h him. Though deeply religious in
his nature and aspirations, he was denounced in 1865 to the Prussian
Government as guilty of irreverence; but, to the credit of his noble and
true colleagues who trod in the more orthodox paths--men like Tholuck
and Julius Muller--the theological faculty of the University of Halle
protested against this persecuting effort, and it was brought to naught.

The demonstrations of Hupfeld gave new life to biblical scholarship in
all lands. More and more clear became the evidence that throughout the
Pentateuch, and indeed in other parts of our sacred books, there had
been a fusion of various ideas, a confounding of various epochs, and a
compilation of various documents. Thus was opened a new field of thought
and work: in sifting out this literature; in rearranging it; and in
bringing it into proper connection with the history of the Jewish race
and of humanity.

Astruc and Hupfeld having thus found a key to the true character of the
"Mosaic" Scriptures, a second key was found which opened the way to the
secret of order in all this chaos. For many generations one thing had
especially puzzled commentators and given rise to masses of futile
"reconciliation": this was the patent fact that such men as Samuel,
David, Elijah, Isaiah, and indeed the whole Jewish people down to the
Exile, showed in all their utterances and actions that they were utterly
ignorant of that vast system of ceremonial law which, according to the
accounts attributed to Moses and other parts of our sacred books, was in
full force during their time and during nearly a thousand years before
the Exile. It was held "always, everywhere, and by all," that in the
Old Testament the chronological order of revelation was: first, the
law; secondly, the Psalms; thirdly, the prophets. This belief continued
unchallenged during more than two thousand years, and until after the
middle of the nineteenth century.

Yet, as far back as 1835, Vatke at Berlin had, in his Religion of the
Old Testament, expressed his conviction that this belief was unfounded.
Reasoning that Jewish thought must have been subject to the laws of
development which govern other systems, he arrived at the conclusion
that the legislation ascribed to Moses, and especially the elaborate
paraphernalia and composite ceremonies of the ritual, could not have
come into being at a period so rude as that depicted in the "Mosaic"
accounts.

Although Vatke wrapped this statement i