ture of orthodox scriptural interpretation, some of them
gaining the applause of the Christian world then, though nearly all
are utterly discredited now. But in 1753 appeared two contributions
of permanent influence, though differing vastly in value. In the
comparative estimate of these two works the world has seen a remarkable
reversal of public opinion.

The first of these was Bishop Lowth's Prelections upon the Sacred Poetry
of the Hebrews. In this was well brought out that characteristic of
Hebrew poetry to which it owes so much of its peculiar charm--its
parallelism.

The second of these books was Astruc's Conjectures on the Original
Memoirs which Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis. In this
was for the first time clearly revealed the fact that, amid various
fragments of old writings, at least two main narratives enter into the
composition of Genesis; that in the first of these is generally used as
an appellation of the Almighty the word "Elohim," and in the second the
word "Yahveh" (Jehovah); that each narrative has characteristics of its
own, in thought and expression, which distinguish it from the other;
that, by separating these, two clear and distinct narratives may be
obtained, each consistent with itself, and that thus, and thus alone,
can be explained the repetitions, discrepancies, and contradictions in
Genesis which so long baffled the ingenuity of commentators, especially
the two accounts of the creation, so utterly inconsistent with each
other.

Interesting as was Lowth's book, this work by Astruc was, as the
thinking world now acknowledges, infinitely more important; it was,
indeed, the most valuable single contribution ever made to biblical
study. But such was not the judgment of the world THEN. While Lowth's
book was covered with honour and its author promoted from the bishopric
of St. David's to that of London, and even offered the primacy,
Astruc and his book were covered with reproach. Though, as an orthodox
Catholic, he had mainly desired to reassert the authorship of Moses
against the argument of Spinoza, he received no thanks on that account.
Theologians of all creeds sneered at him as a doctor of medicine who had
blundered beyond his province; his fellow-Catholics in France bitterly
denounced him as a heretic; and in Germany the great Protestant
theologian, Michaelis, who had edited and exalted Lowth's work, poured
contempt over Astruc as an ignoramus.

The case of Astruc is one o