great problem of Israel's religion. It appears to the present writer that unless Christ and the Apostles affirm the authorship of the Pentateuch in the passages quoted from them, they affirm little or nothing upon the historic character and achievements of the man who, by the confession of all, is the central and dominant figure in Israel's history, and the accredited source of her religious doctrines and worship. To make such a conclusion as this consist with any just insight into the religion of Israel on the part of Jesus, not to speak of his honesty as a teacher or his Divinity, would be no easy task. These considerations conspire to create confidence in the legitimacy of the process by which the passages under review have been interpreted, and confirm the writer in the conviction that Christ and his Apostles have delivered a definite and to him decisive judgment on the burning question of Biblical criticism. This judgment, reached by two distinct lines of study, is in favor of the traditional view in its substantial claims. Without attempting to sum up the argument, the writer submits to the candor of his readers this humble contribution on a most vital theme.

SUMMARY.

1. Chaldea, Egypt, Syria, before 1300 B.C., according to the agreements of their scientific historians.

2. The naturalness and accuracy in the Pentateuch's narrative of beliefs, customs and geography, seal its date contemporaneous with the events described, and limit its authorship to one master hand.

HOWARD OSGOOD.

A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH.

BY HOWARD OSGOOD, PROFESSOR IN ROCHESTER THEOL. SEMINARY.

A reasonable hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch must be one which most closely agrees with all the known facts. Any hypothesis that contradicts or does not agree with plain facts in its sphere is untenable. If the results of mere philology in one department are contradicted by the undeniable facts of history, the philology needs revision.

I shall treat only the secular side of the Pentateuch question, on the broadest plane of history. So far as this paper is concerned the Pentateuch is an ancient Hebrew work, and an answer is sought to the queries, When was this work written? Was it the composition of one or of many hands?

Professor Maspero some years ago wrote, "In less than 30 years a new world of unknown languages and peoples has been opened for study; thirty centuries of history have come forth from the tombs and reappeared in the full light of day." The literature, which these studies and discoveries have evoked, represents more scholars than those who write on the Pentateuch controversy. They are the peers in every respect of the German or Dutch or English leaders of the school of criticism, which denies that the Pentateuch is history. These historians of Chaldea, Egypt,

Syria, have the advantage over the critics of a single theme, that they base their results not on one book but on hundreds of monuments of stone, clay, inscribed statues, engraved seals, bas-reliefs inscribed and that describe themselves, paintings that illustrate the text and are further explained by the text, papyri of different ages, containing the same text with the variations of copyists. These historians breathe a larger, freer air than most critics, for they are compelled to take into account comparative ethnology, geography, and religion; to become familiar with the language, art, government, national and social life and commerce of the peoples whose history they study. And when we gather, as we shall in this paper, the proved results of these scientific investigators, we breathe a larger air than is to be found in the apologetical works of those critics who have a narrow theory to defend.

The opponents of the Pentateuch as history claim a keener sight than other persons concerning questions of 3,000 years ago; but they fail to see, or if they see, they fail to consider that "3,000 years ago" when brought into plain sight before them and all men now. Except a few notices in Kuenen's "Religion of Israel," and Wellhausen's characteristic "God-forsaken dreariness of certain modern Egyptologists," one searches in vain in their writings for any real appreciation of the utter revolution that has taken place in ancient history by reason of the startling resurrection of long buried nations. These opponents postulate as