Israel by Cornill, Kittel, and Wellhausen, Prof. J. F. McCurdy's
_History, Prophecy, and the Monuments_, etc. O. T. Theologies by
Piepenbring, Duff, etc.; and in German Smend's Textbook of the History
of O. T. Religion, and the latest edition of Marti's revision of
Kayser's O. T. Theology; G. A. Smith's _Historical Geography of the Holy
Land_.
[25] Cf. above, p. 19.
[26] _E. g._, Steuernagel in his Immigration of the Israelites into
Palestine.
Cheyne and Winckler have lately advocated theories which almost
revolutionize the history of Israel. The grounds of these theories are
largely as follows: The cuneiform inscriptions mention a kingdom of
_Musri_ in Northwestern Arabia. For this reason, and for various
technical considerations of textual and historical criticism, it is
proposed in many passages to substitute _Musri_ for Egypt, _Geshur_ for
Assyria (Asshur) and to restore very numerous references to
_Jerahmeel_--according to our present text an obscure tribe to the south
of Palestine.[27] With such alternatives and resources at the critic's
disposal, history would seem to become anything that a taste or fancy
may dictate; so far these views[28] have not met with much acceptance.
In the later history the more recent developments are chiefly concerned
with the interval between the Return and the Maccabees. Some time since
Prof. Kosters denied that the account of the Return in _Ezra_ was
historical. According to him there was no Return in 538 B. C., and the
Temple was rebuilt by the remnant of Jews left behind in Judea at the
time of the Captivity. Kosters has had many followers and many adverse
critics, but opinion inclines to accept the substantial historicity of
the account of the Return.[29] It is also maintained that various
sections of _Ezra-Nehemiah_ do not stand in correct chronological order,
and that the first mission of Nehemiah preceded that of Ezra. Another
interesting discussion has arisen in connection with Zerubbabel, Haggai,
and Zechariah.[30] Zerubbabel is supposed, at the instigation of Haggai
and Zechariah, to have declared Judah independent of Persia, and to have
ascended the throne as the promised Messiah. He was promptly crushed and
put to death by the Persian government, and--according to this view--he
is the "Servant of Jehovah" whose fate is described in Isaiah LIII.
There may be a measure of truth in all this, but these views are not
likely to be adopted in their entirety.
[27] Only mentioned I Samuel xxvii. 10, xxx. 29 and I Chron. ii. 9-42.
[28] See Cheyne's _Critica Biblica_, and his articles in the
_Encyclopaedia Biblica_.
[29] See discussion in G. A. Smith's _Book of the Twelve Prophets_
(Expositor's Bible).
[30] See Sellin, _Serubbabel_, etc.
Another important suggestion as to the history of Israel after the Exile
comes from Prof. Cheyne, following to some extent in the footsteps of
Robertson Smith and earlier scholars. It is that the Jews took part in
the great rebellion against Artaxerxes III, Ochus _circa_ B. C. 350;
that their rising was caused by religious enthusiasm, and led to the
desecration of the Temple. This calamity is supposed to have been the
occasion of the composition of certain Psalms and other passages,[31]
which most scholars either connect with the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar or refer to the Maccabean period.
[31] Especially Psalms XLIV, LXXIV, and LXXIX.
The progress of the historical study of Old Testament Theology is
hindered by the lack of agreement, even amongst scholars of the modern
school, as to the date of many important passages. It is impossible to
write certainly as to the teaching, for instance, of Isaiah and Amos, or
as to the stages of development of the Religion of Israel while
authorities of the first rank are divided as to whether the Messianic
sections in Isaiah and the monotheistic verses in Amos were composed by
those prophets, or are post-exilic additions. Moreover there is no
immediate prospect of a settlement of these questions, for the data are
meagre and ambiguous, and the grounds on which individual writers arrive
at decisions are largely subjective.
Nevertheless a great deal is clear and certain; and even where dates are
doubtful, much of the teaching is independent of chronology. Within
these limits the _Expositor's Bible_ and other works have done much to
bring popular theology into line with the results of larger knowledge
and fresh research and discussion. This process has now reached a point
which may enable us to say with the Bishop of Winchester,[32] "The
period of transition, the period of anxious suspense of judgment, is
drawing to a close. It is seen and felt that the interpretation of Holy
Scripture is not less literal, not less spiritual, not less in
conformity with the pattern which the Divine Teacher gave, when it is
rendered more true to history by the fiery tests of criticism and
literary analysis."
[32] Dr. H. E. Ryle, in his _Early Narratives of Genesis_, published
when he was Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, p. IX.
VIII.--CONCLUSION.
This brief survey has necessarily been occupied for the most part with
the developments of recent research. But in these years as in previous
periods the Old Testament has been the subject of much searching,
preaching and writing which has taken little or no account of changes in
criticism, or, indeed, of any criticism at all; but have taken the
narratives as they found them, and, as far as authorship has been
concerned, have made the assumptions which seemed easiest and most
edifying. Such work, too, is most valuable. The spiritual life which
speaks to us through the Hebrew Scriptures is so full of energy,
variety, and truth that even the simplest methods of treatment yield
great results. These results, moreover, have sometimes a special quality
which is absent from more studious exposition. Even after many centuries
the inspired books are like rich virgin soil which yield a harvest even
to the crudest methods of cultivation. Thus the scribes of our day,
instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven, are still bringing out of their
treasures things new and old; and both alike minister to the coming of
the Kingdom, both the new and the old, both the influence of ancient
association and venerable tradition, and the new life and power and hope
that spring to birth in dawning light of a new day of the Lord.
"At last, but yet the night had memories
Sad in their sweetness, noble in their pain,
Which, looking backward half regretfully
In longing day-dreams oft we live again.
At last, but this new day, that slowly dawns,
Shall satisfy with its meridian fires
Alike the longing born of fond regret
And deeper yearnings that our hope inspires."
That the Old Testament will still hold its place of power in any new
dispensation is guaranteed by its significance for Christ and His
Gospel. As Prof. G. A. Smith has said in a work which states the
religious position in the light of recent Biblical study,[33] Christ
accepted the history recorded in the Old Testament "as the preparation
for Himself, and taught His disciples to find Him in it. He used it to
justify His mission and to illuminate the mystery of His Cross.... Above
all, He fed His own soul with its contents, and in the great crises of
His life sustained Himself upon it as upon the living and sovereign Word
of God. These are the highest external proofs--if indeed we can call
them external--for the abiding validity of the Old Testament in the life
and doctrine of Christ's Church. What was indispensable to the Redeemer
must always be indispensable to the redeemed."
W. H. BENNETT.
[33] Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 11.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
NEW TESTAMENT
BY WALTER F. ADENEY, M. A.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Lancashire College, Manchester
I.--CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPOSITION
When we pass from the volumes of the Expositor's Bible that deal with
the Old Testament to those which expound the books of the New Testament
we discover less departure from the traditional attitude. And yet a very
little knowledge of the enormous amount of research which has been
prosecuted during recent years in the fruitful field of primitive
Christian literature and its surrounding scenes must convince us that
here also was a clamorous call for a fresh treatment of the whole
subject. It is much to have the books taken one by one and treated each
as a distinct entity; in this way we are led on to perceive that richer
harmony of the various apostolic notes which means so much more than the
unison of the older methods: First, instead of the familiar treatment of
minute phrases commonly known as "text," we have the wider survey and
broader handling of the arguments of the books, which to those who have
not been accustomed to it appears as a revelation, so that these books
become new things to them. Then we have that individual treatment, that
temporary isolation of the books, which enables us to understand their
limitations as well as the amplitude of their contents. Lastly, we come
to see the specific teaching of the several New Testament writers, so
that we can no longer confuse the distinctive message of the author of
_Hebrews_ with that of St. Paul, or confound the ideas of St. Peter with
those of St. James.
II.--TEXT AND TRANSLATION
The Expositor's Bible is based upon a more accurate text and more exact
renderings of the New Testament than were available for previous works
of exposition. The discovery of one of the two oldest known manuscripts
at the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, in the middle of the
nineteenth century, is only one, though perhaps the greatest, of the
steps in advance towards obtaining a correct Greek Testament which have
been taken during the last hundred years. The immense labors of
Tischendorf in the collation of manuscripts and readings from the
Fathers, following the earlier work of Mill, Griesbach and others, but
with a much richer mine of materials to draw upon, laid a foundation on
which later experts have been laboring with the aim of producing the
purest possible text.[34] Westcott and Hort went further in working out
a scientific theory with canons of interpretation which at first
appeared to sweep the field and claim almost universal assent.[35] More
recently, however, it has been felt that these scholars were tempted to
rely too much on one or two old manuscripts--chiefly, indeed, on a
single manuscript, the Vatican, and to treat too contemptuously the
claims of what is known as the "Western Text," represented among other
authorities by the great Cambridge MS., the _Codex Bezae_. Accordingly
their text cannot be regarded as final.[36] Meanwhile perhaps the
soundest working Greek Testament is that edited by Nestle for the
"British and Foreign Bible Society," which strikes the mean of several
critical editions. The more accurate text has been accompanied by more
correct translations, of which the most conspicuous are the English and
American Revised Versions. This may be described as substantially one
and the same revision of the so-called "Authorized Version"; but there
are several emendations of the American revisers which were not accepted
by their more conservative English coadjutors, although in nearly every
case they must be allowed to be improvements both as regards scholarship
and also in lucidity. Since the Revised Version appeared several
completely new translations of the New Testament into modern English
have been published.[37]
[34] See Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum Graece_, 8th edit.
[35] See Hort, _Introduction to Westcott and Hort's N.T._
[36] See Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_; Nestle, _Textual Criticism
of the Greek Testament_; Kenyon, _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament_.
[37] See especially Weymouth, _The New Testament in Modern English_;
Moffatt, _The Historical New Testament_; _The Twentieth Century New
Testament_.
III.--RECENT CRITICISM
The most remarkable characteristic of the latest Biblical criticism is
the application to the New Testament of those disintegrating processes
with the results of which on Old Testament studies we have long been
familiar. This, however, is by no means so alarming as the claims of the
more radical critics might suggest. It is true that some scholars carry
their destructive criticism to an extreme--for instance, Schmiedel with
the gospels, refusing to allow full assurance for the authenticity of
more than five of our Lord's sayings, and Van Manen with the epistles,
repudiating the authenticity of all those ascribed to St. Paul.[38] But
these critics stand almost alone; at all events they do not represent
anything like the normal position of New Testament scholarship. The
accident of their prominence in one of the great Bible dictionaries,
which is simply due to editorial sympathies, must not disguise the fact
of their eccentricity. Nothing is more remarkable in recent criticism
than the fact that while the more conservative of the two new
dictionaries[39] accepts the main critical position of advanced
scholarship with regard to the Old Testament, it differs _toto
coelo_[40] from its rival in its treatment of the New Testament. In
these respects it fairly corresponds to the position taken up by most of
the writers of the Expositor's Bible.
[38] See _Encyclopaedia Biblica_; also Cheyne, _Bible Problems_.
[39] Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_.
[40] The _Encyclopaedia Biblica_.
A remarkable approach towards unanimity is to be seen in the views of
scholars of various types with reference to what is known as the
"synoptic problem," the problem of the origin of our first three gospels
occasioned by the perplexing phenomena of their frequent close
resemblance and signally frequent striking divergence. Fifty years ago
opinions about this question were in a perfectly chaotic condition;
indeed, there were about as many opinions as the highest possible
arithmetical variation in the mutual relations of the gospels would
permit. Some put Matthew first, some Mark, some Luke; and all
conceivable theories as to their relation one to another, the use of
earlier documents, and the degree of reliance on tradition or on written
sources to be detected in their authors found eager advocates. But
gradually the turbid waters settled and certain definite, generally
accepted ideas were crystallized. In the present day it is almost
universally agreed that _Mark_ was written by the man whose name it
bears, although when Pfleiderer gave his adhesion to this view such a
confession from one who was regarded as a leader of the "left wing" of
criticism occasioned some surprise.[41] Further, it is the generally
accepted opinion that the bulk of the narrative portion of Matthew--the
chief exceptions being the Infancy and Resurrection narrative--is based
on Mark, and that the same is true to a considerable extent with regard
to _Luke_. There has been much discussion as to whether St. Mark's
gospel has undergone revision. But the ripest results of study on this
subject are represented by the conclusions of Dr. Abbott who has shown
that our _Mark_ is really the earlier edition of the gospel which in a
later and slightly modified form, its ruggedness being smoothed, was
used in the construction of _Matthew_ and _Luke_. In the second place,
it is very generally admitted that the discourses in _Matthew_, which
are inserted in five blocks of sayings, like five wedges driven into the
narrative as that stands in _Mark_, are the contents of a work
consisting of the "oracles," or "sacred sayings," of Jesus which a very
ancient church writer, Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, tells us that
Matthew compiled.[42] Thus we get two of our gospels well authenticated,
_Mark_ being admitted to be the work of the man to whom it is ascribed
and _Matthew_ being acknowledged as in the main a combination of St.
Matthew the Apostle's collection of the teachings of Jesus with the
standard narrative in _Mark_. The infancy and resurrection narratives
must have been derived from other primitive authorities.
[41] See Pfleiderer, _Urchristentum_, First Edition (1887).
[42] It is interesting to observe that, as Eusebius informs us, Papias's
commentary on the _Logia_, or "Oracles of the Lord," was composed in
five books. These might correspond to the five sections of the teachings
of Jesus in our _Matthew_.
The case of our third gospel is somewhat different. As we might expect
from his preface, St. Luke has availed himself of a wider range of
materials. But he too, like the author of our first gospel, is now
admitted to have used _Mark_ as his primary basis, though not to so
great extent, or so almost exclusively. In particular in that rich
section which is commonly, though perhaps erroneously, ascribed to our
Lord s Peraean ministry, he has a store of precious materials that are
not met with in any other gospels. Similarly, while some verbal
coincidences lead us to the conclusion that he also used St. Matthew's
collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is evident that he had other
collections of our Lord's teachings, from which, for instance, he got
the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Good Samaritan, and many
other choice utterances the characteristic beauty and originality of
which constitute their own authentication.
Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we see that this wonderful book has been
subjected to the most searching criticism during recent years with very
interesting results. Half a century ago Baur declared that it could not
have been written before the Year A. D. 160. Since then the finding of
primitive Christian Documents[43] which bear testimony to the use of
this gospel in earlier times, together with the proofs of its archaic
character brought out by a comparison of its contents with
second-century literature, has forced the date of its origin steadily
back and yet further back, till the latest possible date that can be
assigned to it is quite early in the second century. But more than this,
there is a growing tendency to connect this gospel with the son of
Zebedee. Some scholars[44] would assign the actual writing of the book
to another person, perhaps John the Elder; but then they allow that this
somewhat shadowy personage, referred to by Papias as a contemporary of
the Apostles, derived his information from the Beloved Disciple. One
leading scholar[45] holds that the teachings of Jesus in our Fourth
Gospel came from the Apostle John, while he thinks that most of the
narrative portions are due to another hand. But in one of the latest
works on the subject, Dr. Drummond ascribes the whole book to the
Apostle and meets the adverse views of recent criticism with masterly
replies. Even if the final verdict should be to ascribe the literary
form of the work to John the Elder or some unknown scholar at Ephesus,
the growing consensus of opinion is toward assigning the substance of it
to St. John himself.
[43] Especially Hipollytus _The Refutation of All Heresies_, and
Tatian's _Diatessaron_.
[44] _E. g._, Harnach, McGiffert.
[45] Wendt.
The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment
of the _Acts of the Apostles_. The "Tuebingen School," represented in
this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek
philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early
church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St.
Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism.
That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to
vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the
primitive character of the first half--especially as illustrated by the
speeches of St. Peter and others,[46] and later by the collection of
many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book,
namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it
especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay--the greatest living
authority on the antiquities and history of Asia Minor in the first
century--that many local and contemporary facts have been brought to
light confirmatory of the accuracy of St. Luke as a historian.[47]
[46] See Lechler, _Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times_.
[47] See Ramsay, _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman citizen_.
With regard to St. Paul's epistles the case stands thus: A few
extremists reject them all, partly on the ground of their supposed
inconsistency with the _Acts_--thus reversing Zeller's argument, but
mainly because of the advanced condition of Christian experience which
they illustrate, as though the pace of spiritual development in the
white heat of the greatest religious "revival" the world has ever seen
could be measured by the ideas of a Dutch professor in his chill lecture
room! But the mass of critical opinion--British, German, and
American--is tending toward a wider recognition of the genuineness of
these writings than was allowed a generation ago. Baur's admittedly
authentic group of four, which has been called "the great quadrilateral
of Christianity," still stands--viz., _1 and 2 Corinthians_, _Galatians_
and _Romans_. Next come _Philippians_ and _I Thessalonians_ now accepted
as virtually beyond question. Then _Colossians_ has been vindicated in
schools of severe criticism.[48] If _Colossians_ is allowed, there can
be no doubt as to receiving its companion epistle, the beautiful little
letter to Philemon. There are still many who are unable to admit _2
Thessalonians_, chiefly because of its apocalyptic contents. But of late
years it has been shown that the primitive church was possessed with the
hope of the coming of Christ in glory to a remarkable extent, as a
perfectly dominating idea. There remains _Ephesians_ as now the most
questioned of all the epistles that bear the name of St. Paul, except
the Pastorals. But when it is seen that one of the chief objections to
it is that it is said to be "a _weak_" (!) imitation of _Colossians_ we
may be allowed to regard this judgment as a matter of personal taste
rather than a decision of objective criticism. Luther does not stand
alone in holding this epistle to be one of the choicest books of the New
Testament.
[48] By Von Soden and Juelicher, although some interpolations are
allowed. Even Pfleiderer admitted that it contained fragments of St.
Paul's genuine writings, after Hilgenfeld had followed his leader Baur
in rejecting it altogether. Lightfoot, T. K. Abbott, Zahn, and Sanday
all defend its claims.
The question of the _Pastoral Epistles_ must be considered as still one
meeting with doubtful answers. Many scholars who accept all the ten
epistles of St. Paul to the Churches agree with Marcion of the second
century in not admitting these three works. Still they are defended by
most British and American New Testament[49] scholars, and some who do
not allow that in their present form they can be attributed to the
Apostle still admit that they contain fragments of the Apostle's genuine
writings.[50]
[49] Not by Davidson, however, nor more recently by Bacon or Moffatt.
Dr. Horton (_Century Bible_) balances the arguments _pro_ and _con_ and
refuses to decide either way.
[50] This is Harnach's view. On the other hand so independent a scholar
and drastic a critic as Mr. Conybeare told the present writer that he
had no doubt of their genuineness.