pensable for a share of the covenant blessings in him. Now, however, with the appearance of Christ, this was changed. What was confined to one nation is given to the whole world. The mystery which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should. be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel (Eph. iii. 5, 6).

The beginning of the first era is marked not by miracles, in the ordinary sense of the word, but by theophanies, which are closely allied to miracles. The beginnings of the second and third eras are marked by both theophanies and miracles. The beginning of the fourth era is marked by the miracles of Christ and his apostles.

The church is the manifestation of spiritual life from God as the author of life. He alone can give life to the dead. And to give life to the dead, to awaken and call the dead to life by divine creative power, that is the true miracle. Out of the dead world the church is called to life as a family under Abraham. Out of the dead family, that is, when Israel had ceased to have recognized and organized existence and had become a mass of slaves, the nation is called to life. Out of the dead, spiritually dead, nation the spiritual communion of Israel is called to life. Out of the dead form of Judaism the Christian church is called to life.

The attending individual miracles and theophanies of each period are not of supreme importance. They are but sparks from the anvil where God is forging his mighty works. The real miracle of the first period was the birth of the church herself. The real miracle of the second period was the birth of the nation. The real miracle of the third period was the birth of the spiritual community. The real miracle of the fourth period was the birth of the complete Christian religion and the appearance of Christ who is him

self the supreme theophany, God manifest in the flesh, and the supreme miracle. Yes; he is indeed the miracle of miracles and superior to any of the niracles which he wrought. To his name be all the glory, world without end. Amen.

ARTICLE VII.

CRITICAL NOTES.

I.

A TRAVESTY UPON EXISTING DOMINANT METHODS EMPLOYED IN OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM.

UNDER the pseudonym of E. D. McRealsham, an ingenious writer, who is evidently thoroughly at home in all the facts and methods of biblical criticism, has published a pamphlet of one hundred pages purporting to show, by careful critical analysis, that the Epistle to the Romans was not written by Paul, but is a composite document containing clear traces of four distinct writers. We are the more inclined to give prominence to this jeu d'esprit because of the indications that are in it that the author is a well-known American biblical scholar of high attainments in Old Testament studies, as well as in various other lines of inquiry. So well sustained and apparently conclusive is the evidence, that, but for a postscript confessing the real character of the work, it would doubtless have passed as serious criticism, and have made many converts. It is well, therefore, that the author reveals his character, and emphasizes his belief in the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Romans. Otherwise his work would with reason have been classed with that of Steck and Völter, who have recently renewed the well-nigh forgotten attack of Bruno Bauer upon the genuineness of the Epistle. In these days of unbelief and agnosticism it is scarcely safe to attempt to caricature any of the extravagances of criticism, since many of the critics themselves have in their serious efforts attained the climax of absurdity.

In the present case the results of this analysis of an Epistle whose genuineness is supported by stronger and more abundant evidence than that of almost any other ancient document, are certainly most surprising, and show that the method of criticism so much relied upon by many Old Testament critics at the present time is utterly delusive in its results. Upon exhaustive analysis the author finds that there are four well-marked divisions of the book, which are marked by a combination both of doctrinal and linguistic characteristics, and which coincide with peculiar uses of the name of God and of Christ. Through certain well-defined sections, Christ is referred to as Jesus Christ; through certain others, as Christ Jesus; while through the remaining portion, God, instead of Christ, is represented as the supreme authority and author of salvation. These last portions, also, are distin

144

Critical Notes.

guished by well-marked doctrinal peculiarities, in one of which Christianity is portrayed as an ethical institution in which salvation is by obedience to law, while, in the other, salvation is by faith, not in Jesus, but in God. These four divisions he symbolizes by the letters G1, G2, JC, and CJ.

For After having dwelt at considerable length upon the doctrinal peculiarities characterizing these parts, the author devotes thirty pages to the coincident linguistic peculiarities, and the results are certainly astonishing. example: he finds that, excepting a few of the most common words, such as Ocós, the more frequent conjunctions and prepositions, the article, the numerals, the pronouns, and most proper names, there are in the Epistle 928 words.1 "Of these there are 173 used only by G1, 171 by G2, 98 by JC, and 186 by CJ. The sum of these is 628, so that there remain only 300 that are used in common by two or more of the four. In particular the relation is best seen when put into a tabular form.

Used only by G1..

173

G2.

171

98

CJ....

.186

"G1 and G2.

25

"G1 and JC...

13

"G1 and CJ.

30

"G2 and JC.

31

"G2 and CJ

40

JC and CJ.

31

"G1, G2, and JC.

G1, G2, and CJ..

17

28

G1, JC, and CJ

15

"G2, JC, and CJ

30

66

by all four...

40

Total

.928

"From this table we gather that G1 uses in all 341 words, G2 382, JC 275, The proportion in the and CJ 400. Consequently it follows that more than half of the words used by G1 are used by him alone, viz., 50.73 per cent. case of G2 is 44.76; of JC, 35.64; of CJ, 44.

"We should naturally expect the number of different words used to correThus, while there are only spond pretty nearly with the whole number of words used, including repetitions of the same word. But this is not the case. 73 verses in the sections assigned to G1, he uses 341 different words.2 JC, on the other hand, who writes 85 verses, uses only 275 different words. 1 It should be said that the argument is based upon the critical Greek text, which is closely represented to the English reader in the Revised Version.

2" It would be more exact to count the words (including repetitions) rather than the verses. But the proportion would not be materially different."

Stated proportionally, the relation is as follows: G1 uses (words 341, verses 73) 4.67 times more words than verses; G2 (382: 131) 2.92 times more; JC (27585) 3.24 times more; CJ (400: 142) 2.82 times more. In every respect, therefore, G1 is the most unique of the four. He uses decidedly more words in proportion to the extent of his writings; he has a decidedly larger proportion of words used only by himself. G2 and CJ are in these respects nearly alike. JC exceeds these two in the proportion of words to verses, but is the least original of all in the relative proportion of words used by himself alone. Between G1 and G2, who might have been expected to present a similarity in their vocabulary and style, there is a marked difference. Is it conceivable that one and the same writer in the first half of his work would use 4.67 times more words than verses, and in the second half only 2.92 times more?

"Let us compare G1 and JC as respects the words peculiar to each. In his 73 verses G1 uses 173 words which occur nowhere else in the Epistle, i. e., on the average 2.73 in every verse. JC, on the other hand, in his 85 verses uses only 98 words not found in the other parts; that is, on the average in every verse only 1.15! G2 and CJ on the contrary, although theologically very unlike, come much nearer together in their vocabulary and in the proportion of words to verses. But we leave it to the reader to carry out the com parisons for himself.

"It is instructive to compare this result with a similar analysis of Gen. i.xii. 5 which has been made by Professor W. R. Harper, He finds the whole number of different words to be 485, of which P uses 239, and J 367. Those used exclusively by P number 118, by J 246. Therefore there are 121 common to the two. Turning now to our Epistle and comparing G1 and G2, we find that together they use 613 different words, but that only 110 are common to the two, that is, while .25 of the whole vocabulary of P and J is common to the two, only .18 of the whole vocabulary of G1 and G2 is common to the two. So far as this indication goes, therefore, it speaks more decidedly for the non-identity of G1 and G2 than for that of P and J. If we compare the whole number of different words used by P and J with the number used by each exclusively, it appears that those which P alone uses are .24 of the whole, while those used by J alone are .51 of the whole. This is a striking disproportion, but it is almost equalled by that which is found between CJ and JC, who together use 559 words, of which .33 are used by CJ alone, but only .17 by JC alone.

"Let us now take JC and CJ. Together they use 559 different words. Common to the two only 116, that is .21, as against the .25 in the case of P and J.

"If we compare similarly G2 and CJ, we find that together they use 644 1 In the Hebraica, October, 1888.

2 For convenience of printing we have changed the common fractions to decimals.