The History of the Higher Criticism. 109 nary Christian, however, will say: Surely if we deny the Mosaic authorship and the unity of the Pentateuch we must undermine its credibility. The Pentateuch claims to be Mosaic. It was the universal tradition of the Jews. I t is expressly stated in nearly all the subsequent books of the Old Tes tament. The Lord Jesus said so most explicitly. (John 5 :46-47.) IF NOT MOSES, WHO? For this thought must surely follow to the thoughtful man: I f Moses did not write the Books of Moses, who did? I f there were three or four, or six, or nine authorized orig inal writers, why not fourteen, or sixteen, or nineteen? And then another and more serious thought must follow that. Who were these original writers, and who originated them? I f there were manifest evidences of alterations, manipulations, inconsistencies and omissions by an indeterminate number of unknown and unknowable and undateable redactors, then the question arises, who were these redactors, and how far had they authority to redact, and who gave them this author ity? If the redactor was the writer, was he an inspired writer, and if he was inspired, what was the degree of his inspira tion ; was it partial, plenary, inductive or indeterminate ? This is a question of questions: What is the guar antee of the inspiration of the redactor, and who is its guarantor? Moses we know, and Samuel we know, and Daniel we know, but ye anonymous and pseudonymous, who are ye? The Pentateuch, with Mosaic authorship, as Scrip tural, divinely accredited, is upheld by Catholic tradition and scholarship, and appeals to reason. But a mutilated cento or scrap-book of anonymous compilations, with its pre- and post- exilic redactors and redactions, is confusion worse confounded. At least that is the way it appears to the average Chris tian. He may not be an expert in philosophy or theology, but his common sense must surely be allowed its rights. And
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog