01.04 - The Higher Criticism

(4) Higher Criticism

What of the results of the higher criticism? Do these affect the inspiration and divine authority of the Scriptures, and the integrity of the Canon of Scripture? We think whatever may be the conclusions ultimately reached respecting the particular dates, composition, and authorship of the several books of Scripture, these conclusions will not alter the above statements as to the sacred books and their being received as authoritative and divine by the Jewish and Christian Churches, and the completion of the Canon of Scripture at the dates named. As to what may be the effect of the higher criticism on the minds of persons respecting the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures that is a more difficult problem, and one not so easy to determine. The critics themselves assure us that their criticisms have regard to the human authorship and not to the divine origin of the Scriptures, that their investigations are literary and historical rather than religious and spir itual, and do not directly concern the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. “The divine inspiration of the Scriptures,” it is said, “is consistent with a critical view of their structure and growth,” and that “there is nothing in these conclusions to shake even the outermost fringe of the hem of our religious faith.” These statements form pleasant reading, but they arc not quite so easy to accept.

There are, however, critics and critics in the higher as well as in the lower schools of criticism; there is, moreover, a criticism that is legitimate and one that is illegitimate; a criticism that is in sympathy with the supernatural and one that is opposed to it; a criticism that is considerate and believing, and one that is hostile and unbelieving. There is a kind of criticism that betrays a manifest unwillingness to face facts which are opposed to the issues it seeks, which facts are persistently ignored. There are critics who start with a foregone conclusion, and whose hypotheses are formed with a view to the conclusions desired. The higher critics are by no means the only sinners in this illicit process. Such criticism needs criticising whenever practised, and its hollowness and falsity exposing.

Legitimate criticism which means honest examination, the judging and testing of the Scriptures according to honest and righteous principles is both desirable and necessary. Such criticism must be constructive as well as destructive, positive as well as negative. It is not the province of criticism merely to find fault, to detect mistakes, and controvert received opinions and established beliefs. It must inquire into the origin, reasonableness, and significance of the truths held, and bring tc view other truths and meanings not previously suspected or recognised. It must accept facts and examine them, and weigh and determine the nature of the evidences. That kind of criticism which comes of prejudice and bias, which aims at presenting the Scriptures to the popular mind as unhistorical and untrustworthy, as full of idealised history, mistakes, anachronisms, self-contradictions, fables, pious frauds, legendary folk-lore, and ingenious poetic imaginations, etc, with a view to discredit the sacred Scriptures, is to be deplored. It is unworthy of the Scriptures as a recognised revelation from God; it is not sober, just, or adequate criticism, and can only tend to weaken and destroy the people’s confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, and the rule of faith and practice. To say that this is the character of the Higher Criticism as a whole would be unjust and inconsistent with the known character and work of many of the critics. Some of these we know to be men of proved scholarship, of sober judgment and trained skill in criticism; men who consider well their positions, who do not speak at random, nor without under standing well what they teach. We know them as firm believers in the great verities of Christianity, men of high moral and Christian character, devout and spiritually minded, men who shrink from disturbing the minds and unsettling the faith of devout believers in God and Christianity; and it is manifestly unjust and iniquitous to brand them as “unbelievers “ and “ apostates from the faith.” As critics they must inquire into the authorship, date, character and form of the books of Scrip ture; they must ascertain whether the narratives are historical and trustworthy; they must also distinguish and judge between the several writings and give an opinion as to their meaning and intention. But we are not required to accept all their conclusions as indisputable and infallible. The critics themselves are not agreed on all these points, nor do they regard their conclusions as final, or as all equally verifiable; rather do they regard them as tentative present-day opinions based upon data to hand and as the result of wide research and candid examination. But these conclusions are by no means universally or generally accepted. The principles and methods of criticism adopted are not always accepted, nor do the conclusions always follow of necessity upon them.

We must pause and think before we accept all the conclusions now put forth by advanced critics of the naturalistic school. Patient waiting, and prayerful, deliberate consideration of the issues involved are necessary at this juncture. Critics are busy criticising the critics, and already conclusions formerly held by them have been abandoned. Time and patient investigation will tend to separate the false from the true, and to leave us in possession of the things of the kingdom which “cannot be shaken.”

Young people are apt to be carried away with what is novel and revolutionary, and they need to remember a thing is not true because it is new, any more than it is false and worn-out because it is old. Nor must they judge because present-day criticisms are destructive of certain cherished beliefs, that these beliefs are thereby proved unworthy of credence, and must be abandoned as indefensible and useless; nor should they speak of their fathers who stand fast by those truths as mere “ ignorant defenders of a narrow and outworn creed.”

While we counsel caution, patient waiting, and devout consideration of issues, this must not be mistaken for indifference, hostility, and indiscriminate denunciation. It becomes us duly to appreciate the ser vices rendered by the higher criticism to the cause of Biblical study; to the knowledge and better appreciation of the Old Testament Scriptures; to the better acquaintance with Semitic literature and religion; a more just and adequate view of the progressive character of divine revelation and of the historic perspective of the Scriptures generally. It also becomes us to maintain an attitude of readiness to welcome, with all its just consequences, whatever is clearly and conclusively proved to be true, even though we may have to modify our views on some points and abandon them on others.

We may accept the historical and progressive character of divine revelation, and study the Old Testament Scriptures in the light of the natural development of Israel’s history and religion. That however, does not mean that we must entirely reverse the recognised order and arrangement of the Old Testament Scriptures, and place the Prophets before the Law, and so make prophetism to be the precedent instead of the consequent of Mosaism. We hold such a reversal to be contradictory of the express teachings of Scripture; to be opposed to the temporary, incomplete, and typical character of the Mosaic economy as interpreted by the New Testament writers; to be opposed also to the theory of development which is at the basis of modern criticism, since it deprives prophetism of the preparatory stages essential to its existence, and instead of it being regarded as the growth and development of the revelation of God in the history and religion of Israel, it is made to come forth in the eighth century P>.c. a fully developed system at the first, to teach a highly developed doctrine of ethical theism. By this reversal the law of development is ignored, the Scriptures are travestied, the Jewish people maligned, a developed prophetism instituted without the necessary antecedents for its inauguration, and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles thereby controverted. A theory so inconsistent with facts cannot be accepted only on the strongest evidence and after the most careful examination by believing critics.

We may admit, further, that some of the books of Scripture are a compilation, that some others, hitherto regarded as a unit}-, arc the work of two or more authors; that the whole may have been edited and re-edited at different times by different hands, ere it attained its present form. But we are not to conclude, therefore, that the text of Scripture had been so corrupted, annotated, and interpolated, as to be utterly unreliable, or that what is presented to the eye in the Polychrome Bible is indisputable and infallible truth. The higher critics have displayed a wonderful ingenuity in detecting difference of style, structure, and method; in discovering layers of narrative and poetry in the documents; and in tracing interpolations and editorial emendations, until the Bible is made to appear in all the colours of the “rainbow,” or a marvellous piece of literary patch-work. In our judgment such microscopic dissection of the Scriptures is not deserving of the name of “ scientific criticism,” nor can it help to a proper understanding of the purpose and teaching of the authors. It does not do the writers or their writings justice; it does not give a connected, adequate, and comprehensive view of the method and teaching of the writer, nor does it help us in forming a just and worthy conception of the truth of Scripture, or of its character as a trust worthy record.

It may be fully admitted that legitimate and established principles of criticism accepted and acted upon by critics of all schools and of all forms of literature must be regarded as applicable to the sacred Scriptures considered as literature; and when these principles are legitimately applied we must have regard to the conclusions to which they lead. Should those conclusions traverse certain traditional theories and dogmas, or some current interpretations of Scripture, such theories and interpretations must be reconsidered in the light of these conclusions, and if proved untenable must be abandoned for some better theory or some truer interpretation. At the same time regard must be had to the unique character of the Bible as literature, to the elemental and typical character of the Old Testament teaching, to the progressive character and gracious purposes of divine revelation, and the spiritual meaning and significance of many of its laws, rites, and institutions, to be unfolded and realised from time to time as successive generations are able to receive them.

It must also be remembered that facts and theories, truth and the interpretations of truth, Scripture and dogma are not necessarily the same: the one is of human, and the other of divine origin, and the former may change and pass away, but the other endureth and abideth for ever.

It is further admitted that the authorship of a bookperse is not vital to its acceptance as a divinely inspired and authoritative record. The contents and teachings of Scripture are the main thing. These are the same, and will remain so, whoever may have written it, whether the author be known or unknown, and whether it be the work of one individual or more. But it does not follow that the question of authorship is of little or no importance, and that it matters not who wrote it, if only we are assured that its contents and teachings are true. When a writing is known to be the work of an inspired Prophet and Apostle, its teaching and authority are the more readily and fully accepted; while, on the other hand, should it be proved that the fourth gospel is not the work of the Apostle John, its teaching would assume a different aspect to many, even though its teachings and doctrines are authorised by other New Testament Scriptures, and confirmed by the Christian consciousness. The question of authorship docs affect the views of men as to the authority of Scripture. So with the doctrine of inspiration. It may be that the conclusions of the higher criticism are opposed to the mechanical and verbal theory of inspiration. This particular theory may be surrendered for another and more tenable view, and the character of Scripture as a divine revelation be unaffected by the change.