YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

By the Same Author.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. On the
Basis of Prof. Rudolf Sohm. i6mo. jji.oo.
THE OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF
WOMAN IN THE CHURCH. An Histor
ical Study. Large i6mo. 15 cents.

The Higher Criticism
B:t iBufltttB OF
MODERN BIBLICAL STUDY

REV. C. W. RISHELL, A.M., Ph.D.,
Professor op Historical Theology
in Boston University School of Theology

WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY
PROF. HENRY M. HARMAN, D. D., LL. D.

IRevfseD an& Enlarged E&ttion

CINCINNATI : CURTS & JENNINGS
NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS
1896

Copyright
BY CRANSTON & CURTS,
1893.

Copypight
BY CURTS & JENNINGS,
1896.

PREFACE.

This book has been written for the purpose
of furnishing a concise and convenient answer
to questions frequently asked concerning the
higher criticism. Its province is not there
fore to discuss and weigh, but to report the
facts of the subject. Nevertheless, the care
ful reader will find the principles stated upon
which the opponents of the critics proceed in
their refutations.
For our facts we have gone to the original
sources, whenever they were accessible. We
have not, however, referred to all the works
consulted, but chose those for reference which
were found most helpful, or which are easiest
of access. Zockler's " Handbuch der Theo-
logischen Wissenschaften," Vol. I, and Weiss'
" Einleitung in das Neue Testament" — the
former on the entire Bible, the latter in its
own department — were constantly in use. In
this connection the writer wishes to express 3

4 PREFACE.
his gratitude to Librarian Whelpley, of the
Public Library of Cincinnati, and his intelli
gent assistants, for their uniform courtesy
during the preparation of this work. The
library contains a most excellent collection of
theological literature.
Our aim has been to give chief prominence
to the views of the more conservative critics,
introducing as deviations therefrom the opin
ions of those who are more radical. In con
sulting brevity, we found the task a difficult
one of keeping these views separate. Some
study on the part of the reader who wishes to
understand the subject is therefore expected.
As, in the course of several years, we have
investigated this subject, we have felt as one
feels when a dear friend is on trial. And,
pleased with the concessions his enemies made
in favor of the excellence of his character, we
could scarce refrain from shouting aloud our
rejoicing at his complete vindication by his
friends. To one who enters upon such a
course of study with the experience of Bible
religion in his soul, no attacks aimed at fun
damentals have any force, But it is a constant

PREFACE. 5
source of satisfaction to see that the vast ma
jority of the critics find nothing in the Bible
to shake their faith in Jesus Christ or his
gospel, but only that which confirms.
Part V is a reproduction of articles con
nected with the general subject published in
the Western Christian Advocate during the
spring of 1893. This will account for some
repetition of thought which the reader may
possibly notice.
The writer desires to express his thanks to
the Rev. Professor Henry M. Harman, D. D.,
LL. D., for the Introduction he has written
to this work. His "Introduction to the Holy
Scriptures " is a mine of information on every
phase of higher criticism, which we heartily
commend to our readers for discussions which
could not find place here without changing
the entire scope and purpose of the work.
CHARGES W. RISHELI/
Cincinnati, O., June 1, 1893.

Preface to the Revised Edition.

The reception which the first edition met
was a surprise to the author. Its plan and
dimensions were alike approved by those inter
ested in the subject treated. It has been de
sired, however, that, without changing the gen
eral plan, there should be added the statement
of the traditional side of the case, so that the
reader could have them both in the same vol
ume. This edition is to meet that desire.
There is very little other change.
Some have objected to the application of
the term "critics" to those only who do not
hold the traditional view. Objection is also
often made to the stigmatization of the adher
ents of the old faith as "traditionalists." Let
it be said that the words are not intended to
imply either credit or discredit. They are sim
ply brief designations by which circumlocu
tion may be avoided.

8 PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION.
In the statement of the case on both sides
we have endeavored to be fair ; and if we have
failed in the judgment of any to bring out the
strength of the argument, the blame must be
laid at the door of the original authors whom
we consulted, and also, in part, attributed to
the necessity of condensation. The principal
works consulted for the traditional view were
Harman's "Introduction to the Holy Scrip
tures;" "Lex Mosaica," by Hervey, Sayce,
Rawlinson, Douglas, Girdlestone, Valpy
French, Lias, Watson, Sharpe, Stewart, Stan
ley Leathes, Sinker, Spencer, Watts, and
Wace; Bissell's "The Pentateuch: Its Origin
and Structure;" Green's "The Hebrew Feasts
in their Relation to Recent Critical Hypothe
ses Concerning the Pentateuch;" Sayce's "The
Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Mon
uments;" Introduction to Isaiah in the Bible
Commentary, by W. Kay, D. D.
Every thoughtful man will agree that,
since the critical theories are being pro
claimed and read, it is well to have them
stated by the friends rather than by the foes
of the Bible, since it affords an opportunity to

PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION. 9
furnish a check to unbelief. We wish here to
call fresh attention to the paragraph which
begins on page 4 and ends on page 5 of this
work, a part of the Preface to the first edition.
CHARLES W. RISHELL.
Boston, Mass., June 1, 1896.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Part I.
INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION. Page.
§ I. The Aims of the Higher Critics,  21
§ 2. The Methods of the Higher Critics  27
ji 3. Higher Critical Principles and Assumptions, . . 35
Part II.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
\ 4. General History of Old Testament Criticism, . . 46
§ 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism,  51
\ 6. Present-day Criticism of the Pentateuch, . 57
§ 7. The Relative and Absolute Age of the Sources, . 65
2, 8. Summary of the Argument for the Dates of
D and P,   70
\ 9. The Traditional Defense of the Mosaic Origin
of the Pentateuch, .  75
§ 10. The Archaeological Evidence, . . ..... 98
§11. Criticism of the Prophetical Books  no
§12. The Book of Isaiah,  112
g 13. The Traditional View of the Book of Isaiah, . .116
§ 14. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ...  126
1 15. The Traditional View of Ezekiel  128
\ 16. The Minor Prophets,  137
§ 17. Zechariah  140
g 18. The Book of Jonah,   142
§19. The Book of Daniel,  144
§ 20. The Traditional View of the Book of Daniel, . . 147
§ 21, The Psalms,  158
n

1 2 CONTENTS.
Page.
2 22. The Traditional View of the Psalms,  163
§ 23. The Book of Proverbs,  .... 169
£24. The Book of Job,  174
\ 25. Ecclesiastes,  . . 179
2 26. The Song of Solomon,  183
2 27. The Lamentations of Jeremiah,  187
I 28. The Book of Ruth,  190
I 29. The Book of Esther,  192
I 30. The Chronicles,  195
1 31. The Traditional View of Chronicles,  202
Part III.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
§32. General History of New Testament Criticism, . .211
§ 33. Present-day New Testament Criticism, . .217
§34. The Synoptic Question,  219
I 35. The Gospel of Matthew,  223
I 36. The Gospel of Mark  225
I 37. The Gospel of Luke,  . 226
'i 38. The Acts of the Apostles,  230
§39. The Gospel of John,   231
\ 40. The Johannean Epistles, . . ... . . 234
§ 41. The Book of Revelation,  237
§42. The Epistle of James,  241
1 43. First and Second Peter,  242
1 44. The Epistle of Jude  . . 244
§45. Galatians, Romans, and First and Second' Co
rinthians  246
§46. First and Second Thessalonians,  251
?47. Ephesians,  253
§48. Colossians,  254
§49. Philemon  255
1 50. Philippians,  256
§ 51. The Pastoral Epistles, .  257
§ 52. The Epistle to the Hebrews,  259

CONTENTS. 13
Part IV.
ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. Tage.
§ 53. Discrimination of Critical Schools — Criticism
in Germany, England, America, France, Switz
erland, and Holland Compared — Value of Crit
ical Conclusions — Criticism not to be Roundly
Condemned — Traditional View not to be Sum
marily Pronounced Unscholarly — Critical Con
siderations not Sufficient for the Pronounce
ment of a Judgment on Critical Questions —
The Appeal to Christ — The Doctrine of Iner
rancy — Of Inspiration — The True Starting-
point and Goal of all Fruitful Criticism, . . . 263
Part V.
IF THE. CRITICS ARE RIGHT, WHAT?
§ 54. The Doctrine of Inerrancy,  276
§ 55. Inspiration,  282
ji 56. Date and Authorship of the Books of the Bible, 289

INTRODUCTION.

"Higher Criticism" is a phrase used to ex
press all investigations respecting the genuineness,
authenticity, and integrity of ancient literary
works, especially the various books of the Bible.
By whom the phrase was first used we can not
say. Dr. Seiler, in the preface to his "Biblical
Hermeneutics," published at Erlangen in 1800,
speaks of "the subtilty of a (so-called) higher
criticism, which cuts into the very life-blood of
Christianity." And in the body of his work, in
speaking of "Introductions," he says: "This
branch is called by some the higher, historical, or
real criticism. The investigation of the genuine
ness and uncorrupted state of the readings is
special, or common, and verbal criticism." This
we would now call "textual criticism."
The higher criticism is not a modern science.
In the third and second centuries before Christ,
there was a flourishing school of criticism at Al
exandria, which discussed very thoroughly the
Homeric poems. In this school Zenodotus, Aris
tophanes, and Aristarchus were brilliant instruct
ors. In the first century before Christ, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus was pre-eminently distinguished
for his great critical ability. In the early Chris-

1 6 INTRODUCTION.
tian Church, Clement and Dionysius of Alexan
dria, Origen, Eusebius of Csesarea Palestinse, and
Jerome were no mean critics.
But little Biblical criticism existed in the Mid
dle Ages. The revival of learning gave a new
impulse to literary criticism; and Richard Simon,
born in France in 1638, may be regarded as the
founder of modern Biblical criticism; and Rich
ard Bentley, of England, who came upon the
literary stage a little later, formed an epoch in
the history of general criticism, and has not been
surpassed. Of all the people of the Modern World the
Germans have most distinguished themselves in
" Biblical and classical literature and criticism.
But they are too much given to speculation and
theory, and often show a lack of vigorous common
sense and knowledge of real life. Their criticism
often rests upon too narrow a basis, and upon
minute and uncertain points. They rely too
much upon internal evidence, and depreciate ex
ternal testimony. They are controlled too largely
by subjective feelings, and excessive confidence in
their individual opinions, and contempt for others.
Some of these latter traits are found also in some
of our American skeptical higher critics. We
make no objection to higher criticism being ap
plied to the Bible. On the contrary, we believe
in it. But it must embrace the discussion of ex
ternal as well as internal evidence. In many
cases, the only proof of the authorship of a book

INTRODUCTION. 17
is external evidence. The internal evidence may,
in fact, amount to nothing at all. On this point
we need refer only to the authorship of the Let
ters of Junius. How has the question of their
authorship puzzled the learned and critical world !
Where external and internal evidence unite in
proof of authorship, we have the highest certainty.
But one of the most difficult of all problems is to
determine whether a book is the work of one
author or more. We may be satisfied that there
is a unity of plan in it, and of course some ar
ranger or architect of the whole ; but how many
men had a share in the work, we could never tell.
We may be thoroughly convinced that a house
was planned by some architect, and that the men
who built it acted in concert; but how many
workmen there were would not be manifest. We
might easily imagine, in some cases, that one man
designed and built the whole.
Let us apply these reflections to the Pentateuch.
If Moses was not the author of this work, who
was? It certainly bears strong marks of unity,
and therefore it must have had some arranger or
editor who gave the material of which it is formed
its present shape. Whence were the materials
derived? Did he use previously existing docu
ments? If so, how many? How far did the
author or editor make omissions, additions, or al
terations in his documents? Who can solve all
these difficult questions? If there were four orig
inal documents, what each contained is as difficult

1 8 INTRODUCTION.
to determine as it is to find the value of four un
known quantities from a single algebraical equa
tion; in short, we would say, impossible.
Suppose our Gospels, some time after the apos
tolic age, had been molded into one, somewhat
after the manner of Tatian's Diatessaron, but
without a single mark to indicate that it was a
composite, except so far as the work itself might
show it; and that not a hint had come down to
us that it had ever existed in any other form than
as a unity, — can we believe that any set of critics
would have been able to show that it was a com
bination of four documents or Gospels, and at the
same time to assign to each evangelist what be
longs to him? Even if they had been able to some
extent to disentangle John, they could never have
ascertained that there are three others, and still
less have given to each evangelist his due.
Suppose, some day, there should be applied to
American history the skeptical principles some
times applied to the Bible, what havoc will be
made of our history! Let us take the following
language of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." Let it be borne in mind that when
this language was used the African slave-trade
was carried on, not only by the Southern States,
but also by Massachusetts and other New Eng-

INTRODUCTION. 19
land States; and African slavery existed in about
every State of the Confederacy.
What will the future critics of Germany say of
this Declaration two thousand years hence? Will
they not declare it unhistorical? They will say
that it is perfectly absurd that men should appeal
to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rec
titude of their intentions, declaring that all men
are created equal and entitled to liberty, while these
very rebellious States themselves were enslavers
of human beings. The critics will assert strongly
that the Declaration arose — or, at least, was modi
fied — in the age of freedom !
Take another instance of a surprising charac
ter. On Thomas Jefferson's monument stands
the following inscription: "Author of the Decla
ration of American Independence, of the Statute
of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of
the University of Virginia." Not a word about
his having been President of the United States!
What an omission! Suppose this monument, one
or two thousand years hence, should be dug up
among the ruins of America and transported to
Germany, what a sensation it will make! Will
they not straightway revise American history, and
affirm that the author of the Declaration of In
dependence and President Jefferson were two dif
ferent persons, as established by monumental tes
timony? The books which compose the Bible have not
all the same degree of certainty and strength, or

20 INTRODUCTION.
the same inspiration and importance. They are
not like the links in a chain, which is no stronger
than its weakest link; but they are like witnesses
in court in favor of some great cause which de
pends upon the strongest, not upon the weakest
witness. The great center of the Bible is Christ,
whose history is one of the best authenticated in
the world. He is our Great Citadel, and in pos
session of this Impregnable Fortess we need not
be alarmed if some of the outposts are carried by
the enemy. But to proceed to the work before us.
Rev. Dr. Rishell's book is clearly and tersely
written. His two years' residence in Berlin has
not vitiated his English style. He gives, in a
very succinct and fair manner, the views of the
higher skeptical critics, and occasionally those of
a more evangelical type. Of course, in a treatise
of this kind, the strong objections to radical views,
and the answers that may be given them, do not
come into view.
In Parts IV and V he discusses, under the
heads of "Estimate of Results," and "If the
Critics are Right, What?" the questions of
Inspiration and the Inerrancy of the Bible with
much good sense and moderation. This part of
the work is especially worthy of being carefully
read.
HENRY M. HARMAN.

THE BIBLE AND HIGHER CRITICISM.
Part I.
INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION.
§ i. The Aims of the Higher Critics.
Many are asking, What are the aims of the
higher critics? What do they hope to accom
plish? By what motives are they prompted?
To answer these questions is the object of this
section. But it must first be premised that
the critics are not all led on by the same pur
pose. Some are more, others less religiously
earnest. Some, indeed, have only an historical
or a literary interest in their work. All claim
to be free from any conscious bias which could
influence their conclusions.
First in order we mention the literary aims
of the critics. These confine themselves chiefly
to what is ordinarily called "Introduction," al
though they do not exhaust that field. They

22 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
strive to ascertain everything which can be
known concerning the books of the Bible. They
ask, By whom, for whom, when, where, under
what circumstances, and for what purpose, was
each book of the Bible composed ? They inter
rogate tradition, sit in judgment on the opin
ions of the Hebrew and Christian fathers as to
these matters, and demand of the books them
selves an account of their origin. To them
the Bible is a phenomenon, or a composite
of phenomena, the existence of which is to be
explained. They ask, Who wrote the Bible?
just as they would ask, Who wrote the plays
usually attributed to Shakespeare? They are
not content with a superficial examination of
the problems before them, but strive, each ac
cording to his ability, to study them broadly,
profoundly, and exactly. To some portions of
their work they do not attach any great re
ligious significance; yet in some cases they
have discovered, by their minute research,
facts of great value in the proper interpreta
tion and application of the Word.
This seems in many respects a perfectly
harmless object ; but, as we shall see, some

THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 23
of the most vital issues connected with the
entire work of Biblical criticism depend upon
their conclusions.
Another class of critics have historical
rather than literary aims in view. Of this
number are the oft-mentioned Wellhausen and
Kuenen. Their literary criticism is not for
its own sake, but in order to elicit the histor
ical facts. To them the Bible is just like any
other source of historical information. They
can not accept its statements simply because
they are found in the Book. If other sources
contradict, they weigh, sift, and decide, as
though the Bible had been written without
any Divine help. There is no presumption
in its favor drawn from religious considera
tions, nor is there any prejudice against i't.
If its utterances are adjudged contradictory,
no effort is made to harmonize them ; and one
or all on the subject in question must be re
jected. From the standpoint of the historian,
nothing could be more fair; and these critics
are conscious of no wrong. Their honesty is,
to themselves, perfectly clear. They naturally

24 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
can not understand what objection can be
made to such a treatment ol the Scriptures.
They are very much inclined to think that
one who does not look at the Bible as they
look at it, acts in the interests of his faith or
his prejudices, and is indifferent to the truth,
which, however it may contravene all that has
heretofore been believed, must be accepted
with unquestioning obedience.
A third class approach the Bible and its
study with religious motives. They see in it a
book of religion, not of history. They can not
divest themselves of the impression that it
holds a peculiar position in literature. They
may apply all the canons of literary and his
torical criticism just as the first two of the
above-mentioned classes; but they do not feel
that, in so doing, they have exhausted the sig
nificance of the Bible. There are elements in
it which can not be tested except by the heart.
Some of this class incline decidedly toward
the conclusions of the purely literary and his
torical critics ; others regard them as erroneous
because reached by inadequate methods.
Taking the Bible as a book of religion,

THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 25
these critics ask themselves the questions,
How came the Bible here ? Is it a mere rec
ord of human experiences and beliefs ? Were
these experience's had under the direct provi
dence of God? Were these beliefs wrought in
the minds of men by the Holy Spirit ? Were
men inspired to write the things contained in
the Bible? It is plain that the object of all
such critics is to sound the depths of the
Bible's religious value. Its literary and his
torical worth sink into insignificance, and is
prized only as accessory to the embodiment of
the truth of God. Hence there are those who
assert perfect and equal inspiration in all parts
of the Bible, since they can not imagine the
truth of God in a setting of error ; while others
affirm that the test of the truth is in those
parts which have to do with our religious
life, and declare that if we admit the supposed
existence of myth and fable, these still contain
the precious kernel of religious truth.
The chief source of disturbance to faith
has arisen from the attempts at reconstruction
of Bible history. This is not the place to
speak at length of these attempts; but many

26 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
are convinced on historical grounds of the
truth of the conclusions of historical investi
gation as applied to the Bible who, at the
same time, feel that these c'onclusions must
be maintained in the interest of faith. They
point out the fact that many educated men
discover, or think they discover, a conflict be
tween certain statements of the Bible and the
results of investigation relative to the same
subjects in other fields. To such men the
solitary testimony of the Bible is not suffi
cient to outweigh all other opposing consid
erations. It is only the thoroughly religious
man who will continue his faith in the Bible
after he finds its utterances contradicted by
all other authorities. But as these are mat
ters which do not pertain to the faith, the
third class of critics may admit all that the
first and second classes claim, and thereby
win them to faith in the religious elements of
the Book. If they insist that all is inspired
or none, then the scientific man rejects all.
If they limit inspiration and inerrancy to
those parts which center about the religious
life, they conciliate, and perhaps even win, the

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 27
opposer to Christ. Hence, some who would
take but little interest in these critical ques
tions for their own sake, are profoundly inter
ested for the sake of the good they may do.
The principal aims and motives of the
higher critics have now been set forth in
brief, and it will be seen that some are actu
ated by purely secular, others by purely relig
ious motives; still others by a mixture of the
two, with a preponderance of one or the other.
Few aim solely at literary or historical ends
without any mixture of the religious; yet
with many the latter plays so feeble a part1 as
to vitiate all conclusions which conflict with
faith. The further discussion will lend in
creasing light, and still further reveal the aims,
as the present remarks will aid in understand
ing what is to be said as to methods, principles,
and presumptive results.
§ 2. The Methods of the Higher Critics.
Of necessity, the methods employed corre
spond in form to the design of the investi
gation. The linguistic method is well known, and

28 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
will scarcely need illustration. It must be
confessed that of the correctness of many of
the conclusions based upon its revealments,
only those can judge who are themselves ex
perts in the sacred languages. Doubtless the
differences in linguistic style between two
books attributed to the same author, might
suggest the necessity of denying the compo
sition of one or the other to him. Where dif
ferences of style are very wide, the probability
of different authorship might become so great
as to overcome a constant and unbroken tra
dition. It is not sufficient to say that the
same writer varies his style according to his
subject; or, that it undergoes a change with
advancing age and culture, or in accordance
with his subjective condition at the time of
writing. This is all true in the abstract ; but
in each particular case the critic must settle
whether the actual differences are to be so ac
counted for. As they do not appear in our
English translation, only the critical student
can decide how much dependence may be
placed upon them.
More uncertain still is that form of the lin-

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 29
guistic method which attempts to determine
the literary dependency or independency of
one book or author upon another. Here it is
agreed that the authors are distinct; but cer
tain portions of their works are so much alike
in thought and language that it is easy to
suppose one must have quoted from the other.
The question then arises, Which is the bor
rower? Upon the answer may depend the
conclusion as to the authorship of one or the
other of the so related books; but it is evi
dent that any opinion based upon such ah in
vestigation must be most precarious. The
danger that the judgment of the investigator
will be warped by other considerations is
great, and jeopards, in consequence, all his
conclusions. On the whole, linguistic consid
erations are to be pronounced insufficient.
And this is indeed tacitly acknowledged by
the critics, who seek to support arguments
drawn from this source by others less open to
suspicion. Illustrations of the use and abuse
of this method will be found under the dis
cussion of the results attained by the higher
critics.

30 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
For historical purposes the principal de
pendence is upon a comparison of Biblical
records with those of other nations. The
close contact into which Israel was brought
by its geographical situation with the princi
pal nations of antiquity, facilitates such an
investigation. It must be said that the re
sults, thus far, have been strikingly confirm
atory of the Biblical record in general.1 As
the monuments of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria,
and Persia give up their secrets, the student
will have still more ample material for com
parison. This, of course, pertains chiefly to
the political history of the Jews; but for its
religious history a similar form of historical
investigation is employed. A study of the
religious books of other ancient nations shows
that, in many of their traditions, they are re
markably like those of the Jews. For exam
ple, all ancient religions of Asia, Africa, and
America have a story of the Deluge essen
tially like that recorded in Genesis. This
fact, while it helps to confirm the truth of the
Biblical record, suggests that it is not a mat-
1 For more complete data see \ 10.

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 31
ter of revelation. Thus the historian Likes
the Bible as one of the sources of history,
whether political or religious. By this method
some tilings in the Bible are rendered more
probable than they would otherwise be; while
others, which find no corroboration, are rather
made doubtful.
But the historical method goes further. It
is not coutent to take the several accounts of
the same transaction and harmonize them.
It does not take for granted that each account
is true, aud that only our ignorance prevents
us from discovering the connecting link. Each
account is made to stand on its own merits.
If it contains statements which seem improb
able as compared with other Biblical accounts,
or with other portions of the same account,
it is ruled out In fact, the historian dares
not do otherwise. Outside the Bible he em
ploys this method most rigidly. Should he
assume that the Bible, because it is his relig
ious book, is more perfect than other books,
he would at once make himself in so far a
theologian. On historical grounds he may
or may not be convinced of the accuracy

32 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
of the Scripture record; but as a historian
he dares not admit any intermixture of the
ological principle which would detract from
the strictness of his method. In short, the
historical method can only see in the Bible
a " source " of history, not history itself.
It places it upon a par with other sources,
and only comes to regard it as having the
quality of superior trustworthiness after it has
been tested. It feels at perfect liberty to re
ject its historical statements entirely, or to
correct them according to other sources of
information. That such a free handling of
the Book has a tendency to destroy reverence
for it there can be no doubt; but the critic
affirms that so far as reverence can be de
stroyed by criticism it is unworthy of rever
ence. And he declares that, so far from de
stroying the historical trustworthiness of the
Bible in its general statements, his work tends
directly to confirmation.
Another method of criticism, less popularly
known than the two just mentioned, is that
of Biblical theology. As a method it is pri-
> marily analytical, but it ends with synthesis.

METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 33
It takes up the separate books of the Bible,
and studies their theology. It seeks to find
the fundamental principles of each author,
and sometimes denies a book its traditional
authorship because it diverges from the theo
logical position of other books from the sup
posed author's pen. Having analyzed the
theological contents of the separate books
and authors, it proceeds to formulate them
into a more or less complete system. It dis
covers that there is a development of religious
ideas from Genesis to Revelation. It may
place the date of the composition of a book
earlier or later than it would otherwise be
supposed to be, because its theological stand
point is found to be that of the age to which
it is assigned. Sometimes Biblical theolo
gians think they find irreconcilable differences
between the theological positions of the books
of the Bible, and are inclined to reject from
the canon such as can not be harmonized.
Others find all the teachings of the several
books necessary to a complete system, and
base the perfection of the canon upon the
fact that it contains just what it does, with-
3

34 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
out diminution or increase. This method, as
well as the others, may be made to do service
in judging of the minutest details of the
Bible. Anything which conflicts with the in
ternal harmony of Scripture teachings must
give way before it.
We have mentioned the aims and methods
in their separate forms for the sake of clear
ness ; but, as a matter of fact, they are seldom
found alone. There may be a ruling motive,
or method; but others usually accompany, to
modify or to support the result. It is the
strength of the cause of the higher critics that
the application of the' various methods usually
leads to the same conclusions. The literary
style, the historical setting, and the theological
position of the latter part of Isaiah are all de
clared to be different from those of the former
part.1 Nor are many of the critics rigidly either
literary or historical ; the majority are theolo
gians who combine with their religious inter
ests the literary and historical methods.
1But see pp. 209, 210.

principles and assumptions. 35
§3. Higher Critical Principles and As
sumptions.
Some of these have been intimated in the
preceding remarks ; yet it may be well to for
mulate them here in order to correlate them
with those not already mentioned.
First, the assumption that the Bible is to be
judged by purely literary standards, as any
other literature. Within limits, this can not
be disputed ; but when it is made to embrace
a denial of the element of divine inspiration,
the theologian at least has a right to object.
A book whose author or co-author is God
must be treated with a reverence not due to a
purely human production ; besides, the very
assumption is dangerous to the influence of
the Bible. Here, therefore, is one of the
principal causes leading to fear of the higher
critics. One of their first assumptions, if un
challenged, would undermine its authority.
The same may be said of the assumption
that the historian is at liberty to treat the
Bible as any other source of history. This
assumption, however, is objectionable from an

36 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
additional point of view. To refer again to
the Isaian question, the strict historical view
forbids that the latter part of Isaiah should
have been written at the same period as the
former part, since its historical setting is in
the exilian period. But admit the fact of true
predictive prophecy, and there is no insuper
able difficulty in supposing that the earlier
Isaiah and the later are identical; but of course
we do not mean by this that such an admis
sion would prove the identity of the two.
A second assumption is that the books of
the Bible are separate productions, each of
which must be studied by itself, and that we
may not in every case explain the meaning of
a passage in one book by an utterance on the
same subject in another book. This principle
is only modified when two or more books are
supposed to have been written by one author,
or when there is a supposed literary depend
ence between two books by different authors.
It is this assumption which produces such
havoc with the traditional view of the Penta
teuch. Three or four authors are supposed to
be traceable in the so-called books of Moses.

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 37
They wrote independently of each other, and
their accounts of the same events have been
loosely strung together under the name of
Moses. On this supposition, it is easy to see
irreconcilable difficulties between the distinct
narratives. If one author were supposed to
have written all, we could easily imagine that
facts known to him, but not committed to
writing, would explain the variations. Or
the adherents of the traditional view can take
refuge in the doctrine o'f inspiration. God is
the author of all Scripture, and to each writer
he simply gave one phase of the truth, to be
brought out in its strongest possible light.
Thus apparent contradictions are accounted
for. We have stated here only the practical
effect of the two views ; the truth or false
hood of the one or of the other we do not at
tempt to discuss, since it does not fall within
the scope of our undertaking.
Another point concerning which critics
differ in principle is that of the relation of
the natural and supernatural. There are few
who would deny the Divine influence upon the
soul; but there are many who dispute the

3S THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
reality of the miraculous element in the Bible.
All those accounts of special Divine appear
ances to men, and of Divine interposition in
their behalf through physical agencies, are, at
most, instructive myths. Their only reality is
in the doctrine they contain that God is some
how interested in mankind. The practical ef
fect of all this is to remove from the Bible the
power to make the immediate impression that
God is near — an impression which, true or
false, the stories of the miracles chiefly pro
duce as we read the Scriptures. If the mira
cles are unreal, we can learn from the Bible of
God's nearness only by inference. But an
other exceedingly important consequence is,
that under this supposition the Bible loses its
character of reality in general. The miracles
are related as truth ; if they are not true, then
much of the Bible is given up to a relation of
fictitious matter, without any warning to that
effect. Different entirely is the view of those who
admit the reality of miracles, but who reserve
the right to judge concerning the trustworthi
ness of the record in each case. The former

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 39
say there is no such thing as a physical mir
acle ; the latter say we must not believe
every miraculous story. The former are
obliged by their principle to deny the mirac
ulous conception of Christ, and his real resur
rection and ascension. The latter may admit
both ; but of the latter many do practically
obliterate all trace of the miraculous by their
criticism. This miracle is inherently improba
ble ; that not necessary, since the event can be
accounted for on natural principles; the oth
ers insufficiently supported by testimony.
Under this head fall all such questions as
the Divinity of Christ, the personality of the
Holy Spirit, the value of prayer, and the pos
sibility of regeneration. Those who deny the
miraculous must deny all these in any form
which maintains the substance of them.
Those who admit will emphasize them more
or less according to their belief in the fre
quency of Divine interposition in the affairs of
men. The same is true of the doctrine of in
spiration. All must admit the possibility of
it who admit the intimate influence of the
supernatural among men. But the degree and

40 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
quantity of it in the Bible is a question to be
settled by the critical judgment.
Still another principle which must be men
tioned is the doctrine of evolution as applied
to the Bible and its contents. The evolution
ist may be a Theist, although he need not
even be a Deist. But even theistic evolution
in Scriptural matters is a far-reaching princi
ple. Evolution might account for the pro
duction of every book of the Bible, and for
the formation of the canon, without any Divine
interference. In that case it would be at most
deistic. More generally, however, the Bible is
regarded by evolutionary critics as the record
of experiences wrought in the hearts and lives
of men and nations by the purpose of God.
Under this view, God's providence determined
each step in the progress of revelation. The
revelation was not to the intellect, but in
hearts and lives. Men wrote what they felt
God had done. God did what was needed ac
cording to the then development of mankind,
or of the chosen people. As man advanced,
the revelation was made clearer; that is,
God's dealings corresponded more closely to

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 41
his own ideal, and less with the imperfect
condition of man. Such a view may or may
not admit the reality of a revelation to all
peoples as truly as to the Jews. Any imper
fection of a heathen religion would be ac
counted for just as any imperfection in the
Jewish faith, by the supposition that God was
doing the best for men under the circum
stances. So far as Judaism is concerned, it
need not follow that the books of the Old
Testament present as a whole a true picture
of the actual development. The evolutionist
supposes that the development of religious
knowledge and practice kept pace with each
other. Our Old Testament leaves the im
pression that, far in advance and almost once
for all, God laid down a standard of faith and
practice, behind which the actual practice of
the people lagged for centuries. To the evo
lutionist this seems highly improbable. Hence
he attempts to reconstruct the history accord
ing to his views; and he claims that he finds
numberless hints throughout the Scripture in
support of his theory. On the same principle
the development of Christianity is accounted

42 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
for. The centuries preceding the birth of
Christ were preparing the way for Christianity
in Judaism. Christ's very Messianic conscious
ness would have been impossible without the
preceding development of Messianic hope to
which Christ's view of himself and his mission
closely conformed. Thus our Lord was not so
much a fulfillment of the expectations of the
Jews as portrayed in the Bible as of those who
lived subsequently.1 With the scientific diffi
culties in the way of such an opinion we have
here nothing to do, nor can we spend time on the
practical effects. These depend almost wholly
upon the thoroughness with which the theistic
idea pervades the critic. While in fact there
often is, there need be in it nothing antagonis
tic to the fundamental principles of our faith. 2
It remains merely to state the attitude of
the critics toward Christianity. That some
are antagonistic goes without the saying.
Most, however, hold with greater or less te-

1 See Thomson, Books which Influenced our Lord.
2 Abbott's " Evolution of Christianity" is a good illus
tration of the evolutionary theory as applied to religion.
Others which might be mentioned are far more radical.

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 43
nacity to our holy religion. It may even be
said that most believe it to be the only true
religion. Yet some there are who regard it
as only the best of all, and do not hesitate to
say that it will undergo transformation to fit
it fully for its universal mission.1 Of those
who adhere to the divine origin of the Bible,
some justify their critical researches by the
results to be attained; others declare that
criticism is a science, the same as any other,
and may be practiced upon the Bible just as
upon any other book. The results of their
investigations have nothing in common with
their faith, which is entirely unaffected by
critical inquiry.2 With such, criticism must
be a mere pastime — a pleasurable employment
of the mind. But, perhaps, the majority are
filled with the idea that all truth is in har
mony; and that therefore, in the end, no real
truth of Christianity can be affected by criti
cism, while it may be very useful to sweep
away any falsehood and superstition to which

1jE. £-., Toy, Judaism and Christianity.
2 E. g-., Eibach, " Ueber die wissenschaftliche Behand-
lung und praktische Benutzung der heiligen Schrift."

44 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
men cling. There is great danger, however,
that our very devotion to truth will induce us
to employ inadequate means for its universal
discovery and valuation. If by truth we mean
truth which can be tested by the judgment
alone, we practically abandon Christian ground.
Christianity, as a practical concern, can be
tested only by its proper agencies. These in
clude the experiences of the heart. If relig
ion has its rights they should be respected.
The truths which can be subordinated to rea
son do not of necessity exhaust the sum of
truth, since the reason is not the only human
faculty capable of testing phenomena; nor is
reason any more reliable in its judgments
than the heart. That in which the human
heart can quietly and permanently rest may
be regarded as true, just as that may be re
garded true in which the reason can rest.
The Christian must search for truth; but he
may not reject one class of truths in the in
terest of another, and especially if by so doing
he overturns the truths of religion. The
whole danger arises from the attempt to act
the part of the scientific investigator without-

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 45
recollection of what one has discovered by
experience. But these imperfections of method
and purpose are only incidental and tempo
rary. They will be corrected as time goes on.
Christian truth will not permanently nor widely
suffer, although many individuals may be de
prived of its comforts for the time.

Part II.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Although criticism is a comparatively
youthful science, it has already reached many
conclusions upon which the majority of in
vestigators agree. This does not necessarily
imply that such conclusions are correct; for
in the republic of truth majorities dare not
rule. And the critics themselves, who agree
with each other so completely, would not
deny that many points are only probably es
tablished. The results attained are merely
held to be in accordance with the best infor
mation within our reach. Further discovery
may make a change of position necessary.
Hence we speak of the presumptive results
of higher criticism. We enter first upon
§4. The General History of Old Testa
ment Criticism.
The way was prepared for the critical
study of the Old Testament by two French
46

OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 47
scholars— one a Protestant, Ludwig Cappellus '
(T1658); the other a Romanist, Johann Mori-
nus2 (ti659), who disputed the belief in the
continuous and perfect preservation of the
Masoretic text, and the high age of the He
brew punctuation, doctrines generally ac
cepted and founded upon Rabbinical tradition.
But the first epoch-making works on higher
critical lines were those of Benedict de Spi
noza3 (T1677) and Richard Simon4 (T1712).
Spinoza's philosophical standpoint was
Pantheism, and his conclusions concerning
Revelation, Miracle, and Prophecy were seri
ously affected thereby. According to him the
task of criticism is to investigate the origin
of individual books, and the history of the
Scripture text and canon. Abraham ibn Ezra
had designated certain portions of the law as
mysterious. To these Spinoza added others,
and denied the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch. By a comparison of Numbers

1 See Schnedermann, Die Controverse des L. Cappel
lus mit den Buxtorfen.
8 Exercitationum Biblicarum, etc.
»ln his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.
'Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament

48 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
xxi, 14, with Exodus xvii, 14, and in Exodus
xxiv, 4, 7, and Deuteronomy i, 5; xxxi, 9, he
found intimations of the real literary activity
of Moses. He saw much in Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings to indicate a late compo
sition for these books. The books from Gen
esis to Second Kings, inclusive, form one great
historical work by a single author, whose pur
pose throughout was to teach the words and
ordinances of Moses. This author was prob
ably Ezra; and his work consisted in the col
lection of material from different authors, as
is still observable. But many of the diver
gences which would naturally thus arise, Ezra
could not reconcile. Chronicles he supposed
to be a very late work, written probably after
the restoration of the temple under Judas
Maccabaeus. The prophetic books were com
posed of fragments collected from various
sources, and in arrangement have suffered
many displacements of their natural order.
Previous to the Maccabsean period there was
no canon of Holy Scripture. Many of the
conclusions of this pioneer among higher
critics find recognition even yet.

OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 49
The title of Simon's work was Histoire
Critique du Vieux Testament (Critical History
of the Old Testament). Into this work he
gathered all the results of the labors of his
predecessors, Cappellus, Morinus, Spinoza, and
others, many of which he more firmly estab
lished by his own researches. His scientific
and brilliant presentation of the subject lent
it uncommon interest. Attention was still
further called to it by its confiscation in
France, and by the author's keen and prompt
replies to his literary opponents. He spent
little time upon the origin of the individual
books, although he gave some space to the
proof that in its present form the Pentateuch
could not have been composed by Moses.
He developed the theory that in all Oriental
States there were official historiographers.
The only difference between the Hebrew his
toriographers, who had probably existed since
Moses, and those of other, nations, was that
the former were inspired, while the latter
were not. It was the duty of these men to
write out the important events of their own
period, and to alter, abbreviate, and enlarge
4

5° THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
upon the work of their. predecessors, as seemed
to them necessary for the circumstances of
the time. Ezra, or probably still later writers,
collected all that had been previously written,
and out of the material at their command
wrote our Old Testament; but in so doing
they allowed themselves much freedom in the
handling of their sources.
With these two writers the work of higher
criticism was fairly initiated. During the early
part of the eighteenth century, Joh. Gottlob
Carpzov1 (T1757) distinguished himself by
the learning and comprehensiveness of his
work in this department, and especially by his
spirited antagonism to Spinoza and Simon.
Special mention must also be made of the
work of Joh. Gottfried Eichhorn (t 1827), wn0
was greatly influenced by Spinoza and Simon
on the one hand, and by Semler and Herder
on the other ; also of Ewald's " History of
Israel," " Prophets of the Old Covenant,"
and "Poets of the Old Covenant;" ot the
works of Havernick (t'1845) an(^ Keil (t 1888),
both of which followed the traditional lines ;

1 Iutroductio, etc., and Critica Sacra.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM. 5 1
and of the historical-critical labors of De Wette
(t 1849) and Edouard Reuss (T1891).
For many details the reader is referred to.
the following pages.
§ 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism.
Excepting the last eight verses, the Jews
and the ancient Church held the Pentateuch
as the work of Moses. The denial of its
Mosaic authorship by Celsus and other early
antagonists of Christianity was not founded
upon critical, but dogmatic reasons. Andreas'
Bodensteih of Carlstadt1 (t 1541) was the first
to question on critical grounds the Mosaic
origin of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuchal
law he recognized as of Moses, but the thread
of the narrative and the style excited his sus
picion. Andreas Masius2 (t 1574) believed that
the Pentateuch in its present form could not
have been written by Moses, and supported his
view more especially by the occurrence of
names not in existence during the time of
Moses {e.g., Dan-Daish). The long-cherished

'Libellus de Canonicis Scripturis.
8 Kommentar zu Josua.

52 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
hope that the force of the attacks upon the
Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch could be
weakened by the interpolation hypothesis,
was finally given up by the majority.
The first to base a systematic and scien
tific criticism of the Pentateuch upon a literary
analysis was Jean Astruc1 (t 1766), royal phy
sician and professor of medicine in Paris.
Others before him, as Vitringa, had conjectured
that, in the composition of Genesis, Moses
had employed older sources. Adopt'ing this
idea, Astruc asserted that Moses had not even
worked over these sources, but had merely
placed them side by side without essential al
teration. He also undertook to distinguish
these sources from one another. This he did
by taking as his criterion the peculiar use of
the names of God — in some passages only
Elohim, in others only Jehovah. Besides the
two sources thus distinguished, he supposed
ten others, less frequently employed, and distin
guishable by other characteristics. It will be
noticed that thus far the hand of Moses in
the composition of Genesis is not denied, al-
1 Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, etc.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM. 53
though he is made only the compiler. Nor
did Astruc dispute the Mosaic authorship of
the four additional, books. Eichhorn1 showed
that the passages in Genesis which Astruc dis
tinguished by the divine names of Elohim and
Jehovah were also characterized each by a
different linguistic style. This discovery is
still one of the principal supports of the
critics. He held that the other books of the
Pentateuch were composed from documents
written in the time of Moses, some of them
by Moses himself, others by his contempora
ries. The compilation of all the documents
of which the Pentateuch is composed he is
disposed to place somewhere between Joshua
and Samuel. De Wette was the first to dis
cover what is now generally held by the
critics ; namely, that Deuteronomy differs
wholly in character from the preceding
books ; and to-day the critics maintain a dis
tinct source for Deuteronomy. Frederick
Bleek2 was the first to assert that the death

'Einleitung in das A. T.
2Einige aphoristische Beitrage zu den Unters. iibet
den Pent

54 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
of Moses could not have formed the natural
conclusion of the history of Israel, and their
exodus from Egypt ; but that this must in
clude also their conquest of Canaan ; and
hence that Joshua was a part of the same
work with the other books of the Pentateuch.
Here, then, we have the idea of the Hexa-
teuch, so generally accepted at the present
time. Up to this point it had been assumed
that the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents
could only be traced through Genesis, and into
Exodus as far as chapter vi, 2; but, in 1831,
Ewald1 showed that these sources could be
traced with distinctness through the other
books of the Pentateuch. In a short, time
the same was asserted also of Joshua. Thus
another evidence of a Hexateuch instead of a
Pentateuch was added. Karl David Ilgen2
and H. Hupfeld3 — the former prior to 1834,
the latter in 1853 — undertook to show that

1 Consult his works mentioned above, and Theol.
Studieu u. Kritiken, 1831.
2 Die Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs
in ihrer Urgestalt.
3 Die Quellen der Genesis u. die Art ihrer Zusani-
mensetzung.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM. 55
the Elohim and Jehovah documents were each
composite in their character, and not the work
of single authors, as had been assumed.
If the reader will take the trouble at this
point to go back over the names mentioned in
this section, and fix in his mind just what it
is which each added to the sum of critical
conclusions, it will greatly facilitate his fur
ther study.
It will be observed, also, that the principal
questions are as to the extent to which the
" sources " are traceable. The sources or
documents themselves were supposed to be
practically of the age in or immediately sub
sequent to that in which Moses lived. But
we have now to trace the development of
other new ideas, more startling in their char
acter, because they completely overturn all
our former opinions concerning the date of the
origin of the Pentateuch. Before doing so,
however, it may be well to summarize the re
sults of the criticism thus far noticed.1 First,
the four principal sources of the Hexateuch

1 For the summary here given we are indebted to
Professor H. L. Strack, of Berlin.

5 6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
(the Pentateuch and Joshua) were supposed
to be : i. The Priestly Code, otherwise known
as The First Elohist, The Foundation Docu
ment (Grundschrift), The Book of Origins, The
Annalistic Relator. This document is desig
nated by Wellhausen ' by the letter " P ;" by
Dillmann as "A." 2. The Second Elohist,
otherwise called The Younger Elohist, The
North Israelitish Relator, The Third Relator,
The Theocratic Relator; lettered "E;" by
Dillmann, " B." 3. The Jehovist, or Jahvist,
otherwise called The Additor, The Fourth
Relator, The Prophetic Relator; lettered "J;"
by Dillman, " C." 4. The Deuteronomist ;
lettered " D." Second, that several sections
of the Pentateuch, although preserved for us
only in the above-named sources, sprang from
a period considerably earlier. Among these
were the Decalogue, The Covenant Book,
Exodus xx, 22-xxiii, 19, the principal part of
the song in Exodus xv, and other poetical
portions. Third, that the Elohistic Docu
ments, of which (see above) there were sup-
1 Wellhausen's designations throughout are preferable,
and will be named first.

PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM.

57

posed to be two, were older than the Jeho-
vistic. Fourth, that P, E, and J had been
wrought together prior to D. Essential dif
ferences of opinion existed only with refer
ence to the manner in which these documents
were brought into the Pentateuch. The ma
jority supposed that one editor had united P,
E, and J, and that D was afterward added.
Schrader supposed that the Jahvist had
added material of his own (J) to P and E,
and then worked the whole together.1 Ac
cording to some, the Deuteronomist united
his own work '(D) with P, E, J ; but the ma
jority were of the opinion that P E J and
D were brought together by a special editor.
§6. Present-day Criticism of the Pen
tateuch.
The work begun by Astruc had beeh
carried to completion. The Pentateuch was
no longer regarded as originally the work of
Moses. The documents entering into its
composition were distinguished the one from

'In his De Wette's Einleitung.

5 8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the other, and Joshua was regarded as or
ganically connected with the Pentateuch.
When this process of investigation was prac
tically ended, the thoughts of critics tbok a
new turn. They began to compare the con
tents of the Pentateuch with the later history,
and with the prophecies of Israel. Simulta
neously, but independently, W. Vatke1 and
J. F. L,. George2 began studies of this kind.
They were both tinged in their historical phi
losophy by the principles of Hegel. The
middle books of the Pentateuch — Exodus, Le
viticus, Numbers — were supposed to be charac
terized by the prominence given, in the laws
they contained, to the understanding, while
the laws of Deuteronomy were distinguished
as those of the feelings. Their studies led
them to believe that the former were more
recent than the latter, whose origin they
placed in the time of Josiah. Hengstenberg,3
Ranke,4 and others answered their arguments;

¦Die Religion des Alten Testamentes.
8 Die alteren Jiidischen Feste mit einer Kritik der
Gesetzgebung des Pentateuchs.
3 Die Authentic des Pentateuchs.
4 Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch

PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 59
their philosophy fell into disrepute, and their
conclusions seemed destined to be forgotten.
But even earlier than Vatke and George,
Edouard Reuss1 had carried on similar studies,
and was led to similar conclusions. As he
studied the condition of the Jews, as described
in the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and
Kings, he thought he discovered a contradic-
tion between their practice and the laws of
Moses, and hence concluded that they could
not have been known during the periods de
scribed by those histories. He also taught
that the prophets of the eighth and seventh
centuries* seemed to know nothing of the
Mosaic Code. According to him Deuteronomy
was the oldest part of the law given in the
Pentateuch, and the prophecy of Ezekiel was
older than the editing of the Ritual Code and
the law upon which the final elevation of the
hierarchy depended. These startling conclu
sions, however, received little attention, and
it remained for others, less original than the
three pioneers now mentioned, to make them

1 Reuss was much later in publishing his views than
some others. See his works mentioned below.

60 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
known to the world. An earlier student
under Professor Reuss was the first to win
general attention to the new form of criticism.
K. H. Graf4 was his name, and to him, rather
than to Wellhausen, belongs whatever of lit
erary honor may attach to the achievement.
He distinguished the legislation of the middle
books of the Pentateuch from what he called
the primitive document, or the Elohistic book
of history. According to him the middle
Pentateuchal legislation is found in Exodus
xii, 1-28, 43-51-xxv-xxxi, xxxv-xl; Levit
icus; Numbers i, i-x, 28, xv, xvi, xyii, and
parts of xviii, xix, xxviii-xxxi, xxxv, 16-
xxxvi. This, he declared, bears in itself the
clearest possible evidences of its post-exilic
composition. Leviticus xvii-xxvi contains a
book of law composed by Ezekiel, later called
the Law of Holiness. He was led to these
conclusions chiefly by his investigations of
the festivals, the priestly ordinances, and the
tabernacle. His utterances were, however,
challenged by Riehm and Noldeke with such
success that he was compelled to give up his
*Die geschichtlichen Biicher des Alten Testamentes.

PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 6 1
position ; but instead of returning to the
early composition of all, declared all to be
post-exilic. The investigations of Kayser1
confirmed the conclusions of Graf. But if
Graf first won general attention to what Reuss
originated, Wellhausen's brilliant presentation
of the evidences and results of the new view
won large numbers of adherents. In his
"Prolegomena to the History of Israel" he
designated the course of reconstruction neces
sary to conform the history of the religion
and tradition of the Jews to the recent dis
coveries. His "Composition of the Hexa-
teuch" (so far as we know, not translated into
English) presents the critical reasons for his
adherence to the new hypothesis. After it
had thus been popularized, Reuss, the origi
nator of the idea, discussed the whole Penta
teuchal question in two separate works — one
in French, DHistoire Sainte et la Loi; the
other in German, Die Geschichte der heiligen
Schriften Alien Testaments:
It may be well here, in the interest of

'Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels u.
seine Erweiterungen.

62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
clearness, to point out the difference between
the results of criticism as portrayed in § 5
and those just stated. The former was a crit
icism based chiefly 011 literary grounds; the
latter, rather on historical. The former asked
after the literary elements entering into the
composition of the Pentateuch (Hexateuch);
the latter inquires after the time of the com
position. The former declared that Moses
could not have written the Pentateuch in its
present form; the latter strongly intimates
that he wrote none of it. The former regards
it as possible that the Pentateuch was com
posed largely of writings lefL by Moses, and
not long after Moses' death; the latter places
the composition of Exodus-Numbers subse
quent to the Exile. The former compared
the language of the various parts of the Pen
tateuch with each other, and with Joshua, to
trace the different literary styles; the latter
takes up the history and the prophecies, and
undertakes to prove therefrom that the Penta
teuch was unknown until a very late period,
because no trace of its influence can be found.
The former sees no reason why the Penta-

PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 63
teuch should not have been a product of an
early period ; the latter regards it impossible
that in their then stage of development the
Jews should have produced the Pentateuchal
legislation, and regards it as a possible off
spring only of the later age. But the newer
critical school has, in common with the old,
the belief in a variety of documents as con
stituents of the Pentateuch, and in fact could
never have come into existence without the
older criticism.
The results (presumptive) of present Pen
tateuchal criticism may be briefly summarized
as follows: The first four books are a compi
lation from earlier written sources, the num
ber of which is not definitely settled, although
opinions waver between two and three; Deu
teronomy is based upon a still different source;
the sources distinguishable in the Pentateuch
are also distinguishable in Joshua, and hence
could not have been written by Moses; or, in
other words, a later than Moses wrote not
only the Pentateuch as we have it, but also
Joshua. There are critics who deny this last
conclusion, together with the supposed fact

64 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
upon which it is based; but we pretend only
to state here the conclusions generally re
ceived. The critics generally deny that Moses
claims to have written the Pentateuch, al
though they do not generally assert that he
may not have written parts now incorporated
into it; yet that he wrote any of the princi
pal documents of which the Pentateuch is
formed they deny, since they claim that these
are traceable through Joshua, which describes
events subsequent to the death of Moses. At
best, therefore, the critics can give Moses but
little credit for literary activity in connection
with the Pentateuch. Since Deuteronomy is
regarded by so many critics as having been
written shortly before the eighteenth year of
King Josiah (B. C. 621), and since the Deuter-
onomic source extends through Joshua along
with' the other sources, the composition of the
Pentateuch is placed of necessity subsequent
to B. C. 621, although parts of it may be much
older. The question then arises, What is the
relative and what the absolute age of the dif
ferent sources according to the critics? These
are questions yet in dispute, and we must

AGE OF THE SOURCES. 65
therefore content ourselves with a statement
of the views of the principal investigators.
§7. The Relative and Absolute Age of
the Sources.
The reader who desires to follow all the
details of criticism must needs pause here,
and familiarize himself with the names, char
acteristics, and extent of the Hexateuchal
documents. For this purpose we would rec
ommend the "Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament," by Samuel R. Driver,
D. D. An attempt to present all this matter
here would carry us beyond the design of this
work.1 But we may clarify the subject some-

1 For convenience and by way of illustration we here
give Driver's summary of the Priest's Code :
Genesis i, i-ii, 4"; v, 1-28, 30-32; vi, 9-22; vii, 6, 7-9
(in parts), n, 13-16", 18-21, 24; viii, 1, 2°, 3s-5, 13", 14-19;
ix, 1-17, 28, 29; x, 1-7, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32; xi, 10-27, 31, 32;
xii, 46, 5; xiii, 6, 11s, I2«; xvi, I", 3, 15, 16; xvii; xix, 29;
xxi, 1*, 2s-5; xxiii; xxv, 7- 11", 12-17, 19, 20, 26s; xxvi, 34,
35 ; xxvii, 46 ; xxviii, 1-9 ; xxix, 24, 29 ; xxxi, 186 ; xxxiii,
18"; xxxiv, 1, 2", 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 25 (partly), 27-29;
xxxv, 9-13, 15, 226-29; xxxvi (in the main) ; xxxvii, 1, 2°;
xli, 46; xlvi, 6-27; xlvii, 5, 6° (Ixx), 7-1 1, 27', 28; xlviii,
3-6, 7 (?); xlix, 1°, 286-33; 1, 12, 13.
Exodus i, 1-7, 13, 14, 23^25; vi, 2-7, 13, 19, 20», 2i», 22;
5

66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
what by stating that P begins with the first
word of Genesis and runs through Joshua.
P contains both Elohistic and Jehovistic ele
ments, the question being which is the elder,
the majority leaning toward the greater age
of E. Besides the Jehovistic source — which
begins with Genesis ii, 4 — the Elohistic, the
Priest's Code, and Deuteronomy, Dillmann
adds S, the Sinaitic Law.
It is usually admitted that D is younger
than J. Hupfeld, Ewald, Knobel, Schrader,
and Riehm regard P as the oldest documen-

viii, 5-7, I5*-I9 ; ix, 8-12; xii, 1-20, 28, 370, 40-51 ; xiii, I,
2, 20; xiv, 1-4, 8, 9, 15-18, 21°, 2l°-23, 26, 27«, 28", 29; xvi,
1-3,6-24,31-36; xvii, i"; xix, 1, 2°; xxiv, 15-18"; xxv,
i-xxxi, 18"; xxxiv, 29-35; xxxv-xl.
Leviticus i-xvi; (xvii-xxvi) ; xxvii.
Numbers i, i-x, 28; xiii, 1-17°, 21, 25, 26° (to Paran),
32" ; xiv, 1, 2 (in the main), 5-7, 10, 26-38 (in the main) ; xv ;
xvi, i°, 2s-7° (7'-n), (16, 17), 18-24, 27". 32b, 35 (36-4°)>4i-5o;
xvii-xix; xx, i° (to month), 2, 3*, 6, 12, 13, 22-29; xxi.
4" (to Hor), 10, n; xxii, i; xxv, 6-18; xxvi-xxxi; xxxii,
18, 19, 28-32 (with traces in 1-17, 20-27) ! xxxiii-xxxvi.
Deuteronomy xxxii, 48-52 ; xxxiv, 1°, 8, 9.
Joshua iv, 13, 19; v, 10-12; vii, 1; ix, 154, 17-21 ; xiii,
15-32; xiv, 1-5; xv, 1-13, 28-44, 48-62; xvi, 4-8; xvii,
V (i1, 2), 3, 4, 7, 9°, 9", 10"; xviii, 1, 11-28; xix, 1-8, 10-46,
48, 51 ; xx, 1-3 (except " and unawares "), 6" (to judgment),
7-9 (cf. Ixx) ; xxi, 1-42 (xxii, 9-34).

AGE OF THE SOURCES. 67
tary source of tile Pentateach, while Dillmann
regards it as old, though not the oldest. On
the other hand, P is regarded as the youngest
portion of the Pentateuch by Graf, Kayser,
Kuenen, Wellhausen, and Reuss. When we
consider the contents of P, we discover the
tremendous significance of the position that
it was more recently composed than any
other document of the Pentateuch. As to
the absolute age of the sources, Noldeke
holds that P, E, and J belong to the tenth, or,
more likely still, the ninth century B. C. P is
not the oldest, but can not be much younger
than the two others. D was written shortly
before the reformation under Josiah. Ezekiel
is dependent upon P. Schrader places P at
the beginning of David's reign; E, soon after
the division of the kingdom ; J, added to his
predecessors, and worked them together be
tween 825 and 800. D was composed shortly
before Josiah's reformation ; and the Deuter-
onomist continued the history down to 2 Kings
xxv, 21. The separation of the Pentateuch,
in its present form, from the other historical

68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
books did not take place until the end of
the Exile. Dillmann^ makes the Hexateuch to
consist of five documents — E, P, J, D, and S
(Sinaitic Law). E was written by some one
from the Northern Kingdom, during the first
half of the ninth century B.' C. J is a Judaic
document, written not earlier than the middle
of the eighth century. D was written not
long before the eighteenth year of Josiah;
P he places about 800; S is composed of
portions as old as Moses, and as recent as the
Exile. Before the return of Ezra, the Penta
teuch was separated from Joshua. Ezra gave
the Pentateuch public recognition in 444.
Still later scribes worked over certain portions
of the text, but added no new laws and no
new historical incidents. Delitzsch, in his
latest " Commentary on Genesis," does not
give exact dates for the various documents.
In 1880 he fixed the sources in the following
order: J; D (subsequent to Solomon, but prior
to Isaiah) ; the law of holiness ; P (prior to
the Exile). Both P and D underwent modifi-

1 Uber die Komposition des Hexateuchs in Commen-
tar zu Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua.

AGE OF THE SOURCES. 69
cations subsequent to their original composi
tion. Of the two principal documentary
forms, it is more probable that the Jehovistic-
Deuteronomic follows the old Mosaic type
than the Elohistic. P is younger than J.
The processes by which the Pentateuch was
brought into its present form continued until
after the post-exilian period. Ezra, in 444,
probably read only P in the presence of the
people. These are very important conces
sions, and bring Delitzsch almost over to the
side of IVellhausen,1 who places J in the
period of the prophets and kings who preceded
the dissolution of the two kingdoms. E is
younger, and E and J were later united into
EJ. D was composed in the period in which
it was discovered. The principal part of Le
viticus xvii-xxvi was composed during the
Exile, subsequent to Ezekiel. P is not the
product of one author, but is the result of la
bors extending through and beyond the Exile.
Only a careful, protracted, and painstaking
study of these views as to the relative and
absolute age of the sources of the Pentateuch
1 See mention of his works above.

7° THE HIGHER1 CRITICISM.
will enable the reader to judge which is more
and which less radical. In fact, they are all
so much at variance with traditional opinion
as to leave but little choice between them.
All make the earliest sources, with but few
unimportant exceptions, the product of a
comparatively late age. All deny the author
ship of the Pentateuch to Moses; and this is
the position of most other critics1 of Germany
and England. Almost without exception, they
believe in the Hexateuch ; and some even
trace the Pentateuchal sources beyond Joshua,
into Judges.
§ 8. Summary of the Argument for the
Date of D and P.2
Intimations have been already given, but
it will be better to bring all the arguments
together here in brief. We begin with the
generally accepted theory of
DEUTERONOMY.
The theory is that this book was written
later than the sources J, E. This is supported
'We use.the word "critic" here in the sense defined
in the Preface to this edition.
2 Compare Driver's Introduction and Briggs's Higher
Criticism of the Hexateuch.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 71
on the ground that the legislation of Deuter
onomy presupposes a more highly developed
civil organization than JE. The historical
books, in perfect accord with the foregoing
fact, give evidence that Deuteronomy was not
composed until after the establishment of the
monarchy. Deuteronomy forbids the offering
of sacrifice except at a single fixed place ;
while in Exodus xx, 24, many places of wor
ship are implied. Now, in Joshua and First
and Second Samuel, the practice seems to have
been in accord with JE, and in conflict with
Deuteronomy. (Joshua xxiv, 1, 26 ; 1 Sam.
vii, 9f., 17; ix, 12-14; x, 3, 5, 8; xi, 15;
xiv, 35 ; xx, 6; 2 Sam. xv, 12, 32.) According
to 2 Kings xxii, xxiii, Deuteronomy must
have been in existence as early as the
eighteenth year of King Josiah (B. C. 621).
That it is not much earlier, the critics main
tain on the ground that the law of the king
dom (Deut. xvii, 14 ff.) seems to have been in
fluenced by facts of Solomon's reign; that,
while Judges-Kings make no mention of the
worship of the " host of heaven," although de
scribing various other forms of idolatry, Deu-

u

72 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
X teronomy presupposes its practice ; that while
the earlier prophets — such as Amos, Moses, and
1 Isaiah — appear not to be influenced by Deu
teronomy, Jeremiah, and other later prophets
exhibit marked traces of the book; that the
theology of Deuteronomy is more advanced
than could be expected in the early history of
Israel, while it approaches more nearly that
of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Yet Deuteronomy
must not be regarded as a forgery, since
Moses does not profess to be its author,
much of its matter is very ancient, and the
book is only an adaptation of older legislation
in the light of prophetic teaching.
ARGUMENTS AS TO THE PRIEST'S CODE.
The literature of the period prior to the
Exile shows no trace of the legislation of P.
In P, the place of sacrifice is strictly limited ;
in Judges and Samuel it is not so. In P,
only priests may offer, sacrifice ; in Judges
and Samuel, laymen offer, without any protest
even from such men as Samuel and David.
In P, the arrangements for the care of the ark
are elaborate ; in Samuel they are very sim-

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 73
pie. According to P, the ark could never
have been taken into battle as in i Samuel
i-iii. When the ark was restored to Kirjath-
Jearim, it was not in the hands of the persons
P prescribes as its exclusive protectors. So
also, when David removed it to Zion. (Com
pare 2 Sam. vi, with Num. iii, 41; iv, 1-15.)
Further, Deuteronomy seems to know nothing
of P. Had P been in existence when D wrote,
he must have made references to it. But while
Deuteronomy commands the centralization of
worship, P assumes that such is already the
case. In Deuteronomy, any man of the tribe
of Levi may exercise the right to sacrifice, if
he live at the central place of worship ; in P,
only the sons of Aaron may exercise this right ;
and, in all particulars, P shows greater de
velopment than Deuteronomy, and hence ap
pears to be later.
That P is also later than Ezekiel, at least
in some of its parts, is also maintained by the
extreme critical school. They claim that,
while P excluded all except sons of Aaron
from priestly rights, Ezekiel assumes (chapter
xliv, 13) that all Levites had exercised these

74 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
privileges. Ezekiel now commands that only
the sons of Zadok, who alone had not idola-
trously worshiped at the high places, should
be clothed with the office of priests. Had he
known of P, he would not have reduced all
other Levites after admitting that they had
lawfully been priests. Rather he would have
pointed to the provisions of P as showing
that' only the sons of Aaron could exercise
priestly rights. Besides, as Ezekiel's regula
tions (chapters xl— xlviii) are more elaborate
than those of Deuteronomy, so P is more elabo
rate than Ezekiel, showing that the order of age
is Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and P. The final ar
gument is from the more pure conception of
God, and the generally evident marks of a
higher stage of culture, and freedom from
primitive conceptions in P.
But as Deuteronomy is not supposed ' to
have been an invention of the age of Josiah,
so P is, though a late composition, not in all
its parts equally late. It allows the great
antiquity of the principal parts of the Israel-
itish ritual. In fact, P is really in the main
a codification of temple usages which had

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 75
gradually grown up in the course of the cen
turies, and it only changes these in certain of
their forms. Although Ezekiel is earlier than
P, yet Ezekiel presupposes some things con
tained in P, particularly the Law of Holiness.
The arguments by which it is attempted to
fix the approximate date of the different in
stitutions, the regulations concerning which
are codified in P, we can not give here. The
reader can not avoid observing the large place
thus given by the critics to evolutionary prin
ciples in their conclusions.
§9. The Traditional1 Defense of the
Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch.2
the argument from the other books of
the old testament.
The methods employed for the defense of
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch vary,
though as a rule they harmonize. It may be
said in general that upon examining the argu-

1 For a definition of the word "traditional" as here
employed see the Preface to this edition.
8 A list of the sources will be found in the Preface to
this edition.

76 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
ments of the. critics, the traditionalists do not
find them convincing. They observe that the
critics do not try to conceal the variance of
their views of the origin of the Pentateuch
from those promulgated in the Old Testa
ment, where the assumptions and assertions
obviously point to the Mosaic authorship of
the first five books of the Bible. The various
"documents" had their origin in the vicissi
tudes of the Hebrew people during their jour
ney from Egypt to Canaan; and the differ
ences between them, which amount to discrep
ancies chiefly according to the caprice of the
critics, are naturally accounted for on the
ground that the occasions which elicited them
demanded such divergence. Furthermore the
correspondence which the critics think they
see between the several documents and the
periods in which they suppose them to have
originated, is a delusion ; for in order to make
out their case, the critics are obliged to apply
a destructive criticism to very many portions
of the Old Testament which contradict their
theories. In fact, they are compelled to as
sume a wholesale tampering with the Old

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 77
Testament records in the interest of the tra
ditional view.
Other objections to the critical view may
be stated as follows: It can not be demon
strated from the neglect or disobedience of a
law that tlie law did not exist, nor from the
fact that it is not mentioned in contemporary
or later literary works. Laws and institutions
generally observed or known would naturally
not need mention in literary works. The crit
ical hypothesis " requires us to suppose that
forged codes of laws u?ere at two different
times successfully imposed upon the people as
the genuine productions of Moses, and this,
though they were at variance with laws pre
viously in force, and regarded as his, and
though tlie serious changes they introduced
were hostile to tlie interests of numerous and
powerful classes.'' ' It assumes that conflict
ing: codes of laws came to be blended and re-
garded as harmonious, notwithstanding the in
creased burdens they imposed. It assumes
that tlie Jews accepted these radical changes
suddenlv, yet without suspicion that they were

1 Green. The Hebrew Feasts, p. 59.

78 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
not of Mosaic origin, and " that their entire
history is a gigantic fabrication, which was ac
cepted as consistent and true until a few years
ago, when" Wellhausen "and his compeers
detected and exposed the cheat."1 The prin
ciples upon which the analysis of the Penta
teuch proceeds break down when put to a
consistent test.2 The more radical of the critics
are actuated by the desire to eliminate the su
pernatural from the religion of the Jew and the
Christian, and are therefore incapable judges
of the Jewish and Christian sacred writings.
But while these objections to the principles
and methods of the higher critics are strongly
urged, they are by no means the only argu
ments brought to bear by the traditionalists
against the critical theory. They argue posi
tively that the Pentateuch is an organic whole,
which, so far from being composed of contra
dictory elements, can only be properly under
stood when regarded as originating in one
general period of time, and that the Mosaic.

1 Green, The Hebrew Feasts, p. 40.
2 So Bissell , The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure,
pp. 85-131.

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 79
A good illustration of their method of argu
mentation may be found in connection with the
defense of the Mosaic authorship of the " Le-
vitical Code of Laws," contained in Exodus,
chapters xx-xxiii, xxv-xxxi, xxxv-xl ; in the
Book of Leviticus itself; and in Numbers, chap
ters v, vi, viii-x, xv-xix, which Moses wrote,
or caused to have written, at least in their main
contents. The first argument is, that the Le-
vitical Code is such a law as Moses, from his
position and the circumstances of his time,
might have been expected to promulgate.1 It
bears all the marks of primitive antiquity; it
is constantly interrupted by narratives of the
wanderings, thus corresponding to the unset-.
tied condition of the Hebrews in the wilder
ness, and to the situation of a man pressed as
Moses was, with many cares. Many portions
of the Code are suited only to a people living
in camp-tents, having a tabernacle which has
to be carried from place to place as the host
moves, and with a tabernacle ritual, with mi
nute provisions for its care. As we might ex-

1 The whole argument on this Code is condensed from
Lex Mosaica.

80 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
pect, it bears traces of Egyptian influence ; such
as the triple division of the place of worship
into a porch, a holy place, and a holy of holies,
the inclusion of an ark among the most sacred
of religious objects, the abundant use of in
cense in the religious worship, the distinction
between prophets and priests, the institution of
panegyrics or solemn assemblies, the endow
ment of the priesthood, the distinction of clean
and unclean meats, etc., — all of which had their
counterpart in Egypt. On the other hand, there
is evidence of a purposed avoidance of certain
obnoxious Egyptian ideas ; as the worship of
the sun, idols, and animals, and the Egyptian
doctrines concerning the future existence. It
was natural to Moses, who had spent forty
years among the Arabs, to adapt his tempo
rary system to nomadic habit, while the law
of blood-feud was distinctly Arabian rather
than Egyptian. Other Arabian or Semitic fea
tures are, the bright colors of the priestly gar
ments, the use of pomegranates as sacred or
naments, the observance of the Sabbath, the
employment of shewbread, the( variety in the
kinds of sacrifices, the practice of fasting, and

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 8 1
the dedication of the first-born. The minute
ness of the Levitical Code is in accord with
the facts of Accadian, Phoenician, and Bedouin
antiquity. There is nothing unsuited to Moses
or his time ; there is nothing which marks the
regal, much less the Babylonian or Persian pe
riod, in the Levitical Code.1
Another illustration of the traditional argu
ment is found in the defense of the essentially
Mosaic character of the Deuteronomical Code.2
As given by George C. M. Douglas, D. D., of
the Free Church College, Glasgow, it is as fol
lows: The first impressions of a reader of
Deuteronomy, confirmed by prolonged study
on the part of great numbers, are that, in
Deuteronomy, we have a work which, though
it rehearses and enforces the law, is not a code
for Israel; whose style and handling of topics is
rhetorical, and whose order of historical topics
is not chronological but oratorical ; thus reveal
ing the prophet rather than the lawgiver.
There is no true parallel between the habit of

'The remainder of the argument will be given in an
other connection.
2 The argument is condensed from Lex Mosaica.
6

82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
classical historians of putting speeches into
the mouths of their principal characters,' and
the manner in which these laws are attributed
to God. The discovery of the Book of the Law
(2 Kings xxii, 8-20) fits the entire Pentateuch
better than the single Book of Deuteronomy,
and the fear of Jehovah's wrath must have
arisen from the fact that the newly-discovered
book had been known and neglected by the
people. Nothing is gained in the explanation
of the history by the supposition that the book
was composed in order to be found ; a writer
of the period of Manasseh or Josiah could not
well write as the Deuteronomist does about
the extermination of the Canaanites, the de
struction of their worship, and the avoidance
of marriages with them. The kindly attitude
of chapter xxiii, 1-8, toward Edom is contrary
to the spirit of enmity which prevailed in later
times. The book names chiefly the petty tribes
of Edom, Moab, and Ammon, while the later
writings have to do with Syria, Assyria, Baby
lon, and Egypt; there is no hint of the division
of the kingdom, that important event of mid
dle Israelitish history ; there is no suspicion of

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 83
a stable place of worship, such as a temple ; laws
against returning to Egypt, and the multiplica
tion of wives and horses, would have been out of
place at the late date assigned by the critics to
Deuteronomy. This book would not have been
accepted by the scattered Jews as a book of
Moses, especially with its novel law of a central
sanctuary, against which supposed innovation
no voice was raised; nor can the adoption of
Deuteronomy by the Samaritans as one of their
sacred books be accounted for on the critical
hypothesis.1 The argument for the early date of the com
position of the Pentateuch is augmented in
volume and force from a consideration of the
testimony of later books and periods. The
Book of Joshua presupposes the existence of
Moses prior to the period of Joshua, and con
tains definite references to the Book of Deuter
onomy; for example, Josh, i, 3, and Deut. xi,
24, 25; Josh, i, 5, 6, 9, and Deut. xxxi,
7, 8; Josh, i, 7, 8, and Deut. v. 32 ; Josh, vi,
18, and Deut. vii, 26; xiii, 17; Josh, viii, 28,

1 Other parts of the argument have been, or will be,
touched elsewhere.

84 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
and Deut. xiii, 16; Josh, viii, 29; x, 27, and
Deut. xxi, 23 ; Josh, viii, 30-35, and Deut.
xxvii, 5-14; and Josh, xiii, 7 f., and Deut. iii,
12—16. So there are numerous references in
Joshua to earlier books of the Pentateuch ; as,
Josh, i, 10, and Ex. v, 6 ; Josh, i, 14, and Ex.
xiii, 18; Josh, ii, 9, 24, and Ex. xv, 15; Josh.
iii, v; vii, 13, and Ex. xix, 10; Num. xi, 18;
Josh, iii, 5 f., and Num. iv, 15; Josh, iv, 19,
and Ex. xii, 2; Josh, v, 15, and Ex. iii, 5;
Josh, xxiv, and Ex. xxiii, 28; Deut. vii, 20.
Joshua's name appears in Ex. xvii, and xxiv,
and in Num. xiii and xxvii. Compare also
Josh, xxiv, 32, with Gen. xxxiii, 18. The the
ology of Joshua, too, is " instinct with the the
ological spirit of the Pentateuch." Again, the
Book of Joshua is evidently pre-regal, as an ex
amination of the salient points in the Joshua
narrative shows. The first step, the crossing
of the Jordan, is referred to in connection with
the Red Sea crossing, in the later literature,
as in Psa. cxiv. The fall of Jericho, the saving
of Rahab, and the curse on the rebuilding of
the city are confirmed as of early date by the
incorporation of the family of Rahab into the

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 85
house of Israel, and by i Kings xvi, 34. The
trouble concerning Achan gave name to the
valley of Achor (Josh, vii, 25-28), which name
was retained (Josh, xv, 8; Hosea ii, 15; Isa.
Ixv, 10), while the event is probably referred
to in 1 Kings xviii, 17, 18. The alliance with
the Gibeonites was infringed by Saul, refer
ence to which fact is made in 2 Sam. xxi, 2,
while the Gibeonites were among those who
returned from the captivity (Ezra ii, 25). The
incident of the standing still of sun and moon
is said to have been written, perhaps, in en
larged poetic form in the Book of Joshua, and
is referred to in Hab. iii, n. The stone set up
by Joshua at Shechem (Josh, xxiv, 26) is re
ferred to in Judges ix, 6 ; and the prayer of
Solomon (1 Kings viii) at the dedication of
the temple, refers not only to Deuteronomy
and other early books, but also to Joshua, as a
comparison of verses 56 and 57 of the prayer
with Joshua xxiii, shows. Minor confirmations
of this last point may be found by an ex
amination of the first chapter of Joshua and
1 Kings ii, 2. Besides, sixteen verses of Joshua
are to be found in the first two chapters

86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
of Judges. Furthermore, the topography
and ethnology of the book, ,when compared
with other books of the Old Testament, fur
nish evidence both of antiquity and trust
worthiness ; while the testimony of recent
discoveries at Karnak, Tel el-Amarna, Tel
el-Hesy, and at Jericho, is to the same effect.
But if Joshua is thus proved to be of such
early date, its references to the Pentateuchal
books prove them to have been still earlier.1
The Book of Judges also affords evidence
in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the Penta
teuch. Judges xviii, 31, and xxi, 19, compared
with 1 Sam. ii, 22, and iii, 3, prove the impor
tance of Shiloh as a sanctuary in the time of
the Judges. This was the place mentioned in
Deut. xii, 11, as that which the Lord was to
choose for a place where his name should
dwell. In Jeremiah vii, 12, we have a refer
ence to the primary execution of the Deutero-
nomic injunction, while in Psa. lxxviii we have
the latest date at which this place was regarded
as sacred. The critics aver that the tent at
Shiloh is an illustration of the indifference

'See the argument in full in Lex Mosaica, pp. 99-121.

with which the Hebrews instituted new centers
of worship, and that Shiloh had no historic
existence as the prototype of the temple of
Solomon; rather was it merely tlie tent of
Moses, transfigured by tlie author into tlie
tabernacle. But "to suppose that the priests
in tlie Exile concocted a fiction of tlie taber
nacle to secure a historic basis for their new
ritual, is a literary impossibility, " while the
reality of Israel's tabernacle is guaranteed br
each of the other so-called documents of the
Pentateuch, as Num. x, 35, and xi, 16, and by
Deuteronomy. The testimony of the Penta
teuch is confirmed by 1 Sam. i. 24, compared
with 1 Sain, ii, 22 ; 2 Sam. vii, 6; and 1 Kings
viii, 4. Not only is Shiloh's tabernacle, in all
its exclusiveness, proven to be historical and
Mosaic: there is in all Judges no instance of
lawful sacrifice at other places than at Shiloh,
except in the presence of tlie ark, or in con
nection with a theophany or an angelophany.
"All other sacrifices are characterized as fla
grant transgressions of the law." Besides,
there is evidence of legislation between Moses
and the Captivity, which was not palmed off as

88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Mosaic in order to give it currency. The only
reason why, in exilic and post-exilic times, this
priestly legislation was given out as Mosaic
was, that tradition had persistently assigned it
to him. So, too, the mention of the ark and
Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron (Judges xx,
27, 28), is an argument in favor of the early
existence of the Priestly Code, which the critics
can only answer by calling the passage a gloss
or an interpolation. In the temple of Zerub-
babel there is no ark, and there was no suffi
cient reason for the account of it in later
times. Besides, the mention of the high priest
(Judges xx, 28), together with the " Inquiry of
Jehovah" and the "Ark of the Covenant,"
carry us back to the separation of Aaron (Ex.
xxviii), to his consecration (Leviticus viii), and
to the confirmation of the truth of these things
in 1 'Sam. ii, 27. The mention of this one
high priest reveals the office as fully as though
many incumbents were named, since no argu
ment in favor of a break in the line can be
drawn from silence. The special function of
the high priest as the medium by which the
Israelites inquired of the Lord is mentioned in

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 89
Judges i, 1; xx, 18, 23, and 28. The ephod
can be traced from the time of Aaron onward,
as witness Ex. xxviii ; 1 Sam. xxiii, 6, 9 ; xxx,
7; Judges xviii, 14. The position of the Le-
vites, mentioned in Judges xvii, 7; xix, 1, as
strangers, corresponds to what Deuteronomy
assumes concerning that tribe. So, also,
though it is aside from the purpose of the
writer of Judges, he gives us references to the
sacrificial system in Judges vi, 17-21, and xiii,
15-23, together with chapters xx, 26, and
xxi, 4. The great feasts are also alluded to. In
2 Kings xxiii, 21, it is distinctly implied that
Passover feasts were held in tlie time of the
Judges. Judges xxi, 19, by calling attention
to the yearly feast in Shiloh, where the taber
nacle and ark were located, shows that one of
tlie three great feasts of the Jews was cele
brated during tlie period of the Judges, and
the organic relation of the three feasts proves
that if one was observed, all were observed.
The Nazarite vow of Samson shows this fea
ture of tlie Priests' Code to have been in ope
ration. Circumcision distinguishes the Jews,
in the time of the Judges, from the surround-

90 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
ing peoples, and uncircumcision is a mark of
degradation. But circumcision is a peculiar
mark of the Priests' Code. The Deutero-
nomic law against marriages with the Canaan-
ites is recognized in Judges xxi, 7. The
speech recorded in Judges ii, 1-4; the lan
guage of Deborah in chapter v; the speech of
the prophet of the Lord, chap, vi, 8-10; Gid
eon's rejection of monarchy, viii, 22, 23; the
speech of Jephthah, xi, 14-21, 26, together
with other utterances in the Judges, if cor
rectly given and truthfully attributed to the
personages who are said to have employed
them, are conclusive proof that the Pentateuch
was known to the speakers; for the speeches
in question are thoroughly parallel to various
portions of the Pentateuch. The critics can
only escape this conclusion by assuming that
the speeches are not genuine, but were put
into the mouths of these characters by later
writers. The continuity in the development
of the books of the Old Testament is regular,
and is easily explained on the traditional
theory. In like manner, both the character of Sam-

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 91
uel and his place in the history require us to
presuppose the existence of the Mosaic Law
in his day. His reforms could not have been
conducted without some definite code to which
appeal could be made. If the records we
have of him are not authentic, then we have
no trustworthy record of the period in which
he lived. Besides, particular acts of Samuel
demand the existence of certain portions of
the Mosaic Law. When he hewed Agag in
pieces, it was not a proof of the Israelitish
hatred of other nations; for such hatred did
not exist, as is proved by Doeg the Edomite,
an official at Saul's court, and Ittai the Gittite,
and Uriah the Hittite, in David's army. Rather
is Samuel's treatment of Agag, which stands
alone in his history, to be explained by the
solemn curse against Amalek, referred to in
1 Sam. xv, 2 (cf. Ex. xvii, 14; Deut. xxv,
I7_IO/), on account of which he felt himself
bound to fulfill literally the injunction of Lev.
xxvii, 29. Samuel's proclamation of his own
integrity (1 Sam. xii, 1-5), presupposes a sys
tem of morals acknowledged as binding by
both speaker and hearer. His questions, in

92 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
xii, 3, correspond with Ex. xxiii, 4, 5 ; Deut.
xxii, 1-4; Lev. vi, 2, 4; xix, 13; Deut. xvi, 19.
In 1 Sam. ii, 12, where it is stated that Eli's
sons "knew not the Lord," it is evident from
what follows (vv. 13-16) that the meaning is,
they directly disobeyed known commandments
in doing as they did. The only way by which
the critics can escape the conclusions to be
drawn from these and other similar facts is to
make them inventions of a later age. This is
done without any good ground, and in the face
of inherent improbability. The critics, in most
of these cases, reason in a circle. " We are
told, for instance — and this is one of the main
stays of the theory — that the passages in the
historic books which assign exclusive sanctity
to the central sanctuary are a reflection of the
post-exilic writer; but when we ask how we
are to determine that they are a post-exilic
writer's reflection, we are told that they assign
to the central sanctuary exclusive sanctity."1
The record of the times of David, in 1 Sam-

'Lex Mosaica, p. 126. The foregoing arguments may
be found, with others, in full, in the before-mentioned
work.

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 93
uel and 2 Samuel, can not be accounted for
except on the supposition that the Mosaic Law
was in existence and operative. General neg
lect or disobedience of the law would not prove
its non-existence. The peculiar character of
religious enactments, which appeal to the inner
man, and are capable, therefore, of varying in
terpretations, and which depend upon the ed
ucation of the conscience for their effective
ness, has furnished numerous illustrations of
the neglect or defiance of recognized moral or
spiritual obligation, even in recent Christian
centuries and countries. Nor can silence with
reference to the Mosaic Law be held as an
argument against its existence. The Old
Testament is but a meager record of Israel's
history, often centering around individuals,
thus involving partialness of treatment.
"May we infer from the silence of the narra
tive that both idolatry and the Mosaic Law
are unknown?" But the place held by the
ark in the narrative affords reason to believe
that David had had the Mosaic Law, or some
thing like it, for his instructor. Then, David's
character can scarcely be accounted for except

94 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
on the supposition that it was molded with
reference to the Law of Moses.
When we pass from David to Solomon, and
thus from Samuel to Kings, we find the latter
more ecclesiastical and legal in tone, with
more frequent judgments of men and things.
The author of Kings assumes that all the
kings knew a book called the "Law of Moses,"
whose enactments they .must keep. In the
first eleven chapters of i Kings, Solomon is
praised for his riches, etc., but made respon
sible for all of Israel's religious and political
misfortunes. Either the "law of the king
dom" prefigures the conduct of Solomon, or
the conduct of that monarch is described with
that law in the mind of the writer. Since he
attributed Israel's misfortunes to Solomon, it
is more probable that the writer felt that they
arose from the king's disregard of the law of
the kingdom. In the description of the tem
ple and its consecration (i Kings vi-viii), there
is evidence of the knowledge of the Priestly
Code. The critics charge this to corrections
and interpolations, their usual recourse. But
while references to the Priestly Code are rare

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 95
in Kings, they are inserted just where they
would be natural. Again, Solomon's Temple
must have had some kind of a ritual. Solo
mon would certainly have provided one had it
not been for the existence of one whose bind
ing character was fully known. Then, the
absence of idols from the temple, together with
the presence of carved figures for ornamental
and symbolical purposes, proves, on the one
hand, that the worship of the Jews of that
time was spiritual; and, on the other, that
their religious ideas were developed to a stage
where they could distinguish between idols
and symbolic representations. It is more
probable, also, that the temple was the sequel
of the tabernacle than that the tabernacle was
invented afterwards as the predecessor of the
temple. The history of the northern kingdom is our
main evidence of the late date of the Penta
teuchal legislation. The evidence from Amos
and Hosea, being of the highest order, must
first be proved to be genuine and authentic.
The prophecies are universally accepted as
genuine. They also assume that the hearer

96 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
or reader was acquainted with the national
history. Addressing, as they did, a hostile
audience acquainted with the history, they
could not falsify that history without exposure.
They condemned acts of worship performed
by honored historical characters. Had there
been no law to the contrary, these prophets
coul'd not have condemned acts performed by
such honored names. The prophecies them
selves afford no evidence of innovation, but of
an attempt to recall a backslidden people.
The sins which Hosea condemns had been
practiced from the days of the Wandering
(ix, 10; x, 9; xi, 2). Both prophets claim to
be carrying on the work of earlier prophets.
(Amos ii, 11, 12; Hosea vi, 5.) Amos ex
pressly speaks of the law of Jehovah, and
of statutes which their fathers had observed.
(Amos ii, 4.)
But again, Amos and Hosea both witness
to the existence of the Mosaic law. Both
teach "ethical monotheism" — one only God,
and he an ethical being. And Wellhausen ad
mits that it was not a new conception. Amos
regards Jehovah as Creator and Ruler, but es-

ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 97
pecially as the God of Israel. True, he speaks
of him, not as such, but rather as the God of
hosts. But Hosea, the contemporary of Amos,
calls him God of hosts but once. Had the
prophets spoken of the God of Israel, the
northern kingdom would have thought of their
calf god. To nature-worshipers the title "God
of hosts " was more appropriate. To Amos,
Jehovah alone is God. The deliberateness of
the act described in Amos ii, 7, shows that such
passages as Lev. xviii, 15; xx, 12, were well
known. Compare also Amos ii, 8, with Ex.
xxii, 26; and Amos ii, 11, 12, with Num. vi,
2ff. Ex. xxii is a part of the "Book of the
Covenant ;" Lev. xviii is from the " Law of
Holiness," part of the Priestly Code ; and Num.
vi is also part of the Priestly Code. So, too,
Hosea, in a variety of ways, presupposes the
existence of numerous parts of the Mosaic
Law. The theology of Elijah and Elisha was
the theology of Amos and Hosea. Then, if
the history of the disruption of the kingdom
is true, the Law of Moses must have been in
existence during all that time.
We think the foregoing is a sufficient illus-
7

98 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
tration of the traditional argument for the
early origin of the Pentateuch, and in point of
extent a fair presentation of the traditional
view. As with the critical, so with the tradi
tional position ; we have felt it merely our
function to state it, not to defend nor to op
pose it.
There is, however, another line of argu
ment in the interest of the traditional side,
and this we present in the next section.
§ 10. The Archaeological Evidence.
In 1893, the Rev. A. H. Sayce, professor of
Assyriology in the University of Oxford, issued
a work1 which vigorously assaulted the Higher
Criticism as arrogant and over-confident, and
undertook to show that in many of its assump
tions and results it could not be trusted. The
methods of the literary and historical critic
were pronounced inadequate, and it was as
serted that the critics must henceforth give
more attention to the results of modern archae
ological discovery in order to correct their con-

1 The " Higher Criticism " and the Verdict of the
Monuments.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. 99
jectures and to increase their modesty. Not
only did these strictures on the Higher Criti
cism produce rejoicing among the adherents of
the traditional view, they have caused much
discussion among the critics as to the sup
posed conflict between their views and those
of the archaeologists.
We do not give the argument of Professor
Sayce here as that of a traditionalist ; for such
he is not by any means. Rather is it given as
one of which the traditionalists gladly avail
themselves in their struggle with the critics.
We are fortunately able to give a summary of
Sayce's arguments in his own words, so far as
it relates to the " Literary Activity of the Mo
saic Age."1 It is as follows:
"Historical skepticism has been the result
of a critical analysis of ancient documents and
their contents. The ' literary analyist ' has
dissected the Biblical books into a number of
more or less late fragments, and the ' higher
critic' has accordingly denied the historical
trustworthiness of the narratives in them.

1 Synopsis of his essay in Lex Mosaica.

IOO THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Both were unchecked in their conclusions by
a comparison with other Oriental literatures
of equally ancient date, and the Mosaic age
was assumed to have been a non-literary one.
But archaeology has brought to light an exten
sive literature in Egypt and Western Asia,
which goes back to a much earlier period than
that of Moses, and has shown that the Israel
ites, when they left Egypt, were in the midst
of a society of readers and writers. In Egypt,
writing was to be found on the smallest ob
jects of common use, and the Tel el-Amarna
tablets have proved that Canaan was the cen
ter of great literary activity. Schools, li
braries, and archive-chambers existed there,
filled with books inscribed on imperishable
clay. Among the cities where we now know
such collections of books existed were Jerusa
lem, Gaza, and Gezer, which were not de
stroyed by the invading tribes. The docu
ments preserved in them, therefore, which
were in great part records of contemporaneous
events, might easily have survived to the
period when it is acknowledged that writing
was practiced by the Israelites. The researches

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. IOI
of Glaser and Hommel make it probable that,
even in the desert, an alphabetic script was
employed by the natives of Arabia. To be
lieve that the Israelites alone remained in a
state of literary isolation is incredible. The
Pentateuch itself contains evidence that such
was not the case. Thus the statement that
Canaan was the brother of Mizraim refers us
to the period when Palestine was a province
of Egypt, which it ceased to be in the century
after the Exodus, and the name of the Baby
lonian Nimrod could have become the text of
a Canaanitish proverb only at the same time.
The relationship between the earlier chapters
of Genesis and the traditions of Babylonia is
accounted for by the fact, revealed by the
Tel el-Amarna tablets, that Babylonian cos-
mological legends Were studied by Egyptians
and Canaanites, and the Babylonian coloring
is as observable in the passages which have
been assigned to the 'Elohist' as it is in those
which have been assigned to the ' Jehovist.' "
Such is the argument in brief. But in order
to bring out its force the better, it will be well
to give some illustrations taken from " The

102 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
' Higher Criticism ' and the Verdict of the
Monuments." Othniel, the Kenizzite, captured Kirjath-
sepher, " the city of books," the seat, proba
bly, of a library. In Joshua xv, 49, the city
is called Kirjath-sannah, " the city of instruc
tion." The name need no longer be regarded
as a corruption of the text. There must have
been many cities " of instruction " in Pales
tine, in which books were studied by numer
ous pupils.
The antiquity of the song of Deborah is
admitted to be contemporary with the events
it describes. In verse 14 we read of " the pen
of the writer." Criticism has endeavored to
transform " the pen of the writer " into the
"marshal's baton," because there could have
been no writers in Israel in those days. This
change is now unnecessary. " The Old Tes
tament and the discoveries of Oriental archae
ology alike tell us that the age of the Exodus
was throughout the world of Western Asia an
age of literature and books, of readers and
writers, and that the cities of Palestine were

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. 103
stored with the contemporaneous records of
past events."
The Biblical and Babylonian accounts of
creation differ in that the former is monotheis
tic, the latter polytheistic and materialistic;
the former lacks all mythological details,
the latter contains them in abundance. In
passing from the Babylonian to the Biblical
"we pass, as it were, from the Iliad to sober
history." Where one saw the action of deified
nature, the other saw the will of the one su
preme God. The accounts are, however, so
much alike that the resemblance can not be
accidental. The Biblical narrative is ulti
mately of Babylonian origin. But that narra
tive may very early have been known to the
Western Asiatics ; for long before the days of
Abraham the land of the Amorites had been
overrun hy the Babylonians. It is not neces
sary to come down to the Babylonian exile to
explain how the Jews became acquainted with
the Babylonian ideas of creation.
So, too, the Babylonian and the Biblical ac
counts of the flood are startlingly alike, though
they differ as the accounts of the creation

104 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
differ. Both the Elohistic and Jehovistic nar
ratives, so far as their setting is concerned,
are from the same Babylonian source. The
epic from which the Babylonian history of the
Deluge is taken was written probably about
B. C. 2350, and, hence, was in existence long
before the time of Moses.
The campaign of Chedor-laomer, recorded
in Genesis xiv, is proved to be historical.
Elamite and Babylonian invasions of the dis
tant west are credible, and supported by au
thentic history. The Tel el-Amarna tablets
show that Syria and Palestine must very early
have come under Babylonian influence. Both
Sargon of Accad and Naram-Sin, his son and
successor, carried their conquests westward to
the Mediterranean between 3800 and 3700 years
B. C. The latter made his way to Midian and
the Sinaitic peninsula. The road which he
took must have been taken by Chedor-laomer.
It was known to the Babylonians centuries
before Abraham was born. The descriptions
of the land of Babylon in the cuneiform mon
uments and in the xivth of Genesis are strik
ingly parallel.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. 105
"It would seem, then, that archaeology re
quires us to come to conclusions which differ
in many respects from those which the 'higher
criticism' would have us believe. Nimrod is
no myth, but a historical personage. „ . .
We can once more .turn with confidence to
the geographical .and other details incorpo
rated in the narratives. The history of the past,
which criticism had relegated to a limbo of
doubt, has been reconstructed by the discov
ery and study of the ancient monuments.
" The literary analysis which has given us
a Jehovist and an Elohist and a Priestly Code
must be supplemented or replaced by an anal
ysis of the Book of Genesis into Babylonian,
Canaanite, and other similar elements. The
author of the fourteenth chapter must be the
same as the author of the history of the Fall, or
of the rise of the power of Nimrod."1 Sayce
claims also that the result of Assyriological re
search so far has been to justify the composite
character of the Book of Genesis, but only par-
tiallv the current critical theory of that compila-

1 The " Higher Criticism " and the Verdict of the
Mouuments, pp. 171, 172.

106 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
tion, while it has taught us that the existence
of myth or legend must not be allowed to blind
us to the existence of authentic history. That
he can not tell the exact date when the narra
tives took their present form does not trouble
the historian ; he is content to know that the
documents from which they are -derived were
contemporaneous with the events they record.
The Canaanitish elements in Genesis have
also received confirmation by recent discovery.
A few years ago Melchizedek was regarded as
altogether a creature of mythology. The Tel
el-Amarna tablets have taught us that he may
easily have been a historical personage.
Those tablets reveal Ebed-tob as king of Jeru
salem because he was the priest of its god,
not because pf Pharaonic appointment, nor
because he had inherited the position from his
father or his mother. So Melchizedek was
"without father, without mother," and both
king and priest. As priest, Abram paid him
tithes. He was rightly called " king of Sa
lem," rather than king of Jerusalem. Docu
ments older than the Exodus prove that Jeru
salem was a capital and a sacred city, and that,

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. 107
long before the Israelitish invasion, there were
natives of Jerusalem who were able to read
and write and hand down the records of
events. When we come to the narrative of Joseph
we find the Egyptian coloring too vivid and
clear to admit of question. The delight of the
Egyptians in historical novels, several of which
have been found, makes it difficult to deter
mine how far we can trust the accuracy of such
stories. There is a story of very early date
strikingly similar to that of Joseph and the
wife of Potiphar. The attempt to place the
narrative at a late date, because we have no
early instances of the names employed, is only
an argument from our ignorance, which may
be overthrown any day by discovery. "The
changes which the administration of Joseph is
said to have made in the land-tenure of Egypt
find support in Egyptian history." There is
contemporary evidence of a famine which
lasted several years in the period of Joseph's
lifetime, during which, the inscriptions on a
tomb at El-Kab state, Baba "issues corn to
the city each year of the famine." The evi-

108 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
deuce from the monuments so far discovered is
in no case contrary to the Biblical narrative of
Joseph, but agrees remarkably therewith. But
the Egyptian element in Genesis is thoroughly
Hebraized as to its literary form. As to Ex
odus, the land of Goshen is no longer "the
property of fanciful theorists," but "has passed
into the possession of the scientific map-
maker," owing to excavations made by Mr.
Naville in 1885. The only period in Egyp
tian history when the Exodus could have oc
curred has been fixed. The Pharaoh of the op
pression and the Pharaoh of the Exodus have
been found, although the name "Hebrew" or
"Israelite" has not been found. But the his
tory of the period, as gathered from the mon
uments, strikingly resembles the Scripture nar
rative. The Tel el-Amarna tablets have flooded
with light the statement, " There rose up a new
king over Egypt which knew not Joseph."
He was the founder of the nineteenth dynasty,
who represented a national reaction against a
Semitic usurper. The city of Pithom has been
discovered. No one need be surprised that the

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. 109
monuments yet discovered furnish no allusion
to the Israelites, for they were merely one of
the despised tribes settled in the pasture-lands
of the eastern Delta. But a copy of an official
letter of Seti II furnishes us with the very same
historical and geographical atmosphere as that
of the Pentateuch. This was in the nineteenth
dynasty, and in the letter we have the identical
route and its successive stages followed by the
Israelites, Huku, or Succoth, Migdol, and the
great wall, or "Shur." A single fragment of
inscription, telling us the location of Baal-
zephon or Pi-hahiroth, would tell us where the
sea-crossing was. It is not too much to ex
pect that it will be found.
These are but brief and isolated points, il
lustrative of the argument as given at the be
ginning of this section. But they are sufficient
to show the strength of the evidence from
archaeological research against the critical
theory. Sayce suggests that the whole ques
tion of the documents of the Pentateuch needs
to be restudied ; and thinks it not improbable
that in their orignal form they were Babylo-

IIO THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
niau, Egyptian, etc. At all events, he is inclined
to attribute far less of myth and more of his
torical worth to the records of the Pentateuch.
8 n. Criticism ok the Prophetical Books.
It will be found more convenient to pass
over the books Joshua — Song of Solomon, for
the present. But before taking up the pro
phetical books in order, it may be well to
briefly summarize the results of criticism rela
tive to the nature or function of Old Testament
prophecy. Critics do not generally regard
prediction as the chief clement of prophecy.1
The mere foretelling of future events, with the
details of time and place, was too wanting in
the moral and spiritual purpose which distin
guished the prophets. Kuencn denies all in
spired prediction in Hebrew prophecy. But
the majority admit prediction just as they ad
mit miracle. Each prediction, however, is to be
examined by itself, by the application of gram
matical and historical tests, and it is no detri
ment to it if not literally fulfilled ; for the type
'So Orelli, The Prophecies of Isaiah; Deliteseh, Com
mentary on Isaiah ; Farrar, The Minor Prophets.

THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS. 1 1 1
can not, in the nature of the case, equal
the fulfillment, and the prophets were limited
in their employment of figures by the ma
terial which their knowledge of the age in
which they lived and of the past furnished.
Each prophetic utterance has but one meaning,
generally limited to the immediate environ
ment of the prophet. But criticism admits a
symbolism where it denies direct prediction.1
This does not give a prophetic passage a
double sense, but makes it possible to apply
the same words to the description of different
events. The prophets generally spoke of their
predictions as about to be fulfilled, showing
that they themselves did not know the times
and the seasons. Hence it is possible to deny
fulfillment to many of the prophecies if they
be taken in all literalness. If, however, they
be regarded not as advance descriptions of
historical events, but as utterances designed
to move upon the hearts of the auditors, they
can not be denied fulfillment. Besides, many
prophecies go unfulfilled because of a change
in the purpose of God or the conduct of man.
1 1-Iorton, Revelation and the Bible.

112 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
This is particularly true of the threatenings
and the promises. The main point to be no
ticed is, that the denial of miracle goes hand
in hand with the denial of prediction. But
the conservative critic admits and emphasizes
both.
§ 12. The Book of Isaiah.
Critics are agreed in dividing this book
into three parts; namely: Chapters i-xxxv;
xxxvi-xxxix; xl-lxvi. The middle portion
is historical in its contents, and is believed to
be of much later origin than the first part.
The third part was not written by Isaiah, but
by the "Great Unknown," at the close of the
Exile. The first tp question the unity of
Isaiah was Doderlein, in the latter part of the
last century, and his views were essentially
those of the critics of the present day.
The principal difficulties in the way of
supposing that Isaiah wrote the last twenty-
seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are:
i. The historical background} Throughout
all these chapters the writer assumes the ex
istence of the Exile, but also its early end.
1 Compare throughout, Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia,

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 1 13
Judea has long lain waste, and Jerusalem and
the temple in ruins. Babylon has long op
pressed Israel, but her dominion will soon
cease. The time of the Assyrian oppression
is in the distant past (chap. Hi, 4 f.) These
assumptions are supposed to be incompatible
with the authorship by Isaiah, whose entire
prophecies are connected with the Assyrian
period. Were this part of Isaiah from the
same pen as the former part there would have
been some recognition of the change from
the Assyrian to the Babylonian rulership, and
some mention of the destruction of Jerusalem
and the captivity of the people. He could
not have supposed that, except from his own
pen, such an event would be anticipated. It
was difficult even in Jeremiah's day to make
such a possibility comprehensible to the na
tion. . Besides, every prophet aims to affect
his contemporaries; but the chapters in ques
tion take up a situation wholly different from
that in which Isaiah lived. Furthermore, the
author of these chapters repeatedly refers to
prophecies of the very conditions he assumes
as existing. Isaiah could not have had such

114 7HE HIGHER CRITICISM.
prophecies before him, since they were first
uttered by Jeremiah and Habakkuk. 2. The
ideas and doctrines of the latter are wholly dif
ferent from the former part. Not threats of
punishment on account of sin, but consolation
in the midst of affliction, and the prospect of
early release. Again, Isaiah assumes the noth
ingness of the false gods, and the rulership of
Jehovah even over the heathen. His purpose
is to impress upon men's minds the thought
of God's holiness. The author of this por
tion of Isaiah, on the other hand, makes it a
principal business to declare the true deity of
Jehovah to his people and to all the world.
3. The literary style of this is different from the
former part. Of this argument no illustration
need be given here.
But it is not held by the critics that the
first thirty-five chapters are all Isaian. The
majority exclude from the true Isaian por
tions chapters xiii-xiv, 23; xxiv-xxvii; xxxiv.
It may be helpful to give the arguments, at
least in the case of xiii-xiv, 23. This is re
garded as having been composed in the period
of the Babylonian exile, for the following rea-

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 1 15
sons: 1. Every prophecy must have an occasion
to call it forth. No prophet speaks except as
the situation in which he is placed demands
it. In chapter xiii, 6, 22, the occasion which
prompts this prophecy is stated to be the
nearness of the judgment upon Babylon,
which was to bring the release of Israel. God
has his instruments ready (xiii, 3 f.) in the
Medes (xiii, 17). But such a situation never
existed in the time of Isaiah. 2. The histor
ical background lies far from the time of Isaiah.
Nothing is said of Assyria. Babylon is the
ruler who has long trodden Israel under foot
without pity (xiv, 1 f.) Isaiah has never
mentioned the transfer of authority to Baby
lon, nor announced the Exile. Whoever wrote
these chapters simply and unannounced takes
his standpoint in the Babylonian exile.
3. The spirit and tone of these chapters proves
the same. The author makes no attempt to
hide his joy at the speedy fall of Babylon;
and pictures with delight the terrible fate of
Babylon, its inhabitants, and its ruler. He
expresses the bitterest irony upon the antici
pated humiliation of the tyrant. Such a

Il6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
sentiment would be explicable in one who
had experienced the wretchedness of the Ex
ile, but not in Isaiah, who never spoke thus
even of the Assyrians. 4. A final argument
is drawn from the literary style, which, how
ever, is not as strong as the others.
It is not our purpose here to answer, or
even weigh the conclusions reached by criti
cism. Our task is merely to set forth, as
briefly as possible, the most generally-accepted
results of recent criticism. In the next sec
tion, however, the methods of defense employed
by those who maintain the unity of Isaiah, will
be portrayed.
§ 13. The Traditional View of the Book
of Isaiah.
The first line of argument in defense of the
Isaian orgin of the entire Book of Isaiah is
the ancient testimony to the genuineness of the
prophecies it contains. Somewhere about the
year 200 B. C, Jesus, the son of Sirach, alludes
to the last part of the book in the words:
" Isaiah . . . saw by a mighty spirit the
last times, and he comforted those who mourn

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 1 17
in Zion. Forever he showed future things, and
secret things before they came to pass." In
the Septuagint, as well as in all other ancient
versions, the book appears as a whole. The
Heptarchs, or Prophetic Lessons, prepared
about 170 B. C, contain thirteen taken from
the latter part of the book. Josephus (De
Bel. Jud. VII, 10, 3) accepted the book as gen
uine throughout. The New Testament writ
ers frequently quote the last part as Isaiah's.
Ezra made a collection of the canonical books,
and if the last twenty-seven chapters were
written during, or at the end of the Babylo
nian captivity, Ezra must have been deceived."
We would also have the remarkable fact that
the greatest of Old Testament writers was an
unknown, while the whole nation was deceived
into thinking his works to be those of Isaiah.
Again, there is the strongest literary evi
dence for the unity of the book. The differ
ence in style between the first and the last
parts of the book is acknowledged; but it is
argued that this does not prove diversity of
authorship, because the difference in style is
not so great after all, and because a genius, as

Il8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Isaiah undoubtedly was, in treating a new
theme after a lapse of years, would be almost
certain to employ a changed style. "There is a
contrast of subject between the two ; but there
is a manifest correlation, even of a verbal kind,
between them. The "comfort" and "compas
sion" of the later part are granted to her who
had been '¦'¦not comforted" '¦'•not compassion
ated.'1'' The "salvation" and "redemption"
are of that which had been given up to " deso
lation" and "captivity." The "creative" and
"formative" energy is put forth in order that
the seed which had "died" might be "raised
in power and glory and incorruption." Many
expressions and ideas are common to the ac
knowledged and the disputed portions ; for ex
ample: God's abhorrence of a heartless and
formal worship, i, ii, 13; lxvi, 3. The Lord
of hosts, the Holy One, enthroned in the
High and Holy Place, vi, 1; lvii, 15; lxvi, 1.
He regards the lowly that tremble at his word,
vi, 5-7; lvii, 15; lxvi, 2. On his holy moun
tain is to be founded a house, a place of resort for
all nations, ii, 2, 3; lvi, 7; lx, 12-14. Every
mountain and hill shall be made low before him,

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 1 19
ii, 11, 17; v, 15, 16; xl, 4. This is according
to a plan beyond the reach of man's thought
or opposition, v, 19; xiv, 24, 27; xix 12; xxiii,
8, 9; xxviii, 29; xl, 13, 14; xliv, 26; xlvi,
10; lv, 9; lxiv, 4. Human pride and vio
lence overruled in working out his chastise
ments, x, 5, 7; xxxvii, 26; xlvii, 6; liv, 16.
As rebellious children, the Israelites must be
chastised, i, 2, 5; xxxi, i, 2; lxiii, 8, 10. The
nation, sick and wounded can be healed only
by God, i, 5, 6 ; vi, 10 ; liii, 4 ; lvii, 18, 19.
The people and land forsaken, vi, 12; xvii, 9;
xxvii, 10; xxxii, 14; xlix, 14; liv, 6, 7; lxii, 4,
12. Given over to judicial deafness and blind
ness, vi, 10; xxix, 18; xxxii, 3; xxxv, 5; xiii,
7, 18. These are but specimens of a vast
number of correspondences which link to
gether the former and the latter part of the
book.1 Then, too, there are serious difficulties con
nected with placing the last twenty-seven chap
ters at the date of the Exile, as, "that the no
blest body of prophecy in the Old Testament —

1 For many others, see Introduction to Isaiah, in Bible
Commentary.

120 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the highest, deepest, broadest in scope, the
most exquisitely finished in form — should be
written by one whose life had been spent in
Babylon, the alien land, where Zion's true sons
hung up their harps in silence, unable to ' sing
the Lord's song' there; that a poet (as natural
ism views him), so circumstanced, should move
with such easy dignity in the circle of Pales
tinian thoughts and customs and images ;
speaking, like one who was familiar with them,
of hill and valley and table-land, ' the glory
of Lebanon,' the flocks of Sharon, the herds
of the Vale of Achor, the rolling sea and its
islands, the ships of Tarshish gliding home
ward like a cloud of doves, etc.; that the cap
tive Jews in Babylon observed the Day of
Atonement (chapter lviii) ; maintained a ritual
including sacrifices, burnt offerings, oblations,
and incense (xliii, 23 ; lxvi, 23 ; compare i, 11,
13) ; oppressed their own countrymen (lviii,
3-6) ; had ' collections of idols ' (lvii, 13) ; went to
mountain-tops for idol-worship (lvii, 7) ; sacri
ficed children by the side of torrents (lvii, 5)."
Chapter lix, especially verse 18, is not consist
ent with a time of captivity. Chapter lxii, 6,

VIE If OF THE BOOK OF IS.4IAH. 121
can not be reconciled with the supposition that
at the time of writing Jerusalem was a waste.
The representations of Jerusalem in desolation
are explained as being records of prophetic vis
ions of tlie city in that condition, or, perhaps,
though this suggestion finds less favor, as in
terpolations. The traditionalists also argue that the main
reason for rejecting certain portions of the
Book of Isaiah is that they are predictive. But
the idea that it is inconceivable that God should
communicate to man any foreknowledge, or
prevision, of future events, is not axiomatic,
nor can it be established by deductive nor by
inductive proof. It can not be deduced; for
this would require us to believe that God lacked
the power to impart such knowledge, which
would be to place a limit upon the Almighty;
or that it did not enter into his plan, which
could only be known by an omniscient being,
hence not by man. Induction, so far from prov
ing the inconceivability of prediction, shows
that " men have foretold future events which lay
beyond merely human ken ; that a succession
of such men professed to be sent by God to

122 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
deliver such predictions ; that their utterances
were in many cases in direct opposition to the
whole tendency of thought and feeling which
prevailed in their age ; that this exposed them
to much outward suffering and sometimes in
flicted deep inward anguish; that, as regards
the leading points of their testimony — those
which relate to the coming of a new dispensa
tion — their words have at any rate found a
most remarkable amount of verification in the
history of Jesus Christ and the formation of
Christendom." Besides, such intimations of
coming events, when looked at in connection
with the redemptive scheme, are just what we
should expect. Even in the acknowledged
chapters (such as iii, v, and vi), Isaiah, con
trary to all human appearances, clearly and
positively predicted the future desolation of
the land. If he could and did predict it, pre
dictions in the second part should not be urged
against its Isaian origin. "If the prophecies
of Isaiah had been generally confined to the
immediate future, we would expect little or
nothing in reference to the deliverance from
captivity. But since he dwells in such glow-

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 1 23
ing language upon the Messiah's kingdom and
Israel's future glory, it is but natural to expect
the announcement of a return from Babylon.
His prediction of the captivity furnishes the
theme upon which he enlarges. And, after
all, he says but little about the return from
Babylon, but dwells rather upon a greater and
higher deliverance. 'They shall repair the
waste cities, the desolations of many genera
tions, (Isaiah Ixi, 4), can not be applied with any
degree of force to the return from Babylon."
The author of chapters xli-xlviii, whoever
he was, lays claim to the honor of speaking in
God's name about the distant future, and he
does it in such a manner as to make himself a
base deceiver if he was not divinely gifted with
a prevision of certain contingent events.
Besides, only on the supposition that these
are genuine prophecies can the marvelous
change from lapses into idolatry to a consist
ent and persistent adherence to the worship of
the one true God on the part of the Israelites
be accounted for. Prior to the Babylonian
captivity these lapses were frequent. Subse
quent thereto they do not occur. If these

124 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
prophecies, put forward as a test of the Divine
prescience, were seen by the captive Jews to
have been fulfilled, we can account for their
subsequent loyalty to Jehovah. They had had
a tangible proof of the interest God felt in their
welfare, and of the punishment which was
sure to follow defection.
Furthermore, there is no way of accounting
for the fact that Cyrus undertook to rebuild
the temple in Jerusalem, except on the suppo
sition that he had read the prophecies of Isaiah
in chapters xliv, 24-28, and xiv, 1-13, as Jose-
phus (Antiquities XI, i, 1) says he did. The
Persians being opposed to temple worship,
Cyrus would need a good and sufficient reason
for the issuance of his edict. This reason
would be found in predictions such as those
in the above-mentioned passages, which, had
they been forged, could scarcely have deceived
a man like Cyrus.
The general traditional position with refer
ence to the minor disputed portions of Isaiah,
may be illustrated by the argument in favor of
the genuineness of chapters xiii-xiv, 23, which
prophesies the overthrow and perpetual desola-

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 1 25
tion of Babylon, and the restoration of Israel.
The inscription attributes them to Isaiah, and
without the most cogent reasons this should
not be rejected. It was probable that Isaiah
would prophesy against Assyria, and particu
larly against Babylon, because of the aggres
sions of that power against Judah in Isaiah's
day, and because he had predicted that the
Jews and their treasures should be carried to
Babylon. As the oppressors of Israel it was
most natural that a prophecy should be hurled
against them by Isaiah ; and that he should
have prophesied against nations and cities far
less important, and not against Babylon, is im
probable. Isaiah's contemporary prophet, Mi-
cah, predicts the Babylonian exile and redemp
tion of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Micah
iv, 10.) In Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon,
God is represented as threatening to stir up
the Medes, who were then beginning to attract
attention, against Babylon. Had it been writ
ten " after the time of Cyrus, who captured
Babylon, it would have been different ; for Cy
rus was the king of Persia, and united the
Medes to his kingdom." Jeremiah uses some

126 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
of the very phrases employed by Isaiah. And
the genuineness has been defended by capable
critics, such as Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil,
and Delitzsch.
§ 14. Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
The chief critical problems concerning
Jeremiah pertain to its relation to the text of
the Septuagint, and to the genuineness of cer
tain portions (x, 1-16 ; xxv, n',-i4a; xxvii,
7, 16—21; xxxiii, 14-26; xxxix, 1, 2, 4—13;
1; li), opinions being divided.1 The Sep
tuagint text is almost always shorter where
it differs from the Massoretic ; but it is
generally agreed that the Massoretic text is
preferable. Kiihl says: "The principal di
vergences of the Septuagint from the Massora
must be charged to the translator — divergen
ces so deliberate that we can not attribute
them to a transcriber, but only to a trans
lation." Ezekiel2 is of special interest to-day be-
1 See Zocklers Handbuch der TheologiscHen Wissen-
schaften. 2 Compare von Orelli, in Strack and ZSckler's Kurzge-
fasstes Kommentar.

JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL. 1 27
cause the newer critical school places it earlier
than the Priests' Code, for which it prepared
the way. As a priest, Ezekiel might well be
supposed to have known the temple ritual
prior to the Exile. The provisions made by
Ezekiel for the temple service recognize some
things forbidden by P; for example, the rights
of Levites in connection with the temple.
(Chapter xliv, 10, 13.) On the other hand,
there is every reason to believe that the Law of
Holiness was known to Ezekiel. The lan
guage in chapter iv, 14, indicates this; with
which compare Leviticus xxii, 8. Many other
passages might be adduced. (See list in
Driver's Introduction, p. 139.) Some, indeed,
see so much and so many resemblances be
tween Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness that
they have concluded that the prophecy and
H were both by one author; but, while the
evidence of this is strong, it has not met even
with general favor, on account of differences
of style and matter. Thus parts, but not
all, of P were known to Ezekiel. Since the
relation of Ezekiel to P has been already
treated, however, we follow the subject no

128 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
further , here. The genuineness of Ezekiel
throughout is almost universally admitted.
§ 15. The Traditional View of Ezekiel.1
If, as the critics tell us, Ezekiel was, " so to
speak, the father of Judaism," " the architect
of Judaic legalism," and if "other priests at
tached themselves to him, and thus there grew
up in the exile from among the members of
this profession a kind of school of people who
reduced to writing and to a system what they
had formerly practiced in the way of their
calling," and if " thus rose what we might call
the school of Ezekiel," we ought to find evi
dence of these things. It is our business, says
the defender of the Mosaic origin of the Pen
tateuch, to inquire (1) what direct support
Ezekiel, or history after Ezekiel, gives, if any,
to the suppositions under review; (2) what
conclusion a general view of the book of his
prophecy would lead us to take with regard to
them ; and (3) what bearing Ezekiel's code or
ideal has to the presumed work of P.
I. The theory finds its only point of con-
1 The argument is that of Spencer in Lex Mosaica.

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF EZEKIEL. I29
tact with objective history in Ezekiel. The
Hebrew literature is against it. Ezekiel was
a man of wide knowledge and culture. He
knew what was going on around him. But,
fairly interpreted, he does not expect and de
mand a breach with old Israel, as the theory
asserts ; but he deplores this breach, and traces
to it the national ruin. (Chap, xx.) The
theory claims that the statutes and judgments
of which Ezekiel speaks were the growth of
priestly praxis and oral decisions through the
ages, but still unwritten in his day. But the
language of chapter xx, 10 ff., leaves the impres
sion that there was a body of statutes given in
the wilderness, and he gives us no hint of any
additions thereto. The idea that the " hie-
rocracy," together with the fictions concerning
the Tabernacle, the consecration of Aaron, the
Day of Atonement, etc., arose in Babylonia,
finds scant support in the writings of Ezekiel.
Ezekiel's influence was due to his prophetic,
not to his priestly, office. (Chaps, viii, i ; xiv,
1 ; xx, 1.) He gives little attention to the en
hancement of the priesthood. The principal
personage in his renewed polity was to be, not a

130 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
high priest, but a " Prince," the Messianic Good
Shepherd (xxxiv, 23). " The peculiar theolog
ical standpoint of the supposed priestly school
is but little reflected from Ezekiel." P is said
" to have a scrupulous avoidance of anthropo
morphism." In order to test Ezekiel as the
forerunner of such a school of thought, com
pare chapters xviii ; xxxvi, 25, to the end, and
xxxvii. Nor do we find traces of this priestly
school outside their alleged work, nor that this
work was conformable to the Hebrew mind, as
we are told. There is no evidence that litera
ture had any special beginning during the cap
tivity, which was not a golden, but a silver
age, of Hebrew literature. Ezra and Nehemiah
leave the impression of a restoration. The
phrase " a ready scribe in the Law of Moses "
can only mean that writing and guarding lit
erature of the past, rather than origination,
was characteristic of the age. " It was an age
of compilation and of looking back, of pre
serving and of imitation. The imitations and
fables of the Apocrypha were the next step of
its development." Josephus, who was of the
high-priestly family, evidently knew nothing

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF EZEKIEL. 131
of the priestly school. (Comp. his language in
Against Apion I, § 8.)
II. Since there is almost no possibility that
a writer of one age should successfully imitate
the style of another age, it is reasonable to ask
whether the writings of P and of Ezekiel bear
the stamp of the same age. According to the
hypothesis, the document, though the growth
of ages, was penned by men of one age, who
colored the tradition with their own ideas.
The historical portions of P, though short,
are long enough to have a character of their
own. When we compare the age of Ezekiel
and of the work of his supposed followers we
find that P moves in a narrower world, with
nothing historical or legislative to indicate
later civilization. P closes its genealogies, with
perhaps the exception of the Edomite dukes,
with Moses. Egypt and Assyria, prominent in
Ezekiel's time, appear in their infancy. It is
a high tribute to their mental power to sup
pose the authors of P to have been able to imi
tate the age of Moses so well, and to escape
the modern influences about them. The P
school also must have been antiquaries rather

132 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
than codifers ; for they elaborately defined
their duties and residences at a time when the
Levites had ceased to be of importance, and
when synagogues and Rabbis were coming into
vogue. There were but 341 Levites to return
from the captivity, as against 4,289 priests.
Ezra brought 38 more. Yet the P code pro
vides for 23,000, with 48 cities of residence,
six of them cities of refuge from the avenger
of blood, a personage no longer known in
Ezekiel's day. The P code directs its legis
lation against the worship of "he-goats,"
molten images, graven images, figured stones,
sun images, etc. There is no reference to mod
ern forms of idolatry, such as we find in Ezek.
viii, or Jer. vii, 18. Curious codifiers and redac
tors they were, .who clarified nothing, but con
fused much. But if P is the work of Moses,
and reverence for his work be presupposed, all
is explained. Then, too, they invented not
only the Tabernacle, but the whole vocabulary
with which they described its parts. Again,
so far as we can trace surrounding influences
in the writings of Ezekiel, they are those of
the Captivity. It was a large world in which

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF EZEKIEL. 1 33
Ezekiel lived; but his knowledge of Egypt
was from books. But while the P school
wrote in Babylonia, they show no trace of
Babylonian influence, except the flood, while
the characteristic of P is its familiarity with
Egypt and the Sinaitic Peninsula. The wood
employed is not that of Babylonia, but of the
Peninsula of Sinai.
But Ezekiel evinces a knowledge of the
Priests' Code. Dr. Driver confe^pes that he
knew parts of it. But it is a new principle to
require evidence in a writer of knowledge of
every part of a work in order to prove knowl
edge of the whole. Wellhausen confesses that
the Priests' Code was not accurately or entirely
carried out in post-exilic times, which confes
sion makes Ezekiel the only evidence we pos
sess as to the existence of P. A well-known
book is not alluded to at length, a brief refer
ence being sufficient to point the argument.
The object of Ezekiel and Jeremiah was not to
reproduce the Levitical Code, but to point out
its violation, and to emphasize its spirit and
meaning. Ezekiel being in exile, might al
lude more fully to a work whose principles

134 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
could not be taught by practice. He employs
characteristic expressions of the Priests' Code,
like one who does not quote, but who has long
thought upon the ideas. Compare Ezek. iv,
4-6, with Num. xiv, 26-38, and many other
places. These indirect references are strong
evidence that Ezekiel knew P well and inti
mately. But he also knew it as the Law of
the People. " Take the instance of the ideal
of righteou^iess in chapter xviii. The whole
chapter meets a perversion of the doctrine of
original sin, and children suffering for their
fathers' default (of which the supposed Priests'
Code is full; compare Gen. v. 3; vi, 13;
specially Lev. xxvi, 39; Num. xvi, 27; xxxi,
1-3 ; the second commandment, and the prac
tical disappearance of the tribe of Simeon, of
which the supposed E in Gen. xlix, 5-7,
and the supposed P in Num. xxv, 6-18, give
the cause), by emphasizing the complementary
truth of personal responsibility under condi
tions of greater or less privilege (of which
truth the Priests' Code is also full ; witness the
constantly recurring priestly phrase, ' Bear his,
her, or their iniquity,' a phrase of which Eze-

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF EZEKIEL. 135
kiel, too, makes frequent use)." He refers to the
Tabernacle, and the high priest's breastplate,
and to his presence on the Day of Atonement
before the Shekinah ; to the kinds of sacrifices,
that is, by the terms which denote the prin
ciples underlying them, the details of rit
ual being presupposed as found in the writing
to which he refers ; to the distinction between
clean and unclean food; to the ceremonial of
the Day of Atonement (Ezek. xliii, xliv) ; to
the law of ceremonial holiness ; to " things
devoted;" to the year of liberty, etc. His ref
erences to so many parts of P, especially those
whidh are verbal and idiomatic, make it clear
that, if he knew any, he knew the whole of P.
He was saturated with a sense of the divine
value of the Law. All the principles of P are
those of Ezekiel.
III. In closing this summary we quote :
" 1. With regard to the language, Ezekiel's lan
guage is not strictly classical. The language
of P is classical, and in a large degree quite
different. Where Ezekiel, in the use of P's
idioms and in referring to P, reproduces 'his '
language, as he is constantly doing, there is

136 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
an accompanying difference. The legislation
which enlarges a first draft would naturally
follow the expressions of the first draft. But
P does not do this. 2. Ezekiel's Temple is
empty of the Ark, the table of shewbread, the
candlestick, the rail, the cherubim, and other
the like. The worship of P centers round the
Ark, and is distinctly associated with the other
omitted things. The description of the altar
of burnt offering in . Ezekiel varies from that
of P, and differs in measurement. (Ezek.
xliii, 13-18.) 3. The Sabbath worship of the
prince, in which he is the principal figure
(Ezek. xlvi), disappears in P. The regulations
for sacrifices and priests differ in detail, and in
one or two P is less strict and less distinct.
The distribution of the land in Ezekiel differs
from that of P. There is an equal inheritance
of the stranger with the Jew, of which P
knows nothing. It appears that Ezekiel's al
terations had no effect upon the practice of the
Return. The high priest and Day of Atone
ment are omitted in Ezekiel. 4. But, most
important, the whole atmosphere of Ezekiel is
entirely different from that of P.

THE MINOR PROPHETS. 1 37
" The task that ' criticism ' has set itself is
to explain how a Code, the work of an un
known author or authors, so predominated
over the work of Ezekiel as to be adopted as
authoritative in its place, and in its stead to
be sent forth to posterity authenticated as the
inspired legislation of Moses. The answer to
the two questions, When was this done? and,
What influence between Ezekiel and the time
of the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch
gave the Code of the supposed P the authori
tative position and unquestioned prerogative it
has ever since at least possessed? has not yet
been given." § 16. The Minor Prophets.
We pass by the Book of Daniel for the
present, reserving it for subsequent special
mention. Kuenen gives the chronological
order of the prophets as follows :
1. B. C. 900-850. Pre- Assyrian Period —
Amos, Hosea, Joel (?).
2. B. C. 850-700. The Assyrian Period —
Micah, Isaiah.
3. B. C. 626-586. The Chaldean Period—

138 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, the
elder Zechariah (see under Zechariah below),
Obadiah. 4. B. C. 586-536. The Exile— Ezekiel.
5. B. C. 520-400. The Post-Exilic Proph
ets — Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi.
Of the prophets of the first period, we
may pass by Amos and Hosea, since there are
no very important critical questions raised
concerning them. Joel,1 however, is under
dispute. The more conservative. critics place
his prophecies in the first decade of Joash,
basing this early date upon the fact that he
seemed to know nothing of Syrian or Assyr
ian oppressions, and represented the foes of
Judah as Phoenicians, Philistines, Egyptians,
and Edomites ; and further upon the apparent
knowledge of Joel's prophecy exhibited by
Amos. (Compare Amos i, 2, with Joel iv, 16 ;
and Amos ix, 13, with Joel iv, 18.)
But the adherents of the modern views of
the Pentateuch generally place the prophecy
of Joel subsequent to the Exile. The princi-
' See Farrar, Minor Prophets, and von Orelli in Strack
and Zockler, Kurzgefasstes Kommeutar.

THE MINOR PROPHETS. 1 39
pal arguments upon which they base this
view are, that the prophecy makes no mention
of the Northern Kingdom, which would
scarcely have^ been possible in the days of
Joash ; that he does not condemn idolatry,
one of the chief sins of the times of the
Kings; and that he makes no mention of the
High Places, so frequently rebuked by the
early prophets. Chiefly, however, their de
pendence is upon the theology, eschatology,
and ritualism of Joel, all of which are said
to be post-exilic, rather than exilic or pre-
exilic. It is also supposed that his references
to the elders and inhabitants of the land, and
not to the kings and princes, as was usual
with the prophets, point to the very state of
organization which obtained under the Per
sians. Furthermore, Joel iii, i, and iii, 17, are
interpreted as direct references to the Baby
lonish Captivity. It will be seen that the
principal arguments for the late date are simi
lar to those which decide the late origin of
the Priests' Code in the Pentateuch.
The only other book demanding mention
here is

140 the higher criticism.
§ 17. Zechariah.1
It is uniformly agreed that chapters i-viii
were written after the return from the Exile,
and that the author was a co'ntemporary of
Haggai; but as early as 1638, English theo
logians suspected that the later chapters must
be attributed to another author. What aroused
their suspicion was the reference of a proph
ecy in Zechariah to Jeremiah by Matthew
xxvii, 9. One hundred and fifty years later
(1784), Pastor Fliigge, of Hamburg, in an
anonymous work, supported the supposition
that chapters ix-xiv did not originate with
Zechariah. Since then this view has been
generally maintained by critics. Many are
also inclined to make the authorship of the
last six chapters twofold, attributing ix-xi to
a contemporary of Hosea, and xii— xiv to a
writer who lived but a short time prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem. The style of ix— xi
is different from i-viii; its view of the temple
and its ordinances, and its references to moral
conditions are also different. There is no

1 See works referred to under Joel

ZECHARIAH. 1 4 1
trace of the angelology of the first eight chap
ters; the death of Josiah is recent (xii, i);
the people are still idolatrous (x, 2), which
was not the case after the Exile. Thus, if
we think of ix-xi as pre-exilic, and of i— viii
as post-exilic, we can more easily explain these
divergences of view. The author of xii-xiv
anticipates some terrible disaster. Jerusalem
will be dishonored (xiv, 2). This probably
referred to the coming siege and destruction
of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar. Thus,
instead of one Zechariah we have three, as
we have three parts in Isaiah instead of one.
If such a severing of what seems to the or
dinary reader a unit is condemned as unjusti
fiable, the critic is ready with a reply. He
affirms that written prophecies were often
anonymous; that they were first collected
into the canon subsequent to the Exile ; that,
meantime, traditions as to authorship had
become untrustworthy; and that therefore
when we find four books of prophecy in the
Hebrew canon — namely, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and the book of the twelve proph
ets — we dare not safely assume that alb the

142 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
propbecies which lie between a name and the
name following are the product of the pen of
the first. If differences of style, matter, his
torical groundwork, and the like, show them
selves in any considerable degree, the evidence
of different authorship from these sources is
stronger than that of a single authorship from
their place in the canon. To put it in plain
words, those who formed the canon did the
best they knew, but their knowledge of the
authors was no better than ours; while the
fact that they followed tradition without crit
ical scrutiny renders their conclusions less
trustworthy than those of the well-equipped
critic of onr day.
§18. The Book of Jonah.1
That this book is the work of Jonah, the
sou of Amittai (2 Kings xiv, 25), is universally
deuied by the critics. It is generally believed
to have been composed during or subsequent
to the Exile, this opinion being based chiefly
upon the language used. It is pointed out
that there is nothing in the book to suggest
1 See works referred to under Joel.

THE BOOK OF JONAH. 143
Jonah as its author, but that Nineveh being
spoken of in the past tense (chapter iii, 3), in
dicates a composition long after the time of
the events described. Some have supposed
that the whole story is a pure fiction, perhaps
in' imitation of a heathen myth ; but perhaps
the majority are of the opinion that the author
at least employed an old tradition of a mission
of Jonah to Nineveh, during which he expe
rienced some unusual adventures. The ra
tionalists explained the miracle of the fish as
a dream, or took the fish for the sign of some
ship which picked Jonah up, and after three
days set him upon dry land. The modern
critic either regards it as a pure fiction, or
allows more or less of historical reality in the
story. All are agreed that it is not prophecy,
a conclusion which a moment's thought will
support; and all are agreed that the book has
for its object something outside of the mere
relation of the events described. As to what
that object is, opinions differ. There are those
who think it intended to justify God in send
ing his prophets with predictions against the
heathen which were subsequently unfulfilled.

144 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Others think the book a lesson to the proph
ets, who are thereby instructed in their office,
the nature of prophecy, and the conditions of
fulfillment. But the most generally accepted
view is, that it is intended to teach God's care
of the heathen, and to rebuke the Jews for
their narrowness and bigotry.
§19. The Book of Daniel.1
The traditional view of the date and
authorship of Daniel, though still represented
by some eminent names among the critics, is
yielded by the vast majority, and for the fol
lowing reasons: 1. The place of the book in the
Hebrew canon. The second part of this canon
contained the prophets; but Daniel is not
placed among them. On the contrary, he is
placed among the books of the third collec
tion, which was formed at a late period. 2.
Daniel is not mentioned in the list of prophetic
writings given by Jesus, the son of Sirach,
who, writing about the year 200 B. C, men
tions, in his chapters xliv-1, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
'See Zockler's Handbuch der Theologischen Wissen-
schaften and Meinhold in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar.

THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 1 45
Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets,
but not Daniel. 3. Linguistic considerations.
Chapters ii, 4**— vii are written in Aramaic,
which was hardly known to the Jews earlier
than the Persian period. Furthermore, the
style of this portion is the Aramaic of Pales
tine, not of Babylon — a fact which points to
the composition in Palestine, and, hence,
after the Babylonian Exile. Besides, the name
given to the wise men (D"!t?3) points to a period
when, the Chaldean kingdom having been de
stroyed, only the magi remained, to whom
was applied the title belonging to the whole
nation. Especially weighty is the evidence
from the fact that Persian words are placed
in the mouth even of Nebuchadnezzar, which
could only be done by an author who had en
tirely forgotten their Persian origin. The
late origin of the book is also deduced from
the Greek names of musical instruments,
which could only have been learned after the
invasion of the East by Alexander the Great.
Linguistic considerations also prevail in those
parts which are written in Hebrew, comprising
chapters i, viii-xii, the unskillful handling of

146 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the language indicating that it was, at the
time of the writing, either dead or dying.
4. Arguments drawn from the contents of the
book. Chapter ix, 1, presupposes a collection
of sacred Scriptures which included Jeremiah ;
but such a collection could hardly have been
in use in the time of the Exile. Then the
mention of the namas and orders of angels,
and the reference to national guardian angels
(x, 13, 20 ; xi, 1 ; xii, 1), indicates a develop
ment of angelology not probable in the time
of the Exile, but suitable for the Maccabaean
period. Further, the other prophets made the
end of the Babylonian exile and the beginning
of the Messianic kingdom identical, while in
Daniel the redemption of Israel is placed in
the distant future. Besides, the author seems
to have no message for the people of his own
times — as prophets usually did — on the suppo
sition that he lived in the period of the Exile ;
but if he be supposed to have written in the age
of Antiochus Epiphanes, then his minute de
scription of events down to that age, and the
indistinctness subsequent thereto, are easily
accounted for.

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

147

As to attributing the book to Daniel, the
author simply did what was common in- his
time. Those who did it had no thought of
forgery, as we understand it. Besides, he was
not writing a canonical book. Nevertheless,
the Jews did well to receive it into the canon,
since in the time of the Maccabees it was a
source of great religious stimulus. The book
is supposed to rest upon old traditions con
cerning Daniel, and perhaps to have been
written, in part, not earlier than B. C. 300.
The purpose of this Aramaic document was
to strengthen the courage of the Jews in per
secution by the example of Daniel. This was
wrought into the later Maccabaean document,
the object of the whole also being encourage
ment to faithfulness in trial.
§ 20. The Traditional View of the Book
of Daniel.1
The unity of the book, once denied, is now
universally conceded. It was regarded as gen
uine by Jew and Christian until, in the latter
part of the third century A. D., Porphyry at-
' The argument is that of Harman's Introduction.

148 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
tempted to show its spuriousness. Spinoza in
the seventeenth, Collins and Corrodi in the
eighteenth, Eichhorn, Bleek, Ewald, and others,
in the present century, disputed, while Heng
stenberg, Havernich, Keil, Delitzsch, and
others, defended its genuineness.
There is no reason for supposing Daniel to
be a mythical character. The forgery of the
book in his name would prove him to have ex
isted, and to have been famous. To place him
in an age or country different from the reality
would prevent the reception of the book.
Ezekiel refers to him in chapter xiv, 14, 20.
Like Noah and Job, with whom he is men
tioned, he must have lived in a time of trial,
and was distinguished for fidelity and right
eousness. The order of the names as given
by Ezekiel is not determined by the time of
their existence; but Noah, their ancestor;
then Daniel, Ezekiel's own countryman; and
lastly, Job, the foreigner, is mentioned. Eze
kiel's reference to Daniel in chapter xxviii, 3,
indicates that Daniel was well known in Baby
lon, as the Book of Daniel also shows. There
is no place to put Daniel except during the

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 1 49
Captivity. A man of his fame would have
been mentioned had he lived at any other place
and time.
An objection to the genuineness of the book
has been made because, in the Hebrew Bible,
it is not found in the third division with the
later prophets, but in the fourth division with
the Hagiographa, from which it is argued that
the book had not yet been written when the
arrangement of books was made. Josephus
calls Daniel the prophet, and places his book
among the prophets. In Matt, xxiv, 15, Daniel
is called a prophet, from which it would seem
that the book must have stood among the
prophets when Matthew was written. Melito
of Sardis, in the latter half of the second
century A. D., carefully studied the arrange
ment of the books of the Old Testament, and he
places Daniel between the minor prophets and
Ezekiel. Hence the conclusion that the pres
ent order of books in the Hebrew Bible is not
that which prevailed at the time of Christ
and later.
The Greek words in Daniel, upon which an
objection to the genuineness is based, are but

150 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
two or three in number. They are names of
musical instruments, which might easily have
been in existence in Greece six hundred years
before Christ, and could have found their way,
together with their names, to Babylon as early
as that. There are one or two Greek words in
Genesis, but no one will argue from this fact
that the book was not written until long after
the Captivity.
That Jesus, the son of Sirach, does not in
clude Daniel in his list of celebrated Jews,
proves nothing, since the argument from si
lence is often delusive, and, to say nothing of
a possible lapse of memory, the son of Sirach
does not profess to give an exhaustive list of
distinguished Israelites. He makes no men
tion of Ezra.
The alleged historical errors in Daniel are
all explicable if we take pains to study all the
records; e. g., it is not strange that Nebuchad
nezzar should be called king during the life
time of his father. He may have been co-
regent, or he may have been so called by way
of anticipation, as we say that General Wash
ington accompanied Braddock, although he

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 151
was not general at the time. So, also, the dis
proportion between the height and the breadth
of the image which Nebuchadnezzar set up is
explained on the supposition that the image
was not so proportioned, but that the great
relative height was produced by placing it
upon a pedestal. Nor need it have been of
solid gold in order to be called gold. (Comp.
Ex. xxxvii, 25, with xxxix, 38 f.) The silence
of ancient history concerning the insanity of
Nebuchadnezzar proves nothing against the
Bible record. Besides, it is possible that Aby-
denus does refer to it. No Assyrian monarch
has been known to admit that he ever met
with a disaster, or even a check. There are
several historical instances of lycanthropy,
Nebuchadnezzar's disease. The record does
not warrant us in supposing that he was meta
morphosed into a brute. The worship of
Asiatic kings is also an established fact.
If it were true that Daniel's prophecies
cease to be definite after the close of the reign
of Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 164), it would
not prove that the book was written at the
close of that monarch's life ; for his, prophecies

152 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
are not more definite up to the end of the
reign of Antiochus than those of Jeremiah and
Isaiah; while, excepting Messianic passages,
there is nothing definite after the times of the
Captivity. But, as a matter of fact, the proph
ecies of Daniel do extend beyond the time of
Antiochus, and some of them are very definite ;
for example, the prediction of the establish
ment of Messiah's kingdom during the fourth
empire (the Roman); that "from the going
forth of the commandment to restore and build
Jerusalem to Prince Messiah, the time should
be sixty-nine weeks (483 years). Could the
Roman empire, in all its grandeur and its wide
dominion, and the establishment of the Mes
siah's kingdom at a definite time during its
existence, have been foreseen by human wis
dom, even in the time of Antiochus Epiph-
anes ?"
Among the proofs of the genuineness of
the book is, first, its admission into the canon,
which, according to Josephus, was closed in
the reign of Artaxerxes. If the Book of
Daniel was not written until about B. C. 164,
how could it have been received? The

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 1 53
Wisdom of Sirach and the First Book of
Maccabees — the former written about 190 or
180 B. C, the latter about 120 B. C, both
works of great merit and reliability, and stand
ing high with the rabbis — were excluded be
cause the canon was closed when they were
written. Evidently nothing but the belief
that the book was written, as it professes to
be, by Daniel, who flourished during the Baby
lonian captivity, can account for its place in
the canon. How could a book be forged in
or about the year 164 B. C, and be palmed off
as a book that had been canonical for four
hundred years? Bleek supposes it to have
been written to encourage the Jews to resist
Antiochus Epiphanes, and to obey the Law of
Moses. But a forged book could not have pro
duced this effect. Had doubts existed, we
should have some trace of them; but there is
not a single trace.
The testimony of Josephus is, that Daniel,
different from the other prophets, determined
the time of the fulfillment of his prophecies,
and then mentions the prophecies concerning
Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman sway

154 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
over Palestine. He also states that Alexander
the Great saw the Book of Daniel. At all
events, the Book of Daniel must have existed,
according to the opinion of the Jews, in the
time of Alexander the Great, and it must have
been a well-known book, or the testimony of
Josephus is of no account.
"The language of the Book of Daniel ex
actly represents his age and position." Two-
fifths of the book are Hebrew, the remainder
Chaldee. The Hebrew is pure: there is no
mixing of the two languages. In the age of
the. Maccabees, when the critics suppose the
book to have been written, the Hebrew was
being supplanted by the Chaldee. But Dan
iel's Hebrew shows no traces of the transition,
while the Chaldee is as pure as that of Ezra.
On the other hand, the Chaldee of Daniel and
Ezra differs from that of the Targums, written
one hundred and fifty or two hundred years
after the time of the Maccabees.
Then, too, the author's exact historical
knowledge is against the .Maccabean date. ¦
The author's exact acquaintance with the his
tory and with Persian customs and manners

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 1 55
show proximity to the events related. The
statement that Belshazzar was king in Baby
lon when Cyrus captured the city, once, an ob
jection to the author's historical veracity, has
come to furnish a remarkable proof of his ac
curacy. The drinking from the golden and
silver vessels of the temple by Belshazzar, to
gether with his princes, wives, and concubines,
was according to the custom of the Persians
to bring their wives and concubines into their
feasts. (Herodotus v, 18.) "The account of
the magi could have been written only by one
intimately acquainted with Persian affairs."
Indefiniteness respecting classes, sects, and
customs of a country always characterizes those
who write of them at a remote distance of time
or space. But Daniel distinguishes clearly four
classes of magi, and the investigations of Le-
normant have confirmed the accuracy of his
distinctions. Daniel does not mention prostra
tions before the king. According to Arrian,
Cyrus was the first king- so honored. Nebu
chadnezzar punished by casting the culprit
into a burning fiery furnace, while the Persians,
who never punished in that way, cast theirs

156 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
into a den of lions. None but a writer who
knew the facts of which he wrote could have
made such a distinction. Again, the apocry
phal books of the Maccabean age are vastly
inferior to the Book of Daniel. They are full
of errors, though written concerning their own
affairs. How much more would an author
writing at that time of Babylonian affairs have
made mistakes!
"The symbolic form of Daniel's prophecies
suits well the place of their delivery." The
river-banks of viii, 2, and x, 4, were suitable
for Babylon, but not for Palestine. The im
agery of chapter vii is nearly the same as that of
the monuments in the ruins of Nineveh. Being
engaged in state affairs, it was natural for him
to seek out the fate of his kingdom, and its
influence upon the chosen people. And unless
we deny all prophecy, it is probable God would
make known to him the future.
The Messianic character of the book is re
markable in its richness as compared with the
poverty of Messianic ideas in the apocryphal
writings. 1 Maccabees ii, 49-60, states that Matta-

VIEW OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 1 57
thias names Abraham, Joseph, Phinehas, Joshua,
Caleb, David, Elijah, Ananias, Azarias, Mish-
ael, and Daniel, as examples of obedience to
God in time of trial. As the other names, so
most likely the last four, are taken from writ
ten history.
Between B. C. 285 and 180 the Old Testa
ment, including Daniel, was translated into
Greek (the LXX). 1 Maccabees i, 54, uses
the phrase B3s?.uy/jia £p-f]n<i>ouos, taken probably
from Dan. ix, 27, LXX Version; these facts
making it probable that the Book of Daniel
existed before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
The third book of the Sibylline Oracles,
chiefly composed by Alexandrian Jews of the
Maccabean age, imitates Daniel in several
points. The apocryphal writers abound with prayers,
and so do the Greek versions of Daniel and
Esther. Not so the originals. They are thus
wanting in an essential characteristic of the
Maccabean style of religious writing.
If Daniel is not authentic, we have no au
thentic history of the period, which is im
probable. Nor may we lack the testimony of

158 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
our Savior and his apostles to the book in
many parts of the New Testament.
§21. The Psalms.1
For convenience, we give here the divisions
of the five books of the Psalter. The first
book contains Psalms i-xli; the second,
xlii-lxxii ; the third, lxxiii-lxxxix ; the fourth,
xc-cvi ; the fifth, cvii-cl. It has been sup
posed that this division was made to corre
spond to the five books of the Law; but, as
we shall see, it had another origin.
Psalms are attributed by the superscrip
tions attached to them to David, Moses, Solo-
man, Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and the sons of
Korah. The value to be attached to these
superscriptions is in dispute. Most critics
unhesitatingly pronounce it impossible that
David should have written all the Psalms as
cribed to him in the Psalter. They claim
that, in many cases, the language employed
decides ; in other cases, the historical condi-

1 Hupfeld.Die Psalmen ; and T. K. Cheyne, The Psalms;
also Driver, Introduction; and H. P. Smith, in Biblical
Scholarship, etc.

THE PSALMS. 1 59
tions revealed are such as do not suit the
times in which David lived. But if some of
these superscriptions are thus proved unwor
thy of credence, we have no assurance, with
out special examination in each case, that
any of the others are trustworthy. It is
asserted that the LXX treated these super
scriptions with a freedom which indicated
that they did not regard them as fixed ; that
those who attached them were probably not
the authors themselves, but later editors ;
that in so doing they did not, in all cases,
mean to designate the author, but rather to
indicate that they were taken from collections
in possession of those who claimed descent
from David, or Asaph, or some other. Thus,
while the compiler only meant to place at the
head of each Psalm a reminder of the source
from which he had taken it, the later genera
tions understood it to mean that it was com
posed by the one whose name it bore.
The followers of the extreme Pentateuchal
criticism deny the Davidic origin of almost
every Psalm ascribed to him, and make the
Psalms the products of the late post-exilic

160 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
period, some even dating the larger part of
the Psalter in the Maccabaean period. They
point to the fact that in the earlier books of
the canon — as Samuel and Kings — David is
represented as a player, but not as a composer.
They emphasize the frequency of the supposed
antithesis in the Psalms between the godly
and the godless, and affirm that such an antag-
.onism was never distinctly marked until the
beginning of the persecution under Antiochus
Epiphanes, when the true servants of God had
to struggle against their heathen oppressors
and their apostate brethren.
But a more conservative criticism, while
not denying the late origin of some of the
Psalms, arranges the order somewhat as fol
lows : i. A collection of Davidic Psalms, be
ginning with Psalm iii, and distinguished by
the prevailing use of the name Jehovah (or
Jahveh) for God. 2. A collection of Psalms
of Korah, in which the name Elohim is
used for God. (Psalms xlii-xlix.) 3. These
were united by an editor who added an Elo
him Psalm of Asaph (the fiftieth), a number
of Elohim Psalms by David (li-lxxi), and
then the Solomonic Psalm lxxii. He also

THE PSALMS. 161
prefixed an ancient Messianic Psalm (our
second Psalm), and possibly composed Psalm i
as an introduction to all. If so, he must
have written prior to Jeremiah, to whom
Tsalm i was known. 4. The third book,
judging from Psalms lxxiv and lxxix, may
have come into existence subsequent to the
Babylonian exile ; and the collector of these
Psalms was not identical with the editor
wko united the first two books. 5. The
work of still another collector begins with
the fourth book, which contains but two
Psalms (ci and ciii) with the names of the
authors attached, both of which the Hebrew
canon attributes to David. 6. The fifth book
is from still another collector. It contains fif
teen Davidic Psalms and one Solomonic Psalm.
This collector is supposed to be also the final
editor, having supplied the doxologies which
mark the close of each of the first four books
of the Psalter. Those who deny the Macca
baean date of any of the Psalms think the
final editor lived in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah. While the critics deny the binding force of
the titles which profess to give either the
11

1 62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
liturgical or historical occasion of the compo
sition or the names of the authors of the
Psalms, yet the more conservative are dis
posed to defend those who attached these
titles from the charge of arbitrary guesswork,
and to believe that they represent very old
tradition. As to the authorship of seventy-
three Psalms ascribed to David in our Psalter,
Hitzig, who thinks most of the Psalms were
composed in the period of the Maccabees, al
lows that David wrote fourteen. Ewald only
gives him eleven entire Psalms, and some
parts of four others (xix, 2-7 ; Ix, 8-1 1 ; lxviii,
14-19; cxliv, 12—14). Delitzsch thinks forty-
four are Davidic, and holds that Psalms lxxiv
and lxxix are from the time of the Maccabees ;
possibly also Psalm cxxiii.
As to the value of the Psalms, the critics
generally agree that few are truly prophetic \
even conservatives limiting the Messianic
Psalms to the second and the one hundred
and tenth, while Psalms xxii, xiv, lxix, lxxii,
may be regarded as typical-prophetical. Some
few others are classed as merely typical, as
xli, 10. The Law and the Prophets gave the

THE PSALMS. 163
rule for conduct; the Psalms give the experi
ences of those who endeavored to conform
themselves to the standard of the Old Testa
ment. The Psalms do not, according to the
critics, give us a standard by which we may
regulate our experiences. They must each
be judged by their approach to the spirit of
Christ. The Psalms exhibit, not what a Chris
tian should be, but what piety was in the light
of the revelation granted in pre-Christian
times. It is assumed that as the revelation
was not so pure and complete, the religious
life could not be so exalted as under the Gos
pel dispensation. This denies the distinctive
inspiration of the thoughts and feelings ex
pressed in the Psalms, and makes them the
portrayal of the religious consciousness of
those who were trained under the Law and the
Prophets.
§22. The Traditional View of the
Psalms.1
The collection of Psalms, essentially as we
have them, was completed prior to B. C. 333,
1 Compare Bissell, The Pentateuch ; and Lex Mosaica,
under The Period of David and Solomon, and under The
Southern Kingdom.

164 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
as we may see from 1 Chron. xvi, 36, though,
while there is no proof of it, it may be that a
very few psalms were inserted later. In an
cient lists of the Old Testament canonical
books, the Psalter stood at the head of the
third collection, and gave it its name. The
Septuagint Version has the same list of psalms
in the same order. The Seventy ascribed
some anonymous psalms to David, but none to
a later date.
That David was a great poet is as well es
tablished as any fact of history. The close re
lation between David and the national history
is attested by the fact that "the only occasions
to which psalms are ascribed in the titles are
events in David's life." The supposition that
David was a great poet, but not a religious
poet, leaves us without any of David's poems,
and the religious poems usually ascribed to
David without an author.
Yet there are critics who deny that David
wrote a single one of the Psalms in our col
lection, and who deny that any of the Psalms
are pre-exilic. The titles to the Psalms are
evidence contrary to this critical position.

VIEW OF THE PSALMS. 1 65
*The information supplied by these titles is not
always trustworthy; but it is improbable that
all the titles are wrong, and thus they connect
David with the Psalms. They are very an
cient, and they are external to the Psalms
themselves. "They give the earliest acces
sible information respecting the origin of the
compositions to which they are attached."
Had they been an after-production, they would
have been attached according to some uniform
plan; but they are not prefixed according to
any one principle. By translating the titles,
the Seventy show that they were in existence,
while the Septuagint renderings show that the
meaning of the titles had been lost in an
tiquity. These titles constitute real history,
and can not be disproved. The burden of dis
proof lies upon the critic. "Besides the pe
riod of David and his immediate successors,
there is but one other in Jewish history when
the writing of psalms could well have flour
ished: that which closely followed the Exile.
It was, at least, -a true instinct that led the
Greek translators to attach the names of post-
exilian prophets to some of the nameless

1 66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
psalms which reached them. The harps that
had been hung upon the willows in Babylon
undoubtedly inspired the march of the home
ward-bound, and beguiled their work of resto
ration. But the number of post-exilian psalms,
whether considered as matter of history or of
criticism, can not have been large. They do
not predominate in the collection. They may
generally be distinguished from the original
portions of it by features that are unmis
takable." David had a natural taste for lyric poetry,
and he was in a situation well adapted to de
velop his natural tastes. Then, the occurrence
of one of the psalms in Samuel is a strong
argument in favor of the national tradition.
Psalm xviii and 2 Sam. xxii are two editions
of one and the same psalm. If David, the
king, wrote poetry, it is not likely that his
poems were lost. The contrast between the
David of the Psalms and the David of history
has been exaggerated. The Psalms and the
history mutually aid in the illustration of the
life of David. The history often shows him
profoundly religious ; confident in God in the

VIEW OF THE PSALMS. 1 67
midst of danger; patiently waiting on God's
time; ascribing in faith all success to God;
looking hopefully, and with confident trust in
the promises, into the future ; and the humble
penitence of unfeigned sorrow for sin.
The argument of the critics is weak. Pro
fessor Cheyne begins by assigning to a later
psalm a probable date. This result "estab
lished," he determines the date of another
psalm, and so repeats the process, backward,
until the supposed earliest psalms are reached.
Beginning with probability, his argument is a
series of probabilities, which does not accumu
late, but loses strength as it progresses. The
critics think Psalm ex could hardly have been
written by David; but Jesus built an irrefu
table argument for his essential Divinity on
the Davidic authorship — irrefutable because
of the universal conviction that David was its
author. The traditional theory, in accordance
with Heb. i, 8, 9, makes the words of Psalm
xiv, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,"
apply to Jesus. Professor Cheyne makes them
apply to Ptolemy Philadelphus, who divorced
his first wife and banished her in order that

1 68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
he might contract an incestuous marriage with
his full sister, who had already been married
to his half-brother.
Again, by denying the Psalms to David's
time, they make the golden age of Israel a
literary wilderness ; and by assigning them to
an age of decay, make it the age of literary
fertility. If the earlier psalms were written
at the dates assigned by the critics, they must
have been produced subsequent to the division
of the kingdom. But we find no reference in
them to this division. This can only be ac
counted for on the supposition that, as these
psalms indicate, the twelve tribes still com
posed one individual kingdom, or on the sup
position that their authors willfully and sys
tematically falsified. To all this must be
added the inspirational element claimed in the
Psalms and attributed in the New Testament,
so that it is not difficult to explain why the
very beginnings of Hebrew poetry are so
perfect.

the book of proverbs. 1 69
§23. The Book of Proverbs.
Strack1 divides the book into nine parts:
I. Superscription (i, 1-6) and Motto (v. 7).
II. Introductions (i, 8-ix).
III. First collection of Solomonic proverbs,
designated S I (x-xxii, 16).
IV. First appendix (xxii, 17-xxiv, 22), Words
of the Wise.
V. Second appendix (xxiv, 23-34), a^so
Words of the Wise.
VI. Second collection of Solomonic proverbs,
designated S II (xxv-xxix).
VII. First supplement (xxx), Words of Agur
the son of Jakeh.
VIII. Second supplement (xxxi, 1-9), Words
of King Lemuel.
IX. Third supplement (xxxi, 10-31), Praise
of a virtuous woman.
Of all these parts the only ones generally
recognized as Solomonic are III and VI. It is
claimed that none of the rest professes to
have been written by the wise king. That

'In Zockler's Handbuch der Theologischen Wissen-
schaften.

170 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
there are many expressions in I and II which
are identical with those in III is admitted;
but this is explained by the supposition that
the author of the former was the collector of
III, to whose style of thought and language
he conformed himself as much as possible.
Against the Solomonic origin of I and II it is
urged that they contain a series of expressions
not found in III nor VI, and, indeed, not else
where in the Bible. To the words of chapter
i, 1, the collector added a long introduction,
as a comparison with chapter x, 1, shows.
Delitzsch and Kuenen have both shown that
there is a relationship between I and II and
Deuteronomy. Attention is also called to the
fact that there is a dependence between Job
and I, II, and III. Some, however, think that
the collector of I, II, and III used Job, rather
than the reverse.
That Solomon wrote proverbs is settled by
1 Kings v, 9-13. In III and VI are found five
hundred of his three thousand proverbs. The
Solomonic authorship of III is proved by chap
ter x, 1, in connection with chapter i, 1, and
by xxv, 1, on the supposition that the men of

THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. 171
Hezekiah there mentioned knew III. All the
proverbs of III are composed of two lines, the
form supposed to be earliest in use for pro
verbial writing. Yet III did not come from
Solomon in its present form ; for the proverbs
it contains are not arranged according to any
consistently applied principle, but seem in
most cases to follow each other as accident
happened. Hence it is presumed that III
must have, gradually grown up, partly from
the noting down of the proverbs as remem
bered by the people, and partly from written
sources. Furthermore, each verse of III is an
independent proverb, which is not the case
with VI. This leads to the supposition that
some one, whose literary tastes were less va
ried than Solomon's, collected III. In addi
tion, the repetitions of word and thought are
so numerous in III as to forbid the supposi
tion that Solomon himself made the collec
tion. He might often have repeated himself
in three thousand proverbs, but he would
hardly have done so in a collection of the
three hundred and seventy-five in III. It is
also supposed that in III there are some post-

172 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Solomonic proverbs, the principal proof being
founded on a comparison of the Hebrew and
LXX text. Various dates are given for the
collection of III, but it is generally agreed to
have been during the period of the early
kings. The Solomonic origin of the proverbs of
VI has been disputed by Ewald on the ground
that the earliest form of Hebrew verse was
composed of two lines, and the attempt to
make it appear that Solomon wrote only an
tithetical proverbs in this form. This is an
swered by the fact that we can not suppose
Solomon to have been mentally so poor as
only to write in one . style. It must be ad
mitted, however, that VI is very different from
III in several respects. The form of the
verses is different; the parabolic (emblematic)
manner of expression is frequently found here,
and only twice in III; while in VI the dark
side of the monarchy is emphasized in con
trast with III, which sees only its bright side.
But all this is explicable on the supposition
that we have in VI more post-Solomonic prov
erbs. According to xxv, i, a commission

THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. 1 73
formed by Hezekiah copied VI. An attempt
has been made to show by the repetitions in
VI of proverbs in III that the men of Heze
kiah did not know III; but these repetitions
are so few in number as to make the suppo
sition necessary that they knew it, and knew
that it was widely employed, or else they
would have repeated far more than they did.
As to IV, its non-Solomonic origin is sup
posed to be proved by chapter xxii, 17, which
seems to attribute what follows to a variety of
wise men. Delitzsch supposed it to have
sprung from the author of I and II and col
lector of III. Others think that this collector
found IV ready prepared, and joined it to his
I, II, and III. The first verse of V is supposed
to show that it is from another collector.
The similarity of its beginning with that of
xxv, i, is evidence that it was placed here by
the one who united I, II, III, IV, and VI, his
purpose being to prevent the proverbs it con
tained from being lost.
The author of II is presumed to be the
same as the author of I. We still have to
deal with VII, VIII, and IX. Neither Agur nor

174 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Jakeh are known outside of VII; but they
must have been Israelites, since verse 5 is de
pendent upon the Davidic Psalm xviii, 31, and
verse 6 upon Deuteronomy iv, 2 ; xiii, 1.
Verses 1-4 emphasize the insufficiency of hu
man knowledge, which had been done long
before. The author is supposed to have lived
subsequently to Hezekiah. As to VIII, it was
certainly written outside Palestine, if the
translation of the superscription proposed by
Hitzig and maintained by Delitzsch and
• others shall finally prevail, making Lemuel
king of Massa. It is yet in dispute. The
third supplement (IX) is in the form of an
alphabetic song. It presupposes a carefully
ordered civil state, flourishing trade relations,
and the cultivation of the soil as a principal
occupation. It was probably written in the
time of Hezekiah. In order to bring all these
parts together, one final editor must be as
sumed.
§ 24. The Book of Job.'
Among the critical conclusions reached by
some is the idea that the book is intended to
1 Volck, Das Buch Hiob, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar.

THE BOOK OF JOB. 175
describe the sufferings of the Israelitish people
during the Babylonian exile. To this it is
answered that, if for no other reason, this
opinion must be rejected, because Job (the
Israelites, on this supposition) denies all guilt
or self-censure in connection with his suffer
ing. He is, in his own estimation and in that
of God, an innocent sufferer; but Israel, in
the Exile, suffered because of its sins.
The great majority of critics hold to the
belief that the author had for the basis of his
work a tradition which more or less completely
corresponded to reality. It is, of course,
impossible to tell how closely the author ad
hered to this tradition ; but it is almost uni
versally conceded that the book is not a pure
fiction. His long life (one hundred and forty
years subsequent to his great affliction) ; the
mention of coins known to us from the history
of Jacob and Joshua (Gen. xxxiii, 19 ; Josh.
xxiv, 32) in chapter xiii, 11 ; the fact that the
only musical instruments mentioned are those
mentioned in Genesis, indicates that Job lived
in the early patriarchal time ; but his peculiar
use of names to designate the Deity shows

176 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
that he lived and moved outside the Israel
itish fold.
The principal part which has been re
garded as spurious is the chapters xxxii-
xxxvii, containing the speeches of Elihu.
The reasons for regarding them as the work
of a later hand are : 1. That they seem not
to fit into the general plan of the poem.
Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue among
those present. Also in the epilogue, when
God expresses his judgment of what has been
said, Elihu is not mentioned ; nor is any
reference found in any part of the book to
what Elihu has here said. The passage can
be removed bodily, and never be missed in
the argument. 2. On the.other hand, the pas
sage disturbs the unity of the whole. It says
beforehand some things found in Jehovah's ad
dress, and repeats much said by the friends.
When God speaks in chapter xxxviii, he as
sumes that Job has just finished, so that the
passage in question destroys the connection
between chapters xxxi and xxxviii. 3. It
differs in language from the other portions of
the book. 4. Elihu introduces himself, which

THE BOOK OF JOB. 1 77
excites our suspicion, while the subscript fol
lowing xxxi, 40, makes the section evidently
an addition.Both the prologue (chapters i and ii) and
the epilogue (chapter xiii, 7 ff.) have been at
tacked; but the majority regard them as nec
essary to the poem, and to its understanding
by the reader. Opinions are divided concern
ing the genuineness of chapters xl, 15-xli, 26.
It is attacked chiefly on the ground that it is
in bad taste. Studer (in Jahrb. fur prot.
Theol., 1875) tried to prove that the original
Job is found in chapters xxix ; xxx ; iii, 3-xxvii,
7; xxxi; and that it was subsequently edited
and reconstructed five different times. This
view has now no followers.
The book has been attributed to Moses,
Solomon, Baruch, and Job ; but there is noth
ing except supposition in favor of any name.
That it was written by Moses is • now almost
universally disputed, because it evidently was
written later than his period. All that is
known of the development of Hebrew litera
ture speaks against so early a date. The
mistake arose from the confusing of the poet

178 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
with the hero of the poem, the time described
with the period in which the author lived.
On the other hand, but few now place the
book so late as the exilian period. This view
was defended chiefly on the ground that the
Satanology of the book is too developed for
an earlier period ; but most critics think there
is no connection between the Satan of the
Book of Job and the Parsee doctrine of angels.
In favor of the Solomonic period, it has been
urged that the book displays a remarkable
fullness of knowledge of nature suitable to
that period ; also that Proverbs i— ix seems to
be dependent upon Job. Besides, it has been
said that such a book as Job, so full of reflec
tion and so carefully planned, must belong to
the period of highest literary culture. But
unless Proverbs i-ix was written at least in
the time of Jehoshaphat, there is no proof from
the literary connection between Proverbs and
Job ; besides, the period of high literary activ
ity was not confined to the time of David and
Solomon. Since Jeremiah xx shows that Jeremiah
had Job iii before him when he wrote, it is

ECCLESIASTES. 1 7 9
plain that Job was not written later than Jere
miah. From Job xii, 14-25, where the refer
ence is to a captivity of a nation, it may be
presumed that there is an example first in
the Assyrian period, and, hence, that the book
may have been written about 700 B. C.
This is perhaps the most generally accepted
date. The date of the interpolation of chapters
xxxii-xxxvii can not be fixed.
§25. ECCLESIASTES.1
While some see in this book a dialogue
between two persons of different opinions
concerning the subject in hand, others see in
it only a succession of contradictory thoughts
held together by the constantly recurring idea
that all is vanity. Some have thought that
the book fell into two parts, a theoretical and
a practical — the former including chapters
i-iv, 16; the latter, chapters iv, 17-xii, 7.
But while these sections bear respectively the
general character thus assigned them, yet the

1 Volck, Der Prediger Saloino, in Kurzgefasstes Kom-
mentar.

l8o THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
theoretical and the practical are well repre
sented in both parts. Perhaps the most satis
factory view is, that it is not a systematic
presentation of the theme, but that the author
simply utters the feelings of his heart as they
come to him, thus speaking from his very
soul. Some have found in the book a philosoph
ical tendency — a search after the highest good,
or foi that which is permanent in the midst
of the evanescent and changeful. Some have
thought they saw a dependence of the author
upon the Epicurean and Stoic philosophy.
Others have thought the book skeptical in
tendency, while the school of Schopenhauer
have found their pessimism in its first four
chapters. Still others find the book written
with a practical religious purpose. This is
perhaps the most satisfactory opinion.
The idea that it was writteu by Solomon
is almost wholly abandoned by recent critics.
The language of the book is regarded as pos
itive evidence of very late composition; but
when the attempt to fix the exact period of its
composition is made, opinions divide. All

ECCLESIASTES. l8l
agree that it is post-exilian. But it is held
that while the language of Malachi is still a
pure Hebrew, that of Ecclesiastes shows dis
tinct traces of the Aramaic and of the idioms
of the Mishna. So that the book must be
later than the time of Malachi. The author
speaks of the power, the caprice, and the vo
luptuousness of the rulers. This corresponds
to the later period of the Persian rule. Some
have thought that the book was written in
Alexandria; but others object to this that
chapters xi, 3 f., and xii, 2, presuppose a coun
try in which the rain frequently falls, and in
which the fruitfulness of the earth is depend
ent upon the rain, which is not the case with
Egypt. On the other hand, chapter i, 7, does
not conflict with the idea of its Palestinian
origin; while v, 1, implies the presence of the
temple, and viii, 10, the existence of holy
places, and x, 15, nearness at least to the city
of Jerusalem. Formerly it was customary to
dispute both the unity and integrity of the
book; but both are now generally recognized.
Only a few small portions are in doubt; viz.,
the epilogue (xii, 9-14); xi, gh; xii, i"; and

1 82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
xii, 7. Concerning the epilogue it is declared
that it is superfluous and without object; that
while in the other portions of the book the
author speaks in the first person, here the
third person is employed; that here he repre
sents piety and the fear of God as the goal of
all true endeavor, in contradiction to the pre
vious recommendation of enjoyment as the
highest good ; that the representation of a last
judgment in verse 14 contradicts the former
denial of immortality; and that it was not
true in the time of the Persian epoch, when
the book is supposed to have been written,
that it was a book-making period. To all
this the defenders of xii, 9-14, reply that there
is no ground for the last assertion; and that,
properly understood, the contradictions urged
disappear. Let it be observed that, while almost all
deny the authorship to Solomon, it is agreed
that the real author attributes it to the wise
king.

the song of solomon. 1 83
§26. The Song of Solomon.1
Two views concerning the unity of this
book obtain to the present day. According to
the first, it is not a unit, but a series of love-
songs, strung loosely together. Reuss held
this view, except that the sixteen different
pieces — of which, according to him, it is com
posed — all related to the same circumstances.
The other view, which is now the prevailing
one, is, that it is a unit, although opinions
differ widely as to the manner in which the
parts are related to each other. The majority
regard it as a melodrama. The difficulty of
finding any single connecting thread has been
the chief support of the opinion that it is a
medley rather than a united whole. The
argument of the Song is thus given by Oettli,
who divides the whole into fifteen scenes:
As the Shulamite, the daugher of well-to-do
country people of Shunem, upon a spring day,
went into her garden, her beauty was observed
by the occupants of a royal carriage-train,
and she was brought into a royal summer
1 Oettli, Das Hohelied, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar.

1 84 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
villa, not far from her home. Here she was
placed under the care of the women of the
harem, who were to dispose her favorably
toward the king. In secret, however, she
loved a youth of her native place. All efforts
of the king to win her affections were made
vain by her loyalty to her peasant lover ; and
at length the king himself let her go in peace.
Her lover, with whom she had meanwhile held
conversations, led her home, and with hiin she
entered into a covenant of eternal love.
J. G. Stickel holds essentially the same
view, but thinks that interwoven with the
drama of Solomon and the Shulamite is an
other pertaining to a shepherd and shep
herdess, whose scenes — three in number — are
as follows: i, 7, 8 ; i, 15— ii, 4; iv, 7-v, 1. He
thinks that the interweaving of this drama
heightens the interest of the other by con
trast, and designates the breaks in the treat
ment of the principal theme.
Delitzsch held that Solomon and the sup
posed friend of the Shulamite were identical.
He supposes that Solomon, being by chance
in the neighborhood of her home, had his

THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 1 85
attention called to her beauty, and that this
Song describes the progress of his suit up to
the time of their marriage. The principal ob
jection urged against this hypothesis is the
improbability that Solomon, the delicate and
fastidious king, should descend to the manner
of life of a peasant, and for a considerable
period of time, as this conception of the Song
requires. The allegorical interpretation makes Solo
mon and the Shulamite the representatives
respectively of God and Israel, or Christ and
the Church, some (Roman Catholics) making
it even to stand for the relation of Christ to
the individual soul. Of any such interpreta
tion there is no trace in the New Testament ;
and, in the Church, it first appeared with
Origen. To make it a literal description of
the love experiences of two young people in
early centuries seems to rob it of its right to
a place in the canon. The defenders of the
literal interpretation, however, say that such
a representation of faithfulness in love is not
unworthy of a place in the religion of reve
lation.

1 86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
The question of the authorship and date ot
the book is closely connected with the opin
ion held as to its dramatis personcz. Most of
those who believe the hero and heroine to
have been Solomon and the Shulamite, with
out the interference of a peasant friend of the
heroine, hold Solomon to be the author. This
they maintain on the ground of the super
scription. The opposers of this view regard
this superscription as untrustworthy, and think
that, since its supporters interpret v, 2-7, as a
description of Solomon's unfaithfulness to the
one he had just won, it is unlikely that Solo
mon wrote the book, since he would hardly
have celebrated his own depravity in song.
If, on the other hand, the beloved is not
Solomon, but the shepherd, then it is impossi
ble that Solomon should have written it. He
would not have described himself as sensual,
nor as having been rejected by a country girl.
Yet the testimony is in favor of its early
composition. Hosea, in the eighth century
B. C, had read the book. (Compare Hosea
xiv, 6-9, with Song ii, 1, 3; iv, 11; vi, 11.)
The mention of Tirzah (vi, 4) points to a time

THE LAMENTATIONS OF JEREM/AH. 1 87
when that city, the residence of Omri (i Kings
xvi, 24), was still standing. The memory of
the Solomonic period seems fresh in the mind
of the author ; and there is no trace of na
tional misfortune. This, with other facts,
speaks strongly in favor of the early part of
the tenth century B. C. These considerations
forbid placing the drama in the exilic or post-
exilic period, as some have done. The close
ness of the time of its composition to the
period of Solomon also forbids that it should
have been intended for pure fiction. It is
probably founded in large measure on fact.
This further forbids the supposition that it
was written to rebuke the immorality of the
court in Alexandria in the time of the Mac
cabees.
§ 27. The Lamentations of Jeremiah.1
The Lamentations do not name their own
author. But the oldest of our traditions as
cribe them to Jeremiah ; so, the LXX, Targum,
and the Talmud (Baba Bathra), which als6
makes Jeremiah the author of Kings. The
1 Oettli, Die Klagelieder, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar.

1 88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
critics of to-day are divided in their opinions.
There have been those who denied the unity
of authorship, a variety of authors being
suggested by the fact that i and ii mention
the deportation of the Jews, while the re
mainder only speak of the laying waste of
Zion ; that the alphabetical order followed in
the main by the first four is given up in the
fifth ; and by the inequality of merit in the
five poems. The majority, however, are con
vinced that all are the product of one author,
since the style and the circle of ideas are es
sentially the same throughout.
Arguments against the Jeremianic author
ship, however, are brought forward in large
numbers. The style is supposed to be differ
ent from Jeremiah's ; the alphabetical arrange
ment followed in the first four poems is nowhere
found in the prophecy ; Jeremiah xxxi, 29, 30,
is declared to be in contradiction to Lamenta
tions v, 7 ; the author of Lamentations does
not remind his readers of his prophecies, as
it might be supposed Jeremiah would have
done. By placing the writing of Lamentations

THE LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. 1 89
subsequent to Ezekiel, some have tried to
prove that it was not written by Jeremiah.
Chapter ii, 14, is supposed to be borrowed
ffpm Ezekiel xii, 24, or xiii, 6. To this, the
defenders of Jeremiah answer that, according
to Ezekiel viii, 1, we must suppose that chap
ters xii and xiii were written in the sixth year
of the carrying away into captivity of Jehoia-
kim, and hence five years prior to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem. Since Lamentations be
moans the destruction of the city by Nebu
chadnezzar and his successors, Jeremiah might
have seen Ezekiel's language in chapters xii
and xiii.
Very conservative German critics see no
reason to doubt that the book might have
been written by another than Jeremiah, and
attributed to that prophet after the real
authorship had been forgotten; but such
would hardly deny that it is, all things con
sidered, probable that the book was written by
Jeremiah.

190 the higher criticism.
§28. The Book of Ruth.1
The object of this book is evidently to re
late the early history of the family of David.
There are those who suppose, however, that a
correlated purpose was to show that God had
no exclusive interest in the Jews, and that he
would not despise to have a Moabitess among
the female progenitors of the line from which
Christ sprang.
The book has been regarded by some as
pure fiction. The principal supports for such
a supposition are: 1. That the marriage of
Ruth with Boaz transcends the law requiring
the brother-in-law to marry the widow;
2. That if the Book of Judges gives us a
trustworthy impression of the period, Ruth
must be wholly unhistorical; 3. The fact that
the names employed in the book appear to be
symbolical. Those who defend the historical
character of the book admit the possibility of
a somewhat artificial dress for the real facts,
but deny the validity of any of the arguments
mentioned above.
1 Oettli, Das Buch Ruth, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar.

THE BOOK OF RUTH. 191
Ewald placed the date of composition in
the exilian, Kuenen, Wellhausen, von Orelli,
and others, in the post-exilian period, in sup
port of which they offer a variety of reasons,
particularly those drawn from the language,
which is full of Aramaisms. But none of
these would have been impossible, it is re
plied, in the times of the later kings; and,
besides, they are placed by the author in the
mouths of the persons speaking, and do not
occur often in his own language, thus prov
ing that they are employed to give a popular
coloring to the story. The probability that
Ruth was originally not connected with
Judges, but found its place in the so-called
third canon — that is, latest collection of Old
Testament books — has also been used to
prove the late (post-exilic) origin of the book;
but it is answered that this would not prove
its non-existence prior to its reception into
the canon.
The strongest argument for its composi
tion in the same period from which the Books
of Samuel sprang is, that it could only have
been produced when the feelings of the Jews

192 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
were yet comparatively liberal toward the
Gentiles, the style of writing still simple, and
the narrowness of the post-exilian Judaism
was yet unknown.
Chapter iv, 18-22, is supposed by many to
be a later addition, made in the early Greek
period, and taken from 1 Chronicles ii, the
object being to carry the genealogy of David
back to the beginnings of the people of Israel.
It has been observed that this genealogy can
not be complete, since it gives but ten names
for the period of eight centuries.
§ 29. The Book of Esther.1
Much in this book has led to the belief
that it is at most a fiction founded upon fact,
while many reject its historical trustworthi
ness altogether. Among the reasons for the
latter conclusion are the following: The de
cree itself, which granted the right absolutely
to lay Judea waste; the too early publica
tion of the same, thus making it possible for
the condemned to escape; the sudden turning
'Das Buch Esther, Oettli, in Kurzgefasstes Kom
mentar.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 193
of the king in favor of the Jews; the im
mense number of Persian subjects put to
death by the few Jews, and that with the con
nivance of the Persian authorities; the ease
with which the time was extended in which
the Jews could take revenge on the Per
sians in Susa; the immense height of the gal
lows ; and the conversion of many Persians to
Judaism. On the other hand, those who favor the
historicity of the book affirm that the author
had a most exact knowledge of the Persians
and the Persian court; that the portraiture
of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) agrees with what He
rodotus says of him in his seventh and
ninth books ; that it was not uncommon for
whole peoples to be destroyed by their ene
mies; that the Feast of Purim among the
Jews can not be accounted for except by
some incident like that related in the Book of
Esther. The purpose of the book seems to be to
explain how the Feast of Purim came into
existence. It does not mention the name of
God, which fact has been accounted for on
'3

194 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the ground that the later Jews avoided the
use of the name of God except in the temple
worship. Yet it recognizes the providence of
God, although the zeal of the characters is for
the people rather than for God. It is full of
the spirit of race prejudice and of revenge.
Few to-day regard Mordecai as the author.
The believers in the strict historical character
of the book think it was written near the time
of the scenes it depicts. Those who deny it
any historical value place it late in the time of
the Seleucidae. The splendor the author as
cribes to the rulership of Xerxes would seem
to point to a period considerably later than
the events.
No doubt is felt as to the unity of the book,
except the parts ix, 20-28, and 29-32. It is
asserted that the language here is different
from the other portions ; that the date of the
feast given in ix, 17-19, contradicts the state
ments of ix, 20-28; and that ix, 32, refers to a
book in which these " matters of Purim " were
written, and from which the letters in question
might have been taken by the author himself,
or by a later editor who inserted them.

the chronicles. 1 95
§30. The Chronicles.1
It is agreed that the two books were origi
nally one, and the division is supposed to have
been first made by the LXX. Ezra and Ne-
hemiah are also believed to have belonged
originally together. The last verses of Chroni
cles are identical with the first verses of Ezra;
and, since they seem to be necessary to Ezra,
it is assumed that they did not originally be
long to Chronicles, but were placed there to
indicate that Ezra-Nehemiah is the contin
uation of the history given in Chronicles.
The four books form one continuous whole
from the time of Adam to the middle of the
fifth century before Christ. They are strik
ingly alike in language. They display a like
interest in genealogical tables and in the de
scription of events and general facts pertain
ing to worship. Hence, it is supposed that
they were compiled by the same author; or
else that they had a common editor; or, third,
that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah subse-

1 Evans and Smith, Biblical Scholarship and Inspira
tion ; Oettli, Die Biicher der Chronik.

196 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
quently carried his historical work backward
by writing Chronicles.
One of the points in dispute between the
critics pertains to the sources from which the
chronicler drew his information. It is agreed
by nearly all that he knew and employed the
canonical books of Samuel and Kings ; and
those who deny the trustworthiness of Chroni
cles think these books were his chief, if not his
only source. Those, on the other hand, who
believe the Chronicles to contain reliable his
torical data, think his principal source to be
the " Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel,"
so often referred to by the chronicler, and
which evidently contained much matter not
found in Samuel and Kings. He also refers
(i Chron. xxix, 29) to the books of Samuel the
Seer, of Nathan the Prophet, and of Gad the
Seer; and, in 2 Chron. xii, 15, to the books of
Shemaiah the Prophet, and of Iddo the Seer ;
also, in 2 Chron. xiii, 24, to the story (or as in
margin, commentary) of the prophet Iddo, and
(2 Chron, xxiv, 27) to the story or commentary
of the Book of the Kings. The general suppo
sition is, however, that the prophetical bookd

THE CHRONICLES. 1 97
mentioned were parts of the "Book of the
Kings of Judah and Israel," while the stories
or commentaries referred to also formed an
other source. As facts bearing on the ques
tion of the date of composition, Oettli gives
the following: i. The close of the Chronicles
indicates a post-exilian date; and the Aramaic
preferences of the language, its late orthogra
phy, and its place in the third canon subse
quent to Ezra-Nehemiah, point to its compo
sition at a still later period. 2. The mention
of Cyrus as " King of Persia " (2 Chron. xxxvi,
22 f.), and the frequent mention of his succes
sors in Ezra-Nehemiah as " Kings of Persia,"
indicate that the author lived in the Greek
period. 3. The author carries the line of
David down to the sixth generation after
Zerubbabel. (1 Chron. iii, 19-24.) Even on
the supposition that the line is not broken as
here given, it carries the period of composi
tion to the middle of the fourth century
B. C. Since the author may be supposed to
have witnessed the growth to manhood of the
seven sons of Elioenai, we are brought down
to the point where the Persian merged into

198 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the Greek period, as the mention of Jaddua
the high priest, a contemporary of Alexander
the Great, fixes the time of the composition of
Ezra-Nehemiah. The author is supposed to
have been a Levite of the post-exilian temple,
and one of the singeis, since he follows the
activities of the Levites, and especially of the
singers, with uncommon interest.
The trustworthiness of Chronicles has been
severely attacked by many of the critics.
The author almost wholly neglects the north
ern kingdom, confining himself chiefly to
Judah and Benjamin. In giving his genea
logical lists he dwells with special interest on
Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. He hastens over
the history of Israel until he comes to David;
and from then onward to the Exile he lays
special stress upon the specifically religious
portions of the history. He also makes the
weal or woe of the people to have been de
pendent upon their religious loyalty and faith
fulness. This fact has suggested to some
critics that he made history out of his own
subjective prejudices to fit it to his theory.
But to him religion was not so much morality

THE CHRONICLES. 1 99
and justice — the kings were judged according
to their attitude toward the false religions.
His tendency to avoid mention of the faults
of David, Solomon, and other early kings, and
to glorify and idealize them, is attributed to
the fact that a downtrodden race which has
no hope for the future seeks to glorify its past.
He enlarges the real numbers and quantities
of men and of money; and, according to the
taste of the period, delighted in naked lists of
names. In view of all this, the frequent mention
of his sources has not saved him from the
suspicion of misrepresenting and manufac
turing history. Those who deny the histor
ical character of Chronicles assume that the
author wrote his history to show the blessings
which would attend a Levitically correct prac
tice of religion. Since they suppose his chief
source of information to have been the canon
ical books of Samuel and Kings, they hold
that he accomplished his end by the most
unconstrained misplacements, additions, omis
sions, inventions, and misrepresentations. Ac
cording to Wellhausen he falsely represented

200 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the entire Priest's Code as in use prior to the
Exile, whereas he maintains it was not then
known, nor in existence. The answer of the
more conservative critics to such charges
can not here be given, except to say that they
affirm that the work gives the most indubitable
evidence of trustworthiness in its historical
representations. Nevertheless its defenders suggest that
caution must be employed in the construction
of history from the data given by the Chron
icler. It is admitted that he wrote the his
tory of Israel from his own standpoint — the
Levitical-priestly ; that in consequence where
he wished to dwell upon a subject, he invol
untarily attributed views and customs to the
past which belonged in reality to his own
age; that his immense sums of gold and
silver, sacrificial animals, and soldiers can not
in all cases be accepted as facts, and that the
errors arose not from the carelessness of tran
scribers, but, in some instances at least, from
his love of large numbers; that the great
festivals of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and
Josiah may have been decked out with splen-

THE CHRONICLES. 201
dors known only in a later time; that the
Hymn of David (i Chron. xvi), the longer
speeches of David,- Solomon, Abia, Asa, Je-
hoshaphat, and Hezekiah, together with the
warnings of the prophets Nathan, Obed, and
others, may be free reproductions of tradi
tional utterances of these men. Such a re
production they defend on the ground that
John did the same with the words of Jesus;
and they deny that they lose their historical
worth thereby, any more than do the speeches
found in Thucydides or Livy, which are sub
ject to the same criticism. Of intentional
misrepresentation they do not accuse him.
They conclude that where the older historical
books give a record of an event recorded in
Chronicles, the former is to be preferred; but
that, except where there are special reasons
to the contrary, what is peculiar in the record
of the Chronicles may be accepted as a con
tribution to the history of Israel.

202 the higher criticism.
§ 31. The Traditional View of Chron
icles.
The traditionalists accuse the extreme crit
ics of being actuated in their assaults upon
the historical trustworthiness of Chronicles by
the relation the books sustain to the Penta
teuchal question. If the books of Chronicles
are trustworthy history, then the Wellhausen
theory of the Pentateuch must be given up,
and the Mosaic origin must be maintained.
Hence the desire of those who on other grounds
reject the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch to
rid themselves of the inconvenient testimony
of Chronicles. Many of the traditionalists,
however, admit that Chronicles is but a partial
and one-sided history. The author does not
give the history of the northern kingdom, nor
even of the southern kingdom, but rather of
Jersusalem, particularly of the temple, and
that only from the priestly point of view. But
they deny that because one writes a history of
one phase of life, and that from a given point
of view, therefore he of necessity distorts
the facts, or manufactures them. Chronicles,

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF CHRONICLES. 203
though partial, is trustworthy within the limits
which it proposes to cover, as Dillmann, one
of the critical school, frankly admits and em
phasizes. It is unjustifiable to regard Chron
icles as a mere religious romance, a violation
of historical veracity which must be summarily
dismissed, a heap of chaff in which the searcher
may find but an occasional grain of wheat, a
Midrash, or a religious theme written up from
the imagination, or a deliberate or else an un
conscious falsification of history. Before we
can consent to give up the truth of history in
Chronicles those who deny that truth must
demonstrate their position by valid argument,
and not by the assumption of the truth of
Wellhausen's Pentateuchal theory.
The Chronicler, indeed, furnishes a partial
and incomplete history; but it is a history
needed to supplement the other Old Testa
ment books, which had not made due allow
ance for the influence of ceremonial institu
tions. Priestly influence, though not so
profound or extensive as the royal, was not
small prior to the exile. It could not be other
wise in a nation as religious as Israel, whose

204 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
religion was essentially sacrificial. The priests
may not have influenced greath- the politics of
the nation ; but they were of great weight in
the determination of the religious mind. In
the pages of the Kings we read much about the
temple, which is regarded from the lay point
of view; but we read little of the priest.
There was a priestly view to take, but the au
thor of Kings did not take it. If Chronicles
is partial, so was Kings. And Chronicles
gives us what Kings failed to give. Then, the
Chronicler gives us the Divine chastisements
of Israel for the neglect of institutions which
foreshadowed the redemptive work of Christ.
The Chronicler "tells us the reason why Israel
was banished from their own land, the House
of God and the city of Jerusalem pillaged and
laid in ruins, and, at the same time, informs
us that God's purpose, notwithstanding the
sins of his people, who had lost sight of the
great object aimed at in their vocation, is not
to be frustrated by the will of man. Having
chastised them for their sin — and especially
for this sin — he proceeds, through the instru
mentality of a heathen prince, to restore them

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF CHRONICLES. 205
to the land and city of their fathers ; and the
great aim of their restoration is the reinaugu-
ration of those institutions and services which
the higher critics regard as the offspring of an
ambitious priestly caste. They were sent into
captivity because ' all the chief priests and the
people transgressed very much after all the
abominations of the heathen, and polhited the
house of the Lord which he had hallowed in
Jerusalem.'' As the God of their fathers, that
is, as their covenant God, ' he sent to them by
his messengers, rising up betimes and sending ;
because he had compassion on his people, and
on his dwelling place. But they mocked the
messengers of God, and despised his words,
and misused his prophets, until the wrath of
the Lord arose against his people, till there
was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon
them the king of the Chaldees,' etc., etc. (2
Chron. xxxvi, 14-21:) In a word, they were
driven into exile because of the abuse and neg
lect of those ordinances for which the higher
critics can find no higher authority than what
was inspired by the partisan policy of an am-

206 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
bitious priestly caste." Thus Chronicles sup
plies what Kings lacks.
There is nothing about Chronicles more
suspicious than is found in other books of the
Bible. Dillmann says: "Chronicles contains
a reliable history, being drawn from the offi
cial records of the Israelites, which explains
the numerous instances in which it coincides
even verbally with Kings." The critics see
the impossibility of their position on the sup
position that Chronicles is reliable, and hence
go to extreme lengths to discredit it. Well-
hatisen uses such language as the following,
in his " Prolegomena of the History of Israel :"
"We have before us a deliberate, and in its
motives a very transparent mutilation of the
original narrative as preserved for us in the
Book of Samuel." "In the cases of Joash and
Josiah, the free flight of the Chronicler's law-
crazed fancy is hampered by the copy to which
he is tied." "It is thus apparent how inven
tions of the most circumstantial kind have
arisen out of this plan of writing history, as it is
euphemistically called." " We know that this
clerical tribe (Levi) is an artificial production."

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF CHRONICLES. 207
" In vii, 4, the author again returns to his orig
inal at 1 Kings viii, 62 seq., but tricks it out,
wherever it appears to him too bare, with
trumpeting priests and singing Levites." " The
Chronicler is silent about what is bad, for the
sake of Judah's honor." " Our pious historian
substitutes his priests and Levites for the
Carians and runners." " Power is the index
of piety, with which accordingly it rises and
falls." It is not because Wellhausen and his school
are superior in scholarship that they can thus
sneer at and defame the Chronicler and his
work; for, as Bishop Ryle says, there is no sat
isfactory proof that the advocates of the mod
ern Old Testament criticism have a more
thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language
than the learned men who lived before them.
In fact, it is not a question of scholarship ; for
evidence is at a discount with the critics.
"Assertions from the inner consciousness"
take the place of evidence.
"Wellhausen frequently admits the testi
mony borne by Chronicles to the existence of
the Mosaic Law in all its essential facts in the

208 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
early ages of the monarchy, and consequently,
contrary to the terms of his own theory." He
says: "Chronicles not only takes the Law —
the Pentateuchal Law as a whole, but more
particularly the Priestly Code therein prepon
derating — as its rule of judgment on the fact."
(Proleg., p. 189.) " The inflexible unity of the
Mosaic cultus is everything to the Chronicler."
(P. 194.) " In 2 Kings the Book appears as of
moderate size; but the author of Chronicles
figures to himself the whole Pentateuch un
der that name." (P. 202.) " It must be al
lowed that Chronicles owes its origin, not to
the arbitrary caprice of an individual, but to
a general tendency of its period. It is the in
evitable product of the conviction that the
Mosaic Law is the starting-point of Israel's
history." (P. 224.) Prodigious talent would be
required for a writer to make the history of the
past speak his sentiments and convictions.
But rather than believe the history, Wellhausen
attributes to the Chronicler just such talent.
The exigency which could lead him into such
a plight was desperate. The ability on the
part of the Chronicler to do what Wellhausen

TRADITIONAL VIEW OF CHRONICLES. 209
assumes to have been done, would make it im
possible to trust any historical document what
soever. Again, the charges of the critics against the
Chronicler proceed upon the assumption that
the sacred writers wrote, not as moved by the
Holy Ghost, but by the spirit of party. As to
the argument against Chronicles drawn from
names which differ from those in Kings, ex
cessively large numbers, etc., these things are
to be accounted for, as even Dillmann admits,
on the ground of " textual corruptions, either
in Chronicles, Kings, or their common source."
Nor is the Chronicles the only part of the
Bible in which such textual corruptions are
found. We close this summary of the traditional
defense of Chronicles with a quotation from
Lex Mosaica (pp. 580, 581), the work from
which these arguments are condensed : " The
concluding verses of the last chapter of the
Chronicles raise a problem which these critics
will find it difficult to solve. If the Chroni
cler merely gratified the ambitious pretensions
of his order, how is it that God conformed his
14

2IO THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
administration so as to harmonize with this
ambitious design? How is it that he squared
his procedure, both in the eviction and the res
toration of his people, with the sinister, par
tisan purpose of the Chronicler and his sacer
dotal associates? That God has done this;
that he has acted, in the one case and in the
other, on the assumption that the Chronicler
had rightly interpreted his purpose in Israel's
vocation, is beyond question ; and the problem
hence emerging is, of itself, subversive of the
fundamental principle which is ever revealing
itself by its antagonism to the facts of the sa
cred history, partitioning them, as the partic
ular critic may list, among the ever-shifting,
ever-changing series of Elohists, Jehovists,
first, or second, or final redactors. Despite all
this uncritical, unscientific dissection of the
sacred history, the Lex Mosaica abides as the
key to the Divine History of God's dealings
with his chosen people."

Part III.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
§32. General History of New Testa
ment Criticism.
It was under the influence of rationalism
that the critical treatment of the New Testa
ment began. Semler,1 in a series of treatises
concerning the free investigation of the canon
(1771-1775), gave up the doctrine of inspira
tion, and made the canonicity of the books
of the New Testament independent of their
authorship. The Bible contained elements
which were not only erroneous, but positively
injurious ; others which were only local and
temporary; and still others which tended to
moral improvement, or to real spiritual ben
efit. The last only was the Word of God. As
the early Church had decided upon the books
which should be regarded canonical, and as
Luther had exercised his own judgment in
the valuation of the individual books, so the
1 Abhandlungen von freier Untersuchung des Kanon.

212 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Church of his (Semler's) day must judge
which portions of the Bible it would admit
into the canon.
The next important step was that of Eich-
horn.1 Tradition being no longer the guiding
principle of the critics, it became necessary to
substitute such hypotheses as would account
for the facts. Eichhorn supposed that the pe
culiarities of the three synoptical Gospels
were capable of explanation on the hypothesis
that they had for their groundwork an origi
nal Greek Gospel (Urevangelium). Gieseler2
(1818), on the other hand, proposed to explain
all the facts on the supposition that the
Gospel as preached by the different apostles
became more or less stereotyped in their own
and their hearers' memories, and, when re
duced to writing by the different evangelists
for different purposes, must come forth with
just such similarities and divergences as these
Gospels exhibit.
Schleiermacher3 sought, as early as 181 1, to

' Einleitung in das Neue Testament.
2 Die Eutstehung der schriftlichen Evangelien.
'Darstellung des Theologischen Studiums.

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 2 it,
guide criticism into a new channel. He pro
posed to place the reader of to-day in the po
sition of the original reader of the Gospels.
In order to this, he discussed first the history
of the canon and the text, and then the origin
of the individual books. For this purpose a
knowledge of the literature of the period, and
of the class of readers for which it was in
tended, was necessary. His was the boldest
judgment yet uttered concerning the genuine
ness of the various books of the Bible. He
rejected as decidedly spurious the synoptical
Gospels — which he held were composed subse
quent to the Apostolic Age — i Timothy, 2
Peter, and Revelation ; while of doubtful gen
uineness were Ephesians, 2 Timothy, James,
and 2 and 3 John.
By this time the historical-critical method
of Biblical investigation was fairly established ;
and distinguished services were rendered by
De Wette, Credner, Volkmar, and Neudecker.
In the defense of traditional views, Guericke,
Olshausen, and Neander wrote — the latter,
however, making more concessions than the
former two.

214 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
With the Tubingen school, whose founder
was Ferdinand Christian Baur,1 New Testa
ment criticism passed from its literary to its
historical stage. Baur taught that the place
of each New Testament document in the de
velopment of the history of primitive Chrisr
tianity must be ascertained in order that
criticism may fulfill its mission. Such an
investigation would involve the question as to
the circumstances which called forth the book,
its purpose, and its doctrines. As he studied
early Christianity, he thought he saw a pro
found conflict between the Christianity of
Peter and that of Paul. This he thought was
traceable through all the Christian literature
of the first century, and far into the second.
By it he proposed to explain the form which
the old Catholic Church took in the second/
half of the second century. It was also the
touchstone by which he tested the genuine
ness of all the New Testament books. The "
four letters — i and 2 Corinthians, Romans,

'His views are found in full in his "Paulus," and
in " Das Christenthums u. die Christliche Kirche der
drei ersten Jahrhunderte."

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 21 5
and Galatians — were Pauline, and represented
Paul's own views. The other books were all
written with a tendency to bring out the unity
which lay beneath the supposed Petrine and
Pauline antagonisms. The single exception
to this was the Apocalypse, which represented
the anti- Pauline view. Strauss1 is perhaps
better known in this country than Baur, and is
generally regarded as belonging to the Tubin
gen school ; but, as a matter of fact, he was
far less profound than his preceptor, Baur,
and scarcely held or promulgated any of the
opinions peculiar to him. Strauss dealt rather
with the life of Jesus than with the questions
of Biblical criticisms, the trustworthiness of
the record rather than the authorship of the
documents. Strauss regarded the incidents
related in the Gospels as " myths ;" Baur sup
posed the Gospels to have been written for the
purpose of aiding the harmonization of Pauline
and Petrine Christianity. Strauss hurried into
print, while Baur, his preceptor, was painstak
ingly studying the whole question. But the
Tubingen school had many able champions,
'Leben Jesu.

2l6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
among whom were Zeller,1 Schwegler,2 and, for
a time, Ritschl. Bruno Bauer will be men
tioned under the latest criticism of the four
principal Pauline epistles (§38).
We can not here mention the able argu
ments which the orthodox party brought to
bear against the Tubingen school; but such
men as Dietlein, Thiersch, Ebrard, and Lech-
ler must at least find mention. So, from less
orthodox sources, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Reuss,
and Hase powerfully assisted in overcoming
the new view. And even from within the
school itself divisions arose. Hilgenfeld3 soon
took an independent position. But especially
was it Ritschl4 who broke the strength of the
Tubingen school by proving that Baur had
missed the real facts in the historical develop
ment of the old Catholic Church ; that, except
for a short time, there was no such conflict as
Baur saw so prominent in the first two cen-
'His views were advocated in the Theologischen
Tahrbiicher. 2 Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter.
s First in the " Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theo-
logie,'' and later (1855) in " Das Urchristenthum."
*In Die Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche (2d
edition, 1857).

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 217
turies; that Baur's assertion that to admit
the reality of miracles is unhistorical, is in
correct; and that the only true method of
judging Christianity is not to place it under a
secular measuring-rod, but to estimate it from
the religious standpoint. The principal liv
ing representatives of the Tubingen school
are O. Pfleiderer1 and C. Holsten,2 although
neither of them adheres strictly to Baur's
views.
§33. Present-day New Testament
Criticism.
Weiss3 divides the theologians of to-day,
so far as they have to do with New Testa
ment questions, into the newer critical school
and those whose tendencies are apologetic or
defensive. Under the former he ranks Har-
nack, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Mangold, H. J.
Holtzmann, Immer, Wittichen, Lipsius (de-
'See his views set forth in his " Paulinismus " and his
" Das Urchristenthum."
2 His opinions are fully given in " Zum Evangelium
des Petrus und Paulus," " Das Evangelium des Paulus,"
and "Die.drei urspringlichen, noch ungeschriebenen
Evangelien." 'Einleitung in das Neue Testament.

218 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
ceased), Overbeck, Paul Schmidt, W. Bruck
ner, Seuffert, von Soden. Among the latter
he mentions Beyschlag, Grimm, Klopper,
Weiss (Bernhard), L. Schulze, Hofmann (de
ceased), Th. Schott, Luthardt, Klostermann,
Zahn, Grau. In fact, there is no classifica
tion better than this; although, especially in
the latter, there are vast differences.
The newer critical school rejects Baur's
theory of an opposition between a Petrine
and a Pauline Christianity, and hence finds
the true explanation of old Catholicism else
where; but it maintains many of the pre
sumptive results of the Tubingen school, and
is governed by its methods and presupposi
tions in a large measure. In addition to
Paul's four principal epistles, they generally
accept also Philemon, Philippians, and i Thes-
salonians; but, in contradiction to the Tu
bingen school, they reject the Apocalypse.
They do not accept as belonging to the apos
tolic age the so-called catholic (general) epis
tles, nor Hebrews; reject the fourth Gospel
most decidedly; and even deny that the apostle
John ever lived in Asia Minor.

THE SYNOPTIC Q UESTION. 2 1 9
Among the apologists, the school of Hof-
mann, to which Luthardt, Zahn, and Grau
belong, is distinguished by great conservatism
in the criticism of the New Testament. This
school is, in a large measure, influenced in its
criticism by dogmatic considerations. It re
gards every book in the canon as absolutely
necessary — the Scriptures as an organic whole ;
and holds to the doctrine of inspiration, not
so much of each book as of the canon as a
whole. Beyschlag and Weiss, on the other
hand, are much freer in their treatment of the
canon and the individual books, and have no
respect for dogmatic considerations in the
conclusions they reach. Yet, compared with
the critical school, they may be called con
servative. §34. The Synoptic Question.
A cursory examination of the first three of
our canonical Gospels reveals a remarkable
similarity in contents, as well as in language
and in the order observed. This, rather than
the fact of variations, has led to the critical
theories with regard to their origin. Until

220 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the beginning of this century the prevailing
method of explanation was, that each evan
gelist used one or more of the Gospels pro*
duced by the others. Griesbach supposed that
Mark had abbreviated Matthew. Wettstein
and others that Mark used Matthew; and
Luke, both Matthew and Mark. Owen held
that Mark epitomized both Matthew and Luke.
Early in our century Eichhorn undertook
to explain the similarities on the supposition
that the authors of our canonical Gospels all
based their work on an older Gospel (the so-
called Primitive Gospel), used by the assist
ants of the apostles as a guide in their labors.
This hypothesis found many supporters, but
its details were so complicated and improbable
as to render it impossible of final acceptance.
Yet critics generally agree that his hypothesis
pointed in the right direction. Taking the
suggestion from Herder, Gieseler undertook to
show tbat all the peculiarities of our synoptic
Gospels can be best explained on the hypoth
esis that a comparatively fixed form of teach
ing concerning our Lord, his words and deeds,
would naturally develop during the years in

THE SYNOPTIC QUESTION. 221
which the apostles preached the gospel in
and about Jerusalem, and that this oral gospel
formed the basis of the writings of our canon
ical Gospels. This hypothesis was favorably
received, but soon discovered to be inadequate ;
although it is not without supporters even in
the present day.
The Tubingen school introduced the next
important change in the criticism of the
synoptics. According to this school the Gos
pels were not intended to be histories, but
bear the character of "tendency writings," in
tended to help forward the union of the Petrine
and Pauline parties. The Gospels, them
selves, however, bore but little evidence of
such a strife as Baur had supposed to exist
for more than a century after the ascension of
Christ. Hence he supposed them to have
been written at a date late enough to allow
the dispute to have almost died out (130-170).
With the fall of the Tubingen school fell also
this hypothesis concerning the origin of the
synoptic Gospels.
Early in this century Weissex argued that
'In his Evangeliwhe Geschichte

222 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the testimony of Papias concerning a Gospel
by Mark is applicable to our canonical Mark,
and that hence we have here an original
source from which the two other Gospels
(synoptic) drew much of their matter. Bern-
hard Weiss holds to a document still earlier
than our Mark, and known to him. This
document he supposes to have contained a
collection of our Lord's sayings, and also a
collection of incidents in our Lord's life.
Holtsmann1 thinks these two were distinct
sources, and that our Mark was dependent
upon the collection of incidents, while Mat
thew and Luke were dependent upon it and
the collection of sayings of our Lord. It will
be impossible, however, to give here an ac
count of the multitudinous theories which
have been advanced to clarify the synoptic
question. For details the reader is referred to
the larger Introductions.

' See his views in full in his " Hand-Commentar zum
Neuen Testament." Erster Band

the gospel of matthew. 223
§35. The Gospel of Matthew.
The early Church held this Gospel for the
first. Holtzmann, although denying that in
its present form it was written by Matthew,
admits that it was not without good reason
that the early Church held it to be the work
of the apostle whose name it bears. Papias
said that Matthew wrote a book of sayings of
our Lord in Hebrew. Some think this does
not exclude the supposition that his book also
contained records of the doings of our Savior.
Many competent critics think it probable that
our canonical Matthew is simply a translation
of the Hebrew Gospel. Others think that
the author of our Matthew drew from the
apostolic document. Weiss thinks that he
drew from the apostolic document and from
Mark. It is plain that those who are de
scribed in the last two sentences deny the
apostolic origin of our Matthew, although
they may credit it with entire trustworthiness.
Those who deny the apostolic origin of the
first Gospel, but derive it from an apostolic
"source," suppose that the first two chapters

224 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
did not belong to the "source." With some
it is doubtful at what date the "traditions"
arose which they record.
The majority place the date of the Gospel
about 70 A. D. ; but Baur fixed it at 130, some
of his followers going back still earlier to
105-110. Opinions are divided as to the na
tivity of the author. Holtzmann argues from
chapter xix, 1, that the author lived in the coun
try east of the Jordan. Weiss argues in favor
of the non-Palestinian residence of the author,
because he explains the names Immanuel and
Golgotha, and the prayer of Christ on the
cross (i, 23 ; xxvii, 33, 46) ; because he did not
know the original home of the parents of
Jesus, which he infers from chapter ii, 22 ; and
because he supposes Matthew to have drawn
from Mark, who was not an eyewitness;
whereas, had he lived in Palestine, he would
have gone direct to still living eyewitnesses.
Others argue with equal cogency for the Pales
tinian nativity and residence of the author.
It is pretty generally conceded that it was
written for Jewish readers, although some

THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 225
think they were Jews who lived in the midst of
Gentile populations, and not in Palestine.
§36. The Gospel of Mark.
The contents of this Gospel are nearly all
found in Matthew, and, for the most part, in
essentially the same order ; but while Mat
thew undertakes to show that Jesus is the
son of Joseph and the son of David, the Mes
siah of prophecy, Mark's purpose is to exhibit
Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew seems to
be written for Jewish, and Mark for heathen
Christians. Mark has sometimes been taken for an epit
ome of Matthew, sometimes for an epitome of
the first and the third Gospel. Weiss thinks
Mark's chief source was the collection of our
Lord's words and deeds by Matthew — the so-
called Logia document; Hilgenfeld, that it was
a tendency document, designed to harmonize
doctrinal differences between parties; Volk-
mar,1 to show that Paulinism began as early
as the time of Christ. Some think this not

' In Marcus und die Synopsis. 15

226 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
the Gospel written by Mark, but that it is
based upon a Gospel by him. The majority
are disposed to believe that this Gospel is the
product of a pupil of Peter, as Mark was sup
posed to be. (i Peter v, i^
The same arguments which would fix the
date of Matthew prior to the destruction of
Jerusalem hold good for Mark. Those who
regard Mark as the author, place it about that
time. Those who hold to a primitive Mark,
-upon which our Mark is based, or maintain
that ours is made up of extracts from the other
Gospels, place the date variously from no to
130 A. D. The genuineness of chapter xvi,
9-20 has been challenged. It does not seem
to fit well the former part of the chapter, and
it is wanting in some of the oldest manu
scripts.
§37. The Gospel op Luke.
While there are many critics who deny
that our third Gospel was written by the per
son whose name it bears, attributing it rather
to Timothy, Titus, or some other person, the
majority admit the truth of the constant tra-

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 227
dition from the time of Irenseus, that it was
written by Luke. This is supported by the
almost universally accepted theory that the
Gospel was produced by one who had been
closely associated with Paul, and represents
his conception of the availability of the gos
pel of Christ for heathen as well as Jews.
This is proved by the many coincidences be
tween the doctrinal presuppositions of the
Gospel and Paul's well-known views, as well
as by the harmony of its historical statements
with Paul's record of the same events.
The date of composition has been a point
in controversy. The Tubingen school, re
garding it as a tendency document, intended
to act as an irenic in harmonizing the sup
posed Pauline and Petrine factions, could
not at first place it earlier than 130 A. D.
Present-day adherents of that school place it
about 100 A. D. Deniers of the principle of
the Tubingenites feel at liberty to place it
anywhere between 63 and 80 A. D. The gen
eral supposition that Luke and Acts were
written by the same person makes it probable
that the former was written before the latter ;

228 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
but the abrupt close of Acts with the account
of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, has sug
gested that the Gospel must have been writ
ten prior to 64. This presupposes, however,
that the Acts was intended to give a history
of the apostles. Most critics deny this, and
explain the book as an account of the spread
of Christianity, and think that Luke was sat
isfied when he had traced its progress to
Rome, the capital of the empire. In this
case, the date with which Acts closes would
give no hint of the date of composition ; and
hence none of the date of the composition of
Luke. This clue having failed, other critics
decide from such criteria as they can find.
Weiss, who regards Luke as the author, thinks
it was written about A. D. 80.
In the beginning of his Gospel, Luke sets
forth his purpose to write an exact account of
the life and deeds of our Lord. He intimates
that others before him have not succeeded in
this attempt. This suggested that he could
not have meant to criticise Matthew and
Mark ; and hence these Gospels were not in
existence when he wrote. This would make

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 229
Luke the first of our canonical Gospels in
order of time. But in any case it is as
serted that he proposed to profit by the defects
of his predecessors; and hence he must have
had " sources " at his command. What these
were, is the question. Weiss thinks he had
the apostolic document of Matthew, and that,
besides, he employed Mark and another source
traceable, but whose authorship is unknown.
Others who adhere more closely to the theory
of Gieseler (§ 27), lay greater stress upon the
information he received from eyewitnesses of
the life of our Lord, and from Paul.
Attacks have been made upon the historical
trustworthines of this Gospel; but they are
little emphasized in the present day. Luke
assures us that his purpose was to write accu
rately, so that Theophilus might be confirmed
in the teaching he had received. The integ
rity of the book is universally conceded at
present. Some reject the statements of the
first two chapters, explaining their admission
into the book as best they may. The chief
obstacle to their acceptance is the miracles
they record.

230 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
§38. The Acts of the Apostles.
The connection of this book with the fore
going makes it convenient to treat it here in
stead of after John. It is generally, though
not universally, agreed that the author of the
Gospel also wrote the Acts, and that it was
Luke who wrote both. Some, however, hold
that Luke wrote the " we " portions — that is,
the portions in which the author writes in the
first person plural — and that this was made in
part the basis of the book, especially of the
latter part, by another author.
As to the sources of information, critics
generally hold that they were mostly written.
This supposition is absolutely necessary to
those who believe it to be a production of the
second century. But while few think oral
sources sufficient to explain the peculiarities
of the Acts, many believe that Luke received
much of his information from those who were
eyewitnesses of the events recorded. The
majority, therefore, believe in the trustworthi
ness of the record. The miraculous nature of
many of the events has only caused its cor-

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 231
rectness to be doubted by those who reject all
miracle. The Ttibingenites held that the
facts were distorted to suit the purpose of the
author, which was to harmonize the Pauline
and Petrine factions. Paul's sayings and do
ings were modified to give them a Petrine
coloring; and Peter's, to conform them more
nearly to the standard of Paul. But even
followers of the Tubingen school now largely
discredit this idea. Other questions will be
found mentioned in the preceding section
§ 39. The Gospel of John.
The Johannean question briefly stated is
this: The synoptic Gospels present a picture
of Christ so different from that of John that
m.any have felt that if the former are true to
the facts the latter is false, and vice versa.
The doubt has also been strongly felt of the
possibility of John's having written both the
Gospel and the Apocalypse.
The first to raise any serious doubt of the
genuineness of the Gospel was Bretschneider }
In one form or another he presented about
'In his " Probabilia."

232 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
all the objections that have ever been pro
duced. Among the principal opposers of
Bretschneider was Schleiermacher. He argued
that the Synoptics and John are respectively
to Jesus what Xenophon and Plato were to
Socrates. In both cases the former concerned
themselves rather with externalities, and the
latter with the true inner personality of their
masters. With Baur a new form of criticism
began. He attempted to show that the whole
Gospel is simply an attempt to construct the
history of Jesus in accordance with the Logos
idea of the prologue. In this way he ex
plained the divergences of the fourth from
the first three Gospels, which far more nearly
represented to him the real history. Hence
it was not written by an apostle; and it was
not written — as we might expect of John —
from the Judaistic-legalistic standpoint, but
from that of the heathen-universalistic Chris
tian. Since it presupposes the entire develop
ment of Christianity to the middle of the sec
ond century, it could not have been written
until after that time.
The defenders of the genuineness of the

THE GOSPEL OF TOHN. 233
Gospel have generally rejected all attempts to
show that it is genuine only in parts, and
have insisted that it is wholly reliable history ;
but there are those who have admitted that
John may have unintentionally colored the
utterances of Jesus according to his own sub
jectivity, although giving them in the main
as they fell from the lips of our Lord. Such
was the view held by Luthardt} Weizsacker
holds essentially to this opinion; but denies
that it was written by John, attributing it to
one of his disciples.
At the present time there is a tendency
on the part of the opposers and defenders of
the genuineness to come still nearer together.2
The opposers place the date earlier than for
merly, and allow more of historical trust
worthiness; the defenders grant that John
wrote his Gospel under the influence of the
impression which Jesus made upon him
throughout a long life. This is the opinion
of such men as Luthardt (as before stated),

1 Das Evangelium nach Johannes.
2 Schurer, Ueber den gegenwartegen Stand der Johau-
neischen Frage.

234 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Grau, Beyschlag, and Weiss. Others there
are, however, who defend the genuineness,
trustworthiness, and integrity of the Gospel
in every sense of the word. Among these
may be mentioned Godet and Keil. To such
thinkers, John is not theology clothed in bio
graphical or historical form, but genuine his
tory. They deny any contradiction between
John and the Synoptics, and stand firmly by
the reality of all John's representations.1
§40. The Johannean Epistles.
The majority agree that the Gospel and
First Epistle of John were written by the
same person. Of course the Tubingen school
deny that the author is John, and place the
date of both comparatively late in the second
century. One of the critical questions has
been: Which is earlier, the Gospel or the
First Epistle? Baur decided in favor of the
Gospel, because he thought the Epistle so
poor in thought. Hilgenfeld, on the other
'A most excellent defense of John will be found in
Nast's forthcoming volume on the fourth Gospel, ad
vance sheets of which have been kindly placed at our
disposal.

THE JOHANNEAN EPISTLES. 235
hand, took opposite ground, because of the
riches he saw in the Epistle. Both as-
sumed that the earlier one must be the richer
in thought. The newer critical school deny
the Johannean authorship of both Gospel and
Epistle. Bretschneider was the first of importance
to deny the Johannean authorship of the
Epistle. Both he and Paulus attributed it to
John the Presbyter. The principal reason they
assigned was the nature of the error referred
to in the Epistle. This they supposed to be
the error of Docetism. Since that time, there
has been a dispute among the critics as to
what the error really was which John con
demned. Perhaps the majority have now
reached the conclusion that the false doctrine
attacked was that of Cerinthus, who taught
that the heavenly iEon, Christ, united him
self with Jesus at his baptism, and separated
from him before his death. The Cerinthian
error was promulgated during the lifetime of
John the apostle.
Even those who in the present day deny
the Johannean authorship of the First Epistle,

236 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
affirm that it rests on Johannean traditions,
which had continued to make themselves felt
to a very late date. Baur thought he found in
the Epistle evidences of the influence of
Montanism. In any case, the supposition
that the Epistle was written to confute error
is erroneous, as one can see in the very first
verses of the first chapter, where the purpose
of the letter is named. Some have supposed
the Epistle to have been written in Patmos,
but the majority place it in Ephesus.
Even the Second. and Third Epistles have
been made to bear the character of tendency
writings by the Tubingen school. Baur sup
posed that they were written to the Monta-
nistic portion of the Roman congregation.
He attributed them to a third John, only the
Apocalypse, according to him, being the work
of the apostle. Opinion's have differed decid
edly as to the real authorship of the epistles
among those who deny them to John. Per
haps the majority favor the authorship of the
Presbyter John. This they support particu
larly by the fact that, while the author of the
Gospel and the First Epistle nowhere names

THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 237
himself, here the author calls himself the
Presbyter. One of the critical questions here
is, whether the Second Epistle is addressed to
a Christian matron or to a congregation under
the figure of a matron. The generally ac
cepted opinion is the former. Hilgenfeld
thinks it was written for the entire Christian
Church. The majority of those who attribute
these letters to the Apostle John think they
were written about the same time, and at
Ephesus. Weiss thinks thev were written
prior to the First Epistle.
§41. The Book of Revelation.
While we are treating the other Johannean
books, we depart in this — as in some other
cases — from the canonical order of the books,
so as to bring those by the same author to
gether. The principal questions with which
we are concerned are those of the genuineness
and the unity of the book. For the first time,
we have to record that the Tubingen school
adhered to the genuineness of a non-Pauline
New Testament book. To them no book had
so good testimony to its apostolic origin as the

238 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Apocalypse ; but while they held John for
its author, it is to be feared their chief mo
tive was to find an excuse for the rejection
of the Johannean origin of the Fourth Gospel.
According to the Tubingen critics, it was im
possible that both Revelation and Gospel
should have been written by the same person.
This opinion was shared by Schleiermacher,
Neander, and others ; but these rejected the
Apocalypse in the interest of the Gospel.
Weizsacker thinks there is enough difference
between Revelation and the Gospel to exclude
a common authorship, but that there is also
enough similarity to suggest it. Among those
who have denied the Johannean authorship is
Luther. On the other hand, the genuineness
is defended by a powerful company, includ
ing the Tiibingenites. Truly, theology, like
politics, sometimes makes strange bedfellows.
Another class will not deny its Johannean
character, although they dispute his author
ship. Volkmar thinks it was written by an
antagonist of Paulinism, but in the spirit of
John. Weizsacker thinks it was written by a
pupil of John, toward the end of the first cen-

THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 239
tury, but subsequent to the apostle's death.
Grau holds that it was written under the di
rection of the apostle.
The unity of the book has also in recent
years been vigorously attacked. Volter1
thought he could distinguish five strata in
the book: i. A primitive Apocalypse of the
Apostle John in the year 65 or 66; 2. A sup
plement by the original apocalyptist in the
year 68 or 69; 3. The first revision, in the
time of Trajan; 4. The second revision, about
129 or 130; 5. The third revision, about the
year 140. Vischer2 gave a new turn to the
discussion when he announced the theory that
Revelation is a Jewish Apocalypse, revised by
a Christian hand, with additions. This he
supports on the ground that the book contains
unmistakably Jewish elements, together with
others as distinctively Christian. Diisterdieck,
while not accepting Vischer's theory, admits
that it has in its favor the fact that Jewish
Apocalypses were sometimes so revised by
Christians, and thus found their way into

' Entstehung der Apocalypse.
2 Offenbarung Johanuis.

240 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
congregational use. Schon1 assumed that the
Christian author took up into his work Jew
ish oracles of the year 68-70. Pfliederer
thinks there are distinguishable two Jewish
apocalyptists and two Christian revisers.
The second of the two former adopted an
Apocalypse of the years 66-70. The first
Christian reviser wrote under Domitian; the
second, under Hadrian. Spitta2 assumes that
John Mark wrote an Apocalypse about A. D.
70. This was combined, toward the end of
the first century, with two Jewish Apocalypses,
the first of which belonged in the time of
Pompey; the second, in the time of Caligula.
The time and place of composition are
both in dispute among the critics, who are by
no means at one as to whether it was written
before or after the destruction of Jerusalem, or
as to the place of composition.
According to Volkmar, the false teachers
of chapter xvi, 13, include Paul; and Volter
identifies the Nicolaitans with the Mon-
tanists.

1 L'Origine de 1' Apocalypse de Saint Jean.
2 Die Offenbarung des Johannes.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 24 1
It is also a disputed question whether the
scenes follow each other, or are intended to
be contemporaneous. The difference of view
here gives rise to a great variety of methods
of interpretation. The book is one which
more than any other puzzles the critics.
§42. The Epistle of James.
The principal critical questions connected
with this Epistle center about its relationship
to the teachings of St. Paul. Luther thought
its teachings were diametrically opposed to
those of Paul; and as he accepted Paul's
views alone as evangelical, he called James
an epistle of straw. The Tubingen school
also held that Paul's letters and James were
contradictory, and saw in this a proof of the
supposed antagonism between Paul and the
original apostles; although it did not fit into
their scheme to make the Apostle James the
author of the Epistle. The majority of crit
ics to-day do not see any essential contradic
tion between James and Paul. There is one
class who regard the Epistle as having been
written so early that it could not possibly

242 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
have been intended to antagonize the Pauline
doctrine of justification, since that doctrine
had not yet spread very fair, or perhaps had not
even been promulgated. According to them,
James saw in the Jewish Christians scattered
abroad among the Gentile populations certain
defects both in the theory and practice of
Christianity, and these his letter was written
to correct. Others think that the Epistle was
written after the doctrines of Paul had be
come well known, and that the author of the
Epistle had full knowledge of them. Of
these that portion who deny any purpose to
antagonize St. Paul or his doctrine, suppose
that James intends merely to guard his read
ers against false applications of the Pauline
doctrine. §43. First and Second Peter.
Among the methods employed to cast
doubt upon the genuineness of First Peter
has been the attempt to show that Peter never
was so situated that he could have learned
the Greek. Another point much disputed is
as to the relation between First- Peter and

FIRST AND SECOND PETER. 243
Ephesians. The coincidences are acknowl
edged by all; but some think First Peter was
influenced by Ephesians; others hold pre
cisely the reverse. It is also a question
whether the Epistle is written to Jewish
Christians, to heathen Christians, or to mixed
congregations of Jews and heathen. The
Tubingen school held First Peter to be spuri
ous, and attributed it to the purpose of the
author to unite the divided parties m the
Church. According to their theory the Epis
tle, pretending to come from Peter, testified
to the correctness of Paul's teaching. Of
course since, according to their view, it was
not written by Peter, but by a member of the
Pauline party, it was a pious fraud.
The genuineness of Second Peter has been
far more generally doubted than that of the
First Epistle. The principal source of doubt,
so far as the internal evidence is concerned,
is the relationship it sustains to the Epistle
of Jude. The dependence of one upon the
other is universally admitted. Opinions di
vide as to whether Second Peter drew from
Jude or the reverse; but defenders of the

244 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
genuineness deny that Peter could not or
would not have drawn from Jude. The fact
that he touches upon matters wholly unmen-
tioned in the first letter the defenders explain
on the supposition that a considerable time
elapsed between the composition of the two
epistles, during which those addressed in both
letters had undergone a change of situation.
The late adoption into the canon of the New
Testament, which has caused many to doubt
its Petrine origin, is generally explained on
the supposition that it was written too near
the death of the apostle to obtain circulation
during his lifetime, and hence, from the be
ginning, lay under the shadow of unjust
doubt. §44. The Epistle of Jude.
This is another of the New Testament
books which Luther rejected; but he was
governed by the traditional view that the
author meant to represent himself as an apos
tle; whereas, to Luther, it was apparent that
he was not an apostle. Critics now almost
universally admit that the letter does not in

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 245
any way make the claim to having been writ
ten by an apostle, but by Jude, the brother of
James, the brother of our Lord. He was also
governed in his opinion by its apparent rela
tion of dependence upon Second Peter, and
by its quotation from the Book of Enoch. It
has been often supposed that the false teach
ers condemned by Jude are those prophesied
by Peter, and hence that Jude must be later
by some years than Second Peter; but others
are of the opinion that Jude does not attack
false doctrine, but a misapplication of Pauline
truth. It is admitted on all sides that the
citation from the Book of Enoch gives us no
data by which to determine the time of com
position; and critics to-day take no offense,
as Luther did, at the citation of unscriptural
books by a Scripture writer. The newer crit
ical school generally, however, deny that it
was written by Jude, the brother of James,
and place the date of composition about A. D.
140. They think it professes to antagonize
the Gnosis of Carpocrates, and the Antino-
mian Gnosis of the second century in general.

246 the higher criticism.
§45. Galatians, Romans, and First and
Second Corinthians.
Until very recently criticism had, almost
without exception, admitted the genuineness
of these four principal Pauline epistles. F. C.
Baur, the founder of the Tubingen school, de
clared that the evidence of their Pauline ori
gin was so indubitable that it was unthink
able how criticism could ever raise doubts
concerning them. In fact, these and the Rev
elation of St. John were the necessary founda
tion of their theory that there was a profound
disharmony between Paul and the primitive
apostles. Bruno Bauer's1 attempt to cast
doubt upon the genuineness of these epistles
received no countenance whatever. The first
in recent years to attack their genuineness
were the two Hollanders, Pierson and Loman.
Pierson2 says it is natural to suppose that so
remarkable a personage as the Paul of Gala
tians is a fiction of a member of the ultra-

'Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe.
2De bergrede en andere Synoptische Fragmenten,
and in various articles.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 247
Pauline school, and not a reality. But it re
mained for the Swiss theologian, Rudolf
Steck,1 to develop this doubt systematically.
He attempts to prove that none of the four
principal letters attributed to Paul .is from
his pen; and, in fact, that we have nothing
which was written by him. His method of
investigation is far more scholarly, calm, and
respectful than Bruno Bauer's, and, unlike him,
he maintains the historic personality of Jesus
Christ. According to his view it is improper
to assume the genuineness of these four let
ters, and it is the duty of criticism to apply
the same principles to their investigation that
are applied to the smaller Pauline epistles.
The importance of the problem thus raised
demands comparative fullness of treatment.
Steck affirms that we must either allow
that Paul wrote more than these four principal
letters, or else deny that we have anything
whatever from his pen. He argues that since
Revelation — which was one of the main sup
ports of the Tubingen school — has recently

'In "Der Galaterbrief." He is well answered by Jo
hannes Gloel, Die jiingste Kritik des Galaterbriefes.

248 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
fallen into doubt, we must needs suspect,
also, the other books acceptable to the Tiibin-
genites. He sees in Galatians a dependence
upon Romans and the Corinthian letters of
such a kind that it is impossible they should
all have been written by the same hand. He
regards the Paulinism of Galatians as far more
advanced than that of Romans. While the
Tubingen school rejected the Acts as historic
ally untrustworthy, Steck regards its informa
tion concerning Paul as substantially reliable.
He thinks the author of Galatians secured his
information largely from the Acts, but distorted
it in the interest of ultra-Paulinism. To his
mind, the most senseless thing which could
have been done at the time was what is re
lated in Galatians ii. The author of Gala
tians meant to deny that Paul ever made the
smallest concession. The Paul of Galatians
is not the real Paul, but an ideal of an ex
treme disciple of the great apostle to the
heathen. In Galatians, which was composed
about A. D. 1 20, is found not the Paulinism
of Paul, but of his disciples. He thus sup
poses that the opposition between Paulinism

THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 249
and Jewish Christianity did not appear in its
sharpest form during, but subsequent to, the
lifetime of the apostles.
His conclusions concerning Galatians he
seeks to support by pointing out the evi
dences of a late composition for the Roman
and Corinthian letters. He also affirms that
the Christology of these letters is too advanced
for the time of Paul, the argument being
based on the presumption that the Christology
of the primitive apostles was far simpler than
that which prevailed seventy-five years later.
In this connection, also, he draws an argu
ment from the similarity in many particulars
of the Johannean and the Pauline Christology.
From the fact, also, that the Old Testament
citations are from the LXX version, he argues
that the author could not have been acquainted
with the Hebrew, which Paul of course under
stood. He also attempts to show that these
four letters exhibit a literary dependence upon
the synoptical Gospels, the Ascension of Moses,
the fourth Book of Ezra, and the philosophical
writings of Philo and Seneca. On the other
hand, he denies that any writing prior to

250 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
A. D. 130 shows literary dependence upon
our four letters. .
Steck is of the opinion that the antagonism
between the Pauline and the primitive apos
tolic Christianity became greatly accentuated
subsequent to Paul's death, and that the order
of the development of this antagonism is
marked by the order of the composition of
these four epistles, which he makes Romans,
First and Second Corinthians, Galatians. All
the New Testament documents were produced,
according to him, in the first half of the sec
ond century. The custom of attributing let
ters to celebrated men was so common in
those days as to remove it from the category
of the blameworthy. He even claims for his
universal rejection of the genuineness of the
New Testament documents an advantage equal
to allowing all to be genuine. If all are spu
rious, none are spurious ; no single document
falls into contempt in comparison with others
because it is supposed to be spurious.
In Germany, Steck's criticism has found
only opposition ; but in Holland, where the
movement had its start, it has found consider-

FIRST AND SECOND THESSALONIANS. 25 1
able favor. Professor Van Manen, of Leydeu,
goes much farther than Steck. He even ac
cuses him of too great conservatism in allow
ing historical trustworthiness to the Acts.
With Steck, Paul is a great historical person
age. Van Manen does not deny his existence ;
but he denies that we know anything very
distinct concerning him. He suspects that
we have to thank Gnosticism for the four
principal letters of Paul. According to this,
we would have absolutely no data but our
own inner consciousness to teach us what
Paul taught, or who he was.
§ 46. First and Second Thessalonians.
The common interpretation of the first
three chapters of First Thessalonians in the
days of Baur, according .to which the apostle
was supposed merely to have given expression
therein to the feelings of his heart, suggested
that no worthy motive could be discerned for
the Epistle, and hence it was not apostolic.
He also rejected the supposition of Pauline
origin, because he thought it to be dependent
upon the Acts, which he regarded as a post-

252 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
apostolic production. The late date of the
epistles has been suspected because of the
celebrity of the congregation at the time of
writing, and the supposed considerable num
ber of deaths which had occurred among the
Thessalonian Christians. It has also been
thought that both the doctrine and the lan
guage of the epistles are un- Pauline.
The apocalyptical character of part of the
Second Epistle has given occasion to consid
erable criticism. During the first century the
opinion prevailed that although Nero had
disappeared he was not dead, and that he
would reappear from the Orient. The apoca
lyptical features of Second Thessalonians have
been supposed to be constructed in some way
according to this expectation. The one thing
common to all these theories is, that Vespa
sian was that which "hindered," and who
must be gotten out of the way before the
Apocalypse could be fulfilled. Hilgenfeld
took a different view. He thought he saw in
the "falling away" a time of severe persecu
tion, and hence held that the letter was writ
ten during the reign of Trajan. Especially

EPHESIANS. 253
did he regard the "mystery of iniquity" as
identical with the rising Gnosticism.
The vast majority of the newer critical
school maintain the genuineness of the First
Epistle and reject that of the Second; but as
there are names of the first order who can be
quoted against the First, so can others equally
strong be quoted in favor of the Pauline origin
of the Second. §47. Ephesians.
The principal argument which has been
urged against the genuineness of this Epistle
is its relationship to Colossians, which has
been supposed to be that of dependence. It
has been declared that Ephesians is an en
largement of Colossians without addition of
thought, though with a redundancy of words.
The letter has been accused of displaying a
style of thought and language unworthy of
the Apostle Paul. Many have found refer
ences to phases of Gnosticism not in exist
ence at the time of Paul. The Tubingen
school found not only references to late Gnos
ticism, but even thought the writer was in-

254 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
fluenced by Montanus. They thought that
the tendency of the letter was to unite the
yet divided parties of the Church by a union
of faith and love, and by mutual concessions.
The relationship of the Epistle with First
Peter has also been a subject of dispute.
The similarity is not disputed; but the ques
tion is, whether Ephesians presupposed a
knowledge of First Peter or First Peter a
knowledge of Ephesians. Those who deny
the genuineness are inclined to the former
supposition. §48. Colossians.
Mayerhoff1 was the first to dispute the
genuineness of this Epistle. He thought that
both the language and the teaching were un-
Pauline. Baur saw in the Epistle the attempt
of a pupil of Paul to bring the latter into
harmony with the Logos doctrine of the
Fourth Gospel. He thought that the — to
him — evident references of the Epistle to
Gnostic ideas proved it to have originated
with one who was impregnated with Gnosti-
' In Der Brief an die Kolosser.

PHILEMON. 255
cism. Ewald supposed that Timothy wrote
the letter after conversing with Paul, and
thus explained the differences between this
letter and others unquestionably Pauline. A
still different form of criticism is that of Holtz
mann. He thinks1 it possible to distinguish
a genuine letter of Paul to the Colossians in
our Epistle, which was imitated by the author
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and inter
polated by him so as to make up our present
Colossians* This idea be supports by the at
tempt to show that Colossians lacks true
connection of thought. Bleek supposed that
Paul had dictated the letter to Timothy,
which reminds one of Ewald's hypothesis
mentioned above. §49. Philemon.
The close relationship between this short
letter and Colossians is universally admitted ;
but Baur, who rejected Colossians, did not
spare even this Epistle. He held it to be an
undeveloped romance, intended to teach that
compensation is found in Christianity for all
' Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbrief.

256 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
our earthly losses. Holtzmann thinks that
verses 4-6 are additions by the author of the
letter to the Ephesians. Weizsacker thinks it
is intended as an illustrative representation of
a new doctrine in reference to the Christian
life, and that the very name Onesimus indi
cates the allegorical character of the letter.
The genuineness of the letter is universally
conceded to-day; and it is held to be one of
many similar letters which Paul must have
written to friends, but which have been lost.
§50. Philippians.
The Tubingen school led the way in pro
nouncing this letter spurious. A principal ar
gument was its supposed Gnostic ideas, and
especially its presumed relation to the Valen-
tinian Gnosticism. The usual " tendency" to
conciliation of the divided parties of the
Church is here assumed to exist; and Schweg-
ler even saw in the two women of chapter
iv, 2, typical representations of the Pauline
and anti-Pauline parties. One by one, how
ever, all critics have come over to the defense
of its genuineness, except two or three. Yet

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 257
there are those who feel that there is a decided
difference between the Paulinism of this and
some of the older letters ; and this acknowl
edged fact is one of the arguments upon which
the few who still reject the Epistle depend.
§51. The Pastoral Epistles.
The question of the genuineness of these
epistles is interwoven with that of a second
Roman imprisonment of the Apostle Paul.
The majority maintain that there is no period
in the life of Paul, as it is known to us, when
these letters could have been written. Those,
therefore, who would defend their Pauline
origin, suppose that Paul was released from
his first imprisonment, spent several years in
travels and preaching, and was subsequently
arrested, imprisoned, and executed. Such a
supposition, they claim, has reasonable his
torical evidence in its favor. Others hold
that the supposition of a second imprison
ment is insufficiently supported, and hence
deny the genuineness of these epistles, or, if
convinced on other grounds of their Pauline
origin, undertake to show how the situation
17

258 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
presupposed in them fits into the, to us,
known life of Paul
But the critics have found other difficul
ties in the way of accepting these epistles.
Schleiermacher, who rejected only First Tim
othy, thought that Epistle was a compilation
from Second Timothy and Titus. As criti
cism advanced, it was made plain that these
letters attacked errors, and presupposed an
advancement in ecclesiastical organization not
hinted at in the other Pauline epistles. It
was further admitted that the letters con
tained language and ideas peculiar to them
selves. Some undertook to show that they
were composed by some immediate disciple of
Paul, perhaps by Luke.
Baur supposed that they were written in
the second century in the name of Paul, for
the purpose of lending the weight of his name
to opposition against certain Gnostic heresies.
He also supposed that it was the necessity
of protection against these same heresies
which made their recommendations concern
ing Church government necessary. Thus, ac
cording to his opinion, about the year 150

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 259
A. D. furnished the onlv conditions out of
which such letters could spring.
The attempt to declare these letters spuri
ous has met with arguments so cogent on the
other side that many have proposed to show
that one or all of them are combinations of
genuine Pauline documents, with additions by
a pupil of the great apostle. Grau thinks
this was done by the aid of remarks by Paul
in letters written to their author, together
with recollections of his utterances in con
versation. The attempts at discovering genu
ine elements in the Pastoral Epistles are a con
cession in favor of their Pauline origin. But
there are few who would not admit that there
are serious difficulties in supposing that the
letters were written entire by Paul ; yet there
are many who, recognizing these difficulties,
refuse to reject the epistles on their account.
§ 52T The Epjstle to the Hebrews.
The principal critical question in connec
tion with this Epistle pertains to the author
ship. Opinions continued to waver until
Bleek — in his work of 1828, Der Brief an

260 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
die Hebraer — settled the question against the
Pauline authorship for almost all German
critics. Weiss (Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das
Neue Testament) claims the following argu
ments as decisive against the Pauline author
ship : The letter gives no hint of a claim to
have been written by Paul. It has no address
at the beginning, as do all Paul's letters. The
author does not call himself an apostle nor
assert apostolic authority. Paul always in
sisted that he had not received his gospel
from man, but direct from God; whereas, the
writer of Hebrews (chapter ii, 3 f.) speaks of
himself as a disciple of the primitive apostles.
The whole plan of the letter is different from
the Pauline. The doctrinal and the practical
portions are not separated as by Paul, but
interwoven. No New Testament document is
so free from Hebraisms, and written in such
pure Greek. While Paul struggles to express
himself, the language of Hebrews flows on
with great smoothness ; and the evidences of
rhetorical skill are in plain contrast with the
dialectic brevity of Paul. The great apostle
generally quotes from the LXX, but always

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 26 1
betrays an acquaintance with the Hebrew
text, while the writer of Hebrews evidently
does not know the Hebrew. While Paul cites
freely from memory, the writer of Hebrews
quotes so accurately that it must have been
copied from an open book.
The fact that Paul argues against the per
manency of Judaism has led many to trace
the Epistle to the Hebrews either to him or to
one of his disciples. But the opponents of
the Pauline origin of the letter point out that,
while in the undoubted letters of Paul he as
sumes that, however perfect the law was, it
was never intended to be more than tempo
rary, the writer of Hebrews argues that it
is temporary because imperfect. They deny
the identity of the doctrines of Hebrews
with those found in Paul's letters. Having
denied the Pauline authorship, recourse has
been had to the supposition that it was writ
ten by a pupil of Paul, as Luke, or Clement
of Rome ; others have thought of Mark or
Aquila. Luther, and with him are many
others, attributed the letter to Apollos. Weiss
favors the hypothesis which attributes the

262 THe HIGHER CRITICISM.
letter to Barnabas. He thinks that his birth
in Cyprus would account for the evidences of
Alexandrian culture found in the Epistle,
while his Levitical extraction explains his
knowledge of the ritual service of the Jews,
and the emphasis he places upon it. His
companionship with Paul will explain the
similarity of the Epistle to those of Paul.
Many critics agree with Weiss. It is inter
esting to note that criticism now inclines to
the opinion that the ritual service of Hebrews
is not that of the temple, but of the taber
nacle. Especially does Von Soden insist on
this view.

Part IV.
ESTIMATE OF RESULTS.
§53-
The purpose of this book is neither the
defense nor the denunciation of the higher
criticism; nor did its purpose admit of an at
tempt to refute the arguments by which the
conclusions recorded were sustained. Our
aim has been to state the critical problems
and their proposed solutions, without any at
tempt to estimate their importance, correct
ness, or tendency. In the first edition there
was one class of scholars whose opinions and
arguments we scarcely noticed in these pages.
We refer, of course, to the so-called tradition
alists. But it must not be supposed, on the
other hand, that we recorded the conclusions
alone of the skeptical school. We gave, so far
as space would permit, the views of every
grade of critic except the traditionalist, whose
views on most of the Old Testament questions
will be found sufficiently treated in this edition.
It is difficult to find any accurate designa- 263

264 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
tion for the different schools of critics. To
call them destructive only means that they
destroy previous opinions, and overlooks the
fact that, at the present day, no critic is con
tent with this; but all feel called upon to
construct a theory in place of every one over
thrown. The same remarks apply to the
terms negative and positive as distinctive of
different schools of criticism. More nearly
correct is the distinction of radical and con
servative. This, however, overlooks the fact
that these two classes shade into each other
until it would be almost impossible to classify
under the one category or the other. It has
also been proposed to apply the political des
ignations of Right, Left, and Center. But
the Center always stands for a distinct policy ;
whereas those critics who may not be classed
with the Right or Left, can hardly be said to
be guided by principles distinct from the other
two parties, but are rather influenced by a
mixture of both. They are not as conserva
tive as the Right, nor as radical as the Left;
but they do not differ from either so much in
kind as in degree. Between the radical and

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 265
the conservative, however, there is a distinct
difference in kind, at least so far as principles
are concerned. The former shrink from the
supernatural in Scripture; the latter fully ad-,
mit it. The presumptive results of the latter
might be — although generally they are not —
as radical as those of the former, but they
would not spring from radical principles.
Here lies the really important difference be
tween the radical critic and the conservative.
It is not in the conclusions they reach con
cerning the date and authorship of a book,
but in the principles which lead them to their
conclusions. In the one case we are robbed
of our Book and our religion as well; in the
other, the determinative criteria as to the
Book leave our faith intact. Now, it is Just
here that the critic whom we would call
mixed conservative-radical finds his . place.
He leans with his heart to the old faith, but
his intellect leads him to cut away its founda
tions. And his results will be as mixed as
his principles, since, in fact, he is governed in
part by subjective considerations in what he
retains of the Bible.

266 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
The general opinion perhaps is, that Ger
many is the home of the most radical criti
cism. If we compare Germany with England
this may be true, and still more so if com
pared with America. For the staunchest de
fenders of the faith in Germany are as radical
in their criticism of the Bible as our most
objectionable critics in America. But if we
compare Germany with France, Switzerland,
and Holland, we shall find the former far more
conservative.1 Not to mention the fact that
the French, Swiss, and Dutch scholars are
less original, it must be confessed that they
are far less sober than their German neigh
bors. They seem to delight in extremes, per
haps under the impression that the more a
position diverges from that commonly accepted
the greater the evidence of scholarship. It is
the usual error of imitators. The one who
has made a profound investigation of any
subject may reach erroneous conclusions ; but
he generally does not draw conclusions beyond
the warrant of the facts he supposes himself
to have discovered.
'See, for example, §45.

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 267
As to the value of the conclusions reached
by the critics it is difficult to express an opin
ion without incurring the risk of opposition.
One thing is practically demonstrated in the
preceding pages; namely, that the variations
of opinion among the critics themselves are
so great as to suggest the propriety of being
in no haste to give up the traditional view of
the date and authorship of the books of the
Bible. There are very few positive conclu
sions upon which the critics agree among
themselves, and it looks as though it were
hopeless to expect agreement in the future.
The arguments of one are ignored or opposed
by another of equal ability, although they
may agree in their conclusions. In other
cases they agree upon the facts involved, but
differ in their interpretation of them and as
to the inferences to be drawn. What seems
to one the height of wisdom, appears to an
other the depth of absurdity. Such differ
ences among the giant intellects will cause
the ordinary man to despair of reaching a
safe conclusion, and will drive the practical
man to adhere with greater firmness than ever

268 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
to what has been hitherto found a good work
ing hypothesis, allowing those who have time
and inclination to concern themselves with
these theoretical questions.
On the other hand, while opposing with all
our power the love of negation so prominent
in many critics, and the skeptical principles
of those who deny the supernatural in the
Bible, a hearty welcome should be extended
to all reverent Scriptural investigation, even
though the investigator may not always reach
the conclusions we accept. To cast the odium
theologicum upon those who profoundly, mi
nutely, and in the proper spirit, study the
Bible to elicit its secrets, would be to subject
the world once more to the rulership of eccle
siastical authority. The reverent study of the
Bible may be safely trusted to result in plac
ing it higher, not lower, in the esteem of men,
to say nothing of the fact that it will freshen
the soul with new revelations of truth from
God. The great danger is that Bible study with
scientific appliances will be content with its
science, and not go on to the study of its practi
cal and spiritual truth for daily religious needs.

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 269
In estimating the value of the presumptive
results of higher criticism, it must not only be
remembered that most of them are merely
presumptive, but also that there are men of
profound learning who dispute almost the en
tire system of critical conclusions. They have
weighed the arguments, and found them in
sufficient ; they have critically examined the
Bible for themselves, and find the strongest
evidences of the truth of the traditional
theory. One might not be convinced that
these scholars are right ; but, at least, one
must admit that conclusions so supported by
such men are entitled to respectful considera
tion. If we demand that the critics have a
hearing, fair play requires that the opposing
theories be not summarily discarded as un-
scholarly, and especially in view of the fact
that most of the traditional views have the
weight of great critical names in their sup
port. Almost every new theory, however
plausible in its entirety at first, is liable to
subsequent modification, not to say rejection.
It is a serious question whether the con
clusions of criticism may properly be left to

270 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
stand or fall by critical considerations alone.
The Christian should not lightly yield a point
which affects his faith, - even when the ad
verse conclusion seems to be supported by
sufficient argument. It is impossible for the
genuine Christian to be indifferent as to the
outcome of a dispute concerning his faith or
its foundations. While it is not justifiable to
give one's self up blindly to a creed, some
things must be regarded as fixed if chaos is to
be prevented in thought and life. No one can
think without presuppositions. The presup
positions of Christianity may as scientifically
be made the starting-point of inquiry as those
of negation or infidelity. We must suppose
the essentials of Christianity to be either true
or not true. To attempt to leave this an open
question is practically to deny, although it may
be but tentatively, that Christianity is true.
That form of argument, therefore, which
appeals to Christ as authority on this subject
is legitimate if properly employed.1 If Jesus
has spoken directly or indirectly on the ques-
1 See in particular Ellicott's " Christus Comprobator."

ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 2 7 1
tions at issue, the Christian must hear and
heed. This nearly all admit, but some deny
that he has spoken. There are critics who
deny the omniscience and even the superiority
of Christ's knowledge. They do not hesitate
to say that Jesus was ignorant of the facts
as to the authorship of the books of the Old
Testament, and, with his fellow-countrymen,
took their reputed for their real authors.
Others suppose that he knew the facts, but
that he merely accommodated his language
to the belief of his hearers. The difficulty of
this theory is that it does not recognize the
frankness of speech which characterized the
utterances of our Lord. Jesus was accus
tomed to expose, not to leave untouched, the
errors of the Jews. Another form of this
theory is, that by a metonymy Jesus may
have merely spoken of a work by its reputed
author. Whether all the references of our
Lord to the Old Testament can be thus ex
plained is a question each must decide for
himself. It is difficult to suppose that, with
all the facts before him, he would have left

272 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
them in such egregious error as to their history
as the higher critics suppose to have pre
vailed among the Jews.
One of the most far-reaching conclusions
of the critics is that the writers of the Bible
erred in some or many of their statements of
scientific, historic, and psychological fact.1
They deny the inerrancy of the Bible, and
affirm that as long as these errors are not as
to matters of faith and practice, the value of
the Bible is not thereby diminished. They
argue that the Bible is not a book of science,
of history, or of philosophy, but of religion.
It can be expected to be correct, therefore,
only so long as it speaks on religious themes.
More radical critics, however, do not hesitate
to say that the Bible contains errors even in
its religious and moral utterances, and that
therefore reason must be employed in distin
guishing the true from the false. Some say
that the Bible not only does not claim per
fection for itself, but even denies its own per
fection.2 Most are content to account for any
1 See Evans and Smith's " Biblical 'Scholarship and
Inspiration." "Mead, Supernatural Revelation.

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 273
imperfection in religious utterances on the
ground that revelation was progressive, and
that the earlier must of necessity be defective.
Those who insist on error in these earlier re
ligious and moral precepts, either do not be
lieve in 'their true revelation, or explain by
saying that God adapted his requirements to
the stage of advancement of the people.
Closely connected with the doctrine of in
errancy is that of complete and uniform in
spiration. Very few theologians, and none of
the critics, believe to-day in verbal inspira
tion; but the majority conform their doctrine
of inspiration to their idea of the degree of
truth or error in the Bible. Many critics,
however, remand the question of inspiration
to dogmatics, and feel called upon to investi
gate the human conditions alone under which
the various books of the Bible as well as the
canon came into existence. They naturally
come to ignore, in some cases to deny entirely,
the Divine element in the origination of the
Bible. .Too much emphasis can not be laid upon
the fact that, as the Bible is our only suffi-

274 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
cient rule of faith and practice, the chief study
of the Book should ever proceed from and re
turn to this starting point. The question is
legitimate as to what authority or value any
portion of the Bible possesses. To some we
may attach more, to other parts less ; but when
we make such questions our principal business
in the study of the Word of God, we pervert a
means and make it an end. Criticism, so far
as it concerns the Christian, is the handmaid,
not the mistress. If criticism is practiced for
the purpose of making the Bible more avail
able for practical, devotional use, it is a bless
ing. If practiced for its own sake, it is likely
to lead astray. And as long as the Church
concerns itself to practice the plain, unques
tioned teachings of the Bible, criticism, even
of the most radical kind, can do no harm.
The best preventive of spiritual defection is
experience. Those who have tested the prom
ises of the Word, and found them true, are
not likely to be disturbed by any assaults upon
the Scripture, nor by any reconstruction of
theories concerning it. But if any one is ,
more inclined to defend the Bible against

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 275
criticism than to practice its precepts and
enter into the inheritance of its promised
blessings, he is in as dangerous a position as
the most skeptical critic; for, although theo
retically a believer, he is practically an infidel
in spite of his belief. There is little danger
from the most extreme conclusions of criti
cism as long as saints are common. There
is far more to be feared from a dead ortho
doxy. The chief cause of alarm in connec
tion with Biblical criticism is not in its
methods nor in its conclusions, but in its
tendency to make the Bible a book to be
studied, not practiced. Investigation there
must be; and investigation should be so con
ducted that our faith may more perfectly con
form to the gospel of Christ, and our practice
to the teachings of his Word.

Part V-
1F THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT,. WHAT?
§ 54. The Doctrine of Inerrancy.
The Christian thinker may assume either
one of two attitudes towards those results of
Biblical criticism which contradict traditional
opinion — that of hostility, or that of accom
modation to the new situation. The former
would require him to counteract argument
with argument more cogent. The latter
would not demand acceptance of the sup
posed results, but lead him to inquire what
will be the consequences if, in the end, these
results come to be accepted, and what sort of
a Christianity that would be which would re
main. And this is an inquiry which the
Christian must make. An unbeliever might
entertain a purely scholarly interest in the
problems of higher criticism; but the Chris
tian is conscious of a practical interest as
well. There may be processes of scientific
276

THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 277
investigation whose results are so remotely
connected with our practical life that the
Christian need have no care as to the out
come; but not such is the scientific investi
gation of the Scriptures. The Bible professes
to be at least the record of God's revelation
to man. If it does not contain trustworthy
accounts of the words spoken, the deeds per
formed, and the spirit manifested by our Lord,
then we have no account of these. If we
have not here a portraiture of the effects
which the forces of Christianity may naturally
be expected to produce in the lives of the
followers of Jesus, then we have no authori
tative standard of Christian life. The Chris
tian can not therefore divest himself of the
consciousness of a profound personal interest
in the results of critical inquiry into the ori
gin and authority of the Bible. The capa
bility in any one of such disinterestedness
would prove that Christianity is of small value
to him. The Christian, then, must interrogate criti
cism concerning its practical consequences.
If he finds that it is sweeping away the foun-

278 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
dations of his faith, he must prevent it if he
can, or failing, mourn over the ruins of his
cherished beliefs. But if he finds the con
clusions of the critics consistent with the vigor
and energy of Christian experience and life,
even though requiring certain readjustments,
he may let criticism go on its way with perfect
unconcern, since, although it may cause him
some inconvenience, it leaves him in posses
sion of what he holds dear.
A comparatively limited knowledge of Bib
lical criticism will suffice to remind us that
the critics are not all of one kind. Their
principles, methods, and moral and intellec
tual qualifications differ greatly. It is custom
ary to classify them popularly as radical and
conservative; but there is no such distinct line
of demarkation as this classification indicates.
It would be better to designate them as rad
ical, mixed, and conservative. We can not
here consider the radicals, because it is plain
that their principles would overthrow Chris
tianity in any of its present prevailing forms.
Nor can we deal with the mixed class, since
they have no harmonious principles of proced-

THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 279
ure, leaning toward the radicals with their
judgment, and toward the conservatives with
their hearts. We confine ourselves to the con
servatives, whom we further distinguish from
those critics who always reach traditional con
clusions. The gist of the entire question is the author
ity of the Bible. It has always been the funda
mental principle of Protestantism that the
Church is neither the first nor the final author
ity in matters of faith and practice. It is the
very essence of rationalism to give to reason
the final decision.
There would seem to remain, therefore, to
the non-rationalistic Protestant only the re
course of appeal to the founders of Christian
ity. But for such an appeal we must have a
record in which we can confide. There are
those, therefore, who affirm that the Bible is
infallible in all its parts, and that any error
would invalidate the entire Book; that while
it is not a book of science, history, -or psy
chology, whenever it touches these points its
statements are absolutely correct. On the
other hand, exceedingly conservative critics

280 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
admit the existence of errors in dates, num
bers, sequence of events, names of persons
and places, statements of natural science, and
the like. They admit that writers of the
books of the Bible labored under misappre
hensions, and yet placed these upon record
in conjunction with other statements of exact
truth. Now, the question is, Do these con
cessions destroy the authority of the Bible?
The rationalist says they do, and rejoices that
the divine faculty of reason in man is to take
the place of an infallible pope and an infal
lible book. The ultra-traditionalist agrees
with the rationalist, with an "if;" but he de
nies the existence of the errors, and thus saves
himself from the rationalist's conclusions.
The conservative critic says that these
concessions do not destroy the authority of
the Bible, because they do not touch the
points upon which the Bible professes to be
authority. These critics distinguish between
the religio-ethical and the other portions of
the Bible, and affirm that the Bible was not
given to teach science, history, etc., but to be
a rule of faith and practice. They affirm

THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 28 1
that since no error has ever yet been demon
strated in those particulars in which revela
tion is necessary, we need not be troubled if
there are occasional errors elsewhere. Most
of them, moreover, claim that the demon
strable errors in history, etc., are so few or so
unimportant that to reject the Bible on their
account would be like rejecting the sun be
cause there are spots on it. In their princi
pal contention they are supported by the fact
that the great evangelical Confessions make
the Bible solely a rule of faith and practice.
And this is what the Bible says of itself.
(2 Timothy iii, 15-17.) Nor do the great
Confessions assert inerrancy or infallibility
except in matters of faith and practice. Two
less important Creeds teach the absolute in
errancy of the Bible — the Creed of the New
Hampshire Baptists (1833), which says that
the Bible "has absolute truth, without any
mixture of error for its matter;" and, by im
plication, the Confession of the Evangelical
Free Church of Geneva (1848), which says:
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are en
tirely inspired of God in all their parts."

282 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
There are many who are not ready to give
up their Bibles in the event that it should
finally turn out that the zoology, botany, and
other non-religious utterances of the Bible
are demonstrated to be in some rare instances
inaccurate. Such a conclusion is too weighty
for such premises. We would not assert the
existence of errors in the Bible; but if any
one else does, we would deny the rationalistic
conclusion that it is therefore a purely human
book. §55. Inspiration.
That the doctrines of the absolute inerrancy
of the Scripture and of its inspiration are inti
mately connected is beyond doubt. And here
again the principles of the radicals and those
of the ultra-traditionalists are strangely par
allel. If you could convince the former that
the Bible is an errorless book, they would at
once admit its entire divine inspiration. The
latter hold to its inerrancy, and hence to in
spiration in every part and particle. Con
sistently held, this theory can, at most, allow
to the human subjects of inspiration the free
dom of amanuenses, who must write exactly

INSPIRATION. 283
what, and only what, is dictated. No room is
left for the expression of the writer's individ
uality, and, of course, none for error. Very
few would venture to-day to hold to inspiration
in so extreme a form as this. It is now gener
ally admitted that the Scripture writings dis
play the individuality of their writers. The
doctrine of inspiration may still maintain, how
ever, that these peculiarities do not amount
to errors, and that any true doctrjne of inspi
ration at least required that the Inspiring
Spirit should guard the writers from record
ing any error. And this is, briefly stated,
what the believers in inerrancy claim. In
their judgment, the doctrines of inspiration
and inerrancy stand or fall together.
If the Book is not in all its parts the pro
duct of direct divine inspiration, it can not be
inerrant. If, on the other hand, it is not in-
errant in all its parts, it can not be inspired.
If it is not inspired and inerrant in all its
parts, it is in no part trustworthy. One ad
herent of this view illustrated his view by
saying that Tray was a good dog, but because
Tray was found in bad company he was shot;

284 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
that is, if we find truth mixed with error in
the Bible, even the truth is rendered uncer
tain. This would certainly be the case if we
supposed every part of the Bible to be equally
inspired. For if the Holy Spirit could be sup
posed to inspire the proclamation of one error,
we could not be sure, except by a subjective,
test, that he had not inspired much error.
Now just here is where the conservative critic
meets his chief difficulty. He can not believe
in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, although
he finds it in the main so capable of bearing
the most exact scrutiny as to indicate the
greatest care on the part of the authors.
He can not believe that the errors are
placed on record by inspiration, but is com
pelled to attribute them to human infirmity.
On the other hand, he finds prophets and
apostles claiming inspiration, or at least reve
lation, and he is in no wise disposed to deny
their claim. He further asserts that the Bible
nowhere gives us an exact account of the na
ture, degree, or extent of inspiration; and that
all these have been fixed by uninspired men.
Hence he maintains the right to examine the

INSPIRATION. 285
phenomena which the Bible presents, and to
reach conclusions divergent from those of his
.uninspired predecessors or contemporaries.
The substance of the conclusions of the
critics is that inspiration, like inerrancy, can
only be predicated of those parts of the Bible
which have to do with faith and practice.
They do not say nor intimate that other por
tions of the Bible contain no truth. On the
contrary, they assert that these parts manifest
the greatest care to state things as they are,
and with a very high degree of success.
The great purpose of inspiration undoubt
edly was to secure to the word of the inspired
speaker or writer unquestioned authority. It
is the doctrine of " The Teaching , of the
Twelve Apostles " (chap, xi) that one may
not question the accuracy of the utterances of
one who spoke under the influence of the
Prophetic Spirit. But the question whether
any one should be acknowledged as a prophet
still remained open. John exhorts his readers
to "try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets have gone out
into the world." And then he makes the test

286 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
of their true inspiration, conformity in doctrine
with his teachings concerning Jesus Christ.
(i John iv, 1-3.) Paul applies a similar test.
to the professed prophets of his time. (Gal.
i, 8, 9.) The assumption both of John and
Paul is, that inspiration has to do with the
gospel of Jesus Christ, and with nothing else.
They based the proof that any one possessed
prophetic gifts upon the contents of their gos
pel teachings, not upon the accuracy of their
historical utterances.
If, then, we will not discredit the ascer
tained truth of the Bible because errors are
supposed also to be found there, neither must
we reject the inspiration of some parts, be
cause other parts are held to be uninspired.
And Paul and John, while apparently limiting
the results of prophetic inspiration in their
day to gospel questions, at the same time give
us a criterion by which to judge of the in
spiration of any document. If it contradicts
the gospel, it is not inspired. And if those
to whom Paul and John wrote could apply
this test, so can we; for it is not to be sup
posed that they possessed the gift of the dis-

INSPIRATION.

287

cerning of spirits any more than we do. Let
it be observed that we are not arguing in
favor of this partial inspiration of the Scrip
tures, but that we are trying to show that we
need not reject inspiration entirely if the
critics rob us of belief in the inspiration of all
parts of the Bible. The inspiration of those
portions of the Bible which have to do with
our faith and practice remains untouched, and
it assures us of the authority of those precious
treasures. It will be interesting to discover what the
great Creeds have to say upon this phase of
the controversy. The first and second Hel
vetic Confessions seem to forbid such a con
struction of inspiration as the conservative
critics give us. This is probably true also of
the Irish Articles of Religion of 161 5, and
certainly of the Creed of the New Hampshire
Baptists of 1833, and of the Evangelical Free
Church of Geneva of 1848. On the other hand,
while they do not teach such a distinction as
to inspiration, there is nothing to forbid it in
the French Confession of 1559, the Belgic of
1 56 1 (revised in 16 19), the Scotch of 1560, the

288 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church
of England, and the Articles of Religion of
the Methodist Episcopal Church.
The language of the Westminster Confes
sion is such as to admit of doubt. Yet we are
inclined to the opinion that it would not for
bid the view of inspiration held by the con
servative critic. In all fairness it ought to be
said that while not expressly forbidden by
anything in the above-named creeds, their
framers probably held to the view of the ultra-
traditionalist. If they were living now, how
ever, and were to write in the light of the
discussions of the present and recent past, it
is impossible to say where they would range
themselves. The preponderance of evidence
from the Creeds is apparently on the side of
the traditionalists as regards inspiration ; but
it must be borne also in mind that the ques
tions to be settled then were entirely different
from those now engaging the Protestant world.

date and authorship. 289
§ 56. Date and Authorship of the Books
of the Bible.
It would seem at first sight as though it
could make no difference who wrote the books
of the Bible, nor when they were written, if
they were divinely inspired. What need has
one to be an eyewitness of events if he can se
cure perfect knowledge of them through inspi
ration ? So that on the theory of the complete
inspiration of every part of the sacred Scrip
tures, neither the date nor the authorship of
the Biblical books would have any effect upon
their authority.
Nevertheless, it is just here that conserva
tive criticism approaches nearest to tradition
alism; and many a critic who willingly yields
the doctrines of inerrancy and of the plenary
inspiration of all parts of the. Bible, is exceed
ingly chary of admitting the composition of a
book at a later date than that in which its
supposed author lived. The reason is not far
to seek. The testimony of an eyewitness is
all the more important in the absence of in
spiration. Besides, some of the books of the
'9

290 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
Bible profess to have been written by certain
well-known characters. If they were not
written by these men, they are forgeries.
Now, the radical critics remind us that men of
sincere piety did in those days sometimes
write religious books for the edification of the
people, and attach the names of Jewish or
Christian celebrities to them to give them
authority. This may be admitted. The end
was supposed to justify the means. What
they wrote was important truth ; but the peo
ple would not bow to the authority of the real
authors. In order to benefit their readers,
they committed pious frauds by attaching the
names of others of greater repute than them
selves. Thus the critics seek to show that, forgers
though they were, these writers committed no
conscious wrong. In this way it is indeed
possible to overcome the old argument that a
man who would forge a literary work could
not inculcate such pure doctrines. Arguments
contrary to the supposition of forgery throng
upon us. The men who could write such
works as those of our canonical Scriptures

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 291
must have been men who needed not to bol
ster up their writings with names of men of
the past. Then, too, the radical critics have
carried the matter so far that both the Old and
New Testaments are, according to their theo
ries, largely made up of forgeries. Conserva
tive critics do not see how such a wholesale
system of forgery can lay claim to be the
Word of God. Surely God was not shut up
to such a method of revelation. The editing
and re-editing of some of these books they
may admit. Interpolations need not be de
nied. One may even allow that documents
originally separate, one or more of them by
unknown authors, might in the course of time
come to be regarded as the production of one
man, as is supposed to be the case with the
Psalms and Isaiah. But even this hypothesis,
when employed to explain so many portions of
the Bible, not only fails to secure the consent
of the judgment, it produces the feeling that
our confidence in the Bible must be given up
if these things are true to the extent which
radical critics affirm. Hence the tendency on
the part of conservative critics to reduce the

292 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
number of such instances to the minimum.
All such suppositions detract from the dignity
of the Bible, and should not be lightly ac
cepted. It is so exceedingly improbable that
God would employ such methods of revela
tion to such an extent that most men would
be compelled, if they accept the critical re
sults as facts, to yield their belief in the Di
vine origin of the Book.
Those who hold to the traditional view of
the date and authorship of the books of the
Old Testament sustain themselves in their
belief by the attestations given in the New
Testament. We may pass by what all others —
except our Lord — say of the Old Testament.
Many tolerably conservative critics are in
clined to believe that when Jesus refers to
Isaiah, or to David, or to Moses, he does not
thereby mean to set his seal upon their author
ship of the books generally in his day attrib
uted to them. One of the most offensive
forms of this theory is that which maintains
that Jesus was ignorant of the real authors,
but supposed, with his fellow-countrymen, that
their reputed were their real authors. Now,

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 293
apart from the doctrine of the omniscience of
Jesus, such a supposition is a blow at his rep
utation for superior religious knowledge. In
everything else he had an insight into the
facts deeper than his contemporaries. But
here he is represented as being as ignorant as
they. The theory in this form is incompatible
with -faith in Christ as we conceive it in the
orthodox Churches of to-day. The doctrine
that he did not attest the authorship of the Old
Testament books may be tolerated ; but not
the argument just mentioned in support of it.
But some who hold that he did not attest
the authorship of the Old Testament explain
his utterances on the supposition that he knew
that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor
David the Psalms, nor Isaiah the last twenty-
seven chapters of Isaiah, but that, knowing
these things, he accommodated his speech to
their belief. It is true that one may some
times, without mentioning it, doubt the prem
ises of a speaker, yet for the sake of argument,
and to prevent diversion or digression from the
main point, assume them. But here again the
frequency of it is the main obstacle to its ac-

294 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
ceptance. It is in plain contrast to the usual
frankness of Jesus, and no pedagogical interest
could demand such a sacrifice of his own be
lief and reserve of the truth. The theory
does not attribute to Jesus any deception; but
it presupposes a capability of knowing facts of
importance, and yet of systematically with
holding them from his hearers. It is there
fore as much of a reflection upon his charac
ter as the former upon his intelligence, and is
consequently even more objectionable.
The supposition that Christ's utterances
were not meant for attestations of the author
ship of the Old Testament books is capable
of support in a manner entirely unobjection
able. When he referred to these books, it
was the contents themselves, and not the
authors, upon which the emphasis was laid.
He may be supposed to have employed me
tonymy, to have spoken of a work by the
name of its reputed author. This would not
imply either ignorance of the facts nor a
weak yielding through three years of public
teaching to the views of his hearers. Put in
this form, it would not be inimical to our

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 295
faith. But it would still be a debatable ques
tion whether all the references of our Lord to
Old Testament books will admit of such an
explanation. And it would also be a question
whether Christ, who exposed so many Jewish
errors, would have left this one untouched.
For if Moses did not write the Pentateuch,
nor Joshua the book of that name, nor David
a large part of the Psalms, nor Solomon any
of the three books ordinarily attributed to
him, nor Isaiah the last thirty-one chapters
of Isaiah, nor Jeremiah the Lamentations,
nor Daniel the book which bears his name,
etc. ; and if the history of Israel is so entirely
different from that which the Old Testament
represents it, as the critics would have us be
lieve, — then the Jews of Christ's day labored
under a deception so broad, and an illusion so
profound, that we can scarcely imagine Jesus
to have known the facts and yet to have said
nothing whatever about them. Of course it
is possible; and our province here is not to
discuss the merits of the case. Our interest
is to discover whether the opinions of the
critics are consistent with the existence of

296 THE HIGHER CRITICISM.
our faith. The general conclusion reached
is, that some modification of our accepted
opinions concerning the inerrancy and inspi
ration of the Scriptures, and of the date and
authorship of the Old Testament books, would
be compatible with everything vitally con
nected with our holy religion. But such
modifications must not be proposed upon
purely literary considerations, nor may they
be carried to the extent to which many critics
would carry them. There is no danger to
the truth; but to the one who misses the
truth there is danger. Christian truth makes
Christ not merely the founder of our religion,
but the object of our love and the source of
our life. Christianity will be destroyed by
whatever robs us of this.

the end.