ARTICLE VIII.

CRITICAL NOTES.

TRUTH OR PIOUS FRAUD.

IN the preface of "The International Critical Commentary" the editors say: "There are now before the public many commentaries written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character . . . but they do not enter into the field of critical biblical scholarship occupied by such series of commentaries as" certain German works. "The time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive commentary that will be abreast of modern Biblical scholarship, and in a measure lead its van." The commentaries "will be based upon a thorough critical study of the origi nal texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style." Dr. Driver tells us in the preface of his "Deuteronomy": "The aim of the present volume is to supply the English reader with a commentary which, so far as the writer's powers permit it, may be abreast of the best scholarship and knowledge of the day." Dr. Driver's name is the synonym of Hebrew scholarship of the first rank, and the names published of the other scholars who will comment on the remaining books of the Bible assure us that nothing will be wanting in scholarship. Whether this scholastic commentary will furnish the best knowledge of the Bible is altogether another question. In this volume there is a crush of painstaking erudition, of minute detail, endless citations of contradictions, a method of comment that covers every verse with the dust that has never known rain and will make "the student and clergyman" pine for a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple. Whatever criticisms might justly be offered on subordinate points are in this note passed over in order to set before the reader the main points on which this whole criticism rests, and of which any man of sound moral perception is quite as good a critic as the most learned Hebraist.

1 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. By the Rev. S. R. Driver, D. D. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1895. Pp. xcv, 434. $3.00. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of the Rev. Charles Augustus Briggs, D. D., New York, the Rev. S. R. Driver, D. D., Oxford, the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D. D., Durham.

It may seem strange to one not intimately acquainted with the shift. ing scenes of German criticism that Dt.1 is issued as the first volume of this critical commentary. But it is in accordance with the present dicta of that criticism that Dt. is now made by it "the firm basis and turning point," of all its decisions. "Here we have the dós μo où σTŵ for the criticism of the whole Old Testament literature." "The study of Dt. carries the reader into the very heart of the critical problems which arise in connexion with the Old Testament" (Driver, p. xii). It is well that this basis is taken, for the fundamental critical problems of Dt. are perfectly plain. A reading of Dt. in any fair translation will enable an intelligent reader to decide very quickly whether Dt. is what it claims to be, or what this criticism says it is.

The theory concerning Dt. by this criticism is that until 900-800 B. C. the Israelites had no written records, only oral traditions, sagas, legends of their history; their first writings, J and E, were collections of these popular traditions, legends; there were two political parties with antagonistic interests, the prophetical and the priestly; both suffered greatly under Manasseh (685 639 B. C.); for a compromise and union of the interests of both parties, Dt. was written by one of the prophetical party, as the basis of a reform, to establish the sole worship of Jehovah (prophetical), and this worship only at Jerusalem (priestly). Written with this intent, Dt. was "found" just at the right time and the intended plan carried out. The author, to give greater force to his history and laws, puts them in the mouth of God and of Moses; but in reality the history and laws were not so delivered, they were only tradition and legend.

The points fundamental to all this criticism are: The proof of the date of Dt.; The character of the history taught by Dt.; The character of the author.

THE DATE BY THIS CRITICISM.

Dr. Driver (p. xliv), in common with all critics of this school, makes Dt. the book found by Hilkiah in the temple B. C. 621. He leaves it an open question whether Dt. was written under Manasseh or Josiah (p. xlix), but the "verdict of criticism" is that it was written between 685 and 621 B. C., and consequently the Mosaic authorship cannot be maintained (p. xii). Dt., therefore, was the first written book of laws acknowledged as authoritative by the Israelites (p. Ixiv), or as Smend puts it, "Dt. became the earliest law book of Old Testament religion and the beginning of all the canonical Scripture of the Jews." For the proof of these positive dogmatic assertions we are referred to 2 Kings xxii, and xxiii. This is the passage that serves as the foundation socket on which all this criticism turns.

1 Dt. in this note is put only for what Dr. Driver says was the original Deuteronomy, and D for the author of that original. According to Dr. Driver, there were four authors of the book as we now have it. 2 Reuss, Gte d. H. S., § 286. 3 Wildeboer, Litt., § 11.

4A. T. Rgte, p. 284.

It therefore must be one of the absolutely sure points in the Bible which this criticism has discovered. But when we ask as to the credibility of the books of Kings, we are told that they are full of sagas and fictions, which have been worked over three times in the interest of the Dt. party,1 and when we ask about this small portion (2 Kings xxii. 8 ff.) where all this criticism begins, we are again assured that it is not of contemporary authorship, it is "saga," "fiction," "tradition," written in the late exile or post-exile period, and worked over and over by partisan editors; that the prophecy of Huldah,2 the mainstay of the passage, and many other points, are fictitious. Therefore we are cautioned by the leaders of this criticism: "As to the particulars in 2 Kings xxii, the greatest precaution is needful. . . . The dressing up of the narrative, which must be granted, did not extend to the entire expulsion of the original tradition." "The account of Josiah's reformation in 2 Kings xxii. 8ff. has come to us only in a reworked form and therefore is to be used with precaution." "The narrative in Kings on the reformation by Josiah is not in its present form really historical." "

This date of Dt., this turning-point of "this criticism," the bottom fact for all its positiveness, by its own confession, is to be picked out with "the greatest precaution" from an original tradition worked over by partisan editors, and now overlaid and surrounded by sagas, fictions, honeycombed with errors, in which the only thing credible is just what this criticism wishes to believe. "It is to be used with precaution, but in the chief matter it is credible and by it we are directed to Dt." That is the character of the foundation of this criticism. It never fails to pour its contempt on believers in the truth of the history in the Bible as traditional believers. But here we see it by its own testimony founded on what it says is nothing but tradition extracted from an unhistorical account. Somewhat more of modesty might well be sought by these positive dogmatists.

THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY IN DT.

Since the author of Dt. places the facts he relates as occurring nine hundred years before his time, according to this criticism, it is needful to

1 Wellhausen, Gte Isr., pp. 293-309; Kuenen, Ond., Vol. i. p. 421; Driver, Introd., p. 189 ff.

2 Dr. Driver knows that this criticism unanimously decides that Huldah's prophecy is fictitious, yet quotes that prophecy as proof of the honesty of Dt. (p. 1x). Similar instances of the proffer of known forbidden fruit compel again the question asked by one of Dr. Driver's own school, “Is Dr. Driver laughing in his sleeve?" Such things ought not to be done "in the van of criticism."

Kuenen, Ond., Vol. i. p. 420; Reuss, Gte d. A. T., § 287; Stade, Gte Isr., Vol. i. pp. 649, 651, 664; Kautzsch, A. T., 2 Kings xxii. 15-20; Smend, A. T.' Rgte, p. 279; Holzinger, Einl., p. 255 ff.; Horst, Hist. d. Rel.,1887–91. * Holzinger, Einl., p. 257. 5 Wildeboer, Lept. d. A. T., p. 175.

6 Smend, A. T. Rgte, p. 279.

7 Wildeboer, Litt., p. 175.

ask, whence he obtained the history and laws he prescribes? Does he furnish true or false history? Dr. Driver tells us that all his history and his laws, with few exceptions, are taken only from JE (pp. xiv-xix, xlii),1 J and E are assumed by this criticism as the two authors of the greater part of the history and many of the laws contained in the first four books of the Pentateuch. What then is the value of these documents for history and law? Dr. Driver does not characterize them. He assumes and acts upon but does not say plainly what is the unanimous verdict of this criticism on these documents. All European critics of this school without exception decide that J and E were nothing more than collections of "sagas," "myths," "legends." They deny them any historical value whatsoever; i. e., that all the history and laws contained in the Pentateuch are fictitious, destitute of the slightest claim to be regarded as history. "Its patriarchal history is saga, not history;" "only sagas." "2 "In Genesis there is no history." s "For the beginnings of Israelite religion and history the Israelite saga offers nothing." "The narrative concerning the time of Moses is saga.' "The exodus, the wandering, the passage of the Jordan and the settlement in Canaan, as they are described in the Hexateuch, are simply impossible." "The representation of all this given in the Hexateuch is absurd." Dr. Driver treats these histories and laws as fictitious in his comments, but refrains from saying so.

The history and laws, then, in Dt. are fictitious, traditional, legendary, according to this criticism.

THE CHARACTER OF THE AUTHOR.

Dr. Driver tells us (p. lii) that, under Josiah, 639-621 B. C., "the prophets, encouraged by the brighter prospect, resolved upon putting forward the spiritual requirements of the age in a shape [i, e. book] which, if circumstances favored, might serve more immediately as a basis of reform. Such at any rate. . . was the aim which the prophetic author of Dt. set himself." The author is unknown and for lack of knowl edge is marked simply D. This book, written by a certain school for a certain end by which that school is to gain, and "found" by that school

1 Dr. Driver says (pp. xiv-xix, xlii), that Dt. was later than JE. For this he offers no proof. He certainly knows that all the leaders of this criticism say that J and E were not united into JE until after the date of Dt.; and that Dt. took its statements from J and E while separate documents. This puts a different phase on the matter. Why does Dr. Driver here differ from all his school?

2 Holzinger, Einl., pp. 172 ff., 226.

Kayser, Theol. d. A. T., ed. Marti, p. 20.

4 Meinhold, Kleinglauben, pp. 25, 30.

Smend, A. T. Rgte, p. 13.

Kuenen, Hex., pp. 43, 46, 226 ff., 240 ff.; Wellhausen. Prol., pp. 300, 358, 371, etc.; Reuss, Gte d. H. S., §§ 213, etc.; Dillmann, Gen., pp. xi, xiii, 217, etc.; Riehm, Einl., Vol. i. p. 343 ff.; Cornill, Einl., p. 46, etc.; Holzinger, Einl., pp. 364, 371, etc., and many others.

in the temple just in the nick of time for carrying out its purposes, is severely characterized by all the European and a few English critics, ex. cept Dr. Driver. We pass over this manipulation for the more important point. D was no blind ignoramus, merely following the copy set him without inquiry. According to Dr. Driver, he possessed great rhetorical power," his style is "singularly pure and beautiful." "The strong individuality of the author colors everything that he writes." "In his command of a chaste yet warm and persuasive eloquence, the author of Dt. stands unique among the writers of the Old Testament." No argument, therefore, can be founded upon his want of intellect or knowledge of his subject. D, to impress his contemporaries with the legal aspect of his work (p. lx), throws all his history and laws back in the past, eight hundred to nine hundred years previous to his time, and makes the traditional hero of Israel, Moses, who left neither history nor laws, the spokesman of both the history and laws; D makes Moses assert in a hundred ways that he had lived through and knew by personal experience this history and gave under the most solemn admonition these laws. D knew that Moses knew nothing of the history and laws which were put in his mouth. D makes Moses with the most sacred adjuration on his lips (Dt. vi. 1–5) a monotheist, what, according to Dr. Driver, Moses was not (p. 90). But D goes still further: he makes Moses assert, what D knew to be false, that he (Moses) received these laws from God directly (Dt. iv. 1, 2, 40; v. 28-31; vi. 2; viii. 11; x. 13; xi. 27, 28; xiii. 18 (19); xv. 5; xxvi. 16; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 15; xxx. 16).

And there is a deeper depth. D makes Moses asseverate and plead (iii. 23–29; ix. 18–29) the fictitious history in fictitious prayers to a fictitious God, and makes Moses teach each Israelite to plead these fictitious laws in prayer to God (xxvi. 13-15). "If the critical view of Dt. be correct," D's course respecting Moses is the least of his frauds. He may have been in some measure blinded by the legends, traditions, sagas concerning Moses. But there is no possibility of a plea justifying a man ascribing to God what he knew God had never said. But, if the critical view be correct, this is just what D did in the instances quoted and in i. 42; ii. 1, 2, 9, 17, 31; iii. 26; iv. 10; ix. 12, 13, 15, etc., etc. The commands given by D are, though given through Moses, said to be God's voice speaking to the people (v. 22 (19); ix. 23; xiii. 4 (5), 18 (19); xv. 5; xxvi. 14, 17; xxvii. 10; xxviii. 1, 2, 15, 45). Still this does not satisfy D. He goes beyond Moses, across a thousand years of pure legend, and makes God solemnly covenant1 with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give them

1 "That the idea of a covenant of Jehovah with Israel is everywhere in the Old Testament the center of gravity and of support in Old Testament religion needs no proof" (Reuss, Gte d. H. S. § 261); “Fiction. . sagas about the mythical persons of the patriarchs," "myths" (§§ 130, 132).

...

"The idea of a covenant between Jehovah and his people was foreign to ancient Israel." (Smend, A. T. Rgte, pp. 116, 300; and so the others.)