58 



Tribune Extras Lecture and Letter Series. 



L.)uie at the Society's expense whatever might be valu- 

 able. 



The paper following waa by Prof. Fiska P. Brewer, on 

 the Greek inscriptions found near Beirout, which was 

 published in the second number of tho proceedings of 

 the Amcriciiu Palestine Exploring Society. 



Prof. Mead of Audover read a paper on the use of the 

 Hebrew Kol with negatives. In H.-brew a iinivei sal 

 negation is expressed by the use ot this word (mcanini: 

 nil) with a negative particle. Tuere is no compound 

 word corresponding to our word " none " and " no." 

 Gramujariaus have referred to hut one pasture- in the, 

 Bible of a partial negation (Num. xxiii, 13). Prof. 

 Mead undertook to examine a,l places in the Bible 

 whore Kol occurs with, a negative. II n examined 320 

 passages. Only six of these can be called cases of par- 

 tial negation, and all but one of these occur in sentences 

 In which Kol is made definite. 



The remaining papers of the morning session were on 

 the Chinese Sien as Constellations, by Prof. Waitney ; 

 on Certain Pticenician aud Greek Inscriptions from Cv- 

 Iirus, by Dr. Ward ; on the Hamath Inscriptions with 

 remarks on L >noriuant, also by Dr. Ward. Copies ot 

 these inscriptions were shown to ni'Mubars. Dr. Ward 

 also remarked on a supposed Pacouieiau inscription 

 found in Brazil purporting to have been left by mari- 

 ners. He was entirely convinced that it was si forgery, 

 though a very ingenious one. It was dated in the lime 

 Of King Hiram, which woul.1 require a more antique 

 form of letter than that which was usad. Palaeograpli- 

 ically, it would hardly bo older than ihe fifth century 

 B. C. For an inscription so old as this purports to be, 

 tho state of preservation was remarkable, aud another 

 evidence of the forgery. Dr. Ward thinks tiiis forgery 

 may be an incident of the struggle between the Masons 

 and tlu- priests in Brazil, Kintr Hiram being invoke 1 bv 

 tho former m this way to give antiquity to their claim. 



'Ihe Suci ty then took a recess from i to 2 o'clock. The 

 afternoon session was more lively thau that of the 

 morning, aud was distinguished for the bold, straight- 

 forward, and scholarly, yet courteous way in which 

 Prof. Adler ventured to arraign previous methods of 

 studying and interpreting the Old Testameut. I select 

 his paper from among others, because of its more popu- 

 lar and element. a-y character, and because, though pre- 

 sented entirely from a philoloific.il aud philosophical 

 point of view, its bearing on theology gives it a special 

 interest to all classes of readers. 



METHODS OF STUDYING AND INTERPRETING THE OLD 

 TESTAMENT. 



Prof. Artier, who spoke entirely without notes or ruau- 

 n-ei ipt, -aid : It seems to m;: that nothing is of so much 

 Importance In the ranee of Semitic study as a clear no- 

 tion with regard to the chronology of the Old Testament. 



The question whether a certain part of the OldTesia- 

 ment was written sooner or later than some other part 

 has a.-ignilie.uice not only in the studv of the Bible, but 

 in Egyptology, in Indian studies, and in many dill".; rent 

 brandies of research. Whatever can throw light upon 

 it ouirht to claim the attention of scholars. Tno Pri>fes- 

 sor then ga VD what his studies in (Germany especially 

 ipalilled him to present an account of the sialns of 

 opinion in regard in t lie exegesis of the JJible in Ger- 

 many at the pre-ent <lav. 



The view wlncli obtained in the beginning of 

 the century was that tho book of <;>'nesi<, 

 more especially, con-i^tcd of a nirni>er of frag- 

 ments joined together by the, hand nf a 

 later editor, but essentially fragmentary 111 its charac- 



ter. Tuat waa the hypothesis of Vater. He noticed the 

 dill -rent accounts of the creation, the difficulties iu the 

 Insierv of Joseph, certain other contrary stories and 

 ant ch onisms, and solved the difficulty to himself by 

 aci ep mg tho opinion which Geddes had pronounced 

 before Dim Lhat w-3 have h^ra a collection of frag- 

 ments bound together in a sinsi'lo volume. Astruc in- 

 troduced a more plausible hypothesis to explain the 

 same phenomena. He regarded the book of Genesis, 

 and, later, the Pentateuch, as the work of a compiler, 

 believini: that Moses had before him ceriaiu old docu- 

 ments, from which he had selected as the occasion 

 seemed to warrant. This represented Moses in the 

 light of a modern editor, aud this view did 

 not gain the allegiance of scholars. Ewald, in denounc- 

 ing this opinion, put forth his own view, that the prev- 

 alence, of different names of tue deity (Elohim and Je- 

 hovah) in different parts of Genesis, was dua not to the 

 fact that different authors had written different parts, 

 but was to bo attributed to the different terminology 

 which the same author thought it proper to employ on 

 different occasions. He endeavored to show that the 

 names Elohim aud Jehovah had their peculiar signifi- 

 cance. Tuch's Genesis, a new edition of which has 

 been prepared by Merx, with a prefatory post- 

 script of his own, brought prominently before the 

 world the supplemental hypothesis. Accepting the fact 

 that the hands of different authors were to be seen in 

 Genesis and the Pentateuch, he held that there was one 

 principal record, arid to this supplements had been 

 made by the editor and compilers of the books. This 

 hypothesis found favor with many until the appearance 

 of Ilupfclti's work created a new phase in Biblical criti- 

 cism. He made divisions which have been essentially 

 ad herd to. First, the main distinction between Elohist 

 and Jehovist; again, with regard to the first of these, a 

 new division into first and second Elolmt. We would 

 then have first and second Elohist and the Jehovi^t. In 

 order to combine these records of different authors he 

 supposed an editor. Iu addition to this the book of Deu- 

 teronomy required its separate author. Hero then, 

 including the editor of Genesis, were five persons, to 

 which was added later a sixth, who had joined the book 

 of Deuteronomy and a great part of Joshua to the 

 Tcti ateuch. Although important a Iditions and changes 

 have been made, the basis of the work has not been 

 altered. 



Homer has made some important additions to this 

 theory. He tries to explain different portions of tho 

 Biido from the fact that they originated in the Kingdom 

 of Israel or of Judah. Graf applies tho theories that Ifivu 

 b: en applied to Genesis to tho whole Pentateuch. He 

 calls attention to a statement, which, ii true, would bo 

 of the greatest importance in establishing the chronol- 

 ogy of the Old Testament. He endeavors to show that 

 contrary to tho received opinion, tho laws of Leviticus 

 are not older thau those of Deuteronomy, in which there 

 appear* nothing of circumcision, nothing of a day of 

 atonement. Graf then endeavors to prove that the laws 

 of Leviticus were inapplicable to any st:itn of thinsrs 

 which had existed in Israel before the time of the Jiaby- 

 loni.sh captivit v. He therefore fixes their date after tho 

 time of the exile. 



What Prof. Adler especially desires to call attention 

 to, is the fact that Graf deduces his propositions in a 

 historical and archa'ologi.-al manner; that he enters into 

 the hill j -els of The boolcs and endeavors to show from 

 ;:eii'Tal historical principles what can have been prior 

 and what later. This chantre of meilioil is of threat im- 

 portance. Hitherto literary peculiarities have taken 



