The Modern Hypothesis and Recent Criticism of the Early Prophets
Volume 1(TOC)
The Modern Hypothesis and Recent Criticism of the Early Prophets
The study of the early prophetic writings has become invested with a threefold interest through the rise of the Kuenen-Wellhausen hypothesis. Externally looked at, the reversal of the customary sequence, Law-Prophets, seemed to form the distinctive feature of this hypothesis, and around this point accordingly the battle between its defenders and opponents was at first concentrated. It appeared obvious that for the decision of the controversy everything depended on the literary and historical testimony of the earliest prophets. The question was one of verifying whether any, or how much, of the material, legislative and narrative, embedded in the Law existed in written form in ancient times. Apart from a few poetic compositions of smaller size,[1] and some historical documents, which are, however, held to have been incorporated in and adjusted to works of much later date and whose original form can therefore no longer be precisely determined,[2] the Prophets were the only writings in regard to whose date and genuineness in the main both sides were still agreed. All else appeared unsettled and involved in the great critical upheaval: here at least a common basis for argument had remained. But this reveals only one side of the importance to which the prophetic books suddenly attained. It was soon realized that much more was at stake than the relative age of certain writings, and that the shifting of dates on so broad a scale had taken place in the interest of a philosophical theory regarding the development of Israel's religion. Hence the discussion was pushed into the wider field of the history of revelation or religion, into the midst of the living movement of events, where research bids fair to be rewarded not by discovery of the external sequence of writings alone, but by insight into the causal connection of the forces that have shaped the development of which the writings are mere precipitates or products. If the new hypothesis was right, then Prophecy, coming before the Law, claimed all the interest attaching to records which stand nearest to the mysterious but fascinating beginning of things. The removal of the Pentateuch from its place before the Prophets had created a clear field for that form of naturalistic theorizing to which hitherto the Law with its sharply defined supernaturalistic signature had always formed an insuperable barrier the question had now become open, What is it that lies back of Prophecy, evolution or revelation, the physical or the ethical, the imperfect or the perfect?[3] But, contemporary records failing unless the constructions attempted in answer to this question were to be wholly baseless and subjective, a process of backward reasoning, taking its point of departure from the earliest ascertainable data, had to be resorted to; and these data were furnished by the eighth-century prophets, who were thus made to bear witness direct or indirect to the stage of religious development preceding their own times. Even this, however, does not exhaust the significance of the early prophetic writings as a factor in the critical controversy. They appear not as mere literary or historical witnesses, but as independent actors in the drama of development constructed by the critics. Even on the old view, Prophetism at its rise marks an epoch in sacred history. The modern hypothesis, however, having reduced everything in the oldest period to a naturalistic level, is bound to make this epoch a creative one; to it the prophets are the originators of the unique ethical and religious teaching Israel has given to the world, whereas according to the traditional view the prophets simply enforced and applied and developed what was already contained, germinally at least, in the Mosaic revelation.
Neither side was slow to perceive the strategic value possessed by the prophetic writings in each of these three respects. First of all, from the conservative side the claim was upheld that the high antiquity of both the narrative and legislative material in the Pentateuch in all its parts was placed beyond attack by the testimony of the earliest prophets. Over against this the adherents of the modern view attempted to show that the prophets of the eighth century, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, contain no traces of the existence of the Deuteronomic and priestly documents, whereas references to the Jahvist and Elohist are clearly found in them; that the prophets of the seventh century, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, show, beside traces of JE, points of comparison or marks of actual acquaintance with Deuteronomy; that Ezekiel, the prophet of the exile, reveals great similarity in his ideas and manner of expression with the oldest of the priestly sections of the Law; that finally, the late writers, Malachi and Daniel, offer parallels with all parts of the Thora, and speak of the latter as an organic whole attributed to Moses. All this in entire harmony with the main contentions of the critical hypothesis.
With equal eagerness the prophetic testimony in regard to Israel's past religious development was seized upon by both parties to the controversy, although it must be admitted that here the critics were at a serious disadvantage. The defenders of the traditional view maintained, and evidently on strong grounds, that the unanimous voices of Prophecy pronounced the corrupt state of popular religion among Israel the result of an habitual declension from the higher and purer faith once delivered to the fathers by Moses; that the antithesis between prophets and people was to be explained, in agreement with the explicit declarations of the prophets to this effect, as the natural opposition of the few faithful upholders of Israel's best traditions to the degeneracy of the apostate mass. The critics could not deny that on the whole this was a fair statement of what appeared from their writings to have been the prophets' own convictions on this point. But, in spite of this, they asserted that the data of the prophetic literature, when rightly interpreted, favored not the conservative, but the modern construction of history. And the assertion was made plausible by the demand that a correct interpretation of the past in the light of Prophecy should begin not with accepting the Prophetic judgment as historical evidence, but with explaining it, together with a number of other facts, on philosophical and psychological principles. If the prophets characterize the popular religion as apostasy, it is not so much as a piece of credible testimony that this has interest for us, but as an unconscious revelation on their part that in the course of evolution they had risen above the majority, and were so naively and intuitively convinced of the truth of their higher views as to be unable to think of them as not having been known and valid since the first beginning of Israel's history.
But the main trial of strength between the two contending views was reserved for the interpretation of the Prophetic movement itself, and its contribution to the development of Old Testament religion. The critics had to show, and endeavored to show, that the historical constellation under which their hypothesis placed the birth of Prophecy was not only consistent with but favorable to the intensely productive power ascribed to it. Given the antecedents and the environment supplied by the reconstruction of the older period, it was said, and the work of the Prophets stood out upon the background of their age luminous and intelligible; the mystery and darkness which had hitherto enveloped the genesis of the loftiest teaching of the Old Testament were at once dispelled. The antiquated notion of objective supernatural revelation could now be discarded and the modern idea of development take its place. It was easy to trace the psychological processes in which the distinctive doctrines of the Prophetic theology were evolved. Part fitted into part, and for each truth there was a place and function in the growing organism. The ethical idealism, the monotheism, the spiritual conception of the nature and service of Jehovah, the universalism, the Messianic predictions of the prophets, all these were furnished with a rational explanation and exhibited in their mutual dependence. The veil was lifted from the reading of the old covenant and the history of its ideas almost wrote itself. In a word, it was claimed that the new hypothesis found its chief commendation and celebrated its highest triumph in the brilliant simplicity with which it solved the riddles and swept away the problems of Old Testament science.
On the other hand, those who were convinced of the correctness of the older views did not hesitate to take up the challenge thus thrown out to them. If anywhere, then here was the point where the critical theory was to be met aggressively and to be subjected to criticism in its turn. In this particular field it undertook to be positive and constructive, and its exploits were so daring and comprehensive, covering such a wide range of evidence upon which it must either plainly approve or discredit itself, that no possibility seemed left for anon liquetin the end. And not only did a critical examination of the hypothesis on this point seem to promise definite results, it offered the further advantage of testing the same, not in some subordinate feature, but in the center of its life on which all other parts are dependent. Should it fail to substantiate its claims here, it must break down entirely, for its own assumptions have led it to place at this point the main problem of Old Testament history, for the sake of solving which it exists. In so far as the hypothesis could lay claim to being the most ingenious and best-balanced scheme yet devised for a purely naturalistic explanation of the phenomena of Prophecy, it was justly deemed to involve in its success or defeat the general cause of anti-supernaturalism as regards the Old Testament. Under the influence of so much that invited and stimulated criticism, it is no wonder that the evolutionary scheme was rigorously tried by the stern facts of the history of Prophetism and all its weakness exposed. It was shown without difficulty that it misconstrues the evidence on which it pretends to rest, that it fails to explain the most important elements of the prophetic consciousness and teaching, that its reasoning is more specious than logical, that in its psychological constructions it makes the Old Testament writers think in modern terms, that its assumed development stands in chronological conflict with the data of history, that it is too narrow to subsume under its categories the doctrinal wealth of prophetic revelation and its broad outlook into the future.
In that first flush of enthusiasm which is wont to attend every new discovery, whether real or imagined, the entire contents of the prophetic literature were claimed by the critics as in full harmony with their position. There was no inclination to admit that any part of the evidence appeared inconclusive or suggested problems as yet unsolved. With amazing unconsciousness of the mysteries of prophecy, the defenders of the modern view proceeded to argue their case. When hard pressed by some of the conservative representations recourse was had to an exegesis which more or less plausibly explained away the evidence of the religious vitality of the Law in the prophetic consciousness, or pointed out subtle differences between the early Prophetic and the later Deuteronomic philosophy of history, or reduced the most marvelous Messianic predictions to the level above which mere preachers of righteousness should not rise. Holiness in the Prophets was claimed to be a totally different conception from holiness in the Pentateuch. References to the Thora were interpreted either of the Prophetic instruction itself even where the context seemed to favor no such sense, or else, if the allusion to priestly Thora could not be denied, the reader was carefully warned against a possible confusion between the written Thora of a later age and the oral Thora supplied by the priests in individual instances. With so much assurance was this method of dealing with the inconvenient parts of the evidence at first applied, that for a considerable time no necessity was felt to propose the question, whether some of the prophecies in which these phenomena occurred might not be of a later date, so that protection against them ought to be sought in critical excision rather than in exegetical makeshifts. The well-nigh universal denial of the genuineness of such sections as Isaiah 24-27 and 40-66, and the late dating by many of the prophecy of Joel had, besides, removed the most serious difficulties in advance.
In the course of time, however, a great change came over the critics in their attitude toward the prophetic writings. They began to be more thoughtful and less eager to claim that their conception of Israel's history and the testimony of the Prophets in their present shape were in perfect agreement. It was perceived that the hypothesis did not find as smooth sailing in the often-disturbed waters of prophetic revelation as was at first anticipated. Difficulty was experienced in reconciling the realistic content of many an oracle with the highly idealistic character in which the critics were accustomed to conceive the prophet. But these doubts and misgivings were not signs of any inclination on the part of the critics to retrace their steps. On the contrary, they indicated a more than ever assured conviction of the substantial truth of their conclusions. The precipitancy with which the champions of the new views had in the beginning thrown themselves upon the available evidence to press every part of it with equal ardor into the service of their cause, wore off in the same proportion as the hypothesis was believed to have been placed on a secure basis, so as to be no longer dependent on single data for its support. A calmer tone and temper took its place, which enabled the critics to observe more accurately and to recognize more readily the real nature of the facts, than was possible before. Still more influential, however, in bringing about this change was a second cause. The criticism of the Hexateuch had run its course and been carried to that point of minuteness and perfection of detail where little attractive original labor remained to be done. New fields were to be opened up in which the critical faculty could exert the powers acquired in its employment upon the Mosaic writings. The fact that difficulties had to be admitted in squaring the modern theory with the prophetic books naturally turned the attention of the critics in this direction. So it came about that a vigorous movement for the reconstruction of the criticism of the Prophets set in, in which, so far as the situation allowed, the performances of Pentateuch criticism were reenacted, and the first canon applied was the probably late, in most cases post-exilic, origin of all such prophecies as did not harmonize in their traditional place with the evolutionary program of the history of religious ideas.
It is assumed by the pioneers in this field that the prophetic literature has been subjected to a systematic redaction guided by religious or theological view-points and involving important excisions, additions and alterations. This process reached its height during the Persian period, after the writings of the prophets had for some time possessed a certain degree of sacredness, which could not be maintained unless their contents were made to agree with the then prevailing beliefs.[4] An extensive literary activity is believed to have developed which, in close dependence upon the older models and largely anonymous, adapted the ancient prophecies to the historical circumstances of the period; and the products of this activity, it is said, have been incorporated into the writings of the earlier prophets, so that, in the latter, compositions of widely distant ages and of entirely distinct stages of religious development are now agglutinated. The Prophetic books are composite in a sense somewhat analogous to that in which the Legal literature is held to consist of various layers. Among German critics Stade and Wellhausen have been chiefly identified with the advocacy of this view, the former by hisGeschichte des Volkes Israel[5] and a number of articles in theZeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, the latter by hisIsraelitische und Jüdische Geschichte[6] and the new translation with accompanying notes of the Minor Prophets which forms Part 5 of hisSkizzen und Vorarbeiten. To the criticism of Isaiah the principle has been applied with great boldness by Duhm'sKommentar, and also by Hackmann's treatise onDie Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia: most painstakingly and comprehensively, however, by Cheyne'sIntroduction to the Book of Isaiah. The last-mentioned critic has likewise espoused the results of the recent criticism of the Minor Prophets from this point of view, in the Introduction written by him for the new edition of Robertson Smith'sThe Prophets of Israel.
It will be at once apparent that by this new departure the significance of the prophetic writings for the questions at issue has been essentially modified. It can be of no use any longer to appeal to traces in the early prophets of the Legal organization and spirit or of the Thora as an organic whole, or of any of the alleged products of post-exilic Judaism; for these very features have now become the criteria by which, without appeal, the late origin of every prophecy wherein they occur is established. To carry on the debate on the basis of what remains, after the critical expurgation has been accomplished, would be a wholly fruitless undertaking. The standpoint represented by the assumed post-exilic writers or redactors is in most cases identical with the conservative standpoint. Hence to rule out their testimony would be a begging of the question on a grand scale, something resembling a judicial process in which the desired verdict were used beforehand by one party as the test for admitting and excluding evidence. A critical comparison of the old and new views, as far as the Prophetic books are concerned, was possible only while the critics were yet in a position to admit the testimony of these books in their entirety.[7] But this period has now begun to belong to the past. The adherents of the modern hypothesis, at least the progressive ones among them, are fully aware of this, as appears from the fact that without controversial regard for their conservative opponents they proceed to manipulate and distribute the prophecies to their own satisfaction. When sometimes from the apologetic side complaints are still heard, that the critics cannot be reasoned with, because no sooner is any passage quoted from the prophetic writings making against their assumptions than they declare it of later origin, such complaints are in one sense hardly justified. In point of fact, the critics are no longer engaged in demonstrating or defending their hypothesis; they are at work in applying it.
But if, in the old sense, the apologetic significance of the early prophetic writings has for the time being been neutralized, in other respects their study with a view to the pending issues has acquired new interest. Altogether apart from the question as to the correctness of results, it cannot be concealed that a large part of the arguments once used in defense of the critical hypothesis has been by this recent move entirely discredited. The present attitude of the critics themselves is a practical confession to this effect. At a time not so very far removed they contended hotly that the prophetic evidence submitted by the apologists in favor of the high antiquity of the Mosaic writings and institutions was imaginary, distorted, unworthy of serious attention. And, behold, at present the critics of the same school, sometimes the very same men, are making use of these identical arguments to prove the identical proposition, viz., that when these prophecies were penned, the Thora and its religious organization were supreme factors in religious life. A more completevolte faceis scarcely conceivable. That the conclusion to be established was in the minds of the conservatives associated with the Mosaic origin of the Law, and in the mind of the present-day critics with the post-exilic date of the prophecies, is a mere accidental feature, which ought, of course, not to affect the estimate placed upon the quality of the reasoning itself. Either, the apologetic arguments were as worthless as they were branded by their opponents—and then what value can be attached to them when employed in the critical cause?—or, they are sound and conclusive now—in which case the apologists have been splendidly vindicated and ought to receive an apology from those who once scorned their conclusions and now silently appropriate the substance of them.
After all, however, this is a mere matter of historical justice, which, while apt to reflect unfavorably upon the methods of the critics in general, need not be fatal to the correctness of their main thesis. Insufficient caution and limited insight have often made it necessary to defend one truth by controverting another, because at the time it was not seen how the two could be reconciled. The apologists may have rightly pointed out traces of the existence of the Thora in the Prophets, and yet the Thora as an organic whole may be post-exilic. In the abstract the two alternatives, that the Law is pre-Prophetic or that the prophecies in question are late interpolations, come before us with an equal show of logical possibility, and we cannot refuse to consider the solution now proposed by the critics. The reconstruction of the data of Prophecy on the lines of the modern hypothesis may bea prioristic, and we may regret that it confiscates the last common territory on which the disputed questions could be brought to a decision; it need not for these reasons be false. There is one right, however, which no amount ofa prioritreatment of the prophetic books can take from us—the right to subject the proposed manipulation of these writings to the test of the principles which are immanent in the writings themselves. No mistake could be greater than to suppose that the critics have now finally escaped from the control of objective facts as far as the Prophetic literature is concerned. Even in applying their theory it will not do for them merely to postulate that such and such a prophecy must be post-exilic, because the ideas contained in it are according to the modern view the specific products of that late period. They will be justly expected to show that in each individual case internal indications of a literary and contextual nature, if they do not directly require, at least favor the excision made in obedience to the claims of the hypothesis. In this sense the use of a theory as a working principle and the demonstration of its scientific character go hand in hand. The most crucial test to which every hypothesis must submit consists in its application to the widest possible range of phenomena, in distinction from the narrower circle of facts to account for which it has been constructed; and its plausibility increases or decreases proportionately to the ease or difficulty with which it subsumes under itself the phenomena beyond the horizon of its original field. For this reason it may be said that, in the critical manipulation of the prophetic writings which it is at present pursuing, the modern hypothesis is putting itself on trial. Devised for the immediate necessities of Pentateuch criticism, it must now prove itself capable of assimilating the facts of Prophecy without resorting to revolutionary methods. It must show that the two lines of argument, the one proceeding from considerations external to the prophetic books, the other from internal evidence supplied by the latter, do actually converge. If, in attempting this, it should be compelled to displace a large amount of material from its traditional environment, or to resort, for the dissection deemed necessary, to violent means both will have to be counted as serious instances against its probability. It seems to us that this is the point on which conservative scholars should, in the present situation, concentrate their efforts to expose the weakness of the hypothesis as regards the prophetic portion of the Old Testament. It should be shown not merely that the ideas in question are there, but are rightly there; and that they themselves, as well as the passages in which they occur, cannot be expunged without doing injury to the inner organism of the prophetic teaching and the prophetic books.
It must be confessed that from this point of view the representatives of the newest phase of prophetic criticism have made very light of their obligations. Little or no objective evidence is adduced to show that the assumed redaction or expansion of the ancient prophecies actually took place. Too often the excisions from the prophetic text are not justified, nor is their justification seriously attempted, on internal grounds. The utmost that can be said is that the critical reasoning here and there finds some apparent support in the darkness of the prophetic style or the corrupt state of the text, which makes it easy to assert lack of connection or detect seams of redaction at numerous points. The treatment of the prophetic word which is fast growing fashionable may be aptly characterized asexegesis by means of criticism under the forced application of certain literary canons concerning the lucidity, straightforwardness and general perfection of the prophetic style. If a passage presents exegetical difficulties or cannot be interpreted except at a sacrifice of that transparency we are accustomed to expect in modern literature, straightway the knife is inserted. Duhm'sCommentary on Isaiahoffers numerous examples of curtailment of the genuine text on no other ground than that the style or diction are thought unworthy of the prophet. Even less satisfactory is Wellhausen's manner, who, as a rule, simplyex cathedradecrees the spurious or late origin of a section omitted in his translation, whether from lack of other grounds than his general critical instinct or from aristocratic disdain to state them, it is hard to tell. Cheyne not uncharitably calls this "the conciseness" of Wellhausen's argument. Whatever value may be placed on this part of his work, it must be acknowledged that Cheyne has, at least, given himself the trouble of working out the literary side of the critical case in reference to Isaiah. As a rule, however, the critics openly profess that in their estimation the literary or contextual arguments are merely secondary, and that the Biblico-theological criteria are the really decisive ones in determining the date of a prophetic passage. Cheyne himself admits that the phraseological section of his argument is on the whole not so decisive as in Hexateuch criticism, and assigns to the literary phenomena the last place among the marks of late origin of a prophecy.[8] Still further than this goes Hackmann, who says that, although in Hexateuch criticism far more abundant literary data were available, nevertheless even in that department no progress was made until the religious spirit and tendency of the documents became the subject of investigation; and that to a still greater extent this method will have to be pursued in the criticism of the Prophetic literature.[9] This is an admission that in Hexateuch criticisma prioriprinciples derived from the idea of evolution, in Prophetic criticism principles derived from the evolutionary interpretation of the Hexateuch, are to be the chief canons—that in neither the literary evidence is of an independently conclusive character, and in the prophets less so than in the Hexateuch.
The necessity for these general concessions can be easily demonstrated in detail. In the following pages we endeavor to give a survey of the more important material affected by this new method of critical procedure. The examination confines itself to the prophets whose work and writings are by common consent contemporaneous with the crisis in the assumed evolution of ethical monotheism. These are the prophets of the eighth century, in chronological order—Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah. We leave Joel out of the discussion, for although the critical views concerning the development of religion furnish the chief arguments for assigning him to a post-exilic date and the contents of his book are of great importance for establishing the high antiquity of the priestly organization, yet his case is unique because here not isolated sections but the whole prophecy is transferred to the later period, and our special purpose for the present is to examine the right of the critics to detach single passages from a context which claims for them a place in the work of the early prophets. Joel raises no such direct claim for itself, and, besides, the trend of critical opinion toward a late date for this prophet is of earlier origin than the general reconstructive movement in prophetic criticism with which we are now concerned.