Any system of thought which owes its origin to the enemies of the Bible must necessarily be regarded with suspicion by the Bible's friends. This consideration alone ought to make every Christian look with suspicion on the new criticism of the Pentateuch; for it is well known that W. Robertson Smith first put it into an English dress, and he acknowledged his indebtedness for it to Wellhausen. He does this in the preface to his "Prophets of Israel," page 13, in the following words:

      Taken as a whole, the writings of Wellhausen are the most notable contribution to the historical study of the Old Testament since the great work of Ewald, and almost every part of the present lectures owes something to them.

      Now, it is well known to every man who has read anything from the pen of Wellhausen, that he is an infidel; that is, that he denies the supernatural in the narratives of the Bible. If any of my readers are unacquainted with his writings, they have but to read a few of his essays in the Encyclopedia Britannica to know this for themselves. Mr. Smith has especial reference in the sentence just quoted to such an article. He says:

      The very remarkable article, "Israel," in the new edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, contains most important contributions to prophetic theology, my obligations to which I am the more anxious to acknowledge because other features in the [301] writings of this scholar have received too exclusive attention from critics.

      Robertson Smith edited this new edition of the Britannica; he was himself responsible for inviting Wellhausen to write this and other articles. There are so many articles of the kind in this new edition, that the publishers were compelled by public opinion in Great Britain to publish a supplemental volume, in which all the subjects which they had treated are rediscussed by believing writers. No one, therefore, should purchase the Encyclopedia without including this supplemental volume, so that he can read both sides of these critical questions. These considerations make it plain that the words of Jesus, slightly changed, can be applied to our English and American critics of the new school:

      Ye are of your father Wellhausen, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was an infidel from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because the truth is not in him. He is a destructive critic, and the father thereof.

      On another page of this same volume, Robertson Smith, with a freedom in handling the Scriptures characteristic of his class, makes the following declaration:

      In the oldest part of the Hebrew legislation the word which our version renders "judges" properly means "God" (Ex. 21:6; 22:8); and to bring a case before God means to bring it to the sanctuary. It was at the doorpost of the sanctuary that the symbolic action was performed by which a Hebrew man might voluntarily accept a lifelong service (p. 100).

      The author here assumes that the only judges were those at the sanctuary, whereas judges were appointed in every city. He assumes, further, that the door-post at which the ear of the voluntary bondsman was bored, was the door of the sanctuary, whereas there is nothing said about a sanctuary in the context of either passage. He again assumes that boring the man's ear was "a [302] symbolic action," whereas it was intended merely as a mark by which all might know that the owner of the bondman was not keeping him contrary to the law. And finally, the author cuts his own critical throat by assuming that at the time of this "oldest part of Hebrew legislation," there was "a sanctuary," whereas, according to the critical theory, the sanctuary was an invention of a later age. If a man follows a crooked path, he is very apt to cross his own track without knowing it; and if he is not led by the Bible, he is very, apt to contradict the Bible.

[SEBC 301-303]