To consider at length all the questions which the spirit of modern inquiry has raised concerning the books of the Old Testament—their genuineness, integrity, date, chronology, and credibility; their relation to science, to profane history, to each other, and to the New Testament—would far exceed the limits allowed by the plan of the present work. To the Pentateuch alone, or even a single book of it, as Genesis or Deuteronomy; to the books of Chronicles; to Isaiah or Daniel, a whole volume might be devoted without exhausting the subject. In the present Introduction to the books of the Old Testament, the aim has been to give the results of biblical research, ancient and modern, with a concise statement of the lines of argument employed, wherever this could be done without involving discussions intelligible only to those who are familiar with the original languages of Scripture and the ancient versions. For such discussions the biblical student is referred to the more extended Introductions which abound at the present day. The author has endeavored, first of all, to direct the reader's attention to theunity of Scripture. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." The plan of Redemption is the very highest of these works, and it constitutes a gloriously perfect whole, gradually unfolding itself from age to age. The earliest revelations have reference to all that follow. The later revelations shed light on the earlier, and receivelight from them in return. It is only when the Scriptures are thus studied as a whole, that any one part of them can be truly comprehended. The effort has accordingly been made to show the relation of the Old Testament, considered as a whole, to the New; then, the relation of the several great divisions of the Old Testament—the law, the historical books, the prophets, the poetical books—to each other, and the place which each holds in the system of revelation; and finally, the office of each particular book, with such notices of its authorship, date, general plan, and contents, as will prepare the reader to study it intelligently and profitably. To all who would have a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of theNewTestament, the diligent study of the preparatory revelation contained in theOld, is earnestly commended. The present Introduction will be followed by one to the New Testament on the same general plan. It is hardly necessary to add that for much of the materials employed, in these two parts, particularly what relates to ancient manuscripts, the author is dependent on the statements of those who have had the opportunity of making original investigations.
1. The wordBiblecomes to us from the Greek (ta biblia, the books; that is, emphatically, the sacred canonical books) through the Latin and Norman French. In the ancient Greek and Latin churches, its use, as a plural noun applied to the whole collection of sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, can be traced as far back as the fifth century. In the English, as in all the modern languages of Europe, it has become a singular noun, and thus signifiesthe Book—the one book containing in itself all the particular books of the sacred canon.
In very ancient usage, the wordLaw(Heb.Torah) was applied to the five books of Moses; but there was no general term to denote the whole collection of inspired writings till after the completion of the canon of the Old Testament, when they were known in Jewish usage as:The Law,the Prophets, and theWritings(see below, No. 5). In accordance with the same usage, the writers of the New Testament speak of the "law and the prophets," and more fully, "the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms," Luke 24:44. And they apply tothe collected writings of the Old Testament, as well as to particular passages, the termthe Scripture, that is,the writings, thus: "The Scripture saith," John 7:38, etc. Or they employ the plural number: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures," Matt. 22:29, etc. Once the epithetholyis added, 2 Tim. 3:15.
In 2 Pet. 3:16, the termScripturesis applied to at least the epistles of Paul; apparently also to the other canonical writings of the New Testament then extant. In the usage of Christian writers, the application of this term to the books of the New Testament soon became well established; but the above is the only example of such an application that occurs in the New Testament itself.
In 2 Pet. 3:16, the termScripturesis applied to at least the epistles of Paul; apparently also to the other canonical writings of the New Testament then extant. In the usage of Christian writers, the application of this term to the books of the New Testament soon became well established; but the above is the only example of such an application that occurs in the New Testament itself.
2. The termsOldandNew Testamentarose in the following way: God's dealings with the Israelitish people, under both the patriarchs and Moses, took the form of acovenant; that is, not a mutual agreement as between two equal parties, but anarrangementordispensation, in which God himself, as the sovereign Lord, propounded to the chosen people certain terms, and bound himself, upon condition of the fulfilment of these terms, to bestow upon them blessings temporal and spiritual. Now the Greek worddiatheke, by which the Septuagint renders the Hebrew word forcovenant, signifies bothcovenant, in the general sense above given, andtestament, as being the final disposition which a man makes of his worldly estate. The new covenant introduced by Christ is, in a sense, atestament, as being ratified by his bloody death. Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20. So it is expressly called in the epistle to the Hebrews, 9:15-17, where the new covenant, considered in the light of a testament, is contrasted with the old. It was probably in connection with this view that theOld Latinversion of the Bible (made in the Old Testament not from the original Hebrew, but from the Greek Septuagint) everywhere rendered the Greek worddiathekeby the Latintestamentum. When Jerome undertook the work of correcting this version, he did not everywhere pursue the same plan. The books of the Old Testament he rendered in general from the Hebrew; and here he employed for the Hebrew word denotingcovenantthe appropriate Latinwordsfoedusandpactum. But in the Psalms, and the whole New Testament, from deference to established usage, he gave simply a revision of the Old Latin, leaving the wordtestamentum, by which that version had rendered the worddiatheke,covenant, untouched. Hence in Latin usage we have in the New Testament the two covenants, the old and the new, expressed by the termsold testament(vetus testamentum,priusorprimum testamentum) andnew testament(novum testamentum), and sometimes in immediate contrast with each other, as in 2 Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb. 9:15-18. The transfer of these terms from the covenants themselves to the writings which give an account of them was easy, and soon became established in general usage. Hence the termsOldandNew Testamentfor the two great divisions of the Bible.
Another Latin term for the two great divisions of the Bible wasinstrumentum,instrument,document; a term applied to the documents or body of records relating to the Roman empire, and very appropriate, therefore, to the records of God's dealings with men. But as early as the time of Tertullian, about the close of the second century, the wordtestamentum,testament, was more in use. See Tertullian against Marcion, 4. 1. A striking example of the superior accuracy of Jerome's independent version above his simple revision of the old Latin is the passage Jer. 31:31-33 as compared with the quotation of the same, Heb. 8:8-10. In the former, where the translation is made immediately from the Hebrew, we read: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel and the house of Judah a newcovenant(foedus): not according to thecovenant(pactum) which I made with their fathers," etc. In the same passage, as quoted in the epistle to the Hebrews, where we have only a revision of the old Latin, we read: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a newtestament(testamentum): not according to thetestament(testamentum) which I made for their fathers," etc.
Another Latin term for the two great divisions of the Bible wasinstrumentum,instrument,document; a term applied to the documents or body of records relating to the Roman empire, and very appropriate, therefore, to the records of God's dealings with men. But as early as the time of Tertullian, about the close of the second century, the wordtestamentum,testament, was more in use. See Tertullian against Marcion, 4. 1. A striking example of the superior accuracy of Jerome's independent version above his simple revision of the old Latin is the passage Jer. 31:31-33 as compared with the quotation of the same, Heb. 8:8-10. In the former, where the translation is made immediately from the Hebrew, we read: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel and the house of Judah a newcovenant(foedus): not according to thecovenant(pactum) which I made with their fathers," etc. In the same passage, as quoted in the epistle to the Hebrews, where we have only a revision of the old Latin, we read: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a newtestament(testamentum): not according to thetestament(testamentum) which I made for their fathers," etc.
3. Theunityof the Bible has its ground only in divine inspiration. So far as human composition is concerned, both parts of it have a great variety of authors. The writers of the Old Testament, especially, lived in different, and some of them in very distant ages. They were widely separated from each other in native character and endowments, in education, andin their outward circumstances and position in life. It is of the highest importance that the student of Scripture not only know these facts, but ponder them long and carefully, till he fully understands their deep significance. He has been accustomed from childhood to see all the books of the Bible comprised within the covers of a single volume. He can hardly divest himself of the idea that their authors, if not exactly contemporary, must yet somehow have understood each other's views and plans, and acted in mutual concert. It is only by long contemplation that he is able to apprehend the true position which these writers held to each other, separated from each other, as they often were, by centuries of time, during which great changes took place in the social and political condition of the Hebrew people. Then, for the first time, he begins to discern, in the wonderful harmony that pervades the writings of the Old Testament, taken as a whole, the clear proofs of a superintending divine Spirit; and learns to refer this harmony to its true ground, that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21.
According to the received chronology, Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy about 1451 B.C, and Malachi, the last of the prophets, wrote about 397 B.C. The difference, then, between the time of these two authors is 1054 years; or say, in round numbers, about 1000 years. From Moses to the anointing of David is, according to the shorter chronology, 388 years; and from Moses to the composition of the books of Kings, nearly nine centuries. From Joel to Malachi we must assume a period of about 400 years, within which space our present prophetical books were composed. The earlier of the psalms written by David differ in time from those composed at the close of the captivity by about 530 years. Let the reader who has been in the habit of passing from one book of the Bible to another, as if both belonged to the same age, ponder well the meaning of these figures. They confirm the arguments already adduced (ch. 12, No. 4) that the unity of Scripture has its ground not in human concert, but in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
According to the received chronology, Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy about 1451 B.C, and Malachi, the last of the prophets, wrote about 397 B.C. The difference, then, between the time of these two authors is 1054 years; or say, in round numbers, about 1000 years. From Moses to the anointing of David is, according to the shorter chronology, 388 years; and from Moses to the composition of the books of Kings, nearly nine centuries. From Joel to Malachi we must assume a period of about 400 years, within which space our present prophetical books were composed. The earlier of the psalms written by David differ in time from those composed at the close of the captivity by about 530 years. Let the reader who has been in the habit of passing from one book of the Bible to another, as if both belonged to the same age, ponder well the meaning of these figures. They confirm the arguments already adduced (ch. 12, No. 4) that the unity of Scripture has its ground not in human concert, but in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
4. The books of the Old Testament have been differently classified and arranged. But in no system of distribution has the chronological order been strictly observed.
(A.)The Jewish classification and arrangementis as follows. They first distribute the books of the Old Testament into three great classes, theLaw, theProphets, and theWritings; that is, the canonical writings not included in the other two divisions—theHagiographa(holy writings), as they are commonly designated at the present day.
TheLawis then subdivided into five books, as we now have them; for the names of which see the introduction to the Pentateuch. Chap. 19, No. 1.
With reference to this five-fold division of the Law, the Rabbins call itthe five-fifths of the Law, each book being reckoned as one-fifth. This term answers to the wordPentateuch, that is,the five-fold book. Chap. 9, beginning.
Thesecondgreat class consists of the so-calledProphets. These are first divided into theformerand thelatterProphets. The former Prophets consist of the historical books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in the order named. The latter comprise the prophetical books in the stricter sense of the word, with the exception of Daniel; and these are subdivided into thegreaterand theless. The greater Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The less are the twelve Minor Prophets from Hosea to Malachi, in the same order as that followed in our English version.
The remaining books of the Old Testament constitute thethirdgreat class, under the name ofWritings,Hagiographa; and they are commonly arranged in the following order: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. These books naturally fall into three groups.First, devotional and didactic—the three so-called poetical books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, which have in Hebrew a stricter rhythm;secondly, the five rolls—Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; so called because written on five separate rolls for use in the synagogue service on the occasion of special festivals;thirdly, books that are chiefly of an historical character—Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
The Talmud arranges the Greater Prophets thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah. Of the Hagiographa, various other arrangements, Masoretic and Talmudic, are given, which it is not necessary here to specify.That the writing of sacred history belonged to the prophetical office is clear from various scriptural notices. Compare 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron, 9:29; 12:15; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32, 33:19. The narrative concerning Sennacherib inserted in the second book of Kings (18:13-19:37) is manifestly from the pen of Isaiah. The Rabbins rightly ascribed the composition of the historical as well as the other books which compose, according to their division, theProphets, to prophetical men. But the grounds upon which they separated from these certain books, as, for example, Daniel, and placed them among the Hagiographa, are not clear. Some of the rabbins made the distinction to lie in thedegree of inspiration, Moses enjoying it in the fullest measure (Numb. 12:6-8), the authors of the books which are classed among the prophets havingthe Spirit of prophecy, and those of the books belonging to the Hagiographa simplythe Holy Spirit(the Holy Spirit, but not in the degree necessary for prophetic revelation). But this distinction is untenable. Who had the spirit of prophecy if not Daniel? In the opinion of some modern scholars, they reckoned to the Prophets only books written by men who were prophets in the stricter sense of the term; that is, men trained to the prophetical office, and exercising it as their profession; while the writings of men like David, Solomon, and Daniel, who though they had the Spirit of prophecy, were yet in their office not prophets, but rulers and statesmen, were assigned to the Hagiographa. But this is inconsistent with the fact that the book of Ruth (which in respect to authorship must go with that of Judges) and also the book of Lamentations are in the Hagiographa. Others, with more probability, find the main ground of classification in the character of the writings themselves—theLaw, as the foundation of the Theocracy; theProphets, that record the history of the Theocracy and make prophetic revelations concerning it; the sacredWritings, occupied with the personal appropriation of the truths of revelation, and as such exhibiting the religious life of the covenant people in its inward and outward form. But even here we do not find perfect consistency.
The Talmud arranges the Greater Prophets thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah. Of the Hagiographa, various other arrangements, Masoretic and Talmudic, are given, which it is not necessary here to specify.
That the writing of sacred history belonged to the prophetical office is clear from various scriptural notices. Compare 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron, 9:29; 12:15; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32, 33:19. The narrative concerning Sennacherib inserted in the second book of Kings (18:13-19:37) is manifestly from the pen of Isaiah. The Rabbins rightly ascribed the composition of the historical as well as the other books which compose, according to their division, theProphets, to prophetical men. But the grounds upon which they separated from these certain books, as, for example, Daniel, and placed them among the Hagiographa, are not clear. Some of the rabbins made the distinction to lie in thedegree of inspiration, Moses enjoying it in the fullest measure (Numb. 12:6-8), the authors of the books which are classed among the prophets havingthe Spirit of prophecy, and those of the books belonging to the Hagiographa simplythe Holy Spirit(the Holy Spirit, but not in the degree necessary for prophetic revelation). But this distinction is untenable. Who had the spirit of prophecy if not Daniel? In the opinion of some modern scholars, they reckoned to the Prophets only books written by men who were prophets in the stricter sense of the term; that is, men trained to the prophetical office, and exercising it as their profession; while the writings of men like David, Solomon, and Daniel, who though they had the Spirit of prophecy, were yet in their office not prophets, but rulers and statesmen, were assigned to the Hagiographa. But this is inconsistent with the fact that the book of Ruth (which in respect to authorship must go with that of Judges) and also the book of Lamentations are in the Hagiographa. Others, with more probability, find the main ground of classification in the character of the writings themselves—theLaw, as the foundation of the Theocracy; theProphets, that record the history of the Theocracy and make prophetic revelations concerning it; the sacredWritings, occupied with the personal appropriation of the truths of revelation, and as such exhibiting the religious life of the covenant people in its inward and outward form. But even here we do not find perfect consistency.
(B.)Classification of the Greek Version of the Seventy.The ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, called theSeptuagint(LatinSeptuaginta,seventy), because, according to Jewish tradition, it was the work of seventy men, interweaves theapocryphalwith thecanonicalbooks. Its arrangement is as follows, the apocryphal books and parts of books being indicated by italic letters. We follow the edition of Van Ess from theVatican manuscript, which omits the apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh:
1. Genesis.2. Exodus.3. Leviticus.4. Numbers.5. Deuteronomy.6. Joshua.7. Judges.8. Ruth.9. 1 Kings (our 1 Samuel).10. 2 Kings (our 2 Samuel).11. 3 Kings (our 1 Kings).12. 4 Kings (our 2 Kings).13. 1 Chronicles.14. 2 Chronicles.15. 1Esdras.16. 2 Esdras (our Ezra).17. Nehemiah.18.Tobit.19.Judith.20. Esther,with apocryphal additions.21. Job.22. Psalms.23. Proverbs.24. Ecclesiastes.25. Canticles.26.Wisdom of Solomon.27.Ecclesiasticus.28. Hosea.29. Amos.30. Micah.31. Joel.32. Obadiah.33. Jonah.34. Nahum.35. Habakkuk.36. Zephaniah.37. Haggai.38. Zechariah.39. Malachi.40. Isaiah.41. Jeremiah.42.Baruch.43. Lamentations.44.Epistle of Jeremiah.45. Ezekiel.46. Daniel,with apocryphal additions—Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, History of Susannah, Story of Bel and the Dragon.47. 1Maccabees.48. 2Maccabees.49. 3Maccabees.
1. Genesis.2. Exodus.3. Leviticus.4. Numbers.5. Deuteronomy.6. Joshua.7. Judges.8. Ruth.9. 1 Kings (our 1 Samuel).10. 2 Kings (our 2 Samuel).11. 3 Kings (our 1 Kings).12. 4 Kings (our 2 Kings).13. 1 Chronicles.14. 2 Chronicles.15. 1Esdras.16. 2 Esdras (our Ezra).17. Nehemiah.18.Tobit.19.Judith.20. Esther,with apocryphal additions.21. Job.22. Psalms.23. Proverbs.24. Ecclesiastes.25. Canticles.26.Wisdom of Solomon.27.Ecclesiasticus.28. Hosea.29. Amos.30. Micah.31. Joel.32. Obadiah.33. Jonah.34. Nahum.35. Habakkuk.36. Zephaniah.37. Haggai.38. Zechariah.39. Malachi.40. Isaiah.41. Jeremiah.42.Baruch.43. Lamentations.44.Epistle of Jeremiah.45. Ezekiel.46. Daniel,with apocryphal additions—Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, History of Susannah, Story of Bel and the Dragon.47. 1Maccabees.48. 2Maccabees.49. 3Maccabees.
The arrangement of books in the LatinVulgateagrees with that of the Septuagint with the following exceptions: the two canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah appear together, as in the Septuagint, but under the titles of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras. Next follow the two apocryphal books of Esdras (the latter wanting in the Septuagint), under the titles of 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras. The Greater Prophets, with Lamentations after Jeremiah and Daniel after Ezekiel, are inserted before the twelve Minor Prophets, which last stand in the order followed in our version. Throwing out of account, therefore, the apocryphalbooks, the order of the Vulgate is that followed by our English Bible.
From the above it is manifest that in neither the Hebrew, the Greek, nor the Latin arrangement is theorder of timestrictly followed. The Hebrew, for example, to say nothing of the Psalms, which were written in different ages, throws into the Hagiographa Ruth, Job, Proverbs, etc., which are older than any of the so-called latter prophets. The Hebrew places the books of Kings, and the Greek and Latin not only these, but also the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, before all the proper prophetical books, though it is well known that several of these were much earlier. In the Hebrew arrangement, the three Greater Prophets precede all the Minor Prophets, though several of the latter were earlier than Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and even Isaiah. In the Greek, on the contrary, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as Ezekiel, are placed after even the prophets of the Restoration. The biblical student should carefully remember these facts. He must not hastily assume that the books of the Old Testament stand in the order in which they were written, but must determine the age of each for itself, according to the best light that he can obtain. See further in the introductions to the several books.
From the above it is manifest that in neither the Hebrew, the Greek, nor the Latin arrangement is theorder of timestrictly followed. The Hebrew, for example, to say nothing of the Psalms, which were written in different ages, throws into the Hagiographa Ruth, Job, Proverbs, etc., which are older than any of the so-called latter prophets. The Hebrew places the books of Kings, and the Greek and Latin not only these, but also the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, before all the proper prophetical books, though it is well known that several of these were much earlier. In the Hebrew arrangement, the three Greater Prophets precede all the Minor Prophets, though several of the latter were earlier than Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and even Isaiah. In the Greek, on the contrary, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as Ezekiel, are placed after even the prophets of the Restoration. The biblical student should carefully remember these facts. He must not hastily assume that the books of the Old Testament stand in the order in which they were written, but must determine the age of each for itself, according to the best light that he can obtain. See further in the introductions to the several books.
5. In high antiquity, thecontinuous mode of writing, (scriptio continua,) without divisions between the words, was common. We cannot indeed infer, from the continuous writing of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, that the same method prevailed in the ancient Hebrew writing; for in very ancient inscriptions and manuscripts, belonging to different languages, the words are distinguished from each other more or less completely by points. Yet the neglect of these is common. In most Greek and Phoenician inscriptions there is no division of words. The translators of the Septuagint may be reasonably supposed to have employed the best manuscripts at their command. Yet their version shows that in these the words were either not separated at all, or only partially. The complete separation of words by intervening spaces did not take place till after the introduction of theAssyrian, orsquarecharacter. Ch. 14, No. 2. With the separation is connected the use of the so-calledfinalletters, that is, forms of certain letters employed exclusively at the ends of words.
6. A veryancient Jewish divisionof the sacred text is intoopenandclosedsections. The former, which are the larger of the two, are so named because in the Hebrew manuscripts, and in some printed editions, the remainder of the line at their close is leftopen, the next section beginning with a new line. Theclosedsections, on the contrary, are separated from each other only by a space in the middle of a line—shut inon either hand. The origin of these sections is obscure. They answer in a general way to our sections and paragraphs, and are older than the Talmud, which contains several references to them, belonging at least to the earliest time when the sacred books were read in public. Davidson, Biblical Criticism, vol. 1, ch. 5.
Different from these, and later in their origin, are thelarger sections of the Law, calledParshiyoth(from the singularParashah,section), which have exclusive reference to the reading of the Law in the synagogue service. These are fifty-four in number, one for each Sabbath of the Jewish intercalary year, while on common years two of the smaller sections are united. Corresponding to these sections of the Law are sections from theProphets, (the former and latter, according to the Jewish classification,) calledHaphtaroth, embracing, however, only selections from the prophets, and not the whole, as do the sections of the Law. The Jewish tradition is that this custom was first introduced during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, (about 167 B.C.,) because the reading of the Law had been prohibited by him. But this account of the matter is doubted by many.
In the Pentateuch, the smaller sections called open and closed are indicated, the former by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: P], that is, P, the initial letter of the wordpethuhah,open; the latter by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: S]=S, the first letter of the wordsethumah,closed. The larger sections, arranged for the reading of the Law in the synagogues, are indicated by three [Hebrew: P]'s or three [Hebrew: S]'s, according as they coincide at their beginning with an open or closed section. In the other portions of the sacred text these divisions are simply indicated by the appropriate spaces. But some printed editions do not observe the distinction between the two in respect to space, so that the open and closed sections are confounded with each other.
In the Pentateuch, the smaller sections called open and closed are indicated, the former by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: P], that is, P, the initial letter of the wordpethuhah,open; the latter by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: S]=S, the first letter of the wordsethumah,closed. The larger sections, arranged for the reading of the Law in the synagogues, are indicated by three [Hebrew: P]'s or three [Hebrew: S]'s, according as they coincide at their beginning with an open or closed section. In the other portions of the sacred text these divisions are simply indicated by the appropriate spaces. But some printed editions do not observe the distinction between the two in respect to space, so that the open and closed sections are confounded with each other.
7.Chapters and Verses.The division of thepoeticalbooks and passages of the Old Testament into separatelines, Hebrew,pesukim, (answering in general to our half-verses, sometimes to the third of a verse,) is very ancient, if not primitive. It is found in the poetical passages of the Law and the historical books, (Exod., ch. 15; Deut., ch. 32; Judges, ch. 5; 2 Sam. ch. 22,) and belonged originally to the three books of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, which alone the Hebrews reckon as poetical. See below, Ch. 21, No. 1. The division of the whole Old Testament intoverses, (likewise called by the Hebrewspesukim,) is also the work of Jewish scholars. It existed in its completeness in the ninth century, and must have had its origin much earlier in the necessity that grew out of the public reading and interpretation of the sacred books in the synagogue service.
In the Hebrew text the verses are distinguished by two points calledsoph-pasuk(:), except in the synagogue rolls, where, according to ancient usage, this mark of distinction is omitted.
The present division intochaptersis much later, and is the work of Christian scholars. By some it is ascribed to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1227; by others to Cardinal Hugo de St. Cher of the same century. The Jews transferred it from the Latin Vulgate to the Hebrew text. There are, however, some discrepancies between the chapters of the Hebrew text and those of the Vulgate and our English version.
The division of the sacred text into chapters and verses is indispensable for convenience of reference. But the student should remember that these distinctions are wholly of human origin, and sometimes separate passages closely connected in meaning. The first verse, for example, of Isaiah, ch. 4, is immediately connected in sense with the threatenings against "the daughters of Zion" contained in the close of the preceding chapter In the beginning of ch. 11 of the same book, the words: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots," contrast the Branch of the Messiah with the Assyrian bough, the lopping off of which has just been foretold; chap. 10:33, 34. The last three verses, again, of Isaiah, ch. 52, evidently belong to the following chapter. The connections of the sacred text, therefore, must be determined independently of these human distinctions.
1. The original language of the Old Testament isHebrew, with the exception of certain portions of Ezra and Daniel and a single verse of Jeremiah, (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan. 2:4, from the middle of the verse to end of chap. 7; Jer. 10:11,) which are written in the cognateChaldeelanguage. The Hebrew belongs to a stock of related languages commonly calledShemitic, because spoken mainly by the descendants of Shem. Its main divisions are: (1,) theArabic, having its original seat in the southeastern part of the Shemitic territory, and of which the Æthiopic is a branch; (2,) theAramæanin the north and northeast, comprising the eastern Aramæan orChaldee, and the western orSyriac; (3,) theHebrew, occupying a middle place between the two. TheSamaritanis essentially Aramæan, but with an intermixture of Hebrew forms; thePhoenician, orPunic, on the other hand, is most closely allied to the Hebrew. All these languages, with the exception of the Æthiopic, are written from right to left, and exhibit many peculiarities of orthography and grammatical forms and structure.
2. The Hebrew characters in present use, called theAssyrian, orsquare writing, are not those originally employed. The earlier form is undoubtedly represented by the inscriptions on the coins struck by the Maccabees, of which the letters bear a strong resemblance to the Samaritan and Phoenician characters. The Jewish tradition is that the present square character was introduced by Ezra, and that it was of Assyrian origin. The question of the correctness of this tradition has been much discussed. Some wholly reject it, and hold that the present square writing came by a gradual process of change from a more ancient type. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., vol. I, ch. 3.
That the present square writing existed in our Saviour's day has been argued with much force from Matth. 5:18, where the Saviour says: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot (iota) or one tittle (keraia) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Theiota(Hebrewyod) is the letteriory, which in the square writing is the smallest in the alphabet ([Hebrew: y]), but not in the ancient Hebrew, Ph[oe]nician, or Samaritan. Thekeraia,little turn, is that which distinguishes one letter from another; as [Hebrew: d],d, from [Hebrew: r],r; or [Hebrew: b],b, from [Hebrew: k],k. See Alford on Matth. 5:18. (The recent discovery in the Crimea of inscriptions on the tombs of Caraite Jews, some of them dating back, it is alleged, to the first century, proves that the Assyrian or square character was then in use. In these inscriptions theYod(iota) is represented by a simple point. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, p. 1173.)
TheRabbinicis a modification of the Assyrian or square writing, for the purpose of giving it a more cursive character.
3. TheHebrew alphabet, like all the other Shemitic alphabets—with the exception of the Æthiopic, which issyllabic, the vowels being indicated by certain modifications in the forms of the consonants—was originally a skeleton alphabet, an alphabet of consonants, in which, however, certain letters, called vowel-letters, performed in a measure the office of vowels. The Shemite did not separate the vowels from the consonants, and express them, as we do, by separate signs. He rather conceived of the vowels as inhering in the consonants—as modifications in the utterance of the consonants, which the reader could make for himself. Various particulars in respect to the pronunciation of certain consonants were, in like manner, left to the reader's own knowledge. For example, the three Hebrew letters, [Hebrew: sh],sh; [Hebrew: m],m; [Hebrew: r],r, ([Hebrew: shmr], to be read from right to left,) might be pronounced,shamar,he kept;shemor,keep thou;shomer,keeping—the reader determining from the connection which of these forms should be used, just as we decide in English between the different pronunciations of the wordbow. As long as the Hebrew remained a living language, that is, the language of the masses of the people, this outline alphabet was sufficient for all practical purposes. The modern Arabs read without difficulty their ordinary books, which omit, in like manner, the signs for the vowels. The regularity of structurewhich belongs to the Shemitic languages generally, makes this omission less inconvenient for them than a like omission would be for us in our western tongues.
4. During the long Babylonish captivity the mass of the Jewish people, who were born and educated in Babylon and the adjacent regions, adopted of necessity the language of the country; that is, the Aramæan or Chaldee language. After the exile, the Hebrew was indeed spoken and written by the prophets and learned men, but not by the people at large. In Nehemiah 8:8 we are told that "they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." This has been explained by some as meaning simply that they expounded to them the sense. But the more natural meaning is that theyinterpretedto the people the words read from the law. We find, soon after the captivity at least, the old Hebrew supplanted as a living language among the people at large by the Aramæan or Chaldee. Why not date the change from the latter part of the captivity itself?
It was natural that the prophets and historians, all of whom wrote soon after the exile, should employ the sacred language of their fathers. This fact cannot be adduced as a valid argument that the body of the people continued to speak Hebrew. The incorporation, on the other hand, of long passages in Chaldee into the books of Daniel and Ezra implies at least that this language was known to the people at large. As to the children spoken of in Neh. 13:24, who "could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people"—the people, to wit, to which their mothers belonged—"the Jews' language" here is probably the language used by the Jews, as distinguished from that used by the people of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. Keil, Introduction to Old Testament, § 18.
5. After the Hebrew had ceased to be the language of the common people, its traditional pronunciation was carefully preserved for many successive centuries in the synagogue-reading. It was not till several centuries after Christ (somewhere between the sixth and the tenth centuries) that the vowel-signs and other marks of distinction were added in order to perpetuate,with all possible accuracy, the solemn traditional pronunciation of the synagogue. This work is ascribed to learned Jews of Tiberias, calledMasoretes, fromMasora,tradition; and the Hebrew text thus furnished by them is called theMasoretic, in distinction from theunpointedtext, which latter is, according to Jewish usage, retained in the synagogue-rolls. From reverence to the word of God, thepunctuators(as these men are also called) left the primitive text in all cases undisturbed, simply superadding to it their marks of distinction. After giving with great minuteness the differentvowel-signsand marks (commonly calleddiacritical) for the varying pronunciation of the consonants, they superadded a complicated system ofaccents. These serve the threefold office of guides incantillatingthe sacred text (according to ancient usage in the synagogue-reading); of indicating theconnection in meaningamong the words and clauses; and of marking, though with certain exceptions, thetone-syllablesof words. In addition to all the above, they added a mass ofnotes, partly of a critical and partly of a grammatical character, relating to various readings, grammatical forms and connections, modes of orthography, and the like. These are called collectively theMasorah, of which there is a fuller Masorah called thegreater(found only in Rabbinical Bibles), and a briefer, called theless, the main part of which is found in common editions of the Hebrew Bible. To illustrate theMasoreticas contrasted with theunpointedtext, we give the first verse of Genesis,first, in its simple unpointed form;secondly, with the vowel-signs and diacritical marks for the consonants;thirdly, with both these and the accents, the last being the complete Masoretic text.
[Hebrew: br'shit br' 'lhim et hshmym vet h'rts]
[Hebrew: bere'shit bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]
[Hebrew: o bere'shit bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]
ha-arets. ve-eth hasshamayim eth elohim bara Bereshith
the-earth. and-it the heavens them God created In-the-beginning
The round circle above the initial letter in the third line refers to a marginalnote of the Masorahindicating that it is to be writtenlarge.
Respecting the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew points a warm controversy existed in former times. Some maintained that they were coeval with the language itself; others that they were first introduced by Ezra after the Babylonish captivity. But their later origin—somewhere between the sixth and tenth centuries—is now generally conceded. It is further agreed that their inventors were able scholars, thoroughly acquainted as well with the genius and structure of the language as with the traditional pronunciation of the synagogue; and that they have given a faithful representation of this pronunciation, as it existed in their day. Their judgment, therefore, though not invested with any divine authority, is very valuable. "It represents a tradition, it is true; but a tradition of the oldest and most important character." Horne's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 15, edition of 1860.
6. The deep reverence of the Jews for their sacred books manifests itself in their numerous rules for the guidance of copyists in the transcription of the rolls designed for use in the synagogue service. They extend to every minute particular—the quality of the ink and the parchment (which latter must always be prepared by a Jew from the skin of a clean animal, and fastened by strings made from the skins of clean animals); the number, length, and breadth of the columns; the number of lines in each column, and the number of words in each line. No word must be written till the copyist has first inspected it in the example before him, and pronounced it aloud; before writing the name of God he must wash his pen; all redundance or defect of letters must be carefully avoided: prose must not be written as verse, or verse as prose; and when the copy has been completed, it must be examined for approval or rejection within thirty days. Superstitious, and even ridiculous, as these rules are, we have in them a satisfactory assurance of the fidelity with which the sacred text has been perpetuated. Though their date may be posterior to the age of the Talmudists (between 200 and 500 after Christ), the spirit of reverence for the divine word which they manifest goes far back beyond this age. We see it, free from these later superstitious observances, in the transactions recorded in the eighth chapter ofNehemiah, when Ezra opened the book of the law in the sight of all the people, "and when he opened it, all the people stood up." The early history of the sacred text is confessedly involved in great obscurity; but in the profound reverence with which the Jews have ever regarded it since the captivity, we have satisfactory proof that it has come down to us, in all essential particulars, as Ezra left it. Of the primitive text before the days of Ezra and his associates we have but a few brief notices in the historical books. But in the fidelity and skill of Ezra, who was "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given," as well as in the intelligence and deep earnestness of the men associated with him, we have a reasonable ground of assurance that the sacred books which have come down to us through their hands contain, in all essential particulars, the primitive text in a pure and uncorrupt form.
7. As to theageof Hebrew manuscripts, it is to be noticed that not many have come down to us from an earlier century than the twelfth. In this respect there is a striking difference between them and the Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, a few of which are as old as the fourth and fifth centuries, and quite a number anterior to the tenth. The oldest known Hebrew manuscript, on the contrary, is a Pentateuch roll on leather, now at Odessa, which, if the subscription stating that it wascorrectedin the year 580 can be relied on, belongs to the sixth century. One of De Rossi's manuscripts is supposed to belong to the eighth century, and there are a few of the ninth and tenth, and several of the eleventh. Bishop Walton supposes that after the Masoretic text was fully settled, the Jewish rulers condemned, as profane and illegitimate, all the older manuscripts not conformed to this: whence, after a few ages, the rejected copies mostly perished. The existing Hebrew manuscripts give the Masoretic text with but little variation from each other.
Earnest effort has been made to find a reliable ante-Masoretic text, but to no purpose. The search in China has thus far been fruitless. WhenDr. Buchanan in 1806 brought from India a synagogue-roll which he found among the Jews of Malabar, high expectations were raised. But it is now conceded to be a Masoretic roll, probably of European origin. Respecting the manuscripts of theSamaritanPentateuch, see below, No. 9.
(A synagogue-roll has recently been discovered in the Crimea of the date answering to A.D. 489. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, pp. 1172-5.)
8. In respect toform, Hebrew manuscripts fall into two great divisions,publicandprivate. The public manuscripts consist ofsynagogue-rollscarefully written out on parchment, as already described, without vowel-points or divisions of verses. The Law is written on a single roll; the sections from the prophets (Haphtaroth, ch. 12. 6) and the Five Rolls—Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (ch. 12. 4)—each on separate rolls. The private manuscripts are writtenwith leavesin book form—folio, quarto, octavo, and duodecimo; mostly on parchment, but some of the later on paper. The poetical passages are generally arranged in hemistichs; the rest is in columns which vary according to the size of the page. The text and points were always written separately; the former with a heavier, the latter with a lighter pen, and generally with different ink. The square or Assyrian character is employed as a rule, but a few are written in the rabbinic character. The Chaldee paraphrase (less frequently some other version) may be added. The margin contains more or less of the Masorah; sometimes prayers, psalms, rabbinical commentaries, etc.
9. There is also aSamaritan Pentateuch; that is, a Hebrew Pentateuch written in the ancient Samaritan characters, and first brought to light in 1616, respecting the origin of which very different opinions are held. Some suppose that the Samaritans received it as an inheritance from the ten tribes; others that it was introduced at the time of the founding of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim; others that it was brought by the Israelitish priest sent to instruct the Samaritans in the knowledge of God, 2 Kings 17:27, 28. It is agreed among biblical scholars that its text has been subjected to many alterations which greatly impair its critical authority. These, however,are not sufficient to account for its remarkable agreement with the Septuagint version against the Masoretic text, in numerous readings, some of them of importance. The explanation of this phenomenon must be the agreement of the original Samaritan codex with the manuscripts from which the Alexandrine version was executed. Probably both were of Egyptian origin. See Alexander's Kitto, art. Samaritan Pentateuch.
In a brief compend, like the present work, it is not thought necessary to notice particularly theprintededitions of the Hebrew Bible. The reader will find an account of them in the "Bibliographical List" appended to the fourth volume of Horne's Introduction, edition of 1860. The text of Van der Hooght's Hebrew Bible, (Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1705,) which was chiefly based on the earlier text of Athias, (Amsterdam, 1667,) is generally followed at the present day, and may be regarded as the received text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
1. The Greek wordcanon(originally astraight rod or pole,measuring-rod, thenrule) denotes that collection of books which the churches receive as given by inspiration of God, and therefore as constituting for them a divine rule of faith and practice. To the books included in it the termcanonicalis applied. The Canon of the Old Testament, considered in reference to its constituent parts, was formed gradually; formed under divine superintendence by a process of growth extending through many centuries. The history of its formation may be conveniently considered under the following divisions: (1,) thePentateuch; (2,) thehistoricalbooks; (3,) thepropheticalbooks in the stricter sense of the term; (4,) a somewhat miscellaneous collection of books which may be designated in a general way aspoetical.
2. In the name applied to the Pentateuch—"the book of the law," and more fully, "the book of the law of Moses," "the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel"—we have from the beginning the general idea of the canon. A canonical writing is one that contains a communication from God to men, and has therefore the impress of divine authority. In its outward form it may be preceptive, historical, or meditative. But in all these different modes it still reveals to men God's character, and the duties which he requires of them. The Hebrews never admitted to the number of their sacred books a writing that was secular in its character. Even those who deny the canonical authority of certain parts of theOld Testament acknowledge that the Jews received these parts because they believed them to be of a sacred character.
3. In Deut. 31:9-13, 24-26; 17:18, 19, we read: "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: and that their children which have not known anything, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it:" "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, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side" (that is, notwithin, butby the side. Compare Josh. 12:9; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 20:25; Psa. 91:7; where the same word is used in the original) "of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee;" "and it shall be when he"—the king whom the Israelites in some future age shall set over themselves—"sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall 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 the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and the statutes, to do them." These passages are of the weightiest import; for they teach us how thenucleusof the canon of the Old Testament was formed, and give us all the particulars that enter into the idea of a canonical writing. It is given by God as an authoritative rule of faithand practice; it is committed to the custody of his people through their recognized officers, and that for all future time; it is to be published to the people at large, and diligently studied by the rulers, that they and the people together may know and do the will of God. It is not necessary to decide the question how much is included in the words "this book of the law," Deut. 31:26, whether the whole Pentateuch, or only the book of Deuteronomy. The arguments to show that the four preceding books came, in all essential respects, from the pen of Moses have been already given (Ch. 9, Nos. 7-9), and need not be here repeated. We only add that even if the reference is to Deuteronomy alone, as some suppose, the rule for this book would naturally be the rule for all the previous writings. They also would be laid up by the side of the ark; for it is plain that the priests and Levites, who had charge of the sanctuary, were made the keepers of the sacred writings generally.
As a matter of simple convenience the book of Deuteronomy was written on a separate roll ("in a book," Deut. 31:24). But if this book, when finished, was laid up with the earlier portions of the law at the side of the ark, so as to constitute with them a single collection, and if, as we may reasonably suppose, Moses, in writing the book of Deuteronomy, contemplated such a collection of all the parts of the law into one whole; then, when the law is mentioned, whether in Deuteronomy or in the later books, we are to understand the whole law, unless there be something in the context to limit its meaning, as there is, for example, in Joshua 8:32 compared with Deut. 27:1-8. The command to "read this law before all Israel in their hearing," "at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles," was understood in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah of the whole law, and not of Deuteronomy alone (Ch. 9, No. 4); and so Josephus plainly understood it: "But when the multitude is assembled in the holy city at the septennial sacrifices on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles, let the high priest, standing on a lofty stage whence he can be plainly heard, read the laws to all." Antiq. 4.8, 12. "The laws," in the usage of Josephus, naturally mean the whole collection of laws.
4. The history of these is involved in obscurity. In respect to most of them we know not the authors, nor the exact date oftheir composition. There are, however, two notices that shed much light on the general history of the earlier historical books. In the last chapter of the book of Joshua, after an account of the renewal of the covenant at Shechem, it is added: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord." Josh. 24:26. Again, upon the occasion of the establishment of the kingdom under Saul, we are told that "Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord." 1 Sam. 10:25. From the first of these passages we learn that a theocratic man after Moses, who had the spirit of prophecy, connected his writings (or at least one portion of them) with the law. This addition by Joshua, though never formally regarded as a part of the law, virtually belonged to it, since it contained a renewal of the covenant between God and his people. From the second passage we learn that the place for other important documents pertaining to the theocracy was "before the Lord," where the law was deposited. Hence we infer with much probability that, besides the addition made to "the book of the law of God," important historical writings, proceeding from prophetical men, like Joshua and Samuel, were in process of collection at the sanctuary all the time from Moses to Samuel.
5. If now we examine the books of Joshua and Judges, we must be satisfied that the men who compiled them made use of such materials. In the book of Joshua is recorded, with much detail, the allotment of the land of Canaan among the several tribes. A document of this nature must have been written at the time, and by Joshua himself, or under his immediate direction. The same may be reasonably supposed of other portions of the book. If then it was put into its present form after the death of Joshua, as some suppose, the materials must still have been furnished by him to a great extent. The book of Judges covers a period of more than three centuries. Who composed it we do not know, but the materials employed by him musthave existed, in part at least, in a written form. The book of Ruth may be regarded as an appendix to that of the Judges.
6. The two books of Samuel (which originally constituted one whole) bring down the history of the Theocracy from the birth of Samuel to the close of David's reign—a period of about a century and a half. The author, therefore, can have been, upon any supposition, only in part contemporary with the events which he records. Yet if we examine the biographical sketches of Saul, Samuel, and David contained in these books, the conviction forces itself upon us that they must have been written by contemporaries. Their freshness, minute accuracy of detail, and graphic vividness of style mark them as coming from eye-witnesses, or from writers who had received their accounts from eye-witnesses. Who were authors of these original documents we cannot determine. It is certain that Samuel was one of them. 1 Chron. 29:29. Who composed the books, again, is a question that we are unable to answer. It was probably a prophet living not very long after the separation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From the days of Samuel and onward there was a flourishing school of the prophets at hand which could furnish, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the writers of the original materials and the author of the books in their present form.
The attempt has been made to set aside the evidence that the writer of the books of Samuel made use of earlier documents, from the example of such men as Swift and Defoe, who composed works of fiction with all the simplicity and circumstantial detail of those who write authentic history as eye-witnesses. But, unless the design be to class the books of Samuel with "Gulliver's Travels" and "Robinson Crusoe," the argument is wholly irrelevant. With Swift and Defoe simplicity and minuteness of detail were a matter of conscious effort—a work of art, for which they naturally chose the region of fiction; and here they, and other men of genius, have been eminently successful. Shakespeare has portrayedidealscenes in the life of Julius Cæsar with more vividness and circumstantiality than any authentic historian of Cæsar's age. Butreal history, written simply in the interest of truth, never has the graphic character, artless simplicity, and circumstantiality of detail which belong to these inimitable narratives, unless the writer be either an eye-witness, or draw his materials from eye-witnesses.