Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Bible" to "Bisectrix"
by Various · English · Gutenberg #34702 · 1,360,262 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Bible" to "Bisectrix"
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Bible" to "Bisectrix"
Author: Various
Release date: December 19, 2010 [eBook #34702]
Most recently updated: January 7, 2021
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34702
Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "BIBLE" TO "BISECTRIX" ***
Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's notes:
(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.
(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.
(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.
(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.
(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
letters.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION
VOLUME III, SLICE VII
Bible to Bisectrix
ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:
BIBLE BILNEY, THOMAS
BIBLE, ENGLISH BILOXI
BIBLE CHRISTIANS BILSTON
BIBLE SOCIETIES BILTONG
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND BIBLIOLOGY BIMANA
BIBLIOMANCY BIMETALLISM
BIBRACTE BIMLIPATAM
BIBULUS BIN
BICE BINAN
BICESTER BINARY SYSTEM
BICHAT, MARIE FRANCOIS XAVIER BINCHOIS, EGIDIUS
BICHROMATES AND CHROMATES BINGEN
BICKER BINGERBRUeCK
BICKERSTAFFE, ISAAC BINGHAM, JOSEPH
BICKERSTETH, EDWARD BINGHAMTON
BICYCLE BINGLEY
BIDA BINIOU
BIDDEFORD BINMALEY
BIDDER, GEORGE PARKER BINNACLE
BIDDERY BINNEY, EDWARD WILLIAM
BIDDING-PRAYER BINNEY, HORACE
BIDDLE, JOHN BINNEY, THOMAS
BIDDLE, NICHOLAS BINOCULAR INSTRUMENT
BIDEFORD BINOMIAL
BIDPAI, FABLES OF BINTURONG
BIEKKICH BINYON, LAURENCE
BIEDERMANN, FRIEDRICH KARL BIO-BIO (river of Chile)
BIEL, GABRIEL BIO-BIO (province of Chile)
BIELEFELD BIOGENESIS
BIELITZ BIOGRAPHY
BIELLA BIOLOGY
BIENNE BION (Greek poet)
BIENNE, LAKE OF BION (Greek philosopher)
BIERSTADT, ALBERT BIOT, JEAN BAPTISTE
BIFROST BIOTITE
BIGAMY BIPARTITE
BIGELOW, JOHN BIPONT EDITIONS
BIGGAR BIQUADRATIC
BIGGLESWADE BIQUINTILE
BIGHT BIRBHUM
BIGNON, JEROME BIRCH, SAMUEL
BIGNON, LOUIS PIERRE EDOUARD BIRCH, THOMAS
BIGOD, HUGH BIRCH
BIGOT BIRCH-PFEIFFER, CHARLOTTE
BIG RAPIDS BIRD
BIGSBY, JOHN JEREMIAH BIRD-LOUSE
BIHARI BIRD'S-EYE
BIHARI-LAL BIRDSNESTING
BIJAPUR BIRDS OF PARADISE
BIJAWAR BIRDWOOD, SIR GEORGE MOLESWORTH
BIJNOR BIREJIK
BIKANIR BIREN, ERNST JOHANN
BILASPUR BIRETTA
BILBAO BIRGER
BILBEIS BIRIBI
BILBERRY BIRJEND
BILBO BIRKBECK, GEORGE
BILDERDIJK, WILLEM BIRKENFELD
BILEJIK BIRKENHEAD
BILFINGER, GEORG BERNHARD BIRMINGHAM (Alabama, U.S.A.)
BILGE BIRMINGHAM (England)
BILHARZIOSIS BIRNEY, JAMES GILLESPIE
BILIN BIRON, ARMAND DE GONTAUT
BILL BIRR
BILLAUD-VARENNE, JACQUES NICOLAS BIRRELL, AUGUSTINE
BILLET BIRTH
BILLETING BIRUNI
BILLIARDS BISALTAE
BILLINGTON, ELIZABETH BISCAY
BILLITON BISCAY, BAY OF
BILL OF EXCHANGE BISCEGLIE
BILL OF RIGHTS BISCHOFSWERDA
BILL OF SALE BISCHWEILER
BILLROTH, ALBERT THEODOR BISCUIT
BILMA BISECTRIX
BIBLE. The word "Bible," which in English, as in medieval Latin, is
treated as a singular noun, is in its original Greek form a plural,
[Greek: ta biblia], _the_ (sacred) _books_--correctly expressing the
fact that the sacred writings of Christendom (collectively described by
this title) are made up of a number of independent records, which set
before us the successive stages in the history of revelation. The origin
of each of these records forms a distinct critical problem, and for the
discussion of these questions of detail the reader is referred to the
separate articles on the Biblical books. An account of the Bible as a
whole involves so many aspects of interest, that, apart from the
separate articles on its component books, the general questions of
importance arising out of its present shape require to be discussed in
separate sections of this article. They are here divided accordingly,
into two main divisions:--(A) Old Testament, and (B) New Testament; and
under each of these are treated (1) the Canon, (2) the texts and
versions, (3) textual criticism, (4) the "higher criticism," i.e. a
general historical account (more particularly considered for separate
books in the articles on them) of the criticism and views based on the
substance and matter, as apart from criticism devoted to the correction
and elucidation of the text, and (5) chronology. For the literary
history of the translated _English Bible_, see the separate article
under BIBLE, ENGLISH.
(A) OLD TESTAMENT
1. _Canon._
We shall begin by giving a general account of the historical and
literary conditions under which the unique literature of the Old
Testament sprang up, of the stages by which it gradually reached its
present form, and (so far as this is possible) of the way in which the
Biblical books were brought together in a canonical collection. There
exists no formal historical account of the formation of the Old
Testament canon. The popular idea that this canon was closed by Ezra has
no foundation in antiquity. Certainly in the apocryphal book of 2
Esdras, written towards the end of the 1st century A.D., we read (xiv.
20-26, 38-48), that, the law being burnt, Ezra, at his own request, was
miraculously inspired to rewrite it; he procured accordingly five
skilled scribes, and dictated to them for forty days, during which time
they wrote 94 books, i.e. not only (according to the Jewish reckoning)
the 24 books of the Old Testament, but 70 apocryphal books as well,
which, being filled, it is said, with a superior, or esoteric wisdom,
are placed upon even a higher level (vv. 46, 47) than the Old Testament
itself. No argument is needed to show that this legend is unworthy of
credit; even if it did deserve to be taken seriously, it still contains
nothing respecting either a completion of the canon, or even a
collection, or redaction, of sacred books by Ezra. Yet it is frequently
referred to by patristic writers; and Ezra, on the strength of it, is
regarded by them as the genuine restorer of the lost books of the Old
Testament (see EZRA).
In 2 Macc. ii. 13 it is said that Nehemiah, "founding a library,
gathered together the things concerning the kings and prophets, and the
(writings) of David, and letters of kings about sacred gifts." These
statements are found in a part of 2 Macc. which is admitted to be both
late and full of untrustworthy matter; still, the passage _may_ preserve
an indistinct reminiscence of an early stage in the formation of the
canon, the writings referred to being possibly the books of Samuel and
Kings and some of the Prophets, a part of the Psalter, and documents
such as those excerpted in the book of Ezra, respecting edicts issued by
Persian kings in favour of the Temple. But obviously nothing definite
can be built upon a passage of this character.
The first traces of the idea current in modern times that the canon of
the Old Testament was closed by Ezra are found in the 13th century A.D.
From this time, as is clearly shown by the series of quotations in
Ryle's _Canon of the Old Testament_, p. 257 ff. (2nd ed., p. 269 ff.),
the legend--for it is nothing better--grew, until finally, in the hands
of Elias Levita (1538), and especially of Johannes Buxtorf (1665), it
assumed the form that the "men of the Great Synagogue,"--a body the real
existence of which is itself very doubtful, but which is affirmed in the
Talmud to have "written" (!) the books of Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets,
Daniel and Esther--with Ezra as president, first collected the books of
the Old Testament into a single volume, restored the text, where
necessary, from the best MSS., and divided the collection into three
parts, the Law, the Prophets and the "Writings" (the Hagiographa). The
reputation of Elias Levita and Buxtorf led to this view of Ezra's
activity being adopted by other scholars, and so it acquired general
currency. But it rests upon no authority in antiquity whatever.
The statement just quoted, however, that in the Jewish canon the books
of the Old Testament are divided into three parts, though the
arrangement is wrongly referred to Ezra, is in itself both correct and
important. "The Law, the Prophets and the Writings (i.e. the
Hagiographa)" is the standing Jewish expression for the Old Testament;
and in every ordinary Hebrew Bible the books are arranged accordingly in
the following three divisions:--
1. The Torah (or "Law"), corresponding to our "Pentateuch" (5 books).
2. The "Prophets," consisting of eight books, divided into two groups:--
(a) The "Former Prophets"; Joshua, Judges, Samuel; Kings.[1]
(b) The "Latter Prophets"; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor
Prophets (called by the Jews "the Twelve," and counted by them as
_one_ book).
3. The "Writings," also sometimes the "Sacred Writings," i.e., as we
call them, the "Hagiographa," consisting of three groups, containing in
all eleven books:--
(a) The poetical books, Psalms, Proverbs, Job.
(b) The five _Megilloth_ (or "Rolls")--grouped thus together in later
times, on account of the custom which arose of reading them in the
synagogues at five sacred seasons--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther.
(c) The remaining books, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (forming _one_
book), Chronicles.
There are thus, according to the Jewish computation, twenty-four "books"
in the Hebrew canon. The threefold division of the canon just given is
recognized in the Talmud, and followed in all Hebrew MSS., the only
difference being that the books included in the Latter Prophets and in
the Hagiographa are not always arranged in the same order. No book,
however, belonging to one of these three divisions is ever, by the Jews,
transferred to another. The expansion of the Talmudic twenty-four to the
thirty-nine Old Testament books of the English Bible is effected by
reckoning the Minor Prophets one by one, by separating Ezra from
Nehemiah, and by subdividing the long books of Samuel, Kings and
Chronicles. The different order of the books in the English Bible is due
to the fact that when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek between
the 3rd and 1st centuries B.C., the Hebrew tripartite division was
disregarded, and the books (including those now known as the
"Apocrypha") were grouped mostly by subjects, the historical books being
placed first (Genesis--Esther), the poetical books next (Job--Song of
Songs), and the prophetical books last (Isaiah--Malachi). Substantially
the same order was followed in the Vulgate. The Reformers separated the
books which had no Hebrew original (i.e. the Apocrypha) from the rest,
and placed them at the end; the remaining books, as they stood in the
Vulgate, were then in the order which they still retain in the English
Bible.
The tripartite division of the Hebrew canon thus recognized by Jewish
tradition can, however, be traced back far beyond the Talmud. The
Proverbs of Jesus, the son of Sirach (c. 200 B.C.), which form now the
apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, were translated into Greek by the
grandson of the author at about 130 B.C.; and in the preface prefixed by
him to his translation he speaks of "the law, and the prophets, and the
other books of our fathers," and again of "the law, and the prophets,
and the rest of the books," expressions which point naturally to the
same threefold division which was afterwards universally recognized by
the Jews. The terms used, however, do not show that the Hagiographa was
already completed, as we now have it; it would be entirely consistent
with them, if, for instance, particular books, as Esther, or Daniel, or
Ecclesiastes, were only added to the collection subsequently. Another
allusion to the tripartite division is also no doubt to be found in the
expression "the law, the prophets, and the psalms," in Luke xxiv. 44. A
collection of sacred books, including in particular the prophets, is
also referred to in Dan. ix. 2 (R. V.), written about 166 B.C.
This threefold division of the Old Testament, it cannot reasonably be
doubted, rests upon an historical basis. It represents three successive
stages in the history of the collection. The Law was the first part to
be definitely recognized as authoritative, or canonized; the "Prophets"
(as defined above) were next accepted as canonical; the more
miscellaneous collection of books comprised in the Hagiographa was
recognized last. In the absence of all external evidence respecting the
formation of the canon, we are driven to internal evidence in our
endeavour to fix the dates at which these three collections were thus
canonized. And internal evidence points to the conclusion that the Law
could scarcely have been completed, and accepted formally, as a whole,
as canonical before 444 B.C. (cf. Neh. viii.-x.); that the "Prophets"
were completed and so recognized about 250 B.C., and the Hagiographa
between about 150 and 100 B.C. (See further Ryle's _Canon of the Old
Testament_.)
Having thus fixed approximately the _terminus ad quem_ at which the Old
Testament was completed, we must now begin at the other end, and
endeavour to sketch in outline the process by which it gradually reached
its completed form. And here it will be found to be characteristic of
nearly all the longer books of the Old Testament, and in some cases even
of the shorter ones as well, that they were not completed by a single
hand, but that they were gradually expanded, and reached their present
form by a succession of stages.
Among the Hebrews, as among many other nations, the earliest beginnings
of literature were in all probability poetical. At least the opening
phrases of the song of Moses in Exodus xv.; the song of Deborah in
Judges v.; the fragment from the "Book of the Wars of Yahweh," in
Numbers xxi. 14, 15; the war-ballad, celebrating an Israelitish victory,
in Numbers xxi. 27-30; the extracts from the "Book of Jashar" (or "of
the Upright," no doubt a title of Israel) quoted in Joshua x. 12, 13
("Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon," &c.); in 2 Sam. i. (David's elegy
over Saul and Jonathan); and, very probably, in the Septuagint of 1
Kings viii. 13 [Sept. 53], as the source of the poetical fragment in vv.
12, 13, describing Solomon's building of the Temple, show how great
national occurrences and the deeds of ancient Israelitish heroes
stimulated the national genius for poetry, and evoked lyric songs,
suffused with religious feeling, by which their memory was perpetuated.
The poetical descriptions of the character, or geographical position, of
the various tribes, now grouped together as the Blessings of Jacob (Gen.
xlix.) and Moses (Deut. xxxiii.), may be mentioned at the same time.
These poems, which are older, and in most cases considerably older, than
the narratives in which they are now embedded, if they were collected
into books, must have been fairly numerous, and we could wish that more
examples of them had been preserved.
The historical books of the Old Testament form two series: one,
consisting of the books from Genesis to 2 Kings (exclusive of Ruth,
which, as we have seen, forms in the Hebrew canon part of the
Hagiographa), embracing the period from the Creation to the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans in 586 B.C.; the other, comprising the
books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, beginning with Adam and ending
with the second visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. These two
series differ from one another materially in scope and point of view,
but in one respect they are both constructed upon a similar plan; no
entire book in either series consists of a single, original work; but
older writings, or sources, have been combined by a compiler--or
sometimes, in stages, by a succession of compilers--in such a manner
that the points of juncture are often clearly discernible, and the
sources are in consequence capable of being separated from one another.
The authors of the Hebrew historical books, as we now have them, do not,
as a rule, as a modern author would do, _rewrite_ the matter in their
own language; they _excerpt_ from pre-existing documents such passages
as are suitable to their purpose, and incorporate them in their work,
sometimes adding at the same time matter of their own. Hebrew writers,
however, exhibit usually such strongly marked individualities of style
that the documents or sources, thus combined, can generally be
distinguished from each other, and from the comments or other additions
of the compiler, without difficulty. The literary differences are,
moreover, often accompanied by differences of treatment, or
representation of the history, which, where they exist, confirm
independently the conclusions of the literary analysis. Although,
however, the historical books generally are constructed upon similar
principles, the method on which these principles have been applied is
not quite the same in all cases. Sometimes, for instance, the excerpts
from the older documents form long and complete narratives; in other
cases (as in the account of the Flood) they consist of a number of short
passages, taken alternately from two older narratives, and dovetailed
together to make a continuous story; in the books of Judges and Kings
the compiler has fitted together a series of older narratives in a
framework supplied by himself; the Pentateuch and book of Joshua (which
form a literary whole, and are now often spoken of together as the
_Hexateuch_) have passed through more stages than the books just
mentioned, and their literary structure is more complex.
_The Hexateuch_ (Gen.-Josh.).--The traditions current among the
Israelites respecting the origins and early history of their nation--the
patriarchal period, and the times of Moses and Joshua--were probably
first cast into a written form in the 10th or 9th century B.C. by a
prophet living in Judah, who, from the almost exclusive use in his
narrative of the sacred name "Jahveh" ("Jehovah"),--or, as we now
commonly write it, Yahweh,--is referred to among scholars by the
abbreviation "J." This writer, who is characterized by a singularly
bright and picturesque style, and also by deep religious feeling and
insight, begins his narrative with the account of the creation of man
from the dust, and tells of the first sin and its consequences (Gen. ii.
4^b-iii. 24); then he gives an account of the early growth of
civilization (Gen. iv.), of the Flood (parts of Gen. vi.-viii.), and the
origin of different languages (xi. 1-9); afterwards in a series of vivid
pictures he gives the story, as tradition told it, of the patriarchs, of
Moses and the Exodus, of the journey through the wilderness, and the
conquest of Canaan. It would occupy too much space to give here a
complete list of the passages belonging to "J"; but examples of his
narrative (with the exception here and there of a verse or two belonging
to one of the other sources described below) are to be found, for
instance, in Gen. xii., xiii., xviii.-xix. (the visit of the three
angels to Abraham, and the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah), xxiv.
(Abraham's servant sent to find a wife for Isaac), xxvii. 1-45 (Jacob
obtaining his father's blessing), xxxii., xliii., xliv. (parts of the
history of Joseph); Ex. iv.-v. (mostly), viii. 20-ix. 7, x. 1-11,
xxxiii. 12-xxxiv. 26 (including, in xxxiv. 17-26, a group of
regulations, of a simple, undeveloped character, on various religious
observances); Num. x. 29-36, and most of Num. xi.
Somewhat later than "J," another writer, commonly referred to as "E,"
from his preference for the name _Elohim_ ("God") rather than "Jehovah,"
living apparently in the northern kingdom, wrote down the traditions of
the past as they were current in northern Israel, in a style resembling
generally that of "J," but not quite as bright and vivid, and marked by
small differences of expression and representation. The first traces of
"E" are found in the life of Abraham, in parts of Gen. xv.; examples of
other passages belonging to this source are:--Gen. xx. 1-17, xxi. 8-32,
xxii. 1-14, xl.-xlii. and xlv. (except a few isolated passages); Ex.
xviii., xx.-xxiii. (including the decalogue--in its original, terser
form, without the explanatory additions now attached to several of the
commandments--and the collection of laws, known as the "Book of the
Covenant," in xxi.-xxiii.), xxxii., xxxiii. 7-11; Num. xii., most of
Num. xxii.-xxiv. (the history of Balaam); Josh. xxiv. "E" thus covers
substantially the same ground as "J," and gives often a parallel, though
somewhat divergent, version of the same events. The laws contained in
Ex. xx. 23-xxiii. 19 were no doubt taken by "E" from a pre-existing
source; with the regulations referred to above as incorporated in "J"
(Ex. xxxiv. 17-26), they form the oldest legislation of the Hebrews that
we possess; they consist principally of _civil_ ordinances, suited to
regulate the life of a community living under simple conditions of
society, and chiefly occupied in agriculture, but partly also of
elementary regulations respecting religious observances (altars,
sacrifices, festivals, &c.).
Not long, probably, after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C.,
a prophet of Judah conceived the plan of compiling a comprehensive
history of the traditions of his people. For this purpose he selected
extracts from the two narratives, "J" and "E," and combined them
together into a single narrative, introducing in some places additions
of his own. This combined narrative is commonly known as "JE." As
distinguished from the Priestly Narrative (to be mentioned presently),
it has a distinctly _prophetical_ character; it treats the history from
the standpoint of the prophets, and the religious ideas characteristic
of the prophets often find expression in it. Most of the best-known
narratives of the patriarchal and Mosaic ages belong to "JE." His style,
especially in the parts belonging to "J," is graphic and picturesque,
the descriptions are vivid and abound in detail and colloquy, and both
emotion and religious feeling are warmly and sympathetically expressed
in it.
_Deuteronomy._--In the 7th century B.C., during the reign of either
Manasseh or Josiah, the narrative of "JE" was enlarged by the addition
of the _discourses of Deuteronomy_. These discourses purport to be
addresses delivered by Moses to the assembled people, shortly before his
death, in the land of Moab, opposite to Jericho. There was probably some
tradition of a farewell address delivered by Moses, and the writer of
Deuteronomy gave this tradition form and substance. In impressive and
persuasive oratory he sets before Israel, in a form adapted to the needs
of the age in which he lived, the fundamental principles which Moses had
taught. Yahweh was Israel's only god, who tolerated no other god beside
Himself, and who claimed to be the sole object of the Israelite's
reverence. This is the fundamental thought which is insisted on and
developed in Deuteronomy with great eloquence and power. The truths on
which the writer loves to dwell are the sole godhead of Yahweh, His
spirituality (ch. iv.), His choice of Israel, and the love and
faithfulness which He had shown towards it, by redeeming it from slavery
in Egypt, and planting it in a free and fertile land; from which are
deduced the great practical duties of loyal and loving devotion to Him,
an uncompromising repudiation of all false gods, the rejection of all
heathen practices, a cheerful and ready obedience to His will, and a
warm-hearted and generous attitude towards man. Love of God is the
primary spring of human duty (vi. 5). In the course of his argument
(especially in chs. xii.-xxvi.), the writer takes up most of the laws,
both civil and ceremonial, which (see above) had been incorporated
before in "J" and "E," together with many besides which were current in
Israel; these, as a rule, he expands, applies or enforces with motives;
for obedience to them is not to be rendered merely in deference to
external authority, it is to be prompted by right moral and religious
motives. The ideal of Deuteronomy is a community of which every member
is full of love and reverence towards his God, and of sympathy and
regard for his fellow-men. The "Song" (Deut. xxxii.) and "Blessing"
(Deut. xxxiii.) of Moses are not by the author of the discourses; and
the latter, though not Mosaic, is of considerably earlier date.
The influence of Deuteronomy upon subsequent books of the Old Testament
is very perceptible. Upon its promulgation it speedily became the book
which both gave the religious ideals of the age, and moulded the
phraseology in which these ideals were expressed. The style of
Deuteronomy, when once it had been formed, lent itself readily to
imitation; and thus a school of writers, imbued with its spirit, and
using its expressions, quickly arose, who have left their mark upon many
parts of the Old Testament. In particular, the parts of the combined
narrative "JE," which are now included in the book of Joshua, passed
through the hands of a Deuteronomic editor, who made considerable
additions to them--chiefly in the form of speeches placed, for instance,
in the mouth of Joshua, or expansions of the history, all emphasizing
principles inculcated in Deuteronomy and expressed in its characteristic
phraseology (e.g. most of Josh. i., ii. 10-11, iii. 2-4, 6-9, x. 28-43,
xi. 10-23, xii., xiii. 2-6, 8-12, xxiii.). From an historical point of
view it is characteristic of these additions that they _generalize_
Joshua's successes, and represent the conquest of Canaan, effected under
his leadership, as far more complete than the earlier narratives allow
us to suppose was the case. The compilers of Judges and Kings are also
(see below) strongly influenced by Deuteronomy.
The _Priestly_ sections of the Hexateuch (known as "P") remain still to
be considered. That these are later than "JE," and even than Deut., is
apparent--to mention but one feature--from the more complex ritual and
hierarchical organization which they exhibit. They are to all appearance
the work of a school of priests, who, after the destruction of the
Temple in 586 B.C., began to write down and codify the ceremonial
regulations of the pre-exilic times, combining them with an historical
narrative extending from the Creation to the establishment of Israel in
Canaan; and who completed their work during the century following the
restoration in 537 B.C. The chief object of these sections is to
describe in detail the leading institutions of the theocracy
(Tabernacle, sacrifices, purifications, &c.), and to refer them to their
traditional origin in the Mosaic age. The history as such is
subordinate; and except at important epochs is given only in brief
summaries (e.g. Gen. xix. 29, xli. 46). Statistical data (lists of
names, genealogies, and precise chronological notes) are a conspicuous
feature in it. The legislation of "P," though _written down_ in or after
the exile, must not, however, be supposed to be the _creation_ of that
period; many elements in it can be shown from the older literature to
have been of great antiquity in Israel; it is, in fact, based upon
_pre-exilic Temple usage_, though in some respects it is a development
of it, and exhibits the form which the older and simpler ceremonial
institutions of Israel ultimately assumed. In "P's" picture of the
Mosaic age there are many _ideal_ elements; it represents the priestly
ideal of the past rather than the past as it actually was. The following
examples of passages from "P" will illustrate what has been said:--Gen.
i. 1-ii. 4^a, xvii. (institution of circumcision), xxiii. (purchase of
the cave of Machpelah), xxv. 7-17, xlvi. 6-27; Ex. vi. 2-vii. 13,
xxv.-xxxi. (directions for making the Tabernacle, its vessels, dress of
the priests, &c.), xxxv.-xl. (execution of these directions); Lev. (the
whole); Num. i. 1-x. 28 (census of people, arrangement of camp, and
duties of Levites, law of the Nazirite, &c.), xv., xviii., xix.,
xxvi.-xxxi., xxxiii.-xxxvi.; Josh. v. 10-12, the greater part of
xv.-xix. (distribution of the land among the different tribes), xxi.
1-42. The style of "P" is strongly marked--as strongly marked, in fact,
as (in a different way) that of Deuteronomy is; numerous expressions not
found elsewhere in the Hexateuch occur in it repeatedly. The section
Lev. xvii.-xxvi. has a character of its own; for it consists of a
substratum of older laws, partly moral (chs. xviii.-xx. mostly), partly
ceremonial, with a hortatory conclusion (ch. xxvi.), with certain very
marked characteristics (from one of which it has received the name of
the "Law of Holiness"), which have been combined with elements belonging
to, or conceived in the spirit of, the main body of "P."
Not long after "P" was completed, probably in the 5th century B.C., the
whole, consisting of "JE" and Deuteronomy, was combined with it; and the
existing Hexateuch was thus produced.
_Judges, Samuel and Kings._--The structure of these books is simpler
than that of the Hexateuch. The book of Judges consists substantially of
a series of older narratives, arranged together by a compiler, and
provided by him, where he deemed it necessary, with introductory and
concluding comments (e.g. ii. 11-iii. 6, iii. 12-15a, 30, iv. 1-3, 23,
24, v. 31b). The compiler is strongly imbued with the spirit of
Deuteronomy; and the object of his comments is partly to exhibit the
chronology of the period as he conceived it, partly to state his theory
of the religious history of the time. The compiler will not have written
before c. 600 B.C.; the narratives incorporated by him will in most
cases have been considerably earlier. The books of Samuel centre round
the names of Samuel, Saul and David. They consist of a series of
narratives, or groups of narratives, dealing with the lives of these
three men, arranged by a compiler, who, however, unlike the compilers of
Judges and Kings, rarely allows his own hand to appear. Some of these
narratives are to all appearance nearly contemporary with the events
that they describe (e.g. 1 Sam. ix. 1-x. 16, xi. 1-11, 15, xiii.-xiv.,
xxv.-xxxi.; 2 Sam. ix.-xx.); others are later. In 1 Sam. the double (and
discrepant) accounts of the appointment of Saul as king (ix. 1-x. 16,
xi. 1-11, 15, and viii., x. 17-27, xii.), and of the introduction of
David to the history (xvi. 14-23 and xvii. 1-xviii. 5) are noticeable;
in ix. 1-x. 16, xi. 1-11, 15, the monarchy is viewed as God's gracious
gift to His people; in viii., x. 17-27, xii., which reflect the feeling
of a much later date, the monarchy is viewed unfavourably, and
represented as granted by God unwillingly. The structure of the book of
Kings resembles that of Judges. A number of narratives, evidently
written by prophets, and in many of which also (as those relating to
Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah) prophets play a prominent part, and a series
of short statistical notices, relating to political events, and derived
probably from the official annals of the two kingdoms (which are usually
cited at the end of a king's reign), have been arranged together, and
sometimes expanded at the same time, in a framework supplied by the
compiler. The framework is generally recognizable without difficulty. It
comprises the chronological details, references to authorities, and
judgments on the character of the various kings, especially as regards
their attitude to the worship at the high places, all cast in the same
literary mould, and marked by the same characteristic phraseology. Both
in point of view and in phraseology the compiler shows himself to be
strongly influenced by Deuteronomy. The two books appear to have been
substantially completed before the exile; but short passages were
probably introduced into them afterwards. Examples of passages due to
the compiler: 1 Kings ii. 3-4, viii. 14-61 (the prayer of dedication put
into Solomon's mouth), ix. 1-9, xi. 32b-39, xiv. 7-11, 19-20, 21-24,
29-31, xv. 1-15, xxi. 20b-26; 2 Kings ix. 7-10a, xvii. 7-23.
_The Latter Prophets._--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve. The
writings of the canonical prophets form another important element in the
Old Testament, also, like the historical books, of gradual growth.
Beginning with Amos and Hosea, they form a series which was not
completed till more than three centuries had passed away. The activity
of the prophets was largely called forth by crises in the national
history. They were partly moral reformers, partly religious teachers,
partly political advisers. They held up before a backsliding people the
ideals of human duty, of religious truth and of national policy. They
expanded and developed, and applied to new situations and circumstances
of the national life, the truths which in a more germinal form they had
inherited from their ancestors. The nature and attributes of God; His
gracious purposes towards man; the relation of man to God, with the
practical consequences that follow from it; the true nature of religious
service; the call to repentance as the condition of God's favour; the
ideal of character and action which each man should set before himself;
human duty under its various aspects; the responsibilities of office and
position; the claims of mercy and philanthropy, justice and integrity;
indignation against the oppression of the weak and the unprotected;
ideals of a blissful future, when the troubles of the present will be
over, and men will bask in the enjoyment of righteousness and
felicity,--these, and such as these, are the themes which are ever in
the prophets' mouths, and on which they enlarge with unwearying
eloquence and power.
For the more special characteristics of the individual prophets,
reference must be made to the separate articles devoted to each; it is
impossible to do more here than summarize briefly the literary structure
of their various books.
_Isaiah._--The book of Isaiah falls into two clearly distinguished
parts, viz. chs. i.-xxxix., and xl.-lxvi. Chs. xl.-lxvi., however, are
not by Isaiah, but are the work of a prophet who wrote about 540 B.C.,
shortly before the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and whose aim was to
encourage the Israelites in exile, and assure them of the certainty of
their approaching restoration to Canaan. (According to many recent
critics, this prophet wrote only chs. xl.-lv., chs. lvi.-lxvi. being
added subsequently, some time after the return.) The genuine prophecies
of Isaiah are contained in chs. i.-xii., xiv. 24-xxiii.,
xxviii.-xxxiii., xxxvii. 22-32,--all written between 740 and 700 B.C.
(or a little later), and all (except ch. vi.) having reference to the
condition of Judah and Israel, and the movements of the Assyrians during
the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. The opinion has, however, latterly
gained ground that parts even of these chapters are of later origin than
Isaiah's own time. Of the rest of chs. i.-xxxix. this is generally
admitted. Thus chs. xiii. 1-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10, xxxiv.-xxxv. belong to
the same age as chs. xl.-lxvi., xiii. 1-xiv. 23, and xxi. 1-10, looking
forward similarly to the approaching fall of Babylon; chs. xxiv.-xxvii.
have a character of their own, and form an apocalypse written not
earlier than the 5th century B.C.; chs. xxxvi.-xxxix., describing
incidents in which Isaiah took a part, consist of narratives excerpted
from 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. with the addition of Hezekiah's song
(xxxviii. 9-20). It is evident from these facts that the book of Isaiah
did not assume its present form till considerably after the return of
the Jews from exile in 537, when a compiler, or series of compilers,
arranged the genuine prophecies of Isaiah which had come to his hands,
together with others which at the time were attributed to Isaiah, and
gave the book its present form.
_Jeremiah._--Jeremiah's first public appearance as a prophet was in the
13th year of Josiah (Jer. i. 2, xxv. 3), i.e. 626 B.C., and his latest
prophecy (ch. xliv.) was delivered by him in Egypt, whither he was
carried, against his will, by some of the Jews who had been left in
Judah, shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Jeremiah was keenly
conscious of his people's sin; and the aim of most of his earlier
prophecies is to bring his countrymen, if possible, to a better mind, in
the hope that thereby the doom which he sees impending may be
averted--an end which eventually he saw clearly to be unattainable.
Jeremiah's was a sensitive, tender nature; and he laments, with great
pathos and emotion, his people's sins, the ruin to which he saw his
country hastening, and the trials and persecutions which his predictions
of disaster frequently brought upon him. A large part of his book is
biographical, describing various incidents of his ministry. Prophecies
of restoration are contained in chs. xxx.-xxxiii. The prophecies of the
first twenty-three years of his ministry, as we are expressly told in
ch. xxxvi., were first written down in 604 B.C. by his friend and
amanuensis Baruch, and the roll thus formed must have formed the nucleus
of the present book. Some of the reports of Jeremiah's prophecies, and
especially the biographical narratives, also probably have Baruch for
their author. But the chronological disorder of the book, and other
indications, show that Baruch could not have been the _compiler_ of the
book, but that the prophecies and narratives contained in it were
collected together gradually, and that it reached its present form by a
succession of stages, which were not finally completed till long after
Israel's return from Babylon. The long prophecy (l. 1-li. 58),
announcing the approaching fall of Babylon, is not by Jeremiah, and
cannot have been written till shortly before 538 B.C.
_Ezekiel._--Ezekiel was one of the captives who were carried with
Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. to Babylonia, and was settled with many other
exiles at a place called Tel-abib (iii. 15). His prophecies (which are
regularly dated) are assigned to various years from 592 to 570 B.C. The
theme of the first twenty-four chapters of his book is the impending
fall of Jerusalem, which took place actually in 586, and which Ezekiel
foretells in a series of prophecies, distinguished by great variety of
symbolism and imagery. Chs. xxv.-xxxii. are on various foreign nations,
Edom, Tyre, Egypt, &c. Prophecies of Israel's future restoration follow
in chs. xxxiii.-xlviii., chs. xl.-xlviii. being remarkable for the
minuteness with which Ezekiel describes the organization of the restored
community, as he would fain see it realized, including even such details
as the measurements and other arrangements of the Temple, the sacrifices
to be offered in it, the duties and revenues of the priests, and the
redistribution of the country among the twelve tribes. The book of
Ezekiel bears throughout the stamp of a single mind; the prophecies
contained in it are arranged methodically; and to all appearance--in
striking contrast to the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah--it received the
form in which we still have it from the prophet himself.
_The Twelve Minor Prophets._--These, as was stated above, were reckoned
by the Jews as forming a single "book." The two earliest of the Minor
Prophets, Amos and Hosea, prophesied in the northern kingdom, at about
760 and 740 B.C. respectively; both foresaw the approaching ruin of
northern Israel at the hands of the Assyrians, which took place in fact
when Sargon took Samaria in 722 B.C.; and both did their best to stir
their people to better things. The dates of the other Minor Prophets (in
some cases approximate) are: Micah, c. 725-c. 680 B.C. (some passages
perhaps later); Zephaniah, c. 625; Nahum, shortly before the destruction
of Nineveh by the Manda in 607; Habakkuk (on the rise and destiny of the
Chaldaean empire) 605-600; Obadiah, after the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Chaldaeans in 586; Haggai, 520; Zechariah, i.-viii. (as in
Haggai, promises and encouragements connected with the rebuilding of the
Temple) 520 and 518; Malachi, c. 460-450; Joel, 5th century B.C.; Jonah,
4th century B.C. The latest prophecies in the book are, probably, those
contained in Zech. ix.-xiv. which reflect entirely different historical
conditions from Zech. i.-viii. (520 and 518 B.C.), and may be plausibly
assigned to the period beginning with the conquests of Alexander the
Great, between 332 and c. 300 B.C. Why these prophecies were attached to
Zech. i.-viii. must remain matter of conjecture; but there are reasons
for supposing that, together with the prophecy of Malachi, they came to
the compiler of the "book" of the Twelve Prophets anonymously, and he
simply attached them at the point which his collection had reached (i.e.
at the end of Zech. viii.).
_The Psalms._--The Psalter is that part of the Old Testament in which
the _devotional_ aspect of the religious character finds its completest
expression; and in lyrics of exquisite tenderness and beauty the most
varied emotions are poured forth by the psalmists to their
God--despondency and distress, penitence and resignation, hope and
confidence, jubilation and thankfulness, adoration and praise. The
Psalter, it is clear from many indications, is not the work of a single
compiler, but was formed gradually. A single compiler is not likely to
have introduced double recensions of one and the same psalm (as Ps.
liii. = Ps. xiv., Ps. lxx. = Ps. xi. 13-17, Ps. cviii. = Ps. lvii. 7-11
+ lx. 5-12); in the Hebrew canon the Psalter is composed of five books
(i.-xli., xlii.-lxxii., lxxiii.-lxxxix., xc.-cvi., cvii.-cl.); and in
many parts it is manifestly based upon independent smaller collections;
for it contains groups of psalms headed "David," the "sons of Korah,"
"Asaph," "Songs of Ascents." Each of the five books of which it is
composed contains psalms which show that its compilation cannot have
been completed till after the return from the Captivity; and indeed,
when the individual psalms are studied carefully it becomes apparent
that in the great majority of cases they presuppose the historical
conditions, or the religious experiences, of the ages that followed
Jeremiah. Thus, though it is going too far to say that there are no
pre-exilic psalms, the Psalter, as a whole, is the expression of the
deeper spiritual feeling which marked the later stages of Israel's
history. It has been not inaptly termed the Hymn-book of the second
Temple. Its compilation can hardly have been finally completed before
the 3rd century B.C.; if it is true, as many scholars think, that there
are psalms dating from the time of the Maccabee struggle (Ps. xliv.,
lxxiv., lxxix., lxxxiii, and perhaps others), it cannot have been
completed till after 165 B.C.
_The Book of Proverbs._--This is the first of the three books belonging
to the "Wisdom-literature" of the Hebrews, the other two books being Job
and Ecclesiastes. The Wisdom-literature of the Hebrews concerned itself
with what we should call the philosophy of human nature, and sometimes
also of physical nature as well; its writers observed human character,
studied action in its consequences, laid down maxims for education and
conduct, and reflected on the moral problems which human society
presents. The book of Proverbs consists essentially of generalizations
on human character and conduct, with (especially in chs. i.-ix.) moral
exhortations addressed to an imagined "son" or pupil. The book consists
of eight distinct portions, chs. i.-ix. being introductory, the
proverbs, properly so called, beginning at x. 1 (with the title "The
Proverbs of Solomon"), and other, shorter collections, beginning at
xxii. 17, xxiv. 23, xxv. 1, xxx. 1, xxxi. 1, xxxi. 10 respectively. The
book, it is evident, was formed gradually. A small nucleus of the
proverbs may be Solomon's; but the great majority represent no doubt the
generalizations of a long succession of "wise men." The introduction, or
"Praise of Wisdom," as it has been called (chs. i.-ix), commending the
maxims of Wisdom as a guide to the young, will have been added after
most of the rest of the book was already complete. The book will not
have finally reached its present form before the 4th century B.C. Some
scholars believe that it dates entirely from the Greek period (which
began 332 B.C.); but it may be doubted whether there are sufficient
grounds for this conclusion.
_Job._--The book of Job deals with a problem of human life; in modern
phraseology it is a work of _religious philosophy_. Job is a righteous
man, overwhelmed with undeserved misfortune; and thus the question is
raised, Why do the righteous suffer? Is their suffering consistent with
the justice of God? The dominant theory at the time when Job was written
was that all suffering was a punishment of sin; and the aim of the book
is to controvert this theory. Job's friends argue that he must have been
guilty of some grave sin; Job himself passionately maintains his
innocence; and on the issue thus raised the dialogue of the book turns.
The outline of Job's story was no doubt supplied by tradition; and a
later poet has developed this outline, and made it a vehicle for
expressing his new thoughts respecting a great moral problem which
perplexed his contemporaries. A variety of indications (see JOB) combine
to show that the book of Job was not written till after the time of
Jeremiah--probably, indeed, not till after the return from exile. The
speeches of Elihu (chs. xxxii.-xxxvii.) are not part of the original
poem, but were inserted in it afterwards.
There follow (in the Hebrew Bible) the five short books, which, as
explained above, are now known by the Jews as the _Megilloth_, or
"Rolls," viz. Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and
Esther. Of these, the _Song of Songs_, in exquisite poetry, extols the
power and sweetness of pure and faithful human love. The date at which
it was written is uncertain; there are features in it which point to its
having been the work of a poet living in north Israel, and writing at an
early date; but most recent scholars, on account chiefly of certain late
expressions occurring in it, think that it cannot have been written
earlier than the 4th or 3rd century B.C. In the graceful and tender
idyll of _Ruth_, it is told how Ruth, the Moabitess, and a native
consequently of a country hostile theocratically to Israel, adopted
Israel's faith (i. 16), and was counted worthy to become an ancestress
of David. The date of Ruth is disputed; Driver has defended a pre-exilic
date for it, but the general opinion of modern scholars is that it
belongs to the 5th century B.C. The _Lamentations_ consist of five
elegies on the fall of Jerusalem, and the sufferings which its people
experienced in consequence; they must all have been composed not long
after 586 B.C. _Ecclesiastes_, the third book belonging (see above) to
the Wisdom-literature, consists of moralizings, prompted by the dark
times in which the author's lot in life was cast, on the disappointments
which seemed to him to be the reward of all human endeavour, and the
inability of man to remedy the injustices and anomalies of society. If
only upon linguistic grounds--for the Hebrew of the book resembles often
that of the Mishnah more than the ordinary Hebrew of the Old
Testament--Ecclesiastes must be one of the latest books in the Hebrew
canon. It was most probably written during the Greek period towards the
end of the 3rd century B.C. The book of _Esther_, which describes, with
many legendary traits, how the beautiful Jewess succeeded in rescuing
her people from the destruction which Haman had prepared for them, will
not be earlier than the closing years of the 4th century B.C., and is
thought by many scholars to be even later.
_The Book of Daniel._--The aim of this book is to strengthen and
encourage the pious Jews in their sufferings under the persecution of
Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-165 B.C. Chs. i.-vi. consist of narratives,
constructed no doubt upon a traditional basis, of the experiences of
Daniel at the Babylonian court, between 605 and 538 B.C., with the
design of illustrating how God, in times of trouble, defends and
succours His faithful servants. Chs. vii.-xii. contain a series of
visions, purporting to have been seen by Daniel, and describing,
sometimes (especially in ch. xi.) with considerable minuteness, the
course of events from Alexander the Great, through the two royal lines
of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, to Antiochus Epiphanes, dwelling in
particular on the persecuting measures adopted by Antiochus against the
Jews, and promising the tyrant's speedy fall (see e.g. viii. 9-14,
23-25, xi. 21-45). Internal evidence shows clearly that the book cannot
have been written by Daniel himself; and that it must in fact be a
product of the period in which its interest culminates, and the
circumstances of which it so accurately reflects, i.e. of 168-165 B.C.
_Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah._--These books form the second series of
historical books referred to above, Ezra and Nehemiah carrying on the
narrative of Chronicles, and forming its direct sequel. 1 Chr. i.-ix.
consists mostly of tribal genealogies, partly based upon data contained
in the older books (Gen.-Kings), partly including materials found by the
compiler elsewhere. 1 Chr. x.-2 Chr. xxxvi. consists of a series of
excerpts from the books of Samuel and Kings--sometimes transcribed
without substantial change, at other times materially altered in the
process--combined with matter, in some cases limited to a verse or two,
in others extending to several chapters, contributed by the compiler
himself, and differing markedly from the excerpts from the older books
both in phraseology and in point of view. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah
are of similar structure; here the sources excerpted are the Memoirs of
Ezra and Nehemiah, written by themselves in the _first_ person; viz.
Ezra vii. 12-ix. (including the decree of Artaxerxes, vii. 12-26); Neh.
i. 1-vii. 73a, xii. 31-41, xiii.; and a narrative written in Aramaic
(Ezra iv. 8-vi. 18); Ezra x. and Neh. viii.-x. also are in all
probability based pretty directly upon the Memoirs of Ezra; the
remaining parts of the books are the composition of the compiler. The
additions of the compiler, especially in the Chronicles, place the old
history in a new light; he invests it with the associations of his own
day; and pictures pre-exilic Judah as already possessing the fully
developed ceremonial system, under which he lived himself, and as ruled
by the ideas and principles current among his contemporaries. There is
much in his representation of the past which cannot be historical. For
examples of narratives which are his composition see 1 Chr. xv. 1-24,
xvi. 4-42, xxii. 2-xxix.; 2 Chr. xiii. 3-22, xiv. 6-xv. 15, xvi. 7-11,
xvii., xix. 1-xx. 30, xxvi. 16-20, xxix. 3-xxxi. 21. On account of the
interest shown by the compiler in the ecclesiastical aspects of the
history, his work has been not inaptly called the "Ecclesiastical
Chronicle of Jerusalem." From historical allusions in the book of
Nehemiah, it may be inferred that the compiler wrote at about 300 B.C.
(S. R. D.)
2. _Texts and Versions._
_Text._--The form in which the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is
presented to us in all MSS. and printed editions is that of the
Massoretic text, the date of which is usually placed somewhere between
the 6th and 8th centuries of the Christian era. It is probable that the
present text became fixed as early as the 2nd century A.D., but even
this earlier date leaves a long interval between the original autographs
of the Old Testament writers and our present text. Since the fixing of
the Massoretic text the task of preserving and transmitting the sacred
books has been _carried_ out with the greatest care and fidelity, with
the result that the text has undergone practically no change of any real
importance; but before that date, owing to various causes, it is beyond
dispute that a large number of corruptions were introduced into the
Hebrew text. In dealing, therefore, with the textual criticism of the
Old Testament it is necessary to determine the period at which the text
assumed its present fixed form before considering the means at our
disposal for controlling the text when it was, so to speak, in a less
settled condition.
Massoretic text.
An examination of the extant MSS. of the Hebrew Old Testament reveals
two facts which at first sight are somewhat remarkable. The first is
that the oldest dated MS., the _Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus_, only
goes back to the year A.D. 916, though it is probable that one or two
MSS. belong to the 9th century. The second fact is that all our Hebrew
MSS. represent one and the same text, viz. the Massoretic. This text was
the work of a special gild of trained scholars called Massoretes
([Hebrew: baalei hamasoreth]) or "masters of tradition" ([Hebrew:
masorah] or less correctly [Hebrew: masoreth]),[2] whose aim was not
only to preserve and transmit the consonantal text which had been handed
down to them, but also to ensure its proper pronunciation. To this end
they provided the text with a complete system of vowel points and
accents.[3] Their labours further included the compilation of a number
of notes, to which the term Massorah is now usually applied. These notes
for the most part constitute a sort of index of the peculiarities of the
text, and possess but little general interest. More important are those
passages in which the Massoretes have definitely adopted a variation
from the consonantal text. In these cases the vowel points attached to
the written word (_Kethibh_) belong to the word which is to be
substituted for it, the latter being placed in the margin with the
initial letter of _Qere_ (= to be read) prefixed to it. Many even of
these readings merely relate to variations of spelling, pronunciation or
grammatical forms; others substitute a more decent expression for the
coarser phrase of the text, but in some instances the suggested reading
really affects the sense of the passage. These last are to be regarded
either as old textual variants, or, more probably, as emendations
corresponding to the _errata_ or _corrigenda_ of a modern printed book.
They do not point to any critical editing of the text; for the aim of
the Massoretes was essentially conservative. Their object was not to
create a new text, but rather to ensure the accurate transmission of the
traditional text which they themselves had received. Their work may be
said to culminate in the vocalized text which resulted from the labours
of Rabbi Aaron ben Asher in the 10th century.[4] But the writings of
Jerome in the 4th, and of Origen in the 3rd century both testify to a
Hebrew text practically identical with that of the Massoretes. Similar
evidence is furnished by the Mishna and the Gemara, the Targums, and
lastly by the Greek version of Aquila,[5] which dates from the first
half of the 2nd century A.D. Hence it is hardly doubtful that the form
in which we now possess the Hebrew text was already fixed by the
beginning of the 2nd century. On the other hand, evidence such as that
of the _Book of Jubilees_ shows that the form of the text still
fluctuated considerably as late as the 1st century A.D., so that we are
forced to place the fixing of the text some time between the fall of
Jerusalem and the production of Aquila's version. Nor is the occasion
far to seek. After the fall of Jerusalem the new system of biblical
exegesis founded by Rabbi Hillel reached its climax at Jamnia under the
famous Rabbi Aqiba (d. c. 132). The latter's system of interpretation
was based upon an extremely literal treatment of the text, according to
which the smallest words or particles, and sometimes even the letters of
scripture, were invested with divine authority. The inevitable result of
such a system must have been the fixing of an officially recognized
text, which could scarcely have differed materially from that which was
finally adopted by the Massoretes. That the standard edition was not the
result of the critical investigation of existing materials may be
assumed with some certainty.[6] Indeed, it is probable, as has been
suggested,[7] that the manuscript which was adopted as the standard text
was an old and well-written copy, possibly one of those which were
preserved in the Court of the Temple.
But if the evidence available points to the time of Hadrian as the
period at which the Hebrew text assumed its present form, it is even
more certain that prior to that date the various MSS. of the Old
Testament differed very materially from one another. Sufficient proof of
this statement is furnished by the Samaritan Pentateuch and the
versions, more especially the Septuagint. Indications also are not
wanting in the Hebrew text itself to show that in earlier times the text
was treated with considerable freedom. Thus, according to Jewish
tradition, there are eighteen[8] passages in which the older scribes
deliberately altered the text on the ground that the language employed
was either irreverent or liable to misconception. Of a similar nature
are the changes introduced into proper names, e.g. the substitution of
_bosheth_ (= shame) for _ba'al_ in Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8) and
Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6; cf. the older forms Eshbaal and Meribaal, 1
Chron. viii. 34, 35); the use of the verb "to bless" ([Hebrew: bareh])
in the sense of cursing (1 Kings xxi. 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11, ii. 5, 9;
Ps. x. 3); and the insertion of "the enemies of" in 1 Sam. xxv. 22, 2
Sam. xii. 14. These intentional alterations, however, only affect a very
limited portion of the text, and, though it is possible that other
changes were introduced at different times, it is very unlikely that
they were either more extensive in range or more important in character.
At the same time it is clear both from internal and external evidence
that the archetype from which our MSS. are descended was far from being
a perfect representative of the original text. For a comparison of the
different parallel passages which occur in the Old Testament (e.g. 1 and
2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles; 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx.
19 and Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix; 2 Sam. xxii. and Ps. xviii.; Ps. xiv. and
liii., &c.) reveals many variations which are obviously due to textual
corruption, while there are many passages which in their present form
are either ungrammatical, or inconsistent with the context or with other
passages. Externally also the ancient versions, especially the
Septuagint, frequently exhibit variations from the Hebrew which are not
only intrinsically more probable, but often explain the difficulties
presented by the Massoretic text. Our estimate of the value of these
variant readings, moreover, is considerably heightened when we consider
that the MSS. on which the versions are based are older by several
centuries than those from which the Massoretic text was derived; hence
the text which they presuppose has no slight claim to be regarded as an
important witness for the original Hebrew. "But the use of the ancient
versions" (to quote Prof. Driver[9]) "is not always such a simple matter
as might be inferred.... In the use of the ancient versions for the
purposes of textual criticism there are _three_ precautions which must
always be observed; we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess
the version itself in its original integrity; we must eliminate such
variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the
translator; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a
difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must
then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated,
with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which side the
superiority lies."
Samaritan.
_Versions._--In point of age the Samaritan Pentateuch furnishes the
earliest external witness to the Hebrew text. It is not a version, but
merely that text of the Pentateuch which has been preserved by the
Samaritan community since the time of Nehemiah (Neh. xiii. 23-31),
i.e. about 432 B.C.[10] It is written in the Samaritan script, which
is closely allied to the old Hebrew as opposed to the later "square"
character. We further possess a Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch
written in the Samaritan dialect, a variety of western Aramaic, and
also an Arabic translation of the five books of the law; the latter
dating perhaps from the 11th century A.D. or earlier. The Samaritan
Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint version in many passages, but
its chief importance lies in the proof which it affords as to the
substantial agreement of our present text of the Pentateuch, apart
from certain intentional changes,[11] with that which was promulgated
by Ezra. Its value for critical purposes is considerably discounted by
the late date of the MSS., upon which the printed text is based.
Aramaic.
The Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Old Testament
(see TARGUM), date from the time when Hebrew had become superseded by
Aramaic as the language spoken by the Jews, i.e. during the period
immediately preceding the Christian era. In their written form,
however, the earlier Targums, viz. those on the Pentateuch and the
prophetical books, cannot be earlier than the 4th or 5th century A.D.
Since they were designed to meet the needs of the people and had a
directly edificatory aim, they are naturally characterized by
expansion and paraphrase, and thus afford invaluable illustrations of
the methods of Jewish interpretation and of the development of Jewish
thought. The text which they exhibit is virtually identical with the
Massoretic text.
Septuagint.
The earliest among the versions as well as the most important for the
textual criticism of the Old Testament is the Septuagint. This version
probably arose out of the needs of the Greek-speaking Jews of
Alexandria in the 3rd century B.C. According to tradition the law was
translated into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus
(284-247 B.C.), and, though the form (viz. the _Letter of Aristeas_)
in which this tradition has come down to us cannot be regarded as
historical, yet it seems to have preserved correctly both the date and
the locality of the version. The name Septuagint, strictly speaking,
only applies to the translation of the Pentateuch, but it was
afterwards extended to include the other books of the Old Testament as
they were translated. That the interval which elapsed before the
Prophets and the Hagiographa were also translated was no great one is
shown by the prologue to Sirach which speaks of "the Law, the Prophets
and the rest of the books," as already current in a translation by 132
B.C. The date at which the various books were combined into a single
work is not known, but the existence of the Septuagint as a whole may
be assumed for the 1st century A.D., at which period the Greek version
was universally accepted by the Jews of the Dispersion as Scripture,
and from them passed on to the Christian Church.
Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion.
The position of the Septuagint, however, as the official Greek
representative of the Old Testament did not long remain unchallenged.
The opposition, as might be expected, came from the side of the Jews,
and was due partly to the controversial use which was made of the
version by the Christians, but chiefly to the fact that it was not
sufficiently in agreement with the standard Hebrew text established by
Rabbi Aqiba and his school. Hence arose in the 2nd century A.D. the
three new versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. Aquila was a
Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and since he was a disciple of Rabbi Aqiba
(d. A.D. 135), and (according to another Talmudic account) also of
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the immediate predecessors of Aqiba,
his version may be assigned to the first half of the 2nd century. It
is characterized by extreme literalness, and clearly reflects the
peculiar system of exegesis which was then in vogue among the Jewish
rabbis. Its slavish adherence to the original caused the new
translation to be received with favour by the Hellenistic Jews, among
whom it quickly superseded the older Septuagint. For what remains of
this version, which owing to its character is of the greatest value to
the textual critic, we have until recently been indebted to Origen's
_Hexapla_ (see below); for, though Jerome mentions a _secunda editio_,
no MS. of Aquila's translation has survived. Fragments[12], however,
of two codices were discovered (1897) in the genizah at Cairo, which
illustrate more fully the peculiar features of this version.
The accounts given of Theodotion are somewhat conflicting. Both
Irenaeus and Epiphanius describe him as a Jewish proselyte, but while
the former calls him an Ephesian and mentions his translation before
that of Aquila, the latter states that he was a native of Pontus and a
follower of Marcion, and further assigns his work to the reign of
Commodus (A.D. 180-192); others, according to Jerome, describe him as
an Ebionite. On the whole it is probable that Irenaeus has preserved
the most trustworthy account.[13] Theodotion's version differs from
those of Aquila and Symmachus in that it was not an independent
translation, but rather a revision of the Septuagint on the basis of
the current Hebrew text. He retained, however, those passages of which
there was no Hebrew equivalent, and added translations of the Hebrew
where the latter was not represented in the Septuagint. A peculiar
feature of his translation is his excessive use of transliteration,
but, apart from this, his work has many points of contact with the
Septuagint, which it closely resembles in style; hence it is not
surprising to find that later MSS. of the Septuagint have been largely
influenced by Theodotion's translation. In the case of the book of
Daniel, as we learn from Jerome (_praefatio in Dan._), the translation
of Theodotion was definitely adopted by the Church, and is accordingly
found in the place of the original Septuagint in all MSS. and
editions.[14] It is interesting to note in this connexion that
renderings which agree in the most remarkable manner with Theodotion's
version of Daniel are found not only in writers of the 2nd century but
also in the New Testament. The most probable explanation of this
phenomenon is that these renderings are derived from an early Greek
translation, differing from the Septuagint proper, but closely allied
to that which Theodotion used as the basis of his revision.
Symmachus, according to Eusebius and Jerome, was an Ebionite;
Epiphanius represents him (very improbably) as a Samaritan who became
a Jewish proselyte. He is not mentioned by Irenaeus and his date is
uncertain, but probably his work is to be assigned to the end of the
2nd century. His version was commended by Jerome as giving the sense
of the original, and in that respect it forms a direct contrast with
that of Aquila. Indeed Dr Swete[15] thinks it probable that "he wrote
with Aquila's version before him, (and that) in his efforts to recast
it he made free use both of the Septuagint and of Theodotion."
Origen's 'Hexapla.'
As in the case of Aquila, our knowledge of the works of Theodotion and
Symmachus is practically limited to the fragments that have been
preserved through the labours of Origen. This writer (see ORIGEN)
conceived the idea of collecting all the existing Greek versions of
the Old Testament with a view to recovering the original text of the
Septuagint, partly by their aid and partly by means of the current
Hebrew text. He accordingly arranged the texts to be compared in
six[16] parallel columns in the following order:--(1) the Hebrew text;
(2) the Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4)
Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; and (6) Theodotion. In the Septuagint
column he drew attention to those passages for which there was no
Hebrew equivalent by prefixing an obelus; but where the Septuagint had
nothing corresponding to the Hebrew text he supplied the omissions,
chiefly but not entirely from the translation of Theodotion, placing
an asterisk at the beginning of the interpolation; the close of the
passage to which the obelus or the asterisk was prefixed was denoted
by the metobelus. That Origen did not succeed in his object of
recovering the original Septuagint is due to the fact that he started
with the false conception that the original text of the Septuagint
must be that which coincided most nearly with the current Hebrew text.
Indeed, the result of his monumental labours has been to impede rather
than to promote the restoration of the genuine Septuagint. For the
Hexaplar text which he thus produced not only effaced many of the most
characteristic features of the old version, but also exercised a
prejudicial influence on the MSS. of that version.
Hesychius, Lucian.
The _Hexapla_ as a whole was far too large to be copied, but the
revised Septuagint text was published separately by Eusebius and
Pamphilus, and was extensively used in Palestine during the 4th
century. During the same period two other recensions made their
appearance, that of Hesychius which was current in Egypt, and that of
Lucian which became the accepted text of the Antiochene Church. Of
Hesychius little is known. Traces of his revision are to be found in
the Egyptian MSS., especially the Codex Marchalianus, and in the
quotations of Cyril of Alexandria. Lucian was a priest of Antioch who
was martyred at Nicomedia in A.D. 311 or 312. His revision (to quote
Dr Swete) "was doubtless an attempt to revise the [Greek: koinae] (or
'common text' of the Septuagint) in accordance with the principles of
criticism which were accepted at Antioch." To Ceriani is due the
discovery that the text preserved by codices 19, 82, 93, 108, really
represents Lucian's recension; the same conclusion was reached
independently by Lagarde, who combined codex 118 with the four
mentioned above.[17] As Field (_Hexapla_, p. 87) has shown, this
discovery is confirmed by the marginal readings of the _Syro-Hexapla_.
The recension (see Driver, _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Samuel_, p. 52) is characterized by the substitution of synonyms for
the words originally used by the Septuagint, and by the frequent
occurrence of double renderings, but its chief claim to critical
importance rests on the fact that "it embodies renderings not found in
other MSS. of the Septuagint which presuppose a Hebrew original
self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing
Massoretic text."
Vulgate.
_Latin Versions._--Of even greater importance in this respect is the
Old Latin version, which undoubtedly represents a Greek original prior
to the _Hexapla_. "The earliest form of the version" (to quote Dr
Kennedy[18]) "to which we can assign a definite date, namely, that
used by Cyprian, plainly circulated in Africa." In the view of many
authorities this version was first produced at Carthage, but recent
writers are inclined to regard Antioch as its birthplace, a view which
is supported by the remarkable agreement of its readings with the
Lucianic recension and with the early Syriac MSS. Unfortunately the
version is only extant in a fragmentary form, being preserved partly
in MSS., partly in quotations of the Fathers. The non-canonical books
of the Vulgate, however, which do not appear to have been revised by
Jerome, still represent the older version. It was not until after the
6th century that the Old Latin was finally superseded by the Vulgate
or Latin translation of the Old Testament made by Jerome during the
last quarter of the 4th century. This new version was translated from
the Hebrew, but Jerome also made use of the Greek versions, more
especially of Symmachus. His original intention was to revise the Old
Latin, and his two revisions of the Psalter, the Roman and the
Gallican, the latter modelled on the _Hexapla_, still survive. Of the
other books which he revised according to the Hexaplar text, that of
Job has alone come down to us. For textual purposes the Vulgate
possesses but little value, since it presupposes a Hebrew original
practically identical with the text stereotyped by the Massoretes.
_Syriac Versions._--The Peshito (P'shitta) or "simple" revision of the
Old Testament is a translation from the Hebrew, though certain books
appear to have been influenced by the Septuagint. Its date is unknown,
but it is usually assigned to the 2nd century A.D. Its value for
textual purposes is not great, partly because the underlying text is
the same as the Massoretic, partly because the Syriac text has at
different times been harmonized with that of the Septuagint.
Syro-Hexaplar.
The Syro-Hexaplar version, on the other hand, is extremely valuable
for critical purposes. This Syriac translation of the Septuagint
column of the _Hexapla_ was made by Paul, bishop of Tella, at
Alexandria in A.D. 616-617. Its value consists in the extreme
literalness of the translation, which renders it possible to recover
the Greek original with considerable certainty. It has further
preserved the critical signs employed by Origen as well as many
readings from the other Greek versions; hence it forms our chief
authority for reconstructing the _Hexapla_. The greater part of this
work is still extant; the poetical and prophetical books have been
preserved in the _Codex Ambrosianus_ at Milan (published in
photolithography by Ceriani, _Mon. Sacr. et Prof._), and the remaining
portions of the other books have been collected by Lagarde in his
_Bibliothecae Syriacae_, &c.
Of the remaining versions of the Old Testament the most important are
the Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic and Armenian, all of which,
except a part of the Arabic, appear to have been made through the
medium of the Septuagint.
AUTHORITIES.--Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_
(4th ed., Berlin, 1878, pp. 571 ff., or 5th ed., Berlin, 1886, pp. 523
ff.); S.R. Driver, _Notes on Samuel_ (Oxford, 1890), Introd. Sec.Sec.3 f.;
W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd ed.,
1895); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient MSS._ (London, 1896);
T.H. Weir, _A Short History of the Hebrew Text_ (London, 1896); H B.
Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ (Cambridge, 1900);
F. Buhl, _Kanon u. Text des A.T._ (English trans., Edinburgh, 1892);
E. Schuerer, _Geschichte des juedischen Volkes_ (3rd ed., 1902), vol.
iii. Sec. 33; C.H. Cornill, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_ (4th ed.,
1896), and _Prolegomena to Ezechiel_ (Leipzig, 1886); H.L. Strack,
_Einleitung in das alte Testament, Prolegomena Critica in Vet. Test._
(Leipzig, 1873); A. Loisy, _Histoire critique du texte et des versions
de la bible_ (Amiens, 1892); E. Nestle, _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der
Bibel (Leipzig, 1897); Ed. Koenig, _Einleitung in das alte Testament
(Bonn, 1893); F. Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt_, &c.; A.
Dillmann and F. Buhl, article on "Bibel-text des A.T." in _P.R.E._ cubed
vol. ii.; Ch. D. Ginsburg, _Introduction to the Massoretico-critical
edition of the Bible_ (London, 1897) and _The Massorah_ (London,
1880-1885). (J. F. St.)
3. _Textual Criticism._
Distinction between Textual and Higher Criticism.
The aim of scientific Old Testament criticism is to obtain, through
discrimination between truth and error, a full appreciation of the
literature which constitutes the Old Testament, of the life out of which
it grew, and the secret of the influence which these have exerted and
still exert. For such an appreciation many things are needed; and the
branches of Old Testament criticism are correspondingly numerous. It is
necessary in the first instance to detect the errors which have crept
into the text in the course of its transmission, and to recover, so far
as possible, the text in its original form; this is the task of
_Textual_, or as it is sometimes called in contradistinction to another
branch, _Lower Criticism_. It then becomes the task of critical exegesis
to interpret the text thus recovered so as to bring out the meaning
intended by the original authors. This _Higher Criticism_ partakes of
two characters, literary and historical. One branch seeks to determine
the scope, purpose and character of the various books of the Old
Testament, the times in and conditions under which they were written,
whether they are severally the work of a single author or of several,
whether they embody earlier sources and, if so, the character of these,
and the conditions under which they have reached us, whether altered
and, if altered, how; this is _Literary Criticism_. A further task is to
estimate the value of this literature as evidence for the history of
Israel, to determine, as far as possible, whether such parts of the
literature as are contemporary with the time described present correct,
or whether in any respect one-sided or biased or otherwise incorrect,
descriptions; and again, how far the literature that relates the story
of long past periods has drawn upon trustworthy records, and how far it
is possible to extract historical truth from traditions (such as those
of the Pentateuch) that present, owing to the gradual accretions and
modifications of intervening generations, a composite picture of the
period described, or from a work such as Chronicles, which narrates the
past under the influence of the conception that the institutions and
ideas of the present must have been established and current in the past;
all this falls under _Historical Criticism_, which, on its constructive
side, must avail itself of all available and well-sifted evidence,
whether derived from the Old Testament or elsewhere, for its
presentation of the history of Israel--its ultimate purpose. Finally, by
comparing the results of this criticism as a whole, we have to
determine, by observing its growth and comparing it with others, the
essential character of the religion of Israel.
In brief, then, the criticism of the Old Testament seeks to discover
what the words written actually meant to the writers, what the events in
Hebrew history actually were, what the religion actually was; and hence
its aim differs from the dogmatic or homiletic treatments of the Old
Testament, which have sought to discover in Scripture a given body of
dogma or incentives to a particular type of life or the like.
Biblical criticism, and in some respects more especially Old Testament
criticism, is, in all its branches, very largely of modern growth. This
has been due in part to the removal of conditions unfavourable to the
critical study of the evidence that existed, in part to the discovery in
recent times of fresh evidence. The unfavourable conditions and the
critical efforts which were made in spite of them can only be briefly
indicated.
Growth of criticism.
For a long time Biblical study lacked the first essential of sound
critical method, viz. a critical text of the literature. Jewish study
was exclusively based on the official Hebrew text, which was fixed,
probably in the 2nd century A.D., and thereafter scrupulously preserved.
This text, however, had suffered certain now obvious corruptions, and,
probably enough, more corruption than can now, or perhaps ever will be,
detected with certainty. The position of Christian (and Jewish
Alexandrian) scholars was considerably worse; for, with rare exceptions,
down to the 5th century, and practically without exception between the
5th and 15th centuries, their study was exclusively based on
_translations_. Beneath the ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, there
certainly underlay an earlier form of the Hebrew text than that
perpetuated by Jewish tradition, and if Christian scholars could have
worked through the version to the underlying Hebrew text, they would
often have come nearer to the original meaning than their Jewish
contemporaries. But this they could not do; and since the version, owing
to the limitations of the translators, departs widely from the sense of
the original, Christian scholars were on the whole kept much farther
from the original meaning than their Jewish contemporaries, who used the
Hebrew text; and later, after Jewish grammatical and philological study
had been stimulated by intercourse with the Arabs, the relative
disadvantages under which Christian scholarship laboured increased.
Still there are not lacking in the early centuries A.D. important, if
limited and imperfect, efforts in textual criticism. Origen, in his
_Hexapla_, placed side by side the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and
certain later Greek versions, and drew attention to the variations: he
thus brought together for comparison, an indispensable preliminary to
criticism, the chief existing evidence to the text of the Old Testament.
Unfortunately this great work proved too voluminous to be preserved
entire; and in the form in which it was fragmentarily preserved, it even
largely enhanced the critical task of later centuries. Jerome,
perceiving the unsatisfactory position of Latin-speaking Christian
scholars who studied the Old Testament at a _double remove_ from the
original--in Latin versions of the Greek--made a fresh Latin translation
direct from the Hebrew text then received among the Jews. It is only in
accordance with what constantly recurs in the history of Biblical
criticism that this effort to approximate to the truth met at first with
considerable opposition, and was for a time regarded even by Augustine
as dangerous. Subsequently, however, this version of Jerome (the
Vulgate) became the basis of Western Biblical scholarship. Henceforward
the Western Church suffered both from the corruptions in the official
Hebrew text and also from the fact that it worked from a version and not
from the original, for a knowledge of Hebrew was rare indeed among
Christian scholars between the time of Jerome and the 16th century.
But if the use of versions, or of an uncritical text of the original,
was one condition unfavourable to criticism, another that was not less
serious was the dominance over both Jews and Christians of unsound
methods of interpretation--legal or dogmatic or allegorical. The
influence of these can be traced as early as the Greek version (3rd
century B.C. and later); allegorical interpretation is conspicuous in
the Alexandrian Jewish scholar Philo (q.v.); it may be seen in many New
Testament interpretations of the Old Testament (e.g. Gal. iii. 16, iv.
21-31), found a classical exponent in Origen, and, in spite of the
opposition of the school of Antioch, pre-eminently of Theodore (d. A.D.
428), maintained its power virtually unbroken down to the Reformation.
It is true that even by the most thorough-going allegorists the literal
sense of Scripture was not openly and entirely disregarded; but the very
fact that the study of Hebrew was never more than exceptional, and so
early ceased to be cultivated at all, is eloquent of indifference to the
original literal sense, and the very principle of the many meanings
inherent in the sacred writings was hostile to sound interpretation;
greater importance was attached to the "deeper" or "hidden" senses, i.e.
to the various unreal interpretations, and when the literal sense
conflicted with the dogmas or tradition of the Church its validity was
wholly denied. The extraordinary ambiguity and uncertainty which
allegorical interpretation tacitly ascribed to Scripture, and the ease
with which heretical as well as orthodox teaching could be represented
as "hidden" under the literal sense, was early perceived, but instead of
this leading to any real check on even wild subjectivity in
interpretation and insistence on reaching the literal sense, it created
an ominous principle that maintained much of its influence long after
the supremacy of allegorism was overthrown. This is the principle that
all interpretation of Scripture must be according to the _Regula
fidei_--that all interpretation which makes Scripture contradict or
offend the traditions of the Church is wrong.
The spirit and the age of humanism and the Reformation effected and
witnessed important developments in the study of the Old Testament. It
was still long before any considerable results were achieved; but in
various ways the dogmatic and traditional treatment of Scripture was
undermined; the way was opened for a more real and historical method. It
must suffice to refer briefly to two points.
1. Ignorance gave place to knowledge of the languages in which the Old
Testament was written. In 1506 the distinguished humanist, Johann
Reuchlin, who had begun the study of Hebrew under a Jewish teacher
about 1492, published a work entitled _De Rudimentis Hebraicis_
containing a Hebrew lexicon and a Hebrew grammar. In 1504 Konrad
Pellikan (Pellicanus), whose study of Hebrew had profited from
intercourse with Reuchlin, had published a brief introduction to the
language. In 1514 the Complutensian Polyglott began to be printed and
in 1522 was published. Various Jewish editions of the Hebrew Bible had
already been printed--in part since 1477, entire since 1488; but this
work contained the first Christian edition of the text. Certainly the
editors did not intend hereby to exalt the original above the
versions; for they placed the Vulgate in the centre of the page with
the Hebrew on one side, the Greek on the other, i.e. as they
themselves explained it, the Roman Church between the synagogue and
the Greek Church, as Christ crucified between two thieves. Yet even so
the publication of the Hebrew text by Christian scholars marks an
important stage; henceforth the study of the original enters
increasingly into Christian Biblical schojarship; it already underlay
the translations which form so striking a feature of the 16th century.
Luther's German version (Pentateuch, 1523) and Tyndale's English
version (Pentateuch, 1530) were both made from the Hebrew. At first,
and indeed down to the middle of the 17th century, Jewish traditions
and methods in the study of Hebrew dominated Christian scholars; but
in the 17th and 18th centuries the study of other Semitic languages
opened up that comparative linguistic study which was systematized and
brought nearer to perfection in the 19th century (which also
witnessed the opening up of the new study of Assyrian) by scholars
such as Gesenius, Ewald, Olshausen, Renan, Noeldeke, Stade and Driver.
This has done much to render possible a more critical interpretation
of the Old Testament.
2. An increasing stress was laid on the _literal_ sense of Scripture.
The leading Reformers--Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon--frequently
expressed themselves against the prevailing view of the manifold sense
of Scripture, and in particular questioned the legitimacy of
allegorical interpretation--except for purposes of popular and
practical exposition. The effort to get at and abide by the literal
sense is characteristic of Calvin's extensive exegetical works. True,
practice did not always keep pace with theory, and the literal sense
had to yield if it came into conflict with the "Faith": the
allegorical method for long obscured the meaning of the _Song of
Songs_, and any departure from it was severely condemned; just as
Theodore of Mopsuestia drew down on himself for maintaining the
literal sense of the _Song_ the condemnation of the Second Council of
Constantinople (A.D. 553), so Sebastian Castellio owed (in part) to
the same indiscretion his expulsion from Geneva in 1544. Even in the
16th and 17th centuries scholars like Grotius and Michaelis met with
violent opposition for the same cause.
But, however slowly and irregularly, the new conditions and the new
spirit affected the study of the Old Testament. It became subject to
the same critical methods which since the Renaissance have been
applied to other ancient literatures. Biblical criticism is part of a
wider critical movement, but it is noticeable how, from stage to
stage, Biblical scholars adopted the various critical methods which as
applied to other literatures have been proved valid, rather than
themselves initiated them. The textual criticism of the classical
literatures made way before the textual criticism of the Old
Testament: Bentley's _Phalaris_ (1699) preceded any thorough or
systematic application of Higher Criticism to any part of the Old
Testament; Niebuhr's _History of Rome_ (1811) preceded Ewald's
_History of Israel_ (1843-1859).
Conditions of Textual Criticism in the Bible.
The fundamental principles of the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament
are the same as those which apply to any other ancient text and need not
be described here (see the article TEXTUAL CRITICISM). There are also,
however, certain conditions peculiar to the text of the Old Testament.
The significance of these and the extent to which they must govern the
application of the general principles have even yet scarcely obtained
full and general recognition. These, then, must be briefly described.
The earliest Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament date from not earlier than
the 9th century A.D., or nearly one thousand years after the latest
parts of the Old Testament were written. These MSS., and the Hebrew
Bibles as usually printed, contain in reality two perfectly distinct
texts--the work of two different ages separated from one another by
centuries: the one is a text of the Old Testament itself, the other a
text of a later Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. The text of
the Old Testament consists of consonants only, for the alphabet of the
ancient Hebrews, like that of their Moabite, Aramaean and Phoenician
neighbours, contained no vowels; the text of the interpretation consists
of vowels and accents only--for vowel signs and accents had been
invented by Jewish scholars between the 5th and 9th centuries A.D.; the
text of the Old Testament is complete in itself and intelligible, though
ambiguous; but the text of the interpretation read by itself is
unintelligible, and only becomes intelligible when read with the
consonants (under, over, or in which they are inserted) of the text of
the Old Testament. But the fact that the later text makes use of the
earlier to make itself intelligible in no way destroys the fact that it
is as entirely distinct a work from the earlier as is any commentary
distinct from the work on which it comments. The first task of Old
Testament textual criticism after the Reformation was to prove the
independence of these two texts, to gain general recognition of the fact
that vowels and accents formed no part of the original Hebrew text of
the Old Testament. The conflict that arose over this question in the
Christian Church was prolonged and bitter--in part because it
unfortunately became inflamed by the contending interests of Roman
Catholic and Protestant. The coeval origin of consonants and vowels had
indeed been questioned or denied by the earliest reformers (Luther,
Zwingli, Calvin), but later, in the period of Protestant scholasticism
and under the influence of one school of Jewish Rabbis, Protestant
scholars in particular, and especially those of the Swiss school,
notably the Buxtorfs, had committed themselves to the view that the
vowels formed an integral and original part of the text of the Old
Testament; and this they maintained with all the more fervency because
the ambiguity of the consonants without the vowels was a troublesome
fact in the way of the extreme Protestant doctrine of the inspiration,
verbal infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture, while it was by no
means unwelcome to Catholic theologians with their doctrine of the need
for an authoritative interpretation. Still in the end it was due in
large measure to the learning and argumentative power devoted to this
subject by the French Protestant scholar, Louis Capell, and, amongst
others, by the English Protestant scholar, Brian Walton, that by the end
of the 17th century this particular controversy was practically at an
end; criticism had triumphed, and the later origin of the vowels was
admitted. Yet, as often happens, the influence of tradition lingered
long after it had been proved to be false; thus the R.V., instead of
being an independent translation of the Hebrew text, is intended (with
rare exceptions, as e.g. in Is. lix. 19, where R.V. translates the
Hebrew text and R.V. margin the Jewish interpretation) to be merely a
translation of the Jewish interpretation; and to the present day it is
usual, though obviously uncritical and wrong, to describe perfectly
legitimate translations of the received consonantal text, if they happen
to presuppose other vowels than those provided by Jewish tradition, as
based on emendation; even in the English edition of Haupt's _Sacred
Books of the Old Testament_ (see below) the possibility of this
unfortunate misunderstanding is not altogether removed.
But the original text of the Old Testament long before it was combined
with the text of the Jewish or Massoretic interpretation had already
undergone a somewhat similar change, the extent of which was indeed far
less, but also less clearly discoverable. This change consisted in the
insertion into the original text of certain consonants which had come to
be also used to express vowel sounds: e.g. the Hebrew consonant
corresponding to w also expressed the vowel o or u, the consonant h the
vowel a, and so forth. For reasons suggested partly by the study of
Semitic inscriptions, partly by comparison of passages occurring twice
within the Old Testament, and partly by a comparison of the Hebrew text
with the Septuagint, it is clear that the authors of the Old Testament
(or at least most of them) themselves made some use of these vowel
consonants, but that in a great number of cases the vowel consonants
that stand in our present text were inserted by transcribers and editors
of the texts. Again, and for similar reasons, it is probable that in
many cases, if not in all, the original texts were written without any
clear division of the consonants into words. In view of all this, the
first requisite for a critical treatment of the text of the Old
Testament is to consider the consonants by themselves, to treat every
vowel-consonant as _possibly_ not original, and the existing divisions
of the text into words as original only in those cases where they yield
a sense better than any other possible division (or, at least, as good).
Certainly all this brings us face to face with much ambiguity and
demands increased skill in interpretation, but anything short of it
falls short also of strict critical method. A perception of this has
only been gradually reached, and is even now none too general.
Apart from these changes in the history of the text, it has, like all
ancient texts, suffered from accidents of transmission, from the
unintentional mistakes of copyists. This fact was, naturally enough and
under the same dogmatic stress, denied by those scholars who maintained
that the vowels were an integral part of the text. Here again we may
single out Capellus as a pioneer in criticism, in his _Critica sacra
sive de variis quae in sacris V. T. libris occurrunt lectionibus_,
written in 1634, much studied in MS. by scholars before its publication
in 1650, and unavailingly criticized by Buxtorf the younger in his
_Anticritica seu vindiciae veritatis hebraicae_ (1653). Capellus drew
conclusions from such important facts as the occurrence of variations in
the two Hebrew texts of passages found twice in the Old Testament
itself, and the variations brought to light by a comparison of the
Jewish and Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew text and the
Septuagint, the Hebrew text and New Testament quotations from the Old
Testament.
In order that the principles already perceived by Capellus might be
satisfactorily applied in establishing a critical text, many things were
needed; for example, a complete collation of existing MSS. of the Jewish
text and of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, the establishing of a
critical text of the Septuagint, a careful study of the several versions
directed to determining when real variants are implied and what they
are. Some of this work has been accomplished: much of it remains to be
done.
The Hebrew MSS. were collated by Kennicott and de Rossi at the close of
the 18th century, with sufficient thoroughness to justify the important
conclusion that all existing MSS. reproduce a single recension. The
Samaritan MSS. are still very imperfectly collated; the same is true of
the Syriac and other versions except the Septuagint. In regard to the
Septuagint, though the work is by no means complete, much has been done.
For collection of material the edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford,
1798-1827), with its magnificent critical apparatus, is pre-eminent; the
preparation of a similar edition, on a rather smaller scale but
embodying the results of fresh and more careful collation, was
subsequently undertaken by Cambridge scholars.[19] These editions
furnish the material, but neither attempts the actual construction of a
critical text of the version. Some important contributions towards a
right critical method of using the material collected have been made--in
particular by Lagarde, who has also opened up a valuable line of
critical work, along which much remains to be done, by his restoration
of the Lucianic recension, one of the three great recensions of the
Greek text of the Old Testament which obtained currency at the close of
the 3rd and beginning of the 4th centuries A.D.
More especially since the time of Capellus the value of the Septuagint
for correcting the Hebrew text has been recognized; but it has often
been used uncritically, and the correctness of the Hebrew text
underlying it in comparison with the text of the Hebrew MSS., though
still perhaps most generally underestimated, has certainly at times been
exaggerated.
Results of Criticism.
It has only been possible here to indicate in the briefest way what is
involved in the collection and critical sifting of the extant evidence
for the text of the Old Testament, how much of the work has been done
and how much remains; and with equal brevity it must suffice to indicate
the position which faces the textual critic when all that can be done in
this way has been done. In so far as it is possible to recover the
Hebrew text from which the Greek version was made, it is possible to
recover a form of the Hebrew text current about 280 B.C. in the case of
the Pentateuch, some time before 100 B.C. in the case of most of the
rest of the Old Testament. By comparison of the Hebrew MSS. it is not
difficult to recover the recension which with few and unimportant
variants they have perpetuated, and which may safely be regarded as
differing but slightly from the text current and officially established
before the end of the 2nd century A.D. By a comparison of these two
lines of evidence we can approximate to a text current about 300 B.C. or
later; but for any errors which had entered into the common source of
these two forms of the text we possess no documentary means of detection
whatsoever. The case then stands thus. Except by the obviously absurd
assumption of the infallibility of copyists for the centuries before c.
300 B.C., we cannot escape the conclusion that _errors lurk even where
no variants now exist_, and that _such errors can be corrected, if at
all, only by conjectural emendation_. The dangers of conjectural
emendation are well known and apparent; large numbers of such
emendations have been ill-advised; but in the case of many passages the
only alternative for the textual critic who is at once competent and
honest is to offer such emendations or to indicate that such passages
are corrupt and the means of restoring them lacking.
Conjectural emendations were offered by Capellus in the 17th, and by
scholars such as C.F. Houbigant, Archbishop Seeker, Bishop Lowth and
J.D. Michaelis in the 18th century. Some of these have approved
themselves to successive generations of scholars, who have also added
largely to the store of such suggestions; conjectural emendation has
been carried furthest by upholders of particular metrical theories (such
as Bickell and Duhm) which do not accommodate themselves well to the
existing text, and by T.K. Cheyne (in _Critica Biblica_, 1903), whose
restorations resting on a dubious theory of Hebrew history have met with
little approval, though his negative criticism of the text is often keen
and suggestive.
A model of the application of the various resources of Old Testament
textual criticism to the restoration of the text is C.H. Cornill's _Das
Buch des Propheten Ezechiel_ (1886): outstanding examples of important
systematic critical notes are J. Wellhausen's _Der Text der Buecher
Samuelis_ (1871) and S.R. Driver's _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the
Books of Samuel_ (1890). Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Testament_,
edited by various scholars, was designed to present, when complete, a
critical text of the entire Old Testament with critical notes. The
results of textual criticism, including a considerable number of
conjectural emendations, are succinctly presented in Kittel's _Biblia
Hebraica_ (1906); but the text here printed is the ordinary Massoretic
(vocalized) text. The valuable editions of the Old Testament by Baer and
Delitzsch, and by Ginsburg, contain _critical_ texts of the Jewish
interpretation of Scripture, and therefore necessarily _uncritical_
texts of the Hebrew Old Testament itself: it lies entirely outside their
scope to give or even to consider the evidence which exists for
correcting the obvious errors in the text of the Old Testament as
received and perpetuated by the Jewish interpreters. See also the
authorities mentioned in the following section. (G. B. G.*)
4. _Higher Criticism._
We now pass on to consider the growth of literary and historic
criticism, which constitute the _Higher Criticism_ as already explained.
Down to the Reformation conditions were unfavourable to such criticism;
the prevailing dogmatic use of Scripture gave no occasion for inquiry
into the human origins or into the real purport and character of the
several books. Nevertheless we find some sporadic and tentative critical
efforts or questions. The most remarkable of these was made _outside_
the Church--a significant indication of the adverse effect of the
conditions within; the Neo-platonist philosopher Porphyry[20] in the 3rd
century A.D., untrammelled by church tradition and methods, anticipated
one of the clearest and most important conclusions of modern criticism:
he detected the incorrectness of the traditional ascription of Daniel to
the Jewish captivity in Babylon and discerned that the real period of
its composition was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, four centuries later.
In the mind even of Augustine (_Locutio in Jos. vi. 25_) questions were
raised by the occurrence of the formula "until this day" in Jos. iv. 9,
but were stilled by a rather clever though wrong use of Jos. vi. 25;
Abelard (_Heloissae Problema_, xli.) considers the problem whether the
narrative of Moses's death in Deut. contains a prophecy by Moses or is
the work of another and later writer, while the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra
(Abenezra), in a cryptic note on Deut. i. 1, which has been often quoted
of late years, gathers together several indications that point, as he
appears to perceive, to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Even
rarer than these rare perceptions of the evidence of the
quasi-historical books to their origin are such half-perceptions of the
literary origin of the prophetical books as is betrayed by Ibn Ezra, who
appears to question the Isaianic authorship of Is. xl.-lxvi., and by
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century, who, according
to Diestel (_Gesch. des A. T._, 169), raises the question why the sixth
chapter of Isaiah, containing the inaugural vision, does not stand at
the beginning of the book.
The Reformers.
Even after the Renaissance and the Reformation tradition continued
influential. For though the Reformers were critical of the authority of
ecclesiastical tradition in the matter of the interpretation and use of
Scripture, they were not immediately interested in literary and
historical criticism, nor concerned to challenge the whole body of
traditional lore on these matters. At the same time we can see from
Luther's attitude how the doctrine of the Reformers (unlike that of the
Protestant scholastics who came later) admitted considerable freedom, in
particular with reference to the extent of the canon, but also to
several questions of higher criticism. Thus it is to Luther a matter of
indifference whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch; the books of
_Chronicles_ he definitely pronounces less credible than those of
_Kings_, and he considers that the books of _Isaiah, Jeremiah_ and
_Hosea_ probably owe their present form to later hands. Carlstadt again
definitely denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the ground
that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and yet
that Deut. xxxiv. cannot be separated from the rest of the Pentateuch.
The later scholastic Protestant doctrine of verbal infallibility
necessarily encouraged critical reaction and proved a widely extended
retarding force far down into the 19th century. Nevertheless criticism
advanced by slow degrees among individuals, now in the Roman Church, now
in the number of those who sat loosely to the restrictions of either
Roman or Protestant authority, and now among Protestant scholars and
theologians.
Hobbes.
It would be impossible to refer here even briefly to all these, and it
may be more useful to select for somewhat full description, as showing
what could be achieved by, and what limitations beset, even a critical
spirit in the 17th century, the survey of the origin of the Old
Testament given by one such individual--Thomas Hobbes in his
_Leviathan_[21] (published 1651) c. xxxiii. As far as possible this
survey shall be cited verbatim:--
"Who were the original writers of the several books of Holy Scripture
has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other
history, which is the only proof of matter of fact; nor can be, by any
argument of natural reason: for reason serves only to convince the
truth, not of fact, but of consequence. The light therefore that must
guide us in this question, must be that which is held out unto us from
the books themselves: and this light, though it shew us not the author
of every book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time
wherein they were written."
"And first, for the Pentateuch. ... We read (Deut. xxxiv. 6)
concerning the sepulchre of Moses 'that no man knoweth of his
sepulchre to this day'; that is, to the day wherein those words were
written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after
his interment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake
of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to
that day wherein he was yet living." The suggestion that the last
chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written later, is met by
Hobbes by reference to Gen. xii. 6 ("the Canaanite was then in the
land") and Num. xxi. 14 (citation from a book relating the acts of
Moses at the Red Sea and in Moab) and the conclusion reached that "the
five books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after
is not so manifest."
"But though Moses did not compile those books entirely, and in the
form we have them, yet he wrote all that which he is there said to
have written: as, for example, the volume of the Law" contained "as it
seemeth" in Deut. xi.-xxvii, "and this is that Law which ... having
been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah and sent to King
Josias (2 Kings xxii. 8)."
The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel are proved much later than
the times recorded in them by the numerous passages which speak of
customs, conditions, &c., remaining "unto this day," and _Judges_ in
particular by xviii. 30, "where it said that 'Jonathan and his sons
were priests to the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of
the land.'"
As for _Kings_ and _Chronicles_, "besides the places which mention
such monuments as, the writer saith, remained till his own days"
(Hobbes here cites thirteen from Kings, two from Chron.), "it is
argument sufficient that they were written after the captivity in
Babylon, that the history of them is continued till that time. For the
facts registered are always more ancient than the register; and much
more ancient than such books as make mention of and quote the
register, as these books do in divers places."
Ezra and Nehemiah were written after, Esther during, or after, the
captivity; Job, which is not a history but a philosophical poem, at an
uncertain date. The Psalms were written mostly by David, but "some of
them after the return from the captivity, as the 137th and 126th,
whereby it is manifest that the psalter was compiled and put into the
form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon." The
compilation of Proverbs is later than any of those whose proverbs are
therein contained; but Ecclesiastes and Canticles are wholly Solomon's
except the titles. There is little noticeable in Hobbes' dating of the
prophets, though he considers it "not apparent" whether Amos wrote, as
well as composed, his prophecy, or whether Jeremiah and the other
prophets of the time of Josiah and Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai and
Zechariah, who lived in the captivity, _edited_ the prophecies
ascribed to them. He concludes: "But considering the inscriptions, or
titles of their books, it is manifest enough that the whole Scripture
of the Old Testament was set forth in the form we have it after the
return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon and before the time
of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus."
Except in strangely making Zephaniah contemporary with Isaiah, Hobbes'
conclusions, in so far as they differ from the traditional views, have
been confirmed by the more thorough criticism of subsequent scholars.
But apart from the special conclusions, the opening and closing
considerations contain clear and important statements which still hold
good. No fresh discoveries since the time of Hobbes have furnished any
"testimony of other history" to the origin of the books of the Old
Testament: this must still be determined by the statements and internal
evidence of the Old Testament itself, and a deeper criticism has given
to the final consideration that the Old Testament received its present
form _after_ the Exile a far greater significance than Hobbes perhaps
guessed.
But the limitations of Hobbes' literary criticism judged from our
present standpoint are great. The considerations from which he acutely
and accurately draws far-reaching and important conclusions might be
suggested by a very superficial examination of the literature; they
involve, for example, no special philological knowledge. The effect of a
deeper criticism has been (a) to give a more powerful support to some of
Hobbes' conclusions; (b) to show that works (e.g. Ecclesiastes) whose
traditional antiquity is left unquestioned by him are in reality of far
more recent origin; (c) to eliminate the earlier sources or elements in
the writings which Hobbes was content to date mainly or as a whole by
their latest elements (e.g. _Pentateuch, Judges, Kings_), and thus to
give to these earlier sources an historical value higher than that which
would be safely attributed to them as indistinguishable parts of a late
compilation.
Hobbes argues in the case of the _Pentateuch_ that two authors are
distinguishable--Moses and a much later compiler and editor. Spinoza,
whose conclusions in his _Tractatus theologicopoliticus_ (1671), c.
viii. ix., had in general much in common with Hobbes, drew attention in
particular to the confused mixture of law and narrative in the
Pentateuch, the occurrence of duplicate narratives and chronological
incongruities. Father Simon in his _Histoire critique du Vieux
Testament_ (1682) also argues that the Pentateuch is the work of more
than one author, and makes an important advance towards a systematic
analysis of the separate elements by observing that the style varies,
being sometimes very curt and sometimes very copious "although the
variety of the matter does not require it." But none of these makes any
attempt to carry through a continuous analysis.
Astruc.
The first attempt of this kind is that of a French Catholic physician,
Jean Astruc. In a work published anonymously in 1753 under the title of
_Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est
servi pour composer le livre de la Genese_, he argued that in Genesis
and Ex. i. ii. Moses had used different documents, and that of these the
two chief were distinguished by their use of different divine
names--Elohim and Yahweh; by the use of this clue he gave a detailed
analysis of the passages belonging to the several documents. Astruc's
criteria were too slight to give to all the details of his analysis
anything approaching a final analysis; but later criticism has shown
that his criteria, so far as they went, were valid, and his results,
broadly speaking, sound though incomplete: and, moreover, they have
abundantly justified his really important fundamental theory that the
documents used by the compiler of the _Pentateuch_ have been
incorporated so much as they lay before him that we can get behind the
compiler to the earlier sources and thus push back the evidence of much
of the Pentateuch beyond the date of its compilation to the earlier date
of the sources. In identifying the compiler with Moses, Astruc failed to
profit from some of his predecessors: and the fact that he held to the
traditional (Mosaic) origin of the Pentateuch may have prevented him
from seeing the similar facts which would have led him to continue his
analysis into the remaining books of the Pentateuch.
For subsequent developments, and the fruitful results of documentary
analysis as applied to the Pentateuch and other composite books, which
cannot be dealt with in any detail here, reference must be made to the
special articles on the books of the Old Testament.
Lowth.
The year of the publication of Astruc's book saw also the publication of
Bishop Lowth's _De sacra poesi Hebraeorum_; later Lowth published a new
translation of Isaiah with notes (1778). Lowth's contribution to a more
critical appreciation of the Old Testament lies in his perception of the
nature and significance of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, in his
discernment of the extent to which the prophetical books are poetical in
form, and in his treatment of the Old Testament as the expression of the
thought and emotions of a people--in a word, as _literature_. Both
Lowth's works were translated and became influential in Germany.
Eichhorn.
In spite of these earlier achievements, it is J.G. Eichhorn who has, not
without reason, been termed the "founder of modern Old Testament
criticism." Certainly the publication of his _Einleitung_ (_Introduction
to the Old Testament_), in 1780-1783, is a landmark in the history of
Old Testament criticism. An intimate friend of Herder, himself keenly
interested in literature, he naturally enough treats the Old Testament
as literature--like Lowth, but more thoroughly; and, as an Oriental
scholar, he treats it as an Oriental literature. In both respects he was
to be widely followed. His _Introduction_, consisting of three closely
packed volumes dealing with textual as well as literary criticism, is
the first comprehensive treatment of the entire Old Testament as
literature. Much of the voluminous detailed work in this and other works
is naturally enough provisional, but in the _Introduction_ there emerge
most of the broad conclusions of literary criticism (sometimes
incomplete) which, after more than a century of keen examination by
scholars unwilling to admit them, have passed by more or less general
consent into the number of historical certainties or high probabilities.
With his wide linguistic knowledge Eichhorn perceived that the language
alone (though he also adduces other considerations) betrays the late
origin of _Ecclesiastes_, which he places in the Persian Period (538-332
B.C.): _Canticles_, too, preserves linguistic features which are not of
the Solomonic age. He analyses significant stylistic peculiarities such
as occur, e.g., in _Isaiah_ xxiv.-xxvii. For various reasons (here
following Koppe, who just previously in additions to his translation of
Lowth's _Isaiah_ had shown himself the pioneer of the higher criticism
of the book of Isaiah) he argues that "in our _Isaiah_ are many oracles
not the work of this prophet." In other directions the still powerful
influence of tradition affects Eichhorn. He maintains the exilic origin
of parts of _Daniel_, though he is convinced (here again in part by
language) of the later origin of other parts. His Pentateuchal criticism
is limited by the tradition of Mosaic authorship: but even within these
limits he achieves much. He carries through, as Astruc had done, the
analysis of _Genesis_ into (primarily) two documents; he draws the
distinction between the Priests' Code, of the middle books of the
Pentateuch, and _Deuteronomy_, the people's law book; and admits that
even the books that follow Genesis consist of different documents, many
incomplete and fragmentary (whence the theory became known as the
"Fragment-hypothesis"), but all the work of Moses and some of his
contemporaries.
Other literary critics of the same period or a little later are Alex.
Geddes, a Scottish Catholic priest, who projected, and in part carried
out (1792-1800), a critically annotated new translation of the Old
Testament, and argued therein that the Pentateuch ultimately rests on a
variety of sources partly written, partly oral, but was compiled in
Canaan probably in the reign of Solomon; K.D. Ilgen, the discoverer
(1798) that there were two distinct documents in Genesis using the
divine name Elohim, and consequently that there were _three_ main
sources in the books, not two, as Astruc and Eichhorn had conjectured;
and J.S. Vater, the elaborator of the "Fragment-hypothesis."
De Wette.
But the next distinct stage is reached when we come to De Wette, whose
contributions to Biblical learning were many and varied, but who was
pre-eminent in _historical criticism_. He carried criticism beyond
literary analysis and literary appreciation to the task of determining
the worth of the documents as records, the validity of the evidence. His
peculiar qualities were conspicuous in his early and exceedingly
influential work--the _Beitraege zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament_
(1806-1807). In the introduction to vol. ii. he carefully analyses the
principles of sound historical method and the essentials of a
trustworthy historical record. These principles he applied to the Old
Testament, firstly to the _Books of Chronicles_, and then to the
Pentateuch. The untrustworthiness of _Chronicles_--briefly admitted by
Luther--he proved in detail, and so cleared the way for that truer view
of the history and religion of Israel which the treatment of
_Chronicles_ as a trustworthy record of the past hopelessly obscured. In
the criticism of the Pentateuch his most influential and enduring
contributions to criticism are his proof that _Deuteronomy_ is a work of
the 7th century B.C., and his insistence that the theory of the Mosaic
origin of all the institutions described in the Pentateuch is
incompatible with the history of Israel as described in the historical
books, _Judges_, _Samuel_ and _Kings_.
Ewald.
Strong in historical criticism, De Wette was weak in historical
construction. But what he failed to give, Ewald supplied, and if more of
De Wette's than of Ewald's work still stands to-day, that is but an
illustration of the melancholy fact that in history negative criticism
is surer than positive construction. But Ewald's _History of the People
of Israel_ (1843-1859) was the first great attempt to synthesize the
results of criticism and to present the history of Israel as a great
reality of the past. By the force of his wide learning and even more of
his personality, Ewald exercised for long an all-pervading and almost
irresistible influence. He closes one epoch of Old Testament criticism;
by his influence he retards the development of the next. Before passing
to the new epoch it must suffice to make a simple reference to the
philological work of Gesenius and Ewald, which assisted a sounder
exegesis and so secured for later criticism a more stable basis.
Vatke; Reuss.
The next stage brings us to the critical theories or conclusions which
at first gradually and then rapidly, in spite of the keenest criticisms
directed against them both by those who clung more or less completely to
tradition and by the representatives of the earlier critical school,
gained increasing acceptance, until to-day they dominate Old Testament
study. The historico-critical starting-point of the movement was really
furnished by De Wette: but it was Vatke who, in his _Biblische Theologie
wissenschaftlich dargestellt_ (1835), first brought out its essential
character. The fundamental peculiarity of the movement lies in the fact
that it is a criticism of what is supreme in Israel--its religion, and
that it has rendered possible a true appreciation of this by showing
that, like all living and life-giving systems of thought, belief and
practice, the religion of Israel was subject to development. It seized
on the prophetic element, and not the ceremonial, as containing what is
essential and unique in the religion of Israel. In literary criticism
its fundamental thesis, stated independently of Vatke and in the same
year by George in _Die aelteren juedischen Feste_, and in a measure
anticipated by Reuss, who in 1832 was maintaining in his academical
lectures that the prophets were older than the Law and the Psalms more
recent than both, is that the chronological order of the three main
sources of the Hexateuch is (1) the prophetic narratives (JE), (2)
Deuteronomy, (3) the Priestly Code (P), the last being post-exilic. This
entirely reversed the prevailing view that P with its exact details and
developed ceremonial and sacerdotal system was at once the earliest
portion of the Pentateuch and the _Grundschrift_ or foundation of the
whole--a view that was maintained by Ewald and, though with very
important modifications, to the last by A. Dillmann (d. 1894). Inherent
in this view of religious development and the new critical position were
far-reaching changes in the literary, historical and religious criticism
of the Old Testament: these have been gradually rendered clear as the
fundamental positions on which they rest have been secured by the
manifold work of two generations of scholars.
Graf; Kuenen; Wellhausen; Colenso.
Nearly a generation passed before Vatke's point of view gained any
considerable number of adherents. This is significant. In part it may
fairly be attributed to the retarding influence of the school of Ewald,
but in large part also to the fact that Vatke, a pupil of Hegel, had
developed his theory on _a priori_ grounds in accordance with the
principles of Hegel's philosophy of history. It was only after a fresh
and keener observation of _facts_ that the new theory made rapid
progress. For that, when it came, much was due to the work of Graf (a
pupil of Reuss, whose _Geschichtliche Buecher des Alten Testaments_
appeared in 1866); to the Dutch scholar Kuenen, who, starting from the
earlier criticism, came over to the new, made it the basis of his
_Religion of Israel_ (1869-1870), a masterly work and a model of sound
method, and continued to support it by a long series of critical essays
in the _Theologisch Tijdschrift_; and to Wellhausen, who displayed an
unrivalled combination of grasp of details and power of historical
construction: his _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_ was published in
1878 and translated into English in 1885; the history itself,
_Israelitische u. juedische Geschichte_, followed twenty years later,
after much further critical work had been done in the meantime. Not a
little also was due to Colenso (_The Pentateuch ... critically
examined_, pt. i., 1862), who, though he never entirely accepted the new
position, contributed by his searching analysis of the unreality of P's
narrative to the formation (for example, in the mind of Kuenen) or
ratification of the judgment on that work which is fundamental to the
general theory.
This sketch of the critical movement has now been brought down to the
point at which the comprehensive conclusions which still dominate Old
Testament study gained clear expression and were shown to be drawn from
the observation of a large body of facts. It does not fall within the
scope of this article to examine the validity of these conclusions, nor
even to notice the various subsidiary or consequential conclusions. Nor
again is it possible to survey the more special developments of literary
criticism which have later emerged, amongst which one of the most
important has been the radical examination of the prophetic writings
introduced and developed by (amongst others) Stade, Wellhausen, Duhm,
Cheyne, Marti.[22] The starting-point of this newer criticism of the
prophets is the clearer practical recognition of the fact that all
pre-exilic prophecy has come down to us in the works of post-exilic
editors, and that for the old statement of the problem of the prophetic
books--What prophecies or elements in Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest are
later than these prophets?--is to be substituted the new critical
question--From these post-exilic collections how are the pre-exilic
elements to be extracted? Bound up with this question of literary
criticism is the very important question of the origin and development
of the Messianic idea.
But two things, the extent of the influence of criticism and the
relation of archaeology and criticism, yet remain for consideration, in
the course of which it will be possible just to indicate some other
problems awaiting solution.
Influence of Criticism.
It is one thing for scholars to reach conclusions: it is another for
these conclusions to exercise a wide influence in the Churches and over
general culture. In the 16th century we find _obiter dicta_ of the
Reformers challenging traditional opinions on the origin and character
of the Old Testament; in the 17th century, among certain isolated
scholars, elementary critical surveys of the whole field, which
exercised, however, no extensive influence. Nor was it till late in the
18th century that criticism seriously challenged the dominance of the
Protestant scholastic treatment of the Old Testament on the one hand,
and the rough and ready, uncritical explanations or depreciations of the
Rationalists on the other. But Eichhorn's _Introduction_ appealed to
more than technical scholars: its influence was great, and from that
time forward criticism gradually or even rapidly extended its sway in
Germany. Very different was the case in England; after Geddes and Lowth,
at the close of the 18th, till far down into the 19th century, the
attitude even of scholars (with rare exceptions) was hostile to critical
developments, and no independent critical work was done. Pusey indeed
studied under Eichhorn, and in his _Historical Enquiry into the probable
causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in German
Theology_ (1828-1830) speaks sympathetically of the attitude of the
Reformers on the question of Scripture and in condemnation of the later
Protestant scholastic doctrine; but even in this book he shows no
receptivity for any of the actual critical conclusions of Eichhorn and
his successors, and subsequently threw the weight of his learning
against critical conclusions--notably in his _Commentary on Daniel_
(1864). Dean Stanley owed something to Ewald and spoke warmly of him,
but the Preface to the _History of the Jewish Church_ in which he does
so bears eloquent testimony to the general attitude towards Old
Testament criticism in 1862, of which we have further proof in the
almost unanimous disapprobation and far-spread horror with which
Colenso's _Pentateuch_, pt. i., was met on its publication in the same
year.
From 1869 T.K. Cheyne worked indefatigably as a resourceful pioneer, but
for many years, in view of the prevailing temper, with "extreme
self-suppression" and "willingness to concede to tradition all that
could with any plausibility be conceded." (Cheyne, _Origin of the
Psalter_, p. 15); more especially is his influence observable after
1890, when he published his Bampton Lectures, the _Origin of the
Psalter_, a work of vast learning and keen penetration, without
restraint on the freedom of his judgment--always stimulating to students
and fellow-workers, though by no means always carrying large numbers
with him. From about 1880 the prevailing temper had changed; within a
decade of this date the change had become great; since then the
influence of Old Testament criticism has grown with increased
acceleration. The change in the former period with regard to a single
point, which is however typical of many, is briefly summed up by Dr
Cheyne: "In 1880 it was still a heresy to accept with all its
consequences the plurality of authorship of the Book of Isaiah; in 1890
to a growing school of church-students this has become an indubitable
fact" (_Origin of the Psalter_, xv.). By 1906 this plurality of
authorship had become almost a commonplace of the market. Many,
particularly of late, have contributed to the wide distribution, if not
of the critical spirit itself, yet at least of a knowledge of its
conclusions. To two only of the most influential is it possible to make
more definite reference--to W. Robertson Smith and S.R. Driver. From
1875 onwards Smith contributed to the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_ a long series of important articles, which, together with
the articles of Cheyne, Wellhausen and others, made that work an
important factor in the change which was to pass over English thought in
regard to the Bible; in 1878, by his pleadings in the trial for heresy
brought against him on the ground of these articles, he turned a
personal defeat in the immediate issue into a notable victory for the
cause which led to his condemnation; and subsequently (in 1880), in two
series of lectures, afterwards published[23] and widely read, he gave a
brilliant, and, as it proved, to a rapidly increasing number a
convincing exposition of the criticism of the literature, history and
religion of Israel, which was already represented in Germany by
Wellhausen and in Holland by Kuenen. In 1891 Dr Driver published his
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_ (6th ed., 1897);
less popular in form than Smith's lectures, it was a more systematic and
comprehensive survey of the whole field of the literary criticism of the
Old Testament. The position of the author as regius professor of Hebrew
at Oxford and canon of Christ Church in succession to Pusey, and his
well-established reputation as a profound Hebrew scholar, commanded wide
attention; the qualities of the book itself--its marked sobriety, its
careful discrimination between the differing degrees of probability
attaching to various conclusions and suggestions, and in general its
soundness of method--rapidly extended the understanding of what Old
Testament criticism is and commanded acceptance of the well-established
conclusions.
No less rapid has been the change in America during the same period, nor
less numerous the scholars well equipped to pursue the detailed
investigation involved in critical study or those who have shown ability
in popular presentations of the critical standpoint.[24] Pre-eminent
amongst these is C.A. Briggs, whose influence has been due in part to a
large and varied body of work (_Biblical Study_, 1883, and many articles
and volumes since) and in part to his organization of united critical,
international and interconfessional labour, the chief fruits of which
have been the _Hebrew Lexicon_ (based on Gesenius, and edited by F.
Brown, one of the most eminent of American scholars, S.R. Driver and
himself), and the _International Critical Commentary_. Other important
works in which English and American scholars have co-operated are the
_Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (1899-1903) and Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_
(1898-1904)--the latter less radical, but yet on the whole based on
acceptance of the fundamental positions of Vatke, Graf, Wellhausen.
Between either of these and Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1863)
yawns a great gulf. Space forbids any attempt to sketch here the special
growth of criticism in other countries, such as France, where the
brilliant genius of Renan was in part devoted to the Old Testament, or
within the Roman Catholic Church, which possesses in Pere Lagrange, for
example, a deservedly influential critical scholar, and in the _Revue
Biblique_ an organ which devotes much attention to the critical study of
the Old Testament.
Rapid and extensive as has been the spread of critical methods, there
have not been lacking _anticritica_. Many of these have been not only
apologetic, but unscholarly; that is, however, not the case with all. In
Dr James Orr's learned work, _The Problem of the Old Testament
considered with reference to Recent Criticism_ (1906), the author's
chief aim is to prove insecure the fundamental positions of the now
dominant school of criticism.
In view of extensive misconception occasioned by many of these
_anticritica_, it needs to be pointed out that terms like "criticism,"
"higher criticism," "critics" are often loosely used: criticism is a
method, its results are many. Again, many of the results or conclusions
of criticism are mutually independent, while others are interrelated and
depend for their validity on the validity of others. For example, among
the generally or largely accepted critical conclusions are these: (1)
Moses is not the author of the whole Pentateuch; (2) Isaiah is not the
author of Is. xl.-lxvi.; (3) the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd
century B.C.; (4) the Priestly Code is post-exilic; (5) most of the
Psalms are post-exilic. Now 1, 2, 3 are absolutely independent--if 1
were proved false, 2 and 3 would still stand; and so with 2 and 3; so
also 2 and 3 could be proved false without in any way affecting the
validity of 4. On the other hand, if 1 were disproved, 4 would
immediately fall through, and the strength of 5 would be weakened (as it
would also by the disproof of 2), because the argument for the date of
many Psalms is derived from religious ideas and the significance of
these varies greatly according as the Priestly Code is held to be early
or late. In view of the number of critical conclusions and the mutual
independence of many of them, "higher criticism" can only be overthrown
by proving the application of criticism to the Old Testament to be in
itself unlawful, or else by proving the falseness or inconclusiveness of
all its mutually independent judgments one by one. On examination, the
authors of _anticritica_ are generally found to disown, tacitly or
openly, the first of these alternatives; for example, Prof. Sayce, who
frequently takes the field against the "higher criticism," and denies,
without, however, disproving, the validity of the literary analysis of
the Hexateuch, nevertheless himself asserts that "no one can study the
Pentateuch ... without perceiving that it is a compilation, and that its
author, or authors, has made use of a large variety of older materials,"
and that "it has probably received its final shape at the hands of Ezra"
(_Early History of the Hebrews_, 129 and 134). This is significant
enough; Prof. Sayce, the most brilliant and distinguished of the
"anti-critics," does not really reoccupy the position of the "able and
pious men" of the mid-19th century, to whom "even to speak of any
portion of the Bible as a history" was "an outrage upon religion"
(Stanley, _Jewish Church_, Preface); these may still have pious, but
they have no longer scholarly successors. Prof. Sayce travels farther
back, it is true, but on critical lines: he abandons the Pentateuchal
criticism of the 20th century, to reoccupy the critical position of
Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon in the 17th century--whether reasonably or not
must here be left an open question.
Archeology and Criticism.
Briefly, in conclusion, it remains to consider the relation of
Archaeology to Criticism, partly because it is frequently asserted in
the loose language just discussed that Archaeology has overthrown
Criticism, or in particular the "higher criticism," and partly because
Archaeology has stimulated and forced to the front certain important
critical questions.
More especially since the middle of the 19th century the decipherment of
Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions and systematic excavation in
Palestine and other parts of the East have supplied a multitude of new
facts bearing more or less directly on the Old Testament. What has been
the general effect of these new facts on traditional theories or
critical conclusions?
(1) _Literary Criticism._--No discovery has yielded any direct testimony
as to the authorship of any book of the Bible, or as to the mode or date
of its composition. Any documentary analysis of the Pentateuch may be
right or wrong; but archaeology contributes nothing either one way or
another as to the answer. On the other hand, archaeology has in some
cases greatly strengthened the critical judgment that certain writings
(e.g. _Daniel_, the story of Joseph in _Genesis_) are not contemporary
with the events described.
(2) _Historical Criticism._--Here the gain has been more direct; e.g.
the Assyrian inscriptions have furnished independent evidence of the
relations of certain Hebrew kings (Ahab, Jehu, Ahaz) with the Assyrians,
and thus supported more or less completely the evidence of the Old
Testament on these points: they have also served to clear up in part the
confused chronology of the Hebrews as given in the books of _Kings_. But
above all archaeology has immensely increased our knowledge of the
nations among which Israel was placed, and of the political powers which
from time to time held Palestine in subjection. In this way archaeology
has greatly helped to bring the history of Israel into relation with the
history of the ancient East, and in so doing has raised important
questions as to the origin of Hebrew culture. For example, the recent
discovery of the Code of Khammurabi, which contains some remarkable
resemblances to the Pentateuchal codes, raises the question of the
relation of Hebrew to Babylonian law. On the other hand, there are
certain great historical questions which have been greatly affected by
criticism, but on which archaeology has hitherto shed no light. For
example, much as archaeology has increased our knowledge of the
conditions obtaining in Palestine before the Hebrew invasion, it has so
far contributed nothing to our knowledge of the Hebrew nation before
that time beyond the statement in the now famous stele of Merenptah
(Mineptah) (c. 1270 B.C.), discovered in 1896, "Ysirael is desolated,
its seed is not," and a few possible but vague and uncertain allusions
to particular tribes. It has contributed nothing whatsoever to our
knowledge of any Hebrew individual of this period,[25] and consequently
what elements of history underlie the stories in Genesis, in so far as
they relate to the Hebrew patriarchs, must still be determined, if at
all, by a critical study of the Old Testament. The story in Gen. xiv. is
no exception to this statement: archaeology has made probable the
historic reality of Chedorlaomer, which some critics had previously
divined; it has not proved the historical reality of the patriarch
Abraham or the part played by him in the story, which some critics,
whether rightly or wrongly, had questioned. The Dutch scholar Kosters
called in question the return of the Jews in the days of Cyrus; his
view, adopted by many, has hardly obtained, as yet at all events, the
weight of critical judgment: here again, unfortunately, archaeology at
present is silent.
(3) _Criticism of Religion._--Here, perhaps, archaeology has contributed
most new material, with the result that religious terms, ideas,
institutions, once supposed to be peculiar to Israel, are now seen to be
common to them and other nations; in some cases, moreover, priority
clearly does not lie with the Hebrews, as, for example, in the case of
the materials (as distinct from the spirit in which they are worked up)
of the stories of Creation and the Flood. Of late, too, it has been much
argued, and often somewhat confidently maintained, that Hebrew
monotheism is derivative from Babylonian monotheism.
This and similar questions, leading up to the ultimate and supreme
question--Wherein does lie the uniqueness of Israel's religion?--are
among those which will require in the future renewed examination in the
light of a critical study alike of the Old Testament and of all the
relevant material furnished by archaeology. Archaeology has not yet
found the key to every unopened door; but it has already done enough to
justify the surmise that if criticism had not already disintegrated the
traditional theories of the Old Testament, archaeology in the latter
half of the 19th century would itself have initiated the process.
LITERATURE.--Much of the details and results of criticism and the
special literature will be found in the articles in the present work
on the several books of the Old Testament. To the works already
mentioned we may add L. Diestel, _Geschichte des Alten Testaments in
der Christlichen Kirche_ (1869); C.A. Briggs, _General Introduction to
the Study of Holy Scripture_ (1889); G.A. Smith, _Modern Criticism and
the Preaching of the Old Testament_ (1901)--these for the history of
Criticism (or more generally of Old Testament study); T.K. Cheyne,
_Founders of Old Testament Criticism_ (pp. 1-247, biographical
sketches of critical scholars since the middle of the 18th century;
pp. 248-372, criticism of Driver's _Introduction_). As already
indicated, the exposition of Literary Criticism in English is Driver's
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_. For the general
principles of Historical Criticism see Ch. V. Langlois and Ch.
Seignobos, _Introduction to the Study of History_ (Eng. trans., 1898),
with which it is interesting to compare De Wette's brief discussion
referred to in the article. (G. B. G.*)
5. _Old Testament Chronology._
A sense of the importance of a fixed standard of chronology was only
acquired gradually in the history of the world. Nations in a primitive
state of civilization were not, and are not, conscious of the need. When
the need began to be felt events were probably at first dated by the
regnal years of kings; the reigns of successive kings were then arranged
in order, and grouped, if necessary, in dynasties, and thus a fixed
standard was gradually constructed. Particular states also not
unfrequently introduced fixed eras, which obtained a more or less
extensive currency, as the era of the first Olympiad (776 B.C.), of the
foundation of Rome (753 B.C.), and of the Seleucidae at Antioch (312
B.C.), which is followed by the Jewish author of the first book of
Maccabees. Some of the earliest documents which we possess are dated by
the year in which some noticeable event took place, as in
contract-tablets of the age of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) (3800 B.C., or,
according to other authorities, 2800 B.C.), "In the year in which Sargon
conquered the land of Amurru [the Amorites]"; or, "In the year in which
Samsu-ditana [c. 1950 B.C.] made the statue of Marduk": Is. vi. 1 ("In
the year of King Uzziah's death"), xiv. 28, xx. 1, are examples of this
method of dating found even in the Old Testament. In process of time,
however, the custom of dating by the regnal year of the king became
general. The Babylonians and Assyrians were probably the first to
construct and employ a fixed chronological standard; and the numerous
contract-tablets, and list of kings and yearly officials, discovered
within recent years, afford striking evidence of the precision with
which they noted chronological details. Biblical chronology is,
unfortunately, in many respects uncertain. Prior to the establishment of
the monarchy the conditions for securing an exact and consecutive
chronology did not exist; the dates in the earlier period of the
history, though apparently in many cases precise, being in fact added
long after the events described, and often (as will appear below)
resting upon an artificial basis, so that the precision is in reality
illusory. And after the establishment of the monarchy, though the
conditions for an accurate chronology now existed, errors by some means
or other found their way into the figures; so that the dates, as we now
have them, are in many cases at fault by as much as two to three decades
of years. The _exact_ dates of events in Hebrew history can be
determined only when the figures given in the Old Testament, can be
checked and, if necessary, corrected by the contemporary monuments of
Assyria and Babylonia, or (as in the post-exilic period) by the
knowledge which we independently possess of the chronology of the
Persian kings. In the following parts of this article the chronological
character of each successive period of the Old Testament history will be
considered and explained as far as the limits of space at the writer's
disposal permit.
1. _From the Creation of Man to the Exodus._--In the whole of this
period the chronology, in so far as it consists of definite figures,
depends upon that part of the Pentateuch which is called by critics the
"Priestly Narrative." The figures are in most, if not in all cases
artificial, though the means now fail us of determining upon what
principles they were calculated. It is also to be noted that in the
Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, and in the LXX., the figures,
especially in the period from the Creation to the birth of Abraham,
differ considerably from those given in the Hebrew, yielding in Sam. a
lower, but in the LXX. a much higher total. The following tables will
make the details clear:--
(1) _From the Creation of Man to the Flood_ (Gen. v. and vii. 11).
+--------------------------+-----------------------------+
| |Age of each at birth of next.|
| +---------+---------+---------+
| | Heb. | Sam. | LXX. |
+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Adam (930) | 130 | 130 | 230 |
| Seth (912) | 105 | 105 | 205 |
| Enosh (905) | 90 | 90 | 190 |
| Kenan (910) | 70 | 70 | 170 |
| Mahalalel (895) | 65 | 65 | 165 |
| Jared (962) | 162 | 62 | 162 |
| Enoch (365) | 65 | 65 | 165 |
| Methuselah (969) | 187 | 67 | 187[26]|
| Lamech (777) | 182 | 53 | 188 |
| Noah (950); age at Flood | 600 | 600 | 600 |
| +---------+---------+---------+
| Total from the Creation | 1656 | 1307 | 2262 |
| of Man to the Flood | | | |
+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
The figures in parentheses indicate the entire ages assigned to the
several patriarchs; these are generally the same in the three texts. The
Sam., however, it will be noticed, makes in three cases the father's age
at the birth of his eldest son less than it is in the Heb. text, while
the LXX. makes it in several cases as much as 100 years higher, the
general result of these differences being that the total in the Sam. is
349 years less than in the Heb., while in the LXX. it is 606 years more.
The names, it need hardly be remarked, belong to the prehistoric period,
and equally with the figures are destitute of historical value.
(2) _From the Flood to the Call of Abraham_ (Gen. xi.).
+---------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| | Age of each at birth of next. |
| +----------+----------+----------+
| | Heb. | Sam. | LXX. |
+---------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| Arphaxad (438)[27] | 35[28] | 135 | 135 |
| Cainan (460) [cf. Luke iii. 27] | .. | .. | 130 |
| Shelah (433) | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Eber (464) | 34 | 134 | 134 |
| Peleg (239) | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Reu (239) | 32 | 132 | 132 |
| Serug (230) | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Nahor (148) | 29 | 79 | 79 |
| Terah (205) | 70 | 70 | 70 |
| Abraham (175); age at Call | | | |
| (Gen. xii. 4) | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| +----------+----------+----------+
| Total from the Flood to | 365 | 1015 | 1145 |
| the Call of Abraham. | | | |
+---------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
The variations are analogous to those under (1), except that here the
birth-years of the patriarchs in both Sam. and LXX. differ more
consistently in one direction, being, viz., almost uniformly higher by
100 years. It has been much debated, in both cases, which of the three
texts preserves the original figures. In (2) it is generally agreed that
the Heb. does this, the figures in Sam. and LXX. having been arbitrarily
increased for the purpose of lengthening the entire period. The majority
of scholars hold the same view in regard also to (1); but Dillmann gives
here the preference to the figures of the Sam. The figures, of course,
in no case possess historical value: accepting even Ussher's date of the
Exodus, 1491 B.C., which is earlier than is probable, we should obtain
from them for the creation of man 4157 B.C., or (LXX.) 5328,[29] and for
the confusion of tongues, which, according to Gen. xi. 1-9, immediately
followed the Flood, 2501 B.C., or (LXX.) 3066 B.C. But the monuments of
Egypt and Babylonia make it certain that man must have appeared upon the
earth long before either 4157 B.C. or 5328 B.C.; and numerous
inscriptions, written in three distinct languages--Egyptian, Sumerian
and Babylonian--are preserved dating from an age considerably earlier
than either 2501 B.C. or 3066 B.C.[30] The figures of Gen. v. and xi.
thus merely indicate the manner in which the author of the Priestly
Narrative--and probably to some extent tradition before him--pictured
the course of these early ages of the world's history. The ages assigned
to the several patriarchs (except Enoch) in Gen. v. are much greater
than those assigned to the patriarchs mentioned in Gen. xi., and
similarly the ages in Gen. xi. 10-18 are higher than those in Gen. xi.
19-26; it is thus a collateral aim of the author to exemplify the
supposed gradual diminution in the normal years of human life.
The Babylonians, according to Berossus, supposed that there were ten
antediluvian kings, who they declared had reigned for the portentous
period of 432,000 years: 432,000 years, however, it has been
ingeniously pointed out by Oppert (_Gott. Gel. Nachrichten_, 1877, p.
205 ff.) = 86,400 _lustra_, while 1656 years (the Heb. date of the
Flood) = 86,400 _weeks_ (1656 = 72 x 23; and 23 years being = 8395
days + 5 intercalary days = 8400 days = 1200 weeks); and hence the
inference has been drawn that the two periods have in some way been
developed from a common basis, the Hebrews taking as their unit a
week, where the Babylonians took a _lustrum_ of 5 years.
(3) _From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus._
From the Call of Abraham to the birth of Isaac
(Abraham being then aged 100, Gen. xxi. 5). 25 years
Age of Isaac at the birth of Esau and Jacob
(Gen. xxv. 26) 60 "
Age of Jacob when he went down into Egypt
(Gen. xlvii. 9) 130 "
----
The period of the Patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan
was thus 215 "
But the period of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt,
according to Ex. xii. 40, 41, was 430 "
We thus get--
From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus (Heb. text)
215 + 430 = 645 years
From the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Heb. text) 365 "
From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Heb. text) 1656 "
----
From the Creation of Man to the Exodus (Heb. text) 2666 "
On these figures the following remarks may be made:--(i.) In Genesis the
chronology of the Priestly Narrative ("P") is not consistent with the
chronology of the other parts of the book ("JE"). Three or four
illustrations will suffice: (a) The author of Gen. xii. 10-20 evidently
pictures Sarai as a comparatively young woman, yet according to P (xii.
4, xvii. 17) she was 65 years old. (b) In Gen. xxi. 15 it is clearly
implied that Ishmael has been carried by his mother, yet according to
xvi. 16, xxi. 5, 8, he must have been at least 15 years old. (c) In Gen.
xxvii. Isaac is to all appearance on his death-bed (cf. ver. 2), yet
according to P (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) he survived for _eighty_
years, dying at the age of 180. Ussher and others, arguing back from the
dates in xlvii. 9, xlv. 6, xli. 46, xxxi. 41, infer that Jacob's flight
to Haran took place in his 77th year. This reduces the 80 years to 43
years, though that is scarcely less incredible. It involves, moreover,
the incongruity of supposing that _thirty-seven_ years elapsed between
Esau's marrying his Hittite wives (xxvi. 34) and Rebekah's expressing
her apprehensions (xxvii. 46) lest Jacob, then aged seventy-seven,
should follow his brother's example. (d) In Gen. xliv. 20 Benjamin is
described as a "little one"; in P, almost immediately afterwards (xlvi.
21), he appears as the father of ten sons; for a similar anomaly in
xlvi. 12, see the _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. p. 25n. (ii.) The ages to which
the various patriarchs lived (Abraham, 175; Isaac, 180; Jacob, 147),
though not so extravagant as those of the antediluvian patriarchs, or
(with one exception) as those of the patriarchs between Noah and
Abraham, are much greater than is at all probable in view of the
structure and constitution of the human body. (iii.) The plain intention
of Ex. xii 40, 41 is to describe the Israelites as having dwelt in Egypt
for 430 years, which is also in substantial agreement with the earlier
passage, Gen. xv. 13 ("shall sojourn in a land that is not theirs, ...
and they shall afflict them 400 years"). It does not, however, accord
with other passages, which assign only four generations from Jacob's
children to Moses (Ex. vi. 16-20; Num. xxvi. 5-9; cf. Gen. xv. 16), or
five to Joshua (Josh. vii. 1); and for this reason, no doubt, the Sam.
and LXX. read in Ex. xii. 40, "The sojourning of the children of Israel
in the land of Egypt, _and in the land of Canaan_, was 430 years,"
reducing the period of the sojourn in Egypt to half of that stated in
the Hebrew text, viz. 215 years. This computation attained currency
among the later Jews (Josephus and others; cf. the "400 years" of Gal.
iii. 17). The forced and unnatural rendering of Ex. xii. 40 in the A.V.
(contrast R.V.), which was followed by Ussher, is intended for the
purpose of making it possible. From the facts that have been here
briefly noted it must be evident how precarious and, in parts, how
impossible the Biblical chronology of this period is. (iv.) It has been
observed as remarkable that 2666, the number of years (in the Hebrew
text) from the Creation of Man to the Exodus, is, in round numbers, just
two-thirds of 4000; and the fact has suggested the inference that the
figure was reached by artificial computation.
_The Date of the Exodus._--Is it possible to determine this, even
approximately, upon the basis of external data? (i.) The correspondence
between the Egyptian governors established in different parts of
Palestine and the Egyptian kings Amen-hotep (Amenophis) III. and IV. of
the 18th dynasty, which was discovered in 1887 at Tel el-Amarna, makes
it evident that Palestine could not yet have been in the occupation of
the Israelites. It was still an Egyptian province, and the Babylonian
language, in which the correspondence is written, shows that the country
must have been for a considerable time past, before it came into the
possession of Egypt, under Babylonian influence. Now one of the kings,
who corresponds with Amen-hotep IV., is Burnaburiash (Burna-buryas),
king of Babylon, and Egyptologists and Assyriologists are agreed that
the date of these monarchs was c. 1400 B.C. The conquest of Canaan,
consequently, could not have taken place till after 1400 B.C. (ii.) It
is stated in Ex. i. 11 that the Israelites built in Egypt for the
Pharaoh two store-cities, Pithom and Rameses. The excavations of M.
Naville have, however, shown that Ramses II. of the 19th dynasty was the
builder of Pithom; and though the other city has not at present been
certainly identified, its name is sufficient to show that he was its
builder likewise. Hence the Pharaoh of the Exodus is commonly supposed
to have been Ramses (Rameses) II.'s successor, Merenptah (Mineptah).
Egyptian chronology is unfortunately imperfect; but Professor Petrie,
who has paid particular attention to the subject, and who assigns the
reign of Amen-hotep IV. to 1383-1365 B.C., assigns Ramses II. to
1300-1234 B.C.[31] In Merenptah's fifth year the Delta was invaded by a
formidable body of Libyans and other foes;[32] and it has been
conjectured that the Israelites took the opportunity of escaping during
the unsettlement that was thus occasioned.
Alternative dates for Ramses II.: Maspero, _The Struggle of the
Nations_ (1897), p. 449, c. 1320-1255; Breasted (1906), 1292-1225;
Meyer (1909), 1310-1244. Attempts have been made to identify the
Khabiri, who are mentioned often in the Tel el-Amarna letters as foes,
threatening to invade Palestine and bring the Egyptian supremacy over
it to an end, with the Hebrews. The Exodus, it has been pointed out,
might then be placed under Amen-hotep II. (1448-1420 B.C., Breasted;
1449-1423, Petrie), the successor of Thothmes, and more time would be
allowed for the events between the Exodus and the time of David (c.
1000), which, if the date given above be correct, have been thought to
be unduly compressed (see Orr in the _Expositor_, March 1897, p. 161
ff.); but there are difficulties attaching to this view, and it has
not been adopted generally by scholars. There may be some ultimate
connexion between the Khabiri and the Hebrews; but the Khabiri of the
Tel el-Amarna letters cannot be the Hebrews who invaded Canaan under
Joshua.
The mention of Israel on the stele of Merenptah, discovered by Petrie in
1896 ("Israel [Ysirael] is desolated; its seed [_or_ fruit] is not"), is
too vague and indefinite in its terms to throw any light on the question
of the Exodus. The context speaks of places in or near Canaan; and it is
possible that the reference is to Israelite clans who either had not
gone down into Egypt at all, or had already found their way back to
Palestine. See Hogarth's _Authority and Archaeology_, pp. 62-65.
2. _From the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple (in the fourth year
of Solomon_, 1 Kings vi. 1).--In the chronological note, 1 Kings vi. 1,
this period is stated to have consisted of 480 (LXX. 440) years. Is this
figure correct? If the years of the several periods of oppression and
independence mentioned in the Book of Judges (Judges iii. 8, 11, 14, 30,
iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, ix. 22, x. 2, 3, 8, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14,
xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvi. 31) be added up, they will be found to amount to
410 years; to these must be added further, in order to gain the entire
period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, the 40 years in
the wilderness, x years under Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7), the
40 (LXX. 20) years' judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), the 20 or more
years of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 2, 15), the y years of Saul (the two years
of 1 Sam. xiii. 1 [R.V.] seem too few), the 40 years of David (1 Kings
ii. 11), and the first four years of Solomon, i.e. 144 + x + y years, in
all 554 years, + two unknown periods denoted by x and y--in any case
considerably more than the 480 years of 1 Kings vi. 1. This period might
no doubt be reduced to 480 years by the supposition, in itself not
improbable, that some of the judges were local and contemporaneous; the
suggestion has also been made that, as is usual in Oriental
chronologies, the years of foreign domination were not counted, the
beginning of each judge's rule being reckoned, not from the victory
which brought him into power, but from the death of his predecessor; we
should in this case obtain for the period from the Exodus to the
foundation of the Temple 440 + x + y years,[33] which if 30 years be
assigned conjecturally to Joshua and the elders, and 10 years to Saul,
would amount exactly to 480 years. The terms used, however ("and the
land _had rest_ forty years," iii. 11, similarly, iii. 30, v. 31, viii.
28), seem hardly to admit of the latter supposition; and even if they
did, it would still be scarcely possible to maintain the correctness of
the 480 years: it is difficult to harmonize with what, as we have seen,
appears to be the most probable date of the Exodus; it is, moreover,
open itself to the suspicion of having been formed artificially, upon
the assumption that the period in question consisted of twelve
generations,[34] of 40 years each. In the years assigned to the
different judges, also, the frequency of the number 40 (which certainly
appears to have been regarded by the Hebrews as a round number) is
suspicious. On the whole no certain chronology of this period is at
present attainable.[35]
3. _From the Fourth Year of Solomon to the Captivity of Judah._--During
this period the dates are both more abundant, and also, approximately,
far more nearly correct, than in any of the earlier periods;
nevertheless in details there is still much uncertainty and difficulty.
The Books of Kings are a compilation made at about the beginning of the
Exile, and one object of the compiler was to give a consecutive and
complete chronology of the period embraced in his work. With this
purpose in view, he not only notes carefully the length of the reign of
each king in both kingdoms, but also (as long as the northern kingdom
existed) brings the history of the two kingdoms into relation with one
another by equating the commencement of each reign in either kingdom
with the year of the reign of the contemporary king in the other
kingdom.
The following are examples of the standing formulae used by the
compiler for the purpose:--"In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of
Israel began Asa to reign over Judah. And forty and one years reigned
he in Jerusalem" (1 Kings xv. 9, 10). "In the third year of Asa king
of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in
Tirzah (and reigned) twenty and four years" (_ibid._ ver. 33).
In these chronological notices the lengths of the reigns were derived,
there is every reason to suppose, either from tradition or from the
state annals--the "book of the chronicles of Israel" (or "Judah"), so
constantly referred to by the compiler as his authority (e.g. 1 Kings
xv. 23, 31, xvi. 5); but the "synchronisms"--i.e. the corresponding
dates in the contemporary reigns in the other kingdom were derived, it
is practically certain, by computation from the lengths of the
successive reigns. Now in some cases, perhaps, in the lengths of the
reigns themselves, in other cases in the computations based upon them,
errors have crept in, which have vitiated more or less the entire
chronology of the period. The existence of these errors can be
demonstrated in two ways: (1) The chronology of the two kingdoms is not
consistent with itself; (2) the dates of various events in the history,
which are mentioned also in the Assyrian inscriptions, are in serious
disagreement with the dates as fixed by the contemporary Assyrian
chronology.
(1) That the chronology of the two kingdoms is inconsistent with itself
is readily shown. After the division of the kingdom the first year of
Jeroboam in Israel coincides, of course, with the first year of Rehoboam
in Judah; and after the death of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah
in battle with Jehu (2 Kings ix. 24, 27), the first year of Jehu in
Israel coincides similarly with the first year of Athaliah in Judah;
there are thus in the history of the two kingdoms two fixed and certain
synchronisms. Now, if the regnal years of the kings of Israel from
Jeroboam to Jehoram be added together, they will be found to amount to
98, while if those of the kings of Judah for the same period (viz. from
Rehoboam to Ahaziah) be added together, they amount only to 95. This
discrepancy, if it stood alone, would not, however, be serious. But when
we proceed to add up similarly the regnal years in the two kingdoms from
the division after Solomon's death to the fall of Samaria in the sixth
year of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 10), we find in the southern kingdom
260 years, and in the northern kingdom only 241 years 7 months. This is
a formidable discrepancy. Ussher, in order to remove it, has recourse to
the doubtful expedient of artificially lengthening the northern series
of years, by assuming (without any authority in the text) an
"interregnum of 11 years" after the death of Jeroboam II., and an
"anarchy for some years" between Pekah and Hoshea (see the margin of
A.V. at 2 Kings xiv. 29; xv. 8, 29).
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
_The dates printed in heavy type are certain, at least within a unit._
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | Events in Contemporary History. |
|Chronology | Probable Real | Biblical Events. +--------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
| of Ussher.| Dates. | | Babylonia. | Assyria. | Egypt.[38] |
+-----------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
| 4004 |Indeterminable, |Creation of Man | | | |
|[4157][36] |but much before | | | | |
| | 7000 B.C. | |7-6000.[37] Temple | | |
| | | | of Bel at Nippur | |4777. Menes, the |
| | | | founded. | | first king of the |
| | | | | | First Egyptian |
| | | | | | Dynasty |
| | | |c. 4000.[37] lugal- | | |
| | | | zaggisi, king of | |3998-3721. Fourth |
| | | | Uruk (Erech, Gen. | | Dynasty. |
| | | | x. 10) | |3969-3908. Cheops. |
| | | | | | The Great Pyramid |
| | | | | | built |
| | | |3800.[39] Sargon of | | |
| | | | Agade, who carries | | |
| | | | his arms as far as | | |
| | | | the Mediterranean | | |
| | | | Sea. | | |
| 2348 | |The Deluge |c. 2800.[41] Ur-bau | | |
|[2501][40] | | | and Dungi, kings of| | |
| | | | Uru (Ur, Gen. xi. | | |
| | | | 28, 31) |c. 2300. Ushpia, | |
| | | | | priest of Ashur, | |
| | | | | builder of temple | |
| | | | | in the city of | |
| | | | | Ashur. | |
| | | | |c. 2225. Ilu-shuma, | |
| 1996-1821 |c. 2100 (if, as is|Abraham |c. B.C. 2130-2088. | first king of | |
|[2211-2036]| probable, the | | [42] Khammurabi | Assyria at present | |
| [40] | Amraphel of Gen. | | unifies Babylonia | (1909) known.[43] | |
| | xiv. 1 is | | and constructs in | | |
| | Khammurabi.) | | it many great works| |2098-1587. Rule of |
| | | | (see art. | | the Hyksos. |
| | | | BABYLONIA) | | |
| | | | | |1587-1328. Eighteenth|
| | | | | | Dynasty. |
| | | | | |1503-1449. Thothmes |
| | | | | | (Tethmosis) III. |
| | | | | | (leads victorious |
| | | | | | expeditions into |
| | | | | | Asia.) |
| | | | c. 1400. | |1414-1483. Amen-hotep|
| | | | Burnaburiash. Tel | | (Amenophis) III. |
| | | | el-Amarna | |1383-1365. Amen-hotep|
| | | | correspondence | | IV. |
| | | | | |1328-1202. Nineteenth|
| | | | |c. 1300. Shalmaneser| Dynasty. |
| | | | | I. (builder of | |
| | | | | Calah, Gen. x. 11.)|1300-1234. Ramses II.|
| 1491 | c. 1230 | The Exodus | .. | .. |1234-1214. Merenptab |
| | | | | | II. |
| 1099-1058 | c. 1025-1010[44] | Saul (2)[45] | | | |
| 1058-1017 | c. 1010-970 | David (40) | | | |
| 1017-977 | c. 970-933 | Solomon (40) | | |952-749 (al. 945- |
| | /--------------------------------\ | | | 745). Twenty-second |
| | / _Judah._ | _Israel._ \ | | | Dynasty 952-930[46] |
| 977 |933. Rehoboam (17)|933. Jeroboam I. | | | (Breasted 945-924). |
| 959 |916. Abijah (3) | (22) | | | Sheshonq (Shishak). |
| 956 |913. Asa (41) | | | | Shishak invades |
| 956 | .. |912. Nadab (2) | | | Judah in the fifth |
| 954 | .. |911. Baasha (24) | | | year of Rehoboam |
| | | | | | (1 Ki. xiv. 25 f.) |
| 930 | .. |888. Elah (2) | |885-860. Asshur- | |
| 929 | .. |887. Zimri (7 days)| | nazir-abal | |
| 929 | .. |887. Omri (12) | |860-825. Shalmaneser| |
| 918 | .. |876. Ahab (22) | | II. | |
| 914 |873. Jehoshaphat | | | | |
| (25) | | | | |
| 898 | .. |854. Ahaziah (2) | |854. Ahab mentioned | |
| 896 | .. |853. Jehoram (12) | | at the battle of | |
| | | | | Karkar | |
| 892 |849. Jehoram (8) | | | | |
| 885 |842. Ahaziah (1) | | | | |
| 884 |842. Athalia (6) |842. Jehu (28) | |842. Jehu pays | |
| | | | | tribute to | |
| | | | | Shalmaneser II. | |
| 878 |836. Jehoash (40) | | | | |
| 856 | .. |814. Jehoahaz (17) | | | |
| 841 | .. |798. Jehoash (16) | |825-812. Shamshi- | |
| | | .. | | Adad (Hadad) | |
| 839 |797. Amaziah (29) | .. | |812-783. Adad- | |
| 823 | .. |783. Jeroboam II. | | Nirari IV. | |
| | | (41) | | | |
| 810 |779. Uzziah(52) | .. | | | |
| |c. 750. Jotham | | | | | | |
| | (16) as regent | |747-733. Nabonassar |745-727. Tiglath- | |
| | (2 Ki. xv. 5) | | | Pileser IV. | |
| 773 | |743. Zecharia (6 | | | |
| | | mo.) | | | |
| 772 | .. |743. Shallum | | | |
| | | (1 mo.) | | | |
| 772 | .. |743. Menahem (10) | | | |
| 758 |740. Jotham, sole | | | | |
| | ruler | | | | |
| 761 | .. |738. Pekabiah(2) | .. |738.Menahem pays | |
| 759 | .. |737. Pekah(20) | | tribute to Tiglath-| |
| 742 |736.[47] Ahaz (16)| | | pileser IV. (cf. 2 | |
| | | | | Ki. xv. 19) | |
| 730 | |733. (or 732) | |733 (or 732). Assas-| |
| | | Hoshea (9) | | sination of Pekah, | |
| | | | | and succession of | |
| | | | | Hoshea mentioned by| |
| | | | | Tiglath-pileser | |
| | | | | III. | |
| | | | |732.Capture of | |
| | | | | Damascus by | |
| | | | | Tiglath-pileser IV.| |
| | | | | (2 Ki. xvi. 9; cf. | |
| | | |729-724. Tiglath- | Is. viii. 4, xvii. | |
| | | | pileser, under | 1) | |
| 726 |728. Hezeiah (29) | | the name of Pulu |727-722. Shalmaneser| |
| | [47] | | (cf. 2 Ki. xv. 19),| IV. | |
| | | | king of Babylon. | | |
| | | | .. |722-705. Sargon | |
| 721 | |722. Fall of | |722. Capture of | |
| | | Samaria and end of| | Samaria in Sargon's| |
| | | northern kingdom. |721-710. The | accession-year | |
| | | Chaldaean prince, | | |
| | | Merodach-baladan, | | | |
| | | king of Babylon | | |
| | | (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12| | |
| | | = Is. xxxix. 1) | | |
| | | | |715-663. Twenty-fifth|
| | | | | (Ethiopian) Dynasty |
| | | | |715.[48] Sabako |
| | | | | (Shabaka) |
| | | |711. Siege and | |
| | | | capture of Ashdod. | |
| | | | (cf. Is. xx. 1) | |
| | | |705-681. Sennacherib| |
| | | | | 707.[48] Shabataka |
| | | |701. Campaign | |
| | | |against Phoenicia, | |
| | | | Philistia and Judah| |
| | | | (2 Kings xviii. 13-| |
| 698 |698. Manasseh (55) | | |693.[48] Taharqa |
| | | | | (Tirhakah, Is. |
| | | | | xxxvii. 9) |
| | |681-668. Esarhaddon | | |
| | Biblical Events. | | | |
| | /--------------------------------\ | | | |
| | / \ | |670. Esarhaddon | |
| | | | conquers Egypt |664-525. Twenty-sixth|
| | | |668-626 Asshur- | Dynasty. |
| | | | banipal (Assur- | |
| | | | bani-pal |664. Psammetichus I. |
| | | | (Assur-bani-pal) | |
| | | |663. Asshur-banipal | |
| | | | invades Egypt, and | |
| | | | sacks Thebes | |
| | | | (Nah. iii. 8-10) | |
| 643 |641. Amon (2) | | | |
| 641 |639. Josiah (31) | | | |
| 629 |626. Call of the prophet Jeremiah in | | | |
| | Josiah's 13th year. (Jer. i. 2, xxv. | | | |
| | 3) | Chaldaean Dynasty | | |
| | |625. Nabopolassar | | |
| 624 |621. Discovery of the Book of the Law | | | |
| | (Deuteronomy) in Josiah's 18th year | | | |
| | (2 Kings xxiii. 3 ff.) | | | |
| | | | |610. Necho |
| 610 |608. Jehoahaz (3 mo.) | .. | .. |608. Battle of |
| | | | | Megiddo, and death |
| | | | | of Josiah. (2 Kings |
| | | | | xxiii. 29) |
| 610 |608. Jehoiakim (11) | | | |
| | | |607. Destruction of | |
| | | | Nineveh by the | |
| | | | Medes, and end of | |
| | | | the empire of | |
| | | | Assyria. | |
| | |605. Defeat of | | |
| | | Egyptians by Nebuc-| | |
| | | hadrezzar (as his | | |
| | | father's general) | | |
| | | at Carchemish (Jer.| | |
| | | xlvi. 2) | | |
| | |604. Nebuchadrezzar | | |
| 599 |597. Jehoiachin (3 mo.) First | | | |
| | deportation of captives (including | | | |
| | Jehoiachin) to Babylonia, in the 8th | | | |
| | year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv.| | | |
| | 12-16) | | | |
| 599 |597. Zedekiah (11) | | | |
| | | | |594. Psammetichus II.|
| | | | | (Psammis) |
| | | | |589. Apries (Hophra, |
| | | | | Jer. xliv. 30) |
| 588 |586. Destruction of Jerusalem by the | | | |
| | Chaldaeans in the 19th year of 19th | | | |
| | year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. | | | |
| | 8). Second deportation of captives to| | | |
| | Babylonia (2 Kings xxv. 4-21) |568. Nebuchadrezzar | |570. Amasis II. |
| | | invades Egypt (cf. | |(jointly with Apries)|
| | | Jer. xliii. 8-13) | | |
| | | | |564. Amasis alone |
| 562 |561. Jehoiachin released from prison |561. Amel-marduk | | |
| | by Evil-merodach in the 37th year of | (Evil-merodach, 2 | | |
| | his captivity (2 Kings xxv. 27-30) | Ki. xxv. 27) | | |
| | |559. Nergal-sharuzur| | |
| | | (Neriglissar) | | |
| | |555. (9 months) | | |
| | | Labashi-marduk | | |
| | | (Laboriso-archod) | | |
| | |555. Nabu-na'id | | |
| | | (Nabon-nedus, | | |
| | | Nabonidus) | | |
| | |539. Capture of | | |
| | | Babylon by Cyrus. | | |
| | | | | |
| |Judah a province of the Persian Empire| Persian Kings. | | |
| | | | | |
| 536 |538. Edict of Cyrus, permitting the |538. Cyrus | | |
| | Jews to return to Palestine. Many | | | |
| | return under the leadership of | | | |
| | Zerubbabel (Ezra i.-ii.) | | | |
| | |529. Cambyses | | |
| | | | |526. Psammetichus | |
| | | | | III. |
| | | | |525. Conquest of |
| | | | | Egypt by Cambyses. |
| | |522. (7 mo.) Gaumata| | |
| | | (Pseudo-Smerdis) | | |
| | |522. Darius | | |
| | | Hystaspis | | |
| 515 |516. Completion of the second Temple | | | |
| | in the 6th year of Darius (Ezra vi. | | | |
| | 15) | | | |
| | |490. Battle of | | |
| | | Marathon | | |
| | |485. Xerxes | | |
| | |480. Battles of | | |
| | | Thermopylae and | | |
| | | Salamis | | |
| | |465. Artaxerxes. | | |
| 457 |458. Return of exiles with Ezra, in | | | |
| | the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii.| | | |
| | 7) | | | |
| 445 |445. Nehemiah's first visit to | | | |
| | Jerusalem (Neh. i. 1, ii. 1) | | | |
| 434 |432. Nehemiah's second visit to | | | |
| | Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 6) | | | |
| | |423. Darius II. | | |
| | | (Nothus) | | |
| | |404. Artaxerxes II. | | |
| | | (Mnemon) | | |
| | |359. Artaxerxes III.| | |
| | | (Ochus)
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/34702