Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 74:295 (Jul 1917)
Article: A Lacuna In Scholarship
Author: Herbert William Magoun

BSac 74:295 (July 1917) p. 425

A Lacuna In Scholarship

H. W. Magoun, Ph.D.

III.

At the end of the preceding paper attention was called to one of the stock arguments of the higher critics, and its unreliability and inadequacy were exposed. The wonder is that any one ever placed such an interpretation on the passage in question; for common sense and Hebrew usage are at one in the matter, and the form of the narrative there found is typically Jewish. The same characteristics still appear in the mental processes of men of that race, and any one can test the matter for himself if he will only cultivate the acquaintance of some one of its members who has an active mind and is given to expressing his ideas freely. A modern training is likely to affect results in individual instances; but the experience will prove interesting and instructive, and if the person selected has had the benefit of a distinctly Jewish training it will prove illuminating.

With regard to the passage referred to (Genesis 1 and 2), it may be objected that the case offers merely a chance infelicity such as any one is liable to be guilty of, and that the critics should therefore not be held to so strict an accountability as to be blamed for the outcome. Unfortunately, the infelicity is typical of their whole position; for practically everything that they have done has been equally lacking in thoroughness and equally liable to mislead. I will not say to

BSac 74:295 (July 1917) p. 426

deceive by falsifying results through intentional bias on the part of investigators. This point is made clear by certain considerations which have never been squarely faced by any of the critics. The opportunity has been before them for about four years, and it has recently been renewed with some emphasis. They do not seem anxious to embrace it.

These considerations — there are others — are included in the Canons of Validity, which were first definitely formulated in a paper of my own, published in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1913. Others had mentioned the main underlying principles at different times and in different ways; but no one had ventured to group them as canons that must be met. They had accordingly remained, up to that time, simply the unformulated and isolated opinions of different authors. That condition was now ended effectually, and a definite challenge to the critical cohorts was issued by the throwing of this gauntlet into their very teeth.

Following the canons, in the article in which they appeared, there were interrogations as to whether the critical theory could meet the test offered by each individual canon; for they were considered ser...