The latest German book in the reactionary movement against rationalistic criticism is that of Dr. Fritz Hommel, professor of Semitic languages at the University of Munich. Its full title is "The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as Illustrated by the Monuments. A Protest against the Modern School of Criticism." It was published simultaneously in Germany, Great Britain and America. [212] The British edition was issued in London by the "Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge," and the American in New York by E. & J. B. Young & Co., Cooper Union, Fourth Avenue. We received our copy through the courtesy of the Robert Clark Co., Cincinnati. It is a 12mo. pp. xvi, 350.

      Professor Hommel is an acknowledged authority in Semitic languages and in archæology. He ranks as such in Germany very much as Professor Sayce does in England. Professor Cheyne, in some discussions which he has held with him, treats him with respectful deference.

      In his preface the author approaches a statement of the chief design of his work by saying:

      For years past I have been convinced that the question of the authenticity of the ancient Hebrew tradition could not be finally decided until the Hebrew personal names found in the Old Testament had first been exhaustively compared with other contemporary names of similar formation, and carefully checked by them; that all that was needed was the hand of an expert to disclose the treasures hitherto concealed in them, and to set forth the evidence they contain in such clear and convincing fashion as to render all further discussion impossible.

      He then mentions an effort in this direction made twenty-one years ago by Eberhard Nestle, in which he divided Hebrew names into three classes. First, those compounded with El (God); second, those belonging to the period between Joshua and Solomon (or Elijah), in which the divine name Yahveh comes to occupy a favored place with El, the name of the Canaanite deity Baal (Lord) being subsequently added; and, lastly, the names of the monarchical period, containing, almost without exception, the element Yahveh (Yo, Yahu or Yah), and thus bearing witness to the permanent victory of Yahveh over Baal. He then says that "this attempt of Nestle's might have found acceptance as a [213] solution of the Pentateuchal problem, had not Wellhausen roundly asserted that the personal names of the Mosaic period to be found in the priestly code had been deliberately manufactured in later times after an earlier pattern, and that their testimony was consequently worthless." The issue thus made by Wellhausen, demanding proof of Nestle's theory, moved our author, in part, to his present undertaking. He says:

      One of the main objects, therefore, which I have kept before me in writing the present book, has been to adduce external evidence (i. e., from contemporary inscriptions) to show that even from the time of Abraham onwards personal names of the characteristically Mosaic type were in actual use among a section of the Semites of western Asia, and that it is consequently useless to talk any longer of a later post-exilic invention. On the contrary, the theory of their evolution put forward by Nestle is confirmed and corroborated in every direction.

      I think that any man who will read the book through, unless his mind is set against evidence, must see that the author has established this contention by evidence thoroughly convincing and superabundant. The inscriptions on which he chiefly relies are those found recently in Tel-el-Amarna in Egypt, at Lachish in Palestine, and at Tel Sifr in southern Babylonia, though he makes use also of those recently discovered by Glaser in South Arabia. These documents belong to a period at and before the time of Abraham, and they promise, when fully deciphered, to give us a new history of the world in that remote period in which the Book of Genesis was, until lately, our only authority. Of the value of these documents and the importance of studying them more thoroughly, our author says:

      The monuments speak with no faltering tongue, and already seem to see signs of the approach of a new era, in which men will be able to brush aside the cobweb theories of the so-called [214] "higher critics" of the Pentateuch, and, leaving such old-fashioned errors behind them, attain to a clear perception of the real facts.

      Again he says:

      I take this opportunity of urging the younger school of Old Testament theologians to abandon their barren speculations in regard to the source of this or that fraction of a verse, and rather to devote their youthful energies to the far more profitable study of the Assyro-Babylonian and South Arabian inscriptions, in order that they may be able, at first hand, to place the output of these absolutely inexhaustible mines of knowledge at the service of Biblical students. . . . There are hundreds of contract tablets of the time of Abraham, any one of which may contain some interesting find.

      One of the most surprising results already attained by these investigations is the outline which they furnish of the new ancient history just alluded to. Heretofore our whole knowledge of the world's history between the flood and the death of Abraham has been confined to the personal history of that patriarch, together with the ethnographical tables in the tenth chapter of Genesis. Now, it is well known that conquerors from southern Arabia had overrun the valley of the Euphrates about the time of Abraham's birth, and established a kingdom there which lasted more than a hundred years. The names of the successive kings, together with some of their achievements, are preserved. It is also known that an Elamite I kingdom was established there, and that it had subdued all the region west of the Euphrates as far as the Mediterranean Sea and the border of Egypt. These invasions brought the literature and civilization of Babylonia into Canaan, and the cuneiform writing of Babylon became the medium of written communication between the nations of the West. This and much more having been ascertained from the merest fragments of [215] these disinterred documents, that which will be known when thousands of others shall have been exhumed and deciphered may surpass the present dreams of the most enthusiastic archæologists. It certainly offers aspiring scholars a most enticing field of investigation. The newly discovered gold mines of Alaska are not half so inspiring to those who seek the world's greatest good. Professor Hommel's book makes a great advance upon all that has been written before upon these new discoveries.

      It is impossible in this article to set forth intelligibly the many refutations of recent critical theories respecting the Pentateuch, in which this book abounds. For a knowledge of them I must refer the reader to the book itself, and I earnestly advise all who are paying any attention to the subject to read it at once. But I must not refrain from showing how completely the "higher critics" have been silenced in regard to the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. In 1869, Theodar Noldeke set forth the theory that this chapter was a "fantastic grouping together of names, which either belonged to some remote period, or were expressly invented for the occasion;" and from that time this class of critics have re-echoed the same view. As late as 1889 Wellhausen wrote as follows:

      Noldeke's criticism remains unshaken and unanswerable; that four kings from the Persian Gulf should, "in the time of Abraham," have made an incursion into the Sinaitic peninsula, that they should on this occasion have attacked five kinglets on the Dead Sea littoral and have carried them off prisoners, and finally that Abraham should have set out in pursuit of the retreating victors, accompanied by 318 men-servants, and have forced them to disgorge their prey--all these incidents are sheer impossibilities, which gain nothing in credibility from the fact that they are placed in a world which has passed away.--Hommel, pp. 159, 198. [216]

      This was written only eight years ago, yet within that short time it has been demonstrated that the most of these incidents, instead of being "sheer impossibilities," are established facts of history. That a mighty despot whose name corresponds to Chedorlaomer then ruled over Elam (afterward called Persia), and that he had conquered the West as far as the Mediterranean, is not now denied; for abundant inscriptions attest the fact. That Eri-Akn (Arioch) was then in possession of Ur, Abraham's birthplace; that Amrophel was king of Shinar and ruled over Haran, the second home of Abraham, and that Tidal (Tudkhul in his own tongue) was also a contemporary king, are equally well established; and seeing that these main facts of the narrative are historical realities, the admission of them by the "critics" is, in the words of Professor Hommel, "to cut the ground away from under their own feet."

      While all this, and very much more, is set forth in Professor Hommel's book, he is still a rather free critic himself. He is only a little more than half-way converted to full faith in the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and he still concedes much to the class of critics whom he antagonizes. The editor of the Expository Times, in a review of the book, makes use of this fact to nullify in some degree the force of his contention; but its true bearing is in the opposite direction, for the fact that Hommel is himself a free critic makes all the more significant his thorough refutation of his fellow-critics on the points of criticism which he assails. The light which has broken upon his mind, and which he so strongly flashes back into the minds of others, must inevitably affect all others who are not proof against conviction; and as the still unexplored treasures of knowledge which he so earnestly exhorts young theologians to investigate, [217] shall yield up their secrets, both his own mind and those of his present antagonists must follow whither the new light shall lead them.

[SEBC 212-218]