8

1

8

download/literature/watchtower/1905-10.pdf

../literature/watchtower/1905/10/1905-10-1.html

Vout. XXVI ALLEGHENY, PA., MAY 15, 1905 No. 10 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER THE WRONG-HEADEDNESS OF HIGHER CRITICISM Emil Reich, a Hungarian writer, discussing and contradicting the conclusions of Higher Critics, in the Contemporary Review, says,—‘The complete wrong-headedness of the whole method of higher criticism cannot fail to be manifest to anybody who bases his judgment upon the true essence of the matter in dispute, and not upon mere externals, . “Some of the latest samples of philological jugglery with which the public has been duped are too amusing to be omitted. If only read from the humorous standpoint, it is doubtful whether any book could afford a merrier half-hour than one of the latest achievements of Prof. Hugo Winckler—two volumes in which he finally dissolves into myth the small portion of Jewish history which had heen mercifully left to us. Listen a while, and you shall hear how Jewish tradition is a mere flimsy plagiarism of Babylonian myths. Among the general massacre of Biblical personalities we can only mention a few of the victims. What person has hitherto been more historical than Joseph? But to Professor Winckler he 1s an obvious astral myth, for in the 43d chapter of Genesis, verse 5, does he not come at noon? And is not this clear enough proof that he is a mere personification of the sun? Besides, if we are disposed to doubt, we must recollect that Joseph dreamed that the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowed down to him; and whom should they bow to save the sun? Joshua, too, is the sun. For he is the son of Nun, and does not Nun, being interpreted, mean fish? and does not the sun at the spring equinox issue from the constellation of Pisces? What could be more conclusive? Besides does it not amply explain why Joshua’s companion is Caleb? Now Caleb is Kaleb, and Kaleb is Kelb, and Kelb is a dog. So of course Caleb is clearly put for the dog star Sirius.” This, as he suggests, is “philology run mad” and “utter misconception.” “They imagine because they have been able to trace similarities, or even identities, between the purely external phenomena of Judaism or of Christianity and the religious ceremonials of ancient Babylonia, that they have thereby proved that Christianity and Judaism are nothing but cribs of what the Babylonians long before possessed.” But ‘within the last few weeks matter has been published which should finally turn the higher critics out of the position in which they Have been so long comfortably entrenched.” Reference is here made to the recent discovery in east Africa, of an obscure tribe of negroes, whose religious myths and traditions show an extraordinary similarity to those of the Hebrew Scriptures. Herr Reich argues that this confirms the thought that Babylonia and other lands possessing such religious foundations got them from the Hebrew; contradicting the “higher critical thought” that the Hebrew ideas on religious subjects were but a rehash of what the people of Babylonia possessed long, long before Moses’ day. Continuing on this line he says: “Arabia, at all times the ‘store chamber of nations,’ was never able to feed her untold thousands of hardy, beautiful, gifted people. Accordingly, they emigrated in all directions, as they did in the times of Mohammed and at other times. Thousands of years before Christ a stock of religious and other legends had grown up among them about the great riddles of the world. This they carried into their new countries; and thus the Babylonians, the Hebrews, the Masai, and very probably many another now unknown tribe from Arabia, whether in Persia, Afghanistan, Beluchistan, or India, preserved, and still preserves the legends about creation, the deluge, the decalogue, etc., in their aboriginal form. It is just as possible, with purely philological arguments, to deduce the Masai legends from Hebrew stories as it is to deduce Hebrew legends from Babylonian myths. Or, to put it in a different fashion, the same philological arguments that have served to declare the Hebrew legends as mere copies of Babylonian myths, may now be employed in proving that all the Hebrew legends are of Masai origin, or vice versa. ‘This absolute inability of the philologica] method of higher criticism to decide definitely which is the parent and which the child, at once condemns it.” ..... “It is evident that philological reasoning which brings us to results which are so little permanent results, which are absolutely overturned by the first chance discovery, must have something fundamentally wrong in it. This fundamental and initial vice, quod tractu temporis convalescere nequit [which the lapse of time cannot heal], which can be cured by the moderation and soberness of Hommel, who together with a few other historians, has not yet given in to the claims of the [3557] ‘higher critics,’ nor by a still greater refinement of philological methods—this initial fault has vitiated and will vitiate all modern hypercriticism of ancient records. Nor is there any particular difficulty in finding out the true nature of this fault. 1t is this: The history of the ancient nations must be constructed not on the basis of the philological study of their records, but mainly on the basis of considerations of geography, or, as the present writer has ventured to call it, of geo-politics, What made the few tribes, ‘Semitic’ or other, in Palestine, Syria, and Phenicia, so important a factor in history was neither their language nor their ‘race.’ The Hebrews and the Phenicians have indeed played in history a role of the first magnitude. So have even in a greater measure, the Hellens. All the three were—and this is the capital point —hborder-nations proper. They lived on the great line of friction between the powerful and civilized inland empires of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, the Hittites, the Phrygians, the Lydians, ete. All these inland empires necessarily, and as a matter of history. gravitated toward the ‘Great Sea’ of the Mediterranean; all the peoples on the ‘line’ between the Mediterranean and the territories of the conflicting empires were then necessarily exposed to the maximum of friction, danger, and deeply agitated activity. ‘Those nations were called the Hellenes, the Phenicians, the Hebrews, the Edomites, etc. Being in imminent danger of absorption at the hands of the empires, those nations could not but see, and did see, that they could protect themselves with success only by having recourse either to the immense leverage of seapower, which the empires did not possess; or by energizing themselves both intellectually and politically to a degree much more intense than the empires had ever done. Accordingly some of them were forced to lay extraordinary premiums on higher intellect and spiritual growth, by means of which they resisted the more massive onslaught of the intellectually inferior empires. ..... That gigantic intellectual struggles, such as those border nations were forced to undertake or else perish, can not be conducted without personalities of the first order, only a mere text-critic can doubt. One may deny the existence of the Jews; but once their existence is conceded one can not deny the existence of Moses. One may deny the existence of the Carthusians; but once their existence, i. e., their secular spiritual struggle with all the forces of life is admitted, one can not possibly deny the historic existence of St. Bruno. One may minimize, or doubt the Reformation; but certainly not Luther. Higher criticism has arrived at its final term: bankruptcy.” POPE PIUS X. AND FRANCE The conflict between the French government and the Pope continues and is expected soon to result in the dissolution of the “Concordat” and thus in a complete separation of church and state in France. The “Concordat” is an agreement in writing under which France is bound to support and defend Roman Catholicism in France and to some extent its missions, etc., in foreign lands. In consideration of this the papacy acknowledges the right of the French government to have a voice in determining who may or may not be the bishops, arch-bishops and cardinals of France. The present trouble, it will be remembered, began with the determination of the French to put their schools on a higher level, to accomplish which, necessitated the prohibiting of further teaching by Jesuits, nuns and others of monastic orders, in their official garbs, ete. In other words France wanted such free schools as have so greatly profited the people of the United States. This led to wordy-strife, many ecclesiastics attacking and denouncing the Government. These in turn were opposed by the Government which speaking for the majority of the people, declared such strife to be against France, and some of the bitterest, accused of attempts to foment rebellion and civil commotion were expelled from the country. As one bishopric after another became vacant and a successor was nominated by the Pope he was seen to be of the bitter anti-France kind and was refused under the terms of the “Concordat.” The Pope has refused to nominate other bishops more acceptable to the French until now ten bishoprics or sees are vacant, and the Catholic populations of the same are, it is claimed, suffering “spiritual deprivations” as a consequence. We doubt this, but it is a cause for continued and increasing friction. France is firm and declares she will cut the “Concordat” knot and be free to manage her own church affairs—either paying such priests and bishops, etc., as she chooses or leaving them as in the United States to be supported by the (147-148)