We now pass on to consider the growth of literary and historic
criticism, which constitute the _Higher Criticism_ as already explained.
Down to the Reformation conditions were unfavourable to such criticism;
the prevailing dogmatic use of Scripture gave no occasion for inquiry
into the human origins or into the real purport and character of the
several books. Nevertheless we find some sporadic and tentative critical
efforts or questions. The most remarkable of these was made _outside_
the Church--a significant indication of the adverse effect of the
conditions within; the Neo-platonist philosopher Porphyry[20] in the 3rd
century A.D., untrammelled by church tradition and methods, anticipated
one of the clearest and most important conclusions of modern criticism:
he detected the incorrectness of the traditional ascription of Daniel to
the Jewish captivity in Babylon and discerned that the real period of
its composition was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, four centuries later.
In the mind even of Augustine (_Locutio in Jos. vi. 25_) questions were
raised by the occurrence of the formula "until this day" in Jos. iv. 9,
but were stilled by a rather clever though wrong use of Jos. vi. 25;
Abelard (_Heloissae Problema_, xli.) considers the problem whether the
narrative of Moses's death in Deut. contains a prophecy by Moses or is
the work of another and later writer, while the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra
(Abenezra), in a cryptic note on Deut. i. 1, which has been often quoted
of late years, gathers together several indications that point, as he
appears to perceive, to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Even
rarer than these rare perceptions of the evidence of the
quasi-historical books to their origin are such half-perceptions of the
literary origin of the prophetical books as is betrayed by Ibn Ezra, who
appears to question the Isaianic authorship of Is. xl.-lxvi., and by
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century, who, according
to Diestel (_Gesch. des A. T._, 169), raises the question why the sixth
chapter of Isaiah, containing the inaugural vision, does not stand at
the beginning of the book.
The Reformers.
Even after the Renaissance and the Reformation tradition continued
influential. For though the Reformers were critical of the authority of
ecclesiastical tradition in the matter of the interpretation and use of
Scripture, they were not immediately interested in literary and
historical criticism, nor concerned to challenge the whole body of
traditional lore on these matters. At the same time we can see from
Luther's attitude how the doctrine of the Reformers (unlike that of the
Protestant scholastics who came later) admitted considerable freedom, in
particular with reference to the extent of the canon, but also to
several questions of higher criticism. Thus it is to Luther a matter of
indifference whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch; the books of
_Chronicles_ he definitely pronounces less credible than those of
_Kings_, and he considers that the books of _Isaiah, Jeremiah_ and
_Hosea_ probably owe their present form to later hands. Carlstadt again
definitely denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the ground
that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and yet
that Deut. xxxiv. cannot be separated from the rest of the Pentateuch.
The later scholastic Protestant doctrine of verbal infallibility
necessarily encouraged critical reaction and proved a widely extended
retarding force far down into the 19th century. Nevertheless criticism
advanced by slow degrees among individuals, now in the Roman Church, now
in the number of those who sat loosely to the restrictions of either
Roman or Protestant authority, and now among Protestant scholars and
theologians.
Hobbes.
It would be impossible to refer here even briefly to all these, and it
may be more useful to select for somewhat full description, as showing
what could be achieved by, and what limitations beset, even a critical
spirit in the 17th century, the survey of the origin of the Old
Testament given by one such individual--Thomas Hobbes in his
_Leviathan_[21] (published 1651) c. xxxiii. As far as possible this
survey shall be cited verbatim:--
"Who were the original writers of the several books of Holy Scripture
has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other
history, which is the only proof of matter of fact; nor can be, by any
argument of natural reason: for reason serves only to convince the
truth, not of fact, but of consequence. The light therefore that must
guide us in this question, must be that which is held out unto us from
the books themselves: and this light, though it shew us not the author
of every book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time
wherein they were written."
"And first, for the Pentateuch. ... We read (Deut. xxxiv. 6)
concerning the sepulchre of Moses 'that no man knoweth of his
sepulchre to this day'; that is, to the day wherein those words were
written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after
his interment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake
of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to
that day wherein he was yet living." The suggestion that the last
chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written later, is met by
Hobbes by reference to Gen. xii. 6 ("the Canaanite was then in the
land") and Num. xxi. 14 (citation from a book relating the acts of
Moses at the Red Sea and in Moab) and the conclusion reached that "the
five books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after
is not so manifest."
"But though Moses did not compile those books entirely, and in the
form we have them, yet he wrote all that which he is there said to
have written: as, for example, the volume of the Law" contained "as it
seemeth" in Deut. xi.-xxvii, "and this is that Law which ... having
been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah and sent to King
Josias (2 Kings xxii. 8)."
The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel are proved much later than
the times recorded in them by the numerous passages which speak of
customs, conditions, &c., remaining "unto this day," and _Judges_ in
particular by xviii. 30, "where it said that 'Jonathan and his sons
were priests to the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of
the land.'"
As for _Kings_ and _Chronicles_, "besides the places which mention
such monuments as, the writer saith, remained till his own days"
(Hobbes here cites thirteen from Kings, two from Chron.), "it is
argument sufficient that they were written after the captivity in
Babylon, that the history of them is continued till that time. For the
facts registered are always more ancient than the register; and much
more ancient than such books as make mention of and quote the
register, as these books do in divers places."
Ezra and Nehemiah were written after, Esther during, or after, the
captivity; Job, which is not a history but a philosophical poem, at an
uncertain date. The Psalms were written mostly by David, but "some of
them after the return from the captivity, as the 137th and 126th,
whereby it is manifest that the psalter was compiled and put into the
form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon." The
compilation of Proverbs is later than any of those whose proverbs are
therein contained; but Ecclesiastes and Canticles are wholly Solomon's
except the titles. There is little noticeable in Hobbes' dating of the
prophets, though he considers it "not apparent" whether Amos wrote, as
well as composed, his prophecy, or whether Jeremiah and the other
prophets of the time of Josiah and Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai and
Zechariah, who lived in the captivity, _edited_ the prophecies
ascribed to them. He concludes: "But considering the inscriptions, or
titles of their books, it is manifest enough that the whole Scripture
of the Old Testament was set forth in the form we have it after the
return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon and before the time
of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus."
Except in strangely making Zephaniah contemporary with Isaiah, Hobbes'
conclusions, in so far as they differ from the traditional views, have
been confirmed by the more thorough criticism of subsequent scholars.
But apart from the special conclusions, the opening and closing
considerations contain clear and important statements which still hold
good. No fresh discoveries since the time of Hobbes have furnished any
"testimony of other history" to the origin of the books of the Old
Testament: this must still be determined by the statements and internal
evidence of the Old Testament itself, and a deeper criticism has given
to the final consideration that the Old Testament received its present
form _after_ the Exile a far greater significance than Hobbes perhaps
guessed.
But the limitations of Hobbes' literary criticism judged from our
present standpoint are great. The considerations from which he acutely
and accurately draws far-reaching and important conclusions might be
suggested by a very superficial examination of the literature; they
involve, for example, no special philological knowledge. The effect of a
deeper criticism has been (a) to give a more powerful support to some of
Hobbes' conclusions; (b) to show that works (e.g. Ecclesiastes) whose
traditional antiquity is left unquestioned by him are in reality of far
more recent origin; (c) to eliminate the earlier sources or elements in
the writings which Hobbes was content to date mainly or as a whole by
their latest elements (e.g. _Pentateuch, Judges, Kings_), and thus to
give to these earlier sources an historical value higher than that which
would be safely attributed to them as indistinguishable parts of a late
compilation.
Hobbes argues in the case of the _Pentateuch_ that two authors are
distinguishable--Moses and a much later compiler and editor. Spinoza,
whose conclusions in his _Tractatus theologicopoliticus_ (1671), c.
viii. ix., had in general much in common with Hobbes, drew attention in
particular to the confused mixture of law and narrative in the
Pentateuch, the occurrence of duplicate narratives and chronological
incongruities. Father Simon in his _Histoire critique du Vieux
Testament_ (1682) also argues that the Pentateuch is the work of more
than one author, and makes an important advance towards a systematic
analysis of the separate elements by observing that the style varies,
being sometimes very curt and sometimes very copious "although the
variety of the matter does not require it." But none of these makes any
attempt to carry through a continuous analysis.
Astruc.
The first attempt of this kind is that of a French Catholic physician,
Jean Astruc. In a work published anonymously in 1753 under the title of
_Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est
servi pour composer le livre de la Genese_, he argued that in Genesis
and Ex. i. ii. Moses had used different documents, and that of these the
two chief were distinguished by their use of different divine
names--Elohim and Yahweh; by the use of this clue he gave a detailed
analysis of the passages belonging to the several documents. Astruc's
criteria were too slight to give to all the details of his analysis
anything approaching a final analysis; but later criticism has shown
that his criteria, so far as they went, were valid, and his results,
broadly speaking, sound though incomplete: and, moreover, they have
abundantly justified his really important fundamental theory that the
documents used by the compiler of the _Pentateuch_ have been
incorporated so much as they lay before him that we can get behind the
compiler to the earlier sources and thus push back the evidence of much
of the Pentateuch beyond the date of its compilation to the earlier date
of the sources. In identifying the compiler with Moses, Astruc failed to
profit from some of his predecessors: and the fact that he held to the
traditional (Mosaic) origin of the Pentateuch may have prevented him
from seeing the similar facts which would have led him to continue his
analysis into the remaining books of the Pentateuch.
For subsequent developments, and the fruitful results of documentary
analysis as applied to the Pentateuch and other composite books, which
cannot be dealt with in any detail here, reference must be made to the
special articles on the books of the Old Testament.
Lowth.
The year of the publication of Astruc's book saw also the publication of
Bishop Lowth's _De sacra poesi Hebraeorum_; later Lowth published a new
translation of Isaiah with notes (1778). Lowth's contribution to a more
critical appreciation of the Old Testament lies in his perception of the
nature and significance of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, in his
discernment of the extent to which the prophetical books are poetical in
form, and in his treatment of the Old Testament as the expression of the
thought and emotions of a people--in a word, as _literature_. Both
Lowth's works were translated and became influential in Germany.
Eichhorn.
In spite of these earlier achievements, it is J.G. Eichhorn who has, not
without reason, been termed the "founder of modern Old Testament
criticism." Certainly the publication of his _Einleitung_ (_Introduction
to the Old Testament_), in 1780-1783, is a landmark in the history of
Old Testament criticism. An intimate friend of Herder, himself keenly
interested in literature, he naturally enough treats the Old Testament
as literature--like Lowth, but more thoroughly; and, as an Oriental
scholar, he treats it as an Oriental literature. In both respects he was
to be widely followed. His _Introduction_, consisting of three closely
packed volumes dealing with textual as well as literary criticism, is
the first comprehensive treatment of the entire Old Testament as
literature. Much of the voluminous detailed work in this and other works
is naturally enough provisional, but in the _Introduction_ there emerge
most of the broad conclusions of literary criticism (sometimes
incomplete) which, after more than a century of keen examination by
scholars unwilling to admit them, have passed by more or less general
consent into the number of historical certainties or high probabilities.
With his wide linguistic knowledge Eichhorn perceived that the language
alone (though he also adduces other considerations) betrays the late
origin of _Ecclesiastes_, which he places in the Persian Period (538-332
B.C.): _Canticles_, too, preserves linguistic features which are not of
the Solomonic age. He analyses significant stylistic peculiarities such
as occur, e.g., in _Isaiah_ xxiv.-xxvii. For various reasons (here
following Koppe, who just previously in additions to his translation of
Lowth's _Isaiah_ had shown himself the pioneer of the higher criticism
of the book of Isaiah) he argues that "in our _Isaiah_ are many oracles
not the work of this prophet." In other directions the still powerful
influence of tradition affects Eichhorn. He maintains the exilic origin
of parts of _Daniel_, though he is convinced (here again in part by
language) of the later origin of other parts. His Pentateuchal criticism
is limited by the tradition of Mosaic authorship: but even within these
limits he achieves much. He carries through, as Astruc had done, the
analysis of _Genesis_ into (primarily) two documents; he draws the
distinction between the Priests' Code, of the middle books of the
Pentateuch, and _Deuteronomy_, the people's law book; and admits that
even the books that follow Genesis consist of different documents, many
incomplete and fragmentary (whence the theory became known as the
"Fragment-hypothesis"), but all the work of Moses and some of his
contemporaries.
Other literary critics of the same period or a little later are Alex.
Geddes, a Scottish Catholic priest, who projected, and in part carried
out (1792-1800), a critically annotated new translation of the Old
Testament, and argued therein that the Pentateuch ultimately rests on a
variety of sources partly written, partly oral, but was compiled in
Canaan probably in the reign of Solomon; K.D. Ilgen, the discoverer
(1798) that there were two distinct documents in Genesis using the
divine name Elohim, and consequently that there were _three_ main
sources in the books, not two, as Astruc and Eichhorn had conjectured;
and J.S. Vater, the elaborator of the "Fragment-hypothesis."
De Wette.
But the next distinct stage is reached when we come to De Wette, whose
contributions to Biblical learning were many and varied, but who was
pre-eminent in _historical criticism_. He carried criticism beyond
literary analysis and literary appreciation to the task of determining
the worth of the documents as records, the validity of the evidence. His
peculiar qualities were conspicuous in his early and exceedingly
influential work--the _Beitraege zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament_
(1806-1807). In the introduction to vol. ii. he carefully analyses the
principles of sound historical method and the essentials of a
trustworthy historical record. These principles he applied to the Old
Testament, firstly to the _Books of Chronicles_, and then to the
Pentateuch. The untrustworthiness of _Chronicles_--briefly admitted by
Luther--he proved in detail, and so cleared the way for that truer view
of the history and religion of Israel which the treatment of
_Chronicles_ as a trustworthy record of the past hopelessly obscured. In
the criticism of the Pentateuch his most influential and enduring
contributions to criticism are his proof that _Deuteronomy_ is a work of
the 7th century B.C., and his insistence that the theory of the Mosaic
origin of all the institutions described in the Pentateuch is
incompatible with the history of Israel as described in the historical
books, _Judges_, _Samuel_ and _Kings_.
Ewald.
Strong in historical criticism, De Wette was weak in historical
construction. But what he failed to give, Ewald supplied, and if more of
De Wette's than of Ewald's work still stands to-day, that is but an
illustration of the melancholy fact that in history negative criticism
is surer than positive construction. But Ewald's _History of the People
of Israel_ (1843-1859) was the first great attempt to synthesize the
results of criticism and to present the history of Israel as a great
reality of the past. By the force of his wide learning and even more of
his personality, Ewald exercised for long an all-pervading and almost
irresistible influence. He closes one epoch of Old Testament criticism;
by his influence he retards the development of the next. Before passing
to the new epoch it must suffice to make a simple reference to the
philological work of Gesenius and Ewald, which assisted a sounder
exegesis and so secured for later criticism a more stable basis.
Vatke; Reuss.
The next stage brings us to the critical theories or conclusions which
at first gradually and then rapidly, in spite of the keenest criticisms
directed against them both by those who clung more or less completely to
tradition and by the representatives of the earlier critical school,
gained increasing acceptance, until to-day they dominate Old Testament
study. The historico-critical starting-point of the movement was really
furnished by De Wette: but it was Vatke who, in his _Biblische Theologie
wissenschaftlich dargestellt_ (1835), first brought out its essential
character. The fundamental peculiarity of the movement lies in the fact
that it is a criticism of what is supreme in Israel--its religion, and
that it has rendered possible a true appreciation of this by showing
that, like all living and life-giving systems of thought, belief and
practice, the religion of Israel was subject to development. It seized
on the prophetic element, and not the ceremonial, as containing what is
essential and unique in the religion of Israel. In literary criticism
its fundamental thesis, stated independently of Vatke and in the same
year by George in _Die aelteren juedischen Feste_, and in a measure
anticipated by Reuss, who in 1832 was maintaining in his academical
lectures that the prophets were older than the Law and the Psalms more
recent than both, is that the chronological order of the three main
sources of the Hexateuch is (1) the prophetic narratives (JE), (2)
Deuteronomy, (3) the Priestly Code (P), the last being post-exilic. This
entirely reversed the prevailing view that P with its exact details and
developed ceremonial and sacerdotal system was at once the earliest
portion of the Pentateuch and the _Grundschrift_ or foundation of the
whole--a view that was maintained by Ewald and, though with very
important modifications, to the last by A. Dillmann (d. 1894). Inherent
in this view of religious development and the new critical position were
far-reaching changes in the literary, historical and religious criticism
of the Old Testament: these have been gradually rendered clear as the
fundamental positions on which they rest have been secured by the
manifold work of two generations of scholars.
Graf; Kuenen; Wellhausen; Colenso.
Nearly a generation passed before Vatke's point of view gained any
considerable number of adherents. This is significant. In part it may
fairly be attributed to the retarding influence of the school of Ewald,
but in large part also to the fact that Vatke, a pupil of Hegel, had
developed his theory on _a priori_ grounds in accordance with the
principles of Hegel's philosophy of history. It was only after a fresh
and keener observation of _facts_ that the new theory made rapid
progress. For that, when it came, much was due to the work of Graf (a
pupil of Reuss, whose _Geschichtliche Buecher des Alten Testaments_
appeared in 1866); to the Dutch scholar Kuenen, who, starting from the
earlier criticism, came over to the new, made it the basis of his
_Religion of Israel_ (1869-1870), a masterly work and a model of sound
method, and continued to support it by a long series of critical essays
in the _Theologisch Tijdschrift_; and to Wellhausen, who displayed an
unrivalled combination of grasp of details and power of historical
construction: his _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_ was published in
1878 and translated into English in 1885; the history itself,
_Israelitische u. juedische Geschichte_, followed twenty years later,
after much further critical work had been done in the meantime. Not a
little also was due to Colenso (_The Pentateuch ... critically
examined_, pt. i., 1862), who, though he never entirely accepted the new
position, contributed by his searching analysis of the unreality of P's
narrative to the formation (for example, in the mind of Kuenen) or
ratification of the judgment on that work which is fundamental to the
general theory.
This sketch of the critical movement has now been brought down to the
point at which the comprehensive conclusions which still dominate Old
Testament study gained clear expression and were shown to be drawn from
the observation of a large body of facts. It does not fall within the
scope of this article to examine the validity of these conclusions, nor
even to notice the various subsidiary or consequential conclusions. Nor
again is it possible to survey the more special developments of literary
criticism which have later emerged, amongst which one of the most
important has been the radical examination of the prophetic writings
introduced and developed by (amongst others) Stade, Wellhausen, Duhm,
Cheyne, Marti.[22] The starting-point of this newer criticism of the
prophets is the clearer practical recognition of the fact that all
pre-exilic prophecy has come down to us in the works of post-exilic
editors, and that for the old statement of the problem of the prophetic
books--What prophecies or elements in Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest are
later than these prophets?--is to be substituted the new critical
question--From these post-exilic collections how are the pre-exilic
elements to be extracted? Bound up with this question of literary
criticism is the very important question of the origin and development
of the Messianic idea.
But two things, the extent of the influence of criticism and the
relation of archaeology and criticism, yet remain for consideration, in
the course of which it will be possible just to indicate some other
problems awaiting solution.
Influence of Criticism.
It is one thing for scholars to reach conclusions: it is another for
these conclusions to exercise a wide influence in the Churches and over
general culture. In the 16th century we find _obiter dicta_ of the
Reformers challenging traditional opinions on the origin and character
of the Old Testament; in the 17th century, among certain isolated
scholars, elementary critical surveys of the whole field, which
exercised, however, no extensive influence. Nor was it till late in the
18th century that criticism seriously challenged the dominance of the
Protestant scholastic treatment of the Old Testament on the one hand,
and the rough and ready, uncritical explanations or depreciations of the
Rationalists on the other. But Eichhorn's _Introduction_ appealed to
more than technical scholars: its influence was great, and from that
time forward criticism gradually or even rapidly extended its sway in
Germany. Very different was the case in England; after Geddes and Lowth,
at the close of the 18th, till far down into the 19th century, the
attitude even of scholars (with rare exceptions) was hostile to critical
developments, and no independent critical work was done. Pusey indeed
studied under Eichhorn, and in his _Historical Enquiry into the probable
causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in German
Theology_ (1828-1830) speaks sympathetically of the attitude of the
Reformers on the question of Scripture and in condemnation of the later
Protestant scholastic doctrine; but even in this book he shows no
receptivity for any of the actual critical conclusions of Eichhorn and
his successors, and subsequently threw the weight of his learning
against critical conclusions--notably in his _Commentary on Daniel_
(1864). Dean Stanley owed something to Ewald and spoke warmly of him,
but the Preface to the _History of the Jewish Church_ in which he does
so bears eloquent testimony to the general attitude towards Old
Testament criticism in 1862, of which we have further proof in the
almost unanimous disapprobation and far-spread horror with which
Colenso's _Pentateuch_, pt. i., was met on its publication in the same
year.
From 1869 T.K. Cheyne worked indefatigably as a resourceful pioneer, but
for many years, in view of the prevailing temper, with "extreme
self-suppression" and "willingness to concede to tradition all that
could with any plausibility be conceded." (Cheyne, _Origin of the
Psalter_, p. 15); more especially is his influence observable after
1890, when he published his Bampton Lectures, the _Origin of the
Psalter_, a work of vast learning and keen penetration, without
restraint on the freedom of his judgment--always stimulating to students
and fellow-workers, though by no means always carrying large numbers
with him. From about 1880 the prevailing temper had changed; within a
decade of this date the change had become great; since then the
influence of Old Testament criticism has grown with increased
acceleration. The change in the former period with regard to a single
point, which is however typical of many, is briefly summed up by Dr
Cheyne: "In 1880 it was still a heresy to accept with all its
consequences the plurality of authorship of the Book of Isaiah; in 1890
to a growing school of church-students this has become an indubitable
fact" (_Origin of the Psalter_, xv.). By 1906 this plurality of
authorship had become almost a commonplace of the market. Many,
particularly of late, have contributed to the wide distribution, if not
of the critical spirit itself, yet at least of a knowledge of its
conclusions. To two only of the most influential is it possible to make
more definite reference--to W. Robertson Smith and S.R. Driver. From
1875 onwards Smith contributed to the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_ a long series of important articles, which, together with
the articles of Cheyne, Wellhausen and others, made that work an
important factor in the change which was to pass over English thought in
regard to the Bible; in 1878, by his pleadings in the trial for heresy
brought against him on the ground of these articles, he turned a
personal defeat in the immediate issue into a notable victory for the
cause which led to his condemnation; and subsequently (in 1880), in two
series of lectures, afterwards published[23] and widely read, he gave a
brilliant, and, as it proved, to a rapidly increasing number a
convincing exposition of the criticism of the literature, history and
religion of Israel, which was already represented in Germany by
Wellhausen and in Holland by Kuenen. In 1891 Dr Driver published his
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_ (6th ed., 1897);
less popular in form than Smith's lectures, it was a more systematic and
comprehensive survey of the whole field of the literary criticism of the
Old Testament. The position of the author as regius professor of Hebrew
at Oxford and canon of Christ Church in succession to Pusey, and his
well-established reputation as a profound Hebrew scholar, commanded wide
attention; the qualities of the book itself--its marked sobriety, its
careful discrimination between the differing degrees of probability
attaching to various conclusions and suggestions, and in general its
soundness of method--rapidly extended the understanding of what Old
Testament criticism is and commanded acceptance of the well-established
conclusions.
No less rapid has been the change in America during the same period, nor
less numerous the scholars well equipped to pursue the detailed
investigation involved in critical study or those who have shown ability
in popular presentations of the critical standpoint.[24] Pre-eminent
amongst these is C.A. Briggs, whose influence has been due in part to a
large and varied body of work (_Biblical Study_, 1883, and many articles
and volumes since) and in part to his organization of united critical,
international and interconfessional labour, the chief fruits of which
have been the _Hebrew Lexicon_ (based on Gesenius, and edited by F.
Brown, one of the most eminent of American scholars, S.R. Driver and
himself), and the _International Critical Commentary_. Other important
works in which English and American scholars have co-operated are the
_Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (1899-1903) and Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_
(1898-1904)--the latter less radical, but yet on the whole based on
acceptance of the fundamental positions of Vatke, Graf, Wellhausen.
Between either of these and Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1863)
yawns a great gulf. Space forbids any attempt to sketch here the special
growth of criticism in other countries, such as France, where the
brilliant genius of Renan was in part devoted to the Old Testament, or
within the Roman Catholic Church, which possesses in Pere Lagrange, for
example, a deservedly influential critical scholar, and in the _Revue
Biblique_ an organ which devotes much attention to the critical study of
the Old Testament.
Rapid and extensive as has been the spread of critical methods, there
have not been lacking _anticritica_. Many of these have been not only
apologetic, but unscholarly; that is, however, not the case with all. In
Dr James Orr's learned work, _The Problem of the Old Testament
considered with reference to Recent Criticism_ (1906), the author's
chief aim is to prove insecure the fundamental positions of the now
dominant school of criticism.
In view of extensive misconception occasioned by many of these
_anticritica_, it needs to be pointed out that terms like "criticism,"
"higher criticism," "critics" are often loosely used: criticism is a
method, its results are many. Again, many of the results or conclusions
of criticism are mutually independent, while others are interrelated and
depend for their validity on the validity of others. For example, among
the generally or largely accepted critical conclusions are these: (1)
Moses is not the author of the whole Pentateuch; (2) Isaiah is not the
author of Is. xl.-lxvi.; (3) the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd
century B.C.; (4) the Priestly Code is post-exilic; (5) most of the
Psalms are post-exilic. Now 1, 2, 3 are absolutely independent--if 1
were proved false, 2 and 3 would still stand; and so with 2 and 3; so
also 2 and 3 could be proved false without in any way affecting the
validity of 4. On the other hand, if 1 were disproved, 4 would
immediately fall through, and the strength of 5 would be weakened (as it
would also by the disproof of 2), because the argument for the date of
many Psalms is derived from religious ideas and the significance of
these varies greatly according as the Priestly Code is held to be early
or late. In view of the number of critical conclusions and the mutual
independence of many of them, "higher criticism" can only be overthrown
by proving the application of criticism to the Old Testament to be in
itself unlawful, or else by proving the falseness or inconclusiveness of
all its mutually independent judgments one by one. On examination, the
authors of _anticritica_ are generally found to disown, tacitly or
openly, the first of these alternatives; for example, Prof. Sayce, who
frequently takes the field against the "higher criticism," and denies,
without, however, disproving, the validity of the literary analysis of
the Hexateuch, nevertheless himself asserts that "no one can study the
Pentateuch ... without perceiving that it is a compilation, and that its
author, or authors, has made use of a large variety of older materials,"
and that "it has probably received its final shape at the hands of Ezra"
(_Early History of the Hebrews_, 129 and 134). This is significant
enough; Prof. Sayce, the most brilliant and distinguished of the
"anti-critics," does not really reoccupy the position of the "able and
pious men" of the mid-19th century, to whom "even to speak of any
portion of the Bible as a history" was "an outrage upon religion"
(Stanley, _Jewish Church_, Preface); these may still have pious, but
they have no longer scholarly successors. Prof. Sayce travels farther
back, it is true, but on critical lines: he abandons the Pentateuchal
criticism of the 20th century, to reoccupy the critical position of
Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon in the 17th century--whether reasonably or not
must here be left an open question.
Archeology and Criticism.
Briefly, in conclusion, it remains to consider the relation of
Archaeology to Criticism, partly because it is frequently asserted in
the loose language just discussed that Archaeology has overthrown
Criticism, or in particular the "higher criticism," and partly because
Archaeology has stimulated and forced to the front certain important
critical questions.
More especially since the middle of the 19th century the decipherment of
Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions and systematic excavation in
Palestine and other parts of the East have supplied a multitude of new
facts bearing more or less directly on the Old Testament. What has been
the general effect of these new facts on traditional theories or
critical conclusions?
(1) _Literary Criticism._--No discovery has yielded any direct testimony
as to the authorship of any book of the Bible, or as to the mode or date
of its composition. Any documentary analysis of the Pentateuch may be
right or wrong; but archaeology contributes nothing either one way or
another as to the answer. On the other hand, archaeology has in some
cases greatly strengthened the critical judgment that certain writings
(e.g. _Daniel_, the story of Joseph in _Genesis_) are not contemporary
with the events described.
(2) _Historical Criticism._--Here the gain has been more direct; e.g.
the Assyrian inscriptions have furnished independent evidence of the
relations of certain Hebrew kings (Ahab, Jehu, Ahaz) with the Assyrians,
and thus supported more or less completely the evidence of the Old
Testament on these points: they have also served to clear up in part the
confused chronology of the Hebrews as given in the books of _Kings_. But
above all archaeology has immensely increased our knowledge of the
nations among which Israel was placed, and of the political powers which
from time to time held Palestine in subjection. In this way archaeology
has greatly helped to bring the history of Israel into relation with the
history of the ancient East, and in so doing has raised important
questions as to the origin of Hebrew culture. For example, the recent
discovery of the Code of Khammurabi, which contains some remarkable
resemblances to the Pentateuchal codes, raises the question of the
relation of Hebrew to Babylonian law. On the other hand, there are
certain great historical questions which have been greatly affected by
criticism, but on which archaeology has hitherto shed no light. For
example, much as archaeology has increased our knowledge of the
conditions obtaining in Palestine before the Hebrew invasion, it has so
far contributed nothing to our knowledge of the Hebrew nation before
that time beyond the statement in the now famous stele of Merenptah
(Mineptah) (c. 1270 B.C.), discovered in 1896, "Ysirael is desolated,
its seed is not," and a few possible but vague and uncertain allusions
to particular tribes. It has contributed nothing whatsoever to our
knowledge of any Hebrew individual of this period,[25] and consequently
what elements of history underlie the stories in Genesis, in so far as
they relate to the Hebrew patriarchs, must still be determined, if at
all, by a critical study of the Old Testament. The story in Gen. xiv. is
no exception to this statement: archaeology has made probable the
historic reality of Chedorlaomer, which some critics had previously
divined; it has not proved the historical reality of the patriarch
Abraham or the part played by him in the story, which some critics,
whether rightly or wrongly, had questioned. The Dutch scholar Kosters
called in question the return of the Jews in the days of Cyrus; his
view, adopted by many, has hardly obtained, as yet at all events, the
weight of critical judgment: here again, unfortunately, archaeology at
present is silent.
(3) _Criticism of Religion._--Here, perhaps, archaeology has contributed
most new material, with the result that religious terms, ideas,
institutions, once supposed to be peculiar to Israel, are now seen to be
common to them and other nations; in some cases, moreover, priority
clearly does not lie with the Hebrews, as, for example, in the case of
the materials (as distinct from the spirit in which they are worked up)
of the stories of Creation and the Flood. Of late, too, it has been much
argued, and often somewhat confidently maintained, that Hebrew
monotheism is derivative from Babylonian monotheism.
This and similar questions, leading up to the ultimate and supreme
question--Wherein does lie the uniqueness of Israel's religion?--are
among those which will require in the future renewed examination in the
light of a critical study alike of the Old Testament and of all the
relevant material furnished by archaeology. Archaeology has not yet
found the key to every unopened door; but it has already done enough to
justify the surmise that if criticism had not already disintegrated the
traditional theories of the Old Testament, archaeology in the latter
half of the 19th century would itself have initiated the process.
LITERATURE.--Much of the details and results of criticism and the
special literature will be found in the articles in the present work
on the several books of the Old Testament. To the works already
mentioned we may add L. Diestel, _Geschichte des Alten Testaments in
der Christlichen Kirche_ (1869); C.A. Briggs, _General Introduction to
the Study of Holy Scripture_ (1889); G.A. Smith, _Modern Criticism and
the Preaching of the Old Testament_ (1901)--these for the history of
Criticism (or more generally of Old Testament study); T.K. Cheyne,
_Founders of Old Testament Criticism_ (pp. 1-247, biographical
sketches of critical scholars since the middle of the 18th century;
pp. 248-372, criticism of Driver's _Introduction_). As already
indicated, the exposition of Literary Criticism in English is Driver's
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_. For the general
principles of Historical Criticism see Ch. V. Langlois and Ch.
Seignobos, _Introduction to the Study of History_ (Eng. trans., 1898),
with which it is interesting to compare De Wette's brief discussion
referred to in the article. (G. B. G.*)