'We accept the critical theory as to the composition of Genesis in its main outlines ex animo; we accept provisionally, and for purposes of argument, the dates they assign to the several narratives; we entirely part company with some of them as to the historical value of Genesis' (p. 18).

In the first clause of this sentence we should read cum grano' for 'ex animo'; the second clause should be more exactly expressed, for 'they' ('the critics') do not agree among themselves as to the dates; with the third clause we are in full accord.

The subject of the Book Genesis and its historical character having been thus placed before the reader, the writer goes perhaps somewhat out of his way to deal in the next chapter with The Special Difficulties of the Old Testament Problem' as a whole. He does not, however, forget their bearing on Genesis in particular, and some of his remarks are very much to the purpose. Older scholars who can look back upon the experiences of theory after theory will, we are sure, agree with the following specimen of his opinions:

'It is marvellous to see how meagre is the evidence which is thought sufficient to establish results. All schools of thought seem to be equally offenders here. . . . At the present stage of the controversy it is much more important that men should set themselves to collect and to prove materials than to frame hypotheses. There is great need for a more careful study of the different elements of the problem to be solved, and it is above all essential that we should teach our tongues to say "I don't know "' (pp. 21, 22).

And a comparison of these words with some that proceed from the assumed omniscience of Mr. Fripp, or even from the Cambridge professors, Robertson Smith 2 and Ryle, will show that we are on much safer ground in the company of Mr. Watson.

The meagreness of the evidence and the necessity of confessing our ignorance is then shown with some detail in reference to the immense antiquity of the books which places only possibilities of knowledge, not probabilities, and still less certainties, within our reach, the wide difference in their dates the variety of subject matter and form, the absence to a large extent of contemporary literature, the want of early evidence

1 Cf. supra, p. 10.

2 of two of these three writers we have had examples. Here is one of the third: 'Kuenen and Wellhausen are men whose acumen and research have carried this inquiry to a point where nothing of vital importance for the study of the Old Testament religion still remains uncertain' (Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, Preface).

as to the formation of the Canon-all this makes the problems of the Old Testament almost insoluble in the present state of our knowledge, and places them in a wholly different position to similar problems in the New Testament.

These difficulties are shown to apply in their full force to Genesis, and some minor considerations' as to its date are then briefly dealt with. It contains no statement as to its authorship, nor is any such statement made in the Old or New Testament. At the same time, 'the close connexion between Moses and the materials of Genesis, though supported by no direct evidence, must be regarded as highly probable. . . . The tradition fits in with the circumstances.' It is of course not contended that Moses wrote the entire book as we now have it. Linguistic arguments do not prove much either way. They certainly are not opposed to Mosaic authorship. The hypothesis of a later editor would turn the edge of any objection urged from later usage. Isolated passages, such as The Canaanite was then in the land,' are regarded as not important, and these too are explained on the supposition of a later editor, whose presence is not, however, strongly felt in J E.

We are then brought to the main portion of our author's work, and it opens by dealing, in the fourth chapter, with Genesis as illustrated by Secular History.' The thesis is that 'Genesis treads on the ground of early Egyptian and of early Babylonian history with equally firm and accurate tread.' We might imagine a Moses of the Exile learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians. We might imagine a Daniel learned in the wisdom of the Chaldæans; but the problem requires 'a Moses and a Daniel rolled into one.' And if we admit the documentary hypothesis, the argument is strengthened, for it is in the admittedly oldest J that this combination of knowledge is most striking. Mr. Watson confirms his own statements on these points by the evidence of specialists, and the cases are clearly such as most of us cannot estimate for ourselves, and must therefore attach special value to technical evidence. Our readers will be glad to have their attention directed to the important evidence which the author supplies from Mr. R. S. Poole (pp. 60-61), Professor Schrader (p. 66), and Professor Sayce (p. 78). Professor Sayce's acknowledged eminence and freedom from bias give special force to the following words with which he concludes his statement:

... . Historical criticism is still a new science, and the assertions so often and so loudly made in its behalf must be tested before we can accept them. It has appealed to the judgment-seat of Cæsar, to

the monuments of the past which it believed were lost for ever, and behold! the monuments of the past have risen up as it were from the grave, and have confuted or moderated its pretensions.' 1

The next chapter brings us face to face with Wellhausen's position, that it is only within the region of religious antiquities and dominant religious ideas that the controversy as to the composition of the Old Testament can be brought to a definite issue.' Our author holds the only clearly right position that, for argumentative purposes, we must take only the common ground of the documents which our opponents agree with us in accepting. He is here on Wellhausen's own ground, and is dealing with materials common to himself, to the Baird Lecture of Professor Robertson, and to other writers; 2 but his investigations are independent, and are not the less valuable because they are expressed in the simplest form. He arrives at five standards of comparison by which we may test the religious teaching of Genesis': (1) the religion of Moses as contained in JE; (2) the popular religion of Israel; (3) the religion of the prophets; (4) the religion of Judah and Jerusalem; (5) the religion of the Jew.

This is followed by two chapters upon 'The Theology and Worship of Genesis in their bearing on its Date,' and 'Patriarchal Character in its bearing on the Historical Value of Genesis.' The writer is aware of the common error of reading Christian ideas into the Old Testament, and of the corresponding error of reading into Genesis the ideas of prophets and priests; but the patriarchs were as little premature Jews as they were premature Christians. It is attempted to show this by a careful though necessarily limited examination of Genesis in detail. The author has Wellhausen constantly before him, and his detailed argument is, in our opinion, successful in establishing the position that, 'whatever be the origin of the patriarchal history, it is not a reflexion of the thoughts and circumstances of later times.'

The reflexion theory, which finds the historico-political relations of Israel in Genesis, is similarly dealt with. The student of Wellhausen is familiar with such statements as 'in the stories of Jacob and Esau we have the history of the relations of Israel and Edom.' 'The Jehovist narratives about Reuben, Simeon, and Levi are undoubtedly based on occurrences connected with the period of the conquest of the Holy Land.' Mr. Watson is not careful to deny that there are anticipations of history—that in nations, as in individuals, the 1 Cf. also the new work of Mr. Evetts, ut supra, p. 8. 2 Cf. Church Quarterly Review, October 1892.

child is father to the man; but he is careful to demand sufficient instances without accompanying variations to warrant the induction which is drawn, and to show that these are not forthcoming. In doing this he examines in detail the points of agreement and contrast in the accounts of Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brethren, Joseph and Judah; the bearing on the dates and integrity of the documents J, E, and P; the patriarchs in relation to the aboriginal inhabitants; Israel's great institutions of the Kingdom, the Prophets, the Priesthood, and the Law.

The conclusion gives a summary of the comparison of Genesis with itself, with J E in the remainder of the Hexateuch, with the Judges, the Prophets, the Deuteronomist, Ezra and his school, and ends by the writer's review of his work, which, as we think, errs only by understatement of his case.

'Thus we claim to have proved that the teaching, spirit, and characters of Genesis are at once different from and earlier than we find elsewhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. The close relations between the two we have not failed to discern, and have been able, we hope, accurately to define. The relation is not that of ideal reflexion to historical reality, for later developments of all kinds are absent from the pages of Genesis. It is that of germ to blossom and developed fruit. The teaching of the prophets is contained yet hidden in, to be evolved from yet not definitely expressed in, the patriarchal narratives. The argument has been of a cumulative kind. Some of its elements may be considered to have little weight, and some, it may be, radically unsound. If so, the argument as a whole will be weakened, but it cannot, we think, be entirely destroyed. We are indeed strangely mistaken if, on the one hand, the historicity of Genesis is not supported by considerations of solid weight and varied character; and if, on the other, the theory which resolves it into a politico-historical myth is not open to the gravest objections. Critical investigation may have proved the Mosaic authorship of Genesis to be an impossibility; when fairly conducted it will be found, we think, to combine with archæological research in supplying new and convincing arguments for its substantial and historical truth' (p. 236).

We began our comments upon this remarkable little book by expressing some apprehension lest its form should conceal its real worth and detract from its usefulness. We conclude them by expressing the hope that it will commend itself, as we feel sure it should, to the judgment of examining chaplains, heads of colleges and schools, and of all who have the responsibility of guiding young students of the Old Testament in these days of difficulty. To have provided a really thoughtful book on a technical subject of general interest and first importance in simple form, and at an extremely moderate

price, is to have rendered a service for which the writer of this work and the Society which has published it, alike deserve our warmest thanks.

We have now presented with such fulness as our necessary limitations permit the latest developments of thought upon our subject, and have allowed each writer to speak as far as possible for himself. We have presented to our readers suggestions from many points of view, and may be allowed in conclusion to offer some from our own.

1. We make no pretence to approach the subject with what it is the fashion to call an 'open mind.' We are the inheritors of a great tradition which can be traced backwards through all our history to a time, in any case, centuries before the Christian era. The existence of this tradition is a great fact; it must be explained; it cannot be explained away. This tradition is placed upon holy ground by its embodiment in the teaching of Christianity. Our Lord's words, as the words of every great teacher, are to be understood from the hearer's point of view. We must not, as so many on both sides have done and are constantly doing, fall into the fallacy of interpreting the East of the first century, with its general conceptions, its views of history, and its methods of authorship, by the West of the nineteenth century. A new light will, for many men, fall upon the whole question, if they will try to realize the production and history of a manuscript as distinct from those of a printed book. Our tradition is a treasure of priceless value, but it may come to us-indeed, must come to us-in earthen vessels. We must find out what our tradition really is. The preceding pages will, as far as the Book of Genesis is concerned, help us to do this. When we have found our treasure, we must, as wise men, cling to it. We may, indeed, have to abandon it, but we shall do so only on the compulsion of absolute reasons. We will not let go this treasure unless a more precious one is placed in our hands. The very philosophy of history has taught us this:

'I have laid it down as an invariable maxim,' says F. von Schlegel, constantly to follow historical tradition and to hold fast by that clue, even when many things in the testimony and declarations of tradition appear strange and almost inexplicable, or at least enigmatical; for so soon as in the investigation of ancient history we let slip that thread of Ariadne, we can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful theories, and the chaos of clashing opinion.'1

2. We do not accept the documentary hypothesis as 1 Quoted by Mr. Spencer, ut supra, p. 6.