Skip to main content

Full text of "Popular Interpretations of Old Testament Thought"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


contributions of scholarship at different points have made necessary 

a new writing of the religious history of this period. Mr. Browne 

has done a good piece of critically constructive work. The identity of 

the authorship of the Servant Songs and the rest of Isaiah, chapters 

40-55, is made clear by a convincing citation of parallel passages showing 

unity of thought and identical phraseology. This is important for the 

history of religion since it puts the missionary conception of Israel's 

task as early at least as the latter part of the sixth century B.C. In 

this connection a suggestion more ingenious than convincing is made, 

that the difficulty of the servant Israel saving the nation Israel is solved 

by making the two represent the Israel of pure stock as saving the 

half-blooded Israel that had mingled itself with non-Hebrew peoples. 

It is better, however, to remove the problem entirely by a different 

translation of 49:6. Haggai's parable of the clean and unclean is made 

to refer to the participation of the Samaritans in the building of the 

temple which rendered the whole enterprise unclean. Isaiah, chapter 64, 

is interpreted as a sermon by a Samaritan prophet. In this connection, 

Mr. Browne's question as to the improbability of a Hebrew prophet 

laying the blame upon Yahweh for leading Israel astray, as is done in 

Isa. 63:17, is easily countered by a reference to Ezekiel where precisely 

that charge is made. The building of the Samaritan temple and the 

final schism between Jerusalem and Samaria are rightly brought down to 

Alexander's time. The claim that Ezra's law was Deuteronomy only 

does not quite fit the facts. It has long seemed to me that Ezra's 

reform was based upon some earlier form of the Priestly Code than 

that which we now have. 

The proofreading is good, but a few errors have crept in. It is not 

quite accurate to cite Driver as dating Daniel in 300 B.C. (p. 37); see 

Driver's Introduction (1914), page 509. On page 37, "try and find" 

should yield place to "try to find." On pages xiii and 43, Bibliothek 

is misspelled, and on page 55, ceiled. 

J. M. Powis Smith 
University of Chicago 


Mr. Cohu has written with the distinct aim of reaching the 
general public. The title of his book 1 is a bit misleading, since it con- 
fines itself to the Old Testament. But the point of view is genuinely 
historical and the method of treatment is such as to hold the interest 

1 The Bible and Modern Thought. By J. R. Cohu. New York: Dutton, 1920. 

xii +341 pages. $6.00. 


of the educated layman. The history of Israel is briefly outlined and 
each Old Testament writing is considered in the light of its historical 
background. The author stresses not literary and formal matters, but 
the religious and theological ideas and practices that the literature dis- 
closes. A high degree of accuracy of statement is assured by the fact 
that the author's manuscript was read by Professor C. F. Burney and 
by Mr. C. G. Montefiore. 

Of course, no man may expect to meet with approval of all his 
opinions, and in such a broad survey of Hebrew literature and life as 
this there is naturally room for much difference of opinion. For example, 
with a more thoroughgoing criticism of the Book of Isaiah, it is doubtful 
whether we could rightly call Isaiah "the most optimistic of the proph- 
ets." The treatment of Ezra and Nehemiah is not quite in line with 
the latest findings in that period, which has been greatly illuminated by 
the discovery of the Assuan papyri, some mention of which should have 
been made in this work. But the book as a whole is worthy of high 
praise. It is far ahead of most popular books in its scholarship and it 
may be heartily commended to the public for which it was written. 

Dr. Jastrow's commentary upon one of the world's masterpieces 1 
is provided with an extensive introduction and a translation which is 
accompanied by explanatory footnotes. The whole is addressed pri- 
marily to the non-specialist, but it presents the results of long study and 
is therefore of interest likewise to the specialist. The process of literary 
analysis is carried farther here than in any preceding study of the text of 
Job not even excluding that of Siegfried in the Polychrome Bible. The 
drama of Job is dissolved into a symposium which in its original form 
included only chapters 1-27 and 42:7-9, i.e., the prose prologue and 
epilogue and the first two cycles of the debate. Indeed, it is with reluc- 
tance that the second cycle is allowed to stand to the credit of the original 
book. The third cycle, chapter 28, the speeches of Elihu and the 
Yahweh speeches, were all added later by writers who sought to supple- 
ment the thought of the original writer in various ways. Not only so 
but the Elihu speeches are themselves composite and the text of the 
original book has been doctored by orthodox editors who sought to 
furnish an antidote to the skeptical tone of the original Job. 

The introduction is long, but well calculated to impress upon the 
reader the fact of the composite character of the book as the work of 
many hands. The original book was an out-and-out denial of the 
moral order of the universe. Such a message, however, challenged the 

1 The Book of Job. Its origin, growth, and interpretation, together with a new 
translation based on a revised text. By Morris Jastrow. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 
1920. 369 pages. $4.00. 


minds of many Jews, and as one after another sought to enrich the dis- 
cussions by his own contribution the book grew to its present dimensions 
and character. Finally, it was completely transformed, or at least 
sufficiently so that its original skepticism escaped the eye of the common 
reader and awaited the discovery of the modern scholar. 

The translation is very free. Emendation of the text is generously 
indulged in, most of the corrections being taken from Ehrlich's Rand- 
glossen; when the text is not changed paraphrase frequently replaces 
translation. The objection to this is that it substitutes the author's 
own private interpretation for the original text. We really have 
before us still another addition to, or revision of, the Book of Job. 
This may be seen from the treatment of the famous passage 19:25 f. 
which is rendered thus: 

Then I would know that my defender will arise, 
Even though he arise in the distant future. 
Only under my skin is this indited, 
And within my flesh do I see these [words]. 

The "would know" calls for an imperfect instead of the perfect of the 
text. "Defender" is rather weak for the text's "avenger" or "redeemer." 
"Will arise" is a very free rendering of "is alive" or "lives." "Even 
though he arise b the distant future" is very far removed indeed from 
the text's "and a later one will rise upon dust." The "only under" 
of the next line is clearly an emendation of "and after" (or perhaps, 
"and behind"). The "my" in both instances is in the text and need not 
be italicized. "Indited" is free conjecture for the present text which is 
untranslatable. "Within" is a very free rendering of "from"; and 
"God" has been ruthlessly eliminated to make way for "these [words]." 
Dr. Jastrow is probably right in refusing to credit the original Job with 
any hope of a future life, but his conclusion is not strengthened by such 
methods as these. 

There are many useful and illuminating suggestions in this com- 
mentary which will make it of value to scholars, but it is too subjective 
and speculative to be a safe guide for the unwary layman. 

J. M. Powis Smith 
University of Chicago 



This is the first of a series which ought to continue and grow more 

and more valuable with succeeding years. This volume contains four 

1 The Annual of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. Vol. I 
(for 1919-20). By C. C. Torrey. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920. xiii+92