The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1911. A GREAT OXFORD SCHOLAR.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1996, 2 March 1914, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1911. A GREAT OXFORD SCHOLAR.

British scholarship has sustained a great loss by the death of . Professor S., R. Drives, whicli is announced in our cable column!, to-day. Dr. Driver was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, and his Introduction to the LitePuiiirc vj the Old Testament, which has gone through many editions, is one d! tin; finest examples of the. work of the British school of higher critics.. For many years he has occupied quite a unique position in the sphere of Biblical scholarship, and has done, much the same sort of work with regard to. the Old Testament as Professor Sanday, his distinguished collengue, has. accomplished in connection with the New Testament. Those- two typical Oxford scholars have largely succeeded-. in conviiiti-iiig tlja censervative Enelish mind that it Was both desirable and inevitable that tbo sacred Scriptures should undergo the same methods of historical arid literary investigation as any other ancient writings, sine! they have done much to allay the suspicions and misgivings that prevailed dudng the anxious time when the results of the higher criticism were begmning to challenge many of the traditional views regarding the dates,, authorship, and contents of the books of the Bible. Some of the conclusions arrived at by the application o! the new methods, especially ss regards the Old Testament, were at first de* cidedly startling, and it is nob swr* prising that they caused a good deal of unsottlement; but fortunately the leaders of the British school of critics were, generally speaking, men who combincd'sound .uidfrmeiit and a keen sense of re: ponsibility with a thorough masterv of the problems involved; and, owinE largely to these qualifications, scholars like Dr. Driver, Dr. G. A. Smith, the. eminent Presbyterian critic, and others were able to guide British religious thought _ through a difficult transition period without any violent dislocations or other disastrou? consequences. Protects and warnings were, of course, uttered from time to time, and a good deal of distress was caused among people who could •not desert the old paths; but the fact that Dr. Driver and others ; who were entitled to speak with the greatest • authority from the standnoint of modern scholarship found that the new learning was quite consistent with the historic fait.lt exercised a strongly reassurine influence, very similar to that which insulted . from the knowleriw that <meh dominating personalities in the world of science, as Clerk Maxwt.u,, Kf.lvin. S'tokf.s, and Pastkijii did not lose their religious .beliefs dii Tin- the revolution of thought brought about by the JDarwinian theory. i

Dlt. Driver contended—and tlin contention is now ire ir-rally afcfiptecl. —that the foundations of faith were not endangered hy the apnlie..ili<in of reasonable critical principle* to Biblical literature, or by Hie adoption of a theory of inspiration which would do justice to the faels -t.fiJ.it had to he accounted {or. Ho. be* lievcd that the sain ww greater than the loss; that tic; higher witiri.sm was making Ihe Old Testament more real and vivid—more iiatensclv human; that the various books-he"-eamc much more IntelKg-i'b.l-e and interesting bv bcinsr placed in their ■true histoviral settinfc: ajid that., as Pnorrsson KiRKP.tfn.JCK has stated, theology had been liberated, deepen-

ml, and strengthened. Dn, Deivbh had a thoroughly well-balanced judgment, and was not one of those wGo thought that every new theory ''made in Germany" must be true, however revolutionary. There are »some people who speak of: the "v-e- ---' suits'' of criticism as though they formed a ele:;i and definite body of equally well-established ">■ facts, ! whereas in reality lliey vary from i practical certainty to almost every •"shade of probability or improbabifc ity. Some of thc-m, as Dr. Driver has pointed out, rest upon smell a vide and varied induction of facts that they may be accepted as deserving to be called _ "assured results"; but beyond the limits of those there is a tolerably wide fringe in which, owing to the slightness or conflicting character of the data, no indis* putublij conclusions can be drawn. Glover and even illuminative hypotlwscs may he suggested, but one cannot feel confident that they are correct. These suggestions should not ho resented though they may seem improbable, for such hypotheses in this, as in other departments o! knowledge, are one of Use eorwiitions o(. progress, _ This, fringe of uiiccr tainty provides an attractive field f,or speculation, but it is essential that it should be distinguished from i.iift field within which one may rightly speak of "assured .results" being reachod* ami the conclusions relating to it should be adopted with caution and reserve. _ Of recent years some of the :nost important positions of the higher optics have been disputed by distinguished archaeologists, but Tin. Driver and others have published weighty replies to these attacks. Details here and ttere may have to be modified in accordance with the new evidence which ffioderfi ftrchaeelotty has brought to light, but the broad iwhwitjfca and main results oa which, critics., of all schools are agreed arc not likely to bs seriously shaken.