number of editings. Some have thought it to be the Psalmbook of the first temple. Others, and indeed most moderns, think that it was edited in its present form for the second temple.1 Grätz thinks that the Psalter was finally edited for the worship of the synagogue.2 Isaiah is represented by the Baba Bathra as edited by the college of Hezekiah. Its integrity was disputed by Koppe,* who maintained that it was a collection of pieces of various prophets loosely associated. It is generally held that the first half of Isaiah is composed of groups of prophecies gathered about those of Isaiah as a nucleus, and that the second half, 40-66, is by an unknown prophet of the exile." More recent investigation makes it evident that Isaiah was enlarged to be about the same size as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve, by appending a number of anonymous prophecies. The chief of these is the great Book of Comfort, Is. 40-66, which reflects for the most part the situation of the exile. It itself appeared in three successive editions, with different themes and different measures of poetry, and did not assume its final form until after the restoration, and even then did not escape subsequent interpolation. This Book of Comfort is separated from the earlier collections of prophecies by an historical section, 36-39, which has been taken from the book of Kings and attached to the earlier collection. The earlier collection is also composite. The great apocalypse, 24-27, belongs to the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great. There are not a few other exilic and post-exilic anonymous prophecies, such as 12, 132–1423, 32-35. There are earlier prophecies used, such as in 224, 15-1612, and there are numerous interpolations by the successive editors even in the genuine original prophecies of Isaiah.7 1 Perowne, Book of Psalms, 2d ed., London, 1870, p. 78; 3d ed., Andover, 1876, p. 63; Murray, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalms, N.Y., 1880. 2 Com. zu. d. Psalmen, I. pp. 62 seq. See p. 321. 4 See p. 279. 8 See p. 252. 5 Ewald, Die Propheten, Göttingen, 1868, 2te Ausg., III. pp. 20 seq.; Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 1881, p. 84; Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, 1881, II. pp. 201 seq.; Cross, Introductory Hints to English Readers of the Old Testament, London, 1882, p. 238. 6 Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 337 seq. 7 Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, 1895. It is evident, also, that the genealogical section, Ruth 417--22, was appended to the story of Ruth. There is nothing in the story as such that looks for such an ending. The story naturally comes to an end with the birth and naming of Obed, 417 a, b. The Psalm Hab. 3 is commonly regarded by modern critics as a later insertion. It has a title, like many of the Psalms, "Prayer of Habakkuk, the Prophet, upon Stringed Instruments," and a subscription ascribing it to the director.2 It also has the selah3 characteristic of the Psalter. It is evident, therefore, that this Psalm was originally in the Director's Major Psalter before it was attached to the prophet Habakkuk, and while in that Psalter received the musical assignment, and also the ascription to Habakkuk. It was because of that traditional ascription that it came at last to be appended to the prophecy of Habakkuk. The Psalm in its present form implies earlier Psalms. The last verses, 17-19, seem to have been added to the original Psalm for purely liturgical reasons. The original Psalm in verses 10 seq. resembles so greatly Ps. 7717-21 that we must infer a use of one by the other. There can be no doubt that Ps. 77 uses the Psalm of Habakkuk, for it is itself a mosaic of three original separate Psalms or parts of Psalms.4 4. There are interpolations in the Septuagint version in connection with Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther. They are also found in the New Testament by the general consent of scholars, -in Mk. 169-20,5 in the Gospel of John 753-811,6 in the famous passage of the heavenly witnesses, the First Epistle of John 57, and elsewhere. We have seen that many scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found such interpolations in the Pentateuch. They are found by scholars in other books of the Bible. .of the Sept על נגינות of Hebrew text is doubtless an error for על שגינות 1 .למנצח 2 So the subscription is a mistake for of the Sept. 8 Ver. 3, 9, 13. 4 772-4 is a seven-lined trimeter; 775-16 has two twelve-lined trimeters; and 7717-21 is a fourteen-lined trimeter. This last piece is in itself incomplete. It was partly taken from the Psalm of Habakkuk, and condensed and otherwise modified. 6 See the marginal note of the revisers in the Revised Version of 1881. 6 Bracketed in the Revised Version of 1881. 7 See p. 276. In the New Testament, in addition to the passages already cited, one more may suffice. Dr. McGiffert explains the additions to the Epistle to the Romans thus: "The brief note of introduction referred to throws more light than any of the other sources upon the life of the Ephesian church. It is found in Rom. 161-3. That that passage did not constitute originally a part of the Epistle to the Romans seems plain enough. It is inconceivable that Paul, who had never been in Rome when he wrote his epistle, should not only know personally so many members of the Roman church, but should also be intimately acquainted with their situation and surroundings. There is far less of the personal element in the remainder of the epistle than in most of Paul's letters, and yet in this single sixteenth chapter more persons are greeted by name than in all his other epistles combined, and the way in which he refers to them shows a remarkable familiarity with local conditions in the church. to which he is writing. The Epistle to the Romans comes to a fitting close at the end of chapter fifteen, and the disordered state of the text in the latter part of the epistle, and the repetitions and displacements of the doxologies in some of the most ancient manuscripts, suggests that one or more additions have been made to the original letter. On the other hand, while the chapter in question seems entirely out of place in a letter addressed to the church of Rome, it contains just such greetings, and just such a wealth of personal allusions, as might be expected in an epistle sent to Ephesus, where Paul labored so long and zealously. There are to be found in it, moreover, certain specific references that point to Ephesus as the place of its destination. Among those to whom Paul sends salutations are Epænetus, the "first fruits of Asia," and Aquila and Priscilla, whom he calls his fellow-workers, and who, as we know, labored with him in Ephesus during at least the greater part of his stay in the city. He refers to the church in their house both in this chapter and in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written at Ephesus. Among those who join Paul in sending greetings are Timothy and Erastus, both of whom were with him in Ephesus. It is clear also from 1 Cor. 1a and 1615 seq. that the intercourse between the Christians of Ephesus and of Corinth was close and constant, and it is therefore not surprising that there should be others in the latter city at the time Paul wrote who were personally known to the Ephesian disciples. Finally, it should be observed that Paul's references to the fact that Aquila and Priscilla had laid down their necks in his behalf, and that Andronicus and Junias had been his fellow-prisoners, references which seem to recall events well known to the Christians to whom he was writing, -point to dangers and sufferings similar to those we know he was called upon to face in Ephesus. In the light of such facts as these it is altogether probable that we have in the sixteenth chapter of Romans a letter addressed to the Ephesian church. It is possible that it is only part of a larger epistle now lost, but it is more likely that we have it practically complete and in its original form. Just as it stands it constitutes an appropriate note of introduction and commendation, and there is no sign that it is merely a fragment. That it should have been attached to the Epistle to the Romans is not particularly surprising. It was evidently written from Corinth, as the Epistle to the Romans was, and at about the same time with that epistle. It may have been transcribed also by the same hand, and in that case nothing would be more natural than that the smaller should become attached to the larger in copies of the two taken in Corinth at the time they were written."1 Bishop Perowne gives this testimony as regards the Psalter: "It is plain that these ancient Hebrew songs and hymns must have suffered a variety of changes in the course of time, similar to those which may be traced in the older religious poetry of the Christian Church, where this has been adapted by any means to the object of some later compiler. Thus, hymns once intended for private use became adapted to public. Words and expressions applicable to the original circumstances of the writer, but not applicable to the new purpose to which the hymn was to be put, were omitted or altered. It is only in a critical age that any anxiety is manifested to ascertain the original form in which a poem appeared. The practical use of hymns in the Christian Church, and of the Psalms in the Jewish, far outweighed all considerations of a critical kind, or rather these last never occurred. Hence it has become a more difficult task than it otherwise would have been to ascertain the historical circumstances under which certain Psalms were written. Some traces we find leading us to one period of Jewish history; others which lead to another. Often there is a want of cohesion between the parts of a Psalm; often an abruptness of transition which we can hardly account for, except on the hypothesis that we no longer read the Psalm in its original form." 2 All these questions are to be determined by the principles of the Higher Criticism. The authority of the Bible does not depend upon the integrity of particular writings. If the edit1 McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, 1897, pp. 275-277. 2 In l.c., p. 82. ing and interpolating were done under the influence of the Divine Spirit, this carries with it the same authority as the original document. If the interpolations are of a different character, such as are found to be the case in some at least of the apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther, they should be removed from the Bible. If the authority of the Bible depended upon our first finding who wrote these interpolations and who edited the books, and whether these interpolators and editors were inspired men, we could never reach conviction as to many of them. But inasmuch as the authority of the Bible depends not upon this literary question of integrity of writing, but upon the Word of God recognized in the writing; and we prove the inspiration of the authors from the authority of the writings rather than the authority of the writings from the inspiration of the authors, the authority of the Bible is not disturbed by any changes in traditional opinion as to these writings. The only question of integrity with which inspiration has to do is the integrity of the Canon, whether the interpolations, the separate parts, the writings as a whole, are real and necessary parts of the system of divine revelation- whether they contain the Divine Word. This can never be determined by the Higher Criticism, which has to do only with literary integrity and not with canonical integrity. We doubt not the canonicity of Mk. 169-20, although it seems necessary to separate it from the original Gospel of Mark. VIII. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES Several questions arise under this head. (1) Is the author's name given in connection with the writing? (2) Is it anonymous? (3) Can it be pseudonymous? (4) Is it a compilation? All these are ordinary features of the world's literature. Is there any sound reason why they should not all be found in Holy Scripture? There has ever been a tendency in the Synagogue and the Church to ascribe the biblical books to certain wellknown holy men and prophets. Tradition has been busy here. There is no book of the Bible that has not one or more traditional authors. And so in all departments of literature, there |