ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL RESEARCH

THE BATTLE OF THE CRITICS

No book on Pentateuchal criticism has created more stir in recent times among English-speaking students of the Old Testament than a volume, entitled, The Problem of the Old Testament, from the vigorous pen of Dr. James Orr, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow. The book is published under the auspices of Lake Forest University. This institution was the recipient in 1879 of $40,000 from Mr. William Bross, at one time lieutenant-governor of Illinois. The income from this money was to be used periodically in prizes for treatises or books "on the connection, relation, and mutual bearing of any practical science, or history of our race, or the facts in any department of knowledge, with and upon the Christian religion." The promoters of this fund had especially in view "the religion of the Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," as commonly received in the Presbyterian and other evangelical churches. The last prize, amounting to $6,000, offered in 1902, thrown open for competition to scientists, philosophers, scholars, and historians, regardless of creed or clime, was unanimously awarded by the committee selected as judges to Dr. James Orr. It is needless to add that this volume, selected from a number submitted in competition, and deemed worthy of this munificent prize-for $6,000 is a large sum-has been written by a profound scholar, one thoroughly versed in the great questions discussed, one, not only acquainted with the immense literature on the subject in French, German, and English, but also accustomed to weigh evidence in a scientific manner.

Dr. Orr's main contention is with the Graf-Wellhausen wing of critics. He is eminently fair, meets argument with argument, and never attempts to minimize the services rendered to biblical criticism by this school. He protests against the methods employed and the untenableness of much that is taught by these critics as scientifically established truth. Notwithstanding the array of learning connected with, and the great popularity of the Wellhausen theory, Dr. Orr, if we mistake not, shows conclusively that it is not entitled to "the unqualified confidence often claimed for it," because the theory, plausible as it is, "rests upon erroneous fundamental principles," is built upon the sand, is permeated with subjectivity and wrong deductions, and, "must, if carried to its logical issues-to which happily very many do not carry it-prove subversive of our Christian faith." Dr. Orr, with telling effect, holds to view the lack of harmony in the radical camp as to questions of dates and priority of documents. Such lack of harmony is inevitable, since their conclusions are based upon premises purely subjective and issuing from such a variety of sources. We find among them all shades of opinions, from those of the ultrarationalist, who denies a

supernatural revelation to those of the orthodox or liberal-conservative. The lack of agreement is comparatively harmless beside the bias to discard the supernatural in the Bible. We have, however, no quarrel with a man for depressing the date of a psalm or even of an entire book provided he does not do so for the purpose of undermining inspiration and the supernatural. Take Kuenen for example; in discussing the Religion of Israel and those of other nations, this learned Dutch theologian says: "For us the Israelitish religion is one of those religions; nothing less, but also, nothing more." He says in so many words that neither the Jewish nor Christian religion is derived from special divine revelation, or is supernatural in its origin. The following from his pen is explicit: "So soon as we derive a separate part of Israel's religious life directly from God, and allow the supernatural or immediate revelation to intervene in even one single point, so long also our view of the whole continues to be incorrect.....It is the supposition of a natural development alone which accounts for all the phenomenon." It would be easy to multiply similar quotations from the writings of other critics of this school, such as Duhm, Stade, Gunkel, Wellhausen, etc.

We Methodists think that we can trace the divine hand from Genesis to Revelation, but Wellhausen and his school degrade the origin of the profoundest truths of the Bible, and fail to see a redemptive purpose manifesting itself through the entire Scriptures. "They lower the character of religion to suit the conditions of its hypothetical development." Prof. Robertson Smith saw this tendency, and was candid enough to say: "There appears to live a substantial and practical difference of view between the common faith of the churches and the views of the modern school" of biblical critics.

The Graf-Kuenen-Willhausen school, like most modern critics, believe in the documentary theory of the composition of the Pentateuch, or rather Hexateuch, for, according to them, the book of Joshua is a mere continuation of the first five books of the Old Testament. The Mosaic origin is denied in toto. Not one of the documents can by any possibility be from the pen of Moses. There are at least four sources generally known as J, E, D, T. We find the J and E documents so united as to be scarcely distinguishable. These four sources are the main documents; we say main because the critics divide and subdivide these at will into many smaller fragments. What student of the Pentateuch is not familiar with J1, J2, J3, or E1, E2, E3, or D1, D2, etc.? These algebraic signs, thanks to the ingenuity of advanced critics, are destined to disappear in the near future, for, of late years, it has become fashionable to speak of schools rather than of individual writers. Thus the difference of style in one of the four principal documents is easily explained, since it is the work of a long series of writers, all belonging to the same school. When the critics come to date these documents, or to discuss their relative ages, harmony is conspicuous by its absence. P., or the Priestly Code, written by and in the interest of the priestly class, appeared, according to Wellhausen, shortly before 468 B. C., and was produced in Babylon. Bleek, Colenso, and most of the older,

higher critics, make this the oldest of the four documents, written about the time of Samuel. This is the reason that they named it "Die Grundschrift." Riehm, Dillmann, Noeldeke, Schrader, and others likewise regard it as the oldest document, but bring it down to the regal period. Even Graf, in his former writings, made P. earlier than Deuteronomy, but later, in agreement with Wellhausen, stamped it as post-exilic or the very latest portion from which the Hexateuch was formed.

Having depressed the date of P. which forms so large a portion of the Pentateuch, the next step was comparatively easy, that is, to reduce it to a mere fiction. Not only do they make the laws non-Mosaic and legendary but they also deny a historic character to the greater part of the narratives. What purports to be history is fiction invented by the priests to insure readier acceptance of the legislation. Here again the critics disagree. Prof. Robertson Smith, says that such a system of laws could not have been invented in Babylonia, and that to settle upon Ezra as the author of the Priest's Code is arbitrary guess-work. Other advanced critics, mindful of the many objections to a post-exilic date, admit that large portions of P. existed in an unwritten state long before the captivity. If it existed unwritten, why not written? Dr. Orr very ably points out three huge incredibilities to the acceptance of post-exilic date to P. First, there is the moral question. Ezra, when he read the law of the people, passed it off as genuinely Mosaic. The people at the time accepted it as Mosaic, and so have the Jewish and Christian churches down to comparatively recent times, and that without scarcely a dissenting voice from Jew or Christian. And yet, notwithstanding this long consensus of opinion, Wellhausen coolly says: "Not only was the code unknown before the exile, but it could not have existed earlier than the captivity." He further assures us that the tabernacle, with its ark and utensils, the choice of Aaron and his sons as priests, or the Levites as their subordinates, the establishment of Levitical cities, the tithes system, the Day of Atonement, and much more besides, are all pure inventions without historical bases. "Not only were these institutions non-Mosaic, they never existed at all." How then, the uninitiated into the mysteries of biblical criticism may ask, became such legislation and institutions attributed to Moses? The critics solemnly assert that it was the custom of those ages to attribute all new laws to Moses, simply to give them a greater weight. But Ezekiel did not attribute his laws to Moses, nor did the Chronicler, nor did Ezra and Nehemiah, but all these made a clear distinction between what was their own and what they regarded as belonging to Moses. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and men of their type were "as incapable of employing lying lips, or lying pen as any of our critics to-day. We simply cannot conceive of them as entering into such conspiracy or taking part in such a fraud, as the Wellhausen theory supposes."

In passing we might very briefly refer to the critical view regarding the origin of Deuteronomy. We are forced by the Graf-Wellhausen theory to regard Deuteronomy as "a pious fraud, or a deliberate intention to deceive." Lest we do the critics injustice, let them speak for themselves.

Wellhausen says: "Deuteronomy is the book which the priests pretended to have found in the temple." Kuenen tells us that D. was composed by the Mosaic party to further its own interests; in those days, "men used to perpetrate such fictions as these without any qualms of conscience." Cornill solemnly adds: "We must recognize the fact that we have here a pseudograph, and that this was known to the persons interested." Cheyne chimes in by saying: "No student of Oriental life and history could be surprised at a pious fraud originating among priests." If we are not mistaken, Cheyne, too, is an ordained priest! He also says: "Such conduct as that of Hilkiah is, I maintain, worthy of an inspired teacher. . Indeed, if we reject the theory of 'needful illusions' we are thrown upon a sea of perplexity."

To return to P., we must next point out the historical incredibility that such a system of laws, if not Mosaic, should have been accepted after the captivity. They have not the least post-exilic flavor, on the other hand the entire code is permeated with "so perfect an air of the wilderness." Ezra, had he desired, could not have perpetrated such a scheme upon his contemporaries. The Book of Nehemiah clearly shows that there was a "strongly disaffected party-a faction keenly opposed to Ezra and Nehemiah." Professor Robertson Smith frankly admits that "all the historical indications point to the priestly aristocracy being the chief opponents of Ezra." This being so, how could Ezra have hoodwinked the people, and foisted upon them, in the name of Moses, such a production as the Priestly Code? And how could the Samaritans, so hostile to the Jews, have accepted, a short time later, such a document as from the pen of Moses? Indeed, it is not wonderful that some critics, as, for example, Professor H. P. Smith (in his Hebrew History) should be inclined to deny the very existence of Ezra. This learned critic says: "Whether there was a scribe named Ezra is not a matter of great importance."

Then, there is again "the unsuitability of the Code itself." Why invent such a system for the post-exilic people? Take, for instance, the tithe system. The Levites were to receive a tenth of all from the people, of this they were to give one tenth to the priests. Is it not a historical fact that the priests in Ezra's days outnumbered the Levites in the ratio of twelve or thirteen to one? How ridiculous, therefore, to give ninety per cent to one man and only ten per cent to twelve or thirteen?

Dr. Orr's book cannot be too highly recommended to Bible students, old and young, especially "to any who have, perhaps, yielded too ready or indiscriminating an assent to the positions of the modern critical move

ment."

FOREIGN OUTLOOK

SOME LEADERS OF THOUGHT

B. Stade. He has long been known as one of the ablest of the Old Testament students of Germany. A recent contribution to his special department of learning has appeared under the title Biblische Theologie des alten Testament. Die Religion Israels und die Emtstchung des Judenthums (Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. The Religion of Israel and the Origin of Judaism). First volume, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1905. Stade holds, contrary to the majority, that Old Testament theology has a much more important function than the discovery and classification of the religious and ethical conceptions of the Old Testament. To his mind its real function is the description of the religion as founded by Moses, and how this, through the preaching of the prophets, and the peculiar experiences of the Israelites, developed into the Judaism of the time of Christ. Accordingly he divides his material into two parts: First, The Religion of Israel prior to the prophets, in which he discusses the founding of the religion in the wilderness, its modifications due to the settlement in Palestine, the prophetic reaction, the tenets of the religion previous to the prophets, and the divine worship of the period. Second, The transformation of the religion of Israel in the period of the prophets, in which he treats the prophecy of the eighth and seventh centuries B. C., its relation to the earlier religion, and to the Babylonian cults in Palestine; the results of the prophetic preaching during the exile, and the founding of the Jewish Church. Stade holds that such a review of the development enables us to discover the Old Testament germs of Christianity and at the same time to observe the contrast between the Old Testament and the revelation in the New-a contrast which cannot be so well seen in any other way-which illustrates the value to the pastor of such a study as this. One of the chief sources of interest in this utterance of Stade is that in it we see how a really great man views the performance of Delitzsch in his Bible and Babel. Hundreds of the small fry, on both sides, have written most of them so little about the subject, and have so little intellectual ability that what they say or think makes no difference. But here is a man of the first order. What does he have to say? In the first place he does not pretend to deny a degree of Babylonian influence in the religious ideas of the Old Testament. But his general attitude toward the contentions of Delitzsch is one of opposition. Stade would not have thought it worth while to refer to the matter had it not been that the newspapers made so much of it. Only the uninformed took the matter seriously, whether for or against Delitzsch, who has long been known by scholars as an extremist, but whose extremes have but recently been brought to popular observation. It may be here remarked that if he had been let severely alone by his opponents his expressions of opinion would have done far less harm. The friends of the faith are the chief agents in the spread of radical views. Stade will