The higher criticism of the Pentateuch

Preface

<" The Higher Criticism has been of late so associated with extravagant theorizing, and with insidious attacks upon the genuineness and credibility of the books of the Bible that the very term has become an offence to serious minds. It has come to be considered one of the most dangerous forms of infidelity, and in its very nature hostile to revealed truth. And it must be confessed that in the hands of those who are unfriendly to supernatural religion it has proved a potent weapon in the interest of unbelief. Nor has the use made of it by those who, while claiming to be evangelical critics, accept and defend the revolutionary conclusions of the antisupernaturalists, tended to remove the discredit into which it has fallen.

This is not the faidt of the Higher Criticism in its genuine sense, however, but of its perversion. Properly speaking it is an inquiry into the origin and character of the writings to which it is applied. It seeks to ascertain by all available means the authors by whom, the time at which, the circumstances under which, and the design with which they were produced. Such investigations, rightly conducted, must prove a most important aid to the understanding and just appreciation of the writings in question.

The books of the Bible have nothing to fear from such investigations, however searching and thorough, and however fearlessly pursued. They can only result in establishing more firmly the truth of the claims, which the

VI PREFACE

Bible makes for itself, in every particular. The Bible stands upon a rock from which it can never be dislodged.

The genuineness and historical truth of the Books of Moses have been strenuously impugned in the name of the Higher Criticism. It has been claimed as one of its most certain results, scientifically established, that they have been falsely ascribed to Moses, and were in reality produced at a much later period. It is affirmed that the history is by no means reliable and merely records the uncertain and variant traditions of a post-Mosaic age ; and that the laws are not those of Moses, but the growth of centuries after his time. All this is demonstrably based on false and sophistical reasoning, which rests on unfounded assumptions and employs weak and inconclusive arguments.

It is the purpose of this volume to show, as briefly and compactly as possible, that the faith of all past ages in respect to the Pentateuch has not been mistaken. It is what it claims to be, and what it has always been believed to be. In the first chapter it is exhibited in its relation to the Old Testament as a whole, of which it is not only the initial portion, but the basis or foundation upon which the entire superstructure reposes ; or rather, it contains the germs from which all that follows was developed. In the second, the plan and contents of the Pentateuch are unfolded. It has one theme, which is consistently adhered to, and which is treated with orderly arrangement and upon a carefully considered plan suggestive of a single author. In the third it is shown by a variety of arguments, both external and internal, that this author was Moses. The various forms of opposition to this conclusion are then outlined and separately considered. First, the weakness of the earlier objections from anachronisms and inconsistencies is shown. In the fourth chapter the divisive hypotheses, which have in

PKEFACE vil

succession been maintained in opposition to the unity of the Pentateuch, are reviewed and shown to be baseless, and the arguments urged in their support are refuted. In the fifth chapter the genuineness of the laws is defended against the development hypothesis. And in the sixth and last chapter these hypotheses are shown to be radically unbiblical. They are hostile alike to the truth of the Pentateuch and to the supernatural revelation which it contains.

Princeton, N. J. , August 1, 1895.

Table Of Contents

i

PAGE

The Old Testament addressed in the first instance to Israel and in the language of that people ; the New Testament to all mankind and in the language of the civilized world. The former composed by many writers in the course of a thousand 3, 1 ; not an aggregate of detached productions, but posof an organic structure, 2 ; of which each book is a constituent element, 3, with its special function. The threefold division of the Hebrew Bible, 4, resting on the official position of the writers, 5. The Lamentations an apparent exception, 6. Two methods of investigating organic structure, 7. First, trace from the beginning. The Pentateuch, historical, poetical, 8, and prophetical books, 9. Second, survey from the end, viz., Christ ; advantages of this method, 10. Predictive periods, negative and positive ; division of the Old Testament thence resulting, 11-13. Two modes of division compared, 14. General relation of the three principal sections, 15-17.

II The Plan and Contents op the Pentateuch, 18

Names of the books of Moses, origin of the fivefold division, 18. Theme of the Pentateuch ; two parts, historical and legal, 19 ; preliminary portion, 20 ; its negative and positive aim, 21. Creation to the Flood, primeval holiness and the fall ; salvation and perdition ; segregation, 22 ; divine institutions. The Flood to Abraham, 23. Call of Abraham. Two stages in the development of Israel. The family ; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 24. The nation ; negative and positive preparation for the exodus ; the march to Sinai. The legislation ; at Sinai 25, in the wilderness of Paran, in the plains of Moab, 26-28 ; one theme, definite plan, continuous history, 29, suggestive of a single writer. Tabular view, 30.

X CONTENTS

III Page

Moses the Authok op the Pentateuch, 31

Importance of the Pentateuch, 31. Mosaic authorship as related to credibility. (1) Traditional opinion among the Jews ; testimony of the New Testament, 32, not mere accommodation to prevailing sentiment. (2) Testimony of the Old Testament, 33-35. (3) Declarations of the Pentateuch ; the Book of the Covenant ; the Priest code ; the Deuteronomic code, 36 ; two historical passages ascribed to Moses, which imply much more, 37, 38 ; intimate relation of the history to the legislation. (4) The language of the laws points to the Mosaic period, 39, 40 ; indicates that they were written then. Moses's farewell addresses, song and blessing, 41. The laws could not be forged ; locality of these enactments. (5) The Pentateuch alluded to or its existence implied in the subsequent books of the Bible, 42. (6) Known and its authority admitted in the kingdom of the ten tribes, 43 ; no valid argument from .the Samaritan Pentateuch, 44 ; proof from the history of the schism and the books of the prophets. (7) Elementary character of its teachings. (8) Egyptian words and allusions, 45. Assaults in four distinct lines, 46. The earliest objections ; ancient heretics ; Jerome misinterpreted ; Isaac ben Jasos ; Aben Ezra, 47 ; Peyrerius ; Spinoza ; Hobbes ; Richard Simon, 48 ; Le Clerc ; answered by "Witsius and Carpzov, 49. The alleged anachronisms and other objections of no account, 50, 51. Note : Testimony of Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 52 ; 2 Samuel, Kings, 53; Joel, Isaiah, 54 ; Micah, Jeremiah, 55; Psalms. Allusions in Hosea and Amos to the facts of the Pentateuch, 56 ; to its laws, 57 ; coincidences of thought or expression, 58.

IV The Unity op the Pentateuch, 59

Meaning of unity, 59 ; illustration from Bancroft ; the Gospels, 60. The Document Hypothesis ; Vitringa, 61 ; Astrue, Eichhorn, Gramberg, 62. (1) Elohim and Jehovah, 63. (2) Each class of sections continuous. (3) Parallel passages, 64. (4) Diversity of diction and ideas, 65, 66. At first confined to Genesis ; not conflict with Mosaic authorship until extended to the entire Pentateuch, 67 ; even then not neces-

Contents

sarily, unless the documents are post-Mosaic ; Ex. vi. 3, 68. Jehovist suspected of anachronisms, inaccuracies, and contradictions, 69 ; inferred from parallel passages, 70. Fragment Hypothesis, Vater, Hartmann, 71 ; supported by similar arguments, 72 ; the Document Hypothesis reacting against itself, 73 ; titles and subscriptions, 74. But (1) The extensive literature assumed. (2) The continuity and orderly arrangement of the Pentateuch, 75. (3) The numerous cross references. Refuted by Ewald and F. H. Ranke. Supplement Hypothesis, Bleek, Tuch, Stahelin, De Wette, Knobel, 76, 77. This accounts for certain evidences of unity but not for others. Inconsistent relation of the Jehovist to the Elohist, 78, 79 ; attempted explanations destructive of the hypothesis, 80. Refuted by Kurtz, Drechsler, Havernick, Keil, Hengstenberg, Welte. Crystallization Hypothesis of Ewald, 81, 82. Modified Document Hypothesis of Hupfeld ; Ilgen, Boehmer, Schrader, 82, 83. But (1) The second Elohist destroys the continuity of the first. (2) The first Elohist almost ceases soon after Gen. xx. where the second begins, 84. (3) Intricate blending of Jehovist and second Elohist. (4) First Elohist alleged to be clearly distinguishable ; without force as an argument, 85. (5) Capricious and inconsistent conduct attributed to the redactor, 86 ; undermines the hypothesis. Burdensome complexity inevitable, 87. Critical symbols. The grounds of literary partition considered, 88. I. The divine names ; their alternation not coincident with successive sections, 89 ; this fundamental criterion annulled by unsettling the text, 90. Elohim in J sections ; Jehovah in P and E sections, 91. Examples given, 92-98. Ex. vi. 2, 3, 99. Misinterpretation corrected, 100. Not written with an antiquarian design ; neither was the patriarchal history, 101. Gen. iv. 26. Signification and usage of Elohim and Jehovah, 102, 103. Hengstenberg's theory, 103, 104. That of Kurtz, 105. Liberty in the use of the divine names. II. Continuity of sections, 106. But (1) numerous chasms and abrupt transitions, 107. (2) Bridged by scattered clauses. (3) Apparent connection factitious, 108. (4) Interrelation of documents. (5) Inconsistency of critics. III. Parallel passages. But (1) Often not real parallels, 109. (2) Repetition accounted for, 110. (3) Summary statement followed by particulars, 111. (4) Alleged doublets, 112. IT. Diversity of diction and ideas. But (1) Reasoning in a circle, 113. (2) Proofs factitious, 114. (3) Synonyms, 115. (4) Criteria conflict. (5) An indeterminate equation, 116. (6) Growing complexity, 117.

CONTENTS

Arguments insufficient, 118. Partition of the parables of the Prodigal Son, 119-122, and the Good Samaritan, 122-124. Romans Dissected ; additional incongruities, 125, 126 ; marvellous perspicacity of the critics, 126, 127 ; critical assault upon Cicero's orations and other classical productions, 127 and 128, -129 note; Prologue of Faust, 130; agreement of critics, 130, 131 ; Partition Hypothesis a failure, but the labor spent upon it not altogether fruitless, 132, 133.