Upload
trankhue
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Co n t en t s
CHAPTER I
THE CASE IN CO! RT,
CHAPTER II
THE APPEAL To THE MASTER ,
CHAPTER III
DID MOSESWRITE THE PENTATE! CH , 40
CHAPTER IV
MOSES AND THE BOOKS ,
CHAPTER V
RECONCILIATION,
Preface
A glance at these few pages willshow that no attempt has been made to
solve any philological, geogr aphical,
posed inaccuracies, discrepancies , or
critics have been touched. I did not
desvgn to do so. Holding all these
mattersfor the time being in abeyance,
have sought the answer to one ques
tion only, and that was, not what the
Old Testament boohs said as to their
authorship, not what the apostles and
evangelists said, not what the voices ofthe ages have said, but What did Christ
Say ? All other questions , except the
authorship of the Pentateuch , remain asthey are. But the settlement of this
to approach difiiculties with lessfear .
The final chapter is added for the
simple purpose of showing that the con
clusions reached are not inimical to the
noble results ofmodern scholarship.
GEROME .
Christ and the Critics
m 1
The Case in Court
IN the National Gallery ofFine Arts in Berlin there hangs,or did hang
,a famous picture by
Kaulbach,representing a battle
of the Huns before the gates ofRome. What is remarkable inthe painting
,aside from its draw
ing and color, is the bold conception of the artist in depicting thesouls of the combatants as rising
,
quick with wrath, from the mingled heaps of the slain, and continning the awful conflict in theair.Some such scene floats beforethe mind when one contemplatesthe battle that is now being foughtaround the sacred Scriptures.
8 Christ and the Critics
The combatants die in the strug
gle , but in their writings, whichlive after them, they still urge onthe w arring hosts, and still strivefor the triumph oftheir views.The question before the courtof Christian belief is : Were thebooks of the Bible originallywritten by those to whom theyare credited? This is the issuethat divides now the Christianscholarship Of the world. Thecase is a diflicult one , and is contested with energy by Opposingcounsel . An imposing array OfBiblical scholars
,both in Europe
and America,eminent as special
ists in their several lines Of t esearch
, affi rm that these bookswere not written by those whosenames they bear. Moses did notwrite the Pentateuch, nor anybook in it . Joshua was not written at, nor near the time Of the
events which it narrates, but long
9
after—some 800 or 700 years before the time OfChrist. Not allof Isaiah
,but only afew chapters ,
were composed by that prophet.All Of that book bearing his
name,from chapter x1 to chapter
lxvi inclusive , is ofunknown authorship, and was written at theclose of the Exile. The Psalmshave their origin also
,according
to some critics, in a Post-exilicperiod
,even as late as the days
of the Maccabees. David wrotea few Of them, but other poetswrote the most important ones.Thus every book almost of theOld Testament is asserted to bethe work, not of the writer whohas been believed both by Jewand Christian to have been theauthor
,but of some unknown
editors who for pious purposesgathered up various narratives
,
prophecies,and historical frag
ments, and dovetailed them with
IO Christ and the Crifics
more or less skill a nd accuracyinto a connected whole ; thusmaking th e Old Testament as wenow have it.This seems to be a very boldtreatment of our historic faith
,
and to those unacquainted withthe evidence in the case it mayseem to be a very weak and fu
tile attempt Ofrationalism to undermine the authority Of theHolyScriptures. But the conclusionsabove stated are based upon theprinciples of Higher Criticism.
Higher Criticism is a literary science . As applied to the Bible itsobject is the verification ofall thedata
,philological
,historical
, or
other,relating to the origin , gen
uineness,and authenticity of the
Scriptural books . The methodsof this science are various . The
principal ones,or those chiefly
employed to determine th e date,authorship
,theology
,or unity of
The Case in Court II
a document,are three : The Lit
crary, the Historical, and theTheological
,with their several
divisions.THE LITERAR! METHOD .
Every document discloses certainliterary characteristics of its anthor. These earmarks includethe use of synonyms, figures Ofspeech
,fondness for idioms
, pe
culiar words,tone
,color
,every
thing that constitutes style, andenriches or impoverishes its quality. N0 two writers, perhaps,have equal power over language
,
either in the arrangement,or in
the precision,or in the number
of the words employed. And,
again,a close study of an au
thor will reveal the vocabulary familiar to him, andwhich he con
stantly employs. Canon Driver,in hisIntroduction to theLiteratureof the Old Testament
,gives long
lists of characteristic phrases in
1 2 Christ and tt ritics
Deuteronomywhich are not foundin other portions of the Pentateuch . Dr. Charles A. Briggssupplies another list of wordsused in some parts of a book
,
but which are not found inother parts Of the same book.
Then,further, in the same book
there may be discernible a difference of style. One part is poeticand descriptive ; another is analytical, showing the predomi
nance ofthe logical faculty ; whileanother part is rhetorical, or carefully avoids any suggestion ofcolor or imagery
,being Severely
chaste and prosaically solid.
These peculiarities oflanguageand variations of style , analyzedand grouped according to established principles of literary criticism ,
lead to the conclusion thatwhen these different characteristics are seen in a document,that document is not the product
The Case in COtn't 1 3
of one writer. More than one
has left the impress ofhis geniuson that particular work.
THE HISTORICAL METHOD .
As writings reveal the literaryability and characteristics of anauthor
, so also do they reflectthe history of the times inwhichthey were written . NO writeron themes intended to influencehuman conduct can be whollyimpervious to the play of thepolitical
,social
,or religious forces
of his own day. Some trace of
their movement, some effect oftheir influence on the writerhimself
,will crop out some
where in his work. Literatureis the mirror Of history. Workscontaining references to the telegraph
,the phonograph
,or the
telephone, could not by any possibility be accredited to th e age ofAugustus or to th e days Of Shakespeare and Elizabeth . For in:
14 Chr‘
mt and the Critics
stance, in Genesis xxxvi, 3 1 , we
read these strange words,
“And
these are the kings that reignedin the land of Edom before therereigned any hing over the chil
dren of Israel.” This last state
ment forces one , it would seem ,
to the conclusion that that portion of Genesis could not havebeen written at the date usuallyassigned to the Book ofGenesis
,
butmusthave been composedafterthe monarchy had been institutedin Israel . Again
,in Genesis xiv
,
I4, we read :“And pursued them
untoDan But the name “Dan ,”
we are informed elsewhere
(Judge s xviii , was not given
to this place till long after thetime ofMoses, and therefore, it
is argued, this port ion of Gene
sis is the product Ofa later handthan the hand ofMoses . Thusit is seen writings ofimportance ,especially if the writers w ere in
The Case in Court I5
volved in the movements of theirtime
,and were in any degree
impressed by changing eventsand the operation of complexforces about them
,may readily
be assigned by the methods ofhistorical criticism to their re
spective periods .THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD.
—Theology is progressive . Thereligious development of a nation follow s the same generallaw of progress observable in theevolution of society, manners,morals
,and government. All
development , as Herbert Spencerhas shown
,is from the homo
geneous to the heteregeneous,from the simple to the complex
,through successive differ
entiations. But in the Pentateuch there is a scheme ofreligion
, a system of theology,an
elaborateness and complexity ofritual
,that could not have been
1 6 Chfist and the Critics
possible until the nation hadpassed through successive stagesofculture and had reached a highdegreee Of development It isutterly unscientific
,because con
trary to experience, to attributeto an elementary stage in national growth
,ideas and condi
tions that belong,and can be
long only,to an advanced period .
By application of this methodto the Pentateuch
,the result is
that Deuteronomy,Leviticus
,and
portions of Genesis must becredited to other times than thoseof Moses . The manner in whichDivine revelation was communicated differs in divers places inthe Pentateuch ; the conceptionof miracles differs
,as does also
the doctrine of the covenants .The doctrine Of the Holy SpiritShows great development between Genesis x, 2 1 , 38 , andExodus xxxi
, 3. The same may
CHAPTER II
The Appeal to the Master
IN opposition to the findingsof radical critics
,the Old belief
still holds the field. Old faithsare not easily dug up : their rootsare many
,widely ramified
,and
deeply imbedded. The traditional view,
modified by scholarsof no mean ability
,is based on
internal and external proofs,and
the methods of the radicals areas honestly employed by the conservatives in reaching conclusionswhich
,notwithstanding the brill
iant array of eminent names inBiblical science opposed to them
,
have not yet been demonstratedto be weak enough to be abandoned. The discoveries in the
mounds of Babylonia and Nine
veh are adding strength to the po1 8
The Appeal to the Master Iq
sitions of the conservatives, andit is believed that the pick and
Spade will yet dig the grave ofmany an ultra-radical theoryBut the conflict continues .
Christian men are disturbedthey scarcely knowwhat to think ;and between the antagonists , ofwhich neither will surrender tothe other
,who shall decide ? Is
there no tribunal,no court of last
resort,no judge or authority, to
whom w e can go,and no matter
how diflicult it may be to reconcile his verdict w ith the resultsof modern scholarship
,still feel
abiding confidence in his judgment ? There is .Conservative critics appeal to
theGreatTeacher, th e Lord Jesus .This is the most natural thing inthe world for Christians to do ;provided the Lord has spoken orcan be appealed to But radicalcritics Object. The moment an
20 Christ and the Critics
appeal is made to Christ,the air
is full of Objections and demurrers of every description . Dr.Charles A. Briggs meets the ap
peal to our Lord in this manner“Why should we interpret Jesus
and his apostles by th e opinions Of
the Jews ofhis time ? W hy should
we suppose that h e Shared with th emall the errors he did not oppose andrefute ? Jesus either knew that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch or not . Ifwe
Should say that Jesus did not knowwhether Moses wrote the Pentateuchor not , we would not go beyond his
own saying that he did not know the
time ofhis own advent. Those who
understand the doctrine ofthe humil
iation ofChrist and the incarnationOfChrist , find no more difficulty in
supposing that Jesus didnot know theauthor ofthe Pentateuch than that hedid not know the day ofh is own ad
vent .
”
( The H igher Criticism of the
Pentateuch , p .
The Appeal to the Master 2 1
Professor Charles Gore alsosays :
When he [our Lord!speaks ofthesun rising,
!he is using ordinary lan
guage . H e Shows no signs at all of
transcending the science Of his age .
The utterances ofChrist aboutthe Old Testament do not seem to be
nearly definite or clear enough to al
low Ofour supposing that in this caseh e is departing from the generalmethod of the incarnation by bringing to bear the unveiled omniscience
of the Godhead to anticipate or foreclose a development ofnatural knowledge .
”
And Canon Driver, in his trulygreat work (Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament ;
Preface,xiv) , says :
“That our Lord appealed to the
Old Testament as th e record of a
revelation in the past , and as pointing forward to himself, is undoubted ;but these aspects of the Old Testa
ment are‘perfectly consistent with a
critical view Of its structure and
22 Christ and the Critics
He accepted, as thebasis ofhis teaching, th e opinions respecting th e Old Testament currentaroundhim . There is no rec
ord of the question whether a partieular portion ofthe Old Testament was
written by Moses , or David, or Isaiah ,
ever having been submitted to him ;
and had it been so submitted,we have
no means ofknowingwhat his answerwould have been .
”
Shall these demurrers of thecritics be allowed ? If so
,there
can be no appeal,and th e case
must be given up . But we donot think there is anything in theunsupported statements of thesecritics necessarily sustaining theircase . Each one of them assumesth e whole question in his statement. Professor Briggs asks
,
Why should we interpret Jesusand his apostles by th e opinionsof the Jew s Of his time ?” as ifany competent person ever didso. Of all weak modes of argu
The Appeal to the Master 23
ment,the weakest is to attribute
to an opponent opinions he doesnot hold. N0 one imagines thatJesus shared in every error of hisday which he did not refute .
Not to refute an error,however
,
but to acquiesce in and aflirm it,
and to make that error one !s ownas the basis ofteaching any truth ,physical or moral, are two verydifferent things, with the widthof a world between them . It isa fact that between the opinionsof his time relative to th e authorship Of the Old Testament andthe expressed views of Jesusthere is full agreement. But
what evidence is there in thatthat these opinions were errone
ous,or that our Lord simply ac
cepted them without knowingthem to be such
,or regarded such
opinions as having no materialrelation to his teaching ?As to the opinion ,
shared alike
24 Christ and the Critics
by Dr. Briggs and Professor Gore,that because of the limitationsinherent in the humiliation ofour Lord in the incarnation hedid not know who wrote the
Pentateuch,this may be said
That such an opinion assumes toknow too much of the characterand extent of those limitations .There are times in the life ofourLord when he seems to have nolimitations except such as hevoluntarily
,consciously main
tains . More than once his omniscience manifests itself, as inthe case of Nathanael
,in his
knowledge ofthe death of Lazarus
,and in his know ledge of a
coin in the mouth of a fish .
Whatever View we may hold Of
the humiliation Of our Lordwhether itabe that of Delitzsch ,Kahnis
,or KOnig ; of Reuss , Go
det,or Hoffman ; or Of any other
student of this awful mystery,
26 Christ and the Critics
context show s that he is on ahigher plane . H e does not say
,
In the Scriptures,”or
“ In th e
books ascribed to Moses,” nor
does he use any term indicatingany book or number Of booksunder a general title which wouldleave the question of authorshipstill undetermined ; but on a special occasion ,
and for a specificpurpose
,h e places
,beyond all am
biguity of language,the author
ship Of a Messianic passage on adistinct personality— ou M oses
,
the lawgiver of Israel I t is difficult to believe that Christ wouldhave said Moses wrote ofhim ifMoses had not written Of him
,
and if he knew that Moses hadnot so written . Christ knewwhether h e was speaking frompersonal know ledge or accordingto th e common belief of histime ; and if he ,w ith his contem
poraries, was mistaken in the au
The Appeal to the Master
thorship of the Pentateuch , bywhat means shall it be provedthat he was not mistaken also inits interpretationBetween the ability to inter
pret the Scriptures and th e knowing who wrote any particularbook there may seem to be nosort ofconnection . One may beable
,it will be said, to explain
correctly what is written withoutbeing able to prove who madethe writing. That is true ; and
it is also true that one may bemistaken in his explanation , sincehe can not affirm that his inter
pretation is infallible , and fromhis error no great injurious re
sult may follow . But it is not sow ith Jesus Christ . His interpretation must be infallible ; otherw ise he would not be th e Truthnor the Way. But the fact thatMoses wrote Scripture is itselfa
question of interpretation ; for it
28 Christ and the Critics
is recorded that Moses wrote certain things—Ex. xxiv, 4 ; Num .
xxiii, 2 ; Dent . xxxi , 9 ; I Kingsviii
, 9 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii, 8 ; Neh .
ix,I4 ; and in numerous other
places—so that when our Lordsays Moses was the author ofanybook
,or ofany law in any book
which by implication would makehim the author of that book, heis not depending for his statement on the opinions ofthe Jewsof his time
,or of airy time. Bach
of his statement is the authority
of H oly Scripture and his own
infallible interpretation of that
Scripture. He knew the truth.
He understood the Scriptures asno one else did or could understand them. This knowledge heimparted to his disciples : “Andbeginning from Moses and fromall the prophets
,he interpreted
to them in all the Scriptures
The Appeal to the Maskr
the things concerning himself.
(Luke xxiv,A very interesting bit Of evidence in proof
,under all the cir
cumstances,that Moses had writ
ten Ofthe Christ,and that Christ
had personal know ledge of thatfact
,is seen in the narrative
,over
looked by our critics , Of the conversation betw een Christ andMoses on the Mount ofTransfiguration. Here Christ is in directpersonal communication withMoses. The Evangelist Lukesays : “And behold there talkedwith him two men
,which were
Moses and Elias,who appeared
in glory, and spake Of his decease
[exodus!,which he should accom
plish at Jerusalem .
” The subjectof the discourse is Christ!s death .
And let it be carefully observedhere that our Lord is not givinginformation toMoses or toElias
30 Christ and the Critics
they already know what is to hap
pen ; but they are talking to him,
and the Subject is his approachingdeath at Jerusalem . They knowChrist
,andthey knowhismissmn .
Christ certainly knows them,and
that all three perfectly understand that there is commonknowledge among them Ofsomething definite and importantabout to take place
,is an irresist
ible impression springing immediately from a reading Of thenarrative.Try as we may to get awayfrom this conviction
,we can no
more shake it Off than one canescape from his shadow ; for themoment we read the narrative
,
we intuitively apprehend that itmust be so .
Now ,Christ had declared to
the Jews that Moses had writtenconcerning him “For had ye
believed Moses,ye would have
The Appeal to the Master 3 1
believedme ; for he wrote of me.But if ye believe not his writings,how shall ye believe my words ?”
(John V , 46, But where hadMoses written concerning Christif not in the Pentateuch , in Genesis
,and in Deuteronomy, which
last Canon Driver puts long afterthe age Of Moses? In Genesisit is written : Iwill put enmitybetween thee and the woman
,and
between thy seed and her seed :it shall bruise thy head
,and thou
shalt bruise his heel .” All Biblical scholars of high repute recognize this passage as truly Mes
sianic—Delitzsch , Orelli, Lange ,Oehler
,to mention no more . Is
there no connection,then
, be
tween this writing attributed toMoses and th e conversation between Moses and Christ concerning his death ? We can not saythe same with reference to Elias
,
who was also present and took
32 Christ and the Critics
part in the conference ; for thecircumstances are not the same .
Elias wrote nothing, and our
Lord never referred to him asauthority in his teaching. But,given the subject of the conversation with Moses , the death OfChrist ; given the fact that Christsaid that Moses wrote of him ;
and given also the fact that inGenesis
,which was attributed to
Moses,the suffering Of the Com
ingOne is predicted,— does it notlook very much as if Moses reallydid write the Book ofGenesis
,
and, which is th e point now ,that
Christ hnew that he had writ
ten it ?
Professor Gore Objects becauseit would be an “ unveiling of Om
niscience .
” Well,suppose it was
,
what Of that ? But is it any
more an unveiling Of Omnis
cience for Christ to know thatMoses wrote the Pentateuch
,
34 Christ and the Critics
perception, that that Scripturereferred to him personally
,could
he not have had the same infallible perception, with or without“unveiling Of Omniscience
,
” thatwhen the Scriptures said expressly that Moses wrote theBook of the Law or any otherwriting
,Moses really did write
what was attributed to him,and
not some one else who was notMoses ? If Christ could haveknown
,outside ofany expressed
record in Scripture,what Abra
ham felt hundreds Of years before Moses was born
,could he
not as easily have known whetheror not Moses wrote the Pentatench ?
The statement ofCanon Driver,
which we may now consider,is
also insufficient,we think, to sus
tain the demurrer to our appealto the Master. It is ofno greaterstrength
,when analyzed
,than
The Appeal to the Master 35
the Objections Of Professor Briggsor ofCanon Gore , and the opinion Ofthis eminent critic must beconsidered in the light Of all thestatements and teachings Of th eMaster. For example , our Lordbased his claims to being th e
Messiah on the authority Of God!sScriptures . Not wholly and ah
solutely so , it is true ; but h erested his claims on these enoughto justify the statement. Fromthe judgments ofhis critics concerning his claims he appealedto th e Scriptures ; for said he ,“They testify ofme .
” Prophe
cies relating to the Messiah datedback
,it was firmly believed by
the whole nation,to the very
dawn Of Israel!s beginning, and
even back to the morning Of
time . Christ himself believedthat ; he most certainly tracedMessianic predictions as far backas the remote age ofAbraham ;
36 Christ and the Cr-ities
for referring to the promise ofJehovah to Abraham
,recorded
in Genesis,the Book of the Be
ginnings, he said,“Abraham re
joiced to see my day, and wasglad .
But if modern expounders anddefenders Of radical Higher CritICISm are correct in their conclusions
,this beliefwasabaseless be
lief. Moreover, this hope oftheearliest ages in a Messiah of thefuture must be abandoned—theyhad no such millennium dreams ;for none of the books in whichthis prophecy of a Messiah is recorded were written at the timeor near the time
,nor by the di
vinely commissioned personsthey were believed to have beenwritten by
,but in other ages long
after,under other social and re
ligious conditions, and by au
thors unknown—unknown in theScriptures themselves, and un
The Appeal to the Master 37
known to the nation to whomthe Scriptures came. Are weprepared to admit that Christbuilt his Messianic claims on afalse foundation, on a baselesslegend ?Our Lord teaches
,beyond any
chance for mistaken exegesis,
that the Messiah was predictedin the Books ofMoses. But thecritics insist that the Books Of
'
Moses were not in existence inthe days Of Moses
,that they are
the product of a later stage ofnational development. Are wethen to believe that Christ wasmistaken ?Canon Driver can hardly ex
pect Christian men to acceptthat conclusion ; and yet, no matter how much h e might strive
,by
modifying phrases and verballimitations
,to soften its startling
harshness , it is the only logicalconclusion permissible . When
38 Christ ancl the Critics
we are informed on the authority of Oxford scholarship thatour Lord “ accepted as the basisOfhis teaching the opinions respecting the Old Testament current around him -we requiresome proof for the statement
,if
by it is meant that our Lord himself had any other opinion .
Jesus was a teacher. True, hedid not come to teach science
,
archaeology, or literary criticism ;but he was , nevertheless , a trueteacher ; he did not teach truthon a false basis. He did believeand teach the antiquity of theMosaic books
,and if his opin
ions coincided with the opinions“ current around him,
” this militates not against those opinions
,
but against the assumptions of
Canon Driver. In View then of allthe facts in the case , briefly stated,we see no reason why we maynot appeal to the Master for a
The Appeal to the Master 39
solution of the question betweenthe opposing schools Of Biblicalcriticism . To the words of theMaster we have appealed
, we
think we are justified in doing so,
and to the Master we now go .
CHAPTER III
Did Moses W rite the Penta
tench ?
To THE Master we have ap
pealed,and to him we have come.
Our appeal is not as to the Divinecharacter of the sacred books.That question is settled for us bythe Lord Jesus in theNew Testament : For the Booh of Genesis,
by Matt. x, 4—8 ; xxiv, 37—39 ;
Mark x, 4—9 ; Luke xi , 40—5 1 ;
John viii, 44. For the Booh of
E xodus,by Matt. iv, 7 , 1 2 ; xii,
3—5 ; xxii , 3 1 , 32 ; Mark vii,
x,1 9 ; John vi , 3 1—49 . For the
BookofLeviticus , by Mark i, 44 ;John vi
, 3 1—49 ; xxii, 23. For
Numbers , by John iii, 1 4 ; vi,
3 1—49 . For D euteronomy , by
Matt . iv, 4, 7 , 1 0 ; Mark x, 4-9 .
And for all the Old Testament
4°
42 Christ and the Critics
known,who introduces him in
the third person . It was written,
he thinks,prior to the eighteenth
year Of King Josiah,B . C . 62 1 .
The Mosaic authorship Of Genesis can not , he says, be sustained .
Driver agrees in the main withProfessor Briggs
,Cheyne
,Robert
son Smith , C. H . Toy, and theadvocates of what is knownamong the critics as the GrafianSchool. The View distinguishingthis school from other schools ofBiblical criticism is : (I) The FiveBooks Of Moses and the Book of
Joshua constitute one work,the
Hexateuch . (2) This entire workoriginated thus : An unknownwriter
,named J , because of his
use of the word Jehovah,com
posed a history of the Israelitesabout the year 800 B . C. He hadsome material, derived from anearlier day
,which formed the
basis ofhis work. (3) Some fifty
DidMoses Write the Pentateach ? 43
years later—B. C . 750—another
historian ,designated E ,
from hisuse of the word Elohim ,
wrote asimilar book. At th e end of theseventh century before Christ
,
these two books, J'
and E, weremade over
,by an unknown cd
itor, into one book. (4) Later,another writer, named D,
wrote ,about the time ofKing Josiah62 1 B . C.
— the Book of Deuteronomy. Some one added a preface to this book, and after a timeanother editor joined it to theprevious books J E . (5) Duringthe days of the Prophet Ezekiel,the Ritual Law was written
,and
appeared in three forms . Ezrareduced these laws
,about 444
B . C ., to one code ; and
,by an
other editor,the codified laws
were united with the books
J E D, somewhere between thatdate and 280 B . C .
Such was the origin of the
44 Christ and the Critics
Five Books Of Moses and theBook of Joshua
,now named the
Hexateuch . Evidently,Moses
had very lit tle to do with the
composition of the Pentateuch .
But what does Christ say? In
the Gospel according to John,chapter v, there are recordedsome very clear words Of ourLord bearing on this subject. In
his controversy with the leadersofhis day, he said :
DO not think that Iwill accuse you
to the Father ; there is one that accuseth
For had ye believed Moses, ye would
have believed me : for he wrote ofme.
But ifye believe not his writings, how
shallye believemy words ?
How is it possible to reconcilethese words with the statementsof the critics ? Moses will ac
cuse ; but on what ground willMoses accuse ? He wrote but afragment here and there Of theLaw
,and that Law was their na
Did Moses Write the Pentateuch ? 45
tional life , which they strove tomaintain . We can not say thatChrist meant by “Moses” thebooks of Moses. The record willnot allow that. It is a passageof contrasts— a contrast of persons andof “words ” over against“writings .
” The leaders trustedin an individual
,in a person
,
Moses. But theywere deceivingthemselves. In reality theywereOpposed to Moses. Antagonismto Christ was antagonism to MOses ; for he wrote of Christ as theOne who should come like him.
They were, in opposing Christ,Opposing the person
,not a figur
ative personality, but the individual
, Moses. How could that be,if Moses was not
,in a real mate
rial sense,the author Ofwritings
concerning the Christ? Whereindid they Oppose him
,and on what
ground could he accuse them?-Our Lord says Moses wrote of
46 Christ and the critics
him. We must findChrist,then
,
in the books attributed to Moses .But where
,in those fragments
which some critics ascribe to MO
ses, do we find anything pertaining to Christ? Professor Briggsconcedes that Exodus xx
, 22—26,
was written by Moses ; but Christis not there . Exodus xxi—xxiiiis also assigned to Moses ; butChrist is not there . Moses wrotetheTen Commandments ; but nocoming Christ is there. Where
,
then, in the writings ascribed toMoses by the critics, shall we findthe Christ? Truly
,one might
exclaim,
“They have taken awaymy Lord
,and I know not where
they have laid him !” The Codeof Laws—Dent . xii—xxvi—is conceded to be the authorship Of
Moses ; but in all these chaptersthere is only one verse wh ich iscapable of being interpreted as
referring to the Lord Jesus : The
Did Moses Write the Pentateuch ? 47
Lord thy God will raise up untothee a prophet from th e midst ofthee
,of thy brethren ,
like untome : unto him ye shall hearken .
”
(Deut. xviii, 1 5. See the 1 8 th
verse .)Out Of all the writings
,then
,
which the critics allow Moses,we find only one solitary verse
relating to Christ,and that one
verse,with its repetition
,is in a
book which Driver and othersassign to the period of the monarchy !Now is it reasonable to sup
pose that when our Lord said,
Had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me : for hewrote ofme . But if ye believenot his writings
, how Shall yebelieve my words ?” that by thewritings ” he meant one verse ?But this solitary passage is allthat is written concerning th e
Messiah anywhere in those Scrip
. 48 Christ and the Critics
tures which the critics aflirm
were all the Scriptures that Mosesactually wrote .
In the light,then
,of the Mas
ter!s own words , what is the natural conclusion? This : Thecritics are mistaken In the nature Of the case
,Moses must
have written more than the criticsallow him. Christ says Moseswrote of —concerning— him .
Christ is not in what the criticssayMoses wrote ; therefore Christwas mistaken
,or else Moses wrote
more than the critics grant. Thequestion, then, as we see it, narrows itself to this : Which is mistaken
,Christ or the critics ?
The conclusion to which wehave come may be at war withall the results of Biblical oriticism ; it may be distasteful tothose critics who have bestowedgreat labor, guided by learnedskill
, in constructing their the
50 Christ and the Critics
such as that the hopeless character Of these men whom Jesusaddressed was just as real if MO
ses was not the author Of th ePentateuch ; for they professedto follow what they did not follow. But such a reply evadesthe real force of the contrast inChrist!s question “ his writ
ings ,” my words .
” Christ doesnot put his person as the MessiahofGod against , or alongside of,a fiction.
CHAPTER IV
Moses and the Books
IN a previous chapter we dealtw ith the question of the Mosaicauthorship of th e Pentateuch ina general way. We now desireto go a step farther
,and to make
a few inquiries relating to a fewbooks Of the Pentateuch . Somequestions will be asked that cannot be ignored or answered (in ageneral way) with a sort of blanket reply. The first of thesebooks isGenesis . Did Jesus teach
anything which fairly impliesthat Moses knew the Book Of
‘
Genesis? In Mark!s Gospel,
chapter x, 2- 6,we read
And the Pharisees came to him and
asked him, Is it lawfu1 for aman to put
away his w ife ? temptinghim. Andhe
52 Christ and the Critics
Moses command you? Andthey said,Moses sufferedto write a billofdivorce
ment, and to put her away. AndJesusansw ered and saidunto them, For the
hardnes ofyour hoa rt hewrote you this
precept. But from the beginningofthe
creation God made them male andfe
male. For this same caase shallaman
Ieave his father and his mother, and
Without dwelling on the interesting fact that in the verses citedour Lord quotes passages fromthe first and second chapters ofGenesis
,which chapters critics
afi rm belong to two different documents written at wide intervalsof time from each other
,as if they
were of only one document,we
may notice the statement thatMoses For the hardness ofyourheart wrote you this precept.
”
What does this statement,
without any forcing of texts,
fairly imply ? It implies,we
think, fi rst, that Moses did write
the statute on divorce in the
Moses and the Books 53
Deuteronomic Code ; and second,
which is the point here , thatwhen he wrote it, he knew thatanother law
,ancient law
,was in
existence which was not in harmony with his “precept.”
For making his precept a lawin Israel
,notwithstanding its op
position to a law as ancient asthe creation ofman, Moses hada valid reason
,the “ hardness ”
‘
of
the people!s heart for whom hewas legislating. Now Observe
,in
Matthewwe read : “Moses sufi eredyou to put away your wives .”
There were hesitancy, questionsof expediency, restraint of somecharacter or other from somesource ; and the inference is , If itwere not for “
the hardness ofyour heart,
” Moses would nothave “
sufi ered”that precept to
become a law in Israel. Whynot? Because “ it was not so atthe beginning
,
” and Moses knew
54 Christ and the Critics
it was out Of harmony with theDivine idea. But if the Book ofGenesis was not in existence
,if
Moses did not know anything ofit,how did he know that the new
precept was not in accordancew ith the original relation ofman
and w ife ? The statement thatMoses “ sufered
”the indulgence
of divorce indicates that he didhave personal knowledge Of theDivine idea in Genesis concerning the relation binding on manandwife . Otherw ise , how couldhe “
safer on account ofhearthardness a departure from alaw or custom of the existenceofwhich he was ignorant ? TheBook of Genesis, then, was inexistence in the days of Moses ;for if not
,there was no reason for
his protesting permission . Hedoes not “ sufi
'
er” other laws—he
enacts them ; for they are not in
Violation Of any other law writ
Moses and the Books 55
ten or unwritten. But this oneis ; hence the statement of ourLord. It can not be denied that
,
in the history ofman!s creationas recorded in Genesis
,Moses
recognized th e Divine will relating to marriage ; and that onlythe “hardness ” Of the people induced him to “
sufi er” divorce
under special limitation.
The Book ofGenesis was notonly in existence in the days ofMoses, but if that be grantedandwe see no way to concludeotherwise—we are led to inferthat he was the author Ofit, or
the compiler ofits narratives ; forhe only stands out in that remoteage as the religious leader
,law
giver, and father ofhis nation.
What the Pyramids Of Egyptwere to other structures, he wasto all men then living.
Exodus .—What evidence is
there that Moses wrote the Book
56 Christ and the Critiss
of Exodus? It may be neces
sary in this case to remind thereader that the five books ofMO
ses, or the Pentateuch, are calledin the Hebrew Canon
, or acceptedlist ofsacred books having Divineauthority,
“The Booh of the
Law,
”or simply “ The Law .
”
We read ofTheBooh ofthe Law ,
Deut. xxxi, 26 ; see also Joshuai,8 ; viii, 34 ; 2 Kings xxii, 8 ,
II ; 2 Chron. xxxiv,1 5 ; Neh .
viii, 1 ; ix, 3 . Sometimes theyare designated The Booh ofMoses
,
” as in 2 Chron . xxv, 4 ;
xxxv, 1 2 ; see also Ezra vi, 1 8 ;
Neh . xiii, I.
By these titles the Pentateuch
was known to the ancient He
brews ; and down to the time ofChrist ,andsince , among the Jews,the Book of Moses was understood to stand for and include thefive books of Moses, which by us
58 Christ and the Crities
having a wife,”e tc. The law Of
Moses which they quoted is written in Deuteronomyxxv
, 5 . Letus
observe,the Divine Teacher
,rec
ognizing the fact that these Sadducees accepted the inspirationof the Pentateuch only
,does not
go outside the Pentateuch . Sincethey quoted Moses to overthrowthe doctrine of the resurrection
,
he would also quote Moses to establish what they would destroy.
Now the critics concede thatMoses wrote the Code in Deuteronomy in which the above lawis found. But if Moses was notthe Iauthor of the Book OfExodus
,how could our Lord have
quoted Moses out ofExodus todefend Moses in Deuteronomy?Moses
, say the c ities, was notth e author ofExodus, and wasth erefore not responsible for itsteachings ; but he was the authorofthe Deuteronomic Code, and
Moses and the Books 59
so here is Christ putting a fictitious author to defend a real author. Moses did not teach whatwas attributed to him by ourLord ; but Jesus drew his own
conclusions from what some unknown author said about Moses,and the Sadducean problem wastherefore not fairly answered .
Are we ready for s uch conclusions? How can we avoid th em ?There is only one logical way toavoid them ,
and that is by believing that Moses did actuallywrite the Book ofExodus
,as is
evident from the fact that Christascribed the authorship of Exodus to th e sameperson to whomhe and the Sadducees
,and also
modern critics,ascribed the au
thorship of th e DeuteronomicCode .
We are aware,of course
,that
the critics accept th e fact thatChrist accepted the views of the
60 Christ and the Critics
Old Testament “ current abouthim but are they willing to accept the consequencesofthatstatement? The Sadducees quotedan indisputable author as authority for a certain law
,from which
law they drew arguments tending to establish their belief.Christ wishes to show them theirerror
,and to do this he quotes a
book which they accepted as inspired
,written by the same au
thor they quoted. But the bookhe quoted was not written bythat same author. Does not radical criticism
,then
,Show that in
reality the Sadducees had thebetter of the argument ; that itwas only their ignorance of thefact that Moses was not the au
thor of Exodus that preventedthem from replying,
“ ! our an
swer is not valid, for Moses didnot write that book, and you cannot quote the authority ofMoses,
Moses and the Books 6 1
in whom we believe, for a doctrine which he nowhere taught?”
Are the critics willing to acceptthe consequences Of their conclusions ?
That our Lord believed in theMosaic authorship ofExodus isfurther seen in Luke!s account ofthis same circumstance :
Now that the dead are raised, even
Moses shew edat the bush,when he call
eth tbe Lord the God ofAbraham, a.nd
the God ofIsaag and the GodofJacob.
(Luke xx,
When we turn to the originalaccount in Ex . iii
,6,w e read
that these appellations w ereSpoken by God himself ofhimself, and not by Moses . But our
Lord attributes these names toMoses on th e ground that he re
corded them ; that h e was the
historian Ofth e events written inthe Book of Exodus . Th e onlyreply that a thoroughgoing critic
62 Christ and the Critics
can make to this is a t e-statementof the limitations of our Lord!sknow ledge, which is only sayingthat Christ was mistaken.
Leviticus .-Who wrote the
Book of Leviticus ? This question is in our appeal to the Master, and his statement for us, atleast
,has the value of finality .
In Matt. viii, there is the recordof Christ healing a leper :
AndJasus saith unto him, See thou
tellno man ; but go thy way, shew thy
selfto the priesh andoffer the gift that
The Law ofthe Leper is foundinLeviticus xiv
,andthe gifts to be
offered are mentioned in versesIO, 2 1 , 22. This law, Christsaid
, was commanded by Moses ;that is
,Moses wrote the law.
Over against all theories ofritualdevelopment in national historyinsisted upon by radical critics,
Moses and the Books 63
there stands this expressed statement of our Lord. When weturn to Leviticus at the Law of
the Leper w e find this : “AndfileLord spake unto Moses sayzhg,
Tlzz'
y skull be lite Law of tbe
Leper in the day of [22'
s cleans
ing.
” Not to unknown authorswas this law given
, but to a wellknown
,definite personage—to
Moses . The lawgiver,then
,ac
cording to the law-chapter itself,
was th e author,not necessarily
the one actually holding the pen ,but the author
,no matter how
many scribes he employed to dothemechanical work ofthe BookofLeviticus . These laws couldnothave originated in later agesw ithout the enactors and scribesofthese law s being guilty ofan
historical falsehood. That it was apractice in ancient times to ascribecertain writings to eminent characters in order that they might
64 Christ and the Critics
have the authority and influencewhich such characters could givethem is not applicable here
, un
less it can be shown ,as it has
not been,that such was th e prac
tice among th e Hebrews in floating their sacred books. To saythat Jehovah Spoke to Moses thecontents of a book when thatbook originated
,as th e author
would know it did,ages after the
death of Moses, is a crime of
which no Hebrew could be guilty.
Jehovah was too real a God for aHebrew to do that.Further, if we accept the the
ory of historical falsehood we
must also believe that that falsehood andmany others like it wereall continued under the protectionof Divine Providence down tothe time of Christ
,when they
deceived km,and on to our day.
Now,it is much more rational to
believe that there is no historical
66 Chrbt and tt x-ities
garded by th e Lord as ofMosaicorigin ; for it was included amongthe books which were alwaysknown as the Book of the Law ,
the Book ofMoses .Deuteronomy
—That our Lordtaught this book to be the workofMoses
,and not ofsome scribe
of after ages,is evident from a
study of many passages,a few
of which we notice—Matt. xix,
7 : 8 ; JOhn Vii) I9 , 24 ; Viii! 5a 7 :
They say unto him, Why didMoses
then command to give awriting ofdi
vorcemcnt ? etc.
This text would lead us prettymuch over the same ground wehave already traversed in our
notes on Genesis . We may t e
mark,however
,that this text
shows a desire on the part ofthePharisees to confound our Lordby setting Moses against Moses .
They think they see a contradiction between Genesis i, 27 ; v, 2,
Mm mame sooks 67
which our Lord quoted, and Deuteronomy xxiv, I. Had Mosesnot written Deuteronomy
,the
seeming riddle of the Phariseescould be shown to be no riddle atall
,and the statement of the emi
nent critic, Canon Driver, of Oford
,that there is no record of
the question whether a particularportion ofthe Old Testament waswritten by Moses
,or Daniel
,or
Isaiah,having been ever submit
ted to him ,
” could not have beenso easily answered.
Christ,in reply to his interloc
utors,quotes a passage from the
Book ofGenesis,which they ac
ceptedas being from Moses. Im
mediately they respond,Why
did Moses then command to giveawriting ofdivorcement ?” OurLord, say the conclusions of thecritics
,could have replied : “Mo
ses was not the author ofDeuteronomy. It belongs to the age of
68 Christ and the Critics
King Josiah, and is not to bequoted against the primal law ofGod .
” But instead ofrepudiat
ing th e Mosaic authorship of
Deuteronomy, our Lord expresslyconfirms it ; and not only so , butin addition he gives the reason
why Moses wrote the Law ofDivorce : “Moses
,because of the
hardness ofyour hear ts , sufferedyou to put away your wives ; butfrom the beginning it was not so.
”
The contention ofDr. Briggsand of Professor Gore that because of the limitations of our
Lord!s humanity h e did not knowwho wrote Deuteronomy
,and of
Canon Driver that our Lord simply accepted the Opinions current about him
,
” seems, in th e
presence of this text,very much
like a futile threshing of the atmosphere . Why Moses gave thatlaw was never known until Christrevealed it, and it certainly was
Moses and the Books 69
not possible for any one to havediscovered it with any assuranceof certainty. But if Christ knewwhat no mortal man did know
why that law was given
did he not know whether or noMoses was the author ofthat law?If our Lord did not know, and
could not have known , who theauthor was , how could he haveknown the reason for the law?Take another passage , Johnvii
,1 9
Did not Moses give you the law , and
yet none ofyou keepeth the law ?
In Deuteronomy xxxiii, 4, we
find the people saying the same,“Moses commanded us a law.
”
Christ declares that Moses gavethe law,which of course includesall the laws inDeuteronomy. One
of these laws was against murder.Our Lord says : “None of youkeepeth the law. Why go ye
about to kill me?” This law,
70 Christ and the Critics
the whole Book of the Law,has
for its author Moses ; and thedepth of moral turpitude seen inthe desires of Christ!s enemieslies in their double condemna
tion,that
,in addition to inten
tional murder,they were hypo
critical professors of obedienceto the laws ofMoses . But badas these men were
,if Moses was
not the author of these laws,
could they be justly condemnedfor not keeping the laws of
Bloses ?
Again,in John viii
, 5 , we read,in the case of the woman whofound a defender in her Judge :
Now Moses in the law commanded
us that such shouldbe stoned: but what
The law is recorded inLeviticusxx
, 20 , and in Deuteronomy xxii ,22. Our blessed Lord does notquestion the authority ofthe law ;
Moses and the Books 7 1
for he know s its Divine origin .
H e does not invalidate th e Bookof Deuteronomy by denying itsMosaic authorship
,and as there
fore without authority unless indorsed in this particular by Roman civil law
,with which an
execution by the public wouldbe in conflict ; for the power ofcapital punishment had beentaken away from the Jewishleaders. On the contrary, sincehis interlocutors had quoted tohim the law
,he also
,seemingly
on the principle that he whocomes into court
,human or Di
vine , must come with cleanhands
,would quote from the
Book ofthe Law . But ofall thebooks in the Bible
,he refers to
the very book in which their legalprecept is recorded
,the Book of
Deuteronomy : “The hands of
the witnesses shall be first upon
72 Christ and the Critics
him to put him to death,and
afterward the hands of all thepeople .
”
(Deut. xvii,These
.
are the Five Books of
Moses,and such is the testimony
of our Lord to their Mosaic authorship. Nowhere have we consciously forced any passage out
of its obvious meaning, nor canit be said that our argument is“ an ever-widening spiral ergo
from the narrow aperture of single texts .” The testimony of
our Lord is abundant,and the
only reply that the critics canmake is
,that either he did not
know,did not care
,or that he
was mistaken.
74 Christ and the Critics
of historic truth regardless of
traditions and baseless notions,
would look upon it as the senseless enemy of all true progress.To the former
,the verdict would
be delightfully satisfactory,since
all vexatious problems of contradictory statements
,textual emen
dations,editorial interpolations ;
all questions of authorship,au
thenticity, and genuineness,
would be settled for him withoutany labor
,anxiety
,or doubt on
his part. To the latter, it wouldbe as the cry of the Israelites forthe fleshpots of Egypt . Betterth e wilderness
,he thinks
,with its
dangers and diffi culties,but with
its progress also toward Canaan ,
than lentils and slavery in Go
shen . He will never retreat .
Nothing is more exasperating tothe genuine searcher for truththan the attempt to solve seriousproblems by a peremptory and
Reconciliation!
75
reactionary Thus saith theLord !” For
,to change a little
the phraseology of an Englishwriter of an earlier day
,of all
the cants which are canted inthis cantingworld, while the cantof criticism may be the worst
,
the cant of mistaken piety is themost tormenting.
But is it not possible that theconclusions we have reached maynot
,after all
,be productive of
such baneful results ? The fearof the critic
,we are inclined to
think,is groundless ; and the sat
isfaction ofthe conservative maybe, in its continuance, as the dewof the morning. The statements
ofour Lord concerning the au
thorship of the Pentateuch maynot render so worthless the laborsof Biblical critics
,or bar the
open path of progress so com
pletely, as some imagine . We
can appeal to Christ,andwe may
76 Christ and the Critics
gladly accept his statements , andstill be loyal
,we believe
,to the
principles andmethods ofHigherCriticism. In other words
,we
do not believe it is necessary toignore the declarations ofChristin order to prosecute scientificallyour study of the Bible. No statement ofthe Lord that Moses wasthe author ofany book rivets usdown to the unreasonable beliefthat Moses sat, pen in hand, andoriginally wrote every word inthat book as we now have it.Such an extreme view as that isas ridiculous as the notion thatMoses was not an author at all.Putting Scripture on the rack,and forcing it to speak as wedesire
,is an unholy use of the
Sacred Oracle. Neither men
nor Scriptures should be placedon the rack or broken on the
wheel over this contention ; forwe can all see how Paul could
Reconciliation 77
certainly be the author of theEpistle to the Romans, even ifTertius did write it (Rom. xvi,
and Moses could also havebeen an author
,although others
edited and added to his work inafter centuries.Jesus knew the Scriptures.N0 one denies that, and it wouldbe presumption to prove it. Weneither assume nor imagine thathe studied them according to the
principles and methods of modern criticism But that he wasignorant of any question everbeing raised concerning the authorship of certain books andthe authority of others
,we do
not believe ; for we do not sup
pose that any educated personfrom Dan to Beershebawas ignorant of the debates that onceanimated the theological schoolsof the great Rabbins Hillel andSchammai.
78 Christ and the Critics
Now, many passages held asproof by modern critics that Moses did not write the Pentateuchmust surely have been as wellknown to the Great Teacher asthey are to us ; and, from the nature of the case and the constitution of the human mind, theymust have awakened thought inhim as to their authorship as
they do in us. Jesus, we sup
pose, knew that Moses did notwrite Deuteronomy xxxiv, 5—1 2.
Did our Lord never read Gen.
xii, 6 ; xiii, 7—“The Canaanite
was then in the land” —and didit never occur to him ,
as it has occurred to us, that that statementmust have been written at a timewhen the Canaanite was not in
the land? In Gen. xiv, I4, andin Deut. xxiv, I, as we have seen,mention is made of a place calledDan
, a name not given to the
town till long after the days of
Reconciliation 79
Moses,as is recorded in Judges
xviii, 29 . Did our Lord in his
study of Holy Scripture neverread those passages? A similarinstance is furnished by a comparison ofGen. xiii, 8 , with Joshuaxiv, I5 ; xv, 1 3. Again, in Gen.
xxxvi, 3 1 , it is written :
“Andthese are the kings that reignedin the land ofEdom before there
!reigned any king over the children ofIsrael.” Could that havebeen written in the days of Moses
, and did our Lord neverread it ? Exodus xvi, 35, wasnot written by Moses
,nor can
we bring ourselves to believethat he wrote Dent. ii, 22 ; iii,1 4 ; x, 8 , and other passages inwhich we find the phrase untothis day.
” These texts have al
ways been in the Bible ; theirdiffi culties are no new
,startling
discovery,resulting from the ex
traordinary ingenuity ofmodern
80 Christ and the Critics
criticism ; for it has never re
quired exceptional critical skillto discover what ordinary readingwill reveal, andwe must givethe Lord some credit as a carefiilstudent of the Holy Word. Indeed
,we think very few diffi cul
ties,discrepancies
,or contradic
tions in the old Bible, so conspic
uously paraded by rationalisticcritics ofextreme type, were unknown to him who once said tothe rationalists of his day,“ Search the Scriptures !” And
yet this same Jesus said, Moseswrote.”
Nothing, then, that can set
aside that reiterated statementnot the fact that certain bookshave texts imbedded in themwhich Moses could not havewritten
,for as a student ofthe
Sacred Books Christ knew that ;not the fact that therefore theymust have been edited and added
8 2 Christ and the Critics
losophy, and philosophy on imagination.
W e can also be progressivestudents of the Word withoutadopting the views ofProfessorsDriver
,Gore
,and others of like
teaching,who are evidently un
willing to grant to the profoundest student of the Word ofGodthat ever looked into its pages thecritical acumen
,even ofthe Rab
bins,who disputed in the schools
in the generation preceding him.
Even when but a mere boy oftwelve years he was once found inthe company ofIsrael!s teachers
,
“hearing them and asking themquestions
,and all that heard him
were astonished at his understanding and answers .” (Lukeii,
'
46, From that time tillhe entered formally upon hisministry
,eighteen years ofstudy
and meditation elapsed, and we
fail to see why Omniscience was
33
necessary to the student Jesusbefore h e could have an opinionon th e Mosaic authorship of thePentateuch, but is not necessaryto our modern critics.We gladly admit that the ac
cumulated wisdom of the past,
the knowledge and experience of
the race,have widened immeas
urably the horizon ofevery laborious thinker, and that the stu
dent of history or of science isnow in possession of facts notobtainable by men of ancientdays without the miraculous giftof superhuman knowledge .
But such an admission mustnot be pushed too far. It maybe accepted as true with reference to the ever-enlarging domain of the physical sciences
,
but it can not be true if it isforced to include th e fields of
philosophy and religion . NeitherPlato nor Aristotle was favored
84 Christ and the Critics
with ommscrence,and yet neither
Kant,nor Descartes
,nor Hegel
has wholly superseded those immortal thinkers . Plato rules alarger empire to-day than ever.Biblical critics depend wholly onthe internal evidence of the several books of the Bible for theirconclusions ; but this evidencewe mean the discrepancies abovecited—was also in the Bible thatChrist read
,and from which he
quoted,and the discrepancies
were doubtless just as clear tohim as they are to us . But ifomniscience was not a necessaryprerequisition to either Plato or
Aristotle, to Kant or to Hegel,and is not a sine qua non to themodern student of Biblical oriti
cism ,why should it have been
necessary to the Great Teacher,Christ Jesus ? The differencebetween the subjects—one philosophy and the other Scrip
Reconciliation 85
ture—will not afford any sureground for the necessity. Finally
,
Christ said Moses wrote ; thePentateuch itself proves thatMoses could not have written itas it now is ; Christ thereforecould not have meant that Moses wrote it as it now is ; for theevidence was before him as it isbefore us ; and the office
,there
fore, ofa genuine Higher Criticism is not to ignore the wordsof Christ, but to show us trulywhat Moses did write.We may well believe that
,as
between religion and true sciencethere is no feud
, so betweenChrist and genuine criticismthere is no conflict.