The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-05-28

premature and violent correction OF such
beliefs would have been more harmful to
His work than their undisturbed %continu-
ance would he. In this. MS in many
things. the correction OF erroneous opinions
might well he left to time. Blu this sugges-
ton Is less satisfactory than the other hypothe-
sis" To insist. in n word. that the use Of a
name must always in the New Testament in
dictate authorship is to go in the face OF literary
usage at all times. and against the usage Of the
New Testament itself in the case OF Samuel
and David. and. therefore. probably in other
cases also. such az Moses and Isaiah.
VI.
The claim nut forward for the higher criti-
cism ls that 1t Is the resultant OF forces that
have been at work in Christendom since the
Reformation. In successive epochs scholars
have Investigated afresh the sacred records.
and various theories have been propounded
from time to time to account for the new facts
brought to light. Biblical science. In n word.
like every other science. has been progressive.
The fruits OF its researches have gained the
ear Of the literary world and enlisted the In
terest Of intelligent persons. The questions
raised by the higher criticism have acquired a
position among the great issues Of the time.
II was Spinoza who first systematically
applied historical criticism TO the Old Tes-
lament books and arrived at the conclu-
sion that Moses could not have written the
Pentateuch. and that the historical books
from Genesis to the Books Of Kings. inclu-
sive. constitute one great historical work. a
conglomeration Of many different originals
by one editor. probably Ezra. who did not sue
coed in reconclling differences and in effecting
a completely harmonious arrangement. The
Books OF Chronicles he placed in the Macca-
bRan period. The Psalms. he thought, we're
| COlleptpd md diyidnd into nya hpoka In Tho
time OF the Second Temple. He believed the
Book Of Proverbs to have been collected. at the
earliest. In the time Of Josiah. The propheti-
cal books have been made UP. he said. Of
different fractions. without regard to their
original authors. Daniel. Ezra. Esther and
Nehemiah he attributed to the same author.
who strove to continue the history Of Israel
from the captivity onward. and who wrote in the
MaccabRan period. He accepted Aben Fzra's
hypothesis that the Book OF job was translated
into Hebrew from q foreign tongue. Spinoza's
criticism was shrewd. but chiefly conjectural.
1t paved the way. however. for future sys-
tematic investigation. After Spinoza various
writer's, including Richard Simon. a Roman
Catholic. brought to light n valuable collection
OF facts that demanded the attention Of Bibli-
cal scholars. although thew all made the mis-
take OF proposing untenable theories. instead
Of rising from the facts by induction and gen.
" permanent ltSultS' Az ltnHln.
after several Roman Catholic divines had taken
ground in favor OF the hypothesis that previous
ly written documents were used by Moses in
the composition OF Genesis. Astruc. a ply
stefan. In 1853. presented to the learned world
his alleged discovery that the use OF the d.
vine names Elohim and Jehovah divided the
book Of Genesis into two great memoirs and
nine lesser ones. This is now regarded by the
higher criticism as n real discovery, because,
ftnr n ht,r lrnI 40. - a IA
the assent Of the vast majority OF biblical schol-
ars. EIchhorn. in 1880. was at great pains to
separate the Elohistic and Jehovistlc docu-
ments In Genesis. and he performed the task
so effectively that his analysis has served as
the basis OF all critical investigation since his
day. Eichhorn carried his methods Of higher
criticism through the whole OF the Old Tesla
ment with the hand OF a master, and laid the
foundation of views most Of which have been
maintained ever since with increasing deter
mination. Upon Great Britain. however. these
discussions produced little impression. The
conflict with deism had forced the majority Of
the English and Scottish divines into a false
position. Had they maintained the critical
attitude OF the Protestant reformers and West
minister divines they would not have hesitated
to look the facts in the face and strive to
account for them but. eager for the defence OF
traditional views. they. for the most part,
fell back on Jewish rabbinical authority and
external evidence. contending with painful
anxiety for authors and dates. They confused
the higher criticism with deistic and ration
alistic criticism. and thus failed to discrimi-
nate between those who were attacking the
Scriptures in order to destroy them and those
who were searching the Scriptures in order to
defend them. The dependence Of Great Britain
and the United States on the Biblical scholar
shin OF the European Continent continued I'M
til the second half OF our century. At last the
Anglo-SaXon world was reused from it's I'M
critical condition by the attacks OF Bishop Co.
lenso on the historical character OF the Penta-
touch and the Book Of Joshua. and by a mum.
Der OF scholars representing free thought in
the well-known Essays and Reviews" We
may note that the author Of one OF
these papers, though bitterly assailed at
the time, became. subsequently. Archbishop
Of Canterbury. As Il matter OF fact. these
writer's added little to the sober higher critt-
cism of the Scriptures. and they inadvertently
did some harm. by d~iverting British and Amer
lean scholars from the literary study Of the
Bible and the true work OF the higher criticism,
to a defence of the supernatural and Of the
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. The
work OF Colenso. indeed. received little sup
port in Great Britain or the United States ut
the time. but it made a great impression on
the Dutch scholar. Kuenen. through whose
influence IT again came into notice. 1t Is
only within moro recent years that any
general interest in the conclusions OF
the higher criticism has been shown in
the English-speakinG world. This inter-
est has been due chiefly to the labors OF a
few pioneers. who have suffered In the interest
OF Biblical science. In Great Britain Samuel
Davidson. Professor Of Biblical Literature in
the Lancashire College. was compelled In 5
to resign his position in consequence OF his
views In respect to questions OF the higher crit
icism. In 1881. W. Robertson Smith, Professor
OF Hebrew In the Free Church College OF
Aberdeen. Scotland. who had advocated the
views OF Reuss and Williamson. was removed,
after a trial. from his chair for the pur-
pose Of promoting the peace and har-
mony OF the Church. but acquitted OF
heresya as to the matters in question. The con-
test which ended in this manner may be said
to have secured liberty Of opinion for Great
Britain. Robertson Smiths teacher. A. v.
Davidson OF Edinburgh. who held views essen