The Misfortune of Adverse Criticism

The Misfortune of Adverse Criticism—No. 1

Modern criticism and scripture.

By F. C. GILBERT, General

Unbelief in the reliability of Old Testa­ment records has resulted in the overthrow of the faith of many a promising disciple of the Master. Although the vast majority of the Jewish race failed to accept Jesus as the Sav­iour at His first advent, their rejection of Him as Messiah was not due to a lack of belief in the integrity of the writings of Moses and the prophets. In fact, the scholars of Israel pro­fessed unbounded faith in the Pentateuch and in the writings of the prophets. There are no ancient records extant of unbelief in the early history of the Hebrew nation or of the testi­mony recorded in the Pentateuch, the author­ship of which has for millenniums been as­cribed to Moses.

One reason why the faith of the ancients in those early records never faltered was because the leaders of Israel knew by experience and contact the truth of what occurred in and be­fore their day. Joshua spent about twoscore years in Egypt. He was familiar with the ex­periences of Moses and Aaron, who repeatedly, at the command of God, visited the residence of the ruling Pharaoh. This warrior general was acquainted with the location of the Egyptian monarch's palace. He was Moses' bodyguard from the time of the Exodus until he was appointed successor to the wilderness prophet. Ex. 17:9-13; Num. 27:18-22. He spent the entire forty years of wandering in the wilder­ness with Moses. He and Caleb were among the spies who investigated the land of Canaan. Num. 13:6, 8; 26:63-65. The writings of the Pentateuch were familiar to him. He had opportunity of knowing whether the record of the journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to the borders of Jordan was authoritative. Num. 33:1-49.

Attacks of Modern Critics

The first command given to Joshua upon his assuming the generalship of the armies of the Hebrews, after the death of Moses was to fol­low in detail the writings of Moses. Joshua 1:1-8. His success depended upon his follow­ing absolutely what had been written by his predecessor. Dent. 31:9-14, 19, 22-27. Other future leaders of Israel were to heed carefully the instruction given in the Pentateuch, if they expected to be successful in their administra­tion. Dent. 17:14, 15, 18, 19. Repeatedly we find in the book of Judges references to the experiences of Israel following their liberation

Samuel admonished the Hebrews in his day that they must heed well the instruction given them through the writings of Moses. 1 Sam. 12:6-15. The fires of faith in the records of the Pentateuch were constantly kept burning upon the altar of Hebrew hearts. Neither prophet nor messenger of God through the centuries of the monarchial rule permitted the flame of faith in the inspired testimony of the Pentateuch to become dim or to be extin­guished.

The prime minister of Babylon and of Medo­Persia in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius unfalteringly accepted the writings of the Pentateuch as coming from Moses. Dan. 9:11-13. Even to the time of the close of the canon of Old Testament Scripture, not the sound of a note of doubt or interrogation re­garding the certainty of the Pentateuch may be

found. Dan. 9:8-15; Mal. 4:4. The writers of Sacred Scripture, from the days of Joshua to the times of Malachi, covering a period upward of a thousand years, voice the same unfalter­ing testimony to the accuracy, the integrity, and the inerrancy of the writings of Moses.

Not till the seventeenth century of the Chris­tian Era do we face the starting point of ad­verse or destructive criticism of the Old Testa­ment. Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher and scientist, 1632-77, is said to have been the father of modern adverse criticism of the Bible. He advocated a philosophy of reasoning out. Scripture rather than accepting it by faith as the inspired Word of God.

From Spinoza's day till the present, there have followed philosophers and Biblical critics who have insisted that the records of the Bible must be tested the same as other human writ­ings. Acceptance or rejection of the writings depended upon the findings of these self-made authorities. Where a record in Scripture did not harmonize with the testimony of a secular authority, the proof of accuracy went against the Scripture. Many a religious mariner trav­eling toward the harbor of the heavenly Canaan has made shipwreck of faith because he steered his craft by the uncharted course of an adverse, critical pilot. Had such a one followed the course mapped out by the Word of God, he would have been saved.

Royal Residence of Pharaohs

In Volume V of The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,* in the issues of April, July, and October, 1918, there. appeared a series of six articles on "The Delta Residence of the Raam­essides." Those articles were written by Alan H. Gardner to prove that the royal residence of the Pharaohs for many centuries was lo­cated at a town called "Pi-Ramesse." Accord­ing to Mr. Gardner, a great mistake was made by the author of the book of Exodus in not making clear the difference between the Raam­ses built for Pharaoh by the Israelites when they were in Egypt and the royal residence at Pi-Ramesse. He says:

"It would have been strange if the early Egyp­tologists, always on the alert to catch at any straw of evidence bearing upon the problems of the Exodus, had failed to identify this town with the store-city of Raamses built for Pharaoh, together with Pithom by the oppressed and enslaved Israelites. (Ex. 1:11). In point of fact the temptation proved too strong ; and the consequent fusion into one of the two possible distinct places denoted respectively by the Hebrew and Egyptian names have ever since gravely compli­cated the topographical and historical questions aris­ing with regard to each.

"Quite apart from the question as to whether the identification is correct, it was unjustifiable, from the standpoint of right methods, to start with such an assumption : so far as the data permitted, the position of the two towns ought to have been determined sepa­rately; the results thus obtained might then have been combined, if it still seemed likely that Pi-Ramesse and Raamses were identical."—VoZ. V, part 2, p. 127, April, 1918.

The writer of those articles should have borne in mind that Moses was fully conversant with the location of the royal residence of the Pharaohs at the time when he made such fre­quent contacts with the Egyptian monarch. Had Moses thought it necessary to note the names of these two royal places,—if they were two dis­tinct towns,—he would doubtless have recorded it. The present information secured for locating Pi-Ramesse as the royal residence of the Ram­essides are "the Egyptian inscriptions and papyri." It is true the monuments and papyri offer a certain amount of valuable information, but the writer of the book of Exodus was pres­ent when he recorded the location of the royal residence as it then existed. Moses was in a far better position to describe the seat of the Pharaoh's palace at that time than any one thirty-five centuries later can possibly be, with such meager and disturbed sources of informa­tion, as are relied upon by the critics.

For a number of years prior to the writing of this Gardner series of articles, different opinions had been offered respecting the rela­tion of the two places. The scholarly H. Brugsch, author of several valuable archaeolog­ical works, claimed that Pi-Ramesse and Raam­ses were one and the same place. Other emi­nent archaeologists held the same view. These scholars maintained that Raamses could not have been distant from Goshen. The Scrip­ture says that when the Israelites left Egypt they started from Rameses. Ex. 12:37. The royal residence could not have been very far distant from Raamses, for the record states:

"And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians ; and there was a great cry in Egypt. . . .

"And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people... .

"And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste." Ex. 12 :30-33.

Nevertheless Professor Gardner says in re­gard to Brugsch's view:

"Reluctant as I am to disparage the work of a great scholar who has contributed more greatly to the progress of Egyptology than almost any of the suc­cessors of Champollion, yet it seems necessary to utter a word of warning with regard to Brugsch's geograph­ical writings."—Id., p. 128, note 2.

(To be continued)

* The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology is published by "The Egypt Exploration Society," the office of which is located at 2 Hinde St., Manchester Square. London, W.I.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus

By F. C. GILBERT, General

July 1937

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

The Preacher in Study and Prayer*

Cultivating a rich inner life for more effective ministry.

Issuance of Earliest Testimonies No. 1*

How Ellen White endeavored to deliver to individuals and to the church messages that were given to counsel, guide, or reprove, and to encourage the traveler on the Christian pathway.

Freedom on the Air

Democracy and the radio.

Status of Reform-Calendar Issue

The calendar-revision question has taken on new life since the International Labor Coun­cil succeeded in getting the ear of the League of Nations.

Checking Our Losses

One of the most alarming facts that we face as a denomination is the large number of apostasies we have in comparison with our baptisms.

The Choir Conductor

To picture a choir conductor who is ideal in training and personality is an easier task than to find one who meets these ideals.

Editorial Keynotes

Coordinated Effort vs. Indepedent Action

The Matchless Gift of Prophecy

A Personal Tribute to Its Beneficial Influence

The Roman Week

Did the Romans operate an eight-day or a nine-day week up to the time of Theodosius? And did the Greeks operate on a ten-day week?

The "Ministerial Tone"--2

Almost as offensive to the hearer as a habitually high-pitched voice is the "minis­terial tone"—a perpetual pathos, monotonously employed by many speakers from the beginning to the end of the public service, and even car­ried into private life by some.

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - RevivalandReformation 300x250

Recent issues

See All
Advertisement - SermonView - WideSkyscraper (160x600)