INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. BY S. R. DRIVER, D.D. 8110lU8 PBOJ'EE!l80B 01' REBRBW, AND CA.NON OF CHBIST CRUBeD, OX1I'O_D: BON. D.LITT. CAMBBIDGII AND DUBLIN, BON. D.D. GLASGOW AND ABERDEJII1I; I'lDLLOW 01' Tum BBlTI8H ACADEMY: COBBJ!l8POllfDING IIJlJlBlDB OI'TJ[B BO'l'.A.L PBUS8lAN'ACADJIIMY air BCIJIIKCJII& NEW EDITION, ~1918. NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1920 PREFACE TO THE REVISED" EDITION. -Q-- IN the present edition the Bibliography, and, where necessary, the references, have been brought up to date; the paragraph on Is. 221-1i, in view of recent exegesis, has been rewritten, and occasionally also a slight improvement has been introduced elsewhere; while some other matter (including a note on the value of the Divine names as a criterion of authorship in the Pentateuch), for which space could not be found in the body of the volume, has been collected in the new Addenda (p. xxv II.). S. R. DRIVER. September, 1913. PREFACE. • Tn aim of the present volume is to furnish an account, at once descriptive and historical, of the Literature of the Old 'testament. It is DOt, I ought perhaps to explain. an Introduction to the .T luolol,1. or to the History, or even to the Slutly, of the Old Testament: in any of these cases. the treatment and contents would both have been very different. It is an Introduction to the Litenztu,. of the Old Testament;. and what I conceived this to include was an account of the contents and structure of the several books, together with such an indication of their general character and aim as I could find room for in the space at my disposal * [xiii] The treatment of the material has been deter mined by the character of the different books. The contents of the prophetical and poetical books, for instance, which are less generally known than the history. properly so called, have been stated more fully than those of the historical books:, the legislative parts of the Pentateuch have also been described with tolerable fulnen. A aJ"'pa,ati'lJe study of the writings of the Old 'l'estament is indispensable, if their relation to one another ill to be rigbtly apprehended: accordingly the literary and other characteristics which connect, or distinguish, as the case may be, particular groups of writings have been indicated with some care. Distinctive types of style prevail in different parts of the Old Testament; and as these-apart from the interest independently . attaching to them-have frequently a bearing upon questions of date or authorship, or throw light upon the influences under • The Theology of the Old Testament forma the subject of • separate woIume ill the present aeries, which has been entrusted to the competent IIaads of Professor A. B. Da'ridSOllt of the New College, Edinburgh. PREFACE which particular books (or parts of books) were composed, I have been at pains to illustrate them as fully as space permitted. Especial care has been bestowed upon the lists of expressions chatacteristic of different writers. It was impossible to avoid altogether the introduction of Hebrew words; nor indeed, as the needs of Hebrew students could not with fairness be entirely neglected, was it even desirable to do so j but an endeavour has been made, by translation, to make the manner in which they are used intelligible to the English reader. Completeness has not been attainable. Sometimes, indeed, the grounds for a conclusion have been stated with approximate completeness j but generally it has been found impossible to mention more than the more salient or important ones. This is especially the case in the analysis of the Hexateuch. A full statement and discussion of the grounds for this belongs to a Commentary. Very often, however, it is believed, when the relation of different passages to each other has been pointed out briefly, a comparative study by the reader will suggest to him additional grounds for the conclusion indicated. A word should also be said on the method followed. A strict inductive method would have required a given conclusion to be preceded by an [xiv] enumeration of all the facts upon which it depends. This would have been impossible within the limits at the writer's disposal, as well as tedious. The method pursued has thus often been to assume (on grounds not fully stated. but which have satisfied the author) the conclusion to be established. and to point to particular salient facts, which exemplify it or presuppose its truth. The argument in the majority of cases is cumulalive-a species of argument which .. often both the strongest and also the most difficult to exhaUst within reasonable compass. In the critical study of the Old Testament. there i. an im· portant distinction. which should be kept in mind. It is that of degrees ofp rolJalJilily. The probability of a conclusion depends upon the nature of the grounds on which it rests; and some conclusion. reached by critics of the Old Testament are for this reason more probable than others: the facts at our disposal being in the former case more numerous and decisive than in the latter. It is necessary to call attention to this difference, because writers who seek to maintain the traditional view of the Itructure of the Old Testament sometimes point to conclusions PREFACE which, from the nature of the case, are uncertain, or are pro pounded avowedly as provisional, with the view of discrediting all, as though they rested upon a similar foundation. But this is very far from being the case. It has been no part of my object to represent conclusions as more certain than is authorized by the facts upon which they depend; and I have striven (as I hope successfully) to convey to the reader the differences in this respect of which I am sensible myself. Where the premises satisfy me, I have expretsed myself without hesitation or doubt; where the data do not justify (so far as I can judge) a confident conclusion, I have indicated this by some qualifying phrase. I desire what I have just said to be applied in particular to the analysis of the Hexateuch. That the Priests' Code" formed II a clearly defined document, distinct from the rest of the Hexa teuch, appears to me to be more than sufficiently established by • multitude of convergent indications j and I have nowhere signified any doubt on this conclusion. On the other hand, in the remainder of the narrative of Gen.-Numbers and of Joshua, though there are facta which satisfy me that this also is not homogeneous, I believe that the analysis (from the nature of [xv] the criteria on which it depends) is frequently uncertain,* and wil~ perhaps, always continue so. Accordingly, as regards .. JE," as I have more than once remarked, I do not desire to lay equal stress upon all the particulars of the analysis, or to be supposed to hold that the line of demarcation between its component parts is at every point as clear and certain as it is between P and other parts of the Hexateuch.. Another point necessary to be borne in mind i. that many results can only be approximate. Even where there is no ques tion of the author, we can sometimes determine the date within only comparatively wide limits (e.g. Nahum); and even where the limits are narrower, there may still be room for difference of opinion, on account of the different aspects of a passage which most strongly impress different critics (e.g. in some of the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah). Elsewhere, again, grounds may exist sufficient to justify the negative conclusion, that a writing does not belong to a particular age or author. but not • See pp. 16, 17, 19, 39, 116 £., &:c. The same admission is constantly made by Wellhausen, Kuenen, and other critics: see, for instance, p.':Q oj tbe edition of Geneais by KauWch anel Soc:in, mentioned below, p. 14'" PREFACB definite enough to fix positively the age to which It does belong, except within broad and general limits. In all such cases we must be content with approximate results. D: is in the endeavour to reach definite conclusions upon the basis either of imperfect tIaIa, or of indications reasonably sus ceptible of divergent interpretations, that the principal disagree ments between critics have their origin. Language is sometime. used implying that critics are in a state of internecine conflict with one another, or that their conclusions arc "in a condition of perpetual flux!'· Such statements are not in accordance with the facts. There is a large area on which the data are clear 1 here, accordingly, critics are agreed, and their conclusions are not likely to be ever reversed. And this area includes many of the most important results which criticism has reached. There is an area beyond this, where the data are complicated or am biguous; and here it is not more than natural that independent judges should differ. Perhaps future study may reduce this margin of uncertainty. I make no claim to have admitted into the present volume only those conclusions on which all critics are agreed j for naturally [xvi] I have followed the guidance of my own judgment as to what was probable or not; but where alternative views appeared to me to be tenable, or where the opinion towards which I inclined only partially satisfied me, I have been careful to indicate this to the reader. I have, more over, made it my ~m to avoid speCUlation upon slight and doubtful data; or, at least, if I have been unable absolutely to . avoid it, I have stated distinctly of what nature the data are. Polemical references, with very few exceptions, I have avoided. It must not, however, be thought that, because I do not more frequently discuss divergent opinions, I am therefore unacquainted with them. I have been especially careful to acquaint myself with the views of Keil, and of other writers on the traditional side. I have also constantly, both before and since writing the present volume, followed closely the course of archreological research; and I am aware of no instance in which its results are opposed to the conclusions which I have expressed. Upon DO • • may 1Iot be IUPerfl.uoWl to rema.rk tha.t both the priDciples and the n:sults of the critical study of the Old Testament are often seriously nUs sepresenteci, especially on the part of writers opposed to it, includiuc nell IUdl as might from their position be supposed to be well informed. PR.EFACE vu occulon have I adopted what may be termed a critical al oppoaed to a conservative position, without weighing fully the arguments advanced in support of the latter. and satisfying myself that they were untenable. Naturally a work like the present hi founded largely on the labours of previous scholars. Since Gesenius, in the early years of this century, inaugurated a new epoch in the study of Hebrew, there has been a succession of scholars, of the highest and most varied ability, who have been fascinated by the literature of ancient Israel, and have dedicated their liYes to its elucidation. Each has contributed of bis best: and those who come after stand upon the vantage-ground won for them by their pre decessors. In exegesis and textual criticism, not less than in literary criticism, there has been a steady advance. * The "is torim/ significance of different parts of the Old Testament-the aim and drift of individual prophecies, for instance, or the relation to one another of parallel groups of laws-has been far more carefully observed than was formerly the case. While in fah:ness to myself I think it right to state that my volume embodies the results of much independent work,-for I accept conclusions, not on the authority of the critic who affirms them, but because I have satisfied myse~ by personal study, that the grounds alleged in their support are adequate,-I desire at the same time to acknowledge gratefully my [xvii] indebtedness to those who have preceded me, and facilitated my labours. The references will generally indicate who the authorities are that have been principally of service to me i naturally they- vary -in different parts of the Old Testament. It does not fall within the scope of the present volume to deal with either the Theology or the History of the Old Testa ment, as such: neverthelesa a few words ma), be permitted on them here. It is impossible to doubt that the main conclusions of critics With reference to the authorship of the books of the Old Testa ment rest upon reasonings the cogency of which cannot be • The pmgreIIln the two fimaer may be measured apprmdmately by the It.1!Yl1II!d Version, or (in lome respects, more adequately) by the notes in thll ., Variorum Bible" of Eyre I: Spottiswoode. See also most of the English Commentaries, mentioned in thll volume, written SinCIl about 18go-(BDCI lOme written befcxe, .. Cheyne'a IIIIid, and Psalms). 6 fill PllEFACE denied without denying the ordinary principles by which hl.tory is judged and evidence estimated Nor can it be doubted that the same conclusions, upon any neutral field of investigation, would have been accepted without hesitation by all conversant with the subject: they are opposed in the present instance by some theologians, only because they are supposed to conflict with the requirements of the Christian faith. But the history of * astronomy, geology, and, more recently, of biology, supplies a warning that the conclusions which satisfy the common un biassed and unsophisticated reason of mankind prevail in the end The price at which alone the traditional view can be main tained is too high. t Were the difficulties which beset it isolated or occasional, the case, it is true, would be different: it could then, for instance, be reasonably argued that a fuller knowledge of the times might afford the clue that would solve them. But the phenomena which the traditional view fails to explain are tOct numerous for such a solution to be admissible; they recur so systematically that some cause or causes, for which that view, makes no allowance, must be postulated to account for them. The hypothesis of glosses and marginal additions is a superficial remedy: the fundamental distinctions upon which the main con clusions of critics depend remain untouched.: The truth, however, is that apprehensions of the character [xviii] just indicated are unfounded. It is not the case that critical conclusions, such as those expressed in the present volume, are in conflict either with the Christian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith. Those conclusions affect not the fact of revelation, but only its form. They help to determine the stages through which it passed, the different phases which it assumed, and the process by which the record of it was built up. They do not touch either the authority or the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They • Comp. the luminous and able treatment of this subject, on its theological aide, by the late lamented Aubrey 1.. Moore In &i~nc, and tlu Fait" (1889), esp. pp. xi-xlvii, and pp. 163-235. t Of course there are many points at which tradition is not aft'ected by criticism. I allude naturally to those in which the case is dHl'erent. ::: The same may be said of Bishop Ellicott's "rectified traditional view.· The distinctions referred to, it ought to be understood, in works written Ia defence of the traditional position, are, as a rule, very imperfecUy stated,' eYen where they are not ignored altogethe. PREFACE Impl1 ao change in respect to the Divine attributes revealed in the Old Testament j no change in the lessons of human duty to be derived from it; no change as to the general position (apart from the interpretation of particular passages) that the Old * Testament points forward prophetically to Christ. That both the religion of Israel itself, and the record of its history embodied in the Old Testament, are the work of men whose hearts have been touched, and minds illumined, in different degrees, t by t the Spirit of God, is manifest: but the recognition of this truth does not dedde the question of the author by whom. or the date at which, particular parts of the Old Testament were committed to writing; nor does it determine the precise literary character of a given narrative or book. No part of the Bible, nor even the Bible as a whole, is a logically articulated system of theology : the Bible is a "library," showing how men variously gifted by the Spirit of God cast the truth which they received into many dif ferent literary forms, as genius permitted or occasion demanded. -into poetry of various kinds, sometimes national, sometimes individual, sometimes even developing a truth in a form ap proaching that of the drama; into prophetical [xix] discourses, suggested mostly by some incident of the national life; into proverbs, prompted by the observation of life and manners; into laws, prescribing rules for the civil and religious government of the nation j into narratives, sometimes relating to a distant or a nearer past, sometimes autobiographical; and (to include the New Testament) into'letters, designed, in the first instance. to meet the needs of particular churches or individuals. It is probable that every form of literary composition known to the • Comp. Prof. Sanday'. words in Tlu 0raeIuDjGllCl(1891), Po 7-volume wbic:h, with its counsels of wisdom and sobriety, I would gladly, if I might, adopt lIS the Preface to my own. See also the admirable work of Prof. A. F. Kirkpatrick, Tlu DiWlU L.·/Jrary of tlu Old Testament. t I uy, in different degrees; for no one would attribute to the authors of lOme of the Proverbs, or of the Books of Esther or Ecclesiastes, the same degree of spiritual perception displayed ••1 ". in lsa. 40-66, or in the Psalms. :: So, for instance, Riehm, himself a critic, speaking of the Pentateuch as a record of revelation, remarks on the immediate impression of this II II character which it makes, and continues: Every one who so reads the II Pentateuch lIS to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must receive the Impression that .. CODICiousness of God such lIS is here expressed cannot be :as, derived from flesh and blood II (Eml6iN¥, • II Der Pentateuch all Oft"ea· b&nmclvkunde ''). PR.EFAC1!I Incient Hebrews was utilised as a vehicle of Divine truth, and i. * represented in the Old Testament. Hence the character of a particular part of the Old Testament cannot be decided by an t! priori argument as regards what it must be; it can only be determined by an application of the canons of evidence and probability universally employed in historical or literary investi gation. None of the historians of the Bible claim supernatural enlightenment for the materials of their narrative: t it is reason able, therefore, to conclude that these were derived by them from such human sources as were at the disposal of each par ticular writer; in some cases from a writer's own personal know ledge, in others from earlier documentary sources, in others, especially in those relating to a distant past, from popular tradition. It was the function of inspiration to guide the indi vidual writer in the choice and disposition of his material, and in his. use of it for the inculcation of special lessons. And in the production of some parts of the Old Testament different hands co-operated, and have left traces of their work more or less clearly discernible. The whole is subordinated to the con trolling agency of the Spirit of God, causing the Scriptures of the Old Testament to be profitable [xx] for teaching, for II repr~ for correction, for instruction, which is in righteous ness": but under this presiding infiuence scope is left for the exercise, in different modes and ways, of the faculties ordinarily • Bo1.lI".p'h "I 'l'01."7'p6'1''''' 'l'4Acw 6 edt ~").1\CTIU 7'ois ..." .,.pd.tm I" .,.oft r~II&I, Heb. II. On the manifold Voice of God as heard in the Old Testament, the writer ma.y be permitted to refer to the sixth of his SermonJ _ Su6jutl _1m fI);tl llu OT. (1892). In the seventh Sermon in the MIlle volame he bas developed more fully the view taken by him of Inspira.tioB (el. the Cf1"t~mp. Rn;ilfV, Feb. 1890, p. 2:29f.). He bas pleasure also, in the same connexion, In referring to the very lacid and helpful" Bampton LecNres II for t893 (eeL 3, 1896) on Inspira.tion, by his colleagae, Prof. Sanday, especially Lectures Ii.-v. 11", t The preface to St. Luke'. Gospel (Luke Is Instructive In this respect. St. Lake only claims for his na.rrative that he baa used in ita com· position the· care and research of an ordina.ry historian. Comp. Sanday, 0l'1li:141 of GfJfi, pp. '/2-75; II In all that relates to the Revelation of God and of His Will, the writers [of the Bible] assert for themselves a. definite Inspiration; they claim to speak with an a.athority higher than their own. But in regard to the narrative of events, and to processes of literary com· position, there is IlOthing so exceptional about them as to exempt them from the conditions to which other works would be ezposed at the.me place mel tIme,-