accordingly they come from God himself, who speaks in them. Nevertheless, there are different degrees of inspiration in the Holy Scriptures, inasmuch as the Torah is the primary, and the other Holy Scriptures are the secondary, revelation of God. As Holy Scriptures the following books were acknowledged: The Torah, (five books of Moses,) Nebiim, (the prophets,) and Kethubim, (the Hagiographa,) as they were united together in one whole by the men of the Great Synagogue.

Divine revelation begins in the patriarchal age, for the patriarchs were prophets and spoke through the Holy Spirit. The endowment of the prophets with the Holy Spirit lasted until Malachi, with whom the period of revelation in the stricter sense of the word closes. From the time of Malachi, if an immediate divine revelation was to be made, the bath kol, a voice of revelation from above, was heard. That the prophets, from Moses to Malachi, spoke through the Holy Spirit, we have in proof not merely general expressions, but single words of Scripture are quoted directly as the words of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Weber gives various passages in proof of the statements. The Torah is called absolutely the Holy Scripture, and the prophets and the Hagiographa are called elements of the Torah. In this way, Sanhedrin, 91, Psalm lxxxiv, 4, is cited as from the Torah. Accordingly, Torah stands for Scripture in general; just as in John x, 34, our Saviour quotes Psa. lxxxii, 6, as "written in your law."

The canonical authority of certain parts of Holy Scripture was subject to an examination. Doubts at one time were expressed respecting Ezekiel. The Book of Jonah was attacked, but the doubts were refuted. Also the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Esther were attacked. These doubts were collectively refuted, and the canon remained just the same as, according to tradition, it had been fixed by the men of the Great Council.

Peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures:

1. They were called Holy Writings. Of this ample proof is furnished from rabbinical sources.

2. A second characteristic of the Holy Scriptures, the consequence of their divine origin, is, that they are an authoritative rule of action. Copious proofs of this statement are furnished.

3. A third peculiarity, which results from the character of the Holy Scripture as divine, is the infinite fullness of its contents, which, however, is opened only to the one "who knows how to explain it, but is closed to the ignorant.'

The Holy Scriptures and the Church.-The Holy Scriptures, on account of their nature, cannot be directly employed for the knowledge and life of the Church, but they need authentic interpretation. Only in this adapted form are their contents binding. On this account they are not sufficient in themselves for a knowledge of salvation for the Church, but require supplement through further instruction.

According to the Jewish theology, the Mishna, the explanatory repetition of the Torah, is not something that was added to the Torah somewhat later, but, from the nature of the Torah, was demanded from the beginning. It was ordained that mothers should lead their children not only to the Scriptures but also to Mishna, which means, either that they themselves should impress upon them the text of the Scripture and Mishna, or take their children to school to learn both.

Every scholar or well-instructed man stands in need, not only of a knowledge of the Scripture, but also, in a certain measure, of the Mishna and Gemara. The Scripture alone is sufficient for nobody.

ART. II.-DOCUMENTARY ORIGIN OF GENESIS.

THE learned commentator Vitringa was the first to remark (in his Sacræ Observationes, Franec., 1683) that "Moses probably collected, digested, adorned, and where defective completed, documents and records [schedae et scrinia] preserved among the patriarchs." Astruc, a French physician, still further suggested (in his Conjectures sur les Mémoires originaux de Moïse, etc., Paris, 1753) that Moses used twelve separate writings, particularly two, distinguishable by the occurrence of the divine names Elohim and Jehovah respectively. Subsequent critics, especially in Germany, caught at the idea, and they have vied with each other in ingeniously distributing the book of Genesis among the supposed two or more original authors

usually styled "the Elohist" and "the Jehovist." Specimens of these may be seen in any of the critical commentaries or introductions; no two of them agree in detail. The conflicting views of Astruc, Eichhorn, Ilgen, De Wette, Von Bohlen, Gramberg, Ewald, Hupfeld, and Knobel, as given by Bleek, ("Introduction to the Old Testament," translated from the German by Venables, London, 1860, vol. i, p. 257 and following,) are well summed up by Bishop William Thomson, (“Aids to Faith," N. Y., reprint, 1864, p. 221 and following,) to which Keil ("Introduction to the Old Testament," translated from the German by Douglass, Edinburgh, 1869, vol. i, p. 80 and following) adds others. Our purpose in this paper is briefly to examine this theory in the light of the facts, and see what degree of probability there is in it.

One evidence of this duplex authorship is thought of late to be found in certain repetitions of the history, particularly the double account of the creation of man, (chap. i, 26–28; ii,) where also the above distinction of the divine names prevails. The latter of those passages, however, is evidently only a statement of the former with ampler details, and in view of the probation following. Another ground of the twofold theory is the variation of style perceptible in the different portions of the book. But this, unless, perhaps, we may except chap. i, is not so marked as to prove a variety of authorship; and if it were, it would show not simply two, but probably several others. Moreover, the sections thus indicated do not usually tally with those denoted by the Jehovistic and the Elohistic usage, and so one argument nearly neutralizes the other. The evidence therefore resolves itself substantially into the use of these two names; and this mark is fortunately so palpable on the surface and recognizable in even a (good) translation, that we shall here confine ourselves to its consideration as determinative of the whole subject.

The following is a fair division of the book of Genesis into sections based upon a clear alternation of these sacred names, and by its means we shall proceed to test the theory of authorship in question:

I. The general Creation.-Elohistic exclusively, (i–ii, 3.)

II. Eden and the Fall.- Jehovah-Elohistic almost exclusively, (ii, 4-iii.)

III. Cain and his descendants.-Jehovistic almost exclu

sively, (iv.)

IV. The Antediluvian Sethites and the Flood.-Elohistic chiefly, (v-ix.)

V. The Postdiluvian Patriarchs and the birth of an heir to Abraham.-Jehovistic very generally, (x-xvi.)

VI. Circumcision instituted.-Elohistic almost exclusively, (xvii.)

VII. The destruction of Sodom.--Jehovistic almost exclusively, (xviii, xix.)

VIII. Abraham's later history to the death of Sarah.— Elohistic chiefly, (xx-xxiii.)

IX. The marriage of Isaac.-Jehovistic or Jehovah-Elohistic exclusively, (xxiv.)

X. The remainder of Abraham and Ishmael's lives.—Elohistic exclusively, (xxv, 1-18.)

XI. Jacob supplants Esau.-Jehovistic almost exclusively, (xxv, 19-xxvii, 40.)

XII. Jacob's residence in Padan-Aram.-Elohistic chiefly, (xxvii, 41-xxx, 24.)

XIII. Jacob's return to Canaan.-Elohistic almost exclusively, (xxx, 25-xxxiii.)

XIV. Jacob and Joseph's remaining adventures in Canaan.-Elohistic exclusively, (xxxiv-xxxvii.)

XV. Judah's connection with Tamar, and Joseph's imprisonment.-Jehovistic almost exclusively, (xxxviii, xxxix.)

XVI. Remainder of Jacob and Joseph's lives.-Elohistic exclusively, [except the apparently later ejaculation in xlix, 18,] (xl-end.)

Stated in another form the number of occurrences of any of the divine names in each of these sections would stand definitely thus:

Jehovah- Other Elohim. Jehovah. Elohim.

Titles.

We do not deem it necessary to exhibit or examine the almost infinitesimal subdivisions proposed by the double-authorship theorists in most of these sections, in order to assign individual paragraphs, verses, or clauses to their presumed originals as Elohistic or Jehovistic. This has already been copiously done in detail by Mr. Quarry, ("Genesis and its Authorship," London, 1866,) and the inconsistencies arising from such a minute dissection are clearly portrayed. The difficulty, rather the impossibility, of making a coherent and homogeneous narrative, like the Mosaic, out of such disjecta membra, is sufficient to refute that process, without the trouble of following it out in its tortuosities. Indeed, we might summarily dismiss the whole theory at once by remarking in general that the unity of the entire book of Genesis, in plan and execution, proves irrefragably its unity of authorship. Even the account of the general creation, (section i,) which alone bears undisputed marks of peculiarity in style and phraseology, as well as in scope and spirit, is obviously essential as an introduction to the particular history following it. Inasmuch, however, as the appeal to the facts in the case has thus been made in detail, we shall follow it briefly, but with sufficient particularization to ascertain its measure of trustworthiness, in deciding upon the integrity of the record as a whole.

We might forestall the whole of the discussion in detail by the simple observation, which to most minds would be conclusive of the main question, that the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections do not, after the first one, at all tally with the books into which the author of Genesis himself, expressly and formally, divides his work. These latter are as follows:

1. The General Creation, i-ii, 3.

2. The Fall and its Connections, "Generations of the Heavens and the Earth," ii, 4-iv.

3. The Antediluvian World, "Generations of Adam,” v-vi, 8.