, 1881-06-26

law was giye, whole to Noses nj Sinai and
then buried in oblivion for almost 4 thousand
years seems to him to be charging God Will
unwisdom: yet this is what the tradition
alists are willing to do in order to save the
headings III the Panta1euch. They sacrifice
the whole history for the sake Of q the Lord
said to Muses. However, the position OF
this party is not So shallow as would seem
uu the externally supernatural in the pcnt;-
1eucIlal legislation they arr. in danger of sur
rendering it everywhere, and their fear can
not be said to he baseleSs. They are unwli-,
that Prpf. Smith finds in Tie development ii
the Israelitisil rcligion,-tler faith demands
q visible miracle. We do nut mean
T." say, however, that our author rejects tile
EXTERNALLY suurrnatural i'll the Old Testa-
ment- lie seems to maintain H. 29l) tlat
tie inspiration Of tie Hebrew propllets Was Was
something more than elevated religious con-
ceptions, profound consciousness Of God.
:ull clear natural insight into the future. But
@e touches this pDint 50 lightly that we are
mt sure that we know his meaning lie
says plainly {p. 27} that he does not assume
the i1npus,ibiiity Of the supernatural; his
method is Simply to interrogat.a tie facts;
but whether he actually finds the outWartly
supernatural in the Old Testament, we are
not able to determine What he does say
clearly and well is that revelation is above
all things the voice of God speaking to the
soul Of man through his moral conscious
ness,
The criticism Of the Hebrew text is hardly
the history. Here the chief Importance at
taches II, the Sppfanvtnt whose y,ll,at1,n ms
an Instrument Of critical research has
greatly changed of late. All existing He
is well known. we're written after The text
had been fixed by the Masprctes and their
predecessors. We owe our Hebrew text 10
Tie Scribes; who were they, and what was
their rexf-.,riiic:I procciurr9 Recent i'll
vestisations have shnWf, as Prof. Smith
and arbitrary manner. They were very u,l-
critical rs ne might sn1posc: they selected
their Standard manuscripts not for their cor
rec1ness, but for their practical value, and
tn S,,;t their orn virws i mau,1scrilt MI
,an;,,,,;n1ad hv tna,,, ,,onid IN. tf nr;rn,.ss
xai,,n Nnw ,,i,,ciselv srri, ,non,,srrirt We
havn an,,,nxi1IattI,> IN thn Sr,,tt,ayint, the
!r.ssa,m ,t ade ee'i IN the third m and M stcon'
ca,,tmrn; hefnra t1,a imTimninr If MIR er:l. If
r. n,,;t. :, 3rnnsIa,;nn anti va harn moi tho
au,nyranl,s: tha Greek text las doubtless
.mtf.r..d ,,,,,ch i, tie cuurse of transmission
~ ~ auI me -,ransI,1nrs ni,i: ,iut aiw,ys
10 10 ~, tSar r'',, uorE itnjjioniiv. ~ pvrrtri'.s;
this Version, ns II s1aints. Is of intstimabie
t.a11a fnr tbe es,,hi;sI,,npnr ri tho trnr lie
hrs.w tcxt- III, urr ..Iad that Prof. Smith has
hrourht ont its merits 50 clearly. Il used to
our rrcsived text. fit Tor nothing but to be
cast asjd. and tru.len under foot when It
,iittrr,.d frmu the Hebrew. and the Alex
an,Irinn Ms. in fact. practices a system of
harmoniznfion. But modern criticism la
.t es.am he S,ntnaint its riahts and it were
s,ra.11v fn he wiS|,rd thot tf1e revision If The
~ us ~ tho MI ,r,.tn,,,.nt INV
+; ,.r,1rt.ss .nlh ,uo .1. ,ts, nf if In several
haI; ~ nI.r,t,,. ~ Samuel tie teyt may Ii.
no"h1. n1.ao., ~. }rn," tha . r..r ari its
-