SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
A
DOUBTER'S DOUBTS about science and religion
CHAPTER XII
THE HIGHER CRITICISM
BIBLE students nowadays seem to be haunted by the grim
spectre of the Higher Criticism. But if instead of running away
from ghosts we face them boldly, our fears generally give place to feelings of
contempt or indignation. And this is the experience of many who have fearlessly
examined what are called "the assured results of modern criticism." The fact
that ,these attacks upon the Bible originated with German rationalism formerly
barred their acceptance by Christians of the English-speaking world. But in our
day they have been accredited by distinguished scholars on both sides of the
Atlantic, whose reputation for piety and reverence for things Divine is deemed
a guarantee that they are legitimate and harmless.
I am not referring to
that admirable and useful system of Bible study to which the title of Higher
Criticism properly belongs, (It has for its aim to settle the human
authorship of the sacred books, and the circumstances in which they were
written) but to "the Higher Criticism" in inverted commas - a German
rationalistic crusade against the Scriptures. The New Testament was at one time
its chief objective; and we have seen with what results. The much vaunted
conclusions of the Tubingen School of critics are now relegated to the same
limbo as the Bathybius of the scientists. And it may be predicted with
confidence that a generation hence the present-day attacks upon the Old
Testament will be equally discredited. Meanwhile, however, they must be
reckoned with.
But while these attacks cannot be ignored, no one surely
will suppose that they can be fully discussed in a brief concluding chapter. My
aim here is limited to destructive criticism of the critics. I do not pretend,
for example, to establish the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch - that would
need a treatise of some magnitude - but the reader will here find proof that
"the critical hypothesis of its origin is untenable."
It is commonly
assumed that these "assured results of modern criticism" are the outcome of an
honest and impartial examination of the text by Hebrew scholars, whereas in
fact the critics began with the "results," and all their labours have been
directed to the task of finding facts and arguments to justify them.
Rationalism gained such as ascendency in the latter part of the eighteenth
century that it well-nigh swamped the Christianity of Germany. And Eichhorn,
"the founder of Old Testament criticism," took up the task of "winning back the
educated classes to religion." To accomplish this it was necessary to bring the
Bible down to the level of a purely human book, and therefore every feature
savouring of what is called "the supernatural" had to be eliminated. All
miracles had, of course, to be got rid of. But the only element of real Higher
Criticism in the business was Astrucs discovery, made in the year of
Eichhorns birth, that the early chapters of Genesis are possibly "mosaic"
in the secondary sense of that term, and that they incorporated documents of an
earlier era.
Astrucs theory, however, has no bearing upon the issue
here involved. For it seems incredible that there was no written revelation
before the epoch of the Exodus; and if such a revelation existed, we should
naturally expect to find traces of it in Genesis.
How then was the
Pentateuch to be discredited? One scheme after another was broached, as
succeeding generations of critics faced the problem; and that which at last
gained acceptance was that the books were literary forgeries of the Exilic Era.
But let it be kept clearly in view that these various theories were not the
outcome of honest inquiry. One and all, they were devised to sustain the
foregone conclusion which rendered them necessary. And that conclusion rests on
no better foundation than a few isolated and perverted texts. Chief among these
is the statement that in Josiahs reign "the book of the law" was found in
the Temple - not a very strange discovery, seeing that the law itself ordered
it to be kept there! (It was not "a book of the law," as in A.V., but the
book: the known record of "the law of the Lord given by Moses," but neglected
and forgotten during the apostasy of Manasseh's long and evil reign.) But,
it will be said, this implies that our Christian scholars have lent themselves
to what is on the face of it a fraud? By no means. The whole business is German
from first to last. Our own scholars have not contributed one iota to the "
Higher Criticism." The only "independent work" done by them has been to check
and verify the labours of the Germans, and this they have done, of course, with
skill and care. And as the result they assure us that in their judgment the
case has been established against the Mosaic Books.
But," some one
will exclaim, "is not this an end of controversy in the matter? " One might
have supposed that the egregious fallacy here involved would be apparent to all
thoughtful people. For it assumes that anything supported by a clear and
complete case must be true. But no one who is brought before a court of
justice, either in a civil action or on a criminal charge, is ever required to
open his lips in his defence unless a clear and complete case is established
against him - such a case as must, if unanswered, lead to a hostile verdict.
And the object of a trial is to sift that case and to hear what is to be said
upon the other side. Critics, like the Dreyfus tribunal, took the place of
prosecutors; and beginning with a hostile verdict, they then set to work to
justify it. This is not rhetoric but fact. It was essential to their purpose to
prove that the Bible is purely human. And therefore, as no one would believe in
miracles if unsupported by contemporary evidence, the Pentateuch was assigned
to the era of the Captivity.
The main ground on which this scheme found
acceptance with Christian scholars is now discarded as a blunder. It was deemed
to be impossible that such a literature could have originated in an age which
was supposed to be barbarous. And until recent years the question was solemnly
discussed whether the art of writing prevailed in the Mosaic age. But to-day it
is matter of common knowledge that long before the time of Moses literature
flourished; and archeological discovery tells us that "in the century before
the Exodus Palestine was a land of books and schools."
But further. The
idea was scouted that such a code of laws could have been framed at such an
early period. Recently, however, the spade of the explorer unearthed the now
famous code of Hammurabi, who ruled in Babylon four centuries before the
Exodus. And this discovery undermined the very foundations of "the critical
hypothesis." But instead of repenting of their error and folly, the critics
turned round, and with amazing effrontery declared that the Mosaic code was
borrowed from Babylon. This is a most reasonable conclusion on the part of
those who regard the Mosaic law as a purely human code. But here the critic is
"hoist with his own petard." For if the Mosaic law were based on the Hammurabi
code, it could not have been framed in the days of Josiah long ages after
Hammurabi had been forgotten. This Hammurabi discovery is one of many that led
Professor Sayce to declare that "the answer of archaeology to the theories of
modern 'criticism' is complete: the Law preceded the Prophets, and did not
follow them."
But even this is not all. It is a canon of criticism with
these men that no Biblical statement is ever to be accepted unless confirmed by
some pagan authority; Genesis xiv. was therefore dismissed as fable on account
of its naming Amraphel as a King of Babylon. But Amraphel is only another form
of the name of Hammurabi, who now stands out one of the great historical
characters of the past.'
"His nonsense suited their nonsense," the
explanation Charles II. offered of popularity of a certain preacher with his
flock. And the claptrap by which the minor prophets of this cult commend it to
ignorant multitude may be dismissed similar fashion. To trade on prejudice,
however, is not my method. The case against the Pentateuch shall be stated in
the word of a scholar and teacher whose name and fame stand high in the
Universities of Christendom - I refer to Professor Driver of Oxford. Here is
his summary of the critics' case against the Mosaic books, as formulated in his
great work "The Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament" : -
"We can only argue upon grounds of probability derived from our view of the
progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and
growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at
which the traditions contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of
the probability that they would have been written down before the impetus given
to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for
estimating most of which, though plausible arguments on one side or the other
may be advanced, a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of
being fixed" (sixth ed., p. 123).
"Plausible arguments" and "grounds of
probability": such are the foundations on which rest "the assured results of
modern criticism"! But even if the critics' position were as strong as it is
feeble, we could call a witness whose unaided testimony would suffice to
destroy it. I refer to the Samaritan Bible. And here again their case shall be
stated by one of themselves, a writer whom they hold in the highest honour, the
late Professor Robertson Smith. In the judgment of the Samaritans he tells us,
"Not only the temple of Zion, but the earlier temple of Shiloh and the
priesthood of Eli, were schismatical." And yet, he adds, "their religion was
built on the Pentateuch alone." Where then, and when, did they get the
Pentateuch? Here is the critics' account of it : - "They [the Samaritans]
regard themselves as Israelites, descendants of the ten tribes, and claim to
possess the orthodox religion of Moses. . . . The priestly law, which is
throughout based on the practice of the priests in Jerusalem before the
Captivity, was reduced to form after the Exile, and was published by Ezra as
the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The Samaritans must therefore have
derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after Ezra's reforms."
Now mark
what this implies. We know the bitterness of racial and religious quarrels. And
both these elements combined to alienate the Samaritans from the Jews. But this
was not all. At the very time when they are said to have "derived their
Pentateuch from the Jews" these antipathies had deepened into hatred -
"abhorrence" is Robertson Smith's word - on account of the contempt and
sternness with which the Jews spurned their proffered help in the work of
reconstruction at Jerusalem. And yet we are asked to believe that in such
circumstances, and at that time, when their feelings toward the Jews were such
as nowadays Orangemen bear to "Papists," they accepted these Jewish books as
their " Bible," to the exclusion of the writings, not only of their own
Israelite seers, but also of those sacred and venerated historical books known
as "the former prophets." In the whole range of controversy, religious or
secular, was there ever propounded a theory more utterly incredible and
preposterous! What have the critics to say for it? Here is the defence they
offer in the new volume of the accredited handbook of their heresies -
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible : -
"There is at least one valid ground
for the conclusion that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans
after the Exile. Why was their request to be allowed to take part in the
building of the second temple refused by the heads of the Jerusalem community?
Very probably because the Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet
possess the Law-book. It is hard to suppose that otherwise they would have met
with this refusal. Further, any one who, like the present writer, regards the
modern criticism of the Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second
decisive reason for adopting the above view." (Prof. Konig's article,
"Samaritan Pentateuch," p. 68.)
The question is, When and how did the
Samaritans get the Pentateuch? A "valid ground" for the critical theory, we are
told, is that "very probably" the reason why the Jews under Ezra refused their
help was because they had not then got the forged books, and it "hard to
suppose" anything else! But the "decisive reason" for accepting the critics'
hypothesis is that critical hypothesis is" essentially correct" ! Men of common
sense will "very probably" conclude that if the "Modern Cricism of the
Pentateuch" can be supported only by drivel such as this, it may be dismissed
as unworthy of discussion.
The fetich of "modern criticism" seems to have
a sinister influence even on scholars of eminence. The Samaritan Bible is
conclusive proof that the "critical hypothesis" of the origin of the Pentateuch
is absolutely untenable. And its acceptance by the Higher Critics is proof of
their utter incapacity in dealing with evidence.
And this leads me to say
with emphasis that the grounds on which these men claim the the "Higher
Criticism" as their own peculiar province are as futile as are their arguments
in its support. The language of the incriminated books has very little bearing
on the issues involved; and in the case of the Pentateuch its testimony is
against the critics. The problems of the controversy fall within the sphere,
not of philology, but of evidence. And this being so, a Professor of Theology
or of Hebrew, as such, has no special fitness for dealing with them. "As such"
I say, for of course a knowledge of languages and of Biblical literature is not
a disqualification. But experience abundantly proves that the pursuit of
studies of that character creates no fitness for handling problems of evidence;
and these should be left to men who by training and practical experience are
qualified for the task. Proofs of this, both numerous and striking, might be
culled from the controversy respecting the genuineness of the Book of Daniel.
But I have published so much on that subject elsewhere, that I will not
introduce it here. And other books, moreover, will furnish further
illustrations of my statement. Take the "two Isaiahs" figment, for example.
There is no element of profanity in this hypothesis, and we can afford to
examine it on its merits. What does it involve?
Having regard to the
scathing denunciations of the national religion which abound in the earlier
portions of the Book of Isaiah, it would not be strange if their author's name
had been deliberately effaced from the national annals. But the later chapters,
attributed by the critics to Isaiah II., are not only marked by extraordinary
brilliancy, but tlu abound in words of cheer and hope and joy, unparalleled in
all the Hebrew Scriptures. A prophet raised up in the dark days of the exilic
period to deliver such messages of comfort and gladness would have become
immortal. His name would have been enshrined with those of Moses and Samuel and
David and Ezra and his fame would have been blazoned many a page of apocryphal
literature. But the critics ask us to stultify ourselves by believing that he
appeared and vanished like a summer mist, without leaving even the vaguest
tradition of his personality or career. There is a limit to the credulity of
sham scepticism. The aim of the "Higher Criticism" is, as have seen, to banish
God from the Bible The Rationalists, therefore, invented a sham Isaiah in order
to oust the element of Divine prophecy from the writings of the real Isaiah. ..
But the invention of a sham Jonah would not have got rid of the whale, so
the Book of Jonah had to be torn out of the Bible altogether. A serious matter
this ; for "Christ was raised from the dead the third day, according to the
Scriptures," and the Book of Jonah was the only Scripture to which the Lord
Himself appealed in this connection. He placed it in the foreground of His
testimony, using it again and again with the greatest emphasis and solemnity.
In the day of judgment, He declared, the men of Nineveh would rise up to
condemn the Jews for their rejection of Him, because they repented at the
preaching of Jonah when the prophet came to them accredited by the "sign" of
his deliverance from death.
Some of the critics dismiss this reference to
Jonah by attributing it to the Lord's deplorable ignorance of the Scriptures
which it was His Divine mission to fulfil; others, by representing it as merely
a rhetorical illustration. This latter view is not so profane as the other; but
it is wholly inadequate, and moreover it is inconsistent with the plain
statements of the Gospel narrative. The rationalist denies the Jonah miracle,
because he holds miracles to be impossible. But why should a Christian reject
it? Why should we refuse to believe that God delivered His prophet from death?
To say He could not deliver him is atheism: to say He would not is nonsense;
and to say He did not is to pour contempt on the words of our Divine Lord, and
to repudiate His authority as a teacher. And this, and nothing less than this,
the critics demand of us.
Men who plan elaborate crimes are apt to give
themselves away by some glaring oversight or blunder; and so is it with these
critics who would commit the supreme crime of filching the Bible from us. They
admit, for it cannot be disputed, that the Lord accredited the Hebrew
Scriptures in the most unequivocal and solemn terms. But they dare to aver that
in the ministry of His humiliation He was so entirely subject to the
limitations of human knowledge, that words which He declared to be not His own,
but the Father's who sent Him, expressed in fact "the current Jewish notions"
of the time. But such is the blindness or obliquity with which they read the
Scriptures, that they have entirely over- looked His post-resurrection
ministry. Kenosis theories are but dust thrown up to obscure the issue. They
have no relevancy here. "I have a baptism to be baptized with," the Lord
exclaimed, "and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! " But now, that
baptism is past. All limitations are for ever at an end. And speaking as the
Son of God, to whom all power in heaven and earth has been given, He adopts and
confirms all His previous teaching about the Hebrew Scriptures. Referring to
that very teaching, He addresses words like these to His disciples: "These are
the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must
be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and
in the Psalms, concerning Me."
And the record adds, "Then opened He their
understanding that they might understand the Scriptures."
Professor Driver
tells us that "He accepted as the basis of His teaching the opinions respecting
the Old Testament current around Him." Or, as his Bible Dictionary coarsely
phrases it, "He held the current Jewish notions" of His time. Could any words
be more utterly opposed to fact? "Current Jewish notions"! All His teaching was
in direct opposition to the deep, strong current of prevailing ignorance and
error respecting the character and scope of these very Scriptures. Therefore it
was that the Jews rejected Him. Therefore it was that even His own disciples
failed to understand Him. But now "He opened their understanding." And it was
this post-resurrection teaching which guided and inspired all their
after-ministry. The New Testament writings are the unfolding of it. And yet,
according to the "Higher Critics," this was all a blunder, if not a fraud.
The Christian is consistent in his faith and the rationalist in his unbelief.
Both are entitled to respect, for either position is intellectually
unassailable. But what shall be said of men who cling to an edifice the
foundations of which they have themselves destroyed? What of the superstition
which holds that though Christ and His Apostles were deceived and in error, the
Church which they founded is infallible, and that its teaching affords a sure
resting-place for faith? What of the folly which deludes itself by claptrap
about the inspiration of writings which are declared to be a mosaic of myth and
legend and forgery and falsehood? (These words are not aimed at the
rationalists, represented by Professor Harnack of Berlin, or Professor Cheyne
of Oxford and his colleagues of the Encyclopaedia Biblica. Nor do they apply to
the Church of Rome, whose claim to be the infallible exponent of an infallible
Bible is at least intelligent and consistent. But they accurately describe the
position of Professor Driver and his following, whose "confession of unfaith"is
the Bible Dictionary. Still more definitely do they apply to the Bishop of
Birmingham and his Lux Mundi school.) The devout may well be shocked by the
profanity of such a scheme. But all sensible men will appreciate the folly of
attempting to reconcile it with belief in Christianity. To the rationalist it
is a matter of indifference whether the books of the Bible were written at one
time or at another; but it is essential to his position to destroy their claim
to be Divine. And even this is but an outwork: his main objective is the
citadel of the Christian faith - the Deity of Christ. For if the Scriptures be
discredited, the foundations of the Lord's ministry are swept away, so that
Christ came to fulfil nothing, and becomes only a teacher or a martyr. And how
can we trust Him even as a teacher if His teaching be unreliable in the only
sphere in which we are competent to test it? For no amount of sophistry can get
rid of the fact that He accredited the Hebrew Scriptures, and unreservedly
identified Himself with them. It is not a question, therefore, of superstitious
reverence for a book that we may leave to Professor Driver and his school but
of intelligent faith in our Divine Lord and Saviour.
"Criticism in the
hands of Christian scholars," Professor Driver tells us,"presupposes the
inspiration of the Old Testament." But criticism in the hands of honest men
presupposes nothing. It enters on its task without prejudice, and accepts its
results without fear, whatever they be. And the legitimate results of this sort
of criticism of Scripture are to be found in the writings of great thinkers
like Dr Harnack, and not in the books of men whose minds are warped or blinded
by the superstitions of religion
In the "New Theology" of the day, which
is but a crude and popular phase of Dr. Harnack's Neo-Christianity, the "Higher
Criticism" has produced the results intended by its authors. Christianity has
been dragged down to the rationalistic level. And at what a cost! Instead of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose words were God-given and eternal, we
have a "Jesus" whose teaching was marred by ignorance and error, albeit he
demanded acceptance of it as Divine. Infidelity has thus achieved its triumph.
In disparaging the Bible, they deny the Christ of whom the Bible speaks.
"The Christ of ages past
Is now the Christ no
more
Altar and fire are gone,
The Victim but a dream"
"If these conclusions be demanded by irrefutable fact, let
them be made and accepted - but not light-heartedly, and as if we were the
freer for them, and could talk glibly about them in the best modern style. Let
us make them with a groan, and take care to carve no more the unauthentic
promise on the tombs of our beloved." (Bishop of Durham)
Or, to express
these thoughts in still plainer terms, if the rationalists have proved their
case, let us be done with all cant and superstition, and frankly and honestly
give up belief in the Deity of Christ.
Here we stand at the parting of the
ways. Honest and clear-headed men of the world, to whom these pages are
addressed, will refuse all by-paths of superstition, and fearlessly make choice
between a firmer faith and a bolder unbelief. And my main purpose will be
satisfied if they here find proof that those who attack the Bible, whether from
the standpoint of a false science or of a false criticism, can be met and
refuted on their own ground. But while destructive criticism has thus been my
aim and method, I would fain hope that some at least who may read this "Plea
for the Faith" will be led to study the Scriptures for themselves with minds
unbiassed by infidel prejudice or religious superstition, and that the study
may lead them to believe in the Son of God, and in believing to receive life
through His name.
Appendix
Literature | Photos | Links | Home