SUNDAY READING,

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 4 (Supplement)

SUNDAY READING,

-;- .; „ ,1 • : /. > .'■ - -'" '-'"\ JS THE ORITIOAI/ HYPOTHESIS j . y„ VALID? ■'./'. CHRIST AND CRITICISM. [BV the/ -.bey. JOHSf SMITH, , p.p.] ; The aliove well-known gentleman'.has been/ giving a series/of lectures on " The Integrity of Scripture: Plain Reasons for Rejecting | the Critical Hypothesis." They hayebecri published in the Life of Faith magazine, and have created very great interest. By special request we publish one /of the series, which will give a fairly good idea of the whole, course. - •• '-. ■■;. - - ?•/■-;. :..,.., - ; ; >*:i'-,v/---, " They are they, which testify of Me" (John v., 39). .■" :-;//'. ;,. , . It will be our duty, In this and following lectures; to subject 1 this critical", hypothesis to those tests :by which Logic affirms the vahenty of every hypothesis must be ..established. First of;all,. we are extremely anxious to bring out, even, to those ; least conversant with these 'subjects, .'-' HOW PURELY HYPOTHETICAL THIS WHOLE : OKITICAL POSITION IS. /"•/// Arid for two reasons. -.-.,- ■ , -•' '■ We are struck to find that many critics are 'anxious'to make it appear that they have nothing to do with naturalistic assumptions, but are just Bible students, */; discovering results—which it is for them to communicate and for us to receive. To this we answer Your, particular bit of work may j bo of the simply critical and; detailed ; character you describe, .but you follow the lead and take the cue of those who j occupy the position .we have described, and are working to support their conclusions. A single* cog. in a » wheel has simply to/bite at one point into the toothed wheel opposite. In one sense its single duty.is'accurately to insert ; itself and hold fast. : But. the cog is on a wheel, and , behind the .wheel is /an engine/ and' the whole power of the engine is going through that cog - to move; the machinery of the mill. And.so each private soldier at any part of tlie immense line of the critical attack must take full responsibility for the movement which he has volunteered. 1 ./•,.,:'*: - / But we have a further reason. /It is very difflpult to';' get at the real J position of great questions by reason of the popular clamour about them. The vast * reading ' public are ever on the strain for what is new, and when a scholar or a thinker tentatively propounds any theory at all startling or revolutionary they seize upon this new sensation, assume its truth, discuss i its bearings, ;' press ; its consequences, • and /make the world ring with it,..'beforo,. men competent to. discuss the subject have had tjme to master the facts and look dispassionately on the whole ? case. More ! >. than -.-:■ that, this : general iippreisioij; creating enthusiasm,/' 5 arousing ,/resistance; brings a partisan spirit arid many .iide issues into the controversy, which make it ! difficult even for competent judges to see the 'facts as they/are. \' : ' : ''''; *•/'-'■/"/' '/"- : .-' ~. Of all this -we;have a remarkable example here./KDoferring j to ..great , names and i professional authority " a . vast number have assumed that debate is iat an end arid criti-: cism is triumphant. ', Hpw profoundly illogical even cultivated men may be is seen in this, that they take as proved a mere theory or hypothesis, or supj>os,tibp,, which has not yet been tested. / y Ob. -'the other ' hand multitudes who deprecate criticism pre filled i with unnecessary fear. As there are lying's Courts to investigate ;pyeryclia.-.ge against even the meanest' of his subjects so there are courts of ; reason ! which the greatest army ' of ;j authorities in the world cannot 'evade." * ! " It is a Surprise even to those I who ? have been s*conversant; with .this .speculation many ears to find oil examination, t. ' NOTHING BUT SUPPOSITIONS ' V apd. more, how purely gratuitous '. lnapy; of the suppositions are. -;: Let us show. this in ; some detail. '"- ■'"■■'•■ ■ •' • .. ' -.'-,;. To begin ; with, it; has been supposed that the accounts of- the creation and the flood are: Babylonish traditions "purified, /which the children of Isreal learned so late as f the" Exile, and introduced into their Scriptures. Some, -t however, think that ■ these traditions miy.have come in through a far earlier contact ; with Babylon; in the. beginning of 'ilsrael's , history. / That is"- an example of /the wide-ranging hypothesis characteristic of criticism... /.:"■' *•:■■■.'.'■/•• - -•--..-. 'Again; although "in the ''histories' 1 of Egypt ,and Babylon wo find traces of / masterful m .? brimful of great ideas, learn that all over the ■ East there were brisk migratory' movements towards the West, the Higher Criticism, setting aside the portraits of spiritual heroes like ? Abraham and ' Jacob, which impress us j, as > the finest flowering of/ just, such an era, gratuitously: imagine, another : co A ldlQ B of things altogether. They conceive a lower civilisation, a dimmer Jjght, slower movements, a less tense consciousness, which allowed of the growing up of vague mythi--cal • elements. J They take .personal characters Which have- powerfully impressed subsequent 5 generations to be legendary' personifications: Of fictitious efforts to account for the \ geographical distribution of neighouriug, na°l?3' . T his again is hypothesis, and-» hypothesis right in the face of a narrative which in any case is ancient, and embodies a still 1 more onciept < tradition// containing, .too, an account more in keeping with the newest unfoldings of that far-off: time. ■ If Ohedorlaomer and the other kings who joined ipm in the sack of Sodom stand out in solid realty, witnessed to by Scripture, and the monuments, surely characters which had in them" the saving salt of holiness ! and . moral majesty might also ' persist../,' , •■ ' Coming down to the Mosaic age / we have supposition " again—an t, imaginary 'picture of a far ruder condition of things than the narrative, of ? Exodus presents. • «'■ The critic cannot/ depy a central pore of; fact. Moses was the true founder of the nation, and, the real beginning of Isreal's peculiar career are to be found there. /You see . at/bottom they cannot find any explanation but what wo find. But dealing with the fact according to a priori ideas of their own they reduce the story into, natural'proportions. In a word, they eliminate the Divine creative element out of x the books end leave a natural residuum '_ Allowing for a germinating conception of Uod coming somewhere into-lsrael the -story as reconstructed by .the critics is just a natural story of escape from captivity desert wandering, and conquests; and then slow growth upwards from the level of surrounding heathenism, law accumulating, and sacrifice refining in. idea / from age to ago. All this is pure supposition, without one vestige of independent proof. /// "' . Similarly the account given of "the' later factory ; e.g., that Solomons temple is not an effort to realise . the , ideal * of - *the central sanctuary sketched in - the Pentateuch, but simply a royal high-place, which '.did riot antiquate the other high places, is merely-a bow drawn at a venture, with, of f course, all sorts of inferential evidence cleverly put to- : gether, but with no solid proof • . Coming to, the era of the prophets and the ■ later kings which.»; the. constructive period ; I according to the critical theory, we have "a series of unsupported suppositions without -a . parallel mmi .literature, or in the history ] &P& W the fragment of the book of the Covenant xx.-xxiii) incorporated ml; the t Jehoviat j and Elohist narrative—at /any/ rate f before Hosea and - Amos or it may be a century earlier.':- Then ' '" ■¥&*&& ° l Josiah's days/ before , Wl B.U, came into existence: and lastly, 1 some time before the close i of the , Z' l ft e; at bulk of the present Peritatench, the Priests' Code, was put together and joined wit& ;< the : other codes * into the whole - These are simply suppositions^ found- , ed, of course,J on a great „ variety § of I ©onwderationii,but_aaWe sadiia last ieotme, ~? . , »

mcorantaon » o KE^~and unsupported by indepe, Gnt ' Let us pause to take in thThe critics have lived bo lo? fW**". of their own theory, arid ® Wot 1? of views and considerate thlt ' depend , for their;: vitality o».tfc* tt w *r that they take for proof What fflj thfto nr. - their supposition..-; And then *"?-P?rt of wo are going to accept on tlr3! ? \ tbttt structure of supposition, not 0 1MjJ * deuce, but despite historical I^T°, «*■ of the gravest dwcriSf as T tie « ■ dealing with the ages of .W,i ?T,»toa last lecture. ■ ' ~o3u> d £„ in. But, says someone, granted tin»i,';' •'. ,' theory is not historically provedtW *7 tM ? ; sists as a hypothesis, still it a. V ub "' thesis of trained cxnerts, who lul ," JT ° ; ledge of the languag'e and a conLndons" - sources given to few.; True the* dof ,he In. with* a Hebrew text S eighth or ninth century 8.C.. anuh« fLu 9 agint, dating from 230 8.C.. in, a » n fe Bit what triumph, have been critical acumen of .scholars in oW £u! And, especially when we find «S agreeing, on . certain general cnJS have we not warrant for believing fff' must be something in what they aS? * . Certainly, let us honour author* La „»_ qunements, not as a substitute for roof hi asi, predisposing, us favourably. tdcon'.dffi what they advance as proof. ~ »f ]£ years we have given such a ■ nation, heS -we mean the Church and Christia, D S generally—as has never before heenplSS a similar And when still, thirl, *&£■ years, -this.hypothesis hangs fire, aid «*S demonstration is.a 3 far-off us eve , surol we are- not only free,. but bound, tc innuii; into tho grounds on which this Exposition is set. up. * uua • Principal Stewart,' of St. Andrew in TV Hastings' Bible Dictionary (vol. i -PJr «£' 290) . concluding strongly for pritiSm „ . something which cannot. be ignored sathat the problem of the Pentateuch " tool 1 now phase when - not only linkgtio and, literary considerations were brought to it ' solution, but also considerations derived a closer examination of Israel's diittorv Mm! ' of the progress of its religious tbiijrht and" practice.'. When inquired into tit reX ' means- that tlie hypothesis is founded "on i - hypothesis. " For what did this closet eiann#Pi nation , amount '. to ? Whence this r *sh view % of the development of, religious thoiMt and practice'• in Israel? Principally frftm-two theories :of Wellhausen, adopted byvmanv Continental and British critics; and tbese ii " turn were ' founded ~on a rigorous application - of the theory of natural development*.' l - , Take, : first, Wellhausen's view "of thn centralisation of worship. This is his stron» ' point on which he rests his whole'theory There is no element of , Divine appointment' . in the worship of Israel. -"In the early days worship arose out of the midst of or.' dinary life." "A sacrifice was a meal" "Even the groat national festivals rest upon agriculture, basis at.once of religion and life." 'In those days the worship of fthellpf Bamoth or high places was the general ajjlSl torn up and down the,land..- The Israelite* learned these feasts from '- the '• ■; Caoaaniies, i arid reproduced Canaanite customs, 'gubsti* tuting ' Jehovah for Baal. ■'.;.■; The centralisation :of worship' was a gradual process. The destruction of , Samaria threw Jerusalem intoi'Vrelief 'as'", a central sanctuary. --:* As -thestSftXl festivals became centralised under 'the influence of the ; prophets, they lost their •ok associations, and became more and more ahSfl : stract. " And when they.had lost their'qrigiSfl rial.contents, and degenerated into more prescribed religious forms, there was nothing tc prevent the .refilling: of the empty botflctf in any way accordant with the tastes of &!»&*£, period." In other words, imagination set tc i work and, on what Wellhausen- calls t thtlpjtf tabula i rasa .;' of the * wilderness, , rearing ' the hierarchical * system depicted' in-. Exodus, The .book of the Covenant "accordingly be. longs to the early period, wheu Natureworship at the high places still existed. The. reform under Josiah, when Deuteronomy appeared, markspeared, marks the first stage m* the ' spiritualisation >■ of .worship and in the Priests'. Code you have the spiritualised worship fitted out with glorious legendary beginnings. n . ' ' ' There you have got .- . : ~.; ... .'..-■ ■-'', -~ ■■ ■.- ■■;■; viS"-?! ; ":-' ONE HTPOTHESI3 STJPPORTIXS ANOTHER, and both without one vestige of independent proof. •.ylfj we i were i entering here detail into the whole subject., ■: and ; not . furnishing $ few proofs of 'the kind of evidence on which the critical hypothesis rests, wo could bring many "objections against this theory. ' „;'ABjSli theory it', proves far too much,"' reducing th« of Israel to such a natural, pagan t level that it is impossible to understand how she «: fulfilled her' unique a destiny, or rose above ' the surrounding peoples. Pulyeril* Old Testament Scripture ;as you please ;it isWm flects a spirit anS discovers a consciousness! of God, "and-' of '.'a-.' national * destiny indissolubly associated with God, utterly opposed; to : this :: naturalism. **«K / Then the documents which the theory account for tdo not . bear out the, view. Qf course, it is " easy :• to : prove Anything. wheiii you remove from the text;whatever militate! against. your : position 1 If the Ten . Qonn mandments, " even i in the •'<■ most primitive form, as some critics -think, belong to the book of v tho Covenant then they represept i, so '. vivid j a, realisation "of, one God. and a -. worship ,\ so'- removed 'in .'cardinal features from' heathen ; worship, that i{« cannot a for -a. moment regard this section lis; authorising,. "or even referring to,-". the Natura-worahip of the high places.*" 1 *" ThVjM|i very passage which is quoted tp justify that worship has indeed '.the: opposite ; effect: i|J«l§|l all places where I- record My name, I will come unto thee, and; I ; will bles» thee" (Ex. xx. 24). ~ Men s were not to worship at, their own hand. Jehovah had come into the'midst of them. From day to day he would record His name, ■ appoint the place for rest, and there they should worship. And Tso whenj they entered into Promised Land $?|l|| would appoint whatever place = seemed good to Him for t-their ordinary' or exceptional worship. .Whatever! that consorts with, such a view, i? utterly opposed to the naturalistio theory, while it is quite in line with God'j appointment of a worship which from the beginning aimed: at a central sanctuary. He M■, kept ip "His own hand the: appointment of the place where ■' He ■ should come npar WsJsss bless them. - What we have to say, however,.is that all this, theory of : the centralisation •of worship is a; hypothesis, possessing ho vestige of a»-«M|| gumentative value, except as it fits j into apd explains the origin of Did Testament Scripture.} And : more, it does not stand alone. There is : another explanation which' is mar» than a hypothesis, which has come downj from ancient times, which ;is imbedded 'ia , Scripture, : and which,' without straining ous credulity, explains the peculiarity of Israel 1 * worship far more satisfactorily, ;soi as ito|feej allow for its unique place and influence. The discovery of God at Sinai was so r glorious that the worship of Israel stood oh a plane of its own from the beginning- ; While the whole nation was in JJorehlthere could be .*Wf*§|| question of many altar-s. And before they . left that holy place, provision was made in the x tabernacle : for •af centralised worsbipj without thought or mention of any other. Only when < they were about to enter into Canaan was it necessary, as in Deuteronomy. to enforce the i :- doctrine >. of the i- central sanctuary, and so guard there from the hea- , ' then worships of the land. ■ . ■. . -. , ;If we , simply look at facts as they are before us, which, takings everything into account.;' is the ; more t likely supposition! ! Which * has , the fewer difficulties? .Vv And ; yet ?S;li the Higher Criticism goes away from the ancient, the obvious, the unforced explanation, and takes up a theory violent, ' unsupported, improbable. ' '— % '-"^Sip But take ■ ■ -< - ■' - ' :• ■ ! "'^C ANOTHER OF THESE HYPOTHETICAL SUPPOBT3I ! foi the reconstruction of the Higher OriticisoH Deuteronomy, we are told, must come before the Priests' 'Code, because the Levites *rtmm predominant in that book,', while in ; Exodus Leviticus, and Numbers 'we' have a mart highly articulated worship, in which the priests take the principal place. Here we have a simple nrocess of natural evolution, boldly imposed on Scripture without a vestige of proof." First comes Natureworship, with no definite order: then Levitieal guilds, becoming a Levitical order, with -f-gjg, special provision; and then the priests and high-priest as the' last stage in the' development. So do men. embroider their van] thoughts on i the imperishable ; substance loi .• Scripture! 5 , ■,% But the wisdom of map is foolishness W%;.'"&| Ood' t ; He has ... His own plan written in' dehbly on Scripture. His plan was no evolution, but : differentiation. First the ■ whole" ">..| people were to bo a nation of priests; priestly service was to be the law of their life in response to God's love. Then the first-bora sons were, specially claimed as the Lords, and ap offering had to be made in lieu of their service. tu. Then the" tribes of the Levi did service for all their brethren, and had » peculiar provision. And crowning. all wM jl§'|l the priests,;the;song,of Aaron. ' Instead of a, • poor mechanical idea of natural development , you have a great Divine provision, impressing upon Israel the unique character which she bore :to the end. 4 The nation was bound to its covenant God in* priestly service; every: family, owned a priestly 'con. secration—that was ■ the essential i nature |ot the uAile'Levites* and priests wer« delegated for immediate ministries.-' ' ' **-. Punch once used, the expression " un* developed offspring of . the ; gallinaceous tribe." All this to denote an egg—taw that! arid avoid the extravagance i"™** 1 *!! $&§m custard.' ; Use Tucker's custard powder 'M-*&Mm