A critical history of the Doctrine of a future life
in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity; or, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian eschatology from pre-prophetic times till the close of the New Testament canon ..
The present work is the result of studies begun over twelve years ago and pursued unremittingly for the past ten. This long period of preparation is partly to be explained by the fact that some of the most important books in the history of the development of Jewish eschatology had to be studied afresh and re-edited before their evidence was available for such a work as the present. After a severe and prolonged examination of the Apocalyptic and Apocryphal literature of Judaism, I proceeded to carry my investigations backwards into the Old Testament and forward into the New, and in both cases,
I hope, for fresh and fruitful results. I am painfully aware, however, of the unsatisfactory treatment of some of the books in the New Testament, such as The Apocalypse, and of the need for a deeper and fuller treatment of the Messianic hope of the Nation in the Old Testament. It seemed good, however, not to delay publication further, and accordingly, I gladly accepted the invitation of the Jowett Committee to give a course of lectures on the subject of these studies
Throughout this work, I have been obliged repeatedly to abandon the beaten track in dealing with the eschatology both of the Old and of the New Testament. This has been due in part to the method pursued; for it became clear to me many years ago that, in order to apprehend the evidence of a passage dealing with the religious hopes of Israel, it was necessary to study it not only in its textual but also in its historical context.
All scholars with any pretension to thoroughness have already recognised the duty of studying a passage in its textual context; but very few have seen that it is just as necessary to study it in its historical context, that is, in its rightful place in the development of religious thought. Thus two writings may be composed within the same decade: yet one may be reactionary in character, and belong to a bygone period of development, while the other may be spiritual and progressive, and in the van of the religious thought of the time. In such cases, it is part of the historian to allow the definitive passages in both writings their full weight, and not to force them into unnatural conformity by spiritualising some or materialising others.
Download