The higher criticism

Preface

This book has been written for the purpose of furnishing a concise and convenient answer to questions frequently asked concerning the higher criticism. Its province is not therefore to discuss and weigh, but to report the facts of the subject. Nevertheless, the careful reader will find the principles stated upon which the opponents of the critics proceed in their refutations.

For our facts we have gone to the original sources, whenever they were accessible. We have not, however, referred to all the works consulted, but chose those for reference which were found most helpful, or which are easiest of access. Zockler's " Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaften," Vol. I, and Weiss' u Einleitung in das Neue Testament" — the former on the entire Bible, the latter in its own department — were constantly in use. In this connection the writer wishes to express

4 PREFACE.

his gratitude to Librarian Whelpley, of the Public Library of Cincinnati, and his intelligent assistants, for their uniform courtesy during the preparation of this work. The library contains a most excellent collection of theological literature.

Our aim has been to give chief prominence to the views of the more conservative critics, introducing as deviations therefrom the opinions of those who are more radical. In consulting brevity, we found the task a difficult one of keeping these views separate. Some study on the part of the reader who wishes to understand the subject is therefore expected.

As, in the course of several years, we have investigated this subject, we have felt as one feels when a dear friend is on trial. And, pleased with the concessions his enemies made in favor of the excellence of his character, we could scarce refrain from shouting aloud our rejoicing at his complete vindication by his friends. To one who enters upon such a course of study with the experience of Bible religion in his soul, no attacks aimed at fundamentals have anv force. But it is a constant

PREFACE. 5

source of satisfaction to see that the vast majority of the critics find nothing in the Bible to shake their faith in Jesus Christ or his gospel, but only that which confirms.

Part V is a reproduction of articles connected with the general subject published in the Western Christian Advocate during the spring of 1893. This will account for some repetition of thought which the reader may possibly notice.

The writer desires to express his thanks to the Rev. Professor Henry M. Harman, D. D., LL. D., for the Introduction he has written to this work. His " Introduction to the Holy Scriptures " is a mine of information on every phase of higher criticism, which we heartily commend to our readers for discussions which could not find place here without changing the entire scope and purpose of the work.

CHARLES W. RISHELL.

Cincinnati, O., June 1, 1893.

Part I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION

Page.

1 i. The Aims of the Higher Critics, 17

g 2. The Methods of the Higher Critics 23

2 3. Higher Critical Principles and Assumptions, . . 31

Part II. THE OLD TESTAMENT

\ 4. General History of Old Testament Criticism, . . 42

§ 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism 47

\ 6. Present-day Criticism of the Pentateuch, .... 53

\ 7. The Relative and Absolute Age of the Sources, . 61 \ 8. Summary of the Argument for the Dates of

D. and P 66

£ 9. Criticism of the Prophetical Books 71

§11. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, 78

§12. The Minor Prophets, 80

\ 13. Zechariah, 82

'</. 14. The Book of Jonah 85

\ 15. The Book of Daniel, 86

i 16. The Psalms, 90

? 17. The Book of Proverbs, 96

\ 18. The Book of Job, 101

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page. \ 19. Ecclesiastes, 106

£20. The Song of Solomon no

£21. The Lamentations of Jeremiah 114

£22. The Book of Rnth 117

£23. The Book of Esther, 119

\2\. The Chronicles 122

Part III

THE NEW TESTAMENT. £25. General History of New Testament Criticism, . 129

\ 26. Present-day New Testament Criticism 135

2 27. The Synoptic Question, . . . • 137

^28. The Gospel of Matthew. . 141

\ 29. The Gospel of Mark 143

\ 30. The Gospel of Luke 144

$31. The Acts of the Apostles 148

i/32. The Gospel of John, 149

£33. The Johannean Epistles 152

^34. The Book of Revelation 155

£35. The Epistle of James 159

i/36. First and Second Peter 160

£37. The Epistle of Jude 162

$38. Galatians, Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, . . 164

£39. First and Second Thessalouians 169

£40. Ephesians 171

\\\. Colossians 172

$42. Philemon 173

843. Philippians, 174

\ 44. The Pastoral Epistles 175

$45. The Epistle to the Hebrews - . 177

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 9

Part IV. ESTIMATE OF RESULTS

Page.

#46. Discrimination of Critical Schools — Criticism in Germany, England, America, France, Switzerland, and Holland Compared — Value of Critical Conclusions — Criticism not to be Roundly Condemned — Traditional View not to be Summarily Pronounced Unscholarly — Critical Considerations not Sufficient for the Pronouncement of a Judgment on Critical Questions — The Appeal to Christ — The Doctrine of Inerrancy — Of Inspiration — The True Starting-point and Goal of all Fruitful Criticism, . . . 181

Part V. IF THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT, WHAT?

#48. Inspiration, 200

§ 49. Date and Authorship of the Books of the Bible, . 207

Introduction

"Higher Criticism" is a phrase used to express all investigations respecting the genuineness, authenticity, and integrity of ancient literary works, especially the various books of the Bible. By whom the phrase was first used we can not say. Dr. Seiler, in the preface to his "Biblical Hermeneutics," published at Erlangen in 1800, speaks of "the subtilty of a (so-called) higher criticism, which cuts into the very life-blood of Christianity." And in the body of his work, in speaking of "Introductions," he says: "This branch is called by some the higher, historical, or real criticism. The investigation of the genuineness and uncorrupted 'state of the readings is special, or common, and verbal criticism." This we would now call "textual criticism."

The higher criticism is not a modern science. In the third and second centuries before Christ, there was a flourishing school of criticism at Alexandria, which discussed very thoroughly the Homeric poems. In this school Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus were brilliant instructors. In the first century before Christ, Dionysius of Halicarnassus was pre-eminently distinguished for his great critical ability. In the early Chris-

I 2 INTR OD UCTION.

tiau Church, Clement and Dion3 T sius of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea Palestinae, and Jerome were no mean critics.

But little Biblical criticism existed in the Middle Ages. The revival of learning gave a newimpulse to literary criticism; and Richard Simon, tjorn in France in 1638, may be regarded as the founder of modern Biblical criticism; and Richard Bentley, of England, who came upon the literary stage a little later, formed an epoch in the history of general criticism, and has not been surpassed.

Of all the people of the Modern World the Germans have most distinguished themselves in Biblical and classical literature and criticism. But they are too much given to speculation and theory, and often show a lack of vigorous common sense and knowledge of real life. Their criticism often rests upon too narrow a basis, and upon minute and uncertain points. They rely too much upon internal evidence, and depreciate external testimony. They are controlled too largely by subjective feelings, and excessive confidence in their individual opinions, and contempt for others. Some of these latter traits are found also in some of our American skeptical higher critics. We make no objection to higher criticism being applied to the Bible. On the contrary, we believe in it. But it must embrace the discussion of external as well as internal evidence. In many cases, the only proof of the authorship of a book

INTRODUCTION. 1 3

is external evidence. The internal evidence may, in fact, amount to nothing at all. On this point we need refer only to the authorship of the Letters of Junius. How has the question of their authorship puzzled the learned and critical world !

Where external and internal evidence unite in proof of authorship, Ave have the highest certainty. But one of the most difficult of all problems is to determine whether a book is the work of one author or more. We may be satisfied that there is a unity of plan in it, and of course some arranger or architect of the whole ; but how many men had a share in the work, we could never tell. We may be thoroughly convinced that a house was planned by some architect, and that the men who built it acted in concert; but how many workmen there were would not be manifest. We might easily imagine, in some cases, that one man designed and built the whole.

Let us apply these reflections to the Pentateuch. If Moses was not the author of this work, who was? It certainly bears strong marks of unity, and therefore it must have had some arranger or editor who gave the material of which it is formed its present shape. Whence were the materials derived? Did he use previously existing documents? If so, how man}'? How far did the author or editor make omissions, additions, or alterations in his documents? Who can solve all these difficult questions? If there were four original documents, what each contained is as difficult

14 INTRODUCTION.

to determine as it is to find the value of four unknown quantities from a si?igle algebraical equation; in short, we would say, impossible.

Suppose our Gospels, some time after the apostolic age, had been molded into one, somewhat after the manner of Tatian's Diatessaron, but without a single mark to indicate that it was a composite, except so far as the work itself might show it; and that not a hint had come down to us that it had ever existed in any other form than as a unit\ r , — can we believe that any set of critics would have been able to show that it was a combination of four documents or Gospels, and at the same time to assign to each evangelist what belongs to him? Even if they had been able to some extent to disentangle John, they could never have ascertained that there are three others, and still less have given to each evangelist his due.

Suppose, some day, there should be applied to American history the skeptical principles sometimes applied to the Bible, what havoc will be made of our history! Let us take the following language of the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Let it be borne in mind that when this language was used the African slave-trade was carried on, not only by the Southern States, but also by Massachusetts and other Xew Eng-

INTR OD UCTION. 1 5

land States; and African slavery existed in about every State of the Confederacy.

What will the future critics of Germany say of this Declaration two thousand years hence? Will they not declare it unhistorical f They will so.y that it is perfectly absurd that men should appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of their intentions, declaring that all men are created equal and entitled to liberty, while these very rebellious States themselves were enslavers of human beings. The critics will assert strongly that the Declaration arose — or, at least, was modified — in the age of freedom!

Take another instance of a surprising character. On Thomas Jefferson's monument stands the following inscription: ''Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father ot the University of Virginia." Not a word about his having been President of the United States ! What an omission ! Suppose this monument, one or two thousand years hence, should be dug up among the ruins of America and transported to Germany, what a sensation it will make! Will they not straightway revise American history, and affirm that the author of the Declaration of Independence and President Jefferson were two different persons, as established by monumental testimony?

The books which compose the Bible have, not all the same degree of certainty and strength, or

1 6 INTR OD UCTION.

the same inspiration and importance. The}* are not like the links in a chain, which is no stronger than its weakest link; but they are like witnesses in court in favor of some great cause which depends upon the strongest, not upon the weakest witness. The great center of the Bible is Christ, whose history is one of the best authenticated in the world. He is our Great Citadel, and in possession of this Impregnable Fortess we need not be alarmed if some of the outposts are carried by the enemy. But to proceed to the work before us.

Rev. Dr. RishelFs book is clearly and tersely written. His two years' residence in Berlin has not vitiated his English style. He gives, in a very succinct and fair manner, the views of the higher skeptical critics, and occasionally those of a more evangelical type. Of course, in a treatise of this kind, the strong objections to radical views, and the answers that may be given them, do not come into view.

In Parts IV and V he discusses, under the heads of "Estimate of Results," and "If the Critics are Right, What?" the questions of Inspiration and the Inerrancy of the Bible with much good sense and moderation. This part of the work is especially worthy of being carefully read.

HENRY M. HARMAN.

THE BIBLE AND HIGHER CRITICISM.

Part I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION

§ i. The Aims of the Higher Critics.

Many are asking, What are the aims of the higher critics? What do they hope to accomplish? By what motives are they prompted? To answer these questions is the object of this section. But it must first be premised that the critics are not all led on by the same purpose. Some are more, others less religiously earnest. Some, indeed, have only an historical or a literary interest in their work. All claim to be free from any conscious bias which could influence their conclusions.

First in order we mention the literary aims of the critics. These confine themselves chiefly to what is ordinarily called "Introduction," although they do not exhaust that field. They

2 17 strive to ascertain everything which can be known concerning the books of the Bible. They ask, By whom, for whom, when, where, under what circumstances, and for what purpose, was each book of the Bible composed ? They interrogate tradition, sit in judgment on the opinions of the Hebrew and Christian fathers as to these matters, and demand of the books themselves an account of their origin. To them the Bible is a phenomenon, or a composite of phenomena, the existence of which is to be explained. They ask, Who wrote the Bible? just as they would ask, Who wrote the plays usually attributed to Shakespeare? They are not content with a superficial examination of the problems before them, but strive, each according to his ability, to study them broadly, profoundly, and exactly. To some portions of their work they do not attach any great religious significance; yet in some cases they have discovered, by their minute research, facts of great value in the proper interpretation and application of the Word.

This seems in many respects a perfectly harmless object ; but, as we shall see, some

THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 1 9

of the most vital issues connected with the entire work of Biblical criticism depend upon their conclusions.

Another class of critics have historical rather than literary aims in view. Of this number are the oft-mentioned Wellhausen and Kuenen. Their literary criticism is not for its own sake, but in order to elicit the historical facts. To them the Bible is just like any other source of historical information. They can not accept its statements simply because they are found in the Book. If other sources contradict, they weigh, sift, and decide, as though the Bible had been written without any Divine help. There is no presumption in its favor drawn from religious considerations, nor is there any prejudice against it. If its utterances are adjudged contradictory, no effort is made to harmonize them ; and one or all on the subject in question must be rejected.

From the standpoint of the historian, nothing could be more fair; and these critics are conscious of no wrong. Their honesty is, to themselves, perfectly clear. They naturally can not understand what objection can be made to such a treatment of the Scriptures. They are very much inclined to think that one who does not look at the Bible as they look at it, acts in the interests of his faith or his prejudices, and is indifferent to the truth, which, however it may contravene all that has heretofore been believed, must be accepted with unquestioning obedience.

A third class approach the Bible and its study with religious motives. They see in it a book of religion, not of history. They can not divest themselves of the impression that it holds a peculiar position in literature. They may apply all the canons of literary and historical criticism just as the first two of the above-mentioned classes; but they do not feel that, in so doing, they have exhausted the significance of the Bible. There are elements in it which can not be tested except by the heart. Some of this class incline decidedly toward the conclusions of the purely literary and historical critics ; others regard them as erroneous because reached by inadequate methods.

Taking the Bible as a book of religion,

THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 21

these critics ask themselves the questions, How came the Bible here ? Is it a mere record of human experiences and beliefs ? Were these experiences had under the direct providence of God ? Were these beliefs wrought in the minds of men by the Holy Spirit ? Were men inspired to write the things contained in the Bible? It is plain that the object of all such critics is to sound the depths of the Bible's religious value. Its literary and historical worth sink into insignificance, and is prized only as accessory to the embodiment of the truth of God. Hence there are those who assert perfect and equal inspiration in all parts of the Bible, since they can not imagine the truth of God in a setting of error ; while others affirm that the test of the truth is in those parts which have to do with our religious life, and declare that if we admit the supposed existence of myth and fable, these still contain the precious kernel of religious truth.

The chief source of disturbance to faith has arisen from the attempts at reconstruction of Bible history. This is not the place to speak at length of these attempts ; but many are convinced on historical grounds of the truth of the conclusions of historical investigation as applied to the Bible who, at the same time, feel that these conclusions must be maintained in the interest of faith. They point out the fact that many educated men discover, or think they discover, a conflict between certain statements of the Bible and the results of investigation relative to the same subjects in other fields. To such men the solitary testimony of the Bible is not sufficient to outweigh all other opposing considerations. It is only the thoroughly religious man who will continue his faith in the Bible after he finds its utterances contradicted by all other authorities. But as these are matters which do not pertain to the faith, the third class of critics may admit all that the first and second classes claim, and thereby win them to faith in the religious elements of the Book. If they insist that all is inspired or none, then the scientific man rejects all. If they limit inspiration and inerrancy to those parts which center about the religious life, they conciliate, and perhaps even win, the

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 23

opposer to Christ. Hence, some who would take but little interest in these critical questions for their own sake, are profoundly interested for the sake of the good they may do.

The principal aims and motives of the higher critics have now been set forth in brief, and it will be seen that some are actuated by purely secular, others by purely religious motives; still others by a mixture of the two, with a preponderance of one or the other. Few aim solely at literary or historical ends without any mixture of the religious; yet with many the latter plays so feeble a part as to vitiate all conclusions which conflict with faith. The further discussion will lend increasing light, and still further reveal the aims, as the present remarks will aid in understanding what is to be said as to methods, principles, and presumptive results.

§2. The Methods of the Higher Critics.

Of necessity, the methods employed correspond in form to the design of the investigation.

The linguistic method is well known, and will scarcely need illustration. It must be confessed that of the correctness of many of the conclusions based upon its revealments, only those can judge who are themselves experts in the sacred languages. Doubtless the differences in linguistic style between two books attributed to the same author, might suggest the necessity of denying the composition of one or the other to him. Where differences of style are very wide, the probability of different authorship might become so great as to overcome a constant and unbroken tradition. It is not sufficient to say that the same writer varies his style according to his subject; or, that it undergoes a change with advancing age and culture, or in accordance with his subjective condition at the time of writing. This is all true in the abstract ; but in each particular case the critic must settle whether the actual differences are to be so accounted for. As they do not appear in our English translation, only the critical student can decide how much dependence may be placed upon them.

More uncertain still is that form of the lin-

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 25

guistic method which attempts to determine the literary dependency or independency of one book or author upon another. Here it is agreed that the authors are distinct; but certain portions of their works are so much alike in thought and language that it is easy to suppose one must have quoted from the other. The question then arises, Which is the borrower? Upon the answer may depend the conclusion as to the authorship of one or the other of the so related books; but it is evident that any opinion based upon such an investigation must be most precarious. The danger that the judgment of the investigator will be warped by other considerations is great, and jeopards, in consequence, all his conclusions. On the whole, linguistic considerations are to be pronounced insufficient. And this is indeed tacitly acknowledged by the critics, who seek to support arguments drawn from this source by others less open to suspicion. Illustrations of the use and abuse of this method will be found under the discussion of the results attained by the higher critics.

For historical purposes the principal dependence is upon a comparison of Biblical records with those of other nations. The close contact into which Israel was brought by its geographical situation with the principal nations of antiquity, facilitates such an investigation. It must be said that the results, thus far, have been strikingly confirmatory of the Biblical record in general. As the monuments of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia give up their secrets, the student will have still more ample material for comparison. This, of course, pertains chiefly to the political history of the Jews; but for its religious history a similar form of historical investigation is employed. A study of the religious books of other ancient nations shows that, in many of their traditions, they are remarkably like those of the Jews. For example, all ancient religions of Asia, Africa, and America have a story of the Deluge essentially like that recorded in Genesis. This fact, while it helps to confirm the truth of the Biblical record, suggests that it is not a matter of revelation. Thus the historian takes

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 27

the Bible as one of the sources of history, whether political or religious. By this method some things in the Bible are rendered more probable than they would otherwise be ; while others, which find no corroboration, are rather made doubtful.

But the historical method goes further. It is not content to take the several accounts of the same transaction and harmonize them. It does not take for granted that each account is true, and that only our ignorance prevents us from discovering the connecting link. Each account is made to stand on its own merits. If it contains statements which seem improbable as compared with other Biblical accounts, or with other portions of the same account, it is ruled out. In fact, the historian dares not do otherwise. Outside the Bible he employs this method most rigidly. Should he assume that the Bible, because it is his religious book, is more perfect than other books, he would at once make himself in so far a theologian. On historical grounds he may or may not be convinced of the accuracy of the Scripture record; but as a historian he dares not admit any intermixture of theological principle which would detract from the strictness of his method. In short, the historical method can only see in the Bible a " source " of history, not history itself. It places it upon a par with other sources, and only comes to regard it as having the quality of superior trustworthiness after it has been tested. It feels at perfect liberty to reject its historical statements entirely, or to correct them according to other sources of information. That such a free handling of the Book has a tendency to destroy reverence for it there can be no doubt; but the critic affirms that so far as reverence can be destroyed by criticism it is unworthy of reverence. And he declares that, so far from destroying the historical trustworthiness of the Bible in its general statements, his work tends directly to confirmation.

Another method of criticism, less popularly known than the two just mentioned, is that of Biblical theology. As a method it is primarily analytical, but it ends with synthesis. It takes up the separate books of the Bible,

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 29

and studies their theology. It seeks to find the fundamental principles of each author, and sometimes denies a book its traditional authorship because it diverges from the theological position of other books from the supposed author's pen. Having analyzed the theological contents of the separate books and authors, it proceeds to formulate them into a more or less complete system. It discovers that there is a development of religious ideas from Genesis to Revelation. It may place the date of the composition of a book earlier or later than it would otherwise be supposed to be, because its theological standpoint is found to be that of the age to which it is assigned. Sometimes Biblical theologians think they find irreconcilable 'differences between the theological positions of the books of the Bible, and are inclined to reject from the canon such as can not be harmonized. Others find all the teachings of the several books necessary to a complete system, and base the perfection of the canon upon the fact that it contains just what it does, without diminution or increase. This method, as well as the others, may be made to do service in judging of the minutest details of the Bible. Anything which conflicts with the internal harmony of Scripture teachings must give way before it.

We have mentioned the aims and methods in their separate forms for the sake of clearness ; but, as a matter of fact, they are seldom found alone. There may be a ruling motive, or method; but others usually accompany, to modify or to support the result. It is the strength of the cause of the higher critics that the application of the various methods usually leads to the same conclusions. The literary style, the historical setting, and the theological position of the latter part of Isaiah are all declared to be different from those of the former part. Nor are many of the critics rigidly either literary or historical ; the majority are theologians who combine with their religious interests the literary and historical methods.

§3. Higher Critical Principles and Assumptions.

Some of these have been intimated in the preceding remarks; yet it may be well to formulate them here in order to correlate them with those not already mentioned.

First, the assumption that the Bible is to be judged by purely literary standards, as any other literature. Within limits, this can not be disputed ; but when it is made to embrace a denial of the element of divine inspiration, the theologian at least has a right to object. A book whose author or co-author is God must be treated with a reverence not due to a purely human production ; besides, the very assumption is dangerous to the influence of the Bible. Here, therefore, is one of the principal causes leading to fear of the higher critics. One of their first assumptions, if unchallenged, would undermine its authority.