new theories. In order to be
{68} thoroughly scientific, it must have due regard for all the facts
in the case. For convenience sake it has become customary to
distinguish four phases of Old Testament, or biblical, criticism: (1)
Textual Criticism; (2) Linguistic Criticism; (3) Literary Criticism;
and (4) Historical Criticism.

Close students of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament have been
compelled to admit that even the oldest Hebrew manuscripts now known
are not free from errors and blemishes, and it is the office of textual
criticism to remove such errors by the use of all legitimate methods
and means and to restore the _ipsissima verba_ of the author. The
presence of corruptions in the text is established by facts like these:
(1) There are passages in which the text as it stands cannot be
translated without violence to the laws of grammar, or, which are
irreconcilable with the context or with other passages. For example,
in 1 Sam. 3. 1 the Authorized Version reads, "Saul reigned one year,
and when he had reigned two years over Israel." This translation does
violence to the laws of Hebrew grammar. The Hebrew reads, literally,
"The son of a year was Saul in his reigning," which may be rendered,
"Saul was a year old when he began to reign." The narratives
concerning events in the life of Saul before he became king make it
clear that this statement is not correct. Perhaps the scribe, in
writing the {69} formula, which is the usual formula for stating a
king's age at his accession, left a space for the numeral to be filled
in later, and forgot the omission; or the numeral has accidentally
dropped out. In this case, it is the duty of textual criticism to
supply, if possible, the age of Saul when he was made king. In the
absence of all external evidence the textual critic must fall back upon
conjecture. This the translators of the Revised Version did, for in
the English Revised Version we find in brackets the word "thirty," in
the American Revised Version "forty." In this special case the assured
results of textual criticism are purely negative, in that they have
established the fact that the present text cannot be correct. The
attempt to restore the original text rests upon conjecture. (2)
Parallel passages differ in such a manner as to make it certain that
the variations are largely due to textual corruption. A good
illustration is seen in Psa. 18, when compared with 2 Sam. 22. These
two passages were