PRINCIPLES OF THE CEITICiSM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 237 



divine names, as to render its value questionable for the pur- 

 pose of distinguishing the Jehovistic and Elohistic sources. 

 Even Dr. Skinner admits {Expositor for April, p. 291) that 

 " there are obvious reasons why an attitude of defensive silence 

 cannot be indefinitely prolonged. We must frankly acknowledge 

 that the trustworthiness of the Hebrew text in its transmission 

 of the divine names calls for more thorough investigation than 

 it has yet received at the hand of scholars." He adds that 

 " whether the impulse to that investigation, comes from one side 

 of the controversy or the other is, or ought to be, a matter "of 

 indifference ; provided the question is raised in a judicial and 

 scholarly manner, it is right and proper that it should be 

 examined. It may be a regrettable circumstance that the 

 initiative has been left to opponents of the critical position ; 

 but they at least need not complain if the advantage of the attack 

 has fallen to them." It ought, indeed, to be regarded by the 

 critics as a matter for regret that this initiative has been left to 

 their opponents. They have been building theories on the basis 

 of the now questioned text for a generation, and it was surely 

 their own first business to be sure that their foundation was a 

 solid one. We now have the confession that the critical theories 

 of a century past have been built up on a basis wdiich, in a vital 

 point, has never been critically examined. The whole con- 

 struction started from the use of the divine names in the Hebrew 

 text, and it never occurred to the leading critics to inquire 

 whether that text, as we now have it, represented the original 

 correctly in this point. It was perfectly well known that other 

 parts of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, afford 

 instances of an Elohistic revision of Jehovistic texts ; or in other 

 words that for some reason, not now clear, the name of Elohim 

 was substituted for Jehovah in transcription, if not in redaction. 

 Yet no member of the dominant critical school thought of asking 

 whether the Elohistic and Jehovistic variations in the Pentateuch 

 might not be due to some similar cause, instead of to the existence 

 of distinct documents or authors. I cannot but say it seems to me 

 an omission which goes very far to discredit the method and spirit 

 of the whole critical process. It looks hke an eminent example of 

 the formation of a hasty hypothesis on an incomplete observa- 

 tion of the facts, and a tardy and reluctant attention to the new 

 facts when it could no longer be avoided. It would seem 

 that the critics have been as sure of their theories as the 

 Ptolemaic astronomers were of their " Cycles and Epicycles," and 

 did not think it worth while to look more closely into any 

 circumstances alleged to be inconsistent with them. 



