^■;. 
 
 VI. > 
 
 HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL NOTES. 
 
 CRITICS AND APOLOGISTS. ^ ^ 
 
 In the Expo-'^itonj Times for February, 1896, p. 227, an eaitorial 
 notice of Dr. W. H/ Green's treatise on The Higher Critici.vn of the 
 Pentateuch began in these words: '' ' There is now but one Old Testa- 
 ment scholar who rejects the results of criticism.' So said a higher critic 
 recently; and he named the scholar— Prof. Green, of Princeton. The 
 statement was too severe on some other men, but not too complimentary 
 to Prof. Green. For he is a scholar; they who resent his attitude most 
 hotly admit it most readily." 
 
 Exactly three years have elapsed since the above statement ap^^eared. 
 What is now the ' ' advanced thought ' ' of the higher critics in respect 
 to Prof. Green, as reported in the Expository Times for February, 1899 ? 
 They have discovered in the interval that he is not a scholar. Criti- 
 cism that is up to date is now able to treat him with contempt. Thus 
 they who venture still to believe in the historic truth of the Old Testa- 
 ment are left poor indeed. Their only scholar has been discredited! 
 We should be sorry to think that the accomphshed editor of the theologi - 
 cal magazine in which Dr. Green has been held up to derision has 
 changed the opinion which he formerly expressed regarding the learning 
 of that honored Christian apologist. Possibly owing to the pressure of 
 work now devolving upon him the obnoxious paragraphs escaped his 
 observation. 
 
 The Rev. J. A. Selbie has charge of the department entitled, "Among 
 the Periodicals," in the Expository Times. In the issue referred to he 
 reproduces with unmistakable approbation some criticisms which Dr. 
 Carl Steueruagel wrote in the Theolor/ische Bundschau of last December 
 in condemnation of apologetic treatises recently translated into German. 
 Mr. Selbie will be naturally considered a high authority on Biblical litera- 
 ture from his editorial position, and from the fact that he is the chief 
 assistant of Dr. Hastings in the preparation of the new Dictionary of 
 the Bible now in course of publication by ^Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, 
 Dr. Steueruagel is privat-dozeut of Theology in Halle, and is author of 
 a Connnentary on Deuteronomy which api)eared last year in the Nowack 
 series of manuals. Grave and damaging accusations made by such men, 
 it seems to us, ought not to be left unnoticed, especially in view of the 
 tone of assurance with which they are l)rought forward, which is fitted to 
 impose on the inconsiderate and ignorant. 
 35 
 
VI. 
 HISTORICAL AND CKITICAL NOTES. 
 
 CRiTICS AND APOLOGISTS. ^ i^ 
 
 In the Expoi^itonj Tunea for February, 1896, p. 227, an eaitorial 
 notice of Dr. AV, H.^ Green's treatise on The Higher Critici.wi of the 
 Pentateuch began in these words: " ' There is now but one Old Testa- 
 ment scholar who rejects the results of criticism.' So said a higher critic 
 recently; and he named the scholar— Prof. Green, of Princeton. The 
 statement was too severe on some other men, but not too complimentary 
 to Prof. Green. For he is a scholar; they who resent his attitude most 
 hotly admit it most readily." 
 
 Exactly three years have elapsed since the above statement appeared. 
 What is now the ' ' advanced thought ' ' of the higher critics in respect 
 to Prof. Green, as reported in the Expository Times for February, 1899 ? 
 They have discovered in the interval that he is not a scholar, ('riti- 
 cism that is up to date is now able to treat him with contempt. Thus 
 they who venture still to believe in the historic truth of the Old Testa- 
 ment are left poor indeed. Their only scholar has been discredited! 
 We should be sorry to think that the accompUshed editor of the theologi- 
 cal magazine in which Dr. Green has been held up to derision has 
 changed the opinion which he formerly expressed regarding the learning 
 of that honored Christian apologist. Possibly owing to the j^ressure of 
 work now devolving upon him the ol3noxious paragraphs escaped his 
 observation. 
 
 The Rev. J. A. Selbie has charge of the department entitled, ''Among 
 the Periodicals," in the Expository Times. In the issue referred to he 
 reproduces with unmistakal)le approbation some criticisms which Dr. 
 Carl Steuernagel wrote in the Theologische Bundsch((u of last December 
 in condemnation of apologetic treatises recently translated into German. 
 Mr. Selbie will l)e naturally considered a high authority on Biblical litera- 
 ture from his editorial position, and from the fact that he is the chief 
 assistant of Dr. Hastings in the preparation of the new Dictionary of 
 the Bible now in course of pul)lication by ^Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, 
 Dr. Steuernagel is privat-dozeut of Theology in Halle, and is author of 
 a Connuentary on Deuteronomy which appeared last year in the Nowack 
 series of manuals. Grave and <lamaging accusations made by such men, 
 it seems to us, ought not to be left unnoticed, especially in view of the 
 tone of assurance with which they are brought forward, which is fitted to 
 impose on the inconsiderate and ignorant. 
 35 
 
 i^- 
 
53 J: THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW. 
 
 Against Dr. Green in particular, and recent apologists in general, Jjr. 
 Steuernagel, as reported in the Expository Timef<, brings these three seri- 
 ous charges: " That their work is frequently of a very superficial char- 
 acter, that they set up a man of straw for their attacks, and that even 
 their Biblical knowledge often leaves much to be desired." From read- 
 ing Dr. Steuernagel' s original article we can testify that he is not misrep- 
 resented. We nnist'now confine our attention to an examination of the 
 truth of these charges as preferred against Dr. Green, who is the chief 
 mark of our critics. The second of these charges we take up first, as it 
 is evidently considered the most crushing, and its statement in the Eng- 
 lish translation is followed by a note of exclamation: '* Green sets up a 
 man of straw to represent the position of critics when he alleges that the 
 latter, whenever the name Jahivch occurs in an ' Elohistic ' passage, 
 assume that a redactor has either introduced a sentence from a parallel 
 narrative or altered the original Elohim into Jahweh. Green actually 
 makes this allegation in connection with passages subsequent to Ex. iii, 
 although every critic knows that E tells us in Ex. iii. 18fF. of the revela- 
 tion of the new divine name Jahiceh to Moses, and tliat from this point 
 onwards the latter name even preponderates in E !" 
 
 It is in review of Dr. Green's Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch that 
 this accusation is made. The offense charged, if proved to have been 
 actually committed, must be pronounced utterly inexcusable, and would 
 of itself be sufficient to destroy Dr. Green's reputation as a scholar. 
 But what must be said of his accusers if they have borne false witness 
 against him ? His is not the only reputation at stake. 
 
 Has Dr. Green " set up a man of straw [a Zerrbild as the original 
 has it] to represent the position of critics ?' ' We will let the most distin- 
 guished of the higher critics represent, in their own words, their position 
 in regard to the mooted point. They should know what they have been 
 in the habit of teaching. Dr. August Dillmann, professor of Theology 
 in Berlin, who died in 1894, gives the testimony of an expert in his treatise 
 Ueher die Composition des Hexateuch, ai)pended to the second edition of 
 his Commentary on Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua. On p. 617, 
 in treating of the Elohistic document, whose existence he and the other 
 divisive critics postulate, Dillmann thus writes : " Das wichtigste Kenn- 
 zeichcn dieser Schrift ist die Benennung Gottes mit Elohim ( auch nach 
 der Einsetzung des Jahvenamens Ex. iii), welche E mit andern alteu 
 Geschichtsschreibern (in Jud. u. Sam., vgl. Knobel, 561) gemeinsam 
 hat; sie ist bei ilim durchgiingig, u. HliT ^^ seinen Stiicken erst durch 
 die spiiteren Bearbeiter hereingebracht. " 
 
 In this quotation Dillmann distinctly asserts that tlie most important 
 criterion of the E document is its naming of the Deity by Elohim, -and 
 that God is so named in it both before and after Ex. iii; that this use of 
 Elohim in E is thorour/hgoing, or universal ; and that when the name 
 Jehovali is found in passages belonging to E, its introduction is to be 
 ascribed to later hands. If Dillmann was competent to give a correct 
 
CRITICS AND APOLOGISTS. od.» 
 
 account of his own doctrine, Dr. Green must be acquitted of the charge 
 of setting up a man of straw, ein Zerrbild, to represent the position of 
 the higher critics. 
 
 Prof. Juhus Wellhausen is another witness who may be allowed to 
 give testimony on this question. In his treatise, Die Composition des 
 HexateucJis and der hi sto rise hoi Bueher des alien Tedaments, p. 72, speak- 
 ing of Ex. iii. 10-15, which he claims for the Elohistic document, he 
 remarks: "■ AVirklich erscheint hier iiberall im Munde des Erztihlers 
 D*n'?N V. 11, 1-!, 13, 14, 15, wiihrend von nun ab dies Kriterium fiir 
 Uingere Zeit aufhort, freilich wie es scheint, mehr (lurch Schuld des 
 Bearbeiters, als nach der Absicht des Elohisten selber, der nach wie vor 
 fiir gewohnlich den allgemeinen Namen gebraucht zu haben scheint." 
 
 In this quotation Wellhausen clearly makes the use of the name 
 Elohim a criterion of the E document, and ascribes the omission of this 
 name in Elohistic passages after Ex. iii to the fault of the redactor, 
 and not to the original author, whom Wellhausen holds to have, both 
 before and after Ex. iii,' commonly employed the general name of God 
 or Elohim. To produce further e\'idence at our command on this head 
 would be a work of supererogation. 
 
 Pr. Green does not pretend to be infallible, but reviewers should be 
 very careful of rashly accusing him of disgraceful blundering, lest haply 
 they fling a boomerang which may recoil to their own hurt. Dr. Green 
 knows as well as any living man the tricks of the redactor whom the 
 critics are obliged to assume for the purpose of upholding the modern 
 documentary hypothesis of the composition of the Pentateuch. He could 
 truly say of him what Paul says of Satan: '' We are not ignorant of 
 his devices." He is not likely to be caught napping while describing his 
 varied and whimsical operations. He has studied the work assigned to 
 K thoroughly, and has given the best description of it that we have any- 
 where seen. It seems very superstitious on the part of the critics to^ 
 ])rofess to believe in such a being in this enlightened age. But they feel 
 that they cannot get along without him, and so to them R is a name to 
 conjure with. Here is Dr. Green's account of that strange character 
 whose symbol is R: '' The most capricious and inconsistent conduct is 
 attributed to R, such as is an impeachment of both his honesty and good 
 sense. He is held responsible, in fact, for everything that is at variance 
 with the requirements of the hypothesis. And on the supposition that 
 such a person really existed and did the work ascribed to him, it is quite- 
 impossible to form any intelligent notion of his methods or liis aims.. 
 We are told that in some places he carefully preserves minute fragments 
 of his sources, though they are a superfluous ropctitif>n of what has 
 already been more fully stated in the language of otlier documents; and 
 yet elsewhere he freely omits large and essential portions of tlieni. In 
 some places he preserves unchanged wliat is represented to be plainly 
 antagonistic, while in other places he is careful to smooth away discre])- 
 ancies and to give a difterent turn to variant passages by transpositions or 
 
536 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW. 
 
 by iiisertious of his own. He sometimes keeps his documents quite 
 distiuct in language and form, at other times lie effaces their peculiarities 
 or blends them inextricably together. All these offices nmst be assumed 
 in order to carry the hypothesis safely through; but whether such a 
 bundle of contradictions was ever incarnate in any actually existing 
 person, the only proof of his existence being that these contradictory 
 things are alleged about him, everyone must judge for himself" {He- 
 hrtiica, Vol. vii, p. 35f. ). This is no caricature of K. Those familiar 
 with Pentateuchal criticism will without difficulty recognize the accuracy 
 of the portraiture in every feature. 
 
 In tlie quotation made from the Expository Times it is affirmed that 
 " every critic knows that E tells us in Ex. iii. 13ff'. of the revelation of 
 the new divine name Jahweh to Moses " This is what no critic hioivs. 
 But the destructive critics profess to know it. Herein they greatly err. 
 
 To obviate misapprehension it is proper to observe that Dr. Green does 
 not assert that the critics always assume that the presence of the name 
 Elohini in what they call a J section is owing to the interference of R. 
 On the contrary, he says expressly in his Higher Criticism, j). 91, that 
 " Elohim is repeatedly found along with Jehovah in passages attributed 
 to J where the critics explain that the author of this document used 
 both names as the occasion demanded." He appropriately asks, " If J 
 could use both of these names, and in so doing was governed by their 
 inherent signification and by the appropriateness of each to the connec- 
 tion in which they are severally employed, why might not P and E do 
 the same ? Or why, in fact, is there any need for J, P or E, or for 
 any other than the one author to whom a uniform tradition attributes all 
 that it has been proposed to jiarcel among these unknown and undiscov- 
 erable personages ?" 
 
 We now turn to the first of the charges made by Steuernagel. It is 
 thus stated: " It is surely a very suj^erficial explanation of the inter- 
 chauge of the divrine names to say with Green that Jahweh is employed 
 when God is thought of as the God of salvation and of gracious conde- 
 scension, whereas the name Elohim is chosen when he appears as the 
 Creator or Judge of the world. Why, then," asks Steuernagel, "is the 
 God who enters into covenant with Noah (Gen. ix) and with Abraham 
 (Gen. xvii) called Elohim f Why is the God who executes judgment 
 on Sodom and Gomorrah called Jahweh f Why is it that in perfectly 
 parallel narratives we find at one time Jahweh and at another time 
 Klnhim ? (compare Gen. xii. 10-20 with xx. 1-17)." 
 
 We agree with Steuernagel that if Dr. Green had given such an inade- 
 quate account of the divine names as he attributes to him, it would 
 furnish a very superficial and unsatisfactory explanation of their inter- 
 change. 15ut what if Steuernagel is here guilty of the ofiense which he 
 charges on Dr. Green, which we have already weighed and found want- 
 ing ? What if he sets u}) a man of straw instead of the real Dr. Green ? 
 This is what he lias done. He does not fairly represent the position of 
 
CRITICS AND APOLOGISTS. 537 
 
 the man whom lie autagonizes. Dr. Green, in his discussion so coura- 
 geously and triumphantly carried on in Hebraica with Prof. W. R. 
 Harper, could not have proceeded far in the attempt to show the appro- 
 priate and discriminating use in Genesis of Jehovah and EloJiiin respec- 
 tively without seeing the futility of his contention if he had only followed 
 the simple rule attributed to him as sufficient for explaining everywhere 
 the preferential employment of one or other of the two divine names Jeho- 
 vah and Elohim. We have not been able to discover that Dr. Green has 
 stated in any of his writings that Jehovah cannot be properly used when 
 God is thought of as Judge of the world. He knew that Jehovah- 
 Elohim pronounced sentence on the old serpent and on our first parents, 
 and that Jehovah judged Cain; and he often refers to acts of judgment 
 on the world performed by Jehovah. In the book which Dr. Steuernagel 
 reviews, Dr. Green carefully distinguishes the two divine names as 
 follows :* 
 
 *' Elohim is the general name for God, and is applied both to the true 
 God and to pagan deities. Jehovah is not a common but a proper noun. 
 It belongs to the true God alone, and is His characteristic name, by 
 which He is distinguished from all others, and by which He made Him 
 self known to Israel, His chosen people. Accordingly Jehovah denotes 
 specifically what God is in and to Israel; Elohim what He is to other 
 nations as weU. That universal agency which is exercised in the world 
 at large, and which is directed upon Israel and Gentiles alike, is by 
 Elohim, the God of creation and providence. That special manifestation 
 of Himself which is made to His own people is by Jehovah, the God of 
 revelation and of redemption. The sacred writer uses one name or the 
 other, according as he contemplates God under one or the other point of 
 view. Where others than those of the chosen race are the speakers, as 
 Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 22, 23) or Pharaoh (xh. 38, 39), it is natural 
 that they should say Elohim, unless they specifically refer to the God of 
 the patriarchs (xxvi. 28) or of Israel (Ex. v. 2), when they will say 
 Jehovah. In transactions between Abraham or his descendants and 
 those of another race God may be spoken of under aspects common to 
 them both, and the name Elohim be employed; or he may be regarded 
 under aspects specifically Israehtish, and the name Jehovah be used. 
 Again, as Elohim is the generic name for God as distinguished from 
 
 * In the Homiletic Review (published by Funk & Wagnalls Company, London 
 and New York) for August, 189^, pp. in6ff., ami for September, pp. 257fY., Dr. 
 Green has two valuable papers on " Elohim and Jehovah in the Pentateuch." He 
 first examines the use of these divine names in other books of the Old Testament, 
 and then considers their use in the books of Moses. These papers are the latest 
 and, we think, the most careful and complete connected discussion of the subject 
 that has proceeded from Dr. Green's pen. They deserve the study of those who 
 would master this important question. At the close of his investigation he makes 
 the claim, which is not too strong : The divine names occurring in the Pentateuch 
 have now been considered in detail, and I think it may fairly be said that it has 
 been shown that their employment is regulated by the same principles which 
 prevail in the rest of the Old Testament." 
 
538 THE PRE SB YTERIAN AND JIEFORMED RE VIE W. 
 
 beings of a diffeieiit grade, it is the teirn proper to be used "vvhen God 
 and man, the divine and the human, are contrasted, as ^Geu. xxx. 2 ; 
 xxxii. 28; xlv. 5, 7, 8 ; 1. 19, 20" (Higher Criticism, pp. 102, 103). 
 
 Dr. Green further observes that " wliile in certain cases one of the 
 divine names is manifestly appropriate to the exclusion of the other, 
 there are others in which either name might properly be used, and it is at 
 the discretion of the writer Avhich he will employ. When an event is 
 capable of being viewed under a double aspect, either as belonging to the 
 general scheme of God's universal providence, or as embraced within 
 the administration of His plan of grace, either Elohim or Jehovah would 
 be in place, and it depends on the writer's conception at the time which 
 he will employ. It is not necessary, therefore, in Genesis, any more 
 than in other books of the Bible, to be able to show that there was a 
 necessity for using that divine name which is actually employed. It is 
 sufficient to show, as can invariably be done, that the writer might 
 properly use the name which he has actually chosen " (Higher Criticism, 
 p. 106). 
 
 It is not difficult now to answer the question of Steuernagel: " Why 
 is the God who enters into covenant with Noah (Gen. ix) and with 
 Abraham (Gen. xvii) called Elohim ?" The covenant described in 
 Gen. ix was made, not with the chosen seed, but with Noah and his 
 seed, and all living creatures, with all flesh upon the earth (Gen. ix. 9, 
 10, 15, 17). Its universal character is made very prominent. There- 
 fore, the general name of God, Elohim, is most ap2")ro])riate. When 
 God is set forth as distinguishing the chosen seed from the rest of man- 
 kind, then Jehovah is more fittingly used. See ver. 26 of the same 
 chapter, where we read, '' Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem." It is 
 surely not by accident that in the next verse the blessing of Japheth is 
 attributed to Elohim. 
 
 But why is it Elohim who enters into covenant with Abraham (Gen. 
 xvii) ? We answer that the first verse of Gen, xvii tells us that it was 
 Jehovah who did this; and we refuse to listen to the critics Avho say in 
 the interest of their theory that this verse is an interpolation by R, or 
 that R has at least substituted Jehovah for Elohim. It is Jehovah, 
 then, who enters here into covenant with Abraham, or rather, renews 
 and enlarges the covenant mentioned in Gen. xv. 18. But why is 
 Elohim used throughout the remainder of the chapter ? Because there is 
 a j)eculiar significance in speaking here of God in His character as the 
 Omnipotent Creator. P^l Shaddai, God Almighty, is what Jehovah 
 calls Himself in the first verse. There was special cause to dwell on 
 God's power. The chapter begins with mentioning the great age of 
 Abraham. The patriarch himself is introduced as asking, '* Shall a child 
 l)e born unto him that is an hundred years old ? And shall Sarah, that 
 is ninety years old, bear ?" (ver. 17). He was even led to suggest that 
 the numerous posterity promised to him might be granted in the line of 
 Ishmael. A son by his wife did not seem Avithin the bounds of jDossi- 
 
CRITICS AND APOL GISTS. 589 
 
 bility. But lie is told defiuitely that Sarah should bear him a sou iu the 
 uext year, and that she should be a mother of nations. If, to 
 strengthen Abraham's faith, Jeiiovah in the beginning of the chapter 
 thought it proper to call Himself El Shaddai, thus emphasizing His 
 divine power, it is in admirable keeping for the sacred narrator to use 
 subsequently throughout the theophany the familiar name of Elohim, 
 which is a nearer equivalent of El Shaddai than Jehovah is, and is more 
 suggestive that power belongeth unto God than this latter name. 
 
 It is further asked, '* Why is the God who executes judgment on 
 Sodom and Gomorrah called JahwehJ" The God of Abraham, 
 Jehovah, was conspicuously revealed in the destruction of Sodom. We 
 may answer the question in Dr. Green's own words: '' It is Jehovah iu 
 chap, xviii who in condescending grace concludes the covenant transac- 
 tion with Abraham by becoming his guest, and in the familiarity of 
 friendship) admits him to His counsel respecting Sodom, and accepts his 
 intercession on its behalf; and who still further (xix. 1-28) executes 
 the purpose which He had disclosed to Abraham, ot purging his own land 
 of gross offenders (cf. xiii. 13, xv. 16, xviii. 20, 21)" (Unity of 
 Genesis, p. 152). What he says in the same place on the use of Elohim 
 in xix. 29 answers well a difficulty raised by critics. 
 
 We have another question to answer: '' Why is it that in perfectly 
 parallel narratives we find at one time Jahweh and at another time 
 Elohim (compare Gen. xii. 10-20 with xx. 1-17) ?" 
 
 There is a remarkable resemblance between the two narratives. We 
 add that there is a likeness between them which our divisive critics would 
 obliterate. In the earlier the name Jehovah alone is used, and it occurs 
 but once; it is the only name of God occurring in Gen. xii. 10-20. 
 '' Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of 
 Sarai Abram's wife" (ver. 17). In the similar narrative in Gen. xx, 
 the name Jehovah occurs once, and that too in describing the judgment 
 inflicted by the Lord on Abimelech, for a like offense: " For Jehovah 
 had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of iVbimelech, because of 
 Sarah, Abraham's wife " (xx. 18). The correspondence is striking. 
 But the a jjriorism of such critics as Kueuen, Wellhausen and Dillmann 
 will not tolerate in an Elohistic chapter this verse in which tlie name 
 Jehovah is found, and they accordingly ascribe it to the interference of 
 R. But it coheres closely with the preceding sentence, which is, iu 
 fact, unintelligible without it. 
 
 We might be content with this answer to the last question. But we 
 may draw from Hengstenberg a moat satisfactory explanation of the use 
 of Elohim throughout the rest of Gen, xx, which relates graphically 
 the aftair l^etween Abraham and Abimelech on account of Sarah. For 
 Abimelech God is Elohim; of Jehovah he knew nothing. Only as 
 Elohim could God appear to him. Al)rahani uses in conversation with 
 Abimelech Elohim, while he accommodates himself to his standpoint. 
 Therefore he prays also to Elohim; for his intercession is uttered in the 
 
04U THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW. 
 
 ears of the king. How the use of Elohim is called forth by the contents 
 of the chapter appears very clearly from ver. 11, where Abraham says, 
 '' Because I thought, Surely the fear of Elohim is not in this place.'' \ 
 Abraham confesses that he was herein deceived There Avas in Gerar 
 the fear of Elohim. But the fear of Jehovah did not exist there. 
 Under no circumstances could Jehovah be used in ver. 11 (^Authentie 
 des Pentateuches, i, pp. 351, 852). 
 
 Dr. Green is censured further for maintaining that " Scripture is an 
 organism whose parts are inspired by God and consequently combine in 
 a harmonious whole." This is the view which the Lord Jesus Christ 
 and His apostles held of Holy Scripture. It is the view to which 
 those who call Christ Master are committed, and it can be vindi- 
 cated against all impugners. But it is a great error to charge Dr. 
 Green with " refusing to view the harmony of Scripture as the re- 
 sult of a process of development under divine guidance." We find 
 him, in the Preface to his book which is reviewed, saying that the 
 Pentateuch " contains the germs from which all that follows was de- 
 veloped." And one of his arguments to prove that jMoses was the 
 author of the Pentateuch " is furnished by the elementary char- 
 acter of the teachings of the Pentateuch as compared Avith later Scrip- 
 lures in which the same truths are more fully expanded. The develop- 
 ment of doctrine in respect to the future state, providential retribution, 
 the spiritual character of true worship, angels and the Messiah, shows 
 very plainly that the Pentateuch belongs to an earlier period than the 
 book of Job, the Psalms and the Prophets " (p. 45). 
 
 As illustrative of the a priori reasoning of our critics we may instance 
 the following statement: '' Green denies, of course, that the critics 
 believe in divine revelation at all." Such a denial. Dr. Green would 
 make in regard to such critics as Kuenen, Reuss and AVellhausen. 
 They were avowed antisupernatiiralists. But Dr. Green never denied of 
 such critics as Delitzsch, Konig, Strack, or even of Dr. C. A. Briggs, 
 that they believed in divine revelation at all. In The Presbyterian 
 AND Reformed Review^ for October, 1893, p. 553, he could thus 
 write: " Beyond question Dr. Briggs is honestly aiming to defend the 
 revealed Word of God and evangelical religion against the hostile attacks 
 of a destructive and revolutionary criticism. Convinced that the critics 
 have established much that is at variance with what has been currently 
 believed hitherto respecting the origin and structure of the books of the 
 Bible, he is persuaded that the only honest and safe course is frankly to 
 accept these conclusions, and adjust the belief of the Church accord- 
 ingly. He confidently maintains tliat nothing which is essential to the 
 Christian faith will be lost by so doing, while, if this is not done, the 
 Bible will be put in apparent opposition to the sure results of modern 
 scholarship, to the serious disadvantage of the Christian faith, a disad- 
 vantage to which it cannot be rightfully subjected. This is an intelligi- 
 ble position." But Dr. Green proceeds to show that this position is 
 
CRITICS AND APOLOGISTS. oil 
 
 untenable, and tliat ** the divorce which the professor proposes to efiect is 
 impracticable. The books of the Bible are the charter of the Christian 
 faith. If the former are unsound, the latter cannot be maintained." 
 
 The development hypothesis to which Dr. Green is unalterably opposed 
 is, '' That the Pentateuchal codes are not, as represented in the Pentateuch 
 itself and elsewhere in Scripture, component and mutually related parts 
 of one complete system of legislation, but constitute so many distinct and 
 successive systems of legislation, the next in order being in each case 
 further developed than that which preceded it; and that the differences 
 between the codes are such that they cannot all have belonged to any 
 one period, least of all to the Mosaic, as represented in the Scripture 
 account, but long periods of time must have elapsed to give occasion for 
 their introduction. ' ' This hypothesis, which makes the whole record of 
 the Bible on this subject a colossal forgery, he cannot accept, and he has 
 given good and sufficient reasons for not accepting it. These reasons 
 deserve serious and candid consideration. 
 
 Dr. Steuernagel is not well informed of Dr. Green's position, neither 
 is he, as we have proved, as conversant as he might be expected to be 
 w^th the views of the critical school to Avliich he professes to belong. We 
 have looked into his Commentary on Deuteronomy. He impresses us as 
 a man very desirous of saying something novel and startling. He assails 
 the unity of Deuteronomy. He thinks that he has discovered in the 
 book tw^o authors who are distinguished by him from one another by 
 respectively applying "thou" and "you" to the people of Israel. 
 These different authors he proposes to indicate by Sg = singular and 
 PI = plural. From the varying use, too, of the second and third per- 
 sons he would infer a difference of source. Prof. E. Konig, of Rostock, 
 has had the patience in three papers published in the E.vpositori/ Times 
 to examine minutely the arguments of this nature which Dr. Steuernagel 
 has adduced in support of his divisive hypothesis. We venture to think 
 that few intelligent persons who will take the trouble to read these 
 papers will fail to be convinced that Dr. Konig has successfully met this 
 attempt to divide Deuteronomy among Deuteronomistic documents Sg 
 and PI, in addition to J, E, P and Redactors. Sure we are that the 
 new criteria could be easily applied to impugn the unity of other books 
 of the Bible and of extracauonical writings, and even of unquestionable 
 productions of nineteenth -century author^ 
 
 We may be permitted to subjoin a single specimen of the liberty Dr. 
 Steuernagel allows himself in Scriptural exegesis. He has these brief 
 notes on Deut. xviii. lo: " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a 
 prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him 
 ye shall hearken." Like unto me. " ^lOD i« remarkable, as Moses 
 elsewhere in the Law does not speak thus of his own person, and it may 
 therefore well be regarded as a sign that this passage has proceeded from 
 a Redactor." 'i)}^?2C*n V^N Unto him ye shall hearken. " An addi- 
 tion on account of the plural number, especially as without it the connec- 
 
542 THE PRESBYTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW. 
 
 tioii of ver. 16 is improved." Such arbitrary criticism aims at the 
 destructiou of the Christian argument from Messianic prophecy in the 
 Old Testament. It may be called critical exegesis, but it is really no 
 better than the working of reckless caprice. It seems to Steueruagel a 
 small matter to erase from the Bible the brief words, ' ' Like unto me, ' ' 
 " Unto him ye shall hearken," to say of them lightly that they are 
 additions by an unknown reviser to a document which Moses never 
 wrote, but which originated long centuries after his death. But precious 
 in the sight of the Lord is that Word which he has once spoken, though 
 it may be rejected by professed interpreters of the Bible. This Word 
 of the Lord " is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). And it is not 
 forgotten by Him. Was not this apparent when the disciples who were 
 Avith Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses and Elijah heard 
 a voice from heaven, saying, "Hear him?" Even unbelieving com- 
 mentators cannot avoid admitting that this voice from heaven " Him 
 hear ! " (the " Him " has the emphasis) points significantly back to the 
 command in Dent, xviii. 15, "Unto him ye shall hearken." Christ, 
 too, had assuredly in His mind the words, " a prophet like unto me," 
 Avhen He said to the Jews: "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe 
 me; for he wrote of me" (John v. 46). And Peter preached to the 
 Jews after Christ's resurrection that in the person of Jesus the prophet, 
 like unto Moses, had been raised up, unto whom they should hearken. 
 Men who intelhgently believe Christ and His apostles cannot avoid be- 
 lieving that the Law was given by Moses, and that it was divinely re- 
 vealed to him. He who said to the scribes who evaded that Law, who 
 explained away its obvious meaning, " Ye have made void the Word of 
 God because of your tradition " (Matt. xv. 6), would he be less severe 
 now in condemning those who have no more reverence for that Law than 
 for some old profane documents that have been preserved to our time ? 
 May we not think of the Lord Jesus as now saying to a perverse and 
 unbeHeving generation of destructive critics of the Scriptures: Woe 
 unto you, critics, ye have made void the Word of God by your criti- 
 cisms, and by them ye are seeking to destroy other men's faith in that 
 Word ? 
 
 Pittsburg. Pa. Dunlop Moore. 
 
044 THE PRESDTTERIAN AND REFORMED REVIEW. 
 
 and again, the author rejects the idea of knowledge in favor of what he calls 
 experience. The mystic is one who seeks the Absolute in ways other than 
 dialectical. The modern consciousness has an intense feeling of freedom ; 
 this freedom is, at bottom, nothing else than disinterestedness, and, being 
 such, it is essentially homogeneous with the Absolute. This disinterested- 
 ness is an alienation of the self, " a voluntary abdication of the me." In 
 this way does the mystic overtake the Unknowable—it is still the Unknow- 
 able, to be sure, but it is experienced. Thus Mysticism lends itself to the 
 postulates of Agnosticism, " but it refuses to maintain an attitude of relig- 
 ious respect to the Unknowable merely as Unknowable." Indeed, the 
 mystic soul does not experience the Absolute immediately, but only by 
 means of symbols. The mystic walks not by faith or by sight, but by sym- 
 bols. Augustine could reach the very limits of intellection, but his purely 
 metaphysical genius was ill adapted to the use of symbols and so we hear 
 
 him exclaim :" I got as far as the thinking force, which is myself 
 
 I had a flashing gleam of you, O my God, and then immediately sinking 
 backwards I said, ' Who can go further ? Shall I seek visions ? Many have 
 tried them and have found only illusions.' " 
 
 The perception of the transcendental is the first step in the mystic expe- 
 rience. Ribot is quoted with sanction : " Clear consciousness is but a small 
 part of total consciousness." We need the abandon of the mystic, "the 
 faculty of valor;" we need the naive consciousness of the savage in some 
 degree ; we need to understand better Pascal's meaning when he says, " The 
 heart feels first principles;" we need the recognition of what the author 
 calls the " excessivity " of truth; we must remember that the foundations 
 of things rebel against rigid formulae, and that the way to be sure not to 
 know the greatest truths is to be very eager or to try very hard to know 
 them. 
 
 These symbols are the sole instruments of the mystic consciousness. Here 
 we are led to the verge of the Swedenborgian doctrine of knowledge. All 
 mental activity is by means of symbols. Science lives by symbols; "we 
 employ anthropomorphic substitutes " for the purely mathematical or scien- 
 tific terms which ought to be used. A fortiori, the use of symbols in phil- 
 osophy is indispensable. The e'ldmXa of Democritus is closely akin to the 
 symbolism of religion. Symbols give to consciousness both stable equilib- 
 rium and its quota of representations. They give vivacity, fixity, consist- 
 ency to religious thought. When St. Bonaventure borrowed a symbol from 
 mathematics and applied it to the Eternal, he gave vividness to our concep- 
 tion of the Divine : Deus est sphaera intelligibilis, cujus centrum est ubique 
 et circumferentia nusquam. Symbols, however, do not represent so much as 
 suggest. Scripture is largely the analytical translation of symbols. If 
 Isaiah had been cogitating dialectically, we should have had a page of phil- 
 osophy on the nature of holiness instead of the vision in the sixth chapter 
 of his prophecies. The Trinity is a mystic notion, a psychological symbol, 
 for the human mind could not have conceived it dialectically. Bossuet is 
 here quoted : " A created Trinity which God effects in our souls represents 
 to us the Increate Trinity." 
 
 This theory of knowledge is very far-reaching. It is one thing to say that 
 all objective knowledge is analogical, and quite another that all knowledge 
 is symbolical. Spencer says we cannot know the Ding an sick. R^cejac 
 agrees with this, only he says we can experience not the Ding, but symbols 
 of it ; or, more accurately, he says we experience the Ding by means of the 
 symbols. But what of the relation between the symbols and the Ding an 
 sich ? The generous cloak of the mystic covers this gap and he rests con- 
 tent. The author argues strenuously for the exclusive subjectivity of all 
 
VII. 
 REVIEWS OF 
 
 RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 I.— APOLOGETICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 Essay on the Bases of tue Mystic Knowledge. By E. Recejac, 
 Doctor of Letters, Translated by Sara Carr Upton. New York: 
 Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899. 8vo, pp. xi, 287. 
 
 This book will have a warm welcome from those who desire some sound, 
 clear and able statement of the distinguishing idea of enlightened modern 
 Mysticism. We may overlook the paradox when we see the publishers' 
 announcement of it as " a scientific exposition of Mysticism." The paradox 
 is in the fact that Mysticism is in essential antithesis to science ; accord- 
 ingly, to formulate scientifically the principles of Mysticism would be, iijso 
 facto, to destroy them. However, the book is exceptionally clear in its 
 thought, vigorous in its style, and often brilliant in its striking insight and 
 expression. 
 
 The philosophical basis of the argument is partly Hegelian, partly Kant- 
 ian. It reminds one of Bradley's Appearance and Reality in its search for 
 the Absolute, and of Spencer's First Principles in its giving up of that 
 search. It is, for the most part, a study in epistemology, and is worth notic- 
 ing, among the many such, only because it proposes its unique answer to the 
 problem. It posits the inability of the human knowing faculty to compass 
 the Absolute. " The work of knowing — the effort to synthetize the world 
 and the ego — is forever recommencing " (p. 2). Of course, then, that effort 
 can never advance to a successful accomplishment. Metaphysics is infirm, 
 inadequate ; the Reason in man cannot define the illusions that infest the 
 penumbra of its legitimate sphere. Bradley's cynical remark might have 
 been quoted : " Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe 
 upon instinct."* 
 
 This assumed inability of knowledge leaves the door wide open for the 
 mystic. By science, we know; by reason, we think; by Mysticism, we com- 
 prehend. Rejecting Kant's comparison of Mysticism to " some vast ocean, 
 the empire of illusion," the author boldly declares that " either Mysticism 
 contains a negation of thought worse than Scepticism or it is tlie most 
 perfect activity of the mind " (p. 1). 
 
 We have not seen the untranslated edition of this book, but as the title is 
 given in the English there is an inconsistency on the title-page, for, again 
 
 * Appearance and Reality, p. xiv.