Tlie Oriental Society Meeting at J3oston. 



57 



precedence. B.it In the case of a book like the Old 

 Testament, containing as it does the relics of the litera- 

 ture of a people, it always seems to be a very precarious 

 thins to deduce important theories from peculiarities of 

 style. The difference in style, excepting the later Chal- 

 daic and the more degenerate style of Ezra, Daniel, 

 and even Ezekiel, is not sufficiently pronounced to war- 

 rant important results. An exception may be made as 

 to the ciiaugo of meaning which, is traceable in the his- 

 tory of words a change which, reflects the character of 

 the time and the conditions of life. A erood example is 

 incidentally given by Geige in his Urschrlft. The word 

 tsadek (righteous), ho thinks, caiue to mean a mighty 

 man a man of violence in which sense it is used In 

 Isaiah xlix., 24. 



It seems to me, said Prof. Adler, that for all the labor 

 that has been expended upon the criticism aud exegesis 

 of these books, comparatively scanty results have been 

 obtained, scantier than the nature of the books or the 

 high attainments of the men who have devoted their 

 liyes to this study should warrant. There is such diver- 

 sity with reference to the composition, of the books of 

 the Bible that it shows how little the study of this chief 

 part of Semitic literature has become a science. Thus, 

 for instance, with regard to the second Psalm, two 

 prominent critics differ as regards the time of its com- 

 position to the extent of an interval of a thousand 

 years. Ewald attributes it to the time of King Solo- 

 mon ; the other critic, whoso name escapes me, puts it a 

 thousand years later. Another evidence of disordered 

 criticism is found on the 118th Psalm, 10th verse. A 

 certain modern critic thinks he must find the peculiar 

 circumstances under which these words were written 

 (" In the name of God I will cut them off"), aud he tells 

 us with a very sober face that it refers to Alexander 

 Juuu&us subduing the Idumeans and forcing them to 

 enter the Jewish community. He would translate, " In 

 the name of God I will circumcise thee." 



With Graf I think we have entered the proper path. 

 The proper way setms to be to study the archaeology of 

 the Jews which is being done pretty well and to study 

 the principles of mental development and the laws of 

 national development, and to attempt to apply them in 

 the particular field which we cultivate ourselves. I do 

 not, see why we should hesitate to acknowledge that the 

 greater has risen from the smaller, and the higher from 

 the lesser. I do not see why we should hesitate to 

 acknowledge that idolatry was practiced. The 

 prophets tell us themselves that it was practiced, and I 

 canuot conceive why we should be more scrupulous if 

 to deny it be more scrupulous than the prophets them- 

 selves. 



Now. wherever we have met with idolatry, we have 

 found mythology. It would be strange indeed, if we 

 should, have idolatry in the Old Testament and not 

 some relics of the ancient myths. Indeed, it would al- 

 most be derogatory to the character of prophecy to sup- 

 pose such a thing, else where would be the superior 

 nobleness aud strength of convJction of the greatest of 

 ant.iq.uity if they had not to combat the same difficul- 

 ties among the Israelites as were found elsewhere? 



I do out refer at length to the vast learning and 

 splendid results of Geige. His labors in the field of 

 Biblical criticism are of such great importance, and can 

 be eo little appreciated without an intimate knowledge 

 of the later writings of the Jews, that I reserve a more 

 extended discussion for some future occasion. 



In conclusion, let me direct your attention to one thing 

 more. It is the fact that the. text of the Old Testament 

 was preserved with such scrupulous care by the people, 



that mistakes made in multiplying manuscripts were per- 

 petuated as well as the correct portions; and wo aro 

 aide now to delect many of those. In the 15th chapter 

 of Exodus, for instance, I think it is clear that the 12th 

 verse ought to be in the place of the llth ; the connec- 

 tion is then properly prescrve'1. So Psalm Ixxi., 3, is to 

 be corrected according to INalm xxxi., 4 (it 1 verse in 

 Hebrew), and to be read Beth Mczudot; the miatuko 

 occurring from improperly dividing the. Inns into 

 words. Sola Job xxxili., 21, "My flesh nulls away so 

 that it is no more seen, and my bones are dry: they 

 are not seen;" the word for "seen" in Hebrew is 

 Ka-aJi ; which probably, by the change of a letter, was 

 substituted for Eavali, which means to "drink." and 

 which, if restored to the text, makes the parallelism, 

 complete; thus, "My bones are dry because they have 

 no drink." 



An example of a mythological construction is the 

 story of Achan. Any one who has ever read carefully the 

 Book of Judges must be aware that the mental and 

 social condition of the people there set forth does uoc 

 permit us to suppose that a reign of pure monotheism 

 preceded. The fact that Jephtha offers his daughter 

 without any blame attaching to himself ; the face of a 

 Levite serving as priest to an idol, gainsav this. The 

 whole character of the book shows that the time of 

 Joshua, as it is represented to us, is rather the picture 

 of a golden age, rather an idealization than a historic 

 period in tha realistic sense of the word. Into this 

 period the ideals of the people were projected. The 

 word Achau at first sight seems to have no explanation 

 in Hebrew. But we find that the name of the valley 

 was Amek-Achor, " valley of wailing." We 

 are elsewhere told that m this valley of wailing there 

 was a huge heap of stones. The people had no explana- 

 tion for this mass of stones thrown together. They sought 

 one. Everybody who has traveled in mountainous 

 countries knows how peculiarities of the country are 

 personified. There, then, was a mass of stones as one 

 element for a tradition ; the " Valley of Wailing" fur- 

 nished the other element. To connect those was simple 

 enough. Amek-Achor was the valley of a niau named. 

 Achor. The stones were easilv associated with the 

 Jewish custom of stoning offenders, and the priests, 

 therefore, laid hold of this fact to impress upon the 

 people the necessity of offering their booty to the syna- 

 gogue by telling of the punishment which had befallen 

 Achor. Tuere seems to be some verification 

 of this theory in the fact that in 1. Chrou. ii., 

 7, this man Achau is actually called Achor. 

 We should bo apt to receive this very readily if it were a 

 Greek myth. As it is a Hebrew myth I doubt whether 

 it would be received as such. I do not offer it with any 

 degree of certainty, but only as one of the means by 

 which those who study the Hebrew books in the light of 

 philology may in time arrive at conclusions which would 

 be more certain than those of to-day. 



DISCUSSION OX DR. ADLER'S PAPER. 



Dr. Gardiner of Middletowu came immediately to tho 

 rescue of the inspirational theory ; but his good taste 

 prevented him from precipitating a theological discus- 

 sion. He simply rose in protest, aud said he supposed 

 that to take any view opposed to this would be to take 

 theological grounds, which would be out of place. He 

 supposed Prof. Adler had meant to present this view 

 not as the prevailing view of German thinkers, but aa 

 the view of some. 



Prof. Adler by no means wished to say that that was 

 the generally received opinion in Germany; but it is 

 the received opinion among the majority of writers, if 



