History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

by Andrew Dickson White

But other scholars of eminence were now working in this field, and chief among them Le Clerc. Virtually driven out of Geneva, he took refuge at Amsterdam, and there published a series of works upon the Hebrew language, the interpretation of Scripture, and the like. In these he combated the prevalent idea that Hebrew was the primitive tongue, expressed the opinion that in the plural form of the word used in Genesis for God, "Elohim," there is a trace of Chaldean polytheism, and, in his discussion on the serpent who tempted Eve, curiously anticipated modern geological and zoological ideas by quietly confessing his inability to see how depriving the serpent of feet and compelling him to go on his belly could be punishment—since all this was natural to the animal. He also ventured quasi-scientific explanations of the confusion of tongues at Babel, the destruction of Sodom, the conversion of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, and the dividing of the Red Sea. As to the Pentateuch in general, he completely rejected the idea that it was written by Moses. But his most permanent gift to the thinking world was his answer to those who insisted upon the reference by Christ and his apostles to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. The answer became a formula which has proved effective from his day to ours: "Our Lord and his apostles did not come into this world to teach criticism to the Jews, and hence spoke according to the common opinion."

Against all these scholars came a theological storm, but it raged most pitilessly against Le Clerc. Such renowned theologians as Carpzov in Germany, Witsius in Holland, and Huet in France berated him unmercifully and overwhelmed him with assertions which still fill us with wonder. That of Huet, attributing the origin of pagan as well as Christian theology to Moses, we have already seen; but Carpzov showed that Protestantism could not be outdone by Catholicism when he declared, in the face of all modern knowledge, that not only the matter but the exact form and words of the Bible had been divinely transmitted to the modern world free from all error.

At this Le Clerc stood aghast, and finally stammered out a sort of half recantation.(475)

(475) For Carlstadt, and Luther's dealings with him on various accounts,
see Meyer, Geschichte der exegese, vol. ii, pp. 373, 397. As to the
value of Maes's work in general, see Meyer, vol. ii, p. 125; and as
to the sort of work in question, ibid., vol. iii, p. 425, note. For
Carlstadt, see also Farrar, History of Interpretation, and Moore's
introduction, as above. For Hobbes's view that the Pentateuch was
written long after Moses's day, see the Leviathan, vol. iii, p. 33. For
La Peyrere's view, see especially his Prae-Adamitae, lib. iv, chap. ii,
also lib. ii, passim; also Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, vol. i, p. 294;
also interesting points in Bayle's Dictionary. For Spinoza's view,
see the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, chaps. ii and iii, and for
the persecution, see the various biographies. Details regarding the
demonstration against the unveiling of his statue were given to the
present writer at the time by Berthold Auerbach, who took part in the
ceremony. For Morinus and Cappellus, see Farrar, as above, p. 387
and note. For Richard Simon, see his Histoire Critique de l'Ancien
Testament, liv. i, chaps. ii, iii, iv, v, and xiii. For his denial
of the prevailing theory regarding Hebrew, see liv. i, chap. iv. For
Morinus (Morin) and his work, see the Biog. Univ. and Nouvelle Biog.
Generale; also Curtiss. For Bousset's opposition to Simon, see the
Histoire de Bousser in the Oeuvres de Bousset, Paris, 1846, tome xii,
pp. 330, 331; also t. x, p. 378; also sundry attacks in various volumes.
It is interesting to note that among the chief instigators of the
persecution were the Port-Royalists, upon whose persecution afterward by
the Jesuits so much sympathy has been lavished by the Protestant world.
For Le Clerc, see especially his Pentateuchus, Prolegom, dissertat.
i; also Com. in Genes., cap. vi-viii. For a translation of selected
passages on the points noted, see Twelve Dissertations out of Monsieur
LeClerc's Genesis, done out of Latin by Mr. Brown, London, 1696; also Le
Clerc's Sentiments de Quelques Theologiens de Hollande, passim; also his
work on Inspiration, English translation, Boston, 1820, pp. 47-50,
also 57-67. For Witsius and Carpzov, see Curtiss, as above. For some
subordinate points in the earlier growth of the opinion at present
dominant, see Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, New York,
1893, chap. iv.

During the eighteenth century constant additions were made to the enormous structure of orthodox scriptural interpretation, some of them gaining the applause of the Christian world then, though nearly all are utterly discredited now. But in 1753 appeared two contributions of permanent influence, though differing vastly in value. In the comparative estimate of these two works the world has seen a remarkable reversal of public opinion.

The first of these was Bishop Lowth's Prelections upon the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. In this was well brought out that characteristic of Hebrew poetry to which it owes so much of its peculiar charm—its parallelism.

The second of these books was Astruc's Conjectures on the Original Memoirs which Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis. In this was for the first time clearly revealed the fact that, amid various fragments of old writings, at least two main narratives enter into the composition of Genesis; that in the first of these is generally used as an appellation of the Almighty the word "Elohim," and in the second the word "Yahveh" (Jehovah); that each narrative has characteristics of its own, in thought and expression, which distinguish it from the other; that, by separating these, two clear and distinct narratives may be obtained, each consistent with itself, and that thus, and thus alone, can be explained the repetitions, discrepancies, and contradictions in Genesis which so long baffled the ingenuity of commentators, especially the two accounts of the creation, so utterly inconsistent with each other.

Interesting as was Lowth's book, this work by Astruc was, as the thinking world now acknowledges, infinitely more important; it was, indeed, the most valuable single contribution ever made to biblical study. But such was not the judgment of the world THEN. While Lowth's book was covered with honour and its author promoted from the bishopric of St. David's to that of London, and even offered the primacy, Astruc and his book were covered with reproach. Though, as an orthodox Catholic, he had mainly desired to reassert the authorship of Moses against the argument of Spinoza, he received no thanks on that account. Theologians of all creeds sneered at him as a doctor of medicine who had blundered beyond his province; his fellow-Catholics in France bitterly denounced him as a heretic; and in Germany the great Protestant theologian, Michaelis, who had edited and exalted Lowth's work, poured contempt over Astruc as an ignoramus.

The case of Astruc is one of the many which show the wonderful power of the older theological reasoning to close the strongest minds against the clearest truths. The fact which he discovered is now as definitely established as any in the whole range of literature or science. It has become as clear as the day, and yet for two thousand years the minds of professional theologians, Jewish and Christian, were unable to detect it. Not until this eminent physician applied to the subject a mind trained in making scientific distinctions was it given to the world.

It was, of course, not possible even for so eminent a scholar as Michaelis to pooh-pooh down a discovery so pregnant; and, curiously enough, it was one of Michaelis's own scholars, Eichhorn, who did the main work in bringing the new truth to bear upon the world. He, with others, developed out of it the theory that Genesis, and indeed the Pentateuch, is made up entirely of fragments of old writings, mainly disjointed. But they did far more than this: they impressed upon the thinking part of Christendom the fact that the Bible is not a BOOK, but a LITERATURE; that the style is not supernatural and unique, but simply the Oriental style of the lands and times in which its various parts were written; and that these must be studied in the light of the modes of thought and statement and the literary habits generally of Oriental peoples. From Eichhorn's time the process which, by historical, philological, and textual research, brings out the truth regarding this literature has been known as "the higher criticism."