The Fundamentals - 1910: Vol.8

Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity 9 given by Dr. Driver in his “Introduction’’, and see whether such a complex combination of authors is at all likely, or whether, even if likely, the various authors can now be dis- tinguished? Is not the whole method far too purely subjective to be probable and reliable? Further, the critics are not agreed as to the number of documents, or as to the portions to be assipied to each author. A simple instance of this may be given. It is not so many years ago when criticism was content to say that Isa. 40-66, though not by Isaiah, was the work of one author, an unknown prophet of the Exile. But the most recent writers like Duhm, Macfadyen and Wade consider these chapters to be the work of two writers, and that the whole Book of Isaiah (from three authors) did not receive its present form until long after the return from the Exile. . . Then, these differences in literary analysis involve differ- ences of interpretation and differences of date, character, and meaning of particular parts of the Old Testament. To prove this, we ask attention to the following extracts from a review of a work on Genesis by Professor Gunkel of Berlin. The review is by Professor Andrew Harper of Melbourne, and appeared in the “Critical Review” for January, 1902. Profes- sor Harper’s own position would, we imagine, be rightly char- acterized as generally favorable to the moderate position of the critical movement. His comments on Gunkel’s book are, therefore, all the more noteworthy and significant.^ “I t will change the whole direction of the conflict as to the early books of the Pentateuch and lead it into more fruitful directions, for it has raised the fundamental question whether the narratives in Genesis are not far older than the authors of the documents marked J. E. -P., and whether they are not faithful witnesses to the religion of Israel before prophetic times.” “His conclusion will, inmany respects, be welcome to those who have felt how incredible some of the assumptions of the Kuenen-Wellhausen school of critics are.”

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker