ARTICLE IV.

DRIVER ON THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.1

BY THE REV. W. E. BARTON, B. D., OF WELLINGTON, OHIO.

THIS is the first volume of the "International Theological Library," which is to be published simultaneously in this country and England, and is designed to cover the whole field of Christian theology. Of the twelve volumes already arranged for, six are to be by American and six by English scholars. While the Library is interconfessional as well as international, its authors are for the most part among the advocates of the results of the Higher Criticism, and the editors are Professors Charles A. Briggs, and Stewart D. F. Salmond. From such a series, the Christian scholar has reason to expect much; and the successive issues will be looked. for with interest, not unmingled, in the case of some of the volumes, with anxiety.

Canon Driver makes no attempt to set forth the theology of the Old Testament,—a book on that subject by Professor A. B. Davidson being one of those arranged for in this library: his attempt is to give an account of the contents, structure, and general character and aim of the several books; and this he does in the main with candor, cogency and conciseness. Whatever one's opinions on the points in controversy, the book is of great value. It would be difficult to name any recent work on the Old Testament con

1 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. By S. R. Driver, D. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. (Pp. 522, 32x64.) $2.50, net.

taining so much that is of interest and value to the Bible student of the present day. In speaking of its characteristic features, general statements must suffice for the most part; as it would be difficult to state the author's views adequately in fewer words than he himself employs, and a satisfactory critique upon it would require a volume at least as large. Yet, that the book may not pass with the necessarily superficial criticism of general statements, we shall indicate briefly but in detail, a few of Dr. Driver's most characterestic positions.

Canon Driver is a higher critic of the moderate type. He believes thoroughly in the methods of the modern school of criticism, and accepts the most important of its results. He is, however, a believer in the supernatural, and while treating the books of the Bible "as literature," recognizes their divine origin. His preface defends his book against the anticipated charge that his conclusions antagonize estabished truths concerning inspiration: his introduction defends it from attacks on the ground of the supposed sacredness of the canon of Scripture.

On these points he says:—

"It is not the case that critical conclusions, such as those expressed in the present volume, are in conflict either with the Christian creeds, or with the articles of the Christian faith. Those conclusions affect not the fact of revelation, but only its form. . . . They do not touch either the authority or the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They imply no change in respect to the divine attributes revealed in the Old Testament; no change in the lessons of human duty to be derived from it; no change as to the general position (apart from the interpretation of particular passages) that the Old Testament points forward prophetically to Christ. That both the religion of Israel itself and the record of its history embodied in the Old Testament, are the work of men whose hearts have been touched, and minds illumined in different degrees, by the Spirit of God, is manifest: but the recognition of this truth does not decide the question of the author by whom or the date at which, particular parts of the Old Testament were committed to writing; nor does it determine the precise literary character of a given narrative or book. No part of the Bible, nor even the Bible as a whole, is a logically articulated system of theology: the Bible is a 'library,' showing how men variously gifted by the Spirit of God cast the truth which they received into many dif

...

ferent literary forms, as genius permitted or occasion demanded.” (P. xi.) "It is sometimes supposed that conclusions such as those expressed in the present volume on the age and authorship of certain parts of the Old Testament are in conflict with trustworthy historical statements derived from ancient Jewish sources. This, however, is not the case. . . . For the opinion, often met with in modern books, that the canon of the Old Testament was closed by Ezra, or in Ezra's time, there is no foundation in antiquity whatever. . . . The opinion referred to is not a tradition at all: it is a conjecture, based no doubt on the passages that have just been cited, [from the Son of Sirach, the Second Book of Maccabees, the Fourth Book of Ezra, and the Talmud,] but inferring from them more than they actually express or justify. This conjecture was first distinctly propounded in the Sixteenth Century by Elias Levita, a learned Jew. . . . But it is destitute of historical foundation; and the authority of Ezra cannot, any more than that of the Great Synagogue, be invoked against the conclusions of critical investigation. . . . The age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament can be determined (so far as this is possible) solely upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied by the books themselves, by methods such as those followed in the present volume: no external evidence worthy of credit exists." (Pp. xxiii., xxxi.)

Having thus severed all a priori considerations, he proceeds to an examination of the books in detail, arriving at the following general conclusions:

"The historical books of the Old Testament form two series; one, consisting of the books from Genesis to 2 Kings, embracing the period from the creation to the release of Jehoiachin from his imprisonment in Babylon, B. C. 562, the other comprising the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, beginning with Adam and ending with the second visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem in B. C. 432. . . . No entire book in either series consists of a single, original work; but older writings, or sources, have been combined by a compiler in such a manner that the points of juncture are often plainly discernible, and the sources are in consequence capable of being separated from one another." (Pp. 2, 3.)

The Book of Joshua, since it includes elements homogeneous with those of the Pentateuch, is to be considered with it. This "Hexateuch" has at least three authors. After Deuteronomy and the Priests' Code have been considered, the remainder appears composite; but the analysis of JE is much less satisfactory than that which establishes the limits of P and D; but "that P and JE form two

1 To Dillman, De Wette and others, the easiest problem in Pentateuchal analysis seems to have been the separation of J and E. Dr. Driver always

599 clearly definable, independent sources, is a conclusion abundantly justified by the facts." J and E appear to have cast into a literary form the traditions respecting the beginnings of the nation that were current in the early centuries of the monarchy. (p. 110.) The terminus ad quem of Deuteronomy, 621 B. C., is not probably the date of its composition: it is unlikely that its finding in the temple was a ruse of Hilkiah; but it can hardly be older than the reign of Mannassah. (pp. 81-2.) The Priests' Code belongs to the exilic or early post-exilic period: not that it was "manufactured" by priests during the exile; "it is based upon pre-existing temple usage, and exhibits the form which it finally assumed." (p. 135.)

It will be noticed that this is a very different theory from that which regards Deuteronomy a forgery and the Priests' Code a dishonest invention-different at least in spirit, and for that spirit Dr. Driver deserves credit, even though the results of his theory seem to shade easily into the other. It is in part because of this spirit, and the fact that there is much in the book to be heartily commended, that we may presume to speak with freedom in criticism of a few of those features of the work from which we find ourselves constrained to dissent. There is no other book in which the alleged established results of the higher criticism have been set forth at once so fully, so concisely, so reverently, and so recently; nor is there any which is more accessible or intelligible to the pastor or thoughtful layman. There can be rises from a study of this part of the Hexateuch with the conviction that it is composite, but doubts if it will ever be analized satisfactorily. The fact that one critic finds an analysis self evident does not seem to render it impossible for the next one to hesitate even to pronounce it composite, much less to assert that its analysis is beyond dispute. Such facts are worth considering. What seems to the present critic to indicate very plainly a line of demarcation between two portions of a book may be the one thing which the next generation of critics will feel constrained to deny. In an thing else that was once thought to have been established is called in quesage when everytion, the opinions of critics cannot escape counter-criticism.

no fairer method than to let these results stand or fall with this book. An adequate presentation of the facts necessary for such a trial this article does not attempt, but only a few particular points illustrative of general positions.

There are a few things that ought to be said in advance about the competence of ordinary pastors and common Bible students to pass on these questions where doctors disagree. First of these is the fact that the question of authorship, date, etc., is in very slight degree one of language. Where there is a large body of contemporary literature for comparison, linguistic arguments at times are convincing: but where, as in the case of most of the books of the Bible, no such comparison is possible, and the whole theory must be built upon the fact that certain words appear in one place more frequently than in another, with possible conjectures as to the reason, the critic's linguistic tables and subjoined conjectures prove as much as Prof. C. M. Meade has proved concerning the composite character of Romans, and usually no more. It is due to Canon Driver to say that he makes comparatively little use of the argument from language, as is also true of other of the more thoughtful and candid of the higher critics. It is important to remember that the essential questions involved in the discussion of the higher criticism, are questions which may be understood by ordinary students of the Bible, and answered by such a knowledge of it as may be obtained without extensive knowledge of the Hebrew.

Again, it is well to be on one's guard against a too ready acceptance of whatever is believed by a great man, though he be a specialist in the department of knowledge concerned. One has but to examine in the order of their appearance, the commentaries extant on a controverted book to see how narrow a field even great men are able

1 Romans Dissected. A New Critical Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans, by E. D. McRealsham. A valuable satire.