352 LECTURES AND ESSAYS [1874- 



prediction. The lofty character of the moral and religious 

 doctrine of the prophets is not (says Kuenen) a specific 

 mark of supernatural origin. The Old Testament literature 

 may be proved to be loftier in point of faith and ethics 

 than any other ancient writings, but such a difference in 

 degree will not constitute a difference of kind. Therefore, 

 says Kuenen, we will, with the consent of the supernatural- 

 ists themselves, take the predictions as our touch-stone. 

 Well, he analyses a vast mass of predictions, and shows 

 that many of them, referring partly to Israel, partly to 

 other nations, have not been fulfilled ; of course, since the 

 proposed test is empirical, he means not literally fulfilled. 

 Next, he tries to show that the fulfilled predictions are 

 not conclusive for the supernaturalistic view, while the 

 unfulfilled ones absolutely exclude it. How, then, shall 

 we explain the fact that the prophets claim to speak the 

 Word of Jahveh ? The explanation lies in the fact, that 

 the Word so spoken consists of inferences from the moral 

 character of Jahveh. The predictions flowed from 

 religious conviction. This source of the prophetic word 

 is the characteristic of true prophecy, earnestness and 

 warmth of religious and moral conviction, that is the main 

 point. That is what constitutes the true prophet, for 

 that is what accounts for the courage and freedom with 

 which he appears as the interpreter of Jahveh. The 

 rank of each prophet is to be measured by the degree of 

 inwardness and purity which we ascribe to his religious 

 faith. In vain do we seek another criterion (ii. 103). 



I give here the mere outline of Kuenen s method. 

 For our present purpose it is really not worth while to 

 ask whether there are not flaws in the details of his 

 argument, whether he has treated individual predictions 

 fairly, and so forth. If we did go into details, we should 

 no doubt have to differ from him on many points, as we 

 have already found him in error on so notable a point 

 as the question of the uniqueness of the prophetic con 

 sciousness. But grant the justice of his method of 



