'r±u INSPIRATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT * AT the present

stage of Biblical studies, it can hardly be ques- tioned that the problems of greatest controversial interest are those which arise around the Old Testament. It is not that they approach in vital importance those which are presented by the Gospels and the Epistles; but they seem to mark the point where the breach in traditional theories is most imminent. It cannot be honestly said that any really destructive view as to the origin of the New Testament holds the field in theo- logical science. The more extreme theories have had their day; they have contributed what of truth was to be found in them to the general store ; but the unbiassed critic (if he is anywhere to be found) would probably admit that the current of competent theological learning is running now rather in the direction of a modified and temperate orthodoxy. It would show sheer ignorance if any one were to describe the views, say, of Baur, or of Volkmar, as agreeing with " the growing conviction of an overwhelming weight of the most earnest and sober scholarship." Yet this is the language which a high autho- rity has used of the most destructive theory yet advanced by any scholar of reputation as to the Old Testament. We cannot wonder that the Bishop of Manchester, in his courage at least no unworthy successor to Dr. Fraser, placed this question first on the list for discussion at the Church Congress. If the attacks of destructive critics can be repelled here, there is not much fear of their success elsewhere ; though it would be rash indeed to admit that their victory here would mean a defeat all along the line. A representative of an influential Dis- senting body has with not less courage chosen it as the subject for the seventh Congregational Union lecture, a series dis- tinguished already for noteworthy works by Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Dale. Mr. Cave is not without qualifications for his difficult task. His reading is fairly wide, though his autho- rities are occasionally antiquated, and there are here and there awkward little slips in scholarship. His style is clear, though not very elegant ; his meaning is never doubtful ; and he marks the steps of his argument with admirable precision. Whether his arguments are as soundly based as they are clearly stated, we shall be able to judge better when we have seen what it is that he undertakes to prove, and how he attempts to prove it. His purpose is to establish by a purely inductive method the inspiration of the Old Testament, to show that the facts revealed by an impartial study of the book do not admit of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of a divine revelation. His method claims to be scientifically rigorous ; if it falls short of this, it is worthless. His induction is to account for all the facts, and to leave room • for no other explanation of them. But he concentrates his main attention upon a small portion of the field, partly for reasons of space, but mainly because Genesis is, in his view, the battle-ground on which the claims of the Old Testament will be largely decided.

Mr. Cave's first position, then, is that Genesis is historically veracious. His method of proving this is to show that the traditions as to the human race in the first twelve chapters of Genesis are confirmed by numerous and widespread ethnic legends. But what is supposed to be the cogency of this proof? Take the case of a universal flood. Mr. Cave does not trouble himself in the least about any of the physical or geological objections to such a phenomenon. He finds " unmistakable references" to the Deluge in the extant remains " (whatever he may mean by this) of the " native tribes of North America, the natives of Borneo," &c., and leaps to the conclusion of that most untrustworthy philologist, M. Pictet, that it is impos- sible to explain such an agreement except by admitting a primitive tradition founded upon an actual fact. But what would be his reply if we admitted a primitive tradition founded upon a baseless fancy? He contends strongly for the original

• The Inspiration of the Old Testament Inductively Considered The Seventh Congregational Union Lecture. By Alfred Cave, B.A. London : Congregational Union of England and wales.

unity of the human race : would he deny that there are many legends unhesitatingly accepted by the widely scattered

members of the same stock which have absolutely no basis but imagination ? There is no apace to work this out in detail, but it may be said witk confidence that there is no one of Mr. Cave's parallels, strained and uncritical as some of them are, which cannot be fully explained by the existence of an early legend, without conceding for a moment its truth. We may allow that in Genesis they appear in a form much less distorted and extravagant than that which they assume in other quarters ; and we are still far enough from his confident- inference that they must be historical. Mr. Cave by no means strengthens his case by such erratic suggestions as that " the very name of Paradise was retained by Persian monarchs for their enclosed parks or gardens," a name which only occurs in the post-Exilian books of Hebrew literature, and which is confessedly and transparently of Aryan origin ; or that the name of the god Dionysus may be traced back to the primary tradition of the serpent (nachash).

His second argument for the " historicity " of Genesis is derived from the " parallel conclusions of Genesis and Science." This is carrying the war into the enemy's camp with a. vengeance. Notice that the argument is not that the state- ments of a book coming to us with divine authority are not necessarily inconsistent with the results of science. He is engaged on a purely inductive inquiry; and his contention is, that no hypothesis will explain the remarkable agreement between the statements of this book and the conclusions of science but that of a divine revelation. But the courage of this assertion is hardly warranted by the support which it. finds in facts. The first point in which he finds identity is as to the original unity of the human race. Science has by no means spoken its last word upon this point ; but granted that the tendency is in favour of the views of the monogenists, how does this confirm the story of Adam and Eve any more than that of Deucalion and Pyrrha ? " From anthropology let us turn to philology. By a scene as unmistakable as vivid, thes writer of Genesis stakes his veracity on the unity of human language. To-day the opinion is almost universal among philologists that primitive man, settled in his original Asiatic home, possessed one parent language,—the origin of all the dialects of the world." Mr. Cave would have strengthened his case if he had named one philologist of authority, besides. Professor Max Muller, who would maintain that we have any evidence whatever sufficient to bear out this conclusion. Even Professor Max Miller would hardly do more than assert that there is no insuperable objection in language to an original unity, if this can be otherwise demonstrated. It is

literal truth that there is no indication whatever, either in structure or in roots, to point to one primitive language.. Mr. Cave is not less at variance with instructed opinion when he asserts that Genesis and science agree in holding- to a triple division of languages. Professor Sayce says

The attempt made in the infancy of linguistic science, to reduce these groups to a mystical triad has long since been abandoned by the scientific student." Mr. Cave calls this " an eccentric opinion ;" it is the statement of a simple fact- If he doubts it, he will do well to give in some future edition the common features of the so-called " Turanian " family, a. term once current, but now universally recognised as merely the name of a big sack, into which may be shovelled every- thing which bears no marks of Aryan or Semitic structure.. After this, it does not surprise us to find that Mr. Cave finds- another proof of the " historicity " of Genesis in the state- ment that the sons of Tiras, " the ancestors of the maritime- Tyrrheni," were descendants of Japheth.

Next, Mr. Cave argues that Biblical and scientific opinion concur in the theological views advocated by both. Be it noted here that science means theology, and that scientific• opinion means the opinions formed by theologians as to the- facts of human life. The existence of evil, for instance, is admitted. Genesis has a historical explanation to offer of this. Is there any evidence in science that this historical' explanation is the correct one P If not, in what way does the- one confirm the other ? Genesis teaches that " spiritual intercourse between man and his Maker being unbroken,. deathlessness resulted." Is this in concurrence with the results of an impartial consideration of the facts of life by- theological science ? If this should be admitted, has no other science anything to say on the matter ? Do biology an& physiological chemistry so entirely concur in the tradition of man's original deathlessness ?

Mr. Cave's fourth position is that Genesis and science agree in their common views upon the generations of the heavens and the earth. There are far too many points here presented for discussion within the present limits. It can only be noted that Mr. Cave selects every expression of any scientific man which can be made to support his contention, and ignores whatever is inconsistent with it. "Man comes from man, says Science mostly, regarding the Darwinian theory of human descent as hypothesis, and nothing but hypothesis." Is this a candid statement of the verdict of science? Can Mr. Cave name any one biological chair in the United Kingdom the holder of which would accept the words which he puts into the mouth of his science ? The question is not whether they would be right in repudiating it, but whether as a fact they would do so.

But, further, there is a fatal fallacy underlying the whole of this so-called inductive process, the well-known fallacy of arguing per enumerationem simplicein. Mr. Cave selects all those points on which he thinks he can make out an argument, and asks then,—" Is not the conclusion inevitable, upon the inductive method, that these opening chapters of Genesis contain history, not legend;. narrative, not allegory ; prose, not poetry ; fact, and not fiction?" But his induction simply ignores everything which would point in an opposite direction.

Granted that science and Genesis agree in asserting that the earth was once in a state of chaos : Genesis goes on to " pledge its veracity " that, as a literal. prose fact, the serpent persuaded the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. Does science continue to agree with it here ? If not, this is a fact which has also to be taken into account. The book is pronounced to have stood the tests that have been applied marvellously. What of the tests that have not been applied?

The question next arises as to the source of this " true information" which science finds so abundantly in Genesis.

The conclusion is drawn that it could only have come from a divine revelation made to Adam, Enoch, or some other patriarch, and " not improbably " committed to writing by some member of the Sethite family. To assume, in the present state of our knowledge of the history of writing, that there were written records in antediluvian times, is quite on a par with the assumption that the words of the dialogue in the Garden were handed down exactly by tradition for thousands of years. The hypothesis of a miraculous revelation to Moses does not admit of direct disproof. But Mr. Cave's attempt to combine a naturalistic with a supernatural explanation is a violation of the first canons of historic criticism.

It is impossible, within the present limits, to examine Mr. Cave's theory as to the authorship of the Pentateuch. The results at which he arrives is that two hands at least can be traced, besides that of " a very respectful reviser." He gives with fairness and fullness the cogent evidence which compels us to distinguish the Elohistic and the Jehovistic writer; he believes that the latter was Moses, who gave its substantial form to the book, that he used the Elohistic materials, and that the compiler of these probably laid. earlier sources under contribution. At the same time, as a concession to conserva- tive prejudices, he sees no insuperable objection to the view that the Elohistic writer was Moses himself, provided sufficient time is allowed to elapse for him to change com- pletely his literary style as well as his religious standpoint.

He apparently fails to note how even this view of the con- struction of the Pentateuch is all but fatal to the theory of inspiration which in somewhat pedantic form he afterwards produces. Inspiration " guarantees the reliableness of the record :" then it must preside over every stage through which it has passed. It was seemingly " Hagiographic inspiration " which guided the authors of the original sources, and "Tran- scriptive inspiration" which guided the Elohist and the Jebovist. The " respectful reviser's " position seems to be un- defined ; but there is, finally, the " Canonic inspiration," which determined the acceptance of the Pentateuch in its present form. Surely to ask that all this should be accepted as "inductively proved," is to put too great a strain upon our faith.

Much of the remainder of the work is occupied with a detailed examination of Wellhausen's theory. It would be unfair to deny that Mr. Cave makes some points worth con- sideration. But, again, most of his criticism is invalidated by an underlying fallacy. Wellhausen contends that the codification of the Levitical law was post-Raillian Mr. Cave thinks that he refutes him by pointing to traces in the earlier literature of language and ideas to be found in the codified law. The ideas of " devoted," " unclean," " thank-offering," and of the pollution of blood must have been widely current long before they were recognised in a code. The last-mentioned is ex- pressly said to be Noachian, which at least indicates that it belongs to the earliest national traditions. Mr. Cave is not more convincing in his dealing with prophecy. For him, Mr. Maurice has written in vain. Prophecy is not for him the declaration of the eternal laws of righteousness, but a pre- diction, obscure at the time, but afterwards proved by the event to be correct, with details which indicate that the know- ledge was superhuman. Much stress is laid upon Jeremia' h's prediction of the seventy years of captivity ; nothing is said of the equally definite prediction that after forty years the Egyptians should be gathered from the peoples whither they were scattered, because, unfortunately, history is silent as to any answering event in the annals of Egypt.

The Committee of the Congregational Union prefix to. this volume the usual advertisement that "for the opinions advanced in any of the Lectures, the lecturer alone will be responsible." This is in accordance with the traditions and policy of that body ; but in this instance the notice is especially. welcome. It would be peculiarly unfortunate, in the interests of Biblical criticism, if a work were to be issued with the authority of any important section of the Christian Church, which took up so many untenable positions, and showed so little power of grasping the true conditions of the problem.

But Mr. Cave might have taken up a very different line of defence. Instead of telling us that Genesis "pledges its veracity" to a series of mythical legends, he might have asked us to consider the Old Testament as the literature of a divinely instructed people. We might have been shown the nation at first differing but little from the tribes around it, except in its conviction, coming, surely, from no merely human source, that its God was a God of righteousness, a God that cared for his people, and would have them righteous too. We might have seen how this faith was gradually led to purify itself from debasing errors, and how under its influence their rode and imperfect morality was step by step transformed. We might have learnt how—still, perhaps, dimmed by confusions—it yet lent to the words of poets and prophets an intensity of confidence, a buoyancy of joy, a depth of penitence, which have made them the most natural and fitting expression for the spiritual emotions of the godliest souls in all ages. Above all, we might have been led to see how, running throughout this varied literature, so truly expressive of the religions feelings of humanity, there is a tone as of imperfect music, a looking forward and a. long- ing for the fuller revelation of the purposes of God, a yearn- ing for the time when a life should be lived upon earth in completer accord with His will. Those who have felt this, as Frederick Maurice felt it, and helped others to feel it too, will not need any limping logic or illusory inductions to prove to them the inspiration of the book which records it.