PENTATEUCH
656
PENTATEUCH
placed the works of the Prophets on the same level
with the work of Moses. But this natural inference
finds no favour among the critics; for it implies that
the historical and legal traditions coiiified in the
Pentateuch, described the beginning, and not the
end, of Israel's religious development. The view of
Israel's religious development prevalent among the
critics implies that the Pentateuch is later than the
Prophets, ami that the Psalms are later than both.
After these general considerations, we shall briefly
examine the main principles, the methods, the results,
and the arguments of the critical theory.
(a) Principles of the Critics. — Without pretending to review all the principles involved in the theories of the critics, we draw attention to two: the historical development of religion, and the comparative value of internal e\ddenoe and tradition.
(i) The theorj- of the historical evolution of Israel- itie religion leads us from Mosaic Yahwehism to the etliical monotheism of the Prophets, from this to the universalist conception of God developed during the Exile, and from this again to the ossified Phariseeism of later days. This religion of the Jews is codified in our actual Pentateuch, but has been fictitiously pro- jected backwards in the historical books into the Mosaic and pre-prophetic times.
The idea of development is not a purely modern discovery. Meyer ("Der Entwicklungsgedanke bei Aristoteles", Bonn, 1909) shows that Aristotle was acquainted with it; Gunkel (" Weiterbildung der Religion", Munich, 1905, 64) maintains that its ap- plication to religion is as old as Christianity, and that St. Paul has enunciated this principle; Diestel ("Ge- schichte des A. T. in der christhchen Kirche", Jena, 1869, .56 sqq.), AVillmann (Geschichte des Idealismus, 2nd ed., II, 23 sqq.), and Schanz (Apologie des Christ- entums, 3rd ed., II, 4 sqq., 376) find the same apphca- tion in the writings of the Fathers, though Hoberg ("Die Forschritte der bibl. WLssenschaften", Frei- burg, 1902, 10) grants that the patristic writers often neglect the external forms which influenced the ideas of the Chosen People. The Fathers were not fully ac- quainted with profane historj', and were more con- cerned about the contents of Revelation than about its historical development. Pesch ("Glaube, Dog- men imd geschichtliche Thatsachen" in "Theol. Zeitfragen", IV, Freiburg, 1908, 183) discovers that St. Thomas, too, admits the principle of development in his "Summa" (II-II, Q. i, a. 9, 10; Q. ii, a. 3; etc.). But the Catholic conception of this principle avoids two extremes: (a) the theorj- of degeneracy, based on the teaching of the early Lutheran theolo- gians (cf. Giesebrecht, "Die Degradationshypothese und die altl. Geschichte", Leipzig, 1905; Steude, "Entwicklung und Offenbarung", !>tuttgart, 1905, 18 sqq.); (^) the theory of evolution which dissolves all truth and history into purely natural development to the exclusion of everj'thing supernatural.
It is this latter extreme that is advocated by the Biblical critics. Their description of the early religion of Israel is contradicted by the testimony of the oldest Prophets whose authority is not questioned by them. These inspired seers know of the fall of Adam (Osee, vi, 7), the call of Abraham (Is., xxix, 23; Mich., vii, 20 J, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (Osee, xi, 8; Is., i, 9; Amos, iv, 11), the history of Jacob and his struggle with the angel (Os., xii, 2 sqq.), Israel's exodus from Egypt and dwelling in the desert (Os., ii, 14; vii, 16; xi,"l; xii, 9, 13; xiii, 4, 5; Am., ii, 10; iii, 1; ix, 7), the activity of Moses (Os., xii, 13; Mich., yi, 4; Is., Ixiii, 11, 12), a written legislation (Os., viii, 12), and a number of particular statutes (cf. Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage", Munster, 1903, 223 sqq.). Again, the theory of development is more and more contradicted by the results of historical inves- tigation. Weber ("Theologie und Assyriologie im Streit um Babel und Bibel", Leipzig, 1904, 17) points
out that the recent historical results imply decadence
rather than development in ancient oriental art, sci-
ence, and religion; Winckler ("Keligionsgcschichtler
und gescliiclitl. Orient", Leipzig, I'.lOti, lili) considers
the evolutionary view of the primitive state of man as
false, and believes that the (leveloi)mcnt theory has,
at least, been badly shaken, if not actually destroj-ed
by recentOriental rescuich (cf. Hiintsch, ".\ltorientali-
scher und israelitischer Monothei.'^mus", Tubingen,
1906). Koberle ("Die Theologie der Gegenwart",
Leipzig, 1907, I, 2) says that the develci))ment theory
has exhausted itself, reimiduciiig only tlie thoughts of
Wellhausen, and deciiling jiarticulai- (lucstiims not in
in the hght of facts, but according to tlie postulates of
the theory. Finally, even rationalistic writers have
thought it necessary to replace the development
theory by another more in agreement with historical
facts. Hence Winckler ("Ex Oriente lux", Leipzig,
1905-6; Idem, "Der Alte Orient", III, 2-3; Idem,
"Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen
zur Kidturentwicklimg der Menschheit" in "Wissen-
schaft und Bildung", Leipzig, 1907; cf. Landersdorfer
in "Histonsch-Politische Blatter", 1909, 144) has
originated the theory of pan-Babelism according to
which Biblical religion is conceived as a conscious and
express reaction against the Babylonian polytheistic
state religion. It was not the common property of
Israel, but of a religious sect which was supported in
Babylon by certain monotheistic circles irrespective
of nationality. This theory has found powerful op-
ponents in Budde, Stade, Bezold, Koberle, Kugler,
Wilke, and others; but it has also a number of adher-
ents. Though wholly untenable from a Christian
point of view, it shows at least the weakness of the
historical development theory.
(ii) Another principle involved in the critical theory of the Pentateuch supposes that the internal evidence of literary criticism is of higher value than the evi- dence of tradition. But thus far the results of excava- tions and historical research have been favourable to tradition rather than to internal evidence. Let the reader only remember the case of Troy, Tirj-ns, Mycena>, and Orchomenos (in Greece); the excava- tions of the English explorer Evans in Crete have shown the historical character of King Minos and his labyrinth; Assyrian inscriptions have re-established the historical credit of King Midas of Phrygia; sim- ilarly, Menes of Thebes and Sargon of Agade have been shown to belong to history; in general, the more accurate have been the scientific investigations, the more clearly have they shown the reliability of even the most slender traditions. In the field of New- Testament criticism the call "back to tradition" has begun to be heeded, and has been endorsed by such authorities as Harnack and Deissmann. In the study of the Old Testament too there are unmistakable signs of a coming change. Hommel ("Die altisraelitische ttberlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung", Mu- nich, 1897) maintains that Old-Testament tradition, both as a whole and in its details, proves to be reliable, even in the light of critical research. Meyer ("Die Entstehung des Judentums", Halle, 1896) comes to the conclusion that the foundations of the critical Pentateuchal theory are destroyed, if it can be proved that even part of the impugned Hebrew tradition is reUable; the same writer proves the credibility of the sources of the Books of Esdras (cf. "Grundriss der Geographic und Geschichte des alten Orientes", Munich, 1904, 167 sqq.). S. A. Fries has been led by his critical studies, and without being influenced by dogmatic bias, to accept the whole traditional view of the history of Israel. Cornill and Oettli express the conviction that Israel's traditions concerning even its earliest history are reliable and will withstand the bitterest attacks of criticism; Dawson (cf. Fonck, "Kritik und Tradition im A. T." in "Zeitschrift fur kathoUsche Theologie", 1899, 262-81) and others
