LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
 T3S5H 
 
 ©Ijaii Gnptjrig^t $0.. 
 
 ShcOf-JBSf 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I 
 
By the Same Author. 
 
 HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. On the 
 Basis of Prof. Rudolf Sohm. i6mo. Si.oo. 
 
 THE OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF 
 WOMAN IN THE CHURCH. An Histor- 
 ical Study. Large i6mo. 15 cents. 
 
The Higher Criticism 
 
 Mn ©uflittB 
 
 OF 
 
 MODERN BIBLICAL STUDY 
 
 / 
 
 REV. C. W. RISHELL, A.M., Ph.D. 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 PROF. HENRY M. HARMAN, D. D., IX. D. 
 
 CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & CURTS. 
 
 NEW YORK : HUNT & EATON. 
 
 1893- 
 
 f«= 
 
^>\# 
 
 Copyright 
 
 BY CRANSTON &. CURTS, 
 
 1898. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This book has been written for the purpose 
 of furnishing a concise and convenient answer 
 to questions frequently asked concerning the 
 higher criticism. Its province is not there- 
 fore to discuss and weigh, but to report the 
 facts of the subject. Nevertheless, the care- 
 ful reader will find the principles stated upon 
 which the opponents of the critics proceed in 
 their refutations. 
 
 For our facts we have gone to the original 
 sources, whenever they were accessible. We 
 have not, however, referred to all the works 
 consulted, but chose those for reference which 
 were found most helpful, or which are easiest 
 of access. Zockler's " Handbuch der Theo- 
 logischen Wissenschaften," Vol. I, and Weiss' 
 u Einleitung in das Neue Testament" — the 
 former on the entire Bible, the latter in its 
 own department — were constantly in use. In 
 this connection the writer wishes to express 
 
 3 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 his gratitude to Librarian Whelpley, of the 
 Public Library of Cincinnati, and his intelli- 
 gent assistants, for their uniform courtesy 
 during the preparation of this work. The 
 library contains a most excellent collection of 
 theological literature. 
 
 Our aim has been to give chief prominence 
 to the views of the more conservative critics, 
 introducing as deviations therefrom the opin- 
 ions of those who are more radical. In con- 
 sulting brevity, we found the task a difficult 
 one of keeping these views separate. Some 
 study on the part of the reader who wishes to 
 understand the subject is therefore expected. 
 
 As, in the course of several years, we have 
 investigated this subject, we have felt as one 
 feels when a dear friend is on trial. And, 
 pleased with the concessions his enemies made 
 in favor of the excellence of his character, we 
 could scarce refrain from shouting aloud our 
 rejoicing at his complete vindication by his 
 friends. To one who enters upon such a 
 course of study with the experience of Bible 
 religion in his soul, no attacks aimed at fun- 
 damentals have anv force. But it is a constant 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 source of satisfaction to see that the vast ma- 
 jority of the critics find nothing in the Bible 
 to shake their faith in Jesus Christ or his 
 gospel, but only that which confirms. 
 
 Part V is a reproduction of articles con- 
 nected with the general subject published in 
 the Western Christian Advocate during the 
 spring of 1893. This will account for some 
 repetition of thought which the reader may 
 possibly notice. 
 
 The writer desires to express his thanks to 
 the Rev. Professor Henry M. Harman, D. D., 
 LL. D., for the Introduction he has written 
 to this work. His " Introduction to the Holy 
 Scriptures " is a mine of information on every 
 phase of higher criticism, which we heartily 
 commend to our readers for discussions which 
 could not find place here without changing 
 the entire scope and purpose of the work. 
 
 CHARLES W. RISHELL. 
 Cincinnati, O., June 1, 1893. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION. 
 
 Page. 
 
 1 i. The Aims of the Higher Critics, 17 
 
 g 2. The Methods of the Higher Critics 23 
 
 2 3. Higher Critical Principles and Assumptions, . . 31 
 
 Part II. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 \ 4. General History of Old Testament Criticism, . . 42 
 
 § 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism 47 
 
 \ 6. Present-day Criticism of the Pentateuch, .... 53 
 
 \ 7. The Relative and Absolute Age of the Sources, . 61 
 \ 8. Summary of the Argument for the Dates of 
 
 D. and P 66 
 
 £ 9. Criticism of the Prophetical Books 71 
 
 \ 10. The Book of Isaiah, 73 
 
 §11. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, 78 
 
 §12. The Minor Prophets, 80 
 
 \ 13. Zechariah, 82 
 
 '</. 14. The Book of Jonah 85 
 
 \ 15. The Book of Daniel, 86 
 
 i 16. The Psalms, 90 
 
 ? 17. The Book of Proverbs, 96 
 
 \ 18. The Book of Job, 101 
 
 7 
 
8 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 \ 19. Ecclesiastes, 106 
 
 £20. The Song of Solomon no 
 
 £21. The Lamentations of Jeremiah 114 
 
 £22. The Book of Rnth 117 
 
 £23. The Book of Esther, 119 
 
 \2\. The Chronicles 122 
 
 Part III. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 £25. General History of New Testament Criticism, . 129 
 
 \ 26. Present-day New Testament Criticism 135 
 
 2 27. The Synoptic Question, . . . • 137 
 
 ^28. The Gospel of Matthew. . 141 
 
 \ 29. The Gospel of Mark 143 
 
 \ 30. The Gospel of Luke 144 
 
 $31. The Acts of the Apostles 148 
 
 i/32. The Gospel of John, 149 
 
 £33. The Johannean Epistles 152 
 
 ^34. The Book of Revelation 155 
 
 £35. The Epistle of James 159 
 
 i/36. First and Second Peter 160 
 
 £37. The Epistle of Jude 162 
 
 $38. Galatians, Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, . . 164 
 
 £39. First and Second Thessalouians 169 
 
 £40. Ephesians 171 
 
 \\\. Colossians 172 
 
 $42. Philemon 173 
 
 843. Philippians, 174 
 
 \ 44. The Pastoral Epistles 175 
 
 $45. The Epistle to the Hebrews - . 177 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 9 
 
 Part IV. 
 
 ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 #46. Discrimination of Critical Schools — Criticism 
 in Germany, England, America, France, Switz- 
 erland, and Holland Compared — Value of Crit- 
 ical Conclusions — Criticism not to be Roundly 
 Condemned — Traditional View not to be Sum- 
 marily Pronounced Unscholarly — Critical Con- 
 siderations not Sufficient for the Pronounce- 
 ment of a Judgment on Critical Questions — 
 The Appeal to Christ — The Doctrine of Iner- 
 rancy — Of Inspiration — The True Starting- 
 point and Goal of all Fruitful Criticism, . . . 181 
 
 Part V. 
 
 IF THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT, WHAT? 
 
 2 47. The Doctrine of Inerrancy, 194 
 
 #48. Inspiration, 200 
 
 § 49. Date and Authorship of the Books of the Bible, . 207 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 "Higher Criticism" is a phrase used to ex- 
 press all investigations respecting the genuineness, 
 authenticity, and integrity of ancient literary 
 works, especially the various books of the Bible. 
 By whom the phrase was first used we can not 
 say. Dr. Seiler, in the preface to his "Biblical 
 Hermeneutics," published at Erlangen in 1800, 
 speaks of "the subtilty of a (so-called) higher 
 criticism, which cuts into the very life-blood of 
 Christianity." And in the body of his work, in 
 speaking of "Introductions," he says: "This 
 branch is called by some the higher, historical, or 
 real criticism. The investigation of the genuine- 
 ness and uncorrupted 'state of the readings is 
 special, or common, and verbal criticism." This 
 we would now call "textual criticism." 
 
 The higher criticism is not a modern science. 
 In the third and second centuries before Christ, 
 there was a flourishing school of criticism at Al- 
 exandria, which discussed very thoroughly the 
 Homeric poems. In this school Zenodotus, Aris- 
 tophanes, and Aristarchus were brilliant instruct- 
 ors. In the first century before Christ, Dionysius 
 of Halicarnassus was pre-eminently distinguished 
 for his great critical ability. In the early Chris- 
 
 11 
 
I 2 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 tiau Church, Clement and Dion3 T sius of Alexan- 
 dria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea Palestinae, and 
 Jerome were no mean critics. 
 
 But little Biblical criticism existed in the Mid- 
 dle Ages. The revival of learning gave a new- 
 impulse to literary criticism; and Richard Simon, 
 tjorn in France in 1638, may be regarded as the 
 founder of modern Biblical criticism; and Rich- 
 ard Bentley, of England, who came upon the 
 literary stage a little later, formed an epoch in 
 the history of general criticism, and has not been 
 surpassed. 
 
 Of all the people of the Modern World the 
 Germans have most distinguished themselves in 
 Biblical and classical literature and criticism. 
 But they are too much given to speculation and 
 theory, and often show a lack of vigorous common 
 sense and knowledge of real life. Their criticism 
 often rests upon too narrow a basis, and upon 
 minute and uncertain points. They rely too 
 much upon internal evidence, and depreciate ex- 
 ternal testimony. They are controlled too largely 
 by subjective feelings, and excessive confidence in 
 their individual opinions, and contempt for others. 
 Some of these latter traits are found also in some 
 of our American skeptical higher critics. We 
 make no objection to higher criticism being ap- 
 plied to the Bible. On the contrary, we believe 
 in it. But it must embrace the discussion of ex- 
 ternal as well as internal evidence. In many 
 cases, the only proof of the authorship of a book 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 3 
 
 is external evidence. The internal evidence may, 
 in fact, amount to nothing at all. On this point 
 we need refer only to the authorship of the Let- 
 ters of Junius. How has the question of their 
 authorship puzzled the learned and critical world ! 
 
 Where external and internal evidence unite in 
 proof of authorship, Ave have the highest certainty. 
 But one of the most difficult of all problems is to 
 determine whether a book is the work of one 
 author or more. We may be satisfied that there 
 is a unity of plan in it, and of course some ar- 
 ranger or architect of the whole ; but how many 
 men had a share in the work, we could never tell. 
 We may be thoroughly convinced that a house 
 was planned by some architect, and that the men 
 who built it acted in concert; but how many 
 workmen there were would not be manifest. We 
 might easily imagine, in some cases, that one man 
 designed and built the whole. 
 
 Let us apply these reflections to the Pentateuch. 
 If Moses was not the author of this work, who 
 was? It certainly bears strong marks of unity, 
 and therefore it must have had some arranger or 
 editor who gave the material of which it is formed 
 its present shape. Whence were the materials 
 derived? Did he use previously existing docu- 
 ments? If so, how man}'? How far did the 
 author or editor make omissions, additions, or al- 
 terations in his documents? Who can solve all 
 these difficult questions? If there were four orig- 
 inal documents, what each contained is as difficult 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to determine as it is to find the value of four un- 
 known quantities from a si?igle algebraical equa- 
 tion; in short, we would say, impossible. 
 
 Suppose our Gospels, some time after the apos- 
 tolic age, had been molded into one, somewhat 
 after the manner of Tatian's Diatessaron, but 
 without a single mark to indicate that it was a 
 composite, except so far as the work itself might 
 show it; and that not a hint had come down to 
 us that it had ever existed in any other form than 
 as a unit\ r , — can we believe that any set of critics 
 would have been able to show that it was a com- 
 bination of four documents or Gospels, and at the 
 same time to assign to each evangelist what be- 
 longs to him? Even if they had been able to some 
 extent to disentangle John, they could never have 
 ascertained that there are three others, and still 
 less have given to each evangelist his due. 
 
 Suppose, some day, there should be applied to 
 American history the skeptical principles some- 
 times applied to the Bible, what havoc will be 
 made of our history! Let us take the following 
 language of the Declaration of Independence : 
 "We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all 
 men are created equal; that they are endowed by 
 their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that 
 among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 happiness." Let it be borne in mind that when 
 this language was used the African slave-trade 
 was carried on, not only by the Southern States, 
 but also by Massachusetts and other Xew Eng- 
 
INTR OD UCTION. 1 5 
 
 land States; and African slavery existed in about 
 every State of the Confederacy. 
 
 What will the future critics of Germany say of 
 this Declaration two thousand years hence? Will 
 they not declare it unhistorical f They will so.y 
 that it is perfectly absurd that men should appeal 
 to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rec- 
 titude of their intentions, declaring that all men 
 are created equal and entitled to liberty, while these 
 very rebellious States themselves were enslavers 
 of human beings. The critics will assert strongly 
 that the Declaration arose — or, at least, was modi- 
 fied — in the age of freedom! 
 
 Take another instance of a surprising charac- 
 ter. On Thomas Jefferson's monument stands 
 the following inscription: ''Author of the Decla- 
 ration of American Independence, of the Statute 
 of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father ot 
 the University of Virginia." Not a word about 
 his having been President of the United States ! 
 What an omission ! Suppose this monument, one 
 or two thousand years hence, should be dug up 
 among the ruins of America and transported to 
 Germany, what a sensation it will make! Will 
 they not straightway revise American history, and 
 affirm that the author of the Declaration of In- 
 dependence and President Jefferson were two dif- 
 ferent persons, as established by monumental tes- 
 timony? 
 
 The books which compose the Bible have, not 
 all the same degree of certainty and strength, or 
 
1 6 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 the same inspiration and importance. The}* are 
 not like the links in a chain, which is no stronger 
 than its weakest link; but they are like witnesses 
 in court in favor of some great cause which de- 
 pends upon the strongest, not upon the weakest 
 witness. The great center of the Bible is Christ, 
 whose history is one of the best authenticated in 
 the world. He is our Great Citadel, and in pos- 
 session of this Impregnable Fortess we need not 
 be alarmed if some of the outposts are carried by 
 the enemy. But to proceed to the work before us. 
 
 Rev. Dr. RishelFs book is clearly and tersely 
 written. His two years' residence in Berlin has 
 not vitiated his English style. He gives, in a 
 very succinct and fair manner, the views of the 
 higher skeptical critics, and occasionally those of 
 a more evangelical type. Of course, in a treatise 
 of this kind, the strong objections to radical views, 
 and the answers that may be given them, do not 
 come into view. 
 
 In Parts IV and V he discusses, under the 
 heads of "Estimate of Results," and "If the 
 Critics are Right, What?" the questions of 
 Inspiration and the Inerrancy of the Bible with 
 much good sense and moderation. This part of 
 the work is especially worthy of being carefully 
 read. 
 
 HENRY M. HARMAN. 
 
THE BIBLE AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION. 
 
 § i. The Aims of the Higher Critics. 
 
 Many are asking, What are the aims of the 
 higher critics? What do they hope to accom- 
 plish? By what motives are they prompted? 
 To answer these questions is the object of this 
 section. But it must first be premised that 
 the critics are not all led on by the same pur- 
 pose. Some are more, others less religiously 
 earnest. Some, indeed, have only an historical 
 or a literary interest in their work. All claim 
 to be free from any conscious bias which could 
 influence their conclusions. 
 
 First in order we mention the literary aims 
 of the critics. These confine themselves chiefly 
 to what is ordinarily called "Introduction," al- 
 though they do not exhaust that field. They 
 
 2 17 
 
1 8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 strive to ascertain everything which can be 
 known concerning the books of the Bible. They 
 ask, By whom, for whom, when, where, under 
 what circumstances, and for what purpose, was 
 each book of the Bible composed ? They inter- 
 rogate tradition, sit in judgment on the opin- 
 ions of the Hebrew and Christian fathers as to 
 these matters, and demand of the books them- 
 selves an account of their origin. To them 
 the Bible is a phenomenon, or a composite 
 of phenomena, the existence of which is to be 
 explained. They ask, Who wrote the Bible? 
 just as they would ask, Who wrote the plays 
 usually attributed to Shakespeare? They are 
 not content with a superficial examination of 
 the problems before them, but strive, each ac- 
 cording to his ability, to study them broadly, 
 profoundly, and exactly. To some portions of 
 their work they do not attach any great re- 
 ligious significance; yet in some cases they 
 have discovered, by their minute research, 
 facts of great value in the proper interpreta- 
 tion and application of the Word. 
 
 This seems in many respects a perfectly 
 harmless object ; but, as we shall see, some 
 
THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 1 9 
 
 of the most vital issues connected with the 
 entire work of Biblical criticism depend upon 
 their conclusions. 
 
 Another class of critics have historical 
 rather than literary aims in view. Of this 
 number are the oft-mentioned Wellhausen and 
 Kuenen. Their literary criticism is not for 
 its own sake, but in order to elicit the histor- 
 ical facts. To them the Bible is just like any 
 other source of historical information. They 
 can not accept its statements simply because 
 they are found in the Book. If other sources 
 contradict, they weigh, sift, and decide, as 
 though the Bible had been written without 
 any Divine help. There is no presumption 
 in its favor drawn from religious considera- 
 tions, nor is there any prejudice against it. 
 If its utterances are adjudged contradictory, 
 no effort is made to harmonize them ; and one 
 or all on the subject in question must be re- 
 jected. 
 
 From the standpoint of the historian, 
 nothing could be more fair; and these critics 
 are conscious of no wrong. Their honesty is, 
 to themselves, perfectly clear. They naturally 
 
20 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 can not understand what objection can be 
 made to such a treatment of the Scriptures. 
 They are very much inclined to think that 
 one who does not look at the Bible as they 
 look at it, acts in the interests of his faith or 
 his prejudices, and is indifferent to the truth, 
 which, however it may contravene all that has 
 heretofore been believed, must be accepted 
 with unquestioning obedience. 
 
 A third class approach the Bible and its 
 study with religious motives. They see in it a 
 book of religion, not of history. They can not 
 divest themselves of the impression that it 
 holds a peculiar position in literature. They 
 may apply all the canons of literary and his- 
 torical criticism just as the first two of the 
 above-mentioned classes; but they do not feel 
 that, in so doing, they have exhausted the sig- 
 nificance of the Bible. There are elements in 
 it which can not be tested except by the heart. 
 Some of this class incline decidedly toward 
 the conclusions of the purely literary and his- 
 torical critics ; others regard them as erroneous 
 because reached by inadequate methods. 
 
 Taking the Bible as a book of religion, 
 
THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 21 
 
 these critics ask themselves the questions, 
 How came the Bible here ? Is it a mere rec- 
 ord of human experiences and beliefs ? Were 
 these experiences had under the direct provi- 
 dence of God ? Were these beliefs wrought in 
 the minds of men by the Holy Spirit ? Were 
 men inspired to write the things contained in 
 the Bible? It is plain that the object of all 
 such critics is to sound the depths of the 
 Bible's religious value. Its literary and his- 
 torical worth sink into insignificance, and is 
 prized only as accessory to the embodiment of 
 the truth of God. Hence there are those who 
 assert perfect and equal inspiration in all parts 
 of the Bible, since they can not imagine the 
 truth of God in a setting of error ; while others 
 affirm that the test of the truth is in those 
 parts which have to do with our religious 
 life, and declare that if we admit the supposed 
 existence of myth and fable, these still contain 
 the precious kernel of religious truth. 
 
 The chief source of disturbance to faith 
 has arisen from the attempts at reconstruction 
 of Bible history. This is not the place to 
 speak at length of these attempts ; but many 
 
22 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 are convinced on historical grounds of the 
 truth of the conclusions of historical investi- 
 gation as applied to the Bible who, at the 
 same time, feel that these conclusions must 
 be maintained in the interest of faith. They 
 point out the fact that many educated men 
 discover, or think they discover, a conflict be- 
 tween certain statements of the Bible and the 
 results of investigation relative to the same 
 subjects in other fields. To such men the 
 solitary testimony of the Bible is not suffi- 
 cient to outweigh all other opposing consid- 
 erations. It is only the thoroughly religious 
 man who will continue his faith in the Bible 
 after he finds its utterances contradicted by 
 all other authorities. But as these are mat- 
 ters which do not pertain to the faith, the 
 third class of critics may admit all that the 
 first and second classes claim, and thereby 
 win them to faith in the religious elements of 
 the Book. If they insist that all is inspired 
 or none, then the scientific man rejects all. 
 If they limit inspiration and inerrancy to 
 those parts which center about the religious 
 life, they conciliate, and perhaps even win, the 
 
METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 23 
 
 opposer to Christ. Hence, some who would 
 take but little interest in these critical ques- 
 tions for their own sake, are profoundly inter- 
 ested for the sake of the good they may do. 
 
 The principal aims and motives of the 
 higher critics have now been set forth in 
 brief, and it will be seen that some are actu- 
 ated by purely secular, others by purely relig- 
 ious motives; still others by a mixture of the 
 two, with a preponderance of one or the other. 
 Few aim solely at literary or historical ends 
 without any mixture of the religious; yet 
 with many the latter plays so feeble a part as 
 to vitiate all conclusions which conflict with 
 faith. The further discussion will lend in- 
 creasing light, and still further reveal the aims, 
 as the present remarks will aid in understand- 
 ing what is to be said as to methods, principles, 
 and presumptive results. 
 
 §2. The Methods of the Higher Critics. 
 
 Of necessity, the methods employed corre- 
 spond in form to the design of the investi- 
 gation. 
 
 The linguistic method is well known, and 
 
24 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 will scarcely need illustration. It must be 
 confessed that of the correctness of many of 
 the conclusions based upon its revealments, 
 only those can judge who are themselves ex- 
 perts in the sacred languages. Doubtless the 
 differences in linguistic style between two 
 books attributed to the same author, might 
 suggest the necessity of denying the compo- 
 sition of one or the other to him. Where dif- 
 ferences of style are very wide, the probability 
 of different authorship might become so great 
 as to overcome a constant and unbroken tra- 
 dition. It is not sufficient to say that the 
 same writer varies his style according to his 
 subject; or, that it undergoes a change with 
 advancing age and culture, or in accordance 
 with his subjective condition at the time of 
 writing. This is all true in the abstract ; but 
 in each particular case the critic must settle 
 whether the actual differences are to be so ac- 
 counted for. As they do not appear in our 
 English translation, only the critical student 
 can decide how much dependence may be 
 placed upon them. 
 
 More uncertain still is that form of the lin- 
 
METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 25 
 
 guistic method which attempts to determine 
 the literary dependency or independency of 
 one book or author upon another. Here it is 
 agreed that the authors are distinct; but cer- 
 tain portions of their works are so much alike 
 in thought and language that it is easy to 
 suppose one must have quoted from the other. 
 The question then arises, Which is the bor- 
 rower? Upon the answer may depend the 
 conclusion as to the authorship of one or the 
 other of the so related books; but it is evi- 
 dent that any opinion based upon such an in- 
 vestigation must be most precarious. The 
 danger that the judgment of the investigator 
 will be warped by other considerations is 
 great, and jeopards, in consequence, all his 
 conclusions. On the whole, linguistic consid- 
 erations are to be pronounced insufficient. 
 And this is indeed tacitly acknowledged by 
 the critics, who seek to support arguments 
 drawn from this source by others less open to 
 suspicion. Illustrations of the use and abuse 
 of this method will be found under the dis- 
 cussion of the results attained by the higher 
 critics. 
 
26 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 For historical purposes the principal de- 
 pendence is upon a comparison of Biblical 
 records with those of other nations. The 
 close contact into which Israel was brought 
 by its geographical situation with the princi- 
 pal nations of antiquity, facilitates such an 
 investigation. It must be said that the re- 
 sults, thus far, have been strikingly confirm- 
 atory of the Biblical record in general. As 
 the monuments of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, 
 and Persia give up their secrets, the student 
 will have still more ample material for com- 
 parison. This, of course, pertains chiefly to 
 the political history of the Jews; but for its 
 religious history a similar form of historical 
 investigation is employed. A study of the 
 religious books of other ancient nations shows 
 that, in many of their traditions, they are re- 
 markably like those of the Jews. For exam- 
 ple, all ancient religions of Asia, Africa, and 
 America have a story of the Deluge essen- 
 tially like that recorded in Genesis. This 
 fact, while it helps to confirm the truth of the 
 Biblical record, suggests that it is not a mat- 
 ter of revelation. Thus the historian takes 
 
METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 27 
 
 the Bible as one of the sources of history, 
 whether political or religious. By this method 
 some things in the Bible are rendered more 
 probable than they would otherwise be ; while 
 others, which find no corroboration, are rather 
 made doubtful. 
 
 But the historical method goes further. It 
 is not content to take the several accounts of 
 the same transaction and harmonize them. 
 It does not take for granted that each account 
 is true, and that only our ignorance prevents 
 us from discovering the connecting link. Each 
 account is made to stand on its own merits. 
 If it contains statements which seem improb- 
 able as compared with other Biblical accounts, 
 or with other portions of the same account, 
 it is ruled out. In fact, the historian dares 
 not do otherwise. Outside the Bible he em- 
 ploys this method most rigidly. Should he 
 assume that the Bible, because it is his relig- 
 ious book, is more perfect than other books, 
 he would at once make himself in so far a 
 theologian. On historical grounds he may 
 or may not be convinced of the accuracy 
 of the Scripture record; but as a historian 
 
28 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 he dares not admit any intermixture of the- 
 ological principle which would detract from 
 the strictness of his method. In short, the 
 historical method can only see in the Bible 
 a " source " of history, not history itself. 
 It places it upon a par with other sources, 
 and only comes to regard it as having the 
 quality of superior trustworthiness after it has 
 been tested. It feels at perfect liberty to re- 
 ject its historical statements entirely, or to 
 correct them according to other sources of 
 information. That such a free handling of 
 the Book has a tendency to destroy reverence 
 for it there can be no doubt; but the critic 
 affirms that so far as reverence can be de- 
 stroyed by criticism it is unworthy of rever- 
 ence. And he declares that, so far from de- 
 stroying the historical trustworthiness of the 
 Bible in its general statements, his work tends 
 directly to confirmation. 
 
 Another method of criticism, less popularly 
 known than the two just mentioned, is that 
 of Biblical theology. As a method it is pri- 
 marily analytical, but it ends with synthesis. 
 It takes up the separate books of the Bible, 
 
METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 29 
 
 and studies their theology. It seeks to find 
 the fundamental principles of each author, 
 and sometimes denies a book its traditional 
 authorship because it diverges from the theo- 
 logical position of other books from the sup- 
 posed author's pen. Having analyzed the 
 theological contents of the separate books 
 and authors, it proceeds to formulate them 
 into a more or less complete system. It dis- 
 covers that there is a development of religious 
 ideas from Genesis to Revelation. It may 
 place the date of the composition of a book 
 earlier or later than it would otherwise be 
 supposed to be, because its theological stand- 
 point is found to be that of the age to which 
 it is assigned. Sometimes Biblical theolo- 
 gians think they find irreconcilable 'differences 
 between the theological positions of the books 
 of the Bible, and are inclined to reject from 
 the canon such as can not be harmonized. 
 Others find all the teachings of the several 
 books necessary to a complete system, and 
 base the perfection of the canon upon the 
 fact that it contains just what it does, with- 
 out diminution or increase. This method, as 
 
30 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 well as the others, may be made to do service 
 in judging of the minutest details of the 
 Bible. Anything which conflicts with the in- 
 ternal harmony of Scripture teachings must 
 give way before it. 
 
 We have mentioned the aims and methods 
 in their separate forms for the sake of clear- 
 ness ; but, as a matter of fact, they are seldom 
 found alone. There may be a ruling motive, 
 or method; but others usually accompany, to 
 modify or to support the result. It is the 
 strength of the cause of the higher critics that 
 the application of the various methods usually 
 leads to the same conclusions. The literary 
 style, the historical setting, and the theological 
 position of the latter part of Isaiah are all de- 
 clared to be different from those of the former 
 part. Nor are many of the critics rigidly either 
 literary or historical ; the majority are theolo- 
 gians who combine with their religious inter- 
 ests the literary and historical methods. 
 
principles and assumptions. 3 1 
 
 §3. Higher Critical Principles and As- 
 sumptions. 
 
 Some of these have been intimated in the 
 preceding remarks; yet it may be well to for- 
 mulate them here in order to correlate them 
 with those not already mentioned. 
 
 First, the assumption that the Bible is to be 
 judged by purely literary standards, as any 
 other literature. Within limits, this can not 
 be disputed ; but when it is made to embrace 
 a denial of the element of divine inspiration, 
 the theologian at least has a right to object. 
 A book whose author or co-author is God 
 must be treated with a reverence not due to a 
 purely human production ; besides, the very 
 assumption is dangerous to the influence of 
 the Bible. Here, therefore, is one of the 
 principal causes leading to fear of the higher 
 critics. One of their first assumptions, if un- 
 challenged, would undermine its authority. 
 
 The same may be said of the assumption 
 that the historian is at liberty to treat the 
 Bible as any other source of history. This 
 assumption, however, is objectionable from an 
 
32 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 additional point of view. To refer again to 
 the Isaian question, the strict historical view 
 forbids that the latter part of Isaiah should 
 have been written at the same period as the 
 former part, since its historical setting is in 
 the exilian period. But admit the fact of true 
 predictive prophecy, and there is no insuper- 
 able difficulty in supposing that the earlier 
 Isaiah and the later are identical; but of course 
 we do not mean by this that such an admis- 
 sion would prove the identity of the two. 
 
 A second assumption is that the books of 
 the Bible are separate productions, each of 
 which must be studied by itself, and that we 
 may not in every case explain the meaning of 
 a passage in one book by an utterance on the 
 same subject in another book. This principle 
 is only modified when two or more books are 
 supposed to have been written by one author, 
 or when there is a supposed literary depend- 
 ence between two books by different authors. 
 It is this assumption which produces such 
 havoc with the traditional view of the Penta- 
 teuch. Three or four authors are supposed to 
 be traceable in the so-called books of Moses. 
 
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 33 
 
 They wrote independently of each other, and 
 their accounts of the same events have been 
 loosely strung together under the name of 
 Moses. On this supposition, it is easy to see 
 irreconcilable difficulties between the distinct 
 narratives. If one author were supposed to 
 have written all, we could easily imagine that 
 facts known to him, but not committed to 
 writing, would explain the variations. Or 
 the adherents of the traditional view can take 
 refuge in the doctrine of inspiration. God is 
 the author of all Scripture, and to each writer 
 he simply gave one phase of the truth, to be 
 brought out in its strongest possible light. 
 Thus apparent contradictions are accounted 
 for. We have stated here only the practical 
 effect of the two views ; the truth or false- 
 hood of the one or of the other we do not at- 
 tempt to discuss, since it does not fall within 
 the scope of our undertaking. 
 
 Another point concerning which critics 
 differ in principle is that of the relation of 
 the natural and supernatural. There are few 
 who would deny the Divine influence upon the 
 soul; but there are many who dispute the 
 
34 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 reality of the miraculous elemeut in the Bible. 
 All those accounts of special Divine appear- 
 ances to men, and of Divine interposition in 
 their behalf through physical agencies, are, at 
 most, instructive myths. Their only reality is 
 in the doctrine they contain that God is some- 
 how interested in mankind. The practical ef- 
 fect of all this is to remove from the Bible the 
 power to make the immediate impression that 
 God is near — an impression which, true or 
 false, the stories of the miracles chiefly pro- 
 duce as we read the Scriptures. If the mira- 
 cles are unreal, we can learn from the Bible of 
 God's nearness only by inference. But an- 
 other exceedingly important consequence is, 
 that under this supposition the Bible loses its 
 character of reality in general. The miracles 
 are related as truth ; if they are not true, then 
 much of the Bible is given up to a relation of 
 fictitious matter, without any warning to that 
 effect. 
 
 Different entirely is the view of those who 
 admit the reality of miracles, but who reserve 
 the right to judge concerning the trustworthi- 
 ness of the record in each case. The former 
 
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 35 
 
 say there is no such thing as a physical mir- 
 acle ; the latter say we must not believe 
 every miraculous story. The former are 
 obliged by their principle to deny the mirac- 
 ulous conception of Christ, and his real resur- 
 rection and ascension. The latter may admit 
 both ; but of the latter many do practically 
 obliterate all trace of the miraculous by their 
 criticism. This miracle is inherently improba- 
 ble; that not necessary, since the event can be 
 accounted for on natural principles; the oth- 
 ers insufficiently supported by testimony. 
 Under this head fall all such questions as 
 the Divinity of Christ, the personality of the 
 Holy Spirit, the value of prayer, and the pos- 
 sibility of regeneration. Those who deny the 
 miraculous must deny all these in any form 
 which maintains the substance of them. 
 Those who admit will emphasize them more 
 or less according to their belief in the fre- 
 quency of Divine interposition in the affairs of 
 men. The same is true of the doctrine of in- 
 spiration. All must admit the possibility of 
 it who admit the intimate influence of the 
 supernatural among men. But the degree and 
 
36 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 quantity of it in the Bible is a question to be 
 settled by the critical judgment. 
 
 Still another principle which must be men- 
 tioned is the doctrine of evolution as applied 
 to the Bible and its contents. The evolution- 
 ist may be a Theist, although he need not 
 even be a Deist. But even theistic evolution 
 in Scriptural matters is a far-reaching princi- 
 ple. Evolution might account for the pro- 
 duction of every book of the Bible, and for 
 the formation of the canon, without any Divine 
 interference. In that case it would be at most 
 deistic. More generally, however, the Bible is 
 regarded by evolutionary critics as the record 
 of experiences wrought in the hearts and lives 
 of men and nations by the purpose of God. 
 Under this view, God's providence determined 
 each step in the progress of revelation. The 
 revelation was not to the intellect, but in 
 hearts and lives. Men wrote what they felt 
 God had done. God did what was needed ac- 
 cording to the then development of mankind, 
 or of the chosen people. As man advanced, 
 the revelation was made clearer; that is, 
 God's dealings corresponded more closely to 
 
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 37 
 
 his own ideal, and less with the imperfect 
 condition of man. Such a view may or may 
 not admit the reality of a revelation to all 
 peoples as truly as to the Jews. Any imper- 
 fection of a heathen religion would be ac- 
 counted for just as any imperfection in the 
 Jewish faith, by the supposition that God was 
 doing the best for men under the circum- 
 stances. So far as Judaism is concerned, it 
 need not follow that the books of the Old 
 Testament present as a whole a true picture 
 of the actual development. The evolutionist 
 supposes that the development of religious 
 knowledge and practice kept pace with each 
 other. Our Old Testament leaves the im- 
 pression that, far in advance and almost once 
 for all, God laid down a standard of faith and 
 practice, behind which the actual practice of 
 the people lagged for centuries. To the evo- 
 lutionist this seems highly improbable. Hence 
 he attempts to reconstruct the history accord- 
 ing to his views; and he claims that he finds 
 numberless hints throughout the Scripture in 
 support of his theory. On the same principle 
 the development of Christianity is accounted 
 
38 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 for. The centuries preceding the birth of 
 Christ were preparing the way for Christianity 
 in Judaism. Christ's very Messianic conscious- 
 ness would have been impossible without the 
 preceding development of Messianic hope to 
 which Christ's view of himself and his mission 
 closely conformed. Thus our Lord was not so 
 much a fulfillment of the expectations of the 
 Jews as portrayed in the Bible as of those who 
 lived subsequently. 1 With the scientific diffi- 
 culties in the way of such an opinion we have 
 here nothing to do, nor can we spend time on the 
 practical effects. These depend almost wholly 
 upon the thoroughness with which the theistic 
 idea pervades the critic. While in fact there 
 often is, there need be in it nothing antagonis- 
 tic to the fundamental principles of our faith. 2 
 It remains merely to state the attitude of 
 the critics toward Christianity. That some 
 are antagonistic goes without the saying. 
 Most, however, hold with greater or less te- 
 
 1 See Thomson, Books which Influenced our Lord. 
 
 2 Abbott's " Evolution of Christianity " is a good illus- 
 tration of the evolutionary theory as applied to religion. 
 Others which might be mentioned are far more radical. 
 
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 39 
 
 nacity to our holy religion. It may even be 
 said that most believe it to be the only true 
 religion. Yet some there are who regard it 
 as only the best of all, and do not hesitate to 
 say that it will undergo transformation to fit 
 it fully for its universal mission. 1 Of those 
 who adhere to the divine origin of the Bible, 
 some justify their critical researches by the 
 results to be attained; others declare that 
 criticism is a science, the same as any other, 
 and may be practiced upon the Bible just as 
 upon any other book. The results of their 
 investigations have nothing in common with 
 their faith, which is entirely unaffected by 
 critical inquiry. 2 With such, criticism must 
 be a mere pastime — a pleasurable employment 
 of the mind. But, perhaps, the majority are 
 filled with the idea that all truth is in har- 
 mony; and that therefore, in the end, no real 
 truth of Christianity can be affected by criti- 
 cism, while it may be very useful to sweep 
 away any falsehood and superstition to which 
 
 l E. g., Toy, Judaism and Christianity. 
 2 E. g., Eibach, " Ueber die wissenschaftliche Behand- 
 lung und praktische Benutzung der heiligen Schrift." 
 
40 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 men cling. There is great danger, however, 
 that our very devotion to truth will induce us 
 to employ inadequate means for its universal 
 discovery and valuation. If by truth w T e mean 
 truth which can be tested by the judgment 
 alone, we practically abandon Christian ground. 
 Christianity, as a practical concern, can be 
 tested only by its proper agencies. These in- 
 clude the experiences of the heart. If relig- 
 ion has its rights they should be respected. 
 The truths which can be subordinated to rea- 
 son do not of necessity exhaust the sum of 
 truth, since the reason is not the only human 
 faculty capable of testing phenomena; nor is 
 reason any more reliable in its judgments 
 than the heart. That in which the human 
 heart can quietly and permanently rest may 
 be regarded as true, just as that may be re- 
 garded true in which the reason can rest. 
 The Christian must search for truth; but he 
 may not reject one class of truths in the in- 
 terest of another, and especially if by so doing 
 he overturns the truths of religion. The 
 whole danger arises from the attempt to act 
 the part of the scientific investigator without 
 
PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 4 1 
 
 recollection of what one has discovered by 
 experience. But these imperfections of method 
 and purpose are only incidental and tempo- 
 rary. They will be corrected as time goes on. 
 Christian truth will not permanently nor widely 
 suffer, although many individuals may be de- 
 prived of its comforts for the time. 
 
Part II. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Although criticism is a comparatively 
 youthful science, it has already reached many 
 conclusions upon which the majority of in- 
 vestigators agree. This does not necessarily 
 imply that such conclusions are correct; for 
 in the republic of truth majorities dare not 
 rule. And the critics themselves, who agree 
 with each other so completely, would not 
 deny that many points are only probably es- 
 tablished. The results attained are merely 
 held to be in accordance with the best infor- 
 mation within our reach. Further discovery 
 may make a change of position necessary. 
 Hence we speak of the presumptive results 
 of higher criticism. We enter first upon 
 
 §4. The General History of Old Testa- 
 ment Criticism. 
 
 The way was prepared for the critical 
 
 study of the Old Testament by two French 
 
 42 
 
OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 43 
 
 scholars — one a Protestant, Ludwig Cappellus 1 
 (ti.658); the other a Romanist, Johann Mori- 
 nus 2 (ti659), who disputed the belief in the 
 continuous and perfect preservation of the 
 Masoretic text, and the high age of the He- 
 brew punctuation, doctrines generally ac- 
 cepted and founded upon Rabbinical tradition. 
 But the first epoch-making works on higher 
 critical lines were those of Benedict de Spi- 
 noza 3 (1*1677) and Richard Simon 4 (ti7i2). 
 
 Spinoza's philosophical standpoint was 
 Pantheism, and his conclusions concerning 
 Revelation, Miracle, and Prophecy were seri- 
 ously affected thereby. According to him the 
 task of criticism is to investigate the origin 
 of individual books, and the history of the 
 Scripture text and canon. Abraham ibn Ezra 
 had designated certain portions of the law as 
 mysterious. To these Spinoza added others, 
 and denied the Mosaic authorship of the 
 Pentateuch. By a comparison of Numbers 
 
 1 See Sclinedermaim, Die Controverse cles L. Cappel- 
 lus mit den Buxtorfen. 
 
 2 Bxercitationum Biblicarum, etc. 
 
 3 In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. 
 
 4 Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. 
 
44 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 xxi, 14, with Exodus xvii, 14, and in Exodus 
 xxiv, 4, 7, and Deuteronomy i, 5 ; xxxi, 9, he 
 found intimations of the real literary activity 
 of Moses. He saw much in Joshua, Judges, 
 Samuel, and Kings to indicate a late compo- 
 sition for these books. The books from Gen- 
 esis to Second Kings, inclusive, form one great 
 historical work by a single author, whose pur- 
 pose throughout was to teach the words and 
 ordinances of Moses. This author was prob- 
 ably Ezra; and his work consisted in the col- 
 lection of material from different authors, as 
 is still observable. But many of the diver- 
 gences which would naturally thus arise, Ezra 
 could not reconcile. Chronicles he supposed 
 to be a very late work, written probably after 
 the restoration of the temple under Judas 
 Maccabseus. The prophetic books were com- 
 posed of fragments collected from various 
 sources, and in arrangement have suffered 
 many displacements of their natural order. 
 Previous to the Maccabaean period there was 
 no canon of Holy Scripture. Many of the 
 conclusions of this pioneer among higher 
 critics find recognition even yet. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 45 
 
 The title of Simon's work was Histoire 
 Critique die Vieux Testament (Critical History 
 of the Old Testament). Into this work he 
 gathered all the results of the labors of his 
 predecessors, Cappellus, Morinus, Spinoza, and 
 others, many of which he more firmly estab- 
 lished by his own researches. His scientific 
 and brilliant presentation of the subject lent 
 it uncommon interest. Attention was still 
 further called to it by its confiscation in 
 France, and by the author's keen and prompt 
 replies to his literary opponents. He spent 
 little time upon the origin of the individual 
 books, although he gave some space to the 
 proof that in its present form the Pentateuch 
 could not have been composed by Moses. 
 He developed the theory that in all Oriental 
 States there were official historiographers. 
 The only difference between the Hebrew his- 
 toriographers, who had probably existed since 
 Moses, and those of other nations, was that 
 the former were inspired, while the latter 
 were not. It was the duty of these men to 
 write out the important events of their own 
 period, and to alter, abbreviate, and enlarge 
 
46 . THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 upon the work of their predecessors, as seemed 
 to them necessary for the circumstances of 
 the time. Ezra, or probably still later writers, 
 collected all that had been previously written, 
 and out of the material at their command 
 wrote our Old Testament; but in so doing 
 they allowed themselves much freedom in the 
 handling of their sources. 
 
 With these two writers the work of higher 
 criticism was fairly initiated. During the early 
 part of the eighteenth century, Joh. Gottlob 
 Carpzov 1 (ti.757) distinguished himself by 
 the learning and comprehensiveness of his 
 work in this department, and especially by his 
 spirited antagonism to Spinoza and Simon. 
 Special mention must also be made of the 
 work of Joh. Gottfried Eichhorn (t 1827), who 
 was greatly influenced by Spinoza and Simon 
 on the one hand, and by Semler and Herder 
 on the other; also of Ewald's "History of 
 Israel," "Prophets of the Old Covenant," 
 and "Poets of the Old Covenant;" of the 
 works of Havernick (t 1845) and Keil (t 1888), 
 both of which followed the traditional lines ; 
 
 1 Introductio, etc., and Critica Sacra. 
 
PENTATEUCH AL CRITICISM. 47 
 
 and of the historical-critical labors of De Wette 
 (t 1849) and Edouard Reuss (1*1891). 
 
 For many details the reader is referred to 
 the following pages. 
 
 § 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism. 
 
 Excepting the last eight verses, the Jews 
 and the ancient Church held the Pentateuch 
 as the work of Moses. The denial of its 
 Mosaic authorship by Celsus and other early 
 antagonists of Christianity was not founded 
 upon critical, but dogmatic reasons. Andreas 
 Bodenstein of Carlstadt 1 (t 1541) was the first 
 to question on critical grounds the Mosaic 
 origin of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuchal 
 law he recognized as of Moses, but the thread 
 of the narrative and the style excited his sus- 
 picion. Andreas Masius 2 (t 1574) believed that 
 the Pentateuch in its present form could not 
 have been written by Moses, and supported his 
 view more especially by the occurrence of 
 names not in existence during the time of 
 Moses (e.g.) Dan-Laish). The long-cherished 
 
 1 I v ibellus de Canonicis Scripturis. 
 2 Kommeutar zu Josua. 
 
4« THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 hope that the force of the attacks upon the 
 Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch could be 
 weakened by the interpolation hypothesis, 
 was finally given up by the majority. 
 
 The first to base a systematic and scien- 
 tific criticism of the Pentateuch upon a literary 
 analysis was Jean Astruc 1 (t 1766), royal phy- 
 sician and professor of medicine in Paris. 
 Others before him, as Vitringa, had conjectured 
 that, in the composition of Genesis, Moses 
 had employed older sources. Adopting this 
 idea, Astruc asserted that Moses had not even 
 worked over these sources, but had merely 
 placed them side by side without essential al- 
 teration. He also undertook to distinguish 
 these sources from one another. This he did 
 by taking as his criterion the peculiar use of 
 the names of God — in some passages only 
 Elohim, in others only Jehovah. Besides the 
 two sources thus distinguished, he supposed 
 ten others, less frequently employed, and distin- 
 guishable by other characteristics. It will be 
 noticed that thus far the hand of Moses in 
 the composition of Genesis is not denied, al- 
 
 1 Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, etc. 
 
PENT A TE UCHA L ' CRITICISM. 49 
 
 though he is made only the compiler. Nor 
 did Astruc dispute the Mosaic authorship of 
 the four additional books. Eichhorn ' showed 
 that the passages in Genesis which Astruc dis- 
 tinguished by the divine names of Elohim and 
 Jehovah were also characterized each by a 
 different linguistic style. This discovery is 
 still one of the principal supports of the 
 critics. He held that the other books of the 
 Pentateuch were composed from documents 
 written in the time of Moses, some of them 
 by Moses himself, others by his contempora- 
 ries. The compilation of all the documents 
 of which the Pentateuch is composed he is 
 disposed to place somewhere between Joshua 
 and Samuel. De Wette was the first to dis- 
 cover what is now generally held by the 
 critics ; namely, that Deuteronomy differs 
 wholly in character from the preceding 
 books ; and to-day the critics maintain a dis- 
 tinct source for Deuteronomy. Frederick 
 Bleek 2 was the first to assert that the death 
 
 ^inleitung in das A. T. 
 
 2 Einige aphoristische Beitrage zu den Unters. iiber 
 den Pent. 
 
50 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of Moses could not have formed the natural 
 conclusion of the history of Israel and their 
 exodus from Egypt; but that this must in- 
 clude also their conquest of Canaan ; and 
 hence that Joshua was a part of the same 
 work with the other books of the Pentateuch. 
 Here, then, we have the idea of the Hexa- 
 teuch, so generally accepted at the present 
 time. Up to this point it had been assumed 
 that the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents 
 could only be traced through Genesis, and into 
 Exodus as far as chapter vi, 2 ; but, in 183 1, 
 Ewald 1 showed that these sources could be 
 traced with distinctness through the other 
 books of the Pentateuch. In a short time 
 the same was asserted also of Joshua. Thus 
 another evidence of a Hexateuch instead of a 
 Pentateuch was added. Karl David Ilgen 2 
 and H. Hupfeld 3 — the former prior to 1834, 
 the latter in 1853 — undertook to show that 
 
 Consult his works mentioned above, and TheoJ. 
 Studien u. Kritiken, 183 1. 
 
 2 Die Urkunden des Jernsalemischen Tempelarchivs 
 in ihrer Urgestalt. 
 
 3 Die Quellen der Genesis u, die Art ihrer Zusam- 
 niensetzung, 
 
PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM. 5 1 
 
 the Elohim and Jehovah documents were each 
 composite in their character, and not the work 
 of single authors, as had been assumed. 
 
 If the reader will take the trouble at this 
 point to go back over the names mentioned in 
 this section, and fix in his mind just what it 
 is which each added to the sum of critical 
 conclusions, it will greatly facilitate his fur- 
 ther study. 
 
 It will be observed, also, that the principal 
 questions are as to the extent to which the 
 " sources " are traceable. The sources or 
 documents themselves were supposed to be 
 practically of the age in or immediately sub- 
 sequent to that in which Moses lived. But 
 we have now to trace the development of 
 other new ideas, more startling in their char- 
 acter, because they completely overturn all 
 our former opinions concerning the date of the 
 origin of the Pentateuch. Before doing so, 
 however, it may be well to summarize the re- 
 sults of the criticism thus far noticed. 1 First, 
 the four principal sources of the Hexateuch 
 
 1 For the summary here given we are indebted to 
 Professor H. L,. Strack, of Berlin. 
 
52 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 (the Pentateuch and Joshua) were supposed 
 to be : i. The Priestly Code, otherwise known 
 as The First Elohist, The Foundation Docu- 
 ment (Grundschrift), The Book of Origins, The 
 Annalistic Relator. This document is desig- 
 nated by Wellhausen l by the letter "P;" by 
 Dillmann as "A." 2. The Second Elohist, 
 otherwise called The Younger Elohist, The 
 North Israelitish Relator, The Third Relator, 
 The Theocratic Relator; lettered "E;" by 
 Dillmann, " B." 3. The Jehovist, or Jahvist, 
 otherwise called The Additor, The Fourth 
 Relator, The Prophetic Relator; lettered "J;" 
 by Dillman, " C." 4. The Deuteronomist ; 
 lettered "D." Second, that several sections 
 of the Pentateuch, although preserved for us 
 only in the above-named sources, sprang from 
 a period considerably earlier. Among these 
 were the Decalogue, The Covenant Book, 
 Exodus xx, 22-xxiii, 19, the principal part of 
 the song in Exodus xv, and other poetical 
 portions. Third, that the Elohistic Docu- 
 ments, of which (see above) there were sup- 
 
 1 Wellliausen's designations throughout are preferable, 
 and will be named first. 
 
PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 53 
 
 posed to be two, were older than the Jeho- 
 vistic. ^ Fourth, that P, B, and J had been 
 wrought together prior to D. Essential dif- 
 ferences of opinion existed only with refer- 
 ence to the manner in which these documents 
 were brought into the Pentateuch. The ma- 
 jority supposed that one editor had united P, 
 B, and J, and that D was afterward added. 
 Schrader supposed that the Jahvist had 
 added material of his own (J) to P and B, 
 and then worked the whole together. 1 Ac- 
 cording to some, the Deuteronomist united 
 his own work (D) with P, B, J ; but the ma- 
 jority were of the opinion that P B J and 
 D were brought together by a special editor. 
 
 § 6. Present-day Criticism of the Pen- 
 tateuch. 
 
 The work begun by Astruc had been 
 carried to completion. The Pentateuch was 
 no longer regarded as originally the work of 
 Moses. The documents entering into its 
 composition were distinguished the one from 
 
 x In his De Wette's Einleituug. 
 
54 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the other, and Joshua was regarded as or- 
 ganically connected with the Pentateuch. 
 When this process of investigation was prac- 
 tically ended, the thoughts of critics took a 
 new turn. They began to compare the con- 
 tents of the Pentateuch with the later history, 
 and with the prophecies of Israel. Simulta- 
 neously, but independently, W. Vatke 1 and 
 J. F. L. George 2 began studies of this kind. 
 They were both tinged in their historical phi- 
 losophy by the principles of Hegel. The 
 middle books of the Pentateuch — Exodus, Le- 
 viticus, Numbers — were supposed to be charac- 
 terized by the prominence given, in the laws 
 they contained, to the understanding, while 
 the laws of Deuteronomy were distinguished 
 as those of the feelings. Their studies led 
 them to believe that the former were more 
 recent than the latter, whose origin they 
 placed in the time of Josiah. Hengstenberg, 3 
 Ranke, 4 and others answered their arguments; 
 
 1 Die Religion des Alten Testaiuentes. 
 
 2 Die alteren Jiidischen Feste mit eiiier K'ritik der 
 
 Gesetzgebung des Pentateuchs. 
 
 3 Die Authentic des Pentateuchs. 
 
 4 Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch. 
 
PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 55 
 
 their philosophy fell into disrepute, and their 
 conclusions seemed destined to be forgotten. 
 But even earlier than Vatke and George, 
 Bdouard Reuss 1 had carried on similar studies, 
 and was led to similar conclusions. As he 
 studied the condition of the Jews, as described 
 in the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and 
 Kings, he thought he discovered a contradic- 
 tion between their practice and the laws of 
 Moses, and hence concluded that they could 
 not have been known during the periods de- 
 scribed by those histories. He also taught 
 that the prophets of the eighth and seventh 
 centuries seemed to know nothing of the 
 Mosaic Code. According to him Deuteronomy 
 was the oldest part of the law given in the 
 Pentateuch, and the prophecy of Ezekiel was 
 older than the editing of the Ritual Code and 
 the law upon which the final elevation of the 
 hierarchy depended. These startling conclu- 
 sions, however, received little attention, and 
 it remained for others, less original than the 
 three pioneers now mentioned, to make them 
 
 1 Reuss was much later in publishing his views than 
 some others. See his works mentioned below. 
 
56 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 known to the world. An earlier student 
 under Professor Reuss was the first to win 
 general attention to the new form of criticism. 
 K. H. Graf 4 was his name, and to him, rather 
 than to Wellhausen, belongs whatever of lit- 
 erary honor may attach to the achievement. 
 He distinguished the legislation of the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch from what he called 
 the primitive document, or the Elohistic book 
 of history. According to him the middle 
 Pentateuchal legislation is found in Exodus 
 xii, 1-28, 43-51-xxv-xxxi, xxxv-xl; Levit- 
 icus; Numbers i, i-x, 28, xv, xvi, xvii, and 
 parts of xviii, xix, xxviii-xxxi, xxxv, 16- 
 xxxvi. This, he declared, bears in itself the 
 clearest possible evidences of its post-exilic 
 composition. Leviticus xvii-xxvi contains a 
 book of law composed by Ezekiel, later called 
 the Law of Holiness. He was led to these 
 conclusions chiefly by his investigations of 
 the festivals, the priestly ordinances, and the 
 tabernacle. His utterances were, however, 
 challenged by Riehm and Noldeke with such 
 success that he was compelled to give up his 
 
 4 Die geschichtlicheu Biicher des Alten Testamentes. 
 
PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 57 
 
 position ; but instead of returning to the 
 early composition of all, declared all to be 
 post-exilic. The investigations of Kayser 1 
 confirmed the conclusions of Graf. But if 
 Graf first won general attention to what Reuss 
 originated, Wellhausen's brilliant presentation 
 of the evidences and results of the new view 
 won large numbers of adherents. In his 
 " Prolegomena to the History of Israel" he 
 designated the course of reconstruction neces- 
 sary to conform the history of the religion 
 and tradition of the Jews to the recent dis- 
 coveries. His " Composition of the Hexa- 
 teuch" (so far as we know, not translated into 
 English) presents the critical reasons for his 
 adherence to the new hypothesis. After it 
 had thus been popularized, Reuss, the origi- 
 nator of the idea, discussed the whole Penta- 
 teuchal question in two separate works — one 
 in French, V Histoire Sainte et la Lot; the 
 other in German, Die Geschichte der heiligen 
 Schriften Alien Testaments. 
 
 It may be well here, in the interest of 
 
 *Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, u" 
 seine Erweiterungen. 
 
58 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 clearness, to point out the difference between 
 the results of criticism as portrayed in § 5 
 and those just stated. The former was a crit- 
 icism based chiefly on literary grounds; the 
 latter, rather on historical. The former asked 
 after the literary elements entering into the 
 composition of the Pentateuch (Hexateuch); 
 the latter inquires after the time of the com- 
 position. The former declared that Moses 
 Could not have written the Pentateuch in its 
 present form; the latter strongly intimates 
 that he wrote none of it. The former regards 
 it as possible that the Pentateuch was com- 
 posed largely of writings left by Moses, and 
 not long after Moses' death; the latter places 
 the composition of Exodus-Numbers subse- 
 quent to the Exile. The former compared 
 the language of the various parts of the Pen- 
 tateuch with each other, and with Joshua, to 
 trace the different literary styles; the latter 
 takes up the history and the prophecies, and 
 undertakes to prove therefrom that the Penta- 
 teuch was unknown until a very late period, 
 because no trace of its influence can be found. 
 The former sees no reason why the Penta- 
 
PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 59 
 
 teuch should not have been a product of an 
 early period ; the latter regards it impossible 
 that in their then stage of development the 
 Jews should have produced the Pentateuchal 
 legislation, and regards it as a possible off- 
 spring only of the later age. But the newer 
 critical school has, in common with the old, 
 the belief in a variety of documents as con- 
 stituents of the Pentateuch, and in fact could 
 never have come into existence without the 
 older criticism. 
 
 The results (presumptive) of present Pen- 
 tateuchal criticism may be briefly summarized 
 as follows: The first four books are a compi- 
 lation from earlier written sources, the num- 
 ber of which is not definitely settled, although 
 opinions waver between two and three ; Deu- 
 teronomy is based upon a still different source; 
 the sources distinguishable in the Pentateuch 
 are also distinguishable in Joshua, and hence 
 could not have been written by Moses; or, in 
 other words, a later than Moses wrote not 
 only the Pentateuch as we have it, but also 
 Joshua. There are ciitics who deny this last 
 conclusion, together with the supposed fact 
 
60 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 upon which it is based; but we pretend only 
 to state here the conclusions generally re- 
 ceived. The critics generally deny that Moses 
 claims to have written the Pentateuch, al- 
 though they do not generally assert that he 
 may not have written parts now incorporated 
 into it; yet that he wrote any of the princi- 
 pal documents of which the Pentateuch is 
 formed they deny, since they claim that these 
 are traceable through Joshua, which describes 
 events subsequent to the death of Moses. At 
 best, therefore, the critics can give Moses but 
 little credit for literary activity in connection 
 with the Pentateuch. Since Deuteronomy is 
 regarded by so many critics as having been 
 written shortly before the eighteenth year of 
 King Josiah (B. C. 621), and since the Deuter- 
 onomic source extends through Joshua along 
 with the other sources, the composition of the 
 Pentateuch is placed of necessity subsequent 
 to B. C. 621, although parts of it may be much 
 older. The question then arises, What is the 
 relative and what the absolute age of the dif- 
 ferent sources according to the critics? These 
 are questions yet in dispute, and we must 
 
AGE OF THE SOURCES. 6 1 
 
 therefore content ourselves with a statement 
 of the views of the principal investigators. 
 
 §7. The Relative and Absolute Age of 
 the Sources. 
 
 The reader who desires to follow all the 
 details of criticism must needs pause here, 
 and familiarize himself with the names, char- 
 acteristics, and extent of the Hexateuchal 
 documents. For this purpose we would rec- 
 ommend the "Introduction to the Literature 
 of the Old Testament," by Samuel R. Driver, 
 D. D. An attempt to present all this matter 
 here would carry us beyond the design of this 
 work. 1 But we may clarify the subject some- 
 
 1 For convenience and by way of illustration we here 
 give Driver's summary of the Priest's Code : 
 
 Genesis i, i-ii, 4"; v, 1 28, 30-32; vi, 9-22; vii, 6, 7-9 
 (in parts), 11, 13-16™, 18-21, 24; viii, 1, 2", 3 6 ~5, 13°, 14-19; 
 ix, 1-17, 28, 29; x, 1-7, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32; xi, 10-27, 31. 32; 
 xii, 4*, 5; xiii, 6, n 6 , I2 rt ; xvi, i", 3, 15, 16; xvii; xix, 29; 
 xxi, i 6 , 2 6 ~5; xxiii; xxv, 7- n", 12-17, J 9> 2 °> 2 &'\ xxvi, 34, 
 35; xxvii, 46 ; xxviii, 1-9; xxix, 24, 29; xxxi, 18 6 ; xxxiii, 
 18"; xxxiv, 1, 2 a , 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 2 5 (partly), 27-29 ; 
 xxxv, 9-13, 15, 22^-29; xxxvi (in the main) ; xxxvii, 1, 2 a ; 
 xli, 46; xlvi, 6-27 ; xlvii, 5, 6" (lxx), 7-11, 27*, 28 ; xlviii, 
 3-6, 7 (?); xlix, i", 28^-33; 1, 12, 13. 
 
 Exodus i, 1-7, 13, 14, 23 6 -25; vi, 2-7, 13, 19, 20", 2i ft , 22; 
 
62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 what by stating that P begins with the first 
 word of Genesis and runs through Joshua. 
 P contains both Elohistic and Jehovistic ele- 
 ments, the question being which is the elder, 
 the majority leaning toward the greater age 
 of B. Besides the Jehovistic source — which 
 begins with Genesis ii, 4 — the Elohistic, the 
 Priest's Code, and Deuteronomy, Dillmann 
 adds S, the Sinaitic Law. 
 
 It is usually admitted that D is younger 
 than J. Hupfeld, Ewald, Knobel, Schrader, 
 and Riehm regard P as the oldest documen- 
 
 viii, 5-7, I5 6 -I9; ix, 8-12 ; xii, 1-20, 28, 37", 40-51 ; xiii, 1, 
 2, 20; xiv, 1-4, 8, 9, 15-18, 21", 2i e -23, 26, 27«, 2S", 29; xvi, 
 1-3,6-24,31-36; xvii, 1"; xix, i, 2 a ; xxiv, 15-18"; xxv, 
 i-xxxi, 18"; xxxiv, 29-35; xxxv-xl. 
 
 Leviticus i-xvi ; (xvii-xxvi) ; xxvii. 
 
 Numbers i, i-x, 2S; xiii, 1-17". 21. 25, 26" (to Paran), 
 32" ; xiv, I, 2 (iu the main). 5-7, 10, 26-38 (in the main) ; xv ; 
 xvi, 1", 2 6 -7 a (7*-n), (16, 17). 18-24. 27 a , 2>2\ 35 (36-40), 41-50; 
 xvii-xix; xx, i° (to month), 2, 3*, 6, 12, 13, 22-29; xx ^ 
 4" (to Hor), 10, n ; xxii, 1 ; xxv, 6-18; xxvi-xxxi ; xxxii, 
 18, 19, 28-32 (with traces in 1-17, 20-27) ! xxxiii-xxxvi. 
 
 Deuteronomy xxxii, 48-52 ; xxxiv, i a , 8, 9. 
 
 Joshua iv, 13, 19; v, 10-12; vii, 1; ix, 15 6 , 17-21; xiii. 
 15-32; xiv, 1-5; xv, 1-13, 2S-44, 4S-62; xvi, 4-8; xvii, 
 i" (i 6 , 2), 3, 4, 7, 9°, 9 C , 10"; xviii, 1. 11-2S; xix, 1-8, 10-46, 
 48, 51 ; xx, 1-3 (except " and unawares "), 6" (to judgment), 
 7-9 (cf. lxx) ; xxi, 1-42 (xxii, 9-34). 
 
AGE OF THE SOURCES. 63 
 
 tary source of the Pentateach, while Dillmann 
 regards it as old, though not the oldest. On 
 the other hand, P is regarded as the youngest 
 portion of the Pentateuch by Graf, Kayser, 
 Kuenen, Wellhausen, and Reuss. When we 
 consider the contents of P, we discover the 
 tremendous significance of the position that 
 it was more recently composed than any 
 other document of the Pentateuch. As to 
 the absolute age of the sources, Noldeke 
 holds that P, E, and J belong to the tenth, or, 
 more likely still, the ninth century B. C. P is 
 not the oldest, but can not be much younger 
 than the two others. D was written shortly 
 before the reformation under Josiah. Ezekiel 
 is dependent upon P. Schrader places P at 
 the beginning of David's reign; E, soon after 
 the division of the kingdom ; J, added to his 
 predecessors, and worked them together be- 
 tween 825 and 800. D was composed shortly 
 before Josiah's reformation ; and the Deuter- 
 onomist continued the history down to 2 Kings 
 xxv, 21. The separation of the Pentateuch, 
 in its present form, from the other historical 
 
64 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 books did not take place until the end of 
 the Exile. Dillmann x makes the Hexateuch to 
 consist of five documents — E, P, J, D, and S 
 (Sinaitic Law). E was written by some one 
 from the Northern Kingdom, during the first 
 half of the ninth century B. C. J is a Judaic 
 document, written not earlier than the middle 
 of the eighth century. D was written not 
 long before the eighteenth year of Josiah; 
 P he places about 800; S is composed of 
 portions as old as Moses, and as recent as the 
 Exile. Before the return of Ezra, the Penta- 
 teuch was separated from Joshua. Ezra gave 
 the Pentateuch public recognition in 444. 
 Still later scribes worked over certain portions 
 of the text, but added no new laws and no 
 new historical incidents. Delitzsch, in his 
 latest " Commentary on Genesis," does not 
 give exact dates for the various documents. 
 In 1880 he fixed the sources in the following 
 order: J; D (subsequent to Solomon, but prior 
 to Isaiah); the law of holiness; P (prior to 
 the Exile). Both P and D underwent modifi- 
 
 1 Uber die Kompositiou des Hexateuchs in Commen- 
 tar zu Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. 
 
AGE OF THE SOURCES. 65 
 
 cations subsequent to their original composi- 
 tion. Of the two principal documentary 
 forms, it is more probable that the Jehovistic- 
 Deuteronomic follows the old Mosaic type 
 than the Elohistic. P is younger than J. 
 The processes by which the Pentateuch was 
 brought into its present form continued until 
 after the post-exilian period. Ezra, in 444, 
 probably read only P in the presence of the 
 people. These are very important conces- 
 sions, and bring Delitzsch almost over to the 
 side of Wellhausen, 1 who places J in the 
 period of the prophets and kings who preceded 
 the dissolution of the two kingdoms. E is 
 younger, and E and J were later united into 
 EJ. D was composed in the period in which 
 it was discovered. The principal part of Le- 
 viticus xvii-xxvi was composed during the 
 Exile, subsequent to Ezekiel. P is not the 
 product of one author, but is the result of la- 
 bors extending through and beyond the Exile. 
 Only a careful, protracted, and painstaking 
 study of these views as to the relative and 
 absolute age of the sources of the Pentateuch 
 
 1 See mention of his works above. 
 5 
 
66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 will enable the reader to judge which is more 
 and which less radical. In fact, they are all 
 so much at variance with traditional opinion 
 as to leave but little choice between them. 
 All make the earliest sources, with but few 
 unimportant exceptions, the product of a 
 comparatively late age. All deny the author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch to Moses; and this is 
 the position of most other critics of Germany 
 and England. Almost without exception, they 
 believe in the Hexateuch ; and some even 
 trace the Pentateuchal sources beyond Joshua, 
 into Judges. 
 
 §8. Summary of the Argument for the 
 Date of D and P. 1 
 
 Intimations have been already given, but 
 it will be better to bring all the arguments 
 together here in brief. We begin with the 
 generally accepted theory of 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 The theory is that this book was written 
 later than the sources J, E. This is supported 
 
 1 Compare Driver's Introduction and Briggs's Higher 
 Criticism of the Hexateuch, 
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 67 
 
 on the ground that the legislation of Deuter- 
 onomy presupposes a more highly developed 
 civil organization than JE. The historical 
 books, in perfect accord with the foregoing 
 fact, give evidence that Deuteronomy was not 
 composed until after the establishment of the 
 monarchy. Deuteronomy forbids the offering 
 of sacrifice except at a single fixed place ; 
 while in Exodus xx, 24, many places of wor- 
 ship are implied. Now, in Joshua and First 
 and Second Samuel, the practice seems to have 
 been in accord with JE, and in conflict with 
 Deuteronomy. (Joshua xxiv, i, 26; 1 Sam. 
 vii, Qf., 17; ix, 12-14; x, 3, 5, 8; xi, 15; 
 xiv, 35 ; xx, 6; 2 Sam. xv, 12, 32.) According 
 to 2 Kings xxii, xxiii, Deuteronomy must 
 have been in existence as early as the 
 eighteenth year of King Josiah (B. C. 621). 
 That it is not much earlier, the critics main- 
 tain on the ground that the law of the king- 
 dom (Deut. xvii, 14 ff.) seems to have been in- 
 fluenced by facts of Solomon's reign ; that, 
 while Judges-Kings make no mention of the 
 worship of the " host of heaven," although de- 
 scribing various other forms of idolatry, Deu- 
 
68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 teronomy presupposes its practice ; that while 
 the earlier prophets — such as Amos, Hosea, and 
 i Isaiah — appear not to be influenced by Deu- 
 teronomy, Jeremiah, and other later prophets 
 exhibit marked traces of the book; that the 
 theology of Deuteronomy is more advanced 
 than could be expected in the early history of 
 Israel, while it approaches more nearly that 
 of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Yet Deuteronomy 
 must not be regarded as a forgery, since 
 Moses does not profess to be its author, 
 much of its matter is very ancient, and the 
 book is only an adaptation of older legislation 
 in the light of prophetic teaching. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AS TO THE PRIEST'S CODE. 
 
 The literature of the period prior to the 
 Exile shows no trace of the legislation of P. 
 In P, the place of sacrifice is strictly limited ; 
 in Judges and Samuel it is not so. In P, 
 only priests may offer sacrifice ; in Judges 
 and Samuel, laymen offer, without any protest 
 even from such men as Samuel and David. 
 In P, the arrangements for the care of the ark 
 are elaborate ; in Samuel they are very sim- 
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 69 
 
 pie. According to P, the ark could never 
 have been taken into battle as in 1 Samuel 
 i-iii. When the ark was restored to Kirjath- 
 Jearim, it was not in the hands of the persons 
 P prescribes as its exclusive protectors. So 
 also, when David removed it to Zion. (Com- 
 pare 2 Sam. vi, with Num. iii, 41; iv, 1-15). 
 Further, Deuteronomy seems to know nothing 
 of P. Had P been in existence when D wrote, 
 he must have made references to it. But while 
 Deuteronomy commands the centralization of 
 worship, P assumes that such is already the 
 case. In Deuteronomy, any man of the tribe 
 of Levi may exercise the right to sacrifice, if 
 he live at the central place of worship ; in P, 
 only the sons of Aaron may exercise this right ; 
 and, in all particulars, P shows greater de- 
 velopment than Deuteronomy, and hence ap- 
 pears to be later. 
 
 That P is also later than Bzekiel, at least 
 in some of its parts, is also maintained by the 
 extreme critical school. They claim that, 
 while P excluded all except sons of Aaron 
 from priestly rights, Ezekiel assumes (chapter 
 xliv, 13) that all Levites had exercised these 
 
70 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 privileges. Ezekiel now commands that only 
 the sons of Zadok, who alone had not idola- 
 trously worshiped at the high places, should 
 be clothed with the office of priests. Had he 
 known of P, he would not have reduced all 
 other Levites after admitting that they had 
 lawfully been priests. Rather he would have 
 pointed to the provisions of P as showing 
 that only the sons of Aaron could exercise 
 priestly rights. Besides, as Ezekiel's regula- 
 tions (chapters xl-xlviii) are more elaborate 
 than those of Deuteronomy, so P is more elabo- 
 rate than Ezekiel, showing that the order of age 
 is Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and P. The final ar- 
 gument is from the more pure conception of 
 God, and the generally evident marks of a 
 higher stage of culture, and freedom from 
 primitive conceptions in P. 
 
 But as Deuteronomy is not supposed to 
 have been an invention of the age of Josiah, 
 so P is, though a late composition, not in all 
 its parts equally late. It allows the great 
 antiquity of the principal parts of the Israel- 
 itish ritual. In fact, P is really in the main 
 a codification of temple usages which had 
 
THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS. 7 1 
 
 gradually grown up in the course of the cen- 
 turies, and it only changes these in certain of 
 their forms. Although Ezekiel is earlier than 
 P, yet Ezekiel presupposes some things con- 
 tained in P, particularly the L,aw of Holiness. 
 The arguments by which it is attempted to 
 fix the approximate date of the different in- 
 stitutions, the regulations concerning which 
 are codified in P, we can not give here. The 
 reader can not avoid observing the large place 
 thus given by the critics to evolutionary prin- 
 ciples in their conclusions. 
 
 §9. Criticism of the Prophetical Books. 
 
 It will be found more convenient to pass 
 over the books Joshua — Song of Solomon for 
 the present. But before taking up the pro- 
 phetical books in order, it may be well to 
 briefly summarize the results of criticism rel- 
 ative to the nature or function of Old Testa- 
 ment prophecy. Critics do not generally re- 
 gard prediction as the chief element of 
 prophecy. 1 The mere foretelling of future 
 
 1 So Orelli, The Prophecies of Isaiah ; Delitzsch, Com- 
 mentary on Isaiah ; Farrar, The Minor Prophets. 
 
72 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 events, with the details of time and place, 
 was too wanting in the moral and spiritual 
 purpose which distinguished the prophets. 
 Kuenen denies all inspired prediction in He- 
 brew prophecy. But the majority admit pre- 
 diction just as they admit miracle. Each 
 prediction, however, is to be examined by it- 
 self, by the application of grammatical and 
 historical tests, and it is no detriment to it it 
 not literally fulfilled; for the type can not in 
 the nature of the case equal the fulfillment, 
 and the prophets were limited in their em- 
 ployment of figures by the material which 
 their knowledge of the age in which they 
 lived and of the past furnished. Each pro- 
 phetic utterance has but one meaning, gen- 
 erally limited to the immediate environment 
 of the prophet. But criticism admits a sym- 
 bolism where it denies direct prediction. 1 This 
 does not give a prophetic passage a double 
 sense, but makes it possible to apply the same 
 words to the description of different events. 
 The prophets generally spoke of their predic- 
 tions as about to be fulfilled, showing that 
 
 1 Horton, Revelation and the Bible. 
 
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 73 
 
 they themselves did not know the times and 
 the seasons. Hence it is possible to deny 
 fulfillment to many of the prophecies if they 
 be taken in all literalness. If, however, they 
 be regarded not as advance descriptions of 
 historical events, but as utterances designed 
 to move upon the hearts of the auditors, they 
 can not be denied fulfillment. Besides, many 
 prophecies go unfulfilled because of a change 
 in the purpose of God or the conduct of man. 
 This is particularly true of the threatenings 
 and the promises. The main point to be no- 
 ticed is, that the denial of miracle goes hand 
 in hand with the denial of prediction. But 
 the conservative critic admits and emphasizes 
 
 both.. 
 
 § 10. The Book of Isaiah. 
 
 Critics are agreed in dividing this book 
 into three parts; namely: Chapters i-xxxv; 
 xxxvi-xxxix; xl-lxvi. The middle portion 
 is historical in its contents, and is believed to 
 be of much later origin than the first part. 
 The third part was not written by Isaiah, but 
 by the "Great Unknown," at the close of the 
 Exile. The first to question the unity of 
 
74 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Isaiah was Doderlein, in the latter part of the 
 last century, and his views were essentially 
 those of the critics of the present day. 
 
 The principal difficulties in the way of 
 supposing that Isaiah wrote the last twenty- 
 seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are: 
 i. The historical background} Throughout 
 all these chapters the writer assumes the ex- 
 istence of the Exile, but also its early end. 
 Judea has long lain waste, and Jerusalem and 
 the temple in ruins. Babylon has long op- 
 pressed Israel, but her dominion will soon 
 cease. The time of the Assyrian oppression 
 is in the distant past (chap, lii, 4 f.) These 
 assumptions are supposed to be incompatible 
 with the authorship by Isaiah, whose entire 
 prophecies are connected with the Assyrian 
 period. Were this part of Isaiah from the 
 same pen as the former part there would have 
 been some recognition of the change from 
 the Assyrian to the Babylonian rulership, and 
 some mention of the destruction of Jerusalem 
 and the captivity of the people. He could 
 not have supposed that, except from his own 
 
 1 Compare throughout, Dillmaun, Der Prophet Jesaia. 
 
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 75 
 
 pen, such an event would be anticipated. It 
 was difficult even in Jeremiah's day to make 
 such a possibility comprehensible to the na- 
 tion. Besides, every prophet aims to affect 
 his contemporaries; but the chapters in ques- 
 tion take up a situation wholly different from 
 that in which Isaiah lived. Furthermore, the 
 author of these chapters repeatedly refers to 
 prophecies of the very conditions he assumes 
 as existing. Isaiah could not have had such 
 prophecies before him, since they were first 
 uttered by Jeremiah and Habakkuk. 2. The 
 ideas and doctrines of the latter are wholly dif- 
 ferent from the former part. Not threats of 
 punishment on account of sin, but consolation 
 in the midst of affliction, and the prospect of 
 early release. Again, Isaiah assumes the noth- 
 ingness of the false gods, and the rulership of 
 Jehovah even over the heathen. His purpose 
 is to impress upon men's minds the thought 
 of God's holiness. The author of this por- 
 tion of Isaiah, on the other hand, makes it a 
 principal business to declare the true deity of 
 Jehovah to his people and to all the world. 
 3. The literary style of this is different from the 
 
76 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 former part. Of this argument no illustration 
 need be given here. 
 
 But it is not held by the critics that the 
 first thirty-five chapters are all Isaian. The 
 majority exclude from the true Isaian por- 
 tions chapters xiii-xiv, 23; xxiv-xxvii; xxxiv. 
 It may be helpful to give the arguments, at 
 least in the case of xiii-xiv, 23. This is re- 
 garded as having been composed in the period 
 of the Babylonian exile, for the following rea- 
 sons: 1. Every prophecy must have an occasion 
 to call it forth. No prophet speaks except as 
 the situation in which he is placed demands 
 it. In chapter xiii, 6, 22, the occasion which 
 prompts this prophecy is stated to be the 
 nearness of the judgment upon Babylon, 
 which was to bring the release of Israel. God 
 has his instruments ready (xiii, 3 f.) in the 
 Medes (xiii, 17). But such a situation never 
 existed in the time of Isaiah. 2. The histor- 
 ical background lies far from the ti7ne of Isaiah. 
 Nothing is said of Assyria. Babylon is the 
 ruler who has long trodden Israel under foot 
 without pity (xiv, 1 f.) Isaiah has never 
 mentioned the transfer of authority to Baby- 
 
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 77 
 
 Ion, nor announced the Exile. Whoever wrote 
 these chapters simply and unannounced takes 
 his standpoint in the Babylonian exile. 
 3. The spirit and tone of these chapters proves 
 the same. The author makes no attempt to 
 hide his joy at the speedy fall of Babylon; 
 and pictures with delight the terrible fate of 
 Babylon, its inhabitants, and its ruler. He 
 expresses the bitterest irony upon the antici- 
 pated humiliation of the tyrant. Such a 
 sentiment would be explicable in one who 
 had experienced the wretchedness of the Ex- 
 ile, but not in Isaiah, who never spoke thus 
 even of the Assyrians. 4. A final argument 
 is drawn from the literary style, which, how- 
 ever, is not as strong as the others. 
 
 It is not our purpose here to answer, or 
 even weigh the conclusions reached by criti- 
 cism. For this the reader is recommended 
 to any of the excellent introductions to the 
 study of the Holy Scripture. Our task is 
 merely to set forth, as briefly as possible, the 
 most generally accepted results of recent 
 criticism. 
 
78 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 §11. Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 
 
 The chief critical problems concerning 
 Jeremiah pertain to its relation to the text of 
 the Septuagint, and to the genuineness of cer- 
 tain portions (x, 1-16; xxv, n''-i4"; xxvii, 
 7, 16-21; xxxiii, 14-26; xxxix, I, 2, 4-13; 
 1; li), opinions being divided.' The Sep- 
 tuagint text is almost always shorter where 
 it differs from the Massoretic ; but it is 
 generally agreed- that the Massoretic text is 
 preferable. Kiihl says: "The principal di- 
 vergences of the Septuagint from the Massora 
 must be charged to the translator — divergen- 
 ces so deliberate that we can not attribute 
 them to a transcriber, but only to a trans- 
 lation." 
 
 Ezekiel 2 is of special interest to-day be- 
 cause the newer critical school places it earlier 
 than the Priests' Code, for which it prepared 
 the way. As a priest, Ezekiel might well be 
 
 1 See Zockler's Handbuch der Theologischeu Wissen- 
 schaften. 
 
 2 Compare von Orelli, in Strack and Zockler's Kurzge- 
 fasstes Kominentar. 
 
JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL. 79 
 
 supposed to have known the temple ritual 
 prior to the Exile. The provisions made by 
 Ezekiel for the temple service recognize some 
 things forbidden by P; for example, the rights 
 of Levites in connection with the temple. 
 (Chapter xliv, 10, 13.) On the other hand, 
 there is every reason to believe that the Law of 
 Holiness was known to Ezekiel. The lan- 
 guage in chapter iv, 14, indicates this; with 
 which compare Leviticus xxii, 8. Many other 
 passages might be adduced. (See list in 
 Driver's Introduction, p. 139.) Some, indeed, 
 see so much and so many resemblances be- 
 tween Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness that 
 they have concluded that the prophecy and 
 H were both by one author; but, while the 
 evidence of this is strong, it has not met even 
 with general favor, on account of differences 
 of style and matter. Thus parts, but not 
 all, of P were known to Ezekiel. Since the 
 relation of Ezekiel to P has been already 
 treated, however, we follow the subject no 
 further here. The genuineness of Ezekiel 
 throughout is almost universally admitted. 
 
80 the higher criticism. 
 
 §12. The Minor Prophets. 
 
 We pass by the Book of Daniel for the 
 present, reserving it for subsequent special 
 mention. Kuenen gives the chronological 
 order of the prophets as follows : 
 
 i. B. C. 900-850. Pre- Assyrian Period — 
 Amos, Hosea, Joel (?). 
 
 2. B. C. 850-700. The Assyrian Period — 
 Micah, Isaiah. 
 
 3. B. C. 626-586. The Chaldean Period— 
 Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, the 
 elder Zechariah (see under Zechariah below), 
 Obadiah. 
 
 4. B. C. 586-536. The Exile— Ezekiel. 
 
 5. B. C. 520-400. The Post-Exilic Proph- 
 ets — Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi. 
 
 Of the prophets of the first period, we 
 may pass by Amos and Hosea, since there are 
 no very important critical questions raised 
 concerning them. Joel, 1 however, is under 
 dispute. The more conservative critics place 
 his prophecies in the first decade of Joash, 
 
 1 See Farrar, Minor Prophets, and von Orelli in Strack 
 and Zockler, Kurzgefasstes Kommentar. 
 
THE MINOR PROPHETS. 8 1 
 
 basing this early date upon the fact that he 
 seemed to know nothing of Syrian or Assyr- 
 ian oppressions, and represented the foes of 
 Judah as Phoenicians, Philistines, Egyptians, 
 and Edomites ; and further upon the apparent 
 knowledge of Joel's prophecy exhibited by 
 Amos. (Compare Amos i, 2, with Joel iv, 16 ; 
 and Amos ix, 13, with Joel iv, 18.) 
 
 But the adherents of the modern views of 
 the Pentateuch generally place the prophecy 
 of Joel subsequent to the Exile. The princi- 
 pal arguments upon which they base this 
 view are, that the prophecy makes no mention 
 of the Northern Kingdom, which would 
 scarcely have been possible in the days of 
 Joash ; that he does not condemn idolatry, 
 one of the chief sins of the times of the 
 Kings; and that he makes no mention of the 
 High Places, so frequently rebuked by the 
 early prophets. Chiefly, however, their de- 
 pendence is upon the theology, eschatology, 
 and ritualism of Joel, all of which are said 
 to be post-exilic, rather than exilic or pre- 
 exilic. It is also supposed that his references 
 
 to the elders and inhabitants of the land, and 
 
 6 
 
82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 not to the kings and princes, as was usual 
 with the prophets, point to the very state of 
 organization which obtained under the Per- 
 sians. Furthermore, Joel iii, i, and iii, 17, are 
 interpreted as direct references to the Baby- 
 lonish Captivity. It will be seen that the 
 principal arguments for the late date are simi- 
 lar to those which decide the late origin of 
 the Priests' Code in the Pentateuch. 
 
 The only other book demanding mention 
 
 here is 
 
 §13. Zechariah.' 
 
 It is uniformly agreed that chapters i-viii 
 were written after the return from the Exile, 
 and that the author was a contemporary of 
 Haggai; but as early as 1638, English theo- 
 logians suspected that the later chapters must 
 be attributed to another author. What aroused 
 their suspicion was the reference of a proph- 
 ecy in Zechariah to Jeremiah by Matthew 
 xxvii, 9. One hundred and fifty years later 
 (1784), Pastor Flugge, of Hamburg, in an 
 anonymous work, supported the supposition 
 that chapters ix-xiv did not originate with 
 1 See works referred to under Joel. 
 
ZECHAR1AH. 83 
 
 Zechariah. Since then this view has been 
 generally maintained by critics. Many are 
 also inclined to make the authorship of the 
 last six chapters twofold, attributing ix-xi to 
 a contemporary of Hosea, and xii-xiv to a 
 writer who lived but a short time prior to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. The style of ix-xi 
 is different from i-viii; its view of the temple 
 and its ordinances, and its references to moral 
 conditions are also different. There is no 
 trace of the angelology of the first eight chap- 
 ters; the death of Josiah is recent (xii, 1) ; 
 the people are still idolatrous (x, 2), which 
 was not the case after the Exile. Thus, if 
 we think of ix-xi as pre-exilic, and of i-viii 
 as post-exilic, we can more easily explain these 
 divergences of view. The author of xii-xiv 
 anticipates some terrible disaster. Jerusalem 
 will be dishonored (xiv, 2). This probably 
 referred to the coming siege and destruction 
 of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, 
 instead of one Zechariah we have three, as 
 we have three parts in Isaiah instead of one. 
 If such a severing of what seems to the or- 
 dinary reader a unit is condemned as unjusti- 
 
84 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 fiable, the critic is ready with, a reply. He 
 affirms that written prophecies were often 
 anonymous; that they were first collected 
 into the canon subsequent to the Exile; that, 
 meantime, traditions as to authorship had 
 become untrustworthy; and that therefore 
 when we find four books of prophecy in the 
 Hebrew canon — namely, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, and the book of the twelve proph- 
 ets — we dare not safely assume that all the 
 prophecies which lie between a name and the 
 name following are the product of the pen of 
 the first. If differences of style, matter, his- 
 torical groundwork, and the like, show them- 
 selves in any considerable degree, the evidence 
 of different authorship from these sources is 
 stronger than that of a single authorship from 
 their place in the canon. To put it in plain 
 words, those who formed the canon did the 
 best they knew, but their knowledge of the 
 authors was no better than ours; while the 
 fact that they followed tradition without crit- 
 ical scrutiny renders their conclusions less 
 trustworthy than those of the well-equipped 
 critic of our dav. 
 
the book of jonah. 85 
 
 § 14. The Book of Jonah. 1 
 
 That this book is the work of Jonah, the 
 son of Atnittai (2 Kings xiv, 25), is universally 
 denied by the critics. It is generally believed 
 to have been composed during or subsequent 
 to the Exile, this opinion being based chiefly 
 upon the language used. It is pointed out 
 that there is nothing in the book to suggest 
 Jonah as its author, but that Nineveh being 
 spoken of in the past tense (chapter iii, 3), in- 
 dicates a composition long after the time of 
 the events described. Some have supposed 
 that the whole story is a pure fiction, perhaps 
 in imitation of a heathen myth; but perhaps 
 the majority are of the opinion that the author 
 at least employed an old tradition of a mission 
 of Jonah to Nineveh, during which he expe- 
 rienced some unusual adventures. The ra- 
 tionalists explained the miracle of the fish as 
 a dream, or took the fish for the sign of some 
 ship which picked Jonah up, and after three 
 days set him upon dry land. The modern 
 critic either regards it as a pure fiction, or 
 
 1 See works referred to under Joel. 
 
86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 allows more or less of historical reality in the 
 story. All are agreed that it is not prophecy, 
 a conclusion which a moment's thought will 
 support ; and all are agreed that the book has 
 for its object something outside of the mere 
 relation of the events described. As to what 
 that object is, opinions differ. There are those 
 who think it intended to justify God in send- 
 ing his prophets with predictions against the 
 heathen which were subsequently unfulfilled. 
 Others think the book a lesson to the proph- 
 ets, w r ho are thereby instructed in their office, 
 the nature of prophecy, and the conditions of 
 fulfillment. But the most generally accepted 
 view is, that it is intended to teach God's care 
 of the heathen, and to rebuke the Jews for 
 their narrowness and bigotry. 
 
 § 15. The Book of Daniel. 1 
 
 The traditional view of the date and 
 authorship of Daniel, though still represented 
 by some eminent names among the critics, is 
 yielded by the vast majority, and for the fol- 
 
 
 1 See Zockler's Haiidbuch der Theologischen Wisseii- 
 scliafteu and Meinhold in Kurzgefasstes Koinmentar. 
 
THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 87 
 
 lowing reasons: 1. The place of the book in the 
 Hebrew canon. The second part of this canon 
 contained the prophets ; but Daniel is not 
 placed among them. On the contrary, he is 
 placed among the books of the third collec- 
 tion, which was formed at a late period. 2. 
 Daniel is not mentioned in the list of prophetic 
 writings given by Jesus, the son of Sirach y 
 who, writing about the year 200 B. C, men- 
 tions, in his chapters xliv-1, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, 
 but not Daniel. 3. Linguistic considerations. 
 Chapters ii, 4'— vii are written in Aramaic, 
 which was hardly known to the Jews earlier 
 than the Persian period. Furthermore, the 
 style of this portion is the Aramaic of Pales- 
 tine, not of Babylon — a fact which points to 
 the composition in Palestine, and, hence, 
 after the Babylonian Exile. Besides, the name 
 given to the wise men (0^2) points to a period 
 when, the Chaldean kingdom having been de- 
 stroyed, only the magi remained, to whom 
 was applied the title belonging to the whole 
 nation. Especially weighty is the evidence 
 from the fact that Persian words are placed 
 
58 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 in the mouth even of Nebuchadnezzar, which 
 could only be done by an author who had en- 
 tirely forgotten their Persian origin. The 
 late origin of the book is also deduced from 
 the Greek names of musical instruments, 
 which could only have been learned after the 
 invasion of the East by Alexander the Great. 
 Linguistic considerations also prevail in those 
 parts which are written in Hebrew, comprising 
 chapters i, viii-xii, the unskillful handling of 
 the language indicating that it was, at the 
 time of the writing, either dead or dying. 
 4. Arguments drawn from the contents of the 
 book. Chapter ix, 1, presupposes a collection 
 of sacred Scriptures which included Jeremiah; 
 but such a collection could hardly have been 
 in use in the time of the Exile. Then the 
 mention of the names and orders of angels, 
 and the reference to national guardian angels 
 (x, 13, 20; xi, 1; xii, 1), indicates a develop- 
 ment of angelology not probable in the time 
 of the Exile, but suitable for the Maccabaean 
 period. Further, the other prophets made the 
 end of the Babylonian exile and the beginning 
 of the Messianic kingdom identical, while in 
 
THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 89 
 
 Daniel the redemption of Israel is placed in 
 the distant future. Besides, the author seems 
 to have no message for the people of his own 
 times — as prophets usually did — on the suppo- 
 sition that he lived in the period of the Exile ; 
 but if he be supposed to have written in the age 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes, then his minute de- 
 scription of events down to that age, and the 
 indistinctness subsequent thereto, are easily 
 accounted for. 
 
 As to attributing the book to Daniel, the 
 author simply did what was common in his 
 time. Those who did it had no thought of 
 forgery, as we understand it. Besides, he was 
 not writing a canonical book. Nevertheless, 
 the Jews did well to receive it into the canon, 
 since in the time of the Maccabees it was a 
 source of great religious stimulus. The book 
 is supposed to rest upon old traditions con- 
 cerning Daniel, and. perhaps to have been 
 written, in part, not earlier than B. C. 300. 
 The purpose of this Aramaic document was 
 to strengthen the courage of the Jews in per- 
 secution by the example of Daniel. This was 
 wrought into the later Maccabsean document, 
 
90 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the object of the whole also being encourage- 
 ment to faithfulness in trial. 
 
 §16. The Psalms. 1 
 
 For convenience, we give here the divisions 
 of the five books of the Psalter. The first 
 book contains Psalms i-xli; the second, 
 xlii-lxxii ; the third, lxxiii-lxxxix ; the fourth, 
 xc-cvi ; the fifth, cvii-cl. It has been sup- 
 posed that this division was made to corre- 
 spond to the five books of the Law; but, as 
 we shall see, it had another origin. 
 
 Psalms are attributed by the superscrip- 
 tions attached to them to David, Moses, Solo- 
 man, Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and the sons of 
 Korah. The value to be attached to these 
 superscriptions is in dispute. Most critics 
 unhesitatingly pronounce it impossible that 
 David should have written all the Psalms as- 
 cribed to him in the Psalter. They claim 
 that, in many cases, the language employed 
 decides ; in other cases, the historical condi- 
 
 1 Hupfeld. Die Psalmen ; and T. K. Chevne. The Psalms ; 
 also Driver, Introduction; and H. P. Smith, in Biblical 
 Scholarship, etc. 
 
THE PSALMS. 9 1 
 
 tions revealed are such as do not suit the 
 times in which David lived. But if some of 
 these superscriptions are thus proved unwor- 
 thy of credence, we have no assurance, with- 
 out special examination in each case, that 
 any of the others are trustworthy. It is 
 asserted that the L,XX treated these super- 
 scriptions with a freedom which indicated 
 that they did not regard them as fixed ; that 
 those who attached them were probably not 
 the authors themselves, but later editors ; 
 that in so doing they did not, in all cases, 
 mean to designate the author, but rather to 
 indicate that they were taken from collections 
 in possession of those who claimed descent 
 from David, or Asaph, or some other. Thus, 
 while the compiler only meant to place at the 
 head of each Psalm a reminder of the source 
 from which he had taken it, the later genera- 
 tions understood it to mean that it was com- 
 posed by the one whose name it bore. 
 
 The followers of the extreme Pentateuchal 
 criticism deny the Davidic origin of almost 
 every Psalm ascribed to him, and make the 
 Psalms the products of the late post-exilic 
 
92 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 period, some even dating the larger part of 
 the Psalter in the Maccabsean period. They 
 point to the fact that in the earlier books of 
 the canon — as Samuel and Kings — David is 
 represented as a player, but not as a composer. 
 They emphasize the frequency of the supposed 
 antithesis in the Psalms between the godly 
 and the godless, and affirm that such an antag- 
 onism was never distinctly marked until the 
 beginning of the persecution under Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, when the true servants of God had 
 to struggle against their heathen oppressors 
 and their apostate brethren. 
 
 But a more conservative criticism, while 
 not denying the late origin of some of the 
 Psalms, arranges the order somewhat as fol- 
 lows : i. A collection of Davidic Psalms, be- 
 ginning with Psalm iii, and distinguished by 
 the prevailing use of the name Jehovah (or 
 Jahveh) for God. 2. A collection of Psalms 
 of Korah, in which the name Elohim is 
 used for God. (Psalms xlii-xlix.) 3. These 
 were united by an editor who added an Elo- 
 him Psalm of Asaph (the fiftieth), a number 
 of Elohim Psalms by David (li-lxxi), and 
 
THE PSALMS. 93 
 
 then the Solomonic Psalm lxxii. He also 
 prefixed an ancient Messianic Psalm (our 
 second Psalm), and possibly composed Psalm i 
 as an introduction to all. If so, he must 
 have written prior to Jeremiah, to whom 
 Psalm i was known. 4. The third book, 
 judging from Psalms lxxiv and lxxix, may 
 have come into existence subsequent to the 
 Babylonian exile ; and the collector of these 
 Psalms was not identical with the editor 
 who united the first two books. 5. The 
 work of still another collector begins with 
 the fourth book, which contains but two 
 Psalms (ci and ciii) with the names of the 
 authors attached, both of which the Hebrew 
 canon attributes to David. 6. The fifth book 
 is from still another collector. It contains fif- 
 teen Davidic Psalms and one Solomonic Psalm. 
 This collector is supposed to be also the final 
 editor, having supplied the doxologies which 
 mark the close of each of the first four books 
 of the Psalter. Those who deny the Macca- 
 baean date of any of the Psalms think the 
 final editor lived in the time of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah. 
 
94 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 While the critics deny the binding force of 
 the titles which profess to give either the 
 liturgical or historical occasion of the compo- 
 sition or the names of the authors of the 
 Psalms, yet the more conservative are dis- 
 posed to defend those who attached these 
 titles from the charge of arbitrary guesswork, 
 and to believe that they represent very old 
 tradition. As to the authorship of seventy- 
 three Psalms ascribed to David in our Psalter, 
 Hitzig, who thinks most of the Psalms were 
 composed in the period of the Maccabees, al- 
 lows that David wrote fourteen. Ewald only 
 gives him eleven entire Psalms, and some 
 parts of four others (xix, 2-7; lx, 8-1 1; lxviii, 
 14-19; cxliv, 12-14). Delitzsch thinks forty- 
 four are Davidic, and holds that Psalms lxxiv 
 and lxxix are from the time of the Maccabees; 
 possibly also Psalm cxxiii. 
 
 As to the value of the Psalms, the critics 
 generally agree that few are truly prophetic; 
 even conservatives limiting the Messianic 
 Psalms to the second and the one hundred 
 and tenth, while Psalms xxii, xlv, lxix, lxxii, 
 may be regarded as typical-prophetical. Some 
 
THE PSALMS. 95 
 
 few others are classed as merely typical, as 
 xli, 10. The Law and the Prophets gave the 
 rule for conduct; the Psalms give the experi- 
 ences of those who endeavored to conform 
 themselves to the standard of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The Psalms do not, according to the 
 critics, give us a standard by which we may 
 regulate our experiences. They must each 
 be judged by their approach to the spirit of 
 Christ. The Psalms exhibit, not what a Chris- 
 tian should be, but what piety was in the light 
 of the revelation granted in pre-Christian 
 times. It is assumed that as the revelation 
 was not so pure and complete, the religious 
 life could not be so exalted as under the Gos- 
 pel dispensation. This denies the distinctive 
 inspiration of the thoughts and feelings ex- 
 pressed in the Psalms, and makes them the 
 portrayal of the religious consciousness of 
 those who were trained under the Law and the 
 Prophets. 
 
96 the higher criticism. 
 
 §17. The Book of Proverbs. 
 Strack 1 divides the book into nine parts: 
 I. Superscription (i, 1-6) and Motto (v. 7). 
 II. Introductions (i, 8-ix). 
 
 III. First collection of Solomonic proverbs, 
 
 designated S I (x-xxii, 16). 
 
 IV. First appendix (xxii, 17-xxiv, 22), Words 
 
 of the Wise. 
 V. Second appendix (xxiv, 23-34), also 
 
 Words of the Wise. 
 VI. Second collection of Solomonic proverbs, 
 designated S II (xxv-xxix). 
 VII. First supplement (xxx), Words of Agur 
 
 the son of Jakeh. 
 VIII. Second supplement (xxxi, 1-9), Words 
 of King Lemuel. 
 IX. Third supplement (xxxi, 10-31), Praise 
 of a virtuous woman. 
 
 Of all these parts the only ones generally 
 recognized as Solomonic are III and VI. It is 
 claimed that none of the rest professes to 
 have been written by the wise king. That 
 
 1 In Zockler's Haudbuch der Theologischen Wissen- 
 schaften. 
 
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. 97 
 
 there are many expressions in I and II which 
 are identical with those in III is admitted; 
 but this is explained by the supposition that 
 the author of the former was the collector of 
 III, to whose style of thought and language 
 he conformed himself as much as possible. 
 Against the Solomonic origin of I and II it is 
 urged that they contain a series of expressions 
 not found in III nor VI, and, indeed, not else- 
 where in the Bible. To the words of chapter 
 i, 1, the collector added a long introduction, 
 as a comparison with chapter x, 1, shows. 
 Delitzsch and Kuenen have both shown that 
 there is a relationship between I and II and 
 Deuteronomy. Attention is also called to the 
 fact that there is a dependence between Job 
 and I, II, and III. Some, however, think that 
 the collector of I, II, and III used Job, rather 
 than the reverse. 
 
 That Solomon wrote proverbs is settled by 
 1 Kings v, 9-13. In III and VI are found five 
 hundred of his three thousand proverbs. The 
 Solomonic authorship of III is proved by chap- 
 ter x, 1, in connection with chapter i, 1, and 
 by xxv, 1, on the supposition that the men of 
 
98 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Hezekiah there mentioned knew III. All the 
 proverbs of III are composed of two lines, the 
 form supposed to be earliest in use for pro- 
 verbial writing. Yet III did not come from 
 Solomon in its present form; for the proverbs 
 it contains are not arranged according to any 
 consistently applied principle, but seem in 
 most cases to follow each other as accident 
 happened. Hence it is presumed that III 
 must have gradually grown up, partly from 
 the noting down of the proverbs as remem- 
 bered by the people, and partly from written 
 sources. Furthermore, each verse of III is an 
 independent proverb, which is not the case 
 with VI. This leads to the supposition that 
 some one, whose literary tastes were less va- 
 ried than Solomon's, collected III. In addi- 
 tion, the repetitions of word and thought are 
 so numerous in III as to forbid the supposi- 
 tion that Solomon himself made the collec- 
 tion. He might often have repeated himself 
 in three thousand proverbs, but he would 
 hardly have done so in a collection of the 
 three hundred and seventy-five in III. It is 
 also supposed that in III there are some post- 
 
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. 99 
 
 Solomonic proverbs, the principal proof being 
 founded on a comparison of the Hebrew and 
 LXX text. Various dates are given for the 
 collection of III, but it is generally agreed to 
 have been during the period of the early 
 kings. 
 
 The Solomonic origin of the proverbs of 
 VI has been disputed by Ewald on the ground 
 that the earliest form of Hebrew verse was 
 composed of two lines, and the attempt to 
 make it appear that Solomon wrote only an- 
 tithetical proverbs in this form. This is an- 
 swered by the fact that we can not suppose 
 Solomon to have been mentally so poor as 
 only to write in one style. It must be ad- 
 mitted, however, that VI is very different from 
 III in several respects. The form of the 
 verses is different; the parabolic (emblematic) 
 manner of expression is frequently found here, 
 and only twice in III; while in VI the dark 
 side of the monarchy is emphasized in con- 
 trast with III, which sees only its bright side. 
 But all this is explicable on the supposition 
 that we have in VI more post-Solomonic prov- 
 erbs.. According to xxv, 1, a commission 
 
IOO THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 formed by Hezekiah copied VI. An attempt 
 has been made to show by the repetitions in 
 VI of proverbs in III that the men of Heze- 
 kiah did not know III; but these repetitions 
 are so few in number as to make the suppo- 
 sition necessary that they knew it, and knew 
 that it was widely employed, or else they 
 would have repeated far more than they did. 
 
 As to IV, its non-Solomonic origin is sup- 
 posed to be proved by chapter xxii, 17, which 
 seems to attribute what follows to a variety of 
 wise men. Delitzsch supposed it to have 
 sprung from the author of I and II and col- 
 lector of III. Others think that this collector 
 found IV ready prepared, and joined it to his 
 I, II, and III. The first verse of V is supposed 
 to show that it is from another collector. 
 The similarity of its beginning with that of 
 xxv, i, is evidence that it was placed here by 
 the one who united I, II, III, IV, and VI, his 
 purpose being to prevent the proverbs it con- 
 tained from being lost. 
 
 The author of II is presumed to be the 
 same as the author of I. We still have to 
 deal with VII, VIII, and IX. Neither Agur nor 
 
THE BOOK OF JOB. I O I 
 
 Jakeh are known outside of VII; but they 
 must have been Israelites, since verse 5 is de- 
 pendent upon the Davidic Psalm xviii, 31, and 
 verse 6 upon Deuteronomy iv, 2; xiii, 1. 
 Verses 1-4 emphasize the insufficiency of hu- 
 man knowledge, which had been done long 
 before. The author is supposed to have lived 
 subsequently to Hezekiah. As to VIII, it was 
 certainly written outside Palestine, if the 
 translation of the superscription proposed by 
 Hitzig and maintained by Delitzsch and 
 others shall finally prevail, making Lemuel 
 king of Massa. It is yet in dispute. The 
 third supplement (IX) is in the form of an 
 alphabetic song. It presupposes a carefully 
 ordered civil state, nourishing trade relations, 
 and the cultivation of the soil as a principal 
 occupation. It was probably written in the 
 time of Hezekiah. In order to bring all these 
 parts together, one final editor must be as- 
 sumed. 
 
 § 18. The Book of Job. 1 
 
 Among the critical conclusions reached by 
 some is the idea that the book is intended to 
 
 1 Volck, Das Buch Hiob, in Kurzgefasstes Konimeruar. 
 
102 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 describe the sufferings of the Israelitish people 
 during the Babylonian exile. To this it is 
 answered that, if for no other reason, this 
 opinion must be rejected, because Job (the 
 Israelites, on this supposition) denies all guilt 
 or self-censure in connection with his suffer- 
 ing. He is, in his own estimation and in that 
 of God, an innocent sufferer; but Israel, in 
 the Exile, suffered because of its sins. 
 
 The great majority of critics hold to the 
 belief that the author had for the basis of his 
 work a tradition which more or less completely 
 corresponded to reality. It is, of course, 
 impossible to tell how closely the author ad- 
 hered to this tradition ; but it is almost uni- 
 versally conceded that the book is not a pure 
 fiction. His long life (one hundred and forty 
 years subsequent to his great affliction) ; the 
 mention of coins known to us from the history 
 of Jacob and Joshua (Gen. xxxiii, 19 ; Josh. 
 xxiv, 32) in chapter xlii, 11 ; the fact that the 
 only musical instruments mentioned are those 
 mentioned in Genesis, indicates that Job lived 
 in the early patriarchal time ; but his peculiar 
 use of names to designate the Deity shows 
 
THE BOOK OF JOB. 1 03 
 
 that he lived and moved outside the Israel- 
 itish fold. 
 
 The principal part which has been re- 
 garded as spurious is the chapters xxxii- 
 xxxvii, containing the speeches of Elihu. 
 The reasons for regarding them as the work 
 of a later hand are: 1. That they seem not 
 to fit into the general plan of the poem. 
 Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue among 
 those present. Also in the epilogue, when 
 God expresses his judgment of what has been 
 said, Elihu is not mentioned ; nor is any 
 reference found in any part of the book to 
 what Elihu has here said. The passage can 
 be removed bodily, and never be missed in 
 the argument. 2. On the other hand, the pas- 
 sage disturbs the unity of the whole. It says 
 beforehand some things found in Jehovah's ad- 
 dress, and repeats much said by the friends. 
 When God speaks in chapter xxxviii, he as- 
 sumes that Job has just finished, so that the 
 passage in question destroys the connection 
 between chapters xxxi and xxxviii. 3. It 
 differs in language from the other portions of 
 the book. 4. Elihu introduces himself, which 
 
104 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 excites our suspicion, while the subscript fol- 
 lowing xxxi, 40, makes the section evidently 
 an addition. 
 
 Both the prologue (chapters i and ii) and 
 the epilogue (chapter xlii, 7 ff.) have been at- 
 tacked; but the majority regard them as nec- 
 essary to the poem, and to its understanding 
 by the reader. Opinions are divided concern- 
 ing the genuineness of chapters xl, 15-xli, 26. 
 It is attacked chiefly on the ground that it is 
 in bad taste. Studer (in Jahrb. fiir prot. 
 Theol., 1875) tried to prove that the original 
 Job is found in chapters xxix; xxx; iii, 3-xxvii, 
 7 ; xxxi ; and that it was subsequently edited 
 and reconstructed five different times. This 
 view has now no followers. 
 
 The book has been attributed to Moses, 
 Solomon, Baruch, and Job ; but there is noth- 
 ing except supposition in favor of any name. 
 That it was written by Moses is now almost 
 universally disputed, because it evidently was 
 written later than his period. All that is 
 known of the development of Hebrew litera- 
 ture speaks against so early a date. The 
 mistake arose from the confusing of the poet 
 
THE BOOK OF JOB. 105 
 
 with the hero of the poem, the time described 
 with the period in which the author lived. 
 On the other hand, but few now place the 
 book so late as the exilian period. This view 
 was defended chiefly on the ground that the 
 Satanology of the book is too developed for 
 an earlier period ; but most critics think there 
 is no connection between the Satan of the 
 Book of Job and the Parsee doctrine of angels. 
 In favor of the Solomonic period, it has been 
 urged that the book displays a remarkable 
 fullness of knowledge of nature suitable to 
 that period ; also that Proverbs i-ix seems to 
 be dependent upon Job. Besides, it has been 
 said that such a book as Job, so full of reflec- 
 tion and so carefully planned, must belong to 
 the period of highest literary culture. But 
 unless Proverbs i-ix was written at least in 
 the time of Jehoshaphat, there is no proof from 
 the literary connection between Proverbs and 
 Job ; besides, the period of high literary activ- 
 ity was not confined to the time of David and 
 Solomon. 
 
 Since Jeremiah xx shows that Jeremiah 
 had Job iii before him when he wrote, it is 
 
106 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 plain that Job was not written later than Jere- 
 miah. From Job xii, 14-25, where the refer- 
 ence is to a captivity of a nation, it may be 
 presumed that there is an example first in 
 the Assyrian period, and, hence, that the book 
 may have been written about 700 B. C. 
 This is perhaps the most generally accepted 
 date. 
 
 The date of the interpolation of chapters 
 xxxii-xxxvii can not be fixed. 
 
 §19. ECCLESIASTES. 1 
 
 While some see in this book a dialogue 
 between two persons of different opinions 
 concerning the subject in hand, others see in 
 it only a succession of contradictory thoughts 
 held together by the constantly recurring idea 
 that all is vanity. Some have thought that 
 the book fell into two parts, a theoretical and 
 a practical — the former including chapters 
 i-iv, 16; the latter, chapters iv, 17-xii, 7. 
 But while these sections bear respectively the 
 general character thus assigned them, yet the 
 
 1 Volck, Der Prediger Salomo, in Kurzgefasstes Kom- 
 mentar. 
 
ECCLESIASTES. 1 07 
 
 theoretical and the practical are well repre- 
 sented in both parts. Perhaps the most satis- 
 factory view is, that it is not a systematic 
 presentation of the theme, but that the author 
 simply utters the feelings of his heart as they 
 come to him, thus speaking from his very 
 soul. 
 
 Some have found in the book a philosoph- 
 ical tendency — a search after the highest good, 
 or for that which is permanent in the midst 
 of the evanescent and changeful. Some have 
 thought they saw a dependence of the author 
 upon the Epicurean and Stoic philosophy. 
 Others have thought the book skeptical in 
 tendency, while the school of Schopenhauer 
 have found their pessimism in its first four 
 chapters. Still others find the book written 
 with a practical religious purpose. This is 
 perhaps the most satisfactory opinion. 
 
 The idea that it was written by Solomon 
 is almost wholly abandoned by recent critics. 
 The language of the book is regarded as pos- 
 itive evidence of very late composition; but 
 when the attempt to fix the exact period of its 
 composition is made, opinions divide. All 
 
108 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 agree that it is post-exilian. But it is held 
 that while the language of Malachi is still a 
 pure Hebrew, that of Ecclesiastes shows dis- 
 tinct traces of the Aramaic and of the idioms 
 of the Mishna. So that the book must be 
 later than the time of Malachi. The author 
 speaks of the power, the caprice, and the vo- 
 luptuousness of the rulers. This corresponds 
 to the later period of the Persian rule. Some 
 have thought that the book was written in 
 Alexandria; but others object to this that 
 chapters xi, 3 f., and xii, 2, presuppose a coun- 
 try in which the rain frequently falls, and in 
 which the fruitfulness of the earth is depend- 
 ent upon the rain, which is not the case with 
 Egypt. On the other hand, chapter i, 7, does 
 not conflict with the idea of its Palestinian 
 origin; while v, 1, implies the presence of the 
 temple, and viii, 10, the existence of holy 
 places, and x, 15, nearness at least to the city 
 of Jerusalem. Formerly it was customary to 
 dispute both the unity and integrity of the 
 book; but both are now generally recognized. 
 Only a few small portions are in doubt; viz., 
 the epilogue (xii, -9-14); xi, 9/; xii, i a ; and 
 
ECCLESIASTES. 109 
 
 xii, 7. Concerning the epilogue it is declared 
 that it is superfluous and without object; that 
 while in the other portions of the book the 
 author speaks in the first person, here the 
 third person is employed; that here he repre- 
 sents piety and the fear of God as the goal of 
 all true endeavor, in contradiction to the pre- 
 vious recommendation of enjoyment as the 
 highest good ; that the representation of a last 
 judgment in verse 14 contradicts the former 
 denial of immortality; and that it was not 
 true in the time of the Persian epoch, when 
 the book is supposed to have been written, 
 that it was a book-making period. To all 
 this the defenders of xii, 9-14, reply that there 
 is no ground for the last assertion ; and that, 
 properly understood, the contradictions urged 
 disappear. 
 
 Let it be observed that, while almost all 
 deny the authorship to Solomon, it is agreed 
 that the real author attributes it to the wise 
 king. 
 
iio the higher criticism. 
 
 §20. The Song of Solomon. 1 
 
 Two views concerning the nnity of this 
 book obtain to the present day. According to 
 the first, it is not a unit, but a series of love- 
 songs, strung loosely together. Reuss held 
 this view, except that the sixteen different 
 pieces — of which, according to him, it is com- 
 posed — all related to the same circumstances. 
 The other view, which is now the prevailing 
 one, is, that it is a unit, although opinions 
 differ widely as to the manner in which the 
 parts are related to each other. The majority 
 regard it as a melodrama. The difficulty of 
 finding any single connecting thread has been 
 the chief support of the opinion that it is a 
 medley rather than a united whole. The 
 argument of the Song is thus given by Oettli, 
 who divides the whole into fifteen scenes: 
 As the Shulamite, the daugher of well-to-do 
 country people of Shunein, upon a spring day, 
 went into her garden, her beauty was observed 
 by the occupants of a royal carriage-train, 
 and she w^as brought into a royal summer 
 
THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 1 1 1 
 
 villa, not far from her home. Here she was 
 placed under the care of the women of the 
 harem, who were to dispose her favorably 
 toward the king. In secret, however, she 
 loved a youth of her native place. All efforts 
 of the king to win her affections were made 
 vain by her loyalty to her peasant lover ; and 
 at length the king himself let her go in peace. 
 Her lover, with whom she had meanwhile held 
 conversations, led her home, and with him she 
 entered into a covenant of eternal love. 
 
 J. G. Stickel holds essentially the same 
 view, but thinks that interwoven with the 
 drama of Solomon and the Shulamite is an- 
 other pertaining to a shepherd and shep- 
 herdess, whose scenes — three in number — are 
 as follows: i, 7, 8 ; i, 15-ii, 4; iv, 7-v, 1. He 
 thinks that the interweaving of this drama 
 heightens the interest of the other by con- 
 trast, and designates the breaks in the treat- 
 ment of the principal theme. 
 
 Delitzsch held that Solomon and the sup- 
 posed friend of the Shulamite were identical. 
 He supposes that Solomon, being by chance- 
 in the neighborhood of her home, had his 
 
112 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 attention called to her beauty, and that this 
 Song describes the progress of his suit up to 
 the time of their marriage. The principal ob- 
 jection urged against this hypothesis is the 
 improbability that Solomon, the delicate and 
 fastidious king, should descend to the manner 
 of life of a peasant, and for a considerable 
 period of time, as this conception of the Song 
 requires. 
 
 The allegorical interpretation makes Solo- 
 mon and the Shulamite the representatives 
 respectively of God and Israel, or Christ and 
 the Church, some (Roman Catholics) making 
 it even to stand for the relation of Christ to 
 the individual soul. Of any such interpreta- 
 tion there is no trace in the New Testament; 
 and, in the Church, it first appeared with 
 Origen. To make it a literal description of 
 the love experiences of two young people in 
 early centuries seems to rob it of its right to 
 a place in the canon. The defenders of the 
 literal interpretation, however, say that such 
 a representation of faithfulness in love is not 
 unworthy of a place in the religion of reve- 
 lation. 
 
THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 1 13 
 
 The question of the authorship and date of 
 the book is closely connected with the opin- 
 ion held as to its dramatis personcz. Most of 
 those who believe the hero and heroine to 
 have been Solomon and the Shulamite, with- 
 out the interference of a peasant friend of the 
 heroine, hold Solomon to be the author. This 
 they maintain on the ground of the super- 
 scription. The opposers of this view regard 
 this superscription as untrustworthy, and think 
 that, since its supporters interpret v, 2-7, as a 
 description of Solomon's unfaithfulness to the 
 one he had just won, it is unlikely that Solo- 
 mon wrote the book, since he would hardly 
 have celebrated his own depravity in song. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the beloved is not 
 Solomon, but the shepherd, then it is impossi- 
 ble that Solomon should have written it. He 
 would not have described himself as sensual, 
 nor as having been rejected by a country girl. 
 
 Yet the testimony is in favor of its early 
 composition. Hosea, in the eighth century 
 B. C, had read the book. (Compare Hosea 
 xiv, 6-9, with Song ii, 1, 3 ; iv, 11 ; vi, 11.) 
 The mention of Tirzah (vi, 4) points to a time 
 
114 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 when that city, the residence of Omri (i Kings 
 xvi, 24), was still standing. The memory of 
 the Solomonic period seems fresh in the mind 
 of the author ; and there is no trace of na- 
 tional misfortune. This, with other facts, 
 speaks strongly in favor of the early part of 
 the tenth century B. C. These considerations 
 forbid placing the drama in the exilic or post- 
 exilic period, as some have done. The close- 
 ness of the time of its composition to the 
 period of Solomon also forbids that it should 
 have been intended for pure fiction. It is 
 probably founded in large measure on fact. 
 This further forbids the supposition that it 
 was written to rebuke the immorality of the 
 court in Alexandria in the time of the Mac- 
 cabees. 
 
 §21. The Lamentations of Jeremiah. 1 
 
 The Lamentations do not name their own 
 author. But the oldest of our traditions as- 
 cribe them to Jeremiah ; so, the LXX, Targurn, 
 and the Talmud (Baba Bathra), which also 
 makes Jeremiah the author of Kings. The 
 
 1 Oettli, Die Klagelieder, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar. 
 
 
THE L AMENTA TIONS OF JEREMIAH. 1 1 5 
 
 critics of to-day are divided in their opinions. 
 There have been those who denied the unity 
 of authorship, a variety of authors being 
 suggested by the fact that i and ii mention 
 the deportation of the Jews, while the re- 
 mainder only speak of the laying waste of 
 Zion ; that the alphabetical order followed in 
 the main by the first four is given up in the 
 fifth ; and by the inequality of merit in the 
 five poems. The majority, however, are con- 
 vinced that all are the product of one author, 
 since the style and the circle of ideas are es- 
 sentially the same throughout. 
 
 Arguments against the Jeremianic author- 
 ship, however, are brought forward in large 
 numbers. The style is supposed to be differ- 
 ent from Jeremiah's ; the alphabetical arrange- 
 ment followed in the first four poems is nowhere 
 found in the prophecy ; Jeremiah xxxi, 29, 30, 
 is declared to be in contradiction to Lamenta- 
 tions v, 7 ; the author of Lamentations does 
 not remind his readers of his prophecies, as 
 it might be supposed Jeremiah would have 
 done. 
 
 By placing the waiting of Lamentations 
 
Il6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 subsequent to Bzekiel, some have tried to 
 prove that it was not written by Jeremiah. 
 Chapter ii, 14, is supposed to be borrowed 
 from Ezekiel xii, 24, or xiii, 6. To this the 
 defenders of Jeremiah answer that, according 
 to Bzekiel viii, 1, we must suppose that chap- 
 ters xii and xiii were written in the sixth year 
 of the carrying away into captivity of Jehoia- 
 kim, and hence five years prior to the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem. Since Lamentations be- 
 moans the destruction of the city by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar and his successors, Jeremiah might 
 have seen Ezekiel's language in chapters xii 
 and xiii. 
 
 Very conservative German critics see no 
 reason to doubt that the book might have 
 been written by another than Jeremiah, and 
 attributed to that prophet after the real 
 authorship had been forgotten; but such 
 would hardly deny that it is, all things con- 
 sidered, probable that the book was written by 
 Jeremiah. 
 
the book of ruth. 117 
 
 §22. The Book of Ruth. 1 
 
 The object of this book is evidently to re- 
 late the early history of the family of David. 
 There are those who suppose, however, that a 
 correlated purpose was to show that God had 
 no exclusive interest in the Jews, and that he 
 would not despise to have a Moabitess among 
 the female progenitors of the line from which 
 Christ sprang. 
 
 The book has been regarded by some as 
 pure fiction. The principal supports for such 
 a supposition are: 1. That the marriage of 
 Ruth with Boaz transcends the law requiring 
 the brother-in-law to marry the widow ; 
 2. That if the Book of Judges gives us a 
 trustworthy impression of the period, Ruth 
 must be wholly unhistorical ; 3. The fact that 
 the names employed in the book appear to be 
 symbolical. Those who defend the historical 
 character of the book admit the possibility of 
 a somewhat artificial dress for the real facts, 
 but deny the validity of any of the arguments 
 mentioned above. 
 
 1 Oettli, Das Buch Ruth, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar. 
 
Il8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Kwald placed the date of composition in 
 the exilian, Kuenen, Wellhausen, von Orelli, 
 and others, in the post-exilian period, in sup- 
 port of which they offer a variety of reasons, 
 particularly those drawn from the language, 
 which is full of Aramaisms. But none of 
 these would have been impossible, it is re- 
 plied, in the times of the later kings; and, 
 besides, they are placed by the author in the 
 mouths of the persons speaking, and do not 
 occur often in his own language, thus prov- 
 ing that they are employed to give a popular 
 coloring to the story. The probability that 
 Ruth was originally not connected with 
 Judges, but found its place in the so-called 
 third canon — that is, latest collection of Old 
 Testament books — has also been used to 
 prove the late (post-exilic) origin of the book; 
 but it is answered that this would not prove 
 its non-existence prior to its reception into 
 the canon. 
 
 The strongest argument for its composi- 
 tion in the same period from which the Books 
 of Samuel sprang is, that it could only have 
 been produced when the feelings of the Jews 
 
THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 119 
 
 were yet comparatively liberal toward the 
 Gentiles, the style of writing still simple, and 
 the narrowness of the post-exilian Judaism 
 was yet unknown. 
 
 Chapter iv, 18-22, is supposed by many to 
 be a later addition, made in the early Greek 
 period, and taken from 1 Chronicles ii, the 
 object being to carry the genealogy of David 
 back to the beginnings of the people of Israel. 
 It has been observed that this genealogy can 
 not be complete, since it gives but ten names 
 for the period of eight centuries. 
 
 §23. The Book of Esther. 1 
 
 Much in this book has led to the belief 
 that it is at most a fiction founded upon fact, 
 while many reject its historical trustworthi- 
 ness altogether. Among the reasons for the 
 latter conclusion are the following: The de- 
 cree itself, which granted the right absolutely 
 to lay Judea waste; the too early publica- 
 tion of the same, thus making it possible for 
 the condemned to escape; the sudden turning 
 
 1 Das Buch Esther, Oettli, in Kurzgefasstes Kom- 
 mentar. 
 
120 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of the king in favor of the Jews; the im- 
 mense number of Persian subjects put to 
 death by the few Jews, and that with the con- 
 nivance of the Persian authorities; the ease 
 with which the time was extended in which 
 the Jews could take revenge on the Per- 
 sians in Susa; the immense height of the gal- 
 lows ; and the conversion of many Persians to 
 Judaism. 
 
 On the other hand, those who favor the 
 historicity of the book affirm that the author 
 had a most exact knowledge of the Persians 
 and the Persian court; that the portraiture 
 of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) agrees with what He- 
 rodotus says of him in his seventh and 
 ninth books ; that it was not uncommon for 
 whole peoples to be destroyed by their ener 
 mies; that the Feast of Purim among the 
 Jews can not be accounted for except by 
 some incident like that related in the Book of 
 Esther. 
 
 The purpose of the book seems to be to 
 explain how the Feast of Purim came into 
 existence. It does not mention the name of 
 God, which fact has been accounted for on 
 
THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 121 
 
 the ground that the later Jews avoided the 
 use of the name of God except in the temple 
 worship. Yet it recognizes the providence of 
 God, although the zeal of the characters is for 
 the people rather than for God. It is full of 
 the spirit of race prejudice and of revenge. 
 
 Few to-day regard Mordecai as the author. 
 The believers in the strict historical character 
 of the book think it was written near the time 
 of the scenes it depicts. Those who deny it 
 any historical value place it late in the time of 
 the Seleucidse. The splendor the author as- 
 cribes to the rulership of Xerxes would seem 
 to point to a period considerably later than 
 the events. 
 
 No doubt is felt as to the unity of the book, 
 except the parts ix, 20-28, and 29-32. It is 
 asserted that the language here is different 
 from the other portions ; that the date of the 
 feast given in ix, 17-19, contradicts the state- 
 ments of ix, 20-28; and that ix, 32, refers to a 
 book in which these " matters of Purim " were 
 written, and from which the letters in question 
 might have been taken by the author himself, 
 or by a later editor who inserted them. 
 
122 the higher criticism. 
 
 § 24. The Chronicles. 1 
 
 It is agreed that the two books were origi- 
 nally one, and the division is supposed to have 
 been first made by the LXX. Ezra and Ne- 
 hemiah are also believed to have belonged 
 originally together. The last verses of Chroni- 
 cles are identical with the first verses of Ezra; 
 and, since they seem to be necessary to Ezra, 
 it is assumed that they did not originally be- 
 long to Chronicles, but were placed there to 
 indicate that Ezra-Nehemiah is the contin- 
 uation of the history given in Chronicles. 
 The four books form one continuous whole 
 from the time of Adam to the middle of the 
 fifth century before Christ. They are strik- 
 ingly alike in language. They display a like 
 interest in genealogical tables and in the de- 
 scription of events and general facts pertain- 
 ing to worship. Hence, it is supposed that 
 they were compiled by the same author; or 
 else that they had a common editor; or, third, 
 that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah subse- 
 
 1 Evans and Smith, Biblical Scholarship and Inspira- 
 tion ; Oettli, Die Biicher der Chronik. 
 
THE CHRONICLES. 1 23 
 
 quently carried his historical work backward 
 by writing Chronicles. 
 
 One of the points in dispute between the 
 critics pertains to the sources from which the 
 chronicler drew his information. It is agreed 
 by nearly all that he knew and employed the 
 canonical books of Samuel and Kings ; and 
 those who deny the trustworthiness of Chroni- 
 cles think these books were his chief, if not his 
 only source. Those, on the other hand, who 
 believe the Chronicles to contain reliable his- 
 torical data, think his principal source to be 
 the " Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," 
 so often referred to by the chronicler, and 
 which evidently contained much matter not 
 found in Samuel and Kings. He also refers 
 (1 Chron. xxix, 29) to the books of Samuel the 
 Seer, of Nathan the Prophet, and of Gad the 
 Seer ; and, in 2 Chron. xii, 15, to the books of 
 Shemaiah the Prophet, and of Iddo the Seer; 
 also, in 2 Chron. xiii, 24, to the story (or as in 
 margin, commentary) of the prophet Iddo, and 
 (2 Chron, xxiv, 27) to the story or commentary 
 of the Book of the Kings. The general suppo- 
 sition is, however, that the prophetical books 
 
124 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 mentioned were parts of the "Book of the 
 Kings of Judah and Israel," while the stories 
 or commentaries referred to also formed an- 
 other source. As facts bearing on the ques- 
 tion of the date of composition, Oettli gives 
 the following: i. The close of the Chronicles 
 indicates a post-exilian date; and the Aramaic 
 preferences of the language, its late orthogra- 
 phy, and its place in the third canon subse- 
 quent to Ezra-Nehemiah, point to its compo- 
 sition at a still later period. 2. The mention 
 of Cyrus as " King of Persia " (2 Chron. xxxvi, 
 22 f.), and the frequent mention of his succes- 
 sors in Ezra-Nehemiah as " Kings of Persia," 
 indicate that the author lived in the Greek 
 period. 3. The author carries the line of 
 David down to the sixth generation after 
 Zerubbabel. (1 Chron. iii, 19-24.) Even 011 
 the supposition that the line is not broken as 
 here given, it carries the period of composi- 
 tion to the middle of the fourth century 
 B. C. Since the author may be supposed to 
 have witnessed the growth to manhood of the 
 seven sons of Elioenai, we are brought down 
 to the point where the Persian merged into 
 
THE CHRONICLES. 1 25 
 
 the Greek period, as the mention of Jaddua 
 the high priest, a contemporary of Alexander 
 the Great, fixes the time of the composition of 
 Ezra-Nehemiah. The author is supposed to 
 have been a Levite of the post-exilian temple, 
 and one of the singers, since he follows the 
 activities of the Levites, and especially of the 
 singers, with uncommon interest. 
 
 The trustworthiness of Chronicles has been 
 severely attacked by many of the critics. 
 The author almost wholly neglects the north- 
 ern kingdom, confining himself chiefly to 
 Judah and Benjamin. In giving his genea- 
 logical lists he dwells with special interest on 
 Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. He hastens over 
 the history of Israel until he comes to David ; 
 and from then onward to the Exile he lays 
 special stress upon the specifically religious 
 portions of the history. He also makes the 
 weal or woe of the people to have been de- 
 pendent upon their religious loyalty and faith- 
 fulness. This fact has suggested to some 
 critics that he made history out of his own 
 subjective prejudices to fit it to his theory. 
 But to him religion was not so much morality 
 
126 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 and justice — the kings were judged according 
 to their attitude toward the false religions. 
 His tendency to avoid mention of the faults 
 of David, Solomon, and other early kings, and 
 to glorify and idealize them, is attributed to 
 the fact that a downtrodden race which has 
 no hope for the future seeks to glorify its past. 
 He enlarges the real numbers and quantities 
 of men and of money; and, according to the 
 taste of the period, delighted in naked lists of 
 names. 
 
 In view of all this, the frequent mention 
 of his sources has not saved him from the 
 suspicion of misrepresenting and manufac- 
 turing history. Those who deny the histor- 
 ical character of Chronicles assume that the 
 author wrote his history to show the blessings 
 which would attend a Levitically correct prac- 
 tice of religion. Since they suppose his chief 
 source of information to have been the canon- 
 ical books of Samuel and Kings, they hold 
 that he accomplished his end by the most 
 unconstrained misplacements, additions, omis- 
 sions, inventions, and misrepresentations. Ac- 
 cording to Wellhausen he falsely represented 
 
 
THE CHRONICLES. 12 J 
 
 the entire Priest's Code as in use prior to the 
 Exile, whereas he maintains it was not then 
 known, nor in existence. The answer of the 
 more conservative critics to such charges 
 can not here be given, except to say that they 
 affirm that the work gives the most indubitable 
 evidence of trustworthiness in its historical 
 representations. 
 
 Nevertheless its defenders suggest that 
 caution must be employed in the construction 
 of history from the data given by the Chron- 
 icler. It is admitted that he wrote the his- 
 tory of Israel from his own standpoint — the 
 Levitical-priestly ; that in consequence where 
 he wished to dwell upon a subject, he invol- 
 untarily attributed views and customs to the 
 past which belonged in reality to his own 
 age; that his immense sums of gold and 
 silver, sacrificial animals, and soldiers can not 
 in all cases be accepted as facts, and that the 
 errors arose not from the carelessness of tran- 
 scribers, but, in some instances at least, from 
 his love of large numbers; that the great 
 festivals of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and 
 Josiah may have been decked out with splen- 
 
128 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 dors known only in a later time; that the 
 Hymn of David (i Chron. xvi), the longer 
 speeches of David, Solomon, Abia, Asa, Je- 
 hoshaphat, and Hezekiah, together with the 
 warnings of the prophets Nathan, Obed, and 
 others, may be free reproductions of tradi- 
 tional utterances of these men. Such a re- 
 production they defend on the ground that 
 John did the same with the words of Jesus; 
 and they deny that they lose their historical 
 worth thereby, any more than do the speeches 
 found in Thucydides or Livy,- which are sub- 
 ject to the same criticism. Of intentional 
 misrepresentation they do not accuse him. 
 They conclude that where the older historical 
 books give a record of an event recorded in 
 Chronicles, the former is to be preferred; but 
 that, except where there are special reasons 
 to the contrary, what is peculiar in the record 
 of the Chronicles may be accepted as a con- 
 tribution to the history of Israel. 
 
 
Part III. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 §25. General History of New Testa- 
 ment Criticism. 
 
 It was under the influence of rationalism 
 that the critical treatment of the New Testa- 
 ment began. Semler, 1 in a series of treatises 
 concerning the free investigation of the canon 
 (1 771-1775), gave up the doctrine of inspira- 
 tion, and made the canonicity of the books 
 of the New Testament independent of their 
 authorship. The Bible contained elements 
 which were not only erroneous, but positively 
 injurious ; others which were only local and 
 temporary; and still others which tended to 
 moral improvement, or to real spiritual ben- 
 efit. The last only was the Word of God. As 
 the early Church had decided upon the books 
 which should be regarded canonical, and as 
 Luther had exercised his own judgment in 
 the valuation of the individual books, so the 
 
 1 Abhandlungen von freier Uiitersuchung des Ration. 
 9 129 
 
130 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Church of his (Semler's) day must judge 
 which portions of the Bible it would admit 
 into the canon. 
 
 The next important step was that of Eich- 
 horn. 1 Tradition being no longer the guiding 
 principle of the critics, it became necessary to 
 substitute such hypotheses as would account 
 for the facts. Eichhorn supposed that the pe- 
 culiarities of the three synoptical Gospels 
 were capable of explanation on the hypothesis 
 that they had for their groundwork an origi- 
 nal Greek Gospel (Urevangelium). Gieseler 2 
 (1818), on the other hand, proposed to explain 
 all the facts on the supposition that the 
 Gospel as preached by the different apostles 
 became more or less stereotyped in their own 
 and their hearers' memories, and, when re- 
 duced to writing by the different evangelists 
 for different purposes, must come forth with 
 just such similarities and divergences as these 
 Gospels exhibit. 
 
 Schleiermacher 3 sought, as early as 181 1, to 
 
 1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 
 
 2 Die Bntstehung der schriftliclieu Evangelien. 
 
 3 Darstellung des Theologischen Studiunis. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 131 
 
 guide criticism into a new channel. He pro- 
 posed to place the reader of to-day in the po- 
 sition of the original reader of the Gospels. 
 In order to this, he discussed first the history 
 of the canon and the text, and then the origin 
 of the individual books. For this purpose a 
 knowledge of the literature of the period, and 
 of the class of readers for which it was in- 
 tended, was necessary. His was the boldest 
 judgment yet uttered concerning the genuine- 
 ness of the various books of the Bible. He 
 rejected as decidedly spurious the synoptical 
 Gospels — which he held were composed subse- 
 quent to the Apostolic Age — 1 Timothy, 2 
 Peter, and Revelation ; while of doubtful gen- 
 uineness were Ephesians, 2 Timothy, James, 
 and 2 and 3 John. 
 
 By this time the historical-critical method 
 of Biblical investigation was fairly established ; 
 and distinguished services were rendered by 
 De Wette, Credner, Volkmar, and Neudecker. 
 In the defense of traditional views, Guericke, 
 Olshausen, and Neander -wrote — the latter, 
 however, making more concessions than the 
 former two. 
 
132 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 With the Tiibingen school, whose founder 
 was Ferdinand Christian Baur, 1 New Testa- 
 ment criticism passed from its literary to its 
 historical stage. Baur taught that the place 
 of each New Testament document in the de- 
 velopment of the history of primitive Chris- 
 tianity must be ascertained in order that 
 criticism may fulfill its mission. Such an 
 investigation would involve the question as to 
 the circumstances which called forth the book, 
 its purpose, and its doctrines. As he studied 
 early Christianity, he thought he saw a pro- 
 found conflict between the Christianity of 
 Peter and that of Paul. This he thought was 
 traceable through all the Christian literature 
 of the first century, and far into the second. 
 By it he proposed to explain the form which 
 the old Catholic Church took in the second 
 half of the second century. It was also the 
 touchstone by which he tested the genuine- 
 ness of all the New Testament books. The 
 four letters — i and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 
 
 1 His views are found in full in his "Paulus," and 
 in " Das Christeutliums u. die Christliche Kirche der 
 drei ersten Jahrhunderte." 
 
NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 1 33 
 
 and Galatians — were Pauline, and represented 
 Paul's own views. The other books were all 
 written with a tendency to bring out the unity 
 which lay beneath the supposed Petrine and 
 Pauline antagonisms. The single exception 
 to this was the Apocalypse, which represented 
 the anti-Pauline view. Strauss 1 is perhaps 
 better known in this country than Baur, and is 
 generally regarded as belonging to the Tubin- 
 gen school ; but, as a matter of fact, he was 
 far less profound than his preceptor, Baur, 
 and scarcely held or promulgated any of the 
 opinions peculiar to him. Strauss dealt rather 
 with the life of Jesus than with the questions 
 of Biblical criticisms, the trustworthiness of 
 the record rather than the authorship of the 
 documents. Strauss regarded the incidents 
 related in the Gospels as "myths;" Baur sup- 
 posed the Gospels to have been written for the 
 purpose of aiding the harmonization of Pauline 
 and Petrine Christianity. Strauss hurried into 
 print, while Baur, his preceptor, was painstak- 
 ingly studying the whole question. But the 
 Tubingen school had many able champions, 
 ^eben Jesu. 
 
134 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 among whom were Zeller, 1 Schwegler, 2 and, for 
 a time, Ritschl. Bruno Bauer will be men- 
 tioned under the latest criticism of the four 
 principal Pauline epistles (§38). 
 
 We can not here mention the able argu- 
 ments which the orthodox party brought to 
 bear against the Tubingen school; but such 
 men as Dietlein, Thiersch, Ebrard, and Lech- 
 ler must at least find mention. So, from less 
 orthodox sources, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Reuss, 
 and Hase powerfully assisted in overcoming 
 the new view. And even from within the 
 school itself divisions arose. Hilgenfeld 3 soon 
 took an independent position. But especially 
 was it Ritschl l who broke the strength of the 
 Tubingen school by proving that Baur had 
 missed the real facts in the historical develop- 
 ment of the old Catholic Church ; that, except 
 for a short time, there was no such conflict as 
 Baur saw so prominent in the first two cen- 
 
 1 His views were advocated in the Theologischeu 
 Jahrbiicher. 
 
 2 Das Nachapostolisehe Zeitalter. 
 
 3 First in the " Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theo- 
 logie," and later (1S55) in " Das Urchristeutlmm." 
 
 4 In Die Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche (2d 
 edition, 1857). 
 
NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 1 35 
 
 turies; that Baur's assertion that to admit 
 the reality of miracles is uuhistorical, is in- 
 correct; and that the only true method of 
 judging Christianity is not to place it under a 
 secular measuring-rod, but to estimate it from 
 the religious standpoint. The principal liv- 
 ing representatives of the Tubingen school 
 are O. Pfleiderer 1 and C. Holsten, 2 although 
 neither of them adheres strictly to Baur's 
 views. 
 
 S26. Present-day New Testament 
 Criticism. 
 
 Weiss"' divides the theologians of to-day, 
 so far as they have to do with New Testa- 
 ment questions, into the newer critical school 
 and those whose tendencies are apologetic or 
 defensive. Under the former he ranks Har- 
 nack, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Mangold, H. J. 
 Holtzmann, Immer, Wittichen, Iyipsius (de- 
 
 1 See his views set forth in his " Paulinismus " and his 
 " Das Urchristeuthum." 
 
 2 His opinions are fully given in " Zuni Evangelium 
 des Petrus und Paulus," " Das Evangelium des Paulus," 
 and " Die drei urspringlichen, noch ungeschriebenen 
 Evangelieu." 
 
 3 Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 
 
136 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 ceased), Overbeck, Paul Schmidt, W. Briick- 
 ner, Seuffert, von Soden. Among the former 
 he mentions Beyschlag, Grimm, Klopper, 
 Weiss (Bernhard), L. Schulze, Hofmann (de- 
 ceased), Th. Schott, Luthardt, Klostermann, 
 Zahn, Grau. In fact, there is no classifica- 
 tion better than this; although, especially in 
 the latter, there are vast differences. 
 
 The newer critical school rejects Baur's 
 theory of an opposition between a Petrine 
 and a Pauline Christianity, and hence finds 
 the true explanation of old Catholicism else- 
 where; but it maintains many of the pre- 
 sumptive results of the Tubingen school, and 
 is governed by its methods and presupposi- 
 tions in a large measure. In addition to 
 Paul's four principal epistles, they generally 
 accept also Philemon, Philippians, and 1 Thes- 
 salonians; but, in contradiction to the Tu- 
 bingen school, they reject the Apocalypse. 
 They do not accept as belonging to the apos- 
 tolic age the so-called catholic (general) epis- 
 tles, nor Hebrews; reject the fourth Gospel 
 most decidedly ; and even deny that the apostle 
 John ever lived in Asia Minor. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC QUESTION. 1 37 
 
 Among the apologists, the school of Hof- 
 mann, to which Luthardt, Zahn, and Grau 
 belong, is distinguished by great conservatism 
 in the criticism of the New Testament. This 
 school is, in a large measure, influenced in its 
 criticism by dogmatic considerations. It re- 
 gards every book in the canon as absolutely 
 necessary — the Scriptures as an organic whole ; 
 and holds to the doctrine of inspiration, not 
 so much of each book as of the canon as a 
 whole. Beyschlag and Weiss, on the other 
 hand, are much freer in their treatment of the 
 canon and the individual books, and have no 
 respect for dogmatic considerations in the 
 conclusions they reach. Yet, compared with 
 the critical school, they may be called con- 
 servative. 
 
 §27. The Synoptic Question. 
 
 A cursory examination of the first three of 
 our canonical Gospels reveals a remarkable 
 similarity in contents, as well as in language 
 and in the order observed. This, rather than 
 the fact of variations, has led to the critical 
 theories with regard to their origin. Until 
 
138 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the beginning of this century the prevailing 
 method of explanation was, that each evan- 
 gelist used one or more of the Gospels pro- 
 duced by the others. Griesbach supposed that 
 Mark had abbreviated Matthew. Wettstein 
 and others that Mark used Matthew; and 
 Luke, both Matthew and Mark, Owen held 
 that Mark epitomized both Matthew and Luke. 
 Early in our century Eichhorn undertook 
 to explain the similarities on the supposition 
 that the authors of our canonical Gospels all 
 based their work on an older Gospel (the so- 
 called Primitive Gospel), used by the assist- 
 ants of the apostles as a guide in their labors. 
 This hypothesis found many supporters, but 
 its details were so complicated and improbable 
 as to render it impossible of final acceptance. 
 Yet critics generally agree that his hypothesis 
 pointed in the right direction. Taking the 
 suggestion from Herder, Gieseler undertook to 
 show that all the peculiarities of our synoptic 
 Gospels can be best explained on the hypoth- 
 esis that a comparatively fixed form of teach- 
 ing concerning our Lord, his words and deeds, 
 would naturally develop during the years in 
 
THE SYNOPTIC QUESTION. 1 39 
 
 which the apostles preached the gospel in 
 and about Jerusalem, and that this oral gospel 
 formed the basis of the writings of our canon- 
 ical Gospels. This hypothesis was favorably 
 received, but soon discovered to be inadequate ; 
 although it is not without supporters even in 
 the present day. 
 
 The Tubingen school introduced the next 
 important change in the criticism of the 
 synoptics. According to this school the Gos- 
 pels were not intended to be histories, but 
 bear the character of "tendency writings," in- 
 tended to help forward the union of the Petrine 
 and Pauline parties. The Gospels, them- 
 selves, however, bore but little evidence of 
 such a strife as Baur had supposed to exist 
 for more than a century after the ascension of 
 Christ. Hence he supposed them to have 
 been written at a date late enough to allow . 
 the dispute to have almost died out (130-170). 
 With the fall of the Tubingen school fell also 
 this hypothesis concerning the origin of the 
 synoptic Gospels. 
 
 Early in this century IVeisse 1 argued that 
 
 1 Iu his Bvaiigelische Geschichte. 
 
140 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the testimony of Papias concerning a Gospel 
 by Mark is applicable to our canonical Mark, 
 and that hence we have here an original 
 source from which the two other Gospels 
 (synoptic) drew much of their matter. Bern- 
 hard Weiss holds to a document still earlier 
 than our Mark, and known to him. This 
 document he supposes to have contained a 
 collection of our Lord's sayings, and also a 
 collection of incidents in our Lord's life. 
 Holtzmcinn^ thinks these two were distinct 
 sources, and that our Mark was dependent 
 upon the collection of incidents, while Mat- 
 thew and Luke were dependent upon it and 
 the collection of sayings of our Lord. It will 
 be impossible, however, to give here an ac- 
 count of the multitudinous theories which 
 have been advanced to clarify the synoptic 
 question. For details the reader is referred to 
 the larger Introductions. 
 
 1 See his views in full in his " Hand-Commentar zum 
 Neuen Testament." Erster Band. 
 
the gospel of matthew. 141 
 
 §28. The Gospee of Matthew. 
 
 The early Church held this Gospel for the 
 first. Holtzmann, although denying that in 
 its present form it was written by Matthew, 
 admits that it was not without good reason 
 that the early Church held it to be the work 
 of the apostle whose name it bears. Papias 
 said that Matthew wrote a book of sayings of 
 our Lord in Hebrew. Some think this does 
 not exclude the supposition that his book also 
 contained records of the doings of our Savior. 
 Many competent critics think it probable that 
 our canonical Matthew is simply a translation 
 of the Hebrew Gospel. Others think that 
 the author of our Matthew drew from the 
 apostolic document. Weiss thinks that he 
 drew from the apostolic document and from 
 Mark. It is plain that those who are de- 
 scribed in the last two sentences deny the 
 apostolic origin of our Matthew, although 
 they may credit it with entire trustworthiness. 
 Those who deny the apostolic origin of the 
 first Gospel, but derive it from an apostolic 
 " source," suppose that the first two chapters 
 
142 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 did not belong to the " source." With some 
 it is doubtful at what date the u traditions" 
 arose which they record. 
 
 The majority place the date of the Gospel 
 about 70 A. D. ; but Baur fixed it at 130, some 
 of his followers going back still earlier to 
 105-110. Opinions are divided as to the na- 
 tivity of the author. Holtzmann argues from 
 chapter xix, 1, that the author lived in the coun- 
 try east of the Jordan. Weiss argues in favor 
 of the non-Palestinian residence of the author, 
 because he explains the names Immanuel and 
 Golgotha, and the prayer of Christ on the 
 cross (i, 23 ; xxvii, ^ 46); because he did not 
 know the original home of the parents of 
 Jesus, which he infers from chapter ii, 22 ; and 
 because he supposes Matthew to have drawn 
 from Mark, who was not an eyewitness; 
 whereas, had he lived in Palestine, he would 
 have gone direct to still living eyewitnesses. 
 Others argue with equal cogency for the Pales- 
 tinian nativity and residence of the author. 
 It is pretty generally conceded that it was 
 written for Jewish readers, although some 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 1 43 
 
 think they were Jews who lived in the midst ot 
 Gentile populations, and not in Palestine. 
 
 § 29. Thk Gospel of Mark. 
 
 The contents of this Gospel are nearly all 
 fonnd in Matthew, and, for the most part, in 
 essentially the same order ; but while Mat- 
 thew undertakes to show that Jesus is the 
 son of Joseph and the son of David, the Mes- 
 siah of prophecy, Mark's purpose is to exhibit 
 Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew seems to 
 be written for Jewish, and Mark for heathen 
 Christians. 
 
 Mark has sometimes been taken for an epit- 
 ome of Matthew, sometimes for an epitome of 
 the first and the third Gospel. Weiss thinks 
 Mark's chief source was the collection of our 
 Lord's words and deeds by Matthew — the so- 
 called Logia document; Hilgenfeld, that it was 
 a tendency document, designed to harmonize 
 doctrinal differences between parties; Volk- 
 mar, 1 to show that Paulinism began as early 
 as the time of Christ. Some think this not 
 
 1 In Marcus und die Synopsis. 
 
144 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the Gospel written by Mark, but that it is 
 based upon a Gospel by him. The majority 
 are disposed to believe that this Gospel is the 
 product of a pupil of Peter, as Mark was sup- 
 posed to be. (i Peter v, 13.) 
 
 The same arguments which would fix the 
 date of Matthew prior to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem hold good for Mark. Those who 
 regard Mark as the author, place it about that 
 time. Those who hold to a primitive Mark, 
 upon which our Mark is based, or maintain 
 that ours is made up of extracts from the other 
 Gospels, place the date variously from no to 
 130 A. D. The genuineness of chapter xvi, 
 9-20 has been challenged. It does not seem 
 to fit well the former part of the chapter, and 
 it is wanting in some of the oldest manu- 
 scripts. 
 
 § 30. The Gospel of Luke. 
 
 While there are many critics who deny 
 that our third Gospel was written by the per- 
 son whose name it bears, attributing it rather 
 to Timothy, Titus, or some other person, the 
 majority admit the truth of the constant tra- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 1 45 
 
 dition from the time of Irenaeus, that it was 
 written by Luke. This is supported by the 
 almost universally accepted theory that the 
 Gospel was produced by one who had been 
 closely associated with Paul, and represents 
 his conception of the availability of the gos- 
 pel of Christ for heathen as well as Jews. 
 This is proved by the many coincidences be- 
 tween the doctrinal presuppositions of the 
 Gospel and Paul's well-known views, as well 
 as by the harmony of its historical statements 
 with Paul's record of the same events. 
 
 The date of composition has been a point 
 in controversy. The Tubingen school, re- 
 garding it as a tendency document, intended 
 to act as an irenic in harmonizing the sup- 
 posed Pauline and Petrine factions, could 
 not at first place it earlier than 130 A. D. 
 Present-day adherents of that school place it 
 about 100 A. D. Deniers of the principle of 
 the Tiibingenites feel at liberty to place it 
 anywhere between 63 and 80 A. D. The gen- 
 eral supposition that Luke and Acts were 
 written by the same person makes it probable 
 
 that the former was written before the latter ; 
 
 10 
 
146 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 but the abrupt close of Acts with the account 
 of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, has sug- 
 gested that the Gospel must have been writ- 
 ten prior to 64. This presupposes, however, 
 that the Acts was intended to give a history 
 of the apostles. Most critics deny this, and 
 explain the book as an account of the spread 
 of Christianity, and think that Luke was sat- 
 isfied when he had traced its progress to 
 Rome, the capital of the empire. In this 
 case, the date with which Acts closes would 
 give no hint of the date of composition ; and 
 hence none of the date of the composition of 
 Luke. This clue having failed, other critics 
 decide from such criteria as they can find. 
 Weiss, who regards Luke as the author, thinks 
 it was written about A. D. 80. 
 
 In the beginning of his Gospel, Luke sets 
 forth his purpose to write an exact account of 
 the life and deeds of our Lord. He intimates 
 that others before him have not succeeded in 
 this attempt. This suggested that he could 
 not have meant to criticise Matthew and 
 Mark ; and hence these Gospels were not in 
 existence when he wrote. This would make 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 1 47 
 
 Luke the first of our canonical Gospels in 
 order of time. But in any case it is as- 
 serted that he proposed to profit by the defects 
 of his predecessors; and hence he must have 
 had "sources" at his command. What these 
 were, is the question. Weiss thinks he had 
 the apostolic document of Matthew, and that, 
 besides, he employed Mark and another source 
 traceable, but whose authorship is unknown. 
 Others who adhere more closely to the theory 
 of Gieseler (§ 27), lay greater stress upon the 
 information he received from eyewitnesses of 
 the life of our Lord, and from Paul. 
 
 Attacks have been made upon the historical 
 trustworthines of this Gospel; but they are 
 little emphasized in the present day. Luke 
 assures us that his purpose was to write accu- 
 rately, so that Theophilus might be confirmed 
 in the teaching he had received. The integ- 
 rity of the book is universally conceded at 
 present. Some reject the statements of the 
 first two chapters, explaining their admission 
 into the book as best they may. The chief 
 obstacle to their acceptance is the miracles 
 they record. 
 
148 the higher criticism. 
 
 §31. The Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 The connection of this book with the fore- 
 going makes it convenient to treat it here in- 
 stead of after John. It is generally, though 
 not universally, agreed that the author of the 
 Gospel also wrote the Acts, and that it was 
 Luke who wrote both. Some, however, hold 
 that Luke wrote the " we " portions — that is, 
 the portions in which the author writes in the 
 first person plural — and that this was made in 
 part the basis of the book, especially of the 
 latter part, by another author. 
 I . As to the sources of information, critics 
 generally hold that they were mostly written. 
 This supposition is absolutely necessary to 
 those who believe it to be a production of the 
 second century. But while few think oral 
 sources sufficient to explain the peculiarities 
 of the Acts, many believe that Luke received 
 much of his information from those who were 
 eyewitnesses of the events recorded. The 
 majority, therefore, believe in the trustworthi- 
 ness of the record. The miraculous nature of 
 many of the events has only caused its cor- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 1 49 
 
 rectness to be doubted by those who reject all 
 miracle. The Tiibingenites held that the 
 facts were distorted to suit the purpose of the 
 author, which was to harmouize the Pauline 
 and Petrine factions. Paul's sayings and do- 
 ings were modified to give them a Petrine 
 coloring; and Peter's, to conform them more 
 nearly to the standard of Paul. But even 
 followers of the Tubingen school now largely 
 discredit this idea. Other questions will be 
 found mentioned in the preceding section. 
 
 §32. The Gospel of John. 
 
 The Johannean question briefly stated is 
 this: The synoptic Gospels present a picture 
 of Christ so different from that of John that 
 many have felt that if the former are true to 
 the facts the latter is false, and vice versa. 
 The doubt has also been strongly felt of the 
 possibility of John's having written both the 
 Gospel and the Apocalypse. 
 
 The first to raise any serious doubt of the 
 genuineness of the Gospel was Bretschneider} 
 In one form or another he presented about 
 
 x In his " Probabilia." 
 
150 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 all the objections that have ever been pro- 
 duced. Among the principal opposers of 
 Bretschneider was Schleiermacher. He argued 
 that the Synoptics and John are respectively 
 to Jesus what Xenophon and Plato were to 
 Socrates. In both cases the former concerned 
 themselves rather with externalities, and the 
 latter with the true inner personality of their 
 masters. With Baur a new form of criticism 
 began. He attempted to show that the whole 
 Gospel is simply an attempt to construct the 
 history of Jesus in accordance with the Logos 
 idea of the prologue. In this way he ex- 
 plained the divergences of the fourth from 
 the first three Gospels, which far more nearly 
 represented to him the real history. Hence 
 it was not written by an apostle; and it was 
 not written — as we might expect of John — 
 from the Judaistic-legalistic standpoint, but 
 from that of the heathen-universalistic Chris- 
 tian. Since it presupposes the entire develop- 
 ment of Christianity to the middle of the sec- 
 ond century, it could not have been written 
 until after that time. 
 
 The defenders of the genuineness of the 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 151 
 
 Gospel have generally rejected all attempts to 
 show that it is genuine only in parts, and 
 have insisted that it is wholly reliable history ; 
 but there are those who have admitted that 
 John may have unintentionally colored the 
 utterances of Jesus according to his own sub- 
 jectivity, although giving them in the main 
 as they fell from the lips of our Lord. Such 
 was the view held by Luthardt} Weizsdcker 
 holds essentially to this opinion; but denies 
 that it was written by John, attributing it to 
 one of his disciples. 
 
 At the present time there is a tendency 
 on the part of the opposers and defenders of 
 the genuineness to come still nearer together. 2 
 The opposers place the date earlier than for- 
 merly, and allow more of historical trust- 
 worthiness; the defenders grant that John 
 wrote his Gospel under the influence of the 
 impression which Jesus made upon him 
 throughout a long life. This is the opinion 
 of such men as Luthardt (as before stated), 
 
 1 Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 
 
 2 Schurer, Ueber den gegenwartegen Stand der Johan- 
 neischen Frage. 
 
152 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Grau, Beyschlag, and Weiss. Others there 
 are, however, who defend the genuineness, 
 trustworthiness, and integrity of the Gospel 
 in every sense of the word. Among these 
 may be mentioned Godet and Keil. To such 
 thinkers, John is not theology clothed in bio- 
 graphical or historical form, but genuine his- 
 tory. They deny any contradiction between 
 John and the Synoptics, and stand firmly by 
 the reality of all John's representations. 1 
 
 §33. The Johannean Epistles. 
 
 The majority agree that the Gospel and 
 First Epistle of John were written by the 
 same person. Of course the Tubingen school 
 deny that the author is John, and place the 
 date of both comparatively late in the second 
 century. One of the critical questions has 
 been: Which is earlier, the Gospel or the 
 First Epistle? Baur decided in favor of the 
 Gospel, because he thought the Epistle so 
 poor in thought. Hilgenfeld, on the other 
 
 *A most excellent defense of John will be found in 
 Nast's forthcoming volume on the fourth Gospel, ad- 
 vance sheets of which have been kindly placed at our 
 disposal. 
 
THE JOHANNEAN EPISTLES. 1 5 3 
 
 hand, took opposite ground, because of the 
 riches he saw in the Epistle. Both as- 
 sumed that the earlier one must be the richer 
 in thought. The newer critical school deny 
 the Johannean authorship of both Gospel and 
 Epistle. 
 
 Bretschneider was the first of importance 
 to deny the Johannean authorship of the 
 Epistle. Both he and Paulus attributed it to 
 John the Presbyter. The principal reason they 
 assigned was the nature of the error referred 
 to in the Epistle. This they supposed to be 
 the error of Docetism. Since that time, there 
 has been a dispute among the critics as to 
 what the error really was which John con- 
 demned. Perhaps the majority have now 
 reached the conclusion that the false doctrine 
 attacked was that of Cerinthus, who taught 
 that the heavenly iEon, Christ, united him- 
 self with Jesus at his baptism, and separated 
 from him before his death. The Cerinthian 
 error was promulgated during the lifetime of 
 John the apostle. 
 
 Even those who in the present day deny 
 the Johannean authorship of the First Epistle, 
 
154 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 affirm that it rests on Johannean traditions, 
 which had continued to make themselves felt 
 to a very late date. Baur thought he found in 
 the Epistle evidences of the influence of 
 Montanism. In any case, the supposition 
 that the Epistle was written to confute error 
 is erroneous, as one can see in the very first 
 verses of the first chapter, where the purpose 
 of the letter is named. Some have supposed 
 the Epistle to have been written in Patmos, 
 but the majority place it in Ephesus. 
 
 Even the Second and Third Epistles have 
 been made to bear the character of tendency 
 writings by the Tubingen school. Baur sup- 
 posed that they were written to the Monta- 
 nistic portion of the Roman congregation. 
 He attributed them to a third John, only the 
 Apocalypse, according to him, being the work 
 of the apostle. Opinions have differed decid- 
 edly as to the real authorship of the epistles 
 among those who deny them to John. Per- 
 haps the majority favor the authorship of the 
 Presbyter John. This they support particu- 
 larly by the fact that, while the author of the 
 Gospel and the First Epistle nowhere names 
 
THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION. 1 5 5 
 
 himself, here the author calls himself the 
 Presbyter. One of the critical questions here 
 is, whether the Second Epistle is addressed to 
 a Christian matron or to a congregation under 
 the figure of a matron. The generally ac- 
 cepted opinion is the former. Hilgenfeld 
 thinks it was written for the entire Christian 
 Church. The majority of those who attribute 
 these letters to the Apostle John think they 
 were written about the same time, and at 
 Ephesus. Weiss thinks they were written 
 prior to the First Epistle. 
 
 § 34. The Book of Revelation. 
 
 While we are treating the other Johannean 
 books, we depart in this — as in some other 
 cases — from the canonical order of the books, 
 so as to bring those by the same author to- 
 gether. The principal questions with which 
 we are concerned are those of the genuineness 
 and the unity of the book. For the first time, 
 we have to record that the Tubingen school 
 adhered to the genuineness of a non-Pauline 
 New Testament book. To them no book had 
 so good testimony to its apostolic origin as the 
 
156 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Apocalypse ; but while they held John for 
 its author, it is to be feared their chief mo- 
 tive was to find an excuse for the rejection 
 of the Johannean origin of the Fourth Gospel. 
 According to the Tubingen critics, it was im- 
 possible that both Revelation and Gospel 
 should have been written by the same person. 
 This opinion was shared by Schleiermacher, 
 Neander, and others ; but these rejected the 
 Apocalypse in the interest of the Gospel. 
 Weizsacker thinks there is enough difference 
 between Revelation and the Gospel to exclude 
 a common authorship, but that there is also 
 enough similarity to suggest it. Among those 
 who have denied the Johannean authorship is 
 Luther. On the other hand, the genuineness 
 is defended by a powerful company, includ- 
 ing the Tiibingenites. Truly, theology, like 
 politics, sometimes makes strange bedfellows. 
 Another class will not deny its Johannean 
 character, although they dispute his author- 
 ship. Volkmar thinks it was written by an 
 antagonist of Paulinism, but in the spirit of 
 John. Weizsacker thinks it was written by a 
 pupil of John, toward the end of the first cen- 
 
THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION. 1 5 7 
 
 tury, but subsequent to the apostle's death. 
 Grau holds that it was written under the di- 
 rection of the apostle. 
 
 The unity of the book has also in recent 
 years been vigorously attacked. V'olter 1 
 thought he could distinguish five strata in 
 the book: i. A primitive Apocalypse of the 
 Apostle John in the year 65 or 66; 2. A sup- 
 plement by the original apocalyptist in the 
 year 68 or 69; 3. The first revision, in the 
 time of Trajan; 4. The second revision, about 
 129 or 130; 5. The third revision, about the 
 year 140. Vischer 2 gave a new turn to the 
 discussion when he announced the theory that 
 Revelation is a Jewish Apocalypse, revised by 
 a Christian hand, with additions. This he 
 supports on the ground that the book contains 
 unmistakably Jewish elements, together with 
 others as distinctively Christian. Diisterdieck, 
 while not accepting Vischer's theory, admits 
 that it has in its favor the fact that Jewish 
 Apocalypses were sometimes so revised by 
 Christians, and thus found their way into 
 
 1 Bntstehung der Apocalypse. 
 
 2 Offenbarung Johannis. 
 
158 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 congregational use. Sckon 1 assumed that the 
 Christian author took up into his work Jew- 
 ish oracles of the year 68-70. Pfliederer 
 thinks there are distinguishable two Jewish 
 apocalyptists and two Christian revisers. 
 The second of the two former adopted an 
 Apocalypse of the years 66-70. The first 
 Christian reviser wrote under Domitian; the 
 second, under Hadrian. Spitta 2 assumes that 
 John Mark wrote an Apocalypse about A. D. 
 70. This was combined, toward the end of 
 the first century, with two Jewish Apocalypses, 
 the first of which belonged in the time of 
 Pompey; the second, in the time of Caligula. 
 
 The time and place of composition are 
 both in dispute among the critics, who are by 
 no means at one as to whether it was written 
 before or after the destruction of Jerusalem, or 
 as to the place of composition. 
 
 According to Volkmar, the false teachers 
 of chapter xvi, 13, include Paul; and Volter 
 identifies the Nicolaitans with the Mon- 
 tanists. 
 
 1 L'Origine de l'Apocalypse de Saint Jean. 
 
 2 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 1 59 
 
 It is also a disputed question whether the 
 scenes follow each other, or are intended to 
 be contemporaneous. The difference of view 
 here gives rise to a great variety of methods 
 of interpretation. The book is one which 
 more than any other puzzles the critics. 
 
 §35. The Epistle of James. 
 
 The principal critical questions connected 
 with this Epistle center about its relationship 
 to the teachings of St. Paul. L/Uther thought 
 its teachings were diametrically opposed to 
 those of Paul; and as he accepted Paul's 
 views alone as evangelical, he called James 
 an epistle of straw. The Tubingen school 
 also held that Paul's letters and James were 
 contradictory, and saw in this a proof of the 
 supposed antagonism between Paul and the 
 original apostles ; although it did not fit into 
 their scheme to make the Apostle James the 
 author of the Epistle. The majority of crit- 
 ics to-day do not see any essential contradic- 
 tion between James and Paul. There is one 
 class who regard the Epistle as having been 
 written so early that it could not possibly 
 
160 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 have been intended to antagonize the Pauline 
 doctrine of justification, since that doctrine 
 had not yet spread very far, or perhaps had not 
 even been promulgated. According to them, 
 James saw in the Jewish Christians scattered 
 abroad among the Gentile populations certain 
 defects both in the theory and practice of 
 Christianity, and these his letter was written 
 to correct. Others think that the Epistle was 
 written after the doctrines of Paul had be- 
 come well known, and that the author of the 
 Epistle had full knowledge of them. Of 
 these that portion who deny any purpose to 
 antagonize St. Paul or his doctrine, suppose 
 that James intends merely to guard his read- 
 ers against false applications of the Pauline 
 doctrine. 
 
 §36. First and Second Peter. 
 
 Among the methods employed to cast 
 doubt upon the genuineness of First Peter 
 has been the attempt to show that Peter never 
 was so situated that he could have learned 
 the Greek. Another point much disputed is 
 as to the relation between First Peter and 
 
FIRST AND SECOND PETER. l6l 
 
 Eptiesians. The coincidences are acknowl- 
 edged by all; but some think First Peter was 
 influenced by Ephesians; others hold pre- 
 cisely the reverse. It is also a question 
 whether the Epistle is written to Jewish 
 Christians, to heathen Christians, or to mixed 
 congregations of Jews and heathen. The 
 Tubingen school held First Peter to be spuri- 
 ous, and attributed it to the purpose of the 
 author to unite the divided parties in the 
 Church. According to their theory the Epis- 
 tle, pretending to come from Peter, testified 
 to the correctness of Paul's teaching. Of 
 course since, according to their view, it was 
 not written by Peter, but by a member of the 
 Pauline party, it was a pious fraud. 
 
 The genuineness of Second Peter has been 
 far more generally doubted than that of the 
 First Epistle. The principal source of doubt, 
 so far as the internal evidence is concerned, 
 is the relationship it sustains to the Epistle 
 of Jude. The dependence of one upon the 
 other is universally admitted. Opinions di- 
 vide as to whether Second Peter drew from 
 Jude or the reverse; but defenders of the 
 
1 62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 genuineness deny that Peter could not or 
 would not have drawn from Jude. The fact 
 that he touches upon matters wholly unmen- 
 tioned in the first letter the defenders explain 
 on the supposition that a considerable time 
 elapsed between the composition of the two 
 epistles, during which those addressed in both 
 letters had undergone a change of situation. 
 The late adoption into the canon of the New 
 Testament, which has caused many to doubt 
 its Petrine origin, is generally explained on 
 the supposition that it was written too near 
 the death of the apostle to obtain circulation 
 during his lifetime, and hence, from the be- 
 ginning, lay under the shadow of unjust 
 doubt. 
 
 §37. The Epistle of Jude. 
 
 This is another of the New Testament 
 books which Luther rejected; but he was 
 governed by the traditional view that the 
 author meant to represent himself as an apos- 
 tle; whereas, to Luther, it was apparent that 
 he was not an apostle. Critics now almost 
 universally admit that the letter does not in 
 
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 1 63 
 
 any way make the claim to having been writ- 
 ten by an apostle, bnt by Jude, the brother of 
 James, the brother of our Lord. He was also 
 governed in his opinion by its apparent rela- 
 tion of dependence upon Second Peter, and 
 by its quotation from the Book of Enoch. It 
 has been often supposed that the false teach- 
 ers condemned by Jude are those prophesied 
 by Peter, and hence that Jude must be later 
 by some years than Second Peter; but others 
 are of the opinion that Jude does not attack 
 false doctrine, but a misapplication of Pauline 
 truth. It is admitted on all sides that the 
 citation from the Book of Enoch gives us no 
 data by which to determine the time of com- 
 position; and critics to-day take no offense, 
 as Luther did, at the citation of unscriptural 
 books by a Scripture writer. The newer crit- 
 ical school generally, however, deny that it 
 was written by Jude, the brother of James, 
 and place the date of composition about A. D. 
 140. They think it professes to antagonize 
 the Gnosis of Carpocrates, and the Antino- 
 mian Gnosis of the second century in general. 
 
164 the higher criticism. 
 
 §38. Galatians, Romans, and First and 
 Second Corinthians. 
 
 Until very recently criticism had, almost 
 without exception, admitted the genuineness 
 of these four principal Pauline epistles. F. C. 
 Baur, the founder of the Tubingen school, de- 
 clared that the evidence of their Pauline ori- 
 gin was so indubitable that it was unthink- 
 able how criticism could ever raise doubts 
 concerning them. In fact, these and the Rev- 
 elation of St. John were the necessary founda- 
 tion of their theory that there was a profound 
 disharmony between Pauh*&nd the primitive 
 apostles. Bruno Bauer's 1 attempt to cast 
 doubt upon the genuineness of these epistles 
 received no countenance whatever. The first 
 in recent years to attack their genuineness 
 were the two Hollanders, Pierson and Loinan. 
 Pierson 2 says it is natural to suppose that so 
 remarkable a personage as the Paul of Gala- 
 tians is a fiction of a member of the ultra- 
 
 ^vritik der Pauliuischeu Briefe. 
 
 2 De bergrede en andere Synoptische Fragmenten, 
 and in various articles. 
 
THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 1 65 
 
 Pauline school, and not a reality. But it re- 
 mained for the Swiss theologian, Rudolf 
 Steck, 1 to develop this doubt systematically. 
 He attempts to prove that none of the four 
 principal letters attributed to Paul is from 
 his pen; and, in fact, that we have nothing 
 which was written by him. His method of 
 investigation is far more scholarly, calm, and 
 respectful than Bruno Bauer's, and, unlike him, 
 he maintains the historic personality of Jesus 
 Christ. According to his view it is improper 
 to assume the genuineness of these four let- 
 ters, and it is the duty of criticism to apply 
 the same principles to their investigation that 
 are applied to the smaller Pauline epistles. 
 The importance of the problem thus raised 
 demands comparative fullness of treatment. 
 
 Steck affirms that we must either allow 
 that Paul wrote more than these four principal 
 letters, or else deny that we have anything 
 whatever from his pen. He argues that since 
 Revelation — which was one of the main sup- 
 ports of the Tubingen school — has recently 
 
 1 In "Der Galaterbrief." He is well answered by Jo- 
 hannes Gloel, Die jiingste Kritik des Galaterbriefes. 
 
1 66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 fallen into doubt, we must needs suspect, 
 also, the other books acceptable to the Tiibin- 
 genites. He sees in Galatians a dependence 
 upon Romans and the Corinthian letters of 
 such a kind that it is impossible they should 
 all have been written by the same hand. He 
 regards the Paulinism of Galatians as far more 
 advanced than that of Romans. While the 
 Tubingen school rejected the Acts as historic- 
 ally untrustworthy, Steck regards its informa- 
 tion concerning Paul as substantially reliable. 
 He thinks the author of Galatians secured his 
 information largely from the Acts, but distorted 
 it in the interest of ultra-Paulinism. To his 
 mind, the most senseless thing which could 
 have been done at the time was what is re- 
 lated in Galatians ii. The author of Gala- 
 tians meant to deny that Paul ever made the 
 smallest concession. The Paul of Galatians 
 is not the real Paul, but an ideal of an ex- 
 treme disciple of the great apostle to the 
 heathen. In Galatians, which was composed 
 about A. D. 1 20, is found not the Paulinism 
 of Paul, but of his disciples. He thus sup- 
 poses that the opposition between Paulinism 
 
THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 1 67 
 
 and Jewish Christianity did not appear in its 
 sharpest form during, but subsequent to, the 
 lifetime of the apostles. 
 
 His conclusions concerning Galatians he 
 seeks to support by pointing out the evi- 
 dences of a late composition for the Roman 
 and Corinthian letters. He also affirms that 
 the Christology of these letters is too advanced 
 for the time of Paul, the argument being 
 based on the presumption that the Christology 
 of the primitive apostles was far simpler than 
 that which prevailed seventy-five years later. 
 In this connection, also, he draws an argu- 
 ment from the similarity in many particulars 
 of the Johannean and the Pauline Christology. 
 From the fact, also, that the Old Testament 
 citations are from the LXX version, he argues 
 that the author could not have been acquainted 
 with the Hebrew, which Paul of course under- 
 stood. He also attempts to show that these 
 four letters exhibit a literary dependence upon 
 the synoptical Gospels, the Ascension of Moses, 
 the fourth Book of Ezra, and the philosophical 
 writings of Philo and Seneca. On the other 
 hand, he denies that any writing prior to 
 
1 68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 A. D. 130 shows literary dependence upon 
 our four letters. 
 
 Steck is of the opinion that the antagonism 
 between the Pauline and the primitive apos- 
 tolic Christianity became greatly accentuated 
 subsequent to Paul's death, and that the order 
 of the development of this antagonism is 
 marked by the order of the composition of 
 these four epistles, which he makes Romans, 
 First and Second Corinthians, Galatians. All 
 the New Testament documents were produced, 
 according to him, in the first half of the sec- 
 ond century. The custom of attributing let- 
 ters to celebrated men was so common in 
 those days as to remove it from the category 
 of the blameworthy. He even claims for his 
 universal rejection of the genuineness of the 
 New Testament documents an advantage equal 
 to allowing all to be genuine. If all are spu- 
 rious, none are spurious ; no single document 
 falls into contempt in comparison with others 
 because it is supposed to be spurious. 
 
 In Germany, Steck's criticism has found 
 only opposition ; but in Holland, where the 
 movement had its start, it has found consider- 
 
FIRST AND SECOND THESSALONIANS. 1 69 
 
 able favor. Professor Van Manen, of Leyden, 
 goes much farther than Steck. He even ac- 
 cuses him of too great conservatism in allow- 
 ing historical trustworthiness to the Acts. 
 With Steck, Paul is a great historical person- 
 age. Van Manen does not deny his existence ; 
 but he denies that we know anything very 
 distinct concerning him. He suspects that 
 we have to thank Gnosticism for the four 
 principal letters of Paul. According to this, 
 we would have absolutely no data but our 
 own inner consciousness to teach us what 
 Paul taught, or who he was. 
 
 §39. First and Second Thessalonians. 
 
 The common interpretation of the first 
 three chapters of First Thessalonians in the 
 days of Baur, according to which the apostle 
 was supposed merely to have given expression 
 therein to the feelings of his heart, suggested 
 that no worthy motive could be discerned for 
 the Epistle, and hence it was not apostolic. 
 He also rejected the supposition of Pauline 
 origin, because he thought it to be dependent 
 upon the Acts, which he regarded as a post- 
 
I70 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 apostolic production. The late date of the 
 epistles has been suspected because of the 
 celebrity of the congregation at the time of 
 writing, and the supposed considerable num- 
 ber of deaths which had occurred among the 
 Thessalonian Christians. It has also been 
 thought that both the doctrine and the lan- 
 guage of the epistles are un-Pauline. 
 
 The apocalyptical character of part of the 
 Second Epistle has given occasion to consid- 
 erable criticism. During the first century the 
 opinion prevailed that although Nero had 
 disappeared he was not dead, and that he 
 would reappear from the Orient. The apoca- 
 lyptical features of Second Thessalonians have 
 been supposed to be constructed in some way 
 according to this expectation. The one thing 
 common to all these theories is, that Vespa- 
 sian was that which "hindered," and who 
 must be gotten out of the way before the 
 Apocalypse could be fulfilled. Hilgenfeld 
 took a different view. He thought he saw in 
 the "falling away" a time of severe persecu- 
 tion, and hence held that the letter was writ- 
 ten during the reign of Trajan. Especially 
 
EPHESIANS. 171 
 
 did he regard the " mystery of iniquity" as 
 identical with the rising Gnosticism. 
 
 The vast majority of the newer critical 
 school maintain the genuineness of the First 
 Epistle and reject that of the Second; but as 
 there are names of the first order who can be 
 quoted against the First, so can others equally 
 strong be quoted in favor of the Pauline origin 
 of the Second. 
 
 §40. Ephesians. 
 
 The principal argument which has been 
 urged against the genuineness of this Epistle 
 is its relationship to Colossians, which has 
 been supposed to be that of dependence. It 
 has been declared that Ephesians is an en- 
 largement of Colossians without addition of 
 thought, though with a redundancy of words. 
 The letter has been accused of displaying a 
 style of thought and language unworthy of 
 the Apostle Paul. Many have found refer- 
 ences to phases of Gnosticism not in exist- 
 ence at the time of Paul. The Tubingen 
 school found not only references to late Gnos- 
 ticism, but even thought the writer was in- 
 
172 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 nuenced by Montanus. They thought that 
 the tendency of the letter was to unite the 
 yet divided parties of the Church by a union 
 of faith and love, and by mutual concessions. 
 The relationship of the Epistle with First 
 Peter has also been a subject of dispute. 
 The similarity is not disputed; but the ques- 
 tion is, whether Ephesians presupposed a 
 knowledge of First Peter or First Peter a 
 knowledge of Ephesians. Those who deny 
 the genuineness are inclined to the former 
 supposition. 
 
 §41. Colossiaxs. 
 
 Mayerhoff 1 was the first to dispute the 
 genuineness of this Epistle. He thought that 
 both the language and the teaching were un- 
 Pauline. Baur saw in the Epistle the attempt 
 of a pupil of Paul to bring the latter into 
 harmony with the Logos doctrine of the 
 Fourth Gospel. He thought that the — to 
 him — evident references of the Epistle to 
 Gnostic ideas proved it to have originated 
 with one who was impregnated with Gnosti- 
 
 1 In Der Brief an die Kolosser. 
 
PHILEMON. 173 
 
 cism. Ewald supposed that Timothy wrote 
 the letter after conversing with Paul, and 
 thus explained the differences between this 
 letter and others unquestionably Pauline. A 
 still different form of criticism is that of Holtz- 
 mann. He thinks 1 it possible to distinguish 
 a genuine letter of Paul to the Colossians in 
 our Epistle, which was imitated by the author 
 of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and inter- 
 polated by him so as to make up our present 
 Colossians. This idea he supports by the at- 
 tempt to show that Colossians lacks true 
 connection of thought. Bleek supposed that 
 Paul had dictated the letter to Timothy, 
 which reminds one of Ewald's hypothesis 
 mentioned above. 
 
 §42. Philemon. 
 
 The close relationship between this short 
 letter and Colossians is universally admitted ; 
 but Baur, who rejected Colossians, did not 
 spare even this Epistle. He held it to be an 
 undeveloped romance, intended to teach that 
 compensation is found in Christianity for all 
 
 1 Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbrief. 
 
174 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 our earthly losses. Holtzmann thinks that 
 verses 4-6 are additions by the author of the 
 letter to the Bphesians. Weizsacker thinks it 
 is intended as an illustrative representation of 
 a new doctrine in reference to the Christian 
 life, and that the very name Onesimus indi- 
 cates the allegorical character of the letter. 
 The genuineness of the letter is universally 
 conceded to-day; and it is held to be one of 
 many similar letters which Paul must have 
 written to friends, but which have been lost. 
 
 § 43. Philippians. 
 
 The Tubingen school led the way in pro- 
 nouncing this letter spurious. A principal ar- 
 gument was its supposed Gnostic ideas, and 
 especially its presumed relation to the Valen- 
 tinian Gnosticism. The usual "tendency" to 
 conciliation of the divided parties of the 
 Church is here assumed to exist ; and Schweg- 
 ler even saw in the two women of chapter 
 iv, 2, typical representations of the Pauline 
 and anti-Pauline parties. One by one, how- 
 ever, all critics have come over to the defense 
 of its genuineness, except two or three. Yet 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 1 75 
 
 there are those who feel that there is a decided 
 difference between the Paulinism of this and 
 some of the older letters ; and this acknowl- 
 edged fact is one of the arguments upon which 
 the few who still reject the Epistle depend. 
 
 § 44. The Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 The question of the genuineness of these 
 epistles is interwoven with that of a second 
 Roman imprisonment of the Apostle Paul. 
 The majority maintain that there is no period 
 in the life of Paul, as it is known to us, when 
 these letters could have been written. Those, 
 therefore, who would defend their Pauline 
 origin, suppose that Paul was released from 
 his first imprisonment, spent several years in 
 travels and preaching, and was subsequently 
 arrested, imprisoned, and executed. Such a 
 supposition, they claim, has reasonable his- 
 torical evidence in its favor. Others hold 
 that the supposition of a second imprison- 
 ment is insufficiently supported, and hence 
 deny the genuineness of these epistles, or, if 
 convinced on other grounds of their Pauline 
 origin, undertake to show how the situation 
 
176 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 presupposed in them fits into the, to us, 
 known life of Paul. 
 
 But the critics have found other difficul- 
 ties in the way of accepting these epistles. 
 Schleiermacher, who rejected only First Tim- 
 othy, thought that Epistle was a compilation 
 from Second Timothy and Titus. As criti- 
 cism advanced, it was made plain that these 
 letters attacked errors, and presupposed an 
 advancement in ecclesiastical organization not 
 hinted at in the other Pauline epistles. It 
 was further admitted that the letters con- 
 tained language and ideas peculiar to them- 
 selves. Some undertook to show that they 
 were composed by some immediate disciple of 
 Paul, perhaps by Luke. 
 
 Baur supposed that they were written in 
 the second century in the name of Paul, for 
 the purpose of lending the weight of his name 
 to opposition against certain Gnostic heresies. 
 He also supposed that it was the necessity 
 of protection against these same heresies 
 which made their recommendations concern- 
 ing Church government necessary. Thus, ac- 
 cording to his opinion, about the year 150 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 77 
 
 A. D. furnished the only conditions out of 
 which such letters could spring. 
 
 The attempt to declare these letters spuri- 
 ous has met with arguments so cogent on the 
 other side that many have proposed to show 
 that one or all of them are combinations of 
 genuine Pauline documents, with additions by 
 a pupil of the great apostle. Grau thinks 
 this was done by the aid of remarks by Paul 
 in letters written to their author, together 
 with recollections of his utterances in con- 
 versation. The attempts at discovering genu- 
 ine elements in the Pastoral Epistles are a con- 
 cession in favor of their Pauline origin. But 
 there are few who would not admit that there 
 are serious difficulties in supposing that the 
 letters were written entire by Paul ; yet there 
 are many who, recognizing these difficulties, 
 refuse to reject the epistles on their account. 
 
 §45. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 The principal critical question in connec- 
 tion with this Epistle pertains to the author- 
 ship. Opinions continued to waver until 
 Bleek — in his work of 1828, Der Brief an 
 
178 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 die Hebraer — settled the question against the 
 Pauline authorship for almost all German 
 critics. Weiss (Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das 
 Nene Testament) claims the following argu- 
 ments as decisive against the Pauline author- 
 ship : The letter gives no hint of a claim to 
 have been written by Paul. It has no address 
 at the beginning, as do all Paul's letters. The 
 author does not call himself an apostle nor 
 assert apostolic authority. Paul always in- 
 sisted that he had not received his gospel 
 from man, but direct from God; whereas, the 
 writer of Hebrews (chapter ii, 3 f.) speaks of 
 himself as a disciple of the primitive apostles. 
 The whole plan of the letter is different from 
 the Pauline. The doctrinal and the practical 
 portions are not separated as by Paul, but 
 interwoven. No New Testament document is 
 so free from Hebraisms, and written in such 
 pure Greek. While Paul struggles to express 
 himself, the .language of Hebrews flows on 
 with great smoothness ; and the evidences of 
 rhetorical skill are in plain contrast with the 
 dialectic brevity of Paul. The great apostle 
 generally quotes from the LXX, but always 
 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 79 
 
 betrays an acquaintance with the Hebrew 
 text, while the writer of Hebrews evidently 
 does not know the Hebrew. While Paul cites 
 freely from memory, the writer of Hebrews 
 quotes so accurately that it must have been 
 copied from an open book. 
 
 The fact that Paul argues against the per- 
 manency of Judaism has led many to trace 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews either to him or to 
 one of his disciples. But the opponents of 
 the Pauline origin of the letter point out that, 
 while in the undoubted letters of Paul he as- 
 sumes that, however perfect the law was, it 
 was never intended to be more than tempo- 
 rary, the writer of Hebrews argues that it 
 is temporary because imperfect. They deny 
 the identity of the doctrines of Hebrews 
 with those found in Paul's letters. Having 
 denied the Pauline authorship, recourse has 
 been had to the supposition that it was writ- 
 ten by a pupil of Paul, as Luke, or Clement 
 of Rome ; others have thought of Mark or 
 Aquila. Luther, and with him are many 
 others, attributed the letter to Apollos. Weiss 
 favors the hypothesis which attributes the 
 
180 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 letter to Barnabas. He thinks that his birth 
 in Cyprus would account for the evidences of 
 Alexandrian culture found in the Epistle, 
 while his Eevitical extraction explains his 
 knowledge of the ritual service of the Jews, 
 and the emphasis he places upon it. His 
 companionship with Paul will explain the 
 similarity of the Epistle to those of Paul. 
 Many critics agree with Weiss. It is inter- 
 esting to note that criticism now inclines to 
 the opinion that the ritual service of Hebrews 
 is not that of the temple, but of the taber- 
 nacle. Especially does Von Soden insist on 
 this view. 
 
Part IV. 
 
 ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 
 
 §46. 
 The purpose of this book is neither the 
 defense nor the denunciation of the higher 
 criticism; nor did its purpose admit of an at- 
 tempt to refute the arguments by which the 
 conclusions recorded were sustained. Our 
 aim has been to state the critical problems 
 and their proposed solutions, without any at- 
 tempt to estimate their importance, correct- 
 ness, or tendency. Yet there is one class of 
 scholars whose opinions and arguments we 
 have scarcely noticed in these pages. This, 
 not because they were unworthy, but because 
 they are already well known. We refer, of 
 course, to the so-called traditionalists. But 
 it must not be supposed, on the other hand, 
 that we have recorded the conclusions alone 
 of the skeptical school. We have given, so 
 far as space would permit, the views of every 
 grade of critic except the traditionalist. 
 
 It is difficult to find any accurate designa- 
 
 181 
 
152 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 tion for the different schools of critics. To 
 call them destructive only means that they 
 destroy previous opinions, and overlooks the 
 fact that, at the present day, no critic is con- 
 tent with this; but all feel called upon to 
 construct a theory in place of every one over- 
 thrown. The same remarks apply to the 
 terms negative and positive as distinctive of 
 different schools of criticism. More nearly 
 correct is the distinction of radical and con- 
 servative. This, however, overlooks the fact 
 that these two classes shade into each other 
 until it would be almost impossible to classify 
 under the one category or the other. It has 
 also been proposed to apply the political des- 
 ignations of Right, Left, and Center. But 
 the Center always stands for a distinct policy; 
 whereas those critics who may not be classed 
 with the Right or Left, can hardly be said to 
 be guided by principles distinct from the other 
 two parties, but are rather influenced by a 
 mixture of both. They are not as conserva- 
 tive as the Right, nor as radical as the Left; 
 but they do not differ from either so much in 
 kind as in degree. Between the radical and 
 
EST IMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 83 
 
 the conservative, however, there is a distinct 
 difference in kind, at least so far as principles 
 are concerned. The former shrink from the 
 supernatural in Scripture; the latter fully ad- 
 mit it. The presumptive results of the latter 
 might be — although generally they are not — 
 as radical as those of the former, but they 
 would not spring from radical principles. 
 Here lies the really important difference be- 
 tween the radical critic and the conservative. 
 It is not in the conclusions they reach con- 
 cerning the date and authorship of a book, 
 but in the principles which lead them to their 
 conclusions. In the one case we are robbed 
 of our Book and our religion as well; in the 
 other, the determinative criteria as to the 
 Book leave our faith intact. Now, it is just 
 here that the critic whom we would call 
 mixed conservative-radical finds his place. 
 He leans with his heart to the old faith, but 
 his intellect leads him to cut away its founda- 
 tions. And his results will be as mixed as 
 his principles, since, in fact, he is governed in 
 part by subjective considerations in what he 
 retains of the Bible. 
 
184 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 The general opinion perhaps is, that Ger- 
 many is the home of the most radical criti- 
 cism. If we compare Germany with England 
 this may be true, and still more so if com- 
 pared with America. For the staunchest de- 
 fenders of the faith in Germany are as radical 
 in their criticism of the Bible as onr most 
 objectionable critics in America. But if we 
 compare Germany with France, Switzerland, 
 and Holland, we shall find the former far more 
 conservative. 1 Not to mention the fact that 
 the French, Swiss, and Dutch scholars are 
 less original, it must be confessed that they 
 are far less sober than their German neigh- 
 bors. They seem to delight in extremes, per- 
 haps under the impression that the more a 
 position diverges from that commonly accepted 
 the greater the evidence of scholarship. It is 
 the usual error of imitators. The one who 
 has made a profound investigation of any 
 subject may reach erroneous conclusions; but 
 he generally does not draw conclusions beyond 
 the warrant of the facts he supposes himself 
 to have discovered. 
 
 1 $ee, for example, §38. 
 
ESTIMATE OF {RESULTS. 1 85 
 
 As to the value of the conclusions reached 
 by the critics it is difficult to express an opin- 
 ion without incurring the risk of opposition. 
 One thing is practically demonstrated in the 
 preceding pages; namely, that the variations 
 of opinion among the critics themselves are 
 so great as to suggest the propriety of being 
 in no haste to give up the traditional view of 
 the date and authorship of the books of the 
 Bible. There are very few positive conclu- 
 sions upon which the critics agree among 
 themselves, and it looks as though it were 
 hopeless to expect agreement in the future. 
 The arguments of one are ignored or opposed 
 by another of equal ability, although they 
 may agree in their conclusions. In other 
 cases they agree upon the facts involved, but 
 differ in their interpretation of them aii/i as 
 to the inferences to be drawn. What seems 
 to one the height of wisdom, appears to an- 
 other the depth of absurdity. Such differ- 
 ences among the giant intellects will cause 
 the ordinary man to despair of reaching a 
 safe conclusion, and will drive the practical 
 man to adhere with greater firmness than ever 
 
1 86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 to what has been hitherto found a good work- 
 ing hypothesis, allowing those who have time 
 and inclination to concern themselves with 
 these theoretical questions. 
 
 On the other hand, while opposing with all 
 our power the love of negation so prominent 
 in many critics, and the skeptical principles 
 of those who deny the supernatural in the 
 Bible, a hearty welcome should be extended 
 to all reverent Scriptural investigation, even 
 though the investigator may not always reach 
 the conclusions we accept. To cast the odium 
 theologicum upon those who profoundly, mi- 
 nutely, and in the proper spirit, study the 
 Bible to elicit its secrets, would be to subject 
 the world once more to the rulership of eccle- 
 siastical authority. The reverent study of the 
 Bible may be safely trusted to result in plac- 
 ing it higher, not lower, in the esteem of men, 
 to say nothing of the fact that it will freshen 
 the soul with new revelations of truth from 
 God. The great danger is that Bible study with 
 scientific appliances will be content with its 
 science, and not go on to the study of its practi- 
 cal and spiritual truth for daily religious needs. 
 
ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 8 7 
 
 In estimating the value of the presumptive 
 results of higher criticism, it must not only be 
 remembered that most of them are merely 
 presumptive, but also that there are men of 
 profound learning who dispute almost the en- 
 tire system of critical conclusions. They have 
 weighed the arguments, and found them in- 
 sufficient ; they have critically examined the 
 Bible for themselves, and find the strongest 
 evidences of the truth of the traditional 
 theory. One might not be convinced that 
 these scholars are right ; but, at least, one 
 must admit that conclusions so supported by 
 such men are entitled to respectful considera- 
 tion. If we demand that the critics have a 
 hearing, fair play requires that the opposing 
 theories be not summarily discarded as un- 
 scholarly, and especially in view of the fact 
 that most of the traditional views have the 
 weight of great critical names in their sup- 
 port. Almost every new theory, however 
 plausible in its entirety at first, is liable to 
 subsequent modification, not to say rejection. 
 
 It is a serious question whether the con- 
 clusions of criticism may properly be left to 
 
1 88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 stand or fall by critical considerations alone. 
 The Christian should not lightly yield a point 
 which affects his faith, even when the ad- 
 verse conclusion seems to be supported by 
 sufficient argument. It is impossible for the 
 genuine Christian to be indifferent as to the 
 outcome of a dispute concerning his faith or 
 its foundations. While it is not justifiable to 
 give one's self up blindly to a creed, some 
 things must be regarded as fixed if chaos is to 
 be prevented in thought and life. No one can 
 think without presuppositions. The presup- 
 positions of Christianity may as scientifically 
 be made the starting-point of inquiry as those 
 of negation or infidelity. We must suppose 
 the essentials of Christianity to be either true 
 or not true. To attempt to leave this an open 
 question is practically to deny, although it may 
 be but tentatively, that Christianity is true. 
 
 That form of argument, therefore, which 
 appeals to Christ as authority on this subject 
 is legitimate if properly employed. 1 If Jesus 
 has spoken directly or indirectly on the ques- 
 
 1 See in particular Ellicott's " Christus Comprobator." 
 
ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 89 
 
 tions at issue, the Christian must hear and 
 heed. This nearly all admit, but some deny 
 that he has spoken. There are critics who 
 deny the omniscience and even the superiority 
 of Christ's knowledge. They do not hesitate 
 to say that Jesus was ignorant of the facts 
 as to the authorship of the books of the Old 
 Testament, and, with his fellow-countrymen, 
 took their reputed for their real authors. 
 Others suppose that he knew the facts, but 
 that he merely accommodated his language 
 to the belief of his hearers. The difficulty of 
 this theory is that it does not recognize the 
 frankness of speech which characterized the 
 utterances of our Lord. Jesus was accus- 
 tomed to expose, not to leave untouched, the 
 errors of the Jews. Another form of this 
 theory is, that by a metonymy Jesus may 
 have merely spoken of a work by its reputed 
 author. Whether all the references of our 
 Lord to the Old Testament can be thus ex- 
 plained is a question each must decide for 
 himself. It is difficult to suppose that, with 
 all the facts before him, he would have left 
 
190 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 them in such egregious error as to their history 
 as the higher critics suppose to have pre- 
 vailed among the Jews. 
 
 One of the most far-reaching conclusions 
 of the critics is that the writers of the Bible 
 erred in some or many of their statements of 
 scientific, historic, and psychological fact. 1 
 They deny the inerrancy of the Bible, and 
 affirm that as long as these errors are not as 
 to matters of faith and practice, the value of 
 the Bible is not thereby diminished. They 
 argue that the Bible is not a book of science, 
 of history, or of philosophy, but of religion. 
 It can be expected to be correct, therefore, 
 only so long as it speaks on religious themes. 
 More radical critics, however, do not hesitate 
 to say that the Bible contains errors even in 
 its religious and moral utterances, and that 
 therefore reason must be employed in distin- 
 guishing the true from the false. Some say 
 that the Bible not only does not claim per- 
 fection for itself, but even denies its own per- 
 fection. 2 Most are content to account for any 
 
 1 See Evans and Smith's " Biblical Scholarship and 
 Inspiration." 
 
 2 Mead, Supernatural Revelation. 
 
ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 191 
 
 imperfection in religious utterances on the 
 ground that revelation was progressive, and 
 that the earlier must of necessity be defective. 
 Those who insist on error in these earlier re- 
 ligious and moral precepts, either do not be- 
 lieve in their true revelation, or explain by 
 saying that God adapted his requirements to 
 the stage of advancement of the people. 
 
 Closely connected with the doctrine of in- 
 errancy is that of complete and uniform in- 
 spiration. Very few theologians, and none of 
 the critics, believe to-day in verbal inspira- 
 tion; but the majority conform their doctrine 
 of inspiration to their idea of the degree of 
 truth or error in the Bible. Many critics, 
 however, remand the question of inspiration 
 to dogmatics, and feel called upon to investi- 
 gate the human conditions alone under which 
 the various books of the Bible as well as the 
 canon came into existence. They naturally 
 come to ignore, in some cases to deny entirely, 
 the Divine element in the origination of the 
 Bible. 
 
 Too much emphasis can not be laid upon 
 the fact that, as the Bible is our only suffi- 
 
192 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 cient rule of faith and practice, the chief study 
 of the Book should ever proceed from and re- 
 turn to this starting point. The question is 
 legitimate as to what authority or value any 
 portion of the Bible possesses. To some we 
 may attach more, to other parts less ; but when 
 we make such questions our principal business 
 in the study of the Word of God, we pervert a 
 means and make it an end. Criticism, so far 
 as it concerns the Christian, is the handmaid, 
 not the mistress. If criticism is practiced for 
 the purpose of making the Bible more avail- 
 able for practical, devotional use, it is a bless- 
 ing. If practiced for its own sake, it is likely 
 to lead astray. And as long as the Church 
 concerns itself to practice the plain, unques- 
 tioned teachings of the Bible, criticism, even 
 of the most radical kind, can do no harm. 
 The best preventive of spiritual defection is 
 experience. Those who have tested the prom- 
 ises of the Word, and found them true, are 
 not likely to be disturbed by any assaults upon 
 the Scripture, nor by any reconstruction of 
 theories concerning it. But if any one is 
 more inclined to defend the Bible against 
 
ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 93 
 
 criticism than to practice its precepts and 
 enter into the inheritance of its promised 
 blessings, he is in as dangerous a position as 
 the most skeptical critic; for, although theo- 
 retically a believer, he is practically an infidel, 
 in spite of his belief. There is little danger 
 from the most extreme conclusions of criti- 
 cism as long as saints are common. There 
 is far more to be feared from a dead ortho- 
 doxy. The chief cause of alarm in connec- 
 tion with Biblical criticism is not in its 
 methods nor in its conclusions, but in its 
 tendency to make the Bible a book to be 
 studied, not practiced. Investigation there 
 must be; and investigation should be so con- 
 ducted that our faith may more perfectly con- 
 form to the gospel of Christ, and our practice 
 to the teachings of his Word. 
 
. Part V. 
 
 IF THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT, WHAT? 
 
 §47. The Doctrine of Inerrancy. 
 
 The Christian thinker may assume either 
 one of two attitudes towards those results of 
 Biblical criticism which contradict traditional 
 opinion — that of hostility, or that of accom- 
 modation to the new situation. The former 
 would require him to counteract argument 
 with argument more cogent. The latter 
 would not demand acceptance of the sup- 
 posed results, but lead him to inquire what 
 will be the consequences if, in the end, these 
 results come to be accepted, and what sort of 
 a Christianity that would be which would re- 
 main. And this is an inquiry which the 
 Christian must make. An unbeliever might 
 entertain a purely scholarly interest in the 
 problems of higher criticism; but the Chris- 
 tian is conscious of a practical interest as 
 
 well. There may be processes of scientific 
 
 194 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 1 95 
 
 investigation whose results are so remotely 
 connected with our practical life that the 
 Christian need have no care as to the out- 
 come; but not such is the scientific investi- 
 gation of the Scriptures. The Bible professes 
 to be at least the record of God's revelation 
 to man. If it does not contain trustworthy 
 accounts of the words spoken, the deeds per- 
 formed, and the spirit manifested by our Lord, 
 then we have no account of these. If we 
 have not here a portraiture of the effects 
 which the forces of Christianity may naturally 
 be expected to produce in the lives of the 
 followers of Jesus, then we have no authori- 
 tative standard of Christian life. The Chris- 
 tian can not therefore divest himself of the 
 consciousness of a profound personal interest 
 in the results of critical inquiry into the ori- 
 gin and authority of the Bible. The capa- 
 bility in any one of such disinterestedness 
 would prove that Christianity is of small value 
 to him. 
 
 The Christian, then, must interrogate criti- 
 cism concerning its practical consequences. 
 If he finds that it is sweeping away the foun- 
 
196 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 dations of his faith, he must prevent it if he 
 can, or failing, mourn over the ruins of his 
 cherished beliefs. But if he finds the con- 
 clusions of the critics consistent with the vigor 
 and energy of Christian experience and life, 
 even though requiring certain readjustments, 
 he may let criticism go on its way with perfect 
 unconcern, since, although it may cause him 
 some inconvenience, it leaves him in posses- 
 sion of what he holds dear. 
 
 A comparatively limited knowledge of Bib- 
 lical criticism will suffice to remind us that 
 the critics are not all of one kind. Their 
 principles, methods, and moral and intellec- 
 tual qualifications differ greatly. It is custom- 
 ary to classify them popularly as radical and 
 conservative; but there is no such distinct line 
 of demarkation as this classification indicates. 
 It would be better to designate them as rad- 
 ical, mixed, and conservative. We can not 
 here consider the radicals, because it is plain 
 that their principles would overthrow Chris- 
 tianity in any of its present prevailing forms. 
 Nor can we deal with the mixed class, since 
 they have no harmonious principles of proced- 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 1 97 
 
 ure, leaning toward the radicals with their 
 judgment, and toward the conservatives with 
 their hearts. We confine ourselves to the con- 
 servatives, whom we further distinguish from 
 those critics who always reach traditional con- 
 clusions. 
 
 The gist of the entire question is the author- 
 ity of the Bible. It has always been the funda- 
 mental principle of Protestantism that the 
 Church is neither the first nor the final author- 
 ity in matters of faith and practice. It is the 
 very essence of rationalism to give to reason 
 the final decision. 
 
 There would seem to remain, therefore, to 
 the non-rationalistic Protestant only the re- 
 course of appeal to the founders of Christian- 
 ity. But for such an appeal we must have a 
 record in which we can confide. There are 
 those, therefore, who affirm that the Bible is 
 infallible in all its parts, and that any error 
 would invalidate the entire Book; that while 
 it is not a book of science, history, or psy- 
 chology, whenever it touches these points its 
 statements are absolutely correct. On the 
 other hand, exceedingly conservative critics 
 
198 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 admit the existence of errors in dates, num- 
 bers, sequence of events, names of persons 
 and places, statements of natural science, and 
 the like. They admit that writers of the 
 books of the Bible labored under misappre- 
 hensions, and yet placed these upon record 
 in conjunction with other statements of exact 
 truth. Now, the question is, Do these con- 
 cessions destroy the authority of the Bible? 
 The rationalist says they do, and rejoices that 
 the divine faculty of reason in man is to take 
 the place of an infallible pope and an infal- 
 lible book. The ultra-traditionalist agrees 
 with the rationalist, with an "if;" but he de- 
 nies the existence of the errors, and thus saves 
 himself from the rationalist's conclusions. 
 
 The conservative critic says that these 
 concessions do not destroy the authority of 
 the Bible, because they do not touch the 
 points upon which the Bible professes to be 
 authority. These critics distinguish between 
 the religio-ethical and the other portions of 
 the Bible, and affirm that the Bible was not 
 given to teach science, history, etc., but to be 
 a rule of faith and practice. They affirm 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 1 99 
 
 that since no error has ever yet been demon- 
 strated in those particulars in which revela- 
 tion is necessary, we need not be troubled if 
 there are occasional errors elsewhere. Most 
 of them, moreover, claim that the demon- 
 strable errors in history, etc., are so few or so 
 unimportant that to reject the Bible on their 
 account would be like rejecting the sun be- 
 cause there are spots on it. In their princi- 
 pal contention they are supported by the fact 
 that the great evangelical Confessions make 
 the Bible solely a rule of faith and practice. 
 And this is what the Bible says of itself. 
 (2 Timothy iii, 15-17.) Nor do the great 
 Confessions assert inerrancy or infallibility 
 except in matters of faith and practice. Two 
 less important Creeds teach the absolute in- 
 errancy of the Bible — the Creed of the New 
 Hampshire Baptists (1833), which says that 
 the Bible "has absolute truth, without any 
 mixture of error for its matter;" and, by im- 
 plication, the Confession of the Evangelical 
 Free Church of Geneva (1848), which says: 
 "We believe that the Holy Scriptures are en- 
 tirely inspired of God in all their parts." 
 
200 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 There are many who are not ready to give 
 
 up their Bibles in the event that it should 
 
 finally turn out that the zoology, botany, and 
 
 other non-religious utterances of the Bible 
 
 are demonstrated to be in some rare instances 
 
 inaccurate. Such a conclusion is too weighty 
 
 for such premises. We would not assert the 
 
 existence of errors in the Bible; but if any 
 
 one else does, we would deny the rationalistic 
 
 conclusion that it is therefore a purely human 
 
 book. 
 
 § 48. Inspiration. 
 
 That the doctrines of the absolute inerrancy 
 of the Scripture and of its inspiration are inti- 
 mately connected is beyond doubt. And here 
 again the principles of the radicals and those 
 of the ultra-traditionalists are strangely par- 
 allel. If you could convince the former that 
 the Bible is an errorless book, they would at 
 once admit its entire divine inspiration. The 
 latter hold to its inerrancy, and hence to in- 
 spiration in every part and particle. Con- 
 sistently held, this theory can, at most, allow 
 to the human subjects of inspiration the free- 
 dom of amanuenses, who must write exactly 
 
INSPIRA T10N. 20 1 
 
 what, and only what, is dictated. No room is 
 left for the expression of the writer's individ- 
 uality, and, of course, none for error. Very 
 few would venture to-day to hold to inspiration 
 in so extreme a form as this. It is now gener- 
 ally admitted that the Scripture writings dis- 
 play the individuality of their writers. The 
 doctrine of inspiration may still maintain, how- 
 ever, that these peculiarities do not amount 
 to errors, and that any true doctrine of inspi- 
 ration at least required that the Inspiring 
 Spirit should guard the writers from record- 
 ing any error. And this is, briefly stated, 
 what the believers in inerrancy claim. In 
 their judgment, the doctrines of inspiration 
 and inerrancy stand or fall together. 
 
 If the Book is not in all its parts the pro- 
 duct of direct divine inspiration, it can not be 
 inerrant. If, on the other hand, it is not in- 
 errant in all its parts, it can not be inspired. 
 If it is not inspired and inerrant in all its 
 parts, it is in no part trustworthy. One ad- 
 herent of this view illustrated his view by 
 saying that Tray was a good dog, but because 
 Tray was found in bad company he was shot; 
 
202 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 that is, if we find truth mixed with error in 
 the Bible, even the truth is rendered uncer- 
 tain. This would certainly be the case if we 
 supposed every part of the Bible to be equally 
 inspired. For if the Holy Spirit could be sup- 
 posed to inspire the proclamation of one error, 
 we could not be sure, except by a subjective 
 test, that he had not inspired much error. 
 Now just here is where the conservative critic 
 meets his chief difficulty. He can not believe 
 in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, although 
 he finds it in the main so capable of bearing 
 the most exact scrutiny as to indicate the 
 greatest care on the part of the authors. 
 
 He can not believe that the errors are 
 placed on record by inspiration, but is com- 
 pelled to attribute them to human infirmity. 
 On the other hand, he finds prophets and 
 apostles claiming inspiration, or at least reve- 
 lation, and he is in no wise disposed to deny 
 their claim. He further asserts that the Bible 
 nowhere gives us an exact account of the na- 
 ture, degree, or extent of inspiration; and that 
 all these have been fixed by uninspired men. 
 Hence he maintains the right to examine the 
 
INSPIRA TION. 203 
 
 phenomena which the Bible presents, and to 
 reach conclusions divergent from those of his 
 uninspired predecessors or contemporaries. 
 The substance of the conclusions of the 
 critics is that inspiration, like inerrancy, can 
 only be predicated of those parts of the Bible 
 which have to do with faith and practice. 
 They do not say nor intimate that other por- 
 tions of the Bible contain no truth. On the 
 contrary, they assert that these parts manifest 
 the greatest care to state things as they are, 
 and with a very high degree of success. 
 
 The great purpose of inspiration undoubt- 
 edly was to secure to the word of the inspired 
 speaker or writer unquestioned authority. It 
 is the doctrine of " The Teaching of the 
 Twelve Apostles " (chap, xi) that one may 
 not question the accuracy of the utterances of 
 one who spoke under the influence of the 
 Prophetic Spirit. But the question whether 
 any one should be acknowledged as a prophet 
 still remained open. John exhorts his readers 
 to " try the spirits whether they are of God: 
 because many false prophets have gone out 
 into the world." And then he makes the test 
 
204 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of their true inspiration, conformity in doctrine 
 with his teachings concerning Jesus Christ, 
 (i John iv, 1-3.) Paul applies a similar test 
 to the professed prophets of his time. (Gal. 
 i, 8, 9.) The assumption both of John and 
 Paul is, that inspiration has to do with the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ, and with nothing else. 
 They based the proof that any one possessed 
 prophetic gifts upon the contents of their gos- 
 pel teachings, not upon the accuracy of their 
 historical utterances. 
 
 If, then, we will not discredit the ascer- 
 tained truth of the Bible because errors are 
 supposed also to be found there, neither must 
 we reject the inspiration of some parts, be- 
 cause other parts are held to be uninspired. 
 And Paul and John, while apparently limiting 
 the results of prophetic inspiration in their 
 day to gospel questions, at the same time give 
 us a criterion by which to judge of the in- 
 spiration of any document. If it contradicts 
 the gospel, it is not inspired. And if those 
 to whom Paul and John wrote could apply 
 this test, so can we; for it is not to be sup- 
 posed that they possessed the gift of the dis- 
 
INSPIRATION. 205 
 
 cerning of spirits any more than we do. Let 
 it be observed that we are not arguing in 
 favor of this partial inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures, but that we are trying to show that we 
 need not reject inspiration entirely if the 
 critics rob us of belief in the inspiration of all 
 parts of the Bible. The inspiration of those 
 portions of the Bible which have to do with 
 our faith and practice remains untouched, and 
 it assures us of the authority of those precious 
 treasures. 
 
 It will be interesting to discover what the 
 great Creeds have to say upon this phase of 
 the controversy. The first and second Hel- 
 vetic Confessions seem to forbid such a con- 
 struction of inspiration as the conservative 
 critics give us. This is probably true also of 
 the Irish Articles of Religion of 161 5, and 
 certainly of the Creed of the New Hampshire 
 Baptists of 1833, and of the Evangelical Free 
 Church of Geneva of 1848. On the other hand, 
 while they do not teach such a distinction as 
 to inspiration, there is nothing to forbid it in 
 the French Confession of 1559, the Belgic of 
 1561 (revised in 1619), the Scotch of 1560, the 
 
206 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church 
 of England, and the Articles of Religion of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 The language of the Westminster Confes- 
 sion is such as to admit of doubt. Yet we are 
 inclined to the opinion that it would not for- 
 bid the view of inspiration held by the con- 
 ' servative critic. In all fairness it ought to be 
 said that while not expressly forbidden by 
 anything in the above-named creeds, their 
 framers probably held to the view of the ultra- 
 traditionalist. If they were living now, how- 
 ever, and were to write in the light of the 
 discussions of the present and recent past, it 
 is impossible to say where they would range 
 themselves. The preponderance of evidence 
 from the Creeds is apparently on the side of 
 the traditionalists as regards inspiration ; but 
 it must be borne also in mind that the ques- 
 tions to be settled then were entirely different 
 from those now engaging the Protestant world. 
 
date and authorship. 207 
 
 § 49. Date and Authorship of the Books 
 of the Bible. 
 
 It would seem at first sight as though it 
 could make no difference who wrote the books 
 of the Bible, nor when they were written, if 
 they were divinely inspired. What need has 
 one to be an eyewitness of events if he can se- 
 cure perfect knowledge of them through inspi- 
 ration ? So that on the theory of the complete 
 inspiration of every part of the sacred Scrip- 
 tures, neither the date nor the authorship of 
 the Biblical books would have any effect upon 
 their authority. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is just here that conserva- 
 tive criticism approaches nearest to tradition- 
 alism ; and many a critic who willingly yields 
 the doctrines of inerrancy and of the plenary 
 inspiration of all parts of the Bible, is exceed- 
 ingly chary of admitting the composition of a 
 book at a later date than that in which its 
 supposed author lived. The reason is not far 
 to seek. The testimony of an eyewitness is 
 all the more important in the absence of in- 
 spiration. Besides, some of the books of the 
 
208 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Bible profess to have been written by certain 
 well-known characters. If they were not 
 written by these men, they are forgeries. 
 Now, the radical critics remind us that men of 
 sincere piety did in those days sometimes 
 write religious books for the edification of the 
 people, and attach the names of Jewish or 
 Christian celebrities to them to give them 
 authority. This may be admitted. The end 
 was supposed to justify the means. What 
 they wrote was important truth ; but the peo- 
 ple would not bow to the authority of the real 
 authors. In order to benefit their readers, 
 they committed pious frauds by attaching the 
 names of others of greater repute than them- 
 selves. 
 
 Thus the critics seek to show that, forgers 
 though they were, these writers committed no 
 conscious wrong. In this way it is indeed 
 possible to overcome the old argument that a 
 man who would forge a literary work could 
 not inculcate such pure doctrines. Arguments 
 contrary to the supposition of forgery throng 
 upon us. The men who could write such 
 works as those of our canonical Scriptures 
 
DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 209 
 
 1 mst have been men who needed not to bol- 
 s.er up their writings with names of men of 
 t ie past. Then, too, the radical critics have 
 carried the matter so far that both the Old and 
 I 'ew Testaments are, according to their theo- 
 ries, largely made up of forgeries. Conserva- 
 tive critics do not see how such a wholesale 
 system of forgery can lay claim to be the 
 Word of God. Surely God was not shut up 
 to such a method of revelation. The editing 
 i nd re-editing of some of these books they 
 nay admit. Interpolations need not be de- 
 nied. One may even allow that documents 
 originally separate, one or more of them by 
 unknown authors, might in the course of time 
 come to be regarded as the production of one 
 man, as is supposed to be the case with the 
 Psalms and Isaiah. But even this hypothesis, 
 vvhen employed to explain so many portions of 
 the Bible, not only fails to secure the consent 
 of the judgment, it produces the feeling that 
 our confidence in the Bible must be given up 
 if these things are true to the extent which 
 radical critics affirm. Hence the tendency on 
 
 the part of conservative critics to reduce the 
 
 14 
 
2IO THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 number of such instances to the minimum. 
 All such suppositions detract from the dignity 
 of the Bible, and should not be lightly ac- 
 cepted. It is so exceedingly improbable that 
 God would employ such methods of revela- 
 tion to such an extent that most men would 
 be compelled, if they accept the critical re- 
 sults as facts, to yield their belief in the Di- 
 vine origin of the Book. 
 
 Those who hold to the traditional view of 
 the date and authorship of the books of the 
 Old Testament sustain themselves iii their 
 belief by the attestations given in the New 
 Testament. We may pass by what all others— 
 except our Lord — say of the Old Testament. 
 Many tolerably conservative critics are in- 
 clined to believe that when Jesus refers to 
 Isaiah, or to David, or to Moses, he does not 
 thereby mean to set his seal upon their author- 
 ship of the books generally in his day attrib- 
 uted to them. One of the most offensive 
 forms of this theory is that which maintains 
 that Jesus was ignorant of the real authors, 
 but supposed, with his fellow-countrymen, that 
 their reputed were their real authors. Now, 
 
DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 211 
 
 apart from the doctrine of the omniscience of 
 Jesus, such a supposition is a blow at his rep- 
 utation for superior religious knowledge. In 
 everything else he had an insight into the 
 facts deeper than his contemporaries. But 
 here he is represented as being as ignorant as 
 they. The theory in this form is incompatible 
 with faith in Christ as we conceive it in the 
 orthodox Churches of to-day. The doctrine 
 that he did not attest the authorship of the Old 
 Testament books may be tolerated ; but not 
 the argument just mentioned in support of it. 
 But some who hold that he did not attest 
 the authorship of the Old Testament explain 
 his utterances on the supposition that he knew 
 that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor 
 David the Psalms, nor Isaiah the last twenty- 
 seven chapters of Isaiah, but that, knowing 
 these things, he accommodated his speech to 
 their belief. It is true that one may some- 
 times, without mentioning it, doubt the prem- 
 ises of a speaker, yet for the sake of argument, 
 and to prevent diversion or digression from the 
 main point, assume them. But here again the 
 frequency of it is the main obstacle to its ac- 
 
212 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 ceptance. It is in plain contrast to the usual 
 frankness of Jesus, and no pedagogical interest 
 could demand such a sacrifice of his own be- 
 lief and reserve of the truth. The theory 
 does not attribute to Jesus any deception; but 
 it presupposes a capability of knowing facts of 
 importance, and yet of systematically with- 
 holding them from his hearers. It is there- 
 fore as much of a reflection upon his charac- 
 ter as the former upon his intelligence, and is 
 consequently even more objectionable. 
 
 The supposition that Christ's utterances 
 were not meant for attestations of the author- 
 ship of the Old Testament books is capable 
 of support in a manner entirely unobjection- 
 able. When he referred to these books, it 
 was the contents themselves, and not the 
 authors, upon which the emphasis was laid. 
 He may be supposed to have employed me- 
 tonymy, to have spoken of a work by the 
 name of its reputed author. This would not 
 imply either ignorance of the facts nor a 
 weak yielding through three years of public 
 teaching to the views of his hearers. Put in 
 this form, it would not be inimical to our 
 
DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 213 
 
 faith. But it would still be a debatable ques- 
 tion whether all the references of our Lord to 
 Old Testament books will admit of such an 
 explanation. And it would also be a question 
 whether Christ, who exposed so many Jewish 
 errors, would have left this one untouched. 
 For if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, 
 nor Joshua the book of that name, nor David 
 a large part of the Psalms, nor Solomon any 
 of the three books ordinarily attributed to 
 him, nor Isaiah the last thirty-one chapters 
 of Isaiah, nor Jeremiah the Lamentations, 
 nor Daniel the book which bears his name, 
 etc. ; and if the history of Israel is so entirely 
 different from that which the Old Testament 
 represents it, as the critics would have us be- 
 lieve, — then the Jews of Christ's day labored 
 under a deception so broad, and an illusion so 
 profound, that we can scarcely imagine Jesus 
 to have known the facts and yet to have said 
 nothing whatever about them. Of course it 
 is possible; and our province here is not to 
 discuss the merits of the case. Our interest 
 is to discover whether the opinions of the 
 critics are consistent with the existence of 
 
214 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 our faith. The general conclusion reached 
 is, that some modification of our accepted 
 opinions concerning the inerrancy and inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures, and of the date and 
 authorship of the Old Testament books, would 
 be compatible with everything vitally con- 
 nected with our holy religion. But such 
 modifications must not be proposed upon 
 purely literary considerations, nor may they 
 be carried to the extent to which many critics 
 would carry them. There is no danger to 
 the truth; but to the one who misses the 
 truth there is danger. Christian truth makes 
 Christ not merely the founder of our religion, 
 but the object of our love and the source of 
 our life. Christianity will be destroyed by 
 whatever robs us of this. 
 
 THE END. 
 
X^xt* xfx '\t> xjy ajy xV xj>- -A.fx -ky- *j>- xV xjy xfx xjx xV xfxxfx^ 
 
 ^j^-n^ri.frSfi.-rSri.rriTi JTSn n^i r^ r^.n^.fT^.r^.n ^n r^fi n ^n r^ .n£ri'^ 
 
 yC ?jx7jx yjxxjx yjx xjxx jxx jx 7jx xjxyjxyjxT jx7 ^jxxjxxixx jx >^ 
 THE WORKS OF 
 
 BISHOP STEPHEN M. MERRILL, D.D.,LL.D, 
 
 » 
 
 Aspects of Christian Experience. 
 
 i6mo. Cloth. 2gj pages, go cents. 
 
 "God works in us that we may have a good will, and with us 
 when we have a good will, and in all his inworking he respects 
 the nature of the soul, with its attributes of rationality and moral 
 freedom. The divine agency neither overpowers nor violates the 
 human agency." — Fix tract. 
 
 The design has been to group the substantial doctrines of 
 Christianity with reference to Christian experience in such a way 
 as to give to each its appropriate place and importance, without 
 exalting one at the expense of the other. -Preface. 
 
 Christian Baptism. Its Subjects and Mode. 
 j6mo. Cloth, j 10 pages, go cents. 
 
 " The Gospel comes to all, in every age, in every condition, in 
 the polar snows or the burning sands, in arid wastes or mountain 
 fastnesses, in palace or hospital, in the air of freedom or within 
 prison walls; and it comes with all its comforts and helps, and in 
 perfect adaptation to all. But, tested by this rule, exclusive immer- 
 sion is another system." — Extract. 
 
 I have thought that something of this character, inexpensive 
 and unpretentious, ought to be offered to those who lack time or 
 disposition to study more critical works, and with this view I send 
 (nit these discourses, believing they Mill measurably meet a real 
 want, and contribute toward the removal of the more'serious diffi- 
 culties from the minds of earnest seekers after truth. — Pre/ace. 
 
 Digest of Methodist Law ; or, Helps in the Admin- 
 istration of the Discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 i6mo. Cloth. 2jj pages, go cents. 
 
 "The design of all disciplinary administration should be kept 
 in mind. It is the honor and purity of the Church, and the spiritual 
 good of the parties concerned. It is not punishment. The Church 
 has no power or mission in that direction." — Extract. 
 
 This treatise is written and sent out with the hope that it will 
 prove helpful to all who are charged with the duty of administering 
 the Discipline of the Church, and especially the younger pastors. — 
 Pre/ace. 
 
 CRANSTON & CURTS, Publishers. 
 
 CI^TCI3^T2ST^-TI, CHICA&O, ST. X.OXTIS. 
 
xfxxfxxVxfx xfxxfx xVxVxV x|xx|xxfxx|xxfxxfxxVxV 
 ^Vjx xjx x^xjfKX^xJ^x^xJfKXJ^x^xJfKXJfKXj^ xjxxjxxixx|x\ 
 
 Works of Bishop Stephen M. Merrill, D. D., LL. D.— Continued. 
 
 The New Testament Idea of Hell. 
 
 1 6 mo. Cloth. 2j6 pages, go cents. 
 
 "The clear, steady current of truth sweeps away all these 
 devices of error, like drift upon the flowing- stream, leaving no 
 resort for the believer in the Scriptures but to acknowledge the 
 fact that the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves 
 shall hear his voice and come forth ; they that have done good unto 
 the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the 
 resurrection of damnation.*' — Extract. 
 
 This little book is written for readers of the English Scrip- 
 tures, and not for those having access to the wide range of theo- 
 logical discussions found in the ponderous works on Systematic 
 Divinity, which crowd the libraries of the learned.— Pi eface. 
 
 The Second Coming of Christ, Considered in its 
 Relation to the Millennium, the Resurrection, 
 and the Judgment. 
 
 1 6 mo. Cloth. 2S2 pages, go cents. 
 
 Hoping that it may be the means of saving some from falling 
 into erratic notions, and of confirming the wavering in the truth, 
 and of stirring up in others a profounder sense of accountability 
 to God in a coming day, I prayerfully send this volume forth upon 
 its mission, bespeaking for "it as much of candor in its perusal 
 as has been observed in its preparation.— Preface. 
 
 The Organic Union of American Methodism. 
 
 i2mo. Cloth. 112 pages. 45 cents. 
 
 " The subject of the future relations of the dissevered branches 
 of the Methodist familv is sufficiently important to attract atten- 
 tion to the utterances o'fauv one who feels moved to give expression 
 to thoughts which have become convictions, especially when 
 clothed in the language of moderation and sincerity."— Opening 
 Paragraph. 
 
 From the Michigan Cliristian .Advocate. 
 
 The book will be greedily read by the large-hearted men of all 
 branches of Methodism . . It is not an impromptu production, 
 
 but the crvstallization of years of observation and thought. 
 
 
 CRANSTON &, CURTS, Publishers, 
 
 CI^CIZLTOiT-a-'XI, C"2=HC-^-<3-0, SO?. LOT7IS. 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: May 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 111 The 
 Cranberry Townsho. PA I6O66 
 
fa 
 
 fit