Chapter II

The apparent success of the false “Higher Criticism” largely depends on the fallacy of supposing that if a seemingly complete case is made out against the genuineness of a book, the fact is thereby established that it is not genuine. The Critics boast of superior knowledge: have they never heard of cases such as that mentioned at the close of the preceding chapter? It is not necessary to go back to the days of unscrupulous and cruel judges to seek for cases where innocent men have been convicted of crime on seemingly valid evidence. The records of the Home Office during the years of my official connection with that department would furnish many striking instances of the kind.

But more than this: are the Critics aware that no criminal charge is ever sent for trial unless an apparently complete case is offered in support of it; and that in a civil action the defendant is never called upon unless a case is established which, if unanswered, would entitle the plaintiff to a verdict? And one of the main functions of a judge is to see to it that no one shall be put upon his defence, whether in a crim-

The only thing exceptional about that case was that, although, for reasons which I need not mention, an efficient and zealous police officer made special efforts to find rebutting evidence, the one exculpatory fact stood alone.

inal or in a civil court, unless and until. an apparently complete case has been established to his prejudice by legal evidence.

The thoughtless and the prejudiced may ignore all this. But the intelligent reader will apply it to the subject in hand; and it will enable him to form a just estimate of the pretensions of the pseudo-Criticism.

One of the “assured results” of this Criticism, for example, is that the Pentateuch is a Jewish work of a comparatively late date. But, as we have seen, a really strong case can be shattered by a single fact; and even if the Critics’ case against the Mosaic books were as complete as it is faulty, there is one fact that would explode it: and that fact is the Samaritan Bible,

In the Jewish Bible — which is identical with what we call “The Old Testament” — the books are grouped in three divisions; namely, “the Law,” “the Prophets,” and “the Writings.” But there was a standing feud between the Jews and the Samaritans; and as the first division of the Canon was the only one which was wholly free from Jewish taint, the sacrosanct Scriptures of the Samaritans were limited to the Pentateuch.

And yet the Critics would have us believe that the Scriptures which these men held in such special reverence were literary forgeries, written by Jews after the Ten Tribes had separated from them, and a considerable portion of which dated from after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity.^

* The Critics differ as to the precise dates to which the several parts of the Pentateuch should be assigned. And such details have no bearing on my argument. For they are

The reader will demand, perhaps, “What answer do the Critics give to this? “The Critics give no answer whatever to it. Indeed, they never notice anything urged against what they call ‘’ the assured results” of their inquiries. And why? Presumably because, as I have said, they imagine that if a case can be established for or against anything, the question at issue is settled. It is an attitude of mind with which my experience of legal and police work has made me familiar.

Before turning away from this, let me emphasise two points. The first is, that the fact of the Samaritan Bible is as definite a bar to the sane and reasonable views associated with the name of that most eminent of the Critics, the late Professor Dillmann, as it is to what may be described as the criticism pour rire of the Graf-Wellhausen apostasy. And the second is, that while in a criminal trial the case against the accused is based on facts — definite and thoroughly tested facts which satisfy men whose only aim is to arrive at truth — the attack upon the Pentateuch rests entirely on critical theories and inferences, without a single fact to support it.

Here is Professor Drivers statement of the case: —

“We can only argue upon grounds of probability derived from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary composition, or of the rise and growth of the

agreed that the Pentateuch as a whole dates from after the return from Babylon. And this was the very period when the action of the Jews towards them rendered the Samaritans so bitterly hostile. That a book which originated at such time should have been adopted as their Bible is quite incredible.

prophetic tone and feeling in ancient Israel, or of the period at which the traditions contained in the narratives might have taken shape, or of the probability that they would have been written down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had taken effect, and similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though plausible arguments, on one side or the other, may be advanced, a standard on which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed.” (” Introduction,” 6th ed., p. 123.)

If the Critics had remembered Archbishop Whately’s “Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonoparte,” a saving sense of humour might have led them to conceal in some way the kinship of their case against the Patriarchs and the Mosaic records, with the argument to prove that Napoleon was a myth, and the reports of his defeats and victories untrustworthy!

‘’ Grounds of probability: plausible arguments/* — Fancy a suit to set aside some ancient deed or charter, based on “evidence “of this kind! If only we could get these pseudo-Critics before any sort of competent tribunal, they would be ‘’ laughed out of court” in an hour.

I commend to the reader the following words of an eminent scholar of a different school, a man of such a sensitively judicial cast of mind that he is generally apt to understate his case — I refer to the Dean of Canterbury: —

“The origin and composition of the Pentateuch according to those theories is of so unexampled and extraordinary a

*A postscript to the 12th edition is a splendid piece of pseudo-Criticism, proving conclusively that Moscow was never burned at all!

character, that the most positive historical evidence would be required to justify our acceptance of such an account of it. There is no instance of an ancient book of history being composed like a tesselated pavement, in which several unknown sources are dove-tailed into one another, sometimes in the most minute pieces. Still less is there any instance of an elaborate historical and legislative work having been composed with the object of confusing, if not perverting, a nation’s traditions of its own history and its ancient laws; still less of such a work succeeding in the attempt. If such a scheme were difficult with any nation, it would be tenfold more difficult in the case of the Jews, one of whose chief characteristics, at once their strength and their danger, is their intense tenacity, and who were always, for good or for harm, a stiff-necked people.’ But it is impossible not to add that, most incredible, if not most monstrous, of all, is the supposition that such a pious fraud was committed at the instigation of the God of truth, and that the books which are its record and its instrument can be regarded as inspired by Him.”

This attack upon the Pentateuch has a sinister history. It originated long ago, when paganism sought to check the spread of Christianity. It was revived in the eighteenth century by Jean Astruc, a typical

This extract is from Dr. Wace’s “Summary to Lex Mosaica,” p. 617; a series of essays by eminent scholars, which are a masterly refutation of the pseudo-Criticism and a valuable exposition of the true Higher Criticism. “Are the Critics Right?” by Wilhelm Moller — formerly “immovably convinced of the irrefutable correctness of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis” — is, in smaller compass, an able defence of the Pentateuch. And “Criticism Criticised” is a report of the Oxford meetings on this subject, with papers by the Dean of Canterbury, Prof. Margoliouth, and others. In the same connection I would mention Canon Girdlestone’s “Hebrew Criticism”; and “Higher Criticism,” by Rev. Robert Sinker, D. D., Librarian of Trin. Coll., Cambridge,

Frenchman of that period — half- Jesuit, half-infidel — and it was afterwards formulated by German Rationalists. The ground on which it found favour in England is now discarded as an ignorant blunder. For it was assumed that history began with the Greeks, and that what were then regarded as prehistoric times were barbarous. It was therefore held to be incredible that such a marvellous literature as the Mosaic books could have originated a thousand years before Herodotus. To-day, however, history dates back to ages far remote, and it is known that a thousand years even before Moses literature flourished. And we are told on high authority that “In the century before the Exodus, Palestine was a land of books and schools.” It had long enjoyed a high civilisation.

But infidels care nothing for the discoveries of archaeology. That their Christian allies should ignore the protests based upon them by men like Professor Sayce (whose words I have here quoted) is one of the enigmas of this controversy.

The question of inspiration is quite outside the scope of my present argument. And it will be time enough to defend the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch when some case has been made out to call for an answer. Every archaeological discovery has been confirmatory of it — a statement which, if untrue, is easily refuted.

“Lex Mosaica,” p. 9. In a treatise so recent as the Introduction to The Speaker’s Commentary, we read, “The first question which naturally occurs is, Was the art of writing known in the age of Moses?”

As for the ^’ Mosaic Cosmogony,” if the Gladstone-Huxley tournament upon that question in the pages of the Nineteenth Century has failed to silence the silly cuckoo-cry about “the conflict between Science and Genesis,” all discussion is idle. Mr. Gladstone’s thesis was that Science is perfectly in accord with Genesis as to the order in which life appeared upon our globe. Upon one point only did Professor Huxley attempt to upset this, and that point depended on interpreting *’ creeping things “in Genesis i. by the use of the word in Leviticus xi. 29-31. “The merest Sunday-School exegesis,” he said, “suffices to prove that when the Mosaic writer in Genesis i. 24 speaks of creeping things, he means to include lizards among them.” A sheer blunder, based on the chance reading of the EngHsh Bible; for there is no affinity between the word used in Genesis i. and that employed in Leviticus xi.

But instead of apologising to the “Sunday School,” Professor Huxley appealed to his “eminent friend Professor Dana” on the general question, and Professor Dana’s answer was, “I believe that the first chapter of Genesis and Science are in accord.”

But, it will be said, the testimony of true Higher Criticism is decisive on the main question here at issue. Such a statement betokens either effrontery or ignorance. True Criticism argues that if Greek words are found in Daniel, the book was presumably written in the Greek period; and that if wilderness words are found in Exodus, the book was written in the time

‘Nineteenth Century, August, 1886, p. 304. See “The Bible and Modern Criticism,” chap. x.

of the desert wanderings. But though facts refute the argument in regard to Daniel, and establish its validity in regard to Exodus, the pseudo-Critics insist on rejecting both these books. Whether this discredits the books or the Critics, the reader must decide.

Candour will admit, however, that while philological inquiry is entirely on the side of the Pentateuch, it seemed formerly to afford materials for a plausible case against Daniel. When the old pagan attack upon the book was renewed in modern times, ten Greek words at least were enumerated as a ground for discrediting it. But this was a blunder. The Critics themselves now acknowledge that the only Greek words in Daniel are the names of two, or possibly three, of the musical instruments mentioned in the third chapter.

And the presence of these can be accounted for. Professor Sayce has shown that “there were Greek colonies on the coast of Palestine in the time of Hezekiah,” a century before Daniel was born. In recognition of the services of Greek mercenaries in his army, King Pharaoh Necho (possibly on the field where King Josiah fell) dedicated his corselet at a Greek shrine. And a brother of the Greek poet Alcseus won distinction in the army of Babylon at the very time when Daniel held power in the palace.^ That Greek musical instruments should have been used in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, and that they

* “Higher Criticism and the Monuments,” p. 494. ‘Grote’s “History of Greece,” Part II. chap. xix. Bible Diet., art. “Neco.” “The House of Seleucus,” p. 8, should have carried their Greek names with them, might therefore be regarded as a matter of course.

What, then, will the reader think when I add that a contemporary advocate of the critical hypothesis persists in declaring that “the Greek words demand a date [for the book of Daniel] after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander “? He will probably suspect me of resorting to the base artifice of trying to discredit the distinguished scholars of the “Higher Criticism” by identifying them with language used by some foolish or unscrupulous “satellite” of the movement. Not so. The statement I have quoted is put forward deliberately and emphatically by the most eminent and most trusted exponent of the “Higher Criticism” in England — I mean Professor Driver of Oxford.

This, of course, does not establish the genuineness of Daniel. But such is not my present purpose. Here I pose merely as an iconoclast, not as the exponent of a true creed. Ninety-nine people out of every hundred who accept the “critical view” of the book do so on the authority of scholars like Canon Driver. And my object is merely to show that the dicta of these distinguished men are not always trustworthy.

As everyone who is versed in the Daniel controversy is aware, our English scholars merely reproduce the case made out by foreign sceptics; and the sceptics have added but little to the old arguments of Porphyry the pagan. They ctart with the assumption that any book which records a miracle or contains a prophecy must be false; and their effort is, not to inquire whether Daniel is genuine, but to prove that it is a forgery. They are compelled to maintain, therefore, that the book was written in the days of Antiochus, not earlier than the fourth decade of the second century b. c.

But if the case they have piled up in proof of this were as strong as it is feeble, a number of facts could be appealed to, any one of which would be sufficient to destroy it.

The first fact is the Jewish Canon. For the Canon included no book which was not believed to have been in existence in the time of Nehemiah. And it was closed not later than half a century after the death of Antiochus.^ And yet, according to the “critical hypothesis,” Daniel was written within the memory of men who finally settled the Canon.

The next fact is the Septuagint Version. For the Critics themselves admit that that version was made before First Maccabees was written, and the corruptions which mark it give proof that at the time when it was made Daniel was an ancient book.

Another fact is the book of Ecclesiasticus. For Daniel is cited by the Son of Sirach,^ who wrote at least a quarter of a century before Antiochus began

As to both points my authority is Dr. Ryle’s “Canon of the Old Testament” (pp. 175 and 188). My argument depends on the fact of the Jewish belief, and that is not doubtful.

Three quotations from the book of Daniel are cited by Dr. Schechter in his Introduction to “The Wisdom of Ben-Sira,” but of course they are not accepted as quotations by the Critics. I beg to refer to my “Daniel in the Critics’ Den,” pp. 101-103 (1902 ed.).

to reign. And, I may add, the proof that the whole Jewish Canon was then already closed is almost adequate to satisfy even a hostile witness/

And if these and other external facts could be disposed of, the ninth chapter would still bar the “critical hypothesis.” For not even the subtle ingenuity of the sceptics, aided by a false punctuation of verse 25,^ can get rid of the Messianic prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. This, however, only establishes the minor premise of their syllogism. Its major premise is that every book which professes to be a Divine prophecy is a fraud.

We hear ad nauseam of “the decisions of modern Biblical criticism.” The wild vagaries of pseudo-Criticism abound; but a court entitled to give decisions in the name of true Criticism has never yet been constituted. “The assured results of the best and latest scholarship “include the rejection of the New Testament” as a tissue of deceptions and forgeries.” Not so, we shall be told, for the decision these words express was yesterday’s, not to-day’s. And, as Dr. Harnack (whose they are) remarks,” That time is

* “Canon of the Old Testament,” p. 313. In calling the Bishop of Winchester a hostile witness, I mean merely that he is on the side of the Critics.

The AthnaJi accent in verse 25 might possibly be explained by the fact that the Jews never read the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in their synagogues, and any attempt to compute the period is anathema. But to make the Hebrew accent equivalent to our colon is a blunder. We should have to read verse 2: “I, Daniel, understood by the books: the number of the years,” etc.

passed. For Science it was an episode in which it learned much, and after which it has much to forget.” And, as this great writer adds — and no one can speak with more authority — “The oldest literature of the Church in all main points, and in most details, from the point of view of literary criticism, is genuine and trustworthy.”

“That time is passed.” Yes, but even those of us who are not yet old can remember it. And the bederoU of living scholars and theologians and critics contains no name more eminent than that of Ferdinand Christian ,Baur. In his day it was the New Testament which bore the brunt of the sceptical attack. To-day it is the Hebrew Scriptures. But if “the assured results of the best scholarship “of less than half a century ago are now dismissed as ‘* an episode,” our children may live to find the Encyclopcedia Biblica and Dr. Hastings’ Bible Dictionary relegated to the limbo of discredited and forgotten books.

Having regard to the acceptance and popularity of the now discarded labours of “the Tubingen School,” the attitude which most of the leaders of the secular press maintain toward the pseudo-Criticism is as deplorable as it is amazing. For these enlightened persons veto the exercise of an independent judgment upon the subject, and insist on our accepting the dicta of the Critics with a subservience as abject as that rendered by Irish peasants to their priests.

The “assured results of modern criticism” are rejected by some Critics of the highest eminence. The

“The Chronology of the Oldest Christian Literature.”

late Professor Dillmann may be named in that category, together with his no less distinguished successor in the chair of theology in Berlin University, Professor Hermann Strack. On both sides of the Atlantic there are men of equal eminence as scholars and theologians who repudiate the pseudo-Criticism altogether. And this being so, educated men should either investigate the matter for themselves, or else they should hold their judgment in suspense.

Fine phrases about the assured results of the latest and best scholarship are therefore the merest claptrap. And yet, when we seek to expose the patent errors of the pseudo-Criticism, no other reply is attempted by the press organs of the cultured classes which champion its cause. Professor Blank says so and so, and Professor Blank is this and that. Yes: “Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honourable man.”

“The latest and best scholarship.” Yes: “Your food will cost you more.” The tiresome refrain by which the defenders of pseudo-Criticism would stifle discussion is as sapient as the parrot-cry by which the defenders of pseudo-free trade would prevent us from coming face to face with facts.

The parallel here suggested is a striking one. The great majority of thoughtful people are in favour of genuine free trade and of genuine free criticism. But in the one case as in the other, an agitation is making use of a title to which it has no honest claim. And it was just about the time when one-sided free trade gained ascendency in England that one-sided free criticism began to make headway. The one system is now upon its trial; and the time seems opportune to call the other to account. If it adhered to the methods of those who, acting under official responsibility, conduct judicial and police inquiries, the sceptical crusade against the .Bible would shrink to narrow limits.