The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-04-20
SOME NEW B0OKa



Among recent publications are included
somo noteworthy attempts to acquant the gem
eral reader with the latest results of biblical re-
search and orticism. Even whore tho execu-
ton OF euch work Is Inadequate or blame
worthy, the thomo cannot fail TO excite interest;
and whero II il grounded In ripe knowledge
and Informed with right spirit, IN exposition
OF the kind may be Of supreme utility. We are
able to commend the manner in which the difn-
cult and somewhat delicate task has been per-
formed by the Rev. JONI W. CHADWICK in a
volume entitled The Bibie OF To-day Putnamsl.
The author puts forth no claim OF original in
quiry. or oven OF exhaustive presentation; but
he aims to outline the main results which may
be pronounced established by the concurrent
voice OF most biblical scholars. The number
md variety Of authorities consulted Ia very
large. and the writer il a scholar OF unusual ao-
uuirements who Is able 20 review and verify
the labors of philoloRists and commentators
without recourse 10 English trnnsntons. What
is still more important to the reader the temper
OF this book Is marked with the caution and cir
cumspecton OF q veriiabe truth seeker. There
Is no trace In these calm pages of the compla-
concy peculiar TO the conscious ieonoclast or
OF the arrogance 80 often betrayed by aggres-
Bivo skepticsm. We have here patient. earn
est effort TO explain precisely what the biblical
with profit and without offence by open and
candid minds. Indeed the most advanced opin-
ION endorsed by the writer is that Of the well-
known DR.. Abraham Kuenen in regard to the
formation OF the Pentateuch. for maintaining
which Prof. Smith Of Aberdeen could not be
convicted OF heresy by his local presbytery
The fact that such views may be avowed with
1mpunity in Scotland by a Presbyterian divine
will have not a little weight with the American
foadef
In his famous article contributed 10 the E6cv-
clopwdia Britannica. the Scotch clergyman hos
pointed out how the toll Of successive scholars
has gradually modified the opinions OF Ewald
touching the authorship Of the Pentateuch
until what he terms the satisfactory" results
Of Kuenen and his school have been developed.
To those who run over his sketch Of the contro-
versy, the wonder r.. not 20 much that the
Mosaic origin Of the nve books should be re-
jected. as that 80 much labor was required 10
disprovo n theory which seems to have rested
on late and irresponsible tradition. Not until
nbout the time when Christianity arose. some
three hundred years after the date assigned by
Psychologists TO the exodus. did q Rabbinical
legend obtain currency that Moses was the
author ofth Pentateuch. The testimony how
ever. adduced on behalf OF this tradition from
the Old Testament itself Ii very feeble. Tho
only one Of the 1--WE books which expressly
claims TO be the work Of Moses is Deuteronomy.
md this is the very portion Of the Pentateuch
which the most numerous and various critics
have declared not 70 be Mosaic The other pas
sages relied on by the orthodox commentators
nre few in number and IN them such expires.
sions as the Book Of the law Of Moses are
sufficiently explained as referring 10 Deuteron-
omy. with the exception OF those which occur in
Chronicles and Malachi and Nehemiah which
were manifesty written after the completion Of
The pentateuch. But such expressions, even
when referring 10 the five books rs a whole. do
not imply that Moses wrote them. but only that
the law " contained In them was promulgated
by that prophet. Moreover according 70 the
Scotch divine. q continuous unmistakablo ira
diton in the biblical record concerning the
Mosaic authorship. even II It existed could not
outweigh the internal evidence supplied by the
Peniateuch itself to its diverse and later origin.
Such testimony. we are reminded is furnished
by historical. geographical archaeological. and
explanatory passages implying a different state
of things from that which existed in the time Of
Moses For samples. we may take from Gene
sis. And the Canaanite was then in the land"
And again. Before there reigned any King
over the land OF Israel " both passages evident
ly being written after the expulsion OF the Ca
naanites and the establishment Of the Hebrew
kingdom. both Of which events occurred several
centuries after the death Of the lawgiver Those
who still contend for the Mosaic authorship have
sometimes tried to break the force Of these and
many similar passages by calling them interpo-
lations; but there seems 20 be no reason for
pronouncng them such. except their failure 10
harmonic with the orthodox theory.
Another and weiGhty argument for the post
Mosaic origin Of the Pentateuch Is the existence
within its limits Of at least two leading streams
Of historical and theological tradition. These
are known 10 critics as. on the one hand. the
Elohistic and. on the other, the Yahwehistc
or Jehovistic documents because In one OF
them the use Of the word Ynhweh jehovah for
the God OF Israel is carefully AVOIDED until Ex-
odus vi. %. 80. where it is told how the Deity
revealed Himself to Moses by His name. Yah
web. whereby He had not before been known
In the Jehoyistic document. on the other hand
the two names. Yahweh and Elohim. are used
indlferently throughout the book Of Genesis
Having thus been put upon the scent Of these
diverse traditions. II appears that scholars
found the distinction Of names Just noted to be
only the smallest part OF the differences trace
able in all parts Of the Pentateuch. Thus IL
Genesis l.. H.. 3 we have the Elohistlc accoun
OF the creation. and in Genesis H.. 4th. ill., 2itl
another quite distinct, which is Yahwehistic
Again in Genesis vi. tx. We have two entirely
different accounts Of the food. These are onl,
Instances. and long list Of discrepancies II
substance and spirit between Elohistlc and Yah
wehistic passages may be found in Or. samue
Davidson's introduction 10 the Old Testament
In general. II may be said that the Yahwehist
document affirmed TO have been composed SOM
five hundred years after the death Of Moses Il
much the fresher simpler more spontaneous
rehearsinR the patriarchal stories In their mos
engaging forms. whereas the Elohistic docu
ment. or the somewhat later Book Of Origins.
is much more studied. formal, and artificial II
its character. Another note Of difference is tina
the former is informed throughout with tn
prophetic Spirit. while the other is dominate,
by the prestly spirit In It's Levitcal form.
But II Moses did not write the Pentateuch. 4
there no part OF 1t which can be ascrbed to hin
with perfect confidence? Between the two OK
tremes that he wrote all Of II and that he wrot
none Of II. a hundred theories might be framed
but we are assured by Kuenen and other critic
who approach the question from a Christia
standpoint and who have evinGed the creates
reluctance 10 offend others or deceive them
selves. that the negative extreme is unayoid
abls. They do not deny that there are laws an