(e) Post-Reformation Period, 1600-1750.—This was the age of scholastic theology and of the rigid doctrine of verbal inspiration, making the OT infallible, not only in religious truth but in all allusions to other matters, such as those of natural science and history. In the Lutheran and Re- formed Churches, also, the failure of the previous period to grasp fully the poe. of Divine revela- tion was generally heightened. Proof texts of Christian doctrine were drawn almost as readily from the OT as the NT. The federal theology of Cocceius (+ 1669), in which were distinguished two covenants, one before the Fall and one after, and three dispensations, one before the Law, one under the Law, and one under the Gospel, marks an advance, furnishing the germ of a Biblical theology ; yet the apprehension of the historic ee of Divine revelation was so slight that Witsius (+1677), a follower of Cocceius, held in effect that the traditional exposition of the OT was revealed to our first parents and transmitted by them to their posterity (Hconomia Faderum, iv. 1. 26). Such views extensively prevailed, and led to typical interpretations, differing little from the allegorical. An exception to this tendency, how- ever, appeared in a few Arminian scholars, espe- cially Grotius (+1645), who laid stress upon his- torical exegesis. English Puritan divines excelled also in the practical exposition of the OT during this period, and gave principles leading to a historic understanding of the OT, which unhappily were repressed (see Briggs, op. cit. pp. 459-469).
(7) Period of Modern Criticism, 1750-1900.—The Reformers receiving the Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews, accepted also their tradition concerning their character and authorship. The Pentateuch was written by Moses, the other books by the persons whose names they bear, or when this was excluded by their contents, as in 1 and 2 S, or the terminus ad quem, then by other OT persons contemporary with the events described (Jeremiah, for example, was regarded as the author of 1 and 2K, and Ezra of land2Ch). OT narratives were also regarded as entirely historical and without error. Only a
OLD TESTAMENT
slight questioning was heard at this time. Carl- stadt d 1541) held that Moses did not write the Pentateuch ; and Luther, perhaps in reference to the opinion of Carlstadt, said, ‘ W hat difference did it make if Moses had not written the Pentateuch?’. Calvin in his refusal to accept Joshua as the author of the Bk. of Joshua, and in his assignment of Ps 44 and 74 to the Maccabean period, and the Bk. of Malachi to Ezra, showed the same spirit. But the interest of the Reformers was in other direc- tions, in defending the authority of the Bible spenee that of ecclesiastical tradition, in framing Christian doctrine, and in developing Christian life. The post-Reformation period, with its high doctrine of inspiration, repressed critical study and freedom of thought within the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. The critical movement commenced among non-Protestant and unbelieving scholars. Peyrere (+ 1676) a French Catholic, Spinoza (+ 1677) the Jewish philosopher, and Hobbes (+ 1679) the English deist, all denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the ground of passages showing a later date(see art. HEXATEUCH). Masius(t+ 1573), a Roman Catholic, had also recognized these pas- sages as non-Mosaic. Simon (+1712), a Roman Catholic, sometimes called the father of OT In- troduction, held to a diversity of authorship within the Pentateuch. The influence of Engliah deists, who rejected the received Christian views respect- ing the inspiration of the OT and its history, morality, and prophecy, was also felt in Germany. But modern OT study or criticism is really a phase of the intellectual movement of the 18th cent., which has created modern science in all depart- ments of learning. Under this movement the OT began to be studied as literature. Herder (+ 1803) was a pioneer in this direction, to which also the discoveries of Bishop Lowth in regard to the struc- ture of Hebrew poetry contributed (see above). Semler (+ 1791) introduced historical interpretation, and Astruc (+ 1766) in distin ishing the documents in Genesis by their use of the Divine names made a beginning of the scientific investigation of the Pentateuch. But more than all others, Eichhorn (+ 1827), who, independently of Astruc, discovered the documents in ES exerted a wide influence in favour of the literary study of the OT. His results in analysis are remarkably near those received at the present time. He introduced the term ‘Higher Criticism,’ saying—
*f am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the internal condition of the particular writings of the OT by the help of the Higher Criticiam (a new name to no humanist).'—Hint.*, 1787, Preface.
Geddes (+ 1802), a Scotchman and Rom. Catholic, held that the Pentateuch was a compilation of documents, pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and post-Mosaic— ye, gre hypothesis, yet a real advance ; so Vater (+1826) and Hartmann (+1838). The Bk. of Joshua was recognized as a part of the Pentateuch, hence the notion of the Hexateuch. The fragmentary hypothesis contradicting the evi- dent unity of the Hexateuch was shown iy Ewald
(+ 1875) to be untenable, and the supplementary took its place, presented in various forms by de
Wette (+1849), Bleek (+1859), Sti&ihelin (+1875), Knobel (+1863), and others. The general agree- ment was that the Hexateuch was composed of the Elohistic, the oldest document, written by a priest of the llth or 10th cent. B.C., containing also yenuine Mosaic legislation, supplemented by the Jehovistic writer and then again by the author of Dt (of the 7th cent. B.c.), who possibly was the compiler of the Hexateuch. upfeld (t+ 1866) showed that the Elohistic source was not a unity, but made up of a eta legal part P and a narrative prophetic part (igen, + 1834, had pointed this out, but his discovery had been dis-