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'apręs
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 ha