03 - A Short Outline of the Conclusions...

A Short Outline of the Conclusions
of Rationalistic Criticism of the Old Testament.

To give a picture of the character of biblical criticism of the Old Tes­tament, we will present a general outline of it, as it is presented in popular Protestant works, and lately in Roman Catholic ones as well; and then we will concentrate our attention on the Pentateuch [Genesis, Exodus, Leviti­cus. Numbers and Deuteronomy] of Moses, since criticism of the Penta­teuch is in essence the foundation of a series of critical theories regarding the Old Testament. A general outline of criticism which has arisen out of the Protestant-university sphere, is here set forth according to the following basic sur­veys: Old Testament History, by Iswar Perits, Ph.D., Harvard. (NY: 1915-16). The Growth and Contents of the Old Testament, by Charles Foster Kent, Ph.D., Litt.D., Yale University. (NY: 1925). The beginnings of Hebrew literary works, adapted later in literary monuments, comprise popular vocal musical compositions as, for exam­ple, the Song of Deborah, which became part of the fifth chapter of the book of Judges, the Song of Miriam in the fifteenth chapter of Exodus, and the songs mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of the book of Numbers. 1. During the reign of David the first official historical records were made, giving an account of events preceding the establishment of the monarchy, forming the basis of the book of Judges and of the second chapter of the first book of Kings. 2. In the ninth century B.C., about the year 850 - nearly six hundred years after the death of Moses - oral prophecies and the rudimentary records of the laws of the Jewish people were compiled by a certain indi­vidual, a type of the ancient prophets, which later became material for the first four Mosaic books. 3. About fifty to a hundred years later, in the eighth century B.C., a parallel work on the same sort of material was carried out by another per­son who belonged to a group of priests. In this manner, two versions of the narrative arose. The fairly frequent repetitions of what with slight variations was said previously were the initial stimulus for suggesting two versions in the first books of the Bible. The fact that the name of God “Elohim” is used in some parts or chapters of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, and Yahweh in others, brought attention to the possibility of two versions. Though both of these names frequently appear together, this did not hinder the conclusion that the text which we have today represents a union of the writing of two persons who lived at different times and different places; and that subsequently these two records, two versions, were combined conscientiously,often by verse, and even by lines, and interwoven with each other into a single text, with, however, new additions from the “edi­tors.” In conjunction with the characteristics indicated, one version was branded “Y” (Yahwist), for the compiler of this version, and the other was branded “E” (Elohist), for the compiler of the other version. However, more detailed study of the text brought critics to the real­ization that differentiating by the characteristics of the name of God was not exact; it did not always agree with the contents of each version. But then the opportunity arose to ascribe to them a different meaning, with­out changing the names of “Y” and “E:” meaning the representation of two geographical areas, where, as it is proposed, each version was com­piled. Now “Y” is usually assumed to be the version of the tribe and king­dom of “Judah” (Yooda), and “E” as the version of “Ephraim,” in other words, of the Northern or Israelite Kingdom which after the death of Solomon was formed out of the ten tribes of Israel by Jeroboam, who belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. Critics find two accounts of the creation of the world in the book of Genesis; one is the Yahwist, from 2:4 to 3:24, and the other is Elohist, from 1:1 to 2:4. The story of the Flood is also spread between two versions, on the basis of the repetitions found there, and is divided into twenty-eight parts, fourteen for each version. An even more conscientious separation of verses into parts can be found in one critic’s investigation of the four­teenth chapter of Exodus, in the story of the crossing of the Red Sea. This theory is not called the “scissors and paste theory” in vain. The Yahwist version is characterized by a more earthly character, more picturesque, poetic. In it God is presented in human form, with human understanding and actions. The Elohist version is cleverly presented as being more ele­vated: God is the ruler of the world and creates by the word of His mouth, but it is poorer in images, drier. 4. Next in order, according to the time of the compiling of the Old Testament books, comes the historian “D.”- the Deuteronomist, author of Deuteronomy. The first through the eleventh, the twenty-seventh, twenty-ninth, and the successive chapters up to the end of the book are attributed to him. It is thought that he lived in approximately the seventh century; that means almost ten centuries after Moses. He wrote from the point of view of the great prophets, namely that the rise of faith leads to the prosperity of the people, and the decline of faith to tribulation. At about the same time, with the same aim, the history of the conquest of Canaan was written, which later became known as the book of Joshua and the first and second books of Kings. The compilation of Deuteronomy is ascribed to a time of religious renewal in the Kingdom of Judah, after the death of the Prophet Isaiah, among a prophetical faction, for use in the struggle against idolatry and other apostasies tolerated during the reigns of the Kings Manasseh and Amon (698-643-631 B.C.). The account contained in the book of Kings concerning the finding of a “Book of the Law” (621 B.C). by the High Priest Hilkiah during the reign of King Josiah, by common assumption, refers to Deuteronomy. Some critics think that it was actually hidden for a time to prevent it being stolen, and was then uncovered, while others presume that it was compiled by Hilkiah and only put forth by him as a Mosaic book (the opinion of Prof. Kartashev). The announcement to the people of the discovery of this book and the reading of it throughout the nation brought about a great religious reformation in the Kingdom of Judah. 5. The historian “P” (for “priest”) gave final shape to the entire Pen­tateuch and also to the book of Joshua. He combined the “Y” and “E” accounts into one narrative, choosing from each version (due to the sim­ilarity of the stories) that text which agreed more closely with his own ideas and, yet more often, including both versions, amalgamating them. When necessary for the continuity of thought, he connected texts of dif­ferent origin with his own words. He wrote from the point of view of the priests of his time, emphasizing the ritualistic element of the laws, which had in fact evolved, as it were, in the course of eight centuries of the national-political life of Israel (during the era of the Judges), but which were attributed to the Prophet Moses. Complete agreement among the critics as to when the amalgam of the two versions was achieved has not yet been forthcoming. Some presume that it was carried out immediately after the fall of the Kingdom of Israel, when the Israelite priests, escaping thence in 722 B.C., brought with them to Jerusalem the version of the first four books of the Pentateuch that they had, and after the validity of the Ephraimite legends was recognized, the combining of the two versions was carried out in Jerusalem. According to another suggestion, the combining was achieved only after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity during the reign of Cyrus the Per­sian. 6. The “Ecclesiastical,” or church historian, who labored at about 300 B.C., again edited legal and historical books, from Genesis to the book of Kings, and continued history to approximately his own time. Then the Bible included First and Second Chronicles, and also Ezra and Nehemiah. He used an already established method of historical research, citing a series of sources from which he himself drew information (see II Chroni­cles). He used the personal journals of Ezra and Nehemiah, and Aramaic documents (without translation). He introduced a new approach to the history of the Old Testament - the approach of a cleric. His own work can be called a “church chronicle of Jerusalem.” Criticism places the origin of the Psalms, with the possible exception of several psalms from the time of David, in the time of Persian rule fol­lowing the Babylonian captivity; this is the “Book of Psalms of the Second Temple.” A whole series of books is ascribed to this same period: Judith, Esther, Ruth, Tobit, the Story of Susannah, the Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the third and fourth books of the Maccabees. Also included among these is the book of Job. 7. The final period is that of Hellenization. It includes the time of the Maccabees (175-63 B.C.). It is considered to be the time of the final shap­ing of previous writings of the Prophets, also of the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. The “wisdom literature” appeared. The impetus for it allegedly originated in contact with Greek philosophical thought; how­ever, it is agreed that here Jewish thought followed its own path. The books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Wisdom of Joshua, Son of Sirach, are attributed to this time. A fragment of the Wisdom of Joshua, Son of Sirach, almost half of the book in the original Hebrew text, was found in Egypt. The first and second books of the Maccabees were compiled at that time. The book of the Prophet Daniel is ascribed to this period, the lan­guage of which contains many Persian and Greek words. Consequently, they attribute the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, seeing in it a “reflection, directed towards an event which had already taken place,” in the same manner as criticism reacts towards other prophecies.