the fundamentals: volume 2, chapter 3: fallacies of the higher criticism

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 2, Chapter 3: Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

1/21

,.

•

•

•

•

•

•

·CHAPT ER III,

•

•

•

FALLA ,CIES OF TiqE HI GHER

CRITICISM.

•

•

BY FR .t.NKLIN JOHNSON, D.

D. ,

LL. D~

•

]

The

1

erro~s of the

high ,er

criticism of which I shall

wri,te

pertain to

its very substance. Those of

a

secondary charactet

the limits of

my

space forbid me · o consider.

My discussion

might be greatly expanded

by

,additional masses l of

illustra-

tive n1aterial, and henc

1

e I close it With .a list of bool{s whic h t

I recommend to persons who may wish to pursue the

subject

•

· further. ·

i

•

DEFINITION OF ''THE I-IIGHER CRITICIS11.''

C

,(

As an introdu

1

ction to the fundamental fallacie s of the

•

higl1er

criticism,

let me state

what the higher

criticism is,

and

then what the

higher critics tel1 us ,

they have,

a

1

chieved.

The

name ''the

higher criticism'' was

coined by

Eichhorn,

j

who lived

.from

1752

to

1827. Zenos,*

after

careful

co11'

sideration, adopts the definition of the name given

by

its t

author:

''The discovery and

verification

of the facts regard'

1

in.g the

origin,

form and value

o.f

literary

production s upon

the basis of their inter11al characters.'' Tl1e higher critics ,are

not

blind

to some other sources of argument. Th.ey ref er to

r

histo ,ry where they can gain any polemic advantage by do,ing i

so,. The background of the entire

picture

which they bring

to us is the assumptio

1

n tha ·t

the

hypothesis

1

of

evolution

is i

true. But after all their

chief appeal

is to the supposed

evi~

l

dence of the documents themselves. I

Other na ,1nes fot· the ,movement have been sought. It has

f

been calle

1

d the ''historic view, o,n

tl1e

as,sumption that

it

rep ' f

· resents the real

hi,st

1

ory

1

of the Hebrew peopl

1

e as

it m11st

have ,

unfolded

its ,elf by

the

order1y proce ,sses

of l1un1an

evolutiot1,,

*''The Elements of the Higher

1

Crjticism~''

48

•

•

•

t

•

•


2/21

•

•

Fallacies of tlie Hig her Criticism

•

49

•

But, as the higher critics contradict tl1e testim ony

0£

all the

He brew historic documents which profess

to

be early, their

theory might better be called the ''u11historic view.'' The high-

er

criticism

has sometimes been called

the

''documentary l1y

pothesis. But as all

schoo,ls

of criti.cism and all doctrin,es of

e inspiration ·are equally

h.ospitable

to the sqpposition that tl1e

t biblical writers may

have

consulted documents, and may

have

quoted them, the higher c·riticism has no special right

to

thi s

• title.

We

must fall

back,

therefore, upon

the

name ''the high-

1 er criticism'' as the very best at our disposal, and upon the

definition of

it

as chiefly an inspectio ,n of literary productions

in order to ascertain their dates, . their authors,

and

their value,

as they tl1emselves,. inte rpr eted

in

the light

of the hypothesis

, of evolution, may yield the evidence.

iJ

I ''ASSURED RESULTS OF THE HIGHER

CRITICISM.

I

turn

110w to ask

what

the higher

critics

p,rof

ess

to

have

1

found

out by this

method

of

study .

The

''assured resuits''

on

' which they congratulate

tl1emselves

are stated variously. In

· radical than that

given the m in Germany, though sufficiently

J

startling

and

destructive to

arouse

vigorous protest and a vig-

' orous demand for the evidences, which, as we shall see, have

' not been produced and cannot he produ ·ced. Tl1e less star tling

form of the ''assured results'' usually announced in England

' tty in

these countries.

Yet it

should be noticed

that

there are

· higher critics

in this

country

and England

who

go

beyond

the

. principal German representatives of the school in their zeal

' for the dethronement of the Old Testament and the New,

in so

· far as these holy books are presented

to

the world as

the very ·

: Word of God, as a

special revelation from heaven.

' · The

following statement

from

Zenos*

may

ser-ve to intro

duce us to the more moderate form of the ''assuied results''

*Page 205.

.

L

•

•

•

•

•


3/21

50

The Fundam entals

reached by the higher critics. It is concerning the analysi of

the Pentateuch, or rather of the Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua

being included in the survey. The Hexateuch is a composite

work whose origin and history may be traced in four distinct

stages : ( 1) A writer designated a J. J ahvist, or J ehovist, or

J udean prophetic historian, composed a history of the people

of Israel about 800 B. C. (2) A writer designated as E. Elo

hist, or Ephraemi te prophetic historian, wrote a similar work

some fifty years later, or about 750 B. C. These two were

used separately for a time, but were fused together into JE

by a redactor [ an editor], at the end of the seventh century.

( 3) A writer of different character wrote a book constituting

the main portion of our pre sent Deuteronomy during the reign

of Josiah, or a short time before 621 B. C. This writer is

designated as D. To his work were added an introduction and

an appendix, and with these accretions it was united with JE

by a second redactor, constituting JED. ( 4) Contemporane

ously with Ezekiel the ritual law began to be reduced to writ

ing. It first appeared in three ·parallel forms. These were

codified by Ezra not very much earlier than 444 B. C., and

between that date and 280 B. C. it was joined with JED by a

final redactor. Thus no less than nine or ten men were .engaged

in the production of the Hexateuch in its present form, and

each one can be distinguished from the rest by his vocabulary

and style and his religious point of view.

Such is the analysis of the Pentateuch as usually stated in

this country. But in Germany and Holland its chief represen

tatives carry the division of labor much further. Wellhausen

distributes the total task among twenty-two writers, and Kuen

en among eighteen. Many others resolve each individual writer

into a school of writers, and thus multiply the numbers enor-

mously. There is no agreement among the higher critics con

cerning thi s analy sis and therefore the cautious learner

m y

well wait till those who represent the theory tell him just what

it is they desire him to learn.


4/21

•

•

•

•

•

Fal la cie s of tlie Higher

Criticism

51

While

some of

the assured results''

are · tl1us

in doubt, ccrw

tain

things are

matters

of

general agreement. Moses

wrote

lit- .

tie or nothing,

if

he ever

existecl.

A large part of the Hexa

teuch consists of · unhi storical legends. We may grant that

Abraham, Isaac,

Jacob, Ishmael

and Esau

existed, or we

may

deny

this. In either cas~,

what

is

recorded

of

them

is

chiefly

mytl1. These deni ,als of the trutl1 of the \Vritten records fol

low

as

matters

of cour se

from the

late

dating

of

tl1e

books,

and the assumption that the writers could set down only th

national tradition. They may

l1ave

worked in part as collec ~

tors of written stories to be found here and there; but, if so,

these written stories were not ancient, and they were diluted

by

stories transmitted

orally.

The se

fragments, whether writ

ten or

oral, must have

followed

the general law of

national

tra-

ditions,

and have presented a

mixture

of legendary chaff,

witl1

here

and there a grain of historic truth

to

be sifted

out by

care

ful winnowing.

, Thus far of the Hexateuch.

The Psalms are so full of r

1

efere11ces to the Hexateuch

tl1at they must have been written after it, and hence after' the

captivity,

perhaps beginning about 400 B.

C. David may pos-:

sibly have written one or two of them, but probably he wrote

none, and the strong conviction of the Hebrew people that he

was

their

greatest hymn-writer was a total

mistake.

These revolutionary processes are carried into the New

Testament, and that also is found to be largely untrustworthy

as history, as do~trine, and as ethics~ though a very good book,

,.

since it gives expression to higl1 ideals, and thus ministers to

the spiritual life. It may well have influence, but

it

can have

110

divine authority. The Christian reader should consider

carefully

this

invasion of

the New Testament by the higher

criticism. So Jong as the movement was confined to the Old

Testament tnany good Illen

looked

on with indifference,

not

reflecting

that

the

Bible,

tho ,ttgh containing

''many

parts''

by

many writers, and though recording a progressive revelation ,

•

•

I

•

•

•

•

I


5/21

•

52

•

TJze Fundamentals

is, after all, one book. But the limits of the Old Testament

have

long since been overpassed

by

the higher

critics, and it is

demanded

of us that

we

abandon

the

in1memorial teaching of

the church

concerning

the entire

volume. The

picture of

Christ which tl1e New Testa1nent sets

before us

is in many

respects mistaken.

The doctrines of primitive Christianity

wl1ich

it

states and def

e11ds

were

,vell enougl1

for the time,

but have no

value

for us

today

except as they commend

themselves to our independent judgment. Its moral precepts

are fallible,

and

v re

should

accept them or reject them freely,

in accordance with the greater light of the twentieth

century .

•

Even Christ could err

concerning

ethical qttestions, and

neitl1er

His commandments nor

His

example need

constrain

us. ·

The

foregoing

1nay serve as an introductory

sketch,

all too

brief, of the

higher

criticism,

and

as a

basis

of the discussion

of its fallacies, now immediately to

fallow.

FIRST FALLACY: THE ANALYSIS OF THE PEITTATEUCH .

•

I.

The

first fallacy that I shall bring

forward

is its

analy-

sis of the

Pentateuch. ·

1. We

cannot fail

to

observe that these

various documents

and their various authors

and editors are only imagined. As

Green* has said,

''There

is no

evidence of the existence of

these documents

and

redactors, and no pretense of

any,

apart

from the critical tests wl1ich l1ave determined the

analysis. All

tradition and all historical · testimony as

to

the origin of

tl1e

Pentateuch

are

against

them.

'fhe burden

of proof

is wholly

upon

tl1e

critics. And this

proof

should be clear

and

convinc

il} g

in

proportion

to the

gravity and the revolutionary char

acter of the consequences ,vhich it is proposed to base upon it.''

2. Moreover,

\ve kno\v

,vl1at

can be done, or

ratl1er

what

cannot be done, in the analysis of

composite

literary produc

tions. Some of the pla)

1

S

of Shakespeare are

called his ''mi~ed

plays,''

because

it

is kno,vn

that

he

collaborated

with another

*''Moses and His Recent Critics,'' pages 104, 105.


6/21

I

• •

Fallacies of

the I l igher

C·r·iticism

.

author in their pro

1

dt1ction . Th e vei ·)r keenest critic s have

sought

to

separa te his

pa1·t

in the se plays fro m the rest,

b11t

tl1ey

co,n fess

that the resul t is

uncertainty and

dissat is faction.

Coleridge pro fessed to distingu ish the passages cont ributed by

Shake spea re by a pro cess of feeling , but Macaulay pro nounced

this

claim to

be nonsense, a11d he entire effort, whether ma de

by

the analysis of phraseology and style,

or by

esthetic percep~

tions; is an ad n1it ted fa ilure. And t11is in spite of the fact

that the

style

,of

Shal


7/21

•

•

54

The Fitndamentals

•

SEC OND FALLA,CY: Tl-IE

T HE0

1

RY OF EV0

1

LUTION AP

PLIED TO LITERAT URE AND RELIGION.

II.

A

second

f undamen ·tal

fallacy of the higher

criticism

is

its dependence on the theory of evolution as the

explanat .ion

of the history of literature

and

of

religion.

The progress

of

tl1e higher cri ticism

towards

its present state has

been rapid

and

assured

since \

atke

1

discovered

in

tl1e Hegelian

ph.ilosophf

of evolut .io,n a means . of bib

1

lical

critic .ism. T·J1e Spenceriail

philosophy of evolution,

aided

and reinforced

by Darwin

ism, has add

1

ed greatly to the confidence of the higher critics,

As Vatke, one of the earlier members of the

school,

made the

hypothesis of evolution the .guiding presupposition of his crit

ical work, so today does Professor

Jordan,

2

th

1

e·very latest

rep

resentative

o,f the higher criticism. The nineteenth century/

he

declares,

has

applied to the history of the

doct1ments of

th

1

e

Hebr ,ew pe·opl,e

it.s

0

1

Wll

magic w·ord,

ev

1

olution~ T he.

thought represented

by

that popular word has been

found

to

have a r,eal

meaning

in

1

our investigations regardi11g the relig~

ious life

and

the theological beliefs of Israel,

Thus, were

the·re :no hypothesis of evo,lution, there ·would be no hig·het

criticis ,m. The assured resttlts of the

high.er

criticism hav e

been gained, after all,

not

b,y

an inductive study

of

the

biblical .

books to

ascertain

if they present

a

great

variety

of styles and

vocabula ·ri

1

es and religiott.s points of view.

They

have beell

attained

by assuming

that the l1yp,otl1esis of

evolution .

is true · ·

and that t

1

l1e religion ,of Israel must have unfolded itself ·by

a process of

natural

evolution.

Tl1ey have been

attained

b)

·an intere st

1

ed cross-examination of

the· biblical

books to

con4f

strain tl1em to admit tl1e hypothesi s

of

evolution. Tl1e imag·

ination has played a large part in the process, and tl1e so-called

evide·nces. u.pon w hich the assured results re,st are 1argel1

..

.

•

t~agina ·ry. .

But

the hypothesis

o·f

evolution, when

applied to the his-

1 Die

Biblische The ,ologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt.

1

, ,

2 Bib lical Critici sn1 and Modern Tl1,ought, T .. and T. Cla,rk,, 1909,

,I

..

•

•

•

•


8/21

•

I

•

•

•

•

•

Fallacies of the

Highe¥ Criticism . 55

tory of literature, is a falla ,cy~ leaving us utterly unable to

account for

Homer,

or Da,ate,

or

Shakespeare, the greatest

~oef~

of the

world,

yet

all o,f '.

hem writi~g

in

the dawn of tne

great literatures ·of the world. It is a

fallacy

wlien ap.P.lied to

the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account tor

Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to

dr.ny

tliat

tHe}tc0uld have been such men as the Bible declares them to .

h.a-v:e

een. The

hypothesis

is

a

f

allaCy

when applied te tile

history of ·the human

race

in

general.

Our

race

has

made

p~og-

.

-

ress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but prog-

Fessunder the influ,ence of supernatural revelation is one thing,

and evolution is another. . Buckle* undertook to account · for

.

history by a thorough-going application of the hyp().thesis of

evolution to its problems; but no historian

today

believes that

he

succeeded

in his effort,

and

his

work

is

universally :regarded

as a br,i,l,liant euriosity. fh ,e types

of '

evol,tition

advocated

by

different liigher critics

ate widely different

from one

another~

varyin,g f r,om the pure natt1rralism

of

W e,1lhausen to th,e tecog

nition of

some feeDle r:aysOfsupernatural

revelation;

but

the

hypothesis of

evolution

in any form, when applied tc;>

human

history, blinds us anG renders us incapable of beli0lding the

glory of God in its more signal ma.nifestations. . ·

THlRD FALLACY: THE BIBLE A NATURAL BOOK

III. A thir-d fallacy of the higher critics is the

doctrine

· concerning the Scriptures which

they

tea

1

ch. If a co

1

nsistent

hypothesis of evolution · is made the

basis

of our :religious

thinking, the

Bible

will

be

regarded

as only a

pFoduct

of huma~

nature working in the field of religious literature. It will he

merely a

natural

book. If there are

higher

critics who

recoil

from this application of the hypothesis of evolution and who

seek to ·modify

it

by recognizing some special evidences 0£ the

divine in the Bible, the inspiration of which

they

speak rises

but little

hig·her than

the

providential guidance of

the

w.Mters

..

* ~H1·t

f

c· l' · · E 1 d ''

ry

o

1v1

1zat101n

111

ng

an - ·

•

•

•

•


9/21

•

•

I

.56

•

•

Tl1e church doctri11e of the

f11ll

ins,piration of the Bible is

almost never

held

by

the higher critics

of

·any class, even of

the

more

bel.ieving. Here an

1

d there we may discover one

,a·nd

ano ·ther who

try

to save

so1ne

fragments of the church doc-

.trine,

but they are

few

and

far

between, and

the salvage to

which

they cling is

so small

and poor that it is scarcely worth

while. Througl1out their ranl


10/21

1¥al/aciesof

the I lighcr Criticism .

57

•

•

and those to be accepted. If the higher

criticism shall

be

,adopted as the doctrine rof the church, believers]wil.l be left in a ·

•

distressing state of doubt and uncertainty concerning the narra-

tive s of the four Gospels, and unbelievers will scoff and mock.

A theory which leads to such wanderings of thought regard

ing the supernatural in the Scriptures must be fallacious. God

•

is no,t a God of co,nf usio11.

Among the higher critics who accept some of the miracles

there

is a notable desire to

discredit

the virgin birth of our

Lord, and their treatment of this event presents

a

good exam

ple of tl1e fallacies of reasoning

by

means of which

they

would

abolish many of the other miracles. One feature of their argu

ment may suffice a,s .an exhibition of all. It is the

search

for

~arallels in tl1e pagan mythologies. There are many instances

'tn

the pagan stories of the birth of men from ·human mothers

and divine fathers, and the higl1er critics would create the

•

impression that the writers who reco ,rd the birth of Cnrist

i

were influenced by

these

fables to emulate th.em,

and thus

to

secure

for Him the honor

of

a celestial paternity. It turns

out,

however, that these

pagan

fables do not in any case

pre

sent to us

a

virgin

mother; the

cl1ild is alwa,ys

the product

of commerce with a god who assumes a ht1man form for the

purposle.

1

The d

1

espair , of the higl1er· criti .cs in t'his hunt for

events of the same kind is well illus ,trated

by

Ch

e,yne,* who

cites

tl1e

record of the

Babylonian

king Sargon, about 3,800

B.

C.

This monarch represe11ts himself as having ''been born

of a poor mother in secret, and as not knowing his father.

There have been many millions of

such

instances,

but we do ·

not think of the mother ~ as virgins. Nor does the BaDy

lo,nian story affirm that the mother of Sargon was a virgi11, ·

Oir ~ven that

his fath

1

er was a,

g

1

od. It

is plain

that Sargon

did not intend to claim a supernatural origin, for, after say

ing that he ''did . not know his father, ·' he adds that ''the

brother of his f.ather Jived in the rt1

1

ountains.''

It was a case

*''Bible

Problems,''

p.a,ge 86 .

•

•

•

•

•

•


11/21

1

•

r

58

like n1uttitudes

1

of others in vhich childrer1, early orpl1an,ed,

have not

known

their fathers,

bttt

hav

1

e

known

tl1e

relation9

of tl1eir fathers. This

statement

of

Sargon I quote f1·om

a

tran slation of it n1ade by Cheyne himself in the ''Encycle:r

pedia Biblica.'' He continue s, ''There is

reas.o·n

to , suspect that

something similar was originally sa id by the Israelites of

Mose s.' ' To substantiate this he add ''Se ·e Encyclopedia Bib

lica,

'Moses,.

section 3

with

note

4 .

On

turni11g

to

this ref.

erence t~e reader fi11ds

t'hat

the

.article was

written

by Cheyne

himself, , and

that

it

contain s 110 evidence whatever. ,

FIFTH FALLA

1

CY: THE TESTIM

1

0NY

1

0F ARCHAE

1

0LOGY

DENIED.

V. The limitation of the field of

research as

far as pos

sible to the

biblical book

as literary

productions

l1as

retl

dered

many

of the higher critics

reluctant

t

1

0 admit

the

new

light derived from archaeolo gy. This

is

granted

by Cheyne.

''I have no wish

to

deny,'' he says,,

''that

the so-called ~hghet

critics' · in

the

past were as

a

rule

suspicious

of Assyriology as

a young, and, as they thought, too self-assertive .science, and

th.at

many

of

tho se. who

no,w

recognize

its

con.tribt1tion,s

to

knowledge

are

somewhat

too

mechanical in the

use

of

it, a11

too skeptical as to the influence of Babylonian culture in

reta~

tively early time s in Syria, Palestine an ,d even Arabiaj'' ThiS

grudging recognition

1

0f tl1e

te stimo ny of archaeology may ·

observed in several detail s.

1. It was said

that tl1e

Hexateuch must have been

fo1·111

chiefly by the gathering up of oral traditions, because it i

not to , be suppo sed that the early

Hebrews

pos sessed

the

art

of

writing

and of keeping records. But the entire progress of

•

archaeological study refutes tl1is. n pa1·ticular the discover>'

of the Tel el-Amarna tablet s has sho wn that writing in cunei·

for1n

c11a1·acte1·s

an,d. i·n th,e Assyrio-Baby]onian language

·wa

comn1on to tl1e

e11tire biblical wor ld long before the exodt1

•

*''Bible Prob letns,'' pao-e 142


12/21

•

•

•

·Fallac,ies of

tlte

HigJie1

Criticisnt.

59

The discovery was tnade

by

Egyptian peasants in 1887. There

a1 e more

than three hundr

1

ed tab lets, which came from vari

ot1s lands,, including Babylonia

and P1l.estine .

Q,th,er find .s

l1ave added tl1eir testimony to tl e fact that writing and the

p1·eservati.on of reco1·ds wer

1

e tl1e peculiar pas ,sions of ·the an-

c-ient civiliz

1

ed

World,

Under the ,

co,nstraint

of the

overwhelm

ing evidences, Professor Jordan writes as follows: ''The

question

as to tl1e age of

writing

never

played

a

great

part

in the

discussion.''

He

falls

back on

the supposition

that

the

nomadic life of the early Hebrews

w

1

oul

1

d prevent .them from

acquiring the

art of writing. He

treats

us to such

reasoning

as the following: ''If the fact that writing is very old is such

., po iwerfu1 argument when taken alo,ne, it mig h·t enab1e you to

prove th ,at Alfr ,ed the Gt·e,at w1. te Shakespeare's p1ays,.

2.

It wa s easy

to treat Abraham as a mythical

figure

,vl1en

the early records

of Baby lonia

were

but

little known.

The entire coloring of those chapters of Genesis which ref er

to Mesopotamia could be regarded as the product of the imag

ination. Tl1is is no longer the case. Thus .Clay,* writing of

Genesis 14,

says : ' 'The tl1eory

of tl1e late

origin of

all the

. Hebrew Scriptures prompted the Critics to declare this narra- ·

II

·ttv·e

to

'be a pure i11vention of a

later H

1

ebrew

writer.

*

*

*

The patriarchs were relegated to the . regio,n of myth and

legend. Abraham \vas made a fictitious father 10£ the Hebrews.

. *

* * Even the po litical situatio1 1 was declared to be incon

sisten t with fact. *

*

* Weighing carefully the

position

taken by the critics in the light of what has been revealed

thro ,ugh

the decipl1erment of the cuneiform

inscriptions,

we

find that the very

foundations

upon which their theories rest,

with reference to the point s that could be tested, totally dis

apip,ear. T 'he trutl1 is, tl1at

wl1e1·ever a11y

1ight l1as 'been tl1rown

upon the subje .ct throu .gl1

excav,ations1 their l1yp otheses have

.

. - . .

1

nvar1ably

been found wanting.'' Bttt the

higl1er

er1tics

are

*

''Light

on the Old

Test ame11t

from

Bab,et.••

1907. C'la~ is Assistant

P ·rofessor an,d

Ass ,istant Curator iof

the

Baby lonia11 Section, Depart

•11er1t of ArchaeoloJUt, in the Univers ity ,of ' Pennsylvania .

•

•

•

I


13/21

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

still reluctant to admit this 11ew ight.

Tht1 s

Kent

1

says,

'Tl1e

pri tnary

value

of tl1ese

storie s

is didactic and reli gious,

ratt-1e

than historical .''

3. T'l1ebooks ,of

Jo shua

and

J1dge s

hav e

been re ·garde

1

d by

the

higher critic s as unh istorical on the grou1td

th at

their

por ..

-

· traiture of the political, religious,

and

social condition of P'al-

estine in

the.

thirteenth

centu1 ·y

B.

C.

is incredible. This can ...

not be said any longer, for the recent excavations in Palestine

have shown us a land exactly like tl1at of these boolcs. The

· portraiture is so

precise,

and is drawn out in so many

rnin11te

lin

1

eaments, that

it

cannot be the product

of

oral

tradition

floating

down thr ough

a

thousand years.

In

w11at

details

tl1e

accuracy of the biblical picture of early

Palestine is

exhibit ed

may be seen

perhaps

best

in

the excavation s by Macalister

2

a.t

Ge.zer. Here again there are absolutely no discrepancies

between the Land and the Book, for tl1e Land lifts up a tl1ou ..

sand voices to testify that the Bo,ok is history and not legend.

..

4. It was held by the higher critics that

the ·

legi slation

which we cal .I.

Mosaic

could n.ot

have been p

1

r 0

1

duce

1

d

b,y Moses,

since his age was too early for such codes. This reasoning

was

·completely

negatived

by the

discovery of the

Code

of

Hammurabi,

the

Amraphe1

8

of Genesis

14. This code is vet~

differ

1

ent f :ro

1

1n tl1.at of Mos

1

es; it is more sys

1

tematic; and it

i.s

at least seven hundred years earlier than the Mosaic legisla--

ti,on. ·

In short,

from

the

origin of

the h igher

criticism

till

tl1i ,

present tiQte the discoveries in

the

field of archaeology

have

given it

a successioti. of

serio us blows.

The

l1igber critics w r

shocked when the passion of the ancient world for writing and

the preservation of docume nts was discovered. Th y

were

shocked when

primitive Babylonia appeared as

the

land

of

•

Abraham. They were shocked when early

Palestine

appeared as

the

land

of

Joshua

and.

the

Judges. They were

shocked

whefl

1Biblica,l

World, Dec.,

1906.

2''Bible Side-Lights from

the i i ound

,of G,ezer~•t '

a()n this matter see any dictionary

0

1

£ the

Bible ·, art~ ~,Amraph el~'

I

•


14/21

•

•

Fallacies of the Higher riticism

61

•

Amraphel came back from tl1e g1·ave

as a

real

historical charac

te.r,,

beari ·ng,

l1is

code

of

laws.

They

were

sho

1

cke.d wl1en

the

.stele

of the Pharaoh of the eX.Odus was read, a d t was proved

that

he knew a people called Israel, that they had no settled place

of abode, that t]1ey were ''without · grain''

for

food,

and

that

in these particulars they were quite as they are represented

by

the S,criptures to

l1ave

been wl1en tl1ey had fled from Egypt

into the

wilderness.* Tl1e

embarrassment

created

by

these

discoveries 'is manifest in many o.f the recent writings of the

higher critics, in which, however, tl1ey still cling heroically to

their

analysis and

their

late dating of the Pentateuch and their

confidence,

in the hypo,t'hes.is of ' evolution

as

tl1e key of al

l

history. .

SIXTH FALLACY: THE PSALMS WRITTEN AFTER THE

EXILE.

• •

•

VI.

The Psalms

a.re usually dated by

the higher

critics

after the exile. The great majority of the higher critics are

agreed here,

and

tell us th ,at thes ,e varied a,nd touching and

magnificent lyrics of religious experience all come to us from

a period

l,ater

than 450 B. C. A few of the critic ,s ·admit

an

earlier origin

of

three

or

fo•ur

of tl1em,but they do this

waV

eringly, grudgingly, and against the general consensus of opi11-

ion among their fellows. In the Bible

a very

large number

of the Psalms are ascribed to David, and these, with a few

insignificant and doubtful exceptions, are denied to him and

brought down, like the rest, to the age of the second temple.

This

leads me

to

the following observations:

*The higher critics usually .

slttr

over this

remar1-cab1e

nscription,

and give u,s neither an accurate translation nor a natural

interpreta

ion

of it. I

have ,

therefore, sipec.ial pleasure

in

quoting th,e follow-

1ng £r

1

om

D,r,iver, ''Authority and Archaeology,''

page

61 : "'Whereas

the other

places

named in the

inscription all

have the determinative

for 'country,' Ysiraal has the

d,eterminative

for

'men': it follows that

the referenc ,e is not

to

the land .

of Isra ,el,

but to Israel

as a

tribe

or

P:ople,

whether migratory,

or on

the

march~',

Thus

tbis distinguished

higher critic sanctions the view of tI1e reeord

which

I have

adoptedo

,He represents Maspero

a11dNaville ,as

doing the same .

•

•

•


15/21

•

.

62

•

•

..

•

1. Who

1

wrote the

Psal111s? Here

the

higl1e1

critics

have

no answer.

Of the peri o,d

fro111

400

to

175 B,

c.

·we are

ill

al111ost total igno

1

rance~ Jo,se·pht1s kn.ows, .almo

1

st n.othing

about

it, nor has any other writer told us more. Yet, according t

the theory, it was precisely in these centuries of silence, whell

tlrie

Jews

had no gre,a.t

writ

1

ers,

that

they pro

1

dt1ced

th,is mag

nifice11toutburst of sacre ,d song.

2.

This is

the

more

remarkab ,le when

we

consider

the

well

known

men

to

whom

the tl1eory deni

1

es the autl1orship , of

a11y

of the Psal111s. The list i:ncludes

such

names as

Mo,ses,,

David,

San1uel, Nathan, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the long list

of preexilic prophets. We are asked to believe that th,ese men

co1np

1

0.sed

no

P.sa1ms.,

and

that

the

en tir

1

e ,collec,tio

1

n

was conll

tributed

by

men so obscure that

th,ey

have

left no single

na1ne

by which we can identify them with their work .

.3. Thi s, will appear still more extr .a,ordina1-y if we co11·

sider the times in which,

it

is said, no Psalms were produced,

and contrast them with the times in which all of tl1em were

produced , The times in which no,ne were

produced

were

the

g ,reat

tim

1

es,

·the times of growtl1,

of mental

ferment.,

of

,co11-

quest, of imperial expansion, of

disast ,er,

arid of recovery. Tl1e

times in

whicl1 none were

produced

were tl1e

times of

the

splen,djd temple

o,f

Solomon,. with

its s.ple:ndi,d

worship.

'TI1e

tin1es in

which

none were

prod .uced

were

the heroic ti1nes

of

Elijah and Elisha, when the people of Jehovah struggled

for

their existence against the abominations of the pagan gods,

On the other h,and,

t'he

times

whicl1

ac.tually

produced

th,e111

were the times . 0£ growing legalism, of obscurity, and of infer

ior abilitie s. All this is incredible. We could believe it only

if we first came to believe that the

Psalms

are

works

o,f slight

literary and religious value. This is actually done by Well·

hausen, who says,,* ''They

certainly

are to

the

sm .allest e

tent

original .,

a'nd ,

are

for 'the most

part

imit1tions

which

illttstrate

the saying abot1t much writing.', The Psal1ns are not all

1

0f atl

l)Quoted

by Orrt

''The Problem o,f

t]1e Old

Testament,~, page 43,5.


16/21

•

•

•

Fallacies of the Higher c itici.sm.

63

equally high degree of excellence, and there are a few of them

which might give some

faint

color

of justice

t

this

deprecia

tio,n of the enti·re collection.. But as a whol

e they are exactly

the reverse of this picture. Furthermore, they contain abso

lutely no legalism; but are as free from it

as are

the Sermon

on the

Mot1nt

and the Pauline epistles. Yet further, the writ:

ers stand out as personalities, and they must have left a deep

impression upon their fellows. Finally, they were full

of

the

fire

of

genius kindled

by

the

Holy

Spirit.

It

is

impossible

for us to attribute the Psa.lms to the unknown

m,ediocri·ties

of

tl1e

period

which followed the restoration.

4. Very many of the Psalms plainly appear to be

ancient. They sing

of

early events, and have no trace of alltt-

•

s1on

to

the age

which

is

said

to

have produced them.

5. The large number of Psalms attributed to David l1ave

attracted

the

special

attention of

the higher

critics.

They

are

denied to him on various ground s. He was a

wicked

man, and

hence incapable

of

writing these

praises to

the God

of

righte- .

ousness.

-

He was an iron warrio,r and statesman,,and hence not

gif ted with the emotions found in thes,e productio·ns., Ile wa,,

so

busy with the

cares of

conquest

and

administration ·that he

had no leisure for literary work. Finally, his conception of

God was utterly different from that which moved the psalmists~ ··

The larger part of this catalogue of inabilities is mani

f

est1y

erroneous. David,

with

some glaring faults, and with a

single enormous crime, for which he was profoundly penitent,

w.as one of ·the nobles,t o,£ men.

He

w1s indee,d

an

iron.

war-

rior and statesman,

but

also

one of the

inost

emotional of

all

great historic characters. He was busy, bttt busy men not

seldom

find

relief in literary occupations, as

Washington,

dur

ing

the

Revolutionary

War, poured forth a .continual tide

of

letters, and s

Cresar, Marcus

Aurelius, and Gladstone, while

burdened with the cares of empire, composed immortal bool


17/21

--

•

•

•

•

•

•

T lie Fu1idamentals

•

•

•

in all his I.ater experiences, a.nd his ass,ociati ·ons with: nol

pr:iests and prophets? He was certainly

teac ·hable:

did G

fMl

to make use of

him

in further revealing

Himself to Hi

peo_ple 1:o deny these Psalms to David on the giound of

h'.i

limited vieWs of God ill his early life, is this not te deny th.a

God ma.de sucaessive revelations of Himself wher.e~er He

found suitable channels?- If., further, we consider the unq.ues

tioned

skill

of

E>avid

in

-l1e

music of

his, nation

and

nis

age

( I.

Sam.

16 :14-25), this will consti tuie a Presupposition in

favor of his interest in sacred song. If, finally, we consider

his personal career of danger and deli\'erance, this will appear

a~. the natural means of awakening

in

hill:}he spirit of varied

religious poetry, FI.is. times were much like the Elizabethan

~ried,

which

ministerecl unexampled stimulus

to

the English

min&

From all thi~ we may; turn to the singµIar \i eridict of Pro

fessor ~orel:an: ''if ' a man says he cannot see why D,avid could

not ha¥e written Psalms 51 and 139, ·you are compe)le·d to r~ly

as politely as possible that

if

he did write tnem: then any man

,can w·rite

anything.''

So ·also w:e

may say,

''as

politely

as po-s

siale,'' tnat it Shakespeare, witn his ''sm:tll

Latin ·

and les.s

Greek,'' did write ]·1is ·incomparaole dran1as,

''then

any man

can write anything' ' ; that if Bickens, witn his mere elemen

tary education,

did

write his great

nove,Is, '' ·then any man

can

w1·ite

anything'';

,and tnat if Linooln, ·who had no

early

school·

ing, did write his Ciettysburg address, ''then any rµan can wnite

anything.''

•

SEVENTif F'ALLACY:

DEUTERONOMY

N0

1

:F

WR1TTEN B~

MOSES.

¥ :I. One 0£

the

fixed p@ints of tl1e higher criticism is

'i.ts

theory

of

th.e ori ,gin

of

lleuteronomy.

Jln

I. Kings 22

we

Dave

ile

hist0ry

of

the

fi~d.ing

of

the book o:£

the

law

in the

temple, which was being repaired. Now the higher c~itics

pi-esent th,is finding, not ~s the discovery of ' an ancient docu•

•


18/21

Fallacies of the Higher Criticism

65

ment but as the finding of an entirely new document which

had been concealed in the temple in order that it might

e

found might be accepted as the production of Moses and

might produce an effect by its assumed authorship. It is not

supposed for a moment that the writer innocently chose the

fictitious dress of Mosaic authorship for merely literary pur

poses. On the contrary it is steadfastly maintained that he

intended to deceive and that others were with him in the

plot to deceive. This s~tement of the case leads me to the

following reflections:

1. According to the theory this was an instance of piou

fraud. And the fraud 1nust have been prepared deliberately.

The manuscript must have been soiled and frayed by special

care for it was at once admitted to be ancient. This supposi

tion of deceit must always repel the Christian believer.

2. Our Lord draws from the Book of Deuteronomy all

the three texts with which He foils the tempter Matt. 4

:1-11

Luke

4 :1-14.

It must always shock the devout student that

his Saviour should select His weapons from an armory founded

on deceit.

3. This may be called an appeal to ignorant piety rather

than to scholarly criticism. But surely the moral argument

should have some weight in scholarly criticism. In the sphere

of religion moral impossibilities are as insuperable as physical

and mental.

4. If we turn to consideration of a literary kind

it

is to

eobserved that the higher criticism runs counter here to the

statement of the book itself that Moses was its author.

5. It runs counter to the narrative of the finding of the

book and turns the finding of an ancient book into the forgery

9£

a· new book.

6. It runs counter to the judg1nent of all the intelligent

tnen of the time who learned of the discovery. They judged

the book to have come down fron1 the Mosaic age. and to be

from the pen of Moses. vVe hear of no dissent whatever.


19/21

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

I ie F undamental s.

,

•

7.

It . seeks support in a variety of

reas~ns, such

as style,

l

historical discrepancies, and legal contradi~tions,

all

of · which

p·rove of little sub,stance when examine ii fairly.

.

1

EIGHTH FALLACY: THE PRlESTLY LEGISLATION NO

. . EN ACTED UNTIL THE EXILE.

I

vrn : :Another case of '

fargery

is

found

in

the ori.gin

of

tile priestly legislation, if we are to believe

the

higher .ctitics,

This legislation

is c0ntained ~n

a

large number

of passageS

•

·scattered through Exodus, Leviticus, and Number~. It has

do chiefly with the ta:bernacle and its worship, with the duties;

...

of the priests and Levites, and with the relaitions of the peo-

, ple

to

the

inst~_utions

of

religion.

It is attributed ta Moses in

•

scores of places. It ~as a strong coloring of the

Mosaic

ag'

and of the wilderness life.

·1t

affirms the

existenCe

of the ta b

ernacle, with an or

1

derly a

1

dministr.ation of

the ritual serviees,

But this is all imagined, for .the legislation .is a late produotioo,

Before the . exile there were temple services and a

priesthood,

with

cer:tain

re . ations concerning them,

either

or,t

or Writ"

• • •

ten, and use w:as made of this tradition ; but as a w:hole the leg.

islation was enacted by such men as Ezekiel and Ezra during

.

and

immediately

after

the

e:XileJ

r

about 444 B.

C.

T.he

name

..

of Moses, ~he fiction of a tabernacle, and the general coloiing

of the Mosaic age, were given it

in

order to render it authori"

tative 3":nd o secure the ready obedience of the nation. ·~ut

now:

1. The moral objection

.here

is insupevable. The

supposi"

tio ·n of f~rgery, and of forgery so cunning, sO laborate, an~

so min-ute~

is

abhorrent.

It

the forgery hacl been invented

and

execute~ by .wicked men to promote

so1ne

scheme of selfish"

ness, it would have been less Odious. But when it is presented

to

us as the expedient of holy me11, for the advancement of

the religion of . he God of righteousness, which af terwarcl

blossomed out into Christianity, we must ·vevolt.

2. The

theory gives

us

a portraiture of such

men

•

•

•

•

•


20/21

Falla1ies of

the

Higher

Criticism

7

of

B . . ·

. i .

aal or of Chemosh ; 1t was certai nly not worthy of the

~rophets of Jehovah and we dishonor them when . w 1e attribute

1t

to - -

. them

and

place

tl1em

upon a Jow plane

oii

craft and cun-

•

'

never be£ore

heard

of.

•

,

n irksome 1n the extreme, and 1t would not have been lightly

0

not hear of any revolt, or even of any criticis1n. ·

1

ed them in their more moderate forms, that they may be

. een

and

weighed without the re1narkable

extravagances

which

at1

I . • • •

r1st1an faith. .

. B ,. . NO MIDDLE GROUN.D. .

. u~

lll1ght

we

11otaccept a part of this system of thought

lt . .

arm and

little good .

•

•


21/21

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

lie Fundame1 tals •

•

2. The

majority

of those

who struggle to

stand here

find

·it

iippo ,ssible to do so,

and

give themselves up

to

the current .

There is intellectual

consistency

in the ]o,f

ty

church

doctri11e

of inspiration.

There

may

_he

intellectual consistency

in

the

doctrine

that

all things

have had

a natural origin

and

history,

unde1·

the general

providence of

God,

as distinguished froill

His supernatural revelation of Hi1nself

through

,holy

men,

and

especially througl1

His co~equal S )n, so that the

Bible

is

•

•

as little

supe1·natural

as

the

''Imitation

of

Cl1rist''

or

the

''PiJ ..

grim's Progress.''

But

there

is

no position of intellectµal con"

sistency

between

these two,

and the great

mass of

those who l

try to

pause at ·

various

points along

the

descent

are

swept

down with the current. The natural vie,v of the Scriptures

is a

sea

which

has

been ri sing

higl1er

for three-quarters

of a

century. Many

Christians bid it ,velcome to pour lightly

over

the

walls

which

the

faith

of

tl1e

ehurch

has

always set

up

against it, in the

expectation that

it wi11prove a health£ul ane l

helpful stream.

It is

already

a

catarac

uprooting, destroying,

(

and

slaying.

•

•

•

APPEND ·IX.

I

•

Those

who

wish to study these fallacies

further

are

advised

to read the

following books ,

•

ORR. "The Problem of the Old Testament ,'' a:JJd

''The Bible Und ,er Fire ''.

'''Ar,e

the Critics Ri.g11t ''

t.

•

MOLLER.

SCHMAUK.

•

'·The · Negative Cr:ticis111and the · 01d T,est3"

ment.' ''

•

CROSLEGH. · ''The Bible in tl1e Light of Today."

VAR10U'S AUTHQ ,RS,. ''Lex Mosaica .''

GREEN. "The Higher Criticism of the Pentat euch.''

CHAMBERS . ''Moses and His Recent Critics.''

BLO~IFIELD. "The o ,d Testanient and the New Criticisn1,'

1

RAVEN. · '''0

1

'ld Testament I 11trodu.ction.

1

S YCE. "The Earlv History of the

Hebrews.,, ,

the fundamentals: volume 2, chapter 3: fallacies of the higher criticism

Documents