THE BIBLE & MODERN THOUGHT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1114, 29 April 1911, Page 6

THE BIBLE & MODERN THOUGHT.

A TERCENTENARY ARTICLE ' THE.HIGHER CRITICISM. BY THE REV, JOHN DICKIE, AI.A. (Professor of Theology at Knox College, Dunedin.) i The Rev. John Dickie. M.A., Professor i of Systematic Theology and Xciv Testament Kxegesis at Knox College, Dunedin, entered Aberdeen University in 1891, and was a- prizeman in nearly all the. clasecs. He graduated in 1895 with honours in classics, and won the JenUvns University prize in classical philology. He entered Edinburgh Univerr sity in 1897 as a student of 1 Divinity, gaining tho Eltlcs bursary, and was twice medallist in Hebrew. ' 110 won the Hepburn prize for an cs--5 say on Christian Theism and tho .lerfrey Scholarship in Divinity. He spent, the summer of 1899 at the University of Jena, and in 19C0 gained the Jeffrey Scholarship in Church History. In 1905 ho was appointed Assistant in Divinity to Professor Patcrsou Itho successor of the famous Dr. Flint). Ho 3 has contributed signed articles to tho "Review of Theology and Philosophy," and has also' written for tho "Exposi--1 tory Times" a series of papers on a new I theological movement in Germany known as "Tho Modern Positive School." In 1908, when minister at Tarland, ho gained a. prize of £50 for an essay on "The Argument a Priori for the Heine and Attributes of God" in an absolutely unrestn-ctcd competition, in which seventy-one took part. Professor Dieliio has now almost finished an English , ' translation of an important German i worlc on Christian doctrine. Tho author is Professor Haerinc, of Tubin--1 gen, a leader of what may be called lbs Liberal Evangelical School, and tho work in question. "The Christian Faith," has been warmly commended by ■ fiiich British Theologians aj Professor W. P. Patcrson, of Edinburgh Univer- . sity, Professor 11. K. Mackintosh, of tho , New College, Edinburgh, and Professor .John Oman, of tho English Prcsby- ; terian College, at Cambridge. THE BIBLE: 1611-1911. The following article by Professor Dickie has been specially written for The Do jiinion* :— Our Authorised Version is probably . the greatest of all tho translations of tho Christian Scriptures, when regard is had "ooth to its general excellence aud the extent of its influence. It exerts an allpervasive living influence among ail sections of English-speaking Christianity. The Version of 1611 is almost their solo common possession. It is likewise (heir pride and glory. In the whole of our ecclesiastical 'annals, there is no anniversary (hat unites us all, and makes us feel our common faith, like a centenary of the Authorised Version. As has been well said by a great GermanAmerican scholar, Dr.' Philip Schaff: "No i Version has such a halo of glory around it, none is the child of so many prayers, noire has passed through severer trials, none is. so deeply rooted in the affections of ;he people that use it, and noiio has exerted so great an influence upon tho progress of the Christian religion and true civilisation at homo and abroad. It is interwoven with all that is most precious in the history and literature of two mighty nations which have sprung from the Saxon stock. It is used day by day and.hour by hour in fivo continents, anil carries to every mission station in heathen lands tho unspeakable blessings of the gospel of peace." We havo evei-y reason to commemorate the Tercentenary, with hearts full of gratitude and of'hope. A People's Book. Gratitude and hope, do you say?. Gratitude we can understand. There can be no doubt as to tho great part which for nearly two thousand years the Bible has played in the history of mankind. It has been misused at times bv tho obscurantist and the oppressor. But when tho largest poisiblo deductions arc mado under that head, its influence- has been both wise and beneficent. This can be denied by no reasonably well-informed person. It has,.cpmfarted the friendless, consoled tho bereaved, inspired the strong, strengthened (lie weak, humbled tho proud, given new heart to the oppressed. Tho Bible, especially tho New Testament, as Deissmnnn has so well shown, is essentially a people's book—for the people, by the people. It isoneofthe great outstanding merits of our Authorised Version that it too, liko tho original, is a people's book. AV-e may well bo grateful for the Bible. But is thero room for hope in regard to it? Is not its influence on the wane? Has not tho Higher Criticism shown that the Biblo is simply a book like any other? Questions such as theso arise in many minds. Before we attempt to answer them wo must understand what tho Higher Criticism is. Problem's of the Higher Criticism. The Higher Criticism is simply tho effort of the trained scholarship of our day to read and understand the various part's of tho Bible in tho light of tho circumstances under which they originated. Tho problems which it seeks to sblvo arise out of the Bible itself. Where a complete solution is impossible, the Higher Criticism has to determine tho limits of our knowledge and ignorance. Wo cannot, if wo would, ovoid such questions as these: —When and for what purpose was this book written? Is it all the work of ono author? If so, did he use earlier sources, or is it his own free composition? now do his thought and work stand related to tho general life of his time? The value of tho Bible may be altogether independent of tho answers to such questions. For the Christian believer it is certainly largely independent of them. To show tho reason, tho nature, and the extent of this independence, is part of tho task of Christian theology. But tho questions themselves are legitimate, and, indeed, inevitable in regard not to tho Biblo only, but to all writings. Even if tho Bible is altogether a thing apart, utterly unlike any other book in history, it yet appears, part by part, under definite historical conditions, which it is tho work of the Higher Criticism to discover. The problems and methods of the Higher Criticism are the same for the Biblo as for other ancient writings. It is no discredit, to the critics that they havo not yet reached unanimity, if ever they are to reach it upon all the points in dispute. They arc simply scholars trying to recover for ns, as fully as the case permits, tho historical conditions, intellectual and religious, under which (lie'various writings of the Old and New Testaments took shape. New.Light. . Their material is, first, tho Biblical writings themselves, second, all available knowledge of the Ancient. World, third, the general laws of human thought and progress intellectual, moral, and religious. light is constantly being shod upon the first by the second and third. The second is an ever-increasing quantity, while our interpretation of the third is subject to constant modification. In regard to all three, the personal equation counts for a great, deal. It counts for far more, indeed, than is commonly realised even in the case of the Biblical expert, while as regards the man in the street, it is almost everything, whether in the form of the blatant, profanity of a Haeckel, too ignorant of such matters to know his own ignorance and prejudice, or the equally uncritical, though better grounded, faith of a simple Christian believer who has implicit trust in an absolutely incrraut Word of God. We cannot expect, ■ therefore, more than broad general lines of agreement as to aims and methods, and a growing tendency to uniformity in tho matter of results, among all competent open-minded investigators. Both of these I think we havo in as full a measure ns can reasonably be expected. We hear at times of a Conservative Reaction. But whatever the ultimate outcome of the Critical movement, it is neither possible nor' desirables that Biblical scholarship should revert to the position which - it occupied in 1611. The Conservative Reaction simply means that in tho light of accumulating knowledge and experience criticism is becoming more conscious of its own limitations. It is coining (o real- . ise with growing clearness that it has not solved all its problems. ; It is also less i mechanical and more alive, both on the i lHrrarv.nnd on the neslhetic side than it was fifteen or twenty years ago. The Relinic-Hisloric School. There is at present a school of critics actively at work upon both Testaments, known'as the Keligio-llistoric School. lis leading representatives aro men like, Gunkcl, Bousset, Wcrulc, and others. In

tlwir general tendency they arc nil}'thing but Con.-prvntivc. Though not antireligious, they maintain the relativity o£ sill religions, Christianity included. They have collected large quantities of fresh collateral material, and set old knowledge i» a new light. In spile of Hie fact that they arc still somewhat confused as to the true significance and relative* value of new and old, their influence is decidedly moderating' and reassuring, just because they are more fully alive to the complexity of the problem. 'I heir views upon questions of date and , authorship are decidedly more conservative than those of correspondingly advanced critics, twenty years ago. But ■what is far more, important, they are subjecting Iho principles and methods of the older school to a thorough criticism. Thus, one of them, Dr. Hans Windisch. has just declared that he regards it as a fundamental principle "of all Aow Testament criticism that similarities in language and subject matter cannot safely be taken as nroving the dependence of one writing upon another, but are more nrobablv derived in both cases from the common fund of ordinary thought and speech. I believe Windisch is right -in this. I. myself have always f«lt, since first I began to think upon such subjects, that New Testament scholars of all schools of thought are far too ready to find proof that one writing was. known to the author of another in all sorts of casual resemblances. But if Windisch is right, a not inconsiderable part of all (he New Testament work of the last sixlv vears is antiquated at one stroke. A More Living Book. 1 do not think that it would serve any useful purpose, if 1 were to attempt to summariso "the assured results of criticism." In such a subject a summary of results divorced from the processes bv which they are reached, is of very little value. But. I (rust that I have said enough lo show both that the Higher Criticism is fully justified in principle, ■ and that it is not infallible in practice. I hope, further, that 1 have done something to prove that the critical process is not wholly a process of disintegration. By showing how the Bible arose out of actual historical circumstances, (he critics have done much to make it a more living Book. They have greatly helped the understanding of it on the literary and i historical, indirectly also on the religious, side. They have made it a more truly human book to all inlelligent readers, and • a more. truly, because nioro livingly, > diviuo Book to not a few. The Chris--1 tian believer is interested less in the i findings of the critics in detail, than in • the general principles' which they have ". established or brought (o tho forefront. ■ The same is true of theology, the scien- ; tine exposition of the content of Chris- ; tian faith. i Vital Questions. The theologian is not vitally interested ; in tho wanderings of Ham, tho boundaries ; of the land of the Gittites, the diplomacy ' of Ahab, or even the dale and authorship of 1 the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. He is vitally interested in the question of the validity of religious knowledge, the nature and basis of religious authority, the real- ' ity revelation of God in Christ. 1 These are the decisive questions, and tho 1 Higher Criticism cannot determine them. Some critics may. indeed, claim lo have, proved that tho Biblo is simply a Book like other books. But the most that they have actually proved is only that the Bible is a Book like and unlike- other books, just as Christianity is a religion liko and unlike other religions. They have not proved, and in tho nature of the case, 1 they never can prove that (he Biblo is not the vehicle of a unique message from the living God to the soul of man. They may ,have convinced the majority of Biblical students, and educated people generally, that on such subjects as natural science, history, and tho like, the Biblical writers are simply the children 1 of their own day. But is regard to aYi ; such matters, the religious man as we ; know him, possesses no superiority of • knowledge or judgment over his irreligious compeer. What he does possess is a soul nioro sensitive to the eternal issues; a keener perception of right and wrong; an assured conviction that ho knows the Living God and is known by Hinj. •....-■■■ :•:■■ :'.- ■• Its Own Witness, Is it any difficulty in tho way of Christian faith, if it should bo established that (he authority of the Biblo is of a like nature with that possessed by the religious man in the distinctively spiritual sphere? In its essential religious message, the Biblo is its own witness to the believing soul; or, as tho Iteformers put it, the inward witness of the Holy Spirit authenticates it to our spirits as tho Word of God. The Higher Criticism, or a department of historical study exactly parallel thereto, can tell us when and under what circumstances of external pressure and inward conviction, (he early Christians set .apart certain writings as their supremo standard of faith and morals. It may well be that there wero certain blanks in their knowledge of tho history of some of theso writings, and even adventitious errors regarding it. But this does not mean that they were in error as regards the main issue—the supremo value they assigned to those writings, as enshrining tho revelation of tho Living God in the face of His only begotten Son. Though tho Bible and Christianity are certainly not identical, in the last resort they stand or fall together. Tho authority of Scriptmo r'uns parallel with that of our Christian faith -itself. But the better we understand tho nature of religious authority generally, tho more clearly we shall s.eo that Scriptural authority does not depend upon contestable points of date and authorship, or even upon each and overy separate Scriptural statement. Inherent Power. Nor does it depend upon tho fact of canonisation. It depends, on the contrary, upon the power inherent in tho writings themselves, which led to their canonisation—tho power, namely,. to create, sustain, and confirm Christian faith in ns, to make Christ real for us, so that in Him we seo (he Invisible God. This is (he heart and core of Luther's doctrine of the Bible. It is no inner fort to which Christian faith has fled in despair, after having been compelled lo surrender everything elso to tho enemy. Jlodern theology is simply, consciously and of set purpose, formulating tho view of Scripture which Christians have always instinctively held, and upon which the use they have actually mado of it in practice, has always been based. Flaws in (he outer garment of our Christian faith have never been regarded as ;i disproof of its Divine origin. So long as the Living God uses the Bible to convey R\< message (n our souls, and lo impress Himself upon our hearts, we hava a proof of its Divine authority, which criticism did not give us. and cannot take from us. Further, this proof is thoroughly congruous with the whole method of God's dealings with us, ns it is known to faith, and especially with tho way by which wo are raised to a living conviction of our Lord's Divinity. No Reason to be Afraid. I have only touched the fringe of a great subjeel, and I have been more theological than I meant to be. But I hopo I have done something to show that. Christianity has no reason to be afraid of the Higher Criticism. Wo aro not, as Christians, committed to any view of the Bible that fears the fullest light of day. It has been well said by a very learned and judicious New Testament scholar, of advanced views, Professor von Dobschutz, of Strassburg: "The chief enemy of the Bible is ignorance of it. Doubts and suspicions do.not arise from Bible-reading. They are communicated from outside to those; who are not acquainted with the Bible." Us nnthoritv is unassailable, in so far as Christian faith is vitally interested therein. But it is not tho dull, mechanical authority of a law code. It is Jilter the gentle persuasivo authority of a tried and trusted friendto reprove, rebuke, comfort, encourage, and convince. As such it claims our will- , ing allegiance, now, as fully as it has done ' at any timo in history. '