il'iir-n'ifl if!(f;!,:!;(i;i!|ii'i lllilllili l';i,i!iliH iii.litlililiiiil i;;>!l I' I'ii f •vVX*^^i <,t t\vt Ibeolofftrar ^^ l-lS'lCfL "%, PRINCETON, N. J. I'^. S/ie//.. Division Section Number 1^ li*^'' ^^ rw^ M ■' ' '■' '. fl K/ 'V4 ^' ' i^ M-': RADICAL CRITICISM A RADICAL CRITICISM An Exposition and Examination of the Radical Critical Theory Concerning the Litera- ture AND Religious System of the Old Testament Scriptures FRANCIS R/BEATTIE PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND APOLOGETICS IN THE LOUISVILLE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AND Ail'THOR OF "AN EXAMI- NATION OF UTILITARIANISM " AND "THE METHODS OF THEISM" WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY W. W. MOORE, D.D., LL.D. PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, VIRGINIA FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY CHICAGO : : : NEW YORK : ; : TORONTO Publishers of Evangelical Literature Entered according to Art of Congress, in the year 1894, by FLEMING II. REVELL COMPANY, In the OfTice of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. INTRODUCTION. BY PROFESSOR W. W. MOORE, D. D. , LL. D. , VIRGINIA. The science of Biblical Criticism falls naturally into three main divisions ; viz., the Lower Criti- cism, which is concerned with the accuracy of the biblical text ; the Higher Criticism, which is concerned with the age and character of the biblical books ; and the Exegetical Criticism, which is concerned with the meaning of the biblical statements. As the Exegetical Criticism has for its end the ascertaining of the meaning of Scripture by the various processes of interpreta- tion, and as the Lower Criticism has for its task the determination of the exact words of Scripture in the original by comparison of manuscripts and other processes, so the Higher Criticism has for its task the settlement of all questions pertaining to the age, authorship, structure, and trustworthiness of the various books of Scripture by a study of their literary phenomena and their historical and theological contents. In other words, criticism is investigation ; and the criticism of contents is no less necessary than the criticism of text or of in- terpretation. Hence Dr. Beattie's frequent and [5] 6 INTR OD UCTION. hearty commendation of the Higher Criticism, properly defined as a searching examination of the form and the facts of Holy Scripture. Hence also Professor Mead's emphatic assertion : "I regard the Higher Criticism as not only legitimate, but as very useful, and indiscriminate condemnation of it as foolish. Genuine criticism is nothing but the search after truth ; and of this there cannot be too much. " But, as the Lower Criticism has been abused by those who have insisted upon radical reconstruc- tions of the Hebrew text, and as the Exegetical Criticism has been abused by those who have pro- pounded false theories of interpretation, from the days of the Talmudists down to the present time, so the Higher Criticism has been abused by those who have engaged in wild speculation concern- ing the history, literature, and religion of the ancient Hebrews. It is against the abuse of this science that Dr. Beattie's book is directed, as the title of the work itself indicates. He sees the gravity of the issue ; he knows that "the assaults of Colenso, Kuenen, and Wellhausen are delivered against the central keep of Protestantism, — the supreme authority of the Bible in matters of re- ligion." And yet he avoids both of the mistakes into which so many conservative writers of less learning and ability have fallen. In the first place, INTR OD UCTION. 7 he does not commit the blunder of conceding that the rationahsts are the only scientific students of Scripture, by permitting them to monopolize the name of "higher critics." The popular miscon- ception of this title, by which it is made to mean superior critics, and which implies that all who bear it are arrogant and supercilious as well as hostile to the Bible, is indeed widespread even among ministers. But there is all the more reason to correct this impression, though it undoubtedly requires courage to do it^ and to make it clear that the term "Higher Criticism" has a well-established meaning among biblical scholars, having been so called for the simple reason that ' ' the study of the contents of a book will always be considered a. higher study than that of the words in which those contents are expressed." In the second place, Dr. Beattie does not rely upon hysterical vituperation and indiscriminate abuse of the men whose views he combats, but upon clear definition, and solid argument, and Holy Scripture. It has made us sick at heart to observe how many of those who have undertaken to speak in the popular periodicals for the conservative side in this controversy have, by their want of discrimination and their violent and abusive tone, injured our cause and fostered a timorous view of truth. Non tali aiixilio ncc de- fcnsoribiis istis. 8 INTRODUCTION. The manner in which our author handles this difficult and exciting subject is very different. While he is absolutely uncompromising in his op- position to the errors of a destructive criticism, his tone is not that of a man who is trembling for the ark ; but rather that of one who knows whereof he speaks and why he maintains the old views con- cerning the integrity, authorship, and date of the various portions of the Bible ; and we venture the assertion that his discriminating and dignified dis- cussion will do more good among intelligent people than all the objurgation and rhodomontade of our slashing sciolists old and young combined. There is earnest work to be done in the battle with those radical critics who are threatening the foundations of our faith, and it is refreshing to see a man enter this conflict who appreciates the gravity of the crisis, who possesses the requisite equipment, and who knows the true method of our defense. There is urgent need of such work as this just now. The aggressiveness of the negative critics and the fascinating presentation of their views in various popular journals make it the duty of con- servative scholars to put all the facts within the reach of the general reader. Dr. Beattie's book is sound, timely, and readable. May the God of truth prosper this enlightened endeavor to confirm the faith of the people in his infallible word. PREFACE. The substance of this little treatise appeared dur- ing the past year as a series of articles in the Chris- tian Observer. These articles are now issued in a permanent form in response to the expressed desire of friends whose favorable judgment the writer val- ues very highly. They are published with some necessary verbal corrections, and a few additions are made at important points in the discussion. The arrangement of the articles is slightly changed, and a table of contents is added. It is proper to say that these articles do not pro- fess to be either a technical or a complete discus- sion of the important subject with which they deal. They were originally intended for the general read- ers of a weekly religious newspaper, rather than for any scholarly circle. This accounts for the somewhat popular form into which the discussion is cast, and which it has been deemed best to retain. In this form it is hoped that the articles may give to that class of earnest minds, who desire a popular rather than a technical treatment of the Higher Criticism, an intelligible view of a subject which excites so much interest at the present day. [9] 10 PREFACE. That such a popular discussion of this subject is needful is evident from the fact that certain methods of historical criticism which may justly be termed destructive are now set forth in various attractive and popular forms. It has passed from the study of the scholar to the circle of the general reader. It no longer speaks only in technical terms, but ex- presses itself in the language of the common people. If this destructive criticism be dangerous as thus presented, an exhibition of its serious defects, in as simple terms as possible, may serve a useful pur- pose. Another thing is also aimed at in this treatise. Care has been taken to point out that the questions raised by the Higher Criticism are proper matters of study at the hands of biblical scholars. It is claimed that in dealing with these questions there are legitimate and illegitimate methods of procedure. An attempt is made to exhibit the former, and to utter a warning against the latter. This little book, therefore, is not an assault upon the reverent Higher Criticism of the Scriptures, but upon the illegitimate methods, and destructive results of a certain class of modern critics. In exposing the false we con- serve the true in biblical study. This work is now sent forth with the earnest prayer that it may serve the interests of the truth, and be for the honor of the Master. Francis R. Beattie. Louisville, January, rSg^. CONTENTS. Part I. — Introductory. CHAPTER I. Preliminary ........ 21 Importance of the subject — The nature of the discussion — The popular attention arrested — Earnestness in advo- cacy of certain views. CHAPTER H. Higher Criticism Defined . . ... 27 Biblical Criticism defined — Textual or Lower Criticism de- scribed — Higher or Historical Criticism described — Its sphere. CHAPTER ni. Radical Higher Criticism Defined . . -34 Difficult to define — Various names given to it — Matter of method, attitude, and standpoint — Its bearing on the supernatural. Part II. — History of the Critical Movement. CHAPTER I. Its History . ....... 43 Early stages — Porphyry — Spinoza — Relation to panthe- ism — Simon — Clericus. 12 CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. Its History Continued ...... 49 English deism —Collins — Jean Astruc — His conjectures — Raised difficulties — Transition to Germany. CHAPTER III. Its History Continued 55 De Wette and Paulas — Vatke and George — Reuss — Hegel's philosophy — Strauss. CHAPTER IV. Its History Continued ...... 61 The Tubingen School — Baur and Tendency Theory — Graf — Kuenen — Wellhausen. CHAPTER V. Its History Concluded ...... 68 Robertson Smith — Transition to Britain — Toy — Briggs — Driver and Cheyne — Harper — Conservatives: Ranke, Kurtz, Hengstenberg, Konig, Klostermann, Watts, Green, Osgood, Bissell, Warfield. PART III. — Exposition of R.-vdical Higher Criticism. CHAPTER I. Preliminary ........ 79 Higher Criticism began without the Church — But in mod- ern times is within it — Warning — False theories slowly mature results — No objection to legitimate Higher Criti- cism — Practical considerations. CONTENTS. 13 CHAPTER II. Philosophical Presuppositions . ... 87 A caution — Import of the philosophy held — The Hegelian philosophy — Pantheism again — The supernatural ignored or rejected — Kuenen. CHAPTER III. Philosophical Presuppositions Continued . . 95 Relation of Higher Criticism to inspiration — Radical Criti- cism rejects or reconstructs the doctrine — Some seek to hold sound views — Three positions stated — Natural evolu- V tion the fourth philosophical presupposition. CHAPTER IV. The Methods of Advanced Criticism . . . 103 Theoretical nature of these methods — A theory as to the national life of Israel — As to the religious system — And as \ to the sacred literature of that system. CHAPTER V. The Documentary Hypothesis .... 112 The Hypothesis explained — Various symbols described — How applied to explain the production of the Scriptures. CHAPTER VI. The Three Codes ....... 12:?. The theory of the Codes explained — Covenant Code — Deuteronomic Code — Priestly or Levitical Code — The ^. Law of holiness. 14 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VII. Some General Features ..... 130 Reconstruction by means of the Codes — Features of the literature — The era of Josiah — The period of Ezra — Ezekiel — The Tabernacle idea. CHAPTER VIII. The History ........ 138 The history and the ritual — The prophetical and the priestly lines — The origin, codification, and writing of laws — Traditional explanations — Fictitious theory — Pseudony- mous authorship. CHAPTER IX. The Prophets and the Psalms .... 146 The prophets and the law — Not the law and the prophets — Writing prophets early — Hosea, Jonah, and Amos — Isaiah — The law and ritual post-prophetic — Psalms largely post-exilic and non-Davidic also — Import of this. Part IV. — Critical Examination. CHAPTER I. Preliminary . ....... 157 The present current debate of vital importance — Ques- tions lie deeper than mere authorship and literary style — The nature of the religion of the Scriptures involved — No assumptions allowed — No safe middle course in the con- troversy — Conservative criticism has an important task. CONTENTS 15 CHAPTER II. The Underlying Philosophy 165 The underlying philosophy criticised — Whether deistic or pantheistic, defective — Bearing on inspiration considered — No really inspired Scriptures — Higher Criticism sub- jective in its radical phases. CHAPTER III. Its Philosophy of Religion ..... 174 Naturalistic Evolution cannot explain all religion — Com- parative Religion — A mere assumption — Factors in Chris- ^ tianity not in other religions — Advance not accounted for — Law of natural progress is Degeneration. CHAPTER IV. General Historical Defects .... 183 History gives important tests — Historicity of the Scriptures — Each age presupposes the previous age — Silence regard- ing any observance does not prove non-existence — No good account given of the revolt of the ten tribes by radical . critics — Other important historical matters. CHAPTER V. Particular Historical Defects .... 192 Testimony of Josephus — Historic setting of the Law — Looks back to Egypt and forward to Canaan — Reform under Josiah and the restoration under Ezra not well explained — Choice of a king — Amalekites — Attempts to explain away fail. 16 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VI. The Documentary Hypothesis .... 201 Hypothesis had a doubtful origin — Astruc — Too much stress laid upon the documents — Radical Critics superficial — The hypothesis cannot now be proved — Names "Je- hovah" and " Elohim " explained — Destroys the organic unity of Scripture. CHAPTER Vn. The Three Codes ....... 210 Proof of the codes needed — Not necessarily successive — Lack of agreement as to the order of the Codes — Can trace the Priestly Code back to the Conquest — Why all ascribed to Moses ? CHAPTER Vni. Deuteronomy ........ 218 This the great test — Mosaic origin natural — Laws in Deuteronomy what we would expect — Silence proves nothing — Deuteronomy not first to enjoin worship at one sanctuary — Its unity — Can trace Deuteronomy back to the days of the Conquest. CHAPTER IX. The Graded Priesthood . . . , . 226 Three grades — So from the first — Deuteronomy — Special provision made for the support of Levites — Historical books prove three orders from the first — Tabernacle im- plied the three orders. CHAPTER X. The Tabernacle ....... 234 Explanations of Radical Criticism far-fetched — Tabernacle suited for wilderness — Lale origin confusing — No use after the Exile — History proves early existence — Import of all this. CONTENTS, 17 CHAPTER XL The Great Feasts ....... 242 The great feasts described — Not nature festivals — True view of the feasts — Silence proves nothing — Time set for feasts — Purpose of the feasts perverted — History proves early existence of the feasts. CHAPTER XH. The Prophets ........ 250 The Radical Critics minimize prophecy — No proof of the inversion of the order of the law and prophets — Silence — Natural development, if admitted, proves too much — The prophets often call the people back to a neglected law — Prophets allude to the Exodus in a way which tells against Radical Criticism — Prophets did not originate ethic mono- theism — Advanced ideas. CHAPTER XHI. The Psalms ........ 258 Psalms not merely the praise-book of the second temple — Davidic authorship of many of the Psalms not disproved — History alluded to in the Psalms — The religious ideas of the Psalms in harmony with that age — Not post-exilic in spirit — Teach monotheism — Presuppose the law. CHAPTER XIV. The Gospel Narratives ...... 267 Import of this topic — Gospel history refutes — Ascribe Mosaic origin to the law — Also the priestly system — Bear- ing on Isaiah — Radical Criticism signally fails on this field — Kenosis. CHAPTER XV. Other New Testament Books .... 276 Wide field — Acts — Romans — Galatians — Hebrews — All agree with the views of Conservative Criticism. 2 IS CONTENTS. CHAPTER XVI. Doctrinal Considerations 286 Dogmatics and Exegesis — Breaks unity of Scripture — Re- casts inspiration — Old Testament doctrine of Christ im- pugned — Redemptive doctrines affected — Work of Holy Spirit impaired. CHAPTER XVn. The Evidence of Arch.eology .... 294 Highly important — Destroys mythical theory — Confirms history — This establishes Mosaic origin of law — Proves early origin of writing — Shows high civilization in early times — Names given. CHAPTER XVHI. Summary 305 The history, the exposition, and the main results of the Criticism summarized. CHAPTER XIX. Concluding Remarks ...... 314 Legitimate Higher Criticism useful — Illegitimate baneful — Claims of radical critics arrogant — Present status of the controversy estimated — Final outcome not doubtful — The spirit and methods of radical criticism dangerous to evan- gelical views of truth — Higher Criticism and our standards — A challenge — Conclusion. PART I . INTRODUCTORY. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY. In a few brief chapters, it is our purpose to discuss, in a somewhat popular way, some of the principles, methods, and results of modern ad- vanced Higher Criticism of the sacred Scriptures, and of the proposed reconstructions of j:he religious system which they contain. Most of our readers have heard more or less of the Higher Criticism, and yet it may be safely assumed that not very many have clear views in regard to what it really is. Perhaps fewer still understand the distinction between a sound and legitimate treatment of the questions which properly belong to Higher Criti- cism, and a false and illegitimate procedure which may be followed in dealing with these questions. We trust that a brief treatise, written in a some- what popular manner, may enable our readers to form more definite opinions in regard to some things that are at best vague and ill-defined even in many intelligent minds. Above all, we earnestly hope that what we shall say may minister to the confir- mation of the faith of all our readers in the sacred Scriptures as the inspired word of God, and in the divinity of the redemptive scheme which they un- [21] 22 RADICAL CRITICISM. fold through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Sav- iour of men. This chapter will be introductory in its nature. Biblical studies have always possessed deep inter- est for thoughtful minds. The sacred literature of the Christian system, in its origin, contents and purpose, has enga.ged mere earnest and scholarly attention than any other literature in the world. We see this interest in all the ages. The Jewish Rabbis, the Christian Fathers, and mediaeval Scho- lastics illustrate in various ways this interest and attention. ^ Since the Reformation, biblical studies have been diligently pursued, and at the present day the devotion to these studies is extensive and ardent. The number of books that are published annually, dealing directly or indirectly with biblical topics, is full proof of this statement, and this fact constitutes one of the hopeful signs of the times. At the present day, the questions most debated are critical, rather than dogmatic, in their nature." The discussions are literary, rather than doctrinal ; historical, rather than theological. Soon after the rise of the modern school of literary and historical criticism, less than a century ago, we find that its principles and methods were applied to the sacred Scriptures. The books of the Bible were subjected to rigid scrutiny, and the results reached in certain quarters were startling. In the earlier decades of the present century, rationalistic criticism in Ger- many in the hands of men like Paulus, Eichhorn, PRELIMINARY. 23 Semler, and De Wette, made sad havoc with the narratives of the Scriptures, and paved the way for the mythical theories of Vatke and Strauss in regard to the Old and New Testaments respect- ively. During the past decade or two, more cautious, though scarcely less destructive, criticism has pre- vailed extensively in certain quarters, and the Scriptures have been subjected to patient investi- gation and almost painfully microscopic inspection. Again and again the sacred records have refused to yield to the assaults made on them, or to melt away in the critic's crucible. As to the wide- spread prevalence of this school of criticism, there can be no doubt, and we would be unwise not to seek to understand its import. Still we need have no fear as to the outcome of the conflict. As the oak upon the mountain side, swept by many a stormy gale, has its roots made the stronger, and its fiber knit the firmer, by the storms, so, when these repeated gusts of criticism shall have passed away, as we believe ere long they shall, the Script- ures will, no doubt, appear to be more than ever the "word of God which liveth and abideth for- ever." In Holland and Germany advanced criticism has during the past twenty-five years had many advo- cates. In 1886, Kuenen, of Leyden, wrote: "I am no longer advocating a heresy, but am expound- ing the received view of European critical scholar- 24 RADICAL CRITICISM. ship." Professor Curtiss, in an article written some years ago, expresses the conclusion that ' ' Lachmann, so far as we know, is the only Old Testament professor in a German university who still defends the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch." He might have added that Konig of Leipzig still held the conservative views on this point. About the year 1880, Professor Robertson Smith, of Aberdeen, imported some of the German ration- alistic methods of criticism into Scotland, and tried the impossible task of pursuing these methods in dealing with the Scriptures, and at the same time of maintaining their distinctively supernatural ori- gin, and their plenary inspiration. Since that time one and another scholar in Brit- ain and America has drawn, directly or indirectly, on the resources of Germany, and by that means we have, during the last ten years, been made more or less familiar with the term Higher Criti- cism, Indeed, it has almost become the fashion in some quarters to profess to be a higher critic ; and to make this profession is boldly claimed by some to be the only passport which admits its happy possessor to this select circle of really en- lightened biblical scholarship. But fashions have their little day, and often change. Those who have not, or do not care to possess, this passport are set aside with a wave of the hand, and their critical opinions go for nothing with the aristocratic PRELIMINARY. 25 biblical scholars. We had always inclined to the opinion that humility and sobriety of mind were essential traits of the true scholar, but the pre- sumption and rashness of many of these modern enlightened critics has greatly perplexed us in con- tinuing to hold this opinion. In Britain, at the present da}', men like Professor Bruce, of Glasgow, Professors Driver and Cheyne, of Oxford, and others, are all more or less in sym- pathy with advanced critical conclusions regarding the Old Testament Scriptures and the religion of Israel, though Bruce is by no means prepared to go as far as Driver and Cheyne in this direction. In this country, Professors Briggs, Smith, Toy, and others represent the same school of criticism. These scholars boldly claim that their destructive or reconstructive conclusions must prevail. Some- times, with a coolness that would be amusing, were it not so serious, the conclusions of advanced criti- cism are assumed to be already fully proved, and schemes of Apologetics or systems of Theology are drawn up under that assumption. We do not vent- ure a prediction here, but we are prompted to ask a question and leave time to give the answer : If the foundations upon which the critics are recon- structing Apologetics and Theology be destroyed, what will the critics do } Then, too, these critics are busy writing books and circulating magazines to advocate their views. To a certain extent they have the ear of many read- 26 RADICAL CRITICISM. ers, and there are features of attractiveness about their writings. It is possible that the perusal of their writings may be perplexing some honest minds, and threatening to shake their confidence in the Scriptures. Perhaps, also, the foes of Christianity may find in the results of the critics' work, some weapons made ready to their hands for a fresh attack upon the Christian system. Taking all these things into account, we are inclined to think that every earnest defender of Christianity is bound to examine the methods and conclusions of the critics "to see whether the things which they affirm are so." At the same time, the utmost care should be taken, while rejecting what is false in these methods and conclusions, that we retain firmly in our possession the sound method of dealing with the main questions belonging to that branch of sacred learning which is called Higher Criticism. Above all, if the bold claims of the critics are true, and if it be so that we must abandon our long cherished views, it is only fair that we should know it without delay. But if, as we are convinced will be the case, their methods and conclusions can be shown to be without solid foundation, the sooner this also is understood, the better. In this little book we hope to add at least a mite, as our contri- bution, to show some weak points in that founda- tion, and so help some of our readers to understand the ground upon which a refusal to join the ranks of the radical critics may be securely founded. CHAPTER II. HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. In the first chapter we alluded to some introduc- tory matters, and emphasized the serious nature of some of the results, which certain schools of modern criticism are almost forcing upon biblical scholar- ship at the present day. Our main purpose in that opening chapterj^as to signalize our firm conviction that the principles and methods of the critics al- luded to, are pregnant with serious dangers to the very foundations of the Christian system. Some of the assumptions made, touch the very bases of our religious faith, and the conclusions reached are often startling in their nature. It is not merely important historical and literary questions that are involved in the views of the advanced critics, but in many cases the philosophy of the origin and growth of religion itself is up for discussion. And we feel bound to add that, even if we were convinced that this bold and sometimes arrogant school of criticism is destined to speedy decline and to a premature old age, those who cannot join their ranks or unite with them in their verdicts, should not remain silent, lest by their silence they leave the impression on some minds that the old views of the Bible, and [27] 28 RADICAL CRITICISM. perhaps the Bible itself, are no longer capable of defense. It is under this firm conviction that this little book is written for the wide circle of readers into whose hands it may come. In this chapter a brief attempt will be made to define the Higher Criticism, and to point out its legitimate function, and thus prepare the way to describe in a general manner those radical forms of it, which have at the present day monopolized the term almost entirely. The general subject involved belongs to that wide and interesting field of sacred learning known as Biblical Introduction. Biblical Criticism, as a whole, belongs to that field, and may be described as that branch of historical and literary criticism which deals with the various treatises which make up the sacred Scriptures viewed merely as literary and historical productions. It naturally divides itself into two great branches, according to the sub- ject matter which is considered. These are usually termed Lower or Textual Criticism, and Higher or Historical Criticism. It is not easy to assign any good reason why the terms Lower and Higher came to be used as they now are, and it is to be remem- bered that scholars are not yet agreed as to their proper use, for some writers are disposed to make the internal evidences of the divine origin of the Scriptures the sphere of Lower Criticism, and the external evidences the field for the Higher Criti- cism. We have simply to use them as we find HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. 29 them, insisting, however, that in no real sense is the one of less value than the other. A brief ex- planation of each of these great branches of criti- cism may enable us to mark out more clearly the topics of which we wish specially to treat. First : Textual Criticism is that branch of the science of biblical criticism which investigates and seeks to determine the exact original text of the various writings of which* the Holy Scriptures are composed. The task of the lower critic is to settle as definitely as possible what the exact language was which the authors of the various books at first wrote down. He seeks to ascertain the text of the autographs of Holy Writ. In doing this the va- rious manuscripts of the Scriptures are collected, collated, and carefully compared. The age of these manuscripts, the form of the letters used, the nature of the vellum upon which they are written, and many other things of minute detail are taken into account by the textual critic in the discharge of his difficult but important office. Textual Criticism also inspects with care the several versions and translations of the Scriptures, and diligently compares these with the original text, for the purposes of correction, or confirma- tion. It also estimates the value of the numerous quotations of Scripture found in early and later religious writings, in order thereby to obtain addi- tional information as to what was the precise text of the original manuscripts. In this department 30 RADICAL CRITICISM. of the work, much patient and painstaking work has been done, especially for the New Testament, by scholars like Scholz, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott, and man}' others. Perhaps the main task which yet remains for the textual critic to perform in biblical study, is to do for the text of the Old Testament what these schol- ars have done for that of the New. Secondly : Higher Criticism usually takes for granted the general results of Textual Criticism, and proceeds to investigate various questions as to the origin, date of composition, authorship, and mode of production, of the several writings. In the main, though not exclusively, it is concerned with questions of the authenticity and genuineness of the different books of Scripture, but it at the same time usually emphasizes the inquiry into the mode, or manner, of the composition, or compila- tion, of these books. The general nature of the books is investigated, and their date, authorship, and value decided on, parti}' by literary, partly by historical, and partly by subjective tests. The validity of the traditional views, as they are called, is, by certain critics, called in question, and a good deal of freedom is exhibited and frequent hypothe- ses are announced in regard to the ^any questions which arise for discussion in this wide and ever- widening field. In addition, the higher critic inquires particularly into the various sources from which the authors of HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. 31 the sacred writings obtained the materials for their Hterary productions, and he investigates with ahnost microscopic care, and sometimes with the personal, or subjective factor largely present, the manifold features of literary idiom and style of the various writings in the Bible. He also extends the scope of his inquiries, and scrutinizes the history and re- ligious institutions of the different peoples alluded to in the Scripture narratives. The literary environ- ment of the biblical authors is thus studied with care, and the higher critic finds himself engaged with a great variety of questions in history, philosophy, ethnology, and comparative religion. His field is wide, his task weighty, so "he should be clothed with humility." The task, then, which the higher critic under- takes is to answer such questions as these : Are the sacred writings so well attested that we can rely on the statements made therein t Were the authors candid and trustworthy men, well informed in re- gard to the matters of which they wrote .-* And how is the fact of their inspiration to be viewed in this connection ? Were the real authors the persons whose names stand now connected with the various books } What was the actual manner of the com- position of the writings in question } What were the dates, places, and circumstances of the produc- tion of the several books } Was the work of the reputed authors original composition, compilation of existing documents, or the mere editing of already 32 RADICAL CRITICISM. extant literary materials ? Did the development of the religious history of Israel take place in the man- ner described in the traditional view of the sacred history, or must reconstruction be made in order to get tlie true view ? What view are we to take of the relations between prophecy, ritual, and legisla- tion, as exhibited in the Old Testament, and what view ought we to take of early Christianity as set forth in the New ? And what is the precise relation of the ethical monotheism of Israel, in its origin and growth, to the idolatry or pol57theism of surround- ing nations ? Now any writer who deals with these questions from any point of view may be termed a ' ' higher critic." In a general sense, therefore, he is a higher critic who deals with the questions above stated, and similar questions which lie beyond rather than in the sacred text. That this is a legitimate field for sacred scholarship none should deny. By means of this branch of criticism rev- erently pursued, much of great value has been furnished to aid in confirming and interpreting the Scriptures. We wish at this point to emphasize the fact that we shall not allow one school of criticism — the ad- vanced — to drive another — the conservative — off this inviting and fruitful field. The advanced critic cannot claim the field as all his own, till he has won it, and the conservative should never re- sign the right to deal with these questions till he HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. 33 is fairly driven from the field. He is to be a higher critic, and should not be ashamed of his task nor afraid to do his duty in its performance. But special description of advanced higher criti- cism must be reserved for our next chapter. CHAPTER III. RADICAL HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. In the last article an attempt was made to de- fine in a general way Lower and Higher Criticism, respectively, and to indicate the topics with which each is specially concerned. With some care the field of Higher Criticism was outlined, and the various questions which it discusses were enumer- ated. It was also insisted that this is an impor- tant and useful department of sacred learning if rightly conducted. At the outset of this article the claim is repeated that the conservative critic has a perfect right to this field, and that he should not be frightened away from it by any of the high and sometimes boastful claims, which the advanced critics make for peculiar critical insight, and pro- found scholarship. Nor should the conservative critic be at all irri- tated, much less discouraged or dismayed, if he be informed, as he sometimes may be, that he is really behind the times, and scarcely qualified to express an opinion that is worth anything upon the questions raised by the Higher Criticism. He need not be disturbed in any measure, if he is set down as a traditionalist ; for he may console him- [34] RADICAL HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. 35 self with the reflection, that in quick succession many of the theories of advanced criticism have al- ready become traditional, and others are in danger of speedily suffering the same hard fate. The conservative critic, therefore, has a duty to do and a legitimate service to render in this connec- tion. He is to deal with all the topics of sacred learning, which properly belong to the field of Higher Criticism. In a reverent, patient, scholarly spirit, he owes it to the cause of truth, and to Him who is the Truth, to handle in the most thorough manner, and according to the methods which are legitimate, even though they be not new, the whole subject matter of which Higher Criticism treats. As between the conservative and advanced critic, it is not simply a question as to which has a right to the field, but rather a question as to which has the best methods, and sets forth the more fully the truth concerning the questions raised. In any case the conservative critic is to be a higher critic as well as a lower, and serve the cause of truth in both fields by pursuing strictly scientific methods of in- vestigation. It should be added that in various ways Lower and Higher Criticism overlap each other. In this chapter we wish specially to describe what is now known as a particular school of Higher Criti- cism. Recent critical controversies have to a cer- tain extent narrowed the application of the term Higher Criticism, and in various ways modified its 36 RADICAL CRITICISM. proper meaning. In the popular mind, at least, this is the case to a considerable extent. Not a few intelligent people have the impression that the whole subject of Higher Criticism is a new discovery for which we are indebted to certain biblical schol- ars in recent times. Some seem inclined to think that the Scriptures were never understood before, and that modern criticism has actually given back Christ to Theology. Others, alarmed at, or dis- gusted with, the radical results of rationalistic criti- cism, have too hastily concluded that the whole thing is inherently evil, and ought to be avoided by all devout scholars, but the safe middle view is to hold that there is a reverent and an irreverent, a legitimate and an illegitimate, method of pursuing investigations and reaching conclusions in the field of Higher Criticism. It is the latter which we are now to describe. It is no easy matter to describe this type of criti- cism even in a general way. It has received certain new titles, and is known by a variety of names. It is sometimes known as the ' ' newer criticism. " Un- der this title, Dr. Watts, .of Belfast, reviewed it at length. Then it is called "advanced criticism," inasmuch as its methods are new and sometimes radical. At times it is described as ' ' historical criticism " in the technical sense, since it professes to follow historical development closely. Again, in some quarters, it is properly described as "ration- alistic criticism," inasmuch as it either ignores or RADICAL HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. 37 denies the supernatural factor in the Scriptures and in the rehgious system which they unfold. The terms "radical" and "reconstructive" have been applied to it with some propriety, since it touches the basis of the Christian system, and proposes its reconstruction. Perhaps if the critics of this particular school were allowed to describe themselves, they would say that they represent the critical or historico- critical school of Higher Criticism. A great host of writers in Holland and Germany, with a number in Britain and America, representing almost every shade of opinion from cold rationalism to warm evangelicalism, might be named here. But we defer doing so till we sketch the history of this school of criticism in subsequent articles. The peculiarity, therefore, about this school of criticism consists not so much in handling the topics which belong to Higher Criticism, as in dealing with them in a particular manner, and under certain presuppositions. It is not the sub- ject matter with which it deals, but its critical metJiod which distinguishes this school of criticism. It is, in some cases, its general attitude toward the questions in hand more than anything else that . , gives it its peculiar character. In other cases, it is what may be called its standpoint in relation to v^ certain fundamental questions which underlie all criticism of the sacred Scriptures, that marks of? this school of criticism from others. 38 RADICAL CRITICISM. Nor is it a question of scholarship merely, nor of mental insight and critical judgment simply, which constitutes the peculiar feature of the school of critics now under our notice. At times we are reminded by its adherents that these qualities are the special heritage of this school, and so it is nec- essary to point out very clearly that it is not so much their scholarly furnishing for the work of criticism, as the freedom with which the work is done by them that differentiates these particular critics and their work from conservative critics. Not infrequently it is the spirit of the critic and his general tone which give him his place in the select circle of higher critics properly so called. J From all this we gather that the school of criticism under consideration is marked by its method, atti- tude, standpoint, and spirit in relation to the J general subject matter which belongs to Higher Criticism. This, of course, is an exceedingly meager de- scription of the modern school of Higher Criticism of which we hear so much at the present day, but it is not possible to speak of it more definitely at this stage without anticipating what can be better stated later on in the course of this treatise, when its history and exposition are to be presented. Then, too, the difficulty of general description is all the greater on account of the vast variety of opinion existing among the adherents of this par- ticular school. There are reverent critics who pro- RADICAL HIGHER CRITICISM DEFINED. 39 fess to hold by the supernatural, and to believe in inspiration, and who are in sympathy with the standpoint and methods of the advanced critical positions. Then there are those who may be termed "evangelical critics," who hold firmly to the simplicity of the gospel as they conceive it, and yet co-operate with this school in its critical cam- paign. Finally, we have the rationalistic class in this school, who minimize or explain away the su- pernatural altogether, who take very low views of inspiration, and who are prepared to deal with the sacred Scriptures as if they were in no respect different from, any other literature. Some of the rationalistic critics openly set aside the supernat- ural entirely, and deal with everything on a purely naturalistic plane. It becomes a very important question as to how far the critical views of this whole school can be adopted, and thorough-going rationalistic conclusions be avoided. This question will come up later on in these discussions. Amid such variet)' of view, it is not easy to de- scribe in a satisfactory way the particular school of criticism about which we now write. In closing this article we would especially emphasize the fact that it is the principles and methods of this critical school, which give it its distinctive character. If these principles and methods be essentially ration- alistic in their nature, the evangelical and conserva- tive critics are surely warned that they are in doubt- ful company, and on dangerous ground when they 40 RADICAL CRITICISM. join the ranks of the radical critics. But this must suffice for description, and in the next chapter we shall begin to give some account of the rise and his- tory of this school of criticism. PART II. HISTORY OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENT. CHAPTER I. ITS HISTORY. In the last chapter a brief and general descrip- tion of radical Higher Criticism was given. It was particularly pointed out that this school of criticism is distinguislied chiefly by its methods, spirit, and general attitude in dealing with the topics it discusses. It was not admitted that this particular school of criticism has any peculiar claim to the field wherein its questions lie. And it is again insisted on that the controversy is not for the possession of the field, but in regard to the princi- ples, methods, and results of criticism in that field. This chapter proposes to begin a brief historical sketch of that critical movement which in various ways has led on to the development of the modern advanced types of Higher Criticism. Such a sketch may have a degree of interest in itself, and it m.ay go far to show how it comes to pass that unsound principles slowly but surely work out disastrous results. And further, w^e venture to think that a plain outline of the history of the movement will form a valuable critique of the true nature of that school of criticism which is so popular in certain quarters to-day. If the tree be good, we may ex- [43] 44 RADICAL CRITICISM. pect good fruit, but if the tree be corrupt, then we can look only for evil fruit. The historical sketch now to be given may enable us to know the tree by its fruits, or from the fruits to judge the tree. In the early Christian Church, but little was done in the way of careful criticism or diligent exegetical study of the Scriptures. Men seemed ready to take the plain, simple meaning of the sacred writings, and raise no subtle questions regarding them. Almost the only writer in Patristic times who touched upon the literary and historical questions arising from a critical study of the Scriptures in ac- cordance with rationalistic methods, was Porphyry, who was, let it be carefully noted, one of the chief opponents of Christianity during the latter part of the third century after Christ. In his opposition to Christianity he sought to point out what he thought were inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the sacred records of the Christian system. In doing so, he examined critically the history of the people of Israel, and made inquiry concerning the origin and development of the Mosaic system. He attacked, at length, the book of Daniel, called in question its date and author- ship, sets forth in an exaggerated way certain difficulties in regard to the mode in which the Hebrew Scriptures were composed. In Porphyry, we have, without the pale of the Church, and op- posed to Christianity, an acute and learned man, giving hints of those critical principles and methods. HISTORY OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENT. 45 which, in modern times, have developed into a well- defined movement within the Christian Church, and among those who are supposed to be the trusted defenders of Christianity. Perhaps the ancient critic was more consistent in making his attack from without, than the modern rationalistic critic is in doing damage from within. In the latter part of the seventeenth century, we find Spinoza, a celebrated speculative philosopher of the Jewish race, and the father of modern pan- theism, entering upon some curious, if not profound, critical enquiries in regard to the Scriptures. In general, he called in question the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He also raised the question whether the complete Mosaic law and ritual as a definite system were historically prior to the development of the Jewish Church and nation in Canaan after the conquest. He did not so much assert that mature Mosaism appeared in the later stages of the Jewish history as cast doubt and uncertainity upon the generally received view among both Jews and Christians of his day. In his treatise, published in 1670— " Tractatus TJicologico PoliticiLs'" — Spinoza was really the first to ascribe the possible origin of the Pentateuch in its present form to the time of Ezra, if not to Ezra himself. He suggests that the final re-cast- ing of the books, usually regarded as the work of Moses almost entirely, was done by Ezra, and those associated with him. This places these books in 46 RADICAL CRITICISM. their completed form in post-exilic, rather than in pre-exilic times. Spinoza further thinks it likely that Ezra wrote the book of Deuteronomy first, and then afterward composed the remaining books of the Pentateuch. From the examination of the Jewish history and Mosaic ritual which he makes, he thinks the reasonable conclusion to be that the definite and complete religious system of the Jewish people belongs to a much later age than the time of Moses, of Joshua, and of the conquest of Canaan. There is much about the philosophy and critical views of Spinoza that is of the deepest interest and importance. He was a Jew, who, for somie not very clearly understood reason, was excommuni- cated. He is described as a gentle, devout man, who found his chief delight in the realms of specu- lative philosophy. Still, it is barely possible that he was prompted to criticise the history and re- ligion of his own people by the irritation which he must have felt toward those who put him out of the synagogue. This possibility, we are inclined to think, should be kept in mind in estimating the critical views of this acute Jew. Spinoza was a pantheist. He identified the uni- versal substance, or ground of all existence, with the Divine Being. This universal " substance " or being has for man's apprehension two attributes, — extension and thought. All finite existences are modes of these attributes. These modifications HISTORY OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENT 47 take place in such a purely necessary way that ev- erything is either natural, or supernatural, accord- ing as we please to use the terms. In religion, the development must take place in the same necessi- tarian way, and the distinction between the natural and the supernatural operations of Deity is thereby obliterated. Now, it is worth while observing here, and we allude to Spinoza's pantheism specially for this purpose, the somewhat remarkable fact that the first great exponent of modern pantheism is also the virtual author of the radical, or rational- istic theory of the religion and ritual of Israel, v/hich has, in recent years, caused so much controversy among biblical scholars. This fact will appear all the more striking when we see, as we shall later on in this sketch, that modern idealistic pantheism, and radical views of the questions in Higher Criti- cism, emerge side by side in Germany. We natu- rally wonder whether there is any logical and natural connection between these two things. Soon after Spinoza, though in many respects opposed to him, we find Richard Simon, about the year 1678, dealing with some of these critical ques- tions. He quite openly discarded his belief in the unity of the Pentateuch and in its Mosaic author- ship. At the same time he allowed that there may have been some kind of legislative kernel of the law which came from Moses. Mature Mosaism, however, he distinctly held, was a development only 48 RADICAL CRITICISM. found complete from the days of Ezra onward. Simon gives us thus more definite views than Spi- noza suggested. A few years later, in 1685, Clericus unfolded views which were even more radical and startling than those of Simon. In substance he maintained that the Pentateuch and Mosaism belong to a much later date than the Exodus from Egypt ; and he was bold enough to venture the assertion that it owed its origin to some Jewish priest who lived soon after the overthrow of the ten tribes, and per- haps about the year 588 b. c. With these writers the movement seems to have exhausted itself for the time being, and so for over a century we hear little about these new theories of the Old Testa- ment history. At this point we may properly close this article. Already we have seen that the essential elements of rationalistic critical theory originated outside of, and in opposition to, the Church. We cannot fail to note the fact, also, that the modern critic's claim for originality is seriously unpaired by what Simon and Clericus presented two centuries ago. CHAPTER II. ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. In our last chapter the history of advanced or ra- tionahstic Higher Criticism was commenced. Tlie opinions of Porphyry, Spinoza, Simon, and Cleri- cus were briefly sketched. The important place of Spinoza, the father of modern pantheism, in origi- nating some of the radical theories of modern criticism, was signalized, and the striking connec- tion between pantheism and negative criticism was pointed out. In this article we continue the his- torical sketch we have in view. Our last chapter closed Vv^ith the end of the sev- enteenth century, and at that period speculation upon the critical problems presented by the sacred Scriptures subsided for a time. During the eight- eenth century these critical theories of the Old Testament literature and religion, together v/ith the pantheism of Spinoza, were generally rejected. Only here and there do we find any favorable allu- sion to them, and then usually by the opponents of Christianity as a supernatural religion. The attacks made upon the Christian faith during this century were philosophical rather than critical in their nature. These attacks are represented by 4 [49] 50 RADICAL CRITICISM. deism in England, materialism in France, and ra- tionalism in Germany. Almost the only writer among the English deists who raised questions of a critical or literary nature regarding the Scriptures, was Collins, who wrote about the beginning of the eighteenth century. Collins examined prophecy, and sought to show that Christianity is founded on various misinterpretations of Jewish prophecy into which our Lord and his apostles unconsciously blundered. His work is by no means profound, and yet it is of some historic interest in this sketch, for it further illustrates the critical movement as still outside the Church, and against Christianity. In Germany the beginning of the rationalistic move- ment belongs to the close of the eighteenth century, as we shall see a little later on in our sketch. At this stage in the history of rationalistic critical speculation, it is proper to give some account of the influence of a writer whose character and work are often little understood. We refer to Jean Astruc, a celebrated physician, first at Toulouse, and after- ward for many years at Paris, in France. He was the son of a Protestant pastor, who recanted at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and entered the Romish Church, but virtually renounced religion altogether, for he became a lawyer, and lived as a philosopher. Jean Astruc was born in 1684, and was professor in the medical school at Toulouse from 1 7 10 to 1729. In the latter year, with wealth and wide reputation for medical knowledge, he re- ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. 51 moved to Paris, where he hved till 1766. He was professor in the College Royal, had extensive prac- tice as a physician, and moved in what was then regarded as the best social circles in the gay French capital. It is worth while noting further the fact that he was on intimate terms in Paris with the free think- ers of that unbelieving age. Here he was often one of that literary circle which embraced men like Fontenelle, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Bolingbroke, Chesterfield, and other kindred spirits, whose dis- regard for Christianity is well known. There is good reason to believe that his private life for nearly twenty years was not without serious blem- ish. He became intimate soon after he came to Paris with the notorious Madame de Tencin, whose whole life was a succession of intrigue, vice, and crime. At her death he succeeded in getting pos- session of over 200,000 francs of her property. Little more need be said of the character of As- true, and we conclude our allusion to it by an ex- pression from Voltaire, and one from Grimm Voltaire describes him as ' ' miser, debauchee, and possessed with a devil." Grimm says, " Astruc was one of the men most decried in Paris. He was regarded as a rascal, a cheat, vicious — in a word, as a very dishonest man." Such is the man who originated Ihe ' ' documentary hypothesis, " of which modern criticism has made so much. In 1753 Astruc published his work entitled, 52 RADICAL CRITICISM. "Conjectures concerning the Original Memoranda, which it appears Moses used to Compose the Book of Genesis, with Remarks which Support or Throw Light on these Conjectures. " This treatise is now a very rare one, for the reason that when the French Pariiament was about to make inquiry con- cerning it, Astruc bought up and burned every copy he could purchase or procure. It was is- sued in Paris, and yet by its title page it professed to have been published in Brussels, so, as a matter of fact, it was sent forth with a falsehood on its face. Why it was written by a man in Astruc's position it is hard to understand. He professes a desire to remove difficulties from the sacred Scriptures, and yet his work played at once into the hands of unbelief. Against this we are not aware that Astruc ever made the slight- est protest. In his Conjectures, he points out the use of the two names applied to God in Genesis, Jehovah and Elohim, and alhides to what he thinks needless repetitions, anachronisms, and interpolations, to- gether with the general disorder in many of the narratives in this book. He accounts for these things by supposing that Moses was merely the human compiler of the treatise, and unconsciously blundered in his work. In this way Moses may have been honest, but he was evidently ignorant, and his narratives can scarcely be trustworthy, much less inspired. ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. 53 In working out his theory, Astrnc placed the text of Genesis in three main columns, which he marked A, B, and C. Then various fragments, as he thought, of the literature, which could Hot be fitted into these three sections, he placed in ten additional columns. The original memoranda, Astruc supposes, came partly from the Jews and partly from other nations. Moses, he assumes, just put these together, leaving all their agreements and differences just as he found them. Professing to remove difficulties, it is evident that Astruc multiplied them a thousandfold. Voltaire even, in a review of Astruc's work, says of it, with fine and pointed iron}^ that ' ' it redoubles the darkness he sought to disperse." We have thus dwelt upon the author and origin of the famous "documentary hypothesis," in such a way as to set both in the clear light of history, and to show that it was invented by a bad man, not really in the interests of Christianity, or bibli- cal scholarship, but indirectly at least to supply weapons against the divine origin of the Scriptures of the Christian system. We also set forth these things concerning the origin of the documentary hypothesis in order to put immature scholars and youthful biblical students on their guard in refer- ence to the admissions which are often made concerning the "documentary hypothesis." For ourselves we do not like its birth-place, and we cannot grow fond of its company. 54 RADICAL CRITICISM. We have already stated that these radical theories did not appear on German soil till about the end of the last century. When the idealistic pantheism of Schelling and Hegel was popularized by Lessing and Goethe, and so made more acces- sible for the common people both in prose and verse, about the close of the last century and the opening of this, we find these speculations again making their appearance. At first, here and there, in a timid or cautious way, attempts were made to reproduce the post-exilian theory of the origin of the ritual, legislation, and literature of the religion of Israel. These radical opinions began to crystal- lize into definite form early in the present century, and in the hands of professedly Christian scholars. It was at this point that these theories succeeded in scaling the walls of the citadel of Christianity ; or rather it was at this time that some of the un- wise occupants of the citadel, who should have been its defenders, opened the gates to let these radical anti-supernaturalistic speculations come within the walls. In our next chapter we shall proceed to give some account of what they did when they were in- side. CHAPTER III. ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. In our last chapter the history of advanced or rationaHstic criticism was continued. The greater part of the chapter was taken up with a brief ac- count of Astruc, the originator of the "documen- tary hypothesis." In Astruc we still have the critical speculation without the Church. At the close of the chapter, it was indicated that just about the beginning of the present century, the gates were opened to allow these theories of advanced criticism to enter the Church. This brings us to Germany, and calls upon us to give some account of that great critical und rationalistic movement which, in varying forms, has continued down to the present time. In the year 1806, De Wette published a treatise on a part of the Old Testament, and in 18 17 he issued a work of a critical and historical nature on the whole Old Testament Scriptures. In these two works he set forth the view that we must look to the time of Josiah for the book of Deuteronomy, and that the history set forth in the sacred books must be reconstructed in order to get at the true state of the case. He broke up the Pentateuch [55] 56 RADICAL CRITICISM. into a series of parts, differing in age, origin, and contents, and expressed the opinion that the Le- vitical ritual came into existence at a late stage in the history of the religious life of the people. He also denies the Davidic origin and Messianic nature of many of the Psalms, and although he does not give a naturalistic explanation of the miracles, he is inclined to favor the legendary nature of the narratives concerning the miracles of the Old Tes- tament. Here we find the favorite theory of cer- tain modern schools of criticism in its main outlines advocated by De Wette, who was largely domi- nated, though not entirely controlled, by the thoroughly rationalistic methods and spirit of Paulus. Some time later, about the year 1830, two writ- ers, both of them exponents of the philosophy of Hegel, presented even more radical and thorough- going views. Their names are Vatke and Leopold George. They asserted without reserve that the whole Mosaic ritual and legislation contained in the Pentateuch was post-Mosaic, and the greater part of it, also, post-prophetic. They further held that Deuteronomy was written about the time of the Exile, and that it is the oldest, not the latest book of the Mosaic law. The other four books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, were written after Deuteronomy, and so subsequently to the Exile. These books, they further asserted, were to be re- garded as almost entirely mythical in their nature. ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. 57 Vatke was one of the early writers who developed what came in later times to be known as the " Wellhausen Theory" of the Old Testament. He expressly maintained that the mature ritual and sac- rificial S3^stem of the Pentateuch was post-exilic, and his mythical ideas of the Old Testament were the precursors of Strauss' s mythical explanation of the New Testament narratives. Throughout we clearly see the rationalistic spirit and attitude in those scholars within the Church who first gave ex- pression to those radical theories now under review. In the year 1833 we come to an important era in the progress of advanced critical speculation. In that year Edward Reuss, of Strasbourg, published a treatise in which the critical theory was presented in a much more elaborated form. He reproduced the main points in Spinoza's Ezra hypothesis, and followed up the speculations of De Wette and Vatke. In this way he gave much more definite outline to the theory of the later origin of the ritual, legisla- lation, and literature involved in the religion of Israel. In Reuss we have, indeed, the distinct commencement of those definite theories, which, in quite recent times, have developed into the main positions maintained by advanced, or radical, Higher Criticism on the Old Testament field. The work of Reuss is full of interest on this account. He also claims to have really preceded Vatke and George in reaching his conclusions, so that it is not easy to decide to whom the honor of priority really 58 RADICAL CRITICISM. belongs. He gives prominence to the historical side of his critical work, and he opposed with vigor and success, in later years, the views of the Tubin- gen school. By the year 1848 we find these general critical views adopted by many scholars in Germany. It would seem that by degrees, during the period from 1833 to 1848, the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch and the early rise in the days of the Exodus of mature Mosaism, were rejected by the majority of critics. Only a few here and there held consist- ently by the old orthodox view, and the Scripture narratives of both Old and New Testaments were handled with a freedom that paid scanty regard to their divine origin and inspiration. The older rationalism, which rested largely on the deistic philosoph}' of the relation of God to his works, gradually gave place to the idealistic pan- theism of the Hegelian philosophy. The result of this was that in the field of biblical criticism we do not hear so much of the naturalistic attempts to explain the miracles and other phases of the super- natural. We find the effort now to be rather in the direction of harmonizing the Scripture narratives with, or reconstructing them if necessary, according to, the essential principles of the idealistic evolution of the system of Hegel. According to this system, as with every phase of pantheism, everything must be regarded as either natural or supernatural; con- sequently the distinction between the two is virtually ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. 59 obliterated. This being done, the entire Scripture narratives, with the system of rehgion they set forth, must be explained in accordance with this philo- sophical standpoint. If the contents of the narra- tives, as they stand, do not agree with the order thus rendered necessary, reconstruction must be made, and from this standpoint the critic enters on his task. Up to this point we have seen some of the results in the case of the Old Testament. It soon became evident, however, that a similar mode of criticism might be applied to the Gospel narratives which set forth the life of Christ. It was very natural to conclude that if the critical procedure in the case of the Old Testament led to a rejection of the so-called traditional views regard- ing it, the next logical step to take was to apply the same methods to Christ and the New Testa- ment narratives. Accordingly, in the year 1835, just about the time that Vatke and Reuss revived Spinoza's Ezra hypothesis, and suggested the myth- ical origin of large parts of the first four books of Moses, we find that Strauss published his ' ' Leben Jesu." This " Life of Christ " is in many respects a bold and remarkable book, and its appearance pro- duced an immense sensation in the world of theo- logical learning. It soon called forth vigorous replies from both the dogmatic and historical stand- points. Among the best of these are Dorner's "Person of Christ," and Neander's "Life of Christ." Later writers have dealt with the theory 60 RADICAL CRITICISM. of Strauss at length, and effectively exploded the whole speculation. Christlieb's critique of Strauss is also very line. No attempt need be made here to expound and criticise the mythical hypothesis which Strauss set forth to explain the Gospel narratives. It is vir- tually an application of Vatke's mythical views of the Old Testament to the Gospel history of the New. On the philosophical side, Strauss is allied with the idealistic pantheism of Hegel, whose disci- ple the great destructive critic of the New Tes- tament was. This theory does not exert much influence at the present day, nor has it many ad- herents, still in current literature we sometimes see the spirit of the mythical theory floating about. Moreover, we see in the absurd and unhistorical nature of this theory how far unsound modes of Higher Criticism will lead, if once we are com- mitted to them. The theory itself may be a mummy neatly embalmed, but its ghost, we fear, still lives. At this point this chapter must close. CHAPTER IV. ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. The preceding chapter continued the history of the radical movement of Higher Criticism. The views and theories of De Wette, Vatke, George, and Reuss in the Old Testament, and of Strauss in the New Testament field were briefly sketched. Dur- ing the period of about thirty years in Vv^hich these writers set forth their theories, the tendency was toward a purely rational explanation of the religion and literature of the sacred Scriptures. In this tendency the mythical feature was a very promi- nent one in the hands of Vatke for the Old Tes- tament, and Strauss for the New. Above all, we cannot fail to notice that these reconstructive the- ories usually went hand in hand with a denial of the supernatural element in the Scriptures. This chapter continues the history, and will bring it forward to the present generation. In the year 1 847 another important stage was reached in the development of these critical theories. In that year F. C. Baur, of Tubingen, published a treatise in which he elaborated some peculiar critical views which soon came to be known as those of the Tubingen school. Baur was a Hegelian in philoso- [61] 62 RADICAL CRITICISM. phy, and applied the dialectic of that philosophy to explain, in a purely natural way, the New Testa- ment and the beginning of Christianity. The re- sult was the production of the ' ' Tendency Theory," which is really based on Hegel's ' ' Philosophy of History." According to the "Tendency Theory" advocated by Baur, there were several distinct tendencies of doctrinal view in the New Testament times. Two at least are prominent, and a third may be ob- served. The two chief tendencies are the Pauline and the Petrine, while the Johannine is not so dis- tinct. By the application of Hegel's logical princi- ples to these supposed early natural tendencies, the antithesis between them was resolved in a higher synthesis by which, in a purely natural way, the divergent views were harmonized. The result was an onward step in the growth of the Christian sys- tem in its early stages. Later on in the Ebionitic and Gnostic heresies we have, as Baur thinks, renewed antitheses which again are to be resolved in another and a higher synthesis. In this way, by a mediating process of a logical nature, the successive antitheses were re- solved in successive syntheses, and in the end, about the beginning of the third century, catholic or complete Christianity was the result. In this way the facts of history are made to fit the logical conditions of a peculiar and subtle philosophical theory. The supernatural is eliminated, and the ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. G3 most we can say concerning early Christianity is that it was the product of a kind of transcendental logic working in the religious history of the apostolic age. Then in harmony with this theory of the origin of the religion of New Testament times the production of the different books of Scripture is accounted for. Each book, whether Gospel narrative or doctrinal epistle, was written to support one or other of these "tendencies," or to mediate between opposing tendencies. Much diversity of view exists among the advocates of this theory in regard to the author- ship and date of the several books. In general, the Gospels are supposed to have been written from 1 30 to 170 A. D. , and the Epistles are arranged in a most arbitrary way, as Pauline, Petrine, and Mediative, as the case may seem to require, according to the judgment of the critic. One would almost suppose that Baur and his associates had been present when Christianity was passing through its early stages, and that they had been looking over the shoulders of the sacred writers as they were penning their narratives. Our purpose is not to criticise this theory at length. It has fallen entirely into decay; or per- haps it would be better to say that it has gone quite out of fashion, for there seem to be fashions in criticisms as well as in bonnets and coats. Hilgen- feld was for many years, almost the only repre- sentative of the tendency theory. Recently, how- 64 RADICAL CRITICISM. ever, Pfleiderer of Berlin has been making some efforts to rehabilitate Baur's theory, and to secure for it a bearing through the Gijford Lectures in Scotland. It is worth while noting the fact that the theories of Strauss and Baur are often classed together, as if they were substantially alike in their essential principles. Strauss and Renan are in much closer affinity than Strauss and Baur. The mythical and legendary are more akin than are the mythical and tendency theories. -The root idea in the theory of Strauss, is that of the viytliiis naturally expanding; in the legendary scheme of Renan, it is an accre- tion gathering about a basis of fact ; and in the tendency theory of Baur, it is a necessary logical process bringing forth its historical product in early Christianity and its literature. In the case of the mythical theory, the literature is an unconscious growth ; and in that of the tendency scheme, it is an intentional product. With Strauss, the several books mark the form that the luytJiits had reached, while with Ba ir they were written to support the tejideneics aire; dy existirg. The views of Baur have been vigorously criticised, and successfully refuted by writers on the Continent and in Britain, and they do not meet with much favor at the present day. In this way rationalistic Higher Criticism, within Christianity itself, was compelled to confess failure in another attempt to account for the religion of the New Testament on ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. Go the basis of pure rationalism. Moreover, this work of refutation greatly confirmed the strictly historical views of the Christ of history. Just as the same blast which lays prostrate the loosely rooted poplar tree only fixes more firmly the roots of the sturdy oak, so the refutation of these baseless theories of Higher Criticism confirms the true historical view of the sacred Scriptures and their religious system. During the last twenty or thirty years there are several names which must have a place, even in a brief sketch like this. At the same time a host of writers who have supported advanced critical theo- ries cannot have even their names mentioned in the space at our disposal. There are four chief names to be set down as prominent in recent developments in the critical school up to about the year 1880. These are Graf, Ivuenen, Wellhausen, and Robertson Smith. Graf was a pupil of Reuss, the Strasburg critic. In i860 he propounded what may be called the negative critical theory of the Pentateuch, and with him we find advanced rationalistic criticism back on the territory of the Old Testament again. This general theory, usually known as ' ' Graf's Theory," marks a still more definite stage in the progress of critical speculation. Others who fol- lowed him gave the theory much more complete and detailed form, still the essential outlines of those critical theories, so popular in certain quar- ters at the present day, were sketched by Graf. 5 66 RADICAL CRITICISM. As this general theory will be stated more fully in subsequent articles, we need not add anything further in the historical statement we are now making than to mention this fact. The second name above mentioned is that of Kuenen of Leyden. Kuenen is often set down as a German, but he is a Hollander and wrote in Dutch. In 1865 he comipleted the publication of an ex- tended work of a critical and historical nature concerning the Old Testament, and in 1882 he issued another treatise in which he applied the ad- vanced higher critical methods to the books of Moses and the history of Israel. Kuenen adopted substantially the leading outlines of Graf's theory, and with great wealth of learning and boldness of speculation he expounded it more fully, giving it much more detailed completeness of structure. He denied the reality of the supernatural in the Script- ures, and thereby set aside their inspiration. Kue- nen is certainly an able and scholarly writer, from a certain point of view, and in some respects his is the most influential hand that has aided in giving form to the critical theory. The next writer to be mentioned is Wellhausen, — of Greifswald, till 1882. In 1878 he published his " History of Israel," which has had an extensive circulation. In this treatise he gave the Grafian hypothesis still greater completeness, and presented it in the general form in which it is now current among rationalistic critics. In this complete form / ITS HISTORY CONTINUED. 67 it may be known as the Graf-Wellhausen Theory of the history of Israel, and of the hterature and rehg- ious system found in the Old Testament. In general this theory maintains that the com- plete Mosaic ritual and legislation originated after the period of the prophets, and that the Pentateuch in its present form was compiled after the Exile. It is not necessary to enter into details here, as future chapters will give full exposition of this theory. We reserve what we have to say concerning Rob- ertson Smith, for the next chapter. In this way we will make the transition from Germany to Brit- ain, and find the advanced theories of Historical or Higher Criticism passing from Teutonic to Anglo- Saxon circles. How they have flourished there we shall also see in the next chapter, and with that chapter the history of the radical reconstructive movement will conclude. CHAPTER V. ITS HISTORY CONCLUDED. The last chapter dealt with the history of ration- alistic criticism during a period of about thirty years, from 1847 to 1878. The chief names which appeared during this period, were Baur, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen. Baur's Tendency the- ory of the New Testament and of the origin of Christianity in a purely natural way was described, and the part which the other three authors played in shaping modern critical theories of the Old Tes- tament was briefly indicated. At the close of the chapter, allusion was made to Robertson Smith, and to the fact that with him the radical speculations passed from Germany to Brit- ain, and so from Teutonic to Anglo-Saxon circles. At this point we take up the history and hope to complete it in this chapter. Robertson Smith was formerly a professor in the Free Church College at Aberdeen, Scotland. He early showed aptitude for linguistic studies, and spent some time as a student in Germany at Bonn and Gottingcn. After teaching as assistant in physics in Edinburgh University for two years, he became professor of Hebrew in the Free Church [68] ITS HISTORY CONCLUDED. 69 College at Aberdeen in 1870. In 1881 he was removed from his Chair by the Assembly, on ac- count of his heretical teaching upon points involved in the radical critical theories of the Graf-Well- hausen School. In 1883 he went to Cambridge University as professor of Arabic, and since 1886, he has been librarian of that University/ Soon after the General Assembly removed him from his Chair at Aberdeen, he became editor of the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the impress of his views is seen in many of the articles on biblical subjects in this great work. To say the least, many of these articles are one-sided, and by no means do justice to conservative opinions in regard to critical questions. Indeed, some of these articles seem to be written in the interests of radi- cal criticism, and to entirely ignore the conservative views. Smith's articles in the Britannica, on ' ' The Bible," and on "The Hebrew Literature," first at- tracted attention. Then his books on "The Prophets of Israel," and on " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," set forth his views at length, subsequent to his removal from his Chair at Aberdeen, though the lectures contained in the latter book were delivered during the period that his case was before the Assembly. On the ground of the views expressed in the articles above named, 1 Since this was written, Dr. Smith has died at the early age of forty-nine years. 70 RADICAL CRITICISM. and in other ways, he was charged with heresy, and after a heated controversy in which he made a vigorous and able defense, he was removed from his Chair. All that need be said in this historical sketch regarding Smith's writings, is, that there is really little new in them. He has evidently a bright mind, is a brilliant scholar in certain lines, and is master of a splendid style of writing. It cannot be said that his scholarship is either broad, accurate, or well balanced ; and in the perusal of his writings the reader is often impressed with the fact that general conclusions are drawn from slender premises, and sweeping inductions made from a few isolated facts. What Smith has done may not unfairly be called a work of importation. He taught German rational- istic criticism how to speak the English tongue. In other words, he has simply put into good English dress the main outlines of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis concerning the religion and literature of Israel, slightly modifying the style of the clothes to suit the Anglo-Saxon wearer. At the same time he endeavored to hold by the doctrine of inspira- tion, while following the methods and adopting the general conclusions of that school of criticism which sets aside the reality of the supernatural and which thereby sweeps overboard all semblance of inspira- tion in the Scriptures. Perhaps the masters were more consistent than their Scotch pupil, even though the pupil was more reverent than his Teu- ITS HISTORY CONCLUDED. 71 tonic masters. We mention these things chiefly for the benefit of those who think that there is profound originality in the writings of the Eng- hsh-speaking higher critics. We are perhaps not going too far when we say that their main busi- ness is importation, rather than production ; and, in some cases, if we make close inspection of the stock in trade, we may discover that most of it is sec- ond-hand goods. An English-speaking professor, decked out in the well-worn study gown of his Ger- man preceptor, is scarcely an edifying spectacle in those circles of biblical scholarship which claim so much originality. This virtually brings our historical sketch down to our own day, and we conclude it with some brief descriptive allusions to the present situation in re- gard to the advanced school of criticism. So far as Germany is concerned, little need be said. Judg- ing from statements that have lately come to us from various quarters and which may be relied on, there seems to be a tendency in the fatherland to return to more conservative ground in regard to the liter- ary and critical questions round which the fires of criticism have been burning so fiercely for the past forty years. While there is no decided reaction against the Graf-Wellhausen position, still some of its boldest features are modified in the literature at present coming from that quarter, and several in- fluential critics are in open revolt against the meth- ods of this reigning school of criticism. 72 RADICAL CRITICISM. After the controversy in Robertson Smith's case subsided, mutterings of coming debate began to be heard on this side of the Atlantic. Indeed, so early as 1879, Professor Toy, of the Southern Bap- tist Theological Seminary announced opinions in regard to some critical questions which speedily led to his withdrawal from that institution. Since 1880, he has been professor of Hebrew at Harvard University, and in 1884 published a book on "The History of the Religion of Israel," which showed that he was in hearty sympathy with the advanced methods and results of radical criticism, and had, indeed, already drawn from the writings of the Germans to a considerable extent. A few years later the center of interest was re- moved to Union Seminary, New York, and all our readers are familiar with the proceedings in the case of Professor Briggs, since the delivery of his Inaugural Address in 1891. For some time before, it had been supposed that Professor Briggs was teaching some advanced views, not unlike those prevalent in Germany and set forth by the Graf- Wellhausen school. During the two )-ears which followed the delivery of his famous address till he was suspended from the ministry of the Presbyter- ian Church, it became more and more apparent that Professor Briggs was on radical ground. He in- sisted that he held fast by the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, but the principles and methods to which he had committed himself made it difftcult, if ITS HISTORY CONCLUDED. 73 not impossible, for him to hold a consistent doctrine of inspiration in harmony with his critical methods and conclusions. Recrossing the Atlantic, we find that in recent years, the quiet retreats of scholastic leisure at Oxford, have been invaded by radical opinions in regard to biblical criticism. The two names con- nected with this invasion are Professors Driver and Cheyne. Driver has been professor of Hebrew since 1882, and Cheyne, professor of Biblical Inter- pretation since 1885. Various publications soon showed the trend of Driver's views, till his book on ' ' The Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament," appeared two years ago. In this book he is committed to a modified form of the Well- hausen theory, and a hasty perusal of this treatise shows how extensively Driver has been engaged in the business of importation of critical views from Germany, where the manufacture of theories is car- ried on so extensively. It would seem that Cheyne was unwilling that his fellow-professor should have all the fame of original critical inventions, and so he has recently published several articles in which he takes even more radical views than Driver, espe- cially in regard to the Psalms. At present, in Britain many other scholars of les- ser note are adopting these views, but our space forbids further description. Suffice it to say that there seems to be a craze, almost, in regard to these views, so that in certain quarters it is exceedingly 74 RADICAL ClUTTCrSM. out of the fashion to avow adherence to ths con- servative position in regard to the literature and rehgion of the Scriptures, especially of that set forth in the Old Testament. It is a comfort to remember that fashions change frequently. The last slight breeze in the critical field is associated with the name of President Harper, of Chicago University. He has, it seems, in a course of recent lectures, been stating some advanced views in regard to the early narratives of the Old Testament. Whether this is to be accounted for as a result of the Parliament of Religions, or arises from an unconscious ambition to have Chicago in the van, or springs from the effort of another biblical critic to be original, we are not prepared to say. Perhaps the truth is that Harper has unconsciously gone into the importation business also; and, if we are not greatly mistaken, some of the materials which he has been dressing up for the itching ears of his Chicago auditors may be discovered in the writ- ings of radical or rationalistic critics. It is onl}- fair to add that Harper would not allow us to classify him with the Wellhausen school. He has recently criticised that school, so that we are glad to see signs of a hopeful reaction in his case. We close this chapter, and with it our historical sketch, with a very brief reference to some names on the conservative side. In Germany, though radical (^pinions in criticism have had great promi- ITS HISTORY CONCLUDED. 75 nence during the past fifty years, yet the radical critics by no means have had things all their own way. Ranke refuted in a thorough manner that phase of radical theory known as the fragmentary hypothesis, and Kurtz dealt deadly blows against the supplementary form of the hypothesis. Hcngsten- berg along several lines provides much mcLterial for the vindication of the conservative side in the con- troversy. Havernick, Urechsler, Bachmann, Kiel, and Delitzsch have all more or less decidedly com- batted the radical views. And at the present day Konig, and especially Klostermann, are making such vigorous attacks upon the Wellhausen theory that unless som.e one comes speedily to the rescue that critical stronghold will be captured or destroyed. Other names of prominence in Germany on the conservative side might be mentioned did space permit. Professor Watts, of Belfast, has been a strong opponent of the advanced views in Britain, and Professor W. H. Green, of Princeton, has done noble service on the conservative side, in this country. Professors Osgood, Bissell, and Warfield, with a host of others, have, in a thoroughly scholarly way, rebutted the radical views. Professor Robert- son, of Glasgow, in his "Early Religion of Israel," has given a book which must be answered by the radicals before they can continue their onward wa}'. The Presbyterian and Reformed Reviezv for several years has rendered splendid service in guiding 76 RADICAL CRITICISM. devout scholarship into safe Hnes, and in leading it to sound conclusions. But we must conclude history and description, and in the next chapter begin our work in the "Exposition of Advanced Criticism. " PART III. EXPOSITION OF ADVANCED HIGHER CRITICISM. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY. With the last chapter, the outhne of the history of advanced Higher Criticism which our hmits per- mitted us to give, was completed. During the course of the history, at least one striking fact very clearly emerged. Even the brief sketch we were able to give shows that what now claims to be the only sound, scientific, and scholarly school of Higher Criticism within the Christian Church began its career without the Church, and was often used as a v/eapon against the Christian system. It was born in the world outside the Church, and has only been adopted into the Christian household in mod- ern times. The three great names already men- tioned as having much to do with the origin of advanced theories and methods — Porphyry, Spi- noza, and Astruc — were all without the Church, and in some cases they were the bitter foes of Christianity. This is a fact which does not seem always to be fully considered by some reverent critics who have a degree of sympathy with the new methods and principles of advanced criticism. It remains to be seen how this adopted worldling, which some [79] 80 RADICAL CRITICISM. Christian scholars have brought into the household of faith, will, in the course of time, treat its foster parents. It may be that it will prove itself to be exceedingly unfilial, and do much harm to, even as it has already caused not a little trouble in, the household. We should make sure that the little pagan is not only civilized, but Christianized, be- fore we allow it to have a place within the family circle of Christianity. Let it be kept constantly in mind, therefore, that the methods and theories advocated by mod- ern Higher Criticism originated on non-Christian soil, were brought into the Church by rationalistic hands during the eighteenth century, and are, per- haps, all the more dangerous now that they are within the sacred inclosure. For those who desire to retain supernatural views of Christianity, it must be an awkward, and perhaps a dangerous thing to attempt to square these critical theories with the supernaturalism implied in the Christian system. This critical speculation may prove a viper which Christianity takes into her bosom, and which in turn may inflict serious injury upon, if it does not endanger the life of, the system. When continental critics deny the reality of the supernatural in Christianity and set aside the in- spiration of the sacred Scriptures, and then proceed, in a consistent way, with their work of destructive criticism, it cannot but be a bold if not a foolhardy venture for British or American critics to pursue the PRELIMINARY. 81 methods and adopt the theories of these critics, and at the same time hope to retain intact the high claims which Christianity makes to be unique and divine. Their aims may be honest and their pur- pose resolute, yet we are much afraid that the An- glo-Saxon reproducers of Teutonic critical theories will find themselves driven to minimize the super- natural, and perhaps repudiate it altogether. Let this danger be fully considered by those who feel drawn to these speculations. There is a fas- cination about them which tends to dazzle the eyes of an inquiring and venturesome mind, but great care should be taken to prevent these novel theories from perverting sound judgment in questions of criticism, which, to a large extent, must always be matters of fact. What is needed is the exercise of sober caution on the part of those who deal with these questions, lest some who are always anxious to hear some new theory may be carried away by baseless though beautiful theories. It may take several generations to mature among us the serious results which we fear must follow the adoption of these advanced critical views of the literature and religion of the sacred Scriptures. Many things during the last ten years constrain us to believe that the general adoption of the critical theories, now so popular in certain circles, by Eng- lish-speaking critics and biblical scholars, would, by the inexorable logic of events, open wide the gate for a deluge of rationalism to flow through the 6 82 RADICAL CRITICISM. Church, which would make shipwreck of Christian- ity as a supernatural system of religion. On the other hand, while we say all this, we wish it to be most distinctly understood that we are not averse to, nor do we in any way oppose or discour- age the most thorough and scholarly study of ev- erything connected with the Christian system. We invite the deep thinker to inspect its philosophical foundations ; we ask the careful student of nature to make a reverent survey of the broad fields covered by revelation ; we welcome the social reformer to make an honest estimate of the principles of Chris- tianity in their bearing on the social welfare of the human race ; and we gladly encourage the most careful critical study of the sacred Scriptures of the Christian system by the lower and higher critics alike. We repeat what has been stated in a former chapter, to the effect that we believe in the reverent study of many of the questions with which Higher Criticism deals. The conservative critic has an especially important work to do in this field at the present day. This service he should seek faith- fully to render, even among the Babel of critical tongues to which he may be compelled to listen. With sound principles under his feet, and right methods in his hands, the conservative critic should address himself to the task his age sets before him, and by thorough, scholarly investigation seek to establish correct conclusions, and at the same PRELIMINARY. 8S time explode the false theories which a hasty criti- cism boldly expounds. It will thus be evident that our objection is not lodged against Higher Criticism as a branch of biblical study, but against the false principles and unsound methods by which advanced critics are controlled in their investigations. It is against these that we wage war, just as we would resist the false and unsound everywhere. And, in our judgment, the work of the conservative critic is to join in this warfare ; and he should never dream of leaving the field entirely to the liberal school of criticism. All this naturally leads to another line of remark upon which we desire to say a word or two as pre- liminary to the "Exposition of Advanced Criti- cism," upon which we are presently to enter. What we have in view and wish to emphasize, is the great importance, perhaps we might say the urgent necessity, of an acquaintance with recent phases of modern Higher Criticism by the ministry of the Christian Church. The advanced school of criticism in Anglo-Saxon circles is aggressive, and in many respects scholarly. Their writings are abundant, and their circulation is diligently pushed. Magazine and review articles, single treatises, and even International Libraries are used to spread abroad the new critical theories. Moreover, these writings are often quite popular in their style, and 84 RADICAL CRITICISM. thereby secure attention and hearing, when heavier treatises would not be read at all. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the literature of this school is widely read, and doubtless many minds, yet im- mature, are unconsciously affected by it. How- ever wc may account for the fact, the truth of the statement just made cannot be denied. Whether it be love of novelty, or the desire to learn the truth, or the literary attractiveness of the style, or the leaning of the natural mind toward opinions which are naturalistic, we may not be able to say. One thing we do know, and that is that the ad- vanced school has secured a hearing in a wide circle, and the radical theories have come forth from the retreats of the scholar. We are thus taught in vari- ous ways, and in such forms that intelligent people are now made more or less familiar with some of the main features of these theories. ' In these circumstances it is very necessary that conservative critics should arise and deal with these questions in a plain and attractive manner, and not allow the liberals to carry the palm for thorough scholarship, and for literary finish. We are well aware that the conservatives have not been nor are they now idle ; but the impression seems to be left on some minds that there is room for further thor- ough-going treatment of the questions from the conservative standpoint. In our humble judgment, the work to be done is to follow the pathway which the advanced critics have traveled, examining PRELIMINAR Y. 85 their alleged facts as well as testing their proposed theories, in order to exhibit the weakness of the advanced critical position, and in turn to show how the conservative position may be not only sus- tained, but confirmed by the very latest results of sound biblical scholarship. We have no doubt but ere long this will be done, and in the meantime we do not tremble in the least for the result. It must result in good, for the truth rejoices in the light. Then there is another thing to which we are con- strained to allude before we begin our exposition. It is our firm conviction that it is not enough for the Church to exercise discipline in relation to those views, and even suspend from the office of the min- istry those who are convicted of holding critical opinions which are not in harmony with our Stan- dards. Sooner or later, the theories themselves must be tested as to their truth or error. Now, while we maintain that the administration of disci- pline in such cases is most necessary and right, and while we insist that " the Scripture as interpreted by our Standards" forms the law by which the man accused must be tried and judged, still, in our opin- ion, the Church will make a great mistake if she thinks that she has done all her duty, or really re- moved all the danger to which she is exposed at the hands of these radical theories of Higher Criticism, when she has simply cast out the heretic. The theo- ries themselves must also be refuted, and conserva- 86 RADICAL CRITICISM. tive scholarship has a work of great importance to do in this field. Unless such scholarship can really confirm and justify the judicial action of a Church court, that action itself will be robbed of much of its rational value and moral force. For if the dis- cipline be administered and the theory be not refuted, then the alleged heretic becomes an ecclesi- astical martyr before the world. We believe in the judicial procedure, and have no sympathy with the popular sentiment against "heresy hunting," but we believe also in the valuable service which the conservative higher critic is to render in the refuta- tion of false and dangerous theories on this field. It goes almost without saying, therefore, that it is very necessary, for our ministers, as far as possi- ble, to have intelligent views in regard to these theories ; for, in case any man is put on trial in one of our Church courts, touching these theories, it would be a great pity if the accused could, with any show of reason, turn on his judges and say that they did not really know enough about these theories to judge intelligently in regard to them. How strong an argument is there also in all this in favor of sound and ample scholarship, sanctified to the Master's service ; and what an impulse this view should give to some of our bright young men to bend every energy to render this valuable service to the Church. CHAPTER II. EXPOSITION PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. The last chapter began the work of exposition. It was, however, entirely introductory in its nature. It pointed out the fact that the modern advanced theories of radical critics originated beyond the sphere of the reverent critical study of the Script- ures, and that these have been, without proper pass- port or naturalization, brought within the borders of Christianity. It is legitimate, therefore, for con- servative criticism to regard the radical theories as aliens, till they can by proper credentials fully vindicate their citizenship. On this position we shall insist constantly. In the same chapter it was also contended that some intelligent acquaintance with these radical theories, on the part of our ministers especially, is of great moment at the present day. It cannot be either safe or wise to ignore these speculations, when we find them spread broadcast among intelli- gent people by various channels. Above all it was held that not only should discipline be administered in regard to those who hold views not in harmony with the Standards of the Church, but the theories themselves must be refuted by the methods of [87] 88 RADICAL CRITICISM. sound scholarship. Then it was also hinted that those who may have to sit as judges in cases of discipline involving these theories should, in some reasonable measure, be qualified for this service. In this chapter we begin the task of formal ex- position of advanced criticism. We seek first of all to discover and exhibit some of the underlying principles which the radical theories assume. At the beginning of this work it was pointed out that the essential feature of radical or destruct- ive criticism is not that it handles the topics of Higher Criticism, but that it deals with them in a certain way. In other words, it is the principles which it assumes, the presuppositions which it makes, and, above all, the methods as well as the general spirit according to which it does its work, that constitutes the real nature of the advanced criticism now under review. Hence, the indictment of conservative criticism is not against Higher Criti- cism as a legitimate branch of sacred learning, but against the principles and presuppositions, and above all, against the methods, of that school of Higher Criticism known as radical, rationalistic, or destructive. This chapter undertakes to exhibit some of the principles and presuppositions to which afterward we shall take exception. In the first place, advanced criticism is dominated by a philosophy, and it makes the principles of this philosophy its main presuppositions. We are only saying what every well-informed scholar knows PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. 89 when we assert that Bibhcal Criticism, as well as Theology, in Germany, has been dominated by philosophy. The philosophy which for over a gen- eration in the early part of the present century exercised almost unlimited sway over Criticism and Theology, was that of Hegel. Even if we admit what seems to be the case, that at the present time there is a tendency to return to some of the funda- mental positions of the Kantian philosophy, still the fact remains that we can truly say that modern ra- tionalistic criticism in Germany was rocked in the cradle of the Hegelian philosophy. And the Eng- lish-speaking critics who have imported radical methods and theories into Britain and America, should be required to show cause how they can safely adopt these methods and hold these theories, and yet pay no regard to the philosophical princi- ples from which these theories have descended by direct succession. Even to repudiate the parentage is no guarantee that the nature of the child has un- dergone radical change. In these articles we cannot enter upon any ex- position of the Hegelian philosophy. It would be no easy task to do this, and it is scarcely necessary for our present purposes. It will suffice to say that Hegel's philosophy is an elaborate system of abso- lute idealism, which reall}^ constitutes a scheme of idealistic pantheism. It differs from the pantheism of Spinoza in positing, as the basis of all reality, absolute spirit, or unconscious impersonal reason, in 90 RADICAL CRITICISM. the place of the infinite, eternal, and all-embracing substance of the scheme of Spinoza. It is worth while remarking that the system of Herbert Spencer has points of contact with that of Hegel, unlike as they are in many respects. Both are monistic, and so allow only one real existence, and leave no place for a personal Being who transcends the universe. In both systems there is what may be termed an eternal evolutionary process. In Hegel's system we have that eternal process of " becoming," by means of which in the sphere of nature and of spirit the absolute idea of unconscious reason seeks to realize itself ; while in Spencer's scheme we have that eternal movement of the homogeneous, by means of which the heterogeneous in actual definite material forms is brought into existence. Hegel's principle of eternal logical process is an idealistic evolution, and Spencer's principle of eternal physical move- ment is materialistic evolution. Thus extremes meet in philosophy ; and the scheme of Hegel is that with which radical criticism is connected. At this juncture it is certainly striking to observe again that pantheism and Higher Criticism of an advanced type seem frequently to run side by side. From the history sketched in previous chapters, we saw that Spinoza was among the very first to broach the theories of the Old Testament literature and religion which are adopted by modern radical critics. In his hand pantheism and advanced criticism are side by side. And, as already stated in this chap- PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. 91 ter, they reappear side by side, during the last fifty years in Germany, in the ideahstic pantheism of the HegeHan philosophy. Now, sometimes strange coincidences do happen, but we can hardly believe that it is a matter of chance that Spinozism and the Higher Criticism are found together in the seventeenth century, and that Hegelianism and Higher Criticism flourish side by side in the nineteenth century. We are strongly inclined to believe that there is some natural and inner connection between these two things which justifies the statement already made, that modern radical Higher Criticism is dominated by Hegel's philosophy. We might go further, perhaps, and make good the position, alike from the nature of the case and from the facts of history, that idealistic pantheism really underlies the radical literary and historical methods and theories of modern critics. In Hegel's " Philosophy of History," we have simply an application of his idealistic pantheism to explain, in an evolutionary way, the universal history of the human race. In Wellhausen's " History of Israel" we have a special application of the same principles to the origin and growth of the Jewish nation and religion. Our first point of exposition is thus brought clearly out, that modern radical criticism is the child of a spurious idealistic pantheism. It is only fair, however, to add in this connection that many radical critics may be totally unconscious of the real parentage of their theories. Some of 92 RADICAL CR1TICIS?J. our English-speaking critics may not be conscious of the philosophical principles which are involved in their critical methods. Some of these writers may indeed entirely repudiate all sympathy with these philosophical views, and yet if the theories are the product of such principles in the hands of those who invented them, we are justified in look- ing with distrust upon the same theories, even in more reverent hands. It may turn out that the founders are consistent; and the logic of events may show that false principles will surely work out their legitimate evil results. We, at this stage, simply express our suspicion of the philosophy which, if it has not begotten radical critical theories, was certainly associated with their infancy. In the second place, advanced Higher Criticism virtually sets aside all belief in the supernatural, or so minimizes it as to entirely empty it of real meaning. This follows naturally from the preced- ing consideration already adduced. The idealistic pantheism which underlies these radical, critical theories is at the same time an evolution or devel- opment which takes place in a purely natural way according to the necessary laws of logical processes. Hence everything comes into existence in a purely natural way. There can be no supernatural reve- lation, no miracle, and no real incarnation in the advent of Jesus Christ. Human history even is ruled by the same necessary natural law, and if we call anything in human history supernatural, we PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. 98 either use the term in a sense which is not Chris- tian, or we ma}^ apply that term to all events in the line of universal history. Grant idealistic evo- lution as a natural development, and all events are either natural or supernatural according to the sense in which the words are used. Niebuhr, the historian, virtually applied this principle to the his- tory of the Roman Empire, and we have the won- derful results in his remarkable " History of Rome," where the history is an ideal structure rather than a faithful record of facts. In like manner, when the advanced critics, a few years ago, in Germany, began to apply the same historical methods, based on the same philosoph- ical principles, to the narratives of the Scriptures, it would not have required the gift of prophecy to predict the result. We would expect that the attempt would surely be made to explain the relig- ious ideas and institutions of the Jews in a purely natural way. So we find the radical theorists maintaining that the national history and religious ideas of the Jews form but a part of that wider and entirely natural process, in which, by an eternal process of "becoming," the absolute idea Vv^as seeking to realize itself in the progress of human history. Hence, it was consistently contended that the cu/tus of the Jews, as well as of other nations, arose and was developed in a natural and necessary way. It is abundantly evident that the sure result of all this would be to reduce religion 94 RADICAL CRITICISM. in every form to pure naturalism, and in this case the religion set forth in the sacred Scriptures was doomed to the same fate. The supernatural must go. This is the fiat of the philosophy of radical criticism. To show that our position at this point of the exposition is neither fanciful nor far-fetched, we need only mention the fact that Kuenen, in the introductory chapter of his work on the ' ' Hexa- teuch," takes special pains to say that he sets aside all belief in the supernatural, and in the special inspiration of the Scriptures. If Graf and Well- hausen do not openly take the same position, the manner in which they deal with the questions of criticism, and the results they reach, clearly justifies the same verdict against them in regard to the repu- diation of belief in the supernatural. These, then, are two of the principles upon which radical criticism is built. Two others remain for presentation in the exposition of our next chapter. In closing this chapter, we are surely justified in sounding a warning note against the hasty adoption of a style of criticism which involves such anti- Christian principles. Even if the English-speaking critic, in all honesty of purpose, thinks that he can adopt these methods and results, without also tak- ing the principles, he may find that he has simply attempted the impossible, and succeeded in being illogical. CHAPTER III. EXPOSITION PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS CONTINUED. Many of the readers of our last chapter were no doubt ready to regard it as rather philosophical, but on reflection we are convinced that they will admit that any exposition of advanced criticism must exhibit the philosophy of which it is the child. In that chapter two of the underlying principles of this school of criticism were set forth. The ideal- istic evolution of the philosophy of Hegel, and the denial of the reality of the supernatural, are the two assumptions which were considered. Two others at least remain for discussion in this chapter. The third presupposition is that the old view of inspiration, sometimes termed the traditional, must be discarded. If the supernatural has no validity, of course inspiration can have no place. If the Christian religion with its literature be simply a naturalistic growth, then revelation in any real sense is impossible, and inspiration cannot have any reality. In general, the advanced critical theories seem to come into conflict with the ordi- nary and generally received views of inspiration. This is usually confessed by those advanced critics [95] 96 RADICAL CRITICISM. who are striving to retain the supernatural in their system, in such a way as to show that these theo- ries necessarily bear hard on a consistent doctrine of inspiration. One will tell us that verbal inspira- tion is no longer tenable, in the light of assured results of modern criticism. Another will assert that the concept only, and not the language form, can be inspired. Still another will argue for an in- spired nation which produced the religion and sa- cred literature set forth in the Holy Scriptures. In every case the revolt against a definite scriptural doctrine of inspiration is evident. In regard to this general presupposition, it is not easy to give a brief and simple exposition which will do justice to various phases of advanced criti- cism. Thorough-going, destructive critics, like Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, openly and boldly reject the doctrine of the inspiration of the Script- ures in any proper sense. According to their view the Scriptures are excellent sacred literature, but they are in no special manner different from the Zend Avesta or the Vedas. They may even go so far in some cases as to say that the Scripture nar- ratives do not really differ from the Annals of Taci- tus, the Memorabilia of Xenophon, or the History of Thucydides. Then, having made this assump- tion, these radical critics proceed to deal with the Scripture narratives as z/they were in no respect different from other good or even sacred literature. PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. 07 Without any exaggeration, we can very safely say that the advanced school in the persons of its con- tinental leaders, is at open war with the historic doctrine of the inspiration of the literature of the Christian system.. If the doctrine of inspiration be accepted even in words, it is so entirely changed as a matter of fact that it is no longer the same. If the shell remains, the kernel is gone. It is only fair to remark here that not a few advanced critics profess to retain the doctrine of inspiration while pursuing their critical methods. They maintain that the doctrine of inspiration is not really involved in the controversies in the field of criticism, and that the doctrine can in no way be injured by radical methods and reconstructive con- clusions. Robertson Smith took this position in the controversy which resulted in his removal from his Chair at Aberdeen. He maintained most strenu- ously that the investigations of Higher Criticism did not interfere in the least with the validity of the doctrine of the inspiration of sacred Scripture. Briggs endeavored to stand on the same ground with but indifferent success. Driver and Cheyne in Britain, and Harper in this country, all find them- selves compelled to modify their views upon inspi- ration. They, too, take up the cry that the old views of inspiration are no longer tenable. They tell us again and again that the assured results of modern criticism demand that the doctrine of in- 98 RADICAL CRITICISM. spiration must be recast. In every case the result of the recasting is that the new form is decidedly lower and less definite than the old. Now it is to be greatly feared that those who are attempting to hold a reverent doctrine of inspira- tion, and to follow out radical methods, are much less logical and consistent than those who throw in- spiration overboard entirely at the outset. To our minds it seems clear that if the philosophy and radical critical methods of the continental leaders in this movement be adopted, there is neither a place nor any need for the doctrine of inspiration. How long Anglo-Saxon critics shall succeed in re- taining any satisfactory view of inspiration while using the methods of their Teutonic teachers re- mains to be seen. We are seriously inclined to think that inspiration will vanish entirely, and leave nothing behind but the human husk in which the divine kernel was lodged. In any case to assume and follow principles in criticism which are in con- flict with hitherto accepted views of inspiration, is inadmissible at the outset. In many respects we regard this as one of the chief dangers which arise from the adoption of the methods of radical criticism with its reconstructive theories. If we, in the legitimate work of Higher Criticism, feel ourselves perfectly free to play fast and loose with what purports to be historical facts, and to re-arrange the chronological order of the events according to philosophical presuppositions, PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. 99 or in accordance with subjective opinions, we simply make it impossible to retain our belief in the general contents of the Scriptures as infallible and authoritative. This procedure at once renders a definite doctrine of inspiration impossible. Each critic makes or unmakes his Bible till there remains no ' ' word of God which liveth and abideth for- ever, " upon which men can with confidence rely. A true doctrine of inspiration must be determined by the claims which the Scripture makes for itself, and by the facts which the sacred record actually contains. This once ascertained, our whole study of the questions which Higher Criticism handles should be pursued, mindful of the fact that Script- ure actually possesses the peculiar quality which inspiration denotes. This being the case, we can- not so separate inspiration and Higher Criticism as to find our results in the latter in no way affect- ing our views in regard to the former. What we have already said in regard to the pressure which the advanced critics find imposed upon them by their theories, to recast, modify, or abandon the doctrine of inspiration, is full proof of this asser- tion. The sound position, as we understand the case, is to deal with the sacred Scriptures by the same literary, historical, and grammatical methods as we would with any other literature, but at the same time to remember that we ought not to treat the Scriptures as if they were the same in all respects as other literature. The factor which 100 RADICAL CRITICISM. inspiration denotes cannot be ignored. To adopt critical methods and results which shut out inspira- tion, is the great danger to which we are exposed by the results of advanced criticism. Consistent radical criticism sets inspiration aside at first, while advanced reverent criticism adopting unsound prin- ciples will surely find itself, in spite of its reverent protestations, led by the logic of events to the re- pudiation of inspiration in any proper sense. The fourth and last general assumption which radical criticism makes lies in its general theory in regard to the origin and growth of religion. That theory is the evolutionary or naturalistic type. In its continental propounders, advanced criticism holds the evolutionary theory in regard to all the religious systems in the world. These systems, we are assured with a great deal of learning and much authority, are all the natural products, some lower, others higher, of the religious instinct in man. So in like manner w^ith the religious system set forth in the Bible ; it, too, is the product of evolution. By slow degrees, through many ages, the devel- opment of the natural religious sentiment of human nature has been going on, and the last mature product is the Christian system with its wonder- ful literature. Why it has ceased with this system, or whether the evolution shall yet go beyond it, we are not told. Accordingl3% the first forms of all religions were the lowest and crudest, and the law of development PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS. 101 was progress from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher. Thus the Jewish system was a gradual growth from polytheism with tribal deities to monotheism with the one living and true God. In like manner, the ritual and legislation of the religion of Israel expanded from very simple forms to increasing complexity, all by a natural law of evolution. At length, in the fullness of evolu- tionary time, the Christian system appeared as a decided advance, and it stands as the ripest fruit of the development process. And we are assured that the process of upward movement is still operative, and that Christianity may in due time have to give way to "the religion of the future," which will be still an advance on Christianity, although a purely natural product whose general nature we are left to surmise for ourselves. Then since the religion itself is a purely natural evolutionary product of humanity endowed with the principle of progress, the literature of this re- ligion is also the product of evolution, not of divine revelation and inspiration. The sacred Scriptures are but the product of the various stages of relig- ious attainment to which the people producing the Scriptures had reached. These Scriptures simply register the religious ideas of the ages in which they were produced, instead of being the product of divine interposition. The Jewish Church and na- tion and the early Christian Church produced the Scriptures entirely, whereas the true view is that 102 RADICAL CRITICISM. the Scriptures and their contents produced the Jew- ish and the early Christian Church. This inversion of the order is a serious matter. We add that while some advanced critics may re- pudiate all sympathy with this evolutionary princi- ple in the growth of religion, yet the fact cannot be ignored that in the hands of the founders of these radical theories it plays a very important part in their speculations. That there is need for the utmost care here on the part of conservative criti- cism is self-evident. Divine development is one thing, but natural evolution is another. Criticism must respect the former, but dare not parley with the latter. CHAPTER IV. EXPOSITION THE METHODS OF ADVANCED CRITICISM. For two chapters we have been making some exposition of the underlying principles of the school of radical criticism now under discussion. Four of these principles or assumptions were briefly ex- pounded. In the course of the discussions it has appeared that the philosophy of idealistic panthe- ism, the denial of the reality of the supernatural, the repudiation or modification of inspiration, and the acceptance of the evolutionary explanation of religion, constitute the main principles and under- lying assumptions of advanced or rationalistic criti- cism. This is specially true of it in its birthplace, and as held by its leading advocates. In this chapter we pass on to deal in a general way with the methods of procedure adopted by advanced criticism. And at the outset, we wish to say that the space at command in a brief work of this kind, renders it quite impossible to go into much detail in our exposition. It will be en- tirely out of the question to attempt to follow the various views of different writers in this school of criticism. This would be an almost endless task, for there are now so many of these writers, [103] 104 RADICAL CRITICISM. and there is such a lack of agreement among them in regard to almost every point raised in the con- troversy, that to gather the consensus of opinion is a difficult undertaking in itself. We must conse- quently content ourselves with general expository outlines of view in treating of their methods. In the discussion upon which we now enter, it is well to remember that the principles and methods of rationalistic criticism are applicable to the whole of the Scriptures. At one time the battle may be hottest on the Old Testament field, and at another on the New. A generation ago the forces were in fierce conflict on the New Testament territory. Driven from that region, they marshaled their forces and entered on a campaign against the Old Testament. Here the conflict is now waged with the utmost vigor and determination, so that the clash of arms is heard on every hand. The forces of advanced criticism now claim some important victories, and at times show a rather boastful spirit. That they shall be able to hold all the positions they think they have surely captured, remains to be seen. That they have really made all the con- quests they claim to have made, may be seriously questioned. That internal dissensions in the ranks of advanced criticism already exist, and shall soon weaken the force of its assault, may be asserted with some confidence. At present, the real center of conflict is on the Old Testament field, and it gathers around the METHODS OF ADVANCED CRITICISM. 105 religion and sacred literature of the Israelites. This being the case, we shall perhaps best expound the methods of advanced criticism at present in vogue if we deal directly with these methods as exhibited in their treatment of the origin and growth of the religion and sacred books of Israel. Adopting this general course, we shall have to deal at length with the ritual and legislation of the Pen- tateuch, and with the prophets and their work in the expansion of the religious ideas and practices of the people. At the very outset we signalize the fact that the metJiods of advanced criticism to a large extent constitute a theory. In the procedure of nearly all its original exponents, a theory is assumed and brought to the facts, instead of the theory being made the adequate philosophy of the facts. Much that has been said in two preceding chapters justifies this statement. The radical critics come to their task with a theory in regard to the super- natural, in reference to inspiration, and concerning the origin and growth of religion. Then with this 4heory in their hands, they proceed to deal with the Old Testament history and religion. Profes- sing to be above all else historical critics, we find them openly ignoring the simple historicity of the Old Testament Scriptures, and proceeding to re- construct the history, not in the light of profane history and monumental evidence, but according to the stern conditions of a mere theory. While they y' 106 RADICAL CRITICISM. insist repeatedly that they only of all the critics are the true scientific critics, we often find them pur- suing entirely unscientific methods in dealing with the way in which the idea of deity, the expansion of ritual, and the complexity of legislation actually developed in Israel. Here, again, as we hope afterward to show at some length, we find the advanced critics dominated at every turn by a theory. To tl^em, it often seems that a theory is more real than a fact, somewhat after the manner that Bishop Berkeley, as a philosopher, would have us look upon the reality of the material objects of the outward world. One of the curious things in the whole controversy on the field of Higher Criticism is the coolness with which what the advanced critics term the traditional views are set aside, and the confidence with which theories, which at best are but w^orking hypotheses not yet proved, are put in place of these views. In some cases the advanced critics are so possessed with their theories that the assumption seems to be un- consciously made by them that they are the only scholarly critics, and that their criticism alone is scientific and worthy the notice of thinking men. At the outset of our exposition of the mctJiods of advanced criticism, we point out the fact that they are to a large extent hypothetical, or a set of theo- ries, which are boldly propounded as the assured results of modern criticism, w^hich all men of en- METHODS OF ADVANCED CRITICISM. 107 lightened scholarship must accept on pain of exclu- sion from the guild of "competent scholars." Perhaps the remaining part of this chapter can best be devoted to a brief bird's-eye view of the general type of theory in accordance with which the contents of the Old Testament religious system must be recast. In presenting such a sketch we do not follow any single writer closely, but attempt to present a general view of the Graf-Wellhausen hy- pothesis as set forth by its original authors in part, and as modified by its English-speaking modern exponents in part. As already indicated the debate gathers round the history of Israel, and the origin of that nation and of the system of religious ideas and practices contained in the Old Testament Scriptures, and especially as found in the mature Levitical system. There are three distinct factors to be briefly pre- sented here. These are the national, the religious, and the literary features of the religion of Israel. Hence the rationalistic critics have a theory of the nation of Israel, of the growth of their religious system, and of the production of their sacred books. Throughout, the supernatural is denied, and an explanation by means of mere naturalistic develop- ment is attempted. This is the tJico}'y. In regard to the origin and development of the nation, the call of Abraham, if it has historically any reality, was nothing more than a natural mi- 108 RADICAL CRITICISM. gration. Even Cheyne in some recent utterances seems to be prepared to go as far as Stade, a pro- fessedly rationalistic critic in Germany, who regards Abraham as a somewhat mythical personage. In general, the radical critical theory looks upon Israel as the product of a number of wandering tribes, rather than of a divine call of, and care for, one family. These tribes, not very different from other tribes of that age and locality, settled in Canaan, and, instead of remaining distinct and making con- quest, mingled with the tribes already settled there. By degrees a process of natural amalgamation took place, and the result was the production of the Israelitish people. In the early ages there were no such national features as are denoted by the tv.'elve patriarchs, the sons of Jacob and the sources of the twelve tribes of Israel. The tribal idea came into existence later on, and had really no definite form at first. It will thus be seen that so far as the origin of the nation is concerned, there is no essen- tial difference between the beginnings of Israel and the genesis of the peoples and nations of Greece and Rome from various scattered elements gradu- ally combining together in a natural way. This conception or theory of the nation lies at the basis of the entire radical critical scheme. In the second place, regarding the origin and development of religion, the radical critics maintain that at first a form of polytheism prevailed. The METHODS OF ADVANCED CRITICISM. 109 chief deity was Jehovah, or Jahveh, who was not really regarded as the one living and true God, but rather as a tribal deity, not unlike Baal, Molech, and Dagon. It was only by slow degrees that monotheism was developed, and polytheistic ele- ments were eliminated. Not, indeed, till the age of the prophets did ethical monotheism appear, and it was only after the Exile that monotheism became the fixed form of belief in Israel. In like manner, the ritual and legislation in the Mosaic system only came gradually into existence and observance. At first, sacrifice was simple, and the form of worship was not elaborate. The rites and ceremonies were not essentially different from those of the tribes round about them. Early cus- toms, primitive observances, and legendary ideas by slow gradation grew into more definite form. These customs gradually rose into legislation, sim- ple rites by degrees became elaborate ritual, and primitive modes of Vv^orsliip slowly expanded into the elaborate system of mature Mosaism. In this way, an attempt is made to give in a purely natural way an explanation of the rise and elaboration of Mosaism into Prophetism, and of Prophetism, in due time, into Judaism. The legislation was prior to the ritual, and the prophetic element was before the legislation. The order, therefore, is not the law and the prophets, but the prophets and the law. And last of all comes the mature Levitical 110 RADICAL CRITICISM. code. By slow degrees, through nearl}' a thousand years, from Moses to Ezra, all this development occurred. Then, in the third place, in regard to the produc- tion of the sacred books, the radical theory has its views quite in harmony with what has just been stated. Moses wrote little if anything of the books associated with his name. Perhaps part of the cov- enant code, as it is called in Exodus, was from his hand, but the literature of Leviticus and Numbers was not produced by him. The simple rites and customs spoken of under the previous head had de- veloped into ritual and legislation before the litera- ture describing these matters took its rise. It was only about the eighth century b. c, when the prophets appeared, that the literature began to take definite shape. But it was not till after the period of the Exile and Ezra that most of the Old Testament literature took its definite final form. True, there were portions of the literature extant before, but it existed in scattered documentary form, as the critics say, and, by the slow processes of the crude literary methods then in vogue ; it took its final shape only a few centuries before the Christian era. Such is a brief general description of the methods of the advanced critics, which at the outset we de- scribe as a theory. In the above sketch v^•e are satisfied that the position of radical criticism has not been overstated. Our readers must be con- METHODS OF ADVANCED CRITICISM. Ill vinced that even this statement is sufficient to show how radical and destructive of the ordinary views this theory is. By its very boldness and show of learning, it commands attention, and its proposed reconstruction of the religion of Israel demands careful examination. The next chapter will open up further particulars in regard to it. CHAPTER V. EXPOSITION — DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. In the last chapter emphasis was laid upon the fact that the general procedure of advanced critics was really a theory. They have a theory of the Jewish people, of the way in which religion devel- oped among them, and in regard to the mode in which their sacred books were produced. This the- ory, we are convinced, is not the one which the biblical writers themselves seem to have held, but it is rather a mere hopothesis, according to which the claim is made that the history and religious system of the Scriptures must be reconstructed. We make bold to say, even in the face of high claims to the contrary, that the general methods and results of Higher Criticism of the radical type have not yet been removed from the region of unverified hypothesis. It might even be debated whether they constitute a verifiable hypothesis. At the same time we are convinced that as a theory, with certain supposed conclusions estab- lished, it touches vital features of the Christian system, as we understand that system. The gen- eral theory of the Jewish nation, ritual, and litera- ture set forth in the last chapter, fully justifies this [112] DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. 113 statement. Advanced critical conclusions, in our judgment, are not merely certain views regarding the mode of the composition, the age, and the authors of certain books ; but these conclusions im- ply a definite theory in regard to the Christian system in general, and in relation to the inspira- tion of sacred Scripture in particular, which, so far as we can see, cannot be reconciled with sound views of Christianity, and which are, therefore, full of serious danger to some of the essential fac- tors in that system of religion which, we believe, exhibits the supernatural as its unique and distin- guishing feature. The situation is one, therefore, which surely demands careful study. In continuing our exposition of the methods of radical criticism we shall, in this chapter, seek to give some brief explanation of the manner in which the so-called docinncntary hypothesis is used in support of the advanced critical views now under discussion. In general, this hypothesis maintains that the Scriptures as we now have them did not take their present form all at once. They were compiled by various authors, rather than composed by the writers to whose hands they have been usually ascribed. It is assumed that in early times there existed a considerable mass of disconnected nar- ratives and traditions among the people who com- posed the Jewish nation. There primitive docu- ments and traditions were used by the writers of 8 114 RADICAL CRITICISM. the books of Scripture, and so by a gradual natural process the literature was constructed to a large extent out of pre-existent documents. In like manner, it is further assumed that the books thus produced did not take their final form till much later than the dates ascribed to them by the ordi- nary historical view. In harmony with this general supposition, we are assured that the authorship and date of the several books is a matter of little mo- ment; and, indeed, radical critics seem to think that anonymous authorship gives a higher value to the books in question. One of the many curiosities of the methods of advanced criticism appears in this connection. It consists in the strange anomaly of the critics' ability to tell us all about how the books were compiled, and what parts belonged to this author and that, to this age and that, and yet at the same time the names of the various authors or compilers are not given by the critics. It does seem strange that the wonderful critical insight which enables the critic to resolve a book into its simple elements, and the ability which qualifies him to reconstruct the composite literature in a new mould, are not also sufficient to enable him to give us the names of the authors of the various sections of the literature, or even of the completed compilations. If the names of the writers are hypothetical, may not their supposed work as authors and compilers be also hypothetical. In other words it is theory throughout. But we must give more particular DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. 115 explanation of the way in which the doctumentary hypothesis is utihzed in favor of the radical critical position. The different critics vary in view in regard to the several documents which enter into the structure of the books in their final form. We can, therefore, only present the general features of the theory. Since the critics are ignorant of the names of the authors of the various elemental factors in the Old Testament books, they have been compelled to in- vent symbols and figures to denote these unknown literary personages. We shall now describe these in order to show how the documentary hypothesis is used in the methods of advanced criticism. The symbol "J" is taken to represent certain original writings which were drawn up by an author called the Jehovist, or by a series of writers who used the name Jehovah to denote the Deity. Those passages of the Old Testament in which this name is applied to the Almighty are, quite irrespective of the subject matter with which they deal, ascribed to this supposed author or series of writers. The radical critics go through the Scriptures, especially the Pentateuch, and cull, transpose, and cast out words and phrases as they think the documents written by " J " require. The symbol "E" is used to denote the author, or set of authors, who wrote those passages in which the name Elohim is applied to the Supreme Being. These passages are perhaps among the very earliest 116 RADICAL CRITICISM. which enter into the composition of the Old Testa- ment, and they are supposed to have been written by a writer, or series of writers, who, for some reason, preferred the name Elohim to Jehovah. The first chapter of Genesis is a good example of this document which has come to us from the Elohist. Then, some critics speak of "J E " as another and a later writer, who, with "J" and "E" both before him, combined them, or as a separate au- thor who preferred the compound name Jehovah- Elohim for the Deity. In either case, those parts of the Old Testament wherein there occurs this double naming of the Deity, are to be ascribed to an author or series of authors distinct from the Jehovist and Elohist writers. Hence, wherever this name so occurs, it is assumed that another set of authors produced these documents. The most of the second chapter of Genesis is a good illustra- tion of these particular composite documents pro- duced by " J E." Another important set of the producers and com- pilers of certain parts of the Old Testament is denoted by the symbol "D." This symbol repre- sents the Deuteronomist, and the main substance of his literary materials appears in the Book of Deuteronomy. Of course this writer, or series of writers, went over the writings of the previous authors, as above described, and modified them, adding certain parts ; and thus the critics profess to D CUMENTAR V HYPO THESIS. 117 be able to point out all through, what parts belong- to each author. The substance of the Deuteron- omic legislation came in this way into existence, but at a much later date. The time usually as- cribed is a little before the days of Josiah, 625 or so, B. c. Some of the critics have such remarkably keen insight that they think they can discover several Deuteronomic writers, and these are de- noted by the additional symbols " D/' " D^' "D3. " As thus decorated with learned suppositions, the writings of some of those advanced critics look like treatises on higher mathematics where certain sym- bols are used to denote unknown quantities. The work of the Deuteronomist and his assistants is im- portant inasmuch as it appears in the production of a large part of the books of Moses as they are called. A still further symbol used is "P." This ex- presses those portions of the Old Testament which are supposed to have been produced by a set of priestly scribes who lived about the time of Ezra, and who did so much to develop the mature Mosaic ritual. Large parts of Genesis, Leviticus, and some sections of Numbers, are due to these priestly scribes. Hence the literature of the developed scheme of sacrifice and ritual comes into view, to- gether with historical additions. It is usually held that the religious rites and beliefs herein set forth actually came into existence by a process of codi- fication prior to the writing of the books giving an 118 RADICAL CRITICISM. account of them. These writings were gradually developed in the ages before Ezra, and the priestly set of writers reduced the regulations to writing, and retouched further the previous writings, so as to produce the highly composite result which this part of the Old Testament presents. Here also, in ad- dition to the original "P," there was a number of other priestly writers, who were imbued with the priestly spirit, and these are denoted by the sym- bols, "Pi" "P," "P3." Thus much of the elabo- rate ritual and legislation, showing an increasing monotheistic conception of the Deity, and exhibit- ing a growing tendency to one central place of wor- ship, comes into existence according to the opin- ions of radical critics. In the hands of " P, " and his co-laborers, the system of mature Mosaism eventually appears. Finally, the last symbol which the radical critics employ is "R. " This symbol denotes an author, or a set of writers, who lived and labored after the Exile, and whose labors put the Old Testament into its final canonical form. These writers, for sev- eral of them are assumed, went over the whole Old Testament Scripture already in existence, and re- edited it. The history was filled in, the mono- theistic idea of God was made definite in its ethical form, and the one central place of worship was insisted on by the Redactors. The later books and many of the Psalms only came into existence at that time, and are due to the labors of these nameless D O CUMENTAR V HYPO THESIS. 119 Redactors. The various writers who belong to the school of " R, " are further denoted as "Rj, " "Ro, " "R3," as in preceding cases. The sketch of the various documents as repre- sented by the symbols described, is entirely gen- eral in its nature. According to the theory they represent, the Scriptures become a curious piece of complicated mosaic, or, as some would prefer to say, a section of stratified rock made up of primary, secondary, and tertiary formations. If details of any particular phase of the critical theory were given, much more definite statement than we have space for would have to be made, in regard es- pecially to the relations between the various docu- ments and the part to be assigned to the Redactors. We would have to point out that " P" uses Elohim also as far as Ex. 6:3. This is based upon the re- cent view that ' 'P" and "E" together constitute what was by the earlier critics taken to be a single docu- ment, and called the "Elohist." Some suppose that in Gen. 2 : 3 the Elohim was inserted by the Redactors, and that the original document be- longed to " J " not to " J E, " this latter symbol being used ambiguously, and its scope quite doubtful. This is specially the case in Wellhausen's theory. Then "R" should scarcely be placed on the same plane as the other symbols, for the reason that the Redactors did not so much produce any new docu- ments, as recast and edit already existing mate- rials. But the whole subject of the documents and 120 RADICAL CRITICISM. their supposed combinations is an endless one. Still it is by this method that the critics suppose that the Old Testament was produced. It is in this way that the doaiinenta)'y hypothesis is used to support the theory of composite author- ship and evolutionary origin of the Old Testament writings. In accordance with this theory, re-ar- rangement of the literature is needed in order to get the true view of the way in which the literature was produced, and of the manner in which the re- ligious system was developed. The treatises of the radical critics, setting forth the application of the documentary theory, are curious specimens of litera- ture and will make capital material for coming critics to exercise their skill upon. The elaborate tables in Driver's book on " Introduction," seem to us to be not so much bold strokes of critical sagacity, as elegant and suitable epitaphs prepared before- hand for theories which we feel sure are doomed to early death. So, also, the attempt of Brown and Driver to construct a Hebrew lexicon in which they use the symbols above described to designate certain sections of the Old Testament, seems to us to be a great risk of money and of literary reputation. If in coming years other critics rise up who know not the present critics, and if these critics invent new and original symbols, the present learned lexicon will become meaningless and useless. It will then be in order to revive it reverently from its sleep in D O CUMENTAR V HYPO THESIS. 1 21 the library, and lay it away tenderly in a case in the archseological section of the museum. But this chapter must close. It has sought to show how advanced criticism uses the documentary hypothesis to support its radical position. Further exposition will be given in the next chapter. CHAPTER VI. THE THREE CODES. This chapter continues the exposition of the vietJi- ods of procedure which advanced criticism follows in seeking to establish its radical conclusions. In the last chapter a brief account of the way in which the documentary hypothesis is used to support these conclusions was given. Four or five different docu- ments, with perhaps a dozen minor ones, are sup- posed to have been used in the production of the Scriptures as we now have them in the Old Testa- ment. In the absence of any knowledge of the names of the authors or compilers of these docu- ments, the radical critics have invented certain symbols by which to denote these unknown literary personages. The result is curious, if not entirely fanciful. If we were to place these symbols side by side, so as to denote the sum total of the docu- ments which enter into the Old Testament Script- ures, we would get a result something like this : . .j"4_ " E " + " J E"+ ' ' D ".+*+3+"P"i+2+3+ ' 'R "i+--p= O. T. This is the mathematics of the methods of the radical critics, and it expresses the results of the use of the documentary hypothesis in a nut-shell. [122] THE THREE CODES. 123 It is, however, still an unsolved equation in the hands of radical criticism. In this chapter we take up another line of expo- sition, not entirely distinct from the one followed in the last. This line consists in giving some ex- planation of the several supposed codes of ritual and legislation which the Mosaic system exhibits as viewed by the advanced critics. Just as they main- tain that a variety of documents makes up the Old Testament literature, so they reason at great length in favor of a succession of different codes or schemes of worship, sacrificial rites and legal requirements. In some respects this is the very core of the radical theory. The hypothesis of the codes relates to the way in which the essential elements of the religion of Israel were actually developed. The method in which the literature was produced is determined largely by the deeper question of the way in which the religious system of the Israelites came into ex- istence. If it came into existence in a purely natural way, as the radical critics argue, then the simpler codes will be first and the more elaborate later on. If the religion of Israel is the product of special divine communication, then a different, likely the reverse, order may be expected. Conse- quently, the hypothesis of the diversity of codes of ritual, worship, and legislation is a fundamental position of the advanced critical theory. Such being the case, careful exposition is needed at this point. 124 RADICAL CRITICISM. The section of the Old Testament which lies specially before us in the exposition of the diversity and successive origin of the several codes of the Israelitish religion is the Pentateuch. The advanced critics discover, as they think, from a careful scru- tiny of the vast mass of legislation in these five books, several distinct strata of laws and directions in regard to religion, which have come successively, and perhaps at considerable intervals, into existence. The law was not given by Moses, but it was pro- duced by evolution. Through three or four distinct stages this evolution can be traced, according to the critics; and each stage has left the proof of its existence in the literature as described in the last chapter. With microscopic care, the vast mass of regulations regarding the sacrifice, worship; and practical life of the Israelites is studied, and out of the supposed chaos, order is brought by means of the hypothesis of the codes. These codes must now be described. In the first place, there is what is called the Cov- enant code. This is the earliest and simplest of them all, and shows the nature of the cultus, or worship, in its first or germinal stage. This code is supposed to be the form of ritual and legislation set forth in the Jehovistic historical sections of the Old Testament literature. In particular, it is set forth in Exodus 20-23. In this passage we have the Ten Words or Torah, as they are sometimes called, as the main factor in the Covenant code. In addition, THE THREE CODES. 125 there are certain directions regarding the kind of altars which are to be built, and about certain sec- rifices to be offered thereon. There is, however, no elaboration of priestly ritual. Then, there is a mass of legislation in reference to practical matters, such as masters and servants, husbands and wives, parents and children, neighbors and their relations in many respects, and the various feasts to be ob- served through the year. There is not much about the priests and their duties, but a great deal con- cerning the people and their relations to each other in this code of the Covenant, and the critics enlarge upon these things at great length. But there is no settled agreement among the crit- ics in regard to what after all is to be included in the Covenant code. Some would include Exodus 24, also, where we have an account of the time when Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders were commanded to go up into the mountain, and of Moses alone being asked to come near unto God; and when we are also told that they obeyed, and Moses remained for forty days and forty nights in the mountain with God. But others are inclined to the opinion that the Exodus form of the Torah should include only the statement of the ten com- mandments. This, strictly speaking, is the Cove- nant code, according to some critics. Then, too, there is great diversity of view among the critics as to how much Moses had to do with the production of this code. Some only allow that it is Mosaic in 12G RADICAL CRITICISM. spirit, but assert that Moses did not write this Torah; others hold that the code and its record ahke are from the hand of Moses. Hence, even in regard to the precise form and contents of this sim- plest of all the codes, there is no substantial agree- ment among the critics in regard to the main factors of the theory at this point. In the second place, the critics describe what they call the Deuteronomic code. In a general way, the contents of this code are found in the book of Deuteronomy or the second law. The radical critics point out how this book differs from other parts of the Pentateuch, especially from Leviticus and Numbers. There is, they say, no elaborate scheme of ritual and detailed legislation enjoined upon the people, or described as actually in vogue among them at the time that Deuteronomy was written. Emphasis is laid upon the fact that the graded priesthood is not prominent, and that pro- hibitions against idolatry abound in this code. There are laws in it which are not found in any of the other codes; and, in general, it is concluded to be essentially different from the others. Here, again, there is no agreement in regard to important details, but into an exposition of these particulars we cannot now enter. The general position of radical criticism is that on many essential points this code differs so greatly from the others that they cannot all be the product of one founder, or of the same historical period. The critics also differ • THE THREE CODES. 127 greatly in regard to the time when this code origi- nated, and' as to the author, or authors by whom it was written. In general, it is held by most ad- vanced critics that this code came into existence a short time before the days of Josiah, and its litera- ture is contained in the documents known by the symbol " D," described in the last chapter. In the third place, the critics describe another important code under the title of the Priestly code. The record of this is found in the latter part of Exodus, in the whole body of Leviticus, and in a considerable portion of Numbers. There is much diversity of view in regard to what portions of these three books set forth this code. Some would con- fine it largely to Leviticus, others would embrace a good deal of Exodus, and nearly the whole of Numbers. Speaking generally, this code comes to us with documents known by the symbols " P" and "R." In this code mature Mosaism in the full sense of the term appears. Here the complete priestly system, the elaborate ritualistic scheme, and the detailed legislation are unfolded ; and one central place of worship, definite monotheism, a complex sacrificial system, the annual feasts, the tabernacle service, and all the other elements of mature Mosaism originate. The critics also are in no agreement in regard to many important particu- lars regarding the contents of this code. Some think that Ezra and others of his day had the chief part in this important task. Others argue that the 128 RADICAL CRITICISM. men who lived after the Exile, and who completed the Old Testament canon, had the most to do with the unfolding of the cultus of this code, and in the production in its final form of the literature in which it is described and enjoined. Others think that the regulations of this code may have been in existence and operation in earlier times, but were only reduced to writing after the Exile ; and then the record of the whole, together with the history accompanying it, was thrown back and con- nected \\\\\\ the name of Moses. But on this boundless sea of critical speculation we cannot now embark. These, then, are the three chief codes which ad- vanced criticism sets forth as contributing the con- tents of the religion of Israel, and as indicating the manner of its production in a natural way. We have the Covenant, the Deuteronomic, and the Priestly codes. In connection with the last, some recent critics, as for example Driver, are inclined to make a separate code of Leviticus 17-26, in which there seems to be a special collection of laws enjoining holiness on the part of the people. This they would call the Laiv of Holiness, and give it an origin of its own, distinct from the Priestly code, in the very heart of which it stands. But further ex- position of the hypothesis of the three codes, impor- tant as it is in itself, is impossible. To conclude this chapter we only add that the advanced critics argue not only for the existence of THE THREE CODES. 129 these three codes, but that they are so divergent in their contents as to be from different hands, and to be the product of ages widely apart. We also em- phasize the fact that the critics are greatly divided in regard to the order of these codes. The Well- hausen school hold the order as above expounded, but another school, represented by scholars like Schrader and Dillmann, advocate the view that the Priestly code goes before the Deuteronomic in the order of time. That this is a clear concession to the true position is evident, and this order certainly calls for a revision of the fundamental positions of the Wellhausen theory. Again we see that the outstanding feature of radical criticism is diversity of opinion. CHAPTER VII. SOME GENERAL FEATURES. In the last chapter the hypothesis of tlie tJirce codes was explained. It was seen that advanced criticism argues that there were three distinct codes of ritual and legislation in the development of the religious system of the Israelites. These three are named the Covenant, the Deuteronomic, and the Priestly codes. They are held to be so different in their contents, and so widely separated in time that they cannot have come from the hand of any one man, nor have all appeared in the era of Moses. In this chapter some further exposition of the reasonings by which this position is supposed to be established will be given. In our judgment, the hypothesis of the three codes is one of the central factors in the advanced critical position. Some are inclined to regard the Deuteronomic code, and its place in the order of development, as the significant element in the controversy. Doubtless, much may be said in favor of this latter view, but it may suf- fice for our present purpose to look upon the sup- position that the three distinct codes came into existence centuries apart, as the very heart of the [130] SOME GENERAL FEATURES. 131 radical theory. This being the case, some further explanation of this position and of the reasons adduced in its support is necessary. In the first place, on the literary side, the critics deal at great length with the general literary feat- ures of the supposed diverse documents in which the laws of the several codes are set forth. With the most wonderful critical insight that ingenious literary criticism has ever exhibited these documents are inspected and dissected. Then, with unbounded confidence, judgment is pronounced upon words and phrases, upon idioms and style ; and various attempts are made to reconstruct the dissevered fragments in accordance with the scheme of the three codes above described. As the result of this critical treatment of the literary sources of the vari- ous codes the critics conclude that no sort of unity or contemporaneousness among them is possible. The style of the literature of the several codes varies so much that diversity of codes and com- posite origin of the writings, is the only hypothesis which meets the case, in the judgment of the critics. We have sometimes wondered whether it has ever occurred to the advanced critics that they first assume these codes, and then proceed to discover as they think, diversity of literary features to such a degree that they cannot observe any solid basis of unity between them such as enables the critics to reunite what by hypothesis they have needlessly severed into artificial parts. 132 RADICAL CRITICISM. In the second place, the critics lay much stress upon the fact that there are what they regard as significant omissions in some of the codes, and sorrie even go so far as to say that there are inherent contradictions in the statements of the several codes. According to the critical view on this point there are laws and regulations peculiar to each of the codes. The Covenant code is the simplest in its form, and it is also the most general in its contents. In it there is no gradation in the priesthood, as high priest, priests, and Levites, nor is there any elaboration of the ritual and sacrificial scheme. It is in the Deuteronomic code that we find distinct directions in regard to a central place of worship, while the Covenant code, so the critics say, allowed worship at many local shrines. So, in like manner, strict monotheism as an actual fact, with all the elaboration of the mature Mosaic scheme, did not appear till near the time of the Exile, if not, indeed, after that great event. Now, these and many other features of diversity in the contents of the supposed codes are taken by the advanced critics to prove their theory of different codes, widely separated as to the date of their origin. Our space entirely forbids an adequate exposition of this particular point, so we must be content with these general explanations. In the third place the advanced critics give very great prominence to what took place in the days of Josiah and during his reform. For some time prior SOME GENERAL FEATURES. 133 to this reform under Josiah the people, so the critics say, had been observing the substance of the regu- lations found in the Deuteronomic code ; but about the days of this good young king the influence of the prophets had been sensibly felt in the devel- opment of religious ideas, and in the production of the literature of that code. Accordingly, what Josiah did was not so much to effect a reform in religion so as to lead the people back to the old but forgotten law and ritual, but his great work was rather to originate a new onward movement in the religion of Israel. It is from this view-point that the ' ' book of the law " given by Moses, which was found in the Temple and read before the king, is to be understood. Hilkiah and Shaphan were, in the opinion of the critics, the authors of this book of the law, so that it was not the product of Moses, nor of the Mosaic era. Here critical opinion follows two lines' in regard to the precise m.anner and purpose of the produc- tion of this book of the law. Some regard it as a praxis. By this term the critics mean that what had hitherto been practiced among the people in the way of religious observances, was reduced to written form for the first time by Hilkiah, Shaphan, and others of Josiah's day. Hitherto it had been unwritten practice or custom; at Josiah's day it be- came written law or code. In this way the book of the law found in the Temple is to be understood, and the name of Moses was attached to it to give it 134 RADICAL CRITICISM. additional authority, as tradition had previously as- sociated the unwritten praxis with the name of this great personage of the Exodus. The other critical view of this book of the law is to the effect that it was a rcfonii programme, rather than an unwritten praxis. It looked to the future and affected it, rather than to the past in the way just described. Hilkiah and other earnest men of the time of Josiah drew up the contents of this book of the law, and promulgated it as a scheme according to which the religious life of the people was to be shaped. They brought it to the king, then a young man, and presented it to him as the book of the law which had Mosaic sanction, but did not fully inform him of the true authorship of the book. In this way the critics maintain that the reform under Josiah was inaugurated, and the Deu- teronomic code came into actual observance in connection with that reform. In either case the Deuteronomic code is not Mosaic. It is a praxis, or a programme, so say the critics. In the criti- cisms to be offered in future chapters, much will have to be said in regard to advanced critical opin- ion regarding what took place at the time of Josiah, and in the age immediately prior to it. In the fourth place, the advanced critics enlarge on the things which took place in the days of Ezra, and in connection with the restoration from the Exile. In some respects, this is the most impor- tant of all the epochs in the history of the religion SOME GENERAL FEATURES. 135 of Israel, according to the advanced critical view. It was at this time that the fully developed Mosaic system appeared. Prior to the deportation of the people in the great captivity, there had been a general observance of many of the things contained in the Priestly code, described in the last chapter, but it had not been reduced to written form. Idolatry was spoken against by the prophets of the days before the Exile, ethic monotheism was fully developed, worship at one central sanctuary was enjoined, and a very elaborate priesthood and ritual had come into existence. During the Exile, according to some critics or just after it according to others, Ezra and the earnest spirits associated with him drew up the complete Priestly code in written form. This was observed by the people after the Exile, and soon developed into the rigid and formal Judaism of the century prior to the advent of Jesus Christ. Half a dozen chapters would not suffice to give more than a summary of all that the critics have set forth at this point, in their advocacy of the reconstructive theories. This exceedingly meager statement, however, must suf- fice, and it may be enough to provide at least a basis for future criticism. In the fifth place, many of the critics give a peculiar place and prominence to the wonderful vision of Ezekiel, which is found in the closing chapters of his prophecy, beginning with the forti- eth. The scope and imagery of this vision need 180 RADICAL CRTTICISM. to be pondered by the hour to feel its grandeur and power. In a vision, Ezekiel, under the guidance of some angehc being, beheld a magnificent city. In it there is a splendid temple, most elaborately furnished in every respect for its purpose, and ornamented most exquisitely. Then in the temple there is an altar, forth from which a stream of water flowed that soon became deep and wide, making fruitful all the regions whither it flowed. Then, in connection with the temple, there is an elaborate sacrificial system exhibited, and even a division of the land among the twelve tribes is al- luded to. But the whole account of the vision must be read to be appreciated in this connection. No brief description can do it justice. Now, one influential school of radical critics lays much store by this vision. They make it the tran- sition between the Deuteronomic code and the Priestly code. Here they say we have all the elaboration of the ritual and sacrificial system which is found in the Priestly code, and that originated about the days of Ezra. From the way the critics speak of this vision, we almost receive the impres- sion that they regard it as having actually existed as an observed ritual system among the people, whereas there does not appear to be the slightest evidence that the contents of this vision were ever observed, or even intended for observance, under the religious system of Israel. Nay, more, perhaps a strong case can be made out for the opinion that SOME GENERAL FEATURES. 137 the contents of this most wonderful vision have meaning only under the assumption that the so- called Priestly code was an actual fact among the people prior to the days of Ezekiel. Our criticism later on must lay hold of this point, and sift the critical view carefully. In the last place, this may be the best stage to note the fact that the advanced critical theory maintains that the idea of the Tabernacle and its ritual had no existence till about the Exile. There may have been, we are told, some sort of a tent, and perhaps the ark or something like it, but the notion of the Tabernacle with its services as set forth in the Priestly code did not exist in the early stages of the history of the religion of the people of Israel, but it was an inference from the Temple. Instead of the Temple being an expansion of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle was the Temple in miniature and projected back to the days of Moses in an idealized form. So in like manner the great Annual Feasts are of quite late origin. They do not date back to the era of Moses, and they do not originate from his hand. Both of these points will come prominently forward for criticism ere long in the course of this work. In the meantime this mere statement must conclude this chapter. The exposition will be completed in one or two addi- tional chapters; then the real task of the criti- cal examination of these radical theories will be begun. CHAPTER VIII. THE HISTORY. The last chapter opened up several lines of state- ment and reasoning by means of which the ad- vanced critical theory, and especially the hypothesis of the three codes, is supposed to be established. At the close of the chapter two important factors in the critical theory were merely mentioned. The one was the contention that the Tabernacle did not exist, and the other the supposition that the great annual feasts did not originate, or at least come to be generally observed, till late in the religious his- tory of Israel. This follows naturally from the terms of the theory. The Tabernacle service and the annual feasts were connected specially with the Priestly code. This code, according to the critics, did not come to be generally observed till about the time of Ezra, which of course was quite late in the history of the national life of Israel. Consequently, the idea of the Tabernacle succeeds the Temple ; and the great feasts, such as the day of Atonement, the feast of Tabernacles, and the day of Pentecost, had no place in early times. These factors of the theory will call for careful examination when we proceed with our criticism. THE HISTORY. 139 This chapter deals with a single additional feature of the advanced critical position. That feature re- lates to the explanation of the history which we find running side by side with the ritual and legisla- tion of the several supposed codes. The question here is this : How is the history to be accounted for and harmonized with the outlines of the critical theory .'' This, moreover, is one of the real difficul- ties with which the radical theory has to contend. That theory claims to be strictly historical ; and yet, when from the basis of its theory concerning the development of the religion of Israel, it at- tempts to interpret the history of the Old Testament Scriptures, it is compelled to rearrange the materi- als of the history in such a way as to be really a reconstruction of the history, in accordance with the necessities of the theory. This chapter can only give a few hints as to the way in which the history is treated by radical critics. In the first place, the critics point out what they suppose to be two concurrent lines of history quite distinct from each other, running through the Old Testament. In the one prophetical, in the other, priestly features are prominent ; and, while concur- rent, the critics often represent them as inconsistent at various points. Speaking generally, the former consists of the books from Genesis to the end of the book of Kings ; the latter includes Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. In both cases pre-existing materials in documentary form have been used. 140 RADICAL CRITICISM. The one corresponds in general with the "J E " and " D " narratives, and is built on the Covenant code ; the other agrees in the main with the " P " and "R" narratives, and implies the existence of the Priest's code. There is endless diversity of opinion among the critics concerning the details of view in regard to these two lines of history, as they suppose them to be, and in regard to the relations which they sustain to each other. In the second place, the critics make another important three-fold distinction which bears upon the historical sections of the Old Testament. They distinguish between the origin of the ritual and other laws, the codification of these laws, and the zvriting of the law books in their final form, with the history interwoven. With more or less defi- niteness, the critics make these distinctions. Some- times the distinction is two-fold instead of three-fold in the hands of the critics. According to this view, the origin and observance of the laws are distin- guished from the literature in which the record of these laws and ritual requirements is now found. But the latest form of critical theory announces the distinction to be three-fold in its nature as above noted, and it makes use of this in its effort to ex- plain the historical narratives which run parallel with the ritual and legal factors of Mosaism. According to the first of these stages of codifica- tion, the laws and ritual observances are viewed as coming into existence among the people but re- THE HISTORY. 141 maining in a disconnected, unclassified form, and entirely unwritten. They were little more than customs made definite and handed down in a tra- ditional way. In the second stage, these laws or customs, having gradually become numerous and complex, were reduced to an orderly form, and classified into what are called distinct codes by the critics. At this stage, some of these laws thus codified were reduced to writing, but were not yet arranged in a connected narrative. In the third stage these laws, as codified and traditionally ob- served, were reduced to definite written form in later times. This was done partly for the conven- ience of the priests who were to administer the ritual, and partly to fix definitely the priestly form of the ciiltiis as distinguished from the prophetical. It is with the last stage that the historical ele- ments of the Old Testament are, the critics think, to be largely connected. There were certain tradi- tional factors in the life of the nation, historical in their nature ; and in the later stages of the national career these were written up long after the-events happened, and in this way the history is to be re- garded as a -later semi-ideal product. It was not written at the time, but most of it took written form long after the events actually happened, just as the laws were reduced to written form long after their origin and observance. In subsequent criti- cism this is a point to which careful attention must be given. 142 RADICAL CRITICISM. In the third place, in regard to the precise mode by which the history came to be thus written, the advanced critics have some remarkable things to say. It is at this point, too, that their theory suffers one of its severest strains in relation to the history which it must in some way account for. If the narratives which have, as they now stand, such definite historical form, came into existence at the late date which the radical theory asserts, then the question is, how is the clear-cut historical form of these narratives to be accounted for ? The strain upon the theory at this point is so great that the critics are driven to remarkable expedients in order to give a show of plausibility to their speculations. A mere statement of these expedients will not only exhibit what they are, but also indicate how great is their weakness and superficiality, and will show how desperate the necessities of the theory which calls for such support must really be. Some critics give what may be called the tradi- tional explanation of the historical narratives. By this explanation it is set forth that the main body of the events actually happened, but that the knowl- edge of them was for many ages handed down from generation to generation by oral tradition. Like all tradition it would undergo certain modifications and receive constant additions, so that in the later ages of the national life of Israel there existed a great body of tradition which was then reduced to written form. But in it all, while there may have THE HISTORY. 113 been a basis of fact, there was also much that is traditional if not mythical in the supposed historical sections of the literature of the Old Testament as it now stands. Other critics give what may be called 2. fictitious account of the historical sections of this literature. In it we have, according to this view, not a record of real events, nor the later transcription of oral tradition, but an entirely fictitious product. Ac- cording to some, this fictitious history was produced by later post-exilic scribes to fill in the legal and ritual codes, which had by that time been reduced to written form. By other critics, the free and natural play of the imagination of these scribes working alongside of the ritual system, produced these historical narratives. In the former case, they are intentional, and in the latter, spontaneous products. But in both cases their real historicity is ignored. That this general view of the history is revolu- tionary is self-evident. According to it, we have in the Old Testament not real history, but tradi- tion or fiction, or a mixture of both. The supposed persons, places, and events are imaginary, not real; and the alleged authors of these books never wrote them, but their origin is due to the mythical in- stinct, poetical genius, or dramatic power of some nameless scribes who lived and wrote in the degen- erate era after the Exile. Were it not that we find this theory set forth in professedly learned books, 144 RADICAL CRITICISM. we could not have believed that such a forced in- terpretation of what seems to be very distinctly marked history, was to be discovered anywhere. But we have it here in the writings of radical critics. It is in this connection that emphasis is laid by some critics upon what is called pscudonyinous aii- thorship. Others call it literary fiction, which they claim was a common thing in those* early days when no copyrights existed. According to this view, these later authors to whose hands the historical books owe their origin, attached the names of some great men of ancient times to their writings to give them more weight. These ancient and weighty men are represented as speaking and acting in the historical events de.scribed. The name of Moses, in a somewhat dramatic manner having acquired much traditional prominence, was the name to which much of the history, and most of the ritual system associated therewith, were ascribed. Thus, by a pious fraud, called by the milder name of literary artifice, or by the pretentious term pseudonymous authorship, the historical setting of the ritual sys- tem of the religion of Israel is sketched ; or perhaps we ought more truly to say, that the history was dramatized. Of this we shall have something to say in future criticism upon this topic. The result, then, is that the history no longer re- mains history. At best it is but tradition ; perhaps most of it is fiction, as some say. The history is the free creation of post-exilic times. Under THE HISTORY. 145 the exigencies of the radical theory of the ritual system, the history is first destroyed in order that it may be rebuilt in accordance with the architect- ural requirements of that theory. The narratives are not, as they now stand, a correct expression of the development of the religion. Hence the narra- tives must be reconstructed to fit the theory. The work of editing and re-editing has gone on, till al- most all semblance of historical material in the narratives has passed away. That such an attempt should be made in the name of historical criticism to explain Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Josiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Ezra, and otlier personages, must ever remain as one of the literary wonders of the nineteenth century fitted only to be classed along with Donnelly's Baconian theory of Shakespeare. CHAPTER IX. THE PROPHETS AND THE PSALMS. We are now nearing the end of the exposition of the literary and historical methods of advanced criticism which it was our purpose to make. The last chapter sought to show how the history of the Old Testament is to be understood in the light of the radical critical theory. This chapter will seek to explain how the propJicts and their work are to be understood, and the place which the Psalms are to be given by the theory under consideration. With this chapter the direct exposition will thereby be concluded. In a former chapter it was hinted that the ad- vanced critical theory puts the prophets before the law, and so would read, ' ' The Prophets and the Law" instead of "The Law and the Prophets." The real meaning of this must now be unfolded, and in this way the view of the place and the work of the prophets in the development of the religion of Israel may be best exhibited, according to the critical theory now under consideration. In the first place, in order to understand the position of advanced criticism in regard to the prophets, we must keep in mind what that criticism [146] PROPHETS AND PSALMS. 147 holds in regard to the general status of religious ideas and observances at the time when the great prophets, who have given us important written prophecies, lived and exercised their religious in- fluence. In general, the critical theory maintains that the religious life and the ritual observances of Israel were a gradual growth. At first it was the simple worship of Jehovah, offered at many places throughout the land. In this early stage the rites were few and by no means elaborate. Perhaps some of them were forms of nature worship which were by degrees adapted to the religious conditions of Israel in Canaan. Then, in particular, when the early wr/V/';/^ proph- ets, as they have been called, appeared, they found the religious ideas of the people quite crude, and their cultns far from mature. The great work of these prophets was to do much toward tlio advance- ment of the religious life of the people, rather than to bring the people back to an old ideal from which they had wandered. Previous to the writing proph- ets there had been oral prophets in earlier days, who partly paved the way for the work of the men whose prophetic words have been put on permanent record in the Scriptures. Such were Elijah and Elisha. But the men who effected most for the religion of Israel were men like Hosea, Jonah, and Amos, in the kingdom of Israel ; and like Isaiah, Jere- miah, Ezekiel, Micah, and Joel, in the kingdom of 148 RADICAL CRITICISM. Judah. Through the teaching of these men it came to pass that ethical monotheism was developed, and that the people were led to worship at one central sanctuary. At this time, also, and by the influence of the writing prophets, the legislation and ritual system came into general observance among the people. Prior to their time, this elabo- rate ritual had really no existence, and the teaching of some of these prophets is such as to discounte- nance, rather than to foster the observance of the ritual system. These prophets lived from six to eight centuries, b. c. , and from their writings the critics argue that the Deuteronomic and especially the Priestly codes were not then in existence, for these prophets say little about the contents of these codes. Arguing from the fact of this silence, they hastily conclude that these codes were not in exist- ence to be observed by the people. These proph- ets paved the way for the developments which took place in Josiah's day and at the time of Ezra, when the law, in its fully developed form, came into ex- istence and observance. Of course different critics give different explanations of the influence of these and subsequent prophets ; but the main thing to keep in mind is that the advanced critical theory denies that the priestly code, or Torah, was in ex- istence eight centuries B. c. , that is, in the days of Hosea and Amos in particular. And on the other hand, the theory asserts that the law, in its com- pleted form, at least, came into common observ- PROPHETS AND PSALMS. 149 ance, if not into actual existence, only after the prophets had exercised their potent influence. The law is thus post-prophetic. In this way the meaning of the statement that the order of development is from the prophets to the law, not from the law to the prophets, is to be ex- plained. The real authors of the mature Mosaic system are the prophets, especially the writing prophets. Directly, by their teaching, they devel- oped monotheistic belief and unity in the place of worship. This centralization was naturally fol- lowed by an elaboration of ritual at the one sanctu- ary, and thus, indirectly, the prophets prepared the way for the introduction of the priestly or Levitical code. It will be observed that this order of the prophets and the law, grows out of the necessities of the theor)' of three codes, which puts the Priestly code about the days of Ezra, when the great work of the prophets was virtually over. How curious the procedure of the critics is at this point ! Again and again the attempt is made to construct an elaborate theory on a very slender basis of fact ; and having propounded the theory, it is even used to determine what the facts must have been. In connection with the work of the prophets an- other thing may be mentioned. The advanced critics make their analysis of the prophetical writ- ing very much as they do of those writings which exhibit the several codes. Prophecies which have been supposed all along to be complex wholes are 150 RADICAL CRITICISM. cut in twain, or if the case requires, are divided into a number of sections. Thus Isaiah is severed into two, and Zechariah is served in the same way. The supposed dates are assigned to the several parts, even though the critics do not know the names of the authors of the later sections. Daniel is carried away forward to the era of the Maccabees, as also are other writings which have always been regarded as pre-exilic. The reason given for this high-handed critical procedure is that these parts of the prophecies, such as the later part of Isaiah and of Zechariah, could not have been written un- til the ritual of the Priestly code had come into vogue among the people, as it did only a short time prior to the Exile. Then, too, passages or allusions in the prophets which seem inconsistent with the terms of the radical theory, are branded as inter- polations from a later age, and so are cast aside. In a word, the theory must rule, no matter what becomes of the facts in the case. A few paragraphs must be added in regard to the way in which advanced criticism deals with the Psalms. As the theory was pushed forward to its logical conclusion by its advocates, and especially as the evolutionary principles involved in the hy- pothesis of the three codes were unfolded, it soon became evident that the profound religious ideas and sentiments expressed in the Psalter could not be easily harmonized with the stage which the evo- lution had actually reached in the days of David, PROPHETS AND PSALMS. 151 the period when many of these very Psalms are supposed to have come into existence. This was long prior to the days of Josiah and Ezra, and it was not till their days that the religious system reached its maturity, according to the radical crit- ical view. The religious contents of the Psalms are consequently before their proper time if we retain the commonly received view that most of them be- long to the age of David and Solomon. Hence the critics place the origin of very many of these Psalms at or after the time of Ezra. But the skill and boldness of the critics are quite equal to the task thus presented. Instead of revising their theory in such a way as to do justice to the religious elements in the Psalms, they put the Psalms on the rack of radical criticism. The result is that the Davidic authorship of most of the Psalms is denied, and the date of their production is brought down to the period after the Exile, and subsequently to the elaboration of the Priestly code and its observance among the people. Indeed, some of the critics go so far as to say that none of the Psalms were put in their present form till after the days of Ezra. Such critics merely admit that the simple elements of some of them may have existed among the people prior to that great epoch, just as the elements of the Iliad of Homer existed among the early Greeks. These elements were not yet crystallized, but only held in solution in a mythical age. But the critics con- 152 RADICAL CRITICISM. tend that the Psahns, as we now have them, are of late date, which means that they must have come into existence chiefly after the Priestly code was produced. The critics, in this cormection, like to speak of the Psalter as the praise book of the sec- ond Temple, forgetful of what the history says about the musical service of the first Temple being very extensive, and entirely consistent with, if in- deed not requiring the contents of the completed Psalter. Here the order which the advanced crit- ics give us is the Prophets, the Law, and the Psalms, instead of that which our Lord himself suggests in the last chapter of Luke, as the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. But the theory demands this order, and so the critics insist that the theory must rule. Later on, we shall examine the posi- tion of advanced criticism in regard to the Psalms, and we may then be able not only to set it aside, but also to find materials in those Psalms which are admitted to be of Davidic origin to refute the hypothesis of the three codes, which, as we have already said, is the very heart and core of the whole critical structure. Thus we see more and more clearly the tendency of the advanced critical theory to bring down to as recent a date as possible all those parts of Script- ure, whether they be history, prophecy, or Psalm, which contain distinct allusions to the contents of the Priestly code. The reason for this obviously is that by hypothesis it is assumed that this code did PROPHETS AND PSALMS. 158 not come into existence till about the time of the Exile, and in the light of this assumption the parts of the literature which contain these allusions must either be interpolations by some late hand, or the whole writing- is of more recent origin than is gener- ally supposed. But at this point our exposition of the methods of advanced criticism must close. The reader is doubtless glad that we have brought him to the end of the long and tedious journey, even if he has been willing to follow us thus far through the mazes of the various factors of the critical theory. This exposition nevertheless has not been sufficient to set forth the theory with details of illustration. Still we would fain hope that what has been said may provide a sufficient basis upon which criticism may be intelligently made for the reader. With the next chapter we invite the reader to embark with us on what may be termed a voyage of observation and discovery, in the course of which by careful in- spection we hope to find many things new and old which may enable him to make a careful estimate of the critical theory, and which may help him to obtain an intelligent view of the main defects by which it is to be distinguished. PART IV. CRITICAL EXAMINATION. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY. With this chapter we begin the careful examina- tion of the advanced critical theory, whose main positions have been somewhat briefly explained. Three chapters have been devoted to introductory explanations ; in five, a short history of radical criticism h*as been given ; and in nine chapters an attempt has been made to give an exhibit of the chief features of radical criticism. With these chapters before us, we venture to hope that we are in a position to enter upon a careful review of this particular critical theory. To do anything like justice to this task even in a brief and popular manner nearly a score of chapters will be required. The present one will be almost entirely preliminary in its nature. In dealing with this very extensive and many- sided subject, it is of much importance to have a clear conception of the methods according to which a proper examination of advanced Higher Criticism should be pursued. In previous chapters, we were careful to ascertain the methods of advanced criti- cism ; and now, when we undertake to enter upon the review of that criticism, we ourselves should be [157] 158 RADICAL CRITICISM. exceedingly careful to adopt and follow sound victJi- ods of procedure. We should keep in mind the adage about people who live in glass houses throwing stones. If, therefore, we may cast some stones in the way of criticism of the radical critical theory. we would take diligent care that our general method is not like a glass house. In the first place, we wish to emphasize our firm conviction that the present current debate between conservative and radical criticism is one of great importance in itself, and of vast moment to the Christian system. Between the two opposing schools of criticism the difference is, in our judg- ment, not merely one of details but of underlying principles. The attitude of the tvv^o schools is es- sentially different in regard to the view held con- cerning the very foundations of the religion of Israel. If conservative views in regard to the place of divine revelation in originating this religion must be given up before the victorious march of the radical theory, then an entire reconstruction of the essential elements of the Christian religion, includ- ing even its divine redemptive system, will have to be made. The conviction grows upon us that, while this assault upon the very foundations of the history and religion of Israel as involving a super- natural factor may not be entirely new, yet it is an attack made by naturalism or rationalism in a nev.- manner which calls for new refutation. Let no one, therefore, make light of the issues involved, PRELIMINARY. 159 or be indifferent to the outcome of the controversy, for very much depends upon it. In the second place, the questions involved are, we believe, far deeper than even the important mat- ters of authorship and literary style. The critics in certain quarters have dwelt so much on discus- sions about style, idiom, and other literary features in determining the authorship and date of the sev- eral books of the Old Testament, and consequently of the origin and date of the religious contents of these books, that undue prominence has been given to this, which at best can only be a superficial feature of the religion of Israel. High claims are made by some of the critics for scholarship and critical insight, and others of them in a rather haughty way warn the conservatives that unless they possess similar learning and insight, they are not qualified to give a judgment in the case. The advanced critics only are the scholars ! The poor conservatives are regarded with sentiments some- thing like pity, and it is plainly hinted that their learning is antiquated and quite out of style. The problems raised are rooted much more deeply than this surface view implies. The ques- tions which emerge are not merely concerning the authorship of the books of the Old Testament, but of the authorship of that national and religious life of the Jewish nation which made it so radically dis- tinct from other nations. The debate has refer- ence, not merely to the origin of writings in which IGO RADICAL CRITICISM. this remarkable life is recorded, but it relates to the deeper problem of the origin of religion in gen- eral, and of the Israelitish religion in particular. The heart of the controversy is not reached by in- specting with microscopic care the mere literature of the religion, though we may learn much from this source. The nature of the religion exhibited in that literature, and above all, the order and princi- ples of its development, constitute the real problem to be dealt with. If this be the true view of the case, the debate goes far deeper and is much broader than it is often conceived to be. In a word, it raises the general question of the philoso- phy of religion, and directly formulates the problem of the philosophy of the religion of Israel. This is the position we take in entering on the criticism of the radical theory of the history and religion of the people of Israel. It is at its roots a problem in re- ligious philosophy which is formulated for solution. In the third place, we shall take care that no undue assumptions are made by the critics at the outset. We have learned already how prone radical criticism is to deal in assumptions. What some of these assumptions are, as laid down by advanced criticism, we shall discuss in a subsequent article. What we here at the outset especially signalize is this, that we shall not allow without protest radical criticism to assume or deny certain things which, be- ing assumed or denied, may necessitate some of the main conclusions of their theory. Thus, for exam- PRELIMINARY. 161 pie, we shall not allow the higher critic at the out- set to assume, as Kuenen does, a certain theory in regard to the origin and growth of religion, nor to deny the reality of the supernatural in the form of revelation, inspiration, miracle, and prophecy as so many do. We shall certainly insist on these being at least left open questions till the investigation is complete, and we shall not allow any school of critics to shut the door in the face of these impor- tant elements which claim to have a place in the Old Testament Scriptures. The conservative with good grace might properly take still higher ground, and justly hold that since these Scriptures them- selves claim to contain direct divine communica- tions and other features of the supernatural, he has a right to assume the reality of the supernatural in the debate ; and, should he do this, his position is made all the more reasonable from the fact that it has been the almost uniform view of the Church. She has looked upon the religion of Israel and the Old Testament Scriptures as permeated with a divine factor in the history, the religious ideas, and the literature of that religion. The advanced criti- cal theory is a comparatively recent thing. It was born outside the Church only a few centuries ago, it was brought into the Church less than a century since, and so it should at least have the merit of the modesty becoming its youthful years. If any party in the controversy has the right to make assumptions in this field, it is the conservative. 162 RADICAL CRITICISM. But we do not insist on this position at the outset. \^& simply content ourselves with refusing to allow the radical critic to make his denials and assump- tions without question. We further give due notice that we shall feel free to sift the presuppositions of the radical critic as fully as may be necessary, should he venture to make them. In the fourth place, we are strongly inclined to the view that there is no middle course which can be safely taken in this controversy. We doubt very seriously whether, between the radical critical theory and the historical conservative theory of the national and religious life of Israel, any compro- mise that does not mean capitulation is possible. There is a tendency in some quarters to accept to a considerable extent the radical theory of the history of the national life of Israel, and of the ori- gin and development of their religious ideas and rites ; and, above all, there sometimes appears to be an ttnduc readiness to accept the radical critical conclusions in regard to the production of the lit- erature ; and at the same time the hope seems to be cherished that the historic faith of the Church in the supernatural factor in the religion of Israel can be held fast. We doubt if this is possible, and are very sure that it is not necessary to attempt any such compromise in order to pursue scholarly methods. The national and religious life of Israel are so interwoven that no separation between them is possible. If the history be the manufactured PRELIM IN AR K 163 product of later times, we ask what becomes of the rehgious ideas with which the history is connected ? Are they also manufactured ? If Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses are not distinctly historical personages, how can we retain as real the religious truths and redemptive promises which are asso- ciated with these great names ? The history and the religious systems must in the nature of the case stand or fall together, for the facts of the history are often doctrines in the concrete ; and the events of the narratives are frequently religious truths of the utmost importance. We cannot deny the reality of the history without oftentimes leaving the doctrines and religious truths hanging in mid-air. This being the case, we are convinced that an}' concession to advanced criticism other than such as legitimate criticism approves cannot be safely made. We proceed with our criticism, therefore, assuming the strict historicity of the narratives of the Old Testament Scriptures. If this be not done, we cannot see how any conclusions are to be reached, for these Scriptures are our only source of information regarding the matters in question. We are convinced that this position can be safely taken, and all the interests of legitimate Higher Criticism be fully conserved. In the last place, we believe that conservative Higher Criticism has a very important task to do in taking hold of the various lines of reasoning which the advanced critics have opened up, and following 1G4 RADICAL CRITICISM. them out step by step. We may surely be pardoned for not believing in the infallibility of the advanced critics, and we shall surely be excused for ventur- ing to deal in as fair and frank a manner as the case may require with all the facts adduced and theories advanced by these critics. This we shall do, at least until the critics at some ecumenical council announce their own infallibility, and give good proof of this by formulating the "assured re- sults " in which modern critical scholarship rests its weary feet. We believe that along every line, conservative Higher Criticism can hold its own, if it pursues its work in a solid, thorough way. The principles involved, the standpoint assumed, the methods of criticism employed, and the conclusions drawn by radical criticism, therefore, all lie before us. And we cannot regard the conservative critic as an invader when he enters the lists on this ex- tensive field with radical criticism in the interests of what he regards to be the true welfare of the Christian religion. Perhaps the conservative critic could justly take the position that he is simpl}' seek- ing to drive off invaders who have appeared on the field in the persons of the radical critics, for their theory is certainly recent and novel. But we con- tent ourselves with simply meeting advanced criti- cism face to face, and handling it by the legitimate methods of criticism. In the next chapter we be- gin our task directly. CHAPTER II. THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY. Having in the last chapter set forth some prelim- inary matters, we now enter formally on our task of criticism. In this chapter some remarks will be offered regarding the general philosophy which un- derlies all forms of rationalistic criticism, and whose validity, we believe, may be seriously questioned. We are convinced that the modern radical school of criticism of the Scriptures is very largely the out- come of a certain philosophical view of the relations subsisting between God and his works, and of certain assumptions concerning the mode of the divine operations in relation to the universe. At the very outset we insist that no adequate critique of radical critical theories can overlook, or afford to leave without thorough examination, the philosophy which it implicitly or explicitly assumes. In general, the animus of this philosophy is directed towards the denial of the supernatural. As already stated in a former chapter, radical criti- cism, whether of the Old Testament or New, whether of a century ago or of the present day, whether within the Church or without it, always ignores, denies, or minimizes the supernatural fac- [165] 166 RADICAL CRITICISM. tor, which we beheve cannot be removed from Christianity without robbing it of its glory, and de- stroying its spiritual power. This denial or ignoring of the supernatural has been based on one or other of two great types of philosophy. The one is a type of pantheism, the other a phase of deism. Both deal with the prob- lem of God's relations to his works. In the relig- ious sphere, the problem relates to the mode of the divine operations towards man, and to the manner in which God has revealed himself to those beings who possess the religious nature and sentiment as man does. The former of these, pantheism, merges God and the universe in some way into each other. Either God is hidden in the universe, or the universe is merely the existence form of God. In either case, the distinct though dependent existence of the uni- verse is not properl}^ provided for. In both, the proper transcendency of God in relation to his created works is not rightly understood and ex- pressed. This is not the place where pantheism can be fully criticised. But we wish to have it very dis- tinctly understood that much of the modern criti- cism 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 Hegel. If this philosophy >e allowed to dominate our methods of criticism, THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY. 167 and to guide us in formulating theories as to the origin and growth of rehgion, it needs no prophet to predict the result. If God is only immanent in the universe, in human history, in the soul of man, and is merely unfolding himself in a natural and necessary way therein, then everything is reduced to the category of the natural, and Christianity is only one of many forms of religious progress with nothing peculiar about it, further perhaps than that it is the best that has yet appeared. And this is precisely the conclusion which radical criticism reaches, and which it proclaims upon the housetops as the assured results of the best modern scholar- ship. On the other hand, those who incline to the de- istical type of philosophy put God so far away from the universe that he has now really nothing what- ever to do with its history. God created it and put it under certain laws, and according to these it has ever been working out its destiny in a natural necessary way. According to this view, it is clear that the supernatural has really no place, can in- deed have none. There can be no revelation, no miracle, no answer to prayer, no renewing grace. The facts of religion among men, and as exhibited in the Scriptures particularly, must all be explained as natural historical human products. In this way the results of radical criticism naturally and neces- sarily follow from the philosophical theory of the deist. 168 RADICAL CRITICISM. Of these two tendencies the pantheistic has, perhaps, the most favor at the present day, just as the deistic had precedence about a century ago. As against both we take our stand firmly on the basis of sound philosophical and biblical theism. Of the utmost importance we believe it to be, to vindi- cate biblical theism as against the subtle idealistic pantheism above described. Biblical theism asserts at once the transcendency and immanency of God, in relation to his works. It puts God not only be- fore the universe as its beginning, but it makes him the ground or reason of its existence every moment. It places God not only within his works, but it re- gards him as God high over all, blessed forever more. By the very terms of this philosophy both the natural and the supernatural are properly ex- plained, and a fitting place is left for every super- natural factor alike in the religious system set forth in the Scriptures, and in the spiritual experience of the truly religious life. But we cannot enlarge on this point. We charge radical criticism with hold- ing in its hand a false philosophy of the relation of of God to his works in general, and of the method according to which he reveals himself to men in particular. At this point, it may be well to consider further the teaching of the radical theories upon the doctrine of inspiration. In spite of all the critics say to the contrary, the advanced theories of radi- cal criticism do, in the very nature of the case, THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY. 169 affect the views of inspiration which can be consist- ently held. This does not mean that one cannot hold a proper scriptural doctrine of inspiration, and enter upon the task of the literary and historical criticism of the Scriptures. We believe that care- ful and scholarly criticism of the sacred Scriptures is quite consistent with the doctrine of their inspira- tion in the strict and proper sense of the term. But we are firmly convinced that the results of radical criticism, and of the theories of the develop- ment of the religion of Israel which it advocates, cannot be harmonized with a sound doctrine of inspiration. If the deistical view be taken, there can be no real inspiration other than that which appears from age to age in what may be termed the natural history of religion. Any direct divine influence upon chosen men by means of which they received, and then spoke or wrote down the mind of God is simply impossible. Mere naturalism is the distinguishing quality of the religion, and human reason is the only source of authority in the sphere of religion. If the pantheistic view be taken, then in the experience and history of man the divine will is unfolded. So we are told by even such modern critics as profess to have a sincere regard for the inspiration of the Scriptures that the whole human race is inspired, inasmuch as God first reaches self- consciousness in the consciousness of man, in some such way as makes man's thought of God, God's thought of himself. This is really idolatry of a re- 170 RADICAL CRITICISM. fined tj'pe, where each man virtually creates his own God. Then the only sort of inspiration, we are told, which is special in its nature is the inspiration of the whole Jewish nation. There were no chosen inspired men. The sacred books are, strictly speaking, the sacred literature of this nation. Such is the view of many modern critics. According to this view there are really no in- spired books in the proper sense. We firmly be- lieve that it is not possible to harmonize this position with the facts and claims of the Scriptures themselves in regard to their divine inspiration. The whole doctrine of inspiration is evidently at stake in these discussions with the radical criticism. The claim of the Scripture itself, and the obvious facts it embodies require a doctrine of inspiration which cannot be made to agree with any of these naturalistic evolutionary theories of the religion and the literature of Israel. But we cannot follow this point out at greater length. We charge radical criticism with being necessarily hostile to a sound dqctrine of inspi- ration, and on this account are convinced that the critics cannot justly claim the liberty of handling as they please the sacred books, while at the same time they try to retain a doctrine of inspiration worthy the name. At this point conservative criticism has a strong case against the advanced theories. If the unique THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY. 171 character of the Scriptures as truly the inspired, infalKble, and authoritative word of God be given up, serious if not fatal injury will be done to evan- gelical truth and spiritual religion. We need in- spired men who have given us an inspired book, or set of books, which is not merely the sacred litera- ture of the Jewish people, but a revelation from God and distinctly inspired. We are sure that the trend of advanced criticism, even in its mildest forms, is toward lower views of the inspiration and authority of the sacred Scriptures. This criticism is open to severest blame when lodged within the Church. It not only makes scrutiny of the Script- ures, but it also assails the inspired records which are the constitution of the Church itself. It is interesting to note in this connection that, as the standard of the inspiration of the Scriptures is lowered, the degree of the inspiration of the crit- ics themselves seems to rise higher and higher. As the authority of sacred Scripture is decreased, the authority of the critic seems to increase. Hence, there has been developed that subjectivity of the critic by which it is assumed that his opinion must be taken as of very great weight. In the exercise of this subjectivity the critic sits in judg- ment upon the literary form and actual contents of this book and that. He culls, omits, and modi- fies passage after passage, because as it stands, it does not meet the approval of his literary or 172 RADICAL CRITICISM. moral sense of what it should be. If a passage does not lit the critics' theory as they think, they will take a good look at it, solemnly pronounce it an interpolation, and promptly set it aside. An- other passage is supposed to be in the wrong place, and it is transposed according to the decision of the critic. The critic is thus much like the editor of a daily paper, who uses scissors and mucilage in cul- ling and patching till his task for the day is com- plete and so much copy produced. Then whole books are severed in a very arbitrary way into two or more portions, and on a very slender basis of fact wonderful conclusions are made to rest. The theory is spun out of the critic's brain in a purely subjective manner, and when we look at the result of the spinning we find that it is but a cobweb. Our final charge, therefore, against radical criti- cism in this chapter, is its subjectivity. If we were to interpret this hard word for our untrained readers, we would say that radical criticism is over-burdened with self-conceit, and weighed down with a sense of the authority of its own opinions. The whole at- titude of radical criticism at this point is at fault. It is at best conjectural criticism, where guess-work takes the place of sound inference, and where the well-founded results of one critic cancel the equally well-founded results of another. The objective facts found in the religion and sacred Scriptures of Israel must be fairly studied by legitimate criticism, and THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY. 173 our subjective opinions should be formulated in ac- cordance with these facts in all critical studies. The next chapter will deal with the philosophy of religious development associated with radical criti- cism. This will lead us to inquire into the sound- ness of its evolutionary theory of that development as it appears in the religion of Israel. CHAPTER III. ITS PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. In a single chapter some things have been said regarding the philosophy of which radical criticism is the child, and of the subjectivity which naturally becomes the attitude of such criticism. The fatal effects of this inadequate philosophy upon the bib- lical doctrine of inspiration were pointed out. Much more should have been said about this last point. That the Scriptures have a well defined doctrine concerning their own nature as inspired cannot be denied. That our doctrine of inspiration should be gathered from what the Scriptures have to say of themselves on this particular point must be ad- mitted. Yet we find in the face of these facts that radical criticism either ignores this quality of the Scriptures altogether, or so explains it as to explain it away almost entirely. Even those critics who profess to retain the doctrine of inspiration are con- stantly telling us that it must be recast in order to meet the demands of advancing scholarship. Now we shall bo exceedingly careful to put no barrier in the way of scholarship, and yet we must say that those methods and results of scholarship which do scant justice to the claims and contents of the [174] ITS PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. 175 Scriptures very justly raise a suspicion in earnest minds that there is danger lurking somewhere in such critical scholarship. In this chapter brief allusion will be made to the philosophy of the origin and growth of religion in general, and of the religion of Israel in particular, on which radical criticism rests. In a former chapter we saw that advanced radical criticism holds and applies the principle of natural- istic evolution to the facts of the genesis and development of religion. And even critics who ad- mit in some form the presence and influence of the supernatural factor are often strangely enamored by the magic of the word ciwlution, and evidently become unable, in some instances, to distinguish between an onward movement in religious thought and life which is entirely naturalistic, and one which is the product of real communications made by God to certain men for themselves and for the whole race. We need not repeat what was said in a former chapter regarding the explanation which radical criticism makes of the origin and expansion of the religion of Israel. It began in its lower and rose to its higher forms. Polytheism gradually became monotheism, and simple laws and rites grew into complex and elaborate ritual and legislation, during a period of nearly ten centuries. In this respect there is really no difference between the essential principles which worked in the religion of Israel, 176 RADICAL CRITICISM. and the principles which marked the growth of the other great rehgious systems which have appeared in the world. In our criticism of the radical theories this fact should be kept in mind. We are here brought face to face with certain views which in recent years have become quite popular in certain quarters as the result of the com- parative study of religions. This study, useful and helpful if rightly conducted, has, in the hands of not a few scholars, been used to level Christianity down to the plane of other religious systems. Be- tween the religion of Israel, and that of Egypt and Chaldea, between Christianity and Buddhism, there is, according to these writers, no difference in kind. All are the natural products of the religious instinct in man working itself out in accordance with the principle of natural evolution. The religious system found in the sacred Scriptures has in it nothing es- sentially different from what may be found in germ at least in other systems. According to this view, the ritual and legislation of the Scriptures are to be recast to fit the theory, and the literature itself must be subjected to entire reconstruction. Upon this general position of radical criticism we make several remarks. In the first place, it is an unfounded assumption to reduce Christianity to the category of the other religious systems which are to be found among men. Such an assumption is not supported by the facts in the case, but is the result of a preconceived ITS PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. ' 177 theory. It would be easy to show that there are factors in Christianity which are not found in any other system. The trinitarian conceiDtion of God, the incarnation of Christ, the great redemptive scheme, and the ethical system of Christianit}', cannot be the products of any amalgamation oi similar factors found in other systems. A case might be made out for the view that instead of Christianity being the product of these other sys- tems, the truths found in these systems may be a deposit from the primitive monotheism and pri- meval revelation from which Christianity has come by direct divine descent. More than this, even if it were made out that in some of the non-biblical religions there are factors common to them and Christianity, it would not follow at all, without clear evidence, that Christianity is simply a natural compilation of the better elements in these sys- tems. Instead of the Christian system being a collection of sru-vivals from other systems, these systems may be errant rivulets from the stream of revelation which Christianity represents. We charge radical criticism, therefore, with making a mere assumption at this point, and with giving us no evidence to support it. In the second place, there are factors in the religious S3^stem set forth in the Scriptures which no naturalistic evolution can account for. Even if naturalism may be adequate to explain the non- biblical systems, it might still turn out that there 12 178 - RADICAL CRITICISM. are factors in the religion of Israel that will not be reduced in the crucible of naturalism. The lofty tone of the Scriptures, the high claim that God is speaking to men therein, the wonderful organic unity of the whole volume, the prophetic element in them, their remarkable picture of the character and government of God, the true delineation which they give of man's moral state, and the unique and potent remedy which they unfold and apply as the sure solvent of that moral state, together with a score of other factors, which might be noted, did space permit, — all stand forth as incapable of a naturalistic explanation, such as might suffice for the main features of the non-biblical systems. To rank the religion of the Bible beside the non-bibli- cal systems, can only be done by ignoring, or over- looking, the unique factors w4iich belong to the former. To call bitter, sweet, or the black, white, does not effect the change that the difference be- tween these words denotes. So to rank Christi- anity and Zoroastrianism in the same category, can only be done by shutting the eyes willfully to the factors of the Christian system, which make it different in kind from all other systems. We charge radical criticism with unscientific procedure, which is none the less to be condemned because it is propounded with such boldness. In the third place, radical naturalistic criticism at this point can give no satisfactory explanation of the fact that there has been an advance of religious ITS PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. 179 ideas and practice among the Israelites, while noth- ing of the kind took place among the surrounding nations. Let the reader note this point with care. Naturalistic criticism asserts that the same princi- ples underlie the evolution of the religion of Israel as are to be found in the religion of Egypt, of Chal- dea, of Persia, or of India. The same philosophy is applicable to all alike. This being the case, we simply ask the radical critics to explain how it came to pass that by slow degrees, yet most surely, the Israelites developed ethical monotheism, and an elaborate spiritual worship, while the other nations either remained stationary or degenerated in their religous condition. Some, explanation of the facts, even on the critics ' own showing, must be given, and we call for a sufficient cause to account for the ad- mittedly diverse effects or results. It will not do to assume that the Semitic genius of the people explains it, for there were other Sem- itic peoples who did not bring forth the same fruitage of religious advancement. It will not do to assume some inherent superiority in the people, for in many respects other peoples of that age were as likely as Israel to produce high religious results, as, for example, the Greeks. Nor will it suffice to assume that environment accounts for it, for the potent influence of environment would have to be proved as a fact, and if proved, the result would still leave the question of the adjustment of the environment unsolved. We revert to our question 180 RADICAL CRITICISM again, and challenge radical criticism to give a better account of the cause of the development of religious ideas and life among the people of Israel than the one which it gives of itself. Some ex- planation of the difference between Israel -in this respect and the nations round about for a period of ten centuries must be given. We postulate, as against naturalistic evolution, the presence and po- tency of the Spirit of God, working in and through selected persons of that chosen nation, as a full explanation of all the facts of progress exhibited in the religious thought and life of Israel, and as the true and adequate philosophy of the difference be- tween Israel and other nations in this respect. We shall hold by this explanation, at least till radical criticism can supply a better. This we have no expectation of beholding in our day, but we shall leave our challenge open on this point. In the fourth place, the law of purely natural religious evolution among men is dcgcncj-ation. Here the radical critics generally fail to take prop- erly into account the facts and effects of sin as moral evil on the human race. It may be laid down almost as an axiom that, owing to the blight which sin has brought upon the moral and religious nature of man, the law of his moral and religious progress on the merely natural plane, must be retrogression. Historically, this can be abundantly proved alike from secular and sacred history. ITS PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. 181 Witness the degeneration of the people before the Deluge, the declension in a few generations from the knowledge of God which all men pos- sessed in Noah and his family after the Flood, and even the frequent falling into idolatry of Israel during its strange career, as abundant proof of this sad fact. Then, if we enter the field of ethnology we find that social and moral degeneration seems to be the law of nature, and that wherever advance ap- pears, it can be traced to contact with the stream of the supernatural in some way. Modern savages are not the prototypes of primitive men. They are the product of natural evolution, working according to the law of degeneration. In the field of com- parative religion this same law is repeatedly illus- trated. The widespread tradition of a golden age when men dwelt at peace with each other and in harmony with God, and when even nature was never angry, but heaven and earth in beneficence smiled upon men, means much in this connection. The fact that the older beliefs and practices of pagan nations, as represented by their earlier tra- ditions, are often nobler and purer than those of the present time, cannot be overlooked here. In Egypt, in Chaldea, in Persia, and India, did space permit, facts could be adduced to show that the law of natural evolution is degeneration, and wher- ever an upward step has been taken, this is clearly 182 RADICAL CRITICISM. seen to be due not to the race uplifting itself, but to the divine Hand reaching down to raise it up and lead it on. But at this point this chapter must conclude. CHAPTER IV. GENERAL HISTORICAL DEFECTS. Two chapters have been devoted to the consid- eration of some philosophical aspects of radical criticism. Its underlying philosophical principles, and its philosophy of the origin and growth of the religion of Israel were discussed in these chapters. In both fields, especially in the latter, the discussion was far too brief. Only a few points of a general nature could be suggested. Our firm conviction is that the philosophy of religious development which radical criticism adopts and argues from is utterly defective, and we regret that our space renders it impossible to exhibit its many defects more fully than the last chapter enabled us to do. In this chapter we pass from the domain of phi- losophy to the field of history. We shall test the theory at several points by the assured light which the well ascertained facts of history shed upon it. That this line of criticism is exceedingly important is indeed self-evident. The Scriptures which set forth the Christian system contain a great deal of history. In a certain sense they are a history. The facts of the history are often the vehicles for the communication of the will of God, and the revela- [183] 184 RADICAL CRITICISM. tion is thus imbedded in a well defined historical basis. This feature of Christianity renders it capa- ble of clear historical tests, and gives its historical evidences immense value. It also enables us in turn to test those theories which radical criticism propounds by the facts of a history. If we find, therefore, that those theories run counter to the well ascertained facts of the history, then we are in possession of a potent weapon for the refutation of the radical critical theory. If, in like manner, we find that radical criticism subordinates the facts of history to the terms of its theory, or contents itself with a defective philosophy of the facts of histor}', then we shall be justified in rejecting the theory on historical grounds. Two chapters will be devoted to these historical inquiries. This one will present general features, the next will take up some particu- lar considerations. Concerning the general historical features of the religion of Israel by which radical critical theories may be tested, we must first understand clearly the precise sense in which the revelation unfolded in the Scriptures is historical. Radical criticism re- gards the Scriptures, with all their contents of his- tory, ritual, and legislation, as the natural historical product of the Jewish nation. These Scriptures, according to this view, are historical in the sense that they are the products of the times in which they were produced, and that they simply register the stage of religious development reached at any GENERAL HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 185 particular time. The view presented is that the people of Israel produced the Scriptures, whereas the true view is that the Scriptures, together with the revelation which they set forth, produced the nation and Church of the theocracy. Over against this view of the historicity of the contents of the Old Testament Scriptures we main- tain the view that while these Scriptures are im- bedded in history, and associated intimately with the successive stages of the history of Israel, yet they are not the mere product of the people, age after age, among whom they were produced. All along there was a divine factor coming in upon the age, and through chosen individuals communicating to the age something new which the age itself could never have discovered nor produced, and which is the cause of the onward and upward movement that appears in the development of the religion of Israel. It is in this sense that revelation is his- torical and progressive. Just as in nature the di- vine agency is necessary to cause the organic to come in upon the inorganic, the rational upon the organic, and the moral upon the rational, so the divine agency is the real and requisite causality which lies back of every true advance in religious activity, during the ages wdien the Scriptures were produced. Both in nature and revelation there are progress and a continuous history, but in both the lower of itself does not produce the higher. If w'e were to admit this, we would always find a new 186 RADICAL CRITICISM. factor in the higher for which no casuahty was provided in the lower. In order to provide this casuahty we posit the divine agency as the only adequate explanation, and charge radical criticism with total inability to provide a naturalistic expla- nation which is adequate. In the second place, a careful study of the his- tory set forth in the Scriptures shows that each suc- cessive age pre-supposes the preceding age and its contents. This can be made clear even if we grant that there are, as the critics sa3% two lines of history, the prophetic and the priestly, blended together in the narratives as we now have them. If we begin with the age of Ezra, it can be shown that the incidents which happened in connection with the restoration from the Exile, and the whole scope of what Ezra did, do not mark an onward natural development, but are only possible under the supposition that mature Mosaism existed before that day. If we take our stand at the time of Josiah, or Hezekiah, the proceedings of that age in like manner pre-suppose the reality of the fully- developed Mosaic system, and so do not mark the origin of something entirely new. In like manner, if space permitted, it would be possible, by tracing the history back through the period of the early Kings and the confused era of the Judges, to show that each stage pre-supposed, as already existent, mature Mosaism as the ideal which was ever set before the people. The only way by which this GENERAL HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 187 argument can be set aside, is to deny the reality of the history as it now stands ; and, if this be done, there is an end of all debate on the lines of histor- ical investigation and proof. In the third place, silence regarding the actual observance of the complete ritual and legislation of the Mosaic system does not prove the non- existence of that system in its mature form. The critics make much of this argument. They tell us again and again, that we have no account of the observance of the Deuteronomic code during the period of the Judges, and no information that the Priestly code was in force during the days of the early Kings. From this silence regarding these things, the critics conclude that these codes did not exist during these periods. Now it can be shown that the critics exaggerate the measure of silence which the history exhibits in regard to this observ- ance or non-observance. And, further, when the critics find that there is what looks like a clear allusion to the existence of mature Mosaism in the earlier history, they boldly shout, "Interpolation," or carry the history forward to the era which suits their theory. This, again, is an end of all debate which rests on an historic basis. And again, it by no means follows that, because legislation and ritual were not observed, then they were not exist- ent and binding, nor should we conclude that because there is no historical statement about their observance, therefore they were not observed by 188 RADICAL CRITICISM. the people. The history itself shows that the peo- ple often fell away and came far short of the ideal before them, and there is every reason to believe that through long periods of peace and prosperity the Mosaic system was regularly observed when the history naturally has little to say about it. The history, too, especially during the unsettled period of the judges, gives us, in part, the reasons which would sufficiently account for the imperfect obedi- ence to a system of ritual and legislation which all the while was real and obligatory upon the people. The argument from silence, moreover, proves far too much. If it proves the non-existence of the Priestly code prior to the Exile, it will also prove its non-existence after the Exile. For the striking fact, often overlooked by the critics, is nevertheless true that we find just as little historical allusion to the mature Mosaic system after the Exile as before it, and especially is it the case that never after the Exile is there any allusion to the Ark of the Testi- mony with which many of tlie details of the Priestly code were associated. The argument a silciitio consequently proves either too little or too much, and may be set aside as of no value for the critics in support of their conclusions. In the fourth place, according to the critical re- construction of the histor}-, no proper account can be given of the revolt of the ten tribes, and the consequent division of the people into the two kingdoms, each of which has its separate history. GENERAL HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 189 As to the historicity of this division, no doubt can be entertained, unless the whole history of the nation be resolved into myth or legend. Admit- ting the real historical nature of the revolt and sub- sequent career of the two kingdoms, we find that over three centuries before the days of Josiah, and fully five centuries prior to the time of Ezra, the Mosaic system as represented by the Samaritan Pentateuch must have existed. The reply which the critics make, to the effect that this Pentateuch was not produced till long after the division, does not help the case, even if it had anything in its support. It is scarcely likel}^ that the kingdom of Israel would borrow their complex ritual system from the kingdom of Judah, for there was such an antago- nism between them that this would be exceedingly improbable, and to suppose that a similar natural evolution of rite and law took place in Israel as in Judah, and that it was written out in that Penta- teuch in later times, is almost out of the question. We press this consideration against the critics, and are free to confess that, though we have read a good deal of the writings of the critics, we cannot recall any satisfactory account of the division of the nation, and of the contents of the Samaritan Penta- teuch given by radical criticism. Moreover, from the history of this division, we cannot fail to note that the Samaritans held to monotheism, and one central sanctuary which they set up for themselves at Mt. Gerizim. This would 190 RADICAL CRITICISM. seem to indicate that the nation was, even at that time, monotheistic, and was directed to hold wor- ship specially at one central sanctuary. It cannot be supposed that the ten tribes were far in advance of the two tribes at that time, and yet the critics tell us that monotheism and worship at one shrine in the kingdom of Judah did not come to be the fact till the days of Josiah and Ezra. Of course, in presenting the historical argument based upon the Samaritan Pentateuch we are aware that the critics have their theory of this form of the Penta- teuch which is in harmony with that which they hold regarding its Judaic form. We simply em- phasize the fact that radical criticism has to deal with both forms of the Pentateuch, and that this fact renders their problem more complex. In the fifth place, we wish merely to mention some other general historical matters in the briefest possible way before this chapter closes. First, we charge the critical theory with utterly destroying the historical continuity of the Messianic promise. Taking the history as it stands in Scripture, we find this line of glorious promise running like n golden thread all through the Old Testament \\V:.- tory. Adopting the critical reconstructive theor}-, we defy any person to follow that thread. It is broken, twisted, and reduced to a tangle before our eyes. Secondly, on the critical basis it is impos- sible to construct the history of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles. The theory destroys the history, and GENERAL HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 191 fails to reconstruct it. This period is confessedly difficult, but the conviction ever deepens in our minds that the critical theory increases the diffi- culties which it presents to the scholar. Thirdly, the method of historical reconstruction which the critics pursue, tends to reduce the history to fiction or myth. If the history be the imaginary filling in of a later age, how does it deserve the name of history } If it be all myth, gradually assuming defi- nite form, the historical basis is destroyed al- together, and the religion of Israel is mythology. If this be the case, Christianity can scarcely be dif- ferent in its nature. In conclusion, we charge radical criticism with being utterly false and unsci- entific in its historical methods. Are the critics of the present day likely to be better judges of the real history of those ancient times than those who lived and wrote at or near the period of the events } We only wish that space permitted the expansion of these points which have been merely mentioned. CHAPTER V. PARTICULAR HISTORICAL DEFECTS. In the last chapter some general historical tests were applied to the radical theory, and by this means it was found to be defective at several important points. In this chapter the historical criticism is continued, and some particular consid- erations are adduced in connection with the con- tentions of advanced criticism. In the first place, we allude to the testimony of Josephus, who lived about the middle of the first century of the Christian era. It is simply saying what all who have read the writings of this literary Jew, know, to remark that his view of the history and religious development of Israel coincides with the biblical theory. The same is true not only of the early Jewish opponents of Christianity, but also of its pagan assailants. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian agree in the main with Josephus in regard to the history of Israel. Josephus knows nothing of the modern radical theory, and seems in no degree to feel the need of reconstructing the history of Israel. His historical writings are indeed a commentary on the history of Israel, and of its national and religious life as de- [192] PARTICULAR HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 193 picted in the Scriptures. Now, Josephus was in a position to be as well informed as any man upon this subject. Surely he was better able to give an opinion than the critics of to-day, who live eight- een centuries later than he, and cannot possibly have any additional materials in their hands. How came this learned Jew to fall into a great error which remained undiscovered until modern critics found it out .-' We adduce the testimony of Jose- phus against the radical reconstructive code theory of the history, legislation, and ritual of Israel, and press the critics for an explanation of the facts in the case at this point. In the second place, we call special attention to the historical setting of the whole Mosaic religious system, and wish to point out how this tells against the hypothesis of the radical critics in general, es- pecially as to its contention that not until late in the history of Israel, and only by successive codes, did the system reach its complex maturity. Against the critics we contend that the complete legislation has its definite historical setting, according to which it looks back to Egypt and forward to Canaan. The people are out of Egypt, but not yet in Canaan, when the complete religious system is given them. The attempt of the critics to turn the edge of this contention by saying that the history has been thrown back has no sense or propriety in it. It is simply denying history, and rendering historical de- bate impossible. What would be the sense of 13 lO-L RADICAL CRITICISM. describing the people as not yet in Canaan, when as a matter of fact they had been there for centuries ? And wherein is the propriety of filHng in the history in later times in this peculiar manner, when as a matter of fact the whole is imaginary? Holding by the historicity of the wilderness ex- periences and doings, we quote a passage or two, to show that for all the three so-called codes this historical setting — out of Egypt, but not yet in Ca- naan — holds good. In Ex. 12 -.25, which is part of the literature of the covenant code, we read, ' ' And it shall come to pass when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service." In Deut. I : 8, which is part of the Deuteronomic code, according to the critics, that did not come into existence until the days of Josiah, we read, "Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers." Israel is not yet in Canaan. Will the critics rise and explain } Again, Lev. 14 : 34, which constitutes the central part of the Priestly code, and which the critics contend did not appear until about the days of Ezra, makes this remark- able statement : " When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession." Israel is not yet in Canaan, in Ezra's day. Will the critics rise and explain .-' Once more, in Num. 15:2, also a part of the literature of the Priestly code, we find this utterance : ' ' When ye be come PARTICULAR HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 195 into the land of your habitations which I give unto you." Israel is not yet in Canaan. Will the critics venture to explain these and many similar passages.'* These are only a tithe of the passages which might be quoted indiscriminately from the litera- ture of all the so-called codes, to show that when the complete Mosaic ritual and legal system was given, Israel was out of Egypt but not yet in Canaan. This tells with fatal effect against the notion of the three codes, different in contents, and far apart in time. It also tells against the opinion of the critics that the Mosaic system was a slow evolutionary product, only complete long after the people were in Canaan. The reply of the critics, to the effect that those historical allusions are not to be literally understood, we submit, is no answer at all. To say that these references to historical facts are merely the filling in of the story, or are interpolations, is simply to shirk the question, and make no reply. We therefore press the critics for an explanation of the well-defined historical setting of the complete Mosaic system. Till this on solid historical grounds is given, we shall hold still to the old biblical view. In the third place, the natural historical expla- nation of the reform under Josiah, and of the res- toration under Ezra is far more reasonable than the hypotheses of the advanced critics. We have already seen that radical criticism makes very much of these crises in the history of Israel. In 196 RADICAL CRITICISM. connection with both, an onward impulse was given to the rehgion of Israel, and the Deuteron- omic and Priestly codes then came into existence. Against all the elaborate reasoning and baseless speculation of the critics upon the events of these two great eras in the career of Israel, we maintain that the far more natural and simple view is to regard them to be what the terms ' ' reform " and ' ' restoration " signify. Instead of the reform in Josiah's day being a new religious era marked by the genesis of the Deuter- onomic code, it was simply a reform which led the people from idolatry back to the old paths of the religion of their fathers, which was contained in the " law given by Moses," and which embraced in its contents the entire system with its so-called three codes. To take any other view, raises need- less and endless difficulties. How can we reconcile with sound morality the supposition of the critics, to the effect that Hilkiah and others drew up the book, brought it to the king and pretended that it was found in the Temple .'' Then how came the king to be so deeply affected, if the document was merely a reform programme, and not the old law under which he knew that his fathers lived and prospered .'' And, again, how could Hilkiah and the king foist upon the people something so en- tirely new, without calling forth their opposition } It could scarcely be, even during the sixty years of idolatry in the reigns of the father and grandfather PARTICULAR HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 197 of Josiah, that all knowledge of the old law and its prescriptions had died out. If it had, the difficulty of bringing in an entirely new order of things would be very great ; yet no such difficulty appears on the part of the people. If there still remained some true, devout souls, then the bringing forth of the book and the institution of the reform according to its prescriptions would meet their approval. But to impose a new scheme upon such people would be almost sure to arouse opposition. The biblical view has the merit of being the simple and natural one, while the critical theory is burdened with diffi- culties from which it can afford no relief. So in reference to the restoration from the Exile in the dark days of Ezra. That Ezra and others produced during the Exile the elaborate Priestly code is an assumption for which no good proof is adduced. That the contents of that code did not exist prior to the Exile is not proved by the critics. The carrying away of the furniture and vessels of the Temple would seem to indicate that the ritual with which these things were associated was actually in force before the Exile. Then the whole history of the restoration looks as if the people were return- ing to the old order of things, which had been in- terrupted for the seventy years of exile. Indeed, a strong case might, in our judgment, be made out for the view that had the completed Mosaic ritual and legislation not existed prior to the Exile, it could not have been brought to its maturity during 198 RADICAL CRITICISM. that dark era ; and that, unless we presuppose the completed system of law and ritual, the restoration itself would scarcely have been possible. The critics can only give plausibility to their theories by treating these periods unnaturally, and by virtually ignoring plain, simple, historical narratives. But this is surely uncritical criticism ! In the fourth place, there are several clear his- torical facts which tell with much force against the radical explanation of the history of the Old Testa- ment. There are many of these which might be adduced, but we select only two as samples of the rest, and as showing how very unhistorical radical criticism actually becomes. The first case has reference to the choice of a king by Israel. This is found in Deut. 17 : 14-20, a passage too long to quote here, but which we ad- vise our readers to look into carefully. Here we have the directions given, before the people have entered Canaan, as to the choice of a king in after days, and advice set down for the guidance of the king. Now, mark that, according to the critics, this passage stands in the Deuteronomic code which they further tell us did not exist or come into force till near the time of Josiah, at least eight centuries after the people had been at Sinai. The absurdity is evident, unless we allow the critics to turn the history upside down. What would be the sense in giving rules about the selection of a king, and of telling the king what manner of man he should be, PARTICULAR HISTORICAL DEFECTS. 199 when the people already had had kings for three or four centuries ? We wait patiently for the critics' answer. The second illustration of the inversion of history, of which radical criticism is guilty, is in reference to the destruction of the Amalekites. In Deut. 25: 19, we have the command "to blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." Then in i Sam. 30, we have an account of the utter destruction of Amalek in the days of David. Now, mark again, that the command to blot out Amalek was given in what is part of the Deuteronomic code, which the critics place near Josiah's time, and the command has been completely fulfilled in the days of David, over three centuries before the age of Josiah. What would be the sense of giving a com- mand to destroy a people, when the people in ques- tion did not exist .'' We await the answer of the critics here with patience. We are aware of the attempts made by the radi- cal critics to turn the edge of such sharp criticism as these particular historic facts make of their theory. We know how they attempt to juggle with history, and turn chronology upside down. Ruled by the terms of their own theories, they do not hesitate to rule out history altogether, and re- construct the history or .allege interpolation. Re- jecting the natural biblical views of the religion and history of Israel on account of their supposed diffi- culties, they give us schemes which are far more 200 RADICAL CRITICISM. complicated, and require greater faith to accept. And, further, they overlook the fact that the reality of the history is always presupposed by the Psalms and Prophecy of later days. In these, the history itself is often recounted in a wa}' which is totally inexplicable on the critical basis. We hesitate not to charge radical criticism with being unhistorical while professing to be historical, and with being uncritical while claiming to be highly critical, and, above all, with giving us an ill-constructed scheme in which difficulties are made or magnified, and faith in the Scriptures placed under a severer strain than it can possibly be by the biblical theory. CHAPTER VI. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. Two chapters have been devoted to criticism of the philosophical aspects of radical theories of the religion of the sacred Scriptures, and two have dealt with some historical lines of examination bearing upon the soundness of these theories. We found in these chapters that the philosophy in- volved was defective, and that the radical theories of the critics would not stand the test of historical inquiry. With this chapter we enter upon other lines of examination, and take up, first of all, the docu- iiientary JiypotJicsis. We shall look at this hy- pothesis on its own merits, and consider also the use which radical criticism makes of this hypothesis in its support. In general, the critics maintain that the Old Testament books were not produced by single authors, but are composite productions, resulting from the work of compiling and recasting by successive hands, documents of various kinds which already existed. On a large scale, therefore, the documentary hypothesis is pressed into the service of the reconstructive theories. Into this [20I] 202 RADICAL CRITICISM. feature of radical criticism this chapter makes inquiry. In the first place, we beg to remind our readers of the source whence this hypothesis at first emerged, and of the use then made of it. In the history of radical criticism given in the open- ing chapters of this book, it was pointed out that we owe the documentary hypothesis in its complete form to Astruc, a physician at Paris. Whether he intended it or not, we find, and that without any protest from him, that this documentary scheme was used by infidelity to break down the integrity of the Scriptures, and to greatly lessen their di- vine authority by giving undue prominence to the human element in them. So we see that this hypothesis was born outside the Church, and for a time was the open foe of revealed religion. In our judgment, it still is, if not a secret enemy, at least a dangerous ally of evangelical views of revealed truth. In the second place, we take the position that advanced criticism makes far too much of the notion of various documents which are supposed to have been used very extensively by the authors of the sacred books. We are not concerned to deny that in some cases the authors of the sacred Script- ures may, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have used pre-existing writings or documents. This is possible, in our judgment, in the case of some of the writings of Moses. In the case of the books of THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. 203 Kings and Chronicles, it is much more hkely that their author, or authors, used previously existing documents. So perhaps in the Psalter we have there some sacred songs which were already extant, as we find some of these psalms, in substance, in the historical books. But what we contend for against radical criticism is the position that it makes far too much of the documentary hypothesis, and that it pushes what, at best, is an unproved assumption, to an extreme which cannot be justified by the facts in the case. We wish that we had space to illus- trate the method of the critics at this point. The reader will recall the symbols "J," "E," "JE," "D," "P," and " R, " each of which represents a dif- ferent series of documents, which, together, were finally wrought up into a composite whole. In this way, and in an almost entirely naturalistic manner, the Scriptures grew and grew till they reached their final stage. We here charge radical criticism with laying far too much stress on this hypothesis, and we simply demand proof clear and complete that such documents existed, and that they were used as largely by the authors of the various books of the Bible, as the critics supposed they were. Will the critics give the proof .-• In the third place, we take a step further, and allege that the procedure of the critics at this point is entirely superficial. It busies itself with the lit- erary form of the Scriptures, and reaches conclu- sions, not by presenting external proof but by the 204 RADICAL CRITICISM. exercise of subjective opinions. Perhaps we can do nothing better here than to give an illustration or two taken from Driver, who, though largely a fol- lower of Dillmann, cannot by any means be called an extremely radical critic, for he does not profess- edly discard belief in the supernatural. Let the reader open his Bible at Genesis 37, where the story of Joseph begins, and follow the analysis of Driver. From the middle of verse 2 to the end of verse 1 1 belongs to the document " E, " then from verse 12 to verse 21, we have an extract from the writing known as "J." From verse 22 to verse 24, "E" comes in again, to be followed by verses 25-27 from "J." Then will the reader specially note the docu- mentary analysis of verse 28. From the beginning of the verse down to the word "pit," we have " E ; " from " pit " down to ' ' silver, " " J " comes in ; then from " silver" to the end of the verse, we are assured that " E " is the source, as also it is of the passage on to the close of verse 30. To com- plete the analysis of the chapter, verses 31-35 are taken from " J, " and verse 36 reverts again to " E. " For another example, take the first two chapters of Exodus. Here i : 1-7 comes from " P ; " i : 8- 12 from " E ; " i : 13, 14 from " P ; " i : 15-22 from "E" again. So, also, 2: 1-23 to the word "died," in verse 23, is due to "E," and from "died" to the end of the chapter we find " P" again the source. As a concluding example, let the reader turn to Joshua 5-8, where Driver gives the THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. 205 following analysis : Here 5 : i belongs to a docu- ment known as "D2," verses 2, 3 to "J E," and verses 4-7 come again from " D.,, "while verses 8, 9 are from "JE." Then "P" appears, giving us verses 10-12, followed again by "J E," who com- pletes chapter 5, and gives us the whole of chapter 6. For chapter 7 "P" gives us verse i; "J E" verses 2-26. "J E" also provides us with chapter 8 : 1-29, and " Do" turns up to give us verses 30- 35 of this chapter. These illustrations will suffice to exhibit the docu- mentary methods of even moderate critics, and at the same time will go far to justify the charge we are now making against radical criticism, to the effect that it is entirely superficial. It might very properly be added that it is also entirely artificial. Could anything be more artificial than the manner in which Gen. 37 : 28 is analyzed. It is cut into three fragments, two of which come from "E," and one in the middle of the verse comes from "J." Then, too, we may not forget that the critics are not at all agreed as to the precise way in which the analysis of passages should be made. If we had space to compare half a dozen critics on any single passage, we would see more fully how superficial and artificial the whole procedure is. Each critic is a law unto himself, and when we seek to gather up " the assured results of modern scholarship," we find no results in which the majority of the critics are agreed. We believe that conservative criticism 20B RADICAL CRITICISM. has a splendid campaign before it at this point in the controversy if it will simply follow step by step the tracks of the critics, and show how superficial their work must of necessity be at every step. In the fourth place, we take the ground against radical criticism that, even if the Scriptures were composed after the manner which the critics allege, the proof of that fact cannot now be adduced. The critics can at this day only suppose the exist- ence of these various documents. They cannot tell us who their authors were, and what the circum- stances of their production. They only assume their existence, label these hypothetical documents with certain symbols and proceed with their critical processes. The Scriptures afford no clear proof of the existence, on such a large scale, of extant docu- ments, and still less is there proof that the authors of the sacred books used them in such a wholesale way as the critics assert. Now, surely the con- servative critics are not to be blamed for declining to join the radicals, at least until the latter give some reasonable proof for all they say about the documentary composition of the sacred Scriptures. Mere suppositions are not enough, nor will the unsupported opinion of a critic, no matter how boldly expressed, carry much weight until the re- liable historical evidence is forthcoming. This proof, we assert, is not presented by the critics, and from the nature of the case most of the evi- dence does not now exist. How absurd the claims THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. 207 of the critics really are, and how unlikely that their views shall permanently prevail ! The whole pro- cedure is far more like a product of the imagination than the result of sober criticism. In the fifth place, reasons can so far be given for the use of the divine names Jehovah and Elohim, without assuming distinct documents and different authors of these documents. We have already seen that the first hint of the documentary hy- pothesis was given to Astruc from the way in which these divine names were found in Genesis. Find- ing these names used separately and conjointly in certain passages, the conclusion was reached that there must have been separate documents from which the compiler of Genesis drew his mate- rials. The hint thus given was by other writers extended to the whole Pentateuch at least, and the existence and use of a great many documents \/as assumed by the critics. Now against this view it can be shown, with a good deal of certainty, that these names denote different aspects of the Divine Being, and that the name of the Almighty which occurs in any special passage agrees with the gen- eral subject matter of that passage. Hence, in the first chapter of Genesis we naturally expect Elohim, which denotes God as natural Creator, and in the second chapter we find Jehovah-Elohim, and see the propriety of this in the fact that besides the no- tion of Creator, the fact of revelation appears. So in the twelfth chapter, when the covenant is made 208 RADICAL CRITICISM. with Abraham, the name Jehovah alone properly appears. In this consistent usage of these names we have a natural explanation of the facts of which the documentary hypothesis gives us at best but a clumsy explanation, and one v/hich when pushed to its critical extreme is simply absurd. The hy- pothesis, therefore, is needless. In the last place, the literary anal3'sis of the documentary hypothesis, as proposed by radical critics, threatens to destroy the wonderful organic unity of the Scriptures. The fact of this unity has always been noticed. This very remarkable col- lection of writings, made by men of different ages, lands, and literary ability, has yet a most remarkable unity, which can be properly described by no other term than the word organic. Now we maintain against the critics that the literary dissection made by them threatens the organic life of the volume. Their procedure is as if a living body were placed on the table, and the lance of dissection applied to it. If the dissection be carried out, the life of the body is destroyed, and a corpse is the result. So with the radical critics and their literary methods as now before us. They take the Scriptures as a liv- ing organic unit, subject them to the dismember- ment of the lance of literary criticism, and the result is that the unity is broken, and the organic life is destroyed. In this way, one of the chief proofs of the divinity and inspiration of the book is destroyed, and it is virtually killed by the critics THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. 209 so far as it is the living word of God. We charge radical criticism with literary vivisection, so cruel that it theatens to destroy the organic divine life of the sacred Scriptures. The next chapter deals with the postulate of the three codes which is closely related to the documentary hypothesis. 14 CHAPTER VII. THE THREE CODES. Closely connected with the documentary hy- pothesis in the radical theory is the supposition of tlircc distinct legal and ritual codes in the com- pleted Mosaic system. This chapter proceeds to examine this supposition, which in various forms is an essential part of the radical schemes. In brief, as already explained in a former chapter, the hy- pothesis of the three codes presents the view that in mature Mosaism, as set forth in the early books of the Old Testament Scriptures, there are three distinct and different ritual and legal schemes which are diverse at several essential points, and which came into existence and observance at long inter- vals of time from each other. These are called the Covenant, the Deuteronomic, and the Priestly codes, respectively. This position of radical criti- cism at this point is to be examined in this chapter with some care. In the first place, we raise the question whether there are or ever were really three codes, different in their contents and belonging to ages widely apart from each other in time. Have the critics not as- sumed the three codes without good grounds } Has [210] THE THREE CODES. 211 radical criticism produced sufficient proof of its sup- position concerning the codes ? Are there such radical differences between these three so-called codes as to necessitate a distinctive origin for each ? And do the critics give satisfactory reasons for as- suming that the three codes came successively into existence with several centuries intervening be- tween them ? Much that has already been said in the chapter upon the historical defects of the radical theory, and upon the weakness of the documentary hy- pothesis, has force under this head. The critics actually make such an analysis of the literature as necessitates codification of the ritual, whereas if the natural historical view of the literature be taken, there will be no necessity for assuming the diverse and successive codes at all. Here again we call upon the critics to give us the proof of the assertion that there are, or ever were, three dis- tinct codes of law and ritual in force in Israel at different periods of its history. As proof we ask for something more than the opinion of the critic ; we demand the historical evidence which a matter of fact like this always should have for its support. Instead of interpreting the history in the light of three codes, we demand proof from the history to justify the assumption that there are three codes. In the second place, it may be shown that the so-called three codes, instead of being diverse and successive, so involve each other that they must be 212 RADICAL CRITICISM. held to be a unit and contemporaneous. To work this point out fully would require more space than we have at our command in this series of chapters. It would require a careful comparison, not only of the points of difference in the codes upon which the radical critics lay so much stress, but a com- parison of those resemblances which are of such a nature as to show that the codes involve each other. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the contents of the Covenant code were given first in order, and then, as the history of what took place at Sinai shows, the elaboration of what the critics call the Priest's code immediately followed .'' And, after the wilderness wandering was over, as the history again suggests, we find that the so-called Deuteronomic code was given, chiefly as a sum- mary of the other codes, but partly also embracing some new laws ; and the whole was given complete as a complex unit before the people entered Ca- naan at all. It clearly rests upon the radical critics to show that this is not the true state of the case. To assume the evolutionary theory of the develop- ment of the religion of Israel, which has been al- ready criticised, and then to assume that the three codes must have come into existence in the order of their complexity, and during a period of several centuries, is not to adduce proof of the existence and differences in these assumed codes. We de- mand the proof. THE THREE CODES. 213 This proof we have already found wanting, and so now we set aside the reasoning based on it in support of the hypothesis of the three codes in the Mosaic system. As in the doctrine of the Trinity, we have three persons in one essence, not three Deities, so in the rehgion of Israel we have three phases or stages of one divinely originated system of ritual and legislation, which so involve each other as to be incapable of actual separation, and which together constituted the ideal according to which the whole subsequent religious life and ac- tivity of Israel were to be framed. That they came short of this ideal many a time may be the sad fact, but this shortcoming by no means proves the non-existence of the ideal from the beginning. In the third place, we point out the fact that the radical critics are not at all agreed as to the order of succession in which the three codes came into existence. The strict Wellhausen school argue that the order is : Covenant code, Deuteronomic code, Priestly code. The first originated about the time of Moses ; the second near the days of Josiah ; the third sprang up at the era of the Exile. But there is a very influential school of critics represented by writers like Schrader, Dill- mann, and others, who give the order to be : Cove- nant, Priestly, and Deuteronomic codes. This view is fatal to the Wellhausen contention concern- ing the order of the codes as represented by Eng- 214 RADICAL CRITICISM. lish speaking critics like Driver and Cheyne. In this connection it is interesting to notice the fact that Klostermann, professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the University of Kiel, is recently out in a series of effective philippics against the extrava- gant results and indefensible critical methods of the Wellhausen School. Then, too, there is no suffi- cient agreement among the critics as to what ele- ments of the complete Mosaic system are to be assigned to each code, nor as to the precise rela- tions which subsist among the various strata of legislation which together make up mature Mosaism. So long as the critics continue to wage civil war among themselves, we need not be disturbed. We may wait with patience till the critics settle at least their main positions. The contention of Dillmann that the Deuteronomic code is last in order, is certainly a concession to the views of con- servative criticism, and the onslaught of Kloster- mann upon the main positions of the Wellhausen school, should certainly call a halt on the part of Anglo-Saxon critics, many of whom seem to have gone over, bag and baggage, to the Wellhausen camp. Perhaps we shall find after all, when the din of critical warfare has ceased, that ' ' the assured results of modern scholarship " are not so fully assured as was claimed, and that the conserva- tive critics are not only in full possession of the field but more firmly entrenched there than ever before. THE THREE CODES. 215 In the fourth place, assuming the historicity of the Old Testament narratives, it is possible to trace the existence of the Priest's code back from the days of Ezra, and of the Deuteronomic code back from the time of Josiah to the period of the con- quest of Canaan. This, again, is a position the proof of which cannot be exhibited at length in our present limits, but we believe that it presents a most effective line of criticism upon the hypothesis of the three codes, and so upon the very citadel of the radical critical theory. If the conservative critics begin with mature Mosaism at the time of Ezra, and by means of the historical allusions to the contents of the Priest's code found in the his- torical books, and also, by means of the writings of the prophets, are able to trace the Priest's code at least to a period prior to the date when the critics assert that the Deuteronomic code came into exist- ence, and when, of course, only the Covenant code existed, they have successfully assailed the critical theory of the three codes. This we firmly believe conservative criticism can do. Indeed, it has done so already in general terms, but the door is open for the conservatives to do still more effective work along this pathway then even Robertson, in his "Early Religion of Israel," has so ably done in the limits at his disposal in that treatise. Recent ar- ticles by Dr. W. Henry Green, of Princeton, are of much value in this connection. 216 RADICAL CRITICISM. The evasions of the critics, which they attempt to make again and again, to ward off the force of this hne of criticism, by denying the real historicity of the narratives accompanying the codes, is either unjustifiable, or suicidal. It is unjustifiable we fully believe, and utterly rash and foolhardy to jug- gle thus with the history under the intoxicating effects of a theory. But even if the critical treat- ment of the history be admitted as valid, we charge it with being suicidal, for the same reasoning which reduces the histor}^ to fiction or myth, will also re- duce the contents of the codes to the same category. Then assuredly the religion of Israel becomes myth- ology, and the historic basis of Christianity is for- ever destroj-ed. In the last place, we beg the radical critics to tell us how it came to pass that the people of Israel in successive ages, as the several codes came into existence, and the literature exhibiting them took its form, always attributed the whole to Moses and his age. In some way the people were led to believe that by him the laws of the several codes were enacted, by him the ritual of the codes in order was prescribed, and by him even most of the literature was put into definite shape. We ask for an explanation of these facts on the critical basis. It is evident that the name of Moses carried very great weight, and, we ask, how did it acquire all this authority, unless he had had far more to do with the genesis of the religion of Israel than the THE THREE CODES. 217 radical theory allows ? Passing by altogether the difficulty of literary imposture, which the critics are bound to face here, surely the natural explanation of the facts is that Moses was the medium by whom the complete system bearing his name was given by Jehovah to the people, and that to his hand we owe the main body of the writings which contain that system. This is the simple, natural view to which we believe that we may still adhere, while the critical theory of the codes is unnatural and hampered by endless difficulties. When will the critics be content with simplicity and natu- ralness .'' CHAPTER VIII. DEUTERONOMY. Having in the last chapter made a brief examina- tion of the hypothesis of the three codes, and hav- ing found that it was open to criticism at several vulnerable points, we proceed in this chapter to consider in a more definite way the book of Deuter- onomy, and to determine the place it really holds in the Mosaic system. The topic to be thus considered in this chapter is one of cardinal importance in the controversy between conservative and radical criticism. How is the book of Deuteronomy and the scheme of law and ritual which it represents to be understood .■* Is it the second stage in the development of the Mosaic system, which was the product of natural evolution of religion among the people of Israel, or is it a summary and recapitulation, with some slight additions, of the Mosaic legislation made by Moses on the eve of their entry into Canaan ? Radical criticism in a general way takes the former view ; and yet not with entire uniformity, as we have already seen. Then even these radical critics who hold, as the Wellhausen school does, that Deuternomic legislation only came into existence in [218] DEUTERONOMY. 219 Josiah's day, are by no means agreed as to the pre- cise mode by which it came into existence. Some are inchned to the view that it came suddenly into existence as a program of reform ; others prefer to hold that the legislation previously existed among the people as an oral code, and was reduced to written codified form shortly before the days of Josiah. Then as to the relation between Deuteronomy and its code and the Covenant code of the Jeho- vistic documents, the critics have not yet reached harmony of opinion. How much of the Covenant code is implied in the Deuteronomic, how far monotheism is due to the Deuteronomic code, and to what extent the Covenant code prescribed wor- ship only at one central sanctuary, are questions upon which criticism of the radical type has not yet given us its " assured results." To press this lack of agreement against radical criticism at this point is really a complete refutation of its conten- tions concerning the book of Deuteronomy, so that we might arrest our critique with having pointed out this fact. Still we may carry the war into Africa against radical criticism, and in this chapter we propose to examine some of its reasonings connected with the problem presented by Deuter- onomy. In the first place, assuming the real historical nature of the narratives contained in the book of Deuteronomy, we claim that the natural view to 220 RADICAL CRITICISM. take of it is that it is Mosaic, in the sense at least that it belongs to the age of Moses and took its complete form at least prior to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. The contents of the first chapter sound the historic keynote at this point. The repetition of the decalogue was the most natural thing in the circumstances, and the pre- sentation of the promises and the threatenings at the close of the book was entirely suitable to the status of the people when they were just about to enter the land of promise. We ask the critics to show any sort of plausibility in having these prom- ises and threatenings made after the people had been in the land for centuries, as their theory im- plies. The contention of the critics at this point that the ritual code did not exist at the time of the Con- quest, but that the history to which we have al- luded was written up in later times, and was projected back to fill up the narrative, is idle and absurd. We are getting tired of this absurd con- tention. If the history though written later re- cords the real process cf events, then it is real history, and it carries the code with it. The only escape from this conclusion is by attempting the impossible feat of separating the history and the ritual. If, on the other hand, the professed nar- ratives are fictitious, then there is an end of de- bate, and the whole is a work of ingenious fiction. DE UTER ONOMY. 221 In the second place, those laws which the critics say are peculiar to Deuteronomy are just such as we would expect to be given prior to the entrance of the people into Canaan. Then, further, there are laws which could have meaning to the people only in prospect of setting their feet in Canaan, as, for example, the division of the land among the tribes, and the regulations regarding landmarks. Then the strong words and severe punishment an- nounced regarding idolatry are most fitting, just as the people are about to come into contact with the Canaanites who are wholly given to idolatry. Moreover, these laws regarding idolatry are but an expansion and application of the first and second commands of the ten words, made at a most fitting time. So in like manner, the regulations regarding the cities of refuge have their natural explanation from the time of the Conquest rather than from the days of Josiah. Then, too, the laws regarding rulers and officers found in Deuteronomy, espe- cially the regulations concerning the choice of a king, are in their natural place on the eve of the establishment of the national life of the people in their own land. So all through the book we could go, making references which go to show that the legislation it contains fits the period of Moses and the Conquest far best ; and it would be made plain that to place it at the era of Josiah would render much of it ob::olete or meaningless. Conservative 222 RADICAL CRITICISM. criticism has a strong case at this point, and should follow it out. In the third place, the account which the critics give of the absence of ritual regulations in Deuter- onomy is by no means adequate, and can only be regarded as the product of a preconceived theory. We are told by the radical critics that the elabo- rate ritual of the Priestly code did not exist, since in the history of this period there are few references to it, and in Deuteronomy there is very little allu- sion to the elaborate details of the Levitical system. Hence, we are told that these details did not yet exist. The reader will at once perceive that this is really the argument a silcntio to which allusion was made in a previous chapter. It either proves noth- ing, or else it proves too much, as was then shown. Consequently, it does not follow that because there is little allusion to elaborate sacrifice and to the great annual feasts, therefore these things were not existent and obligatory. Even non-observance would not prove their non-existence, and so we see again that all this sort of reasoning is utterly un- worthy the name of sober criticism. But further, the code which was in force in connection with the elaborate Temple service could only be the Dcu- teronomic, for, according to the radical critics, the Priestly code did not exist till about the time of the Exile. And yet the critics tell us that this very code, being barren of frequent allusions to ritual details, proves that there was no elaborate ritual in DEUTERONOMY. 223 existence. Surely the far more natural view is to hold that the complete Mosaic system was in exist- ence, and observed more or less carefully from the first, and that as matters moved on in the even tenor of their way, there was no reason to be con- stantly emphasizing the details of the system, or giving annual accounts of its observance. The ab- surdity of the critical view is made all the more evident when we add to what has just been said, the fact that in originating the Priestly code at, or after, the Exile, with Ezekiel as the transition be- tween the Deuteronomic and Priestly codes, the critics are really preparing an elaborate code for a Temple all in ruins, for the first temple was de- stroyed at the beginning of the great captivity. In the fourth place, the contention of the critics that in Deuteronomy we first find insistence on wor- ship at one central sanctuary is not well founded. The spirit of the Covenant code as represented by the ten words is monotheistic, and looks to a cen- tral sanctuary. During the wilderness experience, and in the unsettled state of the nation throughout the period of the Judges, it may have been that this central place was a moveable one, but where the Ark and Tabernacle were, there was the place whither the people were to repair. Then, too, we challenge the critics to prove that previous to the appearance of the Deuteronomic code in the days of Josiah, as they say, idolatry was tolerated by any code, or that worship at a multiplicity of 224 RADICAL CRITICISM. shrines was enjoined. Neither the contents of the Covenant code nor the history of the period in the Jehovistic hterature affords any shadow of proof for the critical opinion on this point. In the fifth place, several other points, did space permit, could be dwelt upon to show how unten- able the radical view is on the topic now under notice. The wonderful unity of Deuteronomy, as is well shown even by Dillmann and Delitzsch, tells against the critics. The difficulty of smug- gling m the book and its code at the time of Josiah with no protest from the people is a serious mat- ter for the critics to account for. The serious dif- ficulty of providing an author who is as likely as Moses, is one which we may press against the critics ; and if he be not the author of the legisla- tion why has it his name } In a word, the critics are bound to prove the non-Mosaic genesis of Deuteronomy before they can establish their case. This they have not yet succeeded in doing. The critics are also bound to explain the differ- ence between the attitude of Deuteronomy toward Egypt and Edom, and the attitude of Hosea the prophet, who lived just about the time the critics tell us that the Deuteronomic code was taking definite shape as a. praxis among the people, toward these nations. The prophet and the Deuteronomist are in conflict, according to the critical theory, while according to the conservative DEUTERONOMY. 225 view there is no such conflict. Will the critics kindly explain ? In the last place, we believe that the existence of the main contents of Deuteronomy can be traced back from the days of Josiah to the period of the Conquest. This important task is effected by com- paring the contents of Deuteronomy with Kings and Chronicles at certain important junctures. The result of that comparison will appear to be that the allusions in the historical books are possi- ble only under the assumption that the contents of Deuteronomy already existed when the history of Kings and Chronicles was drawn up. Compare 2 Kings 14: 5, 6 with Deut. 24: 16; also 2 Kings II : 12 with Deut. 31 : 26, and also 2 Chron. 20 : 10 with Deut. 2:4-19, for examples of what we mean. We are sure that this is a rich mine which conservative criticism will do well to work up fully. The outcome of this work will assuredly be to show that if any reliance is to be placed on the historical books, Deuteronomy existed long before the time the critics assign for its origin. But enough, we trust, has been said to show that the critical view of the book and code of Deuteronomy cannot be successfully maintained. The next chapter will deal with the graded priestJiood. IS CHAPTER IX. THE GRADED PRIESTHOOD. The last chapter discussed the book of Deuter- onomy in its relations to the radical theory. It was found that the place and scope of this book, with its ritual and legislation, is incapable of proper explanation on the basis of the radical critical theory. The views of conservative criticism re- garding Deuteronomy were also shown to be much more natural and complete ; and, consequently, radical criticism has not yet made out a case against these views. This chapter takes up a somewhat different topic, of which the radical critics make a good deal. That topic is what may be called tJie graded priesthood. The question raised relates to the time and manner in which these grades or orders in the priesthood of the religion of Israel arose. Dominated by the principle of natural evolution, radical criticism holds that at first there were no such grades or orders in the priesthood as are denoted by the terms High Priest, Priests, and Levites, but that this gradation was a development of later times, and only to be found complete and definite in the Priests' code about the time of the [226] THE GRADED PRIESTHOOD. 227 Exile. We now proceed to examine this conten- tion, and to discover what truth, if any, there is in it. Now, if it can be shown that the graded priest- hood actually existed from the beginning of the national and religious life of Israel ; if it can be made plain that from the time of the conquest. High Priests, Priests, and Levites, all ministered in their appointed places, then radical criticism has its claim seriously weakened. In this chapter an attempt will be made to show how this may be done. Of course, in the space at our disposal, only a few hints can be given as to the lines which conservative criticism is to follow in its refutation of radical criticism at this point. Our first position is that we find the threefold distinction in the priesthood set forth in the book of Deuteronomy. Here we have Priests and Levites often mentioned, and, of course, the existence of the High Priest is uniformly assumed by the author of this book. We have space only to allude to a few passages. In the first verse of the eighteenth chapter we read, ' ' The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi. " The radical critics, of course, contend that this passage does not imply a graded priest- hood, and a great deal has been written by them upon the proper construction of the grammar of this passage. We are inclined to think that what follows in the same chapter settles the debate in favor of those who hold that we have here at least a distinction between priests and Levites. For the 228 RADICAL CRITICISM. third verse tells what the priest's due is to be, and verses 6-8 tell us how the Levites are to be pro- vided for. That the High Priest existed at this time may be assumed, from the nature of the case and from the history which is to be considered under another head. In the 5th verse of the 2ist chapter we have the expression: "The priests, the sons of Levi." In chapter 26, verses 3, 4, we find the phrase : "The priest that is in those days." Then in verses 12, 13, of the same chapter, we have the Levite alone mentioned. Such passages clearly mark a distinc- tion between the priests and the Levites, though all were of the tribe of Levi. In chapter 27, verse 9, we have " Moses and the priests, the Levites " spoken of. Here the Levites are commanded to speak to the people by Moses. Again in the 9th verse of the 31st chapter we read that " Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord. " From these passages, the natural inference is that at the time of the Deuteronomist, even if we take the critical view that this was about the time of Josiah, we find that the graded priesthood had assumed definite form. We are well aware of the various evasions of the critics at this difficult point, yet we are inclined to think that these evasions only make the problem more difficult, and so afford no relief, and consequently we are justified in still maintaining the conservative views. THE GRADED PRIESTHOOD. 229 In the second place, special provision was made from the beginning for the support of the tribe of Levi, and priests and Levites were each to have their particular means of sustenance. This tribe was given no definite inheritance in the land, but certain cities in it were set apart for their occu- pancy. And from the sacrifices certain portions were to be given to the priests and Levites, and the tithes in part were for the same purpose. An- other thing is important here. As one reads the regulations about the priests and Levites and con- cerning their support in Deuteronomy, the implica- tion often seems to be made that another complete system of rules such as is found in Numbers and Leviticus, already existed. It is only on this sup- position that some passages seem to be intelligible. This, if the case, would presuppose the existence of the Priest's code prior to that of Deuteronomy ; and the force of this would lead to the conclusion that mature Mosaism, including the graded priest- hood, existed among the people from the conquest. This assumption, we are sure, explains the limited references in Deuteronomy to details of priesthood and ritual much more naturally than the hypothesis of non-existence, when there is little or no allusion to this matter in the writings in question. In the third place, in the historical books, we find frequent references to certain well defined dis- tinctions in the Levitical orders. In Joshua and Judges, as well as in the later historical books giv- ing us an account of the condition of things in the 230 RADICAL CRITICISM. days of the early kings, we find these references. The existence of the High Priest from the first is undoubted. Aaron stands first in order, and the account of his installation must be regarded as his- torical, and not a fiction of Ezra's time when the Priests' code is supposed to have arisen. He, ac- cording to Deut. lo : 6, was succeeded by Eleazar, his son, in the priest's office. Then, in Joshua 14:1, we find this same Eleazar side by side with Joshua distributing the land among the tribes after the conquest. In the last verse of the last chapter of Joshua, we find that Eleazar was succeeded by his son Phinehas. Then the links are wanting, but we find Eli later on, and Abiathar and Zadok and others mentioned, which would indicate the exist- ence of the line of succession more or less defi- nitely. In like manner if we follow out the historical books, we shall find that the priests and the Levites are often mentioned. In Joshua, in cross- ing the Jordan, the priests bore the ark, and in the capture of Jericho the priests marched around the city. In Joshua 21 : 1-8, we have the habitations of the Levites described. The first verse reads thus: "Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites unto Eleazar the priest, and unto Joshua the son of Nun." Then follows the ac- count of the homes of the sons of Aaron in order as Levites. Indeed this whole chapter should be read in this connection. In short, the historicity THE GRADED PRIESTHOOD. 231 of the books of Joshua and Judges must be im- pugned, or else we are bound to admit that the graded priesthood was a fact at the time of the Conquest. Hence the frantic effort of the radical critics to get rid of the verdict of this history against their theories is readily understood in view of this consideration. To follow out this line fully is a very important task for conservative criticism to perform. In the fourth place, if the Tabernacle existed, as we shall show in a subsequent chapter it did, and if the elaborate sacrificial system was in vogue, as we have shown, and shall yet show more fully that it was, then this carries with it the existence of the graded priesthood. And this for the simple reason that for the administration of this completed system, the services of the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levites were all needed. To have an elaborate ritual without the officers to administer it, is un- natural and absurd. From the history of the books of Joshua and Judges, we could again make good this position, and show that the religious system then in vogue needed, as the history also states that it had, a graded priesthood. As this point comes up in another chapter, and for a different purpose, we need add nothing more at this stage. In the fifth place, the contention of the radical critics that any of the Levites at first could officiate as priests, and that it was only by degrees that the idea of three grades or orders arose, is entirely un- 232 RADICAL CRITICISM. founded. To say, as some of the Wellhausen School do, that there was no High Priest till later times, is to go in the face of the history of the books themselves. To satisfy us that any priest could step in and at his own pleasure act as priest, cer- tainly needs much more proof than has yet been given for it. And, further, what has been already said in reference to the separation of these orders from the first, and the separate provision for their support, all tells against the critics' contention, so that this, too, may be set aside. The case of the Danite, who took a Levite and made him his priest, proves nothing to the point in favor of the critical viev/, for this strange proceeding was irregular, and arose in a period when the nation was in a dis- turbed condition. If it means anything, it means that certain distinctions between the Levites al- ready existed. In the last place, we emphasize the familiar point that the radical view regarding a graded priesthood and the way in which it developed in Israel, is the product of the evolutionary principle which is applied to this particular topic. According to this principle, the simple is first, and the complex last, in the order of development. Here there was a simple condition without gradation at all at first, but by degrees the differentiation took place and the complex graded priesthood was produced. In previous chapters, the inadequacy of this principle to explain the main factors in the religion of Israel THE GRADED PRIESTHOOD. 233 was pointed out. We simply fall back on these discussions to make effective our criticism at this point. Again and again we have seen that the simple historical view of the history and religion of Israel is the natural one. Theories, not facts, rule in the methods of the radical critics. There is a solemn propriety in the fact that some of the radical critics have in recent years been writing articles and mak- ing eloquent addresses in which they exalt the use of the imagination in Higher Criticism. Judging from what we have seen in our critique even thus far, the radical critics certainly do exercise the imagina- tion more than the understanding, and the fancy is far more frequently brought into play than the judgment. CHAPTER X. THE TABERNACLE. We now pass from the priesthood to the Taber- nacle and the Ark. In doing so we come to a very interesting topic in itself considered, and to one concerning which radical criticism has a good deal to say. Moreover, this criticism finds the Taber- nacle and its services a rather hard problem to solve. As a matter of fact it supplies a definite concrete object and a fully developed ritual which must puzzle even the imagination of the critics. If it can be shown that the Tabernacle and its service actually existed from the early stages of the religious history of Israel, radical criticism is virtu- ally refuted at an exceedingly important point, for it is with the Tabernacle that the most complex sacrificial system and ritual service is associated. In taking up this theme, we shall first note how futile some of the attempts made by the critics to explain the Tabernacle and its service, really are, and then we shall show positively that the facts associated with the Tabernacle tell against the radi- cal theory most seriously. First, let us note some things which the critics have to say. They are bound to face the problem, [231] THE TABERNACLE. 235 and the feats of critical gymnastics which they per- form in deahng with it are somewhat entertaining. We note one or two with the utmost brevity. First : the view that there may have been an Ark, but that there was no Tabernacle in early times is not well founded. This critical view maintains that there was only a tent called ' ' the tent of meeting" at first, and it was not till later times, in the Priest's code, that the Tabernacle appeared. The account in Exodus is perfectly natural, if we take into account the incident of the golden calf. Because of this defection, Moses moved his tent to a distance, and this was "the tent of meeting." In due time the Tabernacle proper was prepared according to the divine model shown to Moses in the Mount. Then this Taber- nacle can be traced historically during the wilder- ness era, and then into Canaan, and for a long period there. Consequently, the Tabernacle is not an expansion of " the tent of meeting," but a com- plete structure from the beginning, and it had a continuous history till it was merged into the Temple. Secondly: the claim of radical criticism in certain quarters that the Tabernacle was a reproduction of the Temple in miniature, is utterly groundless. This supposition puts the Temple before the Taber- nacle. This view is so absurd that it is scarcely worth while to take time to refute it. It is utterly opposed to the history alike of the Tabernacle and 236 RADICAL CRITICISM. the Temple; it is inconsistent with the evolutionary principle which radical criticism applies to the development of the religion of Israel, for it puts the more elaborate Temple service before that of the Tabernacle; and finally it places the Tabernacle at the time of the Exile, a period when the Ark dis- appears entirely from the history, and the history itself tells us of the rcbuildijig of the Temple in- stead of the construction of the Tabernacle. Thirdly : the contention of the radical critics that the history of the Tabernacle has been projected backward in time is without any good reasons in its support. The Mosaic origin of the Tabernacle is far harder to disprove than the Mosaic authorship of the books which tell us about it. Even though it be made out that another hand, or series of hands has written the account of the Tabernacle, it would not follow that the Tabernacle itself and the legislation connected with it were not Mosaic. Then we may not forget that the reality of the his- tory is so definite that it can only be the stress of a preconceived theory that drives radical criticism to manipulate the history as it does. In the second place, we now proceed to deal with some things of a positive nature connected with the Tabernacle which together make up a severe verdict against radical criticism. Our space permits us to mention only a few of these briefly. First : it is worth while to note the fact that the description of the make-up of the Tabernacle, and THE TABERNACLE. 237 the directions concerning its transportation were best suited for the wilderness career of the people. So far as the history of it is concerned, this is just what we find. It was made so that it could be easily taken down and set up; it was actually carried from place to place in the wilderness, and afterwards brought through Jordan to Canaan in the days of the judges. Then later on the Ark was at Shiloh and other places in Canaan for a time, and it is reasonable to suppose that the Tab- ernacle and its service was associated with the pres- ence of the Ark in those places. To argue, as the critics do, that the Tabernacle and its service was a later product, coming into existence, long after the people were settled in Canaan and perhaps after the Temple of Solomon was built, is certainly rowing against the stream. No wonder, therefore, that these critics are inclined to regard the whole experience of the people in the wilderness as mythical. Secondly : we remark that to give the idea of the Tabernacle a late origin is to invert the whole or- der of the development of the religious life of Israel and to reduce it to utter confusion. Of course, it is entirely out of harmony with the con- servative view of this development, which main- tains that the complete Mosaic system of ritual and legislation was the ideal before the people from the first. This view is also out of harmony with the main principles of the radical theory for it puts 238 RADICAL CRITICISM. the Tabernacle service subsequent to the Temple, while the latter was much more elaborate than the former ; and according to the natural evolutionary principle the more elaborate should come last in the order of time. Consequently, the radical the- ory is not only lacking in self-consistency, but is out of harmony with any reasonable view of the religious development of Israel. Thirdly : the Tabernacle would really be of no use after the Exile, at which time radical criti- cism would have us believe that its idea came into existence. This criticism entirely overlooks the real historical conditions of the Exilic period. Previous to the Exile the Temple ritual, which was simply an expansion of the Tabernacle service, had been in vogue for centuries ; the second Temple was built in connection with the Restoration, and the natural inference is that matters would soon settle down to the status of the period before the Exile. This would bring in the Temple ritual in its substantial form. Now in these circumstances, we simply ask. What was the use of the Tabernacle .-* In the settled state in Canaan there was no need for it ; nor could it have a place in the religious life and observance of the people at that time. It was out of season ; and so radical criticism has on its hands a complete Tabernacle which was useless and all out of date. Then, too, the fact already alluded to in this chapter in reference to the absence of any notice of the Ark after the Exile, has force THE TABERNACLE. 239 here again. The main purpose of the Tabernacle was to contain the Ark of the testimony. If this Ark, as is generally admitted now, was not in exist- ence at all at that time, what was the use of the Tabernacle .-' Again, it was useless, and here again ; radical criticism, as so often, gives us the shell without the kernel. These points must be met by radical criticism, and we demand a proper explana- tion before we can allow the radical theory to be propounded without challenge. Fourthly : the history, at certain great junctures of the nation, makes it clear that the Tabernacle existed in early times. The account of the cross- ing of Jordan in the days of Joshua is very clear and definite. The account of the removal of the Ark to Jerusalem by David is of as decided a historical nature as anything could possibly be. And even if no distinct mention is made that the Tabernacle then existed, the view that time had virtually brought it into decay, may be as good a reason for its seeming absence in David's day as the supposition that it did not exist at all till many years after. So in Solomon's day the history is equally clear. We simply demand of the critics a satisfactory explanation of these historical facts. We shall not be content with any fictitious account of the history, for if the history be fiction, what is to become of the doctrines .'' Are they fiction also } Then, above all, we claim that it would simply be impossible for any scribe, living in the time of 240 RADICAL CRITICISM. Josiah and Ezra, to write up the history in a purely fictitious way. The details of names, places, and dates are far too great for any such mode of pro- duction. It really requires more faith to believe that such a thing is possible in a purely natural way than to believe in the supernatural genesis of the complete Mosaic system. Fifthly : the ritual of mature Mosaism was con- nected v/ith the Tabernacle, and so if we find the Tabernacle extant at as early a date as the Con- quest, then it is reasonable to conclude that the complete Levitical code was then in existence. The ritual of the day of atonement, the require- ments of all the annual feasts, the details of cleans- ing from various forms of uncleanness, and the complex legal code were all connected with the Tabernacle and the Ark which it contained. This gave a single sanctuary as the law of the religious system from the beginning. And when we find, as we do, that the Tabernacle is alluded to in the literature of all the so-called codes, there is surely good reason for concluding that all these codes existed from the first, and are to be regarded as a complex unit, and not a series of successive codes increasing in complexity and coming into existence gradually. The force of this argument will be made much greater after we discuss in the next chapter the great feasts of the Mosaic system. We now content ourselves with pointing out the fact that the Tabernacle existed from early times THE TABERNACLE. 241 in Israel, and with indicating the view that the mature ritual and sacrificial system of the people were associated with the Tabernacle, and hence must have really existed from the first. In closing this chapter, we remark that it is evi- dent that the argument from the Tabernacle and its ritual, tells with terrible effect against radical criticism. The effort of that criticism to account for the Tabernacle and all that pertained to it in harmony with its theory, must be pronounced a signal failure, while conservative criticism has little difficulty in keeping possession of the field with a reasonable explanation of all the facts in the case. The apostle in Hebrews tells us that "there was a Tabernacle made," and there it stands as a perpetual challenge to radical criticism. CHAPTER XI. THE GREAT FEASTS. From the consideration of the Tabernacle and the priesthood, we pass in this chapter to a brief study of the great feasts of the Mosaic system, and our endeavor will be to examine, in as careful a manner as our limits allow, the views and theories of advanced critics upon this particular subject. It need scarcely be remarked in entering upon this topic, that we have before us a large and diffi- cult subject. For those who wish to pursue study at length on this topic we know of no better guide than the able and learned discussion of it in "The Hebrew Feasts," by Dr. W. Henry Green, of Princton, N. J., than whom there is no more com- petent scholar at the present day in the Old Testa- ment field. The advanced critics claim that from the way the Jewish feasts are spoken of in the different so- called codes, there are many things to support their theories and conclusions. They point out the fact that certain of these feasts are barely mentioned in the Deuteronomic code, and that the ritual of the great day of atonement is described only in what is called by the critics the Priests' code. From this [242] THE GREAT FEASTS. 243 it is argued that the elaborate system of feasts in the religion of Israel did not exist from the first, but came gradually into existence among the peo- ple. These feasts as they finally appeared were not Mosiac in their origin and contents, but were the product of later religious development among the people, which became complete only about the time of the Exile. In support of this radical view the critics are not content to reason merely from the allusions to these feasts in the Scriptures. The critics take us on interesting excursions among pagan customs, and describe to us in a very eloquent way how these Jewish feasts are to be understood as natural developments from various nature festivals. These feasts thus rest largely upon a natural agricultural and pastoral basis, and may all be traced back, so the critics assure us, to the customs of the tribes who dwelt in Canaan before them. By a simple and natural process these festivals were transferred from Baal and other deities to Jehovah, and as worship was gradually centralized in one place, these feasts gradually assumed their distinct Jewish forms. The germs of this result are found in Deu- teronomy, but the complete development only ap- pears in the days of Ezra. In making criticism of the radical position in regard to the great feasts, we shall follow two lines, dwelling chiefly on the second of these. We shall first examine the natural explanation of the feasts 244 RADICAL CRITICISM. given by the critics ; and secondly, we shall en- deavor to show that the critical contention is not supported from the contents of the Scriptures, even if we allow that there are three codes in the Old Testament literature. In regard to the first line of inquiry we need not say very much. It will be observed that the crit- ical procedure here consists simply in applying the principle of natural evolution to the development of the feasts of Israel's religion. According to this principle, simple nature festivals, connected with vintage and harvest, gradually grew into the elab- orate ritual of the great Jewish feasts. Now we allege here that the critics adduce no sufficient proof of their position at this point. They simply assume that the religion of Israel was a simple, nat- ural product like other religious systems, and then make the transition from the customs of the Canaanites to the festivals of the Israelites without any adequate historical basis on which to stand, and without adducing any sufficient facts to prove their position. If what we have said in a former chapter on the philosophy of religion be recalled, it will serve as a complete refutation of the critical claims at this important point. Even if we admit that the Jewish feasts were associated with certain processes in nature, it by no means follows that there was no supernatural element in them, or that they were not unique in their nature. THE GREAT FEASTS. 245 But we proceed to the second point, and seek to show that the true view of the great feasts tells against the critical theory rather than in favor of it. Our readers will remember that the annual feasts of the Israelites were seven in number, and they were divided into at least two cycles. They were the following : The Passover, followed closely by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets or New Moon, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and a Solemn Assembly at the close of the Feast of Tabernacles. We cannot speak of all of these in this chap- ter, so we select three of the most familiar and im- portant of the seven, and discuss their bearing on the views of advanced criticism. These three are the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles. This gives us really the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, with which we are made familiar both in Old Testament and New. Just a word may be said in explanation of these three great annual feasts. The Passover originated in connection with the departure from Egypt, and was observed in memory of the deliverance of the people from the house of bondage. The Feast of Weeks, or, as it is usually termed in the New Testament, the Day of Pentecost, was fifty days after the Passover. This feast was at the end of harvest, and consisted mainly in an 246 RADICAL CRITICISM. offering of the first fruits of the harvest, in various forms, unto the Lord. The Feast of Tabernacles came five days after the Day of Atonement. There seem to have been two elements in this feast. First, the dwelling of the people in booths in memory of the wilderness journey, and, secondly, the ingathering of the fruits. It was thus the harvest-home of Israel. Now it is contended by radical critics that these various feasts were late products of the religion of Israel, and that they grew gradually out of old customs connected with the season of the year, and the products of agriculture. They were nature festivals transformed into definite religious rites. Two of these — Pentecost and Tabernacles — were associated with harvest, the one at the beginning and the other at the close of the ingathering. If any Jewish feasts are capable of being explained, as the radical critics contend ; and if any can be shown not to have come into existence until late in the history of the Jews, these are the ones. Hence, if we make inquiry concerning these, and can show that the}^ existed from early days, a good case is made out against the radical critics. Unless history be turned upside down, this can be easily shown from the sacred records themselves. In the first place, the argument from silence proves nothing, or it proves too much, regarding the feasts just as we have already seen in regard to other things in this discussion. If in the Covenant THE GREAT FEASTS. 247 and Deuteronomic codes we do not find much con- cerning some of these feasts, it does not follow that they did not exist. This point has been so elaborated in a former chapter, concerning another matter, that it need only be mentioned here. It may be well to add, however, that if silence, or absence of mention in the history of Israel of anj^ rite or ceremony, proves anything, it would be hard to prove that the Day of Atonement was ob- served till some time after the days of Ezra. From allusions in other parts of Scripture, it is clear that this solemn feast was observed. Hence, the assumption of the critics concerning the silence of the historical narrative proves too much, and that is the same as proving nothing in this case. In the second place, each of the feasts, accord- ing to the biblical view, has a definite time set for its origin and observance. The Passover was the fourteenth day of Nisan, Pentecost was fifty days after, and Tabernacles at the close of harvest. In this connection it is well to remember the com- memorative nature of these feasts, which gives still clearer definiteness in time to the origin of these feasts according to the biblical view. According to the advanced critical theory, all is vague and in- definite. The critics cannot tell us definitely, nor do they agree in their views, as to the time and circumstances of the origin of these feasts, if they are the product of natural development. At this point, therefore, the critical theory so lacks defi- 248 RADICAL CRTTTCISM. niteness that when compared with the bibhcal account, it fails to commend itself as based on his- torical fact, or as a proper explanation of the facts. In the third place, the purpose of the feasts is more fully and naturally explained according to the bibical view, and this again tells strongly against the radical theory. The main purpose of the Pass- over was to commemorate the wonderful way in which the Lord, by a high hand, brought the peo- ple out of Egypt. We would naturally expect that as such it would date from the time of that deliverance. The radical theory which makes it later, has really no reason in it, for what sense would there be in beginning to observe this great event in the history of the people centuries after its occurrence } So in regard to the commemorative element in the Feast of Tabernacles, which re- lated to the wilderness wandering. There is no reason in the view of radical criticism which gives this also a late origin centuries after the era of that wandering. We would expect just what the bib- lical view presents, and that is its observance from the first. So m regard to the harvest element in Pentecost and Tabernacles. It is not reasonable to suppose that the people had gone on gathering harvests for centuries in Canaan before these ele- ments came into existence. We would expect them from the first. And, moreover, we find har- vest elements in these feasts in their mature form. If these feasts grew out of old nature festivals, we THE GREAT FEASTS. 249 would expect these elements to have been largely eliminated. Then, too, there are some feasts, es- pecially the Passover and Day of Atonement, in which there are no signs of nature factors, and to which there is nothing similar in any of the customs of the Canaanites of which we know an3'thing. In the fourth place, it would be easy to show, did space permit, that these feasts existed by di- vine appointment from the Mosaic era. By the history, by the prophets, by the Psalms, by the New Testament allusions, this could be made per- fectly plain. We would, instead of following out these several lines at length, refer our readers to Dr. Green's " Hebrew Feasts " for further discussion of this subject, and for refutation of the radical critical theory. Our conviction is that a careful study of these feasts will show that the radical theory introduces disorder into the sequence of the feasts, does injustice to the Mosaic system, and utterly ignores the history which they imply. In a word, the feasts are a puzzle on the radical critical theory. CHAPTER XII. THE PROPHETS. In this chapter we have to consider a topic of great importance in itself, and of deep significance in relation to the modern critical views under de- bate in this little work. What is the precise place and function of the prophetic order in the religion of Israel, and what is the relation of the prophets to the law and ritual of the Mosaic system, are questions earnestly discussed by bib- lical scholars at the present day. We would natu- rally expect that such a subject should be taken hold' of by the radical critics in support of their peculiar theory. We have already seen what position radical criti- cism assumes in regard to the prophets and their work. In general, the critics contend that the prophets came before the fully developed Mosaic law and ritual arose, and by their influence much v/as done to produce ethical monotheism, and to pave the way for worship at one central sanctuary. Moreover, the critics of the radical school usually minimize the predictive element in the prophetic writings, and some of them are bold enough to deny this element altogether. The critics, also, [250] THE PROPHETS. 251 in order to make their views plausible, seek to bring much of the prophetic literature down to later times, on the ground that in the early stages of the religious life of Israel such maturity of relig- ious ideas as is found in the prophetic writings, could not have existed among the people. The main point now to be considered is the re- lation of the Prophets to the Law. Which was first in order ? Did the law exist first, and was the great work of the prophets to keep the people in obedience to this law, or call them back when they went astray from it ? Or, did the prophets precede the law, in its mature form at least } And was the great work of the prophets to originate among the people ethic monotheism, and to de- velop worship at one sanctuary, and so prepare the way for mature Mosaism in the days of Josiah and Ezra ? The latter is the view of radical critics. The former is the view we propose to defend against them. We can only suggest a few lines of remark without following out any one of them at length. In the first place, the assumed silence of the prophets, even if true, would not establish the con- clusions of advanced criticism. This is the argu- ment, a silcntio again ; and, as we have noted its invalidity at other points, we need only mention it here. Even if in the days of the prophets the law was not observed, it does not follow that it was not then binding, and, of course, existent, for declen- 252 RADICAL CRITICISM. sion and apostasy may often have been the ex- planation of its non-observance ; and, even when uniformly observed by the people, there was no need that the prophets should formally and re- peatedly be expounding the contents of a law regularly observed. In either of these cases we would scarcely expect to find anything else or any- thing more than we do in the prophetic utterances. The great stress, therefore, v/hich the critics lay on the silence of the prophets, even if true to the ex- tent they represent, would not justify them in plac- ing the prophets prior to the law. In the second place, if the principle of natural development be relied on, as it is so largely by the radical critics, then these critics must face the dif- ficulty of showing how the law in its mature form developed from the prophets and what they taught. Let it be remembered that the critics emphasize that some of the early prophets seem to lift up their voices aloud against elaborate ritual and sacrifice, for the purpose of showing that the mature Mosaic ritual did not exist in their day. Now we simply ask the critics how, on their naturalistic principles and in accordance with the view they give of the attitude of the prophets toward ritual, any devel- opment in the direction of an elaborate ritual sys- tem could possibly have taken place. If the prophets are opposed to elaborate ritual, how could they have aided in producing mature Mosaism, which has a complete ritual and sacrificial system THE PROPHETS. 253 contained in it. The view that the law was first with its complete ritual is much more natural. It is easier to explain the prophets from the law, than the law from the prophets. This position is of vi- tal importance in the discussion. In the third place, the burden of the prophetic message oftentimes was to call the people back to an old and neglected law. To quote the passages which bear upon this point would be to take up the space of a whole chapter. Amos, Joel, Hosea and Isaiah abound in these passages. Jeremiah also has many things which show how the people had declined from the early ideal, and how he earnestly called the people back. In Hosea alone there is more than enough to refute the contentions of the radical critics at this point. The figure of the un- faithful spouse, and the earnest calls to this spouse to return to her first proper affection, illustrate the function of the prophets in the age prior to Josiah about one hundred and twenty years, and before the days of Ezra fully three hundred years. From such facts as these, scattered all through the pre- exilian prophets, the conclusion is evident that the mature Mosaic system of law and ritual existed prior to the prophets, and before the date given by radical critics for the origin of the Deuteronomic and Priestly codes. In other words, it is impos- sible to interpret the prophets unless we assume the existence of the complete legal and ritual sys- tem. The prophets did not profess to be pro- 254 RADICAL CRITICISM. pounding some new way, but were calling the wayward people back to the old forgotten paths of their fathers. The meaning of all this is that the fully developed ritual was prior to the prophets, instead of the reverse as the critics contend. In the fourth place, we find in the pre-exilian prophets frequent allusions to the deliverance from Egypt, and to the history of the people of Israel as recorded in the historical books, and that as they stand in the Old Testament without recon- struction by the critics. The radical theory con- cerning the place and functions of the prophets cannot be harmonized with the history found in Kings and Chronicles. Hence, the critics maintain that the history must be reconstructed in accord- ance with the terms of their theory regarding the prophets. But this is surely unnecessary if we can harmonize another and simpler view of the pro- phetic writings with the contents of the historical books. Hence, the conclusion may be securely held against radical criticism that the prophets presuppose the history just as it stands. The historical allusions so abundant in the prophetic writings would have no meaning according to the radical views of certain critics. And this is true not only of the historical references to the people of Israel, but, also, of the many allusions found in the prophets to the history of the surrounding na- tions. If the radical theory of the prophets be held, violence is done to the history. But when THE PROPHETS. 255 mere theory comes into conflict with historic facts, we prefer to hold by the facts and shape our theory accordingly. We commend this line of refutation of radical criticism to the attention of those who would follow it out at length. In the fifth place, we find the prophets of the centuries prior to the Exile insisting on worship at a single central sanctuary. Even the prophets of the northern kingdom, like Hosea and Amos, do this. Now the radical critics contend that in this we are to find the germ of that worship at a single sanctuary which is set forth in the Priests' code. In our judgment, the far more natural view is that the fact of worship at one central shrine was the law from the first, that the people often forgot this, and worshiped where they ought not to have ren- dered such service, and that the great task of the prophets was to call the people back to the ideal of days gone by, which implied that the worship of the people was to be rendered to one God at one central sanctuary, and that was where the Taber- nacle was planted, and where the Temple in later days was built and furnished. In the sixth place, we contend that the prophets did not originate ethic monotheism, as the critics assume. They simply taught on this subject what was more or less definitely the historical faith of the people from the Mosaic era. The Covenant code very distinctly announced monotheism with which ethical ideas were necessarily connected. This 256 RADICAL CRITICISM. ideal expressed in the ten commandments was the ideal of the people from the first. They may often have fallen far short of the ideal, but it was ever be- fore them. When they fell into idolatry, the people were punished, pardoned, and restored. Now, the great work of the prophets in this connection was not to generate ethic monotheism, but to call back the people in the name of God and by his authority to the ideal of ethic monotheism to which they were committed from the beginning of their remarkable career. Even a cursory reading of the prophets will confirm this view. In the seventh place, the contention of the critics in certain quarters that the prophets could not have lived and written as early as the conservative view holds that they did, because of the advanced ideas they exhibited, is ill-founded. Ultra-radical critics make much of this point in seeking to discredit the contents of the prophetic writings. But a moment's reflection will show the absurdity of this view. Take the ideas expressed in those Psalms which are Davidic in origin and produced three hundred years before the early writing prophets, and note the deep and intense religious ideas and expressions found in these Psalms. Take the book of Job, which in spite of the critics, may still be held to be of great antiquity, and note the lofty religious con- ceptions presented therein. Or take the songs of Moses, as found in the 90th Psalm, and in the clos- ing chapters of Deuteronomy, and who shall say THE PROPHETS. 257 that even the greatest of the prophets have risen to loftier heights of rehgious thought and expression than we find in these songs. Of course, when the critics proceed to tell us that these songs were not uttered by Moses, but put in his mouth by men of centuries later, we simply demand ample proof for such a preposterous assumption. To argue to what actually was, from what the critics think ought to have been, is simply absurd. In the last place, the pre-exilian prophets abound in allusions to the details of the mature Mosaic law to such an extent and in such a manner, that we are simply shut up to the conclusion, that, when they wrote, the complete Priests' code was already in existence among the people. In Hosea, in Amos, in Joel, in Isaiah, and in Jeremiah, all of whom lived and wrote before the days of Ezra, and most of whom date prior to Josiah, we find al- lusion to the priesthood, to the sacrifices in detail, to the one sanctuary, to the distinction between the clean and unclean, in a way that is inexplicable, if the Priests' code was not familiar to these prophets. This is a mine in which the conservative critic may do good work, and get great gain in favor of his views. A careful study of the prophets in the light of radical criticism will give fine results in itself, and provide us with abundant material with which to refute radical criticism at this point in the discussion. 17 CHAPTER XIII. THE PSALMS. In the discussions of this chapter we pass from the Law and the Prophets to the Psalms. In doing so we come to a wide theme which bears very directly upon the matters in debate between radical and conservative criticism. During recent years, the exposition of the Psalter in the light of advanced critical theories of the religion of Israel has engaged earnest attention. Advanced criticism has striven to deprive David and his age of the honor of pro- ducing many of the Psalms, and some recent critics seek to show that nearly the whole of the Psalter originated after the Exile. By such critics it is de- scribed as the Praise-book of the second temple, rather than, in its leading parts, the Psalter of the first temple. In this chapter we seek to deal with the Psalms in relation to the advanced critical theo- ries now under review. In the first place, we remark that the critics have not yet succeeded in depriving David and others of his age of the honor of the authorship of the great body of the Psalms. The burden of proof, more- over, lies with the critics at this point, and unless they can make out a case against the greater part [258] THE PSALMS. 259 of the Psalms usually ascribed to David's age, enough will remain to justify conclusions against radical criticism at this point. We freely admit that the titles or superscriptions of the Psalms may not be inspired ; and yet we maintain that the radical critics must show how it came to pass that in the Hebrew texts these titles often stand as the first verse of the Psalms. But even though they may not be inspired, these titles have the very highest value as historical evidence, which can only be justly set aside by similar evidence of a higher value. Till such evidence is adduced, we may give value to the titles in favor of authorship. This enables us to place the bulk of the Psalter in David's age, and in connection with the temple of Solomon. We are prepared also to maintain that even if the critics can show that some of the titles are incorrect, there will still remain enough of the contents of the Psalter admitted to be Davidic in its origin, to enable us to overthrow the main posi- tions of the radical theories in regard to the de- velopment of the religion of Israel. It is proper to add that the radical critics have not yet shown that in those Psalms which by their titles are ascribed to the Davidic age, there are contained any matters or references inconsistent with their origin in that age. This negative position has no little value against the critical theories. In the second place, we remark that in the Psalms generally, there are such frequent and 260 RADICAL CRITICISM. definite allusions to the history of Israel, as suffice to refute the radical theories which undertake to reconstruct that histor)^ in accordance with a pre- conceived theory. We cannot make full quota- tions here, but a few examples will suffice to illustrate what we mean. In Ps. T] : 16-20, we have distinct allusion to the deliverance from Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, and the Wil- derness wandering. In Ps. 78:13-20, the refer- ence to the same great facts is even clearer. Indeed this whole Psalm which is ascribed to Asaph, of David's age, is as clear a testimony to the historic- ity of the early career of Israel as can be desired. To resolve it into poetic myth is simply absurd. In Ps. 81 : 10, the Exodus from Egypt is again re- ferred to. The whole of Psalms 105 and 106, de- serves to be read and studied in this connection. The entire outline of the history of Israel is virtually recited in these Psalms. So also Psalms 114, 132, 135, and 136, bear similar testimony. We ask our readers to ponder these Psalms carefully, simply in relation to the history which they assume or im- ply, and then to raise the question whether these historical allusions can possibly be fictitious, or written up long after as the mere filling in of the ritual scheme, as radical criticism contends. Now, our purpose in adducing the historic impli- cations of the Psalms, is to show that the Psalms assume the history as a fact, and that we have tes- timony of the very highest value in them to the THE PSALMS. 261 history of Israel, not as conceived by radical criti- cism, but as set forth in the Scriptures, and as main- tained by conservative criticism. And, further, it deserves to be borne in mind in the same con- nection, that if the conservative view of the history is confirmed, then the two go together. It is no wonder that radical criticism makes war on the history, for unless it can justify historical reconstruction, it cannot by any ingenuity make out its theory of the origin and growth of relig- ious ideas and practices. But at this point we bring the critics face to face with the historical allusions in the Psalms, and demand an explana- tion of these at their hands. Even if we admit that the whole Psalter was post-exilic, the case would not be materially altered, for we have his- torical confirmation by the writers of that age, and by inspired men too, of the main outlines of the history of Israel in a way incapable of reconcilia- tion with radical theories. The Psalms of Davidic origin very definitely register the views of the pre- ceding history prevalent at that day. Is it possible that the critics of the present day can know more about the history than David and Asaph did .■* In the third place, we take the position that the advanced degree of religious thought and senti- ment, set forth in the Psalms, is far beyond what was possible at the Davidic era according to the radical critics. This indeed the radical critics assert, but our interpretation of the facts here is 262 RADICAL CRITICISM. entirely different from theirs. They tell us that the Psalms could not have been the product of David or his age, because the development of religious ideas had not reached such a stage at his day. Hence we are told that the Psalms must be- long to the age when the development of ritual and legislation was complete. This puts them at and after the Exile. The position we take here in opposition to the critics is that we admit with them the lofty spirit- ual ideas and the deep religious sentiments which the Psalms exhibit, but we maintain on historical ground, not on a theoretical basis, that this religious stage was attained at David's day. This is the natural view of the biblical narratives, and it harmonizes fully with the conservative position, which holds that the mature Mosaic system was set forth for the people soon after the Exodus, and prior to the conquest. With this lofty ideal before them, the people were led on in religious knowl- edge and life, and in this way they could have had no difficulty in making the attainments in the age of David, which we find expressed in the Psalms. Moreover, the radical theory, as we have already seen, based on the evolutionary idea, takes too low a view of the actual religious condition of the Israelites at the time they left Eg3'pt. It is com- pelled to do this by the stern necessities of its own theory. The true history as vindicated by the Psalms, affords a basis to explain the high religious THE PSALMS. 263 contents of the Psalms, without the assumption that the Psahiis are to be regarded as of a late origin. The biblical view is quite natural, while the critical theory is very unnatural. In the fourth place, we further contend in close connection with the preceding point, that even if the Psalms were post-exilic to a very large extent, they do not really reflect the character of that age. If they were the product of that age, as the critics say, we would expect to find in them the special features of the age of the Exile. But there is no reason to believe, even on the critical theory, that there was any deeper religious sentiment prevalent among the people in Ezra's day than in the age of David. The critics themselves seldom press their argument at this point. According to that theory there was elaboration of ritual ; but it does not fol- low that there was expansion of spiritual life. Per- haps the opposite is true, and that after the Exile, the rabbinical spirit, tending to formality rather than to spirituality, arose. There is no reason to believe that the prophetic writings of the age of the Exile show a deeper re- ligious experience than we find in the prophets near David's age. And it is very clear, even to the plain uncritical reader, that those Psalms which are claimed to be post-exilic do not show any deeper religious sentiment than those which even radical critics admit to be Davidic in origin. The critics are bound to show that there was this advance. 264 RADICAL CRITICISM. Then add to this the fact that the Psalms in gen- eral do not show any sympathy with, nor reflect in any degree the spirit of, the Persian age, or of the rabbinical spirit which soon after arose, and we have a strong case against advanced criticism re- garding the Psalms and their place in the religious development of Israel. In the fifth place, the Psalms uniformly teach ethical monotheism, and worship at one central sanctuary. This is so evident that we need scarcely cite proofs. One God, the only living and true God, is to be worshiped, idolatry is constantly condemned, and one sanctuary emphasized as the proper place of worship. The critics cannot deny this, but they hope to escape its force by the post- exilic theory of the origin of the most of the Psalms. If, therefore, we make out the Davidic origin of the greater part of the Psalter, and vindicate the real nature of the historical allusions contained therein, as we think we have done, then ethical monothe- ism, the condertination of idol worship, and the obligation to worship at a single sanctuary, all ex- isted as a matter of fact in David's age. This tells forcibly against radical criticism at an important point. The following passages may be consulted in support of our position : Ps. 9:11; 11:4; 20 : 2 ; 24 : 7 ; 27 : 4 ; 48 : 2, 3 ; 63 : 2 ; 76 : 2 ; "]"]'. 13. These passages all refer to a single sanctu- ary. And observe that most of them are from Psalms which have strong claims to belong to Da- THE PSALMS. 265 vid's age. Nor can the critics show that greater emphasis is laid upon worship at a single sanctuary in the Psalms of the age of the Exile. To quote passages against idol worship and in favor of mono- theism is unnecessary. We merely refer to Psalm 1 1 5 in passing. In the last place, the Psalms viewed generally presuppose at almost every turn the Mosaic ritual and legislation ; and we maintain that they cannot be squared with any theory that would find their origin in any other supposition than that the Psalms reflect the Mosaic spirit in its mature stage. This is a very wide field. It indeed affords mate- rial for a whole treatise, so that we can only sig- nalize it in closing this chapter. In the Psalms of David's age, as fully as anywhere else, we find allu- sions to the Mosaic sacrifices, to the Feasts, to the Tabernacle, and to the Priests in a way which is simply inexplicable on the radical theory. We wish that we had space to work this out fully. We only mark out the lines briefly, and leave the reader to fill out further particulars. As to ritual and sacrifice, see Ps. 26 : 6 ; 40 : 6 ; 50 : 5 ; 51:7; 66 : 1 3-1 5. In these and similar passages we have references to those offerings which are found in all the so-called codes of the radical critics, at or near the age of David. As to the Tabernacle and the Temple, see Ps, 15:1; 27:5; 28:2; 42:4; 43:3,4; 46:4; 63 : 2 ; 65 : 1-3. These are but a few passages 266 RADICAL CR/TTCISM. which show the existence of the Tabernacle and Temple, and with them mature Mosaism, at least at the time of David, centuries prior to the date assigned to it by the radical critics. As to the priesthood, we quote the following : Ps. 87 : 64 ; 99:6; 115:10; 122; 132:9-16; 133 ! 135 • 20. These Psalms allude to the priest- hood in such a way as to bring out the view that it was then a complete graded system. Hence, unless the radical critics can make good the claim that these passages are all post-exilic in their origin, there is much force in them against the radical critical theories. Finally, there are frequent allusions to a covenant and a lazu, terms which presuppose the Mosaic scheme. Then there are words and phrases in the Psalms which seem to be drawn from the complete Mosaic system. Such are the terms : banners, glory, goodly heritage, sJiadoiv of the zcings, con- gregation. These and similar phrases indicate how completely the spirit of the mature Mosaic system is reflected in the Psalms. Without this S3'stem the Psalms could scarcely be what they are, and we may justly ask radical criticism for an explanation. CHAPTER XIV. THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. Having virtually completed the discussions aris- ing from the contents of the Old Testament in their bearing upon the conclusions of radical criti- cism, we pass in this chapter to consider some things of vital importance to the questions raised, which emerge from a perusal of the New Testa- ment. This chapter will deal specially with the Gospel narratives. Here the most prominent feat- ure is the view which our Lord himself took of the Old Testament, and the religious system which it unfolds. If he took certain views, the question is : How are these to be understood and explained .? And so, in like manner, in regard to those passages in the Gospels which come from their inspired au- thors : How are we to regard their interpretation of the Old Testament History and religious system >. These questions indicate at once how important the Gospel narratives, and especially the teaching of our Lord, become in the adequate discussion of the questions in debate between radical and con- servative criticism. Some care, then, must be exercised in their treatment, for the whole question [267] 268 RADICAL CRITICISM. of the way in which Jesus understood and ex- pounded the Old Testament history and ritual is here involved. It is evident also that the accovi- inodation and kenosis theories in regard to the earthly career of our Lord are also in sight in the reasonings of the radical critics, as they attempt to turn the edge of the teaching of the great Teacher away from their reconstructive theories of the Mosaic system. We deal with several points in order in this chapter, and shall conclude it with some brief notice of the consequences which follow from the views of the radical critics in relation to the person of Christ. In the first place, there are in the Gospels such plain and definite references to the history of the Old Testament, that the reconstructive theories of the advanced critics cannot be reconciled there- with. In other words, the views of the history of the Old Testament period given in the Gospels agree with the opinions of conservative critics, which simply means that these opinions best rep- resent the views set forth in the Gospel history. In Matt. 1 1 : 21-24 there is allusion to Tyre and Sidon, and especially to Sodom, which agrees en- tirely with the history of the Old Testament. In Matt. 12:3, there is reference to David and the shewbread, which shows that our Lord endorsed the view, that in the days of David the Tabernacle service and the Priestly code were in vogue. In Matt. 12 : 40, 41, our Lord confirms the historicity THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 269 of the case of Jonah and the great fish, and uses it as an emblem of his own resurrection. In Matt. 24 : 37, the history of Noah is confirmed, together with the reality of the deluge. There is no hint at myth or reconstruction here whatever. In Mark 3 : 8 ; 6 : 11; 12 : 26-36 ; in Luke 4 : 26, 27 ; II : 30-51 ; 17 : 26-32 ; 20 : 37 ; and in John 3 : 14 ; 6 : 31, there are similar references to important facts in the history of Israel. They are nearly all made by our Lord himself, and are unique in that respect. From them we conclude that it is clear that our Lord did not hold views in harmony with modern radical critics. Our Lord not only confirms the natural historical view of the Old Tes- tament, but he also binds these facts to some of the great doctrines he taught, in such a way as to cause the fact and the doctrine to stand or fall together. The lifting up of the serpent in the wil- derness and the death of Christ ; the case of Jonah and His resurrection ; the experience of Noah and the end of the world, illustrate this feature of the way in which our Lord used Old Testament history. How puerile the radical theories, which reduce these facts to something little better than myths, seem beside the methods of our Lord here ! In the second place, the Gospels uniformly ascribe the Old Testament law and ritual to a Mo- saic origin. Our Lord does this constantly, so much so that if the radical critics are right, he either blundered, or intentionally took the preva- 270 RADICAL CRITICISM. lent though erroneous view. A few passages will illustrate the case in hand. In Matt. 19:7, we read concerning divorce, "Why did Moses then command, etc.," where the reference is to the Deuteronomic code. In Mark 10: 3, we have the same reference. In Mark 12 : 19, concerning marrying a brother's wife, we read, ' ' Master, Moses zurote ; " and although these are the words of Sadducees, Jesus did not contradict them, or state that they were in error on that point. In Luke 20 : 28, we have the same thing. In Luke 24 : 27, we have reference to " Moses and all the prophets," made by Jesus after his resurrec- tion, in a way which suggests the Mosaic origin of the law. So in John 5 : 45 ; 7:19; 8 : 5, we have allusions to the law of Moses, in terms which leave no room to doubt that, rightly or wrongly, our Lord ascribed the Old Testament ritual and legisla- tion to a Mosaic origin, at least in the sense that it arose in that age. Here again the critics have a serious task to deal with, and we shall see, later on, how they attempt to handle it. Our Lord clearly assumes a Mosaic genesis for the whole S3^stem which was known as the "Law of Moses" in his day. This testimony is of prime importance and value. In the third place, there are in the Gospels such references to the priests, and to the Levitical sys- tem, as justify us in maintaining that the critical theory of a graded priesthood, of different docu- THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 271 merits, and of three distinct codes, is not supported by the view of the Old Testament rehgion pre- sented in the Gospels. In other words, the Gospel view is that there was a peculiar unity and a com- pleteness from the first in the Mosaic system. This point can only be briefly illustrated. In Matt. 5 : 23, 24, we have a matter referred to which belongs to what the critics call the Deuter- onomic code, in regard to bringing the gift to the altar, and being reconciled to our brother. In Matt. 8 : 4, where the case of the leper is described, allu- sion is made to the contents of the Priestly code, as the critics would say. So also in Matt. 21:15; 26 : 3, 14, 17 ; 27: 20 ; in Mark 2:25; 10 : 18-27; in Luke 2 : 22 ; 4 : 3, 4 ; 5 : 14 ; 20 : 19, we have allusions to various elements in the Mosaic system, such as the priests, the feasts, the cleansings, and the sacrifices, which are significant in this connec- tion. We are sure that any candid and reverent study of these passages will show that the radical critical theory requires us to give a strangely forced meaning to every one of them. The point we em- phasize is that the Gospel narratives, and especially the words of our Lord, know nothing whatever of the necessity of a reconstructed Old Testament, or of a diversity of ritual and legal codes which only came gradually into existence. And further, in one or two cases our Lord hints that this was the ideal state which was before the people from the first for their observance. In regard to divorce, he says. 272 RADICAL CRITICISM. "From the beginning it was not so," which surely indicates that the development theory of the radical critics is not the true key to unlock the problem of the religion of Israel. The first stage was the ideal, and the second was a lower stage, not a higher. For ourselves, we are inclined to prefer the authoritative interpretation of the religious sys- tem of Israel made by the great Teacher, to the vague and ill-digested theorizings of the radical critics. And we shall do well to be careful that no view which shall dishonor our Lord is forced upon us by the relentless demands of a mere theory. In the fourth place, a passing reference may be made to the bearing of the contents of the gospel on the radical theory in reference to the book of Isaiah. As our readers are aware, the critics di- vide this book into two parts, and give the latter section — 40 to 66 — a later origin and a different author. The important passages here are the fol- lowing : Matt. 4: 14-16; 8: 17; 12:17; 15:7; Mark T -.d \ Luke 3:4; John 12 : 38. From these passages, it is evident that the writers of the Gos- pels, and our Lord whose words are herein quoted, knew nothing of a dcutcro-\'~>-dA2\\. The whole book was evidently viewed by them as a unit, and was called by the title "Isaiah." The quotations and references made by our Lord himself from the latter part of the book are ascribed to Isaiah in a way which leaves little doubt in the mind of the reader as to what was his view of these sections o( THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 273 Isaiah. Now the burden of proof clearly rests with the radical critics, not only to show that this part of the prophecy could not have originated in Isaiah's day, but also to present another author who will meet the demands of the case as the au- thor of the second Isaiah. Mere destructive criti- cism offering no reconstruction, mere denial of a given authorship without also providing another, can never be satisfactory nor sufficient. As against our Lord, the radical critics must do much more than they have done before they shall have made out their case against the unity of Isaiah. In the fifth place, it is worth while noting the fact that while in the Gospel age the Priests' code, as the critics would say, ruled completely the relig- ious life of the Jews, yet in the Gospel narratives, there is no more allusion to its existence in these narratives than there is in the earlier books of the Old Testament to its existence at that time. Now, if we allow the critical argument of " non-existence because of silence " to have weight in regard to that early age, it has equal weight in reference to the Gospel age, and would in like manner prove the non-existence of the mature Mosaic system in that age. We have seen, however, that the historical and other allusions in both ages prove its continu- ous existence, and thus again we see that the argu- ment a silcntio proves too much or too little, and so has no force whatever. This consideration is pertinent, even if we take into account the fact |8 274 RADICAL CRITICISM. that the Gospels were not written in the interests of the Jewish rehgion. The mere historical allu- sions in the Gospels to the Mosaic code is all we need, to make good our position at this point, and to show the illogical methods of radical criticism, in dealing with the Gospel history. In the last place, the attempt of radical criticism to get rid of the argument against its conclusions from the Gospels, may be described as a frantic failure. The real debate here relates to the testi- mony of our Lord. How can this be squared with radical criticism } Two main efforts have been made by the critics. The one is a phase of the accommodation theory, and the other arises from an application of the modern kenosis theory in regard to the person of Christ. We cannot discuss these theories at length, but can only point out the straits to which radical criticism is driven at these two points. In regard to the first, the critics seek to show that our Lord in his allusions to the Old Testament, either fell unconsciously into the prevalent errors of the age in reference to the nature of the religious system of Israel, or purposely accommodated his teaching to views of that system which he knew to be erroneous. In either case radical criticism must rise and explain. If our Lord was ignorant, how is this to be harmonized with his knowledge ; if he knowingly endorsed an error, how then is his integ- rity to be preserved } We simply leave these ques- THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 275 tions with the radical critics, and await their resolu- tion of the dilemma. In addition it further devolves upon radical criticism to show that the popular view of the Old Testament which existed in our Lord's day was as far astray as this criticism assumes. Even if led astray in some things by the traditions of the fathers, it does not follow that its errors con- firm advanced criticism. Touching the modern kcnosis theory we can only remark that on doctrinal grounds we believe it to be as dangerous as the older kcnosis doctrine of our Lord's person. Even if, therefore, advanced criti- cism demands for its explanation the kcnosis idea, it may be that the support of a mere critical hy- pothesis has been purchased at the cost of clear scriptural views of the deity of our Lord. If the Son of God so became the Son of man that he was no longer truly the Son of God, and consequently but a man in his interpretation of the Old Testament and its religion, we charge radical criticism with procuring its vindication by betraying the true doc- trine of our Lord's divinity in order to obviate the force of our Lord's testimony against its theory of the religion of Israel. At this stage we simply await the further explanation Vv-hich advanced criti- cism is bound to give of the Gospel witness, and the unique testimony of our Lord. CHAPTER XV. OTHER NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. Having in the last chapter dealt with the Gospel narratives in their relation to radical criticism, we now proceed to gather up a few things from the other books of the New Testament, in order to see what their teaching is concerning the debate be- tween radical and conservative criticism. The ex- position can only touch in a hurried way a few salient points. The main sections of the New Testament which are of importance here are the Acts, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. In these books we find many allusions to the history of Israel, to their system of ritual and legislation, and to the manner of its origin and growth, which in our judgment cannot be easily reconciled with the conclusions of radical criticism. Indeed, we are quite willing to take the Epistle to the Hebrews alone as affording a complete refutation of the rad- ical theories from the standpoint of the New Tes- tament. This epistle, and the address of Stephen have not, so far as we are aware, been explained in a satisfactor}' way in harmony with the main posi- tions of radical criticism. But let us see a few [276J OTHER NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 277 points which may go far to justify the claims of conservative criticism. In the first place, from the Acts we can gather some important facts. In chapter 3 : 22-26, we have the words of Peter in regard to the teaching of the prophets concerning Jesus. Here Peter evi- dently held to views of the history of Israel and Abrahamic covenant different from those advanced by radical critics. In chapter 1:16; 2 : 25-34 ; 4 : 25-28, we have references to the Psalms, made by Peter chiefly, which assign important Psalms to David, and by implication the bulk of them to his age. In chapter 6 : 1 1-14 ; 15 : 21 ; 21 : 21 ; 28 : 23, we have the clear teaching of Peter and Paul as to the Mosaic origin of the whole law and ritual connected with his name. These passages deserve careful study since they show what these two in- spired apostles taught in regard to the unity and Mosaic origin of the whole religious system of the Old Testament. This teaching, if it means any- thing in relation to the debate between radical and conservative criticism, is a complete refutation of the former. It entirely ignores it, and knows nothing about it. Again, in chapter 1 3 : 39 ; 15:5; 18:15; 24: 14; 28 : 17, we have references to im- portant details the Mosaic ritual made in such a manner as to connect it all with the name and age of Moses, and to present it as a well-defined unit, not as a series of codes arising in succession, by a process of historical stratification. 278 RADICAL CRITICISM. Perhaps the strongest single passage in the Acts is the outHne of Stephen's defense which has been given us by Luke in the seventh chapter. We ask our readers to turn to this chapter and read it care- fully in the light of modern critical theories. Here the history in which the ritual and legislation are imbedded is given in brief, graphic, and compre- hensive form, from Abraham down to the crucifix- ion of Jesus of Nazareth. The call of Abraham, which some critics explain as a natural migration, the custom of circumcision, which some say was borrowed from the Egyptians, the sojourn and affliction in Egypt, which some critics regard as mythical,, the whole career of Joseph, the life of Moses, and the Exodus under him, are recited with great accuracy in the light of the Pentateuch. The wonders of Sinai, and the giving of the lively oracles there, the incident of the golden calf, a definite allusion to the Tabernacle in the wilder- ness, made according to the fashion which Moses had seen, the bringing of this Tabernacle, which of course had the complete ritual associated with it, by Joshua into Canaan, the building of the Temple under David and Solomon, and many other particulars, are described in a manner which cannot fail to impress in a peculiar way the reader who may have been perusing some of the radical theories. In particular, verses 44-46 present a view of the Tabernacle and the ritual connected with it in such a way as to make the late origin of OTHER NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 279 the Tabernacle and the so-called Priestly code, impossible, unless we are prepared to set aside the inspired authority of the author of the Acts. More- over, these verses assume a Mosaic origin for the Tabernacle, and they know nothing whatever about the three codes. So, too, the whole defense made by Stephen lays stress on the era of Moses as the central period of Jewish history and religious inter- est, and has scarcely anything to say of the days of Josiah and Ezra when the radical critics solemnly inform us that mature Mosaism arose. In a word, almost every feature of radical criticism can be refuted by the wonderful contents of Stephen's remarkable apology. It would be an interesting exercise to attempt to reconstruct this apology in such a way as to bring it into harmony with radical criticism. Such an exercise our readers can follow out for themselves ; and we venture the opinion that whoever does this, will be convinced of its absurdity, and be prepared to take his place beside Stephen, Luke, and may we not add, the conserva- tive critics. Moreover, this reconstructed apology would be of no special value for the purpose which Stephen had in view. In the second place, we may gather some of the teachings of Paul in Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians under a single head, in order to see how Paul can be brought into harmony, if such a thing is possible, with advanced critical conclusions. Tn Rom. 4 : i-6, we have significant allusions to Abra- 2