The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-20
founder Of the science was Aben Ezra the


| who In eome eniGmntral words, pcnncd about
! A. D. llGS. called attention 20 n number OF In
| djcations In the rontntcuch OF later hand
| than that OF Moses. With these observations
| criticism made beginning. but long time
| eIapscd before ANYTHING moro came OF II. The
| new impulse TO the study OF the Bible in the
| reformation century did not take II critical d.
rec.ion. it is true. however. that the crratic
rcformcr Carls;adt. declared the authorship
| Of the Pentatruch t. DO unknown and
unknowablc. and that tho Catholic scholar.
| Audrens Macs. held that long after
| Moses the rcnta.ouch had passed through tho
| hands OF AN editor iperhaps Ezra. who had Mt
| least introduced words and clauses here ana
| there to make the meaning clearer. and SUBJ
| stitutei for obsolete names OF places those by
! which they wcro known In his timc. 1ho
| Church responded hy putting Maess book on
tho Index. In tho latter half OF the soven-
| tcenth century the Mosaic authorship OF the
Pentatouch was again challenged. Hobbies,
| however. IN his Lrviathan." and In Icyrtrc.
| in his Pre-. Adamitcs" did little more than en-
| large and comment on Ahcn Earas list OF dill
| ncultcs though La pcyr1ro argued also from
| tho obscurty confusiun n. n NJ! disorder OF many
| parts Of tho Pcn,atcuchGl narrativ" that wa
| havea rumble Of cXccrptsand transcripts rath-
| or thnn an original work. He did not doubt.
| however. that Moses wrote the greater part Of
the Pentntcuch. Srino2a in 1870, taking Abcn
| Ezra's obscure hints iur his point OF departure
went much furthcrand anticipated many of the
| observations and inercnccS OF Subsequent
criticism. llc showed that there arc much
more serious difficulties in tho way OF the
| long established opinion that Moses is the
author of the penta,cuch, than tho superficial
! anachronisms which would Mt most warrant
the conclusion that it had hecn CLOSED here
, and there by copvist. or revised by an editor.
In N.b al II ,,f
| eXamI lp. demonstrated. hc said. by its inter-
| mi Inconsistency, that il is extracted from
| different histories. osuthnr could have put
tho story Of Jndal, and Tamar where it now
stands. intcrruptn.! tho history OF joseph and
involving the most patent chronological
atsuriitos. It must have been taken
from another book and boon introduced
| here by the compiler without sufficient
examination. Spinoza's own theory was
that tho rcntatcuch and Tho older historical
books were tho work of II single historian.
who proposed TO write tho antiquities Of the
Jews from tho beginning to tho first destruc-
ton Of Jerusalem and who largely made M
his work from older writings Who this his
torian was Spno2a did not think could he
established with certainty. but he gave some
! weight to considerations supporting tho con-
! lecture that it was Era Tho course of criti-
| cism in tho scvcat"rn.h century. ami again in
TO bring tho compilation Of tho Pcntateuch
down to the az, OF Ezra: but rs no critcria
| other than the intrinsic probability OF tho
narrative existed by which to determine the
age or worth OF tho various sources employed
| by tho author. tho historical value of the work
seemed threatened with destruction.
Tho instrument needed to rescue it. the in
! strumcnt OF critical analysis. was Put into the
hands Of Biblical students By the French ply
| .;, ietr tn w. fl,n ~ AZ.
cncr. not tho thcolosian. who discovered tho
Sec ct of Genesis. The repcttions, or parallel
narratives. as for example. the two accounts
| OF the creation of the world. and especially OF
man. and the threcfold repetition Of some OF
III" particular, of the food: tho peculiar use
of the names Elohim and Jehovah in Genesis
| which contrast with tho use OF them In EN-
olus: tho anti-chronisms or disturbances OF
tn" chronological order. led him to conjecture
! tia: tie author whom no supposed to be
Moses. had cmlloyod Mt least two older mar
| rn;ivcs. ono of which used tho namo
Elc,lim. the other Jehovah. This hypotho-
sis lie tested by carrying it through the
narrative His success in this attempt was
| itself Il Notification. hut the veriilcntion be-
ramo administrative wien 1t appeared that
upon tho separation of tho Elohim and the
jehovah memoirs. tho repettions. contra
! dirtions. ami ant-ch.onisms which had so
| much exercised commentators and critics.
. disappeared Of themselves. Unfortunately.
! few theolosians Of Astruc's timo had sufficient
! scientific or historical training to recognize
. tho absolute coGenry of the demonstration. 1t
! IS o be observed that Astrucs motive aud his
! application OF the results Of his scientific
method wero conservative 11e congratulated
himself that his surgeons knife hat! effected
a radical cure OF whit he calls tho 'malady Of
the last century, tho doubt Of tho Mosaic
y authorship OF Genesis. and especially that he
had "annihilatcd the vain triumph OF
| sAinoza." The father of analytic criticism
was an apolo.ist: his analysis was tentative
and mperfect but when all Is said his dis
| covery remains one of the most brilliant and
fruitful in the history OF criticism. Tho theory
that Hienesis WAS compiled from two principal
narratives was taken up in Germany by Eic!i-
horn and improved on by | gen. who rccog-
nized IL second Elohistc chronicl"r and in
other ways displayed remarkable insight. In
the early years OF the present century tho NY
pothcsis Of Astruc- Fichhorn- llErn that Gene
sis is the harmonistic combination OF two or
three continuous narratives. gavc place for .
timo to the theory Of Gcddes and Water. who
regarded the rcntatcuch rs n diSord"rly con-
geres Of loose scraps OF various ages and
worth brought together hy \ late compiler.
This fragment hvpo;hcss.' as it WAS
called succumbcd TO tho !cmon stration
that tho Irntnt"urh Is not such
hodserodce hut has. in spite al certain ar-
pcarance OF disorder a manifest unity ana
strongly marked plan. The plan appears most
cons pcnousiy in the main llohisiic narrative.
the "groundwork Of the Pcntateuch. as it
now began to hc termed 7 his led 10 the n.y.
puthcsi. that the 'groundwork lad received
extensive additions By later writer These
speccs OF new cloth do not always match III"
old garment: they are often misplaced and
sometim ines mnhr rents: the disorder on the
, surface OF composition essentially wei!
: ordered was thus accounted for. In this
theory. however. tho fragment hypothesis"
was only half overcome. A jus;er ahd mora
, discriminating analysis soon showed that
, the Jchoyistic parts. also. Of Genesis have n
, plan and order Of their Own. and whcn sep
, ay,.tcl form tolcrably complete whol" This
+ was demonstrated by I!upfrd whose w"r! On
, tho sources Of Genesis appeared in lS1.i
+ UuplclI r'hiscovcred llgrn's second llohis'
| ,nI ia, nj Ct n elt that (irnrSiS * cord not