CONSEQUENCES

We propose in this closing chapter to speak of the tendencies and effects of the analytic system, the hypotheses and ideas embraced in it, and the arguments by which they are supported.

It may be said, — indeed, it has been said, — that at most not much harm can result from the acceptance of the hypothesis of the non-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, or the acceptance of analytic views of the authorship of any of the anonymous books of the Bible. It is indeed true that the human authorship of a divinely inspired book is in itself of little importance. Nor is the question whether such a book was produced through the instrumentality of one author or many of much importance in itself. We recognize the fact that the great question concerning the Pentateuch, as well as concerning every other book of the Bible, is whether it is divinely inspired. If God is its author, it is to be believed, reverenced, and obeyed, no matter by whom or in what age it was written. But in the case of the Pentateuch the question of its authorship, as discussed by the analysts, is intimately connected with the question of its divine inspiration, and of that of the whole Bible. We are of the opinion that the Pentateuch can neither be the word, nor contain the word, of God, nor have any divine authority, if it is such a book as the analytic school represents it to be. We think that the analytic view of its authorship, as now set forth and defended, must, in the end, result in thoroughgoing skepticism. We believe, indeed, that the outcome of the hypotheses and argumentation necessary to defend that view must logically and inevitably be downright rationalism and infidelity. Such will not be the immediate result in most, or perhaps in many, cases. Generally, those who construct or adopt a new theory do not carry it out to its legitimate consequences. In many cases a generation or two must pass before the character and tendencies of a new theory can be tested by its practical results. The foremost thinkers, the men of logic and intellectual intrepidity, are the first to carry new views and ideas to their ultimate conclusions. Already the leaders of the analytic school, the men who have filled out and completed the system, and who best know what positions must be taken in order to defend it, have become rationalists, which is another name for infidels. Many of their followers — men possibly of equal learning, but of feebler intellectual grasp — are lagging at a distance behind them, but moving on in the same direction. Some of these may stop in their course and stand doggedly still; some may turn round and retrace their steps; but a logical mind once adopting analytic views can scarcely avoid moving on towards skepticism and infidelity.

I. In the first place, as shown in the preceding chapter, the analytic hypothesis in regard to the authorship and date of the Pentateuchal books involves the conclusion that the Lord Jesus Christ, while on earth, was fallible and errant, adopting erroneous opinions current among the Jews and giving them out in his public instructions. The analytic hypothesis charges our divine Lord with more serious error than incorrect teaching in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch and the Psalms. It virtually charges him with false teaching in regard to the infallibility and authority of the Scriptures. He declared that "the Scripture cannot be broken."¹ Again, having spoken of "the Law and the Prophets," he said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled."² Again, having spoken of "the Law and the Prophets," he added, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail."³ All these declarations were necessarily understood by Christ's hearers as referring to Scripture and law as contained in the Pentateuch, as well as to the other Scriptures, and he undoubtedly intended them to be so understood. But our analytics, in opposition to our Lord's teachings, maintain that much of the Pentateuchal Scripture is broken and marred by contradictions, misstatements, and other errors, and that much of the Pentateuchal law is nullified and fails in the same way. Thus our Saviour is declared to be fallible and errant even in his public declarations concerning the Scriptures. Now what must be the effect of such an opinion, when fully accepted? What effect must it have upon little children and upon larger boys and girls to inform them that Jesus, the Lord from heaven, was a fallible teacher and made mistakes even in speaking of the Scriptures? And what effect must all this have on men in general? Had Nathanael found Christ mistaken in his declaration as to having seen him under the fig tree, the Israelite without guile would have rejected his claims to the Messiahship. Had the woman of Samaria found him mistaken in any of his declarations in regard to her former life, instead of proclaiming, "Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did," she would have pronounced him an impostor. And just let mankind in general become convinced that Jesus made mistakes in his teachings and uttered incorrect declarations about the Scriptures, and the conclusion will eventually be reached that he is not the Son of God and Lord from heaven. The logic and common sense of the human mind will advance from belief in the fallibility and errancy of Christ to the skepticism of Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, Paine and Voltaire.

Some of the analytic critics of the less advanced class seem themselves to consider the doctrine of Christ's fallibility dangerous. Their cautious and euphemistic way of speaking of it indicates this, or else, like the ancient enemies of Christ, they "fear the people." These critics, of course, represent the errors which they charge on him as trivial. Yet they themselves, after a century of effort, continue to write essays, reviews, and books, and to employ all the resources of learning and logic, to convince the world that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, though recognized by Christ, is an error. Besides, the analytic criticism virtually charges it as an error on Christ and the apostles that they refer to and quote the Pentateuch as divinely inspired and authoritative.

2. The analytic system tends and leads to the rejection of the doctrine of divine inspiration.

'No portion of the Old Testament is more distinctly and authoritatively recognized in the New than the Pentateuch. It is referred to by Christ and the apostles as trustworthy and authoritative. It is quoted as divinely inspired. The laws and writings are appealed to, indeed, as those of Moses, but they are appealed to as being at the same time the laws and writings of God. In all the references to it and the quotations from it its declarations are treated as unquestionably true, trustworthy, divinely inspired, authoritative, proceeding indeed from Moses, but proceeding also from God. Thus was the Pentateuch regarded and treated by Christ, the apostles, and the writers of the New Testament. But the views given of it by the analytics are totally different, and are incompatible with its divine inspiration and authority. They claim that the Pentateuch, except possibly a few scraps of it, was not written by Moses, but was gotten up by a crowd of utterly unknown authors, compilers, redactors, and interpolators, who worked on original documents, combining, selecting, omitting, arranging, inserting, altering, and adding, each one according to his own judgment and taste, the result being a conglomerate patchwork, characterized by inaccuracy, contradiction, and error. To claim divine authorship, inspiration, and authority for such a production looks like an attempt to burlesque the doctrine of divine inspiration. Doubtless some relics of this old-fashioned doctrine still linger in the minds of many of the less advanced analytic critics. These will manage in some way, though at the expense of logic and self-consistency, to believe the Pentateuch to be in some sense a book from God. But even analysts of the evangelical class argue that the Pentateuch is too inaccurate and self-contradictory, abounds too much in legends and fictions, and is altogether too untrustworthy to have been written by Moses. Men who reason thus, and who have as much respect for the Almighty as for Moses, will be very likely to conclude that the Pentateuch is not to be attributed in any sense or in any degree to supernatural authorship; and they further will be likely to apply their idea of inspiration, or rather of non-inspiration, to all other parts of the Bible. Thus is evinced the utter incompatibility between the analytic view of the Pentateuch and any respectable doctrine of divine inspiration. In the meantime, the chiefs and leaders of the analytic school, who repudiate the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, can well afford to be silent in regard to their infidel views, expecting, and rightly expecting, that the expulsive power of the analytic criticism will in time do its perfect work in the minds of their disciples.

3. The analytic criticism discredits and dishonors nearly all the historical books of the Old Testament. The essence of history is truthfulness. Take this away and the history is destroyed. It is not enough that the historian be truthful as an individual. It is not enough that he desires and endeavors to tell the truth; he must actually do so. He must present facts, and present them as they occurred. If, even unconsciously, he deals in fiction, legend, and falsehood, he forfeits the confidence and esteem of mankind. A book of legends and fictions may be in itself well enough. But a book which claims to be historical, and yet is made up largely of myths, tales, and doubtful narratives, does not command the respect of mankind. Now this is the character assigned by the analytic criticism to the Pentateuch. Divine inspiration is of course discarded or left out of view. The individual veracity of the historian counts for nothing. The narratives are constantly spoken of as traditions. Almost every narrative is declared to be made up of two or more stories which contradict one another. Legends and myths are said to constitute a considerable portion of the history. In short, the history embraced in the Pentateuch is declared by the analysts to be largely legendary, fictitious, and untrue, and therefore untrustworthy. Thus is treated not only the history embraced in the Pentateuch, but nearly the entire history from Adam to Ezra. Thus a large portion of the Old Testament is discredited and dishonored — nearly all of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, a part of Deuteronomy, all of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. If mankind shall ever be taught to suspect, doubt, and disbelieve these historical books, it will be useless to insist on the inspiration and authority of the remaining portions of the Scriptures. One wonders what impression a critic who is not altogether an unbeliever expects to make on the minds of his fellow-men, and what outcome he expects from that impression, who maintains that the Pentateuchal history is so untrue and untrustworthy that it is incredible that Moses should be the author of it, and that the most of the succeeding Old Testament history is of like character. A phrase often in the mouths of such critics is that the doctrine of inspiration must be recast. They would more consistently say cast out. For if their theories and argumentation prevail, the doctrine of divine inspiration will be eliminated from the minds of men.

4. One of the conclusions involved in the analytic hypothesis is that we have in the Pentateuch one of the most stupendous and audacious falsifications known in literary history. We have already stated that the analysts, in maintaining their hypothesis of the post-Mosaic origin of the Levitical ritual, are under the logical necessity of denying the existence of the Mosaic tabernacle. According to the account given in Exodus, God gave minute directions to Moses concerning the tabernacle — its size, form, covering, furniture, and the materials to be employed. Now, it is absurd to suppose that God would give minute directions concerning the tabernacle and altar, and concerning their furniture and instruments, including even the dishes, spoons, and bowls,⁴ and no directions be given in regard to sacrifice and worship. Accordingly, in Exodus we have a record of directions for the consecration of Aaron and his sons⁵ and the daily morning and evening sacrifice.⁶ In Leviticus is given the code in full for the tabernacle service. The tabernacle and the altar without the code are meaningless. If we admit the existence of the tabernacle, we must admit also the service and the ritual. The leading and ablest men of the analytic school, denying as they do the ritual, find it necessary to deny the existence of the tabernacle also. Their hypothesis is that the Mosaic tabernacle is the projection of Solomon's temple back into the past by Jewish romancers. This implies that the Pentateuchal account of the Mosaic tabernacle is a pure falsification, and if so it is one of most stupendous proportions.

According to Exodus,⁷ and Numbers⁸ also, God showed to Moses in the mount a pattern of the tabernacle. In all this, according to the analytic hypothesis, there is not a word of truth. In Exodus we have the statement that God called the people to contribute materials for the construction of the tabernacle — blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats' hair, rams' skins, badgers' skins, oil for the light, and many other articles. In another place we have an account of the way the people responded to this call, and the articles contributed by them are mentioned.⁹ The analytic hypothesis declares this whole account to be untrue. Exodus relates that God instructed Moses in regard to the boards for the construction of the tabernacle — their number, length, breadth, tenons, and sockets; in regard to the candlestick — the number of its branches, bowls, and flowers; in regard to all the instruments of service, even to the tongs and snuff-dishes; in regard to the priestly garments for Aaron; in regard to the ark, the mercy-seat, the cherubim of glory, the altar, the table, and the bread of exposition. In regard to all these, minute directions were given. There is an account of the erection of the tabernacle on the day appointed, and of the resting of the cloud upon it by day and the fire by night. In Numbers we have an account of the princes of Israel providing six wagons and twelve oxen for the transportation of the tabernacle and its furniture, and of the assignment of two wagons and four oxen to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxen to the sons of Merari.¹⁰ In the first and tenth chapters of Numbers we have directions in regard to the position of the tabernacle in the camp and on the march. But according to the analytic criticism all these accounts are purely fictitious. Assuming the account of the tabernacle itself to be a fabrication, it impliedly assumes that the pattern shown to Moses in the mount is also a fabrication; that the account of contributions of materials for the construction of the tabernacle is a fabrication; that the transportation of it by six wagons and twelve oxen is a fabrication; that the camping of the tribes around it is a fabrication; that the hovering of the cloud over it by day and of the fire by night is a fabrication; that this account, as a whole and in all its parts, is a fabrication.

We speak of this supposed falsification of Jewish history as stupendous. It is in advance, we think, of every other known in history in two respects — minuteness of detail, and extent and permanence of success. This gigantic fiction, as claimed by the leading analytics, spreads itself over nearly all the Old Testament history. It is set forth in Exodus; it is continued in Leviticus and Numbers; it appears in Deuteronomy; it runs through Joshua; it crops out frequently in Judges; it shows itself in Samuel; it is brought to view in Kings and Chronicles, and it is reproduced in the New Testament.¹¹ We do not mention this matter in order to point out the impossibility of the success of a historical falsification on so grand a scale, but to call attention to the legitimate effect of this hypothesis, if accepted as proved and true. In the judgment of logical and reflective minds, what claims can books which contain a huge falsification of history have to be considered in any sense the word of God, who loves the truth and hates a lie?

Some of the analysts may say that they accept the account of the Mosaic tabernacle in the wilderness and that we err in representing the analytic hypothesis as involving the rejection of it. To this we reply, (1) that we regard Voltaire, Colenso, Reuss, Kuenen, Graf, and Wellhausen as the best exponents of the analytic criticism, and the best judges of what is necessary to its logical defense; (2) to accept the historical account of the Mosaic tabernacle up to the record of the ritual and to reject that, is justified by no law either of logic or common sense; (3) to accept the ritual as of Mosaic origin is to punch a hole in the bottom of the analytic ship that will soon cause it to founder; (4) the lagging analytics may about as well go the whole figure with their leaders, and declare the whole account of the Mosaic tabernacle an enormous falsification, so far as views touching the Pentateuch and inspiration are concerned. The charge of small lying and small thieving effect reputation nearly as much as charges of larger criminality. God is not more disposed to make little liars or little thieves his special agents than big ones. If falsification is to be charged on any part of the Scriptures, it may as well be on a grand scale.

5. The doctrine of evolution as set forth and applied by the analysts to the Pentateuchal books is incompatible with the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. We admit that there is a doctrine of scientific evolution that is consistent with theism, and that there are many Christian evolutionists. But evolution is merely a natural process, not creation. The evolutionist may believe that God created something, and that then the process of evolution began in that something. Evolution which accounts for the origin of things, such as the unscientific dogma of "spontaneous generation," is atheistic. Whatever is evolved existed previously, as the chick from the egg, and the germ from the seed. After the evolution, not a particle of matter exists that did not exist before. Hence evolution as accounting for the origin of things, that is, evolution out of nothing, is a contradiction and an absurdity. The only real evolution is not an absolute beginning, is not a creation, involves nothing supernatural, but is a development, by a perfectly natural process, of what previously existed.

If, then, the Pentateuchal laws and books are to be accounted for on the principle of evolution, they are merely human productions. In that case, the often-repeated formula, "God spake to Moses," is untrue; the account of the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, a fiction; the pattern of the tabernacle and its furniture, showed beforehand to Moses, a fabrication, and the whole Pentateuch the outcome of the Jewish intellect and imagination. The hypothesis of the origin of these books and laws by evolution is thus opposed to their origin by divine revelation or inspiration. And if the hypothesis of evolution is applied to the Pentateuch, it will in the end be applied to all other parts of the Bible. At present many of the analysts shrink from doing this. But some of these will get rid of their scruples and more fully carry out their views; and, at all events, their successors, being more fully delivered from former views and beliefs, will be more ready to carry the analytic premises to their legitimate conclusions. The divine inspiration and authority of the Pentateuchal laws and books are as fully recognized by Christ and the apostles as any other portion of the Scripture. This testimony is necessarily set aside and denied by those who maintain that the Pentateuch originated by evolution. How long will it be until such men will attempt to explode the doctrine of divine inspiration altogether? The Apostle Paul speaks of " Scripture given by inspiration of God" — theopneustic.¹² The Apostle Peter says, speaking of "the prophecy of the Scripture," that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."¹³ But since the testimony of Christ in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch is counted for nothing by the analysts, that of Paul and Peter is not likely to deter them from finally concluding that the entire Scriptures, as well as the Pentateuch, were given, not by inspiration, but by evolution.

6. The practical treatment which the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible receive at the hands of the analysts, not only proceeds from unbelief and irreverence in the writers, but inevitably tends to produce the same unbelief and irreverence in others. We speak now, not of all the analytic school, but of the leaders. These ignore the divine element in the sacred Scriptures. With them divine inspiration counts for nothing. They are mostly silent in regard to it. There is more said in the writings of Voltaire about the inspiration of the Scriptures than by all the other analytic leaders together. The argument from silence is conclusive in some cases, and this is one of them. The silence is evidently studied and intentional. Clearly, these men reject the supernatural altogether, and their own doubts, unbelief, and irreverence they are more than willing to infuse into the minds of their readers. They treat the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible as merely human, and as fallible and erroneous. Nor do they restrict themselves to charges of slight degrees of fallibility and erroneousness. They go much farther than the rejection of verbal and plenary inspiration. They impeach the historical character of the Pentateuch and of many other books of the Bible. They declare the historical books — more than half the Bible — to be untrustworthy. They virtually teach that these books are more contradictory, inaccurate, erroneous, and untrustworthy than Herodotus and Livy. They do not hesitate to set aside as untrue any passage that contravenes their theories. They dispose of every such passage as a redaction, an interpolation, or a false reading, or by endeavoring in some other way to throw doubt or suspicion on the integrity of the text. The practical effect of such a course is to produce uncertainty, suspicion, and skepticism. Even if the reader retains belief in the Scriptures as given by divine inspiration, he is taught that they are patched over with interpolations, false readings, contradictory statements, and other errors. Thus the reader who accepts the guidance of the analytic critics must be in doubt as to whether he can find the word of the Lord anywhere in the Bible. Thus, too, the analytic school, as represented by its most distinguished champions, is doing more to paralyze Christian faith than did the outspoken infidels of the last century. We have, however, neither doubt nor fear as to the final result. We have full faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God, and an assured confidence that, through the overruling providence of God, all assaults upon it by concealed as well as by avowed enemies, together with the errors of mistaken friends, will in the end contribute to the vindication of its divine inspiration and authority.  

1) John 10:35.

2) Matt. 5:18.

3) Luke 16:17.

4) Ex. 37:16.

5) Ex. 29:1-37.

6) Ex. 29:38-44.

7) Ex. 25:9, 40.

8) Num. 8:4.

9) Ex. 25:1-8; 35:5-29.

10) Num. 7:3-9.

11) Heb. 9:1-10.

12) II. Tim. 3:16.

13) II. Pet. 1:20, 21.