and Kings use "

52 times to 30 of "N; the Ephraimitic docu22 times to 2 of ; Jeremiah, " 52 times to 37 of "; Is. 40-66, 70 times to 21 ; Job, 28 times

ment of Kings, "

It is evident that three layers of the Hexateuch אנכי 14 to אני

are distinctly characterized by their use of this pronoun, and they agree with other groups of literature in their usage.1

(2) The shorter form

might

is always used in the documents J and P; the longer form is always used in the law codes of D and H. There is a difference of usage in E and the frame of D. E uses, Gen. 3120, 4228, 45, 5021; Ex. 421, 72 (Driver's J, Kautzsch's JE), 10%; Nu. 243; but, Gen. 205, 6, 316;, Ex. 143 (Driver's J, Kautzsch's JE), Jos. 243. This use of be redactional, but it is not evident. The frame of D uses constantly, except Dt. 4" (Sam. codex ), 2865, 293, 18 (phrase from Jeremiah); Jos. 1120 (phrase of E and P), 148 (elsewhere in this phrase). It is evident that this difference in the documents of the Hexateuch is not accidental, but is characteristic of literary preference and of periods of composition, for it corresponds with the usage of the literature elsewhere. (a) The form

is used in the earliest poetical literature, Ex. 15; Judges 5; 1 Sam. 2; the earliest prophets, Amos, Hosea, Is. 15, Zech. 9-11, and the Judaic and Ephraimitic sources of the prophetic histories. This corresponds with the usage, of J. (b) The form is used in the earlier Is. 11 times (only 610, 2913, possibly scribal errors); in Zeph. 113, 215 ( 34, scribal error); and the Deuteronomic redaction of the prophetic histories. This corresponds with the usage of D. (c) Nahum uses 28,211, but Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the second Isaiah, and Job prefer , but occa sionally use. This corresponds with the usage of E. (d) Is. 13-143; Jer. 50-51; Haggai; Zech. 1-8 (except 712); Jonah; Joel; Ps. 78, 90, 104, use . This corresponds with the usage of H. (e) Lamentations (except 341); Is. 24-27, 34-35; Malachi; Obad.; Zech. 12-14; Memorials of Ezra and Nehemiah, use . This corresponds with P. So do Proverbs (except 421, 625); the Psalter, with few exceptions; Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes (except 93), and Canticles. (f) The Chronicler and Daniel use, but there are a few examples of , chiefly in set phrases. When one considers how easy it was for an editor or scribe to exchange and, it is remarkable that the difference in usage has been so well preserved. (See my article a, b, in the new Hebrew Lexicon.)

1 Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 70, 71. Briggs, l.c., pp. 256, 257.

2

In the New Testament each writer has also his stock of words. These are given by Vincent. For example, take the words "father" and "church."

(3) Apart from the Prologue, the Gospel of John uses Father, of God as the Father of the Messianic Son from heaven; and only in a single passage, of God as the Father of men. In this latter passage, 20, Jesus says to the woman, "I ascend unto My Father and your Father." Westcott' claims 421, 23, 545, 46, 65, 1029, 32, 1226, 146, 8, 1516, 1623, 26, 27 for the Fatherhood of men. But there is nothing in the context of any of these passages to constrain us to think of the Fatherhood of men. In several of them the reference to the Son, in the context, suggests the prevailing usage. In others, while it is possible to think of the Fatherhood of men, that mere possibility cannot resist the overwhelming usage of this gospel. Tarp is used 79 times of God; & τаτýр μoν, 25 times; πάτερ, 9 times; ὁ πατήρ σου, 81; ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ, 65 ; πατὴρ ἴδιος, 5.18 In the Synoptic Gospels God's Fatherhood of men seems to come from the Logia. In Mark it is found only in 1125: =Mt. 614, 15, where the phrase is evidently a logion, and the use of ỏ év Toîs Oỷpavoîs suggests an assimilation of this passage to Matthew. It is found in Luke, apart from passages parallel with Matthew, only 1282, which is also probably from the Logia. But God's Fatherhood of the Messiah is in all the Gospels: Mk. 888 Mt. 1627 = Lk. 926; Mk. 1332 Mt. 2436; Mt. 2639 = Lk. 2242; Mt. 1125-27 = Lk. 1021, 22; besides in Lk. 38, 222, 299, and in Matthew with o ovpávios 1513, 1835; with ỏ ev (Toîs) oupavoîs 7 times and without 7 times. It is evident that the use of "heavenly " and "who (is) in heaven" comes from Matthew, and not from Jesus Himself; just as Matthew uses kingdom of heaven for the original kingdom of God.3

4

==

=

(4) Church is used in the Gospels only Mt. 1618, where it is probably not original, and twice Mt. 18", where it probably referred to the brethren or brotherhood, or possibly to the local assembly after the usage of the Septuagint. It is not used in the epistles of Peter, of Jude, or in the first or second epistles of John. It is used in the Epistle of Jas. 54, of the local assembly with its elders, which is virtually the same as synagogue. It is used in the Revelation in the prologue and in the epistles to the seven churches in Asia, 1-322, 19 times, elsewhere only in the epilogue 2216, always of local assemblies. It is used in the third Epistle of John thrice of the local church. It is used in the

1 Word Studies, 1887-1890. 2 Epistles of John, p. 31.

3 Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 274. 4 Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 190.

1

epistles of Paul: Romans, 5 times; Corinthians, 31 times; Galatians, 3 times; Ephesians, 9 times; Philippians, 2 times; Colossians, 4 times; Thessalonians, 4 times; Timothy, 3 times; Philemon, once; in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 times; in the historical sections of the book of Acts, 22 times, three of which refer to a Greek assembly. The Church of the Lord is used Acts 20 only, but the Church of God is used by Paul six times in the earlier epistles. In the epistles of the imprisonment Church is used alone, without qualification. But in the Pastoral Epistles the Church of the living God is used, 1 Tim. 315, and the Church of God, 1 Tim. 35.

(b) Syntactical differences. The Hebrew language is strict in its use of the Waw consecutive, in the earlier period of the language. In the book of Ezekiel, the Waw consecutive of the imperfect is often neglected, and the simple Waw with the perfect is used instead. In the exilic prophecy Isaiah, 40-66, the Waw consecutive of the perfect is neglected, and the simple Waw with the imperfect is used instead. In the book of Ecclesiastes the Waw consecutive has well-nigh passed out of use. This shows three stages of syntactical development of the Hebrew language, and enables us to arrange the different writings in accordance therewith.

(c) There are dialectic differences in the Old Testament. There were doubtless three dialects in the Biblical Hebrew, the Ephraimitic, the Judaic, and the Perean. An example of the Perean may be found in the main stock of the book of Job, which tends towards Arabisms. The Ephraimitic dialect was from the earliest times tending in an Aramaic direction. It is represented in the Ephraimitic sections of the Hexateuch and the prophetic histories.

2. Differences of style are evident in all of the four Gospels, and are carefully defined by writers on the Higher Criticism of the New Testament, and by the commentaries. Similar differences are noted in the Old Testament between the Chronicler and the prophetic histories. It is agreed among critics that the Ephraimitic writer is brief, terse, and archaic in style; the Judaic writer is poetic and descriptive, as Wellhausen says, "the best narrator in the Bible." His imagination and fancy 1 Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 81, 82.

ness.

are ever active. The priestly writer is annalistic and diffuse, fond of names and dates. He aims at precision and completeThe logical faculty prevails. There is little colouring. The Deuteronomic writer is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest. His aim is instruction and guidance.1

(a) A good specimen of the argument from style is given by A. B. Davidson in his study of the book of Job.

"The objections that have been made to the long passage, chapters 405–4134, describing Behemoth and Leviathan, are briefly such as these that the description of these animals would have been in place in the first divine speech beside the other animal pictures, but is out of harmony with the idea of the second speech; that the description swells the second speech to a length unsuitable to its object, which is fully expressed in chapter 406-4; and that the minuteness and heaviness of the representation betray a very dif ferent hand from that which drew the powerful sketches in chapters 38, 39.

"The last-mentioned point is not without force. The rapid light and expressive lines of the former pictures make them without parallel for beauty and power in literature; the two latter belong to an entirely different class. They are typical specimens of Oriental poems, as any one who has read an Arab poet's description of his camel or horse will feel. These poets do not paint a picture of the object for the eye, they schedule an inventory of its parts and properties." 2

(b) A fine use of the argument from style is given by Bishop Westcott in reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews: "The style is even more characteristic of a practised scholar than the vocabulary. It would be difficult to find anywhere passages more exact and pregnant in expression than 114, 214-18, 726-28, 1218-24. The language, the order, the rhythm, the parenthetical involutions, all contribute to the total effect. The writing shews everywhere traces of effort and care. In many respects it is not unlike that of the Book of Wisdom, but it is nowhere marred by the restless striving after effect which not unfrequently injures the beauty of that masterpiece of Alexandrine Greek. The calculated force of the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence of Saint Paul. The author is never carried away by his thoughts. He has seen and measured all that he desires to convey to his

1 Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, pp. 74, 75.

2 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Davidson, The Book of Job,

p. liv.

readers before he begins to write. In writing he has, like an artist, simply to give life to the model which he has already completely fashioned. This is true even of the noblest rhetorical passages, such as chapter 11. Each element, which seems at first sight to offer itself spontaneously, will be found to have been carefully adjusted to its place, and to offer in subtle details results of deep thought, so expressed as to leave the simplicity and freshness of the whole perfectly unimpaired. For this reason there is perhaps no Book of Scripture in which the student may hope more confidently to enter into the mind of the author if he yields himself with absolute trust to his words. No Book represents with equal clearness the mature conclusions of human reflection. Some differences in style between the Epistle and the writings of Saint Paul have been already noticed. A more detailed inquiry shews that these cannot be adequately explained by differences of subject or of circumstances. They characterize two men, and not only two moods or two discussions. The student will feel the subtle force of the contrast if he compares the Epistle to the Hebrews with the Epistle to the Ephesians, to which it has the closest affinity. But it is as difficult to represent the contrast by an enumeration of details as it is to analyse an effect. It must be felt for a right appreciation of its force."

III. THE EVIDENCE OF OPINION

The third great test of the Higher Criticism is the evidence from doctrine, opinion, and point of view. Differences of opinion and conception imply difference of author, when these are sufficiently great, and also difference of period of composition.

(a) There is a different conception of theophanies in the documents of the Hexateuch.

E narrates frequent appearances of the theophanic angel of Elohim. J reports appearances of the theophanic angel of Yahweh. These theophanic appearances are mentioned in the Ephraimitic and Judaic documents of the prophetic histories. But neither D nor P knows of such a theophanic angel. When God reveals Himself, in the Ephraimitic documents, He speaks to Moses face to face, and Moses sees the form of God in the pillar of God standing at the door of his tent. In the great theophany granted to Moses in the Judaic document Ex. 2320-23, Moses is permitted

1 The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1889, pp. xlvi, xlvii, lxxvii.