The Bible under higher criticism : a review of current evolution theories about the Old Testament

Front matter

THE BIBLE

UNDER HIGHER CRITICISM.

E. H. DEWART, D.D.

Chapter I. Introductory Remarks On Some Current Phases

OF THE QUESTION.

PAGE

A Time of Critical Enquiry—Questions that Require Definite Answers—Different Estimates of Critical Results— Vague Pleading for Liberty of Thought—A Questionable Practice—Incorrect Assumptions Regarding the Position of Conservative Theologians—Fair Consideration Should be Given to Facts:and Arguments ..........0 00. cee cece ns 9

Chapter II

STUDENTS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE CAN JUDGE THE THEORIES OF THE “HIGHER CRITICS.”

Undue Exaltation of Partial Experts—The Appeal is to Reason and Attested Facts—The Judgment of English Scholars not to be Discarded—Statements of Hebrew Scholars on this Point—The Cause of Different Interpretations of Isaiah liii.—Intelligent Conviction the Ground of Belief—No Disparagement of Biblical Learning 24

Chapter III. What Is The “higher Criticism” Of The Bible?

Need of Right Views of What is Meant—Definitions of Higher Criticism—Classification Depends on Conclusions Adopted —The Pentateuchal Controversy—Astruc and His Successors—Theories of Higher Critics—The Logical Results— Arguments Against Disintegration ..................4. 36 vi CONTENTS.

Chapter IV. Conservative Biblical Scholars And Free

CRITICISM.

PAGE Free Criticism a Sacred Right—Orthodox Scholars Advocate this—Young Ministers Should Read Both Sides—Objections not Based on Prejudice—Critical Principles and Facts Accepted by Conservative Critics ................ 57

Chapter V

THEORIES BUILT ON IMAGINARY STATES OF LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE.

Making History Fit a Scheme—An Unjustifiable Way of Fixing Dates—Archeology Contradicts the Higher Critics —Accounts in Genesis not Babylonian—Import of Recent Discoveries not Recognized ya a ee ee tae pieteem 73

Chapter VI. Unwarranted Conclusions Based On Alleged Silences Of Scripture

Partial Statements of Higher Critics—Neglect of Mosaic Laws Accounted For—Historians and Prophets Refer to Pentateuchal History and Rites—Conclusive Testimony of Amos, Hosea and Later Prophets—The Facts not Fairly Met by the Higher Critics............ dp ak Se oil cote 92

Chapter X

EFFECT OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY ON FAITH IN THE TRUTH AND INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Statements of Higher Critics—Not Merely Literary Questions —Theories which Affect Confidence in the Divine Authority of Scripture—Harmful Effects on Christian Faith in Europe—The Plea for ‘‘Christian Scholars” Examined—Following Anti-Supernatural Leaders—Testimony of Eminent Biblical Scholars on this Question... 173

Chapter XI. Concluding Observations

Re-statement of Facts and Arguments in Previous Chapters —Many Critical Conclusions Unreasonabie—Advantages of the Analytic Criticism Unduly Magnified—Prof. W. J. Beecher on the ‘‘ Books” and the ‘‘ Sources ”—No Moral Power Gained by Dissecting the Books ................ 202

Chapter I

INTRODUCTORY. REMARKS ON. SOME COURLENT PHASES OF THE OURS TLON:

A Time of Critical Enquiry—Questions that Require Definite Answers—Different Estimates of Critical Results— Vague Pleadings for Liberty of Thought—A Questionable Practice —Incorrect Assumptions Regarding the Position of Conservative Theologians-——Fair Consideration Should be Given to Facts and Arguments.

N these times of searching enquiry and mental unrest, nothing is too sacred to be criticised.

The questioning critical spirit invades every department of human thought. We need not therefore be surprised that the Sacred Scriptures have been subjected to the same close critical scrutiny that has been exercised in other spheres of enquiry. But the peculiar claim of the Bible to be a book containing divine revelations of truth, invests the results of Biblical criticism with exceptional importance. In most Christian communities a notable interest is manifested in what is commonly called the “higher 9 criticism” of the Old Testament. Many who have not had the opportunity of examining the subject for themselves are anxious to know in what degree these modern critical theories affect the historic faith of the Christian Church, in the divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures.

Many are asking such questions as these: What is the “higher criticism” ? What changes in the historic Christian view of the Bible would the acceptance of these new theories involve? Are there any valid objections to the methods and conclusions of these critics ? Would the general acceptance of the new theories about the Old Testament tend to promote spiritual religion? Is it true that all Hebrew scholars now accept the idea that the Old Testament is the product of evolution, rather than an authentic account of God’s dealings with Israel, and a record of divine revelations made to chosen men, who “spake from God being moved by the Holy Ghost”? Are the arguments, for and against this evolution theory of the Scriptures, such as intelligent English scholars can understand, so as to judge for themselves as to what is true and right ?

The significance of these questionings is very much intensified by the great differences of opinion, respecting the value of the results of the “higher criticism” of the books of the Old Testament, which distinguish the views of the advocates and opponents of the advanced theories. The former esteem the conclusions of this modern criticism a great gain to the Christian world, by which errors and misconceptions of the past have been corrected, and the origin and character of the Hebrew Scriptures set in their true light.

But many eminent biblical scholars, though freely admitting the value of the light shed by modern study on the history and times of the books of the Bible, regard many of the conclusions of the advanced critics as speculative conjectures, not sustained by adequate proof, and strongly tending to undermine faith in the trustworthiness and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. It is important to know which of these judgments is right, or whether there is any safe middle ground between the extreme views of these conflicting schools of thought.

There are several things which make a plain statement of some of the main facts bearing on these questions neither untimely nor unnecessary at the present time. There is no scarcity of books and articles in reviews and magazines discussing this subject. The literature of biblical criticism is abundant enough; but the great majority of Christian people have neither the time nor opportunity to read these elaborate and technical works.

Besides, unverified conclusions are asserted with the most positive and oracular confidence, as if there was no room for any contrary opinion. Partial statements are made respecting the actual state of the controversy, that would “lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Sometimes opinions, that are still warmly disputed by competent scholars, are stated in a plausible paraphrase, as if they were unquestioned historic facts; or, at any rate, as if those who do not accept that version of the matter might be counted out, as unworthy of any consideration. There are also signs of a tendency to show less reverence for the Bible than formerly. The words of inspired Apostles are sometimes set aside with an air of superior wisdom, when they do not accord with some modern critical opinion. This is a serious and suggestive fact.

In former times our forefathers heard or read of lax theories about the Bible being held in Germany, or France, or somewhere else, as something that did not greatly concern them. These things then seemed far off, and, above all, they had strong confidence that the personal experience of salvation in the heart would keep the head free from heresy and error in religious belief. But the wave of critical speculation has reached all the Protestant churches of Britain and America. It cannot be rolled back by any voice of authority. It must be squarely met by appropriate facts and arguments.

There are signs that of the younger ministers, who desire to keep abreast with the religious thought of the times, some have been smitten by the attraction of views that confidently claim to be the outcome of liberal thought and modern scholarship. Many of this class are without anything like a thorough knowledge of the issues at stake, or the strength of the objections which eminent biblical scholars, who do not accept the theory that the Scriptures are the product of evolution, have urged against the guesswork of the advanced critics.

Undoubtedly there are difficulties and apparent contradictions in these ancient writings; but these difficulties have been greatly exaggerated. In view of the remoteness of the time when they were written, the limited literature in the language, and the fact that Hebrew has long ceased to be a living language, it would be strange if this were not so. But we may admit the difficulty of reconciling two statements, without accepting a theory of different authors of different dates which is built upon it. Modern eriticism has indeed suggested explanations which would lessen some of these difficulties. It is, however, the judgment of many biblical scholars that the views by which the “higher critics” claim to have solved many of these critical problems create greater difficulties than those they remove.

It is an admonitory fact that all past efforts to conform Christianity to systems of secular philosophy have resulted in robbing it of its spiritual power. Nor is it without significance, that German radical criticism of the Old Testament mainly originated in an effort to conform the conception of the Scriptures to the pantheistic philosophy of Hegel. It is truly said by Prof. F. R. Beattie, “that much of the modern criticism, which ignores the supernatural and seeks to give a naturalistic explanation of the religion of the sacred Scriptures, has grown out of the soil of the idealistic Pantheism of Hegel.” The gravest problem suggested by this modern critical scheme is to determine whether the main theory of the evolutionary critics, and the conception of the Bible it logically implies, can be accepted without seriously affecting those beliefs and religious experiences, that have been the vital forces of Christianity in every age of its history.

There is at the present time a good deal of pleading for free enquiry and progress in theological thought, which has special significance. It is deemed discreditable not to agree with the new theories about the Bible, and an evidence of superiority to accept them. Liberty of thought is sacred; but there is no necessary antagonism between freedom of thought and the acceptance of duly attested truths. The value of liberty depends upon the use we make of it. The right of freedom of thought is now so universally acknowledged that it stands in need of no defence. But freedom of thought does not mean that any one who advocates new theories must be exempt from criticism or refutation. Those who condemn all creeds have an unwritten, if not a written, creed of their own. It does not mean that adverse criticism of opinions we believe to be erroneous should be stigmatized as intolerance and persecution. It does not mean that the Church should not maintain purity of teaching in her ministry, without being charged with “heresy-hunting.”

Whenever a preacher or teacher is criticised or censured as teaching views that are unscriptural and erroneous, a clamour is raised without much regard to the issues, that the man is not allowed liberty of thought and is being persecuted for thinking for himself. This is generally a false alarm. The issue is not, shall such a man have liberty to believe what he deems right? No one wants to deprive him of that right. The real question is, If we are convinced that a man has accepted beliefs that are false and unscriptural, shall we authorize and employ him to propagate these misleading views as if we believed them to be true? Neither churches nor individuals should be recreant to their conviction as to what is true and. right, nor indifferent towards what they believe to be erroneous. It is a spurious liberality that speaks as if one opinion was as right as another. This is virtually ignoring the distinction between truth and falsehood, and by implication denying that the Holy Scriptures are a standard of religious truth by which beliefs should be tested.

We may fully agree with the strongest things that can be said in favor of freedom of opinion, the sacredness of truth, and the right of new ideas to receive fair consideration, and yet feel it to be our duty to reject the particular views these liberal sentiments are used to cover and excuse. When some doubtful views are being publicly advocated and taught, general pleadings for liberty of belief in teaching have a significance they would not possess under other circumstances. At such a time pleas for liberty and liberality may be equivalent to an allegation, that all who reject the new views are opposed to free and independent criticism. This is confounding things which differ. Eloquent declamation about freedom of thought, love of truth, and the necessity of keeping abreast of the progressive learning of the times, may be employed to justify and apologize for what is erroneous as well as in defence of what is sound and true.

When any teacher of men speaks as if theologians of the past did not grapple with the great problems of religious thought independently, and as if these questions were now in a state of flux requiring scientific adjustment, it is pretty certain that he is trying to make room for some ideas of his own. Hence, when we hear fervid pleadings for new ideas and the results of modern thought, and disparagement of all that we have received from the thinkers of the past, it is in order to ask those who adopt that style to come out of the clouds of indefinite generalities, and to tell us plainly what historic beliefs we are required to give up and what new beliefs we should substitute for them. It is not a commendable thing to cover doubtful dogmas with high-sounding generalities, that conceal rather than express what is meant. ‘Those who have any new views to teach should have the honesty to state them plainly. When this is done, the supreme question to be met and answered is: “ ARE THESE OPINIONS OR THEORIES TRUE AND PROVED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE ?”

It has become a rather common practice, with some who have not fully committed themselves to the conclusions of the advanced critics, to portray as favorably as possible how much that is good and valuable in religion would be left us, even if the negative criticism be accepted. In other words, to make out how little harm it would do Christians to accept these new

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. LZ critical views. This phase of the subject will be discussed in a future chapter; but I may say in this connection, that I regard this as a questionable practice. For, though we should be slow to pronounce dogmatically what the consequences of accepting a new theory shall be, yet, as the truth or falsehood of any teaching is the main thing, this should be settled before we determine our attitude towards any new views of the Bible. It is paying too much deference to speculative analytical critics to adopt, even as a working basis, the idea that we have nothing of the Bible left that is trustworthy, but what their partial criticism permits them to concede. There are many examples of men having begun by theorizing in this way, and ending by accepting the opinions for which their theorizing had prepared the way. This method has too much the appearance of preparing to surrender, by making the people familiar beforehand with the idea of adjusting themselves to the new theories. Picturing what the religious position of those who now possess peace through believing might be, after they have renounced the confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible which has inspired and sustained their faith in the past, is too much like describing to people who have eaten and are full how well they could do, if reduced to a starvation allowance of food.

A remarkable illustration of this practice is seen in a book by Prof. A. B. Bruce, which he entitled “ Apologetics.” At one point he says: “It will be time enough to dogmatise when criticism has arrived 2 at the stage of finality. It is far enough from havying reached that stage yet. Not to mention endless diversity of views on special points, there are broad contrasts between different schools, even with reference to the leading critical problems.”?

And yet his whole work is on the line of these unsettled theories. He is ready to surrender the historic conception of the Scriptures at almost every point. He constantly quotes the rationalist critics as his main authorities. His “ Apologetics” is really an apology for the theories of the “higher critics.” It sometimes seems as if this method of building with confessedly “ untempered mortar” was adopted because it is thought less likely to repel those whom it is desired to influence, than an outspoken approval of the evolution theory of the origin of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Some writers have a practice of ascribing questionable opinions to those who refuse to accept their theories; as if all who do not think just as they do were shut up to the acceptance of some weak untenable views, which require no refutation. One form of this is seen in the undue disparagement of the theologians and methods of the past. <A recent writer describing the way in which former translators found an answer to the question, “ What is the true text?” says: “ Whenever the enquiry arose as to what any writer of sacred Scripture said in a particular place, the tendency of the theory was to insist that he must have said thus and so, and to fix in this

1“ Apologetics,” p. 171.

way whatever form of the text seemed most favorable to the theory itself.” One is prompted to ask, what translators of the past would accept this as a truthful characterisation of their work? The theory which denies all predictive reference to the historic Christ is, forsooth, called the “ Ethical Theory ’—as if those who deny the negative views do not fully hold and teach the moral and religious lessons of Hebrew prophecy. There is no just ground for any such assumption. It is contrary to the facts.

It is too much the fashion for those who advocate the evolutional theory of the Bible to represent all who do not accept that view as timid traditionalists, who base their beliefs on the authority of theologians of the past, while the “higher critics” are to be respectfully regarded as having obtained their views by personal study and examination. The actual facts do not justify this assumption. As that able scholar, Prof. James Robertson, of Glasgow, says: “The critical theory is fast becoming traditional, and is accepted by multitudes on no better grounds than those on which the former view became traditional.” Prof. W. J. Beecher says, referring to the analytic critics: “They have no right to claim that they differ from their opponents in that their views are based on investigation, while those of their opponents are based on tradition.” Both the negative and conservative schools have in their ranks those whose beliefs about the Bible are based on personal study and examination ; but both have also many who have accepted their beliefs because they had been the beliefs of others.

It is not too much to say, that ordinary Christians who hold the orthodox belief about the authorship of the books of the Bible have as good ground to be credited with independence, as persons of similar learning who accept the theories of the higher criticism, on the authority of certain critics. The latter class accept theories that are based on subtle distinctions and speculations, whose import they but imperfectly understand. The former hold the historic view simply because they accept the Bible as being what, on the face of it, it assumes to be.

We certainly should have some better reason for our belief than that it has been held by others, either in the past or in the present. But some writers seem to think it a sufficient reply to any objection urged against the radical theories, to say that it is on conservative or traditional lines of thought. As if it were enough to discredit any view that it was the faith of the Church through the ages of the past! If any theologians or churches in the past have held a theory of inspiration, or any other traditional belief which cannot be justified by a sober scientific study of the Bible itself, it should not be assumed that this questionable view is held by those who reject theories which divest the Bible of distinguishing qualities, which are in a large degree reasons for accepting its teaching as a standard of faith and duty. It is as futile as it is unjust to cite exploded notions of past times which no one now holds, such as that the Hebrew vowel points were inspired, that Moses wrote the account of his own death, or some fabulous Jewish legends about the Hebrew Scriptures, as if such things represented the beliefs of those who reject the theories of the higher critics of Germany.

In the discussion of these questions which so closely touch our estimate of the Bible, I do not postulate any theory of the inspiration or inerrancy of the Seriptures, except what they claim or assume for themselves. I do not question any man’s right to the most searching examination of the contents of the books of the Bible. But I claim an equal right to reject what I deem untrue. I feel bound to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints;” but I hold no brief for the defence of every traditional belief. I feel no obligation to accept what has been held by good and gifted men of the past, any further than it is supported by Scripture and sound reason. No opinion is accepted because it is old, or rejected because it is new. Neither novelty nor antiquity can be safely taken asa test of the truth of any teaching. “ WHAT- SOEVER THINGS ARE TRUE”—these and these only should be accepted by lovers of truth.

I lay no claim to be a critical expert; but my whole life has been given to literary and _ biblical studies. I have considered with open mind the arguments of the advocates of the “higher criticism” and the counter criticism of their opponents. J ask no one to accept any conclusion on my authority; but I would remind those who may differ from me, that if pertinent and important facts are correctly stated, and conclusions supported by fair and valid arguments, it is an evasion, and no proper reply, to try to break the force of such facts and arguments by the authority of “all scholars,” or the alleged learning and love for the Bible of certain critics who hold different opinions. This method of answering objections has been too much in evidence of late. We are not dealing with the sincerity or conscientiousness of eritics, but with the truth and soundness of their teaching and the validity of their arguments. The rejection and refutation of a man’s opinions should not be construed as aspersing his character.

In view of all that has been written on the subject, there is not much room for new arguments. I have freely availed myself of what others have written. The numerous quotations from able and learned conservative scholars, which will be found in this volume, are the chief elements of value in the work. Yet, I would remind my readers that, though these judgments of learned men are weighty and valuable, they are not cited as unquestionable oracles, but for their force and reasonableness, and the help they give to a right understanding of the important questions under consideration. They disprove the common assumption that “all scholars” accept the negative theories.

One thing is certain, we are passing through a grave crisis. The Old Testament is “under fire.” Essentially rationalist teaching about the books of the Bible is current in the theological literature of the day. It is advocated by men of distinguished learning, and received in unexpected quarters within the Christian churches. There is therefore great need to discriminate between conjectures and facts— between plausible surmises and valid arguments. We should accept whatever is fairly proved by adequate evidence, and reject what is disproved or is open to valid objections. Weshould withhold acceptance from conjectural guesses that are not supported by proper proof, or that from the nature of the case can never be conclusively decided. Truth always suffers when men decide without the necessary data.

_ What is said in this volume to show that there are cogent objections to many of the methods and conclusions of leading “higher critics,’ should not be construed as a condemnation of thorough and independent biblical criticism. I mean no indiscriminate condemnation of all higher critics. “There are critics and critics.” I simply mean to show that many current assumptions of leading critics, which strongly tend to overthrow faith in the trustworthiness and divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, are not supported by adequate evidence and are advocated by unscientific and unwarrantable methods.

Chapter II

Undue Exaltation of Partial Experts—The Appeal is to Reason and Attested Facts—The Judgment of English Scholars not to be Discarded—Statements of Hebrew Scholars on this Point—The Cause of Different Interpretations of Isaiah liii.—Intelligent Conviction the Ground of Belief— No Disparagement of Biblical Learning.

S it justifiable to assume, as is frequently done in current discussion, that this subject of the authenticity of the books of the Bible is beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals, and that they must accept on trust what claims to be “results of modern criticism?” It seems as if some writers would have us believe that we have no choice between accepting theories that are essentially rationalistic, or admitting the force of infidel objections against the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. We are not shut up to either of these alternatives. We cannot consent to strip the Bible of those characteristics which distinguish it from all other writings, in order to evade the force of skeptical objections to its divine authority. This question must be settled before we go any further; for if in- 24 telligent readers of the English Bible are incapable of understanding the questions at issue, it would be of no use to proceed with the discussion of the subject.

It is somewhat strange that those who pose as the champions of independent thought, and seem to think they have a mission to break the chains of authority imposed by the Church of the past, should be so constantly appealing to the authority of “all scholars” and “the consensus of modern critics” to settle vital questions affecting our estimate of the Holy Seriptures. The unquestioning acceptance of the theories of modern critics is no more laudable than submission to the canonized authorities of the past. There may be quite as much independence and love of truth in “earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” as in pliantly bowing down to the authority of critical experts, in order to be abreast with modern critical learning. It is well to keep in mind, whatever the learning or ability of any writer may be, that “THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH FORCE IN ANY MAN'S OPINIONS AS THERE IS FORCE IN THE REASONS FOR THEM.”

No one should expect to settle such grave questions by dogmatic assertions, or appeals to the opinions of “scholars,” however eminent they may be. It may be that, if we knew who were meant by the “ Christian scholars” appealed to, we would know enough about them to regard them as unsafe leaders. Facts may be established by the testimony of competent witnesses, but the truth of opinions and inferences cannot be established by the prestige of distinguished names. “Great men are not always wise.” All the heresies that have corrupted the truth were introduced by men of learning. Baur and the leaders of the Tubingen heresy were as famous scholars and as popular for a time as the greatest of the “higher critics” of the present day.

The reader of the English Bible should not give up his right to think and judge for himself. Neither should the minister, who is not an expert Hebrew scholar, regard all these questions as exclusively belonging to expert linguists. Intelligent English readers are not left to the tender mercies of rationalist critics, with nothing but the resources of their own wits to meet the negative theories. The results of the studies of the most eminent scholars are within easy reach of all who desire to study them. So in all ages Christians have used successfully the weapons for the defence of the truth, that had been forged by the gifted leaders in the Church of God.

All who are at all familiar with what has been written by the most learned writers on this subject, both advanced and conservative, know that the main questions are submitted to the reason and common-sense of all intelligent Christian readers. If there are writers who think these to be matters which none but Oriental scholars can understand, why do they appeal to the general Christian public as they do? They cannot expect their theories to be accepted with unquestioning faith on their authority alone. Writers who make their appeal to intelligent English readers, if these readers consider the evidence for the new views

STUDENTS OF THE ENGL EST BIBL, 27 insufficient and reject them, should not contemn the jury as incompetent because the verdict is unfavorable to them. Yet, in Germany and also in America, it is too much the fashion to treat the objections of Christian pastors and intelligent laymen as of no account, and to regard all these questions as the special prerogative of college professors of the analytic school of eritics. It looks as if readers of the English Bible may be conceded intelligence enough to accept these critical theories, but not enough to reject them intelligently ; or, rather, that acceptance of the critical theories is made the test of intelligence, and their rejection an evidence of incompetence.

As the results of accepting the new conception of the Bible profoundly concerns the whole Christian Church, thoughtful men and women are not likely to give up their intelligent convictions in deference to claims of superior scholarship. They will require something more than the assertion of partial advocates, that certain theories are supported by “the ripest German scholarship,” before they accept them as true. There is truth and common-sense in the remark of Dean Chadwick, of Ireland, that “plenty of orthodox clergymen, and laymen, too, who have not the slightest notion of rejecting anything that can be really proved, have just as little intention of letting go their old beliefs, unless the case is really made out to their satisfaction.”1 To treat with contempt intelligent English scholars who cannot accept the views of “higher critics,” as if it was an imper-