A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

Introduction to the Old Testament

J >> John Edgar McFadyen >> Introduction to the Old Testament



This eBook was produced by Anne Folland, Tiffany Vergon, Charles Franks
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team




INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

By

JOHN EDGAR McFADYEN, M.A. (Glas.) B.A. (Oxon.)


_Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, Knox College,
Toronto_



To My Pupils Past and Present




PREFACE


This _Introduction_ does not pretend to offer anything to
specialists. It is written for theological students, ministers, and
laymen, who desire to understand the modern attitude to the Old
Testament as a whole, but who either do not have the time or the
inclination to follow the details on which all thorough study of it
must ultimately rest. These details are intricate, often perplexing,
and all but innumerable, and the student is in danger of failing to
see the wood for the trees. This _Introduction_, therefore,
concentrates attention only on the more salient features of the
discussion. No attempt has been made, for example, to relegate every
verse in the Pentateuch[1] to its documentary source; but the method
of attacking the Pentateuchal problem has been presented, and the
larger documentary divisions indicated.
[Footnote 1: Pentateuch and Hexateuch are used in this volume to
indicate the first five and the first six books of the Old Testament
respectively, without reference to any critical theory. As the first
five books form a natural division by themselves, and as their
literary sources are continued not only into Joshua, but probably
beyond it, it is as legitimate to speak of the Pentateuch as of the
Hexateuch.]

It is obvious, therefore, that the discussions can in no case be
exhaustive; such treatment can only be expected in commentaries to
the individual books. While carefully considering all the more
important alternatives, I have usually contented myself with
presenting the conclusion which seemed to me most probable; and I
have thought it better to discuss each case on its merits, without
referring expressly and continually to the opinions of English and
foreign scholars.

In order to bring the discussion within the range of those who have
no special linguistic equipment, I have hardly ever cited Greek or
Hebrew words, and never in the original alphabets. For a similar
reason, the verses are numbered, not as in the Hebrew, but as in the
English Bible. I have sought to make the discussion read continuously,
without distracting the attention--excepting very occasionally-by
foot-notes or other devices.

Above all things, I have tried to be interesting. Critical
discussions are too apt to divert those who pursue them from the
absorbing human interest of the Old Testament. Its writers were men
of like hopes and fears and passions with ourselves, and not the
least important task of a sympathetic scholarship is to recover that
humanity which speaks to us in so many portions and so many ways
from the pages of the Old Testament. While we must never allow
ourselves to forget that the Old Testament is a voice from the
ancient and the Semitic world, not a few parts of it--books, for
example, like Job and Ecclesiastes--are as modern as the book that
was written yesterday.

But, first and last, the Old Testament is a religious book; and an
_Introduction_ to it should, in my opinion, introduce us not
only to its literary problems, but to its religious content. I have
therefore usually attempted--briefly, and not in any homiletic
spirit--to indicate the religious value and significance of its
several books.

There may be readers who would here and there have desiderated a
more confident tone, but I have deliberately refrained from going
further than the facts seemed to warrant. The cause of truth is not
served by unwarranted assertions; and the facts are often so difficult
to concatenate that dogmatism becomes an impertinence. Those who know
the ground best walk the most warily. But if the old confidence has
been lost, a new confidence has been won. Traditional opinions on
questions of date and authorship may have been shaken or overturned,
but other and greater things abide; and not the least precious is
that confidence, which can now justify itself at the bar of the most
rigorous scientific investigation, that, in a sense altogether unique,
the religion of Israel is touched by the finger of God.

JOHN E. McFADYEN.

ENGELBERG, SWITZERLAND.




CONTENTS


THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS

GENESIS

EXODUS

LEVITICUS

NUMBERS

DEUTERONOMY

JOSHUA

THE PROPHETIC AND PRIESTLY DOCUMENTS

JUDGES

SAMUEL

KINGS

ISAIAH

JEREMIAH

EZEKIEL

HOSEA

JOEL

AMOS

OBADIAH

JONAH

MICAH

NAHUM

HABAKKUK

ZEPHANIAH

HAGGAI

ZECHARIAH

MALACHI

PSALMS

PROVERBS

JOB

SONG OF SONGS

RUTH

LAMENTATIONS

ECCLESIASTES

ESTHER

DANIEL

EZRA-NEHEMIAH

CHRONICLES




THE ORDER OF THE BOOKS

In the English Bible the books of the Old Testament are arranged,
not in the order in which they appear in the Hebrew Bible, but in
that assigned to them by the Greek translation. In this translation
the various books are grouped according to their contents--first the
historical books, then the poetic, and lastly the prophetic. This
order has its advantages, but it obscures many important facts of
which the Hebrew order preserves a reminiscence. The Hebrew Bible
has also three divisions, known respectively as the Law, the
Prophets, and the Writings. _The Law_ stands for the Pentateuch.
_The Prophets_ are subdivided into (i) the former prophets, that
is, the historical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings,
regarded as four in number; and (ii) the latter prophets, that is,
the prophets proper--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve
(i.e. the Minor Prophets). _The Writings_ designate all the rest
of the books, usually in the following order--Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel,
Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.

It would somewhat simplify the scientific study even of the English
Bible, if the Hebrew order could be restored, for it is in many ways
instructive and important. It reveals the unique and separate
importance of the Pentateuch; it suggests that the historical books
from Joshua to Kings are to be regarded not only as histories, but
rather as the illustration of prophetic principles; it raises a high
probability that Ruth ought not to be taken with Judges, nor
Lamentations with Jeremiah, nor Daniel with the prophets. It can be
proved that the order of the divisions represents the order in which
they respectively attained canonical importance--the law before 400
B.C., the prophets about 200 B.C., the writings about 100 B.C.--and,
generally speaking, the latest books are in the last division. Thus
we are led to suspect a relatively late origin for the Song and
Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles, being late, will not be so important a
historical authority as Kings. The facts suggested by the Hebrew
order and confirmed by a study of the literature are sufficient to
justify the adoption of that order in preference to that of the
English Bible.




GENESIS


The Old Testament opens very impressively. In measured and dignified
language it introduces the story of Israel's origin and settlement
upon the land of Canaan (Gen.--Josh.) by the story of creation,
i.-ii. 4_a_, and thus suggests, at the very beginning, the
far-reaching purpose and the world-wide significance of the people and
religion of Israel. The narrative has not travelled far till it
becomes apparent that its dominant interests are to be religious and
moral; for, after a pictorial sketch of man's place and task in the
world, and of his need of woman's companionship, ii. 4_b_-25,
it plunges at once into an account, wonderful alike in its poetic
power and its psychological insight, of the tragic and costly[1]
disobedience by which the divine purpose for man was at least
temporarily frustrated (iii.). His progress in history is, morally
considered, downward. Disobedience in the first generation becomes
murder in the next, and it is to the offspring of the violent Cain
that the arts and amenities of civilization are traced, iv. 1-22.
Thus the first song in the Old Testament is a song of revenge,
iv. 23, 24, though this dark background of cruelty is not unlit by a
gleam of religion, iv. 26. After the lapse of ten generations (v.)
the world had grown so corrupt that God determined to destroy it by a
flood; but because Noah was a good man, He saved him and his household
and resolved never again to interrupt the course of nature in judgment
(vi.-viii.). In establishing the covenant with Noah, emphasis is laid
on the sacredness of blood, especially of the blood of man, ix. 1-17.
Though grace abounds, however, sin also abounds. Noah fell, and his
fall revealed the character of his children: the ancestor of the
Semites, from whom the Hebrews sprang, is blessed, as is also Japheth,
while the ancestor of the licentious Canaanites is cursed, ix. 18-27.
From these three are descended the great families of mankind (x.)
whose unity was confounded and whose ambitions were destroyed by the
creation of diverse languages, xi. 1-9.
[Footnote 1: Death is the penalty (iii. 22-24). Another explanation of
how death came into the world is given in the ancient and interesting
fragment vi. 1-4.]

It is against this universal background that the story of the
Hebrews is thrown; and in the new beginning which history takes with
the call of Abraham, something like the later contrast between the
church and the world is intended to be suggested. Upon the sombreness
of human history as reflected in Gen. i.-xi., a new possibility breaks
in Gen. xii., and the rest of the book is devoted to the fathers of
the Hebrew people (xii.-l.). The most impressive figure from a
religious point of view is Abraham, the oldest of them all, and the
story of his discipline is told with great power, xi. 10-xxv. 10.
He was a Semite, xi. 10-32, and under a divine impulse he migrated
westward to Canaan, xii. 1-9.

There various fortunes befell him--famine which drove him to Egypt,
peril through the beauty of his wife,[1] abounding and conspicuous
prosperity--but through it all Abraham displayed a true magnanimity
and enjoyed the divine favour, xii. 10-xiii., which was manifested
even in a striking military success (xiv.). Despite this favour,
however, he grew despondent, as he had no child. But there came to
him the promise of a son, confirmed by a covenant (xv.), the symbol
of which was to be circumcision (xvii.); and Abraham trusted God,
unlike his wife, whose faith was not equal to the strain, and who
sought the fulfilment of the promise in foolish ways of her own,[2]
xvi., xviii. 1-15. Then follows the story of Abraham's earnest but
ineffectual intercession for the wicked cities of the plain--a story
which further reminds us how powerfully the narrative is controlled
by moral and religious interests, xviii. 16-xix. Faith is rewarded
at last by the birth of a son, xxi. 1-7, and Abraham's prosperity
becomes so conspicuous that a native prince is eager to make a
treaty with him, xxi. 22-34. The supreme test of his faith came to
him in the impulse to offer his son to God in sacrifice; but at the
critical moment a substitute was providentially provided, and
Abraham's faith, which had stood so terrible a test, was rewarded by
another renewal of the divine assurance (xxii.). His wife died, and
for a burial-place he purchased from the natives a field and cave in
Hebron, thus winning in the promised land ground he could legally
call his own (xxiii). Among his eastern kinsfolk a wife is
providentially found for Isaac (xxiv.), who becomes his father's
heir, xxv. 1-6. Then Abraham dies, xxv. 7-11, and the uneventful
career of Isaac is briefly described in tales that partly duplicate[3]
those told of his greater father, xxv. 7-xxvi.
[Footnote 1: This story (xii. 10-20) is duplicated in xx.; also in
xxvi. 1-11 (of Isaac).]
[Footnote 2: The story of the expulsion of Hagar in xvi. is
duplicated in xxi. 8-21.]
[Footnote 3: xxvi. 1-11=xii. 10-20 (xx.); xxvi. 26-33=xxi. 22-34.]

The story of Isaac's son Jacob is as varied and romantic as his own
was uneventful. He begins by fraudulently winning a blessing from
his father, and has in consequence to flee the promised land,
xxvii.-xxviii. 9. On the threshold of his new experiences he was
taught in a dream the nearness of heaven to earth, and received
the assurance that the God who had visited him at Bethel would
be with him in the strange land and bring him back to his own,
xxviii. 10-22. In the land of his exile, his fortunes ran a very
checkered course (xxix.-xxxi.). In Laban, his Aramean kinsman, he
met his match, and almost his master, in craft; and the initial
fraud of his life was more than once punished in kind. In due time,
however, he left the land of his sojourn, a rich and prosperous man.
But his discipline is not over when he reaches the homeland. The past
rises up before him in the person of the brother whom he had wronged;
and besides reckoning with Esau, he has also to wrestle with God. He
is embroiled in strife with the natives of the land, and he loses his
beloved Rachel (xxxii.-xxxv.).

Into the later years of Jacob is woven the most romantic story of
all--that of his son Joseph (xxxvii.-l.)[1] the dreamer, who rose
through persecution and prison, slander and sorrow (xxxvii.-xl.) to
a seat beside the throne of Pharaoh (xli.). Nowhere is the providence
that governs life and the Nemesis that waits upon sin more dramatically
illustrated than in the story of Joseph. Again and again his guilty
brothers are compelled to confront the past which they imagined they
had buried out of sight for ever (xlii.-xliv.). But at last comes the
gracious reconciliation between Joseph and them (xlv.), the tender
meeting between Jacob and Joseph (xlvi.), the ultimate settlement of
the family of Jacob in Egypt,[2] and the consequent transference of
interest to that country for several generations. The book closes
with scenes illustrating the wisdom and authority of Joseph in the
time of famine (xlvii.), the dying Jacob blessing Joseph's sons
(xlviii.), his parting words (in verse) to all his sons (xlix.), his
death and funeral honours, l. 1-14, Joseph's magnanimous forgiveness
of his brothers, and his death, in the sure hope that God would one
day bring the Israelites back again to the land of Canaan, l. 15-26.
[Footnote 1: xxxvi. deals with the Edomite clans, and xxxviii. with
the clans of Judah.]
[Footnote 2: In one version they are not exactly in Egypt, but near
it, in Goshen (xlvii. 6).]

The unity of the book of Genesis is unmistakable; yet a close
inspection reveals it to be rather a unity of idea than of execution.
While in general it exhibits the gradual progress of the divine
purpose on its way through primeval and patriarchal history, in
detail it presents a number of phenomena incompatible with unity of
authorship. The theological presuppositions of different parts of
the book vary widely; centuries of religious thought, for example,
must lie between the God who partakes of the hospitality of Abraham
under a tree (xviii.) and the majestic, transcendent, invisible
Being at whose word the worlds are born (i.). The style, too,
differs as the theological conceptions do: it is impossible not to
feel the difference between the diffuse, precise, and formal style
of ix. 1-17, and the terse, pictorial and poetic manner of the
immediately succeeding section, ix. 18-27. Further, different
accounts are given of the origin of particular names or facts:
Beersheba is connected, e.g. with a treaty made, in one case,
between Abraham and Abimelech, xxi. 31, in another, between Isaac
and Abimelech, xxvi. 33. But perhaps the most convincing proof that
the book is not an original literary unit is the lack of inherent
continuity in the narrative of special incidents, and the occasional
inconsistencies, sometimes between different parts of the book,
sometimes even within the same section.

This can be most simply illustrated from the story of the Flood
(vi. 5ff.), through which the beginner should work for himself-at
first without suggestions from critical commentaries or introductions--as
here the analysis is easy and singularly free from complications;
the results reached upon this area can be applied and extended to
the rest of the book. The problem might be attacked in some such way
as follows. Ch. vi. 5-8 announces the wickedness of man and the
purpose of God to destroy him; throughout these verses the divine
Being is called Jehovah.[1] In the next section, _vv_. 9-13, He
is called by a different name--God (Hebrew, _Elohim_)--and we
cannot but notice that this section adds nothing to the last;
_vv_. 9, 10 are an interruption, and _vv_. 11-13 but a
repetition of _vv_. 5-8. Corresponding to the change in the
divine name is a further change in the vocabulary, the word for
_destroy_ being different in _vv_. 7 and 13. Verses 14-22
continue the previous section with precise and minute instructions
for the building of the ark, and in the later verses (cf. 18, 20)
the precision tends to become diffuseness. The last verse speaks of
the divine Being as God (Elohim), so that both the language and
contents of _vv_. 9-22 show it to be a homogeneous section.
Note that here, _vv_. 19, 20, two animals of every kind are to
be taken into the ark, no distinction being drawn between the clean
and the unclean. Noah must now be in the ark; for we are told that
he had done all that God commanded him, _vv_. 22, 18.
[Footnote 1: Wrongly represented by _the Lord_ in the English
version; the American Revised Version always correctly renders by
_Jehovah_. _God_ in v. 5 is an unfortunate mistake of A.V.
This ought also to be _the Lord_, or rather _Jehovah_.]

But, to our surprise, ch. vii. starts the whole story afresh with a
divine command to Noah to enter the ark; and this time, significantly
enough, a distinction is made between the clean and the unclean-seven
pairs of the former to enter and one pair of the latter (vii. 2). It
is surely no accident that in this section the name of the divine
Being is Jehovah, _vv_. 1, 5; and its contents follow naturally
on vi. 5-8. In other words we have here, not a continuous account,
but two parallel accounts, one of which uses the name God, the other
Jehovah, for the divine Being. This important conclusion is put
practically beyond all doubt by the similarity between vi. 22 and vii. 5,
which differ only in the use of the divine name. A close study of the
characteristics of these sections whose origin is thus certain will
enable us approximately to relegate to their respective sources other
sections, verses, or fragments of verses in which the important clue,
furnished by the name of the divine Being, is not present. Any verse,
or group of verses, e.g. involving the distinction between the clean
and the unclean, will belong to the _Jehovistic_ source, as it is
called (J). This is the real explanation of the confusion which
every one feels who attempts to understand the story as a unity. It
was always particularly hard to reconcile the apparently conflicting
estimates of the duration of the Flood; but as soon as the sources
are separated, it becomes clear that, according to the Jehovist, it
lasted sixty-eight days, according to the other source over a year
(vii. 11, viii. 14).

Brief as the Flood story is, it furnishes us with material enough to
study the characteristic differences between the sources out of
which it is composed. The Jehovist is terse, graphic, and poetic; it
is this source in which occurs the fine description of the sending
forth of the raven and the dove, viii. 6-12. It knows how to make a
singularly effective use of concrete details: witness Noah putting
out his hand and pulling the dove into the ark, and her final return
with an olive leaf in her mouth. A similarly graphic touch,
interesting also for the sidelight it throws on the Jehovist's
theological conceptions is that, when Noah entered the ark, "Jehovah
closed the door behind him," vii. 16. Altogether different is the
other source. It is all but lacking in poetic touches and concrete
detail of this kind, and such an anthropomorphism as vii. 16 would
be to it impossible. It is pedantically precise, giving the exact
year, month, and even day when the Flood came, vii. 11, and when it
ceased, viii. 13, 14. There is a certain legal precision about it
which issues in diffuseness and repetition; over and over again
occur such phrases as "fowl, cattle, creeping things, each after its
kind," vi. 20, vii. 14, and the dimensions of the ark are accurately
given. Where J had simply said, "Thou and all thy house," vii. 1,
this source says, "Thou and thy sons and thy wife and thy sons'
wives with thee," vi. 18. From the identity of interest and style
between this source and the middle part of the Pentateuch, notably
Leviticus, it is characterized as the priestly document and known to
criticism as P.

Thus, though the mainstay of the analysis, or at least the original
point of departure, is the difference in the names of the divine
Being, many other phenomena, of vocabulary, style, and theology, are
so distinctive that on the basis of them alone we could relegate
many sections of Genesis with considerable confidence to their
respective sources. In particular, P is especially easy to detect.
For example, the use of the term Elohim, the repetitions, the
precise and formal manner, the collocation of such phrases as "fowl,
cattle, creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth," i. 26 (cf.
vii. 21), mark out the first story of creation, i.-ii. 4_a_, as
indubitably belonging to P. Besides the stories of the creation and
the flood, the longest and most important, though not quite the only
passages[1] belonging to P are ix. 1-17 (the covenant with Noah),
xvii. (the covenant with Abraham), and xxiii. (the purchase of a
burial place for Sarah). This is a fact of the greatest significance.
For P, the story of creation culminates in the institution of the
Sabbath, the story of the flood in the covenant with Noah, with the law
concerning the sacredness of blood, the covenant with Abraham is sealed
by circumcision, and the purchase of Machpelah gives Abraham legal
right to a footing in the promised land. In other words the interests
of this source are legal and ritual. This becomes abundantly plain in
the next three books of the Pentateuch, but even in Genesis it may be
justly inferred from the unusual fulness of the narrative at these
four points.
[Footnote 1: The curious ch. xiv. is written under the influence of
P. Here also ritual interests play a part in the tithes paid to the
priest of Salem, v. 20 (i.e. Jerusalem). In spite of its array of
ancient names, xiv. 1, 2, which have been partially corroborated by
recent discoveries, this chapter is, for several reasons, believed
to be one of the latest in the Pentateuch.]

When we examine what is left in Genesis, after deducting the
sections that belong to P, we find that the word God (Elohim),
characteristic of P, is still very frequently and in some sections
exclusively used. The explanation will appear when we come to deal
with Exodus: meantime the fact must be carefully noted. Ch. xx.,
e.g., uses the word Elohim, but it has no other mark characteristic
of P. It is neither formal nor diffuse in style nor legal in spirit;
it is as concrete and almost as graphic as anything in J. Indeed the
story related--Abraham's denial of his wife--is actually told in
that document, xii. 10-20 (also of Isaac, xxvi. 1-11); and in
general the history is covered by this document, which is called the
Elohist[1] and known to criticism as E, in much the same spirit, and
with an emphasis upon much the same details, as by J. In opposition
to P, these are known as the prophetic documents, because they were
written or at least put together under the influence of prophetic
ideas. The close affinity of these two documents renders it much
more difficult to distinguish them from each other than to
distinguish either of them from P, but within certain limits the
attempt may be successfully made. The basis of it must, of course,
be a study of the duplicate versions of the same incidents; that is,
such a narrative as ch. xx., which uses the word God (Elohim) is
compared with its parallel in xii. 10-20, which uses the word
Jehovah, and in this way the distinctive features and interests of
each document will most readily be found. The parallel suggested is
easy and instructive, and it reveals the relative ethical and
theological superiority of E to J. J tells the story of Abraham's
falsehood with a quaint naïveté (xii.); E is offended by it and
excuses it (xx.). The theological refinement of E is suggested not
only here, xx. 3, 6, but elsewhere, by the frequency with which God
appears in dreams and not in bodily presence as in J (cf. iii. 8).
Similarly the expulsion of Hagar, which in J is due to Sarah's
jealousy (xvi.), in E is attributed to a command of God, xxi. 8-21;
and the success of Jacob with the sheep, which in J is due to his
skill and cunning, xxx. 29-43, is referred in E to the intervention
of God, xxxi. 5-12. In general it may be said that J, while
religious, is also natural, whereas E tends to emphasize the
supernatural, and thus takes the first step towards the austere
theology of P.[2]
[Footnote 1: In this way it is distinguished from P, which, as we
have seen, is also Elohistic, but is not now so called.]
[Footnote 2: A detailed justification of the grounds of the critical
analysis will be found in Professor Driver's elaborate and admirable
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_, where
every section throughout the Hexateuch is referred to its special
documentary source. To readers who desire to master the detail, that
work or one of the following will be indispensable: _The Hexateuch_,
edited by Carpenter and Battersby, Addis's _Documents of the Hexateuch_,
Bacon's _Genesis of Genesis_ and _Triple Tradition of the Exodus_,
or Kent's _Student's Old Testament_ (vol. i.)]

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.