The San Francisco call., 1897-09-05

Elohistic portion of tre Scr pture. For
the information of the lay reader it should
be explained that the term EIohistic is ap-
piled to certain passages in the Penta-
teuch in which the Deity is spoken OF in
the Hebrew text as Eiohim. These verses
are supposed by some to have been writ
ten at a earlier period than the passages
in which he is called Jehoudh or YdhUeh
1t may be recognized that the Elonistic
paragraphs are, as a general rule, simpler
and more primitive in their characacter
than the Jehovistic. Thus: Genesis i:27-
is Elohistic, and Genesis ii:21-24 Jeho-
vistic.
II it be not presumptuous we may be
permitted 10 point out one instance in
which Professor Fiske fats to establish
his case, plausible as it may sound to the
student unacquainted with the letter and
the spirit of the Hebrew text.
In chapter xxi, headed Judah and
His Family" we find the somewhat start
ling theory advanced that the episode of
Judah and lamar. appears much more
like satire upon Judah and the House
of David" than like history. The parallel
is drawn with show of reason that is
plausibility itself. The first offspring of
David and Bathsheba." says Professor
Fiske, "di d in consequence of divine
anger, as does the first born of Judah and
Bathshua. The letters of the name Err in
Hebrew spelled backward mean bad
etc"
Now this toying with philology does not
constitute legitimate criticism. Its basic
principle is faulty, and the ETY. mological
method OF deducing facts, as is pointed
out by the writer quoted elsewhere has
proved an edged tool. 1t is worthy of an
imaginative Oriental to deduce from the
word T4YISH4HEHUin Genesis xxxiii:4
a reference to the Hebrew original of the
words, "Is not he rightly named Jacob,
for hs hath supplanted me-" but to
adopt a similar method in the sol Der pur-
suit of the truth which Professor Fiske
claims is the object of the Higher Criti-
cism is, to say the least, extremely dan
gerous.
We eppen d the conclusions which Pro-
fessor Fiske takes as established beyond
further dispute. They serve to indicate
the scope of the volume before US:
The first six books Of the Old Testament
the Pentateuch and the Book OF Joshua, or the
characterization mbody the ancient cove
nants and the Jewish law, were put into their
present form after the return from the exile
in Babylon, when the Levitical system OF the
second temple was developed. The code
which con, titutes the bulk of the Book OF
Leviticus, but parts OF which are reiterated
in the last chapter OF Exodus and scattered
through Numbers and Joshua, was then form
ulated and woven somewhat crudely into the
old narratives of the early history of the
pc eople, which were modified and adapted for
the purpose, especially the last sixteen chap
ters of Exodus and considerable passages in
Mum bers. The Book OF Deuteronomy, which
was included in the "Torah," contained the
statement OF the law. which put in form
in the time of Joslah's reforms and which
the High Priest, Hilkiah, pretended to
have found in the temple. The old primitive
or sacred" history OF the people was used Gs
the framework of narrative for the entire
OF laws and ordinance for restored Judaism.
which 1t was the special purpose of the priests
and scribes TO cOnsecrate- This sacred history
had been complied in the time of Hezekiah,
after the fall OF Samaria and near the end OF
the eighth century 3. c., mainly from two
older versions, one of which had been pro-
duced in the Northern Kingdom and the other
at Jerusalem from half a century TO O century
before. This material constitutes the bulk of
the book of Genesis and the first part of
Exodus, and is traceeble in fragments through
the other books.
EMANUEL ELIAS.