PENTATEUCH
657
PENTATEUCH
ipply to tradition the old principle which has been so
frequently misapplied, "magna est Veritas, et pra;-
valebit"; Gunkel ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volks-
bticher", II, Tilbingen, 19f56, 8) grants that Old-Tes-
tament criticism has gone a little too far, and that
many Biblical traditions now rejected will be re-
established.
(b) Critical Method. — The falsehood of the critical method does not consist in the use of criticism as such, but in its illegitimate use. Criticism became more common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; at the end of the eighteenth it was applied to classical antiquity. Bernheim ("Lehrbuch der historischen Methode", Leipzig, 1903, 296) believes that by this means alone history first became a science. In the application of criticism to the Bible we are limited, indeed, by the inspiration and the canonicity of its books; but there is an ample field left for our critical investigations (Pesch, "Theol. Zeitfragen", III, 48).
Some of the principal sins of the critics in their treatment of Sacred Scripture are the following: (i) They deny everything supernatural, so that they re- ject not merely inspiration and canonicity, but also prophecy and miracle a priori (cf. Metzler, "Das Wunder vor dem Forum der modernen Geschichts- wissenschaft" in "Katholik", 1908, II, 241 sqq.). (ii) They seem to be convinced a priori of the credibil- ity of non-Biblical historical documents, while they are prejudiced against the truthfulness of Biblical accounts. (Cf. Stade, "Geschichte Israel's", I, 86 seq., 88, 101.) (iii) Depreciating e.xternal evidence almost entirely, they consider the questions of the origin, the integrity, and the authenticity of the sa- cred books in the light of internal evidence (Encyl. Prov. Deus, .52). (iv) They overestimate the critical analysis of the sources, without considering the chief point, i. e., the credibihty of the sources (Lorenz, " Die Geschichtswissenschaft in ihren Hauptricht- ungen und Aufgaben", ii, 329 sqq.). Recent docu- ments may contain reliable reports of ancient history. Some of the critics begin to acknowledge that the his- torical credibility of the sources is of greater impor- tance than their division and dating (Stark, "DieEnt- stehung des A. T.", Leipzig, 1905, 29; cf. Vetter, "Tiibinger theologische Quartalschrift", 1899, 552). (v) The critical division of sources is based on the Hebrew text, though it is not certain how far the present Massoretic text differs from that, for instance, followed by the Septuagint translators, and how far the latter differed from the Hebrew text before its redaction in the fifth century B. c. Dahse ("Text- kritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik" in "Archiv fiir ReHgions- geschichte", VI, 1903, 305 sqq.) shows that the Divine names in the Greek translation of the Penta- teuch differ in about 180 cases from those of the Hebrew te.xt (cf. Hoberg, "Die Genesis", 2nd ed., p. xxii sqq.); in other words and phrases the changes may be fewer, but it would be unreasonable to deny the existence of any. Again, it is antecedently prob- able that the Septuagint text differs less from the Massoretic than from the ante-Esdrine text, which must have been closer to the original. The starting point of literary criticism is therefore uncertain.
(vi) It is not an inherent fault of literary criticism that it was applied to the Pentateuch after it had become practically antiquated in the study of Homer and the Nibelungenlied (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 303, 306 sqq.), nor that Reuss considered it as more pro- ductive of difference of opinion than of results (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 304 seq.), nor again that Well- hausen thought it had degenerated into childi.sh play. .\mong Bible students, Klostermann ("Der Penta- teuch", Leipzig. 1893), Kijnig ("Falsche Extreme ira Gebiete der neueren Kritik des A. T.", Leipzig, 1885; "Neueste Prinzipien der alt. Kritik", Berlin, 1902; "Im Kampfe um das A. T.", Berlin, 1903), Bugge XL— 42
("Die Hauptparabeln Jesu", Gies,sen, 1903) are scep-
tical as to the results of literary criticism, while
OrelU (Der Prophet Jesaja, 1904, V), Jeremias (Das
alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients, 1906,
VIII), and Oettli (Geschichte Israels, V) wish to insist
more on the exegesis of the text than on the criss-cross
roads of criticism. G. Jacob ("Der Pentateuch",
Gottingen, 1905) thinks that the past Pentateuchal
criticism needs a thorough revision; Eerdmans ("Die
Komposition der Genesis", Giessen, 1908) feels con-
vinced that criticism has been misled into wrong paths
by Astruc. Merx expresses the opinion that the next
generation will have to revise backwards many of the
present historico-literary views of the Old Testament
(Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher, II, 1907, 3, 132
sqq.).
(c) Critical Results. — Here we must distinguish be- tween the principles of criticism and its results; the principles of the historical development of religion, for instance, and of the inferiority of tradition to internal evidence, are not the outcome of literary analysis, but are its partial basis. Again, we must distinguish be- tween those results of literary criticism which are com- patible with the Mosaic authenticity of the Penta- teuch and those that contradict it. The patrons of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and even the ecclesiastical Decree relating to this subject, plainly admit that Moses or his secretaries may have utilized sources or documents in tlie composition of the Penta- teuch; both admit also that the sacred text has suf- fered in its transmission and may have received addi- tions, in the form of either inspired appendices or exegetical glosses. If the critics, therefore, can suc- ceed in determining the number and the limits of the documentary sources, and of the post-Mosaic addi- tions, whether inspired or profane, they render an important service to the traditional tenet of Penta- teuchal authenticity. The same must be said with regard to the successive laws established by Moses, and the gradual fidelity of the Jewish people to the Mosaic law. Here again the certain or even probable results of sane literary and historical criticism will aid greatly the conservative commentator of the Penta- teuch. We do not quarrel with the legitimate conclu- sions of the critics, if the critics do not quarrel with each other. But they do quarrel with each other. According to Merx (loc. cit.) there is nothing certain in the field of criticism except its incertainty; each critic proclaims his views with the greatest self-reli- ance, but without any regard to the consistency of the whole. Former views are simply killed by silence; even Reuss and Dillmann are junk-iron, and there is a noticeable lack of judgment as to what can or cannot be known.
Hence the critical results, in as far as they consist merely in the distinction of documentary sources, in the determination of post-Mosaic material, e. g., text- ual changes, and profane or inspired additions, in the description of various legal codes, are not at ^'ariance with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch. Nor can an anti-Mosaic character be pointed out in the facts or phenomena from which criticism legitimately infers the foregoing conclusions; such facts or phe- nomena are, for instance, the change of the Divine names in the text, the use of certain words, the differ- ence of style, the so-called double accounts of really, not merely apparently, identical events; the truth or falsehood of these and similar details does not directly affect the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In which results then does criticism clash with tradition? Criticism and tradition are incompatible in their views as to the age and sequence of the documentary sources, as to the origin of the various legal codes, and as to the time and manner of the redaction of the Pentateuch.
(i) Pentateuchal Documents. — As to the age and sequence of the various documents, the critics do not
