# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli August 1898_S220
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

220 Wie verhalten sich die geschichtlichen Angaben in den beiden

and discrepancies vanisb upon examination, being created by the
critics themselves, and due either to misinterpretation or the iden-
tification of distinet events. The divine names in repeated in-
stances fai! to correspond with the requirements of the divisive
Rypothesis, which is not néeeded to explain their alternation, since
this is most satisfactorily accounted for from their own proper sig-
nification and general biblical usage; moreover, it does not render,
and does not even pretend to render, a rational account of their
employment and distribution. The alleged diversity of diction,
Style, and conception is either altogether fictitious or is due to dif-
ferences in the subject matter and not to a diversity of writers.
The continuity and self-cConsistency of Genesis, contrasted with the
fragmentary character and mutual inconsistencies of the docu—
ments, prove that Genesis is the original of which the so-called
documents are but several parts. The röle attributed to the re-
dactor is an impossible one, and proves him to be an unreal per-
sonage. And the arguments for the late date of the documents and
for their origin in one or other of the divided kingdoms are built
upon perversions of the history or upon unproved assumptions.
What more is needed to demonstrate the utter futility of the claim
that such documents ever existed?

In the legislative portion of the Pentateuch the question turns
no longer upon literary criteria, but upon an entirely different prin-
ciple: Are the institutions and enactments of the Pentateuch the
growth of ages or the product of one age and of a single mind? It
is bheére that the battle of the Mosaic authorship must be fought.
Meanwhileée, the investigations thus far conducted justify at least a
negative conclusion. The so-called anachronisms of the Book of
Genesis have beéeen examined and nothing has beéeen found to mili-
tate against its being the work of Moses. It is plainly designed to
be introductoru to the law. And if that law was given by Moses,
as has always been believed, and as the Scriptures abundantly de-

clare, then Genesis, too, was his work.““ (S. 571 f.) L. F.

Wie verhalten sich die geschichtlichen Angaben in den beiden ersten
Capiteln des Galaterbriefes zu denen der Apostelgeschichte?

Wenn man die Berichte, welche der Apostel Paulus über einzelne That—
sachen aus der Geschichte seines Lebens in den beiden ersten Capiteln seines
köstlichen Briefes an die galatischen Gemeinden uns gibt, nur oberflächlich
vergleicht mit den Erzählungen, welche die Apostelgeschichte uns von den—
selben Vorgängen überliefert hat, so möchte es allerdings scheinen, als seien