DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT
by Wayne Jackson
Dr. Richard Friedman, a professor of Hebrew and comparative
literature at the University of California in San Diego, has recently
attracted considerable publicity with the claim that Baruch,
Jeremiah's scribe (Jeremiah 36:4), authored much of the Old Testament.
Friedman, who will soon issue a book entitled `Who Wrote the Bible?',
contends---on the basis of his analysis of the language, structure, and
style of the book of Jeremiah---that there are remarkable similarities
between this document and several other Old Testament books. He has
thus concluded that Baruch was not only the author of the prophecies of
Jeremiah, but also portions of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and the books of
Kings and Chronicles. Dr. Friedman opines that no serious scholar today
any longer accepts Moses as the author of the Pentateuch; He suggests
that the first five books of the Bible were "probably compiled in
Babylonia during the fifth century by weaving together the work of two
or three other authors" (quoted by the `Religious News Service',
November 28, 1986). It is utterly incredible that such a statement
could be made by someone of the scholastic community; it smacks of
either abysmal ignorance or, what is more likely the case, downright
dishonesty.
A LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
The expression "higher criticism" has to do with the study of
sources, times, and authorship of ancient literary documents. Many of
the biblical higher critics, influenced by German rationalism, have
been destructive in their approach to studies of the Scriptures. Their
investigations have proceeded along lines buttressed with biased
premises that are woefully inaccurate and which have been repeatedly
and thoroughly discredited by reputable scholars. Let us consider some
of the bases upon which the destructive critical theories rest.
First, there is, due to naturalistic presuppositions, a denial of
the miraculous elements of the Bible. The Scriptures are viewed as a
collection of myths and legends. The accounts of the creation, fall,
etc., are dismissed from the realm of factual history. We are
patronizingly told that these "stories" contain lessons for us, but are
not to be understood as literal history. Consistent with the foregoing
assumptions, therefore, is the notion that there can be no such thing
as genuine predictive prophecy, that is, the divinely given ability to
reveal in detail a particular event, person, etc., many years before
the actual occurrence of the thing prophesied. Professor A.B.
Davidson, typical of the critical school of thought, wrote: "The
prophet is always a man of his own time, and it is always to the
people of his own time that he speaks, not to a generation long after,
nor to us" (`A Dictionary of the Bible', James Hastings, Editor, IV, p
118). Noted scholar J.A. Alexander was quite correct when he observed
that about the only matter upon which the critics really agree is that
there simply "cannot be distinct prophetic foresight of the distant
future" (`A Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah', 1846, p 24).
Consider this example. Since the book of Daniel contains clear
statements as to the fate of certain empires (e.g., Babylonian, Medo-
Persian, Greek, etc.), it is alleged that the narrative could not have
been penned by Daniel, but rather was authored by some unknown scribe
in the inter-biblical era (c. 167 B.C.). The famous Porphyry, a pagan
philosopher of the late 3rd century A.D., was the first to deny the
genuineness of Daniel's prophecies. He wrote fifteen books against
Christianity, the twelfth of which was designed to depreciate the
predictions of the inspired Daniel. But, as Jerome observed, such
oppositions to the prophecies are "the strongest testimony of their
truth. For they were fulfilled with such exactness, that to infidels
the prophets seemed not to have foretold things future, but to have
related things past" (quoted in: Thomas Newton, `Dissertations on the
Prophecies', 1831, p 202).
A denial of Old Testament prophecy, of course, flies directly in
the face of the testimony of Jesus. Without belaboring this point, we
merely observe that the Lord repeatedly affirmed that the ancient
Scriptures spoke of Him (cf. Luke 24:44; John 5:39,46,47). The
destructive critics would indict Christ as being enslaved to the
ignorance of His day, or of being a dishonest charlatan.
Second, the critics have assumed that the biblical narratives
developed along evolutionary lines. Modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick
wrote: "We know that every idea in the Bible started from primitive and
childlike origins and, with however many setbacks and delays, grew in
scope and height toward the culmination of Christ's Gospel" (`The
Modern Use of the Bible', 1934, p 11). It is alleged, for example, that
material which appears technical must be assigned a late date, even if
a great variety of evidence argues for an earlier period of
composition. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), a leader in the critical
movement, argued that the Israel of Moses' day could not have had
a complicated system of civil and social laws as reflected in the
Pentateuch; accordingly, such must have arisen at a later date. The
discoveries of archaeology, however, have demolished that contention.
A number of law codes have been exhumed from the ancient past, i.e.,
the Sumerian systems of Ur-Nammu (c. 2050 B.C.) and Lipit-Ishtar (c.
1850 B.C.), the Akkadian laws of Eshnunna (c. 1950 B.C.), and the code
of Hammurabi (c. 1700 B.C.). These systems, which were several
centuries before Moses, were as technical as the Hebrew code, although
the Mosaic legislation was morally superior. For example, some of the
se pagan systems favored the wealthy over the poor and valued property
above human life (cf. Jerry Vardaman, `Archaeology and the Living
Word', Broadman, 1965, Chapter 5).
It might be further noted at this point that liberals of an earlier
generation maintained that Moses could never have authored the
Pentateuch since the art of writing was unknown in his day. Never mind
that the Bible plainly indicated otherwise (cf. Exodus 14:17; 35:27;
etc.). The claim was made that writing was only invented about the time
of David (c. 1000 B.C.). Archaeological discoveries, of course, have
long since dissolved all such arguments (see the author's book,
`Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology', pp 30-32). Yet, here is
an important point to remember---evidence for early writing already was
known in the time of Wellhausen, but it was ignored in deference to the
sacrosanct theory!
Third, based upon supposed literary strata or sources, critical
theorists, through "comparative literary studies," have dissected
certain biblical books according to alleged authors, times, etc. The
well-known Graf-Wellhausen school of thought, for example, divides the
Pentateuch into four basic documentary sources---J, E, P, and D (repre
senting Jehovist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomic origins). Because
of certain differences in the use of divine names, style, etc., in
various parts of the Pentateuch, the critics assumed that such must
imply a variety of literary sources. They are totally dominated by the
notion that differences demand multiple authors. This assumption,
however, has been demonstrated to be utterly fallacious. There are now
known to be numerous documents of antiquity---admittedly unified
literary productions---which employ the use of alternate names as a
form of stylistic relief. Professor K.A. Kitchen, of the School of
Archaeology and Oriental Studies at the University of Liverpool, has
discussed this matter in detail in his book, `Ancient Orient and Old
Testament', 1966, pp 120-125. In fact, Kitchen has firmly declared that
"even the most ardent advocate of the documentary theory must admit
that we have as yet no single scrap of external, objective (i.e.,
tangible) evidence for either the existence or the history of `J', `E',
or any other alleged source-documents" (`Ibid', p 23, emp. in orig.).
Even certain liberal critics were forced to admit that the JEDP
hypothesis is really without merit. For example, Umberto Cassuto, late
professor at the University of Jerusalem, authored a work, `The
Documentary Hypothesis' (Jerusalem, 1961), in which he confessed that
the main arguments of this theory are "without substance." He declared
that the system was an edifice "founded on air" and that it is "null
and void" (pp 5, 100, 101). M. Segal, Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, has written: "...we must reject the
Documentary Theory as an explanation of the composition of the
Pentateuch. The theory is complicated, artificial, and anomalous. It
is based on unproved assumptions. It uses unreliable criteria for the
separation of the text into component documents" (`The Composition of
the Pentateuch, A Fresh Examination', p 95; quoted in Herman Otten's,
`Baal or God', 1965, p 179).
THE CRITICAL THEORY AND A LEGAL TEST
The methodology of the higher critics was highlighted several years
ago by an interesting court case in Canada. A Miss Florence Deeks
brought suit in the Ontario courts against H.G. Wells and his
publisher, the Macmillan Company, for allegedly plagiarizing a
manuscript which she had submitted to these publishers, and which she
claimed Mr. Wells had used extensively in his celebrated book,
`Outline of History'. The defendants denied the charge claiming that
Wells' work had been done in England and he had never seen Miss Deeks'
manuscript. When the case went to court, Miss Deeks employed D.A.
Irwin, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature
at the University of Chicago, as an expert to show in detail the many
ways in which her manuscript and Wells' book resembled each other.
Professor Irwin was delighted to oblige Miss Deeks, since, as he
boasted, "this is the sort of task with which my study of ancient
literature repeatedly confronts me, and I was interested to test out in
modern works the methods commonly applied to those of the ancient
world." However, the judge dismissed the case, characterizing the
analyses of Irwin as "solemn nonsense." The judge further said: "His
comparisons are without significance, and his argument and conclusions
are alike puerile." In a less sophisticated way of stating the matter--
-the critical method was just plain silly! The case was appealed to the
Superior Court of Ontario, and finally to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council of England, the highest legal body of the British Empire.
The judges announced that Irwin's arguments were "almost an insult
to common sense," and they decried the "utter worthlessness of this
kind of evidence" (`Sunday School Times', January 21 & 28, 1933).
HIGHER CRITICISM AND MS. GOOSE
To show the utter folly of the so-called critical methods, J.W.
McGarvey once did a "Literary Analysis of an Ancient Poem." The poem
was:
"Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard,
To get her poor dog a bone.
When she got there, the cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none."
Following the critical procedure of those who dissect the Bible,
McGarvey gave the following parody of this nursery rhyme.
"In the uncritical ages of the past this poem was believed
to be the composition of a single person---a very ancient
English woman by the name of Goose. Whether we should style
her Mrs. Goose, or Miss Goose, we have no means of deciding
with certainty, for the stories which have come down to
historical times concerning her are mostly legendary. It
might be supposed that the title `mother' would settle this
difficult question; but, as in certain convents of our own
day, venerable spinsters are styled Mother, so may it have
been in the days of Goose. But, leaving this interesting
question as one for further historical inquiry, we turn to
the poem itself, and by applying to it the scientific
process of literary analysis, we find that the document did
not originate, as our fathers have supposed, from a single
author, but that it is a composite structure, at least two
original documents having been combined within it by a
Redactor. This appears from the incongruities between the
two traditions which evidently underlie the poem. One of
these traditions represents the heroine of the poem, a
venerable Mrs. Hubbard, as a benevolent woman, who loved
her dog, as appears from the fact that she went to the
cupboard to get him some food. If we had the whole story,
we should doubtless find that she did this every time the
dog was hungry, and as she would surely not go to the
cupboard, we can easily fill out the story of her
benevolence by assuming that she put something away for the
dog when she ate her own meals. Now in direct conflict with
this, the other tradition had it that she kept the dog `poor;'
for he is called her `poor dog;' and, in keeping with this
fact, instead of giving him meat, she gave him nothing but
bones. Indeed, so extreme was her stinginess toward the poor
dog that, according to this tradition, she actually put away
the bones in the cupboard with which to mock the poor dog's
hunger. A woman could scarcely be represented more
inconsistently than Mrs. Hubbard was by these two traditions;
and consequently none but those who are fettered by tradition,
can fail to see that the two must have originated from
different authors. For the sake of distinction, we shall
style one of these authors, Goose A, and the other, Goose B.
In these two forms, then, the traditions concerning this
ancient owner of a dog came down from prehistoric times. At
length there arose a literary age in England, and R put
together in one of the accounts written by the two Gooses,
but failed to conceal their incongruities, so that unto this
day Mother Hubbard is placed in the ridiculous light of going
to the cupboard when there was nothing in it; of going there,
notwithstanding her kindness to her dog, to tantalize him by
getting him a mere bone; and to cap the climax of going all
the way to the cupboard to get the bone when she knew very
well that not a bone was there.
"Some people are unscientific enough to think, that in thus
analyzing the poem, we are seeking to destroy its value, but every one
who has the critical faculty developed, can see that this ancient
household lyric is much more precious to our souls since we have come
to understand its structure; and that, contradictory as its two source
documents were, it is a blessed thing that, in the providence of God,
both have been preserved in such a form that critical analysis is
capable of separating and restoring them" (`Biblical Criticism', 1910,
pp 34-36).
Pardon us if we do not get overly excited about Professor
Friedman's "new" revelation. The fact is, there is nothing new about
it; it is the same old stagnant, discredited unbelief packaged in
modern garb.
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117-2752
Index of Preacher's Help and Notes
These documents are free from BelieversCafe.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.