The Logical Outcome of Higher Criticism—How Solidly Are the First Chapters of Genesis Built into the Entire Bible?
SOME weeks ago the Independent gave favorable editorial comment on Dr. Eliot's new pamphlet, in which he defines the "coming religion." The first item noticed in the list of applauded theories was Mr. Eliot's rejection of the historical value of the first chapters of Genesis, on the ground that "geology and biology allow us to accept the story of the creation of the world in Genesis as a valuable religious story, a sort of poem, but not as real history." The observing editor adds: "Of course that is true; we all know it."
CAN IT BE A "VALUABLE RELIGIOUS STORY"?
But candidly, how is it possible for a fictitious history of the world's creation to be a "valuable religious story"? Of what practical value, one may venture to ask, can a religious falsehood, more than any other, prove to the seeker for truth? Can one's faith in the general teaching of the Bible be strengthened by looking upon its foundation utterances as mere romance — the figment of a disordered mind? If he who penned the initial chapters of Genesis simply indulged in idle fancy, how must one regard the remaining assumed historical features of the same book, supposed to be the work of the same mind? If the story of Abraham, the origin of the twelve tribes, and the sojourn of those tribes in Egypt, parts of the one continued recital, which pass current in New Testament contents, are to be received as given, on what basis must one reject the same historian's account of that from which all other things proceed?
IS IT PARTLY AUTHENTIC AND PARTLY FABLE?
The reply may be offered that the latter part of the Genesis narrative was written as concurrent history, while the story of creation was given as a matter of indistinct tradition. But so far as the question of tradition may affect the reliability of historical statements, there is little to be said except that Moses, the supposed writer of the book of Genesis, must have relied somewhat on tradition for his definite account of Abraham's checkered life record, since his own career did not commence until more than three hundred years after the death of his memorable ancestor.
Then setting aside on logical grounds the probability of Moses' having been inspired of God to give the history of creation, it will be in order to give a thought to the possibility of tradition's having given an accurate account of earth's origin. Considering briefly that Adam and Methuselah were contemporary for two hundred and forty-three years, Methuselah and Shem one hundred years, and Shem and Abraham one hundred and fifty years, it is easy to see how the account of creation could have been accurately handed down to Abraham with but three recitals. We may readily believe further that from Abraham's time, on account of multiplied peoples to receive and cherish interesting facts, original records were more readily preserved than before.
THE ACT OF SINAI ENDORSES IT
But aside from all this, to reject the Genesis register of creation as the mere coinage of an inventive mind, is but to put the Creator in the same unseemly predicament, since He stands forth as the principal figure in the narrative. This would be but a single step away from atheism. Such a conclusion must not carry; for when the people of Israel were going from Egyptian slavery to their future Canaan, the audible voice of God thundered from Sinai's height His Ten Commandments in the hearing of Israel's host camped at the mountain base. In one of those precepts the observance of the Sabbath day was enjoined, as being founded on the facts of creation. In that fourth commandment, God distinctly says that in the creation of the world He wrought six days and rested on the seventh, and for that reason He required His people to rest each seventh day. In this He positively corroborated the Genesis history of creation. Ex. 20:8-11.
WOULD HE ENGRAVE THE CONTRADICTION ON STONE?
Can any one believing in the supernatural powers of Jehovah, think, for a moment, that He made false statements from Sinai, and engraved them on tables of stone, for preservation through succeeding generations, knowing, as He must, that in time they would be discovered as contradictory of what He had before written on the tablets of nature? How short-sighted such a course would have been for One claiming to have brought forth the world by the breath of His mouth!
But if the Sinaitic assertion ratifying the Genesis account were to be proved false, it would then follow that the entire Pentateuch is a base fabrication; for if God, without any substantial reason, incorporated in the Decalogue a narration so grossly false, and one so sure to be detected and exposed, what certainty does one have that any other declaration made by Him is not equally false?
IT WOULD DISCARD EVERY BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
But to reject the books of the Pentateuch on such grounds, one must of necessity discard every other book of the Old Testament; for they all acknowledge the histories, enactments, and institutions of the Pentateuch as fundamental truths. They recognize the priesthood, the sacrifices, the covenants, the promises, and in fact the whole system of laws it records as instituted by God. If these are not His work, it is impossible that the others should be.
THE NEW TESTAMENT MUST GO WITH IT
Moreover the rejection of the Old Testament necessarily calls for the elimination of the New; for the latter ratifies in the fullest manner the historical specifications, enactments, and religious institutions of the former, and founds its work of redemption on them.
It therefore follows that if the Mosaic history of first things, the proclamation of the law at Sinai, the institution of the priesthood, sacrifices, and rites of worship, with the commands and revelations recorded by the prophets, are not from God, the New Testament can not possibly be, since it everywhere recognizes them as realities, and is dependent on them for the truths it reveals.
Thus the whole Bible stands or falls with the first chapter of Genesis. Let those who have listened to the seductive teachings of modern higher critics, consider well these points, before adopting theories that must inevitably draw them away from the service of God, and cause them to lose confidence in His word.
J. O. C.
