CAN PURELY NATURALISTIC PREMISES BE ACCEPTED WITH OUT COMING TO PURELY NATURALISTIC CONCLUSIONS?
Kuenen and Wellhausen are admittedly accepted as masters by our leading Old Testament “higher critics” in England, Scotland, and America, and the results of their literary analysis of the Pentateuch are generally regarded as conclusive by their followers. On the basis of this literary dissection, certain conclusions are formed as to the character and growth of Old Testament religion, and, as a result, the history of the Jews is reconstructed. The Book of Deuteronomy is said to be mainly, if not entirely, a product of the reign of Josiah, the accounts of the tabernacle and worship are of exilic date; monotheism in Israel was of late date, and was the outcome of a growth from polytheism; and the present Book of Genesis reflects the thoughts of the time of its composition or compilation in or near the date of the Exile. Now it is known that Kuenen and Wellhausen deny the supernatural element in the Old Testament. This is the “presupposition” of their entire position. Will anyone say that
Related Questions
- What if the customer is welling to have a Call account and meanwhile prefers to write checks instead of coming to the bank premises by himself?
- What proportion of medicines are developed purely synthetically, as opposed to coming from animals and plants and things like bee products?
- How does extracting conclusions from a set of premises contribute to its relevance?
