hands of former editors or revisers. Must not the attempt to analyze a document that has really passed through so many changes be regarded as simply a piece of guess-work, in which a preconceived theory is practically the sole guide? The wide divergences among critics as to the process of redaction which resulted in D J E prove that the evidences on which they rely are largely subjective.

But thus far the work of compilation is only half done. During the exile, which saw the amalgamation of JE and D, another work was begun among the priests in Babylon-a work of exactly the same scope, covering the same ground, from the creation to the conquest of Canaan, and like the first, in combining with extended narrative a considerable body of laws. The priestly author builds upon JE throughout, selecting the main facts of the narratives and stripping them of anything that seems unsuitable from his own point of view. This work, enlarged by the addition of other priestly torôth, older and younger than itself, was brought to Judea by Ezra in 458 B. C., where the deuteronomic-prophetic sacred history had been, for nearly a century at least, recognized and revered as an authority in all matters of history and law. But the new work departed notably from the old. "As long as the two retained their independence they challenged mutual comparison, and the great difference between them could not but be observed. If this difference were regarded *Hexateuch, p. 299.

as amounting to contradiction, then the prestige of the two works alike must suffer under it, and the authority of the more recently introduced legislation specially must be shaken. There was but one means of averting this danger, viz., to weld together these independent but related works into a single whole, which might then claim, without fear of challenge, the place which Judaism assigned to the documents of Yahwè's revelation to the fathers. It is therefore highly probable that the Sopherim lost no time, and that before the end of the fifth century they had produced the Hexateuch."*

But is it at all probable that Ezra and Nehemiah could have been successful in the attempt to impose upon the people a new code of laws containing so much, according to this theory, that had never been heard of before, when DJ E was in full force among them as God's law given to them by the hand of Moses? And how would the mingling of the two documents, so different in spirit and contents, help to blind any one's eyes to this difference or give any support to the claim of the new work to equal authority with the old? As to the nature of this redaction, we are told+ that it "assumes the form of a continuous diaskeue or diorthosis, and the redactor becomes a collective body headed by the scribe, who united the two works spoken of above into a single whole, but also including the whole series of his more or * Hexateuch, p. 315.

† Ib. p. 314; cf. pp. 270, 303, 313.

less independent followers. It is only in exceptional cases, however, that the original redactor can be distinguished with certainty." The abstract possibility of such a scheme cannot be denied; but what evidence is there of its truth? The resort to a series of redactors strikes one as an obvious but hardly plausible solution of acknowledged difficulties. What one redactor could not do and maintain his consistency must be the work of a different redactor.

As we follow Kuenen in his detailed account of the redaction (pp. 323 sqq.), and see how he makes R rearrange, alter, omit, and make additions to the materials before him; as we notice the devices to which R must resort in order to bring harmony out of discord, while yet leaving the divergences and contradictions so manifest that the critics can readily follow his steps; as our eyes are dazzled by the kaleidoscopic effects he produces through jumbling together verses, clauses, and even single words from his different sources, freely mingled with comments of his own, the conviction forces itself upon us that the whole scheme is altogther too artificial to be within the bounds of probability, not to say possibility. A statement of Kuenen's theory of the redaction-the best and most complete yet offered by upholders of the new hypothesis-seems to us its own sufficient refutation.

We do not oppose the attempt to analyze the Pentateuch; we acknowledge the distinctions drawn between the several codes of laws; we

recognize clear traces of a composite character here and there in the history, we admit the possibility of late additions, some of which may even date from post-exilic times. But a theory which not only deals with all these elements in the unsatisfactory way here indicated, but in addition would make the Pentateuch largely a tissue of fictions and perversions of history, deny the credibility or trustworthiness of every statement in the books of Samuel and Kings which does not fall in with it, and call Chronicles a string of inventions not worthy a serious examination-a theory which for the sake of consistency must deny not only all law and history to Moses, but also all psalms to David and all proverbs to Solomon-such a theory seems to us not only to offer no satisfactory solution of the problem of the Pentateuch, but to make many more difficulties than it removes.

THE VALIDITY AND BEARING OF THE

TESTIMONY OF CHRIST AND

HIS APOSTLES.

BY REV. C. R. HEMPHILL, COLUMBIA, S. C.

THE topic assigned me in this collection of essays on the Pentateuchal question is the validity and bearing of the testimony of Christ and his apostles on the origin and authorship of the Pentateuch. To those who regard with reverence and receive with humility the teachings of Jesus and those who were inspired with his Spirit, testimony of this character will be of surpassing value in the controversies that traverse the broad field of Old Testament history, documents and institutions. Critical processes have their rightful place, and critical results are not to be despised, but I take it that the Lord Jesus and his apostles are of higher authority and sounder judgment than even the most acute and learned critics. It is matter of common knowledge that the majority of recognized experts in Biblical criticism reject the belief, traditional among Jews and Christians alike, that the Pentateuch is the production of Moses. Equally familiar to all is it that this traditional belief is generally supposed to have been the belief and the teaching of Jesus and his inspired disciples. In this state of case it becomes us, while vindicating the supremacy of Christ and the apostles, to be cautious in our induction and