SOME RESULTS AND REVERSALS OF
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT
LARRY L. WALKER
Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary,
Peaking
towards the end of the last century, the so-called higher
criticism
of the OT claimed "assured results" because it was allegedly
based
on a scientific-critical analysis of the literature. Although modi-
fied much through subsequent years, many
assumptions of modern
OT
critics are based on the conclusions reached during the classical
period
(the 19th century).
Despite disclaimers to the contrary,
the founders of this approach
to
the OT were reflecting a mindset of the age more than operating
on
some new "scientific" basis. Their research was done essentially in
an
archaeological vacuum; new information from exploration and
excavation
was not part of the background of their study.
When J. G. Eichhorn
in 1780 and W. M. L. De Wette in 1806
(when he was 25 years old) wrote the first critical
"Introductions" to
the
OT, the possibilities of archaeological research were unknown. At
the
end of the 18th century not a single script or language of the
pre-Christian orient had been deciphered, and not a single scientific
excavation
had been undertaken.
Even later, after new insights were
becoming available on the
geography,
history, language, and culture of the OT, such information
was
largely ignored. The outstanding example of this is J. Wellhausen' s
Prolegomena to the History of Ancient
Israel,
which appeared in
1878.
By that date several excavations had been started and
several
ancient
languages had been deciphered (Egyptian, Akkadian, Phoe-
nician, and Old South Arabic), but Wellhausen's reconstruction of
biblical
resources.
282 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The primary influence on the formulators of higher criticism
and
its bearing on the origin and development of the religion of
evolutionary thought--unilinear progress from the
simple to the
complex.
Such evolutionary thinking was applied by C. Darwin to
biology
and by K. Marx to economics. Wellhausen, following
the
approach
of J. K. W. Vatke,l applied this scheme to
up
with three basic periods of history of development: pre-prophetic--
prophetic--ethical-monotheism.
The end result of this was that we
have
in the Bible not God's thoughts about man but man's thoughts
about
God, not a revealed religion but an invented religion. K. Cauthen
stated
that situation precisely:
The Bible came to be thought of as a record of the progressive
discovery
of God in human experience, not as a static
body of theological dogmas
all equally inspired and all of equal
religious value. This application of
evolutionary ideas to the study of the Hebrew religion
by the Wellhausen
school of thought came to dominate Biblical
studies in the latter part of
the nineteenth century.2
I. Results
This new approach was adopted by many professors who then
were
either removed from their teaching positions or forced to resign,
for
example, in
and
Wellhausen from
1 J. K. W. Vatke
studied under H. F. W. Gesenius at
macher, and G. Hegel. From 1828 on, he became
increasingly interested in Hegel's
philosophy,
and in his Biblical Theology (Die biblische
Theologie wissenschaftlich
dargestellt. I. Die Religion des Alten
Testaments,
he
made no secret of his own Hegelian position. The aim of this book was to secure
for
Vatke
a full professorship, but a year before the book's appearing, Schleiermacher
died,
heralding the beginning of the dominant influence of the conservative E. W.
Hengstenberg in the
never
offered a full professorship, and van Altenstein,
Minister of State for Universities,
saw
to it that Vatke's Biblical Theology was never completed.
The influence of Vatke on Wellhausen has been much discussed (cf. J. Rogerson,
Old
Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century [Fortress, 1985] 69-78) and usually
recognized,
although R. Clements attempts, without success, to play down this influence
(One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation
[Westminster, 1976] 3).
I believe
Wellhausen
was greatly influenced by Vatke's reconstruction of
2 K. Cauthen, The
Impact of American Religious Liberalism (2nd ed.;
University Press of
Higher
Criticism in the
him)3 was C. H. Toy, Professor of Old Testament
Interpretation at
the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
He
had studied in Berlin4 and came to accept critical theories about
the
origin of Scripture, theories which were in contradiction to the
claims
of Scripture itself. Of course this involved the denial of iner-
rancy, so Toy resigned and moved in 1880 to a
post at Harvard;
eventually
he aligned himself with the Unitarians.5 Later, C. A. Briggs,
Professor
of Hebrew and Cognate Languages at
Seminary
in
of
Scripture as set forth in the Westminster Confession. His conviction
led
to his suspension as a minister and to the final breach between
Union Seminary and the Presbyterian Church. Briggs remained at
Union
as an Episcopalian (he was received into the priesthood in
1899)
until his death in 1913.6 Such conflicts
were not limited to
Baptists
and Presbyterians; they continued throughout various denomi-
national
schools.
However, a few scholars came to recognize the philosophical
nature
of some critical theories inimical to the Christian faith and
reliability
of Scripture and changed their views. This was especially
true
of those who had pursued studies in biblical archaeology.
A. H. Sayce, well-known British Orientalist, was a personal friend
of
Gladstone, Prime Minister of
of
Hebrew at
would
be his; however, at that time Sayce was regarded as
one of the
leaders
of German critical theology, so
him.7 Sayce's
interest in the Near East and archaeology8 later turned
him
toward conservative views.
3 R. A. Riesen, Criticism
and Faith in Late Victorian
University Press of
theological
controversy involving A. B. Davidson, W. R. Smith, and G. A. Smith.
4 An excellent survey of the influence of German scholarship on
American students
abroad
may be found in C. Diehl's Americans and German Scholarship 1770-1870
(New Haven: Yale University, 1978). Especially note the chapter
"Innocents Abroad:
American
Students in German Universities, 1815-1870," 49-69.
5 Riesen, Criticism and Faith,
xvi.
6 Ibid., xvii.
7 A note of irony here:
(1891) the whole critical school for the English world. (Sayce later
became a leader of
the
orthodox party in
8 Sayce spent the winters of 1879-1908 on
his houseboat on the
the
first Professor of Assyriology in
opponent
of rampant higher criticism. He rightly compared Wellhausen's
treatment of
the
Pentateuch with F. A. Wolff's treatment of Homer.
284 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Other professors who became conservative because of the influ-
ence of archaeology on their thinking were F. Hommel (
J.
Halevy (Paris).9 Of course the parade
example of how the facts of
archaeology
steer away from the theories of higher criticism is that of
W.
F. Albright. Prior to 1919 he held generally to the critical school of
thought,
a view which was at odds with fellow archaeologist M. G.
Kyle.
Then, beginning in 1921, during his archaeological work in
remained
staunchly conservative.10
Although Albright never openly
aligned
himself much theologically, it is very clear that the facts from
archaeology
continually steered him towards an ever-increasing
respect
for the accuracy of Scripture.
One professor who switched views, not just because of archae-
ology but because he saw the mindset involved
in higher criticism,
was
J. J. Reeve of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.11 In a
word
of personal testimony,12 he described first his experience at
"one
of
the great universities" where he was overwhelmed with the scholar-
ship
of the critical approach and accepted it. He wrote, "This world-
view
is wonderfully fascinating and almost compelling.'" But he went
on
to describe two reasons for his rejection of the system: 1) the
methods,
and 2) the spirit of the movement. Some of his statements
are
worth noting verbatim:
It became more and more obvious to me that the movement was
entirely
intellectual, an attempt in reality to intellectualise all religious phenomena.
I saw also that it was a partial and one-sided intellectualism
with a strong
bias against the fundamental tenets of
Biblical Christianity. Such a
movement is responsible for a vast amount of
intellectual pride, an
aristocracy of intellect with all the snobbery which
usually accompanies
that term.13
9 J. Orr, The
Problem of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's, 1911)
397, n. 1.
10 More detailed notes on Albright's
personal testimony of change can be found in
BASOR 51 (1935) 5-6 and The
American Scholar 7 (1938) 170. Kyle taught at
Theological
Seminary and wrote in defense of Scripture. His The Deciding Voice of
the Monuments in
Biblical Criticism
was published in 1912 at Oberlin by the Bibliotheca
Sacra
Company. (Bibliotheca Sacra, a conservative journal, was first published at
within
theological institutions.)
11 Reeve was part of the founding faculty of
the Seminary; in fact, he spoke at the
formal
opening of the Seminary,
(R. Baker, Tell the
Generations Following [Broadman, 1983] 142).
12 J. J. Reeve, "My Personal Experience
with the Higher Criticism," Back to the
Bible (ed.. A. C.
Dixon, W. H. Griffith Thomas; and James Orr;
n.d.) 216-39.
13 Ibid., 231.
Although such reasoning may not sound very academic, Reeve
seems
to have sensed an element missed by many other scholars. He
continued:
I have seen the Unitarian, the Jew, the free-thinker and the
Christian
who has imbibed critical views, in thorough
agreement on the Old
Testament and its teaching. They can readily hobnob together, for the
religious element becomes a lost quantity; the
Bible itself becomes a
plaything for the intellect, a merry-go-round for
the mind partially
intoxicated with its theory.14
But the change of world view of other professors was not only for
such
reasons as Reeve addressed, but from the ever-increasing flow of
newly
discovered factual data from the world of the Bible. Modern
critics
find it difficult to subscribe to the reconstruction of
history
proposed by Wellhausen, although they tenaciously
cling
to
many points in his systems--especially the documentary hypo-
thesis.
Meanwhile, much irresponsible harm was done by the Graf-
Wellhausen scheme of the
evolution of
T. Paine and R. Ingersoll, clearly identified popular American
infidels
and skeptics, set forth exactly the same views of Scripture and
Paine
stated bluntly:
Moses is not the author of the books ascribed to him.15
All the contradictions in time, place, and circumstances that
abound in
the books ascribed to Moses prove to a
demonstration that those books
could not be written by Moses, nor in the time
of Moses.16
The Book of Genesis, though it is placed first in the Bible and
ascribed to
Moses, has been manufactured by some unknown person, after the
Book
of Chronicles was written which was not
until at least eight hundred and
sixty years after the time of Moses.17
Not only Paine, but also Ingersoll stated exactly the same con-
clusions reached by the critics.
Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead--many centuries
after
all his followers had passed away--the
Pentateuch was written, the work
14 Ibid., 235. The
OT Department of Southwestern continued for many years to
oppose
higher criticism as the writings of faculty members B. A. Compass (1918-1942)
and
E. Leslie Carlson (1921-1964) reflect. Cf. e.g., Carlson's Confirming the
Scriptures
(Ft. Worth: Seminary Hill Bookstore, 1941).
15 T. Paine, The
Theological Words of Thomas Paine (
1854) 89.
16 Ibid., 87.
17 Ibid., 99.
286 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
of many writers, and to give it force and
authority it was claimed that
Moses was the author. We now know that the Pentateuch was not
written by Moses.18
Such conclusions, stated plainly in layman's language, merely
reflect
the
ideas of the professors of higher criticism.
Original literary and academic questions about the language and
nomenclature of the writings attributed to Moses eventually evolved
into
isolation of various documents which were assigned to anonymous
authors
spanning centuries of time. This in turn led to a new and very
different
understanding of
linear
evolutionary development of
this
took place essentially in an archaeological but certainly not a
philosophical vacuum. The weltanschauung ("world view") of
that
century
was one that confused progressive revelation with evolution
of
religion. Presuppositions more than facts affected the conclusions
drawn
by OT critics.
II. Reversals
The results of higher criticism were far more extensive and
damaging
than the few mentioned above would imply. Fortunately,
reversals
of many points held by critics have been required by new
discoveries.
New light on the history, geography, language, and cus-
toms
of the OT support, not negate, the factual content of Scripture.19
Armchair
speculation of higher criticism has been repeatedly over-
turned
by continuing discoveries from the lands of the Bible.20 (Of
course
the critics have been reluctant to admit the reversals caused by
these
discoveries.)
Our first example of a reversal of viewpoint concerns the subject
of
writing, although space does not permit a detailed discussion of
this
primary topic. Skepticism about writing during the time of Moses
was
voiced by a number of early critics. As late as 1892, H. Schultz
wrote,
"The time, of which the pre-Mosaic narrative treats, is a
sufficient
proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to all
18 R. Ingersoll, About the Holy Bible
(New York: C. P. Farrell, 1894) 8, quoted in
L.
W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the
Higher Critics (3rd ed.;
and
Eaton, 1896) 180.
19 An excellent summary is found in an early article by W. F.
Albright, "Archae-
ology Confronts Biblical Criticism," American
Scholar 7 (1938) 176-88.
20 One useful archaeological commentary on
the Bible with this type of presen-
tation is Joseph P. Free's
Archaeology and Bible History (5th ed.;
Scripture Press, 1956).
knowledge
of writing.21 P. Von Bohlen
scoffed at the idea of the
"undisciplined horde" of
and
others entertained various degrees of skepticism about the idea of
literacy
at the time of Moses.23 Wellhausen and
some early critics
grudgingly
admitted the possibility of early writing.
Such a low view of early
proven
completely unwarranted. We are now aware of at least five
different
scripts used during the Mosaic, patriarchal, and earlier
periods:
Egyptian hieroglyphic, Akkadian cuneiform, the
cuneiform
alphabet
of
syllabary of
The earliest critics were informed, to various degrees, on Hebrew,
Aramaic/Syriac, and Arabic. Some, like A. Dillman, also knew Ethi-
opic. But the founders of higher criticism
were totally ignorant of
such
important ancient cognate languages as Ugaritic and Akkadian-
not
to mention such non-Semitic languages as Egyptian, Hittite,
Hurrian, Sumerian, and
other less significant languages. Biblical
Hebrew
itself was known primarily via the tradition of the Jewish
scholars;
German Hebraists had just begun detailed systematic analysis
of
biblical Hebrew.24 Our
present knowledge of the Hebrew language
and
its background now enables us to answer many of the critics'
charges.
Words once claimed to be "late" (and therefore betraying a
"late" document) are now attested in the early Canaanite
source
materials
from
labeled
incorrect are now attested in the poetry of Ugaritic.25
21 H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology
(2 vols.; tr. 4th ed. J. A. Paterson;
22 P. Von Bohlen, Introduction to the
Book of Genesis (2 vols.;
1.29-41.
(This was a translation and selection from Die Genesis historisch-kritisch
erlautert [Konigsburg, 1835]). Von Bohlen studied
in
1828-1840.
23 A. Dillman
(1823-94) was famous for his studies in Ethiopic; he had studied
under
Ewald, as had also such notable scholars as Wellhausen, T. K. Cheyne,
T. Noldeke, and B. Duhm. He taught at
Reuss (1904-91) had studied under Eichhorn (
taught
H. K. Graf (
was
later than the prophets but did not publish his views because of the outcry
against
Vatke's Biblical Theology.
24 For a survey of Hebrew lexical studies,
see C. Marlowe, The Development of
Hebrew
Lexicography (unpublished
Th.D. dissertation; Mid-America Baptist Theo-
logical
Seminary, 1985).
25 For a detailed discussion of this point,
see the author's article, "Notes on Higher
Criticism
and the Dating of Biblical Hebrew," A Tribute to Gleason Archer
(ed. Walter
C.
Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood;
288 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
History is another area where reversals of critical theories have
been
required. The unbridled skepticism of early Bible history must
be
discontinued in the light of continuing illumination from archae-
ology. The patriarchal era was viewed by Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, and
O. Eissfeldt as a retrojection by
anonymous authors of a later date.
For Gunkel, the stories of the patriarchs were sagas, or
legends, in
contrast
to history proper; the patriarchal figures were considered
only
something like personified tribes. Despite the flood of evidence
to
the contrary, even later writers like Eissfeldt have
insisted that the
patriarchs
have thus become representative of the
post-Mosaic people
jected back into the pre-Mosaic age; what they
do and endure. . . reveals
indirectly the circumstances on an
However,
the wealth of background historical data for the patriarchal
period
has easily confirmed its general historical setting. Skepticism
about
the facticity of the patriarchal narratives became
less and less
realistic
with the new light on early Bible history. Archaeological
research
in the lands of the Bible has exposed more and more back-
ground
information which reveals the realistic setting of the patriarchs.
An example of a specific part of history questioned by critics was
the
matter of the Hittites. Some questioned the historicity of such a
people,
although they are mentioned about forty times in Scripture. As
late
as 1904, a "foremost archaeologist of
believe
there ever were such people as Hittites. . . ."27 Two years
earlier,
E. A. Budge, of the
about
any confirmation of their existence.28 But by 1906, H. Winkler
of
in
central
guage have been found, published, and studied.
G. F. Wright, of
who
had declared that "an alliance between
was
as improbable as would be one at the present time between
ance, not superior knowledge, which led so
many to discredit these
representations."30
26 O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (tr. P. R. Ackroyd; New
27 The unnamed archaeologist is mentioned by
M. G. Kyle, Back to the Bible 172.
28 E. A. Budge,
29 G. F. Wright, Back to the Bible,
133.
30
Ibid., 135. Our present knowledge of Hittites is vast.
We are able now to
identify
at least four distinct ethnic groups in antiquity to whom the name "Hittite"
has
Not only is the fact of Hittite existence thoroughly established;
we
now have a large corpus of Hittite texts, written in several dialects
and
scripts, representing virtually every genre of literature. In fact
some
scholars are Hittite specialists and have devoted their life to the
study
of this language and literature.
It seems absolutely incredible that a national culture whose very
existence
was once held in doubt by serious critics should now be the
source
of so much information on the background of the OT. A
primary
source of information on covenant-treaty forms is the Hittite
body
of literature. This in itself has bearing on the dating of the book
of
Deuteronomy and the attitude of higher criticism toward Deuter-
onomy as the book of the law emanating from the
time of Josiah.
Another specific example of a historical fact once doubted con-
cerns the Assyrian king Sargon, who is
mentioned only in Isa 20:1.
Since
he is mentioned only once in Scripture and for a time remained
unknown
from extra-biblical sources, his very existence was open to
doubt
by some critics.31 But in 1843, at Khorsabad,
near the site of
ancient
the
historicity of Sargon any longer.
Geography is another area where the former skepticism of critics
has
been reversed. Many small cities mentioned in the pages of
Scripture
but not mentioned elsewhere were lost for centuries. Until
the
spade of modern archaeology unearthed them and ancient docu-
ments identified them, skepticism about their
existence was unanswer-
able.
However, the continuing excavation of sites mentioned in the
Bible
has so consistently revealed geographical accuracy that no
thought
is given to it unless we stop to recall the distance in time the
author
may have been from the events described. For example, many
of
the towns mentioned in connection with Abraham have been
excavated
and identified and revealed to have been in existence at his
time.
Some alleged late writer of 800 B.C. or later would hardly have
been
in a position to know accurately the geographical details of a
millennium
earlier. This would be like a writer of 1986 A.D. describing
with
geographical precision the setting for a story of 986 A.D., or
earlier,
without the help of archaeology.
Geography is a science; it is of value in the study of the
accuracy
of
the OT records. One early (1912) biblical archaeologist wrote:
at
some time been applied. For a thorough discussion of this, see H. A. Hoffner's "The
Hittites
and Hurrians" Peoples of Old Testament Times
(ed. D. J. Wiseman;
Clarendon,
1973) 197-221.
31 Cf. G. L. Robinson, The
Bearing of Archaeology on the Old Testament (New
290 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The place, the most important mark of trustworthy testimony, is
being
established for the whole Bible story. . . . In this
fact we have a sub-
foundation for the confirmation of Scripture. . . .
It is the identifications
which differentiate history from myth,
geography from 'the land of
nowhere,' the record of events from tales of
'never was,' Scripture from
folklore and the gospel of the Savior of the world
from the delusions of
hope!32
However, some critics reject this line of reasoning. G. A. Smith
wrote:
Many legends are wonderful photographs of scenery. And, therefore,
let
us once admit that while we may have other
reasons for the truth of the
patriarchal narrative, we cannot prove this on the
ground that their
itineraries and place names are correct.33
But the accurate geographical details of Scripture appear natural
in
their contexts and do not reflect the imagination of a late scribe
writing
long after the era described.
A similar detail of natural accuracy shows up in the personal
names
of Scripture, which have been greatly illuminated and demon-
strated by archaeological discoveries, to be in
harmony with their
cultural
milieu. As in our modern era, certain kinds of personal names
were
in vogue in certain periods and areas. Because of the excavation,
discovery,
and publication of ancient texts, we now possess thousands
of
personal names in many different languages from the world of the
OT.
It would have been very easy for a late writer to be in error
concerning
names which were in vogue in a certain earlier period.
However,
personal names found in the archives of Mari and
match
up nicely with the personal names found in the patriarchal
period.34
Skepticism had been raised about the Egyptian names mentioned
in
connection with Joseph. M. Burrows wrote (1941), "As a matter of
fact,
the Egyptian names given in the Joseph story do not appear in
Professor
of Egyptology at the
32 Cf. Kyle, Deciding Voice of Monuments
51.
33 G. A. Smith, The
Historical Geography of the
34
part
of the 2nd millennium B.C. Cf. K. A. Kitchen, The Bible and Its World (
Paternoster,
1977) 52-53, 68; also see the same author's Ancient Orient and Old
Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity,
1966) 48-49.
35 M. Burrows, What Mean These Stones?
(
Oriental Research, 1941) 53.
"Names
of this type [Asenath] are not absolutely wanting in
the
earlier
periods, but they are extremely rare. . . ."36 This somewhat
grudging
admission was stated in a more positive way later (1937) by
C.
A. Barton, "The name of Joseph's wife, Asenath,
occurs from the
eighteenth
dynasty onward [1600 B.C.] and after."37 It would be most
surprising
for the alleged late scribe, writing centuries after the setting
of
his narrative, to come up with personal names that at first appeared--
according
to some meager information outside the Bible--to be out
of
harmony with the period setting but later proved exactly appro-
priate. Hommel,
Professor of Semitic Languages at the University of
One of the main objects, therefore, which I have kept before me in
writing this present book, has been to show that
even from the time of
Abraham onwards personal names of the characteristic Mosaic type
were in actual use among a section of the
Semites of Western Asia, and
that it is useless to talk any longer of later
post-exilic invention.38
Hommel optimistically envisioned a coming time
when
. . . men will be able to brush aside the
cobweb themes of the so-called
"higher critics" of the
Pentateuch, and, leaving such old-fashioned errors
behind them, attain to a clear perception of the
real facts.39
Several reversals concerning alleged anachronisms have been neces-
sary due to new information. One classic
example concerns Abraham's
camels.
Gen
took
camels with him into
ments revealed the presence of sheep, oxen, and
donkeys in
but
not the camel; therefore, the critics had usually set this aside as an
anachronistic reference. Now, archaeological evidence indicates an
early
presence of the camel in ancient
statuettes
and figurines of camels, plaques bearing representations of
camels,
rock carvings and drawings, camel bones, a camel skull,
and
camel-hair rope. These items range from the 7th century B.C.
36 T. Eric Peet,
1924) 101.
37 G. A. Barton, Archaeology and the
Bible (7th ed.;
Sunday School
38 F. Hommel, The
Ancient Hebrew Traditions as Illustrated by the Monuments:
A
Protest Against the
and
Leonard Crosslbe;
quoted
from J. W. McGarney's Biblical Criticism
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1956)
214.
39 Ibid., 214.
292 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
to
3000 B.C.40 The early use of the camel had been
doubted by Peet41
and
R. H. Pfeiffer.42 Even Albright was reluctant to concede this
biblical
fact; he did acknowledge that "partial sporadic domestication
may
go back" several centuries before 1000 B.C.43 Skepticism has
continued
on this issue44 despite continuing evidence to the contrary.45
Other alleged anachronisms raised by early critics--and still con-
tinued by some--include Philistines and Hittites
in the patriarchal
period.
The reference to Abraham's contact with Philistines (Gen
apparently
did not appear in
period.
M. Burrows wrote:
We have seen that the Philistines came into
the Early Iron Age, not far from 1200 B.C. it
is quite impossible to date
Abraham and Isaac as late as this, yet the book of Genesis
represents
both as having dealings with the Philistines
and their king, Abimelek
(Gen. 21:22-32; 26:1-33).46
Burrows, who was a professor at Yale, went on to explain this as
"a convenient and harmless anachronism" and concluded
"at any rate,
however,
the mistake may have come about, it is undoubtedly a
mistake."47
J. Bright48 and G. E. Wright49 also questioned these
refer-
ences to Philistines as early as the
patriarchal period. But as K. Kitchen
so
properly pointed out, this is an argument from silence; we know
little
about the Aegean peoples as compared to those of the rest of the
ancient
Near East during the 2nd millennium.50 Kitchen, and others,
have
suggested the term "Philistine" may have also been used of
40 For a summary of the evidence,
cf. J. P. Free, "Abraham's Camels," JNES
(1944) 144-93.
41 Peet,
42 R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the
Old Testament (rev. ed.;
and
Row, 1948) 154.
43 W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to
Christianity (
1940) 120.
He continued to hold a skeptical view in later years. Cf. JBL 64 (1945)
287
-88; The Archaeology of
44 J. Bright, A
History of
45 Old Babylonian and Sumerian texts now
support early use of the camel. Camel
bones
have been found in house ruins at Mari and in various Palestinian sites from
2000
B.C.
to 1200 B.C. For documentation, cf. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament,
79-80.
For the most recent discussion of the camel in the
Bible, see J. J. Davis, "The
Camel in Biblical Narratives," Tribute to Archer,
141-49.
46 Burrows, These Stones, 277.
47 Ibid.
48 Bright, History of
49 G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (n.p.: Gerald Duckworth, 1957) 40.
50 Kitchen, Ancient
Orient and the Old Testament, 80.
earlier
Aegean immigrants into
that
the Philistines came from Caphtor (
people
as the Caphtorim mentioned in Deut 2:33, the alleged anachro-
nism is removed.51
We conclude our survey of reversals of higher criticism with
some
observations on Genesis 14, a difficult passage which has received
scorn
and ridicule from unbelieving critics.
G. A. Barton believed the chapter to have been
composed by a late midrashic
writer who had, it is true, access to some
Babylonian data, partly late and partly early, but did not know
how to
use them. He lived so far from the times that
he had lost in part the
correct historical perspective. Archaeology thus
confirms the critical
results reached by Kuenen,
Wellhausen, Cornill Budde. . . . 52
T. Noldeke suggested in 1869 that this
chapter was a "fantastic
grouping
together of names, which either belonged to some remote
period
or were expressly invented for the occasion."53
Again, Noldeke was very skeptical of
this chapter when he wrote:
. . . the alliterative pairing also of the
names speaks more for their
fictitious than for their historical origin. . .
this whole expedition is histor-
ically improbable to the same extent that it is
adapted to the production
of a striking effect; the usual sign that it
is fictitious. . . . 54
Wellhausen wrote in 1889 that "all these
incidents [Gen. 14] are
sheer
impossibilities which gain nothing in credibility from the fact
that
they are placed in a world which had passed away."55
Admittedly, Genesis 14 is an unusual chapter as it sits in this
place
in
the story of Abraham. At one time the events narrated in this
passage
would indeed have seemed unnatural and unrealistic, but not
so
now. Reversals of attitude are again required of the critics who
once
heaped scorn upon this unusual chapter. Skepticism of the histor-
ical and geographical background of Genesis 14
is unwarranted and only
reflects
ignorance on the part of the one making it. It seems we need
to
be constantly reminded of the danger of the argument from silence,
51 For more detailed discussion on this
point, see Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 80-81.
See
also his discussion of "patriarchal Philistines" in "The
Philistines," Peoples of Old
Testament
Times (ed.
D. J. Wiseman;
52 G. A. Barton, "Abraham and Archaeology,"
JBL 28 (1909) 159-00.
53 Quoted by McGarvey,
Biblical Criticism, 216.
54 T. Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur kritik des Alten Testaments (
1869),
quoted by Kyle, Deciding Voice of the Monuments, 129.
55 Quoted by Hommel,
The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as Illustrated
by the
Monuments,
159.
This same quote from Wellhausen is also found in
Wright, "The
Testimony of the Monuments," Back to the Bible, 146.
294 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
especially
in view of our still very uneven and incomplete knowledge
of
the total history of the Ancient Near East.
Until 1975,
with
many other place names from that part of the world. Suddenly,
we
learn from archaeology that
economic
empire under a dynasty of six kings. The names of the
four
Eastern kings of Genesis 14 fit the period 2000-1700 B.C. Arioch
can
be compared to Arriyuk or Arriwuk
found in the Mari tablets or
perhaps
Ariukki of the Nuzi onomasticon. Tid'al has been
compared
to
Tudkhalia, a Hittite name used by several kings. Chedorlaomer is
probably
Elamite.56 Although we cannot yet identify these specific
kings,
the names fit what we know of name patterns for that general
time
and area. Some late, unknown, uninformed writer could easily
have
slipped in his story-telling; he could have used wrong name
types
or missed on some other point of background. But the more we
learn
of the background of this strange, often-criticized chapter, the
more
it all fits together. We now are aware that between 2000 and
1750
B.C., coalitions of kings, like those described in our chapter, were
an
outstanding feature of the politics of the day. One famous Mari
letter
mentions alliances of ten, fifteen, and even twenty kings, and
western
expeditions by eastern kings are known from at least Sargon
of
to
be overly-cautious in his assessment of it, but the setting is coming
more
into focus with continuing new light from ancient Near Eastern
studies.
Again, reversals of former critical attitudes are required;
earlier
skepticism of the chapter is fading in the light of new data.
Although the examples of reversals used in this article are from
the
Pentateuch, the remainder of the OT would yield many more
examples.
Daniel, for example, is another cause where former criticism
has
had to yield to new light on Belshazzar, Nabonidus,
and
Nebuchadnezzar
Unfortunately, the results of higher criticism still linger on in
many
ways. Although continually discredited by the results of
archaeological studies, the general attitude of skepticism toward
Scripture
remains unyielding. Although admission of certain points of
error
is to be found among the critics, the general acceptance of
higher
criticism is still found also. Newer forms of literary analysis too
often
assume certain "assured results" from the classical era of higher
criticism.
56 For bibliography on discussions about
these names, cf. Kitchen, Ancient Orient
and
Old Testament,
43-44.
57 For documentation, cf. Kitchen, The
Bible in Its World, 73.
:
The
www.criswell.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium