CRITICISM
493
CRITICISM
and scientific acumen. Eichliorn was indebted not a
little to his friend Herder, the noted German littera-
teur, and the two conjointly originated the critical
habit of looking upon the O. T. as a collection of
Oriental literature whose several parts are to be read
and interi)reted as the productions of the Semitic
genius. Eichhorn greatly developed Astruc's hypoth-
esis by observing that the Elohim and Jehovah
sections of Genesis bear other characteristics, and by
extending the analysis thus derived to the whole Pen-
tateuch. But the German savant was not so orthodox
an adherent of the Mosaic authorship as was Astruc,
since he left to the Hebrew legislator a very uncertain
part of the work. When Eichhorn composed his
"Introduction" he was somewhat influenced by free-
thinking views which later became very pronounced.
His criticism, therefore, had as its antecedents not
only Astruc's fruitful conjecture and Herder's poetic
insight into Oriental literature, but also eighteenth-
century German rationalism. "This was in part native
to the soil, but it drew much nurture from the ideas
of the English Deists and Sceptics, who flourished to-
wards the end of the seventeenth century and in the
first part of the eighteenth. Such authors as Blount
(1654-93) and Collins (1676-1729) had impugned
miracles and prophecy and in general the authority
of the O.-T. writings. The standpoint of the German
Orientalist Reimarus was that of the English Deists;
the whole drift of his " Wolfenbiittel Fragments ", first
aijpearing 1774-78, is one of antagonism to the super-
natural. Li'ssiiig (1729-Sl), his literarj- executor,
without dcjiarting so offensively from the path of
orllii>doxy, defended the fullest freedom of discussion
in tlicologiial matters. Contemporary with Lessing
was J. S. Semler, who rejectetl inspiration, attributed
a mythical character to episodes in O.-T. historical
books, and, on lines parallel to Lessing's philosopliy
of religion, distinguished in Scripture elements of per-
manent and others of transitoiy and negligible value.
Eichhorn is the first typical representative of
modern Biblical criticism, the especial home of which
lias been Germany. He gave the first impulse to the
literary analysis of the Scriptures, applying it not only
to the Pentateuch, but also to Isaias and other por-
tions of the O. T. Outside of Germany the views of
Eichhorn and his school found little currency. Yet
it w:is a Catholic priest of Scottish origin, Alexander
Geddes (1737-1802), who broached a theory of the
origin of the Five Books (to which he attached Josue)
exceeding in boldness either Simon's or Eiehhorn's.
This w;i.s the well-known "Fragment" hypothesis,
which reduced the Pentateuch to a collection of frag-
mentarj- sections partly of Mosaic origin, but put to-
gether in thi' riMgii of Solomon. Geddes' opinion was •
introduced into Germany in 180.') by Vater. For tlu?
fuller accouiitof thisand laterstagesof thecriticism of
the Pentateuch the reader is referred to t lie art icle under
that heading. With .some cs.says of a young scluilar,
De Wette, which were published 180.5-07, properly
Ix'gan the historical criticism of the Bible. De Wette
joined to the evidences supplied by vocabulary and
Btyle (i. e. those of literary criticism) arguments drawn
from history, as contained in the sacred narratives
themselves, and the discoveries of antiquarian re-
search. He refused to find anjihing but legend and
poetry in the Pentateuch, though he granted it a
unity of plan, and a development in accordance with
his conception of Israel's history, thus laying the
foundation for the leading hypotheses of the prteent
day. De Wette's i(lea.s also furnisheil the basis
for the Supplement-theory, systematized later by
Bleek and others. He was the first to attack the
historical character of the books of Paralipomenon, or
Chronicles. Bleek (1793-18.59), Ewald (1803-7.5),
and the Catholic Movers (1S06-56), while following
critical methods, opposed the purely negative criti-
cism of De Wette and his school, and sought to save
the authenticity of some Mosaic books and Davidic
psalms by sacrificing that of others. Bleek revived,
anil brought into prominence, the conclusion of
Geddes, that the book of Josue is in close literary
connexion with the first five books of the Bible, and
thenceforth the idea of a Hexateuch, or sixfold work,
has been maintained by advanced exegetes. Hup-
feld, in 1853, found four instead of three documents
in the Pentateuch, ^^z., the first Elohist, comprising
the priestly law, a second Elohist (hitherto unsus-
pected except by a forgotten investigator, Ilgen), the
Jehovist, and the Deuteronomist. He allowed to
none of these a Mosaic origin. With Hupfeld's view
the idea of one large source, or Grundschrijt , supple-
mented by smaller ones, began to give place to the
"Document" hypothesis. Meanwhile these conclu-
sions, so subversive of ancient traditions regarding the
Five Books, were stoutly contested by anumber of
German scholars, prominent among whom stood
Ranke, Havernick, Hengstenberg, and Keil, among
Protestants ; and Jahn, Hug, Herbst, and Welte, rep-
resenting Catholic learning. These, while refusing to
allow the testimony of Jewish tradition to be ruled out
of court as invalid against internal evidence, were
compelled to employ the methods of their adversaries
in defending the time-honoured views. The questions
were agitated only in countries where Protestantism
predominated, and, among these, in England the con-
servative views were strongly entrenched.
The critical di.ssection of books was and is accom- plished on the ground of diversity of vocabulary and style, the phetioniena of doubli; narratives of the same event varying from each other, it is claimed, to the extent of disere|.)ancy, and dilTerencesof religious con- ceptions. The critics apjieal for confirmation of this literary analysis to the historical books. For ex- ample, Moses could not have enacted an elaborate ritual legislation for a people leading a nomad life in the desert, especially since we find (say the critics) no trace of its observance in the earliest periods of Is- rael's settled existence. These and like tests are ap- plied to nearly every book of the O. T., and result in conclusions which, if allowed, profoundly modify the traditional beliefs regarding the authorship and in- tegrity of these Scriptures, and are incompatible with any strict notion of their inerrancy.
The Hegelian principle of evolution has undoubt- edly influenced German criticism, and indirectly Bibli- cal criticism in general. Apjilicd to religion, it h.as powerfully helped to beget a tendency to regard the religion of Israel as evolved by processes not tran- scending nature, from a polytheistic wonship of the elements to a spiritual and ethical monotheism. This theory was first elaborated by Abram Kuenen, a Dutch theologian, in his "Religion of Israel" (1869- 70). Without being essential to, it harmonizes with the current system of Pentateuelnd criticism, some- times called" (he- Development I lypotlu'sis", but better known as "the Grafian ". This hyi>othesis is accepted to-day by the great body of non-Catholic Biblical scholarship. It makes the Pentateuch a growth fonned by the piecing and interlacing together of documents representing distinct epochs. Of these the oldest is the Jehovistic, or J, dating from the ninth century B. c. ; E, the Elohistic work, was composed a little later. These elements .are prophetic in sjiirit and narrative in mat- ter. D, the Deuteronomie Code, was the organ and instrument of the prophetic reform under Josias; it appeared 621 n. c. P, the great document containing the Priestly Code, was drawn up after the Babylonian Exile, and is the outcome of the sacerdotal and ritual form.'dism distinguishing the restored Jewish com- munity; it therefore dates from the fifth centurj' B. c: This ingenious and coherent hypothesis was formu- lated first liy 1'". Reu.ss of the University of Stra.sburg, but ])resented to the public many years later (1866) by his disciple II. K. Graf. It w;is skilfully elaborated
