ent times were not merely, as
now, symbolical, the names El and Jah respectively are employed in all
ages of the Hebrew nation: and, though no exact law can be detected, it
seems probable that in the great regal and prophetic age the name Jehovah
was especially used. (34)

These remarks will both explain the difference of conception existing in
the Hebrew names of Deity, and show that the Jews were aware of the
distinction to a late period. When we advance farther, we pass from the
region of fact into conjecture.

The distinctness of conception implied in the two names has been made the
basis of an hypothesis, in which they are used for discovering different
elements in the Pentateuch. Throughout the book of Genesis especially, and
slightly elsewhere,(795) the critics that we are describing have supposed
that they detect at least two distinct narratives, with peculiarities of
style, and differences or repetitions of statement; which they have
therefore regarded as proofs of the existence of different documents in
the composition of the Pentateuch; an Elohistic, in which the name Elohim,
and a Jehovistic, in which the name Jehovah was used; upon the respective
dates of which they have formed conjectures.

Though we may object to these hazardous speculations, we shall perceive
the alteration and increasing caution displayed in the criticism, if we
trace briefly the successive opinions held on this particular subject.

Astruc, who first dwelt on the distinction, regarded the separate works to
be anterior to Moses, and to have been used by him in the construction of
the Pentateuch.(796) Eichhorn took the same view, but advanced the inquiry
by a careful discrimination of the peculiarities which he thought to
belong to each. Vater followed, and allowed the possibility of one
collector of the narratives, but denied that it could be Moses. Thus far
was the work of the older critical school of rationalists. It was purely
anatomical and negative. It is at this point that we perceive the
alteration effected by the school which we are now contemplating.

De Wette strove to penetrate more deeply into the question of the origin,
and to attain a positive result. His discussion was marked by minute
study; and he changed the test for distinguishing the documents from the
simple use of the names to more uncertain characteristics, which depended
upon internal peculiarities of style and manner. The conclusion to which
he came was, that