By Prof. E. Benj. Andrews,
Brown University. Providence, R I.
Taken from THE HEBREW STUDENT Volume 2 Issue 4 December 1882
Whatever, in general, we may
think of the movement whose
acquaintance we make in Professor
Robertson Smith’s “Old
Testament in the Jewish Church,” we cannot
but be thankful for the lively
interest which the new departure marked
in the book is sure to awaken in
Old Testament study. Heretofore the
feeling has had shameful
prevalence that the New Testament could be
well enough understood apart
from the Old; so that, even for the
Theologian, fine knowledge of
the Old was pretty nearly
superfluous,—rendered
necessary through fashion and
tradition far more than by the
veritable needs of his work,
while the preacher could, at best, hardly afford so
costly an acquisition, and might
even sin by expending the time necessary
to make it. Theological students
have too generally considered the
effort spent upon Hebrew to be
almost lost, and, as a class, have
consequently shown well-nigh
total lack of enthusiasm in this part of their work.
Among the noble army of martyrs,
the glory and crown of the Christian
Church, surely none will more
richly deserve the eternal rewards promised to
that patience which is proper to
saints, than the Professors of Hebrew in
our Theological Seminaries.
The new criticism will do much
to banish this apathy. It will
greatly aid all to see that
anything like mastery of the New
Testament is out of the question aside
from large study of the Old. In
addition to this, it will bring those
hitherto remote topics more
vividly into sight, exhibit them in their intrinsic
interest, and reveal the study
of Old Testament history, literature and
antiquities as one of the most
improving,, helpful and entertaining of all
Theological pursuits.
Another gain, still more
valuable, is to be this, that
the Theological world will in due time come to
possess a far more precise and
solid knowledge touching the
development of Jewish literature
and institutions, and upon Old Testament matters
at large, than has been had
hitherto. Most opinions and statements
regarding these matters have
been thus far based largely upon
tradition. Many such judgments
are probably correct and destined to stand,
but, since they have been framed
without that fiery proof of data to
which, now, all the data are
certain to be subjected, even the most critical
Hebrew savans can scarcely boast
that certitude concerning them with
which the ordinary Theological
Student may easily provide himself when
this fierce war of criticism is
over. Up to the present time a vast
number of questions in Old
Testament Introduction, questions whose
solution is indispensable to the
satisfactory use of that venerable volume, have been
in the same state in which the
master topics of New Testament
Introduction were until F. C. Baur. For example, Christians before Baur,
as since, supposed, of course,
that each document of the New Testament
hailed from the first century;
but to make out in any case a
thoroughly valid and evident
proof of this was what, perhaps, not a scholar on
earth could then do. Now it is
far otherwise. The suit which that
rash and radical investigator Baur, invoked, has been decided against
him at almost every point,1 his
ultra position having been refuted in
many cases even by his own
pupils, recipients of his own able
training, and working upon his
own historical method. So tough a campaign of
criticism has resulted similarly
in respect to New Testament science
in general. At last we know
where we are. Undecided questions
remain, to be sure, even here,
but they are relatively few and rapidly
becoming fewer still.
This increased solidity of
knowledge, the outcome of
critical warfare in the New Testament realm,
teaches what ought to be the
attitude of all Christians, and especially of
all Theologians and Ministers,
toward the new criticism. We ought not to
discourage it, but, rather, to
help it on in every way. We want the
highest obtainable certainty
upon every Old Testament question, be it
what it may; and such certainty
can only come through the resolute
carrying forward both pro and
con, of that
study and discussion into which
the new criticism has plunged
us. If the old views are correct, as we
firmly believe they will, for
substance, prove to be, we wish to know that
fact. If any of them are
incorrect, still more, were it possible, do we
wish to be certified of that. A
passive, tacit assurance about beliefs
which exists only because the
beliefs have never been challenged, will not
suffice Theology in these days
of inquiry. We can be
Satisfactorily sure
of any proposition
theologically, only after it has been questioned, and
valid grounds for it
established. So that, if we are wise, we shall do
nothing to discourage, except by
refuting him, even the radical critic. Why
should all the perilous and
difficult investigations in Theology be forced into
infidel hands ? There is,
perhaps, one chance in a thousand that the
ultra critic is wholly in the
right; if so, we desire, of course, to be with
him. It is as good as certain
that he will tell us something true.
Even if he should prove to be
totally in the wrong, our joust with him will
attest the strength of our arms
and our cause as nothing else could
possibly do. Had F. C. Baur and
his allies been silenced by either force or
gibes, the Church’s present
sweet and triumphant consciousness of
possessing authentic records of
incipient Christianity, would be
impossible. So, for our part, we
thank God for F. C. Baur. And precisely
because we long for this same
comfortable conviction about the Old
Testament do we plead that all
may have the fullest liberty, without
persecution even in the form of
sneers or disparaging innuendoes, to investigate
and discuss these newer
questions. In the interests of faith we ask
that even scepticism be not
bridled. However, we believe it fully as
unwise as it is unchristian to
insinuate that sharers of the new view of the
Pentateuch are necessarily
sceptics, or that they are siding with
sceptics, plotting to overturn
the basis of revealed religion, or on the
“down grade” of religious
conviction. Such allegations are, perhaps, true
in certain cases. That they are
as often false, one needs only personal
acquaintance with the critics in
question to be fully assured. Even did we
know these men to be at heart
infidels in every case, that fact is
quite aside from the important
question. They might be infidels, yet possess
correct knowledge of the
Pentateuch. Let us sift and judge their facts
and reasonings, leaving their
motives and characters to God.
It is even more hazardous and
gratuitous to assert, as, either
explicitly or virtually, is often
done, that this or that view of
the Pentateuch will overthrow
Christianity, rendering
impossible belief in the divinity of Christ, or in the
divine authority of the New
Testament. The history of the
church discloses sadly much of
this pious gambling over
Christianity. Once all belief in
revealed truth was, by some,
staked upon the presence or
absence of bad rhetoric in the
Bible. Again, Christians have
been assured that the prevalence
of Calvinism or of Armenianism would be fatal to
Christianity in a little time.
Many were, a few years ago, fully convinced that
proof of the doctrine of
Evolution in any form, would necessitate the
rejection of belief not only in
revealed religion, but in a personal God as well.
Even now one may hear it as good
as asserted that, were our canon to
lose a single Scripture, or the
slightest historical or scientific error
in any Scripture to be proved,
Christianity would be hopelessly gone, the
moral law become invalid, the
Sermon on the Mount a dead letter, and
murder and hatred as justifiable
as love. Christians who utter such things
are soldiers firing into their
own ranks. For our part we have a far
stronger faith in Christ and his
truth than this, and feel not the
slightest fear that
Pentateuch-criticism, whatever its conclusions, can
permanently affect Christianity
in the least, otherwise than favorably. Let
even Wellhausen’s view be
adopted: there are several ways in which,
we are happy to think, every
recorded utterance of Christ touching the
Pentateuch might be explained in
accord with the perfect
truthfulness and supernatural
character of his teachings.
Professor Delitzsch of Leipzig
is a writer whose zeal for
Christianity and revealed religion certainly
none will think of impeaching,
just as none will call in question his
unsurpassed ability to render
judgment upon the points of Old Testament
science now in dispute. It is
plain from recent utterances of his
that he does not think it
necessary to remove his faith in Christ or in
the revealed character of the
Old Testament, although adopting
absolutely the critical method,
as well as many, if not the majority of
what seem to us Wellhausen’s
most dangerous conclusions. He says:2
“In my Commentary on Genesis,
“wherein, from its first
appearance in 1852, I have
maintained the right of cutting up the Pentateuch,
rejoicing to be in this at one
with Heinrich Kurtz, I have pointed out
time and again that the
Pentateuch, Thorah corresponds to the
fourfold gospel, and that it
should give no offence to view its five
books, or with the addition of
Joshua, six, as having arisen after the same
manner with the four, or adding
the Acts, the five. New Testament
histories, which when closely
surveyed pre-suppose a multitude of
preparatory writings.. Luke in
his introduction
says this expressly. To
these numerous preceding
sketches of what the Lord had said, done and
suffered, are to be compared the
numerous historical and
legislative sketches, the
numerous Thoroth having
“origin within the
priesthood that was called
to the propagation of the
“law, Thoroth which now lie
before us in the Pentateuch in
extracts and wrought out into one whole. True,
I was for long of the
opinion that “it sufficed to let the activity
of these cooperating hands reach
only “to the time of Joshua and the
Judges. Now I am thoroughly convinced that the course of
origination and development from
which the Thorah in its present final
form proceeded, reaches on into
the postexilic “period, and perhaps was not
fully terminated at the time
when the Samaritan Pentateuch and the
Greek translation arose. In this respect the gospels, whose origin
stretches across one century
only instead of “ten, are certainly very unlike
the Pentateuch. The theme of the
two sorts of works is also
essentially different. After the
earthly life of Jesus Christ has once come to
an end and been caught up in the mirror of written history, it has
for the Church a fixed and ended
objective “character. But
the Thorah
contains not only a people’s
history, but also their ordinances of life.
It could not possibly have been
otherwise than that the ordinances
of life, once for all given by
revelation, “should, by means of authentic
interpretation and legal
development through organs called to the
work, receive, as already in the
lifetime of the (original) law-giver, so
also later on, all sorts of
specializations and modifications, which could in
good faith carry themselves hack
by the same revelation-source with
those basal elements that had
been handed down. The Thorah
mirrors a process a thousand
years long, of the onward movement of the Mosaic
law in Israel’s consciousness
and practices. We concede (einrœumen)
that it contains the precipitate
of this process; but so much the more
firmly do we maintain the Mosaic origin and the revealed
character of its foundation,
without which foundation, the people of the
law, their prophecy and their
religion that speaks itself forth in the
songs of Deborah, David, etc.,
remain “incomprehensible. * * * * My
aim3 (in the articles “for the
Zeitschrift) has been
threefold. First, I wished to
show that one can, with full surrender to
the drawing of the scientific
sense for “truth, enter into the
dissection of the Pentateuch
without getting into error upon the divine side of
holy scripture or losing
confidence in its “trustworthiness; and to show
at the same time, that one can
handle all the questions of
historical criticism which
here confront us, without
impairing through degrading
and profane speech, the sacred
reverence which the primitive sources of
revelation make our duty.
Secondly, I desired to show that the
Pentateuch-theory proceeding
from Reuss “and Graf is not without
elements of truth, still, as
yet, is far from having solved
all the enigmas in the
history of the origin of the
Mosaic Thorah, that the
self-confidence with which the
theory here and there delivers
itself lacks all sense for
variation in degrees of
assurance and certainty and that only
shortsightedness, credulity and
lack of independence can be bewitched by
its bold reconstructions of
history. If I have attained this aim, I am
satisfied; for, though,
thirdly, I too on my part, have endeavored to
advance in some measure, insight
into the course by which the
Pentateuch came into being, I am
too modest to assume that it has fallen
to my lot to contribute to this
end aught of significance. However, as
guaranty that no polemic or
apologetic zeal has swept me along upon a
false road, I may mention that
Dillmann's Commentary to the Books
of Exodus and Leviticus,
appearing while I was writing the
eleventh article, agrees with me
in nearly all main questions and in many
details.”
Dillmann
also, another highly
conservative and trustworthy as
well as able critic, surrenders
without reserve to the critical
method, and divides the
Pentateuch into fully as
numerous “layers” as even Wellhausen does.4 So far as we can
discover, Delitzsch and Dillmann
differ from the more advanced critics
only in regarding the Mosaic
substitute of the Pentateuch somewhat
larger in compass and more
emphatically theistic and levitical in
character. Even upon these
points as well as the others. Professor Bernhard
Stade of Giessen, assures us, “a
large number, if not the majority of
the working Old Testament
theologians (in Germany) have taken sides
with ” Wellhausen as against the
above-named conservative
authorities.5 That all these
favorers of the new view are upon the “down grade”
of faith in Christianity we
cannot believe.
It was no part of our purpose in
the present article to discuss
the proper merits of the question
dividing this great parliament
of scholars. We shall limit ourselves to the
mere mention of two points, one
indicating, we venture to think, the
vulnerable place in the
conservative theory,
the other, that in the advanced.
The change of scene, of customs,
of atmosphere—the very change of
worlds, as you pass from the
Hexateuch to the later books of the Old
Testament, conservative
criticism has, so far utterly failed to explain.
Israel’s backsliding increases,
instead of abating, the mystery. Departure
from God inspires, not
diminishes, assiduity in observing
ceremonial. Witness the
Pharisees. Every person who has ever seriously tried
to “integrate ” the Old
Testament has had somewhat the same experience
which Wellhausen describes in
the following: “At the beginning
of my studies I was attracted by
the “ accounts concerning David
and Saul, Elijah and Ahab, and
taken by “the speeches of an
Amos and an Isaiah. I read
myself into the prophetic and the historical books
of the Old Testament. Guided by
the “ helps that were accessible to
me, I believed that I understood
those books tolerably at any rate;
but at the same time I had an
evil con- “ science, as if I were
beginning at the roof instead of
the foundation; for I was not acquainted with
the law, which I used to hear represented as the basis and
presupposition of the other
literature. Finally I plucked up courage and
toiled my way through Knobel’s
Leviticus and Numbers, and even through
Knobel’s Commentary upon them.
But in vain
did I wait for the light which
they were to prove upon the
historical and prophetic books.
Rather did the law ruin my enjoyment of those writings. It
brought them no nearer to me,
but thrust itself in as an intruder, a
ghost, making confusion without
being visible or active. Where points of contact were found, differences
were connected with them, and I
could not bring myself to see
what was upon the side of the law as
primitive; e. g., to regard the
consecration of Samson or Samuel as advanced
stages of the Mosaic
Nazarite-vow. I dimly perceived a universal
dissidence as of two different
worlds. However, I nowise attained to a
clear view, but only to a
comfortless confusion, which was simply
increased by Ewald’s
investigations in the second
volume of his History of the
People of Israel. Then, upon a chance visit in Gottingen in
the summer of 1867, I learned
that Karl Heinrich Graf assigned to the
law its place after the
prophets, and almost, as yet, without
ascertaining the grounds of his
hypothesis, I was won over to it. I was able
to vow that Hebrew antiquity
could be understood without the
Book of the Thorah.”6
On the other hand, the
inimitable virtuosos that
espouse the radical theory have almost as completely
failed to show how even the
priestly
portion of the Pentateuch could
have arisen so late as they
assert. Their theories upon this point, one
and all, appear to us in the
highest degree artificial and
bizarre, and are
far from inclining us, at
present, to cast aside the guidance of so careful
and thorough a scholar as
Delitzsch. We wait for further light,
convinced meantime and ever that
Foundation of God standeth
sure” in revelation as in his
natural works, so that investigation, be it
hostile or friendly, can have no
other permanent result but to reveal its
depth unfathomable and its
solidity eternal.
|
|
1) Thus, Mr. W. R. Soriey in his “Jewish Christians and Judaism,” London, ’81, scarcely more than translating; Ritschi's arguments in the sacred edition of his Entstebuag der aitkatholisehen Kirehe, shows that Baur was only relatively correct even in his best attested position, i. e. touching the schism between parties in the Apostolic Church, the ’’pillar-apostles” as well as the entire class of Jewish Christians having been far more in sympathy with Paul than with the Jews. 2) Ze1tschrift fuer Kirchicht Wissenschaft u. Kirchliches Leben. 1880. VII. Ss. 620 pp.
3) s.
6..5.
4)
See Theoligische
Literatuneitung for 1881. 370. Touching this question of
“layers” In the Pentateuch,
Prof. Green, in
his recent powerful article in
the Presbyterian Rev. Is brave
enough to “face a
frowning world” of Old Testament
scholars, all the ablest critics
of every school being against him.
5) Ibid, S. 369.
6) Geschichte Israels, I. S. 3. f.
|