The Theories contrasted.

35

in the process of becoming, and not entering the world in a completed form like Christianity or Mohammedanism. Christianity, he says, appears as a completed religion, just because it is the conclusion of the religion of Israel; but we must not apply to the religion of Israel the maxim of Schleiermacher, derived from a consideration of Christianity, that a religion is seen in its greatest purity at its source. On which it may be remarked, that whatever mistakes may have been made on this subject in the "traditional view," the Biblical records themselves indicate very clearly a development of its kind. The great difference in the two theories consists in the germ from which the development took place, and the stage of evolution that had been reached in the earlier times whose history we seek to determine.

We have, therefore, two opposing views of the history -the Biblical view, set forth by the Hebrew historians, and the view formulated by the modern historians of Israel. The latter does not hesitate to call the former unhistorical, and might itself therefore be called the antiBiblical, though I shall simply call it the "modern theory." I have called them two contending theories, for so they are. The Old Testament historical books are not bare chronicles of events. They are animated by a principle, in accordance with which the writers profess to explain the events. If we suppose the accounts of early times to have been written early, or if we take the very earliest of the written sources which the critics will admit, even then they are more than bare recitals of facts. There is ever a certain interpretation of the facts, a certain view taken by the narrator which colours his facts or guides the disposal of them in his recital—a certain insight, true

1 See Note V.

or false, which he thinks he has into the secrets and causes of things. If, again, we suppose that these accounts of early times are written late, the accounts again imply reflection, interpretation, theory. In any case, there is more than the mere representation of facts. "History, as distinguished from chronicles or annals, must always contain a theory, whether confessed by the writer or not It may not be put prominently forward, but it lurks in the pages and may be read between the lines. A sound theory is simply a general conception, which co-ordinates and gives unity and a causal relation to a multitude of facts. Without this, facts cease to have interest except to the antiquarian."1

The state of the case is this: The history of Israel ran through a course of development of some kind. The Hebrew writers had some knowledge of the events and crises of the history, from personal experience, from oral tradition, from conviction engrained in the national consciousness, or from written sources; and they set themselves, at the time or at some time, to give an ordered account of the events. But in any case, it is their view of the history that lies before us. Modern writers also have knowledge of certain events. From the writings in our hands, and from other sources, they have information of the crises and outstanding facts. They have also before them in these books the views that the Biblical writers entertained, and on the strength of all these they write their histories of Israel. But, again, it is their interpretation of the events and phenomena that lies before us. The date of the written history in either case does not in itself affect the validity of the theory. Writers of this nineteenth Christian century 1 Simon S. Laurie, Rise and Constitution of Universities, Pref. p. vi.

Test of the two Theories.

37

claim that they have the true account to give of the matter, although they have practically no additional facts to go upon. We cannot therefore allow them, on the mere ground of lateness, to reject a theory which, let us say, was framed a few centuries before Christ. It may be that the early theory had the more accurate insight and gave the more correct interpretation of the facts of the history. The question simply is, Which of the two theories gives on the whole the better explanation of all the circumstances which are known and admitted? There is a sort of higher criticism in either case, but the theory that is to hold the field must not only raise difficulties but must lay them, and must, on the view of all the facts. of the case, commend itself, on literary and critical and common-sense grounds, as the better explanation. There is something worth thinking of in the words of Thoreau: How comes it that history never has to wait for facts, but for a man to write it? The ages may go on forgetting the facts never so long: he can remember two for every one forgotten. The musty records of history, like the catacombs, contain the perishable remains, but only in the breast of genius are embalmed the souls of heroes. There is very little of what is called criticism here. It is love and reverence, rather, which deal with qualities not relatively but absolutely great; for whatever is admirable in a man is something infinite, to which he cannot set bounds. These sentiments allow the mortal to die, the immortal and divine to survive."1 Now the Hebrew writers were very far from being dry annalists, and it is quite possible that they, like the evangelists after them, possessed those sentiments of love and reverence which qualified them for being true historians.

1 Review of Thomas Carlyle.

Some of the outstanding facts which have to be accounted for have already been mentioned, such as the persistence of the race and religion, the early consolidation of the people around their religious faith, and the power of this faith to produce two of the greatest religions of the world. Other features will meet us as we proceed, such as the high spiritual tone of the religion, as early as we can obtain contemporaneous accounts, and the influence of the prophets, which, on either theory, is immense. For all these things there must be found, if possible, an adequate cause and sufficient historical explanation. And even if the accounts contained in the Biblical books are pronounced unhistorical, we have before us a very difficult problem-viz., to explain how, at what time, and from what causes arose the conviction which these writers so firmly hold, that this was the true course of events. The Biblical historians say, "We write thus, because thus things occurred." If the anti-Biblical historians say, "Things did not so occur," they are bound, among other things, to give a reasonable explanation why the Biblical historians so wrote.

In a general way we may contrast the two theories thus: The modern theory undertakes to trace the development of the religion from the lowest stages of animistic worship up to ethic monotheism, and from custom up to authorised divine law, and this too within the period distinctively embraced in the history of Israel as a people. The Biblical theory also posits a development; but the essential things which were finally reached-a belief in a moral deity, the one ruler of the world, and a law divinely given-are there in germ and substance to start with at the threshold of the nation's life. There are low stages of belief, there are customs rising into laws, on

The Documents appealed to.

39

both theories. The difference lies in the place assigned to them.

These are the two theories of the history, and we have before us a mass of literature which gives the sole or the main information which we possess regarding it, and from which, therefore, is to be obtained in some manner the only standard by which the two theories can be tested. The one theory has, let us say, overlaid itself upon the books, or worked itself into them; the other has, by critical processes, worked itself out of them. How shall we hold the balance between them? Clearly we must approach the subject by its literary side: we must neither, on the one hand, invest the books as a whole with authority and claim for them inspiration, for that would be to foreclose the whole inquiry, as it would be opposed to the principle of Protestantism; nor must we, on the other hand, summarily reject books or portions of them on merely subjective grounds, saying that such and such. parts represent later and unhistorical views, or arbitrarily set aside as unhistorical everything in which there is a miraculous element. The books are our only witnesses the only materials we have for forming our conclusions. This has been well put by Kuenen himself: The Bible is in every one's hand. The critic has no other Bible than the public. He does not profess to have any additional documents, inaccessible to the laity, nor does he profess to find anything in his Bible that the ordinary reader cannot see. It is true that here and there he improves the common translation; but this is the exception, not the rule. And yet he dares to form a conception of Israel's religious development totally different from that which, as any one may see, is set forth in the 1 See Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 106 ff.; Whither? p. 73 ff