Ebook: Introducing the Old Testament Based upon John R. Sarnpey's Syllabus

Although the Bible is by far the best seller among the world's publications, it is not being read by the average person. It is kept in the parlor and referred to by the preacher but is gen- erally regarded-as dull reading or as a sealed Book to be inter- preted only by experts. This apathy is especially pronounced in regard to the Old Testament. To some extent naive exposi- tors are to blame for this deplorable condition, when theyignore historical settings in trying to locate in the Old Testament a complete New Testament. If the Old Testament is only the New Testament in hieroglyphics, it is much more simple for one to read the New- Testament. If it is studied in complete disregard of historical setting, the breath of life departs from it.
Many higher critics have also made their contribution to this tragic disregard of the Old Testament by tearing its contents into meaningless fragments or relegating its revealed truth to the realm of the ordinary. As one scholar has put it, what was "begun with a pen-knife, continued with a hatchet."' Perhaps, as another has said, they have been enticed "by the fascinating devicesofthenaughtyman.'Althoughithasmadeavaluable contribution to the study of the Old Testament in its insistence upon the fact that a passage cannot be understood apart from its historical setting, the critical method has been pursued with such minute analysis that weightier spiritual truths have been neglected. Its evolutionary emphasis has led to the conviction that the only portions of the Old Testament worth studying are the eighth century prophets, in which Old Testament re- ligion reaches its peak. To the New Testament writers, how- ever, the Old Testament was of a quite different nature. They did not confine their attention to those portions of the Old Testament that most nearly approximated the teachings of Jesus but viewed the whole history of the Hebrews as culminating in God's dealing with spiritual Israel through his incarnate Son. In Jesus one finds the same attitude. He always regarded the Scriptures as a unity rather than a compilation.
Still another group has encouraged the neglect of the Old Testament—those who minimize its importance as compared with the New Testament. It is their claim that since the New Testament is the fulfilment of the Old, the study of the Jewish Scriptures is of little value. Such an opinion is as unreasonable as that of the student who imetines he should start his study of the language of the Old Testament in a class of advanced Hebrew, since only in the advanced group can thecompleterevelationbesecured.Yet,inordertounderstand such Hebrew, one must necessarilypass through the preliminary valley of the shadow. Just so, those who try to master the New Testament apart from the Old are glaringly guilty of tragic errors of misinterpretation. Such an attempt at study has led many scholars to interpret New Testament conceptions accord- ing to Greek thought exclusively, ignoring the Hebrew con- cepts that gave them root. This has been a characteristic feature of the history of Christian thought. In recent years, how- ever, perhaps the most important emphasis of New Testament scholarship has been upon the essential unity of the Bible. As one writer has ably stated, "No further progress in the under- standing of primitive Christianity is possible, unless the ark of New Testament exegesis be recovered from its wanderings in
the land of the Philistines and be led back to its home in the midst of the classical Old Testament Scriptures, to the Law and the Prophets." Conversely, of course, the Old Testament must never be studied independently of the New, for it is the New Testament that unlocks many of the mysteries of the Old, revealing the purpose behind its revelation. Perhaps the greatest hindrance confronting the person wish- ing to understand the Old Testament is an improper under- standing of the nature of its literature. The medium through which the writers wished to convey their thoughts was lan-
guage. The art of speech is the chief means by which the ideas of one person may be passed on to others. Language has definite forms which carry with them. their own definite laws of use and interpretation. If a biblical writer used a particular type of literature, one must interpret that passage in accordance with the universal laws of that mode of expression. Until one is able to determine whether a passage is daring poetical imagery or a prosaic statement of scientific fact, his interpretation must necessarily be precarious. If this cannot be adequately deter- mined, the meaning of the passage must remain in doubt.
One glance at the English Bible will suffice to show that little help is given the average reader in discovering the type of litera- ture a particular section may be. If one opens it at random, he will discover that it is arbitrarily divided into books, chapters, and verses. Unmindful of the fact that the chapter and verse divisions were inserted for facility in ready reference, the average reader comes to believe that those divisions have always been there, although the originals had neither chapter nor verse distinctions. Surely these are invaluable in a,study of the Scrip-
tures, but the literature has suffered considerably because of such a pragmatic dismemberment. One can imagine what would happen if Tennyson's poems were edited in chapter and verse sections that pay no regard to his original arrangement. Yet such a fate has befallen the Scriptures.
There are some who regard the literary study disapprovingly, as if admiring the exquisite beauty of a flower would hinder one from realizing its sweet fragrance. Before something can be appreciated, it must first of all attract. Theological handling of the Scriptures has destroyed much of their attractiveness to the world. We need to renew an appreciation of the beauty of the biblical accounts, for it is the open door to the realization of the fundamental revelation. It is a tragedy of modern civilization that through schools and colleges students are taught to appreciate the beauty and sublimity of the works of Byron, Shakespeare, and Browning but are left completely.un- informed on the greatest literature the world has ever known, just because it is in the Bible. If it were anywhere else, the
literary world would bow before it.
It has not always been thus in our English-speaking world.
An American professor of English has written that the most important event in English history was not the defeat of the Spanish Armada, nor the Battle of Waterloo, but the transla- tion of a Book. "It was in the sixteenth century that the transla- tion of the Bible into the vernacular by Tyndale and Coverdale made the English people the people of a book—and that book,
the Bible. . . . The mental habits of the English people became Hebraic."4
Saintsbury speaks of the Authorized Version of 161r as hav- ing been the training ground of every man and woman of Eng- lish speech in the noblest uses of their language. Its phrasing is evident in the speeches of Patrick Henry and in the great ad- dresses of Lincoln. James Russell Lowell and Nathaniel Haw- thorne were noticeably affected by its contents. Pfeifler5 has listed many concrete expressions which our speech today has borrowed from the Hebrew: "to lick the dust"; "the sweat of thy face"; "gall and wormwood"; "to heap coals of fire"; "a land flowing with milk and honey"; "the stars in their courses"; "a broken reed"; "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh"; "an eye for an eye"; "the flesh pots"; "the skin of my teeth"; "a little cloud . . . like a man's hand"; "hewers of wood and drawers of water"; "the wife of thy bosom." An appreciation of the sublime beauty of Old Testament literature will never destroy its religious interest; it will both encourage and en- hance it.
It is hoped that the studies contained in this book will con- tribute toward a better understanding of the nature of the Old Testament. The importance of the Hebrew Scriptures in the gracious plan of salvation can never be overestimated. Their personalities, when once they are known, are timeless in the lessons of their experiences with God. Heaven and earth may pass away, but this Word will live on forever.
PRTNCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
The preceding discussion has emphasized certain methods that the student should follow in interpreting any Old Testa, ment passage. It may be profitable to observe them more closely. Upon attempting to discover the significance of a sec- tion of the Hebrew Scriptures, one should determine the fol- lowing data, which are arranged in the correct order of pro- cedure:
1. The historical position of the writer. This includes the history of the times and the social and religious conditions. Something must be known of the author's personal life, if pos- sible, and his background.
2. The original language in which he wrote. It is impossible to translate one language into another, for every translation is actually an interpretation. A knowledge of Hebrew is essential to sound Old Testament exposition. If it is not possessed, the student must take the second best course of studying good commentaries that are based on the Hebrew text.
3. The context of the passage. Scripture writers did not write each verse in a vacuum but reasoned logically from one thought to another. Each verse must be properly related to those around it. Each passage must be studied in the light of the book that contains it, and each book must be examined as it is related to the over-all progress of Old Testament revelation.
4. The nature of the literature. As has been suggested in the preceding section, the type of literature is of major significance in the understanding of a passage of the Old Testament.
5. The relationship to its later fulfilment. Old Testament critical study, with its emphasis upon the historical approach, has led many to stop with the fourth procedure. Neither Jesus nor the New Testament authors followed such a method. Just as the life of a man makes explicit the hidden tendencies of his infancy, the New Testament reveals the concealed truths of the Old. Truths that neither the authors themselves nor later Jewish expositors saw lie dormant in many Old Testament ut- terances, made evident only in Jesus Christ. One should be cautious lest he read into Old Testament passages the teachings of the New Testament; yet he must never forget that Jesus is the key to the only true understanding of the dream of the prophets. One must therefore determine first what the passage meant to the writer and his own generation. Then he must perceive its relationship to the eternal plan of God, which relationship even the inspired writer may not have seen, but is plainly evident to those who live in the fulness of the light.
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
All the New Testament is in Greek, whatever may have been the original in which Matthew, James, and others wrote. The Old Testament was composed by men who spoke and wrote Hebrew; and Hebrew is the original language of all the Old Testament Scriptures, except about six chapters in Daniel (2:4 to 7:28), about three in Ezra (4:8 to 6:18; 7:12-26), and one verse in Jeremiah (1o: i). These chapters are in the Aramaic tongue, a sister to Hebrew. If one wishes to read in the original the entire Bible, he must learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT
The Jews have for two thousand years been extremely care- ful about preserving their sacred books in primitive purity. They have spared no pains to preserve a pure text. At the same time one must not forget that the Hebrew Scriptures were often in great danger. Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 167 B.c.) burned all the copies he could find. Many rolls were destroyed during theterribleRomanwars(c.A.D.70). Moreover,scribalerrors may have crept into the text long before the days of Ezra and his school of scribes. In addition to unintentional errors of copyists, the original text was perhaps subjected to more or
less of editorial revision. The modern Massoretic text, with its accompanying citations of variant readings, is a witness to the need for textual criticism in the Old Testament. S. Baer and Franz Delitzsch from time to time during more than twenty years published in parts an edi- tion of the Massoretic Hebrew text. C. D. Ginsburg is the author of a carefully compiled Massoretic text. Kittel has pub- lished a good edition of the Hebrew Bible. The footnotes make much use of the ancient versions and the conjectures of modern scholars. This is the best edition of the Hebrew Bible for critical study.
The ancient Hebrews wrote without indicating the vowels. The consonantal text is still used in the synagogue rolls. Some- where from the sixth to the eighth century A.D. the present sys- tem of vowel points was devised by the Massoretic scholars, and copies of the Scriptures have since that time indicated the vowels that accompany the consonantal text. Modern Hebrew Bibles follow the Palestinian system, which employs pointing above, below, and in the middle of the consonantal letters. The Baby- lonian system was supralinear. Of course, the absence of the vowels left a larger margin for ambiguity, and the ancient ver- sions, especially the Septuagint, give evidence that the same consonantal text was variously read and understood.
Until quite recently the earliest complete manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible now extant were dated about A.D. 1000. The dis- covery of the numerous documents in. the region of the Dead Sea has completely revolutionized the study of the text of the Old Testament. Among these discoveries are manuscripts of most of the Old Testament books, and they are dated by most scholars inthefirstcenturyA.D.AtlastOldTestamentscholarshavere- liable material for a reconstruction of original Hebrew texts.
TIM ANCIENT VERSIONS
I. Greek
(x) The Septuagint was probably the first version of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Pentateuch was translated in Egyptabout25033.C.Josephusrecordsthemarvelous story of the work of the seventy translators. Scholars are agreed that the story has been "dressed up"; but the fact that the Septuagint version of the Law was made in Egypt long before the Christian Era is well established. The Prophets and the Hagiographa were translated later. The Greek of the Septuagint is far removed from the classical idiom. Different books of the Bible evidently fell into different hands; and while some of the translators knew Hebrew quite well, and Greek tolerably well, others were not at home in either language. Most of the translators were quite faithful to the original Hebrew, while others leaned toward a paraphrase. The Pentateuch is best rendered. The book of Daniel is the worst. The apostles quote quite fre- quently from the Septuagint, and the idiom of New Testament Greek (Koine) is anticipated, for the most part, in this early Greek translation.
(2) Three other Greek versions of the Old Testament were madefromA.D.tootoA.D.zoobyJews.Exactdates are not known, and only fragments of these transla- tions have been preserved. (2) The version of Aquila probably dates from the second quarter of the second century A.D. It was slavishly literal. The Jews quoted it in opposition to the Christian use of the Septuagint. (2) Theodotion, in the latter half of the second cen- tury, made a version more closely resembling the LXX (Septuagint). (3) Symmachus, near the end of the second century, made a version that aimed to, be
smooth. He is sometimes paraphrastic.
Origen's Hexapla (c. Al). 230) contained, in addition
to the Hebrew text and a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, the four Greek versions named above. Only fragments of Origen's great work remain. Perhaps no complete copy of this magnum opus was ever made.
2. TheSyriac
A Syriac version was probably made between 130 and A.D.zooforthebenefitofChristianswhospokeSyriac.The Peshitta, made somewhat later, is the standard version 3. The Targums
Long before Christ, the Hebrew Scriptures were probably translated orally by public interpreters in the synagogues. Written Aramaic versions may have been made as early as the first century of our era.
(1) TheTargumofOnkelosisafairlyliteraltranslationof the Pentateuch into Aramaic. The date is unknown but is assigned to periods as far apart as the first and third centuries A.D.
(I) The Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets was probably made in the third century A.D.
4. Latin Versions
(t) TheOldLatinbelongstothesecondcenturyA.D.It is a literal translation of the Septuagint and not of the Hebrew.
(a) Jerome's Version, afterwards known as the Latin Vul- gate, was completed in A.D. 405. It is a good piece of work, though not an infallibly accurate translation of the true text of the Bible, as the Council of Trent af- firmed. The army Version, an accredited English translation of the Latin Vulgate, is the authorized Roman Catholic Bible for English readers.
The value of the ancient versions is twofold: (1) For pur- poses of textual criticism. They occasionally bear witness to the true reading in places which have been corrupted in the Hebrew text. (z) As aids to interpretation. Every translation partakes of the nature of a commentary, and these early versions are helps to the understanding of the Bible. They are the most ancient commentaries.
THE DIVISIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Jewish classification of the Old Testament books is threefold:
1. The Law, or the five books of Moses. This was most highly esteemed as the foundation of the Hebrew Bible. 2.TheProphets.(I)TheFormerProphets:Joshua,Judges, Samuel, and Kings. (z) The Latter Prophets: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets.
3. The Writings. (x) Poetical books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job. (2) Five rolls: Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther. (3) Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.
By counting Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, and the twelve
smaller prophets as one roll, the Jews made their canon to con- tain twenty-four books. By combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah, they sometimes reckon their sacred books as twenty-two, the exact number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The book of Daniel, made up of both history and apocalypse, was classed with the Hagiographa, or Writings.
A SUMMARY OF THE HISTORYOF THEOLDTESTAMENT CANON°
Any examination of the evidence in dating the inclusion of a book among those regarded by the Jews as of divine authority must take into account the three divisions into which the Hebrew Scriptures were divided. The Law was by its very history and nature first so regarded When the Law in the present form was first recognized as of divine institution it is impossible to tell. We are told that Moses received most of the legislative material and that it was immediately regarded as authoritative. Amos and Hosea of the eighth century are ac- quainted with much of the historical material in the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy was regarded as divinely inspired when it was found in 621 Lc.
By the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 400) we can be sure the Law as we now have it was accepted by the Jews. It may have been so regarded before that time, but of that date we can be certain for the following reasons:
(I)TheSamaritanschismoccurredabout400B.C.Sincethe SamaritanshavethePentateuchastheirScriptures,they'mutt have received it before the schism. They claim that their Penta- teuch dates from 722 B.c., but scholars universally deny this, from the nature of the manuscripts.
(2) The Law in Ezra's day consumed a long period of time whenread,fromdawnuntilmidday(Neh.8:3).
(3) The post-Exilic writers, during and after the period of Ezra, refer to the Lawwith special reverence (cf. Mal. 4:4).
The Prophets were the next group to be accepted as divinely inspired. In the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, Jesus ben Sirach (c. 132 B.c.) writes that there were already three divisions in. the Hebrew Scriptures: the Law, Prophets, and other books. In
Ecclesiasticus itself, Jesus ben Sirach the elder (c. xgo B.c.) names Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, showing that the Hebrew prophetic canon was closed by then. Of course, individual prophets had been accepted long before, but we know only that the present grouping had been settled before /So B.C. How long before is unknown.
The Writings were the last group to be approved as a whole. The indefinite reference of Jesus ben Sirach to this section as "other books" indicates this. An inclusion of a book in this group does not necessarily mean that it originated late. It may rather be present because later sections have been added, as in the case of Psalms and Proverbs, or because of the character of its literature, or due to the fact that its inclusion in the canon was disputed for some time.
'When were the Writings closed? References from the books of Maccabees, Josephus, and the New Testament indicate that Jesus and the apostles possessed the Old Testament substantially as we have it today.' The date of the completion of the Septua- gint translation would certainly clarify this matter, but that is not at all certain, for that translation was not finished before zoo B.C. and probably later.
There is no evidence that the Apocryphal books (which ap- pear in the Latin Vulgate) were ever included in the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews themselves. Jerome himself denied their validity.
'Cf. Matt. 23:35. Zechariah was not the last martyr in the Old Testament from the point of time. The account of his murder occurs in Chronicles. In the present Hebrew canon, Chronicles is the last book. This reference indicates that Jesus possessed the present canon. Compare our expression, "from Genesis to Malachi."
The student will note that until the first century A.D. there was no organized body, so far as is definitely known, meeting to determine what books should be included in or excluded from the Scriptures. The Councils of Jamnia (Am. 90, z8) composed of Jewish scholars, did not settle on the canon; rather they discussed the problem of leaving certain books in the canon that were already there. Public opinion had determined the books in the Old Testament before the scholars met to dis- cuss them. Book after book found acceptance by the people as they sifted them out from the mass of material available, on the basis of how the books agreed with God's past revelation and /net the needs of the human soul. Thus God guided the formation of the canon as surely as he inspired the writers of its books.