CHAPTER II.

THEORIES OF MODERN CRITICS.

WE proceed now to the consideration of some of the most prominent theories and hypotheses that have been propounded in modern times in explanation of the peculiarities of the sacred history spoken of in the preceding chapter. These we shall present under two heads, as they relate to the Old or to the New Testament.

§ 1. Theories in relation to the Old Testament History.

And first as to the Old Testament. Three principal hypotheses or points of view appear to prevail among the learned at the present day in relation to the historical writings of the Old Testament, which are more or less distinct, and confined to separate schools or classes of critics, and which may, therefore, be considered separately. These are the Document Hypothesis, the Mythical Theory, and the Received or Orthodox View. We will now give some account of each of these, and in the order just laid down.

1. The Document Hypothesis. This theory, which is one of the greatest, if not the greatest and most important of the results of recent criticism in the field of the Old Testament Scriptures, may properly occupy our attention at the outset of our examination, not only because its object is to pronounce as to the origin and authorship of the several books of the Old Testament, but, which is more to our purpose, because it also professes to be based upon a most minute and searching criticism and examination of the style, character, grammatical structure and language of the Hebrew Scriptures. Starting from this criticism as its foundation, accordingly, this hypothesis

present time, among scholars, as to the origin and horship of many of the books of the sacred canon) ognizes a great diversity of style and language in the Testament history, and therefore, instead of assignthese writings, in accordance with the common tradial view, to five or six different authors, regards them her, for the most part, as compilations, made by several erent hands, and at various periods, during the exist e of the Jewish commonwealth, from numerous older I original documents composed by unknown, though, many cases, doubtless, trustworthy writers, contempoy with and eye-witnesses of the events they record. In › case of the book of Genesis, for example, it is now erally supposed by Biblical scholars that there are innal evidences of the most unquestionable kind, in the ok itself, for the existence of at least two (several emiat German critics contend for three, and others, among om Ewald holds the first place, for many more) original d independent documents from which Moses, or a still er writer, compiled the whole and put it into its present m. Of this question of the authorship of the Books der consideration, we shall have occasion to speak in r second Part, where the subject of the inspiration and ode of composition of the Holy Scriptures will necesily come up for discussion. At present we are conrned only with the bearing which the theory before us s upon the subject of the style and language of the sacred cords; and in this respect, as is obvious, it is highly portant.

(1) First in interest and importance as to its connection th this topic, is the doctrine respecting the distinct use the Divine Names—commonly called the Jehovist and lohist theory-in the Hebrew writings, and especially in e Book of Genesis, in which this peculiarity is most ob

the middle of the last century; though it was afterwards applied to the other books of the Pentateuch, as well as to the books of Joshua and Judges, by later critics who followed him. It was perceived by Astruc that in some sections of Genesis, comprising sometimes whole chapters (e. g. chap. i. 1-31 and ii. 1-3; and chap. v.) God is always, or nearly always, in the Hebrew, designated by the name Elohim (Eng. Vers. GoD); in others always, or for the most part, by that of Jehovah (E. V. LORD) (e. g. chaps. iv. and x.); and in one portion (chap. ii. 4 and chap. iii. 1 to end) under the united title of Jehovah Elohim (E. V. LORD GOD). He accordingly assumed from this fact the existence of two chief written sources, an Elohim-document and a Jehovah-document, and is of opinion that their elements pervade the whole book of Genesis, having been combined by Moses, together with fragments of other documents, of which he recognizes no less than ten, into the shape in which we now have them.1

This theory, so far at least as the Book of Genesis is concerned, certainly appears to have no slight basis of fact to rest upon, whether in the almost uniform recurrence of the same Divine appellation in certain portions of this Book, to the exclusion of others; whether in the apparently distinct and independent character of the sections so distinguished, and their mutual discrepancies and contradictions, the same event being frequently related in a Jehovistic passage in an entirely different manner and from a totally different stand-point from what it is in the corresponding Elohistic one;' whether in the marked differences of language and modes of expres

1 Vide Bleek, §§ 94, ad fin. 95; and Smith, Arts. "Genesis" and "The Pentateuch." 2 Bleek § 100 ff.; Smith, ut supra.

cola, distinctly characterizeu,

the original, by

peculiar phraseology and forms of speech, and the tic by theirs, and this quite uniformly and throughIndeed, so traceable are these peculiarities in is that even so cautious and conservative a writer author of the article "Genesis" in Smith's "Dicy of the Bible" confesses himself a convert to the ne so far as to allow of its application to that Book, h he strongly contests its admissibility in the case other books of the Pentateuch.2

In addition to the Elohistic and Jehovistic writings ch we have spoken, and traces of which some critics endeavoured to find in nearly all the historical books Old Testament, and indeed throughout the whole Hebrew Scriptures,- several other original docuhave been recognized as forming part of the groundof the Jewish history, as it is contained in the Bible. ajority of these are such as are expressly mentioned Old Testament itself, and include, besides others, Book of Jasher" and the "Book of the Wars of ah" referred to, the latter in Num. xxi. 14, 15, and ormer in Josh. x. 13 and 2 Sam. i. 18; the "Book of hronicles of the Kings of Israel," and the "Book of hronicles of the Kings of Judah," frequently mend in the Books of Kings; the "Book of Samuel the 'the "Book of Nathan the Prophet," &c., to which on is made chiefly, if not entirely, in the two Books ronicles contained in our Bible. But of these writwe need not speak more particularly at present. The Mythical Theory. The next view respecting the and character of the Old Testament history, main.

leek, $ 98 ff.; Smith, Art. "Pentateuch." 2 Smith, Arts. esis."Pentateuch," &c.

Theory. This view, which is commonly combined with the Documentary Hypothesis, above considered, has still a distinctive character of its own, and treats that Hypothesis from its own peculiar point of view. Basing their conclusions upon the fact that the early history of all the nations of antiquity is shrouded in obscurity and enveloped in a mist of fable and mythology, the critics of this school contend that the history of the Jewish nation forms no exception to the rule, but, on the contrary, gives everywhere proofs, in its miraculous and marvellous narrations, of a mythical origin and character. "It was," according to Eichorn, "the practice of all nations, of the Grecians as well as the Orientals, to refer every unexpected or inexplicable occurrence immediately to the Deity. The sages of antiquity," he urges, "lived in continual communion with superior intelligences. Whilst these representations are always, in reference to the Hebrew records, understood verbally and literally, it has hitherto been customary to explain similar representations in the pagan histories, by presupposing either deception and gross falsehood, or the misinterpretation and corruption of tradition. But justice evidently requires," reasons the same writer, “that Hebrew and pagan history should be treated in the same way: so that intercourse with celestial beings during a state of infancy, must either be accorded to all nations, pagan and Hebrew, or equally denied to all."'1 In like manner Bauer argues, "The earliest records of all nations are mythical: why should the writings of the Hebrews form a solitary exception ?—whereas, in point of fact, a cursory glance at their sacred books proves that they also contain mythical elements."2 "A narrative he

I See Strauss, Life of Jesus, vol. i. Introd. § 6. 2 Ibid. § 8.