HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION

Up to the time of Voltaire there were only sporadic cases of the rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It is true that pretty long lists of authors are given in treatises of the analytic critics, in such a way (we do not say intentionally) as to make the impression that they all held to the non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Thus the names of Aben-Ezra, Carlstadt, Spinoza, Masius, Peyrere, Astruc, Hobbes, Clericus, and others are classed as pioneers or adherents of the analytic criticism. Yet the majority of them adhered to the traditional belief in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch. Aben-Ezra and Masius claimed only that some things in the Pentateuch were written by a later hand, which a majority of the most conservative biblical critics admit. Peyrere and Clericus gave up their anti-Mosaic opinions or doubts, and returned to the traditional belief. Astruc, who has sometimes been called the father of the analytic criticism, always defended, or professed to defend, the traditional belief. There are in the list three well-attested anti-Mosaic critics, the rash and eccentric Carlstadt and the two infidels Spinoza and Hobbes.

As to the origination of the analytic criticism, which has for its main objective point the non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, rival claims have been set up. This honor, if honor it is, has been given to Astruc, Reuss, Graf, De Wette, and others. Wellhausen, who, since the death of Kuenen, is probably the ablest of the destructive critics, writes as follows:

"Die Hypothese, die man nach Graf zu benennen pflegt, stammt nicht von ihm, sondern von seinem Eehrer Eduard Reuss. Am richtigsten wäre sie aber zu benennen nach Leopold George und Wilhelm Vatke; denn sie haben dieselbe zuerst literarisch vertreten, unabhängig von Reuss und unabhängig von einander. Ihrerseits sind alle diese Männer von Martin Lebrecht de Wette ausgegangen, dem epochemachenden Eröffner der historischen Kritik auf diesem Gebiete. Zu einer festen Position ist freilich de Wette nicht gelangt, aber er hat zuerst deutlich die Kluft empfunden und nachgewiesen, welche sich zwischen dem angeblichen Ausgangspunkte der israelitischen Geschichte und ihr selber aufthut."¹ ("The hypothesis, which is named after Graf, proceeds not from him, but from his teacher, Edward Reuss. It would be more correct to name it after Leopold George and Wilhelm Vatke; because they have been the first to give it literary treatment, independently of Reuss and independently of each other. But all these men have gone out from Martin Lebrecht de Wette, the epoch-making pioneer of historical criticism in this field. To be sure, he did not reach a firm position, but he was the first to find and to point out the chasm which opens between the pretended starting-point of the Israelitish history and that history itself.")

It is thus seen that Wellhausen is disposed to ascribe the paternity of what he recognizes as biblical criticism to Graf rather than to Astruc; to Reuss rather than to Graf; to George and Vatke rather than to Reuss; and to De Wette rather than to George and Vatke. The truth is, however, that nearly a century before De Wette, Voltaire had set forth in his various writings nearly all the points embraced in the analytic criticism, and also most of the arguments employed by the critics in maintaining them. These points are as follows:

1. That Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch.

2. That Deuteronomy is the book that was found in the temple in the time of King Josiah.

3. That the first four books of the Pentateuch were composed by Ezra, or by some other post-exilic writer.

4. That the Book of Joshua had a similar origin.

5. That the books of the Hexateuch were compiled from several documents written by as many different authors, who made many mistakes and often contradict one another.

6. That the Law came after the Prophets.

7. That most of the laws that are ascribed to Moses did not originate until long after his time.

8. That the Pentateuchal laws and worship were the result, not of legislative enactment, nor of divine appointment, but of gradual development and growth.

9. That the Mosaic tabernacle never really existed, and that the history of it and references to it in the Pentateuch and elsewhere are false.

10. That the books of Kings, Chronicles, and Esther, as well as the Hexateuch, are historically untrustworthy.

11. That nearly all the Psalms are of post-exilic origin, and that King David wrote but very few of them.

12. That Solomon was not the author of the Song of Songs, nor of Ecclesiastes; nor Isaiah of the last twenty-seven chapters of the book that is ascribed to him, nor of all the thirty-nine chapters which precede.

13. The Scriptures abound in anachronisms, contradictions, interpolations, redactions, alterations, and almost all kinds of errors.

14. That neither the testimony of the apostles, nor even that of our Lord Jesus Christ, in regard to the authorship of the Old Testament books is to be accepted as trustworthy.

Nearly all the points embraced in this summary are presented in the writings of Voltaire. Indeed, he presents more of the many points embraced in "the higher criticism " than any of its distinguished advocates of the present age. The only critics who equal him in the fullness and minuteness of presentation are those that undertake to give a summarized view of the whole. He is by no means consistent with himself; but for this very reason he is a better exponent of the analytic criticism, setting forth, as he does, the divergent opinions of the various classes of its advocates, from the professedly evangelical sort up to the rationalists and infidels.

Voltaire expressed his critical views timidly and cautiously at first, but afterward more boldly and openly. In his "Traité sur Tolérance," he refers to certain passages in the Pentateuch, which, he says, had been claimed as mentioning things that occurred after Moses, and which, therefore, could not be from him. He then remarks as follows:' ' One replies to these objections that these passages are notes added long afterward by the copyists."² He then alludes to the opinion held at one time by Leclere, as being held by some other theologians, but he speaks of them as "a small number of sectaries, whose curiosity sounds these depths." Then, with the semblance of piety and reverence, he makes the following declaration: "When the wise and the ignorant, princes and shepherds, shall appear, after this short life, before the Master of eternity each one of us then will wish to have been just, humane, compassionate, generous; no one will boast to have known precisely in what year the Pentateuch was written, and to have distinguished the text from the notes which were in use by the scribes."³

It is evident that Voltaire held the opinions which he ostensibly condemns. The fact that he introduces these matters in marginal notes in his "Treatise on Toleration," with which they have no logical connection, reveals his desire and intention to discredit the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. His real sentiments are more fully presented in his "Dictionnaire Philosophique." But even here he at first represents himself as an advocate of traditional views. He begins the first section of his article on Moses by declaring that "philosophy, researches into antiquity, the spirit of discussion and of criticism, have been pushed so far that at length many learned men have doubted whether there ever was a Moses." He remarks that the infidels claim that it is improbable that a man ever existed whose whole life was a continual prodigy; that it is declared in the Jewish books that no copy of the Pentateuch was known until the time of King Josiah; that the prophets make no reference to the Pentateuch, and that Solomon proceeded contrary to the express law of Moses in adorning the temple. He then declares that "according to these infidels, the books attributed to Moses were written among the Babylonians during the captivity, or immediately after it." After referring to Bolingbroke as reasoning against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and after quoting the testimony of Christ and the New Testament in favor of it, he affirms that "it is necessary that we should submit our reason, as many men have done." He closes with the very pious remark that " it is our consolation to have the church with us in maintaining the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch," in opposition to philosophy, research, discussion, and criticism.

In the second section of the article on Moses, in the "Dictionnaire Philosophique," the author again treats of the authorship of the Pentateuch, and in the pretended character of a believer in the traditional view. He represents the opponents of this view as presenting the following arguments: That the Scripture itself affirms that the first known copy of the Pentateuch was found in the temple one thousand one hundred and sixty-seven years after the time of Moses, according to the Hebrew computation; that the book was not known until after the exile; that events are mentioned in it that did not occur until long after the time of Moses; that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are contradictory; that the book is not quoted by the prophets, nor in the Psalms, nor in any of the books attributed to Solomon; that the Pentateuch itself does not claim to be the work of Moses; that if Moses was the author he would not have laid down rules for Jewish kings when there were none, nor were likely to be any; that there were not wealth and mechanical skill enough among the Israelites to construct the tabernacle in the wilderness.

The author represents the advocates of the traditional view as replying to the above reasoning as follows: That the ways of God are not as the ways of men; that God proves, leads, and abandons his people by a wisdom which is unknown to us; that the Jews themselves for more than two thousand years have believed that Moses was the author of these books; that the church, which has succeeded the synagogue, and which, like it, is infallible, has decided the points of controversy; and that the learned ought to be silent when the church speaks.

In regard to the above, we remark as follows:

1. The presentation of arguments at the close of this second section of the article on Moses in favor of the traditional view is in accord with the declaration that ' ' the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." The closing remark that the church, infallible like the synagogue, has decided the question, and that therefore the one duty is silence and submission, is, of course, sarcastic, and is intended to decry the opinion which the author pretends to be upholding.

2. The author claims that he is presenting the objections urged by others against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but the most of them were originated by himself He would gladly have fathered them on preceding authors, but was obliged to content himself with declaring in a general way that these are the objections of the learned.

3. In claiming that it is the learned, the scholars ("les savants"), who urge these objections, Voltaire set the example, which has been followed by later analysts. These in many cases are not backward to claim that all or nearly all biblical learning and scholarship are with them, and that those who do not accept their views are unlearned and prejudiced.

In the third section of the article on Moses, the critic throws off the mask and makes the following straightforward declaration: "In regard to the books attributed to Moses, the most common rules of criticism do not permit the belief that he is their author. ' ' He then proceeds in an equally straightforward way to state his reasons for this declaration. They are as follows:

1. That names of towns, as Jair and Dan, that were unknown in the time of Moses, are mentioned in the Pentateuch.

2. That "the book of the wars of the Lord" is referred to, though it did not exist until after the time of Moses.

3. That the iron bedstead of Og, king of Bashan, is mentioned as existing long after the time of Moses.

4. That cities are spoken of as beyond ("au delà") Jordan that were on this side ("en deçà") Jordan, viewed from the point at which Moses was at the supposed time of writing.

5. That sixty great and fortified cities that did not exist in the time of Moses are mentioned in the Pentateuch.

6. That the Pentateuch is filled with accounts of miracles.

7. That the accounts of prodigies and of God's strange and supernatural dealings with the Israelites in Eg3^pt and in the desert, the ten plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the destruction of the Egyptian army, etc., are revolting to reason, and cannot have been written by Moses.

After stating these reasons, he proceeds to decry the general contents of the Pentateuch, and closes this third section of his article on Moses with these words:" It is very pardonable in human reason to see in such history only the barbarous rudeness of a savage people of the primitive times. Man, whatever he may do, cannot reason otherwise; but if God indeed is the author of the Pentateuch, it is necessary to submit without reasoning."⁴

Thus in the "Traité sur Tolérance" and the article on Moses in the "Dictionnaire Philosophique," taken together, we have almost all the points and arguments that are set forth by "the higher criticism."

1. Precisely like the analytic critics of to-day, Voltaire was at much pains to prove that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but at the same time declared that this is a point of no importance. "Whether Ezra or some other author committed this book to writing, is a matter of absolute indifference, since it is inspired."⁵ The last part of this declaration does not accord with the views of the leading critics, nor did Voltaire honestly make it.

2. He maintained that there were more than one author of the Pentateuch; that notes, interpolations, and additions were inserted in it; and that parts of it were rewritten by redactors.

3. As to the time when the Pentateuch was written, Voltaire was not consistent with himself. At one time he declares that, "without doubt, it was committed to writing in the time of Saul and Samuel." At another, he speaks of it as "having been written among the Babylonians during the captivity, or immediately after it." At still another time he is quite confident that the Pentateuch is later than the prophecies, Psalms, and the books attributed to Solomon. The more modern analysts have likewise had several hypotheses in regard to the time of the origin of the Pentateuchal books.

4. The notion of development and progress which figures so largely in "the higher criticism" of our times was employed similarly by the French critic.

5. The testimony of Christ and the New Testament to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was noticed by him, as by the more modern analysts, and, like them, he set it aside as untrustworthy.

6. He employed the same arguments as are now employed by his successors: the account of the finding of the book of the law in King Josiah's time; the argumentum e silentio, that is, that the prophecies, the Psalms, and the books attributed to Solomon are silent in regard to the Pentateuch; the neglect of the Pentateuchal books and laws by the Jewish nation; the geographical argument; the philological argument; the difference between the Deuteronomic and the Levitical laws; the rapid increase of the Israelites in Egypt; the impossibility of the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness for the want of wealth and artistic skill; the improbability and incredibility of the supernatural events which the book records; the claimed anachronisms, discrepancies, contradictions, fictions, and legends, classed as improbabilities, incredibilities, impossibilities, absurdities, and falsities which are charged upon the book by critics in our day. All these were employed by our famous Frenchman. There is scarcely an argument now employed by the analysts that was not employed, or at least suggested, by him. His treatment of the subject of divine inspiration — sometimes admitting it, sometimes denying it, often sneering at it, and all the time saying that it is in no way affected by the question of Mosaic authorship — constitutes him the type and father of the analytic critics in general, some of whom admit the divine inspiration of the Pentateuch and other portions of the Bible, while many of them, and the ablest of them, are as far gone in unbelief as the great infidel critic himself.

In regard to other books of the Bible, the views of Voltaire are in accord with those of the analytics; we might better say, their views are in accord with his. He denies that Solomon was the author of the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, or the Proverbs. He denies the trustworthiness of the books of Kings and Chronicles as mere history. In regard to prophecy and the prophets, he propounds the views now held by the most thoroughgoing analysts, but he does this in his usual insidious way. He says: "God forbid that I should wish to compare the Jewish prophecies to all the fortune-tellers who make court to the victorious, and who predict what has happened to them. I remark only that the Jews produced testimonials of their nation in regard to Cyrus one hundred and sixty years before he was in the world." He then quotes from the twenty-fifth chapter of Isaiah in regard to Cyrus, and remarks that some learned men ("quelques savants") cannot believe that God would confer the title of Christ (Voltaire thus translates "anointed" ) on a profane devotee of the religion of Zoroaster; and that these savants dare to say that these predictions concerning Cyrus were gotten up after the occurrence of the events to which they relate. "These scholars," says he, "appear not to be sufficiently penetrated with esteem for the prophets. Many of them even pretend that it is metaphysically impossible to see clearly the future; that to speak of seeing what is not, is a formal contradiction; that the future is not, and consequently cannot be, seen; that frauds of this kind are innumerable among all the nations; and that it is necessary to distrust entirely ancient history. . . . These learned men do not respect Daniel more than Isaiah."⁶

Thus Voltaire was the pioneer critic in regard to "the historical setting" of the prophecies and in denying the reality of all predictive utterances. In these matters he was rather more consistent than some later critics, who deny the Isaianic authorship of the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah's prophecy, but find themselves compelled, in logical consistency with their own views and tests, to deny the Isaianic authorship of much that precedes. Thus it is in dispute among them whether the twenty-first chapter of Isaiah refers to a siege of Babylon by the Assyrians in Isaiah's time, or to the siege of Babylon by the Medes and Persians after Isaiah's time. The critics who take the former view admit Isaiah to be the author; those who take the latter view claim that that chapter was written by a post-exilic author. Even Driver, whom Professor Cheyne rebukes for his timidity, conservatism, and concessions to orthodoxy, remarks that more recent writers, among them Kuenen and Dillmann, agree in supposing it to refer to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and hence ascribe it to a prophet living towards the close of the exile.⁷ Thus these critics adopt the principle laid down by Voltaire that all the prophets lived after the events which they predict. Even such critics as Driver and Cheyne assume the unreality of all predictive utterances, and employ it as a test to determine the authorship of the Old Testament prophecies, just as did the infidel critic himself.

In regard to the authorship of the books of the New Testament, Voltaire says but little. He treats them, however, as fallible and errant. In both these respects he is at one with the analysts of our age. They began by an attack upon the Old Testament. After a time they withdrew, like repulsed assailants, and made a determined assault upon the authorship and trustworthiness of the books of the New Testament. This movement has in turn been abandoned, and of late the attack upon the Old Testament has been renewed. These critics may be compared to troops failing in their attacks upon a fortified army. They attack the left flank, are repulsed, and swing round upon the right. Not still succeeding, they swing back and renew the attack upon the left. And now the heaviest cannonading is again heard along the line of the Old Testament. Indeed, the forces are now again concentrated against the extreme left of the fortified encampment. The analysts at the present time, like their famous leader, are making the Pentateuch the chief object of attack. Repulsed here a second time, will they again plant their batteries against the New Testament?

Accuracy requires the statement that a few points embraced in "the higher criticism" are not presented in the writings of Voltaire. He does not employ the varied use of the divine names in the Pentateuch as an argument to prove the combination of several documents, by different authors, in the composition of that book. He is silent in regard to the Book of Joshua, and also in regard to the authorship of the Psalms. Nor does he fix the dividing line between Isaiah I. and Isaiah II. precisely at the close of the thirty-ninth chapter. But he presents all the main points of the analytic criticism. No one of the leading critics presents the system so fully as he, though Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen each presents certain parts of it more elaborately and fully. Indeed, these and other critics have done and are doing little more than to redact the hypotheses and arguments of this founder of the analytic criticism.

The critical analysts, however, do not by any means recognize Voltaire as the founder of their school. Wellhausen does, indeed, say that Voltaire was the first to call in question the possibility of the construction of the tabernacle in the wilderness.⁸ But beside this scant reference to him, the analysts ignore him and their indebtedness to him. Nor is it at all strange that they are unwilling to say, **We have Voltaire to our father."

It is true, indeed, that the leaders among them, those who have thought out their hypotheses to their logical conclusions, are thoroughgoing rationalists — veritable infidels; but they prefer not to be recognized as such, at least for the present. Hence the critics are ready to give due, perhaps undue, praise to Aben-Ezra, Astruc, or anybody else that in former times made a suggestion in any way favorable to their system, but are mostly silent in regard to its famous founder.

The views of Voltaire, at the time of their promulgation, attracted a good deal of attention, and about 1771 a book was published in reply, entitled, '' Letters of Some Jews to Monsieur Voltaire." This book is characterized by wit and strength. The aim of the writers was to repel the misrepresentations and caricatures of Voltaire on the Old Testament and the Jewish race. Yet many of the points and arguments embraced in the analytic criticism are well handled. Voltaire is shown to be a villifier as well as an unfair reasoner. He replied by heaping on the writers sarcasm and abuse, in six letters, published in the "Dictionnaire Philosophique."⁹

The work and influence of Voltaire as a biblical critic, though ungratefully ignored by his successors and followers, have been recognized by the historian Bancroft. In his essay on "German Literature," published about forty years ago, he made the following declaration:

"There is one branch of speculative learning, requiring rare sagacity and deliberation, and cultivated but little except in Germany. It is called the Higher Criticism, and begins its office where historical criticism ends. Thus, as to the poems of Homer, all the evidence which we possess enables us only to establish the essential identity of our printed copies with the edition collated and published by the Alexandrian scholars. But what changes may have taken place in the verse previous to that period? What proof have we that the Alexandrian scholars had an uncorrupted text? The same kind of questions has been raised in theological philology. It is obvious that to ask them of the rash is only to throw open the floodgates of literary doubt. And, in fact, there has been left hardly one eminent author of antiquity who has not been cheated out of part of his fame. Sophocles is made to give up one of his plays; Plato, half of his dialogues; Anacreon, almost all his odes; and the Iliad and the Odyssey are declared to be full of interpolations, the shreds and rags of audacious sophists patched upon the simple and majestic robes of Homer. The too great prevalence of this dangerous method has given to a branch of science an air of skepticism, which was not the object of the writers, and which by no means exists in the people."

Thus wrote Bancroft in 1855 concerning the havoc which "the higher criticism" had made in Grecian literature, by analyzing the works of Homer, Plato, Sophocles, Anacreon, and other authors into patchwork, the shreds and rags of supposed redactors, interpolators, and audacious sophists. Let it be observed that Bancroft remarks, "The same kind of questions has been raised in theological philology." The celebrated historian indicates the prominence of Voltaire in this work of analysis, both literary and theological, by the following remark: "Voltaire, beginning with skepticism, had proceeded to the work of analysis; and in the general proving to which all things were subjected, a generation seemed resolved on considering what was to be thrown away, and not what was to be retained. The Titans went forth to destroy; and in the overthrow of ancient superstitions, forms of government, and thought, the old world seemed coming to an end."¹⁰

The dissemination of the analytic views of Voltaire was aided by his politic course and the circumstances of the times. He disavowed hostility to the Bible. He never laid aside the profession and garb of Christianity. He was the nominal head of a religious institution, and held the title of an officer of the church.

Soon after his time there arose in Germany a class of men just like him, nominal members of the church, who called themselves Christians, but were at heart infidels or atheists. The professors in the universities were largely of this class at the time to which we refer. Even the theological professors shared in the prevalent unbelief and irreligion. Thus there was, a hundred years ago and later, in the universities and gymnasia of Germany, a large number of professors who were entirely suited with the biblical criticism of Voltaire; men calling themselves Christians and holding the place of Bible teachers and theological professors, yet having no more faith in the Bible and Christianity than in Homer and the Platonic philosophy; perhaps not so much. To them the views of Voltaire were just the thing. Like him, they could study and discuss the age, authorship, and composition of the books of the Bible, and ignore or scout its doctrines of sin and retribution, atonement and pardon, regeneration and salvation. Like him, they could theorize in a literary way about the Bible as about the pagan authors, attributing to it no more of divine inspiration and authority than to them. It was this class of men, infidel theologians and exegetes, that welcomed Voltaire as a deliverer and gladly accepted the analytic criticism from his hands. Thus what is called "the higher criticism" was originated by the savants of Europe (scholars and philosophers), with Voltaire at their head, more than a hundred years ago.

1) Wellliausen, Prolegomena, p. 4.

2) Traitê sur Tolêrance, Mêlanges, p. 452.

3) Traitê sur Tolêrance, Mêlanges, p. 452.

4) Œuvres de Voltaire, Hachette, Vol. XIX., p. 68.

5) Œuvres de Voltaire, Vol. XIX., p. 61.

6) Dictonnaire Philosophique, Article, "Cyrus."

7) Driver's Introduction, pp. 205, 206.

8) "Der Gegensatz ist früh aufgefallen und hat zuerst Voltaire Anlass zu Zweifeln gegehen."— Prolegomena, p. 41.

9) Article, "Juifs."

10) Bancroft's Miscellanies, pp. 118, 198.