Criticism of the “Higher Critics”

Criticism of the "Higher Critics"

BY ROBERT C. WEBB

In making an examination of the claims of the so-called — "higher criticism" of the Bible and particularly of the Old Testa- — ment even from a point of view that is distinctly unfavorable to them, we cannot lose sight, intelligently, of the fact that we are dealing with the opinions espoused by men of real learning in their department. We cannot blind ourselves to the fact that their re- searches have unearthed many facts of the utmost value to stu- dents of the Scriptures. Neither can we deny that there are grave problems connected with the text of the Old Testament, which, while they may not justify skepticism of the radical and destruc- tive type, must be seriously considered by all who believe that the Bible is in any sense the Word of God, or a record of His dealings with mankind. The consistent grounds of objection to the findings of these "critics" must be (1) that their researches seem to be, in some measure at least, animated by a spirit of reaction against certain — traditional opinions about the Bible and for this reason, as we find, their theories are particularly acceptable to the so-called "lib- eral" and anti-"orthodox" elements — and (2) that their methods of using facts, or supposed facts, involve the same vicious misuse of the laws of logic that is to be found in the formulation and defense of certain popular so-called "scientific" and "philosoph- ical" hypotheses. We need not fear the actual facts alleged in support of the "higher criticism," of the evolution hypothesis, or of any other misleading system of the day. It is the misuse of such facts, and the perverse habits of handling them, which con- stitute the sorest objections in the minds of people capable of deal- ing with the materials of knowledge. In starting upon the discussion of the text of the Old Testa- ment, we must begin by acknowledging that the allegation of sundry "discrepancies," emendations, additions, and other forms of "corruption," is to a very considerable extent warranted. Thus, even the most conservative scholars can not deny that the accepted text of the historical portions of the Book of Daniel lends itself readily to the theory that that portion of the book, at least, was not written by a contemporary of the events recorded. We may contend, however, that, while the known text is evidently "cor- rupt," we have no sufficient evidence that there was not a pure and historical original that has been mishandled by the copyists, or

CRITICISM OF THE "HIGHER CRITICS" 707

presented as a "popular edition" in a late vernacular. Again, in Genesis, in particular, we find numerous passages purporting to give the reasons why certain persons received the names by which they are known. Some of these "explanations" are perfectly cor- rect, if we are to consider them as interpretations of the meanings of the names; but others, again, are quite un-etymological, if, indeed, the forms of the names as we have them are the true original forms. Some of these explanations are mere "plays on words ;" in fact, simple "puns." Now, such facts as these need not compel us to accept the- ories to the effect that the Bible is in no sense what it has always been believed to be, a record of God's dealings "with them of old time," and an authoritative compilation of His laws and teachings for mankind. In view of the methods of making books in old times, it is scarcely remarkable that these, and other, "corrup- tions" have entered into the text of Scripture. As is well known, all books were anciently copied by hand by certain persons called "scribes" — that is to say, "writers"— who were not only "copyists" in an industrial sense, such as printers' compositors, but were rec-

ognized as "doctors," or authorities on the books which they had frequently reproduced. Thus it is that such men frequently figure in the New Testament in arguments with the Savior on the teach- ings of the Law. Not only did they make frequent mistakes in copying— and this accounts for the numerous variations in read- ing in the Bible and in all ancient books (one manuscript having one word in a given passage, another having quite a different one) —but they considered themselves competent to make marginal notations, in way of comment or explanation, which very often, in

other ancient books, at least, were regularly embodied in the text

by subsequent copyists. The condition, in fact, was precisely what some modern editor should conclude to incor- we should have, if marginal porate with the body-text of the Bible the numerous notes and chapter titles found in the King James and Geneva versions, for example. To such doings many commentators ascribe the presence of the name-explanations above mentioned, introduction of such passages as I John 5 :7, which the and the revisers of the New Testament concluded to omit, because absent therefore, the text of from the oldest known manuscripts. Since, scripture comes to us through the hands of many generations of human, and entirely fallible, copyists, we need not be surprised at varieties, nor in the allegation of numerous "corruptions" of such any way afraid to acknowledge their existence. of But there are some "discrepancies" which might be capable perplexing some readers, and beget the disquieting suspi- sorely cion that the "critics" may be right after all. Among such, as the one created by the passage in we need not be afraid to state, is

Exodus 6:3, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and

;

708 IMPROVEMENT ERA unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty {El Shaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." As if in con- tradiction to this statement, we find that this name, twice trans- lated "God," in other places, "Lord," occurs in the mouth of God or of a worshiper in forty-four passages in the Book of Genesis. Thus, in two passages (Gen. xv:2, 8) Abraham addresses God as "Lord God," which expression translates the Hebrew Adonai Jehovah ("My Lord Jehovah"), and in another (Gen. xxii:14) he calls the name of a place Jehovah Jireh ("Jehovah will see, or provide"). Also, while in Gen.xvii:l, God names Himself El Shaddai ("the Almighty God"), and in another (Gen. xxi:33) is referred to as El 'Olam ("the Everlasting God"), in still a third (Gen. xxviii :13) He introduces Himself with the words, ani Jeho- vah Elohe Abraham, "I (am) Jehovah God of Abraham." [The other passages containing this name, as mentioned above, are Gen. iv:l v:29; ix :6; x:9; xiv:22; xvi :2, 5 xviii:14; xix :13, 14; ; ;

xxiv:3, 7, 12, 27, 31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 50, 51, 52, 56; xxvi :22, 28, 29; xxvii:7, 20, 27; xxviii :16, 21; xxix:32, 33, 35; xxx :24, 27, 30; xxxi:49; xxxii:9; xlix:18]. Such facts might lead a reader to assume either ( 1 ) that the wording of Exodus vi :3 had been changed from its original form, or else (2) that in the other passages the "Ineffable Name". had been introduced by the pious thought of some of the numerous scribes who have handled and copied the Book of Genesis through all the centuries in which it has been in the possession of people who could read it in the original Hebrew. The latter supposition is preferable to the former on several grounds. In the first place, as is well known, there was long a prejudice among the Jews against uttering the name of God. This arose, as is claimed, from an ultra-literal understanding of the Third Commandment, which forbids "taking the name of Jehovah, thy God, in vain." To even pronounce this "Ineffable Name" was believed to involve the dan- ger of "taking it in vain ;" it was too holy for common use. Con- sequently, wherever this name appeared the custom was to read the word Adonai, "My Lord" (or "My Lords"), instead. Thus, beginning with the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, the trans- lation into Greek, this name was rendered "Lord." Now, what- ever may have been the "original readings" in any such passages as we have mentioned, the evident reference is to Jehovah whether or not this name was in these places substituted for either Adon, Adonai, or even Elohim or El Shaddai, it is equally probable that it would not have been read as written. Indeed, as has been claimed, the scribes were so anxious that it should- not be so read that, on the introduction of the "vowel points" in the seventh century A. D., they inserted the vowels proper to Adonai in the name Jhvh, thus transforming it, literally, from the sup- posed original spelling, Jahveh or Yahweh, to Jehovah.

CRITICISM OF THE "HIGHER CRITICS" 709

In another aspect of the matter, also, the possible substitu- tion of the name Jehovah, or Yahweh, for some synonymous ti- tles, in these passages is perfectly comprehensible. As numerous scholars have indicated, the religious institutions of the Jews were closely paralleled by similar institutions among their "heathen" neighbors, and the constant recorded tendency of the people to lapse into some form of "idolatry" is explained on the supposition that they were oftenest misled by apparent identities of idea and methods. It was, therefore, a constant and arduous duty devolv- ing on the authorities to maintain the purity and isolation of the religion of Israel. If, then, such authorities had turned to the early chapters of Genesis, and found that the name of God was seldom mentioned, if at all, and that several words having the meaning "Lord," "master," etc., occurred instead the duty seemed clear that this "amission" should be remedied. Indeed, the im- portance of some such emendation of the text must have seemed all the greater, in view of the fact that the gods of the "nations round about" were all known familiarly under precisely similar designations. Thus Baal, or any one of the Baalim, was known by this word, which also meant "lord," "master," etc. Even the terrible god Moloch was only "the king," for such is the meaning of this title in the opinion of scholars. If, then the Lord, the God of Abraham, was to be definitely and finally discriminated from the numerous "lords," "masters," "kings," etc., of the "heathen" (the "nations"), it is evident that it could be done only by insert- ing His name in numerous passages in which He is evidently re- ferred to. .

We have discussed this matter of the names and titles of God of at such length, because it is an important one in the history destructive Biblical "criticism." Indeed, the starting-point of the "criticism" was in the arguments of a certain Jean Astruc that

there are two separate accounts of the creation of the world in the firsttwo chapters of Genesis, to be discriminated by the "two names of God" used in them. Thus, from Gen. i :1 to u :3 we find world, but from n:4 on, the same that God (Elohim) created the While, work is ascribed to the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim). alone any from the standpoint of ordinary common sense, let ancient judgment that might arise from perfect familiarity with books, the idea that we have here two separate and and oriental diverse accounts of creation would scarcely occur to anyone. The narrative beginning with ii:4 merely takes up the story at the it in particular completion of the general account, and continues first human beings in connections, recounting the doings of the which God had planted "to the eastward in Eden. the garden divine "names are The contention, however, that two distinct chapters (or "accounts") was altogether too used in these two "revise religion and convenient a handle for people disposed to

—

710 IMPROVEMENT ERA murals" and to enlighten the world from the "rich resources of their own minds," and, as a consequence, we behold the first two installments of the "documents," called respectively, "Elohistic" and "Jahvistic." These two "documents," together with several others, notably the "Jahvist-Elohist," "Priestly," "Jahvist second," — "Redactor" the last the supposed "redactor," or editor who pieced these numerous fragments into a "crazy patchwork quilt" of a book— are, professedly, traced through the Book of Genesis, several of them also into later books, being discriminated by al- leged differences in "style," vocabularies, etc., which only the near-omniscience of "modern critical scholarship" has ever sus- pected, let alone been able to separate. That this so-called "par- tition" violates the simplest canons of reason and common sense in a number of instances is nothing to our "critics," who evidently console themselves with the delusive consolation that, if mathe- maticians and physicists can apprehend almost ultimate subtleties, and achieve results characterized by almost unimaginable refine- ments of distinction, they also can do precisely similar "wonders." But, as we shall see later, there are numerous opportunities for the humble "layman" to exercise his inalienable right to that "hon- est doubt," which as Lord Tennyson tells us, contains "more faith

• • • than half the creeds," in reviewing the "discoveries" of

  our "critical scholars." lint the "partition" of Genesis and other books into numerous "documents," "scholia," "redactions," "emendations," etc., is not the worst feature of this "higer-criticism" scheme. The "critics" presume upon the knowledge of ancient times, possessed by them- selves or any other people, in their confident assignment of various "documents" to as many different times and influences in the his- tory of Israel. Too many of them possess, or rather assume that they possess, such "sympathy with an author" that they develop a thorough working "sense of what he can and what he cannot have said." Thus, Moses could not have said such and such things at- tributed to him in the text, for the "very excellent reason" that, as they say, writing was unknown to him and his contemporaries. Nor can any demonstration of the fact that, if Moses could not write, it was due solely to his neglect of opportunities to obtain an education, modify the judgment in any particular. Now, at this point we may digress to remark that the hypoth- esis of evolution is, next to Jean Astruc's "discovery," the most valuable asset of the "higher critic." Although, as this hypothesis assumes, the "development" of mankind from the near-ape to the wielder of "critical scholarship" has occupied immense periods —

several hundred thousand years, in fact, as they tell us Moses and Abraham "lived so very long ago" that they must have had the crudest possible notions and manners. Consequently, as the the- ories of our "critics" really seem to argue, any presently-believable

;

CRITICISM OF THE "HIGHER CRITICS" 711

ideas of life, God, religion, law, or morals, must be of later date very many centuries later, in fact. This reminds one strongly of the remark of a "thoughtful" boy, the son of an evolutionistic father, undoubtedly, who argued that Homer's poetical expres- sion, "generations of articulately-speaking men" evidently in- volves that Homer had knowledge, by tradition or otherwise, of some kinds of men who were not "articulately-speaking." The evil does not consist so much in the acceptance of the evolution hypothesis, which, as has been shown before, does not explain human nature or human history, but in the nonsensical notion that the "upward struggle" of humanity may be distinctly traced through historic time. The sophistry of such reasoning, and its utter inconsistency with the revelations of history and archaeology, should render any man of real learning ashamed to use it. Nevertheless, the formulation of a "solution" of the universe that shall be perfectly "comprehensible" to the learned of the pres- ent day is so great a passion with certain classes of mind that all admission of the possibility of the hyper-rational or supernatural must be eliminated. Thus, in further conformity with the "ra- tionalistic" scheme of things, a further "certain canon" of "criti- cism" is that all prophecies, or apparent prophecies, must be post- dated, must have been written, after the events described, or sup- posed to be described. This, of course, reduces the Scriptures to mere products of human ignorance and presumption, not to say "simple forgeries," concocted for the crudest and rawest kind of deception, and exalts our "critics," "philosophers" and other "ex- perts," to the position of the "only mediators between God and man." Thus, because many of the narrations in the earlier part of Genesis, notably those of the creation, flood, etc., agree in the main particulars with narrations found in the libraries of Babylonia, no inference will hold but that they must have been derived direct from Babylonia by Hebrew writers interested in compiling a "his- tory of the world." Because a direct touch between Israel and Babylon occurred most conspicuously during the Babylonish cap- tivity, following the reign of Zedekiah, the inference is confident- ly made that this was the period at which Genesis was compiled. In spite of the established fact that flood legends are found among ancient peoples widely separated both in time and place, and that there are obvious divergencies in the Biblical narratives from any assumed "originals," there is no toleration for the theory that both Biblical and Babylonian accounts may have come originally from one source. Such a theory as this of the origin of the Gen- esis narrations merely places the Bible literature in a category entirely different from that filled by any other national literature whatever. If the Babylonians can have their traditions, the Egyptians theirs, the Greeks theirs, and the Hindus theirs, there

:

712 IMPROVEMENT ERA is no insuperable reason why the narrations in Genesis should not

have come down in the same line of tradition for the Jewish peo- ple also. We have no authoritative reason for supposing that Moses originated them, or that they were not known to Abra- ham. Nor does the Mosaic authoriship of Genesis involve that all of his materials were directly given by divine dictation. But any such reasonable counter-consideration will not be admitted by any "higher critic ;" and there you are. Precisely as the narratives in Genesis are confidently ascribed to writers of the period of the captivity, so also, the legal portions of the Pentateuch are divided into several successive — "develop- mental" or "evolutional" periods. The laws of Deuteronomy, in fact, could not, we are told, have been codified until a very late period. Marvelous discrimination ! The very period is "discov- ered," in fact, by the narrations in the Bible itself !Thus, as we read in two parallel passages (II Kings xxii:8-14 and II Chron- icles xxxiv:14-22), the High Priest Hilkiah, a man interested in suppressing the worship of "strange gods," discovered the Book of the Law in the Temple, and gave it to Shaphan, the scribe, to show to King Josiah. The king, as recorded, rent his clothes, and exclaimed, "Great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book." Now, according to the "critics," all of whom possess to a marked degree Dr. Cheyne's "sympathy with an author," etc., King Josiah was the victim of an "enormous hoax." They hold that it is evidently established that Hilkiah and his friends concocted the "Book of the Law," and "palmed it off" on Josiah, in order to suit ends of their own. As "proof" of this conclusion, we are urged to consider the "improb- ability" —not to say, "impossibility," also—that this book could have been in existence previous to this period, and the laws go un- obeyed. This argument is brought forward to insult the intelli- gence of the world, in spite of the facts (1) that remarks about "disobedience" are made in scriptures narrating events previous to Ezra's time, and by no certain arguments proved to be of later date, and (2) that examples of laws that are not obeyed, that are "dead letters," in fact, are familiar through history, even to our own day. Thus, conspicuously, a passage quoted by Professor William H. Green, of Princeton University, gives an historical parallel to a possible alternative conclusion in the matter, drawn from the history of France "When the barbarism of the domestic government (under the Carlovingian dynasty) had thus succeeded the barbarism of the government of the State, one of the most remarkable results of that political change was the disappearance of the laws and insti- tutions by which Charlemagne had endeavored to elevate and Before the close of the century in which he civilize his subjects.

——— —

CRITICISM OF THE "HIGHER CRITICS" 713

died, the whole body of his laws had fallen into utter disuse throughout the whole extent of his Gallic dominions. They who have studied the charters, laws and chronicles of the later Carlo- vingian princes most diligently, are unanimous in declaring that they indicate either an absolute ignorance or an entire forgetful- ness of the legislation of Charlemagne." Sir J. Stephen, Lec- tures on the History of France. Now, it is fair to say that inferences based on such flimsy premises as those we have noted are not worthy to be considered sufficient to make us regard the Bible as an antiquated "scrap book," nor yet a mass of impudent forgeries. No other ancient literature has grown thus as a succession of accretions around a few central documents, in spite of the fact that, in many of them we find good evidences of additions and elaborations. Nor are the "two names of God," which form the apex of this inverted pyramid of guess-work, two names in any sense, any more than the words "God" and "Jehovah" are two distinct names. It is a curious fact that, as we shall see later, the very best-established assumptions of the "critics" are the ones in best accord with the theory of an ancient origin for the earlier books of the Bible.

Rest

Cease, oh eyes, thy constant watching, Thou art weary of the light, Rest thee, for the dawn of morrow, Through the darkness of the night Oh, tired eyes!

Cease, oh feet, thy needless going, Thou art weary of the climb, For the hill is steep and rugged, And night is thy resting time Oh, weary feet!

Cease, oh hands, thy myriad labors, Thou art weary from the day; But the prize the morning offered Now is held within thy stay- Ambitious hands!

Cease, oh soul, thy ceaseless longing, For a purpose thou art here; Heaven registers thy efforts, Angel-watchers hover near Oh, yearning soul! HEEER, UTAH I la Fisher