, 1879-04-27

the Scotch divine before mentioned that the Bork
than any previous portion OF the Pentateuch.
From internal evidence this Is affirmed to be the
Work OF religious reformer III the time OF King
OF worship a, that time. 1t ia pointed out that the
state OF things presupposcd by that book in the
past is aways the state OF things existent in Jo-
sahs rei.n: thu the u ha,o 10 utterly
with view to making the WoEsn1pero Of 1ahew
inoierant Of Canaanttsh practices. As q matter
OF fact the original dvellcrs n were not
the hrst dozen CHAPTERS OF Joshua ascribed to the
author. being, in the judgment Of onrcritics,
the DeRteIonomist's own tmag1naty tulhllmcns Of
traiture OF what monarch should not be is an al
most photographic likeness Of what Solomon really
was Whether the writer OF deuteronomy ~. vas q
spirit his book seems to be compromise between
tho priestly and prophetic Tenderness
active in bis time On the Tao,s howeve9 it BE-
had not the Babylonian captivity 80 soon succeed
ed this tendency might have devcloped rapidly,
60 that less than century, 1nstead OF nearly 100
years, would hare sutiiced to create ritualistic
system as complete as that embodied in the Book
Of Origins. II VIC may trust the judgment Of Kue-
and his school, this socalled Book Of Oris gins
was the atest accession to the priesly elements OF
the Fentatcuch, and was written after the return
from Babylon. On this point q notable change OF
opinion has occurred among biblical students since
Ewad who referred the Book OF Origins to the time
OF Solomon and esteemed Deuteronomy the Inst
great addition to the after which, in his
view, came only the redactor Or editor Ut the whole
work; but this hypothesis, at the time Of its au-
nouncemenr provoked much doubt and ut present
seems to be almost everywhere superseded. kue-
nen's demonstration thar the Book OF Origins was
porary In other words, OF ue7odotus was at once
accepted by Graf and Zuuz. and IS not only adopted
by Prof. Smith in the EncyclopHdfa Britannica, but
Dean Stanlcy's sympathy with It In the last volume
OF lis Jewish Church is un1istakable.
The Book OF Origins is supposed to hive been
written IS u consecutive homogeneous narrative,
ba it e1ss in tnc an1 begins
through all the other documents up to the cud Of
Joshua It contains the first account Of the Crea-
on md Anz 5 ny fmx rc.,a. as9
with the patrarchs much more snn,marily than do
tue earlier documents, and IN fact until tue time
Of Moses, the narrative portions are only intro
the publication OF the Leyitical law. Whenever it
is necessary to his purpose, tho writer freely re-
casts the history OF tue Mosaic and pre- Mosaic
almost entirely his. as well as tho larger part OF
Numbers, aud herein, with parts Of Exodus, we
have sacerdotal code which marks an immense
advance in uriestly notions aud pretensipus on The
Book Of Deuteronomy. 10 cite single instance,
the OF Aaron alone are now eligible as priests,
and this regulation is ascr1hed to Moses. although
the Deuteronomists allowed the priestjy function
to all Levites, and even the preference for the de-
scenaants Of teyi was Of very gradual origin;
q
prcstly regulations of still later date was promul
gated By, Ezra and Nehemiah at Jerusalem in the
year 445 B. c. Who had done this work OF incor-
poration NC do not know. Perhaps Ezra himself,
i, the interval between bis return 10 Jerusalem In
1885, with the law Of his God In bis hand," and
the year when be and Nehemishtogether published
it, But the smoke Of Sinai, aays our author, was
not more impeuetrable than the mystery which
shrouds the development Of the new system formu-
lated in The Book Of Origins It js probable that
the evolution took place not at Jerusalem. but at
Babylon, where the capttves, cut of from actual
participation in the temple rites, took refuge in an
ideal saccrdotalism for which they scarcely dared
and Nehemiah seems to have been due the reaiza-
lion OF their dream. The Leyitical law found its
priest in Ezra. not in Aaron, but who Its Moses
was the most patient STUDY Is noa likely to reveal
Pentateuch its Ultimate anu Immortal form ID lost
in the roar Of Babylon.
1t cannot be snnsa'd that this View Of the Pena--
teuch. implying its gradual evolution its combina-
tion out OF divers leading documents, some OF
which, in turn, embodied others. is q very differ
ent story from that which has been told for twenty
centuries. Yet IL would not be hard to accept, il
we did not import our ideas Of bo0kmak1ug into
the prc-Chrlstian ages. II the Pentateuch WAS
such growth us kuenen and a majority OF Chris
tim students affirm, 1t was not at all exceptional
The Book OF Joshua was such another, and the
same features are repeated in Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Isaiah, Zachariah Job and Daniel. and
skeptcs and atheists who scrutlnize the Scriptures
with single eye to flaws and Inconsistencies but
OF men put forward a. the Champions OF Dutch md
German and English theology in the field Of schol-
arship. The Semitic genius. says Prot Robertson
Smith, does not at all e in the direction OF organic
structure; The Temple wss an aggregation Of
most extended Biblical histtry is stzatidcaton,
not ah organism.
We have drawn attention only to single chap
ter OF Mr.. Chadwigk's volume Equally circum-
spcct anu temperate in their sp,rtt, yet equally
striking and suggestive in their substantial con-
tents, are those portions q his work which deal
with the Old Testament histories, with the four
Gospels the Pauline Epietlea and with the grounds
On which tho Sc1iptural cauons recognized bJ
Catholic or Protestants were based. It may be
that the uaa here set forth will prove dstastcful
to some OF our preconceptions, and subversive to
certain claims Of literal inspiration now and then
even In our day advanced for the Christian Script
ures. But honest and active minds hare no wish
10 fence themselves against the deductions OF en-
1ghtened research, and, although this little book
may tend to shake blind and superstitious 1ever-
,nce, it will help the eaaderto better knowledge
Ind more dscriminatire homage.