The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-03-18
" ANCIENT HEBREW TRADITION"
Rev. DIR. Hidcn Reviews DIR. Fritz HON.
meIi's Famous Book.


tains the following:
"The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as IL
lustrated by the Monuments: Protest
Against the Modern School of Old Tesla
ment Criticism" By Or. Fritz Hommel,
Professor Of Semitic Languages at tne
University Of Munich Translated from
tho German by Edmund Mcclure, NJ. A.
and Leonard Crossle. New York: -. * >.
B. Young e. Co., Cooper, Union, Fourth
avenue. London: Society for Promoting
Christian knowledge. 1897 Price N-o.
In "a recent COPY OF The Richmond Times
a correspondent asked II any learned men
now believed the Old Testament 10 ne
the Word Of God? The Times replied
with au emphatic Eyes" and proceeded
10 cite such scholars as Professors VIII
liam Henry Green. of Princetoni Howard
Osgood. of Rochester; william II. Whit
slit. OF Louisville. and Samuel Colcord
Bartlett. ex-Drcsidcut OF Dartmouth COL
lcge. The Times very properly added that
81 these were not learned men, then we
should not know where 10 look Tor any
or words TO this effect
II The Times had thought proper 10 go
bevond seas for its learned men, II
might safely have included Professor Fritz
Hommou in It's list. FOR this Ancient
Hebrew Tradition" is a phenomenon OK
learning No nook or corner Of the htera'
ture of the subject seems TO have escaped
the prving eyes of this wOrld-renoWned
scholar. "Nur BEL Night Of tho god
BeD. an astrological work antedatng the
days OF Abraham, and some sacrifice
lists" Of about tho Same period are
fshed up "to establish the one important
fact that even them. e.. before the time
| Of Abraham-the whole Of Syria, Phenicia'
and a great part Of Arabia were under the
direct influence Of Babylonian civiliza-
ton-an influence the permanent effect Of
which can hardly be over-estimated, ana
from which the nOmadic and seml-ho-
madic elements therein were certainly not
exempt" Page So.
sweet little Miss Juliet. desperately
enamored Of a hereditary enemy, asked,
What's I'm q name?' and proceeded TO
add the not very relevant remark that
"A rose hy any other name would smell
as sweet" Professor Hommell is not OF
Miss Julets opinion. He believes that
great deal OF valuable history is TO De
found I'm names Indeed, a large part OF
his learned work IS devoted to this branch
Of Investigation. Hear him on this point;
1--WE have been able, for Instance 20
prove that the system Of namc-forma-
ton which we find in the South Arabian
inscriptions was already in existence at
the beginning of the second millennium
before Christ, and that the numerous
personal names ascribed TO patriarchal
ana uHNAA' lAilir" fN-" ttt
use at this very period q. g., 1900 years
before Christi and could not have. been
invented On or after the time of the kings
when O. totally different system of no.
menclature obtained-and thrown back
into antiquity retrospectively.'
This is one of the most powerful argu-
ments en- the whole book To us it seems
unanswerab,e.
Careful readers Of the Bible may have
! aN.fIfs N
personal names beginning or ending with
the syllable "el." or with the syllable
"iah." or "jah." Ell. Daniel, Mishaei
are examples Of the first; Isaiah, Azariah'
jeremiah. Of the second; while the name
Elijah combines them both. The reason
for AN this is obvious. The word FL
is the Hebrew word for God and Jan
or "Iah' is the word for Jehovah the
covenant God of Israel.
Now, the question, when were such
words first used in the ancient history or
nlmc-fOrmations?' Is one Wnich evidently
has material bearing upon the religious
history of the ancient Semitic races. Poo
Pie who did not believe In one God. and
ala not worship the covenant God OF Is
rael would not name a child Samuel
nor Elijah" Such, i'm brief is the gem
eral character Of Professor HommelIs ar
gumeny from the ancient Semitic systems
Of transformations
OF our authors work as a whole there
VIII scarcely be- more than one opinion az
% it's ability and learning. To be sure
there are. here and there, points upon
which I cannot agree with his conclu-
si0ns: and even as TO tile validity Of some
Of his processes OF reasoning l find myself
in more or less serious doubt. But. at all
events. the book is a red-hot shot thrown
fr.s.. cd Of Advanced
school OF "Dlvisive" critics, az represent
cd by Welhausen. Kuenen, Driver, and
Cheync They will find 10 easier TO sneer
az it than 20 answer IT,
On page 900. our author draws fine
parallel, with which / will close this re-
view:
1T was once the fashion 10 declare that
an passages in Arabian poetry OF the pc
Rod prior TO Alohammed. IN which tho
word Allah God properly al-ilahu-the
God; T.. e., the one COD occurred must
ipse factO be classed as later interpola-
tions. At present. however, when-thank5
10 the evidence OF the later Sabaean in
sorptiOns-it becomes every day more
certain that hundreds OF years before the
time Of Mohammed both Judaism and
Christianity had taken root and found ac-
ceptance IN various places in Arabia,
scholars are beginning 70 abandon the
hasty conclusions OF ten years ago in
favor of the accepted opinion OF the day.
The same thing will happen In connection
with the criticism OF the Pentateuch. Had
the beginnings Of the Israelite religion
really been d mixture Of fetichism and
ancestor-Worship these beginnings would
have left their impress upon the language
and could have been detected by the
method Of comparative philology. 1t be-
comes. however. clearer every day that
the Semites-and more particularly the
Western Semites-had from the beginning
a much purer conception OF the Deity
than was possessed by any Of the other
races Of antiquity. and critics
OF the Old Testament can no longer ar
ford 10 shut their eyes 20 this fact"
j. G.. HIDDEN.
Richmond. Va.