Fallacies of Higher Critics

Listening to "Fallacies of  Higher Critics" hosted by Art Bulla on #BlogTalkRadio http://tobtr.com/s/1290494

 

Original Air Date: October 12, 2010

Fallacies of Higher Critics

  Techniques of textual critics exposed as the feeble conclusions and judgments of anti-Christs and pinheads, who know not God nor have the Holy Ghost to guide them, but who delight in denying these things, which is unpardonable. Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.491-494: DURING the second half of the nineteenth century there was a determined effort launched on the part of certain scholars to tear asunder and destroy the authenticity of the holy scriptures. They were influenced by the same spirit which prompted the organic evolutionists. This plan has been called "Higher Criticism," but in reality it should be called "destructive criticism." The advocates of this theory assumed to have the wisdom by which they could discover, without Urim or Thummim, but by their own wisdom, a difference in style in the various books of the Bible...parts could not have been written at the time indicated by these books, Some of the passages, like that dealing with Isaiah's prophecy naming Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-4), they maintained were written by authors after the prophetic events had taken place. To their way of thinking even God could not predict the birth of a man over one hundred years before he was born...Peter speaks: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20-21.) These learned men do not claim to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but by their scientific training they have spoken and given utterance. In their contention, through their uninspired skill, they maintain that they were able to discover that the five books of Moses were not the works of Moses. Moreover, their doctrine was that the stories of creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam's fall, recorded in Genesis, were taken from the myths and legends of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was the accepted view at that time that "the Mosaic age was outside the scope of written records."

Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.491-494 DURING the second half of the nineteenth century there was a determined effort launched on the part of certain scholars to tear asunder and destroy the authenticity of the holy scriptures. They were influenced by the same spirit which prompted the organic evolutionists. This plan has been called "Higher Criticism," but in reality it should be called "destructive criticism." The advocates of this theory assumed to have the wisdom by which they could discover, without Urim or Thummim, but by their own wisdom, a difference in style in the various books of the Bible. This difference they proclaimed was discovered within paragraphs as well as in chapters of the various books. Moreover, they taught that in many of the books, particularly the five books of Moses and Joshua, Isaiah and others, there was evidence that indicated that parts could not have been written at the time indicated by these books, but at some later date. In this manner of criticism unknown writers had to be provided to take care of these theories. Some of the passages, like that dealing with Isaiah's prophecy naming Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-4), they maintained were written by authors after the prophetic events had taken place. To their way of thinking even God could not predict the birth of a man over one hundred years before he was born. In the Book of Genesis they thought they discovered combinations of writers, and that the account of the creation and of Adam's advent in the Garden of Eden was in conflict with itself. These critics were not like the prophets of old of whom Peter speaks: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21.) These learned men do not claim to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but by their scientific training they have spoken and given utterance.

In their contention, through their uninspired skill, they maintain that they were able to discover that the five books of Moses were not the works of Moses. So they concluded to give these books to several authors living at various times. Genesis, said they, was compiled by some enterprising scribes hundreds of years later. So the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua had to be assigned to writers of various and later times. Moreover, their doctrine was that the stories of creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam's fall, recorded in Genesis, were taken from the myths and legends of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was the accepted view at that time that "the Mosaic age was outside the scope of written records."

In addition to this severe criticism of the Pentateuch these critics assigned the Book of Isaiah to three, at least, different writers. The entire study was, of course, speculative, and could be nothing more. Examples have been given where some of these experts who claim to decipher these ancient writings, have failed to find the line of demarkation in the writings of men in our own day. Sir Charles Marston, a renowned archaeologist, illustrates this in his most excellent work, New Bible Evidence. He says that the work of various writers of The New York Times which are doubtless amended by editors and subeditors, yet so far as he is aware, "No textual critic ever pretended to be able to distinguish one writer from another, nor to identify the amendations of the editorial staff. If methods of textual criticism are powerless to analyze contemporary press composition, how can they correctly analyze documents composed more than two thousand years ago, and written in a dead language? Yet it is the very fact that the documents are so ancient and the language so old, that seems to be responsible for the supposition that the critic can do so, and to sustain their supreme confidence." (pp. 232-233.)

He further says that "the so-called textual criticism of the Old Testament is an endeavor to extract internal evidence from a sacred text. Such a method cannot be applied to contemporary literature. He relates how a case of plagiarism of a modern book led to the investigation of "Higher Criticism," in a Canadian law court in 1931. The judge called it "solemn nonsense." Then the case was taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and the "Higher Criticism" was there called by Justice Riddel, "almost an insult to common sense." Then finally the case was taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England, which is the highest tribunal of England, or the British Empire, in October 1832. Judge Atkin, the presiding judge, described "Higher Criticism" as "fantastic hypotheses." In addition to this attempt to find multiple authors for the scriptures, this "research" has also resulted in these advocates classing many of the earlier stories in the realm of fiction and myths, which they have claimed were current for many years antecedent to the days of Adam. The story of creation, the temptation and the fall had to go into the discard as having no divine sanction, but came out of the Assyrio-Babylonian myths. This also, they say, is true of the flood and the story of the confusion of tongues. One of these writers upholding this theory has said: "The events covered in Genesis are pre-history," and many others are relegated to the category of "pure romance," and as such are not to be accepted as true. The following will explain this view:

In the childhood of the human race, many thousand years ago, there came a time when men began to feel the need of help against unfriendly things around them. The world was filled with forces they could not understand. In their efforts to range these powers on their side and so find life and happiness, men originated and continued to practice ways of behavior which strike us as strange, if not irrational. In this way magic was developed and out of it, possibly, ethic religion. Some of the behavior patterns from the period the student will already have heard about-sympathetic magic, the worship of idols, animal sacrifice, necromancy, circumcision, religious rites and observances of many kinds. We know a great deal-through archaeology, history, and the study of primitive tribes on the earth today-about these old practices.

Their search led these scholars to divide the books of Moses into four grand divisions: the "J" (Jehovistic), the "E" (Elohistic), the "P" (Priestly), and "D" (Deuteronomistic). These writings were made at different times, according to this story, and by enterprising scribes, who compiled and placed them in the books as we have them now. They maintain that in the first chapters of Genesis there are contradictions. This conclusion is reached, in part at least, due to the fact that in the translations as the world has them of Genesis, these great men do not have the knowledge that there were two creations. First, the spiritual and second, the physical. Again, they have no correct understanding that Jehovah and Elohim are separate personages, one being the Father and the other the Son. There is no contradiction and it is a case where the things of God are not understood by the spirit of man, and this great truth was made clear by Paul.

These four accounts, according to the theory, run concurrently throughout most of the Old Testament. Therefore they have the "J," the "E," the "P" and the "D" authors of these chapters in Genesis and many other parts of the Bible. Isaiah, say they, was composed by "First," "Second" and "Third" Isaiah. In other words there were three writers who made the book, perhaps there were four. One of these is supposed to be a writer of the fifth century, or later of the pre-Christian era. He is supposed to have lived in Babylon and furthermore, he it was who wrote of Cyrus, for, as noticed before, God could not predict the coming of Cyrus to be a deliverer of Israel. This story will be told in another place. And so these modernistic critics have cut the book of Isaiah up and thrown it to the four winds. The book of Deuteronomy is also relegated to this later date.

My purpose is not, however, to present these theories, but to give expert testimony by other learned men who are competent to speak, who contradict all of these speculative conclusions, which have, within the last part of this century, been proved to be false. First we will give the testimony of Dr. A. S. Yahuda, one of the outstanding students and researchers of ancient records:

A. S. Yahuda

(A. S. Yahuda
)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.494-498 Destructive Methods of Biblical Criticism.-No one, and the present writer least of all, would make the slightest attempt to belittle the great merits and achievements of Biblical criticism. But it must be said that, so long as moderate views prevailed, there was a sane and sound method of Biblical research. Unfortunately this method has since deteriorated through the more radical views adopted by the modern school of High Criticism, especially under Wellhausen and his followers.

The whole system has degenerated into a mass of far-fetched hypotheses and haphazard theories, which only fitted with a frame of preconceived ideas about the history, the development and the composition of the scriptures. In the long run it became customary to consider it as highly scientific to challenge everything Biblical and to alter the texts to one's heart's desire.

The whole Pentateuch is represented as a conglomoration of various sources. In many cases one chapter is attributed to two, three, or more sources. Even in each one of these sources two or more underlayers are discerned. Thus, taking the whole Pentateuch as it is made to appear, the impression is left of a patchwork stuck together by stupid authors and ignorant scribes, the result being a most disproportionate and inharmonious composition.

Indeed, the mania of seeing everywhere a wrong text and detecting all kinds of interpolations, glosses and anachronisms, and likewise the zeal to heap emendations upon corrections resulted in creating a new speciality for speculative 'experts' to exert themselves in the art of text alterations and source-hunting. (Introduction-The Accuracy of the Bible, p. xxi.)

This also occurs in the Introduction:

In taking up the task of proving the Hebrew-Egyptian relationship from a wider and broader angle than has ever been done hitherto, it is not intended to substitute the pan-Babylonistic method of deriving everything Biblical from Assyro-Babylonian sources-a method which was so much in vogue and is still dominating Biblical research-by a similar one-sided pan-Egyptianism."

Doubting Biblical statements became a standard of scientific method in Biblical research, and critics practicing that method earned recognition and acquired great authority. The greater the doubts raised the more was appreciation expected; and the more numerous the hypotheses brought forward to discredit Biblical statements, the more credit was granted to the scientific soundness and critical sagacity of the sceptics. All these methods and arguments only betray the superficiality with which the Biblical documents are treated by Biblical critics, and indicate their embarrassment in attempting to maintain arbitrary theories which can be proved neither documentary evidence nor by logical reasoning.

A still more radical standpoint was adopted with regard to the early history of Israel, especially that of the Patriarchs and the sojourn of Israel in Egypt. Indeed the whole story of the Patriarchs was declared as more or less legendary, and that of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt was represented as the product of much later periods containing only very pale reminiscences of vague old memories of the Egyptian epoch, and episodes invented with the object of substantiating later conceptions by earlier supposed events, which according to those sceptics had never occurred.

The notable finds yielded by the excavations in Assyria and Babylonia, which confirm the Biblical records, have been employed rather to shake the authority of the Bible than to uphold it. Because some of the Genesis stories bear a remarkable resemblance to Assyro-Babylonian myths, of which the story of the Great Flood is the best example, it was assumed that they were written during the Babylonian exile, in the sixth century B.C., and that only certain portions were of two or three centuries earlier. Yet, on closer examination of the Genesis stories from a linguistic point of view, I have found that the Assyro-Babylonian traces were much fewer than was supposed, and that these stories can by no means have been composed in the Babylonian exile nor in the ninth or eighth century B.C., but that they must belong to the time of the great civilization of Ur, in the time of the Patriarchs.

This distinguished scientist declares that the same tactics have been employed by these destructive critics in other parts of the Bible history. The Joseph-Exodus narratives were twisted to "prove exactly the opposite of that which should actually be proved, and were employed rather to obscure the Egyptian background of the narratives. It was asserted that their author or authors had very little knowledge or none at all of Egyptial matters, and that even such features which, according to their views, still preserve certain Egyptian coloring, had been supplied by tourists or Hebrew mercenaries in Pharaoh's army who happened to be in Egypt! These people have just snatched a few things from Egyptian life, picked up a few words from the Egyptian language and brought them home for the benefit of scribes who utilized them for literary exercises." He most emphatically declares that the archaeological and linguistic evidence, of these narratives bear all the evidence of "information and confirmation" upholding the Biblical account. The more recent excavations by Mr. Leonard Wooley in Ur also present fresh evidence of the truth of the flood story in the Pentateuch and these have been further confirmed by the Biblical data discovered by Professor Garstang at Jericho, where the walls disclosed the secret which remained for "thousands of years buried in their cracks-the secret, namely, that the fall of the walls, hitherto looked upon as a mere legend, was a real historical event."

Dr. Yahuda further declares that the Hebrew language shows evidence likewise of the accuracy of the Biblical history and this evidence can be traced through the years of their contact with other races. "All this will contribute to demonstrate that the presence of Egyptian elements in the Pentateuch is the best indication that the Books of Moses have actually been composed in the epoch, in which the Hebrews were still under the immediate influence of their connections with the Egyptians, just as it is stated in the Pentateuch itself."

The story of Pharaoh's dream, says Dr. Yahuda, could not fit in any other place except in Egypt. It was in Egypt where the goddess Hathor was worshiped in the form of a cow. There are pictures in the monuments of Egypt of the seven kine. This is seen in the tomb of Nefretiry. There were seven districts each having its Hathor cow. This is shown in the Book of the Dead in mural reliefs of the temple of Hatschepsut in Dair-al-Bahri. The author of the Joseph narrative was acquainted with the Egyptian customs of the time. "Joseph was the sole 'vizier' over the whole country of the 'two lands.' This is of historical interest from the fact that before the 'New Kingdom' there was only one vizier for both territories, but in the New Kingdom two viziers came upon the scene, one for Upper Egypt with the title 'Vizier of the South,' and the other for Lower Egypt, 'Vizier of the North.' When Joseph was made sole vizier over the whole country it is written over the 'two lands'." And says the Doctor, if the narrative had been written without the narrator knowing this fact, he would have said merely that Joseph was "installed as vizier of Egypt, without emphasizing on every occasion that the whole country of the 'two lands,' were under his rule." It is consequently not possible to admit that Joseph's appointment for him is a mere legend. On the contrary he records "it as a positive historical fact, illustrated by such features as could only be rightly understood and appreciated in the light of changes introduced in state institutions much later than the Joseph period."

On page 116 of his work, The Accuracy of the Bible, Dr. Yahuda says that the Exodus account is treated with the same "distrust" by these modernistic Bible critics, and a "few Egyptologists," who seem to find in it legendary and mythical details. Of course anything that borders on the miraculous, such as the dividing of the Red Sea, the cloud that led the Israelites, the plagues in Egypt, and other marvelous stories, will appear to these skeptics as being legendary and mythical. Dr. Yahuda says this same method is not applied by those same scholars to non-Biblical documents, "even when permeated with mythical details. The discrimination against the Joseph and Exodus stories, perfectly fits within the attitude pursued by scholars adhering to Biblical criticism when they write the history of Israel, or of the literature of the Bible, but thoroughly differs from true and sound scientific methods of historiography. Unprejudiced writers of ancient history base their views on the documents transmitted by the people themselves, and as a whole, accept ancient records as the essential foundation for historical reconstruction."

Edouard Naville

(Edouard Naville
)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.499 Dr. Edouard Naville, recent Professor of Archaeology at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, is considered to be one of the most outstanding scholars in the archaeological field. He did considerable research in Egypt and other places and was honored by his associates and his wisdom and learning were sought by others in his chosen field. He added much to the present knowledge by his researches. These are his views in relation to this modernistic criticism. Speaking of the many records that have been found:

Their bearing on the books of the Bible has not been adequately shown, the reason being that most Biblical scholars are still tied down to the methods of the destructive criticism. A book of scripture is taken, a minute philological analysis is made of it, with often a great amount of scholarship, but this analysis necessarily leads to the discovery of apparent inconsistencies, of disconnections, of repetitions, which have been interpreted as showing the hands of different writers. The whole process has been disintegration of the books, resulting in the creation of a great number of authors, for the existence of whom no historical proofs whatever can be adduced.

Sir Charles Marston

(Sir Charles Marston
)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.499-506 Another leading archaeologist of great renown, Sir Charles Marston, adds his testimony to the accuracy of the scriptures. He was with Professor John Garstang at the excavations at Jericho, where evidence was found confirming dates of many of the great events of Israelite history, contrary to the destructive criticism which became so popular and is related to the theories of organic evolution. Dr. Marston, in the Preface to his very excellent work, New Bible Evidence, makes the following comment:

. . . George Bernard Shaw calls the Bible an old collection of myths and fairy tales, and there appears to be quite an impression abroad that this is the case. But if only because the description cuts right across the whole course of American history, it is unacceptable to us. Mr. Shaw would have us believe that the Pilgrim Fathers and the great makers of America believed a lie! It seems incredible that the civilization of the United States was begun and built up on mere myths and fairy tales.

Once again: The Old Testament largely concerns the history and religion of the Jewish people. In the countless vicissitudes through which this race has come during the past eighteen centuries, had it succumbed, or ceased to exist, or sunk into obscurity, it might be said, with some reason, that faith in the truth of the Book was unfounded. But the contrary was proved to be the case-the continued existence and present prosperity of the Jewish race constitute a living witness to a reality which must underlie the Old Testament.

These considerations call for an examination of the Old Testament in the light of recent archaeological discoveries.

No matter what attitude (conservative or advanced) a man may adopt, he has to face the fact that there are sentences in the Bible which do not make sense. On the other hand such examples serve to demonstrate its great age. The same characteristics occur in less ancient writings-even in the works of Shakespeare, composed only some three centuries or so ago, and in the English language. But the Bible, so far as the New Testament is concerned, was written down more than eighteen hundred years ago in the colloquial Greek of that time; while the Old Testament was composed from 2500 to 3500 years ago, in the ancient Hebrew language.

There is abundant evidence that, in course of ages, little mistakes have been made by scribes in copying the sacred texts. But in no instance has it been proven to have effected the fundamental sense and harmony of the truth. In the case of the Old Testament those acquainted with the Hebrew alphabet will be aware that it has no vowel sounds. Some of the letters so closely resemble others that mistakes in transmission are easy; and a comparison with the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew text made three centuries before Christ, suggests that such mistakes have occurred even since that time. Such considerations weigh against the assumption of the word-for-word and letter-for-letter correctness of the English Bible.

Those who employ critical methods in the study of the Bible, have got into the habit of representing those who advance proofs to the contrary, of being prejudiced. Is there any reason why those who are led by evidence to adopt an orthodox attitude to the Bible, should be more prejudiced than those who describe it as a collection of fairy tales? . . .

There is another class of prejudice which the archaeologist has to face; it comes from those who cannot disentangle themselves from their past academic environment. Thus, when Schliemann uncovered the remains of Troy in 1870, the scholars laughed him to scorn. Or, again; so bewildered were German professors when Dr. Hilprecht, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, laid bare a great temple platform at Nippur in Mesopotamia, built of blocks inscribed with the name of a monarch which the critics had treated as mythical that the excavator was positively accused of perpetrating the forgery of a whole Babylonian temple platform.

Dr. Marston has this to say about the attempt to dissect the Bible, by Cannon Samuel R. Driver in respect to the first six books of the Old Testament. Driver said: "The two earliest narratives are doubtedly those by J. and E.; these are based upon the oral traditions current in the eighth and ninth centuries."

The statement that purports to be made by Moses five or six centuries earlier, were oral traditions of the eighth and ninth centuries; and, in order to complete the critical diagnosis of dates, were first committed to writing B.C. 621. Dr. Marston then launches on a defense of the Bible. At this point all we need to do is to refer to the words of the Lord in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price which fully and completely refute these fancy imaginary stories. We have the sure word of the Lord revealed to us in these two standard works, that the accounts in Genesis and the history of the first six books of the Bible are true and that these accounts were written by Moses in the first five books, from revelations given to him, and without a doubt from records which had been handed down from the fathers to Abraham who declared that he would hand them down to his posterity. Moreover, Lehi had these books in his possession on the Brass Plates, before there could have been any "imaginary prophet of the exile" to write them.

Dr. Marston also pays his respects to the part that evolution has played in the twisting of the Bible accounts of things in the beginning. It is needless to consider every foolish criticism brought against the Bible coming from this destructive source. However, there are many statements of importance in Dr. Marston's writings. I commend to every member of the Church the study of his book, New Bible Evidence. Here are other important statements:

The alternative of following the guidance and authority of critics and commentators in the light of recent knowledge can but bewilder the issues and lead us all astray. It is quite obvious that the complete assurance, with which many have written, is entirely unjustified, even as it is out of harmony with the scientific outlook of the present day. Yet the mass of people are not aware of this fact, and the erroneous belief that scholars and scientists knew all there was to be known about the Old Testament, has had a blighting effect upon Christianity.

The vast archaeological discoveries of the past eight years, resemble the fragments of some immense jig-saw puzzle; they need a guide to fit them together. The Old Testament has proved an excellent guide to the geography of the Holy Land; may it not also be of service in elucidating its history? . . .

Men are still trying to weigh and measure the Bible by imperfect historical evidence, and by materialistic conceptions of the unseen, which science has already discarded.

Dr. Marston pays his respects to our historians who waste their time with "primitive man," according to evolutionary doctrine, which is all conjecture. "If all the time wasted, he says, "on minute dissection of the Bible text-on straining at gnats and swallowing camels-had been spent in learning to read cuneiform tablets, there would be a far clearer knowledge of ancient history today, than at present is the case." He says also, "what is the use of teaching students an ancient history of the world, still largely based on conjecture, when there are in existence original contemporary documents to tell us what the people of Abraham's day studied, or the people of Moses' time believed; what were their customs; how they bought and sold; what laws their rulers made, how long they reigned, and what they did."

Dr. Marston was with Dr. John Garstang at the excavation of the old city of Jericho, and was also at the excavations of other parts of Palestine, where ancient cities were uncovered, in which new evidence was discovered. For instance, in the city of Jericho the excavations revealed the truth of the Bible story. That city was destroyed suddenly by an earthquake which threw down the walls. Moreover, these scientists found in the pottery evidence which had not been known in the first quarter of this century. They found numerous Egyptian scarabs which fixed the dates, and thus they discovered the time of the destruction of Jericho and other settlements, which forced the scientists to correct their chronology in relation to the time the Israelites were in Egypt, the time they left and when they arrived in the promised land. These scarabs, or seals, had inscribed upon them the names of Pharaohs whose dates were known which confirmed the stories in the Books of Moses. These recent discoveries have revealed that alphabetical writing was in existence in Sinai long before the time of Moses, and the keeping of records in the wilderness by Moses is assured, and that worship of one God is as old as historical knowledge goes. The best and most reliable archaeologists now affirm that the oldest worship was the worship of one Supreme Being, not many gods which so many of our imaginary historians are pleased to tell us.

In connection with these discoveries I present here an article taken from the San Francisco Chronicle of March 16, 1937, near the time that these other great discoveries were made.

JERUSALEM, March 15-(Palcor Agency)

Twelve pieces of broken pottery found on the site of ancient Lachish destroy the very foundation of Biblical "Higher Criticism," Dr. E. L. Sukenik, professor of archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said today.

Professor Henry Toreznyer, expert on Semitic languages at the university, definitely ascribed the potsherds, with their inscriptions in the ancient Hebrew language, to the time of Jeremiah, 2,500 years ago.

Professor Toreznyer called it "the most valuable find ever made in the period of the first temple (Solomon's)" and Dr. Sukenik termed the potsherds the greatest discovery since the Siloam inscriptions in 1890.

A remarkable feature of these writings, Professor Toreznyer asserted, is the fact that they appear to be written in ordinary ink. Dr. Sukenik declared their most amazing characteristic the fact that many of the words and names used are spelled exactly as they are in the traditional Masoretic text of the Pentateuch. (The Masoretic text is the form of the Hebrew used today by Jews through the world.)

That the spelling found at Tel Adduweir corresponds exactly with that in use today would indicate, Dr. Sukenik declared, that the Bible was written by scribes during the time in which the events in Chronicles actually accurred, and that the scribes were eyewitnesses of the incidents they reported.

"This would tend to destroy the theory of 'Higher Criticism' that the narrative was written many centuries later," he said.

Dr. Archibald C. Sayce

(Dr. Archibald C. Sayce
)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.506-509 Dr. Archibald C. Sayce was one of England's outstanding archaeologists with a natural ability to learn and master ancient languages. In his younger days he was denied the position of professor of Hebrew at Oxford, although considered eminently qualified, except that he had a tendency towards the Assyrian-Babylonian theories of "Higher Criticism," and Dr. Samuel Driver who received the chair was considered to be orthodox. In denying the position to Dr. Sayce, although he had been recommended by Dr. Pusey who held the chair for some 64 years, Prime Minister Gladstone said he recognized the ability of Dr. Sayce but because he was a leader in the German critical theology, therefore he was considered not to be "safe." The result was, in the end, that Dr. Driver became the advocate of the destructive criticism, and Dr. Sayce repented of the evil and returned to the defense of the Bible.

Dr. Andrew D. White, the persistent enemy of the Bible and Christianity as he knew it, in his two volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, on several pages refers to Dr. Sayce in glowing terms as a great advocate of Biblical criticism and as an outstanding archaeologist. One page 51, Vol. 1, for instance, he says this:

The Rev. Prof. Sayce, of Oxford, than whom no English-speaking scholar carries more weight in a matter of this kind, has recently declared his belief that the Chaldaeo-Babylonian theory was the undoubted source of the similar theory propounded by the Ionic philosopher Anaximander-the Greek thinkers deriving this view from Babylonians through the Phoenicians; he also allows that from the same source its main features were adopted into both the accounts given in the first of the sacred books, and in the general view that most eminent Christian Assyriologists concur.

It is true that these sacred accounts of ours contradict each other. In the part of the first or Elohistic account given in the first chapter of Genesis the waters bring forth fishes, marine animals, and birds (Genesis 1:20.), but in that part of the second or Jehovistic account given in the second chapter of Genesis both the land animals and the birds are declared to have been created not out of the water, but out of the ground. (Genesis 2:19.)

Considering the fact that we do not have any original documents, it is rather childish for Dr. White to raise the question whether the fowl came from the sea or the land, when we have to depend on faulty translations which is admitted by all Bible scholars. There are two matters, however, in this statement by Dr. White in relation to Dr. Sayce that I cannot permit to pass unnoticed. The first is that the scholarly and efficient Professor Sayce who was, as all admit, a keen Bible student and archaeologist, discounted the Bible account and agreed that the Hebrew story of the creation came from Chaldaeo-Babylonian sources. The second is that in the Bible we have the Elohistic and Jehovistic accounts which do not agree. Let us consider the case of Dr. Sayce first.

It is true that he was led astray by his earlier research and joined the Chaldaeo-Babylonian group who based their conclusions, not on evidence, but false deductions. But Dr. Sayce was big enough when he discovered his error to openly forsake it and return to his defense of the Bible. It was before he entered Queen's College, Oxford, in 1865, that he took up with what he called the "German theories." It was after "Hupfeld had published his dissection of Genesis," and Sayce was impressed by it, and "Colenso had issued his first volume criticizing the Pentateuch." In later years when Dr. Sayce had made further research, had done some excavating and had translated other records, he began to change his views. Then came the discovery of the Tel El-Amarna tablets from the Nile, the Siloam Pool manuscripts, and other discoveries which gave a flood of light upon the ancient records which convinced him that the Bible records were anterior to any Babylonian or Assyrian legends. He was convinced that the art of writing and the making of written records antedated anything previously believed to be known and that the records of Moses were ancient workmanship and evidently written at the time of the occurrence of the events. He wrote: "The only winter which I did not spend on the Nile was the one when the famous cuneiform tablets were found by the fellahin at Tel El-Amarna." Some of these fell into his hands, others he had the privilege of examining. About one third of them had been carelessly destroyed. He said: "Next to the historical books of the Old Testament, the Tel El-Amarna tablets have proved to be the most valuable records which the ancient civilized world of the East has bequeathed to us. What we now have is an index of what we should have possessed had the collection been preserved uninjured and intact." Higher criticism had determined that there could have been no Semitic literature before the epoch of King David. The study of these tablets became the turning point with Dr. Sayce and revolutionized his thinking, or turned him back again from the "German theories." He learned that in the Mosaic age people were educated.

Dr. Sayce and Dr. Pinches translated some of the Babylonian Dynastic Tablets where they discovered that the view that Belshazzar could not be discovered in profane history was false. It had been the idea that the Book of Daniel was wrong in mentioning him and therefore that the book could not be correct. I quote from an article by T. W. Fawthrop, entitled, The Stones Cry Out: Scriptural Confirmation Often Overlooked. This was published in the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, Vol. 72, pages 137-148.

When certain professors were unable to find Belshazzar in profane history, they discarded the Book of Daniel. Dean Farrar said, "History knows of no such king." But foundation-cycles from Ur contain prayers of King Nabonidus for Belshazzar, his son. Other inscriptions record Belshazzar's business transactions, and his death when the Persians entered Babylon. Professors Sayce and Pinches show that as Solomon was co-king with David, so Belshazzar reigned with Nabonidus, his father; one captained the troops in the field, the other defended the city. So Belshazzar is found. Professor Sayce declared, "The higher criticism is now bankrupt"; and Professor Pinches wrote, "I am glad to think, in the face of archaeology, with regard to the Book of Daniel, that the higher criticism is, in fact, buried." Dr. Orr adds, "So Professor McFadyen's apparent revellings in the inaccuracies of Daniel are all out-worn and answered. Daniel's history is authentic. He knew Belshazzar because they both dwelt in Babylon. Herodotus and Zenophone did not know him because they lived far away." (Transactions, Vol. 72, p. 146.)

Sir Frederick Kenyon

(Sir Frederick Kenyon
)

Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.510-515 In 1882 Dr. Kenyon became assistant in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum and later became director and principal librarian. He was the author of numerous books and articles on the Bible and archaeology and kindred subjects. He succeeded Sir Charles Marston as the president of the Victoria Institute. He was a firm defender of the Bible against the attacks of destructive criticism, yet liberal in his views that the Bible, having passed through many hands, having been transcribed numerous times naturally would contain some errors. On this point he said: "It is clear that the Bible records have not reached us without some corruption in passing through human hands. There are in the first place variations and not unimportant variations in which they have reached different peoples. The Jew has them in the Masoretic Old Testament; the Greek Church in the Septuagint Old Testament, and the New Testament which is often not in accordance with the oldest MSS.; the Roman Church in the Vulgate; the Abyssinian in the Ethiopic version; we ourselves both in our Authorized and in the Revised Version; and all of these are dependent upon hundreds of manuscripts, no two of which have an absolutely identical text. Which of these is the authoritative form of the Divine Revelation?" This is the natural conclusion that a scholar of the Bible would have to take. It is in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Church: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Moreover, the angel informed Nephi that many changes would be made before it should reach our day, and that important doctrines would be eliminated. And so Sir Frederick George Kenyon has said, this is an insurmountable difficulty that the destructive critics have to face when they endeavor to tell us which passages and even sentences are placed there by which author. It is regrettable to us, one and all, that the Holy Scriptures have come down to us with many corruptions, but for men of learning to examine them and by their natural ability, without the aid of the Divine Spirit, which they do not have, and do not profess to have, dissect them into fragments and assign each fragment to a certain time and writer is too much to believe.

Sir Frederick, however, believes the Bible to be the word of God expressed in his language just as members of the Church do-as far as it is correctly translated. In his mild manner he has come to the defense of the Holy Scriptures. In an address given May 22, 1950, in Claxton Hall, Westminster, he said:

In the latter years of the nineteenth century the champions of Christianity were mainly on the defensive. Natural Science was in the heydey of its progress which took rise in the discoveries and doctrines of Darwin, and there were many who believed that Natural Science held the key to all the problems of existence and that the day of religious belief was over. At the same time, within the sphere of religious study itself, a school of thought asserted itself which questioned the authenticity and trust-worthiness of the fundamental documents of Christianity and applied the utmost freedom of scepticism to the narratives. "Advanced" thought, as it called itself, flourished rampantly, and orthodoxy was pushed aside as an outworn tradition, discredited by modern science and by modern scholarship. And against this attitude the state of our knowledge of biblical archaeology did not supply arguments which could effectively convince those who did not wish to be convinced. The advocate of the Christian faith fought at a disadvantage and on the defensive.

Now all this is changed, and the point which I wish to make is that we are no longer on the defensive. It is no longer the Christian scholar that is out of date. The up-to-date scholars are now those who recognize the authenticity and authority of the Christian literature; it is the critics who formerly claimed to be "advanced" who are now belated and behind the time. The last half-century has been a period of wonderful, almost sensational, advance in our knowledge of the conditions under which our religion took its form and in which the books which contain its credentials were produced; and discovery after discovery has tended to establish the essential soundness of the traditions which from the point of human scholarship, are the title-deeds of our faith."

This renowned scientist continues and says that this great change came, in regard to the Old Testament, "in the years lying around the turn of the century. Previously our knowledge of the area lying between the Euphrates and the Nile was, except for the books of the Old Testament, practically a blank. It was the accepted view that writing was unknown in all that part of the world before the beginning of the first millennium." Grote, for Greece, put its origin as late as the seventh century. Wellhausen, for the Hebrews, had it not earlier than the ninth. "The Mosaic age was supposed to be far outside the scope of written records." Then came the discovery of the Tel El-Amarna tablets in Egypt in 1887. These tablets proved that writing was "habitual" as far back as the fourteenth century B.C., "but far more decisive were the discoveries made in Babylonia where sites such as Telloh, Nippur, Ur, Kish, Warka and others yielded thousands of tablets dating back as far as the third millennium B.C., or even earlier." These, said Sir Frederick Kenyon, contain many literary and semi-literary works, including the story of the flood. These records, "established beyond question two things of vital importance for Old Testame

Posted via email from The Redemption of Zion