8
The Fundamentals stands; its views of the patriarchs are largely different from the conceptions found on the face of the Old Testament nar- rative; its views of Moses and David are essentially altered from what we have before us in the Old Testament Now what is there in Jewish history to support all this re- construction ? Absolutely nothing. We see through the centuries !u ^ ? l ° UtStanding obJ'ective fac* of the Jewish nation, and the Old Testament is at once the means and the record of their national life. I t rose with them, grew with them, and it is to the Jews alone we can look for the earliest testimony to the Old Testament canon. In face of these facts, it is bare truth to say that the fundamental positions of. modern Old Testament criticism are utterly incompatible with the historic growth and position of the Jewish people. Are we not right, therefore, to pause before we accept this subjective reconstruction of history? Let anyone read Wellhausen’s article on “Israel” in the Encyclo- paedia Britannica, and then ask himself whether he recognizes at all therein the story as given in the Old Testament. 3. ARE THE RESULTS OF THE MODERN VIEW OF THE OLD TESTA- MENT REALLY ESTABLISHED? It is sometimes said that modem criticism is no longer a matter of hypothesis- it has entered the domain of facts. Principal George Adam Smith has gone so far as to say that modem criticism has won its war against the traditional theories It only remains to fix the amount of the indemnity.” But is this really so ? Can we assert that the results of modern criticism are established facts? Indeed Dr. Smith has himself admitted, since writing the above words, that there are ques- tions still open which were supposed to be settled and closed twenty years ago. In the first place, is the excessive literary analysis of the Pentateuch at all probable or even thinkable on literary grounds? Let anyone work through a section of Genesis as
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker