The unity of the Pentateuch : an examination of the higher critical theory as to the composite nature of the Pentateuch

Preface

By THE Ricut Rev. H. C. G. Mouse, D.D., Bishop or DURHAM.

I WELCOME the appearance of the present volume. It is a timely contribution to a controversy which is of immense importance to intelligent faith.

For many years past I have watched with misgiving the modern movements of Biblical criticism, which, originating long before, made powerful steps forward, within Christian circles in England, in and after the year 1886. In that year Wellhausen’s Article ‘Israel’? appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and at once excited profound attention, leading with phenomenal rapidity to a wide adoption of its main positions on the part of University and other teachers of high Christian standing among us.

It has come to be assumed, often in the most unlikely quarters, that its fundamental conclusions were proved certainties almost as complete as that of the law of gravitation.

From the first, of course, there was keen criticism of the critics. It was not always of the wisest temper. An acrimony which should resolutely be avoided sometimes appeared in such work, and sometimes an assumption that the phenomena of the Bible left us no room for the thought of a progressive development in revelation. But, to my mind certainly, it was made abundantly clear in due time, sometimes by unkind examiners, more often by the most judicial, like Robertson and Orr, that the “ certainties ”’ of the theory were very far indeed from the absoluteness often assumed. One brief but searching examination came from a disciple, who saw reason to change radically his point of view.

I refer to the young German lecturer Méller, who showed, convincingly, I think, that considerations of common sense lie with the greatest weight against the theory, for example, of the post-exilic drafting of “‘ the Law.”’

The present work falls into the succession of these criticisms of the modern critical position, and does so in a way which at least should command the respect and attention of open minds. It is the work of a highly competent Hebrew scholar. It betokens in every page the true student’s attention and patient study of the critical literature he discusses. It is totally devoid of the accent of bitterness, and it betokens (like Dr. Orr’s masterly book The

v vi PREFACE

Problem of the Old Testament) the attitude, not of the pleader with a case to sustain, but rather that of the judge, or, if you please, that of the King’s Counsel arriving with a great sense of responsibility at a considered opinion. .

The book, though appealing to readers who bring to it only ordinary culture with no claim to special scholarship, nevertheless asks, and justly, for a close and patient attention akin to that of the writer. |

In order to arrive at large conclusions, it deals with much minute detail, following in this the best specimens of the work of the modern critic. It does not invite a comfortable arm-chair study, but the serious effort of readers alive to the immense importance of the issues.

I venture to say that such readers are at least likely to reap from careful perusals, new light upon the old belief, that not only upon the spiritual messages of the Bible, but on their historical embodiments there has rested the superintendence, working freely through man, but not less superhumanly, of the Holy Spirit of truth. They will feel better able, if their experience is at all like mine, to open their Bible again with a deepened persuasion that the Lord’s own august formula “ It 1s written ’’ is what we His followers may use with a calm assurance.

A book like this leaves open, of course, many attendant problems. Not for a moment does it ask us, for example, to read the first few pages of the Bible with the assumptions of a literalism which excludes the presence of symbol and of poetic phrase. Butgthat is a wholly different matter from the other assumption that the majestic narratives are little more than folk-lore cast into a certain form, or again are due to the halting and inconsistent editing of divers streams of tradition, each in itself uncertain, and combined into uncertain results.

But my purpose is not so much to express myself on the matters in question, as, with great sincerity and earnestness, to commend Mr. Finn’s expression of the results of his studies to the earnest attention of the reader.

HANDLEY DUNELM.

PART I. The Evidence Examined. (A) The Evidence of the Narratives

Cc. I. THE QUESTION AT ISSUE II, JEHOVIST AND ELOHIST III. DupLicATE NARRATIVES IV. THE AccouUNT OF CREATION .

V. THE DELUGE : i VI. JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN .

VII. Commission oF MOSEs .

VIII. THE PLAGUES IX. THE SPIES . ; : X. Korau, DATHAN AND ABIRAM XI. HuistToricaL ALLUSIONS IN D XII. INDICATIONS OF LATE DATE .

XIII. StTyYLe : , ; XIV. THE Book oF JosHUA (STYLE)

(B) The Evidence of the Laws, (a) compared with one another.

c. XV THE THREE “ CoDES’”’

XVI. THE PLACE OF SACRIFICE ‘ XVII, YEAR OF RELEASE—HEBREW SLAVES .

XVIII. THe THREE ANNUAL PILGRIMAGES : XIX. PRIESTS AND LEVITES—FIRSTLINGS AND TITHES XX. RELATIONS OF P anp H XXI. RELATIONS OF P AND EZEKIEL XXII. THE DECALOGUE.

(b) compared with the History.

c XXIII. THe EvipENCE oF THE HISTORY .

XXIV. THE History AnD JE XXV. THE History AND D.

vii

112 129 140

149 °

155 164 172 187 200 208

213 «

225 233 243

Viil

Co VL, XXVII.

XXVIII.

XXIX.

XXX, XXXII.

XXXII.

XXXII.