6 ever suspicious at first sight, will still have to be embraced finally? No, indeed not! On p. 580, et seq., the conclusion of the whole matter is given. Previously, we get some thoughts about the human and the divine elements in Scripture. After this, Dr. Curtiss gives, without discussing Delitzsch's views any further, a sketch of his own conception of the question. First, he gives two concessions': 'The Pentateuch is not as a whole written by Moses,' and 'The use of the appellations Jahwe and Elohim indicates two different documents.' He adds to this He adds to this-preceded by the number (3), as though this were also a concession'!—a warning against philosophy, for from philosophic prejudice spring many errors of criticism. So now it would seem as though the agreement, with regard to the post-exilic origin of the Priest-code, was due to the predominance of the theory of development in the domain of religion as well as in that of history and language' (p. 585). Now, Dr. Curtiss turns against the modern critical theory,' which he rejects for all sorts of reasons. But (p. 586) the facts upon which it rests, in so far as they are indeed facts, must be taken into account, especially the deeds which testify to an ignorance of the regulations of the Thora. While, therefore, the (p. 588) Mosaic origin of the whole cannot possibly be longer defended, still an important part of the legislation runs back to the very first years of Israel's history. Passages which seem to be of post-Mosaic origin, and postMosaic names, may be due to marginal comments which have crept into the text, or to the hand of an editor.' The article closes with the following somewhat oracular utterance: 'It is our firm conviction, in closing, that men of evangelical spirit will beware how they commit themselves to the uncertain hypotheses of the critics; but we think we see that their investigations, so far as they are well grounded, will bring out all the more clearly the incarnation of the divine revelation in human forms of thought.' "One would have to use," says Kuenen, "a queer sort of yardstick to be able to call all this clear and consistent. But it is thoroughly natural and capable of comprehension. Dr. Ives Curtiss does not belong to that class who kick against the pricks. When he in his former writings wrote against Graf and me, stayed by the consciousness that he was defending the faith, he knew of no concessions; and he held up the tradition in all its bearings, however difficult it might be for him. But scarcely does a believer repeat many of the formerly rejected views, but his sense of truth compels him to listen, and forbids him before long to continue occupying his old position. He does all in his power to remain as close as possible to the faith once delivered, and does not even spurn the help of the antiquated 'glosstheory' which was defended more than a century and a half ago by Clericus. He even takes back with one hand what he had conceded with the other. In a word, the embarrassment is unmistakable. But, I repeat, nothing is more natural than this hesitation. It is impossible to oppose Delitzsch with holy zeal, but it is necessary gently to warn against him. But it must be said with special emphasis that, even with such departures from the traditional sense and so much the more with lesser ones, the divine truth, about which everything centres, is entirely secure." Dr. Kuenen notices here briefly how in the Netherlands almost every one has passed beyond Dr. Curtiss' point of anchorage. In the preface to Dr. van Torenbergen's translation of Delitzsch, which is the work before him, there is "not a word of warning against the bold positions of Delitzsch, not a shadow of hesitancy in recommending his Studien. Delitzsch is the apologist of the true conception of the Old Covenant which is disowned by the modern criticism. This false conception is opposed, but the entire right of critical analysis of the Scriptures is also maintained; and every view of inspiration which shuts out the recognition of human elements is fought. We can only rejoice at this. Still, this joy is not unmixed. When it is become a matter of difference in degree between apologists such as Delitzsch and ourselves, they should assume also toward us a different tone of opposition. 'Strike me, but hear me,' spake Themistocles. You hear me; do not also strike me then,' we might now say. Still, this is of minor importance. We are together travelling one road, and at its end lies the reconciliation." "Meanwhile, however, we are still far from this goal. The difference between Delitzsch and ourselves is even so great that he recognizes in us no co-laborers, but opponents. In what it consists became already evident in a degree from the pages of the Studies which I took up just now, but it deserves to be pointed out still more clearly." "It would be unfair to formulate the difference thus: modern criticism denies Moses the character of legislator which the apologist continues to accord to him. Truly, by far the majority of us make no such denial. In my Religion of Israel, I have defended the relative authenticity of 'the Ten Words.' This I would not at present dare to do; but, on this account, I do not deny that Moses has been more than the deliverer of his people from Egyptian bondage, that he has also laid the foundations of the religio-ethical development of his people, whose later steps and final issues are given us in the Old Testament. Wellhausen thinks so too. His article 'Israel,' in the Encyclopædia Britannica, proves this. From the German text which lies before me, I shall take the liberty of taking a single extract, which places this beyond the possibility of a doubt." I shall not translate the German of the Tijdschrift, but quote direct from the Cyclopædia, cited (p. 398, English edition):— "But in what does then the difference consist? While, according to our conception, something new has sprung in the course of centuries from germs scattered by Moses, and the Thora instituted by him has had a real history in which we distinguish different steps (the prophetic, the deuteronomic, the priestly or ritual), the apologists are endeavoring to show that all the laws which we now possess are in a wider sense Mosaic. They have not all been written by Moses, but they were indeed outlined by him (geconcipieerd). The codification has extended over many centuries, but the leg - islation the legislation handed down to us in the Pentateuch was extant from the first. They do not deny, therefore, that with later recording have occurred changes, supplements, and extensions. But the substance, not only in the Book of the Covenant, but also in Deuteronomy and in the priestly laws, is Mosaic. To show this is the fixed purpose of the Studien of Delitzsch. What exactly there has been modified or added with, codification, why the original parts have not rather been saved for us and these supplanted by a later edition,- this we do not learn. Possibly, this will follow later on. Previously, it is necessary only to refute the later orgin which is claimed, and to vindicate the Mosaic source. After that, it will be made clear to us that all those codifications in which we can at present see hardly anything other than an innocent literary curiosity have had their raison d'être. "How, then, shall we now pass judgment on the difference? My answer to this question indicates at the same time the deepest cause of my surprise at the translation of the Studien of Delitzsch. Do they then really think that his view is destined to crowd ours to the wall? Is it thought to spring from better motives, and to be more in accord with truth? How is that possible? Of course, the concession is made at once that it is less removed from the tradition. For the plain, unequivocal thesis, Moses, the writer of the whole Pentateuch, it substitutes something exceedingly foggy. But, however dim the lines of demarkation of its theory are, so much the easier is it to identify it virtually with the older conception. Not pressed by any of its difficulties, it seems to retain everything that recommends it. But, having said this, everything is said. In every other respect, and what I just now referred to is no considera-. tion, the theory of the apologist is infinitely inferior to Alone as a stepping-stone to this, rendering the transition easy for some, has it any value. ours. "How do the Studies of Delitzsch 'refute' the leading thought of Wellhausen? Let me at once remark that the method which is followed is the only one possible, and, more over, that it is applied by the Leipzig doctor in a most excellent manner. One can hardly be either more honest or more learned or more subtile than he. If, therefore, there are errors committed here, then they are certainly not due to the person, but to the matter. Well, faults there are; and every one who has learned to observe notices them immediately. The amphibious character of the apologetical theory appears on its very face. The facts are admitted, but the conclusions which flow from them directly are set aside. It weighs them, though sometimes only seemingly, but allows them no due force. It says a now, and then also b and c, but then stops without once having the faintest conception why? As matter of course, a number of dark queries present themselves in an inquiry such as the one after the origin of the Pentateuch; the materials which one has at hand are often inadequate or capable of more than one construction; the witnesses are sometimes ambiguous, etc. In all those cases, the true scientific method is designated. The uncertain must be judged according to that which is established, the doubtful must be decided by analogy. The apologist, on the contrary, causes every dubium to come to the help of the traditional view. He loves to fish in troubled waters. In opposition to the conclusion drawn from analogy, he places a 'still it might be,' which, of course, supports the tradition. Furthermore, he makes capital of the errors of the critics. If one of them has ventured a little too far, and considered proven what in fact was as yet unproved or even very doubtful, then is this not only shown up, which is very just and praiseworthy, but it is also used as weapon against the criticism in general. As if through the blunders of one or the other of us, the entire newer conception can be set reeling, or even the traditional view become in any respect more acceptable! It is at present Wellhausen who is being cut up (geexploiteerd) in this fashion. At the start, he has rendered the modern view untold services, and has multiplied tenfold the number of its advocates. At present, his constructive genius furnishes the opponent material for many imagined or, at best, very |