Christ and Criticism
by
Sir Robert Anderson, KCB., LLD.,
Author of "The Bible and Modern Criticism," etc., etc., London,
England
In his "Founders of Old
Testament Criticism" Professor Cheyne of Oxford gives the foremost place
to Eichhorn. He hails him, in fact, as the founder of the cult. And
according to this same authority, what led Eichhorn to enter on his task was
"his hope to contribute to the winning back of the educated classes to
religion." The rationalism of Germany at the close of the eighteenth
century would accept the Bible only on the terms of bringing it down to the
level of a human book, and the problem which had to be solved was to get rid of
the element of miracle which pervades it. Working on the labors of his
predecessors, Eichhorn achieved this to his own satisfaction by appealing to
the oriental habit of thought, which seizes upon ultimate causes and ignores
intermediate processes. This commended itself on two grounds. It had an
undoubted element of truth, and it was consistent with reverence for Holy
Scripture. For of the founder of the "Higher Criticism" it was said,
what cannot be said of any of his successors, that "faith in that which is
holy, even in the miracles of the Bible, was never shattered by Eichhorn in any
youthful mind."
In the view of his successors, however, Eichhorn's hypothesis was open
to the fatal objection that it was altogether inadequate. So the next
generation of critics adopted the more drastic theory that the Mosaic books
were "mosaic" in the sense that they were literary forgeries of a
late date, composed of materials supplied by ancient documents and the myths
and legends of the Hebrew race. And though this theory has been modified from
time to time during the last century, it remains substantially the "critical"
view of the Pentateuch. But it is open to two main objections, either of which
would be fatal. It is inconsistent with the evidence. And it directly
challenges the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher; for one of the
few undisputed facts in this controversy is that our Lord accredited the books
of Moses as having divine authority.
It may be well to deal first with the least important of these
objections. And here we must distinguish between the true Higher Criticism and
its counterfeit. The rationalistic "Higher Criticism," when putting
the Pentateuch upon its trial, began with the verdict and then cast about to
find the evidence; whereas, true criticism enters upon its inquiries with an
open mind and pursues them without prejudice. The difference may be aptly
illustrated by the position assumed by a typical French judge and by an ideal
English judge in a criminal trial. The one aims at convicting the accused, the
other at elucidating the truth. "The proper function of the Higher
Criticism is to determine the origin, date, and literary structure of an
ancient writing." This is Professor Driver's description of true
criticism. But the aim of the counterfeit is to disprove the genuineness of the
ancient writings. The justice of this statement is established by the fact that
Hebraists and theologians of the highest eminence, whose investigation of the
Pentateuch problem has convinced them of the genuineness of the books, are not
recognized at all.
In Britain, at least--and I am not
competent to speak of Germany or America--no theologian of the first rank has
adopted their "assured results." But the judgment of such men as
Pusey, Lightfoot and Salmon, not to speak of men who are still with us, they
contemptuously ignore; for the rationalistic Higher Critic is not one who
investigates the evidence, but one who accepts the verdict.
If, as its apostles sometimes urge, the Higher Criticism is a
purely philological inquiry, two obvious conclusions follow. The first is that
its verdict must be in favor of the Mosaic books; for each of the books
contains peculiar words suited to the time and circumstances to which it is
traditionally assigned. This is admitted, and the critics attribute the
presence of such words to the jesuitical skill of the priestly forgers. But
this only lends weight to the further conclusion that Higher Criticism is
wholly incompetent to deal with the main issue on which it claims to
adjudicate. For the genuineness of the Pentateuch must be decided on the same
principles on which the genuineness of ancient documents is dealt with in our
courts of justice. And the language of the documents is only one part of the
needed evidence, and not the most important part. And fitness for dealing with
evidence depends upon qualities to which Hebraists, as such, have no special
claim. Indeed, their writings afford signal proofs of their unfitness for
inquiries which they insist on regarding as their special preserve.
Take, for example, Professor Driver's grave assertion that the
presence of two Greek words in Daniel (they are the names of musical instruments)
demand a date for the book subsequent to the Greek conquest. It has been
established by Professor Sayce and others that the intercourse between Babylon
and Greece in, and before, the clays of Nebuchadnezzar would amply account for
the presence in the Chaldean capital of musical instruments with Greek names.
And Colonel Conder, moreover,--a very high authority--considers the words to be
Akkadian, and not Greek at all! But apart from all this, we can imagine the
reception that would be given to such a statement by any competent tribunal.
The story bears repeating-it is a record of facts-that at a church bazaar in
Lincoln some years ago, the alarm was raised that pickpockets were at work, and
two ladies had lost their purses. The empty purses were afterwards found in the
pocket of the Bishop of the Diocese! On the evidence of the two purses the
Bishop should be convicted as a thief, and on the evidence of the two words the
book of Daniel should be convicted as a forgery!
Here is another typical item in the Critics' indictment of
Daniel. The book opens by recording Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem in the
third year of Jehoiakim, a statement the correctness of which is confirmed by
history, sacred and secular. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, tells us that
during this expedition Nebuchadnezzar received tidings of his father's death,
and that, committing to others the care of his army and of his Jewish and other
prisoners, "he himself hastened home across the desert." But the
German sceptics, having decided that Daniel was a forgery, had to find evidence
to support their verdict. And so they made the brilliant discovery that Berosus
was here referring to the expedition of the following year, when Nebuchadnezzar
won the battle of Carchemish against the army of the king of Egypt, and that he
had not at that time invaded Judea at all. But Carchemish is on the Euphrates,
and the idea of "hastening home" from there to Babylon across the
desert is worthy of a schoolboy's essay! That he crossed the desert is proof
that he set out from Judea; and his Jewish captives were, of course, Daniel and
his companion princes. His invasion of Judea took place before his accession,
in Jehoiakam'.s third year, whereas the battle of Carchemish was fought
after his accession, in the king of Judah's fourth year, as the biblical
books record. But this grotesque blunder of Bertholdt's "Book of
Daniel" in the beginning of the nineteenth century is gravely reproduced
in Professor Driver's "Book of Daniel" at the beginning of the
twentieth century.
But to return to Moses. According to "the critical
hypothesis," the books of the Pentateuch are literary forgeries of the
Exilic Era, the work of the Jerusalem priests of those evil days. From the Book
of Jeremiah we know that those men were profane apostates; and if "the
critical hypothesis" be true, they were infinitely worse than even the
prophet's inspired denunciations of them indicate. For no eighteenth century
atheist ever sank to a lower depth of profanity than is displayed by their use
of the Sacred Name. In the preface to his "Darkness and Dawn," Dean
Farrar claims that he "never touches the early preachers of Christianity
with the finger of fiction." When his story makes Apostles speak, he has
"confined their words to the words of a revelation." But ex. hyp.,
the authors of the Pentateuch "touched with the finger of fiction"
not only the holy men of the ancient days, but their Jehovah God. "Jehovah
spake unto Moses, saying." This and kindred formulas are repeated times
without number in the Mosaic books. If this be romance, a lower type of
profanity is inconceivable, unless it be that of the man who fails to be
shocked and revolted by it.
But no; facts prove that this judgment is unjust. For men of
unfeigned piety and deep reverence for divine things can be so blinded by the
superstitions of "religion" that the imprimatur of the church
enables them to regard these discredited books as Holy Scripture. As critics
they brand the Pentateuch as a tissue of myth and legend and fraud, but as
religionists they assure us that this "implies no denial of its
inspiration or disparagement of its contents.("The Higher Criticism: Three
Papers," by Professors Driver and Kirkpatrick)
In controversy it is of the greatest importance to allow
opponents to state their position in their own words; and here is Professor
Driver's statement of the case against the Books of Moses:
"We can only argue on grounds of probability derived from
our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or
of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or
of the period at which the traditions contained in the narratives might have
taken shape, or of the probability that they would have been written down
before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and
similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though plausible
arguments on one side or the other may be advanced, a standard on which we can
confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed."
("Introduction," 6th ed., page 123.)
This modest reference to "literary composition" and
"the art of writing" is characteristic. It is intended to gloss over
the abandonment of one of the chief points in the original attack. Had
"Driver's Introduction" appeared twenty years earlier, the assumption
that such a literature as the Pentateuch could belong to the age of Moses would
doubtless have been branded as an anachronism. For one of the main grounds on
which the books were assigned to the latter days of the monarchy was that the
Hebrews of six centuries earlier were an illiterate people. And after that
error had been refuted by archaeological discoveries, it was still maintained
that a code of laws so advanced, and so elaborate, as that of Moses could not
have originated in such an age. This figment, however, was in its turn
exploded, when the spade of the explorer brought to light the now famous Code
of Khammurabi, the Amraphel of Genesis, who was king of Babylon in the time of
Abraham.
Instead, however, of donning the white sheet when confronted
by this new witness, the critics, with great effrontery, pointed to the
newly-found Code as the original of the laws of Sinai. Such a conclusion is
natural on the part of men who treat the Pentateuch as merely human. But the
critics cannot have it both ways. The Moses who copied Khammurabi must have
been the real Moses of the Exodus, and not the mythical Moses of the Exile, who
wrote long centuries after Khammurabi had been forgotten!
The evidence of the Khammurabi Code refutes an important count
in the critics' indictment of the Pentateuch; but we can call another witness
whose testimony demolishes their whole case. The Pentateuch, as we all know,
and the Pentateuch alone, constitutes the Bible of the Samaritans. Who, then,
were the Samaritans? And how and when did they obtain the Pentateuch? Here
again the critics shall speak for themselves. Among the distinguished men who
have championed their crusade in Britain there has been none more esteemed,
none more scholarly, than the late Professor Robertson Smith; and here is an
extract from his "Samaritans" article in the "Encyclopaedia
Britannica":
"They (the Samaritans) regard themselves as Israelites,
descendants of the ten tribes, and claim to possess the orthodox religion of
Moses * * * The priestly law, which is throughout based on the practice of the
priests in Jerusalem before the Captivity, was. reduced to form after the
Exile, and was published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The
Samaritans must, therefore, have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after
Ezra's reforms." And in the same paragraph he says that, according to the
contention of the Samaritans, "not only the temple of Zion, but the
earlier temple of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli, were schismatical."
And yet, as he goes on to say, "the Samaritan religion was built on the
Pentateuch alone."
Now mark what this implies. We know something of racial
bitterness. We know more, unfortunately, of the fierce bitterness of religious
strife. And both these elements combined to alienate the Samaritans from the
Jews. But more than this, in the post-exilic period distrust and dislike were
turned to intense hatred--"abhorrence" is Robertson Smith's word--by
the sternness and contempt with which the Jews spurned their proffered help in
the work of reconstruction at Jerusalem, and refused to acknowledge them in any
way. And yet we are asked to believe that, at this very time and in these very
circumstances, the Samaritans, while hating the Jews much as Orangemen hate the
Jesuits, and the whole Jewish cult as schismatical, not only accepted these
Jewish books relating to that cult as the "service books" of their
own ritual, but adopted them as their "Bible," to the exclusion even
of the writings of their own Israelite prophets, and the venerated and sacred
books which record the history of their kings. In the whole range of
controversy, religious or secular, was there ever propounded a theory more
utterly incredible and preposterous!
No less preposterous are the grounds on which this conclusion
is commended to us. Here is a statement of them, quoted from the standard
textbook of the cult, Hasting's "Bible Dictionary":
"There is at least one valid ground for the conclusion
that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile. Why
was their request to be allowed to take part in the building of the second
temple refused by the heads of the Jerusalem community? Very probably because
the Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet possess the Law-Book. It
is hard to suppose that otherwise they would have met with this refusal.
Further, anyone who, like the present writer, regards the modern criticism of
the Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second decisive reason fro
adopting the above view." (Professor Konig's article, "Samaritan
Pentateuch," page 68.)
Here are two "decisive reasons" for holding that
"the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the
Exile." First, because "very probably" it was because they had
not those forged books that the Jews spurned their help; and so they went home
and adopted the forged books as their Bible! And, secondly, because criticism
has proved that the books were not in existence till then. To characterize the
writings of these scholars as they deserve is not a grateful task but the time
has come to throw off reserve, when such drivel as this is gravely put forward
to induce us to tear from our Bible the Holy Scriptures on which our Divine
Lord based His claims to Messiahship.
The refutation of the Higher Criticism does not prove that the
Pentateuch is inspired of God. The writer who would set himself to establish
such a thesis as that within the limits of a Review Article might well be
admired for his enthusiasm and daring, but certainly not for his modesty or
discretion. Neither does it decide questions which lie within the legitimate
province of the true Higher Criticism, as ex. gr., the authorship of
Genesis. It is incredible that for the thousands of years that elapsed before
the days of Moses, God left His people on earth without a revelation: It is
plain, moreover, that many of the ordinances divinely entrusted to Moses were
but a renewal of an earlier revelation. The religion of Babylon is clear
evidence of such a primeval revelation. How else can the universality of
sacrifice be accounted for? Could such a practice have originated in a human
brain?
If some demented creature conceived the idea that killing a
beast before his enemy's door would propitiate him, his neighbours would no
doubt have suppressed him. And if he evolved the belief that his god would be
appeased by such an offensive practice, he must have supposed his god to be as mad
as himself. The fact that sacrifice prevailed among all races can be explained
only by a primeval revelation. And the Bible student will recognize that God
thus sought to impress on men that death was the penalty of sin, and to lead
them to look forward to a great blood shedding that would bring life and
blessing to mankind. But Babylon was to the ancient world what Rome has been to
Christendom. It corrupted every divine ordinance and truth, and perpetuated
them as thus corrupted. And in the Pentateuch we have the divine re-issue of
the true cult. The figment that the debased and corrupt version was the
original may satisfy some professors of Hebrew, but no one who has any
practical knowledge of human nature would entertain it.
At this stage, however,
what concerns us is not the divine authority of the books, but the human error
and folly of the critical attack upon them. The only historical basis of that
attack is the fact that in the revival under Josiah, "the book of the
law" was found in the temple by Hilkiah, the high priest, to whom the
young king entrusted the duty of cleansing and renovating the long neglected
shrine. A most natural discovery it was, seeing that Moses had in express terms
commanded that it should be kept there (2 Kings 22:8; Deut. 31 :26). But
according to the critics, the whole business was a detestable trick of the
priests. For they it was who forged the books and invented the command, and
then hid the product of their infamous work where they knew it would. be found.
And apart from this, the only foundation for "the assured
results of modern criticism," as they themselves acknowledge, consists of
"grounds of probability" and "plausible arguments"! In no
civilized country would an habitual criminal be convicted of petty larceny on
such evidence as this; and yet it is on these grounds that we are called upon
to give up the sacred books which our Divine Lord accredited as "the Word
of God" and made the basis of His doctrinal teaching.
And this brings us to the second, and incomparably the graver,
objection to "the assured results of modern criticism." That the Lord
Jesus Christ identified Himself with the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a very
special way with the Book of Moses, no one disputes. And this being so, we must
make choice between Christ and Criticism. For if "the critical
hypothesis" of the Pentateuch be sustained, the conclusion is seemingly
inevitable, either that He was not divine, or that the records of His teaching
are untrustworthy.
Which alternative shall we adopt? If the second, then every
claim to inspiration must be abandoned, and agnosticism must supplant faith in
the case of every fearless thinker. Inspiration is far too great a question for
incidental treatment here; but two remarks with respect to it may not be
inopportune. Behind the frauds of Spiritualism there lies the fact, attested by
men of high character, some of whom are eminent as scientists and scholars,
that definite communications are received in precise words from the world of
spirits. (The fact that, as the
Christian believes, these spirits are demons who impersonate the dead, does not
affect the argument) And this being so, to deny
that the Spirit of God could thus communicate truth to men, or, in other words,
to reject verbal inspiration on a priori grounds, betrays the stupidity
of systematized unbelief. And, secondly, it is amazing that any one who regards
the coming of Christ as God's supreme revelation of Himself can imagine that
(to put it on no higher ground than "Providence") the Divine Spirit
could fail to ensure that mankind should have a trustworthy and true record of
His mission and His teaching.
But if the Gospel narrative be authentic, we are driven back
upon the alternative that He of whom they speak could not be divine. "Not
so," the critics protest, "for did He not Himself confess His
ignorance? And is not this explained by the Apostle's statement that in His
humiliation He emptied Himself of His Deity?" And the inference drawn from
this (to quote the standard text-book of the cult) is that the Lord of Glory
"held the current Jewish notions respecting the divine authority and
revelation of the Old Testament." But even if this conclusion--as
portentous as it is profane--could be established, instead of affording an
escape from the dilemma in which the Higher Criticism involves its votaries, it
would only serve to make that dilemma more hopeless and more terrible. For what
chiefly concerns us is not that, ex. hyp., the Lord's doctrinal teaching
was false, but that in unequivocal terms, and with extreme solemnity, He
declared again and again that His teaching was not His own but His Father's,
and that the very words in which He conveyed it were God-given.
A few years ago the
devout were distressed by the proceedings of a certain Chicago
"prophet," who claimed divine authority for his lucubration’s. Kindly
disposed people, rejecting a severer estimate of the man and his platform
utterances, regarded him merely as a profane fool. Shall the critics betray us
into forming a similarly indulgent estimate of ----- My pen refuses to complete
the sentence!
And will it be believed that the only scriptural basis offered
us for this astounding position is a verse in one of the Gospels and a word in
one of the Epistles! Passing strange it is that men who handle Holy Scripture
with such freedom when it conflicts with their "assured results"
should attach such enormous importance to an isolated verse or a single word,
when it can be misused to support them. The verse is Mark 13:32, where the Lord
says, with reference to His coming again: "Of that day and hour knoweth no
one; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father." But this follows immediately upon the words: "Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."
The Lord's words were not "inspired"; they were the
words of God in a still higher sense. "The people were astonished at His
teaching," we are told, "for He taught them as one having exousia."
The word occurs again in Acts 1 :7, where He says that times and seasons
"the Father hath put in His own exousia." And this is
explained by Phil. 2:6, 7: "He counted it not a prize (or a thing to be grasped)
to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself"--the word on
which the kenosis theory of the critics depends. And He not only
stripped Himself of His glory as God; He gave up His liberty as a man. For He
never spoke His own words, but only the words which the Father gave Him to
speak. And this was the limitation of His "authority"; so that,
beyond what the Father gave Him to speak, He knew nothing and was silent.
But when He spoke, "He taught them as one who had
authority, and not as their scribes." From their scribes. they were used
to receive definite teaching, but it was teaching based on "the law and
the prophets." But here was One who stood apart and taught them from a
wholly different plane. "For," He declared, "I spake not -from
Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He bath given Me a commandment what I
should say and what I should speak. * * * The things, therefore, which I speak,
even as the Father bath said unto Me, so I speak" ( John 12 :49, 50, R. V.
) .
And let us not forget that it was not merely the substance of
His teaching that was divine, but the very language in which it was conveyed.
So that in His prayer on the night of the betrayal He could say, not only
"I have given them Thy word," but "I have given them the words which
Thou gavest Me." (*Both the logoj and the rhmata John 17:5, 14; as
again in Chap. 14:10; 24.) His words, therefore,
about Moses and the Hebrew Scriptures were not, as the critics, with such
daring and seeming profanity, maintain, the lucubration’s of a superstitious
and ignorant Jew; they were the words of God, and conveyed truth that was
divine and eternal.
When in the dark days of the Exile, God needed a prophet who would
speak only as He gave him words, He struck Ezekiel dumb. Two judgments already
rested on that people the seventy years' Servitude to Babylon, and then the
Captivity -and they were warned that continued impenitence would bring on them
the still more terrible judgment of the seventy years' desolations. And till
that last judgment fell, Ezekiel remained dumb (Ezek. 3:26; 24:27; 33:22). But
the Lord Jesus Christ needed no such discipline. He came to do the Father's
will, and no words ever passed His lips save the words given Him to speak.
In this connection, moreover, two facts which are strangely
overlooked claim prominent notice. The first is that in Mark 13 the antithesis
is not at all between man and God, but between the Son of God and the Father.
And the second is that He had been re-invested with all that, according to
Phil. 2, He laid aside in coming into the world. "All things have been
delivered unto Me of My Father," He declared; and this at a time when the
proofs that "He was despised and rejected of men" were pressing on
Him. His reassuming the glory awaited His return to heaven, but here on earth
the all things were already His (Matt. 11:27).
The foregoing is surely an adequate reply to the kenosis
figment of the critics; but if any should still doubt or cavil, there is
another answer which is complete and crushing. Whatever may have been the
limitations under which He rested during His ministry on earth, He was released
from them when He rose from the dead. And it was in His post-resurrection
teaching that He gave the fullest and clearest testimony to the Hebrew
Scriptures. Then it was that, "beginning at Moses, and all the
prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
Himself." And again, confirming all His previous teaching about those
Scriptures, "He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you
while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me."
And the record adds: "Then opened He their mind that they
might understand the Scriptures." And the rest of the New Testament is the
fruit of that ministry, enlarged and unfolded by the Holy Spirit given to lead
them into all truth. And in every part of the New Testament the Divine
authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially of the Books of Moses, is
either taught or assumed.
Certain it is, then, that the vital issue in this controversy
is not the value of the Pentateuch, but the Deity of Christ. And yet the
present article does not pretend to deal with the truth of the Deity. Its
humble aim is not even to establish the authority of the Scriptures, but merely
to discredit the critical. attack upon them by exposing its real character and
its utter feebleness. The writer's method, therefore, has been mainly
destructive criticism, the critics' favourite weapon being thus turned against
themselves.
One cannot but feel distress at having to accord such treatment
to certain distinguished men whose reverence for divine things is beyond
reproach. A like distress is felt at times by those who have experience in
dealing with sedition, or in suppressing riots. But when men who are entitled
to consideration and respect thrust themselves into "the line of
fire," they must take the consequences. These distinguished men will not
fail to receive to the full the deference to which they are entitled, if only
they will dissociate themselves from the dishonest claptrap of this crusade
("the assured results of modern criticism"; "all scholars are
with us"; and so on--bluster and falsehood by which the weak and ignorant
are browbeaten or deceived) and acknowledge that their "assured
results" are mere hypotheses, repudiated by Hebraists and theologians as
competent and eminent as themselves.
The effects of this "Higher Criticism" are extremely
grave. For it has dethroned the Bible in the home, and the good, old practice
of "family worship" is rapidly dying out. And great national
interests also are involved. For who can doubt that the prosperity and power of
the Protestant nations of the world are due to the influence of the Bible upon
character and conduct? Races of men who for generations have been taught to
think for themselves in matters of the highest moment will naturally excel in
every sphere of effort or of enterprise. And more than this, no one who is
trained in the fear of God will fail in his duty to his neighbour, but will
prove himself a good citizen. But the dethronement of the Bible leads
practically to the dethronement of God; and in Germany and America, and now in
England, the effects of this are declaring themselves in ways, and to an
extent, well fitted to cause anxiety for the future.
If a personal
word may be pardoned in conclusion, the writer would appeal to every book he
has written in proof that he is no champion of a rigid, traditional
"orthodoxy." With a single limitation, he would advocate full and
free criticism of Holy Scripture. And that one limitation is that the words of
the Lord Jesus Christ shall be deemed a bar to criticism and "an end of
controversy" on every subject expressly dealt with in His teaching.
"The Son of God is come"; and by Him came both grace and TRUTH. And
from His hand it is that we have received the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Return to the Aisbitt’s Homepage
