Download pdf - The Old Testament and Modern Criticism

5/13/2015 TheOldTestamentandModernCriticism

http://biblehub.com/library/eiselen/the_christian_view_of_the_old_testament/chapter_iii_the_old_testament.htm 1/31

Subject Title Author

TheChristianViewoftheOldTestamentFrederickCarlEiselenNocarefulobservercandoubtthatmoderncriticismhasexertedamarkedinfluenceupontheattitudeofmanyChristianpeopletowardtheBible.Boththoseinsympathywithnewideasandthoseopposedtothemfrequentlyspeakofthecrisiswhichthiscriticismhasbroughtabout."Itdoesseem,"saysJohnE.McFadyen,abelieverinthemethodsandresultsofmoderncriticism,"thattheChurchtodayinallherbranchesisfacetofacewithacrisisofthemostseriouskind."[1]Ontheotherhand,JohnSmith,adeterminedopponentofcriticism,writesconcerningtheconclusionsofthelatter:"Theyconflictwiththeprofoundestcertitudesofthefaith,mustinevitablyalterthefoundationonwhichfromthebeginningourholyreligionhasstoodbeforetheworld,and,consequently,sofarasatheorycan,mustobstructhermissionandabridgeherinfluence."[2]Whetherthecrisisisasacuteasishereimpliedornot,thereseemstobemuchconcernamongdevoutbelieversintheBibleaboutthebearingofmoderncriticismuponthevalueofthebooktheydearlylove.Inthenature{67}ofthecase,limitationofspaceforbidsanexhaustivediscussionofthisinterestingsubjecthere.Thereare,however,threequestionswhichareworthyof

Library

NIV NLT ESV NAS KJV HCS ASV DBT DRB ERV GWT ISR ISV KJP NET OJB WEB WBT

Bible>LibraryFreeDownloadsDevotionsReadingPlans

TheOldTestamentandModernCriticism



seriousconsideration:(1)Whatismoderncriticism?(2)Whatarethemoreimportantconclusionsofcriticismthathavesecuredwiderecognition?(3)Whatisthebearingoftheseconclusions,iftrue,upontheChristianviewoftheOldTestament?

What,then,isbiblicalcriticism?ItisdefinedbyNashas"thefreestudyofallthefacts,"[3]whichdefinitionMcFadyenexpandssoastoread,"thefreeandreverentstudyofallthebiblicalfacts."[4]Criticismisstudy,whichmeanscarefulinvestigationratherthansuperficialreadingfollowedbyhastyorunfoundedconclusions.Theinvestigationisfreeinthesensethatthoughitisnotdisrespectfultotraditionalbeliefs,itisnotpreventedbythemfrommarkingoutnewpathsifthefactssodemand.Itisreverentbecauseitdealswithabookthathasplayedauniquepartinthereligiouslifeandthoughtofmanycenturies,andhasbeenreceivedasabookinwhichthevoiceofGodmaybeheard.Itisprimarilyastudyofthefactspresentedbythebook,notoftheoriesorspeculations,thoughinthestudyofthesefactsmuchmaybelearnedfromthetheoriesofthepast,andthestudymaygiverisetonewtheories.Inordertobe{68}thoroughlyscientific,itmusthavedueregardforallthefactsinthecase.ForconveniencesakeithasbecomecustomarytodistinguishfourphasesofOldTestament,orbiblical,criticism:(1)TextualCriticism(2)LinguisticCriticism(3)LiteraryCriticismand(4)HistoricalCriticism.

ClosestudentsoftheHebrewtextoftheOldTestamenthavebeencompelledtoadmitthateventheoldestHebrewmanuscriptsnowknownarenotfreefromerrorsandblemishes,anditistheofficeoftextualcriticismtoremovesucherrorsbytheuseofalllegitimatemethodsandmeansandtorestoretheipsissimaverbaoftheauthor.Thepresenceofcorruptionsinthetextisestablishedbyfactslikethese:(1)Therearepassagesinwhichthetextasitstandscannotbetranslatedwithoutviolencetothelawsofgrammar,or,whichareirreconcilablewiththecontextorwithotherpassages.Forexample,in1Sam.3.1theAuthorizedVersionreads,"Saulreignedoneyear,andwhenhehadreignedtwoyearsoverIsrael."ThistranslationdoesviolencetothelawsofHebrewgrammar.TheHebrewreads,literally,"ThesonofayearwasSaulinhisreigning,"whichmayberendered,"Saulwasayearoldwhenhebegantoreign."ThenarrativesconcerningeventsinthelifeofSaulbeforehebecamekingmakeitclearthatthisstatementisnotcorrect.Perhapsthescribe,inwritingthe{69}formula,whichistheusualformulaforstatinga



king'sageathisaccession,leftaspaceforthenumeraltobefilledinlater,andforgottheomissionorthenumeralhasaccidentallydroppedout.Inthiscase,itisthedutyoftextualcriticismtosupply,ifpossible,theageofSaulwhenhewasmadeking.Intheabsenceofallexternalevidencethetextualcriticmustfallbackuponconjecture.ThisthetranslatorsoftheRevisedVersiondid,forintheEnglishRevisedVersionwefindinbracketstheword"thirty,"intheAmericanRevisedVersion"forty."Inthisspecialcasetheassuredresultsoftextualcriticismarepurelynegative,inthattheyhaveestablishedthefactthatthepresenttextcannotbecorrect.Theattempttorestoretheoriginaltextrestsuponconjecture.(2)Parallelpassagesdifferinsuchamannerastomakeitcertainthatthevariationsarelargelyduetotextualcorruption.AgoodillustrationisseeninPsa.18,whencomparedwith2Sam.22.Thesetwopassageswereundoubtedlyidenticalinthebeginningbuteventheoldestexistingmanuscriptsshowmorethanseventyvariantsbetweenthetwochapters.(3)SomeoftheancientversionscontainreadingswhichoftenbearastrongstampofprobabilityandremoveorlessenthedifficultiesoftheHebrewtext.Forexample,inJosh.9.4,wheretheHebrewreads,"Andthey{70}wentandmadeasiftheyhadbeenambassadors,"theSeptuagintreads,"Andtheywentandprovisionedthemselves."Thelatterreadingissupportedbynearlyalltheancientversions,andseemsmoreprobablethanthatoftheHebrewtext.AnotherillustrationofasimilarcharacterisfoundinPsa.22.16c,whichistranslatedbyboththeAuthorizedandtheRevisedVersion,"Theypiercedmyhandsandmyfeet."This,however,isnotatranslationoftheHebrewatall,foritreads,"Likealion,myhandsandmyfeet."InthiscasetheNewTestament,aswellastheLatinandSyriactranslations,supportsthereadingoftheSeptuagint.Passageslikethese,inwhichthetexthasevidentlysufferedinthecourseoftransmission,mightbemultipliedahundredfold,anditisgenerallyconsideredalegitimateambitiontoattempttherestorationoftheHebrewtexttoitsoriginalform.

Linguisticcriticismdealswithdifficultandobscurepassages.Sometimesthemeaningofsinglewordsorphrasesisuncertain,as,forexample,inIsa.53.1,whichreads,intheAuthorizedVersion,"Whohathbelievedourreport?"Themargingivesasalternativesfor"report"thewords"doctrine"and"hearing."TheRevisedVersionreads,"Whohathbelievedourmessage?"withamarginalnote,"Or,thatwhichwehaveheard."Informthewordtranslated"message"{71}isapassiveparticiple,meaning,literally,"thatwhichhasbeenheard."Surely,noonewould



consider"report,""doctrine,""hearing,""message,"etc.,synonymous.Itisthedutyoflinguisticcriticismtodeterminetheexactmeaningoftheword.Sometimesgrammaticalconstructionsareambiguous.VeryfamiliararethewordsinIsa.6.3,"Holy,holy,holy,isJehovahofhosts:thewholeearthisfullofhisglory."Themarginsuggestsasanalternativeforthelastclause,"thefullnessofthewholeearthishisglory,"whichmightmeansomethingentirelydifferentfromtheordinaryrendering.Thereareotherpassages,someamongthesublimestpropheticutterances,inwhichitisbynomeansclearwhetherthereferenceistothepastortothepresentortothefuture.Thereis,indeed,plentyofroomforthemostpainstakingworkofthelinguisticcritic.

TheliterarycriticismconcernsitselfwiththeliteraryhistoryofOldTestamentbooks.TheBiblemaybemorethanahumanproduction,butinoutwardformithastheappearanceofanordinaryworkofliteratureand,sofarasitshistoryasacollectionofliteraryproductionsisconcerned,ithasnotescapedthefortunesormisfortunesofotherancientliteraryworks.Itisawellknownfactthatextrabiblicalbooks,religiousandsecular,havecomedownfromthe{72}distantpastbearingthenamesofmenwhocannothavebeentheirauthorsforexample,theGospelofPeter,ortheAscensionofIsaiah.Someancientbookshavebeeninterpolatedandaddedtofromtimetotimeforexample,theSibyllineOracles,thereligiousbooksoftheHindus.Someancientbooksarecompilationsratherthanoriginalproductionsforexample,theDiatessaronofTatian,orthereligiousbooksoftheBabylonians,whichgiveabundantevidenceofcompilation.ThediscoveriesofthesephenomenainextrabiblicalbooksnaturallyraisedthequestionwhethersimilarphenomenamightnotbefoundinthebooksoftheOldTestament.ItisthedutyofliterarycriticismtothrowlightonthesequestionstodecidewhetheralltheOldTestamentbooksarerightlyascribedtothemenwhosenamestheybear,whethertheyareoriginalproductionsorcompilationsfromearliermaterial,andwhetheranyofthebookshavereceivedadditionsorinterpolationsinthecourseoftheirliteraryhistory.

Handinhandwithliterarycriticismgoeshistoricalcriticism.ThestudentofOldTestamenthistoryseekstotracethedevelopmentofthehistoryofIsraelbycombininginascientificmannerthehistoricalmaterialscatteredthroughouttheOldTestament.Indoingthisheiscompelledtodeterminethevalueofthesources{73}fromwhichhegathersinformation.Todothisisthedutyofhistoricalcriticism.Itinquires,forexample,whethertherecordsare



approximatelycontemporaneouswiththeeventstheyrecordifso,whetherthewriterswerequalifiedtoobservetheeventsaccurately,ortorecordandinterpretthemcorrectlyand,iftheaccountswerewrittenaconsiderabletimesubsequenttotheeventsrecorded,whethertheywerecoloredinanywaybythebeliefsandpracticesofthetimeinwhichtheywerewrittenorcompiled.ThislineofinvestigationisalmostthrustupontheBiblestudentbyacomparisonofthebooksofKingswiththebooksofChronicles,whichinmanyportionscoverthesamegroundandyet,therearemarkeddifferencesbetweenthedescriptionsofthetwo.

Thesearethedifferentphasesofcriticism.Ordinarily,however,onlytwokindsaredistinguished:thelower,ortextualcriticism,andthehighercriticism.Theaimsoftextualcriticismaredescribedabove.Thehighercriticismcombinesthefunctionsofliteraryandhistoricalcriticism,whilelinguisticcriticismisconsideredapartofexegesisorinterpretation,notaseparatebranchofBiblestudy.Thelegitimacyoftextualcriticismisuniversallyrecognized.ItsimportanceinacomprehensivestudyoftheBibleisclearlyimpliedinthesewordsofW.H.Green,a{74}generationagothebestknowndefenderofthetraditionalviewoftheOldTestament:"Itsfunctionistodetermine,byacarefulexaminationofalltheevidencebearinguponthecase,theconditionofthesacredtext,themeasureofitscorrespondencewith,ordivergencefrom,theexactlanguageoftheinspiredpenman,andbymeansofallavailablehelpstoremovetheerrorswhichmayhavegainedadmissiontoitfromwhatevercause,andtorestorethetexttoitspristinepurityasitcamefromthehandsoftheoriginalwriters....Itisnotanarbitrarybutajudicialprocess,basedonfixedandintelligibleprinciplesandconductedinadeterminatemanner,inwhichalltheevidenceisdiligentlycollected,thoroughlysifted,andaccuratelyweighed,andthedecisiongiveninaccordancewiththeascertainedfacts."[5]

Noexceptionistakentolinguisticcriticismasalegitimatepartofexegesis,butatthementionofhighercriticismmanygoodmenandwomenbecomegreatlydisturbed,fortheyseemtolookuponitasahandmaidofSatan.Afewexpressionswillillustratethefeelingwithwhichsomeregardthiskindofstudy:Onewritersays,"Neitherhardtimesnorhighercriticismnorinfidelity...hasanyeffectuponthesaleoftheDivineScriptures."Heevidentlyplaceshighercriticismonaparwithinfidelity.Again:"Thesocalledhighercritics,itiswellknown,areconstantly{75}



tryingtoshakethefaithoftheChristianbytellinghimthatthebooksoftheBiblewerenotwrittenbythemenwhosenamesareusuallygivenasthehumanauthors."AnotherwriterdeclaresthatthehighercriticsallegethattheBibleis"theoffspringofincompetenceandfraud."Onemorequotationmaysuffice:"Highercriticismtendsinvariably...toabsoluterationalismandthediscreditingofinspiration."Now,ifhighercriticismisonaparwithinfidelity,ifitdeclarestheBibletobethe"offspringofincompetenceandfraud,"ifitconstantlytriestoshakethefaithofChristians,ifittendsinvariablytoabsoluterationalismanddiscreditsinspirationifitdoesthesethings,thentheChristianChurchmaywelllookuponitwithdreadandalarm.Whetherornothighercriticismisguiltyofthethingschargedagainstitwillprobablyappearinthefurtherdiscussion,forfromnowonchiefemphasiswillbeplaceduponthebearingofthehighercriticismontheChristianviewoftheOldTestament.

Firstofall,itmaybewelltodefine,ifpossible,theterm"highercriticism."Itistoooftenassumedbythosewhoshouldknowbetter,thattheadjective"higher"exhibitsthearroganceofthoseusingit,whoclaimtherebyanunwarrantedprecedencefortheirmethods.Thisassumptioniserroneous,fortheadjectiveisused{76}simplytodistinguishthiskindofcriticismfromthelowerortextualcriticism,which,sinceitspurposeistofixtheexacttextofabook,necessarilyprecedestheapplicationoftheprocessesofthehighercriticism.Thedesignationmaybeunfortunate,butthusfarnoclearerorlessobjectionablesubstitutehasbeenfound.Butwhatishighercriticism?Highercriticismmaybedefinedasaprocessofscientificinvestigationforthepurposeofdeterminingtheorigin,originalform,andintendedvalueofliteraryproductions.Itcannotbeemphasizedtoostronglythathighercriticismisnothingmorethanaprocessofstudyorinvestigation.ItisnotasetofconclusionsrespectingthebooksoftheBibleitisnotaphilosophicalprincipleunderlyingtheinvestigationitisnotacertainattitudeofmindtowardtheBibleitisnotatheoryofinspirationnoradenialofinspiration.Highercriticismisnoneofthesethings.Itissimplyaprocessofstudytodeterminecertaintruthsconcerningliteraryproductions.

Again,highercriticism,asaprocessofstudy,isnotconfinedtothestudyoftheBible.ItwasappliedtoextrabiblicalbookslongbeforetherewasanythoughtofapplyingittotheOldorNewTestament.Eichhorn,whofirstappliedthetermtoOldTestamentstudy,hasthistosay:"Ihavebeenobligedtobestowthegreatest{77}amount



oflaboronahithertoentirelyunworkedfield:theinvestigationoftheinnerconstitutionoftheseparatebooksoftheOldTestamentbytheaidofthehighercriticism,anewnametonohumanist."[6]

Oncemore:thehighercriticismassuchisnotopposedtotraditionalviews.InthewordsofProfessorZenos:"Itsrelationtotheoldandthenewviewsrespectivelyisoneofindifference.Itmayresultintheconfirmationoftheold,orinthesubstitutionofthenewfortheold....Itisnorespecterofantiquityornoveltyitsaimistodiscoverandverifythetruth,tobringfactstolightwhetherthesevalidateorinvalidatepreviouslyheldopinions."[7]Itisagravemistake,therefore,toattributetohighercriticismanessentiallydestructivepurpose.Inreality,ithasconfirmedtraditionalviewsatleastasoftenasithasshownthemtobeuntenable.Itdoesnotapproachitsinvestigationsevenwithasuspicionofthecorrectnessoftraditionitstartsoutwiththetradition,itacceptsitascorrectuntiltheprocessofinvestigationhasbroughttolightfactsandindicationswhichcannotbeharmonizedwithtradition.Insuchacasecriticismbelievesitselfboundtosupplyasatisfactoryexplanationofthefacts,thoughsuchexplanationmaybecontrarytotheclaimsoftradition.AnystudentWhoapproachestheinquiryinaspirit{78}differentfromthathereindicatedintroducesintohisinvestigationelementsthatarenotapartofhighercriticismassuch,andthelattercannotandshouldnotbeheldaccountableforthem.

Thatitisdesirabletoanswerquestionsconcerningtheorigin,form,andvalueofbiblicalbooksnoonewilldispute.C.M.Mead,exceedinglycautiousandconservative,says:"Iregardthehighercriticismasnotonlylegitimatebutasuseful,andindiscriminatecondemnationofitasfoolish.Genuinecriticismisnothingbutthesearchaftertruth,andofthistherecannotbetoomuch."[8]NoliteraryproductionintheBibleoroutsideoftheBiblecanbefullyunderstoodunlesstheinterpreterhasafullknowledgeofitsorigin,itsauthor,anditsfirstreaders.When,where,bywhom,towhom,underwhatcircumstances,forwhatpurpose?ananswertotheseandsimilarquestionswillwonderfullyilluminatethemessageofabook.Aknowledgeoftheformofthewritingisalsoessentialtoaproperunderstandingofthesame.Isithistoryorpoetry?isitnarrativeorprediction?oranyoneofthevariouskindsofliterature?Inasimilarmanneritisimportant,thoughnotalwayseasy,toknowthevalueagivenliteraryworkwasintendedtohave.Isittobeunderstoodasliteralhistory?Isitsessentialpurposedidactic,withoutspecialregardfor



historicaccuracyin{79}everydetail?Arethereligiousandethicaltruthstaughtintendedtobefinal,ordotheymarkastageinthedevelopmenttowardperfectionandfinality?Theseandotherimportantquestionsofasimilarnaturethehighercriticismseekstoanswer.

Someonemaysay,"Scholarsinallageshavesoughttoanswerthesequestionswhyisit,then,thatmodernhighercriticismreachesconclusionsconcerningtheorigin,form,andvalueofOldTestamentwritingsnotdreamedofafewcenturiesago?"Thisisalegitimatequestion,buttheanswerisnotfartoseek.Itmaybestbeansweredbyaskinganotherquestion:Meninallageshavestudiedtheearth,thesun,thestars,andotherphenomenaofnaturehowisitthatmodernscientistshavereachedconclusionsunknownandundreamedofafewcenturiesago?Themodernhighercriticism,likeallmodernscience,istheoutgrowthoftheawakeningduringtheMiddleAgeswhichrevolutionizedthewholeworldofscience,literature,andreligion.TheRenaissancearousedmen'sinterestinliteratureandscience,theReformationarousedmen'sinterestinreligionasapersonalexperience.IntheRenaissancemenbegantothinkforthemselvesinmattersofscienceandliteratureintheReformationtheybegantothinkforthemselvesinmattersofreligion.Itwasinevitablethat{80}theawakeningofthoughtandthesubstitutionofreasonforauthorityinscience,secularliterature,andsecularhistoryshouldultimatelyaffectsacredhistoryandsacredliteratureaswell.[9]

Chronologically,itistrue,theworkofhighercriticismbeganevenbeforethetimeoftheRenaissanceamongSpanishJews.ButthisJewishcriticismdidnotatthetimeexertanyinfluenceintheChristianChurch.OnlyaftercriticismhadsecuredafootholdamongChristianscholarsweretheresultsofJewishinvestigationmadeuseof.InthesamewaythepurelynegativeconclusionsofsomeoftheearlyChristianheretics,basedupondogmaticconsiderationsratherthanhistoricalinvestigations,havenoorganicconnectionwiththeinvestigationsandresultsofmoderncriticism.Itisperfectlycorrect,therefore,tostatethatthemodernhighercriticismhaditsbirthinthegreatawakeningoftheRenaissanceandtheReformation.Theygavetoitalifeandanimpetuswhichfromthatdaytothishavenotabatedintheleast.Someofthereformersthemselvesandtheircoworkersadvancedviewswhichlaterinvestigationhasconfirmedandexpanded.Carlstadt,forexample,thefriendandcoworkerofLuther,



publishedin1520anessayinwhichheargued,onthegroundthatthestyleofnarrationintheaccountofMoses'sdeathwhich,hebelieved,wasnotwrittenbyMoses,was{81}thesameasintheprecedingchapters,thatitmightbeheldthatMosesdidnotwritetheentirePentateuch.ThefreedomwithwhichLuthercriticizedboththeOldandtheNewTestamentbooksiswellknown.ConcerningtheOldTestament,headmittedthatthebooksofKingsweremorecrediblethanChronicles."Whatwoulditmatter,"heasks,"ifMosesdidnotwritethePentateuch?"HethinksitprobablethatIsaiah,Jeremiah,Hosea,andEcclesiastesreceivedtheirfinalformatthehandsofredactors.Thetestimonyofthepsalmtitleshedoesnotregardasconclusive.Headmitschronologicaldifficultiesandcontradictionsinthestatementsofhistoricalfacts.HeconcedesthatwedonotalwayshearGodhimselfspeakingintheOldTestament.Esthermightwellhavebeenleftoutofthecanon,andFirstMaccabeesmighthavebeenincluded.Ifthisisnotcriticism,whatis?

ThecaseofLutherhasbeenmentionedsimplytoshowtheabsurdityoftheclaimthatmodernhighercriticismistheoutgrowthofGermanrationalismorEnglishdeismorinfidelityorthatamanwhopursuesOldTestamentstudyonthelineofthehighercriticismisnecessarilyaninfidel,arationalist,orafool.True,therehavebeenandarethoseoutofsympathywithChristianityortheBiblewhohaveemployedcriticalmethodsincarryingontheirantiChristianwarfarebut{82}suchmisuseofcriticalmethodsnomoreprovestheillegitimacyofthisprocessofinvestigationthantheemploymentofasurgicalinstrument,which,inthehandsofaskillfulsurgeon,maybethemeansofsavingadiseasedorganism,byamurderertocarryouthisdestructiveaim,wouldprovethattheuseofallsurgicalinstrumentsisunscientificorcriminal.Thevastmajorityofthesocalledhighercriticsdonotdeservethedenunciationsheapeduponthembysomewhoconsiderthemselvessoledefendersofthefaith.MostofthemareChristianmenwhoseloyaltytoChrist,whosedevotiontothetruth,andwhosesincerityofmotivenoonehasreasonorrighttoquestionordoubt.Itisexceedinglyunfortunatethatmanywritershavefailedtorecognizethisfact.Nooneacquaintedwiththehistoryofbiblicalcriticismcanacceptthefollowingasatruecharacterizationofseriouscritics:"Imeanbyprofessionalcritic,onewhospendshistimeandstrengthintryingtofindsomeerrorordiscrepancyintheBibleand,ifhethinkshedoes,rejoicethas'onewhofindethgreatspoil'whohopes,whileheworks,thathemaysucceed,thinkingtherebytoobtainanameandnotorietyforhimself."[10]InasimilarspiritSir



RobertAndersonspeaksof"theforeigninfideltypeofscholar...asignorantofmanandhisneedsasamonk,andasignorantofGodandhiswaysasamonkey."[11]{83}Suchabuseisunchristian,andnogoodcanbeaccomplishedbyit.ThetruthofthematterismoreadequatelyexpressedbyJamesOrrwhenhesays:"Thereare,onemustown,fewoutstandingscholarsatthepresentdayontheContinentorinBritaininAmericaitissomewhatdifferentwhodonotingreaterorlessdegreeacceptconclusionsregardingtheOldTestamentofthekindordinarilydenominatedcritical.Yetamongtheforemostaremanywhomnoonewhounderstandstheirworkwoulddreamasclassingasotherthanbelieving,anddefendersofrevealedreligion."[12]Then,aftermentioninganumberofscholars,hedescribesthemas"allmoreorlesscritics,butallconvincedupholdersofsupernaturalrevelation."ButevenamongtheseChristian,evangelical,highercriticsadistinctionmustbemadebetweentwoclasses.Theonemaybecalled,forwantofabettername,traditional,becauseitsadherentsinsistthattheirinvestigationsonthelineofthehighercriticismhaveconfirmedinallessentialsthepositionsheldduringmanycenturies.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatmanyscholarswhoaresometimesquotedasupholdersofthetraditionalviewarereadytomakemanyconcessionstothosewhobelievethatthetraditionalviewsarenolongertenable.[13]Ontheotherhandisaclassofcriticswhichmaybecallednontraditional,criticswhoclaimthat{84}theirinvestigations,whileconfirmingthetruthofmanytraditionalpositions,compeltheminothercasestosetasidethetraditionalviewsinfavorofsomemoreinaccordwiththefactsinthecase.Itmaybedifficulttostateallthecausesresponsibleforthedifferencesintheconclusionsofthesetwoclassesofcritics.However,thewritingsofsomescholarsintheformerclassseemtoshowthattheauthorsareinfluenced,tosomeextentatleast,bythefearthatfurtherconcessionswouldaffecttheChristiantheoryofinspiration.AnothercausemaybefoundinthefactthatthepresentgenerationofOldTestamentscholarsreceiveditstraininglargelyatthehandsofthoseaccustomedtothetraditionalviewpointtheinfluenceofthisearlytrainingmanifestsitselftosomeextentinthepresentattitude.Amoreimportantcause,however,issuppliedbythenatureoftheevidenceuponthebasisofwhichthesecriticalquestionsmustbesettled.Mathematicaldemonstrationisimpossibleinverymanycases.Thecriticmustbequalifiedtoestimateprobabilities,andvariousdegreesofprobability,dependinguponthenatureofthegroundsonwhichitrests.Inthenatureofthecase,thepersonalelemententersintotheestimateofthedegreeofprobability.



Whattosomemayappearahighdegreeofprobability,oramounttopracticalcertainty,maytoanotherinvestigator,perhapslessfamiliarwith{85}thefactsinthecase,appearoflessvalueandleadhimtorejecttheconclusionentirely.Aslongasthisconditionofaffairscontinuesandthereisnoreasontosupposethatiteverwillbeotherwiseperfectagreementamongcriticalinvestigatorsneednotbeexpectedbutafairandthoroughexaminationofthefactsbyallmustbeinsistedupon.

Itisnotnecessarytoenlargeupontheviewsofthetraditionalclassofcritics,fortheirsaretheviewswithwhichmostChristiansnowlivinghavebeenfamiliarsincetheirchildhood.Inordertounderstand,however,thebearingofthenontraditionalcriticismupontheChristianviewoftheOldTestamentitisnecessarytoconsiderthemostimportantconclusionsofthenontraditionalclassofevangelicalcriticismandtotheseconclusionswemaynowturnourattention.

1.ModerncriticismhasplacedintoclearerlighttheprogressivecharacterofOldTestamentrevelation.Godisthesameyesterday,today,andforever,butmanhastakenmanyadvancestepsandasheadvancedhisspiritualcapacitiesandpowersofapprehensionincreased.Thisgrowthenabledhimtosecure,fromgenerationtogenerationandfromcenturytocentury,duringtheOldTestamentdispensation,aneverbroadeninganddeepeningconceptionofthenatureandcharacterofGodandofhiswill.TheOld{86}Testamentbooks,saysKent,are"theharmoniousandmanysidedrecordoftencenturiesofstrenuoushumanendeavortoknowandtodothewillofGod,andofhisfullandgraciousresponsetothateffort."[14]

2.FormerlythebeginningoftheOldTestamentcanonwastracedtoMoses.HewasthoughtnotonlytohavewrittenthebooksofthePentateuchbuttohavegiventothemofficialsanctionascanonicalbooks.TothesebooksweregraduallyaddedtheothersacredwritingsoftheOldTestamentontheauthorityofthedivinelychosensuccessorsofMoses,likeJoshua,Samuel,andtheprophets.ThecloseofthecanonwasascribedtoEzra,who,accordingtolaterviews,hadtosharethehonorwiththemenoftheGreatSynagogue.ModerncriticismassignsnewdatestosomeoftheOldTestamentbooksitbelievesthattheexilewasaperiodofgreatspiritualand



intellectualactivity,andanumberofbooksareplacedsubsequenttoEzraandNehemiah,whichinitselfwouldimplyadenialoftheviewthatthecanonwasfinallyclosedinthedaysofEzra.ThemoderncriticalviewisthattheOldTestamentbookswerecanonizedwhateverthedatesoftheirwritinggraduallyandatacomparativelylateperiod.ThecanonizationoftheLawisplacedataboutB.C.400,thatoftheProphetsbetweenB.C.250andB.C.180,whilethethird{87}divisionoftheJewishcanon,theWritings,isbelievedtohaveacquiredcanonicalauthorityduringthesecondandfirstcenturiesB.C.

3.FormerlytheorderoftheOldTestamentbooksdeterminedlargelytheviewofthedevelopmentofHebrewreligion.JustasintheNewTestamenttheGospelsoccupyfirstplace,theEpistlesbeingexpositionsoftheprincipleslaiddownintheGospels,soitwasthoughtthattheLawofthePentateuch,comingfromthehandsofMoses,servedasthebasisofthereligiousdevelopmentoftheHebrewsduringsubsequentcenturies.TheprophetswerelookeduponchieflyasexpoundersandinterpretersofthisLaw.Moderncriticismhasintroducedachangeofviewpoint.Itdoesnotdenythepreexilicexistenceofalllaw,orofsacrifice,orofaceremonial,orofotherpriestlyelements,butitbelievesthatinthereligiousdevelopmentofIsrael,thepreexilicperiodwaspreeminentlytheperiodoftheprophets,whilethereligiouslifeduringthepostexilicperiodwasdominatedbythepriests,thepriestlytypeofreligionfindingliteraryexpressionintheceremonialsystemembodiedinthePentateuch.

4.Accordingtomoderncriticism,compilationhadaprominentplaceintheproductionofOldTestamentbooks.ThecompositecharacterofthePentateuchistoucheduponinthenextparagraph,but,inaddition,itisbelievedthat{88}thereissufficientevidencetoestablishthecompositecharacterofpracticallyalltheotherhistoricalbooks.McFadyenaccuratelyrepresentsthemodernviewpointwhenhesays,"Inthelightofallthesefactsthegeneralpossibility,ifnotthepracticalcertainty,ofthecompositenessofthehistoricalbooksmaybeconceded."[15]Evidencesofcompilationareseenalsoinseveralofthepropheticbooks.TheassignmentofIsaiahandZechariahtomorethanoneauthoreachfurnishesperhapsthebestknownexamples,butotherpropheticbooksaresimilarlydivided.



5.ThePentateuchisnolongerassignedinitsentiretytoMosesitisthought,rather,tocontainmaterialselectedfromfourdifferentsources,whichthecompilerhadbeforehiminwriting.[16]ThesedocumentsdidnotreachtheirfinalformuntilsometimesubsequenttoMoses,butallofthemcontainedancientmaterial,muchofitgoingbacktothetimeofMoses,someofiteventopreMosaicdays.AmongthecontentsofthePentateuchspecialattentioniscalledtothreelegalcodestheBookoftheCovenant,theDeuteronomicCode,andthePriestlyCodebelongingtodifferentperiodsinHebrewhistory,andreflectingdifferentstagesinthereligiousandsocialdevelopmentofthenation.TheDeuteronomicCode,insomeform,isbelievedtohavebeenthebasisofthereformsinstitutedbyJosiah{89}andtohavebeenwrittenmostprobablyduringtheearlypartoftheseventhcentury.OnthesegeneralquestionsrespectingthePentateuchthereseemstobegeneralagreementamongcriticalscholarsontheotherhand,thereiswidedivergenceofopinionconcerningpointsofdetail,suchasthechronologicalorderinwhichtheseveraldocumentsreachedtheirfinalform,theirexactdates,themannerandtimeoftheircompilation,thedetaileddistributionofthematerialamongtheseveralsources,etc.Thedifferencesofopiniononthesepointsareduetothefactthatthedatauponthebasisofwhichtheproblemsmustbesolvedarenotsufficientlynumerousordecisive.

6.DoubtisthrownupontheauthorshipofanumberofOldTestamentbooks,orpartsofbooks,whichhavebeenassignedtocertainauthorsbybothJewishandChristiantradition.Asalreadystated,theMosaicauthorshipofthePentateuchisdeniedthebookofLamentationistakenawayfromJeremiahpartsofIsaiahandZechariahandthewholeofDanielareassignedtopersonsotherthantheprophetsbearingthesenames.Theaccuracyofthepsalmtitlesisquestionedfewofthepsalms,ifany,areassignedtoDavidorhisageandmostofthepsalmsbysomescholarsallareplacedinthepostexilicperiod.Aconservativescholar,likeW.T.Davison,isnotwillingtosaymorethan"that{90}fromtentotwentypsalmsincluding3,4,7,8,15,18,23,24,32,andperhaps101and110mayhavecomedowntousfromDavid'spen,butthatthenumbercanhardlybegreater,andmaybestillless."[17]ThesameuncertaintyisbelievedtoexistrespectingtheauthorshipofProverbsandofEcclesiastes,whichisconsideredoneofthelatestbooksintheOldTestamentcanon.Otherbooks,likeJob,whichintheabsenceofexternaltestimonywereformerlyassignedtoanearlydate,arenowplacedinthelaterperiodofHebrewhistory.



Inadditiontotheseresultstouchinguponmatterspracticallyunrecognizedbefore,thehighercriticismhasemphasizedsometruthswhich,thoughknown,exertedlittle,ifany,influenceupontheconceptionorstudyoftheOldTestament.Oftheseperhapsthemostimportantare,first,thattheOldTestamentisnotsomuchasinglebookasalibraryconsistingofmanybooksofdifferentdatesandauthorship,thoughallthesebooksmaybeheldtogetherbyonecommonspiritandpurpose[18]and,second,thatinthesebooksarerepresentedpracticallyallthevariousformsandkindsofliterarycompositionthatcanbefoundintheliteraturesofothernations.

Theseareperhapsthemostimportantconclusionsreachedbythenontraditionalhighercritics.Somemaynotbewillingtoadmitthat{91}theseconclusionsarewellfounded,and,indeed,thecautiousamongthecriticsverycandidlystatethatinmostcasesscientificdemonstrationisimpossible,thatprobabilityofvaryingdegreesisanimportantelementintheconclusionsbutunlessonehasfollowedthosewhohavereachedtheconclusionsintoeverydetailoftheirinvestigation,heishardlycompetenttopassavalidjudgment.Anditiswelltorememberwhatseemstobeanindisputablefact,thatwithveryfewexceptionsOldTestamentexpertseverywhereagreeessentiallyontheseresults,andthataneverincreasingnumberofseriousOldTestamentstudentswhosecompetencyandsinceritycannotbedoubtedfeelcompelledtoaccepttheseconclusions,convincedthatthetraditionalviewscannotbemaintainedwithoutnumerousmodifications.Thisfactmaynotestablishthetruthoftheseconclusionsnevertheless,itmayserveasasufficientreasonfortheconsiderationofanotherquestion:Shouldthetruthoftheconclusionsenumeratedbeestablishedbeyondapossibilityofdoubt,whatwouldbetheeffectupontheChristianconceptionoftheOldTestament?Whatwouldbecomeofitsinspirationorauthority,ofthesupernaturalinitshistory,oftheworkandcharacterofMoses,Isaiah,orDavidand,perhapsmostimportantofall,whateffectwouldthishaveupontheauthorityofJesusChristhimself?

{92}

Themostimportantandvitalofthesequestionsmaybeconsideredfirst.HowdotheconclusionsofthenontraditionalhighercriticismaffecttheauthorityofJesusChrist?Thisquestionariseschieflyinconnectionwith



investigationsintotheauthorshipofOldTestamentbooks,especiallyofthePentateuch,thePsalms,andIsaiah.ItisassertedthatsinceChristquotesandreferstopassagesfromthebooksbearingthenamesofMoses,David,andIsaiah,apparentlyasiftheyhadbeenwrittenbythesemen,anyclaimthatthesepassageswerenotwrittenbytheauthorsmentionedisanindicationofunbelief,aninsulttoChrist,andadenialofhisauthority."IfMosesdidnotwritethePentateuch,"saysL.W.Munhall,"oranyportionofit,andthehighestcritics(JesusChristandtheHolySpirit)declarehedid,itwouldbealie.Itwouldbenonethelessalie,eventhoughtheJewsheldtraditionallythatMoseswastheauthorofthesebooks.ThetestimonyoftheHighestCriticsisabsolutelyunerringlyandeternallytrue,andhewhohesitatestoreceiveitasagainstallothertestimoniesisdisloyaltothetruth."[19]Clearly,thisstatementisbasedupontheassumptionthatJesusgavedeliberatedecisionsonquestionsofauthorship,whichassumptioncannotbesubstantiated.Inthefirstplace,itiswelltonotethatinlessthanonefifthoftheNewTestament{93}quotationsfromtheOldTestamentisapersonalnameconnectedwiththequotationJesushimself,inquotingfromthePentateuchandotherOldTestamentbooks,frequentlyomitsallreferencetotheallegedauthor,whichshowsthatheconsideredthequestionofauthorshipofnospecialsignificanceincomparisonwiththetruthtaught.Moreover,insomecasesatleast,theexactformofquotationisdoubtful.Compare,forexample,Matt.15.4,"Godsaid,"withMark7.10,"Mosessaid"andLuke20.37,"Mosesshowed,intheplaceconcerningtheBush,"withMark12.26,"HaveyenotreadinthebookofMoses,intheplaceconcerningtheBushhowGodspakeuntohim,"withMatt.22.31,which,referringtothesamestatement,introducesitby,"HaveyenotreadthatwhichwasspokenuntoyoubyGod?"WhichoneoftheevangelistshaspreservedtheactualwordsofJesus?

ButevenadmittingthatJesususedintheseandotherpassagesapersonalname,doesthisimplyadecisionrespectingauthorship?Inextrabiblicalliteraturenoonewouldraiseseriousobjectiontotheuseofthenameofamantodesignateabookwithoutimplyingthatthemannamedwastheauthoroftheentirebook.ThisisdonealsointheNewTestament.InthesermonofPeter,"Samuel"evidentlyisusedinthesenseof"bookofSamuel,"forthereference{94}isnottoanutteranceofSamuelbutofNathan,[20]anditcannotimplyauthorship,forsomeoftheeventsrecordedinFirstSamuelandthoseinSecondSamueloccurredafterSamuel'sdeath.IntheEpistletotheHebrews,[21]apsalmisreferredtoas"David,"whichisnotevenbythetitleassignedtothegreatkingofIsrael.[22]



Mightitnotbe,therefore,that"Moses"wasusedasadesignationofabook,withoutathoughtofauthorship.Thisseemstobethecasein2Cor.3.15:"WhensoeverMosesisread,aveilliethupontheirheart."[23]AllthesefactssuggestthatwhileJesusfrequentlyquotesthePentateuch,andinsomecasesconnectsthenameofMoseswithit,heneverdoessotoprovethatMoseswroteit.W.T.Davisondescribesthesituationcorrectlywhenhewrites,"AstudyofthewholeuseoftheOldTestamentmadebyChristinhisteachingshowsthatthequestionsofdateandauthorshipwithwhichcriticismischieflyconcernedwerenotbeforethemindofourLordashespoke,norwasithisobjecttopronounceuponthem."[24]

ButevenadmittingthatthereferencesofJesusimplyinsomecasesarecognitionofauthorship,thequestionstillremainswhetherthefewpassagesquotedcarrywiththemtheauthorshipoftheentirebookfromwhichthequotationsaremade.Thereareevensomeconservativescholarswho{95}answerthisquestioninthenegative.AfterenumeratingsomeofthepassagesreferredtobyJesusascomingfromMoses,C.H.H.Wrightcontinues:"All,however,thatcanbefairlydeducedfromsuchstatementsis,thePentateuchcontainsportionswrittenbyMoses.Itdoesnotfollowthatthefivebooksasawholewerewrittenbythatlawgiver."[25]Thoughthisexplanationseemssatisfactorytosome,othersconsideritsomewhatforcedandunnatural,andtheyareinclinedtogivedifferentinterpretationsofthewordsofJesus.

ManyholdthatinhisreferencestoOldTestamentbooksJesusaccommodatedhimselftotheusageoftheJewswithoutindorsingtheirviewsorgivingexpressiontohisown,eventhoughheknewthatthecommonlyheldopinionsastotheauthorshipofcertainOldTestamentbookswereerroneous.ThosewhoadvocatethisviewbelievethattheirattitudeinnowisedishonorstheMaster.Indeed,theysay,onecannoteasilyseewhatothercoursehecouldhavetaken.JesushadcometorevealtheFather,tobringafallenraceintoharmonywithaholyGod.Surely,thetaskwasgreat,andtherewasbutlittletimeinwhichtoaccomplishit.Ifhehadturnedasidefromhischiefpurposetosettlescientificandliteraryquestionswhichwerenotunderdiscussionamongthepeople,hewouldhavearousedpopular{96}oppositionandthushavehinderedhischiefwork.Innocasedohisreferencesimplythathedesiredtopronounceanauthoritativecriticaljudgment,andinnocasedoesthevalueofthequotation



dependuponitsauthorship.Lookingatthematter,therefore,fromapedagogicalstandpoint,itwouldseemthat,inviewofhisimportantmissionintheworld,hewascompelledtoaccommodatehimselftotheviewsofthepeopleinallmattersnotessentialtohiswork.

ThisviewseemsentirelysatisfactorytomanysincereChristianbelievers.Thereare,however,thosewhomaintainthatitwouldnothavebeenlegitimateforJesusthustoaccommodatehimselftotheusageofthepeopleifhehadknownthattheirviewswerenotinaccordwiththefactsnevertheless,theyinsistthathisutterancesdonotsettlepurelyliteraryquestions.TheybelievethatJesussharedtheviewsofthepeople,thatheactuallythoughtthatMoseswrotetheentirePentateuch,andIsaiah,thewholeofthebookbearinghisnamebutthatthiswasalimitationofknowledgeonhispart.AndtheyfurtherinsistthatthisattitudetowardJesusinnowiseaffectsthesupremeandfinalauthorityoftheChristoverthelivesofmen.TheentirelifeoftheMaster,theysay,showsthatheregardedhismissionasspiritualhedidnotcometocorrectallerrors,butmerelythosetouchingreligionand{97}ethicsandevenherehedidnotgivedetailedspecificrules.Inmanycaseshesimplylaiddowngreatprinciples,whichintimemightbeworkedoutandappliedtothedetailsofhumanactivity.Hedidnotabolishslavery,hemadenoeffortstocorrecterrorsinsciencewhyshouldhecorrecterroneousviewsrespectingliteraryandcriticalquestions?Thesewereoutsideofhisimmediatesphereofinterest.Hisknowledgeorignoranceinthesesecondarymattersdoesnotnecessarilyinvolvehisknowledgeorauthorityinessentials.[26]Again,whileChristwasGod,hewasalsotrulyman.Thisunionofthedivinewiththehuman,ifreal,musthavebroughtsomelimitations.AndtheNewTestamentclearlyteachesthatinsomerespectsthepowersofChristwerelimited.Hisomnipotencewaslimited,elsehecouldnothavefelthunger,weariness,pain,etc.Asstrengthwasneeded,itwassupplied.Itmayhavebeentherepotentially,butnotactually.Mightitnothavebeenthesamewithomniscience?Inonecase,atleast,Jesusadmitsthathisknowledgewaslimited:"Butofthatdayorhourknowethnoone,noteventheangelsinheaven,neithertheSon,buttheFather."[27]And,surely,thatwhich,accordingtothisadmission,washiddenfromJesuswas,ascomparedwithaquestionoftheauthorshipofabiblicalbook,ofinfinitelygreaterimportance.Itwouldseem,therefore,{98}thatB.P.Raymondisrightwhenhesays:"ToaffirmthathehadknowledgeofthecriticalquestionswhichagitateChristianscholarstodayistodenythathewasmadelikeuntohisbrethren.Itisto



compromisetherealityofhishumanityandtostartontheroadthatleadstodocetism.Fairbairn'sconclusionsarejust'ThehumanityoftheSaviourmustbeabsolutelyreal.'"[28]

Thereare,then,threeexplanationsofthereferencesofChristtotheauthorshipofOldTestamentbooks,eachoneofwhichseemsperfectlyfair,natural,and,aboveall,scripturalandeachoneshowsthathisutterancesdonotfinallysettlepurelyliteraryquestions.Thisconclusion,sinceitisinperfectaccordwiththeNewTestament,caninnowisebeconstruedasaninsulttotheChrist,nordoesitaffectintheleasttheauthorityofJesusinmattersreligiousandethical.WhatissaidhereofthewordsofJesusisequallytrue,withsomeslightmodifications,ofsimilarNewTestamentreferencescoming,notfromJesusdirectly,butfromtheauthorsoftheNewTestamentbooks.

Fromtheconsiderationofthisquestionofvitalinterestwemayturntoanother,alsoofgreatimportance,namely,whatistheeffectofcriticalconclusionsuponthebeliefintheinspirationoftheOldTestament,inthesupernaturalinitshistory,andinitsauthority?Allthesequestions{99}centerinone,forinspirationimpliesthepresenceofasupernaturalelement,andtheauthorityoftheOldTestamentdependsupontherealityofitsinspiration.Hencetherealquestionis,Havetheconclusionsofthehighercriticismdisproved,orinanyseriouswayaffected,therealityoftheinspirationoftheOldTestamentwriters?Thisinquirymustbeansweredwithanemphatic"No."Inspirationdoesnotdependuponthefactthatacertaindefiniteindividualisresponsibleforawriting.AbookisinspiredbecauseGodisbackofitandinit,andnotbecauseacertainmanwroteit.Nordoesbeliefininspirationdependupontheknowledgeofthehumanauthor,elsehowcouldChristiansbelieveintheinspirationofthemenwhowrotebooksliketheEpistletotheHebrews,thebookofJob,thebooksofSamuel,andotherbiblicalbookswhoseauthorsarenotnamed?Moreover,aninspiredbookdoesnotloseitsinspirationbecauseitisdiscoveredthatthehumanagentinspiredisonedifferentfromthemantowhomtraditionhasbeenaccustomedtoassignthebook.WouldthelawsofthePentateuchbeanylessdivineifitshouldbeprovedthattheyweretheproductoftheexperienceofthechosenpeoplefromthetimeofMosestotheexile?WouldthePsalmsceasetoliftusintothepresenceofGod,ifitshouldbedemonstratedthatmostofthemcame{100}fromaperiodlaterthanDavid?Isthe



bookofJoblessmajesticandsublimebecauseweknownotthetimeorplaceofitsbirth?AretheProverbslessinstructivebecausecriticismclaimsthattheydonotallcomefromthesonofDavid?[29]

Oncemore:inspirationisnotconfinedtoanyformofliteratureaparablemaybeastrulyinspiredashistoryandtheinspirationofabookdoesnotvanishwhenitisassignedtooneformofliteratureratherthantoanother.TheconclusionsofthelegitimatehighercriticisminnowisetendtowardadenialoftheinspirationoftheOldTestament.Inspiration,thespecialdivineprovidenceoverIsrael,God'sinterferenceinthehistoryofthechosenpeople,wouldstandoutasprominentlyaseverifeveryclaimofthehighercriticismshouldbeprovedtrue.MostcriticalscholarsarereadytoindorsethewordsofProfessorSanday:"Myexperienceisthatcriticismleadsstraightuptothesupernatural,andnotawayfromit."[30]Butifthisbetrue,howcananyauthoritywhichrightlybelongstotheOldTestamentbeaffectedbycriticism?Thisauthoritybelongstoitbyvirtueofitsinspiration,andthevoiceofGodisnotsilencedbytheconclusionsofmoderncriticism.

"But,"someonewillsay,"ifthisistruehowisitthatcriticismhasbeenandstilliscondemnedunsparinglybymanymenwhosesincerity{101}andloveforthetruthcannotbecalledintoquestion?"Thereareseveralreasonsforthis.Inthefirstplaceevensomeveryintelligentmenseemtomisunderstandboththepurposeandtheclaimsofthehighercriticism.Anotherreasonisthatthereareevenamongtheevangelicalcriticsthosewholackjudgment,andwhopermitthemselvestodrawinferencesunwarrantedbythefactsinthecase.Asaconsequence,illinformedpersonshaveconcludedthatalltheresultsofcriticismareunwarrantedbythefacts.Athirdreasonisthatsomecriticsarearrogantandobnoxiousinthepresentationoftheirviews,and,therefore,bringtheentireprocessintodisrepute.Afourth,andperhapsthemostimportant,reasonisthatinadditiontothelegitimatehighercriticismdiscussedintheprecedingpagesthereisanillegitimatecriticismwhichveryfrequently,thougherroneously,isthoughttobetheonlykindofcriticismpracticed.Thiscriticismalsostudiesthefacts,butandthisisitsdistinguishingfeatureitsinvestigationsarecoloredbycertainpresuppositions,suchasthebeliefinamaterialisticordeisticevolution,inthepresenceofwhichthereisnoroomforinspiration,orforthesupernatural,orformiracles,intheChristiansenseoftheseterms.Thiskindofcriticismisnotlegitimate,becauseitisnotscientific,proceeding



asitdoesonthebasisofanunestablished,{102}unchristian,andimpossibleviewoftheuniverse.Buthighercriticsbelongingtothisclassarefewinnumber,andfairnessandChristiancourtesydemandthatinanydiscussionofthesubjectcleardistinctionsshouldbemadebetweenthiscriticismandthatprocessofinvestigationwhichisnotonlylegitimate,butindispensable.Itisalsowelltobearinmindthattheconclusionsoftheillegitimatecriticismwillneverbedisprovedbydenunciation,but,rather,bythecarefulandpainstakinglaborsofthosecriticswhoapproachtheirstudieswithouttheseunwarrantedassumptions.

Onemorequestionremainstobeconsidered,namely,Whatbecomesofthemenfromwhomcriticismtakesawayatleastpartofthewritingstraditionallyconnectedwiththeirnames?PreeminentamongtheseareMoses,Isaiah,andDavid.Mosesisnot,asissometimeserroneouslyasserted,removedtotherealmofmyths.[31]Toprovethisassertionitisonlynecessarytoquotethewordsofonewhoacceptstheresultsofthehighercriticismassetforthabove:"Moseswasthemanwhounderdivinedirection'hewedIsraelfromtherock.'Subsequentprophetsandcircumstanceschiseledtheroughbowlderintosymmetricalform,butthegloryofthecreativeactisrightlyattributedtothefirstgreatHebrewprophet.Asaleaderhenotonlycreatedanationbutguidedthemthroughinfinite{103}vicissitudestoalandwheretheymighthaveasettledabodeanddevelopintoastablepowerinsodoingheleftuponhisracetheimprintofhisownmightypersonality.Asajudgehesetinmotionforceswhichultimatelyledtotheincorporationoftheprinciplesofrightinobjectivelaws.AsapriesthefirstgavedefiniteformtotheworshipofJehovah.Asaprophethegatheredtogetherallthatwasbestinthefaithofhisageandrace,and,fusingthem,gavetohispeoplealivingreligion.UnderhisenlightenedguidanceIsraelbecametrulyandforeverthepeopleofJehovah.ThroughhimtheDivinerevealedhimselftoIsraelastheirDeliverer,Leader,andCounselornotafaroff,butpresentaGodpowerfulandwillingtosuccorhispeople,and,therefore,onetobetrustedandlovedaswellasfeared.Astheacorncontainsthesturdyoakinembryo,sotherevelationthroughMoseswasthegermwhichdevelopedintothemessageofIsraeltohumanity."[32]

Isaiah,thoughlosingsomeofthesublimestpassagesinthebook,isstillthekingamongtheprophets.InthewordsofEwald,apronouncedadvocateoftheconclusionsofmoderncriticism:"Oftheotherprophetsallthemore



celebratedonesweredistinguishedbysomespecialexcellenceandpeculiarpower,whetherofspeechorofdeedinIsaiahallthepowersandallthebeauties{104}ofpropheticspeechanddeedcombinetoformasymmetricalwholeheisdistinguishedlessbyanyspecialexcellencethanbythesymmetryandperfectionofallhisparts.Therearerarelycombinedinoneindividualtheprofoundestpropheticemotionandpurestfeeling,themostunwearied,successful,andconsistentactivityamidalltheconfusionsandchangesoflifeand,lastly,truepoeticgeniusandbeautyofstyle,combinedwithforceandirresistiblepoweryetthistriadofpowerswefindrealizedinIsaiahasinnootherprophet."[33]

David,indeed,losessomeofhishalo,ifmanyofthemostbeautifulpsalmsaretakenfromhim,yetheremainsthemanafterGod'sownheart."Accordingtohislight,heservedtheJehovahwhomheknewwithmarvelousfidelityandconstancy....HeruledovertheunitedHebrewtribesasJehovah'srepresentative.InhisnamehefoughtthebattlesagainstIsrael'sfoes,whomheregardedasJehovah'salso....FromthespoilswhichhewoninhiswarsheprovidedthemeanswherewithtobuildafittingdwellingplacefortheGodofhisnation.Thepriestsfoundinhimagenerouspatron,andprophetslikeNathanwereamonghismosttrustedcounselors.TodothewillofJehovahasitwasrevealedtohimwasthedominatingprincipleofhislife.Morecannotbesaidofanyone."[34]

{105}

AsplendidsummaryofthebearingofmodernevangelicalcriticismupontheChristianviewoftheOldTestamentisgivenbyCanonDriver:"ItisnotthecasethatcriticalconclusionsareinconflicteitherwiththeChristiancreedsorwiththearticlesoftheChristianfaith.Thoseconclusionsaffectnotthefactofrevelationbutonlyitsform.Theyhelptodeterminethestagesthroughwhichitpassed,thedifferentphaseswhichitassumed,andtheprocessbywhichtherecordofitwasbuiltup.TheydonottoucheithertheauthorityortheinspirationoftheScripturesoftheOldTestament.TheyimplynochangeinrespecttothedivineattributesrevealedintheOldTestament,nochangeinthelessonsofhumandutytobederivedfromit,nochangeastothegeneralposition(apartfromtheinterpretationofparticularpassages)thattheOldTestamentpointsforwardpropheticallytoChrist.ThatboththereligionofIsrael



itselfandtherecordofitshistoryembodiedintheOldTestamentaretheworkofmenwhoseheartshavebeentouchedandmindsilluminated,indifferentdegrees,bytheSpiritofGodismanifest."[35]

ButnotonlyhascriticismnottakenawayanythingessentialfromtheBibleonthecontrary,ithasresultedinsomedistinctgains.Thetextualcriticismhasfurnishedthemodern{106}studentwithamuchmoreaccuratetextofthebiblicalbooks,whilethelinguisticcriticismhasestablishedtheinterpretationofthistextuponafirmerbasis.ThehighercriticismalsohasmadeinvaluablecontributionstowardamoreadequateunderstandingoftheOldTestamentScriptures.Ithasmadeimpossiblethearbitraryand,sometimes,unreasonableinterpretationsofscripturewhichinformerageshaveprovedaseriousdetrimenttoreligionandtheology.Ithasrestoredtoreligioususesomeofthebiblicalbooksalmostforgottenbefore,andendowedthemwithfleshandbloodbythrowingbrightlightuponthecircumstancesconnectedwiththeirorigin.Ithasmadeitpossibletosecurea"reasonable,probable,andeventhrilling"viewofthehistoryandreligionofIsraelandofthestepsbywhichtherecordsofthesegrewup.Manyofthemoral,religious,andhistoricaldifficultieswhichservedaseffectiveweaponstoskepticsinallageshavedisappeared,andtheweaponshavebeensnatchedfromtheenemiesoftheBible.Manyoftheconfusionsandapparentdiscrepancies,whichaccordingtoformertheoriespresentedinsurmountabledifficulties,havefoundasatisfactoryexplanation."Highercriticism,"saysR.F.Horton,"somuchdreadedbypioussouls,isfurnishingaconclusiveanswertotheuntiringopponentsofrevelation."[36]Everyoneknows{107}thattheBiblehasbeenbitterlyattackedinthepast,andthatsuchattackshavenotaltogetherceasedevennowbutitissometimesoverlookedthatinthemajorityofcasestheseattacksaremadebymenwhoare,orseemtobe,lamentablyignorantoftheattitudeandresultsofmoderncriticalstudy.Theirargumentsbecome"absolutelypowerlessagainstthemodernhistoricalinterpretationoftheBibleandthemorethatinterpretationunderliestheteachingoftheyoung,themorecertainarethoseattackstodieanaturaldeath."[37]

Thereare,indeed,fewOldTestamentscholarswhowouldnotindorsethetestimonyofProfessorA.S.Peake,giveninapaperon"PermanentResultsofBiblicalCriticism,"readbeforetheFourthMethodistEcumenicalConference:"Speakingformyself,ImaytruthfullysaythatmysenseofthevalueofScripture,myinterestinit,my



attachmenttoit,havebeenalmostindefinitelyenhancedbythenewattitudeandnewmodeofstudywhichcriticismhasbroughttous."

NOTESONCHAPTERIII

[1]OldTestamentCriticismandtheChristianChurch,p.1.

[2]TheIntegrityofScripture,p.1.

[3]TheHistoryoftheHigherCriticismoftheNewTestament,p.85.


{108}

[5]GeneralIntroductiontotheOldTestament:TheText,pp.162,163.

[6]J.G.Eichhorn,EinleitungindasAlteTestament,PrefacetoSecondEdition.

[7]TheElementsoftheHigherCriticism,pp.12,13.

[8]ChristandCriticism,Preface.

[9]J.P.Peters,TheOldTestamentandtheNewScholarship,p.87.

[10]L.W.Munhall,AntiHigherCriticism,p.9.ForadiscriminatingstudyofthetheologicalandphilosophicalbiasofthemorerepresentativeOldTestamentcritics,seeBibliothecaSacra,January,1912,pp.1ff.

[11]TheBibleandModernCriticism,p.19.



[12]TheProblemoftheOldTestament,pp.7,8.

[13]SomeoftheseconcessionsareenumeratedinJ.E.McFadyen,OldTestamentCriticismandtheChristianChurch,pp.15ff.TheProblemoftheOldTestament,byJamesOrr,isoftenquotedasoverthrowingentirelythepositionsofmoderncriticismregardingtheauthorshipofthePentateuch.If,however,onereadsOrr'ssummaryofthechiefresultsofhisowncriticalinvestigation(pp.371ff.),thequestionmaywellbeasked,Whyshouldhebeconsideredlessofahighercriticthan,forexample,Wellhausen?

[14]TheOriginandPermanentValueoftheOldTestament,p.30.


[16]Eventhosewhoquestiontheexistenceoffourindependentdocumentsassumetheactivityofatleastfourdifferenthands.

[17]JamesHastings,DictionaryoftheBible,Vol.IV,p.151.

[18]Seeabove,pp.30ff.

[19]TheHighestCriticsvs.TheHigherCritics,pp.7,8.

{109}

[20]Acts3.24.Thepassageinthemindoftheapostleseemstobe2Sam.7.1116.

[21]Heb.4.7.

[22]Psa.95.



[23]TheoriginofthedesignationsMoses=Pentateuch,Samuel=booksofSamuel,David=bookofPsalms,mustbeexplained,andcanbeexplainedbutasthementionofSamuelandDavidshows,itcannotalwaysrestuponthefactofauthorship,whateverthepopularideamayhavebeen.

[24]JamesHastings,DictionaryoftheBible,Vol.IV,p.151.

[25]IntroductiontotheOldTestament,p.76.

[26]Seeabove,p.55.

[27]Mark13.32.

[28]M.S.Terry,MosesandtheProphets,p.194.

[29]C.A.Briggs,GeneralIntroductiontotheStudyofHolyScripture,p.26.

[30]QuotedinJ.E.McFadyen,OldTestamentCriticismandtheChristianChurch,p.253.

[31]Moseshas,indeed,beenremovedbysomeinvestigatorstotherealmofmyth,butnotuponthebasisofconclusionsreachedbythelegitimatemoderncriticism.

[32]C.F.Kent,AHistoryoftheHebrewPeople,Vol.I,pp.44,45.

[33]Prophets,Englishtranslation,Vol.II,p.1.

[34]C.F.Kent,AHistoryoftheHebrewPeople,Vol.I,p.167.

[35]IntroductiontotheLiteratureoftheOldTestament,pp.viii,ix.



[36]RevelationandtheBible,p.61.

[37]J.E.McFadyen,OldTestamentCriticismandtheChristianChurch,p.136.

KJVDevotionalGiftSet



TozeronChristianLeadership

TheBeginningoftheGospel



BibleHub:Search,Read,StudytheBibleinManyLanguages.

AboutUs|ContactUs|PrivacyPolicy|TermsofUse|MediaKit

20042013byBiblos.com

ARelationshipWithGod

ThisExplainsHowYouCanBeginAPersonal

RelationshipWithGod



20042013byBiblos.com