While Prof. Charles Foster Kent was assistant professor of Biblical literature and history in Brown [469] University, he published a book of moderate size entitled "A History of the Hebrew People from the Settlement in Canaan to the Division of the Kingdom." Since he has become "Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature in Yale University," he has published a much larger work covering much of the same ground, bearing the title, "The Student's Old Testament History," or "The Beginnings of Hebrew History, from the Creation to the Establishment of the Hebrew Kingdom." In both of these he exhibits the history in the perverted form which has been imposed upon it by destructive critics. In the preface to the latter volume he acknowledges his especial indebtedness to Professors Driver and Cheyne, and it is easy to see that he has followed the latter more implicitly than the former, thus making his work the more destructive of the history, which he professedly sets forth. A volume as large as his first could be filled with a statement of the perversions of history of which he is guilty, but I propose to limit this article to the manner in which he deals with one of the noblest and most heroic of ancient Hebrews.

      He robs Gideon of all his heroic achievements by rejecting the whole of his history except his pursuit of the Midianite chiefs beyond the Jordan; and he resolves that into a mere family blood feud in revenge for the killing of his five brothers. He covers the ground in the following few lines which I copy from the earlier work:

      A seeming accident called him forth. In one of their plundering forays, a band of Midianites penetrated to the vicinity of Mount Tabor to the north of Esdraelon; there they were resisted by men of the sub-tribe of Abiezer. In the skirmish some of the Hebrews were slain. Among others were the brothers of a certain Jerubbaal, better known to later generations as Gideon (the hewer). The sacred law of blood-revenge imperatively [470] commanded him to avenge this deed. Gathering a small band, three hundred of his household retainers, he set out to overtake the marauders and slay the princes whose hands had been stained with his brothers' blood (p. 79).

      This representation leaves out of the account Gideon's wonderful faith in God, his low estimate of himself, and his astonishing victory over the Midianite host, thus robbing him of the chief part of his glory, and it leaves him only the least creditable part of his achievements. Had this been all that was known of him, he would never have been enrolled among the heroes of history.

      But the worst part of this Professor's performance has reference to Gideon's conduct after his return from the pursuit of the princes. The history reads thus: "Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and thy son's son also; for thou hast saved us out of the hand of Midian. And Gideon said to them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: Jehovah shall rule over you." In this refusal to accept the throne, offered by a grateful people, our own great Washington found a model, and the greatness of his soul, as all men have seen it, was made manifest chiefly by his imitation of the Hebrew patriot. But Professor Kent and the critics of his ilk can not bear to let Gideon wear this crown of his glory. They deliberately, and as if maliciously, snatch it from his head. After quoting the proposal of the people, the Professor says:

      Thus simply and naturally was the idea of the kingship introduced into Hebrew life. According to the narrative, the conquering hero refused the offer; but acts speak louder than words in the past, as well as the present. With the gold of the spoils captured from the Midianites, he proceeded at once to make an ephod. This image, overlaid with gold, he set up at his home and future capital, Ophrah, thereby making this the religious [471] as well as the political center of the kingdom which he forthwith established. Like Solomon and Jeroboam I. in later times, he doubtless sought by this means to rally about his throne the religious zeal as well as the patriotism of his followers, and thus insure its stability (p. 81).

      Here we have a fair specimen of destructive criticism, and at the same time one of what our "modern scientific historical critics" would style constructive criticism. It destroys completely the history of Gideon, as given in the Bible, a history which places him among the noblest of noble men, and it constructs a story which degrades him to the level of a Bedawin sheik of the present day; and it makes him hypocritically pretend to decline a kingdom in the very act of establishing one. If Gideon had now any living relatives, they would have ground in this pretended history for a libel suit against Professor Kent, and in any just court they could recover heavy damages. It is bad enough to slander the living; it is much worse to slander the dead.

      There is another aspect of this perverted history which shows the folly of the writer as plainly as it does his unfriendliness to Gideon. He admits that after Gideon's return from the pursuit of the Midianite princes, the people of Israel proposed that he and his descendants should rule over them. Did they do this simply because, like every other hot-headed Israelite under similar circumstances, he had wrought blood-revenge upon the slayers of his brothers? What was there in that to call forth such an offer? Evidently Professor Kent did not see what this offer implies. It implies that Gideon had wrought just such a national deliverance as the one which he recklessly excludes as unhistorical, While he was denying, he ought to have denied the whole story of Gideon. A man had just as [472] well be hanged for stealing a sheep as for stealing a lamb; so when a critic undertakes to deny a part of a Bible narrative, his sin is no greater if he denies the whole of it, and he is less likely to expose his folly.

      We might suppose that in the course of the eight years which intervened between the publication of the first and second of his two books, Professor Kent may have relented his harsh judgment of Gideon, but, though he says less about it, he still adheres to it; for he says:

      The sequel of 23 is 29, which in turn is quite unrelated to the context. This citation from a later source may well have supplanted an older narrative, which told of the establishment of the kingdom of Gideon, which is implied in the Judean parallel and in 9 (p. 330).

      This mode of treating the sacred record and the characters of holy men, would not be so serious if its author was a private citizen exerting no unusual influence over the minds of the young. But it comes from the pen and brain of a theological professor in one of our most famous universities. It is the kind of stuff with which the minds of the young men preparing for the ministry are annually crammed in the lecture-room; and these young men, unless they have been fortified against the teaching of their professor by previous drill in the knowledge of the Bible, an advantage which few of them possess, will almost necessarily imbibe the poison and dole it out afterward to those who shall be so unfortunate as to be their hearers. No wonder that so many pulpits are being occupied by half-skeptical preachers. Not only so, but the thousands of young men in the other departments of the university are quick to learn that such teaching abounds in the. "Divinity School," and it works like leaven in their minds to the destruction of their faith. [473]

      The remedy for this evil is to be found in so arousing public indignation as to cripple the patronage of universities whose governing bodies are so reckless as to place such men in professors' chairs. The time has been when no man who had the heart to undermine the faith of the young men could be tolerated as a college professor. That time should come again, and it will.

[SEBC 469-474]