7. CAN WE OVERLOOK
THE EVIDENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY?
It
is well known that during the last sixty years a vast number of archaeological
discoveries have been made in Egypt,
Palestine, Babylonia, and Assyria.
Many of these have shed remarkable light on the historical features of the Old
Testament. A number of persons and periods have been illuminated by these
discoveries and are now seen with a clearness which was before impossible.
Now
it is a simple and yet striking fact that not one of these discoveries during
the whole of this tune has given any support to the distinctive features and
principles of the higher critical position, while, on the other hand, many of
them have afforded abundant confirmation of the traditional and conservative
view of the Old Testament.
Let
us consider a few of these discoveries. Only a little over forty years ago the
conservative "Speaker's Commentary" actually had to take into
consideration the critical arguments then so prevalent in favour of the late
invention of writing. This is an argument which is never heard now in critical
circles. The change of attack is most striking. While forty or fifty years ago
it was argued that Moses could not possibly have had sufficient learning to
write the Pentateuch, now it is argued as the result of these modern
discoveries that he would have been altogether behind his contemporaries if he
had not been able to write. Again, the Babylonian story of the flood agrees in
long sections with the account in Genesis, and it is known that the Babylonian
version was in existence for ages before the dates assigned. to the Genesis
narrative by the critical school. Professor Sayce rightly calls this a crucial
test of the critical position. The historicity of the kings mentioned in
Genesis 14 was once seriously questioned by criticism, but this is impossible
today, for their historical character has been proved beyond all question, and,
in particular, it is now known that the Amraphel of that chapter is the
Hammurabi of the Monuments and a contemporary with Abraham. The puzzling story
of Sarah and Hagar is also now seen to be in exact agreement with Babylonian
custom. Then again, the Egypt
of Joseph and Moses is true to the smallest details of the life of the Egypt of that day and is altogether different
from the very different Egypt
of later ages. Sargon, who for centuries was only known from the one reference
to him in Isa. 20:1, is now seen to have been one of the most important kings
of Assyria. And the Aramaic language of Daniel
and Ezra, which has so often been accused of lateness, is proved to be in exact
accord with the Aramaic of that age, as shown by the Papyri discovered at
Elephantine in Egypt.
Now
these, and others like them, are tangible proofs which can be verified by
ordinary people. Hebrew philology is beyond most of us and is too subjective
for any convincing argument to be based upon it, but archaeology offers an
objective method of putting historical theories to the test.
Not
the least important feature of the archaeological argument is that a number of
leading archaeologists who were formerly in hearty agreement with the critical
school, have now abandoned this view and oppose it. As Sir William Robertson
Nicoll has forcibly said: "The significant fact is that the great
first-hand archaeologists as a rule do not trust the higher criticism. This
means a great deal more than can be put on paper to account for their doubt. It
means that they are living in an atmosphere where arguments that flourish
outside do not thrive."
Professor
Flinders Petrie, the great Egyptologist, uttered these words not long ago:
"I have come to the conclusion that there is a far more solid basis than
seems to be supposed by many critics . . . . I have not the slightest doubt
that contemporary documents give a truly solid foundation for the records
contained in the Pentateuch . . . . The essential point is that some of these
critical people support from an a priori basis instead of writing upon ascertained
facts. We should remember that writing at the time of the Exodus was as
familiar as it is now . . . . The fact is that it is hopeless for these people
by means merely of verbal criticism to succeed in solving all difficulties that
arise."
8. ARE THE VIEWS OF
MODERN CRITICISM CONSISTENT WITH THE WITNESS OF OUR LORD TO THE OLD TESTAMENT?
The
Christian Church approaches the Old Testament mainly and predominantly from the
standpoint of the resurrection of Christ. We naturally inquire what our Master
thought of the Old Testament, for if it comes to us with His authority, and we
can discover His view of it, we ought to be satisfied.
In
the days of our Lord's life on earth one pressing question was, "What
think ye of the Christ?" Another was, "What is written in the Law?
How readest thou?" These questions are still being raised in one form or
another, and today, as of old, the two great problems--two
"storm-centres"; as they have well been called-are Christ and the
Bible.
The
two problems really resolve themselves into one, for Christ and the Bible are
inseparable. If we follow Christ, He will teach us of the Bible; and if we
study our Bible, it will point us to Christ. Each is called the Word of God.
Let
us, first of all, be quite clear as to our meaning of our Lord as "The
Word of God." "In the beginning was the Word." A word is an oral
or visible expression of an invisible thought. The thought needs the word for
its expression, and the word is intended to represent the thought accurately, even
if not completely. We cannot in any degree be sure of the thought unless we can
be sure of the word. Our Lord as the Word, therefore, is the personal and
visible expression of the invisible God. (John 14; Heb. 1:3.) We believe that
He is an accurate "expression" of God, and that as the Word He
reveals God and conveys God's will to us in such a way as to be inerrant and
infallible. As the Incarnate Word He is infallible.
He
came, among other things, to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37), and it is
a necessary outcome of this purpose that He should bear infallible witness. He
came to reveal God and God's will, and this implies and requires special
knowledge. It demands that every assertion of His be true. The Divine knowledge
did not, because it could not, undergo any change by the Incarnation. He
continued to subsist in the form of God even while He existed in the form of
man. (Phil. 2:6. See Dr. Gifford's "The Incarnation:")
In
view of this position, we believe that, as Bishop Ellicott says ("Christus
Comprobator") we have a right to make this appeal to the testimony of
Christ to the Old Testament. The place it occupied in His life and ministry is
sufficient warrant for referring to His use of it. It is well known that, as
far as the Old Testament canon is concerned, our highest authority is that of
our Lord Himself; and what is true of the Old Testament as a whole, is surely
true of these parts to which our Lord specifically referred.
Let
us be clear, however, as to what we mean in malting this appeal. We do not for
an instant intend thereby to close all possible criticism of the Old Testament.
There are numbers of questions quite untouched by anything our Lord said, and
there is consequently ample scope for sober, necessary, and valuable criticism.
But what we do say is, that anything in the Old Testament stated by our Lord as
a fact, or implied as a fact, is, or ought to be, thereby closed for those who
hold Christ to be infallible. Criticism can do anything that is not
incompatible with the statements of our Lord; but where Christ has spoken,
surely "the matter is closed."
What,
then, is our Lord's general view of the Old Testament? There is no doubt that
His Old Testament was practically, if not actually, the same as ours, and that
He regarded it as of Divine authority, as the final court of appeal for all
questions connected with it. The way in which He quotes ft shows this. To the
Lord Jesus the Old Testament was authoritative and final, because Divine.
No
one can go through the Gospels without being impressed with the deep reverence
of our Lord for the Old Testament, and with His constant use of it in all
matters of religious thought and life. His question, "Have ye never
read?" His assertion, "It is written," His testimony, "Ye
search the Scriptures" (R. V), are plainly indicative of His view of the
Divine authority of the Old Testament as we have it. He sets His seal to its
historicity and its revelation of God. He supplements, but never supplants it.
He amplifies and modifies, but never nullifies it. He fulfils, i.e. fills full,
but never makes void.
This
general view is confirmed by His detailed references to the Old Testament.
Consider His testimonies to the persons, and to the facts of the old covenant.
There
is scarcely a historical book, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, to which our Lord
does not refer; while it is perhaps significant that His testimony includes
references to every book of the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, to Jonah, to Daniel, and
to miracles-the very parts most called in question today.
Above
all, it is surely of the deepest moment that at His temptation He should use
three times as the Word of God the book about which there has, perhaps, been
most controversy of all.
Again,
therefore, we say that everything to which Christ can be said, on any honest
interpretation, to have referred, or which He used as a fact, is thereby
sanctioned and sealed by the authority of our Infallible Lord. "Dominus
locutus est; causa finita est."
Nor
can this position be turned by the statement that Christ simply adopted the
beliefs of His day without necessarily sanctioning them as correct. Of this
there is not the slightest proof, but very much to the contrary. On some of the
most important subjects of His day He went directly against prevailing opinion.
His teaching about God, about righteousness, about the Messiah, about
tradition, about the Sabbath, about the Samaritans, about women, about divorce,
about the baptism of John, were diametrically opposed to that of the time. And
this opposition was deliberately grounded on the Old Testament which our Lord
charged them with misinterpreting. The one and only question of difference
between Him and the Jews as to the Old Testament was that of interpretation.
Not a vestige of proof can be adduced that He and they differed at all in their
general view of its historical character or Divine authority. If the current
Jewish views were wrong, can we think our Lord would have been silent on a
matter of such moment, about a book which He cites or alludes to over four
hundred times, and which He made His constant topic in teaching concerning
Himself? If the Jews were wrong, Jesus either knew it, or He did not. If He
knew it, why did He not correct them as in so many other and detailed
instances? If He did not know it--but I will not finish.
Nor
can this witness to the Old Testament be met by asserting that the limitation
of our Lord's earthly life kept Him within current views of the Old Testament
which need not have been true views. This statement ignores the essential force
of His personal claim to be "the Word."
On
more than one occasion our Lord claimed to speak from God, and that everything
He said had the Divine warrant. Let us notice carefully what this involves. It
is sometimes said that our Lord's knowledge was limited, and that He lived here
as man, not as God. Suppose we grant this for argument's sake. Very well; as
man He lived in God and on God, and He claimed that everything He said and did
was from God and through God. If, then, the limitations were from God, so also were the utterances; and,
as God's warrant was claimed for every one of these, they are therefore Divine
and infallible. (John 5:19; 5:30; 7:13; 8:26; 12:49; 14:24; 17:8.) Even though
we grant to the full a theory that will compel us to accept a temporary disuse
or non-use of the functions of Deity in the Person of our Lord, yet the words
actually uttered as man are claimed to be from God, and therefore we hold them
to be infallible. We rest, therefore, upon our Lord's personal claim to say all
and do all by the Father, from the Father, for the Father.
There
is, of course, no question of partial knowledge after the resurrection, when
our Lord was manifestly free from all limitations of earthly conditions. Yet it
was after His resurrection also that He set His seal to the Old Testament.
(Luke 24 :44.)
We
conclude that our Lord's positive statements on the subject of the Old
Testament are not to be rejected without charging Him with error. If, on these
points, on which we can test and verify Him, we find that He is not reliable,
what real comfort can we have in accepting His higher teaching, where
verification is impossible? We believe we are on absolutely safe ground when we
say that what the Old Testament was to our Lord, it must be and shall be to us.
CONCLUSION
We
ask a careful consideration of these eight inquiries. Taken separately, they
carry weight, but taken together they have a cumulative effect, and should be
seriously pondered by all who are seeking to know the truth on this momentous
subject.
We
may be perfectly sure that no criticism of the Old Testament will ever be
accepted by the Christian Church as a whole, which does not fully satisfy the
following conditions:
1.
It must admit in all its assumptions, and take fully into consideration, the
supernatural element which differentiates the Bible from all other books.
2.
It must be in keeping with the enlightened spiritual experience of the saints
of God in all ages, and make an effectual appeal to the piety and spiritual
perception of those who know by personal experience the power of the Holy
Ghost.
3.
It must be historically in line with the general tradition of Jewish history
and the unique position of the Hebrew nation through the centuries.
4.
It must be in unison with that apostolic conception of the authority and
inspiration of the Old Testament,. which is so manifest in the New Testament.
5.
Above all, it must be in accordance with the universal belief of the Christian
Church in our Lord's infallibility as a Teacher, and as "the Word made
flesh."
If
and when modern higher criticism can satisfy these requirements, it will not
merely be accepted, but will command the universal, loyal, and even
enthusiastic adhesion of all Christians. Until then, we wait, and also maintain
our position that "the old is better."
|