inspiration of the Bible, and to these the work of the Higher Criticism in tracing the history of the various books and ascribing different parts of the sacred record to different periods, savours of profanity. Selecting passages from a unique whole appears to such minds a process of" tinkering," alike dangerous and irreverent. I must confess that I have no sympathy with these classes of objectors. There is, in my judgment, no lack of reverence in a desire to comprehend more fully the origins, sources and natural history even of a sacred book, and the only ground on which criticism can be held to be unjustifiable is because it is so speculative in character that its affirmations may be safely neglected. But such, I venture to think, is not the case with Biblical criticism at the present day. Practical unanimity has been reached on at all events the main outlines of the history of the Old Testament, and even orthodox thinkers in England accept a great many of the conclusions of German scholars.

But the critical aspect of the affair does not possess for me as much interest as the literary. Most people are vaguely aware that imbedded in a mass of priestly writing on ceremonial and ritual, a mass, too, of chronological detail, genealogies and other diversions of the ecclesiastical mind, are to be found in our Bible passages of supreme literary value, exhibiting the highest artistic qualities and intellectual characteristics of the Hebrews. It has been my effort to disentangle these and set them in light all the clearer by their very isolation from their context; and for this purpose I have discriminated between passages of descriptive history, romantic stories, outpourings of personal piety, efforts of eloquent rhetoric, denunciation, prophecy and chapters of philosophical thought. The selection may have been well made or badly made, but I am glad to find that, such as it is, it has appealed to many readers who have discovered afresh, and perhaps from a fresh point of view, the charm and beauty

of the ancient Scriptures. To give the reader the latest results of Biblical criticism and to set before his eyes the extraordinary literary value of the Bible-these, to speak succinctly, have been my main objects in producing this book.

I hope I have paid due attention to the suggestions and admonitions of my kindly critics. I cannot, however, admit that it would have been better to have made use of the Revised rather than of the Authorized Version. If my main object had been accuracy, no doubt I ought to have availed myself of a translation avowedly more exact and accurate than that which was executed by the scholars of King James. But, as my primary aim was literary, it seems to me absurd to prefer a version which has every merit except that it is not literary to one which may conceivably have every defect except that it was written at the most glorious time of our English prose. Such mistakes and confusions as occur are for the most part confined to smaller points, and do not affect the essential characteristics. One critic made the valuable suggestion that I ought to have put the prophets in their proper historical order. And indeed it would have been in many ways better if the books of Amos and Hosea had preceded that of Isaiah, as showing the development and affiliation of religious ideas; but if I had once begun to arrange the books of the Old Testament in reference to the historical order of their composition, the Bible would have been turned upside down and presented an aspect utterly confusing to those familiar with its present shape. Against such a reconstruction as this, I fear that the accusation of "tinkering" with Holy Writ would have been urged with much greater point.

I fully admit that my notes to various passages are in many cases inadequate, and that there are too few of them. It has been urged, and with no little truth, that more explanation

than I have given is necessary. But here I think I can plead exigencies of space. This book, of course, would have been twice as long if it had included a commentary such as that which would have appealed to Biblical scholars.

In this new and popular edition I am still more anxious than I was before to be of some service to those who through carelessness, or ignorance, or prejudices entertained on other grounds, have hitherto been blind to the value of the Old Testament scriptures. In order to complete my work I am quite aware that I ought to add the Apocrypha. But this is quite a distinct task which can hardly possess the same interest as that which I have attempted. The New Testament naturally stands on a different ground: moreover its literary elements are not so conspicuous. On the charm of the old Hebraic books it is not necessary for me to dilate. If it does not sufficiently appeal to modern readers, the fault must be due to the recognition of other ideals, alien from those enshrined in the Bible. Whatever may be the deficiencies of the present book, it is at least an honest attempt, as I stated in my preface to the first edition, to "bring the Bible back again" to those who have either forgotten, or learnt to misprize, its value.

August 1908.

W. L. C.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION

PROBABLY no one has ever completed a piece of work without the most profound misgivings as to its value. When a writer has been engaged for a long time in the details of a book, it is very difficult to put it away from himself and regard it objectively, as though he had had no hand in its production. In the present case certain criticisms are, of course, obvious. The general scheme may be objected to, or if that is considered praiseworthy, the method in which it is worked out may be held to be deserving of censure. Of course, there are serious and reverent students who dislike any process that seems to tamper with the text of Holy Scripture. To such, naturally, the present book will make no appeal.

With much hesitation I have used the title The Literary Man's Bible, because it more exactly explains than any other the purpose I have in view. There is an implied assumption in the title which I do not like. Doubtless it savours somewhat of arrogance to pretend an ability to select some passages rather than others as representative of a higher literary value. But what I should like the reader to understand is that throughout I concern myself with the Old Testament purely as literature, and that a treatment which would be unpardonable so long as the Bible is regarded as a religious manual may possibly be excused if the standpoint throughout is concerned with the character of Hebraic documents, emanating from a race which was admirably fitted to give us

very high examples of literary attainment. I confess that what I should like to do is to give back the Bible to thoughtful men, who, owing to a variety of circumstances, are not able to appreciate, or have ceased to appreciate, its unparalleled value. With great regret I have omitted the Apocrypha, mainly on grounds connected with the length which, if it were included, this volume would assume. With the New Testament also I am not at present concerned. I have used the Authorised Version throughout, because the Revised Version, doubtless more accurate, cannot hope to compete with the older and more familiar version, which was produced at a great flowering time of English letters.

The question of notes has been very troublesome. Something of the nature of explanation is clearly necessary. Yet it would have been absurd in a volume like this to enter largely into disquisitions more appropriate to works belonging to the higher criticism. There must inevitably be something arbitrary in the selection of passages requiring annotation; but a writer can only be guided in these matters by his own instinct and predilections, which very likely may not commend themselves to others. I have thought it better to keep the notes as short as possible; but I am quite aware that their very brevity may lead to obscurity. Brevis esse laboro: Obscurus fio. Perhaps some readers may find even lightness or flippancy in my comments, but I am not personally conscious of so unworthy an attitude.

From a similar desire to be terse and explicit, I have not quoted many authorities, but I think chapter and verse could be given for all my statements. The books I have mainly used are Cornill's Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, translated by Mr. G. H. Box; Dr. Driver, -especially on the Book of Genesis and on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah; Mr. H. A. Redpath on Ezekiel; Dr. Cheyne, and here and there his latest volume