Answering the “Higher Critics”
ONE of the few scholars of the present day who attempt a serious reply to the destructive claims of “Higher Criticism” is Dr. Emil Reich. We have before us his book, “The Failure of the Higher Criticism of the Bible,” and have been much interested in that portion (more than half) of it which we have read. In the preface Dr. Reich says:— The author is not a clergyman, and has no intention whatever to become one. He means to serve the ends of no ecclesiastical party. He searches for nothing but truth. Many years ago he fully believed in the “scientific character” of Higher Criticism; but having learned more about life and reality by means of extensive travels and varied experience, he has come to the conclusion that Higher Criticism is bankrupt as a teaching of religious truth. It is a perversion of history, and a desecration of religion. While no brief extract from Dr. Reich’s book will be entirely satisfactory as an adequate exhibit of his vigorous method of dealing with these modern foes of the Bible, yet we will take a few paragraphs from his admirable chapter on “The Inquisitorial Principle,” in which he very forcibly compares the method of the “Higher Critics” with that employed by the judges in the witch trials of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Dr. Reich says:— One of the most moderate yet resolute Higher Critics of our time is Prof. Edward Konig. In his “Introduction to the Old Testament,” he sincerely tries to be as just and fair as he is learned. Not the vaguest imputation of deliberate unfairness to the Pentateuch can be laid at his door. His is a painstaking, laborious, and erudite work. It is, nevertheless, a book thoroughly vitiated by that false and unscientific view of the questions raised which we here ascribe to all Higher Critics. Neither Konig nor Wellhausen can move outside the sphere of methods tainted with all the poison of the inquisitorial principle. A mere formal “possibility” is sufficient for Konig to cast the gravest doubt upon entire chapters and sections of Genesis and Exodus. When it is argued that the expressions “without the camp,” “out of the camp,” in e. g., Lev. 4: 12; 13: 46; 14: 3, 8, etc., clearly indicate a4time when the Israelites were still in the desert during their exodus; then Konig literally retorts: “It is possible to conceive that these portions of the text referring to incidents of the wanderings of the Israelites through the desert arose in the following manner: Some of the laws and stories that originated in the period of Israel’s divinely willed salvation may very well have retained their original traits, which were subsequently, when the text of Leviticus was compiled, used as parts of the narrative.” In the same way, Konig discredits the value of the numerous details of customs and laws Egyptian to be found in Genesis and Exodus. Could not these details, Konig asks, “possibly” have been inserted by a late compiler? Mark the enormity of the argument: Should we find no trace of Egyptian habits and customs in the portions of Genesis and Exodus relating to that country, then the Higher Critic would triumphantly exclaim: “Does not this total absence of local color of Egyptiaca at once condemn the Bible stories located in Egypt? Is it conceivable that these stories, if authentic, should not have contained some traits about the country which, more than any other country, abounded in traits singular and strange?” If, on the other hand, the Higher Critic is compelled to admit that there is plenty of local color (thus, the carrying of baskets on the head, the shaving of the beard before appearing before Pharaoh, etc.) in Genesis and Exodus with regard to matters Egyptian, then he exclaims with equal triumph: “Could not this local color have been ‘procured’ by a late interpolator? Was it impossible to secure such details in the sixth or fifth century B. C.?—Evidently not. What guarantee have we, then, of the authenticity of the Egyptian narratives of the Bible?” This was precisely the method of the judges in witch trials. When the accused proved an alibi, then the judge triumphantly retorted: “An alibi? Can not a witch be in two places at a time? Have not Bodinus, Delrio, Clarus, Zanger, etc., etc., conclusively shown that as witches can fly in space, so they can also be at several spots at the same time?” It can indeed not be denied that if witches are possible, they may bewitch space as much as men. If it be allowed to use mere formal possibilities as arguments, then indeed it may legitimately be doubted whether Konig and Wellhausen are not, after all, the greatest enemies of Higher Criticism. For is it not just possible that they wrote their works in order to show up the hopeless absurdity of Higher Criticism? Much might be advanced to that effect. At any rate, it is “possible.” Such things have been known to happen; there are several masterpieces of Swift, and even of scholars proper, that may very well serve as precedents. Once we admit mere “possibilities,” we can prove anything we like. The old Italian criminalists rightly said, on the basis of the inquisitorial principle rife in their time, “Give me two lines, two ever so trivial and commonplace lines written by any one, and I undertake to bring the writer to the gallows.” Undoubtedly this is possible and feasible, but only as long as the method of inquisitorial principle is recognized. In modern criminal law it is absolutely impossible. Mere possibilities are rejected as evidence or proof. Nowadays we insist on psychological, and not on formal proof in criminal matters. Except, when people criticize the Bible! With regard to this most important of all books, we still suffer the application of a method of criminal procedure which we have long thrown overboard when dealing with the most lowly and vulgar of criminals. The so-called crimes of the “interpolators,” “redactors,” “compilers” of the Pentateuch, are still proceeded with after the fashion of trials in the seventeenth century. Mere possibilities are adduced as proof conclusive; insinuations are leveled at the most natural and simple passages of the Bible; and the guilt of the “forgers” is taken for granted from the very outset. It is high time that this scandalous witch trial of the Bible be put an end to. It is imperative in the interest of humanity, knowledge, and religion, that the Bible shall be subjected, if at all, to a criminal examination according to the precepts of modern criminal law. The honest student may rest convinced that the Bible can and will stand any fair criticism. He need not be afraid. The Rock of the Bible is as impregnable as is the Power that gave rise to it. We believe that many of our readers, and especially our ministers, would find this book to be a valuable addition to their libraries. It is published by Jennings and Graham, Cincinnati, Ohio, and the price is one dollar net, postage eight cents.