SCRIPTURE is a word derived from the Latin scriptura, and in its original sense is of the same import of the Old Testament; which are called sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the Sacred or Holy Scriptures, and sometimes canonical Scripture. These books are called the Scriptures by way of eminence, as they are the most important of all writings; they are said to be holy or sacred on account of the sacred doctrines which they teach; and they are termed canonical, because when their number and authenticity were ascertained, their names were inserted in ecclesiastical canons, to distin- guish them from other books; which, being of no authority, were kept as it were out of sight, and therefore styled apocryphal (A).
The authenticity of the Old Testament may be proved from the character of the Jews, from internal evidence, and from testimony.
1. The character of the Jews affords a strong presumptive evidence that they have not forged or corrupted the Old Testament. Were a person brought before a court of justice on a suspicion of forgery, and yet no presumption or positive evidence of his guilt could be produced, it would be allowed by all that he ought to be acquitted. But farther, if the forgery alleged were inconsistent with the character of the accused; if it tended to expose to disgrace and reproach his general principles and conduct; or if we were assured that he considered forgery as an impious and abominable crime—it would require very strong testimony to establish his guilt. The case now mentioned corresponds exactly with the character and situation of the Jews. If a Jew had forged any book of the Old Testament, he must have been impelled to so bold and dangerous an enterprise by some very powerful motive. It could not be national pride, for there is scarcely one of these books which does not severely censure the national manners. It could not be the love of fame; for that passion would have taught him to flatter and extol the national character; and the punishment, if detected, would have been infamy and death. The love of wealth could not produce such a forgery; for no wealth was to be gained.
The Jews were selected from the other nations of the world, and preserved a distinct people from the time of their emigration from Egypt to the Babylonian captivity, a period of 892 years. The principal purposes for which they were selected was to preserve in a world running headlong into idolatry the knowledge and worship of the one true God, and to be the guardians of those sacred books that contained the prophecies which were to prove to future ages the divine mission of the Redeemer of mankind. To fit them for these important truths, the spirit of their laws and the rites of their religion had the strongest tendency. Miracles were openly performed, to convince them that the God of Israel was the God of all the earth, and that he alone was to be worshipped. Public calamities always befell them when they became apostates to their God; yet they continued violently attached to idolatry till their captivity in Babylon made them forever renounce it.
The Jews then had two opposite characters at different periods of their history: At first they were addicted to idolatry; afterwards they acquired a strong antipathy against it.
Had any books of the Old Testament been forged before the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews were devoted to idolatry, is it to be conceived that the impostor would have inveighed so strongly against this vice, and so often imputed to it the calamities of the state; since by such conduct he knew that he would render himself obnoxious to the people and to those idolatrous monarchs who persecuted the prophets?
But it may next be supposed, that "the sacred books were forged after the Babylonian captivity, when the principles of the Jews would lead them to inveigh against the worship of idols. But these principles would surely never lead them to expose the character of their ancestors, and to detail their follies and their crimes. Never had any people more national pride, or a higher veneration for their ancestors, than the Jews. Miracles and prophecies ceased soon after their return to Jerusalem; and from that period their respect for the sacred books approached to superstition. They preserved them with pious care, they read them often in their synagogues, and they considered every attempt to alter the text as an act of sacrilege. Is it possible that such men could be guilty of forgery, or could false writings be easily imposed on them?"
2. There is an internal evidence in the books of the Old Testament that proves them to have been written by different persons, and at distant periods; and enables us with precision to ascertain a time at or before which they must have been composed. It is an undeniable fact that Hebrew ceased to be the living language of the Jews during the Babylonian captivity, and that the Jewish productions after that period were in general written either in Chaldee or in Greek. The Jews of Palestine, some ages before the coming of our Saviour, were unable, without the assistance of a Chaldee paraphrase, to understand the Hebrew original. It necessarily follows, therefore, that every book which is written in pure Hebrew was composed either before or about the time of the Babylonian captivity. This being admitted, we may advance a step farther, and contend that the period which elapsed between the composition of the most ancient and the most modern book of the Old Testament was very considerable; or, in other words, that the most ancient books of the Old Testament were written many ages before the Babylonian captivity.
No language continues stationary; and the Hebrew, like other tongues, passed through the several stages of infancy, youth, manhood, and old age. If therefore, on comparison, the several parts of the Hebrew Bible are found to differ not only in regard to style, but also in regard to character and cultivation, we have strong internal marks that they were composed at different and distant periods. No classical scholar would believe, independent of the Grecian history, that the poems ascribed to Homer were written in the age of Demosthenes, the Orations of Demosthenes in the time of Origen, or the Commentaries of Origen in the time of Lactantius and Chrysoloras. For the very same reason, it is certain that the five books which are ascribed to Moses were not written in the time of David, the Psalms of David in the age of Isaiah, nor the prophecies of Isaiah in the time of Malachi; and since the Hebrew became a dead language about the time of the Babylonian captivity, the book of Malachi could not have been written much later. Before that period therefore were written the prophecies of Isaiah, still earlier the Psalms of David, and much earlier than these the books which are ascribed to Moses.
(A) From ἀποκρύπτω, to put out of sight. 3. Let us now consider the evidence of testimony for the authenticity of the Old Testament. As the Jews were a more ancient people than the Greeks or Romans, and for many ages totally unconnected with them, it is not to be expected that we should derive much evidence from the historians of those nations: it is to the Jews alone we must look for information. But it has unfortunately happened that few of their works except the Scriptures themselves have been preserved to posterity. Josephus is the most ancient of the Jewish historians to whom we can appeal. He informs us, that the Old Testament was divided into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or poetical books. No man, says he, hath ever dared to add or take away from them. He tells us also, that other books were written after the time of Artaxerxes; but as they were not composed by prophets, they were not reckoned worthy of the same credit.
Since the promulgation of the Christian religion, it is impossible that any material alterations or corruptions could have taken place in the books of the Old Testament; for they have been in the hands both of Jews and Christians from that period. Had the Jews attempted to make any alterations, the Christians would have detected and exposed them; nor would the Jews have been less severe against the Christians if they had corrupted the sacred text. But the copies in the hands of Jews and Christians agree; and therefore we justly conclude, that the Old Testament is still pure and uncorrupted.
The division mentioned by our Saviour into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, corresponds with that of Josephus. We have therefore sufficient evidence, it is hoped, to convince even a deist, that the Old Testament existed at that time. And if the deist will only allow, that Jesus Christ was a personage of a virtuous and irreproachable character, he will acknowledge that we draw a fair conclusion when we assert that the Scriptures were not corrupted in his time: for when he accused the Pharisees of making the law of no effect by their traditions, and when he enjoined his hearers to search the Scriptures, he could not have failed to mention the corruptions or forgeries of Scripture, if any in that age had existed. But we are assured, by very respectable authority, that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed some centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus the son of Sirach, the author of Ecclesiasticus, makes evident references to the prophecies of Isaiah *, Jeremiah †, and Ezekiel ‡, and mentions these prophets by name. He speaks also of the twelve minor prophets §. It appears also from the prologue, that the law and the prophets, and other ancient books, existed at the same period. The book of Ecclesiasticus, according to the calculations of the best chronologers, was written in Syriac about A.D. 3772, that is, 232 years before the Christian era, and was translated into Greek in the next century by the grandson of the author. The prologue was added by the translator; but this circumstance does not diminish the evidence for the antiquity of Scripture; for he informs us, that the law and the prophets, and the other books of their fathers, were studied by his grandfather: a sufficient proof that they existed in his time. As no authentic books of a more ancient date, except the sacred writings themselves, have reached our time, we can ascend no higher in search of testimony.
There is, however, one remarkable historical fact, which proves the existence of the law of Moses at the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel, when the ten tribes were carried captive to Assyria by Shalmanezer, and dispersed among the provinces of that extensive empire; that is, about 741 years before Christ. It was about that time the Samaritans were transported from Assyria to repopulate the country, which the ten captive tribes of Israel had formerly inhabited. The posterity of the Samaritans still inhabit the land of their fathers, and have preserved copies of the Pentateuch, two or three of which were brought to this country in the last century. The Samaritan Pentateuch is written in old Hebrew characters (see Philology, n° 28), and therefore must have existed before the time of Ezra. But so violent were the animosities which subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, that in no period of their history would the one nation have received any books from the other. They must therefore have received them at their first settlement in Samaria from the captive priest whom the Assyrian monarch sent to teach them how they should fear the Lord (2 Kings xvii.)
The canon of the Old Testament, as both Jewish and Christian writers agree, was completed by Ezra of the Old Testament and some of his immediate successors (see Bible). In settled, our copies the sacred books are divided into 39. The Jews reckoned only 22, corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. They united the books of Judges and Ruth; they joined the two books of Samuel; the books of Kings and Chronicles were reckoned one; Ezra and Nehemiah one; the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah were taken under the same head; and the 12 minor prophets were considered as one book—so that the whole number of books in the Jewish canon amounted to 22.
The Pentateuch consists of the five books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Several observations have been already made respecting the authenticity of these under the article PENTATEUCH; but several additional remarks have occurred, which may not improperly be given in this place. For many of these we acknowledge ourselves indebted to a sermon published by the reverend Mr Marsh, whose research and learning and critical accuracy will be acknowledged by every reader of discernment.
One of the strongest arguments that have occurred to us in support of the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and the inspiration of the writer, has already been given under the article RELIGION, n° 14, &c., which see: But we shall in this place present two arguments of a different kind, which would be sufficient to prove at least the former of these conclusions. We argue from the language and contents of the Mosaic writings, and from the testimony of the other books of Scripture.
From the contents and language of the Pentateuch there arises a very strong presumption that Moses was its author. The very mode of writing in the four last books discovers an author contemporary with the events which he relates; every description, both religious and political, is a proof that the writer was present at each respective scene; and the legislative and historical parts are are so interwoven with each other, that neither of them could have been written by a man who lived in a later age. The account which is given in the book of Exodus of the conduct of Pharaoh towards the children of Israel, is such as might be expected from a writer who was not only acquainted with the country at large, but had frequent access to the court of its sovereign; and the minute geographical description of the passage through Arabia is such, as could have been given only by a man like Moses, who had spent 40 years in the land of Median. The language itself is a proof of its high antiquity, which appears partly from the great simplicity of the style, and partly from the use of archaisms or antiquated expressions, which in the days even of David and Solomon were obsolete (b). But the strongest argument that can be produced to show that the Pentateuch was written by a man born and educated in Egypt, is the use of Egyptian words; words which never were, or ever could have been, used by a native of Palestine; and it is a remarkable circumstance, that the very same thing which Moses had expressed by a word that is purely Egyptian, Isaiah, as might be expected from his birth and education, has expressed by a word that is purely Hebrew (c).
That Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is proved also from the evidence of testimony. We do not here quote the authority of Diodorus Siculus, of Longinus, or Strabo, because their information must have been derived from the Jews. We shall seek no authority but that of the succeeding sacred books themselves, which bear internal evidence that they were written in different ages, and therefore could not be forged unless we were to adopt the absurd opinion that there was a succession of impostors among the Jews who united together in the same fraud. The Jews were certainly best qualified to judge of the authenticity of their own books. They could judge of the truth of the facts recorded, and they could have no interest in adopting a forgery. Indeed, to suppose a whole nation combined in committing a forgery, and that this combination should continue for many hundred years, would be the most chimerical supposition that ever entered into the mind of man. Yet we must make this supposition, if we reject the historical facts of the Old Testament. No one will deny that the Pentateuch existed in the time of Christ and his apostles; for they not only mention it, but quote it. "This we admit," reply the advocates for the hypothesis which we are now combating; "but you cannot therefore conclude that Moses was the author; for there is reason to believe it was composed by Ezra." But unfortunately for men of this opinion, both Ezra and Nehemiah ascribe the book of the law to Moses (d). The Pentateuch was in the possession of the Samaritans before the time of Ezra.
3. It existed in the reign of Amaziah king of Judah, A.C. 839 years (e). It was in public use in the reign of Jehoash, scripture, saphat, A.C. 912; for that virtuous prince appointed Levites and priests who taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the people (f). It is referred to by David in his dying admonitions to Solomon (g). The same royal bard makes many allusions to it in the book of Psalms, and some times quotes it (h). There remains therefore only one resource to those who contend that Moses was not the author, viz. that it was written in the period which elapsed between the age of Joshua and that of David. But the whole history of the Jews from their settlement in Canaan to the building of the temple presupposes that the book of the law was written by Moses where the time of Joshua. One passage may be quoted where this fact is stated. "The Divine Being makes use of these words to Joshua: 'Only be thou strong, and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do all according to the law which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein'" (i).
To the foregoing demonstration objections may be answered. "We will admit the force of your arguments, and grant that Moses actually wrote a work called the General book of the law; but how can we be certain that it was the very work which is now current under his name? And unless you can show this to be at least probable, your whole evidence is of no value." To illustrate the force or weakness of this objection, let us apply it to some ancient Greek author, and see whether a classical scholar would allow it to be of weight. "It is true that the Greek writers speak of Homer as an ancient and celebrated poet; it is true also that they have quoted from the works which they ascribe to him various passages that we find at present in the Iliad and Odyssey; yet still there is a possibility that the poems which were written by Homer, and those which we call the Iliad and Odyssey, were totally distinct productions." Now an advocate for Greek literature would reply to this objection, not with a serious answer, but with a smile of contempt; and he would think it beneath his dignity to silence an opponent who appeared to be deaf to the clearest conviction. But still more may be said in defence of Moses than in defence of Homer; for the writings of the latter were not deposited in any temple or sacred archive, in order to secure them from the devastations of time; whereas the copy of the book of the law, as written by Moses, was intrusted to the priests and the elders, preserved in the ark of the covenant, and
(b) For instance, ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ, and ἐν τῷ παιδί, which are used in both genders by no other writer than Moses. See Gen. xxiv. 14. 16. 28. 55. 57. xxxviii. 21. 25.
(c) For instance, ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ (perhaps written originally ἐν τῷ, and the lengthened into ἐν τῷ by mistake), written by the Seventy ἐν τῷ or ἐν τῷ, Gen. xli. 2. and ἐν τῷ, written by the Seventy ἐν τῷ or ἐν τῷ. See La Croze Lexicon Ἀγγλικαῖον, art. ἐν τῷ and ἐν τῷ.
(d) The same thing which Moses expresses by ἐν τῷ, Gen. xli. 2. Isaiah xix. 7. expresses by ἐν τῷ, for the Seventy have translated both of these words by ἐν τῷ. and read to the people every seventh year (d). Sufficient care therefore was taken not only for the preservation of the original record, but that no spurious production should be substituted in its stead. And that no spurious production ever has been substituted in the stead of the original composition of Moses, appears from the evidence both of the Greek and the Samaritan Pentateuch. For as these agree with the Hebrew, except in some trifling variations (e), to which every work is exposed by length of time, it is absolutely certain that the five books which we now ascribe to Moses are one and the same work with that which was translated into Greek in the time of the Ptolemies, and, what is of still greater importance, with that which existed in the time of Solomon. And as the Jews could have had no motive whatsoever, during that period which elapsed between the age of Joshua and that of Solomon, for substituting a spurious production instead of the original as written by Moses, and, even had they been inclined to attempt the imposture, would have been prevented by the care which had been taken by their lawgiver, we must conclude that our present Pentateuch is the very identical work that was delivered by Moses.
The positive evidence being now produced, we shall endeavour to answer some particular objections that have been urged. But as most of these occur in the book of Genesis, we shall reserve them for separate examination, and shall here only consider the objections peculiar to the four last books. They may be comprised under one head, viz. expressions and passages in these books which could not have been written by Moses. 1. The account of the death of Moses, in the last chapter of Deuteronomy, we allow must have been added by some succeeding writer; but this can never prove that the book of Deuteronomy is spurious. What is more common among ourselves than to see an account of the life and death of an author subjoined to his works, without informing us by whom the narrative was written? 2. It has been objected, that Moses always speaks of himself in the third person. This is the objection of foolish ignorance, and therefore scarcely deserves an answer. We suspect that such persons have never read the classics, particularly Caesar's Commentaries, where the author uniformly speaks of himself in the third person, as every writer of correct taste will do who reflects on the absurdity of employing the pronoun of the first person in a work intended to be read long after his death. (See Scripture Grammar, no 33.) 3. As to the objection, that in some places the text is defective, as in Exodus xv. 8, it is not directed against the author, but against some transcriber; for what is wanting in the Hebrew is inserted in the Samaritan. 4. The only other objection that deserves notice is made from two passages. It is said in one place that the bed of Og is at Ramaah to this day; and in another (Deut. iii. 14.), "Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maacathi, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day." The last clause in both these passages could not have been written by Moses, but it was probably placed in the margin by some transcriber by way of explanation, and was afterwards by mistake inserted in the text. Whoever doubts the truth of this assertion may have recourse to the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and he will find that the spurious additions in the texts of some manuscripts are actually written in the margin of others (f).
That the Pentateuch, therefore, at least the four last books of it, was written by Moses, we have very satisfactory evidence; which, indeed, at the distance of 3000 years is wonderful, and which cannot be affirmed of any profane history written at a much later period.
The book of Genesis was evidently not written by an authentic person who was contemporary with the facts which he cites of records; for it contains the history of 2369 years, a book of period comprehending almost twice as many years as all the rest of the historical books of the Old Testament put together. Moses has been acknowledged as the author of this book by all the ancient Jews and Christians; but it has been a matter of dispute from what source he derived his materials; some affirming that all the facts were revealed by inspiration, and others maintaining that he procured them from tradition.
Some who have looked upon themselves as profound philosophers, have rejected many parts of the book of Genesis as fabulous and absurd; but it cannot be the wisdom of philosophy, but the vanity of ignorance, that could lead to such an opinion. In fact, the book of Genesis affords a key to many difficulties in philosophy which cannot otherwise be explained. It has been supposed that the diversities among mankind prove that they are not descended from one pair; but it has been fully
(d) "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God." Deut. xxxi. 9—11, 24—26. There is a passage to the same purpose in Josephus: Διατάξεις τῶν Ἀρχαίων Ιουδαίων.
(e) See the collation of the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuch, in the 6th vol. of the London Polyglot, p. 19.
(f) To mention only two examples. 1. The common reading, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, ἐν πᾶσιν ὁμόσυνοι; but the Codex Vaticanus 3, ἐν πᾶσιν ὁμόσυνοι in the margin; and in one of the manuscripts which Beza used, this marginal addition has been obliterated in the text. See his note on this passage. 2. Another instance is, 1 John ii. 27, where the genuine reading is ἐν πᾶσιν ὁμόσυνοι; but Wetstein quotes two manuscripts, in which ἐν πᾶσιν ὁμόσυνοι is written in the margin; and this marginal reading has found its way not only into the Codex Covelli 2, but into the Coptic and Ethiopic versions. fully shewn that all these diversities may be accounted for by natural causes. It has been reckoned a great difficulty to explain how fossil shells were introduced into the bowels of the earth; but the deluge explains this fact better than all the romantic theories of philosophers. It is impossible to account for the origin of such a variety of languages in a more satisfactory manner than is done in the account of the confusion of tongues which took place at Babel. It would be no easy matter to show why the sea of Sodom is so different from every other sea on the globe which has yet been explored, if we had not possessed the scriptural account of the miraculous destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is saturated with bitumen and salt, and contains no fishes. These are very singular facts, which have been fully established by late travellers. The book of Genesis, too, has been treated with contempt, because it makes the world less ancient than is necessary to support the theories of modern philosophers, and because it is difficult to reconcile the chronologies of several nations with the opinion that the world is not above 6000 or 7000 years old. The Chaldeans, in the time of Cicero, reckoned up 470,000 years. The Egyptians pretend that they have records extending 50,000 years back; and the Hindoos go beyond all bounds of probability, carrying back their chronology, according to Halhed, more than 7,000,000 of years.
An attempt has been made by M. Bailly, lately mayor of Paris, to reconcile these magnified calculations with the chronology of the Septuagint, which is justly preferred to the Hebrew. (See Septuagint.) He informs us, that the Hindoos, as well as the Chaldeans and Egyptians, had years of arbitrary determination. They had months of 15 days, and years of 60 days, or two months. A month is a night and day of the patriarchs; a year is a night and day of the gods; four thousand years of the gods are as many hundred years of men. By attention to such modes of computation, the age of the world will be found very nearly the same in the writings of Moses, and in the calculations and traditions of the Brahmins. With these also we have a remarkable coincidence with the Persian chronology. Bailly has established these remarkable epochs from the Creation to the Deluge.
| The Septuagint gives | 2236 years | |----------------------|------------| | The Chaldeans | 2222 | | The Egyptians | 2340 | | The Persians | 2000 | | The Hindoos | 2000 | | The Chinese | 2300 |
The same author has also shewn the singular coincidence of the age of the world as given by four distinct and distantly situated people.
| The ancient Egyptians | 5544 years | |-----------------------|------------| | The Hindoos | 5502 | | The Persians | 5501 | | The Jews, according to Josephus | 5555 |
Having made these few remarks, to show that the facts recorded in Genesis are not inconsistent with truth, we shall now, by a few observations, confirm the evidence, from testimony, that Moses was the author, and answer the objections that seem strongest.
There arises a great probability, from the book of Genesis itself, that the author lived near the time of Joseph; for as we advance towards the end of that book, the facts gradually become more minute. The materials of the antediluvian history are very scanty. The account of Abraham is more complete; but the history of Jacob and his family is still more fully detailed. This is indeed the case with every history. In the early part, the relation is very short and general; but when the historian approaches his own time, his materials accumulate. It is certain, too, that the book of Genesis must have been written before the rest of the Pentateuch; for the allusions in the last four books to the history of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob, are very frequent. The simplicity of the style shows it to be one of the most ancient of the sacred books; and perhaps its familiarity to the style of Moses would determine a critic to ascribe it to him. It will be allowed, that no man was better qualified than Moses to compose the history of his ancestors. He was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, the most enlightened nation of his time, and he had the best opportunities of obtaining accurate information. The short account of the antediluvian world could easily be remembered by Abraham, who might obtain it from Shem, who was his contemporary. To Shem it might be conveyed by Methuselah, who was 340 years old when Adam died. From Abraham to Moses, the interval was less than 400 years. The splendid promises made to that patriarch would certainly be carefully communicated to each generation, with the concomitant facts; and thus the history might be conveyed to Moses by the most distinguished persons. The accounts respecting Jacob and his son Joseph might be given to Moses by his grandfather Kohath, who must have been born long before the descent to Egypt; and Kohath might have heard all the facts respecting Abraham and Isaac from Jacob himself. Thus we can easily point out how Moses might derive the materials of the book of Genesis, and especially of the last 38 chapters, from the most authentic source.
It will now be necessary to consider very shortly the objections that have been supposed to prove that Genesis could not have been written by Moses. 1. It is objected, that the author of the first chapters of Genesis of Genesis must have lived in Mesopotamia, as he discovers a knowledge of the rivers that watered Paradise, of the cities Babylon, Erech, Teresh, and Calneh; of the gold of Pison; of the balsamum and onyx stone. But if he could not derive this knowledge from the wisdom of the Egyptians, which is far from being improbable, he might surely obtain it by tradition from Abraham, who was born and brought up beyond the Euphrates. 2. In Genesis xiv. 14, it is said, Abraham pursued the four confederate kings to Dan, yet that name was not given till after the conquest of Palestine*. We answer, this might be inserted by a transcriber. But such a supposition is not necessary; for though we are told in the book of Judges that a city originally called Laish received then the name of Dan, this does not prove that Laish was the same city with the Dan which is mentioned in Genesis. The same answer may be given to the objection which is brought from Genesis xxxv. 21, where the tower of Edar is mentioned, which the objectors say was the name of a tower over one of the gates of Jerusalem. But the tower of Edar signifies the tower of the flocks, which in the pastoral country of Canaan might be a very common name. 3. The most formidable objection is derived from these two passages, Gen. xii. 6. Scripture. "And the Canaanite was then in the land." Gen.xxxvi.
31. "There are the kings that reigned over the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Now, it is certain that neither of these passages could be written by Moses. We allow they were added by a later writer; but this circumstance cannot invalidate the evidence which has been already produced. It does not prove that Moses was not the author of the book of Genesis, but only that the book of Genesis has received two alterations since his death.
According to Rivet, our Saviour and his Apostles have cited 27 passages verbatim from the book of Genesis, and have made 28 allusions to the same.
The book of Exodus contains the history of the Israelites for about 145 years. It gives an account of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt; of the miracles by which they were delivered; of their passage through the Red Sea, and journey through the wilderness; of the solemn promulgation of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, and of the building and furniture of the Tabernacle. This book is cited by David, by Daniel, and other sacred writers. Twenty-five passages are quoted by our Saviour and his apostles in express words, and they make 19 allusions to the same.
The book of Leviticus contains the history of the Israelites for one month. It consists chiefly of laws. Indeed, properly speaking, it is the code of the Jewish ceremonial and political laws. It describes the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the daring impiety and exemplary punishment of Nadab and Abihu. It reveals also some predictions respecting the punishment of the Israelites in case of apostasy; and contains an assurance that every sixth year should produce abundance to support them during the seventh or sabbatical year. This book is quoted as the production of Moses in several books of scripture.
The book of Numbers comprehends the history of the Israelites for a period of about 38 years, reckoning from the first day of the second month after their departure from Egypt. It contains an account of two numberings of the people; the first in the beginning of the second year of their emigration, the second in the plains of Moab towards the conclusion of their journey in the wilderness. It describes the ceremonies employed at the consecration of the tabernacle, gives an exact journal of the marches and encampments of the Israelites, relates the appointment of the 70 elders, the miraculous cure performed by the brazen serpent, and the misconduct of Moses when he was commanded to bring water from the rock. There is also added an account of the death of Aaron, of the conquest of Sihon and Og, and the story of Balaam, with his celebrated prophecy concerning the Messiah.
The book of Numbers is quoted as the work of Moses in several parts of Scripture.
The book of Deuteronomy comprehends a period of nearly two months. It consists of an interesting address to the Israelites, in which Moses recalls to their remembrance the many instances of divine favour which they had experienced, and reproaches them for their ingratitude. He lays before them, in a compendious form, the laws which he had formerly delivered, and makes some explanatory additions. This was the more necessary, because the Israelites, to whom they had been originally promulgated, and who had seen the miracles in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and Mount Sinai, had died in the wilderness. The divine origin of these laws, and the Scripture miracles by which they were sanctioned, must already have been well known to them; yet a solemn recapitulation of these by the man who had miraculously fed the present generation from their infancy, who by the lifting up of his hands had procured them victory in the day of battle, and who was going to leave the world to give an account of his conduct to the God of Israel, could not but make a deep and lasting impression on the minds of all who heard him. He incultates these laws by the most powerful motives. He presents before them the most animating rewards, and denounces the severest punishments to the rebellious. The prophecies of Moses towards the end of this book, concerning the fate of the Jews, their dispersions and calamities, the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, the miseries of the besieged, and the present state of the Jewish nation, cannot be read without astonishment. They are periphrastic and minute, and have been literally accomplished.
This book is cited as the production of Moses by Christ and his apostles.
* Matth. iv. 4. The historical books are 12 in number, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel I. and II., Kings I. and II., Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. These, if considered distinctly Gal iii. 19, from the Pentateuch, and the writings more properly styled prophetical, contain a compendium of the Jewish history from the death of Moses, A.M. 2552, to the reformation established by Nehemiah after the return from the captivity, A.M. 3595, comprehending a period of 1043 years.
To enable us to discover the authors of these books, we have no guide to conduct us but conjecture, internal evidence, or the authority of the modern Jews. From the frequent references in Scripture, and from the testimony of Josephus, it appears that the Jews were in possession of many historical records which might have thrown much light upon this subject if they had still been preserved. But during the calamities which befell that infatuated nation in their wars with the Romans, and the dispersion which followed, these writings have perished. But though we can produce no testimony more ancient than the age of our Saviour to authenticate the historical books, yet there are some facts respecting the mode of their preservation which entitle them to credit. The very circumstance itself, that the Jews have preserved them in the sacred volume to this day, while their other ancient books have been lost, is a proof that they considered them as the genuine records of their nation. Josephus, whose authority is of great importance, informs us, that it was the peculiar province of the prophets and priests to commit to writing the annals of the nation, and to preserve them to posterity. That these might be faithfully preserved, the sacerdotal function was made hereditary, and the greatest care was observed to prevent intermarriages either with foreigners or with the other tribes. No man could officiate as a priest who could not prove his descent in a right line by unquestionable evidence. Recorders were kept in Jerusalem, which at the end of every war were regularly revised by the surviving priests; and new ones were then composed. As a proof that this has been faithfully performed, Josephus adds, that the names of all the Jewish priests, in an uninterrupted succession from father to son, had been registered for 200 years; that is, from the time of Aaron to the age of Josephus. The national records were not allowed to be written by any man who might think himself fit for the office; and if a priest falsified them, he was excluded from the altar and deprived from his office. Thus we are assured, the Jewish records were committed to the charge of the priests; and as they may be considered as the same family from Aaron to the Babylonish captivity and downwards, the same credit is due to them that would be due to family records, which by antiquarians are esteemed the most authentic sources of information.
Of the 22 books which Josephus reckoned himself bound to believe, the historical books from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, he informs us, were written by contemporary prophets. It appears, then, that the prophets were the composers, and the priests the hereditary keepers, of the national records. Thus, the best provision possible was made that they should be written accurately, and be preserved uncorrupted. The principal office of these prophets was to instruct the people in their duty to God, and occasionally to communicate the predictions of future events. For this purpose they were educated in the schools of the prophets, or in academies where sacred learning was taught. The prophets were therefore the learned men of their time, and consequently were best qualified for the office of historians. It may be objected, that the prophets, in concert with the priests, might have forged any writings they pleased. But before we suspect that they have done so in the historical books of the Old Testament, we must find out some motive which could induce them to commit so daring a crime. But this is impossible. No encomiums are made either upon the prophets or the priests; no adulation to the reigning monarch appears, nor is the favour of the populace courted. The faults of all ranks are delineated without reserve. Indeed there is no history extant that has more the appearance of impartiality. We are presented with a simple detail of facts, and are left to discover the motives and intentions of the several characters; and when a character is drawn, it is done in a few words, without exaggerating the vices or amplifying the virtues.
It is of no real consequence, therefore, whether we can ascertain the authors of the different books or not. From Josephus we know that they existed in his time; and from his account of the manner in which they were preserved we are assured they were not in danger of being corrupted. They existed also when the Septuagint translation was made. Frequent references are made to them in the writings of the later prophets; sometimes the same facts are related in detail. In short, there is such a coincidence between the historical books and the writings of those prophets who were contemporary, that it is impossible to suppose the latter true without receiving the former.
Indeed, to suppose that the Jews could have received and preserved with such care for so many hundred years false records, which it must have been in the power of every person to disprove, and which at the same time do so little credit to the character of their nation, is to suppose one of the greatest absurdities in the Scripture world; it is to suppose that a whole nation could act contrary to all those principles which have always predominated in the human mind, and which must always predominate till human nature undergo a total revolution.
The book which immediately follows the Pentateuch, teach has been generally ascribed to Joshua the successor of Moses. It contains, however, some things which must have been inserted after the death of Joshua. It is necessary to remark, that there is some accidental derangement in the order of the chapters of this book, which was probably occasioned by the ancient mode of fixing together a number of rolls. If chronologically placed, they should be read thus, 1st chapter to the 10th verse, then the 2nd chapter; then from the 10th verse to the end of the 1st chapter; afterwards should follow the vii. viii. ix. x. and xi. chapters; then the xxii.; and lastly the xii. and xiii. chapters to the 24th verse of the latter.
The facts mentioned in this book are referred to by many of the sacred writers. In the book of Kings § I Chron. xvi. 34. the words of Joshua are said to be the words of God. See Joshua.
By whom the book of Judges was written is uncertain; but as it contains the history of the Jewish republic for 317 years, the materials must have been furnished by different persons. The book, however, seems to be the composition of one individual (c), who lived after James ii. after the regal government was established, but before the accession of David: for it is said in the 21st verse of the 1st chapter, that the Jebusites were still in Jerusalem; who, we know, were deprived of that city certainly in the reign of David. We have reason, therefore, judges, to ascribe this book to Samuel.
The history of this book may be divided into two parts; the first contains an account of the Judges from Ochmiel to Samson, ending at the 16th chap. The second part relates several remarkable transactions which occurred soon after the death of Joshua; but are thrown to the end of the book, that they might not interrupt the course of the history. See Judges.
The book of Ruth is a kind of supplement to the book of Judges, and an introduction to the history of David, as it is related in the books of Samuel. Since the genealogy which it contains descends to David, it must have been written after the birth of that prince, but not at any considerable time after it; for the history of Boaz and Ruth, the great-grandfather and great-grandmother of David, could not be remembered above two or three generations. As the elder brothers of David and their sons are omitted, and none of his own children are mentioned in the genealogy, it is evident that the book was composed in honour of the Hebrew monarch, after he was anointed king by Samuel, and before any of his children were born; and consequently in the reign of Saul. The Jews ascribe it to Samuel; and indeed there is no person of that age to whom it may be attributed with more propriety. We are informed (1 Sam. x. 25.) that Samuel was a writer, and
(c) In support of this opinion, it may be observed, that the author, chap. ii. 10, &c. lays before us the contents of the book. and are assured that no person in the reign of Saul was so well acquainted with the splendid prospects of David as the prophet Samuel.
The Greeks denominate the books of Samuel, which follow next in order, The Books of Kingdoms; and the Latins, The Books of Kings I. and II. Anciently there were but two books of Kings; the first was the two books of Samuel, and the second was what we now call the two books of Kings. According to the present division, these two books are four, viz. the first and second books of Samuel, and the first and second books of Kings.
Concerning the author of the two books of Samuel there are different opinions. Some think that Samuel wrote only twenty or twenty-four chapters of the first book, and that the history was continued by Nathan and Gad. This opinion they ground on the following passage in Chronicles §, "Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer." Others think they were compiled by Ezra from ancient records; but it is evident that the books of Samuel were written before the books of Kings and Chronicles; for on comparison it will be found, that in the last mentioned books many circumstances are taken from the former. The first book carries down the history of the Israelites from the birth of Samuel to the fatal battle of Gilboa, comprehending a period of about 80 years. The second relates the history of David from his succession to the throne of Israel till within a year or two of his death, containing 40 years. There are two beautiful passages in these books which every man of sentiment and taste must feel and admire, the lamentation or elegy on Saul and Jonathan, and the parable of Nathan. The impartiality of the historian is fully attested by the candour and freedom with which the actions of Saul and David are related. There are some remarks interspersed which were probably added by Ezra.
When the two books of Kings were written, or by whom they were compiled, is uncertain. Some have supposed that David, Solomon, and Hezekiah, wrote the history of their own times. Others have been of opinion that the prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Gad, and Nathan, each of them wrote the history of the reign in which he lived. But it is generally believed that Ezra wrote these two books, and published them in the form in which we have them at present. There can be no doubt but the prophets drew up the lives of the kings who reigned in their times; for the names and writings of those prophets are frequently mentioned, and cited. Still, however, it is evident that the two books of Kings are but an abridgment of a larger work, the substance of which is contained in the books before us. In support of the opinion that Ezra is the author of these books, it is said, 'That in the time of the penman, the ten tribes were captives in Assyria, whither they had been carried as a punishment for their sins: That in the second of these books the author makes some reflections on the calamities of Israel and Judah, which demonstrate that he lived after that event. But to this it is objected, That the author of these books expresses himself throughout as a contemporary, and as one would have done who had been an eye and ear witness of what he related. To this objection it is answered,
That Ezra compiled these books from the prophetic writings which he had in his possession; that he copied them exactly, narrating the facts in order as they happened, and interspersed in his history some reflections and remarks arising from the subjects which he handled.
The first book comprises a period of 126 years, from the death of David to that of Jehoshaphat. The second book records the transactions of many kings of Judah and Israel for the space of about 300 years, from the death of Jehoshaphat to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, A. M. 3416. A. C. 588.
The Hebrews style the two books of Chronicles De-Of Chroni- beri Imim §, i.e. Words of days, journals or diaries, in- ciples allusion to those ancient journals which appear to have § כָּרְתִי יָדַע, been kept among the Jews. The Greeks call them Paralipomena ¶, which signifies things omitted; as if these two books were a kind of supplement to inform us what had been omitted or too much abridged in the books of Kings. The two books of Chronicles contain indeed several particulars which are not to be met with in the other books of scripture: but it is not therefore to be supposed that they are the records of the kings of Judah and Israel, so often referred to in the books of Kings. Those ancient registers were apparently much more copious than the books before us; and the compiler of the books of Chronicles often refers to them, and makes long extracts from them.
Some suppose that the author of these two books was the same with that of the two books of Kings. The Jews say that they were written by Ezra, after the return from the captivity, assisted by Zechariah and Haggai, who were then alive. But events are mentioned in them of so late a date as to show that he could not have written them in their present form; and there is another objection to his being their author, which is little less forcible: between the books of Kings and Chronicles there is a great number of variations both in dates and facts, which could not have happened if Ezra had been the author of them, or indeed if they had been the work of any one person.
The books of Chronicles are not to be considered merely as an abridgment of former histories with some useful additions, but as books written with a particular view; which seems to have been to furnish a genealogical register of the twelve tribes, deduced from the earliest times, in order to point out those distinctions which were necessary to discriminate the mixed multitude that returned from Babylon; to ascertain the lineage of Judah; and to re-establish on their ancient footing the pretensions and functions of each individual tribe.
The book of Ezra, and also that of Nehemiah, are attributed by the ancients to the former of these of Ezra. prophets; and they called them the 1st and 2d books of Esdras; which title is still kept up by the Latin church. It is indeed highly probable that the former of these books, which comprises the history of the Jews from the time that Cyrus made the decree for their return until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (which was about 100 years, or as others think 79 years), was all composed by Ezra, except the first six chapters, which contain an account of the first return of the Jews upon the decree of Cyrus; whereas Ezra did not return till the time of Artaxerxes. It is of this second return therefore that he writes the account; and adding adding it to the other, which he found ready composed to his hand, he made it a complete history of the Jewish settlement.
This book is written in Chaldee from chap. iv. 8. to chap. vii. 27. As this part of the work chiefly contains letters, conversations, and decrees expressed in that language, the fidelity of the historian has probably induced him to take down the very words which were used. The people, too, had been accustomed to the Chaldee during the captivity, and probably understood it better than Hebrew; for it appears from Nehemiah's account, chap. viii. 2, 8. that all could not understand the law.
The book of Nehemiah, as has been already observed, bears, in the Latin bibles, the title of the second book of Esdras; the ancient canons likewise give it the same name, because, perhaps, it was considered as a sequel to the book of Ezra. In the Hebrew bibles it has the name of Nehemiah prefixed to it; which name is retained in the English bible. But though that chief is by the writer of the second book of Maccabees affirmed to have been the author of it, there cannot, we think, be a doubt but that either it was written at a later period, or had additions made to it after Nehemiah's death.
With the book of Nehemiah the history of the Old Testament concludes. This is supposed to have taken place about A. M. 3574. A. C. 434. But Prideaux with more probability has fixed it at A. M. 3595. See Nehemiah.
It is uncertain who was the author of the book of Esther. Clement of Alexandria, and many commentators, have ascribed it to Mordecai; and the book itself seems to favour this opinion; for we are told in chap. ix. 20. that "Mordecai wrote these things." Others have supposed that Ezra was the author; but the more probable opinion of the Talmudists is, that the great Scripture synagogue (see Synagogue), to perpetuate the memory of the deliverance of the Jews from the conspiracy of Haman, and to account for the origin of the feast of Purim, ordered this book to be composed, very likely of materials left by Mordecai, and afterwards approved and admitted it into the sacred canon. The time when the events which it relates happened, is supposed by some to have been in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and by others in that of Darius the son of Hystaspes, called by the sacred penman Abifarsus.
Concerning the author of the book of Job there are many different opinions. Some have supposed that Job himself wrote it in Syriac or Arabic, and that it was afterwards translated by Moses. Others have thought that Eithu wrote it; and by others it is ascribed to Moses, to Solomon, to Isaiah, and to Ezra. To give even an abridgment of the arguments brought in support of these various opinions would fill a volume, and at last leave the reader in his present uncertainty. He who has leisure and inclination to weigh them may study the second section of the fifth book of Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, together with the several works there referred to; but the question at issue is of very little importance to us. The book of Job, by whomsoever it was written, and whether it be a real history, or a dramatical poem founded on history, has been always esteemed a portion of canonical scripture, and is one of the most sublime compositions in the sacred volume.
The book of Job appears to stand single and unparalleled in the sacred volume. It seems to have little connection with the other writings of the Hebrews, and no relation whatever to the affairs of the Israelites. The scene is laid in Idumaea (a); the history of an inhabitant of that country is the basis of the narrative;
---
(h) "The information which the learned have endeavoured to collect from the writings and geography of the Greeks concerning the country and residence of Job and his friends, appears to me (says Dr Lowell) to very inconclusive, that I am inclined to take a quite different method for the solution of this question, by applying solely to the Sacred Writings: the hints with which they have furnished me towards the illustration of this subject, I shall explain as briefly as possible.
"The land of Uz, or Gauze, is evidently Idumaea, as appears from Lam. iv. 21. Uz was the grandson of Seir the Horite, Gen. xxxvi. 20, 21, 28. 1 Chron. i. 38, 42. Seir inhabited that mountainous tract which was called by his name antecedent to the time of Abraham; but his posterity being expelled, it was occupied by the Idumeans: Gen. xiv. 6. Deut. ii. 12. Two other men are mentioned of the name Uz; one the grandson of Shem, the other the son of Nachor, the brother of Abraham; but whether any district was called after their name is not clear. Idumaea is a part of Arabia Petraea, situated on the southern extremity of the tribe of Judah: Numb. xxxiv. 3. Josh. xv. 1, 21. The land of Uz therefore appears to have been between Egypt and Philistia, Jer. xxv. 20. where the order of the places seems to have been accurately observed in reviewing the different nations from Egypt to Babylon; and the same people seem again to be described in exactly the same situations, Jer. xlvi.—1.
"Children of the East, or Eastern people, seems to have been the general appellation for that mingled race of people (as they are called, Jer. xxv. 20.) who inhabited between Egypt and the Euphrates, bordering upon Judea from the south to the east; the Idumeans, the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Moabites, the Ammonites. See Judges vi. 3. and Isa. xi. 14. Of these the Idumeans and Amalekites certainly possessed the southern parts. See Numb. xxxiv. 3, xiii. 29. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8, 10. This appears to be the true state of the case: The whole region between Egypt and Euphrates was called the East, at first in respect to Egypt (where the learned Job Mede thinks the Israelites acquired this mode of speaking. Mede's Works, p. 580.), and afterwards absolutely and without any relation to situation or circumstances. Abraham is said to have sent the sons of his concubines, Hagar and Keturah, "eastward, to the country which is commonly called the East," Gen. xxv. 6. where the name of the region seems to have been derived from the same situation. Solomon is reported "to have excelled in wisdom all the Eastern people, and all Egypt," 1 Kings iv. 3c.; that is, all the neighbouring people on that quarter; for there there were people beyond the boundaries of Egypt, and bordering on the south of Judea, who were famous for wisdom, namely, the Idumæans (see Jer. xlix. 7. Ob. 8.), to whom we may well believe this passage might have some relation. Thus Jehovah addresses the Babylonians; "Arise, ascend unto Kedar, and lay waste the children of the East," (Jer. xlix. 28), notwithstanding they were really situated to the west of Babylon. Although Job, therefore, be accounted one of the orientals, it by no means follows that his residence must be in Arabia Deferta.
"Eliphaz the Temanite was the son of Esau, and Teman the son of Eliphaz, (Gen. xxxvi. 10, 11.). The Eliphaz of Job was without a doubt of this race. Teman is certainly a city of Idumæa, (Jer. xlix. 7, 20. Ezek. xxv. 13. Amos i. 11, 12. Ob. 8, 9.).
"Bildad the Shuhite: Shuah was one of the sons of Abraham by Keturah, whose posterity were numbered among the people of the East, and his situation was probably contiguous to that of his brother Midian, and of his nephews Shebah and Dedan, (see Gen. xxv. 2, and 3.) Dedan is a city of Idumæa (Jer. xlix. 8.), and seems to have been situated on the eastern side, as Teman was on the west, (Ezek. xxv. 13.). From Sheba originated the Sabarians in the passage from Arabia Felix to the Red Sea: Sheba is united to Midian (Ila. lx. 6.); it is in the same region however with Midian, and not far from Mount Horeb, (Exod. ii. 15. iii. 1.)
"Zophar the Naamathite: among the cities which by lot fell to the tribe of Judah, in the neighbourhood of Idumæa, Naama is enumerated, (Josh. xv. 21, 41.) Nor does this name elsewhere occur; this probably was the country of Zophar.
"Elihu the Buzite: Buz occurs but once as the name of a place or country (Jer. xxv. 23.), where it is mentioned along with Dedan and Thema: Dedan, as was just now demonstrated, is a city of Idumæa; Thema belonged to the children of Ishmael, who are said to have inhabited from Havilah, even to Shur, which is in the district of Egypt, (Gen. xxv. 15, 18.) Saul, however, is said to have smitten the Amalekites from Havilah even to Shur, which is in the district of Egypt, (1 Sam. xv. 7.) Havilah cannot, therefore, be very far from the boundaries of the Amalekites; but the Amalekites never exceeded the boundaries of Arabia Petraæ. (See Reland Palæstin. lib. i. c. xiv.) Thema, therefore, lay somewhere between Havilah and the desert of Shur, to the southward of Judea. Thema is also mentioned in connection with Sheba, (Job vi. 19.)
"Upon a fair review of these facts, I think we may venture to conclude, still with that modesty which such a question demands, that Job was an inhabitant of Arabia Petraæ, as well as his friends, or at least of that neighbourhood. To this solution one objection may be raised: it may be asked, How the Chaldeans, who lived on the borders of the Euphrates, could make depredations on the camels of Job, who lived in Idumæa so great a distance? This too is thought a sufficient cause for afflicting Job a situation in Arabia Deferta, and not far from the Euphrates. But what should prevent the Chaldeans, as well as the Sabarians, a people addicted to rapine, and roving about at immense distances for the sake of plunder, from wandering through these defenceless regions, which were divided into tribes and families rather than into nations, and pervading from Euphrates even to Egypt? Further, I would ask on the other hand, whether it be probable that all the friends of Job who lived in Idumæa and its neighbourhood, should instantly be informed of all that could happen to Job in the desert of Arabia and on the confines of Chaldea, and immediately repair thither? Or whether it be reasonable to think, that some of them being inhabitants of Arabia Deferta, it should be concerted among them to meet at the residence of Job; since it is evident, that Eliphaz lived at Theman, in the extreme parts of Idumæa? With respect to the Aystas of Ptolemy (for so it is written, and not Aystas) it has no agreement, not so much as in a single letter with the Hebrew Gnutz. The LXX indeed call that country by the name Aystida, but they describe it as situated in Idumæa; and they account Job himself an Idumæan, and a descendant of Esau." See the Appendix of the LXX to the book of Job, and Hyde Not. in Peritzol. chap. xi. Lowth on Hebrew Poetry. May mine enemy be as the impious man, And he that riseth up against me as the wicked ||.
But how magnificent, how noble, how inviting and beautiful is that image of virtue in which he delineates his past life! What dignity and authority does he seem to possess!
If I came out to the gate, nigh the place of public resort, If I took up my seat in the street; The young men saw me, and they hid themselves; Nay, the very old men rose up and stood. The princes refrained talking, Nay, they laid their hands on their mouths. The nobles held their peace, And their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth ||.
What liberality! what a promptitude in beneficence! Because the ear heard, therefore it blest me; The eye also saw, therefore it bare testimony for me. That I delivered the poor who cried, The orphan also, and him who had no helper. The blessing of him who was ready to perish came upon me, And I caused the heart of the widow to sing for joy ||.
What sanctity, what integrity in a judicial capacity! I put on righteousness, and it clothed me like a robe; My justice also was a diadem. I was a father to the poor, And the controversy which I knew not, I searched it out. Then brake I the grinders of the oppressor, And I plucked the prey out of his teeth ||.
But what can be more engaging than the purity of his devotion, and his reverence for the Supreme Being, founded upon the best and most philosophical principles? Besides that through the whole there runs a strain of the most amiable tenderness and humanity:
For what is the portion which God distributeth from above, And the inheritance of the Almighty from on high? Is it not destruction to the wicked, And banishment from their country to the doers of iniquity? Doth he not see my ways? And numbereth he not all my steps? If I should despise the cause of my servant, Or my maid, when they had a controversy with me, What then should I do when God ariseth, And when he visiteth, what answer could I make him? Did not he who formed me in the belly form him, And did not one fashion us in the womb ||?
The three friends are exactly such characters as the nature of the poem required. They are severe, irritable, malignant censors, readily and with apparent satisfaction deviating from the purpose of consolation into his three-reproach and contumely. Even from the very first they manifest this evil propensity, and indicate what is to be expected from them. The first of them, indeed, in the opening of his harangue, assumes an air of candour:
Wouldst thou take it unkindly that one should essay to speak to thee ||?
Indignation Indignation is, however, instantly predominant: But a few words who can forbear? The second flames forth at once: How long wilt thou trifle in this manner? How long shall the words of thy mouth be as a mighty wind?
But remark the third: Shall not the master of words be answered? Or shall a man be acquitted for his fine speeches? Shall thy provocations make men silent? Shalt thou even scoff, and there be no one to make thee ashamed?
The lenity and moderation of Elihu serves as a beautiful contrast to the intemperance and asperity of the other three. He is pious, mild, and equitable; equally free from adulation and severity; and endowed with singular wisdom, which he attributes entirely to the inspiration of God; and his modesty, moderation, and wisdom, are the more entitled to commendation when we consider his unripe youth. As the characters of his detractors were in all respects calculated to inflame the mind of Job, that of this arbitrator is admirably adapted to soothe and compose it: to this point the whole drift of the argument tends, and on this the very purport of it seems to depend.
Another circumstance deserving particular attention in a poem of this kind, is the sentiment; which must be agreeable to the subject, and embellished with proper expression. It is by Aristotle enumerated among the essentials of a dramatic poem; not indeed as peculiar to that species of poetry alone, but as common, and of the greatest importance, to all. Manners or character are essential only to that poetry in which living persons are introduced; and all such poems must afford an exact representation of human manners: but sentiment is essential to every poem, indeed to every composition whatever. It respects both persons and things. As far as it regards persons, it is particularly concerned in the delineation of the manners and passions: and those influences to which we have just been adverting are sentiments expressive of manners. Those which relate to the delineation of the passions, and to the description of other objects, yet remain unnoticed.
The poem of Job abounds chiefly in the more vehement passions, grief and anger, indignation and violent contention. It is adapted in every respect to the incitement of terror; and, as the specimens already quoted will sufficiently prove, is universally animated with the true spirit of sublimity. It is however not wanting in the gentler affections. The following complaints, for instance, are replete with an affecting spirit of melancholy:
Man, the offspring of a woman, Is of few days, and full of inquietude; He springeth up, and is cut off like a flower; He fleeth like a shadow, and doth not abide: Upon such a creature dost thou open thine eyes? And wilt thou bring even me into judgment with thee? Turn thy look from him, that he may have some respite, Till he shall, like a hireling, have completed his day.
The whole passage abounds with the most beautiful Scripture imagery, and is a most perfect specimen of the Elegiac. His grief afterwards becomes more fervent; but is at the same time soft and querulous.
How long will ye vex my soul, And tire me with vain harangues? These ten times have ye loaded me with reproaches, Are ye not ashamed that ye are so obstinate against me? Pity me, O pity me, ye are my friends, For the hand of God hath smitten me. Why will you be my persecutors as well as God, And therefore will ye not be satisfied with my flesh?
The ardour and alacrity of the war-horse, and his eagerness for battle, is painted with a masterly hand: For eagerness and fury he devoureth the very ground: He believeth it not when he heareth the trumpet. When the trumpet soundeth, he faith, ahah! Yea he fenceth the battle from afar, The thunder of the chieftains and their shouts.
The following sublime description of the creation is admirable: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? If thou knowest, declare. Say, who fixed the proportions of it, for surely thou knowest? Or who stretched out the line upon it? Upon what were its foundations fixed? Or who laid the corner-stone thereof? When the morning-stars sung together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy; When the sea was shut up with doors; When it burst forth as an infant that cometh out of the womb; When I placed the cloud for its robe, And thick darkness for its swaddling-band; When I fixed my boundary against it, When I placed a bar and gates; When I said, Thus far shalt thou come, and not advance, And here shall a stop be put to the pride of thy waves.
Let it suffice to say, that the dignity of the style is answerable to that of the subject; its force and energy, to the greatness of those passions which it describes; and as this production excels all the other remains of the Hebrew poetry in economy and arrangement, so it yields to none in sublimity of style and in every grace and excellence of composition. Among the principal of these may be accounted the accurate and perfectly poetical conformation of the sentences, which is indeed generally most observable in the most ancient of the poetical compositions of the Hebrews. Here, however, as is natural and proper in a poem of so great length and sublimity, the writer's skill is displayed in the proper adjustment of the period, and in the accurate distribution of the members, rather than in the antithesis of words, or in any laboured adaptation of the parallelisms.
The word Psalms is a Greek term, and signifies Songs. The book of Psalms is called Sefer Tehillim, that is, "the Book of Praises;" and in the Gospel it is styled the Book of Psalms. Great veneration has always been paid to this collection. collection of divine songs. The Christian church has from the beginning made them a principal part of her holy services; and in the primitive times it was almost a general rule that every bishop, priest, and religious person should have the psalter by heart.
Many learned fathers, and not a few of the moderns, have maintained that David was the author of them all. Several are of a different opinion, and insist that David wrote only 72 of them; and that those without titles are to be ascribed to the authors of the preceding psalms, whose names are affixed to them. Those who suppose that David alone was the author, contend, that in the New Testament, and in the language of the church universal, they are expressly called the Psalms of David. That David was the principal author of these hymns is universally acknowledged, and therefore the whole collection may properly enough go under his name; but that he wrote them all, is a palpable mistake. Nothing certain can be gathered from the titles of the psalms; for although unquestionably very ancient, yet authors are not agreed as to their authority, and they differ as much about their signification. The Hebrew doctors generally agree that the 92d psalm was composed by Adam; an opinion which for many reasons we are not inclined to adopt. There seems, however, to be no doubt but that some of them were written by Moses; that Solomon was the author of the 49th; and that others were occasioned by events long posterior to the flourishing era of the kingdom of Judah. The 137th particularly is one of those which mentions the captivity of Babylon.
The following arrangement of the Psalms, after a careful and judicious examination, has been adopted by Calmet.
1. Eight Psalms of which the date is uncertain, viz., 1, 4, 19, 81, 91, 110, 139, 145. The first of these was composed by David or Ezra, and was sung in the temple at the feast of trumpets held in the beginning of the year and at the feast of tabernacles. The 81st is attributed to Asaph, and 110th to David. The authors of the rest are unknown.
2. The Psalms composed by David during the persecution of Saul. There are seventeen, 11, 31, 34, 56, 16, 54, 52, 109, 17, 22, 35, 57, 58, 142, 140, 141, 7.
3. The Psalms composed by David at the beginning of his reign, and after the death of Saul. There are fifteen, 29, 24, 63, 101, 29, 20, 21, 28, 39, 49, 41, 6, 51, 32, 33.
4. The Psalms written by David during the rebellion of Absalom are eight in number; 3, 4, 55, 62, 70, 71, 143, 144.
5. The Psalms written between the death of Absalom and the captivity, which are ten, 18, 30, 72, 45, 78, 82, 83, 76, 74, 79; of these David wrote only three; 18, 30, and 72.
6. The Psalms composed during the captivity, which amount to forty. These were chiefly composed by the descendants of Asaph and Korah; they are, 10, 12, 13, 14, 53, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 60, 64, 69, 73, 75, 77, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 120, 121, 123, 130, 131, 132.
Lastly, Those hymns of joy and thanksgiving, written upon the release from the Babylonish captivity, and at the building and dedication of the temple. These are, 122, 61, 63, 124, 23, 87, 85, 46, 47, 48, from 96 to 117 inclusive, 126, 133 to 137 inclusive, 149, 150, 146, 147, 148, 59, 65, 66, 67, 118, 125, 127, 128, 129, 138.—According to this distribution, only 45 are positively assigned to David.
Josephus, and most of the ancient writers, assert, that the Psalms were composed in numbers little, however, respecting the nature and principles of the Hebrew verification is known.
There existed a certain kind of poetry among the Observant Hebrews, principally intended, it should seem, for the assistance of the memory; in which, when there was little connection between the sentiments, a sort of order or method was preserved, by the initial letters of each line or stanza following the order of the alphabet. Of this there are several examples extant among the sacred poems (1); and in these examples the verses are so exactly marked and defined, that it is impossible to mistake them for prose; and particularly if we attentively consider the verses, and compare them with one another, since they are in general to regularly accommodated, that word answers to word, and almost syllable to syllable. This being the case, though an appeal can scarcely be made to the ear on this occasion, the eye itself will distinguish the poetic division and arrangement, and also that some labour and accuracy has been employed in adapting the words to the measure.
The Hebrew poetry has likewise another property altogether peculiar to metrical composition. It admits foreign words and certain particles, which seldom occur in prose composition, and thus forms a distinct poetical dialect. One or two of the peculiarities also of the Hebrew verification it may be proper to remark, which as they are very observable in those poems in which the verses are defined by the initial letters, may at least be reasonably conjectured of the rest. The first of these is, that the verses are very unequal in length; the shortest consisting of six or seven syllables; the longest extending to about twice that number; the same poem is, however, generally continued throughout in verses not very unequal to each other. It must also be observed, that the close of the verse generally falls where the members of the sentences are divided.
But although nothing certain can be defined concerning the metre of the particular verses, there is yet another artifice of poetry to be remarked of them when in a collective state, when several of them are taken together. In the Hebrew poetry, as is before remarked, there may be observed a certain conformation of the sentences; the nature of which is, that a complete sentence is almost equally infused into every component part, and that every member constitutes an entire verse. So that as the poems divide themselves in a manner spontaneously into periods, for the most part equal; so the periods themselves are divided into verses, most commonly
(1) Psalms xxv. xxxiv. xxxvii. cxi. cxii. cxix. cxlv. Prov. xxxi. from the 10th verse to the end. The whole of the Lamentations of Jeremiah except the last chapter. Scripture: ly couplets, though frequently of greater length. This is chiefly observable in those passages which frequently occur in the Hebrew poetry, in which they treat one subject in many different ways, and dwell upon the same sentiment; when they express the same thing in different words, or different things in a similar form of words; when equals refer to equals, and opposites to opposites: and since this artifice of composition seldom fails to produce even in prose an agreeable and measured cadence—we can scarcely doubt that it must have imparted to their poetry, were we masters of the verification, an exquisite degree of beauty and grace.
The elegant and ingenious Dr Lowth has with great acuteness examined the peculiarities of Hebrew poetry, and has arranged them under general divisions. The correspondence of one verse or line with another he calls parallelism. When a proposition is delivered, and a second is subjoined to it, equivalent or contrasted with it in sense, or similar to it in the form of grammatical construction, these he calls parallel lines; and the words or phrases answering one to another in the corresponding lines, parallel terms. Parallel lines he reduces to three sorts: parallels synonymous, parallels antithetic, and parallels synthetic. Of each of these we shall present a few examples.
First, of parallel lines synonymous, which correspond one to another by expressing the same sense in different but equivalent terms.
O Jehovah, in-thy-strength the-king shall-rejoice; And-in-thy-salvation how greatly shall-he-exult! The-defire of-his-heart thou-half-granted unto-him; And-the-request of-his-lips thou-half-not denied.
Ps. xxi. 1, 2.
Because I-called, and-ye-refused; I-stretched-out my-hand, and-no-one regarded; But-ye-have-defeated all my-counsel; And-would-not incline to-my-reproof: I also will-laugh at-your-calamity; I will-mock, when-what-you-feared cometh; When-what-you-feared cometh like-a-devastation; And-your-calamity advanceth like-a-tempest; When-distress and-anguish come-upon-you: Then shall they-call-upon-me, but-I-will-not answer; They-shall-seek-me-early, but-they-shall-not find-me: Because they-hated knowledge; And-did-not choose the-fear of-Jehovah; Did-not incline to-my-counsel; Contemptuously-rejected all my-reproof; Therefore-shall-they-eat of-the-fruit of-their-ways; And-shall-be-fatiated with-their-own devices. For the-defection of-the-simple shall-flay-them; And-the-security of-fools shall-destroy them.
Prov. i. 24—32.
Seek ye Jehovah, while-he-may-be-found; Call-ye-upon-him, while-he-is near: Let-the-wicked forsake his-way; And-the-unrighteous man his-thoughts: And-let-him return to Jehovah, and-he-will-compassionate-him; And unto our-God, for he-aboundeth in-forgiveness (k).
Isaiah lv. 6, 7.
These synonymous parallels sometimes consist of two, of three, or more synonymous terms. Sometimes they are formed by a repetition of part of the first sentence:
As, What shall I do unto thee, O Ephraim! What shall I do unto thee, O Judah! For your goodness is as the morning cloud, And as the early dew it passeth away.
Hosca vi. 4.
The following is a beautiful instance of a parallel triplet, when three lines correspond and form a kind of stanza, of which two only are synonymous.
That day, let it become darkness; Let not God from above inquire after it; Nor let the flowing light radiate upon it. That night, let utter darkness seize it; Let it not be united with the days of the year; Let it not come into the number of the months. Let the stars of its twilight be darkened: Let it look for light, and may there be none; And let it not behold the eyelids of the morning.
Job iii. 4, 6, 9.
The second sort of parallels are the antithetic, when two lines correspond with one another by an opposition of terms and sentiments; when the second is contrasted with the first, sometimes in expressions, sometimes in sense only. Accordingly the degrees of antithesis are various: from an exact contraposition of word to word through the whole sentence, down to a general disparity, with something of a contrariety, in the two propositions. Thus in the following examples:
A wife son rejoiceth his father; But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.
Prov. x. 1.
Where every word hath its opposite: for the terms father and mother are, as the logicians say, relatively opposite.
The memory of the just is a blessing; But the name of the wicked shall rot.
Prov. x. 7.
Here there are only two antithetic terms: for memory and name are synonymous.
There is that scattereth, and still increaseth; And that is unreasonably sparing, yet groweth poor.
Prov. xi. 24.
Here there is a kind of double antithesis; one between the two lines themselves; and likewise a subordinate opposition between the two parts of each.
Therein chariots, and those in horses; But we in the name of Jehovah our God will be strong. They are bowed down, and fallen; But we are risen, and maintain ourselves firm.
Ps. xx. 7, 8.
For his wrath is but for a moment, his favour for life; Sorrow may lodge for the evening, but in the morning gladness.
Ps. xxx. 5.
Yet a little while, and the wicked shall be no more; Thou shalt look at his place, and he shall not be found; But the meek shall inherit the land; And delight themselves in abundant prosperity.
Ps. xxxvii. 10, 11.
(k) All the words bound together by hyphens answer to single words in Hebrew. In the last example the opposition lies between the two parts of a stanza of four lines, the latter distich being opposed to the former. So likewise the following:
For the mountains shall be removed; And the hills shall be overthrown: But my kindness from thee shall not be removed; And the covenant of my peace shall not be overthrown.
Isaiah liv. 10.
Isaiah by means of the antithetic parallelism, without departing from his usual dignity, adds greatly to the sweetness of his composition in the following instances:
In a little anger have I forsaken thee; But with great mercies will I receive thee again: In a short wrath I hid my face for a moment from thee; But with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee.
Isaiah liv. 7, 8.
Behold my servants shall eat, but ye shall be famished; Behold my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; Behold my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be confounded; Behold my servants shall sing aloud, for gladness of heart, But ye shall cry aloud for grief of heart; And in the anguish of a broken spirit shall ye howl.
Isaiah lxv. 13, 14.
Frequently one line or member contains two sentiments:
The nations raged; the kingdoms were moved; He uttered a voice; the earth was dissolved; Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted in the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.
Pf. xlvii. 6, 10.
When thou passest through waters I am with thee; And through rivers, they shall not overwhelm thee; When thou walkest in the fire thou shalt not be scorched; And the flame shall not cleave to thee.
Isaiah xliii. 2.
The third sort of parallels is the synthetic or constructive; where the parallelism consists only in the familiar form of construction; in which word does not answer to word, and sentence to sentence, as equivalent or opposite; but there is a correspondence and equality between different propositions, in respect of the shape and turn of the whole sentence, and of the constructive parts; such as noun answering to noun, verb to verb, member to member, negative to negative, interrogative to interrogative.
Lo! he withholdeth the waters, and they are dried up: And he sendeth them forth, and they overturn the earth. With him is strength, and perfect existence; The deceived, and the deceiver, are his.
Job xii. 13—16.
Is such then the fact which I choose? That a man should afflict his soul for a day? Is it, that he should bow down his head like a bulrush, And spread sackcloth and ashes for his couch? Shall this be called a fast, And a day acceptable to Jehovah? Is not this the fast that I choose? To dissolve the bands of wickedness; To loosen the oppressive burdens; To deliver those that are crushed by violence;
Vol. XVII. Part I.
And that ye should break asunder every yoke? Is it not to distribute thy bread to the hungry; And to bring the wandering poor into thy house? When thou feelest the naked, that thou clothe him; And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth like the morning; And thy wounds shall speedily be healed over; And thy righteousness shall go before thee; And the glory of Jehovah shall bring up thy rear."
Isaiah lviii. 5—8.
We shall produce another example of this species of parallelism from Pf. xix. 8—11, from Dr Lowth:
The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple; The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of Jehovah is clear, enlightening the eyes; The fear of Jehovah is pure, enduring for ever; The judgments of Jehovah are truth, they are just altogether. More desirable than gold, or than much fine gold; And sweeter than honey, or the dropping of honeycombs.
Synonymous parallels have the appearance of art and concinnity, and a studied elegance; they prevail chiefly in shorter poems; in many of the Psalms; in Balaam's prophecies; frequently in those of Isaiah, which are most of them distinct poems of no great length. The antithetic parallelism gives an acuteness and force to adages and moral sentences; and therefore abounds in Solomon's Proverbs, and elsewhere is not often to be met with. The poem of Job, being on a large plan, and in a high tragic style, though very exact in the division of the lines and in the parallelism, and affording many fine examples of the synonymous kind, yet consists chiefly of the constructive. A happy mixture of the several sorts gives an agreeable variety; and they serve mutually to recommend and set off one another.
The reader will perceive that we have derived everything we have said relating to Hebrew poetry from the elegant Lectures of Dr Lowth, which are beautifully translated by Mr Gregory, a distinguished author as well as translator.
The book of Proverbs has always been accounted canonical. The Hebrew title of it is Mishlei*, which signifies "familiarities." It has always been ascribed to Solomon, whose name it bears, though some have doubted whether he really was the author of every one of the maxims which it contains. Those in chap. xxx. are indeed called the words of Agur the son of Jakob, and the title of the 31st or last chapter is the words of King Lemuel. It seems certain that the collection called the Proverbs of Solomon was digested in the order in which we now have it by different hands; but it is not, therefore, to be concluded that they are not the work of Solomon. Several persons might have made collections of them: Hezekiah, among others, as mentioned chapter xxv. Agur and Ezra might have done the same. From these several collections the work was compiled which we have now in our hands.
The book of Proverbs may be considered under five divisions. 1. The first, which is a kind of preface, extends Scripture tends to the 10th chapter. This contains general cautions and exhortations for a teacher to his pupil, expressed in elegant language, duly connected in its parts, illustrated with beautiful description, and well contrived to engage and interest the attention.
2. The second part extends from the beginning of chap. x. to chap. xxii. 17, and consists of what may strictly and properly be called proverbs, viz. unconnected sentences, expressed with much neatness and simplicity. They are truly, to use the language of their sage author, "apples of gold in pictures of silver."
3. In the third part, which is included between chapter xxii. 16, and chapter xxv. the tutor drops the sententious style, addresses his pupil as present, and delivers his advice in a connected manner.
4. The proverbs which are included between chapter xxv. and chapter xxx. are supposed to have been selected by the men of Hezekiah from some larger collection of Solomon, that is, by the prophets whom he employed to restore the service and writings of the church. Some of the proverbs which Solomon had introduced into the former part of the book are here repeated.
5. The prudent admonitions which Agur delivered to his pupils Ithiel and Ucal are contained in the 30th chapter; and in the 31st are recorded the precepts which the mother of Lemuel delivered to her son.
Several references are evidently made to the book of Proverbs by the writers of the New Testament:
Rom. xii. 20. 1 Pet. iv. 8. v. v. 5. James iv. 6.
The Proverbs of Solomon afford specimens of the didactic poetry of the Hebrews. They abound with antithetic parallels; for this form is peculiarly adapted to that kind of writing, to adages, aphorisms, and detached sentences. Indeed, the elegance, acuteness, and force of a great number of Solomon's wife sayings arise in a great measure from the antithetic form, the opposition of diction and sentiment. Take the following examples:
The blows of a friend are faithful; But the kisses of an enemy are treacherous. The cloyed will trample upon a honeycomb; But to the hungry every bitter thing is sweet. There is who maketh himself rich, and wanteth all things; Who maketh himself poor, yet hath much wealth. The rich man is wise in his own eyes, But the poor man that hath discernment to trace him out will despise him.
The Hebrew title of the book which we call Ecclesiastes is Kelieth, that is, the Gatherer or Collector; and it is so called, either because the work itself is a collection of maxims, or because it was delivered to an assembly gathered together to hear them. The Greek term Ecclesiastes is of the same import, signifying one who gathers together a congregation, or who discourses or preaches to an assembly convened. That Solomon was the author of this book is beyond all doubt; the beautiful description of the phenomena in the natural world, and their causes; of the circulation of the blood, as some think*, and the economy of the human frame, shews it to be the work of a philosopher. At what period of his life it was written may be easily found out. The affecting account of the infirmities of old age which it contains, is a strong indication that the author knew by experience what they were; and his complete conviction of the vanity of all earthly enjoyments proves it to have been the work of a penitent.
Some passages in it seem, indeed, to express an Epicurean notion of Providence. But it is to be observed, that the author, in an academic way, disputes on both sides of the question; and at last concludes properly, that to "fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man; for God (says he) will bring every work to judgment, and every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
The general tenor and style of Ecclesiastes is very different from the book of Proverbs, though there are many detached sentiments and proverbs interspersed. For the whole work is uniform, and confined to one subject, namely, the vanity of the world exemplified by the experience of Solomon, who is introduced in the character of a person investigating a very difficult question, examining the arguments on either side, and at length disengaging himself from an anxious and doubtful disputatious. It would be very difficult to distinguish the parts and arrangement of this production; the order of the subject, and the connection of the arguments, are involved in so much obscurity, that scarcely any two commentators have agreed concerning the plan of the work, and the accurate division of it into parts or sections. The truth is, the laws of methodical composition and arrangement were neither known by the Hebrews nor regarded in their didactic writings. They uniformly retained the old sententious manner, nor did they submit to method, even where the occasion appeared to demand it. The style of this work is, however, singular; the language is generally low; it is frequently loose, unconnected, approaching to the incorrectness of conversation; and possesses very little of the poetical character, even in the composition and structure of the periods: which peculiarity may possibly be accounted for from the nature of the subject. Contrary to the opinion of the Rabbies, Ecclesiastes has been classed among the poetical books; though, if their authority and opinions were of any weight or importance, they might perhaps on this occasion deserve some attention.
The Song of Solomon, in the opinion of Dr Lowth, is an epibalamium or nuptial dialogue, in which the principal characters are Solomon, his bride, and a chorus of virgins. Some are of opinion that it is to be taken altogether in a literal sense; but the generality of Jews and Christians have esteemed it wholly allegorical, expressing the union of Jesus Christ and the church. Dr Lowth has supported the common opinion, by showing that the sacred writers often apply metaphors to God and his people derived from the conjugal state. Our Saviour is styled a bridegroom by John the Baptist (John iii.), and is represented in the same character in the parable of the ten virgins. Michaelis, on the other hand, rejects the argument drawn from analogy as inconclusive, and the opinion of Jews and Christians as of no greater authority than the opinion of the moderns.
The second of those great divisions under which the Jews clasped the books of the Old Testament was that of the Prophets, which formerly comprehended 16 books.
The Prophets were 16 in number: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah. chariah, Malachi. The four first are called the greater prophets; the other twelve are denominated the minor prophets.
The writings of the Prophets are to Christians the most interesting part of the Old Testament; for they afford one of the most powerful arguments for the divine origin of the Christian religion. If we could only prove, therefore, that these prophecies were uttered a single century before the events took place to which they relate, their claim to inspiration would be unquestionable. But we can prove that the interval between their enunciation and accomplishment extended much farther, even to 500 and 1000 years, and in some cases much more.
The books of the prophets are mentioned by Josephus, and therefore surely existed in his time; they are also quoted by our Saviour, under the general denomination of the Prophets. We are informed by Tacitus and Suetonius, that about 60 years before the birth of our Saviour there was an universal expectation in the east of a great personage who was to arise; and the source of this expectation is traced by the same writers to the sacred books of the Jews. They existed also in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, A.C. 166; for when that tyrant prohibited the reading of the law, the books of the Prophets were substituted in its place, and were continued as a part of the daily service after the interdict against the law of Moses was taken off. We formerly remarked, that references are made by the author of Ecclesiasticus, A.C. 200, to the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and that he mentions the 12 Prophets. We can ascend still higher, and assert from the language of the Prophets, that all their writings must have been composed before the Babylonish captivity, or within a century after it; for all of them, except Daniel and Ezra, are composed in Hebrew, and even in them long passages are found in that language: but it is a well known fact, that all the books written by Jews about two centuries after that era are composed in the Syriac, or Chaldaic, or Greek language. "Let any man (says Michaelis) compare what was written in Hebrew after the Babylonish exile, and, I apprehend, he will perceive no less evident marks of decay than in the Latin language." Even in the time of Ezra, the common people, from their long residence in Babylonia, had forgotten the Hebrew, and it was necessary for the learned to interpret the law of Moses to them. We can therefore ascertain with very considerable precision the date of the prophetic writings; which indeed is the only important point to be determined: For whether we can discover the authors or not, if we can only establish their ancient date, we shall be fully entitled to draw this conclusion, that the predictions of the Prophets are inspired.
Much has been written to explain the nature of inspiration, and to show by what methods God imparted to the prophets that divine knowledge which they were commanded to publish to their countrymen. Attempts have been made to disclose the nature of dreams and visions, and to describe the ecstasy or rapture to which the prophets were supposed to be raised while they uttered their predictions. Not to mention the degrading and indecent comparison which this last circumstance suggests, we shall only inform those who expect here an explanation of the prophetic dreams and visions, that we shall not attempt to be wise above what is written. The manner in which the all-wise and unseen God may think proper to operate upon the minds of his creatures, we might expect a priori to be mysterious and inexplicable. Indeed such an inquiry, though it were successful, would only gratify curiosity, without being in the least degree conducive to useful knowledge.
The business of philosophy is not to inquire how almighty power produced the frame of nature, and bestowed upon it that beauty and grandeur which is everywhere conspicuous, but to discover those marks of intelligence and design, and the various purposes to which the works of nature are subservient. Philosophy has of late been directed to theology and the study of the Scriptures with the happiest effects; but it is not permitted to enter within the veil which the Lord of Nature has thrown over his councils. Its province, which is sufficiently extensive, is to examine the language of the prophecies, and to discover their application.
The character of the prophetic style varies according to the genius, the education, and mode of living of the respective authors; but there are some peculiarities which run through the whole prophetic books. A plain unadorned style would not have suited those men who were to wrap the mysteries of futurity in a veil, which was not to be penetrated till the events themselves should be accomplished. For it was never the intention of prophecy to unfold futurity to our view, as many of the rash interpreters of prophecy fondly imagine; for this would be inconsistent with the free agency of man. It was therefore agreeable to the wisdom of God that prophecies should be couched in a language which would render them unintelligible till the period of their completion; yet such a language as is distinct, regular, and would be easily explained when the events themselves should have taken place. This is precisely the character of the prophetic language. It is partly derived from the hieroglyphical symbols of Egypt, to which the Israelites during their servitude were familiarized, and partly from that analogy which subsists between natural objects and those which are moral and political.
The prophets borrowed their imagery from the most splendid and sublime natural objects, from the host of heaven, from seas and mountains, from storms and lightning, earthquakes, and from the most striking revolutions in nature. The celestial bodies they used as symbols to express thrones and dignities, and those who enjoyed them. Earth was the symbol for men of low estate. Hades represents the miserable. Ascending to heaven, and descending to earth, are phrases which express rising to power, or falling from it. Great earthquakes, the shaking of heaven and earth, denote the commotions and overthrow of kingdoms. The sun represents the whole race of kings shining with regal power and glory. The moon is the symbol of the common people. The stars are subordinate princes and great men. Light denotes glory, truth, or knowledge. Darkness expresses obscurity of condition, error, and ignorance. The darkening of the sun, the turning of the moon into blood, and the falling of the stars, signify the destruction or desolation of a kingdom. New moons, the returning of a nation from a dispersed state. Conflagration of the earth, is the sym- Scripture, but for destruction by war. The ascent of smoke from any thing burning for ever, denotes the continuance of a people under slavery. Riding in the clouds, signifies reigning over many subjects. Tempestuous winds, or motion of the clouds, denote wars. Thunder denotes the noise of multitudes. Fountains of waters express cities. Mountains and islands, cities with the territories belonging to them. Houses and ships stand for families, assemblies, and towns. A forest is put for a kingdom. A wilderness for a nation much diminished in its numbers.
Animals, as a lion, bear, leopard, goat, are put for kingdoms or political communities corresponding to their respective characters. When a man or beast is put for a kingdom, the head represents those who govern; the tail those who are governed; the horns denote the number of military powers or states that rise from the head. Seeing signifies understanding; eyes men of understanding; the mouth denotes a lawyer; the arm of a man is put for power, or for the people by whose strength his power is exercised; feet represent the lowest of the people.
Such is the precision and regularity of the prophetic language, which we learn to interpret by comparing prophecies which are accomplished with the facts to which they correspond. So far is the study of it carried already, that a dictionary has been composed to explain it; and it is probable, that in a short time it may be so fully understood, that we shall find little difficulty in explaining any prophecy. But let us not from this expect, that the prophecies will enable us to penetrate the dark clouds of futurity: No! The difficulty of applying prophecies to their corresponding events, before completion, will still remain unsurmountable. Those men, therefore, however pious and well-meaning they may be, who attempt to explain and apply prophecies which are not yet accomplished, and who delude the credulous multitude by their own romantic conjectures, cannot be acquitted of rashness and presumption.
The predictions of the prophets, according to the opinion of Dr Lowth, are written in a poetical style. They possess indeed all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, with the single exception, that none of them are alphabetical or acrostic, which is an artificial arrangement utterly repugnant to the nature of prophecy.
The other arguments, however, ought to be particularly adverted to upon this subject: the poetical dialect, for instance, the diction so totally different from the language of common life, and other similar circumstances, which an attentive reader will easily discover, but which cannot be explained by a few examples; for circumstances which, taken separately, appear but of small account, are in a united view frequently of the greatest importance. To these we may add the artificial conformation of the sentences; which are a necessary concomitant of metrical composition, the only one indeed which is now apparent, as it has always appeared to us.
The order in which the books of the minor prophets are placed is not the same in the Septuagint as in the Hebrew *. According to the latter, they stand as in our translation; but in the Greek, the series is altered as to the five first; to the following arrangement: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah. This change, however, is of no consequence, since neither in the original, nor in the Septuagint, are they placed with exact regard to the time in which their sacred authors respectively flourished.
The order in which they should stand, if chronologically arranged, is by Blair and others supposed to be as follows: Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Joel, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. And this order will be found to be generally consistent with the periods to which the Prophets will be respectively assigned in the following pages, except in the instance of Joel, who probably flourished rather earlier than he is placed by these chronologers. The precise period of this prophet, however, cannot be ascertained; and some disputes might be maintained concerning the priority of others also, when they were nearly contemporaries, as Amos and Hosea; and when the first prophecies of a later prophet were delivered at the same time with, or previous to, those of a prophet who was called earlier to the sacred office. The following scheme, however, in which also the greater prophets will be introduced, may enable the reader more accurately to comprehend the actual and relative periods in which they severally prophesied.
The Prophets in their supposed Order of Time, arranged according to Blair's Tables * with but little Variation.
| Before Christ | Kings of Judah | Kings of Israel | |--------------|---------------|----------------| | Jonah | Between 856 and 784 | Jehu, and Jehoahaz, according to Lloyd; but Joash and Jeroboam the Second according to Blair. | | Amos | Between 810 and 785 | Jeroboam the Second, chap. i. 1. | | Hosea | Between 810 and 725 | Jeroboam the Second, chap. i. 1. |
* Bishop Newcome's Version of Minor Prophets, Preface, p. 43. | Before Christ | Kings of Judah | Kings of Israel | |---------------|----------------|----------------| | Isaiah | Between 810 and 698 | Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, chap. i. 1, and perhaps Manasseh. | | Joel | Between 810 and 660, or later | Uzziah, or possibly Manasseh. | | Micah | Between 758 and 699 | Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, chap. i. 1. | | Nahum | Between 720 and 698 | Probably towards the close of Hezekiah's reign. | | Zephaniah | Between 640 and 609 | In the reign of Josiah, chap. i. 1. | | Jeremiah | Between 628 and 586 | In the thirteenth year of Josiah. | | Habakkuk | Between 612 and 598 | Probably in the reign of Jehoiakim. | | Daniel | Between 606 and 534 | During all the Captivity. | | Obadiah | Between 588 and 583 | Between the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of the Edomites by him. | | Ezekiel | Between 595 and 536 | During part of the Captivity. | | Haggai | About 520 to 518 | After the return from Babylon. | | Zechariah | From 520 to 518, or longer | | | Malachi | Between 436 and 397 | |
Isaiah is supposed to have entered upon the prophetic office in the last year of the reign of Uzziah, about 758 years before Christ; and it is certain that he lived to the 15th or 16th years of Hezekiah. This makes the least possible term of the duration of his prophetic office about 43 years. The Jews have a tradition that Isaiah was put to death in the reign of Manasseh, being sawn asunder with a wooden saw by the command of that tyrant; but when we recollect how much the traditions of the Jews were condemned by our Saviour, we will not be disposed to give them much credit.
The time of the delivery of some of his prophecies is either expressly marked, or sufficiently clear from the history to which they relate. The date of a few others may with some probability be deduced from internal marks; from expressions, descriptions, and circumstances interwoven.
Isaiah, the first of the prophets both in order and of his style, dignity, abounds in such transcendant excellencies, that he may be properly said to afford the most perfect model of the prophetic poetry. He is at once elegant and sublime, forcible and ornamented; he unites energy with copiousness, and dignity with variety. In his sentiments there is uncommon elevation and majesty; in his imagery the utmost propriety, elegance, dignity, and diversity; in his language uncommon beauty and energy; and, notwithstanding the obscurity of his subjects, a surprising degree of clearness and simplicity. To these we may add, there is such sweetness in the poetical composition of his sentences, whether it proceed from art or genius, that if the Hebrew poetry at present is possessed of any remains of its native grace and harmony, we shall chiefly find them in the writings of Isaiah: so that the saying of Ezekiel may most justly be applied to this prophet:
Thou art the confirmed exemplar of measures, Full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
* Ezekiel xxviii. 12. Isaiah greatly excels too in all the graces of method, order, connection, and arrangement: though in asserting this we must not forget the nature of the prophetic impulse, which bears away the mind with irresistible violence, and frequently in rapid transitions from near to remote objects, from human to divine; we must also be careful in remarking the limits of particular predictions, since, as they are now extant, they are often improperly connected, without any marks of discrimination; which injudicious arrangement, on some occasions, creates almost insuperable difficulties. It is, in fact, a body or collection of different prophecies, nearly allied to each other as to the subject, which, for that reason, having a sort of connection, are not to be separated but with the utmost difficulty. The general subject is the restoration of the church. Its deliverance from captivity; the destruction of idolatry; the vindication of the divine power and truth; the consolation of the Israelites, the divine invitation which is extended to them, their incredulity, impiety, and rejection; the calling in of the Gentiles; the restoration of the chosen people; the glory and felicity of the church in its perfect state; and the ultimate destruction of the wicked—are all set forth with a sufficient respect to order and method. If we read these passages with attention, and duly regard the nature and genius of the mystical allegory, at the same time remembering that all these points have been frequently touched upon in other prophecies promulgated at different times, we shall neither find any irregularity in the arrangement of the whole, nor any want of order and connection as to matter or sentiment in the different parts. Dr Lowth esteems the whole book of Isaiah to be poetical, a few passages excepted, which, if brought together, would not at most exceed the bulk of five or six chapters.
The 14th chapter of Isaiah is one of the most sublime odes in the Scripture, and contains one of the noblest personifications to be found in the records of poetry.
The prophet, after predicting the liberation of the Jews from their severe captivity in Babylon, and their restoration to their own country, introduces them as reciting a kind of triumphal song upon the fall of the Babylonish monarch, replete with imagery, and with the most elegant and animated personifications. A sudden exclamation, expressive of their joy and admiration on the unexpected revolution in their affairs, and the destruction of their tyrants, forms the exordium of the poem. The earth itself triumphs with the inhabitants thereof; the fir-trees and the cedars of Lebanon (under which images the parabolic style frequently delineates the kings and princes of the Gentiles) exult with joy, and persecute with contemptuous reproaches the humbled power of a ferocious enemy:
The whole earth is at rest, is quiet; they burst forth into a joyful shout: Even the fir-trees rejoice over thee, the cedars of Lebanon: Since thou art fallen, no sinner hath come up against us.
This is followed by a bold and animated personification of Hades, or the infernal regions:
Hades from beneath is moved because of thee, to meet thee at thy coming:
He rouseth for thee the mighty dead, all the great chiefs of the earth; He maketh to rise up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
Hades excites his inhabitants, the ghosts of princes, and the departed spirits of kings: they rise immediately from their seats, and proceed to meet the monarch of Babylon; they insult and deride him, and comfort themselves with the view of his calamity:
Art thou, even thou too, become weak as we? art thou made like unto us? Is then thy pride brought down to the grave; the sound of thy upright instruments? Is the vermin become thy couch, and the earthworm thy covering?
Again, the Jewish people are the speakers, in an exclamation after the manner of a funeral lamentation, which indeed the whole form of this composition exactly imitates. The remarkable fall of this powerful monarch is thus beautifully illustrated:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art cut down from earth, thou that didst subdue the nations? Yet thou didst say in thy heart, I will ascend the heavens; Above the stars of God I will exalt my throne; And I will sit upon the mount of the divine presence, on the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. But thou shalt be brought down to the grave, to the sides of the pit.
He himself is at length brought upon the stage, boasting in the most pompous terms of his own power; which furnishes the poet with an excellent opportunity of displaying the unparalleled misery of his downfall. Some persons are introduced, who find the dead carcase of the king of Babylon cast out and exposed; they attentively contemplate it, and at last scarcely know it to be his:
Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that shook the kingdoms? That made the world like a desert, that destroyed the cities? That never dismissed his captives to their own home? All the kings of the nations, all of them, Lie down in glory, each in his own sepulchre: But thou art cast out of the grave, as the tree abominated; Clothed with the slain, with the pierced by the sword, With them that go down to the stones of the pit; as a trodden carcase. Thou shalt not be joined unto them in burial; Because thou hast destroyed thy country, thou hast slain thy people: The seed of evil doers shall never be renowned.
They reproach him with being denied the common rites of sepulture, on account of the cruelty and atrocity of his conduct; they execrate his name, his offspring, and their posterity. A solemn address, as of the Deity himself, self, closes the scene, and he denounces against the king of Babylon, his posterity, and even against the city which was the seat of their cruelty, perpetual destruction, and confirms the immutability of his own counsels by the solemnity of an oath.
How forcible is this imagery, how diversified, how sublime! how elevated the diction, the figures, the sentiments! — The Jewish nation, the cedars of Lebanon, the ghosts of departed kings, the Babylonish monarch, the travellers who find his corpse, and last of all Jehovah himself, are the characters which support this beautiful lyric drama. One continued action is kept up, or rather a series of interesting actions are connected together in an incomparable whole. This, indeed, is the principal and distinguished excellence of the sublimer ode, and is displayed in its utmost perfection in this poem of Isaiah, which may be considered as one of the most ancient, and certainly the most finished, specimen of that species of composition which has been transmitted to us. The personifications here are frequent, yet not confused; bold, yet not improbable: a free, elevated, and truly divine spirit, pervades the whole; nor is there anything wanting in this ode to defeat its claim to the character of perfect beauty and sublimity. "If (says Dr Lowth) I may be indulged in the free declaration of my own sentiments on this occasion, I do not know a single instance in the whole compass of Greek and Roman poetry, which, in every excellence of composition, can be said to equal, or even approach it."
Jeremiah was called to the prophetic office in the 13th year of the reign of Josiah the son of Amon, A.M. 3376, A.C. 628, and continued to prophecy upwards of 40 years, during the reigns of the degenerate princes of Judah, to whom he boldly threatened those marks of the divine vengeance which their rebellious conduct drew on themselves and their country. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, he was suffered by Nebuchadnezzar to remain in the defoliate land of Judea to lament the calamities of his infatuated countrymen. He was afterwards, as he himself informs us, carried with his disciple Baruch into Egypt, by Johanan the son of Kareah.
It appears from several passages that Jeremiah committed his prophecies to writing. In the 36th chapter we are informed, that the prophet was commanded to write upon a roll all the prophecies which he had uttered; and when the roll was destroyed by Jehoiakim the king, Jeremiah dictated the same prophecies to Baruch, who wrote them together with many additional circumstances. The works of Jeremiah extend to the last verse of the 51st chapter; in which we have these words, "Thus far are the words of Jeremiah." The 52nd chapter was therefore added by some other writer. It is, however, a very important supplement, as it illustrates the accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecies respecting the fate of Zedekiah.
The prophecies of Jeremiah are not arranged in the chronological order in which they were delivered. What has occasioned this transposition cannot now be determined. It is generally maintained, that if we consult their dates, they ought to be thus placed:
In the reign of Josiah the first 12 chapters. In the reign of Jehoiakim, chapters xiii. xx. xxii. v. ii. i. 4.; xxii. xxiii. xxv. xxvi. xxxv. xxxvi. xlvi.—xlix. i—33. In the reign of Zedekiah, chap. xxii. i—10. xxiv., xxvii. xxxiv. xxxvii. xxxix. xlii. 34—39. l. and li. Under the government of Gedaliah, chapters xl. xlv. The prophecies which related to the Gentiles were contained in the 46th and five following chapters, being placed at the end, as in some measure unconnected with the rest. But in some copies of the Septuagint these six chapters follow immediately after the 13th verse of the 25th chapter.
Jeremiah, though deficient neither in elegance nor sublimity, must give place in both to Isaiah. Jerome seems to object against him a sort of rusticity of language, no vestige of which Dr Lowth was able to discover. His sentiments, it is true, are not always the most elevated, nor are his periods always neat and compact; but there are faults common to those writers whose principal aim is to excite the gentler affections, and to call forth the tear of sympathy or sorrow. This observation is very strongly exemplified in the Lamentations, where there are the prevailing passions; it is, however, frequently inflamed in the prophecies of this author, and most of all in the beginning of the book (i.), which is chiefly poetical. The middle of it is almost entirely historical. The latter part, again, consisting of the six last chapters, is altogether poetical (m); it contains several different predictions, which are distinctly marked; and in these the prophet approaches very near the sublimity of Isaiah. On the whole, however, not above half the book of Jeremiah is poetical.
The book of Lamentations, as we are informed in the title, was composed by Jeremiah. We shall present to our reader an account of this elegiac poem from the elegant pen of Dr Lowth.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah (for the title is properly and significantly plural) consist of a number of plaintive effusions, composed upon the plan of the funeral dirges, all upon the same subject, and uttered without connection as they rose in the mind, in a long course of separate litanies. These have afterwards been put together, and formed into a collection or correspondent whole. If any reader, however, should expect to find in them an artificial and methodical arrangement of the general subject, a regular disposition of the parts, a perfect connection and orderly succession in the matter, and with all this an uninterrupted series of elegance and correctness, he will really expect what was foreign to the prophet's design. In the character of a mourner, he celebrates in plaintive strains the obsequies of his ruined country: whatever presented itself to his mind in the midst of desolation and misery, whatever struck him as particularly wretched and calamitous, whatever the instant sentiment of sorrow dictated, he pours forth in... Scripture. In a kind of spontaneous effusion. He frequently pauses, and, as it were, ruminates upon the same object; frequently varies and illustrates the same thought with different imagery, and a different choice of language; so that the whole bears rather the appearance of an accumulation of corresponding sentiments, than an accurate and connected series of different ideas, arranged in the form of a regular treatise. There is, however, no wild incoherence in the poem; the translations are easy and elegant.
The work is divided into five parts; in the first, second, and fourth chapters, the prophet addresses the people in his own person, or introduces Jerusalem as speaking. In the third chapter a chorus of the Jews is represented. In the fifth the whole captive Jews pour forth their united complaints to Almighty God. Each of these five parts is distributed into 22 stanzas, according to the number of the letters of the alphabet. In the three first chapters these stanzas consist of three lines. In the four first chapters the initial letter of each period follows the order of the alphabet; and in the third chapter each verse of the same stanza begins with the same letter. In the fourth chapter all the stanzas are evidently ditichs, as also in the fifth, which is not acrostic. The intention of the acrostic was to assist the memory to retain sentences not much connected. It deserves to be remarked, that the verses of the first four chapters are longer by almost one half than Hebrew verses generally are: The length of them seems to be on an average about 12 syllables. The prophet appears to have chosen this measure as being solemn and melancholy.
"That the subject of the Lamentations is the destruction of the holy city and temple, the overthrow of the state, the extermination of the people; and that these events are described as actually accomplished, and not in the style of prediction merely, must be evident to every reader; though some authors of considerable reputation* have imagined this poem to have been composed on the death of king Jotham. The prophet, indeed, has so copiously, so tenderly, and poetically, bewailed the misfortunes of his country, that he seems completely to have fulfilled the office and duty of a mourner. In my opinion, there is not extant any poem which displays such a happy and splendid selection of imagery in so concentrated a state. What can be more elegant and poetical, than the description of that once flourishing city, lately chief among the nations, sitting in the character of a female solitary, afflicted, in a state of widowhood, deserted by her friends, betrayed by her dearest connections, imploring relief, and seeking consolation in vain? What a beautiful personification is that of "the ways of Sion mourning because none are come to her solemn feasts"? How tender and pathetic are the following complaints?
Is this nothing to all you who pass along the way? behold and see, If there be any sorrow, like unto my sorrow, which is inflicted on me; Which Jehovah inflicted on me in the day of the violence of his wrath. For these things I weep, my eyes stream with water; Because the comforter is far away, that should tranquillize my soul: My children are desolate, because the enemy was strong.
But to detail its beauties would be to transcribe the entire poem."
Ezekiel was carried to Babylon as a captive, and received the first revelations from heaven, in the fifth year of Jehoiakim's captivity, A.C. 595. The book of Ezekiel is sometimes distributed under different heads. In the three first chapters the commission of the prophet is described. From the fourth to the thirty-second chapter inclusive, the calamities that befell the enemies of the Jews are predicted, viz., the Ammonites, the Moabites, and Philistines. The ruin of Tyre and of Sidon, and the fall of Egypt, are particularly foretold; prophecies which have been fulfilled in the most literal and astonishing manner, as we have been often assured by the relation of historians and travellers. From the 32d chapter to the 40th he inveighs against the hypocrisy and murmuring spirit of his countrymen, admonishing them to resignation by promises of deliverance. In the 38th and 39th chapters he undoubtedly predicts the final return of the Jews from their dispersion in the latter days, but in a language so obscure that it cannot be understood till the event take place. The nine last chapters of this book furnish the description of a very remarkable vision of a new temple and city, of a new religion and polity.
"Ezekiel is much inferior to Jeremiah in elegance; in character sublimity he is not even excelled by Isaiah: but his as a vehemence, tragic; the only sensation he affects to excite is the terrible: his sentiments are elevated, fervid, full of fire, indignant; his imagery is crowded, magnificent, terrific, sometimes almost to disgust: his language is pompous, solemn, austere, rough, and at times unpolished: he employs frequent repetitions, not for the sake of grace or elegance, but from the vehemence of passion and indignation. Whatever subject he treats of, that he sedulously pursues, from that he rarely departs, but cleaves as it were to it; whence the connection is in general evident and well preserved. In many respects he is perhaps excelled by the other prophets; but in that species of composition to which he seems by nature adapted, the forcible, the impetuous, the great and solemn, not one of the sacred writers is superior to him. His diction is sufficiently perspicuous; all his obscurity consists in the nature of the subject. Various (as for instance, among others, those of Hosea, Amos, and Jeremiah) are necessarily dark and confused. The greater part of Ezekiel, towards the middle of the book especially, is poetical, whether we regard the matter or the diction. His periods, however, are frequently so rude and incompact, that I am often at a loss how to pronounce concerning his performance in this respect.
"Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as far as relates to style, may be said to hold the same rank among the Hebrews, as Homer, Simonides, and Æschylus among the Greeks."
So full an account of Daniel and his writings has been already given under the article Daniel, that little remains to be said on that subject. Daniel flourished during the successive reigns of several Babylonian and Median kings to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. The events recorded in the 6th chapter were contemporary with Darius the Mede; but in the 7th and 8th chapters Daniel returns to an earlier period, to relate... the visions which he beheld in the three first years of Belshazzar's reign; and those which follow in the four last chapters were revealed to him in the reign of Darius. The fix last chapters are composed of prophecies delivered at different times; all of which are in some degree connected as parts of one great scheme. They extend through many ages, and furnish the most striking description of the fall of successive kingdoms, which were to be introductory to the establishment of the Messiah's reign. They characterize in descriptive terms the four great monarchies of the world to be succeeded by "that kingdom which should not be destroyed."
The whole book of Daniel being no more than a plain relation of facts, partly past and partly future, must be excluded the class of poetical prophecy. Much indeed of the parabolic imagery is introduced in that book; but the author introduces it as a prophet only; as visionary and allegorical symbols of objects and events, totally unconnected with the true poetical colouring. The Jews, indeed, would refuse to Daniel even the character of a prophet; but the arguments under which they shelter this opinion are very futile; for those points which they maintain concerning the conditions on which the gift of prophecy is imparted, the different gradations, and the discrimination between the true prophecy and mere inspiration, are all trifling and absurd, without any foundation in the nature of things, and totally destitute of scriptural authority. They add, that Daniel was neither originally educated in the prophetic discipline and precepts, nor afterwards lived conformably to the manner of the prophets. It is not, however, easy to comprehend how this can diminish his claim to a divine mission and inspiration; it may possibly enable us, indeed, to assign a reason for the dissimilarity between the style of Daniel and that of the other prophets, and for its poetical little of the diction and character of poetry, which the rest seem to have imbibed in common from the schools and discipline in which they were educated.
The prophecies of Daniel appear so plain and intelligible after their accomplishment, that Porphyry, who wrote in the 3rd century, affirms, that they were written after the events to which they refer took place. A little reflection will show the absurdity of this supposition. Some of the prophecies of Daniel clearly refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, with whose oppressions the Jews were too well acquainted. Had the book of Daniel not made its appearance till after the death of Epiphanes, every Jew who read it must have discovered the forgery. And what motive could induce them to receive it among their sacred books? It is impossible to conceive one. Their character was quite the reverse: their respect for the Scriptures had degenerated into superstition. But we are not left to determine this important point from the character of the Jews; we have access to more decisive evidence; we are sure that the book of Daniel contains prophecies, for some of them have been accomplished since the time of Porphyry; particularly those respecting Antichrist: now, if it contains any prophecies, who will take upon him to affirm that the divine Spirit, which dictated these many centuries before they were fulfilled, could not also have delivered prophecies concerning Antiochus Epiphanes?
The language in which the book of Daniel is composed proves that it was written about the time of the Babylonish captivity. Part of it is pure Hebrew; a language in which none of the Jewish books were composed after the age of Epiphanes. There are arguments to a deceit. To a Christian the internal marks of the book itself will show the time in which it was written, and the testimony of Ezekiel will prove Daniel to be at least his contemporary.
The twelve minor prophets were so called, not from any supposed inferiority in their writings, but on account of the small size of their works. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Jews joined them together, and considered them as one volume. These 12 prophets present in scattered hints a lively sketch of many particulars relative to the history of Judah and of Israel, as well as of other kingdoms: they prophesy with historical exactness the fate of Babylon, of Nineveh, of Tyre, of Sidon, and of Damascus. The three last prophets especially illustrate many circumstances at a period when the historical pages of Scripture are closed, and when profane writers are entirely wanting. At first the Jewish prophets appeared only as single lights, and followed each other in individual succession; but they became more numerous about the time of the captivity. The light of inspiration was collected into one blaze, previous to its suspension; and it served to keep alive the expectations of the Jews during the awful interval which prevailed between the expiration of prophecy and its grand completion on the advent of Christ.
Hosea has been supposed the most ancient of the 12 Minor Prophets. He flourished in the reign of Jeroboam II, king of Israel, and during the succeeding reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. He was therefore nearly contemporary with Isaiah, Amos, and Jonah. The prophecies of Hosea being scattered through the book without date or connection, cannot with any certainty be chronologically arranged.
Hosea is the first in order of the minor prophets, and character is perhaps, Jonah excepted, the most ancient of them all. His style exhibits the appearance of very remote antiquity; it is pointed, energetic, and concise. It bears a distinguished mark of poetical composition, in that pristine brevity and condensation which is observable in the sentences, and which later writers have in some measure neglected. This peculiarity has not escaped the observation of Jerome: "He is altogether (says he, speaking of this prophet) laconic and sententious." But this very circumstance, which anciently was supposed no doubt to impart uncommon force and elegance, in the present ruinous state of the Hebrew literature is productive of so much obscurity, that although the general subject of this writer be sufficiently obvious, he is the most difficult and perplexed of all the prophets. There is, however, another reason for the obscurity of his style: Hosea prophesied during the reigns of the four kings of Judah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The duration of his ministry, therefore, in whatever manner we calculate, must include a very considerable space of time. We have now only a small volume of his remaining, which seems to contain his principal prophecies; and these are extant in a continued series, with no marks of distinction as to the times in which they were published, or the subjects of which they treat. There is therefore no cause to wonder if, in perusing the prophecies of Hosea, we sometimes find our- Amos was contemporary with Hosea. They both began to prophecy during the reigns of Uzziah over Judah, and of Jeroboam II. over Israel. Amos saw his first vision two years before the earthquake, which of Amos, Zechariah informs us happened in the days of Uzziah.
Amos was a herdsman of Tekoa, a small town in the territory of Judah, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. In the simplicity of former times, and in the happy climates of the East, these were not considered as dishonourable occupations. He was no prophet (as he informed Amaziah), neither was he a prophet's son, that is, he had no regular education in the schools of the prophets.
The prophecies of Amos consist of several distinct discourses, which chiefly respect the kingdom of Israel; yet sometimes the prophet inveighs against Judah, and threatens the adjacent nations, the Syrians, Philistines, Tyrians, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites.
Jerome calls Amos "rude in speech, but not in knowledge," applying to him what St Paul modestly professes of himself. Many (says Dr Lowth) have followed the authority of Jerome in speaking of this prophet, as if he were indeed quite rude, ineloquent, and destitute of all the embellishments of composition. The matter is, however, far otherwise. Let any person who has candour and perspicacity enough to judge, not from the man but from his writings, open the volume of his predictions, and he will, I think, agree with me, that our shepherd is not a whit behind the very chief of the prophets. He will agree, that as in sublimity and magnificence he is almost equal to the greatest, so in splendour of diction and elegance of expression he is scarcely inferior to any. The same celestial Spirit indeed actuated Isaiah and Daniel in the court and Amos in the sheep-folds; constantly selecting such interpreters of the divine will as were best adapted to the occasion, and sometimes from the mouth of babes and sucklings perfecting praise; occasionally employing the natural eloquence of some, and occasionally making others eloquent."
Mr Locke has observed, that the comparisons of this prophet are chiefly drawn from lions and other animals, with which he was most accustomed; but the finest images and allusions are drawn from scenes of nature. There are many beautiful passages in the writings of Amos, of which we shall present one specimen:
Wo to them that are at ease in Zion, And trust in the mountains of Samaria; Who are named chief of the nations, To whom the house of Israel came: Pals ye unto Calneh and see, And from thence go to Hamath the Great; Then go down to Gath of the Philistines; Are they better than these kingdoms? Or their borders greater than their borders? Ye that put far away the evil day, And cause the seat of violence to come near; That lie upon beds of ivory, And stretch yourselves upon couches; That eat the lambs out of the flock, And the calves out of the midst of the stall; That chant to the sound of the viol, And like David devise instruments of music;
Concerning the date of the prophecy of Joel there are various conjectures. The book itself affords nothing by which we can discover when the author lived, or upon what occasion it was written. Joel speaks of a great famine, and of mischiefs that happened in consequence of an inundation of locusts; but nothing can be gathered from such general observations to enable us to fix the period of his prophecy. St Jerome thinks (and it is the general opinion) that Joel was contemporary with Hosea. This is possibly true; but the foundation on which the opinion rests is very precarious, viz., That when there is no proof of the time in which a prophet lived, we are to be guided in our conjectures respecting it by that of the preceding prophet whose epoch is better known. As this rule is not infallible, it therefore ought not to hinder us from adopting any other opinion that comes recommended by good reasons. Father Calmet places him under the reign of Josiah, at the same time with Jeremiah, and thinks it probable that the famine to which Joel alludes, is the same with that which Jeremiah predicted ch. viii. 13.
The style of Joel is essentially different from that of Hosea; but the general character of his diction, though of a different kind, is not less poetical. He is elegant, perspicuous, copious, and fluent; he is also sublime, animated, and energetic. In the first and second chapters he displays the full force of the prophetic poetry, and shows how naturally it inclines to the use of metaphors, allegories, and comparisons. Nor is the connection of the matter less clear and evident than the complexion of the style: this is exemplified in the display of the impending evils which gave rise to the prophecy; the exhortation to repentance; the promises of happiness and success both terrestrial and eternal to those who become truly penitent; the restoration of the Israelites; and the vengeance to be taken of their adversaries. But while we allow this just commendation to his perspicuity both in language and arrangement, we must not deny that there is sometimes great obscurity observable in his subject, and particularly in the latter part of the prophecy.
The following prophecy of a plague of locusts is described with great sublimity of expression:
For a nation hath gone up on my land, Who are strong, and without number: They have destroyed my vine, and have made my fig-tree a broken branch. They have made it quite bare, and cast it away: the branches thereof are made white. The field is laid waste; the ground mourneth.*
* Joel i. 6, 7, 10, &c. That drink wine in bowls, And anoint yourselves with chief ointments; But are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.
The writings of Obadiah, which consist of one chapter, are composed with much beauty, and unfold a very interesting scene of prophecy. Of this prophet little can be said, as the specimen of his genius is so short, and the greater part of it included in one of the prophecies of Jeremiah. Compare Ob. 1–9. with Jer. xlix. 14, 15, 16. See OBADIAH.
Though Jonah be placed the sixth in the order of the minor prophets both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, he is generally considered as the most ancient of all the prophets, not excepting Hosea. He lived in the kingdom of Israel, and prophesied to the ten tribes under the reign of Joash and Jeroboam. The book of Jonah is chiefly historical, and contains nothing of poetry but the prayer of the prophet. The sacred writers, and our Lord himself, speaks of Jonah as a prophet of considerable eminence. See JONAH.
Micah began to prophecy soon after Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and Amos; and he prophesied between A.M. 3246, when Jotham began to reign, and A.M. 3305, when Hezekiah died. One of his predictions is said to have saved the life of Jeremiah, who under the reign of Jehoiakim would have been put to death for prophesying the destruction of the temple, had it not appeared that Micah had foretold the same thing under Hezekiah above 100 years before. Micah is mentioned as a prophet in the book of Jeremiah and in the New Testament. He is imitated by succeeding prophets, as he himself had borrowed expressions from his predecessors. Our Saviour himself spoke in the language of this prophet.
The style of Micah is for the most part close, forcible, pointed, and concise; sometimes approaching the obliquity of Hosea; in many parts animated and sublime; and in general truly poetical. In his prophecies there is an elegant poem, which Dr Lowth thinks is a citation from the answer of Balaam to the king of the Moabites:
Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah? Wherewith shall I bow myself unto the High God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, With calves of a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams? With ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression? The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: And what doth Jehovah require of thee, But to do justice, and to love mercy, And to be humble in walking with thy God?
Josephus asserts, that Nahum lived in the time of Joatham king of Judah; in which case he may be supposed to have prophesied against Nineveh when Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria carried captive the natives of Galilee and other parts about A.M. 3264. It is, however, probable, that his prophecies were delivered in the reign of Hezekiah; for he appears to speak of the taking of No-Ammon a city of Egypt, and of the insolent messengers of Sennacherib, as of things past; and he likewise describes the people of Judah as still in their own country, and desirous of celebrating their festivals.
While Jerusalem was threatened by Sennacherib, Nahum promised deliverance to Hezekiah, and predicted that Judah would soon celebrate her solemn feasts secure from invasion, as her enemy would no more disturb her peace. In the second and third chapters Nahum foretells the downfall of the Assyrian empire and the final destruction of Nineveh, which was probably accomplished by the Medes and Babylonians, whose combined forces overpowered the Assyrians by surprise. While they were folded together as thorns, and while they were drunken as drunkards, when the gates of the river were opened, the palace demolished, and an "overrunning flood" afflicted the conquerors in their devastation; who took an endless store of spoil of gold and silver, making an utter end of the place of Nineveh, of that vast and populous city, whose walls were 100 feet high, and so broad that three chariots could pass abreast. Yet so completely was this celebrated city destroyed, that even in the 2nd century the spot on which it stood could not be ascertained, every vestige of it being gone.
It is impossible to read of the exact accomplishment of the prophetic denunciations against the enemies of the Jews, without reflecting on the astonishing proofs which that nation enjoyed of the divine origin of their religion. From the Babylonish captivity to the time of Christ they had numberless instances of the fulfillment of their prophecies.
The character of Nahum as a writer is thus described by Dr Lowth: "None of the minor prophets seem to equal Nahum in boldness, ardour, and sublimity. His prophecy, too, forms a regular and perfect poem; the exordium is not merely magnificent, it is truly majestic; the preparation for the destruction of Nineveh, and the description of its downfall and desolation, are expressed in the most vivid colours, and are bold and luminous in the highest degree."
As the prophet Habakkuk makes no mention of the Assyrians, and speaks of the Chaldean invasions as near at hand, he probably lived after the destruction of the Assyrian empire in the fall of Nineveh A.M. 3392, and not long before the devastation of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar. Habakkuk was then nearly contemporary with Jeremiah, and predicted the same events. A general account of Habakkuk's prophecies have already been given under the word HABAKKUK, which may be consulted. We would, however, farther observe, that the prayer in the third chapter is a most beautiful and perfect ode, pouring all the fire of poetry and the profound reverence of religion.
(n) Compare Zeph. iii. 19, with Micah iv. 7, and Ezek. xxii. 27, with Micah iii. 11. (o) Compare Micah iv. 1–3, and Isa. ii. 2–4. (p) Compare Micah vii. 6, with Matt. x. 35, 36. God came from Teman, And the Holy One from mount Paran; His glory covered the heavens, And the earth was full of his praise. His brightness was as the light; Beams of glory issued from his side; And there was the hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence; And burning coals went forth at his feet. He stood and measured the earth; He beheld and drove asunder the nations; The everlasting mountains were scattered; The perpetual hills did bow.
The prophet illustrates this subject throughout with equal sublimity; selecting from such an assemblage of miraculous incidents the most noble and important, displaying them in the most splendid colours, and embellishing them with the sublimest imagery, figures, and diction; the dignity of which is so heightened and recommended by the superior elegance of the conclusion, that were it not for a few shades which the hand of time has apparently cast over it in two or three passages, no composition of the kind would appear more elegant or more perfect than this poem.
Habakkuk is imitated by succeeding prophets, and his words are borrowed by the evangelical writers ||.
Zephaniah, who was contemporary with Jeremiah, prophesied in the reign of Josiah king of Judah; and from the idolatry which he describes as prevailing at that time, it is probable that his prophecies were delivered before the last reformation made by that pious prince A. M. 3381.
The account which Zephaniah and Jeremiah give of the idolatries of their age is so similar, that St Ithodore asserts, that Zephaniah abridged the descriptions of Jeremiah. But it is more probable that the prophecies of Zephaniah were written some years before those of his contemporary; for Jeremiah seems to represent the abuses as partly removed which Zephaniah describes as flagrant and excessive (q.).
In the first chapter Zephaniah denounces the wrath of God against the idolaters who worshipped Baal and the host of heaven, and against the violent and deceitful. In the second chapter the prophet threatens destruction to the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and Ethiopians; and describes the fate of Nineveh in emphatic terms: "Flocks shall lie down in the midst of her; all the beasts of the nations, both the cormorant and bittern, shall lodge in her; their voice shall ring in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds." In the third chapter the prophet inveighs against the pollutions and oppressions of the Jews; and concludes with the promise, "That a remnant would be saved, and that multiplied blessings would be bestowed upon the penitent." The style of Zephaniah is poetical, but is not distinguished by any peculiar elegance or beauty, though generally animated and impressive.
Haggai, the tenth of the minor prophets, was the first who flourished among the Jews after the Babylonian captivity. He began to prophesy in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, about 520 years before Christ.
The intention of the prophecy of Haggai was to encourage the dispirited Jews to proceed with the building of the temple. The only prediction mentioned refers to the Messiah, whom the prophet assures his countrymen would fill the new temple with glory. So well was this prediction understood by the Jews, that they looked with earnest expectation for the Messiah's appearing in this temple till it was destroyed by the Romans. But as the victorious Messiah, whom they expected, did not then appear, they have since applied the prophecy to a third temple, which they hope to see reared in some future period.
The style of Haggai, in the opinion of Dr Lowth, is profane. Dr Newcome thinks that a great part of it is poetical.
Zechariah was undoubtedly a contemporary of Haggai, and began to prophesy two months after him, in rian, the eighth month of the second year of Darius Hystaspes, A. M. 3484, being commissioned as well as Haggai to exhort the Jews to proceed in the building of the temple after the interruption which the work had suffered. We are informed by Ezra (vi. 14.) that the Jews prospered through the prophesying of Zechariah and Haggai.
Zechariah begins with general exhortations to his countrymen, exciting them to repent from the evil ways of their fathers, whom the prophets had admonished in vain. He describes angels of the Lord interceding for mercy on Jerusalem and the destitute cities of Judah, which had experienced the indignation of the Most High for 70 years while the neighbouring nations were at peace. He declares, that the house of the Lord should be built in Jerusalem, and that Zion should be comforted. The prophet then represents the increase and prosperity of the Jews under several typical figures. He describes the establishment of the Jewish government and the coming of the Messiah. He admonishes those who observed solemn fasts without due contrition, to execute justice, mercy, and compassion, every man to his brother; not to oppress the widow nor the fatherless, the stranger nor the poor. He promises, that God would again show favour to Jerusalem; that their mournful fasts should be turned into cheerful feasts; and that the church of the Lord should be enlarged by the accession of many nations.
The 12th verse of the 11th chapter of this book, which exhibits a prophetic description of some circumstances afterwards fulfilled in our Saviour, appears to be cited by St Matthew (xxvii. 9, 10.) as spoken by Jeremiah; and as the 11th, 12th, and 13th chapters have been thought to contain some particulars more suitable to the age of Jeremiah than to that of Zechariah, some learned writers are of opinion that they were written by the former prophet, and have been from similarity of subject joined by mistake to those of Zechariah. But others are of opinion, that St Matthew might allude to some traditional prophecy of Jeremiah, or, what is more probable, that the name of Jeremiah was substituted by mistake in place of Zechariah.
(a) Compare Zephaniah i. 4, 5, 9. with Jeremiah ii. 5, 20, 32. The 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters contain prophecies which refer entirely to the Christian dispensation; the circumstances attending which he describes with a clearness which indicated their near approach.
The style of Zechariah is so similar to that of Jeremiah, that the Jews were accustomed to remark that the spirit of Jeremiah had passed into him. He is generally profane till towards the conclusion of his work, when he becomes more elevated and poetical. The whole is beautifully connected by easy transitions, and present and future scenes are blended with the greatest delicacy.
Malachi was the last prophet that flourished under the Jewish dispensation; but neither the time in which he lived, nor any particulars of his history, can now be ascertained. It is even uncertain whether the word Malachi be a proper name, or denote, as the Septuagint have rendered it, his angel (r), that is, "the angel of the Lord." Origen supposed, that Malachi was an angel incarnate, and not a man. The ancient Hebrews, the Chaldee paraphraats, and St Jerome, are of opinion he was the same person with Ezra: but if this was the case, they ought to have assigned some reason for giving two different names to the same person.
As it appears from the concurring testimony of all the ancient Jewish and Christian writers, that the light of prophecy expired in Malachi, we may suppose that the termination of his ministry coincided with the accomplishment of the first seven weeks of Daniel's prophecy, which was the period appointed for sealing the vision and prophecy. This, according to Prideaux's account, took place in A.M. 3595; but, according to the calculations of Bishop Lloyd, to A.M. 3607, twelve years later. Whatever reckoning we prefer, it must be allowed that Malachi completed the canon of the Old Testament about 400 years before the birth of Christ.
It appears certain that Malachi prophesied under Nehemiah, and after Haggai and Zechariah, at a time when great disorders reigned among the priests and people of Judah, which are reproved by Malachi. He inveighs against the priests (i. 6, &c. ii. 1, 2, &c.); he reproaches the people with having taken strange wives (ii. 11.); he reproves them for their inhumanity towards their brethren (ii. 10. iii. 5.); their too frequently divorcing their wives; their neglect of paying their tithes and first-fruits (Mal. iii. 13.) He seems to allude to the covenant that Nehemiah renewed with the Lord (iii. 10. and ii. 4, 5, &c.), assisted by the priests and the chief of the nation. He speaks of the sacrifice of the new law, and of the abolition of those of the old, in these words (i. 10, 11, 12, 13.): "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." He declares that the Lord was weary with the impiety of Israel; and affirms them, that the Lord whom they fought should suddenly come to his temple preceded by the Scripture, messenger of the covenant, who was to prepare his way; that the Lord when he appeared should purify the sons of Levi from their unrighteousness, and refuse them as metal from the dross; and that then the offering of Judah, the spiritual sacrifice of the heart, should be pleasant to the Lord. The prophet, like one who was delivering a last message, denounces destruction against the impenitent in emphatic and alarming words. He encourages those who feared the name of the Lord with the animating promise, that the "Sun of righteousness should arise with salvation in his rays," and render them triumphant over the wicked. And now that prophecy was to cease, and miracles were no more to be performed till the coming of the Messiah; now that the Jews were to be left to the guidance of their own reason, and the written instructions of their prophets—Malachi exhorts them to remember the law of Moses, which the Lord had revealed from Horeb for the sake of all Israel. At length he seals up the prophecies of the Old Testament, by predicting the commencement of the new dispensation, which should be ushered in by John the Baptist with the power and spirit of Elijah; who should turn the hearts of fathers and children to repentance; but if his admonitions should be rejected, that the Lord would smite the land with a curse.
The collection of writings composed after the ascension of Christ, and acknowledged by his followers to be divine, is known in general by the name of New Testament. This title, though neither given by divine command, nor applied to these writings by the apostles, was adopted in a very early age, though the precise time of its introduction is uncertain, it being justified by several passages in Scripture, and warranted by the authority of St Paul in particular, who calls the sacred books before the time of Christ, and the whole of the Old Testament, or the five books of Moses, were entitled book of the covenant.
As the word admits of a two-fold interpretation, we may translate this title either the New Covenant or the New Testament. The former translation must be adopted, if respect be had to the texts of Scripture, from which the name is borrowed, since those passages evidently convey the idea of a covenant; and, besides, a being incapable of death can neither have made an old nor make a new testament. It is likewise probable, that the earliest Greek disciples, who made use of this expression, had no other notion in view than that of covenant. We, on the contrary, are accustomed to give this sacred collection the name of Testament; and since it would be not only improper, but even absurd, to speak of the Testament of God, we commonly understand the Testament of Christ; an explanation which removes but half the difficulty, since the new only, and not the old, had Christ for its tellator.
In stating the evidence for the truth of Christianity, there is nothing more worthy of consideration than the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. This is the foundation on which all other arguments rest. Scripture, and if it is solid, the Christian religion is fully established. The proofs for the authenticity of the New Testament have this peculiar advantage, that they are plain and simple, and involve no metaphysical subtleties.—Every man who can distinguish truth from falsehood must see their force; and if there are any so blinded by prejudice, or corrupted by licentiousness, as to attempt sophistry to elude them, their sophistry will be easily detected by every man of common understanding, who has read the historical evidence with candour and attention. Instead, therefore, of declaiming against the infidel, we solicit his attention to this subject, convinced, that where truth resides, it will shine with constant and clear a light, that the combined ingenuity of all the deists since the beginning of the world will never be able to extinguish or to obscure it. If the books of the New Testament are really genuine, opposition will incite the Christian to bring forward the evidence; and thus by the united efforts of the deist and the Christian, the arguments will be stated with all the clearness and accuracy of which they are susceptible in so remarkable a degree.
It is surprising that the adversaries of Christianity have not always made their first attacks in this quarter; for if they admit that the writings of the New Testament are as ancient as we affirm, and composed by the persons to whom they are ascribed, they must allow, if they reason fairly, that the Christian religion is true.
The apostles allude frequently in their epistles to the gift of miracles, which they had communicated to the Christian converts by the imposition of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine delivered in their speeches and writings, and sometimes to miracles which they themselves had performed. Now if these epistles are really genuine, it is hardly possible to deny those miracles to be true. The case is here entirely different from that of an historian, who relates extraordinary events in the course of his narrative, since either credulity or an actual intention to deceive may induce him to describe as true a series of falsehoods respecting a foreign land or distant period. Even to the Evangelists might an adversary of the Christian religion make this objection: but to write to persons with whom we stand in the nearest connection, "I have not only performed miracles in your presence, but have likewise communicated to you the same extraordinary endowments," to write in this manner, if nothing of the kind had ever happened, would require such an incredible degree of effrontery, that he who possessed it would not only expose himself to the utmost ridicule, but by giving his adversaries the fairest opportunity to detect his imposture, would ruin the cause which he attempted to support.
St Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians is addressed to a community to which he had preached the gospel only three Sabbath days, when he was forced to quit it by the persecution of the populace. In this epistle he appeals to the miracles which he had performed, and to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which he had communicated. Now, is it possible, without forfeiting all pretensions to common sense, that, in writing to a community which he had lately established, he could speak of miracles performed, and gifts of the Holy Ghost communicated, if no member of the society had seen the one, or received the other?
To suppose that an impostor could write to the converts or adversaries of the new religion such epistles as these, with a degree of triumph over his opponents, and yet maintain his authority, implies ignorance and stupidity hardly to be believed. Credulous as the Christians have been in later ages, and even so early as the third century, no less severe were they in their inquiries, and guarded against deception, at the introduction of Christianity. This character is given them even by Lucian, a writer of the second century, who vented his satire not only against certain Christians, who had supplied Perigrinus with the means of subsistence, but also against heathen oracles and pretended wonders. He relates of his impostor (Pseudomantis), that he attempted nothing supernatural in the presence of the Christians and Epicureans. This Pseudomantis exclaims before the whole assembly, "Away with the Christians, away with the Epicureans, and let those only remain who believe in the Deity!" (ἀναστέλλει τὸ ἐπίσημον) upon which the populace took up stones to drive away the suspicious; while the other philosophers, Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics, as credulous friends and protectors of the cause, were permitted to remain.
It is readily acknowledged, that the arguments drawn from the authenticity of the New Testament only establish the truth of the miracles performed by the apostles, and are not applicable to the miracles of our Saviour; yet, if we admit the three first gospels to be genuine, the truth of the Christian religion will be proved from the prophecies of Jesus. For if these gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at the time in which all the primitive Christians affirm, that is, previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, they must be inspired; for they contain a circumstantial prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and determine the period at which it was accomplished. Now it was impossible that human sagacity could foresee that event; for when it was predicted nothing was more improbable. The Jews were resolved to avoid an open rebellion, well knowing the greatness of their danger, and submitted to the oppressions of their governors in the hope of obtaining redress from the court of Rome.—The circumstance which gave birth to these misfortunes is so trifling in itself, that, independent of its consequences, it would not deserve to be recorded. In the narrow entrance to a synagogue in Caesarea, some person had made an offering of birds merely with a view to irritate the Jews. The insult excited their indignation, and occasioned the shedding of blood. Without this trifling accident, which no human wisdom could foresee even the day before it happened, it is possible that the prophecy of Jesus would never have been fulfilled. But Florus, who was then procurator of Judea, converted this private quarrel into public hostilities, and compelled the Jewish nation to rebel contrary to its wish and resolution, in order to avoid what the Jews had threatened, an impeachment before the Roman emperor for his excessive cruelties. But even after this rebellion had broken out, the destruction of the temple was a very improbable event. It was not the practice of the Romans to destroy the magnificent edifices edifices of the nations which they subdued; and of all the Roman generals, none was more unlikely to de- molish so ancient and august a building as Titus Vespasian.
So important then is the question, Whether the books of the New Testament be genuine? that the arguments which prove their authenticity, prove also the truth of the Christian religion. Let us now consider the evi- dence which proves the authenticity of the New Tes- tament.
We receive the books of the New Testament as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the same reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of Plutarch, of Caesar, and of Livy. We have the uninterrupted testimony of all ages, and we have no reason to suspect imposition. This argument is much stronger when applied to the books of the New Testament than when applied to any other writings; for they were addressed to large socie- ties, were often read in their presence, and acknowl- edged by them to be the writings of the apostles.— Whereas, the most eminent profane writings which still remain were addressed only to individuals, or to no per- sons at all; and we have no authority to affirm that they were read in public; on the contrary, we know that a liberal education was uncommon; books were scarce, and the knowledge of them was confined to a few individuals in every nation.
The New Testament was read over three quarters of the world, while profane writers were limited to one nation or to one country. An uninterrupted succes- sion of writers from the apostolic ages to the present time quote the sacred writings, or make allusions to them; and these quotations and allusions are made not only by friends but by enemies. This cannot be asserted of even the best classic authors. And it is highly probable, that the translations of the New Testament were made so early as the second century; and in a century or two after, they became very numerous. After this period, it was impossible to forge new writings, or to corrupt the sacred text, unless we can suppose that men of dif- ferent nations, of different sentiments and different lan- guages, and often exceedingly hostile to one another, should all agree in one forgery. This argument is so strong, that if we deny the authenticity of the New Testament, we may with a thousand times more pro- priety reject all the other writings in the world; we may even throw aside human testimony itself. But as this subject is of great importance, we shall consider it at more length; and to enable our readers to judge with the greater accuracy, we shall state, from the valuable works of Michaelis, as translated by the judicious and learned Mr Marsh, the reasons which may induce a criti- cist to suspect a work to be spurious.
1. When doubts have been made from its first appear- ance in the world, whether it proceeded from the au- thor to whom it is ascribed. 2. When the immediate friends of the pretended author, who were able to de- cide upon the subject, have denied it to be his produc- tion. 3. When a long series of years has elapsed af- ter his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which it must unavoidably have been mentioned and quoted, had it really existed. 4. When the style is dif- ferent from that of his other writings, or, in case no other remain, different from that which might reason- ably be expected. 5. When events are recorded which happen later than the time of the pretended author. 6. When opinions are advanced which con- tradict those he is known to maintain in his other writings. Though this latter argument alone leads to no positive conclusion, since every man is liable to change his opinion, or through forgetfulness to vary in the circumstances of the same relation, of which Josephus, in his Antiquities and War of the Jews, af- fords a striking example.
1. But it cannot be shown that any one doubted of its authenticity in the period in which it first appeared. 2. No ancient accounts are on record whence we may conclude it to be spurious. 3. No considerable period elapsed after the death of the apostles, in which the New Testament was unknown; but, on the contrary, it is mentioned by their very contemporaries, and the ac- counts of it in the second century are still more nume- rous. 4. No argument can be brought in its disfavour from the nature of the style, it being exactly such as might be expected from the apostles, not Attic but Jewish Greek. 5. No facts are recorded which hap- pened after their death. 6. No doctrines are main- tained which contradict the known tenets of the au- thors, since, before the New Testament, no writings of the apostles exist. But, to the honour of the New Tes- tament be it spoken, it contains numerous contradic- tions to the tenets and doctrines of the fathers in the se- cond and third century, whose morality was different from that of the gospel, which recommends fortitude and submission to unavoidable evils, but not that enthusiastic ardour for martyrdom for which those centuries are distinguished; it alludes to ceremonies which in the fol- lowing ages were either in disuse or totally unknown; all which circumstances infallibly demonstrate that the New Testament is not a production of either of those centuries.
We shall now consider the positive evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament. There may be ar- ranged under the three following heads;
1. The impossibility of a forgery, arising from the nature of the thing itself. 2. The ancient Christian, Jewish, and Heathen testimony in its favour. 3. Its own internal evidence.
1. The impossibility of a forgery arising from the na- ture of the thing itself is evident. It is impossible to establish forged writings as authentic in any place where there are persons strongly inclined and well qualified to detect the fraud. Now the Jews were the most violent enemies of Christianity. They put the founder of it to death; they persecuted his disciples with implacable fury; and they were anxious to stifle the new religion in its birth. If the writings of the New Testament had been forged, would not the Jews have detected the impotency? Is there a single instance on record where a few individuals have imposed a history upon the world against the testimony of a whole nation? Would the inhabitants of Palestine have received the gospels, if they had not had sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ really appeared among them, and performed the mira- cles ascribed to him? Or would the churches of Rome or of Corinth have acknowledged the epistles addressed to them as the genuine works of Paul, if Paul had never preached among them? We might as well think to prove, that the history of the Reformation is the in- vention In reviewing the evidence of testimony, it will not be expected that we should begin at the present age, and trace backwards the authors who have written on this subject to the first ages of Christianity. This indeed, though a laborious task, could be performed in the most complete manner; the whole series of authors, numerous in every age, who have quoted from the books of the New Testament, written commentaries upon them, translated them into different languages, or who have drawn up a list of them, could be exhibited so as to form such a perfect body of evidence, that we imagine even a jury of deists would find it impossible, upon a deliberate and candid examination, to reject or disbelieve it. We do not, however, suppose that scepticism has yet arrived at so great a height as to render such a tedious and circumstantial evidence necessary. Paffing over the intermediate space, therefore, we shall ascend at once to the fourth century, when the evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament was fully established, and trace it back from that period to the age of the apostles. We hope that this method of stating the evidence will appear more natural, and will afford more satisfaction, than that which has been usually adopted.
It is surely more natural, when we investigate the truth of any fact which depends on a series of testimony, to begin with those witnesses who lived nearest the present age, and whose characters are best established. In this way we shall learn from themselves the foundation of their belief, and the characters of those from whom they derived it; and thus we ascend till we arrive at its origin. This mode of investigation will give more satisfaction to the deist than the usual way; and we believe no Christian, who is confident of the goodness of his cause, will be unwilling to grant any proper concessions. The deist will thus have an opportunity of examining, separately, what he will consider as the weakest parts of the evidence, those which are exhibited by the earliest Christian writers, consisting of expressions, and not quotations, taken from the New Testament. The Christian, on the other hand, ought to wish, that these apparently weak parts of the evidence were distinctly examined, for they will afford an irrefragable proof that the New Testament was not forged; and should the deist reject the evidence of those early writers, it will be incumbent on him to account for the origin of the Christian religion, which he will find more difficult than to admit the common hypothesis.
In the fourth century we could produce the testimonies of numerous witnesses to prove that the books of the New Testament existed at that time; but it will be sufficient to mention their names, the time in which they wrote, and the substance of their evidence. This we shall present in a concise form in the following table, which is taken from Jones's New and Full Method of establishing the canon of the New Testament.
| The Names of the Writers | The times in which they lived | The variation or agreement of their catalogue with ours now received | |--------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | I. Athanasius bishop of Alexandria. | A.C. 315. | The same perfectly with ours now received. | | II. Cyril bishop of Jerusalem. | 340. | The same with ours, only the Revelation is omitted. | | III. The bishops assembled in the council of Laodicea. | 364. | The Revelation is omitted. | | IV. Epiphanius bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. | 370. | The same with ours now received. | | V. Gregory Nazianzen bishop of Constantinople. | 375. | Omits the Revelation. | | VI. Philastrius bishop of Brixia in Venice. | 380. | The same with ours now received; except that he mentions only 13 of St Paul's epistles (omitting very probably the Epistle to the Hebrews), and leaves out the Revelations. | | VII. Jerome. | 382. | The same with ours; except that he speaks dubiously of the Epistle to the Hebrews; tho' in other parts of his writing he receives it as canonical. | | VIII. Rufinus presbyter of Aquilegium. | 390. | It perfectly agrees with ours. | | IX. Austin bishop of Hippo in Africa. | 394. | It perfectly agrees with ours. | | X. The XLIV bishops assembled in the third council of Carthage. | St. Austin was present at it. | It perfectly agrees with ours. |
Fragment. Epistle Tertull. tom. 2. & in Synopsis tom. 1. Catech. IV. § ult. p. 101.
Canon. LIX. v. 8. The Canons of this council were not long afterwards received into the body of the canons of the universal church.
Heref. 76. cont. Anom. p. 399.
Carm. de veris &c. genuin. Scriptur.
Lib. de Heref. Numb. 87.
Ep. ad Paulin. 83. Tract. 6. p. 2. Allocom- monly prefixed to the Latin vulgar.
Expos. in Symb. Apol. § 35. int. Ep. Hieron. Par. 1. Trac. 3. p. 110. & inter Op. Cypr. p. 575.
De Doctrin. Christ. 1. 2. c. 8. Tom. Op. 3. p. 25.
Vid. Canon. XLVII. &c. op. ult. We now go back to Eusebius, who wrote about the year 315, and whose catalogue of the books of the New Testament we shall mention at more length. "Let us observe (says he) the writings of the apostle John, which are uncontradicted; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gospels, according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven."
The author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the gospels, and the reasons for placing St John's the last, manifestly speaking of all the four as equal in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The second passage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures universally acknowledged, and of those that are not such."
Eusebius begins his enumeration in the following manner: "In the first place, are to be ranked the sacred four Gospels, then the book of the Acts of the Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul: in the next place, that called the first Epistle of John and the Epistle of Peter are to be esteemed authentic: after this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John; about which we shall observe the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known or approved by the most, are that called the Epistle of James and that of Jude, the second of Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they were written by the evangelist or by another of the same name." He then proceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in another controverted; evidently meaning the same thing by these two words.
A.D. 290, Victorin bishop of Pettau in Germany, in a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, "The first was like a lion, the second was like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle," makes out, that by the four creatures are intended the four gospels; and to show the propriety of the symbols, he recites the subject with which each evangelist opens his history. The explication is fanciful, but the testimony positive. He also expressly cites the Acts of the Apostles.
A.D. 230, Cyprian bishop of Carthage gives the following testimony: "The church (says this father) is watered like Paradise by four rivers, that is, by four gospels." The Acts of the Apostles are also frequently quoted by Cyprian under that name, and under the name of the Divine Scriptures. In his various writings are such frequent and copious citations of Scripture, as to place this part of the testimony beyond controversy. Nor is there, in the works of this eminent African bishop, one quotation of a spurious or apocryphal Christian writing.
A.D. 210, Origen is a most important evidence. Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subject now under consideration, and, from a writer of his learning and information, nothing more satisfactory, than the declaration of Origen, preferred in an extract of his works by Eusebius: "That the four gospels alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven:" to which declaration is immediately subjoined a brief history of the respective authors, to whom they were then, as they are now, ascribed. The sentiments expressed concerning the gospels in all the works of Origen which remain, entirely correspond with the testimony here cited. His attestation to the Acts of the Apostles is no less positive: "And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet relating the Acts of the Apostles." That the Scriptures were then universally read, is plainly affirmed by this writer in a passage in which he is repelling the objections of Celsus, "That it is not in private books, or such as are read by few only, and those studious persons, but in books read by every body, that it is written, the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made." It is to no purpose to single out quotations of Scripture from such a writer as this. We might as well make a selection of the quotations of Scripture in Dr Clarke's sermons. They are so thickly woven in the works of Origen, that Dr Mill says, "If we had all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the whole text of the Bible."
A.D. 194, Tertullian exhibits the number of the gospels then received, the names of the evangelists, and their proper designations, in one short sentence. — "Among the apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; among apostolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it." The next passage to be taken from Tertullian affords as complete an attestation to the authenticity of the gospels as can be well imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded by Paul at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, the church of Rome established by Peter and Paul, and other churches derived from John, he proceeds thus: "I say then, that with them, but not with them only which are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the same faith, is that gospel of Luke received from its first publication, which we so zealously maintain;" and presently afterwards adds, "The same authority of the apostolical churches will support the other gospels, which we have from them, and according to them, I mean John's and Matthew's, although that likewise which Mark published may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was." In another place Tertullian affirms, that the three other gospels, as well as St Luke's, were in the hands of the churches from the beginning. This noble testimony proves incontrovertibly the antiquity of the gospels, and that they were universally received; that they were in the hands of all, and had been so from the first. And this evidence appears not more than 150 years after the publication of the books. Dr Lardner observes, "that there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author, than there are of all the works of Cicero, in writers of all characters, for several ages."
A.D. 178, Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons, and is mentioned by Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. In his youth he had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He affirms of himself and his contemporaries, that they were able to rec-
(s) That Eusebius could not intend, by the word rendered spurious, what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chapter, where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, and Matthias and some others, he says, "They are not so much as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious." Lord. Cred. vol. viii. p. 98. Scripture kom up in all the principal churches the succession of bishops to their first institution. His testimony to the four gospels and Acts of the Apostles is express and positive. "We have not received," says Irenæus, "the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others than those by whom the gospel has been brought to us. Which gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith. For after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they (the apostles) were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one alike, the gospel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, likewise published a gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia." Irenæus then relates how Matthew begins his gospel, how Mark begins and ends his, and gives the supposed reasons for doing so. He enumerates at length all the pages of Christ's history in Luke, which are not found in any of the other evangelists. He states the particular design with which St John composed his gospel, and accounts for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative. If any modern divine should write a book upon the genuineness of the gospels, he could not assert it more expressly, or state their origin more distinctly, than Irenæus hath done within little more than 100 years after they were published.
Respecting the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and its author, the testimony of Irenæus is no less explicit. Referring to the account of St Paul's conversion and vocation, in the ninth chapter of that book, "Nor can they (says he, meaning the parties with whom he argues now) that he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the greatest exactness." In another place, he has actually collected the several texts, in which the writer of the history is represented as accompanying St Paul, which led him to exhibit a summary of almost the whole of the last twelve chapters of the book.
According to Lardner, Irenæus quotes twelve of Paul's epistles, naming their author; also the first epistle of Peter, the two first epistles of John, and the Revelation. The epistles of Paul which he omits are those addressed to Philemon and the Hebrews. Eusebius says, that he quotes the epistle to the Hebrews, though he does not ascribe it to Paul. The work, however, is lost.
A.D. 172, Tatian, who is spoken of by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, composed a harmony of the four gospels, which he called Diatessaron of the four. This title, as well as the work, is remarkable, because it shows that then as well as now there were four, and only four, gospels in general use among Christians.
A.D. 170, the churches of Lyons and Vienne in France sent an account of the sufferings of their martyrs Scripture, to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, which has been preserved entire by Eusebius. And what carries in some measure the testimony of these churches to a higher age is, that they had now for their bishop Pontinus, who was 90 years old, and whose early life consequently must have immediately followed the times of the apostles. In this epistle are exact references to the gospels of Luke and John, and to the Acts of the Apostles. The form of reference is the same as in all the preceding articles. That from St John is in these words: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth God service."
Distinct references are also made to other books, viz. Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation.
A.D. 140, Justin Martyr composed several books, Of Justin which are mentioned by his disciple Tatian, by Tertullian, Methodius, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Photius. In his writings between 20 and 30 quotations from the gospels and Acts of the Apostles are reckoned up, which are clear, distinct, and copious; if each verse be counted separately, a much greater number; if each expression, still more. Jones, in his book on the Canon of the New Testament, ventures to affirm that he cites the books of which it consists, particularly the four gospels, above 200 times.
We meet with quotations of three of the gospels within the compass of half a page; "and in other words, he says, Depart from me into outer darkness, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his Angels," (which is from Matthew xxv. 41.) "And again he said in other words, I give unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and venomous beasts, and upon all the power of the enemy." (This from Luke x. 19.) "And, before he was crucified, he said, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again the third day;" (this from Mark viii. 31.)
All the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author; which proves that these books were perfectly well known, and that there were no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others to receive and credited as to make it necessary to add any marks of distinction. But although Justin mentions not the authors names, he calls the books Memoirs composed by the Apostles; Memoirs composed by the Apostles and their Companions; which descriptions, the latter especially, exactly fit the titles which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles now bear.
He informs us, in his first apology, that the memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read according as the time allows; and, when the reader has ended, the president makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of such excellent things.
A few short observations will show the value of this testimony. 1. The Memoirs of the Apostles, Justin in another place expressly tells us are what are called gospels. And that they were the gospels which we now use is made certain by Justin's numerous quotations of them, and his silence about any others. 2. He describes the general usage of the Christian church. 3. He does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in the terms in which men speak of established customs. Justin also makes such allusions to the following books as shows that he had read them: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews, Peter; and he ascribes the Revelation to John the Apostle of Christ.
A.D. 116, Papias, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Irenaeus attests, and of the apostolical age as all agree, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribes the two first gospels to Matthew and Mark; and in a manner which proves that these gospels must have publicly borne the names of these authors at that time, and probably long before; for Papias does not say, that one gospel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark; but, assuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from what materials Mark collected his account, viz. from Peter's preaching, and in what language Matthew wrote, viz. in Hebrew. Whether Papias was well informed in this statement or not, to the point for which this testimony is produced, namely, that these books bore these names at this time, his authority is complete.
Papias himself declares that he received his accounts of Christianity from those who were acquainted with the apostles, and that those accounts which he thus received from the older Christians, and had committed to memory, he inserted in his books. He farther adds, that he was very solicitous to obtain every possible information, especially to learn what the apostles said and preached, valuing such information more than what was written in books.*
A.D. 108, Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, and disciple of John the Apostle. This testimony concerning Polycarp is given by Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen him. "I can tell the place," faith Irenaeus, "in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to the people, and how he related his conversation with John and others who had seen the Lord, and how he related their sayings, and what he had heard concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he had received them from the eye-witnesses of the word of life; all which Polycarp related agreeable to the scriptures."
Of Polycarp, whose proximity to the age and country and persons of the apostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle remaining; which, though a short performance, contains nearly 40 clear allusions to the books of the New Testament. This is strong evidence of the respect which was paid to them by Christians of that age. Amongst these, although the writings of St Paul are more frequently used by Polycarp than other parts of scripture, there are copious allusions to the gospel of St Matthew, some to passages found in the gospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some which more nearly resemble the words in Luke.
He thus fixes the authority of the Lord's Prayer, and the use of it among Christians. If, therefore, we pray the Lord to forgive us, we ought also to forgive. And again, With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation.
In another place, he quotes the words of our Lord: "But remembering what the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that ye be not judged. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Supposing Polycarp to have had these words from the books in which we now find them, it is manifest that these books were considered by him, and by his readers, as he thought, as authentic accounts of Christ's discourses; and that this point was incontestable.
He quotes also the following books, the first of which he ascribes to St Paul: Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians; and makes evident references to others, particularly to Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John.
Ignatius, as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, became bishop of Antioch about 37 years after Christ's ascension; and therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probable that he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Epistles of Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp his contemporary. Passages, found in the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted by Irenaeus, A.D. 178, by Origen, A.D. 230; and the occasion of writing them is fully explained by Eusebius and Jerome. What are called the smaller epistles of Ignatius are generally reckoned the same which were read by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius.
They are admitted as genuine by Vossius, and have been proved to be so by bishop Pearson with a force of argument which seems to admit of no reply. In these epistles are undoubted allusions to Matt. iii. 15, xi. 16, to John iii. 8.; and their venerable author, who often speaks of St Paul in terms of the highest respect, once quotes his epistle to the Ephesians by name.
Near the conclusion of the epistle to the Romans, St Paul, amongst others, sends the following salutation: "Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermat, Patrobus, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them." Of Hermas, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Christians as contemporary with St Paul, there is a book still remaining, the authenticity of which cannot be disputed. It is called the Shepherd, or Pastor of Hermas. Its antiquity is incontestable, from the quotations of it in Irenaeus, A.D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 194, Tertullian, A.D. 200, Origen, A.D. 230. The notes of time extant in the epistle itself agree with its title, and with the testimonies concerning it, which intimate that it was written during the lifetime of Clement. In this piece are tacit allusions to St Matthew's, St Luke's, and St John's gospels; that is to say, there are applications of thoughts and expressions found in these gospels, without citing the place or writer from which they were taken. In this form appear in Hermas the confessing and denying of Christ†; the parable of the seed sown‡; the comparison of Christ's disciples to little children; the saying, "he that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery§;" the singular expression, "having received all power from his Father," is probably an allusion to Matthew x.xviii. 18, and Christ being the "gate," or only way of coming "to God," is a plain allusion to Luke John xvi. 6. x. 7, 9. There is also a probable allusion to Acts v. 32.
The Shepherd of Hermas has been considered as a fanciful performance. This, however, is of no importance in the present case. We only adduce it as evidence that the books to which it frequently alludes existed in the first century; and for this purpose it is satisfactory. factory, as its authenticity has never been questioned. However absurd opinions a man may entertain while he retains his understanding, his testimony to a matter of fact will still be received in any court of justice.
A.D. 96, we are in possession of an epistle written by Clement bishop of Rome, whom ancient writers, without any doubt or scruple, assert to have been the Clement whom St Paul mentions Philippians iv. 3: "with Clement also, and other my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life." This epistle is spoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and, as Irenaeus well represents its value, "written by Clement, who had seen the blest apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching of the apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes." It is addressed to the church of Corinth; and what alone may seem a decisive proof of its authenticity, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, about the year 170, i.e., about 80 or 90 years after the epistle was written, bears witness, "that it had been publicly read in that church from ancient times." This epistle affords, amongst others, the following valuable passages:
"Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake, teaching gentleness and long suffering; for thus he said (τ), Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as you do, so shall it be done unto you; as you give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye shew kindness, so shall kindness be shewn unto you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you. By this command, and by these rules, let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his holy words."
Again, "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, Wo to that man by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone should be tied about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones (υ)."
He ascribes the first epistle to the Corinthians to Paul, and makes such allusions to the following books as is sufficient to shew that he had seen and read them: Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.
It may be said, as Clement has not mentioned the books by name from which he affirms these allusions or references are made, it is uncertain whether he refers to any books, or whether he received these expressions from the discourses and conversation of the apostles. Mr Paley has given a very satisfactory answer to this objection: i.e., That Clement, in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage now found in the epistle to the Romans*; which passage, from the peculiarity of the words that compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that he must have taken from the epistle. The same remark may be applied to Scripture, some very singular sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, That there are many sentences of St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians to be found in Clement's epistle, without any sign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had St Paul's epistle before him; for in one place he mentions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt. "Take into your hands the epistle of the blest apostle Paul." Thirdly, That this method of adopting words of scripture, without reference or acknowledgment, was a method in general use amongst the most ancient Christian writers. These analogies not only repel the objection, but cast the presumption on the other side; and afford a considerable degree of positive proof, that the words in question have been borrowed from the places of scripture in which we now find them. But take it, if you will, the other way, that Clement had heard these words from the apostles or first teachers of Christianity; with respect to the precise point of our argument, viz., that the scriptures contain what the apostles taught, this supposition may serve almost as well.
We have now traced the evidence to the times of the apostles; but we have not been anxious to draw it out to a great length, by introducing every thing. On the contrary, we have been careful to render it as concise as possible, that its force might be discerned at a glance. The evidence which has been stated is of two kinds. Till the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus it consists chiefly of allusions, references, and expressions, borrowed from the books of the New Testament, without mentioning them by name. After the time of Irenaeus it became usual to cite the sacred books, and mention the authors from whom the citations were taken.
The first species of evidence will perhaps appear to the allusion exceptionable; but it must be remembered that Jews and it was usual among the ancient Christians as well as the New Testament writers to adopt the expressions of Scripture without mentioning the authors. Why they did so it is not necessary by the first to inquire. The only point of importance to be determined is, whether those references are a sufficient proof of the existence of the books to which they allude? We prove that it existed. This, we presume, will not be denied; especially in their present age, when it is so common to charge an author with plagiarism if he happen to fall upon the same train of ideas, or expresses himself in a similar manner with authors who have written before him. We may farther affirm, that these tacit references afford a complete proof that those ancient writers had no intention of imposing a forgery upon the world. They prove the existence of the Christian religion and of the apostolical writings, without showing any suspicious circumstances that men should believe them. Had these books been forged, those who wished to pass them upon the world would have been at more pains than the first Christians were to prove their authenticity. They acted the part of honest
(τ) "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy," Matt. v. 7. "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you," Luke vi. 37, 38. "Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," Mat. vii. 2.
(υ) Matt. xviii. 6. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea." The latter part of the passage in Clement agrees more exactly with Luke xvii. 2. "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." honest men; they believed them themselves, and they never imagined that others would suspect their truth.
It is a consideration of great importance, in reviewing the evidence which has been now stated, that the witnesses lived in different countries; Clemens flourished at Rome, Polycarp at Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, Irenaeus in France, Tertullian at Carthage, Origen at Alexandria, and Eusebius at Caesarea. This proves that the books of the New Testament were equally well known in distant countries by men who had no intercourse with one another.
The same thing is proved by testimonies if possible less exceptionable. The ancient heretics, whose opinions were sometimes groser and more impious than those which any modern sectary has ventured to broach, and whose zeal in the propagation of them equalled that of the most flaming enthusiasm of the last century, never called into question the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. When they met with any passage in the gospels or epistles which they could not reconcile to their own heretical notions, they either erased it, or denied that the author was inspired; but they nowhere contend that the book in which it stood was not written by the apostle or evangelist whose name it bore. Eusebius relates, that the Ebionites rejected all the epistles of Paul, and called him an apostate, because he departed from the Levitical law; and they adopted as their rule of faith the gospel of St Matthew, though indeed they greatly corrupted it. This proves therefore that the gospel according to Matthew was then published, and that St Paul's epistles were then known.
Of the heretics who erased or altered passages to make the Scriptures agree with their doctrines, we may produce Marcion as an instance, who lived in the beginning of the 2nd century. He lived in an age when he could have easily discovered if the writings of the New Testament had been forged; and as he was much incensed against the orthodox party, if such a forgery had been committed, unquestionably he would not have failed to make the discovery, as it would have afforded the most ample means of revenge and triumph, and enabled him to establish his own opinions with less difficulty. But his whole conduct shows clearly, that he believed the writings of the New Testament to be authentic. He said that the gospel according to St Matthew, the epistle to the Hebrews, with those of St Peter and St James, as well as the Old Testament in general, were writings not for Christians but for Jews. He published a new edition of the gospel according to Luke, and the first ten epistles of Paul; in which it has been affirmed by Epiphanius, that he altered every passage that contradicted his own opinions; but as many of these alterations are what modern critics call various readings, though we receive the testimony of Epiphanius, we must not rely upon his opinion (x). Hence it is evident that the books of the New Testament above-mentioned did then exist, and were acknowledged to be the works of the authors whose names they bear.
Dr Lardner, in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in the following words: "Noetus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans (v), Priscillianists, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most or all the same books of the New Testament which the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them as written by apostles or their disciples and companions."
Celsus and Porphyry, both enemies of the Christian religion, are powerful witnesses for the antiquity of the New Testament. Celsus, who lived towards the end of the second century, not only mentions by name, but quotes passages from the books of the New Testament; and that the books to which he refers were no other than our present gospels, is evident from the allusions to various passages still found in them. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these gospels; of the precepts, Refuse not him that injures you, and, If a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also; of the woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying that it is impossible to serve two masters; of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed which was put into the hand of Jesus; of the blood that flowed from his body upon the cross, a circumstance which is recorded only by John; and (what is infar omnium for the purpose for which we produce it,) of the difference in the accounts given of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels at the sepulchre, others only one.
It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four gospels, but that he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of his objections to Christianity upon anything delivered in spurious gospels.
The testimony of Porphyry is still more important than that of Celsus. He was born in the year 213, of Tyrian origin. Unfortunately for the present age, says Michaelis, the mistaken zeal of the Christian emperors has banished his writings from the world; and every real friend of our religion would gladly give the works of one of the pious fathers to rescue those of Porphyry from the flames. But Mr Marsh, the learned and judicious translator of Michaelis, relates, that, according to the accounts of Isaac Vossius, a manuscript of the works of Porphyry is preserved in the Medicean library at Florence, but kept so secret that no one is permitted to see it. It is universally allowed, that Porphyry is the most sensible, as well as the most fervent, adversary of the Christian religion that antiquity can produce. He was versed not only in history, but also in philosophy and politics. His acquaintance with the Christians was not confined to a single country; for he had conversed with them in Tyre, in Sicily, and in Rome. Enabled by his birth to study the Syriac as well as the Greek authors, he was of all the adversaries to the Christian religion the best qualified to inquire into the authenticity of the sacred writings. He possessed therefore every advantage which natural abilities or a scientific education could afford to discover whether the New Testament was a genuine work of the apostles and evangelists, or whether it was imposed upon the world after the decease of its pretended authors. But no trace of this suspicion is anywhere to be found in his writings. In the fragments which still remain,
(x) Dr Loeffer has written a learned dissertation to prove that Marcion did not corrupt the sacred writings. (v) This must be with an exception, however, of Faustus, who lived so late as the year 384. The objection is made of the gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistle to the Galatians; and it clearly appears from the very objections of Porphyry, that the books to which he alludes were the same which we possess at present. Thus he objects to the repetition of a generation in St Matthew's genealogy; to Matthew's call; to the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a sea; to the expression in St Matthew, "the abomination of desolation;" to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text "the voice of one crying in the wilderness;" Matthew citing it from Isaiah, Mark from the prophets; to John's application of the term Word; to Christ's change of intention about going up to the feast of tabernacles (John vii. 8); to the judgment denounced by St Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death.
The instances here alleged serve in some measure to show the nature of Porphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the gospels with that sort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them as the depositaries of the religion which he attacked. Beside these specifications, there exists in the writings of ancient Christians general evidence, that the places of Scripture, upon which Porphyry had made remarks, were very numerous.
The internal evidence to prove the authenticity of the New Testament consists of two parts: The nature of the style, and the coincidence of the New Testament with the history of the times.
The style of the New Testament is singular, and differs very widely from the style of classical authors. It is full of Hebraisms and Syriacisms; a circumstance which pious ignorance has considered as a fault, and which, even so late as the present century, it has attempted to remove; not knowing that these very deviations from Grecian purity afford the strongest presumption in its favour: for they prove, that the New Testament was written by men of Hebrew origin, and is therefore a production of the first century. After the death of the first Jewish converts, few of the Jews turned preachers of the gospel; the Christians were generally ignorant of Hebrew, and consequently could not write in the style of the New Testament. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, their language must have been blended with that of other nations, and their vernacular phraseology almost entirely lost. The language of the early fathers, though not always the purest classic Greek, has no resemblance to that of the New Testament, not even excepting the works of the few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew; as Origen, Epiphanius, and Justin Martyr, who being a native of Palestine, might have written in a style similar to that of the New Testament, had such a style then prevailed. He that supposes the New Testament to be the forgery of a more recent period, ought to produce some person who has employed a similar diction; but those who are conversant with eastern writings know well that a foreigner, who has not been nurtured in eastern manners and modes of thinking from his infancy, can never imitate with success the oriental style, much less forge a history or an epistle which contains a thousand incidental allusions, which nothing but truth could suggest. To imitate closely the style of the New Testament is even more difficult than to imitate that of any other oriental book; for there is not a single author, even among the Jews themselves, since the destruction of Jerusalem, that has composed in a style in the least degree like it.
But though the books of the New Testament bear so close a resemblance in idiom, there is a diversity of style which shows them to be the work of different persons. Whoever reads with attention the epistles of Paul, must be convinced that they were all written by the same author. An equal degree of similarity is to be found between the gospel and first epistle of John. The writings of St John and St Paul exhibit marks of an original genius which no imitation can ever attain. The character of Paul as a writer is drawn with great judgment by Michaelis: "His mind overflows with sentiment, yet he never loses sight of his principal object, but hurried on by the rapidity of thought, discloses frequently in the middle a conclusion to be made only at the end. To a profound knowledge of the Old Testament he joins the acuteness of philosophical wisdom, which he displays in applying and expounding the sacred writings; and his explanations are therefore sometimes so new and unexpected, that superficial observers might be tempted to suppose them erroneous. The fire of his genius, and his inattention to style, occasion frequently a twofold obscurity, he being often too concise to be understood except by those to whom he immediately wrote, and not seldom on the other hand so full of his subject, as to produce long and difficult parentheses, and a repetition of the same word even in different senses. With a talent for irony and satire, he unites the most refined sensibility, and tempers the severity of his censures by expressions of tenderness and affection; nor does he ever forget in the vehemence of his zeal the rules of modesty and decorum. He is a writer, in short, of so singular and wonderful a composition, that it would be difficult to find a rival. That truly fertile and sagacious philosopher Locke was of the same opinion, and contended that St Paul was without an equal."
Poems have been forged and ascribed to former ages with some success. Philosophical treatises might be invented which it would be difficult to detect; but there is not a single instance on record where an attempt has been made to forge a history or a long epistle, where the fraud has not been either fully proved, or rendered so suspicious that few are weak enough to believe it. Whoever attempts to forge a history or an epistle in the name of an ancient author, will be in great danger of contradicting the history or the manners of that age, especially if he relate events which are not mentioned in general history, but such as refer to a single city, sect, religion, or school.
The difficulty of forging such histories as the gospels, and
(z) The style of Clemens Romanus may perhaps be an exception. By many eminent critics it has been thought so like to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, as to give room for the opinion that Clement either was the author of that epistle, or was the person who translated it from the Syro-Chaldaic language, in which it was originally composed. and such epistles as those of Paul, cannot be overcome by all the genius, learning, and industry, of any individual or society of men that ever lived. They contain a purer system of ethics than all the ancient philosophers could invent; they discover a candour and modesty unexampled: they exhibit an originality in the character of Jesus, and yet such a consistency as the imagination of our best poets has never reached. Now it is a very remarkable circumstance, that histories written by four different men should preserve such dignity and consistency, though frequently relating different actions of Jesus, and descending to the most minute circumstances in his life. The scene of action is too extensive, and the agreement of facts with the state of the times as represented by other historians is too close, to admit the possibility of forgery.
The scene of action is not confined to one country, it is successively laid in the greatest cities of the Roman empire; in Rome, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Athens, as well as in Jerusalem and the land of Palestine. Innumerable allusions are made to the manners and opinions of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews; and reflecting the Jews, they extend even to the trifles and follies of their schools. Yet after the strictest examination, the New Testament will be found to have a wonderful coincidence and harmony with Josephus, the principal historian of these times, and an enemy of Christianity.
It has been a question who the soldiers were who are said in the gospel of Luke to have addressed John the Baptist in these words, "What shall we do?" An answer to this question may be found in Josephus*. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee was engaged in a war with his father-in-law Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petraea, at the very time that John was preaching in the wilderness; and the road from Galilee to Arabia running through that wilderness, the soldiers on their march had this interview with the Baptist. A coincidence like this, which has been overlooked by all the commentators, would not probably be attended to in a forgery.
Another instance of an agreement no less remarkable we shall quote from the valuable work of Michaelis. It has been a question of some difficulty among the learned, who was the Ananias who commanded St Paul to be smitten on the mouth when he was making his defence before the council in Jerusalem *. Krebs, in his remarks taken from Josephus, has shown him to have been the son of Nebenedi. But if so, how can it be reconciled with chronology, that Ananias was, at that time, called high priest, when it is certain from Josephus that the time of his holding that office was much earlier? And how comes it to pass that St Paul says, "I will not, brethren, that he was the high priest?" The sacerdotal garb must have discovered who he was: a jest would have ill-suited the gravity of a tribunal; and a falsehood is inconsistent with the character of St Paul.
All these difficulties vanish as soon as we examine the special history of that period: "Ananias the son of Nebenedi was high priest at the time that Helena queen of Adiabene supplied the Jews with corn from Egypt, during the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St Paul therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between the Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome; but being afterwards released, he returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he could not be called high-priest in the proper sense of the word, though Josephus has sometimes given him the title of ἱερούλης, taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest, who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrim; and Jonathan, though we are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had been raised in the mean time to the supreme dignity in the Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the high-priesthood of Imael, who was invested with that dignity by Agrippa, elapsed an interval during which the sacerdotal office was vacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval that St Paul was apprehended in Jerusalem; and, the Sanhedrim being defunct, he undertook of his own authority the discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest tyranny. It is possible therefore that St Paul, who had been only a few days in Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust to which he was not intitled; he might therefore very naturally exclaim, "I will not, brethren, that he was the high-priest!" Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof, and a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority."
Could such a correspondence as this subsist between truth and falsehood, between a forgery and an authentic history? or is it credible that these events could be related by any person but a contemporary?
Impressed with the love of truth, and feeling contempt as well as detestation at pious frauds, we hesitate also not to acknowledge, that in some particular facts there is a difference either real or apparent between Josephus and the writers of the New Testament. The objections arising from these differences are of two kinds: 1. Such as would prove a book not to have been written by the author to whom it is ascribed. 2. Such as would prove that the author was mistaken, and therefore not divinely inspired. To the first class belong the following objection: St Paul says (2 Cor. xi. 32.) that the governor of Damascus was under Aretas the king: but if we are to judge from the 18th book of the Jewish Antiquities, which corresponds with the period of St Paul's journey to Damascus, this city must have belonged at that time to the Romans; and what authority could Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petraea, have in such a city? In answer to this question, J. G. Hyne, in a dissertation published in 1755, has shown it to be highly probable that Aretas, against whom the Romans, not long before the death of Tiberius, made a declaration of war, which they neglected to put into execution, took the opportunity of seizing Damascus, which had once belonged to his ancestors; an event omitted by Josephus, as forming no part of the Jewish history, and by the Roman historians as being a matter not flattering in itself, and belonging only to a distant province. Secondly, That Aretas was by religion a Jew; a circumstance the more credible, when we reflect that Judaism... Judaism had been widely propagated in that country, and that even kings in Arabia Felix had recognized the law of Moses. The difficulty then is so far removed, that it ceases to create suspicion against an epistle which has so many evident marks of authenticity; and it is only to be regretted that, in order to place the subject in the clearest point of view, we are not sufficiently acquainted with the particular history of Damascus.
Examples of the second kind are such as, if allowed their full force, might indeed prove a writer not divinely inspired, but could afford no reason to conclude that he was not the author of the writings which bear his name, since mistakes may be committed by the most accurate historian. The chief difficulties of this nature are found in the gospel according to St Luke, and do not apply to the writings of Matthew, John, Paul, and Peter. Laying aside the idea of inspiration altogether, let us inquire whether Luke or Josephus is most entitled to credit in those passages where they differ; which of them is most accurate, and which of them had the best opportunities of exploring the truth of the facts which they relate. Now Josephus relates the same story differently in different parts of his works, and is sometimes equally mistaken in them all. We do not recollect to have seen such inconsistencies in the writings of St Luke. Luke knew the characters, and witnessed many of the facts, of which he speaks; and he could receive the best information respecting those facts which were transacted in his absence. Josephus was born A.D. 37, some years after our Saviour's ascension. Now it is a very important observation of Michaelis, that the period of history with which mankind are least acquainted is that which includes the time of their childhood and youth, together with the twenty or thirty years immediately preceding their birth. Concerning the affairs transacted during that period, we are much more liable to fall into mistakes than concerning those of a remoter age. The reason is, that authentic history never comes down to the period of our birth; our knowledge of the period immediately preceding depends on hearsay; and the events, which pass within the first eighteen or twenty years of our lives, we are too young and heedless to observe with attention. This must have been more remarkably the case in the time of Josephus than at present, when there were neither daily papers nor periodical journals to supply the want of regular annals. There was no historian from whom Josephus could derive any knowledge of the times that immediately preceded his birth. There is a period then of forty or fifty years, in which, even with the most diligent inquiry, he was exposed to error.
When we find therefore the relations of Luke and Josephus so different as not to be reconciled, it would be very unfair to determine without any further inquiry in favour of Josephus. Let their character, and works, and situation, be strictly examined; let their testimony be duly weighed and compared; and then let the preference be given to that author who, according to the strictest rules of equity and justice, seems entitled to the highest degree of credit. The decision of a jury, we shall venture to say, would in every instance turn out in favour of Luke.
Having thus ascertained the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, the next thing to be considered is their inspiration. It is certainly of some importance to know how far the apostles and evangelists were guided in their writings by the immediate influence of the inspiriting spirit of God; though this knowledge, if attainable, is not equally important with that of the authenticity of these writings. Michaelis indeed asserts, that the divinity of the New Testament may be proved whether we can evince it to be written by immediate inspiration or not. "The question (says he), whether the books of the New Testament are inspired? is not so important as the question, whether they are genuine? The truth of our religion depends upon the latter, not absolutely on the former. Had the Deity inspired not a single book of the New Testament, but left the apostles and evangelists without any other aid than that of natural abilities to commit what they knew to writing, admitting their works to be authentic, and possessed of a sufficient degree of credibility, the Christian religion would still be well founded. The miracles by which it is confirmed would equally demonstrate its truth, even if the persons who attested them were not inspired, but simply human witnesses; and their divine authority is never presupposed, when we discuss the question of miracles, but merely their credibility as human evidence. If the opinions of Christ recorded in the gospels are proved to be the infallible oracles of God; and, even if we admit the apostles to be mistaken in certain not essential circumstances, yet as the main points of the religion which Christ commissioned them to preach are so frequently repeated, their epistles would instruct us as well in the tenets of the Christian system, as the works of Maclaurin in the philosophy of Newton. It is possible therefore to doubt, and even deny, the inspiration of the New Testament, and yet be fully persuaded of the truth of the Christian religion; and many really entertain these sentiments either publicly or in private, to whom we should render great injustice, if we ranked them in the class of unbelievers.
"Yet the Christian religion would be attended with difficulty, if our principium cognitendi rested not on firmer ground; and it might be objected, that sufficient care had not been taken for those whose consciences were tender, and who were anxiously fearful of mistaking the smallest of the divine commands. The chief articles indeed of Christianity are so frequently repeated, both by Christ and his apostles, that even were the New Testament not inspired, we could entertain no doubt of the following doctrines: 'Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, and an infallible messenger of God; he died for our iniquity; and by the satisfaction made by his death we obtain remission of sins, if on our part be faith and amendment of life: the Levitical law is abolished; and moral precepts, with the ceremonies of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, are appointed in its stead: after the present follows an everlasting life, in which the virtuous shall be rewarded and the wicked punished, and where Christ himself shall be the Judge.'
"To the epistles indeed (says Michaelis), inspiration is of real consequence; but with respect to the historical books, viz. the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, we should really be no losers if we abandoned the system of inspiration, and in some respects have a real advantage. We should be no losers, if we considered the apostles in historical facts as merely human witnesses," Scripture, as Christ himself has done in saying, 'Ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.' And no one that attempts to convince an unbeliever of the truth of Christianity, would begin his demonstration by presupposing a doctrine which his adversary denies, but would ground his arguments on the credibility of the evangelists as human historians, for the truth of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Even those who examine the grounds of their faith for their own private conviction, must treat the evangelists as human evidence; since it would be arguing in a circle to conclude that the facts recorded in the gospels are true, because they are inspired, when we conclude the Scriptures to be inspired in consequence of their contents. In these cases, then, we are obliged to consider the evangelists as human evidence; and it would be no detriment to the Christian cause to consider them at all times as such in matters of historical fact. We find it nowhere expressly recorded that the public transactions which the apostles knew by their own experience, and of which St Luke informed himself by diligent inquiry, should be particular objects of divine inspiration. We should even be considerable gainers, in adjusting the harmony of the gospels, if we were permitted to suppose that some one of the evangelists had committed an immaterial error, and that St John has rectified some trifling mistakes in the preceding gospels. The most dangerous objections which can be made to the truth of our religion, and such as are most difficult to answer, are those drawn from the different relations of the four evangelists.
Before any inquiry is made respecting the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, it is necessary to determine the meaning of the term; for theologians have given it a variety of significations. Most of the German divines make it to consist in an infusion of words as well as ideas. Luther, Beza, and Salmasius, restrict it to ideas alone. Doddridge understands it by an intervention of the Deity, by which the natural faculties of the mind were directed to the discovery of truth. Warburton and Law think it was a negative intervention to preserve the sacred writers from essential errors. Some believe every circumstance was dictated by the Holy Ghost; others suppose that no supernatural assistance was granted except in the epistolary writings. See Inspiration.
As there is an evident distinction between inspiration and revelation, and as the origin of the Christian religion may be still proved divine, even though it were denied that those who record its facts and doctrines were inspired in the act of writing, it will be most judicious and safe to employ the word inspiration in that sense which can be most easily defended and supported. By doing this much may be gained and nothing lost. It is difficult to prove to a deist that the words of Scripture are divine, because he sees that every writer has words and phrases peculiar to himself. It is difficult also to prove that the ideas were infused into the mind of the authors while they were engaged in the act of writing; because concerning facts they appeal not to divine inspiration, but declare what they have seen and heard. In reasoning they add their own sentiments to what they had received from the Lord, and subjoin, especially in their epistles, things not connected with religion. The definition which Doddridge gives, seems applicable to ordinary gifts or the usual endowments of scripture-rational creatures, rather than to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were bestowed on the apostles. Those who maintain that every fact or circumstance was suggested by divine inspiration, will find it no easy matter to prove their position. The opinion of Warburton and Law, with proper explanations, seems most probable. The opinion of Grotius, that only the epistles were inspired, may be easily refuted.
The proof of the authenticity of the New Testament depends on human testimony: The proof of its inspiration is derived from the declaration of inspired persons.
In proving that the New Testament is inspired, we must presuppose its authenticity that the sacred books were of it written by the apostles whose names they bear, and that they have been conveyed to us pure and uncorrupted. This we have already attempted to prove, and we hope with success. The evidence of inspiration is the testimony of Christ and his apostles, which we receive as credible, because they confirmed their doctrines by miracles. From the important mission of Christ and his apostles, we infer that every power was bestowed which divine wisdom thought expedient; and from their conduct we conclude, that it is morally impossible that they could lay claim to any powers which they did not possess. It is proper therefore to inquire into the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the nature, degree, and extent, of the inspiration bestowed upon the writers of the sacred books.
If we consider Christ's more immediate promises of the declaration of the apostles, we shall find that he has promised them, in the most proper sense of the word, at three several periods, 1st, When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel; 2ndly, In holding a public discourse relating to the gospel; at which were present a considerable multitude; 3rdly, In his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel, he thus addressed them: "When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." The same promise was made almost in the same words in the presence of an immense multitude (Luke xii. 11, 12.) From these passages it has been urged, that if the apostles were to be inspired in the presence of magistrates in delivering speeches, which were soon to be forgotten, it is surely reasonable to conclude that they would be inspired when they were to compose a standard of faith for the use of all future generations of Christians. If this conclusion be fairly deduced, it would follow that the writings of the New Testament are the dictates of inspiration, not only in the doctrines and precepts, but in the very words. But it is a conclusion to which sincere Christians have made objections; for, say they, though Christ promises to assist his apostles in cases of great emergency, where their own prudence and fortitude could not be sufficient, it does not follow that he would dictate to them those facts which they knew already, or those reasonings which their own calm reflection might supply. Besides, say they, if the New Testament was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and only penned by the apostles, what reason can be given for the care with which Christ instructed them both during his ministry In answer to this, we may observe, that though it be difficult to prove that the identical words of the New Testament were dictated by the Holy Spirit, or the train of ideas infused into the minds of the sacred writers, there is one species of inspiration to which the New Testament has an undoubted claim. It is this, that the memories of the apostles were strengthened and their understandings preserved from falling into essential errors.
This we prove from these words of our Saviour, "and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." This promise was surely not retracted to the day of Pentecost; it must have been a permanent gift enabling the apostles at all times to remember with accuracy the discourses of our Saviour. When the apostles therefore (Matthew and John) relate those precepts of Christ which they themselves had heard, they write indeed from memory, but under the protection of the spirit who secures them from the danger of mistake; and we must of course conclude that their gospels are inspired.
Were we called upon more particularly to declare what parts of the New Testament we believe to be inspired, we would answer, The doctrines, the precepts, and the prophecies, every thing essential to the Christian religion. From these the idea of inspiration is inseparable. As to the events, the memory of the apostles was sufficient to retain them. If this opinion be just, it would enable us to account for the discrepancies between the sacred writers, which are chiefly confined to the relation of facts and events.
All the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, except the gospel according to Matthew and the epistle to the Hebrews, which there is reason to believe were composed in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which in the New Testament is called Hebrew.
Various reasons have been assigned why the greatest part of the New Testament was written in Greek; but the true reason is this, It was the language best understood both by writers and readers. Had St Paul written to a community in the Roman province of Africa, he might have written perhaps in Latin; but epistles to the inhabitants of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, from a native of Tarshish, could hardly be expected in any other language than Greek. The same may be said of the epistles of St Peter, which are addressed to the Christians of different countries, who had no other language in common than the Greek; and likewise of the epistles of St James, who wrote to Jews, that lived at a distance from Palestine, and were ignorant of Hebrew. The native language of St Luke, as well as of Theophilus, to whom he addressed his gospel, and Acts of the apostles, appears to have been Greek; and that St John wrote his gospel in that language, and not in Hebrew, is by no means a matter of surprise, since he wrote at Ephesus.
With respect to the epistle to the Romans, it may be asked indeed why St Paul did not write in Latin? Now, whoever proposes this question, must presuppose that St Paul was master of the Latin language in such a degree as to find no difficulty in writing it; a matter which remains to be proved. It is very probable that St Paul was acquainted with the Latin; but between understanding a language, and being able to write it, there is a very material difference. As St Paul was a native of Tarshish, his native language was Greek; he had travelled during several years through countries in which no other language was spoken, and when he addressed the Roman centurion at Jerusalem, he spoke not Latin, but Greek. Is it extraordinary, then, that in writing to the inhabitants of Rome he should have used a language which was there so generally understood? It has been long remarked, that Greek was at that time as well known in Rome as French in any court of modern Europe; that according to Juvenal even the female sex made use of Greek as the language of familiarity and passion; and that in letters of friendship Greek words and phrases were introduced with greater freedom than French expressions in German letters, as appears from Cicero's epistles to Atticus, and from those of Augustus preserved in the works of Suetonius. To this must be added a material circumstance, that a great part of the Roman Christians consisted of native Jews, who were better acquainted with Greek than with Latin, as either they themselves or their ancestors had come from Greece, Asia Minor, or Egypt, in which Greek was the language of the country. At least they read the bible in that language, as no Latin translation of the Old Testament at that time existed; and the Christian church at that period consisting chiefly of Jews, the heathen converts in Rome were of course under the necessity of accustoming themselves to the Greek language. In short, St Paul in his epistle to the Romans made use of a language in which alone those who were ignorant of Hebrew could read the bible. What has been here advanced respecting the epistle to the Romans is equally applicable to the Greek of St Mark, on the supposition that it was written at Rome.
To the above arguments may be added the example of Josephus, who, as well as the Apostles, was by birth a Jew. He even lived in Rome, which is more than can be said of St Paul and St Mark, who resided there only a certain time: he was likewise younger than either; he came to Italy at an age which is highly suitable to the learning of a language, and previous to that period had spent several years in the Roman camp. The Jewish antiquities, the history of the Jewish war, and the account of his own life, he wrote undoubtedly with a view of their being read by the Romans; and yet he composed all these writings in Greek. He expresses his motive for writing his Greek account of the Jewish war in the following terms: "That having written in his native language (i.e., the Hebrew dialect at that time spoken) a history of the war, in order that Parthians, Babylonians, Arabians, Adiabenes, and the Jews beyond the Euphrates, might be informed of those events, he was now resolved to write for the Greeks and Romans, who had not been engaged in the campaigns, a more certain account than had hitherto been given." The motives which induced Josephus to write in Greek are fully as applicable to St Paul and St Mark.
Michaelis has thus characterized the style of the New Testament. "The New Testament (says he) was written in a language at that time common among the Jews," Jews, which may be named Hebraic Greek; the first traces of which we find in the translation of the LXX.
"Every man acquainted with the Greek language, who had never heard of the New Testament, must immediately perceive, on reading only a few lines, that the style is widely different from that of the classic authors. We find this character in all the books of the New Testament in a greater or less degree, but we must not therefore conclude that they possess an uniformity of style. The harsher Hebraisms, which extend even to grammatical errors in the government of cases, are the distinguishing marks of the book of Revelation; but they are accompanied with tokens of genius and poetical enthusiasm, of which every reader must be sensible who has taste and feeling. There is no translation of it which is not read with pleasure even in the days of childhood; and the very faults of grammar are so happily placed as to produce an agreeable effect. The gospels of St Matthew and St Mark have strong marks of this Hebraic style; the former has harsher Hebraisms than the latter, the fault of which may be ascribed to the Greek translator, who has made too literal a version, and yet the gospel of St Mark is written in worse language, and in a manner that is less agreeable. The epistles of St James and St Jude are somewhat better; but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St Luke has in several passages written pure and classic Greek, of which the four first verses of his gospel may be given as an instance: in the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet the style is more agreeable than that of St Matthew or St Mark. In the Acts of the apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty devoid of art. St John has numerous, though not uncouth, Hebraisms both in his gospel and epistles; but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. St Paul again is entirely different from them all; his style is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has upon the whole a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew, and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved."
Michaelis has shown that the New Testament not only contains Hebraisms but Rabbinisms, Syriacisms, Chaldaicisms, Arabisms, Latinisms, and Persian words, of which he has exhibited many specimens. To theologians, whose duty it certainly is to study the language of the New Testament with attention, we would strenuously recommend the perusal of this work, which in the English translation is one of the most valuable additions to scriptural criticism that has yet appeared. We speak of the English translation, which the large and judicious notes of Mr Marsh has rendered infinitely superior to the original.
To the observations which have been made respecting the language of the New Testament, a few remarks may be added concerning the peculiarities of the style and manner of the sacred writers, particularly the historians. These remarks extend to the Old Testament as well as to the New.—The first quality for which the sacred history is remarkable is simplicity in the structure of the sentences. The first five verses of Genesis furnish an example, which consist of eleven sentences. The substantives are not attended by adjectives, nor the verbs by adverbs, no synonyms, no superlatives, no effort at expressing things in a bold, emphatical, or uncommon manner.
2. The second quality is simplicity of sentiment, particularly in the Pentateuch, arising from the very nature of the early and uncultivated state of society about which that book is conversant.
3. Simplicity of design. The subject of the narrative so engrosses the attention of the writer, that he himself is as nobody. He introduces nothing as from himself, no remarks, doubts, conjectures, or reasonings. Our Lord's biographers particularly excel in this quality. This quality of style we meet with in Xenophon and Caesar.
The Evangelists may be ranked next to Genesis for simplicity of composition in the sentences. John and Matthew are distinguished for it more than Mark and Luke. But the sentiment is not so remarkable for simplicity in the Evangelist as the Pentateuch. The reasons of this difference are, the state of the Jews was totally changed; their manners, customs, &c., split into factions both in religion and politics. 2. The object of our Lord's ministry, which is the great subject of the gospels, was to inculcate a doctrine and morality with which none of their systems perfectly coincided; besides, being constantly opposed by all the great men, the greater part of his history consists of intrusions and disputes. 3. As it is occupied with what our Saviour said and what he did, this makes two distinctions of style and manner; that of our Saviour, and the sacred penman's. In their own character, they neither explain nor command, promise nor threaten, praise nor blame. They generally omit the names of our Lord's enemies; thus directing our hatred at the vices they committed, not at the persons. They never mention such persons without necessity; which is the case with the high-priest, Pilate, Herod, and Judas: the three first for the chronology, the fourth to do justice to the eleven.
Herodias is indeed mentioned with dishonour, but her crime was a public one. On the other hand, all persons distinguished for any thing virtuous are carefully mentioned, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Zachaeus, Bartholomew, Jairus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. They record their own faults (Peter's, Thomas's), nor do they make any merit of their confession. In one uniform strain they relate the most signal miracles and most ordinary facts.
From the narrative is excluded that quality of style which is called animation. Nothing that discovers passion in the writer or is calculated to excite the passions of the reader. Every thing is directed to mend the heart.
But in the discourses and dialogues of our Saviour the expression, without losing any thing of its simplicity, is often remarkable for spirit and energy. Respecting harmony and smoothness, qualities which only add an external polish to language, they had not the least solicitude. As to elegance, there is an elegance which results from the use of such words as are most in use with those who are accounted fine writers, and from such arrangements in the words and clauses as have generally obtained their approbation. This is disclaimed by the sacred authors.
But there is an elegance of a superior order more nearly connected with the sentiment; and in this sort of elegance they are not deficient. In all the oriental languages great use is made of tropes, especially metaphors. When the metaphors employed bear a strong resemblance, they confer vivacity: if they be borrowed from objects which are naturally agreeable, beautiful, or attractive, they add also elegance. The Evangelists furnish us with many examples of this kind of vivacity and elegance. Our Lord borrows tropes from cornfields, vineyards, gardens, &c.
As a valuable appendage to this part of our subject, we shall subjoin Dr Campbell's method of studying the books of the New Testament. This we offer to our readers as a beautiful instance of the judicious application of philosophy to sacred studies. It is the same method of discovering truth by analysis and induction, which was pursued by Sir Isaac Newton with such astonishing success, which since his time has been uniformly practised in natural philosophy, and has been also applied to chemistry, to medicine, to natural history, and to the philosophy of mind, by the ingenious Dr Reid. This is the path of sound philosophy, which can alone lead to the discovery of truth. In following it, our progress may be slow, but it will be sure. If all theologians would steadily adhere to it, we might then entertain the pleasant hope of discarding forever those absurd systems of religion which are founded on single passages and detached fragments of scripture, and of establishing opinions and doctrines on a solid foundation.
1. To get acquainted with each writer's style; to observe his manner of composition, both in sentences and paragraphs; to remark the words and phrases peculiar to him, and the peculiar application that he may sometimes make of ordinary words; for there are few of those writers who have not their peculiarities in all the respects now mentioned. This acquaintance with each can be attained only by the frequent and attentive reading of his works in his own language.
2. To inquire into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer, the time, the place, and the occasion of his writing, and the people for whose immediate use he originally intended his work. Every one of these particulars will sometimes serve to elucidate expressions otherwise obscure or doubtful. This knowledge may in part be learned from a diligent and reiterated perusal of the book itself, and in part be gathered from what authentic, or at least probable, accounts have been transmitted to us concerning the compilation of the canon.
3. The last general direction is, to consider the principal scope of the book, and the particulars chiefly observable in the method by which the writer has purposed to execute his design. This direction is particularly applicable to the epistolary writings, especially those of Paul.
4. If a particular word or phrase occur, which appears obscure, perhaps unintelligible, the first thing we ought to do, if satisfied that the reading is genuine, is to consult the context, to attend to the manner wherefore in the term is introduced, whether in a chain of reasoning or in a historical narration, in a description, or included in an exhortation or command. As the conclusion is inferred from the premises, or as from two or more known truths a third unknown or unobserved before may fairly be deduced; so from such attention to the sentence in connection, the import of an expression, in itself obscure or ambiguous, will sometimes with moral certainty be discovered. This, however, will not always answer.
5. If it do not, let the second consideration be, whether the term or phrase be one of the writer's peculiarities. If so, it comes naturally to be inquired, what is the acceptation in which he employs it in other places? If the sense cannot be precisely the same in the passage under review, perhaps, by an easy and natural metaphor or other trope, the common acceptation may give rise to one which perfectly suits the passage in question—Recourse to the other places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the same author is of considerable use, though the term should not be peculiar to him.
6. But thirdly, if there should be nothing in the same writer that can enlighten the place, let recourse be had to the parallel passages, if there be any such, in the other sacred writers. By parallel passages, I mean those places, if the difficulty occur in history, wherein the same or a similar story, miracle, or event, is related; it in teaching or reasoning, those parts wherein the same argument or doctrine is treated, or the same parable propounded; and in moral lessons, those wherein the same class of duties is recommended; or, if the difficulty be found in a quotation from the Old Testament, let the parallel passage in the book referred to, both in the original Hebrew, and in the Greek version, be consulted.
7. But if in these there be found nothing that can throw light on the expression of which we are in doubt, the fourth recourse is to all the places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint version of the Old, adding to these the consideration of the import of the Hebrew or Chaldaic word, whose place it occupies, and the extent of signification, of which in different occurrences such Hebrew or Chaldaic term is susceptible.
8. Perhaps the term in question is one of those which very rarely occur in the New Testament, or those called ἀπαράξιμα, only once read in Scripture, and not found at all in the translation of the Seventy. Several such words there are. There is then a necessity, in the fifth place, for recurring to the ordinary acceptation of the term in classical authors. This is one of those cases wherein the interpretation given by the earliest Greek fathers deserves particular notice. In this, however, I limit myself to those comments wherein they give a literal exposition of the sacred text, and do not run into vision and allegory."
The manuscripts of the New Testament are the natural source from which the genuine readings of the Greek Testament are to be drawn. The printed editions are either copies of more ancient editions, or of manuscripts; and they have no further authority than as they correspond to the manuscripts from which they were originally taken. By manuscripts of the New Testament, we mean those only which were written before the The most ancient of these are lost, and there is no manuscript now extant older than the sixth century. Few contain the whole New Testament; some contain the four gospels; some the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles; and others the book of Revelation. The greatest number are those which contain the first part; those which have the second, or the first and second together, are likewise numerous; but those of the third are extremely few. It must be added also, that in many manuscripts those epistles are omitted whose divine authority was formerly doubted.
There are many manuscripts which have been examined only for a single text, such as John v. 7, or at least for a very small number. Others have been examined from the beginning to the end, but not completely, and in respect of all the readings. A third class consists of such as either have been, or are said to have been, completely and accurately collated. But this requires such phlegmatic patience, that we can hardly expect to find in critical catalogues all the various readings which have been only once collated. Wettstein, in collating many manuscripts anew, made discoveries which had entirely escaped the notice of his predecessors.
The fourth class consists of such as have been completely and accurately collated more than once; but here also we are in danger of being led into error.—When various readings are transferred from one critical edition to another, as from that of Gregory to Mill's edition, and from the latter to those of Bengel and Wettstein, the manuscripts must sometimes be falsely named, and various readings must frequently be omitted. And as Wettstein has marked by ciphers manuscripts that in former editions had been denoted by their initial letters, he could hardly avoid substituting, in some cases, one figure instead of another. The fifth class, which is by far the most valuable, consists of such as have been printed word for word, and therefore form an original edition of the Greek Testament. We can boast but of a very few manuscripts of this kind. Hearne printed at Oxford, in 1715, the Acts of the Apostles in Greek and Latin from the Codex Laudianus 3.; Knittel has annexed to his edition of Ulphilas, p. 53—118, a copy of two very ancient fragments preserved in the library of Wolfenbüttel; the one of the four Gospels in general, the other of St Luke and St John. Woide printed in 1786 the Codex Alexandrinus, a manuscript of great antiquity, which shall afterwards be more fully described; and the University of Cambridge has resolved to publish, in a similar manner, the Cod. Cant. I., or, as it is sometimes called, the Codex Bezae, the care of which is intrusted to Dr Kipling, a publication which will be thankfully received by every friend to sacred criticism. It was the intention of the Abbé Spoletti, a few years ago, to publish the whole of the celebrated Codex Vaticanus; which would likewise have been a most valuable acquisition, since a more important manuscript is hardly to be found in all Europe. He delivered for this purpose a memorial to the Pope; but the design was not put into execution, either because the Pope refused his assent, or the Abbé abandoned it himself. See the Oriental Bible, vol. xxii. n° 333, and vol. xxiii. n° 348.
"A very valuable library," says Michaelis, "might be composed of the impressions of ancient manuscripts, which, though too expensive for a private person, should be admitted into every university collection, especially the Alexandrine and Cambridge manuscripts, to which I would add, if it were now possible to procure it, Hearne's edition of the Codex Laudianus 3. A plan of taking all of this sort could be executed only in England, by a subscription of ancient private subscription, where a zeal is frequently displayed in literary undertakings that is unknown in other countries; and it were to be wished that the project were begun before length of time has rendered the manuscripts illegible, and the attempt therefore fruitless. Ten thousand pounds would go a great way toward the fulfilling of this request, if the learned themselves did not augment the difficulty of the undertaking, by adding their own critical remarks, and endeavouring thereby to recommend their publications, rather than by presenting to the public a faithful copy of the original. Should posterity be put in possession of faithful impressions of important manuscripts, an acquisition which would render the highest service to sacred criticism, all these editions of the New Testament should be regulated on the same plan as Hearne's edition of the Acts of the Apostles." It must be highly flattering to the patriotic spirit of an Englishman to hear the encomiums which learned foreigners have so profusely bestowed on our liberality in supporting works of genius and learning and public utility. The plan which Michaelis proposes to us, in preference to all the other nations in Europe, is noble and magnificent, and would certainly confer immortality on those men who would give it their patronage and affiance.
There are many ancient manuscripts, especially in Italy, which have never been collated, but lie still unexplored. Here is a field where much remains to be done. See Marsh's Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 643.
Michaelis has given a catalogue of ancient manuscripts, amounting in number to 292, to which he has added a short account of each. In this place we shall confine our observations to the most celebrated, the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, which we have chiefly extracted from Michaelis.
The Alexandrine manuscript consists of four volumes; the three first of which contain the Old Testament, the fourth the New Testament, together with the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and a fragment of the second. In the New Testament, which alone is the object of our present inquiry, is wanting the beginning as far as Matthew xxv. 6, ὁ νυμὸς ἐκεῖνος, likewise from John vi. 50. to viii. 52. and from 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7. It must likewise be observed, that the Psalms are preceded by the epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, and followed by a catalogue, containing those which are to be used in prayer for each hour, both of the day and of the night; also by 14 hymns, partly apocryphal, partly biblical, the 11th of which is an hymn in praise of the Virgin Mary, entitled ἀγαπητοῦ ἀγαπᾶς τῆς Σιωτῆς; further, the Hypothees Eusebii are annexed to the Psalms, and his Canones to the Gospels. It is true, that this has no immediate reference to the New Testament, but may have influence in determining the antiquity of the manuscript itself.
It has neither accents nor marks of aspiration; it is written with capital, or, as they are called, uncial letters, and Scripture, and has very few abbreviations. There are no inter- vals between the words; but the sense of a passage is sometimes terminated by a point, and sometimes by a vacant space. Here arises a suspicion that the copyist did not understand Greek, because these marks are sometimes found even in the middle of a word, for in- stance Levit. v. 4. ἀναμενεῖν for ἀναμενον, and Numb. xiii. 29. ἐν τῷ ῥεύματι.
This manuscript was presented to Charles I. in 1628, by Cyrilus Lucaris patriarch of Constantinople. Cyrilus himself has given the following account: "We know so much of this manuscript of the holy writings of the Old and New Testament, that Thecla an Egyptian lady of distinction (nobilis femina Ægyptia) wrote it with her own hand 1300 years ago (a). She lived soon after the council of Nicea. Her name was formerly at the end of the book; but when Christianity was subverted in Egypt by the errors of Mahomet, the books of the Christians suffered the same fate, and the name of The- cla was expunged. But oral tradition of no very an- cient date (memoria et traditio recens) has preserved the remembrance of it."
But the reader will see that this account is merely traditional. Dr Semler very properly observes, that there is no more reason to rely on a tradition respecting the transcriber of an ancient manuscript, than on a tra- dition which relates to an ancient relic. The argu- ments which have been urged by Wettstein, Semler, Oudin, and Woide, to fix the date of this manuscript, are so many, that it would be tedious to repeat them. But, after all, its antiquity cannot be determined with certainty, though it appears from the formation of the letters, which resemble those of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the want of accents, that it was not writ- ten so late as the tenth century. In this century it was placed by Oudin, while Grabe and Schulze have referred it to the fourth, which is the very utmost pe- riod that can be allowed, because it contains the epistles of Athanasius. Wettstein, with more probability, has chosen a mean between these two extremes, and referred it to the fifth century; but we are not justified in draw- ing this inference from the formation of the letters alone, for it is well known that the same mode of form- ing the letters was retained longer in some countries and in some monasteries than in others.
We are now in possession of a perfect impression of this manuscript, which is accompanied with so complete and so critical a collection of various readings, as is hardly to be expected from the edition of any other manuscript. Dr Woide published it in 1786, with types cast for that purpose, line for line, without in- tervals between the words, as in the manuscript itself: the copy is so perfect a resemblance of the original, Scripture, that it may supply its place. Its title is Novum Testa- mentum Graecum e codice MS. Alexandrinus qui Londini in Bibliotheca Musae Britannici afferatur descriptum. It is a very splendid folio; and the preface of the learned editor contains an accurate description of the manuscript, with an exact list of all its various readings, that takes up no less than 89 pages; and each reading is accom- panied with a remark, in which is given an account of what his predecessors Junius, Walton, Fell, Mill, Grabe, and Wettstein, had performed or neglected.
The Vatican manuscript contained originally the whole Greek Bible, including both the Old and New Testament; and in this respect, as well as in regard to its antiquity, it resembles none so much as the Codex Alexandrinus, but no two manuscripts are more dissi- milar in their readings, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. After the Gospels, which are placed in the usual order, come the Acts of the Apostles, which are immediately followed by the seven catholic epistles. This must be particularly noted, because some have con- tended that the second Epistle of St Peter, with the second and third of St John, were wanting. Professor Hwiid, in a letter dated Rome, April 12. 1781, assur- ed Michaelis that he had seen them with his own eyes, that the second Epistle of St Peter is placed folio 1434, the second of St John fol. 1442, the third folio 1443; then follow the Epistles of St Paul, but not in the usual order; for the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed immediately after those to the Thessalonians; and it is not improbable, that in the more ancient manu-