168
The Fundamentals Chronicle:.; and Prof. James Robertson, of Glasgow Univer sity, farther adds that all such matters as the critics have urged against the Chronicler's veracity or misuse and even inven tion of sources, are "superficial and unjust;" and that "there is no reason to doubt the honesty of the author in the use of such materials as he has command of, nor is there any to question the existence of the writings to which he refers." We take it, therefore, that these two books of Chronicles embody not only the best historical knowledge, but also the best traditions still in existence at their date ; and such being the case, it is clearly incontrovertible that, as is so unmis takably taught in these books, the old Mosaic Tabernacle must have existed. And so long as the critics are unable to impeach the testimony of these books, which would seem to be impossible, that testimony must stand.* 3. TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL Now, however, let us give attention to the books of Sam uel. Here is certainly another piece of literature against the general credibility of which the critics can have but little to say. And what do these books tell us respecting the Taber- *It is claimed by the critics, and especially by Wellhausen, that during the exile the Jewish notions respecting the past of their national and tribal history underwent a radical change, so much so that nearly all the religious features of that history were conceived of as having been very different from what they really were. Or i n other words, the Jewish writers of the exilic period were, so the critics tell us, accustomed t o project religious and p riestly matters belonging to their history in a much later period away back t o the earliest times. Conse• quently the general ideas of the temple and of the temple service were thus projected back even to the days of Moses; and ii! this way, it is explained, the notion of a Mosaic Tabernacle with an elaborate ritual istic service came into being. But really there is no evidence in alt the Old Testament writings, or at all events no evidence that the Jews knew anything about, that such a change ever took place. Hence the critics are decidedly wrong when they represent that the author of Chronicles was only influenced by the spirit of his age when he under took t o misrepresent, as it is claimed he did, numerous matters con nected with the past history of this people. The truth is that the Chronicler was either a base falsifier, or what he tells us in his history mµst be received as genuine facts.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker