P. 4: 'We might begin with the proposition, that the New Testament was divinely inspired: and then we should come at once to the conclusion of its credibility, without even moving the question, by whom the several books of it were written. But this mode of reasoning, though it recommends itself by its great convenience, and has therefore not unfrequently been adopted, is attended with the same defect, as an attempt to prove a proposition in geometry by means of another proposition, which is itself dependent on the proposition to which we apply it.' In pp. 44-51, 56-60, is an outline of Marsh's hypothesis on the composition of the Synoptic gospels, with a short objection to Veysie's hypothesis. Pp. 94, 95: 'Here then I will conclude the series of Lectures on the Authenticity and Credibility of the New Testament: a series of regular and continued deduction, in which no proposition has been admitted without previous proof, in which no argument has been applied, that is dependent on the subject of application. I have complied therefore with the strictest demands, which can be made by those, who require a reason of the hope that is in us. And if these Lectures, thus rigidly adhering to the laws of consistent demonstration, shall be the means of convincing one unbeliever, the labour bestowed on them will not have been bestowed in vain.' ... Part VII. A course of lectures. ... 'Lecture XXXI. Statement of the reasons, why the Authenticity and Credibility of the New Testament were considered, before similar inquiries had been instituted in regard to the Old Testament. The records which contain the Mosaic and Christian religions, must not be confounded with the religions themselves. The authority of the later record having been established independently of the former record, we may argue from the authority of the New Testament to that of the Old Testament without arguing in a circle. Difference between the Old and New Testaments, with respect to the applicability of the terms "authentic" and "credible." These terms though applicable to every book of the New Testament, are not equally applicable to every book of the Old Testament. They are applicable to the five books of Moses. Proof of their Authenticity has been already given. The term is not applicable to those historic books, of which the authors are unknown. But the term "credibility" is applicable to all of them. Reasons for the credibility of the Pentateuch. Reasons for the credibility of the other historic books of the Old Testament. The prophetical writings considered, with reference to their authenticity and credibility. Both terms are applicable to all the prophetical books. Illustration of the term "credibility," as applied to prophecy. General remarks on the five remaining books of the Old Testament, namely, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Song. XXXII. The books of the Old Testament considered, not individually, but collectively. Explanation of the term "authority," as used in this and the following Lecture. Examination of the question, whether the authority of the Old Testament may not be established generally. Explanation of the mode of arguing from the authority of the New Testament to that of the Old Testament. The testimony of our Saviour to the books of the Old Testament sufficient proof of their authority. Dif- 5 ferent ways in which He has borne such testimony. All the Hebrew Scriptures, as they existed in the time of our Saviour, received His sanction. If therefore they contained the same books, which are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles, we have the sanction of our Saviour for every book of the Old Testament, that is, every canonical book of 10 the Old Testament. Consequent necessity of our inquiring into the Hebrew Canon, or the Canon of the Old Testament, as it existed at Jerusalem in the time of our Saviour. The Hebrew Scriptures divided into three classes. Antiquity of this division. The first class always termed the Law; and the second class the Prophets. The books of 15 the third class, which at first had no distinguishing title, were afterwards called in Hebrew Chetubim, in Greek Hagiographa. Our Saviour in appealing to the Hebrew Scriptures observed the threefold division of them. Comparison of His appeal with those of Philo and Josephus. According to the Jewish reckoning, the three classes con- 20 tained twenty-two books; whereas the canonical books of the Old Testament, as arranged in our Bibles. amount to thirty-nine. Explanation of the manner, in which the Jews made the books of the Old Testament amount to twenty-two: whence it follows, that the books, which constituted the Hebrew Bible in the time of our Saviour, agreed, as to 25 their real number, with the books which now constitute our Hebrew Bibles. XXXIII. Object of this Lecture to prove that the Hebrew Scriptures, which received the sanction of our Saviour, contained the same books, which are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. That the Hebrew Scriptures at a certain period contained certain books, is a historical fact, for which in the first instance we may inquire after historical evidence. But direct historical evidence to the books which composed the Hebrew Scriptures in the first century cannot now be obtained. The fact still capable of proof from induction. Mode of conducting that proof. The chief object is to connect the catalogue of 35 the Hebrew Scriptures, which Jerom has given in his Prologus galeatus, with the account which Josephus has given of the Hebrew Scriptures, in his treatise against Apion. When we have connected Jerom's catalogue with the account of Josephus, we may connect the Hebrew Scriptures as they existed in the time of our Saviour, with the Hebrew 40 Scriptures as they exist at present. In other words it will follow, that the Canon of the Old Testament, as it existed at Jerusalem in the time of our Saviour, was the same Canon, as that which is now represented by our Hebrew Bibles. Mode of connecting the catalogue of Jerom with the account of Josephus; whence it appears, that the 45 Hebrew Scriptures in the time of Josephus, contained the same books, which they contained in the time of Jerom. This inference is confirmed by additional evidence drawn from Josephus himself. The Hebrew Scriptures to which our Saviour appealed, were the same Hebrew Scriptures, to which Josephus appealed. The Hebrew Scrip- 50 30 tures enumerated by Jerom in his Prologus galeatus, contained the same books, which are now contained in our Hebrew Bibles. The final conclusion therefore is, that the Hebrew Canon in the time of our Saviour was the same Hebrew Canon which is now represented by our Hebrew Bibles; and that we have His sanction for every canonical book of the Old Testament. XXXIV. Our inquiries into the Integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures may be divided into two periods, the one extending from the time of Moses to that of our Saviour, the other from the time of our Saviour to the present age. In the former period we may collect historical notices, concerning the care which was taken by the Jews for the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the latter period we must endeavour to repel the charge, which has been laid to the Jews, of having wilfully corrupted the Hebrew Scriptures; and further to shew that the utmost caution has been used to prevent accidental mistakes. The preservation of the Pentateuch or the Book of the Law, a matter of special importance to the Jews. Care taken in this respect by Moses himself. Remarks on the Temple-copy of the Law. Whether this copy was preserved, when the Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Preservation of THE LAW (whether the Temple-copy or not) during the Babylonish captivity, and production of it by Ezra, when the Temple was rebuilt. On the preservation of the other books, which were written before the Babylonish captivity. Collection made by Ezra and Nehemiah, of the books which were written before, during, and after the Babylonish captivity. The books so collected formed the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and were preserved in the Temple till the destruction of it by Titus. The Hebrew Scriptures, which received the sanction of our Saviour, received His sanction, as they then existed. No charge of previous corruption alleged against the Scribes and Pharisees. The question examined whether the Jews have subsequently corrupted the Hebrew Scriptures. Obstacles to the execution of such an attempt, even if the Jews had been inclined to make it. On the extreme caution, which has been employed by the Jews, to prevent even accidental mistakes. Remarks on certain alterations and additions, which are neither wilful corruptions, nor accidental mistakes. Recapitulation and conclusion.' It is plain from this summary, that Marsh's method here is less severe than in his argument respecting the N. T. Thus he says (p. 9), 'Now the historic books of the Old Testament have been received as true by the Jews of every age: consequently by the Jews, who lived at the same time with the authors of those histories.' Here assuredly more is affirmed than the very imperfect materials for a literary history of the O. T. will warrant: nothing less than a catena of authorities of successive ages could justify so positive a statement. Our Saviour's ratification of the O. T. seems also to be misunderstood, as Tholuck and other critics of no negative school maintain, when it is regarded as a critical judgement upon the entire canon and text of the Hebrew Bible. Lectures on the authenticity and credibility of the New Testament; III. The and on the authority of the Old Testament: with an appendix, containing, I. A summary statement of the principal evidences for the divine origin of Christianity. II. An essay on the usefulness and necessity of theological learning to those who are designed for holy orders. authenticity of the five books of Moses vindicated. By Herbert Marsh, 5 D.D. late lord bishop of Peterborough. New edition. London: printed for J. G. F. and J. Rivington, St. Paul's church yard, and Waterloo Place, Pall Mall. 1840. 8vo. pp. xvi and 296. The Preface by the editor H. C. M.' the bishop's son, states that the volume is a reprint of parts V-VII of the lectures, with the addition IO of an Appendix. "The "Summary Statement" was drawn up for the use of candidates for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Peterborough, and it was the intention of the Author, had his health permitted him to superintend the reprinting of the present Lectures, to have annexed the "Summary Statement" to them. The "Vindication of the 15 Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses," forins a part of the proof of the Authority of the Old Testament, conducted in the ninth [= 31st] Lecture; and no apology, I trust, need be added, for annexing the "Essay on the Usefulness of Theological Learning to those who are designed for Holy Orders," to a series of Lectures which, though 20 intended to be of general utility, were drawn up more especially for the benefit of those persons who were destined for the Ministry. BARNACK, September, 1840.' ... There are some additional notes in this edition, e. g. p. 61. P. 64: 'If I had been convinced that the quotations which Justin has given 25 from the work which he calls ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, had been copied from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I should not have abstained from appealing to them: for in that case I should have obtained an additional argument in my own favour. I should have obtained another evidence in favour of that very 30 authenticity which it is the object of this lecture to establish. But whatever benefit I might derive from those quotations, I have abstained from appealing to them, because I still doubt whether I could fairly do so. They who believe that these doubts are unfounded, may make what use they can of Justin's quotations: and I readily leave the 35 question in the hands of those whose critical acumen is entitled to more deference than any which I can claim for myself.' 'A summary statement' etc. (Append. pp. 249-264). 'Printed for distribution among the candidates for holy orders in the Diocese of Peterborough, and intended as the groundwork of their examination in 40 this subject.' External evidence necessary as well as internal. 'Internal evidence may...be confounded with internal feeling.' Our Lord and the apostles appealed to the evidence of miracles and prophecy. Miracles can be performed by no other power than that of God. Miracles not incapable 45 of proof; the proof of the Christian miracles abundant. Prophecy, applicable by accommodation, no true prophecy. Isaiah 53. Wm. Jephson's Vindication of the questions proposed by the bishop of Peterborough, 1821, 39: 'I am glad of the opportunity of referring to those Lectures which were listened to with so much rapture in the most crowded assembly at the University of Cambridge, and are, now that they are published, the theme of admiration to all the real judges of theological learning.' Marsh commenced the course on Saturday, 29 Apr. 1809, in St. Mary's, to nearly all the resident members of the university and many of the inhabitants of the town (Cambr. Chron. 5 May 1809). Is. Milner's Strictures, pp. 278, 279: 'I allude to his requesting me to sit in my place as Vice-Chancellor, at St. Mary's, during his course of public lectures in the year 1810. The reading of the divinity lecture there was so new a thing that it had only occurred once before. There was neither custom nor necessity to render the Vice-Chancellor's attendance a duty....I have already observed how incompatible it is with my infirmities to be present in public assemblies, and confined to the same situation, especially when the air is cool and damp.......All the objections I have stated... were instantly outweighed, in my mind, by the strong opinion which I perceived Dr. Marsh to have formed, that the Vice-Chancellor's presence in his proper place would add respectability both to the Professor of Divinity and to his public lecture.' Sir W. Hamilton, Discussions etc. (1852 from Edinb. Rev. Oct. 1834), p. 508: 'It is known to all who know any thing of modern divinity, that the theological writings of Eichhorn, especially his Introductions, concentrate in the highest degree all that is peculiar and most obnoxious in the German school of Biblical criticism,—of which, in fact, he was, while living, the genuine representative, and distinguished leader. Now, Lloyd, late Professor of Hebrew in Cambridge [Henry Lloyd; see Class. Journ. III. 243], circulated proposals for translating the boldest of Eichhorn's Introductions,-that to the Old Testament; and Bishop Marsh, in his Lectures on Divinity, addressed to the rising clergy of the University, once and again recommends, in the strongest terms, the same work to their study; nor, throughout his whole course, does he think it necessary to utter a single word of warning against the irreligious tendency of this, or, so far as we remember, of any other production of the German divines. And, be it considered, that, whilst he peculiarly affects an ultra Anglican orthodoxy, the Bishop's knowledge of German theology is of a very different character from that of those who have been recently so busy in giving us the measure of their modicum of knowledge and understanding on this important and difficult subject....If men in the situation, and with the authority of Lloyd and Marsh, endeavoured thus to promote the study of Eichhorn and his school among the academic youth; either the opinions of the German Divines are not such as the Advocate and others have found it convenient to represent them; or (quod absit!) these opinions are already throned in the high places of the English Universities and Church, in spite of the very oaths and subscriptions which it is argued are necessary in order to exclude them.' Strictures on the Rev. G. Glover's Remarks...by Philodike, Lond. 1821, |