It would thus appear from the statements and arguments of the writers of this school that the Jewish history is a history and nothing more, but, unlike the profane histories of antiquity, an authentic trustworthy one; secured from the intrusion of any unworthy or fabulous matter by the aid and inspiration of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to the writers in its composition. Accordingly, as might be supposed, the mythical theory, already consid ered, meets with no favor from this class of critics, who fail to discover any signs of a fabulous or legendary element in the Biblical narratives, but, on the contrary, strenuously deny its existence, as being incompatible with the doctrine of a Divine inspiration, whose only object, it would appear, is to ensure entire fidelity and historical accuracy in what is recorded.2 The Document Hypothesis, on the other hand, although rejected by a few writers, both in Germany and elsewhere, is now commonly accepted (with certain modifications) by the writers of this school, and is even hailed as an additional safeguard and security against error. "The authors of these books," says Bleek, "could in the most favorable case have lived to see only a part of the events recorded by them; the remainder must have been communicated to them by the report of others; and if we find that they derived their history from earlier original writings, the composers of which were contemporary with, or lived not long after the events, their narratives will thus receive a greater authentication, than if the authors had been beholden to verbal tradition as to events so widely removed from them."

1 Christian Theology, &c.. by Wm. Cooke, D.D., p. 60.

113

2 See Kitto, Art. "Genesis," ad init.; Smith, Art. " Exodus ;" and Rawlinson, passim.

3 Bleek, ut supra, § 62.

༧} aས༥ སC་ཁ, pŁམ«PS, ༢༠

པ ་'1་་

tice the particular views of a large and rapidly-increasg number, among the intelligent and educated of the esent day, which, although they cannot, in any custory sense of the term, be styled orthodox, are certainly eived by, as we have said, a numerous and growing ss of minds. We refer to the opinions of writers, who, th the authors of "Essays and Reviews," Dr. Orville wey, and others, both in England and America, appartly anxious to avoid the extreme views of all parties, deavour to meet all the difficulties and explain all the enomena of the Biblical records by denying, virtually if t openly, so far as we have been able to apprehend their timents, everything like an extraordinary or supertural character to the sacred writings; and claim for writers not even the possession of any poetical or er endowment, beyond that of ordinary narrators of ents of which they were eye-witnesses, or with which y had become acquanited through the medium of oral dition or written records.

יי.

Perhaps the views in question cannot be better expressed n in the following quotation from a tract written by Dewey, "with the avowed purpose," we are told, "of ending the Bible from the objections of infidelity." he Scriptures are not," Dr. Dewey observes, "the ual Word of God, but they are the record of the Word of "If there ever were productions which show the › and fervent workings of human thought and feeling, y are our sacred records. But the things [in them] ch we have to deal with are words; they are not Divine bols of thought." Again he says, "if we open almost book, especially any book written in a fervent and ular style, we can perceive, on accurate analysis, t some things are hastily written, some things neglitly, some things not in the exact logical order of

obscure, and hard to be understood."

"And do we not,"

adds the same writer, "find all these things in the Scriptures ?'' In a similar spirit Mr. Jowett maintains, "That Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered from itself, without reference to the adaptations of fathers or divines, and without regard to a priori notions about its nature and origin. It is to be interpreted," he goes on, "like other books, with attention to the character of its authors, and the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge, with allowance for peculiarities of style and language, and modes of thought and figures of speech; yet not without a sense that, as we read, there grows upon us the witness of God in the world, antici,pating in a rude and primitive age, the truth that was to be, shining more and more unto the perfect day in the life of Christ."2

That the tenets contained in these extracts have numerous points of contact and agreement with the orthodox view, above described, will be readily perceived; a fact which must be our apology for classing the two views both under one head.

§ 2. Modern Theories with reference to the New Testament Histories.

We have now to present and consider some of the views advanced by modern critics in relation to the New Testament history, more especially with reference to the Four Gospels (the Book of Acts not offering any special difficulties, as we have seen, except such as are common to it with the Gospels), in explanation of the peculiarities

1 Cited in Madeley's Doctrine of Correspondences Elucidated. 2 Essays and Reviews, Essay on The Interpretation of Scripture, § 4, ad fin.

t in the preceding chapter.

1. The Protevangelic Theory And first, perhaps, in point importance among these are the various hypotheses ich have been put forth to account for the origin and esent form of the three first or synoptical Gospels. these, three particularly demand our attention, the o first of which may be regarded as attempts to apply e Document Hypothesis to the New Testament history, ile the third is, on the other hand, the result of the plication of the theory of oral tradition to these tings; all three, however, agree in the recognition of a mmon original or "Protevangelium," either written or l, which all the Evangelists are supposed to have made e of, and from which they all drew at pleasure in the nposition or compilation of their respective Gospels. 1) The first and most obvious view which would sug t itself to any one investigating this subject, is the idea at the Evangelists made use of each others' work, or t one of the Gospels was written first and that each of the ers was copied from it, or was the result of the combiion of it with the third. "Accordingly," we are told, rotius, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and many others, e endeavored to ascertain which Gospel is to be reded as the first; which is copied from the first; and ch is the last, and copied from the other two. It is arkable,” adds the same authority, "that each of the possible combinations have found advocates."1 2) Another hypothesis which has met with no little or among modern scholars, is the supposition, that, in ition to and independent of, our four existing Gospels, re was at first a single Gospel, serving as a common

Smith's Dictionary, Art. "Gospels." See also Art. "Gospal” in

D.

particular Evangenist.

це безъ понон от ins view mау

perhaps be gained from Bishop Marsh's account of Eichorn's Hypothesis, and his own additions to it. "It appeared to Eichorn," says the writer quoted above, "that the portions which are common to all the three Gospels were contained in a certain common document from which they all drew. Hence this critic," we are further told, "tries to show, from an exact comparison of passages, that, 'tne sections, whether great or small, which are common to St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not to St. Luke, and at the same time occupy places in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark which correspond to each other, were additions made in the copies used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, but not in the copy used by St. Luke; and, in like manner, that the sections found in the corresponding places of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, but not contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew, were additions made in the copies used by St. Mark and St. Luke.' (p. 192). Thus Eichorn considers himself entitled," continues our informant, "to assume that he can reconstruct the original document, and also that there must have been four other documents to account for the phenomena of the text. Thus he makes: 1. The original document; 2 An altered copy which St. Matthew used, 3. An altered copy which St. Luke used; 4. A third copy made from the two preceding, used by St. Mark; 5. A fourth altered copy, used by St. Matthew and St Luke in common.'

Bishop Marsh, however, it appears, not content with Eichorn's analysis, finds it necessary to raise the number of documents to eight; but even this liberal allowance of

1 Ibid.