To engage in the critical study of the Old Testament, we will invite the reader to start from the same point as Professor Robertson Smith, with a conviction that in the Bible God and man meet together . . . assured that the Bible does speak to the heart of man in words that can only come from God, that no historical research can deprive him of this conviction.' Again, as Mr. Smith says, 'if the Bible sets forth the personal converse of God and man, it is absolutely essential to look at the human side . . . To try to suppress the human side of the Bible in the interests of the purity of the Divine Word, is as great a folly as to think that a father's talk with his child can be best reported by leaving out everything which the child said, thought and felt.' All this is true; but it remains to be seen what is the human side' of Scripture, of which solely in general neologian critics allow any bond fide recognition. The lines along which the Professor and the present writer travel soon diverge.
We must not be surprised if a professional scholar like Mr. Smith says, The whole business of scholarly exegesis lies with this human side '; but we feel how solemn a thing it is to undertake an investigation of what is the divine and what the human element in Scripture, to point out where each begins and where it ends. Not only have we here to do with holy men (2 Peter 1:22Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (2 Peter 1:2)) as writers, nor yet merely with inspired writings (2 Tim. 3:1616All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)), but we are concerned also with holy letters' (2 Tim. 3:1515And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)). Jehovah's words are pure words' (Psa. 12:66The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6)). We care not if critics slight words of a Psalm as the language of poetry, which some either extol or lower as suits their purpose. Although leaving room for the whole work of textual criticism, which may restore a reading or amend a text that has suffered from the hand of man, we dare not forget that the materials which lie before us have that character which any child' (2 Tim.), unspoiled by a pretentious education, understands by sacred.' Does not then Biblical criticism demand for its pursuit a reverence greater than we feel it necessary to accord to any however elevated yet merely human composition? Must not methods of analysis be employed in this study which are peculiar to it? We need not disdain the help of such methods as are applicable to ancient books in general, but is that always adequate? Different as will our study of the Old Testament in result be found from that of Professor Robertson Smith, the desire of the present writer nevertheless is to promote a systematic study of the earlier portion of the Bible; not by such 'safe and edifying exegesis' as Mr. Smith conceives his opponents alone will tolerate, but by what is technically called criticism, by gathering into small compass the subjects deemed of most importance amongst Hebrew scholars.
In studying Old Testament criticism, we must direct our attention to the names by which the Jewish Scriptures have at different times been known; to the language in which they were composed; to the sources from which our printed copies have been derived; and to the materials used by translators in arriving at the meaning as well as the wording of the Text. The elements, in fact, out of which grew the Old Testament of our common English Bible will be our subject; and so a considerable portion of what German writers of Einleitungen ' call General Introduction,' particularly that which possesses an interest for English readers.
It will be necessary to inquire with some detail into the canonical character of the Old Testament writings. Many questions interesting in themselves, yet of a speculative character, will be discarded, such as the Chronology of the Old Testament; neither will Geography, Natural History, Hebrew Antiquities, general manners and customs, Ancient History, hieroglyphics or cuneiform inscriptions illustrative of the Old Testament Scriptures, come here into account. Upon all such subjects there are indeed well-known works, ease of access, and the consideration of any of these branches of Biblical study would in no wise further our present object. And so, in general, with questions of interpretation. Of divine names the writer could only reproduce the teaching of J. N. Darby in his apologetic writings, and in particular what would be found in the 'Irrationalism of Infidelity.' Little will be said of New Testament citation, which connects the two great divisions of the Bible, it being better to give hints for the examination of quoted passages than to state any theory; then readers can work out this part of the subject for themselves, if they will observe and consider the bearing of facts which the Text itself always yields to an attentive perusal.
We shall not take up the criticism of the separate Books, as for instance, to consider the titles of the Psalms; or the larger question of historical sequence as affecting interpretation: this would be to enter upon Special Introduction.' We would here, once for all, indicate that, to employ the language of Schaff's Encyclopedia (Art. Biblical Theology '), our study will be based upon the necessarily close connection between the two Testaments,' and will 'repudiate a biblical theology that makes too much account of historical sequence: in other words, that refuses to see the Old Testament in the New, and the New in the Old.' Questions affecting the New Testament in particular will not be treated of otherwise than incidentally.