only to see the departing form of God, and it is represented that it would be death to see God's face. In Deuteronomy it is said that the voice of God was heard, but His form was not seen. In the priestly document it is the light and fire of the glory of God which always constitutes the theophany. How was it possible for the same author to give four such different accounts of the methods of God's appearance to Moses and the people ?1

1

(b) There is a difference in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit between Isaiah and the great prophet of the exile.

The doctrine of the Divine Spirit in Isaiah is still the ancient doctrine, which conceives of it as an energy of God coming especially on heroic leaders of the people. It was to be poured upon the Messianic King to endow him with the sevenfold endowment for his reign of peace, Is. 112; and without guidance by the Divine Spirit apostate children add sin to sin, 301; but in the Great Unknown the doctrine reaches a height which has no parallel except in the late 139th Psalm. The Divine Spirit endows the Messianic Servant in 421, 61', and will revive the nation, 443; it accompanies the ministry of the prophets, 4816. But in Chapter 6310 the Spirit is named the Holy Spirit, an epithet used elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Ps. 5113. It is personified beyond any other passage in the Old Testament. It is represented that He was grieved by the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness, that He led them in their journeys to the Holy Land, and that He was in the midst of them. Thus the Holy Spirit is assigned the work of the theophanic angel of the historical narrative of JE, and especially as bearing with Him the Divine face or presence as in the document J. The Holy Spirit is associated with the theophanic angel here, just as in the Book of Wisdom, Proverbs, first chapter, the Divine Spirit and the Divine Wisdom are associated. This conception of the Divine Spirit shows a marked advance, not only beyond Isaiah, but also beyond Ezekiel.2

(c) In the book of Revelation there are different and distinct conceptions of the Messiah in the several apocalypses. The earliest of the apocalypses seems to me to be the Apocalypse of the Beasts, which presents the conception of the Messiah of Ps. 110, and which seems to have been composed in the reign of Caligula. The second of the apocalypses was the Apocalypse of the Dragon, which cannot be much later in time. It presents the Messiah of Ps. 2. These apocalypses were possibly combined before they

1 Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 146, 147. 2 The Defence of Professor Briggs, before the Presb. of New York, 1893, p. 139.

were incorporated with the apocalypses of the Sevens. But I cannot see any decided evidence of it. The earliest of the apocalypses of the Sevens seems to be that of the Trumpets, whose Messiah is the Son of Man on the clouds of the apocalypses of Daniel and Enoch. I do not see any clear evidence of date. The next of these was the Apocalypse of the Seals. The Messiah of this Vision is the Lion of Judah, and the Lamb who purchased men by his blood. The Apocalypse of the Bowls presupposes both the Apocalypse of the Trumpets and the Apocalypse of the Seals, and must be somewhat later. Its Messiah is the Lamb, but especially as the husband of the Holy City, his bride. In its original form it seems to date from the reign of Galba.1

IV. THE EVIDENCE FROM CITATIONS

Citations show the dependence of the author upon the author or authors cited. A few examples will suffice:

26-28

(a) In the Psalter Pss. 3526-28, 4014-18, 70 are essentially the same. The problem is to arrange these Psalms in their order of dependence by citation. Psalm 35 has in its title simply "belonging to David"; that is, it was in the original Minor Davidic Psalter. Psalm 40 besides "belonging to David" is classed as a Mizmor,3 and was in the Director's Major Psalter. Psalm 70 has "belonging to David," was in the Director's Psalter, and besides has a liturgical assignment. From these circumstances the probabilities are in favour of the order 35, 40, 70. Psalm 35 is composed of seven strophes of five pentameter lines each. Verses constitute the last of these strophes. Psalm 4014-18 has an additional line at the beginning and two concluding lines, making thus the last seven lines of a strophe of ten pentameter lines. Psalm 70 is equivalent to Ps. 401+18. There can be no doubt that Ps. 70 is a liturgical extract from Ps. 40. It is possible to think that Ps. 356-28 might be a liturgical addition. But its originality is favoured by the fact that the language, style, and spirit of this strophe are similar to those of the opening strophe of the Psalm. There is, however, an awkward break, and the transition is not easy between Ps. 4013 and 401. These considerations favour the order 35, 40, 70.

(b) Ruth 212 cites in the midst of the prose narrative a bit of poetry :

1 Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 1895, p. 304.

.להזכיר 4

.מזמור 3

.לדוד 2

May Yahweh recompense thy doing;

And may thy reward be ample from Yahweh,
The God of Israel to whom thou art come,
To take refuge under His wings.

The last line of this extract is from Ps. 914:

And under His wings shalt thou take refuge.

1

The exact words are found nowhere else in the Old Testament, although the idea of seeking refuge under the wings of Yahweh is a favourite idea of post-exilic psalmists. This extract from a post-exilic Psalm shows that the book of Ruth is post-exilic also.

(c) Jonah 22-9 contains a Psalm. This Psalm has two complete strophes concluding each with a refrain. These are followed by a half strophe without a refrain. This shows that the prayer is only part of a longer Psalm that was complete and symmetrical. The prayer is also a mosaic from several older Psalms." It is evident, therefore, that the Psalm of Jonah presupposes all these earlier Psalms, and that the Psalm is also presupposed by the book of Jonah, which uses only part of it. The only question which remains is whether the Psalm was originally used by the author or was a subsequent insertion. If it was used by the author, the book must have been written some time after the restoration.

(d) We have in the Gospels a large number of parallel passages. It is now agreed that both Matthew and Luke cite from the original Mark. The words of Jesus respecting His kindred may be taken as an example. The original narrative is Mk. 331-35.

"And there came his mother and his brethren, and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him. And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren (and thy sisters, well sustained A D E F H, etc., Tisch., W. H., margin) without seek for thee."

Matthew 12 gives substantially the same, but varies the order of the sentences, and the construction, and condenses. "While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. [And one said. unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee.]" This clause, bracketed by Tisch., thrown into the margin by W. H., doubtless is a later insertion in the text. Matthew interprets the object of the seeking as to "speak to him."

.חסה תחת כנפיו 1

2 Pss. 185-7, 3123, 428, 692; Dt. 3221.

Luke 819-20 also condenses:

"And there came to him his mother and brethren, and they could not come at him for the crowd. And it was told him, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee." Luke interprets the object of the desire as "to see thee," and he interprets the multitude sitting about him as "the crowd." Both Matthew and Luke omit the reference to the sisters, which probably, through their influence, disappeared from the common text of Mark also.

Mark 3 continues thus:

my

"And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my mother and brethren? And looking round on them which sat round about him, he saith:

"Behold my mother and my brethren!

For whosoever shall do the will of God,

The same is my brother and sister and mother."

This is given by Mt. 1248-50:

"But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples and said:

"Behold my mother and my brethren!

For whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven,
He is my brother and sister and mother."

This is then given by Lk. 821 in a condensed form:

"But he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it."

Matthew interprets those "round about him" as his "disciples," and substitutes for the "looking round on them" of Mark, "he stretched forth his hand towards" them. The logion is the same, except that Matthew substitutes here, as usual, "my Father which is in Heaven" for "God." Luke verifies the original as "God." Luke condenses the logion into a prose sentence, but enlarges "do the will of God" into "hear the word of God and do it," which is characteristic of Luke, but certainly was not original. In all respects the originality of Mark is assured.

V. THE EVIDENCE OF TESTIMONY

The argument from testimony is so evident, that illustrations seem to be unnecessary. In direct testimony it may suffice to refer to Jer. 2618. "Micaiah the Morashtite prophesied in the

days of Hezekiah, King of Judah, and he spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith Yahweh Sabaoth :

"Zion shall be plowed as a field,

And Jerusalem shall become heaps,

And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."

This is a direct testimony to the authorship and date and historical circumstances of Mi. 312. It is seldom that we have such direct testimony. Usually when there is any testimony, it is indirect, as in 2 Pet. 316, where there is an equivocal reference to the epistles of Saint Paul.

VI. THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE

The argument from silence is of great importance in the Higher Criticism of Holy Scripture. The first thing to determine in reference to this argument, is whether the matter in question came fairly within the scope of the author's argument. 1

author's scope, because There is an absolute

1. Sometimes the matter did not come within the author's scope at all. He had no occasion to refer to it, and therefore no evidence can be gained from his silence. The author of the Praise of Wisdom, Prov. 1-9, does not refer to the institutions of the priest code. He had no occasion to do so. His purpose was purely ethical, although he lived in a period when the entire system of the priest code was in full operation. 2. The matter did not come within the there were good reasons why it should not. silence in all the Ephraimitic and Judaic writers and prophets prior to Jeremiah as to any wrong in the worshipping of Yahweh on many high places. They constantly mention this worship, never censure it, but allude to it as the proper worship, not only of the people but of the prophets and heroes of the nation. This kind of worship must have had something about it which prevented them from censuring it. It must have been right and proper, and they knew of no legislation against it.

1 See pp. 102 seq.