The second stage was introduced by W. M. L. De Wette in 'Kritik der israelitischen Geschichte) (1807), and in other books. He made use of historical evidence in addition to literary. His specific view is called the ((sup plement-theory," because he thought that the writer of Genesis made use of one principal Elohistic document which he supplemented by the use of various Jehovistic documents. De Wette gave particular attention to the origin of the documents, in connection with his special study of historical evidence.
The third stage was marked by the promi nent use of the evidence from thought, in addi tion to that of a literary and historical nature. This means that a large amount of attention was given to the development of religious thought, particularly in the Old Testament. The philosophical theory of evolution has strong influenced the way in which this evi dence as been used. The beginning of this stage appears in two works published in 1835, that of Wilhelm Vatke, Biblische Theol ogie wissenschaftlich dargestellt,) and of Leo pold George, 'Die Alteren Jiidische Feste.) Eduard W. E. Reuss, of Strassburg, became one of the most eminent of the teachers of this phase of the study. A pupil of his, K. H. Graf, thoroughly combined the three lines of evidence. He taught the priority of Deuteronomy to the Priest Code, the latter being dated, in his ultimate view, after the exile. Abraham Kuenen, in 'Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ont staan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds) (1861-65), gave special at tention to the details of the religious develop ment. The theory of Graf was elaborated by Julius Wellhausen, in 'Die Composition des Ilexateuchs) (1889), which had been published earlier, in 1885, as a part of the series Skizzen and Vorarbeiten. His view of the documents of the Hexateuch, including Joshua with the Pentateuch, is that they consist of J, Yahwist or Jehovist, the work of a Judean prophet or prophets, written about 800 a.c; E, Elohist, a prophetic work of Israel, written about 750; D, embracing the most of Deuteronomy, written shortly before 621; and P, the Priest Code, composed at various times mostly during and after the exile and completed by Ezra about 444. This view in substance is the prevailing one to the present day.
While the Pentateuch, or Hexateuch, has been the chief subject matter for the develop ment of Higher Criticism, more and more the whole Old Testament has been included within its scope. The discussiOn of the authorship of the several portions of the book of Isaiah be gan soon after that concerning the Pentateuch, and has had many phases.
The more recent study has been devoted, in the case of the Hexateuch, to a more minute study of the details of the analysis, and to more careful study of the relation of the documents to the history and the development of thought.
The whole Old Testament has been studied, from the standpoint of .Higher Criticism, with increasing attention to detail. The result is that, in the view of many critics, nearly all books of the Old Testament are considered to contain elements of diverse dates, the original writing having been supplemented by various additions, and' in several books two or more documents are believed to have been combined. Many English and American writers have been prominent in the later discussions.
The pioneer work in the development of Higher Criticism has been done for the most part in the Old Testament. New Testament criticism is, therefore, in large measure an ap plication of methods and lines of' evidence in use in the Old Testament, although in recent years the Higher Criticism of the New Testa ment has acquired great prominence. Eich horn, who has been mentioned earlier as con spicuous in reference to the Old Testament, is one of the early leaders in New Testament criticism. In his (Historisch-kritische Einlei tung ins Neue Testament) (1804), he, for the first time, clearly grasped the synoptic problem and proposed the hypothesis of an original gospel before the present gospels. The work of De Wette was notable on the New Testa ment as well as on the Old, the results being seen in his (Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen Biicher de,s neuen Testamentes) (1826).
Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the third stage of Old Testament criticism, and corresponding to it, came a strongly-marked movement in New Testament study. This was the work of F. C. Baur, (Die Christuspartei in der Corinthischen Gemeinde,' in the Zeit schrift fiir Theologie (1831), and later books; this is sometimes called the Tiibingen criticism. sions. In particular, he was dominated by the His work was strongly influenced by preposses philosophy of Hegel, especially in its theory of development that history moves through the three processes, thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The principal position of Baur was that the New Testament shows the conflict between two parties, original Christianity which was a Jew ish sect, and Paulinism which had the broader spirit. His position aroused violent discussion, the theory being generally held to be extreme; it has now been entirely abandoned. Baur rendered great service, however, in putting emphasis upon the necessity of seeing the New Testament in its relation to the whole thought of the time.