THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM A REVIEW OF CURRENT EVOLUTION THEORIES ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT. ^ BY THE REV. E. H.' DEWART, D.D. TORONTO: WILLIAM BRIGGS, Wesley Buildings. Montreal: C. W. COAXES. Halifax: S. F. HUESTIS. 1900.' JO // // Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, by William Brioob, at the Department of Agriculture. PREFACE. I VENTURE to think that this book sufficiently manifests the purpose with which it has been written, to require no lengthy preface. My main object is to correct some current misapprehensions respecting critics and criticism, and to show, in plain and popular language, that most of the distinguishing theories of the advanced "Higher Critics '' are not justified by adequate proof. The chief conclusions of this critical school are stated, and reasons given for rejecting them ; but many secondary points in this controversy have been left unnoticed. If the main positions of these critics are shown to be unten- able, their views on subordinate points cannot possess any great importance. Although a cumulative strength of argument and proof will be made evident by reading successively, in the order in which the topics are treated, yet, as each chapter deals with one phase of the general subject, any chapter may be read by itself without serious disadvantage. It will be seen that the critical contest is not, as is often assumed, between "scholars" on the one side, and un- learned " traditionalists " who blindly cling to the beliefs of the past on the other; but between critics who have adopted the evolutional theory of the origin of the Old Testament, and equally learned biblical scholars who IV PREFACE. refuse to accept the negative theories of this " Higher Criticism ; " but who advocate and practise the freest criticism of the Sacred Writings. I have no disposition to cling to the opinions of the past, as if they were undoubted verities. At the same time, I am as little disposed to follow leaders who speak as if the great thinkers of the past were slaves to authority, and the conception of the Bible and its truths which inspired the godly faith and zeal of former times, was so erroneous that it must be thrown aside like a worn-out garment, to make way for speculative theories which have not been tested by time. The fact of a belief about the Bible being traditional does not prove it to be indubitably true ; but certainly it should not dis- credit any belief, that it has been generally held by Chris- tians in the past. I have not written this volume with any thought of opposing the free criticism of the Bible ; but with an humble hope that, in spite of my imperfect treatment of the subject, the facts and arguments submitted, and especially the judgments of eminent conservative scholars, may be the means of preventing unprejudiced readers from accepting unverified theories about the Old Testament, which tend to weaken and undermine faith in the truth and Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. E. H. D. Toronto, November, 1899. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON SOME CURRENT PHASES OF THE QUESTION. PAOB A Time of Critical Enquiry— Questions that Require Definite Answers— Different Estimates of Critical Results— Vague Pleading for Liberty of Thought-A Questionable Prac- tice—Incorrect Assumptions Regarding the Position of Conservative Theologians-Fair Consideration Should be Given to Facts and Arguments 9 CHAPTER II. STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE CAN JUDGE THE THEORIES OF THE "HIGHER CRITICS." Undue Exaltation of Partial Experts-The Appeal is to Reason and Attested Facts-The Judgment of English Scholars not to be Discarded— Statements of Hebrew Scholars on this Point-The Cause of Different Inter- pretations of Isaiah liii.— Intelligent Conviction the Ground of Belief-No Disparagement of Biblical Learning 24 CHAPTER III. WHAT IS THE "HIGHER CRITICISM" OF THE BIBLE? Need of Right Views of What is Meant-Definitions of Higher Criticism-Classification Depends on Conclusions Adopted —The Pentateuchal Controversy— Astruc and His Succes- sors-Theories of Higher Critics-The Logical Results- Arguments Against Disintegration 3g VI CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. CONSERVATIVE BIBLICAL SCHOLARS AND FREE CRITICISM. PAOR Free Criticism a Sacred Right— Orthodox Scholars Advocate this— Young Ministers Should Read Both Sides— Objec- tions not Based on Prejudice — Critical Principles and Facts Accepted by Conservative Critics 57 CHAPTER V. THEORIES BUILT ON IMAGINARY STATES OF LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE. Making History Fit a Scheme— An Unjustifiable Way of Fixing Dates — Archaeology Contradicts the Higher Critics — Accounts in Genesis not Babylonian — Import of Recent Discoveries not Recognized 73 CHAPTER VI. UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ALLEGED SILENCES OF SCRIPTURE. Partial Statements of Higher Critics — Neglect of Mosaic Laws Accounted For — Historians and Prophets Refer to Penta- teuchal History and Rites — Conclusive Testimony of Amos, Hosea and Later Prophets— The Facts not Fairly Met by the Higher Critics 92 CHAPTER VII. QUESTIONABLE METHODS OF HIGHER CRITICS-" THE CANONIZATION OF CONJECTURE." Miscalled Scientific Criticism— A Preconceived Theory of Evolution Determines Conclusions — Theories Built on Mere Conjecture — VVellhausen on the Chronicles — Gra- tuitous Creation of Redactors — Thoughts Suggested by These Methods— Adverse Statements of Biblical Scholars 115 • • CONTENTS. Vll CHAPTER VIII. CONTRADICTORY DIFFERENCES OF PROMINENT HIGHER CRITICS. PAOB The Contradictory Differences Not Insignificant — Examples of Wide Difierences as to Dates — Differences Relate to tlie Same Kind of Questions which Constitute the Main Elements of Higher Criticism — Reasons for Distrust .... 147 CHAPTER IX. THE BEARING OF CURRENT THEORIES ON OUR LORDS TEACHING AND CHARACTER. Christ's Testimony to the Old Testament— New Testament Conception of Messianic Prediction and Fulfilment — Our Lord's Citation of the 110th Psalm— Three Theories Examined— The modem "Kenosis" Discrowns Christ — His Teaching Not Disproved— Making Room for Ration- alist Theories 158 CHAPTER X. EFFECT OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY ON FAITH IN THE TRUTH AND INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Statements of Higher Critics— Not Merely Literary Questions —Theories which Affect Confidence in the Divine Authority of Scripture— Harmful Effects on Christian Faith ir. Europe -The Plea for "Christian Scholars" Examined— Following Anti-Supernatural Leaders— Tes- timony of Eminent Biblical Scholars on this Question ... 173 CHAPTER XL CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. Re-statement of Facts and Arguments in Previous Chapters —Many Critical Conclusions Unreasonable— Advantages of the Analytic Criticism Unduly Magnified— Prof. W. J. Beecher on the " Books " and the " Sources "—No Moral Power Gained by Dissecting the Books 202 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON SOME CURRENT PHASES OF THE QUESTION A Time of Critical Enijuiry — Questions that Require Definite Answers — Different Estimates of Critical Results — Vague Pleadings for Liberty of Thought — A Questionable Practice — Incorrect Assumptions Regarding the Position of Con- servative Theologians — Fair Consideration Should be Given to Facts and Arguments. IN these times of searching enquiry and mental unrest, nothing is too sacred to be criticised. The questioning critical spirit invades every depart- ment of human thought. We need not therefore be surprised that the Sacred Scriptures have been sub- jected to the same close critical scrutiny that has been exercised in other spheres of enquiry. But the peculiar claim of the Bible to be a book containing divine revelations of truth, invests the results of Biblical criticism with exceptional importance. In most Christian communities a notable interest is manifested in what is commonly called the " higher 9 10 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. criticism " of the Old Testament. Many who have not had the opportunity of examining the subject for themselves are anxious to know in what degree these modern critical theories affect the historic faith of the Christian Church, in the divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Many are asking such questions as these : What is the "higher criticism" ? What changes in the historic Chri::tian view of the Bible would the acceptance of these new theories involve ? Are there any valid objec- tions to the methods and conclusions of these critics ? Would the general acceptance of the new theories about the Old Testament tend to promote spiritual religion ? Is it true that all Hebrew scholars now accept the idea that the Old Testament is the product of evolution, rather than an authentic account of God's dealings with Israel, and a record of divine revela- tions made to chosen men, who " spake from God being moved by the Hoi}'' Ghost " ? Are the argu- ments, for and against this evolution theory of the Scriptures, such as intelligent English scholars can understand, so as to judge for themselves as to what is true and right ? The significance of these questionings is very much intensified by the great differences of opinion, respect- ing the value of the results of the " higher criticism " of the books of the Old Testament, which distinguish the views of the advocates and opponents of the advanced theories. The former esteem the conclu- sions of this modern criticism a great gain to the Christian world, by which errors and misconceptions INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 11 of the past have been corrected, and the origin and character of the Hebrew Scriptures set in their true light. But many eminent biblical scholars, though freely admitting the value of the light shed by modern study on the history and times of the books of the Bible, regard many of the conclusions of the advanced critics as speculative conjectures, not sustained by adequate proof, and strongly tending to undermine faith in the trustworthiness and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. It is important to know which of these judgments is right, or whether there is any safe middle ground between the extreme views of these conflicting schools of thought. There are several things which make a plain state- ment of some of the main facts bearing on these ques- tions neither untimely nor unnecessary at the present time. There is no scarcity of books and articles in reviews and magazines discussing this subject. The literature of biblical criticism is abundant enough ; but the great majority of Christian people have neither the time nor opportunity to read these elaborate and technical works. Besides, unverified conclusions are asserted with the most positive and oracular confidence, as if there was no room for any contrary opinion. Partial state- ments are made respecting the actual state of the controversy, that would " lead astray, if possible, even the elecL." Sometimes opinions, that are still warmly disputed by competent scholars, are stated in a plausi- ble paraphrase, as if they were unquestioned historic 12 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. facts ; or, at any rate, as if those who do not accept that version of the matter might be counted out, as unworthy of any consideration. There are also signs of a tendency to show less reverence for the Bible than formerly. The words of inspired Apostles are sometimes set aside with an air of superior wisdom, when they do not accord with some modern critical opinion. This is a serious and suggestive fact. In former times our forefathers heard or read of lax theories about the Bible being held in Germany, or France, or somewhere else, as something that did not greatly concern them. These things then seemed far off, and, above all, they had strong confidence that the personal experience of salvation in the heart would keep the head free from heresy and error in religious belief. But the wave of critical speculation has reached all the Protestant churches of Britain and America. It cannot be rolled back by any voice of authority. It must be squarely met by appropri- ate facts and arguments. There are signs that of the younger ministers, who desire to keep abreast with the religious thought of the times, some liave been smitten by the attraction of views that confidently claim to be the outcome of liberal thought and modern scholarship. Many of this class are without anything like a thorough knowledge of the issues at stake, or the strength of the objections which eminent biblical scholars, who do not accept the theory that the Scriptures are the product of evolution, have urged against the guess- work of the advanced critics. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 13 Undoubtedly there are difficulties and apparent contradictions in these ancient writings; but these difficulties have been greatly exaggerated In view of the remoteness of the time when they were written, the limited literature in the language, and the fact that Hebrew has long ceased to be a living language, it would be strange if this were not so. But we may admit the difficulty of reconciling two statements, without accepting a theory of different authors of different dates which is built upon it. Modern criti- cism has indeed suggested explanations which would lessen some of these difficulties. It is, however, the judgment of many biblical scholars that the views by which the " higher critics " claim to have solved many of these critical problems create greater difficulties than those they remove. It is an admonitory fact that all past efforts to conform Christianity to systems of secular philosophy have resulted in robbing it of its spiritual power. Nor is it without significance, that German radical criticism of the Old Testament mainly originated in an effort to conform the conception of the Scrip- tures to the pantheistic philosophy of Hegel. It is truly said by Prof. F. R. Beattie, " that much of the modern criticism, which ignores the supernatural and seeks to give a naturalistic explanation of the religion of the sacred Scriptures, has grown out of the soil of the idealistic Pantheism of Heo:el." The srravest problem suggested by this modern critical scheme is to determine whether the main theory of the evolu- tionary critics, and the conception of the Bible it 14 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. loj^ically implies, can be accepted without seriously a,fFec.'ing those beliefs and religious experiences, that have been the vital forces of Christianity in every age of its history. There is at the present time a good deal of pleading for free enquiry and progress in theological thougiit, which has special significance. It is deemed dis- creditable not to agree with the new theories about the Bible, and an evidence of superiority to accept them. Liberty of thought is sacred ; but there is no necessary antagonism between freedom of thought and the acceptance of duly attested truths. The value of liberty depends upon the use we make of it. The right of freedom of thought is now so universally acknowledged that it stands in need of no defence. But freedom of thought does not mean that any one who advocates new theories must be exempt from criticism or refutation. Those who condemn all creeds have an unwritten, if not a written, creed of their own. It does not mean that adverse criticism of opinions we believe to be erroneous should be stigmatized as intolerance and persecution. It does not mean that the Church should not maintain purity of teaching in her ministry, without being charged with " heresy-hunting." Whenever a preacher or teacher is criticised or cen- sured as teaching views that are unscriptural and erroneous, a clamour is raised without much regard to the issues, that the man is not allowed liberty of thought and is being persecuted for thinking for him- self. This is generally a false alarm. The issue is INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 not, shall such a man have liberty to believe what he deems right? No one wpnts to deprive him of that right. The real question is, If we are convinr.d that a man has accepted beliefs that are false and un- scriptural, shall we authorize and employ him to pro- pagate these misleading views as if we believed them to be true ? Neither churches nor individuals should be recreant to their conviction as to what is true and right, nor indifferent towards what they believe to be erroneous. It is a spurious liberality that speaks as if one opinion was as right as another. This is virtually ignoring the distinction between truth and falsehood, and by implication denying that the Holy Scriptures are a standard of religious truth by which beliefs should be tested. We may fully agree with the strongest things that can be said in favor of freedom of opinion, the sacredness of truth, and the right of new ideas to receive fair consideration, and yet feel it to be our duty to reject the particular views these liberal senti- ments are used to cover and excuse. When some doubtful views are being publicly advocated and taught, general pleadings for liberty of belief in teaching have a significance they would not possess under other circumstances. At such a time pleas for liberty and liberality may be equivalent to an allega- tion, that all who reject the new views are opposed to free and independent criticism. This is confound- ing things which differ. Eloquent declamation about freedom of thought, love of truth, and the necessity of keeping abreast of the progressive learning of the 16 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. times, may be employed to justify and apologize for what is erroneous as well as in defence of what is sound and true. When any teacher of men speaks as if theologians of the past did not grapple with the great problems of religious thought independently, and as if these questions were now in a state of flux requiring scien- tific adjustment, it is pretty certain that he is trying to make room for some ideas of his own Hence, when we hear fervid pleadings for new ideas and the results of modern thought, and disparagement of all that we have received from the thinkers of the past, it is in order to ask those who adopt that style to come out of the clouds of indefinite generalities, and to tell us plainly what historic beliefs we are required to give up and what new beliefs we should substitute for them. It is not a commendable thing to cover doubtful dogmas with high-sounding generalities, that conceal rather than express what is meant. Those who have any new views to teach should have the honesty to state them plainly. When this is done, the supreme question to be met and answered is : " Are these opinions or theories true and proved BY adequate evidence ? " It has become a rather common practice, with some who have not fully committed themselves to the con- clusions of the advanced critics, to portray as favor- ably as possible how much that is good and valuable in religion would be left us, even if the negative criticism be accepted. In other words, to make out how little harm it would do Christians to accept these new INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 critical views. This phase of the subject wiP be dis- cussed in a future chapter ; but I may say in this connection, that I regard this as a questionable prac- tice. For, though we should be slow to pronounce dogmatically what the consequences of accepting a new theory sliall be, yet, as the truth or falsehood of any teaching is the main thing, this should be settled before we determine our attitude towards any new views of the Bible. It is paying too much deference to speculative analytical critics to adopt, even as a working basis, the idea that we have nothing of the Bible left that is trustworthy, but what their partial criticism permits them to concede. There are many examples of men having begun by theorizing in this way, and ending by accepting the opinions for which their theorizing had prepared the way. This method has too much the appearance of preparing to sur- render, by making the people familiar beforehand with the idea of adjusting themselves to the new theories. Picturing what the religious position of those who now possess peace through believing might be, after they have renounced the confidence in the trust- worthiness of the Bible which has inspired and sustained their faith in the past, is too much like describing to people who have eaten and are full how well they could do, if reduced to a starvation allow- ance of food. A remarkable illustration of this practice is seen in a book by Prof. A. B. Bruce, which he entitled " Apologetics." At one point he says : " It will be time enough to dogmatise when criticism has arrived 2 18 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. at the stage of finality. It is far enough from hav- ing reached that stage yet. Not to mention endless diversity of views on special points, there are broad contrasts between different schools, even with refer- ence to the leading critical problems."^ And yet his whole work is on the line of these unsettled theories. He is ready to surrender the historic conception of the Scriptures at almost every point. He constantly quotes the rationalist critics as his main authorities. His *' Apologetics " is really an apology for the theories of the " higher critics." It sometimes seems as if this method of building with confessedly " untempered mortar " was adopted be- cause it is thought less likely to repel those whom it is desired to influence, than an outspoken approval of the evolution theory of the origin of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some writers have a practice of ascribing question- able opinions to those who refuse to accept their theories ; as if all who do not think just as they do were shut up to the acceptance of some weak unten- able views, which require no refutation. One form of this is seen in the undue disparagement of the theologians and methods of the past. A recent writer describing the way in which former trans- lators found an answer to the question, " What is the true text?" says : "Whenever the enquiry arose as to what any writer of sacred Scripture said in a parti- cular place, the tendency of the theory was to insist that he "inust have said thus and so, and to fix in this * "Apologetics," p. 171. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19 way whatever form of the text seemed most favorable to the theory itself." One is prompted to ask, what translators of the past would accept this as a truthful characterisation of their work ? The theory which denies all predictive reference to the historic Christ is, forsooth, called the " Ethical Theory " — as if those who deny the negative views do not fully hold and teach the moral and religious lessons of Hebrew pro- phecy. There is no just ground for any such assump- tion. It is contrary to the facts. It is too much the fashion for those who advocate the evolutional theory of the Bible to represent all who do not accept that view as timid traditionalists, who base their beliefs on the authority of theologians of the past, while the " higher critics " are to be respectfully regarded as having obtained their views by personal study and examination. The actual facts do not justify this assumption. As that able scholar. Prof. James Robertson, of Glasgow, says : " The critical theory is fast becoming traditional, and is accepted by multitudes on no better grounds than those on which the former view became traditional." Prof. W. J. Beecher says, referring to the analytic critics : " They have no right to claim that they differ from their opponents in that their views are based on investigation, while those of their opponents are based on tradition." Both the negative and conservative schools have in their ranks those whose beliefs about the Bible are based on personal study and examination ; but both have also many who have accepted their beliefs because they had been the beliefs of others. 20 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. It is not too much to aay, that ordinary Christians who hold the ortliodox belief about the authorship of the books of the Bible have as good ground to be credited witli independence, as persons of similar learning who accept the theories of the higher criticism, on the authority of certain critics. The latter class accept theories that are based on subtle distinctions and speculations, whose import they but imperfectly understand. 'J'he former hold the historic view simply because they accept the Bible as being what, on the face of it, it assumes to be. We certainly should have some better reason for our belief than tliat it has been held by others, either in the past or in the present. But some writers seem to think it a sufficient reply to any objection urged against the radical theories, to say that it is on con- servative or traditional lines of thought. As if it were enough to discredit any view that it was the faith of the Church through the ages of the past ! If any theologians or churches in the past have held a theory of inspiration, or any other traditional belief which cannot be justified by a sober scientific study of the Bible itself, it should not be assumed that this questionable view is held by those who reject theories which divest the Bible of distinguishing (|ualities, which are in a large degree reasons for accepting its teaching as a standard of faith and duty. It is as futile as it is unjust to cite exploded notions of past times which no one now holds, such as that the Hebrew vowel points were inspired, that Moses wrote the account of his own death, or some fabulous Jewish INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21 legends about tlic Hebrew 8crij)tures, as if such tliinjijs represented the behefsof tliose wlio reject tlie tlieories of the higher critics of Germany. In the discussion of these (questions whicli so closely touch our estimate of the Bible, I do not postulate any theory of the inspiration or inerrancy of the Scriptures, except what they claim or assume for themselves. I do not (juestion any man's right to the most searching examination of the contents of the books of the Bible. But I claim an et^ual right to reject what I deem untrue. I feel bound to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints ; " but I hold no brief for the defence of every traditional belief. I feel no obligation to accept what has been held by good and gifted men of the past, any further than it is sup- ported by Scripture and sound reason. No opinion is accepted because it is old, or rejected because it is new. Neither novelty nor antiquity can be safely taken as a test of the truth of any teaching. " What- soever THINGS ARE TRUE" — these and these only should be accepted by lovers of truth. I lay no claim to be a critical expert ; but my whole life has been given to literary and biblical studies. I have considered with open mind the argu- ments of the advocates of the " hio;her criticism " and the counter criticism of their opponents. I ask no one to accept any conclusion on my authority ; but I would remind those who may differ from me, that if pertinent and important facts are correctly stated, and conclusions supported by fair and valid argu- 22 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. ments, it is an evaHion, und no proper reply, to try to break tlie force of .such factH and arguments by tlie authority of " all scholars," or the alleged learning and love for the Bible of certain critics who hold different opinions. This method of answering objec- tions has been too much in evidence of late. We are not dealing with the sincerity or conscientiousness of critics, but with the truth and soundness of their teaching and the validity of their arguments. The rejection and refutation of a man's opinions should not be construed as aspersing his character. In view of all that has been written on the subject, there is not much room for new arguments. I have freel}'- availed myself of what others have written. The numerous quotations from able and learned con- servative scholars, which will be found in this volume, are the chief elements of value in the work. Yet, I would remind my readers that, though these judg- ments of learned men are weighty and valuable, they are not cited as unquestionable oracles, but for their force and reasonableness, and the help they give to a right understanding of the important questions under consideration. They disprove the common assump- tion that " all scholars " accept the negative theories. One thing is certain, we are passing through a grave crisis. The Old Testament is "under fire." Essentially rationalist teaching about the books of the Bible is current in the theological literature of the day. It is advocated by men of distinguished learning, and received in unexpected quarters within the Christian churches. There is therefore great INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 18 need to discriminate between conjectures and facts — between plausible surmises an»l valid arj^uments. We should accept whatever is fairly proved by ade- quate evidence, and reject what is disproved or is open to valid objections. We should withhold accept- ance from conjectural j^uesses that are not supported by proper proof, or that from the nature of the case can never be conclusively decided. Truth always suffers when men decide without the necessary data. What is said in this volume to show that there are cogent objections to many of the methods and con- clusions of leading " higher critics," should not be construed as a condemnation of thorough and inde- pendent biblical criticism. I mean no indiscriminate condemnation of all higher critics. " There are critics and critics." I simply mean to show that many cu''- rent assumptions of leading critics, which strongly tend to overthrow faith in the trustworthiness and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, are not sup- ported by adequate evidence and are advocated by unscientific and unwarrantable methods. CHAPTER 11. STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE CAN JUDGE THE THEORIES OF THE ''HIGHER CRITICSr Undue Exaltation of Partial Experts — The Appeal is to Reason and Attested Facts — The Judgment of English Scholars not to be Discarded — Statements of Hebrew Scholars on this Point — The Cause of Diflferent Interpretations of Isaiah liii. — Intelligent Conviction the Ground of Belief — No Disparagement of Biblical Learning. IS it justifiable to assume, as is frequently done in curren*: discussion, that this subject of the autlien- ticity of the books of the Bible is beyond the compre- hension of ordinary mortals, and that they must accept on trust what claims to be " results of modern criti- cism ?" It seems as if some writers would have us believe that we have no choice between accepting theories that are essentially rationalistic, or admitting the force of infidel objections against the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. We are not shut up to either of these alternatives. We cannot consent to strip the Bible of those characteristics which distinguish it from all other writings, in order to evade the force of skep- tical objections to its divine authority. This question must be settled before we go any further ; for if in- 24 STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 25 telligent readers of the English Bible are incapable of understanding the questions at issue, it would be of no use to proceed with the discussion of the subject. It is somewhat strange that those who pose as the champions of independent thought, and seem to think they have a mission to break the chains of authority imposed by the Church of the past, should be so con- stantly appealing to the authority of "all scholars" and " the consensus of modern critics " to settle vital (questions affecting our estimate of the Holy Scrip- tures, The unquestioning acceptance of the theories of modern critics is no more laudable than submission to the canonized authorities of the past. There may be quite as much independence and love of truth in *' earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints " as in pliantly bowing down to the authority of critical experts, in order to be abreast with modern critical learning. It is well to keep in mind, whatever the learning or ability of any writer may be, that " there is only so much force IN ANY man's opinions AS THERE IS FORCE IN THE REASONS FOR THEM." No one should expect to settle such grave questions by dogmatic assertions, or appeals to the opinions of " scholars," however eminent they may be. It may be that, if we knew who were meant by the " Christ- ian scholars " appealed to, we would know enough about them to regard them as unsafe leaders. Facts may be established by the testimony of competent witnesses, but the truth of opinions and inferences cannot be established by the prestige of distinguished 26 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. names, " Great men are not always wise." All the heresies that have corrupted the truth were introduced by men of learning. Baur and the leaders of the Tubingen heresy were as famous scholars and as popu- lar for a time as the greatest of the " higher critics " of the present day. The reader of the English Bible should not give up his right to think and judge for himself. Neither should the minister, who is not an expert Hebrew scholar, regard all these questions as exclusively be- longing to expert linguists. Intelligent English readers are not left to the tender mercies of rationalist critics, with nothing but the resources of their own wits to meet the negative theories. The results of the studies of the most eminent scholars are within easy reach of all who desire to study them. So in all ages Christ- ians have used successfully the weapons for the defence of the truth, that had been forged by the gifted leaders in the Church of God. All who are at all familiar with what has been written by the most learned writers on this subject, both advanced and conservati >'e, know that the main questions are submitted to the reason and common- sense of all intelligent Christian readers. If there are writers who think these to be matters which none but Oriental scholars can understand, why do they appeal to the general Christian public as they do ? They cannot expect their theories to be accepted with un- questioning faith on their authority alone. Writers who make their appeal to intelligent English readers, if these readers consider the evidence for the new views STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 27 insufficient and reject them, should not contemn the jury as incompetent because the verdict is unfavorable to them. Yet, in Germany and also in America, it is too much the fashion to treat the objections of Christ- ian pastors and intelligent laymen as of no account, and to regard all these questions as the special preroga- tive of college professors of the analytic school of critics. It looks as if readers of the English Bible may be conceded intelligence enough to accept these critical theories, but not enough to reject them intel- ligently ; or, rather, that acceptance of the critical theories is made the test of intelligence, and their rejection an evidence of incompetence. As the results of accepting the new conception of the Bible profoundly concerns the whole Chrip+ian Church, thoughtful men and women are not likely to give up their intelligent convictions in deference to claims of superior scholarship. They will require something more than the assertion of partial advo- cates, that certain theories are supported by "the ripest German scholarship," before they accept them as true. There is truth and common-sense in the remark of Dean Chadwick, of Ireland, that " plenty of orthodox clergymen, and laymen, too, who have not the slightest notion of rejecting anything that can be really proved, have just as little intention of letting go their old beliefs, unless the case is really made out to their satisfaction."^ To treat with con- tempt intelligent English scholars who cannot accept the views of ** higher critics," as if it was an imper- ^ Expositor, November, 1889. 28 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. tinence for such persons to have any opinion on the matter, is virtually to deny their right to judge for themselves, and to assume that they should accept the new theories without an intelligent conviction of their truth. It is now freely admitted by the greatest Hebrew scholars, that intelligent readers of the English Bible can understand and judge the characteristic conclu- sions of the " higher critics." The ultimate decision of the main questions in dispute must rest with the enlightened Christian consciousness of the people, rather than with partial critical theorists. A few quotations from distinguished Old Testament scholars, advanced as well as conservative, will show that the assumption that these questions are beyond the com- prehension of English readers is not regarded as true or scientific by those who are the most competent to pronounce on this point. Principal Cave, of Hackney College, in his able work on the Inspiration of the Old Testament, says : " It may be fearlessly asserted that the original words of the Old Testament are sufficiently known to us for the purpose in view, no future suggestion of textual criticism being capable of interfering to any material extent with the general conclusions which will be arrived at. . . . No one would have the temerity to maintain nowadays that valid opinions upon the general bearings of the Old Testament are impossible, either on the score of the corruptness of our copies, or on the score of the precariousness of our translation. In fact, we might almost rest satisfied with the Re- STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 29 vised English Version everywhere, without going far astray." - The main arguments of the advanced critics are not based on special translations. Speaking of the alleged double authorship of Isaiah, Prof. T. K.Cheyne, one of the advanced higher critics, says : " My own opinion is, that the peculiar expressions of the latter prophecies are, on the whole, not such as to necessi- tate a different linguistic stage from the historical Isaiah; and that, consequently, the decision of the critical question will mainly depend on other than purely linguistic considerations."^ In his masterly work, " The Early Religion of Israel," Dr. James Robertson, Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of Glasgow, says : " In the following chapters an attempt is made to approach the subject in such a manner that an intelligent reader of the English Bible may not be placed at a disadvantage, and to present the questions in dispute in such a shape that he will be able from the first to follow the argument."* Even the late Professor Robertson Smith, speaking of the English edition of Wellhausen's " Prologomena of the History of Israel," says that the work " gives the English reader, for the first time, an opportunity to form his own judgment on questions which are within the scope of anyone who reads the English Bible carefully, and is able to think clearly and with- out prejudice about its contents."^ 2 Page 27. 3 " The Prophecies of Isaiah," p. 240. * Page 5. * Page 6. 30 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. A similar position is taken by the late Professor Kuenen himself, the great high priest of rationalist " higher criticism." He says : " The Bible is in every one's hand. The critic has no other Bible than the public. He does not profess to have any other docu- ments inaccessible to the laity, nor does he profess to see anything in the Bible that the ordinary reader cannot see. It is true that here and there he improves the common translation ; but this is the exception, not the rule. And yet he dares to form a conception of Israel's religious development totally different from that which, as anyone may see, is set forth in the Old Testament, and to sketch the primitive Christianity in lines which even the acutest reader cannot recog- nise in the New."^ That distinguished Hebrew scholar, the late Prof. A. McCaul, of King's College, London, speaking of the right understanding of the historic facts of the Old Testament, says : " In such matters no reader of the authorized version ought to allow himself to be mystified or silenced by an appeal to foreign critics, much less to be disturbed in his faith, as if he could not apprehend the general teaching of the Bible with- out profound knowledge of the Semitic dialects and the latest results of German criticism."^ Even so advanced a critic as Professor Ladd, of Yale College, does not regard these questions about the Bible as the exclusive province of Hebrew scholars. He says : " It is the common experience and comm,on " Modern Review, July, 1880. '"Prophecy," page 98. STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 31 judgment of Christians to which the appeal must be taken. And just as far as we separate the arguments for any view of the nature of the Bible from those con- siderations which commend themselves to the judg- ment of all alike, just so far do we remove the advantages of the practical use of the Bible from the reach of a large portion of mankidn."^ In such statements by such writers there is ample justification for submitting these questions for the con- sideration of English scholars. Everyone will admit that the correct translation of the original, and the finer shades of meaning, can only be given by those who have mastered the language in which these Scriptures were written. But when the textual critics have done their work, and given a correct rendering of the original into English, the in- telligent reader can judge as to the soundness of the conclusions that are based upon the meaning and established facts. The questions at issue between conservative scholars and advanced critics only rarely relate to the meaning of the text; but in almost every case turn upon inferences drawn from a meaning and facts accepted by both parties. The different views of the Scriptures that are held and taught, do not result from differ- ences in the scholarship of commentators ; but from the spirit and beliefs with which they come to the study of the sacred writings. The expositions of the 53rd of Isaiah furnish a good illustration in point. There is no material •" What is the Bible?" page 10. 32 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. difference about the meaning. There is general agree- ment as to what is said by the prophet about tlie mysterious sufferer. The late Dr. Edersheim, of Oxford, says : " There is no fundamental divergence between Jew and Christian as regards the translation of this chapter." As Dr. Pusey says : " The question is not what is the picture ? On this all are agreed ; but whose image or likeness does it bear ? " The exegesis of the passage does not tell us who is the person here spoken of. We can only know this by finding who f ultilled what is said of the suffering ser- vant. When the Eunuch's question is asked : " Of whom speaketh the prophet this ? of himself or of some other"? the intelligent English scholar can judge as to what being in the world's history fulfdled these prophetic descriptions as well as the Hebrew linguist. Rationalist critics, who come to the study of this wonderful prophecy predisposed to ignore or deny supernatural prediction and real fulfilment, and modern Jews, for a different reason, apply it to a personified Israel or one of the prophets. But Chris- tian scholars, who believe that the Spirit " testified beforehand " to the prophets " the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them," and who accept the testimony of Christ and His apostles to this great truth, are convinced that the Prophet is here speaking predictively of " Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth." Such eminent Hebrew scholars as Delitzsch, Orelli, Edersheim, Cave, Wunsch, Urwick, Oehler, Dr. A. McCaul, and others scarcely less famous, hold that the STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 33 prophecy speaks of a person, predicts the future Messiah, and was fulfilled by the events of the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. It is not the difference in their linguistic learning which makes these two classes of critics differ as to who is spoken of in this prophecy. It is their different beliefs respecting prophecy and fulfilment. The critic who asserts that an individual is not spoken of here, and that it does not refer to the Messiah, does not get this opinion by his superior learning, but by adopting beforehand a negative theory, which compels him to deny that the Prophet is foretelling "the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow them." So far from it being true that arguments for and against the higher criticism can only be understood by linguists, they are more within the capacity of the intelligent English reader than the work of the textual critic. The translations of the latter he must take on trust ; but the speculations of the former he can bring to the tribunal of his reason and common- sense. He cannot dispute about the meaning of a Hebrew text, or the soundness of a critical analysis, but he can judge whether the inferences drawn from specified facts are sound and reasonable or not. Argu- ments which cannot be stated in plain English and understood by intelligent readers, are too slight and fanciful to bear the weight of the theories, that we are asked to accept as results of so-called " scientific " criticism. The issues involved are too grave to be 3 34 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. decided on any authority, short of an intelligent personal conviction of the truth of the conclusions we accept. Here, as in every other case, we should "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." There can be no intelligent faith without convincing evidence of the truth of what is believed. As John Milton, in his famous " Areopagitica," forcibly says : " A man may be a heretic in the truth ; and if he believes things only because his pastor says so or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy." Every intelligent Protestant believes he can give good reasons why he is not a Roman Catholic. But the questions at issue between Protestants and Roman Catholics are quite as difficult and abstruse as the questions : Was the coming and suffering of Jesus Christ predicted by the Old Testament prophets ? Does the New Testament contain an account of events that are declared to be a fulfilment of these prophetic predictions ? Is the new critical theory of the origin of the Old Testament in accord with the conception of the sacred writers themselves ? Can the New Testament conception of the Old Testament be rejected, without undermining faith in the inspira- tion and authority of the Christian Scriptures ? These seem to us questions within the province of all thoughtful readers of the English Bible. Yet it is assumed by some that they can be answered only by Hebrew experts. Nay, more, that the Church must go to the experts to find out what her ministers may STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH lUliLE. 35 preach and teach on these points. But Christians should no more accept a belief about the Bible on the authority of another's word, than they would accept a doctrine of the faith on such personal authority. It has been truly said : " The qualifications of the spe- cialist render him peculiarly prone to push a theory at all hazards, when to common-sense it appears manifestly overweighted." (Robertson.) In making these observations respecting the claims of critics and the rights of English readers, I have no thought of disparaging the value and importance of biblical learning. The Church and the world are pro- foundly indebted to Christian scholars for the trans- lation, exposition, and defence of the Bible. The learned labors of these men have bequeathed to the world inestimable legacies of exposition that have greatly promoted an intelligent faith. Not the least of these is the able vindication of the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Scriptures, against the theories of the evolutionary critics. We should be willing to accept all duly attested facts. But when conjectural inferences and imaginary history are offered for belief, as if they were historic facts, on the authority of "higher" critics, every intelligent reader of the English Bible has a right to demand a satisfactory verification of the truth of what he is asked to accept as " results of scientific criticism." Without such verification no theory should be accepted. CHAPTER III. IVHA T IS THE " HIGHER CRITICISM " OE THE BIBLE ? Need of Right Views of What i.s Meant — Dofinitiona of Higher Criticism — ^Classitication Depends on Conclusions Adopted — The Pentateuchal Controversy— Astruc and his Succes- sors — Theories of Higher Critics — The Logical Results — Arguments Against Disintegration. IT is necessary to have a clear and definite idea of the distinguishing features of the higher criti- cism of the Bible, in order to judge of the reasonable- ness of its conclusions, and to rightly estimate the value of the arguments by which its theories are supported or condemned. These critical studies are mainly confined to the examination of the internal evidence, which the books of the Old Testament present regarding their authorship, the dates of their composition, their trustworthiness, and the occasion and purpose of their being written. Since the invention of the term " higher criticism " by J. G. Eichhorn, of Gottingen, it has been used by some writers to distinguish this kind of criticism from the study of the words of the text. Not that inferences, as to the times and authorship of the books, are any higher or more important than the settlement of the 86 WHAT IS THE ''HIGHER CRITICISM?'' 37 correctness of tlic text, on wliicli «'ill tlieories and ex- positions nuistbo founded. Tliis is too essential a work to be regarded as a " lower" kind of criticism. As Principal Cave says : " The * higher ' criticism docs not mean the * superior criticism,' though many seem to think it does. The ' higher ' critics do not mean the better critics, as if they were gifted with a sort of genius in criticism." Of course, it is freely admitted that the power of sifting and weighingevidence, and of balancing proba- bilities, one against the other, must be possessed by those who would succeed in ohese critical studies. The absence of those (jualifications is sure to cause failure, no matter what linguistic learning the critic may possess. A few definitions of higher criticism by distinguished biblical scholars may assist the reader in getting a right conception of its import. Professor Zenos, of Chicago, defines higher criticism in general as *' the discovery and verification of the facts of literary productions, on the basis of their internal characteristics and contents." Prof. A. H. Sayce, of Oxford, says : " By the ' higher criticism ' is meant a critical enquiry into tlie nature, origin, and dates of the documents with which we are dealing, as well as into the historical value and credibility of the statements which they contain." ^ Principal Cave says : " As regards its nature the highier criticism is nothing but an examination of the language and contents of the books of the ^" Higher Criticism and the Monuments," page 2. 38 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. Bible, with a view to determine when they were written, and by whom they were written, and how far wliat is written is valuable — more briefly to determine their age, authors and reliableness."" Prof. C, A. Briggs says : " Having secured the best text of the writings, criticism devotes itself to the higher task of considering them as to integrity, authenticity, literary form, and reliability. This is appropriately called higher criticism."^ Prof. Francis Brown, well known as an American ad- vanced critic, says : " Higher criticism deals with the human element in the Bible, and with that under cer- tain aspects only. It has to do simply and only with the literary problems furnished in the Bible. It aims to learn the structure and authorship of the different books, to study the literary form of the Bible as distinguished from other biblical matters."* Dr. Brown's ccflnition seems to us too narrow. A true criticism .'ould embrace the study of every feature of the Bible. If there is a divine element in the Bible it should not be ignored. Besides, a good deal depends on who is to determine what is human and what is divine ? By Dr. Brown's method the human element may be so unduly magnified and the divine so completely omitted, as practically to amount to eliminating the divine element from the Book. As a matter of fact, in the work of the leading " higher " critics there is generally no definite recognition of the divine and spiritual elements in the Bible, which are 2" Battle of the Standpoints," p. 8. 3" Biblical Study," p. 96. * Homiletic Eevieiv, April, 1892. WHAT IS THE ''HIGHER CRITICISM?'' 39 its crowning distinction. The " literary problems " of a work really embrace every characteristic feature of it ; and our study of the Bible should include the inspiration of its writers, if we believe there is proof of their inspiration. Prof. Howard Osgood has shown, at length, in the Bihllotheca Sacra for October, 1892, that the majority of German scholars do not accept the division into " lower " and " higher " criticism. Each author gener- ally makes a classification to suit himself. Schlier- macher called it " a mechanical and untenable dis- tinction." A. Sabatier says : " There are two sorts of criticism, of words and of facts, which have often been improperly divided into lower and higher criticism." But certain British and American critics use the term, as Dr. Osgood says, " as though it meant something scientifically definite, and were the highest possible reach of scientific exegesis." This is simply designating their speculations by a high-sounding name which, in many cases, the result does not justify. Apart from the extreme play given in recent times to the use of conjecture, the higher criticism is not a new thing. The name is newer than the thing signified. It is virtually the same as what was formerly called the study of the genuineness and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. We have a good example of this method in past times in Paley's " Horse Paulinae," which shows that the undesigned coinci- dences between St. Paul's Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles attest the authenticity of both. Also in Bentley's criticism of the Epistles of Phalaris this method was successfully used. 40 TFIE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. It is unjustifiable to talk as if some special method of biblical study had been discovered by German critics, which if only followed by Bible students would secure infallible results. There is no royal road to right conclusions. More depends upon the character of the man than upon any system of study. The philosophy and theological standpoint of the critic are generally more potent factors in determiiiing his con- clusions than any so-called " scientific " method of biblical study. Critics, like cooks, may use the same materials and professedly follow the same methods, and yet produce very different results. It is easy enough to define higher criticism, as a method of biblical study, in general terms to which few would object. The difficulty is in designating and classifying the results of such studies. Equally learned, gifted, and sincere students of the Bible have drawn widely different inferences from the same Scripture records. The classification of these writers must be determined by what they teach concerning the Bible. Critics may be divided into conservative, advanced, and moderate, but there is no propriety or fitness in speaking of " lower " and " higher " biblical critics ; because the so-called " lower " or textual criticism must, as we have seen, precede the so-called " higher " criticism. They are not conflict- ing methods. Both kinds of criticism are performed by the same critics. It is the views that any biblical student adopts regarding the authorship, character, and dates of the books of the Bible, which determine whether he should be classed as a "higher critic" in ^he technical sense or not. WHAT IS THE ''HIGHER CRITICISM?'' 41 It is unfortunate that the term " higher criticism " lias become popular in this misleadinr^ sense ; because, as shall be shown further on, it makes a wrong impression respecting the character and work of able Hebrew scholars, who accept whatever has been proved by sober criticism in modification of traditional opin- ions about the Sacred Writings, but who, after the most thorough and scholarly examination, reject the distinguishing assumptions of the popular school of " higher " critics. Though these conservative scholars are higher critics in the best and fullest sense, yet because of the special meaning the phrase has acquired, to avOi confusion, wherever in this volume the words '' higher critics " or " critics " occur without ([ualification, the advanced or evolutionary critics are meant. It may be as well at this point to give a brief state- ment respecting the Pentateuchal controversy, because of its intimate relation to the whole question of modern Biblical Criticism. It is fitly remarked by Dr. C. H. H. Wright that " the Pentateuch occupies in the Old Testament a position akin to that which the Four Gospels occupy in the New. The account of our Lord's life, presented in the Four Gospels, is the basis on which the system of faith, and doctrine taught by the other writers of the New Testament is founded. Similarly the history and theology of the Pentateuch underlie the other books of the Old Testa- ment."^ The Pentateuch cannot he discredited or degraded '" Introduction," page 70. 42 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. without affecting the authority and truth of the other books which imply its truth amd authenticity. This is doubtless the reason why the assaults of the radical critics on these foundation records have been so per- sistent and relentless. The theories about other books of the Old Testament largely stand or fall with the theories about the Pentateuch, commonly called the " Five Books of Moses." It would probably be safe to say that the contro- versy about the age, authorship, and origin of the Pentateuch equals, in its interest and extent, the dis- cussion on any other subject in the whole range of modern or ancient literature. The subject, however, is too technical and intricate, and embraces too many minute and complex comparisons and conflicting hypotheses to admit of any adequate popular exposi- tion in these pages. All that can be done here is to give a brief sketch of the main points at issue, that our readers may be able to form some idea of the standpoints of the parties in this controversy. The main critical battle-ground is the Pentateuch, or the " Hexateuch," as it is now the fashion to say. But the inclusion of Joshua does not seriously affect the questions in dispute. If the Bible view is right, the book of Joshua must retain its historic char- acter. If the critics are right, and the Pentateuch can be proved to be a late production, Joshua must be a still later work, written to follow it. In either case Joshua is a sequel to the Pentateuch, and follows Deuteronomy. If Joshua is a true history, coming down from the times succeeding the events which it WHAT IS THE ''HIGHER CRITICISM?'' 4 o records, as there is good ground to believe, then the " higher criticism " of the Pentateuch largely falls to the ground. The references to the history and laws in the Pentateuch which are found in this book are so explicit as to leave no room for the late origin assigned to these laws by the evolutionary critics. Even if Joshua is supposed to follow the late date which the critics gratuitously give to Deuteronomy, yet, as Dr. Cave has shown, " this Book of Joshua, as a matter of fact, manifests an unmistakable familiarity with significant details of the Levitical legislation, sup- posed by the theorists to belong to the age of the Babylonian Exile." The origin of the modern critical speculations, respecting the authorship and date of the Pentateuch, may be credited to a volume entitled, " Conjectures Concerning the Original Memoranda which it appears Moses used to compose the Book of Genesis," pub- lished anonymously at Brussels in 1753, by Jean Astruc, a French Roman Catholic physician. The main idea of this work was that the peculiar use of the names "Elohim " and " Jehovah " (or Yaveh) to denote the Divine Being, in the part treating of pre- Mosaic times, indicated two different writers, one of whom used " Jehovah " and the other " Elohim." These supposed writers have been ever since desig- nated, respectively, the " Elohist " and " Jehovist," the alleged authors of two documents on which Genesis was assumed to be based. Astruc also thought he saw signs of other documents from which small fragments were taken. 44 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. Astruc's critical speculations were confined to Genesis and Exodus I., II., the early date and Mosaic authorship of which were not denied. The " conjec- tures " of Astruc, at a later time, were followed by an immense crop *' after their kind." Of these critics Eichhorn, who was the author of the phrase " higher criticism," was one of the ablest. He, however, defended the antiquity of Genesis and regarded Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy as older than all the other books of the Old Testament. De Wette, Ewald, Hupfeld and other German writers supplemented Astruc's theory by new " conjectures " still more radical. These and later authors developed the theory into a complete denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It was maintained, with great show of learning, that the existence of two component tales were proved by differences of style, repetitions, contradictions, and anachronisms ; and that the signs of two original documents seen in Genesis extend to the other books of the Pentateuch and to Joshua. For a time what has been known as the " Frag- mentary " theory was popular. Instead of two original documents, it was assumed that the Pentateuch was made up from a great variety of scraps and fragments. The notion of a work of such coherent unity being composed from unconnected fragments, of the exist- ence of which there was no proof, was too absurd to survive long. The " Supplementary " theory was for some time supported by eminent scholars. Its main feature was WHAT IS THE ''HIGHER CRITICISM?'' 45 that instead of two original documents there was only one, that of the " Elohist ;" and that the •' Jehovist" was a later writer, who revised and supplemented the Elohist's document with new matter of his own. Some critics who accepted this view held that the Jehovist was the author of Deuteronomy, which they regarded as the latest of the whole. A weak point in this view was that the " Elohist " appears to have a knowledge of facts, which were supposed to be peculiar to the "Jehovist." The "Documentary" hypo- thesis assumed that the Hexateuch was compiled from different documents. The theory most dominant in recent times has been thus stated by an eminent scholar : Four principal original works were used by a redactor in making up the Pentateuch (to go no further) ; an Elohistic, which supplies about one-half the matter ; a Jehovistic and another Elohistic, which liave many likenesses and are closely united, and the work of the Deuteronomist. The second and third sources (J E) are held to be the older (about B.C. 1000- 800): next, Deuteronomy (D B.C. 621), and last E (more usually named P, Priests' Code), which, by most, is dated at the time of the Exile (B.C. 441). To each of these three main divisions there is allotted a code ; to J E, Ex. 21-28 ; to D, Deut. 12-26, and to P, the priestly and other laws of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. But among the advocates of this scheme there are many important difterences of opinion, respecting the order and dates of composition of these documents whose supposed authors are generally denoted by the 46 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. letters E, J, -E, JE, R, D and P. All the letters used to indicate the imaginary authors of supposed docu- ments and fragments of documents make a bewilder- ing display of algebraic-like symbols, which are taken as the names of writers of whom history knows nothing whatever. Yet they are given a ** local habitation and a name " with the greatest assurance. The theory of original documents or " sources," and that of three codes of laws in the Pentateuch, do not involve such revolutionary consequences as the infer- ences that have been based on them. There is nothing inconsistent with inspiration in Moses using earlier documents. It is also freely admitted that the laws which critics designate " the three codes " are in the Pentateuch, though not as separate and distinct codes. What is called the " Priests' Code " has to be gathered out of Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus, to form that code as constituted by the critics. The idea of these codes being the outgrowth of widely different periods is an essential part of the theory of these critics, to which everything must be conformed. The laws of " the Book of the Covenant," the so- called " Priests' Code," and the " Deuteronomic Code " are indeed found in the Pentateuch, with their appro- priate historic setting. But many distinguished scholars who admit this deny that there is evidence that these codes contradict each other, or that they were produced at three widely separated periods of time, or were, respectively, the codes of the period before King Josiah, of the period from Josiah to the Exile, and of the period after the Exile. They admit WHAT IS THE ''HIGHER CRITICISM?'' 47 the existence of these laws; but they reject the assumed late dates of their composition and the new idea of the religious history of Israel that has been based on this view. Prof. G. H. Schodde justly says : " The great evil of modern Pentateuchal criticism does not lie in the analysis into documents ; but in the erection upon this analysis of a superstructure of pseudo-history and religion, that runs directly counter to the revealed and historic character of the Penta- teuch."'' Many other Hebrew scholars hold a similar view. Though the school of Graf, Wellhausen and Kuenen accept the documentary theory in the main, yet the order and time which these authors assign to different parts of the Old Testament, in the opinion of so com- petent a critic as Professor Herman Strack of Berlin, whom we have mainly followed in this sketch, " has introduced a wide chasm between critics of the Pentateuch." He says : " The significance of this new arrangement is at once visible in the revolution it necessitates in our view of Hebrew history." For example : The so-called " Elohist document," which was once generally regarded by the chief " higher critics" as the oldest, is now declared to be the latest and least trustworthy of all. What ground is there to believe that the later supposition is any truer than the former one, which was once maintained with equal positiveness, but is now rejected ? The higher criticism of the Bible as described in general terms is a right and laudable thing. But, « •' Pentateuchal Testimony," p. 160. 48 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. owinor to the speculative way some critics carry out the work in practice, the actual results do not corre- spond with the theoretical ideal of the process. Hence, no correct idea of this radical criticism can be ^iven by any definition, describing it simply as a mode or process of biblical study. Such a definition would embrace all earnest and intelligent study of the origin of the books of the Old Testament, without regard to results. The best answer to the question, " What is the higher criticism ?" is a brief statement of the main distin of David, said : " Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh. He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne: lia seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christy that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption.'' (Acts ii. 30, 31.) But the Rev. G. C. Work- man says : " In this Psalm there is no reference what- ever to the resurrection." "To suppose that Peter is here interpreting the passage from the Pdalm, as though it TRUTH AND INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 195 contained an idea of the resurrection of the Messiah, is to overlook entirely the principle of apostolic applica- tion or accommodation." That is, the Apostle's state- ment does not agree with Dr. Workman's negative theory, that there is no New Testament fulfilment of prophecy by events that had been foretold coming to pass, and therefore the explicit declaration of the Apostle must be set aside as of no authority whatever. Are the critical theories that result in this way of treating the Holy Scriptures worthy of Christian confidence ? One has no difficulty in understanding the position of those who openly regard the Old Testament simply as ancient national literature, and deny that it has any special divine authority. But it is certainly not so easy to understand the position of men who are regarded as learned and pious writers, whose teaching divests the Bible of its divine characteristics and regards the Book as being just what the rationalist critics assume it to be, and yet maintain that this lowering of its character does not affect faith in its inspiration and authority. To show that this estimate of the tendency and effect of accepting the negative conclusions of the higher criticism, is not merely my personal opinion, I shall close this chapter with a few quotations from distinguished biblical scholars, who strongly maintain that the questions raised by modern criticism are not mere literary questions, which do not affect belief in the truth and inspiration of the Scriptures. Prof. James Robertson, after asking the important 196 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. question, Whether the relation of the Old Testament to the New would be the same, or whether Christian- ity as a historically developed religion would have the same value for us, if the historic facts of the Old Testament were regarded as the higher critics regard them ? pertinently says : " It is altogether inadequate to reply to such a question (as Driver does), that * criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testa- ment ; it pre8U2}po8e8 it.' Such scholars would do an invaluable service to the Church at the present time, if they would explain what they meant by inspiration in this connection, and define wherein their position differs from that of critics who profess no such reverence for the Old Testament." " The Rev. F. E. Spencer, in his essay in " Lex Mo- saica " quotes Dr. Driver's remark in a sermon, that " the moral and devotional value of the Old Testa- ment — as indeed its religious value generally — is unaffected by critical questions respecting the author- ship or date of its various parts." After stating how the source and support of its ideas are changed, he says : " ' Critical questions of authorship and date, may or may not affect the value of a series of writings. It entirely depends upon the kind of critical questions mooted. But to say that the critical questions now in debate amongst us do not affect the religious value of the writings called sacred by us, seems to stultify the understanding." Bishop Ellicott says : " An inspiration that can be "♦•Early Religion," p. xi. TRUTH AND INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 107 compatible with continually attributing to God utter- ances and enactments alleged to have been made to Moses, when they were due only to an interested writer, who was making use of the great Lawgiver's name, is an inspiration that is outside all reasonable and reverent consideration." Principal Cave, who is as familiar with the German and British literature of modern biblical criticism as any theologian in England, says : " The recent attacks of the 'higher criticism' upon the Old Testament do not concern simply some relatively unimportant bastion or trench ; they are directed against the inner- most fortress, where floats the standard of Protestant- ism, the first article of which justly is, 'The Divine Inspiration, Authority and Sufficiency of the Ploly Scriptures.'"^'' Professor Robertson also says : " At the same time I am as firmly convinced that in critical discussions on the Old Testament, as these have been conducted, there is much more involved than the dates of I ooks and the literary modes of their composition. What- ever may be said of the 'traditional view' on these subjects, it is to be remembered that the ' traditional view ' of the history of the religion is the view of the biblical writers ; and if it is declared to be incorrect, our estimate of the value of the books must be con- siderably modified."" Prof. G. H. Schodde, in an article in the Treasury Magazine y says : " The danger and harm of the 10" Battle of the Standpoints," p. 5. 11 Page vi. 198 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. Pentateuchal analysis does not lie in it as a merely literary problem. And, indeed, this is not the heart and soul of the problem at all ; this is but the pre- liminary phase, the means to the end. This end is the reconstruction of Israel's religious development." Still more pointedly the late Professor Dwinell, in his essay on " The Higher Criticism and a Spent Bible," speaking of this class of critics, says ; " The only inspiration possible under this theory is of a very equivocal order, morally and spiritually ; for it is an inspiration that does not keep the sacred writers from making up a pretended framework of history, in which to set their characters and instructions. It does not interfere with their asserting things to be facts which never took place. It does not stand in the way of consciously antedating and representing things as having occurred centuries before which really occurred later, or of deliberately writing after the events had taken place, and giving the writing the form of prediction and passing it off as prophecy. It does not stay the sacred authors from writing out their own intuitions or experience, or thoughts and reasonings, and claiming that these teachings came directly from God. A kind of inspiration which admits of all these duplicities and falsities must be accepted as true, if this criticism is admitted. Surely inspiration drops down to a low and ignominious plane on this theory. ! " Professor Whitehouse of Cheshunt College says : " The results as presented by Wellhausen in the sketch of the " History of Israel," contributed to the "Encyclo- TRUTH AND INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 199 pedia Britannica," are obviously subversive of Biblical authority ; and when we turn to the history recently published by Stade, a disciple of the same school, we find the early history of the Old Testament reduced to a heap of ruins." ^^ The late Prof. E. C. Bissell, in his essay on " The Pentateuchal Analysis and Inspiration," from which we have already quoted, says : " The only ground for surprise is that with the really tremendous change of attitude toward the Bible, necessitated by this treatment of it, Christian scholars who are fully aware of this change should speak of it as 'harm- less,' as theologically * natural ' in its effects ; should say that any one who thinks there is peril to the faith in these processes of the higher criticism ' risks h? 3 reputation for scholarship ' thereby, and is still able to use unmodified, the old formula that ' all Scrip- ture is given by inspiration of God.' Undoubtedly those expressions are quite sincerely made. Our sole contention is that the words * Scripture ' and ' inspira- tion,' as thus used, have never as yet been naturalized among us." The venerable Prof. W. H. Green, the Nestor of Hebrew scholars in America, makes these weighty and forcible remarks on this subject : " It does not annul the inherently vicious character or the evil tendencies of this hypothesis, that men revered for their learning and piety have, of late, signified their acceptance of it, and that they consider its adoption compatible with whatever is essential to the Christian ^^ Expository February, 1888. 200 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. faith. It is a rouiarkable phenomenon, tliat in Euro- pean universities eminent biblical scholarship has been to so great an extent dissociated from faith in the Scriptures in any evangelical sense. We may wisely employ the Philistines to sharpen our spears and our swords ; but we cannot join them in an assault upon the camp of Israel. No more perilous enter- prise was ever attempted by men held in honor in the Church than the wholesale commendation of the results of unbelieving criticism, in application both to the Pentateuch and to the rest of the Bible, as though they were the incontestable product of the highest scholarship. They who have been themselves thoroughly grounded in the Christian faith may, by a happy inconsistency, hold fast their old convictions while admitting principles, methods, and conclusions which are logically at war with them. But who can be surprised if others shall, with stricter logic, carry what has thus been commended to them to its leafiti- mate issue ?"^^ No matter with what acute learning or plausible arguments the development theory of the Old Testa- ment may be advocated, the trend of the movement is unmistakably in the direction of a denial of the super- natural. The conflict is becoming more and more a battle of naturalism against belief in the direct inter- position of a personal God in Hebrew history, or in any human history. On this point Bishop Ellicott pertinently observes : "Not merely that this modern view tends to, or prepares the way for, a denial of the 13 OW TestameiU Student, July, 1887. TRUTH AND INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 201 supernatural, but that it owed its very origin to the assumption, that the existence of the supernatural in these early records is exactly that which wrecks their credibility."^^ The following weighty words, from the same emi- nent author, are profoundly suggestive. After express- ing surprise at the position of some respected writers in his own church, Bishop Ellicott says : " If the supernatural is to be minimised in the Old Testa- ment, will it be long before the same demand will be made in reference to the New ? To safeguard the miraculous in the New dispensation, when criticism has either explained it away or attenuated it in the Old dispensation, will in practice be found to be utterly hopeless. . . . The same spirit, that has found irreconcilable difficulties in the supernatural element of the Old Testament, will ultimately chal- lenge the evidence on which the Incarnation rests. The doctrine of the Word become flesh, the doctrine which is the hope, light, and life of the universe will, in the end be surrendered ; the total eclipse of faith will have commenced, and the shadows of the great darkness will be fast sweeping over the forlorn and desolate soul."^^ 14 << Christus Comprobator," p. 14. ^^lUd., p. 30. CHAPTER XL CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. Re-statement of Facts and Arguments in Previous Chapters — Many Critical Conclusions Unreasonable — Advantages of the Analytic Criticism Unduly Magnified — Prof. W. J. Beecher on the " Books " and the " Sources " — No Moral Power Gained by Dissecting the Books. The subject we have been considering in the pre- ceding pages covers such a wide range of topics that many minor points have been left unnoticed. Yet we think all unbiased readers will admit that the fore- going chapters furnish conclusive evidence, that there are weighty objections to the chief theories of the modern divisive school of biblical criticism. The facts we have stated are neither irrelevant nor unim- portant. Nothing has been said by us in denial of the right, or value of the most thorough critical examination of everything that can promote a fuller knowledge of the books of the Bible, or against the acceptance of all facts about the Bible, that are attested by proper evidence. But it has been shown that there is a wide- spread tendency to substitute indefinite language about freedom of thought and modern biblical criti- cism, for a definite statement and proper proof of the 202 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 203 views implied, and that are intended to be covered by these general expressions. The most characteristic theories of the evolutionary higher critics, which imply a new conception of the Bible, have been briefly but fairly stated. It has been shown that, contrary to a widespread notion, many eminent Hebrew scholars, who have vindicated and exercised the right of free biblical criticism, have gone over all the questions of the higher criticism, and yet have seen good reason to reject the main conclusions of the leading lights of this analytical school. I may fairly claim that it has been shown beyond reasonable question, that recent archaeological dis- coveries contradict the assumption of the crude literary and religious state of the people of Israel, at the times of Moses and David, on the strength of which late dates have been assigned to a large part of the Old Testa- ment. No impartial reader will deny that the numerous references to the Pentateuchal laws and records, in the early writing prophets and historic books, con- clusively disprove the idea that the silence of Scrip- ture, and the recorded neglect of the Mosaic laws, show that the Pentateuch was not known nor in exist- ence during the chief historic period of Israel's national life. It will hardly be denied that what has been shown, respecting the questionable methods and con- tradictory differences of leading higher critics, gives Sfood reason to distrust writers whose methods of proof are so utterly unscientific. 204 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. In reply to the plea that hif^her criticism only deals with literary matters of style, and form, and time, which do not atfect faith in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, it has been shown that the higher criticism, by regarding the Bible as an evolution, and by its assumptions respecting the origin and authorship of several of the books, requires a new conception of the Scriptures, which implies a denial of characteristics that are main grounds on which we believe their teaching to be invested with divine authority. Nor can it be denied, that even those who profess to believe in the supernatural, when they accept the premises of the Rationalists, must also accept their negative conclusions. The relation of these critical theories, about the Old Testament, to the infallible authority and divine character of the Lord Jesus Christ is a matter the most serious in its consequences. If the conception of the Old Testament set forth in the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles be thrust aside as erroneous, to make way for the modern development theory, it is impossible to see how the divine authority of the New Testament can be consistently maintained. It has been intimated in a previous chapter that, in the opinion of many competent judges, the way in which the higher critics try to solve Old Testament difficulties creates greater difficulties than those they remove, and requires the acceptance of more unreason- able beliefs than those they reject. Have not the facts, brought out in the previous chapters, fully justi- CONCLUDING REMARKS. 205 fied this opinion ? Let us glance at a few of these demands on our creduHty, which are implied in the acceptance of current critical theories about the Old Testament. Though, as Dr. Sayce has remarked, in the case of two authors, like Rice and Besant, who jointly write one literary work in our mother tongue, it is impos- sible to tell what each contributed, yet we are asked to believe that modern critics, nearly three thousand years after the writing of works in an ancient lan- guage, with a very limited literature, can discover in a book that has been regarded through the ages as the work of one author, evidence of its composite charac- ter ; and point out with confidence the parts contrib- uted by the supposed authors and redactors, even to assigning parts of the same verse to different writers of different periods. Does the traditional view make as great a demand on our credulity ? If redactors and later writers altered and added to the documents at will, how can our copies of the Scriptures be in a condition that would justify modern critics in being so confident as to what were the original sources ? The late dates, assigned by these oritics to a large portion of the Old Testament, assumes that the period of Israel's greatest national prominence was a barren period, that left comparatively no literary or religious record ; and that the period of national decline and enslavement, while their temple and city lay in ruins, was the time of literary and religious fruitfulness. Moses, David and Isaiah have been enthroned in history and in the thoughts of men, mainly on the 206 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. ground of their being the authors of certain sacred writings ; but we are asked by the higher critics to believe,without a particle of historic evidence, that these prophets were not tlie authors of the writings to which they owe their undying renown. In other words, such a Moses and such a David and Isaiah as the Old Testament assumes and the Church has believed in, in all ages, must be denied an historic existence, because the theory of Wellhausen and his followers requires the rejection of the historic belief respecting the religion and history of Israel. The critics who assign Deuteronomy and the Leviti- cal laws to late dates and unknown authors, expect us to believe that, though these anonymous authors ascribed their work to Moses, to obtain a respect and authority for their writings which they would not otherwise have gained, yet Moses was not the author of the laws nor the doer of the deeds, which had invested him with the renown that made them desire the prestige of his name for their work. If we accept Canon Cheyne's theory of the Psalms being all of late dates, we must believe that, although David is enshrined in history and tradition as a poet and psalmist, he has left us no poems or psalms. Or, as one has expressed it, " that the poems David wrote are lost, and that poems not his and not like his, dif- fering essentially from his in character and spiritual grasp, have been universally and from very early times ascribed to him." The critics who teach that the Levitical system was concocted and organized at or after the time of the CONCLUDING REMARKS. 207 Babylonian Exile, ask us to believe that, after the great prophets had preached a spiritual religion of truth and righteousness, and according to the higher criticism condemned all sacrifices, such godly leaders as Ezekiel and Ezra and their associates invented and finally established, as laws given by God to Moses, an elaborate system of ritual and sacrifices. Well may Professor Streibert say : " That this work should be foisted upon the people by Ezra and Nehemiah is simply incredible." Not less preposterous is the notion of the higher critics that Deuteronomy was written by Hilkiah or some unknown author, not long before Josiah's time — that it was found in the temple and accepted by King Josiah and all the people as the genuine work of Moses ; and that a great reformation was carried out on the strength of the belief that its laws were given by God to Moses, as recorded in the book itself ; and yet that this pious fraud was never found out by the Hebrew people or any one, till it was unearthed by the higher critics of the Nineteenth Century. Those who call portions of Genesis " Babylonian ideas," ask us to believe that though the literature and religion of Israel are most ancient, and have been beyond all question one of the most vital and influ- ential moral forces known to mankind, yet that the Hebrew people were behind others in religious intelli- gence, and were forced to borrow their ideas about the early history of mankind from their polytheistic heathen neighbors. Even if we leave out of sight the cogent critical 208 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. arguments, which have been urged against the chief hypotheses of tlie most popuhir school of higher cri- tics, it is not too much to say, that the unreasonable and improbable character of many of the conclusions they assume, constitutes a strong reason against accept- ing theories and methods that are weighted with such objectionable conseciuences, and re(|uire such ready credulity on the part of those who accept them, A great deal is said in current biblical literature about the benefits conferred on the world by the results of modern criticism of the Old Testament. It is sometimes said that it has made the Bible a new book, to those who have accepted the critical theories, by investing its teaching with greater practical interest, and showing that its admonitions and precepts were given to meet the wants of living men of other times. It may be freely admitted that the concentra- tion of thought on the Old Testament, in recent times, has given to many an enlarged view of the wealth and preciousness of its teachings, apart from all critical theories. We have no disposition to deny whatever truth there may be in these claims of the critics. Yet there is good reason to believe that the advantages to the interests of religion, which have been claimed for the new criticism, have been very much exaggerated. The good results have been more indirect than direct. Anything that causes more general and close study of the Word of God must prove an advantage. But the advantages are largely counterbalanced by the . CONCLUDING REMARKS. 209 unsettling tendency of the critical speculations of the advanced critics. The main advantages that may be claimed for the modern critical study of the Bible are these: 1. The thorough sifting of the character and claims of the Scriptures will, we firmly believe, result in their fuller vindication, and this will give a firmer basis to faith in their divine character and authority. When the Bible emerges out of the keen critical controver- sies of our times, like gold tried in the fire, this will give a strong ground for confidence that no future assaults on its truth and integrity will be more successful than those of the past. 2. A still more direct and practical result of modern study of the Bible is, that a fuller knowledge of the occasions of the prophecies and other parts of the Scriptures gives a deeper human interest to lessons of truth, spoken to " men subject to like passions as we are." This, however, is no modern discovery, and it should not be so stated as to ignore or obscure the great truth declared by St. Paul, that " whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." (Rom. xv. 4) There can be no question that it adds greatly to the interest of any prophetic message to know the occasion of its deliverance, and the condition of those to whom it was addressed. We read the book of Ezekiel with greater interest, when we bear in mind that his message was delivered to the captives in Babylon. The admoni- tions and threatenings of Malachi are invested with 14 210 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. greater force, when we note their pointed adaptation to the moral condition of the people in the time of the restoration under Nehemiah. The epistle to the Philippians acquires a deeper significance when it is read in the light of the circumstances under which Paul and Silas founded that church. But there is a serious drawback to the advantage of this interest arising from the times and occasions of the writings. As I have said in another place, "just because the occasion of a prophecy or Psalm enhances its interest, many writers have invented imaginary settings for portions of the Old Testament, which have no historic foundation," but are mere conjectures made to help out some fancy hypothesis. There is certainly not much gain in accepting Canon Cheyne's denial that David wrote the 23rd Psalm, or in his gratuitous ascription of the 110th psalm to Simon Maccabeus, and many similar conjectures that are equally baseless. 3. The Old Testament might be made a " new book," without being made a better hook that would be a gain to the Christian faith. If it were made " a new book," by divesting it of characteristic qualities that vindicate its claim to be received with confidence, as a book containing a true history of Israel and divine revelations of religious truth, such a change would certainly make it a different book. This, however, would be loss and not gain. The preposterous claim that the negative view, which denies that the Old Testament prophecies contain predictions that foretell the historic Jesus CONCLUDING REMARKS. 211 Christ, gives greater einphasi.s to the ethical and religious teaching of prophecy than the orthodox view, has no foundation in fact. The really valu- able biblical criticism is that which gives the best rendering, and the truest exposition of the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. But this work has been much more largely accomplished by evangelical scholars than by the dissecting theorizers. It is not true that the "higher critics" have given greater prominence to the religious teaching of the Old Testament than orthodox expositors. These critics in their work give few signs of being impressed by the spiritual and divine elements in prophecy. Speaking of Kuenen and Wellhausen, an English divine says : " It has apparently escaped them both that there is anything high in idea, noble in motive, regenerating in social influence, in the literature which they have set themse?"^es to dissect." (Rev. F. E. Spencer.) Everything that brings out the meaning of the Scriptures should be prized and commended; hut we have seen that the chief work of the evoliUionary critics consists in dissecting the books^ that have been regarded as connected records written by certain Hebrew prophets, and ascribing fragments of them to different imaginary authors, of whom no one has ever heard ; but who are assumed to have written at a late period that renders their statements of doubt- ful historic value. It has been shown that many eminent professors of the Old Testament language and literature, who stand 212 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. in the front rank of Oriental scholars, repudiate most of the conclusions of the dissecting critics, who build so largely on what they call internal evidence. The advantage of the dissection is by no means clear. As a recent writer has said, " It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that the mere pulling of the Old Testament Scriptures to pieces, and putting them together again, must of necessity add a vast deal to our comprehension of their contents." (Lias.) Sup- posing, for argument sake, that all these conjectural theories about authors and redactors were facts, what great benefit could this bestow ? It would be a matter of literary interest, no doubt. But, leaving oi't of sight the fact that these critical guesses merely give "a local habitation and a name" to such "airy" beings as E, "E, J, -J, J E, D, P, iR, 2R, ^R, and all the rest of the redactors which the rationalist theories require, it is by no means clear how this assignment of fragmentary " sources " adds any elements of spiritual or moral power to the Sacred Writings, or how it would tend to make them exert a mightier religious influence in the future than they have done in the past. We have seen that its tendency is to have a very contrary effect. A very suggestive article on this phase of the sub- ject, by Prof. Willis J. Beecher, of Aubi "n Theological Seminary, appeared in the Bibliotheca Sacra for last April. After stating the attitude of the two schools of biblical scholars towards the Old Testament, Professor Beecher shows that the conservative scholars CONCLUDING REMARKS. 213 deal chiefly with the books of the Old Testament themselves, as we find them in the Bible. The higher critics deal mainly with the supposed " sources " on which these books are based. He thinks both books and " sources " should be studied. But he deems the books themselves much more important than the alleged " sources." Professor Beecher maintains that the study of the " sources " is for the sake of the books, and that the books present a large field for study, in addition to all possible study of the " sources." As he shows, it was the Old Testament, as we have it, that was " the law and the testimony " of the Jewish Church. These books were the " Scriptures " to which Christ and His Apostles appealed as possess- ing divine authority. It was the Old Testament, as we have it, that has been revered and cherished by the Christian Church through the centuries It was these books, without regard to the " sources," that have been the great moral and spiritual power that transformed individuals and communities. It is these books, alleged by the critics to be a patchwork of discordant fragments by unknown scribes, whose literary beauty and sublimity have called forth the admiring eulogies of the greatest thinkers and writers of the ages. Even if we leave out of sight altogether the very questionable kind of evidence, by which the dissec- tions and conjectural sources are supported, there is not a shadow of reason to believe that the " Poly- chrome Bible," with all its rainbow hues, will give men truer conceptions of God's will, be more potent 214 THE BIBLE UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM. to quicken the conscience, brin^^: richer messages of peace and pardon to the sorrowing and sinful, or be a mightier life-giving power to the children of men, than the undissected old Bible, whose words of life, from age to age, have been the power of God, making mul- titudes " wise unto salvation." NOTE. In the foregoing chapters we have not advocated any specific theory of Inspiration. It is the authenticity and trustworthi- ness of the Sacred Writings, rather than any theory of Inspira- tion, that are assailed by Rationalist criticism. We know nothing of the manner in which religious truths and future events were revealed to the prophets, except from what they tell us themselves. The manner of their inspiration is quite secondary to the fact. The main questions are : Did God make special revelations to prophets and apostles, beyond what human reason could discover, and distinctly different from the manifestation of the Spirit given to pious souls in all ages ? Was the development of religious knowledge in Old Testament times the result of fuller revelations of His will made to pro- phets and inspired messengers, and not an evolution, resulting from the moral and literary advancement of the Hebrew people '\ All who are true to the teaching of the Bible must answer these questions with a decided affirmative. I WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR 'f * V JESUS THE MESSIAH, IN PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT. A Review and Refutation of the Negative Theory of Messianic Prophecy. 50 cents. Of this work the Methodist Review^ New York, says : "This is a triumphant book — triumphant in its defence of the historic \»! opinion of prophecy, and triumphant m its exposure of the weakness and '*' rationalistic character of negative criticism. Necessarily controversial, (1; being incited by Professor Workman's extreme positions, it is singularly ■* free from a narrow partisanship and is transparently fair in its represen- '\%) tation of opposing views. . . . It is written in a charming style, and 4^ exhibits the mature strength, the sagacity and reflecting power of a very ;»/ capable and influential writer." % Essays for the Times : Studies of Eminent Men and Important Living Questions. 75 cents. Brief Outlines of Christian Doctrine. 20 cents. % 5ongs of Life : A Collection of Original Poems. 75 cents. V \i' M.' The Development of Doctrine. 10 cents. /V) Living Epistles : Christ's Witnesses in the World. ^ 75 cents. I I ± High Church Pretensions ; or, Methodism and ^ the Church of England. 10 cents. $ Broken Reeds : The Heresies of the Plymouth ^ Brethren. 10 cents. Waymarks ; or, Counsel and Encouragement to Penitent Seekers of Salvation. 3 cents. WILLIAM BRIGGS, Publisher^ % ^; 29-33 Richmond St. West, - - TORONTO ^