IN undertaking to give our readers a notice of this work in the few pages that can be devoted to it, we find ourselves in great difficulty. So many questions are treated, so many important principles are discussed, such vast variety of topics is introduced by these two volumes, that the reviewer in despair is tempted to copy the table of contents, and end with saying, that a perusal of the book will reward all those who prize affluence of learning or independence of thought. We cannot even enumerate the number of controverted points, which author and translator endeavor to settle. Much less can we review their arguments or enter fully into the merits of any of their leading doctrines. A few words upon the author and the translator, upon the aim of the work and its principal features, must suffice for the present.

As a theologian and moralist De Wette is well known to our readers, and little need be said of him in these respects. Mr. Parker has been first to introduce him to us as a biblical critic; a character in which he stands higher in Germany than as theologian or moralist. In a letter to the writer of this notice, the author allows, that his dogmatic theological works have had no remarkable influence upon his countrymen, both on account of the middle ground which he occupies between the dominant parties, the orthodox party of Tholuck and others, and the rationalist party of Strauss and his school; and on account of the Friesian philosophy which so often appears in his views of religion. These causes have not interfered with the success of the work before us. It is his most successful labor, and has already reached the fifth edition. It is purely a literary effort, and does not pretend to advocate any particular dogmas in philosophy or theology.

De Wette's labors began with the investigation of the Old Testament. As early as the age of twenty-five, he published a dissertation on Deuteronomy, which shows that he had then begun the train of thought, which is so fully carried out in this Introduction. The next two years he published two volumes upon the Pentateuch, and thereby divided with Vater the reputation of originality in this department of criticism. The matured results of his critical labors appear in the present

volumes. His Introduction to the Old Testament came out in 1817, when the author had attained the age of thirty-seven, and it reached the fifth edition in 1840. It has been revised by him with the light of all recent labors in the same department, so that it now is a treasury of knowledge on the subject. When we remember, that he has also put forth a work on Jewish Antiquities, and a new Translation of the entire Old Testament, besides writing much upon the doctrines and ethics of that ancient volume, we cannot but look with respect upon this effort to introduce to us the literature of the chosen people of God.

They who open these volumes, expecting to find the rich fancy and copious illustration of Herder, will be sadly disappointed. On that very account, however, they ought to honor the author, since his fancy is prone to be even too exuberant, and he must often have made a sacrifice in preferring the duty of the critic to the impulse of the poet. His aim was to give a critical Introduction, and it is precisely this that he has done. No man can, even in the driest critical. labors, hide his predominant tastes and opinions; and we cannot but allow that, under the severe mantle of the critic, we may detect the free step of the liberal Christian and the buoyancy of a poetic soul. We should be sorry, however, to have no other assurance of his evangelical faith than what he has here given us. They, who are familiar with his recent expositions of the New Testament, will not be in any danger of confounding him with Strauss and other deniers of our Savior's divine mission.

Mr. Parker has given great labor to his enterprise. His translation is very idiomatic English, and, so far as we have compared it, faithful to the spirit of the original. In some cases, however, the rhetoric is rather more characteristic of the translator than the author. The additions to De Wette's text are so many as often to raise the doubt, whether the title is not a misnomer, and the translator's name should not stand side by side with the author's. The title originally designed would have been more appropriate Introduction to the Old Testament on the basis of De Wette. If all the additional matter had been inserted in notes or an appendix, it would have been more appropriate. It is taking great liberties with an author to interpolate his work, add whole sections and enlarge others, and sometimes oppose, in one section, the doctrine maintained in

the previous one. Every author should have the privilege of fixing the proportions of his own work, and the translator should beware of interfering with his plan, although with the purpose of improving it. Yet Mr. Parker has made the work much more valuable by his additions. His references to the labors of English critics, his quotations from distinguished German scholars, and the philological information gathered into the appendix of the first volume, should entitle him to the thanks of every American student. Although holding opinions in which few of us can follow him, we should respect the spirit which seems to have guided these labors. He carries himself with the diguity becoming a scholar, and leads us to hope that he will cease to pain the religious community, by the tone of his remarks upon doctrines and institutions dear to them. Only in an occasional note a little of the old spirit breaks out. May it be permanently exorcised. The words of his preface incline us to believe, that deeper wisdom and experience have brought to him deeper humility. "It is but fair to suppose," he says, "that in a work so large and so difficult, I have made mistakes. These I leave for the critic's sagacity to discover, and for his kindness to excuse; hoping that he will remember how often the spirit is willing, while the flesh is weak; and while he exposes my errors, will do it in candor, and with only the love of truth." The reader should ask no more and accord no less. In looking over the pages of the work itself, the reader's first feeling must be one of disappointment. The subjects, which he expects to see handled with a master's skill, are hardly touched upon. The character of the ancient covenant, the divine authority of the Law, the divine mission of the Prophets, the purpose of Providence in the singular discipline of the Jewish race, the distinction between the temporary and lasting elements. in the Old Testament, between the words of man and the word of God, the bearing of Judaism upon Christianity, and the reflex light of the Gospel upon the Law; these are topics. upon which the philosopher and theologian are most curious to be informed, but upon which the author has very little to say. His aim is entirely critical, or to use his own word, historicocritical. He distinguishes the aim of this department from that of other departments of biblical study, from biblical history, archæology, geography, chronology, and hermeneutics. He considers first the Bible collection in general, then gives a general introduction to the canonical books of the Old Testament, 3D S. VOL. XVII. NO. III,

VOL. XXXV.

39

and lastly, a particular introduction to each of those books. The result is, that the work is rather one of useful reference than entertaining perusal. We are inclined to think, that notwithstanding the author's careful definition of his purpose, he might have taken a wider range, without transgressing the proper limits of an introduction. It is impossible to prepare one fitly for reading a book, without making known the object of that book. An introduction to Homer should inform us of the purpose of the poem. An introduction to the Bible must. give us an idea of the aim of the sacred books. De Wette indeed mentions, that the consideration of it in a religious view, that is, according to the dogma of inspiration and revelation, belongs to dogmatic history. Yet without expressly stating his doctrinal views, he all along implies them. His omission of the dogmatic view amounts to a declaration of disregard of its dogmatic worth. One who holds a different view of the Old Testament, one who views it as a revelation of the Eternal Word, and as to be understood by a Christian sense of the plan of God, in preparing the way for the gospel, will, of course, pursue a different mode. The Churchman, who regards the ancient theocracy as in all respects established by the Almighty, and as still having authority in its main features, cannot but show his opinion in all his criticisms, and will deem every sacred book unintelligible, apart from this doctrine. He will even rest the purity of the canon upon his doctrine of Church authority. Without going so far as this, it does seem no more than just to give more prominence, than our author has done, to the leading purpose of revelation, especially in a work where the course of remark is often so conjectural, that trifling considerations are decisive, and a general principle is needed, to guard against capricious inferences. To view the several books of the Old Testament separately, and without much regard to their associate significance, is somewhat like examining the various members of the human body, without heeding the vital power that gives unity and life to all. To those of us who are disposed to value, more than De Wette, the doctrine of the unity of divine revelation, and the peculiar mission of the Jewish race, the present work must be unsatisfactory. The view of Hävernik upon the office of an introduction seems to us more correct. He affirms, in opposition to De Wette, that biblical introduction should find a scientific principle and development in itself. Yet we ought, on many accounts, to be glad that we have now a

work of reference, that aims merely to be a treasury of critical information, without busying itself with the more ambitious inquiries into the purport of revelation, and the nature of religious inspiration.

ets.

The first question that people ask, when a new work on the Old Testament comes forth, is, what does it say of the miracles of the ancient faith; what authority does it give to the record as a supernatural revelation? Upon this subject the translator is more explicit than the author, since the latter does not affirm, whilst the former seems to deny any miraculous interpositions of God. De Wette treats of the several books under the three heads, theocratical-historical, theocratical-inspired, and poetic books. The first two heads comprise the Law and the ProphWithout undertaking to decide dogmatically upon the truth of the miraculous sanctions of the Law, or the supernatural illumination of the Prophets, he holds these subjects up in such a light, as to leave us in little doubt, regarding his opinions. He states, that every cultivated mind must at least have some doubt of the Mosaic miracles, and refers them to early tradition, without pretending to judge critically of the grounds of each tradition. He looks upon the theocracy as an established power, ascribes to its officers or members the authorship of the Mosaic books, without entering into minute discussion of the authority of the theocracy. His use of the word Mythology, in reference to the Old Testament miracles, hardly admits of the broad significance, which the translator seems to place upon it; and by no means amounts to a denial of original fact, as the basis of tradition.

As the most important points that are treated, the author's view of the Pentateuch and the Prophets demands our attention. He regards the Pentateuch as the theocratical epic poem of the Israelites, without denying that there is an historical basis at the bottom. He does not ascribe the authorship to Moses, nor any one writer, but to various compilers. He follows out the path of criticism begun by Eichhorn, and separates the document in which God is spoken of as Elohim, and that in which he is called Jehovah. He ascribes the authorship of the Elobistic document to some writer in the time of Samuel or Saul, that is, about four hundred years after Moses. He sees traces in the Jehovistic document of an age after David. He assigns the work of the final compiler, the authorship of the book of Deuteronomy, to a period still later, after Solomon, to