« PreviousContinue »
viz. to present Truth under different aspects and in different surroundings. The Old Testament itself also furnishes instances, though on a smaller scale, of the same peculiarity. When we open the Book of Judges we find several short sections in the first two chapters which are also in the Book of Joshua (see Judges 1. 9-15, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29; 2. 6-9). We are also familiar with the fact that large portions of the speeches of Moses preserved in Deuteronomy are not only substantially but verbally related to the earlier legislation, though possibly our minds are so often directed to the minute differences between the documents that we almost overlook their substantial agreement. Again, in the Psalms we discover not only a complete poem which had already been included in Samuel (Ps. 18), but also duplications of Psalms or portions of Psalms, sometimes with no variations at all, and sometimes with very deliberate changes (compare Pss. 14 and 53, 31 and 71, 40 and 70, 57 and 108, 60 and 108).
Nor can we forget the duplicate passages in the Book of Isaiah (see 35, 10 and 51. II; also 11. 6; 7, and 65. 25), and the still more numerous repeated passages in Jeremiah (see e. g. 10. 12-16 and 51. 15-19; also 30. 10, 11, and 46. 27, 28).
We seem driven to the conclusion that it was a literary habit with many of the sacred writers to incorporate parts of the compositions of their predecessors or contemporaries, and even to repeat themselves. When a prophetic book was issued it became public property. Any one could use it or make extracts from it. No one could claim the copyright. The more widely its contents were circulated the better.
The fact that quotations or duplicate passages are so common in the Hebrew Scriptures has an important bearing on the relationships between the sacred books. It is sometimes difficult to determine what is a quotation and what is a mere verbal coincidence. Similar persons under like circumstances naturally say the same thing, especially when inspired by the same Spirit. We are usually guided by two considerations : first, the length of the passage which two writers give us, and secondly, the frequency of quotations.
We must not forget that there is a strong a priori probability that the sacred writers should use the works of their predecessors. All books composed by prophetic men would be
regarded as authoritative and as intended to be used as well as kept. Nothing could be more natural than that the earlier documents should be deeply studied by the men of God who followed after. The Semitic memory is a specially retentive one, and as this gift was used for the purpose of composing narratives and writing down speeches, so it would prove effective to stamp the substance and even the words of the earlier scriptures on the hearts of the later writers, supposing that these had the opportunity of either reading or hearing them. The most notable illustrations of this are given in the Appendix.
We can readily understand that if a prophet were sent to warn any particular nation, he would recall to mind the utterances of some kindred spirit who had a similar mission in earlier See for example Jeremiah's use of the prophecies of Isaiah and Obadiah in his predictions against Moab and Edom (v. Appendix X.)
It is possible, nay probable, that the later prophets had private copies of the writings of their predecessors, and it may be owing to this that we have such a wealth of ancient literature as is conserved in the Old Testament. Possibly they possessed other books which have not come down to us (e. g. the Book of Jasher), informal quotations from which we read without being conscious of the fact.
Thus the sacred writers used the works of their predecessors, frequently without acknowledgement, very much as the early Fathers used the books of the New Testament, referring to them for historical, doctrinal, practical, and devotional purposes. Let any one carefully study Joshua's last addresses, David's exhortations to Solomon, Jonah's prayer, Micah's prophecies, and Habakkuk's poetry, and he can hardly fail to come to this conclusion. It would require a treatise to show to what extent the great prophetic chapters of the Pentateuch (Lev. 26, Deut. 28 and 32) were known and used by later writers; how the legislative enactments contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers run into one another and are reproduced in the speeches of Deuteronomy, and referred to in the later books with more or less distinctness.
It is needless to emphasize the fact that in deciding what is a quotation we must beware of being misled by a translation. Sometimes passages look very like one another in English which have comparatively little resemblance in Hebrew (cf. e. g. Gen. 47. 31 with 1 Kings 1. 47). The E. A. V., on the other hand, sometimes conceals a quotation and translates the same group of Hebrew words in different ways. The R. V. will be found much more accurate in this respect, though there is still room for a method of indicating the resemblances between related texts more clearly than we have yet adopted in our English Bibles.
There was a discussion some years ago as to whether the same Hebrew or Greek word ought to be translated invariably in the same way. This was felt to be impossible ; but students are generally agreed that technical expressions, whether theological, ceremonial, moral, or legal, which run through the Hebrew Bible from the times of Moses ought to be rendered in the same way. They are one of the many signs of the continuity of the sacred books. The same is true of the formula with which the Scriptures abound. Also proper names ought to be spelt consistently, it being left to the margin to indicate variations where necessary.
The first six descendants of Adam are, according to Genesis (E. A. V.), Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch ; but according to i Chron. 1, Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch. The Hebrew spelling does not vary at all. The revisers have harmonized these. Local names ought to be dealt with in the same way. It seems a pity that English readers should find such diversities as Azzah and Gaza, Ashdod and Azotus, Babel and Babylon, Aram and Syria, Cush and Ethiopia, Philistia and Palestina, where the Hebrew spelling is the same.
Putting aside these points, which seem trivial but are really of considerable importance, we proceed to deal with the quotations properly so called. They may be classed under four heads :
(i.) The substance is used, but the words themselves are not actually given. nder this head we may include the numerous references in the historical and other books to the patriarchal history, the deliverance from Egypt, the wilderness life, and the times of the Judges. Similarly, we may include the references in post-Captivity writers to the age and works of Samuel, David, and Solomon. It is needless to give instances of these; the whole Old Testament bristles with them, the book which is most free from them in proportion to its size being the Book of Job, though perhaps there are more than appear at first sight.
(ii.) Passages are made use of without any attempt being made to quote them fully or accurately. They are condensed allusions or they are poetical expansions; and variations are introduced which to a greater or less degree affect the sense. Thus in Job 10. 8 we read, “Thy hands have framed me and made me round about; yet thou doest destroy me.' And in Ps. 119. 73, “Thy hands have made me and established me: give me understanding.' In Job 7. 17, 18, 'What is man, that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him ? and that thou shouldest visit him ?' And in Ps. 8. 4, 'What is man, that thou art mindful of him ? and the son of man, that thou visitest him ?' But in Ps. 144. 3, “What is man, that thou takest knowledge of him ? the son of man, that thou makest account of him ?' It is to be observed that the context in this Psalm is also in Job. (Compare Ps. 144. 4 and Job 7. 16 ; 8. 9.)
(ii.) Sentences are introduced without acknowledgement, and with no departure from the original text, except such as may be due to copyists' errors, to changes in idiom, or to the fact that the second writer trusts to his memory and has not the original document before him. Some of the most interesting of these will be found in the Appendix at the end of the book.
(iv.) Passages are formally cited, with a reference to the name of the writer quoted or to the document or class of documents from which the extract is made. The quotations under this head are rare. They include the numerous references to the law of Moses, notably the remarkable passage in 2 Kings 14. 6, in which the writer says that Amaziah acted in accordance with that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers ; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.' Here we have a verbal citation from Deut. 24. 16, and it is to be noticed that A. is more accurate in copying Deuteronomy than B. is in copying A. (see 2 Chron. 25. 4).
The appeal by Moses (Num. 14. 18) to the revelation of the attributes of God given in Exod. 34 is very striking, and it may be parallelled by Nehemiah's appeal (Nehem. 1, 8, 9) to the
promise made through Moses in Deut. 30. 3, 4. Moses also appeals (Exod. 32. 13) to the promises made to the patriarchs, which he groups together and quotes verbatim. See especially Gen. 22. 17.
Under this head, again, will come the extract made by Nehemiah from the early narrative of the Return (see Nehem. 7 and Ezra 2, and § 58 below). Here, in spite of the numerous unintentional variations and omissions, we have a deliberate citation, and we must put down all variations to errors on the part of scribes and copyists.
Another interesting citation is to be found in Jer. 26. 18, where a prophecy from Micah (3. 12) is deliberately repeated by one of the elders. Here the prophet is named or identified, his date is given, and mention is made of the result produced by his prophetic warning. On comparing the two texts as they now stand in our Hebrew Bibles we find that they are introduced in Jeremiah with the formula, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts,' whereas in Micah they form part of a long section, and are introduced with the word “therefore and followed by the celebrated prophecy which is also to be found in Isa. 2. 2,
but as the section closes with the words, ‘for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it,' the elder was quite justified in introducing these words at the beginning of his citation.
Other brief citations of this character are to be found in 1 Sam. 15. 2, compared with Deut. 25. 17 and Exod. 17. 8, with reference to Amalek ; also i Kings 16. 34, compared with Joshua 6. 26, with reference to Jericho ; also Nehem. 13. 1, 2, compared with Deut. 23. 3-5 with reference to the Moabite and Ammonite.
By far the greater number of quotations come under the third head; and in this respect the Old Testament writers differ materially from those of the New Testament, who usually indicate the fact that they are using words which had been previously written.
This habit of quoting without acknowledgement has deprived us of what would otherwise have been of very considerable help towards estimating the relative ages of the sacred books. If a critic feels compelled to cut himself wholly adrift from the traditional view of the books and of their authors, he has absolutely nothing by which to determine their dates but their