Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-04-28
BOOK REVIEW.

Archaeology at the National Library Of France
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. San Fran
cisco (: A. L. Bancroft & Co.
Prof. Lenormant is protesting Christian.
While his work is a philosophical and critical
analysis of books of the Old Testament, and
in many cases casts doubt upon orthodox be-
lief, reverent spirit pervades every page
1t is defense Of the Bib'e records, so far as
they declare upon purely religious topics, as
against the direct claims Of want of har-
mony between scientific truth and holy writ;
an inharmony held by many to amount to
an antagonism that must send one or the
other to the wall. In this volume Prof. LIE.
normant has compiled great number of lie.
gendr, and much of the writing of past ages
that bear relation in soma respect, or are re-
markably similar to biblical records. He
sets out with the announcement of his own
sincere conviction of the inspired character
of the sacred books, but believes thst most
of the purely historical and race records are
not entitled 90 be SO clsssed But while pre-.
senting himself as a critic believer, he has
the moral courage to set aside his faith, that
it may not obscure his mental vision
while he compares proofs, and places
religious records aud scientific inquiry,
discovery and doctrine side by side.
for the examination of reason. That
this attempt to assume judicial attitude il
difficult one, may bs readily conceived, but
it is exactly the position the true critic
should always aim to occupy. Hero is an
examiner who Of the outset declares bis firm
belief in the Christian religion, but who feels
equal to the task of presenting all that re-
search discloses to him as antagonistic to that
faith; and more, of announcing his judgment
in every case where science ten TO make
way against bis faith. But this examination.
while it has led him to set aside portions Of
the biblical record IS non-essentials, affirms
bis belief that in time the apparent want of
harmony will disappear. He holds, how.
ever, that there are no essential conflicts be-
tween science and religion-none that are of
sufficient relevancy or Importance to impair
the trust of science-believer in the Christian
faith. The reader cannot doubt the sincerity
of the authors announced conviction on this
point and enters upon perusal of the pages
firmly impressed with Lspormant's own fair
ness and perfect composure. We must con-
fess, however. that he has not made as clear
as would be desirable the distinction that he
claims exists between tie purely supernatural
and the merely traditional and historical in
the biblical records the distinction between
the records of inspiration and those which
are wholly earthly, and which present the
personality of the writer only. Examining
these latter records exactly as the scholar
would any other ancient records, Professor
Lenorm ant arrives at the conclusion which
he declares is irresistible that the claim for
" the so-called unity of composition of the
books of the Pentsteuch cannot be main.
tanned. In this he takes a position that
crosses the orthodox belief at right angles.
On this question he says:
1t is my conviction, a scholar, that a century
OF external and internal criticism of the text has led
TO positive results on this point which have not
accepted without demur, though finally compel led
to yield to evidence This is not the place to enter
demonstration OF this important fact which of
itself would call for large book, and which many
before me have given, by proofs which | could but
have reproduced with merely difference in the
spirit OF presentation. must confine myself to the
declaration OF sincere and well considered convic-
ton on this point which has required for its estab
lshment reasons all the stronger that as | was
aware, it counter to venerable tradition and to
the opinion still universal among Catholic doctors
an opinion, however, make speed to add, which is
not dogmatically defined, and will be, for it
does not belong 20 matters about which one can
dogmatize.
He holds that the distinction between the
Elohist and Jehoviat documents has been
fully demonstrated. These served as sources
to the final editor of the first four books
OF the Pentateuch, who did little more than
establish a. concordance between the two,
while leaving their reduction. intact. He
says:
These two primary texts may be restored almost
without gaps, and it is easy to point out certain
number OF disturbances between the two similar to
those that may likewise be observed between the
different versions of the event as related in
two books of the Bible like Kings and Chronicles
We must net, however, exaggerate these discord-
ances, which bear only upon facts of an historic
character, and not on mat ers essential to faith.
Anc it is especially the manner in which the final
editor or compiler has abstained, beyond a certain
degree, from harmonzing the two texts by remov-
d
proof of the holy and inspired character which he
already recognized IN their composition.
He, however, believes that this is simply
question OF hoag the books of the Penfateuch
were formed. and has no hing in it which
could not be accepted by the most scrupulous
orthodoxy. He points out that Christian
doctrine makes in the Bible distinction be-
tween two different characterization and
inspiration. Everything in the Book is in
spired, but not all is revelation. Inspiration
DOES not exclude the use of documents of a
human character, and hence in the light of
all records and traditions he regards the mat
ter of the first chapters Of Genesis not as an
account dictated by God Himself, but as a
tradition, the origin of which is lost in the
night of the remotest ages, and which all the
great nations of Western Asia possessed in
common. with some variations. But he finds
absolutely new spirit which animates their
narration, even though the form of it may
have remained in almost every respect the
same as among neighboriDg nations" And
ne iurSher says on tnis point, Win 1erVency
that inspires the seader with respect for his
deep sincerity
1t is the same narrative, and in it the same cpl
sodss coed one another in like manner; and yet
would be blind not &c perceive that the signif
cation has become altogether different. The exu-
berant polytheism which incumbers these stories
among the Chaldeans has been carefully eliminated
to give place to the severest monotheism. What
formerly expressed naturalistic conceptions of sim
gular grOssuess here becomes the garb of moral
truths of the most exalted and purely spiritual
order. The essential features of the form of the
tradition have been preserved and yet between the
which have been effected in human beliefs
Herein consists the miracle and it is none the less
amazing for being transposed. Others may seek to
explain this by the simple natural progress of the
conscience of humanity. For myself | do not hest
tate to find in it the effect of supernatural inter-
vention of Divine Providence and 1 bow before the