popularly ascribed to Ezra in connection with the formal closing of the canon, it is not going too far to say that there is really no evidence worthy of the name to support his claims. Jewish legends so late as to be wholly untrustworthy, popular assumption, uncritical speculation-all these, reinforced by human indolence, have combined hitherto to maintain a position which the first breath of independent inquiry scatters to the winds. The Jews would seem to have acted upon the principle of ascribing almost everything to Ezra which even they found it impossible to ascribe to Moses. Hence arose the tradition, which passed over into the Christian Church, and found wide acceptance for many centuries, that Ezra rewrote by inspiration the whole of the books of the Old Testament, which had been destroyed by the Chaldeans. Excursus A of Professor Ryle's book, which discusses these Jewish traditions, supplies material for reflection. We see how utterly uncritical was the age when these notions originated, and with what unquestioning faith the writers of each succeeding age received them from their predecessors. At length, however, this monstrous notion about Ezra was discredited, and the rôle he had played was assumed by "the Men of the Great Synagogue." Now it is more than doubtful whether such an institution ever existed, and it is only fair to say that whatever functions Jewish tradition of the third century attributed to its members, we never find it claimed for them any part in the completing of the canon. That expansion of the legend was reserved for a Jewish contemporary of Luther, Elias Levita, who, in the year 1538, published his Massoreth Hammasoreth, in which he contends that the work of collecting and editing the Scriptures of the Old Testament was performed by the "Men of the Great Synagogue." It is upon foundations no more substantial than these that the traditional view rests. This is coming nowadays to be more generally known, and there are tokens that the phantoms conjured up by medieval Judaism will cease ere long to haunt the walks of canonical research. In the absence of external evidence as to the steps by which the canon was formed, we are thrown back upon the evidence of the books themselves. "Scripture must tell its own tale." And let it not be imagined that an inquiry of this kind is hazardously subjective, and can lead only to doubtful conclusions. Critics of all schools are now approaching agreement on all

the main positions.

Professor Davidson has re

marked in the Expositor for July how Buhl and Ryle, working quite independently of one another, have deduced results that are virtually identical. Is this not a presumption in favour of the general trustworthiness of their conclusions ?

In proceeding to the constructive part of his work, Professor Ryle gives us an excellent chapter on the "Preparations for a Canon." Several principles must be noted here which are frequently overlooked. For instance, we must not identify the time when a book was composed with the time when it was received into the canon; nor are we to forget that the present form of a book may have behind it a long history, its main elements may have existed and been well known centuries before its final redaction. Professor Ryle also reminds us that in the canonical books of the Old Testament we have not an anthology of Jewish literature, but a selection made for religious purposes, and hence swayed by the religious contents of the books. Our author recognises three stages in the history of the component elements of the Hebrew Scriptures. These are the elemental stage, or that of the formation of the literary antecedents of the books of the Old Testament; the medial stage, or that of their redaction to their present literary form; and the final stage, that of their selection for the position of honour and sanctity in the national canon of Holy Scripture. Amongst the instances of collections of writings that existed prior to the beginnings of the canon, Professor Ryle specifies Songs, Laws, History, and Prophecy. Of Songs, we have mention in the references to the "Wars of Jahveh" and the "Book of Jashar." As to Laws, the Pentateuch in its present form presupposes many previous codes of greater or less extent. A comparison of the Decalogue of Ex. xx. with that of Deut. v. would seem to point to the existence of an earlier and shorter form of the "Ten Words." Then the "Book of the Covenant" (Ex. xx. 20-xxiii. 33) and the "Law of Holiness" (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) evidently occupied an independent position of their own before their incorporation into the Pentateuch. The same holds good of the Deuteronomic legislation, and even of the Priestly Laws, which, though of late date in their present form, must have been based on previously existing collections. The existence of Historical works is pointed to in the mention of the official scribe or "recorder," whose work is perhaps seen in the

we include the two writers of the Pentateuch, the Jahvist (J) and the Elohist (E), whose separate works were probably welded into one (J E) by the middle of the eighth century B.C. Prophecy meets us at a comparatively early stage in Israel's history. Originally the utterances of the Prophets were committed to memory; it is not till the time of Amos and Hosea that we meet with written prophecy, and even these written prophecies, although they circulated in certain quarters, were for a long time far from attaining to the position of canonical Scriptures.

The beginning of the canon took place, according to Professor Ryle, when "the Book of the Law" was found by Hilkiah in the reign of Josiah (621) B.C.). This was the first book that received general veneration, and that was accepted as authoritative by all classes, king, priests, and people. Its distinguishing feature was its popular character, it was not the priests' but the people's book. It is almost needless to say that Professor Ryle repudiates emphatically the notion of forgery or bad faith on the part of Hilkiah and his fellow-reformers. The book, which must have been substantially identical with the legislative part of our Deuteronomy, was probably composed late in the reign of Hezekiah, or early in that of Manasseh, and having disappeared during the reactionary period of the latter's reign, was bonâ fide discovered in the Temple in the reign of Josiah. The work was in a sense new, yet the substance of it was old. The legislation was for the most part of ancient date, but this was specially adapted to the times by the homiletic setting which it received. The book produced an immense sensation on its discovery, and its language continued for long to colour the style of Hebrew writers. This is specially marked in the case of Jeremiah and the author of the Books of Kings, the latter of whom finds in Deuteronomy the standard whereby to judge and to interpret the history of Israel. In spite of the reformation of Josiah, it appears, however, that this "Book of the Law" failed to gain the lasting veneration of the people before the Exile. Several causes prevented its reaching that position it ultimately gained. So long as the living voice of prophecy continued to make itself heard, many would attach more authority to this than to a written book. Moreover, as long as the Deuteronomic law-book stood alone, its readers would be conscious of

27

serious defects. It required to be supplemented on the side of history and even of legislation. Hence Ryle concludes that during the Exile this book received its definitely historical setting (Deut. i.-iv. and xxxii.-xxxiv.); that the Book of Joshua was added to it, and that about the same time a redaction of the whole Jahvist-Elohist compilation was prefixed to the Deuteronomic laws. The institution of the synagogue would help the reception of this work into public favour. Our Pentateuch was completed when the Priestly Laws were compiled, many of which had been in force for long, but with which only the priestly families had hitherto been conversant. "The Law of Holiness probably assumed its present form not long before Ezekiel, who shows an acquaintance with it. The Priestly Laws proper belong to a later period, and were not recognised as possessing co-ordinate authority with Deuteronomy so early as the return from the Exile (536 B.C.). Deuteronomy was for a considerable time the only "People's Bible.” The full Priestly Law was not popularly known in Jerusalem till the year 444 B.C., when it was promulgated by Ezra, practically in the form under which it has come down to us. It is possible that some time elapsed before it attained to such veneration as to prevent alterations or minor attempts at textual revision. Ryle fixes upon the year 432 B.C. (the probable date of the Samaritan schism) as the terminus ad quem for the conclusion of the first Hebrew canon of Scripture, which he proves conclusively to have consisted simply of the Torah (i.e. the Pentateuch).

But this collection of sacred literature was manifestly incomplete. It did not contain the works of those men who had done so much to make Israel's

history-the Prophets. "Without prophecy the law was a body without a soul." Hence the writings called Nbhiim, or "Prophets," came gradually to be set apart as canonical Scripture, although they probably never attained to the same dignity as the "Law." The history of the process is very obscure. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, compiled during the Exile, are entitled " Prophets," and doubtless gained acceptance because of the prophetic spirit and principles which underlie them all. As to the Prophets, more strictly so-called, the collection of their works may have begun in the time of Nehemiah, but their complete recognition as Scripture will scarcely have come till a century later. The terminus a quo is about 300,

the terminus ad quem 200 B.C. With canonical acceptance, "the Prophets" attained also to liturgical use, the Haphtarah or Lesson from the Prophets being now added to the Parashah or Lesson from the Law. Thus was concluded the second stage whereby the canon now contained "the Law and the Prophets."

The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (132 B.C.) refers to other writings besides the Law and the Prophets, but not in terms that justify us in concluding that its author knew the third group, the K thubhim or "Writings" in a completed form. The collecting of the works that form the third canon was probably begun during the Maccabean period. Of the writings that had escaped destruction by Antiochus, those would be selected which had exerted the greatest influence on the spirit of devout Jews during the national rising and the humiliations that preceded it. The Psalter was the first to attain to canonical recognition. In part, at least, this had been long in use as the service-book of the Temple singers, but now it was finally revised and invested with canonical authority as the hymn - book of Israel (160 B.C.). At or about the same time were added Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and very possibly Daniel. The "Antilegomena" (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther) and Chronicles obtained far more tardy admission. Professor Ryle, as the result of a searching investigation, concludes that the third canon was practically closed, with its present contents, about 105 B.C., although its contents were not officially determined till the Synod of Jamnia, about 100 A.D. Since the beginning of the second century the only modifications that have taken place have been in the order of the books of the Hagiographa (the present order is due to mediæval Jews), and the subdivision as late as the sixteenth

century of the Books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Professor Ryle contends strongly that no apocryphal works ever found a place in the Hebrew canon; Ecclesiasticus and Ist Maccabees alone enjoying such favour as perhaps to lead to an attempt in some quarters to gain for them a place in the canon, an attempt, however, which was quite without success. The handling of this question and of the relation of the Septuagint to the Hebrew canon furnish almost the only instances in the book where we should venture to question some of Professor Ryle's conclusions, and to suggest that he is unduly conservative. Few additional materials for the history of the canon are supplied by the Talmud and by early Christian writers. The position of one book, Esther, long remained doubtful. It is even omitted in the list of canonical Scriptures given by Melito of Sardis so late as 170 A.D. The closing chapter on "The Arrangement of the Books" finds confirmation of the results that have been reached, in the tripartite division "The Law," "the Prophets," and "the Writings," and in the fact that the arrangement of the "Prophets" and the "Writings" is neither chronological nor according to subject matter, a fact which is explained only when we recognise the gradual expansion of the canon.

Such are the main positions of this work, whose appearance is so opportune. Finally, we may remark that the style and tone of Professor Ryle leave nothing to be desired. The reader's interest is never allowed to flag, and we feel that we are in the hands of one whose scholarship it would be presumption to praise, whose critical research is conducted in a reverent and cautious spirit, and whose conclusions give us a higher conception of the wisdom of Him who spake to the fathers "by divers portions and in divers manners."

WE have spoken of the favourable change which has come over German theology; and something should be said of the leader in a religious revival, which was as wonderful in its kind as the one under the Wesleys in England. Schleiermacher,

who died in 1834, gave the deathblow to the dreary, sapless Rationalism which was almost universal in Germany before his day. He did this, not by any direct refutation, not by systematic teaching or vindication of orthodox doctrine, for

he was not a systematic thinker, and he was himself far enough from orthodoxy, but by showing in effect that there are more things in religion than Rationalism dreams of. His genius runs over with new ideas and new points of view, which others have turned to account. In some respects, he was not unlike our Coleridge; in others, Maurice. Every theologian since has shown signs of his influence. Orthodox writers, like Dorner and Martensen, are constantly referring to him, and are deeply imbued with his spirit. He showed others the way which he failed to follow up. Like another Moses, he led the hosts of God to the border of the Promised Land without entering it himself. In truth, his teaching is full of conflicting elements. If now he speaks like a pantheist or Arian or Sabellian, at another time he uses language about Christ as the Ideal Man and the Redeemer of men, which involves much more than he himself held, and which leads directly to the immemorial faith of the Church. One of his earliest works, Discourses on Religion, contains, in outline, the whole of his teaching. Here appears his peculiar theory that feeling is the central element in religion, intellect being quite subordinate. He would thus attach little importance to definite creeds and uniform belief. All that reason has to do is to evolve the utterances of the Christian consciousness or Christian experience. The question naturally arises, Who is to represent this consciousness, and to speak for it? His early Moravian training makes itself felt here as well as in his glowing language about the life and character of Christ. "Religion is primarily a feeling, a sentiment, an intuition; it is the sense of the Infinite. To seek and find the Infinite in all that lives and moves, in all that becomes and changes this is to be religious." While denying the miraculous conception and the personal preexistence of Christ, he asserts, strenuously, that His moral and religious elevation above all other men was a miracle. "He is the ideal type of man. What exists in each man, only in the state of idea, was realised by Him in His person. Schleiermacher cannot give a direct proof of this fact, but he shows that the contrary hypothesis is inadmissible. The life and even the existence of the Christian Church would otherwise remain an enigma."2

1 Lichtenberger, German Theology in the Nineteenth Century, p. 67.

2 Ibid. p. 153.

And as Redeemer, He imparts the same moral character to us. So he calls Christ "Divine." No less term will suffice to describe His unique person and work. No wonder that some think that Schleiermacher was more orthodox in heart than head. We are reminded of the dying words of De Wette, another leader of a very free school of thought: "This I know, that there is salvation in no other name than that of Jesus Christ the crucified, and that mankind has nothing more precious than the Divine Humanity realised in Him and the kingdom of God planted by Him." To name the disciples of Schleiermacher would be to name many leaders of different and even opposing schools during the last fifty years.

But if Schleiermacher gave the signal for the battle against Christian unbelief, those who fought the battle to a victorious issue were men of a far more positive faith, men like Hengstenberg, Neander, Ullmann, Tholuck, Harless, Müller, Ebrard, and a host besides. Hengstenberg, who may almost be called a German Pusey, was a great leader, and his voluminous works, the chief of which have appeared in English, are not altogether obsolete. Tholuck, Ullmann, Dorner, Olshausen, Keil, Philippi are also known in English. Olshausen's volumes on the New Testament are still of considerable value, combining both scholarship and devoutness. The Keil and Delitzsch series on the Old Testament is not yet superseded as a whole. It is no slight merit of such works that they deal with the original text. Too many of our best English commentaries take the Authorised Version as their guide, which they then proceed to correct at every step, a troublesome and irritating course. Philippi's Commentary on the Romans deserves, I venture to think, greater favour than it has received in this country. Intensely theological, as every great commentary on that epistle must be, it discusses the line of apostolic teaching with marvellous patience and thoroughness. The Reformation theology is ever kept in view. To those to whom Greek and Latin references are no difficulty, the work will never cease to be a treasure. Dorner has been singularly fortunate in the favour he enjoys with British students. His great works have all been translated,-his work on Christology, System of Christian Doctrine, History of Protestant Theology, and Christian Ethics, each one an opus magnum. For originality and massive strength, Dorner is

unsurpassed. His discussions of each topic in the System-the Trinity, Creation, Revelation, Sin, Christology, Atonement-are exhaustive treatises. Each doctrine is viewed under three aspectsBiblical, which is treated briefly, Ecclesiastical, and then Dogmatic, where the author reasons out his own position in masterly style. If Dorner is not easy to read, the translators must bear part of the blame.

It may be alleged that the influence of the negative school of criticism is a heavy set-off to the gain of our intercourse with Germany. I am too

little acquainted with the works of this school in detail to be able to pronounce an opinion on them; but it may be safely said that the last word will not belong to those who take extreme positions. No one questions the great ability and learning of scholars like Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, Lipsius, Schürer, etc. On the other hand, orthodox scholars are not slow to recognise the rights of criticism, or to accept established conclusions. Witness Delitzsch, Riehm, Von Orelli, Strack, Kostermann, Weiss, perhaps even Dillmann.

GENESIS ii. 4, 5.

These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth... And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.1

The negative clauses of the non-Semitic account of the creation may be regarded as corresponding roughly with the above. They are as follows:

1. The glorious house, the house of the gods, in a glorious place had not been made;

2. A plant had not been brought forth, a tree had not been created;

3. A brick had not been laid, a beam had not been shaped ;

4. A house had not been built, a city had not been constructed;

5. A city had not been made, a foundation 2 had not been made glorious;

6. Niffer had not been built, Ê-kura had not been constructed;

7. Erech had not been built, Ê-ana had not been constructed;

8. The Abyss had not been made, Êridu had not been constructed;

9. (As for) the glorious house, the house of the gods, its seat had not been made

10. The whole of the lands were sea.

1 So the R.V.

2 Or, "habitation" (nammaššū). See vol. iii. p. 410.