The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1899-09-19

49, SoAy, AioiiSly, lldl Tic I1cNd-
touch, or the FIVE books OF
Moses and the book of Joshua
are a compilation, a blending to-
gether, and a harmonization OF a series
OF documents, by a redactor or redac-
tors that lived after the exile, and for
the purpose OF presenting a scheme OF
~lsrael's history from a post-exilic
standpoint, and that, too, a priestly sys-
tenn just evolved, which was distinctly
different from the system. that had pre-
vailed-is logically compelled to go the
whole length of the road with Wellhau-
sen, Kuenen, Noldeke, Driver and their
school. And they do. The difference
between the conservatives and the radi-
Gals is only a difference In matters OF
detail. A man may admit the possibili-
ty of the miraculous and prophetic in
general terms, and yet so interpret the
IOld Testament history according to a
system of criticism as t eliminate them
therefrom. 1t is exceedingly difficult
to see how miracles and prophecy can
be in a system that is manifestly fraudu-
lent, for such the Hexateuch is if con-
structed according to the theories of
the higher critics, who accept this docu-
mentary hypothesis. 1t may be we'll
to repeat that it is possible to
hold some sort of a documentary hy-
pothesis and hold to the Mosaic author
ship OF Genesis. 1t is very possible that
his history was compiled from records
preserved. And it might be conceded
that the marks of the primitive records
can be seen in the book itself. But
this is not the documentary hypothesis
of the critics nor of the p~arti-colored
bible. Its documents are certain hy-
pothetical documents called P. ]. F. d.
Je. Pa, etc, etc. The principal of these
documents are not older than 800 years
before Christ. The two Oldest were
written, the one in the northern king
dom, and the other in the southern
kingdom, or one in Israel, and the other
in Judea. P---the Priest-codex was a
production of p%ost-exilic times.
D-Deuteronomy in the main was a
production of the times Of Josiah, an
invention of Hilkiah, the priest, in the
interest of one altar. A perversion of
history and the previous religious order
Of Israel. But even these were subject
to- various notifications and reductions
before they reached their present form.
And in harmony with this scheme the
whole history of Judea and Israel was
northumberland .from what it act
ually was to something different, and
made to conform with the fictitious
priestly system. In other words the
Priest-codex, so-called, was not given
through Moses to Israel, but was a
production Of priestcraft in post-exilic
times. This is the documentary hy-
pothesis Of the higher criticism and
no other. And to say that this makes
the Bible anything other than a fraud
is to use language outside Of its ordin-
airy Specification. A term that expresses
the truth should be used for its moral
effect on conscience. We doubt whether
wholesale perversions of history can
be covered up under the guise of gilt
tering verbiage, and a novel terminolo-
gy. For example, Canon Driver tells
us that the substance of Deuteronomy
is old, but Hilkiah, the priest, dressed
it up in a "paranetic setting" Just
what ~"paranetic" means, we arc unable
to say, as neither our Webster's Una
bridged nor Encyclopedia dictionary
could tell US. But if it means a setting
embracing the old customs, usages and
law in an entirely different codification
from that formerly recognized, the
'paranetic setting" is a fraud, for it
claims ancient and Mosaic authority for
its statutes. 1t may seem to tone down
the striking immortality OF the whole
procedure to call it recodi6cation, but
a few questions will the guisA
of high sounding Technology. What
was recodifed? How much of the old
low ChASlS III lllC dIIcScu ucW COuc! WHY
was this secret of the recodifcation of
Moses kept from the king and people,
and they left with the belief that the law
was of Mosaic authority? But it is
claimed that this scheme of worship at
n altar as presumptively first intro
duced by Hilkiah harmonizes better
with facts of Israel's history than the
view that it was a Mosaic statute. For
it is said that in the past history we
read of numerous affairs that had the
divine sanction; as, for example, at
EBochim, Judges ills; Gideon's altar,
Judges ~vi:2o-22; Manoah's sacrifices,
and Samuel's sacrifices. Also the vari-
Gus high places where sacrifices were
offered are cited in favor Of the same
contention. AS to the first examples,
it is sufficient to reply that they were
not in violation OF the law. Sacrifcial
y,o..l:, .-c, c1,,o,,c 1oc,f..1 .rla.oya-