A large number of Christians
feel compelled to demur to the present attitude of many scholars to the
Scriptures of the Old Testament. It is now being taught that the patriarchs of
Jewish history are not historic persons; that the records connected with Moses
and the giving of the law on Sinai are unhistorical; that the story of the
tabernacle in the wilderness is a fabricated history of the time of the Exile;
that the prophets cannot be relied on in their references to the ancient
history of their own people, or in their predictions of the future; that the
writers of the New Testament, who assuredly believed in the records of the Old
Testament, were mistaken in the historical value they assigned to those
records; that our Lord Himself, in His repeated references to the Scriptures of
His own nation, and in His assumption of the Divine authority of those
Scriptures, and of the reality of the great names they record, was only
thinking and speaking as an ordinary Jew of His day, and was as liable to error
in matters of history and of criticism as any of them were.
The present paper is
intended to give expression to some of the questions that have arisen in the
course of personal study, in connection with collegiate work and also during
several years of ordinary pastoral ministry. It is often urged that problems of
Old Testament criticism are for experts alone, and can only be decided by them.
We venture to question the correctness of this view, especially when it is
remembered that to many people "experts" means experts in Hebrew
philology only. By all means let .us have all possible expert knowledge; but,
as Biblical questions are complex, and involve several considerations, we need
expert knowledge in archaeology, history, theology, and even spiritual experience,
as well as in philology. Every available factor must be taken into account, and
the object of the present paper is to emphasize certain elements which appear
liable to be overlooked, or at least insufficiently considered.
We do not question for
an instant the right of Biblical criticism considered in itself. On the
contrary, it is a necessity for all who use the Bible to be "critics"
in the sense of constantly using their "judgment" on what is before
them. What is called "higher" criticism is not only a legitimate but
a necessary method for all Christians, for by its use we are able to discover
the facts and the form of the Old Testament Scriptures. Our hesitation,
consequently, is not intended to apply to the method, but to what is believed to
be an illegitimate, unscientific, and unhistorical use of it. In fact, we base
our objections to much modern criticism of the Old Testament on what we regard
as a proper use of a true higher criticism.
1. IS THE TESTIMONY
OF NINETEEN CENTURIES OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE OF NO ACCOUNT IN THIS
QUESTION?
For
nearly eighteen centuries these modern views of the Old Testament were not
heard of. Yet this is not to be accounted for by the absence of intellectual
power and scholarship in the Church. Men like Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas, Erasmus, Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, to say nothing of the English
Puritans and other divines of the seventeenth century, were not intellectually
weak or inert, nor were they wholly void of critical acumen with reference to
Holy Scripture. Yet they, and the whole Church with them, never hesitated to
accept the view of the Old Testament which had come down to them, not only as a
heritage from Judaism, but as endorsed by the apostles. Omitting all reference
to our Lord, it is not open to question that the views of St.
Paul and St. Peter and St.
John about the Old Testament were the views of the
whole Christian Church until the end of the eighteenth century. And, making
every possible allowance for the lack of historical spirit and of modern
critical methods, are we to suppose that the whole Church for centuries never
exercised its mind on such subjects as the contents, history, and authority of
the Old Testament?
Besides,
this is a matter which cannot be decided by intellectual criticism alone.
Scripture appeals to conscience, heart and will, as well as to mind; and the
Christian consciousness, the accumulated spiritual experience of the body of
Christ, is not to be lightly regarded, much less set aside, unless it is proved
to be unwarranted by fact. While we do not say that "what is new is not
true," the novelty of these modern critical views should give us pause
before we virtually set aside the spiritual instinct of centuries of Christian
experience.
2. DOES THE NEW
CRITICISM READILY AGREE WITH THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE JEWISH NATION?
The
Jewish nation is a fact in history, and its record is given to us in the Old
Testament. There is no contemporary literature to check tile account there
given, and archaeology affords us assistance on points of detail only, not for
any long or continuous period. This record of Jewish history can be proved to
have remained the same for many centuries. Yet much of modern criticism is
compelled to reconstruct the history of the Jews on several important pints. It
involves, for instance, a very different idea of the character of the earliest
form of Jewish religion from that seen in the Old Testament as it now stands;
its views of the patriarchs are largely different from the conceptions found on
the face of the Old Testament narrative; 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 reconstruction? Absolutely
nothing. We see through the centuries the great outstanding objective fact of
the Jewish nation, and the Old Testament is at once the means and the record of
their national life. It 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 Encyclopaedia 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 TESTAMENT REALLY ESTABLISHED?
It
is sometimes said that modern 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 "modern 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 questions 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 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 distinguished? 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 assigned 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 differences 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. Professor
Harper's own position would, we imagine, be rightly characterized as generally
favourable to the moderate position of the critical movement. His comments on
Gunkel's book are, therefore, all the more noteworthy and significant.
"It
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, in many respects, be welcome to those who have felt how
incredible some of the assumptions of the Kuenen-Wellhausen school of critics
are."
"It
will be obvious at a glance what an upsetting of current conceptions in regard
to the history of religion must follow if it be accepted."
"They
are sufficient, if made good, to upset the whole of the current reconstructions
of the religion of Israel.
To most readers it will be seen that he has in large part made them good."
"There
can be no doubt that his book most skilfully begins a healthy and much-needed
reaction. It should, therefore, be read and welcomed by all students of the Old
Testament whose minds are open."
In
view of Gunkel's position thus endorsed by Professor Harper, is it fair to
claim victory for the modern critical theories of the Old Testament? When an
able scholar like Professor Harper can speak of a new work as "sufficient
to upset the whole of the current reconstructions of the religion of Israel,"
it is surely premature to speak even in a moment of rhetorical enthusiasm, as
Dr. George Adam Smith does, of "victory" and "indemnity."
Dr. Smith himself now admits that Gunkel has overturned the Wellhausen theory
of the patriarchal narratives. And the same scholar has told us that
distinction in the use of the name for God is "too precarious" as the
basis of arguments for distinctions of sources. For ourselves we heartily
endorse the words of an American scholar when he says:
"We
are certain that there will be no final settlement of Biblical questions on the
basis of the higher criticism that is now commonly called by that name. Many
specific teachings of the system will doubtless abide. But so far forth as it
goes upon the assumption that statements of fact -in the Scriptures are pretty
generally false, so far forth it is incapable of establishing genuinely
permanent results." (Dr. G. A. Smith, "Modern Criticism and the
Preaching of the Old Testament", p. 35. Dr. Willis J. Beecher, in
"The Bible Student and Teacher", January, 1904) Sir W. Robertson
Nicoll, editor of the "British Weekly," remarked quite recently that
the "assured results" seem to be vanishing, that no one really knows
what they are.
4. IS THE POSITION OF MODERN
CRITICISM REALLY COMPATIBLE WITH A BELIEF IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A DIVINE
REVELATION?
The
problem before us is not merely literary, nor only historical; it is
essentially religious, and the whole matter resolves itself into one question:
Is the Old Testament the record of a Divine revelation? This is the ultimate
problem. It is admitted by both sides to be almost impossible to minimize the
differences between the traditional and the modern views of the Old Testament.
As a reviewer of Dr. George Adam Smith's book, "Modern Criticism and the
Preaching of the Old Testament", rightly says:
"The
difference is immense; they involve different conceptions of the relation of
God to the world; different views as to the course of Israel's
history, the process of revelation, and the nature of inspiration. We cannot be
lifted from the old to the new position by the influence of a charming literary
style, or by the force of the most enthusiastic eloquence."
("American Journal of Theology", Vol. VI., p. 114)
In
view of this fundamental difference, the question of the trustworthiness of the
Old Testament becomes acute and pressing. In order to test this fairly and
thoroughly, let us examine some of the statements made on behalf of the modern
view.
We
may consider first the rise and progress of religion in Israel. Dr. G.
A. Smith says: "It is plain, then, that to whatever heights the religion
of Israel afterwards rose, it remained before the age of the great prophets not
only similar to, but in all respects above-mentioned identical with, the
general Semitic religion; which was not a monotheism, but a polytheism with an opportunity
for monotheism at the heart of it, each tribe being attached to one god, as to
their particular Lord and Father." ("Modern Criticism", p. 130)
Consider
what is meant by the phrase, "in all respects above-mentioned identical
with the general Semitic religion," as applied to the religion of Israel previous
to the eighth century B. C. Can this view be fairly deduced from the Old
Testament as we now have it? Still more, is such a view conceivable in the
light of the several preceding centuries of God's special dealings with Israel?
Wherein, on this assumption, consisted the uniqueness of Israel from the
time of Abraham to the eighth century B. C.?
We
may next take the character of the narratives of Genesis. The real question at
issue is the historical character. Modern criticism regards the account in
Genesis as largely mythical and legendary. Yet it is certain that the Jews of
the later centuries accepted these patriarchs as veritable personages, and the
incidents associated with them as genuine history. St. Paul and the other New Testament writers
assuredly held the same view. If, then, they are not historical, surely the
truths emphasized by prophets and apostles from the patriarchal stories are so
far weakened in their supports?
Take,
again, the legislation which in the Pentateuch is associated with Moses, and
almost invariably introduced by the phrase, "The Lord spake unto
Moses." Modern criticism regards this legislation as unknown until the
Exile, or a thousand years after the time of Moses. Is it really possible to
accept this as satisfactory? Are we to suppose that "The Lord spake to
Moses" is only a well-known literary device intended to invest the
utterance with greater importance and more solemn sanction? This position,
together with the generally accepted view of modern criticism about the
invention of Deuteronomy in the days of Josiah, cannot be regarded as in
accordance with historial fact or ethical principle.
Canon
Driver and Dr. G. A. Smith, it is true, strongly assert the compatibility of
the new views with a belief in the Divine authority of the Old Testament, and
so far as they themselves are concerned we of course accept their statements ex animo. But we wish they would
give us more clearly and definitely than they have yet done, the grounds on
which this compatibility may be said to rest. To deny historicity, to correct
dates by hundreds of years, to reverse judgments on which a nation has rested
for centuries, to traverse views which have been the spiritual sustenance of
millions, and then to say that all this is consistent with the Old Testament
being regarded as a Divine revelation, is at least puzzling, and does not
afford mental or moral satisfaction to many who do not dream of questioning the
bona fides of scholars
who hold the views now criticized. The extremes to which Dr. Cheyne has gone
seem to many the logical outcome of the principles with which modern criticism,
even of a moderate type, starts. Facilis
descensus Averno, and we should like to be shown the solid and
logical halting-place where those who refuse to go with Cheyne think that they
and we can stand.
Sir
W. Robertson Nicoll, commenting March 12, 1903, on a speech delivered by the
then Prime Minister of Great
Britain (Mr. Balfour) in connection with the
Bible Society's Centenary, made the following significant remarks: "The
immediate results of criticism are in a high degree disturbing. So fat they
have scarcely been understood by the average Christian. But the plain man who
has been used to receive everything in the Bible as a veritable Word of God
cannot fail to be perplexed, and deeply perplexed, when he is told that much of
the Old Testament and the New is unhistorical, and when he is asked to accept
the statement that God reveals Himself by myth and legend as well as by the
truth, of fact. Mr. Balfour must surely know that many of the higher critics
have ceased to be believers. More than twenty years ago the present writer,
walking with Julius Wellhausen in the quaint streets of Greifswald, ventured to ask him whether, if
his views were accepted, the Bible could retain its place in the estimation of
the common people. `I cannot see how that is possible,' was the sad
reply."
It
is no mere question of how we may use the Old Testament for preaching, or how
much is left for use after the critical views are accepted. But even our
preaching will lack a great deal of the note of certitude. If. we are to regard
certain biographies as unhistorical, it will not be easy to draw lessons for
conduct, and if the history is largely legendary, our deductions about God's
government and providence must be essentially weakened. But the one point to be
faced is the historic cre6ibility of those parts of the Old Testament
questioned by modern criticism, and the historical and religious value of the
documents of the Pentateuch. Meanwhile, we ask to have char proof of the
compatibility of the modern views with the acceptance of the Old Testament as
the record of a Divine revelation.
5. MODERN CRITICISM
BASED ON A SOUND PHILOSOPHY SUCH AS CHRISTIANS CAN ACCEPT?
At
the foundation of much modern thought is the philosophy known as Idealism,
which, as often interpreted, involves a theory of the universe that finds no
room for supernatural interpositions of any kind. The great law of the
universe, including the physical, mental, and moral realms, is said to be
evolution, and though this doubtless presupposes an original Creator, it does
not, on the theory now before us, permit of any subsequent direct intervention of
God during the process of development. This general philosophical principle
applied to history has assuredly influenced, if it has not almost moulded, a
great deal of modern criticism of the Old Testament. It is not urged that all
who accept even the position of a moderate criticism, go the full length of the
extreme evolutionary theory; but there can be no reasonable doubt that most of
the criticism of the Old Testament is materially affected by an evolutionary
theory of all history which tends to minimize Divine intervention in the
affairs of the people of Israel. It is certainly correct to say that the
presupposition of much present-day critical reasoning is a denial of the
supernatural, and especially of the predictive element in prophecy.
As
to the theory of evolution regarded as a process of uninterrupted
differentiation of existences, under purely natural laws, and without any
Divine intervention, it will suffice to say that it is "not proven"
in the sphere of natural science, while in the realms of history and literature
it is palpably false. The records of history and of literature reveal from time
to time the great fact and factor of personality, the reality of personal
power, and this determinative element has a peculiar way of setting at naught
all idealistic theories of a purely natural and uniform progress in history and
letters. The literature of today is not necessarily higher than that produced
in the past; the history of the last century is not in every way .and always
superior to that of its predecessors. Even a "naturalistic" writer
like Professor Percy Gardner testifies to the fact and force of personality in
the following remarkable terms:
"There
is, in fact, a great force in history which is not, so far as we can judge,
evolutional, and the law of which is very hard to trace-the force of
personality and character." And quite apart from such instances of
personality as have arisen from time to time through the centuries, there is
one Personality who has not yet been accounted for by any theory of
evolution--the Person of Jesus of Nazareth.
There
are sufficient data in current Old Testament criticism to warrant the statement
that it proceeds from presuppositions concerning the origins of history,
religion, and the Bible, which, in their essence, are subversive of belief in a
Divine revelation. And such being the case, we naturally look with grave
suspicion on results derived from so unsound a philosophical basis.
6. CAN PURELY
NATURALISTIC PREMISES BE ACCEPTED WITH OUT COMING TO PURELY NATURALISTIC
CONCLUSIONS?
Kuenen
and Wellhausen are admittedly accepted as masters by our leading Old Testament
"higher critics" in England,
Scotland, and America, and
the results of their literary analysis of the Pentateuch are generally regarded
as conclusive by their followers. On the basis of this literary dissection,
certain conclusions are formed as to the character and growth of Old Testament
religion, and, as a result, the history of the Jews is reconstructed. The Book
of Deuteronomy is said to be mainly, if not entirely, a product of the reign of
Josiah, the accounts of the tabernacle and worship are of exilic date;
monotheism in Israel was of late date, and was the outcome of a growth from
polytheism; and the present Book of Genesis reflects the thoughts of the time
of its composition or compilation in or near the date of the Exile.
Now
it is known that Kuenen and Wellhausen deny the supernatural element in the Old
Testament. This is the "presupposition" of their entire position. Will
anyone say that it does not materially affect their conclusions? And is there
any safe or logical halting-ground for those who accept so many of their
premises? The extreme subjectivity of Canon Cheyne ought not to be a surprise
to any who accept the main principles of modern higher criticism; it is part of
the logical outcome of the general position. We gladly distinguish between the
extremists and the other scholars who see no incompatibility between the
acceptance of many of the literary and historical principles of Kuenen and
Wellhausen and a belief in the Divine source and authority of the Old
Testament. But we are bound to add that the unsatisfying element in the
writings of moderate men like Canon Driver and Principal George Adam Smith is
that, while accepting so much of the "naturalism" of the German
school, they do not give us any clear assurance of the strength of the
foundation on which they rest and ask us to rest. The tendency of their
position is certainly towards a minimizing of the supernatural in the Old
Testament.
Take,
as one instance, the Messianic element. In spite of the universal belief of
Jews and Christians in a personal Messiah, a belief derived in the first place
solely from the Old Testament, and supported for Christians by the New, modern
criticism will not allow much clear and undoubte(4 prediction of Him. Insight
into existing conditions is readily granted to the prophets, but they are not
allowed to have had much foresight into future conditions connected with the
Messiah. Yet Isaiah's glowing words remain, and demand a fair, full exegesis
such as they do not get from many modern scholars. Dr. James Wells, of Glasgow, wrote in the
"British Weekly" some time ago of the new criticism on this point:
"The
fear of prediction in the proper sense of the term is ever before its eyes. It
gladly enlarges on fore-shadowings, a moral historical growth which reaches its
culmination in Christ; and anticipations of the Spirit of Christ; but its
tendency. is always to minimize the prophetic element in the Old
Testament."
Another
example of the tendency of modern criticism to minimize and explain away the
supernatural element may be given from a book entitled, "The Theology and
Ethics of the Hebrews," by Dr. Archibald Duff, Professor in the Yorkshire
College, Bradford. This is his account of Moses at the burning bush:
"He
was shepherding his sheep among the red granite mountains . . . The man sat at
dawn by the stream, and watched the fiery rocks. Yonder gleamed the level sunlight
across the low growth. Each spine glistened against the rising sun. The man was
a poet, one fit for inspiration. He felt that the dreams of his soul were the
whisperings of his God, the place His sanctuary. He bowed and worshipped,"
(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 MansfieldCollege, 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 reassuring, 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 Hezekiah, 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 wrote: [sic]
"It
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 or 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 evidently 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 the Christian Church will
require very much more convincing proofs before they can accept the critical
position, and it does not facilitate our acceptance of this wholesale process
of invention to be told that it is due to "the creative faculty and the
religious feeling of the writers."
As
to the fact that so many of our British and American "higher critics"
are firm believers in the Divine authority of the Old Testament, and of a
Divine revelation embodied in it, we cannot but feel the force of the words of
the late Dr. W. H. Green, of Princeton: "They who have themselves been
thoroughly grounded in the Christian faith may, by a happy inconsistency, hold
fast their old convictions, while admitting principles, methods, and
conclusions that are logically at war with them. But who can be surprised if
others shall with stricter logic carry what has been thus commended to them to
its legitimate conclusions?"
