hypothesis is by all classes of critics allowed to be most applicable. The instance referred to occurs in the thirtyeighth chapter of this book, in which we find the story of Joseph interrupted (precisely at what might be called the critical and most interesting juncture in the narrative— the moment of his being sold and brought down into Egypt, chap. xxxvii. 36) by a history of a totally different character, and one having not the remotest connection with the story of Joseph,—that, namely, of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar. Nor will the Jehovist and Elohist theory avail us here. For while none of the names of the Divine Being occur in the preceding chapter, the name of Jehovah occurs once (v. 10) in the chapter under consideration, and repeatedly in the continuation of the story of Joseph, which follows in the thirty-ninth and subsequent chapters; whence the two narratives, thus singularly interwoven with each other, turn out to be both Jehovistic, and so, according to this doctrine, derived from the same documentary source. But there are other objections to this hypothesis, which also seriously affect its trustworthiness as affording an explanation of all the phenomena, literary and otherwise, presented by the Jewish history as contained in the Old Testament. Not only, as we have seen in the the preceding chapter, is the application of the doctrine very doubtful and uncertain to the later books of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, but even in the book of Genesis itself, and in those chapters and sections where its traces seem most apparent, there is frequently much difficulty in applying it consistently. The diligent student or critic who makes the attempt and is persuaded that he has suddenly confronted with a verse of the opposite charer, which dashes his hopes to the ground. Thus we told that "the second of the narratives on the origin the name Beersheba, ch. xxvi. 17-33, is throughout ovistic, so much so that it makes even the heathen g Abimelech use this name in his address to Isaac: e see that Jehovah is with thee,' 'Thou art now the ssed of Jehovah' (vv. 28, 29): on the contrary, the ner (ch. xxi. 24-34) appears to have been originally irely Elohistic (vv. 22, 23); only at the end of it (v. 33), God worshipped by Abraham is designated as Jehovah; = this," we are further informed, "affords another son for supposing that just the end of the narrative n v. 31 on, has been, at a later time, somewhat revised and that thus the Jehovistic element has been introced."1 Again, in the case of the two similar narratives of the nluct of Abraham and Sarah and that of Isaac and lecca at Gerar (Gen. xx., and xxvi. 6ff.) the same pecurty again manifests itself,-the latter story occurring & Jehovistic section, while the former is throughout olistic, with the exception that at the end (v. 18) the ne of God appears as Jehovah; and the same explanao is given of the fact as in the former instance. Still an, in the history of the Deluge (ch. vi. 5-ix. 29) we frequent instances of a similar kind. "It cannot fail be observed," says the critic above referred to, in re d to this passage, "that the connection is often interɔted by the Jehovistic passages, [the name Elohim curring, we are told, much more frequently] and that cutting them out (sic!) a more natural and clearer Bleek, 100. 2 Ibid. pose that the narrative was originally composed in the shape in which we now have it, it is not easily to be explained.' In chap. ix. 1-17, also, which gives the covenant of God with Noah, God is throughout designated as Elohim, excepting in v. 1., "where,” adds Bleek, “with out doubt, in the original composition Elohim stood in the place of Jehovah "!" In a similar way and for a simlar reason, in chap. xxii. 1-19, containing the history of Abraham's temptation to offer up Isaac, we are asked ;o believe that, in v. 11, the words 'the angel of Elohin,' (God) originally stood in the place of 'the angel of Jelovah' (the LORD).3 What, then, are we to think of a theory which makes such demands upon us as this, and which, in order to sipport its claims, requires us to do such violence to the sacred text, and to believe that inappropriate nanes of the Divine Being, and even entire passages of the history have been interpolated into the narratve, through the ignorance or perversity of compilers and transcribers? Surely, we do not need to say more toestablish the questionable character of this theory, andthe insufficiency of the Document-hypothesis in general, bwever, in certain cases, as we shall show more fully hereafter, we may be inclined to admit its tenableness to account for all the phenomena of the Old Testament history. 2. We come now to the Mythical or Legendary Hypothesis, which, nothwithstanding its plausible characer, and loud pretensions to logical and philosophical conistency, is, we trust to be able to demonstrate, in like man 1 Ibid. § 101 2 Ibid. § 102. 3 Ibid. hool themselves, this theory sets out with the doctrine at, as all ancient history has its origin in myth and fable, e Jewish history can be no exception. Hence, in the ew of Bauer, De Wette, and others, a Hebrew Mythology -comes, not only a possibility, but a real tangible existce, not less marked and discernible in its character and stinctive features than that of the ancient Greeks or ndoos; and not until the closing period of the Jewish onarchy, in the times succeeding the Babylonish Cap-ity, may we recognize the beginning of a real historical och. Thus, as Niebuhr, in the case of ancient Roman tory, or Grote, in that of the early history of Greece, k upon all the historical events occurring, in the for-r instance, previous to the expulsion of the Tarquins, d the establishment of the Republic, and, in the latter, the era of the 1st Olympiad, as wholly mythical, or re or less mixed up with fabulous and mythical elents; so these critics regard the history of the Jews, reded in the Old Testament, as mythical or at least untorical, down to the close of the Old Monarchy and the rying away of the nation to Babylon. trauss, however, of whom, as the famous advocate of Mythical Theory in respect to the Gospels of the New tament, we have spoken in our last chapter, does not > here, but, as we have seen, brings down the histo 1 era to a much later time in the Jewish history, and n. as we have shown by extracts from his work, ies, on the ground of the marvellous relations coned even in their later histories, the development among Jewish people of the pure historic idea altogether. 3 is indeed longè perducere dolorem, nor are other writers his school, if the testimony of this critic is to be ved, at one or in agreement with De Wette and his ratives which, though originating in an age when it was usual to preserve documentary records, were nevertheless transmitted by the mouth of the people.”1 "On the same subject," Strauss observes again, "Gabler remarked that the notion of ancient is relative; compared with the Mosaic religion, Christianity is certainly young; but in itself it is old enough to allow us to refer the original history of its founder to ancient times." So far, therefore, as these writers extended the application of their theory to the New Testament, so far, it is evident, they are disposed to bring the beginning of true history among the Jews down to a later period than that of the Return from the Captivity, assigned by De Wette as the historical era of the Jewish literature, and even, with Strauss, to deny to the ancient Jews the possession of any authentic histo. rical records whatever. But few, we imagine, even of the mythical school, would be willing to commit themselves to so palpable a reductio ad absurdum as this. It is manifest, therefore, that the existence of miracu. lous and marvellous occurrences in the annals of any ancient people, is, of itself, a very uncertain test of their historical character. Who shall affirm that, in the infancy of mankind, and among all nations in their earliest history, Divine appearances and supernatural occurrences are not the normal condition of things, and that with the race, as with individuals, the order of spiritual progress and experience is not as it has been so beautifully delineated by the poet? "Heaven lies about us in our infancy! Shades of the prison-house begin to close 1 Vide Strauss, § 9. 2 Ibid. E |