OLD TESTAMENT There exists no historical account of the formation of the Old Testament canon. The popular idea that it was closed by Ezra rests on no ancient foundation. Certainly in 2 Esdras (near the end of the 1st century A.D.), we read (xiv. 20-26, xxxviii.–xlviii.), that the law being burnt, Ezra, at his own request, was inspired to rewrite it ; in forty days he dictated 94 books to five scribes, i.e., the 24 books of the Old Testament and io apocryphal books, filled with esoteric wisdom and superior to the Old Testament. This worthless legend contains nothing about a completion of the Canon or collection or redaction of sacred books ; yet patristic writers infer from it that Ezra restored the lost Old Testament books. The reference to the library of Nehemiah in 2 Macc. ii. 13 is found in a late and untrustworthy section of the book and nothing definite can be built upon it.
The modern idea that the Old Testament canon was closed by Ezra is not found before the thirteenth century A.D. From this time the legend grew, until with Elias Levita (1538), and especially Johannes Buxtorf (1665), it assumed the form that the "men of the Great Synagogue"—a body of very dubious historicity—with Ezra as president, collected the books, restored the text and made the threefold division. Through their reputation this view acquired general currency, but it rests on no authority in antiquity whatever.
In the Jewish canon the books are divided into three parts. "The Law, the Prophets and the Writings, i.e., the Hagiographa," is the standing Jewish expression for the Old Testament, and the books are arranged in the following three divisions : 1. The Torah (or "Law"), i.e., our "Pentateuch" (5 books). 2. The "Prophets" (8 books) in two groups: (a) The "Former Proph ets"; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings; (b) The "Latter Proph ets," Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the "Minor Prophets" (called "The Twelve," and counted as one book). 3. The "Writings" (or the "Sacred Writings" i.e., the "Hagiographa"), consisting of three groups (I books) : (a) the poetical books, Psalms, Prov erbs, Job ; (b) The five Megilloth (or "Rolls")—read in the synagogues at five sacred seasons—Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamenta tions, Ecclesiastes, Esther ; (c) The remaining books, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (forming one book), Chronicles. The 24 books of the Hebrew Canon have become 39, as in the English Bible, by treating each of the Minor Prophets as a separate book, by sep arating Ezra from Nehemiah and subdividing Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. When the Greek translation was made between the third and first centuries B.C., the books were regrouped, mostly by subjects, in the order history, poetry, prophecy, the Apocrypha being included and its books being placed in the appropriate classes. Substantially the same order was followed in the Vulgate. The reformers placed the Apocrypha at the end; the remaining books, as they stood in the Vulgate, were then in the order which they retain in the English Bible.
The tripartite division was far earlier than the Talmud. The Proverbs of Jesus, the son of Sirach (c. 200 B.C.), now known as Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus, were translated into Greek by his grand son about i3o B.C. He speaks of "the law, and the prophets, and the other books of our fathers," and of the law, and the prophets, and the rest of the books (cf. the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, Luke xxiv. 44). See also Dan. ix. 2 (R.V.), written c. 165 B.C. This threefold division represents three successive stages in the history of the collection. The Law was the first part to be definitely recognised as authoritative, or canonised; then the Prophets ("Former" and "Latter") ; lastly the Hagiographa. In the absence of external evidence we must fix the dates by internal evidence. This points to the conclusion that the Law was not com pleted and accepted as canonical before 444 B.c. (cf . Neh. viii.–x.) ; that the prophets were completed and recognised about 250-2oo B.C. ; and the Hagiographa between about iso and oo B.C.
We must now sketch the process by which the Old Testament reached its completed form. It is characteristic of nearly all the longer books and some of the shorter that they were not completed by a single hand, but were gradually expanded and reached their present form by stages.
The earliest beginnings of Hebrew literature were probably poetical. Great national occurrences and the deeds of ancient heroes stimulated the national genius for poetry and evoked lyric songs, suffused with religious feeling, by which their memory was perpetuated. Illustrations may be found in the opening of the Song of Moses in Ex. xv.; Song of Deborah (Judges v.), the extracts from the "Book of Jashar" (or "of the Upright," i.e., Israel), see Josh. x. 12, 13, II. Sam. i. and probably I. Kings viii.13 (Sept. 53) in the Septuagint ; and in the fragment from "the Book of the Wars of Yahweh" (Num. xxi. 14,15) ; the war ballad in Num. xxi. 27-3o. To these may be added the Blessings of Jacob (Gen. xlix.) and Moses (Deut. xxxiii.). These poems are in most cases considerably older than the narratives in which they are embedded.
The historical books form two series : one, consisting of the books from Genesis to II. Kings (exclusive of Ruth which belongs to the Hagiographa) embracing the period from the Creation to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. ; the other, comprising Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, beginning with Adam and ending with Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. These, while differing in scope and point of view, are both constructed on a similar plan. Older writings have been combined by a compiler, or a succession of compilers, so that the points of juncture are of ten discernible and the sources can be disentangled. The authors of the historical books in their present form do not, as a rule, rewrite the matter in their own language; they excerpt from pre existing documents such passages as are suitable to their purpose and incorporate them in their work, sometimes adding matter of their own. The sources thus combined can generally be distin guished by strongly marked individualities of style from each other and from additions of the compiler. The literary differences are often accompanied by differences of treatment, or representa tions of the history, which confirm independently the conclusions of the literary analysis. Sometimes the excerpts form long com plete narratives; in other cases they consist of short passages taken alternatively from two older narratives and dovetailed together to make a continuous story. The compiler of Judges and Kings has arranged older narratives in a framework of his own ; the lit erary structure of the Hexateuch, i.e., the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, is more complex.
Somewhat later than J, another writer, commonly referred to as E, from his preference for the name Elohim ("God") rather than "Yahweh," living apparently in the Northern Kingdom, wrote down the traditions as they were current in Northern Israel, in a style resembling that of "J," but not quite as bright and vivid, and marked by small differences of expression and representation. The first traces of "E" are found in the life of Abraham, in parts of Gen. xv. Examples of other passages belonging to E are Gen. xx. 7, xxi. 8-32, xxii. 1-14, xl.–xlii. and xlv. (except a few iso lated passages) ; Ex. xviii. 2o-23 (including the Decalogue—in its original terser form, without the explanatory additions—and the collection of laws, known as the "Book of the Covenant," in xxi.– xxiii.), xxxii., xxxiii. 7-1 ; Num. xii., most of Num. xxii.–xxiv., Josh. xxiv. E thus covers substantially the same ground as J, and often gives a parallel, though somewhat divergent, account of the same events. The laws in the Book of the Covenant were no doubt taken from a pre-existing source; with J's regulations in Ex. xxxiv. 17-26, they form the oldest legislation of the Hebrews that we possess; they consist principally of civil ordinances, suited to regu late the life of the community living under simple traditions of society, and chiefly occupied in agriculture, but partly also of elementary regulations respecting religious observances (altars, sacrifices, festivals, etc.).
Not long, probably, after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C., a prophet of Judah selected extracts from J and E and combined them with additions of his own in a single narrative (JE). As distinguished from the priestly narrative (see below), it has a distinctly prophetical character ; it treats the history from the standpoint of the prophets and their religious ideas often find expression in it. To it belong most of the best-known narratives of the patriarchal and Mosaic ages. Its style, especially in the parts belonging to J, is graphic and picturesque, the descriptions are vivid and abound in detail and colloquy, and both emotion and religious feeling are warmly and sympathetically expressed in its relation. ° Deuteronomy.—Probably in the 7th century during the reign of either Manasseh or Josiah the narrative of JE was enlarged by the addition of the discourses of Deuteronomy. These purport to be addresses delivered by Moses to the people shortly before his death. There was probably some tradition of such a farewell address. In strong and persuasive oratory he sets before Israel, in a form adapted to the needs of the age in which he lived, the fundamental principles of Moses. Yahweh was Israel's only God, who tolerated no other God beside Himself, and who claimed to be the sole object of the Israelites' reverence. This fundamental thought is insisted on and developed with great eloquence and power. The truths on which the writer loves to dwell are the sole Godhead of Yahweh, His spirituality, His choice of Israel, and the love and faithfulness which He had shown towards it by redeem ing it from slavery and planting it in a free and fertile land ; from which are deduced the great practical duties of loyal and loving devotion to Him, an uncompromising repudiation of all false gods, the rejection of all heathen practices, a cheerful and ready obedi ence to His will and a warm-hearted and generous attitude towards man. Love of God is the primary spring of human duty (vi. 5). In ch. xii.–xxvi. the author embodies most of the laws incorpo rated in JE, with many others which were current, often expanding them and enforcing them by moral and religious motives. His ideal is a community of which every member is full of love and reverence towards his God, and of sympathy and regard for his fellow men. The "Song" (xxxii.) and "Blessing" (xxxiii.) of Moses are not by the author of the discourses; and the "Blessing," though not Mosaic, is of considerably earlier date.
The influence of Deuteronomy on the later literature was great. It gave the religious ideals of the age, and moulded the phrase ology in which these ideals were expressed. Its style lent itself readily to imitation; and a school of writers imbued with its spirit, and using its expressions, quickly arose. Thus the "JE" sections in Joshua were considerably expanded by a Deuteronomic editor, whose additions generalise Joshua's successes and describe his conquest of Canaan as far more complete than the earlier narra tives assert. The compilers of Judges and Kings are also strongly influenced by Deuteronomy. (See DEUTERONOMY.) The priestly sections of the Hexateuch (known as "P") are later than "JE," and even than Deuteronomy. This is apparent—to mention but one feature—from their more complex ritual and hierarchical organisation. They are apparently the work of a school of priests, who, after the destruction of the temple, began to write down and codify the pre-exilic ceremonial regulations combining them with a narrative extending from the creation to the settlement in Canaan ; and who completed their work during the century following the restoration in 537 B.C. Their chief object is to describe in detail the leading institutions of the theocracy (tabernacle, sacrifices, purification, etc.), which they refer to the Mosaic age. The history, except at important epochs, is briefly summarised. Statistical data (lists of names, genealogies, and pre cise chronological notes) are a conspicuous feature. But the legis lation though written down in or after the Exile was not the crea tion of that period. Many elements were of great antiquity as is clear from the older literature ; it is based on pre-exilic temple usage, though in some respects a development of it, and exhibits the form which the older institutions ultimately assumed. In "P's" picture of the Mosaic age there are many ideal elements; it repre sents the priestly ideal of the past rather than the past as it actu ally was. Its style is strongly marked, numerous expressions not found elsewhere in the Hexateuch occur in it repeatedly. The fol lowing examples of passages from P will illustrate what has been said: Gen. i. I–ii. 4a, xvii., xxiii., xxv. 7-17, xlvi. 6-2 7 ; Ex. vi. 2 vii. 13, xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl. ; Lev. i.–xvi., xxvii.; Num. i. 1–x. 28, xv., xviii., xix., xxvi.–xxxi., xxxiii.–xxxvi. ; Josh. v. Io–I 2, the greater part of xv.–xix., xxi. 1-42. The section Lev. xvii.–xxvi. has a character of its own; it consists of a substratum of older laws, partly moral (xviii.–xx. mostly), partly ceremonial. It exhibits very marked characteristics, from one of which it has received the name of the Law of Holiness. These laws have been combined with elements belonging to, or conceived in the spirit of, the main body of P. Not long after "P" was completed, probably in the 5th century B.C., the whole, consisting of "JE" and Deuteronomy, was combined with it ; and the existing Hexateuch was thus produced.
For a detailed discussion of the remaining books of the Old Testament reference must be made to the relevant articles. Here some general observations must suffice. Judges consists substan tially of older narratives arranged together not earlier than c 600 B.C. by a compiler in harmony with a theory of the religious his tory of the period derived from Deuteronomy, and provided by him, where he deemed it necessary, with introductory and conclud ing comments and chronological notes. The books of Samuel con sist of a series of narratives dealing with the lives of Samuel, Saul and David, some apparently almost contemporary with the events they describe, while others are later. We have two different views of the monarchy in I. Sam., in ix. 1–x. 16, xi. 1-11, 15, it is viewed as God's gracious gift to His people ; in viii., x. 17-27, xii. which reflect the feeling of a much later date, it is viewed unfavourably and represented as granted by God unwillingly. Kings resembles Judges in its structure. Prophetic narratives and notices derived from official annals have been placed in a framework by the com piler who was greatly influenced by Deuteronomy, especially with reference to worship at the high places or local sanctuaries.
The Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the 0.T. (see TARGUM), date from the time when Hebrew had be come superseded by Aramaic as the language spoken by the Jews, i.e., during the period immediately preceding the Christian era. In their written form, however, the earlier Targums, viz., those on the Pentateuch and the prophetical books, cannot be earlier than the 4th or 5th century A.D. Since they were designed to meet the needs of the people and had a directly edificatory aim, they are naturally characterized by expansion and paraphrase, and thus afford invaluable illustrations of the methods of Jewish interpretation and of the development of Jewish thought. The text which they exhibit is virtually identical with the Massoretic text.
The earliest among the versions as well as the most important for the textual criticism of the 0.T. is the Septuagint (q.v.). This version probably arose out of the needs of the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria in the 3rd century B.C. The name Septuagint, strictly speaking, only applies to the translation of the Pentateuch, but it was afterwards extended to include the other books of the 0.T. as they were translated. That the interval which elapsed before the Prophets and the Hagiographa were also translated was no great one is shown by the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, which speaks of "the Law, the Prophets and the rest of the books," as already current in a translation by 132 B.c. The date at which the various books were combined into a single work is not known, but the existence of the Septuagint as a whole may be assumed for the st century A.D., at which period the Greek version was universally accepted by the Jews of the Dis persion as Scripture, and from them passed on to the Christian Church.
In the 2nd century A.D. three new translations of the 0.T. into Greek were made by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. Aquila was a Jewish proselyte of Pontus whose version may be assigned to the first half of the 2nd century. It is characterized by extreme literalness, and clearly reflects the peculiar system of exegesis which was then in vogue among the Jewish rabbis. Its slavish adherence to the original caused the new translation to be received with favour by the Hellenistic Jews, among whom it quickly superseded the older Septuagint. For what remains of this version, which owing to its character is of the greatest value to the textual critic, we have until recently been indebted to Origen's Hexapla (see below). Fragments, however, of two codices were discovered (1897) in the genizah at Cairo, which illustrate more fully the peculiar features of this version.
The accounts given of Theodotion are somewhat conflicting. On the whole it is probable that Irenaeus has preserved the most trustworthy account, viz., that he was a Jewish proselyte whose translation preceded that of Aquila. Theodotion's version was not an independent translation, but rather a revision of the Septuagint on the basis of the current Hebrew text. He retained, however, those passages of which there was no Hebrew equivalent, and added translations of the Hebrew where the latter was not repre sented in the Septuagint. A peculiar feature of his translation is his excessive use of transliteration, but, apart from this, his work has many points ot contact with the Septuagint, which it closely resembles in style; hence it is not surprising to find that later mss. of the Septuagint have been largely influenced by Theodo tion's translation. In the case of the book of Daniel, the trans lation of Theodotion was definitely adopted by the Church, and is accordingly found in the place of the original Septuagint in all mss. and editions. It is interesting to note in this connection that renderings which agree in the most remarkable manner with Theodotion's version of Daniel are found not only in writers of the 2nd century but also in the New Testament. The most probable explanation of this phenomenon is that these renderings are derived from an early Greek translation, differing from the Septuagint proper, but closely allied to that which Theodotion used as the basis of his revision.
Symmachus, according to Eusebius and Jerome, was an Ebionite. He is not mentioned by Irenaeus and his date is uncertain, but probably his work is to be assigned to the end of the and century. His version was commended by Jerome as giving the sense of the original, and in that respect it forms a direct contrast with that of Aquila. Indeed Dr. Swete thinks it probable that "he wrote with Aquila's version before him (and that) in his efforts to recast it he made free use both of the Septuagint and of Theo dotion." As in the case of Aquila, our knowledge of the works of Theodotion and Symmachus is practically limited to the frag ments that have been preserved through the labours of Origen. This writer (see ORIGEN) conceived the idea of collecting all the existing Greek versions of the O.T. with a view to recovering the original text of the Septuagint, partly by their aid and partly by means of the current Hebrew text. He accordingly arranged the texts to be compared in six parallel columns in the following order: (I) the Hebrew text; (2) the Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters; (3) Aquila ; (4) Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; and (6) Theodotion. In the Septuagint column he drew attention to those passages for which there was no Hebrew equivalent by pre fixing an obelus ; but where the Septuagint had nothing correspond ing to the Hebrew text he supplied the omission, chiefly but not entirely from the translation of Theodotion, placing an asterisk at the beginning of the interpolation ; the close of the passage to which the obelus or the asterisk was prefixed was denoted by the metobelus. That Origen did not succeed in his object of recover ing the original Septuagint is due to the fact that he started with the false conception that the original text of the Septuagint must be that which coincided most nearly with the current Hebrew text. Indeed, the result of his monumental labours has been to impede rather than to promote the restoration of the genuine Septuagint. For the Hexaplar text which he thus produced not only effaced many of the most characteristic features of the old version, but also exercised a prejudicial influence on the mss. of that version.
The Hexapla as a whole was far too large to be copied, but the revised Septuagint text was published separately by Eusebius and Pamphilus, and was extensively used in Palestine during the 4th century. During the same period two other recensions made their appearance, that of Hesychius which was current in Egypt, and that of Lucian which became the accepted text of the Antiochene Church. Of Hesychius little is known. Traces of his revision are to be found in the Egyptian mss., especially the Codex Marchali anus, and in the quotations of Cyril of Alexandria. Lucian was a priest of Antioch who was martyred at Nicomedia in A.D. 311 or 312. His revision (to quote Dr. Swete) "was doubtless an attempt to revise the Kocv7'7 (or `common text' of the Septuagint) in ac cordance with the principles of criticism which were accepted at Antioch." To Ceriani is due the discovery that the text preserved by codices 19, 82, 93, 108, really represents Lucian's recension; the same conclusion was reached independently by Lagarde, who combined codex 118 with the four mentioned above. As Field (Hexapla, p. 87) has shown, this discovery is confirmed by the marginal readings of the Syro-Hexapla. The recension is char acterized by the substitution of synonyms for the words originally used by the Septuagint, and by the frequent occurrence of double renderings, but its chief claim to critical importance rests on the fact that "it embodies renderings not found in other mss. of the Septuagint which presuppose a Hebrew original self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing Massoretic text." (Driver.) Latin Versions.—Of even greater importance in this respect is the Old Latin version, which undoubtedly represents a Greek original prior to the Hexapla. "The earliest form of the version" (to quote Dr. Kennedy) "to which we can assign a definite date, viz., that used by Cyprian, plainly circulated in Africa." In the view of many authorities this version was first produced at Car thage, but recent writers are inclined to regard Antioch as its birthplace, a view which is supported by the remarkable agree ment of its readings with the Lucianic recension and with the early Syriac mss. Unfortunately the version is only extant in a fragmentary form, being preserved partly in mss., partly in quotations of the Fathers. The non-canonical books of the Vul gate, however, which do not appear to have been revised by Jerome, still represent the older version. It was not until after the 6th century that the Old Latin was finally superseded by the Vulgate or Latin translation of the O.T. made by Jerome during the last quarter of the 4th century. This new version was trans lated from the Hebrew, but Jerome also made use of the Greek versions, more especially of Symmachus. His original intention was to revise the Old Latin, and his two revisions of the Psalter, the Roman and the Gallican, the latter modelled on the Hexapla, still survive. Of the other books, which he revised according to the Hexaplar text, that of Job has alone come down to us. For textual purposes the Vulgate possesses but little value, since it presupposes a Hebrew original practically identical with the text stereotyped by the Massoretes.
The Syro-Hexaplar version, on the other hand, is extremely valuable for critical purposes. This Syriac translation of the Septuagint column of the Hexapla was made by Paul, bishop of Tella, at Alexandria in A.D. 616-617. Its value consists in the extreme literalness of the translation, which renders it possible to recover the Greek original with considerable certainty. It has further preserved the critical signs employed by Origen as well as many readings from the other Greek versions ; hence it forms our chief authority for reconstructing the Hexapla. The greater part of this work is still extant ; the poetical and prophetical books have been preserved in the Codex Ambrosianus at Milan (published in photo-lithography by Ceriani, Mon. Sacr. et Prof.), and the remaining portions of the other books have been collected by Lagarde in his Bibliothecae Syriacae, etc.
Of the remaining versions of the O.T. the most important are the Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic and Armenian, all of which, except a part of the Arabic, appear to have been made through the medium of the Septuagint.
The aim of scientific Old Testament scholarship is to obtain a full appreciation of the Old Testament literature, of the life out of which it grew, and the secret of the influence which these have exerted and still exert. For this many things are needed, among which criticism is prominent. Of criticism there are several branches. First, the errors which have crept into the text must be detected and the text be restored as far as possible to its original form ; this is the task of Textual or Lower Criticism. Exegesis must interpret the text thus recovered so as to bring out the mean ing intended by the authors. The attempt must then be made to determine the scope, purpose and character of the various books, the times in and conditions under which they were written, whether they are severally the work of one or of more authors, at what date they reached their present form, whether they em body earlier sources, and, if so, to reconstruct these and assign dates to them. This is the province of Higher Criticism, so called to distinguish it from Lower Criticism. A further task is to esti mate the value of this literature as evidence for the history of Israel; to determine, as far as possible, whether such parts of the literature as are contemporary with the time described present correct, or whether in any respect one-sided or biased or otherwise incorrect descriptions ; and again, how far the literature that re lates the story of long past periods has drawn upon trustworthy records, and how far it is possible to extract historical truth from traditions (such as those of the Pentateuch) that present, owing to the gradual accretions and modifications of intervening genera tions, a composite picture of the period described, or from a work such as Chronicles, which is written on the assumption that the in stitutions and ideas of the present must have been established and current in the past. This is sometimes assigned to the province of Higher Criticism, but it is desirable to limit this term to the problems of authorship, date and literary analysis and to use the term "Historical Criticism" to cover the questions as to the his torical value of the sources themselves and the historicity or otherwise of the narratives they tell. It must use all available and well-sifted evidence, whether derived from the Old Testament or elsewhere, to reconstruct the history of Israel. The supreme aim of the Old Testament student is to trace the growth and determine the character of the religion of Israel. Since revelation is a process in history, the history must be known that the revelation may be understood. For this all types of criticism are necessary ; the lower that the text may as far as possible be exactly determined; the higher that the documentary sources may be ascertained and placed in their chronological order; the historical that the trust worthiness of the documents and the historicity of the stories they relate may be ascertained. In this section we are concerned with the textual or lower criticism. This, like all other branches of criticism, is very largely of modern growth.
At the basis of all sound study of the literature is the construc tion of a text as accurate as criticism can make it ; and for a long time this first essential was lacking. Jewish study was exclusively based on the official Hebrew text, fixed probably in the and cen tury A.D. and thereafter scrupulously preserved. But it is obvious that this text already contained certain corruptions. This is clear from various considerations. Certain passages cannot be trans lated without violence as they stand. Passages occur more than once with variations, sometimes perhaps deliberate, but in other cases only to be reasonably accounted for on the theory that one of the variations is due to corruption. The translations of the Old Testament, notably the Septuagint, frequently present a dif ferent and in many instances undeniably a superior text. The official Hebrew text had probably suffered more corruption than can now, or perhaps ever will be, detected with certainty. While Jewish scholars who worked on the Hebrew text were placed at a disadvantage by its corruptions, Jewish Alexandrian and Christian scholars were more seriously hampered because they were depend ent upon translations, especially the Septuagint. Although this earliest of the Greek versions was rendered from an earlier and purer form of the Hebrew text than that now preserved, those who were restricted to it were in a much worse position than those who could read Hebrew, partly because it was a translation, and partly because the translation was so defective. In his Hexapla, Origen placed in parallel columns the Hebrew, the Septuagint and certain later Greek versions, and thus brought together the chief existing evidence to the text. This, unhappily, is preserved only in fragments. Latin-speaking scholars were dependent on a Latin translation of the Greek translation, and thus studied the Old Testament at a double remove from the original. Jerome made a fresh Latin translation direct from the received Hebrew text. Though greatly opposed at first, this version (the Vulgate) subse quently became the basis of western Biblical scholarship. Thus the uncritical text of the original and the common use, not of the original, but of a version, reacted unfavourably on critical study. And this was aggravated by unsound methods of interpretation, legal or dogmatic or allegorical.
Critical method was not invented by biblical scholars and it was not applied to the Bible in order to discredit it. Biblical scholars adopted it from the students of other ancient literatures; the textual criticism of the classical literatures prepared the way for the textual criticism of the Old Testament ; Bentley's Phalaris (1699) preceded any thorough or systematic application of higher criticism to any part of the Old Testament ; Niebuhr's History of Rome (I81 I) preceded Ewald's History of Israel (1853-1859).
The fundamental principles of the textual criticism of the Old Testament are the same as those which apply to any other ancient text, and need not be described here (see TEXTUAL CRITICISM). But there are conditions peculiar to the text of the Old Testament which must be briefly described. The earliest Hebrew mss. of the Old Testament are not earlier than the 9th century A.D., or nearly I,000 years after the latest parts of the Old Testament were writ ten. These mss. and the ordinary Hebrew Bibles contain the text of the Old Testament itself, consisting only of consonants accom panied by vowels and accents which constitute a later Jewish inter pretation. The Hebrew alphabet, like that of the Moabites, Aramaeans and Phoenicians, contained no vowels. Vowel signs and accents were invented by Jewish scholars between the 5th and 9th centuries A.D. After a prolonged and bitter conflict it was recognized by the end of the 17th century, thanks especially to the French Protestant scholar, Louis Capell, and the English Prot estant scholar, Brian Walton, that the vowels were a later addition to the text. Yet the influence of tradition lingered long after it had been proved to be false. Thus the R.V. is intended to translate the vocalized text ; and legitimate translations of the consonantal text are frequently, though unjustifiably, described as emendations if they depart from the Jewish interpretation as expressed in the vowels. Even before the vowel signs were invented certain conso nants which had come to be employed for vowel sounds had been inserted into the original text. The biblical authors themselves had occasionally employed them, but in most cases they were inserted by transcribers and editors. There was probably in most cases no clear division of the consonants into words. The first requisite for a critical treatment is, accordingly, to consider the consonants by themselves, to treat every vowel-consonant as possibly not original, and the existing divisions of the text into words as original only in those cases where they yield a sense better than any other possible division (or, at least, as good). This involves much ambiguity and demands increased skill, but anything short of it falls short also of strict critical method. The perception of this is even now none too general.
The text, like all ancient texts, has suffered from accidents of transmission, from the mistakes of copyists. This was demon strated, in spite of opposition, by Capellus. To cure corruptions and establish a critical text many things were needed : a complete collation of existing mss. of the Jewish text and of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, the establishment of a critical text of the Septuagint, a careful study of several versions directed to deter mining when real variants are implied and what they are. Not a little has been accomplished but much remains to be done. The Hebrew mss. were collated by Kennicott and De Rossi at the close of the i 8th century with sufficient thoroughness to justify the important conclusion that all existing mss. reproduce a single recension. The Samaritan mss. are still imperfectly collated ; the same is true of the Syriac and other versions except the Septua gint. For the Septuagint much has been done. Holmes and Par sons prepared an edition with a magnificent critical apparatus (1798-1827) ; a rather smaller but more careful collation by Cambridge scholars is in process of publication. Neither edition constructs a critical text. Lagarde's contributions to right critical method have been conspicuous. While the value of the Septuagint has been recognized, it has been uncritically used and the correct ness of its Hebrew original, while perhaps generally underesti mated, has also been exaggerated.
What, then, is the position when we have used all our available resources? So far as we can detect the Hebrew text which under lies the Septuagint, we can recover a Hebrew text of the Penta teuch current about 28o B.c. and for most of the rest of the Old Testament current about i oo B.C. The text we can recover, from comparison with the Hebrew mss., differed but slightly from that officially established before the end of the and century A.D. Com paring these two lines of evidence, we can reach a text current about 30o B.C. or later, but not errors which had already affected the common source of both. Accordingly, errors lurk even where no variants now exist, which can be corrected, if at all, only by conjectural emendation. The dangers of this method are well known and many such emendations have been ill advised ; but fre quently the textual critic who is at once competent and honest must either offer such emendations or indicate that such passages are corrupt and the means of restoring them lacking. Conjectural emendation was practised on a modest scale by earlier critics but far more extensively by critics from the closing decades of the i9th century onwards. Frequently this has been in the interests of restoring the metre where the critic has rightly or wrongly detected the presence of a particular rhythm. Wellhausen and Cornill, Bickell and Duhm, Cheyne and Driver may be specially mentioned for their contributions to textual criticism. A valuable conspectus of results may be seen in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Hebrew edition of P. Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testa ment presents a critical text of the books included in it with critical notes.
Down to the time of the Reformation doubt was scarcely raised, either among Jews or Christians, as to the traditional beliefs about the date and authorship of Old Testament books. Porphyry, the Neoplatonist philosopher, discerned that Daniel was not written in the Babylonian captivity but in the time of Antiochus Epi phanes four centuries later. The great Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra in a cryptic note on Deut. collects several indications which point, as he seems to perceive, to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. He also appears to question the authorship of Isa. xl.–lxvi. The ref ormers were concerned with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition in the interpretation and use of scripture, but not specially so in literary and historical criticism. Yet Luther exercised considerable freedom, especially as to the extent of the Canon, but also as to several questions of higher criticism. Thus for Luther it is a matter of indifference whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch; Chronicles he definitely pronounces less credible than Kings, and he considers that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea probably owe their present form to later hands. Carlstadt definitely denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, for Moses could not have related his own death; yet Deut. xxxiv. cannot be separated from the rest of the Pentateuch. The later scholastic Protestant doctrine of verbal infallibility necessarily encouraged critical reaction and proved a widely extended re tarding force down into the i9th century. Nevertheless, criticism advanced by slow degrees among individuals, now in the Roman Church, now in the number of those who sat loosely to the re strictions of either Roman or Protestant authority, and now among Protestant scholars and theologians.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651) expressed a number of views on the Old Testament suggested to him by a critical study of it. The Pentateuch was written later than the time of Moses, but incorporated all that Moses is said to have written— f or example, the law contained in Deut. xi.–xxvii., which is to be identified with the lost law discovered by Hilkiah and sent to Josiah. The historical books are considerably later than the his tory which they relate. The Psalter and Proverbs are in their present form late, though Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are the work of Solomon. The whole Scripture assumed its present form after the return from Exile and before the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He insisted that, in default of external evidence, the critical problems must be solved by evidence drawn from the books themselves. Spinoza in his Tractatus Theologico politicus (1671) drew attention in particular to the confused mixture of law and narrative in the Pentateuch, the occurrence of duplicate narratives and chronological incongruities. Father Simon in his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1682) also argues that the Pentateuch is the work of more than one author, and makes an important advance towards a systematic analysis by observing that the style varies, being sometimes very curt and sometimes very copious, "although the variety of the matter does not require it." The first attempt at a continuous analysis was made by a French Roman Catholic physician, Jean Astruc. In a work pub lished anonymously in 1753 under the title Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese, he argued that in Genesis and Exod. i. 2 Moses had used different documents, and that of these the two chief were distinguished by their use of different Divine names—Elohim and Yahweh; by the use of this clue he gave a detailed analysis of the passages belonging to several documents. His criteria were too slight to give to all the details of his analysis anything approaching finality; but his criteria, so far as they went, were valid, and his results, broadly speaking, sound though incom plete. In particular they have abundantly justified his really im portant fundamental theory that the documents used by the com piler have been incorporated so much as they lay before him that we can get behind them to the earlier sources and thus carry back the evidence beyond the date of compilation to the earlier date of the sources. In identifying the compiler with Moses he failed to profit from some of his predecessors; and his adhesion to the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch presumably blinded him to the similar phenomena which justify an analysis of the remaining books.
The same year saw the publication of Lowth's De Sacra poesi Hebraeorum; he issued a translation of Isaiah with notes in 1778. Both were translated into German and exerted considerable in fluence in Germany. Lowth's contribution to a more critical appreciation of the Old Testament lies in his perception of the nature and significance of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, in his discernment of the extent to which the prophetical books are poetical form, and in his treatment of the Old Testament as the expression of the thought and emotions of a people—in a word as literature.
In spite of these earlier achievements it is J. G. Eichhorn who has, not without reason, been termed the founder of modern Old Testament criticism. The publication of his Einleitung (Introduc tion to the Old Testament) in 178o-83, is a landmark in the his tory of Old Testament criticism. A friend of Herder, and himself keenly interested in literature, he treats the Old Testament as literature—like Lowth, but more thoroughly; himself an Oriental scholar, he treats it as an Oriental literature. His work is the first comprehensive treatment of the entire Old Testament in this manner. While much of the voluminous detail is provisional, most of the broad conclusions of literary criticism which emerge have passed after more than a century of keen and sometimes hos tile examination, into the number of historical certainties or high probabilities. On linguistic grounds he argues that Ecclesiastes is as late as the Persian period 538-332 B.C. and that the Song of Solomon does not belong to the Solomonic age. He argues that "in our Isaiah are many oracles not the work of this prophet." Parts of Daniel belong to the exile, other parts are later. Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, but Genesis is analysed on lines similar to Astruc's analysis. He distinguishes the priests' code of the middle books of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomy the people's law book; and admits that even the books which follow Genesis consist of different documents, many incomplete and fragmentary (hence the title "Fragment-hypothesis"), but all the work of Moses and some of his contemporaries.
In his incomplete critically annotated translation of the Old Testament A. Geddes (1792-1800), a Scottish Romanist priest, argued that the Pentateuch rests on a variety of sources, partly written, partly oral, but was compiled in Canaan probably in the reign of Solomon. He rejected the clue from the variation in the divine names used by Astruc and Eichhorn. K. D. Ilgen in 1798 anticipated later criticism by pointing out that in Genesis two documents employed the divine name Elohim and consequently criticism had to reckon with three main sources. The fragment hypothesis was elaborated by J. S. Vater (18o2–o5). A new stage opens with De Wette's early and exceedingly influential work, Die Beitriige zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1806-07). He carried criticism beyond literary analysis and appreciation to the determination of the worth to be attached to the documents as records. He gave a detailed proof of the untrustworthiness of Chronicles and thus cleared the way for that truer view of the history and religion of Israel which the treatment of Chronicles as trustworthy hopelessly obscured. His most influential and en during contributions to Pentateuchal criticism were his proof that Deuteronomy belongs to the 7th century B.C. and his insistence that the theory of the Mosaic origin of all the institutions described in the Pentateuch is incompatible with the history recorded in Judges, Samuel and Kings.
Strong in historical criticism, De Wette was weak in historical construction. But what he failed to give, Ewald supplied; and if more of De Wette's than Ewald's work still stands to-day, this is but an illustration of the melancholy fact that in history nega tive criticism is surer than positive construction. Ewald's History of the People of Israel was the first attempt on the grand scale to synthesize the results of criticism and present Israel's history as a great reality of the past. By the force of his wide learning, and even more of his personality, he long exercised an all-pervading and almost irresistible influence ; and Stanley's Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church (1863-76) is among the fruits. He closes one epoch of Old Testament criticism: by his influence he retards the development of the next.
The criticism of the Pentateuch is concerned first with the discovery of the documentary sources and their delimitation, secondly with their arrangement in chronological order and their dates. It must be remembered that it was not till 1853 that Hupfeld in his Sources of Genesis demonstrated, what Ilgen had half a century earlier affirmed, that two documents used Elohim as a proper name. The modern documentary analysis was thus established which recognized four documents : the Yahwist (J), the two Elohistic documents (P and E) and Deuteronomy (D). It was generally held that P was the earliest and D was the latest. But the Grafian theory put forward in 1865 by K. H. Graf, though at the outset with an indefensible partition of P into early narrative and late legal material, assumed under Kuenen's influence its true form and affirmed that P as a whole was later than Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. In this, however, Graf had been largely anticipated by his teacher E. Reuss in his lecture room , and by two Hegelian scholars, Vatke and George. In its final form it asserted that the order of the documents was JE, D, P, the legislation in Ezek. xl.—xlviii. forming the transi tion from D to P. Vatke had the merit of first bringing out the essential character of the movement. Its fundamental peculiarity lies in the fact that it is a criticism of what is supreme in Israel —its religion—and that it has rendered possible a true appre ciation of this by showing that, like all living and life-giving systems of thought, belief and practice, the religion of Israel was subject to development. It seized on the prophetic element, and not the ceremonial, as containing what is essential and unique in the religion of Israel.
It was in the field of religious institutions, however, that the demonstration of the Grafian arrangement of the documents was most decisively given. The older view that P, with its exact de tails and developed ceremonial and sacerdotal system, was at once the earliest portion of the Pentateuch and the Grundschrift or foundation of the whole was maintained by Ewald and his school. The delay in the triumph of the Grafian criticism was due partly to the hostility of Ewald and his school, but in large part to the development of his theory by Vatke on a priori grounds in accordance with the principles of Hegel's philosophy of history. It was only after a fresh and keener observation of facts that the new theory made rapid progress. Graf was a pupil of Reuss. The master's divination that the true order was not Law, Psalms, Prophets, but Prophets, Law, Psalms, was reasoned out by his pupil. The famous Dutch scholar Kuenen accepted Graf's demon stration in a revised form, made it the basis of his masterly Re ligion of Israel (1869-7o) and supported it by a long series of brilliant essays in the Theologisch Tijdschri f t. Colenso, though he never entirely accepted the theory, contributed by his searching analysis of the unreality of P's narrative to the formation, or ratification, of the judgment on that document which is f unda mental to it. It was J. Wellhausen who decisively changed the current of critical opinion by his Geschichte Israels, vol. i. (1878), known in its subsequent editions as Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. It was translated into English in 1885, with a preface by W. Robertson Smith (q.v.), who, with S. R. Driver (q.v.), was among the leading exponents of the new standpoint in the Eng lish-speaking world.
The Grafian theory found adherents in Holland and Great Britain, but only hostility in Germany till, in 1875, B. Duhm in his Theologie der Propheten "broke the consensus of German critics" (Kuenen) . Wellhausen's history of Israel was, once more to quote Kuenen, "the crowning fight in the long campaign." From that time the theory became so widely accepted, though some very eminent scholars held out against it, that it remained for many years the orthodox critical view. Recently, however, from various sides the position has been attacked. Those who stand for the traditional view have argued that the distinction in the use of the divine names cannot be relied upon in the docu mentary analysis because the Hebrew text is in this respect fre quently shown to be an insecure basis, owing to the variations in the Septuagint. This has been urged not simply by defenders of tradition such as Dahse and Wiener, but also by Eerdmans, who has formulated a new critical theory. But this has not had the far-reaching results anticipated by its advocates. The dis tinction in the divine names was actually the starting point for the analysis. It is not the f oundbtion on which it rests, and it is only one clue to analysis among a number. It is in fact easier for critics to separate P from E where the divine names are identical than to separate E from J in which they are distinct. Moreover the investigation of the textual transmission of the divine names, especially by J. Skinner, The Divine Names in Genesis (1914), has resulted in the vindication of the general correctness of the Hebrew where the Greek differs from it. But some of those who accept the documentary analysis have shown a tendency to move from the Grafian position, sometimes in a more conservative, sometimes in a more radical direction. This has in both instances been connected with an attack on the generally accepted date of Deuteronomy. This has been the pivot on which the criticism of the Pentateuch has largely turned. It was the unquestioned belief of Grafians and pre-Grafians alike that the Law Book of Josiah's Reformation was to be identified with some form of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy was supposed by the pre-Grafians to represent the final stage of legislation, but by the Grafians to initiate with the centralization of the worship, a process which had its sequel in Ezekiel and culminated in the priestly code. It has recently been argued that Deuteronomy was really very much earlier than the 7th century. A. C. Welch has put forward the view that, apart from the opening section of the legislation in Deut. xii—xxvi., the detailed regulations contemplate a plurality of high places. The current view has been occasioned simply by the opening law which demands centralization. This he takes to be a late prefix against which Jeremiah protested in the words, "the false pen of the scribes bath wrought falsely" (Jer. viii. 8). On the other hand a late date of Deuteronomy has been urged by R. H. Kennett (since 1905-06), and more recently G. Holscher has argued that Deuteronomy was really written about 500 B.C. He recognizes the correctness of the view that the Book of Eze kiel is post-Deuteronomic and, since the prophet himself flour ished in the first quarter of the 6th century, he regards the larger part of the book as not written by him. It is accordingly not sur prising that the priestly legislation is relegated by Holscher to a later date than that commonly assigned to it and that the whole story of Ezra and his reformation is treated as suspicious. It is scarcely likely that a reconstruction which involves so drastic and negative a criticism will prove acceptable. But the significant thing is that Holscher adheres to the Grafian sequence of docu ments—Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, P.
On the detailed criticism of the other books reference must be made to the special articles devoted to them. But some general observations are necessary here. At a quite early date in the his tory of modern criticism it was recognized that Isaiah xl.—lxvi., and several sections in the earlier part of the book, could not be the work of Isaiah himself. Similarly Zech. ix.—xiv., it was seen, could not have been written by Zechariah, the contemporary of Haggai. Doubt was felt as to the authorship of Micah vi., vii., but till the closing decades of the 19th century the criticism of the prophets was on the whole conservative. This is excellently illus trated by the commentary on Jeremiah (1862) issued by so ad vanced a critic as Graf. In 1892 Wellhausen's Minor Prophets and Duhm's Isaiah fully initiated the more advanced criticism of the prophets. The range of non-authentic prophecies was en larged and the text more freely handled, interpolations in authen tic prophecies were recognized on a larger scale and the addition of happy endings. Duhm brought down not a little in Isa. i.–xxxv. into the Maccabaean period. Marti followed up his criticism in a more thorough-going fashion. Duhm's handling of Jeremiah and the minor prophets gave a further illustration of his general principles. In particular the belief that eschatology was a late de velopment created, as Wellhausen argued, by the literary study of the earlier prophets, resulted in the belief that nearly all the predictions of a happy future should be relegated to a period later than Ezekiel, with whom the movement had begun. The more recent development has been characterized by a reaction with which the names of Sellin in one way, Gunkel and Gress mann in another, have been associated. This has not been lim ited to the criticism of the prophets, it has affected most of the Old Testament books. It has been specially due to the feeling that the history, literature and religion of Israel must be placed far more fully in their international context. Israel was a very young people ; great civilizations and cultures had been developed, millenniums before its birth, especially in Babylonia and Egypt. To these Israel owed a great debt. The earliest legislation of the Hebrews drew on much more ancient law and custom. The stories of the Creation and the Deluge go back to myths and legends of a far older time. The eschatological scheme found in the prophets is asserted to be of foreign origin. The Hebrews them selves were in contact with various civilizations outside of Pales tine, while in Palestine itself layer after layer of foreign culture had been deposited. The general result has been to reverse the radical direction of criticism. Not that there is any widespread tendency to rehabilitate the traditional view of the Pentateuch; the Grafian theory is probably that still generally accepted. But in the case of the Psalms not only would such extravagances as Duhm's view that the bulk of the Psalter belongs to the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. be generally rejected; but there would be much greater willingness to admit a substantial pre-exilic element in the Psalter. It must, of course, be recognized that all pre-exilic prophecy has come down to us in the works of post-exilic editors, so that the problem is not what elements in the books are later than the prophets whose name they bear, but, from these post exilic collections, how are the pre-exilic elements to be extracted? The importance of a fixed standard of chronology was only grad ually felt in the history of the world. When the feeling arose, events were probably at first dated by the regnal years of kings; the reigns of successive kings were then arranged in order and grouped, if necessary, in dynasties, whereby a standard by degrees was constructed. Particular states frequently introduced fixed eras, which obtained a certain currency, as that of the Seleucidae at Antioch (312 B.e.), which the Jewish author of I. Maccabees follows. Some of the oldest documents, like the early Babylonian contract-tablets, are dated by the year in which some noticeable event occurred; examples of this method are found even in the Old Testament (e.g., in Isa. vi. I; xx. i ; Amos i. 1). During and after the exile, however, dating by the regnal year of the king became general, after the later Babylonian custom (e.g., Isa. xxxvi. I). The Babylonians and Assyrians were probably the first to employ fixed chronological standards; and numerous con tract-tablets and lists of kings and yearly officials attest their precision in noting chronological details. Biblical chronology is in many respects uncertain. Before the monarchy conditions for se curing an exact and consecutive chronology did not exist; the dates in the earlier history, though apparently often precise, were in fact added long after the events described and of ten rested upon an artificial basis, so that the precision is in reality illusory. Even after its establishment, although the required conditions existed, errors by various means crept into the figures, so that the dates as recorded frequently err by two to three decades of years. The exact dates of biblical events can be determined only when the fig ures in the Old Testament can be checked or corrected by the contemporary monuments of Assyria and Babylonia, or by the independent chronology of the Persian and Seleucid kings.
To the period from the Flood to the call of Abraham, the He brew writer allows 365 (Samaritan, 1015; Greek, 1 145) years. The ages of the patriarchs show that these figures are mythical; yet the age of each at the birth of the next might in itself be his torical (S. R. Driver, op. cit., pp. 137-138). The figures conceiv ably go back, through Berossus, to a Babylonian source ; but they possess no historical value : accepting even Ussher's date of the Exodus, 1491 B.C., which is earlier than is probable, we should thereby obtain for the creation of man 4157 (Greek, 5328) B.C. and for the confusion of tongues 2501 (Greek, 3o66) B.C. But Egyptian and Babylonian monuments prove that man ap peared upon the earth long before either date for the Creation; and numerous Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions of an age considerably earlier than either date of the confusion of tongues are preserved. The figures of Gen. v. and xi. merely indi cate the manner in which the priestly writer—and probably to some extent tradition—pictured the course of these early ages. The lives of the patriarchs (except Enoch) in Gen. v. are much longer than those of the patriarchs in Gen. xi., and similarly the ages in Gen. xi. 10-18 are higher than those in Gen. xi. 19-26; it is thus a collateral aim of the author to exemplify a supposed grad ual diminution in the length of life.
The patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan, from the call of Abraham to the Exodus, is reckoned at 215 years and the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt at 43o years. Thus from the Creation to the Exodus the total is 2,666 years. Now the 4th year of Solomon is equated with the 48oth year from the Exodus (I. Kings vi. I) ; Ussher, there fore, dating Solomon's reign 1014-975 B.C.—at least so years too soon—placed the Exodus in 1491 B.c., the call of Abraham in 2501 B.C. and the Creation in 4004 (which should rather be 4157) B.C. (S. R. Driver, op. cit., pp. xxvii.-xxviii.).
These figures raise suspicions; for the fact that 2,666 is just two-thirds of 4,000 has suggested the inference that it was reached by artificial computation. Further, the various documents com posing the early narratives are mutually inconsistent. For exam ple, the plain intention of Exod. xii. 40-41 is to describe the Israelites as having dwelt in Egypt for 43o years, which sub stantially agrees with Gen. xv. 13. It does not, however, accord with other passages, which assign only four generations from Jacob's children to Moses (Exod. vi. 16-2o; Num. xxvi. 5-9; cf. Gen. xv. 16), or five to Joshua (Josh. vii. I) ; and therefore, no doubt, the Samaritan and Greek read in Exod. xii. 4o that "the sojourning of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was 43o years," reducing the period in Egypt to half of that stated in the Hebrew text; viz., 215 years. This computation attained currency among the later Jews, e.g., Jo sephus amongst others (cf. St. Paul's "400 years" in Gal. 17) ; and the unnatural rendering of Exod. xii. 4o in the A.V. (as con trasted with R.V.), which Ussher followed, was intended to make it possible. The facts here briefly noted make it clear how pre carious and in parts impossible the chronology of this period is.
Can any of these dates be fixed by external evidence? Several attempts, based on Gen. xiv. have been made to date Abraham. Thus Amraphel, "king of Shinar," has been identified with Kham murabi, 6th king (c. 2o67-2o25 B.c.) of the st Babylonian dy nasty, although the equation of Shinar with Babylonia is doubtful (ibid., p. 445), and Tidal, "king of Goiim," has been identified with several Hittite kings, preferably with Tudkhalia I. (c. Isso B.c.?), who founded the Hittite empire (ibid., pp. 448-450). All that can be said is that the second is perhaps more probable than the first suggestion, if one is held to exclude the other; for to accept both identifications requires the assumption that 400 years of his tory have been "telescoped" into one generation. It is best to admit the truth, that our knowledge is still too uncertain to settle the question. The date of the Exodus is almost equally doubtful; for example, it has been associated with the Hyksos dynasty (c. 1800-1600 B.c.) with Amenhotep III. and IV. (c. 1411-136o B.c.) with Rameses II. and Merneptah (c. 1292-1198 B.c.) and even with the 2oth dynasty (c. 12o5-1 ioo B.c.). In spite of the short ening of the period between it and the founding of the kingdom, the age of Merneptah seems best to satisfy the conditions (S. R. Driver, Exodus , pp. viii. and xxx.-xlii., see ExoDus) II. The period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Tem ple in the 4th year of Solomon is reckoned at 48o (Greek, 44o) years (I. Kings vi. I) ; but, if the number of years given for the various events by the Hebrew writers is added, the total is 534, or with the addition of the uncertain 20 years of Samuel's judge ship (I. Sam. vii. 2 and 15) 554 years; to this must be added the unknown number of years under Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7) and Saul (I. Sam. xiii. I).
This period might be reduced to 48o years by the supposition, in itself not improbable, that some of the judges were local and contemporaneous; it has also been suggested that, after the Ori ental fashion, the years of foreign domination were omitted, each judge's rule being reckoned not from the victory which brought him into power but from the death of his predecessor ; we should thus obtain for this period 440+x-Py years—viz., 4o in the wilder ness; x for Joshua and the elders; 4o for Othniel; 8o for Ehud; 4o each for Barak and Gideon; 76 for Jephthah and the 5 minor judges; 40 for Eli; 2o(?) for Samuel; y for Saul; 4o for David, and 4 of Solomon's reign—which, if 3o years be assigned conjec turally to Joshua and the elders and io years to Saul, would amount to 48o years. The terms used, however—viz., "the land had rest forty years" in Judges iii. II; and similarly in iii. 3o; v. 61, and viii. 28—hardly admit of the latter supposition; and, if they did, the correctness of the 48o years could scarcely be main tained. It is difficult to harmonize with the most probable date of the Exodus; it is, moreover, open to the suspicion of having been formed artificially, upon the assumption that the period in ques tion consisted of 12 generations of 4o years each. In the years assigned to the judges, also, the frequency of the number 4o (which was seemingly regarded as a round number) is suspicious. On the whole no certain chronology of this period is yet attain able (cf. Burney, Judges, pp. III. From the foundation of the Temple to the captivity of Iii. From the foundation of the Temple to the captivity of Judah the dates are more abundant and more nearly correct than in any earlier period; nevertheless in details there is much un certainty and difficulty. The Books of Kings were compiled about the beginning of the exile, and one object of the compiler was to give a consecutive and complete chronology of the period em braced by it. He therefore both noted carefully the length of each king's reign in both kingdoms, and (as long as the northern kingdom existed) correlated the history of the two by equating the commencement of each reign in the one with the year of the reign of the contemporary king in the other kingdom.
In these notices the lengths of the reigns were derived, it may be supposed, either from tradition or from official annals— the "book of the chronicles of Israel" or "Judah"; but the "syn chronisms"—i.e., the corresponding dates in the contemporary reigns in the other kingdom—were derived, it is practically cer tain, by computation from the lengths of the successive reigns. In some cases, perhaps, in the lengths of the reigns themselves, in other cases in the computations based upon them, errors which have vitiated more or less the entire chronology have crept in. The existence of these errors can be doubly demonstrated: (i.) the chronology of the two kingdoms is not consistent with itself ; (ii.) the dates of various events as calculated by Ussher seriously dis agree with the dates as fixed by contemporary Assyrian monu ments which mention them.
(I) After the schism the first year of Jeroboam in Israel must coincide with the first year of Rehoboam in Judah; and after the death of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah in battle with Jehu the first year of Jehu in Israel must coincide with the first year of Athaliah in Judah: there are thus two fixed synchro nisms. Now the regnal years of the kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Jehoram, when added together, amount to 98, while those of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Ahaziah, when added to gether, amount only to 95. This discrepancy alone would not be serious. But, when the regnal years in the two kingdoms from the division after Solomon's death to the fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah are added, the total in the southern kingdom is 26o years, and in the northern kingdom only 241 years 7 months. This is a formidable discrepancy. Again, the length of the reigns of the various kings is not the same according to the traditional and the synchronistic figures. Since, however, it is clear on va rious grounds that these synchronisms are not original, any at tempt to base a chronological scheme on them may be disregarded.
(2) The Assyrian method of chronological computation was particularly exact. A special officer was annually appointed who held office for and gave his name to the year; and lists of these eponymous officers have been discovered, running from 91i to 659 B.c. The accuracy of these "eponym canons" can frequently be checked by the royal annals. Thus throughout this period As syrian chronology is certain; and the dates so established can be reduced to those of the modern calendar by calculations based on the record of an eclipse of the sun on June 15, 763 B.C. (G. Smith, The Assyrian Eponym Canon, pp- 29-41 and 82-83). By these means certain events in Hebrew history to which the As syrian annals allude can be fixed. Such contacts are established in the reigns of Ahab (Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testa ment, pp. 294-297), Jehu (ibid., pP. 303-304), Menahem (ibid., pp. 313-316), Ahaz (ibid., p. 322), Pekah and Hoshea (ibid., pp. 320-321), HeZeklah (ibid., pp. and Manasseh (ibid., pp.355-357; cf . Schrader, Keilinschrif tliche Bibliothek, vol. ii., pp. 160-161 and 238-241). There are similar references to the cap tures of Damascus (Rogers, op. cit., pp. Samaria (ibid., pp. 326 and 331-332), and Ashdod (ibid., pp. 328-331). The Babylonian chronology, though resting on a different principle, is equally accurate. Events in Babylonia were reckoned by the reg nal years of each king; these can be dated with certainty from Nabonassar B.c.) onwards by comparing the lists of kings with the "Canon of Ptolemy," which also records certain astronomical observations (Pinches, in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. ii., pp. Approximate dates are also furnished by allusions to contempo rary kings named in the Old Testament, viz., to Esarhaddon (68o 669 B.c.) and possibly Ashurbanipal, under the guise of "Osnap par" (668-626 B.c.), of Assyria and to Evil-Merodach (561-56o B.c.) of Babylonia.
The Egyptians had no fixed chronology; yet certain dates can be calculated backwards from the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 B.C. as far as 664 or 663 B.C. ; thereby rough synchronisms can be established for Josiah, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim as contem porary with Necho II. (c. 6o9-593 B.c.) and for Jeremiah and the Jews in Egypt in the time of Hophra (c. 588-566 B.c.) .
The following table gives the kings of Judah and Israel, the traditional length of each reign (followed by the synchronistic length in parentheses, when it differs), and those external events which can be accurately dated.
annals separate these events by more than 20 years. If, therefore, his first year is put in 728 B.C., the length of Ahaz's reign must be reduced ; if it is placed in 715 B.c. the reigns of the following kings must be shortened. These are the most important, but not all, the discrepancies in the chronology of the kings, especially in the 8th century B.c., but they prove that, unless Assyrian or Babylonian records touch those of Israel and Judah, no certainty is possible; nor, in spite of the ingenuity expended on the problem, have scholars reached any agreement. The presence of errors in the Biblical figures is patent, but it is not equally clear where the errors lie nor how the available years ought to be redistributed. Working backwards, however, from the few fixed points available, we may safely put the rise of the monarchy under Saul about 1025 B.C., the division of the kingdom about 93 7 or 933 B.c., and the beginning of the reigns of Omri and Ahab about 887 and 876 B.c. respectively. So unsatisfactory, however, is the evidence and so diverse the results obtained by scholars, that the remaining dates are left to be approximately calculated from the information already given.
Several points require notice, beyond the inconsistencies, already noticed, in the Hebrew calculations. (1 ) Tradition gives in Judah 123 years from the accession of Athaliah to that of Ahaz, and in Israel 31 years from the death of Menahem to the fall of Samaria; yet the Assyrian annals allow to the first period only about 1 io years and to the second period not more than 16 years at the most. (2) The same records permit at the outside 3, not 20, years to Pekah. (3) If Samaria fell in the 4th year of Hezekiah, Judah cannot have been invaded in his 14th year, since the Assyrian In S38 B.C. Palestine became, and for two centuries re mained, a Persian province under Cyrus, who had overthrown the Babylonian empire. The chronology of the Persian era offers no difficulty, and the principal events in Jewish history are given in the following list : B.C. Events in Jewish History Edict of Cyrus II. (S46-529 B.c.) permitting Jews to return to Palestine; return of many with Zerubbabel.
516-515 Completion of second Temple in sixth year of Darius I. (522-485 B.c.).
B.C. Events in Jewish 458 Return of exiles with Ezra in seventh year of Artaxerxes I. B.C.).
445 Nehemiah's first visit to Jerusalem.
Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem.
c. 35o Deportation of many Jews to Hyrcania and Babylonia, probably for revolt against Persians.
V. The Persian empire fell before Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. ; thenceforth the chronology securely depends at first on the Persian and afterwards on the Seleucid era. Among the principal events from the submission of the Jews to Alexander until the cap ture of Jerusalem by Pompey mention may be made of the follow ing: 332 Submission of Jews to Alexander the Great.
32o Palestine conquered by Ptolemy I. Lagus, king of Egypt (322-285 B.c.).
198 Palestine wrested from Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, king of Egypt (205-182 B.c.), by Antiochus the Great, king of Syria (223-187 B.c.).
i68 Attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (175-164 B.C.), to suppress Jewish religion; suspension of public worship in Temple for three years.
167 Rise of Maccabees.
166-i65 Victories of Judas Maccabaeus over generals of Antiochus.
165 Re-dedication of Temple.
16o Death of Judas Maccabaeus.
160-142 Jonathan, younger brother of Judas. 142-135 Simon, elder brother of Judas. 135-105 John Hyrcanus, son of Simon. 105-104 Aristobulus I., son of Hyrcanus.
104-78 Alexander Jannaeus, brother of Aristobulus I.
78-69 Salome (Alexandra), widow of Alexander Jannaeus.
69 Aristobulus II., son of Alexandra.
63 Capture of Jerusalem by Pompey and incorporation of Palestine in Roman province of Syria.
In these last two periods, although there are events in Biblical history which are not fully or unambiguously dated, there is other wise no difficulty through the help of the "Ptolemaic Canon" and the fullness of the records of the surrounding nations.