I n t e rna t i ona l S t anda rd Bible E n c y c l o p a e d i a
TT' OR a long time those engaged in the work o f training men for the ministry and for other forms o f Christian work, have felt the crying need that there was for a Bible dictionary, or a Bible encyclo pedia that was, up-to-date, scholarly, com plete; thorough, and dependable, which they could safely recommend to ministers, theological students, Sunday School work ers, and earnest students o f the Bible gen erally. The one-volume Bible dictionary edited by Professor Davis o f Princeton Theological Seminary, was satisfactory as far as it went, but the articles were alto gether too brief, and therefore not com plete enough to meet the need o f the thor ough student. Smith’s “Dictionary o f the Bible” was antiquated, the “Encyclopaedia Biblica” Was so erratic, fanciful, and some times even fantastical in its theories as to be absolutely worthless, except as a reduc- tio ad absurdum o f the current critical theories, and Hastings’ “ Dictionary o f the Bible” was utterly undependable and could not be recommended to any one unless he was well enough versed in the questions at issue not to be misled by its many unre liable statements and reasonings. In the International Standard Bible Ency clopaedia the need that so many have felt has been well met. As the editors o f the work and the contributors to it are only human, o f course the work is not without defects, but taken as a whole it far sur passes our- expectations; in fact, we have been so well pleased with it, after a pretty thorough examination, «that it seems to us as if it was well nigh' indispensable for any one who has any ambition to be an accurate, scholarly preacher or teacher bf the Word o f God. In examining the work, we natur ally looked first at the articles on the books or sections o f Scripture regarding which there has been. the most dispute among
those who claim to be critical scholars, and for the most part we found them very sat isfactory, both from the standpoint o f scholarship and the standpoint o f reliabil ity. For example; the article on the Penta teuch shows a thorough grasp o f the most recent discussions. It exposes in a thor ough w.ay the utter unreliability o f those conclusions o f the destructive critics which we have been, told so often were the “assured results” o f the best scholarship, that many who had,not gone into the ques tion for themselves supposed o f course, they must be. The article on the Hexateuch is short, but long enough, and altogether conclusive. The article on Isaiah goes at length into the arguments for and against the unity o f the book, and decides for the unity o f the book upon arguments which are con clusive for any one who is trying to dis cover the facts in the case, and not merely trying to establish a theory. The three paragraphs o f the article on the literature dealing with the subject, are comprehen sive, giving the best books on all sides o f the question. The article on the book o f Daniel, writ ten by one who is widely recognized as one o f the ablest Semitic scholars o f the day, exposes the utter baselessness o f the argu ments which the destructive critics have been so insistently urging against the gen uineness o f the book. The objections are given very fully and stated very fairly, and then their forcelessness is fully demon strated. There are two articles o f minor importance, viz., the one on the Apocrypha and the one on the book o f Sirach, that in passing bring down the date o f the writ ing o f the book o f Daniel to a later period than the writing o f the book o f Sirach, which the former article assigns to 190 to 170 B. C , and the latter to 240 to 200 B. C.,
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker