Study Of Old Testament Research Articles

Can These Dry Bones Live? Princeton’s Legendary Nineteenth-century Old Testament Professors and What They Can Teach Us Today

Anniversaries call us to remember the past and Princeton’s Seminary’s two hundredth anniversary presents a unique opportunity to revisit the history of the study of Old Testament at Princeton in the nineteenth century and ask what lessons it has to teach us as we face the future. This article examines the work of Princeton’s legendary Old Testament professors, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, Joseph Addison Alexander, and William Henry Green, as well as three of Green’s colleagues, James Frederick McCurdy, Gerhardus Vos, and John Davis. It shows development and continuity in teaching and scholarship as the Old Princetonians confronted cutting-edge issues of their day, committing themselves tirelessly to their vocations as Christian teachers and scholars, and diligently training students to serve the Church and academy.

Book Reviews in the "Journal of Biblical Literature" 125 Years in Retrospect

In his presidential address to Society of Biblical Literature delivered at Haverford College on December 26, 1916, Morris Jastrow (1861-1922) reflected on role of critic (Constructive Elements in Critical Study of Old Testament, JBL 36 [1917]: 1-30). Jastrow noted that the critic has never been a popular figure. At his worst he is an iconoclast, at his best he makes us feel uncomfortable. ... biblical critic ... fortunately appeared at a time when it was no longer fashionable to burn people at stake, but he has been alternatively denounced as an enemy to church and as a foe to religion (p. 1). Despite such risks, Jastrow argued, fundamental commitment of biblical scholars must be to cultivate critical engagement: A scholar tied or pledged to traditional views can never become a critic, even though his learning reaches to pinnacles of human industry (p. 2). Jastrow's words, which read as an encomium for critical methodologies and bear repeating in our own context, aptly celebrate spirit and scholarship fostered by Society of Biblical Literature over last 125 years. And Jastrow spurs us onward, affirming that progress of critical cannot be obstructed any more than it is possible to dam up ocean (p. 1). Looking back at one facet of Society's commitment to critical study, namely, book in Journal of Biblical Literature (titled Journal of Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis until vol. 9 [ 1889] ), one is struck by how gradually and variously journal incorporated into its content. may be a consequence of Society's initial stated purpose: The object of Society is to stimulate critical study of Scriptures by presenting, discussing, and publishing original papers on biblical topics (Constitution and By-Laws, JSBLE 7 [1887]: 71, emphasis added). Review of published materials was not a high priority. Accordingly, in first fifty-four years of JBL (1881-1935, vols. 1-54), book reviews were sporadic (e.g., vols. 9 and 10 contain none) and only occasionally resemble what we expect today. Readers may find a line or two summarizing a book and evaluating its significance in Books Received section (e.g., see two examples from vol. 47 reprinted below). More typical were articlelength of certain scholarly theories, such as George Barton's Higher Archaeology and Verdict of Criticism, JBL 32 ( 1913): 244-60 (cf. S. M. Jackson, Eberhard Vischer's Theory of Composition of Revelation, JSBLE 7 [1887]: 93-95; Lewis B. Paton, Notes on Driver's Leviticus, JBL 14 [1895]: 48-56; C. W. Rishell, Baldensperger's Theory of Origin of Fourth Gospel, JBL 20 [1901]: 38-49; and James A. Montgomery, Torrey's Aramaic Gospels, JBL 53 [1934]: 79-99). There were also intermittent precursors to genre as it currently appears in JBL. first is Isaac H. Hall's brief review titled A New ArabicFrench Dictionary (/5BLE 5 [1885]: 108, reprinted below). Hall's brief review is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it highlights Society's early concern to locate and identify pertinent resources, to map emergent territory of biblical and cognate studies: This dictionary has been drawn from best sources, and is ablest production of Jesuit establishment at Beirut. Its existence is not generally known by Protestant missionaries. In this context it made sense to publish pieces like Professor Tsagareli's Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts in Monastery of Holy Cross at Jerusalem (trans. Oliver Wardrop; JBL 12 [1893]: 168-79). Extensive lists and descriptions of basic materials that would serve as bases for analyses were thus being catalogued and made known to scholarly world. second, Hall reminds us that books were comparatively difficult to come by. He made it a point to suggest ways to purchase new Arabic-French dictionary (through Westermann of New York, or through a consul at Beirut). …

Jesus' Attitude to the Old Testament: An Exposition of Mark 7:1-23

Did Jesus accept Old Testament as unquestioned authority for himself and others, or was he a critic of Old Testament teaching ? This question must be of genuine interest to Christian people until some considerable agreement is reached concerning its answer. If Jesus did not question precepts of Old Testament, but, instead, approved them without qualification as a standard of authority, many Christians will continue to feel that his example is authoritative for Christians now. If, on contrary, Great Teacher was a critic of scriptures of his age and accepted or rejected their teachings according to whether those teachings were or were not in accord with another standard to which he adhered, then we shall have not only precedent of his example in study of Old Testament, but also a fruitful suggestion as to its meaning and value. What, then, was Jesus' attitude to Old Testament ? For an answer to this question perhaps no better material can be found than that which is offered by first twenty-three verses of seventh chapter of Mark. The narrative has often been understood to mean that Jesus repudiated tradition of Jewish elders as it had been developed through scribal interpretation, and, by his approval of a quotation from Isaiah and of Fifth Commandment, gave whole Old Testament authoritative sanction as the word of God. Recently Mr. J. H. A. Hart, in The Jewish Quarterly Review (July, 1907), has put forth a learned argument to show that Jesus not only criticized Decalogue and declared Fifth Commandment not binding if Korban vow had been taken as a supreme dedication of one's life to God, but also approved scribal dialectics which supported this position. Is either of these views correct, or must they both give place to a third which evidence seems better to support ?