Samuel Ayres - The Expositor's Bible - Index

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 20 E. g. , Cheyne. and to assign a large number to the Maccabean period. It is even held 21 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 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 23 Biblical Introduction , Bennett and Adeney, p. 169.

Many works have appeared expounding these subjects in the light of modern criticism. 24 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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."