Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

5. Documentary Sources

We have already seen that it is characteristic of Biblical History to use earlier documents. The Higher Criticism has shown the documentary sources of our Hexateuch in four great narratives. It is also at work on these narratives in detail, and finds that each of them used still more ancient sources. There are several distinct strata of the priestly narratives. There are also two strata of the Deuteronomic writers clearly marked. The work of distinguishing primary Judaic and Ephraimitic writers has not as yet reached such decided results; but we may confidently expect that it will ere long attain them. Thus we have disclosed in Hebrew historical composition a working over and a reworking over, in several stages, of original documents; which documents, of great antiquity themselves, used the sources already pointed out; and thus we are enabled to sift the material and arrange it in the order of its genesis, and to test its real historical value.

So in the New Testament we have at last gained firm ground in the two written sources of the synoptic Gospels, the original St. Mark and the Logia of St. Matthew. We have still to determine the other written sources of Luke, and to distinguish the apostolic source or sources of the Gospel of John and the book of Acts. These problems will eventually be solved; and the historical value of the material will be greatly increased by this thorough sifting and arranging.

There are some who shrink from the late dates to which the Higher Criticism refers the historical documents of the Bible in their present form. They think this impairs and threatens to destroy their historicity. There can be no doubt that nearness to the event is valuable to the historian, and remoteness in a measure impairs his testimony. But while this is true, yet the historicity of the material is not really impaired by the remoteness of the event reported, provided we have sufficient evidence that the historian used for his purpose proper sources of information, which bridge the chasm between him and the event. An early writer who did not use documentary sources is really not as reliable an authority as a later writer who did

use documentary sources. The evidence that the Higher Criticism affords for the fidelity of ancient biblical writers to their documents that they used them, just as they were, without any apparent effort to harmonize them, or to remove discrepanciesis a strong evidence of their historicity. As Robertson says:

"It seems to be too readily assumed and too readily admitted, that contemporaneousness and credibility of documents are necessarily inseparable, or to be inferred as a matter of course one from the other. A moment's reflection will show that an event may have historically occurred, and that we may have good evidence of it, even although no account of it was written down at the moment of its occurrence; as also that false statements in regard to certain matters of fact may be made, and put on record at the time of the actual occurrences. The mere writing down of these at the time does not make them credible, nor does the omission to write those make them incredible. Assyrian and Egyptian kings may lie upon stone monuments- very probably they did in regard to events of their own day; and Hebrew historians may tell us a true story of their history, though they wrote it long after the events. The point to be established is, that for the biblical theory of the history it does not matter who wrote the historical books. The theory does indeed imply that those books contain true history; but its acceptance of the facts does not depend on a knowledge of who wrote them down; for on this point the books themselves are for the most part silent. Moses may have written much, or may have written little, of what is contained in the Pentateuch; it will remain unknown who were the authors of the succeeding books: our knowledge of these things would not necessarily guarantee the history. The biblical theory, as an account of the manner in which things took place, does not stand or fall by the determination of the contemporaneousness of documents, and the modern theory certainly has no higher claim to the possession of contemporary sources for its support."1

VIII. THE HISTORIC IMAGINATION

After all has been said as to the use of the sources of the biblical historians, there can be no doubt that they also used their historical imagination. This is not a fault. It is an excellence. It is an essential quality of all the best historic

1 Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, 1892, pp. 46-47.

writing in all ages. It is doubtful whether better examples of its use can be found than in the biblical histories. We have to remember that the writers of biblical history were aiming above all to be religious teachers; and that they did not study the histories with a purely historic interest, but with a very practical interest, as prophets or as priests.

As Kent says:

"From these many sources the prophets gleaned their illustrations and the data wherewith they reconstructed the outlines of their nation's history, which was itself a supreme illustration of the truths concerning Jehovah which they wished to impress. Scientific or historic accuracy they did not claim. One's respect, however, for the Old Testament and the work of the prophets deepens when it is perceived that they were subject to all the limitations of an era when scientific methods of investigation were unknown and the exact historic spirit still unborn. The scientific and historical variations are in themselves proofs of the truth of the divine message which was thus given forth in a form attractive and intelligible to all."1

Therefore we have to take into account the point of view of those priests who wrote the priestly section of the Hexateuch and the work of the Chronicler. Their priestly interest determined their choice of material, the use they made of it, and the colours and shading which their imagination put upon it. There can be no doubt that they idealize the history in the interests of the priesthood and the temple and the Levitical law.

So the point of view of the Deuteronomic writers is the Deuteronomic Law, and they judge the history by that Law, and they idealize Moses and the entire previous history in the light of that Law. Even the earlier prophets, who wrote the Ephraimitic and Judaic narratives, wrote in the prophetic interests of their times.2

We may say with reference to them all that they did not, and could not, distinguish between truth and the fiction in any of the older legends and historic documents at their disposal. They could not separate the bare fact from its mythical, leg

1 Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, 1896, p. 12.

2 See Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new ed., 1897, pp. 126 seq.

endary, and poetic embellishment. Indeed, they preferred it as thus embellished, for it was more appropriate in this form for their purpose of instruction. Furthermore, it is evident that they did not hesitate to indulge themselves in historical fiction where they had not sufficient historic information and the lessons had yet to be taught. Midrashim of this sort are incorporated here and there throughout the history. It is only by the use of the Higher Criticism assisted by historical criticism that they can be eliminated.

There is no evidence that the Divine Spirit guided these historians in their historic investigations so as to keep them from historic errors. The Divine Spirit guided them in their religious instruction in the lessons they taught from history. But there is no evidence of other guidance. The evidence is all against such guidance as prevented them from making historic errors. They certainly did record error. The words of Ottley are appropriate here:

"On a survey of the ground we have traversed, it appears that there are good reasons for believing that the inspired writers give a presentation of the facts which is not primarily historical, but prophetic, their main design being that of religious edification. It follows that we can await with equanimity the verdict of criticism in regard to the exact historical worth of the narrative. That there is a great regard for certain outstanding facts of the history is unquestionable, but the facts are often coloured by high imaginative power, and are estimated according to moral significance. In regard to minor details there is ample room for diversity of opinion. To take two passing illustrations. The religious lessons of Samson's history are not materially affected by any particular view respecting the precise character of the narrative which describes his career. The portrait of David is not the less a treasure for all time because to a great extent it is idealized by devout writers of a later age. The important question is whether, in their interpretation of Israel's history, the prophetic writers of the Old Testament are fundamentally wrong. We have found reasons for supposing that in its general point of view 'the prophetic philosophy of history' is true, and we may accept the cautious summary of Professor Robertson as fairly stating our conclusions. 'The great events,' he says, 'of Israel's history, the turning-points, the points determinative of the whole life and history, are attested by the nation at

the earliest time at which we are enabled to look for materials on which an opinion can be based. No reason can be given for the invention of them just at this time, or for the significance which the prophets assign to them. It may be that a fond memory invested with a halo of glory the great fathers of the race; it may also be that a simple piety saw wonders where a modern age would see none. Yet the individuality of the characters is not destroyed, nor are the sequence of events and the delineations of character shown to be the work of a fitful and unbridled imagination.'" 1

It is quite true that from this point of view it is difficult to draw the line between historic fact and historic fiction; and to many minds it is painful to transfer that material to the realm of fiction which they had always supposed was safe in the realm of historic fact. It is still more difficult for some minds to be unable to draw the lines and to be left in uncertainty. Nevertheless this is the exact situation in which we are left in the study of Biblical History; and the only thing we can do, so far as the study of that history is concerned, is faithfully to apply the principles of Historical Criticism and to abide by the results. We cannot change the facts, discolour them or distort them, in order to ease the intellectual and moral difficulties of those who are loath to accept the results of Historical Criticism. If these persons are unwilling to make the investigations themselves, they must be content to abide the decision. that may be reached by scholars who reverently and conscientiously, and yet rigorously and thoroughly, make the necessary researches.

But apart from the interests of history, it makes not the slightest difference so far as the teaching of the Bible as to faith and morals is concerned, how greatly the proportions of fact and fiction, of the real and ideal, may be changed in the progress of Historical Criticism, so long as the great historic events upon which our religion depends remain unimpeached. To impeach the historicity of the incarnation and the resurrection of our Lord destroys the Christian religion. Some critics seek to do this by the use of Historical Criticism; but Historical Criticism is really the sure weapon which God has put into 1 Ottley, Aspects of the Old Testament, 1897, pp. 156-158.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »