Espanol y ingles, The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism, “The Missionary”, Norman-Oetker, Protestant-Christian-, L.A.M.-Christian-Outreach, Mae-HongSon-Thailand, Prison-Reynosa-Mexico, English-Class, St.-Charles-Missouri-US.

NEW! LISTEN IN YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE ! Copy and Paste Text, Click Lower Right and Listen !

Espanol y ingles

May 2012 Reynosa Mexico Mission Home Norman Oetker Protestant Missionary

May 2012 Reynosa Mexico Mission Home Norman Oetker Protestant MissionaryEspanol y inglesespanol y ingles

The Fallacies of the Higher Criticism
By Franklin Johnson, D.D., LL.D.

The errors of the higher criticism of which I shall write pertain to its very substance. Those (if a secondary character the limits of my space forbid me to consider. My discussion might be greatly expanded by additional masses of illustrative material, and hence I close it with a list of books which I recommend to persons who may wish to pursue the subject further.

Definition of “The Higher Criticism.”

As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have achieved.

The name “the higher criticism” was coined by Eichhorn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos,*[* “The Elements of the Higher Criticism.”] after careful consideration, adopts the definition of the name given by its author: “The discovery and verification of the facts regarding the origin, form and value of literary productions upon the basis of their internal characters.”

The higher critics are not blind to some other sources of argument. They refer to history where they can gain any polemic advantage by doing so. The background of the entire picture which they bring to us is the assumption that the hypothesis of evolution is true. But after all their chief appeal is to the supposed evidence of the documents themselves.

Other names for the movement have been sought. It has been called the “historic view,” on the assumption that it represents the real history of the Hebrew people as it must have unfolded itself by the orderly processes of human evolution. But, as the higher critics contradict the testimony of all the Hebrew historic documents which profess to be early, their ,heory might better, be called the “unhistoric view.”

The higher criticism has sometimes been called the “documentary hypothesis.” But as all schools of criticism and all doctrines of inspiration are equally hospitable to the supposition that the biblical writers may have consulted documents, and may have quoted them, the higher criticism has no special right to this title. We must fall back, therefore, upon the name “the higher criticism” as the very best at our disposal, and upon the definition of it as chiefly an inspection of literary productions in order to ascertain their dates, their authors, and their value, as they themselves, interpreted in the light of the hypothesis of evolution, may yield the evidence.


I turn now to ask what the higher critics profess to have found out by this method of study. The “assured results” on which they congratulate themselves are stated variously. In this country and England they commonly assume a form less radical than that given them in Germany, though sufficiently startling and destructive to arouse vigorous protest and a vigorous demand for the evidences, which, as we shall see, have not been produced and cannot be produced.

The less startling form of the “assured results” usually announced in England and America may be owing to the brighter light of Christianity in these countries. Yet it should be noticed that There are higher critics in this country and England who go beyond the principal German representatives of the school in their zeal for the dethronement of the Old Testament and the New, in so far as these’ holy books are presented to the world as the very Word of God, as a special revelation from heaven.

The following statement from Zenos [Page 205] may serve to introduce us to the more moderate form of the “assured results” reached by the higher critics. It is concerning the analysis of the Pentateuch, or rather of the Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua being included in the survey. “The Hexateuch is a composite work whose origin and history may be traced in four distinct stages:
(1) A writer designated as J. Jahvist, or Jehovist, or Judean prophetic historian, composed a history of the people of Israel about 800 B. C.
(2) A writer designated as E. Elohist, or Ephraemite prophetic historian, wrote a similar work some fifty years later, or about 750 B. C. These two were used separately for a time, but were fused together into JE by a redactor [an editor], at the end of the seventh century.
(3) A writer of different character wrote a book constituting the main portion of our present Deuteronomy during the reign of Josiah, or a short time before 621 B. C. This writer is D. To his work were added an introduction and an appendix, and with these accretions it was united with JE by a second redactor, constituting JED.
(4) Contemporaneously with Ezekiel the ritual law began to be reduced to writing. It first appeared in three parallel forms. These were codified by Ezra not very much earlier than 444 B. C., and between that date and 280 B.C. it was joined with JED by a final redactor. Thus no less than nine or ten men were engaged in the production of the Hexateuch in its present form, and each one can be distinguished from the rest by his vocabulary and style and his religious point of view.”

Such is the analysis of the Pentateuch as usually stated in this country. But in Germany and Holland its chief representatives carry the division of labor much further. Wellhausen distributes the total task among twenty-two writers, and Kuenen among eighteen. Many others resolve each individual writer into a school of writers, and thus multiply the numbers enormously. There is no agreement among the higher critics concerning this analysis, and therefore the cautious learner may well wait till those who represent the theory tell him just what it is they desire him to learn.

While some of the “assured results” are thus in doubt, certain things are matters of general agreement. Moses wrote little or nothing, if he ever existed. A large part of the Hexateuch consists of unhistorical legends. We may grant that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael and Esau existed, or we may deny this. In either case, what is recorded of them is chiefly myth. These denials of the truth of the written records follow as matters of course from the late dating of the books, and the assumption that the writers could set down only the national tradition.
They may have worked in part as collectors of written stories to be found here and there; but, if so, these written stories were not ancient, and they were diluted by stories transmitted orally. These fragments, whether written or oral, must have followed the general law of national traditions, and have presented a mixture of legendary chaff, with here and there a grain of historic truth to be sifted out by careful winnowing.

Thus far of the Hexateuch.

The Psalms are so full of references to the Hexateuch that they must have been written after it, and hence after the captivity, perhaps beginning about 400 B. C. David may possibly have written one or two of them, but probably he wrote none, and the strong conviction of the Hebrew people that he was their greatest hymn-writer was a total mistake.

These revolutionary processes are carried into the New Testament, and that also is found to be largely untrustworthy as history, as doctrine, and as ethics, though a very good book, since it gives expression to high ideals, and thus ministers to the spiritual life. It may well have influence, but it can have no divine authority. The Christian reader should consider carefully this invasion of the New Testament by the higher criticism. So long as the movement was confined to the Old Testament many good men looked on with indifference, not reflecting that the Bible, though containing “many parts” by many writers, and though recording a progressive revelation, is, after all, one book.
But the limits of the Old Testament have long since been overpassed by the higher critics, and it is demanded of us that we. abandon the immemorial teaching of the church concerning the entire volume. The picture of Christ which the New Testament sets before us is in many respects mistaken.
The doctrines of primitive Christianity which it states and defends were well enough for the time, but have no value for us today except as they commend themselves to our independent judgment. Its moral precepts are fallible, and we should accept them or reject them freely, in accordance with the greater light of the twentieth century. Even Christ could err concerning ethical questions, and neither His commandments nor His example need constrain us.

The foregoing may serve as an introductory sketch, all too brief, of the higher criticism, and as a basis of the discussion of its fallacies, now immediately to follow.

First Fallacy: The Analysis of the Pentateuch.

I. The first fallacy that I shall bring forward is its analysis of the Pentateuch.

1. We cannot fail to observe that these various documents and their various authors and editors are only imagined. As Green* [* “Moses and His Recent Critics,” pages 104, 105] has said, “There is no evidence of the existence of these documents and redactors, and no pretense of any, apart from the critical tests which have determined the analysis. All tradition and all historical testimony as to the origin of the Pentateuch are against them. The burden of proof is wholly upon the critics. And this proof should be clear and convincing in proportion to the gravity and the revolutionary character of the consequences which it is proposed to base upon it.”

2. Moreover, we know what can be done, or rather what cannot be done, in the analysis of composite literary productions. Some of the plays of Shakespeare are called his “mixed plays,” because it is known that he collaborated with another author in their production. The very keenest critics have sought to separate his part in these plays from the rest, but they confess that the result is uncertainty and dissatisfaction. Coleridge professed to distinguish the passages contributed by Shakespeare by a process of feeling, but Macaulay pronounced this claim to be nonsense, and the entire effort, whether made by the analysis of phraseology and style, or by esthetic perceptions, is an admitted failure. And this in spite of the fact that the style of Shakespeare is one of the most peculiar and inimitable.
The Anglican Prayer Book is another composite production which the higher critics have often been invited to analyze and distribute to its various sources. Some of the authors of these sources lived centuries apart. They are now well known from the studies of historians. But the Prayer Book itself does not reveal one of them, though its various vocabularies and styles have been carefully interrogated. Now if the analysis of the Pentateuch can lead to such certainties, why should not the analysis of Shakespeare and the Prayer Book do as much?
How can men accomplish in a foreign language what they cannot accomplish in their own? How can they accomplish in a dead language what they cannot accomplish in a living language? How can they distinguish ten or eighteen or twenty-two collaborators in a small literary production, when they cannot distinguish two? These questions have been asked many times, but the higher critics have given no answer whatever, preferring the safety of a learned silence;

“The oracles are dumb.”

3. Much has been made of differences of vocabulary in the Pentateuch, and elaborate lists of words have been assigned to each of the supposed authors. But these distinctions fade away when subjected to careful scrutiny, and Driver admits that “the phraseological criteria * * * are slight.” Orr, [The Problem of the Old Testament,” page 230] who quotes this testimony, adds, “They are slight, in fact, to a degree of tenuity that often makes the recital of them appear like trifling.”

Second Fallacy: The Theory of Evolution Applied to Literature and Religion.

II. A second fundamental fallacy of the higher criticism is its dependence on the theory of evolution as the explanation of the history of literature and of religion. The progress of the higher criticism towards its present sate has been rapid and assured since Vatke (Die Biblische Theologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt) discovered in the Hegelian philosophy of evolution a means of biblical criticism.
The Spencerian philosophy of evolution, aided and reinforced by Darwinism, has added greatly to the confidence of the higher critics. As Vatke, one of the earlier members of the school, made the hypothesis of evolution the guiding presupposition of his critical work, so today does Professor Jordan (Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought,” T. and T. Clark, 1909) the very latest representative of the higher criticism. “The nineteenth century,” he declares, “has applied to the history of the documents of the Hebrew people its own magic word, evolution.
The thought represented by that popular word has been found to have a real meaning in our investigations regarding the religious life and the theological beliefs of Israel.” Thus, were there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no higher criticism. The “assured results” of the higher criticism have been gained, after all, not by an inductive study of the biblical books to ascertain if they present a great variety of styles and vocabularies and religious points of view.
They have been attained by assuming that the hypothesis of evolution is true, and that the religion of Israel must have unfolded itself by a process of natural evolution. They have been attained by an interested cross-examination of the biblical books to constrain them to admit the hypothesis of evolution. The imagination has played a large part in the process, and the so-called evidences upon which the “assured results” rest are largely imaginary.

But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the history of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly unable to account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, the greatest poets of the world, yet all of them writing in the dawn of the great literatures of the world. It is a fallacy when applied to the history of religion, leaving us utterly unable to account for Abraham and Moses and Christ, and requiring us to deny that they could have been such men as the Bible declares them to have been.

The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to- the history of the human race in general. Our race has made progress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but progress under the influence of supernatural revelation is one thing, and evolution is another. Buckle [“History of Civilization in England.”] undertook to account for history by a thorough-going application of the hypothesis of evolution to its problems; but no historian today believes that he succeeded in his effort, and his work is universally regarded as a brilliant curiosity.
The types of evolution advocated by different higher critics are widely different from one another, varying from the pure naturalism of Wellhausen to the recognition of some feeble rays of supernatural revelation; but the hypothesis of evolution in any form, when applied to human history, blinds us and renders us incapable of beholding the glory of God in its more signal manifestations.

Third Fallacy: The Bible a Natural Book.

III. A third fallacy of the higher critics is the doctrine concerning the Scriptures which they teach. If a consistent hypothesis of evolution is made the basis of our religious thinking, the Bible will be regarded as only a product of human nature working in the field of religious literature. It will be merely a natural book. If there are higher critics who recoil from this application of the hypothesis of evolution and who seek to modify it by recognizing some special evidences of the divine in the Bible, the inspiration of which they speak rises but little higher than the providential guidance of the writers.
The church doctrine of the full inspiration of the Bible is almost never held by the higher critics of any class, even of the more believing. Here and there we may discover one and another who try to save some fragments of the church doctrine, but they are few and far between, and the sal-age to which they cling is so small and poor that it is scarcely worth while. Throughout their ranks the storm of opposition to the supernatural in all its forms is so fierce as to leave little place for the faith of the church that the Bible is the very Word of God to man.
But the fallacy of this denial is evident to every believer who reads the Bible with an open mind. He knows by an immediate consciousness that it is the product of the Holy Spirit. As the sheep know the voice of the shepherd, so the mature Christian knows that the Bible speaks with a divine voice. On this ground every Christian can test the value of the higher criticism for himself. The Bible manifests itself to the spiritual perception of the Christian as in the fullest sense human, and in the fullest sense divine. This is true of the Old Testament, as well as of the New.

Fourth Fallacy: The Miracles Denied.

IV. Yet another fallacy of the higher critics is found in their teachings concerning the biblical miracles. If the hypothesis of evolution is applied to the Scriptures consistently, it will lead us to deny all the miracles which they record. But if applied timidly and waveringly, as it is by some of the English and American higher critics, it will lead us to deny a large part of the miracles, and to inject as much of the natural as is any way possible into the rest.
We shall strain out as much of the gnat of the supernatural as we can, and swallow,as much of the camel of evolution as we can. We shall probably reject all the miracles of the Old Testament, explaining some of them as popular legends, and others as coincidences. In the New Testament we shall pick and choose, and no two of us will agree concerning those to be rejected and those to be accepted.
If the higher criticism shall be adopted as the doctrine of the church, believers will be left in a distressing state of doubt and uncertainty concerning the narratives of the four Gospels-, and unbelievers will scoff and mock. A theory which leads to such wanderings of thought regarding the supernatural in the Scriptures must be fallacious. God is not a God of confusion.

Among the higher critics who accept some of the miracles there is a notable desire to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord, and their treatment of this event presents a good example of the fallacies of reasoning by means of which they would abolish many of the other miracles. One feature of their argument may suffice as an exhibition of all.
It is the search for parallels in the pagan mythologies. There are many instances in the pagan stories of the birth of men from human mothers and divine fathers, and the higher critics. would create the impression that the writers who record the birth of Christ were influenced by these fables to emulate them, and thus to secure for Him the honor of a celestial paternity.
It turns out, however, that these pagan fables do not in any case present to us a virgin mother; the child is always the product of commerce with a god who assumes a human form for the purpose. The despair of the higher critics in this hunt for events of the same kind is well illustrated by Cheyne (Bible Problems, page 86), who cites the record of the Babylonian king Sargon, about 3,800 B. C..
This monarch represents himself as having “been born of a poor mother in secret, and as not knowing his father.” There have been many millions of such instances, but we do not think of the mothers as virgins. Nor does the Babylonian story affirm that the mother of Sargon was a virgin, or even that his father was a god. It is plain that Sargon did not intend to claim a supernatural origin, for, after saying that he “did not know his father,” he adds that “the brother of his father lived in the mountains.”
It was a case like multitudes of others in which children, early orphaned, have not known their fathers, but have known the relations of their fathers. This statement of Sargon I quote from a translation of it made by Cheyne himself in the “Encyclopedia Biblica.” He continues, “There is reason to suspect that something similar was originally said by the Israelites of Moses.” To substantiate this he adds, “See Encyclopedia Biblica, `Moses,’ section 3 with note 4.” On turning to this reference the reader finds that the article was written by Cheyne himself, and that it contains no evidence whatever.

Fifth Fallacy: The Testimony of Archaeology Denied.

V. The limitation of the field of research as far as possible to the biblical books as literary productions has rendered many of the higher critics reluctant to admit the new light derived from archaeology. This is granted by Cheyne. [“Bible Problems,” page 142.] “I have no wish to deny,” he says, “that the so-called `higher critics’ in the past were as a rule suspicious of Assyriology as a young, and, as they thought, too self-assertive science, and that many of those who now recognize its contributions to knowledge are somewhat too mechanical in the use of it, and too skeptical as to the influence of Babylonian culture in relatively early times in Syria, Palestine and even Arabia.” This grudging recognition of the testimony of archaeology may be observed in several details.

1. It was said that the Hexateuch must have been formed chiefly by the gathering up of oral traditions, because it is not to be supposed that the early Hebrews possessed the art of writing and of keeping records. But the entire progress of archaeological study refutes this. In particular the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets has shown that writing in cuneiform characters and in the Assyrio-Babylonian language was common to the entire biblical world long before the exodus. The discovery was made by Egyptian peasants in 1887.
There are more than three hundred tablets, which came from various lands, including Babylonia and Palestine. Other finds have added their testimony to the fact that writing and the preservation of records were the peculiar passions of the ancient civilized world. Under the constraint of the overwhelming evidences, Professor Jordan writes as follows: “
The question as to the age of writing never played a great part in the discussion.” He falls back on the supposition that the nomadic life of the early Hebrews would prevent them from acquiring the art of writing. He treats us to such reasoning as the following: “If the fact that writing is very old is such a powerful argument when taken alone, it might enable you to prove that Alfred the Great wrote Shakespeare’s plays.”

2. It was easy to treat Abraham as a mythical figure when the early records of Babylonia were but little known. The entire coloring of those chapters of Genesis which refer to Mesopotamia could be regarded as the product of the imagination. This is no longer the case. Thus Clay,* writing of Genesis 14, says: “The theory of the late origin of all the Hebrew Scriptures prompted the critics to declare this narrative to be a pure invention of a later Hebrew writer.
The patriarchs were relegated to the region of myth and legend. Abraham was made a fictitious father of the Hebrews. Even the political situation was declared to be inconsistent with fact. Weighing carefully the position taken by the critics in the light of what has been revealed through the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, we find that the very foundations upon which their theories rest, with reference to the points that could be tested, totally disappear.
The truth is, that wherever any light has been thrown upon the subject through excavations, their hypotheses have invariably been found wanting. [* “Light on the Old Testament from Babel.” 1907. Clay is Assistant Professor arid Assistant Curator of the Babylonian Section, Department of Archaeology, in the University of Pennsylvania.]

But the higher critics are still reluctant to admit this new light. Thus Kent [Biblical World, Dec., 1906] says, “The primary value of these stories is didactic and religious, rather than historical.”

3. The books of Joshua and judges have been regarded by the higher critics as unhistorical on the ground that their portraiture of the political, religious, and social condition of Palestine in the thirteenth century B. C. is incredible. This cannot be said any longer, for the recent excavations in Palestine have shown us a land exactly like that of these books. The portraiture is so precise, and is drawn out in so many minute lineaments, that it cannot be the product of oral tradition floating down through a thousand years.
In what details the accuracy of the biblical picture of early Palestine is exhibited may be seen perhaps best in the excavations by Macalister [“Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer”] at Gezer. Here again there are absolutely no discrepancies between the Land and the Book, for the Land lifts up a thousand voices to testify that the Book is history and not legend.

4. It was held by the higher critics that the legislation which we call Mosaic could not have been produced by Moses, since his age was too early for such codes. This reasoning was completely negatived by the discovery of the code of Hammurabi, the Amraphelt [0n this matter see any dictionary of the Bible, art. “Amraphel.”] of Genesis 14. This code is very different from that of Moses; it is more systematic; and it is at least seven hundred years earlier than the Mosaic legislation.

In short, from the origin of the higher criticism till this present time the discoveries in the field of archaeology have given it a succession of serious blows. The higher critics were shocked when the passion of the ancient world for writing and the preservation of documents was discovered. They were shocked. when primitive Babylonia appeared as the land of Abraham. They were shocked when early Palestine appeared as the and of Joshua and the Judges.
They were shocked when Amraphel came back from the grave as a real historical character, bearing his code of laws. They were shocked when the stele of the Pharaoh of the exodus was read, and it was proved that he knew a people called Israel, that they had no settled place of abode, that they were “without grain” for food, and that in these particulars they were quite as they are represented by the Scriptures to have been when they had fled from Egypt into the wilderness.*
The embarrassment created by these discoveries is manifest in many of the recent writings of the higher critics, in which, however, they still cling heroically to their analysis and their late dating of the Pentateuch and their confidence in the hypothesis of evolution as the key of all history.

[* The higher critics usually slur over this remarkable inscription, and give us neither an accurate translation nor a natural interpretation of it. I have, therefore, special pleasure in quoting the following from Driver, “Authority and Archaeology” page 61: “Whereas the other places named in the inscription all have the determinative for `country,’ Ysiraal has the determinative for ‘men’: it follows that the reference is not to the land of Israel, but to Israel as a tribe or people, whether migratory, or on the march.” Thus this distinguished higher critic sanctions the view of the record which I have adopted. He represents Maspcro and Naville as doing the same.]

Sixth Fallacy: The Psalms Written after the Exile.

VI. The Psalms are usually dated by the higher critics after the exile. The great majority of the higher critics are agreed here, and tell us that these varied and .touching and magnificent lyrics of religious experience all come to us from a period later than 450 B. C. A few of the critics admit an earlier origin of three or four of them, but they do this waveringly, grudgingly, and against the general consensus of opinion among their fellows.
In the Bible a very large number of the Psalms are ascribed to David, and these, with a few insignificant and doubtful exceptions, are denied to him and brought down, like the rest, to the age of the second temple. This leads me to the following observations:

1. Who wrote the Psalms? Here the higher critics have no answer. Of the period from 400 to 175 B. C, we are in almost total ignorance. Josephus knows almost nothing about it, nor has any other writer told us more. Yet, according to the theory, it was precisely in these centuries of silence: when the Jews had no great writers, that they produced this magnificent outburst of sacred song.

2. This is the more remarkable when we consider the well known men to whom the theory denies the authorship of any of the Psalms. The list includes such names as Moses, David, Samuel, Nathan, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the long list of preexilic prophets. We are asked to believe that these men composed no Psalms, and that the entire collection was contributed by men so obscure that they have left no single name by which we can identify them with their work.

3. This will appear still more extraordinary if we consider the times in which, it is said, no Psalms were produced, and contrast them with the times in which all of them were produced. The times in which none were produced were the great times, the times of growth, of mental ferment, of conquest, of imperial expansion, of disaster, and of recovery. The times in which none were produced were the times of the splendid temple of Solomon, with its splendid worship.
The times in which none were produced were the heroic times of Elijah and Elisha, when the people of Jehovah struggled for their existence against the abominations of the pagan gods. On the other hand, the times which actually produced them were the times of growing legalism, of obscurity, and of inferior abilities. All this is incredible.
We could believe it only if we first came to believe that the Psalms are works of slight literary and religious value. This is actually done by Wellhausen, who says [Quoted by Orr, “The Problem of the Old Testament,” page 435] “They certainly are to the smallest extent original, and are for the most part imitations which illustrate the saying about much writing.”
The Psalms are not all of an equally high degree of excellence, and there are a few of them which might give some faint color of justice to this depreciation of the entire collection. But as a whole they are exactly the reverse of this picture. Furthermore, they contain absolutely no legalism, but are as free from it as are the Sermon on the Mount and the Pauline epistles. Yet further, the writers stand out as personalities, and they must have left a deep impression upon their fellows. Finally, they were full of the fire of genius kindled by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for us to attribute the Psalms to the unknown mediocrities of the period which followed the restoration.

4. Very many of the Psalms plainly appear to be ancient. They sing of early events, and have no trace of allusion to the age which is said to have produced them.

5. The large number of Psalms attributed to David have attracted the special attention of the higher critics. They are denied to him on various grounds. He was a wicked man, and hence incapable of writing these praises to the God of righteousness. He was an iron warrior and statesman, and hence not gifted with the emotions found in these productions. He was so busy with the cares of conquest and administration that he had no leisure for literary work. Finally, his conception of God was utterly different from that which moved the psalmists.

The larger part of this catalogue of inabilities is manifestly erroneous. David, with some glaring faults, and with a single enormous crime, for which he was profoundly penitent, was one of the noblest of men. He was indeed an iron warrior and statesman, but also one of the most emotional of all great historic characters. He was busy, but busy men nest seldom find relief in literary occupations, as Washington, during the Revolutionary War, poured forth a continual tide of letters, and as Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Gladstone, while burdened with the cares of empire, composed immortal books.
The conception of God with which David began his career was indeed narrow (I. Sam. 26 :19) . But did he learn nothing in all his later experiences, and his associations with holy priests and prophets? He was certainly teachable: did God fail to make use of him in further revealing Himself to His people? To deny these Psalms to David on the ground of his limited views of God in his early life, is this not to deny that God made successive revelations of Himself wherever He found suitable channels? If, further, we consider the unquestioned skill of David in the music of his nation and his age (I. Sam. 16:14-25), this will constitute a presupposition in favor of his interest in sacred song. If, finally, we consider his personal career of danger and deliverance, this will appear as the natural means of awakening in him the spirit of varied religious poetry. His times were much like the Elizabethan period, which ministered unexampled stimulus to the English mind.

From all this we may turn to the singular verdict of Professor Jordan: “If a man says he cannot see why David could not have written Psalms 51 and 139, you are compelled to reply as politely as possible that if he did write them then any man can write anything.” So also we may say, “as politely as possible,” that if Shakespeare, with his “small Latin and less Greek,” did write his incomparable dramas, “then any man can write anything'”; that if Dickens, with his mere elementary education, did write his great novels, “then any man can write anything”; and that if Lincoln, who had no early schooling, did write his Gettysburg address, “then any man can write anything.”

Seventh Fallacy: Deuteronomy Not Written by Moses.

VII. One of the fixed points of the higher criticism is its theory of the origin of Deuteronomy. In I. Kings 22 we have the history of the finding of the book of the law in the temple, which was being repaired. Now the higher critics present this finding, not as the discovery of an ancient document, but as the finding of an entirely new document, which had been concealed in the temple in order that it might be found, might be accepted as the production of Moses, and might produce an effect by its assumed authorship. It is not supposed for a moment that the writer innocently chose the fictitious dress of Mosaic authorship for merely literary purposes. On the contrary, it is steadfastly maintained that he intended to deceive, and that others were with him in the plot to deceive. This statement of the case leads me to the following reflections:

1. According to the theory, this was an instance of pious fraud. And the fraud must have been prepared deliberately. The manuscript must have been soiled and frayed by special care, for it was at once admitted to be ancient. This supposition of deceit must always repel the Christian believer.

2. Our Lord draws from the Book of Deuteronomy all the three texts with which He foils the tempter, Matt. 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-14.’ It must always shock the devout student that his Saviour should select His weapons from an armory founded on deceit.

3. This may be called an appeal to ignorant piety, rather than to scholarly criticism. But surely the moral argument should have some weight in scholarly criticism. In the sphere of religion moral impossibilities are as insuperable as physical and mental.

4. If we turn to consideration of a literary kind, it is to be observed that the higher criticism runs counter here to the statement of the book itself that Moses was its author.

5. It runs counter to the narrative of the finding of the book, and turns the finding of an ancient book into the forgery of a new book.

6. It runs counter to the judgment of all the intelligent men of the time who learned of the discovery. They judged the book to have come down from the Mosaic age, and to be from the pen of Moses. We hear of no dissent whatever.

7. It seeks support in a variety of reasons, such as style, historical discrepancies, and legal contradictions, all of which prove of little substance when examined fairly.

Eighth Fallacy: The Priestly Legislation Not Enacted Until the Exile.

VIII. Another case of forgery is found in the origin of the priestly legislation, if we are to believe the higher critics. This legislation is contained in a large number of passages scattered through Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It has to do chiefly with the tabernacle and its worship, with the duties of the priests and Levites, and with the relations of the people to the institutions of religion. It is attributed to Moses in scores of places.
It has a strong coloring of the Mosaic age and of the wilderness life. It affirms the existence of the tabernacle, with an orderly administration of the ritual services. But this is all imagined, for the legislation is a late production. Before the exile there were temple services and a priesthood, with certain regulations concerning them, either oral or written, and use was made of this tradition; but as a whole the legislation was enacted by such men as Ezekiel and Ezra during and immediately after the exile, or about 444 B. C. The name of Moses, the fiction of a tabernacle, and the general coloring of the Mosaic age, were given it in order to render it authoritative and to secure the ready obedience of the nation. But now:

1. The moral objection here is insuperable. The supposition of forgery, and of forgery so cunning, so elaborate, and so minute, is abhorrent. If the forgery had been invented and executed by wicked men to promote some scheme of selfishness, it would have been less odious. But when it is presented to us as the expedient of holy men, for the advancement of the religion of the God of righteousness, which afterwards blossomed out into Christianity, we must revolt.

2. The theory gives us a portraiture of such men as Ezekiel and Ezra which is utterly alien from all that we know of them. The expedient might be worthy of the prophets of Baal or of Chemosh; it was certainly not worthy of the prophets of Jehovah, and we dishonor them when we attribute it to them and place them upon a low plane of craft and cunning of which the records concerning them are utterly ignorant.

3. The people who returned from the exile were among the most intelligent and enterprising of the nation, else they would not have returned, and they would not have been deceived by the sudden appearance of Mosaic laws forged for the occasion and never before heard of.

4. Many of the regulations of this legislation are drastic. It subjected the priests and Levites to a rule which must have been irksome in the extreme, and it would not have been lightly accepted. We may be certain that if it had been a new thing fraudulently ascribed to Moses, these men would have detected the deceit, and would have refused to be bound by it. But we do not hear of any revolt, or even of any criticism.

Such are some of the fundamental fallacies of the higher criticism. They constitute an array of impossibilities. I have stated them in their more moderate forms, that they may be seen and weighed without the remarkable extravagances which some of their advocates indulge. In the very mildest interpretation which can be given them, they are repugnant to the Christian faith.

No Middle Ground.

But might we not accept a part of this system of thought without going to any hurtful extreme? Many today are seeking to do this. They present to us two diverse results.

1. Some, who stand at the beginning of the tide, find themselves in a position of doubt. If they are laymen, they know not what to believe. If they are ministers, they know not what to believe or to teach. In either case, they have no firm footing, and no Gospel, except a few platitudes which do little harm and little good.

2. The majority of those who struggle to stand here find it impossible to do so, and give themselves up to the current. There is intellectual consistency in the lofty church doctrine of inspiration. There may be intellectual consistency in the doctrine that all things have had a natural origin and history, under the general providence of God, as distinguished from His supernatural revelation of Himself through holy men, and especially through His co-equal Son, so that the Bible is as little supernatural as the “Imitation of Christ” or the “Pilgrim’s Progress.”
But there is no position of intellectual consistency between these two, and the great mass of those who try to pause at various points along the descent are swept down with the current. The natural view of the Scriptures is a sea which has been rising higher for three-quarters of a century. Many Christians bid it welcome to pour lightly over the walls which the faith of the church has always set up against it, in the expectation that it will prove a healthful and helpful stream. It is already a cataract, uprooting, destroying, and slaying.

Las falacias de la Alta Crítica
Los errores de las críticas más alto de lo que voy a escribir se refiere a su propia esencia. Los (si es un personaje secundario de los límites de mi espacio me impiden tener en cuenta. Mi discusión podría ser ampliado en gran medida por las masas adicionales de material ilustrativo, y por lo tanto lo cierro con una lista de libros que recomiendo a las personas que deseen ejercer la El nombre de “alta crítica” fue acuñado por Eichhorn, que vivió desde 1752 hasta 1827. Zenós, * [* “Los Elementos de la Alta Crítica.”] Después de una cuidadosa consideración, adopta la definición del nombre dado por su autor: “El descubrimiento y la verificación de los hechos relacionados con el origen, la forma y el valor de las producciones literarias sobre el Los críticos más altos no son ciegos a otras fuentes de argumento. Se refieren a la historia donde se puede obtener alguna ventaja polémica al hacerlo. El fondo de toda la imagen que nos traen es el supuesto de que la hipótesis de la evolución es verdadera. Otros nombres para el movimiento se han buscado. Se le ha llamado la “visión histórica”, en el supuesto de que representa la verdadera historia del pueblo hebreo, tal como debe haberse desplegado por los procesos ordenados de la evolución humana. La alta crítica ha sido llamada la “hipótesis documental.” Pero como todas las escuelas de la crítica y todas las doctrinas de inspiración son igual de hospitalario a la suposición de que los escritores bíblicos pueden haber consultado a los documentos, y puede haberlos citado, la mayor crítica no tiene ningún derecho especial a este título. Tenemos que retroceder, por lo tanto, en el nombre de “la alta crítica” como la mejor a nuestra disposición, y en la definición de lo que principalmente la inspección de las producciones literarias con el fin de determinar sus fechas, sus autores, y su valor, Me referiré ahora a pedir lo que los críticos más profesan haber encontrado a cabo por este método de estudio. Los “resultados garantizados” en los que se felicitan se expresan de diversas maneras. En este país e Inglaterra, que generalmente asume una forma menos radical que la que les ha dado en Alemania, aunque lo suficientemente alarmantes y destructivos para despertar la enérgica protesta y una demanda vigorosa de las evidencias, las cuales, como veremos, no han sido producidos y no puede ser La forma menos sorprendente de los resultados “, aseguró que” normalmente anunciados en Inglaterra y Estados Unidos puede ser debido a la luz más brillante del cristianismo en estos países. Sin embargo, debe tenerse en cuenta que hay más críticos en este país e Inglaterra, que van más allá de los principales representantes alemanes de la escuela en su celo por el destronamiento del Antiguo Testamento y el Nuevo, en la medida en que los libros sagrados se presentan a La siguiente declaración de Zenós [205] Page puede servir para introducirnos en la forma más moderada de los “resultados garantizados” alcanzados por los altos críticos. Es preocupante el análisis del Pentateuco, o más bien de la Hexateuch, el libro de Josué se incluyó en la encuesta. “El Hexateuco es una obra compuesta, cuyo origen y la historia se puede remontar en cuatro etapas distintas:
(1) Un escritor designado como J. Yavista, o Yahvista, o el historiador profético de Judea, compuso una historia del pueblo de Israel alrededor de 800 aC
(2) Un escritor designado como E. Elohista, o el historiador profético Ephraemite, escribió una obra similar a unos cincuenta años más tarde, o alrededor de 750 aC Estos dos fueron utilizados por separado durante un tiempo, pero fueron fusionados en la JE por un redactor [un editor ], a finales del siglo VII.
(3) Un escritor de carácter diferente escribió un libro que constituye la parte principal de nuestro presente Deuteronomio durante el reinado de Josías, o un poco antes de 621 aC Este escritor es D. Para su trabajo se han añadido una introducción y un apéndice , y con estas adiciones se unió a la JE por un redactor en segundo lugar, que constituye JED.
(4) Al mismo tiempo que la ley ritual Ezequiel comenzó a reducirse a la escritura. Apareció por primera vez en tres formas paralelas. Estos fueron codificados por Esdras no mucho antes de lo que el año 444 aC, y entre esa fecha y el 280 aC se unió a JED por un redactor final. Tal es el análisis del Pentateuco como suele afirmar en este país. Sin embargo, en Alemania y Holanda sus principales representantes llevar a la división del trabajo mucho más allá. Wellhausen distribuye la tarea total entre los veinte y dos escritores, y Kuenen entre los dieciocho años. Muchos otros resolver cada escritor individual en una escuela de escritores, y por lo tanto se multiplican los números enormemente. Aunque algunos de los “resultados garantizados” son, pues, en duda, ciertas cosas son materia de un acuerdo general. Moisés escribió poco o nada, si alguna vez existió. Una gran parte de la Hexateuch consta de leyendas no históricas. Podemos admitir que Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ismael y Esaú existió, o podemos negar esto. En cualquier caso, lo que se registra de ellos es el principal mito. Estas negaciones de la verdad de los registros escritos que los asuntos que siguen, por supuesto, a partir de la fecha tardía de los libros, y la suposición de que los escritores pueden establecer sólo la tradición nacional.
Es posible que hayan trabajado en parte, como los coleccionistas de historias escritas que se encuentran aquí y allá, pero, si es así, estas historias escritas no eran antiguas, y se diluyeron por las historias de transmisión oral. Los Salmos están llenos de referencias a la Hexateuco que debe haber sido escrito después de él, y por lo tanto después de la cautividad, tal vez comenzando alrededor de 400 aC, posiblemente, David pudo haber escrito una o dos de ellos, pero probablemente no escribió, y el fuerte Estos procesos revolucionarios se realizan en el Nuevo Testamento, y que también se encuentra que es en gran medida poco confiable como historia, como la doctrina y la ética, a pesar de un libro muy bueno, ya que es la expresión de altos ideales, y por lo tanto los ministros a la vida espiritual . Es muy posible tener una influencia, pero no puede tener la autoridad divina. El lector cristiano debe considerar cuidadosamente esta invasión del Nuevo Testamento por la mayor crítica. En tanto que el movimiento se limita a los del Antiguo Testamento, los hombres de bien muchos miraban con indiferencia, no lo que refleja que la Biblia, aunque contiene “muchas partes” por muchos escritores, y aunque la grabación de una revelación progresiva, es decir, después de todo, un libro.
Pero los límites del Antiguo Testamento desde hace mucho han sido superado por los críticos más altos, y se exige de nosotros que nosotros. abandonan la enseñanza inmemorial de la Iglesia sobre la totalidad del volumen. La imagen de Cristo, que el Nuevo Testamento nos presenta es en muchos aspectos equivocados.
Las doctrinas del cristianismo primitivo que se afirma y defiende eran lo suficientemente bien como para el tiempo, pero no tienen ningún valor para nosotros hoy, salvo que se encomiendan a nuestra independencia de criterio. Sus preceptos morales son falibles, y debemos aceptarlas o rechazarlas libremente, de acuerdo con la luz mayor del siglo XX. 1. No podemos dejar de observar que estos documentos y sus varios autores y editores sólo imaginado. Como Green * [* “Moisés y sus críticos recientes”, páginas 104, 105] ha dicho: “No hay evidencia de la existencia de estos documentos y redactores, y no pretende de ninguna, aparte de las pruebas fundamentales que han determinado la análisis. Toda la tradición y todos los testimonios históricos sobre el origen del Pentateuco están en contra de ellos. La carga de la prueba recae íntegramente en los críticos. Y esta prueba debe ser clara y convincente en proporción a la gravedad y el carácter revolucionario de las consecuencias que 2. Por otra parte, sabemos qué se puede hacer, o mejor dicho, lo que no se puede hacer, en el análisis de compuestos producciones literarias. Algunas de las obras de Shakespeare se llaman sus “juegos mixtos”, porque se sabe que él colaboró con otro de los autores en su producción. Los críticos más agudos muy han tratado de separar su participación en estos juegos de los demás, pero confieso que el resultado es la incertidumbre y la insatisfacción. Coleridge profesaba distinguir los pasajes aportados por Shakespeare por un proceso de sentimiento, pero Macaulay pronunciado esta afirmación es una tontería, y todo el esfuerzo, ya sea por el análisis de la fraseología y el estilo, o por la percepción estética, es un fracaso admitido. Y esto a pesar del hecho de que el estilo de Shakespeare es uno de los más peculiar e inimitable.
El Libro de Oración Común anglicano es otra producción de material compuesto que los altos críticos a menudo han sido invitados para analizar y distribuir a sus diferentes fuentes. Algunos de los autores de estas fuentes vivieron separados por siglos. Ellos son bien conocidos de los estudios de los historiadores. Sin embargo, el Libro de la Oración en sí no revela uno de ellos, a pesar de sus vocabularios y estilos han sido cuidadosamente interrogado. Ahora bien, si el análisis del Pentateuco puede dar lugar a tales certezas, ¿por qué no el análisis de Shakespeare y el Libro de Oración hacer tanto?
¿Cómo pueden los hombres conseguir en un idioma extranjero lo que no pueden lograr en su cuenta? ¿Cómo pueden lograr en una lengua muerta lo que no pueden lograr en una lengua viva? ¿Cómo pueden distinguir entre diez o diez y ocho o veinte y dos colaboradores en la producción literaria de pequeño, cuando no pueden distinguir los dos? 3. Mucho se ha hablado de las diferencias de vocabulario en el Pentateuco, y en las listas elaboradas de palabras se han asignado a cada uno de los supuestos autores. Sin embargo, estas distinciones se desvanecen cuando se someten a un cuidadoso escrutinio, y el conductor admite que “el *** criterios fraseológico son leves”. II. Una segunda falacia fundamental de la crítica mayor es su dependencia de la teoría de la evolución como explicación de la historia de la literatura y de la religión. El progreso de la alta crítica hacia su Estado actualmente ha sido rápida y garantizada, ya que Vatke (Die Theologie Biblische Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt) descubierto en la filosofía hegeliana de la evolución de un medio de la crítica bíblica.
La filosofía evolutiva de Spencer, con la ayuda y reforzado por el darwinismo, ha aportado mucho a la confianza de los altos críticos. Como Vatke, uno de los miembros anteriores de la escuela, hizo la hipótesis de la evolución el presupuesto de guía de su trabajo crítico, por lo que hoy hace el profesor Jordan (la crítica bíblica y el pensamiento moderno “, T. y T. Clark, 1909) la última representante de la alta crítica. “El siglo XIX”, declara, “se ha aplicado a la historia de los documentos del pueblo hebreo de su palabra mágica propia evolución.
El pensamiento representada por la palabra popular se ha encontrado que tienen un significado real en nuestras investigaciones sobre la vida religiosa y las creencias teológicas de Israel. “Por lo tanto, si no hubiera hipótesis de la evolución, no habría ninguna crítica superior. Los” resultados garantizados “de la alta crítica se han obtenido, después de todo, no por un estudio inductivo de los libros de la Biblia para determinar si presentan una gran variedad de estilos y vocabularios y puntos de vista religiosos.
Ellos se han alcanzado, asumiendo que la hipótesis de la evolución es verdadera, y que la religión de Israel debe haberse desplegado por un proceso de evolución natural. Han sido alcanzado por una parte interesada, el interrogatorio de los libros bíblicos que les limitan a admitir la hipótesis de la evolución. Pero la hipótesis de la evolución, cuando se aplica a la historia de la literatura, es una falacia, que nos deja totalmente incapaz de dar cuenta de Homero o Dante o Shakespeare, los más grandes poetas del mundo, pero todas ellas por escrito en los albores de la grandes literaturas del mundo. La hipótesis es una falacia cuando se aplica a la historia de la raza humana en general. Nuestra raza ha progresado bajo la influencia de la revelación sobrenatural, pero el progreso bajo la influencia de la revelación sobrenatural es una cosa, y la evolución es otra. Hebilla [“. Historia de la Civilización en Inglaterra”] llevó a cabo para dar cuenta de la historia por una aplicación cabal de la hipótesis de la evolución de sus problemas, pero hoy ningún historiador cree que él tuvo éxito en su esfuerzo y su trabajo es universalmente reconocido como una curiosidad brillante.
Los tipos de evolución defendidas por diferentes críticos más altos son muy diferentes unos de otros, que van desde el naturalismo puro de Wellhausen para el reconocimiento de algunos rayos débiles de la revelación sobrenatural, pero la hipótesis de la evolución de cualquier forma, cuando se aplica a la historia humana, las persianas III. Una tercera falacia de los críticos más altos es la doctrina acerca de las Escrituras que enseñan. Si una hipótesis coherente de la evolución se convirtió en la base de nuestro pensamiento religioso, la Biblia será considerado sólo como un producto de la naturaleza humana de trabajo en el campo de la literatura religiosa. Será simplemente un libro natural. Si hay más críticos que retroceden de esta aplicación de la hipótesis de la evolución y que tratan de modificarla mediante el reconocimiento de algunas evidencias especiales de la voluntad divina en la Biblia, la inspiración del que hablan, sube, pero poco más alto que la dirección providencial de los escritores .
La doctrina de la iglesia de la plena inspiración de la Biblia casi nunca está en manos de los críticos más altos de cualquier clase, incluso de los más creer. Aquí y allá, podemos descubrir una y otra que tratar de salvar algunos fragmentos de la doctrina de la iglesia, pero son pocos y distantes entre sí, y la sal-la edad a la que se aferran es tan pequeño y pobre que apenas vale la pena. A lo largo de sus filas a la tormenta de la oposición a lo sobrenatural en todas sus formas es tan feroz como para dejar poco espacio para la fe de la Iglesia que la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios para el hombre.
Pero la falacia de esta negación es evidente para todo creyente que lee la Biblia con una mente abierta. Él sabe que por una conciencia inmediata de que es el producto del Espíritu Santo. Como las ovejas conocen la voz del pastor, por lo que el cristiano maduro sabe que la Biblia habla con una voz divina. Por este motivo todos los cristianos pueden probar el valor de la alta crítica de sí mismo. La Biblia se manifiesta a la percepción espiritual del cristiano como en el más amplio sentido humano, y en el más amplio sentido divino. IV. Sin embargo, otro error de los críticos más altos se encuentran en sus enseñanzas acerca de los milagros bíblicos. Si la hipótesis de la evolución se aplica a las Escrituras constantemente, que nos llevará a negar todos los milagros que se registran. Sin embargo, si se aplica de forma tímida y vacilante, como lo es por algunos de los críticos ingleses y americanos mayores, que nos llevará a negar una gran parte de los milagros, y para inyectar la mayor cantidad de lo natural como lo es cualquier forma posible en el resto.
Vamos a colar la mayor cantidad de mosquito de lo sobrenatural como nos sea posible, y la golondrina, la mayor cantidad de camellos de la evolución como nos sea posible. Probablemente se rechazan todos los milagros del Antiguo Testamento, explicando algunos de ellos como leyendas populares, y otros como las coincidencias. En el Nuevo Testamento nos elegir, y no hay dos de nosotros estará de acuerdo en relación con los que se rechaza y los que se aceptó.
Si la mayor crítica se adoptarán en la doctrina de la iglesia, los creyentes se quedarán en un estado de angustia de la duda y la incertidumbre sobre las narrativas de los cuatro evangelios, y los incrédulos se burlan y se mofan. Una teoría que conduce a tales andanzas de pensamiento en relación con lo sobrenatural en las Escrituras deben ser falaz. Entre los críticos más altos que aceptan algunos de los milagros hay un notable deseo de desacreditar el nacimiento virginal de nuestro Señor, y su tratamiento de este evento es un buen ejemplo de las falacias de razonamiento mediante el cual se iba a suprimir muchas de las otras milagros. Una de las características de su argumento sea suficiente para una exposición de todos.
Es la búsqueda de paralelos en las mitologías paganas. Hay muchos ejemplos en las historias paganas del nacimiento de los hombres de las madres y padres humanos divinos, y los críticos más altos. daría la impresión de que los escritores que registran el nacimiento de Cristo se vieron influidos por estas fábulas para emular, y por lo tanto para asegurar a él el honor de una paternidad celeste.
Resulta, sin embargo, que estas fábulas paganas no lo hacen en cualquier caso, nos presenta a una madre virgen, el niño es siempre el producto del comercio con un Dios que asume una forma humana para tal fin. La desesperación de los críticos más altos en esta caza para los eventos del mismo tipo está bien ilustrado por Cheyne (Problemas de la Biblia, en la página 86), que cita el registro de la Sargón rey de Babilonia, alrededor de 3800 aC.
Este monarca representa a sí mismo por haber “nacido de una madre pobre en secreto, y como no saber de su padre.” Ha habido muchos millones de esos casos, pero nosotros no pensamos en las madres como vírgenes. Tampoco la historia babilónica afirmar que la madre de Sargón era virgen, o incluso que su padre era un dios. Es evidente que Sargón no tenía intención de reclamar un origen sobrenatural, ya que, después de decir que “no conocía a su padre”, añade que “el hermano de su padre vivía en las montañas.”
Fue un caso como el de una multitud de otros en los que los niños, a principios de huérfanos, no han conocido a sus padres, pero han conocido las relaciones de sus padres. Esta declaración de Sargón I cita de una traducción del mismo realizada por Cheyne sí mismo en la “Enciclopedia Bíblica.” Y continúa: “No hay razón para sospechar que algo similar se dijo originalmente por los israelitas de Moisés.” Para corroborar esto, añade, “Ver Enciclopedia Bíblica, ‘Moisés’, la sección 3 de la nota 4.” V. La limitación del campo de la investigación en la medida de lo posible a los libros bíblicos como producciones literarias ha hecho que muchos de los críticos más reacios a admitir la nueva luz derivada de la arqueología. Este es otorgado por Cheyne. [“Problemas de la Biblia”, página 142.] “No tengo ningún deseo de negar”, dice, “que los llamados ‘altos críticos’ en el pasado eran por lo general sospechoso de asiriología como un joven, y, a medida que pensó, demasiado auto-asertiva la ciencia, y que muchos de los que ahora reconocen sus contribuciones al conocimiento son algo demasiado mecánico en el uso de la misma, y muy escépticos en cuanto a la influencia de la cultura babilónica en tiempos relativamente temprano en Siria, Palestina e incluso Saudita. ” 1. Se dijo que la Hexateuch debe haberse formado sobre todo por la reunión de la tradición oral, porque no es de suponer que los primeros hebreos poseía el arte de escribir y de mantenimiento de registros. Sin embargo, todo el progreso de los estudios arqueológicos refuta esto. En particular, el descubrimiento de los de Tel el-Amarna se ha demostrado que la escritura en caracteres cuneiformes y en el idioma asirio-babilónico era común a todo el mundo bíblico mucho antes de que el éxodo. El descubrimiento fue hecho por los campesinos egipcios en 1887.
Hay más de trescientas tabletas, que procedían de diversos países, incluyendo Babilonia y Palestina. Otros hallazgos han agregado su testimonio del hecho de que la escritura y la preservación de los registros eran las pasiones propias del mundo civilizado antiguo. En virtud de la restricción de las evidencias abrumadoras, el profesor Jordan escribe lo siguiente: “
La cuestión de la edad de la escritura nunca ha jugado un papel importante en la discusión. “Él se apoya en la suposición de que la vida nómada de los primeros hebreos les impediría adquirir el arte de escribir. Él nos trata a un razonamiento como el 2. Era fácil para el tratamiento de Abraham como una figura mítica en que los primeros discos de Babilonia eran poco conocidas. La coloración completa de los capítulos del Génesis que se refieren a Mesopotamia, podría ser considerado como el producto de la imaginación. Esto ya no es el caso. Así, la arcilla, la escritura * de Génesis 14, dice: “La teoría sobre el origen de todos los finales de las Escrituras Hebreas llevado a los críticos a declarar esta narración como una pura invención de un escritor hebreo tarde.
Los patriarcas fueron relegados a la región de mitos y leyendas. Abraham fue el padre ficticio de los hebreos. Aunque la situación política fue declarada incompatible con el hecho. Considerar detenidamente la posición adoptada por los críticos a la luz de lo que se ha revelado a través del desciframiento de las inscripciones cuneiformes, nos encontramos con que los cimientos sobre los que las teorías de su descanso, con referencia a los puntos que pueden ser probadas, desaparecen por completo.
La verdad es que siempre que alguna luz se ha arrojado sobre el tema a través de excavaciones, sus hipótesis siempre han sido deficientes. [* “Luz en el Antiguo Testamento de Babel”. 1907. Pero los críticos más altos siguen siendo reacios a admitir esta nueva luz. 3. Los libros de Josué y los jueces han sido considerados por los críticos más altos, como no histórica sobre la base de que su retrato de la condición política, religiosa y social de Palestina en el siglo XIII es increíble. Esto no se puede decir más, de las excavaciones recientes en Palestina nos han mostrado una tierra exactamente igual que la de estos libros. El retrato es tan preciso, y se dibuja en el minuto lineamientos tantos, que no puede ser el producto de la tradición oral flotando a lo largo de mil años.
¿En qué detalles de la exactitud de la imagen bíblica de la naciente Palestina se manifiesta puede ser visto tal vez el mejor en las excavaciones por Macalister [“Biblia lado de las luces desde el montículo de Gezer”] en Gezer. 4. Se llevó a cabo por los críticos más altos que la legislación que se llama Moisés no pudo haber sido producida por Moisés, ya que su edad era demasiado pronto para estos códigos. Este razonamiento fue denegada por completo por el descubrimiento del código de Hammurabi, el Amraphelt [0n este asunto véase cualquier diccionario de la Biblia, el arte. “Amrafel.”] De Génesis 14. En resumen, desde el origen de la alta crítica, hasta el momento actual los descubrimientos en el campo de la arqueología le han dado una sucesión de golpes serios. Los críticos más se sorprendieron cuando la pasión del mundo antiguo para la escritura y la preservación de los documentos fue descubierto. Ellos se sorprendieron. cuando la primitiva Babilonia aparece como la tierra de Abraham. Ellos se sorprendieron cuando, a principios de Palestina, y apareció como el de Josué y los Jueces.
Ellos se sorprendieron cuando Amrafel de regresar de la tumba como un personaje histórico real, que lleva su código de leyes. Ellos se sorprendieron cuando la estela del faraón del éxodo se leyó, y se comprobó que sabía un pueblo llamado Israel, que se habían establecido ningún lugar de residencia, que eran “sin grano” para comer, y que en estos datos que eran bastante, ya que están representados por las Escrituras que han sido cuando había huido de Egipto hacia el desierto. *
La vergüenza creada por estos descubrimientos se manifiesta en muchos de los escritos recientes de los altos críticos, en la que, sin embargo, que todavía se aferran heroicamente a su análisis y su datación tardía del Pentateuco y su confianza en la hipótesis de la evolución como la clave de [* Los altos críticos suelen ligar en esta inscripción extraordinaria, y nos dan ni una traducción exacta, ni una interpretación natural de la misma. Tengo, por tanto, un placer especial al citar lo siguiente: “Autoridad y Arqueología” en la página 61 de Driver: “Mientras que los otros lugares nombrados en la inscripción de todos tienen el factor determinante para el ‘país’, Ysiraal tiene el determinante para los ‘hombres’: se se deduce que la referencia no es la tierra de Israel, sino a Israel como una tribu o un pueblo, ya sea migratorio o sobre la marcha. ” Así, este distinguido crítico unas sanciones más elevadas de la vista del expediente que he adoptado. VI. Los Salmos se fecha generalmente por los críticos más altos después del exilio. La gran mayoría de los altos críticos están de acuerdo aquí, y nos dicen que estas letras variadas y. Conmovedora y magnífica de la experiencia religiosa todos vienen a nosotros de un período posterior al año 450 aC Algunos de los críticos admiten un origen anterior de tres o cuatro de ellos, pero lo hacen vacilante, a regañadientes, y en contra del consenso general de opinión entre sus compañeros.
En la Biblia, un número muy grande de los salmos se atribuyen a David, y éstos, con algunas excepciones insignificantes y dudosos, se le niega a él y le derribó, como el resto, a la edad del segundo templo. 1. ¿Quién escribió los salmos? Aquí los críticos más altos no tienen una respuesta. Por el período de 400 a 175 aC, estamos en la ignorancia casi total. Josefo no sabe casi nada sobre él, ni ha ningún otro escritor nos dijo más. 2. Esto es tanto más notable si tenemos en cuenta a los hombres bien conocidos a los que niega la teoría de la autoría de alguno de los Salmos. La lista incluye nombres como Moisés, David, Samuel, Natán, Salomón, Isaías, Jeremías, y la larga lista de profetas preexílicos. 3. Esto parece aún más extraordinario si tenemos en cuenta los tiempos en que, se dice, no se produjeron los Salmos, y el contraste con los tiempos en que todos ellos fueron producidos. Los tiempos en los que no se producían eran los grandes tiempos, los tiempos de crecimiento, de fermento mental, de conquista, de la expansión imperial, de desastres y de recuperación. Los tiempos en los que no se producían eran los tiempos del espléndido templo de Salomón, con su culto espléndido.
Los tiempos en los que no se produjeron fueron los heroicos tiempos de Elías y Eliseo, cuando el pueblo de Jehová luchaba por su existencia contra las abominaciones de los dioses paganos. Por otro lado, las veces que en realidad ellos producidos fueron los tiempos de legalismo creciente, de oscuridad, y de las capacidades inferiores. Todo esto es increíble.
Nos lo podía creer sólo si llegamos a creer que los Salmos son obras de escaso valor literario y religioso. Esto se puede hacer a través de Wellhausen, que dice [Citado por Orr, “El Problema del Antiguo Testamento”, página 435] “De hecho lo son a la mínima extensión original, y son las imitaciones de la mayoría de las piezas que ilustran lo dicho acerca de la escritura mucho más “.
Los Salmos no son todos de un nivel igualmente alto de excelencia, y hay algunos de ellos que pudiera dar un poco de color tenue de justicia a esta depreciación de toda la colección. Pero en su conjunto son exactamente el reverso de esta imagen. Además, contienen absolutamente ningún legalismo, pero son tan libres de ella, como son el Sermón de la Montaña y las epístolas paulinas. Sin embargo, aún más, los autores destacan como personalidades, y que debe haber dejado una profunda impresión en sus compañeros. Por último, estaban llenos de fuego del genio encendido por el Espíritu Santo. 4. 2.

DID GOD HEAR YOU PRAYER?, The Missionary, Norman-Oetker, Protestant-Christian-, L.A.M.-Christian-Outreach, Mae-HongSon-Thailand, Prison-Reynosa-Mexico, English-Class, St.-Charles-Missouri-US.
You take the Left, “The Missionary”, Norman-Oetker, Protestant-Christian-, L.A.M.-Christian-Outreach, Mae-HongSon-Thailand, Prison-Reynosa-Mexico, English-Class, St.-Charles-Missouri-US.