had learned fully to appreciate the value of their ancient Scriptures,
after martyrs had died for the sacred writings during the Maccabean
struggle. Aside from supplements made to older books, as, for example,
Zechariah ix.-xiv., the canon of the prophets was probably closed not
later than 200 B.C. From direct evidence it is clear that the book of
Daniel (written about 165 B.C.) did not find a place in this canon. It
is also significant that in the prologue to the Greek version of Ben
Sira or Ecclesiasticus (132 B.C.) the translator refers repeatedly--as
though they were then regarded as of equal authority--to the _Law and
the Prophets and the rest of the books_, or to _the other books of the
fathers_. But most significant of all, Ben Sira, who wrote about 190
B.C., includes in his list of Israel's heroes (xliv.-l.) not only those
mentioned in the _Torah_, but also David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and the
chief characters in the _Former Prophets_. Furthermore, Isaiah and
Jeremiah and Ezekiel are introduced in their proper settings, and the
panegyric closes with a reference to the twelve prophets collectively,
indicating that Ben Sira was also acquainted with the _Latter Prophets_
as a group.
[Sidenote: _The beginning of the last stage in the canonization of the
Old Testament_]
The reference to _the rest of the books_ in the prologue to Ben Sira
indicates that even before 130 B.C. certain other writings had been
joined to the canon of the Law. Ben Sira himself, to judge from his
description of David (_cf_. xlvii. 8, 9, and I Chron. 25), Zerubbabel,
Joshua, and Nehemiah, was acquainted with the books of Chronicles, Ezra,
and Nehemiah. Chapter xlvii. 8 apparently contains an allusion to a
hymn-book attributed to David. Evidently he was also familiar with the
book of Proverbs, including its introductory chapters. Thus we have a
glimpse of the beginning of that third stage in the canonization of the
Old Testament which, as in the case of the New, continued for fully
three centuries.
[Sidenote: _Canonization of the Psalter and Lamentations_]
The Psalter doubtless passed through different stages of canonization,
as did the Old Testament itself. The earliest collection was, in the
beginning, probably made for liturgical purposes, and its adoption in
the service of the temple was practically equivalent to canonization.
When successive collections were added, they too were thus canonized.
The result was that the Psalter, when complete, enjoyed a position
somewhat similar to that of the Law and the Prophets, although the
authority of each rested upon a different basis. That the Psalter was
early canonized is further demonstrated by a quotation in I Maccabees
vii. 17 (about 125 B.C.) from Psalm lxxix. 2, 3, introduced by the
words, _as it is written in the Scriptures_. This conclusion is also
supported by the significant reference in the New Testament to the _Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms_ (Lk. xxiv. 44). Jesus' use of the Psalter
indicates that in his day its canonicity was already thoroughly
established. Lamentations, by a late tradition attributed to Jeremiah,
was probably also canonized contemporaneously with the Psalms.
[Sidenote: _The other books of the fathers_]
The canonization of the book of Proverbs, like that of the Psalter, was
undoubtedly by successive stages. The Jews of the Greek and Maccabean
period were especially appreciative of this type of literature, and it
was doubtless accorded its position of authority primarily because it
rang true to human experience. That it was attributed to Solomon also
told in its favor. Ben Sira's indirect testimony suggests that it and
the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which were in close accord
with the point of view of later Judaism, were already in his day
associated with the Law and the Prophets. The book of Ruth was probably
at this time added to the other historical books.
[Sidenote: _Canonization of the book of Daniel_]
The absence of any reference in Ben Sira to Daniel is significant. The
first allusion to it comes from the last half of the second century
before Christ. First Maccabees i. 54 appears to quote the prediction of
Daniel ix. 27, and in I Maccabees ii. 59, 60, Daniel and his three
friends are held up as noble examples of virtue. Thus it would seem that
within a half century after the book of Daniel was written its authority
was recognized. In New Testament times its canonicity is fully
established (_e.g., cf_. I Cor. vi. 2, and Dan. vii. 22).
[Sidenote: _Date of the completion of the Hebrew Old Testament canon_]
Concerning the canonicity of two books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of
Songs or Canticles, the opinions of the rabbis continued to differ until
the close of the first Christian century. From the Mishna we learn
that the school of Shammai accepted Ecclesiastes, while that of Hillel
rejected it. Finally, in a conference in Jamnia, about 100 A.D., the two
schools finally agreed to accept both books as canonical. From Second
Esdras and Josephus, however, we learn that the present Hebrew and
Protestant canon of the Old Testament had already for some time been
practically adopted by common consent.
[Sidenote: _Contents of the last group of writings_]
The last collection, which includes eleven books known as the
_Hagiographa_ or _Sacred Writings_, constitutes the third general
division of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a heterogeneous group of
histories, prophecies, stories, and wisdom books. Some, like the
Psalter, were, as we have seen, probably canonized as early as the
Prophets; although the final canon of the Old Testament was not closed
until 100 A.D. Even later the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, the Song of
Songs, and Esther was sometimes questioned; most of them were regarded
as authoritative as early as 100 B.C. Here, as in the case of the New
Testament, the real decision was not the work of any school or council;
but gradually, on the basis of their intrinsic merit, the twenty-four
books of the Hebrew Bible were singled out of a much larger literature
and recognized, at least by the Jews of Palestine, as the authoritative
record of God's revelation through their race.
[Sidenote: _Differences between the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons_]
Jewish tradition, represented by Second Esdras xiv. and the Talmudic
treatise _Baba Bathra_ xv. a, states that all the canonical books were
in existence in the time of Ezra. While the tradition is refuted by the
historical facts, it appears to have influenced the Jews of Palestine in
shaping their canon; since no books purporting to come from a later date
or author are found in it. The broader-minded Jews of the dispersion,
and especially Alexandria and the early Christian Church, refused to be
bound by the narrow principle that divine revelation ceased with Ezra.
Accordingly we find them adopting a larger canon, that included many
other later writings known in time as the apocryphal or hidden books.
[Sidenote: _Additional books in the Greek and Christian canon_]
These consisted of three genuine works,--I and II Maccabees and Ben Sira
or Ecclesiasticus; two didactic stories,--Tobit and Judith; four books
wrongly ascribed to earlier authors,--the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, the
Epistle of Jeremy, and Second Esdras (Gk. IV Esdras); and four additions
to the Hebrew canonical books,--First Esdras, an expansion of the book
of Ezra, the Prayer of Manasses, and additions to Esther and Daniel.
[Sidenote: _History of the Apocryphal books in the Christian Church_]
As is well known, these books were retained by the Christian Church,
as they still are by the Roman Catholic and Greek churches, until the
Protestant reformers relegated them, as a whole, to a secondary place.
Ultimately the Bible societies, during the first part of the last
century, ceased to print them in the ordinary editions of the Bible.
The result is that the present generation has almost forgotten their
existence. The last decade or two, however, has witnessed a significant
revival of interest among the scholars of Christendom, and the wholesome
tendency to restore certain of the Apocrypha to the working Old
Testament canon is very marked. This is only a correction of the error
of the Protestant reformers in estimating the Apocryphal books, not by
the intrinsic merit of each individual writing but of the group as a
whole.
[Sidenote: _Great value of these later Jewish writings_]
Some of the Apocrypha and kindred books like the apocalypse of Enoch,
were quoted and recognized by New Testament scholars as having authority
equal to that of the other Old Testament Scriptures. The rejection of I
and II Maccabees and Ben Sira from the Palestinian canon because they
were written after the days of Ezra and not associated with the names
of any early Old Testament worthies, was due to a narrow conception
of divine revelation, directly contrary to that of Christianity which
recognized the latest as the noblest. These later Jewish writings
also bridge the two centuries which otherwise yawn between the two
Testaments--two centuries of superlative importance both historically
and religiously, witnessing as they do the final development of the life
and thought of Judaism and the rise of those conditions and beliefs
which loom so large in the New Testament.
[Sidenote: _The larger working canon of the Old Testament_]
While they will always be of great value in the study of later Jewish
history, literature, and religion, the majority of the apocryphal books
undoubtedly belong in the secondary group to which the Palestinian Jews
and the Protestant reformers assigned them. Three or four, however,
tested by the ultimate principles of canonicity, are equal, if not
superior, to certain books like Chronicles, Esther, and Ecclesiastes.
First Maccabees records one of the most important crises in Israelish
history. As a faithful historical writing, it is hardly equalled in
ancient literature. Its spirit is also genuinely religious. The later
but parallel history of II Maccabees is not the equal of the first,
although its religious purpose is more pronounced. Its historical
character, style, aim, and point of view are strikingly similar to those
of the book of Chronicles. The proverbs of Ben Sira, while not all
of the same value, yet abound in noble and practical teachings, very
similar to those in the book of Proverbs. Not only does the Wisdom of
Solomon contain many exalted and spiritual passages, but it is also of
unique importance because it represents that wonderful fusion of the
best elements in Hebrew and Hellenic thought which formed the background
of Christianity. Probably the Church, will ultimately restore to its
larger working Old Testament canon the beautiful Prayer of Manasses,
already largely adopted in the prayer-book of the Anglican Church.
[Sidenote: _Conclusion_]
Our rapid historical study has revealed the unity and the variety of
teaching reflected in the Old Testament, and has suggested its real
place in the revelation of the past and its true place in the life of
to-day. This older testament is the record of God's gradual revelation
of himself through the history of the Israelitish race and the
experiences and minds of countless men and women whose spiritual eyes
were open and whose ears were attentive to divine truth. The same benign
Father who has always spoken to his children has influenced them also to
recognize the writings that most faithfully and fully record the
spiritual truth thus revealed. Had the task been entrusted to our own or
later generations, it is not probable that the result would have
differed in any important essential. For a few brief centuries false
theories and traditions may partially obscure the truth, but these, like
the mists of morning, are sure in time to melt away and reveal the
eternal verities in their sublime beauty and grandeur.
XIV
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EARLY NARRATIVES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
[Sidenote: _Importance of regarding each story as a unit_]
Of all the different groups of writings in the Old Testament,
undoubtedly the early narratives found in the first seven books present
the most perplexing problems. This is primarily due to the fact that
they have been subject to a long process of editorial revision by which
stories, some very old and others very late and written from a very
different point of view, have been closely joined together. While there
is a distinct aim and unity in the whole, in approaching them it is
simplest to study each story as a unit in itself. Not only is this
practical, but it is justified by the fact that almost every story was
once current in independent form. Often, as in the case of the accounts
of creation and the flood, it is possible to recover the older versions
and even to trace their origin and earlier history.
[Sidenote: _Classification necessary to determine the point of view_]
The first essential, however, is to determine to the point of view and
purpose of the biblical writer, who has taken the given story from the
lips of his contemporaries and incorporated it in the cycle of stories
in which it is now found, Here the language, literary style, theme, and
conceptions of God and religion are the chief guides. If, as in the
first chapter of Genesis, the Deity is always designated as _God_ or
_Elohim;_ if the literary style is formal, repetitious, and generic; if
the theme is the origin of an institution like the Sabbath; and if
the Deity is conceived of as a spirit, accomplishing his purpose by
progressive stages through the agency of natural forces,--it is not
difficult to recognize at once the work of a late priestly writer. If,
on the contrary, as in Genesis ii. 4b to iii. 24, _Jehovah_ is the name
of the Deity; if the style is vivid, picturesque, and flowing; if the
interest centres in certain individuals instead of species; if the
themes vitally concern the spiritual life of man; if the Deity is
conceived of after human analogies, as intimately associating with
men, and as revealing himself directly to them by word and visible
presence,--the work of an early prophetic writer is evidently before us.
The identification of the point of view of the author at once puts us
into appreciative sympathy with him.
[Sidenote: _Value of knowing an author's point of view_]
It also enables us intelligently to interpret his words and figures.
Knowing, for example, that the first chapter of Genesis was written by a
priest who lived long after his race had ceased to think of God as
having a body like a man, we cannot make the common mistake of
interpreting verse 26 as implying physical likeness. Rather, as his
conception of God as a spirit demands and the latter part of the verse
proves, his sublime teaching is that man, the end and culmination of the
entire work of creation, is like his Creator, a spiritual being, endowed
with a mind and a will, and as God's viceregent, is divinely commanded
to rule over all created things.
[Sidenote: _Practical value of the critical analysis_]
Where two distinct versions of the same narrative have been amalgamated
in the process of editorial revision, the analysis of the original
sources is indispensable to a true understanding and interpretation of
the thought of the prophet and priest who have each utilized the
ancient story,--as, for example, that of the flood,--to illustrate the
inevitable consequences of sin and God's personal interest in mankind.
Here the culminating purpose of the prophet, however, is to proclaim
Jehovah's gracious promise that he will never thus again destroy man or
living things; that (viii. 21, 22):
While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Summer and winter,
Day and night
Shall not cease.
The priest, on the other hand, is interested in the renewal of the
covenant which insures man's dominion over the natural world, and in the
sanctity of blood, and in the primitive, divine origin of the command,
Thou shalt not kill (ix. 1-6).
[Sidenote: _The necessary basis for intelligent interpretation_]
Fortunately the work of analysis has been so thoroughly carried out
during the last century that there is practical agreement among the
Christian scholars of the world on the essential questions. These
results are now also available in popular form, so that, without wasting
time on technicalities, the pastor and teacher of to-day can utilize
them as the basis for more important study and teaching. The origin,
the literary form, and the scientific and historical accuracy of each
narrative all suggest definite and interesting lines of study, but, as
has been noted (p. 106), these are of secondary value compared with the
religious truths that each story is intended to illustrate.
[Sidenote: _Principles of religious interpretation_]
Since these stories were preserved because they conserve this higher
purpose, it is always safe to ask, What are their distinctive
contributions to the grand total of ethical and spiritual teaching found
in the Old Testament? At the same time it is exceedingly important
always to be sure to read the teachings out of, and not into, a given
narrative. By unnatural and fanciful interpretation of these simple
stories the friends of the Bible in the past have often wronged it more
than have its avowed foes. Each story, like the parables of Jesus, had
its one or two central teachings, usually conveyed to the mind by
implication rather than by direct statement. The characters who figure
in them by their words and deeds proclaim the practical truths and
embody the ideals in the minds of the ancient prophets and priests.
[Sidenote: _Theme of Genesis ii. and iii._]
The heterogeneous group of stories found in Genesis i.-xi. constitute
the general introduction to the succeeding narratives which gather about
the names of the traditional ancestors of the Hebrews. Each of these
originally independent stories illustrates its own peculiar religious
teachings. None has taken a deeper hold on the imagination and made a
deeper impression on the thought and literature of the world than that
which is found in the second and third chapters of Genesis. Its theme--
the origin and nature and consequences of sin--is of vital, personal
interest to every man of every age.
[Sidenote: _The problem of presenting it in a form intelligible to
early man_]
The problem that confronted the early Judean prophet was to present in
form intelligible to the minds of his primitive readers a subject that
has taxed to the utmost the resources of the world's greatest
philosophers and theologians. The task was comparable to that which fell
to the Master when he sought to make clear to his untutored disciples
the real nature of the mighty tempest of temptation that raged in his
soul at the beginning, and, indeed, later in his ministry. The method
adopted was strikingly similar in each case. If the language of modern
philosophy and psychology had been at the command of these great
religious teachers, it would have but obscured the great truths. These
truths must be made objective; they must be expressed in the familiar
language of the people. Even the inner struggle of conflicting motives
must be presented in words so simple that a child could understand.
[Sidenote: _Pictorial elements drawn from popular tradition_]
The second and third chapters of Genesis record the effective way in
which a great early prophet dealt with his difficult problem. From the
lips of the people he took fragments of ancient Semitic traditions.
Almost all of the elements which enter into the story of man's fall have
been traced to far earlier sources; but the narrative in its present
unity and suggestiveness never has and never will be found outside the
Bible. How far the prophet adapted to his higher purpose the current
Hebrew version can not be absolutely determined. The fact alone remains
that it is one of the truest bits of history in the Old Testament, and
this not because it is a leaf from the diary of Adam and Eve, but
because it concretely and faithfully portrays universal human
experience.
[Sidenote: _Creation of man and the elements necessary for his
development_]
In the simple language of popular tradition it proclaims, among other
truths, that Jehovah, Israel's God, created man, breathing into him from
his own nostrils the vital principle of life and making him the
commanding figure in the universe; then that the Creator graciously
provided all that was needful and best for his true physical and
spiritual development. Incidentally the prophet calls attention to that
innate and divine basis of the marriage bond which Jesus re-emphasizes
(Matt. xix. 4-6). Physical death, according to the story in its present
form, was not a necessary part of Jehovah's plan; the implication is
that man would not die while he remained in the garden and ate of the
life-giving tree. Temptation is not in itself evil, but necessary, if
man is to develop positive virtue, for beside the tree of life grows the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with its attractive, alluring
fruit guarded by the divine prohibition.
[Sidenote: _The struggle in the woman's heart_]
The elements of the temptation are all presented in chapter ii., but the
serpent, the craftiest of animals, in his conversation with the woman is
required to make clear and objective the real nature of the conflict
within her mind. The rôle of the serpent is the opposite of that of
Balaam's ass, which figures in a story which comes from the same early
Judean prophetic school. In the conversation between the woman and the
serpent the true character of all temptation is revealed: it is the
necessity of choosing between two courses of conduct neither of which is
altogether bad. Curiosity, which is the guide to all knowledge, the
beauty of the apple, which appeals to the aesthetic sense, and physical
appetite, not in itself bad,--all these powerfully attracted the
Oriental woman of the ancient story. On the other side she felt the
compelling power of love and gratitude and the definite divine command.
[Sidenote: _The essence of all temptation_]
The prophet saw clearly that all the elements of temptation are within
man--a truth sometimes obscured in later Jewish thought. Milton has also
led us astray in identifying the crafty serpent with the Satan of later
Judaism. The prophet graphically presents another great fact of human
experience, namely, that what is one man's temptation is not another's,
that the temptation to be real must appeal to the one tested. The crafty
serpent is not represented as speaking to the man; he would probably
have turned away in loathing. His wife, she who had already sinned, the
one whom Jehovah had given him as a helpmeet, herself appeals to the
sense of chivalry within him. Hence the conflict rages in his soul
between love and obligation to Jehovah and his natural affection and
apparent duty to his wife. Thus in all temptation the diviner impulses
struggle with those which are not in themselves necessarily wrong but
only baser by contrast. Duty is the call of the diviner, sin is the
yielding to the baser, motives.
[Sidenote: _The real nature of sin_]
The Hebrew word for sin, which means the missing of the mark set up
before each individual, is the only altogether satisfactory definition
of sin ever devised, for it absolutely fits the facts of human
experience. Deflection from the moral standard set up by each man's
conscience, even though his resulting act seem in itself noble, is for
him a sin. Although the influences which led the man and woman of the
story to disobey were exceedingly strong, the higher standard had been
set up, and in falling short of it they sinned. Thus sin is not God's
but man's creation, and results from the deliberate choice of what the
sinner knows to be wrong.
[Sidenote: _The effects of sin_]