Jie I 
 
 riexateijc. 
 
 AC GIBSON 
 
 REV. VV. 
 
 y, Ph>D, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4.Q44- 
 
 
 
Sirom f 0e feiBrari? of 
 
 (J^equeaf^e^ 6e ^itn to 
 f ^e &i6ratg of 
 
 (pxxnuion C^eofogicdf ^eminarj 
 
REASONS FOR THE HIGHER 
 CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH 
 
 BY 
 
 / 
 
 REV. ISAAC GIBSON 
 
 RECTOR OF ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, NORRISTOWN, PA. 
 
 Author of The Pkntateuch and Joshua, or the Hexateuch 
 Historical 
 
 INTRODUCTION BY 
 REV. WILLIS HATFIELD HAZARD, M.A. 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (HARVARD) 
 
 Associate of the Victoria Institute of Great Britain, Member of 
 the American Oriental Society, Etc. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 GEORGE W. JACOBS & CO. 
 
 103 South Fifteenth Street 
 1897 
 
Copyright. 1897, by George W. Jacobs & Co. 
 
Contents 
 
 I. 
 
 PROGRESS OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE TRADITIONS CONCERNING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE 
 PENTATEUCH AND JOSHUA OR THE HEXATEUCH, UNRELIABLE. 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST UPON THE ORIGIN OF THE 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 V. 
 
 SOME PROBLEMS OF THE HEXATEUCH THAT PROVE READ- 
 JUSTMENT BY THE HIGHER CRITICISM TO BE NECESSARY. 
 
 VI. 
 
 EXAMPLES OF THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH 
 INTO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 VII. 
 THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THESE DOCUMENTS. 
 
 VIII. 
 THE ORDER AND DATES OF THE COMPOSITE WORK. 
 
 IX. 
 
 THE HISTORICITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 X. 
 
 THEIR INSPIRATION. 
 
Introduction 
 
 It is with pleasure that I accept the invitation of 
 my friend, Mr. Gibson, to write a few introductory 
 lines for his book. I do this with the greater willing- 
 ness, because I believe that something more ought to 
 be said in a brochure of this kind on two or three 
 points than he has felt himself called on to insert in the 
 body of the work. Indeed, the things I have in mind 
 are suf^ciently irrelevant to the general outline of Mr. 
 Gibson's thought, to render them unsuitable for 
 elaboration in any other place than just such a semi- 
 detached ''Introduction.'* 
 
 The appeal that this book makes to the reading 
 public will find its heartiest response among the 
 clergy and the more intelligent lay people. It is dis- 
 tinctly not a "popular" statement in the sense of en- 
 deavoring to do all the thinking for the reader. On the 
 contrary, the author has wisely chosen to direct his 
 argument to those persons — after all, the really im- 
 portant members of society — who are in a position to 
 assimilate material of this character by independent 
 
 5 
 
O REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 and serious thought on their own parts, and who 
 therefore may be expected to welcome such a state- 
 ment as the present. 
 
 They will do this precisely for the reason that Mr. 
 Gibson's volume, after having placed before them the 
 plain facts in the case, pays them the compliment of 
 taking for granted that they will prefer in large part 
 to deduce therefrom for themselves the principles and 
 results that are genetically and logically bound up in 
 them. 
 
 The book, then, presupposes that its readers 
 shall be sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently inter- 
 ested {both are essential), to apply for their own indi- 
 vidual purposes the reasons for the Higher Criticism 
 that it contains. It also assumes that, should the two 
 conditions just stated be satisfied, they will not decline 
 the somewhat strenuous mental exertion which the 
 work demands for its thorough and candid mastery. 
 Should one object to this ''tax," the answer is very 
 simple. 
 
 Many popular books have been written on this 
 subject, and, of course, another could have been 
 added to the list, had the author so desired. But, with 
 rare moderation, he chose to forego the delights of 
 this relatively easy task because it was evident, from 
 the nature of the case, that all such treatises must be 
 superficial, slight and cursory. They must skim over 
 the subject, dipping but little below the surface, and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 therefore must set forth facts so obvious that, to the 
 reader of only average education, they must lack 
 novelty and cogency, while to the student, they shall 
 be commonplace and insufficient. 
 
 This is inevitably the case for one constant and char- 
 acteristic reason: the Higher Criticism of the Old Testa- 
 ment is an extremely intricate, complex and elaborate 
 intellectual procedure. The talk one finds in books 
 of the popular class about the ''simplicity" and "plain- 
 ness" of critical investigation is all specious nonsense. 
 The Higher Criticism of the Old Testament or of any 
 other body of literature is the diametrical opposite — 
 it involves the fullest and broadest training on the part 
 of its professors. It requires as a prerequisite years 
 of special study resulting in the development of a reli- 
 able critical faculty, illuminated by a wide familiarity 
 with not only the laws of literary production and the 
 universal principles of literary criticism, but (certainly 
 in the case of the Old Testament) a technical knowl- 
 edge of Semitic Philology in the broadest sense of that 
 term, together with at least a working knowledge of 
 Oriental Archaeology, anthropology in the depart- 
 ment of ethnic psychology, the phenomenology of 
 comparative religion, the history of the development 
 of thought among the Semitic nations, and last, but 
 not least, an original native endowment of that crit- 
 ical sense by which alone, despite the widest intellec- 
 tual culture, the student is able to pronounce reliable 
 critical judgments. 
 
8 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 It will be seen at once that if this sort of training 
 is necessary, only a comparatively small fraction of 
 educated people can possibly attain anything ap- 
 proaching distinction in higher literary criticism. 
 Further, it is clearly quite out of the question to 
 make an expert of every clergyman, though fairly in- 
 structed in the general theological sciences. Indeed, 
 very few people are in a position to put them- 
 selves through even the necessary external train- 
 ing, to say nothing of creating that fundamental 
 habit or predilection of mind and essential critical 
 faculty, without which the other is just so much 
 sterile material. The bare absorption of the vast 
 learning which constitutes the apparatus of criticism 
 requires a diligence in application and an accuracy of 
 apprehension that must forever restrict it to a mere 
 fragment of the educated world. Literally years of 
 the most patient and laborious endeavor will prepare 
 the vast majority of students only to understand the 
 significance of the work already done. 
 
 II. 
 
 This being the situation, it may reasonably be 
 asked: Why undertake to ''popularize" such a subject 
 at all? If it really demands such unusual sacrifices, why 
 endeavor to disseminate knowledge among untrained 
 minds, which cannot help being altogether superficial, 
 in large degree merely elementary, and, to some 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 extent, on account of its partialness, positively mis- 
 leading? 
 
 The answer is the same that would be given 
 by the author of a non-technical work on astronomy, 
 or mathematical physics, or therapeutics, theology, 
 linguistics, physiological psychology, chemistry, zool- 
 ogy, or any other abstruse subject, namely, that 
 enough can be said on the general topic to ac- 
 quaint the ordinary reader with many important 
 results, to show their significance for the general 
 methodology of science, and in some degree even to 
 exhibit — if only in a very simple way — the instru- 
 ments by which the specialist works to reach them. 
 
 Such a consequence — while it in no degree invests 
 the reader with authority in matters critical — any 
 man with the slightest spark of altruism in his com- 
 position or desire for elevating the standard of general 
 education, must hail with cordial enthusiasm. The 
 old adage, that half a loaf is better than none, notwith- 
 standing the complementary warning as to the danger 
 of a little learning, still stands for a universal truth that 
 men, fortunately, have never yet been willing to dis- 
 card as a principle of the- intellectual life. It is the 
 underlying raison d'etre of all education. Indeed we 
 may go further and say that partialness is a note of our 
 whole life — cabin'd, cribb'd and confin'd as it effectu- 
 ally is by its finite structure. Therefore, to reject some 
 knowledge because it is not complete, would involve 
 rejecting all knowledge of whatever description. 
 
10 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 On the contrary, the inherent yearning, even pas- 
 sion, for knowledge which clamors as an insatiable 
 thirst for ''more" is the sure guarantee that mankind 
 will never cease its quest. With Mr. Bain: "Among 
 the sensations of organic life, I may cite thirst as re- 
 markable for the urgency of its pressure upon the 
 will;" which means, figuratively, that the "flaming 
 thirst" of knowledge compels the will to any expe- 
 dient and any exertion whereby it may be appeased. 
 And when, as in the case of the Higher Criticism of 
 the Old Testament, the interest is stimulated by some 
 impulse connected with the vital sentiment of relig- 
 ion, then everyone is prepared to study, so far as in 
 him lies, to gratify its requirements. 
 
 The demand has resulted in a corresponding sup- 
 ply of "popular" books of the class of which I spoke 
 at the beginning. The present treatise in a general 
 way does belong with them. In a different sense, as 
 I have said, it does not, since it presupposes a certain 
 amount of Biblical scholarship, a certain intensity 
 of interest and a capacity to comprehend the sub- 
 ject, which are associated usually with previous study. 
 In other words, the man who knows nothing of the 
 questions involved in this particular branch of learn- 
 ing, and who has not a somewhat intimate acquaint- 
 ance with the text of the Old Testament, will find this 
 book rather difficult and sometimes obscure reading. 
 In my opinion, this is exactly as it should be; 
 
INTRODUCTION. II 
 
 since the general reader is already amply pro- 
 vided for, while there is a large class of clergyman and 
 professional men who apparently have been neglected. 
 To them this book will be a real boon. It presup- 
 poses just enough familiarity with the subject, and its 
 perusal requires just enough time to suit their many 
 exacting engagements. 
 
 III. 
 
 I have entered thus fully into the nature of the 
 critical study of the Old Testament, partly to intro- 
 duce the observation that a graduate in theology from 
 any ordinary seminary is not qualified by the usual 
 curriculum which is pursued in such institutions 
 either to conduct original research on his own 
 account, or to test the labors of those who are. At 
 that stage he is simply "beginning to be a learner." 
 If any one will try to realize what it means to fit 
 oneself for competency in these matters as outlined 
 in Section I, and then compare therewith the scope of 
 the undergraduate course in theology, he will admit 
 the truth of this remark ; and since the learned pursuits 
 of the seminary are seldom continued in the active 
 work of the ministry, it follows, as a matter of fact, 
 that the ordinary parish priest stands in much the 
 same relation to the expert in Biblical criticism as 
 that in which the general practitioner of medicine 
 stands to the specialist in appendichotomy, or bacteri- 
 ology, or neuropathology. 
 
12 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 But there is to be noted this pervasive difference: 
 The general practitioner looks on the specialist 
 not only as a source of information and direction, but 
 as an authority in his own department, whose dicta 
 cannot be combated except by his peers. His relation 
 to the specialist is therefore that of unaffected open- 
 mindedness and frank receptivity. But in the other 
 case, a new element is introduced. We find not only 
 the moderate and mutually respectful interest that 
 attaches to every sincere business relationship, but a 
 religious enthusias^n. Here we meet one of the strong- 
 est psychical characteristics of our race, — the senti- 
 ment of religion. It modifies, because it supersedes, 
 all other influences. 
 
 This is peculiarly true of the clergyman. His re- 
 ligion, I mean his religion — the theological thought 
 that forms the material of the peculiar religion that 
 belongs to his individual personality — is his very life's 
 breath. To transmute or deliberately orientate any 
 large segment of it, implies not only overcoming the 
 natural tendency to conservatism which is as much 
 characteristic of the physician as of the priest, but it 
 means relinquishing some of the essential elements — 
 for, such they must seem at first — of his intellectual 
 and moral make-up. Very naturally no true man 
 does this hastily; and very naturally he is equally 
 slow in appropriating antithetical views. 
 
 Here then, we touch the core of that world-wide 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 antagonism which from the earliest ages of philoso- 
 phy has been the constant feature in the correlation of 
 science and religion. The scientific mind, from the 
 present point of view, may be said to be, from its very 
 constitution, frankly and unreservedly open to new 
 truth, no matter what radical modifications it may 
 carry with it. The perfect scientific mind, which ex- 
 ists only as a psychical abstraction, is marked by per- 
 fect neutrality. Obviously, such a mind cannot be 
 found, because it is impossible to rid oneself com- 
 pletely of a certain warp of the affections, and con- 
 sequently of the will, which precludes the perfect ad- 
 justment of the judicial faculty. 
 
 The religious temper, on the contrary, is one that, 
 broadly speaking, has committed itself, with all the 
 ardor and abandon and resolute perseverance that 
 belong to the religious sentiment, to the defence of a 
 particular theological system. This defence calls into 
 play, indeed, has its very seat, in the emotions or affec- 
 tions rather than in the reason. It has a direct and 
 almost unimpeded influence on the will, which in turn 
 reflects on the mind. Volition modifies and condi- 
 tions, while it inspires the reason. It does this in both 
 types, but in the religious it does it more habitually, 
 and often unrecognised ly. The subject is not con- 
 scious of the creation of an intellectual twist at the 
 dictate of the will taught by the affections. 
 
 In the scientific mind, while the same thing may 
 
14 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 take place, for both are sharers in the psychical unity 
 of mankind, yet the purely intellectual so consciously 
 predominates over the emotional, and is characteristic- 
 ally so much less subject to such impulses, as to be 
 practically different in kind. The religious mind, as 
 thus described, must always sufifer in comparison with 
 the scientific from the standpoint of truth. If our 
 theory of epistemology will admit the legitimacy of 
 the decisions of the faculty called in Sir Wm. Hamil- 
 ton's scheme the faculty of cognition, then we are 
 bound to admit that the progressive character of all 
 knowledge puts at serious disadvantage that type of 
 mind which has committed itself irreformably to cer- 
 tain concepts in defiance of fresh information. 
 
 Now, of course, no religious man would admit for 
 a moment that his way of looking at things has preju- 
 diced in the sHghtest degree the power of his mind to 
 assimilate new truth. But, as a matter of fact, the his- 
 tory of religion incontrovertibly proves that it does. 
 It must be conceded, however, in fairness, that mere 
 whimsical captiousness plays little part; it is largely an 
 efifect of self-deception and the unrecognized influ- 
 ence of volition. Still, the fact remains, that theolo- 
 gians, from the inherent nature of their rational activi- 
 ties, are unwisely — often disastrously sluggish in 
 allowing their heads to instruct their hearts in matters 
 with which the latter not only have no true concern, 
 but on which, by a fatal inversion, the hearts insist 
 they should instruct the heads. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 5 
 
 Let me cite a representative illustration. A bishop 
 of the American Church recently stated in an open 
 letter (not in these words) that as regards higher criti- 
 cism, the old traditional view was "good enough for 
 him;" and for this reason: it had been the view of his 
 fathers in ofBce and of practically the whole Church 
 for many centuries, and the sentiment of reverence 
 which its venerability inspired infinitely outweighed 
 the rationality of the science of Biblical criticism, as to 
 which, he protested, he knew nothing and cared less. 
 This attitude, which is simply that of illiterate obscur- 
 antism, is accurately emblematic of the religious type 
 of mind. It has manifested itself on myriads of occa- 
 sions since the dawn of the modern scientific era, and 
 though it belongs to a crude stage of ethnic culture, 
 yet every student of the evolution of human thought 
 knows that it is bound to persist so long as religion 
 is allowed to maintain positions antagonistic to the 
 dictates of enlightened reason. All of which is in line 
 with the profound remark made by Mr. Lowell, that 
 "theology will find out in good time that there is no 
 atheism at once so stupid and so harmful as the fancy- 
 ing God to be afraid of any knowfedge with which He 
 has enabled man to equip himself." 
 
 IV. 
 
 Now, while the attitude just sketched is surely that 
 taken by many clergymen, it is perfectly evident that 
 
l6 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 things must not be permitted to remain in statu quo. 
 Those who have the best interests of religion at heart 
 are by no means prepared to capitulate in the struggle 
 for the higher illumination of religious thought at the 
 vociferous and blatant behests of superstition, preju- 
 dice, bigotry, infatuation, and above all — ignorance. 
 
 It is the noble privilege of every man who believes 
 that God will give the ultimate victory to truth, to 
 facilitate to his full ability the spread of knozvledge. 
 He must further the inculcation, especially among 
 clergymen, of an appreciation of the intelligibility, the 
 reliability and the fundamental religiousness of all true 
 science. After a while, this will achieve two invaluable 
 results. First, it will make it possible for the clerical 
 mind to slough off, to rid itself of much effete matter 
 that the expansion of the theological sciences has ren- 
 dered acutely burdensome; i. e., it will be possible 
 for that type of mind, while maintaining with greater 
 cogency and attraction than ever before, the funda- 
 mental verities of the Catholic faith, to discard many 
 old interpretations thereof which to-day are utterly 
 discredited and antiquated. And second, it will 
 "popularize" (in the best sense) to a degree simply 
 out of the question in the present state of clerical 
 alienation, those vast stores of cultural influences that 
 make so gloriously for the spread of social efificiency 
 which are found in the new readings that have become 
 ours during this marvellous Victorian era of the book 
 
INTRODUCTION. I'J 
 
 of nature, the book of the human mind and the Book 
 of God! 
 
 V. 
 
 A word in conclusion on the particular thought 
 this Introduction has endeavored to present. 
 
 The following pages were written by the busy 
 rector of a large parish to meet, as I take it, precisely 
 the conditions that have called forth the preceding re- 
 marks. The author of this book has tried to do his 
 part in circulating certain ideas that he has found to 
 be of inestimable value in his own thinking about 
 the problems that have emerged since the youngest 
 reader of these words was born. As compared with 
 the stereotyped, obsolescent treatment of the Bible 
 that was accepted outside the limited circle of special- 
 ists down to within the last two or three decades, the 
 present system is an advance of such profound signifi- 
 cance, that the two are nothing short of mutually 
 destructive. 
 
 The old view is indeed exploded beyond hope 
 of rehabilitation; and any modification of the new 
 must be the result of discoveries so radical and 
 remote and discordant with the whole tenor of 
 discoveries up to the present, that their possibility, 
 humanly speaking, is merely supposititious and hypo- 
 thetical. 
 
 One can't help hoping that in the face of the 
 present situation, we have seen nearly the end of that 
 
l8 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 buoyant, airy juvenility which presumes, without the 
 slightest qualification, to pronounce judgments upon 
 and usually to dismiss with easy nonchalance and 
 almost incredible superciliousness, the results of the 
 labors of scores of the best minds with which this 
 nineteenth Christian century has been blessed. Is it 
 strange if such ''judgments" seem to scholars a trifle 
 premature, not to say silly? Do not such people, in 
 what all admit is a well-intentioned zeal for religion, 
 deliberately lay themselves open to the charge of 
 talking about things of which, in honest candor, they 
 must be judged ignorant f We all know what is said 
 when such things happen in other departments of 
 learning that involve special preparation, and can the 
 ''critics of the critics" be surprised or hurt when the 
 same is said of them? 
 
 VI. 
 
 It is pleasanter to turn from this picture of jarring 
 ecclesiastics to the broad meads and inviting shades of 
 academic groves where, if anywhere, through devo- 
 tion to pure scientific truth and direct intercourse 
 with each other, men should always be able to sink 
 differences of belief in the higher unity of personal 
 respect and warm affection. That spirit of fraternal 
 deference and of admiration for noble qualities of soul 
 which belongs peculiarly to our Christian religion, is 
 the indissoluble bond that unites every one of us. 
 
INTRODUCTION. I9 
 
 When each is striving in unimpeachable sincerity for 
 ''the truth as it is in Jesus," we are all within reach of 
 that magic solvent — the Christian's love — which de- 
 molishes animosities and rears that fabric in the 
 heavens toward which we are toiling ourselves and 
 helping to direct others. In no spirit of mawkish 
 religionism, but with profoundest reverence and aspi- 
 ration, we can all pray the Whitsun collect: 
 
 "O God, who didst teach the hearts of thy faithful 
 people, by sending to them the light of thy Holy 
 Spirit; Grant us by the same spirit to have a right 
 judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his 
 holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our 
 Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the 
 unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. 
 Amen. 
 
 Willis Hatfield Hazard. 
 
 West Chester, Pa., 
 Whitsuntide, 1897. 
 
'Co tbc Reader 
 
 The author regrets to be compelled to apologize for 
 the frequent repetitions that occur in the following pages, 
 but he will be forgiven when it is seen that they could 
 not have been avoided without sacrificing the clearness 
 of the argument to the demands of literary taste. Each 
 chapter is complete in itself, and in order to preserve 
 unity of subject and make evident the logical character 
 of the argument, it was found necessary to use the same 
 historical matter and forms of analysis in several of them. 
 
 Other shortcomings it will be more difficult to for- 
 give, but even these, it is hoped, do not seriously interfere 
 with the reasons presented for the existence of the Higher 
 Criticism of the Hexateuch. I. G. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 23. 8 lines from top, for " has " read " had." 
 " 3r. 18 " " " " " xxiv " read " xxxiv." 
 "39. 17 " " " " " 8 " read " 15 and 16. " 
 " 39. 17 " for quotation following "S" read "They 
 went in unto Noah into the Ark two and two of all flesh ^ * * * * * 
 as Eloliim commanded him." 
 
 Page 41, 7 lines from top, for "x " read " v " 
 
 " 57. 8 " " bottom, for " xxii " read " xxvii." 
 " 70, 5 " " " " "provinces" read "provi- 
 
 dences. " 
 
 Page 75. 13 lines from top, for " xxii " read " xvii." 
 
Reasons for the f)igber Criticism 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 
 I. 
 
 Within the present generation there has been a revo- 
 lution in the methods and resuhs of Bibhcal Studies. 
 
 For centuries the scholars of the Church accepted, 
 with httle question, the tradition that the Pentateuch was 
 written by Moses and the book of Joshua by Joshua. The 
 highest Enghsh and American authorities so gave their 
 verdict. 
 
 Continental Europe 4f»^ made greater progress. 
 The traditional theory of the origin of the Pentateuch 
 and Joshua had not only been questioned, but, as multi- 
 tudes of the best scholars in Orientalism believed, it had 
 been disproved. The Higher Criticism had vindicated 
 its claim that the Pentateuch and Joshua were parts of 
 one book — the Hexateuch, which was the work of many 
 writers during many ages ; that it was a composite book, 
 completed late in Hebrew life and composed of excerpta 
 from four leading documents usually denominated by 
 critics the Yahvistic, Elohistic, Deuteronomistic and the 
 Priestly Documents. 
 
 When the Higher Criticism began to attract notice 
 in this country, the discussion had grown old in Conti- 
 nental Europe. For one hundred and fifty years it had 
 
 23 
 
 iv^*^' 
 
24 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 been more or less prominent. From Astruc to Dillman 
 and Konig it had passed through the phases of many 
 theories with varying fortunes. Like all new sciences 
 it needed numerous readjustments to meet the exigencies 
 of freshly-discovered facts. For a long time it was a 
 working hypothesis rather than a science. Attaining 
 at last to the rank of a science, it was unfortunately 
 claimed by the various schools of sceptics as an ally, and 
 used by them to disprove the claims of the Hexateuch to 
 historicity. This brought the whole subject of the 
 Higher Criticism under suspicion in this country and in 
 England, and it required not a little courage upon the 
 part of W. Robertson Smith, T. K. Cheyne, and a few 
 others, to insist that the principles of the new science 
 of criticism were not only true, but that they were not of 
 sceptical tendency or unfriendly to the supernatural in 
 the Bible; but that, on the contrary, they and they alone 
 could conserve successfully the revelations from God 
 which it contained. 
 
 For the maintenance of these claims Dr. Smith (1878) 
 was brought to trial, and deposed from his Aberdeen pro- 
 fessorship in 188 1. While under fire, he gave to the 
 world his lectures upon "The Old Testament in the Jew- 
 ish Church" and 'The Prophets of Israel," which placed 
 him in the van of the great conflict which immediately 
 followed. 
 
 The success of these lectures was phenomenal, and 
 their author found refuge in the University of Cambridge, 
 where he was more than compensated for his lost honors 
 by the greater liberality and broader spirit of English 
 scholarship.. He became the leader of a school of critics 
 represented in the literary world by such names as Drs. 
 Cheyne, Driver, Bruce, Sanday, Kirkpatrick, Horton, 
 Ryle, Gore, and Dufif, in Great Britain, and in America 
 by Drs. Bacon, Briggs, Harper, Batten, Moore, Toy, 
 Peters, Rogers, Gould, McCurdy, and a host of others. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 2$ 
 
 11. 
 
 THE BIBLE IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 
 
 The leading- higher critics are not seeking to invali- 
 date the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, but to 
 give that claim a historic basis; in proof of which take 
 the following testimonies: 
 
 Dr. W. Robertson Smith says, in his first edition of 
 'The Old Testament in the Jewish Church :" 'The great 
 value of historical criticism is, that it makes the Old Test- 
 ament more real to us. Christianity can never separate 
 itself from its historical basis on the religion of Israel. The 
 revelation of God in Christ cannot be divorced from the 
 earlier revelation on which our Lord built. In all true 
 religion the new rests upon the old. 
 
 "No one, then, to whom Christianity is a reality can 
 safely acquiesce in an unreal conception of the Old Testa- 
 ment history; and in an age when all are interested in his- 
 torical research, no apologetic can prevent thoughtful 
 minds from drifting away from faith, if the historical 
 study of the old covenant is condemned by the Church 
 and left in the hands of unbelievers. * * * 
 
 "The history of Israel, when rightly studied, is the 
 most vivid and real of all histories, and the proofs of 
 God's working among his people of old may still be made 
 one of the strongest evidences of Christianity. It was no 
 blind chance, no mere human wisdom that shaped the 
 growth of Israel's religion, and finally stamped it in these 
 forms, now so strange to us, which preserved the living 
 seed of the divine word till the fullness of time, when 
 He was manifested who transformed the religion of Israel 
 into a religion for all mankind." 
 
 Dr. S. R. Driver, Regius Professor of Hebrew and 
 Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, who is the first Eng- 
 lishman to give a completed historical analysis of the Old 
 Testament, expresses himself to like effect : 
 
26 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 "It is," he says, "impossible to doubt that the main 
 conclusions of critics with reference to the authorship of 
 the books of the Old Testament rest upon reasonings, 
 the cogency of which cannot be denied without denying 
 the ordinary principles by which history is judged and 
 evidence estimated. Nor can it be doubted that the same 
 conclusions upon any neutral field of investigation would 
 have been accepted without hesitation by all conversant 
 with the subject; they are only opposed in the present 
 instance by some theologians because they are supposed 
 to conflict with the requirements of the Christian faith. 
 * * * The truth, however, is, that apprehensions of 
 the character just indicated are unfounded. It is not the 
 case that critical conclusions, such as those expressed in 
 the present volume, are in conflict either with the Chris- 
 tian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith. The 
 conclusions affect not the fact of revelation but only its 
 form. They help to determine the stages through which 
 it passed, the different phases it assumed, and the 
 process by which it was built up; they do not touch either 
 the authority or the inspiration of the Old Testament. 
 '^ * * Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars 
 does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old 
 Testament, it presupposes it; it seeks only to determine 
 the conditions under which it operates, and the literary 
 forms through which it manifests itself; and it thus helps 
 us to form a truer conception of the methods which it has 
 pleased God to employ in revealing himself to his ancient 
 people Israel, and in preparing the way for the fuller 
 manifestation of himself in Jesus Christ." — Introduction 
 to The Literature of the Old Testament. Pp. lo, ii, 13. 
 
 Dr. Charles A. Briggs claims that "the higher criti- 
 cism of the Hexateuch vindicates its credibility. It 
 strengthens its historical credibility (i) by showing that we 
 have four parallel narratives instead of the single narra- 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 2J 
 
 tive of the traditional theory, and (2) by tracing these 
 narratives to their sources in the more ancient documents 
 buried in them. It traces the development of the original 
 Mosaic legislation to its successive stages of codification 
 in accordance with the historical development of the 
 Kingdom of God. It finds minor discrepancies and inac- 
 curacies, such as are familiar to the students of the Gos- 
 pels; but these increase the historic credibility of the 
 teachings, as they show that the writers and compilers 
 were true to their sources of information, even if they 
 could not harmonize them in all respects."— T/z^ Higher 
 Criticism of the Hexateuch. P. 3. 
 
 Dr. A. F. Kirkpatrick, Regius Professor of Hebrew 
 in the University of Cambridge, and Canon of Ely Cathe- 
 dral, says: "In all this diversity of many parts and many 
 fashions there is a unity which binds together the various 
 books [of the Bible] in a single whole. It is no artificial 
 and external uniformity, but a natural and organic unity 
 of life and spirit. Natural and undesigned, so far as the 
 several authors of the many books collected in the Divine 
 Library of the Old Testament are concerned, and, there- 
 fore, all the more attesting it as supernatural and de- 
 signed. For, to the question, whence comes this living 
 unity which pervades and animates this whole in all its 
 divers parts? the Christian student can make but one 
 answer — that it comes from God himself, who speaks 
 through historian and prophet and psalmist. These books 
 in all their variety are oracles of God ; they are living ora- 
 cles; and because the life which is their common charac- 
 teristic was breathed into them by the Holy Ghost, the 
 giver of life, we agree to call them inspired." — The Di- 
 vine Library of the Old Testament. Pp. 85, 86. 
 
 Dr. Alexander Balmain Bruce, Professor of Apolo- 
 getics and of New Testament Exegesis in the Free 
 Church College, Glasgow, has won for himself a high 
 
28 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 place in the confidence of the Christian world by his great 
 works, 'The Kingdom of God," "The Humiliation of 
 Christ," 'The Training of the Apostles," and 'The Para- 
 bolic Teaching of Christ." To doubt the loyalty of Dr. 
 Bruce to the Bible would be a logical impossibility, and 
 yet, in his last book, "Apologetics; or, Christianity De- 
 fensively Stated," he works upon the basis of the higher 
 criticism, and reaches the conclusion "that the Hebrew 
 Scriptures are a true light from heaven," though "a light 
 shining in a dark place until the dawn of day." P. 336. 
 
 Dr. W. Sanday, Dean Ireland Professor of Exegesis, 
 Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, Preacher at White- 
 hall, has won for himself a standing on the highest plane 
 of Christian scholarship by his critical writings, espe- 
 cially by his defense of the Johannine authorship of the 
 Gospel of St. John. He says: "My experience is that 
 criticism leads straight up to the supernatural, and not 
 away from it. I mean that if we let the Biblical writers 
 speak for themselves, they tell us, in quite imequivocal 
 terms, that they wrote by divine prompting. The spoken 
 word of prophet and apostle was put in their mouths by 
 God, and the written word was only the spoken word 
 committed to writing, or on the same footing with it. If 
 we take a plain and unsophisticated (though strictly crit- 
 ical) view of what the Biblical writers tell us, we shall 
 accept them at their word. We are willing to explain 
 them, to set them in their proper place in space and time, 
 to give them their true position in the development of 
 God's purposes, but we refuse to explain them away." 
 He expresses deep regret and concern for the late action 
 against Dr. Briggs. "It seems to us," he continues, "that 
 a stand is taken in the wrong place; that one whom we 
 know to be essentially moderate and essentially loyal is 
 treated as if he were neither; that a veto has been practi- 
 cally put upon enquiries which have a certain future be- 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 29 
 
 fore them, and that a Hne of partition is drawn at a point 
 which cannot be permanently tenable. With us (in Eng- 
 land) the battle has been fought, and to all intents and 
 purposes won. And the consequence is that English 
 Christianity has a feeling of hopeful energy and expan- 
 siveness about it such as it has hardly had since the days 
 of Milton." — Arena for December, 1893. 
 
 In substantial agreement with these experts in the 
 ''higher criticism" are such high authorities as Benjamin 
 Wisner Bacon in 'The Genesis of Genesis," Rev. C. H. 
 Piepenbring in "Theology of the Old Testament," Rev. 
 R. F. Horton in "Revelation and the Bible," and Rev. 
 Jabez Thomas Sunderland in "The Bible: Its Origin, 
 Growth and Character." 
 
 On page 262 of the last-named work we find these 
 strong words: "The higher criticism of the Bible is at 
 present under fire. Against the new light which scholar- 
 ship has brought and is bringing to the interpretation of 
 Scripture, many warning voices are raised. The brave, 
 strong, true men who are leading this advance are often 
 called hard names, denounced as destroyers, tried by 
 ecclesiastical courts as heretics. From many quarters we 
 are told that they are trying to destroy the Bible. But 
 the exact opposite is true. They are trying to save the 
 Bible." 
 
 I omit to mention many names of men of high repute 
 in the Church who, like those above mentioned, are advo- 
 cates, more or less pronounced, of the methods and legit- 
 imate results of the higher criticism, because I have shown 
 with sufficient fullness that the higher critics, as a rule, 
 are not seeking to destroy the Bible, but are seeking to 
 show the methods of the divine procedure in its forma- 
 tion, and to indicate the historical sources from whence 
 were drawn its divine teachings. 
 
 Not only are many leading orientalists in this country 
 
30 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 and Europe supporters of reverent historical criticism, but 
 not a few archaeologists are in complete sympathy with 
 its results. Among these are such men as Maspero, 
 Lenormant, Fd. Delitzsch, Paul Haupt, Hugo Winkler, 
 Ebers, Brugsch and Boscawen. 
 
 The work of the archaeologists has, however, little 
 bearing upon the special province of the higher critics. 
 It is chiefly confirmatory of the doctrines of the conserva- 
 tive as against those of the radical critics concerning his- 
 toricity. The archaeologists of late have made many dis- 
 coveries which render it probable that the Hebrews, like 
 their civilized neighbors, possessed written historical rec- 
 ords, and that many of their institutions ascribed to Moses 
 were of great antiquity. They have shown that the story 
 of Israel, from the call of Abraham to the conquest of 
 Canaan, was in harmony with historical conditions. All 
 this the conservative critics gladly accept. But let it be 
 7wted that the archccolo gists have made no discovery which 
 confirms the tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The 
 excavations at Pithom, for instance, show that a large 
 quantity of bricks were made without straw during the 
 assumed period of the oppression of the Hebrews, which 
 gives a historic coloring to the story in Exodus v; but 
 nothing has been discovered anywhere to make doubtful 
 the contention of the critics that that story, in its present 
 form, was written by a prophet of Judah about 800 B. C. 
 No doubt this writer had before him the written records 
 of many ancient traditions, and, it may be, contemporary 
 chronicles, that he freely used in his compilation, but the 
 authorship of such literature must ever remain unknown, 
 except as to certain things said in the records to have 
 been written by Moses. 
 
 The facts that are to determine the origin of the Pent- 
 ateuch are purely literary, and are to be found mainly 
 in the book itself and in the historical books from Joshua 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 3 1 
 
 to Ezra-Nehemiah. No possible discoveries of archae- 
 ologists can alter these facts. Take, for instance, the state- 
 ments of Leviticus-Numbers concerning the exclusive 
 altar of sacrifice at the door of the Tabernacle contrasted 
 with the statement, said to have been made by Moses, 
 in Deuteronomy xii: 1-12, according to which no such 
 exclusive altar existed, or was to exist, until new condi- 
 tions should have arisen in the distant future. If archae- 
 ologists should discover proof of the existence of the 
 exclusive altar of sacrifice in the Wilderness, the literary 
 forms would remain unaltered, and it would still be im- 
 possible to recognize the truth of both accounts. Even in 
 such case archaeologists would give no support to the 
 tradition that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Whatever the testimony of the monuments, the Penta- 
 teuch, I repeat, must be judged by its literary conditions. 
 Take another case. There are three recensions of the 
 Ten Commandments, viz.. Exodus xx and xxiv and^^XXiV 
 Deuteronomy v. If some fortunate archaeologist were 
 to discover the broken tables of the law, he would furnish 
 proof of the original "ten words," which, if the same as 
 one of the three, would be satisfactory as to that one; but 
 would throw no light upon the origin of the other two, 
 except to demonstrate that they were not of Mosaic 
 authorship. Thus we see how powerless archaeologists 
 are to solve the problems of Hexateuchal literature. But 
 what they cannot do the Higher Critics easily accomplish 
 by showing that the compilers of the Hexateuch made use 
 of more or less independent traditions in their composite 
 work. Conservative critics hail with pleasure all dis- 
 coveries of archaeologists that aid in solving the historical 
 problems of the Bible; and, as we have just seen, archae- 
 ologists, with a few exceptions, accept the literary analy- 
 sis of the critics. Among the exceptions Professors Sayce 
 and Hommel have made themselves conspicuous. While 
 
32 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 both accept the composite theory in part, they complain 
 that the critics carry their process of analysis much too 
 far — "are too hair spHtting," etc. But this is not their 
 most important blunder, for they fail to discriminate be- 
 tween the two great schools of critics, though their distinc- 
 tive differences are known to the whole literary world. 
 They must know that the radical school of Wellhausen, 
 on the subject of historicity, is antagonized by a host of 
 conservative critics, who accept with it generally the 
 analysis of the Hexateuch. As against the former their 
 arguments are usually valid, but as against the latter 
 they are irrelevant and unfair. 
 
 The attention of Professor Sayce has been called to 
 this state of the question, but he persists in recognizing 
 only one school of Higher Critics, and in denouncing all 
 as alike radically destructive. This is the trick of a special 
 pleader, and not the honest proceeding of a scientist. Pro- 
 fessor Hommel may be more or less ignorant of the state 
 of the question in England and America, but he fails to 
 notice the conservative schools of Dillman and Konig as 
 prominent factors in the controversy in Germany, which 
 fact shows him to be quite as much of a special pleader 
 as Sayce, and, therefore, equally unreliable. The higher 
 criticism does not stand or fall with the historical theories 
 of the school of Wellhausen. Its firm foundation is the lit- 
 erary analysis, which, as I have just indicated, is accepted 
 by both conservatives and radicals. Archaeologists may 
 demolish the theories of the latter upon historicity, but 
 the facts show that they have no weapon against the 
 former. The analysis really confirms the historical char- 
 acter of the narrative portions of the ancient documents. 
 Dr. Briggs, as quoted above, insists that the analysis 
 gives us four witnesses to the truth instead of one, and 
 while Professor Hommel rejects what he calls the min- 
 ute hair-splitting of the critics, he says: 'The existence 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 33 
 
 of this double narrative has been questioned, it is true, 
 by many learned apologists. Professor Green being 
 among the number, but without reason. Such an atti- 
 tude was due to a natural reaction from the unfair use of 
 these duplicate passages by modern critics of the Penta- 
 teuch in their efforts to discredit the historical credibility 
 of the whole. For my part, I think we have a right to 
 draw from them an exactly opposite inference. The more 
 numerous the discrepancies in unimportant details be- 
 tween two independent accounts of an event, so much 
 the higher is the probability that the event itself is historic- 
 ally true." While conservative critics can ask no more 
 than this of him, they rightly protest that the accepted 
 analysis of the Higher Critics being, as it is, the result of 
 long and patient work of experts, shall not be pushed 
 aside by one who, though he may be an expert in deci- 
 phering inscriptions, is certainly incompetent to produce 
 a new analysis of the Hexateuch. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE ANCIENT TRADITIONS. 
 
 It is often asserted that a spirit of arrogant egotism 
 has moved critical scholars to reject *'the traditions of 
 three thousand years," but every fairly informed student 
 knows that no such spirit has animated them. It is true 
 that they reject the idea that the mere duration of a tradi- 
 tion is prima facie evidence of its truth, but they treat it 
 with due respect, and subject it scrupulously to the ac- 
 cepted methods of the science of history, insisting not 
 only that it be old, but also that it be not contradictory 
 to the age which it claims to represent. 
 
 Precisely here it is that modern critical scholarship 
 takes issue with the traditions concerning the origin of 
 the Hexateuch. These traditions are old, but not old 
 
k 
 
 34 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 enough to be used in evidence. Had they arisen in the 
 days of Moses or Joshua, or about that time, and had 
 their existence received incidental notices, or been im- 
 pHed in contemporaneous records or traditions, they 
 would have had reputable standing in the court of histor- 
 ical criticism. But the facts are otherwise. There are no 
 early traces of any such traditions, nor is there, in all 
 Pentateuchal literature, nor yet in that of the pre-exilic 
 prophets, a hint that there existed in the days of Moses 
 or immediately afterwards a book in form, structure and 
 teaching answering to our Pentateuch. 
 
 That Moses wrote certain things contained in the 
 Pentateuch is affirmed therein. See Exodus xvii: 14; 
 xxiv: 4-27; Deuteronomy xxxi: 9; Joshua i: 7-8; viii: 31; 
 Deuteronomy xxxi: 22; Numbers xxxiii: 2. From these 
 we learn that Moses wrote a memorial against Amale^; 
 that he wrote a ''Book of the Covenant;" also a book 
 of laws, a song, and a record of the journeys of the chil- 
 dren of Israel. But there is nothing in all this to indicate 
 that he compiled all these writings or gave to them the 
 historic setting which they have in "The Pentateuch." The 
 opposite is implied, and, but for the traditions in question, 
 no one could doubt that the compilers of the Pentateuch 
 made use of the reputed writings of Moses to put forth 
 his teachings and to give his true historic position in the 
 religion and government of Israel. 
 
 Until we reach the days of Ezra there is really nothing 
 in the Scriptures that throws any light upon the origin of 
 the Pentateuch. Even the books of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 give nothing conclusive. 
 
 We learn from these two books (i) that in the year 
 536 B. C, Zerubbabel, together with the priests, builded 
 the altar of the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings 
 thereon, *'as it is written in the law of Moses, the man 
 of God." — Ezra iii: 2. (See Deuteronomy xxvii: 5, 6.) 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. ^^ 
 
 (2) We learn that the foundation of the second 
 temple was laid in the same year, and that it was dedi- 
 cated twenty years after with an elaborate ritual, the 
 prophets Haggai and Zachariah being present; and we 
 are further told that ''all was done according to the Law 
 of Moses ." 
 
 (3) We learn that in the year 458 B. C, fifty-eight 
 years after the dedication of the Temple, Ezra, "3. ready 
 scribe in the Law," went up to Jerusalem armed with cer- 
 tain powers by the King of Babylon, to reform what he 
 should find amiss; but he seems to have done little more 
 than separate the priests and people from their "strange 
 wives." Ezra does not appear again until thirteen years 
 after, when, during the first visit of Nehemiah, he 
 "brought the 'Book of the Law of Moses,' which the 
 Lord commanded Israel, and from a pulpit of wood made 
 for the purpose," read it to the standing multitude; and 
 that certain helpers caused the people to understand the 
 reading. Nehemiah viii: 1-18. 
 
 Now, although the people had been worshipping in 
 their restored Temple for more than seventy-two years, 
 under the leadership of priests and prophets, and accord- 
 ing to a law book which they called "The Law of Moses, 
 the Man of God" (Ezra iii: 2) and "The Book of Moses" 
 (Ezra vi: 18), yet they are found by Ezra to be totally 
 ignorant of the true "Book of the Law of Moses," which 
 he brought from Babylon. 
 
 This new book contained things that caused the peo- 
 ple such sorrow, they could only be comforted by the 
 earnest persuasions of the Levites. 
 
 But the ordinance that seems to have reconciled them 
 to the new conditions imposed by this "Book of the Law 
 of Moses" was the law for the Feast of Tabernacles 
 (Nehemiah viii: 14-17), of which the "Book of Moses" 
 that they had accepted with the sanction of prophets and 
 priests for more than ninety years, was without a trace ! 
 
36 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Something very serious had happened. The long- 
 honored ''Law of Moses," which seems to have been the 
 composite work of the Yahvist, the Elohist, and the 
 Deuteronomist, by the new movement had been enlarged 
 by the addition of a code of Priestly Laws, which were 
 partly the development of the Law of Ezekiel (xliv: 
 1 2- 1 6), and partly a compilation of ancient Temple usages 
 and other priestly traditions, but which were believed by 
 Ezra, or whoever made the codification, to have been 
 authorized by Moses. This phase of the subject will be 
 treated more fully later on; the above statement is made 
 now merely to show that, so far as the canonical books 
 are concerned, we are left in doubt as to the origin of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 Turning from the canonical books to the later tradi- 
 tions, we find nothing reliable, but much that is absurd 
 and unhistorical. The story that Ezra was inspired to re- 
 write the Law of Moses, and many other sacred books, 
 after the destruction of the Temple, as given in the 
 Apocrypha (IL Esdras xiv: i), is unworthy of serious 
 consideration, because that legend arose about five hun- 
 dred years after Ezra, and is contradictory to the his- 
 torical statements of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 The tradition that the canon of Scriptures was settled by 
 Ezra with the aid of the Great Synagogue is also utterly 
 without historical support. "There is no mention of the 
 Great Synagogue" in the writings of either Josephus or 
 Philo. There is no allusion to it even in the Apocrypha, 
 nor is there a single sentence in Nehemiah that, accord- 
 ing to any literal interpretation, would lead a reader to 
 suppose that Ezra founded an important deliberative as- 
 sembly, or even a religious college or synod. 
 
 ''The earliest evidence, therefore, is that supplied by 
 the Mishnic treatise, Pirqe Aboth, which may have been 
 committed to writing in the second or third century, 
 
THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM. 3/ 
 
 A. D. The remainder of the Talmudic evidence is G4- 
 mara, and not Mishna, and, therefore, was probably not 
 committed to writing earUer than the sixth or seventh 
 century, A. D. There is no evidence from any hterary 
 source whatever nearer to the historical period to which 
 the Great Synagogue is assigned than Pirqe Ahoth; and 
 all that the testimony of Pirqe Ahoth amounts to is, that 
 in the chain of traditions from Moses to the second cen- 
 tury before Christ, the Great Synagogue intervened be- 
 tween the Prophets and 'the Pairs' of Scribes, and that 
 Simeon the Just is its last surviving member." — The 
 Canon of the Old Testament, by H. E. Ryle, p. 267. 
 
 In this able work the whole subject of the legend of 
 Ezra and the books of Scripture is fully presented in Ex- 
 cursus A, pp. 240-272. 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 
 
 It is insisted by traditionalists that the failure of the 
 testimony of the canonical books and of tradition to set- 
 tle, affirmatively, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch 
 is not fatal, for the testimony of Christ is conclusive, 
 and ''you must choose between Christ and criticism." 
 But this by no means follows. The Pentateuch was 
 known as "the Law" and "The Law of Moses" in the pop- 
 ular speech and literature of the day; and whatever Christ 
 may have known of the history of its composition. He 
 would naturally use the accepted name. To have 
 done otherwise would have defeated his object. The 
 critical aspects of the case were not involved in anything He 
 said or did, and, therefore, could have no relation to the 
 subject. 
 
 "The old argument against the higher criticism, from 
 the fact that Jesus used the Old Testament, and which 
 
38 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 assumes that if Moses had not written the Pentateuch, 
 and David the Psalms, and Solomon Ecclesiastes — which 
 takes for granted that if the traditional view that if the 
 origin and composition of the Hebrew literature had not 
 been true, Christ would have told his disciples so — is self- 
 evidently worthless. The principle of the Incarnation 
 involves an accommodation of the Eternal to temporal 
 conditions; and it was clearly beyond even the power of 
 Divinity, in three short years, to sweep the Jewish mind 
 clear of all errors and superstitions. The reserve of 
 Christ in dealing with an age at all points so immeasura- 
 bly below him is one of the notes of his surpassing great- 
 ness. * * * He was, in fact, under the necessity of 
 introducing his original and absolute teaching in the cur- 
 rent forms of thought, which were frequently unsatisfac- 
 tory." — The Christ of To-Day. Gordon. Pp. 156, 157. 
 
 So we see that Christ leaves the whole question of the 
 origin of the Pentateuch open, and the reverent critic 
 may enter the field without fearing lest he be trespassing 
 upon forbidden ground. He is, therefore, as free to dis- 
 cuss the history of the first Jewish canon of Scripture as 
 is the Christian geologist to discuss the origin of the 
 world, undeterred by the book of Genesis. Liberated from 
 the misleading and paralyzing influences of tradition, 
 we, therefore, seek by critical methods the sources of the 
 Hexateuch, the process of its composition, and the sig- 
 nificance of its inspiration. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 SOME OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HEXATEUCH. 
 
 The literary form of the books of the Hexateuch de- 
 mands critical readjustment, the radical nature of which 
 will appear when we consider a few of the problems that 
 force themselves upon our attention. 
 
 (i) There are two accounts of creation given in Gene- 
 sis i-ii: 4a, and ii: 4b-25. In the first, God is called Elo- 
 him, and in the second Yahweh Elohim. According to 
 the first, man is created after all the animals, while ac- 
 cording to the second he is made before them, — the order 
 of creation being inverted. 
 
 (2) There are varying statements in the account of 
 the Deluge as to the beasts to be taken into the Ark (vii). 
 In verse 2 Noah is directed to take of every clean 
 beast, ''by sevens, male and his female, and of the beasts 
 that are not clean by two, male and his female, * * * 
 and Noah did according to all that Yahweh commanded 
 
 him." But, according to verseX "©4~clea»-4^€a&t^-a«d )5*. ^ ^ 
 0fH3^asts-that-are- TTot t:lean * * * thetj^ went in 
 ^\ ^two and two unto Noah into the Arlg \h£-jnaXa^AxuiJh£ ^,rtii-^4^ 
 fettiaief as Elohim te4 commanded ^4ift4^." k.«-^.n^ ^ ^ 
 
 (3) There are different statements as to the duration 
 of the Flood. In chapter vii : 11 it is said that 'Tn the six 
 hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on 
 the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all 
 the fountains of the great deep broken up and the win- 
 dows of heaven were opened." And in viii: 13-16, we are 
 told "that it came to pass, in the six hundredth and first 
 year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the 
 
 39 
 
40 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 waters were dried from off the earth; and Noah removed 
 the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face 
 of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the 
 seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth 
 dried. And Elohim spake unto Noah, saying. Go forth 
 of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' 
 wives with thee." This makes the duration of the flood to 
 have been one year; whereas, its duration, according to 
 the sections connected with the name of Yahweh, was 
 much less — vii: 12: 'Tt rained forty days and forty 
 nights;" verse 17: "The flood was upon the earth forty 
 days." Viii: 10: After sending out the dove, Noah re- 
 mained other seven days; when he sent the dove again 
 and when she returned, bringing the olive leaf (verse 11), 
 hi staid yet other seven days. Then, he sent forth the 
 dove for the last time. Verse 20: "And Noah buildeth 
 an altar unto Yahweh," etc. The number of days here 
 given from the beginning of the rain to the drying of the 
 earth is only one hundred and one. 
 
 (4J Three versions are given in Genesis of the story 
 of wife denial by Abraham and Isaac, (i) By Abraham 
 in Egypt, (2) by him in Gerar, and (3) by Isaac in Gerar 
 eighty years after. These versions are all cast in the same 
 mould. Did these events so repeat themselves or are 
 they different versions of one experience? 
 
 (5) In the story of Joseph and his brethern there are 
 two widely differing statements, (i) Joseph is sold by 
 his brethren to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver 
 (xxxvii: 28), who, in turn, sold him in Egypt (xxxix: i). 
 (2) The Midianites drew Joseph from the pit into which 
 his brethren had put him, and, carrying him to Egypt, 
 sold him to Potiphar (xxxvii: 36). 
 
 (6) The revelation of the divine name of Yahweh to 
 Moses (i) at the burning bush (iii: 14); (2) a revelation 
 in Egypt, like the original one (vi: 3). 
 
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HEXATEUCH. 4I 
 
 (7) The two widely different recensions of the Com- 
 mandments: (i) Exodus XX : 1-17, well-known to the 
 Church; (2) xxxiv: 10-28, almost unknown. The first re- 
 cension is said to have been spoken by Elohim from the 
 Mount, and, according to Deuteronomy, it contained the 
 Commandments that were written by God upon tables 
 of stone (Deuteronomy V: 7-22). But the latter was 
 spoken to Moses, after the breaking of the first tables (as 
 a repetition of the words of that table, xxxi: i), and these 
 Moses was to write upon tables prepared by him (xxxiv: 
 27, 28). "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write then 
 these words (xxxiv: 10-26), for after the tenor of these 
 words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel; 
 and he was with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he 
 did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote 
 upon the tables of the covenant the ten commandments." 
 All former attempts to harmonize these conflicting facts 
 with the theory of the Mosaic authorship of both having 
 failed, the Higher Criticism unhesitatingly declares that 
 in these two chapters we have extracts from two different 
 literary sources, xx: 1-2 1 being from the Elohistic and 
 xxxiv: 1-28 from the Yahvistic documents. 
 
 The responsibility for this confusion rests upon the 
 compiler, who has introduced widely different traditions 
 of the Ten Commandments, the substance of the former 
 being religious and ethical, and that of the latter mainly 
 religious, secular and ceremonial. To make Moses the 
 author of both these accounts is impossible. (See a third 
 version in Deuteronomy v, with variations from that in 
 Exodus XX.) 
 
 (8) The laws for altars and worship proclaimed at 
 Sinai cannot be reconciled with the statement that Moses 
 formulated them then and there, and that he wrote the ac- 
 count of their institution as we have it. In xx: 24-25: 
 "An altar shalt thou make unto me, and shalt sacrifice 
 
42 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy 
 sheep and thine oxen; in all places where I record my 
 name I will come unto thee and bless thee. If thou wilt 
 make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn 
 stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast pol- 
 luted it." 
 
 Exodus xxvii: i : 'Thou shalt make an altar of shittim 
 wood, five cubits long and five cubits broad; the altar 
 shall be foursquare; and the height thereof shall be 
 three cubits," etc. Exodus xl: 6: "Thou shalt set the 
 altar of the burnt offerings before the door of the 
 tabernacle of the tent of the congregation." Leviticus xvii: 
 1-9, makes this altar exclusive; sacrifices could be offered 
 upon it only, and, according to Numbers iii: i-io, only 
 Aaron and his sons could make the offerings. 
 
 (9) Genesis xxxviii has no connection with the con- 
 text before or after it, being a story of Judah and certain 
 of his impurities, etc., which was thrust into the story of 
 Joseph, thus separating the statement that the Midianites 
 sold Joseph in Egypt, xxxvii: 36, from the statement, 
 xxxix: I, that the Ishmaelites did it. 
 
 (10) Exodus xxv-xxx, containing the first section of 
 the tabernacle legislation, is out of place, having been ar- 
 bitrarily put between the account of the first ascent of 
 Moses into the Mount, xxiv, and his return with the 
 tables of stone, xxxii. Clearly the original form of the 
 record was as follows: "And Moses rose up, and his min- 
 ister Joshua; and Moses went up into the Mount of God 
 (xxiv: 13), and Moses was in the Alount of God forty 
 days and forty nights (verse 18). And when the people 
 saw that Moses delayed to come down from the Mount, 
 the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron and 
 said unto him: Up, make us gods which shall go before 
 us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out 
 of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of 
 
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HEXATEUCH. 43 
 
 him" (xxxii: i). From this point on to xxxiv: 28 is given 
 the history of the golden calf; the punishment of the peo- 
 ple for their idolatry; the second ascent of Moses with 
 tables of stone, prepared by him, his writing thereon, 
 the Ten Commandments of the covenant, and his return 
 and publication of them as contained in xxxiv: 12-27. 
 The two sections of the tabernacle legislation, xxv-xxx 
 and xxxv-xl, must have been published after the transac- 
 tions concerning the tables of stone, and their true place 
 in the narrative would have been together at the end of 
 the book. As it is, we sec plainly the marks of the com- 
 positor. 
 
 (11) From the death of Moses to the reign of King 
 Josiah, a period of six hundred years, nothing is said of 
 the law of one altar in the historical books of Judges, Sam- 
 uel and Kings. The publication of the book of Deuter- 
 onomy 621 B. C. is the first appearance of such a law 
 outside of the Hexateuch. The prophets and kings are 
 alike ignorant of its existence, and personally, by exam- 
 ple, encourage worship in the sacred places. Samuel, 
 David and Solomon offer sacrifices in many places. Eli- 
 jah complains that the enemies of Yahweh had thrown 
 down his altars. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah give 
 no hint of the existence of the law of one exclusive altar. 
 It is only after the reign of Josiah, who established the 
 one altar, that we find in the closing chapters of II Kings 
 indications of a centralized worship. 
 
 (12) Following this inexplicable condition of the 
 Jewish literature, if the traditional theory that Moses 
 wrote the Pentateuch is accepted, comes the yet stranger 
 fact that there is no notice, outside of the Pentateuch, of 
 the exclusive priesthood of Aaron and his sons until 
 Ezekiel. To him is due the law excluding the Levites 
 from the priesthood in punishment for their defection 
 before the exile, xliv: 12-16. Of the influence of Ezekiel's 
 
44 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 law in developing the laws of the Aaronic priesthood, I 
 will speak when I come to consider the priests' code. 
 
 (13) It is stated in the book of Joshua that the whole 
 land had been conquered before Joshua's death. But, in 
 the first part of the book of Judges, we find that new mili- 
 tary combinations had to be made to enable the various 
 tribes to subdue their enemies and secure possession of 
 their allotments. The complete subjugation of the land 
 did not take place until the days of David. 
 
 The above is a brief outline of a few of the many lit- 
 erary phenomena in the Hexateuch demanding explana- 
 tion. All efforts to do this upon the assumption that 
 Moses wrote the Pentateuch have been sad failures. The 
 conditions require a new treatment which the Higher 
 Criticism claims to be able to give successfully. It 
 shows that the discrepancies and variations, together with 
 misplacement of much of the text, arose mainly from 
 efforts to create a composite w^ork by joining together 
 parts of four documents. These documents were written 
 in different places, at widely-separated periods, and for 
 various purposes. To demonstrate this composite char- 
 acter of the Hexateuch, the critics analyze it into its older 
 sources by collecting the scattered parts of the documents 
 from their composite setting and restoring the original 
 documents more or less completely to their proper form. 
 Examples of this critical analysis I now proceed to give. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 Priests' Code, or P. Yahvist, or J. 
 
 GENESIS. GENESIS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Creation of Heaven and Earth. 
 
 1 In the beginning Elohim 
 created the heaven and the 
 earth. 
 
 2 And the earth was without 
 form, and void; and darkness 
 was upon the face of the deep. 
 And the Spirit of Elohim 
 moved upon the face of the 
 waters. 
 
 3 And Elohim said. Let 
 there be light: and there was 
 light. 
 
 4 And Elohim saw the light, 
 that it was good: and Elohim 
 divided the light from the 
 darkness. 
 
 5 And Elohim called the 
 light Day, and the darkness he 
 called Night. And the even- 
 ing and the morning were the 
 first day. 
 
 6 And Elohim said, Let 
 there be a firmament in the 
 midst of the waters, and let it 
 divide the waters from the 
 waters. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 4 In the day that Yahweh 
 Elohim made the earth and 
 the heavens. 
 
 5 And every plant of the 
 field before it was in the earth, 
 and every herb of the field be- 
 fore it grew: for Yahweh Elo- 
 him had not caused it to rain 
 upon the earth, and there was 
 not a man to till the ground. 
 
 6 But there went up a mist 
 from the earth, and watered 
 the whole face of the ground. 
 
 7 And Yahweh Elohim 
 formed man of the dust of the 
 ground, and breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life; and 
 man became a living soul. 
 
 8 And Yahweh Elohim 
 planted a garden eastward in 
 Eden; and there he put the 
 man whom he had formed. 
 
 9 And out of the ground 
 made Yahweh Elohim to grow 
 every tree that is pleasant to 
 the sight and good for food; 
 the tree of life also in the 
 
 45 
 
46 
 
 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 7 And Elohim made the fir- 
 mament, and divided the 
 waters which were under the 
 firmament from the waters 
 which were above the firma- 
 ment: and it was so. 
 
 8 And Elohim called the fir- 
 mament Heaven. And the 
 evening and the morning were 
 the second day. 
 
 9 And Elohim said, Let the 
 waters under the heaven be 
 gathered together unto one 
 place, and let the dry land ap- 
 pear: and it was so. 
 
 ID And Elohim called the 
 dry land Earth; and the gath- 
 ering together of the waters 
 called he Seas: and Elohim 
 saw that it was good. 
 
 11 And Elohim said, Let 
 the earth bring forth grass, the 
 herb yielding seed, and the 
 fruit tree yielding fruit after 
 his kind, whose seed is in it- 
 self, upon the earth: and it 
 was so. 
 
 12 And the earth brought 
 forth grass, and herb yielding 
 seed after his kind, and the 
 tree yielding fruit, whose seed 
 was in itself, after his kind: 
 and Elohim saw that it was 
 good. 
 
 13 And the evening and the 
 morning were the third day. 
 
 14 And Elohim said. Let 
 there be lights in the firma- 
 ment of the heaven to divide 
 the day from the night; and 
 let them be for signs, and for 
 seasons, and for days, and 
 years : 
 
 midst of the garden, and the 
 tree of knowledge of good and 
 evil. 
 
 10 And a river went out of 
 Eden to water the garden; and 
 from thence it was parted, and 
 became into four heads. 
 
 11 The name of the first is 
 Pison: that is it which com- 
 passeth the whole land of 
 Havilah, where there is gold. 
 
 12 And the gold of that 
 land is good: there is bdellium 
 and the onyx stone. 
 
 13 And the name of the 
 second river is Gihon: the 
 same is it that compasseth the 
 whole land of Ethiopia. 
 
 14 And the name of the 
 third river is Hidekel: that is 
 it which goeth toward the east 
 of Assyria. And the fourth 
 river is Euphrates. 
 
 15 And Yahweh Elohim 
 took the man, and put him in 
 the garden of Eden to dress it 
 and to keep it. 
 
 16 And Yahweh Elohim 
 commanded the man, saying. 
 Of every tree of the garden 
 thou mayest freely eat: 
 
 17 But of the tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil, 
 thou shalt not eat of it: for 
 in the day that thou eatest 
 thereof thou shalt surely die. 
 
 18 And Yahweh Elohim 
 said, It is not good that the 
 man should be alone; I will 
 make him an help meet for 
 him. 
 
 19 And out of the ground 
 Yahweh Elohim formed every 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 47 
 
 15 And let them be for 
 lights in the firmament of the 
 heaven to give light upon the 
 earth: and it was so. 
 
 16 And Elohim made two 
 great lights; the greater light 
 to rule the day, and the lesser 
 light to rule the night: he 
 made the stars also. 
 
 17 And Elohim set them in 
 the firmament of the heaven 
 to give light upon the earth. 
 
 18 And to rule over the day 
 and over the night, and to di- 
 vide the light from the dark- 
 ness: and Elohim saw that it 
 was good. 
 
 19 And the evening and the 
 morning were the fourth day. 
 
 20 And Elohim said, Let the 
 waters bring forth abundantly 
 the moving creature that hath 
 life, and fowl that may fly 
 above the earth in the open 
 firmament of heaven. 
 
 21 And Elohim created 
 great whales, and every living 
 creature that moveth, which 
 the waters brought forth 
 abundantly, after their kind, 
 and every winged fowl after 
 his kind: and Elohim saw that 
 it was good. 
 
 22 And Elohim blessed 
 them, saying. Be fruitful, and 
 multiply and fill the waters in 
 the seas, and let the fowl mul- 
 tiply in earth. 
 
 23 And the evening and the 
 morning were the fifth day. 
 
 24 And Elohim said. Let the 
 earth bring forth the living 
 
 beast of the field, and every 
 fowl of the air; and brought 
 them unto Adam to see what 
 he would call them: and what- 
 soever Adam called every 
 living creature, that was the 
 name thereof. 
 
 20 And Adam gave names to 
 all cattle, and to the fowl of 
 the air, and to every beast of 
 the field; but for Adam there 
 was not found an help meet 
 for him. 
 
 21 And Yahweh Elohim 
 caused a deep sleep to fall 
 upon Adam, and he slept; and 
 he took one of his ribs, and 
 closed up the flesh instead 
 thereof. 
 
 22 And the rib, which Yah- 
 weh Elohim had taken from 
 man, made he a woman, and 
 brought her unto the man. 
 
 23 And Adam said, This is 
 now bone of my bone, and 
 flesh of my flesh: she shall be 
 called Woman, because she 
 was taken out of man. 
 
 24 Therefore shall a man 
 leave his father and his 
 mother, and shall cleave unto 
 his wife; and they shall be one 
 flesh. 
 
 25 And they were both 
 naked, the man and his wife, 
 and were not ashamed. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 I Now the serpent was more 
 subtle than any beast of the 
 field which Yahweh Elohim 
 had made. And he said unto 
 
48 
 
 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 creature after his kind, cattle, 
 and creeping thing, and beast 
 of the earth after his kind: and 
 it was so. 
 
 25 And Elohim made the 
 beast of the earth after his 
 kind, and cattle after their 
 kind, and everything that 
 creepeth upon the earth after 
 his kind: and Elohim saw that 
 it was good. 
 
 26 And Elohim said, Let us 
 make man in our own image, 
 after our likeness: and let 
 them have dominion over the 
 fish of the sea, and over the 
 fowl of the air, and over the 
 cattle, and over all the earth, 
 and over every creeping thing 
 that creepeth upon the earth. 
 
 27 So Elohim created man 
 in his own image, in the image 
 of Elohim created he him: 
 male and female created he 
 them. 
 
 28 And Elohim blessed 
 them, and Elohim said unto 
 them, Be fruitful, and multiply, 
 and replenish the earth, and 
 subdue it: and have dominion 
 over the fish of the sea, and 
 over the fowl of the air, and 
 over every living thing that 
 moveth upon the earth. 
 
 29 And Elohim said. Be- 
 hold, I have given you every 
 herb bearing seed, which is 
 upon the face of all the earth, 
 and every tree, in which is the 
 fruit of a tree yielding seed; 
 to you it shall be for meat. 
 
 the woman. Yea, hath Elohim 
 said, Ye shall not eat of every 
 tree of the garden? 
 
 2 And the woman said unto 
 the serpent, We may eat of 
 the fruit of the trees of the 
 garden: 
 
 3 But of the fruit of the tree 
 which is in the midst of the 
 garden, Elohim hath said. Ye 
 shall not eat of it, neither shall 
 ye touch it, lest ye die. 
 
 4 And the serpent said unto 
 the woman. Ye shall not 
 surely die: 
 
 5 For Elohim doth know 
 that in the day ye eat thereof, 
 then your eyes shall be 
 opened, and ye shall be as 
 Elohims, knowing good and 
 evil. 
 
 6 And when the woman saw 
 that the tree was good for 
 food, and that it was pleasant 
 to the eyes, and a tree to be 
 desired to make one wise, she 
 took of the fruit thereof, and 
 did eat, and gave also unto her 
 husband with her; and he did 
 eat. 
 
 7 And the eyes of them both 
 were opened, and they knew 
 that they were naked; and they 
 sewed fig leaves together, and 
 made themselves aprons. 
 
 8 And they heard the voice 
 of Yahweh Elohim walking in 
 the garden in the cool of the 
 day: and Adam and his wife 
 hid themselves from the pres- 
 ence of Yahweh Elohim 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 49 
 
 30 And to every beast of the 
 earth, and to every fowl of the 
 air, and to every thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth, 
 wherein there is Hfe, I have 
 given every green herb for 
 meat: and it was so. 
 
 31 And Elohim saw every 
 thing that he had made, and, 
 behold, it was very good. 
 And the evening and the 
 morning were the sixth day. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 1 Thus the heavens and the 
 earth were finished, and all the 
 host of them. 
 
 2 And on the seventh day 
 Elohim ended his work which 
 he had made; and he rested on 
 the seventh day from all his 
 work which he had made. 
 
 3 And Elohim blessed the 
 seventh day and sanctified it: 
 because that in it he had rested 
 from all his work which 
 Elohim created and made. 
 
 4 These arc the generations 
 of the heavens and of the 
 earth when they were created. 
 
 amongst the trees of the gar- 
 den. 
 
 9 And Yahweh Elohim 
 called unto Adam, and said 
 unto him. Where art thou? 
 
 ID And he said, I heard thy 
 voice in the garden, and I was 
 afraid, because I was naked; 
 and I hid myself. 
 
 11 And he said. Who told 
 thee that thou wast naked? 
 Hast thou eaten of the tree, 
 whereof I commanded thee 
 thou shouldest not eat? 
 
 12 And the man said, The 
 woman whom thou gavest to 
 be with me, she gave me of the 
 tree, and I did eat. 
 
 13 And Yahweh Elohim 
 said unto the woman, What is 
 this that thou hast done? And 
 the woman said, The serpent 
 beguiled me, and I did eat. 
 
 14 And Yahweh Elohim 
 said unto the serpent, Because 
 thou hast done this, thou art 
 cursed above all cattle, and 
 above every beast of the field; 
 upon thy belly shalt thou go, 
 and dust shalt thou eat all the 
 days of thy life. 
 
 And so on to verse 24. 
 A critical examination discloses marked differences 
 in these accounts of the creation. The first (the Priestly 
 account) names the creator Elohim, and is almost free p 
 f^«i anthropomorphic representations of God. It repre- fptt^f^ 
 sents Elohim as doing all things spontaneously, by the 
 power of his word. He speaks and it is done. He com- 
 mands and it stands fast. He says, "Let there be light 
 and there is light," "Let there be a firmament," etc., "Let 
 
 
50 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the earth bring forth," etc., "Let us make man in our 
 image and after our likeness," etc. 
 
 It is after this subhme fashion that the "Priests' Code" 
 represents God as creating the universe. It is far above 
 and outside of all human analogies; and is in harmony 
 with the highest ideal of theism that the most spiritual 
 civilization has yet attained. The Infinite and Omnis- 
 cient One is emphasized in it as he is nowhere else in the 
 early religious literature of the world. 
 
 The second (the Jahvistic) account is in all these re- 
 spects dififerent, and so radically dififerent that it is impos- 
 sible, on any principle of criticism, to assign it to the 
 same writer. In the first place, it begins without a hint 
 that an account of creation had just been given covering 
 six days of divine work, an account which this second 
 narrative is, in a measure, to duplicate and expand; but 
 it begins ab initio. "In the day that Yahweh Elohim 
 made the earth and the heavens." 
 
 In the second place, the order of creation is different 
 from the Priestly account, in which man was created after 
 all other animals; while in this, the Yahvistic document, 
 he is created before them, and the woman is created last, 
 because there is found no helpmeet for man among them. 
 
 In the third place, the creation proceeds after a purely 
 anthropomorphic method, its processes being all mechan- 
 ical. Yahweh forms man of the dust of the ground, and 
 breathes into his nostrils the breath of life. He plants 
 a garden and places man in it, giving him orders con- 
 cerning his food. He puts him into a deep sleep, and, 
 taking a rib from his side, he makes of it a woman and 
 brings her to the man. 
 
 He walks in the garden in the cool of the day and calls 
 the hiding Adam and Eve to answer for their transgres- 
 sion. He arraigns them before him after the fashion of 
 a judge, and gives them formal trial, and pronounces 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 51 
 
 judgment of condemnation upon them; and drives them 
 from the garden, placing guards to prevent their return. 
 A more complete anthropomorphic representation of God 
 it would be hard to find in any literature, and a more 
 striking contrast with the first (Priests' Code) account 
 could not easily be imagined. All this, taken in connec- 
 tion with the sudden introduction of the special divine 
 name, Yahweh, the startling change of style, the evident 
 deflection of purpose and change of literary plan, show 
 conclusively the work of a different hand from that which 
 gave the Priestly account. 
 
 Following on, we find in the history of the Flood the 
 same general feature of difference, in two accounts there 
 joined into one. 
 
 J. P. 
 
 GENESIS VII, 1-5. 
 
 1 And Yahweh said unto 
 Noah, Come thou and all thy 
 house into the ark; for thee 
 have I seen righteous before 
 me in this generation. 
 
 2 Of every clean beast thou 
 shalt take to thee by sevens, 
 the male and his female: and 
 of beasts that are not clean 
 by two, the male and his 
 female. 
 
 3 Of fowls also of the air by 
 sevens, the male and the 
 female; to keep seed alive 
 upon the face of all the earth. 
 
 4 For yet seven days, and I 
 will cause it to rain upon the 
 earth forty days and forty 
 nights; and every living sub- 
 stance that I have made will 
 I destroy from off the face of 
 the earth. 
 
 GENESIS VII, 13-16. 
 
 13 In the selfsame day en- 
 tered Noah, and Shem, and 
 Ham, and Japheth, the sons of 
 Noah, and Noah's wife, and 
 the three wives of his sons 
 with them, into the ark. 
 
 14 They, and every beast 
 after his kind, and all the 
 cattle after their kind, and 
 every creeping thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth after 
 his kind, and every fowl after 
 his kind, and every bird of 
 every sort. 
 
 15 And they went in unto 
 Noah into the ark, two and 
 two of all flesh, wherein is the 
 breath of life. 
 
 16 And they that went in, 
 went in male and female of all 
 flesh, as Elohim had com- 
 manded him. 
 
52 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 5 And Noah did according 
 unto all that Yahweh com- 
 manded him. 
 
 The first (Yahvlstic) says that Yahweh commanded 
 Noah to take into the ark clean beasts by sevens, male 
 and female, and beasts that were not clean by twos, the 
 male and his female; whereas the second (Priests' Code) 
 says that two of every kind went in unto Noah in the ark. 
 ''Two and two of all flesh w^herein is the breath of life," 
 and "they that went in were male and female of all flesh, 
 as Elohim had commanded him," taking no notice of any 
 distinction between clean and unclean beasts. The first ac- 
 count says that Noah did as Yahweh commanded him, 
 and the second that he did what Elohim commanded 
 him. This literary condition could have arisen only in 
 one way, to wit: by combining into one the products of 
 two different authors. 
 
 When we reach the fifteenth chapter of the book of 
 Genesis we begin to meet the traces of another document 
 in which the word Elohim is used for God, but in gen- 
 eral style and form is very different from the "Priests' 
 Code," and is closely akin to the Jahvistic document. 
 When we reach the xxxvii chapter, this document takes 
 notable place in the account of Joseph's trials and his 
 deportation to Egypt. 
 
 The two accounts which follow have been ingeniously 
 mingled, so as to m.ake one story, but can easily be re- 
 stored to their original form, and, in spite of some omis- 
 sions, made necessary by the work of joining them, will 
 appear in their ancient integrity. 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 53 
 
 E. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 13 And Israel said unto 
 Joseph, Do not thy brethren 
 feed the flock in Shechem? 
 come, and I will send thee 
 unto them. And he said to 
 him, Here am I. 
 
 14 And he said to him, Go, 
 I pray thee, see whether it will 
 be well with thy brethren, and 
 well with the flocks; and bring 
 me word again. So he sent 
 him out of the vale of Hebron, 
 and he came to Shechem. 
 
 15 And a certain man found 
 him, and, behold, he was wan- 
 dering in the field: and the 
 man asked him, saying. What 
 seekest thou? 
 
 16 And he said, I seek my 
 brethren: tell me, I pray thee, 
 where they feed their flocks. 
 
 17 And the man said, They 
 are departed hence; for I 
 heard them say, Let us go to 
 Dothan. And Joseph went 
 after his brethren, and found 
 them in Dothan. 
 
 18 And when they saw him 
 afar ofif, even before he came 
 near unto them, they conspired 
 against him to slay him. 
 
 19 And they said one to an- 
 other, Behold, this dreamer 
 Cometh. 
 
 20 Come now therefore, and 
 let us slay him, and cast him 
 into some pit, and we will say. 
 Some evil beast hath devoured 
 him; and we shall see what 
 will become of his dreams. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 22 And Reuben said unto 
 them. Shed no blood, but cast 
 him into this pit that is in the 
 wilderness, and lay no hand 
 upon him; that he might rid 
 him out of their hands, to de- 
 liver him to his father again. 
 
 23 And it came to pass, when 
 Joseph was come unto his 
 brethren, that they stripped 
 Joseph out of his coat, his coat 
 of many colours that was on 
 him; 
 
 24 And they took him, and 
 cast him into a pit; and the pit 
 was empty, there was no water 
 in it. 
 
 25 And they sat down to eat 
 bread: 
 
 28 Then there passed by 
 Midianites merchantmen; and 
 they drew and lifted up Joseph 
 out of the pit. * * * 
 
 29 And Reuben returned 
 unto the pit; and, behold, 
 Joseph was not in the pit; and 
 he rent his clothes. 
 
 30 And he returned unto his 
 brethren, and said. The child 
 is not; and I, whither shall I 
 go? 
 
 36 And the Midianites sold 
 him into Egypt unto Potiphar, 
 an officer of Pharaoh's, and 
 captain of the guard. 
 
54 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 21 And Reuben heard it, and 
 he delivered him out of their 
 hands; and said, Let us not 
 kill him, 
 
 25 * * * And they lifted 
 up their eyes and looked, and, 
 behold, a company of Ishmae- 
 lites came from Gilead, with 
 their camels bearing spicery 
 and balm and myrrh, going to 
 carry it down to Egypt. 
 
 26 And Judah said unto his 
 brethren, What profit is it if 
 we slay our brother, and con- 
 ceal his blood? 
 
 27 Come, and let us sell him 
 to the Ishmaelites, and let not 
 our hand be upon him; for he 
 is our brother and our flesh: 
 and his brethren were content. 
 
 28 * * * And sold Joseph 
 to the Ishmaelites for twenty 
 pieces of silver: and they 
 brought Joseph into Egypt. 
 
 31 And they took Joseph's 
 coat, and killed a kid of the 
 goats, and dipped the coat in 
 the blood; 
 
 32 And they sent the coat of 
 many colours, and they brought 
 it to their father; and said, 
 This have we found; know 
 now whether it be thy son's 
 coat or no. 
 
 SS And he knew it, and said. 
 It is my son's coat; an evil 
 beast hath devoured him; 
 Joseph is without doubt rent 
 in pieces. 
 
 34 And Jacob rent his 
 clothes, and put sackcloth 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 55 
 
 upon his loins, and mourned 
 for his son many days. 
 
 35 And all his sons and all 
 his daughters rose up to com- 
 fort him; but he refused to be 
 comforted; and he said, For I 
 will go down into the grave 
 unto my son mourning. Thus 
 his father wept for him. 
 
 Chapter xxxviii, concerning Judah and his family and 
 their impurities, has been here thrust in by a compositor 
 to separate the thirty-sixth verse of chapter xxxvii from 
 the first verse of chapter xxxix. 
 
 ''And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Poti- 
 phar, an of^cer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an 
 Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites, 
 which had brought him down thither." 
 
 In E. the first part of the story has been omitted and 
 J.'s account preferred, but what is left is perfectly con- 
 sistent. Reuben, seeking to deliver Joseph, had him put 
 into a pit, and, while his brethren were eating, the Mid- 
 ianites stole him from the pit, and carried him to Egypt 
 and sold him to Potiphar. 
 
 In J., Reuben advised his brethren not to kill Joseph, 
 and Judah counselled them to sell him to a passing com- 
 pany of Ishmaelites; so they sold him for twenty pieces of 
 silver, and the Ishmaelites brought him to Egypt and 
 sold him to an Egyptian. 
 
 These accounts are so plainly from different sources 
 that no comment is needed; but there is one thing to be 
 noted that throws much light upon the work of the com- 
 piler, to wit: He placed J.'s account of the sale of Joseph 
 in Egypt by the Ishmaelites at the beginning of chapter 
 xxxix, thus putting a whole chapter between that and 
 E.'s statement at the close of chapter xxxvii, that the 
 Midianites sold him, after having carried him to Egypt, 
 to Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh's guard. 
 
56 
 
 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 E. 
 
 CHAP. XXXIII, 7-17. 
 
 7 And Moses took the 
 tabernacle, and pitched 
 it without the camp, afar 
 off from the camp, and 
 called it the Tabernacle 
 of the congregation. 
 And it came to pass, 
 that every one which 
 sought the Lord went 
 out unto the tabernacle 
 of the congregation, 
 which was without the 
 camp. 
 
 8 And it came to pass, 
 when Moses went out 
 unto the tabernacle, 
 that all the people rose 
 up, and stood every man 
 at his tent door, and 
 looked after Moses, un- 
 til he was gone into the 
 tabernacle. 
 
 9 Audit came to pass, 
 as Moses entered into 
 the tabernacle, the 
 cloudy pillar descended, 
 and stood at the door of 
 the tabernacle, and the 
 Lord talked with Moses. 
 
 10 And all the people 
 saw the cloudy pillar 
 stand at the tabernacle 
 door ; and all the people 
 rose up and worshipped, 
 every man in his tent 
 door. 
 
 11 And the Lord 
 spake unto Moses face 
 to face, as a man 
 speaketh unto his friend. 
 And he turned again in- 
 to the camp ; but his 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 J. P- 
 
 CHAP. XXXIII, 18-23. CHAP. XXXIV, 29-35. 
 
 18 And he said, I be- 
 seech thee, show me thy 
 glory. 
 
 19 And he said, I will 
 make all my goodness 
 pass before thee, and I 
 will proclaim the name 
 of the Lord before thee ; 
 and will be gracious to 
 whom I will be gracious, 
 and will shew mercy 
 on whom I will shew 
 mercy. 
 
 20 And he said. Thou 
 canst not see my face ; 
 for there shall no man 
 see me, and live. 
 
 21 And the Lord said. 
 Behold, there is a place 
 by me, and thou shalt 
 stand upon a rock. 
 
 22 And it shall come 
 to pass, while my glory 
 passeth by, that I will 
 put thee in a clift of the 
 rock, and will cover thee 
 with my hand while I 
 pass by ; 
 
 23 And I will take 
 away mine hand, and 
 thou shalt see my back 
 parts ; but my face shall 
 not be seen. 
 
 29 And it came to 
 pass, when Moses came 
 down from mount Sinai 
 with the two tables of 
 testimony in Moses' 
 hand, when he came 
 down from the mount, 
 that Moses wist not that 
 the skin of his face shone 
 while he talked with 
 him. 
 
 30 And when Aaron 
 and all the children of 
 Israel saw Moses, be- 
 hold, the skin of his face 
 shone ; and they were 
 afraid to come nigh 
 him. 
 
 31 And Moses called 
 unto them ; and Aaron 
 and all the rulers of the 
 congregation returned 
 unto him ; and Moses 
 talked with them. 
 
 32 And afterward all 
 the children of Israel 
 came nigh and he gave 
 them in commandment 
 aU that the Lord had 
 spoken with him in 
 mount Sinai. 
 
 33 And till Moses had 
 done speaking with 
 them, he put a vail on 
 his face. 
 
 34 But when Moses 
 went in before the Lord 
 to speak with him, he 
 took the vail off, until he 
 came out. And he came 
 out, and spake unto the 
 children of Israel that 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. $7 
 
 servant Joshua, the son which he was com- 
 
 of Nun, a young man, manded. 
 
 departed not out of the 35 And the children 
 
 tabernacle, of Israel saw the face of 
 
 Moses, that the skin of 
 Moses' face shone ; and 
 Moses put the vail upon 
 his face again, until he 
 went in to speik with 
 him. 
 
 We have here three representations of the interviews 
 of Moses with Jehovah, which are so manifestly different 
 as to compel the conviction that they were taken from 
 different sources. According to E., Moses saw God face 
 to face; whereas, according- to J., God refused to allow 
 Moses to see his face, because no man could see his face 
 and live (verse 20). P. was evidently inspired by E. with 
 the idea that Moses saw God face to face, and, therefore, 
 went before the Lord unveiled. These different repre- 
 sentations are grouped in chapters xxxiii and xxxiv, a 
 fact that makes the composite character of the work the 
 more evident. 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 It is not convenient to give quotations from the book 
 of Leviticus to illustrate its composite character, for the 
 reason that the whole book is made up of three sections. 
 Chapters i-xvi are from P.; chapters xvii-xxvi are from 
 "The Law of Holiness," as seemingly recodified by P., 
 and chapter,^,^is from P. XH V 1 1 
 
 Of the ''Law of Holiness," Canon Driver thus speaks: 
 "We arrive here at a group of chapters which stand 
 by themselves in P. While in general form and scope 
 appertaining to P., they differ from the main body of P. 
 by the presence of a foreign element, which manifests 
 itself partly in style and phraseology, partly in the mo- 
 tives which here become prominent. The phenomena 
 
58 
 
 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 which the chapters present are explained by the supposi- 
 tion that an independent, and in all probability an older 
 body of legislation, lies at the basis of chapters xvii-xxvi, 
 which has been incorporated in p. * t. * 
 
 '*The elements thus united with P. are distinguished 
 from it, partly by the predominance of certain expressions, 
 never or very rarely found in P. (or indeed in the Hexa- 
 teuch generally); partly in the predominance given to 
 particular principles and motives. The laws themselves 
 have also (in certain instances) been provided with pare- 
 netic framework in a manner unlike that of P." {Intro- 
 ducfion, etc., pp. 43, 44. See also pp. 45, 46 for a list of 
 phrases which characterize the code of Holiness, as dis- 
 tinguished from the great body of the ''Priests' Code.") 
 
 Numbers, 
 two accounts of the spies. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 26 And the Lord spake unto 
 Moses and unto Aaron, say- 
 ing, 
 
 27 How long shall I bear 
 with this evil congregation, 
 which murmur against me? 
 I have heard the murmurings 
 of the children of Israel, which 
 they murmur against me. 
 
 28 Say unto them, As truly 
 as I live, saith the Lord, as ye 
 have spoken in mine ears, so 
 will I do to you: 
 
 29 Your carcasses shall fall 
 in this wilderness; and all that 
 were numbered of you, accord- 
 ing to your whole number, 
 from twenty years old and up- 
 
 J. AND E. 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 20 And the Lord said, I 
 have pardoned according to 
 thy word: 
 
 21 But as truly as I live, all 
 the earth shall be filled with 
 the glory of the Lord. 
 
 22 Because all those men 
 which have seen my glory, and 
 my miracles, which I did in 
 Egypt and in the wilderness, 
 and have tempted me now 
 these ten times, and have not 
 hearkened to my voice; 
 
 23 Surely they shall see not 
 the land which I sware unto 
 their fathers, neither shall any 
 of them that provoked me see 
 it: 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 59 
 
 ward, which have murmured 
 against me. 
 
 30 Doubtless ye shall not 
 come into the land concerning 
 which I sware to make you 
 dwell therein, save Caleb the 
 son of Jephunneh, and Joshua 
 the son of Nun. 
 
 24 But my servant Caleb, 
 because he had another spirit 
 with him, and hath followed 
 me fully, him will I bring into 
 the land whereinto he went; 
 and his seed shall possess it. 
 
 In P.'s account Joshua and Caleb are always united, 
 and Aaron is mentioned several times as acting- with 
 Moses; and in the portion quoted above, Joshua and 
 Caleb are to come into the land of promise as a reward 
 for their faithfulness; but in J., E., Caleb appears and acts 
 alone; Moses is always named without Aaron; and it is 
 Caleb only who is to be preserved aUve and to be re- 
 warded in the land of promise. A study of the whole ac- 
 count shows most conclusively that two narratives, taken 
 from different sources, have been compacted into one 
 story. 
 
 KoRAH, Dathan, and Abiram. 
 
 NUMBERS. CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 1 Now Korah the son of 
 Izhar, the son of Kohath, the 
 son of Levi. 
 
 2 Two hundred and fifty 
 princes of the assembly, 
 famous in the congregation, 
 men of renown. 
 
 3 And they gathered them- 
 selves together against Moses, 
 and against Aaron, and said 
 unto them, Ye take too much 
 upon you, seeing all the con- 
 gregation are holy, every one 
 of them, and the Lord is 
 among them: wherefore then 
 
 J. E. 
 
 1 Dathan and Abiram, the 
 sons of Eliab, and On, the son 
 of Pelith, sons of Reuben, 
 took men. 
 
 2 And they rose up before 
 Moses with certain of the chil- 
 dren of Israel. 
 
 12 And Moses sent to call 
 Dathan and Abiram, the sons 
 of Eliab; which said, We will 
 not come up: 
 
 13 Is it a small thing that 
 thou hast brought us up out of 
 a land that floweth with milk 
 and honey, to kill us in the 
 
6o 
 
 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 lift ye up yourselves above the 
 congregation of the Lord? 
 
 4 And when Moses heard it, 
 he fell upon his face: 
 
 5 And he spake unto Korah, 
 and unto all his company, say- 
 ing, Even to-morrow the Lord 
 will shew who are his, and 
 who is holy, and will cause 
 him to come near unto him: 
 even him whom he hath 
 chosen will he cause to come 
 near unto him. 
 
 6 This do: Take your cen- 
 sers, Korah, and all his com- 
 pany; 
 
 7 And put fire therein, and 
 put incense in them before the 
 Lord to-morrow: and it shall 
 be, that the man whom the 
 Lord doth choose, he shall be 
 holy: ye take too much upon 
 you, ye sons of Levi. 
 
 8 And Moses said unto 
 Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye 
 sons of Levi, 
 
 9 Seemeth it but a small 
 thing unto you, that the God 
 of Israel hath separated you 
 from the congregation of 
 Israel, to bring you near to 
 himself, to do the service of 
 the tabernacle of the Lord, and 
 to stand before the congrega- 
 tion to minister unto them? 
 
 ID And he hath brought thee 
 near to him, and all thy 
 brethren the sons of Levi with 
 thee: and seek ye the priest- 
 hood also? 
 
 II For which cause, both 
 thou and all thy company are 
 gathered together against the 
 
 wilderness, except thou make 
 thyself altogether a prince 
 over us? 
 
 14 Moreover, thou hast not 
 brought us into a land that 
 floweth with milk and honey, 
 or given us inheritance of 
 fields and vineyards: wilt thou 
 put out the eyes of these men? 
 we will not come up. 
 
 15 And Moses was very 
 wroth, and said unto the Lord, 
 Respect not thou their offer- 
 ing: I have not taken one ass 
 from them, neither have I hurt 
 one of them. 
 
 25 And Moses rose up, and 
 went unto Dathan andAbiram; 
 and the elders of Israel fol- 
 lowed him. 
 
 26 And he spake unto the 
 congregation, saying, depart, 
 I pray you, from the tents of 
 these wicked men, and touch 
 nothing of theirs, lest ye be 
 consumed in all their sins. 
 
 27 So they gat up * * * 
 from Dathan, and Abiram, on 
 every side, and Dathan and 
 Abiram came out, and stood in 
 the door of their tents, and 
 their wives, and their sons, and 
 their little children. 
 
 28 And Moses said, Hereby 
 ye shall know that the Lord 
 hath sent me to do all these 
 works; (for I have not done 
 them of mine own mind;) 
 
 29 If these men die the com- 
 mon death of all men, or if 
 they be visited after the visita- 
 tion of all men, then the Lord 
 hath not sent me. 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 6i 
 
 Lord: and what is Aaron, that 
 ye murmur against him? 
 
 i6 And Moses said unto 
 Korah; Be thou and all thy 
 company before the Lord, 
 thou, and they, and Aaron, to- 
 morrow: 
 
 17 And take every man his 
 censer, and put incense in 
 them, and bring ye before the 
 Lord every man his censer, 
 two hundred and fifty censers; 
 thou also, and Aaron, each of 
 you his censer. 
 
 18 And they took every man 
 his censer, and put fire in 
 them, and laid incense thereon, 
 and stood in the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation 
 with Moses and Aaron. 
 
 19 And Korah gathered all 
 the congregation against them 
 unto the door of the taber- 
 nacle of the congregation: and 
 the glory of the Lord appeared 
 unto all the congregation. 
 
 20 And the Lord spake unto 
 Moses and unto Aaron, say- 
 ing ********* 
 
 35 And there came out a fire 
 from the Lord, and consumed 
 the two hundred and fifty men 
 that ofTered incense. 
 
 Here we have a composite account of two rebellions. 
 The first was inspired by ecclesiastical, and the second by 
 political, jealousies. The first was led by Korah, a Le- 
 vite, and two hundred and fifty princes, against Moses 
 and Aaron, saying, "Ye take too much upon you, seeing 
 all the congregation are holy, every one of them; where- 
 fore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of 
 
 30 But if the Lord make a 
 new thing, and the earth open 
 her mouth, and swallow them 
 up, with all that appertain 
 unto them, and they go down 
 quick into the pit, then ye shall 
 understand that these men 
 have provoked the Lord. 
 
 31 And it came to pass, as 
 he had made an end of speak- 
 ing all these words, that the 
 ground clave asunder that was 
 under them: 
 
 32 And the earth opened her 
 mouth, and swallowed them 
 up, and their houses, and all 
 the men that appertained unto 
 them and all their goods. 
 
 33 They, and all that apper- 
 tained to them, went down 
 alive into the pit, and the earth 
 closed upon them: and they 
 perished from among the con- 
 gregation: 
 
 34 And all Israel that were 
 round about them fled at the 
 cry of them: for they said, Lest 
 the earth swallow us up also. 
 
62 
 
 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 the Lord." The second was led by Dathan and Abiram, 
 and On, sons of Reuben, saying to Moses, "Is it a small 
 thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing 
 with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except 
 thou make thyself also a prince over us? Moreover, thou 
 hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk 
 and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vine- 
 yards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men?" 
 
 Korah and his two hundred and fifty princes were put 
 to the test of the censers (verses 6 and 7) and were de- 
 stroyed by fire from the Lord at the door of the Taber- 
 nacle (verse 35). Dathan and Abiram with all their com- 
 pany were engulfed in the earth as they stood in the 
 doors of their tents (verses 31-34). 
 
 Joshua, 
 the monumental stones. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 4 Then Joshua called the 
 twelve men, whom he had pre- 
 pared of the children of Israel, 
 out of every tribe a man: 
 
 5 And Joshua said unto 
 them, Pass over before the ark 
 of the Lord your God into the 
 midst of Jordan, and take you 
 up every man of you a stone 
 upon his shoulder, according 
 unto the number of the tribes 
 of the children of Israel: 
 
 6 That this may be a sign 
 among you, that when your 
 children ask their fathers in 
 time to come, saying. What 
 mean ye by these stones? 
 
 7 Then ye shall answer 
 them, That the waters of Jor- 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 1 And it came to pass, when 
 all the people were clean 
 passed over Jordan, that the 
 Lord spake unto Joshua, say- 
 ing, 
 
 2 Take you twelve men out 
 of the people, out of every 
 tribe a man. 
 
 3 And command ye them, 
 saying. Take you hence out of 
 the midst of Jordan, out of the 
 place where the priests' feet 
 stood firm, twelve stones, and 
 ye shall carry them over with 
 you. and leave them in the 
 lodging place, where ye shall 
 lodge this night. 
 
 8 And the children of Israel 
 did so as Joshua commanded, 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 
 
 63 
 
 dan were cut off before the ark 
 of the covenant of the Lord; 
 when it passed over Jordan, 
 the waters of Jordan were cut 
 off; and these stones shall be 
 for a memorial unto the chil- 
 dren of Israel for ever. 
 
 9 And Joshua set up twelve 
 stones in the midst of Jordan, 
 in the place where the feet of 
 the priests which bare the ark 
 of the covenant stood: and 
 they are there unto this day. 
 
 and took up twelve stones out 
 of the midst of Jordan, as the 
 Lord spake unto Joshua, ac- 
 cording to the number of the 
 tribes of the children of Israel, 
 and carried them over with 
 them unto the place where 
 they lodged and laid them 
 down there. 
 
 20 And those twelve stones, 
 which they took out of Jor- 
 dan, did Joshua pitch in Gil- 
 gal. 
 
 21 And he spake unto the 
 children of Israel, saying. 
 When your children shall ask 
 their fathers in time to come, 
 saying. What mean these 
 stones? 
 
 22 Then ye shall let your 
 children know, saying, Israel 
 came over this Jordan on dry 
 land. 
 
 23 For the Lord your God 
 dried up the waters of Jordan 
 from before you, until ye were 
 passed over, as the Lord your 
 God did to the Red Sea, which 
 he dried up from before us, 
 until we were gone over: 
 
 24 That all the people of the 
 earth might know that the 
 hand of the Lord, that it is 
 mighty: that ye might fear the 
 Lord your God for ever. 
 
 We have here one command to gather from the river, 
 ''where the priests' feet stood firm," twelve stones, by 
 twelve men, one from each tribe, which stones were to 
 be carried over the river and left in the lodging place; but 
 with these stones, according to the composite account, 
 
64 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 two monuments were built, one in the midst of the river 
 and one in Gilgal. In each case the reasons given for the 
 memorial stones are the same, but at the same time dif- 
 ferent, verses 6, 7; verses 21-24. The combination of two 
 accounts in the formation of one story is evident. 
 
 Criticism reveals that the book of Joshua is composite, 
 and that it is constituted mainly of excerpts from J., E. 
 and P., with some from other sources, not yet definitely 
 determined; and also that many very important additions 
 and touches were made by a redactor, who wrote in the 
 spirit and style of the author of Deuteronomy. 
 
 In the meantime let it be noted that what we have 
 seen was in accordance with the literary usage of the 
 ancient world. Prof. Sayce says: 'The place occupied 
 by the Pentateuch in the sacred literature of Israel was 
 substantially occupied by the so-called Book of the Dead 
 in the sacred literature of Egypt, as well as by the relig- 
 ious hymns and the ritual of which they formed a part in 
 the sacred literature of Babylonia. * * * The com- 
 posite character of the Pentateuch, therefore, is only what 
 the study of similar contemporaneous literature, brought 
 to light by modern research, would lead us to expect. The 
 Higher Criticism has thus far been justified in its literary 
 analysis of the Books of Moses." However much Prof. 
 Sayce may differ from the higher critics as to the time 
 and personnel of the work of composing the Pentateuch, 
 he has no doubt that the composite method was used. 
 It was substantially the literary method of all the East. 
 The old was not digested and reproduced in substance, 
 but was taken in its original form and compacted with 
 excerpta from other writings, new or old, as the case 
 might be. The Hexateuch was not the only outcome of 
 this process, but the historical books, Judges, Samuel, 
 Kings and Chronicles were so made. 
 
 Some of the books of prophecy also, notably Isaiah 
 
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE ANALYSIS. 65 
 
 and Daniel, were subjected to like handling, and it is diffi- 
 cult to find any book of the Old Testament that does not 
 show some of the marks of the process. 
 
 Indeed, the use of the composite method in literature 
 was singularly persistent. It outlived the ancients, and 
 was actively employed long after the apostolic age. It 
 survived, we know, to late in the second century of our 
 era, when Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, produced 
 the Diatessaron by compiling the four Evangelists into a 
 single gospel in precisely the same way that the Hexa- 
 teuch was produced. 
 
 This Diatessaron played an important part in the 
 history of a number of the Syrian churches in the fifth 
 century, for it came near supplanting the separate gospels 
 in the great dioceses of that country. 
 
 "It must be borne in mind," says Dr. Moore, of An- 
 dover, "that this patchwork was made, not of indififerent 
 historical writings, but of the sacred books of the Chris- 
 tian Church; that it was meant to take the place of the 
 gospels; that it accomplished its end so successfully that 
 it almost completely superseded the separate gospels in 
 the public use of a considerable part of the Syrian 
 churches; that it was, apparently, only under influence 
 from without that it was banished from the use of these 
 churches in the fifth century. Aphraates and Ephraim 
 are acquainted, indeed, with the separate gospels; but 
 it is certainly within the bounds of possibility that, if the 
 Syrian church had been left to itself, without contact with 
 the greater church to the West, the knowledge of the 
 separate gospels might in the end have been lost, even 
 among the learned. The parallel to the history of the 
 Pentateuch would then have been complete." And to this 
 we may justly add that if Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 
 who suppressed the Diatessaron, instead of having in his 
 possession the original gospels, had disentangled them 
 
66 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 from their composite arrangement in the Diatessaron and 
 restored them to their separate forms, he would have been 
 in exact parallel with the modern Higher Critics, who, 
 like him, are certainly not destroyers of, but in as high a 
 sense, if not in so complete a result, restorers of tne 
 word of God. 
 
 In thus restoring the prophetical and priestly docu- 
 ments, the Higher Critics have performed a work for 
 which the Christian and Jewish world may well be 
 thankful. 
 
 Now all things are made to fall into their right places 
 and to appear in their true historic order; and now the 
 development of Revelation, under divine guidance, be- 
 comes a movement in the rising inflection, in harmony 
 with the historic unfolding of human intelligence and the 
 enlargement of spiritual experiences. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 By what may be called unanimous agreement of crit- 
 ical scholars, the four principal documents used by the 
 compilers of the Hexateuch are the Yahvistic, the Elo- 
 histic, the Deuteronomic and the Priests' Code. It is 
 contended by experts that these documents bear such dis- 
 tinctive marks that the parts of each used in the com- 
 posite work can be recognized and separated from their 
 present setting. The styles of the Yahvistic and Elohistic 
 documents are as different from that of the Priests' Code 
 as is Macaulay's from Carlyle's; and though the differ- 
 ence between the styles of the Yahvist and Elo- 
 hist is not so manifest, yet, one skilled in such matters 
 can suf^ciently recognize their peculiarities to separate 
 them with general satisfaction. 
 
 But the analysis is not wholly dependent upon style. 
 Other distinctive marks appear in the frequent use of cer- 
 tain technical words and set phrases and of the names of 
 particular persons associated usually with official duties. 
 t or instance, the Yahvist seldom mentions Aaron in con- 
 nection with Moses, whereas the author of the Priests' 
 Code seldom fails to do so. The analysis also receives 
 much help from the trend of thought and doctrine in 
 association with the characteristic styles. 
 
 Having found that a writer throughout the book of 
 Genesis uses the word Yahweh in connection with cer- 
 tain ethical teachings, we can easily recognize his work 
 as he appears in the other books, in which the same fea- 
 tures are conspicuous. The author of the Priests' Code 
 
 67 
 
68 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 is distinctly ecclesiastical. He loves to give long lists of 
 minute regulations of religious ceremonies, and revels 
 in chronology and genealogy, but he has little to say on 
 really ethical and religious matters, apart from ceremonial 
 observances. 
 
 The analysis is also aided by the historical facts given 
 in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings. Such state- 
 ments determine much as to the time and circumstances 
 in which laws and usages became prominent that were 
 attributed to Moses in the Pentateuch, but which they 
 incidentally show to have had another and a much later 
 origin. 
 
 THE YAIIVIST. 
 
 The author of the Yahvistic document is generally 
 believed by critics to have been a prophet of Judah, who 
 wrote about the year 800 B. C. He was not, in the mod- 
 ern sense, a historian, but a great teacher of religion and 
 morals, who made use of the traditions and literary rec- 
 ords of his people to illustrate his inspired conceptions 
 of God's nature and government, as also his purposes 
 concerning his chosen people. In the arrangement of his 
 materials he followed the accepted chronology, his 
 aim being to instruct his countrymen, that he might save 
 them from the influence of the heathen nations with 
 whom they were in constant contact, whose gods seem 
 always to have had a fascination for them. He 
 aimed to so exalt Yahweli as to convince them of his 
 infinite superiority over all that is called god in regard 
 to both power and righteousness. In this great argu- 
 ment, the creation of the world, the transactions of Eden, 
 the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and other traditions, 
 play a conspicuous part. 
 
 Having magnified Yahweh by this use of the ancient 
 legends, he gathered from the historic period incidents 
 by which to impress upon the ungrateful Hebrews the 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 69 
 
 supreme fact that it was only through the special favor 
 of Yahweh they had become a nation, and in that capacity 
 had attained to greatness. 
 
 In following the providential order by which these 
 results had been reached, the Yahvistic author brought 
 out the ethical nobleness of Abraham and his high favor 
 with God. He showed him to have been "the friend of 
 God" and a sharer of his secrets; the chosen one in whom 
 all nations should be blessed. This was followed by the 
 stories of Isaac and Jacob on to the formation of the 
 tribes of Israel, to show their high and virtuous origin 
 as compared with the ignoble liaisons to which they 
 traced the birth of those nations, whose gods they were 
 prone to follow. Abraham, he declared, was the father of 
 the Hebrews, but the IMoabites and Ammonites were the 
 children of Lot, through the unchaste conduct of his two 
 daughters. The Ishmaelites were descended from a slave, 
 w'hile the Israelites could boast of Isaac, the child of 
 promise, as their great ancestor. The Edomites had Esau 
 for father, a parentage obviously much inferior to that of 
 a people descended from a prince who could "prevail with 
 God." Thus seems to run the argument all through Gen- 
 esis, and the conclusion is emphatic, that a people of such 
 noble birth should be faithful to the God who had given 
 it by the special ordering of his providence. 
 
 Throughout the remainder of Yahvistic document the 
 same persuasive reasoning continues. Yahweh visits his 
 people in their bondage and brings them out of Egypt 
 "with a mighty hand and outstretched arm," and by won- 
 derfully miraculous interposition leads them through the 
 Wilderness to the land of their inheritance. 
 
 The Deuteronomist grasps with a master mind the 
 purpose of the Yahvist's teachings. "Ask now," says he, 
 "of the days that are past, * * ^ since the day that 
 God created man upon the earth, and ask from one side 
 
70 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of heaven unto the other whether there hath been any 
 such thing as this great thing is or hath been heard hke 
 it? Did ever a people hear the voice of God, speaking 
 out of the midst of fire, as thou hast, and Hve? Or 
 hath God assayed to go and take him a nation, from the 
 midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs and by 
 wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a 
 stretched-out arm, and by great terrors, according to all 
 that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before 
 your eyes? Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest 
 know that YahzvcJi is God. There is none else beside 
 him. 
 
 ''Out of Heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that 
 he might instruct thee, and upon earth he showed thee 
 his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the 
 midst of the fire. 
 
 "And because he loved thy fathers, therelore he chose 
 their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight 
 with his mighty power out of Egypt; to drive out the 
 nations from before thee greater and mightier than 
 thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an 
 inheritance as it is this day. 
 
 "Knovv^, therefore, this day, and consider, that the 
 Lord is God in heaven above, and upon the earth be- 
 neath; there is none else. Thou shalt keep, therefore, his 
 statutes and his commandments, which I command thee 
 this day, and that it may go well with thee, and w4th thy 
 children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy 
 days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, 
 forever." — Deuteronomy iv: 31-40. 
 
 What the Deuteronomist desired to accomplish by his 
 
 ^/ persuasive rehearsal of God's wonderful provjjices the 
 
 I Yahvist hoped to achieve by the presentation of like 
 
 events in a more historical form. The whole trend of his 
 
 work was the commendation of the claims of Yahweh, 
 
 based on her history, to the faith and devotion of Israel. 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 7 1 
 
 THE ELOHIST. 
 
 The Elohist was a prophetical writer of the Northern 
 Kingdom, and composed his book about 750 B. C. Un- 
 like the Yahvist, he betrays no fondness for the priest- 
 hood or the Temple in Jerusalem, nor yet for kings. He 
 loved the old theocrac}^ which began with Moses and 
 ended with Samuel. Taking the call of Abraham as the 
 starting point of his historical argument, he selected such 
 incidents in the national records as placed God's hostility 
 to idolatry and immorality in greatest prominence. Every 
 violation of God's will is followed by swift punishment, 
 and every act of repentance by pardon. His contest is 
 with the widespread idolatry and wickedness of the 
 Northern Kingdom, which he seeks to overcome by 
 showing that the safety and happiness of the people were 
 to be found only in faithful obedience to Elohim and his 
 righteous laws, as set forth in his ethical covenants and 
 enforced by his prophets. 
 
 THE DEUTERONOMIST. 
 
 At a later period, seventh century B. C., came the 
 book of Deiiteronomy. After the overthrow of the 
 Northern Kingdom of Israel, and after the days of Isaiah 
 and Micah, it was produced as a recodification of the laws 
 of Moses, and a re-arrangement of his prophetical dis- 
 courses. It had two conspicuous objects, viz., first, to 
 enforce, under Mosaic sanctions, the old prophetical les- 
 sons of righteousness, and, second, to unify the people 
 of Judah by the concentration of worship at the Temple 
 in Jerusalem. As St. John, in his Gospel, gives the dis- 
 courses of Christ in what we may call the Johannine style, 
 so the writer or compiler of Deuteronomy clothes, in his 
 own majestic style, the teachings of the great Lawgiver, 
 and gives to them such dramatic setting as the ancient 
 records warrant and the exigencies of the truth require. 
 
72 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 It is not at all probable that he invented the law of the 
 one place of worship and the one altar, but there are 
 reasons for believing that he found among his sources of 
 information evidence of such having been the original 
 design of Moses, to be realized when the Israelites should 
 have become a settled nation. The Mosaic ideal, he 
 plainly tells us in the twelfth chapter of Deuteronomy, 
 was not realized in the wilderness; during the forty years 
 of wanderings the people did what was right in their own 
 eyes, a condition of things which was to continue until 
 God should give them rest from all their enemies, so that 
 they might dwell safely; but when this should transpire, 
 God would choose a place, and thither they should bring 
 their burnt offerings, and their sacrifices, and their tithes, 
 etc. (Deuteronomy xii: lo, ii). The proper conditions 
 for the enforcement of this Mosaic tentative command 
 were left to the judgment of the future authorities of the 
 nation, and these (supposing they knew of the INIosaic 
 injunction), decided that the time for its enforcement had 
 not arrived until Josiah, who, under the influence of the 
 book of Deuteronomy, determined to accomplish it. 
 There are some indications that Hezekiah, eighty years 
 before, thought the time had come to introduce the sys- 
 tem of Temple unity, but he soon found that the condi- 
 tions of unrest in the nation, and the dangers which envi- 
 roned it, did not meet the requirements of such a revolu- 
 tion. It is hardly probable that Hezekiah derived his 
 knowledge from the book of Deuteronomy, but that he 
 had access to the sources from which that book was after- 
 wards compiled, perhaps by one inspired by his failure. 
 Had the book of the Law, as contained in Deuteronomy, 
 been in circulation at that time, Isaiah and Micah could 
 hardly have escaped its influence, and left no trace of its 
 peculiar presentation of the law of central worship, nor 
 yet of its high sanctions of the Levitical priesthood. I 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 73 
 
 cannot go further into the elaborate arguments which 
 show that Deuteronomy was written after the reign of 
 Hezekiah, but accepting as conclusive the claims of Ori- 
 entalists generally, there is not the slightest reason to 
 lower its standing as a sacred oracle or to feel doubtful 
 of its divine sanctions. Though the book, as such, was 
 not written by Moses, it preserves substantially the Mo- 
 saic laws and regulations, with expansions and additions 
 to adapt them to the progress of society. 
 
 Deuteronomy itself does not claim Moses for its 
 author, but it does claim to set forth his discourses and 
 laws. The standpoint of the compiler is not, as the King 
 James version gives it, on the east side of Jordan, but is 
 most distinctly on the west side. He docs not begin by 
 saying, "These be the words which Moses spake unto all 
 Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness," etc., but 
 (as in the Revised Version) 'These be the words which 
 Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan in the wilder- 
 ness," etc. Clearly the book was not commenced until 
 after the death of Moses and the Jordan had been crossed. 
 
 "Beyond Jordan in the land of Moab began Moses to 
 declare this law, saying," are the words of one who wishes 
 to make plain to all men that he is not representing him- 
 self as the great lawgiver, but as a scribe who is about to 
 set forth the discourses and laws as delivered by Moses. 
 The laws had already been codified mainly in the docu- 
 ments of the Yahvist and Elohist, but a more direct un- 
 folding of them, in their application to a new condition 
 of things, was needed for their fuller influence upon He- 
 brew life; and the material for this Was at hand in the 
 archives of the nation and in the religious literature of 
 the times. To recast these materials, and to rearrange 
 them, so as to give popular effect to the Mosaic orations, 
 was the task which the writer of Deuteronomy set him- 
 self. Needless to say, he accompHshed it in a grand 
 
74 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 fashion; like St. John, he produced a work which, though 
 saturated with his lofty spirituality, was at the same time 
 a true presentation of the teachings of his great master. 
 Indeed, no charge can be brought against the Deuterono- 
 mist which does not lie with equal weight against St. 
 John. If he clothes the teaching of Moses in his own 
 lofty style, so does St. John clothe the discourses of Jesus; 
 and while St. John made the most successful presentation 
 of the character and teachings of Christ, the Deuterono- 
 mist revealed to us Moses and his laws in their truest and 
 most complete form — a work well worthy of the greatest 
 of the prophets. If Moses was inspired to utter his de- 
 liverances, this prophet was inspired to present their con- 
 tents in a form that for all ages would stand as the highest 
 expression of ancient revelation. If Moses himself had 
 written the book in all its details, it would not have been 
 truer in its representations, nor would it have deserved 
 more credit as a revelation from God. 
 
 THE priests' CODE. 45O B. C. 
 
 Next in order is the Priests' Code. This was written 
 from a priestly standpoint, mainly after the time of Eze- 
 kiel. Its author made use of the older documents, as 
 they suited his purpose, which was to give an ecclesiasti- 
 cal history of his people. Like any modern church histo- 
 rian, he sought out those sources of information which, 
 while they did not ignore secular life, showed it as it was 
 dominated by the religious element. As the prophets in 
 the books J., E. and Dt. had laid emphasis upon events 
 and ordinances of worship which bore upon moral con- 
 duct, so the priestly author gave prominence to such 
 things as enforced the claims of the priesthood, the cen- 
 tral worship of the Temple and other prominent religious 
 institutions; his main object being to codify, with historic 
 setting, the laws of the priesthood, sacrifice, purifications, 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 75 
 
 etc. His sources were chiefly the records treasured in 
 priestly circles, and these sources claimed Mosaic au- 
 thority for all the usages of the Levitical ceremonial. 
 
 He begins his work with that grand account of crea- 
 tion given in Genesis i-ii:4a,and proceeds to give the gen- 
 erations of Adam and the genealogies of the Patriarchs 
 to Noah. An extended account of the deluge follows, 
 which is closed by the covenant with Noah. In chapter 
 X he gives the generations of Noah together with the 
 distributions of the families of his sons to their various 
 habitations. In chapter xi he records the generations of 
 Shem, and follows with a brief account of Abram, of the 
 covenant of circumcision (chapter xxii: i) and of the cir- >iVll« 
 cumcision of Isaac, the child of promise (chapter xxi: 4). 
 He has much to tell of the sons of Jacob and of the de- 
 scendants of Esau (chapter xxxiv-xxxviii), and follows 
 with an enumeration of the family of Jacob upon their 
 going down to Egypt, and closes his account in Genesis 
 with some brief notices of the last days of Jacob. Of his 
 work only a few scattered portions are found in the book 
 of Exodus until we reach chapter xxv, when he begins his 
 account of the building of the Tabernacle, etc., and fol- 
 lows it to the end of the book, with the ex.ception of 
 chapters xxxii-xxxiv: 28. The whole of Leviticus is his 
 work (for it is probable that he engrossed the Law of 
 Holiness, chapter xvii-xxvi). In this book he gives a 
 most minute account of the laws of sacrifice and of the 
 consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, and 
 the service of the Tabernacle — following it in the book of 
 Numbers, with long genealogical tables, regulations of 
 the Levites, and several incidents illustrative of the work- 
 ings of the Levitical laws, on to the death of Aaron. In 
 the book of Joshua here appears conspicuously in the ac- 
 counts of the distribution to the various tribes of their in- 
 heritances, and in various events with which Eleazar, the 
 
76 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 son of Aaron, is conspicuously connected. It is with the 
 estabHshment of the exclusive one-altar worship and the 
 exclusive priesthood of Aaron and his sons that the writer 
 of the Priests' Code is most concerned, and it is upon 
 these things that he is most emphatic. His laws of the 
 one altar and priesthood, as given in Leviticus xvii: 1-9, 
 Numbers iii: 5-8, have an unmistakable intention. 
 
 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, sa3ang: Speak 
 unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children 
 of Israel, and say unto them : This is the thing which the 
 Lord hath commanded, saying, 
 
 ''What man soever there be of the house of Israel, 
 that kiileth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that 
 killeth it out of the camp, 
 
 "And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle 
 of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord be- 
 fore the tabernacle of the Lord; blood ohall be imputed 
 unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall 
 be cut off from among his people; 
 
 "To the end that the children of Israel may bring their 
 sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that 
 they may bring them unto the Lord, unto the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer 
 them for peace offerings unto the Lord. 
 
 "And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar 
 of the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congrega- 
 tion, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. 
 
 "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto 
 devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall 
 be a statute forever unto them throughout their genera- 
 tions. 
 
 "And thou shalt say unto them. Whatsoever man 
 there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which 
 sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sac- 
 rifice. 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. T] 
 
 "And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of 
 the congregation, to offer it unto the Lord; even that man 
 shall be cut off from among his people." — Leviticus xvii: 
 1-9. 
 
 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
 
 "Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before 
 Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him. 
 
 "And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of 
 the whole congregation, before the tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation, to do the service of the tabernacle. 
 
 "And they shall keep all the instruments of the taber- 
 nacle of the congregation, and the charge of the children 
 of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle. 
 
 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and his 
 sons : they are wholly given unto him out of the children 
 of Israel. 
 
 "And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they 
 shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that 
 cometh nigh shall be put to death."— Numbers iii: 5-10. 
 
 See also many other places where these laws give to 
 Aaron and his sons the exclusive priesthood, and make 
 the central ahar at the tabernacle in the wilderness the 
 exclusive place of sacrifice. 
 
 It is again and again declared in Leviticus and Num- 
 bers that Moses published and enforced these laws in the 
 wilderness; but this claim is confronted by a series of 
 facts fatal to its correctness. 
 
 (i) There was another law given at Sinai by which 
 sacrifice might legally be made upon other altars than 
 that at the door of the Tabernacle : 
 
 "An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and shalt 
 sacrifice unto me thy burnt offerings and thy peace offer- 
 ings, thy sheep and thine oxen; in all places where I 
 record my name I will come unto thee and bless thee. 
 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not 
 
yS REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 build it of hewn stone ; for if thou Uft up thy tool upon it, 
 thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps 
 unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered 
 thereon." — Exodus xx: 24-26. 
 In accordance with the law: 
 
 (2) "Moses ^< * ^ rose up early and builded an 
 altar * >i^ ^' and he sent young men of the children 
 of Israel, which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed 
 peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord." — Exodus 
 xxiv: 4, 5. 
 
 (3) After like fashion Joshua built an altar and offered 
 sacrifice on Mount Ebal, which, it is said, was done in 
 obedience to the law. 
 
 (Written in the book of the Law of Moses, an altar 
 of whole stones, over which no man hath lifted up any 
 iron. — ^Joshua viii: 31.) 
 
 Plainly Joshua did not know of the laws making the 
 priesthood of Aaron and his sons and their altar of brass 
 at the door of the Tabernacle exclusive. 
 
 (4) It is said in the book of Judges (vi: 24-27) that 
 Gideon built an altar and ofiered sacrifices, and in chapter 
 xiii: 17-25, we are told that Manoah made an offering 
 upon a rock, which God accepted. 
 
 (5) We are informed in the same book (xxi: 4) that, 
 during the controversy of Israel w4th the tribe of Benja- 
 min, the people built an altar unto the Lord and offered 
 burnt offerings and peace offerings. 
 
 (6) We are told in the book of I Samuel (vii: 17) that 
 Samuel built an altar unto the Lord at Ramah, and in 
 xiv: 35, that King Saul built an altar. 
 
 (7) In II Samuel we are informed that King David 
 built an altar and offered sacrifices in Jerusalem, though 
 he had just brought back the ark and placed it in the 
 Tabernacle he had built for it. 
 
 (8) King Solomon went from Jerusalem to Gibeon 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 79 
 
 and made a great sacrifice, and was there favored by God 
 with his noted vision, which showed plainly that his offer- 
 ings were accepted. 
 
 (9) According to the book of Deuteronomy, Moses 
 did not establish in the wilderness the Aaronic priest- 
 hood with exclusive rights to minister at one exclusive 
 altar, but said to the people in his final charge to them : 
 
 "When ye go over Jordan -i^ * * ye shall not do 
 after all the things that we do here this day, every man 
 what is right in his own eyes. But when ye go over 
 Jordan and dwell in the land which the Lord your God 
 giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from 
 all your enemies round about so that ye dwell in 
 safety, then there shall be a place which the Lord your 
 God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither 
 ye shall bring all that I command you, your burnt offer- 
 ings and your sacrifices, your tithes and your peace offer- 
 ings of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye 
 vow unto the Lord." — Deuteronomy xii: 8-11. 
 
 Assuming that the Deuteronomist correctly quoted 
 the words of Moses, how can they be harmonized with 
 the laws of the exchisive altar at the door of the Taber- 
 nacle, and the exclusive priesthood of Aaron and his sons 
 in their historic setting as given in Leviticus and Num- 
 bers? Moses is represented as saying in effect that no 
 such exclusiveness pertained to either the Tabernacle 
 altar or the priesthood; and, further, that none was to per- 
 tain, even in regard to the one altar, until a remote time 
 and under new conditions. "Then shall there be a place 
 which the Lord your God shall choose," etc. The place 
 ultimately chosen was Jerusalem, and the time for the 
 enforcement of the one-altar law was the reign of King 
 Josiah (621 B. C.); but the law of the exclusive Aaronic 
 priesthood was as yet not known, though this period was 
 more than six centuries after Moses. 
 
80 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 The Deuteronomist knew nothing of it, for in the ad- 
 dresses of Moses as he gives them, Aaron and his sons are 
 never mentioned as entitled to exclusive rights in the 
 priesthood. On the contrary, it is always implied that the 
 Levites as a body are of the priesthood, the usual word 
 used being ''the priests the Levites." The idea of confin- 
 ing the priesthood to the Aaronic line came much later, 
 certainly after the Temple vision of Ezekiel, 574 B. C. 
 This prophet excludes the Levites from the priestly office 
 in the restored Temple, because of their former defection. 
 He says (xliv: 12-16): 
 
 ''Because they ministered unto them before their idols, 
 and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; there- 
 fore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the 
 Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity. 
 
 "And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office 
 of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy 
 things, in the most holy place; but they shall bear their 
 shame, and their abominations which they have com- 
 mitted. 
 
 "But I will make them keepers of the charge of the 
 house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be 
 done therein. 
 
 "But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that 
 kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of 
 Israel went astray from me, the}^ shall come near to me 
 to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to 
 offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God. 
 
 "They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall 
 come near to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall 
 keep my charge." 
 
 Hence, it follows that the Levites, up to the time of 
 the building of the second Temple, were to continue in 
 the rights they had hitherto enjoyed as priests. The time 
 of judgment for their defection would come, and because 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 8 1 
 
 of that defection they would not be permitted then to 
 "come near unto" God ''to do the office of a priest." 
 
 All this is irreconcilable with the law of the exclusive 
 Aaronic priesthood as given in the wilderness in P. 
 
 I give again the law of the Aaronic priesthood, accord- 
 ing to this document (Numbers iii: i-io): 
 
 'These also are the generations of Aaron and Moses, 
 in the day that the Lord spake with Moses in Mount 
 Sinai. 
 
 "And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; 
 Nadad the first-born, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 
 
 "These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the 
 priests which were anointed, whom he consecrated to 
 minister in the priest's office. 
 
 "And Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord, when 
 they offered strange fire before the Lord, in the wilder- 
 ness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and 
 Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of 
 Aaron their father. 
 
 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 
 
 "Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them 
 before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto 
 him. 
 
 "And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of 
 the whole congregation, before the tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation, to do the service of the tabernacle. 
 
 "And they shall keep all the instruments of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, and the charge of the 
 children of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle. 
 
 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron, and 
 to his sons; they are wholly given unto him out of the 
 children of Israel. 
 
 "And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and 
 they shall wait on their priest's office, and the stranger 
 that Cometh nigh shall be put to death." 
 
82 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 If this law had been proclaimed and enforced in the 
 wilderness, we would rightly expect to find in the relig- 
 ious records of the centuries immediately following a 
 recognition of "the priests and the Levites" as distinct 
 orders. But such is not the case; the distinction is not 
 noticed in the early literature, and becomes prominent 
 only in the post-Exilic records. 
 
 (i) Deuteronomy, as we have seen, gives no hint of 
 two orders, "the priests and the Levites," but (I repeat for 
 the sake of clearness), uses the word "the priests the 
 Levites," or simply "the priests," generally the former, 
 and in xviii : 6, gives the law securing to the country Le- 
 vites their priestly rights, wdien the law of one altar 
 should be enforced. Note here that the Levites are 
 treated as priests, and that in II Kings xxiii: 8, they are 
 called "priests," thus showing conclusively that the word 
 "Levites," as used in Deuteronomy xviii: 6, and the word 
 "priests," as used in II Kings xxiii: 8, are synonymous. 
 
 (2) The book of Joshua makes no mention of "the 
 priests and the Levites," but like Deuteronomy speaks 
 of "the priests the Levites." This is done throughout the 
 law of inheritance, even in the parts assigned by critics 
 to the Priests' Code, thus showing that the priestly 
 writer was true to the ancient documents. He gave what 
 he found in the records, and not what his predilections 
 would have suggested. Had the words "priests and Le- 
 vites" been used in the ancient traditions, his post-Ezekiel 
 convictions would have secured their continuance. 
 
 (3) The book of Judges is silent about the priesthood, 
 except in the case of the Levite who became priest in the 
 private chapel of Micah and finally in that of the Danites 
 at Lachish (xvii: 16), which is incontestable evidence 
 that the Danites believed a Levite was really a priest. 
 
 (4) The books of Samuel and Kings know nothing 
 of "priests and Levites." They recognize the priesthood 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 83 
 
 of Eli at Shiloh, of Abimelech at Nob, and of Abiathar 
 and Zadok in Jerusalem. The word priest is frequently 
 used for the whole order of the priesthood, and some- 
 times only for the two officiating priests; but the word 
 Levites is always used as the equivalent of priests. Thus : 
 (I Samuel vi: 15) "And the Levites took down the ark 
 of the Lord." To handle the ark was the privilege of 
 "the priests the Levites" (Joshua iii: 3). (II Samuel xv: 
 24) : "And Zadok and all the Levites that were with him 
 bearing the ark of the covenant of God." 
 
 I Kings viii: 34: (a) The elders of Israel and the 
 priests bear the ark. (b) Verse 24: The priests (that is 
 Zadok and the second officiating priest) and the Levites 
 bear the sacred vessels. 
 
 In the writings of the pre-Exilic prophets there 
 is no mention of "priests and Levites;" and most signifi- 
 cantly Jeremiah writes: "The priests the Levites" 
 (xxxiii: 18), and "the Levites the priests" (xxxiii: 21). 
 Generally he confines himself to "priest." 
 
 It was after the formulation of Ezekiel's law of the 
 second Temple, and doubtless through its influence that 
 the ancient usage began to change; for, while Ezekiel 
 uses the words "the priests the Levites," he confines it 
 to the sons of Zadok; and he denies to the Levites, in 
 punishment for their defection, the functions of priests, 
 and thus differentiates them into a separate order. 
 
 The influence of this law of Ezekiel soon became par- 
 amount. This prophet, under divine sanction, amended 
 the ancient law, thus giving to the Jewish church a new 
 organization of its priesthood, in the same manner that 
 the Deuteronomist , under like divine sanction, had given 
 it a new law of sacrifice by confining it to one altar. As 
 this one-altar worship from the days of Josiah had been 
 recognized in the literature, so this law of the priests and 
 Levites was recognized in the post-Ezekiel writings. 
 
 In Ezra i : 5, the distinction between the two orders is 
 
84 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 emphasized. With this author it is ''the priests and the 
 Levites." This positive differentiation is adhered to all 
 through the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, 
 as it is also in the second Isaiah (Isaiah Ixvi: 21), "the 
 great prophet of the exile." 
 
 In the historical books of post-Exilic origin the dis- 
 tinction between priest and Levite is not only sharply 
 drawn, but the position and duties of each order are so 
 clearly indicated that no confusion can arise concerning 
 their functions. 
 
 From all this it follows that, consciously or uncon- 
 sciously, under the influence of the Temple vision of 
 Ezekiel, traditions concerning the Mosaic law grew up 
 in Babylon among a school of the priests which, like 
 some Christian traditions, v/ere imported into the older 
 documents, and came to be accepted as authentic parts of 
 their original institutions and laws. 
 
 These traditions the author of the Priests' Code ac- 
 cepted in the form in which he found them, and gave to 
 them such historic setting as the nature of the laws de- 
 manded. 
 
 What connection Ezra had with the origin of the 
 Priests' Code we do not know, but it is evident that he 
 brought it to Jerusalem and promulgated it as "the law of 
 Moses" (444 B. C). 
 
 The problem is before us. We have found four lead- 
 ing documents in the Hexateuch, J., E., Dt. and P. Of 
 these only P. speaks of the priestly regulations which 
 we have been discussing. Dt. gives the law of one altar, 
 P. confines the ministrations at that one altar to the sons 
 of Aaron. How did P. come into prominence with its 
 Aaronic priesthood, ministering exclusively in the Taber- 
 nacle in the wilderness? 
 
 My thesis is (after F. E. Konig) that Moses did 
 establish in the wilderness the Tabernacle or tent of 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. SS 
 
 meeting, with its ark and altar, and that he did confer 
 upon Aaron and his sons the chief direction of the wor- 
 ship therein as conducted by ''the priests the Levites," 
 and that he gave many and minute regulations for the 
 proper conduct of sacrifices, offerings, purifications, etc., 
 but that he did not make this central or tabernacle worship 
 exclusive. As a great cathedral does not close the parish 
 churches, so the cathedral in the wilderness did not close 
 to the people the simpler houses of God, with their altars 
 of earth or of unhewn stone. And so both systems, with 
 their different cults, were recognized as legal, and went 
 on together without hindrance from the authorities for 
 about five hundred and eighty years, Egyptian chro- 
 nology, when Hezekiah made his attempt to centralize 
 worship in Jerusalem, and more than six hundred and 
 fifty years when Josiah established the one altar in the 
 Temple by making effective the law in Deuteronomy xii. 
 This act led the way to the full development of the Aaronic 
 priesthood and the exclusive one-altar worship, so defi- 
 nitely exploited in the Priests' Code. 
 
 But while there is no place for the law of the exclusive 
 priesthood of Aaron and his sons among the historic 
 facts, as given in the older documents, J., E. and Dt., and 
 the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings, there is room for 
 the central altar and the priesthood of Aaron and his 
 sons in connection with the priests the Levites, as in con- 
 ducting sacrificial worship in the Tabernacle in the wil- 
 derness, in the house of God at Shiloh, and in the Temple 
 at Jerusalem. This becomes evident when we note the 
 line of historic facts covering the period from the early 
 days of the Exodus to the destruction of the Temple. 
 
 According to J. and E., Aaron was of the family of 
 Levi, and was closely connected with Moses as some sort 
 of an official (Exodus xvii: 12, xix: 24, and xxiv: i). He 
 was recognized by the people as their religious leader 
 
86 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISlvI. 
 
 when they caused him to make the golden calf to wor- 
 ship, Exodus xxxii: 22-35. He, with Miriam, rashly 
 claimed equality with Moses (Numbers xii: 1-15), for 
 which defection the Lord showed indignation by with- 
 drawing the cloud from the door of the Tabernacle. He 
 is not mentioned as connected with the ark, but the priests 
 bore the ark at the passage of Jordan, and when it rested 
 at Mizpah, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, a son of Aaron, 
 stood before it (Judges xx: 27); and when the ark was in 
 the house of God in Shiloh, Eli, a son of Aaron, min- 
 istered at the central altar as chief priest. Note from 
 this time forward that though there are other sacrific- 
 ings, yet the altar at the Tabernacle is honored. David, 
 though offering sacrifice elsewhere, built a tabernacle 
 and restored the ark to its place of dignity, appointing 
 Abiathar and Zadok, sons of Aaron, priests, associated 
 with all the Levites (II Samuel xv: 24, 25). When 
 Solomon came to the throne, he made Zadok priest 
 (I Kings ii: 35), and when the ark was borne to its place in 
 the Temple there were great sacrificings, at which the 
 priests ofhciated (I Kings viii: 11). 
 
 Note further that though there were free sacrificings 
 all over the land at the sacred places, yet the altar at the 
 Tabernacle, with its ofhciating sons of Aaron, was held in 
 deep respect; that though David offered sacrifice in Jeru- 
 salem, yet he restored the Tabernacle worship under 
 Abiathar and Zadok; and that though Solomon went to 
 Gibeon to sacrifice there, and was approved of God 
 (I Kings iii: 1-5), yet, on his return to Jerusalem, he sac- 
 rificed before the ark, thus showing his reverence for its 
 central claims, while he exercised his legal freedom of 
 altar worship elsewhere (I Kings iii: 15); and, finally, this 
 central worship, under leadership of sons of Aaron, con- 
 tinued down to the captivity of Judah and the destruction 
 of the Temple. 
 
THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 87 
 
 Now, leaving out of consideration the expansions and 
 additions to the laws of worship, etc., which arose through 
 centuries of practice and became indistinguishably classed 
 with the original regulations of Moses, we reach the 
 conclusion that the cxclusk'eiicss of the central worship, 
 the one altar, and the Aaronic priesthood, were a gradual 
 development, reaching its first epoch in the reign of 
 Josiah, and attaining to its completed form, after Ezekicl ; 
 and that the fully elaborated lav;s as given in Leviticus 
 and Numbers were interpolations into the records, from 
 which the compiler of the Priests' Code drew his inform.a- 
 tion. As the one altar had been established to the exclu- 
 sion of all others by Josiah, in obedience to Deuter- 
 onomy, and as the sons of Aaron were in connection 
 with its services, being leaders of the "priests the Le- 
 vites," it was but a logical step to conclude that the 
 Mosaic ideal gave warrant for the limitation of the actual 
 ministrations at that one altar to that one family of 
 priests. 
 
 Interpolations after this fashion do not impair the 
 religious value of the document containing them. Our 
 ability to disentangle the interpolation from the history 
 obviously gives to the latter higher claims to credit, and, 
 in this instance, makes clear the process of the develop- 
 ment of the priestly legislation. 
 
 I insist, therefore, that, after all critical elimination 
 and readjustments are made, the Priests' Code occupies 
 a real historical position. Its author looked at the events 
 of Hebrew life and worship from a priestly standpoint; 
 an-d though he made misstatements as to the date and 
 sources of some of the laws, he was sincere in giving 
 the contents of the traditions he followed. But the laws 
 thus misplaced did not lose their divine authority. As- 
 signing them to Moses rather than to their real source did 
 not impair their significance in the religion of Israel; it 
 
8S REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 merely obscured the logical sequence of the several stages 
 of inspired progress from Closes to the Deuteronomist, 
 from the Deuteronomist to Ezekiel, and from Ezekiel to 
 Ezra. 
 
 Now, thanks to the Higher Criticism, we are able 
 to correct these misplacements and to show the actual 
 order in which God unfolded his will to his chosen people. 
 He gave to Moses, as we now see, the germinal forms 
 of moral, ecclesiastical and civil organization. Inspired 
 prophets, judges, priests and kings amended and en- 
 larged the Mosaic legislation as the emergencies of the 
 times required. The tent of meeting or Tabernacle, with 
 its simple arrangements, was replaced by the Temple; the 
 many altars in sacred places were reduced to one in the 
 Temple, and ''the priests the Levites" became the 
 priests and Levites, etc. 
 
 All these changes were of inspired authority. The 
 book of Deuteronomy and the historical books of Samuel 
 and Kings reveal to us the dates and conditions of new 
 enactments before the Exile, while the books of Ezekiel, 
 Ezra and Nehemiah make clear the progress of priestly 
 legislation under providential guidance until the priest- 
 hood and ritual attain nearly the completeness of the form 
 in which Christ found them. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE ORDER AND DATES OF THE COMPOSITE WORK. 
 
 The history of the origin of the four leading docu- 
 ments having been outHned, it now becomes my duty to 
 give some account of their use in the composition of the 
 Hexateuch. This was not the work of one person nor 
 of one age. The Yahvistic and Elohistic documents 
 were probably combined before Deuteronomy was writ- 
 ten, because many of their narratives and laws were used 
 in the composition of the latter. Some time after the 
 publication of Deuteronomy it was added to J., E. This 
 combination gave to the Jews the book of "the Law of 
 Moses" that we find in use upon the consecration of the 
 second Temple, 516 B. C. It must not be imagined that 
 this sacred book had attained a fixed form that rendered 
 it exempt from re-editings and re-combinations; on the 
 contrary, it was for a long time treated with great free- 
 dom by the learned scribes. In 458 B. C. Ezra came to 
 Jerusalem but did not publish his law, which was un- 
 doubtedly the Priests' Code, until 444 B. C. It is hardly 
 probable that at this time it had been interwoven with 
 Dt., J., E., as these constituted the ''book of the Law 
 of Moses" already in the hands of the priests of the sec- 
 ond Temple; and as Ezra in a measure discredited the 
 usage it sanctioned. If, however, the Priests' Code was 
 at that time a separate book, it did not long remain so, 
 but was soon combined with the old book of the law. 
 This gave to the Jews their first canon of Scripture, "the 
 Pentateuch," and the year 432 B. C. may be taken as the 
 approximate date of this composite work. It could not 
 
90 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 have been much later, for the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
 which was substantially a true copy of it, must have been 
 made near that time. (See Canon of the Old Testament, 
 by Ryle, pp. 91-93.) 
 
 The Pentateuch as thus compiled and accepted by the 
 people nevertheless was still treated with some degree 
 of freedom. But ''with the exception of a fev/ possible 
 later insertions, and of certain minor alterations, due to 
 an occasional revision of the text, 'the Torah' has proba- 
 bly descended to us very little changed." — Ryle. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 HISTORICITY. 
 
 It is popularly held that the book of Genesis is an 
 inspired history, and as such literally true, the Creation 
 chapters being special revelations to Moses. These views 
 were generally held by even the best Biblical scholars be- 
 fore geology demonstrated the impossibility of the crea- 
 tion of the universe in six days. The new science met 
 sharp resistance, and the results of its discoveries won 
 reluctant acceptance only after severe conflict. The 
 theory that the "days" of the creation record might be 
 taken as "great cycles of time" was gladly welcomed by 
 many for a while. But it soon became evident that we 
 could not hold to this view in the face of an honest 
 exegesis. The first chapters of Genesis could no longer be 
 looked upon as revealed history. If not, what then? 
 Archaeology, another new science, answers, they are pre- 
 historic traditions which came down to the Jews from 
 their Babylonian ancestors, and were probabl}^ known 
 to Abraham and cherished by him and his descendants 
 as invaluable treasures of their religion. This was made 
 evident when George Smith had read the Ninevite tablets, 
 and given to the world the legends of ancient Babylonia 
 in his "Chaldean Account of Genesis" (1875). "The re- 
 sult was," says Prof. Sayce, "the earlier chapters of Gene- 
 sis no longer stood alone. Parallel accounts had been 
 discovered by the author among the clay records of 
 ancient Babylonia, which far exceed in antiquity the ven- 
 erable histories of the Bible." Since this was written 
 Assyriology has risen to the dignity of a science, and it 
 
 91 
 
92 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 has been demonstrated that all the narratives of the early 
 chapters of Genesis have behind them Assyro-Babylonian 
 traditions reaching back many ages before the days of 
 Moses or even of Abraham. 
 
 Lenormant (Beginnings of History, pp. 15, 16) asks, 
 "How then should the first chapters of Genesis be re- 
 garded? As a revealed account or as a human tradition 
 preserved by inspired writers as the truest ancient record 
 of their race? This is the problem in comparing the nar- 
 rations of the Sacred Book with those current long ages 
 before the time of Moses among the nations whose civili- 
 zation dated back into the remote past, with whom Israel 
 was surrounded, from whom it came out. As far as I 
 myself am concerned, the conclusion from this study is 
 not doubtful. 
 
 "That which we read in the first chapters of Genesis is 
 not an account dictated by God himself, the possession 
 of which was the exclusive privilege of the chosen people. 
 It is a tradition whose origin is lost in the night of the 
 remotest ages, and which all the great nations of Western 
 Asia possessed in common, with some variations. The 
 very form given it in the Bible is so closely related to that 
 which has been lately discovered in Babylon and Chal- 
 dea, it follows so exactly in the same course, that it is 
 quite impossible for me to doubt any longer that it has 
 the same origin. The family of Abraham carried this tra- 
 dition with it in the migration which brought it from Ur 
 of the Chaldees into Palestine, and even then it was 
 doubtless already, either in a written or an oral form, for 
 beneath the expressions of the Hebrew text in more than 
 one place there appear certain things which can be ex- 
 plained only as expressions peculiar to the Assyrian lan- 
 guage. H< --}: * 'pi-^g Biblical writers, in recording this 
 tradition at the beginning of their books, created a genu- 
 ine archaeology in the sense attached to the word by the 
 
HISTORICITY. 93 
 
 Greeks. The first chapters of Genesis constitute a 'book 
 of beginnings,' in accordance with the stories handed 
 down in Israel from generation to generation, ever since 
 the time of the Patriarchs, which in all its essential affirm- 
 ations, is parallel with the statement of the sacred books 
 from the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris." 
 
 It follows, therefore, from the teachings of geology 
 and archaeology that the first chapters of Genesis are not 
 of historical value. But it does not follow that they lose 
 their importance in the religion of Israel, as will appear 
 when we come to consider the subject of inspiration. 
 
 Genesis xi: 27 brings us to the historic period of He- 
 brew literature. The genealogy of Terah, the call and 
 migration of Abraham, the secular, social and religious 
 experiences of the Patriarchs in Palestine and Egypt, in 
 the Wilderness and in Canaan — all lie within the historic 
 period, and the documents recording them can be studied 
 and interpreted in the light of scientific discoveries. 
 
 Let it be freely admitted that long before the days 
 of Moses the Jews possessed a written literature, and in 
 common with their civihzed neighbors had records of 
 family, natal and national events, and that out of these 
 came the documents which compose the Hexateuch; still 
 the question remains — did their authors record only his- 
 toric happenings or have they not gathered from the rich 
 stores of the nation's literature much that cannot, with con- 
 fidence, be so designated? Have not other legends than 
 those of Babylonia been utihzed by them for the accom- 
 plishment of their purposes? If it is true, as I have tried 
 to show, that the authors of the documents were not his- 
 torians but advocates, is it not probable that they would 
 gladly use, in the enforcement of their moral and rehg- 
 ious lessons, other stories than those of a strictly his- 
 torical character? And if so, would they impair the cred- 
 ibility of their record of really historical incidents? When 
 
94 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 we study Greek or Roman history we have no difficulty 
 with such questions. There are laws of historical criti- 
 cism that guide us, so that we can separate the legendary 
 stories of men and gods with confidence. Now the great 
 contribution of the Higher Criticism has been precisely 
 here. It has shown that Hebrew legends are not ex- 
 empted from the operation of these laws; but that, upon 
 the contrary, when scientifically examined, they yield 
 equally satisfactory results. 
 
 The critical process gives us the real history of the 
 Hebrews. If some things in the documents are shown to 
 belong to the class of parable or allegory, and others to 
 be of the nature of folklore and legend, yet they are all 
 legitimately in the line of the history of the nation's lit- 
 erature. 
 
 "Historical truth and revealed truth are essentially dis- 
 tinct. Historical truth is not ipso facto revelation. Reve- 
 lation is not necessarily historical truth. A parable may 
 convey more revelation that the most exact chronological 
 table." — R. F. Horton, Revelation and the Bible, p. 7. 
 
 In the meantime, the historic progress from Abra- 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob on to the formation of the twelve 
 tribes, together with their exodus, wilderness-journey 
 and final conquest of Canaan, remain beyond serious 
 question. Incidents here and there may be subjected to 
 corrective criticism; but after all is done we may con- 
 fidently affirm that the records of no other ancient na- 
 tion can be compared for a moment with these in the 
 matter of positive historicity. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 Having shown that the Hexateuch is a composite 
 work, we come now to discuss its inspiration, which, we 
 insist, is not antagonized by such origin. Of course, if 
 the results of the Higher Criticism are accepted, several 
 prominent theories of inspiration must be abandoned, sim- 
 ply because the new conditions leave no place for them. 
 
 First, we find no place for the theory of verbal inspira- 
 tion according to which the sacred writers became mere 
 stenographers of the Spirit ; for the critical process shows 
 that they freely used variant documents, besides impos- 
 ing upon their compositions the peculiarities of their style 
 and the defects of their literary and scientific attainments. 
 
 Second, we are compelled to reject the claim that the 
 inspiration of the Hexateuch was of such a nature that 
 the authors were preserved from all error. This we re- 
 ject, because the critical method has pointed out quite a 
 number of imperfections in this compilation. 
 
 But the inspiration which we can find room for in 
 view of the facts made evident by the critical method 
 may be thus outlined: 
 
 A prophet becomes profoundly conscious of receiving 
 from God great religious and moral truths, either by ob- 
 jective revelation or spiritual illumination, or both, which 
 truths he is under like consciousness impelled to publish 
 as divine revelations. This he proceeds to do in his own 
 literary style, in the common language of the people, us- 
 ing such illustrations drawn from the current literature 
 as will make clear and enforce his inspired concepts. To 
 
 95 
 
96 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 this end he levies draughts upon ancient legends, tradi- 
 tions, historical records, poetry, folk stories, parables, 
 allegories and popular science. 
 
 Accepting this idea of inspiration, we must note that 
 the divinely given concepts, consciously held by the 
 prophet, are shaped and colored by the limitations and 
 characteristics of his mind and heart; and may, when 
 delivered to the people, be far below the divine ideal, 
 though of immense value to the world as then condi- 
 tioned. 
 
 But, in spite of all limitations, he is in a most notable 
 degree above his age, and when he uses the current lit- 
 erature he fills it with a new and diviner spirit- Ancient 
 historic facts or legends take on a higher significance, 
 and are made to illustrate a loftier theism and a purer 
 morality. If he uses, as does the author of the Priests' 
 Code, the Babylonian story of Creation (Genesis i-ii: 4) 
 he transforms it into a sublime monotheistic Hymn of Cre- 
 ation. Says Lenormant, "It is the same narrative, and in 
 it the same episodes succeed one another in like manner; 
 and yet one would be blind not to perceive that the sig- 
 nificance has become altogether different. The exuberant 
 polytheism which encumbers these stories among the 
 Chaldeans has been carefully eliminated to give place to 
 the severest monotheism. What formerly expressed a 
 naturalistic conception of moral grossness here becomes 
 the garb of moral truth of the most exalted and most 
 purely spiritual order. The essential features of the form 
 of the tradition have been preserved, yet between the 
 Bible and the sacred books of Chaldea there is all the 
 distance of one of the most tremendous revolutions which 
 has ever been effected in human beliefs. Herein consists 
 the miracle, and it is none the less amazing for being 
 transposed. Others may seek to explain this by the simple 
 natural process of the conscience of humanity; for myself 
 
INSPIRATION. 97 
 
 I do not hesitate to find in it the effect of a supernatural 
 intervention of Divine Providence, and I bow before the 
 God who inspired the law and the prophets." — Begin- 
 nings of History, p. 15. 
 
 The inspiration, therefore, is not in the ancient tradi- 
 tions and historical incidents recorded by the sacred 
 writers, but it is their transformation, and in the use 
 made of them as vehicles for teaching profound religious 
 truths. 
 
 Here we are at the parting of the ways. The tradition- 
 alists insist that no legend or folk-story has place in the 
 Pentateuch, but that all must be accepted as history or 
 as the direct revelation of pre-historic events. This posi- 
 tion we have seen to be contrary to the facts, and thus 
 incredible to those who desire to serve the cause of truth. 
 
 For the sake of clearness I beg the privilege of again 
 giving an outline of the work of the authors of J., E., 
 Dt, and P., to show their inspiration as to matters ethical 
 and religious and their use of traditions, historical and 
 legendary, as well as of folk-stories. 
 
 The Yahvist confronted in Judah a general tendency 
 to idolatry and civic and social corruption, and he was 
 inspired to impress upon tne people the supreme great- 
 ness of Yahweh and his stern severity as a righteous 
 judge, as well as his loving kindness to his faithful ser- 
 vants. He pursued the inductive method and laid the 
 whole literature of his country under contribution. He 
 began by showing Yahweh to be the creator of all things, 
 claiming absolute obedience to his will — who set before 
 man in Eden, life and death, and after disobedience, exe- 
 cuted the penalty. Later on he destroyed the wicked 
 world by the deluge, saving righteous Noah and his fam- 
 ily. The author narrates the call of Abraham from the 
 midst of idolaters, that he may be made a great nation. 
 Severity and compassion in like fashion mark the course 
 
98 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 of God's providences all through the experiences re- 
 corded by the Yahvist in Genesis, Exodus and Joshua. 
 All the incidents selected by this great prophet are such 
 as show that Yahweh saves the righteous and punishes 
 the wicked, to the end that He may make of his chosen 
 people a righteous nation, having no God but Yahweh, 
 who could only be served acceptably in obedience to his 
 covenants of law. 
 
 The Elohist, who was of the Northern Kingdom, 
 about fifty years later wrote his document to counteract 
 like evil tendencies. 
 
 He exalts the goodness of Elohim in his dealings with 
 Abraham and his family, especially emphasizing the ele- 
 vation of Joseph as a reward of his righteousness. The 
 incidents of the Exodus, which he makes prominent, show 
 God's severity to the wicked Pharoah and his love to suf- 
 fering Israel. He makes conspicuous the moral law by 
 recording the grand scenes of its deliverance as it was 
 spoken by Elohim from Mount Sinai. 
 
 His conceptions of true righteousness are in con- 
 formity with this law, and, unlike the Yahvist, it has little 
 or no connection with things ecclesiastical. Righteous- 
 ness with him is obedience to the moral law as enforced by 
 prophets without the aid of priestly intervention. He 
 seems to have been of a deeply spiritual nature, and his 
 religious teaching finds full expression in the prophets 
 Hosea and Isaiah. 
 
 The Deuteronomist lived in the period of the greatest 
 defection of the Hebrews from Yahweh. Idolatry in its 
 w^orst forms was triumphant. The high places of heathen 
 worship crowned the hills around the Holy City, and the 
 Temple was invaded by heathen altars built by Manasseh, 
 who for more than fifty years led that defection from 
 Jehovah so graphically portrayed in II Kings xxi. The 
 book of Deuteronomy represents (or is the outcome of 
 
INSPIRATION. 99 
 
 a great religious renaissance) an inspired movement to 
 bring the people back to their true allegiance. Its com- 
 piler saw that amidst the general defection there was still 
 great reverence for Moses, but widespread ignorance of 
 his life and laws, as well as of the wonderful providences 
 of Yahweh by which Israel had been brought in safety to 
 the promised land. There were traditions in abundance 
 of these things, but they were known only to the few in 
 prophetical and priestly circles. To bring them out and 
 give them popular form was the manifest aim of the 
 writer. The story of the Wilderness, as presumably re- 
 hearsed by Moses, was recast, and the substance of his 
 closing discourses was given in a style and with dramatic 
 settings calculated to win a hearing from the people and 
 move them to repentance. 
 
 The first public reading of the book, as authorized by 
 King Josiah, was followed immediately by a remarkable 
 reformation, and for the first time in Jewish history the 
 sacrificial worship of the people was confined to the 
 Temple in Jerusalem. Such was the purpose and such 
 the result of the book of Deuteronomy. Of its inspira- 
 tion there cannot be the faintest doubt. 
 
 The Priests' Code, studied in the light of inspiration 
 as above defined, has much to confirm its contention for 
 the divine origin of its priesthood and ritual. They were 
 the outcome of many ''inspirations;" that is to say, all 
 of their leading features came into prominence from time 
 to time as providentially ordered. First came through 
 Moses the prominence of Aaron and his sons 
 in the sacrifices at the Tabernacle or tent of meet- 
 ing. Second, the one-altar law as enforced by King 
 Josiah. Third, the law of Ezekiel confining the priestly 
 office to the sons of Zadok, which law was given full 
 eflfect in the second Temple by Ezra. The fact, as we 
 have already seen, that some of these laws were given a 
 
3n 
 
 100 REASONS FOR THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 mistaken chronology and authorship by the compiler, by 
 referring them to Moses, did not impair their authority 
 as the products of inspiration. It was a grand movement 
 that brought the whole system into that unity of Temple 
 w^orship wdiich the Epistle to the Hebrews recognizes as 
 the creation of God, symbolizing the true Temple with its 
 Holy Place and Christ as the one Priest and one Sacri- 
 fice. 
 
 Every stage of this divinely ordered development was 
 a preparation for the next, just as the last one, with its 
 High Priest and day of Atonement, was the final symbol 
 of Him who offered himself without spot to God. 
 
 The traditional and critical views of revelation are face 
 to face in open antagonism. The former insists that 
 Moses and Joshua wrote inspired history which in all its 
 details w^as infallible. The latter contends that many in- 
 spired men made use of the whole literature of the people 
 for unfolding the facts and the doctrines of faith and 
 morals that they were commissi^oned to reveal. The 
 former is unique, having no points in harmony with the 
 intellectual and spiritual development of mankind. While 
 the latter is in universal touch with all the facts of an ad- 
 vancing civilization, the former stands in the shadow of 
 long- vanished systems of religion, science and philos- 
 ophy; the latter in the light of the comprehensive results 
 of the best scholarship of the nineteenth century in all 
 departments of learning. It finds in the wonderful dis- 
 coveries of the age, inspirations to the profoundest belief 
 that the Hebrew Scriptures were the word of God to his 
 chosen people, and were a conspicuous part of that great 
 movement of Providence by which ''God, who of old time 
 spake unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions 
 and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days 
 spoken unto us in his Son." 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
' •j,.,i,v''(' 'Sv/j. .if'A.. A-w. .'. A'L'^:'?''Im 
 
 BS1215.4.G44 
 
 Reasons for the higher criticism of the 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 llllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll^ 
 
 1 1012 00012 1428