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
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker