,i .:../.'.. / m THE ELEMENTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM BY ANDREW C. ZENOS 'Professor of 'Biblical Theology in {McConnick Theological Seminary, Chicago, III. [PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES] NEW YORK FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND TORONTO 1895 COPYRIGHT, 1895 BY FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGES CHAPTER I. THE NAME AND PLACE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM, 1-13 Criticism in general Higher and Lower Criticism Distinction between them in Historical Method- ology Distinction sometimes based on kind of evidence dealt with by each Sometimes on the extent of application True distinction ; the object in view No difference in importance between them Name " Higher Criticism " arbitrarily fixed and open to objection " Literary Criticism " am- biguous and not preferable " Historical Criti- cism " also ambiguous Definition reached Higher Criticism and Introduction Higher Criti- cism and Biblical Criticism The Higher Criticism not a set of results Nor analytical views nor destructive theories But a method of research. CHAPTER II. THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITI- CISM, 14-46 Aim legitimate I. Origin Authorship Impor- tance of some knowledge regarding authors of books Personality of author His qualification for his task His occupation His habits Name of author not always given Sometimes lost by accident Sometimes omitted intentionally Sometimes disguised as nom de plume Question of genuineness Question of authenticity Forms of authenticity Illustrations Question of integ- rity Integrity how impaired By editorial re- iii IV CONTENTS PAGES vision By accident By compilation Kinds of compilation Summary of questions as to origin II. Literary form Not always apparent at first glance Must be made subject of investigation III. Value Adaptation as means toward an end General and specific value Value of historical writings Value .of religious writings Application to the Bible Summary of question of value These problems must be solved Yet their solution not indispensable Critical views are working hypothesis Conclusion. CHAPTER III. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITI- CISM. I. THE LITERARY METHOD, . . . 47-66 Kinds of evidence used in Criticism External and internal compared External evidence not ad- mitted Meaning of " internal " as applied to the Bible Methods classified I. Literary method, its basis Vocabulary as a means of answering criti- cal questions Use of synonyms Peculiar use of words Idioms and phrases Rhetorical qualities of style Condition necessary for safe use of these data : exclusion of disturbing factors Difference of time of composition Of subject treated of Employment of amanuenses Scribes in Oriental countries " Expert" judgment as to literary phe- nomena Caution needed Conclusion. CHAPTER IV. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITI- CISM. II. THE HISTORICAL METHOD, . . 67-101 Nature of the historical method in general Forms : i. Direct allusions to historical events In some cases very abundant Illustrations (Isaiah, Jere- miah, Ezekiel) But often very meager Illustra- tions(Joel, Job, the Pentateuch) 2. Anachronism Predictive prophecy not anachronism Illustra- tion : Isaiah's mention of Cyrus 3. Argument from silence (A) Causes of silence Suppression of in- CONTENTS. V PAGES formation Insignificance of things omitted Ignorance by the author of things omitted (B) In- ferences from such ignorance (C) Applications of the argument from silence First application in answering question of authorship and date Condi- tions prerequisite for safe use Things omitted must be important They must be relevant to the subject treated of There must be no motive for suppress- ing them Illustrations Second application in detecting forgeries Illustrations Third applica- tion in indirectly determining historic situations Illustration : silence of Samuel as to Mosaic law Intricacy of application diminishes Its value a parallel and its lessons 4. Argument from con- cinnity Based on necessity of order Simple form of the argument Reconstructive form Condi- tions for proper use (a) apparent lack of order () reasonableness of order proposed. CHAPTER V. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITI- CISM. III. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE CONTENT OF THOUGHT, 102-118 The "theological method" Characteristics of thought Indications of authorship Basis of Bibli- cal theology Development of thought Limita- tions to the use of the argument Development not uniform Reversions Degenerations Theo- ries of evolution Hegelian theory Applied by the Tubingen school Its failure Spencerian evo- lution Its inadequacy Proper uses of the argu- ment i. In making a preliminary sketch 2. In corroborating results otherwise attained Cumula- tive use of arguments in case they converge toward the same result Weakness in case they fail to converge No verdict in case they diverge Critical " divination " Not a magical power But skill in the use of the methods described. yi CONTENTS. PAGES CHAPTER VI. THE HIGHER CRITICISM AND ORIENTAL ARCHEOLOGY, 119-133 The nature of Archeology Recent development Research in Egypt In Assyria In Palestine Materials accumulated Their decipherment Bearing on the Bible Relation to criticism Ar- cheology not infallible Yet must be used Some positions established i. Biblical history proved to be trustworthy 2. Biblical history illumined 3. Literary methods cleared up 4. Light thrown on the relations of various traditions Genesis and Semitic traditions 5. Light on critical ques- tions Archeology and interpretation. CHAPTER VII. POSTULATES IN THE USE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM, 134-151 Equipment needed for the use of methods Pre- suppositions a part of the equipment All science based on presuppositions The exact sciences History Philosophical postulates as presupposi- tions Standpoints resulting from postulates I. That of Naturalism Illustrations : Baur, Kue- nen Results unsatisfactory II. Traditionalism also unsatisfactory III. Anti-traditionalistic standpoint Wholesale rejection of tradition un- satisfactory IV. The comprehensive standpoint Discriminates between traditions Uses all valu- able data. CHAPTER VIII. DOCTRINAL ASPECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM, 152-172 Power of the Bible depends on what men think of it Its origin Partly human Character of human authors determines value, at least in part Fraudu- < lent intention vitiates the whole moral character of the product Force of religious truth depends partly on the trust reposed in the teacher Reason cannot be an infallible guide in judging of validity CONTENTS. Vll PAGES ' of all truth, as it is weakened by sin An objective rule of faith needed Criticism affects the form of faith I. Rationalism Meaning of the term In exegesis In criticism It is unscientific Makes human nature contradict itself II. Evangelical- ism Faith based on good reasons Essentials of evangelicalism Jesus Christ as final authority Two wings of evangelicalism The right wing assumes that Jesus has decided the questions by using the language He used The left wing assumes that He left them open Doctrine of inspiration Difference between the fact of inspira- tion and theories of its nature and mode Fact accepted by all, theories differ Criticism may lead to the modification of theories It cannot affect the fact. CHAPTER IX. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM, ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL, .... 173-191 Criticism very old Though not long a science Periods in its history I. Ancient period i. Pre- Christian age 2. Early Christian age Origen Dionysius of Alexandria Presuppositions Com- mon view of the Old Testament Opponents of Christianity Celsus Porphyry Later Christian fathers Eusebius Disuse and disappearance 3. The Reformation age Luther Carlstadt Cal- vin Seventeenth century Hobbes Spinoza Roman Catholics R. Simon Clericus Van Dale Opposition Carpzov Vitringa. CHAPTER X. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TES- TAMENT, 192-227 II. Modern period Separate growth of Old andjNew Testament criticism The Hextateuch question Literary argument Astruc Eichhorn J. D. Michaelis Results : The document hypothesis Geddes Vater The fragment hypothesis Ilgen Vlii CONTENTS. PAGES Development of the historical argument De- Wette The supplement hypothesis Von Bohlen Bleek Tuch Knobel Stahelin Lengerke Ewald Crystallization theory Hupfeld Devel- opment of the theological argument Vatke George Reuss Graf Kuenen Wellhausen Grafian theory Grafian school in Germany In England Colenso In America In France The Dillman school Older Conservative criticism in England Home Earlier German Conservatives Later German Conservatives Hengstenberg Keil Influence of Hengstenberg Recent English Conservatives American Conservatives Kloster- mann and his unique view Question of Isaiah Early discussions Recent phase Question of Daniel Genuineness denied Defense Questions in the minor Prophets Jonah Zechariah Ques- tions in the Historical Books Judges Samuel Kings Chronicles Ruth Esther Questions in the Poetical Books Job Psalms Proverbs Song of Songs Ecclesiastes Latest French criti- cism of Vernes and Havet. CHAPTER XI. THE HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 228-248 Interest in the New Testament at first centers around the text R. Simon His opponents First phase of criticism Semler and Naturalism Eich- horn Rise of the Synoptic problem The question of the Fourth Gospel Defense of traditional views J. L. Hug Second phase Schleiermacher DeWette Credner Other followers of Schleier- macher Third phase The Tubingen school Baur His early followers Latest phase of the " tendency criticism " Strauss Bruno Bauer Evangelical opposition to Tubingen Ritschl His standpoint His followers Independent evangeli- cal criticism Weiss Beyschlag English scholars CONTENTS. IX PAGES French critics Latest negative criticism Steck Volter and the Apocalypse Spitta and the Acts Problems in New Testament criticism The Synoptic Problem The Problem of the Fourth Gospel The Problem of the Acts The Problem of the Pauline Epistles The Problem of Hebrews The Petrine Problem The Problem of James The Problem of Jude The Problem of the Johan- nine Epistles The Problem of the Apocalypse. PREFACE. THE Higher Criticism, as a method of study, has now been applied to the Bible for a long time. Many controversies have been waged in its name. A voluminous literature has grown around it. Its rights and claims, its validity and futility, its suc- cesses and failures have been put forward and com- bated in many forms and under many titles. It has been lauded and extolled as if it were a new sun destined to flood the field of Biblical literature with light ; and it has been suspected, maligned, and repudiated as a source of mischief and unbelief. And this chiefly because there has been all along such a difference of ideas as to what the Higher Criticism is. Those who have concerned themselves with it the most have never taken time to define and describe it except in the most general terms. Thus, for lack of better information, some assume it to be what criticism is popularly supposed to be fault-finding and resent its application to such a book as the Bible. Others, better informed, take it to be an estimate of the value and validity of that which is criticized. Others yet make it the equiva- lent of a system of results as to the origin and nature of the books of the Bible. Still others identify it with a certain attitude of mind toward xi xii PREFACE. the Bible, or a certain group of philosophical and religious views or principles commonly known as rationalism. It would appear to be high time for an effort to clear this confusion by propounding the question, What is the Higher Criticism ? with a view to finding a detailed and precise answer. We shall not dare to hope that our answer should be accepted as satisfactory by everybody. But whether universally accepted as satisfactory or not, it cannot but serve at least two classes of readers. First, in the world of students who are about to approach the questions of criticism as a part of their preparation for teaching and preaching the Bible, an aid to clear notions of what criticism is cannot fail to be of some use. It is true the world of students has its competent guides into this field ; but the competent teacher knows better than any one else the value of a summary, in systematic form, of such a subject in the hands of his pupils. It saves him much valuable time for ad- vanced work in the praxis of the Higher Criticism, and furnishes him with an outline and system for explanations which otherwise might appear, and be, desultory and scattered. In the second place, such an exposition of the methods, principles, and relations of the Higher Criticism to allied subjects is, in the present stage of Biblical learning, bound to be of some use to the intelligent layman as a guide in estimating the results presented to him in the name of the science. Is there any legitimate sphere for such a thing as the Higher Criticism? Elementary as this question may appear to the well informed, it is asked by PREFACE. Xlll many earnest, intelligent, fair-minded men. As all the answers of the Higher Criticism to the same questions are not the same, how shall we distinguish between the valid and safe and the futile and unsafe ? These questions an analytic exposition of the Higher Criticism will help men to answer. This is the first effort in this direction. To the author's knowledge there is no single treatise in which a simple expository and non-controversial attempt is made to describe the science and art of the Higher Criticism. He has been compelled to go over the books of a large number of standard critics in order, by a careful observation of their methods of procedure and analysis of the principles underlying their work, to gather the data for a science. If some one else, taking the suggestion of this work, shall present to the world a completely and universally satisfactory exposition of the science and art of Higher Criticism he will feel abundantly rewarded for his labors. A. C. ZENOS. CHICAGO, ILL., September, 1895. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. CHAPTER I. THE NAME AND PLACE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. CRITICISM in the broadest sense is the act of judg- ing on the merits of any production or performance. Judgments, however, may be formed Criticism in correctly or incorrectly, systemati- general, cally or at random. To make them systematically and carefully, it is necessary that one should be acquainted with the safest methods and the best ideals and standards available for the purpose. And in order to impart the information, and produce the skill implied in this, an inclusive science is organized which takes the name of criticism. Thus, in the practical application of it, criticism passes from the act to the art of correctly judging of the merits of productions. But in this general sense criticism is naturally a many-sided art and science. Every form of pro- duction, whether in the field of the e i .LU r it. .e Higher and useful or m that of the fine arts, in Lower criti- literature or in any other sphere, must have its criticism. Which of these many sides of criticism is represented by the phrase Higher 2 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Criticism ? Naturally, in seeking for an answer to this question, one turns to the adjective in the phrase. The qualifying term " higher" implies its correlative and converse "lower." We might, therefore, undertake to reach a definition of the Higher Criticism by comparing it with the Lower. A very cursory glance, however, will convince us that, although we might ascertain the relations of Higher and Lower Criticism by such a comparison, we would not obtain a precise definition of our science or art; because the terms "higher" and "lower," as commonly applied to criticism, are purely arbitrary and conventional. And like all other terms arbitrarily fixed they presuppose a knowledge of the technical use to which they have been put; otherwise they are misleading. The re- lations of the two branches of criticism suggested by the primary meanings of the adjectives are not borne out by usage. These adjectives point to the precedence of the Lower and the sequence of the Higher, as if the former belonged to a more ele- mentary and the latter to a more advanced stage in the process of investigation. Or, perhaps, the Lower might be supposed to involve a more prelimi- nary and cruder form of work as compared with the Higher. But these suggestions are not true to the facts. On the other hand any attempt to define the mean- ing of these terms independently of the adjectives in Historical "higher" and "lower" is extremely Methodology. difficult, because usage regarding them is not uniform. The terms are not fixed in such a way as to command the assent of all those who NAME AND PLACE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 3 employ them. In purely historical methodology the distinction between the Lower and Higher Criti- cism comes nearest to coinciding with the etymo- logical difference between the adjectives in the phrases. Here the Lower Criticism deals with the basal question, whether alleged sources of history are at all admissible as such; and if this question is answered affirmatively, the Higher Criticism deals with the question which~Een arises (but not till then), what degree of weight should be conceded to such acknowledged sources? whether, i.e., they give us that which is certain, that which is probable, that which is possible, or that which is impossible. But this distinction is hardly known beyond the narrow field of pure historical investigation. Another distinction between these departments of criticism is drawn on the ground of method purely and simply. The Lower Criticism is made that branclTT^cntTc^m~wKch ti notion re- relies mainly or wholly on external helps for a decision, and the Higher that which relies on internal phenomena. This distinction un- doubtedly expresses a truth; but it does not exhaust the meaning of the phrase as prevalently used. It does not include those cases in which the Higher Criticism seeks the aid of helps outside of produc- tions themselves individually considered, but not outside of a circle or group to which they belong. A still different distinction has been attempted by those who believe that the Lower Criticism should be limited to the examination of the , . ,. Still another. genuineness or spunousness of indi- vidual letters or words and the Higher to the ex- 4 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. amination in the same respects of entire sections of writings. Thus the Century Dictionary : "The Higher Criticism concerns writings as a whole; the Lower the integrity or other characteristics of particular parts or passages." This accords with the usage which has prevailed only on the question of genuineness; /. e., the Lower Criticism examines words or passages as to their genuineness, and as far as the Higher deals with the question of genuine- ness of books, or large sections of books, there is a contact. The prevalent usage can best be denned from the point of view of the objects aimed at in each branch. The Lower Criticism concerns itself True distinc- ~-_ , , tion: object in with the text of writings; the Higher, View . . -.- _- _^^^* HVHHV _^ . ,-w^. with their origin, form, and value. If this distinction be allowed as proper, it appears that the relations of these two branches of criticism can- not be put in the terms of precedence and sequence. The problem before the textual critic is to ascertain whether there are any deviations in a given text or copy of a work from the original document in which the work was promulgated the autograph and to restore the original text as nearly as possible. This the textual critic attempts to do by a careful ex- amination of the text, word for word, and even syl- lable for syllable. The question he asks is, "What did the author write?" To answer this question he uses a carefully collated and tested apparatus, basing the value of the different parts of the apparatus very often on a knowledge of who the author was. So that while it is true that the ends which are sought by the Higher Criticism are furthered by the NAME AND PLACE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 5 purification of the text, i. e., its restoration as nearly as possible to its original form; it is true on the other hand that the attainment of these ends does not depend altogether on the previous exercise of the textual criticism as a condition sine qua non. For practical purposes a reasonable certainty of a reasonably correct text is sufficient for such work. On the other hand, in order to use the Lower Criti- cism with the greatest precision, it is necessary to know something of the author, of his style and his surroundings; of the idiomatic uses of language dur- ing the period in which he flourished, and many other of the conditions under which he carried on his work, and the forces which influenced him in giving it the precise form which he gave it. All this information must be sought for, partly at least, through the Higher Criticism. These two branches are then independent of one another. And yet they are mutually helpful ; the best and surest results from either can only be attained by a wise and correct use of the other. But one may begin with either, and prosecute his work with and call the other to his aid as he proceeds. Nor can the terms "higher "and " lower " be taken as equivalent to the terms " more important" and "less important." The textual NO difference criticism is just as important as the in Im P rtance - higher; for the purposes of correct interpretation it may even be of vastly greater importance. It may make very little difference sometimes as to who wrote a given passage, if we can only know that it is free from corruptions as it stands before us. It is more important under such 6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. circumstances to test the accuracy of the text by the methods of the Lower Criticism than to find out its origin by the Higher Criticism. It appears thus that the term "higher," in the phrase Higher Criticism, cannot be interpreted or usage has understood either in itself or by com- bcen arbitrary. par j son with its correlative " lower " in the phrase Lower Criticism. The meaning of the adjectives gives no clew to its meaning, and usage differs so much as to the distinction that it is impossible to determine it with precision by con- sulting usage. It remains only to take the word as a technical term arbitrarily fixed by a consensus of writers. As such it should not be loaded with the suggestions either of its etymology or of the corre- lated branch of the Lower Criticism. This arbitrary determination of a term is, of course, not free from objections. When it is not Term open to clearly understood that the use made objections. Q f it j g pure i v conventional, a term so fixed is apt to be criticized and substitutes offered. This has been precisely the fate of the term under consideration, and if, in the course of its history, a clearer and less objectionable substitute had been offered, it might have easily displaced it. But as a matter of fact no substitute has been proposed which is not liable to equally serious objections. But as between phrases open to equally weighty objection, that one would, of course, survive which had in its favor the advantage of growingly uni- form usage. This advantage the phrase Higher Criticism has had over all other proposed sub- stitutes. NAME AND PLACE OP THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 7 It has been suggested, for instance, that the term " literary " might take the place of the term " higher" in the phrase Higher " Literary Criticism. But it must be apparent criticism" not , . better. from the outset that this would be hardly an improvement as far as clearness is con- cerned. The new title would not be definite enough, either in its etymological suggestions or in its history. As already shown above, the phrase "literary criticism" broadly used is inclusive of all the investigations called forth by a writing. It includes that process which concerns itself- with the examination of the aesthetic qualities of literary productions as well as that which examines their credentials as sources of information. In this inclu- sive sense it is evidently too broad. But it is used also in narrower senses, as when it is limited to the examination of the qualities of a literary production which are calculated to please and attract; qualities that must be judged by the taste rather than by the reason; that must be pronounced possessing or lack- ing beauty rather than conforming or lacking in conformity to fact. In this sense literary criticism is a part of art criticism, and is exactly analogous to the criticism of paintings, music, or any other pro- duction in the fine arts. Evidently, in this sense also, it is not an acceptable substitute for the term it is proposed to displace. Finally, the phrase lit- erary criticism is used to designate that method of research which, upon the basis of the literary phenomena only of a writing, seeks for the solution of the questions of the origin, literary form, and value of writings. In this sense it is a part of the Higher 8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Criticism, or an instrument to be used along with other means of kindred nature for the discovery of facts and their verification; as such it should cer- tainly not be wrested from this altogether proper, but limited, sense to the broader use of supplanting that of which it is only a part or a tool. It has been sometimes said that the Higher Criticism is historical criticism. The statement is perfectly true, taken in a loose or "Historical / criticism" not general sense. It is not true, how- better. ever, in any such sense as will warrant the substitution of the apparently simpler and easier phrase of historical criticism for Higher Criticism. The infelicities of such a substitution would be still greater than those already pointed out as likely to attend the calling of the Higher simply literary criticism. Historical criticism is in its strictest sense the verification or discovery of facts, not the verification or discovery of facts regarding the literary sources of history. The historical facts which it strives to verify may not be contained or found in literary sources but in monuments, in traditions, folklore, and legends. Thus, to enter upon an investigation whose object is the ascertain- ment of the truth of certain alleged facts is to enter on a process of historical criticism. But to enter on the investigation of the nature of certain documents purporting to be sources of information with refer- ence to historical facts is to undertake a research either in diplomatics (/. f another temperament we interpret them in THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 17 another way. The same language means more in the mouth of one, and less in the mouth of another. If it is known that a given author is generally hope- ful or sanguine in his views, and it is found that on a given situation he has expressed himself despair- ingly, the gravity of the situation becomes a matter beyond doubt. Or let us suppose that we are peru- sing a work with an optimistic tone ; if we were informed that the author was temperamentally or habitually inclined to look on the dark aspects of things, we would naturally infer that the occasion of hopefulness must have been irresistibly strong in the things of which he writes, in order to pervade the writing of a man of such temperament. The personal relation of the author to the sub- jects of which he is treating is another point on which information is always helpful. If the sub- jects are subjects of debate, it is important to know on which side the author stands. Whether he is influenced by partizan prejudice or not, whether he is carried away by personal feelings or is obliv- ious of himself ; these are questions that must be answered before the reader can have an adequate conception of the full meaning of what he is reading. Again, when an author speaks with positiveness, as if ex cathedra, on any given subject, it is natural to ask, What is his title to the place of Qualifications an authoritative teacher ? what right ofthe author - has he to speak with positiveness ? Has he acquired his information at first hand ? and if so, what are the evidences of his having done so ? Has he been trained by special experiences to speak as one who knows whereof he affirms ? or has he been endowed 18 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. by nature with genius, with a keen observation or accurate intuition ? On the answers to these ques- tions will depend in a large measure, if not alto- gether, the attitude of mind with which such an author is listened to. According as he proves to have or not to have the requisite qualifications, men will give him attention either as docile learners, or as courteous listeners, or finally as suspicious and watchful critics. The author's profession or employment, his occu- pation with, and therefore knowledge of, a special occupation of d as s of facts naturally throws much the author. ij ght Qn what ng says A great d jf. ference must exist, from the very nature of the case, between the knowledge and the opinions of an expert on the one side, and of an amateur on the other, in any department. The medical man's utterances on questions of medicine carry much more weight than those of a man of another profession ; they carry much more weight than the same man's utterances on other than medical subjects. It is of importance, therefore, to know whether the utterances .we deal with are those of one whose daily life has qualified him to be an expert on the subjects of which he is speaking. The attitude of mind with which his words are listened to will depend on the knowledge that he is an expert or a mere amateur. But the bearing of all such information is not as simple as it may at first appear. Great care is neces- sary in discriminating in each indi- Double bear- r- L c i u ing of occupa- vidual case. Such professional char- acter, when established, should have a twofold effect on the way in which statements are THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 19 to be taken. First, as to statements of fact, we expect from such a person greater fulness and accuracy; but secondly, as to statements involving opinions of the profession or employment, we are led to make some allowance for professional enthusi- asm. If an author, e. g., be a priest, all he may say of the ritual and its details will be taken with more confidence than if he were a herdsman ; but at the same time his estimate of the importance of the details might be exaggerated, owing to the very fact of his being a priest, and unconsciously magni- fying his office. In such a case, it will be readily seen, it is not only important that the general pro- fession and character of the author should be known, but also his individual peculiarities ; even to the extent of enabling the critic to ascertain how far he would be likely to be influenced by professional pride or prejudice. Still another element to be taken into considera- tion, before the critic is satisfied on the question of origin, is the nature of the source Habits of from which this information is derived, authors. The works of many writers can be used as sources regarding their lives and times. Josephus gives us his own Autobiography, Augustine details many of his experiences in his Confessions ; others, both ancient and modern, let their private lives and the history of their times enter into their works. Others, however, are more sparing in their allusions to themselves. Some, as already intimated, are totally silent. They write impersonally. They let others make claims for them. These claims must be sifted and tested. 20 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. When an author distinctly reveals himself in his work, both the manner and the spirit in which he speaks of himself contribute in making an estimate of the value of the information he furnishes. His whole moral character is involved not merely in the way in which he speaks of himself, but also in the fact that he writes under his own name, under an assumed name either real or imaginary or, lastly, under no name whatever. In the last of these alternatives there is perhaps not any necessary moral implication. Anonymous The reasons that may lead a writer to writings. p u j. foj-th his WO rk anonymously may be such as do not open him to the charge of moral de- linquency. The author may be indifferent to the benefits which might be expected to inure either to himself or to others, from attaching his name to his work. He may be ignorant of any such benefits. He may have some good reason of a local and tem- porary character for withholding his name from the public. Or having attached it he may have been deprived of the credit of the work by some acci- dent. In none of these cases would his personal integrity and trustworthiness be impaired by reason of the fact that his name is not associated with his work. But if from this case we pass to the other alter- native : viz., the one in which the name of an author is given to the writing, it Of writings falsely as- becomes a question of the utmost cribed. importance at once to ascertain whether the name is correctly given. If the result of the inquiry be that it is, then again the moral integrity of the writer is established and with it, to THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 21 that extent, his trustworthiness. But if not, then the inquiry must be pushed further. The critic must now ask, How comes it about that the writing is ascribed to an author who did not write it ? 1. One answer to this important question might be that this is done in consequence of confusion or accident. Of the products of antiquity x By acci . this is not unlikely to be the case dent- often. Methods of publishing were imperfect. It is well known that copyists often took liberties with the most important works; they appended names to works anonymously published; and these names, once attached to writings, would be perpetuated by passing into all subsequent copies. At other times again copyists confused the name of the real author with the name of some other, and substituted that of the other; and this, being thus associated with the work, came in the course of time to supplant that of the real author. In either of these cases no one could really be considered morally reprehensible, except so far as negligence or hastiness in reaching conclusions is morally reprehensible. For, by the very supposition, the real cause of the ascription of a wrong name to the writing is the mistake of the copyist; /. e., an accidental result, and not the inten- tion of any one to misrepresent. 2. But a second answer to the question might be that the real author, having regard more to the acceptance of his work than a desire a Inten tion- to gain credit to himself for its pro- all y- duction, attached to it the name of some other person better known than himself. The weight of a great name will naturally carry a book into the 22 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. hands of many readers who would otherwise not be inclined to give it their time and attention. The weight of a great name has always been sought after by those who would secure important ends.* Let it be assumed that an author cared more to have his views accepted than to be known as their originator, and it naturally follows that the temptation to palm his work off as that of a great writer must be met by him. In such a case, it is hardly necessary to say the work is essentially a forgery. The moral impli- cations are also in such a case apparent. 3. But there might be a third answer to the above question before the critic, viz., that the author 3. Pseudo- hides under an assumed name; and nyms> this simply from personal predilection and not with the intention of deceiving, even in order to procure a wider acceptance for his views. How frequently this is the case in modern literature it is not necessary to point out. Pseudonyms and noms deplume have come to be used very extensively as covers for real authors' names; there are so many of them in fact that it is necessary to compile diction- aries of great bulk to serve as guides in this large and growing field. Young and oversensitive literary men as a class are especially apt to seek conceal- ment behind the impersonality of an assumed name. But a pseudonym is really such only as it is clearly understood to be a pseudonym. When so under- stood it reflects in no way on the morality of the motives of the author. * The principle here is the same as that underlying the custom in our times of securing an introduction by some eminent man to the work of a young and unknown author. THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 23 Thus far the question of authorship has been con- sidered as one of genuineness. We have seen that when a name appears attached to a Genuineness document the critic asks : Is the work and Authen- really the production of the man whose name it bears ? Allied to this is the further question of authenticity. This differs from the question of genuineness not so much in degree as in kind. Put in its simplest and most general form it is : Does the work accurately represent the author ? It can occur in either of two cases : i. When there are various copies, recensions, or editions. One of these probably comes nearer ex- pressing the ideal of the author than First form O f any other. He would, or perhaps authenticity, did, give it the sanction of his approval; it is au- thentic or authenticated because it has the authority of the originator, /. e., the only person who can give it authority the author. Such authority is more frequently found in con- nection with the field of the Lower Criticism. Here the question often is, Did the author write this or that ? Whenever the text of a given production has been so far purified that it may be said to be either strictly or for practical purposes an equivalent to the autographic text, it is then either strictly or practically authentic. Whenever a recension or edition of a book, or copy of a piece of art, is suffi- ciently accurate to represent the production as the author would have it or did put it forth, it is authentic. It is plain that authenticity and genuine- ness are terms which it is very easy to confuse with one another. In fact not unfrequently they are 24 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. used interchangeably. While this use is not strictly correct, there is a region in which investigations regarding genuineness and authenticity overlap, or at least, touch one another. This is the case when the term is applied in the broader sense. 2. In the broader sense the authenticity of a writing is the authenticity of current opinion second form regarding it. When, for instance, an of authenticity, anonymous work is tacitly and uni- versally ascribed to a given writer, without explicitly claiming to be his work within its text, or in any part presumably from the hand of the author, the question may be asked: Is the ascription authentic ? /. e. y Does it proceed from and represent the author at this point ? Or if a tradition, either uni- form or varying, has represented a writing as the product of a given person, the question maybe put : Is the tradition authentic ? It then becomes proper to speak of the investigation as the investigation of authenticity and not of genuineness. But it is an investigation into the authenticity of a tradition regarding the work, not of the work itself. The difference may be illustrated by taking two cases from the history of criticism. The first is the illustrations: familiar controversy regarding the Isaiah. book of Isaiah as found in the Bible. The first thirty-nine chapters of the book claim to be the work of a definite person described as "Isaiah, the son of Amoz, ... in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." If it were proved that these chapters were not written by this prophet, the genuineness of that part of the book would be disproved. The last part THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 25 of the book, however, consisting of chapters xl. to Ixvi., although always found together with these and commonly ascribed to the same prophet, nowhere claims to have been uttered by Isaiah. If it were now proved that it was the work of some other individual besides the Isaiah specifically named and distinguished in Is. i. i : the authentic- ity of the tradition ascribing this part of the work to Isaiah would be disproved but not its genuine- ness. The question of genuineness does not rise until a claim embedded in the book is suspected of being unfounded. The second case illustrating the difference between genuineness and authenticity is the case of the recently edited Testament of "Testament of Abraham. This M. R. James, the Abraham." editor, claims is identical with a work of that name known in ancient times, but lost sight of during the period that has elapsed since. Origen for example mentions and refers (Thirty-fifth Homily on Luke) to an apocryphal writing containing an account of the conflict of good and evil angels regarding the body of Abraham; the title of a similar work is placed by Nicephorus in a list of apocryphal books such as Enoch, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc. But while James claims the identity of the work edited by himself with these, all scholars are not satisfied that the identification has been made out. Evidently an investigation of the question is in order, and the investigation that would either prove or disprove the position of James must be one in the sphere of authenticity. This special case may also serve to indicate the twofold meaning of the 26 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. term authenticity and the twofold aspect of the question involved. The critic may ask: first Is the work the same as that alluded to by Origen and 'found in the list of Nicephorus ? and secondly, Is it an authentic copy or recension of that work ? It will be seen from these illustrations that the question of authenticity does not involve the moral character of the author's intention, whereas that of genuineness may. Lack of authenticity may arise by accident, or by a mistake of some other person besides the author, or even from the intention of some other besides the author to deceive; but in no case is the author responsible for the confusion or misunderstanding that may result. Lack of genuineness, unless it can be proved to be the result of carelessness or innocent neglect on the part of the author, involves the moral character of his motives and vitiates his authority, so far forth, on moral questions. But besides the questions of authenticity and genuineness and kindred to them, in examining the origin of a work there is another which Integrity. . . '.- the critic must ask; this refers to the integrity or unity of it. This again may assume dif- ferent forms and require different treatment accord- ing to its varying phases. But its general nature is that of an inquiry into the unity or multiplicity of persons involved in the production of a writing. i. All literary productions are apt to be tampered with by editors. Even in modern times, notwith- standing rigid notions prevailing How impaired. regarding literary propriety and the rights of the author to hold his writing as a posses- THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 27 sion with marketable value, it is not infrequently the case that writings are altered by editors or revisers. And the more a literary production is used, the greater the probability of its being cor- rupted in the process of reproduction. Now this corruption, viewed as a misrepresentation of the author, is investigated under the question of authenticity; viewed as a wrong which must be set right, it is investigated by the texual or Lower Criti- cism. The sole object of the textual criticism is to determine whether the text of a writing is found as the author first put it forth, or has t . By Editorial been corrupted either intentionally or Revlslons - unintentionally; and, if corrupted, to what extent corrupted and how it may be purified. But corrup- tions may enter into writings in several forms. They may consist in the omission or excision of original parts, in the alteration of these, or in the addition of new elements. In the first two forms they are manifestly in the sphere of the Lower Criti- cism. They affect the problems of the Higher Criticism only indirectly. In the form of additions, however, they may be legitimately in either depart- ment. It would be hard to draw a sharp line between the two kinds of criticism here; but, if one should be attempted, it must be upon the basis of the recognition of the fact that both branches take cog- nizance of additions to writings, but that they differ in their point of view and in their methods of dealing with these additions. The Lower Criticism looks at such additions from the point of view of the text. They are corruptions, which it attempts to detect and expunge. Hence it is not concerned with their mag- 28 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. nitude or gravity; they must be eliminated in any case. They may be simple words or letters or whole paragraphs or chapters. Of the latter the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark and the first eleven of the eighth of John are clear instances. The Lower Criticism insists that they shall not be considered a part of the writing of the books in which they occur. The Higher Criticism looks at additions from the point of view of their 'origin. Hence, if they are small and insignificant it may ignore them, as prac- tically leaving the question of authorship of the whole work unaffected. The Lower Criticism seeks to find these additions and to eliminate them mainly by means of its own peculiar methods; /'. e., the collation of manuscript readings, citations, etc. The Higher Criticism attempts the same task by means of a comparison of internal characteristics of style and thought. Its problem is to answer the question : Is there more than one author discern- ible in the writing or not ? and if that question should be answered in the affirmative, How many authors, and who were they ? This constitutes the investigation of integrity and comes within the province of the Higher Criticism. 2. Thus far only one cause of the impairment of integrity has been taken into consideration. That a. Accident- was editorial addition. There are ally ' others. The second to be named is the accidental union of two or more writings origi- nally put forth as distinct and separate. This may happen in one of several conceivable ways. For the sake of illustration let us imagine a case based on usages of modern times. It is quite common for THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM.. 29 persons engaged in some special form of literary work to collect minor contributions to the subject they are studying. These, generally in the form of pamphlets or brochures, are often bound together for the sake of convenience or economy. Each volume of such pamphlets bound together is often named after the first, most extensive, and perhaps most important of the pamphlets contained in it. Other brochures maybe included in the title, but if the economy of space and the neatness aimed at in such matters rule otherwise, the whole volume is likely to have the title of the first number in it, with an " etc." appended, to indicate that it was given only in a general way. If in a case of this very common sort there should be bound together two productions, one with the author's name attached and a second anonymous, and if in the course of time, after the pamphlets have passed out of the attention of the public, a revival of interest in the subject should lead some enterprising publisher to reprint them, it would certainly be possible that he should put them together as the work on the same subject of the same author. But in such case there would no doubt be evidences of the lack of integrity, raising a question on this point for criticism to solve. But what is supposed as possible under modern conditions, when means for preserving the separateness of distinct productions are so abun- dant, it is hardly possible to doubt did happen under the more primitive and pliable Ancient modes conditions of antiquity. Two of these of book-making, conditions especially bearing on this subject are worthy of mention; first, the small number of 3O THE HIGHER CRITICISM. copies made of any single book. Modern facilities for the multiplication of copies of literary produc- tions make it possible for us to put forth editions numbering thousands ; but where each copy was made by hand separately, editions often were neces- sarily much more limited. Secondly, the scarcity and expensiveness of materials made it necessary to utilize the same parchment for more than one book. It is very well known that so great was the desire to economize parchment that manuscripts of old books were often washed in order that new ones might be written on the same parchment. The same desire led to the inclusion of two or more documents on one roll.* It was certainly possible under such circumstances to run together different works into one. But this possibility once granted, it becomes a part of the Higher Criticism to inquire, whenever suspicions arise of such having been the case, whether they are well founded, and to unravel and separate works belonging to different authors. 3. Compilation. The combination of two or more documents in one may also be made intentionally 3. compiia- by a compiler or editor. The simplest tion> form of compilation is the adopting into one's work or incorporating of passages from * Instances of such confusion of authorship are supposed to exist in great abundance in ancient documents. The well-known difficulty in Mat. xxvii : 9, is explained by many on the assumption that the books of Jeremiah and Zechariah were commonly written on the same roll and spoken of together as the " Prophet Jere- miah," at least locally by thfcse with whom the apostle Matthew was associated, and that in ascribing an utterance of Zechariah's to Jeremiah he was not in error, but used the common designation of the book from which he quoted. THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 31 other works. An author, undertaking to write on a given subject, finds material in the writings of others, which expresses what he is aiming to put forth. He takes it into. his own work, with more or less change, in order to adapt it to his purposes. If the change be considerable, if it amount, for instance, to a complete transformation and assimilation, it may pass as properly his own. If the change is slight or none at all, and he fail to give credit to the source from which he has derived his material, the impression will go forth that the work is entirely his own, but to the critic the problem of the integrity of the writing will naturally occur. But the process of compilation may be resorted to for the purpose of harmonizing or reducing to simplicity an apparently multiple mass Kinds of com- of literature bearing on any given P llatlon - subject. This is generally done after a period of active and original thought, and during a period of study and reproduction of the thoughts of the pre- ceding time. Instances of such compilation are the reduction of the Gospel history into one continuous narrative of the life of Christ by Tatian in his well known Diatessaron; the Historia Tripartita of Cassio- dorus, or the unification of the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and the numerous Catena of exegetes and the Sentences of the theologians of the Middle Ages. These compilations may be made with more or less editorial work on the part of the compiler. A compiler may so far transform and assimilate the different materials he has brought together that he may be entitled to be considered practically the 32 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. author of the new production. On the other hand he may throw them into one with very little work on his part; with very little effort even to smooth over the abruptness of passing from one of his sources to another, by modifying the closing portion of the first or the opening portion of the second part, or by inserting a connecting sentence or para- graph. In such a case it is usual to call the compiler a redactor. A compilation may be made by the use of sources coordinately from the compiler's point of view according to a principle which suits his purpose, or it may be made on the basis of one source used as primary and others as auxiliary or supplementary to that. The redactor may find one source which furnishes him with his groundwork; and using this as a main source, he may insert into it from other sources sections that add to the fulness or com- pleteness of the account. Or he may find two or more sources which bear to one another the relation of parallels and fuse these into one. Or he may resort to a large number of sources and articulate them into one another and thus work out a mosaic. In all these cases it is important to know the exact course taken by him in order to be able to use his work rightly.* * The investigation of this single question of integrity con- stitutes that large and important section of the Higher Criticism known as analysis. Emphasis has been laid on this section to such an extent that the very name of the Higher Criticism to many suggests this simple analytic process. It is a favorite depart- ment with many critics, and has been so enthusiastically worked, that the minds of even some experts have been led to see in it the almost exclusive field of criticism. Thus Professor G. F. Moore of THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 33 To sum up, the questions which may be asked, and which it is of the highest importance to ask and answer with reference to the origin .... , , Summary of of literary productions, are: i. The questions of question of authorship, which may be put simply and generally : Who is the author ? 2. The question of genuineness: or, Is the author whose work the writing claims to be the real author ? 3. The question of authenticity: or, Is it a true and accurate representation of the author ? 4. The question of integrity: or, Is the whole work the production of one author's activity ? Is it an original work or a compilation ? Is it derived from discoverable sources, and what are its sources? Accessory to these questions, and involved in them to such an extent as not to require separate con- sideration here, are the further questions of 5. The time of origin, and 6. The place of the same. Every effort to answer these questions from data given within any writing, whether it be a book of the Bible, a Vedic song, or a Homeric poem, is a piece of work in the domain of the Higher Criticism. II. LITERARY FORM. The second of the objects aimed at by the Higher Criticism is the determina- tion of the precise literary form of a ,. II. Form. literary production. To any one who is acquainted only with modern literary methods Andover Theological Seminary, in the Introduction to Bacon's Genesis of Genesis : ' ' With these observations [certain observa- tions of Aben Ezra's regarding post-Mosaic material in the Penta- teuch, which indicate composite authorship] criticism had made a beginning," ignoring all critical work before the investigation of the question of integrity was undertaken. 34 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. this would appear to be a work of supererogation. Works of literature in modern times are so described and labeled in their very titles that it is impossible to mistake what their authors intended them to be. The class to which they belong is often given with the title. One does not need to enter upon an investigation to ascertain that one of Alphonse Daudet's popular stories is a novel. He is told that it is, on the title-page. One need not be told that Tennyson's In Memoriam is a poem ; he sees it in the arrangement of the lines. But these modes of publishing books are part of the system of modern civilization. In ancient times Not always tne reader of a book was left to his own apparent. resources to judge of the form of liter- ary productions. Poetry and prose were written alike in consecutive manuscript. Standards for dis- tinguishing between different species of literature were neither as sharp nor as commonly familiar. Not that this condition of things occasioned any difficulty to those who were accustomed to it, but simply that the matter was left to them to ascertain instead of being, as in modern days, decided and simply announced by the author and publisher. Sometimes indeed a preface by the author would indicate to the reader whether the document he was about to peruse was a parable or an allegory, a historic narrative or a collection of lyrics or proverbs. But much oftener the question did not even seem to occur to the writer whether it were proper or useful to say anything as to the kind of literature he was putting forth. Hence how- ever easy or hard it may have been for the im- THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 35 mediate circle of readers of an ancient writing to discern its class, it is a problem for the critic to solve under the very different conditions of the modern age. And it is a problem which often- times requires considerable labor and delicate in- vestigation, careful analysis and comparison of data. It is also extremely probable, if not absolutely certain, that forms of literature used at other times may have become obsolete in our days, > J > Forms have just as it is certain, on the other hand, changed, that forms utterly unknown formerly have come into use in modern times. The history of literature is not an exception to the law of development, which has so much diversified and made more com- plex every other sphere of activity and brought to light a large number of forms, while at the same time it has caused to fall into disuse many of the cruder and more elementary ones. To take a concrete and familiar illustration : the Song of Songs or Song of Solomon nowhere ex- pressly claims to be a narrative of r T.L i-ii ^.L j.- A i Illustration. facts. Its title rather intimates that it is a work of the imagination. It has very often been spoken of as a drama. In many essential particulars it corresponds with the species of literary production known under that name. But, if we are to judge from the differences in the analyses made by different scholars, it seems to be so constructed as to baffle analysis as a drama. It differs in many respects from a drama as conceived in modern times. It is not unlikely that it constitutes a dis- tinct form of literature, with laws of composition 36 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. altogether different from any now known to the literary critic.* III. VALUE. The third object aimed at by the Higher Criticism is to ascertain the value of literary productions. Value is a relative term. III. Value: ,.,... . . . . Adaptation to This is especially the case when it is applied to literary productions. A writing has value as it fulfils the purpose for which all productions of its class are put forth. The value of a work in the department of history con- sists in its giving an abundance of historical infor- mation, and that accurately or faithfully to the facts. It is of the greatest value when it furnishes the fullest information and is absolutely trustworthy in its every statement of fact; or, in other words, when it is absolutely without error. By as much as it de- parts from this absolute standard it loses value as history. It does not, however, necessarily lose value in other respects, if it happen to have any other value. It becomes altogether valueless as history when it is found that it does not furnish facts, or that it "does not give them credibly. From this statement it wilTat once appear how intimately this question of the value of a literary production is connected with the previous questions of its origin and literary form, especially the latter. Probably very few literary productions have been put forth simply and purely in one species of litera- Aim not ai- ture - * n ^ e vast majority of cases, ways single. besides the apparent object and class of a writing, there is a more remote or ultimate aim * Cf. McDonald on " The Drama in Semitic Literature," in the Biblical World, January, 1895. THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 37 in view in its production. A work of fiction, e.g., may be put forth as a work of fiction pure and simple; or it may be put forth as a work of fiction with the ulterior object of cultivating art; or with the other ulterior object of imparting historic in- formation; or, still further, with the ulterior object of producing a moral impression. Evidently the critic must distinguish between the novel which is put forth as a novel only and the novel which is published with the aim of producing an artistic or a moral or other impression. The general value of a literary production then must be carefully distinguished from its special value. The general value of a book General and may be defined as that which consti- special value - tutes its usefulness for all ordinary purposes served by all books; its special value is that which consti- tutes its usefulness as a book of a particular class with a specific object to be attained by productions of that class. History has been cited as an illustration, and the value of historical writings has been found to con- sist in their fulness and credibility. value of his- This is true of historical writings pure tonc wntin es. and simple. It often happens that a historical narrative is given not for the purposes of history as a science, but -for something ulterior, such as the philosophical or moral value of the narrative. In such a case it is evident that the value of the writ- ing does not depend so much on the fulness and credibility of its historical material as on the selec- tion and coordination of the historical facts accord- ing to their importance relatively to the special 38 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. object in view. Fulness and precision in details then are not indispensable. Inaccuracy is not in- compatible with the greatest value. In fact a proper economy of style will require that too great fulness, and a precision such as can only be properly used by a very few technical scholars, be avoided as cumbersome. Similarly, when the primary object of a writing is to convey scientific knowledge, its value will be found in its absolute accord with nature; its representing the facts of nature with unwavering fidelity. If an author, however, undertakes to enlighten the minds of a popular audience on science; if he should attempt to express himself in the strictest scientific language, with a view to being faithful to the facts of nature, he might render his production useless, /. e., he might take away from its value by such an effort. Conse- quently, the greatest value would be secured for his production if he should depart from the strict standard of the pure scientist and use loose or figurative language. But this might not be as minutely faithful to the facts of nature. He will seek approximate and exact accuracy. So again, if a historian has occasion to introduce scientific facts into his work, he may depart from the pure scien- tific modes of representing these facts without thereby impairing the value of his historical work, or the general value of it. In a work on ethics or philosophy the greatest value is attained when the conviction is produced that the views put forth are Value of re- true 5 when they bind the reason and the Ugious writings, conscience. In art the highest value is reached when the taste or aesthetic faculty is THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 39 satisfied and developed, /. e., led to a stage of growth whence it can appreciate, approve, and enjoy art forms of a purer and higher type. For this reason a piece of belletristics may be utterly valueless as history or as science, but excellent as a vehicle of moral ideas or aesthetic cultivation. It belongs to criticism to discriminate the specific value of each product and pronounce on the question of its worth as history, science, philosophy, ethics, politics, belles-lettres, or whatever else it may appear to be on close examination. To these general principles it is necessary to add some specific considerations regarding the standards by which the value of the books of Application to the Bible is to be measured. The the Bible - Bible, of course, is a book of religion in general. Its ultimate object is to bring men alienated from God, their Maker and heavenly Father, back to Him. Its highest value will depend on its accom- plishing this end. But, in aiming at this end, the Bible is found to make use of several species of literature; as for example history, prophecy, poetry, epistle, discourse, etc. In treating of the question of the special value of any book it will be important to determine its worth from the point of view of the standards applied to the class of literature of which it is a part. The history of the Bible is thus history not pure and simple, written for the sake of imparting historical information, but history for the sake of producing a religious impression, with a view ultimately of changing men's attitude toward God and molding their conduct among themselves. As such, the history contained in the Bible must be 40 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. measured by standards of credibility less rigid than those applied to purely historical works. Occa- sional inaccuracies in it must not be esteemed blemishes or counted errors. But on the other hand, inasmuch as the impression which the state- ments of the Bible are intended to make is to be made through trustworthy ideas, so far as the validity of those ideas depends on the truthfulness of the history on which they are based, that history must be substantially credible. Thoughts built on facts, and deducible from facts, necessarily depend on those facts and their reality for their value. The religious value of thoughts purporting to be derived from actual facts is impaired if it be discovered that the facts themselves are not true. This is not true, of course, of thoughts, which have no such connection with or are dependent on facts. Thoughts may be illustrated and enforced by fig- ments of the imagination, and to use creations of the imagination for this purpose is legitimate; but they must be understood to be figments and not facts. If an appeal be made in behalf of a certain line of action based on a statement that certain facts have taken place, as soon as it is perceived that the statement was not true the force of the appeal is lost. Conduct, so far as it depends on history, requires a correct presentation of that history. But the correctness of presentation needed under such circumstances .need not extend to the minutest details. It is enough if it be sub- stantial; it is not enough if it fail in its chief cardi- nal points. This is the argument of the Apostle Paul in i Cor. xv., with reference to the resurrection THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 4! of Jesus Christ. "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is vain." If the preaching of the historic fact that Christ was risen was to serve as a basis of faith, it must be true preaching; it must state a truth. To sum up this principle makes it necessary to ascertain in each case the aim of a historical state- ment, before we can pronounce on its Summary. value as tested by standards of history. If history be given for the sake of illustration ; if the purpose is not to call for a course of action because the facts narrated have taken place, but to furnish a distinct framework for the abstract principles to be taught; if the history might have been given hypothetically, or as a parable, the critic will not pronounce it valueless because he has found inac- curacies or lack of fulness in it. If it is given as a ground of action, he will insist on correctness in the essential features of the account. If it is given as history for the sake of its historic interest pure and simple, he will be more rigid and require precision in details as well as in the chief elements of the history. History as a form of literature may serve as a specimen of all literary forms, so far as the treat- ment of the question of value is concerned. On the same principles that have been illustrated in speak- ing of history, the critic should carefully distinguish between the primary and accessory aims of other kinds of writing, and pronounce on their value rela- tively to these aims. From what has thus far been ascertained of the objects sought to be attained by the Higher Criti- 42 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. cism it must be very plain that these objects are legitimate and proper, and that it is extremely im- portant to reach definite results re- These ques- tions impor- gardmg them. Can we now go a step further, and say that, before any use can be made of any literary productions, it is absolutely necessary to obtain definite answers to these ques- tions ? This question seems hardly worth asking; But not indis- an< ^ y et > w ^^ re ^rence to the books pensabie. o f t h e Bible, the importance of the knowledge secured by the Higher Criticism has been not infrequently exaggerated into an absolute necessity, as if no proper use of them could be made without it. This position is neither logical nor historical. It is not historical, because it ignores the history of the use of the Bible in the past. Without this critical information the Bible has proved from the beginning, and throughout the ages, not merely a source of comfort, but a means of building character. And the type of character built without this knowledge has been and is, so far as it is being produced at the present day, of as good quality as the character that is likely to be built by a study of the Bible in the light of critical investigation. To say, therefore, that this light is absolutely necessary is to belie the facts of history and experience. The facts prove in this case that the Bible is a popular book and is clear in its main contents to every one that may make use of it. There are some things that it is absolutely neces- sary to know in order to use it aright; but these are not the facts brought to light by the Higher Criticism. It is true also that there are parts of it THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 43 which may be and are misunderstood without this light; but, upon the whole, the harm done by such misunderstanding is of a negative rather than of a positive kind. It consists in the loss of valuable information, rather than in imbibing injurious thoughts or standards; in being deprived of the inspiration and suggestiveness that come from a true and full knowledge, rather than in being dragged down morally by wrong moral ideals or standards that may be built on the absence of that light. However important some of these questions may be, therefore, they are not such as to need solution as a condition sine qua non of the critical right use of the Bible. They touch ws h : y p w t r not its vital and essential nature, but eses< its details. This is not, of course, equivalent to denying that some theory of the nature and origin of the Bible must underlie all use of it. Nor is it equivalent to denying that any theory serving as a basis must be true or untrue, right or wrong. But it is denying that any theory is so far true and right as to make it, and it only, the theory upon which the Bible must be used. The theories which have come into vogue have varied so much, and changed so rapidly, that for any of them to claim this exclusive right to furnish the basis of use is premature and arrogant. They are all, at the best, but working hypotheses of varying plausi- bility. Some minds feel the force of the reasons for one more strongly than the force of the reasons for any other, and proceed to accept that as their starting-point in using the Bible. To many, for 44 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. instance, the views concerning the Bible commonly called "traditional" constitute the most reason- able working hypothesis for the proper use of the book. These views were held by scholars in past generations; their being called "traditional" is neither for nor against their validity; they cer- tainly constitute a good working hypothesis. Until something more satisfactory is demonstrated to be true they are entitled to hold a place among the possible theories. The situation therefore which is assumed by some of the more enthusiastic sup- porters of recent views held in the name of the Higher Criticism is not real, in that it presupposes the worthlessness of traditional theories; or rather recognizes the value of only such views as are based on modern critical research. Thus Cheyne * says : "I would rather that my readers adopted one or the other [of the views of the historic situation of a Psalm both of which he rejects himself] than that they reject all attempts to find historical situations for the sacred lyrics." In a remark like this either the so-called "tra- ditional " view of the historical situation in this Psalm is among the legitimate ones, or it is not. If it is, then the remark loses its force; because every one who uses the Psalm, depending on the traditional view of the situation, has a "historical situation" for it. But if the "traditional view" of this his- torical situation is not worthy to be classified among "attempts to find historical situations," and the only ones worthy of the name are those which have been conjecturally put forth by expert critics Jeremiah, p. 105. THE OBJECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 45 in recent years, then it exaggerates the importance of a solution of the critical questions and is to be rejected. Thus also we must reject the views on this sub- ject of those who like Professor Briggs hold to the giving to the solution of these ques- unessential to tions a fundamental place in religious Ugious life, life and experience. This eminent scholar says:* "You may be willing to take it [The Bible] on the authority of your pastor, or your parents, or your friends, or the Christian Church. But there are multitudes who cannot do this. They want to know by what authority the Church claims that the Bible is the Word of God. The Church has committed so many sins against truth and fact that it is neces- sary for us to know whether the Church is in error about the Bible, or whether it is right. How can we know this except by criticism?" That the reasoning in this paragraph is not conclusive or valid may be demonstrated by reversing its point and noticing how applicable it is when thus reversed. For example, let us say: " You may be willing to receive the Bible on the authority of specialists, experts, scholars, Higher Critics, but there are multitudes who cannot do this ; they want to know by what authority Higher Critics claim that the Bible is the Word of God. Higher Criticism has committed so many sins against truth and fact that it is neces- sary for us to know whether the Higher Criticism is in error about the Bible, or whether it is right. How can we know this except by inquiring of the Church, the Guardian of the Bible, its history and nature ? " *The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, pp. 119, 120. 46 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. The fact is neither this position nor the position of Professor Briggs, which is not a whit stronger than this, is tenable. The Bible commends itself, apart from criticism or the authority of the Church, as a source of religious information and inspiration. Criticism and the Church may increase or diminish the light in which the Bible is used, but they are not absolutely necessary, either singly or combined, to authenticate the Bible. To sum up, therefore, while it is from every point of view of the utmost importance that investi- gation should be encouraged in the Conclusion. ... pursuit of the objects aimed at by the Higher Criticism; while it is necessary that some views be held regarding these subjects, and that these views must be wrong if not right; while it is a solemn duty to seek the most light that can be secured, and to hold the views which are the nearest to the truth on these subjects; it is not so necessary that all use of the Bible without the light which may come on it from the Higher Criticism is value- less or misleading. CHAPTER III. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. I. THE LITERARY METHOD. THE attainment of the objects enumerated in the preceding chapter may be sought for in one of two ways; /. e., either through the testi- K indsofevi- mony of competent witnesses, who Can dence - give such information as will solve them; or by examining the characteristics of the productions and comparing these with each other. And by characteristics in this connection are meant, first, the phenomena of the productions as literary works; and, secondly, the statements found in them regard- ing themselves. The first of these modes of solving the critical problems is the way of external evidence; the second the way of internal evidence. J External and External evidence is historical in its internal, character ; its value depends on the trustworthiness of the witness who gives it. It is generally agreed to that the highest value attaches to the testimony of eye-witnesses, and that as soon as such testimony is known to be not that of eye-witnesses, but that of men who have obtained it at second hand, it assumes the character of "tradition"; it is open to the doubts and limitations of traditional testimony, and 48 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. is in general classified as such. This sort of tradi- tional evidence the Higher Criticism admits only indirectly, and in order to ascertain how far its results may conflict or agree with this evidence. The more precise definition of the relations of tradition and criticism will be considered at an appropriate place in this discussion. It is sufficient to note at the present the fact that traditional evi- dence is not the direct subject of investigation in the Higher Criticism, strictly speaking. But his- torical evidence which cannot in any way be called traditional is also excluded from the field. And External evi- tn ^ s not so mucn as a matter of theory, dence excluded. b ut o f practical necessity. It is not denied that historical testimony at first hand, or the testimony of eye-witnesses of undoubted competency and character, if obtainable, would be paramount and even final. But the value of this principle is lost when we take into account the fact that such testimony is available only in rare instances with reference to ancient and medieval literary produc- tions, and is utterly lacking as far as the books of the Bible are concerned. History, as far as it is external to these books, tells us nothing directly about their origin. As far as it throws light indirectly on the periods and regions within which they may have originated, it is not within the scope of criticism but of archeology to examine the information secured. Accordingly we shall be led to consider, at the proper place, the relations of criticism and archeology. For the present we may note that criticism has no direct use to make of external evidence of this sort more than of tradition; THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 49 though for different reasons, as already explained. We are thus led to limit the field within which the Higher Criticism may carry on its investigations to internal evidence. Its work here consists in esti- mating the significance of the facts to Internal evi . be found in the books as literary pro- dence admitted, ductions, in comparing these with one another, and reaching conclusions on this basis.* It does not concern itself with opinions regarding these facts, no matter how old or by whom held; but with the facts themselves. The evidence it deals with is internal. But in dealing with such a book as the Bible the term internal must include evidence found in the Bible as a whole, not evidence r i i i i i Term " inter- found within the special book that nai" in the Bible. may be under investigation at any special time. Light may be thrown by the various parts of one book not only on that book but on the whole collection commonly known as the Bible. The question, therefore, in formulating the methods of the Higher Criticism, resolves itself into the following: What are the classification different classes of phenomena which fmethods - serve as a basis for forming an estimate of the authorship, date, and historical situation of a writ- ing ? As each class of phenomena must be treated * In a relative sense such considerations are, of course, entitled to be called external ; and in this relative sense the word is used in Professor Briggs' enumeration of the rules of the Higher Criticism. He classifies these into : (A) External, comprising (a) Use, and (b) Silence ; and (B) Internal, including (a) Style (b) Historic setting, (c) Theological content, and (d) Citation. Cf. The Reason, the Church, and the Bible, p. 135 seq. 50 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. according to its peculiar genius, the methods will naturally correspond to these classes. In answer it is possible to find a line of division given by the distinction between form and content. There are phenomena of a purely formal character, such as the diction, style, etc., and phenomena of a material character, such as the historical content or allusions, and the content of thought; or, in the case of the Bible, the theology taught. These two classes of phenomena have been very conveniently separated into three in the actual use made of them for the purposes of the Higher Criticism; and it will, therefore, serve all practical purposes if we adopt the threefold division in what follows. The three methods of the Higher Criticism are : The literary method, which works on and through the literary features of language, style, etc. ; the his- torical method, which deals with historical features; and the theological method, which bases itself on the characteristics of the theology. These three methods are sometimes called arguments for the results to which they lead, and they may be called indiscriminately methods or arguments. We now proceed to examine these arguments in detail. I. THE LITERARY ARGUMENT. This is based, as already indicated, on qualities of expression. Its fundamental principle is that an i. Literary . . method : its author will be consistent with him- self in the use of words, idioms, phrases, and figures of speech. "The style is the man." It is well known that every literary man develops peculiarities, sometimes more and some- times less marked, but always real and perceptible, THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 51 which betray his personality in his work. He may disguise himself; but if he succeed it will be at the expense of great effort and by dint of long and patient labor. The least tendency to slacken his attention or diminish the strenuousness of his effort to maintain his disguise, the least tendency to fall back into his natural habits of expression, will endanger his success. Without an effort to con- ceal his identity he must necessarily exhibit those traits which distinguish him from all other authors. This principle is, no doubt, valid, and, wherever it can be used, it is extremely valuable. It is particularly useful in determining questions of authorship and integrity. Given a writing known to be the work of a certain author, the critic has a basis for judging whether another writing is also his or not. The special phases of the argument are the use of words, idioms, phrases, and rhetori- cal figures, or all the features commonly grouped together under the single term of style. i. With reference to the use of words the general principle is, of course, that out of the mass of vocables in any language each indi- vidual has at command only a limited as 'means of y number; that the vocabulary of no Ju two individuals is precisely the same, and that each one recurs to his own vocabulary, choosing his own favorite words out of the list of their synonyms. In case a particular shade of meaning is not ade- quately expressed by the words at command he may resort to the use of a phrase; whereas, if his vocabu- lary were coextensive with the vocabulary of the language, he would find the special term needed, 52 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Another person using the same language, whose vocabulary had a different range, might have been familiar with the word and used it in the proper place. Whenever the language has many synonymous terms for the expression of a given concept, the Use of s no- na bit grows on one using it to settle nyms. down, so to speak, to the use of cer- tain of these synonyms to the exclusion of the others. Associated with this habit is another, that of disregarding the specific shades of meaning attached to synonymous words and using them interchangeably, or using the favorite synonym when a more appropriate word should have been selected. Another tendency or habit, somewhat different in its nature and effect, is that of using words in Peculiar use peculiar senses not warranted by of word. their etymology or historical usage. The number of words that any single person is likely to divert in this manner from their proper use is ordinarily very small. In most cases it is so small as not to be appreciable; but there are exceptional individuals, who either from force of education, or from an innate tendency, vary so much in their use of terms from the standards of usage that they have been misunderstood by ordinary readers, or else neglected on account of the obscurity which necessarily results from this habit. Especially is this apt to be the case with those who have worked in the field of philosophy, attempting to construct original systems or break- ing ground in new branches. There have been THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 53 authors of this class who have departed so much from the ordinary meanings of words that special vocabularies of their works, commentaries on or editions of them with notes and explanations, have been called for to make their writings intelligible. These peculiarities, whether more or less striking, it is the aim of the Higher Criticism to utilize through its literary method or argument. 2. Another field where characteristics are apt to be developed is that of idioms and phrases. Every language has its stock of grammatical idioms and constructions different from the nor- P hrases - mal and natural, and therefore called idiomatic,/. with reference to one another. It may be used in criticism in several ways. For instance, if an event is mentioned or implied in a book or part of a book; that book, or at least that part or section of it in which the mention or implication occurs, must have * See Bissell, " Historical Situation in Genesis," in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, October, 1895. 72 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. been produced after the event. On any other theory of the date the allusion to the event is an anachronism. Anachronisms are proofs of the impossibility of the views against which they mili- tate. They indicate carelessness, disingenuousness, or lack of information on the part of the author. Ordinarily this form of reasoning is valid and useful. It is not, however, free from liability to misuse. One class of works must be made an exception to its ap- plication those which claim to be predictive proph- ecies, until their claim is discovered Predictions not Anachro- to be unfounded. The argument can nisms, , . t be applied in the case of purely human works, and such as lay claim to nothing more than mere human origin. It can also be applied to works which, though claiming to owe their origin, partly at least, to supernatural inspiration and guidance, are still not predictive; works in which the authors claim to speak not of the future as such, but of the present or past. An allusion to an event, even in a book of the Bible, is presumptive evidence that the book was written after the event, when the book is apparently a history or an epistle or a psalm. But the principle is inapplicable to allusions to future events in books of predictive prophecy. Its application would be a virtual denial of the supernatural origin of those prophecies, or at least of the possibility of predictive prophecy. Let us take a concrete illustration. The name of Cyrus appears in Isaiah xlv: i. Isaiah flourished two hundred years before the time Illustration. T , 1 of Cyrus. If the book were a purely human production we would say, without hesitation, THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 73 that either the whole or at least that part of the book in which this allusion to Cyrus was found must have been written after the time of Cyrus. In such a case Isaiah, of course, could not have been the author of the book, or at least of that passage in it which bears his name. But Isaiah speaks in the name of God, and claims to have re- i sa iah pre- ceived revelations of the divine will dlcts - and purpose. If this claim be well founded, it was perfectly possible for him to have foreseen future events and persons, as far as they are involved in the divine purpose. To deny the validity of this claim, without assigning any reason for so doing, or to ignore it, would be unscientific and arbitrary. And to treat the case as an anachronism would be to ignore or deny this claim. The existence of the name of Cyrus in a work does not militate against its Isaianic origin if it be a prophetic work. It is not necessarily an anachronism. But if the author does not write prophecy here, but merely an ad- dress to persons contemporaneous with himself, and presumably speaks only of events and persons of his own day, then evidently the ascription of the passage to Isaiah would be an anachronism. But whether he does this or claims to be uttering a pre- dictive prophecy it is not the part of criticism to say, but a task for exegesis. When the real meaning of the author has been brought to light, criticism can then apply the argument from anachronism, or de- clare it to be irrelevant. There is another caution that must be observed before the argument is used properly. While the existence of an allusion to an event in a document 74 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. fixes that event as the terminus extreme earliest date for that statement which contains the allusion use of anach- ** ^ oes not necessarily fix it as the ronism limited, extreme earliest date for the whole document. The possibility must always be taken into account of the division of the document into two parts, the first antedating the event, and the second coming after it. This possibility may be a very remote one, but the critic has not done his work thoroughly if he has not considered the ques- tion and answered it. And even after this has been done, the further possibility of a revisory insertion must be considered. The question must be asked and answered, whether the special phrase in which the anachronism occurs may not be an interpola- tion by a later hand. Here again the possibility may be very slight that the text has been interpo- lated, but the result would be surer if it appeared that interpolation was impossible. The use of the argument] under these safeguards may appear to be difficult, but this is only an ap- parent and theoretical difficulty, not a real and practical one. As a matter of fact, anachronisms do not occur singly in writings, but in groups, and the task of the critic is much simplified when he finds them recurring over and over again; as in that case the theory of their being interpolations be- comes less and less tenable (even as a supposition) the more frequent they become. 3. The third form of the historical argument is in a certain sense the counterpart of the argument from anachronism, and consists in using silence as a ground of inference. The principle, very broadly THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 75 stated, is that silence as well as expression is sig- nificant. This principle, however, in order to be made practically useful, must be nar- 3 Argument rowed down very much. The question from silence, must be asked, Of what is silence significant ? The answer can be one of three, **, e., silence may mean (i) ignorance of the facts in regard to what does which the author is silent, or (2) in- silence mean ? difference to them, or (3) design to keep back or suppress the knowledge of them. Taking the third of these possible causes of silence first under consideration, we may notice that intentional silence cannot be de- r. Suppres- monstrated, except in very rare in- sion of infor- , . . mation. stances. Whenever this is done, how- ever, from the nature of the case, its further signif- icance and bearing upon the questions of the Higher Criticism become clear. For the very processes which pierce through and lay bare the purpose of an intended suppression of knowledge at the same time bring to light the facts sought for by the means of criticism. If, therefore, an author sets out to conceal the time and circumstances under which he is composing his productions, and studi- ously excludes all references that may thwart this purpose, by the very process by which his intention is not only discovered, but traced to its causes, he becomes identified. The second cause of silence named above as possible is indifference or discrimination on the part of the author against the facts 2 . Neglect by omitted. All writing is after all a > author - selective process ; the writer choosing, out of what 76 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. he has come to know, that which he considers of the greatest importance or relevancy to the subject he is treating of. No author pretends to incorpo- rate in any one or in all of his writings the whole sum of his knowledge. To begin with, a large num- ber of details are left out because they are insignifi- cant, Even though they may not be Things omit- ted may be in- m reality insignificant, let the author significant. suppose that they are, and that is sufficient to secure their omission from his work. Or, it is supposable that many details originally of great importance should lapse into insignificance at the time of writing ; or the reverse of this, details insignificant at the time of writing may attain to greater prominence in the consideration of the sub- ject later. The author being the judge in every such case, he will choose to omit these details and incor- porate others which in his view are more important. This choice of material need not always be a con- scious process in the mind. The writing may be governed entirely by his unconscious promptings and tendencies. Thus many things, which if he were to deliberate and choose after mature thought would have gone into his production, may be left out, owing to natural forgetfulness or a loose habit of composition. The same result may be reached on the ground not of the intrinsic insignificance of matters to be taken into account, but of their irrel- evancy to the subject under treatment; and in the same twofold way of conscious or unconscious esti- mation of their relation to the subject. And here again, these matters, it must be remembered, are estimated by the author, not by the critic or any THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 77 other person. The critic must ask not what would appear to him to be within the scope of the writer writing on such or such subject, but AS estimated what appeared to the author to be by the author, within his scope. The relevancy of certain matters to certain subjects may be agreed upon as un- doubted in many cases, but there are also cases where there may exist a wide variety of opinion as to the pertinency or impertinency of given matters to given subjects ; in all such cases the exact view- point of- the writer himself should be sought care- fully. When found it should be made the view- point of the critic in judging of the cause of silence. The third of the causes of silence above men- tioned is ignorance of the facts concerning which silence exists. When a writer is found 3> ignorance passing by certain facts, the most by the author> natural and the most common inference drawn from his course is that he did not know of those facts. The logical validity of this inference depends on conditions to be examined presently. Meanwhile, in order to understand more fully the exact force of considerations of this class, it is proper to go back of the ignorance which explains the silence and ask how that may arise, for it must be evident at the first glance that ignorance is not always to be traced to the same cause. First of all, and simplest, ignorance may be due to the non-occurrence or non-existence of that concerning which the author is silent ; in other words, the events which were expected to be noticed by the author, and are not noticed, may be posterior to the time of the author. Moses could not have recorded the events 78 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. of the life of David or Solomon. The force in criticism of silence due to this sort of ignorance is similar to, only the reverse of, the argument from anachronism. Just as an anachronism has the force of fixing the earliest date for the document in which it occurs, so silence would have the force of fixing the latest date. The document must have been composed earlier than that of which it is ignorant. But secondly, ignorance may be due not inference from to tne non-occurrence of that which such ignorance. is 01^^ but to lack of opportunity on the part of the author to become acquainted with it. And this again may result from the nature of the event, institution, or person ignored, or from the character of the author himself. It results from the nature of the facts ignored when these are local, remote from the common life and interest of men, and insignificant. It results from the character of the author when he is a person of defective obser- vation or small mind, or otherwise limited ability ; or when he lives far from the centers where he might obtain information ; or when he has neg- lected to use ordinary diligence and available means for securing the needed information. Igno- rance originating in this way will be very valuable to the critic as he approaches the question of the value of any writing either general or specific. It may show the author to have been incompetent or care- less, but it cannot be used as the equivalent of ignorance due to non-occurrence. These principles may be applied to the determina- tion of the date and historical environment of writ- ings by estimating the value and significance of the THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 79 silence of the writings themselves, regarding events which they might have been expected to allude to. They may be applied in the second Applications place to the determination of the of above prin- ciples. date and circumstances of origin of writings, by examining other writings and the sig- nificance of their silence concerning them, and they may be applied thirdly in the determination of the date and manner of origin, of institutions, and events, as preliminary to the determination of the same questions with regard to literary productions. In illustrating them thus far we have limited our- selves to their application first above mentioned. We are now prepared to go a step further, and glance at these applications severally, including the first. The argument has been succinctly stated as fol- lows: "Arguments e sileniio are only of force when a strong independent probability can be First applica- estabhshed that the writers would have tion : Rule de- duccd. used it [the material of which they are silent], or would at least have expressed them- selves otherwise than they did, if they had known of it." * This may be regarded as a fair statement of the principle that should govern the application of the argument in determining the question of author- ship and date. The non-occurrence of allusions to events, documents, men, institutions, proper use of etc., when a strong antecedent proba- ar g ument - bility can be established that they would have oc- curred had they been known to the writers, is an evidence of their being unknown ; and this, in a case * Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, p. 32. 8o THE HIGHER CRITICISM. where the antecedent probability is that they would have been known if they had occurred, is strong evidence that they had not occurred at the time of the writers. The critical question of the date of the authors would receive all the light that may come from the establishment of these conclusions. The question then turns on how can an antecedent probability be established that any writer would have used knowledge possessed by him ; and further : How can such probability be established that he would have known certain facts if they had occurred ? In other words, What are the conditions on which an expectation maybe entertained of find- ing allusions to any given events or the influence of any given situation ? The answer to such a ques- tion is, naturally, not easy; nor can it be framed in such distinct and specific terms that it may be used uniformly and with the same confidence in every case. Still, in general and in accordance with the principles already discussed, these conditions may be defined as follows : i. Importance in the matters expected to be met. It could hardly be expected that every detail would be incorporated by every writer i. Importance , of things omit- subsequent to its occurrence. It is true that details are very frequently recorded, and that where they would least have been looked for. It is also true, as Dr. Briggs says,* that the science of history depends on the expectation that whatever occurs leaves its record and is somehow made known ; but it is * Paper in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1883, p. 8, THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 8l true, on the other hand, that the weakness of the science of history consists in the fact that some things evade this law, or rather that this law is not universal in its application, and the record of some things is never made ; or being once made is not deemed of sufficient consequence to the world to be perpetuated, and is thus lost. And it is further true that many unimportant features of a transaction may and do often impress themselves on the minds of observers or historians, and ac- quire a meretricious importance; usurping the place of the more cardinal features, and by reiterations come to be considered the salient points of history. But all this is determined CL posteriori. As to what minor features of a historic situation or transaction shall find its way into the records, it is not possible to say a priori. While the historian, therefore, may be thankful for any minute information that he may receive concerning such matters, he cannot outline to himself the extent of the world that he may ex- pect in his sources. On the other hand, it is reason- able to expect that the cardinal or pivotal events and personalities of history should pass into every comprehensive record of their period. It can be safely insisted, therefore, that silence regarding these events is an unexpected feature in a record of this sort and must be explained. The antece- dent probability is quite strong that the writer would have mentioned them had he known them.* * Sometimes very slight causes may determine the insertion or omission of items from the consideration of a subject. Intimate familiarity, for instance, may lead to the omission of certain things on the ground that they are too commonplace to need mention. 82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 2. A second condition creating such antecedent probability is pertinency or relevancy to the subject 2. Relevancy under treatment. The matter omitted to subject. must be germane or within the scope of the subject. It would not be reasonable, for in- stance, to expect the mention of the military exploits of Charlemagne, or the wresting of the Magna Charta from the king of England, in a history of Gothic architecture. The nature of the subject would not demand it. In fact a proper economy of style would lead to the exclusion of everything not within the scope of the subject. And this principle should be applied with greater rigor to ancient writ- ings than to modern ; because modern modes of research and composition are more searching and broader in their survey of subjects. The modern writer knows, as the ancient did not, the importance of side-lights, the value of showing a subject in its interrelations with other kindred subjects, of bring- ing to the surface the inner and hidden meaning of The writer may assume that they are too familiar to be specially alluded to. An eminent authority on early English literature de- livered a lecture of over an hour's length on the life and work of the historian Bede, and never once either directly mentioned or in- directly betrayed the knowledge of the fact that the subject of his lecture had earned or was ascribed the title of the " Venerable." Was he ignorant of that fact ? It is incredible. Evidently noth- ing but the extremely commonplace character of the fact could account for the apparent neglect of it. And in this regard again it is worth observing that the more a writer aspires after original- ity, the more he avoids treading in the beaten paths and seeks to make his own way in the subjects of which he treats, the more apt he will be not to incorporate the trite and commonplace in his writings. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 83 facts, by associating them with facts from allied and connected fields. While the ancient author might have made an occasional excursus, and intro- duced irrelevant material into the consideration of a given topic, as if from sheer inability to limit him- self to that which is pertinent, the modern method- ically extends his treatment over a larger area of territory for the sake of thoroughness. Except in extremely technical and special works one is not surprised to find the whole realm of knowledge made tributary to the elucidation of a comparatively narrow subject. And this not in the way of digres- sion, but integrally woven into the texture of the writing. The ancient writer was more limited in his range. He went out of his way less frequently to bring from other spheres light on his special task. Hence his silence may more frequently be due to the irrelevancy of what he may have very well known ; or to what he considered its irrelevancy, whether it were really such or not. The second condition to be met therefore, before the antecedent probability that a writer would have mentioned what has occurred, if he had known it, is relevancy to the subject of which he is treating. 3. The third condition for the establishment of this antecedent probability is absence of sufficient reason for designed or intentional i ixr t. 1 j 1 j 3- Absence of silence. We have already remarked motive to sup- i ! , . ., press. that it is possible to explain silence as intentional. For reasons good and sufficient to his own mind, whether sufficient for others or not, an author may see fit to suppress many items that would be both pertinent and important. He may 84 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. deem it wise to ignore men, facts, and institutions, because the mention of them, looked at from his point of view, or from that of his aim, might inter- fere with the usefulness of his work. It is on the ground of reasons similar to these that statesmen at the head of affairs withhold much important knowl- edge from legislative bodies to which, however, they hold themselves responsible for their whole conduct, including the sufficiency of the grounds for which they keep back such information for a time. Such reasons for the suppression of knowl- edge possessed by an author, it would be difficult under ordinary circumstances to discover ; but by as much as the critic approaches the standpoint of the author, by so much does he become the more com- petent to penetrate into his intention and discover the reasons that have actuated him. On this as- sumption and it is a fair one to make, for, after all, the critic's whole work is to come as near as possi- ble to the position of the author, and realize his motives as well as the outward situation within which he labored it has often been attempted to explain the silence of authors in this way, when it could be explained reasonably in no other way. Several pertinent instances are given Illustrations. by Professor Briggs in a paper on the subject in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis* among which are the argument of Warburton,f for the silence of Moses regarding a future life ; and Archbishop Whately's * 1883, pp. 6, 7. \Divine Legation of Moses Vindicated, Lond., 1837, vol. ii. P. 531. THE METHODS OF THE .HIGHER CRITICISM. 85 argument from the silence of the New Testament regarding precise forms of church polity and modes of worship.* It may be set down then as a third condition of establishing a strong antecedent prob- ability of an author's not using information pos- sessed by him. The second application of the argument e silentio is illustrated in the processes of investigation re- garding the canon. It consists in ex- New Testa . amining the literature posterior to the ment Canon - alleged date of a writing, and if there be discovered a considerable silence concerning it, reasoning to its non-existence until after the works which are silent regarding it. This is the application made of it by Richard Bentley in his investigation of the origin of the Epistles of Phalaris. He argues as follows : " Had our letters been used or transcribed during that thousand years, somebody would have spoken of it, especially since so many of the ancients had occasion to do so ; so that their silence is a direct argument that they never had heard of them/'f Similarly, in attempting to ascertain the date of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, church historians very commonly resort to this argument. In Pseudo . lsi . Their reasoning generally takes this dorian Decretals. form : These Decretals were first used in the middle of the ninth century ; if they had been known previously, they would have been appealed to by the partizans of the ideas inculcated in * Essays on Some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, 5th ed., Lond., 1846, essay vii. ; and Kingdom of Christ , New York, 1859, P- 2 8 seq. \Epistles of Phalaris, Lond. (?), New ed., 1883, p. 481. 86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. them.* And Du Pin f argues for the age of ecclesi- astical writing: "Secondly from the testimony or silence of ancient authors ; from their testimony, I say, when they formally reject a writing as spurious, or when they attribute it to some other author ; or from their silence when they do not speak of it, though they have occasion to mention it. This argument, which is commonly called a negative one, is oftentimes of great weight. When, for example, we find that several entire books which are attrib- uted to one of the ancients are unknown to all antiquity. When all those persons who have spoken of the works of an author, and besides have made catalogues of them, never mention such a particular discourse. When a book that would have been serv- iceable to the Catholics has never been cited by them, who both might and ought to have cited it, as having fair occasion to, 'tis extremely probable that it is supposititious. It is very certain that this is enough to make any book doubtful, if it was never cited by any of the ancients ; and in that case it must have very authentic characters of antiquity, before it ought to be received without contradiction. And on the other hand, if there should be never so many conjectures of its being genuine, yet these, together with the silence of the ancients, will be sufficient to oblige us to believe it to be a forgery." J It is to be noted that in all these illustrations the *Cf. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. iv. p. 272. f Quoted by Professor Briggs in Paper in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1883, p. 9. \ Du Pin, Ecclesiastical Writers, Paris, 1694 ; Lond., 1696, p. viii. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 87 conditions on which this application may be made safely are either clearly or implicitly met. These conditions are the same as those on which the first application of the argument from silence was seen to be permissible. They are summed up in the brief phrase "occasion to mention," in Du Pin's statement of the case. This phrase, of course, im- plies the importance and pertinency of the matters whose mention is expected, and the absence of any valid reason why they should not be mentioned. But in addition to these conditions there is found here a new and fourth condition; that is to say, the universality or absoluteness of the , universality silence that is used as an argument. ' silence - The writings that claim to be those of the ancient Fathers are never mentioned by the very terms of Du Pin's principle. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are first met with in the middle of the ninth cen- tury, never before. No one mentions the Epistles of Phalaris. A single genuine mention would in the nature of the case be a break on the silence, thus destroying its very essence. 3. The third application of the argument from silence is more intricate and only indirectly useful in the Higher Criticism. It consists Third appiica- in arguing from the silence of writings, tion ex P lained - whose date is assumed as approximately fixed, re- garding alleged events or institutions coming down from preceding periods to the non-existence of these events or institutions. On this basis the history and historical setting are made the subjects of reconstruction. This, as will be seen at a glance, is the reverse of the first application. In that the 88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. silence of documents regarding events was used as a foundation for the conclusion that these writings did not originate until after the events of which they are silent; for if they had, they would have exhibited a knowledge of those events. In this case, assuming that the writings do proceed from given historical settings, the argument goes on to the conclusion that those historical settings were devoid of certain characteristics or facts; for if they were not, these would have appeared in the writings. To illustrate the strength and weakness of this application, and more especially the way in which it is made, let us cite an actual case Illustration. , from the course of the history of the Higher Criticism in the Old Testament. From the silence of the periods of Samuel and the Kings regarding the provisions of the Mosaic law, or certain parts of that law known as the Silence re- . . garding Mosaic Priests Code, it is reasoned that the ritual. . . , provisions of this code were unknown at the time; hence they were not in existence; for they must have been known if they existed; hence the books commonly ascribed to Moses, the Penta- teuch, in which alone we have a record of the alleged origin of the Priests' Code, were not in existence at the time of Samuel and the Kings. To give the full force of this specific case, however, it must be added that the actual conduct of Samuel in offering sacrifice in utter disregard, and what we may denominate contravention, of the legislation of Moses regarding sacrifices, seems to harmonize with and bear out the silence of the rest of the THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 89 literature of the period on the subject. The force of these additional considerations depends, of course, on the answer to the question whether Samuel was a mere executive of the Mosaic law or even an individual subject to that law, or some- thing more. The records leave no room for debate on this question. Samuel's position was that of the legislator as well as executive. He had direct prophetic powers and functions; and by virtue of these, even though we should assume that the law was in observance, it would not follow that he must follow its prescriptions in every detail. He might set it aside for special reasons. His known stand- ing and prophetic function would naturally explain his departure from the ordinary and regular course as an exception made under divine guidance. If we now attempt to estimate the force of the argu- ment from silence without the additional force de- rived from the apparent transgression of the code by the prophet, we would find that it is of the nature of the chain; and it is as strong as its weakest link. It might be analyzed as follows: If the Mosaic books had been in existence, the Mosaic legislation contained in them must have been known; if the Mosaic legislation had been known, it must have been observed; if observed, its observance must have been recorded. Taking this chain in the reverse order to that in which it is given, we may notice that the last link is quite inference strong. If the Mosaic legislation were drawn from " observed during the period in question a record of its observance, or at least traces of the same, must have been left. Though not absolutely certain, 90 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. this conclusion may be allowed to stand. The next link, however, presents us with a weaker prob- ability. It does not necessarily follow that the legislation must have been observed, if known. In times such as those of Samuel the law might, and naturally would, have been kept in abeyance. The probability of this is made much stronger by a sur- vey of the subsequent history. Over and over again in the later period this same legislation fell into disuse on account of circumstances that made it impossible to observe it. As we go a step further back and examine the next antecedent link in the chain, we find it weaker still. The Mosaic books might certainly have been in existence without leading to the knowledge of and observance of the law regarding sacrifices. That a body of laws should fall into disuse, and therefore oblivion, is not impossible or improbable. Any legislation of a highly. developed character, given to a rude people which is hardly ready to receive it and obey it ideally, must suffer lapse and comparative neglect, though not always permanent oblivion. It may well have happened, therefore, that while the Pentateuch was still in existence the legislation contained in it had passed out of any considerable knowledge by the public. Thus, this applica- But not legit- tion of the argument, though not imateiy. illicit, nor useless altogether, is apt to prove of little value practically, on account of the intricacy of the process it requires and the tempta- tion to introduce a weak link into the chain it involves a temptation which, even with the utmost care, it would be hard not to fall into THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 9! unawares. Even after centuries of use and ap- proximate perfect observance of the law, we find violations of it recorded calmly, without the least suspicion of their needing explanation. Thus, according to Josephus,* Aristobulus is made high- priest at the age of seventeen. The strict applica- tion of the argument from silence would lead from this fact to the inference that the law was unknown at the time, therefore that it was not in existence. To show that it is possible for a legislation of considerable proportions to be given and exist for a long period without leaving traces , . , . A parallel. of itself in the history along which it exists unheeded, the following parallel from the history of France may be cited. Sir J. Stephen, in his Lectures on the History of France, has the following passage: "When the barbarism of the domestic government (under the Carlovingian dynasty) had thus succeeded the barbarism of the government of the state, one of the most remark- able results of that political change was the dis- appearance of the laws and institutions by which Charlemagne had endeavored to elevate and civi- lize his subjects. Before the close of the century in which he died the whole body of his laws had fallen into utter disuse throughout the whole extent of his Gallic dominions. They who. have studied the charters, laws, and chronicles of the later Car- lovingian princes most diligently .are unanimous in declaring that they indicate either an absolute ignorance or an entire forgetfulness of the legisla- * Antiquities , XV. iii. I seq. 92 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. tion of Charlemagne."* This case demonstrates, from a field in which scientific investigation can reach demonstration, the possibility of the lapse of a great legislation in such a manner that all observance of it, and even all knowledge of it, seems to disappear for a long period of time. It does more than this; it suggests that under given conditions it is more natural to expect the relapse and disappearance of institutions in such a way that the silence of the immediately following literature regarding them is a result needing no farther explanation, when these conditions are known. Taking the proved lapse of the Carlovingian legis- lation and the silence which follows it, and the Lessons of the alleged lapse of the Mosaic legislation parallel. with the silence and ignorance of the ages of the Judges and of Samuel, regarding it as the basis for an inductive study of these conditions, we may posit the following to be some of them: i. A people in its infancy. The Franks before and during the time of Charlemagne, and the Hebrews before and during the time of Moses, were nearly in the same stage as far as development of civiliza- tion was concerned. Setting aside such differences as grow out of climatic and temperamental char- acter, the two peoples were very much in the same stage of growth. They were both in a primitive and rude state of civilization. 2. A great leader. Charlemagne and Moses were both above their con- stituencies ; they were both in advance of their respective ages. Setting aside again the differences between them as regards previous training, source * Lectures on the History of France, lect. iv. p. 94. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 93 of power, wisdom, inspiration, etc., the men, and their relations to the times and the peoples among whom they lived, were very much alike. Their peculiarities as leaders were the same : they were comprehensive in their view of the functions of their offices ; they were organizers, generals, literary leaders, religious leaders, and above all legislators. 3. As a result from the two conditions already named, we have, relatively speaking, an ideal code of laws. In both cases the legislation was meant not only to regulate the national life, but also to elevate and refine it. And the standard which it set up was far too high to be realized at once. The capacity of the peoples to appreciate it was too re- stricted. As long as the mind that had put forth the code was present to guide in its enforcement, it might move on smoothly, though from the records of the practical application of the Mosaic system, at least, it appears that the presence of Moses was deemed indispensable ; and even a few days' absence was apt to interfere with the smooth running of the order he had established. But as soon as the mind which sees this legislation in its entirety, and appre- hends at its true value the good that is to result from its realization, has passed out of the sphere of its operation, the ^legislation must fall into disuse and obsolescence. Under these conditions what else could be expected ? But if these conclusions are correct, it follows that the use of the argument from silence must be made with additional care,* * The argument from silence is discussed here exclusively from the point of view of its application to questions of literary char- acter, such as have been enumerated in chapter ii. It is needless 94 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. when applied to the reconstruction of history, as a step preparatory to the settlement of the questions of literary origin and nature. 4. The fourth form of the Historical Argument may be designated in general the Argument from Concinnity. And it may be used in 4. Argument . from concin- one of two ways, i. e., either destruc- nity. . . , . . _ tively or constructively. (i) In its CO simple simplest form this consists in drawing form. Lack of , . . , it. inferences from confusion or disorder in a literary production. If two events are put in the opposite sequence from that in which they occurred, it is an evidence that the author of the book in which they are so put was either misin- formed, or that he had some sinister purpose in transposing their true order. His trustworthiness as a historian is thus at once brought into question. Thus also all contradictions, discrep- Confused writ- ings, untrust- ancies, repetitions, and parallel ac- worthy. counts are taken as evidences of im- perfect work. This argument is also valid, and may be used first in stripping a writing of its mere- tricious value and determining its true value, and, second, in deciding the question of integrity. For the first of these uses contradictions and discrep- ancies, whenever distinctly proved, are very use- ful grounds of reasoning. The presumption is that an author who is well-informed on the topic of which he is treating will not give an account of it contradictory to another he has already given. to say that the treatment of it must have been entirely different considered from the point of view of its application in the broader field of historic investigation. THE METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 95 Whenever he does this he shows that his informa- tion is either not well grounded, or that it is not well digested by him, and in either case his testi- mony cannot be taken at its prima facie value, but must be sifted and tested. Confusions are thus negative evidences ; they serve to indicate what a writing is not, /. i n order to obtain assur- sar y- ance as to results, it is necessary that time and opportunity shall be given to have these ORIENTAL ARCHEOLOGY. 125 discussed, their bearings on one another realized, and the proper inferences from them formulated into conclusions. New excavations and new dis- coveries are being made yearly, one might almost say, daily. New facts are coming to light, and while these facts do not annul previously dis- covered facts, they may modify their meaning. The present conclusions of archeology cannot there- fore be in every case assigned a certainty and- fin- ality which can only come later. They cannot be used without exception as a norm or standard to which the conclusions of criticism must be brought to be corrected. For the most part they are too vague and general to serve in testing such specific and precise assertions as critics are accustomed to make about authorship, integrity, and literary form. But while it is necessary to enter this caveat against the indiscriminate or premature use of archeological data, it is important on Yet must be the other hand not to underestimate used> the significance of these facts which Oriental re- searches have definitely ascertained. Moreover it would be a mistake to suppose that the circle of these facts is a small one. Archeology has made known a large number of historical facts, in the light of which certain views become absolutely cer- tain and their opposites absolutely untenable. It has therefore thus set some general limits within which criticism must move. Some of these may be stated as follows : i. The general credibility of Biblical history. Formerly criticism was free to begin with the as- 126 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. sumption that the historic accounts in the books of the Bible were not credible. This might be denied as an arbitrary assumption, but there was nothing of a positive nature to set over i. They con- firm Bible his- against it, if made. The result might betray the weakness of reasoning with such an assumption at its base ; but if the critic still persisted in taking his stand on it, it was not possible to convince him that he was wrong. Arche- ology now changes the situation. It says to the critic that that assumption is not only arbitrary, but contrary to all the known facts. Parts of that history which was assumed to be incredible are known to be true, being tested by tests as stringent as those applied to any other historic accounts. The critic need not wait until the weakness of the result shall reveal the weakness of the basal assump- tion; he can perceive that the assumption is con- trary to facts. This result archeology has brought about by throwing considerable light on the darkest and most isolated portions of the Biblical history, the patriarchal age and the monarchical age of Israel. With reference to the patriarchal age, the Patriarchal allegation made by some of the earlier history true. critics, that this was simply a Hebrew mythology analogous to the mythologies of the Greeks and Romans, is set at rest by the discoveries of explorers. The age of Joseph and the twelve sons of Jacob, of Jacob, of Isaac, and even of Abraham, was in no sense a parallel to the ages of the Greek and Roman heroes and demigods. At the time of Abraham, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and even Canaan, "the bridge from Egypt to Syria and ORIENTAL ARCHEOLOGY. 127 Babylon," enjoyed a comparatively high state of civilization. The Babylonian bricks indicate that Chedorlaomer was a probable if not an identified character. The Tel el-Amarna tablets show that there was diplomatic and commercial correspondence between Egypt and Canaan. That a history like that contained in the Pentateuch should be con- sidered impossible in the pre-Mosaic age in Israel, is not a sound assumption for criticism. The his- tory is altogether too natural, and accords with the facts discovered outside of it too well, to be set aside summarily. 2. There is a special correlation of the history gathered from the monuments with the history re- corded in the Biblical sources. The 2 Light Egypt of the Exodus corresponds with thrown on the the Egypt of the period of the Exodus as read in the hieroglyphics. The accounts of the kings of Judah and Israel fit into the accounts of the conditions of the world as found in the Assyrian tablets. Ahab, Jehu, Benhadad, Azariah, Mena- hem, Pekah, Hoshea, Rezon, Jehoahaz, Hezekiah, are names which occur in the Assyrian monuments, and what is said of them positively coincides with what is recorded in the Biblical books as far as the two accounts touch on the same points, and neither account renders impossible the truthfulness of the other at those points where they do not touch. This is true of the accounts of Nebuchadnezzar and the later Babylonians and the Persians, as far as their histories come in contact with the Biblical history. These histories dovetail into one another. Any results of criticism that would undertake to 128 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. dislocate and rearrange this history, so constructed and verified by facts drawn from two sources, must now settle its accounts, not with the Bible merely, but with Oriental archeology also. 3. Archeology renders untenable any theories which assume false positions regarding literary work 3 Literary * n ear ly an ^ Oriental surroundings. methods cleared. The date of the beginning of the art of writing has been set much farther back than it was commonly supposed to be before the dawn of modern archeological science. The first historical critics of the Pentateuch denied its Mosaic author- ship, partly on the assumption that the art of writing was not known at the time of Moses. Such a con- clusion would now find itself face to face with the remains of the art of writing that come from cen- turies, if not, as some say, millenniums before the time of Moses. Qne may now actually see in the museums of Europe papyri from Egypt, tablets from Assyria, and inscriptions from Babylonia which ante- date Moses. The critic who still desires to use this assumption must now do as Vernes and Havet have done speak only of the comparative scarcity of the art of writing in Palestine before the Babylonian exile; and even then his assertion will fall to the ground : first, from the unwillingness of men to believe that while Egypt, Babylonia, and all other surrounding regions had a literature and literary methods quite advanced in character, Israel had no knowledge of writing; and secondly, because the Moabite stone and the Siloam Inscription positively render such assertions unscientific, and the views based on them as hardly worth repeating. ORIENTAL ARCHEOLOGY. 129 4. Archeology leads to the coordination of the traditions and beliefs of allied races. It has done this with the Indo-European family of Ligh? t hrown peoples.* It has gathered materials on traditions, and made beginnings in the same direction with the Semitic peoples. These are but mere beginnings; but pursued with due diligence and caution, there is no reason why they should not be followed by ample and more or less satisfactory results. There are four main subjects in the early Biblical account that may be associated with allied Semitic traditions. These are the creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and the Tower Semitic tradi- of Babel. The question before Ori- ental archeology is, How are these traditions re- lated to one another ? Are the Biblical accounts received from the extra-Biblical, or vice versa ? Or are they all received from some common and earlier source ? When answers have been found to these questions, the next step in the process is to inquire * The process of reducing traditions and legends to system is the same in general as the process followed by comparative philol- ogists in defining the relations of different but allied languages. Words and grammatical peculiarities existing in all the individual members of a group, it is argued by philologists, must have existed in the original stock from which these sprang. Had they appeared after the separation and departure from the common original they could not have been the same in all. So traditions and legends common to a family of peoples must have a common origin as far back in time as the age of the common existence of the peoples together. There may be in language an amount of material trans- ferred from language to language after separation ; so there may be traditions which have been carried from place to place. But in both cases these are distinguishable from the original stock and do not confuse the specialist. 130 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. how these answers fit into the conclusions reached by criticism. If criticism has proceeded on the assumption that these traditions were of later date than archeology proves them to be, it must review its conclusion and correct it. But there are alleged to be within the Biblical documents duplicate forms of the traditions two or three accounts of the Deluge, etc. and these are distinguished from one another by the characteristics of the alleged docu- ments in which they occur. If archeology by com- paring these duplicate accounts with extra-Biblical forms of the same, especially such as come from very early and remote regions, should prove that the characteristic features which distinguish the documents are found in the extra-Biblical forms also, the force of the consideration from these characteristic differences would be destroyed. For if what was supposed to be the characteristic of an author of the eighth or fourth century B. c., living in Palestine, should turn up in a production or tradi- tion proved to be as old as the nineteenth century B. c., in Babylonia, any conclusion based on the imaginary characteristic must fall to the ground. In this, and many similar ways, archeological investi- gation of primitive traditions will prove a corrective of purely conjectural results.* 5. Finally, archeology may serve as an auxiliary of criticism, whenever its light is abun- 5. Light on , . . critical ques- dant and clear, as given settings ena- bling the critic to announce with more confidence results which his own mode of investiga- * SeeBissell, " The Situation Presupposed in Genesis," Presby- terian and Reformed Review, ORIENTAL ARCHEOLOGY. 131 tion had reached tentatively. The chronology, for instance, of the Bible has never been clear. Strictly speaking there is no chronology in the Biblical records, but only chronological data. These may be arranged variously, according to certain funda- mental assumptions or ascertained facts. And the results would serve as already' indicated in the dis- cussion of the historical argument in . . Good results criticism. Now, if archeology throw already light on the nature and mode of using the chronological data above mentioned, and if, above all, it enable the critic to proceed not on the basis of assumptions, but of well established facts, in building his chronology, the use of the historical argument will be strengthened by so much. As a matter of fact, this has been a most fertile field of research and a source of many valuable results. Many of the prophetic discourses of Isaiah and Jeremiah, not to speak of others of the Biblical writers, have received an immense amount of light in this way. The chronological and histori- cal data furnished by archeology have enabled critics to rearrange and to surround these writings with their natural environments. It is thus made possible to realize, in a measure, the situations within which they were first used. Again, archeological research may fix with cer- tainty the geographical situation subsumed within the Biblical narratives ; and, by so Ramsay on doing, it may enable the critic to Act8t establish or overthrow either old theories that have been accepted or new ones that are proposed as to the historicity and origin of those narratives. Pro- 132 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. fessor Ramsay* claims that his geographical re- searches in Asia Minor, taken together with his view of the course taken by Paul on his missionary jour- neys, prove the book of Acts to be exceedingly accurate and trustworthy. Its author speaks as an eye-witness of the conditions existing in Asia Minor between 41 and 72 A. D. Its data corre- spond with the conditions of the Roman Empire at that time and at no other. Without hastily conced- ing this claim, we may use it as an illustration of the way in which archeology throws light on the prob- lems of criticism. Much of this work is done in connection with and as involved in special interpretation and is thus apt to be lost sight of as criticism and an/lnterpreta- mistaken for exegesis. The light of archeology falls first on the text of the books of the Bible. It makes clear obscurities, removes apparent discrepancies, shows true order where it has been disturbed or indicates what the chronological or logical order would be in accordance with modern ideas, if for some reason, which it is not necessary or possible to discover, some other order had been chosen by the original authors, and thus makes the content of the writings usable as vehicles for the discovery of the time and place where they were put forth. But the light thus indirectly reflected on the questions of criticism is none the less real and valuable, f * Church in the Roman Empire. fCf., as a specimen of this indirect light of archeology, the work done by A. Jeremias and Ad. Billerbeck on the book Nahum. ORIENTAL ARCHEOLOGY. 133 On the relations of archeology to the Higher Criticism see Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, 1895 ; and on the general subject of the results of recent archeological research as directly or indirectly affecting thought and belief regarding the Bible, cf. The Records of the Past, published by S. Baxter, 1873, and onward ; By-Paths of Bible Knowledge, published by The Religious Tract Society, 1883, and onward ; St. Clair, Buried Cities, 1892 ; Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, new edition, 1891 ; Flinders Petrie, Egyptian Tales from the Papyri, 1895 ; Schrader, Die Keilinschriften, und das Alte Testament, 1872, 2d ed. 1883 ; English translation, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, 1885-86 ; McCurdy, Prophecy, History, and the Monuments, 1894. CHAPTER VII. POSTULATES IN THE USE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. METHODS are but instruments. They may be used properly or improperly. They derive their Equipment efficiency from him who uses them, needed. Success in their use depends alto- gether on the equipment of the user. And this equipment is to be found in the user's tone and spirit and previous preparation and state of mind. It is not enough for a man to possess and to know the value of a microscope; he must also know many other things before he can go on to make even the most elementary use of the instrument. And if he should perhaps wish to enter into investigations of an original character in unexplored regions, his results will be taken as trustworthy or not, accord- ing as he is known to have had adequate equipment and preparation for the handling of as complicated a piece of machinery. Now this preparation that is prerequired consists either in the knowledge of well established facts or the adoption of mere opinions and convictions of men regarding the general constitution of the sphere in which the investigation is to be made. It is, in other words, either the knowledge of undisputed fundamentals or theory, independent of the sphere, and yet affecting one's view of it, at least in part. 134 POSTULATES. 135 That an investigator proceeds with the assump- tion of certain theories as true rather than their opposites is apt to affect the whole i e i i. tr ^ Presupposi- COmplexiOn Of hlS results. If the tions as equip- . , , . ment. microscopist, for instance, were to start with the presupposition that the current theory of scientists regarding the nature and laws of light were entirely wrong, and that light, instead of being a mere form of motion, was in reality a substance emitted from the luminous body, his conclusions from certain observations would be different from those he might reach if his presuppositions on these subjects were the very opposite. And just as the microscopist approaches his task with a view more or less definite of nature, and especially of that part of it which he is to examine, so the critic approaches his field with theories regarding its nature. These are presuppositions. What should be his attitude toward them ? It may be said : Let him get rid of them. At first sight this answer may strike us favorably; but it is not the right one. Presuppositions are inevitable. It is true it is customary to deprecate & priori conceptions and deplore their admission into scientific investigations, but it is very doubtful whether purely & posteriori research is possible in any field. The cry for the use of the inductive method is a legit- inductive imate one and should be carefully meth d. heeded; but it does not altogether exclude the entertainment of presuppositions. The mind does not need to be turned into a blank in order to enter upon a research. Criticism is not one of the first activities of a man, of a Christian, or of a Christian 136 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. scholar. It comes after views have been formed on other and kindred subjects and cannot take or usurp the place of these preceding departments. And indeed, from one point of view, these previous opinions or items of information are of great service. They throw light on the subjects under investiga- tion by criticism, in more than one way. Let the mind of the student be preoccupied with certain views on subjects kindred to the topics dealt with in criticism; and the clearer these views are before him, the abler he will be to grasp the bearing of critical principles and results on the circle of sub- jects he is investigating. It is only necessary that he should not be so thoroughly infatuated by the views thus previously acquired and held as to reject everything that cannot be reconciled with them. To be prejudiced is not, after all, simply to hold views of a certain character antecedent to an inves- tigation, but so to hold them as to close the door to others better accredited to the reason. Thus, as a matter of fact, no sphere of knowledge is without its presuppositions. The so-called exact sciences are not exceptions to this All sciences . . , , . have presup- principle. The exact sciences differ from all other sciences simply in this, that the presuppositions underlying them are uni- versally agreed upon. In mathematics, for instance, the presuppositions are the axioms. Exact sciences. , _ , ,. . , They are defined as self-evident truths. To deny them is to put one's self outside the class of those who can speak intelligently on mathematics. This unanimity in accepting certain presuppositions as postulates makes the exact sciences what their POSTULATES. 137 name implies. The metaphysical sciences proceed on the assumption of presuppositions not so uni- versally recognized as valid; the consequence is that there are different theories, sometimes dia- metrically opposed to one another, held in the same field and on the same subject. History stands between the exact sciences and the metaphysical, in that at times it proceeds upon the basis of definitely ascertained facts and History. at other times again is compelled to emphasize theories and interpret facts by theories. When its sources are full, and clearly in the domain of the known and fixed, it must, if true to itself, deduce all its philosophy from these clearly known facts. If, however, its sources are obscure and the facts to be found in them few and insufficient in themselves to furnish a sure basis of operations, history must supply the gaps and interpret the dark passages. But how shall it do this without some theory or working hypothesis ? Take a concrete illustration. Let a primitive his- torian first look at the pyramids in Egypt. Evi- dently they offer to his understanding Illustration. many puzzling problems. First of all, how did they originate ? The answer to this ques- tion would depend almost altogether on his view of how other things of the same general sort originate. If his theory regarding the origin of these should be that they grew in the course of ages, he would con- clude that the pyramids also grew. If his view were that human beings built them he would con- clude, in spite of the apparent impossibility of the work, that human beings had built the pyramids also. 138 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. But if his view were that works of the size and character of these could not possibly have been put together by human beings, he might be led to infer that a race of beings of superior strength or skill had lived there and erected these structures for their own purposes. This is not an imaginary case, but the actual theory and result of those ancient Greek historians who devised the theory of a race of Cyclopes and ascribed a system of peculiarities and a type of art and civilization to them solely on the basis of a postulate, as they viewed the gigantic work of their own ancestors. The postulate was that those works could not have been contrived by beings as weak and frail as themselves. But if presuppositions or postulates are unavoid- able, how shall the critic prevent their influencing classes of his results unduly or unfavorably ? postulates. In Border to obtain an intelligent and clear view of the situation at this point, let us inquire, first, what postulates the critic is most tempted to take to his task. Evidently there are two classes of these, /*. e., the philosophical and the historical. The first class consists of views of the universe its origin, constitution, and government. The second class consists of views regarding the nature and treatment of historic evidence. A third class, arising from the nature of religious belief, and the place and relation of religious beliefs to critical results, will be considered separately in a subsequent chapter. The postulates of the other two classes may be taken singly or in combination with one another. To illustrate the attitude of mind to be maintained by the critic with reference to them, it POSTULATES. 139 is sufficient, without going into too much analysis, to present the whole effect of these presuppositions as forcing him into one or another standpoint. The critic, for instance, who approaches his work with that philosophy of the world which we call the pantheistic, is forced into a position with reference to critical questions which should be Results in called the pantheistic standpoint; and stand P ints - thus it would be called, were it found as a stand- point into which pantheism only led. But as a matter of fact, as already indicated, the postulates with which we are dealing exist in combinations, and the standpoints into which they drive critics are not simple but complex. They may, however, be named, from their predominating principles, either philosophical or historical, as follows : I. The standpoint of naturalism. The principal and differentiating postulate of this standpoint is the impossibility of the supernatural. j. Naturalistic The miraculous, anywhere and under 8tand P int - any conditions, is incredible. Accounts of the super- natural arise in connection with the early history of peoples and make up their mythology. All early history has its mythology, and all mythology must be exscinded from the sources which criticism inves- tigates. This is the very task of criticism, viz., to sift out, to eliminate the impossible and incredible from the sources of history. This principle is, it is claimed, applied with rigor and vigor in the examination of all other sources of history, and must be applied in the Bible also. The Bible, after all, according to the critics of this standpoint, is neither more nor less than the collection of the 140 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. records of a people in its infancy, and must be treated like all the earliest records of other peoples. It is one of the sacred books of the East. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Hindoo Vedas, the Zend-Avesta of the Persians, the mythologies of the Greeks and Romans, are the other and perfectly analogous members of the class to which the Biblical religion and history belong. Like these analogues the Bible must be subjected to the same process of winnowing. It cannot be conceded any exemption from the philosophical presuppositions with which the student of comparative religion approaches its sister religions. Most critics of this standpoint make .no secret of their approaching the task with presuppositions Baur-s posi- ^ tn ^ s sort - Thus in the sphere of tion> New Testament criticism F. C. Baur,* answering the charge that upon the principles of his school of criticism all that is supernatural and miraculous in Christianity would disappear, acknowl- edges that such would be the case. "This is cer- tainly the tendency of the historical method of treatment, and in the nature of things it can have no other. Its task is to investigate whatever hap- pens under the relation of a cause and effect; but the miracle, in its absolute sense, dissolves this natural connection; it sets a point at which it is impossible, not for want of satisfactory information, but altogether and absolutely impossible, to regard the one thing as the natural consequence of the other. But how were such a point demonstrable ? Only by means of history. Yet, from the historical * Die Tiibinger Schule, 1859, p. 13. POSTULATES. 141 point of view, it were a mere begging of the ques- tion to assume events to have happened contrary to all the analogy of history. We should no longer be dealing with an historical question, as that con- cerning the orgin of Christianity incontestably is, but with a purely dogmatic one, that of the con- ception of a miracle; /. or self-contradictory, tion - it constitutes a working hypothesis that may be corroborated, corrected, or disproved and totally set aside. As a starting-point, more- over, tradition may be conceded a certain presump- tive right to stand. Unless the testimony against its truth be established, it may be considered true. It has been already intimated, for instance, that the term tradition in the case of the Old Testament books includes the pre-Christian beliefs as found outside the Bible, the claims incorporated in the titles of the books themselves as well as the claims which crop out in the body of the books, and the testimony of New Testament writers. The latter might be put by some scholars outside of the mean- ing of the term tradition, and in a class by itself; but as such a classification of it would hardly be POSTULATES. 151 agreed to by all critics, it may safely be placed in the class, traditions. For, although it may be more than tradition, and to some it has that force which makes it more, it is at least a part of tradition. But however that may be, the views contained in these traditions constitute a starting-point for critical investigation; and the presumption is that they are true until overbalancing considerations demonstrate their untenableness. If all this be true, it necessarily follows that the proper postulates of the Higher Criticism are not to be found either in the assumption 1 Conclusion. of the impossibility of the supernatural, the irrefragability of tradition, or the valueless- ness of the same, but in the admissibility of all evidence bearing upon the questions it treats as evidence to be sifted and verified before it is allowed to influence the conclusion. CHAPTER VIII. DOCTRINAL ASPECTS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. THE relations of the Higher Criticism to the religious teachings of the Bible must be, from the Power of the nature of the case, of the utmost im- on b men?3 ep op n in s - portance. The Bible is a religious ions of u. book and has been the source of in- calculable religious thought, feeling, and work. It has produced some most remarkable effects on the world; and it has produced these results because it has been believed to be, or at any rate to contain, the authoritative expression of God's will regard- ing the conduct of man on earth. If it had been believed to be anything less, it is reasonably certain that these results would not have been produced by it. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, to its effectiveness that it should be accepted at least as authoritatively as it has been. What men believe it to be is an essential condition of its accomplishing what it has and can accomplish. The question then resolves itself into this: How does the application of the Higher Criticism affect the beliefs of men regarding the Bible ? To answer this question it will be necessary to revert to the definition of the objects aimed at by the Higher Criticism. These, it has been said, are the deter- mination of the origin, literary form, and value of 152 DOCTRINAL ASPECTS. 153 writings. The mere statement of these objects will suffice to show that change of view on any of them will, at least indirectly, change men's view of the Bible. The questions of origin and value are especially apt to be of cardinal im- J Origin of books portance. What does the Higher ref rr ? d to man Criticism lead to as regards the origin of the Bible or its separate books ? Are they divine, or are they products of human activity only ? They may be either, or both combined. The easiest and most common answer would very probably be that they are the result of God's work and man's; that they are God's work working through men. But if so, Is the divine activity recognizable through the Higher Criticism ? or is it to be relegated to the domain of faith ? If the latter, the still more per- plexing problem arises, how far the belief that the Bible is a divine production, at least in part, should be allowed to enter in and affect the results of criticism ? It is possible, in the first place, to carry this belief into the critical investigation as an & priori presupposition; it is possible, in the second place, to hold it as a hypothesis and correct or set it aside, as the results of the investigation may indicate. It is possible, in the third place, to put it aside .before entering on the investigation, in order to proceed with the investigation altogether untram- meled. Each of these possibilities is adopted as the proper course to be pursued. And on the course taken depends, to a great extent, the sum of the results found. If the critic carry his beliefs in the divine origin of a Biblical book into his work, he must needs allow his views of the nature of God and 154 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. his relations to the world to influence him as he labors. If he refuse to take this belief with him, he may reach results inconsistent or contradictory to what can be proved true upon other than critical grounds. What he ought to do we do not propose to say at this point; our object just now is to show that any investigation into the origin of the books of the Bible is involved in a network of religious principles. It is idle to assert that the Bible will hold the same place in the estimation of men, what- ever the results of criticism may be as to its origin. But if the investigation of the question of origin is full of significance for religious views and re- Verdict on ligious views are full of significance value important. f()r ^ much m()re {& thig the cage wkh the investigation of the question of the value of the books of the Bible. A distinction may be, and is often made, between the religious and moral elements of the Bible on the one hand, and the pragmatic or historical and scientific elements on the other. The distinction exists in reality. The historical value of a writing its credibility is easily separable from its religious value its authoritative- ness as a source of information regarding the nature and will of God. But, upon closer examination, the distinction thus established proves of much less practical worth than we would have supposed ante- cedently. It is extremely difficult, not to say impos- sible, so to disassociate these two aspects of the value of a book as to preserve the re- Author's character gives ligious value unimpaired while giving value. up historical trustworthiness. The religious value of a writing depends in part, at least, DOCTRINAL ASPECTS. 155 on the authority, as a religious teacher, of its writer; this authority, in its turn, depends on the moral earnestness and sincerity of the man. And by this we mean not the actual perfection of character attained by him, but the purity of his motives and sincerity of his conduct; it is not necessary that a man should be free from human weakness in order to occupy the position of a moral and religious teacher. But if we know a man to be corrupt or insincere, no matter how exalted his teachings, we are apt not to attach to them the same force that we do to the utterances of a consistent and earnest teacher. The conclusion is unavoidable in such a case that our teacher has learned the lessons he is attempting to teach us by rote; that he is simply repeating them to us in a parrotlike fashion without understanding their bearings; but if so, we scarcely feel like trusting his competency. Or else, perhaps, he does understand the deep meaning of these teachings, but is convinced that they are not true; and if so, how shall he rouse in us a desire to do the things he recommends or believe in the validity of the principles he advocates ? With such an estimate of the teacher we discount the teaching. tA man may, of course, have a keen sense of the moral and religious value of the truth in general, or of some truth in particular, and no historic sense; he may be able to reproduce a moral and religious principle with accuracy and force, and unable to give a his- torical account without unconsciously introducing into it many inaccuracies. He will certainly not be charged with lack of moral earnestness or sincerity if such are known to be his temperament and 156 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. capacity. But let it be proved that he intentionally falsifies records, misrepresents facts, and doctors Fraudulent in- accounts in order to secure partizan tention detracts. Qr individual endg> and the sphere of his weakness is removed from the historical to the ethico-religious side. The value of his teaching is at once reduced. If the author has no regard for the moral law as it touches truthfulness, we argue unconsciously, How shall we be sure that he has any regard for the moral law in other particulars ? An answer may be and is made to this question as follows : We must use our moral and religious sense Truth does not ^ n determining when our instructor in hinge on its these matters is right and trustworthy, intrinsic force * ' onl y- and when he is not. After all, it is often said, it is the validity of the teaching which appeals to our own moral natures and gives it power with us, and not the character of the teacher as an individual. This answer is unsatisfactory in making the acceptance of truth hinge altogether on its intrinsic and self-evidencing force. That men accept the truth partly because they recognize it as such at first sight is not to be denied. But they also accept the truth often on the strength of the authority of teachers in whom they have con- fidence. When the truth expressed is simple, funda- mental, and practical, the reason perceives it directly. But when it is complex and theoretic, the average reason finds it impossible to analyze and test its parts. It simply wishes to know whether the teacher who enunciates it has made the analysis and tested and proved his teaching to be valid. When satisfied of this, the reason accepts a complex DOCTRINAL ASPECTS. 157 presentation on the authority of the teacher. To accept this authority is not to renounce the right of private judgment or to act contrary to reason or without reason. Rather is it to act in accordance with reason. The reason is, after all, the ultimate arbiter as to whether the authority of the teacher shall be accepted or not. Christians have always accepted teachings from prophets and apostles because their reason has taught them these persons have been in some manner constituted authoritative teachers; and part of their credential is their trust- worthiness as individuals, and another part the agreement of the fundamental truth in their message with the sound moral judgment of mankind. To make the latter the only test is unsatisfactory, as it raises us at a single bound from the , , , , Human reason, position of learners at the feet of our fallible stand- moral and religious teachers into that of judges and critics of their teaching. While we must be this in truths of simple, fundamental, and practical character, we cannot do it with reference to complex and recondite matters. If man had an ideal moral nature, healthy and normal in every way, and only lying dormant, awaiting the stimulus of a presentation of truth, to be so awakened as to see unerringly the truth or falsehood in every detail of representations made to him, to select and adopt the true and reject the false, this view might have been considered correct. But the above described ideal is far from being the actual state of human nature. The truth is rather that a careful induction of the facts regarding our moral nature shows it to be a very fallible guide, practically and as a whole. The 158 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. moral and spiritual nature needs guidance from above. It needs the communication of knowledge regarding God and his will which it Needs guidance. , . .. does not possess. Neither can it tell instantly and unerringly that which is true from that which is not. Its power of recognizing the divine is impaired. Like the bodily sight when it has become diseased, it may serve as a guide in general, but it is liable to mislead ; it needs a cor- rective and preservative, a standard, a body of ethico-religious truth, whose truth as a whole will be Rule of faith : a guarantee of the truth of its parts, objective. This is given in an objective revelation of the divine will. Only such a revelation could escape the danger of being called into question by every sin-blinded moral nature, and curtailed or modified to suit the dwarfed or distorted moral judgment. Such a revelation could be given through accredited messengers of God. If it be assumed that it has been given, it must follow that the tests of its validity must be partly, at least, objective; consisting in the character of the mes- senger and the signs of God's presence with him along with the divinity of his message, attesting itself to the spiritual sense of men. It is not the verisimilitude of the alleged revelation alone, but its effect on the human vehicle and the other mani- festations of its delivery that constitute the adequate witness of the objective revelation. The means through which God gives his word must be adequate. Some one has said truly, "Even God cannot make a six-inch stream of water run through a four-inch pipe." Neither is the moral nature of man like the DOCTRINAL ASPECTS. 159 glazed surface of the interior of a metal pipe, which allows the stream to go over it without leaving a trace on it; but rather like the soil along the banks of the river, which is enriched and fertilized by the touch of the stream. To carry the simile a step further, it is not by seeing the stream that we know the fulness of its content and the quality of its water, but also by noting the effects attending its passage through its channels. Thus, while the force of a moral truth is inherent, and does not depend on its utterer, its value is much affected by the character of the man by whom it is presented for the acceptance of men. To say then that the findings of the Higher Criti- cism should not affect the religious faith of men is to use language loosely, or else to take a superficial view of the case. If affects form of . . , faith. the religious faith of men is built upon the content of given documents, and the content of those documents be proved either partly or in whole worthless, it must needs follow that the faith be reconstructed after the proof has been established. The extent of the reconstruction may be large or small; it may amount to a slight revision or a com- plete revolution; it may be nothing but the elimi- nation of unreal features from Christianity; or may be the surrender of its distinctive features, reducing it to a mere natural religion. This last is certainly possible. The religious or doctrinal bearings of the Higher Criticism cannot be a matter of indifference to the man, no matter what he may think as a scholar. Our reasoning thus far has led us to the conclu- 160 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. sion that the Higher Criticism cannot help affecting the forms at least of religious belief, and may affect its substance. Now the problem Criticism comes after thus raised would have a very sim- ple solution, if the Higher Criticism could have occupied from the beginning what would appear its natural place as an introduction and prep- aration for the use of the Bible. Religious belief built on the Bible would in such a case have been subsequent to the examination of the Bible by the methods of the Higher Criticism. But this simple condition of things does not, unfortunately, exist. The Bible has been used for millenniums. On the ground of its authoritativeness as a source there has been elaborated a system of belief. This system of belief is accepted by many as true. Not simply because of the fact that it is built of materials furnished by the Bible, but because of its beneficent results and its adaptation to human needs and its appeal to the human heart, it is received as the truth. Now comes the Higher Criticism with a demand for a hearing on the validity and value of the sources of this faith. It claims to have an important message regarding these. When the message is heard, it is found that it consists in asser- tions inconsistent with the authoritativeness of the sources. Of course, if this message be true, no harm can come from its acceptance. And even were the absurd supposition to be entertained that harm could come of accepting the truth, it would still be a duty to receive it rather than cling to error for the sake of its beneficent results. No one can too strenuously insist on loyalty to the truth. But is DOCTRINAL ASPECTS. l6l the message of the Higher Criticism true ? How shall that question be answered ? Here critics again divide into two schools. On verdicts com- one side stand those who reduce all pared with faith - religious belief into subjection unto reason, and on the other those who have accepted what they believe the Bible teaches as the truth. They con- cede that the teaching of the Bible has its mysteries which cannot be reduced to the form of reason, but they claim that this fact does not render these mysteries irrational. The former of these schools is commonly called the rationalistic, the latter the evangelical school of criticism. I. The Rationalistic School. The term rational- istic needs a word of explanation. It is in danger like most much used words of being Methods of variously applied and of thus leading correlation : ' I. Rationalism. into confusion. There are rationalists and rationalists. A rationalist is sometimes under- stood to be one who rejects the supernatural upon philosophical grounds. The rationalistic stand- point, accepting this definition of it, is a philosophi- cal one, and has been considered under the subject of the possible philosophical postulates assumed in using the Higher Criticism. But a rationalist is often supposed to be one who uses the reason in interpreting away the miraculous from the scriptural narratives by substituting some naturalistic expla- nation in every case. According to this conception of the term, only he is a rationalist who reduces the content of the Bible into the forms Meaning of that can be conceived and traced out the word - by the reason. Such rationalists were Paulus and 162 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Semler in the last century, and Strauss and his fol- lowers in the present. Others, however, take a broader view of the term and include under it the use of the reason in almost any form. Those who attempt to harmonize differing or inconsistent accounts, according to this view of it, belong to the category of rationalists, because they use the reason in the same sense and manner as those who would give a merely naturalistic explanation of things apparently supernatural. Usage has thus fluctu- ated. It would be a gain, because it would conduce toward clearness of thought, if the term could be applied only to systems in which the reason is either the only or the supreme authority in matters of religion. And by reason, in this connection, it were well to understand not the whole intelligent nature of man, but specifically those faculties through the use of which he consciously reaches conclusions. This supremacy of reason exercised in the sphere of the in- terpretation of Scripture would constitute the ration- alism of Semler and Paulus; exercised in the sphere that precedes interpretation, /'. highest interest by intelligent students of the Bible. Accordingly efforts have been made at different times and in different ways to furnish answers to them. In the course of these efforts the very principles and rules constituting the Higher Criti- cism, as already described, have been used by inves- tigators. Very often these principles were used blindly or unconsciously. Especially was this the case in those earlier days when all the sciences lacked in systematic exposition; when all study was carried on somewhat at random and the principles of investigation were as yet not formulated in any. There is a sharp difference to be observed and a dis- tinction to be drawn between this stage in the development of any science and the subsequent one, in which all its processes and rules Though not become distinct subjects of study. In long a scicnte - criticism especially this stage was marked by a lack of discrimination between theological, critical, his- torical, or other phases of questions. The same per- 174 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. son in the same connection would apply a pure critical principle and proceed to bring forth a theo- logical consideration to support the result, as if unconscious of the difference in the place and force of the two considerations. This makes it extremely difficult to disentangle the critical work done by even the best of the men of this stage from the con- jectures and baseless traditions with which it seems to be interwoven. Criticism seems to be accidental and sporadic rather than systematic and premedi- tated. Nevertheless, critical arguments we may almost say the critical arguments one and all, as later developed by the constant practice of criti- cism are used throughout this stage. It is there- fore an error to speak of the ancient times as though criticism was unknown in them, or of the history of criticism as dating from the latter half of the eighteenth century. This history cannot be complete without going back to the very origin of the writings with which it deals. From the above it is evident that our division of the history of the Higher Criticism must be into Periods in its two periods, the ancient and the history. modern. The characteristic differ- ence between these two periods has already been given in its main outline. The first of the periods is the period of the infancy and helplessness of criticism. It exists along with other sister methods of research, altogether unconscious of its functions and its rights. In the second it comes, so to speak, to its self-consciousness; it realizes its work and soon claims exclusive control and dominion of a field where it had been long content to dwell in HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 175 peace, and labor unobserved, with others on undefined terms. The first of these periods extends from time immemorial to the days of Astruc. More especially the date of demarcation between the ancient and the modern stages of criticism ought to be set down at 1753 the year of the publication of the treatise by Astruc entitled : Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la GSnhe. The second stage, it goes without saying, extends from Astruc to the present day. I. During the period preceding the publication of Astruc's epoch-making book we are to distin- guish three epochs based on changes I. Period : x. of standpoint as follows: First, the Pre-Christian Pre-Christian epoch; this dealt with the questions of authorship, structure, and aim in direct and positive statements without undertaking to discuss them. Second, the age between the beginning of the Christian era and the Reforma- tion; this approached these same questions with a definite understanding of their bearings, but no clear principles as to the influence which their dis- cussion should have on the general subject of religion and theology. Third, the epoch between the Reformation and the rise of the modern criti- cism; this dealt with the same questions with pre- possessions drawn from dogmatic theology; /'. e., conclusions from the study of the content of the Bible (and by content in this connection is meant the theological or religious elements and not the historical and literary features of the books). The first of these subperiods, that which precedes the 176 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Christian era, may be set aside as furnishing no appreciable material for a sketch of the develop- ment of the Higher Criticism. Whatever there is in this period of criticism in the dealings of men with the Biblical books is lost in the manner with which utterances regarding the answers to the questions of criticism are made. We have bare statements; whether these represent antecedent processes of investigation it is not clear. They may represent much diligent research; but as there appeared to be no controversy on the questions alluded to, it seemed unnecessary to expose the course of investigation which led to the state- ments. Or it is possible that there were no inves- tigations, and the results we have in these state- ments are mere opinions or hereditary traditions received unquestioningly by each generation from its predecessor. Whatever the truth, it is evidently too late to attempt to go behind the bare state- ments and discover critical methods, if any were used in reaching them. With the advent of the Christian era and the appearance of the documents that give an account 2. Early ^ tne r ig m of Christianity and a Christian age. ru j e or g u id ance in faith and conduct, criticism found a new field and a new impulse. Thus it came about that in this epoch the books of the New Testament formed the subject-matter of discussions. Moreover, it is in the earlier years of the epoch, while there was room for doubt and discussion, that critical discussions are to be found. As a matter of history the first appearance itself of the New Testament books seems to have caused no HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 177 discussion. Their importance was not appreciated at once. The faith which they expounded and pro- moted was scarcely considered a historic factor as yet. They served to make it such. But as this faith grew in significance to the world, and differ- ences of opinion arose as to its exact nature and intellectual and practical applications, the question of the authority of the documents arose and with it all the questions of the Higher Criticism. The most important of these questions, from the point of view of its bearing on the practical use to be made of the answer, was : Did an apostle write or cause to be written any given document ? The object of the whole investigation seemed to be to trace each book to its source, with a view of deter- mining the further point of its binding authority as a part of a canon or rule of faith. The applica- tion of principles, however, in obtaining answers to this question is not clear at first. The idea was no doubt entertained that there is a difference between two classes of early Christian writings, i. e., the genuine and the spurious; but that these two classes can be distinguished from one another by internal marks does not come into view until the time of Origen. The fact that Marcion established a canon for himself may illustrate the case. Marcion had reasons, which he could and did assign, for rejecting the authority of a great number of the New Testa- ment writings; he had reasons for accepting as authoritative the ten epistles of Paul and the Gos- pel of Luke. But whether these reasons were to any extent based on linguistic and historical grounds, or whether linguistic and historical con- 178 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. siderations were among the reasons that moved him to accept the books of his canon, and these only, does not appear from anything we know of his processes of thinking. His chief motive we know was the desire to confirm his philosophy of re- ligion. Whatever books tended to do this he was inclined to accept as authoritative; those that did not he was inclined to reject. This is as far as we can go in discovering the sum and substance of his criticism. With Origen there is a marked change of base. Students of the Bible begin to distinguish between origen (185- what should be accepted or rejected *54 A. D.). no j. s i m piy because it confirms or dis- turbs preconceived views, but because it is attested by historical and philological evidence. They also begin to specify this evidence. They assign their reasons for the acceptance or rejection of the genuineness of books. Origen himself, writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews, uses the arguments from language and style; from the character of thought contained in the Epistle; and from the testimony of the ancients or tradition. He care- fully balances the evidence furnished by these sources. The style points to a different author than the Apostle Paul; the thought is very much like Paul's, and tradition ascribes the letter to the apostle. His conclusion is that those who believe the writing to be Pauline are not unreasonable; but for himself, no result based on the evidence at hand can have demonstrative force. "As to who wrote the letter God only knows the truth." * He further *Eusebius, Hist. Eccl,, vi. 25. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 179 adds that " some assert that Clement, who became bishop of the church at Rome, wrote it; and others that this was done by Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts." Thus it appears that in discussing the question of the right of some parts of the canon to be where they are, it came to be customary not merely to express a belief one way or another, but to inquire into the reasons which support it or militate against it. This is nothing but criticism in its incipient stage. Closely following Origen, in these first days of Biblical criticism, came his successor at the head of the Alexandrian school, Dionysius. r~i -i 1-1 . i Dionysius of The special occasion which set him Alexandria (fl. to employ critical methods was the controversy regarding the authority of the Apoca- lypse. He contended that this book was not the work of the Apostle John. The reasons he gave for supporting this view were: (i) The literary argument. The style of the author of the Apoca- lypse is not the same as that of the author of the Fourth Gospel. As this was written by the Apostle John, the Apocalypse is not his work. (2) The argument from difference of personal habit and characteristic. The author of the Fourth Gospel never names himself. So also the author of the First Epistle of John, assuming that he is the same as the author of the Gospel, never mentions him- self. The author of the Apocalypse frequently does so. (3) The argument from silence. This is used twice: First, inasmuch as there were many Johns, it was to be expected that if this author were the Apostle he would have said so, since he had l8o THE HIGHER CRITICISM. already described himself in the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loved; as the one who had leaned on the Master's bosom; as the brother of James, and as one of the Twelve. Secondly, there is no mention of the Apocalypse in the Epistle, not to speak of the Gospel, or of any revelation given to the evangelist and apostle. That the mention of such a revelation was to be expected appears from the fact that Paul, having received such a revelation, speaks of it in his Epistles, although Paul did not write down the revelation which he had received. (4) The argument from character of thought. The thought of the Gospel and the Epistle is the same; that of the Apocalypse is totally different. And the conclusion which Dionysius reaches, in view of these facts, is that the Apocalypse is the work of a certain John, but this John is not the brother of James and author of the Gospel. As to who he is, Dionysius cannot tell. He believes in the inspiration and prophetic charac- ter of its content, and deprecates the ascription of it to Cerinthus or any other like-minded author. From another point of view Dionysius' criticism shows how easily motives ab extra are at this stage External bias allowed to influence the processes and allowed. methods of criticism. This early critic can hardly conceal his object in thus denying that the author of the Apocalypse was a different person from the author of the Gospel and the Epistles bearing the name of John. These latter writings are perspicuous. Their writer's style is clear and easy to be understood. If it could be shown that the writer of the Apocalypse is not the same, it HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. l8l would be easy to assert that its author was an obscure writer; hence that this book should not be used in existing controversies as the others were. Thus the Chiliasts, who constantly quoted it, would be deprived of their chief source of support. Dionysius, without denying the inspiration of the book and its usefulness, when properly understood, aims to disarm those who he thinks were making wrong use of it; this he thinks he can do by proving that it is not a clear writing; to this end he resorts to the criticism that proves it to be the work of another than John the Evangelist, who was mani- festly a clear writer. Thus, even at this early date, extra-critical views were allowed to influence, at least indirectly, the course of criticism.* In the sphere of the Old Testament there was not as much room for difference of opinion. The writings constituting this part of the Common view canon had been received as a binding of the old Tes- rule of faith and conduct, and little was to be gained by examining the grounds on which this was done. Jesus Christ had used these writings as authoritative sources of information and presumably accepted the current views of the Jews regarding them. His imprimatur was thus, in appearance at least, put upon the Old Testament as it stood in his day. This belief had the tendency to produce the impression, which it always has had since, wherever it has prevailed, that the question of the origin and nature of the books of the Old Testa- ment was a closed' question for practical purposes. This was the state of opinion among Christians. *Eusebius, Hist, Eccl., vii. 10, 24, 25. 182 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. But the opponents of Christianity did not feel the restraints thus imposed upon Christians by tradi- opponents ti n an d the supposed attitude of of Christianity. j egus christ toward the O ld Testa- ment. Starting with the rejection of the claims of both the Old and the New Testament writings to supernatural origin, they naturally adopted such theories of their authorship and value as would harmonize with the rejection of this supernatural origin. It was very exceptionally indeed that they deemed the subject worthy of a careful examination; but whenever they did so, the conclusions they reached were as above stated. Celsus, the first great opponent of Christianity, in a treatise written toward the end of the second ceisus (fl 190 century considered the book of Genesis A - D -)- not a writing of Moses, but of a number of other authors.* Following in the footsteps of Celsus came Por- phyry's investigation of the book of Daniel. Por- Porphyry (233- P n y rv was a Neo-Platonic philosopher who died A. D. 305. He wrote a trea- tise Against Christians, in fifteen books. Among other things he found the prophetical utterances of Daniel supporting the claims of Christianity to supernatural origin. He made these utterances the subject of special investigation, and came to the conclusion that such minute predictions as were contained in this book could not have been made. The author must have lived after the events pre- * Origen, Contra Cels., iv. 42. As this treatise is not extant, we can only conjecture as to the mode of reasoning used by him in reaching this conclusion. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 183 dieted. These were vaticinia ex eventu. The writer of Daniel must have written during the Maccabean age, more precisely, during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.* It hardly needs to be said that we have here an instance of the use of a critical argument, that from anachronism. As has already been intimated, how- ever, there was a bias behind the use of this critical weapon; viz., the opposition of Porphyry to Chris- tianity. Somewhat later, Eusebius gave his well-known account of the Christian Scriptures. He did not, however, base his conclusions on Eusebius, critical arguments strictly, but on the 070-341, A. D.). traditions of the ancients. Incidentally he used the critical argument from the content of thought in testing and rejecting certain books which he could not classify among his accepted or doubtful books. The utter unlikeness of the expression and teach- ing of these, he asserts, put them outside the canon, not merely as spurious but also as improper and wicked, f These are some of the clearest cases of the ap- plication of critical principles to the Bible in the ancient period. They do not constitute a syste- matic and scientific criticism, but they show that the critical instinct and method had some share in aggressive and defensive work in the course of con- troversy. Other instances could be cited; but they would be obscurer in character, and could not add much to our knowledge of the criticism during the * Jerome, Comm. in Dan. Proph. f Eusebius, Hist, Eccl., iii. 25. 184 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. period under consideration. The above sufficiently show that this period was a time when the need of criticism was felt and beginnings were made in it. This time did not last long. When the Church was united to the state, it assumed the authority to Disuse and sav what should be considered canon- disappearance. ical amon g t h e current Christian writ- ings and what should not. And this not arbitrarily, but on the basis of such reasoning as was thought sufficient. The main consideration in this reasoning was the tradition of the ancients. That there may have been other considerations cannot be denied. But at any rate as soon as the Church pronounced on the canon in its ecclesiastical councils, notably those at Laodicea (364) and at Carthage (397), all necessity for pressing individual investigations in this field seemed to disappear. It became a matter of secondary importance to inquire into the origin of the books of the canon and allied questions when their authority was declared binding by official action of the Church. Tradition thus became almost the exclusive court of appeal. Accordingly there is an appreciable difference in this regard between the attitude of scholars like Origen pre- ceding, and Jerome following, the action of the councils. Both take occasion to speak of the un- certainty of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but whereas Origen uses some critical principles in dealing with the subject, Jerome leans altogether on the authority of tradition.* The long interval from Jerome to Luther and the Reformers is characterized by almost universal and *Ej>. Dardan,, cxxix. 3, in Migne's edition. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 185 total stagnancy in this department. The reform- ers were too busy with their controversies in the domain of dogmatics, and in the work Reforma- of organizing the new movement, to tionage. enter into the systematic study of critical questions; and yet the chief of them were not kept out of the field altogether. Luther's attitude toward the canon is very well known. He instituted a single test, which he applied irrespective of consequences. "That which does not teach Christ," said he, " is not apostolic, even if a Peter or a Paul taught it. " Hence on the critical question of the value of the various Biblical books he had something to say. He believed these books were not all equally valuable. He put the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle of Peter in the first rank. In fact he made these books a class by themselves. Possessing these, the Church did not absolutely need the rest of the Scripture. The other books were to be estimated differently, always putting the Epistles of Paul above the Gospels. Of the Old Testament books he placed Esther in the same class with Maccabees; Chronicles were lower than Kings for historic value. On the question of authorship, he asks, " What does it matter if Moses should not have himself written the Pentateuch ?" perhaps with reference to the denial of the Mosaic authorship by Carlstadt. He rejects the theory that Solomon wrote the Song of Songs; he believes that many of the Old Testament books were revised by later editors ; he finds chronological confusion in the present order or arrangement of the prophecies 1 86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. of Jeremiah; he assigns the Book of Ecclesiastes to the time of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the authorship of Hebrews did not disturb him, although he, for the first time, suggested that it might be the work of Apollos. Without dealing with the question of the genuineness of the Apoc- alypse directly, he rejected the inspiration of that book. His treatment of the Epistle of James has been often quoted as characteristic of his whole attitude and method. He called it "a veritable epistle of straw," and not written by an apostle at all. The reason he assigned is interesting as well as characteristic; "it fully contradicts St. Paul." The Epistle of Jude is "an unnecessary, second- hand, and non-apostolic one." It is evident, even from a bare and summary enumeration of them, that these views are not based on strict critical princi- ples, yet they contain and imply the application of such principles; and so far as they are implied these principles are essentially the same as those used in later times. Carlstadt, as already intimated, took the ground that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Only an insane person could attribute the Carlstadt. passage giving an account of Moses' death to Moses himself.* The other leading reformers did not adopt Lu- ther's views on the Scriptures. Calvin, and the churches which agreed with him in his theological views, looked on the Gospel more broadly, as diffused throughout the whole of the Bible. This was to them the source of all true * Libellus df Scripturis Canonicis, pub. 1521. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 187 and valid religious thought and the ultimate court of appeal in every controversy among themselves and with the Romanists. They were satisfied to begin with an enumeration of the books making up the Scripture canon. Questions preceding this step were not entertained as important. The author- ship, literary form, and specific value of a Biblical work pertained to the outer circumference, and not to the very center of the doctrine of Scripture. If the Bible was the Word of God, and human instru- mentalities were merely passive in its production, the chief thing in searching the Scriptures must be to ascertain the mind of God revealed in them. Everything else must be of subsidiary interest, if not altogether unnecessary. This, it may be said, was the mind and attitude of the Reformed wing of Protestantism. And this it continued to be through- out the period of the formation of the Creeds, includ- ing the Westminster Confession of Faith; and even later through the first half of the eighteenth century. Outside the evangelical or strictly Protestant world questions of this sort were regarded as more important, and therefore worthy of in- vestigation. Hobbes disputes the va- lidity of the reasoning that Moses must have written the Pentateuch because its five books are called the "Books of Moses." "No more than these titles," says he, " the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the Book of Ruth and the Book of Kings are arguments sufficient to prove that they were writ- ten by Joshua, by the Judges, by Ruth, and by the Kings." His position is that: "Though Moses did not compile these books entirely, and in the 1 88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. form in which we have them, yet he wrote all that he is there said to have written."* Somewhat more positive and further advanced in the negative di- rection is the position of Benedict Spinoza. This original thinker took up some ob- Spinoza. , . scure phrases of Aben Ezras in which the medieval rabbi had pointed out some post-Mosaic material in the Pentateuch and elab- orated them into a set of propositions leading to the conclusion that Moses did not write the Penta- teuch. To this negative theory Spinoza further appended the theory, which has only a loose con- nection with it, that the historical books of the Old Testament were a body of composite writings put together, probably by Ezra, in the fifth century B. c. out of a larger mass, the remainder of the material having been lost since, f Among Roman Catholics, And. Masius (Maes), 1753, suggested that the Pentateuch had been revised Roman Cath- by Ezra. J Peyrerius, basing himself on olics< some of the suggestions of Aben Ezra (already spoken of as the starting-point of Spinoza's speculations relating the authorship of the Pen- tateuch), reached the conclusion that the Penta- teuch, as at present found, is not the work of Moses, but an excerpt from a larger work by Moses. But Roman Catholic criticism reached a crisis in * Leviathan, Pt. III. cxxxiii. f Tractatus Theologico-politicus , pub. 1670. \Comm.Josh., Praef. Preadamittz, pub. 1655. Peyrere, however, wrote his Preada- mitce while a Protestant, and recanted the views therein expressed when he joined the Roman Church. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 189 the labors of Richard Simon.* This author made use of true critical principles. He gathered up literary and historical data, especially , , . ,, .. * R.Simon. facts relating to style, parallelism of narratives, lack of order and arrangement. On these data he based some new views. He claimed that there were in Israel official annalists, as among other ancient peoples; that in fact Moses appointed some such in imitation of the Egyptians. Moses himself wrote the book of the Law. The annalists wrote records of the events. Out of the materials Ezra, or possibly some later editor, compiled the his- torical books of the Old Testament; not, however, with strict regard to order, but using large freedom with the official documents. Only a small portion of the Pentateuch is accordingly of Mosaic origin and that not distinguishable, because of editorial alterations. It has often been said that Simon's motive in entering the field of Biblical criticism was not so much love for criticism for its own sake as opposition to the Protestant standpoint of adher- ence to the Bible as the only rule of faith and arbi- ter in theological debate. By calling attention to the human origins of the Biblical books he hoped to weaken this position. Whatever his intention may have been, his own Church did not approve these views. The great Bossuet declared himself against them. His book on the Old Testament was ex- *Histoire Critique du Texte du Vieux Testament, pub. 1678-85. His Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, pub. i680, though presumably on the Lower Criticism contains a consider- able amount of material gathered together for work in the field of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament. 19O THE HIGHER CRITICISM. amined, condemned, and all obtainable copies of it destroyed. Outside his own communion he found an able opponent of his theories in Clericus.* This theologian broached the novel view that the Pentateuch was a compilation by the Clericus. . priest sent by the king of Assyria to Samaria to teach the people the religion of Jehovah. Later he changed his view, and fell back to the traditional theory of Mosaic authorship with later interpolations.! This later view of his found an opponent in Anton van Dale, who contended that the Pentateuch was a compilation originating in Van Dale tne a & e * Ezra, and properly the work of Ezra. Ezra, however, incor- porated into it materials from the book of the Law, which was of Mosaic origin. \ The views of Simon, Le Clerc, and Van Dale, dif- ferent as they were from one another, were all de- partures from the views commonly Opposition. accepted before the seventeenth cen- tury. These older views now found champions in two classes of writers. First, those who fortified them by considerations derived from dogmatic the- ology. And second, those who acknowledged the force of the principles used by these critics and the reality of the facts cited; but denied the legitimacy of the conclusions drawn from them, and gave ex- * Jean Le Clerc, Sentimens de quelques thMogiens de Hollande sur VHistoire Critique du Vieux Testament par Pere R. Simon, published 1685. f Comm. Genes, Proleg,, Dissert. Tertia. \ De Origine et Progressu Idolatries, pub. 1696 ; and Epistola ad Morinum. HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 191 planations of the facts consistent with the older views. Of the first class the most prominent rep- resentative was Carpzov.* The influence of Carp- zov in the history of criticism is that of a corrective from without rather than that of factor, from within. His view of inspi- ration was a fundamental truth to him. Views as to the origin of the books of the canon must harmo- nize with this, if they were to be allowed any standing. The most prominent representative of the second class of conservatives was Vitringa. f Observing the frequent occurrence of the form- Vitringa ula in Genesis of "These are the generations of . . . ' Vitringa propounded the view that Moses, in writing Genesis, had used doc- uments composed by the Patriarchs. This amounts to the use of critical methods, without denying the traditional theory of the origin of Genesis or antago- nizing any doctrines held in the Church. Other writers who taught the earlier views from the standpoint of either of these classes are, Wit- sius,J Prideaux, Heidegger, || and Huet.l" But no further progress was made in the elaboration of the Higher Criticism as a science until the middle of the eighteenth century. *Johann Gottlob Carpzov, 1679-1767. Introductio ad Lib. Canon., Leipzig, 1714-21 ; Critica Sacra, Leipzig, 1724. f Campegius Vitringa, Observationum Sacrarum Libri VI, pub. 1683-1708, and 1723. \Misc. Sacra, pub. 1692, Old and New Testaments Connected, 1716-18. I) Exercitationes Bibllcce, pub. 1700. ^[ Demonstratio Evangelica, pub. 1679. CHAPTER X. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. II. IN tracing the history of the Higher Criticism, as we reach the middle of the eighteenth century it n. Modem era becomes necessary to observe a dis- of o-Hicism. tinction between the Old and the New Testaments. The application and development of critical principles are noticeably different in these two fields. Already, before the time specified, atten- tion in the New Testament had been almost exclu- sively given to the study of the text. Scholars like Bentley, Mill, and Wettstein had by their labors shown the importance of purifying the text of this portion of Scripture. All other questions, whether regarding authorship or literary form, were not entertained. The wave of rationalism which swept over Europe during the eighteenth century recalled attention from the text to the more fundamental subjects of the origin and nature of the first rec- ords of the Christian religion. But the interest thus aroused was not purely literary or historical, but rather philosophical. The point of view from which research in this field was undertaken was thus that of the philosophy of religion. In the Old Testament field, on the other hand, criticism began with what was' put forth as a simple literary discovery that of the alternate use of different MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 193 names designating God in the Book of Genesis. It gradually developed from this beginning into the use of literary phenomena of various other classes; then into the use of historical data; and finally into the use of the content of thought as bases for forming judgments regarding the origin and nature of the books of the Pentateuch and subsequently of the whole Old Testament. This difference will lead us to trace separately the course of the Higher Criticism in the Old Tes- tament first and in the New afterward. I. THE HEXATEUCH QUESTION. (A) Use and development of the literary argument. The initial step in the first stage of modern Old Testament criticism was, as above x The H exa- stated, the discovery that in alternate teuch " 2 4- f K. H. Graf, Die Geschichtlichen Backer des Alien Testa- mentes, 1 866. \ Historisch kritisch Onderzoek naar het Onstaan en de Verzame- lingvande boekendes Oudes Ver bonds, Leyden, 1861-65, 3 vols. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 20$ the development theory from Graf * and gave it more definite shape. He taught that the religion of Israel is a purely natural religion; beginning, like all other great religions, with polytheism, and develop- ing gradually into the monotheistic and spiritual system of the prophets of Israel, f The theory and method of Graf found another f i -I-, T 1- TIT 11 Wellhausen. champion of ability m Julius Well- hausen. J Wellhausen's work consists in the elabor- ation of the Grafian theory. This theory, as now accepted by a large number of critics, Grafian school: may be succinctly put as follows : The results - credible recorded history of Israel dates from the days of Samuel. With this prophet begins the crystallization also of the religion of Israel into its present form. The process thus begun continues through centuries. The Hexateuch is a composite work, whose origin and history may be traced in four distinct stages: (i) A writer designated as J Jahvist, or Jehovist, or Judean prophetic historian, composed a history of the people of Israel about 800 B. c. (2) A writer designated as E Elohist, or * De Godesdienst -van Israel tot den ondergong van den Jood- schen Staat, Haarlem, 1869-70 ; Eng. trans. Religion of Israel, 1874-75. Also, De Prof e ten en dieprofetie onder Israel, Leyden, 1875; Eng._trans. 1877; and Hibbert Lectures, National Religions and Universal Religion, 1882. \ For a critical estimate of Kuenen see W. J. Beecher, " The Logical Methods of Professor Kuenen," Presbyterian Review, vol. iii. p. 701 seq. % Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 1889, published previously as apart of Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, 1885, and Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 1883 and 1886, published in 1878 as Geschichte Israels, vol. i. 206 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Ephraimite prophetic historian, wrote a similar work some fifty years later, or about 750 B. c. These two were used separately for a time, but fused together into JE by a redactor, at the end of the seventh century. (3) A writer of a different character wrote a book constituting the main por- tion of our present Deuteronomy during the reign of Josiah, or a short time before 621 B. c. This writer is designated D. To his work were added an introduction and an appendix, and with these accre- tions it was united with JE by a second redactor, constituting JED. (4) Contemporaneously with Ezekiel the ritual law began to be reduced to writ- ing. It first appeared in three parallel forms. These were codified by Ezra not very much earlier or later than 444 B. c., and between that date and 280 B.C. it was joined with JED by a final redactor. This general view, always allowing modifications in minor details, was accepted by a large number Grafian school: f European and American scholars, in Germany. &nd may be gaid tQ bg thfi dominant view at the present time. Among its adherents are Kayser,* Smend,f Karl Budde,J Bernhard Stade, Franz DelitzschJ C. H. Cornill,! Kautzsch and * Das vorexilische Buck der Urgeschichte und seine Erweite- rungen, Strasburg, 1874. f Der Prophet Ezekiel, 1880; Lehrbuch der Altlestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte ; Freiburg, i. B. 1893. \Die biblische Urgeschichte, Giessen, 1883; Die Biicher Richter und Samuel, Giessen, 1890. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Berlin, 1887, 1888, 2 vols.; 1st vol. in 2d ed. 1889. || Neuer Kommentar uber Genesis, 1887. ^f Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Freiburg, i. B. 1891 ; 2d ed. 1892. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 207 Socin,* Konig, f Hermann Schultz, J Duhm, Sieg- fried,! Holzinger,!" and Bruno Baentsch.** In Great Britain a vigorous attack on the traditional view of the Pentateuch was made by Colenso,ff from the point of view of the histori- I-/Y- Colenso. cal difficulties involved in that view. The earliest exponent of the Grafian hypothesis was Kalisch.JJ But the first to make a systematic presen- tation of it was W. Robertson Smith. These have been followed by a large number of more recent schol- ars, among them S, R. Driver, |||| T. English K. Cheyne,ft H. E. Ryle,*** and C. Orafian critics. G. Montefiore. tff In America these views have * Die Genesis mit atisseren Untersuchungen der Quellenschrif- ten iibersetzt, Freiburg, i. B. 1891. \ Der Offenbarungsbegriff das Alien Testaments, 1882 ; Einlei- tung in das Alte Testament, 1893. \ Alttestamentliche Theologie, ist ed. 1869 ; 4th ed. 1889 ; Eng. trans. 1892. Theologie der Propheten, Bonn, 1875. \Hcbraisches Worterbuch, in conjunction with Stade, 1892. Jl" Einleitung in den Hexateuch, Freiburg, i. B. 1893. ** Das Bundesbuch, Halle, 1892 ; Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, Erfurt, 1893. ft The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, critically examined, ^ parts, 1862-79. \\ Commentary on Leviticus, 1867-72. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Edinburgh, 1881, 2d ed. 1892 ; The Prophets of Israel, Edinburgh, 1882. II An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1891 ; 4th ed. 1892. Tf*[f The Origin and Religious Content of the Psalter, Bampton Lectures for 1889 ; London, 1891. Founders of Old Testament Criticism, 1892. *** The Canon of the Old Testament, 1893. fff Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews, 1892, 208 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. been adopted by C. H. Toy,* C. A. Briggs,f H. P., Smith, J and B. W. Bacon. In France by American Westphal, || Bruston,^" Darmstetter,** ^French and Piepenbring.ff In Holland by critics. Wildboer JJ and Knappert. These conclusions are, however, controverted by a school of critics, who, accepting the analysis of school of Dm- Hupfeld, do not follow Graf and mann. Kuenen as to the priority of the his- torical documents to the priestly legislation, but hold, on the contrary, that the legislation is earlier than the documents J and E, and that Deuteronomy is the latest of the parts of the Hexateuch. So DillmannJ! Riehm,ff Kittel, *** Baudissin,ftf Ryssel,JJJ and H. L. S track. * Judaism and Christianity, 1890 ; History of the Religion of Israel, 1882 ; 3d ed. 1884. f Biblical Study, 1883 ; 4th ed. 1891 ; The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, 1 892 ; The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, 1 893. \ Biblical Scholarship and Inspiration, 1891. Genesis of Genesis, 1892; The Triple Tradition of the Exodus, 1894. || Les Sources du Pentateuque, 1888-92. T[ Les Quatres Sources des Lois de I' Exode, 1883. ** Die Philosophic der Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, 1884. \\ Thtologie de tAncien Testament, 1886 ; Eng. trans. 1893. \\Het Onstaan van den Kanon des Ouden Verbonds, 1889. The Religion of Israel, 1878. HI Kurzgefdsstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alien Testament, vols. i.-iii., including Genesis, 6th ed. 1892 ; Exod, und Lev., 2d e.d. 1880 ; Num., Deut., und Jos., 2d ed. 1886. ITl" Alttcstamentliche Theologie, 1889 ; Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1889-90. *** Geschichte der Hebrder, 1888-92. fff Die Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priestertums, 1889. \\\ De Elohista Pentateuchi Sermone, 1878. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, new ed. 1895. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 209 He who keeps in mind the distinction already fully drawn between principles, methods, and results of the Higher Criticism will be able older English to see that there has been from the conservatives, beginning no serious opposition to the development and application of the principles. The validity of the results announced, however, has been disputed all along the way. Bishop Marsh * defended the authenticity of the five books of Moses against Eichhorn and Astruc. In this course he was com- mended and followed by T. H. Home, f J Home. Both of these writers used reasoning based on the principles of the Higher Criticism. Marsh alleged that the ceremonial system contained in the Pentateuch had been used by the Israelites "from the time of their departure out of Egypt till their dispersion at the taking of Jerusalem" ; and the ceremonial law being thus traceable to Moses' time, the writings in which it was to be found must be Moses" works. Home reasoned that Moses used no preexisting documents in composing Genesis, "because he is totally silent as to any documents consulted by him." He also cited, as a proof that the Pentateuch was in existence during the time of David, " the number of allusions made in his Psalms to its contents." The principles on which this reasoning as well as that of Bishop Marsh was based are sound, though the basis of fact alleged is not. In Germany it was not until the * Quoted by Briggs in "Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criticism," Presbyterian Review, vol. iv. p. 91. f Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1818; I4th ed. 1877. 210 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. views of DeWette were put forth that opposition to criticism manifested itself; and here, too, it was not the principles themselves for their application to the Scriptures, but the blow dealt through the critical method at the authority of Scripture that created opposition. And this opposition made use of the same considerations as the criticism itself to which it arose as a protest. The earliest of the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch were T. G. Hasse * B. Kelle, f Earlier Ger- man conserva- C. H. Fritsche.t T. G. Scheibel.8 ti VCS Jahn, || Rosenmiiller,l[ Herz,** Hug,ff Sack,JJ Pustkuchen, Kanne,|||| C. W. Meyer, ff * Entdeckungen im Felde der A lies ten Erd- und Menschen- geschichte, 1805. f Vorurteilsfreie Wurdigung der Mosaischen Schriften, 1812. J Priifung der Griinde mil welchen neuerlich die Echtheit der Biicher Mosis bestritten warden ist, 1814. ^Untersuch iiber Bibel- und Kirchen-geschichte, 1816. | In Bengal's Archiv, vol. ii., Beitrage zur Vertheidigung der Echtheit des Pentateuches, 1818, and vol. iii., Ueber das frag- mentarische desselben und die vorgeblichen Anachronismen, 1819. T Scholia in Vetus Testamentum, Pars /., 1821. ** Sind in den Bite hern der Konige Spur en des Pentateuches und der Mosaischen Geschichte zu finden ? 1822. \\Beitrage zur Geschichte des Samaritanischen Pentateuchs, Freiburg. Zeitschrift, ytes Heft, and Untersuchungen ilber das Alter der Schreibkunst bei den Hebraern, Ibid., 4tes Heft. \\De usu nominutn Dei i^tf et ^n* in libra Geneseos, 1821 ; Christliche Apologetik, ist ed. 1829. Historisch-Kritische Untersuchungen der Biblischen Urge- schichte, 1823. HI Biblische Untersuchungen, Part I. against Vater, 1819 ; Part II. against DeWette, 1820. Tf^f Apolog ie der geschichtlichen Auffassung der historischen Biicher des Allen Tesfamentes, 1811. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 211 and Staudlin.* All these works are based on the recognition as valid of the methods through which the views they attempt to refute were secured; they differ in using these methods on other postulates and principles. Among these earlier defenses of the older views may be mentioned also Ewald's first critical efforts, f Bertholdt's,t and Herbst's. These, however, are far less strenuous in their insistence on the precise form of the traditional views. Ewald's first con- tention was that the parallelisms, discrepancies, and confusions of the historical portions of the Penta- teuch were the natural result of the historiographical methods of primitive Oriental writers. He believed in the unity of the work. Bertholdt believed in distinguishing, as the critics of the opposite school had not done, between the Mosaic origin and the subsequent revision of the Pentateuch. While he insisted on the former he believed also in the latter. Herbst was in accord with this conclusion of Bert- holdt's, but would have placed the revision, not as Bertholdt did, during the reign of David or Solomon, but later. With the appearance of the theories of Vatke and George another group of defenders of the traditional views arose. The most prominent Later German representatives of this group are conservatives - * Die Echiheit der Mosdischen Gf seize vertheidigt in Bertholdt's Krit. Jou., vols. iii. and iv., 1825. f Die Composition der Genesis kritisch untersucht, 1823. \ Biblische Einleitung, 1813. Observations de Pentateuchi 4 librorum posteriorum auctore et editore, 1817. 212 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Ranke,* Bruno Bauer, f L. K6nig,J F. C. Movers, Drechsler, || B. Welte,^[ A. C. Havernick,** and, most uncompromising of them all, E. W. Hengsten- berg. ff Hengstenberg started with the postulate that " the recognition of the genuine- Hengstenberg. ness of the Pentateuch is impossible from the rationalistic point of view, even though the strongest considerations should support it." "For the believer the genuineness is settled before his- torico-critical investigation of detail. The Penta- teuch is attested by the Lord and his disciples, and their testimony is sealed by the Holy Spirit to him who with faith immerses himself in the content of these books. "JJ Havernick's and Hengstenberg's standpoint was adopted by Keil. The literary facts, such as the alterna- tion of the divine names in the first chapters of Genesis, are explained by the critics of this school * Untersuchungen ilber den Pentateuch aus dem Geblete der hoheren Kritik, 2 vols., 1834-40. f Der Mosdische Ur sprung der Gestzgebung des Pentateuches vertheidigt, Zeitschrift f. Specul. Theologie, I, 1836. \Alttest. Studien, 2tes Heft, 1839. Uber die Auffindung des Gestzesbuches Josia, Zeitschrift fur phil. und kath. Theologie, I2tes Heft, 1834-35. I Die Einheit und Echtheit der Genesis, 1838 ; Die Unwissen- schaftlichkeit im Gebiete der Alttestamentlichen Kritik, 1837. ^f Nachmosaisches im Pentateuch beleuchtet, 1841. ** Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1836. ft Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1836-38 ; Die Authentic des Pentateuches, 2 vols., 1836-39. \\ Genuineness of the Pent., Prolegomena, pp. Ixxvi, Ixxvii. ^Lehrbuch der hist.-kril., Einleitung in die kanon. Schriften des Alien Testamentes, 1853, 3d ed. 1873. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 213 in harmony with the view of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch. The language is specially chosen by Moses on account of fitness to express some special phase of thought. This standpoint, after a time of eclipse, has been revived recently in Germany and Holland by Ad. Zahn,* O. Naumann, f and Hoedemaker. J But while comparatively neglected in Germany, the works of Hengstenberg, Havernick, and Keil have exerted a considerable influence influence of in the English-speaking world. They *** have furnished an explanation of the literary and historical facts brought to light by the critics of the opposite school consistent to that sense of the authority of the Scriptures, which has always been recognized by the Anglo-Saxon mind. Thus the older writers on the Pentateuchal question were almost universally adherents of this standpoint. Bishop Colenso's publications on the Pentateuch occasioned a storm of opposition both in Great Britain and in the United States. Not till after the accession of such scholars as W. Robertson Smith, Driver, Cheyne, Briggs, and Toy to the opposing ranks, did this standpoint English con- lose any of its hold. And even after servatives - the able presentations of these scholars, defenses of great ability and critical acumen have been made of * Das Deuteronomium, 1890. f Das Erste Buck der Bibel nach seintr inneren Einheit und Echtheit dargestellt, 1890 ; Wellhauscn's Methode Kritisch bel- euchtet, 1886. \ De Mozaische Oor sprang -van de Wetten in de boeken Lcvit. , Exod., en Numeri, Leyden, 1895. 214 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. the old views by such scholars as Alfred Cave,* Stanley Leathes, f James Robertson, J J. J. Lias, A. Blomfield, I F. B. Spencer, f R. A. Watson,** Americans anC * t ^ 16 autnors f L X MoSdica,\\ be- sides many others in Great Britain, and W. H. Green, \\ E. C. Bissell, Howard Osgood,|||| Stebbins,H C. M. Mead,*** W. J. Beecher,ttfG. Vos,JJJandT. W. Chambers. In grouping all these scholars together it is not implied that there are no differences among them on minor details, as there are among the critics of the opposed school, but simply that these adhere to the integrity and substantial Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. * The Battle of the Standpoints, 1890 ; The Inspiration of the Old Testament Inductively Considered, 1886. f The Law in the Prophets, 1891. \ Early Religion of Israel, 1889 ; 2d ed. 1892. ^Principles of Biblical Criticism, 1893. || The Old Testament and the New Criticism, 1893. *|[ Did Moses Write the Pentateuch after all? 1892. ** The Law and the Prophets, 1884. ft Lex Mosaica, or The Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism. Edited by Richard Valpy French, D. C. L., LL. D., F. S. A. \\ The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, 1863 ; Moses and the Prophets, 1883 ; The Hebrew Feasts, 1885. The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, 1885 ; Genesis Printed in Colors, 1891. HI Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, in the American ed. of Lange's Commentary, 1876. 1F1M Study of the Pentateuch, 1881. *** Christ and Criticism, 1892. f f f " The Logical Methods of Professor Kuenen," in the Pres- byterian Review, vol. iii. p. 701. #\ The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes, 1 886. %%%Mosfs and his Recent Critics, 1889. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 215 An entirely independent view of the origin and composition of the Pentateuch has been recently put forth by Dr. Aug. Klostermann.* Kiostermann: The fundamental principles of this unit i ue view - view are : (i) As to method, that the problem should be approached from the point of view of the body of the Pentateuch, and not from the point of view of a narrow range of literary phenomena in Genesis, such as are found in the first few chapters of that book. (2) That the variations in parallel accounts are such as arose in the cause of multiplication and circulation of copies of an original. Instead of finding documents J, E, P, and D, therefore, Kloster- mann finds various recensions of the same primitive writings. (3) In the effort to find the original form of these recensions, he finds an original nucleus of legislation and an envelope of history. The present Pentateuch is simply the weaving together by Ezra of the various recensions of this original Pentateuch. 2. THE QUESTION OF ISAIAH. Although the Pentateuchal question has fur- nished the chief occasion and subject for discus- sion, and served as the main and Pentateuch cen . primary channel for the stream of ter of interest - the history of the Higher Criticism, and hence abundantly illustrates the development of the science as a science, nevertheless the application of its principles has been broader. As soon as developed in its various stages, this science has been * Der Pentateuch, Beitrage zu selnem Verstandnis und seine Entstehungs Geschichte, 1893. 2l6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. carried to other parts of the Old Testament. In fact, every book of this part of the Bible has been made the subject of minute investigation through the new process, and a multitude of theories have been propounded, not merely on the aggregate of the books of the Old Testament, but also on each of them separately. To attempt to give an account of these would lead us into the field of special intro- duction. It will be sufficient for our purposes to pass in review, very concisely, the course of criticism as applied to the most important of the questions raised. Next in importance to the Pentateuch question, in its bearings on theological opinion and theory of 2. Question of religion, is the question of the book of Isaiah - Isaiah. This question was first sug- gested by Koppe in his German translation of Lowth's Isaiah* It is a question of integrity. Did the prophet write the whole of the book bearing his name at present ? Koppe's conclusions were negative. Kocher answered him in the Vindicia, 1786. Doederlein, however, f renewed the attack on. the integrity, and was followed by Eichhorn.J The theory of more than one author was elaborated constructively by Justi. It was then accepted by Bertholdt, 1812; DeWette, 1817; Gesenius, 1820; Hitzig, 1833 ; Umbreit and Ewald, 1841. With Ewald the analytic theory was lifted up to a high scholarly plane. It has gained adherents con- stantly since. To trace its course would be to * Pub. 1778. f Esaias ex textu Hebr., 1889. \HebrtiischePropheten, 1816-19. Paulus' Memorab., iv. p. 139, seq. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 217 enumerate the whole literature of the book of Isaiah. It may suffice to say that the question soon assumed a definite form, and has been argued by those who divide the book into three parts in general, /. e. : (i) The first thirty-five chapters as a part by itself, a work of the prophet Isaiah in the main ; (2) chap- ters xxxvi.-xxxix., as a historical appendix to the first part ; and (3) chapters xl.-lxvi., the writing of another prophet who flourished at the end of the period of the Exile, commonly called Deutero- Isaiah. Later critics have carried the process of analysis into these sections. In the first section i.-xxxv. chapters xxiv.-xxvii. have Recent phases. been separated and assigned to the first part of the post-exilic period.* The third sec- tion of Isaiah is further subdivided and assigned by Duhm with whom Smend and others agree more or less thoroughly to at least three authors, viz. : (i) The Deutero-Isaiah, who composed chapters xl.- Iv. with the exception of the " Servant of Jehovah " passages; (2) The author of the "Servant of Jehovah" passages; and (3) the author of chapters Ivi.-lxvi. This development of the question has, however, not fully crystallized, and may be passed over with a mere mention. The reasoning for this analysis is precisely the same as the threefold argu- ment for the analysis of the Hexateuch. It includes considerations drawn from the language, history, *So Knobel, Hitzig, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Cheyne, and Driver. G. Adam Smith doubts the Isaianic origin of this pas- sage, but fails to assign it any definite date or authorship. Kuenen and Smend find it to be the work of some author belong- ing to the fourth century B. c. 2l8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. and theological content of the book.* The last of these classes of considerations, that of theological content, involves, however, a new line of discussion, that concerning predictive prophecy. The applica- tion of the Higher Criticism is therefore of extreme importance, in that it leads to the differentiation of views in the critical schools as to the nature of prophecy in general, the possibility of predictive prophecy and the nature of it, if its possibility be conceded. Upon these grounds already named as those for the analysis, the defense of the unity of the book has also been argued, giving the facts, of course, a different interpretation.! 3. THE QUESTION OF DANIEL. The book of Jeremiah has furnished critics with difficulties growing out of the difference of Jeremiah and text between the Hebrew and the Ezekiei. Septuagint version. With the excep- tion of the last three chapters of the book, how- ever, the authorship of Jeremiah has not been denied to any part of it. The book of Ezekiei has enjoyed the distinction of being almost un- impugned, either as to genuineness or integrity. On the other hand the book of Daniel has been, even from the earliest days, a subject of 3. Daniel. suspicion and attack. The first to deny its genuineness and credibility, as already *Cf. Driver, Introduction, pp. 223-231. f See Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, 1890, and literature of the subject in Delitzsch on Isaiah, Biblischer Commentar iiber den Propheten Jesaja, 3d ed. 1879, p. xxxiii seq. ; Driver, Intro- duction, p. 194. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 219 observed, was the pagan opponent of Christianity, Porphyry.* During the Middle Ages vague sus- picions were suggested, but it was not till the seventeenth century that these suspicions found clear expression. Hobbes f questioned whether Daniel himself had written down his prophecies or some later writer. Spinoza J held that the first seven chapters were not the work of Daniel; the last five he admitted as genuine. Sir Isaac Newton, without questioning the credibility of the book, thought that the first six chapters were a collection of historical essays attached to the genuine prophecies of Daniel, which he believed were found in the last six. Collins, the Deist, denied the credibility of the book. Michaelis and Eichhorn perpetuated and intensified the doubts regarding the integrity of it which they had inherited from their predecessors. The first modern critic to assign it to an impostor of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes was Corrodi. || Bertholdt elaborated the argument against the integrity and credibility. ^[ Bleek defended the integrity, but only in order to deny the genuineness of the whole work and its historical trustworthiness. He has been followed by a large number of later critics.** The grounds *P. 182. \Leviathan, ch. xxxiii. \ Tractatus Theologico-politicus , x. 130. Observations on the Prophecies of Holy Writ, pub. 1754, but written 1690. \ Geschichte des Chiliasmus, 1781-83 ; Beleuchtung der Ge- schichte des Kanons, 1792. If Daniel, 1806-08. ** See list in Zockler's Commentary in Lange, American ed. by Strong, 1875. 220 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. on which these views are held are more specific than those which form the basis of criticism either in the Pentateuch or in Isaiah. The historical and theological arguments are used in their more general forms, the place of the book in the canon serves as a special reason for placing its com- position late, and the use of Greek words is given as a ground for the same conclusion. In defense of the integrity of the book appeared Liiderwald* and Staudlin. f In defense of its genuineness in general Hengstenberg, J Havernick, Auberlen, || W. S. Volck,! Zundel,** Kranichfeld,tf Z6ckler,JJ and in England S. P. Tregelles, Pusey,|||| J. M. Fuller, l~f R. Payne Smith,*** Caspari,ftt and F. Lenormant. |JJ * Die Seeks ersten Kapitel Daniels, 1787. f Priifung einiger Meinungen iiber den Ur sprung des Buches Daniel, 1791. \ Die Authentie des Daniel, 1831. Commentar iiber das Buck Daniel, 1832. || Der Prophet Daniel, 1854 ; 2d ed. 1857. *^Vindici(z Danielis, 1 866. ** Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Abfassungszeit des Buches Daniel, 1861. \\Der Prophet Daniel, 1868. JJIn Lange's Bibehuerk, 1869. ^Defense of Authenticity, 1852. II Daniel the Prophet, 1864 ; 3d ed. 1869. ^[T Essay on the Authenticity of Daniel ', 1864. *** Exposition of the Historical Portions of the Writings of Daniel, 1886. fff Zur Einfiirung in d. Buch Daniel, 1869. \\\ Les Sciences Occultesen Asie, 1874 ; in addition to the above, some of the more recent works on this question are : Fabre d'Envieu, Le Livre du Prophhe Daniel, 1888 ; Hebbelyuck, De Auctoritate Libri Danielis, 1887; Meinhold, Die Geschichtlieben MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 221 4. QUESTIONS IN THE MINOR PROPHETS. Passing over as of subordinate importance the dis- cussions relative to the first four of the Minor Proph- ets as given in the canon Hosea, Amos, Joel, and Obadiah we come to Prophets: the Book of Jonah. Here we have illustrated the application of the Higher Criticism in the investigation of another of its questions, that of literary form. The problem in Jonah is, whether the contents of the book are myth, legend, history, or allegory. The question of authorship, or at least date of composition, is naturally involved in this; and, in a more intimate way, even the historical and moral value of the book. But the first thing to settle is the form. As to the form, as early as the first quarter of the eighteenth century the view was propounded that the work contains a historical allegory.* This cut the book loose from any necessary authorship of the prophet Jonah named in 2 Kings xiv: 25. The active discussion of the question, however, dates from the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Since then the views that have been put forth are (i) that it is a pure myth, (2) mixture of legend and history, (3) a didactic poem, (4) a symbolical prophecy, and (5) a pure legend. The literal and substantial historicity of the book has also found able defenders, f Hagiographen, in Strack and Zockler's Kurzgefasster Kommentar, 1889; also Erklarzmg des Buches Daniel; Kamphausen, Das Buck Daniel in die neuere Geschichtforschung, 1893 ; and Farrar, The Book of Daniel, in the " Expositor's " Bible series, 1895. * Herman von der Hardt, ^.nigmata Prisci Or bis, 1723. f Cf . the literature of the subject in Lange's Commentary on the 222 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. Of the remaining seven Minor Prophets Zechariah is the only one concerning the extent of whose literary work there has been any dis- Zechariah. . , . cussion of importance. The em- phatic phase of the question has been in this case the integrity of the book. The second part, consisting of chapters ix.-xiv., was denied to Zechariah by several English scholars, toward the close of the seventeenth century,* on the ground that a passage from it, xi: 12, 13, was ascribed to Jeremiah in Matthew xxvii: 9. Beginning with this harmonistic ground of doubt as to its unity, critics soon found other internal marks for ascribing this portion of the book to the period preceding the exile. The criticism thus started, in the interests of harmoniz- ing the book with the apparent representations of the New Testament, was thus put on a different foundation. Moreover this second part of the book f was further analyzed by Newcome, who alleged that chapters ix.-xi. are the work of a very early prophet one of the earliest known and chapters xii.-xiv. by a later one. J Of those who believe the whole of the second part of the book to be the work of one hand, some assign it a pre- exilic date and some a post-exilic. On the other hand many scholars have defended the unity of the book and especially the post-exilic origin of the Minor Prophets, American ed. by Elliott, ; M. M. Kalisch, Bible Stories, Part II., 1878. C. H. II. Wright, Introduction, p. 212, also summarizes the principal works of value. * Mede, Works, 1677 ; followed by Kidder, Whiston, and others. f Chaps, ix.-xiv. \ So also Bertholdt and Hitzig in the 2d ed. of his Zwolf Kleinen Propheten, MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 223 second part. Among these are Koster,* DeWette,f Umbreit, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Klie- foth, Keil, Delitzsch, Lange, Pusey, and Chambers. J The reasons pro and con in the debate are suc- cinctly, but fairly, given in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (sub voce Zechariah) and in the Cambridge Bible for Students by Ven. T. T. Perowne. 5. QUESTIONS IN THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. Almost all of the problems in the historical books of the Bible are of very recent appearance and involved in the Pentateuchal contro- 5t Historical versy. Joshua has been made a part bo ks: J ud e es - of the subject of controversy under the larger name of the Hexateuch. The Book of Judges is gener- ally assigned to the earlier part of the period of the monarchy, but there seems to be a tendency to see in it the revising hand of a Deuteronomic redactor. Very little of peculiar interest attaches to the criticism of the books of Samuel and Kings. The books of Chronicles, however, have, Kings, since Wellhausen's attack on their his- chronicles, torical value, | taken a place among the disputed subjects in the Old Testament, ^f The importance of the question here also grows out of its connection * Meletemata Critica, 1818. f In the 4th and subsequent editions of his Einleitung. \ In the American ed. of Lange's Commentary. For full bibli- ography see C. H. H. Wright, Zechariah and his Prophecies, 1879, pp. xxv and xli-xlviii. Cf. Driver, Introduction, pp. 154-158. | History of Israel, pp. 172. T[ Cf. Driver, Introduction, pp. 484-507. 224 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. with the question of the Pentateuch. Ezra and Nehemiah do not furnish much ground for discus- Ruth and sion. The booklets of Ruth and Esther. Esther present the question of literary form as the most important one for criticism to answer. Are they veritable histories, accounts of facts which actually took place, or works of fiction ? Involved with this question is, of course, the more practical question of the credibility and value of these productions. But, upon the whole, the discus- sion of these questions has been given a compara- tively subordinate place in criticism. 6. QUESTIONS IN THE POETICAL BOOKS. The principal question in Job is whether the whole book belongs to one author. Doubts have been Poetical entertained regarding the authenticity books: job. of ^ the pj-oiogue and epilogue, (2) the passage, xxvii: 7-xxviii: 28, and (3) the episode of Elihu, xxxii.-xxxvii. The second of these passages is no longer questioned after the investigations of Giesebrecht* The first group named, including the prologue and epilogue, has also been abandoned as a ground of debate. The Elihu episode offers a more fertile soil for critical results. Accordingly, many conservative scholars are inclined to concede the possibility of its having been added to the book by a later hand.f The authorship, date, place of * Der Wendepunkt des Buches Hiob., Kap. xxvii., xxviii., 1879. |So C. H. H. Wright, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1890, p. 151. Lias, Biblical Criticism, 1893, p. 67. See for a full, but succinct, summary of the discussion A. B. Davidson, Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1889. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 225 origin and historicity of the book have also been discussed, but with no clear gain, as yet, to the sum of our knowledge of the book. The Psalms have always been regarded as a col- lection of religious lyrics meant to be used in the temple service. They claim various Psalms. authors and historical settings. The critical question furnished by the book is, there- fore, a complicated one, and could be presented fully only in an extended review of the discussions re- garding each Psalm. But there has arisen recently a question which may conveniently be called the problem of the Psalms. It is as to whether the col- lection as a whole was composed before or after the exile. Inasmuch as many of the ostensibly earliest Psalms bear testimony to the existence of the Pentateuch at the time of their origin, a theory of their origin consistent with the Grafian hypothesis of the origin and structure of the Pentateuch would necessitate their being put after the exile. This has accordingly been done by Cheyne.* The contro- versy here may be said to have hardly begun as yet. The book of Proverbs furnishes no cardinal ques- tion for criticism. It is evidently a collection of different utterances by a number of authors. Solomon is alleged to be one of these. There is no disposition to deny this. The question as to the other authors and their dates, and as to redaction of the collection, may be relegated into the class of secondary problems of criticism. * The Origin and Religious Content of the Psalter , 1891. Bampton Lectures. 226 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. The Song of Songs has been made the subject of a large discussion as to the existence among the Hebrews of the drama as a species of Canticle. literature. The problem of the book is, therefore, purely literary. The production is not alluded to in the New Testament, and the tra- ditional interpretation of it, as an allegory of the relation of Christ and the Church, is no older than Origen. The book is not likely to be involved in any but critical and hermeneutical discussions. The book of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) is in the form of autobiographical sketches by Solomon. But Ecclesiastes scholars of the most divergent tend- (Qoheieth). encies are agreed that this is a literary device.* The question then resolves itself as to when and by what sort of a man the book was written, f This sketch of the history of Old Testament criti- cism would not be complete without a word as to Latest French a most radical theory of the origin criticism. O f t h e old Testament, recently pro- pounded by the French scholars Havet J and Vernes. This theory consists in the assignment of the whole of the Old Testament collection to the * So Rosenmtiller, DeWette, Ewald, Hitzig, Knobel, Gins- burg, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, C. H. H. Wright, and Driver. f For a fuller account of the literature of Ecclesiastes see Gins- burg, Koheleth, commonly called Ecclesiastes ; "with Hist, and Crit. Comment, 1861; Lange, Commentary, American ed. Tayler Lewis, 1872 ; and C. H. H. Wright, Ecclesiastes in Relation to Modern Criticism and Pessimism, 1883. \ E.tudes cFHistoire Religieuse. La Modernitt des Prophhes, 1891. Essais Bibliques, 1891. MODERN CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 227 period between the fourth and second centuries B. c. In order to reach this conclusion the authors are com- pelled to resort to some extraordinary, not to say grotesque, feats of exegesis. The Assyria of Isaiah, for instance, has to be reduced to Syria under the Seleucid dynasty. Sennacherib and Nebuchadnez- zar have to be taken as names concealing oppressors of the Jewish nation during the Maccabean age. The Jehoiakim of Jeremiah is changed into the Menelaus of i Maccabees and Zedekiah into Alkimus.* It will be unnecessary to dwell longer on this view, which has not been received with much enthusiasm in any quarter. * I Mac. ix. 23 seq. CHAPTER XL THE HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, THE interest started, at the beginning of the six- teenth century, in the purity of the New Testament " The N. T. text > ^7 tne printing of the same in Text. Greek, long absorbed the attention and occupied the energies of students in this field. Even Richard Simon, the father of modern isagog- ics, without strictly limiting himself to the question of the text, devoted the greatest part of his work on the New Testament * to topics which have since been adopted in the Lower Criticism. Simon's tendency was toward minimizing the divine ele- ment in Scripture. Other Roman Catholic writers, like Ellies Du Pin f and Augustin Calmet J investi- gated independently of Simon. Simon found a vigorous opponent, among Prot- estants, in J. H. Mai. Other Protestant writers were satisfied to follow in the beaten Opposed. paths. An exception must be made *Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1689 ; later, Nouvelles Observations sur le Texte, et les Versions du N. T., 1795. \ Dissertation Prttiminaire ou Prolegomenes sur la Bible, 2 vols., 1699. | Dissertations qui Peuvent Servir de Prolegomenes de VEcri- ture Sainte, 1715, and enlarged, 1720. Examen Histories Critica Novi Testamenti a R. Simone vulgatez, 1694. 228 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 220 to this general statement, however, of Joh. David Michaelis.* Michaelis' interest in the bare histor- ical aspects of questions of Introduction increased as he deepened into his studies. His belief in inspiration was not shaken, but he gave a subordi- nate place to this belief, and denied all real validity to the internal and subjective appeal of the Scrip- tures as an argument for their divine authority. This doctrine was commonly taught at the time among Protestants under the name of " The witness of the Holy Spirit" Testimonium Spiritus Sancti. It was after the rise of Deism, and in consequence of the denial of miracles, that the simona origin and credibility of the writings p neer - of the New Testament were investigated critically. The Higher Criticism in the New Testament has accordingly followed the course of the history of the philosophy of religion, and gone through four phases the deistic, the mystic-rationalistic, the Hegelian, and the scientific evolutionistic. I. The deistic phase of New Testament criti- cism. Under the influence of the Aufkldrung in Germany, Joh. Salomo Semler f laid . Semler. aside all doctrines of inspiration ex- cept such as allowed the critic to find errors and weaknesses in the Scriptures. He held that the Bible was not, but contained, the Word of God, and that all questions of the authorship and credi- * Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, 1750 ; 4th ed. 1788. \Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 1771-75. Semler was a voluminous writer, leaving behind him no less than 171 writings ; Kurtz, Church Hist., iii. p. 147. 230 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. bility of its literary and historical contents must be investigated without reference to the divine Word in it. These principles were worked out on the one side into a rationalistic system of hermeneu- tics, and on the other into a rationalistic system of isagogics. Semler was closely followed by Alex- ander Haenlein * and by J. Ern. Ch. Schmidt, f Both of these writers, though conservative in the semier-s influ- ma i n > betray the influence of Semler ence - upon them; and although they do not doubt for themselves the genuineness of all the New Testament writings, they are entirely at a loss as to how to deal with the relations of the doctrine of inspiration to critical investigation. J. G. Eichhorn| breaks away decidedly from traditional views in the New Testament as he did from the same in the Old. He was the Eichhorn. .,._.,, first to grasp in this field the real problem involved in the relations of the Sypnotic Gospels to one another and to attempt the solution of the same by proposing the theory of an original Gospel (Urevangelium}. He thus ushered into the domain of New Testament criticism one of the chief problems with which all subsequent critics have had to deal. Other parts of the New Testa- ment collection which he treated critically, with the result of questioning or rejecting them, were the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistle of Peter, and that of *Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriflen dcs Neuen Testa- ments, Erlangen, 1794-1800. \ Historisch-krilische Einlcitwig ins Neue Testament, Giessen, 1804. \ Einleitung in das Ncue Testament, 5 vols., 1804-27. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231 Jude. Eichhorn was closely followed byBertholdt* and Schott. f Meanwhile, besides the synoptic problem put viv- idly by Eichhorn, there emerged the question of the Fourth Gospel quite distinctly toward Synoptic prob _ the latter part of the eighteenth cen- lem - tury. The genuineness of this Gospel had been denied by Edward Evanson, J Horst, Vogel, || Cludius,T Ballenstedt,** and finally by Bretschnei- der. ff These two questions the Sypnoticand that of the Fourth Gospel now took place alongside of the antilegomena of the ancient period as the proper field for critical research. In defense of the traditional views now appeared Kleuker,JJ and more generally the Roman Catholic scholar, T. Leonard Hug. 88 Hug did J. L. Hug. not discard or condemn the principles and rules of his opponents, but rather made use of them himself with great acuteness, but from the * Historisch-kritische Einleitung, in samtliche kanonische und apocryphische Schriften des Alien und Neuen Testamentes, 1812- 1819. f Isagoge Historico-critica in Libras Novi Foideris Sacros, 1830. \The Dissonance of the Evangelists, 1792. In Henke's Museum fur Religionswissenschaft, 1803, pt. i. 47 seq. I Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger, 1801-04. ^f Uranischten des Christenthums, 1808. ** Philo und Johannes, 1812. ft Probabilia de evangelii ft epistolarum Joannis apostoli indole et origine, 1820. \\ Untersuchungen der Grilnde fur die Echtheit und Glaub- wiirdigkeit der Schriftlichen Urkunden des Christenthums , 1788. Einleitung indie Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Tubingen, 1808, 232 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. point of view of a believer in the claims of the books of the New Testament, and of the Church as to their origin and value. The genuine value of his work has been universally acknowledged, even by those who have differed from him. He was fol- lowed by A. B. Feilmoser,* and later by a large number of other Roman Catholic writers, f II. The mystic-rationalistic tendency. This has also been called the mediating tendency, standing as it does between the rationalism of Schleiermacher. ,_,.,, Semler and Eichhorn and the tradi- tional views. It is the result of a partial reaction against rationalism. It is characterized by the effort to plant the religious force and the historic content of the Scriptures on separate foundations. It is the distinctive tendency of the school of Schlei- ermacher. Schleiermacher himself was primarily a theologian, and although he modestly disclaimed the title of founder of a school of theology, as a mat- ter of fact the number and consistency of his fol- lowers render it only proper to look upon him as such. He was, however, also a critical scholar and investigator in the field of the New Testament. In both spheres his standpoint seemed to be the com- bination of contradictions. He dealt with the his- torical sources of Christianity with almost reckless disregard of consequences; but he continued using them as authoritative regarding Christ and his teaching. His teachings on New Testament criti- cism were oral. His Introduction to the New Testa- * Einleitung in die Bilcher des neuen Bundes, Innsbruck, 1810. f Scholz, Reithmayr, Maier, Haneberg, Guntner, Danko. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233 merit was published only after his death.* The results of his tendency were anticipated by his pupils. The ablest exponent of this school, if it may be called a school, was W. L. M. DeWette. f Begin- ning with a determination to avoid bias of all sorts, DeWette carries on DeWette - his critical work with a sharp discrimination and declines to go further than the critical evidence will warrant. This appears quite disappointing. The results are often negative; i. e., they are not clearly announced. The critic has had to hold judgment in suspense. Thus, on the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel in his earlier editions he is doubt- ful; in the later editions he more clearly inclines to accept the theory of genuineness. So on 2 Thes- salonians a similar wavering and gravitation toward the old view appears in his works. The work of K. Aug. CrednerJ belongs to the same class as DeWette's. He emphasized the his- torical idea in Introduction and strove to reach a historical point of view. His results were to be a consecutive history of the New Testa- ment writings. Following Credner in the main, but differing in minor details, was Neudecker. The theologians of the school of Schleiermacher did not continue as a compact body. From the * Edited by Wolde in Siimtliche Werke, i. 8, 1848. f Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Kanon- ischen Bilcher des neuen Testamenles, 1826 ; 5th ed. 1848 ; 6th, by Luneman and Messner, 1860. % Einleitung in das N. T., 1836. Historisch-krilische Einleitung in das neue Testament^ 1840. 234 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. nature of the philosophical basis of the school much room was left for the subjective and personal equa- tion in the work of each adherent of Schleier- macher's foi- the fundamental ideas. Thus, al- lowers. though all aimed to reach a platform whence criticism might be freely exercised, regard- less of the bearings it might have on religious views, yet, as they compared results, they found that they were compelled to antagonize each other in many particulars. In general, however, the school falls naturally into two sections; /'. e., the evangelical wing and the naturalistic wing. The scholars already named belong to the latter. Of the former Guericke,* Hermann Olshausen,f and Neander J are the leading representatives. Meander's labors deserve special mention as of the greatest import- ance; he defends the authenticity of all the books of the New Testament with the exception of 2 Peter and i Timothy. III. The Tubingen criticism. (Called also the "Tendency Criticism.") The philosophical principle Tubingen on which the Tubingen school rested was the Hegelian theory of develop- ment. History moves in the threefold process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Action is followed * Beitrage zur historisch-kritischen Einleitung ins Neue Testa- ment, 1828-31 ; and Hist.-krit. Einleitung in das N. T., 1843 ; 3d ed. as N. T.-liche Isagogik, 1868. \Schrift iiber die Echtheit der vier Evangelien, 1823; and special introductions in his Biblical Commentary, Eng. trans. 1847-49. \ Pflanzting und Leitung der christlichen Kirche, 1832 ; 5th ed. 1862 ; Eng. trans, by Ryland, 1842 ; and revised by Robinson, 1865. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235 by reaction, and conflict thus arises. All conflict, however, must ultimately issue in compromise. This was precisely the course of events in the development of Christianity. The founder of the Tubingen school of criticism, Ferdinand Christian Baur,* pointed out the conflicting principles in this case. He found the key to the situation _. . . , . . Baur. m Romans xi: i, Corinthians i: 12, and Galatians ii. Jesus Christ and his teaching were interpreted differently by the Twelve and by Paul. He was the teacher of a moral religious truth of uni- versal application, and at the same time lived within the Jewish nation and conformed to the law. The latter of these aspects fixed itself on m Standpoint. the minds of the Twelve, and they taught the system of Jesus as a mere continuation of the Judaism under which they had been trained. Paul saw the other side of Christ's work. He understood and developed Christianity as the way of salvation for all men apart from the law. This difference of view occasioned the conflict. Paul was attacked as an unauthorized ' innovator in Christianity. He wrote in his own defense the Epistles to the Romans, to the Corinthians, and to the Galatians. On the other side as an attack on his * Die Christuspartei in der Corinthischcn Gemeinde in the Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1831, 4tes Heft ; Die Sogenannten Pastor albriefe des Paulus, 1835 ; Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845 ; 2d ed. by Zeller, 1865 ; Ueber Zweck und Veran- lassung des Bomer briefs, in Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1836, 3tes Heft; Die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853. Baur gives his own account of the genesis and history of the Tubingen idea in his Die christliche Kirche des iqtts Jahrhun- dertes, 1862 ; 2d ed. 1877. 236 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. teaching appeared the Apocalypse. All the other New Testament writings, inasmuch as they do not show clear evidences of this conflict, must have been produced later by members of the moderate or mediating party, or revised and softened by them and thus deprived of their partizan rancor. The conciliatory writings are later than the partizan, because their tendency is to reconcile the conflict- ing parties. They represent the state of feeling among Christians during the period when the polemic spirit began to abate, and the Judaists and Paulinists drew near one another; blending finally at the end of the second century in the one Catholic Church. According to Baur only the above named five books were genuine productions of the apostolic Results of a S e - Of the others Matthew was an Baur. originally Judaistic work, revised in the interests of Paulinism; Mark was a conciliatory writing from the beginning; Luke was the obverse of Matthew originally a Pauline work, it had been amended in the interests of Judaistic thought. The Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John are the last of all the New Testament writings, and belong to the latter part of the second century. The Acts are untrustworthy, and written purely for the purpose of showing that Peter and Paul taught the same things. The lesser epistles of Paul present Paulinism accommodating itself to Judais- tic Christianity. The Catholic Epistles, including James, show Judaistic Christianity assimilated to Paulinism. Baur rendered a real and valuable service to IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237 sound criticism by leading it into the use of the historic method. He makes an epoch in New Tes- tament criticism as the first to intro- service ren- duce this method here. Credner had dered by Baur - made the effort to write a history of the New Testa- ment writings, but Baur was the first to attempt a reconstruction of the situation of the times in which these writings originated. But he planted the seeds of decay in his own system by infusing into it a speculative and unreal philosophy of history. The fascination of Baur's method drew to his side and enlisted in the support of his views a group of brilliant men. Among these were, Ed. Zeller,* Alb. Schwegler,t C. R. ' Kostlin. J These followed him rather closely. Other followers felt constrained to make conces- sions of more or less importance to the opposition. Volkmar modified Baur's view of the origin and relations of the Gospels to one another. Ad. Hil- genfeld || has defended the genuineness of Philip- * As editor of the Theologischejahrbucher, beginning with 1842, and in Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursfrung, 1856. f Das Nachaposlolische Zeitalter, 1846. \In the Theol.Jiihrbucher for 1851, corroborating Baur's results by a theory of pseudepigraphic literature during the apostolic age. %Der Ur sprung unserer Evangelien, 1 866 ; Die synopsis der Evangelien, 1869. I Editor of Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie since 1858, and in Der Kanon und die Kritik des neuen Testaments 1836 ; Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das neue Testament, 1875. 238 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. plans, Thessalonians, and Philemon; thus admitting seven instead of four genuine Pauline epistles in the canon. He has also placed much earlier than Baur the date of the Gospels. Holsten * asserts that conflict between the Petrine and Pauline sides begins after the meeting of Paul and Peter at Antioch.f Outside of Germany the Tubingen school found adherents in Holland in the person of Scholten,J in England, Samuel Davidson, in France, Reville || and Renan,^[ and in America Orello Cone.** Passing into a third phase the Tubingen theory and method lose their distinctiveness and become a form of mere rationalistic criticism, Latest phase ... . .... of Tiibingen adapting itself to increasing light. criticism. . . This is the case in the works of Otto Pfleiderer,ff Adolf Hausrath,JJ Immer, * Das Evangelium des Paulus dargestellt, 1880. f Galatians ii. \ Historical and Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 1853 ; 2d ed. 1856. % Introduction to the New Testament, 1 868 ; 2d ed. 1882. Dr. Davidson had published an earlier work on the same subject, de- fending the traditional views, which was superseded by this. || Articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes. 1 Vie de J/sus, 1863 ; Les Apbtres, 1866 ; St. Paul el sa Mis- sion, 1869 ; Les Evangiles et la Se"conde Ge"ne"ration Chrttienne, 1877. ** Gospel Criticism and Historical Christianity, 1888; The Gos- pel and Us Earliest Interpretation, 1893. \\DerPaulinismus, 1873. \\Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 1868-73 ; 2d ed. 1873-77. Theolog ie des Neuen Testaments, 1877. IN- THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239 H. J. Holtzmann,* C. Wei z sack e r, f and Ju- licher. J Baur's criticism led to two side-developments in- dependent of the main stream of the history of criticism. These were the mythical .. _, Strauss. theory of Strauss and the absolute negation of Bruno Bauer. Baur's idea of historicity involved the denial of the supernatural. This phase of his method was emphasized by David Frederick Strauss. The result was the mythical theory of Gospel history, according to which every miraculous account was explained as a myth. This work was so exclusively on & priori reasoning that Strauss felt it to be necessary to write another supplementing its weaknesses. I His importance in the history of pure criticism is secondary. The total denial of the genuineness of all the New Testament writings, and their credibility as historical sources, was made by Bruno Bauer. *j[ Bauer ascribed the whole body of New Testament writings to the second * Lehrbuch des historisch-kritischen Einleitung, in das nette Testament, 1885. f Untersitchungen uber die Evangelische Geschichte, 1863; Das apostolische Zeilalter der christlichen Kirche, 1863 ; Eng. trans. 1893. Besides the above, other advocates of similar views are : Wittichen, Lipsius, Overbeck, Paul Schmidt, W. Bruckner, and Seuffert. \ Einleitung in das neue Testament, 1804. ^Lebenjesu, 1835. || Das Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 1864; 4th ed. 1877 ; Eng. trans. 1865. T Kritik der Evangelien, 1850-52; Kritik der Apostelgeschichte, 1850 ; Kritik der Paulinichen Briefe, 1852 ; Christus und die Casaren, 1877. 240 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. century.* He remained, however, the sole repre- sentative of these ideas until the rise of the most recent destructive criticism by Steck. Opposition to the methods and results of the Tubingen school arose in two quarters,! /*. e. , first, _ .... in the evangelical school of criticism, Opposition. which approached the problems of criticism from the point of view of the traditional theories, with the evident intention of defending these; and second, in a group of scholars some of whom proceeded from the school of Schleiermacher, whose standpoint has been given above, and others working independently. The evangelical school found an early exponent in J. H. A. Ebrard,J W. O. Dietlein, followed by Evangelical H - W - J- Thiersch, || Lechler,f and criticism. t he school of Hofmann in Erlangen. Hofmann himself defended the genuineness of all the books of the canon, including 2 Peter.** Hofmann's disciples are Luthardt,ff Rud. Fr. * 130-170 A. D. f The first response made to Baur and the Tubingen standpoint was of a semi-humorous nature by H. Bottger, entitled Baurs historische Kritik in ihrer Conseqitenz, 1 840. t Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte^ 1842 ; 2d ed. 1850. Das Urchristeiithum , 1845. | Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunktes fiir die Kritik der N.-Testamentlichen Schriften, 1845 ; Die Kirche im apostolichen Ztitalter, 1852 ; 2d ed. 1879. T[ Das apostolische und nachapo stolische Zeitalter, 1851. ** Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhangend untersucht, 1862-81. This work was left unfinished at the death of the author and completed by Volck. \\DieJohanneische Ur sprung des Vierten Evatigeliwns, 1874. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 241 Grau, * Nosgen, f Th. Zahn. J The other wing of op- position to the Tubingen standpoint brought to the surface such works as those of Friedrich Bleek, Ewald,|| Eduard Reuss.^f These scholars, however, by no means represent a return to the traditional views or even to the rationalistic views of the New Testament which preceded the advent of the Tubin- gen school, but a tendency toward a nearer approach to the standpoint whence critical investigation might go on consistently with the belief in the divine origin and authoritative nature of the Scriptures. An independent contribution to this tendency was made by Albrecht Ritschl.** The appearance of his work was a blow dealt at the ^. , Ritschl. Tubingen criticism. And it proved all the more serious as such, as Ritschl had already appeared as one of the champions of the school, ff Ritschl did not deny the antagonism between Paulinism and Judaistic Christianity, but claimed that this antagonism was preceded by a common gospel, out of which grew both Paulinism and its *Entwicklungsgeschichte des N,-Testamentlichen Schriftthums, 1871. \ Geschichte der Neuteslamenllichen Offenbaruug, 1891-93. \ Forschungen zur Geschichte des N.- Testamentlichen Kanons, 1881-1884 ; Das Nette Testament vor Origenes, 1888, 1889 ; and Geschichte des N.-Testamentlichen Kanons, 1890-92. Beitrage zur Evangelienkritik, 1846 ; Einleitung in das Neue Testament, edited by Johannes Bleek, 1862 ; and by Mangold, 4th ed. 1886. \Jahrbucher der Biblischen Wissenchaft, beginning with 1849, and Die Biicher des neuen Bundes iiberzetzt und erklart^ 1871-72. ^[ Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften : Neues Testament, 1842, 5th ed. 1874 ; Eng. trans. 1884. ** Die Enlstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed. 1857. ff In the first edition of the Altkatolische Kirche, 1850. 242 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. antagonistic Judseo-Christianity. Paulinism was, according to him, the legitimate outcome of the standpoint. teachin g of J esus - Against this the Judaistic movement rose as a mild and feeble reaction, but was overcome shortly. Thus the conflict, instead of playing such an impor- tant part in the formation of the New Testament literature, was only an episode in the history of early Christianity. Ritschl, moreover, insisted on the admissibility of the miraculous element in history. At the same time his criticism was of the freest. Looking upon the Christian system as a teaching which authenticates itself subjectively by the im- pression it produces, he had no interest in saving any mere objective statements, or opinions regard- ing its sources. This mode of treating the New Testament writings has found a large number of adherents. From the very nature of its peculiarity, however, it leads to differing results. Among the scholars who approach Ritschl's stand- Followers. . , , , A point may be named Harnack,* Schurer,f and Wendt.J Quite evangelical in their tone are the produc- tions of W. Beyschlag and of B. Weiss. || Evan- w. Beyschlag. gelical and conservative has been B. Weiss. a j go predominantly the scholarship of * Das Neue Testament urn das Jahr 200, 1889. f "The Fourth Gospel," Contemporary Review, September 1891. \ Die Lehre Jesu 1890; Eng. trans. 1892. Lebenjesu, 1887 ; Neu Testamentalische Theologie, 1891-92 ; Eng. trans. 1875. I Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1886 ; 2d ed. 1 889 ; Eng. trans. 1889. Weiss' other works are also of importance in the history of New Testament criticism : Petrinische Lehr- begriff, 1855 ; Das Markus evangelium und seine synoptische Parallelen, 1872 ; Das Matthaus evangelium und seine Lukas- IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243 Great Britain and the United States. Some of the most valuable contributions to New Testament criticism have been made, apart from i u T T T L^ English critics. polemic purposes, by J. B. Light- foot,* B. F. Westcott,f C. J. Ellicott,J Sanday, Plumtre, || Lumby,^[ Salmon,** Marcus Dods,ff and McClymont.JJ To these must be added the American scholar Ezra Abbott. In the same strain has been also the work of , , , . , . .... French critics. the French scholars, Cellener, |||| Glaire,lf Gilly,*** Pressens6,fft and Godet.JJJ parallelen, 1876 ; Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1864 ; 5th ed. 1888. * Epistle to the Galatians, 1865; Philippians, 1868 ; 8th. ed. 1888 ; Colossians and Philemon, 1875 ; 8th ed. 1886. f Introduction to the Study of the Gospels ; 1860 ; The History of the Canon of the New Testament, 1855 ; 6th ed. 1889. \ Without dealing with critical questions specifically, this author stands on conservative ground in his Commentaries on the Epis- tles of Paul and expressly defines his position as that of an evan- gelical critic in his Christus Comprobatur, 1892. Author ship and Historical Character of t/te Fourth Gospel, 1872 ; The Gospels in the Second Century, 1876. | Introduction to the New Testament, 1883. ^[ Popular Introduction to the New Testament, 1883. **A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 1855 ; 8th ed. 1895. ff An Introduction to the New Testament, 1889. jj The New Testament and its Writers, 1893. g The Attthorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1 880. || Essai d'une Introduction Critique au Nouveau Testament, 1823. T[^f Introduction Historique et Critique aux Livres de I'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament, 5 vols. 1843 i 3