Protopresbyter
Michael Pomazansky
Content:
Western rationalistic biblical criticism is a phenomenon of long
standing, dating back approximately 200 years. It flourished towards the end of
the 19th century, and in our century has become only more widely popularized.
It bears the title “scientific,” but, we know how often — especially in the
field of history — the personal, predetermined conceptions of a world-view are
reflected in the conclusions of researchers who arrive at these conclusions
ahead of time.
With what points of
view do the people of this century approach the Bible, or, in this case, the
Old Testament? For the intelligent Jew, it is his natural heritage, a source
for the study of the ancient mode of life of his ancestors, his tradition, his
history, instinctive thought patterns, his culture. For the non-believer, it
is a book which elicits hostility and rejection. He is prepared to study this
subject with the special intent of undermining belief in its very authenticity
and, in general, in its truthfulness, its ideas, and its values. The
inquisitive scholar, whose mind greedily seeks material for his work as the
root of a plant seeks out moisture in the earth, approaches the Bible as a
collection of literary monuments which is in need of an objective research in
accordance with the principles of a scientific positivism which excludes from
its field of vision the activity of the Providence of God. A person of faith,
for whom the Bible is sacred, takes part in this work of criticism least of
all, and if he does approach it, it is, as a matter of principle, with a different
orientation which does not fit the methodological tracks of the exact sciences.
It must be admitted
that the historical research of the distant past, whose sources are only
incidental and incomplete historical and archaeological data, which are often
indirect, should generally be approached with caution, no matter how
“splendidly served up” this data may be (as the late Prof. A. Kartashev of the
Paris Theological Institute, a scholar of biblical criticism, himself stated
concerning its findings). Before us lies the rich ground of observations of
non-biblical, literary-historical criticism which forces us to be alert to the
learned conclusions of criticism. The “Slovo ο Polku Igoreve,” Lay of the Hosts
of Igor was long subject to rejection or to doubts as to its authenticity, and
in recent times its authenticity was subjected to criticism by the French
scholar, Dr. Mason. Yet Russian archaeologists are even now determining the
boundaries of ancient fortifications and other sites for excavation according
to the information contained in the “Slovo ο Polku Igoreve.” We see also how
much error is stubbornly held onto in the scholarly works of the West regarding
the history of 19th century Russia, not to speak of the great difficulty with
which a true portrayal of the causes of the Russian revolution is coming to
light.
This so-called
“scientific” biblical criticism is a product of the Protestant world. Such is
the irony of fate — that the same religious movement in Christianity which
rejected the living voice of the Church which is contained in its sacred Tradition,
and recognized the Bible as the sole source of the teaching of the Faith, which
saw divine inspiration in each letter of the Scriptures, specifically took upon
themselves the task of dismantling of their own foundation. Feeling for the
sanctity of the Scriptures grew cold among these theologians. It was left for
them only to ponder: whence and when came each stone of the foundation, with
what is it cemented, what renovations have been carried out on this mass,
additions thereto, etc.? Hypothesis followed hypothesis. For the work to be
accepted it was necessary to employ “scientific methods of research.” But
scientific methods are based on the principles of positivism, one of whose
principles is the rejection of the supernatural element in the life of the
world, and especially in historical events. Willingly or unwillingly, for
Protestant theology, which was included as one of the faculties of university
sciences, this meant accepting the methodological principles common to all the
other sciences. Thus, for example, if in the sacred books one or another
prophecy is given, and then the fulfillment of that prophecy is indicated, the
researcher of the text feels he has every right to conclude that the prophecy
was written after the event it concerns. This is one of a series of factors
which have determined the direction of contemporary biblical criticism. Even
one such detail in the methods of research should warn us ahead of time against
completely trusting the conclusions of this criticism. For belief in the
Providence and the foreknowledge of God is inherent in the Christian, and this
means faith in the possibility of communications to people accounted worthy
(the prophets), or knowledge of coming events, be they in the form of visible
images, as clear premonitions, or as direct revelations.
The negative side of
contemporary biblical criticism lies in its offhanded dissection of the text
of the Bible, and in this way the Bible itself becomes lifeless matter for its
critics and those who follow them. A feeling for the sanctity of the Bible has
already been killed in them. By destroying the integrity of the text of the
sacred books, they deprive the Bible of its soul. Dissecting its physiological
side, they are no longer capable of seeing its psychological influence. Will a
person studying the physiology of the eye discern during his investigation that
the eyes are an expression of the soul? That the eyes of another person can
pierce straight through you? That eyes can be kind, evil, soft, sharp, insolent,
envious, frightening, mad? That eyes hypnotize? Just as a physiologist cannot
discover these characteristics in studying the eyes, so too the positivist
critic cannot find in the Bible the confirmation of faith, a consciousness of
Divine Providence, moral nourishment for his soul. With what they themselves
breathe [i.e., their attitude], people naturally contaminate others, destroying
in them the capacity for faith. The scholars themselves feel exalted far above
the material, as above the naive primitive. In fact, their own era is negatively
reflected in this criticism. Living as they do in an age full of falsehood in
the mutual relations between people and between governments, under the cover of
cultural conventions, critics are prepared to find the same hidden
characteristics in the Bible. In their statements the religious leaders of the
people are passing off what is new as ancient, the works of their own hands as
the writings of great authorities, that which they themselves have perceived
as the foresight of prophets. In the eyes of criticism, all of these tactics of
craftiness, forgery, falsification, deception, were supposed to help attain
noble religious, moral and political goals; and no matter how surprising, how
strange it might seem, they have produced, as admitted by the same scholars,
the most futile results!?
The Bible itself does
not present its soul and its body to us in this way. It impresses upon us that
nothing remains hidden from the eyes of God, nor, sooner or later, from the
people: for there is nothing… hidden, that shall not be known (Matt.
10:26). The Bible constantly calls us to think and live in truth,
righteousness, justice, purity of mind and senses, and in holiness of deed. It
brands every lie, deception, wickedness, hypocrisy: A good tree cannot bring
forth bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matt.
7:18). It teaches that righteousness cannot be attained through falsehood,
holiness through hypocrisy; that faith cannot be exalted or strengthened by deception.
The sacred writers, in the depth of their own humility, never even thought of
expressing their own thoughts or teachings: they transmitted only the will of
God, believing that the voice of God spoke through their humility; and the
compilers of their writings approached their own task with the consciousness
that they were touching holy objects.
The critics’ work of
dissecting the Bible is very carefully divided. It comprises two levels —
first, “lower criticism”; second, “higher criticism.” The first concerns itself
with philological aspects, the lexicon of the Bible, the material of
comparative linguistics. The second concerns itself with researching the
literary content of the Bible from the point of view of its sources, with
questions as to the authorship of the books, with proposals of literary
borrowing, with confirmation from the point of view of historical and
archaeological data. Unfortunately, set on a ready-made track which leads in a
particular direction, it rolls along without ever looking back.
We should not be
troubled that the conclusions of scientific criticism are accepted by today’s
learned Protestant theologians, and that lately even Roman Catholic theology
has bowed down before it, and that they have even been sanctioned by the
highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church, with the Nihil Obstat stamp in
the recently published Catholic Encyclopedia of the Twentieth Century.
But we cannot remain silent, for these conclusions are already invading
Orthodox theological schools. The Orthodox Theological Institute of Paris has
already approved them in the speech which Professor Kartashev delivered at the
graduation ceremonies of the Institute “Academy” in the presence of
Metropolitan Evlogy and honored guests in 1944, (published in 1947). In
Professor Kartashev’s speech these conclusions cast a shadow over New Testament
Scriptures as well. One cannot but sense in these manifestations the tendency
towards general disintegration and mass leveling which is apparent in all of
the trends of modern civilization, including decisive steps towards widespread
religious equalization and merging in the contemporary world, which can be
attained only through the rejection of many values and dogmas that have
hitherto been considered inviolable.
The structure of
biblical criticism is founded on a series of hypotheses, and up to now has in
its details been continually rebuilt, leading ever further away from the truth.
We believe that a time will come when one of its principal hypothetical
supports will crumble and a long portion of the building will collapse. We do
not say the whole building, as we do not deny that through research new
historical data are found, to add to and to cast light on views on particular
questions, and perhaps in some cases to replace inaccurate views on the period
of time or the authorship of one or another of the books of the Old Testament.
New opinions on
determining the time of the writing of the various books of the Sacred
Scriptures, or even, in some cases, the authorship, do not yet necessarily
betoken the undermining of the sacred authority of a book of the Old Testament.
The Church accepted the canon of the books of the Old Testament from the Old
Testament Church as it was compiled and confirmed around the time of Ezra,
without investigating the history of each book. What was important was that
each book contained valuable material which teaches doctrine and morality and,
most important, each confirmed the chosen people’s expectation of the Messiah.
As is known, in the greater part of the books of the Old Testament the author
is not named in the text itself, and several books are called simply by the
names of the individuals with whom they primarily deal. In the books of the
holy writers there are chapters written by other people, in which we are told,
for example, about the final testament, the death and the burial of the holy
writer of the given book. As for what concerns the divine inspiration of the
sacred books, their content itself bears witness to it. For us one thing is
important: that these books were written by “holy men of God.”
In connection with
what has been said, we trust it will not be superfluous first to outline
briefly the Orthodox Christian attitude towards the Old Testament, then to put
forth the content and character of rationalistic criticism, and afterwards to
give an answer thereto which is governed by an Orthodox consciousness, derived
from logical and psychological considerations and archaeological data.
The Christian’s attitude towards
the Old Testament is determined by the teachings of the Saviour. In the Old
Testament books, lost, as it were, among the Mosaic books that set forth the
Law and determined the standards of everyday life, Christ has shown us a
higher, unexcelled, eternal commandment: Thou shall love the Lord thy God
with all thy hearty and with all thy soul ana with all thy mind… and the
second is like it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. 22:37,
39). He also said: Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me (John 5:39). The
unquestionable value of these Scriptures, for us Christians, even more than for
the Jews, is determined by this testimony concerning Christ. As to individual
books of the Old Testament, they acquire significance for us depending upon
their relative worth as school masters which bring us unto Christ (Gal.
3:24), i.e., teachers who lead to Christ the chosen portion of humanity, as the
Apostle Paul puts it. Some aspects of the Old Testament remained relevant only
until the time of reformation, i.e., until the coming of the Saviour
(Heb. 9:8-10). The Apostle Paul writes that the establishment of the New
Testament made the first old (Heb. 8:13). We find the limitations of the
Old Testament conception of God especially in those passages in the Old
Testament books where, for example, God’s allowing the cruel slaughter of
foreigners by the people of Israel is taken as a command of God, as we
read for example, in the book of Joshua. The weakness, the relativity of
religious and moral conceptions corresponding to the infantile and youthful
state of humanity and ancient Judaism, damaged moreover by sin from time
immemorial, are frequently expressed there, even in those cases when they are
sanctioned by the name of God.
Nevertheless, even
these facts do not mean that the Old Testament loses its value in Christianity.
This can be seen by all in the way that the Church treasures the texts of the
books of the Old Testament, how it guards their every letter. Two thousand
years have passed since the Old Testament period came to an end. Yet still,
unchangingly, the Psalter is read at all the divine services in Orthodox
churches, and just as unchangingly, it would seem, are preserved words which
are foreign to us — Israel, Sion, tribe of Judah, tribe of Ephraim, the names
of various ancient peoples: Ammonites, Moabites and others, and also,
expressions which one might think of as not being essentially Christian, such
as, In the morning I slew all the sinners of the land (Ps. 100:8).
However, the words and the expressions have remained, but their meaning has
changed. Such expressions have acquired a new meaning — the spiritual Israel, the
heavenly Sion, the battle against the spiritual foe, spirits of wickedness in
high places. It can be said that the Psalter has become the model for Christian
prayer, and all of our divine services are saturated with excerpts from it and
other books.
The content of the
Old Testament Scriptures was Christianized by the Church. Within the Church the
Old Testament Scriptures have been filled with the thought of Christ, of the
Cross, of the Mother of God. “Having made the sign of the Cross with his staff,
Moses straightway divided the Red Sea…,” “Horse and rider did Christ cast down
in the Red Sea…”; and the three youths of Babylon were saved by Christ from the
fire in the furnace: “…Christ spread a spiritual dew upon the children that
revered God…” And the Prophet Jonah was saved through the Cross: “In the belly
of the beast of the waters Jonah stretched out his hands in the form of a
cross…” Only for the childish mind is the Old Testament set forth as “sacred
history,” as if “history” comprises its essence for a Christian. However, for
us adults, especially through the content of the hymnography of the divine
services, a more lofty understanding of it is revealed, shadowy and prefigurative.
Many of the Fathers of the Church teach us to prefer the spiritual aspect of
the Bible to literal interpretation. Saint Maximus the Confessor teaches that:
“In Sacred Scripture it is possible to distinguish between flesh and spirit, as
if it were a person of sorts. And he that would say that the letter of the
Scripture is its flesh, and its meaning its spirit or soul, would not sin
against the truth. It is plain, then, that wise is he who, leaving the flesh as
something corruptible, cleaveth wholly to the spirit, as something that doth
not decay.” And Saint Maximus himself, in his interpretations of the Sacred
Scriptures, emphasizes its mystical-kerygmatic meaning, leaving aside its
narrative aspect as “flesh.” And the Canon of Saint Andrew of Crete chanted
during the Great Fast provides us with an example of how persons and events of
the Old Testament become symbols of the spiritual falls and rebirths of the
Christian. However, if one does not know the contents of biblical history, one
will not receive the intended edification from the elevated content of the
Canon.
Sacred Scripture is
divinely inspired. But divine inspiration is not the same as omniscience. The
authors of the sacred books were men who were raised above the common
religious-moral level, capable of sensing and of absorbing the inspiration of
the forces of Grace, and, especially at certain moments, of rising to spiritual
heights, of experiencing the illumination of mystical light, and, finally, were
capable of reaching moments when they could hear unspeakable words, which it
is not lawful for a man to utter (II Cor. 12:4), which were transmitted
through them, or at other times remained unexpressed and inexpressible by
words. But these same Scriptures contain an abundance of ordinary material:
sacred and popular traditions, genealogies, religious and civil law,
historical events, pictures of everyday life — in a word, that which the
authors considered worthy of preservation in the memory of future generations
as a support for their faith and spirit. In their entirety, the Sacred
Scriptures are sanctified, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and each of their
component parts corresponds to the sacred contents and holy aim of the whole,
as, let us say, a bird’s feather to the bodily structure of the whole bird, or
as every sacred object accepted for use in a church, for they serve for the
greater glory of God.
We are guided by
these basic conditions when we approach the theories of so-called “scientific”
biblical criticism of modern times.
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.
It is especially interesting for us
to see how Roman Catholic theology approaches the conclusions of the new
biblical criticism. Among Christians of other confessions the Roman Church of
the second millennium had and has a more complete and, in its own way, a more
fully developed theological and church-historical science, in consequence of
which its system of corresponding alterations found for themselves a visible
reflection in Russian theology of the most recent centuries. But how far has it
now departed from its own traditions!
The basic tendency of
Roman Catholic ecclesiastical thought has usually been conservative. This can
be said of the leadership of the Vatican to an even greater degree. Until the
last several decades it has always restrained tendencies towards liberal
leanings. During the time of the religious reformation of Luther, the Pope,
supported by the Council of Trent, forbade lay people to read the Bible. Now
Roman theologians explain that this prohibition referred to “free translations
which were not sanctioned by the Church.”
How has the See of
Rome reacted to the conclusions of biblical criticism?
In the first decades
of our century, they were subject to condemnation. Subsequently, however,
voices were raised proclaiming the necessity of making a wide opening into the
sphere of Catholic thought and world-view for the achievements of the natural
sciences in their various forms to enter. Along with this, a reversal took
place in theological thought itself with the acceptance of new views on the
content of the Bible and the origin of the Scriptures, in the spirit of the
new biblical criticism. The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism,
projected at 150 volumes, with headings in 16 series, first began to see print
in 1956, in French, English and other languages. The series “Nature and Man”
included such headings as: “The Origin of Man,” “Evolution,” “What is Man?,”
“What is Life?,” the aim of which was to reconcile the findings of contemporary
natural sciences with basic Roman Catholic dogma. The sixth series of volumes
deals with the subject of the “Word of God,” in other words, the Bible as a
whole, its parts and aspects, and it must be said that the conclusions of
contemporary biblical criticism have been completely accepted. All of the
volumes of the Encyclopedia bear the authorization and approval of the Roman
Catholic censorship: the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
Here we see an
agreement of views on the Old Testament of leftist-Protestant criticism and
Roman Catholic theology on the main points. Are the foundations of these new
views solid? Actually, they are completely hypothetical, and are rooted in
their own sort of passion for discovery, for innovation and, at the same time,
in a suspicious, skeptical attitude towards that which in the past was
elevated, pure, and holy. These new views not only lessen the merit of the schoolmasters
that lead men to Christ, i.e. those of the Old Testament Church, but also
cast a shadow over the New Testament, over the writings of the apostles. The
content of the Pentateuch is cited in the Psalms, by the prophets, in the
preaching of the apostles, in the book of Acts (see the sermon of the Apostle
Paul in ch. 13), and by the Saviour Himself, when, while instructing the Jews,
He left these words for us as well: For had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed Me; for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall
ye believe My words? (John 5:46-47).
Among the questions raised by biblical criticism of the Old
Testament based on the principles of positivism, the question of the Pentateuch
and by whom it was compiled becomes, of course, the basic, or key issue. Of
course it would be naive to draw a picture of the labor of the compiler of what
is acknowledged as the most ancient of mankind’s literary monuments in such a
way as to portray it as taking place under the conditions of contemporary
literary work, a developed technology of writing, and the other comforts of
culture. It is not necessary to insist on ascribing the Pentateuch solely and
literally to the hand of the Prophet Moses the God-seer. What is important is
the recognition that all of it proceeds from the Prophet himself. For us and,
in general, for people who approach reading the Bible without a preconceived
suspicion, there can be no doubt as to its Mosaic authorship. Both textual and
psychological reasons confirm this beyond a doubt.
We will make use of
the voice of learned researchers who have not accepted and do not accept the
conclusions of criticism on the given question. Yet, even if one were not to
resort to learned authorities, a whole series of simple considerations, which
turn us away from the conclusions of this criticism, occurs of its own accord
to the ordinary reader of Scripture. The same thing could happen to the
critics of the text who are enamored of their own hypothetical concepts, as
occurs when one is in the thick of a forest for a long time; one can lose that
spontaneous impression of a picture of the forest, which is received when
viewed from a particular perspective.
It is sufficient to recognize, or
at least assume, that both names, Yahweh and Elohim, were current in the time
of Moses, to understand the impossibility for a writer completely to ignore one
name of God, as if it were unworthy of being included in the book, and use the
other exclusively. Thus, in their epistles the apostles call our Saviour
either Lord, or Christ, or just Jesus, or they use all three names together. We
see the same thing in our prayerful appeals to God: the appellations “God” and
“Lord” are constantly interchanged.
Criticism does not
seem to make any effort to pause and consider what it was that must have
motivated the Prophet Moses to use two names of God in turn. The name of God
“Elohim” is exalted, primordial, ancestral, and at the same time deeply
mystical. Its grammatical form in the plural (the singular form is Eloah), was
obviously an expression of reverence with the Hebrews, as in Russian “Bы” (you — polite form) shows respect
for a person. However, on becoming part of the common speech of the people,
this mystical plural form, which for Christians is a sign of the dogma of the
All-holy Trinity, could then turn the thought of the Hebrew people in the
direction of polytheism. It was important to make room for another name of God
which would not even have a grammatical plural form. Evidently, it was not
then foreign to Hebrew speech. In the revelation to Moses in the burning bush,
God revealed Himself under the name of Yahweh — “I am He Who is.” And Moses
records the exalted meaning of the name in his book.
Is Yahweh presented
in the Pentateuch as the national God of the Hebrews? No; for in the book of
Genesis Yahweh creates man not as the ancestor of the Hebrew nation alone, but
as the ancestor of all mankind. Gradually Moses introduced this name into the
narrative of the book of Genesis, and from the book of Exodus on it is used
predominantly; undoubtedly it was introduced into the oral speech of the people
to the same extent.
The critics see a radical
difference between the first and second chapters of the book of Genesis.
However, in over two hundred years criticism has not reached any agreement as
to when the first chapter was written: at the beginning of the era of the
kings, or after the Babylonian captivity?
Nevertheless, it is
possible to indicate a convenient clue in the text which points to the antiquity
and unity of origin of both chapters. This clue is the “giving of names.” In
the first chapter: “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called
night,” “And God called the firmament Heaven,” “And God called the dry land
earth, and the gatherings of the waters He called seas…” In the second chapter:
“And God formed… all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the
sky, and He brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them, and whatever
Adam called any living creature, that was the name of it. And Adam gave names
to all the cattle and to all the birds of the sky, and to all the wild beasts
of the field…” After woman was created for him, Adam said: “She shall be called
woman, because she was taken out of her husband.” It would seem that such
details, e.g., the giving of names, indicated in the history of the creation of
the world, are unessential. But we encounter them in both chapters, and this
indicates a unity of thought, a tendency. What language for this name-giving
did the author of Genesis have in mind? If we attribute the writing of these
chapters to the most ancient times, to the age of Moses, then the author of
Genesis obviously had in mind a time when the original unity of language was
still sensed, when the traditions of the time before the construction of
the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, were kept — traditions which
were brought from Mesopotamia by the Patriarch Abraham.
How exactly is the
unity of thought in both chapters demonstrated here, where in the first God
gives the names; in the second, Adam? We answer: the unity is evident in the
concept of the value of the word, the value of human speech, as a gift of God.
Originally, in the first chapter, the naming of God’s creations proceeded from
the mouth of God Himself; and later, in the second chapter, the gift of speech
is communicated by God to man. He is left to create names for the creations of
God, but under the direction of God Himself. The form of the providential actions
of God changes, but the thought of the author of Genesis concerning them continues
according to a single, harmonious plan. This is no mechanical amalgam
of two texts.
We see the same close
bond of concepts, not accidental but organic, between the first and third
chapters of the book of Genesis. The problem of evil already arises in the
first chapter. If, as we read there, everything left the hands of the Creator
perfect; if “God saw that... they were very good,” then from whence do evil,
illness, suffering, death, arise? The answer is given immediately: the account
of the fall into sin at the end of the second and in all of the third chapter.
The difference of
styles between the “two versions” is determined by the critics in the following
manner: the “E” version is dry, but more elevated and intellectual; the “Y”
version, while livelier and more concrete, is naive and worldly in spirit. But
this absence of uniformity can be explained naturally. It is sufficient to
assume that Moses had two sources for his narratives. One was oral traditions,
more picturesque, the material for “Y”; the other sources were genealogical,
ancient cuneiform inscriptions on tablets, legends about events of the past
that might have been preserved in the family of Abraham and brought with them
out of Mesopotamia, comprising the material designated by critics as “E.”
Besides which, is it at all possible to call simplistic or primitive the profound
content that is hidden, for example, in the expression “the tree of knowledge
of good and evil,” considered to be part of the “Y” version? This expression
has retained its vividness for ages and millennia. All of mankind’s culture
which always carries within itself two opposing elements — good and evil — can
be defined by it, when access to the Tree of Life is so difficult and when the
fruits of culture are so readily capable of leading to death, both spiritual
and physical.
People repeat themselves for
various reasons. The compiler of the Pentateuch need not have had only a single
reason for his repetitions. If, because of the presence of repetition, the
conclusion is drawn that later compilers of the present text had before them
two sources, two versions, then why not assume that at times Moses had before
his eyes parallel, fragmentary one, two or even three sources of Canaanite or
Chaldean origin, since at that time ancient Chaldea, like Egypt, had its own
writing? This is one possible reason for the repetitions indicated. Another
reason could be the difficult technique of ancient writing: inscriptions on
individual clay or wood tablets, on sheets of papyrus, which could later be
transferred twice to parchment scrolls; then also the slowness of writing,
during which the continuity of the narrative was broken, necessitating the
return to details of an event already recorded.
It is essential also
to consider the psychological bases for repetition. The ancient writer, not
having at his disposal either a sufficient variety of terms or force of
expression due to the meager content of the vocabulary of an ancient language,
resorted to the device of repetition to concentrate attention on his thought or
on the importance of an event, emphasizing thereby the importance of the given
statement. But the scrupulous critic, failing to take this into account, could
possibly infer, for instance, while reading the title of the Russian Primary
Chronicle, “This is the chronicle of past years, from whence came the Russian
land, who first began to rule in Kiev, and from whence the Russian land came to
be,” that two versions are hidden in this heading, since it contains two
subordinate clauses, of one and the same content. Repetitions for expressing the
importance of an action are frequent in the Bible. Such are “And God said” in
the description of the creation of the world; in the Psalms, With patience
I waited patiently for the Lord (Ps. 39:2), and others.
Let us here benefit
from the thoughts of Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow, written more than one
hundred years ago concerning the very same arguments which criticism uses
today. He writes: “In it [the Pentateuch] repetitions of the same thought and
sometimes seeming contradictions are encountered… very frequently narratives
are interrupted by long speeches and other digressions; laws are laid down in
the context of events, and not at all with the order and strictness that is
found in exact codices. In general, no purposeful attention to the skillful
arrangement and exposition of subjects is in evidence. And all of this should
be in the Pentateuch if its author is Moses. He has described events as the
events occurred. Therefore, it is natural, that when narrating something, he
suddenly breaks off the story and inserts his speech to the people, as it was
in reality; in the book he makes the same repetitions which really took place
and, speaking about some event, then and there sets forth the law to which that
event gave rise. Moses had no need to set down skillful transitions in his
book… Frequent repetitions of the same statements, forceful discourses with
the people, fatherly admonitions, reproaches and threats — all of this was in actuality
quite characteristic of Moses in his relations with the Hebrews and, naturally,
in his books as well” (Introduction to Orthodoxy Theology, Macarius,
Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilno, DD, 4th ed. [St. Petersburg, 1871], p. 365).
If the story of the fall of Adam
and Eve and the history of Noah and the flood are set aside, the brevity of the
narratives of the first chapters of the book of Genesis attracts our attention.
Subtracting the period of 2000 years from Abraham to the New Testament from the
conventional Old Testament chronology which determines the period from the
creation of the first man to the birth of Christ to be 5508 years, we are left
with a period of 3500 years, which is dealt with in eleven chapters of the
Bible; and if we bypass the chapters which contain the accounts of the fall and
Noah and the flood, we have only seven chapters. Three and a half thousand
years in seven chapters which contain little more than genealogical tables and
the story of the construction of the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the
nations. This is the sort of caution, the sort of strictness in selecting
sources for the narrative that we observe in the compiler. Would it be the same
if he had taken to including current popular legends, heroic epic and popular,
oral or recorded religious myths? We do not have the facts to judge how the
names of the ancient patriarchs could have been preserved in Mesopotamia,
escaping oblivion in the days of the flood, and how far we can today construct
a chronology of the antediluvian era according to them; but undoubtedly these
names acquired a fixed form somewhere in one way or another (perhaps they were
not as difficult to assimilate orally as they are for us; perhaps they were
recorded at burial sites; perhaps their preservation was, as it were, a
religious responsibility of the heads of families — the patriarchs themselves;
these are complex and independent questions which belong to the domain of
archaeology). But these Chaldean genealogical records were available for the
early inclusion in the first pages of Hebrew literature. The other accounts of
the first chapters of Genesis are of similar origin, of course, but through the
illumination of the Holy Spirit in the consciousness of the sacred writer they
were cleansed of the dross of polytheism which constitutes the essence of
myths. And we have no right to speak of myths in the Bible; we have full
license to speak only of demythologization, of a return of the myth’s content
to the original, monotheistic, holy traditions. The divine inspiration of the
sacred author, the God-seer Moses, worthy of a series of direct revelations
from God, lies in this very selection, purification, examination of oral
material and material written in cuneiform; in this labor carried out in the
fear of God, with the constant elevation of thought to God, with the immediate
awareness of the Providence of God which is unceasingly active in the world.
Could the compilers of the legends, songs and laws of the people in the period
around 800 or 1000 years after Moses have carried out such a task and,
moreover, nearly simultaneously in two kingdoms? Why would the compilers who,
as the critics insist, belonged to the class of priests and prophets, even begin
to include in the book of Genesis elements of Jewish traditions which in their
time would already appear to be temptations, if the reason for this work was
for them the moral elevation of the people?
Concerning the
understanding of “myth,” let us make use of the words of the outstanding French
Roman Catholic exegete, F. Vigourue. He writes: “The meaning of myth has been
contrived by rationalists to deny miracles and to deface the true character of
revelation. The word “myth,” contrary to actual history, is a type of fictional
and imaginary history, a sort of fable that is used as a cloak to cover the
expression of religious and metaphysical ideas and theories, or even physical
phenomena. Nothing is as contrary to myth as Holy Scripture. One of the immediate
goals of the Old Testament was the establishment of a barrier against a
mythical trend which drew all of the peoples of antiquity to polytheism and its
fables. As for the New Testament, the tendency towards mythicism, after the age
of Augustus, when these books were written, came to an end among all pagan
peoples of the civilized world, not to mention the Jews” (Instructions for
Reading the Bible, vol. I, F. Vigourue, [Trans. from the 9th French ed.,
Moscow, 1897], pp. 176-177) Unfortunately, those French exegetes who
collaborated in the Catholic Encyclopedia of the Twentieth Century have
departed far from the position of their authoritative compatriot, F. Vigourue,
one of the oldest laborers in the scientific study of Holy Scripture.
“De-mythologization”
means that the revelation of God, drawn from mankind’s common tradition but
already dimmed by political additions, was re-established in its original
purity of monotheistic truth; however, in verbal expression the truth continues
to remain represented figuratively, the actions of God being depicted as human
actions. All of this is because of the paucity of words in primitive language,
which correspond to elevated and abstract concepts. Even in contemporary,
highly developed languages we observe a similar insufficiency of words.
Even if animal husbandry was the
ancient basis of the way of life of the forefathers of the Jews, this does not
provide sufficient grounds for calling the Jews a herding, wandering tribe, or
nomads who were unacquainted with the interests of a more settled people. The
emigration of Jacob and his sons to Egypt in and of itself already acquainted
them and their descendants with Egyptian culture, especially while they
enjoyed freedom and even concessions. The elevation of Joseph to his
influential position in Egypt put him personally, and perhaps the Jewish people
closest to him, on the same level as educated Egyptians. The interest of the
Egyptians in their past, which we know of, even then served as an example to
the emigrants to Egypt, and provided them with the possibility of returning to
memories of both their near and distant past, of life in Palestine, and of
trying to preserve those memories for their descendants. Such memories could
have been put into writing in part even before Moses’ time.
One cannot presume
that Moses, the leader of Israel, limited himself to leading his people out of
Egypt, and then left them to the mercy of fate thereafter. Can one permit the
presupposition that he did not elaborate some sort of political plan for his
people; that he did not give any thought to what might await them in the
future; that he did not outline those means that would be necessary to unify
his people, nationally and religiously? This would not have been difficult for
him to accomplish, because a) he had a complete understanding of Egyptian
culture; otherwise he would not have won the trust of the people; b) in
compiling special laws for Israel, he had before him a parallel in the laws,
customs, and methods of influence of the Egyptian state upon his people which
he discarded in some instances, and in others used as ready examples. He could
not have done otherwise. Living in the desert with his father-in-law Jethro,
Moses was wholly immersed, mind and heart, in the plan with which God inspired
him, and which, according to human reasoning, was extremely uncertain. When it
was necessary to overcome by the strength of his spirit and the strength of
his faith both the stubbornness of Pharaoh and of his own people, he had to
consider everything which would be necessary in the future for his people’s
homeless wandering, and then for the Hebrew nation, the territory of which
would have to be paid for with their own blood. Yet, it was difficult for him
to foresee how the life of the nation would be established on that territory.
The Hebrew people, while despising the Egyptians as their oppressors,
nevertheless observed and assimilated their customs; they saw the Egyptian
religious cult, the multiplicity of their priests, temples, and sacrifices, and
because of this, in their exodus from Egypt, they zealously applied themselves
to the formation of their own national-religious cult.
“Criticism” considers
the Pentateuch a late work, and thus, Moses, “magnified” and “glorified” with
the passage of time; i.e., invested it with an exaggerated greatness and glory.
But the writings of Moses do not present such an image; they do not hide his
failings, his moments of near despair, the fact that he did not expect the
wandering to be so very long; neither do they hide his physical defects, his
being a man “slow of speech and a stammerer,” as the church hymn puts it.
Was it necessary to
wait 800 or 1000 years after Moses to compile all the particulars of the
precepts and directions and the minutest details of the journey, going so far
as not to forget the decree that each participant in the exodus was to take his
own little shovel along for his personal hygienic needs?
Arising out of the
customs of antiquity, when education and, specifically, the keeping of
chronicles were to be found in the hands of those serving religion, it is
natural to think that it was established as the duty of Aaron, the brother of
Moses, as the high priest, and his sons as the first priests, both to keep the
chronicles of events, and also to make a record of laws and orders promulgated
by Moses during the forty years of wandering. One need not understand the
authorship of the Mosaic books as a record from his own hand. Side by side with
his personal manuscript his dictation to scribes had its place. As for current
events, they were more likely to have been recorded in response to directions
or assignments given to trusted persons to carry out. The birth of Moses and
his upbringing at Pharaoh’s court were most likely to have been described to
his brother. The record of Moses’ deathbed instructions and the description of
his repose must have become the moral obligation of Joshua, whom Moses had
chosen as the leader of the people after him. Thus do the exegetes also depict
this labor. For a leader of the people, such as Moses remained to the last days
of his life, the most difficult task was that of compiling the first book,
Genesis, and it could have been carried out only sporadically, just as a feast
day falls among regular days. Thereafter, repetition could have appeared, and
at times, certain discrepancies could have begun to creep into the records.
Moses, a Historical Novel by Sholom Ashe.
Among recent creative literature
there has been a successful attempt at retelling the story of Moses, the exodus
and the wandering in the desert of the Jewish people, by Sholom Ashe, a
twentieth century Jewish writer. The name of this writer is well known because
of the part he took in several Russian periodicals of the pre-revolutionary
period, and now, from a whole series of novels dealing with American life,
written in English. The long work Moses (comprising some 500 pages)
merits our attention because it shows the naturalness and the quite viable
possibility of the entire course of events which are set forth in the books of
Moses. The value of this work lies in that the author does not depart from the
text of the Bible but fully preserves the idea of God leading the people of
Israel in those days, concerning himself only with enlivening the narrative
with a picturesque rendering of events which are given in compressed form in
the sacred account in the Bible. In particular the author sets before the
reader a method for the technical organization of notes for the future Pentateuch
which was feasible at that time: the preparation of solid material for writing,
the obtaining of inks from seaweed or shells; further — the collection of
sacred traditions from the lips of the elders of Israel, the selection of
scribes. In like manner, described on a large scale, is the possible picture
of the preparations for equipping the tabernacle during the people’s annual
sojourn at the foot of Sinai, and the works of the equipping itself: how
Moses, ascending Sinai, amid the outcroppings of copper ore, discovers an area
covered by thick vegetation which has a wonderful aroma and a thicket of huge
acacias; how later this costly wooden material is fashioned into parts of the
tabernacle, and the aromatic plants into fragrant incense for the services; how
the collection of gold and silver objects is conducted so that they may be
worked into utensils for the services of the tabernacle; the temple — a free
labor, not carried out under the whips of overseers, a labor for their own
people, not for their oppressors; with what diligence master craftsmen took to
their specialities which they had acquired in Egypt — some men took to the dry
reworking of metal, beating gold into sheets with stone hammers, others to
smelting silver, having obtained it locally on Sinai, and to smelting copper;
others were masters of woodworking and of the tooling and cleaning of leather;
women, according to their skill, labored in preparing and dying wool, in
spinning thread, and those skilled in fine work were found as well, for
embroidering designs after the spinning, for preparing vestments and objects
for the services. Everything took place under the observation of directors of
labor who were chosen by Moses and the council of elders. Later comes the
description of the sanctification of the tabernacle and the organization and
consecration of the Aaronic priesthood, etc. In a word, all that which has been
considered unfeasible in those far-away times and under those conditions by
some critics of the Bible is not disregarded. The testament and vows of Moses,
and his death, as they are set forth in the book of Deuteronomy, end the
account.
The defense of the sacred value of
biblical criticism was worked out at the same time as the destructive, and in
general, criticial theory reached its full development at the end of the 19th
century. It is not possible for us at the present time to delve deeply into the
vast scientific fields of philological and other research. We will point out
only the previously mentioned work by the French biblical exegete F. Vigourue,
which belongs to the same final years of the last century: A Guide to
Reading and Studying the Bible, which went through a long series of
printings in France and was translated into Russian. In it is given a
bibliography of Western negative criticism and positive anti-criticism of the
Old Testament before the twentieth century. The author sorts out all of the
arguments advanced in his time by rationalistic criticism. He proves the authenticity
of the Mosaic books by evidence contained in the Bible itself, by the parallel
“Samaritan” Pentateuch discovered in modern times, by the evidence of Egyptian
monuments, from which it is clear that the author of the Pentateuch was well
acquainted with Egypt, even down to various trivial details, namely Egypt as it
was under Ramses and even earlier, and finally, it is confirmed by an analysis
of the language of the books themselves. In particular, F. Vigourue points out
that there are no grounds for separating the Pentateuch into two versions
corresponding to the names of Yahweh and Elo-him, citing all of the passages
where they are used apart and together, and he investigates the question of
“discrepancies” in the Pentateuch, and of the possibility of later individual
additions to the text to explain certain historical, geographical, and other
names and indications.
Since critical
reviewers of the text of the Bible see great exaggeration in its description of
the tabernacle (A. Kartashev speaks of its “fairy-tale splendor”), and also
point out the exaggeration of numbers (in the census of the people, the number
of sacrificial animals, the amount of gold and silver collected for decorating
the tabernacle), and see in this proof of the later origin of biblical stories,
we here provide some scientific information.
From the article
“Gold” by A. Miklashevsky (in the Brokhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary):
“Judging from the results of excavations and archaeological research, gold was
one of the first metals which mankind turned to its own use. Easily found and
processed, it was from ancient times used in fashioning all sorts of objects.
Excavations of extremely ancient burial mounds in Denmark have shown that arms
and objects for domestic use were made principally of gold; only certain parts
were of iron” (in one museum, for example, one can see the entire shaft of a
spear made of gold, and only the spearhead of iron). Under “Mining” in Vol.
XVII of the same work we read: “Mining had developed up to the year 3000 B.C. in
Upper Egypt; it reached its height under the Ptolemies. According to the
testimony of Strabo and Pliny, the Phoenicians (Phoenicia was a neighbor of
Palestine) were able to smelt ores and organized the mining of gold and copper
in Thrace (an area in what is now Greece), and around 1100 B.C., in southern
Spain as well.” — Gold is always found in its natural state: in powdered form
in sand or in the veins of quartz. For this reason it is comparatively easy to
obtain. Let us add a note from the contemporary press: In Erevan (in Georgia),
on the mound of Mestsamor, a very large metal-working center dating to 3000
years before our era was disclosed. Excavations on this mound began some years
ago. Archaeologists, astrophysicists and art historians worked together there.
Besides smelting furnaces, foundry areas were found, approximately fourteen
types of bronze workshops, and innumerable foundries carved in the basalt.
Concerning the
numbers and calculations in the Bible, in some cases it is very natural to consider
the possibility of an incorrect reading by the copiers of the original text,
and mistakes in copying, especially when the text was transferred from one type
of writing to another. The cuneiform of Mesopotamia, the hieroglyphics of
Egypt, the circular writing of the Phoenicians, and the square Aramaic script
all had their peculiarities in rendering numbers, and this could have paved the
way for unintentional mistakes. By way of comparison, for example, let us
recall that in our written Church Slavonic, it is sufficient to add the symbol
“¹” to the sign for one, a, and thus one becomes one thousand
(Compare
the Greek numerical system and Church Slavonic system which was borrowed from
it in total: they are identical, but the numbers from 11 to 19, the tens, and
the units are in reverse order; for example, the number fifteen is “ιέ” in
Greek, but in Church Slavonic is ***“Ei”). The Babylonian cuneiform system of
symbols is curious. “One wedge meant one, two wedges two, etc., up to ten,
which was expressed by joining two wedges in an angle, “<“; twenty — two
such angles, thirty — three, etc. One hundred was expressed by means of two
wedges — a vertical and next to it a horizontal, “I—”; one thousand by the symbol often
before the symbol of one hundred, “<|—”. An example of abbreviation: instead
of writing the numeral 90 by means of nine signs (10 by 9), it was possible to
write one special symbol in large calculations meaning 60, and with it three symbols
for ten ("Babylonia,” an article by A. Lopukhin. Encyclopedic Dictionary
of Brokhaus and Efrori). This system was convenient; however, it was quite easy
for a person not familiar with it to become lost in it!
F. Vigourue cites
several examples which support the possibility of the presence of mistakes in
the contemporary text of the Bible, no matter how carefully throughout the
history of the Bible the text was guarded after copies had been made from the
only copy left after the Babylonian captivity. Thus, according to the Hebrew
text of II Chronicles, Solomon had 4000 pairs of horses (in the Slavonic
version: mares; in the Russian: stallions); but according to III Kings, he had
40,000. According to I Kings, David demanded 700 Syrian horsemen, but according
to II Chronicles, 7,000. II Chronicles says that Jehoiachim was eight years old
when he ascended the throne, but IV Kings says eighteen (Vigourue, A Guide
to Reading and Studying the Bible, Vol. I, p. 109). It is clear that these
disparate calculations are a result of scribal errors of translation.
The critics point out
that the Hebrews wandering in the desert could not have had with them certain
materials necessary for equipping themselves. But there are grounds for
suggesting that they could have obtained these materials by means of trade or
purchase from passing caravans travelling from the East to Egypt. In such a way
Joseph became a slave in Egypt, when he was sold by his brothers to the
merchants of a caravan, as we read in Genesis: And they [the brethren] sat
down to eat bread; and having lifted up their eyes they beheld, and lo,
Ishmaelitish travellers came from Galaad, and their camels were heavily loaded
with spices, and resin, and stacte; and they went to bring them to Egypt (Gen.
37:25).
A book by this title was published
W. F. Albright, one of the foremost biblical archaeologists, and contains a
series of popular accounts related to new findings in the realm of biblical archaeology
(In
the introduction by the English publishers of the book we read: “William
Albright is one of the most outstanding biblical archaeologists, a
world-renowned scholar, whose works are read and studied wherever the history
of the Holy Land is studied. He is the author of more than 800 articles and
books and has received more than 20 scholarly awards. His knowledge of
languages, both modern and ancient, the solidity and variety of his scholarly
credential, make him an important participant in the study of the Bible and
all its aspects. He was the first among scholars with a theoretical knowledge
of the Aramaic language to recognize the value of the Dead Sea scrolls, and
pointed out their importance in resolving a number of disputed Biblical questions.).
The information presented by this
author is valuable for us in that in its principal tenets it runs in opposition
to the theory of rationalistic criticism. Also important is the fact that the
author writes as a representative of “free science,” and in keeping with this
does not overstep the boundaries of the method of scientific realism, i.e., of
the method that perhaps does not deny the divine inspiration of Scripture, but
leaves it aside, so as not to violate methodological principle.
In the above-mentioned
book, in the account “Archaeology and the Tradition of Israel,” the author
firmly states his view of the book of Genesis on the basis of written
materials of antiquity, newly discovered at excavations at four sites outside
of Palestine: namely, two in Mesopotamia and two in Syria.
“Mari” (today
Tell-El-Harim), situated half-way up the Euphrates, was excavated in 1933 by M.
Andre Parrot. There the remains of a palace were found, dating from the period
between 1730 and 1695 B.C., i.e., the period of the post-deluvian Patriarchs of
the Bible. Many thousands of cuneiform tablets were found there, written by the
king and those close to him, and also by the rulers of neighboring provinces,
most of which were settled by north-western Semites who spoke a language almost
identical to the biblical language of the time of the Patriarchs — in terms of
vocabulary, expressions, syntax and personal names. Thus, a great amount of
material is available which casts light on the life of the ancestors of Israel
in the first half of the second millennium B.C. Biblical archaeology, as our
author stresses, is not limited to excavations in Palestine, but is broadened
by archaeological discoveries in lands far removed from Palestine.
Another site, even
farther to the East, is Nuzi, where those who carry on the search, mostly
Americans, have found the remains of estates and the citadel of an ancient
city. There in the ruins many thousands of tablets with cuneiform writing were
preserved, illustrating customs so similar to those found in Genesis that one
can speak of them as being identical. All of the obscure passages in Genesis
which have not yet been explained in the Hebrew text as it has come down to us,
began to disclose their meaning from 1925 on, with the help of the studies of
the tablets from Nuzi.
The location Alalakh
in northern Syria was excavated by the late Leonard Woolley in the course of
scientific expeditions. Now the name of this site is not Semitic and it
belongs, apparently, to one of the ancient languages which was neither Semitic
nor Indo-European, whose type has yet to be determined. However, cuneiform
tablets of great value were found there which describe the theory and practice
of laws among the Canaan-ites and their neighbors in the seventeenth, sixteenth
and fifteenth centuries B.C.
More important than
these sites in northern Syria, however, is Port Ugarit, now Ras Shamra. There,
from 1929 to the present day, work is being carried out by Claude Schaeffer,
and it has yielded rich material of various sorts: art objects, architectural
works, and special inscriptions in a half-dozen languages, as well as much
writing, predominantly in Babylonian cuneiform script and in the local
Canaanite alphabet. Things were found here that were not dreamed of before
1931: more than a thousand whole and fragmented tablets inscribed in the
ancient cuneiform alphabet of twenty-seven letters (plus three others not
comparable to any of the ancient linear alphabets), representing the ancient
northwestern Semitic dialect, i.e., essentially the pre-Phoenician Canaanite
language which was very close to the most ancient poetic forms of the Bible,
not to mention grammar and vocabulary.
Of course, all of
this material is fully accessible only to a few persons who are quite knowledgeable
in the field of history, archaeology, philology and linguistics, in their
historical perspective.
The comparative study
of ancient languages according to ancient sources provides us with an
opportunity to understand the most ancient traditions of the Jews. It shows
that a clear line has to be drawn between Hebrew cosmogony and popular
traditions in Genesis on one hand, and the same sort of material from Canaan,
Phoenicia, and Egypt on the other. Comparison reveals that religious traditions
here and there had nothing or very little in common, though at the same time
both traditions undoubtedly arose from a certain single Mesopotamian tradition
of great antiquity. In particular, the story of the Flood according to Genesis
has its parallel in the Sumerian-Akkadian histories of Mesopotamia. The author
of the above-mentioned survey gives his personal opinion on the contents of the
book of Genesis as follows.
The first eleven
chapters of the book are political in character, enveloped by a religious spirit;
the next part presents history, but history which has been preserved in the
form of oral traditions. As for the first chapter of Genesis, the author
confesses that he is awed by the fact that it is in several respects a great
improvement over everything that was said about the origin of the world in
written form prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century.
The author of the
survey gives as examples a series of obscure passages of the Bible that have
been clarified as a result of excavations. Thus, in Genesis 15:2 we encounter a
certain Eliezer of Damascus, about whom Abraham complains he will be forced to
leave him his whole estate at death, not having a son as his heir (this was
before the birth of Ishmael and Isaac). We now know, writes Professor Albright,
that according to the ancient practice of the Patriarchs, property was not
supposed to leave the family, but a legal “loophole” was devised. If someone
was forced to mortgage his property to a creditor because of a bad harvest or
for any other reason, he had to adopt his creditor, and the latter became the
heir to his property. Such circumstances obviously arose in this case: Eliezer,
a rich merchant from Damascus, who, like other merchants of Damascus, lent
money to the surrounding landholders and cattle breeders, became a great
creditor of Abraham, and could have become his direct heir through adoption.
Another story, related in Genesis 21, describes the occasion when Rachel, the
daughter of Laban and the wife of Jacob, before leaving the house of her
father, stole the images of his household deities, the “teraphim,” and
succeeded in hiding them despite the search conducted by her father. In the
texts of Nuzi there is a law that when doubt arises as to the rights of
inheritance, for example, if there is no formal will, possession of idols of
the household deities is considered to be the primary evidence to the right of
inheritance. Hitherto it was not clear what purpose this theft served, and why
this trivial event was included in the history, but the scribal copyists
preserved this story, keeping in mind that it must have had some real
significance. The meaning of Rachel’s actions is now explained. There are a
number of other examples where mysterious passages in Genesis are made clear
thanks to the findings at Nuzi and other sites. Because of this, almost all
learned biblicists now acknowledge that the book of Genesis constitutes a
written narrative of factual events which were preserved by the Hebrew people
in the form of oral traditions. Furthermore, the religious, educational, and
literary value of the narratives of the Bible is much greater than if the wars
of those days, the migrations of tribal groups, etc., had been described there.
If, as we said, the
legal customs of the book of Genesis present an authentic reflection of the
laws of society at that time, if the social and juridical practices described
in the book of Genesis correspond exactly to those of the age of the Patriarchs
and not to the post-Mosaic period, then it follows, writes Professor Albright,
that we have no right a priori to relegate the patriarchal chronicles to a
later date. One cannot call them the result of retrospective points of view
which were current during the time of the Prophets, but should consider them to
be actual oral traditions, only slightly modified with the passage of time as
regards the removal of mythical elements from the traditions, the emphasizing
of certain points, which were held to be significant, etc.; but on the whole,
one should see their value as an authentic chronicle of the distant past. The
attempts of certain critics of the biblical text to transfer the time of the
life of Abraham and the time of the Exodus of the Jews out of Egypt to later
centuries are unjustified, writes the author.
Keeping to the point
of view of a scholar who obviously accepts biblical material as one of the
phenomena of human culture, namely religious culture, Professor Albright does
not deny the possibility of any sort of additions or deletions made in the course
of the centuries of the Bible’s history, just as he does not express himself
opposed to the designation of such phenomena by the signs Υ, Ε, P, etc. But he
does definitively state that “attempts to break up the text of the Bible into
small pieces, sometimes dividing up the text into individual verses or lines
ascribed to three different sources [as rationalistic criticism does] are quite
futile — empty, groundless; persons holding to the principles of higher
criticism are completely mistaken in their assumptions. “From this,” he
writes, “it does not necessarily follow that the hypothesis of the documents is
false in principle, but it must be treated with much greater critical caution
than has hitherto been done” (pp. 14-15).
What place does Moses
occupy in history? Comparing the cultic, ritual, and civil prescriptions in
the Pentateuch with both earlier and later developments, one can fix the final
prescriptions of the Pentateuch close to the period between the fourteenth and
eleventh centuries B.C. In the same way we have ground for stating that the
religion of the Pentateuch stands between the patriarchal religion on one hand
and the religion of the epoch of the Kingdoms on the other, and that it can be
called monotheistic in the broad sense of the word. As for details, and mainly
those of the construction of the Tabernacle as described in the Pentateuch, the
author thinks that its appearance was perfected gradually, and parallel to
this, a series of corresponding additions could have been inserted into the
text comparable, for example, to the way in which the original American Constitution
of 1789 was amended, “though it lost neither its original unity, nor the wholeness
of its character.” Let us leave these opinions of the author as his personal
ones.
Professor Albright is
decidedly opposed to the application of the understanding of “myth” to the
narratives of the Bible. To him, in fact, belongs the introduction of the term
“demythologization” in its proper understanding into the language of modern
exegesis. He writes:
In Genesis and in several poetic
images of the Bible there are a number of passages where a clearly mythological
element was demythologized. For example, in Canaanite mythology there is a huge
creature called ‘tanin,’ which is rendered in the Authorized Bible by the word
‘whale.’ cTanin’ was a prehistoric monster which existed even before the gods,
and was destroyed by the great god Baal, or his sister Anat, or by another
Canaanite deity. But in Genesis it says that on the fifth day of Creation God
created Taninim gedolim,’ the first gigantic creations out of chaos [in the
Slavonic and in the Authorized version: “great whales"]. They were not the
predecessors of the gods, they were creations of God: this is the process of
demythologization at first hand. It is also impossible to consider correct the
proposition, for example, that ‘tekhom’ — ‘the great deep’ — in the first
chapter of Genesis is a monster such as ‘tekhmatu’ was in early Canaanite
mythology. Such allusions to Canaanite mythology also show little indication of
belief in the reality of the original bearers of these names, just as our use
of the word ‘cereal’ scarcely expresses our faith in the goddess Ceres. The
Bible uses a number of names of ancient gods and goddesses as ordinary names:
the name Astarte took on the meaning of shepherd; Shumen, the god of health, became
cto your health’; one divinity lent its name to the oak tree, another to the
turpentine tree; yet another to wine. All of these are examples of
demythologization.
(W.F. Albright, “The Ancient
Israelite Mind,’ from a survey in New Horizons in Biblical Research).
In actuality, in essence, it is quite clear that the task of Moses
consisted in rejecting pagan mythical legends of gods and goddesses, and confirming
a monotheistic world view among his own people, as the one intentionally called
to preserve and preach faith in the One God, the Omniscient Creator.
Limiting this survey to the subject
of the Pentateuch, let us in conclusion express our principal ideas regarding
the character of the work of biblical criticism and its goals.
For the early
Christian Church all of the rabbinical determinations relative to the books of
the Old Testament Scriptures were, apparently, not dogmatically necessary.
However, it did preserve them to a great degree. But why? This springs from an
understanding of the spirit, the religiosity of Old Testament man, in whose
consciousness the “righteousness of God” had preeminence, for the Lord Himself is
righteous and hath loved righteousness; upon righteousness hath His countenance
looked (Ps. 10:7). Hence, the religious Jew had a dread of any falsehood,
deceit, injustice, and whatever else elicits the disclamation: If in my
heart I regarded unrighteousness, let the Lord not hear me. Wherefore God hath
hearkened unto me, He hath been attentive to the voice of my supplication (Ps.
65:18-19). Fret not thyself so as to do evil. For evil doers shall utterly
perish (Ps. 36:8-9). Set not your hopes on injustice (Ps. 61:11). I
have hated the congregation of evildoers (Ps. 25:5). I have hated every
way of unrighteousness (Ps. 118:104). The principle of righteousness was so
bound up with the understanding of “faith” for the Old Testament Jew that it
was in fact Old Testament religion that developed the idea of “a righteous
person,” and “a righteous one,” to signify a religious man, and this it passed
on to Christianity.
“Scholarly criticism”
all but constructs its hypotheses on a contradictory supposition: it is
inclined to see the falsification, the forgery, and the artificial creation of
ancient authorities and the deceitful utilization of these authorities
everywhere among the collectors and preservers of the books of the Bible, the
spiritual leaders of Israel. If this were so, then whole series of misunderstandings
arise.
How could this
artificial, untruthful approach to the matter coincide with the personal,
lofty, spiritual animation, with the great enthusiasm in the souls of the
directors of the Hebrew people — and finally, simply with the thought of the
fear of God? From whence was the zeal for their religion, and their boldness,
those “scourges” directed to the people, the readiness for self-denial, for
self sacrifice generated in them? The same contradiction is met in passages
about the people.
Let us pass on to a
specific occurrence. How could a forgery, alleged to have been produced by the
High Priest Hilkiah (We read in Prof. Kartashev’s article, “How can we accept with a
clear conscience the completely incredible story (chps. 22-23 of IV Kings) of
the supposedly chance discovery of the ‘Book of the Law’ or ‘Book of the
Covenant,’ found during the renovation of the Temple of Jerusalem — a book
totally unknown both to the High Priest Hilkiah who found it, to the righteous
King Josiah, who was faithful to Yahweh, and to the whole nation? And this was
barely one thousand years after Moses. It took place in the year 621,
thirty-six years before Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar. No, this can only
be comprehensible by admitting that it was not a new, strangely forgotten,
neglected book that was found at the time of King Josiah, but a totally new
one. The delusion that the Pentateuch existed from time immemorial thus goes up
in smoke. Indeed, the Pentateuch did not yet exist” [this means from
Kartashev’s point of view, that a crude and extremely dangerous forgery was
made]), even if he had passed off a new
work as an ancient one, have produced that religious revival among the Hebrew
people which in the history of the Jews is called the “first rebirth?” A
similar question arises concerning the activity of Ezra. If Ezra, calling upon
the blinded people to walk in the law of God, which was given by the hand of
Moses, the servant of God (Neh. 10:29), basing himself upon the authority
of Moses, was either hiding the truth or was himself led into error, was it
that the people did not suspect this possibility, but gave the oath demanded by
him which compelled them to such great sacrifices and self-restraint as, for
example, the mass removal of those of their wives who were of non-Jewish blood?
Could a “second rebirth” have take place in history on such dubious grounds?
Criticism maintains
that from the time of the Babylonian captivity in the religious sphere the
Jewish people fell increasingly under the influence of foreign peoples — the
Babylonians, Persians, Greeks — and that this influence is reflected, on one
hand, in the appearance of a great number of books of the Bible which have
hitherto been accepted as dating from an earlier period, and, on the other
hand, in the borrowing of a number of religious beliefs from the peoples that
oppressed them. Thus criticism sees an instability and mutability in Old
Testament Jewish beliefs. Are there sufficient grounds to confirm this? Does
not oppression create an opposing tendency in the ideological response of a
nation? Does it not incline more towards rejection [of the oppressors] and
self-determination than to borrowing from foreign peoples? An indication of the
type of reaction that involuntary subjection elicits in a nation can be seen in
Psalm 136: By the waters of Babylon. An enslaved people can to a certain
degree forget its language, but this comes about independently of its own
will. On the other hand, in the area of religion, a sense of national
self-preservation inspires the oppressed to fear especially the intrusion of an
alien spirit in the spiritual domain. We have examples from a time nearer to
our own. The Greeks and Western Slavic peoples, throughout many centuries of
Turkish suzerainty, preserved Orthodoxy unchanged; those that did not remain
faithful to it became denationalized. The Russian people preserved their faith
just as strictly under the Tatar yoke. But the victorious ancient Roman Empire
created within itself a religious eclecticism which assimilated the various
religions of the subject nations of which it was comprised. What is
characteristic of a people applies to its leaders as well.
The autonomy,
stability, and independence of biblical religious understanding and even of
corresponding terminology is gradually being confirmed by the study of the
ancient Hebrew manuscripts, found in our times, in Palestine, and particularly
by the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” This refers not only to the books of the Old
Testament, but, to a lesser degree, to the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament as well. Here again let us refer to the testimony of archaeology,
according to the information of Professor Albright:
They maintain that Greek
philosophical thought had a marked influence on a portion of the Old Testament,
especially on the books of Job and Ecclesiastes. I date the book of Job to
approximately the seventh century B.C. The more deeply that its problems are
studied, the clearer it becomes that there is no trace of a Greek philosophical
treatment of these problems. As for Ecclesiastes, one can now more or less
definitely date it towards the end of the fifth century B.C. Though I recognize
the similarity of thought between the writings of the Prophets and that of
many Greek thinkers of the sixth century B.C. and also the Phoenician written
material we have from this same general period, I cannot see a trace of the
influence of Greek philosophical thought, as many have once done, myself
included. Hebrew literature is as old as Greek literature and is comparable to
it in content. Generally speaking, nowhere before the sixth century — not in
the pagan writings of the Near East, or in the Old Testament, or in Homer,
Hesiod, or the early Greek poets — is it possible to find traces of authentic
philosophical thought.
(W.F. Albright, “The Ancient
Israelite Mind”).
The same author writes about the
independence of biblical understanding from Greek influence, on the basis of
research done on the Dead Sea Scrolls. But this material pertains to the New Testament.
Orthodox Church Pakistan
www.ocpak.com
