The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 9

1111portant on which I could touch-it may now be useful to give a brio£ glance, from 11 homiletic point of view, at the great divisions oi the Old Testament Scriptures. The earliest trace of a classification of the OJ.I Testament books is found in the Prologue to the Dook of Ecclesiaeticus, where '11"8 are told that Jesus, the son of Sirac, " hod much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, end otl~er books of our fat.here." In 2 Mace. ii. 13 we &re told how Nehemiah," founding n h brary, gatherl'd together the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and of David." This is clearly analogou.s to the division referred to by our Lord in Luke n.iv. 44, " in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms." More frequently l1owever, the Jews, when speaking generally, comprised the Old Testament Scriptures 1mder the head of the Law and the Prophets (Matt. v. 17; Luke xxiv. 25). When entering more into detail they added "the writings" (Cethubim or Hagiographa). The Law (Torah) comprised the five hooks of the Pentateuch. The Prophets were divided into two classes-earlier and later. Under the head of Earlier Prophets the Jews placed the Books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings. Under the Later Prophete they placed the three major prophets-Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel-and the twelve minor prophet.a. The Cethubirn, again, were ranged 11nder three di";eions, of which the first, called .Emeth ("truth"), from the initial letters of the three books, comprised Psalm11, Proverbs, and Job; the second, the Canticles, Ruth, Lnmentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, which were called the five Megilloth, from being written on separate "Rolls " for use at particular festivals ; the third division contained Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. If we were entering on a critical introduction to the books of the Old Testament, this division - especially the position occupied in it by the Books of Daniel and Chronicles-would be found very important and suggestive. But for our present homiletic purpose it will be more convenient roughly to divide the. books of Scripiure int.o-(1) the Law, (2) the historic books, (3) the poetic books, (4) the prophetic hooks, and ( 5) the philosophic books. The division is only meant to be a general one for pwposes of convenience; for some of the historic books cont11in prophetic pa_s• s11ges, and some of the prophets contain historical sections ; and, 11gai1:1, •some of the poetic books are also prophetic, and large portions of the prophets are written in strains of the loftiest poetry, as also are parts of the books which we may term pbilosophic. The gmeral, divisions are, however, well marked and .easily discernible. 1. The five books of the Penta.teuch a.re partly composed of a history-first of the world, and then of the chosen family-up to the time of the entr.a.nce into Canaan, and partly of the system of Mosaic legislation. a. We no sooner open the Book of Genesis than we are met by whole volumes of controversy as to the relations between science and religion, and the euppo~_ed con:- ~radictions between the results of the one and the declarations of the other. Do sucl1 controversies lie within the ordinary sphere of homiletics? We should say· decidedly not, and that for many reaaons. In the first place, few are competent really to deal with the question, and nothing is more irritating to men of science than to see obvious ignorance assuming the airs of infallibility, and demonstrating the impious• ness of proved conclusions, the very elements of which it does not understand_, The clergy in so many thousands of instances, in age after age, bave so conclusively proved their entire incompetence to decide upon points of science,-,-they have been so repeatedly forced to modify their interpretations of Scripture in accordance with finally demonstrated and universally accepted truths,-that it is best to rest on the certainty that though exegesis may be erroneous, the scientific re1JUlts which have rewarded centuries of labour l,ave not in a single instance claHhed with any truth of  GENF,HAL INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TE8TAMJ<:NT. .:i