· christ and the critics m 1 the case in court in the national gallery of fine arts in berlin...

Christ

The Critics

B!

GEROME

Cincinnati: Carts ! JenningsNew ! ork: Eaton Mains

1898

cmu 's JENNINGS

Co n t en t s

CHAPTER I

THE CASE IN CO! RT,

CHAPTER II

THE APPEAL To THE MASTER ,

CHAPTER III

DID MOSESWRITE THE PENTATE! CH , 40

CHAPTER IV

MOSES AND THE BOOKS ,

CHAPTER V

RECONCILIATION,

Preface

A glance at these few pages willshow that no attempt has been made to

solve any philological, geogr aphical,

posed inaccuracies, discrepancies , or

critics have been touched. I did not

desvgn to do so. Holding all these

mattersfor the time being in abeyance,

have sought the answer to one ques

tion only, and that was, not what the

Old Testament boohs said as to their

authorship, not what the apostles and

evangelists said, not what the voices ofthe ages have said, but What did Christ

Say ? All other questions , except the

authorship of the Pentateuch , remain asthey are. But the settlement of this

to approach difiiculties with lessfear .

The final chapter is added for the

simple purpose of showing that the con

clusions reached are not inimical to the

noble results ofmodern scholarship.

GEROME .

Christ and the Critics

m 1

The Case in Court

IN the National Gallery ofFine Arts in Berlin there hangs,or did hang

,a famous picture by

Kaulbach,representing a battle

of the Huns before the gates ofRome. What is remarkable inthe painting

,aside from its draw

ing and color, is the bold conception of the artist in depicting thesouls of the combatants as rising

,

quick with wrath, from the mingled heaps of the slain, and continning the awful conflict in theair.Some such scene floats beforethe mind when one contemplatesthe battle that is now being foughtaround the sacred Scriptures.

8 Christ and the Critics

The combatants die in the strug

gle , but in their writings, whichlive after them, they still urge onthe w arring hosts, and still strivefor the triumph oftheir views.The question before the courtof Christian belief is : Were thebooks of the Bible originallywritten by those to whom theyare credited? This is the issuethat divides now the Christianscholarship Of the world. Thecase is a diflicult one , and is contested with energy by Opposingcounsel . An imposing array OfBiblical scholars

,both in Europe

and America,eminent as special

ists in their several lines Of t esearch

, affi rm that these bookswere not written by those whosenames they bear. Moses did notwrite the Pentateuch, nor anybook in it . Joshua was not written at, nor near the time Of the

events which it narrates, but long

9

after—some 800 or 700 years before the time OfChrist. Not allof Isaiah

,but only afew chapters ,

were composed by that prophet.All Of that book bearing his

name,from chapter x1 to chapter

lxvi inclusive , is ofunknown authorship, and was written at theclose of the Exile. The Psalmshave their origin also

,according

to some critics, in a Post-exilicperiod

,even as late as the days

of the Maccabees. David wrotea few Of them, but other poetswrote the most important ones.Thus every book almost of theOld Testament is asserted to bethe work, not of the writer whohas been believed both by Jewand Christian to have been theauthor

,but of some unknown

editors who for pious purposesgathered up various narratives

,

prophecies,and historical frag

ments, and dovetailed them with

IO Christ and the Crifics

more or less skill a nd accuracyinto a connected whole ; thusmaking th e Old Testament as wenow have it.This seems to be a very boldtreatment of our historic faith

,

and to those unacquainted withthe evidence in the case it mayseem to be a very weak and fu

tile attempt Ofrationalism to undermine the authority Of theHolyScriptures. But the conclusionsabove stated are based upon theprinciples of Higher Criticism.

Higher Criticism is a literary science . As applied to the Bible itsobject is the verification ofall thedata

,philological

,historical

, or

other,relating to the origin , gen

uineness,and authenticity of the

Scriptural books . The methodsof this science are various . The

principal ones,or those chiefly

employed to determine th e date,authorship

,theology

,or unity of

The Case in Court II

a document,are three : The Lit

crary, the Historical, and theTheological

,with their several

divisions.THE LITERAR! METHOD .

Every document discloses certainliterary characteristics of its anthor. These earmarks includethe use of synonyms, figures Ofspeech

,fondness for idioms

, pe

culiar words,tone

,color

,every

thing that constitutes style, andenriches or impoverishes its quality. N0 two writers, perhaps,have equal power over language

,

either in the arrangement,or in

the precision,or in the number

of the words employed. And,

again,a close study of an au

thor will reveal the vocabulary familiar to him, andwhich he con

stantly employs. Canon Driver,in hisIntroduction to theLiteratureof the Old Testament

,gives long

lists of characteristic phrases in

1 2 Christ and tt ritics

Deuteronomywhich are not foundin other portions of the Pentateuch . Dr. Charles A. Briggssupplies another list of wordsused in some parts of a book

,

but which are not found inother parts Of the same book.

Then,further, in the same book

there may be discernible a difference of style. One part is poeticand descriptive ; another is analytical, showing the predomi

nance ofthe logical faculty ; whileanother part is rhetorical, or carefully avoids any suggestion ofcolor or imagery

,being Severely

chaste and prosaically solid.

These peculiarities oflanguageand variations of style , analyzedand grouped according to established principles of literary criticism ,

lead to the conclusion thatwhen these different characteristics are seen in a document,that document is not the product

The Case in COtn't 1 3

of one writer. More than one

has left the impress ofhis geniuson that particular work.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD .

As writings reveal the literaryability and characteristics of anauthor

, so also do they reflectthe history of the times inwhichthey were written . NO writeron themes intended to influencehuman conduct can be whollyimpervious to the play of thepolitical

,social

,or religious forces

of his own day. Some trace of

their movement, some effect oftheir influence on the writerhimself

,will crop out some

where in his work. Literatureis the mirror Of history. Workscontaining references to the telegraph

,the phonograph

,or the

telephone, could not by any possibility be accredited to th e age ofAugustus or to th e days Of Shakespeare and Elizabeth . For in:

14 Chr‘

mt and the Critics

stance, in Genesis xxxvi, 3 1 , we

read these strange words,

“And

these are the kings that reignedin the land of Edom before therereigned any hing over the chil

dren of Israel.” This last state

ment forces one , it would seem ,

to the conclusion that that portion of Genesis could not havebeen written at the date usuallyassigned to the Book ofGenesis

,

butmusthave been composedafterthe monarchy had been institutedin Israel . Again

,in Genesis xiv

,

I4, we read :“And pursued them

untoDan But the name “Dan ,”

we are informed elsewhere

(Judge s xviii , was not given

to this place till long after thetime ofMoses, and therefore, it

is argued, this port ion of Gene

sis is the product Ofa later handthan the hand ofMoses . Thusit is seen writings ofimportance ,especially if the writers w ere in

The Case in Court I5

volved in the movements of theirtime

,and were in any degree

impressed by changing eventsand the operation of complexforces about them

,may readily

be assigned by the methods ofhistorical criticism to their re

spective periods .THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD.

—Theology is progressive . Thereligious development of a nation follow s the same generallaw of progress observable in theevolution of society, manners,morals

,and government. All

development , as Herbert Spencerhas shown

,is from the homo

geneous to the heteregeneous,from the simple to the complex

,through successive differ

entiations. But in the Pentateuch there is a scheme ofreligion

, a system of theology,an

elaborateness and complexity ofritual

,that could not have been

1 6 Chfist and the Critics

possible until the nation hadpassed through successive stagesofculture and had reached a highdegreee Of development It isutterly unscientific

,because con

trary to experience, to attributeto an elementary stage in national growth

,ideas and condi

tions that belong,and can be

long only,to an advanced period .

By application of this methodto the Pentateuch

,the result is

that Deuteronomy,Leviticus

,and

portions of Genesis must becredited to other times than thoseof Moses . The manner in whichDivine revelation was communicated differs in divers places inthe Pentateuch ; the conceptionof miracles differs

,as does also

the doctrine of the covenants .The doctrine Of the Holy SpiritShows great development between Genesis x, 2 1 , 38 , andExodus xxxi

, 3. The same may

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER II

The Appeal to the Master

IN opposition to the findingsof radical critics

,the Old belief

still holds the field. Old faithsare not easily dug up : their rootsare many

,widely ramified

,and

deeply imbedded. The traditional view,

modified by scholarsof no mean ability

,is based on

internal and external proofs,and

the methods of the radicals areas honestly employed by the conservatives in reaching conclusionswhich

,notwithstanding the brill

iant array of eminent names inBiblical science opposed to them

,

have not yet been demonstratedto be weak enough to be abandoned. The discoveries in the

mounds of Babylonia and Nine

veh are adding strength to the po1 8

The Appeal to the Master Iq

sitions of the conservatives, andit is believed that the pick and

Spade will yet dig the grave ofmany an ultra-radical theoryBut the conflict continues .

Christian men are disturbedthey scarcely knowwhat to think ;and between the antagonists , ofwhich neither will surrender tothe other

,who shall decide ? Is

there no tribunal,no court of last

resort,no judge or authority, to

whom w e can go,and no matter

how diflicult it may be to reconcile his verdict w ith the resultsof modern scholarship

,still feel

abiding confidence in his judgment ? There is .Conservative critics appeal to

theGreatTeacher, th e Lord Jesus .This is the most natural thing inthe world for Christians to do ;provided the Lord has spoken orcan be appealed to But radicalcritics Object. The moment an


appeal is made to Christ,the air

is full of Objections and demurrers of every description . Dr.Charles A. Briggs meets the ap

peal to our Lord in this manner“Why should we interpret Jesus

and his apostles by th e opinions Of

the Jews ofhis time ? W hy should

we suppose that h e Shared with th emall the errors he did not oppose andrefute ? Jesus either knew that Moses

wrote the Pentateuch or not . Ifwe

Should say that Jesus did not knowwhether Moses wrote the Pentateuchor not , we would not go beyond his

own saying that he did not know the

time ofhis own advent. Those who

understand the doctrine ofthe humil

iation ofChrist and the incarnationOfChrist , find no more difficulty in

supposing that Jesus didnot know theauthor ofthe Pentateuch than that hedid not know the day ofh is own ad

vent .

”

( The H igher Criticism of the

Pentateuch , p .

The Appeal to the Master 2 1

Professor Charles Gore alsosays :

When he [our Lord!speaks ofthesun rising,

!he is using ordinary lan

guage . H e Shows no signs at all of

transcending the science Of his age .

The utterances ofChrist aboutthe Old Testament do not seem to be

nearly definite or clear enough to al

low Ofour supposing that in this caseh e is departing from the generalmethod of the incarnation by bringing to bear the unveiled omniscience

of the Godhead to anticipate or foreclose a development ofnatural knowledge .

”

And Canon Driver, in his trulygreat work (Introduction to the

Literature of the Old Testament ;

Preface,xiv) , says :

“That our Lord appealed to the

Old Testament as th e record of a

revelation in the past , and as pointing forward to himself, is undoubted ;but these aspects of the Old Testa

ment are‘perfectly consistent with a

critical view Of its structure and


He accepted, as thebasis ofhis teaching, th e opinions respecting th e Old Testament currentaroundhim . There is no rec

ord of the question whether a partieular portion ofthe Old Testament was

written by Moses , or David, or Isaiah ,

ever having been submitted to him ;

and had it been so submitted,we have

no means ofknowingwhat his answerwould have been .

”

Shall these demurrers of thecritics be allowed ? If so

,there

can be no appeal,and th e case

must be given up . But we donot think there is anything in theunsupported statements of thesecritics necessarily sustaining theircase . Each one of them assumesth e whole question in his statement. Professor Briggs asks

,

Why should we interpret Jesusand his apostles by th e opinionsof the Jew s Of his time ?” as ifany competent person ever didso. Of all weak modes of argu

The Appeal to the Master 23

ment,the weakest is to attribute

to an opponent opinions he doesnot hold. N0 one imagines thatJesus shared in every error of hisday which he did not refute .

Not to refute an error,however

,

but to acquiesce in and aflirm it,

and to make that error one !s ownas the basis ofteaching any truth ,physical or moral, are two verydifferent things, with the widthof a world between them . It isa fact that between the opinionsof his time relative to th e authorship Of the Old Testament andthe expressed views of Jesusthere is full agreement. But

what evidence is there in thatthat these opinions were errone

ous,or that our Lord simply ac

cepted them without knowingthem to be such

,or regarded such

opinions as having no materialrelation to his teaching ?As to the opinion ,

shared alike


by Dr. Briggs and Professor Gore,that because of the limitationsinherent in the humiliation ofour Lord in the incarnation hedid not know who wrote the

Pentateuch,this may be said

That such an opinion assumes toknow too much of the characterand extent of those limitations .There are times in the life ofourLord when he seems to have nolimitations except such as hevoluntarily

,consciously main

tains . More than once his omniscience manifests itself, as inthe case of Nathanael

,in his

knowledge ofthe death of Lazarus

,and in his know ledge of a

coin in the mouth of a fish .

Whatever View we may hold Of

the humiliation Of our Lordwhether itabe that of Delitzsch ,Kahnis

,or KOnig ; of Reuss , Go

det,or Hoffman ; or Of any other

student of this awful mystery,


context show s that he is on ahigher plane . H e does not say

,

In the Scriptures,”or

“ In th e

books ascribed to Moses,” nor

does he use any term indicatingany book or number Of booksunder a general title which wouldleave the question of authorshipstill undetermined ; but on a special occasion ,

and for a specificpurpose

,h e places

,beyond all am

biguity of language,the author

ship Of a Messianic passage on adistinct personality— ou M oses

,

the lawgiver of Israel I t is difficult to believe that Christ wouldhave said Moses wrote ofhim ifMoses had not written Of him

,

and if he knew that Moses hadnot so written . Christ knewwhether h e was speaking frompersonal know ledge or accordingto th e common belief of histime ; and if he ,w ith his contem

poraries, was mistaken in the au

The Appeal to the Master

thorship of the Pentateuch , bywhat means shall it be provedthat he was not mistaken also inits interpretationBetween the ability to inter

pret the Scriptures and th e knowing who wrote any particularbook there may seem to be nosort ofconnection . One may beable

,it will be said, to explain

correctly what is written withoutbeing able to prove who madethe writing. That is true ; and

it is also true that one may bemistaken in his explanation , sincehe can not affirm that his inter

pretation is infallible , and fromhis error no great injurious re

sult may follow . But it is not sow ith Jesus Christ . His interpretation must be infallible ; otherw ise he would not be th e Truthnor the Way. But the fact thatMoses wrote Scripture is itselfa

question of interpretation ; for it


is recorded that Moses wrote certain things—Ex. xxiv, 4 ; Num .

xxiii, 2 ; Dent . xxxi , 9 ; I Kingsviii

, 9 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii, 8 ; Neh .

ix,I4 ; and in numerous other

places—so that when our Lordsays Moses was the author ofanybook

,or ofany law in any book

which by implication would makehim the author of that book, heis not depending for his statement on the opinions ofthe Jewsof his time

,or of airy time. Bach

of his statement is the authority

of H oly Scripture and his own

infallible interpretation of that

Scripture. He knew the truth.

He understood the Scriptures asno one else did or could understand them. This knowledge heimparted to his disciples : “Andbeginning from Moses and fromall the prophets

,he interpreted

to them in all the Scriptures

The Appeal to the Maskr

the things concerning himself.

(Luke xxiv,A very interesting bit Of evidence in proof

,under all the cir

cumstances,that Moses had writ

ten Ofthe Christ,and that Christ

had personal know ledge of thatfact

,is seen in the narrative

,over

looked by our critics , Of the conversation betw een Christ andMoses on the Mount ofTransfiguration. Here Christ is in directpersonal communication withMoses. The Evangelist Lukesays : “And behold there talkedwith him two men

,which were

Moses and Elias,who appeared

in glory, and spake Of his decease

[exodus!,which he should accom

plish at Jerusalem .

” The subjectof the discourse is Christ!s death .

And let it be carefully observedhere that our Lord is not givinginformation toMoses or toElias


they already know what is to hap

pen ; but they are talking to him,

and the Subject is his approachingdeath at Jerusalem . They knowChrist

,andthey knowhismissmn .

Christ certainly knows them,and

that all three perfectly understand that there is commonknowledge among them Ofsomething definite and importantabout to take place

,is an irresist

ible impression springing immediately from a reading Of thenarrative.Try as we may to get awayfrom this conviction

,we can no

more shake it Off than one canescape from his shadow ; for themoment we read the narrative

,

we intuitively apprehend that itmust be so .

Now ,Christ had declared to

the Jews that Moses had writtenconcerning him “For had ye

believed Moses,ye would have

The Appeal to the Master 3 1

believedme ; for he wrote of me.But if ye believe not his writings,how shall ye believe my words ?”

(John V , 46, But where hadMoses written concerning Christif not in the Pentateuch , in Genesis

,and in Deuteronomy, which

last Canon Driver puts long afterthe age Of Moses? In Genesisit is written : Iwill put enmitybetween thee and the woman

,and

between thy seed and her seed :it shall bruise thy head

,and thou

shalt bruise his heel .” All Biblical scholars of high repute recognize this passage as truly Mes

sianic—Delitzsch , Orelli, Lange ,Oehler

,to mention no more . Is

there no connection,then

, be

tween this writing attributed toMoses and th e conversation between Moses and Christ concerning his death ? We can not saythe same with reference to Elias

,

who was also present and took


part in the conference ; for thecircumstances are not the same .

Elias wrote nothing, and our

Lord never referred to him asauthority in his teaching. But,given the subject of the conversation with Moses , the death OfChrist ; given the fact that Christsaid that Moses wrote of him ;

and given also the fact that inGenesis

,which was attributed to

Moses,the suffering Of the Com

ingOne is predicted,— does it notlook very much as if Moses reallydid write the Book ofGenesis

,

and, which is th e point now ,that

Christ hnew that he had writ

ten it ?

Professor Gore Objects becauseit would be an “ unveiling of Om

niscience .

” Well,suppose it was

,

what Of that ? But is it any

more an unveiling Of Omnis

cience for Christ to know thatMoses wrote the Pentateuch

,


perception, that that Scripturereferred to him personally

,could

he not have had the same infallible perception, with or without“unveiling Of Omniscience

,

” thatwhen the Scriptures said expressly that Moses wrote theBook of the Law or any otherwriting

,Moses really did write

what was attributed to him,and

not some one else who was notMoses ? If Christ could haveknown

,outside ofany expressed

record in Scripture,what Abra

ham felt hundreds Of years before Moses was born

,could he

not as easily have known whetheror not Moses wrote the Pentatench ?

The statement ofCanon Driver,

which we may now consider,is

also insufficient,we think, to sus

tain the demurrer to our appealto the Master. It is ofno greaterstrength

,when analyzed

,than


the Objections Of Professor Briggsor ofCanon Gore , and the opinion Ofthis eminent critic must beconsidered in the light Of all thestatements and teachings Of th eMaster. For example , our Lordbased his claims to being th e

Messiah on the authority Of God!sScriptures . Not wholly and ah

solutely so , it is true ; but h erested his claims on these enoughto justify the statement. Fromthe judgments ofhis critics concerning his claims he appealedto th e Scriptures ; for said he ,“They testify ofme .

” Prophe

cies relating to the Messiah datedback

,it was firmly believed by

the whole nation,to the very

dawn Of Israel!s beginning, and

even back to the morning Of

time . Christ himself believedthat ; he most certainly tracedMessianic predictions as far backas the remote age ofAbraham ;

36 Christ and the Cr-ities

for referring to the promise ofJehovah to Abraham

,recorded

in Genesis,the Book of the Be

ginnings, he said,“Abraham re

joiced to see my day, and wasglad .

But if modern expounders anddefenders Of radical Higher CritICISm are correct in their conclusions

,this beliefwasabaseless be

lief. Moreover, this hope oftheearliest ages in a Messiah of thefuture must be abandoned—theyhad no such millennium dreams ;for none of the books in whichthis prophecy of a Messiah is recorded were written at the timeor near the time

,nor by the di

vinely commissioned personsthey were believed to have beenwritten by

,but in other ages long

after,under other social and re

ligious conditions, and by au

thors unknown—unknown in theScriptures themselves, and un


known to the nation to whomthe Scriptures came. Are weprepared to admit that Christbuilt his Messianic claims on afalse foundation, on a baselesslegend ?Our Lord teaches

,beyond any

chance for mistaken exegesis,

that the Messiah was predictedin the Books ofMoses. But thecritics insist that the Books Of

'

Moses were not in existence inthe days Of Moses

,that they are

the product of a later stage ofnational development. Are wethen to believe that Christ wasmistaken ?Canon Driver can hardly ex

pect Christian men to acceptthat conclusion ; and yet, no matter how much h e might strive

,by

modifying phrases and verballimitations

,to soften its startling

harshness , it is the only logicalconclusion permissible . When

38 Christ ancl the Critics

we are informed on the authority of Oxford scholarship thatour Lord “ accepted as the basisOfhis teaching the opinions respecting the Old Testament current around him -we requiresome proof for the statement

,if

by it is meant that our Lord himself had any other opinion .

Jesus was a teacher. True, hedid not come to teach science

,

archaeology, or literary criticism ;but he was , nevertheless , a trueteacher ; he did not teach truthon a false basis. He did believeand teach the antiquity of theMosaic books

,and if his opin

ions coincided with the opinions“ current around him,

” this militates not against those opinions

,

but against the assumptions of

Canon Driver. In View then of allthe facts in the case , briefly stated,we see no reason why we maynot appeal to the Master for a


solution of the question betweenthe opposing schools Of Biblicalcriticism . To the words of theMaster we have appealed

, we

think we are justified in doing so,

and to the Master we now go .

CHAPTER III

Did Moses W rite the Penta

tench ?

To THE Master we have ap

pealed,and to him we have come.

Our appeal is not as to the Divinecharacter of the sacred books.That question is settled for us bythe Lord Jesus in theNew Testament : For the Booh of Genesis,

by Matt. x, 4—8 ; xxiv, 37—39 ;

Mark x, 4—9 ; Luke xi , 40—5 1 ;

John viii, 44. For the Booh of

E xodus,by Matt. iv, 7 , 1 2 ; xii,

3—5 ; xxii , 3 1 , 32 ; Mark vii,

x,1 9 ; John vi , 3 1—49 . For the

BookofLeviticus , by Mark i, 44 ;John vi

, 3 1—49 ; xxii, 23. For

Numbers , by John iii, 1 4 ; vi,

3 1—49 . For D euteronomy , by

Matt . iv, 4, 7 , 1 0 ; Mark x, 4-9 .

And for all the Old Testament

4°


known,who introduces him in

the third person . It was written,

he thinks,prior to the eighteenth

year Of King Josiah,B . C . 62 1 .

The Mosaic authorship Of Genesis can not , he says, be sustained .

Driver agrees in the main withProfessor Briggs

,Cheyne

,Robert

son Smith , C. H . Toy, and theadvocates of what is knownamong the critics as the GrafianSchool. The View distinguishingthis school from other schools ofBiblical criticism is : (I) The FiveBooks Of Moses and the Book of

Joshua constitute one work,the

Hexateuch . (2) This entire workoriginated thus : An unknownwriter

,named J , because of his

use of the word Jehovah,com

posed a history of the Israelitesabout the year 800 B . C. He hadsome material, derived from anearlier day

,which formed the

basis ofhis work. (3) Some fifty

DidMoses Write the Pentateach ? 43

years later—B. C . 750—another

historian ,designated E ,

from hisuse of the word Elohim ,

wrote asimilar book. At th e end of theseventh century before Christ

,

these two books, J'

and E, weremade over

,by an unknown cd

itor, into one book. (4) Later,another writer, named D,

wrote ,about the time ofKing Josiah62 1 B . C.

— the Book of Deuteronomy. Some one added a preface to this book, and after a timeanother editor joined it to theprevious books J E . (5) Duringthe days of the Prophet Ezekiel,the Ritual Law was written

,and

appeared in three forms . Ezrareduced these laws

,about 444

B . C ., to one code ; and

,by an

other editor,the codified laws

were united with the books

J E D, somewhere between thatdate and 280 B . C .

Such was the origin of the


Five Books Of Moses and theBook of Joshua

,now named the

Hexateuch . Evidently,Moses

had very lit tle to do with the

composition of the Pentateuch .

But what does Christ say? In

the Gospel according to John,chapter v, there are recordedsome very clear words Of ourLord bearing on this subject. In

his controversy with the leadersofhis day, he said :

DO not think that Iwill accuse you

to the Father ; there is one that accuseth

For had ye believed Moses, ye would

have believed me : for he wrote ofme.

But ifye believe not his writings, how

shallye believemy words ?

How is it possible to reconcilethese words with the statementsof the critics ? Moses will ac

cuse ; but on what ground willMoses accuse ? He wrote but afragment here and there Of theLaw

,and that Law was their na

Did Moses Write the Pentateuch ? 45

tional life , which they strove tomaintain . We can not say thatChrist meant by “Moses” thebooks of Moses. The record willnot allow that. It is a passageof contrasts— a contrast of persons andof “words ” over against“writings .

” The leaders trustedin an individual

,in a person

,

Moses. But theywere deceivingthemselves. In reality theywereOpposed to Moses. Antagonismto Christ was antagonism to MOses ; for he wrote of Christ as theOne who should come like him.

They were, in opposing Christ,Opposing the person

,not a figur

ative personality, but the individual

, Moses. How could that be,if Moses was not

,in a real mate

rial sense,the author Ofwritings

concerning the Christ? Whereindid they Oppose him

,and on what

ground could he accuse them?-Our Lord says Moses wrote of

46 Christ and the critics

him. We must findChrist,then

,

in the books attributed to Moses .But where

,in those fragments

which some critics ascribe to MO

ses, do we find anything pertaining to Christ? Professor Briggsconcedes that Exodus xx

, 22—26,

was written by Moses ; but Christis not there . Exodus xxi—xxiiiis also assigned to Moses ; butChrist is not there . Moses wrotetheTen Commandments ; but nocoming Christ is there. Where

,

then, in the writings ascribed toMoses by the critics, shall we findthe Christ? Truly

,one might

exclaim,

“They have taken awaymy Lord

,and I know not where

they have laid him !” The Codeof Laws—Dent . xii—xxvi—is conceded to be the authorship Of

Moses ; but in all these chaptersthere is only one verse wh ich iscapable of being interpreted as

referring to the Lord Jesus : The

Did Moses Write the Pentateuch ? 47

Lord thy God will raise up untothee a prophet from th e midst ofthee

,of thy brethren ,

like untome : unto him ye shall hearken .

”

(Deut. xviii, 1 5. See the 1 8 th

verse .)Out Of all the writings

,then

,

which the critics allow Moses,we find only one solitary verse

relating to Christ,and that one

verse,with its repetition

,is in a

book which Driver and othersassign to the period of the monarchy !Now is it reasonable to sup

pose that when our Lord said,

Had ye believed Moses, ye

would have believed me : for hewrote ofme . But if ye believenot his writings

, how Shall yebelieve my words ?” that by thewritings ” he meant one verse ?But this solitary passage is allthat is written concerning th e

Messiah anywhere in those Scrip

. 48 Christ and the Critics

tures which the critics aflirm

were all the Scriptures that Mosesactually wrote .

In the light,then

,of the Mas

ter!s own words , what is the natural conclusion? This : Thecritics are mistaken In the nature Of the case

,Moses must

have written more than the criticsallow him. Christ says Moseswrote of —concerning— him .

Christ is not in what the criticssayMoses wrote ; therefore Christwas mistaken

,or else Moses wrote

more than the critics grant. Thequestion, then, as we see it, narrows itself to this : Which is mistaken

,Christ or the critics ?

The conclusion to which wehave come may be at war withall the results of Biblical oriticism ; it may be distasteful tothose critics who have bestowedgreat labor, guided by learnedskill

, in constructing their the


such as that the hopeless character Of these men whom Jesusaddressed was just as real if MO

ses was not the author Of th ePentateuch ; for they professedto follow what they did not follow. But such a reply evadesthe real force of the contrast inChrist!s question “ his writ

ings ,” my words .

” Christ doesnot put his person as the MessiahofGod against , or alongside of,a fiction.

CHAPTER IV

Moses and the Books

IN a previous chapter we dealtw ith the question of the Mosaicauthorship of th e Pentateuch ina general way. We now desireto go a step farther

,and to make

a few inquiries relating to a fewbooks Of the Pentateuch . Somequestions will be asked that cannot be ignored or answered (in ageneral way) with a sort of blanket reply. The first of thesebooks isGenesis . Did Jesus teach

anything which fairly impliesthat Moses knew the Book Of

‘

Genesis? In Mark!s Gospel,

chapter x, 2- 6,we read

And the Pharisees came to him and

asked him, Is it lawfu1 for aman to put

away his w ife ? temptinghim. Andhe


Moses command you? Andthey said,Moses sufferedto write a billofdivorce

ment, and to put her away. AndJesusansw ered and saidunto them, For the

hardnes ofyour hoa rt hewrote you this

precept. But from the beginningofthe

creation God made them male andfe

male. For this same caase shallaman

Ieave his father and his mother, and

Without dwelling on the interesting fact that in the verses citedour Lord quotes passages fromthe first and second chapters ofGenesis

,which chapters critics

afi rm belong to two different documents written at wide intervalsof time from each other

,as if they

were of only one document,we

may notice the statement thatMoses For the hardness ofyourheart wrote you this precept.

”

What does this statement,

without any forcing of texts,

fairly imply ? It implies,we

think, fi rst, that Moses did write

the statute on divorce in the

Moses and the Books 53

Deuteronomic Code ; and second,

which is the point here , thatwhen he wrote it, he knew thatanother law

,ancient law

,was in

existence which was not in harmony with his “precept.”

For making his precept a lawin Israel

,notwithstanding its op

position to a law as ancient asthe creation ofman, Moses hada valid reason

,the “ hardness ”

‘

of

the people!s heart for whom hewas legislating. Now Observe

,in

Matthewwe read : “Moses sufi eredyou to put away your wives .”

There were hesitancy, questionsof expediency, restraint of somecharacter or other from somesource ; and the inference is , If itwere not for “

the hardness ofyour heart,

” Moses would nothave “

sufi ered”that precept to

become a law in Israel. Whynot? Because “ it was not so atthe beginning

,

” and Moses knew


it was out Of harmony with theDivine idea. But if the Book ofGenesis was not in existence

,if

Moses did not know anything ofit,how did he know that the new

precept was not in accordancew ith the original relation ofman

and w ife ? The statement thatMoses “ sufered

”the indulgence

of divorce indicates that he didhave personal knowledge Of theDivine idea in Genesis concerning the relation binding on manandwife . Otherw ise , how couldhe “

safer on account ofhearthardness a departure from alaw or custom of the existenceofwhich he was ignorant ? TheBook of Genesis, then, was inexistence in the days of Moses ;for if not

,there was no reason for

his protesting permission . Hedoes not “ sufi

'

er” other laws—he

enacts them ; for they are not in

Violation Of any other law writ


ten or unwritten. But this oneis ; hence the statement of ourLord. It can not be denied that

,

in the history ofman!s creationas recorded in Genesis

,Moses

recognized th e Divine will relating to marriage ; and that onlythe “hardness ” Of the people induced him to “

sufi er” divorce

under special limitation.

The Book ofGenesis was notonly in existence in the days ofMoses, but if that be grantedandwe see no way to concludeotherwise—we are led to inferthat he was the author Ofit, or

the compiler ofits narratives ; forhe only stands out in that remoteage as the religious leader

,law

giver, and father ofhis nation.

What the Pyramids Of Egyptwere to other structures, he wasto all men then living.

Exodus .—What evidence is

there that Moses wrote the Book

56 Christ and the Critiss

of Exodus? It may be neces

sary in this case to remind thereader that the five books ofMO

ses, or the Pentateuch, are calledin the Hebrew Canon

, or acceptedlist ofsacred books having Divineauthority,

“The Booh of the

Law,

”or simply “ The Law .

”

We read ofTheBooh ofthe Law ,

Deut. xxxi, 26 ; see also Joshuai,8 ; viii, 34 ; 2 Kings xxii, 8 ,

II ; 2 Chron. xxxiv,1 5 ; Neh .

viii, 1 ; ix, 3 . Sometimes theyare designated The Booh ofMoses

,

” as in 2 Chron . xxv, 4 ;

xxxv, 1 2 ; see also Ezra vi, 1 8 ;

Neh . xiii, I.

By these titles the Pentateuch

was known to the ancient He

brews ; and down to the time ofChrist ,andsince , among the Jews,the Book of Moses was understood to stand for and include thefive books of Moses, which by us

58 Christ and the Crities

having a wife,”e tc. The law Of

Moses which they quoted is written in Deuteronomyxxv

, 5 . Letus

observe,the Divine Teacher

,rec

ognizing the fact that these Sadducees accepted the inspirationof the Pentateuch only

,does not

go outside the Pentateuch . Sincethey quoted Moses to overthrowthe doctrine of the resurrection

,

he would also quote Moses to establish what they would destroy.

Now the critics concede thatMoses wrote the Code in Deuteronomy in which the above lawis found. But if Moses was notthe Iauthor of the Book OfExodus

,how could our Lord have

quoted Moses out ofExodus todefend Moses in Deuteronomy?Moses

, say the c ities, was notth e author ofExodus, and wasth erefore not responsible for itsteachings ; but he was the authorofthe Deuteronomic Code, and


so here is Christ putting a fictitious author to defend a real author. Moses did not teach whatwas attributed to him by ourLord ; but Jesus drew his own

conclusions from what some unknown author said about Moses,and the Sadducean problem wastherefore not fairly answered .

Are we ready for s uch conclusions? How can we avoid th em ?There is only one logical way toavoid them ,

and that is by believing that Moses did actuallywrite the Book ofExodus

,as is

evident from the fact that Christascribed the authorship of Exodus to th e sameperson to whomhe and the Sadducees

,and also

modern critics,ascribed the au

thorship of th e DeuteronomicCode .

We are aware,of course

,that

the critics accept th e fact thatChrist accepted the views of the


Old Testament “ current abouthim but are they willing to accept the consequencesofthatstatement? The Sadducees quotedan indisputable author as authority for a certain law

,from which

law they drew arguments tending to establish their belief.Christ wishes to show them theirerror

,and to do this he quotes a

book which they accepted as inspired

,written by the same au

thor they quoted. But the bookhe quoted was not written bythat same author. Does not radical criticism

,then

,Show that in

reality the Sadducees had thebetter of the argument ; that itwas only their ignorance of thefact that Moses was not the au

thor of Exodus that preventedthem from replying,

“ ! our an

swer is not valid, for Moses didnot write that book, and you cannot quote the authority ofMoses,

Moses and the Books 6 1

in whom we believe, for a doctrine which he nowhere taught?”

Are the critics willing to acceptthe consequences Of their conclusions ?

That our Lord believed in theMosaic authorship ofExodus isfurther seen in Luke!s account ofthis same circumstance :

Now that the dead are raised, even

Moses shew edat the bush,when he call

eth tbe Lord the God ofAbraham, a.nd

the God ofIsaag and the GodofJacob.

(Luke xx,

When we turn to the originalaccount in Ex . iii

,6,w e read

that these appellations w ereSpoken by God himself ofhimself, and not by Moses . But our

Lord attributes these names toMoses on th e ground that he re

corded them ; that h e was the

historian Ofth e events written inthe Book of Exodus . Th e onlyreply that a thoroughgoing critic


can make to this is a t e-statementof the limitations of our Lord!sknow ledge, which is only sayingthat Christ was mistaken.

Leviticus .-Who wrote the

Book of Leviticus ? This question is in our appeal to the Master, and his statement for us, atleast

,has the value of finality .

In Matt. viii, there is the recordof Christ healing a leper :

AndJasus saith unto him, See thou

tellno man ; but go thy way, shew thy

selfto the priesh andoffer the gift that

The Law ofthe Leper is foundinLeviticus xiv

,andthe gifts to be

offered are mentioned in versesIO, 2 1 , 22. This law, Christsaid

, was commanded by Moses ;that is

,Moses wrote the law.

Over against all theories ofritualdevelopment in national historyinsisted upon by radical critics,


there stands this expressed statement of our Lord. When weturn to Leviticus at the Law of

the Leper w e find this : “AndfileLord spake unto Moses sayzhg,

Tlzz'

y skull be lite Law of tbe

Leper in the day of [22'

s cleans

ing.

” Not to unknown authorswas this law given

, but to a wellknown

,definite personage—to

Moses . The lawgiver,then

,ac

cording to the law-chapter itself,

was th e author,not necessarily

the one actually holding the pen ,but the author

,no matter how

many scribes he employed to dothemechanical work ofthe BookofLeviticus . These laws couldnothave originated in later agesw ithout the enactors and scribesofthese law s being guilty ofan

historical falsehood. That it was apractice in ancient times to ascribecertain writings to eminent characters in order that they might


have the authority and influencewhich such characters could givethem is not applicable here

, un

less it can be shown ,as it has

not been,that such was th e prac

tice among th e Hebrews in floating their sacred books. To saythat Jehovah Spoke to Moses thecontents of a book when thatbook originated

,as th e author

would know it did,ages after the

death of Moses, is a crime of

which no Hebrew could be guilty.

Jehovah was too real a God for aHebrew to do that.Further, if we accept the the

ory of historical falsehood we

must also believe that that falsehood andmany others like it wereall continued under the protectionof Divine Providence down tothe time of Christ

,when they

deceived km,and on to our day.

Now,it is much more rational to

believe that there is no historical

66 Chrbt and tt x-ities

garded by th e Lord as ofMosaicorigin ; for it was included amongthe books which were alwaysknown as the Book of the Law ,

the Book ofMoses .Deuteronomy

—That our Lordtaught this book to be the workofMoses

,and not ofsome scribe

of after ages,is evident from a

study of many passages,a few

of which we notice—Matt. xix,

7 : 8 ; JOhn Vii) I9 , 24 ; Viii! 5a 7 :

They say unto him, Why didMoses

then command to give awriting ofdi

vorcemcnt ? etc.

This text would lead us prettymuch over the same ground wehave already traversed in our

notes on Genesis . We may t e

mark,however

,that this text

shows a desire on the part ofthePharisees to confound our Lordby setting Moses against Moses .

They think they see a contradiction between Genesis i, 27 ; v, 2,

Mm mame sooks 67

which our Lord quoted, and Deuteronomy xxiv, I. Had Mosesnot written Deuteronomy

,the

seeming riddle of the Phariseescould be shown to be no riddle atall

,and the statement of the emi

nent critic, Canon Driver, of Oford

,that there is no record of

the question whether a particularportion ofthe Old Testament waswritten by Moses

,or Daniel

,or

Isaiah,having been ever submit

ted to him ,

” could not have beenso easily answered.

Christ,in reply to his interloc

utors,quotes a passage from the

Book ofGenesis,which they ac

ceptedas being from Moses. Im

mediately they respond,Why

did Moses then command to giveawriting ofdivorcement ?” OurLord, say the conclusions of thecritics

,could have replied : “Mo

ses was not the author ofDeuteronomy. It belongs to the age of


King Josiah, and is not to bequoted against the primal law ofGod .

” But instead ofrepudiat

ing th e Mosaic authorship of

Deuteronomy, our Lord expresslyconfirms it ; and not only so , butin addition he gives the reason

why Moses wrote the Law ofDivorce : “Moses

,because of the

hardness ofyour hear ts , sufferedyou to put away your wives ; butfrom the beginning it was not so.

”

The contention ofDr. Briggsand of Professor Gore that because of the limitations of our

Lord!s humanity h e did not knowwho wrote Deuteronomy

,and of

Canon Driver that our Lord simply accepted the Opinions current about him

,

” seems, in th e

presence of this text,very much

like a futile threshing of the atmosphere . Why Moses gave thatlaw was never known until Christrevealed it, and it certainly was


not possible for any one to havediscovered it with any assuranceof certainty. But if Christ knewwhat no mortal man did know

why that law was given

did he not know whether or noMoses was the author ofthat law?If our Lord did not know, and

could not have known , who theauthor was , how could he haveknown the reason for the law?Take another passage , Johnvii

,1 9

Did not Moses give you the law , and

yet none ofyou keepeth the law ?

In Deuteronomy xxxiii, 4, we

find the people saying the same,“Moses commanded us a law.

”

Christ declares that Moses gavethe law,which of course includesall the laws inDeuteronomy. One

of these laws was against murder.Our Lord says : “None of youkeepeth the law. Why go ye

about to kill me?” This law,


the whole Book of the Law,has

for its author Moses ; and thedepth of moral turpitude seen inthe desires of Christ!s enemieslies in their double condemna

tion,that

,in addition to inten

tional murder,they were hypo

critical professors of obedienceto the laws ofMoses . But badas these men were

,if Moses was

not the author of these laws,

could they be justly condemnedfor not keeping the laws of

Bloses ?

Again,in John viii

, 5 , we read,in the case of the woman whofound a defender in her Judge :

Now Moses in the law commanded

us that such shouldbe stoned: but what

The law is recorded inLeviticusxx

, 20 , and in Deuteronomy xxii ,22. Our blessed Lord does notquestion the authority ofthe law ;

Moses and the Books 7 1

for he know s its Divine origin .

H e does not invalidate th e Bookof Deuteronomy by denying itsMosaic authorship

,and as there

fore without authority unless indorsed in this particular by Roman civil law

,with which an

execution by the public wouldbe in conflict ; for the power ofcapital punishment had beentaken away from the Jewishleaders. On the contrary, sincehis interlocutors had quoted tohim the law

,he also

,seemingly

on the principle that he whocomes into court

,human or Di

vine , must come with cleanhands

,would quote from the

Book ofthe Law . But ofall thebooks in the Bible

,he refers to

the very book in which their legalprecept is recorded

,the Book of

Deuteronomy : “The hands of

the witnesses shall be first upon


him to put him to death,and

afterward the hands of all thepeople .

”

(Deut. xvii,These

.

are the Five Books of

Moses,and such is the testimony

of our Lord to their Mosaic authorship. Nowhere have we consciously forced any passage out

of its obvious meaning, nor canit be said that our argument is“ an ever-widening spiral ergo

from the narrow aperture of single texts .” The testimony of

our Lord is abundant,and the

only reply that the critics canmake is

,that either he did not

know,did not care

,or that he

was mistaken.


of historic truth regardless of

traditions and baseless notions,

would look upon it as the senseless enemy of all true progress.To the former

,the verdict would

be delightfully satisfactory,since

all vexatious problems of contradictory statements

,textual emen

dations,editorial interpolations ;

all questions of authorship,au

thenticity, and genuineness,

would be settled for him withoutany labor

,anxiety

,or doubt on

his part. To the latter, it wouldbe as the cry of the Israelites forthe fleshpots of Egypt . Betterth e wilderness

,he thinks

,with its

dangers and diffi culties,but with

its progress also toward Canaan ,

than lentils and slavery in Go

shen . He will never retreat .

Nothing is more exasperating tothe genuine searcher for truththan the attempt to solve seriousproblems by a peremptory and

Reconciliation!

75

reactionary Thus saith theLord !” For

,to change a little

the phraseology of an Englishwriter of an earlier day

,of all

the cants which are canted inthis cantingworld, while the cantof criticism may be the worst

,

the cant of mistaken piety is themost tormenting.

But is it not possible that theconclusions we have reached maynot

,after all

,be productive of

such baneful results ? The fearof the critic

,we are inclined to

think,is groundless ; and the sat

isfaction ofthe conservative maybe, in its continuance, as the dewof the morning. The statements

ofour Lord concerning the au

thorship of the Pentateuch maynot render so worthless the laborsof Biblical critics

,or bar the

open path of progress so com

pletely, as some imagine . We

can appeal to Christ,andwe may


gladly accept his statements , andstill be loyal

,we believe

,to the

principles andmethods ofHigherCriticism. In other words

,we

do not believe it is necessary toignore the declarations ofChristin order to prosecute scientificallyour study of the Bible. No statement ofthe Lord that Moses wasthe author ofany book rivets usdown to the unreasonable beliefthat Moses sat, pen in hand, andoriginally wrote every word inthat book as we now have it.Such an extreme view as that isas ridiculous as the notion thatMoses was not an author at all.Putting Scripture on the rack,and forcing it to speak as wedesire

,is an unholy use of the

Sacred Oracle. Neither men

nor Scriptures should be placedon the rack or broken on the

wheel over this contention ; forwe can all see how Paul could

Reconciliation 77

certainly be the author of theEpistle to the Romans, even ifTertius did write it (Rom. xvi,

and Moses could also havebeen an author

,although others

edited and added to his work inafter centuries.Jesus knew the Scriptures.N0 one denies that, and it wouldbe presumption to prove it. Weneither assume nor imagine thathe studied them according to the

principles and methods of modern criticism But that he wasignorant of any question everbeing raised concerning the authorship of certain books andthe authority of others

,we do

not believe ; for we do not sup

pose that any educated personfrom Dan to Beershebawas ignorant of the debates that onceanimated the theological schoolsof the great Rabbins Hillel andSchammai.


Now, many passages held asproof by modern critics that Moses did not write the Pentateuchmust surely have been as wellknown to the Great Teacher asthey are to us ; and, from the nature of the case and the constitution of the human mind, theymust have awakened thought inhim as to their authorship as

they do in us. Jesus, we sup

pose, knew that Moses did notwrite Deuteronomy xxxiv, 5—1 2.

Did our Lord never read Gen.

xii, 6 ; xiii, 7—“The Canaanite

was then in the land” —and didit never occur to him ,

as it has occurred to us, that that statementmust have been written at a timewhen the Canaanite was not in

the land? In Gen. xiv, I4, andin Deut. xxiv, I, as we have seen,mention is made of a place calledDan

, a name not given to the

town till long after the days of

Reconciliation 79

Moses,as is recorded in Judges

xviii, 29 . Did our Lord in his

study of Holy Scripture neverread those passages? A similarinstance is furnished by a comparison ofGen. xiii, 8 , with Joshuaxiv, I5 ; xv, 1 3. Again, in Gen.

xxxvi, 3 1 , it is written :

“Andthese are the kings that reignedin the land ofEdom before there

!reigned any king over the children ofIsrael.” Could that havebeen written in the days of Moses

, and did our Lord neverread it ? Exodus xvi, 35, wasnot written by Moses

,nor can

we bring ourselves to believethat he wrote Dent. ii, 22 ; iii,1 4 ; x, 8 , and other passages inwhich we find the phrase untothis day.

” These texts have al

ways been in the Bible ; theirdiffi culties are no new

,startling

discovery,resulting from the ex

traordinary ingenuity ofmodern


criticism ; for it has never re

quired exceptional critical skillto discover what ordinary readingwill reveal, andwe must givethe Lord some credit as a carefiilstudent of the Holy Word. Indeed

,we think very few diffi cul

ties,discrepancies

,or contradic

tions in the old Bible, so conspic

uously paraded by rationalisticcritics ofextreme type, were unknown to him who once said tothe rationalists of his day,“ Search the Scriptures !” And

yet this same Jesus said, Moseswrote.”

Nothing, then, that can set

aside that reiterated statementnot the fact that certain bookshave texts imbedded in themwhich Moses could not havewritten

,for as a student ofthe

Sacred Books Christ knew that ;not the fact that therefore theymust have been edited and added

8 2 Christ and the Critics

losophy, and philosophy on imagination.

W e can also be progressivestudents of the Word withoutadopting the views ofProfessorsDriver

,Gore

,and others of like

teaching,who are evidently un

willing to grant to the profoundest student of the Word ofGodthat ever looked into its pages thecritical acumen

,even ofthe Rab

bins,who disputed in the schools

in the generation preceding him.

Even when but a mere boy oftwelve years he was once found inthe company ofIsrael!s teachers

,

“hearing them and asking themquestions

,and all that heard him

were astonished at his understanding and answers .” (Lukeii,

'

46, From that time tillhe entered formally upon hisministry

,eighteen years ofstudy

and meditation elapsed, and we

fail to see why Omniscience was

33

necessary to the student Jesusbefore h e could have an opinionon th e Mosaic authorship of thePentateuch, but is not necessaryto our modern critics.We gladly admit that the ac

cumulated wisdom of the past,

the knowledge and experience of

the race,have widened immeas

urably the horizon ofevery laborious thinker, and that the stu

dent of history or of science isnow in possession of facts notobtainable by men of ancientdays without the miraculous giftof superhuman knowledge .

But such an admission mustnot be pushed too far. It maybe accepted as true with reference to the ever-enlarging domain of the physical sciences

,

but it can not be true if it isforced to include th e fields of

philosophy and religion . NeitherPlato nor Aristotle was favored


with ommscrence,and yet neither

Kant,nor Descartes

,nor Hegel

has wholly superseded those immortal thinkers . Plato rules alarger empire to-day than ever.Biblical critics depend wholly onthe internal evidence of the several books of the Bible for theirconclusions ; but this evidencewe mean the discrepancies abovecited—was also in the Bible thatChrist read

,and from which he

quoted,and the discrepancies

were doubtless just as clear tohim as they are to us . But ifomniscience was not a necessaryprerequisition to either Plato or

Aristotle, to Kant or to Hegel,and is not a sine qua non to themodern student of Biblical oriti

cism ,why should it have been

necessary to the Great Teacher,Christ Jesus ? The differencebetween the subjects—one philosophy and the other Scrip

Reconciliation 85

ture—will not afford any sureground for the necessity. Finally

,

Christ said Moses wrote ; thePentateuch itself proves thatMoses could not have written itas it now is ; Christ thereforecould not have meant that Moses wrote it as it now is ; for theevidence was before him as it isbefore us ; and the office

,there

fore, ofa genuine Higher Criticism is not to ignore the wordsof Christ, but to show us trulywhat Moses did write.We may well believe that

,as

between religion and true sciencethere is no feud

, so betweenChrist and genuine criticismthere is no conflict.

· christ and the critics m 1 the case in court in the national gallery of fine arts in berlin...

Documents