THE FUNDAMENTALS

VOLUME
CHAPTER

VIII
I

LD TESTA1vIENT CRITICISM AND NEW

MENT CHRISTIANITY
BY PROFESSOR

WYCLIFFE

W. H. GRIFFITH

THOMAS,

COLLEGE} 'l'ORONTO,

TESTA-

D. D.,

CANADA

A large number of Christians feel con1pelled to demur to

the present attitude of many scholar s to the Scriptures of the
Old Testament. It is now being taught that the patriarchs of
Jewish history are not historic persons ; that the records connected with Moses and the giving of the law on Sinai are
unhistorical
;
that
the
story
of
the
tabernacle
in
the
wilderness
.
1
a fabricated history of the time of the Exile; that the
prophets cannot be relied on in their references to the ancient
history of thefr own people, or in their predictions of .the
future; that the writers of the New Testament, who assur edly believed in the records of the Old Testam ent, were mistakel). in the historical value they assigned to those "records ;
that our Lord Ifimself, in His repeated references to the
Scriptures of His own nation, and in His assumption of the
Divine authority of those Scriptures, and of the reality of the
great names they record was only thinking and speaking as an
ordinary Jew of His day, and was as liable to error in matters
of history and of criticis1n as any of them were.
The present paper is intended to give expression to some of
the questions that have arisen in the course of personal study,
in connectioJ,1 with collegiate work and also during severa l
years of ordin~ry pastoral ministry. It is often urged that
5

problems of Old T ,estam,ent critici,.sm ,are for experts alone ,

and can only be decided by them. We venture to question th ,e
correctness , of this view, espe,cially when it i,s remem ,bered tl1at
tio many pe,opfe ''experts'' means experts in Hebrew philology
only. By all me,ans let us have all possible expert kn ,owl ,edge;
but, as Biblical questions ar,e complex, and involve s,everal
considerations, we need expert knowledge in archaeOlogy
history, theology, an9 even spiritual experience, as well as in
philology. Every available factor must be taken into account ,
and the object of the present paper is to emphasize certain
elements which appear liable to be overlooked, or at least in

sufficiently co,nsi ,dered.

We do not question for an instant the right of Bibli.ca]
criticis ,m considered in itself. On the ,c,ontrary, , it is a necessity

11
h
h
Bbt
b
''
.
.
,,,
.
h
or
a
w
o
use
t
e
1.

e
to
,
e
critics
1n
t
,e sens ,e of ,c,onf
sta11tlyus ,ing their ''judgment'' on what is before them. What i
called ''higl1er' ' cr itici sm i.s, not 011ly a legitimate but a necessar) '
I

n1,eth od for all Christians , for by its use we ar,e, able to dis,cover
t'he facts and the form of the Old Testament Scrip ,tures. Ou1
hesitation, consequently, is not int ,ended to, ap ply to the method,
but to, wha 't is believed to be an illegitimate, unscientific, ,and
ttnhistorical use of it. In fact, we base our objections to much
modern criticism of the Old Testament on what we reg ,ard as
a proper use of a true higher criticism.
1

I.

IS TH -E TESTIMONY

OF NINETEEN

HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE

IN THIS

OF CHRISTIA

OF NO ACCOUNT

QUESTION?

For nearly eighteen centuries these modern views of the

Old Testament were not heard of. Yet this is not to be
accounted for by the absence of intellectua I power and .scholarship in the Church. Men like Origen, Jerome, Augustine,
Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, , Calv in,. Luther, Melancthon, to
say nothing of the English Puritans and other _divines of the
sevente ,enth century , were not intellectually weak or inert, nor --1

CENTURIES

0 ld Testament Criticis1n and 1Veiu Testament .Christianity

were they w4olly void of critical acu ,men wit~ reference to

Ho]y Scripture. Yet 'they, and the whole Chttr ch with them,
never hesitated to accept the view of the Old Testament which
11.adcome down to th em, not only as a heritage fro m Judai m,
but as endorse d by thie apo st l,e s. Omitting all reference to 0t11
Lord, it is not open to question that th ,e views of St. Paul a11d
St.. Peter and St, John a,bout the Old T estament w ere th e
vie,vs of the whol ,e Christian Church until the end of the
eighteenth century. And, making every possible allowance for
the lack of historical spirit and of modern critical methods ,
are we to suppose that the whole Churcl1 for centuries never
exercis ed its mind ,o.n such sub,jects ,as the contents;history, .and
authority of the Old Te sta1nent?

Besides, this is a matt er wh ich cannot b,e de ci1ded by intellectual criticism alone. Scripti1re appeals to conscience, heart
and will, as we,ll as to mind ; and the Christian consciousne ss,
the accumulated spiritual experience of the body of Christ, is
not t,o, be lightly regar ded, mitch le,ss set aside, unless it is
pr oved to be unwarranted by fact ,. While we do not say that
' 'what is new is not true," the novelty of these modern critica]
views [ sh.ould g.iv,e us pause before we virtually set aside the
spiritual instinct of centurie s of Christian experience.

2.

DOES THE

NEW

CRITICISM

READILY AGREE WITH

THE

HIS-

NATION?

TORICAL POSITI ON OF THE JEWISH

The Jewish nation is a fact in history , an d its record is

given to us in the Old Testament. . There is no contemporary
literature to checl< the account there given, and archaeology
affords us assis .tance on points of ' detail only, not for any long
0r continttous p,eriod ,. This rec,ord of Jewish history can be
proved to have remained the same for many centuries. Yet much
of modern criticism is compelled to reconstruct the history of
the Jews on several important points. It involves, for ins,tance
a very different idea of the character of the earliest form of
Jewish religion from that seen in the Old Te ,st.am ent as it nqw
1

...

The Fundamentals

tands; its views of the patriarchs are largely different from

the conceptions fou11d on the face of the Old Testament narrative ; its views of Moses and David are essentially altered
from what we have before us in the Old Testament.
Now what is there in Jewish history to support all this reconstruc tion? Absolutely nothing . We see through the centuries
the great outstanding objective fact of the Jewish nat'ion, and
the Old Testament is at once the means and the record of their
national life. It rose with them, grew with them, and it is to
the Jews alone we can look for the earliest testimony to the
Old Testament canon.
In face of these facts, it is bare truth to say that the
fundame ntal positions of modern Old Testament criticism
are utte:rly incompatible with the historic growth and position
of the Jewish people. Are we not right, therefore, to pause
before we accep~ thi s subjective reconstruction of history? Let
a~yone read Wellhausen's article on "Israel" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, anc. then ask himself whether he recognize s
at all therein the story as given in the Old Testament.
3.

ARE 'FHE RESULTS OF THE MODERN VIEW OF THE OLD TESTA MENT

REALLY ESTABLISHED?

It is sometimes said that modern criticism is no longer a

matter of hypothesis ; it has entered the domain of fact s.
Principal George Adam Smith has gone so far as to say that
"modern criticism has won its war against the traditional
theories. It only remains to fix the amount of the indemnity."
But is this really so? Can we assert that the results of modern
criticism are established facts? Indeed Dr. Smith has him self
admitted, since writing the above words, that there are questions still open which were supposed to be settled and closed
twenty years ago.
In the first place, is the P~,.cessive literary analysi s of the
Pentateuch at all probable or even thinkable on literary
grounds? Let anyone work through a section of Genesis as

given by Dr. Drive1 in his 'I ntroducti on'', and see whether
such a ,complex co1nbin,ation 0 autho rs is at\ all likely, or
whether, even if likely, the variou s auth ,ors can now be distinguished? Is no,t the v-1l1ole method far to 0 purely subjective
tlo be p1obable and reli able?
F'urther, the critics are not agreed as to the number of
d.0cum ents, , or as to the portion ,s to be ass .igne ,d to , ea ch auth ,o:-.
A simple instance of tl1is may be given. It is not so many years
ago when cr,iticis:m was content to say that I.sa. ,40-66, though
not by Isai ,ah, was the worl< of one author, an unknown
proph et of the Exile. But the most recent writers like Duhm,
Mac ad yen and Wade consider these chapters to be the work of
two writers, and that the whole Boole of Is aiah (:from three
author~) -did not r eceive it .s present form until long aft .er the
return from the Exile.
Tl1en., th 1ese differences in liter 1a1y analy ,sis involv1e di.fferences of interpretation and differences of d.ate, character, and
meaning of particular parts of the Old Testament. To prove
tl1is,. we ask attention to the following extracts from a review
of a work on Genesis by Pr of ess,or Gunkel of Be1-1in. a;'l1e
revie\\1 is by Professo ,r Andrew 1-Iarper of Melbourne, and
appeared in the ''Critical Review'' for January, 1902. Professor Harper's own position would, we imagine, be rightly char
acterized as generally favorable to the moderate positiOn of
the .critical movement. Hi s comments on Gunket ts book are,
therefore, . all the m ore notewortl1y and si,gnifi cant.
''It will change the wl1ole d~rection of the conflict as to the
early books ! of the P entatet1ch and Ieacl it int,o mo re fruitful
directions, for it has raised the f unda1nental question whether
th ,e narratives in Genesis ate 11ot f,ar older t.l1an the authors of
tl1e documents marked J~E. P., a11d whether they are not
faithful witnesses to the religion of Israel before prophetic
. s.'' ''H.
. w111, 111
. many resp ects, b,e we 1come to
t 1me
- - 1s ,cone 1us1on
tl1ose who have felt how incredible some of the ass 11mptions of
th e Kuenen-Wellhaus .en slchool of critic.s are.''
1

'

10

The F'Undanientals

"It will be obvious at a glance what an upsetting of current

conceptions in regard to the history of religion must follow if
, it be accepted."

"They are sufficient, if made good, to upset the whole ~f

the current reconstructions of the religion of Israel. To most
readers it will be seen that he has in large part made them
good."
"There can be no doubt that his book most skillfully begin s
a healthy and much-needed reaction. It should, therefore, be
read and welcomed by all students of the Old Te stamen t whose
.
d
,,
min s are open.
In view of Gunkel's position thus endorsed by Professor
Harper, is it fair to claim victory for the modern sr itical theories of the Old Testament? When an able scholar like Professor Harper can speak of a new work as "sufficient to up set
the whole of the current recon structions. of the religion of
Israel," it is surely premature to speak even in a .moment of
rhetorical enthusiasm, as Dr. George Adc\m Smith does, of.
"victory" and "indemnity." Dr. Smith himself now admits
that Gunkel has overturned the Wellhausen theory of the
patriarchal narratives. And the same scholar has told us that
distinction in the use of the nan1e for God is "too precarious"
as the basis of arguments for distinctions of sources . For
ourselves we heartily endorse the words of an American
scholar when he says :
"We are certain that there will be no final settlement of
Biblical questions on the basis of the higher criticism that is
now commonly called by that name. Many specific teaching s
of the system will doubtless abide. But so far forth as it goes
upon the asswnption that statements of fact in the Scripture s
are pretty generally false, so far forth it is incapable of establishing genuinely permanent result s."* Sir W. Robertson
*Dr. G. A. Smith, "Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the
Old Testament", p. 35. Dr. Willis J. Beecher, in "The Bible Student
and Teacher", January, 1904.

Old Testament 1Criticism and New T1estament Christianity 11

Nicoll, editor of the ''B ,ritish W eek],y,'' rema ,rked quite recent'ly
that the ' 'assu ,red results'' seem to be vanishing, that no on,e
really knows what they are.

4.

IS THE POSIT 'I0 N 0 F M 0D ,ERN CRITICISM

1

A BELIEF

WITH
.

REALLY COMP~TIBLE

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

DIVINE

REVELATION

AS A

The problem before us is not m erely literary, nor only historical; it is essentially religious, ,and the whole matter resolves
it,se],f into , one , qu,est,ion,: Is the Otd 'Test ,a111en
,t the recor d 0 f a
Divine revelation? This is the ultimate problem. It is admitted by b oth sides to be almost impossib le to minimize the
difference s be,tween the traditional and the modern views ef
the Old , Testatne ,nt. As a reviewer of n,,
r. George Adam
Smit ,'1's book, ''Modern Criticism and the Preaching of _the Old

.
T'estament'', rightly says:
''The difference , is immense; , they involve different con .- .
ce:ptions of tl1e r elation of Go d t 0 the . wo1"fld ; different views
as to the , cour ,se of ,Israel's his tory the process of revelation~
and the natur 1e of inspir .ation. We cannot be 'lifted _from the
old to the n1ew pos1itio11by the influence o,f a charming Iit,erary
sty le, or by the force of the most enthusiastic eloquence.'' '*
In view 0 this fundamental difference, the question of the
trustworthiness of the Old T estament becomes a,cute and
press1in,g. ,In O'rd1er to test this fairly and thoroughly, l1e.t u.s
,examine some of the statetnents made on behalf of' the modern
1

Vle\V.

We may consider first the i-ise and progress of religion in

Isr ,a ,el. Dr. G. A. Sm~th says: '''I t is, pla ,in, then, 'tha't to whatever heights th ,e reli,gion of Israel afterwards rose, it remained
before the age of the grea .t prophets not only similar to, but in
all respects above-m entioned id,entical with, the general Semitie
religio ,n; which wasl not a monotheis ,m, but a ,polyt,heism with
an opportunity
for
.
monotheism
at
the
heart
of
it,
each
tribe
.
1

*''American Jour~aJ of Theology", Vol: VI., p. 114.

12

Tlie Funda11ie1itals

being attached to one god, as to ..their particu lar Lord and

F athe r.'' *
Consider wI1at is mean .t by tl1e phr lase, '' in all respects
abo,ve-mention ed identical with the general Semitic religiont''
as appli,ed to the re.ligi 011 of Isr ,ael p .revious to the eigl1th. cen
tury Bl. C. Can this. view be fai1ly deduced from th,e Old
Te stament as we n ow ha,re it.? ,Still more, is su,ch a view
conceivable in the light of the several precedin ,g centuries of
God's special dealings with Israel? '\\'herein, on this assumption, consisted the uniq11eness of Is1ael f ro1n the time of
Abraham to the eig~1~11century Br C.?
We may next take. the characte r of the narratives of Gene.sis. Th ,e real que stion at 1.ssu e is the hi.storic.al character. Mod-em criticis1n regar cls, the alc,count in Genesi.s as largel,y mythical
,and legendary. Yet it is certain that the Jews of the later
centuries acc ep ttdd the se patriarchs as veritable personages,
and the incidents associated with th~m as genuine history. ~t.
Paul and the r,ther New T esta1nent writers assuredly held the
sa111eview,. If, t'h,en, tl1ey are not hi.st,orical, surely the tru ths
empha sized . by proph ,ets and ap,os.tles fro1n the ,patriarchal !
stories ,are ,so far \veake ned .in th eir su.pports ?
Tak e, ,a,gain, th.e l egislatio11 which in the Pentateuch is a.ssociated with Moses, and almost invariably in.troduced by the
1
Modern criticism
phr ase, ''The Loid sp.ake unto Moses.'
1egards this legislation as unknown untiJ tl1e Exile , or a thou- .
sand years after the time of Mo ses. Is it 1eatty possible to
accep t this asl s.atisfactory? Ar 1e we to .suppose that ''The Lord .
spak~ to Moses'' is onl.y .a well-known liter ,ary d,evice intended
to invest the u~te1ance with greater importance ,and more
,solemn sanction? Thi ,s position, together
with
the
general
.
l
y
.
accepted view of 1nodern criticism about the invention of Deuteronomy in the days of Josiah ,[ can11ot 'be regarded as in
accordance with bis torial f'act or ethical principle.
Canon D river and Dr. G~A. Smith, it is true, strongly assert
1

*"Modern Criticism:'', p. 130.

1'

..

0 ld Testa1nent Critici.s1nand J.e,w T 'estament Christianity 13

1

tlie compatibility of the new views with a belief in the Divine

auth ,ority of the Old Tes.tament, and s,o far as they themselves
are concerned we of cour s,e accept their stateme nts e~ animo.
But we wi,sh they woul,d ,give us more clearly and definitely
'than they ha,~e yet done, the g1..,ounds on which this compati
b,ility may 'b,e said to re,st. To deny historicity , to correct date ,s
by. hundreds of years, to reverse judgments on which a nation
has rested for centuries, to trave rse views which l1av,e been
the spiritual sustenance of miilions, and the11 to say that all
this is consistent with the O'ld Testament being regar ,ded as a
Divine reyelation, , i,s, at least puzzlin ,g, and does not afford
mental or moral satisfaction to many who do not dream of
questioning the bona fide'S of scholars \\?ho hold the views now
criticized. T'he extremes to wh ich Dr. Cheyne has gone seem
t!) many the logical 0 utc,ome of tl1e principles with which mod ...
ern critic.ism, even of a moderate type, starts. Facilis descensi,s
A V1e1"no1 and we sho1ild lik e to be shown the solid an -d logical
l1alting -place where tho se who refuse to go ,vith Cheyne think
tl1at they and we can sta .nd.
Sir W. Robe1tson Nic oll, commenting March 12, 1903, on a
sp eech delivere ,d by the th en Prime Minister of Great Br itain
( Mr. Balfour) in connection with tiie Bible Society's Centenary,
made
the
following
significant.
remarks
:
''1'he
immedi,
ate re~ults of critirisn1 are in a high degree disturbing. So f.ar
tl1ey have scarcel~, been understood by the average Christian.
But tl1e plain man who has been used to receive everything in
the 'Bible. as a veritable 'Word O'f Go d ,cannot fa.ii to be perplexed, and deeply perplexed, wl1en he is told that mucl1 of the
Old Testament and tl1e New is unhis toric al, and when 'he is
asked to accept the statement tl1at God reveals Himself by myth
and legend as well as by the truth, of fact . Mr . Balfoltr must
sur ely know that many of the higher critics hav e c~t,sed to be
believers., More t'han twenty years ago the presen't writer,
walking with Julius Wellhausen in the quaint streets of
Greifs,vald, ventttred to asl{ him wl1ether, if his views we1e

14

Tlie ' Funda1n,ental.s

a,c,cepted,, the Bible co,uld r,etain its pla,.ce in the estimation of

the common people. 'I cannot see how that js possible,' was
the sad reply .''
It is no mere question of how we may use the 01d T,estament for preaching, or how much is left for use after 'the
critical views are accepted. But even o,t1r preaching will 'lack
a great deal of the note of certitude. If we are to regard ,certain b,iographies as t1nhi,storical, it will not be ea,sy t 0 draw lessons for con.duct, and if the his,tor,y is largely leg,en dary, our
deductions about God's government and providence must be
essentially weal<ened. But the one. point to be faced is the
historic credibility of those parts of the Old 'Testament questioned 'by modern criticism, and the historical and religious
value of th e documents of tl1e Pentateuch. Meanwhile, we
ask to ha11eclear , proof of th ,e comp atihili,ty of the modern
views with the acc,eptance of the 01,d Testament , as the record

of a Divine revelation.
1

5.

IS MODERN CRITICISM

BAS ED ON A. SOUND PHILOSOPHY

AS C.IlRI 1STIANS

SUCH

CAN ACCEPT?

~t the f oundatio

n of

much mode ,rn thought is the philos ,ophy known as Idealism, which, as often . int,erp,rete d, involves ,a
theory of the univers ,e that find,s no room for supernatura .1 i,nterpositions of ainy kind. The great law of the univer ,se,
including the physical, mental, and moral realms, is said to be
evolution, and though this doubtless pres upposes an original
Creator, jt does not, on the theory now before us,, permit of
any subs.equent direct intervention of God during the process
of develop,ment. This general philosophical princ!Jlle applied to
histo ry ha,s assur ,edly influenced, jf it has not al1nost mould.ed,,
a grea ,t <lea.I of mod ern c.riti.cism of the Old. Test ,ament. It i.s
not urged that all wh 0 accept even the position of a moderate
criticism, ,go the full lepgth of th,e extreme evolutionary
theory ; but there can be no reasonable dotibt tha .t mo,st of the _
c1iticism of the Old 'Te,gtam,ent is materia lly affected by an
1

'

1J

evolutio nary theory of all l1istory which tends to minimize Divine inte rven tion in the affairs of the pe,ople of I .srael. It i.s
certainly correct to say that the presupposition of much pres- .
ent-day critical reasoning is a denial of the supernatural, and '
especially of the predictive eie1nent in prophecy.
As to the th eory of evolution reg.arded as a. process ,o,f uninterrupted differentiation of existences, under purely natural
laws, and withot1t an)' Divi11eintervention, , it will suffice to say
that it is ''not proven ,, in the sphere of natural science,
while in the real111sof history and l.iteratu .re it is palpably
false. The re,cords of history and 0f literature reveal from
time to titne the great fact and factor of personality, the
reality of person .al power, and tl1is dete rminative elem ent has a
peculiar way 1
of setti ng at naught all idealistic theories of a
purely , natu .ral a.nd ur1if01mprog1e.ss in his,to,ry a,nd letters ,. Th,e
lite1ature of today is not necessarily higher than that produce d in the p,ast; the history of the I.a.st ,centu ry is n 0,t in ev ,ery
way and alwa ,ys superio ,r to that of its predecessors. Even a
~'natur,alistic'' wri ter like Pro fesso1 Pe1cy Gardner testi .fie"s to
the fact and forc ,e of perso ,na 'lity in the follo\ving remarkabl ,e
1

terms:
''There is, in fact, a great force in histo ry which is not, so
fa1 as we can judge, evolutional, a11dthe law of which is vef)
l1a1~dto trace the force of personality and chara cter.'' Ancl
quite apart from such instan ,ces of personality as have arisen
from time t 0 time through the centu1ies, there is on,e Personality who has not yet been accounted for by any theory of evolu~
tion the Person of Jesus .of Nazareth.
There a1e sufficient data in current Old Testament criticism
to wjarran t the .statement that i.t proceeds from presuppo .siti ons
..
concerning the origins of history, religion, and the Bible,
,vhich, in their essence, are subversive of belief in a Divi.ne
revelation. And such being the case, we naturally look with
0
rave suspicion on results derived from so unsound a philo1

ophical basis.

..

16

The Fund .aniental.s

6.. CAN PURELY

WITH-

NATURAf..1I ,STI C PREMI :SE,S B,E ACCE rPTED

1

0 1UT COMING TO, PURELY

NATURALISTIC

CON ,CLUSIONS?

. I{uenen and W e'llhausen are .ardmi,ttedly accep ted as,

r11a:stersby our -1eading Old Tes ta1nent ''higher c1~i
.tics'' in Eng~
land, Sco tl a.nd, and America, .and the 1esults of their literar y
analysis of the Pentateuch are generally regarded as conclusive
by their f()]toWers. On tl1e ba sis of this ~iterary dissectio n,
certain conclus ions are fo1med .as to the chara cter an d growth
of Old Testament religion, an d, as a res ttlt, the hist iory of t.he
Jews is reconstructed.
The Book of De11teronomy is said to
b,e. 1nainly, if not entirely, a pi;oduct. of the reign of Josiah,
the accounts of the tabernacle an ,d worshi .p are of exilic date;
monotheism i11 Isra ,el was of late d.ate, and was the outcome
,of a growth from po,lytheism; and th,e present Book of Genesis reflects tl1e tho11ghts of the tin1e of it s composition or compi.lation in or nea1 th ,e elate of the Exile.
Now it is kn ,own tl1at Kuenen and We 'l'lhausen deny the
supernatural element in the Old Testa1nen t. This is the ''p ,resupposition ' ' of their entire position. . Will anyo11e say that it
does not materially affect their conclu s,ions P And is there any
safe or logical 'halting-g rouqd for th ose who accept SO many
of their premises? The extreme subjec tivity of Canon Cheyne
ought not to be a surpri se to any who accept the main princip]es of modern higher criticism ; it is part of the logical outcome of the general po,sition. W ,e gladly distinguish between
the extremists and the 0 ther schol .ars who See no incompatibility between the acceptance of many of the literary and historical principles of Kuenen and W ellhausen an:d a belief in
t.l1e Divine sou rce and authority of tl1e Old Testamente
But
"'
we are bound to add tl1at th e ttnsatisfying element in tl1e
writings of moderate men like Canon Driver and ];'rincipa~
George Adam Smith is that, while accepting so n1uch of the
''naturalism' ' of the German schoo l, they do not give us any
clea1~ assura11ce of t'he t1ength of the foundation on which
1

'

'

17

Old Testame1it Criticism and New Testament Christianity

they rest and ask -us to rest. The tendency of their position
is certain ly towards a mini1nizing of th e s,u per11,atural in the
0 1d Te stament.
.
.

. Take, as one instance , the Messian ic element . In sp 1te

of the universal belief of Je,:vs and Christians in a person~ 1
Messiah, a belief derived in the first place solely from the:
Old Testament, and supported fo ,r Christians b,y the New,
modern criticism will not allow much cl,ear and undo ubter
predicti on of Him .. Insight into existing conditions is read .il.Y
'
granted to th e prophets but they are not al.lowed to have h.a,d
much foresight into futt1re conditions connected with the
Messiah. Yet Isaiah's glowing words remain, and demand
a fair, full exegesi s such as they do not get from many
modern scho .lar s~ Dr. , James We lls, of Glasgow, wrote in
the: ~'British W eek1y', so1ne time ago of tl1e new critici s111on
thi s point:
''T he fea r of p red icti 0 11 in the prope,r sense ,of the term
is ever hef ore its eyes. It gladly enlarge s on f ore-shadowings,
a 1noral historical growth which reach es its, culmination in
Christ; and anticip ,ation s 0 the Spirit of Christ; but its
tendency is always to minimize the prophetic element in . the
Old Test .ament~''
Ano ther example of t}1.e te11dency of moder11 criticism to
minimize and explain away th e supernatural element may be
give11from a book entitled, "'The Theology and Ethics of the
Hebrews,'' by Dr. Archibald Du ff, Professor in the Yorkshire
College, Brad ord., 'Thi s is l1is .account 0 Moses, at the burning bush:
' 'He was shepherding his sheep among the red granite
mountains. The man sat at dawn by the stream, and
watched the fiery rock s. Yonder gleamed the level sunlight
ac1~oss the low growth.
E,ach spine glistened against the
rising sun. The man wa s a poet , one fit for inspiration.
He
felt that the dreams of his soul we re tl1e whisperings of his
God, the place His sanctuary.
He bowed and worshipped,''

..

18

( p. 6.) This, at least, is, not the pr1ma f acie impre ssion
derived f'rom the account given in 'Exod us .
One more illustratio ,n may be, given of modern critic al
methods of dealing with narratives of the Old Testan1en
t

which were evidently intended to b,e regarded as historical .

J,n the ''Internationa .1 Cr itical Comm .entary'' ,on Numbe.rs,, Dr .
G.. B. Gr ,ay, of M,a n sfield College, Oxford, thus writes on
what he terms ' 't he prie stly section of tl1e book'' :
.
''For the hist'?ry of the Mo saic age the whole sectio11
is valueless." '''The historical imp 1ession given by (P) of
the Mosaic a.ge is .altog ,ether unl1istorical , and much of th e
detail . . . can . . be demon str .ated to be entirely
unreal, or at lea st untru e of th e age in question.''
''Thi s
history is, fictiti ,ous,.''
These state1nents at once set as,ide the history containe d
in more than th ree-qttarters o.f the whole Book of Numbet 's,
while as to the rest Dr. Gray 's verdict is by no means r,eas,sur ing, and he clearly does not po,s sess mucl1 confidence in. even
tl1e small quant .ity that escapes hi s cond,emnation. The bra z.en
serpent is, said to be an inv,ention o,n the part of some ''wl 10
had come unde r the higher proph eti c te.achi,ng'' beore He zekiah, and is meant ' 'to controve rt tl1e po,pular belief,, in th e
l1ealing power of the serpent by ascribing, it to Jehovah. A
t 0 the story 0 Ba.laam, Dr. Gray wrotes:
..
''It may, indeed, contain other hi.storical features, such
as the name , o,f Balak, who may hav e been an actual kin ,g of
Moab; but no mean .s at pre sent ex is,t for dis,tinguishing any
further between the hi storical or legendary elements and
those which are supp.lied by the creative facu tty and tl1
re.ligi,ous feeling of the writers.'' .
What . is any ordinary earnest Chri stian to make of all
these S't ,ateme,nts? The , writer of th.e Book of Numbers evid,ently c,ompo sed what professes to b e histo ry, and what he
meant to b,e read as history, and yet according to D,r. Gray
all this has 110 hi storical foundation_. We can only say tl1at

..

..

the Ch.ri.stian Church will re,qui1e very much mo re convin cing

proofs before they can accept the critical position, and it
does no,t faci:l,i.tate our ac.cept,ance ,o,f this wbol.esale proc ,ess
of invention to. be told that it is due to '~the creative fac111ty
and the religious feeling of the writers."
- As to the fact that so many of our British and American
''higl1er critics'' al"e firm b.e]ievers in the D'ivin.e authority of
the Old Testa1nent, and of a Divi11e revelation embodied in
it, we cannot but fee l the ,orce of tl1e words of the late Dr ..
W,. H . Green, ,of Princeton: ''They who have themselves been
tho ,roughly grounded in the Christian faith may, by a happy
inc.ottsistency, hold fast their oId convictions, while admitting
p,rincip ,les, rnetl1ods, and conclusions that are logically .at war
with them. But who can be surpri s,ed if others shall with
stricter logic carry what h,as been th.us commended to them t<;>
its legitimate conclusions ?'''
1

7.

C'AN WE OVERL,OO,I{ THE

EVIDENCE

OF ARCHAEOLOGY?

It is well

k110 wn

that during the last sixty years a vast

number of archaeological dis.coveries have been made in
Egypt, 1 P'alestine ., Babylonia, and Assyria. Many of these
have shed remarkable Jight on the histo ri cal feat ur es _of the
Ol ci Testament. A number of persons and pe.riod.s have been
illttminated by these discoveries and are now seen with a
clearness which was befor e i1n.pos.sible.
. Now it is a .simple and yet stri king fact that not one of
these di,sc,ovieries during the whole of this tirn e has given any
support to the distinctive featqr es and principles , of the highe.r
critical position, while, on the other hand, many of th em have
afforded abundant confirmation of the traditional and cons,ervative
view
of
the
Old
Testament.
.
Let us consider a few of t'hese discoveries. Only a little
over forty years a,go the cons ervative ' 'Speaker's
C01mentary'' actually had to take into consideration .the critical
arguments t'hen. so prevalent in favor of the la.te invention
1

'

20

The Funlla1nentals

..

of wr ,iting. This is an ,argt1m ent whicl1 is never heard now

. . in critical circ'les. The change of attack is 1nost striking.
While fo rty o,r fifty years ago it was argued that Moses
cottld not possibly have had sufficient learning 't 0 write the
Pentateuch, now it is argued as the resu lt of th.ese modern
discoveries [ that 11,e w ould have been altogetl1er behind his
contempo1..aries if l1e l1ad ,not bee,n able to write. Again, the
Babylonian [story of the flood agrees in 1on,g sections with
the account in Ge,n,esis,, ,and it is, known that the Babylonian
ve rsion was in existence for ages before the , dates assigned .
to the Gen ,e.sis narrative by the critical s,chool~ Pro fessor
Sayce rightly calls this a crucia l test 0 the criti ,cal positio n,,
Th ,e historicity of the kings mentioned in Genes is 14 was
once seriously ques tione d by criticis,n1, but th .is is im.possible
today, for their histo1ical character has been p,rov ,ed beyo nd
all question, and, ! in p,articular, -it is now known that the
A1nrapl1el of that cl1apte1isl the H ,amn1,urabi 0 the Monuments
. and a contempor ,ary with Abraham .. T h e puzz 'ling story of
Sar ,ah and Ha ,gar is a]so now seen to be in exact agr eement
with Babylonian custom. Th e11 again, the Egypt of Joseph
and Moses is tr ue to tl1e s1nallest details of the life of the
Egypt of that day and is altogethe1 different from t'he very
different Egypt of later ages. Sargo n, wl10 for centu 't 'ies wa ,s
only known from th ,e one reference to him in Isa. 20 :1, is nqw
seen to hav e been 0 lle: of the most important kings of A,ssyria. An .d th ,e Aramaic 'language of Daniel and Ezra, which
has so often be,e11 acct.1sed of 1,ate.ness, is proved to be in
exact accor ;d with t'he Arama i,c 0 f that age, as sh,ov..rn by the
Papyri discovered at Elephan tine in Egypt.
Now these, and ot.hers like tl1,en1,, are . tangible pr oofs
w'hich can be verified by ordina ,ry pe,ople. Hebrew philology
is beyond. mo :st of us and is too subject ive for any convincing
argument to be based upon it, bu't 3:rch.aeology 0fI ers an objective method of putting historical theories t 0 the test. .
-N o,t the Ieast important feature of th e archaeo1ogical ar~1

Old .Testament Criti'ci'sm and New Testa1:nen

,t Chr1;stianity21

m en,t is tha 't a number of leading ar cl1aeologists \vho were

fo r1nerly in hearty agreement with the critical school, have
now abandoned this view and oppose it. As Sir Wil 'liam
Robertson Nic ,o!l ha .s forcibly said : ''The significant iact
is that the great first-han d archaeologists as a rule do not .
trust the higher criticism. This means a great deal more
than can be put on paper to account for their doubt. It
means that they are living in an atmosphe1e where arguments that flourish ,outside do not thrive.'' '
Profess .or Fl inder s Petrie, the great Eg-yptologist, uttered
these words not long ago: '' I have come to the conclusion
that there is a far mor ,e solid bas,is tl1an seems to he sup_posed by many critics .
. .
I have not the slightest .
doubt that contemporary documents give a truly solid foundation fo 1~tl1e reco,rds1contai ned in the Pentateuch. ,) . . The
essential point is that some of these critical people support
from an a priori basis instead of wri ting upon ascertained
facts. We sho uld remember that writing at tl1e time of ttiie
Ex odus was as familiar as i,t is now. . ,, Tl1e fac 't is
that it is hopeless for these people by means merely of v:erbal
criticism to succeed iq. solving al,l difficu.lti,es that ,arise.' ' ,
1

ARE THE VIEWS OF MODERN CRITICISM

. THE WITNESS

OF OUR LORD, TO TiiE

CONSISTENT

WITH

OLD TESTAMENT?

The Christian Church approacl1,es the Old Testament

1nainly and predominantly 1om the standpoint of th~ resur
rection O'f ,c hrist,. We natural :ly inquire what our Ma .ster
thought of the Old 1'"'estament, for if it comes to us \Vith
His authority, and we can discover His view of it, we ot1gbt
to l be satisfied
.
. In the days of our Lord's life on earth one press ,ing ,question was, ''What think ye of the Christ?''
Another was,
''W hlat ts
written

,in thie Law ? H ow re,adest thou?'' Th 1

ese
questions are still being raised in one Ormor another, and
today, as of old, the two great problems two ''storm-

..

22

cent ,ers'', as they have well been cal1ed are Christ and the
Bi ble.
.
The two proble.ms, r,eally re,solve themslv ,es into , 0 ne, f'or
Christ and th.e Bibl.e are . inseparable. If we follow Christ,
He will teach us o.f the Bible; and if we study our Bible,
it will point us to c hrist. Each is called the Word of Go d.
Let us, firs,t of a11,, 'be qttite clear as to ,our meaning of
our Lord .as ''The w ord of God." ''In the beginning was
tl1e Word.'' A word is an oral or visible expr ,es.sion 0 f' an
invisible thought. The thought needs the word for its exJJression, and the word is intended to represent the thought
accurately, even if not completely. We cannot in any degree
be sure of the thought unless we can be sure of the wor d.
Our Lord as the W ,ord, there ore, , is the perso ,nal and visible
expression of the invisible God. (John 14; Heb. 1 :3.) We
believe that He is a11 accurate ''expression'' of God, and that
as, the Word He re,,eals God and ,c,011veys Go,d ' S: W'ill to us
in such a way as to be inerrant and infallible. As the Ineamate Word He is infa .llible .
He came, among other things, , to bear witness to the truth
(John 18 :37), and it is a necessary outcome of this purpose
tha .t He sho uld be.ar infallible witn ,ess. He came to reveal
God and God's will, and this implies and requires special
1,nowledge. It demands that every assertion of His be true.
The Divine know]edge did not, because it could not, undergo
any change by the Incarnation.
He continued to subsist in
the form of God even while He existed in the f o,rm of man.
(Phil . 2 :6. See Dr. Gifford's ''The Incarnation.'')
In view of this position, we belie,re
that,
as
Bishop
Elli.
cott says (''Christus Comprobator'') we have a right to make
this ~ppeal to the testimony of Christ to the Old Testament .
The place it occupied in His )if e and ministry is suffi.cie:nt
warrant . for referring to His use of it. It is well known
that, as far as the Old Testament canon is concerned, oitt
highest authority is that of our Lord Himself ; and what is
1

'

)Old Testament Criticistn and New Testa1nent Ch1ristianity23

true of th e Old Testament as a whole, is surety tru .e of these

parts to which our .Lord specific,ally refe rred.
Let us be clear, however, as to what we mean in making
this appeal. We do, no,t for an instant inten ,d thereby to
clos.e all possible criticism of the Old Testament.
There
are ~umbers of questions quite untouched by anything our
Lord said, and there is consequently ampl ,e scope for sober,
necessary, and valuable criticism. But what we do say is,
. that anything in t.he Old Te :stament st.ated by our Lo rd .as
a fact, or imp lied as a fact, is, or ought to be,. thereby closed
for those who , hold Christ to be infallible. Criticism can do
anything that is not incomp,ati'ble with the st,atem ents of
our Lord; but where Christ has spoken, surely ''the matter

1s clo,s,ed.''
_ ' at, then, is ou1 Lord's general view of the Old Testament? There is, no doubt that His Old Te .stament was
practicaJty, if no,t actually, th e s.ame a,s ottrs, and that He
regarded it as of Divine auth ority, as the final court of appeal for a]] questiOns <..-onn
.ected with it. The way in which
He quotes it shows tl1is. To the Lord Jesus the Old Testament was authoritative an d final, because Divine ..
No one can go through the Gospels without being impressed with the deep rever ence of our Lord for the Old
Testament, and with His constarit use of it in all matters of
religious thought and lif e. His question, ''Have ye never
read?'' His as.sertion, ''It is_ written,'' His testimony, ''Ye
earch the Scriptures" (R. V), are plainly indicative of His

view o,f the Divine authority of the Old Testament as we

have it. He sets His seal to its historicity and its rev elation of God. He supplements, but never supplants it. He
.a.mplifies and modifi.es, but never nt1llifies it. He fulfiJ.ls, i .. e.
fills full, but never makes void .
This general view is confirmed by His d etailed references
to the Old 1''estamen t. Co,nsi,der Hi ,s te,stimonies to the persons, and to the facts of the old covenant .
1

..

24

Ther ,e is scar ,cely a. historical

book, from Genesis to 2 .

Chr 1onicles ., to which our Lord docs not ref er; while it i.
perhap s signi.fi,cant that His te stim ,ony includ ,es references to
every book of the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, to Jonah, to Daniel,
and to miracle .s the , very parts mo,,st called in qu esti,on today .
Above all, it is surely o f the deepest moment that at I-Iis
te1nptation He s.hould use thr ,ee tin1e,s as the Wor ,d , of God the
book about which there has, perhaps, been most contrqver sy
0 f all.

Again, therefore, we say that everything to which Chris t

can be sai,d, on any h onest inte1pretati.on, to have referred
or which He used as a fact, is thereby sanctioned and sealed
by th ,e authority of our Infal lible Lor ,d. ''D omint1s locutu s
est; causa finita est."

Nor can this position be turned by the statement th,at

Christ simply ad ,opted the beliefs of His day W'ithout neces sar ily sancti ,oning them as, correct. 0f this there is n ot the
slightest pro of, but very n1uch to the contrary. On some of
the most . impo i'rtant sub,jects 0f His day He went ,directly
against prevailing opinion. His teaching ab,out God, about
righteousne ss, about the Messia h, abo11
.t tradition, ab9ut th e
Sabbath, about the Samaritans, ab,out women, about divorce ,
about the b.aptism of John, were diametrically opposed to
that of the time. And this opposition was, deliberately
gr\0L1n
.ded on the Old Testament which our Lor d ch,arge ,d th em
with mis .interp1-eting. The one and only question of difference
between Him and tl1e Jews as to the Old Testament was
tl1at of interpret~tion.
Not a ve st ige of pr ,oof can be adduc ,ed
that He and they differe .d at al,l in their gen .eral view of it s
]1istorical charact er or Divine atitho ,1ity. If the .cu1rent
Jewish views were wrong, can we think our Lord would
matter
of
such
moment,
about
a
bo,
o
k
have been
silent
on
a
.
which He cite,s or alludes to ,over four hundred times, and
which He made His constant topic in 'teaching ,concerning
Himself?
If th e Jews were wrong, Jesus either kn ew it,
1

'

0 ,ld Testament Criti'cis1nand N eu1 Testament C,hristiianity 25

or He did not. If He knew it, why did He not correct them

as in s:o many otl1er land detailed instances? ' If I-le did not
lcnow it but I ,vill not finish.
Nor can t,his witness t 0 the Old T estament be met b,y
asserting that the limitation of our Lord's earthly life kept
Him within current views of the Old Testament which ne,ed
not 'ha,ve be,en true views. This statement ign,o,res the essential force of His personal clai1n to be ''the Word.''
,Qn m ,ore ,than one o,ccasion our Lord claimed to speak
from God, _and that everything He said had the Divine war:rant. Let us notice careft1lly what this involves. It is someti:mes s,aid, that our Lord's kno wledg 'e ,was limited , and tha ,t
He lived here as man, not as God. Suppose we grant t11is
for argument's sake. Very well; as man He live,.d in God
an d on God, a11d He claimed that everything He said a11tl
did was fr ,om God and thr ough God. If, then, the limita
t1ons were f ,ro,m God, ,so also were the, ulte,rances; and, ,as
God's warrant was cJaimed for ,every one of these, they are
the1..e:fore Divine and infallible.
(John 5 :19; 5 :30; 7 :13;
8 :26; 12 :49; 14 :24; 17 :8.) Even though we grant to the
full a theory that wilt compel us to accept a temporary disuse
0 r non-us ,e lolf the ,u11ctions of Deity in th e Per ,so11 of our
Lord, yet tl1e words actually uttered as man are claimed
to be from God, , and the ref ore we hold them to be inf allibl ,e.
We rest, therefore, upon our Lord's personal claim to say
all and do all by th~ Fat her, from the Father, for the Fathe:ti.

The ,r ,e is,I of course,, no questio 11of partia 'l knowl 1edge af t,er
the resurrection, when our Lord was manifestly free from
Yet it was after His
all limitations of earthly conditions.
resurrection also that He set Hi s seal to t'he Q,ld Testament.
(Luke 24:44.)
.
We co,nclud ,e, t,ha't o,ur Lor ,d's pos itive statements on tl1e,
subject of the Old Testament are not to be rejected without
charging Him with error. .If, on these points, on which we
c:an test and verify Him, we find that He is not reliable,

..

The Fundanientats

26

what real comort can we have in accepting His higher teacl1. ing, where verification is itnpo,ssible ? We believe we are on
absolutely safe gro ,und when we say that what the Old Testament was to our .Lor d, it mttst b1e .and shall be to us.

'

CONCLUSION

We ask a car efu] ,consideratio n of thes.e eight inquiries.

Taken separately, they carry ,veight, but taken together the y
have a cumttlative effect,. and should be seriously pondered
by all who are seek.ing to know the truth on. this momentou s
subject.

'
'
We: may be perfectly sure that no criticism of the Old Tesas
a
tament will ever be a,ccep,ted by the Christian Church
.
whole, whi ch does not fu ll,y satisfy the f,ollowin,g conditi .ons:
1. It must admit in all its as.sumptions, . and take fully
intor considerat ion, th e super n.atural element which differen tiates the Bible from all other books.

2. , It must be in k,eepin.g witl1 the enlightened spiritual experience of the saints of God in all ages, and make an effectual
appeal to the piety , and spirit ual perception of those who
know by personal experience the power of the Holy Ghost.
3. It must be historically in line with the g'enercrl tradition of Jewish history and the unique position of the Hebrew
nation through the centuries.
4~ It :must be in unison with that ,apostolic concep tion ,of
the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament, which
is so manif 'es,t in the New Te sta ment.
Sf' Above all, it must be in accordance with the universal
belie of the Cl1ri:stian Church in .our Lor d's, infallibility as a
.Teacher~ and as ' 'the Word made flesh.''
If and when mo ,dern 'higher critici .sm can satisfy th,ese
requirements, it will not merely be accepted, but will command the u.niversal, Jo,yal, a'nd even e.nthus 1iasti c adhesion of
all Christians. Until then, we wait, and also maintain our
position tl1at ''the old is better.''

'