The San Francisco call., 1897-09-05

a MA De req arQed as an axiom that
whenever man, no matter how
scholarly he may be or what expert
II ence he may bring to his work, at
tempts to cast doubt upon matters
and things which have for centuries been
accepted as truths, he will be met with one
of three ethlngs-ridicule, censure or query
ing retort, and P ofessor Amos K. Fiske's
Myths OF Israeli Is apt to be greeted by
ell OF these. In his latest published work
Professor Fiske has taken up for analysts
the Book OF Genesis, the first of
the Pentateuch. He maintains that
modern critical research into the char
acter of the ancient Scriptures leaves no
reasonable doubt that the Book OF Genesis
Is "a composite production, made up
largely OF myths and fragments of myths
EN- bodying the conceptions of the earliest
writers OF Israel regarding the relations
OF that people 10 their Deity" Looked at
In this light, 1t certainly derives new
interest and significance, but whether "a
persistence in the old view of its origin
and meaning is in danger of sinking 1t
from reverence to deris!on" is matter
that is (and we say it with all due respect
to the learned professor) a subiec. for
question.
The value OF such work as the one un-
der review depends very much upon the
reader into whose hands 1t is likely to
taIl. TO the peace-loving and church
going layman, unversed in theological
controversy, its statements will not be
taken in the spirit IN which they are Of
fered. And this is but natural. Is it
likely that man having grown to years
CT discretion and having studied "the
words Of this law" rather than its inter
pretation, should in a moment, at the
Lidding of an erudite advocate Of the
Higher Criticism, forsake that which has
been ingrained into him, into his father
and into his iher's father?
Now let Professor Fiske place his book
in the hands of the theologian 10 whom
the Bible as it stands serves as a shield
and buckler. Professor Fiske advances
the theory hat a braham, Isaac and Jacob
are myths, common names OF personages
not only among the Israelites, but among
the nations round about. The obvious
reply TO him will be, How do you know?
and the question is poser. 1t proved so
to Richard Simon, to EwaId, to Reuss, 10
Lenormant, and finally 10 Ernest Renan.
In England this seli-same matter proved
veritable hornets nest to Bishop Colenso
and Professor William Robertson Smith,
whose deposition from the chair of He
brew a Aberdeen was lamented as speci-
men of intolerance toward the Higher
Criucism and its advocates.
Professor Fiske approaches his subject
thoroughly equipped mentally and by
study. His recognized scholarship and
standing guarantee that whatsoever his
hand finds 10 do will be done with all his
might. By his own claim, his is no time
serving work. He is absolutely inde pend
ent of creed or sect, and If for this reason
alone his attempt to set forth for the COM
mon understanding 1.-The view of the Old
Testament which modern knowledge JUS
lihes," is worthy of attention.
The author Of The Myths OF Israeli is
clearly believer in the truth of Goethe's
observation 'only clods are modest" and
one OF the main characters tics OF The
work is its freedom from reservation, its
confident method of advancing dicta, its
positiv ness. One need look no further
than the title 10 confirm tie truth of this
statement. 1t is too brilliant, too large.
We quote recent writer in The Critic on
the subject:
No doubt Israel had myths. Yet Budde and
Cornil, neither OF them conservative, find
historic elements in both the JehovisIic aad
Elohistic codexes OF the Hexateuch. There
has been q slight reaction in higher criticism.
Solid men are getting cautious. That is all.
If Mr.. Fiske by his use of the term myth" as
descriptive of the narratives OF fGenesis means
traditional s tory in which tacis are mixed with
fiction he Is perhaps accurate; but he means
the looser sense of q pure fabrication, allegori-
Cal, paraoolc, for the purpose of infuenc-
ing religious and political formations, he viii
not have with him the soberest scholars.
Sound critical sch olarship no longer says that
Moses and the Exodus are mythical. The
etymologlcal method OF deducing myths has
proved an edged tool. 1t is nothing shocking
TO be old that The story OF The creation OF
man from dust arose from the likeness of the
Hebrew Ad0ndh, earth, to Addm man, and
thai the story of the making of Eve from the
side of Adam was caused by the similarity OF
The word Issdh, woman, to Is, man. But when
it comes to deriving Moses from the story of
the Cha!deaD sargon, because Of an imaginary
etymology, we rebel
''Divlne revelation" says Professor
Flske, "has not been confined to one age
or to one peop.e, and it never employed
human elements and human agencies
with more effect than at present." This
statement may of course be accepted as
the manifes to not only of the learned
author of the work under review, but as
well of most who approach the testaments
in the light OF nineteenth century scholar
ship and criticism. The slogan is not a
new one, but again the fact must be m
phasized that it wilt in many directions
fall upon ears that are rnheeding AMI
deaf. and it is to be feared that, notwith-
standing Professor Fiske's avowed inde-
pendence as far as the church body is con-
cerned, his claim of sincerity OF purpose
and desire to serve the cause of truth
only will be accepted with skepiicism.
Nevertheless our author is fully pre-
tared to accord hearing to such as have
derived their knowledge OF cosmogony
and of the events recorded in the first
book of the Pentateuch from traditional
sources, and with those who recognize in
these events the finger OF The Deity inter
posed directly or through the medium OF
human beings he has no quarrel.
He acknowledges divine element in all
humanity, a divine energy working in all