The sun., 1903-06-20
NEW hooks.
u,d re.,a ment Criticism and the Christian
Church.

rs /, true that there is a great gulf fixed
hetween those who believe in the inspira-
ZION of the Old Testament and those
who accept the results OF the so-called
higher Crtioism"? The question is an
svered in the negative in a singularly
interesting volume entitled -Old Testament
criticism and the Christian Church. by John
Edgar McFadyen, professor Of Old Teste-
mcnt literature and exegesis In Knox Col
lepe, Toronto. The author. who Is bach
elor of arts OF Oxford and master Of arts
If (ilasgo University, aims in this book
10 aid the man who honestly desires dis
passionate presentation OF what Old Testa
,nent criticism IA and does, OF how 1t
works and what its bearings are upon
vital clements in the Christian Church.
While purposing to show the reader whose
faith has been perplexed by current criti
cism precisely what that criticism In, the
author for his own part, contends that the
criticism not only should in no way i'm
peril his faith but will help him to bridge
The gulf that at times appears to yawn
between faith and reason. There is no
doubt that Mr.. McFadyen's primary in
tenton has been carried out. and there
was need of just such an exposition Of the
outcome of the Higher Criticism As Mr..
Gladstone pointed out In his "Impregnable
Rock it seems but common equity that
those who stand outside the learned world
and who find operations in progress which
are often declared to have destroyed
the authority OF tho ancient books OF the
Jews. should be supplied as far as may be.
with available means Of judging nationally
the nature and grounds OF the impeach-
ment. The demand is obviously reason
able, and an attempt is here made to COM
ply with it by setting forth concisely the
leading points in the arguments made by
the representatives OF the Higher Criti-
cism. Attention is first directed to the
fact that one Of the books which have played
radical part in Old Testament criti-
cism ia the book Of the Prophet Ezekiel,
who prophesied during the earlier part of
the Exile (5s2-570 B. c..
The last nine chapters Of his book consti-
tute programme for the regulation OF
Jewish worship after the Exile should be
over and laws are laid down which are not
always in harmony with the corresponding
laws Of the Pentateuch. The discrepancies
are undeniable: 40 striking, indeed, that at
one time the right OF Ezekiel to place in
The Canon was disputed. Now. IL the Penta
,euch was already in existence, with its
elaborate regulation Of Jewish worship,
which. as is repeat edly averred therein.
was to be valid for all time. why should
Ezekiel have thought it necessary to lay
down any such programme as he formu-
lated? Why again. should his programme
differ in certain material respects from
regulations which, according to the old
b,,r>othn,;c had hirt, pciort md
erable a sanction A comparison of the
TWO sets Of laws makes it pretty clear that
what is now known as the Priestly Code
rhat il. Leviticus and kindred sections)
is an ddrdnce on the programme Of Ezekiel.
Ezekiel, therefore, 1t Ia concluded, chrono-
logically precedes that code, and 80 his
apparent deviations from it are not difficult
to account for. Once more, II that Priestly
Code. with it's ceaseless and elaborate in
sistence on sacrifice. had been in existence
in preSxiic times. it is highly improbable
that Amos. Hosea, Isaiah. Micah and Jere-
miah would have expressed themselves as
they did on the subject Of sacrihce. We
should here note that one Of the important
arguments BY which this conclusion is
N.ached--the conclusion that Ezekiel was
prior to the Priestly Code-is that. while in
Leviticus sharp distinction ia recognized
between the priests and the Levites. We zee
in Ezekiel (xiiv. s. 6c) the origin OF that dis
tnction. The Levites, who had ministered
at the idolatrous shrines in the various high
places throughout the land. we're to be de-
graded from the priesthood. In the Book
of Deuteronomy. however, with hardly any
exception, no such distinction between
priests and Levites is drawn. The chrono-
logical order uould. therefore, be. according
10 the Hioher Criticism, Deuteronomy, Ezekici,
he Priestly Code.
But what is the date of Deuteronomy?
There is little doubt that this was the book
found in the Temple, on which Josiah based
his Reformation. Now, there is much
III the book which suggests that, as whole,
it was written not earlier than the time OF
Manasseh sss-eil, b. c.. But the most
important feature Of the book is it's en-
phatic demand for the Capitalization Of
Jewish worship; the local sanctuaries
we're declared illegal. Now. throughout
The earlier history Of the Jews, no such
attitude seems 10 have been maintained
toward these sanctuaries. Not only did
The people worship there. but also their
leaders, men like Samuel and Elijah who
we're bound to know what they ought to
sure, no suspicion that they are doing any
thing illegal. Even Amos and Hosea
do not condemn the local sanctuaries as
such: therefore. besides internal reasons,
here is this external ground for placing
Deuteronomy after Amos and Hosea, that
is. after 73s B. C. Thus. according to the
Higher Criticism, the chronological order
would be Amos, Hosea, Deuteronomy,
E,ekiei. the Priestlv Code. Two of the
Pentateuchal codes have thus been ac-
colnted for. There remains the briefer
c,de known as the Book Of the Covenant
Exodus XIX. % to xiii. Ssl. In comparison
with Deuteronomy, the character OF this
code is rudimentary. But little more can
he determined about it's date than it is prior
10 Deuteronomy There are. then, three
s'rato OF lepisldtion in the Pentdfcuch; 10
ma. the Book of the Copenant, Deuteronomy.
me Priestly Code (Leriiicvs and kindred
sections). in this chronological order.
Mr.. McFadyen goes on TO show that
there are also three strata Of historical
narrative in the Hexateuch. to wit, two
prophetic documents and priestly docl-
ment. We shall not follow him longer in
detail. but point out that. according to the
Higher Criticism the prophetic hist ory