the fundamentals: volume 8, chapter 1: old testament criticism and new testament christianity

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 1: Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity

1/22

THE FUNDAMENTALS

VOLUME VIII

CHAPTER I

LD TESTA1vIENT CRITICISM AND NEW TESTA-

MENT

CHRISTIANITY

BY PROFESSOR W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS, D. D.,

WYCLIFFE COLLEGE} 'l'ORONTO, CANADA

A large number of Christians feel con1pelled to demur to

the present attitude of many scholar s to the Scriptures of the

Old Testament. It is now being taught that the patriarchs of

Jewish history are not historic persons ; that the records con-

nected with Moses and the giving of the law on Sinai are

unhistorical ; that the story of the tabernacle in the wilderness

1 a fabricated history of the time of the Exile; that the

prophets cannot be ·relied on in their references to the ancient

history ·of thefr own people, or in their predictions of .the

future; that the writers of the New Testament, who assur -

edly believed in the records of the Old Testam ·ent, were mis-

takel). in the historical value they assigned to those records ;

that our Lord Ifimself, in His repeated references to the

Scriptures of His own nation, and in His assumption of the

Divine authority of those Scriptures, and of the reality of the

great names they record was only thinking and speaking as an

ordinary Jew of His day, and was as liable to error in matters

of history and of criticis1n as any of them were.

The present paper is intended to·give expression to some of

the questions that have arisen in the course of personal study,

in connectioJ,1 with collegiate work and also during severa l

years of ordin~ry pastoral ministry.

It

is often urged that

5


2/22

•

•

•

•

•

6

•

problems of Old T,estam,ent critici,.m ,are for experts alone ,

•

and

can only

be

decided

by

them.

We

venture

to question

th ,e

· correctness ,

of

this

view,

espe,cially

when

it

i,s

remem ,bered tl1at

tio

many

pe,opfe

experts means experts in

Hebrew

philology

only. By

all me,ans

let

us

have

all

possible expert

kn ,owl ,edge;

but, as

Biblical questions ar,e

complex,

and

involve

s,everal

considerations, we need expert

knowledge

in

archaeOlogy

history,

theology,

an9

even spiritual experience, a·s well as in

philology. Every available

factor

must be taken into account ,

and the object of the

present

paper is to

emphasize certain

elements which appear liable to be overlooked, or at least in-

•

•

sufficiently co,nsi ,dered.

We

do

not

question

for

an

instant the right of

Bibli.ca]

criticis ,m considered in itself. On the ,c,ontrary, ,it is a

necessity

f

· 11 h

h

B·bt

b . . ,,, .

h

r a

I w

o use

t e 1. · e

to

,e critics

1n

t ,e sens ,e

of ,c,on-

sta11tly

us ,ing their

judgment

on what ·is

before them.

What

i ·

called higl1er cr ·itici sm i.s,not

011ly

a

legitimate but

a necessar)

n1eth

1

od for

all

Christians ,, for by ·its use we ar,e,

able

to dis,cover

t he facts and

the · form of

the ·Old

Testament Scrip ,tures. Ou1·

hesitation, consequently, is not

int ,ended

to,ap

1

ply

to the method,

but to , wha t is believed to be an

illegitimate,

unscientific, ,and

ttnhistorical use of

it.

In fact, we base our objections

to

much

modern

·criticism

of the Old Testament on what

we

reg ,ard as

a proper use of a true higher criticism.

I.

IS TH -E TESTIMONY OF NINETEEN CENTURIES OF

CHRISTIA

HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE OF NO ACCOUNT

IN THIS QUESTION?

For nearly eighteen centuries

these

modern views of the

Old Testament were

not heard

of. Yet this is not to be

accounted

for

b

1

y

the

absence of

intellectua ·I power and .scholar

ship in the

1

Church. Men like Origen, Jerome, Augustine,

Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, , Calv ·in,. Luther,

Melancthon,

to

say

nothing of

the English

Puritans

and other

_divines

of the

sevente ,enth century , were not intellectually weak or inert,

nor --


3/22

•

ld Testament Criticis1n a·nd 1Viu Testament .Christianity

7

were they w4olly void of critical acu,men

wit~

reference to

Ho]y

Scripture. Yet

'they,

and the

whole Chttr ·ch with them,

never hesitated to accept the view of the Old

Testament

which

11.adcome down to th em, not only as a heritage fro

1

m Judai m,

but

as endorse

1

d by thie apo

1

st l,es. Omitting all reference

to

1

0t11·

Lord,

it

is not

open

to question that

th ,e views of St. Paul

a11d

St..

Peter

and St, John

a,bout t·he Old

T

1

estament w

1

e·re th ·e

vie,vs

1

of

the whol ,e Christian

Church until the

end

of the

eighteenth

century.

And, making every possible allowance for

the

lack of historical spirit and

of modern

critical methods ,

are we to

suppose that

the

whole Churcl1 for

centuries

never

exercis

1

ed its mind ,o.n such sub,jects ,as

the contents;history,

.and

authority of the Old

Te sta1nent? · . ·

Besides, this is a matt

1

er wh ich cannot b,e de

1

ci1ded

by intel

lectual criticism

alone.

Scripti1re

appeals

to conscience,

heart

and will, as

we,ll

as

to mind ; and the

Christian

consciousne

1

ss,

•

the

accumulated spiritual

experience of the

body of

Christ,

is

not t,o, be lightly

regar ·ded,

mitch le,ss set

aside,

unless

it

is

pr

1

oved to

be unwarranted by fact ,.

While we do not

say

that

'''what

is

new is

not true,

the

novelty

of

these modern critica]

views [ sh.ould

g.iv,e us

pause before we virtually set aside the

spiritual instinct of

centurie s

of Christian experience. ·

2. DOES THE NEW CRITICISM READILY AGREE WITH THE HIS-

TORICAL POSITI ·ON OF THE JEWISH NATION?

The Jewish nation is a fact in history , an

1

d its record is

given to us

in the

Old Testament ..

There is no

contemporary ·

literature to

checl< the

account

there

given, and

archaeology

affords us assis .tance on points of '

detail

only, not for any long

1

0r continttous p,eriod ,. This rec,ord of

Jewish

history

can be

proved to have remained the same for many centuries. Yet much

of modern criticism is compelled to reconstruct the his·tory of

the Jews on

several

important

points.

It involves, for ins,tance

a very different idea of the character of

the earliest

form of

Jewish religion from that seen in

the

Old Te,st.am

1

ent

as

it nqw

I

•

...

r

•

•

•

•

•

•


4/22

8

The undamentals

tands; its views of the patriarchs are largely different from

the conceptions fou11d on the face of the Old Testament nar-

rative ;

its

views of Moses and David are essentially altered

from what we have before us in the Old Testament.

Now what is there in Jewish history to support all this re-

construc tion? Absolutely nothing . We see through the centuries

the great outstanding objective fact of the Jewish nat'ion, and

the Old Testament is at once the means and the record of their

national life. It rose with them, grew with them, and

it is to

the Jews alone we can look for the earliest testimony to the

Old Testament canon.

In face · of these facts, it is bare truth to say that the

·fundame ntal positions of modern Old Testament criticism

are utte:rly incompatible with the historic growth and position

of the Jewish people. Are we not right, therefore, to pause

before we accep~ thi s subjective reconstruction of history? Let

a~yone read Wellhausen's article on Israel in the Encyclo-

paedia Britannica, anc. then ask himself whether he recognize s

at all therein the story as given in the Old Testament.

3.

ARE 'FHE RESULTS OF THE MODERN VIEW OF THE OLD TESTA -

MENT REALLY ESTABLISHED?

It

is sometimes said that modern criticism is no longer a

matter of hypothesis ; it has entered the domain of fact s.

Principal George Adam Smith has gone so far as to say that

modern criticism has won its war against the traditional

theories. It only remains to fix the amount of the indemnity.

But is this really so? Can we assert that the results of modern

criticism are established facts? Indeed Dr. Smith has himself

admitted, since writing the above words, that there are ques-

tions still open which were supposed to be settled and closed

twenty years ago.

In the first place, is the P~.cessive literary analysi s of the

Pentateuch at all probable or even thinkable on literary

grounds? Let anyone work through a section of Genesis as


5/22

•

•

•

given

by Dr. Drive1·

in his '·I ntroducti

1

on'',

and see whether

such a ,complex co1nbin,ation

0

1

£ autho rs is at\ all likely, or

whether,

even

if

likely, the

variou s

auth ,ors can now ·be dis

tinguished? ·

Is

no,t the

v-11ole

method far

to

1

0

purely subjective

tlo

be p1·obable and reli able?

F'urther, the critics are not agreed as· to the number of

d.0

cum

1

ents, , or as to

the

portion ,s to be ass .igne ,d to ,

ea

1

ch

auth ,o:-.

A simple

instance

of

tl1is

may be given. It is not

so

many years

ago when cr,itic·is:m w·as

content

to

say

that

I .sa.

,40-66, though

not

by

Isai ,ah·, was the worl< of one author, an unknown

proph

1

e·t of the Exile. But the most recent writers like Duhm,

Mac£ adyen and Wade consider these chapters to be the work of

•

two writers, and that the whole Boole of Is aiah (:from three

author~)

-did not r

1

eceive

it .s

present

form

until long aft .er

the

return from

the

Exile.

Tl1en.,

th

1

se

differences

in liter11·y analy·,is

inv·olv

1e

di.ff·er-

ences of interpretation and differences of d.ate, character, and

meaning of particular parts of the Old Testament. To prove

tl1is,. we ask attention to the following extracts from a review

of a work on Genesis by Pr

1

ofess,or Gunkel of Be1-1in.

a;'l1e

revie\\1 is by Professo ,r Andrew 1-Iarper of Melbourne, and

appeared in

the ''Critical

Review'' for January, 1902. Profes

sor Harper's own position would, we imagine, be rightly char•

acterized as generally favorable to

the

moderate positiOn of

the .critical movement. Hi s comments on Gunket ·ts book are,

therefore, . all

the

m

1

ore notewortl1y and

si,gnifi

1

cant.

''It will change the wl1ole

d~rection

of

the

conflict as

to

the

early books of the P

1

entatet1ch and Ieacl

it

int,o mo

1

re fruitful

1

directions,

for

it

has raised the

f

unda1nental

question whether

th,e narratives in

1

Genesis at·e

11ot

f,ar older t.l1an the authors of

tl1e

documents marked

J~

. P., a11d whether they are

not

faithful witnesses to the religion of Israel before prophetic

t

. '' ''H. 1 . ·11 . b 1

mes. - - ·1s ,cone us1on w1 , 111 many resp

1

ects, ,e we come to

tl1osewho have felt how incredible some of the ass

1

11mptions

of

th

1

e Kuenen-Wellhaus .en slchool of

1

cri·tic.s

are.''

•

•

•

•

•

•


6/22

10

The F Undanientals

It will be obvious at a glance what an upsetting of current

conceptions in regard to the history of religion must follow if

, it be accepted. · ·

They are sufficient, if made good, to upset the whole ~f

the current reconstructions of the religion of Israel. To ·most

readers it

will be seen that he has in large part made them

good.

There can be no doubt that his book most skillfully begin s

a healthy and much-needed reaction. It should, therefore, ·be

read and welcomed by all students of the Old Te stamen t whose

. d

min s are open.

In view of Gunkel's position thus endorsed by Professor

Harper, is it fair to claim victory for the modern sr itical theo

ries of the Old Testament? When an able scholar like Pro

fessor Harper can speak of a new work as sufficient to upset

the whole of the current recon structions. of the religion of

Israel,

it

is surely premature to speak even in a .moment of

rhetorical enthusiasm, as Dr. George Adc\m Smith does, of.

victory and indemnity. Dr. Smith himself now admits

that Gunkel has overturned the Wellhausen theory of the

patriarchal narratives. And the same scholar has told us that

distinction in the use of the nan1e for God is too precarious

as the basis of arguments for distinctions of sources . For

ourselves we heartily endorse the words of an American

scholar when he says :

We are certain that there will be no final settlement of

Biblical questions on the basis of the higher criticism that is

now commonly called by that name. Many specific teaching s

of the system will doubtless abide. But so far forth as it goes

upon the asswnption that statements of fact in the Scripture s

are pretty generally false, so far forth it is incapable of estab

lishing genuinely permanent result s. * Sir W. Robertson

*Dr. G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the

Old Testament ,

p.

35.

Dr. Willis J. Beecher, in The Bible Student

and Teacher , January, 1904.


7/22

•

Old Testament Criticism and New T stament Christianity 11

Nicoll, editor of the ''B ,ritish W eek],y ''

rema ,rked

1

quite

recent'ly

that the '''assu ,red results'' seem to be vanishing, that no on,e

really

knows what

they

are. ·

4. IS THE POSIT 'I0

1

N 0

1

F M

1

0D ,ERN CRITICISM REALLY COMP~TIBLE ·

WITH A BELIEF IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A

. . · DIVINE REVELATION ?

•

The problem before us is not m

1

erely literary, nor only his

torical; it is essentially religious, ,and the whole matter resolves

it,se],f

into ,

one ,

qu,est ,ion, Is the

Otd

'Test ,a111ent

the

recor

1

d

0

1

f

a

Divine revelation? This is the ultimate problem. It is admit

ted by b

1

oth sides to be almost impossib

1

le to

minimize

the

difference s be,tween the traditional and the modern views ef

the Old, Testatne ,nt. As a reviewer of n,,. George Adam

Smit ,1's

book,

''Modern

Criticism and the Preaching

of

_he

Old

T'estament'', rightly

says: · .

''The difference , is immense; ,

they

involve different con .- .

•

ce:ptions of tl1e r

1

elation of Go

1

d t

1

0 the .

wo1 fl

d ; different views

as

to

the , cour ,se of ,Israel's his

1

tory

1

the process of

revelation~

and the natur 1 of inspir .ation. We cannot be 'lifted _f·rom the

old to the n1w pos1tio11by the influence o,f a charming

Iit,erary

sty le, or

by

the force of the most enthusiastic eloquence.'' '*

In view

1

0£

this fundamental difference, the

question

of the

trustworthiness of the Old T

1

estament becomes a,cute and

· press1n,g.

,In Ord1r

to test this fairly and thoroughly,

l1.t u.s

,examine some of the statetnents made on behalf of ' the modern

•

Vle\V. ·

We may

consider first the i-ise and progress

of

religion in ·

Isr ,a,el. Dr.

G.

A. Sm~th

say·s:

' 'I t is, pla ,in,

then,

'tha't to what

ever heights th ,e

reli,gion

of Israel afterwards rose, it remained

before the age of the grea .t prophets not only similar to, but in

all respects above-m

1

entioned id,entical with, the general Semitie

religio ,n; which wasl not a monotheis ,m, but a

,polyt,heism

with

an opportunity for .monotheism at the heart of

it,

each

tribe

.

*''American Jour~aJ of Theology , Vol: VI., p.

114.

•

•

•

•


8/22

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

12

•

Tlie Funda ie itals

•

being attached to one god, as to their

particu ·lar

Lord and

..

F athe r.·'

1

*

Consider·

wI·1at

is mean .t

by

tl1e

phr lase,

'' in

all

respects

· abo,ve·-mention

1

ed

identical

with the

general Semiti·c religiont''

•

as

appli,ed

to the re.ligi

1

011

of

Isr ,ael

p

1

.revious to the

eigl1th. c

1

en•

tury

Bl.

C.

Can

this.

view be

fai1·ly deduced

from

th,e

Old

Testament as we n

1

ow

ha,re it.?

,Still more, is su,ch ·

a view

conceivable in the

light

of the several precedin ,g centuries of

God's special dealings with Israel? '\\'herein, on

this

assump

tion, consisted the uniq11eness of Is1·ael

f

ro1n

the

·time

of

Abraham

to

the

eig~1~11century · Br

C.?

We

may next take. the cha·racte ·r

of

the narratives

of

Gene

.sis. Th ,e real question

at

1ssu

1

e is the

hi.storic.al character.

Mod-

em criticis1n regar cls, the

alc count

in Genesi.s as

largel,y mythical

· ,and

legendary.

Yet

it is

certain

that the Jews

of the later

centuries

acc ep ttdd

the se

patriarchs

as

veritable

personages,

•

and the incidents associated

with

th~m as genuine history. ~t.

P·aul

and the

r,

ther New Testa1nent writers assuredly held

·the

sa111e

v·iew,.

If, t'h,en,

tl1

ey

are not

hi.st,orical,

su·rely

the

tru ·ths

empha sized .

by proph ,ets

1

and ap,os.tles

fro1n

the· ,patriarchal

stories

,are ,so

·far

\veakened .in th

1

eir

su.p

1

ports

Tak e,

,a,gain, th.e

l

1

egislatio11

which

in

the Pentateuch

is a.s

sociated with Moses, and almost invariably in.troduced

by

the

phr ase, ''The ·

Loi·d

sp.ake unto

Moses.'

1

Modern criticism

1·egards

this legislation as

unknown untiJ tl1e

Exile ,

or a

thou- .

sand years after the time of Moses. Is it

1ea·tty possible

to

accep

1

t

this asl

s.atisfactory? Ar

1

we to

.suppose

that ''The Lord .

spak~

to Moses'' is onl.y

.a well-known liter ,ary

d,evice intended

to

·invest

the

u~·te1·ance

with

greater

importance

,and

more

,solemn

sanction?

Thi ,s position,

together with

the general .ly

.

accepted view of

1nodern criticism

about the invention of Deu-

teronomy in the days of· Josiah ,[ can11ot 'be regarded as in

accordance with bis

1

torial f'act

or ethical

principle.

Canon D

1

river and Dr. G~A. Smith, it is true, strongly assert

*"Modern Criticism:',

p.

130

-

•

•

•

•

•


9/22

•

•

•

..

0

1

ld Testa1nentCritici.s1n nd J.¥,w T estament Christianity 13

•

•

tlie compatibility of the new views with a belief in the

Divine

auth ,ority of the Old T·es.tament, and s,o far as they themselves

· are concerned we of cour s,e accept

their

stateme ·nts

e~

animo.

· But we wi,sh they

woul,d

,give

us

more clearly and definitely

than they

ha,~e

yet

done, the g1.

ounds

on

which

this compati·

b,ility may 'b,e said to re,st. To deny historicity , to correct date ,s

· by.

hundreds of years, to

reverse judgments

on which

a nation

has rested for

centuries, to trave ·rse

views

which l1ave been

the spiritual

sustenance of miilions,

and

the11

to

say that

all

this

is

consistent

with

the O ld

Testament being regar ,ded

as a

Divine

reyelation, ,

i,s, at least puzzlin ,g, and does not

afford

mental or moral satisfaction to many who do not dream of

•

questioning the bona fide S of scholars

\\?ho·

hold the

views

now

· criticized.

T he

extremes

to

which D·r. Cheyne has gone seem

t ) many the logical

0

1

utc,ome of

tl1e

principles with

which

mod ...

ern critic.ism, even of a

moderate type,

starts.

Facilis

descens·i,s

AV1e1 no

1

and ·we

sho1ild

lik

1

e to be shown the solid an-d logical

l1alting -place where those who refuse to go ,vith Cheyne think

tl1at

they and

we can sta .nd.

,

•

Sir W. Robe1·tson Nic

1

oll, commenting March 12, 1903, on a

sp

1

eech delivere ,d by ·the th

1

en Prime Minister of Great Br itain

· ( Mr.

Balfour) in

connection with

tiie

Bible

Society s Cen

tenary, made the following significant. remarks : 1 he immedi-

ate re~ults

of

critirisn1 are

in

a high

degree

disturbing. So

f.ar

· tl1ey have scarcel~,

been

understood

by the

average Christian.

But tl1e plain man who has been used to r·eceive everything in

the Bible. as a

veritable

Word Of Go

1

d

,cannot fa.ii

to

be

per

plexed,

and

deeply perplexed, wl1enhe is

told

that mucl1of

the

Old Testament and tl1e

New

is

unhis ·toric

1

al, and

when

he

1

is

asked to

accept the

statement tl1at

God reveals Himself by myth

and legend as well as by the truth, of fact •. Mr . Balfoltr must

surely

know that many of the

higher

critics hav

1

e c~t,sed

to

be

believers., More

t han twenty years

ago the presen t writer,

walking with Julius Wellhausen in the quaint streets of

Greifs,vald,

ventttred

to

asl{ him wl1ether,

if his

views

we1·e

•

•

l

1'

•

,

•

•

f

•


10/22

•

•

•

•

•

•

1·4

•

Tlie

Funda1n,ental.s

a,c,cepted,, the Bible co,uld

r,etain

its

pla,.ce in

the estimation of

the common people. 'I cannot see how that js possible,' was

the sad reply .''

It

is no mere question of how we may use the

01d

T,esta

ment for preaching, ·

or how

much is

left for use after 'the

critical views are accepted. But even o,t1r· preaching · will 'lack

•

a great deal of the note of c

1

ertitude. If we are to regard ,cer-

tain b,iographies as t1nhi,storical,

it

will not be ea,sy t

1

0

draw les

sons for con.duct, and

if

the

his,tor ,y

is

largely

leg,en

1

dary,

our

deductions about God's government and providence must be

essentially weal


11/22

•

.

evolutio

1

nary theory of all l1istory which tends to minimize Di-

vine inte ·rven ·tion in the affairs of the pe,ople of I .srael. It i.s

certainly correct to say that the presupposition

of

much pres- .

ent-day

critical

reasoning

is a denial of

the supernatural, and

especially of the p·redictive eie1nent in prophecy.

As to the th

1

eory of

evolution

·reg.arded as a.

process

,o,f un·in

terrupted

differentiation

of

existences, under purely natural

laws, and withot1t an)' Divi11e ntervention, , it will suffice to say

that

it

is

''not

proven ·,

in

the

sphere

of

natural science,

while in the real111sof history and l.iteratu .re it is palpably

false.

The

r ·e,cords of

history

and

1

0f literature reveal from

time to titne

the

great

fact

and factor of

personality,

the

reality of

person .al p

ower, and tl1is dete ·rminative

ele·m

1

ent

has

a

peculiar way 1f setti ·ng at naught all idealistic theories of a

purely ,natu .ral a.nd ur1if01·mprog1·e.ss

·in

his,to,·y a,nd let·ters ,. Th,e

lite1·ature

of today

is

not necessarily

higher

than that

pro

duce ·d in the p,ast; the history of the I.a.st ,centu ·ry is n

1

0,t in ev ,ery

way and alwa ,ys superio ,r to that of its predecessors. Even a

~'natur,alistic'' wri ·ter like Pro

1

fesso1· Pe1·cy Gardner testi .fie s to

the fact

and

forc ,e

of

perso ,na 'lity in

the

follo\ving remarkabl ,e

terms:

''There is, in fact, a great force in histo

1

ry

which is not, so

fa1· as we can judge, evolutional, a11d he law of which is vef)·

l1a1~dto trace the force of personality · and

chara

1

cter.'' Ancl

quite apart from such instan ,ces of personality as

have

arisen

·from

ti·me

t

1

0 time

through the

centu1·ies,

there is

1

on,e

Personal

ity

who has not yet been accounted for

by any

theory

of

evolu~

tion

the Person

of

Jesus

.of

Nazareth.

There

a1·e

sufficient

data in

current

Old

Testament criticism

to wjarran ·t the .statement that i.t proceeds from presuppo .siti

1

ons

..

concerning

the origins

of

history,

religion, and the Bible,

,vhich, in their essence, are subversive of belief in a Divi.ne

revelation. And such being the case, we naturally look with

0

rave suspicion

on results

derived

from so unsound a

philo-

ophical basis. ·

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

f


12/22

•

•

•

•

'

•

•

•

•

..

•

16

•

The Fund aniental s

•

•

1

6·.. CAN PURELY NATURAf..1I ,STI

1

C PREMI :SE,S B,E ACCE rPTED WITH-

0 1UT COMING TO, PURELY NATURALISTIC CON ,CLUSIONS?

. I{uenen

and

W

e llhausen are ·

.ardmi,ttedly

accep

1

ted as,

r11a:stersby

our -1eading

Old

Tes ·ta1nent higher c1~itics in Eng~

land,

Sco tl a.nd,

and America, .and the 1·esults o·f their literar y

analysis of the

Pentateuch

are generally regarded as conclusive

· by their f()]toWers. On tl1e basis of this ~iterary dissectio n,

•

certain

conclus ·ions a·re

fo1·med .as

to

the chara

1

cter an

1

d

growth

of

Old

Testament

·religion, an

1

d,

as

a

res ttlt,

the

hist iory

of

t.he

Jews is

reconstructed.

The Book

of De11teronomy

is

said to

b,e.

1nainly,

if

not

·entirely,

a

pi;oduct.

of

·the reign

of

Josiah,

the

accounts of the tabernacle

an ,d worshi .p

are

of

exilic date;

monotheism

i11

Isra ,el was of late d.ate, and was the outcome

,of a growth from

po,lytheism;

and th,e present Book

of

Gene

sis reflects ·tl1e tho11ghts of

the

tin1e

of it s

composition

or com

pi.lation

in

or

nea1·

th ,e

elate

of

the

Exile.

Now it is kn ,own

tl1at

Kuenen

and

We l lhausen deny

the

supernatural element in

the Old

Testa1nen t.

This is

the p ,re

supposition

of

their

entire position. .

Will

anyo11e say

that it

does not materially affect their · conclu s,ions P And is there any

•

· saf·e or logical halting-g ·rouqd for those who accept S·O

many

of their premises? The extreme subjec tivity of Canon

Cheyne

ought not to be a surpri se to any who accept the main princi

p]es of modern higher criticism ;

it

is part of the logical out

come of the general po,sition. W ,e gladly distinguish between

-

-

the extremists and the 0

1

ther

schol .ars

who S·ee no incompati-

bility

between the acceptance of

many

of the literary and his

torical

principles

of

Kuenen and W ellhausen an:d a

belief

in

t.l1e

Divine

sou rce and authority of

tl1e

Old Testamente

But

'

we are bound

to add tl1at

th ·e ttnsatisfying

element in

tl1e

writings of moderate men like

Canon

Driver

and

]; rincipa~

· George Adam

Smith

is that, while

accepting so

n1uch of the

naturalism of the German schoo

1

l, they do not give us any

clea1~ assura11ce of t he ·t1·ength of the

fou·ndation

on which

•

•

•

I

•

•

•


13/22

•

•

'

, .

Old

Testame it

Criticism nd New Testament Christianity 17

•

•

they rest and ask -us to rest. The tendency of their position

is certain ly towards a mini1nizing of th

1

e

s,uper11atural

in the

1

0 1d

Te stament. · . ·. ·

. Take, as one instance , the Messian ic element . In sp

1

te

•

of the universal belief of

J

,:vs and Christians in a person~·1

· Messiah, a belief derived

in

the

first

place solely from the:

•

Old Testament, and supported

fo ,r

Christians b,y the New,

modern criticism will not allow much cl,ear and undo

1

ubter

predicti on of

Him ..

Insight

into existing

conditions is

read.il.Y

granted

to th

1

e prophets

1

,

but they

are not

al.lowed

to have

h.a,d

much

foresight

into futt1re conditions connected with

the

Messiah.

Yet

Isaiah's glowing words remain, and demand

a fair, full exegesi s such as

they

do not get from many

modern scho .lar s~ Dr. , James We lls, of Glasgow, wrote in

the: ~'British Week1y', so1ne time ago of tl1e new

critici s111

n

thi s point:

''T he fea·r of p

1

red icti

1

0 11

in the

prope,r

sense

,of

the term

is ever hef

ore

its eyes.

It gladly

enlarge s on fore-shadowings,

a

1noral

historical

growth which reach

1

es its, culmination in

Christ; and anticip ,ation s

1

0£ the Spirit of Christ; but its

tendency is always to minimize the prophetic element

in . the

Old Test .ament~''

Ano ther example of t}1e te11dency of

moder11

criticism to

minimize and explain away th e

supernatural element

may be

give11from a book entitled, 'The Theology and Ethics of the

Hebrews,'' by Dr. Archibald Du ff, Professor in the Yorkshire

College, Brad£ ord., 'Thi s is

l1is·

.account

0

1

£

Moses, at the burn

ing bush:

' 'He was shepherding his sheep among the red granite

mountains. • • • The man

sat

at dawn by the stream, and

watched the fiery rock s. Yonder gleamed the level sunlight

ac1~oss the low growth. E,ach spine glistened against the

rising sun. The man wa s a poet , one fit for inspiration. He

felt that the dreams of his soul we re

tl1e

whisperings of his

God, the place

His

sanctuary. He bowed and worshipped,''

•

•

•

..

•

•

•


14/22

•

•

I

•

•

18

\

( p. 6.) This, at least, is, no·t t·he pr1ma f acie impre ssion

derived f'rom the account g·iven in 'Exod ·us .

•

One

more

illustratio ,n

may

·be,

given

of modern

critic al

methods of dealing with narratives of the Old

Testan1en t

•

which were evidently intended to b,e regarded as historical .

J,n the ''Internationa .1 Critical Comm.entary'' ,on

Numbe.rs,,

Dr..

I

G B. Gr ,ay, of M,ansfield College, Oxford, thus writes on

what he terms ' 't he prie stly section of t·l1e ·book'' ·: .

''For the

hist'?ry

of the Mo saic age the whole

sectio11

is

valueless. '''The historical imp1ession given

by

(P) of

the Mosaic a.ge is .altog ,ether unl1istorical , and much of th e

detail . . . can • . . • be demon str .ated to be entirely

unreal, or at least untru

1

e of th

1

e age in question.'' ''Thi s

history

·is,

fictiti ,ous,.''

These state1nents at once set

as,ide

the history containe d

in more than th ree-qttarters o.f the

whole

Book

of

Numbet· 's,

while as to the rest Dr. Gray 's verdict is

by

no means r,eas,sur

ing, and he clearly does not po,ssess mucl1 confidence in. even

tl1e small quant .ity that escapes his cond,emnation. The bra z.en

serpent is, said to be an inv,ention o,n the part o·f some

''wl 10

• •

had come unde ·r the higher proph

1

eti

1

c te.achi,ng'' be£ ore He ze-

kiah, and is meant '''to controve rt

tl1e

po,pular belie·f·,,

in

th e

l1ealing power of the serpent by ascribing, it to Jehovah. A

t

1

0 the story

1

0£ Ba.laam, Dr. Gray wrotes: .

''It may, indeed, contain other hi.storical features, such

as the name , o,f Balak, who may hav

1

e been an actual kin ,g of

Moab; but no mean .s at pre sent ex is,t for dis,tinguishing any

further between ·the historical or legendary elements and

those w·hich are · supp.lied by the creative facu ·tty a·nd

tl1

re.ligi,ous feeling of the writers.'' .

What . is any ordinary earnest Chri stian to make of all

these

St,ateme,nts?

The ,

writer

of th.e

Book o·f

Numbers evi

d,ently c,ompo sed what professes to b

1

e histo ·ry, and what he

meant to b,e read as history, and yet according to D,r. ·Gray

all this

has

110

hi storical

foundation_. We

ca·n

1

only

say

tl1at

•

•

..

•

•

•


15/22

the

Ch.ri.stian

Church

will re,qui1·e

very much mo

1

re

convin

1

cing

proofs before they can accept the critical position, and it

does no,t

faci:l,i.tate

our

ac.cept,ance

,o,f this

wbol.esale

proc ,ess

of invention

to. be

told

that it

is due to

'~the

creative fac111ty

and the ·r·eligious

feeling

of the

writers.

- As to the fact that so

many

of our British

and

American

''higl1er critics'' al e fir·m b.e]ieve·rs ·in the D'ivi·n.e

authority

of

the Old Testa1nent,

and

of a

Divi11e

revelation

embodied in

it,

we cannot but fee l

the

£,orce of

tl1e

words of the

late

Dr ..

W,. H . Green, ,of

Princeton:

''They who

have

themselves been

tho ,roughly

grounded

in the Christian

faith

may, by

a

happy

inc.ottsistency, hold fast

their

o·Id convictions, while

admitting

p,rincip ,les, rnetl1ods, a·nd conclusions that are logically .at war

with

them.

But

who can

be surpri s,ed if

others

shall with

stricter logic c·arry what h,as been th.us commended to them t

its

legitimate conclusions

?''''

•

7. C'AN WE OVERL,OO,I{ THE EVIDENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY?

•

It is well

k110

1

wn that during the last sixty

years

a vast

number of archaeological

dis.coveries

have been made in

Egypt,1 P'alestine ., Babylonia,

and Assyria.

Many of these

have

shed remarkable

Jight on

the histo rical feat ur es _of the

Ol

1

ci

Testament. A number of persons a·nd pe.riod.s have been

illttminated

by

these discoveries and are now seen with a

clearness which was befor ·e i1npos.sible.

. Now it is a .

simple

and yet

stri king

fact

that

not one of

these

di,sc,ovieries

during the whole of

this

tirn

1

e has given

any

support to the

distinctive featqr ·es

and

principles ,

of the highe.r

critical position, while, on the other hand, many of them have

afforded abundant

confirmation

of the traditional

and

con

s,ervative view of the Old

Testament.

.

Let

us

1

consider a

few

of

t'hese discoveries. Only

a little

over forty years a,go the cons

1

ervative '''Speaker's C01µ-

mentary'' actually

had to

take into consideration .the critical

arguments

t 'hen.

so

prevalent in

favor

of

the la.te

invention

•

•


16/22

. -

•

•

,

20

•

The Funlla nentals

..

of wr ,iting. This is

an

,argt1m

1

ent

whicl1

is

never

heard now

. . in critical circ'les. The change of attack is 1nost striking.

•

While fo

1

rty o,r

fifty

years ago

it

was argued that

Moses

cottld not

possibly

have had

sufficient

learning t

1

0 write the

Pentateuch, now it is argued as the resu lt of th.ese modern

discoveries [ that

11e w

1

ould have been

altogetl1er behind his

1

contempo1 . ries

if

l1e

l1ad

,no·t

bee,n able

to

write. Again, the

Babylonian [story of the flood agrees in 1on,g sections with

the account in

Ge,n,esis,, ,and

it

is, known

that the

Babylonian

version was in existence for ages before the , dates

assigned .

to

the

Gen ,e.sis

narrative

by the ·critical s,chool~ Pro

1

fessor

Sayce rightly calls

1

this a cr·ucia l test

1

0£ the

criti ,cal

positio

1

n,,

Th ,e historicity of the kings mentioned in Genes ·is 14 was

once seriously ques tione

1

d by

criticis ,n1,

but th .is is im.possible

today, for their

histo1·ical

character has been p,rov,ed beyo

1

nd

all question, and, in p,articular,

-t

is now known that the

A1nrapl1el of that cl1apte1·

sl

the H,amn1,urabi 0

1

£ the Monuments

. and a contempor ,ary

with Abraham .. T h

1

e

puzz 'ling

story of

Sar ,ah and

Ha ,gar

is a]so now seen to be in exact agr

1

eement

with ·Babylonian custom. Th

1

e11 again, the Egypt of Joseph

and Moses is tr ue to tl1e s1nallest details of the life of the

•

•

Egypt of that day

and

is

altogethe1·

different

from t'he

very

•

di·ff

erent

Egypt

of

later ages. Sargo

1

n, wl10 for

centu 't 'ies wa ,s

only

known

from

th ,e

one reference

to him in Isa.

20 :1, is

nqw

seen to hav

1

e been

0

1

lle: of

the most

important

kings of A,s

syria. An .d th ,e Aramaic 'language of Daniel and Ezra,

which

has so often be,e11 acct.1sed of 1ate.ness, is proved to be in

exact accor ;d with t'he Arama ·i,c

0

1

f

that

age,

as

sh,ov..n

by

the

Papyri discovered at

Elephan tine in

Egypt.

Now these, and ot.hers

like

tl1,en1,, are . tangible pr

1

oofs

w'hich can be verified by ordina ,ry pe,ople. Hebrew philology

is

beyond.

mo:st of us and is too su·bject ive for any convincing

argument to be based upon it, bu't 3:rch.aeology

1

0fI

1

ers an ob

jective method of putting historical theories ·t

1

0 the t·est. . --

No,t the I

east

important

feature

of th

1

e archaeo1ogical ar~-

•


17/22

•

t

•

•

Old .Testament

Criti c·i sm

and New

Testa1:nent

Chr1;stianity 1

•

•

m

1

en,t is tha 't a number of leading ar

1

cl1aeologists \vho were

fo r1nerly in hearty agreement with the critical school, have

now abandoned this view and oppose

it.

As Sir Wil 'liam

Robertson Nic,o l ha .s forcibly said : ''The significant

iact

is that the great first-han d archaeologists as a rule do not .

j

trust the higher criticism. This means a great deal more

•

than can be put on paper to account for their doubt. It

means that they are

living in

an atmosphe1·e where argu

ments ·that flourish ,outside do not thrive.'' '

Profess .or

Fl inder s Petrie, the

great Eg-yptologist,

uttered

these words not long

ago:

' ' I have come to the conclusion

that there is a far mor ,e solid bas,is tl1an seems to he sup-

_posed by many critics . . . • I have not the slightest .

doubt that contemporary documents give a truly solid founda

tion

fo

1

·1~tl1e reco,rds1

contai ·ned in the

Pentateuch. ,) · . .

The

essential point is that some of these critical people support

from an a priori

basis instead

of wri ting

upon ascertained

facts. We should remember that writing at tl1e time of ttiie

Ex

1

odus was

as familiar as i,t

is

now. . • ,, Tl1e fac 't is

that it is hopeless for these people by means merely of v:erbal

criticism to succeed iq. solving al,l

1

difficu.lti,es that

,arise.' · ,

•

ARE THE VIEWS OF MODERN

CRITICISM CONSISTENT WITH

. THE

WITNESS

OF OUR LORD,

TO

TiiE

OLD

TESTAMENT?

The Christian Church

approacl1,es

the Old

Tes·tament

1nainly

and

predominantly

£1·omthe

standpoint

of th~ resur·

rection O'f ,c ·hrist,. We natural :ly ·inquire ·what our Ma .ster

thought of

the Old 1'"'estament,

for if

it comes

to

us

·\Vith

His authority, and we can discover His view of it, we

ot1gbt

to l

be satisfied .

..

. In the days of our Lord's life on earth one press ,ing ,ques

tion was, ''What think ye of the Christ?'' Another was,

W h t · ·

a

ts

written

,in

thie

Law

?

H

1

ow

·re,adest thou?''

Th

1

se

questions

are still

being raised

in

one £Orm

or another, and

today,

as of old,

the

two

great

problems

two ''storm-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


18/22

•

•

22

•

•

cent ,ers'', as they have well

been cal1ed

are Christ and the

Bible. .

The

two proble.ms,

r,eally re,solve

themslv ,es into ,

1

0

1

ne,

f'or

Christ and

th.e

Bibl.e are . inseparable. If we follow ·Christ,

He will

teach

us o.f

the Bible;

and

if we

study our

Bible,

it

will

point us to

c ·hrist.

Each is called the Word o·f Go

1

d.

Let us,

firs,t

o·f a11, 'be

qttite

1

clear

as

to

,our

meaning

of

our Lord .as ''The w ·ord of God. ''In the beginning was

tl1e Word.'' A

word

is an oral or visible

expr ,es.sion

0

1

f

an

invisible

thought.

The thought needs the

word

for its ex

JJression,

and

the word is

intended

to represent the

thought

-

accurately, even if not completely. We cannot in any degree

be sure of · the thought unless we can

be

sure

o·f

the

wor ·d.

Our Lord as the W ,ord, there£ ore, , is the perso ,nal and visible

expression of

the invisible God. (John 14; Heb. 1 :3.) We

believe that He is

a11

accurate

''expression''

of

God,

and

that

as, the Word He re,,eals God ·and ,c,011veys Go,d'S: Will to us

in

such

a way

as

to be

inerrant

and infallible. As

the

In

eamate Word He is infa.llible.

•

•

He

came, among other things, , to bear witness to

the

truth

(John 18 :37),

and

it is a

necessary outcome of this

purpose

tha .t He should be.ar infallible

witn ,ess.

He came to reveal

God and God's will, and this implies and requires special

1,nowledge. It demands that every assertion of His be true.

The Divine know]edge did not, because it could not, undergo

any change

by

the Incarnation. He

continued

to subsist in

the form

of

God even

while

He existed

in

the

fo,rm of

man.

(Phil .

2

:6. See

Dr. Gifford's

''The

Incarnation.'')

· In view of this position, we belie,re

that,

as Bishop Elli-

.

cott says (''Christus Comprobator'') we have a right to make

this

~ppeal

to the testimony of Christ to the Old Testament .

•

The place it occupied

in

His )ife

and ministry is

suffi.cie:nt

warrant . for referring to His use of it. It

is

well known

that,

as

far as the Old Testament

canon is

concerned, oitt

highest authority is that

of

our Lord Himself ; and what is

•

•

,


19/22

•

Old Testament Criticistn and New Testa1nent Ch1ristianity

23

•

.

true of th

1

e Old Testament as a whole, is surety

tru .e

of these

parts to which our .Lord specific,ally ·refe rred.

Let

us be

clear,

however, as

to w·hat

we mean in making

this appeal. We do, no,t for an instant inten ,d thereby to

clos.e all possible cr·iticism ·of the Old Testament. T·here

are

~umbers

of questions

quite untouched by

anything our

Lord said, and there is consequently ampl ,e scope for

sober·,

necessary, and valuable criticism. But what we ·do say is,

. that

anything

in t.he Old Te :stament st.ated by our Lo

1

rd .as

a fac·t, or imp

1

lied as a fact, is, or ought to be,. t·hereby closed

for those who , hold Christ to be infallible. Criticism can do

anything · that ·is not

i·ncomp,ati'ble with

the st,atem ·ents of

our

Lord;

but where Christ has spoken, surely ''the matter

•

•

1s clo,s,ed.·'

_ at, then, is ou1·Lord's general view of the

Old

Testa

ment? There is, no doubt that His Old ·Te .stament was

practicaJ·ty, if no,t actually, th e s.ame a,s ottrs, and that He

regarded it as of Divine auth

1

ority,

as

the final court of ap

peal for a]] questiOns


20/22

•

..

•

•

24

•

•

Ther ,e is

scar ,cely a. historical boo·k,

from

Genesis to

2 .

Chr 1onicles ., to which our Lord

docs not

ref

er;

while

it

i.

perhap s sig·ni.fi,cant

that

His

te stim ,ony

includ ,es

references to

every book of the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, to Jonah, to ·Daniel,

and to

miracle .s the ,

very

parts mo,,st called

in qu

1

esti,on

today .

Above all,

it

is

surely

of

the

deepest moment

that at

I-Iis

te1np·tation

He

s.hould

use

thr ,ee tin1es as the Wor ,d,

of God

the

book

about

which

there

has,

perhaps,

been most

contrqver sy

0

1

f

all. ·

Again, therefore, we say that everything to

which

Chris t

can be sa·i,d, on any h

1

onest

inte1·pretati.on, to have

referred

or which He used as a fact, is thereby sanctioned and sealed

· by

th ,e authority of our Infal lible Lor ,d.

''D

1

omint1s locu·tus

est; causa

finita

est. · ·

Nor

can ·

this position

be

turned

by the

statement

th,at

Christ

simply

ad ,opted

the

beliefs

of

His day

Without

neces

sar ily

sancti ,oning

them as, correct.

1

0f this there is

n

1

ot

the

slightest

proof·, but very n1uch to the contrary.

On

some

of

the most . impo i'tant

sub,jec·ts

1

0f

His

day

He went ,directly

against prevailing opinion. His teaching ab,out God,

about

righteousne ·ss,

about the Messia h,

abo11t

tradition,

ab9ut th e

Sabbath,

about

the

Samaritans, ab,out

women,

about

divorce ,

about the

b.aptism

of

John, w·ere diametrically

opposed to

that of the time. And

this opposition

was, deliberately

gr\0L1nded on the Old Testament which our Lor

1

d ch,arge ,d th

1

em

with

mis.interp1-eting.

The

one

and

only

question

of difference

between Him and

tl1e

Jews

as to

the Old Testament

was

tl1at of

interpret~tion. Not

a vest ige

of pr ,oof

can

be adduc ,ed

that He and they

differe .d

at

al,l

in

their gen .eral view

of its

•

]1istorical

charact ·er or

Divine atitho ,1·ity. If

the

.cu1·rent

Jewish

views

were

wrong,

can we think

our

Lord would

have been silent on a

matter

of such moment,

about

a

bo,ok

.

which

He cite,s

or alludes to ,over

four

hundred

times,

and

which He

made

His constant

topic in

'teachi·ng

,concerning

Himself? If th

1

e

Jews

were wrong, Jesus

either

kn

1

ew it,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


21/22

•

•

0 ,ld Testament Criti cis1nand N eu Testament C,hristiianity 25

or He did not. If He knew it, why did He not correct them

as in s:o many otl1er land

1

detailed instances? If I-le did not

lcnow

it

but I

,vill not finish.

Nor can t,his witness t

1

0 the Old T

1

estament be met b y

asserting that the limitation of our Lord s earthly life kept

Him within current

views

of the Old Testament which ne,ed

not ha,ve

be,en true views. This statement

ign,o,res

the ·

es

sential force of His personal

clai1n

to be the Word.

Qn m ore

,than

one o,ccasion

our Lord

claimed

to

speak

from God,

_and

that everything He said

had the Divine

war:

rant. Let us notice

careft1lly

what this

involves.

It is

some

ti:mes s,ai

1

d, that our Lord s kno

1

wledg e ,was limited , and tha ,t

He lived here as man, not as

God.

Suppose we grant t11is

for argument s sake. · Very well; ·as man He live,.d in God

an

1

d on God, a11d He claimed that everything He said a11tl

did was fr om God and thr

1

ough God. If,

then,

the limita-

•

t1ons were f ro m God,

,so

also were the, ul·te,rances; and, as

God s warrant

was cJaimed for

,every

one of these, they are

the1 . :fore

Divine and infallible. (John 5 :19; 5 :30; 7:13;

8 :26; ·12 :49; 14 :24; 17 :8.) Even though we grant to the

full a theory that wilt compel us to accept a temporary disuse

1

0

1

r non-us e lolf

the

£,u11ctions of

Deity

in

th

1

e ·

Per ,so11

of

our

Lord, yet tl1e words actually uttered as man are claimed

to be from God, , and the ref ore we hold them to

be

inf allibl ,e.

We rest, therefore, upon our Lord s personal claim to say

all and do all

by

th~ Fat her, from the Father, for the Fathe:ti.

· The ,r,e is,Iof course,, no

questio ·11

of partia l knowl

1

dge af t,er

the res·urrection,

when our Lord

was

manifestly

free

from

all limitations

of

earthly conditions. Yet it was after His

resurrection

also that

He

set Hi s seal to

t he Q,ld

Testament.

(Luke 24:44.) .

We co,nclud,e, t,ha t o,ur Lor ,d s pos

1

itive statements on

tl1e,

subject of the Old Testament are not to

be

rejected without

charging Him with error. .If, on these points, on which we

c:an test an·d verify Him, we find that He is not reliable,

•

•

•

•

..

•


22/22

•

•

,

•

,

26

The undanientats

•

what real com£ort can we have in accepting His higher teacl1-

. ing, where verification is

itnpo,ssible ?

We believe we are on

absolutely

safe gro ,und when

we say

that

what the Old Testa

ment was to our

.Lor

1

d,

it

mttst

b1 .and shall be to us.

•

•

•

CONCLUSION

I

•

•

We ask a car·efu] ,consideratio ·n of thes.e eight inquiries.

Taken separately, they carry ,veight, but taken together the y

have a cumttlative effect,. and should be seriously pondered

by all who

are

seek.ing

to know

the truth

on.

this

momentou s ·

subject. ·

We:may b

1

e perfectly sure that no criticism of

the

Old Tes

tament

will

ever be

a,ccep,ted by

the

Christian Church

as

a

.

whole,

whi ·ch

does not fu ll,y

satisfy

the f,ollowin,g

·conditi .ons:

· 1. It

·must

admit in

all

its as.su·mptions, . and take

fully

intor

considerat ion, the super n.atural element which differen -

tiates the Bible from all other books. ·

2. , It

must

be in

k,eepin.g

witl1

the enlightened spiritual

ex-

perience of the

saints

of God in all ages, and make an effectual

appeal to the piety , and spirit ual perception of those who

know

by

personal experience the power of the

Holy Ghost.

3.

It must

be

historically in

line

with the g enercrl tradi

tion

of Jewish history

and

the unique

position

of the

Hebrew

nation through the centuries.

4~ It :must be in unison with

that

,apostolic concep

1

tion ,of

the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament,

which

is so manif es,t

in the

New

Te stament.

Sf Above all, it must be in accordance with the universal

belie£ of the

Cl1ri:stian

Church

in

.our Lor

1

d s, infallibility as a

.Teacher~

and as the Word made flesh.

If and when

mo,dern higher

1

critici .sm can satisfy th,ese

requirements, it will not merely be accepted, but

will

com

mand

the u.niversal,

Jo,yal,

a nd even

e.nthus1asti

1

c

adhesion

of

all Christians. Until then, we wait, and also maintain our

position

tl1at

the

old is

better. ·

the fundamentals: volume 8, chapter 1: old testament criticism and new testament christianity

Documents