ecotions. If so, it would imply that tlip book
umler invest ipat ion is of composite authorship.
The whole question of the sources of certain bih-
lieal books thus becomes a matter of serious
inquiry. The use of the literarv- method also
enables the critic to form a tentative jud{,mient
as to the style peculiar to a given author, fur-
nishing a stanilard of comparison to be applied
to sections or books of uncertain authorship
to determine whether they may be assigned to a
writer whose style is known.
The historical method is based on the obser- vation that literary productions generally con- lain some indications of the age and surround- ings in which they originate. The critic seeks to°detect all such explicit or implicit historical allusions, and to pass judgment on their signifi- cance. Where the indications are clear and posi- tive, a conclusion is easily reached. Where there is only silence — i.e. no such indications — it is only with great caution that the silence may be used as indicating that the writing did not originate in a given age. The argument e silentio is always precarious.
By the theological method is meant the ob- servation of the content of thought, of the circle of ideas belonging to a document, or author, or age. From the undoubted productions of a given author or age, conclusions may be reached as to the ruling theological or other conceptions be- longing to such an author or period. The con- elusions so reached may then be used as tests to be applied to writings of uncertain age and au- thorship. The application of this test is a matter of delicacy, and conclusions based upon it are apt to be somewhat insecure. These three methods arc not independent; they mutually correct and support each other. The liislory of the Higher Criticism extends back only into the Eighteenth Century. Keen- eyed biblical students luive always, it is true, exercised the critical judgment: but not until modern times has Higiicr Criticism been a rec- ognized method of biblical study, formally lay- ing aside traditional opinions with a determina- tion to make the biblical books themselves answer the questions as to their origin and character.
The Old Testament was first subjected to criticism. After other.s had made confused and unregulated attempts to solve the problem of the authorship of the Pentateuch, in 1753 Jean Astruc, a Trench physician, called attention to the use of two names for the Deity in Genesis, explaining the phenomenon by the supposition that Mnses had before him ditfcrent documents, in which different names for God were used. Thirty years later .T. G. Eichhorn further de- velo])cd the same theory, and gave the name 'Higher Criticism' to tlie method of investiga- tion. From Eichhom's day the progress and de- velopment of Higher Criticism has been steady. At first confined mainly to Genesis, it has been gradually applied to all parts of the Bible. So fxtensive has it become that it includes a num- ber nf special fields of study, each with its own problems and voluminous literature, e.g. the ilexatcuch criticism, the Isaiah question, the Synoptic iirohjem, the sources of the Book of Acts, the criticism of the Pauline Epistles, of the .Toliannine literature. In fact, each book of the llible presents its own problems, which it is the duty of criticism to attempt to solve.
BiBLiOGR.PiiY. The various Iittroductiotui to the whole or parts of the Old and N'ew Testaments contain accounts of the biblical critiiism. In addition, see such special treatises as the follow- ing: .J. Wellhauscn. Prnlcqomcna zur Ocschirhte Israels (5th ed., Berlin, "l890) : W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jeaixh Church (2d ed., Edinburgh, 1892) ; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism (London, 1892) : A. C. Zenos, The Elements of the Higher Criti- cism (New York, 1895) : M. W. Jacobus, .1 Problem i)i Sew Testament Criticism (New York, 1900) ; H. S. Xash, The History of the Hiqher Criticism of the New Testament (New York. 1900).
BIB'LIOG'BAPHY. A term which was first used, according to its original meaning, to de- note the transcription of books. After the pub- lication of the first volume of De Bure's Bib- lioiiraphie Instructive in 1703, it was used to signify the proper description of books, and con- cerned itself with authorship, printing place, and date of publication, editions, rarity, history, and external beauties of books. With the spread of popular education, the multiplication of books, and especially with the modern development of libraries and the book-trade, tlie term bibliogra- phy has come to be u.sed in a still more practical sense, as concerning itself with the contents of books. The most useful modern bibliographies are those of special countries, those concerning any one considerable branch of knowledge, and bibliographies of individual authors. Allied to them are bibliographies of anonymous and liseudonymous works. Subject-indexes to period- icals or society transactions may also be re- garded as bibliographic.
A favorite dream of bibliographers has always been the production of a catalogue which would cover the whole realm of printed books. The most notable, though not the earliest, attempt of this sort was that of Conrad Gesner, who published at Zurich his Bibliothcca Universalis, in 4 volumes, 1545-55. In one alphaliet he recorded, under the names of the authors, all the books in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages about which he could olitain information. Since Gesner's time there have been many others who have attempted to make a universal catalogue, among them Dr. Robert Watt, of Edinburgh, who pre- pared the liihliotheca Uritannica (4 vols., 1824). But the latter's work, in respect to foreign books, is selective and not universal. Its greatest use is in connection with British works. The other general bibliographies of greatest utility are the following: Brunet, Manuel du Ubrnire et de Vamateur dc lirres (oth ed., 9 vols., Paris, 1800-80: supplement, 3 vols., 1878-80): Griisse, Tr^sor de lirres rares ct precieux (7 vols., Dresden, 1859-69) : and Ebert, Alltiemeines bibliographisches Lexikon (2 vols., Leipzig, 1821-30). An English translation was published under the title (lencral liibliofiraphical Dictionary (4 vols., Oxford, 1837). Bibliographical lit<'rature has increased to such proportions that a large number of extensive works have been published, simply to enumcnite them. The most famous of these is Pctzholdt's liibliotheca Bibliogrnphieii (Leipzig, 1880). Henri Stein's Manuel de bibli<iiiniphie fifnfrale (Paris, 1897) uses the material of Petzholdt, revising it and bringing it up to date. Of even greater value to the general reader is the published List of Bibliographical
