Radical Criticism Paralleled by W. W. P.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Aug 12, 1909

Radical Criticism Paralleled

By W. W. P.

The advocates of liberal views in theology are creating a new literature in which their destructive criticism is put into permanent form. Books of reference, such as Bible dictionaries and Bible encyclopedias, edited by some of the advanced thinkers whose teachings tend to unsettle those positions which have been firmly maintained for centuries, are now being published. Some of the views set forth in these publications illustrate the extreme results of radical criticism, and show how fully the idea of the authoritative inspiration of the Scriptures has been abandoned by many who still profess the Christian faith. Speculation takes the place of revelation, and no theory seems to be too ridiculous to advance in the wholesale departure from the old standards and in the effort to explain the Biblical narrative as being in many parts mythical rather than historical.

Among the reference books of this class is a Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings, D. D., whose merits are being widely advertised just now by the publishers. A review of this work, written by James Wallace, Ph. D., appeared in the Bible Record for April, which, while speaking favorably of the treatment accorded to a large number of subjects, characterizes in no uncertain terms those articles prepared by the representatives of liberalism. We quote a paragraph:—

The dictionary aims to present or represent “the average scholarship of its day” (preface). This aim is probably reached by the English contributors fairly well. So far as American Biblical scholarship is concerned, Barton, Craig, and H. P. Smith, as their articles show, represent as radical Old Testament scholarship as can be found in America. That a Bible dictionary that professes not “to take up an extreme position” (preface) should number, for example, Henry Preserved Smith among its contributors is indeed preposterous.

In his review of this dictionary, Dr. Wallace deals more particularly with the effort to expound the meaning of the journey of Abraham to the promised land, and introduces a fine bit of sarcasm in his deductions from etymology to establish a new theory concerning the nationality of our first parents. While the argument can hardly be regarded as a final one, it may yet help some persons to perceive the ridiculous folly displayed by a class of professedly learned men in their vaporings concerning the Scripture record. We therefore introduce a few paragraphs from this portion of Dr. Wallace’s article:—

The story of creation is of no historical or scientific value, and in tracing the early history of Israel the beacon light for Professor Barton, of Bryn Mawr, shines from Tuebingen.

“The destruction of Sodom and other of the cities of the plain is a story which grew up to account for the Dead Sea.” It matters nothing that this flatly contradicts the account in Genesis. Dr. Barton simply ought to know better.

“The story of Abraham’s migration is the narration of the westward movement of a tribe or group of tribes.”

Six sons of Jacob are said to be sons of Leah. Leah (continues the doctor) probably (sic) means “wild cow.” This apparently (sic) means that these tribes were near of kin, and possessed as a common totem the “wild cow” or “bovine antelope.” In like manner Rachel means “ewe,” and that means that the tribes Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin had a different totem! Yes, indeed! This is, “probably,” “apparently” what it all “means”—or something else. It makes no difference that nobody knows certainly what Leah does mean; we need a “totem” at this point in our theory, and “wild cow” makes as good a totem as anything else, though if we had been consulted, we should have preferred a “wild ass” to a “wild cow.” This Leah-totem business is about as conclusive as Mark Twain’s etymology of “horse.” It is derived from the Latin “equus.” The quus is dropped, and “e” is changed to “horse” for euphony!

This spinning out of history from etymology is a delightful pastime, albeit the history evolved is “probably” all “moonshine.”

We have an itching of pen to try it ourselves. Our first parents were both Greeks. Adam is clearly derived from a-privative and “dam” seen in the Greek verb damáō, “subdue;” “conquer.” So Adam was called the “unsubdued” or “subduer,” and as it was his business to “subdue” the garden, what name could be more appropriate!

In like manner Eve is plainly derived from the Greek “Hebe,” “youth.” To this day the Greek “b” is pronounced “v;” “h” is a mere breathing and does not count. Now what could be more beautiful and appropriate than that the first mother of mankind should be called “youth”! We are sure that Adam and Eve were alike charmed with the name. But their children were Greeks, too, of course. Cain is derived from the Greek “kainos,” “new,” and for a first son this simply “beats the band” for appropriateness. If proof is wanted, we find it in the fact that even now we know people called “New” and “Newman,” and then there is the case of the bright woman who called her tenth son “Nothing New.”

In the same manner Abel is easily derived from “a”-prothelic or intensive and “bel” from the root of “ballo,” “throw” (cf. belos, a dart). Hence,

Abel was a “mighty thrower.” He no doubt became such from stoning the dogs, “wild cows,” and “bovine antelopes” off his sheep! So we conclude that our first parents and the two sons were pure-blooded Ionian Greeks. Of course they were!

We are glad to note that the Bible League of North America proposes as a part of its aggressive program to provide for the publication of Biblical reference books which will embody the results of the best conservative scholarship. Of late this field of work has been almost wholly abandoned to the representatives of destructive criticism, until the impression may have gained ground that there is no longer any one ready to defend the old-fashioned view of Bible inspiration.

In spite of all the attacks of its avowed enemies and its professed friends, the old Book still maintains its standing, and still proves itself to be the Word of God to those who receive it as such, by working effectually in them. The value of such proof as this is not to be underestimated. W. W. P.