METHODIST

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

JULY, 1884.

L-THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTA-
TEUCH

[FIRST ARTICLE.]

* Pentatench, but especially the Book of Genesis, is of peste origin, and embodies a variety of ancient documents,

01 to every critical student. Ancient as well as modem, aden observed in the "Book of the Law of Moses" passwich could not well have been written by the great law'an-e'f. The tradition of some revision or reproduethe hand of Ezra is almost as uniform as that of the horship. It appears in the apocryph:

elation of

in the Clementine Homilies, and in many of the Chris Fer Aben Ezra in the twelfth century, and Carl* Masius in the sixteenth, maintained that the so-called of Moses "were not cor posed by him in their sent ... but by Ezra or some other inspired man, who subWames of places for old and obsolete ones by w..• ow of events could be best apprehended and

senteenth century we find Hobbes arg... 110 Lore suppose these writings to have b

ed

Her. ii. 21; Chrysostom, Im. vii in Fp. Hh,; Theodoret, Pref.

Tv Ep. ad. Chicaera; I rome, Ade. Hicid.

mme Jary on Joshua, at chap. xix, 47.

-FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXVI.

METHODIST

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

JULY, 1884.

ART. I.-THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTA

TEUCH.

[FIRST ARTICLE.]

THAT the Pentateuch, but especially the Book of Genesis, is of composite origin, and embodies a variety of ancient documents, is obvious to every critical student. Ancient as well as modern readers observed in the "Book of the Law of Moses " passages which could not well have been written by the great lawgiver himself. The tradition of some revision or reproduction by the hand of Ezra is almost as uniform as that of the Mosaic authorship. It appears in the apocryphal Revelation of Ezra,* in the Clementine Homilies,† and in many of the Christian Fathers. Aben Ezra in the twelfth century, and Carlstadt and Masius in the sixteenth, maintained that the so-called Books of Moses "were not composed by him in their present form, but by Ezra or some other inspired man, who substituted new names of places for old and obsolete ones, by which the memory of events could be best apprehended and preserved." § In the seventeenth century we find Hobbes arguing that we should no more suppose these writings to have been composed by Moses, because they are commonly called Books of Moses,

*2 Esdras, xiv, 19-48.

Homily iii, chap. 47.

Namely, Clement of Alex., Strom. 22; Tertullian, De Cult. Foem., iii; Irenæus, Adv. Haer. iii, 21; Chrysostom, Hom. viii, in Ep. Heb.; Theodoret, Pref. in Palinos; Basil, Ep. ad. Chilonem; Jerome, Adv. Helvid.

Masius, Commentary on Joshua, at chap. xix, 47.

27-FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXVI.

than we should believe the Books of Joshua, Ruth, and Samuel to have been written by the individuals whose names they bear, "for in titles of books the subject is marked as often as the writer."* Similar views were advanced by Isaac Peyrère, a French Protestant, who went over to Romanism, and also by Spinoza, who held that all the books from Genesis to Kings form one great historical work, composed of many documents of diverse authorship, not always in harmony with each other, but arranged and edited in their present form after the Babylonian exile, and probably by Ezra. In the year 1678, Richard Simon's Critical History of the Old Testament appeared, and gave a new turn to Pentateuchal criticism by calling attention to the varieties of composition and style apparent even in closely connected narratives, (as in the account of the flood, especially in Gen. vii, 17-24.) Simon's work was sharply criticised by Le Clerc,‡ who, however, put forth the singular theory that the Pentateuch, though containing documents both older and later than Moses, was probably compiled by the exiled priest whom the king of Assyria sent to instruct the Samaritan colonists. 2 Kings xvii, 27. These various criticisms made little impression at the time of their appearance, but they opened the way for the more thorough study of the Pentateuch, which began about the middle of the eighteenth century, and continues with growing interest at the present hour. Modern criticism, so far as it has opposed the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or attempted to explain its origin, exhibits a series of theories; and no intelligent discussion of the latest phases of Old Testament criticism is possible without some acquaintance with the history of these successive theories.

*Leviathan, part iii, chap. 33. English Works, vol. iii, pp. 369. Ed. Molesworth, Lond., 1839.

This editor, he observes, "called the first five books after the name of Moses, because his life is the principal subject. For the same reason the sixth book is named Joshua, the seventh Judges," etc. Spinoza, Opera, vol. i, pp. 491. Ed. Van Vloten et Land, 1882.

"Sentimens de quelques theologiens de

In an anonymous publication, entitled Holland sur l'Histoire Critique du V. T." Amsterdam, 1685. Le Clerc soon after abandoned this theory, and in his Commentary on Genesis, first issued in 1693, maintained that passages of manifestly later date than the age of Moses were additions by a later editor. About the same time, Van Dale, a friend of Le Clerc, in a work on the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, advanced the theory that Ezra compiled the Pentateuch from a book of Mosaic laws and various historical and prophetical writings.