
upon the mention of the interruptions to the
rebuilding
of the temple, have proceeded at once to say
how
these were overcome and when the temple was
completed,
and have reserved the obstruction to the re-
building
of the walls to a later point in his narrative.
But
it was equally consistent with good style to group
together
the successive acts of hostility which the Jews
experienced
from their neighbors, and let the progress
of
the history show how the temple and the walls of
enemies
could do to prevent it. In this there is no
overleaping
a period of "eighty years." The trouble is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 51
traced
through each successive reign: in ver. 5, Cyrus
to
Darius; then ver. 6, Xerxes; then ver. 7, Artaxerxes
There
is no good reason for the charge that this is a
method
which could only mislead and confuse the
reader."
And the mistake attributed to the writer of
referring
"to troubles connected with the restoration
of
the temple what related in fact to the restoration of
the
city walls" really belongs to those interpreters who,
disregarding
the plain sense of the language used, en-
deavored
to force it into correspondence with precon-
ceived
notions of their own.
Secondly, as to vii. 1-10. It is
claimed on very trivial
grounds
that this "is certainly not Ezra's work," but
none
of the objections which are raised have the sem-
blance
of implying a later date than the time of Ezra.
Notice
is taken of "the omission of Ezra's immediate
ancestors
(for Seraiah was contemporary with Zedekiah,
2
Kin. xxv. 18-21), one hundred and thirty years pre-
viously
to Ezra's time." The only inference which can
be
drawn from this is that Ezra preferred to link himself
with
his distinguished ancestors before the exile rather
than
with those since of less note. He was sprung
from
the line of high priests extending from Aaron to
Seraiah,
but not including Jehozadak, Seraiah's succes-
sor
(1 Chron. vi. 14, 15), the probability being that he
was
descended from a younger son of Seraiah, so that
the
family was thenceforward of lower rank.
"Vs. 7-9 anticipate cli.
viii." In introducing him-
self
to his readers Ezra first gives his pedigree (vs. 1-5),
then
states very briefly and in general terms the fact,
the
purpose, and the time of his coming to
with
a fresh colony of exiles (vs. 6-10), as preliminary
to
a detailed account of his commission from the king
(vs.
11-28), the persons who accompanied him (viii.
1-14),
and the particulars of the expedition (vs. 15-31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
and
its arrival (vs. 32-36). It is difficult to see why
the
same person might not write all this continu-
ously.
"The expressions of the
compiler in ver. 10," the
evidence
of which is found in their correspondence
with
expressions in the Books of Chronicles. But what
if
the compiler was Ezra himself, who has very gener-
ally
been supposed to be the author of Chronicles?
And
Dr. Driver admits that he uses one of Ezra's ex-
pressions
at the end of vs. 6, 9. Whether, however,
Ezra
wrote the book which bears his name, or it was
compiled
by another, is of little moment so far as our
present
inquiry is concerned, unless it can be shown
that
the compilation was made after Ezra's own
time.
Thirdly. One more argument remains: "There are
long
periods on which the narrative is silent; in one
case
especially (Ezra vi. 22-vii. 1), an interval of sixty
years, immediately before Ezra's own time,
being passed
over
by the words 'After these things' in a
manner
not
creditable if the writer were Ezra himself, but per-
fectly
natural if the writer lived in an age to which the
period,
B.C. 516-458, was visible only in a distant per-
spective."
It should be remembered, however, that the
book
does not profess to be an annalistic record of all
that
took place. It deals with the early condition and
prospects
of the infant colony and the progress made
in
re-establishing the worship of God, and in freeing the
people
from heathenish contamination; and periods in
which
there was nothing to record which was germane
to
the purpose of the writer are, of course, passed over
slightly.
"After these things" (vii. 1)
refers not only
to
the dedication of the temple fifty-eight years before,
as
described in the immediately preceding verses, but
to
all that had been previously recorded, including (iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 53
6-23)
the embarrassments which had arisen in the reign
of
Xerxes and Artaxerxes almost at the very time of
Ezra's
coming.
The arguments adduced to prove that
the books of
Chronicles,
Ezra, and Nehemiah belong to "a date
shortly
after B.C. 333," when the
overthrown
by Alexander the Great, have now been ex-
amined,
and it is fair to say that so far from establish-
ing
the date alleged, they point to nothing later than
the
age of Ezra and Nehemiah, or the close of the reign
of
Artaxerxes, B.C. 425.
The only data for ascertaining the
age of the Book of
Ecclesiastes
are its reflections upon governmental abuses
and
the character of its language; and these are of too
vague
and general a nature to lead to a determinate re-
sult.
Dr. Driver says ("Lit. 0. T.," p. 471): "Its pages
reflect
the depression produced by the corruption of an
Oriental
despotism, with its injustice (iii. 16, iv. 1, v. 8,
viii.
9), its capriciousness (x. 5f.), its revolutions (x. 7),
its
system of spies (x. 20), its hopelessness of reform.
Its
author must have lived when the Jews had lost their
national
independence and formed but a province of
the
passed
under the rule of the Greeks (3d cent. B.C.)."
And
(p. 475f.) "The precise date of Ecclesiastes cannot
be
determined, our knowledge of the history not enab-
ling
us to interpret with any confidence the allusions to
concrete
events which it seems to contain. But the
general
political condition which it presupposes, and
the
language, make it decidedly probable that it is not
earlier
than the latter years of the Persian rule, which
ended
B.C. 333, and it is quite possible that it is later."
How
inconclusive this argument is in Dr. Driver's own
esteem
is apparent from the use made of "perhaps,"
"probable,"
and "possible" in the course of it. Doubt-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
less
any Oriental despotism, Babylonish, Persian, or
Grecian,
at any period of its history, would afford abun-
dant
materials for just such reflections as are to be
found
in Ecclesiastes. And for all that appears they
could
be indulged in the first century of the Persian
domination,
B.C. 536-436, as well as afterward.
Dr. Driver further says (p. 473): "Linguistically,
Ecclesiastes
stands by itself in the Old Testament. The
Hebrew
in which it is written has numerous features in
common
with the latest parts of the Old Testament,
Ezra
and Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, but it has in
addition
many not met with in these books, but found
first
in the Mishnah (which includes, no doubt, older
elements,
but received its present form cir. 200 A.D.).
The
characteristic of the Hebrew in which these latest
parts
of the Old Testament are written is that while
many
of the old classical words and expressions still
continue
in use, and, in fact, still preponderate, the syn-
tax
is deteriorated, the structure of sentences is cum-
brous
and inelegant, and there is a very decided admix-
ture
of words and idioms not found before, having
usually
affinities with the Aramaic, or being such as are
in
constant and regular use in the Hebrew of post-
Christian
times (the Mishnah, etc.). And this latter
element
is decidedly larger and more prominent in
Ecclesiastes
than in either Esther or Ezra, Nehemiah,
Chronicles."
And (p. 476) some "place it cir. 200 B.C.
on
the ground of language, which favors,
even though
our
knowledge is not sufficient to enable us to say that
it
requires, a date later than" the
latter years of the Per-
sian
rule.
But in the chaotic condition of the
Hebrew language
after
the exile, and its rapid deterioration from constant
contact
with the Aramean, from which it had already re-
ceived
a large infusion, and which was in familiar use
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 55
along
with it, as is shown by the Aramean sections of
the
Book of Ezra, the measure of its degeneracy in any
particular
writing cannot afford a certain criterion of its
relative
date. The critics certainly do not feel them-
selves
bound by any such rule. The purity of Joel's
style
does not prevent them from attempting to prove
him
postexilic. They do not hesitate to place Isaiah
xl.—lxvi.,
notwithstanding its classic elegance, later than
Ezekiel
with his abundant Aramaisms and anomalous
forms.
The Hebrew original of the Book of Sirach or
Ecclesiasticus
is, in the judgment of Dr. Driver (p. 474
note),
predominantly classical, "and in syntax and
general
style stands upon a much higher level than Ec-
clesiastes
or Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles," all of
which
he places a century or more before it. In our
ignorance
of the extent to which the popular language
had
been corrupted by Aramaisms in the first century
after
the exile, or how far the language of certain books
written
at that time may have been affected by the imi-
tation
of earlier models, it cannot with any show of rea-
son
be affirmed that such a book as Ecclesiastes could
not
have been produced then.
The attempt to establish a late date
for the book by
the
supposed detection of Sadducean sentiments or of
the
influence of certain forms of Greek philosophy has
still
less to recommend it.
In regard to Esther, Dr. Driver says
(p. 484): "Ma-
terials
do not exist for fixing otherwise than approxi-
mately
the date at which the Book of Esther was com-
posed.
Xerxes is described (i. 1 f.) in terms which im-
ply
that his reign lay in a somewhat distant past when
the
author wrote. By the majority of critics the book
is
assigned either to the early years of the Greek period
(which
began B.C. 332), or to the third century B.C.
With
such a date the diction would well agree, which,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
though
superior to that of the Chronicler, and more ac-
commodated
to the model of the earlier historical books,
contains
many late words and idioms, and exhibits much
deterioration
in syntax."
No protracted period after the reign
of Xerxes is re-
quired
to account for the manner in which he is spoken
of
(i. 1 f.). The language used would be entirely appro-
priate
under his immediate successor Artaxerxes Longi-
manus.
And the character of the Hebrew of the Book
of
Esther finds an adequate explanation then as well as
at
a later time. The critical opinion, which would place
it
one or two centuries later, is due to a disposition
to
discredit the history, which accords admirably with
what
is known from other sources of the life and char-
acter
of Xerxes, and of Persian customs, and is con-
firmed
by the feast of Purim, established in commemo-
ration
of the deliverance here recorded, and which,
according
to Josephus,1 the Jews have observed ever
since.
Of all the revolutionary conclusions
of the critics there
is
no one that is affirmed with greater positiveness or
with
an air of more assured confidence than that the
Book
of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean period.
And
yet Delitzsch,2 before lie had himself yielded to
the
prevailing current, correctly describes it as a book,
"which
has been of the most commanding and most
effective
influence on the New Testament writings, which
belongs
to the most essential presuppositions of the
Apocalypse
of John, and to the predictions of which The
who
is the way, the truth, and the life for science also,
attaches
an emphatic Nota Bene (let him that readeth
understand
Mat. xxiv. 15); a book, the genuineness of
which
had no other opposer for almost two thousand
years
than the heathen scoffer Porphyry in his Words
1
2 Herzog's Encyklopaedie,
III., p. 271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 57
against
Christians,' but whose spuriousness has in
step
a more and more indubitable fact to the Biblical
Criticism
which proceeds from rationalistic presuppo-
sitions.
. . . The principal ground of modern Crit-
icism
against its genuineness, as it makes no conceal-
ment
whatever itself, lies in the miracles and predictions
of
the book." With almost unbroken uniformity the
critics
unhesitatingly determine the date of the book by
what
they consider the limit of its professed predictions,
which
in their esteem are merely history in the garb of
prophecy.
Dr. Driver indeed makes a show of
separating the
literary
from the dogmatic grounds on which it is
claimed
that the book is not "the work of Daniel him-
self."
According to Dr. Driver, "Internal evidence
shows,
with a cogency that cannot be resisted, that it
must
have been written not earlier than circ. 300 B.C.,
and
in
composed
under the persecution of Antiochus Epipha-
nes,
168 or 167 B.C.
"1. The following are facts of
a historical nature,
which
point more or less decisively to an author later
than
Daniel himself:
"a. The position of the book in
the Jewish Canon,
not
among the prophets, but in the miscellaneous col-
lection
of writings called the Hagiographa,
and among
the
latest of these, in proximity to Esther. Though
little
definite is known respecting the formation of the
Canon,
the division known as the 'Prophets,' was doubt-
less
formed prior to the Hagiographa; and had the
Book
of Daniel existed at the time, it is reasonable to
suppose
that it would have ranked as the work of a
prophet,
and have been included among the former."
The fact is that its being included
in the Canon is a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
serious
obstacle to the critical hypothesis of its late
date.
And as will be shown, when we come to consider
the
threefold division of the Canon, it has its proper
place,
and that not in conflict with but confirmatory of
the
date which it claims for itself and which has until
recent
times been uniformly attributed to it.
"b. Jesus, the son of Sirach
(writing circ. 200 B.C.),
in
his enumeration of Israelitish worthies, ch. xliv.-1.,
though
he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and (col-
lectively)
the twelve Minor Prophets, is silent as to
Daniel."
So, too, though he mentions
Zerubbabel, Jeshua the
son
of Jozadak, and Nehemiah, he is silent as to Ezra.
Are
we, therefore, to infer that there was no such per-
son
as Ezra, or that he was not associated with Nehe-
miah,
or that he was of so little consequence that the
son
of Sirach had never heard of him? And shall the
silence
of the son of Sirach outweigh the express men-
tion
of Daniel by his contemporary Ezekiel (xiv. 14,
20,
xxviii. 3)?1
"c. That Nebuchadnezzar
besieged
1 Dr. Driver says, p. 510
note: "Whether he is alluded to in
Ezek.
xiv.
14, 20, xxviii. 3 is uncertain: the terms in which Ezekiel speaks
in
ch. xiv., seem to suggest a patriarch of antiquity, rather than a
younger
contemporary of his own." The remark is gratuitous and
without
the slightest foundation. "Noah, Daniel, and Job" are grouped
together,
with no reference to the age in which they lived, as signal
instances
of those who had delivered others by their righteousness;
Noah,
whose family were saved with himself from the flood; Daniel,
who
by his prevailing prayer rescued the wise men of
being
slain by the frenzied order of the king (Dan. ii. 18-24); and
Job,
whose three friends were spared at his intercession (Job xlii.
7-9).
If Grant, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great were mentioned
together
as three famous generals, would the fact that one was mod-
ern
and the others ancient make the identity of the first named un-
certain?
The Daniel of the captivity precisely answers to Ezekiel's de-
scription,
and there is no other that does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 59
carried
away some of the sacred vessels in the third
year
of Jelioiakim' (Dan. i. 1 f.), though it cannot,
strictly
speaking, be disproved, is highly improbable;
not
only is the Book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah, in
the following year (ch. xxv., etc.; see
ver. 1), speaks of
the
Chaldeans in a manner which appears distinctly to
imply
that their arms had not yet been seen in
The solution of this imaginary
difficulty is very
simple.
It is only necessary to remember that a mili-
tary
expedition is not always finished in the same year
in
which it is undertaken. Nebuchadnezzar began his
march
in the third year of Jehoiakim. His advance was
disputed
by Pharaoh-neco; the decisive battle of Car-
chemish,
which broke the power of
in
the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. xlvi. 1). The way
was
now clear for Nebuchadnezzar to continue his
march
and lay siege to
Dan.
i. 1 does not require us to understand that Nebu-
chadnezzar
arrived in
Jehoiakim,
much less that he finished his siege and
carried
off his booty in that year. It is the same verb
that
is used of the vessel, in which Jonah took passage
(Jon.
i. 3), which was not then arriving in Tarshish,
but
"going to Tarshish," i.e., setting out on its voyage
to
that place.
"d. The Chaldeans' are
synonymous in Dan. i. 4,
ii.
2, etc., with the caste of wise men. This sense ‘is
unknown
in the Ass.-Bab. language, has, wherever it
occurs,
formed itself after the end of the Babylonian
empire,
and is thus an indication of the post-exilic com-
position
of the book’ (Schrader, Keilinschriften and d.
A.
Test., Ed. 2, p. 429). It dates, namely, from a time
when
practically the only Chaldeans’ known belonged
to
the caste in question."
One might naturally suppose from the
positive man-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
ner
in which this assertion is made, that all the senses
which
the word "Chaldeans" had or could have in
the
language of
was
an ascertained fact that a meaning is attributed to
it
in the Book of Daniel which was entirely foreign to
Babylonish
usage. And yet Schrader himself says (p.
133
of the very volume from which the above assertion
is
taken), "that the name Chaldeans has thus far only
been
found in Assyrian monuments," and that "hither-
to
we possess accounts about the Chaldeans only from
Assyrian
sources"; so that, while it is conjectured that
the
Babylonish pronunciation of the word has been pre-
served
in the Hebrew, as the Assyrian has in the Greek,
even
this is as yet without monumental verification. It
would
appear, therefore, that he had no monumental
authority
whatever for saying that the word" Chal-
deans"
was not applied in
of
Daniel, to one of the classes of wise men.
"c. Belshazzar is represented
as king of
Nebuchadnezzar
is spoken of throughout ch. v. (vs. 2,
11,
13, 18, 22) as his father. In point of fact Nabonidus
(Nabunahid)
was the last king of
usurper,
not related to Nebuchadnezzar, and one Bel-
sharuzur is mentioned as his
son."
It is surprising that this notable
proof of the writer's
familiarity
with affairs in
an
objection to Daniel's authorship. No ancient writer,
native
or foreign, has preserved the name of Belshazzar,
or
given any hint of his existence, except the Book of
Daniel.
Daniel's Belshazzar was accordingly a puzzle
to
believers in the authenticity of the book, and a butt
of
ridicule to unbelievers, like Isaiah's casual mention of
Sargon
(xx. 1), who is similarly unknown to any other
ancient
writer. But the first Assyrian mound excavated
by
Botta proved to be the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 61
was
vindicated. Nabuna'id's Sippara inscription solved
the
mystery of Belshazzar, of whom he speaks as "his
eldest
son, the offspring of his heart." "Belshazzar the
king's
son" is likewise spoken of in several contract
tablets
in connection with his household arrangements
and
business transactions in which he was concerned.
From
the annalistic inscription of Nabuna'id, which re-
cords
his movements in each successive year of his reign,
it
appears that Belshazzar was in command of the troops
in
northern
mained
in Tema, a suburb of
to
his eleventh year. There is then an unfortunate
break
in the inscription until Nabuna'id's last year, his
seventeenth,
when he is stated to have been himself at
the
head of the troops in northern
the
advance of Cyrus, and was defeated by him. This
creates
the presumption that Belshazzar may have been
on
duty elsewhere, perhaps in charge of the capital,
which
would be in accord with Dan. v.
But Dr. Driver insists that "the
inscriptions lend no
support
to the hypothesis that Belsharuzur was his
father's
viceroy, or was entitled to be spoken of as
'king';
he was called 'the king's son' to the day of
his
death." According to the inscriptions Belshazzar
was
the king's son, his first born, his dearly beloved
son,
and in command of the army; what is there in this
to
discredit the additional statement of the Book of
Daniel
that he was addressed as "king"? or to forbid
the
assumption that he may have been formally raised
to
the dignity of participation with his father in the
kingdom,
perhaps in those later years of his reign, the
record
of which in the annalistic inscription has been
unfortunately
obliterated? In the first edition of his
"Literature
of the Old Testament " Dr. Driver says,
in
a. footnote, "In respect of vii. 1, viii. 1, if they stood
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
alone,
association with his father on the throne
would be
conceivable. But in T. 28, 30 he seems to be described
as
sole king." The statement in the first sentence covers
the
entire case. The affirmation in the second sentence
is
a most extraordinary one, inasmuch as v. 29 makes it
evident
that Belshazzar was not sole king. Why was
Daniel
promoted to be the third ruler in the kingdom?
Why
not second, as in the case of Joseph, who was ad-
vanced
to be next to Pharaoh? This was never under-
stood
until the position of Belshazzar was cleared up
by
the monuments. Daniel was third
because next to
Nabuna'id
and Belshazzar. Dr. Driver's suggestion,
p.
490, that Daniel was "made one of the three chief
ministers
in the kingdom," like the marginal rendering
of
the English Revisers, "rule as one of three," is a
simple
evasion and a departure from the plain meaning
of
the original word.
But how could Nebuchadnezzar be the
father of Bel-
shazzar,
when his real father was Nabuna'id, "a usurper,
not
related to Nebuchadnezzar"? Here Dr. Driver
makes
the reluctant admission: "There
remains the pos-
sibility that Nabu-nahid may
have sought to strengthen
his
position by marrying a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar,
in
which case the latter might be spoken of as Belshaz-
zar's
father (= grandfather, by Hebrew usage). The
terms
of ch. v., however, produce certainly the impression
that,
in the view of the writer, Belshazzar was actually
is
called "the son of David," the view of the writer
must
have been that he was David's immediate descend-
ant.
These words might be so interpreted by one who
did
not know from other sources that this could not be
their
meaning. We have, it is true, no positive infor-
mation
that Nabuna'id was thus allied with the family
of
Nebuchadnezzar; but there are corroborating cir-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON 63
cumstances,
which, to say the least, heighten the "pos-
sibility"
into a very strong probability. This supposi-
tion
is commended by its perfectly reconciling all the
statements
in the case; such a marriage may have
inflamed
his ambition and led to his usurpation after
the
example of Neriglissar, the successful conspirator
against
his brother-in-law Evil-merodach, the son of
Nebuchadnezzar;
this, too, explains the fact, attested
by
the Behistun inscription, that Nabuna'id had a son
Nebuchadnezzar,
who was twice personated by impostors
in
the reign of Darius Hystaspes. My colleague, Dr.
nation
inscription1 of Nabuna'id, in which he says: "Of
Nebuchadnezzar
and Neriglissar the kings my prede-
cessors
their mighty descendant I am he." This ex-
plicit
claim on the part of Nabuna'id, however he may
have
justified it, is direct monumental evidence that he,
and
by consequence also his son Belshazzar, considered
themselves
descendants of Nebuchadnezzar.
One mutilated passage in the
annalistic inscription,
which
is understood by Sayce, Schrader, and Winckler to
record
the death of "the king's wife," has more recently
been
translated by
and
Frederick Delitzsch, "On the night of the eleventh
of
Marchesvan Gobryas attacked and killed the son (?)
of
the king." Upon which Dr. Driver
remarks: "When
the
Persians (as the same inscription shows) had been
in
peaceable possession of
could
Belshazzar, even supposing (what is not in itself
inconceivable) that he still held out in the