exaggerate the significance of this and other similar discoveries. The fact that a continuous divine revelation was made to the Hebrew people remains unaffected by inquiry into the nature and origin of the records which embody either the history or the spiritual products of that revelation. At what period these records were severally committed to writing, out of what materials they were compiled, under what conditions they were produced and reached their present shape-all these are matters of secondary importance 1. To the same category belong most questions of authorship. It will probably never be precisely settled how much of the great literary or legislative creations which tradition assigns to Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, or Zechariah, can be truly attributed to them. It is not vitally important that we should ever attain to definite knowledge on such points, and certainly it is a great mistake to overrate the need of exact information in regard to matters which do not affect the substance of revelation. At any rate a Christian apologist may conscientiously claim the right to retain a perfectly open mind on the purely literary questions that may from time to time. be under discussion among experts in criticism.

I have given some bare illustrations of the changes which our present knowledge involves in current conceptions of the Old Testament. But in order to anticipate objections it is necessary to add two or three observations bearing upon the whole subject of criticism.

First, the results of the higher criticism commend themselves to students of the Old Testament on broad grounds of historical probability and consistency 2. of the book of Deuteronomy on the course of the history and on the historical books begins at that point of time.

1 Cp. Westcott, The Ep. to the Hebrews, p. 493. 2 Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. C. p. 234. The results [of Old Testament criticism] are broad and intelligible, and possess that evidence of historical consistency on which the results of special scholarship are habitually accepted by the mass of intelligent men in other branches of historical inquiry.' Cp. Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 414.

As a branch of historical science, biblical criticism concerns itself with the interpretation of facts which lie open to the observation of every attentive reader of Scripture. This task has been pressed upon scholars partly by the results of mere literary analysis of the Old Testament, and partly by the accessions to our knowledge which have been gained in departments directly or indirectly illustrative of Hebrew life and religion, in the special fields covered by archaeological and ethnographical research, or by the comparative study of religions. The critical method of dealing with Hebrew history is that of comparing the actual working institutions described or implied in the historical books, with those contained in the legal parts of the Pentateuch; its aim is to reconstruct the story of Israel's development in accordance with all the available evidence. Now in regard to this reconstruction of the history, it is obvious that to a non-expert that theory will ultimately commend itself which supplies the most satisfactory and comprehensive explanation of the divergent phenomena. Attempts to defend the traditional view of Israel's history are too often entirely unsatisfying. The detailed and sometimes forced interpretation of innumerable points of difficulty cannot be regarded as an adequate answer to a massive and consistent argument based on historical facts and supported by analogy. We have seen that the most noticeable point in which criticism revises the traditional view of the Old Testament is the relative position to be assigned to the prophets and the law. According to the critical view the Pentateuch embodies the legal code not of Mosaism properly speaking, but of post-exilic Judaism. In proof of this position it is pointed out that in the historical books we find a state of things prevailing which strikes at the very root of the full-blown levitical system 2. For while the

1 Cp. Sanday, op. cit. p. 215.

2 See Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. C. pp. 271, 317.

levitical law rigidly restricts sacrificial worship to a single central altar and shrine, the custom practised and sanctioned till a late period in the history of the divided kingdom is freedom of sacrifice. It appears, in fact, that the central principle of the Pentateuchal legislation was either unknown or ignored before the age of Josiah. It has been shown, with what seems to many unanswerable force, that the centralization of worship and its limitation to a single sanctuary was a result only gradually achieved; that during the period previous to the erection of Solomon's temple a totally opposite state of things prevailed, which was apparently sanctioned by judges, kings, priests, and prophets alike; that the tendency towards limitation was encouraged by the great prophets of the eighth century, who perceived and denounced the abuses which had grown up in connexion with the popular cultus; that a doubtful attempt was made by Hezekiah, and a somewhat more successful effort by Josiah, to abolish the local sacrificial worship, but that until Josiah's reign scarcely a trace can be discovered of the observance in fact of the Deuteronomic law by which sacrifice was restricted to a central sanctuary'. In this case the references found in the historical books to a centralized worship do not appear to be nearly sufficient to outweigh the argument drawn from silence and from plain facts which justifies the critical theory 2. It is plain indeed that the general conception of Israel's previous history formed by the compilers of the historical books does not entirely correspond with the conclusions suggested by the narrative itself; and that we have to deal not merely

1 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Eng. Tr.), ch. i. 2 The traditional theory is well stated by Dr. Robertson Smith, O. T. in J. C. pp. 231 foll. Its weakness is (1) that 'the standard which it applies to the history of Israel is not that of contemporary historical records'; (2) 'the account which it gives of the work of the prophets is not consistent with the work of the prophets themselves'; (3) in general, there is a serious discrepancy between the traditional view of the Pentateuch and the evidence of the historical books in regard to the freedom of sacrifice allowed by men like Samuel, David, and Elijah.

with a great mass of important historical materials in the Old Testament, but with theories and interpretations of history which themselves demand close and reverent attention, but must not be supposed to foreclose independent scientific investigation of recorded facts.

But further, in regard to the literary composition of the Old Testament writings, and especially of the legal and historical portions, the critical view falls in with the analogy presented by the phenomena of other ancient literatures. 'Modern research,' we are told by a very candid friend of the higher criticism, 'has shown that a considerable part of the most ancient literature of all nations was of composite origin, more especially when it was of a historical or a religious character. Older documents were incorporated into it, with only so much change as to allow them to be fitted together into a continuous story, or to reflect the point of view, ethical, political, or religious, of the later compiler. The most ancient books that have come down to us are, with few exceptions, essentially compilations1. Accordingly if the literary analysis of the Old Testament points to such phenomena as these: gradual accretions added to the national annals, frequent assumption that institutions of comparatively late date go back to an earlier age, groups of writings of different style and date connected with certain historic names, the uniform ascription of laws to a primitive legislator-we are only required to recognize in Hebrew literature the operation of the ordinary laws

observable in that of other ancient nations.

Speaking broadly, the modern reconstruction of the history can justify itself on the one hand by its general accordance with the results of a purely literary analysis of the Old Testament, since the conception which historical criticism has formed of the general course of

1 Prof. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 3. See a good description of the phenomena common in secular writings of antiquity in Sanday, The Oracles of God, pp. 27, 28.

Israel's history is one that explains almost innumerable discrepancies and confusions which the traditional view left unsolved, or dealt with in a superficial and unsatisfactory manner. On the other hand, it harmonizes with the knowledge acquired in other branches of scientific research 1. Further, it is worth while to note, that the admissions even of conservative writers on Old Testament subjects occasionally suggest inferences more far-reaching than those actually put forward by their authors. We may welcome these admissions as indicating a tendency among Christian scholars towards cautious acceptance of at least the main positions of the critical theory, a theory which is favoured not only by a mass of positive and negative evidence, but also by a striking degree of a priori probability 3.

Secondly, it must be frankly admitted that the acceptance of the higher criticism has been hindered, not only by the mistaken fears and a priori prejudices of believing Christians, but also by the undisguised hostility to supernatural religion with which conspicuous foreign critics have conducted the investigation of Old Testament subjects. Critical theories have been occasionally advanced in the interests of avowed

1 The general study of history throws light not merely on the formation of the Old Testament books, but on the character of their contents. In all early history there is a stage of myth, and a stage of prehistoric legend or saga. 'I hold,' wrote the late Prof. Freeman, and I see nothing in our formularies to hinder me from holding-that a great part of the early Hebrew history, as of all other history, is simply legendary. I never read any German books on these matters at all, but came to the conclusion simply from the analogies supplied by my own historical studies.' (Life and Letters of E. A. Freeman, by W. R. W. Stephens, B.D., vol. i. P. 345.)

2 See for instance Girdlestone, The Foundations of the Bible, p. 42 (on the work of the Chronicler); pp. 138, 139 (on the ideal character of the Mosaic legislation); p. 193 ('concessions and convictions').

3 For example, the late codification of the Priestly code (P) falls in with the evidence that among the Semitic tribes ritual and ceremonial were generally a matter of unwritten usage and traditional practice (O. T. in J. C. p. 332); it also explains the object of Ezekiel's Torah (Ezek. xl-xlviii), and its relation to the levitical legislation; moreover, it falls in with all that we know from other sources of the temper of the Jewish people after its return from exile. Cf. Bruce, Apologetics, pp. 264-266.