Old testament (Hastings' Dictionary)

Introd uction, i. Origin and growth of OT— 1. The Law or Torah. 2. The Prophets. 8. The Writings or Hagiographa. ii. The OT in the Jewish Church— 1. Preservation and Transmission : (a) pre-Massoretic period ; (Ὁ) Massoretic period, a.p. 600-800. 2. Use or aaa and interpretation: (a) early Rabbinic and Ta qe peees B.0. 400-a.D. 700 ; (Ὁ) later Rabbinic peri iil, The OT in the Christian Ohurch— 1. Textual criticism. 2. Use and interpretation: (a) in the NT; (Ὁ) in the early Church,—a.p.

600; (6) in the Middle Ages, 600-1500; (d) period of the Reformation, 1500- 1600; (6) post-Reformation period, 1600-1750; (/) period of modern Criticism, 1750-1900. iv. Permanent religious value of OT. Literature. The OT is that portion of the Canon of the Re- formed Church which was received as sacred litera- ture from the Jews. (On the name see art. BIBLE in vol. i. p. 286”). While the Gr.

Version of these Scriptures included additional writings, now known as the ae Pe and reckoned a part of the OT by the Rom. Cath. Church (see art. APOCRYPHA in vol. oe 121”), the only books recognized by the Pal. Jews as holy, and admitted into their Canon, were those of our present OT.

They were arranged as in the present Hebrew Bibles in three groups: the Law (mn Térdh), Gn, Ex, Ly, Nu, t; the Prophets (o'x'2; ΟΝ δι᾽ ἴηι), Jos, Jg, 1 and 2S, 1 and 2K, Is, Jer, Ezk, and the 12 minor prophets; and the Writings, Hagiographa (o:>:n> Kéthtibim), Ps, Pr, Job, Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est, Dn, Ezr, Neh, 1 and 2 Ch.

* : ἐ ᾿ The purpose of this article is to describe the origin and growth of these groups as sacred literature, and to give an account of their _use and method of interpretation when united into the OT in the Jewish and Christian Churches. i. ORIGIN AND GROWTH.—1. The Law or Torah. A térdah in ancient Israel was any decision or instruction on matters of law or conduct given by a sacred authority (O7JC?, Ρ 299 ; ef. art. LAW IN OT, p. 64").

A body of such instruction went by the same name, which was readily transferred to * The order of the books in the first group was always the game, and also of the Former Prophets, Jos, Jg, 1 and 28, land 2 K, but for the Latter Prophets the Babylonian Talmud by a reader who observed that the ass of the man of God is | (Baba Bathra 14b) and some ancient MSS give Jer, Eazk, ls, mentioned now for the first time, and from this concluded that had been lent or given him by the prophet of Bethel.

and minor prophets, and in the Writings place Ru before the taiteon to the Bible, pp. 1-8). Ps (Ginsburg, 596 OLD TESTAMENT the Scriptures containing this material as its lead- ing element.* Thus arose the name of the first five books of the OT, The work of providing regulations for worship naturally belonged to the priests, but in addition in early Israel the administration of justice fell partially, at least, likewise to them.

uber com- municated the Divine will by means of the lot, the ephod, and the Urim and Thummim (1 $8 14% [LXX] 23°, Dt 33°). People repaired to the sanctuaries to have judgments rendered (Ex 21° 227), 1S 2%). Such action was called ‘inquiring of God,’ and the decisions were, ‘the statutes and laws of God’ (Ex 18% 1%; of. Driver on Dt. 16). Thus the priests became the natural guardians and teachers of Divine instruction or law (Dt 33”, Jer 1815, Hos 4*-).

They were members of the supreme tribunal of the land (mentioned in 2 Ch 19°" as established by Jehoshaphat), Dt 178% 19%, Tracing evi- dently their instruction or law to Moses, to pre- serve its continuity they issued legislation in his name, acting upon the principle that all law emanated from Jehovah, and that Moses was the medium of its communication, At first their work as lawgivers was probably simply carried on by oral decision and transmission.

As Israel advanced in culture, however, laws were naturally reduced to writing. When this began, we have no clear means of determining. Some meagre written legislation may have existed as early as the time of Moses. (See the small type on p. 597"). No great stress was laid upon the original legal form or words. They were modified through change in time and _ circumstance. + Codes remained open. The earliest written laws which have been preserved are those in Ex 20-23 (the Bk.

of the Covenant) 34, They probably owe their preservation to their incorporation into historical writings (E or J) of the 8th cent., but the laws themselves may be much earlier. (The lex talionis reveals a primitive state of society, yet an agricultural people is presupposed, and hence a later date than the settlement of Canaan). Other codes more ancient may have existed in Israel in a written form.

The earliest written law or book of Divine instruction of whose introduction or enactment an authentic account is given, was Deuteronomy or its main portion, represented as found in the temple in the 18th year of king Josiah (B.C. 621), and proclaimed by the king as the law of the land (2 K 23) (see article DEUTERO- Nomy in yol. i. p. 602f.)

From that time forward Israel had a written law which the pious believer was commanded to ponder day and night (Jos 18 Ps 15); and thus the Torah, as sacred literature, formally commenced in Israel. This law aimed at a right application of original Mosaic principles. _ The Mosaic period represented that of Israel’s faithful rela- tionship to Jehovah (Hos 216 111, Jer 22). As the cry at present is ‘Back to Ohrist,’ so the cry then was ‘Back to Moses.

’ At present in going back to Christ to spply His teaching to immedi- ate needs, we re-formulate them indirectly, giving thus laws of Christian conduct. But indirect re-formulation of ancient prin- ciples is contrary to the genius of the Hebrew mind and Ἰλυσθα κε. Intensity is characteristic of Hebrew utterance, as is well illustrated in Christ's use of the words ‘hate’ (Lk 1428) and ‘thank’ and ‘hide’ (Mt 11). The Hebrew language * Torah (7A) is used in the OT to denote—1.

Instruction: (a) human : Pr 18 62. 3 et al. ; (b) Divine, Job 2222, Is 309 et al.; (c) a body of Siena teaching, Is 4221.4, Jer 913 et al.; (d) instruction in Messianic age, Is 20 424 et al.; (6) a body of priestly direction or instruction, Hos 48, Jer 28 et al. 2. law ( rop. direction) : (a) of special laws, Ex 189 164 et al. ; (b) of codes of law—{1) as written in the code of the covenant, Ex 2412, Jos 24% et al. ; (2) the law of the Deuteronomic code, Dt 154844 et al.

; (3) the law of the Priests’ Code, 2Ch 2318 gol6 et αἱ. (Ozf. Heb. Lez. p. 4351.) 1 Cf. the two records of the ten commandments (Ex 203-17, Dt 5721) and the laws in the different OT codes (see art. HEXATEUCH im vol. ii. 365») OLD TESTAMENT refuses also to lend itself readily to indirect speech. It shows reluctance to give an address in substance, except in an apparent reproduction of the ipsissima verba.

Thus in the OT historical books, whenever a writer wishes to report that one person made a verbal communication to another, he almost invariably says: ‘So and so spoke to so and so, saying.’ The direct form is used. Hence if in the reign of Josiah the Mosaic law and teaching were to be re-formulated to meet the ex- igencies of the time, they were naturally placed directly in the mouth of Moses. Indeed, practically no other method was possible to produce the required effect.

Dt is also far more than a code of laws. It is a hortatory exposition of law, sears on the ground of Divine love and revelation for obedience in Israel. A religious experience formed its real basis, and gave it a position of Divine authority. The reformation under Josiah was a failure. The good king fell at the battle of Megiddo. The people lapsed into idolatry, and Judah soon went into exile. Something more than Dt seemed necessary for a religious constitution for Israel.

With this thought another re-formulation of the laws began. The Bk. of Ezekiel exhibits this movement. Under the form of a vision he drew ἂν a programme for the future (see art.

EZEKIEL), e heightened the sanctity of the central sanctuary by placing it within the domain of priests, that it might not, like the old temple, be liable to de- filement through proximity to royal residences (43%), He heightened the sanctity of the priest- hood by restricting it to the sons of Zadok, the Levites being degraded from office on account of their ministration at the high pee (444), He ave also an elaborate ritual for worship, and escribed, with the measurements and detail of an architect’s plan, a new temple, and apportioned the land among the tribes of Israel with the regularity of a military camp.

In accordance with this spirit, which saw no hope for Israel without transforming the State into a church and regulating the whole life of the people through elaborate law and ordinance, supposed Mosaic principles were again restated, and an ideal con- stitution of Israel in the wilderness was given as a new law for the Jewish people. This was issued in the Priests’ Code (see art. HEXATEUCH), and Sle presented by Ezra to the people, who received it as the law of God (Neh 8-10, B.c. 444 or 443).

The reception of the Priests’ Code under Ezra marks practically the appearance of the Law, since shortly afterwards Dt, which had dA been united with the historical work JE (see art. HEXATEUCH), and had never been abrogated as a law of Divine authority, was joined with the Priests’ Code. In all this legal literature the historical narrative occupied a prominent place.

Laws were thought of not only as expressing abstract principles of justice and worship, but also as having originated in connexion with Divine manifestations. Hence narratives of a ets revelation of God in the early ages of mankind and Israel formed an integral part of the Priests’ Code. An example had already been set in Dt 1-4 and later by combining Dt with the historical work JE. The enlargement and combination of sacred writings was performed by the séphérim or scribes.

This class of scholars, of whom Ezra ‘the ready scribe in the Law of Moses’ (Ezr 78) was the prototype, grew up during the Exile, or shortly after, probably within priestly circles. The mem- es was not confined, however, to priests. They became the guardians and students of the Law, which they felt free to annotate and enlarge with some additions. They separated from the Hexateuch the Bk. of Joshua (see below). Thus the Law did not reach its final form until the 3rd cent. B.C.

(For revision and gradual compilation of P, see art. HEXATEUCH in vol. ii. p. 8745 f.) _ 2. The Prophets.—This division of OT falling into two parts, the Former Prophets Jos, Jg, 1 and 2S, and 1 and 2K, and the Latter Pro- phets Is, Jer, Ezk, and the Twelve, receives its name from the prophetic authorship of these The prophets represent the mystical books. OLD TESTAMENT teachers of religion who gain truth through the emotions or intuitions (see art. PROPHET).

Equally with the priests, the prophets unfolded the ancient instruction or law, not, however, in the form of statutes or codes, but as direct revelations of Jehovah expressed in warnings and exhortations. The prophets became thus the con- science of the State and interpreters of history. Handing down their instruction as a living word, they seem not to have taken pains at first to pre- serve it in writing. Not until the 8th cent.

have we indications of a systematic effort in that direc- tion, illustrated in the discourses given in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. How far these came directly from the prophets themselves, or repre- sent abstracts or reports furnished by scholars or hearers, we have no means of determining. Isaiah twice commanded that some of his instruction should be preserved as a future testimony to the truth of his doctrine (816 308).

A century later Jeremiah took pains, according to a command from Jehovah, to have his discourses, covering a period of some twenty-two years, carefully written out (Jer 3615. *), At the time of the Exile, when Ezekiel flourished, a written roll had become the symbol of the prophets word (Ezk 2°-3%). He probably himself carefully wrote and arranged his prophecies, and from thence onward prophecy often assumed doubtless in the first instance a written as well as a spoken form.

The anonymity of the author (or authors) of Is 40-66 suggests that those rophecies may have been circulated in MS without aving been first orally delivered. The last of the prophets, whose writings have been preserved, according to Jewish tradition was Malachi (about B.C. 450), and this tradition is probably true as concerning the writings of those who delivered in the first instances oral messages.

* Ob, Jl, Jon, Zec 9-14 and Is 24-27 are assigned by many scholars (see separate articles and Driver's LOT) to the Greek period, representing an imitation of the earlier prophetic word, and if we accept this assignment they probably represent a literary rather than an oratorical activity. No record has been left of the manner or special cause of the collection of the ‘Latter Prophets.

’ The sacred authority of most of them clearly dated from the day of their utterance or com- ition, and they gained nothing in this respect By eollesuin and union with other writings, and et their value naturally became greater when iving prophets no longer appeared, and then an impulse must have arisen for their union and pre- servation in a sacred canon, This work was prob- ably formally accomplished by the scribes already mentioned in connexion with the Law; and here, again, as in the case of the Law, liberty was doubtless taken in editing old material to introduce new reflections.

(We may account in this way partially for the imitations of ancient prophecy already mentioned).

The historical books Jos, Jg,1 and 28, and land 2K may have been originally classified as ‘ Prophets’ because they contained narratives con- cerning inspired or prophetic men, or because they were assigned for authorship to such men as Joshua, Samuel, and Jeremiah, a view of Talmudic Judaism; et the result was in a degree correct, since these Tonks in the main came from authors imbued with the prophetic spirit.

They reveal the will and character of Jehovah by relating His dealings with ancient Israel. Narratives of this sort began to * No accredited prophets of Israel are mentioned in OT or elsewhere later than the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and Josephus helo that their line of succession had then ceased lc. Apion, i. 8). In Zec 135% the prophet is mentioned as ough the office had fallen into disrepute (this passage is, how- ever, obscure), and in Ps 749 and 1 Mac 4“ 927 144!

prophets are mentioned as having ce OLD TESTAMENT be composed quite early. The lost Book of the Wars of Jehovah (Nu 9115) was probably one, and the documents J and E of the Hexateuch and the similar sources (perhaps a continuation of J and E) appearing in Jg, 1 and2S8, 1 K 1-3, and the prophetic stories of 1 and 2K were others (see articles JUDGES in vol. ii. p. 807ff., SAMUEL (Books ΟΕ), and ΚΙΝΟΒ (Books oF)).

Next to lyric songs, these narratives containing ancient myths and legends illustrate the earliest literature of Israel. They began, as we have them, to be written not far from the reign of Solomon, and passed probably through many hands, or were pre- served in circles of scholars, who copied, edited, and made such combinations of them as are seen in JE. The subject of the development of literature in Israel is very obscure.

It is uncertain whether the art of reading and writing Was in vogue among the people before they entered the land of Canaan. After they came in contact with Canaanitish civiliza- tion it was clearly known among them. In Jg 814 writing by a boy is mentioned. This, it is true, might be an anachronism only revealing a widespread use of the art in the days of the author of Jg.

At the court of David a scribe is mentioned (28 817), and the knowledge of reading and writing from that time onward is assumed (28 1114, 1 K 218, 2 Καὶ δῦ 101, Jer 291), Hence schools for the cultivation of this art necessarily then existed, and a literature of some sort must then have been current. This in its earliest form probably consisted of son and stories, and possibly some laws. The Song of Deborah is usually or as the earliest piece of literature preserved in the Bible.

(For a chronological list of the writings of the OT, see article Bree in vol. i. p. 290 ; compare the dates there given with those adopted in the articles on each OT book). From these prophetie sources and from ancient annals, such as were naturally kept in connexion with the court and the temple (er from works based upon these annals), were composed or com- piled in the spirit of Dt, and hence !ater than B.c.

621, the Deuteronomic parts of Joshua, the middle sections of Jg, land 2S, andl and2K. Later, these books suffered revision from priests and scribes, who gave them their present form (separ- ating Jos from the Hexateuch). The time of the union of the Former Prophets with the Latter, or whether the books in either division were separately collected before their final union together, cannot be determined.

The historical books from the first clearly held a high and revered place in Israel, as distinctly appears from the union ot JE with D. They were regarded as records of Divine revelations given to the patriarchs and Ss and illus- trating the principles of Jehovah’s rule in the world and care for His people. The earliest testimony to their existence is their use in 1 and 2 Ch, written about B.C. 300. In 2 Mac 2'5-!

5is preserved a tradi- tion that Nehemiah, founding a library, gathered together the things concerning the kings and pro- phets, and the writings of David, and the letters of the kings about sacred gifts. Although the list of writings enumerated goes beyond the ‘ Pro- phets,’ ie a true reminiscence of their collection may be here given. The prophets formed a distinct division of Sacred Scriptures at B.c.

130, when the prologue to Sirach was written, and if the mention of twelve prophets in Sir 49" is genuine, then as early as B.C. 180 (see art. OT CANON). 3. The Writings or Hagiographa. —This third division of the OT is composed of literature gener- ally later than the Law and the Prophets, and this fact alone is sufficient to account for its separate existence. Dn in character belongs to the Vacted Prophets, but was not written until the Maccabean period (see art. DANIEL).

Through the inspiring character of its teachings and revelation it was clearly received on its first eres as of Divine authority. 1 and 2Ch, Ezr, Neh, and Est resemble the Former Prophets, and eee too late to be joined with them. Ezr and Neh bring the history of Israel from a point near that at which the narra- tive ceases in 1 and 2 K down to the canonization of the Law or the founding of Judaism, and probably 598 OLD TESTAMENT OLD TESTAMENT thus gained a recognition as Holy Scripture.

The same probably is true of Ruth. It was felt to be an integrai part of OT history, and through this in- fluence it was sometimes reckoned as a part of Jg (see below). 1 and 2 Ch were originally joined with Ezr and Neh, the four books som, the work of one author (see articles); but since 1 and 2 Ch were principally a midrash on 1 and 2S and 1 and 2 K, they were separated from Ezr and Neh, and not so carly recognized as sacred.

This supposition seems necessary to explain their position after Ezr and Neh, and last in the OT Canon. Esther was written to explain the feast of Purim, and received at once, doubtless, a sacred character from this fact and from its inspiring patriotism.

Wherever the feast was regarded as a sacred festival, the story of its origin acquired a similar character, and since it commanded the feast, spoke with Divine seeds From this point of view Esther resembles the narratives of the Torah, which explain the origins of religious laws and customs.

‘ Ps, Job, Pr, Ec, Ca, and La represent a different class of literature from the Law and the Prophets, since their contents appear almost entirely as the result of human observation, thought, and aspira- tion rather than as the product or record of Divine revelation. Hence, although partially of as early a date as some of the prophets, they did not com- mand such immediate attention or force so readily the thought of Divine origin.

The main cause leading to their acceptance, clearly seen in Ps, La, Pr; ait Job, was their inspiring religious contents. These books are directly akin in their teachings to the Law and the Prophets. To the conscience they spoke with similar authority ; they breathed likewise the very spirit of faith and penitence which the Law and the Prophets commanded, and thus they obtained recognition as a Divine word. With Canticles and Ecclesiastes such inspiration is less apparent.

The former was probably originally a collection of songs sung at wedding festivities (see, however, article SoNG oF SonGs). Highly valued, nevertheless, as a beautiful specimen of Hebrew poetry, and regarded also as a continuous composition, this collection was interpreted as set- ting forth the love of Jehovah for His people, and thus gained a sacred character, and then probably was assigned to Solomon as its author.

Ec was probably received principally on the ground of its supposed Solomonic authorship. As in the case of the prophets, no record has been left of the collec- tion and formal canonization of the Hagiographa. The earliest mention of them is in the Prologue to Sirach (written B.c. 132), where reference is made to ‘the law, the prophets, and the other books.

’ Owing to the indefiniteness of the expression ‘ the other books,’ it is uncertain whether this division was then complete, or whether some books or por- tions of books were added later. <A decision in this regard must be determined by the date of the separate writings.* In 1 Mac 715 (written about B.C. 100) Ps 79% is formally cited as Scripture. In the NT the three divisions of the OT are Tecog- nized, closing with 1 and 2 Ch (Mt 23%, Lk 24%), The second (fourth) Bk.

of Esdras as well as Josephus, probably near the close of the lst cent. A.D., recognize our present OT Canon. In 2 Es ninety-four divinely-revealed books are mentioned (14), of which seventy are esoteric (14 This leaves twenty- four representing the present OT according toa usual Jewish method of reckoning: the law, five; the prophets, eight; the Hagiographa, eleven. All double books, Ezr and Neh, and the minor prophets, are reckoned as one each.

This standard way of reckoning the OT books gave rise to the name The Twenty- four (see article Bistz). Josephus (6. Apion. i. 8) mentions * Dn is probably the latest of the iographa. Some, how- ever, place Est and Ec later (see articles), and also certain see art. Psaums, and cf. Duhm, ‘Die Psalmen,’ in urzer Hdcomm., z. AT, Ὁ. xxiff.,and Cheyne, OP, 24'f., 50, etc.)

twenty-two: five belonging to Moses, thirteen covertag the interval from Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, and four con- taining hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. is number is obtained by are Ru with Jg, and La with Jer, a method of reckoning also adopted by the Jews. Jerome mentions it (Prologus Galeatus, uoted in Wildeboer’s Origin of the Canon of the OT, p. 80f. been questioned whether Josephus did not omit from his Canon the Bks. of Ca and Ec (Briggs’ Introd.

to the Study of Holy Scripture, vi. 4, 1899, p. 127 f.) The canonicity of these two books was under discussion at the Assemblies of Jamnia (OT JaBNaH, 8 Jewish seat of learning after the fall of Jerusalem) about a.p. 90 and A.D. 118, and a decision was rendered in their favour, and this period is frequently given as marking the final close of the oT Ganon.

This discussion concerning Ca and Ec was probably in regard to their having been rightly received into the Canon, and not their first reception (Buhl, Canon and Text of the OT, 88; Ryle, Canon of the OT, p. 187). It is a noteworthy fact, however, that these two books are nowhere quoted or ly referred to in the NT.

The impulse which led to the special setting apart of the writings as Scripture was probably the enhancing of sacred writings through the com- mand of Antiochus Epiphanes for their destruction (1 Mac 1°), and the revival of Jewish patriotism in the Maccabeean period.* ii. THE OT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH.—1. Pre- servation and Transmission.—(a) Pre-Massoretic period. The OT Scriptures were onmuat written upon rolls (cf.

Ps 405), Jer 36% Ezk 2°, Zec 5) of eins or possibly in some instances of papyrus paper, and were thus handed down with probably much the same general care or lack of care with which they were preserved before canonization ; for the varia- tions of the Sam. and Greek Pentateuchs from the later uniform Heb. consonantal text show that the words and letters of the Scriptures were not at first regarded as especially sacred. Later, however, this idea was developed, and by the Ist cent. A.D.

had so far progressed that Philo said that the Jews had never altered a word of what Moses wrote (quoted in Eusebius, Prep. ad Ev. viii. 6 fin.), and J Car! et that no one had been so bold as to add anything to them [the Scriptures], to take any- thing from them, or to make any change in them (c. Apion. i. 8); and in the Talmud, in the words of a Rabbi held to have lived in the Ist cent.

, the work of a copyist is called Divine, and a warning is given against dropping or adding a letter (Erubin 13a, Sota [cf. Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. i. p. 128]). Synchronous with this growth of reverence for the letter was necessarily an en- deavour to have a uniform text for use in the synagogues and schools. Efforts in this direction culminated not long after the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.

70), when in the refounding of Judaism a single consonantal text of the OT under the influ- ence of Rabbi Akiba and his associates at Jamnia was adopted as authoritative, and all others dis- appeared. The principle of its adoption is un- known. A tradition relates that the text of the Law witnessed by the largest number of MSS was chosen (Jerus. Taanith, iv. 2).

Probably the choice was de- termined by the traditional age or genealogy of a certain MS or school of MSS believed to represent best the original archetype. This finally adopted text cannot be regarded as entirely free from cor- ruptions (slight in the Law but conspicuous, for example, in land 2Sand Ezk).

These corruptions arose from the inevitable mistakes of copyists, especially before the words and letters were severely reverenced ; from the gradual change of the old Hebrew alphabet to the present square character —a change brought about between the period of Ezra and the Ist cent. B.c., and also from emenda- tions made on dogmatic grounds.

* Budde holds that into the third Canon, that of the Hagio- grapha, were received all books of a religious character, of which the date was believed to go back as far as the prophetic period, that is, to the time of (art. ‘OT Canon,’ Encycl. Bid.) Josephus and Talmudic Judaism did believe that all the books received were of such an early date, but possibly the canonicity gave the date.

OLD TESTAMENT The substitution of bosheth (nw2) for δα’ αἱ (Sy3) in proper names (see article IsuposueTH), and of bless (773) for curse (S$p) in 1K 2110-13, illustrate these dogmatic changes (few in number) introduced to express an abhorrence of olay or to avoid impious expressions toward God. (Cf. Geiger’s Urschrift der Bibel, p. 257 ff.; Ginsburg, op. cit. p. 868 ff.; Siegfried (SBOT), Budde (Hdkomm.), Duhm (Kurzer Hi m.), contra, on Job 19).

In line with these changes introduced into the text are probably the nekudim (O'Np)) or fifteen extraordinary points indicating Lard ane change should be made in the text (Ginsburg, op. cit. p. HY Within this period the Scriptures were divided into sections for synagogue usage (the Law and the Prophets, see, further, below), into paragraphs (myen5) and verses (?)* (6) Massoretic period, A.D. 600-800.

After the canonization of the official consonantal text the greatest care was taken that it should be trans- mitted with complete genie hence it was studied in respect to all its peculiarities, and these were noted down in a series of marginal notes called Massorah (7100).

These notes embraced such particulars as calling attention to peculiar letters, giving the number of words or letters in each Bonk, and the middle word or letter, and especially in noting variant readings (the Keré), the latter being based upon the testimony of MSS, or required for religious reasons, or demanded by the connexion of the passage. All these features were a continuation and preservation of the work of the scribes.

In addition to these notes, with the same end in view, and especially to render the OT readable to the people, vowel points fixing the traditional pronunciation were ΕΗ to the con- sonantal text, and asystem of punctuation (accents) extending to each word, marking off the verses. Thus finally appeared the present Massoretic text, of which the oldest MSS are of the 9th and 10th cents,t (Fora description of the most ancient MSS, ef. Ginsburg, op. cit. pp. 469-778).

All Hebrew MSS represent essentially this Massoretic text, which was first printed, the Psalms 1477, the Pentateuch 1482, both at Bologna, and the entire Heb. Bible at Soncino 1488. The most important subsequent rinted Hebrew Bible is the edition of Jacob ben hayim, with the Massorah, at the Bomberg Press, Venice, 1524-25. All subsequent editions, so far as they are Massoretic, follow this standard edition (Ginsburg, op. cit. p.

976) until we come to two recent attempts to furnish an exact Massoretic text, that of Baer and Delitzsch, Beenie (not yet panes) and that of Christian D. Ginsburg, London, 1894. (For ancient versions of the OT see articles SEPTUAGINT, SyRIAC VERSIONS, TARGUM, and VULGATE; for modern textual criticism see below). [On printed editions of Hebrew text, οἵ. Buhl, Canon and Text of the OT, § 25; et R: cit. pp. 779-976 ; Weir, Short Hist. of the Heb. ext, p. 129 ff]. 2.

Dee or Regard and Interpretation.—(a) Early Rabbinic and Talmudic period, B.C. 400-A.D. 700. —The Law was always regarded in the Jewish Church as of a higher inspiration than the rest of the OT.

It was Yeliaved to contain the original revelation of the Divine will, while the Prophets and the Writings only contained the same will further eleveved = yet these latter were equally Holy Scriptures with the former, and were cited with the same formula (in the NT they are quoted as the Law, Ro 3”, 1 Co 14, Jn 10% 12%15%). The early reverence for the Law is illustrated in Ps 1. 197! 119 (Ps 1 may have been written in reference to the Deuteronomic law).

Both the Law and the * On the point of verses authorities differ. They are men- tioned in the Talmud, but may be those of oral tradition (cf. JQR, vol. i. p. 224f.; Briggs, op. cit. p. 174; W. H. Green, Gen, Introd, to the OT Text, N.Y., 1899, p. 148f.) t When a MS became old it was religiously destroyed, lest through its mutilation the sacred word might be violated. This explains the lack of earlier MSS.

OLD TESTAMENT 599 Prophets at the time of Christ, and probably from near the time of their canonization, were reaf each Sabbath day in the synagogue ; the former in lessons arranged to complete the Law once in three years.* The lesson from the Prophets was not rescribed. The Hagiographa were not read regu- arly, except the five ΠΣ on the appropriate feast days.

Schools were established (as early as the century before Christ) for the instrue- tion of children in the Scriptures, especially the Law ; and such study was finally held to precede every other duty (Weber, Die Judische Theologie, Ε 30). The punctilious observance of the Law came the evidence both of patriotism and piety, and the constant endeavour was to apply the Law to every exigency of life, and to justify every cherished institution or notion by some word of the OT.

_ Such applications or interpretations or inquiries into the meaning of the ΞΟΠΡΌΩΣΟΒ were called midrashim (sing. midrash, e772 trom σι ‘to seek’). In them was sought not what a passage might declare according to the natural tenor of its words (although this method of interpretation was re- cognized, called peshut vv»), but the inferences that might be drawn by combination with other passages, by suggestion, or by allegory.

Thus arose a great body of midrashim of two sorts, legal and homiletical ; the former called Halakhéth (sing. halakha, 12> from 77 ‘to go’), the latter Hagga- doth (sing. haggadd, 735 or 73x from 733 Hiph. ‘to tell’). These midrashim were handed down orally and not compiled in writing until the 2nd cent. A.D., when they appeared, especially the Hala- khoth, in the Mishna (Talmud).

} This oral tradi- tion or interpretation was held to be necessary for an understanding and keeping of the Law, and was assumed to have been given in great part by Moses, and thus gradually, beginning as early as the time of Christ, if not a century or two before, it usurped the place of the Scriptures, becoming of equal and, according to some, of superior authority (Weber, op. cit. ὃ 22, p. 88ff.)§ It is fre uently referred to in the NT (Mt 15*%8 Mk 73 5-8 913, Cf.

Mt 23"), and its character is well illustrated in the prohibited labours on the Sabbath. These, which are parucalarized only in a few instances in the OT, are praplified in the Mishna into thirty-nine prohibited labours, each of which is still further analyzed and discussed.

The prohibited labours were: (1) wales (2) ploughing, (3) reaping, (4) binding into sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) winnowing, (7) fruit cleaning, (S) grinding, (9) sifting, (10) kneading, (11) bake ing, (12) wool shearing, (13) bleaching, (14) combing, (15) dyeing, (16) ergy a warping, (18) making two spindle-trees, (19) weaving two threads, (20) separating two threads (in the warp), (21) tying a knot, (22) untying a knot, (23) sewing on with two stitches, (24) tearing to sew together with two stitches, (25) hunting a deer, (26) killing, ΟἿ᾽ skinning, (28) and salting it, (29) ee its skin, (30) scraping off the hair, (31) cutting up the , (82) writing two letters (characters), (33) erasing to write two letters, (34) building, (35) demolishing, (36) extinguish- ing (fire), (37) kindling (fire), (88) hammering, (39) carrying from one place to another (Tract Shabbath vii.

2). Each of these prohibitions was still further explained. On (21), (22), knots of camel-drivers and sailors are forbidden both to be tied and untied; but knots which may be untied with one hand were lawful. A woman might tie up a slit in her chemise, the bands of her hood, her girdle, her shoes and sandals; also the bands of leather bottles of wine or oil, or of a pot with meat.

A rope might be tied in front of cattle that they might not escape ; a bucket over a well with a girdle but nota rope. Rabbi Judah rmits a rope also (Tract Shabbath xv. 2; cf. Schiirer, HJP τι. ii. p. 96ff.) In the Gemara or Rabbinical comments on the Mishna these refinements are still further refined. *The Babylonian arrangement was for completion in one year, and this, later, came into general use.

¢ Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est read respectively at the seasons of the Passover, Pentecost, Destruction of Jerusalem, Tabernacles, and Purim. t Another view is that the Talmud, though compiled in the 2nd cent., continued to be orally transmitted until the 6th cent, (see art. TALMUD). 8 Its development and place is well compared with that of tracition in the Roman Catholic Church.

600 OLD TESTAMENT OLD TESTAMENT In the derivation of the Halakhoth were em- jloyed seven rules of interpretation laid down by Rabbi Hillel (contemporary of Herod the Great), and afterwards increased to thirteen by Rabbi Ishmael (2nd cent. A.D.) These rules are: (1) That which is true of the easier or less is true of the greater or more difficult.

An example, Nu 12)4, If from the sign of a human father’s displeasure Miriam should be ashamed (shut up) seven days, then from leprosy, the sign of the Lord's displeasure, she should be shut out of the camp seven days. (2) A parallel passage or word supplements another: Ly 16% enjoins on the Day of Atonement affliction of souls (3 ΠΖΦῸΣ yA ‘ye shall afflict your souls’).

In Dt 83 may (‘afflict’) is used in reference to suffering from hunger, hence the affliction of the Day of Atonement is fasting. (8) A special provision of Scripture is to be generalized or applied in other analogous es or cases, Dt 246 forbids the mill or upper millstone to be taken as a pledge. This law is generali by the Rabbis so that everything which is used for preparing food is forbidden to be taken as a pledge.

(4-11) * Eight rules with reference to the relation of genus to species by inclusion, exclusion, contrast, and their relation to a third term in the forms of Rabbinical logic.’ (12) A word or passage is to be explained by the context. (18) Conflicting passages are to be reconciled by a third. Gn 11) ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,’ and 24 ‘In the day that the Lorp made the earth and the heavens.’ The question now arises, which did He make first?

The answer, ‘ Both at once,’ is found in Is 4815 ‘Mine hand hath laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens,’ For a full discussion and illustrations of these rules, see Mielziner’s Introd. to the Talmud (1897), pp. 117-187, They are also given in Barclay’s Talmud, 1878, pp. 40-44; Weber, Jtidische Theo- logie, 1897, pp. 108-118; cf. also Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, p. 430 f.

The fault of Rabbinical exegesis arose not so much from these rules, many of which represent valid forms of reasoning, as from their application, and, indeed, they were not always supposed to be applied: the mere mention or suggestion of any- thing under discussion was suflicient to constitute a proof text.

That a piece of earthenware 35 enough to stir a fire might be carried on the Sabbath day, was inferred from Is 30 ‘So that there shall not be found among the pieces thereof a sherd to take fire from the hearth.’ And that to anoint oneself on the Day of Atonement was equal to drinking, was inferred from Ps 109'8 ‘And it cometh like water on his body and oil into his bones’ (Tract Shabbath ο. viii. and ec. ix., Bab. Talmud, Rodkinson, vol. i. pp. 157, 163).

_The very language of Scripture was held to be different from ordinary human language, and hence particles of speech, such as adverbs and conjunc- tions, special constructions of syntax, the position of words, syllables, letters, and even forms of letters, were regarded as capable of a hidden mean- ing and of giving proof in support of tradition. This method was advocated by the celebrated Rabbi Akiba of the 2nd cent.

, and, although opposed by some of his contemporaries, yet won a place for itself in the Talmud. Under this method such particles as AN, NX, 03 were held to extend a law, and ἽΝ and ἸΏ, p> to restrict it. mx before ma’ in Dt 10% extended the command to fear God, so that it included also wise men (Pesachim 22>). 7x in Ex 8118 showed that the op tes) alate of the Sabbath did not apply to cases where life was in danger (Yoma 85>—Mielziner, op. cit. p. 124f.)

Words were even interpreted according to the numerical value of the letters (Gematria). The ways of dying are inferred to be 9038 from ‘ issues of death '(n)xs1n) mentioned in Ps 682 (Berachoth 8). Letters might also stand for words (Notarikon). From ‘father of a multitude’ (po7 28 Gn 175) was drawn: ‘Father, chosen, lovely, king, distinguished, faithful (2’2n na 2K ἸΌΝ. pn} 75D).

The words with which Shimei cursed David are drawn from ‘grievous’ (Ms) 1K 28), ‘adulterer, Moabite, murderer, oppressor, abomination’ (7331n Ws ΠΥΥῚ ‘32ND 73) eran xii. 5). Another device was change in the order of letters (Temoorah). Thus in Ps 212 ‘The king shall rejoice,’ refers to the Messiah, by transposing now’ (‘he shall rejoice ἢ into ΠΡΌ (‘ Messiah '"—Farrar, History of Interpretation, p.

102), A species of Temoorah called Atbash, the substitution of the last letter of the alphabet for the first, and so on, appears in Jer 25% 614, where ‘Sheshach’ (jez) is written for ‘Babel’ (533); cf. Jer 511, These and other similar methods of inter- retation were carried to a great excess during the Middle Ages = the Kabbala, a Jewish system of Theosophy or sacred mysteries.

The homiletical midrdshim or haggdadéth differed from the Halakhéth in not being so much inferences from the text of Scripture as additions to the text. Many of the additions in 1 and 2 Ch, compared with the parallel narratives in 1 and2S and 1 and 2 K, illustrate their character, which is still further seen in the Targums (see art. TARGUM), and abund- antly exemplified in the Jewish legends concernir the patriarchs and other OT worthies in the Talmu and also in later Jewish treatises.

* Examples of Haggadéth appear in the NT in the names JANNES Hck JAMBRES (2 Ti 38), in the rock that followed them (1 Co 10%), in the law given thro angels (Ac 7%, Gal 3", He 23), in the three and a half years of famine in the days of Elijah (Lk 4%, Ja 517), These are all additions to the OT narratives. The apocryphal books of Enoch, Judith, and Tobit are all examples of Haggddéth.

For Haggadic inter- pretation were given 32 rules, and it shared in all the fancifulness of Halakhie interpretation. A species of Haggadie interpretation is the alle- gorical, frequently called the Hellenistic from its use among Greek-speaking Jews. Philo, the Alexandrian philosopher, an early contemporary of Christ, used this method.

The OT Scriptures were to him as a believing Jew not simply an authorita- tive revelation of religious truth, but of all truth, and hence by means of allegory he deduced from them the doctrines of Greek philosophy. which he also ardently held. He excluded the literal sense, and developed his allegorical interpretation on definite principles, regarding the former as the body and the latter as the soul of Seripture.+ (For his principles, ef. ag Sets Philo von Alexandria, 1875, pp.

160-197; Briggs, op. cit. pp. 434-436). Allegory appears essentially in many Rabbinical interpretations. A New Test. example is Gal 43:9) Jewish interpretation during the early Rabbinic and Talmudic period, while not devoid of a certain ethical and spiritual value, is thus seen to have contributed really nothing to an understanding of the historical meaning of the OT. That idea appears almost, if not exclusively, foreign to its purpose.

‘Talmudic tradition claimed the interest of scholars, and had taken in popular estimate the place of the Scriptures. (6) Later Rabbinical period.—In the 8th cent. arose a sect of Jews who rejected Talmudic tradi- tion as a sacred authority, and held to the letter of the OT. Hence their views were called Karaism, or religion of the text.

This movement, however, did not supplant orthodox or Talmudic Judaism, and yet it gave a great impulse to the study of the OT, which resulted eventually in real grammatical and exegetical works, and the period from 900-1500 has been called the golden age of Jewish inter- retation. Commentaries were written upon the oks of the OT.

The pioneer in this movement was Saadia (+ 942), the Gaon or head of the Jewish school in Babylonia, who, to render the Scriptures * For a list of Haggadic literature, see art. ‘Midrash ’ by 8. M. Schiller-Szinnessy in Encycl. Brit.9, + Philo comments thus on Gn 28: ‘Virtue is called a Paradise metaphorically, and the appropriate place for Paradise is Eden ; and this means luxury: and the most appropriate field for virtue is peace, and ease, and joy, in which real luxury jially con- sists.

Moreover, the plantation of this Paradise is represented as in the east; for right reason never sets, and is never extin- guished, but it is its nature to be always rising. And as I imagine the rising sun fills the darkness of the air with light, so also does virtue when it has arisen in the soul irradiate its mist and dissipate its dense darkness.

‘And there,” says Moses, “he placed the man whom He had formed”; for God being good, and having formed our race for virtue, as His work which was most akin to Himself, places the mind in virtue evidently in order, that it, like a husband, may cultivate and attend to nothing else except virtue’ (Allegories of the Sacred Laws, i. 4, C. Ὁ. Yonge’s transl.) OLD TESTAMENT, accessible to the people, translated them with notes into Arabic, then widely spoken.

He aimed to interpret the OT agreeably both to reason and Talmudic tradition, which latter he held to be equally of Divine origin with the Scriptures. In carrying out this aim his interpretations became arbitrary and forced. Followers of Saadia in the Babylonian schools pursued his idea of applying reason to OT interpretation, and one Samuel ben Chofni (t+ 1034) went so far as to endeavour to explain miraculous-events of OT as if they were natural (Griitz, Hist. Jews, iii. p. 259).

Jewish learning, however, fell into decay in the East and became centred in Western Europe, especially in Spain. Here the Hebrew language was cultivated, and OT exegesis along with that of the Talmud. Ibn Janach (+1050) has been called the first rational Biblical critic. Although convinced of the divinity of Holy Writ, he held that it must be interpreted according to the rules of human usage (Griitz, iii. p. 269).

hi (+1105), whose commen- taries, held to be almost as sacred as the text, are printed in Rabbinical Bibles, explained the Scriptures according to the natural meaning of the words, but combined therewith Halakhie and Haggadic fancies. Ibn Ezra (+ 1167), while paying attention to tradition for the exposition of OT law3, cut loose both from Kabbalistic and Hag- gadic interpretations and followed the natural sense, and thereby raised OT exegesis to the dignit; of a science.

(Maimonides (t 1204), the saad Aristotle and codifier of Biblical and Talmudic law, shows also the activity of the Jewish mind of this period). David Kimchi (+ 1255) and others followed in the same directions, and Jewish inter- pretation (save in representing the bias of a Jew compared with a Christian) merges into that of the common stream of Biblical scholarship, represented now in the modern critical movement.* iii, THE OT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.— Textual Criticism.

—Corres nding to the trans- mission and preservation of the O'T in the Jewish Chureh, is textual criticism in the Christian Church. For early efforts in this direction, see articles SEPTUAGINT and VULGATE.

Beyond the interest taken in such criticism by Origen and Jerome and by the Antiochene school, in their indirect manner, none appears until after the Reformation, The Reformers accepted the Mas- soretic Text of the Jews as infallibly inspired, and the Jewish tradition of its having been kept eugalery pure since its origin.

This notion in the post-Reformation period was intensified by some on dogmatic grounds into the theory of the Mosaic or Ezraic inspired origin of even the Hebrew vowel points (a view maintained by the elder Buxtorf ἀ 1629) and the younger (t+ 1669), and appearing in the Helvetic Confession (1675).

This view was refuted by Cappellus (+1658), who, with Morinus (first a Protestant and then a Roman Catholic, +1659), showed not only that the Hebrew vowel points were of a relatively late origin, but also that the present Massoretic text is open to emendation by the use of the ancient versions. This laid the foundation of modern textual criticism. Helpful apparatus for such work also then appeared in the polyglott Bibles of the 17th cent., especially Walton’s London Polyglott.

In the next century Hebrew MSS were collated by Kennicott (+1783), and de Rossi (+1831), whose labours showed that all Heb. MSS represent essentially the same text. Textual criti- cism is now carried forward by a comparison of the Heb. text with the ancient Versions, principally the LXX, and Py subjective emendation. In the latter the parallelism of Heb.

poetry discovered and * The Kabbalistic interpretation of OT (see above) was wide- spread during the Middle Ages, OLD TESTAMENT 601 thus applied by Lowth (+1787) and the rhythm or tones are of the greatest service. Along these lines scholars have worked slowly and cautiously, assisted by discoveries of the recensions of the LXX text and the work in its revision by Lagarde (+ 1891) and others (see art. SEPTUAGINT), and in some degree by further collation of Hebrew MSS by Strack (see art.

TEXT OF OT). Among the important contributions to OT textual criticism may be mentioned Olshausen’s Emendationen ες. AT’, 1826, Bei- trdge zur Kritik Gn. 1870; Wellhausen, Text der Biicher Samuel., 1871; Cornill, Das Buch. Ezk. 1886 (almost an epoch-making work); Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel. Of. also writings of Baethgen (on Ps), Bickell (on Job, Pr), Beer (on Job), Kloster- mann (on 1 and 28, 1 and 2 K), Wellh. (Ki. Proph.), Cheyne (Psalms, crit.

notes), Ryssel (on Mic), and especially the SBOT, Heb. Text, the most elaborate and far-reaching attempt hitherto made in OT textual criticism. Of. also recent OT commentaries of the International Series, by Driver on Dt, Moore on Jg, Smith on 1 and 28, Toy on Pr, and those of Nowack’s Hdkomm. and Marti’s Kurzer Hdcomm, 2. USE AND INTERPRETATION.—(a) In the NT.

— Both Christ and the apostles or writers of the NT held the current Jewish notions respecting the Divine authority and revelation of the OT. They refer to it in ae words used by the Jews, ‘the Scriptures’ (Mt 22%, Jn 539), ‘the Holy Scriptures’ (Ro 1*), and speak of its authors being moved by the Holy Ghost (2 P 15), and appeal constantly to its statements as ἈΝ ΕΘΈΜΞΙ authoritative truth. But at the same time they regarded the OT revelation os peti! and incomplete.

Christ not only placed His own authority above that of Rabbinic tradition (Mt δ}: 4), but likewise speaks of the teaching of the Mosaic law as per- mitted owing to the hardness of men’s hearts (Mt 198) ; and St. Paul regards the dispensation of the Law as decidedly inferior to that of the gospel: the Law was ‘rudiments’ (Gal 4°), serving to establish a knowledge of sin. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews found the OT dispensation faulty and defective.

But in all these views the disparagement of the OT is only relative. Christ never repudiates its revelation and authority. He puts His emphatic seal upon the OT, saying (according to Jn 10%, unless our Lord is here arguing ad hominem) that its word cannot be broken, and that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until all shall be fulfilled (Mt 5"). St.

Paul held likewise most strongly to its Divine origin and its nature, holy, just, and good (Ro 72-14), worthy of all honour, serving to usher in the gospel, a tutor to bring men to Christ (Gal 3%). Likewise also the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews recognized the full validity of the OT covenant, but in Christ and in His gospel the OT had a full and perfect realization. Thus the OT had its chief value, since the Ceremonial Law ceased to be binding, in foreshadowing Christ and the gospel.

This led to the conception of the OT as a book of prophecy throughout. Wherever words and incidents suggested events in the life of Christ, or of the early Church, or where they seemed to confirm Christian doctrine, they were so applied. This Syebricn of the OT in the NT, although it is in the line of Jewish methods of interpretation, finds its justification in the pro- phetie elements of the OT.

These look forward to a special manifestation of Jehovah, to a new relationship established between Jehovah and Israel] and mankind, to a series of blessings—all of which may be summed up in the word redemp- tion, and which likewise were coupled with the appearance of a royal person, an offspring of David.

These OT outlooks, according to apos- tolic experience and observation, were realized in and through Christ; hence the NT view of the OT is fully justified ; in details (according to historic exegesis) the applications of the OT in the NT may sometimes be unsound, but taken asa whole OLD TESTAMENT the NT method is right. The redemption ex- perienced in Christ is a fulfilment of OT promises. (Ὁ) In the Early Church, to A.D. 600.

—The OT of the early Church was the LXX, used also, though not exclusively, by the NT writers. Hence some of the Church Voshers refer to the toed Loe books as though forming a part of the OT Scriptures, and certain of them came to be canonized by the Council of Trent (see art. APOCRYPHA in vol. i. p. 120ff.) The NT view and treatment of the OT (see above) passed into the Christian Church.

An excess of disparagement of the OT a rs in the of Barnabas (who ed certain Jewish institutions as Οἱ origin) and in Gnostic heretical sects and that of Marcion (who entirely rejected the OT): a failure to recognize sufficiently the transient elements of the a 1 serniga in the views of the Ebionite and other Judaizing The restraint exhibited in the NT interpretation of the OT was no longer continued.

Jewish methods, especially the allegorical, prevailed to extravagance (although a literal interpretation along with an emphasis upon the authority of tradition, according to the Jewish notion, was advocated by Irenwus [+202] and Tertullian (te. 220] against allegorizing Gnostics). The OT was regarded not only as a book of prophecy foreshadowing Christ and the gospel, but even as a compendium of Christian doctrine, to be perceived through its spiritual or allegorical meaning.

This view and method of interpreta- tion, appearing in the earliest Christian writers (Justin Mart. + 148-165, and the Apost. Fathers generally), prevailed especially through the influ- ence of Origen (tc. 254), who disparaged the literal sense and held to a threefold meaning of Scripture, corresponding to the body, soul, and spirit (de Prin, Ty. i. 11): the literal or grammatical mean- ing, the practical meaning or application, the mys- tical or spiritual, i.e. allegorical (cf. S.

Davidson’s Hermeneutics, p. 98 ff.) y the last he resolved all OT difficulties. Any statements, whether of rap! or law, appearing absurd, were rejected in their literal meaning, and received only in their spiritual or allegorical interpretation (de Prin. Iv. i. 15, 16). Even so gifted a scholar as Jerome (+420), while he said in one instance that the alle- i interpreter is insane (Comm. Jer.

27, from avidson), yet used this method, although not to the extent of rejecting the OT history as literally true. Augustine (+ 430), in spite of the sound rules of exegesis which he laid down in de Doc. Christ., expounded the OT allegorically, although not with- out reference to the historical meaning, which he defended, and whose difficulties he sought to re- move (as, for example, the six days of Creation, which he resolved into wons, de Civ. Dei. xi. 6 f.)

He also, however, divided interpretation into four kinds, historical, etiological, analogical, and alle- gorical. Scriptural interpretation became after him entirely dominated (as it had been in a large degree before) by ecclesiastical tradition or doc- trine.

An exception to this allegorical treatment of the OT appeared in the school of Antioch, where, br Ser by Theodore of Mopsuestia (+ 429), the allegorizing of the OT was rejected, a difference in degree of revelation between the OT and the NT was recognized, and historical interpretations were given. (He exhibited the tendencies of modern Biblical criticism. All the Messianic a except three he seoeted as referring to ezekiah and Zerubbabel. Canticles he rejected istle evil from the Canon.

He found no Trinity in the OT). Owing to the Nestorian heresy this school of inter- preters died out (Basil, +379, also rejected the allegorical method). (c) Middle Ages, 600-1500.—In this dark period the allegorical interpretation continued, assuming & mystical exposition for inner spiritual growth OLD TESTAMENT rather than instruction (cf. Bernhard of Clair- vaux’s [+1153] sermons on Canticles). Ecclesias- tical usages were found ef pe in the OT. But little original work on the OT appeared.

Scholars contented themselves with copyyng the opinions of Church Fathers (‘ Catenz’). et the true char. acter of the OT began to be appreciated. Nico- laus de Lyra (+1340) in his Commentaries, from his regard to the literal meaning, although he insisted upon the fourfold meaning, made the beginning in the Christian Church of a new epoch in Bible study and of a school of natural exegesis. He was influenced by the Jewish interpreters of this period, especially Rashi.

(d) Period of the Reformation, 1500-1600.—The Reformers made an advance (1) in recognizing the Heb. OT as furnishing alone the authoritative in- spired text, (2) in insisting upon the natural mean- ing and discarding the allegorical method of inter- retation, and (3) in interpreting Scripture by Rerigtnte instead of by tradition or ecclesiastical authority. They followed the NT writers in recognizing the unity of the OT and the NT, and also the difference between them.

Here, however, they failed (Calvin, + 1564, less than others) to do justice to the OT stages of Divine revelation, and the stage separating the OT from the NT. NT beliefs were ascribed to OT persons. Calvin held that the Israelites ‘in the land of Canaan beheld as in a mirror the future inheritance reserved for them in heaven’ (/nst. 1. ii. 1). The notion was common (expressed by Melanchthon, +1560) that the doctrines of the Church began in Paradise, and continued through all time.

(e) Post-Reformation Period, 1600-1750.—This was the age of scholastic theology and of the rigid doctrine of verbal inspiration, making the OT infallible, not only in religious truth but in all allusions to other matters, such as those of natural science and history. In the Lutheran and Re- formed Churches, also, the failure of the previous period to grasp fully the poe. of Divine revela- tion was generally heightened.

Proof texts of Christian doctrine were drawn almost as readily from the OT as the NT.

The federal theology of Cocceius (+ 1669), in which were distinguished two covenants, one before the Fall and one after, and three dispensations, one before the Law, one under the Law, and one under the Gospel, marks an advance, furnishing the germ of a Biblical theology ; yet the apprehension of the historic ee of Divine revelation was so slight that Witsius (+1677), a follower of Cocceius, held in effect that the traditional exposition of the OT was revealed to our first parents and transmitted by them to their posterity (Hconomia Faderum, iv.

1. 26). Such views extensively prevailed, and led to typical interpretations, differing little from the allegorical. An exception to this tendency, how- ever, appeared in a few Arminian scholars, espe- cially Grotius (+1645), who laid stress upon his- torical exegesis. English Puritan divines excelled also in the practical exposition of the OT during this period, and gave principles leading to a historic understanding of the OT, which unhappily were repressed (see Briggs, op. cit. pp. 459-469).

(7) Period of Modern Criticism, 1750-1900.—The Reformers receiving the Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews, accepted also their tradition concerning their character and authorship.

The Pentateuch was written by Moses, the other books by the persons whose names they bear, or when this was excluded by their contents, as in 1 and 2 S, or the terminus ad quem, then by other OT persons contemporary with the events described (Jeremiah, for example, was regarded as the author of 1 and 2K, and Ezra of land2Ch). OT narratives were also regarded as entirely historical and without error. Only a OLD TESTAMENT slight questioning was heard at this time.

Carl- stadt d 1541) held that Moses did not write the Pentateuch ; and Luther, perhaps in reference to the opinion of Carlstadt, said, ‘ W hat difference did it make if Moses had not written the Pentateuch?’. Calvin in his refusal to accept Joshua as the author of the Bk. of Joshua, and in his assignment of Ps 44 and 74 to the Maccabean period, and the Bk. of Malachi to Ezra, showed the same spirit.

But the interest of the Reformers was in other direc- tions, in defending the authority of the Bible spenee that of ecclesiastical tradition, in framing Christian doctrine, and in developing Christian life. The post-Reformation period, with its high doctrine of inspiration, repressed critical study and freedom of thought within the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. The critical movement commenced among non-Protestant and unbelieving scholars.

Peyrere (+ 1676) a French Catholic, Spinoza (+ 1677) the Jewish philosopher, and Hobbes (+ 1679) the English deist, all denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the ground of passages showing a later date(see art. HEXATEUCH). Masius(t+ 1573), a Roman Catholic, had also recognized these pas- sages as non-Mosaic. Simon (+1712), a Roman Catholic, sometimes called the father of OT In- troduction, held to a diversity of authorship within the Pentateuch.

The influence of Engliah deists, who rejected the received Christian views respect- ing the inspiration of the OT and its history, morality, and prophecy, was also felt in Germany. But modern OT study or criticism is really a phase of the intellectual movement of the 18th cent., which has created modern science in all depart- ments of learning. Under this movement the OT began to be studied as literature.

Herder (+ 1803) was a pioneer in this direction, to which also the discoveries of Bishop Lowth in regard to the struc- ture of Hebrew poetry contributed (see above). Semler (+ 1791) introduced historical interpretation, and Astruc (+ 1766) in distin ishing the documents in Genesis by their use of the Divine names made a beginning of the scientific investigation of the Pentateuch.

But more than all others, Eichhorn (+ 1827), who, independently of Astruc, discovered the documents in ES exerted a wide influence in favour of the literary study of the OT. His results in analysis are remarkably near those received at the present time.

He introduced the term ‘Higher Criticism,’ saying— f am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the internal condition of the particular writings of the OT by the help of the Higher Criticiam (a new name to no humanist).'—Hint., 1787, Preface. Geddes (+ 1802), a Scotchman and Rom.

Catholic, held that the Pentateuch was a compilation of documents, pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and post-Mosaic— ye, gre hypothesis, yet a real advance ; so Vater (+1826) and Hartmann (+1838). The Bk. of Joshua was recognized as a part of the Pentateuch, hence the notion of the Hexateuch.

The fragmentary hypothesis contradicting the evi- dent unity of the Hexateuch was shown iy Ewald (+ 1875) to be untenable, and the supplementary took its place, presented in various forms by de Wette (+1849), Bleek (+1859), Sti&ihelin (+1875), Knobel (+1863), and others. The general agree- ment was that the Hexateuch was composed of the Elohistic, the oldest document, written by a priest of the llth or 10th cent. B.C.

, containing also yenuine Mosaic legislation, supplemented by the Jehovistic writer and then again by the author of Dt (of the 7th cent. B.c.), who possibly was the compiler of the Hexateuch. upfeld (t+ 1866) showed that the Elohistic source was not a unity, but made up of a eta legal part P and a narrative prophetic part (igen, + 1834, had pointed this out, but his discovery had been dis- OLD TESTAMENT regarded).

Néldeke then showed that J and E had existed independently, and had been united later into JE, before their union with P and D.

Graf (+1869), Kuenen (+1891), and Wellhausen have especially contributed to the final solution of this problem, showing that the earliest documents of the Hexateuch are the prophetic ones J and E, resembling in certain features the early prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and that 5 comes next, belonging to the reign of Josiah, and P, the ead priestly document containing most of the Tosaic legislation (Lv and related parts of Ex and Nu), comes last in the exilic or post-exilic period (for details see above, and art.

HEXATEUCH). Thus the conception of the order of the development of Israel’s religion has been revolutionized: the com- pleted Levitical code coming at the end instead of the beginning of the period extending from Moses to Ezra. Conclusions, departing almost as widely from previous Jewish and Christian views, have been reached within this same period concerning other books of the OT. The Bk.

of Isaiah has been resolved into an anthology of prophecies of various dates (for history of this criticism see article IsAIAH, IV.), that of Daniel placed in the Mac- cabean period, Jg and 1 and 2 S shown to be compilations of narratives not always harmonious with each other (see articles on all these books). The conception of the Canon also has very much changed.

The post-Reformation view was essenti- ally that of Josephus: each book written by a recognized inspired man, and all collected by Ezra or at his time (c. Apion. i. 8). For modern view see above, and article OT CANON. The conception of the OT history has also been revolutionized. Until the period of modern criti- cism, the narratives of the OT had generally been received as records of real history.

But according to the new view they contain myths and legends, and give a partially erroneous conception of the growth of Israel’s religion, whose beginnings are not found in direct Divine communications to primitive mankind and the patriarchs, but in the common primitive religion of the Semitic peoples, whence by revelation through Moses and the prophets, the legal or ecclesiastical stage, represented in the middle books of the Penta- teuch, was reached about the time of Ezra.

The OT thus can no longer be regarded as an infal- lible or, indeed, entirely trustworthy guide in science and history. In these particulars it re- flects the limitations of its times. (Historical criticism showing the errors of the OT narratives has kept pace with the higher criticism and formed a part of it. Among noteworthy contributors to this were de Wette and Colenso (+ 1883), and in constructive work Kittel, Stade, and Wellhausen).

A similar limitation appears also in the moral and religious teachings of the OT. (A certain limi- tation is recognized in the NT, and has always been more or less clearly discerned in the Christian Church. Criticism emphasizes a Pauline conception also in making prophetic religion antecedent to the Law).

The new science of OT theology, giving a historical exhibition of the development of the religion contained in the OT, has also arisen, being first clearly presented in 1789 by Gabler (t 1826), and carried Ewart by G. L. Bauer (+ 1806); de Wette (+ 1849); von Colin (+1833); Vatke (+ 1882), who in a neglected work (1835) put the Prophets and the Law in their true relation, thus anticipat- ing more recent results; Ewald ( 1875), Schultz, Smend, and others.

These critical conclusions were controverted from the first by Carpzov (+ 1767), Michaelis (t 1791), Hiivernick (+ 1845), Hengstenberg (t+ 1869), Keil (t 1888), and others in Germany, and they received 604 OLD TESTAMENT CANON OLD TESTAMENT CANON little favour in Great Britain and America until within recent years (especially through the influ- ence of A. B. Davidson, W. R. Smith (#1894), S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs). iv.

THE PERMANENT RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE OT resides in the simplicity of its revelation and the freshness of its expression of primary and universal religious truths and experiences. (1)God is revealed not as a philosophical abstraction but as a concrete Personality, transcendent and yet thoroughly approachable and ready to enter into the closest a a and communion with men, and in loving care, compassion, and forgiveness meeting their deepest religious wants and needs.

The OT introduces God ‘the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth,’ directly into human life. (2) Man in his true experiential relation to God is likewise described in the careers of the patriarchs and other heroes and worthies of Israel, and in the history of Israel itself. Sin is portrayed, and also return and obedience. Moral precepts and laws of conduct are abundantly given, es eciall in reference to national and social life.

(3) The O is also a book of hope, containing the triumphant note of redemption which is truly fulfilled in and through Christ, and the NT believer always finds Christ and His gospel organically and potentially enshrined in the OT. Modern criticism ἔπ not im- paired these permanent elements.

Their authority, which is that of truth, still remains, and the OT has been transmuted from a mechanical record of doctrines and of forced Divine manifestations into a book of genuine historic life, an epic of salva- tion, showing the living process of God’s revelation through Israel. Lireraturs.—Introductions to the OT by Bleek (revised by Wellhausen, 1893, and tr. by Venables, 1869), Cornill 4 (1896), S.

Davidson (1862), de Wette 8 (revised by Schrader) (1869) (special), Driver® (1897) special), Eichhorn 4 (1823-24), Holzinger (1893) (Hexstou. Keil3 (1869), Kénig (1893), Kuenen? (1885-89) ecial), Kautzsch (tr. 1899) (History of Growth), Reuss 2 (1890), Riehm?' (Brandt) (1890), Strack δ (1898), Wildeboer (Germ. tr.j (894) (special), Wright (1890).

For works on the Canon an Text see literature under OT Oanoy, and on OT History see literature under ΒΆΛΕΙ, For OT Theology see Dillmann (Kittel) 1895, Marti8 1899, Schultz 1896 (Eng. tr. 1895], Smend 3 1899. History of Interpretation and Criticism. Briggs, General Introduction to a Study of the Holy Scripture, N.Y.

, 1899; Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen Kirche, Jena, 1869; Farrar, History of I ation (Bampton Lecture), 1885; Samuel Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, Edin. 1843 ; Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (pt. iii.), N.Y. 1885; Ladd, Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture, 2 vols. N.Y. 1883; W. R. Smith, O7JC2, 1892; Cheyne, Founders of OT Criticism, London, 1893. With reference to the OT (Inspiration, etc.), in the light of Modern Criticism, cf. Bruce, Apologetics (1892), Bk. ii.

pp. 164- 886; Horton, Revelation and the Bible, 1892 ; Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the OT, 1891; Ottley, Aspects of the OT pton Lecture), 1897; Sanday, Oracles of God, 1891, and ns~ration (Bampton Lecture), 1893; Simon, The Bible an Outgrowth of Theocratic Life, 1896; A. B. Davidson, ‘The Uses of the OT for Edification,’ in Expositor, Jan. 1900. E. L. Curtis.