'r\ G.P. Wright Recent Developements in Old Testament Criticism BSII60 .W94 ..c^ RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM BY G. FREDERICK WRIGHT Oberlin, Ohio 1915 1 q// Recent Developments in Old Testament Criticism Paper read by request before the Cleveland Congregational Association, March' 29, 1915. Neglect of Textual Criticism About two years ago fifteen of the leatlin.i,' Old Testament scholars of (xi-eat Britain published in the Lon- don Times a protest against further attempts to meddle with the transla- tion of the Old Testament until more work had been done to determine the original Hebrew text. Strange as it may seem the analysis of the Old Tes- tament on which has been based the documentary theory of the origin of the Pentateuch has been made with- out adequate examination of its cor- rectness, upon the so-called Masso- retic text which is perpetuated in our printed Hebrew Bibles. Of this text Dr. Briggs, twenty-five years ago, wrote it "was established in troublous times, when it was im- possible to give the time and pains- taking required for such an undertak- ing. There was no leisure to correct even the plainest mistakes. It was made by the comparison of a few manuscripts. Tradition speaks of three, ' in oases of disagreement the majority of two always determining the correct reading'" (General Intro- duction, p. 175). Later Dr. Briggs wrote " Modei'u scholars have greatly erred in a too exalted estimate of the correctness of the unix)inted Hebrew text." And again " The text of the Septuagint (the Greek version) where there is a consensus of readings has a value which has not been estimated by crit- ics as highly as it ought to be so far as the psalter is concerned" (Briggs on the Psalms, pp. xxviii and liii). Many other statements of equal strength will be found in Briggs' nu- merous writings. In this he was pre- ceded by Robertson Smith, who had said, " It has gradually become clear to the vast majority of conscientious students that the Septuagint is really of the greatest value as a witness to the early state of the text" (Briggs' General Introduction, p. 229). Yet when Professor Skinner of Cam- bridge, England, author of the re- cent commentary on Genesis in the International Series, was asked to in- dicate any works in which the genu- ineness of the names for God in the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch had been adequately investigated, all he could answer was, " I do not happen to know of any work which deals ex- haustively with the subject from the critical standpoint" (See Origin of the Pentateuch by Harold M. Wiener, p. 35). It should allay any fears of the most orthodox defenders of the Bible lest textual criticism should un- dermine the authority of the Old Tes- tament to remind them that the Sep- tuagint was the Bible from which the New Testament writers quoted. Of the 350 quotations from the Old Tes- tament in the New 300 of them, while differing more or less from the Mas- soretic text, agree substantially with the Greek translation, indicating in most of those cases a different He- brew text from which the translation was made. These facts have been brought out with increasing evidence by the in- vestigations of the last twelve years. Those who have been most conspicu- ous in bringing them out are Mr. Har- old M. Wiener, a highly educated Jew- ish barrister in London, whose schol- arly contributions to the Bibliotheca Sacra already fill nearly a thousand octavo pages, and who has not been caught in any serious misstatement of evidence, though antagonized by the ablest defenders of the documentary tbeorj'. Agreeing with him is Johan- lies Dahse of Freiraclulorf, Germany, the first volume of whose mouumental work entitled " Textkritische Mater ialieu ziir Hexatenclifrage," treated ^specially of the names for God in (lenesis and of Jacob and Israel, and of the so-called Priestly Code in Gen- esis xii. 1 — this being the first sys- tematic attempt to provide a com- plete apparatus for determining the original Hebrew text of Genesis. Dr. Dahse's reputation in Germany is of the very highest. When the late Dr. Nestle, who was preparing for the Wurtemburg Bible Union a new edi- tion of the Hebrew-Greek Bible, died tM'd years ago, by general consent Dr. Dahse was appointed to complete the work. Other German critics, too numerous to mention, have eitb.er revised their views upon this subject or are revis- ing them, in view of the new light which bas appeared, while in Holland there has been a complete change of views. Eerdmans, tbe successor of Kuenen in the University of Leipzig, has completely abandoned the preva- lent method of determining the ori- uin of the Pentateuch, though he bas by no means adopted orthodox views. His associate, Troelstra, however, has come out in a flat-footed defense of the older and ordinary views of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Aalders, the editor of one of the lead- ing Dutch critical journals, has also (!ome out in defense of the older views. While at Utrecht, when the professor of Old Testament Literature in the University, who was a destructive critic, died two or tliree years ago, they appointed as his successor. Pro- fessor Noordtzij, who is one of tlie ablest defenders of the historical char- acter of the whole Old Testament ; and in seeking for a professor of comparative religion in the University of Utrecht the authorities have with one consent turned to Dr. M. G. Kyle, a United Presbyterian pastor in Amer- ica, who is a well recognized autlior- ity in Egyptology and at the same time a conservative theologian, and author of one of I he recent most im- portant books showing the support which the Bible receives from the de- ciphering of ancient monuments. Several things have contributed to these results. In the first place, the new Cambridge edition of the Septu- agint has given us a better text of the Greek translation than we have be- fore had. Again, recent investiga- tions in the text of the Vulgate, or of the Latin translation of Jerome, which forms its base, show that he had before him Hebrew Manuscripts differing in many particulars from the Massoretic text. Besides this, new studies which are made respect- ing other early translations, and the discovery of independent Hebrew man- uscripts, are all giving additional ma- terial for determining the original texts. The result of it all is to bring to light the text of Hebrew manu- scripts which bad made their way to Egypt in the time of Jeremiah, thus giving us readings current more than a centui*y before the origin of the Sa- maritan Pentateuch. Some Results One of the most significant results of this textual criticism, so far as it has proceeded, is to throw complete discredit upon the main clue by which the documentary theoiy of the Penta- teuch was established. One hundred and fifty years ago Astruc divided the Pentateuch into documents char- acterized by the use of different names for the deity. Tlie passages where Elohim represented the deity were put in one section, those in which Je- hovah were used were put into an- other, and thus there resulted the fa- mous " E " and " J " documents. La- ter critics, led by Wellhausen, repre- sented that the J documents were fragments of a history written in Ju- dah many centuries after the time of Moses and that the E documents were fragments of similar history written for the ten tribes. To com- plete their theory Deuteronomy was assigned to a date several hundred years after Moses in the time of Jo- siah. and a large part of the Penta- teuch was said to be \a priestly docu- ment written after the exile, thus de- stroying entirely the historical char- acter of the Pentateuch. One of the first results, however, of these investigations into the text of the Old Testament has been to show that there was no basis in the orig- inal texts for a division into E and J documents. It now appears that fi'oui Genesis i. 1-Exodus iii. 12, where Jehovah occurs 148 times in the He- brew text, doubt is thrown by the evi- dence in 118 cases, and where Eloaim occurs in 179 cases doubt is thrown on 49 of the passages, while in the second and third chapters of Genesis, where the Hebrew text has Jeho- vah Elohim (Lord God) twent^'-three times, there is only one passage where the texts are unanimous. As a result the critics are now compelled to drop Astruc's clue as useless, and " E " and " J " have no further significance except to the great number who are accepting the destructive criticism as a new tradition coming down to us through the last half century. Well- hausen has written to us, and permit- ted us to publish the same, that we have found the " sore point " in his theory, while Skinner, confessing the collapse of Astruc's clue, consoles him- self with saying that it is not the first time in which a false clue has led to correct results. This discov- ery, however, has thrown into the scrap heap a large part of the crit- ical literature upon the Pentateuch of the last twenty-five years. The per- son who flourishes his E and J doc- uments before the people will here- after be confessing his ignorance. But recent criticism has brought to light innumerable other errors and fallacies by which the Wellhausen theory has been supported. For ex- ample, in Exodus vi. 3 the Massoretic text makes it appear that Jehovah was not the name of God until the time of Moses. Moses had asked (Ex. iii. 1.3) that God should give him the authority of his "name" when he should go to deliver his people, and God had refused. But now in the sixth chapter God authorizes Moses to go to his people and speak in the •' name of Jehovah." The evidence of this appears in the emended text, which reads not " I was not known by my name Jehovah," but reads " I had not made known to them [that is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] my name Jehovah." That is, I had not given them the endorsement of ray name such as I now give you. This cor- responds to our phrase when a person is asked to " give us his name " on a note. It will be noticed that after this Closes always speaks in the name of Jehovah. Now this change in the text is the substitution of only one letter in the Hebrew, but it is sup- ported by the Septuagint, by the Syriac, and by the Vulgate versions, and is found in an early Hebrew man- uscript of the Karaite sect. Another interesting case among many which may be adduced is found in Exodus xvii. 6 where the Hebrew text reads, " I thy father-in-law Jethro, am come," while in the seventh verse it is said that Moses goes out to meet his fa- ther-in-law and that they exchange greetings and then come into the tent, implying that they had not met be- fore. The critics see in this evi- dence of the two documents. But sci- entific textual criticism completely re- moves the difficulty. The Septuagint, the old Syriac version and a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, instead of " I thy father-in-law Jethro am come " read "And one said unto Moses hehold thy father-in-law Jethro comes." Here the corruption of a single Hebrew let- ter gives us " I " instead of behold. I need not multiply cases. But a little attention must be given to the other evidence which is supposed to sustain the documentary theory. The first to which we call attention is to a mistranslation, or a misreading, of Exodus XX. 24, wliere the Israelites are given permission to ott'er sacrifices on an altar of earth or unhewn stone " iu every place where I record my name." From this it is inferred that offerings were lawful for the people only in places where there had been a theophany, or special manifestation of God's presence. The correct trans- lation of this is, however, " in all the place," referring to Palestine, the Holy Land. Or we may accept the text of the Syriac version which reads " in every place where thou (the sacriflcant) shall cause my name to be remembered." This correction of the translation, or of the text, re- moves a large number of fallacious arguments of the higher critics who assume that wherever there was an altar there was also a " sanctuary." The confusion w^hich this error has led the critics into is humiliating in the extreme. Some Flagrant Errors of the Critics Among other things the destructive critics are in flagrant error iu the fol- lowing particulars : 1st. The critics deny tliat there was a central place of sacrifice to which the people were to bring their offer- ings until the building of the temple. But, there was a " house of the Lord'' at Shiloh (see Ex. xxiii. 19, 34; xxvi. ; Judges xviii. 31) to which the people were to bring their public offerings three times a year. There the priests oHiciated at the altar. 2nd. The critics infer tliat the re- called "P" (Priestly document) is post- exilic, because among other things, it is not quoted by the prophets. While the fact is that this is that portion of the law which the lawyers call "pro- cedure," related to , other literature as the technical books on law and medicine are to iwpular writings. How many «iuotatious from such books will you find in the sermons of the present day? The "P" docu- ments contain not tlie commandment'- which were for the common people, but such as were for the priests to secure obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws. If a person ap- peared to have leprosy, the " P " doc- ument gave directions for quarantin- ing him and determining if this was the case. It was needed from the very beginning, and is what is found in all legal codes. A minute exam- ination of the words used in this doc- ument gives no indication of their be- longing to a later age than that of Moses. od. The critics fail to recognize the evidential value of the archaic laws which characterize the Penta- teuch. These laws breathe the atmos- phere of the desert, and of the early conditions of national development. 4th. It is incredible that the " hen " should have no mention in the Penta- teuch if it was not written till a late date. 5th. If the Pentateuch was not compiled until after the time of Da- vid, it is incredible that there should have been no mention of " music," or of " Jerusalem," or that the phrase " Lord of Hosts " should not have oc- curred in it. 6th. To place the compilation of the Pentateuch at the end of Jewish liistoi'y instead of at the beginning, is to reverse the true law of historical development. It is not the law of development that nations rise by the action of resident forces slowly to a high degree of civilization. It is the universal law that upward national development has been dependent on the impulse of outside forces. Egypt received her impulse to civilization from Babylonia, Greece hers from Egypt, Rome hers from Greece, Northern Europe from Rome. At the present time the Christian church does not expect heathen nations to become Christian except as the gos- pel is carried to them and thrust unon them. It is this law that makes a missionaiy church the great need of tlie world. To suppose that this law was reversed in the case of the Jews is contrary to reason. Neither In his- tory nor in agriculture do we " gather grapes from thorns or figs from this- tles." For the church to reverse this rule in their interpretation of the Old Testament must have a very depres- sing effect on all her missionary ac- tivities. 7th. Finally, the respect paid to the Old Testament by the writers of the New, is such, that if we discard the historical character of the Old, we cannot well maintain our respect for the New. and the estimate of the character of Christ himself must be greatly lowered. I'osiTiVE Arguments But we do not rest our confidence in the historical character of the Old Testament merely on negative evi- dence, though the burden of proof falls so heavily on the shoulders of those who dispute its historicity that to lanswer their objections Is all that is really necessary to maintain con- fidence in it. ArchtBology, however, amply sustains the historical state- ments of the Bible in both testaments. I may also call attention to the work which I have done in the realm of scientific tests of the truth of Old Testament stories. I think I have shown that in the case of the crossing of the Red Sea, the destruction of Sodom, the falling of the walls of Jericho, the crossing of the Jordan by Joshua's host, and the Biblical ac- count of the Flood, there is such a conformity to the physical conditions as we now know them, that they could not have been written except by an eyewitness, and that these accounts have been remarkably kept free from legendary accretions. Thus the his- torical character of the Bible is sup- ported by such an array of ciunula- tive evidence that it is established, in the legal phrase, " beyond reasonable doubt." Value of an Unmutilated Bible This being the case it would appear to be extremely presumptuous in a preacher to mutilate tlie sacred rec- ord. The apostle warns us against building on the foundation which Christ has laid " hay, wood, and stub- ble," and though one who innocently does so may be saved, yet it will be so as by fire ; his work will be burned and he will suffer loss. Because some parts of the Bible are less vital and" important than others it does not fol- low that they are useless. It is with the Bible as it is with a man : the vi- tal parts may remain even when many of the important members are lopped off. When a boy I attended Bar- num's Great Moral Show, and there saw a man play a bass viol with pretty good results, though he had lost both of his arms. He fingered the strings with the toes of his left foot, and handled the bow with his right leg, and produced very respect- able music. Yet in spite of all this it was a great misfortune that he was compelled to labor with such a mutil- ated organization. So it will be, I ap- prehend, with those who attempt to preach the gospel with a mutilated Bible. The truth is, that the instruc- tion which is conveyed in the history which is recorded in the Bible is what is needed for a proper understanding of the world's want in all time. In the Old Testament we have a con- densed history showing up human na- ture in all its phases. If we neglect this history and try to extract all its lessons from the innumerable biogra- phies, the voluminous cyclopaedias, the endless narratives, and the ap- palling showers of newspapers and magazines of the present day, we shall have forsaken the fountain of living waters, and shall be hewing out broken cisterns that hold no water. PAMPHLET BINDER ^^^ Syrocuse, N, Y. Stockton, Calif. 651160 .W94 Recent developments in Old Testament lmi'ri'°" ^''^°'°5'"' Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00041 1852 ^*-^'*3i^ ►ts«? ts0-J¥^ ^^■^.