18
The Fundamentals (p. 6.) This, at least, is not the prima facie impression derived from the account given in Exodus. One more illustration may be given of modern critical methods of dealing with narratives of the Old Testament which were evidently intended to be regarded as historical. In the “International Critical Commentary” on Numbers, Dr. G. B. Gray, of Mansfield College, Oxford, thus writes on what he terms “the priestly section of the book” : “For the history of the Mosaic age the whole section is valueless.” “The historical impression given by (P ) of the Mosaic age is altogether unhistorical, and much of the detail . . . can . . . be demonstrated to be entirely unreal, or at least untrue of the age in question.” “This history is fictitious.” These statements at once set aside the history contained in more than three-quarters of the whole Book of Numbers, while as to the rest Dr. Gray’s verdict is by no means reassur- ing, and he clearly does not possess much confidence in even the small quantity that escapes his condemnation. The brazen serpent is said to be an invention on the part of some “who had come under the higher prophetic teaching” before Heze- kiah, and is meant “to controvert the popular belief” in the healing power of the serpent by ascribing it to Jehovah. As to the story of Balaam, Dr. Gray wrotes: “I t may, indeed, contain other historical features, such as the name of Balak, who may have been an actual king of Moab; but no means at present exist for distinguishing any further between the historical o r legendary elements and those which are supplied by the creative faculty and the religious feeling of the writers.” What is any ordinary earnest Christian to make of all these statements? The writer of the Book of Numbers evi- dently composed what professes to be history, and what he meant to be read as history, and yet according to Dr. Gray all this has no historical foundation. We can only say that
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker