The Expositor's Bible: Index

Many important additions have recently been made to the student's apparatus for the linguistic and textual study of the Old Testament. Numerous grammars, reading-books and lexicons of Assyrian and other Semitic languages have been published. In Hebrew itself a standard grammar has been provided by the translation of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth editions Gesenius revised by Kautzsch. Dr. Solomon Mandelkern has published a new Concordance to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. A new standard edition of Gesenius Lexicon by Profs. Brown, Driver, and Briggs is being issued by the Clarendon Press.

Biblical Hebrew has also had light thrown on it by the discovery of the original Hebrew text of large portions of Ecclesiasticus. It was indeed maintained by Margoliouth that the documents discovered were a retranslation into Hebrew from Greek and other versions; but, after much controversy, the verdict of scholarship is in favor of the originality of the Hebrew text in these documents.

As regards the Septuagint: Prof. Swete has edited a small edition in three volumes with the readings of the most important manuscripts, together with a fourth volume containing the Introduction. A large edition which will give the same text[10 - That of the "Vatican MS.," with its lacunæ supplied from the uncial MS. which occupies the next place in point of age and importance.] "with an ample apparatus criticus intended to provide material for a critical determination of the text," is being prepared. Messrs. Hatch and Redpath have compiled a new Concordance to the Septuagint; but a modern grammar and lexicon are still "felt wants."

VI. – RECENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS

The progress of Biblical knowledge has necessitated the publication of new series of commentaries. In English there is the International Critical Commentary;[11 - T. & T. Clark. Judges by Prof. G. F. Moore, Samuel by Prof. H. P. Smith, etc., etc., only four or five O. T. volumes published as yet.] and some of the later volumes of the Cambridge Bible, e. g., Prof. Driver's Daniel, are rather first-class commentaries for scholars than elementary works for general readers. In German there are Prof. Nowack's Handkommentar zum Alten Testament;[12 - Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen. Job by Prof. Budde, Psalms by Prof. Baethgen, Ezra, etc., etc., by Prof. Siegfried, etc.] Prof. Karl Marti's Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament,[13 - J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Freiburg, i. B. Genesis by Holzinger, Ezekiel by Bertholet, Proverbs by Wildeboer, etc., etc.] and the Old Testament sections of Profs. Strack and Zöckler's Kurzgefaszter Kommentar.[14 - Oskar Beck, Munich, Orelli on Isaiah and Jeremiah, etc., etc.] Later on reference will be made to some volumes of these series.

In addition to the above works, there are others specially intended to show how criticism has divided up the books of the Old Testament into the various older documents from which they are believed to have been compiled. This analysis is shown in the German translation edited by Kautzsch by means of initials in the margin; Dr. Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Hebrew text) and Polychrome Bible,[15 - Genesis by C. J. Ball; Numbers by Prof. J. A. Paterson (Edinburgh), etc., etc.] by means of colored backgrounds on which the text is printed; and in the Oxford Society of Historical Theology; The Hexateuch[16 - Edited by J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford Battersby.] by means of parallel columns. The introduction to the last named work is the most complete popular statement of the grounds for the modern theory of the Pentateuch. Technical details and a formal contrast of the arguments for and against this theory may be found in the discussion between Profs. W. R. Harper and W. H. Green in Hebraica, 1888-90. Numerous Introductions to the Old Testament have expounded the current critical views, notably for English and American readers the successive editions of Prof. Driver's Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.

Naturally these various works represent not merely the position of criticism and exegesis twenty years ago, but also the progress made since then. As regards the Historical Books critics have chiefly been engaged in the application of modern methods and principles which are now very generally accepted. Development has taken place in three directions. First, much labor has been given to the more exact distribution of the contents of the Hexateuch between the main documents used by its compilers, e. g., Prof. B. W. Bacon's analysis of Exodus. Secondly, attempts have been made to divide up these main documents into still older documents from which they have been compiled. Steuernagel, for instance, regards Deuteronomy as a mosaic of paragraphs and clauses from earlier codes, and finds a criterion between different sources in the use, respectively, of the singular or the plural form of address. So far his views have not met with much acceptance.[17 - For other examples of the analysis of the main documents into earlier works, see Gunkel's Genesis, the Polychrome Genesis, Joshua, and Prof. H. G. Mitchell's World Before Abraham, etc., etc.] Thirdly, the theory has been very widely advocated that the historical books of Judges-I Kings are partly compiled from the documents used by the editors of the Hexateuch.[18 - See the Polychrome Judges and Samuel.] Gunkel's commentary on Genesis[19 - German.] is of special importance; it pleads for a fuller recognition of the indebtedness of Israel to the religions of its neighbors, and maintains that, as the stories of the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood were derived from Babylon, so the Patriarchal narratives were mostly borrowed from the Canaanites after the settlement of Israel in Palestine. The account of Joseph, however, is largely taken from Egyptian sources.

As regards the Prophetical Books, there is little of general interest to record; the composite authorship of Isaiah XL-LXVI is more widely held.

When we come to the Hagiographa, or third or closing section of the Hebrew Canon, Esther has been the subject of interesting speculations. Chiefly because Mordecai and Esther are the names of the Babylonian gods Merodach and Ishtar, it has been suggested that the book is based on a Babylonian myth which the Jews appropriated and adapted, as in earlier days, according to Gunkel, they made use of the legends of the Canaanites.

The origin and history of the Psalms is still made the ground of much controversy, and the tendency of criticism is to deny the existence of any Pre-exilic Psalms;[20 - E. g., Cheyne.] and to assign a large number to the Maccabean period. It is even held[21 - Duhm.] that, in the time of the Maccabees, the Psalm was the organ of political invective, and played the part of the leading article in a modern newspaper.

In connection with Canticles a theory put forward some time since has been revived in an emended form, and with a fuller discussion of the evidence.[22 - Mainly by Budde, in the New World, 1894.] This view is that "the book is a collection of songs, connected with a Syrian custom, called the 'King's Week.' During the first week after marriage the bride and bridegroom play at being king and queen, and are addressed as such by a mock court, in a series of songs similar to those of Canticles. Thus Canticles would contain a specimen of the cycle of songs used at a seven days' village feast in honor of a peasant bride and bridegroom, the latter being addressed as 'Solomon,' the type of a splendid and powerful king."[23 - Biblical Introduction, Bennett and Adeney, p. 169.]

VII. – THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND ITS RELIGION

Many works have appeared expounding these subjects in the light of modern criticism.[24 - For instance, in English or translated into English, Histories of Israel by Cornill, Kittel, and Wellhausen, Prof. J. F. McCurdy's History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, etc. O. T. Theologies by Piepenbring, Duff, etc.; and in German Smend's Textbook of the History of O. T. Religion, and the latest edition of Marti's revision of Kayser's O. T. Theology; G. A. Smith's Historical Geography of the Holy Land.] Here again recent work has largely been a development on lines already laid down.[25 - Cf. above, p. 19.] Much attention has been given to the hints furnished by the Pentateuch as to the early history of Israel, and these have been compared with recent discoveries from the monuments. Many scholars[26 - E. g., Steuernagel in his Immigration of the Israelites into Palestine.] maintain that the Twelve Tribes of later history represent groups of ancient nomadic clans who wandered in Western Asia long before the time of Moses; that only a section of these groups went down into Egypt and escaped with Moses, and that these invaded Canaan at one period, while other kindred clans reinforced them at a later time. Israel and the Twelve Tribes, as we know them, arose in Palestine after the conquest, by the subdivision and regrouping of the invading clans, and their combination with the Canaanites.

Cheyne and Winckler have lately advocated theories which almost revolutionize the history of Israel. The grounds of these theories are largely as follows: The cuneiform inscriptions mention a kingdom of Musri in Northwestern Arabia. For this reason, and for various technical considerations of textual and historical criticism, it is proposed in many passages to substitute Musri for Egypt, Geshur for Assyria (Asshur) and to restore very numerous references to Jerahmeel– according to our present text an obscure tribe to the south of Palestine.[27 - Only mentioned I Samuel xxvii. 10, xxx. 29 and I Chron. ii. 9-42.] With such alternatives and resources at the critic's disposal, history would seem to become anything that a taste or fancy may dictate; so far these views[28 - See Cheyne's Critica Biblica, and his articles in the Encyclopædia Biblica.] have not met with much acceptance. In the later history the more recent developments are chiefly concerned with the interval between the Return and the Maccabees. Some time since Prof. Kosters denied that the account of the Return in Ezra was historical. According to him there was no Return in 538 B. C., and the Temple was rebuilt by the remnant of Jews left behind in Judea at the time of the Captivity. Kosters has had many followers and many adverse critics, but opinion inclines to accept the substantial historicity of the account of the Return.[29 - See discussion in G. A. Smith's Book of the Twelve Prophets (Expositor's Bible).] It is also maintained that various sections of Ezra-Nehemiah do not stand in correct chronological order, and that the first mission of Nehemiah preceded that of Ezra. Another interesting discussion has arisen in connection with Zerubbabel, Haggai, and Zechariah.[30 - See Sellin, Serubbabel, etc.] Zerubbabel is supposed, at the instigation of Haggai and Zechariah, to have declared Judah independent of Persia, and to have ascended the throne as the promised Messiah. He was promptly crushed and put to death by the Persian government, and – according to this view – he is the "Servant of Jehovah" whose fate is described in Isaiah LIII. There may be a measure of truth in all this, but these views are not likely to be adopted in their entirety.

Another important suggestion as to the history of Israel after the Exile comes from Prof. Cheyne, following to some extent in the footsteps of Robertson Smith and earlier scholars. It is that the Jews took part in the great rebellion against Artaxerxes III, Ochus circa B. C. 350; that their rising was caused by religious enthusiasm, and led to the desecration of the Temple. This calamity is supposed to have been the occasion of the composition of certain Psalms and other passages,[31 - Especially Psalms XLIV, LXXIV, and LXXIX.] which most scholars either connect with the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar or refer to the Maccabean period.

The progress of the historical study of Old Testament Theology is hindered by the lack of agreement, even amongst scholars of the modern school, as to the date of many important passages. It is impossible to write certainly as to the teaching, for instance, of Isaiah and Amos, or as to the stages of development of the Religion of Israel while authorities of the first rank are divided as to whether the Messianic sections in Isaiah and the monotheistic verses in Amos were composed by those prophets, or are post-exilic additions. Moreover there is no immediate prospect of a settlement of these questions, for the data are meagre and ambiguous, and the grounds on which individual writers arrive at decisions are largely subjective.

Nevertheless a great deal is clear and certain; and even where dates are doubtful, much of the teaching is independent of chronology. Within these limits the Expositor's Bible and other works have done much to bring popular theology into line with the results of larger knowledge and fresh research and discussion. This process has now reached a point which may enable us to say with the Bishop of Winchester,[32 - Dr. H. E. Ryle, in his Early Narratives of Genesis, published when he was Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, p. IX.] "The period of transition, the period of anxious suspense of judgment, is drawing to a close. It is seen and felt that the interpretation of Holy Scripture is not less literal, not less spiritual, not less in conformity with the pattern which the Divine Teacher gave, when it is rendered more true to history by the fiery tests of criticism and literary analysis."

VIII. – CONCLUSION

This brief survey has necessarily been occupied for the most part with the developments of recent research. But in these years as in previous periods the Old Testament has been the subject of much searching, preaching and writing which has taken little or no account of changes in criticism, or, indeed, of any criticism at all; but have taken the narratives as they found them, and, as far as authorship has been concerned, have made the assumptions which seemed easiest and most edifying. Such work, too, is most valuable. The spiritual life which speaks to us through the Hebrew Scriptures is so full of energy, variety, and truth that even the simplest methods of treatment yield great results. These results, moreover, have sometimes a special quality which is absent from more studious exposition. Even after many centuries the inspired books are like rich virgin soil which yield a harvest even to the crudest methods of cultivation. Thus the scribes of our day, instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven, are still bringing out of their treasures things new and old; and both alike minister to the coming of the Kingdom, both the new and the old, both the influence of ancient association and venerable tradition, and the new life and power and hope that spring to birth in dawning light of a new day of the Lord.

"At last, but yet the night had memories
Sad in their sweetness, noble in their pain,
Which, looking backward half regretfully
In longing day-dreams oft we live again.
At last, but this new day, that slowly dawns,
Shall satisfy with its meridian fires
Alike the longing born of fond regret
And deeper yearnings that our hope inspires."

That the Old Testament will still hold its place of power in any new dispensation is guaranteed by its significance for Christ and His Gospel. As Prof. G. A. Smith has said in a work which states the religious position in the light of recent Biblical study,[33 - Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 11.] Christ accepted the history recorded in the Old Testament "as the preparation for Himself, and taught His disciples to find Him in it. He used it to justify His mission and to illuminate the mystery of His Cross… Above all, He fed His own soul with its contents, and in the great crises of His life sustained Himself upon it as upon the living and sovereign Word of God. These are the highest external proofs – if indeed we can call them external – for the abiding validity of the Old Testament in the life and doctrine of Christ's Church. What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed."

    W. H. Bennett.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE

NEW TESTAMENT

By Walter F. Adeney, M. A

Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Lancashire College,

Manchester

I. – CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPOSITION

When we pass from the volumes of the Expositor's Bible that deal with the Old Testament to those which expound the books of the New Testament we discover less departure from the traditional attitude. And yet a very little knowledge of the enormous amount of research which has been prosecuted during recent years in the fruitful field of primitive Christian literature and its surrounding scenes must convince us that here also was a clamorous call for a fresh treatment of the whole subject. It is much to have the books taken one by one and treated each as a distinct entity; in this way we are led on to perceive that richer harmony of the various apostolic notes which means so much more than the unison of the older methods: First, instead of the familiar treatment of minute phrases commonly known as "text," we have the wider survey and broader handling of the arguments of the books, which to those who have not been accustomed to it appears as a revelation, so that these books become new things to them. Then we have that individual treatment, that temporary isolation of the books, which enables us to understand their limitations as well as the amplitude of their contents. Lastly, we come to see the specific teaching of the several New Testament writers, so that we can no longer confuse the distinctive message of the author of Hebrews with that of St. Paul, or confound the ideas of St. Peter with those of St. James.

II. – TEXT AND TRANSLATION

The Expositor's Bible is based upon a more accurate text and more exact renderings of the New Testament than were available for previous works of exposition. The discovery of one of the two oldest known manuscripts at the Monastery of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai, in the middle of the nineteenth century, is only one, though perhaps the greatest, of the steps in advance towards obtaining a correct Greek Testament which have been taken during the last hundred years. The immense labors of Tischendorf in the collation of manuscripts and readings from the Fathers, following the earlier work of Mill, Griesbach and others, but with a much richer mine of materials to draw upon, laid a foundation on which later experts have been laboring with the aim of producing the purest possible text.[34 - See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Græce, 8th edit.] Westcott and Hort went further in working out a scientific theory with canons of interpretation which at first appeared to sweep the field and claim almost universal assent.[35 - See Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's N.T.] More recently, however, it has been felt that these scholars were tempted to rely too much on one or two old manuscripts – chiefly, indeed, on a single manuscript, the Vatican, and to treat too contemptuously the claims of what is known as the "Western Text," represented among other authorities by the great Cambridge MS., the Codex Bezae. Accordingly their text cannot be regarded as final.[36 - See Blass, Philology of the Gospels; Nestlè, Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament; Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.] Meanwhile perhaps the soundest working Greek Testament is that edited by Nestlè for the "British and Foreign Bible Society," which strikes the mean of several critical editions. The more accurate text has been accompanied by more correct translations, of which the most conspicuous are the English and American Revised Versions. This may be described as substantially one and the same revision of the so-called "Authorized Version"; but there are several emendations of the American revisers which were not accepted by their more conservative English coadjutors, although in nearly every case they must be allowed to be improvements both as regards scholarship and also in lucidity. Since the Revised Version appeared several completely new translations of the New Testament into modern English have been published.[37 - See especially Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern English; Moffatt, The Historical New Testament; The Twentieth Century New Testament.]

III. – RECENT CRITICISM

The most remarkable characteristic of the latest Biblical criticism is the application to the New Testament of those disintegrating processes with the results of which on Old Testament studies we have long been familiar. This, however, is by no means so alarming as the claims of the more radical critics might suggest. It is true that some scholars carry their destructive criticism to an extreme – for instance, Schmiedel with the gospels, refusing to allow full assurance for the authenticity of more than five of our Lord's sayings, and Van Manen with the epistles, repudiating the authenticity of all those ascribed to St. Paul.[38 - See Encyclopædia Biblica; also Cheyne, Bible Problems.] But these critics stand almost alone; at all events they do not represent anything like the normal position of New Testament scholarship. The accident of their prominence in one of the great Bible dictionaries, which is simply due to editorial sympathies, must not disguise the fact of their eccentricity. Nothing is more remarkable in recent criticism than the fact that while the more conservative of the two new dictionaries[39 - Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.] accepts the main critical position of advanced scholarship with regard to the Old Testament, it differs toto coelo[40 - The Encyclopædia Biblica.] from its rival in its treatment of the New Testament. In these respects it fairly corresponds to the position taken up by most of the writers of the Expositor's Bible.

A remarkable approach towards unanimity is to be seen in the views of scholars of various types with reference to what is known as the "synoptic problem," the problem of the origin of our first three gospels occasioned by the perplexing phenomena of their frequent close resemblance and signally frequent striking divergence. Fifty years ago opinions about this question were in a perfectly chaotic condition; indeed, there were about as many opinions as the highest possible arithmetical variation in the mutual relations of the gospels would permit. Some put Matthew first, some Mark, some Luke; and all conceivable theories as to their relation one to another, the use of earlier documents, and the degree of reliance on tradition or on written sources to be detected in their authors found eager advocates. But gradually the turbid waters settled and certain definite, generally accepted ideas were crystallized. In the present day it is almost universally agreed that Mark was written by the man whose name it bears, although when Pfleiderer gave his adhesion to this view such a confession from one who was regarded as a leader of the "left wing" of criticism occasioned some surprise.[41 - See Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, First Edition (1887).] Further, it is the generally accepted opinion that the bulk of the narrative portion of Matthew – the chief exceptions being the Infancy and Resurrection narrative – is based on Mark, and that the same is true to a considerable extent with regard to Luke. There has been much discussion as to whether St. Mark's gospel has undergone revision. But the ripest results of study on this subject are represented by the conclusions of Dr. Abbott who has shown that our Mark is really the earlier edition of the gospel which in a later and slightly modified form, its ruggedness being smoothed, was used in the construction of Matthew and Luke. In the second place, it is very generally admitted that the discourses in Matthew, which are inserted in five blocks of sayings, like five wedges driven into the narrative as that stands in Mark, are the contents of a work consisting of the "oracles," or "sacred sayings," of Jesus which a very ancient church writer, Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, tells us that Matthew compiled.[42 - It is interesting to observe that, as Eusebius informs us, Papias's commentary on the Logia, or "Oracles of the Lord," was composed in five books. These might correspond to the five sections of the teachings of Jesus in our Matthew.] Thus we get two of our gospels well authenticated, Mark being admitted to be the work of the man to whom it is ascribed and Matthew being acknowledged as in the main a combination of St. Matthew the Apostle's collection of the teachings of Jesus with the standard narrative in Mark. The infancy and resurrection narratives must have been derived from other primitive authorities.

The case of our third gospel is somewhat different. As we might expect from his preface, St. Luke has availed himself of a wider range of materials. But he too, like the author of our first gospel, is now admitted to have used Mark as his primary basis, though not to so great extent, or so almost exclusively. In particular in that rich section which is commonly, though perhaps erroneously, ascribed to our Lord s Peræan ministry, he has a store of precious materials that are not met with in any other gospels. Similarly, while some verbal coincidences lead us to the conclusion that he also used St. Matthew's collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is evident that he had other collections of our Lord's teachings, from which, for instance, he got the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Good Samaritan, and many other choice utterances the characteristic beauty and originality of which constitute their own authentication.

Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we see that this wonderful book has been subjected to the most searching criticism during recent years with very interesting results. Half a century ago Baur declared that it could not have been written before the Year A. D. 160. Since then the finding of primitive Christian Documents[43 - Especially Hipollytus The Refutation of All Heresies, and Tatian's Diatessaron.] which bear testimony to the use of this gospel in earlier times, together with the proofs of its archaic character brought out by a comparison of its contents with second-century literature, has forced the date of its origin steadily back and yet further back, till the latest possible date that can be assigned to it is quite early in the second century. But more than this, there is a growing tendency to connect this gospel with the son of Zebedee. Some scholars[44 - E. g., Harnach, McGiffert.] would assign the actual writing of the book to another person, perhaps John the Elder; but then they allow that this somewhat shadowy personage, referred to by Papias as a contemporary of the Apostles, derived his information from the Beloved Disciple. One leading scholar[45 - Wendt.] holds that the teachings of Jesus in our Fourth Gospel came from the Apostle John, while he thinks that most of the narrative portions are due to another hand. But in one of the latest works on the subject, Dr. Drummond ascribes the whole book to the Apostle and meets the adverse views of recent criticism with masterly replies. Even if the final verdict should be to ascribe the literary form of the work to John the Elder or some unknown scholar at Ephesus, the growing consensus of opinion is toward assigning the substance of it to St. John himself.

The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment of the Acts of the Apostles. The "Tübingen School," represented in this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St. Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism. That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the primitive character of the first half – especially as illustrated by the speeches of St. Peter and others,[46 - See Lechler, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times.] and later by the collection of many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book, namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay – the greatest living authority on the antiquities and history of Asia Minor in the first century – that many local and contemporary facts have been brought to light confirmatory of the accuracy of St. Luke as a historian.[47 - See Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman citizen.]

With regard to St. Paul's epistles the case stands thus: A few extremists reject them all, partly on the ground of their supposed inconsistency with the Acts– thus reversing Zeller's argument, but mainly because of the advanced condition of Christian experience which they illustrate, as though the pace of spiritual development in the white heat of the greatest religious "revival" the world has ever seen could be measured by the ideas of a Dutch professor in his chill lecture room! But the mass of critical opinion – British, German, and American – is tending toward a wider recognition of the genuineness of these writings than was allowed a generation ago. Baur's admittedly authentic group of four, which has been called "the great quadrilateral of Christianity," still stands – viz., 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. Next come Philippians and I Thessalonians now accepted as virtually beyond question. Then Colossians has been vindicated in schools of severe criticism.[48 - By Von Soden and Jülicher, although some interpolations are allowed. Even Pfleiderer admitted that it contained fragments of St. Paul's genuine writings, after Hilgenfeld had followed his leader Baur in rejecting it altogether. Lightfoot, T. K. Abbott, Zahn, and Sanday all defend its claims.] If Colossians is allowed, there can be no doubt as to receiving its companion epistle, the beautiful little letter to Philemon. There are still many who are unable to admit 2 Thessalonians, chiefly because of its apocalyptic contents. But of late years it has been shown that the primitive church was possessed with the hope of the coming of Christ in glory to a remarkable extent, as a perfectly dominating idea. There remains Ephesians as now the most questioned of all the epistles that bear the name of St. Paul, except the Pastorals. But when it is seen that one of the chief objections to it is that it is said to be "a weak" (!) imitation of Colossians we may be allowed to regard this judgment as a matter of personal taste rather than a decision of objective criticism. Luther does not stand alone in holding this epistle to be one of the choicest books of the New Testament.

The question of the Pastoral Epistles must be considered as still one meeting with doubtful answers. Many scholars who accept all the ten epistles of St. Paul to the Churches agree with Marcion of the second century in not admitting these three works. Still they are defended by most British and American New Testament[49 - Not by Davidson, however, nor more recently by Bacon or Moffatt. Dr. Horton (Century Bible) balances the arguments pro and con and refuses to decide either way.] scholars, and some who do not allow that in their present form they can be attributed to the Apostle still admit that they contain fragments of the Apostle's genuine writings.[50 - This is Harnach's view. On the other hand so independent a scholar and drastic a critic as Mr. Conybeare told the present writer that he had no doubt of their genuineness.]

The Epistle to the Hebrews is now universally admitted not to be a work of St. Paul. The book itself makes no claim to be such, and it is unfortunate that the English Revisers retained the misleading title ascribing it to "Paul the Apostle," a late superscription of no historical value. Happily the American Revisers have struck this out. Claims for Barnabas and for Apollos as its author have their advocates; and lately Prof. Harnach has hit on the happy guess, backed up by considerations of some amount of probability, that its author was a woman – Priscilla. But most scholars feel it necessary to abide by Origen's negative conclusion: "Who wrote the epistle God only knows." That it is a most valuable work of high inspiration well worthy of a place in the canon in spite of its anonymity cannot be doubted. It has recently received special attention from scholars in the form of fresh and luminous exposition.[51 - Especially by Menégoz, Bruce, and Milligan.]

I Peter has been somewhat severely handled in recent times, Harnach regarding it as the work of some unknown disciple of St. Paul. But the growing perception of a rapprochement between the two great Apostles, which is seen in recent scholarship, points to the conclusion that St. Peter, who was evidently a man of a most impressionable nature, may not have felt himself above receiving influences from the great Apostle of the Gentiles; and it is not to be denied that there are features of the epistle which link it more closely with St. Peter's speeches in Acts than with the writings of St. Paul. On the other hand 2 Peter is the one book of the New Testament now almost universally treated as not genuine; it was the latest to be accepted in the primitive church.[52 - Still it is vindicated by Dr. Bigg, International Commentary.]

James is regarded as a genuine work of the head of the Church at Jerusalem by its chief English commentator,[53 - J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James.] although most German and American scholars who have written about it recently assign it to a very late date.[54 - E. g., Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Jülicher, Harnach, the last regarding it as a collection of sermon notes put together by some unknown James in the second century. But are not its very archaic features against this view?]

The Epistles of John are now almost universally admitted to be the work of the author of the fourth gospel. Little can be said as to the Epistle of Jude except that its free use of Apocryphal books has been clearly demonstrated. But, lastly, a flood of light has been thrown on the Revelation by recent studies in Jewish Apocalyptic literature, and even in Babylonian mythology.[55 - As expounded by Gunkel, Bousset, and Charles.] It has been shown that this mysterious book, which many had regarded as unique in literature, may be associated with a school of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic writings from some of the former of which it draws its materials. Then, as the inquiry is pushed further back, some of the most remarkable imagery is traced through these Jewish writings to Babylonian legends. While this interesting process may help to account for the form of the book, it does not touch its essence and that marvelous inspiration by virtue of which it soars above all possible rivals and it is to us the Apocalypt, the one book in which the Spirit of God unveils the springs and purposes of the providence of history.

IV. – EXEGESIS

During recent years the methods of the commentator have undergone almost as great a revolution as those of the critic. New dictionaries and grammars[56 - E. g., Grim-Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and Grammars of New Testament Greek by Winer, Schmiedel and by Blass.] have helped to a more accurate understanding of words and phrases. But the most remarkable contribution to this form of study comes from a wholly new region, the region of contemporary records. Inscriptions in Greece and Asia Minor and Papyri discovered in Egypt, dating from the very time when the New Testament was written, are found to contain phrases identical with what we had been accustomed to regard as peculiarly characteristic of Hellenistic or New Testament Greek. The conclusion to be drawn from these remarkable discoveries is that the books of the New Testament were written in the ordinary spoken Greek of their day, the very same form of language in which leases were drawn up and private letters were written by people at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, in which inscriptions were chiseled by sculptors in Cos among the isles of Greece. From this we are led to see the mistake of the old commentators in interpreting the New Testament by means of their knowledge of the classics. The consequence is that the Revised Version must be regarded as already partially out of date, since its committees were dominated by English university classical scholarship, as represented by Dr. Ellicott, the chairman of the English committee.

Another modern movement of research also carries us away from the old classicism. While the New Testament writers used the colloquial language of the cosmopolitan Greek-speaking people of their day, they were all, or nearly all, brought up in Jewish schools and taught to think in Jewish modes of thought. This indicates that some of their expressions can best be interpreted by a knowledge of Aramaic, the language of Palestine in the time of Christ. And now Aramaic studies have been brought in to assist in the interpretation of the New Testament with luminous results.[57 - See Deissmann, Bible Studies; Dalman, The Words of Jesus.]

Two further characteristics may be observed in the new modern commentaries.[58 - On the whole the best English and American series of commentaries is that known as the International Critical Commentary; the most recent work of smaller dimensions is The Century Bible.] One is a vigorous effort to arrive at the original meaning of the books, rather than to the exclusion of any reference to theological systems of later date; in other words, honest exegesis, rather than polemical discussion. The other characteristic is a broader method of treatment in seeking for the ideas of the sacred writings as more important than the minute study of words which characterized the scholarship of the last generation of commentators. The older commentaries were mainly grammatical; the newer commentaries are chiefly historical, theological or philosophical.[59 - E. g., Ramsay on Galatians, Wellhausen on the Synoptic Gospels, the Abbé Loisy on St. John.] In harmony with this later method of exegesis the Expositor's Bible may be regarded as a great commentary on the Holy Scriptures, as well as a work of exposition.