'jm^^ 
 
 G.H. Schodde 
 
 Problems of 
 Old Testament 
 Discussion 
 
 mt 
 
 '%A 
 
 n 
 
 '■1. ' 1 '&' 
 
 BSII60 
 .S36 
 
BSI(60 
 .S36 
 
 1 
 
 G.H. Schodde 
 
 Problems of 
 Old Testament 
 Discussion 
 
 '■%.:M- 
 
 ^/\ 
 

>^ 335 'O^ 
 
 MAP 1 ^ 1926 
 
 jmbus, O. 
 
 the past 
 than the 
 irrepres- 
 aUsm on 
 - sense of 
 ;he reUg- 
 -igin and 
 in be ex- 
 agencies 
 has been 
 ■ch. Ac- 
 has been 
 tance not 
 damental 
 ssions of 
 isent Old 
 Dyed the 
 in the in- 
 tament it 
 ;haracter, 
 criptures, 
 'estament 
 doctrine, 
 Christian 
 Kuenen, 
 )n of the 
 rt or por- 
 lan, could 
 11 authen- 
 istorically 
 
#' 
 
 B!S 
 
1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussiofi. /\v* 335 '^ 
 
 ( , MAR 1 8 1926' 
 
 1 ^K / O^^^C^iP-^^ ^^<S 
 
 U^c^ 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 PROBLEMS QfF OLD TESTAMENT DISCUSSION. 
 
 By Prof. George H.'Schodde, Ph. D., Capital University, Columbus, O. 
 
 A combination of causes have conspired during the past 
 decade, or more, to make the Old Testament rather than the 
 New, the chief arena of theological controversy. The irrepres- 
 sible conflict of modern theology between supernaturalism on 
 the one hand and rationalism on the other, in the wider sense of 
 these words ; or, in other words, of the principle that the relig- 
 ion and revelation of the Bible are divine in their origin and 
 character, and, on the contrary, that these must and can be ex- 
 plained only as the resultants of natural and human agencies 
 and factors — this conflict in our own day and date has been 
 transferred into the department of Old Testament research. Ac- 
 cordingly the animated and ever bitter debate that has been 
 carried on and is still being carried on, has an importance not 
 only for the problems immediately involved, but is fundamental 
 for Biblical science as such and for the faith and confessions of 
 the Church. If radicalism can gain the day in the present Old 
 Testament discussions, it has thereby virtually destroyed the 
 foundations of the Christian faith and Church. For in the in- 
 terpretation, or rather misinterpretation of the Old Testament it 
 seeks to establish hypotheses concerning the origin, character, 
 and development of the religion of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 which, if once accepted as correct, can in the New Testament 
 also, and hence in the whole complex of Christian doctrine, 
 analyze into nothingness all the divine elements of the Christian 
 faith. If the naturalistic scheme of Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen, 
 and others, according to which they make the religion of the 
 Old Testament a purely natural product and in no part or por- 
 tion a revelation from a source higher than what is human, could 
 not be refuted and shown to be in antagonism with well authen- 
 ticated facts, then too the New Testament, which historically 
 
c/ 
 
 336 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 and theologically, according to the clear statements of Christ 
 and the New Testament writers, stands upon the foundation of 
 the Old, would with its foundation crumble to pieces. It is this 
 feature of general and fundamental importance that has awak- 
 ened for the Old Testament discussions of our day such a wide 
 spread interest among clear-seeing men even if they are not 
 specialists in this field. These considerations make it plain why 
 the Old rather than the New Testament is the cynosure of all 
 eyes in the theological world.* 
 
 *It may be that this sentence requires some limitation. Just at pres- 
 ent the critical discussions in the New Testament department are being 
 revived and advanced views are being taken with more assurance than 
 has been the case at any time since the Tiibingen school of Baur and 
 Strauss was compelled to retire before the counter-charge of conserva- 
 tive and orthodox scholars. In fact, comparing the New Testament 
 literature of 1886 with that of the Old Testament, we must say that 
 negative criticism has been more active in the former than in the latter. 
 Whether this only happened to be the case in 1886, or indicates a turn 
 in the debate, remains yet to be seen. Two new Introductions to the 
 New Testament have appeared, one by Weiss, of Berlin, with some con- 
 servative results scarcely expected from so prominent a representative 
 of mediating theology ; another from Holtzmann, which has already 
 reached a second edition, and which is so "advanced" that it has left 
 truth out of sight altogether, making quite a tabula rasa of traditional 
 views and accepting little as authentic in the New Testament except the 
 famous four Pauline Epistles. The greatest stir in this field has been 
 made by the History of Apostolic Times {Das Apostolische Zeitalter der 
 Chrisilichen Kirche), by C. Weizacker, the successor of Baur, in Tiib- 
 ingen. While not quite so radical as his predecessor, he reaches con- 
 clusions almost equally subversive of the truth of history and revela- 
 tion. Holtsten, of Heidelberg, has published a new work on the syn- 
 optic gospels, with results that harmonize thoroughly with the old and 
 refuted ideas of Baur. Does this mean a modern revival of the Tiib- 
 ingen criticism, just as the Wellhausen-Kuenen school is virtually a re- 
 production of the old and neglected views of George and Vatke? This 
 note must not be understood as saying that the critics had not been at 
 work on the New Testament also during the past few years. In fact, 
 they have been hard at work, notably on the problem of the literary 
 origin of the three gospels ; but the discussions had been able to attract 
 only the attention of the specialists, being overshadowed as far as the 
 general public was concerned by the Old Testament problems. It may 
 be that the two Testaments will divide the attention of the public. 
 
1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 337 
 
 In American circles also this controversy has attracted more 
 attention than had been given to the contests of European critics 
 heretofore. The ups and downs of advanced criticism in Europe 
 had scarcely been even reported to the American public. It 
 was not the Robertson Smith case alone that made this debate a 
 burning question for America also, although this was the outward 
 occasion for the outbreak of the controversy in our midst also. 
 The theology of Germany has for decades back become a more 
 and more potent factor in the formation of theological thought 
 in America ; nor has it always, or even generally been the best 
 of German theology, older or modern, which has exercised this 
 power. A large number of the younger American teachers of 
 theology have been sitting at the feet of the famous professors in 
 the German Universities, and brought over with them from the 
 Fatherland both the good and the bad. While it is a matter of 
 congratulation that so many young Americans seek the impetus 
 and encouragement given them by the German schools, it is to 
 deplored that so many go there unprepared and not sufficiently 
 ripe in heart and mind to be able to prove all things and keep 
 that which is good ; nor do they as a rule, stay long enough to 
 understand even the theological tendencies in Germany. It is 
 to some extent owing to this that the Old Testament discussions 
 in our midst have assumed a more or less crude and fragmentary 
 shape. On the other hand, it must be stated that a great deal 
 of the controversy against Old Testament criticism is born of 
 ignorance and blind zeal. Especially does the religious press 
 often consider it its privilege to condemn before it has gone to 
 the trouble of examining into the merits of the cause it criticises. 
 Then what has not been brought over from Germany by young 
 students has been scattered by the translations of German works. 
 It is true that the majority of these works represent either the 
 confessional school or the more orthodox of the mediating theo- 
 logians, yet the radical critics also have found translators and 
 readers. These and similar causes have united to bring prob- 
 l lems to our doors of which otherwise we might have only heard 
 vague rumors. But as they are here, and have come to stay. 
 
 V 
 
 This is all the more probable as virtually the same problems are involved 
 
 in both. 
 
338 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 and are exerting a strong influence on the thought of the day 
 and probably will exert a still stronger influence in the future, 
 it is well for every intelligent Christian to secure as clear a view 
 as possible of the questions involved, and thus be able intelli- 
 gently and justly to take his position over against these prob- 
 lems and their real or pretended results. It is for this reason 
 chiefly that we propose here to give a bird's eye view of the 
 controversy, having in mind especially the needs of those who 
 have not had the time or inclination to follow out the intricacies 
 of the labryrinth of Old Testament criticism. The article is 
 then not to be a new contribution to the solution of the problem, 
 but merely a resume of what has been done and what is further 
 attempted. 
 
 In the nature of the case the Old Testament discussions will 
 fall into three divisions, namely, lower criticism, higher criticism, 
 and exegesis proper. The ultimate aim of all Biblical science 
 is the interpretation of the Biblical text, the elucidation of the 
 word of revelation, the drawing out of the truth which God has 
 placed in the words spoken by the prophets and apostles. To 
 do this three things are necessary ; namely, first, we must have 
 the exact words as they were spoken or written by the Biblical 
 authors, and the process of attaining these is called lower or 
 textual criticism ; secondly, we must learn everything that can 
 contribute to an understanding of this authentic text, i. e., we 
 must know, if possible, all about the author of a book, the time 
 of its composition, the historical circumstances that surrounded 
 its composition, its character and history as a literary work, &c., 
 &c., and with this knowledge at our command seek to develop 
 the meaning which the author under these surroundings had 
 put into the text; which process is called higher, or sometimes, 
 historical criticism ; thirdly, the interpretation proper must then 
 take place, which is called the exegesis of a passage or chapter 
 or book. This natural division of the subject will give us the 
 divisions for the discussion of the Old Testament problems, for 
 they have not been confined to any one of the three or to any 
 two of them. 
 
 The first point then is that of lower or textual criticism. KV. 
 interpretation is bootless unless we have, as near as possible, 
 
1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 339 
 
 the verba ipsissima of the author under consideration. The ob- 
 ject of exegesis being to extract the meaning of the words of 
 another, the first prerequisite is to have these words in the form 
 in which they were originally spoken or written. If any addi- 
 tions have been made by another hand, these must be cut out ; 
 if any omissions are found, they must be supplied, if possible ; 
 if any changes of any kind have been made in the text itself, 
 these must, if possible, be rectified and the text restored to its 
 original character. Classical philology has for centuries been 
 engaged in this species of critical work. The acumen of the 
 shrewdest minds has been devoted to the examination of the 
 manuscripts of Homer, Zenophon, Thucydides, Cicero, Caesar, 
 and other Latin and Greek authors, in order to restore to their 
 original shape and form the literary remains of these classical 
 writers. Out of the thousands of variants found in the different 
 manuscripts, and with the aid of methodic and rational hermen- 
 eutical principles, critics have patiently labored on this text- 
 critical work, with the result, that we undoubtedly have the 
 texts of the authors in a more authentic and original form than 
 the scholars of previous generations could boast of. 
 
 A similar method, only even more searchingly, has been ap- 
 plied to the New Testament text. In the scores of manuscripts 
 of the Christian Scriptures the number of variants of all kinds 
 found reaches, according to the excellent authority of Dr. Scrive- 
 ner, the enormous sum of 150,000.* Of these, however, only 
 about 400 materially affect the sense. The origin of these vari- 
 ants is not difficult to understand. We have none of the origi- 
 nal copies of the New Testament books ; the autographic copies 
 of the evangelists and apostle have been lost. Our oldest manu- 
 scripts date probably from the fourth century, namely the Vati- 
 canus and the Sinaiticus. In copying and re-copying the New 
 Testament writings, error after error naturally crept in, error of 
 sight, of hearing, &c., &c. Tregelles classifies the variations as 
 omissions, additions, and substitutions of words or phrases. 
 I For our purpose it will suffice to make note simply of the fact, 
 
 'L *Cf . on the whole subject of New Testament Textual criticism, Schaff's 
 I Companion to the Greek Testament. 1883, p. 171 sqq. 
 
340 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 that these variants do exist, and hence of the necessity of text- 
 ual criticism to pick out from among these 1 50,000 variants those 
 readings which, from current principles of criticism, we have 
 reason to believe to have been the original words of the writers. 
 Simply taking the text of this or that manuscript and pronounc- 
 ing it the Textus Receptus was easy enough in an age when men 
 did not study these problems, and did not do their own thinking 
 in regard to the New Testament text. But now the work is 
 more difficult, and the efforts of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and 
 Westcott and Hort, show that a text fully acceptable to all has 
 not yet been established, although the tendency toward agree- 
 ment is greater than ever. 
 
 In regard to the Old Testament the problem stood and stands 
 practically as it does in the New. The centuries between the 
 autograph of the original writers and the earliest manuscripts 
 in our possession are considerably more than they are between 
 Matthew's day and the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, and consequently 
 the chances for errors to creep into the text through mistake or 
 carelessness of copyists was all the greater, or at least would 
 seem to be so. The facts in regard to the New Testament have 
 plainly shown that although God has inspired the writers to pen 
 the truth, he did not in a miraculous manner preserve the origi- 
 nal form of these writings and protect them against the same 
 fate which the writings of other ancient authors were subject to 
 in the course of centuries. The same must be said to be the 
 case in regard to the Old Testament. It, as little as the New, 
 has been exempt from those vicissitudes to which all the wri- 
 tings of antiquity were heirs. We need not hesitate to say that 
 in the present shape of the Old Testament there are corruptions 
 in the text. The word "corruptions" sounds harsh, and seems 
 to convey the idea of intentional change on the part of the 
 copyist The technical meaning of the word in Biblical criti- 
 cism is however of a more harmless nature. It simply means 
 that there has been a change here or there from the original 
 word or form as written or dictated by the original author. The ) 
 Old Testament Canon closed about 400 B. C. (for we cannot ac- 
 cept the hypothesis of the origin of Daniel or of some of the "1 
 Psalms in the Maccabean period), and our oldest Hebrew man- ^ 
 
1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 341 
 
 uscripts date from the tenth, or earliest from the ninth Christian 
 century. Accordingly there were thirteen or fourteen centuries 
 between the original writing and the oldest copies of them in 
 our possession. What was the fate of the text during these 
 many years ? It was copied again and again, undoubtedly hun- 
 dreds, even thousands of times. If tens of thousands of vari- 
 ants could find their way into the New Testament in compara- 
 tively few centuries, did not a correspondingly greater number 
 find their way into the Old Testament text in a period of per- 
 haps three times its length and in a book three times the size of 
 the New Testament ? The probabilities are in favor of the af- 
 firmative to this question. That such corruptions did get into 
 the text and that the Hebrew text as we have it now has its va- 
 riants and consequently its errata, no honest student will doubt.* 
 They actually do exist and it is suicidal to Christian scholarship 
 to deny them, although we will say right here that as far as we 
 have been willing to accept any as certain, they are even of less 
 importance than the variants of the New Testament. But the 
 expectations or fears that the Old Testament manuscripts will 
 show up a larger number of variants than the New Testament 
 MSS. did, are by no means realized. The existing manuscripts, 
 on the contrary, show a remarkable agreement even down to 
 minutiae, and the differences between them are few and insig- 
 nificant. The voluminous comparisons of Hebrew manuscripts 
 made by Kennicott in 1776-1780, who examined about 600 
 manuscripts and 40 of the old and more accurate printed texts, 
 
 *It will be impossible here to point out and illustrate the facts under 
 this head. The student will find them easiest by reading carefully the 
 historical books, especially Joshua and Samuel, as also Chronicles : Keil, 
 the most conservative critic of the Old Testament in our day, in com- 
 menting on Josh. 8 : 13, acknowledges that there is a mistake here, as 
 he does at a number of other places in the book of Joshua, and says 
 (p. 86 of the English translation, note): "We need have no hesitation 
 in coming to the conclusion that there is a mistake in the number given 
 in verse 3, as the occurrence of such mistakes in the historical books is 
 fully established by a comparison of the numbers given in the books of 
 5amuel and Kings with those in the books of Chronicles, and is admit- 
 ted by every commentator." 
 
 Vol. XVII. No. 3. 43 
 
342 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 and of de Rossi, 1 784-1788, who examined many others, showed 
 that all existing manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures substan- 
 tially agree in their readings, which of course does not exclude 
 the fact that there were quite a number of unimportant variants. 
 The natural conclusion from these premises would be that this 
 state of affairs shows a remarkable care on the part of the Jews 
 in preserving the integrity of their sacred books. This suppo- 
 sition would receive support from the well known fact that spe- 
 cial students of the Scriptures formed a leading class in Israel 
 as early as Christ's day, and that later at the various schools at 
 Babylon, Tiberias, Janina, and elsewhere the very iotas and tit- 
 tles of these writings were valued as gold, and the fruits of this 
 minute study of the words of Scripture were laid down by these 
 men, called Massoretes, in the Massora. So great is this agree- 
 ment that even the so-called Codex Petropolitanus, published 
 by Strock in 1876, which contains the so-called Babylonian 
 punctuation, and represents a school of texts different from the 
 ordinary Hebrew manuscripts, in the book of Ezekiel, accord- 
 ing to the searching examination of Cornill, contains only six- 
 teen real variants from the common Hahn edition of the Hebrew 
 Bible.* This, however, is not the conclusion which more ad- 
 vanced investigators have drawn from these facts. Instead of 
 accepting this as a proof of the superior character of our He- 
 brew manuscripts, they maintain that it is really a proof of their 
 inferiority. The leading advocate of this thesis is Lagarde, one 
 of the shrewdest scholars of this century. He says that '*all 
 our Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament are based upon 
 one single copy [or prototype], whose very correction of mis- 
 takes in writing are faithfully copied as corrections, and whose 
 imperfections they have adopted."! ^^ this proposition is cor- 
 rect, then all our Hebrew manuscripts combined have for text- 
 critical purposes the value of only a single manuscript. La- 
 garde's standpoint has been adopted by quite a number of schol- 
 ars, Cornill going so far as to say that it is proved beyond a 
 doubt. The proposition, however, is anything but proved ; to . ^ 
 
 *Cf. Cornill, Das Buck Ezechiel., 1886, Prolegomena, p. 9. J 
 
 fCf . Lagarde, Aumerkungen zur Griecheschen Uebersetzung der Pro- \ 
 verbien, 1863, p. i sq. 
 
1887.] Problans of Old Testament Discussion. 343 
 
 do this has never been attempted in extenso by any one. The 
 character of the Hebrew manuscripts do not require such a 
 strange, almost impossible theory, that they are all descendants 
 from one parent manuscript from the days of the Emperor Ha- 
 drian, and the story which Lagarde unearthed out of an old 
 Arabic Midrash of an archetypal copy from the siege of Bether, 
 can scarcely be entitled to serious consideration. It would prob- 
 ably never have been brought forth from the tomb, if the sub- 
 stantial agreement of the Hebrew manuscripts were not such a 
 disagreeable fact that it must be explained somehow without ad- 
 mitting the solidity and correctness of the Hebrew tradition of 
 the text. The point sub judice .is entirely too fundamental to 
 admit of acceptance unless better substantiated than it is at 
 present. But be this all as it may, the existence of certain cor- 
 ruptions in the Hebrew text is a fixed fact, and being a fact the 
 textual criticism has its work to do for the Old as well as it has 
 for the New Testament.* 
 
 Of course the next question in importance is as to the num- 
 ber and character of the corruption of the text. For we have 
 an older Old Testament than the Hebrew, one that is itself at 
 least thirteen hundred nearer to the close of the Old Testament 
 canon and whose text is authenticated at least six hundred 
 years earlier. We refer to the Septuagint, or Greek version of the 
 Seventy. In many places the LXX. presents the same text as 
 the Hebrew, as, e. g., in the Pentateuch; in other places it devi- 
 ates considerably, as, e. g., in Daniel, Ezekiel, Job. The ques- 
 tion accordingly arises which of the two is the better and more 
 original text when they do not agree. The age of the LXX. as 
 also the noteworthy fact that the New Testament throughout, 
 
 *That in the course of the centuries the Hebrew text did suffer 
 changes of more or less importance, is acknowledged by the Massoretes 
 themselves. When these literalists did their work on the Hebrew text, 
 they found forms which they knew to be incorrect but which their rev- 
 erence for the letter would not permit them to change. Accordingly 
 « they added the vowels of their corrections to the old consonants of the 
 ^traditional text and added the consonants of their own suggestion and 
 A;orrection to the bottom of the page. Hence our Qre and ktib. The 
 / corrections of the Massoretes are, however, not always better than the 
 traditional forms. 
 
344 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. \}^Y 
 
 both Christ and the Apostles, quotes generally according to the 
 Septuagint, and only exceptionally according to the Hebrew, 
 i. e., make a new translation from the Hebrew, would seem to 
 indicate that the Septuagint as a whole has preserved the origi- 
 nal text in its greater purity. It would however, be folly to jump 
 to such a general conclusion. The Septuagint is a translation 
 of very unequal merit, and then its exact character has not yet 
 been settled, there being a number of recensions of it, and the 
 original LXX. has not yet been restored. Accordingly nothing 
 remains but to compare the separate passages of the LXX. with 
 the Hebrew readings and then determine as soberly and cau- 
 tiously as possible, which reading is critically the more correct, 
 in case the two do not agree. It will be time enough to gener- 
 alize when this patient but necessary work has been done. But 
 taking facts as they are it is equally undeniable that in many 
 places the Hebrew presents a better text than does the Greek, 
 as also that in some places at least the Greek is better than the 
 Hebrew. The first proposition will be readily yielded, and is 
 proved by a mere reference to the translation of Job. The latter 
 can be proved readily by a reference to the books of Samuel, 
 though the superiority of the LXX. is claimed for others also. 
 We can give here only one example to show how correct this 
 proposition is. Between Joshua 15, 59 and 60, the Greek text 
 inserts a fifth group of cities in Judah not found in the Hebrew 
 text. This group embraces cities around Jerusalem, which are 
 nearly all cities of importance, of fifteen of which the ruins 
 have been found, and it is simply impossible that the writer of 
 this catalogue should have omitted them from his lists. The 
 omission in the Hebrew is readily explained, as the same word 
 closes V. 59, and also the missing section, and the copyist took 
 the latter for the former.* 
 
 The tendency now among text-critical scholars, especially in 
 Germany, is to overestimate the literary and historical excel- 
 lency of the Septuagint. This is wholly the cases in Lagarde, 
 i\\e facile pnnceps \n this department, and his promising pupil, 
 Cornill. The latter's critical edition of the text of Ezekiel, 
 
 *Cf. Keil, ad 1. 
 
\ 
 
 1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 345 
 
 published last year, is the only systematic attempt in late years 
 on the larger scale, to put to practice what the text-critics have 
 been preaching all along. He has done painstaking work, but 
 he has so seriously modified the Hebrew text of the prophet, 
 on the basis chiefly of the Greek, that he reduces the bulk of 
 the text considerably. He has gone far beyond reasonable 
 limits. A careful student of the O. T. text will take the Mas- 
 soretic text as the basis, and if any changes are necessary, make 
 them only when absolutely compelled to do so by the facts in 
 the case. We have no doubt that when all the text-critical ap- 
 pliances that can justly be employed in the work have in a 
 reasonable and correct manner been put to the Old Testament' 
 text, it will remain substantially the same as we have it now, 
 although in many, possibly hundreds of cases, changes of lesser 
 importance may be made. We are no prophet nor the son of a 
 prophet, but it seems clear that Old Testament textual criticism 
 will not demand such sacrifices as has New Testament textual 
 criticism with its removal of the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, 
 its rejection of the Trinity passage in St. John's Epistle, &c. 
 In the nature of the case it cannot reach reliable conclusions of 
 so radical a nature. Its work is more difficult than New Testa- 
 ment text criticism is. For it the MSS. are only of secondary 
 importance, and the versions, the Septuagint, the Peshito, the 
 Old Vulgate, the Targums, are the leading aids. It works with 
 its own tools, and these are by no means as sharp as were those 
 that cut off such chips in the New Testament text.* 
 
 As yet this whole discipline is in its infancy. This was 
 clearly shown to be the case at least in America by the discus- 
 sions following the appearance of the Revised Version of the 
 Old Testament two years ago. Specialists and scholars in this 
 department are not yet perfectly agreed as to the correct prin- 
 ciples and the proper methods that should control these re- 
 searches. The science is yet groping and in a tentative state. 
 But lower criticism has a great work to do, to restore in every 
 particular the ipsissima verba of the revealed word. For that 
 
 // *The whole matter of Old Testament text criticism is discussed fully, 
 ably, but from a somewhat radical standpoint, in the excellent Prole- 
 gomena to Cornill's Edition of Ezekiel. 
 
346 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. * [July 
 
 reason even the most conservative of conservatives should en- 
 courage its efforts. 
 
 The next step in the critical process is to examine, in the light 
 of all aids that can be brought to bear upon the subject, the 
 text which lower or textual criticism has confirmed or corrected. 
 This is called by that much misunderstood and maligned term 
 of ^'higher criticism." The idea is often met with, that a higher 
 critic is one who thinks himself endowed with higher acumen 
 and wisdom than the ordinary man, by virtue of which he can 
 analyze and argue the word of truth out of existence. No more 
 foolish blunder could be made. Higher criticism consists sim- 
 ply in taking a Bible text, and focusing on it all the rays of light 
 that a knowledge of the author, his time, the character of the 
 composition, the historical background of the composition, in 
 short, all the external and internal aids that can possibly be 
 secured, and in the illumination thus secured to examine into 
 the length, breadth and depth of a passage or book. It is the 
 same literary process to which the classical student resorts if he 
 would interpret his Homer or Cicero thoroughly. Higher criti- 
 cism has been practiced by the Church from the beginning, and 
 is practiced by all, and must be practiced, if exact and respecta- 
 ble Bible work is to be done. Never has there been a more 
 sweeping piece of higher criticism seen than was practiced 
 when the Church of the Reformation threw away, as being not 
 a revelation of God, the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. 
 Professor Greene, of Princeton, the most conservative Old Testa- 
 ment scholar in America, is as much a higher critic as are Pro- 
 fessors Wellhausen and Kuenen. Abusus non tolit usuin, and 
 higher criticism, properly employed as the handmaid of faith, 
 is one of the noblest of theological disciplines, as it arrives at 
 the elucidation of the truth of God's revelation. It may have 
 produced hay and stubble in abundance of late years, but it has 
 also brought forth gold and silver. If neological and rational- 
 istic theology has laid claim to a monopoly in this field, it is the 
 duty of orthodox and conservative seekers for the truth to prove 
 that they have not lawful claims to this. A fair and honest, 
 search for truth can only confirm it ; if others have not bee 
 
 7' 
 
 i 
 
1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 347 
 
 fair in their researches, it is the duty of beUeving scholars to 
 hold up their unfairness to merited rebuke. 
 
 The starting point and key-note of higher criticism in its 
 modern phase, in so far as it is a subject of controversy, is the 
 literary analysis of the Pentateuch. When in 1757 the Roman 
 Catholic professor and physician Astruc published his hypothe- 
 sis that the peculiar use made in Genesis of the words Elohim 
 and Jehova for God indicated that Moses had used a number of 
 literary documents in the composition of the book of Genesis, 
 he set a little ball rolling that has now become a critical ava- 
 lanche, covering the whole Old Testament. The discussion as 
 to the literary analysis of Genesis, and then of the other books 
 of Moses, and then of the Hexateuch, i. e., the Pentateuch in- 
 cluding Joshua, has been going on steadily ever since. In Ger- 
 many and Holland, where men have been engaged in this work 
 the most, a substantial unanimity of opinion has been reached. 
 As far as we know of Professor Keil, in Leipzig (^not connected 
 with the University there) and Bachmann, of Rostock, are the 
 only scholars who do not accept the documentary theory as a 
 fixed result of the investigations of more than one hundred 
 years. Many in P^ngland, as Driver, Robertson Smith and oth- 
 ers, and some in America, as Briggs, Toy and others, also ac- 
 cept the analysis. With regard to the analysis itself there is 
 also a somewhat remarkable agreement among scholars who 
 occupy otherwise the most opposite position. Delitsch, Sr., of 
 Leipzig, divides the Pentateuch into virtually the same elements 
 that Kuenen accepts, although the former is a humble believer 
 in the truth of revelation, the ^^atter is a rabid rationalist. They 
 believe with analysts in general, that the Hexateuch is com- 
 posed of a Jehovistic document, combined with an Elohistic 
 one, and found chiefly in the historical portion of Genesis and 
 Exodus ; then the famous Priest Codex, or Levitical work, con- 
 taining the whole Levitical system, and found chiefly in the 
 last chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and the open- 
 
 ^ ing chapters of Numbers, but represented also in the historical 
 Vecords of Genesis and Exodus ; then the legal portion of the 
 iOOok of Deuteronomy. All these elements were worked to- 
 
 /gether and combined by an editor. Critics claim to be able to 
 
34^ Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 distinguish in nearly every case to which source tliis or that 
 chapter or verse is to be attributed. It is represented, that He- 
 brew historiography, differing from Indo-European, does not take 
 the sources of information and work them up in the language of 
 the author, but merely takes extracts from these sources and 
 places them side by side in their original form, but seldom 
 changing a form or word. In this way an historic mosaic is 
 produced, the various blocks in which can easily be recognized. 
 The question of an analysis of the Pentateuch is one of funda- 
 mental importance for an appreciation of the Old Testament 
 problem of the day. In many circles it is considered as a tra- 
 dition of criticism that no longer requires any proof. No one 
 who has not examined the books of Moses word for word in the 
 light of the claims offered by the analysts can form any idea 
 of the plausibility of the argument advanced. For it would be 
 silly to reject in advance the possibility of such an analysis as 
 heterodox or not permissible. Even as the supposition that 
 Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch as we have it now, it isstill 
 possible, and even probable, that in the composition of the Gen- 
 esis he made use of older documents, which the inspiring spirit 
 taught him how to utilize. Indeed the Pentateuch does quote 
 at least one older book, the Book of the Just. Nor is it im- 
 possible that of these sources which Moses may have used, the 
 one employed the name of Elohim for God and the other 
 Jehovah. A sneering rejection of an P^lohistic or Jehovistic 
 writing is simply an indication of ignorance and prejudice The 
 question is simply one of literary research. Do the facts as 
 presented in Genesis, or in the other books of the Pentateuch, 
 warrant the assumption that we have combined in them a num- 
 ber of older documents or sources? No doctrine of inspiration, 
 however stringent or orthodox, can decide this question. The 
 facts alone must do it. In regard to the books after Genesis the 
 problem is somewhat different. It seems as though a rejection 
 of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch could not be avoided 
 if the documentary theory is accepted here. It is barely possi- i 
 ble to unite the two, but it is hard work. But a question muchjT 
 discussed is whether the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch,A 
 as this first expression in the latter books of the Old Testament *- 
 
1 887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 349 
 
 and in the words of Christ and of the New, really means that 
 Moses is actually the writer of every word of the Pentateuch in 
 the present shape and form of the books. There are many 
 reverent students of God's word who claim that a fair exegesis 
 does not hold out the affirmative ; that Moses was indeed the 
 great and original lawgiver, but that this does not exclude the 
 possibility that God may later have given other laws which were 
 added to the Mosaic code and formed one body with it. Whether 
 the point is well taken or is merely a Notbehelf to give the 
 analysts of the later books a Scriptural foothold is hard to say. 
 If it is once clear that Christ really teaches that the lawgiver 
 Moses is actually the literary author of the whole Pentateuch in 
 its present shape, then the question is settled for every true 
 Christian scholar. The Master has spoken and human wisdom 
 must be silent. He is, if not a doctor criticus, at any rate a doc- 
 tor veritatis. The natural interpretation of the New Testament 
 would seem to bear out the position that He does teach the 
 Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch ; hence the onus probandi 
 is on the shoulders of those who deny this. It is recognized 
 to be so too, at least silently by the fact that they are the party 
 who consider it their duty to prove that they are in harmony 
 with the New Testament. But the matter cannot be decided 
 hastily. It takes patient scholarship and prayerful faith to come 
 to a satisfactory conclusion ; and he will be the slowest to con- 
 demn those opposed to him who is best acquainted with the 
 facts in the case and feels the deepest interest in and reverence 
 for the true authority of God's holy word. That the traditional 
 view concerning the authorship or age of this or that book of 
 the Bible must be correct, cannot be asserted a priori. The 
 possibility of error must be admitted. The Church before the 
 Reformation for more than one thousand years was fully con- 
 vinced that the Apocrypha were the revealed words of God. 
 The reformers showed by research and argument that this was 
 not the case. In Galileo's day the standard interpretation of 
 » the day claimed that the Bible taught that the earth was the 
 
 ;entre of the solar system. A renewed examination showed 
 lat the Bible made no such claim, and that current opinion was 
 . Vol. XVII. No. 3. 44 
 
350 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 in error. And thus too from the very outstart a general denial 
 of every view in Isagogics differing from the traditional is 
 neither reasonable nor just. Accordingly the claims of higher 
 criticism in this regard is entitled to a respectful hearing. In 
 whatever point they are wrong they can there be refuted. 
 
 But when the next step is taken and on the basis of an anal- 
 ysis of the Pentateuch, the attempt is made to reconstruct the 
 history of Israel's religion and worship, the leading scholars are 
 sorely divided against each other. They cannot agree as to the 
 historic order and the age to which the various elements of com- 
 posing the Pentateuch are to be assigned and hence not on the 
 religious scheme of which they are the exponents, although 
 other factors also than the mere analysis of the Pentateuch enter 
 into the construction of this scheme. The great critical ques- 
 tion is as to the age of the Priest-Codex, containing what may 
 technically be called all the entire legal features of Mosaism. 
 Up to a comparatively recent period, it was the general consen- 
 sus of scholars that it was the oldest of the Pentateuchal docu- 
 ments, and that accordingly a developed Levitical system stood 
 at the head of the theocratic development. Of late the leading 
 advanced men in this line have turned this matter squarely 
 around, and affirm that the Levitical system is the latest in the 
 growth of religious thought in Israel, dating the Priest-Codex 
 even as late as the exile or Ezra. The ostensible reason for this 
 revolutionary procedure is the argumentum ex silentio. It is a 
 well known fact that in the pre-exile age, even in the days of 
 the high religious development under David and Solomon, the 
 ideals of the Mosaic law were not realized, but that even men of 
 God, like Samuel and David, and this too with the seeming ap- 
 proval of Jehovah, acted contrary to the clear and explicit com- 
 mands of the Levitical law, as, e. g., in their sacrifices. From 
 this it is argued that this law could not have been in existence 
 at the time of David or Samuel. The facts in the case are un- 
 deniable, but the logic is seriously at fault. An argumcntiiui ex 
 silentio, uncorroborated by other evidences, proves nothing. On , 
 the same line of proof we could argue that the Pharisees ii/ 
 Christ's day did not have the Old Testament and that the RomA 
 ish Church in the sixteenth century did not possess the Bible, \ 
 
1887.] Problems of Old Testament Discussion. 351 
 
 as in both cases confession and life were notoriously in conflict 
 with these books. 
 
 But the controlling factor in the construction of the new reli- 
 gious scheme is rather the philosophical idea of natural devel- 
 opment. According to Kuenen's own statements, he recognizes 
 in Christianity and Judaism, two very important religions, noth- 
 ing less but also nothing more. In kind and essence they differ 
 nothing from the religions of other people. Hence in origin, 
 character and development the Old Testament religion is purely 
 naturalistic, and in no wise the result of a revelation from God. 
 When the facts of the Old Testament will not bend to this hy- 
 pothesis, the critics break them. It would take a cyclopaedia of 
 a half dozen volumes to mention and criticise the methods, de- 
 structive of facts and of logic, by which such an hypothesis is 
 made to agree with the Old Testament records. The records, 
 by hook or crook, must fit into this philosphical Procrustean bed. 
 
 Over against this revolutionary reconstruction conservative 
 scholars have been building on almost the same literary basis, 
 e. g., virtually the same readjustment of the records of the Old 
 Testament books. Even Delitzsch accepts the Levitical code as 
 the latest in the complex of the Pentateuchal law, but places it at 
 a much earlier date. Others still insist upon the priority of this 
 code to the others. The conservatives to a man acknowledge 
 the divine element in the religion of the Old Testament and is 
 the revelation of this religion, modifying their scheme of the 
 growth of this religion by their attitude toward the Pentateuch 
 problem. Not one though who has written on the subject of 
 this religious growth, as far as we know, places the zvliole Mo- 
 saic law at the head of this religious development. In nearly 
 every case the prophets are made the centre of this religious 
 growth, both internally and historically, and the unfolding of 
 the ideas of this religion placed in relation to this. Thus, to 
 cite the latest conservative writer, Dr. Schultz, in Zockler's 
 Handb'iich der theol. Wissenschaften, Vol. I. divides the Theol- 
 \ ogy of the Old Testament (and naturally also its history) into 
 'i^ie theology of the ante-prophetic period, of the prophetic per- 
 .4okl, and of the post-prophetic period. As for the positive 
 - religious contents of the Old Testament these conservative re- 
 
352 Problems of Old Testament Discussion. [July 
 
 productions do not stand behind the traditional expositions ; in- 
 deed, at places, by readjusting a book to its correct historical sur- 
 roundings they enable us to see in even more wonderful beauty 
 and transparency the gracious plans of Jehovah. Many, possi- 
 bly the most of American scholars will not agree with the criti- 
 cal standpoint of Brigg's Messianic Prophecy, yet no intelligent 
 reader of that book will deny, that from his standpoint many an 
 Old Testament passage receives a richer meaning than we had 
 been accustomed to put into it. • 
 
 While thus the Pentateuchal problem has been overshadow- 
 ing all other Old Testament discussions, both for good and for 
 evil, other riddles of scarcely less difficulty must be met by the 
 student of higher Biblical criticism. We can barely mention 
 them here, recalling to mind only the questions as to the author 
 and age of Isaiah 40-66, of certain chapters in Isaiah, of the 
 age of Joel, of the age and author of Daniel and the close of the 
 Old Testament Canon, of the existence of Maccabean Psalms. 
 All of these and many others have been and are yet being dis- 
 cussed. No doubt many dangerous views have been expressed 
 and much harm done. But truth has also been the gainer. In 
 the very nature of the case truth must eventually gain the vic- 
 tory, whatever be the seeming temporary defeats. Otherwise 
 we would have to lose our faith in truth and in the God of truth 
 as the controlling power in the history of his Church. Magna 
 est Veritas et praevalebit. 
 
 Of the third and final work of the Bible student, although 
 the most important, we need say little or nothing here. In the 
 exegesis of passages and books, the principles of the various 
 schools that appeared antagonizing each other already in the 
 preliminary work also appear. Commentaries from the stand 
 points of the various schools have been and are being written, 
 from the pronounced confessional and traditional standpoint on 
 the one hand, to the outspoken rationalistic on the other, with 
 many shades and shapes of compromising thought between. 
 Fas est ab hoste doceri, and there can be no doubt that the con- / 
 troversies between the schools have improved our conservative^ 
 commentaries also. But owing to the peculiar problems of the 1 
 
188/.] Prohibition. 353 
 
 hour many of these do not devote their strength so much to the 
 unfolding of the thoughts of revelation, but rather to the prelim- 
 inary literary and isogogical problems as also to outward feat- 
 ures such as chronology, geography, &c., which are made the 
 objects of attack by the destructive critics of the day. For this 
 reason many of the older commentaries remain the best to our 
 day for the explanation of the text itself. In this regard we do 
 not think that Luther's Genesis has been surpassed (although he 
 may put a little too much of the New Testament into the Old) 
 nor Vitringa on Isaiah, nor perhaps Calvin's Commentaries on 
 the historical books of the Old Testament. The literary activ- 
 ity in all these departments of Biblical research is being vigor- 
 ously pushed, and a calm observer cannot fail to observe that 
 the conservative tendencies are constantly gaining ground all 
 along the line. When the struggle is over, there will be a sub- 
 stantial victory of truth to record, and a renewed vindication of 
 the Bible as the v\'ord of revelation from God to man, given to 
 teach him the way to salvation and eternal life. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 PROHIBITION. 
 
 By Rev. H. C. Haithcox, A. M., Ashland, O. 
 
 Does Prohibition prohibit ? Yes — No ! Such are the an- 
 swers given by the living voice, by written and printed testi- 
 mony, and by the facts of the case. Does God's law — "Thou 
 shalt not bear false witness," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt 
 not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not 
 covet" — prohibit? Yes — No! Yes, where the head and the 
 heart, the religious and moral sentiments are right ; no, where 
 they are not right. In other words, where the religious senti- 
 ment is right God's prohibitory law prohibits, where it is not 
 right it does not prohibit. It is just so with civil law. Where 
 le sentiment toward government is right, the prohibitory law 
 oi government prohibits, and where the sentiment is wrong, it 
 does not prohibit. Does Prohibition in Maine, in Kansas, in 
 
354 Prohibition. [July 
 
 Iowa, in Georgia, prohibit? Yes, where the sentiment con- 
 cerning the law is right ; no, where that sentiment is not right. 
 This explains the contradictory voices we often hear, and those 
 contradictory reports we read. Making due allowance for the 
 color that may be given those answers by the wish that may 
 beget and clothe the thought, prohibitory law from God and 
 man depends for its effectiveness upon man's sentiment concern- 
 ing it. Whatever the theory of law, whether it be human or 
 divine, whether right or wrong, this is the stubborn fact that 
 faces us. And in this country, in this government of the people, 
 the law must have respect to the popular sentiment if it would 
 not be a dead letter. Ordinarily a few persons cannot voice a 
 law and make it effective unless it echo the voice of the people. 
 
 Now here is a law called Prohibition. Two or three States 
 have adopted it. The many States have not. But in all the 
 States there are citizens in favor of it. The question is, How 
 many ? Are the majority in favor of it ? Whatever our opin- 
 ion, we do not know. How find out? Until a majority are 
 manifestly for it, it cannot become the law of the States. How 
 get this majority ? Or, if it already exist, how make it appear ? 
 If it does not exist, how create it? Thus the question of Pro- 
 hibition, as before the people now, is a question of method 
 rather than of right. The question of the right of Prohibition 
 belongs to the past. Ever since the days of Chief Justice Ta- 
 ney, of Maryland, the right of Prohibition has been taught by 
 the State. All legislation against the liquor traffic is prohibitory 
 in character. I dare say we all believe in the principle of Pro- 
 hibition — the prohibition of all wrong, against Caesar or against 
 God. "The law was added because of transgression." Why? 
 To prohibit the transgressor from doing that which is hurtful to 
 self or to another. Now the question is one of quantity and of 
 method — how much Prohibition do we want ? How get it ? 
 
 Then, first, how much Prohibition do we want? There are 
 two answers to this question. One is given from the stand-point 
 of a prophet of God, the other from the stand-point of a prophet - 
 of the American people. The latter says : We want all th/ 
 prohibition that will be for the public good. In our country thc\ 
 majority are the law-makers — the majority are the public. They - 
 
354 
 
 Iowa, in 
 cerning t' 
 This exp' 
 contradic 
 color tha' 
 beget an( 
 man dep< 
 ing it. "^ 
 divine, w 
 faces us. 
 the law r 
 not be a 
 law and i 
 Now \ 
 have ad( 
 States th 
 many? 
 ion, we c 
 manifest) 
 get this 1 
 If it doe 
 hibition, 
 rather th 
 belongs 
 ney, of 
 the State 
 in chara 
 hibition- 
 God. " 
 To proh 
 self or t< 
 method- 
 Then, 
 two ans\ 
 of a pro] 
 of the J 
 prohibit 
 majority 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9P>^£i_-.. *.>».^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH #4 
 
 5230 
 
 Primed 
 In USA 
 
r.,^ -WM-^ 
 
 BS1160.S36 
 
 Problems of Old Testament discussion 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00041 2249 
 
 iii 
 
 fh 
 
 h 
 
 < A 
 
 ^7 i W *