OLD TESTAMENT
--
accessible to the people, translated them with notes into Arabic, then widely spoken. He aimed to interpret the OT agreeably both to reason and Talmudic tradition, which latter he held to be equally of Divine origin with the Scriptures. In carrying out this aim his interpretations became arbitrary and forced. Followers of Saadia in the Babylonian schools pursued his idea of applying reason to OT interpretation, and one Samuel ben Chofni (t+ 1034) went so far as to endeavour to explain miraculous-events of OT as if they were natural (Griitz, Hist. Jews, iii. p. 259). Jewish learning, however, fell into decay in the East and became centred in Western Europe, especially in Spain. Here the Hebrew language was cultivated, and OT exegesis along with that of the Talmud. Ibn Janach (+1050) has been called the first rational Biblical critic. Although convinced of the divinity of Holy Writ, he held that it must be interpreted according to the rules of human usage (Griitz, iii. p. 269). hi (+1105), whose commen- taries, held to be almost as sacred as the text, are printed in Rabbinical Bibles, explained the Scriptures according to the natural meaning of the words, but combined therewith Halakhie and Haggadic fancies. Ibn Ezra (+ 1167), while paying attention to tradition for the exposition of OT law3, cut loose both from Kabbalistic and Hag- gadic interpretations and followed the natural sense, and thereby raised OT exegesis to the dignit; of a science. (Maimonides (t 1204), the saad Aristotle and codifier of Biblical and Talmudic law, shows also the activity of the Jewish mind of this period). David Kimchi (+ 1255) and others followed in the same directions, and Jewish inter- pretation (save in representing the bias of a Jew compared with a Christian) merges into that of the common stream of Biblical scholarship, represented now in the modern critical movement.*
iii, THE OT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.— Textual Criticism.—Corres nding to the trans- mission and preservation of the O'T in the Jewish Chureh, is textual criticism in the Christian Church. For early efforts in this direction, see articles SEPTUAGINT and VULGATE. Beyond the interest taken in such criticism by Origen and Jerome and by the Antiochene school, in their indirect manner, none appears until after the Reformation, The Reformers accepted the Mas- soretic Text of the Jews as infallibly inspired, and the Jewish tradition of its having been kept eugalery pure since its origin. This notion in the post-Reformation period was intensified by some on dogmatic grounds into the theory of the Mosaic or Ezraic inspired origin of even the Hebrew vowel points (a view maintained by the elder Buxtorf ἀ 1629) and the younger (t+ 1669), and appearing in the Helvetic Confession (1675). This view was refuted by Cappellus (+1658), who, with Morinus (first a Protestant and then a Roman Catholic, +1659), showed not only that the Hebrew vowel points were of a relatively late origin, but also that the present Massoretic text is open to emendation by the use of the ancient versions. This laid the foundation of modern textual criticism. Helpful apparatus for such work also then appeared in the polyglott Bibles of the 17th cent., especially Walton’s London Polyglott. In the next century Hebrew MSS were collated by Kennicott (+1783), and de Rossi (+1831), whose labours showed that all Heb. MSS represent essentially the same text. Textual criti- cism is now carried forward by a comparison of the Heb. text with the ancient Versions, principally the LXX, and Py subjective emendation. In the latter the parallelism of Heb. poetry discovered and
* The Kabbalistic interpretation of OT (see above) was wide- spread during the Middle Ages,
OLD TESTAMENT 601
thus applied by Lowth (+1787) and the rhythm or tones are of the greatest service. Along these lines scholars have worked slowly and cautiously, assisted by discoveries of the recensions of the LXX text and the work in its revision by Lagarde (+ 1891) and others (see art. SEPTUAGINT), and in some degree by further collation of Hebrew MSS by Strack (see art. TEXT OF OT).
Among the important contributions to OT textual criticism may be mentioned Olshausen’s Emendationen ες. AT’, 1826, Bei- trdge zur Kritik Gn. 1870; Wellhausen, Text der Biicher Samuel., 1871; Cornill, Das Buch. Ezk. 1886 (almost an epoch-making work); Driver, Notes on Heb. Text of Samuel. Of. also writings of Baethgen (on Ps), Bickell (on Job, Pr), Beer (on Job), Kloster- mann (on 1 and 28, 1 and 2 K), Wellh. (Ki. Proph.), Cheyne (Psalms, crit. notes), Ryssel (on Mic), and especially the SBOT, Heb. Text, the most elaborate and far-reaching attempt hitherto made in OT textual criticism. Of. also recent OT commentaries of the International Series, by Driver on Dt, Moore on Jg, Smith on 1 and 28, Toy on Pr, and those of Nowack’s Hdkomm. and Marti’s Kurzer Hdcomm,
2. USE AND INTERPRETATION.—(a) In the NT.— Both Christ and the apostles or writers of the NT held the current Jewish notions respecting the Divine authority and revelation of the OT. They refer to it in ae words used by the Jews, ‘the Scriptures’ (Mt 22%, Jn 539), ‘the Holy Scriptures’ (Ro 1*), and speak of its authors being moved by the Holy Ghost (2 P 15), and appeal constantly to its statements as ἈΝ ΕΘΈΜΞΙ authoritative truth. But at the same time they regarded the OT revelation os peti! and incomplete. Christ not only placed His own authority above that of Rabbinic tradition (Mt δ}: 4), but likewise speaks of the teaching of the Mosaic law as per- mitted owing to the hardness of men’s hearts (Mt 198) ; and St. Paul regards the dispensation of the Law as decidedly inferior to that of the gospel: the Law was ‘rudiments’ (Gal 4°), serving to establish a knowledge of sin. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews found the OT dispensation faulty and defective. But in all these views the disparagement of the OT is only relative. Christ never repudiates its revelation and authority. He puts His emphatic seal upon the OT, saying (according to Jn 10%, unless our Lord is here arguing ad hominem) that its word cannot be broken, and that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until all shall be fulfilled (Mt 5"). St. Paul held likewise most strongly to its Divine origin and its nature, holy, just, and good (Ro 72-14), worthy of all honour, serving to usher in the gospel, a tutor to bring men to Christ (Gal 3%). Likewise also the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews recognized the full validity of the OT covenant, but in Christ and in His gospel the OT had a full and perfect realization. Thus the OT had its chief value, since the Ceremonial Law ceased to be binding, in foreshadowing Christ and the gospel. This led to the conception of the OT as a book of prophecy throughout. Wherever words and incidents suggested events in the life of Christ, or of the early Church, or where they seemed to confirm Christian doctrine, they were so applied. This Syebricn of the OT in the NT, although it is in the line of Jewish methods of interpretation, finds its justification in the pro- phetie elements of the OT. These look forward to a special manifestation of Jehovah, to a new relationship established between Jehovah and Israel] and mankind, to a series of blessings—all of which may be summed up in the word redemp- tion, and which likewise were coupled with the appearance of a royal person, an offspring of David. These OT outlooks, according to apos- tolic experience and observation, were realized in and through Christ; hence the NT view of the OT is fully justified ; in details (according to historic exegesis) the applications of the OT in the NT may sometimes be unsound, but taken asa whole