I have before me a work which was published not long ago which is entitled "Lex Mosaica." It contains '15 scholarly articles contributed by men of England or. Scotland whom, I am sure, A.N.R. will allow to be "Biblical scholars of note". They all assail the "higher critical" theory from various angles and defend the traditional position. Professor Sayce does assume the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I would gladly refrain from encroaching on your space by giving too many quotations. But the sweeping generalities of A.N.R. compel me to give chapter and verse for my assertion. The book '"Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies" which Sayce published in 1910 is well known. On page 82, examining the evidence from the Code of Khammu-rabi the author says: "The Mosaic code roust belong to the age to which tradition assigns it". With reference to the Exodus he says on page 96 of the same book: ''We may rest assured, criticism notwithstanding, that Israel was once in Egypt, and that the narrative of its flight under the leadership of Moses is founded on sober fact". And again on page 114; "The simplest hypothesis is, after all, that which agrees with tradition". Here are 15 noted Biblical scholars of England or Scotland to start with, and I am anything but up to date in the current literature on the subject. The statement "'that 19 out of 20 who have been trained to be interpreters of the Bible in England have given up the traditional position" should have been made 20 years ago. Now, owing mainly to the light which archaeological discovery shed on the Bible, the proportion is being rapidly reversed.
Then the Bibjical scholars who are not of England or Scotland are also not to be overlooked, especially-when we bear in mind that the higher critics of England or Scotland have not. added to Higher Criticism arid have not taken away from it. They acted all along as exponents, very able and very admirable exponents, from Robertson Smith, who first introduced this science to the English reader, and onwards. Professor Naville, a scholar of great reputation, demolished the higher critical structure in several books. He concludes his. admirable work on the archaeology of the Old Testament in the following words: "This moitied has led me to endorse completely the traditional view as to the books of Moses. I believe the the books bearing the name of the great Lawgiver are really his work". Professor Kyle, Archaeological Editor of the "Sunday School Times" and Associate Editor of the "Bibliotheka Sacra" has the same thing to say in his recent book "Moses and the Monuments", and were I not afraid of making the list too long, I could add' many more names of noted scholars who defend the traditional view, not on religious but on scientific grounds, and who are as earnest in their pursuit of truth as A.N.R. is.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.