New-York tribune., 1899-11-11
SCHOOLS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.


THE DISTINCTION OF THE THREE CLASSES
NECESSARY TO CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.
To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: The problems pertaining TO the higher
criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures recently dis
cussed in The Tribune would become smplified If
the views of Old Testament scholars were properly
classified. As q matter of fact. there three
distinct views held by three distinct classes of
Old Testament scholars
Professor Green has for many years stood al
most alone against frowning world Of biblical
scholarship. lie has earnestly defended the view
that the composition OF the biblical books In their
earliest form the work OF contemporaries OF
the events which are recorded. and that the pres
ent literary form is substantially identical with
that OF the earliest date Of their authorship. A
second class, under the leadership of Professor
Welhausen, OF Marburg. Professor Cheyne, of
oxford, and Professor Toy. Of Harvard, hold that
the material which constitutes large portion Of
the history OF Israel was first worked over into
literary form centuries after the recorded events
occurred and that the writings In their present
literary form still OF later date. third class,
whose views championed by such men as Pro-
fessor Driver of oxford: Professor Brown Of Union
Seminary; Professor Curtis, of Yale Seminary, and
Professor Smith, of Amherst, assign the material
Of Israers history 10 the early period claimed by
the tradlonalists. but assert that the present
literary form is the result Of revision and of
comparatively modern cate, as well as or
Of authorship.
The vast majority OF cergymen. few OF whom
have made an Independent investigation OF higher
critical problems. are anchored to Professor Green
and blindly follow him. While there are doubtless
many others among the traditionalists who can
present their views with ability and independence
OF judgment, yet for some reason they have failed
to make a reputation in the world OF biblical
scholarship. Their names do not appear except
in few instances among the Polychrome Bible
contributors, nor among the writer's for the I'm
ternationa Commentary" nor among the men,
bers of the Society Of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis."
The second class do not find many sympathizers
I'm America, but the Continent Of Europe they
constitute a large majority especially In Germany.
1t Is to the third class that most American
students of the higher criticism belong Ths
class also finds many representatives in Great
Britain is to this last class that Professor Sayce
belongs. A failure to bear in mind these mpor-
tant classhcations explains the fact that Professor
Sayce often claimed as one of the traditionalists
the Monuments ne teaches views which Pro
fessOr Green and his confreres positively reject.
Professor sayce wrote his book in opposition to
the leaders OF the second class. BY negiecting 10
thousands Of seekers FOR truth and unfortunately
has wrought positive injury to the cause of higher
The question whether Professor Green employs
the methods of the higher criticism has been an
yccae" and as positively denied by The Tribune.
When Professor Green limits himself TO the
specific field Of higher criticism. as he did when
carrying forward his famous discussion with
President harper the Pentateuchal question,
published in "Hebraica." he certainly employed
none other than higher criticism methods. The
same is largely true Of his Unity Of Genesis
But In his Higher Criticism OF the Pentateuch'
he introduces his theological views. In many re-
view articles he has done likewise This habit
explains The Tribunes claim that his methods are
not those If the higher criticism.
Here is where the danger lies OF being caught In
the eddies that roll between theology and higher
criticism. Professor Green holds that the views
OF higher critics foster inhdelity. ON the other
hand, the theological belief that ''the ipsissima
verba of the original autographs" are inerrant
never had a more shocking illustration Of what
the narrow holding OF a theory Will do than In the
article on Stephen In Daviss bible Dictionary,
and written by Professor Purves Of Princeton In
order TO meet the objection that Stephen made
some historical errors In his famous speech, Pro-
fessor Purves loyal 10 his Theological dogma;
writes that a who saw Heaven opened.
a man who was full of the Holy Ghost" must he
acknowledged inspired" but not in the
technical sense" He pleads for the inspiration
OF Luke as technically genuine. but excludes the
holy Stephen from such high honor Rather than
hold a theological dogma that leads logically to
two theories OF inspiration. better become a higher
EUGENE ELLIS THOMAS
Cnstieton- Hudson, Nov. 6, 1888