The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-07-15

left no permanent imprint upon the p~ation's
political history. We must also leave for
the present Interviewed the period from
1850 to 1891, whom the uprising against the
extension OF slavery, the gravity Of which
had been attested by the Utica and Buffalo
conventions, eliminated IN the evolution Of
the Republican party. 1t will be convenient
to marls the genesis and early indicative
triumphs Of that party in connection with
the promised and desired third volume Of
this narrative, which will bring the record
OF New York politics down to the FIRST eleo-
ton Of Mckinley to the Presidency.
M. W. b.
IL the Higher Criticism Of the Bible
Unanimoos n Final9
Tho assumption is current among writer's
In both the secular and tho religious press
tina there 10 no middle ground between the
traditional visw OF tho Christian Scriptures
and the critical view OF them taken by
critics OF tho Graf Wellhausen school.
Not long ago, for insta noe, a representative
writer averred that the real conflict IL
between modern scholarship and the ira.
ditionaA v~iew-between reason and author
ity.' And again: 1T IL the battle OF truth
against prejudice We are assured re-
pea tedly that practically all Old Test ment
scholars have accepted the WeIlhausen
theory, and any attempt to contest it's final
ity Is at ono stigmatised as the protest Of
theological prejudice against the applioa-
ton to Bible study Of modern methods Of
historical, linguistic, archaeological and lit
erary Investigation In other words, 90 1t
is asserted, there are two, and only two,
classes Of thinkers on the ~subjeot-the
traditionalists and the disciples Of Well
hansen.
This assumption Is challenged ina book
entitled The Problem of the Pentdteuch,
which embodies an examination Of tho
results Of the higher criticism by DR.. RAN
DoLpH II. McKIM Nongma ns). The author
of the volume Is the we'll known rector Of
the Church OF the Epiphany, Washington,
D. c., and q foreword Is contributed by tho
Dean OF Canterbury. The purpose of the
book Is to prove that there is no unanimity,
nor any near approach to unanimity, among
the founders and disciples Of the Graf
Wellha usen school, who are the aocredited
expounders Of the Higher Criticism. When
una nimity, or something like 1t, on the part
Of professional higher critics shall have
been att~ainsd-and not till then-will there
be foundation for the averment hat there
are only two Glasses Of thinkers On the sub
ject Of the origin and authority Of the
Christian Scriptures, namely, the tradition
aiists and the followers Of Wellhausen.
Mes nwhile. DR.. MoKim. denies that Well
hausen's theory has passed the experimental
sta &c; he denies that II IL no longer subject
D. lI-A~ A,,A L.. oHa - kha .N0ooknl Apn1-
tiles OF scholarship.
To make good his denial, the author Of
this book proceeds to recall a number OF
grave mistakes which within reoent years
have been brought home to this school Of
critics, and which should put. he submits,
open minded students on their guard
against accepting too readily It's conolu-
sions. Among the admitted mistakes here
adduoed is the following: Writer'S Of the
Wellhausen school formerly based their
soeptioism concerning the Mosaic author
ship, or date, Of the Pentateuch on the as
sumption that the age of the Hebrew law
giver Was not a literary &c. The literary
use Of ~writing-so 1t has been taken for
granted-could not have been known to an
Israelite at that epoch, and therefore the
books Of the Pentateuch could not have
orieinated then. DR.. MoKim recalls hat
Vatke, who was regarded by Wellhausen
as an oracle, denied that the age Of Moses
had the knowledge Of writing. That Well
hansen himself took q similar view Of the
matter Ia evident, for he says, in his article
on Israel" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
.Writing had been practised earlier than
sso-76o B. c., but only in formal instru-
ments, mainly on stone" The Tel ell
Amarna correspondence, however, meow
cred by the spade Of the archeologist In
lss7-Ss revealed the fact that in the CEN
fury before the Exodus Palestine was q
land OF boohy and schools. Thus the by.
pothesis for which the so-called higher
critics' had claimed q consensus Of scholar
ship was completely overturned, and as
s~ertions like that made by Prof. Kautsoh
Of Halle-thst 'there was not, and could
not be, much writing in the early days Of
Jewish history"-were shown to have
no foundation. Our author suggests that
such a colossal and fundamental mistake
az 10 here exposed may we'll adnonish us
not TO accept too hastily and trustfully
the conclusions now urged by the same
critics az fnal and unimpeaohable.
Another instance In point Is cited. The
opinion Is generally held among critics OF
the Wellhausen school that there Is no his.
tory at all In tho first eleven chapters OF
Genesis. A few years ago they drew the
line dividing history from legend further
down the stream Of the narrative; they
then looked upon the fourteenth chapter
of Genesis as also unhistorioal. The cam
paiRn Of Chedorlaomer was. 30 they averred,
a pure invention; the names Of the kings
mentioned In the story were resolved into
genealogical puns.' One eminent Orient
alist pronounced this chapter to be -e.fan-
tastio grouping together Of names . =
expressly invented for the OCCASION" and
the representatives OF the Higher Criticism
straightway adopted this view. The whole
chapter, such was their assumption, was
the invention Of q later age; there was moth
ing of history about II. By and by, how
ever, archaeological scholars were able 10
show from oubeiform inscriptions that these
strange names were historical. and there 90
tually hAdb King Of Elan named Chedor.
laomer who held supremacy over Palestine.
So the expounders Of the Higher Criticism
were compelled to aokno wledge their error.
Some Of them proceeded to put forward
a new hypothests. namely, that -the Jew
who inserted Genesis xiv, assumed to bel
- A. 1skAak ror<iNH. - Shz -L-t-