Copyr!Qhted by Bible InstituteofLo$Anseles 1917
r
CONTENTS
Page
Chaptu
228 ................
XI. THE EARLY NARRATIVES OF GENESIS
By Professor James Orr, D. D. United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland.
241 ...............•••..••.....•••......•..•••..•••.••......••
XII. ONE ISAIAH
By Professor Geo. L. Robinson, D. D., McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois.
259 ......................•................. .
XIII. THE BOOK OF DANIEL
By Professor Joseph D. Wilson, D. D., Theological Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Author of "Did Daniel Write Daniel?" XIV. THE DOCTRINAL VALUE OF THE FIRST CHAP- TER OF GENESIS By the Rev. Dyson Hague, M. A. Vicar of the Church of the Epiphany; Professor of Liturgics, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. XV. THREE PECULIARITIES OF THE PENTATEUCH 272 ......................................•...•... By Andrew Craig Robinson, M. A., Ballineen, County Cork, Ireland. Author of "What About the Old Testament." XVI. THE TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS TO THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 293 ....................... By Prof. Geo. Frederick Wright, D. D., LL. D., Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. XVII. THE RECENT TESTIMONY OF ARCHEOLOGY TO THE SCRIPTURES 315 .................•.......................... By M. G. Kyle, D. D., LL. D., Egyptologist. WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GRAF-WELLHAUSEN THEORIES OF ITS COMPOSITION 288 ..............................................••. Professor of Biblical Archaeology, Xenia Theolog ical Seminary; Consulting Editor of "The Records of the Past," Washington, D. C. (The numbers in parenthesis throughout this article refer to the notes at the end of the article.) By Rev. Prof. James Orr, D. D. United Free Church College, Glasgow, Scotland. XIX. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE HIGHER CRITICISM XVIII. SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH By Professor J. J. Reeve, Southwestern Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. 334 ........................ 348 ······················································
PREFACE In 1909 God moved two Christian laymen to set aside a large sum of money for issuing twelve volumes that would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and which were to be sent free to ministers of the gospel, missionaries, Sunday School superintendents, and others engaged in aggressive Christian work throughout the English speaking world. A committee of men who were known to be sound in the faith was chosen to have the oversight of the publication of these v ta o r l y um o e f s. th R e e C v o . m D m r. it A te . e C , . a D nd ix u on po w n a h s i t s he de fi p r a s r t t E ur x e ec f u o t r iv E e n S g e l c a r n e d Rev. Dr. Louis Meyer was appointed to take his place. Upon the death of Dr. Meyer the work of the Executive Secretary devolved upon me. We were able to bring out these twelve volumes according to the original plan. Some of the volumes were sent to 300,000 ministers and missionaries and other workers in different parts of the world. On the completion of t t h in e ue tw d e t l h v r e ou v g o h lumT e h s e a K s in o g r ' i s gin B a u ll s y ine p s la s, nn p e u d bli t s h h e ed wo a r t k 53 w 6 as So c u on th Hope St., Los Angeles, California. Although a larger number of volumes were issued than there were names on our mailing list, at last the stock became exhausted, but appeals for them l DEDICATION To the two laymen whose generosity made it possible to send several millions of volumes of "The Fundamentals" to ministers and missionaries in all parts of the world, for their confirmation and upbuilding in the faith, these volumes are dedicated. THE FUNDAMENTALS CHAPTER I THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. BY CAN N DYSON HAGUE, M. A., RECTOR OF THE MEMORIAL CHURCH, LONDON, ONTARlO. LECTURER IN LITURGICS AND ECCLESIOLOGY, WYCLIFFE COL· LEGE, TORONTO, CANADA. EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP 01' HURON. What is the meaning of the Higher Criticism? Wfiy is it called higher! Higher than what! At the outset it must be explained that the word "Higher" is an academic term, used in this connection in a purely special or technical sense. It is not used in the popular sense of the w na o r r y d m at an a . ll, N an o d r i m s a i y t m co e n a v n e t y to a c w on ro v n e g y i t m he pr i e d s e s a io o n f t s o up th er e io o r r it d y i. It is simply a term of contrast. It is used in contrast to the phrase, "Lower Criticism." One of the most important branches of theology is called the science of Biblical criticism, which has for its object the study of the history and contents, and origins and purposes, of the various books of the Bible. In the early stages of the science Biblical criticism was devoted to two great branches, the Lower, and the Higher. The Lower Criticism was em• ployed to designate the study of the text of the Scripture, and i n f a l words as they were written by the Divinely inspired writers. d ( a S y e s e B is ri T gg e s x , tu H a e l x C ., r p it a ic g i e sm 1. . ) I T f h t e he ter p m hra g s e e ne w ra e l r ly e u u s s e e d d n i o n w t - h a e twentieth century sense, Beza, Erasmus, Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorff, Scrivener, 'Westcott, and 9 u f in e s c r c l e r u n ip d t t e s r d e i a n t d h i e o n r g d i s n e v r in e s t t t h i h a g e t at v w io a e n r i o m o u f a s y v t h e b e r e s i m s o u n a r s n e u a s w n c d e r ip c h t o a s d v , i e c a e n t s h d e a n t o h d r e i m g d i a n The Fwidamentals. Hort would be called Lower Critics. But the term is not now a-days used as a rule. The Higher Criticism, on the con trary, was employed to designate the study of the historic origins, the dates, and authorship of the various books of the Bible, and that great branch of study which in the technical language of modern theology is known as Introduction. It is a very valuable branch of Biblical science, and is of the highest importance as an auxiliary in the interpretation of the Word of God. By its researches floods of light may be thrown on the Scriptures. The term Higher Criticism, then, means nothing more than the study of the literary structure of the various books of the Bible, and more especially of the Old Testament. Now this in itself is most laudable. It is indispensable. It is just such work as every minister or Sunday School teacher does when he takes up his Peloubet's Notes, or his Stalker's St. Paul, or Geikie's Hours with the Bible, to find out all he can with regard to the portion of the Bible he is studying; the author, the date, the circumstances, and purpose of its writing. WHY IS HIGHER CRITICISM IDENTIFIED WITH UNBELIEF? How is it, then, that the Higher Criticism has become identified in the popular mind with attacks upon the Bible a11d the supernatural character of the Holy Scriptitres! The reason is this. No study perhaps requires so devout a spirit and so exalted a faith in the supernatural as the pur suit of the Higher Criticism. It demands at once the ability of the scholar, and the simplicity of the believing child of God. For without faith no one can explain the Holy Scriptures, and without scholarship no one can investigate historic origins. There is a Higher Criticism that is at once reverent in tone and scholarly in work. Hengstenberg, the German, and Horne, the Englishman, may be taken as examples. Perhaps the greatest work inEnglish on the Higher Criticism is Horne's 11 The History of theHigher Criticism. Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scripture. It is a work that is simply massive in its scholar ship, and invaluable in its vast reach of information for the study of the Holy Scriptures. But Horne's Introduction is too large a work. It is too cumbrous for use in this hurry ing age. (Carter's edition in two volumes contains 1,149 pages, and in ordinary book form would contain over 4,000 pages, i. e., about ten volumes of 400 pages each.) Latterly, however, it has been edited by Dr. Samuel Davidson, who prac tically adopted the views of Hupfield and Halle and inter polated not a few of the modern German theories. But Horne's work from first to last is the work of a Christian believer; constructive, not destructive; fortifying faith in the Bible, not rationalistic. But the work of the Higher Critic has not always been pursued in a reverent spirit nor in the spirit of scientific and Christian scholarship. SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS. In the first place, the critics who were the leaders, the men who have given name and force to the whole movement, have been men who have based their theories largely upon their own subjective conclusions. They have based their con clusions largely upon the very dubious basis of the author's style and supposed literary qualifications. Everybody knows that style is a very unsafe basis for the determination of a literary product. The greater the writer the more versatile his power of expression; and anybody can understand that the Bible is the last book in the world to be studied as a mere classic by mere human scholarship without any regard to the spirit of sympathy and reverence on the part of the student. The Bible, as has been said, has no revelation to make to un Biblical minds. It does not even follow that because a man is a philological expert he is able to understand the integrity or credibility of a passage of Holy Scripture any more than the beauty and spirit of it. 12 The F.mdammtals. The qualification for the perception of Biblical truth is n si e g i h th t. er T ph h i e los p o r p im hi a c r n y o q r u p a h l i i l fi o c lo at g i i o c n al o k f no t w he led m g u e s , i b ci u a t n sp is iri t t h u a a t l i h n e be musicalu; of the artist, that he have the spirit of art. So the merely technical and mechanical and scientific mind is disqualified for the recognition of the spiritual and infinite. Any thoughtful man must honestly admit that the Bible is to be treated as unique in literature, and, therefore, that the ordinary rules of critical interpretation must fail to interpret it aright. In the second place, some of the most powerful exponents of the modem Higher Critical theories have been Germans, and it is notorious to what length the German fancy can go in the direction of the subjective and of the conjectural. For hypothesis-weaving and speculation, the German theological professor is unsurpassed. One of the foremost thinkers used to lay it down as a fundamental truth in philosophical and scientific enquiries that no regard whatever should be paid to the conjectures or hypotheses of thinkers, and quoted as an axiom the greai: Newton himself and his famous words, "Non fi ou ng s o th h a y t p s o o t m he e se o s f " : the I m do os n t o l t ea f r r n a e m d e G h e y r p m o a th n es t e h s in . ke I r t s is ar n e ot m or e i n who lack in a singular degree the faculty of common sense a ti n st d s, k t n h o e w y le a d r g e e so of pr h e u o m cc a u n pi n e a d tu w r i e t . h a Li t k h e eo m ry an t y ha p t h t y h s e i i c r al co s n ci c e l n u sions seem to the average mind curiously warped. In fact, a learned man in a letter to Descartes once made an observation which, with slight verbal alteration, might be applied to some of the German criticsu: "When men sitting in their closet and consulting only their books attempt disquisitions into the Bible, they may indeed tell how they would have made the Book if God had given them that commission. That is, they may describe chimeras which correspond to the fatuity of GERMAN FANCIES. 14 The Fundamental�. led and swayed the movement, who made the theories that the others circulated, were strongly unbelieving. Then the higher critical movement has not followed its true and original purposes in investigating the Scriptures for the purposes of confirming faith and of helping believers to understand the beauties, and appreciate the circumstances of p th le e te o l r y ig t i h n e o B f i t b h l e e? various books, and so understand more com No. It has not ; unquestionably it has not. It has been deflected from that, largely owing to the character of the men whose ability and forcefulness have given predominance to c th is e m ir v w ie h w ic s h . is It b h a a s s ed be o c n om h e yp id o e th n e ti s fi e e s d a w nd ith su a pp sy o s s t i e ti m ons of w c h r i i c ti h have for their object the repudiation of the traditional theory, and has investigated the origins and forms and styles and b co il n it t y en a t n s, d a r p e p li a a r b e i n li t t l y y o n f ot th t e o S co cr n i fi p r t mure t s h , e b a u u t t t h o en d t i i s c c it r y ed a it nd in c m re o d s it cases their genuineness, to discover discrepancies, and throw doubt upon their authority. THE ORIGIN OF THE MOVEMENT, Who, then, were the men whose views have moulded the ·views of the leading teachers and writers of the Higher Crit ical school of today? We wiY answer this as briefly as possible. It is not easy to say who is the first so-called Higher Critic, or when the movement began. But it is not modern by any means. Broadly speaking, it has passed through three great stag 1 e . s: The French-Dutch. 2. The German. 3. The British-American. In its origin it was Franco-Dutch, and speculative, if not skeptical. The views which are now accepted as axiomatic by the Continental and British-American schools of Higher The History of the Higher Criticism. 15 Criticism seem to have been first hinted at by Carlstadt in 1521 in his work on the Canon of Scripture, and by Andreas Masius, a Belgian scholar, who published a commentary on Joshua in 1574, and a Roman Catholic priest, called Peyrere or Pererius, in his Systematic Theology, 1660. (LIV. Cap. i.) But it may really be said to have originated with Spinoza, the rationalist Dutch philosopher. In his Tractatus Theologico Politicus (Cap. vii-viii), 1670, Sginoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. Spinoza was really the fountain-head of the movement, and his line was taken in England by the British philosopher Hobbes. He went deeper than Spinoza, as an outspoken antag onist of the necessity and possibility of a personal revelation, and also denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. A few years later a French priest, called Richard Simon of Dieppe, pointed out the supposed varieties of style as indica tions of various authors in his Historical Criticism of the Old Testament, "an epoch-making work." Then another Dutchman, named Clericus (or Le Clerk), in 1685, advocated still more radical views, suggesting an Exilian and priestly authorship for the Pentateuch, and that the Pentateuch was composed by the priest sent from Babylon (2 Kings, 17), about 678, B. C., and also a kind of later editor or redactor theory. Clericus is said to have been the first critic who set forth the theory that Christ and his Apostles did not come into the world to teach the Jews criticism, and that it is only to be expected that their language would be in accordance with the views of the day. In 1753 a Frenchman named Astruc, a medical man, and reputedly a free-thinker of profligate life, propounded for the first time the Jehovistic and Elohistic divisive hypoth esis, and opened a new era. (Briggs' Higher Criticism of the 16 The Fundamentals. Pentateuch, page 46.) Astruc said that the use of the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, shewed the book was composed of different documents. (The idea of the Holy Ghost em ploying two words, or one here and another there, or both together as He wills, never seems to enter the thought of the Higher Critics!) His work was called "Conjectures Regarding the Original Memoirs in the Book of Genesis," and was pub lished in Brussels. Astruc may be called the father of the documentary the ories. He asserted there are traces of no less than ten or twelve different memoirs in the book of Genesis. He denied its Divine authority, and considered the book to be disfi gu red by useless repetitions, disorder, and contradiction. (Hirsch felder, page 66.) For fifty years Astruc's theory was unno ticed. The rationalism of Germany was as yet undeveloped, so that the body was not yet prepared to receive the germ, or the soil the weed. THE GERMAN CRITICS. The next stage was largely German. Eichhorn is the great est name in this period, the eminent Oriental professor at Gottingen who published his work on the Old Testament introduction in 1780. He put into different shape the docu mentary hypothesis of the Frenchman, and did his work so ably that his views were generally adopted by the most dis tin gu ished scholars. Eichhorn's formative influence has been incalculably great. Few scholars refused to do honor to the new sun. It is through him that the name Higher Criticism has become identi�ed with the movement. He was followed by Vater and later by Hartmann with their fragment theory which practically undermined the Mosaic authorship, made the Pentateuch a heap of fragments, carelessly joined by one editor, and paved the way for the most radical of all divisive h yp otheses. In 1806 De Wette, Professor of Philosophy and Theology The HisJory of the Higher Criticism. 17 at Heidelberg, published a work which ran through six edi tions in four decades. His contribution to the introduction of the Old Testament instilled the same general principles as Eichhorn, and in the supplemental hypotheses assumed that Deuteronomy was composed in the age of Josiah (2 Kings 22 :8). Not long after, Vatke and Leopold George (both Hegelians) unreservedly declared the post-Mosaic and post prophetic origin of the first four books of the Bible. Then came Bleek, who advocated the idea of the Grundschift or original document and the redactor theory; and then Ewald, the father of the Crystallization theoryr; and then Hupfield (1853), who held that the original document was an inde pendent compilation; and Graf, who wrote a book on the historical books of the Old Testament in 1866 and advocated the theory that the Jehovistic and Elohistic documents were written hundreds of years after Moses' time. Graf was a pupil of Reuss, the redactor of the Ezra hypothesis of Spinoza. Then came a most influential writer, Professor Kuenen of Leyden in Holland, whose work on the Hexateuch was edited by Colenso in 1865, and his "Religion of Israel and Prophecy in Israel," published in England in 1874-1877. Kuenen was one of the most advanced exponents of the rationalistic school. Last, but not least, of the continental Higher Critics is Julius Wellhausen, who at one time was a theological professor in Germany, who published in 1878 the first volume of his his tory of Israel, and won by his scholarship the attention if not the allegiance of a number of leading theologians. (See Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, Green, pages 59-88.) It will be observed that nearly all these authors were Germans, and most of them professors of philosophy or the ology. THE BRITISH-AMERICAN CRITICS. The third stage of the movement is the British-American. The best known names are those of Dr. Samuel Davidson, 18 The Fundamentals. whose "Introduction to the Old Testament," published in 1862, was largely based on the fallacies of the German rationalists. The supplementary hypothesis passed over into England through him and with strange incongruity, he borrowed fre quently from Baur. Dr. Robertson Smith, the Scotchman, recast the German theories in an English form in his works on the Pentateuch, the Prophets of Israel, and the Old Testament in the Jewish Church, first published in 1881, and followed the German school, according to Briggs, with great boldness and thoroughness. A man of deep piety and high spirituality, he combined with a sincere regard for the Word of God a critical radicalism that was strangely inconsistent, as did also his name sake, George Adam Smith, the most influential of the present- day leaders, a man of great insight and scriptural acumen, who in his works on Isaiah, and the twelve prophets, adopted some of the most radical and least demonstrable of the Ger- man theories, and in his later work, "Modem Criticism and the Teaching of the Old Testament," has gone still farther in the rationalistic direction. Another well-known Higher Critic is Dr. S. R. Driver, the Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who, in his "Intro duction to the Literature of the Old Testament," published ten years later, and his work on the Book of Genesis, has elabo rated with remarkable skill and great detail of analysis the theories and views of the continental school. Driver's work is able, very able, but it lacks originality and English inde pendence. The hand is the hand of Driver, but the voice is the voice of Kuenen or Wellhausen. The third well-known name is that of Dr. C. A. Briggs, for some time Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union The elogical Seminary of New York. An equally earnest advo cate of the German theories, he published in 1883 his "Bib lical Study"; in 1886, his "Messianic Prophecy," and a little later his "Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch." Briggs studied J . The History of the Higher Criticism. 19 the Pentateuch, as he confesses, under the guidance chiefly of Ewald. (Hexateuch, page 63.) Of course, this list is a very partial one, but it gives most of the names that have become famous in connection with the movement, and the reader who desires more will find a complete summary of the literature of the Higher Criticism in Professor Bissell's work on the Pentateuch (Scribner's, 1892). Bri gg s, in his "Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch" (Scribner's, 1897) , gives an historical summary also. We must now investigate another question, and that is the religious views of the men most influential in this movement. In making the statement that we are about to make, we desire i t t o ab d l e e p , r u ec n a f t a e ir e , n o t r ire u l n y k t i h n e d, id i e n a s o ta f ti t n h g er w e h b a e t ing is a s n im yt p h l i y ng a u m nc a h tt a e r r of fact. THE VIEWS OF THE CONTINENTAL CRITICS. Regarding the views of the Continental Critics, three things can be confidently asserted of nearly all, if not all, of the real leaders. 1. They were men who denied the validity of miracle, a ti n a d ns th co e n v si a d l e id r it t y o o b f e a m n i y rac m u i l r o a u c s ul t o h u e s y n c a o r n r s a id ti e v r e e . d W leg h e a n t da C r h y ri o s r mythical ; "l eg endary exaggeration of events that are entirely explicable from natural causes." 2. They were men who denied the reality of prophecy a ti n a d ns t h h a e ve va b l e id e i n ty ac o c f us a t n o y me p d ro t p o h c e o t n ic s a i l de s r ta p te ro m p e h n e t t . ica W l, t h h a e t y C ca h l r l i e s d dexterous conjectures, coincidences, fiction, or imposture. 3. They were men who denied the reality of revelation, in the sense in which it has ever been held by the universal C na h t r u i r s a ti l a . n C T h h u ei r r ch t . heo T r h ie e s y w w e e r r e e e a x vo co w g e i d ta u te n d be o li n ev p e u r r s e o g f r t o h u e n s d u s pe o r f human reasoning. Their hypotheses were constructed on the assumption of the falsity of Scripture. As to the inspira- 20 The Fm1dammtals. tion of the Bible, as to the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation being the Word of God, they had no such belief. We may take them one by one. Spinoza repudiated abso lutely a supernatural revelation. And Spinoza was one of their greatest. Eichhorn discarded the miraculous, and con sidered that the so-called supernatural element was an Ori ental exaggerationr; and Eichhorn has been called the father of Higher Criticism, and was the first man to use the term. De Wette's views as to inspiration were entirely infidel. Vatke and Leopold George were Hegelian rationalists, and regarded the first four books of the Old Testament as entirely myth ical. Kuenen, says Professor Sanday, wrote in the interests of an almost avowed Naturalism. That is, he was a free thinker, an agnostic; a man who did not believe in the Revelation of the one true and living God. (Brampton Lec tures, 1893, page 117.) He wrote from an avowedly natural istic standpoint, says Driver (page 205) . According to Well hausen the religion of Israel was a naturalistic evolution from heathendom, an emanation from an imperfectly monotheistic kind of semi-pagan idolatry. It was simply a human religion. THE LEADERS WERE RATIONALISTS. In one word, the formative forces of the Higher Critical movement were rationalistic forces, and the men who were its chief authors and expositors, who "on account of purely philo logical criticism have acquired an appalling authority," were men who had discarded belief in God and Jesus Christ Whom He had sent. The Bible, in their view, was a mere human product. It was a stage in the literary evolution of a religious people. If it was not the resultant of a fortuitous concourse of Oriental myths and legendary accretions, and its Jahveh or Jahweh, the excogitation of a Sinaitic clan, it certainly was not given by the inspiration of God, and is not the Word of the living God. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," said Peter. "God, who at sundry The History of the Higher Criticism. 21 times and in diverse manners spake by the prophets," said Paul. Not so, said Kuenen; the prophets were not moved to speak by God. Their utterances were all their own. (San day, page 117.) These then were their views and these were the views that have so dominated modern Christianity and permeated modern ministerial thought in the two great languages of the modern world. We cannot say that they were men whose rationalism was the resul t of their conclusions in the study of the Bible. Nor can we say their conclusions with regard to the Bible were wholly the resul t of their rationalism. But we can say, on the one hand, that inasmuch as they refused to recognize the Bible as a direct revelation from God, they were free to form hypotheses ad libitum. And, on the other hand, as they denied the supernatural, the animus that animated them in the construction of the hypotheses was the desire to construct a theory that would explain away the supernatural. Unbe lief was the antecedent, not the consequent, of their criticism. Now there is nothing unkind in this. There is nothing that is uncharitable, or unfair. It is simply a statement of fact which modern authorities most freely admit. THE SCHOOL OF COMPROMISE. When we come to the English-writing Higher Critics, we approach a much more difficult subject. The British-American Higher Critics represent a school of compromise. On the one hand they practically accept the premises of the Conti nental school with regard to the antiquity, authorship, authen ticity, and origins of the.Old Testament books. On the other hand, they refuse to go with the German rationalists in alto gether denying their inspiration. They still claim to accept the Scriptures as containing a Revelation from God. nut may they not hold their own peculiar views with regard to the origin and date and literary strncture of the Bible with out endangering either their own faith or the faith of Chris- 22 The Fundamentals. tians? This is the very heart of the question, and, in order that the reader may see the seriousness of the adoption of the conclusions of the critics, as brief a resume as possible of the matter will be given. THE POINT IN A NUTSHELL. s te is u t c e A h n , c t c , t o c h r o a d h t in e i r g s e , n to t t h , t e a h u e fi t h r f s e a t n it t fi h ic v o e a f n b t d o h o e g k e u s n n u o iv i f n er e t s h a c e o l m c B h p i u b o r l s e c i , t h i , o i s n th , o e i n n P e s e p c n ir o t e a n d b m y en G t o s d o , f a t n h d e , b a o c o co k r s d t i h n e g m t s o el t v h e e s, te t s h t e im re o i n te y ra o t f ed the co J r e r w ob s o , r t a h t e io s n t s at o e f the rest of the Old Testament, and the explicit statement of the Lord Jesus (Luke 24 :44, John 5 :46-47) was written by Moses (with the exception, of course, of Deut. 34, possibly written by Joshua, as the Talmud states, or probably by Ezra) at a period of about fourteen centuries before the advent of Christ, and 800 years or so before Jer�miah. It is, moreover, a portion of the Bible that is of paramount importance, for it is the basic substratum of the whole revelation of God, and of paramount value, not because it is merely the literature of an ancient nation, but because it is the introductory section of the Word of God, bearing His authority and given by inspiration through His servant Moses. That is the faith of the Church. THE CRITICS' THEORY. But according to the Higher Critics : ume 1 n . ts T . h T e h P e e s n e ta c t o e m uc p h le c te o l n y sis d t i s ff o er f e f n o t u d r o c c o u mm p e le n t t e s ly w d e i r v e er th se e d p o r c i m teu ar c y h : sou (a rc ) es Th o e f Y th a e hw co is m t p o o r s J it a io h n wi w st h , i ( c b h ) th th e e y E ca lo ll hi t s h t, e ( H c) ex th a e Deuteronomist, and ( d) the Priestly Code, the Grundschift, the work of the first Elohist (Sayce Hist. Heb., 103), now g n e a n te e d ra b ll y y t k h n es o e wn sym as bo J l . s. E. D. P., and for convenience desig 2. These different works were composed at various peri- The History of the Higher Criticism. 23 ods 0£ time, not in the fifteenth century, B. C., but in the ninth, seventh, sixth and fifth centuries; J. and E. being referred approximately to about 800 to 700 B. C. ; D to about 650 to 625 B. C., and P. to about 525 to 425 B. C. According m to en th ts e w G e r r a e f p t o h s e t o -e ry x , ili a a c n c , ep th te a d t i b s y , t K he u y en w e e n r , e th w e ri E tte lo n hi o s n t ly do fi c v u e centuries or so before Christ. Genesis and Exodus as well as the Priestly Code, that is, Leviticus and part of Exodus and Numbers were also post-exilic. 3. These different works, moreover, represent different traditions of the national life of the Hebrews, and are at variance in most important particulars. pos 4 it . ive A d n o d c , um fu e r n t t h s er w . er T e h n e o y t c c o o m nj p e i c l t e u d re an t d ha w t r t i h tt e e s n e b f y ou M r o s s u e p s , but were probably constructed somewhat after this fashion: For some reason, and at some time, and in some way, some one, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, wrote J. Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, wrote another document, which is now called E. And then at a later · time, the critics only know who, or why, or when, or where, an anonymous personage, whom we may call Rm e e d n a ts c , to i r nt I r , od to u o c k ed in ne h w and ma th te e ri r a e l, co h n a s r tr m u o c n ti i o z n ed 0£ th t e he r s e e al do a c n u d apparent discrepancies, and divided the inconsistent accounts of one event into two separate transactions. Then some time after this, perhaps one hundred years or more, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, some anonymous personage wrote another document, which they style D. And after a while another anonymous author, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, whom we will call Redactor II, took this in hand, compared it with J. E., revised J. siderable freedom, and in addition introduced E qu ., it w e i a th b c o o d n y of new material. Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, probably, however, about 525, or The Fundamentals. 24 perhaps 425, wrote P. ; and then another anonymous Hebrew, whom we may call Redactor III, undertook to incorporate this with the triplicated composite J. E. D. , with what they call redactional additions and insertions . ( G reen, page 88, cf . Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, pages 100-105.) It may be well to state at this point that this is not an e xaggerated statement of the Higher Critical position. On the contrary, we have given here what has been described as a position "established by proofs, valid and cumulative" and "representing the most sober scholarship . " The more ad vanced continental Higher Critics, G reen says, distinguish the writers of the primary sources according to the supposed ele ments as Jl and J2, El and E2, Pl , P2 and P3, and D1 and D2, nine different originals in all. The different Redactors, technically described by the symbol R., are Rj., who com bined J. and E.; Rd., who added D. to J. E. , and Rh., who completed the Hexateuch by combining P. with J. E. D. (H. C. of the Pentateuch, page 88.) A DISCREDITED PENTATEUCH. 5. These four suppositive documents are, moreover, al leged to be internally inconsistent and undoubtedly incom plete. How far they are incomplete they do not agree . How much is missing and when, where, how and by whom it was removed; whether it was some thief who stole, or copyist who tampered, or editor who falsified, they do not declare. 6. In this redactory process no limit apparently is as signed by the critic to the work of the redactors. With an utter irresponsibility of freedom it is declared that they inserted misleading statements with the purpose of reconciling incom patible traditions; that they amalgamated what should have been distinguished, and sundered that which should have amalgamated. In one word, it is an axiomatic principle of the divisive hypothesizers that the redactors "have not only misapprehended, but misrepresented the originals" ( G reen, The History of theHigher Criticism. 25 page 170) . They were animated by "egotistical motives." They confused varying accounts, and erroneously ascribed them to different occasions. They not only gave false and col ored impressionss; they destroyed valuable elements of the suppositive docw11ents and tampered with the dismantled rem nant. 7. And worst of all. The Higher Critics are unanimous in the conclusion that these documents contain three species of material: (a) The probably true. "The narratives of the Pentateuch are usually trustworthy, though partly mythical and legendary. The miracles recorded were the exaggerations of a later age." (Davidson, Introduc tion, page 131.) The framework of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, says George Adam Smith in his "Modern Criti cism and the Preaching of the Old Testament," is woven from the raw material of myth and legend. He denies their hi.storical character, and says that he can find no proof in arclueology for the personal existence of characters of the Patriarchs themselves. Later on, however, in a fit of apolo getic repentance he makes the condescending admission that it is extremely probable that the stories of the Patriarchs have at the heart of them historical elements. (Pages 90- 106.) Such is the view of the Pentateuch that 1s accepted as conclusive by "the sober scholarship" of a number of the lead ing theological writers and professors of the day. It is to this the Higher Criticism reduces what the Lord Jesus called the writings of Moses. A DISCREDITED OLD TESTAMENT. As to the rest of the Old Testament, it may be briefly said that they have dealt with it with an equally confusing hand. (b) The certainly doubtful. (c) The positively spurious. I I The Fundamentals. 26 The time-honored traditions of the Catholic Church are set at naught, and its thesis of the relation of inspiration and genu ineness and authenticity derided. As to the Psalms, the harp that was once believed to be the harp of David was not handled by the sweet Psalmist of Israel, but generally by some anonymous post-exilist; and Psalms that are ascribed to David by the omnicient Lord Himself are daringly attributed to some anonymous Maccabean. Ecclesiastes, written, nobody knows when, where, and by whom, possesses just a possible grade of inspiration, though one of the critics "of cautious and well balanced judgment" denies that it contains any at all. "Of course," says another, "it i s not really the work of Solomon." (Driver, Introduction, page 470.) The Song of Songs i s an idyl of human love, and nothing more. There i s no inspira tion in i t ; it contributes nothing to the sum of revelation. (Sanday, page 211 . ) Esther, too, adds nothing to the sum of revelation, and is not historical (page 213). Isaiah was, of course, written by a number of authors. The first part, chapters 1 to 40, by Isaiah; the second by a Deutero-Isaiah and a number of anonymous authors. A's to Daniel, it was a purely pseudonymous work, written probably in the second century B. C. With regard to the New Testament: The English writ ing school have hitherto confined themselves mainly to the Old Testament, but if Professor Sanday, who passes as a most conservative and moderate representative of the critical school, can be taken as a sample, the historical books are "yet in the first instance strictly histories, put together by ordi nary historical methods, or, in so far as the methods on which they are composed, are not ordinary, due rather to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and not to influences, which need be specially described as supernatural" (page 399). The Second Epistle cf Peter is pseudonymous, its name counter feit, and, therefore, a forgery, just as large parts of Isaiah, The History of theHigher Criticism. 27 Zachariah and Jonah, and Proverbs were supposititious and m qu e a n s t i-f o r f au t d h u e le p n o t si d t o io c n um t e a n k t e s n . b T y h w is h i a s t a is st c r a ai ll g e h d tfo th rw e a m rd od s e t r a a te te t s i c o h n o , ol ac o c f or H din ig g he t r o C th ri e t i i r cis o mw . n w It ri i t s ing th s. eir own admitted posi The difficulty, therefore, that presents itself to the average man of today is thisu: How can these critics still claim to l b i e e l v ie e v d e i t i ? n the Bible as the Christian Church has ever be A DISCREDITED BIBLE. cept T ed her th e e c w an ho b l e e n of o t d h o e ub O t ld tha T t es C ta h m ris e t nt an a d s i Hns i p s ir A e p d o i s n tle e s ve a r c y portion of every part; from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Malachi, all was implicitly believed to be the very Word of God Himself. And ever since their day the view of the Universal Christian Church has been that the Bible is the Word of God ; as the twentieth article of the Anglican Church terms it, it is God's Word written. The B sp i i b r l e e d. a " s a T w ha h t o i l s e , i t s he in B sp ib ir le ed d . oe " s A n l o l t t m ha e t re i l s y written is God-in contain the Word of God; it is the Word of God. It contains a revelation. s " e A rv ll at i i s ve no a t n r d e , v u ea p le t d o , b th u e t a p l r l es is en i t ns d p a i y re , d t ." he T al h m is os i t s u t n h i e ve c r o s n a l v or ie ie w s o o f f t in h s e p q ir u a e t s io ti n o . n. B T ut he w r h e a a te r v e, er it v i i s ewwe o l r l k th n e o o w ry n, o m f a i n n y sp t i h ra e tion men may hold, plenary, verbal, dynamical, mechanical, s r u at p i e o r n in o te f nd th e e nt m , o e r n g w ov h e o rn w m r e o n te ta , l, o t r he to y r t e h f e er in e s i p th ir e a r ti t o o n th o e f in w s h p a it is written. In one word, they imply throughout the work of God the Holy Ghost, and are bound up with the concomitant ideas of authority, veracity, reliability, and truth divine. (The two strongest works on the subject from this standpoint are b y lish G ed au i s n se a n n a A nd m L er e i e ca . n G e a d u it s i s o e n n b o y n u· H th i e tc T hc h o e c o k pn & eu W stia ald is en p , u o b f 28 The Fitndame1itals. Cincinnati; and Lee on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture is p sp u i b r l a i t s i h o e n d o b f y t R he ivi B ng ib t l o e n ," s. is B a is ls h o op ve Wry or s d c s h w o o la rt r h ly , o a n nd th s e tro " n In g . Rivingtons, 1875.) The Bible can no longer, according to the critics, be viewed in this light. It is not the Word in the old sense of that term. It is not the Word of God in the sense that all of it is given by the inspiration of God. It simply contains the Word of God. In many of its parts it is just as uncertain as any o o t r h d e s r o h f umwh a a n t b i o t o d k o . es I n t a i r s ra n t o e t a e s ve o n rd r i e n l a ia r b y le hi h st is o t r o y ry a . re I f ts ull re o c f falsifications and blunders. The origin of Deuteronomy, e. g., was "a consciously refined falsification." (See Moller, page 207.) THE REAL DIFFICULTY. But do they still claim to believe that the Bible is inspiredu? Yes. That is, in a measure. As Dr. Driver says in his preface, "Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament; it pre-supposes it." That is perfectly true. Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars is safe. But the preponderating scholarship in Old Testament criticism has admittedly not t b i e a e n n s i c n ho t l h a e rs. han I d t s ha o s f b m ee e n n i w n h t o he co h u a l n d ds be of de m sc e r n ib w ed ho as di C sa h v r o is w belief in God and Jesus Christ Whom He sent. Criticism in the hands of Horne and Hengstenberg does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament. But, in the hands of Spinoza, and Graf, and Wellhausen, and Kuenen, inspiration is neither pre-supposed nor possible. Dr. Briggs and Dr. Smith may avow earnest avowals of belief in the Divine character of the Bible, and Dr. Driver may assert that critical conclusions do not touch either the authority or the inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but from first to last, they treat God's Word with an indifference almost The History of the Higher Criticism. 29 equal to that of the Germans. They certainly handle the Old Testament as if it were ordinary literature. And in all their theories they seem like plastic wax in the hands of the rationalistic moulders. But they still cla i m to bel i eve in B i bl i cal i nspirat i on. A REVOLUTIONARY THEORY. The i r theory of i nsp i ration must b e , th e n, a v e ry diff e r e nt on e from that h e ld by th e av e rag e Chr i st i an. In th e Bampton L e ctur e s for 1903, Prof e ssor Sanday of Oxford, as th e e xpon e nt of th e lat e r and mor e cons e rvat i v e school of H i gh e r Cr i t i c i sm, cam e out w i th a th e ory which h e t e rm e d th e i nduct i v e th e ory. It i s not e asy to d e scr i b e what i s fully m e ant by th i s, but i t app e ars to m e an th e pr e s e nc e of what th e y call "a d i vin e e l e m e nt" in c e rta i n pa1ts of th e B i bl e . What that r e ally i s h e do e s not accurat e ly d e clar e . T h e languag e always vapours off i nto th e vagu e and i nd e fin i t e , wh e ne v e r h e sp e aks of i t. In what books i t i s h e do e s not say. "It i s pr e s e nt in d i ff e r e nt books and parts of books i n d i ff e r e nt d e gr ee s." "In som e th e D i v i n e e l e m e nt is at th e max i mum; i n oth e rs at th e min i mum." H e i s not always sur e . H e i s sur e i t is not in Esth e r, i n Eccl e s i ast e s, i n Dan i e l. If i t i s i n th e histor i cal books, i t i s th e r e as conv e y i ng a r e lig i ous l e sson rath e r than as a guarant ee of h i storic v e rac i ty, rath e r as i nt e rpr e t i ng than as narrat i ng. At th e sam e t i m e , i f th e h i stor i e s as far as t e xtual construct i on was conc e rn e d w e r e "natural proc e ss e s carri e d out naturally," i t i s d i fficult to s ee wh e r e th e D i v i n e or sup e rnatural e l e m e nt com e s i n. It i s an i nspirat i on wh i ch s ee ms to hav e b ee n d e v i s e d as a hypoth e sis of comprom i s e . In fact, i t i s a t e nuous, e qu i vocal, and i nd e t e rminat e som e th i ng, th e amount of which i s as i nd e fin i t e as i ts qual i ty. (Sanday, pag e s 100-398; cf. Driv e r, Pr e fac e , i x.) But i ts most s e r i ous f e atur e is th i s : It i s a th e ory of i nspirat i on that compl e t e ly ov e rturns th e old-fashion e d i d e as of th e B i bl e and i ts unqu e stion e d standard of author i ty and The Amdamentals. 30 p tr e u a t r h s . to F b o e r q w ui h t a e te co ve n r sis t t h e i n s t s w o- it c h all d e e d fe D ct i i v v i e ne ar e g l u e mm e e n n t t , i i s n , co it rr a e p ct interpretation, if not what the average man would call forgery or falsification. It is, in fact, revolutionary. To accept it the Christian will have to completely readjust his ideas of honor and honesty, of falsehood and misrepresentation. Men used to think that forgery was a crime, and falsification a sin. Pusey, in his great work on Daniel, said that "to write a book under the name of another and to give it out to be his is in any case a f n o e r s g s e ." ry,· ( d P i u sh se o y n , es L t e i c n tu i r t e se s lf on an D d a d n e ie s l t , ru p c a t g iv e e 1 o .) f al B l u t t ru a s c t c w o o r r d t i h n i g t t o er t ia h l e , H an i d gh n e o r t C a rit l i i c t a tl l e p o o f sit i i t on b , el a i l e l v s e o d rt t s o o b f e ps tr e u u e do b n y ym th o e us L m or a d J ce e d su en s t C o h b r j is e t ct H io i n m o se u l g f h , t is to to b b e e ta fo ke u n nd to in it t . he Bible, and no ante Men used to think that inaccuracy would affect reliability and that proven inconsistencies would imperil credibility. But now it appears that there may not only be mistakes and e si r o r n o s r , s a o n n d th m e is p in a t r e t rp o r f e c ta o t p i y o i n s s ts o , n bu t t he fo p r a g r e t ri o es f , a in u t th en o t r i s o , n a a n l d om ye is t , marvelous to say, faith is not to be destroyed, but to be placed on a firmer foundation. ( Sanday, page 122.) They have, according to Briggs, enthroned the Bible in a higher position than ever before. (Briggs, "The Bible, Church and Reason," page 149.) Sanday admits that there is an element in the Pentateuch derived from Moses himself. An elementu! But u he ine ad M ds o , s " a H ic ow fo e u v n e d r a m tio u n ch i w n e th m e ay Pe b n e t l a ie te v u e c t h h , at it th is ere di i ffi s c a ul g t en to lay the finger upon it, and to say with confidence, here Moses himself is speaking." "The strictly Mosaic element in the h P a e p n s t , at t e o uc u h se m t u h s e t m be (t i h n e de v te is r i m on in s at o e f ." Ex " . W 3 e an o d ugh 3 t 3) no w t, ith p o e u rt reserve for Moses himself" (pages 172-174-176). The ordi- TheHistory of theHigher Criticism. 3 1 nary Christian, however, will say: Surely if we deny the Mosaic authorship and the unity of the Pentateuch we must undermine its credibility. The Pentateuch claims to be Mosaic. It was the universal tradition of the Jews. It is expressly stated in nearly all the subsequent books of the Old Tes tament. The Lord Jesus said so m0st explicitly. (John S :46-47.) IF NOT MOSES, WHO? For this thought must surely follow to the thoughtful man: If Moses did 11ot write the Books of Moses, who did? If there were three or four, or six, or nine authorized orig inal writers, why not fourteen, or sixteen, or nineteen? And then another and more serious thought must follow that. Who were these original writers, and who originated them? If there were manifest evidences of alterations, manipulations, inconsistencies and omissions by an indeterminate number of unknown and unknowable and undateable redactors, then the question arises, who were these redactors, and how far had they authority to redact, and who gave them this author ity? If the redactor was the writer, was he an inspired writer, and if he was inspired, what was the degree of his inspira tion; was it partial, plenary, inductive or indeterminate? This is a question of questions: What is the guar antee of the inspiration of the redactor, and who is its guarantor? Moses we know, and Samuel we know, and Daniel we know, but ye anonymous and pseudonymous, who are ye? The Pentateuch, with Mosaic authorship, as Scrip tural, divinely accredited, is upheld by Catholic tradition and scholarship, and appeals to reason. But a mutilated cento or scrap-book of anonymous compi lations, with its pre- and post exilic redactors and redactions, is confusion worse confounded. At least that is the way it appears to the average Chris tian. He may not be an expert in philosophy or theology, but his common sense must surely be allowed its rights. And 32 The Fundamentals. that is the way it appears, too, to such an illustrious scholar and critic as Dr. Emil Reich. (Contemporary Review, April, 1905, page 515.) It is not pos5ible then to accept the Kuenen-Wellhausen theory of the structure of the Old Testament and the SandayDriver theory of its inspiration without undermining faith in the Bible as the Word of God. For the Bible is either the Word of God, or it is not. The children of Israel were the children of the Only Living and True God, or they were not. If their Jehovah was a mere tribal deity, and their religion a human evolution ; if their sacred literature was natural with mythical and pseudonymous admixtures; then the Bible is dethroned from its throne as the exclusive, authoritative, Divinely inspired Word of God. It simply ranks as one of the sacred books of the ancients with similar claims of inspiration and revelation. Its inspiration is an indeterminate quantity and any man has a right to subject it to the judgment of his own critical insight, and to receive just as much of it as inspired as he or some other person believes to be inspired. When the contents have passed through the sieve of his judgment the inspired residuum may be large, or the inspired residuum may be small. If he is a conservative critic it may be fairly large, a maximum ; if he is a more advanced critic it may be fairly small, a minimum. It is simply the ancient literature of a religious people containing somewhere the Word of God; "a revelation of no one knows what, made no one knows how, and lying no one knows where, except that it is to be somewhere between Genesis and Revelation, but probably to the exclusion of both." (Pusey, Daniel, xxviii.) NO FINAL AUTHORITY. Another serious consequence of the Higher Critical movement is that it threatens the Christian system of doctrine and the whole fabric of systematic theology. For up to the present time any text from any part of the Bible was accepted as l t
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker