# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1898_S104
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

104 Wissenschaften und Glaubensartikel.

It seems but common equity that we, who stand outside the
learned world, and who find operations in progress, which are often
declared to have destroyed the authority of these ancient books,
should be supplied, as far as may be, with available means of
rationally judging the nature and grounds of the impeachment.
And mit is unfortunate that this has béeen little thought of.“

S. 210: „Almost any representation of their views may be
either supported or contradicted by citing particular expressions
krom their works. All we can do is to dive as best we may into
their conception of what Wellbhausen singularly calls the secrets
of his art.“

S. 208: „There is a later work of Wellhausen's („Die Compo—
sition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher.“ Berlin, 1889.) which
minutely subdivides the Books into smaller portions, and refers
these to their different authors, with a self-reliance which appears
to be remarkable, but of which Lam not a fit judge. Imay ob-
serve, however, that this work has neither introduction nor con—
clusion, neither index nor table of contents, and that it resembles
rather the promiscuous gatherings of a note-book, or rather, of two
note-books crossing one another, discharged bodily into a printing-
Office, than a work of regular or scientific criticism. Lmust add
that in certain cases, where the unity of the text is disputed upon
grounds alike cognizable byeus all, I find the conclusions of the
author as disputable as they are consident. In other instances,
numerous enougb, assertions are made, as if they were oracles,
without the slightest explanation, or any indication of their
grounds. Examples of these methods may beé found in the criti-
cisms on Genesis (Pp. 7), and in the contradiction alleged to exist
in the general accounts of Caleb and Joshua (Num. 32, 5 and
Deut. 1, 32—38).“

Das Zeugniß dieser Kritiker stimmt aber auch nicht überein. Es herr—
schen die größten Meinungsverschiedenheiten. Die verschiedenen Theorien
bekämpfen sich unter einander. Hören wir auch hier zunächst eine Aus—
sprache Gladstones, der sich in seinen Mußestunden viel mit diesen Fragen
abgegeben hat: Speéaking at large, évery imaginable difference has
prevailed among the critics themselves as to the source, date, and
authorshipa of the books.'' (A. a. O., S. 205.) Reichliche Belege im
Einzelnen hierfür findet man in Keil: „Hist.-kritische Einleitung in das
A. T.“ Z. B. §23: die sich einander bekämpfenden Urkunden-Fragmenten⸗
und Ergänzungshypothesen in Bezug auf den Pentateuch; § 66: „so herrscht
doch in Bezug auf die Abfassungszeit der einzelnen Stücke — Jes. IXII
— die größte Meinungsverschiedenheit“; § 67, V: „Die Echtheit der länge—
ren Weissagung (Jes.) Cap. XXIVXXVIIIist . . . wegen ihres Inhalts