^ Of PRINCf^ 
 l f OtOGICAL St*^ 
 
> 
 
THE BIBLE UNDER TRIAL 
 
THE BIBLE 
 UNDER TRIAL 
 
 IN VIEW OF PRESENT-DAY ASSAULTS ON 
 HOLY SCRIPTURE 
 
 Rev. JAMES ORR, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AND SYSTEMATIC 
 
 THHOLOGY IN THE UNITED FREE 
 
 CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW 
 
 "^hg fcoorb is a lamp unto mj) fttt, an5 
 light unto mg rath" 
 
 — Ps. cxix. 49 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 New York: A.C. ARMSTRONG & SON 
 
 3 and 5 West Eighteenth Street: 1907 
 
R. W. SIMPSON AND CO., LTD., 
 
 PRINTERS, 
 
 RICHMOND AND LONDON. 
 
Preface 
 
 THE Papers composing this volume were prepared in 
 response to urgent request as a popular apolo- 
 getic series in defence of the Bible from the attacks 
 made on it from different quarters. They are now 
 published in the hope that they may do something to 
 steady the minds of those who are in perplexity owing to 
 the multitude and confusion of the opinions that prevail 
 in these times regarding the Sacred Book. The Papers 
 are written from the standpoint of faith in the Bible as 
 the inspired and authoritative record for us of God's 
 revealed will. The author has no sympathy with the 
 view which depreciates the authority of Scripture in order 
 to exalt over against it the authority of Christ. He does 
 not acknowledge that there is any collision between the 
 two things, or that they can be really severed, the one 
 from the other. He finds the Word of God and of 
 Christ in the Scriptures, and knows no other source of 
 acquaintance with it. As designed for the general 
 Christian reader, the Papers make no pretence to 
 exhaustive treatment. They confine themselves to 
 tracing broad outlines of defence and vindication. For 
 fuller discussion, from his own point of view, of the 
 topics dealt with, the author may refer to his books on 
 
 v. 
 
Preface 
 
 The Christian View of God and the World (8th Edition), 
 The Problem of the Old Testament (4th Edition), and 
 God's Image itr Man and its Defacement (3rd Edition). 
 His earnest prayer is that these pages may be found of 
 assistance to some who may feel that their feet have been 
 sliding beneath them. 
 
 The author acknowledges his indebtedness to Ebenezer 
 Russell, Esq., Glasgow, for valuable aid in the correction 
 of the proofs. 
 
 VI. 
 
Contents 
 
 Page 
 
 I. The Present Day Trial of the Bible . 3 
 II. An Instructive Object Lesson . 25 
 
 III. "Presuppositions" in Old Testament 
 
 Criticism . . . .49 
 
 IV. " Settled Results " in Criticism . 73 
 V. Israel's God and Worship . . 97 
 
 VI. Archaeology as Searchlight . 121 
 
 VII. The Citadel— Christ . . -147 
 
 VIII. The Bulwark of the Gospels . . 171 
 
 IX. Oppositions of Science . . -199 
 
 X. The Bible and Ethics : " God and My 
 
 Neighbour" . . .227 
 
 XI. Discrepancies and Difficulties . . 257 
 
 XII. The Bible the Hope of the World 285 
 
 Appendix : Prof. G. A. Smith on " Recent 
 Developments of Old Testament 
 Criticism" . . . 311 
 
 Index ..... 319 
 
 vn. 
 
The Present Day Trial of the 
 Bible 
 
The Present Day 
 Trial of the Bible 
 
 IT may be a suitable opening for these papers to 
 consider how the case stands to-day with the trial 
 of the Bible as the written Word of God. There 
 are misconceptions and alarms prevalent which a 
 calm outlook on the actual situation may do something 
 to remove and abate. I would fain speak a word to 
 remove the disquietude under which many labour, as if 
 Christianity and God's Word were at length about to be 
 engulfed in the encroaching waves of scepticism. There 
 is conflict enough, but no such consequence as this is 
 going to follow. 
 
 " The word of the Lord," the Psalm says, " is tried " 
 (Ps. xviii. 30). Again, "The words of the Lord are 
 pure words ; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, 
 purified seven times" (Ps. xii. 6). The Bible, least of 
 all, need shrink from this ordeal of trial ; nor does it. 
 God never asks His people to put their trust in, or stay 
 their souls on, that which cannot endure the most search- 
 ing fires of trial. 
 
 The supremest test, of course, to which the Bible can 
 be put is — 
 
 THE TEST OF EXPERIENCE. 
 
 Does its message commend itself on personal trial 
 to mind, and conscience, and heart ? Does it verify 
 
 3 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 itself, when accepted, in heart and life ? Does it prove 
 able to bear the weight which innumerable souls through 
 long ages have- rested on it ? Does it show itself, 
 historically, possessed of the properties which, as an 
 inspired Word, are claimed for it — those, for example, 
 in Ps. xix. 7,8, of converting the soul, making wise the 
 simple, enlightening the eyes; or in 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17, of 
 making wise unto salvation, through faith which is in 
 Christ Jesus, of being profitable for teaching, for reproof, 
 for correction, for instruction in righteousness, " that 
 the man of God may be complete, furnished completely 
 unto every good work." He that has this witness of 
 God's Word in himself (1 John v. 10) need fear no 
 assault from without. We move here in a region high 
 as heaven itself above all debatable questions of science 
 and criticism. 
 
 It is not this test of experience, however, I mean to 
 dwell on at present, though it will often recur in our 
 discussions, but rather 
 
 THE OUTWARD TRIAL, 
 
 to which the Bible in our day is exposed — the trial of 
 opposition, of conflict, of controversy. 
 
 I. 
 
 And here the first thing we need to remind 
 ourselves of is that this trial of God's Word by 
 outward assault is nothing new ; God's Word has 
 been a tried word in all ages. There never has been 
 a time in history when it has not had to encounter fierce 
 and persistent opposition. If, then, we see unbelief 
 lifting up its head in many directions in these latter 
 days, we need not be perplexed and dismayed, as if some 
 strange thing had happened to us. It lies in the nature 
 of things, and is God's will, that it should be so ; it is part 
 
 4 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 of the fiery trial of our faith (i Pet. i. 7), and the chief 
 way by which the imperishable truth of God's Word is 
 made manifest. People are astonished that, if Christianity 
 be true, it should be impugned by multitudes as it is. 
 They forget. In Isaiah's day God declared that the 
 stone He would lay in Zion as a sure foundation would 
 be "a tried stone" (Is. xxviii. 16). God did not 
 anticipate that this stone, being planted there, would 
 remain there without being put to test or trial. It was 
 not a stone which God was to lay, and no one dispute 
 the laying of it ; not a stone that God was to lay, 
 and no one refuse to build upon it ; not a stone that God 
 was to lay, and no one contest its right to be there. If 
 it was a foundation stone, it was at the same time to 
 be a tried stone, and in the trial was to be proved to be 
 the stone of God's laying more clearly than ever. He 
 who realises this, the prophet says, " will not make haste " 
 -will not readily be thrown into panic or anxiety when 
 new forms of opposition make their appearance. As 
 the Apostle Peter gives the sense of the words, he will 
 " not be put to shame " (1 Pet. ii. 16). 
 This fact that God's Word has been 
 
 A TRIED WORD IN ALL AGES 
 
 would admit of easy demonstration were this the place 
 to trace its history, and in it lies strong encouragement 
 for our faith to-day. The Lord Himself was continually 
 met in the preaching of His Gospel by the hostility and 
 opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, who thought, finally, 
 they had got rid of Him by condemning Him to the 
 Cross which proved to be His throne of empire. The 
 ministry of the Apostles was a continual experience of 
 opposition and persecution. And what of after times? 
 We are apt to think that in an age like ours, with its 
 formidable new weapons of assault on revealed truth, the 
 
 5 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 conflict of faith with unbelief is far keener and more deadly 
 than in any previous time. But this is largely due to 
 lack of perspective. 
 
 Does anyone, for example, who knows the conditions of 
 
 THE SECOND CENTURY, 
 
 think that the sceptical and subtle pagans of that age 
 had not their eyes on all the weak points — or what 
 they took to be the weak points — of our religion, when 
 they wrote those books and satires, some of which still 
 remain, as clever and witty, relatively to their time, as 
 anything in the artillery of unbelief to-day. The second 
 century was, indeed, to an extent not always realised, an 
 era of strenuous conflict for the truth. It was marked 
 not only by the outward martyr conflict with paganism, 
 and by the keen literary attacks just referred to, but 
 by the all-pervading influences of a subtle Oriental 
 theosophy, which, had they prevailed, would speedily 
 have dissipated historical Christianity into empty 
 phantasies. The controversy with Gnosticism was 
 largely a conflict about Scripture. The Scriptures were 
 the direct object of attack — the Old Testament in its 
 entirety, as being, so it was held, the revelation of an 
 inferior and immoral deity; the New Testament in 
 considerable part, and wholly as regarded its historical 
 truth. This, too, in an age when the Church was yet 
 young and feeble, and its Canon of Scripture only yet in 
 process of formation. When the era of pagan persecution 
 closed, it was again with a determined effort to crush 
 out the life of the Church by compelling the surrender 
 and destruction of its Scriptures. 
 Or glance at 
 
 THE MIDDLE AGES, 
 
 the latter part of which witnessed the attempt of the 
 Roman Church to suppress the reading and circulation of 
 
 6 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 the Bible among the laity. It is customary to speak of 
 these ages of the ascendency of the Church as the " Ages 
 of Faith " ; but does anyone think that there was no 
 scepticism in Europe as the result of that great outburst 
 of learning and of new ideas that broke upon the world 
 in that period ? Dr. Liddon has justly said : " It may 
 fairly be questioned whether the publicly proclaimed 
 unbelief of modern times is really more general or more 
 pronounced than the secret, but active and deeply 
 penetratingscepticism which during considerable portions 
 of the middle ages laid such hold upon the intellect of 
 Europe."* The renaissance of paganism in the fifteenth 
 century literally honeycombed Europe with new and 
 bizarre forms of unbelief, while the Church which should 
 have resisted it was sunk in deadliest corruption. Yet 
 in pious circles the study of God's Word never wholly 
 died out, and translations into the speech of the people 
 were made, and circulated, mostly secretly, in the chief 
 European countries. Thus was prepared the way for the 
 grand revival of the Reformation, flinging open once 
 more the gates of the knowledge of Holy Scripture ; and 
 great was the joy with which the enfranchised Church 
 entered on its inheritance. 
 
 But soon the sky was again clouded. Philosophy and 
 science made rapid advances as the result of that very 
 emancipation of the human intellect which the Reforma- 
 tion had fostered, and ere long the seeds of a new 
 rationalism began to be sown in the bosom of the 
 Church, with effects disastrous to reverent faith in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 was the peculiar era of this older rationalism in all the 
 countries of Europe, and, in its various forms of a 
 
 *13ampton Lectures on Our Lord's Divinity, p. 123 (5th Edition). 
 
 7 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 rampart Deism in England, of Voltaireism in France, 
 of the superficial rationalism of the " Illumination " in 
 Germany, it ate into the vitals of these countries, and 
 for a time made Christianity almost a name of mockery 
 in cultivated circles. 
 
 What religion was in England in this period may be 
 learned from the often-quoted passage from Bishop 
 Butler's " Advertisement " to his " Analogy of Religion." 
 "It has come," he says, " I know not how, to be taken 
 for granted by many persons, that Christianity is not so 
 much as a subject for inquiry ; but that it is now, at 
 length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly 
 they treat it as if, in the present age, this were an 
 agreed point among all people of discernment, and 
 nothing remained but to set it up as a principal subject 
 of mirth and ridicule, as it were, by way of reprisals for 
 its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world." 
 
 Will it be said by the most pessimistic that there is 
 anything like this among us to-day ? On the contrary, 
 we have to-day, I dare to say, more aggressive work 
 on the part of the Christian Church than almost in any 
 previous age. The Church of Christ to-day, notwith- 
 standing all these forces of unbelief we hear of around 
 us, has more members, is circulating more Bibles, is 
 doing more good, is extending itself more widely in the 
 world, is cherishing in its heart more earnestly the dream 
 of universal empire, than at any previous period of its 
 history ! Only it is doing this on the ground of the old 
 Evangel, not on the ground of the new theories of 
 religion and of the Bible. Let us thank God for it, and 
 not be downcast. 
 
 II. 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to recall the causes 
 which, in these different ages, brought about 
 
 8 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 THE DELIVERANCE OF THE CHURCH 
 
 from an enthralling scepticism and irreligion. The 
 present age has abounding faith in "scholarship." 
 When a scholar speaks about the Bible, let no man peep 
 or mutter. And I should assuredly be the last to seem to 
 throw any slight on sound and accurate scholarship. 
 Let scholars be fought by all means with the weapons of 
 scholars. 
 
 But it is very much to the point to observe that it has 
 never been by learning, by philosophy, by science, by 
 scholarship, that the Church has been revived and saved 
 in eras of great religious laxity and abounding infidelity. 
 When Jesus introduced His religion into the world He 
 did not choose "scholars," but humble, simple-minded 
 men, attached to Himself by a living faith, and endued 
 with power from on high, to do it, as witnesses to His 
 words, works, and resurrection. " The base things of 
 the world, and the things that are despised, did God 
 choose, yea, and the things that are not, that He might 
 bring to nought the things that are " (i Cor. i. 28). 
 
 And what has been the verdict of history on this 
 method ? Has it not justified it in the most emphatic 
 way ? Surely it is the greatest thing we can say about 
 these first disciples of Jesus — the most convincing 
 testimony we can bear to their own greatness — that they 
 had the eyes to see, that when the wise men of the 
 world of that time were blinded, and could not see, 
 they had the power to discern something of the meaning, 
 the importance, the world-wide significance of this great 
 appearance in their midst ; that they had the power to 
 take, in some degree, the measure of that great spiritual 
 movement which the heads of the people, the Caiaphases, 
 Pilates, Scribes and Pharisees, Rabbis, were all blind to, 
 and could only set down to some passing spasm of 
 
 9 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 superstition ! They took in some degree the measure 
 of the spiritual greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 saw something of what His Person and work really 
 meant for men; saw that there was laid in Him the 
 foundation of a great world-wide religion ; that bound 
 up in Him were hopes grand and glorious beyond expres- 
 sion for the individual and the race ! This is their 
 eternal title to honour. By means of it they became 
 the instruments of a revolution which changed the face of 
 the world. God hid it from " the wise and prudent," 
 but revealed it " unto babes " (Matt. xi. 25). 
 
 So when we come to the later age of the Reformation, 
 what brought the remedy for the unbelief and spiritual 
 evils under which that age groaned ? Not scholarship 
 or science, but the discovery in Scripture and faithful 
 proclamation of the living Gospel of the grace of God 
 by Luther and his fellow-reformers, men who had felt 
 its power in their own souls. 
 
 And once more, what rescued the Church from the 
 torpor and death of the negation of the eighteenth 
 century ? The deliverance came, not from philosophy or 
 learning, not even from the works of able apologists like 
 Butler, but from the tides of 
 
 THE SPIRITUAL REVIVAL 
 
 that swept over Britain, and were felt in other lands, 
 under the preaching of such men as Whitefield and the 
 Wesleys. This it was which gave evangelism the victory 
 once more over indifference and unbelief, and breathed 
 the new breath of life into society which introduced 
 the era of missions to the heathen, Bible diffusion, home 
 evangelisation, and the innumerable social reforms of the 
 last century. It is to a like outpouring of the Spirit of 
 God upon His Church, and to the same divine energy 
 manifesting itself in holy lives and practical work, far 
 
 10 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 more than to learned confutations, however valuable 
 these may be in their place, that we must look for the 
 overthrow of the forms of unbelief that lift up their 
 heads among us to-day. The owls vanish when the 
 daylight reappears. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE ASSAULTS UPON THE BIBLE 
 
 which cause most anxiety at the present hour, it will 
 be generally agreed, are those which come from the 
 newer schools of Old and New Testament criticism, from 
 a popular monistic philosophy, from evolutionary theories 
 in science, and from the absorbing interest which has 
 recently been displayed in the study of comparative 
 religion and mythology. The two subjects which are 
 most to the front are criticism and science, though signs 
 are not wanting that the foremost role may soon be 
 taken by the comparative study of religions. 
 
 Of course, it is recognised that mistakes may be made, 
 and old controversies on all these subjects carry in them 
 lessons to be wisely laid to heart by both the assailants 
 and the defenders of the Bible. Voltaire was confident 
 that Christianity would be overthrown by the discovery 
 of the law of gravitation, and would not survive a 
 century. Yet Sir Isaac Newton, who discovered the 
 law, was a humble Christian man. Strauss boldly 
 affirmed that the Copernican system gave the death-blow 
 to the Christian view of the world.* But what Christian 
 to-day feels his faith in the slightest degree affected by 
 the discovery that the earth goes round the sun, and not 
 the sun, as was once believed, round the earth. 
 
 There were many vauntings that the Bible was dis- 
 credited, and many shakings of heart on the part of 
 believers in the Bible themselves, when geology made it 
 * See his Der alte unci der neue Glaube, pp. 10 and no. 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 certain that the world was immensely older than the 
 6,000 years assigned to it since the creation by the 
 current chronology. The saintly Cowper could poke his 
 gentle satire at the geologists : — 
 
 M Some drill and bore 
 The solid earth, and from the strata there 
 Extract a register, by which we learn 
 That He who made it, and reveal'd its date 
 To Moses, was mistaken in its age."* 
 
 But few are troubled at the present time, or feel that 
 even the "days" of Genesis are put in serious peril, by 
 the discovery, through the same drilling and boring, of 
 the magnificent procession of the aeons through which 
 the work of creation actually extended. 
 
 On the other hand, as we shall see by and by, science 
 also has had to lay aside many extreme hypotheses, and 
 abandon or modify theories, which created, or seemed to 
 create, difficulties in comparison with Scripture. 
 
 One is taught by these things to avoid dogmatism, and 
 wait patiently for the progress of discovery, when many 
 things which present difficulty at a cruder stage of science 
 will clear themselves up of their own accord. Yet 
 
 THERE ARE LIMITS, 
 
 as everyone also must admit, set by the nature of 
 the case to this process of conciliation. Because good 
 Christian men once mistakenly contended for the inspir- 
 ation of the Hebrew vowel-points, it does not follow, as 
 seems sometimes to be argued, that the most radical results 
 of a destructive criticism are compatible with faith in the 
 Bible's inspiration and authority. Because people once 
 believed that the sun went round the earth, and shook 
 their heads in alarm at geological discoveries of the age 
 of the earth, it does not follow that spiritual religion — 
 *T/te Task, Bk. III. 
 
 12 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 not to say Christian faith — can ever reconcile itself to a 
 form of theory that declares mind to be a mere function 
 of brain, denies free will, and pours scorn on belief in 
 immortality. Because there are different views on 
 evolution and creation, it does not follow that any and 
 every account of the mode of man's physical and spiritual 
 origin leaves intact the Bible doctrine of sin. There is 
 need, I grant, for caution, and for wise and charitable 
 discrimination between essentials and non-essentials in 
 belief, as in practice. But there are none the less great 
 and vital issues between truth and error about the Bible 
 which no sophistry can obscure, and no juggling with 
 words efface. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The church is deeply concerned at the moment with 
 the bearings and issues of what is called 
 
 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 It is well to understand what the feeling really is which 
 lies at the bottom of this anxiety. It is not at all, in the 
 first place, a feeling as to the general legitimacy of 
 criticism. I do not believe — and the reception given to 
 my own volume on the Old Testament confirms me in 
 this opinion — that any really devout student of the Bible 
 desires to tie up honest inquiry on any question of 
 author, origin, date, or mode of composition of the 
 Biblical books, which does not involve clear contradic- 
 tion of the Bible's own testimony on these subjects. By 
 all means, if any traditional opinion can be shown by 
 valid reasoning on sound data to be in error on such 
 points, let it be corrected. 
 
 The feeling as to the type of Higher Criticism now in 
 vogue goes much deeper. What is felt is that this 
 newer school of criticism — commonly known as the 
 
 13 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 11 Wellhausen " school from its most distinguished 
 representative — really subverts the basis of a reasonable 
 faith in the Bible, and of a revelation of God contained 
 in it, altogether. There are moderate and devout men 
 in this country — men whom personally one must honour 
 — who seek to tone down the negations of the theory, and 
 breathe into it a more believing spirit ; but for the 
 exhibition of its principles one prefers to go to the 
 originators and accredited representatives of the school ; 
 and, even in the works of the moderate critics, one soon 
 discovers that the best efforts cannot remove the taint 
 of rationalism which inheres in its very essence. 
 It is not extravagant to say that, on the 
 
 MOST FAVOURABLE SHOWING 
 
 in this theory, little is left of the patriarchal and Mosaic 
 history ; that the Bible's own account of the origin, 
 nature, and course of development of Israel's religion dis- 
 appears, and an entirely different account, resting on dif- 
 ferent premises, is substituted for it ; that till the times 
 of the prophets, at least, the supernatural recedes very 
 much behind the natural, and miracle is hardly recog- 
 nised ; that practically all the legislation is taken from 
 Moses and ascribed to a much later date ; while the 
 Levitical system in its main features is held to be a 
 post-exilian invention, imposing on the returned Jewish 
 remnant a code of ritual which the prophets of an earlier 
 age, had they known of it, would have vehemently 
 denounced as dishonouring to Jehovah ! 
 
 Those who are acquainted with the literature of the 
 school will admit, I think, that this is an exceedingly 
 mild account of its general teaching ;* but if it is 
 accepted, it surely sufficiently explains the repugnance 
 with which the immense mass of Christian people in 
 * Illustrations will be tfiven later. 
 
 M 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 our churches regard this strange method of dealing with 
 God's Holy Word. If in their denunciation of it they 
 sometimes say and feel that it is really asking them to 
 accept 
 
 ANOTHER BIBLE, 
 
 they are not without justification for that opinion in 
 certain utterances of the school itself. Here is a recent 
 pronouncement by a distinguished representative of the 
 more moderate wing of the school, Prof. A. Westphal, of 
 Montauban. "It is not in vain," he says, "that the 
 internal ferment provoked by the old struggles has troubled 
 the Church for long years. If it has not succeeded in 
 furnishing the theological renovation which was expected 
 from it, the work of dislocation of traditional ideas is 
 none the less accomplished. Little by little the abyss 
 has been dug between the catechism of the Church (du 
 temple) and the theology of the school ; the day is coming 
 when we shall be faced with two Bibles, the Bible of 
 the faithful, and the Bible of the scholar."* 
 
 It would be easy to multiply quotations to the same 
 effect, but this is sufficient at present to show the gravity 
 of the issue by which the Church is to-day confronted. 
 
 It adds to the gravity of the case that, according to 
 the school itself, the " critical views " represented by 
 it (so writes one) are " at present all but universally 
 held by Old Testament scholars." This, like many 
 other statements of the school, requires, as we shall 
 afterwards find, to be taken cum grano ; but there is no 
 doubt that for many years the Wellhausen school has 
 been the dominant one, and has, in more or less pro- 
 nounced forms, attracted an ever-increasing following to 
 its banner ; and that in Britain and America it is dis- 
 
 *" Le jour vient ou deux Bibles seront en presence : la Bible 
 du fidele el la Bible du savant."— Jehovah, les Etapes de la Ji<fv/lw 
 lion. Pref. p. 3. 
 
 15 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 tinctly the ruling school still. Writers have almost ceased 
 to argue about it ; they are content to repeat its shib- 
 boleths, and register what they are pleased to call its 
 " settled results." It might appear as if the representa- 
 tive of " the traditional view " had nothing left for him 
 to do but to pull down his flag and gratefully accept what 
 crumbs of history, law, and prophetic teaching — the last 
 in larger measure — the critic is able to rescue for him from 
 the general wreckage. 
 
 V. 
 
 Before, however, giving way to undue alarm, the 
 believer in the Bible, as we have been accustomed to 
 understand it, will do well to place before his mind 
 
 CERTAIN REASSURING CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 which may help somewhat to modify a desponding judg- 
 ment on the situation. I mention here only two or 
 three of these, reserving further survey of this and other 
 forms of trial of the Bible to succeeding papers. 
 
 (i) One preliminary consideration of some importance 
 is that, after all, very much in the contentions of the 
 Wellhausen school is not new, and what is new has not 
 yet, as theories go, had a very long time to 
 
 THOROUGHLY TEST AND ESTABLISH 
 
 itself. Dr. Cheyne, in his book on The Founders of 
 Criticism, draws attention with justice to the great 
 indebtedness of the earlier critical schools to English 
 Deism (pp. I, 2). One is continually struck in reading 
 the attacks on, and defences of, the Old Testament in the 
 old Deistical controversy, with the surprising anticipations 
 of the difficulties, errors, contradictions, imperfections, 
 immoralities served up to-day as the newest learning in 
 Old Testament criticism. Not a little on these subjects 
 
 16 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 in modern books is already to be found, as vigorously 
 stated, in Morgan, and Bolingbroke, and Paine, and in 
 the older rationalists like Vatke and Von Bohlen. Yet 
 faith in the Bible withstood the shock then — gave, more- 
 over, exceedingly good reasons for doing so — and is not 
 likely to be overturned by the reproduction of the same 
 things now. 
 
 On the other hand, what is new in the Wellhausen 
 theory, particularly the post-exilian dating of the Levitical 
 Law, has not yet had a very long period of trial. The 
 critical theory, of which it is the outcome, has been 
 maturing for more than a century ; but this part of it, 
 though advanced tentatively by earlier investigators, met 
 with little or no favour till twenty-five or thirty years 
 ago, when, in the wake of Graf's book in 1866, it " caught 
 on " through the able advocacy of Kuenen and Well- 
 hausen. Previously to that it had been generally rejected 
 as an incredible folly. Kuenen himself, in 1861, spoke of 
 its grounds as "not worthy of refutation." While, 
 therefore, the Wellhausen theory has more recently had 
 a remarkable success, it is still, as such things go, 
 
 A COMPARATIVE NOVELTY, 
 
 and it is quite too early yet to speak of it as " a settled 
 result." The history of the Tubingen school in New 
 Testament criticism holds out, as we shall by and by 
 see, a warning here. There were causes in the state of 
 thought of our time which favoured the rise of such a 
 school; it was imported as a novelty, and " rushed " in 
 this country by certain very able scholars ; adventitious 
 circumstances gave it an artificial eclat, and predisposed 
 younger scholars in a chivalrous spirit to adopt it ; as its 
 influence spread it became a kind of tradition, a fashion 
 of thought, and was often assented to because scholars 
 11 said it," without much independent examination of its 
 
 17 c 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 grounds. Its somewhat gourd-like popularity is itself a 
 good reason for being chary in yielding to it an unqualified 
 assent. 
 
 (2) There is, however, a second consideration which 
 strongly fortifies this moral of the first. The school in 
 question has had an astonishing success, but it is by no 
 means the case that it has had all the field to itself, or 
 that it has it now, or has it in any increasing degree. It 
 is a fact that in every age 
 
 EXCESSES OF CRITICISM 
 
 tend to work out their own cure. It was so in the 
 Tubingen school ; and so it is proving itself to be here. 
 Scholars may talk as they will of "settled results," but it 
 is undeniable that extraordinary changes are taking place 
 within the critical school, which augur ill for its future 
 ascendency. The Wellhausen theory applies the prin- 
 ciple of evolution to the religion of Israel, but its own 
 development is a remarkable illustration of the same prin- 
 ciple. I shall have occasion later to speak of some of 
 these developments ; enough at present to say that they 
 run the theory into such excesses in multiplication of 
 sources, minute dissection of documents, extension of 
 time in the process, complicated operations in combina- 
 tion and redaction, that the theory literally breaks down 
 under its own weight, and becomes incredible to soberly 
 thinking minds. I have compared it in my book to the 
 constant adding on of cycles and epicycles in the 
 Ptolemaic astronomer's chart, till it became a huge maze 
 of confusion which defied belief. The theory, in my 
 humble opinion, is rapidly running to seed ; by its very 
 excesses is digging its own grave. 
 
 (3) This leads me to say, next, that, in point of fact, 
 
 GREAT CHANGES 
 
 are already apparent in influential quarters in the state of 
 
 18 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 opinion on Old Testament questions ; and greater changes 
 are surely imminent in the near future. I do not refer to 
 the still powerful body of opinion on the Continent that 
 refuses adhesion to the Wellhausen programme — a great 
 deal more powerful than many imagine — or to the changes 
 in individual opinion that occasionally occur, though 
 these also are noteworthy as signs of the times. One may 
 notice, however, as of special significance the decisive 
 break of leading archaeologists, as Sayce, Hommel, Halevy, 
 Ditlef-Nielson, with the Wellhausen theory, which most 
 of them had earlier accepted. 
 
 My own conviction is that there is at the present 
 moment a considerable and growing amount of distrust of 
 the methods and conclusions of the reigning critical 
 school in the minds of both clergy and laity in our own 
 country. It is but a straw showing which way the wind 
 blows, but one- cannot but be interested in the statement 
 made by Dr. Robertson Nicoll in his notice of the late 
 Dr. George Matheson, that, after a period of sanguine 
 acceptance of the processes and results of the Higher 
 Criticism, as expounded by Prof. W. R. Smith, and of 
 the doctrine of evolution, "he came," in later life, "to 
 disbelieve in the Higher Criticism and in the doctrine of 
 evolution — at least in its extreme form."* 
 
 It is, however, something far more wide-reaching I 
 have in view in the remark just made as to impending 
 revolutionary changes in critical opinion. The truth is, 
 the placards are again changing, and a new school has 
 already arisen — the so-called 
 
 " HISTORICAL-CRITICAL " SCHOOL, 
 
 which is gathering to it the younger generation of scholars, 
 and which in its heart regards Wellhausenism as pretty 
 much obsolete. It is not on that account more believing, 
 * British Weekly \ Sept. 6, 1906. 
 
 19 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 but is in some respects more destructive: yet its critical 
 positions show a marked return in a conservative direc- 
 tion. I might" illustrate from H. Gunkel, the influential 
 Professor at Berlin, but prefer to take a single example 
 from an address delivered recently at a conference at 
 Eisenach, by the learned Orientalist, Hugo Winckler,* a 
 leading representative of this tendency. This remarkable 
 address is nothing less than a vigorous assault on the 
 whole foundation of the Wellhausen theory of the religion 
 of Israel, in its advance from a tribal god to ethical 
 monotheism in the age of the prophets, and in its alleged 
 successive stages of nomad religion, agricultural religion, 
 prophetic religion, and legal religion. Winckler assails 
 the theory root and branch, and boldly declares that 
 there has been no " development " of the kind. He 
 decisively rejects the cardinal Wellhausen tenet of the 
 origin of the Levitical Law in the exile, and contends 
 that " law and prophets " must have been present from 
 the beginning. He mentions that he also is here recant- 
 ing an earlier view. Here is a revolution, indeed — one 
 prophetic of much more. In how curious a light, after 
 such a pronouncement, appears the talk about " settled 
 results ! " 
 
 (4) One other circumstance I would mention as tending 
 to a recoil in many minds from the prevalent methods in 
 Old Testament Criticism, and I refer to it only in a word. 
 It is the spectacle afforded in recent works of what these 
 methods really mean when applied with like unflinching 
 boldness to the documents and history of 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 It is a remarkable feature in the existing critical situation 
 •Since published under the clumsy title of Religionsgeschichtlicher 
 unci qeschichtlicher Orient, and described as a testing of the presup- 
 positions of the Wellhausen School on the basis of Marti's book on 
 The Religion of the Old Testament. 
 
 20 
 
The Present Day Trial of the Bible 
 
 that the critics, having apparently sucked their orange 
 well-nigh dry in the Old Testament, are now precipitating 
 themselves in increasing numbers on the New Testament, 
 with the result that its texts, narratives, and portraiture 
 of the life of Jesus and of the early Church, are being 
 subjected to the same treatment as had laid in ruins the 
 patriarchal and Mosaic history. 
 
 Here, however, the matter touches the Christian con- 
 science too closely. Abraham and Moses may go in 
 fidelity to the historical method, but if Christ is to be 
 taken away, there is a start of shocked surprise. A halt 
 must be called, and the methods that lead to such a result 
 must be carefully looked into ! Here the new historical- 
 critical method is in its element, with its comparative 
 mythology, and reduction of the narratives of the 
 Nativity and Resurrection into legends. 
 
 One is interested in this connection to see the strenuous 
 protest being made by so convinced an Old Testament 
 critic as Prof. C. A. Briggs, in defence of the Virgin 
 Birth. Again, perhaps, only a straw, but a significant 
 one. This rejuvenation of assault upon the New 
 Testament will also occupy us later. 
 
 SCOPE OF THE PAPERS. 
 
 The purpose and scope of the papers collected in 
 this volume will now, I hope, be sufficiently apparent. 
 Written from the standpoint of assured faith in the 
 revelation of God in the Scriptures, they are intended to 
 remove disquietude, confirm faith, and set forth con- 
 siderations which may serve to show that, severe as the 
 trial is to which the Bible is at present subjected, it will 
 emerge from the ordeal, as heretofore, unscathed, and 
 may be depended on to retain its place in the devout 
 regard of Christian people, as the repository of the living 
 oracles of God for the guidance and salvation of mankind, 
 
 21 
 
II 
 An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
An Instructive 
 Object-Lesson 
 
 THE past is a great instructor as to the power that 
 resides in the Bible to survive the assaults made 
 upon it even by the most skilful adversaries. I 
 referred in the previous paper to the keen literary 
 attacks made on Christianity by its pagan opponents in 
 the second century. A special object of assault was the 
 Gospels. One of the most keen-witted of these assailants 
 was the clever Epicurean, 
 
 CELSUS, 
 
 of whom the German Baur does not hesitate to say : " In 
 acuteness, in dialectical aptitude, in many-sided culture, 
 at once philosophical and general, Celsus stands behind 
 no opponent of Christianity."* His book called The True 
 Word — abundant extracts from which are preserved to us 
 by Origen — is, in its way, a masterpiece of attack upon 
 the Evangelic records. It is the book of a man of undeni- 
 able acuteness, of wide reading, of philosophic culture, of 
 exceptional literary ability, who, after a minute study of 
 the Christian writings, of deliberate purpose sets himself 
 to assail, undermine, and overthrow Christianity by all 
 the resources of knowledge, argument and raillery at his 
 command. Scarcely anything escapes his eye of which a 
 point could be made against the new faith. Yet the book 
 *Church History of First Three Centuries, II., p. 141. 
 
 2 5 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 failed ! So far as we can see, it had absolutely not the 
 slightest effect in stopping the triumphant progress of 
 Christianity in 'the Empire. It is doubtful if we should 
 ever have heard of its existence but for the fact that 
 Origen in the following century composed a reply to it. 
 
 And the reason is not far to seek. Mockery and 
 ridicule were no effective weapons against the holy power 
 which men felt had entered the world in the religion of 
 Jesus Christ. Christian men and women needed no 
 argument to refute Celsus. They knew from their own 
 experience that he did not do justice to their books, their 
 religion, their morality, their lives. He might see 
 nothing of the transcendent moral and spiritual glory of 
 the Christian Gospel, but others were not so blind. His 
 spirit would not attract them where Christ's failed. He 
 might cavil and misrepresent, but he had no substitute 
 to offer for the salvation which men knew Christ had 
 brought them. 
 
 The case of Celsus is typical, and preludes the whole 
 history of the conflict of faith with unbelief. 
 
 VOLTAIRE 
 
 was the keenest and most unsparing assailant of the 
 Bible in the eighteenth century. He is credited with the 
 saying that it took twelve men to found Christianity, but 
 he would show the world that one man was sufficient to 
 overthrow it. Proud but vain boast ! The Bible which 
 Voltaire laboured to destroy holds on its career of con- 
 quest unchecked. The records of Bible societies show that 
 last year (1905) was actually the largest in the circulation 
 of the sacred volume ever attained. But Voltaire's own 
 books — some score or two of them — stand piled, dust- 
 laden, on the shelves ; and save for some literary or 
 historical purpose, who ever thinks of consulting them ? 
 Why, again, this difference ? Simply because the Bible 
 
 26 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 has a message for the world, which the world feels it 
 needs ; Voltaire's books had not. 
 
 I. 
 
 These are instances from centuries gone by. I propose 
 now in this paper to sketch the history of a school of 
 criticism in the immediate past, which has, I think, 
 valuable instruction for us in the present time of trial for 
 the Bible, and is, besides, in important ways, linked with 
 living controversies. I refer to the famous historical and 
 critical school commonly known as 
 
 THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL, 
 
 from its connection with Ferdinand Chr. Baur, Professor 
 in that University. It was a New Testament, not an Old 
 Testament, school, but its lessons are as applicable to the 
 one school of criticism as to the other. It had a great 
 prestige about the middle of last century, attracted to 
 itself a band of able scholars — men like Schwegler, Zeller, 
 Hilgenfeld, A. Ritschl — and ruled the critical world for 
 over a generation. Dr. Samuel Davidson became a con- 
 vert to it, and advocated its theories in this country. It 
 proclaimed itself, in the usual style, to be the "critical," 
 as opposed to the " uncritical " view*, and looked with 
 scorn on those who rejected its conclusions. Its 
 temporary vogue markedly resembled that of the Well- 
 hausen school to-day. Yet little by little its influence 
 ebbed, till now the tide is completely turned, and hardly 
 any among critical writers is found so poor as to do it 
 reverence. A glance at the fortunes of such a school can 
 scarcely fail to be educative. 
 
 *Baur says in a note in his Church History : " Here, if anywhere, is 
 a conflict of principles, which cannot be carried further. The two 
 views simply confront each other as the critical view and the un- 
 critical." (I., p. 53. 
 
 27 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Baur, the founder of this school, was a man of great 
 learning, ability, and conscientiousness, and had a power 
 which few have surpassed of giving a novel theory a look 
 of plausibility, and even of demonstration. His theory, 
 like Wellhausen's, fascinated by the skill with which it 
 grouped its materials in support of a central thesis, and 
 by the easy key it seemed to afford to many difficult 
 phenomena in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic ages of 
 the Church. 
 
 Briefly stated, the theory turns on 
 
 ONE GREAT ANTITHESIS, 
 
 which is the pillar of the whole — the alleged existence of 
 Petrine and Pauline parties, in conflict with each other, 
 in the early Church. We look in vain, Baur thinks, for a 
 correct picture of early Christianity in the Book of Acts, 
 which is a composition of the second century, written 
 expressly for the purpose of glozing over the differences 
 between the original Apostles and Paul. The true state 
 of matters is mirrored in the contemporary, and un- 
 doubtedly authentic, Epistles of Paul — of which he 
 acknowledges four, the Epistles to the Galatians, I. and 
 II. Corinthians, and Romans — just as, in the Old Testa- 
 ment school, we are taken for our starting-point from the 
 historical books to the prophets, or such portions of them 
 as the critics are pleased to allow to be genuine. Here, 
 and in the Apocalypse, accepted as a work of the Apostle 
 John, we see the Church rent by a schism which 
 threatened its very existence. The primitive believers at 
 Jerusalem were far from having the enlightened views 
 ascribed to them in the Book of Acts. They were rather 
 Jews of the most exclusive type, who differed from the 
 rest of their countrymen only in believing that the 
 Messiah had already appeared in Jesus of Nazareth, 
 and who thought of nothing less than of breaking with 
 
 28 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 Judaism or relaxing the obligations of the Mosaic 
 law. 
 
 When, now, Gentile Churches were founded, it was in- 
 evitable that a conflict should arise. Stephen, the 
 Hellenist, was the precursor of the new doctrine : but it 
 was 
 
 PAUL'S LABOURS, 
 
 and his success in founding churches among the Gentiles, 
 which brought matters to a crisis. Jews came from 
 Judaea to Antioch, insisting on the circumcision of the new 
 converts as a condition of salvation (Acts xv. i). This 
 Paul and the Gentile Christians strenuously resisted. To 
 try to come to some understanding on the subject, Paul 
 and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to meet with the 
 original Apostles. The Book of Acts, in the account it 
 gives of the great Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), repre- 
 sents the older Apostles as on the side of Paul in principle 
 — a representation, according to Baur, completely con- 
 tradicted by the narrative in Gal. ii., which, besides, 
 knows nothing of a public meeting, and speaks only of a 
 private interview with the three of chief repute, Peter, 
 John, and James, the Lord's brother. It is quite a 
 mistake, Baur holds, to suppose that the so-called 
 " Judaizers" were only a troublesome party or faction in 
 the Church, and that the original Apostles had no 
 sympathy with their movement. The real heads of 
 
 THE OPPOSITION TO PAUL, 
 
 according to his reading of the facts, were the original 
 Apostles themselves. In his own words : " Who were 
 the opponents to whom Paul and Barnabas had to offer 
 so strenuous a resistance ? Who else than the elder 
 Apostles themselves."* 
 * Church History, I., p. 52. 
 
 29 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 The result of the conference with the Three, on Baur's 
 theory, was a patched up agreement, according to which 
 each went his own way, without any real harmony in 
 principle. This became evident shortly after, when Peter 
 came to Antioch, and a collision occurred between him 
 and Paul. Peter, influenced by his surroundings, had so 
 far modified his Jewish strictness, and had begun to eat 
 with the Gentiles. This continued till a deputation came 
 from James at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 12), when heat once 
 returned to his former practice, and drew down upon him 
 the sharp rebuke of Paul. According to Baur, Peter and 
 Paul never after this were reconciled, and the Jewish 
 legalists, on their side, never forgot the slight put on their 
 great Apostle. 
 
 From this conflict at Antioch dates 
 
 THE FINAL BREAK 
 
 of Paul with the Jewish party. Thenceforth they set 
 themselves, still with the concurrence of the older 
 Apostles, to oppose and frustrate Paul wherever he went. 
 In Galatia they succeeded in subverting his work, and 
 in bringing back his converts to circumcision and the law. 
 In Corinth they introduced divisions, and set up a 
 Petrine as against a Pauline party, which boldly 
 challenged Paul's right to regard himself as an Apostle at 
 all. These opponents, as Paul admits, brought with 
 them "letters of commendation" (2 Cor. iii. 1). The 
 Apocalypse is interpreted as breathing throughout an 
 unmistakable spirit of hostility to Paul, who is declared 
 to be expressly excluded in the mention of "the twelve 
 Apostles of the Lamb," whose names are in the founda- 
 tions of the holy city (Rev. xxi. 14). The Book of Acts, 
 written towards the middle of the next century, seeks to 
 conceal this chasm ; but even in it, it is said, the traces 
 of this fierce controversy cannot be altogether effaced. 
 
 30 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 According to its own showing, the first Apostles made 
 no attempt to carry out any mission to the Gentiles ; 
 Paul met with keen opposition in his work at Antioch 
 and elsewhere ; and when at length he returned for the 
 last time to Jerusalem, he was met by the statement of 
 James: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there 
 are among the Jews of them which have believed ; and 
 they are all zealous for the law " (Acts xxi. 20). Here, 
 it is contended, we have pictured the true state of the 
 case: a church at Jerusalem composed of zealots for the 
 law ; Paul, on the other hand, preaching freedom from the 
 law ; and between the two parties, a bitter and irrecon- 
 cilable opposition ! 
 
 The tension thus created, however, could not remain 
 permanent, and we have next, according to Baur, 
 
 NEW DEVELOPMENTS 
 
 tending to lessen the sharpness of the opposition, and to 
 draw the parties closer together. Approximations began 
 to be made on either side, the stages of which reflect 
 themselves in the literary products of the time. Gospels 
 and Epistles were composed from a party point of view, 
 each seeking to commend its own standpoint, and to con- 
 ciliate opponents. The Gospel of Matthew, e.g., repre- 
 sents a modified Jewish standpoint : the Gospel of Luke 
 and the Acts are Pauline, but written in the interests of 
 conciliation ; Mark is a neutral Gospel, based on Matthew 
 and Luke (the newer criticism precisely reverses this 
 relation) ; Epistles like Ephesians and Colossians repre- 
 sent the same conciliatory tendency ; while, finally, the 
 Gospel of John brings up the rear, with its Christian 
 Gnosticism, pointing to a date somewhere between 
 a.d. 160 and 170. I need not follow the further steps 
 by which, in Baur's view, after mutual concession, Jewish 
 and Gentile Christianity got blended together towards 
 
 3i 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the end of the second century in the unity of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 Such in its main features was Baur's theory of the 
 Apostolic age, stated and defended with marvellous 
 acuteness, and wrought out with undeniable plausibility 
 and skill. For a time, as I have said, it 
 
 QUITE CAPTIVATED 
 
 the advanced spirits in theology, just as the Wellhausen 
 theoty is doing now. The method seemed the right one 
 — to start, not with documents of a later, or at least un- 
 certain age, but with undoubtedly contemporary, first- 
 hand writings ; the proofs seemed clear — the contra- 
 dictions between Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians ; 
 the antagonism of Paul to the Three, as shown in the 
 same Epistle ; the emissaries who came from James to 
 Antioch, and compelled Peter to renounce his more 
 liberal practice ; the conflicts with the Judaizers in 
 Galatia and other churches ; the Petrine party in Corinth, 
 and the " letters of recommendation " they brought with 
 them, evidently from some influential quarters ; the fact 
 that the early Apostles themselves never attempted a 
 Gentile mission ; the thousands of Jews who believed, 
 who were all zealous for the law, in Jerusalem — how 
 could it be doubted that the true key had been found to 
 the many perplexing phenomena in the Apostolic age 
 which the old theory ignored, and that the eyes of the 
 world had at length been opened to the actual course of 
 events in that greatly misunderstood period? The Well- 
 hausen theory of "the three Codes," as the key to the 
 religious history of Israel, could not be clearer ! 
 
 II. 
 
 What now, it is instructive to inquire, has been 
 
 THE VERDICT OF HISTORY 
 
 on this ingenious and imposing theory, promulgated by 
 
 32 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 Baur with so much eclat? I have already hinted that it 
 has not been favourable, but it is well to watch the pro- 
 cess. The theory, as above sketched, was not long able 
 to hold the field in its integrity. After a little time had 
 been given for consideration, it became evident to 
 unprejudiced minds that it had at least been pushed 
 much too far, and that, in the form in which Baur had 
 presented it, it was little more than a caricature of early 
 Christianity. Some of Baur's ablest disciples, accord- 
 ingly, ere long felt themselves compelled to part company 
 with their master on essential points, and gradually the 
 party was under the necessity of greatly retracting its 
 position as a whole. Two causes, mainly, led to this 
 result: — 
 
 (i) It was soon seen, and had to be acknowledged, 
 that, granting him his own data, Baur had greatly over- 
 driven the evidence, and that 
 
 ON PURELY HISTORICAL GROUNDS 
 
 his contentions could not be maintained. It was early 
 pointed out, e.g., by Lechler, that the text in Gal. ii. I, 
 2, so far from confining Paul's visit to a private confer- 
 ence, expressly implies the larger meeting with the 
 Church. " I went up again," Paul says, "to Jerusalem 
 . . . and laid before them the Gospel which I preach 
 . . . but privately before them of repute," &c. Here 
 " them," in the connection, can only be the believers in 
 Jerusalem, the Church itself, and the " but " marks the 
 transition to a private interview. Lechler in this had 
 the rare good fortune of convincing his opponents, for the 
 point he raised has been conceded by Zeller, Holsten, 
 Ritschl, Pfleiderer, Reuss, and most others. 
 
 It is not otherwise with the alleged opposition between 
 Paul and the Three in Gal. ii. It has long been shown 
 that this chapter, so far from proving antagonism in 
 
 33 D 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 principle, proves agreement. Paul speaks of " false 
 brethren privily brought in " (ver. 4), but the very mention 
 of " privily " 'shows that they were not a majority in the 
 Church ; and the express statement of the chapter is that 
 when the Three heard Paul's account of his work, they 
 gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship 
 (ver. 9). Here again there has come about a consensus of 
 leading critics, as Holsten, Ritschl, Reuss, Pfleiderer, &c. 
 
 It is evident again, in Gal. ii. 11, 12, that in withdraw- 
 ing from eating with the Gentiles, Peter was acting in 
 weakness, against his own better convictions ; and the 
 after hostility of Peter to Paul is a simple myth, now also 
 generally abandoned. Among other indications in the 
 history, an undeniable evidence of the good feeling which 
 subsisted between the Church at Jerusalem and the 
 Pauline Church is the collection for the poor saints in 
 Judaea, with which Paul so honourably busied himself.* 
 
 But (2) there was yet another cause which inevitably led 
 to the abandoment of the extreme positions of Baur, viz., 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF CRITICISM 
 
 itself. Baur's school was nothing if not critical.t It 
 
 * Difficulty has been raised as to the silence of the later history and 
 the epistles on the "decree" of the Jerusalem Council (Acts xv. 
 23 ft). A. Ritschl (in the work named below) has probably given the true 
 explanation in showing that, in the conditions, the "decree" neces- 
 sarily fell early into desuetude. The decision of the Council was of 
 the nature of a compromise. It settled that circumcision was not to 
 be enforced in the Gentiles ; it was not settled whether Jews were at 
 liberty to dispense with the customs of their nation. The difference 
 on this point was one bound to emerge in mixed Churches — 
 especially in eating (Gal. ii. 11-14). The question of principle, once 
 raised, could only be settled in the interests of a liberty which made 
 the " decree " obsolete. 
 
 + In the opening of his book on Paul, Baur says : " It may be 
 justly said of the present age that its prevailing tendency is critical. 
 
 . . Thought has now, after the laborious toil of many centuries, 
 emancipated itself, and thrown away its crutches." This was in 1845. 
 
 34 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 was with critical weapons its battles were fought, and on 
 critical grounds it claimed acceptance. But it was just 
 here, by the continuous application of the same methods, 
 that the leading postulates of the school were overthrown. 
 It was an easy way to gain a victory to make a clean 
 sweep of nearly all the books of the New Testament, 
 thrusting them down to the second century — Old Testa- 
 ment criticism substitutes the Exile — and accounting for 
 them by deliberate use of fiction. Yet if this was not 
 done, the theory would not stand for an hour. The late 
 date of the New Testament writings is not an accident, 
 but an essential part of Baur's theory — so, too, in Old 
 Testament theories — yet the progress of the same careful, 
 thorough criticism which, be it conceded, his own school 
 did so much to foster, has rendered it impossible to 
 maintain this late date for the documents on which he 
 founds. With this, as an invaluable auxiliary — the Old 
 Testament parallel here is archaeology — has gone 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF DISCOVERY, 
 
 compelling in many instances the driving back of the 
 date of the New Testament books to a much earlier 
 period than Baur would allow. Baur, in other words, 
 needed for his purpose to make a clean sweep of the great 
 bulk of the literature of the New Testament ; criticism 
 and discovery combined to show that this could not be 
 done. One by one Paul's Epistles have had to be given 
 back to him, till it is chiefly on the Pastoral Epistles, in 
 whole or part, that, in advanced circles, doubt is permitted 
 to rest ; the first three Gospels have been carried back by 
 stringent processes of criticism to dates well within the 
 Apostolic age ; even the Gospel of John is put by the 
 opponents of its genuineness — a diminishing number — 
 fully half a century earlier than Baur would acknow- 
 ledge. More will be said of this revolution in opinion 
 
 35 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 immediately; I take here only an instance or two in 
 illustration of the effect of discovery. 
 Baur would fain put the 
 
 GOSPEL OF JOHN 
 
 down to about a.d. 170. But in 1842 discovery was made 
 of a long-lost book of Hippolytus (about a.d. 200), 
 A Refutation of All Heresies, which dealt specifically 
 with the Gnostic systems of Basilides and Valentinus, and 
 made it perfectly clear that these systems were founded 
 on the teaching of the Fourth Gospel. As Basilides 
 flourished as early as a.d. 125, the inference was obvious. 
 Here is one passage: "And this he [Basilides] says is 
 that which has been stated in the Gospels, ' He was the 
 true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the 
 world.' " No candid mind will deny that this quotation 
 is from John i. 9. Another example. In a curious heretical 
 production of the middle or latter part of the second 
 century, The Clementine Homilies, there were numerous 
 clear references to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and some 
 which any ordinary mind would have thought clear 
 enough to John also. It did not, however, suit the critics 
 to admit this, and the alleged absence of any references 
 to John was turned into an argument against the 
 existence of the Gospel before a.d. 160. Up to this time 
 the MS. was imperfect, the last homily, and half of the 
 one preceding, being wanting. In 1853 a complete MS. 
 of the Homilies was discovered, and there, in the part 
 formerly missing, was a reference so clear to the story of 
 the man born blind in John ix, that doubt was no longer 
 possible, and the critics yielded up the point. The more 
 recent discovery of translations of Tatian's famous 
 Diatessarofi, or Harmony of the Four Gospels, made 
 soon after the middle of the second century, at once 
 establishes the existence of that Harmony — which had 
 
 36 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 been keenly disputed* — and the place of John's Gospel 
 in it. It begins with the sentence, " In the beginning 
 was the Word ' (John i. i). 
 
 III. 
 
 It will hardly, now, be wondered at, that, pressed by 
 these difficulties, the school beat a retreat. A. Ritschl, 
 at first an expounder of its critical views (he wrote to 
 prove that Marcion's mutilated Gospel of Luke was 
 probably the original — a position afterwards surrendered), 
 gradually broke with its positions, and finally, in 1857, in 
 the second edition of his book on The Origin of the Old 
 Catholic Church, wrote one of the ablest refutations of it. 
 
 The full extent, however, of the 
 
 BREACH OF CRITICAL SCHOLARS 
 
 with this once-honoured school, is only seen when 
 we come down to recent times. 
 
 On the actual situation I shall cite a few sentences 
 from one who will not be regarded as unduly biassed 
 towards conservatism — Prof. A. S. Peake, of the 
 University of Manchester. In a recent inaugural 
 lecture on " The Present Movement of Biblical Science," 
 Mr. Peake signalises as one of the two features in recent 
 New Testament Introduction, " the general break with 
 the Tubingen tradition."! He remarks: "All that 
 profound learning and brilliant genius could do for the 
 theory was done by Baur and the band of scholars he 
 
 * As by the author of the book called Supernatural Religion 
 (W. R. Cassels). 
 
 t In the volume entitled Inaugural Lectures delivered by Members 
 of the Faculty of Theology during its First Session, 1904-5. Cf., 
 PP- 49"53- The other "feature" Mr. Peake discerns is " the break in 
 England with the Lightfoot tradition," with respect, apparently, to 
 the order of the Pauline Epistles, especially Galatians, 
 
 37 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 gathered round him." But, " as is well known, this 
 criticism has not held its ground. In the first place, it 
 rested too much on a theory of what the history must 
 have been not to have presented a distorted statement of 
 what it actually is. In the next place the radical 
 criticism of Baur has been almost entirely abandoned 
 by those who would now be regarded as radical critics." 
 The theory is taken piecemeal, and almost all its con- 
 tentions are shown to be now surrendered. E.g., " With 
 the exception of Hilgenfeld, practically all critics are 
 agreed that Mark is the earliest of the synoptists ; in 
 other words, what Baur declared to be the latest, because 
 the most neutral, of the Gospels is now placed first of 
 all." " The theory entertained by this school as to the 
 Acts of the Apostles has also been abandoned ; the 
 conciliatory tendency which was detected in it is seen to 
 have been greatly exaggerated." It is added : " Apart 
 from this abandonment of Baur's New Testament 
 criticism, there are other objections to the theory 
 which have contributed to its surrender." 
 
 In short, no shred is left that one can discern of the 
 Tubingen theory at all. The few scholars that adhere to 
 it, as Van Manen, have developed its criticism " into an 
 extremely negative form," leaving " not a single New 
 Testament writing to its traditional author."* Their 
 exploits — " the delirium of hyper-criticism " — awaken 
 only " amazement." I agree, but wonder in turn, that 
 Mr. Peake, in view of all this, should write as confidently 
 
 * The tendency of advanced critics either to revert to a more 
 conservative position or go off into extreme negation, receives 
 continual illustration from the history of thought. As a recent 
 instance, one reads that Dr. Lipsius, of Jena, has resigned his 
 chair of theology, and accepted one in philosophy, on the ground that 
 he has given up his belief in Christianity, and desires a position in 
 which he will be free, if he chooses, to antagonise it. 
 
 38 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 as he does of " assured results " in the field of Old 
 Testament criticism (p. 32). 
 
 IV. 
 
 LATER DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 The Tubingen tradition is broken, but we have not 
 yet reached the end of our developments. To abandon 
 Baur's view of Luke's Gospel, and of the Book of Acts, 
 was not yet to admit Luke's authorship of these two 
 works, or to concede to them a high historical value. It 
 was a great step in advance when Prof. W. M. Ramsay, 
 of Aberdeen, himself formerly an adherent of the Tubingen 
 school, came out some years ago as a thorough-going 
 defender of Luke's title to the rank of a first-class 
 historian. The Continent, however, seemed compara- 
 tively unmoved. Now there is a change, and within the 
 last few months criticism has received 
 
 A NEW SURPRISE, 
 
 and something not unlike a shock to its nerves, by the 
 entrance into this field of controversy of no less redoubt- 
 able a champion of the traditional view of Luke's author- 
 ship of the Gospel and the Acts than the brilliant and 
 learned Prof. A. Harnack, of Berlin.* 
 
 To realise the significance of this fact one has first to 
 remember that the non-Lucan authorship of these two 
 works was a point which " criticism " had entirely settled 
 to its own satisfaction long ago — it was a " settled result " 
 (as much so as the Old Testament J, E, and P) ; and, 
 next, to hear what Harnack has to say, not only on this 
 particular question, but on the value of " tradition," and 
 on modern methods of criticism in general. 
 
 * In his book, Lukas der Arzt, der Verfasser des dritten 
 Evangeliums und der Afiostelgeschichte (Luke the Physician, the 
 Author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles), 
 
 39 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 On the first point it is worth while listening to a 
 colleague of Harnack's, Prof. Schiirer, apropos of this 
 same book, if only to note the reason he gives for reject- 
 ing the unity of the Acts, viz., its unhistoricity. " The 
 linguistic unity of the work," he says, "has been already 
 hitherto recognised, and still all representatives of a 
 critical view of things were at one in holding that the 
 author of the 'We' source, and the author of the Acts, 
 are to be distinguished, because the latter, on account of 
 the glaring marks of unhistoricity in his work, cannot be 
 a companion of Paul,"* "All representatives" — "at 
 one " — " cannot be," how familiar are the phrases ! But 
 Harnack is not dismayed, and does not bate his breath in 
 speaking of the critics. He reckons up the forces 
 against him, and thus pictures the temper of the reigning 
 school : " In spite of the contradiction of Credner, 
 B. Weiss, Klostermann, Zahn, &c, the untenableness of 
 the tradition [of Luke's authorship] is held to be so com- 
 pletely established, that one hardly takes the trouble any 
 longer to prove it, or even to give any attention to the 
 arguments of opponents. Indeed, there seems no longer 
 a willingness to recognise that such arguments exist. 
 Jiilicher believes he is compelled to see in the ascription 
 of the book to Luke only ' an adventurous wish.' So 
 quickly does criticism forget, aud in so partisan a spirit 
 does it stiffen itself in its hypotheses!" (p. 5). "Can 
 not," he says again, " Why not ? Whence have we so 
 sure a knowledge of Apostolic and post-Apostolic times, 
 that we dare oppose our ' knowing ' to surely attested 
 facts ? " (p. 87). He does not believe there ever was a 
 separate " We " source at all. 
 
 Harnack claims, accordingly, in his Preface: " I hope 
 to have shown in the following pages that criticism has 
 gone wrong, and that 
 
 * Literaturzeitungi July 18, 1906. 
 
 40 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 TRADITION IS RIGHT," 
 
 and he reminds his readers that ten years ago he told 
 them that " in the criticism of the sources of the oldest 
 Chistianity we are in a movement backward to tradition." 
 "Something," he says, "has certainly been won back in 
 the fact that we are able to circumscribe more precisely 
 the ground and the time of the oldest, foundation-laying 
 formation of tradition ; by which not a few wild 
 hypotheses are excluded. In the years 30-70 — and, 
 indeed, in Palestine, more exactly in Jerusalem — everything 
 really came into being and happened, of which what 
 followed was simply the unfolding."* (Italics his.) The 
 third chapter of his book is headed: " On the Pretended 
 Impossibility of Vindicating the Third Gospel and the 
 Acts of the Apostles for Luke." Harnack was never 
 a believer in the Tubingen theory,! and now he 
 sees in it the fundamental error in New Testament 
 criticism. " All mistakes which have been made in New 
 Testament criticism gather themselves to a focus in the 
 criticism of the Acts of the Apostles," and the root-error 
 is Baur's theory of the relations of Jewish and Gentile 
 Christianity (p. 87). One is reminded how certain 
 scholars are now beginning to liken Wellhausen's dogma 
 of " the centralisation of worship " to this exploded dogma 
 of the Baur school ! 
 
 All this is very instructive. The cry of " settled results " ! 
 The proof of how far criticism, when most sure of itself, 
 can go astray ! The certainty that a change will come, 
 and flouted " tradition " will reassert its rights ! How 
 the credit of books most assailed is by and by rehabili- 
 
 * The German is— "In den Jahren 30-70 — und, zwar inPalds/ind, 
 ndher in Jerusalem — ist eigentlich A lies geworden und geschehen. 
 was sich nachher entfaltet hat." 
 
 t Cf. his History of Dogma. I., p. 49 
 
 4 1 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 tated ! We seem to hear the echoes of Old Testament 
 discussion at every step, and are grateful for the encour- 
 agement the retrospect yields. 
 
 LUKE AS HISTORIAN. 
 
 Yet Harnack, while assailing the critical views on 
 Luke, is very cautious about committing himself to the 
 entire historicity of the Book of Acts. He retains his 
 liberty to pick what holes he pleases in the narrative on 
 its historical side. His own demonstration of the Lucan 
 authorship, and of the soundness of the sources Luke 
 employed, will make it increasingly difficult for him to do 
 this. Here, however, Prof. Ramsay comes to the rescue, 
 and on the question of fact is much the better judge. It 
 was not the application of literary criticism which 
 convinced Prof. Ramsay that he had here a 
 
 FIRST-CLASS HISTORICAL SOURCE. 
 
 His calling took him to Asia Minor on exploration wor 
 and in the course of his researches he was so much im- 
 pressed with the minute accuracy of the Book of Acts 
 that it led him bit by bit to recast his whole opinion, and 
 he has now become one of the ablest defenders of Luke's 
 accuracy as a historian. In addition to his works on 
 Paul, he has written a very able defence of the narrative 
 of the Nativity in the Gospel of Luke.* 
 
 V. 
 
 It would unduly extend this paper to go into many 
 details, but one illustration may perhaps be given of 
 
 THE EXTREME CAREFULNESS 
 
 of Luke's statements in Acts. I choose the example of 
 his references to governors. It will be remembered that, 
 * See page 45. 
 
 4* 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 in giving an account of Paul's visit to Cyprus, Luke 
 introduces us to a Sergius Paulus, " proconsul " of that 
 island (Acts xiii. 7). A proconsul was a yearly officer, 
 representing the Roman Senate. But Cyprus, in the 
 time of Augustus, had been an imperial province, governed 
 by a different class of officials, " propraetors." How, then, 
 comes Luke to give the governor the title " proconsul ? " 
 An ancient historian solves the difficulty by telling us that 
 Augustus handed Cyprus over to the Roman Senate in ex- 
 change for another province, so that, in the words of the 
 historian, " proconsuls began to be sent into 
 
 THAT ISLAND 
 
 also."* The fact is further established by a coin represent- 
 ing a Cyprian proconsul of this very reign of Claudius. 
 
 A similar, yet more singular proof of Luke's accuracy 
 occurs a chapter or two further on. Luke calls Gallio 
 " proconsul of Achaia " (Acts xviii. 12). Now Achaia had 
 been governed by " proconsuls," but Tiberius had made 
 it an imperial province, governed by " propraetors " ; and 
 so it had remained till five or six years before the time of 
 which Luke speaks, when the Emperor Claudius restored 
 the province to the Senate. Then proconsuls began 
 again ; and Luke is perfectly exact. 
 
 But may not the explanation be that Luke had the 
 loose habit of calling all governors " proconsuls," and so 
 got right by chance ? No ; for when we come to 
 Thessalonica we find Luke using another name altogether, 
 the name " politarchs" (Acts xvii. 6, 8). The title, singular 
 to say, is found nowhere in literature but in this chapter. 
 But here discovery comes in to supplement what history 
 does not tell. An inscription is still legible on an 
 arch of Thessalonica, which gives this very title to the 
 magistrates of the place, informs us of their number, and 
 
 * Dio Cassius, liii. 12 ; liv. 9. 
 
 43 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 mentions the names of some who bore the office not long 
 before the days of Paul. 
 
 The last example I take relates to Paul's stay in 
 Malta. Here, Luke says, were "lands belonging to the 
 chief man of the island, named Publius " (Acts xxviii. 7). 
 The word, translated "chief man " is literally " protos." 
 Now, as has been ascertained from inscriptions found in 
 the island, " protos " was the (probably) official title of the 
 governor of Malta, and Luke designates him accordingly.* 
 
 Such instances of minute accuracy are worth a bushel 
 of literary arguments in proof that the author of the Acts 
 was a man well versed in the contemporary history, and 
 had personal knowledge of the facts he wrote about. 
 
 Thus much for Acts. I add one illustration, in conclu- 
 sion, from 
 
 THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Perhaps the strongest case of inaccuracy objectors have 
 ever been able to urge against the Gospels is the mention 
 of Quirinius in Luke ii. 2 : " This was the first enrolment 
 made when Quirinius was governor of Syria " (R.V.). It 
 is the same Luke who wrote the Acts who makes this 
 statement, and the accuracy he shows on other occasions 
 might warn us not to assume too hastily that he was in 
 error here. Yet there did seem to be something like a 
 mistake. It is quite true, as we know from Josephus, 
 that Quirinius was governor of Syria, and that he 
 conducted a census of Judaea, but this was ten years later 
 (a.d. 6). It was, indeed, pointed out that Luke speaks of 
 it as " a first enrolment," and this of itself suggested that 
 he knew of a second ; still the difficulty was not satisfac- 
 torily solved. 
 
 Meanwhile, in a German study, a learned author, 
 Augustus W. Zumpt, was working away at a book on 
 
 * For details see Conybeare and Howson, or Ramsay's Paul the 
 Traveller. 
 
 44 
 
An Instructive Object-Lesson 
 
 Roman antiquities, in the course of which he was led to 
 investigate the subject of the Syrian presidencies. His 
 treatment was purely antiquarian ; yet Zumpt, working 
 with his own materials, made the interesting discovery, 
 in which most now acquiesce, that Quirinius must have 
 been twice governor of Syria, once in B.C. 4-1, and again in 
 A.D. 6. This practically solved the difficulty, though it 
 still put the first governorship a year too late, if Christ's 
 birth is correctly dated in the end of B.C. 5 ; for the census 
 may well have been begun by his predecessor, in the 
 end of his term of office, and completed under Quirinius, 
 with whose name it is connected. Indeed. Prof. Ramsay 
 has now established the fact of such periodical enrol- 
 ments, and census-papers from Egypt have actually 
 been recovered.* 
 
 * See his Was Christ Born in Bethlehem t Prof. Ramsay has 
 an ingenious hypothesis of his own about governorship and dates. 
 
 45 
 
Ill 
 "Presuppositions" in Old 
 Testament Criticism 
 
" Presuppositions ' in Old 
 Testament Criticism 
 
 I HAVE indicated that the severest trial to which the 
 Bible has been subjected in recent years has come 
 from the side of Old Testament criticism. To this 
 phase of the trial, therefore, I shall now, in a few 
 papers, address myself. So wide is the field, and so com- 
 plex the subject, that it will be understood that I must 
 content myself with touching only the larger issues. But 
 I shall try to glance at most of these. 
 
 I. 
 
 " The Higher Criticism," it is well known, professes to 
 dissect the Bible into its elements : to determine approxi- 
 mately the dates and circumstances of the composition 
 of its component parts; then, from the materials 
 thus analysed and readjusted, to construct a living 
 picture of the history of the people of Israel, and of 
 the development of their religion, laws, and institu- 
 tions. 
 
 It has already been made clear that not one word will 
 be said in these papers against 
 
 LEGITIMATE CRITICISM. 
 
 Provided it be done reverently, by all means let the Bible 
 
 49 E 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 be subjected to the most careful scrutiny anyone can 
 apply to it on its literary and historical sides ; and if any 
 light breaks out from the process, as, under God's 
 guidance, there is every reason to hope it will, let it be 
 faithfully followed, even if old ideas and time-honoured 
 conclusions have to some extent to be modified or 
 abandoned. This is not, indeed, the highest way of 
 studying the Bible. Taken by itself, it is poor fare, this 
 critical business, for any human soul to nourish itself 
 upon. Still, criticism has its rightful and necessary 
 place, and I have not been stinted elsewhere in my 
 acknowledgment of the gains we owe to it. I gladly own 
 that, as the result of criticism, many things in the Bible 
 are far better understood than they were before, and that 
 the study of the Old Testament, especially in its 
 historical and prophetical parts, has undergone a remark- 
 able freshening. Only it is fair to note that many other 
 causes in the progress of knowledge and in the spirit of 
 the time have contributed to this result, and criticism 
 must not be allowed to carry off the whole credit of it. 
 It is not, therefore, every criticism, but 
 
 THIS CRITICISM, 
 
 which has for many years almost exclusively usurped 
 the name, which is impugned as injurious to faith. It 
 is often said, when attention is called to the minute 
 dissection of the books of the Bible, and to theories of 
 age and authorship, What, after all, does it matter ? Is 
 faith bound up with questions of doubtful disputation like 
 these ? Frequently the remonstrance is added that, in 
 any case, it is wrong to appeal to the " harmful conse- 
 quences "of a theory in disproof of its truth, when the 
 sole question should be, Is it true ? It is necessary, 
 however, very carefully to discriminate. It is freely 
 granted that there are many inquiries in criticism which 
 
 50 
 
" Presuppositions " 
 
 faith can afford to look on with equanimity.* There are 
 books in the Bible — for example, Kings and Chronicles, 
 compilations from earlier materials, and admittedly of 
 late date — the authorship of which is unknown. Yet 
 their authority is not destroyed, and it is a legitimate 
 question how far this process of compilation may extend. 
 Or, take the question of 
 
 THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 I myself take a high view of the connection of Moses with 
 the Pentateuch. I believe this to be the view borne out 
 by internal evidence, by the later testimony of the Old 
 Testament, and by unbroken tradition since. Yet there 
 are parts of the Pentateuch which we know Moses did 
 not write — e.g., the account of his own death (Deut. 
 xxxiv.) ; and if it should prove (as I think probable) 
 that different hands co-operated in the composition of 
 this large work, that it embodied older or later records, 
 and that it underwent repeated revision and re-editing, 
 our faith in its essentially Mosaic character and truthful- 
 ness would not be sensibly affected. 
 
 It is a very different matter, as pointed out at the 
 commencement, when the late dates assigned to 
 documents are employed as leverage to destroy the credi- 
 bilityof the history, and to upset, at almost every point, 
 the Bible's witness to itself. How, a reasonable mind 
 will inevitably ask, can anyone regard as the Word of 
 God a book which confessedly is largely composed of fic- 
 
 *It is, at the same time, only superficially plausible to say that, in 
 almost any department, criticism " does not matter." It is the case, 
 e.g., that the more nearly we come to contemporary sources in 
 history, the better is our foundation. Who will deny that this fact 
 lends importance to such questions as to whether Moses was con- 
 cerned in the composition of the Pentateuch; or whether Luke wrote 
 the third Gospel and the Acts, or whether Paul was the author of the 
 Epistles that bear his name ? 
 
 51 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 tions and incredibilities ; which degrades and dishonousr 
 God by its representations ; which is full of contra- 
 dictions ; in which its most solemn " Thus saith the 
 Lords " are denied ; which does not scruple, on occasion, 
 to employ the methods of fraud ? Criticism of this 
 kind 
 
 DOES EMPHATICALLY MATTER. 
 
 It is the armoury in which popular infidelity finds to-day 
 its most effective weapons against the Bible. 
 
 This is not a matter which appeals only to academic 
 interests. The argument from consequences needs, 
 indeed, to be handled with caution. But in no sphere of 
 life does any sane man close his eyes to the nature of the 
 consequences of the theory he is opposing or defending. 
 Is it a Fiscal Controversy ? The stake is held to be the 
 prosperity or ruin of the Empire. Is it a question of 
 personal conduct ? The beneficial or harmful conse- 
 quences of a particular line of action are never forgotten 
 to be urged. Grave or hurtful consequences are at least 
 always regarded as a reason for the narrowest scrutiny 
 of the principles or theories that lead up to them. They 
 are often more. " By their fruits ye shall know them" 
 is given as a test bearing directly upon truth.* 
 
 It is carefully to be observed, in entering on the inquiry 
 about criticism, that 
 
 THE BOOK PROPOSED TO BE SUBJECTED 
 
 to this ordeal does not come to the trial without having 
 something to say for itself on the points directly at issue. 
 
 *Hence the ineptness of such criticism on this point as the follow- 
 ing : — " The real question is : Are the generally accepted results of 
 Biblical criticism substantially correct ? If they are, we must accept 
 them, no matter what consequences they involve. ' Let's have the 
 light even if we perish in it.'" Is it probable that the true light will 
 issue in destruction ? 
 
 5* 
 
11 Presuppositions M 
 
 The investigation does not take place in vacuo. The 
 slate is not clean at the commencement of the critics' 
 proceedings. The Bible has a character, an identity, a 
 witness of its own, which must be taken account of in 
 any examination of its claims. It comes into court with 
 very distinct claims. It professes to be a history of 
 revelation. It gives itself out as a record of God's deal- 
 ings with man in revelation from the beginning. It un- 
 folds the course of that revelation through its successive 
 dispensations. It has its own account to give of the 
 origin of its laws and institutions. Its narrative is con- 
 nected with great historic personages — Abraham, Moses, 
 Samuel, David, the prophets, culminating in Jesus 
 Christ, the goal of the whole. The history, accordingly 
 has 
 
 AN ORGANIC, PROGRESSIVE CHARACTER, 
 
 is charged with deep ideas, moves forward under the 
 impulse of an indwelling divine purpose, which cannot be 
 eliminated from its parts without destroying the signi- 
 ficance of the whole. 
 
 More even must be said of it than this. The Old 
 Testament abounds in claims to be, or convey, the Word 
 of God to its own time and people. Jesus accepted it as 
 such (e.g., Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10 ; v. 17, 18 ; xv. 3, 6 ; Luke 
 xxiv. 26, 27 ; John v. 39, 45-47). He appeals to its 
 narratives, even the earliest, in proof of the great 
 principles of His religion (Matt. xix. 4-6; xxii. 31, 32). 
 The New Testament declares this to be its character, 
 and, in the essentials of its message, affirms it to be the 
 Word of God to Christians still {e.g., Rom. i. 1, 2 ; iii. 
 1, 2 ; 1 Cor. x. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17). The Old Testa- 
 ment gives, besides, good reasons for these claims in the 
 spiritual powers with which its revelation is shown to be 
 charged. The onus lies on the critic, if he will, of dis- 
 
 53 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 proving this character of the Bible (many, of course, do 
 not desire to disprove it). It cannot be simply ignored, 
 or treated as if the claim was not there. The critic can- 
 not be allowed, in oblivion of all this, to start 
 
 THEORY-BUILDING 
 
 on the origin and course of Israel's history and religion, 
 as if nothing already was given. Yet, as we are soon to 
 see, this is precisely what the modern criticism, in its 
 most eminent representatives, does. 
 
 It will, in truth, become apparent, as we proceed, that 
 nearly everything in this critical study of the Old Testa- 
 ment depends on the principles by which we are guided, 
 and the spirit in which the study is conducted. Criticism 
 is like the fiery-cloudy pillar which led the Israelites 
 through the Red Sea : it has a double aspect — light to 
 the hosts in front ; darkness to their pursuers. To one 
 man, imbued with the Psalmist's love of God's law 
 (Ps. cxix. 18), criticism discloses endless harmonies and 
 agreements. To another it discovers nothing but 
 difficulties, incredibilities, contradictions, moral mon- 
 strosities. It follows that we cannot be too careful about 
 our starting points and methods. 
 
 II. 
 
 This brings me to a closer scrutiny of the methods of 
 
 THE NEWER CRITICISM 
 
 of whose procedure I complain. Criticism, I know, is 
 for the present so settled on its lees in its confidence in 
 its immovable results that little that anyone can say will 
 make any impression on it. It points, in the familiar 
 phrase, to its " assured results," and there is held to be 
 an end of it. There are, however, several questions 
 which press for answer here. A first is, Are the results 
 
 54 
 
11 Presuppositions " 
 
 settled ? Next, if they are, How are they settled ? And 
 yet another is, Should they be settled ? And the middle 
 question of these three — the question of the How — is as 
 important as either of the others. It is the one I propose 
 to look at to begin with. 
 
 The story of how criticism has come to reach 
 
 ITS PRESENT ADVANCED POSITION 
 
 is too long to be here even entered on. Two periods, in 
 general, may be distinguished: — 
 
 First, there was the period of the " literary " criticism, 
 with its " results" in the analysis of the documents of 
 the Pentateuch now commonly accepted (J, E, D, P, 
 with their developments), the assigning of Deuteronomy 
 to the age of Josiah, the attributing of the second part fcp 
 Isaiah to the exile, of Daniel to the age of the Maccabees, 
 &c. 
 
 Next came the period of the so-called " historical- 
 religious " criticism, inaugurated (with some precursors) 
 by Graf in 1866, and carried forward by Kuenen, Well- 
 hausen, and others, till it has become the reigning 
 school. In its hands history, laws, religion, all go into 
 the melting-pot, with consequences that will afterwards 
 become apparent. Its distinctive and most plausible 
 feature is the theory of 
 
 THE THREE CODES 
 
 — viz., the Book of the Covenant, the Deuteronomic, 
 and the Priestly Codes — assumed to correspond with 
 successive periods of the history. The Levitical Code, 
 assigned by the Bible to Moses, is post-exilian. The 
 order of " Levites " takes its origin from the " degraded 
 priests" of Ezek. xliv. 
 
 If now the question is asked, By what method are these 
 "results" obtained? the answer will confidently be 
 
 55 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 given — by careful literary and historical investigation. 
 And I have no disposition to deny that honest and care- 
 ful investigation has played a large part in the history of 
 criticism. Critical theories are often hypotheses to 
 explain real phenomena, and it is only fair to give careful 
 attention to any facts they bring to light and seek to 
 account for. But is this all ? If it were, it is safe to 
 say we should not have the results now shown. But it 
 is not. There is 
 
 A DEEPER FORCE AT WORK 
 
 whose action has profoundly controlled and directed the 
 operations of Old Testament criticism from the first. 
 The force I speak of is the rationalistic conviction that a 
 supernatural explanation of facts cannot be admitted. 
 From the beginning Old Testament criticism has been 
 committed to this idea, and it is under its influence, very 
 largely, that the modern theory we are now discussing 
 has been built up. This preconception, connected with 
 what is called " the modern view of the world," enters 
 deeply into both Old Testament and New Testament 
 criticism at the present hour. 
 
 I take here a striking illustration from the New Testa- 
 ment, which applies with equal force to the Old. 
 Germany and other countries have been flooded of late 
 with books, some of a popular order, setting forth the 
 lineaments of a non-supernatural Jesus, and of a Chris- 
 tianity divorced from " Pauline " ideas. Against this so- 
 called " religious-historical " view of Jesus and Chris- 
 tianity, as represented by two writers, Bousset and 
 Wrede, the Ritschlian Professor, Julius Kaftan, of 
 Berlin, utters himself in a trenchant pamphlet, Jesus und 
 Paulus, which, in its own way, is a sign of the times. 
 His words are weighty. This new theorising, he 
 doclares emphatically, " has its roots in quite other soil 
 
 56 
 
Presuppositions" 
 
 than that of method." " It is," he says, " put briefly, 
 the so-called ' modern view of the world ' (modeme 
 Weltanschauung) which stands behind it " (p. 4). He 
 shows how this leads to a quite unhistorical representa- 
 tion of both Jesus and Paul, and concludes a searching 
 investigation with the judgment: "I conclude, there- 
 fore, that this 'Jesus-religion' is an affair without roots. 
 As it has points of support neither in the Gospel of 
 Jesus nor in primitive Christianity, so it will never 
 approve itself, not to-day, and not in the future, as a 
 possible form of Christianity " (p. 77). 
 
 Exactly the same thing is true of the modern theorising 
 on the Old Testament. It has its roots not in method 
 but in 
 
 AN ANTI-SUPERNATURALISTIC PRESUPPOSITION. 
 
 De Wette, in his Introduction, laid it down that the miracu- 
 lous narratives of the Old Testament " have their founda- 
 tion partly in the deficiency and narrowness of human 
 knowledge at that time . . .and partly in the distance 
 of time between the event itself and the written account 
 of it," and held that they were to be treated as " historical 
 myths" (II. p. 25). The criticism of Kuenen and Well- 
 hausen is ruled by this idea. Prof. G. B. Foster, of 
 Chicago University, declares, with the endorsement of 
 that body, in his recent book on The Finality of the 
 Christian Religion, that " to the scientific understanding 
 of the world, and to the intellectual aptitude superin- 
 duced by science, a miracle cannot be admitted " 
 
 I have been criticised for saying, in my book on Gods Image in 
 Man, that the Christian view of the world is not the "modern " view, 
 and that we ought to have the courage to declare this. Kaftan utters 
 himself in much stronger language than I have cared to use. "I 
 am no lover," he says, "of the modern view of the world; rather, I 
 find it astonishing that so many thinking men should be led astray 
 by this bugbear" (p. 72). See page 151. 
 
 57 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 (p. 130), and devotes a large section of his work to the 
 proof of this thesis. 
 
 I know, of course, very well that many who have 
 adopted and work with these theories retain their faith 
 in the supernatural. Their reason for doing so is the 
 very just one that they perceive quite clearly that, with 
 any amount of critical violence, you cannot get the 
 supernatural out of the Bible. It is there, and will re- 
 assert itself. Their problem, accordingly, is to work 
 these two things together, and the result is a compromise 
 which will not stand, since the things attempted to be 
 combined are opposite in principle. Fruit grown upon a 
 tree of such pronouncedly rationalistic root does not 
 become good simply by being served up in a Christian 
 basket.* 
 
 III. 
 
 The truth of what is now said becomes more evident, 
 when, from its underlying principle, we look to 
 
 THE WORKING OUT 
 
 of this modern critical theory. The Bible is a book full 
 of the supernatural from beginning to end. It is the 
 history of the development of a supernatural purpose, 
 issuing in the Incarnation, and in a supernatural economy 
 of redemption. It is a story, from the Call of Abraham 
 downwards, of the entrance of God into history in 
 supernatural word and deed. It is clear that the critical 
 
 *The reply sometimes made to an argument of this kind, viz., that 
 the believer also has his "presuppositions," is, in this connection, 
 without force. The difference is, that the believer's presuppositions are 
 those which the Bible itself yields ; the critics' are not, but the 
 negation of the Bible's postulates. The believer, accordingly inter- 
 prets the Bible along the Bible's own lines ; the opposite view can 
 only be maintained by continual drafts on the historic imagination, 
 and by bold and arbitrary treatment of the text and history. 
 
 58 
 
Presuppositions " 
 
 view, having as its postulate the denial of all this, has no 
 alternative but to begin by sweeping the whole of it 
 away. This, accordingly, is what it actually does. The 
 process has two stages, in each of which the character- 
 istic vice of the method is laid bare. The method, first, 
 compels rejection, almost in toto, of the history we have ; 
 next, it invokes imagination to fill up the blank by devis- 
 ing a new history, fashioned on its own principle of 
 
 RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION. 
 
 As to the completeness of the sweep made of the 
 existing history, there can be no question. Mr. Addis 
 has just published a volume on Hebrew Religion* in 
 which the patriarchal age is not so much as mentioned. 
 To use a phrase of Duhm's, applied to the Mosaic period 
 it is simply " wiped out."t The same is true of the age 
 of Moses, even where the lawgiver's personality and 
 religious leadership of Israel are admitted. The history 
 as we have it disappears. But some go further. In an 
 important work lately published by Prof. Ed. Meyer, of 
 Berlin, on Israel and its Neighbours, t the thesis is laid 
 down and defended that Moses is no historical personality 
 (p. 569). This will comfort Dr. Cheyne, who cannot 
 believe that Moses was even, like Sargon, " a historical 
 personage with mythic accretions." The book of Joshua 
 is a " romance." I gave in my volume on the Old 
 Testament a typical example of this " historical " method 
 from Budde, which I may here reproduce. He is 
 
 *[The criticisms on Mr. Addis here and in later papers are allowed 
 to remain ; but I desire now to say that I have no doubt of this 
 writer's full acceptance of the great doctrines of our common Christian 
 faith. I cannot change my view on the consistency.] 
 
 tDuhm boasts in his work on the Prophets (p. 19) that by the 
 transference of a single source (the' Priestly Law) into the post-exilian 
 time, " atone stroke the ' Mosaic' period is wiped out." 
 
 \Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme. 
 
 59 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 explaining how the Kenite god of Moses became trans- 
 formed into the Yahweh of a later period by the absorp- 
 tion of " other gods " into Himself. "Yahweh had not 
 expelled or annihilated them [the Canaanitish Gods], but 
 had made them subject : He had divested them of their 
 personality by absorbing them into His own person. To 
 be sure, neither the law, nor the historical narratives, nor the 
 prophets say a word of all this, yet it can be proved," &c* 
 
 Another branch of the same procedure is the removal 
 by critical expurgation of any passages or references in the 
 history or prophets which do not suit the critical scheme. 
 The high priest, for instance, Wellhausen tells us, is a 
 creation of the exile. He is " unknown even to Ezekiel."t 
 Yet the high priest is mentioned at least four times in 
 the preceding history (2 Kings xii. 10 ; xxii. 4-8 ; xxiii., 
 4), and the texts are sustained by the parallel passages in 
 Chronicles and by the Septuagint. What is to be done 
 with them ? They are simply struck out as inter- 
 polations. 
 
 The passage above quoted from Budde serves equally 
 as an illustration of the counter process of 
 
 FILLING UP FROM IMAGINATION 
 
 the blanks created by this annihilation of the existing 
 history. Examples would be endless. The whole critical 
 theory of the evolution of Israel's religion from a primitive 
 animism to the creation of the Priestly Code in the exile 
 
 ^Religion of Israel, p. 41. Italics are mine. The above is a sug- 
 gestive commentary on such panegyrics on the newer criticism as 
 those in Prof. Kent's Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testa- 
 ment, " Not a grain of truth which the Bible contains has been 
 destroyed or permanently obscured. Instead, the debris of time 
 honoured traditions and dogmas have been cleared away, and the 
 true Scriptures at last stand forth again in their pristine splendour," 
 &c. ! (p. 16). 
 
 \Hist. of Israel, pp. 142-3. 
 
 60 
 
" Presuppositions " 
 
 is, in my judgment, a case of it, and it was seen a in 
 previous paper that Hugo Winckler, the Orientalist, is of 
 the same opinion. Only an instance or two need be 
 given. 
 
 It was mentioned before that the " Levites " in the 
 Priestly Code are supposed to have taken their origin in 
 the " degradation " of the unfaithful priests of Ezek, xliv. 
 There is no evidence that such a degradation was ever 
 carried out, much less that the " Levites," already found 
 at the return from exile (Ezra ii. 40 ; iii. 8, &c), were the 
 creation of any such ban ; yet we are treated with 
 imaginary pictures of the " vehement struggles " 
 (adumbrated in the story of Korah) of these degraded 
 priests in the exile to regain their lost privileges ! * 
 Nothing could be more baseless. 
 
 Again, the Decalogue is denied to Moses, but the fiction 
 of a "second decalogue," which is supposed to be more 
 primitive, is extracted from Exodus xxxiv. 14-26. Yet 
 Mr. Addis, who serves up this "earliest decalogue" with- 
 out demur in his Hebrew Religion (pp. 117-19), had him- 
 self told us in his larger work on the Hexateuch (I. p. 
 157), in this agreeing with very many critics, that the 
 disentangling of the alleged " ten words " is " mere guess- 
 work ! " In the same writer a proof that " the door- 
 posts [in Israel] were under the protection of penates, or 
 spirits of the household," is found in the fact that the 
 master took his bondsmen " to the door-post, and pierced 
 his ear with an awl, by that act bringing him to Elohim " 
 (P- 37 J Cf. Exodus xxi. 6). What can be clearer than 
 that "Elohim" here means simply "judges" (E.V. 
 " shall bring him unto the judges "), as unquestionably it 
 does in 1 Sam. ii. 25 ? More examples will be found 
 when we come to deal with worship. 
 
 *E.g., Kautzsch, in his Lit. of O. 7*., p. 117. 
 
 61 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 IV. 
 To prove the Wellhausen theory, however, to be 
 arbitrary and fallacious would avail little, if it were not 
 possible to put some 
 
 POSITIVE CONSTRUCTION 
 
 in its place, and to show that the Biblical representation, 
 to which the Wellhausen conception is opposed, is capable 
 of vindication on its own account. It has been pointed 
 out that the most fundamental and plausible part of this 
 hypothesis — that which has gained for it, undoubtedly, 
 most acceptance — is its skilful theory of the " three 
 Codes." It may serve a useful purpose at this stage, 
 therefore, briefly to bring the Biblical and the critical 
 views on these Codes into contrast, and to test their 
 respective merits. 
 
 The comparison is crucial in other ways. It is some- 
 times said that there is no claim in the Pentateuch itself to 
 
 MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 But is this the case ? Does not the Decalogue claim to 
 be Mosaic ? Does not every Code of Law in the Old 
 Testament claim to be from Moses ? Moses is said to 
 have written down the laws in the Book of the Covenant 
 (Ex. xxiv. 3-7). He is expressly said to have written the 
 law in Deuteronomy (Deut. xxxi. 9). He gave the 
 Levitical Laws. The arguments against the Mosaic 
 authorship formerly drawn from the absence of the art of 
 writing and the state of culture of the time are vanishing 
 with better knowledge, and objection now chiefly turns 
 on the supposed incompatibility of the Codes with each 
 other, and with the history. 
 
 CRITICAL THEORY OF THE CODES. 
 
 Criticism undertakes to show that the three Codes in 
 
 62 
 
11 Presuppositions " 
 
 question — the Book of the Covenant, the Deuteronomic 
 Code, and the Levitical Code — are non-Mosaic, partly on 
 the ground of their internal incompatibility, but chiefly 
 because they can be proved to belong to successive periods 
 of history by their correspondence with the conditions of 
 these periods. As Prof. Peake, in a lecture before quoted,* 
 succinctly puts the matter : " By proving that these Codes 
 arose in different ages, and were elicited by different 
 social and religious conditions, it [criticism] has removed 
 the great stumbling-block presented by the spectacle of 
 radically inconsistent Codes given by the same legis- 
 lator with an interval of a few months at most between 
 them " (the interval between Deuteronomy and the other 
 Codes, it may be remarked, was nearly forty years). The 
 law in Exodus xx.-xxiii., it is held, with its provision for 
 a multiplicity of altars (Ch. xx. 24), ruled till the age of 
 Josiah ; then came the movement for the centralisation 
 of worship inaugurated by Deuteronomy, taken to be " a 
 prophetic programme " ; the Levitical Code is post-exilian, 
 as is thought to be proved by the absence of all reference 
 to its characteristic institutions earlier. So it used to be 
 shown that the Fourth Gospel could not be earlier than 
 the middle of the second century, because it reflected 
 the conditions of the conflict with Gnosticism ! 
 
 Historical and legal details will be considered in 
 another connection. I wish now to try to show that, 
 from the Bible's own point of view, the whole theory 
 rests on 
 
 A FUNDAMENTAL OVERSIGHT. 
 
 A constant assumption of the school I am criticising is 
 that the Levitical Code is put forth as a fixed, immutable 
 system of laws, given once for all in the wilderness, and 
 intended to regulate the life and practice of the Israelites, 
 
 ""■Manchester Inaugural Lectures, p. 32. 
 
 63 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 without change or modification, in all future time. The 
 late Prof. W. R. Smith makes this, which he calls " The 
 Traditional Theory of the Old Testament History," the 
 basis of his whole exposition of the theory of the Codes. 
 " As soon," he says, " as we lay down the position that the 
 system of the ceremonial law, embracing as it does the 
 whole life of every Jew, was completed and prescribed as 
 an authoritative code for Israel before the conquest of 
 Canaan, we have an absolute rule for measuring the whole 
 future history of the nation, and the whole significance of 
 subsequent revelation under the whole Testament."* 
 Now look at the facts. 
 
 Two things are clear as day in the history of the Mosaic 
 times : the people looked forward to Canaan, yet the 
 ceremonial legislation, in its immediate form, was all but 
 wholly adapted to the conditions of the wilderness. 
 
 Let anyone read carefully the laws and narratives 
 attributed to the Priestly Code in Exod. xxv. ff., Leviticus, 
 and Numbers, and he will see that, throughout, the 
 arrangements described are 
 
 ADAPTED TO THE WILDERNESS, 
 
 and that many of them have no meaning except there. 
 The arrangements, e.g., for the consecration of Aaron and 
 his sons ; the census-lists of the tribes ; the arrangements 
 for the disposition of the tribes in their several camps 
 around the tabernacle ; the elaborate instructions for the 
 march of the host ; the choice of the Levites and details 
 of their duties in the charge and conveyance of the 
 tabernacle in its journeyings ; the directions for the 
 
 *Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 298, ff. (1st Edition). 
 Even on this showing, does the conclusion follow ? How would it 
 fare with the New Testament Church if tested by the " absolute rule " 
 of Christ's teaching ? How many epochs and passages in its history 
 would have to be ruled out as "unhistorical?'' 
 
 64 
 
"Presuppositions 
 
 making of the tabernacle itself — for the tabernacle in 
 its nature was a structure which was bound in time to 
 wear out and need replacement. Even the laws and 
 ritual of the sacrifices and feasts, where there is obviously 
 more that is intended to be permanent, are, in the first 
 instance, cast into the wilderness forms. We have, e.g., 
 the direction for the carrying forth of the bullock of the 
 sin-offering, " without the camp, unto a clean place," 
 and burning of it there (Lev. iv. 12), which so stumbled 
 Bishop Colenso. Evidently the whole cast of such 
 legislation would become unsuitable on entering the land. 
 Only the principles, in many cases, would remain. An 
 observance in the letter would be a manifest impossi- 
 bility. 
 
 A vast mass of the Levitical legislation, therefore, is, 
 on the face of it, of a temporary character. It corresponds 
 with the description of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 as an economy that " decayeth " and " is ready to vanish 
 away " (Heb. viii. 13). This is a fact of weighty 
 importance in its bearing on the difficulties which the 
 critics raise about the Codes. Two things, apart from 
 the very direct presumption it affords of an authorship in 
 the Mosaic age,* follow from it : — 
 
 ♦Bleek, one of the older critical writers, made good use of this in his 
 Introduction, as proving "that an important part of the laws and 
 ordinances of the Pentateuch is of such a nature that, judging from 
 their purport and form, it is impossible that they could belong to any 
 other age than the Mosaic ; also that the historical part of the 
 Pentateuch is generally confirmed by them, since they relate so 
 clearly to the circumstances contained in the history." {Introd. I. p. 
 225, E. T.). He says that when we meet with laws, as those men- 
 tioned above, "which refer in their whole tenor to a state of things 
 utterly unknown in the period subsequent to Moses, and to circum- 
 stances existing in the Mosaic age, and to that only, it is in the 
 highest degree likely that these laws, not only in their essential pur- 
 port proceeded from Moses, but also that they were written down by 
 Moses, or at least in the Mosaic age" (p. 212). 
 
 65 F 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 i. It expjains why the traces of this Levitical Code 
 are 
 
 RELATIVELY SCANT 
 
 in the periods that succeeded Moses. They are not 
 nearly so scant, it will be discovered, by any means, as 
 the critics try to make out. Great allowance must also, 
 in fairness, be made, in Hebrew as in Christian history, 
 for times of religious disorganisation (e.g., the Judges), 
 corruption, and declension. But it is not always 
 sufficiently considered how large a part of the Levitical 
 legislation was necessarily left behind in the simple 
 transition from life in the wilderness to settled life in 
 Canaan. Priests and Levites, e.g., are no longer found 
 grouped in their tents around the tabernacle ; but a quite 
 different provision is made for them in the institution 
 of the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv. ; Josh, xxi.).* The 
 ritual law was carried forward as far as practicable, yet 
 under new forms and conditions, which made reference to 
 the laws in their wilderness forms unlikely.! When the 
 temporary part of the legislation is stripped off, the laws 
 that remain are of a kind which it would be very difficult 
 to prove were not always of validity in Israel. 
 
 Besides this, it seems to me quite a mistake to sup- 
 pose that the godly in Israel ever were, or were intended 
 to be, 
 
 *It is possible that, like many other laws, this law of the Levitical 
 cities was never very strictly carried out, though there are instances 
 implying its existence. (Cf. i Sam. vi. 15 ; 1 Kings ii. 26 ; Jer. i. 1). 
 But is it credible that Ezra should have given to the people for the 
 first time a law declaring that forty-eight cities had been set apart 
 from time immemorial for this purpose when everybody present must 
 have known that no such cities ever existed? Yet such is the critical 
 theory. 
 
 \CJ. my Problem of the O.T., pp. 300, 325. 
 
 66 
 
1 ' Presuppositions 
 
 SLAVES TO THE LETTER 
 
 of the law to the extent that many suppose (i Sam. xv. 
 21).* The moral law was ever above the ritual (Cf. 
 Matt. xii. 3-7). As necessity arose, laws were freely 
 altered or modified, of course under proper authority. 
 David, on the testimony of the " Levitical " Chronicler, 
 reorganised the whole worship of the tabernacle (1 Chron. 
 xxiii. ff.). The tax imposed by Nehemiah was the third of 
 a shekel, instead of the half shekel of the law (Neh. x. 32). 
 When all the circumstances are considered, we may begin 
 to feel with Dillmann that the allusions, even to ritual, in 
 the history are as numerous as we had any right to 
 expect. 
 
 2. It leads us to anticipate that, later, new laws 
 
 MODIFYING THE OLD 
 
 would be given in prospect of entering the land. If the 
 Levitical law, as just said, at once looked forward to 
 entering Canaan {e.g., Lev. xxv. 2), yet, in its immediate 
 shape, was wholly adapted to conditions in the wilder- 
 ness, it is only what we might expect that, as the time 
 for the change approached, new or supplementary 
 ordinances would be given {e.g., the directions for the 
 Levitical cities, Num. xxxv. ; laws of inheritance, Num. 
 xxxvi.), and that in any rehearsal or re-promulgation 
 certain changes, readaptations, and modifications of laws 
 would be made. This last is precisely what we find in 
 the Book of Deuteronomy, which looks forward not only 
 to life in Canaan, but to a future settled place for God's 
 house, in room of the shifting tabernacle, and to a 
 stricter centralisation of worship than was then possible 
 (Ch. xii.). It will be seen afterwards that there is in 
 this no " radical inconsistency " with the older legislation, 
 *Ibid, pp. 179, 504. 
 
 67 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 which also has the unity of God's worship as its ideal. So 
 far from Deuteronomy " contradicting " the law about 
 the altar of earth or stone in Ex. xx. 24-25, it directly 
 falls back on that law in ordaining an altar to be set up 
 on Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvii. 4-7). 
 
 V. 
 
 Here, then, it seems to me, we have, in great part, 
 
 THE REAL SECRET 
 
 of the peculiarities of the three Codes, on an illusory 
 interpretation of which the new theory of Israel's law 
 and religion is made to hinge. When the right per- 
 spective is attained, the "radical inconsistencies" of the 
 critic's imaginings largely fall away of their own accord. 
 The oldest Code in Ex. xx-xxiii. cannot stand in essential 
 disagreement with the Levitical ritual law, for, except in 
 the law of the altar (Ex. xx. 24-26), which is quite general, 
 and probably embodies old usage, and one or two other 
 points (the feasts, Ex. xxiii. 14-19), it deals, as civil law,* 
 with a different class of subjects altogether. As little can 
 " radical " inconsistency be alleged between this Code 
 and Deuteronomy, seeing that, apart again from the altar- 
 law, the Deuteronomic Code is, by all but universal 
 admission, based on this older legislation. The supposed 
 discrepancy on the central sanctuary will be discussed 
 after. 
 
 The only crucial question, then, is as to 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE LEVITICAL LAW TO DEUTERONOMY, 
 
 and on this point the Bible and the Wellhausen criticism 
 do stand "radically" opposed. The Bible makes the 
 
 *In form and character, as shown by the recently discovered code 
 of Hammurabi (the Amraphel of Gen. xiv.), this Code has on it the 
 impress of great antiquity. 
 
 68 
 
' Presuppositions 
 
 Levitical law the earlier, representing it as the product 
 of the wilderness, with which its form agrees. Criticism, 
 on the other hand, as we have seen, tears it away from its 
 Mosaic basis, and carries it down to post-exilian times ; 
 puts it after the prophets. Instead of the order " law 
 and prophets," we have now the order " prophets and 
 law." 
 
 But, apart from other objections, is this likely ? It is 
 the favourite theory at present, but is it natural or 
 reasonable ? As we formerly saw, Hugo Winckler, who 
 knows as much about Oriental codes as most, decidedly 
 rejects it on historical grounds. Law and prophets, he 
 tells, are present from the beginning {op. cit., p. 47). 
 But is it reasonable in itself? 
 
 IS PROGRESS BACKWARD ? 
 
 Which is the more natural order, from outward to 
 inward, or from inward to outward ? From rudiments to 
 more spiritual teaching ? Or from spiritual teaching 
 back to " beggarly elements ? " The law has a suit- 
 ability and value in its own place as a stepping-stone to 
 something higher; a prefiguration of more spiritual 
 blessings to come. But how shall we regard it as any 
 part of" the Word of God," if it represents an unspiritual 
 lapse from prophetic teaching to an infinitely lower level ? 
 is, in truth, a concoction of exilian priests, who know 
 no better way of commending their fictions than by 
 passing them off in the name of Moses ! Having begun 
 in the Spirit, was it God's will that His chosen people 
 should be made perfect in the flesh ? Later Judaism, 
 
 *The opposition of "priestly '' and "prophetic" tendencies may 
 easily be exaggerated. Isaiah received his call in vision in the temple; 
 Jeremiah was of priestly descent ; priests and prophets acted together 
 at the finding of the law in Josiah's reign ; Deuteronomy is marked 
 by both tendencies ; Ezekiel was a priest ; Joel, Haggai, Zachariah, 
 Malachi do honour to the law, &c. 
 
 69 
 
The T Bible Under Trial 
 
 no doubt, represents a descent into an exaggerated 
 legalism ; but was this the proper order or outcome of 
 God's dispensations ? 
 
 How, finally, does it stand with the Codes them- 
 selves in the 
 
 RELATION OF DEPENDENCE ? 
 
 It is not difficult to show that, in manifold ways, as 
 scholars of the highest standing maintain, the Levitical 
 law, or portions of it, are implied in Deuteronomy. On 
 the other hand, the peculiarities of Deuteronomy are 
 not reflected in the Levitical law. There is allusion to 
 the Priestly law in Deuteronomy (Cf. Deut. xiv. 4-20, 
 which Dr. Driver admits is " in great measure verbally 
 identical" with Lev. xi, 2-23). But the Priestly law 
 shows no acquaintance with Deuteronomy. What con- 
 clusion is reasonable, but that the Priestly law is the 
 earlier of the two ? 
 
 70 
 
IV 
 
 "Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
"Settled Results" 
 in Criticism 
 
 NO argument is more frequently employed to silence 
 objection to modern critical theories than the 
 alleged agreement of competent scholars as to 
 the main results of their criticism. The labours of 
 over a century have issued in certain " settled results," 
 which it is held to be folly and presumption for non- 
 experts any longer to question. Harnack's words, quoted 
 in a previous paper, show that the same temper is carried 
 into New Testament criticism, and embody his vigorous 
 protest against it, 
 
 I have venture to enter 
 
 A DEMURRER 
 
 against this summary method of foreclosing a controversy 
 of such magnitude. I have pointed out that, even if the 
 results could be regarded as settled, there is a prior ques- 
 tion to be answered : How are they settled ? I have tried 
 to show that from the first a pronouncedly rationalistic 
 strain has entered into this criticism, and that the methods 
 it employs are not such as to command our confidence. 
 If further proof were needed of the predominantly rational- 
 istic character of the movement, it could be furnished 
 abundantly from the historical sketches in Prof. Foster's 
 recent work on The Finality of the Christian Religion, 
 in which the fact is dwelt on with approval (pp. 94, 
 
 73 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 114, &c). Without dwelling further on this, I come 
 now to deal with the other two questions I proposed, 
 which raise a direct issue : 
 
 ARE THE RESULTS SETTLED ? 
 
 And, if they are, Should they be settled ? 
 
 I. 
 
 It is desirable, first, to have one or two specimens of 
 the kind of assurance expressed. I take these from 
 recent writers already cited. 
 
 Mr. Addis, in his book on Hebrew Religion, under the 
 heading of "Results of Criticism Assumed," writes: 
 " On many questions of capital moment — such, e.g., as 
 the dates at which the documents composing the 
 Pentateuch were written down, the date and authorship 
 of most of the prophetic books — there is practical 
 unanimity among men whose knowledge entitles them to 
 judge. This agreement has been slowly attained ; it has 
 been severely tested by discussion, nor is there the 
 slightest ground for thinking that it will ever be seriously 
 disturbed" (pp. 11, 12). He admits that there are " other 
 matters," as, e.g., the extent to which the genuine works 
 of the prophets have been interpolated by the scribes, 
 which are still " shrouded in uncertainty " — a serious 
 qualification of the alleged agreement. 
 
 Let us listen next to Prof. Peake, in his Manchester 
 lecture on " The Present Movement of Biblical Science." 
 "We need not hesitate," he says, "to claim that many 
 assured results have been reached, which the future is not 
 likely to reverse." After giving an enumeration which 
 includes " the analysis of the Pentateuch into four main 
 documents, the identification of the law on which Josiah's 
 reformation was based with some form of the Deuteronomic 
 Code, the compilation of that Code in the reign of Manasseh 
 
 74 
 
"Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 at the earliest, the fixing of the Priestly Code to a date 
 later than Ezskiel, the highly composite character of 
 some parts of the prophetic literature, especially the Book 
 of Isaiah, the post-exilian origin of most of the Psalms, and 
 large parts of the Book of Proverbs, the composition of 
 Job not earlier than the exile and probably later, the 
 Maccabean date of Daniel, and the slightly earlier date of 
 Ecclesiastes," he adds : " On all these points it would be 
 possible to name dissentient voices, but, speaking gener- 
 ally, these results would probably secure the adhesion of 
 most Old Testament critics " * (p. 32). 
 
 This, no doubt, looks imposing. The simplest way of 
 testing it, I think, will be to give 
 
 A BRIEF, UNVARNISHED SKETCH 
 
 of the actual course of development and present position 
 of criticism on the subjects named. I have noted already 
 the judgment of Winckler and his school on the Well- 
 hausen theory of religion, on which so much of the 
 criticism depends. But I take here the literary criticism 
 on its own merits. Probably, at the end of the survey, the 
 reader may be less reminded of " assured results " than 
 
 * So, writing as early as 1887, Prof. Briggs said of the analysis of 
 the Hexateuch : " There has been a steady advance, until the present 
 position of agreement has been reached in which Jew and Christian, 
 Roman Catholic and Protestant, Rationalistic and Evangelical 
 scholars, Reformed and Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal, 
 Unitarian, Methodist, and Baptist, all concur. . . . There are 
 no Hebrew Professors on the Continent of Europe, so far as I know, 
 who would deny the literary analysis of the Pentateuch into the four 
 great documents. . . . The Professors of Hebrew in the Uni- 
 versities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, and tutors in a large 
 number of theological colleges hold to the same opinion. ... I 
 doubt whether there is any question of scholarship whatever in which 
 there is greater agreement among scholars than on this question of the 
 literary analysis of the Hexateuch." — Presbyt. Reviev, 1887, p. 340; Cf. 
 his Hexateuch, 1893, pp. 94, 144. 
 
 75 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 of the famous picture in Dante's poem of an eager crowd 
 circling round and round in pursuit of a whirling flag, 
 which perpetually eludes its grasp.* The critical chase 
 of certainty in "results" seems to me well-nigh as 
 hopeless. 
 
 II. 
 
 Criticism began, as is well known, with the observa- 
 tion of 
 
 THE ALTERNATION OF THE DIVINE NAMES, 
 
 "Elohim" (God) and "Jehovah" (E.V. "Lord"), in 
 certain sections of the Book of Genesis (up to Exod. vi).t 
 Soon literary peculiarities were discovered distinguishing 
 these sections — named respectively " Elohistic " and 
 " Jehovistic." By and by it was noticed that this distinc- 
 tion did not cover the whole field. Certain parts of the 
 Elohistic narrative lacked the literary marks of the other 
 parts (especially after Ch. xx.), and closely resembled the 
 Jehovistic portions in everything but the use of the divine 
 name. Criticism now took the bold step of separating these 
 newly-distinguished parts and erecting them into a separate 
 document, known thenceforth as the Second Elohist, or 
 E. Hitherto the Elohistic document had been regarded 
 as a complete, continuous history, and the Jehovistic parts 
 had been viewed as fragmentary and supplementary. Now 
 these, also, were regarded as forming a continuous docu- 
 ment, thenceforth designated J. As far back as the days 
 of De Wette Deuteronomy had already been separated 
 
 *Ed io, che riguardai, vidi un' insegna 
 Che, girando, correva tanto ratta, 
 Che d'ogni posa mi pareva indegna ; 
 E dietro le venia si lunga tratta 
 Di gente, &c. — Inf., Canto III. 
 tFor a fuller account of these theories, with names and dates, see 
 my Problem of the O.T., ch. vii. 
 
 7 6 
 
11 Settled Results " in Criticism 
 
 from the rest of the Pentateuch, and, on grounds of style 
 and law, relegated to the age of Josiah. This is known 
 as D. 
 
 Criticism had now fairly entered on its speculative 
 stage, and 
 
 THE " FOUR DOCUMENTS," 
 
 which rank among the "assured results," are well in 
 sight. There is the original Elohist, latterly known as P, 
 a priestly work, to which the framework of the narrative 
 in Genesis, and the Levitical laws, belong ; there are the 
 popular (so-called " prophetic ") narratives of J and E ; 
 and there is the Josianic prophetic law-book, D. As 
 to age, up to this time the Elohistic work (P) was 
 regarded as beyond question the oldest of all — either 
 Mosaic, or, in its legal parts, largely Mosaic ; at latest, 
 of the days of Samuel or Saul ; J and E were dated 
 about the days of the undivided kingdom, or shortly after. 
 Then came 
 
 THE VOLTE FACE 
 
 of the Graf school, by which the " settled results " of the 
 previous period were precisely reversed, and the whole 
 Levitical Code was lifted down bodily from the beginning 
 to the end of Israel's history, the narrative part with 
 which it was connected soon following. The Elohistic 
 " document," from being the oldest of the four, now 
 became the youngest. It was as if a man, who before 
 stood on his feet, was suddenly turned over, and made 
 to stand on his head. The result was naturally a con- 
 siderable internal derangement. Vision was affected, 
 and things generally took on an upside-down look. The 
 history was reconstructed in a new perspective. The 
 Mosaic period, as Duhm said, was " wiped out." 
 Mosaic laws, the tabernacle, the Aaronic priesthood, the 
 Levites, Passover laws, &c, became " fiction." As 
 
 77 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Colenso put it : " For all those who are convinced of 
 the substantial truth of the above results, the whole 
 ritualistic system, as a system of divine institution, 
 comes at once to the ground. . . . The whole 
 support of this system is struck away when it is once 
 ascertained that the Levitical legislation of the Penta- 
 teuch is entirely the product of a very late age, a mere 
 figment of the post-captivity priesthood." * 
 
 J and E were now commonly put in the time of the 
 divided monarchy, say from 850 to 750 B.C. (according to 
 which was put first), i.e., before Amos. Further, as the 
 two were so closely united, they were assumed to have 
 been combined into one work (JE), some time before their 
 final union with P after the exile. One important con- 
 sequence of the new dating was that, as the source P was 
 now put later than JE, it became impossible consistently 
 to argue that P " knew nothing " of this or that matter 
 contained in the older narratives. Wellhausen owns that 
 P's narrative throughout 
 
 PRESUPPOSES AND RUNS PARALLEL TO 
 
 thatofJE.t It could not, therefore, wilfully contradict 
 JE. 
 
 It might be supposed that, having reached the bottom 
 in this inversion of previous theories, criticism would now 
 indeed " settle," and be at peace. We are only, however, 
 as we soon discover, at the beginning of new develop- 
 ments. The " four documents," which, we are told, are 
 among the " assured results," begin themselves to split 
 up, and 
 
 DETAIL INTO A SERIES 
 
 under each denomination, which effectually disposes of 
 
 their unity. The original J disintegrates into a J 1 , J 2 , J ; 
 
 E similarly into an E 1 , E 1 ', E 3 ; P, in Kuenen's hands, gets 
 
 * Pent., vi. Pref. p. xi. j History 0/ Israel, pp. 295-6. 
 
 78 
 
"Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 the length of a P 4 , and there is needed for the processes of 
 union a like series of " Redactors," R 1 , R 2 , R 3 , &c. As 
 history knows absolutely nothing of these hypothetical 
 entities, they can be multiplied to any extent at pleasure. 
 The paragraphs, verses, or fragments of verses to be 
 assigned to each are now picked out and exhibited, as 
 they are, e.g., in the Oxford Hexateicch. 
 
 It is easy to see, as this process goes on, that we are on 
 the verge of fresh transformations. The members of the 
 series so flow together that it speedily becomes impossible 
 to maintain their identity ; accordingly, as the next 
 development along this line, we have the dropping of 
 individualities altogether, and the courageous conversion of 
 the J, E, P, D, and R series (our " four documents ") into 
 
 "schools," 
 
 which extend downwards, no one can quite tell how far. 
 Thus, as in the ancient Heraclitean philosophy, " All 
 flows." How any reasonable mind is to figure to itself 
 these various " schools " (of whose existence, remember, 
 we have no evidence) with their several characteristics in 
 the use of the divine names and otherwise, flowing on 
 side by side, without mingling, within the narrow 
 limits of Judaea (the Northern Kingdom is out of the 
 question after 722 B.C.), and afterwards in the exile, 
 for some centuries, is not explained, and I do not stop to 
 inquire. 
 
 Is the end even yet reached in this singular evolution 
 of " assured results " ? It does not appear so. At an early 
 stage the J and E analysis was carried forward from the 
 Pentateuch into the Book of Joshua, and for the criticism 
 of the Pentateuch was substituted that of 
 
 THE " HEXATEUCH." 
 
 But might not this process be carried still further : into 
 the Book of Judges, into Samuel, into Kings — when 
 
 79 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 " schools " come on the scene, even through the whole 
 Old Testament ? So many scholars think, and this seems 
 to be the direction in which Old Testament criticism is 
 now moving. I cite in illustration a significant passage 
 from the able Montauban theologian before quoted, M. 
 Westphal. He is speaking in the name of Old Testament 
 science on the application of 
 
 " THE HISTORICAL METHOD." 
 
 " All the documents of the Old Testament," he says, 
 11 will be submitted to a rigorous exegesis and criticism 
 relative to their contents, their date, and their author. 
 . . . This work will lead to our establishing, for example, 
 that the historical books of the old Testament — from 
 Genesis to Nehemiah — are not, as it seems after the 
 division introduced by the rabbis, a series of 16 or 17 
 distinct works, written successively by different authors, 
 but that they constitute, in reality, two great sources of 
 history, ceaselessly amplified, enriched, and extended 
 which in their first pages blend their narrations, and 
 proceed, both of them, from the recital of the creation of 
 the world to the last tribulations of the Kingdom of Israel 
 and of Judah."* (The two sources are the "prophetic" 
 and the " priestly.") 
 
 III. 
 
 Still, within even these very wide limits now reached 
 may it not be affirmed that there is, after all, a large basis 
 of agreement among the critics ? To test this, I propose 
 to look at some of 
 
 THE CRUCIAL POINTS 
 
 more closely. I may, however, here, reproduce from my 
 own volume two sentences from leading critics, which are 
 as eloquent on the point as anything I can hope to advance. 
 * Jehovah, les lit apes de la Revelation, p. 18 ff, 
 
 80 
 
" Settled Results ' in Criticism 
 
 Professor Kautzsch, of Halle, in the front rank of Old 
 Testament scholars, makes this remarkable statement : 
 " In the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua it is only with 
 regard to P that something approaching to unanimity has 
 been attained."* Kuenen, another foremost authority, 
 says of JE : "As the analysis has been carried gradually 
 further, it has become increasingly evident that the critical 
 question is far more difficult and involved than was at 
 first supposed, and the solutions which seemed to have 
 been secured have been, in whole or part, brought into 
 question again. "t 
 
 Take now some examples on the leading issues. The 
 simile of the " whirling flag " may often recur to us as we 
 proceed. 
 
 On nearly every point in regard to the 
 
 ALLEGED J AND E DOCUMENTS 
 
 — on date, place of origin, relation to each other (earlier 
 or later), extent — it might easily be shown that leading 
 critics are completely at sixes and sevens. Confident 
 statements are often made, e.g., that J is "Judaean" in 
 origin, is about a century older than E, &c. But these 
 positions are directly challenged by others equally eminent. 
 The question of priority, Mr. Addis confesses, " is still one 
 of the most vexed questions in the criticism of the Hexa- 
 teuch."j Yet much depends upon it. 
 
 So marked, again, is the resemblance between the two 
 supposed documents that it is admitted to be hardly 
 possible to distinguish them after the criterion of the 
 divine names fails in Genesis. What one critic attributes 
 to J or E, another frequently gives to the rival source. 
 An outstanding example is Ex. xxi.-xxiii., which Well- 
 hausen, Westphal, &c, assign to J, while commonly 
 
 * Lit. of 0. T., p. 226. t Hexaleuch, p. 139. \ Docs, of Hex. I. 
 p. lxxxi. 
 
 8l G 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 it is given to E.* On the question of extent, the 
 divergence of opinion is acute. Some can trace the 
 presence of J in Judges, Samuel, i Kings, " with perfect 
 certainty " ; others deny it. Wellhausen and Steuernagel 
 maintain that J is wholly absent even in Joshua. So, 
 while many are lowering the age of the documents, a 
 critic like Konig carries up the date of E, which, with 
 many, he puts before J, as far as the age of the Judges ! 
 Or take the still more important example of 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 How does the case stand with regard to unanimity here ? 
 Many put the origin of the book in the reign of Josiah, 
 often in combination with a hypothesis of fraud. Others 
 avoid this by carrying it back to the reign of Manasseh — 
 a view to which, Kuenen says, there is " fatal " objection. 
 Others go higher still, and place it hypothetically in the 
 reign of Hezekiah. A minority, pointing to the absence 
 of all traces of the divided kingdom, carry it up to a date 
 much nearer Moses, and hold the kernel to be Mosaic. 
 
 On the other hand, a powerful current has set in 
 towards disintegration. Dr. Driver ably defends the 
 unity of the book ; Kuenen upheld the unity of Chs. 
 v.-xxvi. ; Wellhausen, with many others, divided the 
 hortatory and legislative parts, and took the original book 
 to consist only of Chs. xii.-xxvi. Now, however, the book 
 is handed over to the mercies of a Deuteronomic 
 " school," and its disintegration proceeds apace. " The 
 Code and its envelopments," says the Oxford Hexatench, 
 " homiletic and narrative, hortatory or retrospective, must 
 thus be regarded as the product of a long course of literary 
 activity to which the various members of a great religious 
 
 * The importance of this is that many alleged linguistic marks of 
 E, e.g., Amah for " maid-servant," are supported from this section. 
 
 82 
 
" Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 school contributed" (II., p. 302). On this view the law- 
 book of Josiah is reduced to Chs. xii.-xix. (p. 95). 
 
 Have we even yet attained to " assured results " ? Not 
 in the least. Within the last few years 
 
 STILL ANOTHER THEORY OF DEUTERONOMY 
 
 has appeared — that of Steuernagel — which cuts up all 
 previous theories by the roots, and starts off on quite new 
 lines. This scholar, whose views have already obtained 
 influential support, thinks the critics all wrong in dividing 
 the books into hortatory and legislative sections, and pro- 
 poses a new division cross-ways, into sections marked by 
 the use of the singular pronouns (" thou," &c), and 
 sections marked by the use of the plural (" ye," &c). I 
 do not believe that the new theory has any more solid 
 foundation than the others, but it assuredly casts an 
 interesting light on the claim to " settled " conclusions. 
 A glance must now be taken at the so-called 
 
 PRIESTLY CODE. 
 
 This is the key of the position of the Wellhausen 
 theory, and here, if anywhere, the critics may be expected 
 to hold together. But while there is naturally more 
 semblance of agreement on the surface, arising from the 
 marked peculiarities that distinguish the P source, there 
 is found again keen difference on the matters which are 
 most essential. One question is as to the extent of the 
 source. It is found, e.g., in Joshua ? Most critics say 
 yes; Wellhausen says no. lie regards the " main stock" 
 of the Priestly narrative as ceasing with the death of 
 Moses, and denies the identity of the P hand in Joshua 
 with that of the earlier books. 
 
 A more fundamental question is as to the unity of the 
 source. Graf, the founder of the school, till his death 
 declined to admit that the P sections ever existed as a 
 
 83 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 separate, independent work, and the disintegration of the 
 writing which has been going on ever since (P\ P 2 , P, 
 &c.) is a practical endorsement of his opinion. The so- 
 called Priestly narrative, in fact, often a mere thread, is, 
 especially after the hypothetical E has been cut out of it, 
 a broken, unequal, fragmentary thing, which anyone look- 
 ing at it might see could never have subsisted alone. Its 
 interrelations with J and E are so close that it needs 
 them, and they need it, throughout.* 
 
 The state of opinion about the Priestly Code as respects 
 agreement is best seen by looking at that interesting 
 section of it commonly spoken of as 
 
 THE LAW OF HOLINESS. 
 
 This is a portion of the law (Lev. xvi.-xxvi., mainly) 
 which critics, with much plausibility, regard as having at 
 one time formed a code or summary of Levitical law stand- 
 ing by itself. It is acknowledged also that the closest 
 relation subsists between it and the Book of Ezekiel. 
 What is that relation ? Originally, it was confidently 
 held that Ezekiel must be the author of the Code ; most 
 now, putting it later, explain the resemblances by the 
 violent hypothesis of an " imitation " of Ezekiel ; Dr. 
 Driver and many others see clearly that it must have 
 existed before Ezekiel and been used by him ; other lead- 
 ing critics discern plain traces of its use in Deuteronomy ; 
 older scholars, like Dillmann, and some more recent, 
 ascribe to it a very high antiquity. Such views, even that 
 of its antecedence to Deuteronomy (this the more, the 
 further we carry the date of that book back), are fatal 
 to the theory of a post-exilian origin of the law. 
 
 * E.g., P alone records the making of the Ark (Gen. vi.) ; J 
 records Noah's sacrifice (Gen. viii. 20), but P alone tells of his going 
 out of the Ark (vers. 15-19) ; the promise of Ishmael is given in J (Gen. 
 xvi. 11), but P records his birth (vers. 16-17 ; P alone records the ages 
 and deaths of the patriarchs, &c. 
 
 84 
 
" Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 Here also disintegration is active (H l , H 3 , H 3 , &c.), but 
 the most curious feature is the tendency to enlarge the 
 scope of this remarkable section of the law, once freedom 
 is gained by making it post-exilian. First one part, then 
 another, legal and historical, is given to it, till it assumes 
 quite imposing proportions. A single quotation from the 
 Oxford Hexateuch will illustrate this singular 
 
 PROCESS OF REPRISTINATION. 
 
 " Other scholars, again, like Wurster, Cornill, 
 Wildeboer, further propose to include within it a con- 
 siderable group of Levitical laws more or less cognate in 
 subject and style. . . . Are all these passages to be 
 regarded as relics of P h ? In that case it must have con- 
 tained historical as well as legislative matter on an exten- 
 sive scale. It must have related the commission to Moses, 
 the death of the firstborn, the establishment of the 
 Dwelling, and the dedication of the Levites to Yahweh's 
 service. Even if the latter passages be denied to P u , the 
 implications of Ex. vi. 6-8 suggest that the document to 
 which it belonged comprised an account of the exodus, 
 the great religious institutions, and the settlement in the 
 land promised to the fathers ! " (I. p. 145). 
 
 Does criticism not seem here to be in the way of 
 working out its own cure ? Transpose this source, as I 
 think we are compelled to do, from a post-exilian to a 
 pre-Deuteronomic age, and have we not very much our 
 old Pentateuch back again ? 
 
 IV. 
 
 Readers may now judge whether, instead of " assured 
 results," we ought not more properly to speak of " critical 
 uncertainties." Before, however, touching on other points, 
 it may be desirable again to attempt something in the 
 way of positive construction. This can best be done by 
 
 85 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 taking up the question still held over. Assuming certain 
 results to be" "settled" in the critical schools, I would 
 ask — 
 
 SHOULD THEY BE SETTLED ? 
 
 This brings us back to the critical theories of J and E. 
 The "dates" of these documents, according to Mr. 
 Addis, are among the things of " capital moment " on 
 which there is " agreement." We have seen how far this 
 is from being the case, but let that pass. He puts the 
 dates at " between 850 and 750." Even were these 
 dates granted, it should be observed that we should still 
 be a long way from the conclusion that the contents of the 
 narratives are merely " legendary," as is too commonly 
 assumed. The essential thing is not the date at which 
 a narrative assumed its present literary form. A narrative 
 may be late, and yet be based on much older and perfectly 
 reliable materials. The older narratives of the Bible 
 (patriarchal and Mosaic) have a character of naturalness 
 and truth, a force and liveliness of representation, a 
 suitability to the conditions of the age, a penetration by 
 the Divine purpose, a coherence with the whole plan of 
 God's revelation, which must for ever remain a bulwark 
 against their resolution into late popular legends, casually 
 brought together, and wrought into their present shape 
 by some unknown writers well down in the monarchy ! 
 
 But I now go further, and ask : What are the grounds 
 for this relatively 
 
 LATE DATING OF J AND E ? 
 
 The reader will be a clever man if he can discover them. 
 It is sometimes argued that, since J and E are many 
 centuries later than Moses, Deuteronomy must be later 
 still, because it pre-supposes the history and legislation of 
 the former works. But the argument, surely, may be as 
 
 86 
 
"Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 effectively reversed : for, if Deuteronomy be an older — 
 still more, as I believe, a substantially Mosaic — book, the 
 immediate result is to throw back the J and E history and 
 legislation, on which it is based, into actually Mosaic 
 times. Why should these be put so much later ? There 
 is nothing I know of that necessitates or warrants so late 
 a dating as the critics suggest, but much that speaks 
 against it. Allowing the fullest weight to the casual 
 indications on which the critics lay stress to show a post- 
 Mosaic origin of Genesis, none of them points to a date 
 beyond the early days of the Kingdom, and all may easily be 
 due to later annotation.* There is no trace of allusion in 
 the history to the divided kingdom. Gunkel, a sufficiently 
 advanced critic, will not allow any allusion even to the 
 reigns of Saul, or David, or Solomon. t 
 
 Wherein then lies the reason for this late dating of the 
 critics, which constantly tends, with the development of 
 their theories, to become later ? For reason of some 
 kind there surely must be. If the matter is probed to its 
 bottom, apart from the influence on the judgment of a 
 revolutionary theory of religion, I believe the explana- 
 tion will be found to lie in certain 
 
 OBSCURE MIRRORINGS 
 
 of later events in the history of Israel which they think 
 they discern in the simple patriarchal stories. E.g., 
 Jacob's vow at Bethel (Genxxviii.) is intended to sanction 
 the custom of paying tithes at the (calf-) shrine at Bethel ; 
 the Syrians wars are mirrored in the relations of Jacob 
 and Laban (Gen. xxxi.) ; the story of the sin of Judah 
 
 * It is singular how jealous the critics are of allowing the supposi- 
 tion of editorial revision to anybody but themselves. They are the 
 last persons who should object. 
 
 + On the above points, see my Problem of the O.T., pp. 111-112, 
 371-4, &c. 
 
 87 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 (Gen. xxxviii.) is intended as an Ephraimite mockery of 
 the Southern Kingdom, &c* The dates must therefore 
 be as late as these events. The reader may decide 
 whether this is science, or a play of unbridled imagination. 
 Gunkel rejects these mirrorings in toto. 
 
 I advance now a step further in the testing of these 
 " settled results," and ask, 
 
 WHY SHOULD J AND E BE DISTINGUISHED 
 
 as two documents at all ? This touches a crucial point. 
 I have ventured to challenge the assertion that the 
 priestly history and legislation ever existed as a separate 
 document t ; I now do the same about J and E. It is not 
 difficult, indeed, to understand how E came originally to 
 be separated from the Jehovistic and older Elohistic 
 sections, viz., through its use of the name " God," and its 
 contrast in style with the remaining Elohistic parts. But 
 no reason was ever shown for setting it up as an inde- 
 pendent document, nor do its character or contents 
 favour such an idea of it. The truth is, these so-called E 
 sections stand inseparably connected with the J narrative, 
 are allowed to be all but indistinguishable from it in style, 
 run parallel to it in content, and, generally, would never 
 have been suspected of being part of another narrative, 
 but for their peculiar use of the divine name. The fact 
 of the distinction in the names of God remains, but it is 
 neither uniform nor absolute!, and when not due, as 
 
 * As the stories are supposed to be the reflections of contemporary 
 events, there is no time for the rise of legends, and they must be 
 regarded as the work of deliberate invention. 
 
 t P is most simply regarded as (in the critics' own words) " the 
 framework" in which, in Genesis at least, the JE narratives are set. 
 It is inseparable from them. 
 
 J " Elohim " sometimes occurs in Jehovistic sections (e.g., Gen. iii. 
 I, 3, 5 ; xvi. 13 ; xxxii. 28-29), an d " Jehovah " occasionally in Elohistic 
 sections {e.g. % Genesis xx. 18 ; xxii. 11-14 ; xxviii. 17-21). 
 
" Settled Results " in Criticism 
 
 sometimes happens, to discriminative use, may be ex- 
 plained in other ways, possibly, as Klostermann thinks, 
 by editorial revision, as in the Elohistic psalms.* It 
 cannot, in any case outweigh the other strong marks of 
 unity in the narrative. t 
 
 But is not this an imperfect statement ? Are there not 
 numerous marks of language, style, tone, mode of repre- 
 sentation, by which the critics profess, irrespective of the 
 divine names, to make a clear distinction between the 
 assumed J and E writings ? There are, and the value of 
 them is seen in the fact that, where the clue of the divine 
 name fails, discrimination is admitted to be hardly possible, 
 and the greatest diversity obtains in the results secured. 
 An example or two will illustrate the 
 
 ILLUSORY CHARACTER 
 
 of these supposed criteria better than any general state- 
 ment. I take them from a recent popular book, Prof. J. 
 E. McFadyen's Introduction to the Old Testament. 
 
 Mr. McFadyen writes in an easy, pleasing style, and 
 the reader, if not careful, is apt to be carried away by the 
 flow of his lucid sentences. But let him test the asser- 
 tions. " The basis of it [the attempt at distinction] must, 
 of course, be a study of the duplicate versions of the same 
 incidents" (p. 13). The "of course" here takes it for 
 granted as a thing about which there can be no dispute 
 that the stories in question {e.g., Abraham's denials of his 
 wife, Hagar in the wilderness) are " duplicate versions of 
 the same incidents." "That is," he proceeds, "such a 
 
 * Cf. Ps. liii. with Ps. xiv. ; Ps. Ixx. with Ps. xl. 13-17, where both 
 versions are given. On Klostermann's views, see my Proble?ns oj 
 0,T., pp. 227-8, &c. 
 
 t Kuenen has himself uttered a warning "against laying an 
 exaggerated stress on this one phenomenon," which, he says, has 
 twice led criticism astray {Hex. p. 61). 
 
 89 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 narrative as Gen. xx., which uses the word God (Elohim), 
 is compared with its parallel in xii. 10-20, which uses the 
 word Jehovah [once in xii. 17, but once also in a similar 
 connection in xx. 18] , and in this way the distinctive 
 features and interests of each document will readily be 
 found." Then comes the proof. " The parallel suggested 
 is easy and instructive, and it reveals the relative ethical 
 and theological superiority of E to J [others reverse the 
 relation] . J tells the story of Abraham's falsehood with 
 a quaint naivete (vii.). E is offended by it, and excuses 
 it (xx.). The theological refinement of E is suggested 
 not only here, xx. 3, 6, but elsewhere," &c. 
 Will the reader now take the trouble to 
 
 LOOK AT THESE CHAPTERS 
 
 for himself? He will discover, perhaps, to his surprise, 
 that J's "quaint naivete" does not prevent him from 
 representing Pharaoh as denouncing Abraham's sin in the 
 severest terms, after Jehovah had plagued the king with 
 great plagues on account of it (Cf. Ch. xx. 17, 18), and as 
 summarily banishing Abraham "and his wife, and all that 
 he had," out of Egypt for his offence (Ch. xii. 17-20) ; 
 while E, who has the " relative ethical and theological 
 superiority," makes Abimelech load Abraham with 
 presents, offer him the best of the land, and content him- 
 self with a mild rebuke to Sarah (Ch. xx, 14-16) ! Would 
 it not be as easy to argue that it was J who had the 
 keener moral sense ? The supposed " excuse " is Abra- 
 ham's explanation that Sarah was his half-sister (ver. 12) — 
 a plea the truth of which there is no reason to doubt. Ch. 
 xx., indeed, represents it as a settled policy on Abraham's 
 part that " at every place " whither they came, Sarah was 
 to pass as his sister (ver. 13). 
 
 " Similarly," says Mr. McFadyen, " the expulsion of 
 Hagar, which in J is due to Sarah's jealousy (xvi.), in E, 
 
 90 
 
"Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 is attributed to a command of God (xxi. 8-21)." But the 
 first instance is no " expulsion," but a voluntary "flight," 
 and the two narratives are quite different. In the first 
 (Ch. xvi.) Ishmael is not yet born, and the angel, in 
 promising his birth, directs Hagar to return to her 
 mistress (ver. 9). In the second (Ch. xxi.) Ishmael is 
 grown up, and Abraham, deeply grieved, is directed to 
 send Hagar away (ver. 12). Where is the difficulty ? I 
 have no doubt whatever that the two stories are distinct, 
 and that both were found in the original tradition. 
 
 V. 
 
 This must suffice for the Pentateuchal " documents " ; 
 a few words may now be said on one or two other matters. 
 In view of the very radical disagreements of eminent 
 critics as to most parts of 
 
 THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE, 
 
 to which Mr. Peake, in his afore-mentioned lecture, bears 
 frank witness (pp. 36-38), the less said as to " unanimity " 
 about the dates and authorship of the prophetic books the 
 better. There is much more reason for raising the ques- 
 tion of the " should " in regard to these results. The 
 whole treatment is a kind of whirligig ; caution is thrown 
 to the winds ; subjective canons are freely employed in 
 accepting or rejecting ; one never gets to feel that his feet 
 are firmly planted on anything. In the unbounded liberty 
 of theorising, no mortal can predict what cat will jump 
 out of the bag next. For two Isaiahs there are now no 
 one knows how many (Duhm, Cheyne). Jeremiah is 
 resolved into fragments, of which " only portions come 
 from the prophet and his secretary." " The subject," 
 says Mr. Addis, " is too complicated and disputable to be 
 treated here in detail."* Parts even of Ezekiel are 
 * Hebrew Religion, p- xv. 
 
 91 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 brought down to the first century B.C. (Schmidt), and 
 the prophecies against foreign nations are disputed (H. P. 
 Smith). The minor prophets are subjected to drastic 
 mutilation. Against these extreme conclusions other 
 critics wisely protest. But this whole region of criticism 
 is at present a seething sea of controversy, and is bound 
 to remain so till more sober guiding principles are 
 adopted. 
 
 The interest of the Christian Church in these discussions 
 has always centred very naturally in 
 
 THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, 
 
 and the problems of that book, despite all that has been 
 written on ist and 2nd Isaiahs, are still far from being 
 satisfactorily solved. I may be permitted to refer to a 
 piece of personal experience which made a considerable 
 impression on my own mind. In early life I studied with 
 care what the late Dr. Samuel Davidson had to say on 
 the subject of the unity of Isaiah in his Introduction to the 
 Old Testament (second edition), of date 1857. He had 
 already made considerable advance in his critical positions, 
 but he still held to, and defended, Isaiah's authorship of 
 the second part of the book. He gave Knobel's objec- 
 tions at length, and learnedly replied to them seriatim. 
 He adduced counter-arguments in favour of the authen- 
 ticity, including arguments drawn from diction, linguistic 
 colouring, circle of ideas and images, &c. A little later 
 I became acquainted with Dr. Davidson's larger Intro- 
 duction (3 vols., 1862), and here met with a surprise. It 
 was not simply that the author had in the interval 
 become convinced of the exilian date of Is. xl.^; that 
 was conceivable. What did astonish me was that in these 
 short five years all his judgments on the details of the 
 arguments had undergone 
 
 92 
 
"Settled Results" in Criticism 
 
 A COMPLETE REVERSAL. 
 
 All the pros at a stroke had become cons ; all the cons, pros. 
 Diction, circle of ideas, linguistic peculiarities, had 
 changed sides. Everything that was convincing before 
 had become invalid ; everything that was unconvincing 
 before had become demonstrable. I felt instinctively 
 that there was something deeper in this than mere 
 change of literary judgment; that a new standpoint had 
 been adopted which controlled the judgment. It was 
 like what the late Prof. Romanes tells of Professor 
 Clifford at Cambridge : " Clifford had only just moved at 
 a bound from the extreme of asceticism to that of infidelity 
 — an individual instance which I deem of particular 
 interest in the present connection, as showing the domina- 
 ting influence of a forcedly emotional character even on so 
 powerful an intellectual one, for the rationality of the 
 whole structure of Christian belief cannot have so 
 reversed its poles within a few months." * The percep- 
 tion of this in Dr. Davidson determined me to be 
 cautious in accepting critical conclusions en bloc, and I 
 have never had reason to regret the resolve. 
 It is, I think, 
 
 A FAIR QUESTION 
 
 for criticism to raise — one, I mean, fairly arising out of the 
 phenomena of the book — whether in certain of the later 
 chapters the standpoint of the prophet is not actually; as 
 most will admit it to be ideally, in the exile. But the course 
 of criticism itself shows that it is a question not quite so 
 easily settled as many suppose. G'esenius was for long 
 thought, with good reason, to have established, with 
 superabundance of learning, the unity of Is. xl.-lxvi., and 
 his arguments constitute a strong bulwark still against the 
 assailants of that unity. But was it exilic ? Dr. Cheyne 
 * Thoughts on Religion, pp. 137-8. 
 
 93 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 took an important step when, in 1880-2, he allowed that 
 there were a considerable number of passages in 2 Isaiah 
 which clearly, had a Palestinian, some of them a pre- 
 exilian, character, and could not be reconciled with an 
 origin in the exile. It is now usual to assume for these 
 portions a late />os/-exilian origin. But apart from un- 
 suitability of contents, and that linguistic unity with 
 other sections which Gesenius established, where is the 
 evidence or probability of a prophet of the rank of Isaiah 
 arising, say, in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah ? 
 
 To such considerations fall to be added the linguistic 
 and other relations with the first part of the book, on 
 which the older defenders of the Isaianic authorship 
 rightly insisted. It will not be surprising if by-and-by 
 criticism declares itself again for the unity of the bulk of 
 the book, with, perhaps, some editorial revision, intro- 
 ducing, e.g., the name " Cyrus " into the two verses 
 where it occurs. + Such a criticism might find support 
 in the fact that a destruction of the city and temple 
 and deportation to Babylon, were unquestionably looked 
 for as near in the days of Micah and Isaiah (cf. Amos ii. 
 5 ; Mic. iii. 12 ; iv. 10 ; Is. vi. II, 12 ; xxxix. 6, 7 : always 
 with hope of restoration, Is. xi. II, &c), though, as 
 Jeremiah narrates (xxvi. 17-19), the fulfilment of the 
 threatening was postponed, on account of the repentance 
 of king and people. 
 
 * See his Prophecies of Isaiah, ii. pp. 211 ff., and the Commentary 
 on Is. lvi. 9, lvii., &c. 
 
 t It is noteworthy that already in the book of the Son of Sirach 
 (c. 200 B.C.) the Isaianic authorship of the later prophecies is firmly 
 assumed (Eccles. xlviii. 22-25). Isaiah had a school, or company, of 
 disciples, to whom was entrusted the collection and preservation of 
 his oracles (Is. viii. 16-17) ; to them probably are due any later oracles, 
 if such are admitted in the book. The prophecies to whose fulfilment 
 appeal is made in Is. xli. 22_^"; xliv. 25-28 ; xlv. 21, &c, are, most 
 naturally, these very prophecies of the book, the fulfilment of which 
 would then be seen. 
 
 94 
 
V 
 
 Israel's God and Worship 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 DR. F. DELITZSCH has expressively described the 
 Wellhausen theory by saying that its effect has 
 been to " lift off its hinges the history of worship 
 and literature in Israel as hitherto accepted."* What 
 was at the top it shifts to the bottom. It is not, however, 
 simple change of place that is in question. The new 
 theory not only inverts the Bible's own account of Israel's 
 history and institutions ; it cancels that history in large 
 part altogether, and proposes for acceptance another 
 
 WHOLLY RECONSTRUCTED 
 
 view of the development of religious ideas and laws 
 among the Hebrews. Some points in this radically 
 changed and avowedly revolutionary theory of religion 
 have already been before us. It is now necessary to give 
 it closer attention, in its contrast with the view presented 
 in the Bible itself. 
 
 It has already been shown that the nerve of the new 
 theory is the idea of natural evolution. The more 
 believing scholars recognise the inadequacy of this prin- 
 ciple to fit the facts, and, accepting the framework of the 
 scheme, work into it the idea of " revelation " to explain 
 the higher elements in the prophetic teaching. But the 
 originators and leading expounders of the theory (Kuenen, 
 Wellhausen, Duhm, Smend, Stade, Guthe, &c.) know 
 
 * Luthardt's Zeitschrift, 1880, p. 279. 
 
 97 h 
 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 nothing of any " revelation " other than is given in the 
 development of the inherent powers of man's religious 
 nature. As Kuenen states it in a typical passage: " So 
 soon as we derive a separate part of Israel's religious life 
 directly from God, and allow the supernatural or immedi- 
 ate revelation to intervene in even one single point, so 
 long also our view of the whole continues to be incorrect. 
 . . . . It is the supposition of 
 
 A NATURAL DEVELOPMENT 
 
 alone which accounts for all the phenomena."* Kuenen's 
 own book on The Religion of Israel is constructed on this 
 principle, and it is from this basis, whatever modifica- 
 tions more earnestly-minded men may introduce into it 
 — and these leave much to be desired — that the theory as 
 a whole is to be understood. 
 
 As recent popular expositions of this theory by writers 
 who do in some degree accept the idea of " revelation " 
 may be mentioned Mr. Addis's Hebrew Religion to the 
 Establishment of Judaism under Ezra, already noticed, 
 and Prof. Karl Marti's Religion of the Old Testament A It 
 was seen in an earlier paper how vigorously the founda- 
 tions of this theory of religion, in its successive stages of 
 "nomad or Bedouin," "agricultural" (settled life in 
 Canaan), " prophetic," and " legal " religion, were assailed 
 by H. Winckler in his Eisenach address. Winckler 
 himself represents the not less extreme, but very opposite 
 view, that the higher religious ideas in Israel's religion 
 (its monotheism included) were largely an 
 
 INHERITANCE FROM BABYLONIA. 
 
 They came in, however, at the beginning, not at the end, 
 of Israel's history. The reaction has done good service 
 in that it has set critical writers on the task of very 
 
 * Prophets and Prophecy, p. 4. 
 
 t Die Religion des A T unter den Religionen des vorderen Orients. 
 
 98 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 vigorously defending the uniqueness and originality of 
 Israel's religion, thereby strengthening the hold on the 
 idea of revelation ; while the Winckler school is not less 
 effectually disposing of many of the false assumptions 
 that underlie the Wellhausen scheme of the history and 
 religion. I shall keep these instructive conflicts in view 
 in the defence of the Biblical representation, which reaps 
 its advantage from both. 
 
 I. 
 
 The way is now open for sketching, as briefly as I can, 
 the outlines of this new theory of the religion of Israel. 
 
 It is important to notice at the outset how much at 
 once drops out. 
 
 THE PATRIARCHAL PERIOD — 
 
 e.g., in Mr. Addis's sketch, wholly disappears. Certain 
 writers, as Dr. Driver, recognise a " kernel " of historical 
 truth in the patriarchal narratives — how much, how 
 little, is never clear ; but the prevailing tendency is to 
 resolve the whole into tribal legend, in which nothing 
 remains but vague reminiscences of tribal movements, 
 and ideas and events of later times, thrown back into the 
 form of family history. How can it be otherwise, it is 
 asked, where the narratives are perhaps a thousand years 
 later than the traditions which they record and embellish ? 
 Of patriarchal religion in the Biblical sense, therefore, 
 there can be no speech. What takes its place is a con- 
 geries of Semitic superstitions, inferred from analogy and 
 stray hints in the narratives ; belief in the haunting pre- 
 sence of ghosts and spirits : in the animation of natural 
 objects, as stones, wells, trees ; animal-worship, ancestor- 
 worship, use of amulets and charms, &c. Prof. Kautzsch 
 calls the pre-Mosaic religion " polydaemonism," and 
 thinks that at this stage " God" can hardly be spoken of. 
 
 99 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Of Israel itself, or the tribes of which it came to be 
 composed, nothing up to this point is supposed to be 
 positively known. The nomadic life led some of these 
 tribes into Egypt, and there they fell into bondage. The 
 history of Israel as a nation begins with 
 
 THE MOSAIC AGE. 
 
 It is a moot question, as already seen, how far Moses is 
 to be recognised as a real personage at all. Writers like 
 Cheyne and Meyer deny his historical existence, but 
 most allow him a more or less shadowy reality and 
 activity. Those who go farthest regard him as the 
 leader who, in the name of Yahweh (Jehovah) first 
 gathered the tribes into a unity, led them out of Egypt 
 and across the Red Sea, then pledged them at Sinai to 
 some kind of covenant with Yahweh. How the Israelites 
 got out of Egypt, escaped pursuit, and effected the cross- 
 ing of the Sea, ascribed to a happy " coincidence," is 
 got over by phrases, but is not satisfactorily explained. 
 Who "Yahweh" was — a god of the Kenites, a new god 
 to the Israelites, possibly a god known earlier in some of 
 the tribes — is again a moot question. Kuenen identifies 
 Yahweh with Moloch. A favourite view is that he was 
 the storm-god of Sinai. In any case, he became hence- 
 forth the god of Israel. He was in no sense the sole god, 
 nor was thought of as such by his worshippers. He was 
 one amongst many, the god of this particular people — 
 
 " A TRIBAL GOD," 
 
 like Chemosh of Moab. So also he continued to be till 
 the days of the prophets. 
 
 It does not follow that, though the personality of Moses 
 is allowed, the history given of him in the Pentateuchal 
 books is accepted. The opposite is the case. The law- 
 
 ioo 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 giver's personality and work are enveloped in the folds 
 of late legend, through the mists of which we can make 
 out little that is certain regarding him. The one thing 
 sure is that most of the things we are told about him did 
 not happen. The narratives in Exodus, Kuenen informs 
 us, are "utterly unhistorical." * He may have laid the 
 foundations of law by his oral decisions (Ex. xviii.), but 
 he certainly did not receive, or write, or convey to Israel, 
 any of the Codes of law connected with his name. His 
 connection with legislation is a late tradition. He did 
 not give the Decalogue, for there was no thought at that 
 stage of forbidding worship by images. Yahweh remained 
 the god of the tribes, but what is told of the mode of his 
 worship is mostly 
 
 POST-EXILIAN FICTION. 
 
 There may, e.g., have been an ark, but it was probably 
 originally only a fetish-chest, containing perhaps a couple 
 of meteoric stones. There may have been a rude tent to 
 cover it, but assuredly not the " tabernacle " described 
 in Exodus. Aaronic priesthood, sacrifices, prescribed 
 feasts, &c. ; nothing of that kind then existed, or was con- 
 ceived of. 
 
 A new stage commences with the experience of 
 
 SETTLED LIFE IN CANAAN. 
 
 The nomadic life is ended ; the people have now entered 
 on an agricultural and city life as settlers in a land 
 which had long enjoyed a high degree of civilisation. 
 Their new surroundings speedily tell on the form of their 
 religion. Yahweh begins to show his superiority to the 
 gods of the Canaanites (Baalim), according to Budde, by 
 " absorbing them into himself," and much of their wor- 
 ship now becomes his. The Canaanite sanctuaries are 
 * Hexatcuch, p 42 
 
 101 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 appropriated and converted by legend into holy places of 
 the patriarchs. There is as yet no law against high 
 places or graven images — not, therefore, even the law of 
 Ex. xx-xxiii. — and Yahweh is lawfully served under every 
 green tree. The tribes were for long a disorganised 
 throng, weak, oppressed by surrounding peoples, without 
 a sense of unity. The pictures of alternate oppression 
 and deliverance after repentance in the Book of Judges 
 are quite unhistorical. Yahweh himself is conceived of as 
 a limited, passionate, vengeful being, arbitrary and cruel 
 in his commands and actions ; a god of battles, not yet 
 clothed with any high ethical qualities. The Israelites 
 are still, in short, little better than a barbarous horde. 
 With Samuel we reach the 
 
 TRANSITION TO THE MONARCHY, 
 
 and somewhat higher ideas begin to prevail. The picture 
 of Samuel, however, and after him of David, given in the 
 history, is not according to fact. The theocratic drapery 
 with which both characters are invested must be stripped 
 off.* The true Samuel was originally a village " seer," 
 selling his oracles for reward, and the prophetic bands 
 that took their origin from him were companies of 
 frenzied enthusiasts, whom the common people were dis- 
 posed to look on as "madmen" (Cf. 2 Kings ix. 11). 
 The saying, " Is Saul also among the prophets ? " is not 
 to be understood (so some) as an expression of reverence, 
 but rather as one of regret that so hopeful a youth should 
 have fallen into such disreputable company ! Wellhausen 
 can hardly find words strong enough to express his idea 
 of the low state of prophetic orders before Elijah. David, 
 
 •"The mere recapitulation of the contents of this narrative," says 
 Wellhausen, of 1 Sam. vii., "makes us feel at once what a pious 
 make-up it is, and how full of inherent impossibility." — Hist, of Israel^ 
 p. 228. 
 
 102 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 Samuel's protege, was no doubt a great warrior and a 
 powerful king, a poet, too, and fond of music of a kind, 
 but in no way the saint and psalmist that later tradition 
 makes him. " More easily," says Prof. Cheyne, "could 
 Carl the Great have written St. Bernard's hymn than 
 the David of the Books of Samuel, the fifty-first Psalm."* 
 Yahweh, to him, was still a local deity. 
 The chief thing to be noticed in 
 
 THE INTERVENING PERIOD 
 
 till the rise of prophecy is the inversion in the new theory 
 of all customary {i.e., Biblical) judgments on men and 
 events. Solomon's temple had not the religious signi- 
 ficance ascribed to it in the history, but was a private 
 undertaking of the king, of a piece with his other schemes 
 of aggrandisement, and entirely under royal control. 
 Jeroboam's was a justifiable rebellion, and his setting up 
 of the calves for worship at Bethel and Dan (i Kings xii. 
 28-29) was but a revival of the old time-honoured wor- 
 ship of Yahweh in Israel under the form of an ox. Ahab 
 is rehabilitated as, in Mr. Addis's judgment, " with all 
 his faults, a brave and able king," to whom much 
 injustice is done in the history, t Even Elijah, who, 
 though he opposed the building of a temple to Baal, is 
 held to have had no protest to make against the golden 
 calves [" nor, again, do we hear that he made any pro- 
 test against the prevalent worship of Jehovah under the 
 
 *Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism, p. 28. 
 
 fHeb. Rel., p. 123. He further writes : — " We are not to suppose 
 that Ahab ever dreamed of renouncing his allegiance to Jehovah : 
 much less did he tempt his subjects to do so. . . . Nor is it 
 credible that Jezebel, his queen, seriously set herself to exterminate 
 Jehovah's prophets, and all but succeeded in her task. . . He had 
 concluded an alliance with Tyre . . . so he took it to be a natural 
 thing that a temple of the Phoenician god should be .erected in 
 Samaria (pp. 130-1). 
 
 I03 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 form of an ox "],* is not allowed by Mr. Addis to be a 
 monotheist ("vVellhausen disagrees with him here). 
 Worship on high places, and the use of images were, of 
 course, perfectly legitimate. Kuenen goes further, and 
 carries over most of the abominations practised by the 
 heathen, and sternly condemned by the prophets, into 
 the worship of Yahweh. f 
 
 II. 
 
 Thus things remained till 
 
 THE AGE OF THE PROPHETS, 
 
 commencing with Amos, when, as the result of the 
 enlarged conceptions wrought by the Assyrian invasions, 
 a revolution took place in the more spiritual minds in 
 regard to Yahweh and his worship. By a sudden advance 
 in ideas Yahweh is apprehended as the one sole God and 
 ruler of the world; His character and government are 
 righteous ; ritual is condemned as displeasing to Him, 
 and His true service is seen to consist in doing justly, 
 loving mercy, and walking humbly with God (Mic. vi. 
 8). Inward purity of heart is set before ceremonial 
 cleanness ; the folly of idolatry is perceived, and strenu- 
 ous efforts are made to effect its overthrow. In all this 
 the prophets were at war with traditional usage as well 
 as with prevailing practice; it was something new they 
 were introducing.! They were not endowed with the 
 power of prediction, in the sense of supernatural foresight, 
 
 *p. 131. Still less do we hear that Elijah approved of the calf- 
 worship. Is not condemnation implied in 1 Kings xxi. 21-24? 
 
 \Rel. of Israel i. p. 72. 
 
 jCertain critics do not make the transition quite so abrupt, and 
 recognise ethical elements in the conception of Yahweh, which pre- 
 pared the way for the prophetic teaching. Still, " monotheism " begins 
 with the prophets. 
 
 104 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 but they gave bold, often shrewd, forecasts of the future, 
 based on their reading of the times, which sometimes 
 were fulfilled, and oftener were not. Their teaching and 
 unflinching conflict and testimony for the truths of an 
 exalted " ethical monotheism " mark the highest point in 
 Old Testament religion. 
 
 As the ideas of the prophets gained strength, attempts 
 were from time to time made to translate them into 
 practice. The best known and most remarkable of 
 these efforts was 
 
 THE REFORMATION OF JOSIAH 
 
 occasioned by the discovery of the Book of Deuteronomy 
 (or some earlier form of it) in the temple, as narrated in 
 2 Kings xxii. This book, which embodies older laws, 
 was composed with the express design of bringing about 
 a centralisation of worship in Jerusalem, and putting an 
 end to the (hitherto lawful) worship of Yahweh and 
 other Gods at the high places.* It was hidden in the 
 temple, then produced by Hilkiah, and presented to 
 Josiah, on whose mind it made an extraordinary impres- 
 sion. The book was accepted as the authentic law of 
 Moses (2 Kings xxiii. 24, 25), and on the basis of it a 
 new covenant was entered into between the King, 
 people, and Yahweh (xxiv. 1-3). The effects were Josiah's 
 vigorous crusade against the high places in Southern and 
 Northern Israel, and suppression of their worship, the 
 cleansing of city and temple from idolatry, and, when all 
 was finished, the observance of a great passover (Ch. 
 xxiii.). The enthusiasm was short-lived, and the writings 
 of later prophets show that, after Josiah's death, the old 
 evils were soon all in full force again. 
 
 *The laws in Deut. xviii., &c, for the " Levites " are supposed to be 
 a provision made for the •■ disestablished priests" of these high 
 places. 
 
 105 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 The nation from this point rapidly drifted to its ruin. 
 The Northern Kingdom had been extinguished in 721 
 B.C. by the Assyrians ; now came the final overthrow of 
 Judah by Nebuchadnezzar (586 B.C.) and the carrying 
 away of the people into 
 
 CAPTIVITY IN BABYLON. 
 
 The temple was burned, the ark destroyed, the ritual 
 suspended ; the people were torn away from their native 
 soil. Here came the opportunity of the priests. Let 
 them gather up in written form for preservation what 
 could be recalled of the old cultus, and draw up a new 
 programme of ceremonial observance for the future, in 
 case the way should be opened for them to return. So 
 many hands set to work. Ezekiel led the way in his 
 sketch of the temple and its ordinances in a restored land 
 (Ch. xl.-xlviii.). His sketch was not accepted, but one 
 feature in it proved to be of decisive importance. In Ch. 
 xliv. of his book he had denounced the priesthood for 
 permitting the service of uncircumcised strangers in the 
 sanctuary (really, it is held, the ordinary custom since 
 Solomon's time), and had pronounced sentence of 
 " degradation " on the unfaithful priests, assigning to 
 them this lower rank of service, while the priesthood 
 proper was reserved for the faithful "sons of Zadok." 
 Here, it is claimed, is the clear explanation of 
 
 THE ORDER OF " LEVITES " 
 
 in the sanctuary in post-exilian times. They are none 
 other than these •' degraded priests " ; therefore not of 
 older date than Ezekiel. Busy brains and pens carried 
 forward the task of the collection of old laws, the con- 
 coction of new ones, and the working up of the whole 
 into a grand " Code," represented as having been given 
 by Moses in the wilderness, but really, in greater part, 
 
 106 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 the fruit of their own invention. Thus arose the fabric 
 of the so-called Levitical Law. A history was made to 
 suit, and the finished product was brought from Babylon 
 by Ezra, when he came to Jerusalem in 458 B.C., some 
 seventy-eight years after the return. Fourteen years later 
 (444 B.C.) it was read — or if, as Wellhausen thinks, it 
 was by this time joined to the older JE histories, 
 and to Deuteronomy, the whole Pentateuch was read 
 to, and accepted by, the people as "the law of Moses" 
 (Neh. viii). 
 Thus 
 
 POST-EXILIAN JUDAISM 
 
 was founded, and the development of the religion was 
 completed. The temple had been already re-built by 
 Zerubbabel, and everything was ready for organisation 
 on the new lines. The Psalter is the " hymn-book " of this 
 second temple, and is mostly, if not wholly, the product 
 of post-exilian times. Many of the other books in the 
 Bible, as Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Joel, of course Chronicles, 
 are also post-exilian, and the process of addition went on 
 till possibly the century before Christ. Daniel is a book 
 written to comfort the pious in the persecutions of the 
 Maccabean time. 
 
 III. 
 
 Thus I have sketched, I think not unfairly, for I wish 
 to give it full justice, the theory of religion as it is ordin- 
 arily presented by writers of the Wellhausen persuasion. 
 There are naturally shadings of the picture, sometimes in 
 a more extreme, sometimes in a more cautious direction, 
 but the main outlines are, beyond a question, those which 
 I have indicated. 
 
 What have I now to oppose to it ? I answer in a 
 word, I simply oppose to it 
 
 107 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 THE WHOLE LITERATURE OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 The whole theory is, as I regard it, an inversion of the 
 facts — the attempt to make a pyramid stand upon its 
 apex, instead of on its base. And this, I think, it is not 
 really difficult to prove. 
 
 Let us revert again to the commencement. One 
 speaks sometimes of the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left 
 out. But that, surely, would be a small matter com- 
 pared with the religion and history of Israel with 
 
 THE PATRIARCHS 
 
 left out. What is the main thing in the pre-Mosaic 
 religion of Israel, if not the call of Abraham, and those 
 covenants with, and promises to, the fathers, on which 
 the whole after development rests ? Is this merely 
 legend ? The whole character of the tradition speaks 
 against the idsa, not to refer to the minute corrobora- 
 tions which archaeological research has latterly been 
 furnishing of the fidelity of its contents.* 
 
 But let us take the later history, where it may be 
 thought that the foundations are surer. The Book of 
 Deuteronomy continually assumes the earlier history, and 
 the Abrahamic covenant as the core of it (Deut. i. 8 ; 
 vi. 10, &c). The so-called JE history also, allowed to 
 go back in one of its forms, at least, to the ninth or 
 tenth century, has the full record of these things. The 
 clear, consentient narratives of the Exodus embodied in 
 that history have as their indubitable postulate that the 
 God who appeared to Moses, and wrought the salvation 
 of the people, was the God of "the fathers" (Ex. iii. 
 6 ff). Who were these " fathers" ? None but the patri- 
 archs of the Book of Genesis. Probe the national con- 
 sciousness of Israel at what stage we may, this thought 
 of the " fathers " is found fundamental to it. Yet all this 
 
 *These will be referred to again. 
 
 J08 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 is dismissed as if the ignoring of it did not merit even a 
 word of explanation ! 
 
 What, next, is the proof of the picture of 
 
 PRE-MOSAIC RELIGION 
 
 which is substituted for the Biblical ? It would not in 
 itself be strange if, with the early Hebrews, as among 
 ourselves, traces of popular superstitions were found 
 mingling with the higher elements in their religion. But 
 how scant and precarious is the evidence which the 
 critics can adduce even for this assumption ? It consists 
 chiefly of sporadic intimations in the narrative on which 
 an interpretation is forced in no way natural or necessary, 
 and often positively inadmissible. Is it stone worship ? 
 Jacob set up and consecrated a pillar as a memorial of 
 his vision, and called the stone (or as it is in a neighbour- 
 ing verse, "the place") Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 11-22). This 
 is interpreted to mean that Jacob anointed the stone "in 
 homage to the indwelling deity " — «■" unction being in the 
 East an act of courtesy co a guest, was fitly offered to 
 the spirit in the stone which the worshipper desired to 
 conciliate " (Addis, p. 26). Where in the Book of 
 Genesis are the faintest hints justifying such an interpre- 
 tation ? Is it sacred trees? The patriarchs planted 
 trees, and sat under the shade of them. Abraham lived 
 at " the oaks of Mamre." Does this justify the belief 
 that a spirit was supposed to be dwelling in these trees ? 
 What if certain trees in Canaan had names (Gen. xii. 6 ; 
 Judges ix. 37) which might imply such superstitions. Did 
 the patriarchs, with their higher enlightenment, share in 
 these? So the patriarchs dug " wells," and there was a 
 place called " Beersheba," " the well of the oath." Does 
 the fact that " Beersheba was a favourite place of 
 pilgrimage even for subjects of the northern kingdom " 
 in the time of Amos (Amos v. 5; viii. 14) justify the 
 
 109 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 inference that " evidently it was a sacred well " ? (Addis, 
 p. 31). Or is this worship of wells proved by the old 
 snatch of Hebrew song in Num. xxi. 17, 18 : " Rise up, 
 O well ; sing ye to it " ? Mr. Addis wisely discards 
 " totemism," or worship of animals from which the 
 worshipper claimed descent (p. 32) ; but he has a cling- 
 ing to the idea of " sacred animals," of which a proof is 
 seen in " the stone of Zoheleth (' serpent-stone,' probably 
 a place-name, like hundreds among ourselves, without 
 the slightest connection with serpent- worship), which is 
 by En-rogel " (1 Kings i. 9). The proof of " worship of 
 the dead," which is a favourite hypothesis, rests on no 
 better foundation. What are we to say of the proof 
 drawn from the pillar set up by Jacob at Rachel's grave 
 (Gen. xxxv. 20) ? That consultation of the dead was 
 prohibited by the law (Deut. xviii. 11; Lev. xix. 31) is 
 surely a poor evidence that it was part of the recognised 
 religion ? 
 
 IV. 
 
 Where, as a next branch of the case, is the proof to be 
 found that Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, was, till 
 the time of the prophets, only a " tribal" God? Not 
 in the Bible's own representations, where, from the time 
 of Abraham down, the only recognised conception of 
 God is 
 
 A MONOTHEISTIC ONE.* 
 
 The Book of Genesis is, as every fair mind must 
 acknowledge, from its first page to its last, a monothe- 
 istic book. If traces of a worship of "teraphim" are 
 found in Laban's family, Jacob put the images away from 
 his household, as incompatible with the worship of the 
 
 *[Ne\v support to this view is found in the recently-published 
 book of Prof. Baentsch, of Jena, on " Israelitish Monotheism."] 
 
 IIO 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 one true God (Gen. xxxv. 2, 4). "The theological pre- 
 suppositions of different parts of the book vary widely ; 
 centuries of religious thought, for example, must lie 
 between the God who partakes of the hospitality of 
 Abraham under a tree (xviii.) and the majestic, trans- 
 cendent, invisible Being at whose word the worlds are 
 born." So writes Mr. McFadyen.* On Mr. McFadyen's 
 own showing of dates, very many centuries did not lie 
 between the two narratives, t and I believe that Gen. i. is 
 far older than he supposes. But, whatever the anthro- 
 pomorphisms of the so-called J (and God is not 
 immediately to be identified with His theophanies), it is 
 admitted by even so radical a critic as Prof. H. P. 
 Smith, that, in Genesis, they are brought " into harmony 
 with the strictest monotheism. "t It is possible to 
 produce from "J" passages on God as exalted as any- 
 thing in the Bible (e.g., Ex. xxxiii. 18, 19). 
 
 In Exodus and the other books Jehovah is viewed as 
 the 
 
 "god of all the earth," 
 
 who, of His free grace and love, has chosen Israel to be 
 His peculiar people (Gen. xix. 5). It is no doubt the 
 case that many in Israel failed to rise to the height of 
 this great conception ; so that, even if Jephthah spoke in 
 terms which implied an inadequate conception of 
 Jehovah's relation to Chemosh (Judg. ix. 24), the fact 
 would mean but little. Most probably, however, his 
 language is only a form of accommodation to the stand- 
 point of the king of Ammon (parallels in abundance may 
 be found in missionary literature). The other passage 
 commonly cited, viz., David's being driven out to " serve 
 
 ''■Old Test. Introd. p. 8. 
 
 tWellhausen makes the stories about Abraham the very latest 
 creations of Israelitish imagination. 
 tO. T.Hisl. p. 16. 
 
 Ill 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 other gods " (i Sam. xxvi. 19) is strangely misunderstood 
 when taken to mean that outside of Canaan " the 
 worship of Jehovah became an impossibility ; he had per- 
 force to ' serve other gods ' in the land of his exile " 
 (Addis, p. 79). Does any sane mind believe that, out- 
 side of Palestine — in Moab, for example — David did 
 serve other gods than Jehovah ? Or where is a single 
 instance of the kind to be found ? * No, Jehovah, in 
 the minds of His true worshippers, was believed in as 
 the one true God, universal Lord and Ruler in 
 providence, from the first, and the prophets, when they 
 came on the scene, never dreamed that they were bring- 
 ing in any new doctrine, but preached loyalty and obedi- 
 ence to 
 
 THE SAME JEHOVAH 
 
 as their fathers had known since the day He made His 
 covenant with them at Horeb.t 
 
 The proof that, till prophetic times, image-worship 
 was a legitimate part of Israel's religion, equally breaks 
 down. The form which this proof usually takes is, 
 indeed, a choice example of the methods of the theory. 
 We point, e.g., to the fact that 
 
 IMAGES ARE UNKNOWN 
 
 in the legitimate worship of God in Genesis. The 
 answer is that this is late and untrustworthy legend. 
 We point as a cardinal evidence to the prohibition of 
 images in the second commandment. We are told that 
 the second commandment is not from Moses. We ask 
 for a reason. We are told it cannot be, for the worship 
 
 *The same expression occurs in the monotheistic Book of Deut- 
 eronomy (xxviii. 36-64). 
 
 tin these contentions we have in the main Winckler with us. It 
 is incredible that ideas so elevated should take their rise in the 
 sudden manner supposed. 
 
 112 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 of images was common in Mosaic times, and long after. 
 We inquire where is the proof of this. We are told that 
 Yahweh was worshipped from early times in the form of 
 an ox. We press again for evidence. We are pointed 
 to Jeroboam's two calves. But how do these prove it ? 
 Because Jeroboam cannot be supposed to be introducing 
 a new form of worship, and there are traces in the story 
 of Micah in Judges that of old an idolatrous worship was 
 set up in Dan (Judg. xviii. 30, 31). We urge the facts 
 that this was evidently a schismatic worship (v. 31), that 
 there is no trace of images in the lawful service of 
 Jehovah, that there was no image in the temple at 
 Jerusalem, and that Jeroboam's action is consistently 
 denounced as " sin." All avails nothing, and Gideon's 
 "ephod," and even the brazen serpent of Moses, are 
 pressed into the proof that Jehovah was worshipped, for- 
 sooth, in the form of an ox. 
 
 The argument carries us next to Josiah's reformation. 
 That Deuteronomy produced a strong impression in 
 Josiah's mind, and led to his reforms, is evident from the 
 history. But I maintain that nearly every other point in 
 the critical case rests on 
 
 ASSUMPTION AND FALLACY. 
 
 The hypothesis of " pious fraud," which many advocate, 
 is repugnant to every right-thinking mind. If we turn 
 to the narrative in 2 Kings, we find that the book dis- 
 covered in the temple was accepted by all classes as a 
 genuine Mosaic work. It violently interfered (on the 
 hypothesis) with powerful existing interests, yet no one, 
 then or after, ventured to question it. If we consult the 
 book itself, we find that it claims to be from Moses (Deut. 
 xxxi. 9). 
 
 It is a fair literary question how far the book, 
 in its present form, shows signs of later date in the repro- 
 
 113 I 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 duction, editing, and annotation,* of those last addresses 
 which Moses is related to have written, and delivered to 
 the priests. But there cannot be a shadow of a doubt 
 that the book claims to be substantially 
 
 A WORK OF MOSES. 
 
 It embodies old laws which were long obsolete in the age 
 of Josiah, and which a writer in that age could have no 
 object in introducing. It is alleged to have been written 
 to further the abolition of high places, and promote 
 centralisation of worship ; but high places are never 
 mentioned in it. The assertion that its provisions for 
 Levites are intended for " the disestablished priests " of 
 the high places is without a trace of support in the text. 
 As shown before, a central sanctuary was the ideal of 
 worship in Israel from the beginning, and Deuteronomy 
 does no more than hold up this as an ideal to be realised 
 when the people should be settled, and have rest from 
 their enemies round about (Ch. xii. 10). On the fluctu- 
 ating critical theories of the book I have already written. 
 
 V. 
 
 We are thus brought, finally, to the Exile, on which it 
 is not necessary to add much to what has been adduced 
 in previous papers. When, from flights of theory, one 
 descends to cold facts, it is amazing how unreal 
 
 THE POST-EXILIAN HYPOTHESIS 
 
 A of the origin of the law discovers itself to be. It has no 
 foothold in any one genuine fact in the history. Ezekiel's 
 " degradation " of the non-Zadokite priests (which there 
 is no reason to suppose was ever carried out), in no way 
 
 *Everyone admits this of the last chapter, and there are other 
 parts of the book which indicate it not less clearly. 
 
 H4 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 contradicts, but rather presupposes, the older (broken) 
 law assigning the charge of the sanctuary to the Levites. 
 The supposed activity of priests and scribes in collating 
 and manufacturing laws, and stamping on them a 
 fictitious Mosaic character, the " vehement struggles " of 
 the degraded priests to regain their lost privileges 
 (mirrored in the story of Korah), the compilation of the 
 laws into a system and construction of a Pentateuch by, 
 say, Ezra, are bold efforts of imagination which utterly lack 
 historical attestation. What we do find is that, when the 
 exiles returned from Babylon, nearly a century before 
 Ezra produced his law, Levites, with their genealogies, 
 were present in considerable force (Ezra ii.). The narra- 
 tive in Neh. viii. gives no hint that the law which Ezra 
 read was new ; the whole account plainly proceeds on the 
 assumption that it was old. The entire congregation, 
 with priests and Levites, accepted it with unquestioning 
 faith as " the law of Moses." 
 The objections to this view of 
 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF THE LAW 
 
 are chiefly two — its alleged irreconcilability with the 
 simpler provisions in Deuteronomy, and the supposed 
 silence of the previous history as to its peculiar regula- 
 tions. In the law, e.g., it is said, we have " priests and 
 Levites," but in Deuteronomy only " Levites," any of 
 whom may be priests. But it is precisely this latter 
 assertion I would contest. The difference is explained 
 largely by the different scope of the two writings. In 
 Deuteronomy Moses is addressing the congregation, 
 years after the tribe of Levi had been chosen, and when 
 the functions of its several members were well known. 
 His language, therefore, has regard, prevailingly, to the 
 tribe as a whole. The Levitical laws, on the other hand, 
 have specially to do with the duties of the priests, and 
 
 "5 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 only incidentally with those of the Levites. Indeed, in 
 the whole book of Leviticus, the Levites, with the solitary 
 exception of Ch. xxv. 32, 33, are not so much as named. 
 The expression " priests and Levites" is not found in any 
 part of the Levitical code, any more than in Deuter- 
 onomy. 
 
 The objection from silence is one to which, for a reason 
 given in a previous paper, namely, the wilderness form 
 into which all parts of the law are cast, too much import- 
 ance should not be given. But it would be easy to show 
 that the "silence" has been much exaggerated. There 
 are numerous 
 
 TRACES OF LEVITICAL LAWS 
 
 in Deuteronomy itself, and, as before shown, the main 
 provisions are found in the so-called " Law of Holiness," 
 which critics like Dr. Driver admit to be in substance 
 pre-exilian. Dr. Driver allows that "the main stock" 
 of the Levitical law was in operation before the exile. 
 This gives up the case in principle, for, if the " main 
 stock " is compatible with ailence in the history, much 
 else may be. Prophetic denunciations of a religion of 
 mere ritual prove nothing against the Divine origin of the 
 ritual, or against its proper use, which the prophets 
 themselves in many ways recognise. On the other hand, 
 prophetic books and historical books alike conclusively 
 attest how a large part of the Levitical law was already 
 in operation. Such a passage as Is. i. 13, 14, e.g., is 
 saturated with Levitical vocabulary ("new moons," 
 " assembly," [convocation], " solemn meeting," " ap- 
 pointed feasts," &c). In the historical books, besides 
 allusions to ark, tabernacle, Aaronic priesthood, high 
 priest, ephod, shew-bread, we have evidence of know- 
 ledge of festivals, of burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, meal- 
 offerings, drink-offerings, probably sin-offerings as well, 
 
 116 
 
Israel's God and Worship 
 
 of ritual of worship, of laws of purity, of clean and un- 
 clean food, of leprosy, of consanguinity, &c. Even if it 
 were granted that some final codification or resetting of 
 these laws was accomplished by Ezra, it would not 
 militate one whit against their antiquity and substan- 
 tially Mosaic character. 
 
 The post-exilian period is chiefly interesting because of 
 the determined efforts of the critics to carry down into it 
 
 THE PSALMS 
 
 and a considerable part of the other literature of the Old 
 Testament. The attempt is favoured by our almost 
 absolute ignorance of the actual history and religious con- 
 ditions of the period in question. There is here a vacuum 
 which can be filled up at pleasure. But assertion is not 
 proof, and when we ask, for instance, for evidence that 
 the bulk, if not the whole, of the Psalter is post-exilian 
 in origin, and especially that none of it can go back to 
 David, we are surprised to find how largely theory and 
 unwarrantable speculation take the place of proof. We 
 are told, so far rightly, that the titles of the 
 psalms are not to be depended on ; that David — i.e., the 
 reconstructed David of the critics — could not have written 
 psalms ; that the religious ideas of the psalms are far 
 beyond David's age, &c. The theory of religion above 
 criticised is, in fact, brought in to determine what could, 
 or could not, be. It used to be held as beyond question 
 that at least the 18th Psalm belonged to David. But 
 even this psalm would prove too much, and must go the 
 way of the rest. 
 
 Yet it seems to me nearly as certain as anything can be 
 that a collection of psalms, called from its major part 
 "The Psalms of David " (as other collections were called 
 later, " Of the Sons of Korah," &c), was in existence 
 before the exile ; and the uniform tradition, ascribing 
 
 117 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 psalms to David, is not a fact to be easily got over. 
 Certain groups of psalms — those, e.g., making mention of 
 "the King" — cannot, without extreme forcing, be 
 regarded as other than pre-exilian (Ps. ii., xviii., xx., 
 xxi., &c). We have express reference to the praises of 
 the first temple — " Our holy and beautiful house where 
 our fathers praised Thee" (Is. Ixiv. n), — and the 
 captives in Zion were tauntingly asked by their enemies 
 to sing to them "the songs of Zion " (Ps. cxxxvii. 3, 4). 
 11 Singers " were a prominent feature in the organisation 
 of the temple at the return (Ezra ii. 41, 65 ; vii. 7, 24, 
 &c.) ; and this organisation of sanctuary worship is con- 
 nected again in Chronicles with David (1 Chron. xxiii. 
 5 ; xxv. 5, &c). There are even passages which look 
 like quotations of earlier and later psalms, as of Ps. i. in 
 Jer. xvii. 8 (Cf. Ez. xlvii. 12), and the formula of thanks- 
 giving in Jer. xxxiii. n : " Give thanks to Jehovah of 
 hosts, for Jehovah is good : for his mercy endureth for 
 ever" (found only in Books iv. and v. of the Psalter). 
 Few of the psalms show any trace of the Levitical 
 influences which the critics make dominant after the 
 exile. 
 
 We may, I think, on a survey of the whole, keep our 
 minds at ease as to the effect upon our Bible of this 
 modern critical theory of Israel's religion. 
 
 118 
 
VI 
 
 Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
Archaeology as 
 Searchlight 
 
 SIXTY years ago comparatively few materials existed, 
 outside the Bible itself, for testing the correctness of 
 the statements of that book regarding the peoples, 
 countries, and civilisations, with which its pages, in so 
 many different ways, bring us into contact. What 
 information about ancient countries was derived from 
 outside sources — as, e.g., from the Greek historian 
 Herodotus — was late, confused, contradictory, and in many 
 respects untrustworthy. It nearly as often contradicted 
 the Bible as confirmed it, and, of course, was freely used by 
 unbelievers to discredit the authority of the Bible. By a 
 singular providence of God, the state of things is very 
 different now. Sixty years ago we were in the dark ; now 
 we are comparatively in 
 
 A BLAZE OF LIGHT. 
 
 As if by magic, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, other ancient 
 lands, have yielded up their secrets ; their graves have 
 opened, and from their buried palaces, their monuments, 
 their long-lost libraries, a voice has gone up rebuking the 
 scorner, and bearing a testimony, as emphatic as it was 
 unlooked for, to the credibility of Holy Writ. 
 
 It is a very severe test to which the Bible is exposed by 
 
 121 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 these discoveries of modern archaeology. From the 
 character of its history — going back as it does to primitive 
 times, and touching in succession all the great Empires 
 and phases of civilisation in the East — not only introduc- 
 ing us to, but minutely interlacing its narratives with, 
 details of events and personages of such countries as 
 Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, as well as of 
 lesser kingdoms in the immediate neighbourhood of 
 Palestine — doing this at different periods, while the his- 
 torical relations of these countries were themselves con- 
 stantly changing — the Bible abounds in a mass of his- 
 torical, geographical, and political references, which lay 
 it open, perhaps to a greater extent than any other book 
 that ever was written, to be confirmed or refuted by 
 information drawn from external sources. 
 
 What makes the test more searching is the rapid way 
 in which the memory of even the greater events in history 
 tends to 
 
 SINK INTO OBLIVION. 
 
 It is, indeed, surprising how early the knowledge of 
 vast cities, now again made familiar to us by the spade of 
 the explorer, had faded from the minds of men. Nineveh 
 fell in 606 B.C. under the combined attacks of Medes and 
 Babylonians. Yet three centuries later, so completely 
 had the traces of the city vanished, that Alexander the 
 Great led his troops past the spot, as Xenophon had done 
 before him, apparently without suspicion of its existence. 
 The deserted mounds remained undisturbed till the middle 
 of last century, when Botta, Layard, George Smith, and 
 other excavators, laid their treasures bare. Research 
 has unceasingly proceeded since, and it is with the 
 results of these investigations that the Bible is put 
 in comparison. What other book could stand so trying 
 an ordeal ? 
 
 122 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 I. 
 
 I shall not attempt in this brief paper to sketch the 
 history of modern exploration,* but shall confine myself 
 to the 
 
 LARGER ASPECTS 
 
 of the subject, in which, it may be felt, the confirmation 
 of the statements of the Bible is most effectively ex- 
 hibited. 
 
 Let us look, first, at the groupings, on the large scale, 
 of the 
 
 PEOPLES AND COUNTRIES 
 
 of those ancient times, as these are revealed to us by 
 exploration and the Bible. Here the corroborations are 
 extremely striking. The Bible, for instance, pictures all 
 the streams in the distribution of mankind after the 
 flood as proceeding from Babylonia as a centre (Gen. 
 xi.). Discovery shows that probably all the great 
 civilisations — Assyrian, Egyptian, Canaanitish, even 
 Chinese — took their origin from this quarter. It goes 
 further, and throws a flood of light on the ancient 
 civilisations themselves. The old idea, derived from 
 classical writers, was that Nineveh was older than 
 Babylon, that Babylonian civilisation was derived from 
 Assyria, and that both Babylonians and Assyrians were 
 Semites. Now, it is ascertained, as the Bible tells us in 
 Gen. x. 8, that civilisation in Babylonia goes far back 
 beyond every other, that Assyria was colonised from 
 Babylonia, and that the founders of Babylonian culture — 
 of its letters, laws, institutions — were not Semitic, but a 
 people of different, as we say, Hamitic stock. The very 
 names of the cities in Gen. x. 10 — Erech, Accad, Calneh 
 
 *A sketch of the leading facts may be seen in Chapter XI. of my 
 Problem of the Old Testament. 
 
 123 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 (Nippur), &c. — carry us back into the midst of the 
 Babylonia unearthed by exploration. 
 As specific examples, I may take first the case of 
 
 ELAM. 
 
 The Elam known to history is an Aryan, not a Semitic 
 people, while Gen. x. 22 describes Elam as the eldest 
 son of Shem. Here, apparently, was a mistake. But 
 the French explorers, in their excavations at Susa, came 
 the other year on an older stratum of civilisation, which 
 proved to be Semitic. Dr. Peters, in a recent article, * 
 sums up the results thus : " The French excavations 
 both justify and explain the name. As soon as the 
 Semites had established themselves thoroughly in 
 Babylonia, they spread out into the neighbouring plain 
 of Elam, and from the time of the Sargonids, with, or 
 a little before, when the Semitic primacy was established, 
 Elam constituted a part of what one may call the 
 Babylonian Semitic Empire. Next these Babylonian 
 Semites moved northward, and took or built Asshur, that 
 is, Assyria, which is in the same list called in conse- 
 quence the second son of Shem." 
 
 Another well-known case, hardly needing to be dwelt 
 on, is that of 
 
 THE HITTITES. 
 
 This great people, described as stretching " from the 
 wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, 
 the river Euphrates " (Josh. i. 4), is frequently referred 
 to in Scripture (e.g., Judg. i. 26 ; 1 Kings x. 28, 29 ; 2 
 Kings vii, 6). Yet history, outside the Bible, knew 
 nothing of them, and their existence was scouted as 
 mythical. Now, discovery has restored them to view, 
 
 •Art. on " The Eldest Son of Shem," in The Homiletic Review, 
 October, 1906. 
 
 124 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 shown them to be a power hardly less great than Egypt 
 and Assyria themselves, and made known to us their 
 peculiar hieroglyphics, which scholars are yet vainly 
 trying to decipher. 
 
 Is it by coincidence, I ask, that this wonderful know- 
 ledge of peoples and their relations, stretching back, in 
 some cases, millenniums before Abraham, is preserved in 
 Genesis, the oldest parts of which the critics suppose to 
 have taken shape in the ninth or eighth century ? Must 
 not older, authentic records be assumed ? 
 
 I look next at the nature of 
 
 THE OLD TRADITIONS 
 
 of these ancient peoples, as now made known to us by 
 oriental discovery. If there is any place where one 
 might look with hope for the most ancient traditions of 
 the world, it is in Babylonia. In Babylonia the Bible 
 locates the creation of man, the garden in which he was 
 placed, the building of the ark, the new distribution of the 
 race, &c. 
 
 Where, then, should the traditions of the oldest 
 things linger, if not in this region ? Now, however, 
 as everyone knows, the traditions of these ancient 
 peoples recovered from their own monuments, on such 
 subjects as the Creation, possibly the Temptation (the 
 interpretation is disputed), the Sabbath,* the Flood, &c, 
 are in our possession, and, though debased by polytheism, 
 and lacking the high spiritual ideas of the Old Testament, 
 their singular resemblance to the Biblical accounts is 
 universally admitted. A few lines from the Flood story 
 will illustrate : — 
 
 •It is a disputed question whether the Babylonian Sabbath was a 
 day of general rest. Winckler favours the view that the original idea 
 included rest. 
 
 125 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 " On the mountain of Nizir the ship grounded : 
 
 One day and a second day did the mountain of Nizir hold it. 
 
 A third day and a fourth day did the mountain of Nizir hold it. 
 
 A fifth day and a sixth day did the mountain of Nizir hold it. 
 
 When the seventh day came I sent forth a dove, and let it go. 
 
 The dove went and returned ; a resting-place it found not, and it 
 turned back. 
 
 I sent forth a swallow and let it go : the swallow went and re- 
 turned ; 
 
 A resting-place it found not, and it turned back. 
 
 I sent forth a raven and let it go. 
 
 The raven went and saw the going down of the waters, and 
 
 It approached, it waded, it croaked, and did not turn back." 
 
 Here the chief differences are a " ship " for an " ark," and 
 the interpolation of " the swallow." 
 
 The easy explanation which most critics adopted of 
 these resemblances was that the Jews had borrowed their 
 legends from the Babylonians. The Wellhausen School 
 usually put the borrowing late in the history of Israel, 
 much of it in the Exile ; the favourite view at present is 
 that the Israelites came into possession of the legends 
 through the Canaanites, who are known to have been 
 deeply penetrated from a very early period by Baby- 
 lonian influences. But there is a prior question about 
 these " legends " — 
 
 WERE THEY BORROWED AT ALL ? 
 
 Abraham came indeed from Babylonia, and might have 
 brought these stories with him. If he did, it must have 
 been (on the theory) in their crude, polytheistic form. 
 But is this likely ? Critics forget, when they speak of 
 the Spirit of revelation using these legends as a vehicle 
 for the conveyance of great religious ideas, that before 
 they could be "purified" and "used," they must have 
 been appropriated. But is it credible that legends so 
 polytheistic and grotesque would at any time be borrowed 
 
 126 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 by the Israelites? or that the work of "purifying " them 
 — a huge and formidable task — was one that would 
 commend itself to really pious minds ? The character 
 of the Biblical accounts speaks against this theory of 
 their origin. They can most safely be regarded as an 
 independent and purer branch of the old, religious 
 tradition, cognate with the Babylonian, but not immedi- 
 ately derived from it.* 
 
 II. 
 
 Another very important aid derived from archaeology is 
 the abundant light cast by discovery on the early and 
 familiar 
 
 USE OF WRITING. 
 
 The service of discovery here can hardly be over-estimated. 
 The Bible makes us familiar with writing from the time 
 of the Exodus. It suits critics now to make light of the 
 objection that writing was not known in the age of 
 Moses ; but this was formerly an objection very often 
 urged, and defenders of the Bible (like Hengstenberg) had 
 to meet it as best they could by appeal to the hiero- 
 glyphics of Egypt, and to stray indications elsewhere. 
 Now, no one doubts that, for a very long period before 
 Moses, and in his own time, the civilised world was full 
 of writing — of letters, books, and libraries. Writing, 
 schools, go back in Babylonia to an almost fabulous 
 antiquity. Egypt is not far behind. The hieroglyphic 
 character is older than the first dynasty : a book of 
 moral wisdom, much like our own " Proverbs," comes 
 down to us from the 5th dynasty. The discovery of 
 the official correspondence of Kings of Egypt of the 
 18th dynasty (c, 1400 B.C.) at Tel-el-Amarna shows 
 *See this view explained and defended in Kittel's The Babylonian 
 Excavations and Early Bible History (E. T.), with Preface by Dr, 
 Wade(S.P.C.K.). 
 
 127 
 
 J& 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 that Canaan was at the time saturated with Baby- 
 lonian culture. Cuneiform Babylonian was, in fact 
 the recognised official language everywhere. The 
 still later discovery of the great law-code of Ham- 
 murabi (the Amraphel of Gen. xiv.) proves that in 
 Abraham's age whole codes of laws were engraved 
 on monuments for public use. Other peoples (the 
 Hittites, Cretans, &c), had their own systems of writing. 
 It was still possible to urge that, while Egypt and 
 Bab) Ionia had their own forms of writing (hieroglyphic, 
 cuneiform), there was no evidence of the early use of a 
 kind of writing approaching that met with in the Bible. 
 Even this last form of the objection seems destroyed by 
 a discovery newly made at Sinai by Professor Flinders 
 Petrie. In his book, Researches in Sinai, Professor Petrie 
 tells how, in the course of the explorations at Serabit, 
 specimens were found of a 
 
 NEW KIND OF WRITING, 
 
 several centuries older than the Exodus. " The ulterior 
 conclusion," he says, " is very important — namely, that 
 common Syrian workmen, who could not command the 
 skill of an Egyptian sculptor, were familiar with writing 
 at 1500 B.C., and this, a writing independent of hiero- 
 glyphics and cuneiform. It finally disposes of the 
 hypothesis that the Israelites, who came through this 
 region into Egypt and passed back again, could not have 
 used writing. Here we have common Syrian labourers 
 possessing a script which other Semitic peoples of this 
 region must be credited with knowing " (p. 132). 
 
 Professor Petrie blends with his interesting facts a 
 number of speculations which it is more difficult to accept. 
 Thus he seeks to get rid of the difficulty of the numbers 
 of the Israelites in the desert by the supposition (based 
 on the fact that the Hebrew words for " thousand " and 
 
 128 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 " family " are the same), that in the census list in 
 Numbers the numbers given are not really hundreds of 
 thousands, but hundreds of " families." The total is 
 thus reduced to about 5,000, which is all he thinks the 
 desert could support (this difficulty is touched on below). 
 It is perfectly obvious, however, that a host of this size 
 — say 2,000 fighting men — did not conquer Canaan ! On 
 the other hand, Professor Petrie takes up the defence of 
 the large numbers in the later historical books, which 
 have stumbled so many (Cf. pp. 218-220). 
 
 III. 
 
 This is, perhaps, the place to refer to another important 
 service which archaeology has rendered, viz., in placing a 
 check on the too easy practice of 
 
 RESOLVING HISTORICAL FACTS INTO MYTHS. 
 
 Few things are more remarkable in the later progress of 
 discovery than the way in which historical persons and 
 events, till lately relegated to the realm of myth, have 
 had their rights restored to them as indubitably real 
 The two first dynasties of Egypt were generally supposed 
 to be mythical. Menes, the founder of the first dynasty, 
 was quite surely so regarded, and writers like Maspero 
 wrote learnedly to show how the myth originated ! Now 
 the tombs of these kings have been discovered, and the 
 dynasties are restored to their real place in history. It 
 has been the same elsewhere. " The spade of Dr. 
 Schliemann and his followers has again brought to light 
 the buried Empire of Agamemnon." (Sayce). King 
 Minos of Crete was universally regarded as a myth. 
 Now, as the result of the excavations of Dr. Evans, his 
 palace has been disinterred, and travellers boast of having 
 sat in his throne. Assyrian inscriptions have established 
 
 129 K 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the historical existence of King Midas, of Phrygia (8th 
 century B.C.), still described in text-books as an ancient 
 divinity of the Northern Greeks and Phrygians, " A 
 blessing-scattering nature-god ! " Possibly some surprises 
 are yet in store for those to whom the patriarchs — 
 Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, &c. — are only products of the 
 myth-forming fancy. 
 
 Even as it is, I would observe next, not a little illustra- 
 tive and confirmatory light has been cast by exploration 
 on the historical relations and conditions of life of 
 
 THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. 
 
 I have mentioned already the remarkable code of the 
 great ruler Hammurabi, which presents interesting 
 analogies to the laws of Moses, and has also curious 
 points of relation with patriarchal customs in the Book 
 of Genesis. For instance, the law takes account of pre- 
 cisely such relations as existed in Abraham's household 
 between Sarah and Hagar, and directs what should be 
 done should the woman afterwards have a dispute with 
 her mistress because she has borne children (Arts. 145 
 146, &c). Here is a touch of verisimilitude such as after 
 invention could not have supplied. 
 
 In the historical sphere, the most crucial example is 
 that of 
 
 CHEDORLAOMER. 
 
 The story of Chedorlaomer's expedition into Palestine 
 in Gen. xiv. takes us back at least till about 2100 B.C. ; 
 it moves in strange surroundings, and relates unusual 
 events ; it gives the names of a number of kings, other- 
 wise unknown to history; these stand in intricate 
 relations to one another. It assumes that Babylonia 
 was at this time under the suzerainty of a king of Elam. 
 Who, writing at a later time, could possibly pick his 
 
 130 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 steps in such a story without falling into error ? Yet 
 what does discovery establish ? That precisely as the 
 chapter relates, Babylonia was at this time under the 
 rule of an Elamitic dynasty ; that a common, if not 
 universal, prefix in the names of these rulers was 
 "Kudur" (servant); that their power extended over 
 Palestine ; that the name " Chedorlaomer " — Kudur- 
 lagamar (servant of Lagamar) — is a genuine Elamitic 
 compound ; that contemporary kings were Eriaku of 
 Larsa (Arioch), Amraphel (Hammurabi), Tudgulu. 
 Certain archaeologists (Sayce, Hommel, Pinches) even 
 claim that the name Chedorlaomer itself has been de- 
 ciphered. Here is a clear corroboration of the framework 
 of the story. It is difficult to understand how such facts 
 should come to be known unless old and practically 
 contemporary records were available. 
 In such a detailed history as that of 
 
 JOSEPH 
 
 we have another form of corroboration hardly less re- 
 markable. The scene of the greater part of Joseph's life 
 is laid in Egypt. It is always difficult to describe with 
 accuracy the conditions of life, customs, domestic and 
 social arrangements, political circumstances, of a foreign 
 country ; to picture its life in public and private, in 
 courts and in humbler ranks, in slave-market, prison, 
 and household, with ease, naturalness, and fidelity of 
 colouring. Yet this is what has been accomplished in 
 the history of Joseph. Egyptian life, manners, customs, 
 relations of men and women, masters and servants, King 
 and subjects, are, by general consent, pictured to perfec- 
 tion. Especially in those features of the description to 
 which exception at an earlier stage was taken, as, e.g., 
 the use of flesh meat at feasts, the free manners of the 
 women, the use of wine, &c, the monuments have 
 
 131 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 abundantly vindicated the picture given. The same 
 thing is true of the Egyptian colouring in the narratives 
 of the Exodus, so vivid and fresco-like, yet so true to 
 reality ! How is this careful accuracy of the narratives to 
 be explained, except on the hypothesis that the story was 
 early reduced to writing by one familiar with the country 
 and the events of which he writes ? 
 
 IV. 
 
 This brings me next to say a few words on the illustra- 
 tion which exploration has afforded of 
 
 THE MOSAIC PERIOD. 
 
 One remarkable discovery which cannot be overlooked 
 was the finding of the actual mummies of all the great 
 Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th dynasties. As it is 
 certain that it was under one or other of these dynasties 
 that the oppression of Israel and the Exodus took place, 
 we can feel sure that the mummy of the veritable 
 Pharaoh, on whose face Moses looked — the Pharaoh 
 under whose oppression Israel groaned — is now in our 
 possession. But who was it ? The usual theory is that 
 the Pharaoh of the oppression was the great ruler 
 Rameses II., and the Pharaoh of the Exodus probably 
 his son Meneptah. There is much in itself to be said for 
 this identification. The conditions in many ways suit, 
 and corroboration is found in the two cities Rameses and 
 Pithom, which Pharaoh is said to have caused the 
 Israelites to build (Ex. i. 11). Rameses is apparently 
 the name of the king, and discovery shows that 
 Rameses II. was connected with the building or re- 
 building of both cities. 
 
 The matter, however, has been complicated by the more 
 recent discovery of a monument of Meneptah, on which 
 
 132 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 THE NAME OF " ISRAEL " 
 
 is for the first time distinctly found. On this stela 
 Meneptah boastfully records his victories over several 
 peoples in and about Palestine, and apparently includes 
 Israel among these. " Israel is spoiled," it reads, " it 
 hath no seed." On the assumption that Meneptah is the 
 Pharaoh of the Exodus, this must be understood to mean 
 that Israel, lost to view in the wanderings of the desert, 
 was regarded as cut off, destroyed, so that no successors 
 were left. But the more natural view is, that Israel, in 
 Meneptah's reign, was already in Palestine. In this 
 case, of course, Meneptah could not be the Pharaoh of 
 the Exodus. 
 
 There is, however, another fact that speaks strongly 
 against this identification, viz., 
 
 THE CHRONOLOGY. 
 
 It is certain, in view of the Chedorlaomer synchronism, 
 that Abraham's date cannot be put later than about 
 a ioo B.C. ; this leaves fully S50 years between Abraham 
 and the Exodus under Meneptah (after 1250 B.C.), which 
 is a couple of centuries more than the Biblical data will 
 allow. On the other side, the period between the 
 Exodus and the Founding of the Temple (c. 975 B.C.) is 
 much too short (Cf. 1 Kings vi. 1). We seem driven by 
 superior probability, therefore, to put back the Exodus 
 into the previous iSth dynasty, where the dates abso- 
 lutely suit (c. 1450), where also the conditions are equally 
 favourable, if not more so. The oppressor, on this view, 
 which many now adopt, will be the great monarch 
 Thothmes III., and the Pharaoh of the Exodus will be 
 one of his immediate successors, Amenophis II. or 
 Thothmes IV. The " store-cities," in this case, were 
 built under Thothmes, and perhaps re-built or enlarged 
 
 133 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Jameses.* Fifty or sixty years later we have the 
 great irruption of the " Chabiri " into Palestine, described 
 in the Tel-el-Amarna letters. Many scholars who adopt 
 the earlier date are disposed to identify this irruption 
 with the Hebrew invasion. 
 
 As was naturally to be expected, much attention has 
 been bestowed by explorers on 
 
 THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS, 
 
 and on the topography of the desert in which Israel so 
 long wandered. It is the barest truth to say that the 
 remarkable accuracy of the Biblical accounts on these 
 matters has been endorsed by every investigator of 
 importance. Most of the spots in the route have been 
 identified ; the descriptions of the utter barrenness and 
 desolation of the desert are confirmed to the letter (Cf. 
 Palmer, Brugsch, Petrie, &c). The difficulty that arises 
 is as to the means of obtaining sustenance in such a 
 place for so large a host as the Israelites are represented 
 to have been. Professor Petrie, as noted above, will 
 have it that the desert was as infertile then as it is 
 to-day, and could not support more than some 5,000 
 souls. Others, as Palmer, believe that in many parts 
 vegetation and wood were originally much more 
 abundant. In any case, the reader of the Bible recalls 
 that the narrative itself emphasises the frequent dire 
 straits of the people in their journeyings from want of 
 water, famine, absence of flesh food and vegetables, &c, 
 and makes this the very ground of a series of Divine 
 interpositions, which relieved their immediate needs, and 
 provided them, in the manna, with a daily sustenance. 
 The one thing we can be sure of is, that God did not 
 bring His people into the desert without securing that 
 
 * Rameses II. was in the habit of appropriating the works of his 
 predecessors, and giving his name to them. 
 
 134 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 they would be provided with what things were necessary 
 
 for their subsistence. 
 
 When we come down to the period of the Kings, the 
 notices on the monuments of the relations between Israel 
 and surrounding peoples become more numerous, and often 
 read like extracts from the Bible pages themselves. The 
 
 NAMES AND DOINGS OF THE KINGS, 
 
 and events narrated in Scripture, like Shishak's invasion, 
 Mesha's rebellion, the fall of Samaria, and captivity of 
 Israel, Sennacherib's invasion, are inscribed in the con- 
 temporary records of the peoples or rulers concerned. 
 Sometimes additional information is imparted. We learn 
 that Shishak's invasion extended to the cities of Israel 
 and Judab (Cf. 2 Chron. xii. 3, 4, which enlarges the 
 account of 1 Kings xiii. 25, 26) ; that Jehu paid tribute to 
 Shalmaneser II., king of Assyria : that Ahab fought, as 
 an ally of Ben-hadad, at the battle of Karkar, in the end 
 of his life (Cf. 1 Kings xx. 34 ; xxii. 1) ; that Sargon was 
 the conqueror of Samaria, &c 
 
 One special service which Assyrian discovery has done 
 is in 
 
 RECTIFYING THE CHRONOLOGY 
 
 of the kings of Israel and Judah, as given in the margins 
 of our Bible. The Assyrians had a very exact system of 
 reckoning, based zz the sucice;::- ;: yearly :z::r:~. and 
 their lists (the so-called Eponym Canon) are confirmed 
 by independent monuments, eclipses, &c The points 
 of contact with the Biblical history are not few, and 
 reveal a growing discrepancy upwards from the fall of 
 Samaria, 722 B.C., where the dates coincide, till in the 
 
 135 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 reign of Ahab it amounts to over 40 years, after which it 
 does not increase much. E.g., the usual date for Ahab's 
 death is 898 B.C., whereas the inscriptions show him 
 present, probably in his last year, at the battle of Karkar 
 in 854 B.C. The founding of the Temple of Solomon, 
 placed about 1012 B.C., has to be correspondingly 
 lowered. 
 
 How is this to be explained ? An examination of the 
 Biblical numbers themselves suggests the reasons of the 
 discrepancy. In summing up the total years of the reigns 
 of the kings of Judah, on the one side, and those of the 
 kings of Israel on the other, till the fall of Samaria, we 
 find that the Judaean line is some twenty years longer 
 than the northern one. To harmonise this difference, the 
 ordinary chronology inserts two interregnums (one of 
 eleven years after the death of Jeroboam II., and one of 
 nine years after the death of Pekah), of which the 
 Biblical history affords no hints. It is now generally 
 allowed that the real explanation of this inequality lies in 
 
 "associations" 
 
 of certain of the kings, as of Jotham with his father, 
 Uzziah (Cf. 2. Chron. xxvi. 21), and possibly of Uzziah 
 (Azariah) himself, with his own father Amaziah (Cf. 
 2 Kings xiv. 22).* Another part of the explanation of 
 the divergence no doubt is the practice of reckoning the 
 king's reigns in round numbers of years, including those 
 in which the reign began and ended. The effect of this 
 would be that, with every change on the throne, the year 
 of change would be reckoned twice. These two causes 
 
 * This, admittedly, creates a difficulty in relation to certain of the 
 cross references in the Bible text, which seem to go on the assump- 
 tion that the reigns were wholly separate. In part this may be only 
 seeming, and some of the references may embody data which our 
 imperfect knowledge prevents us from fully harmonising with other 
 statements. The cross references are due to the compiler. 
 
 136 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 explain nearly the whole discrepancy, but one must reckon 
 also with occasional possible corruptions of numbers, 
 which in some cases, as in the " twenty years" of Pekah, 
 are shown by the Assyrian inscriptions to have taken 
 place. 
 
 A striking example of how discovery throws light on 
 dark places of Scripture, and furnishes corroboration of 
 disputed statements, is seen in the case of 
 
 SARGON, 
 
 the conqueror of Samaria. In Is. xx. I we read that 
 Sargon, the king of Assyria, sent his Tartan unto 
 Ashdod, who fought against Ashdod, and took it. But 
 Sargon was a King totally unknown to history. No 
 ancient writer mentions him. "Tartan" was equally a 
 strange term. Sargon, accordingly, was voted by many 
 a " myth." Various expedients were resorted to by 
 others to solve the difficulty (identification with Shal- 
 maneser IV., &c). By a curious coincidence, the very 
 first discovery made in Assyrian exploration (by Botta, in 
 1843) was that of the ruins of the great palace of this 
 very Sargon. Hilprecht, the distinguished explorer, has 
 said : " There never has been roused again such a deep 
 and general interest in the excavation of distant Oriental 
 sites as towards the middle of the last century, when 
 Sargon's palace rose suddenly out of the ground, and 
 furnished the first faithful picture of a great epoch of art, 
 which has vanished completely from human sight."* 
 Sargon is now one of the best-known of the later 
 Assyrian kings. His name, portrait, sculptures, annals, 
 including this siege of Ashdod, were found in his palace. 
 He was the father of Sennacherib, and the final conqueror 
 of Samaria, completing the work Shalmaneserhad begun, 
 and carrying the people captive into Assyria.! Tartan is 
 
 * Explorations in Bible Lands, p. 87 tBut see p. 264. 
 
 137 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the official name for the Assyrian Commander-in-Chief of 
 the Army. 
 
 Another instance of the confirmations of the Bible 
 furnished by the monuments may be taken from 
 
 THE PROPHECIES OF JEREMIAH. 
 
 Jeremiah's lot was a hard one after the taking of 
 Jerusalem by the Chaldseans, in fulfilment of his own 
 constantly-repeated predictions. He voluntarily cast in 
 his lot with the remnant of the people in the land, but a 
 few months later Gedaliah, the Governor, was foully 
 murdered, and fear of the Chaldseans led even those who 
 had avenged the murder and rescued " the king's (Zede- 
 kiah's) daughters " (Jer. xli., xlii.) to contemplate flight 
 into Egypt. Jeremiah, in God's name, urged them to 
 remain, and told them that their flight would end in their 
 destruction. Angry at the prophet, Johanan and the 
 rest not only went down to Egypt, but compelled 
 Jeremiah to go with them. They settled in a frontier 
 place called Tahpahnes, where Jeremiah gave further 
 prophecies (ch. xliii., &c). As a special sign, he was 
 ordered to take great stones, and hide them in mortar in 
 the brick pavement (R.V.) at the entrance of Pharaoh's 
 palace at Tahpahnes, then to declare that Egypt would 
 be invaded by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who would 
 set up his throne on these stones he had laid (ch. xliii.). 
 The prophecy is repeated in ch. xliv. 30, and again in 
 fuller form in ch. xlvi. 13 ff. (Cf. Ezekiel xxix.). 
 
 This place, 
 
 TAHPAHNES, 
 
 has commonly been identified with the later Daphnae, and 
 its site was discovered in a mound called Tel-Defeuneh. 
 Here Flinders Petrie conducted successful excavations, 
 laying bare the palace, and the square of brick pavement 
 which stood in its entrance. Critics, nevertheless, have 
 
 138 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 always persistently affirmed the failure of Jeremiah's 
 prophecies of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt.* Yet 
 at Syene itself, which Ezekiel notes as the bound of the 
 invasion (ch. xxix. 10), the statue of a royal official has 
 been discovered, in which this personage takes credit for 
 having repaired the Temple after it had been laid waste 
 by the Babylonians, whose ravages, he declares, he had 
 checked at Nubia. The following may be cited from 
 Dr. Pinches : " Just as successful were Nebuchadnezzar's 
 operations against Egypt. According to an Egyptian 
 inscription, the Babylonian king attacked Egypt in the 
 year 577 B.C., penetrating as far as Syene and the borders 
 of Ethiopia. Hophra, who still reigned, was deposed, 
 the General Amasis being raised to the throne in his place 
 to rule the land as a vassal of the Babylonian king. 
 According to the only historical fragment of the reign of 
 this king known, Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition to 
 Egypt in his 37th year. This was, to all appearance, 
 against his vassal Amasis, who, like Zedekiah, had 
 revolted against the powers that raised him to the throne. 
 The rebellion was suppressed, but the ultimate fate of 
 Amasis is not known. "t Does this look to an unpreju- 
 diced eye like non-fulfilment ? 
 
 VI. 
 
 In connection with the discoveries at Tahpahnes, 
 Professor Petrie points out how readily Greek names of 
 instruments and other words might have found their way 
 
 *A reviewer has written of my own book : " It is patent that there 
 are sundry predictions in Scripture which were not fulfilled — that of 
 Ezekiel, for instance, that Egypt should be Nebuchadnezzar's reward 
 for his assault on Tyre. That Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt is 
 probable, but that he had anything like a permanent possession of it 
 is certainly not true." (Ezekiel gives 40 years to the captivity of 
 Egypt — a round number). 
 
 fThe O'T. in the Light of Hist. Records &c, pp. 400-1. 
 
 139 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 into Hebrew, and into Babylon.* This bears directly on 
 the last subject I shall allude to — the light thrown by 
 archaeology on 
 
 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 
 
 This book has been the subject of severe attack, and 
 there are undeniably difficulties connected with it which 
 are not yet satisfactorily cleared up. The fact that it is 
 written partly in Hebrew, partly in Aramaic, has 
 suggested that it may have existed in two versions, and 
 may latterly have undergone revision, and perhaps 
 expansion. The one thing certain is that the attacks on 
 its historical trustworthiness have been carried to quite 
 unwarrantable extremes. I take up a popular work — 
 Professor McFadyen's Introduction to the Old Testament — 
 and find the author revelling in demonstrations of the 
 book's inaccuracy (pp. 320 ff.). The objections are old 
 as the hills, but they are confidently retailed as if nothing 
 of the nature of an answer to them had ever been heard 
 of. E.g., " There was no siege and capture of Jerusalem 
 by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C., as is implied in i. 1 
 (Cf. Jer. xxv. 1, 9-11), nor, indeed, could there have been 
 any till after the decisive battle of Carchemish," &c. But 
 Jehoiakim's " fourth " year in the Jewish reckoning (Jer. 
 xxv. 1) was his "third" year in the Babylonian way of 
 reckoningt (Dan. i. 1), and this was the year of the battle 
 of Carchemish (Jer. xlvi. 2 ; probably 605 B.C.). The 
 expedition is that referred to in 2 Kings xxiv. 1 (Cf. 
 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, 7), when hostages were no doubt 
 taken. " Again, Belshazzar is regarded as the son of 
 Nebuchadnezzar (v.), though he was in reality, the son 
 of Nabunaid." So Jesus was " the son of David," though 
 
 *Ten Years' Digging, pp. 54 ff. ; and in his Tunis, Pt. ii. p. 49. 
 tThe Babylonians reckoned from the first year after accession. 
 The chronological questions are too intricate to be gone into here- 
 
 I40 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 not his immediate descendant. Not much is known of 
 Nabonidus, but there is nothing improbable in the 
 supposition that, like his predecessor, Neriglissar, he 
 sought to strengthen his hold upon the throne by marry- 
 ing a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. "Nor is there any 
 room in this period of the history (538 B.C.) for ' Darius 
 the Mede' (v. 31)." On the contrary, there is much 
 plausibility in the suggestion that Cyrus gave his General, 
 Gobryas, for a time, a delegated authority in Babylon. 
 As much almost is implied in Cyrus's own words in his 
 inscription : " Peace to the city did Cyrus establish ; 
 peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas, his 
 Governor proclaim. Governors in Babylon he appointed." 
 Such objections have their sole ground in 
 
 OUR IGNORANCE, 
 
 but it is strange that the critic does not tell of the rebuke 
 administered to such reasoning from ignorance by the dis- 
 covery of the facts about Belshazzar himself. His name, 
 too, was utterly unknown, and defenders of Daniel were 
 fain to identify him with Nabonidus. He was another 
 plain proof of the " unhistoricity " of the book. Yet 
 inscriptions containing his name have multiplied, till we 
 have now a tolerably clear idea of his position and part in 
 the final struggle. It is not improbable that he is 
 identical with the " Marduk-sar-uzur," in the third year of 
 whose reign about this time a contract tablet is dated 
 (Marduk=Bel). The accounts of the taking of Babylon 
 in the inscription would seem to imply that, while 
 Nabonidus commanded the forces in the field, 
 
 BELSHAZZAR 
 
 held the city within. When its outer parts were taken 
 after the defeat and capture of Nabonidus, he retreated 
 to the citadel and held it against Cyrus for several 
 
 141 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 months. At length it was overpowered, and Belshazzar 
 was slain. 
 
 The " linguistic " objection is not more potent. We 
 are told of " no less than five Greek words," which occur 
 in two verses (ch. iii. 4, 5) — strange that not a trace of 
 Greek words should occur anywhere else — and compel us 
 " to put the book at the earliest, with the Greek period 
 i.e., after 331 B.C.)." But why? Because one 
 (" psanterin"), by its change of 1 (' psalterion ') into n 
 "betrays the influence of the Macedonian dialect " — a quite 
 groundless assertion* ; " and another, ' symphonia,' is 
 first found in Plato." Seeing, however, that neither 
 Plato nor any other Greek classical writer ever uses this 
 word in the sense of a musical instrument, the point of 
 the argument is not very obvious. Hommel claims for 
 the word a Chaldsean origin. 
 
 I do not dwell on the interpretations given by these 
 writers of 
 
 THE PROPHECIES 
 
 in Daniel, though I own that they appear to me forced 
 and unnatural in the extreme. What, e.g., are we to 
 think of the proposal to date "the going forth of the 
 commandment to restore and build Jerusalem " (Dan. ix. 
 25), in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, from 586 B.C., the 
 date of the exile ? (McFadyen). Or to make the first 
 seven weeks (= 49 years) run out with the edict of Cyrus 
 (537 B.C.) ? Or to identify the last week of the 70 with 
 171-164, immediately preceding the death of Antiochus ? 
 While it is admitted that the intervening period of 62 weeks 
 (= 434 years) cannot be got in between 537 and 171 
 (= 366 years). Yet Mr. McFadyen is of opinion that 
 " with the first and last [of the above] periods there is no 
 
 *See Pusey's Daniel, pp. 27-8, and "Note" prefixed to 2nd Edit., 
 p. 36. 
 
 142 
 
Archaeology as Searchlight 
 
 difficulty"; and the middle period is got over by the 
 remark that probably " during much of this long period 
 the Jews had no fixed method of computing time " ! 
 "Traditional apologetics" has little to compare with 
 shifts like these. 
 
 I have adduced enough, I think, to show that the Bible 
 has nothing to fear, but everything to hope for, from the 
 light that archaeology can cast upon it. 
 
 143 
 
VII 
 
 The Citadel — Christ 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 TILL recently, attention has been chiefly absorbed in 
 the criticism of the Old Testament ; now, as was 
 hinted in the opening paper, the battle about the 
 Bible tends again to concentrate itself in the New Testa- 
 ment, and supremely about the Central Figure there — 
 Christ Himself. 
 This result was inevitable. The question 
 
 "WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?" 
 
 is one to which every age must anew give an answer, and 
 into which, as time rolls on, every fresh phase in the 
 controversy between faith and unbelief invariably resolves 
 itself. Probably the question was never raised in a more 
 acute form than it is at the present moment. It is a 
 marvellous testimony to the truth of the apostolic 
 declaration, " God gave unto Him the name which is 
 above every name " (Phil. ii. 9), that in all the whirl of 
 controversy the one thing on which earnest men seem to 
 be agreed is, that on Christ and His religion, in some 
 form, depend the world's religious hopes. A very negative 
 writer, Weinel, does not hesitate to say: "After Jesus 
 there is either His religion or no religion."* But who is 
 Jesus, and what is His religion ? Here the roads part, 
 and a great gulf appears between those who receive Jesus 
 * Jesus im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, p. 292. 
 
 147 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 as the New Testament presents Him, and those who, pro- 
 fessing to revere Him as the spiritual leader of the future, 
 yet strip Him of every supernatural attribute, and, in 
 loyalty, as they think, to the exigencies of modern 
 thought, reduce Him to simply human and natural dimen- 
 sions. 
 
 I. 
 
 For this avowedly is the alternative with which we are 
 now presented. Observers of the signs of the times have 
 long seen it coming,* and we should be thankful that dis- 
 guises are at length being thrown off, and that we are 
 frankly, and even passionately, told that nothing but a 
 
 PURELY HUMANITARIAN CHRIST 
 
 will satisfy the demands of the modern intellect. 
 
 It is not denied that the Gospels and other New Testa- 
 ment writings give us a very different picture. Prof. N. 
 Schmidt, in his book, The Prophet of Nazareth, fully allows 
 that the Christology of the creeds is a consistent develop- 
 ment of what is found in the New Testament. "There 
 is no chasm," he truly says, " between the latest forms 
 of thought in the New Testament and the conceptions 
 
 *I have personally constantly urged that this was the " gravita- 
 tion-level " of most of our modern theories about Christ. In an essay 
 on " The Parisian School of Theology," in my volume on Ritsch- 
 lianism, I wrote : " A universal Father-God, whose presence fills the 
 world and all human spirits ; Jesus, the soul of the race in whom the 
 consciousness of the Father, and the corresponding spirit of filial 
 love, first came to full realisation ; the spirit of filial sonship learned 
 from Jesus as the essence of religion and salvation — such in sum is 
 the new theology. All else is dressing, disguise, Aberglaube, religious 
 symbolism, inheritance of effete dogmatisms. Will this suffice for 
 Christianity? It is this question which the Church of the immediate 
 future will have to face, and meet with a very distinct ' yes' or 'no' 
 (pp. 1 5 1-2)." That crisis seems now upon us. 
 
 148 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 prevalent in other [?] Christian writers of the second 
 century. . . The creeds are a consistent development 
 of certain ideas that unquestionably hold an important 
 place in New Testament literature. . . . The chief 
 factors in the construction of Christological dogma were 
 an honest interpretation of the Scriptures and an equally 
 honest interpretation of the facts of Christian experience " 
 (pp. 4-6). This bears out what has often been urged on 
 deaf ears, that the assault on so-called "dogmas" about 
 Christ is not simply an attack on Church creeds, but, at 
 bottom, an attack on the teaching of the New Testament 
 itself; and it is good, again, to have matters brought to 
 this naked issue. 
 
 Nevertheless, the Christ of "dogma," i.e., a truly 
 supernatural, divine Christ — the Incarnate Son — is 
 rejected, and the newer science sets itself to disengage 
 the real, historical, non-miraculous Jesus from the 
 wrappages of tradition and legend in which His image is 
 enswathed. When this is done, His person and religion 
 are naturally found to have no resemblance to the Christ 
 of the Pauline writings, and a cleft is assumed to exist 
 between the genuine teaching of Jesus and the theology 
 of Paul, who is credited with having given the lead to 
 the disfigurement of Christianity that has since prevailed. 
 
 It cannot be too strongly repeated that here is 
 
 THE TRUE CENTRE 
 
 of current religious controversy. The views just indicated 
 penetrate books, newspapers, magazines. In Germany 
 an able and intensely active party has set itself to their 
 propagation in the Press, and by means of cheap, 
 popularly- written books (Volksbiicher). Writers like 
 Bousset, Neumann, Wernle represent them in translation 
 in this country. The aid of fiction is called in, and the 
 novel Holyland (Hilligenlei), now also translated, which 
 
 149 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 embodies a life of Jesus on the new lines, sells in its tens 
 and well-nigh its hundreds of thousands. In America 
 the movement is represented by recent books of the kind 
 already named, Professor Foster's Finality of the Christian 
 Religion and Professor Schmidt's The Prophet of Nazareth. 
 All which gives matter for thought ; for gratitude, too, I 
 think, in the proof it affords that Jesus retains His 
 supreme interest for the thoughts of men, and is to-day, 
 as ever, compelling decision on His character and claims. 
 Anything rather than indifference. When Christ is fairly 
 set in the eyes of the world, His claims may be trusted 
 to take care of themselves. 
 
 I shall say little more than I have done on the connec- 
 tion of this new phase of New Testament criticism with the 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 
 
 we have already studied, though that is an aspect of the 
 subject which should not be overlooked. The one move- 
 ment is, in truth, merely a continuation of the other. 
 The same principles, the same methods, rule in both. It 
 was to common-sense vision an impossibility for criticism 
 to riot in the fashion it had been doing for some decades 
 in the old Testament, without at an early period descend- 
 ing, flushed with its successes there, to wreak a like work 
 of disintegration on the New Testament. Only folly 
 could imagine that it was possible to stand permanently 
 with an advanced liberal leg in the Old Testament and a 
 conservative leg in the New. As Professor Schmidt puts 
 it : " The movement could not stop at the Old Testa- 
 ment " (p. 29). The critics, therefore, have the fullest 
 justification for claiming that their New Testament work 
 is but the logical carrying out of the principles for which 
 assent had been obtained in Old Testament study ; and 
 surprise need not be felt when one sees Old Testament 
 scholars like Wellhausen and Gunkel coming forward 
 
 150 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 to take their share in New Testament discussion. To 
 some this will lend additional sanction to the results 
 reached in the New Testament; to others, perhaps a 
 larger number, the results may cast doubt, retrospectively, 
 on the whole critical procedure. 
 
 II. 
 
 What verdict is now to be passed on this new, so- 
 called "historical-religious" view of Jesus, in which the 
 credit of the Gospels and Epistles — not to say the whole 
 conception of Christianity as the world has hitherto under- 
 stood it — is so absolutely at stake ? I propose, in the 
 first instance, to let the new view 
 
 PASS JUDGMENT ON ITSELF 
 
 by looking simply at the forces at work in its construction, 
 and at the kind of results they yield. 
 
 First of all, it is important to observe that, in the new 
 theories of the life of Jesus, as in the radical Old Testa- 
 ment criticism, the assumed premiss of the entire treat- 
 ment is 
 
 THE DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL. 
 
 This is where Professor Julius Kaftan, of Berlin, in his 
 pamphlet, Jesus und Paulus, formerly noticed, joins issue. 
 You claim, he says, to be applying an historical method. 
 In reality your procedure has not its roots in method at 
 all. What lies behind it is "the so-called ' modern view 
 of the world ' " — a view which embraces everything in an 
 unbroken causal connection (pp. 4, 5). This being pre- 
 supposed, the view of Christ and Christianity has to be 
 clipped down to suit, at whatever expense to the history.* 
 
 *I formerly quoted some of Kaftan's strong words in this connection. 
 I may give another sentence or two. The new procedure, he 
 
 151 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 This anti-supernaturalistic principle is not only admitted, 
 but is paraded, in all the works I have named. A man 
 is not a " modern " who does not admit it. Professor 
 Foster goes further, and affirms: "An intelligent man 
 who now affirms his faith in such stories [' miraculous 
 narratives, like the Biblical 'J as actual facts can hardly 
 know what intellectual honesty means " (p. 132). It has 
 come then to this, that, in a book published wi + h the 
 endorsement of the University of Chicago, it is declared 
 that a man who believes any longer in the resurrection cf 
 Jesus can hardly be intellectually honest. Such arrogance, 
 like "vaulting ambition," " o'erleaps itself," and only 
 discredits the cause it is meant to support. 
 
 This, however, is the fundamental assumption of all 
 these writers — of Bousset, of Wernle, of Professor 
 Schmidt, of the author of the story Holyland, the Jesus 
 of which is a nervous, self-doubting, semi-hysterical being, 
 whose ideals are often admirable, but whose sanity is 
 sometimes doubtful. Granting it, it is easy to see 
 
 WHAT HAVOC IT MAKES 
 
 of the Gospels. Jesus has, at all costs, to be reduced to 
 natural dimensions. He is a man naturally born (Well- 
 hausen simply cuts out Matt. i. ii., and Luke i. ii.). 
 His parents were Joseph and Mary. He wrought no 
 miracles in the proper sense, though faith cures may be 
 attributed to Him. It is doubtful if He even claimed to be 
 the Messiah (Schmidt denies it ; Foster is doubtful, but 
 allows the probability). When He died there was an 
 
 says, means this : " We will know the history, not as it is or was, 
 but as it ought to be. Ought to be according to our presuppositions, 
 according to the presuppositions of our modern view of the world " 
 (p. 5). And he declares that to this mode of treatment ''the believ- 
 ing community will never adapt itself. It will feel it to be an apostacy 
 from faith. And this feeling which it has is thoroughly justified in 
 fact " (p. 9). 
 
 152 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 earthly end of Him. The resurrection stories are legen- 
 dary : what really lay behind them no one now knows, and 
 science does not concern itself to ask. Precisely ; but 
 then, as one likewise sees, all this was really settled before 
 the inquiry began ; there is, therefore, no particular 
 "critical method" involved in it. The problem to be 
 dealt with was : " Assumed, to start with, that nothing 
 supernatural entered into the birth, life, and death of 
 Jesus, how to explain away the narratives which say that 
 it did ? " The whole matter, obviously, is a foregone con- 
 clusion, and unbiassed consideration of evidence is an 
 impossibility. 
 
 This raises the question, which may be glanced at 
 before going further — 
 
 BY WHAT RIGHT 
 
 is the supernatural thus ruled out of the history of 
 revelation, and specially out of the history of 
 Christ ? It will be difficult, indeed, for these able gentle- 
 men, who so freely charge " intellectual dishonesty" on 
 their opponents, to give an answer which does not already 
 beg the question. I notice that the intellectual lineage 
 they claim for themselves as " moderns " usually has at 
 its head Spinoza, and I grant that, in a system like 
 Spinoza's, where God and Nature are one, there is no 
 room for such deviations from, or transcendencies of, the 
 natural order as we call 
 
 "miracle." 
 
 But it is surely vastly different in a theistic scheme, in 
 which God has a being above the world as well as in it, 
 is a Being of Fatherly love, deeply interested in the 
 welfare of His creatures, is free, self-determined, pur- 
 poseful, has moral ends, overrules causes and events for 
 the inbringing of a Kingdom of God. On this, the Christian 
 
 J53 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 view of God, it is difficult to see why, for high ends of 
 revelation and redemption, a supernatural economy should 
 not be engrafted on the natural, achieving ends which 
 could not be naturally attained ; and why the evidence for 
 such an economy should, a priori, be ruled out of con- 
 sideration. The Christian thinker will not lightly accuse 
 his opponents of " intellectual dishonesty," but he may 
 with justice charge them with intellectual inconsistency y in 
 denying to God, as so conceived, a power of entering, for 
 redeeming ends, in a supernatural way, into human 
 history. 
 
 This is, in short, a matter to be determined, not by 
 
 A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS, 
 
 but on the ground of evidence ; and it is equally a begging 
 of the question to say that evidence cannot exist of a 
 kind, degree, and quality adequate to sustain faith in the 
 supernatural facts involved in the life of Jesus. Here is 
 an ultimate dividing-line, and there is not the least likeli- 
 hood that the general intelligence of men will ever endorse 
 the high a briori negations of the modern theorists. 
 
 III. 
 
 The chief instrument by which the evidence for Christ's 
 supernatural claims is broken down in these theories, I 
 observe next, is a 
 
 RADICAL CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS, 
 
 analogous to what we have seen employed in the Old 
 Testament. The criticism will be looked at by itself in 
 a succeeding paper ; meanwhile, I note only a few results. 
 The Gospels are taken from the writers whose names 
 they bear, are put late, are declared to be in their main 
 contents legendary, are accepted, rejected, altered, recon- 
 
 154 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 structed, at the critic's good pleasure. With what result ? 
 Everything, of course, that militates against the natural- 
 istic hypothesis is cleared away. As to how much is left 
 the authorities differ. Some of the more extreme will 
 not allow Jesus to be an historical figure at all * ; at 
 most, only a few sayings can be attributed to Him with 
 certainty (Schmiedel). Others do not go so far, and 
 rescue from the "sources" the more or less vague out- 
 line of His ministry, and (probably) certain fragments of 
 His teaching. It was with " a deep satisfaction," Pro- 
 fessor Schmidt tells us, that he found himself " borne 
 along " to the conviction " that Jesus of Nazareth actually 
 existed," and that some of the events of His life and 
 some of His words may be recovered ! (pp. 233-4). Even 
 if Professor Schmidt retains this as a personal conviction, 
 one wonders how, in the clash of contradictory opinions, 
 he is to convey his conviction to others, so as to make it, 
 as he hopes, the basis of a religion of the future. 
 
 On much, however, even in this minimum of knowledge 
 about Jesus, there rests by admission 
 
 GREAT UNCERTAINTY. 
 
 It is doubted, for instance, as by Wrede, Schmidt, and 
 others, whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah. 
 Testimonies that He did are got rid of by the usual 
 methods. With more plausibility it is denied by a con- 
 siderable section (Wellhausen, Schmidt, &c.) that Jesus 
 ever used the title "The Son of Man" as a Messianic 
 designation, or in an emphatic sense at all. Jesus spoke 
 in Aramaic, and the (alleged) Aramaic equivalent of this 
 
 *Prof. Foster writes : " At this writing the sensation of the hour in 
 theological Germany is a brilliant and effective pastor, who has con- 
 cluded that Jesus was an ideal construction of a definite social circle" 
 (p. 326). The book, from which quotations are given, is, Das 
 Christus-Problem, by A. Kalthoff(i903). 
 
 J 55 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 phrase, barnasha,* means simply, we are told, " man." 
 So most of the passages in which the phrase occurs are 
 emptied of their significance, and the word " man " is 
 substituted (e.g., " Man hath power on earth to forgive 
 sins," "Man is Lord of the Sabbath," Mark ii. 10, 28). 
 But not to refer to other passages where this meaning is 
 impossible, the theory shatters on the simple fact that 
 the authors of our Greek Gospels who, presumably, knew 
 Aramaic, and were, on the theory, translating from it, 
 plainly attached to the word or phrase the unique sense, 
 "the Son of Man." Most scholars, accordingly, now 
 again reject this philological speculation, and allow that 
 Jesus used the title, as also the title " Son of God," 
 which Schmidt would take from Him likewise. Still 
 more futile is the attempt to eradicate 
 
 THE MESSIANIC CLAIM 
 
 from the life of Jesus. If any fact in history is well- 
 attested, it is that Jesus was put to death for claiming to 
 be the " King of the Jews " — the Messiah. His words, 
 actions, claims, parables, the functions He ascribes to 
 Himself (e.g., Judge of the world), His behaviour on His 
 last journey, the consentient accounts of His trial, admit 
 of no other explanation. This is a rock-fast fact, on 
 which criticism beats itself in vain.t 
 
 There is, however, yet another branch of the newer 
 critical method which has of late come into great 
 prominence and bids fair to be more heard of in the 
 future — I mean the application to the Gospels of the 
 method of 
 
 *It is very doubtful if this was the term Jesus employed. 
 
 tEven Bousset says in his Jesus : " It will be recognised more and 
 more clearly as time goes on that the criticism which attempts to shake 
 these well-established points of the tradition merely succeeds in over- 
 reaching itself" (p. 170). 
 
 156 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY. 
 
 This, likewise, is found a serviceable instrument for dis- 
 sipating such narratives as those of the Virgin-birth and 
 of the Resurrection into fantasies. Professor Gunkel, of 
 Berlin, has made a noteworthy incursion into this field 
 in a contribution to The Religious-Historical Understanding 
 oj the New Testament, but illustrations can be found nearer 
 home. Like Gunkel, and like Farnell in his Evolution of 
 Religion, Dr. Cheyne, in his Bible Problems, applies the 
 "comparative" method, and finds the key to what is 
 most distinctive in the Gospel history in ethnic mytho- 
 logy. He, too, complains that, while Old Testament 
 criticism was sweeping the field, " the Higher Criticism 
 of the New Testament was practically set on one side " 
 (pp. ii, 12), and he endeavours in this volume to do some- 
 thing to supply the lack. On the basis of Arabian, 
 Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian parallels, he seeks to 
 show how beliefs like those of the Virgin-birth of Jesus, 
 His descent into Hades, {not in the Gospels), His resur- 
 rection, and His ascension arose. " On the ground of 
 facts supplied by archaeology, it is plausible," he thinks, 
 "to hold that all these arose out of a pre-Christian sketch 
 of the life, death, and exaltation of the expected Messiah 
 [a thing no one ever heard of] , itself ultimately derived 
 from a widely-current mythic tradition respecting a solar 
 deity " (p. 128). Paul's statement " that Christ died and 
 that He rose again 'according to the Scriptures,' in 
 reality points to a pre-Christian sketch of the life of 
 Christ, partly — as we have seen — derived from widely- 
 spread non-Jewish myths and embodied in Jewish 
 writings " (p. 113). 
 
 One has only to take with this derivation of essential 
 Christian beliefs from " primitive Oriental myths " 
 (p. 117) the admission of Wellhausen in his Introduction 
 
 157 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 to the First Three Gospels, " The resurrection was the 
 foundation of the Christian faith, the heavenly Christ, 
 the living and present head of the disciples " (p. 96), to 
 see whither such theories tend. But the reader will also 
 mark the foundation — 
 
 A PURELY IMAGINARY " PRE-CHRISTIAN SKETCH,"* 
 
 based on Babylonian and other myths, which is first 
 thought of as " plausible," then is converted into a 
 certainty, and reasoned from as a fact! By such 
 gossamer theories it is actually thought possible to sub- 
 vert the faith of Christendom in its most characteristic 
 facts ! 
 
 As a type of theory of a yet more extravagant, but still 
 kindred order, I might refer to the extraordinary specula- 
 tion on the origin of Christianity in that much-belauded 
 but, in this region, utterly fantastic book, 
 
 DR. J. G. FRAZER'S " GOLDEN BOUGH."! 
 
 The facts to be explained are the circumstances of our 
 Lord's crucifixion (or the stories about these) and the 
 belief in His divinity. For a clue to the belief, Dr. 
 Frazer goes back to the Babylonians and Persians. These 
 people, he tells us, had a custom, at a spring festival, of 
 dressing a condemned criminal in the royal robes, en- 
 throning him, granting him for five days all the privileges 
 of the king — an incarnation of the god, for whom the 
 criminal was a substitute — then stripping, flogging, and 
 hanging him. At an earlier period, he avers, the king 
 himself, after one year's reign, had been wont to be 
 sacrificed. The Jews are supposed to have taken over 
 this custom from the Persians, and to have observed it 
 
 *Prof. Schmidt also has his hypothetical pre-Christian Aramaic 
 apocalypse, which he thinks is used in the Gospels (p. 132). 
 
 tThe theory is propounded in the second edition of the work. 
 
 158 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 at the feast known as Purim. They further borrowed a 
 practice assumed to have existed of keeping a pair of con- 
 demned criminals, one of whom was sacrificed, the other 
 was set free. It was in a scene of this kind that Jesus 
 is conjectured to have taken the part of the mock-king, 
 and, after having had the honours of royalty, with its 
 accompanying divinity, thrust upon Him, to have been 
 ignominiously stripped, scourged, and crucified ! 
 
 It would be a waste of time to treat this theory of Dr. 
 Frazer's as a serious explanation of the events of the 
 crucifixion. But the reader will certainly be astonished 
 to discover, if he takes the trouble to inquire, that the 
 whole thing, from bottom to top, is a 
 
 PYRAMID OF BASELESS CONJECTURE. 
 
 There is not, so far as appears, a scintilla of real 
 evidence that the Babylonians or Persians ever had such 
 a custom of sacrificing a god-king, or a substitute, at a 
 spring festival ; or that the Jews borrowed or possessed 
 it ; or that such scenes as are described were enacted at 
 the feast of Purim ; or that any such ideas were con- 
 nected with Christ's mockery, scourging, and death ! * 
 
 It is pitiful to think of such a tissue of fancies being 
 seriously put forward (even though " with diffidence ") by 
 a scholar who is far too enlightened to accept the 
 straightforward narratives of the Gospels. 
 
 IV. 
 
 It is now our turn to look at these theories of a non- 
 miraculous Christ with critical eyes, and to ask how far 
 
 *See the whole theory, with its germ in an anecdote (possibly 
 mythical) attributed to Diogenes the Cynic by Dion Chrysostom 
 (end of first contury) subjected to a minute and shattering examina- 
 tion in Andrew Lang's Ma%ic and Religion. 
 
 159 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 their own principle, in the hands of these writers, can be 
 
 CONSISTENTLY CARRIED THROUGH, 
 
 and, if it is, with what results. 
 
 Suppose, for example, the physical miracles are 
 surrendered in obedience to this denial of the miraculous 
 — of course, they are not surrendered — what of the 
 spiritual miracle — 
 
 THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST? 
 
 Here is something, supposing it granted, quite as much 
 above the sphere of nature as we know it — as truly 
 requiring a supernatural cause to explain it — as any 
 miracle of power. Here, in the Gospels, is the picture of 
 the One Being in history, who, with unparalleled spiritual 
 insight, betrays absolutely no consciousness of sin in 
 Himself, who knows no repentance, who was accepted by 
 those who knew Him best as without sin, who is the 
 physician, Saviour, forgiver of sinners, but never classes 
 Himself with them, whose recorded words, acts, spirit, 
 and total behaviour bear out this character of spotless 
 holiness and unbroken unity of will with God — how is 
 such an One to be fitted into the natural scheme. Can 
 it be done ? 
 
 It cannot be done. Not one of these writers but 
 hedges when he comes to the question of the sinlessness 
 of Jesus. Prof. Foster will go no further than to say that 
 He is "the best we know" (p. 482). Prof. Schmidt 
 says : " He seems to have had no morbid sense of sin. 
 His consciousness of imperfection was swallowed up in 
 the sense of divine love" (p. 25).* Both writers lay 
 stress on Christ's word, " No one is good but God," and 
 infer from it that " He remained conscious of this great 
 distance from God" (Foster, p. 345 ; cf. Schmidt, p. 152; 
 
 *" Sin " has little place in this writer's book at all : his Index does 
 not mention it in any connection. 
 
 160 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 Bousset, p. 202). The author of the novel Holyland 
 affirms boldly, " His nature was not wholly free from 
 evil," and refuses to be bound even by His morality 
 (p. 359) — indeed, plays loose with morality in his book 
 to the degree of sanctioning immorality.* Thus, under 
 the new influences, the decomposition of even Christ's 
 moral image and moral doctrine proceeds. All, it must 
 be contended, in wanton defiance of the historical reality. 
 Or take what is left us by the better class of these 
 writers — 
 
 A GREAT, SPIRITUAL, FORCEFUL PERSONALITY, 
 
 with true knowledge of God, and elevation and originality 
 of moral character, qualifying Him to be the spiritual 
 leader of mankind. How is even this to be accounted 
 for ? Does the non-miraculous view of Christ explain it ? 
 Here, strangely enough, in Prof. Foster's book, we come 
 on something singularly like a retraction of the proposi- 
 tion with which we set out, viz., that nothing can be 
 admitted of the nature of miracle. For we are now 
 explicitly told (what is most true) that Jesus is inexplic- 
 able psychologically, causally, or by evolutional 
 development (pp. 265, 267) ; that something derived 
 creatively from God is necessary to explain His con- 
 sciousness. Psychological analysis, we read, " collapses 
 on the immediacy of His consciousness. Ultimately we 
 stand before the insoluble datum of His certainty of a 
 special communion with God, and of His knowledge of 
 God arising thereby. It is not possible to escape from 
 the recognition of an active and creative moment in the 
 
 *A sympathetic expounder of the ideas of Frenssen's book writes : 
 " If his theological teaching is considered dangerous by many, his 
 moral teaching and its probable effect on the youth of Germany is 
 regarded with still more trepidation. . . . No wonder that even 
 one of his friends in the Liberal camp says, ' We are afraid for the 
 youth of our land.' " {Scotsman, October 20, 1906). 
 
 161 M 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 consciousness of Jesus, which, just on that account, can- 
 not be causally explained " (p. 265). " The empirical in- 
 explicability of Jesus may as well be conceded " (p. 267). 
 True, but is there not here the break up of the author's 
 earlier scheme of thought, in which no room seemed left 
 for the immediate entrance of God into either the 
 material or the spiritual order? And if "empirically 
 inexplicable" facts occur in the spiritual order, why may 
 they not occur in the natural order as well ? Is the 
 former less a domain of law than the latter ? 
 
 All this, however, it is to be confessed, does not carry 
 us very far. It leaves us still far short of that perfect 
 
 ONENESS OF THOUGHT AND WILL 
 
 with the Father (Matt. xi. 27) which, combined with 
 Christ's consciousness of His own unique dignity and 
 place in revelation, and with claims, functions, preroga- 
 tives which no ordinary messenger of God ever dared to 
 claim, only finds its adequate explanation in that relation 
 to the Father, going beyond all time, which the Pauline 
 Epistles and Fourth Gospel unfold to us. This perfect 
 " solidarity " of Christ with God — to use a phrase of 
 Ritschl's — is as much a fact of the first three Gospels as 
 it is of the Gospel of John. It was not, as alleged, from 
 Alexandrian philosophy, or any form of " metaphysics," 
 but, as John tells us, with his feet on the earth, as the 
 result of what he had himself seen, heard, beheld, 
 handled of Jesus, that this Apostle rose to the assurance 
 that in Him "the life was manifested," even "the 
 eternal life, which was with the Father and was mani- 
 fested unto us " (1 John i. 2) ; or, as he states it in the 
 Gospel, " We beheld His glory, glory as of an only- 
 begotten from the Father," and so were able to affirm, 
 " The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us . . . 
 full of grace and truth" (John i. 14). 
 
 162 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 It is in vain that criticism tries to eliminate 
 
 THESE SUPERNATURAL TRAITS 
 
 from the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels. The parts of 
 Christ's history and teaching which the critics accept 
 stand in inseparable relation with the parts which they 
 reject, in the unity of a picture so superhuman, so 
 original, so perfect, that the idea of its creation by 
 irresponsible legendmongers of the second or third 
 Christian generation may be put out of court as an 
 impossibility. Only the most arbitrary manipulation, 
 e.g., can expunge from the Gospels the lofty Messianic 
 claims, and the eschatological discourses and utterances 
 in which Jesus predicts His return in glory to judge the 
 world.* He is not, like others, a simple member of the 
 Kingdom of God, but Himself the Founder of the King- 
 dom, and King and Lord over it. He alone mediates to 
 men the knowledge of the Father. They are " sons of 
 God " by admission into the Kingdom ; he is " the Son," 
 distinct and unique in His relation to the Father. 
 Others are exhorted to "faith"; the term "faith," 
 or cognate terms, are never once applied to Jesus 
 in the Gospels. He knows the Father : His relation 
 is too intimate, immediate, reciprocal to be described 
 by the weaker term. The difficulty of the critics is 
 to reconcile with these claims the modesty of One 
 whom, with all Christendom, they recognise as the 
 perfect pattern of meekness, self-abnegation, and suffer- 
 ing dignity. 
 
 *The alleged failure of these predictions will be remarked on 
 after. Kaftan well shows that Christ's mind never wavered (as the 
 new writers represent) on His Messianic calling. " If anything in 
 His life is historically certain, it is this, that Jesus, from beginning to 
 end, reckoned with unshaken confidence on the vindication of His 
 Messiahship by the Father" (p. 21). 
 
 163 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 v. 
 
 What more is to be said on this subject must be 
 reserved till we come to the discussion of the Gospels 
 themselves. Meanwhile, I would only point out that, for 
 such an One, even as the first three Gospels depict Him, 
 there is no incongruity, but 
 
 THE DIVINEST FITNESS, 
 
 alike in the manner of His entering the world, by a 
 supernatural birth, and in the manner of His exit from 
 it, by resurrection and ascension. I may close this paper 
 accordingly by a few words on these cardinal points — the 
 Virgin-birth of Christ and the Resurrection. 
 
 In recent years there has been an almost virulent 
 assault upon the narratives in Matthew and Luke of 
 
 THE VIRGIN-BIRTH 
 
 of Jesus ; and, led away by plausible reasonings, too many 
 have been induced to surrender these narratives as 
 legendary, or lightly to admit that belief in this article is 
 unessential to faith in Christ as the Incarnate Word. 
 The alleged discrepancies in the narratives are paraded, 
 but special stress is laid upon the fact that the story of 
 the Nativity is not found in Mark (the oldest Gospel) or 
 in John ; was, apparently, not known to Paul, or other 
 writers in the New Testament ; was not known in the 
 early Church, &c. But a great deal more is here asserted 
 than anyone can ever prove. On the historical point, it 
 may be sufficient to say that, apart from the Jewish 
 Ebionites, and certain of the Gnostic sects, no body of 
 Christians is ever known to have existed which did not 
 receive as part of their faith the birth of Jesus from the 
 Virgin. It is a curious irony which makes the narrowest 
 and most retrograde of Jewish Christian sects (the 
 
 164 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 Nazarenes, or more tolerant party, accepted the belief) 
 the true representatives of Apostolic Christianity. 
 As respects the 
 
 WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 the facts about the Gospels are not correctly stated. It 
 is true that Mark — who commences his Gospel, however, 
 with the words, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God " — has not this narrative, but then 
 he has nothing to say of the infancy and early life of Jesus 
 at all — is therefore not a witness, either yea or nay. John, 
 similarly, does not narrate the earthly birth of Jesus, but 
 contents himself with the heavenly descent. " The Word 
 became flesh," he declares ; how he does not tell. But 
 surely the very assertion of so transcendent a fact is in 
 itself in keeping with what is narrated in the other 
 Gospels. 
 
 John had unquestionably the other Gospels in his 
 hands, and there is not the least reason to suppose 
 that he meant to contradict them. The silence of these 
 two Gospels, therefore, proves nothing. On the other 
 hand, we have the fact that the two Gospels which do 
 narrate the birth of Jesus declare him to have been, in 
 the words of the Creed, "conceived by the Holy Ghost, 
 born of the Virgin Mary." Paul's silence, again, is not 
 wonderful, if we remember that it was not Paul's habit to 
 relate the facts of Christ's life. It is Paul's companion, 
 Luke, nevertheless, who gives one of the narratives of the 
 miraculous birth, and Paul can hardly be supposed 
 ignorant of what Luke knew. Has Paul, moreover, 
 nothing supernatural in view when he speaks of " the 
 second man from heaven " (i Cor. xv. 47), and of Jesus 
 as "born of a woman, born under the law " (Gal. iv. 4)?* 
 
 •Literally "made" or "become" of a woman; not as in 
 Matt, xi, 11. 
 
 165 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 There' were obvious reasons why much should not be said 
 publicly on this subject while Mary lived. 
 
 THE BEARINGS ON CHRISTIAN FAITH 
 
 of this miracle of Christ's entrance into the world will 
 be belittled by no one who reflects clearly on what 
 Incarnation means. Miracle is probably involved, in part 
 even on the physical side, in the creation of a sinless 
 personality. It is certainly involved in the entrance of 
 the eternal Son of God into union with our humanity. 
 This may not prove, indeed, that precisely this mode of 
 miraculous entrance by birth from a Virgin was necessary. 
 But, if the general fact of miracle in Christ's birth is 
 admitted, there will not be usually much stumbling at the 
 Gospel narratives.* 
 That Christ was 
 
 NOT HOLDEN BY DEATH, 
 
 but rose from the dead on the third day, is the belief on 
 which, by universal admission, the Christian Church 
 from its first beginnings, reposed. The fact is certain 
 that, within a few weeks of their Lord's crucifixion and 
 burial, the first Apostles were energetically proclaiming 
 that Jesus was risen from the dead in the streets of the 
 very city where He had been crucified. It was in no 
 weak and credulous spirit that this fact was accepted. 
 Paul writes on the subject with the fullest sense of respon- 
 sibility (i Cor. xv. 15), and gives his evidence in detail 
 (v. 4-8). The Gospels fill out the story with circumstantial 
 narratives, which must have emanated from the first circle 
 of disciples, and which, despite a few difficulties in har- 
 mony, very natural in the circumstances,! vibrate with 
 the consciousness of truth. Pentecost follows Easter 
 
 *I have discussed this subject with some fulness in a paper on " The 
 Miraculous Conception " in my volume on Ritschlianistn, 
 tOn these see later, pp. 279-81. 
 
 166 
 
The Citadel — Christ 
 
 (Acts ii.) and confirms and ratifies its message. The 
 doctrinal bearings of the resurrection are manifoldly 
 elucidated. By it the seal was placed on Christ's whole 
 work and claims ; through it He became the first fruits of 
 them that slept (i Cor. xv. 20) ; in it the work of redemp- 
 tion is completed, with inclusion of the body (Rom. viii. 
 23), and a sure hope of immortality is opened to the world 
 (2 Tim. i. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 3). 
 
 Against this great corner-stone of Christain faith and 
 hope the waves of scepticism have ever beat in vain. 
 
 THEORY AFTER THEORY 
 
 has been invented to explain it — imposture theories, 
 swoon theories, vision theories, spiritualistic appearances 
 — but each effectually refutes the others ; and the empty 
 grave and manifestations of the Risen One remain as 
 inexplicable as ever. The newest hypothesis I have seen, 
 that of Oscar Holtzmann, in his recent Lift oj Jesus is, I 
 confess, a novelty. It is, in brief, that Joseph of Arima- 
 thsea, in whose new tomb Jesus was laid, not liking the 
 idea of a crucified malefactor reposing in his honourable 
 family fault, had the body secretly removed ! Hence the 
 empty tomb and the belief of the disciples that Christ had 
 risen ! Could anything, one may ask, be more exquisitely 
 wooden than this suggested solution of the mystery of 
 faith on which the Christian Church is built ? 
 
 The outcome of the whole is that naturalism does not 
 hold in its hands the answer to the question — Who is 
 Christ ? The Christ of the Gospels and the Epistles still 
 lives and rules. 
 
 167 
 
VIII 
 
 The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
The Bulwark of 
 the Gospels 
 
 AS mentioned in last paper, the attack on the 
 supernatural claims of Christ is conducted in 
 part through an unsparing criticism of the 
 Gospels. The Gospels are, besides, an offence in 
 themselves through the miraculous elements they 
 contain. Every means known to criticism, there- 
 fore, is employed to weaken their testimony. The 
 Gospel of John is treated as a historical romance ; 
 the first three Gospels are discredited by separating 
 them from their recognised authors, and by an 
 account of their origin, relations, and dependence 
 on late and unreliable tradition, which undermines 
 all certainty in regard to them. Yet it is precisely 
 here, I believe, that the attempts at an anti-super- 
 naturalistic construction of the life of Jesus, and of 
 the beginnings of Christianity, can be most successfully 
 beaten off. The Gospels stand as 
 
 A FOURSQUARE BULWARK 
 
 upon which assault will be found to be in vain against 
 all such endeavours. 
 
 Many are of a very different opinion. They see the 
 work of historical disintegration being actively pursued, 
 
 171 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 and appear to take it for granted that the task is already 
 finished, and that only inveterate prejudice can prevent 
 anyone from acknowledging that the credit of the Gospels 
 is hopelessly destroyed. This is a great illusion. I have 
 already pointed out how, along with these disintegrating 
 forces, other influences not less powerful are at 
 work, tending to re-establish confidence in the trust- 
 worthiness of our records. I illustrated the com- 
 plete breakdown of the older Tubingen theory of 
 the Gospels and other New Testament writings. Yet 
 more recently there has come aid from unexpected 
 quarters in 
 
 RESTORING THE CREDIT OF ANCIENT TRADITION. 
 
 It is ten years since Harnack declared in the 
 preface to his work on Old Christian Literature that 
 (I quote from Dr. Sanday) " the results might be 
 summed up by saying that the oldest literature of 
 the Church, in its main points and in most of its 
 details, from the point of view of literary history, 
 was veracious and trustworthy."* In his recent 
 book on Luke the Physician, Harnack reaffirms this 
 opinion even more strongly. That book is itself a 
 masterly vindication, in opposition to current tendencies, 
 of the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel and of the 
 Acts. The Gospel of John had been most uncom- 
 promisingly assailed, when suddenly, as Dr. Sanday says, 
 
 THE AIR WAS CLEARED 
 
 by the publication of Dr. Drummond's The Character 
 and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, a convincing 
 defence of its genuineness, which, as coming from a 
 Unitarian, could not be ascribed to theological bias. 
 With Dr. Drummond's treatise has to be taken Dr. 
 
 * Cf . Sanday's Criticism oj the Fourth Gospel, p. 42. 
 
 172 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 Stanton's valuable work, The Gospels as Historical 
 Documents (Pt. I.), and Dr. Sanday's own important 
 volume, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel* The 
 remarkable thing in these and other works which have 
 recently appeared is, in my opinion, not simply the 
 evidence they afford of a change in the trend of critical 
 judgment, but the trenchant way in which they assail the 
 methods and principles by which, in the later periods, 
 critical results have been reached, t 
 
 I. 
 
 It is not possible, in a brief paper, to enter with any 
 minuteness into the complicated questions connected with 
 the authorship and relations of the Gospels, but a few 
 outlines may be traced, and some facts brought forward, 
 which may help to show 
 
 THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE 
 
 by which the credibility of the Gospels is supported. A 
 little may be said first on the general nature of the 
 evidence, and on the principles which should guide us 
 in judging of it. 
 
 The manuscript evidence for the Gospels is, in 
 comparison with that, say, for the classics, early and 
 extraordinarily abundant. The existence of an ancient 
 book, however, may be proved in many other ways than 
 by the possession of actual manuscripts of it. The 
 existence of a book may be proved by references to it, 
 
 *An interesting defence of John's Authorship, by Prof. 
 Peake, appears in an article on " The Fourth Gospel," in the 
 London Quarterly Review, October, 1905. 
 
 t Dr. Sanday comments on this feature in Dr. Drummond's 
 work, and his own book is a trenchant criticism of current 
 methods. I showed before that the same is true of recent works 
 by Harnack, Kaftan, &c. 
 
 173 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 quotations from it, or accounts of it ; by catalogues, 
 by early translations or versions, by controversies 
 in which its principles are discussed. A very little 
 evidence, if we are satisfied of its genuineness, is often 
 sufficient to carry us a long way. 
 
 AN ILLUSTRATION 
 
 \s may set this in a clearer light. In Macaulay's Essay on 
 the authoress Madame D'Arblay, who died in 1840, we 
 have the following sentences : — " The news of her death 
 carried the minds of men back at one leap over two 
 generations to the time when her first literary triumphs 
 were won. . . . Since the appearance of her first 
 work sixty-two years had passed, and this interval had 
 been crowded not only with political but also with 
 intellectual revolutions." We are further informed 
 that this first work was called Evelina, and was 
 published in 1778. 
 
 Now few, probably, of the readers of these pages have 
 ever heard before of Madame d'Arblay, and still fewer, 
 I am sure, have either seen or read the book referred to. 
 Yet no one, I think, would dream of doubting that this 
 single reference in Lord Macaulay is amply sufficient 
 evidence that such a book, bearing the name of Evelinft, 
 existed, that Madame D'Arblay, then Frances Burney, 
 was the author of it, and that it was published in or about 
 1778, now over a century and a-quarter ago. Thus one 
 step takes us back over that long interval ; and we would 
 accept with equal confidence Macaulay's testimony to a 
 book of the time of the Puritans, or of the Reformation, 
 or to a work of poetry or theology from even earlier 
 centuries. 
 
 In fact, we seek, as a rule, no better proof of the gen- 
 uineness of a work than the fact that it is, and has 
 
 174 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 ALWAYS BEEN RECEIVED 
 
 as a genuine work of the author to whom it is 
 ascribed. Few persons doubt that the poems ascribed 
 to Robert Burns are really his, or that Bunyan wrote 
 The Pilgrim's Progress, or that Charles Wesley composed 
 the hymns that bear his name ; yet the chief ground 
 which most of us have for these beliefs is that the works 
 in question now are, and we understand, universally have 
 been, attributed to the authors concerned, with the impossi- 
 bility of supposing that they could have been published and 
 circulated, and have obtained this undisputed acceptance 
 without the mistake, or fraud, being at the time, or soon 
 after, detected and exposed. These are the ordinary princi- 
 ples we apply in judging of books, and it is only by bearing 
 them in mind that we can fairly judge of the exceptional 
 strength of the evidence which supports the four Gospels. 
 Applying, then, this test of general reception, let the 
 reader take his stand for a moment in the 
 
 LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY 
 
 — an interval from the time of the composition of the 
 Gospels shorter than from the publication of Madame 
 D'Arblay's book to our own day. Plenty of literature 
 has come down to us from that period, and, in the clear 
 light it casts on the conditions of the time, what do we 
 find ? The four Gospels — the four we have — and none 
 else, in universal circulation and undisputed use through- 
 out the Church, unanimously ascribed to the authors 
 whose names they bear,* circulating not only in their 
 original tongues, but in Latin, Syriac,t and other trans- 
 There is a slight exception in the obscure sect of the Alogi, 
 who rejected the Fourth Gospel on dogmatic grounds. 
 
 t On these early versions we see Westcott and Hort's New 
 Testament, Introduction, pp. 78 ff. It is a question recently 
 raised whether Tatian's (Syriac) Harmony (r. 170) is not the 
 oldest Syriac version. 
 
 175 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 lations,- freely used, not only by Fathers of the Church, 
 but by pagans and heretics, and by these also ascribed 
 to the disciples of Christ as their authors. We find 
 harmonies made of them,* commentaries written on them, 
 and catalogues of books drawn up, in which they stand 
 at the head ; and all this, with just as little doubt, or 
 trace of dissent, as in the case of the works above named 
 among ourselves, t 
 
 II. 
 I take a few examples* The 
 
 MOST REPRESENTATIVE NAMES 
 
 in the Church in the last quarter of the second century 
 are those of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, Tertullian, 
 of Carthage, and Clement, head of the Catechetical 
 School in Alexandria, whom Origen succeeded a little 
 later (203 a.d.). It is said that from the works of Origen 
 alone the New Testament, if lost, could nearly be recon- 
 structed. But Origen, with all the others named, bears 
 emphatic testimony to the universal acceptance, sole 
 authority, and undisputed authorship of the four Gospels 
 with which we are familiar. The testimony of such as 
 Irenaeus is peculiarly valuable, in that he not only conveys 
 to us the witness of the Church of his own day, but 
 himself stood in a line of succession which reached back 
 
 *Tatian (see below) and one ascribed to Theophilus by Jerome. 
 (Westcott, Canon, p. 208). 
 
 t " I would invite attention," says Dr. Sanday, " to the distribution 
 of the evidence in this period : Irenaeus and the Letter of the 
 Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul, Heracleon in Italy, 
 Tertullian at Carthage, Polycrates at Ephesus, Theophilus in 
 Antioch, Tatian at Rome and in Syria, Clement at Alexandria. 
 The strategical positions are occupied, one might say, all over the 
 Empire. In the great majority of cases there is not a hint of dissent. 
 On the contrary, the fourfold Gospel is regarded for the most part 
 as one and indivisible " {Fourth Gospel, p. 238). 
 
 176 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 to the very days of the Apostles. Irenaeus was brought up 
 in Asia Minor, and as a youth sat at the feet of Polycarp, 
 the disciple of the Apostle John ; in later life, having 
 gone to Gaul, he became Bishop of Lyons in succession 
 to Pothinus, an old man, whose life must have stretched 
 back into the first century, before the Apostle John died. 
 To the end of his life Irenaeus retained vivid recollections 
 of the 
 
 DISCOURSES OF POLYCARP, 
 
 " and how he would describe his intercourse with John 
 and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he 
 would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had 
 heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles, 
 and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received 
 them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would 
 relate them, altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."* 
 
 Is it conceivable that a man of this kind could have 
 been deceived about the Gospel of John, of which his 
 master, Polycarp, must have been able to tell him some- 
 thing, and the genuineness of which he himself unhesi- 
 tatingly endorses ? 
 
 Leaving aside the testimony of lists and versions, I take 
 an older instance. Early Christian writers inform us that 
 Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, wrote a work called 
 
 THE " DIATESSARON," 
 
 — a "combination of four" — and that this work, 
 extant in their time, was a Harmony of the Four 
 
 *This in a letter to a fellow-disciple of Polycarp, Florinus, who 
 had lapsed into Gnosticism. Referring to the vain efforts of critics 
 to get rid of this testimony, Dr. Drummond says : — " Critics speak 
 of Irenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or 
 three visits to Polycarp's lecture-room, and had never known anyone 
 else. In fact, he must have known all sorts of men, of all ages, 
 both in the East and the West."— p. 348. 
 
 177 N 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Gospels. The date of this work may have been about 
 170 a.d. It was pretty obvious that if a writer of that 
 date was engaged in making a Harmony of the Four 
 Gospels, these must already have had a long established 
 position and authority in the Church, and this was fatal 
 to the theory of their late origin and unauthoritative 
 character. Every attempt, therefore, was made to shake 
 the force of this evidence from Tatian. It was attempted 
 to be shown — as by the author of Supernatural Religion — 
 that no such book existed ; or, if it did, that it was not a 
 Harmony of the Gospels ; or, if it was a Harmony, it 
 was not of our Four. This was held, though ancient 
 writers testified that a well-known personage, Ephraem 
 the Syrian, had written a commentary on the work. 
 Thus the question stood, till, in 1876, a Latin trans- 
 lation of an Armenian version of the Commentary of 
 Ephraem was published ; and in 1888 an Arabic trans- 
 lation of the Diatessaron itself was brought to light. Then 
 it was found, what should never really have been 
 doubted, that the famous Diatessaron was, after all, 
 a blending of our four Canonical Gospels. 
 
 Tatian is likewise a witness to the Fourth Gospel in 
 his earlier work, An Address to the Greeks (c. 150 a.d.). 
 
 Tatian's master was 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR, 
 
 one of the most important witnesses in the middle of the 
 century. The works of this early writer embody in 
 large part the history of the first three Gospels, and 
 show acquaintance with the Gospel of John in numerous 
 passages, as, notably, the following : — " For Christ also 
 said, Unless ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the 
 Kingdom of Heaven. But that it is impossible for those 
 who are once born to enter into the wombs of those who 
 
 178 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 brought them forth is evident to all."* The quota- 
 tion is free, but one cannot mistake the reference to 
 John iii. 5-8. Nor does Justin leave us in any doubt 
 as to the sources of his information. He tells us that he 
 draws from "Memoirs of the Apostles," "which are 
 called Gospels," "composed by the Apostles and those 
 that followed them." In them he found written " all 
 things concerning Jesus Christ." These " Memoirs " 
 were read, together with the writing of the prophets, in 
 the weekly meetings of the Christians, t Is it possible 
 to doubt that these are the same " Gospels " which 
 Tatian combined in his Harmony ? But here they are 
 already found in settled ecclesiastical use. 
 I need only cite one other witness, 
 
 PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS, 
 
 — the first who mentions Matthew and Mark by name. 
 His date may be 120-130 a.d., but Dr. Sanday is 
 disposed to carry back the extracts preserved from him 
 to about 100 a.d. t This would give them high authority 
 indeed. That Papias knew the Fourth Gospel is 
 rendered almost certain by his attested use of the first 
 Epistle of John, but the extracts now in question 
 (preserved by Eusebius) relate to the first and second 
 Gospels. Papias had been on terms of intimacy with 
 the immediate followers of the Apostles, possibly with 
 John himself,§ and his object in the work from which 
 the extracts are taken was to set down faithfully, along 
 
 *ist Apol. 61. — Justin's allusions to the Fourth Gospel are 
 well set out in Dr. Stanton's Gospels as Historical Documents, 
 pp. 81, ff. The above quotation is challenged by the critics, 
 but is vigorously defended by Dr. Drummond. 
 
 t Cf. 1st Apol. 66-67 : Dialogue with 7'rypho, io, loo, 103. 
 
 % Fourth Gospel, p. 251. 
 
 § I need not touch here on the disputed questions about " the 
 Elder John." 
 
 179 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 with his own interpretations, what he had learnt 
 from the elders and those acquainted with them. 
 There can be no doubt further that what Eusebius 
 quotes from Papias about Matthew and Mark he 
 takes to refer to our present Gospels. That, indeed, 
 is plain on the face of it about Mark. There is a 
 certain difficulty, as we shall immediately see, about 
 Matthew, but, as Eusebius had the work of Papias 
 before him, the presumption is that he was right in 
 his understanding about the first Gospel also. 
 The testimonies about 
 
 MATTHEW AND MARK, 
 
 then, in brief, are, as respects Matthew, that he 
 " composed the Oracles (Logia) in Hebrew, and each 
 one interpreted them as he was able " ; and, con- 
 cerning Mark, that " Mark, having become the 
 interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately all that he 
 remembered, though he did not record in order that 
 which was either said or done by Christ."* By 
 " Hebrew " in the first passage, is to be understood 
 11 Aramaic." Both of the statements here made, 
 that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and 
 that Mark wrote as the disciple and interpreter of 
 Peter, appear in all the subsequent tradition. Yet 
 there is the diffici.lty that the only Gospel of Matthew 
 we know t — the only one also in the hands of these 
 Fathers — is in Greek, and bears no marks of being a 
 translation. We have, accordingly, the two facts to 
 face : first, that Matthew is said to have written his 
 Gospel in Aramaic, and, second, that our Greek Gospel 
 
 ♦Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., III. 39. 
 
 + There is no ground for the supposition that the Jewish- 
 Christian Gospel of the Hebrews was the original of our Matthew. 
 It is, on the other hand, derived from it. 
 
 180 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 is held by all the early writers to be virtually identical 
 with this Aramaic work of Matthew. How this is to be 
 cleared up will be considered after. The other state- 
 ment, as to the origin of Mark, has every right to 
 credence. Mark is, in substance, Peter's Gospel. 
 
 These are voices from within the Church, but it is not 
 different when we pass 
 
 OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. 
 
 Celsus, e.g., was a bitter opponent of Christianity, but 
 he calls our Gospels " the writings of the disciples of 
 Christ," and urges against them the usual charges of 
 contradiction and absurdity. Marcion, a Gnostic, earlier 
 than Justin Martyr, used what all now acknowledge to 
 be a mutilated version of Luke. The Ebionites, in like 
 manner, used a mutilated version of Matthew. The 
 Gnostics were specially fond of John, and one of them 
 wrote a commentary on the Gospel. I spoke in an earlier 
 paper of the use of John's Gospel by Basilides.* (c. 125). 
 I need not pursue this branch of the evidence 
 further, for, as regards dates, it is now admitted by all 
 but extreme writers that our first three Gospels (the 
 " Synoptics "), at any rate, fall well within 
 
 THE LIMITS OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 
 
 Harnack, e.g., whose dates are probably still too 
 late, puts Mark's Gospel between 65 and 70 a.d., 
 Matthew's between 70 and 75, Luke's between 78 
 and 93. Blass, representing a yet further return to 
 tradition, puts the composition of Luke's Gospel in 
 59 or 60. t Even as regards authorship we have 
 found that Mark, Luke, and John are now being re- 
 stored to their accredited authors, and Matthew is 
 
 * Ut supra, p. 36. Dr. Drummond contends for the natural view 
 that Basilides himself is quoted as using the Gospel. 
 
 t Philology of tht Gospels, p. 35. 
 
 181 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 allowed a substantial (if still insufficient) share in the 
 composition of the Gospel that bears his name. These 
 are long strides towards the corroboration of the tradi- 
 tion of the Church which Prof. Foster, while rejecting it, 
 thus correctly represents : " According to tradition, two 
 Gospels are by Matthew and John, who were Apostles ; 
 two others, by disciples and companions of Apostles — 
 Mark, the companion of Peter, Luke of Paul."* 
 
 III. 
 
 Thus far I have been dealing with external evidence. 
 On that side I believe that the case for the Gospels is 
 irrefragable. Even of the Gospel of John — the most con- 
 tested of the four — Dr. Drummond permits himself to 
 say at the conclusion of his inquiry: "The external 
 evidence (be it said with due respect for the Alogi) is all 
 on one side" (p. 514). 
 
 Now the question arises — Does 
 
 INTERNAL CRITICISM 
 
 confirm or overthrow these results ? Truth being one, 
 it would be strange if it did the latter. Yet, if we take up 
 the books of any of our critics of the newer school — of a 
 Schmiedel, a Wernle, a Foster, a Schmidt — we find that 
 nothing less than this is their contention. The external 
 evidence, in their view, has hardly the weight of a feather. 
 The books themselves must be critically examined ; and 
 when that is done, their credit is gone. The supposition 
 that John is the work of an Apostle, or has any historical 
 worth, is not to be entertained for a moment. The Synop- 
 tic tradition is put into the crucible, and is found to be, in 
 part gold, but largely also base alloy. Subjective weights 
 and measures are employed to determine what is true and 
 * Finality of the Christian Religion^ p. 335. 
 
 182 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 what false. Unfortunately, there is little real agree- 
 ment in the results, and one fails often to see why any- 
 thing should be left at all. 
 
 A FEW SPECIMENS, 
 
 taken almost haphazard, may illustrate. 
 
 Here is Bousset.* " That Jesus was directly indicated 
 by John as Messiah, as the Christian tradition has it, we do 
 not believe" (p. 7). "What was Jesus' object in collecting 
 His band of disciples ? Not, at any rate, to found a com- 
 munity or church " (p. 60). " The stereotyped way in 
 which the Synoptics represent Jesus as using the title 
 1 Son of Man ' is not historical. There speaks, not the 
 earthly Jesus, but the dogmatic conviction of His followers" 
 (P- I 93) " Above all, He did not lay claim to the judge- 
 ship of the world. ... It is true that in the narra- 
 tives of our Gospels the opposite seems to be the case. 
 But it is inconceivable that Jesus . . . should now 
 have arrogated to Himself the judgeship of the world in 
 place of God" (p. 203). 
 
 Foster, who closely follows Wernle, is ever on the track 
 for motive. " Mark had done much to parry this thrust, 
 yet much too little to suit those who came after him. 
 . . . Luke cancels the mortal distress of Jesus in 
 Gethsemane. Matthew removes every appearance of 
 helplessness ; legions of angels were at his disposal " 
 (p. 354). " At the beginning of the discourse on right- 
 eousness, on missions, on Pharisees, there are harsh 
 national Jewish sentiments ; Jesus, the fulfiller of the law 
 even to jot and tittle, &c. . . . In these utterances an 
 exclusively Jewish party inimically disposed towards 
 Paul and his work claims Jesus " (p. 378) ! " The closing 
 words concerning the last judgment do not come directly 
 from Jesus. Jesus did not consider Himself as the Judge 
 *In his aforenamed book on Jesus, 
 
 183 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 of the world, nor would He have said that all the Gentiles 
 were judged solely according to whether they supported 
 the itinerant Christian brothers or not" (p. 381). The word 
 to Peter, " Thou art Peter," &c, is not Christ's, but " is a 
 saga of a later time, glorifying Peter " (p. 381). 
 
 N. Schmidt goes further, denying the Messiahship, and 
 the titles" Son of Man," " Son of God, " altogether.* The 
 passage in Matt. xi. 27 : " No one knoweth the 
 Son," &c, on which Harnack founds, is rejected by 
 this writer as " a somewhat irrelevant statement that 
 has the appearance of a gloss." "No other passage 
 in the Synoptic Gospels indicates that Jesus made 
 the discovery that God is a Father, or conceived of 
 His Fatherhood in such a manner as to lead Him to 
 the conclusion that He alone stood to God in the 
 relation of a true Son " (p. 151). At Caesarea-Philippi, 
 where Bousset and Foster see an avowal of Messiah- 
 ship, Schmidt discerns a sharp rebuke to Peter for 
 venturing to proclaim Him the Messiah! "Jesus 
 charged His disciples not to say that He was the 
 Messiah. He did not wish that men should believe 
 in Him as the Messiah, and confess Him as such " 
 (p. 277). 
 
 Enough, the reader will probably say, of this 
 
 UPSIDE-DOWN CRITICISM, 
 
 which can make anything of anything, and cuts and 
 carves till the Gospels are perforce made to speak 
 the language the critic desires to hear from them. 
 It is time to turn to the real problems of the relations 
 of the Gospels which arise from a less prejudiced 
 consideration of their contents. 
 
 Have the Gospels any literary dependence on each 
 other? The theory which finds acceptance at 
 
 *In his The Prophet of Nazareth. 
 
 184 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 present is that Mark is an original Gospel, while Matthew 
 and Luke depend on Mark, and also on a second source — 
 a collection of the sayings or discourses of Jesus {theLogia), 
 of which the Apostle Matthew was the author. I cannot 
 say that I feel satisfied with this now widely accepted 
 
 "two-source" theory. 
 
 I cannot readily believe that Luke would include an 
 important Gospel like Mark's among the attempts 
 at a narrative which his own better-ordered Gospel 
 was to supersede (Luke i. i) ; and, while it is true 
 that there is little in Mark's Gospel not found in the 
 other two, it is also the case that the language and 
 style of narration in the latter are often quite 
 different.* The hypothesis of a Logia source 
 common to Matthew and Luke is likewise cumbered 
 with great difficulties. The two Gospels often ver- 
 bally agree in their reports of Christ's sayings, but 
 in other places the language widely diverges. It is 
 quite inexplicable why the same saying should be so 
 differently reported, if taken from the same document.! 
 Besides, the tradition is that Matthew wrote his Logia 
 in Aramaic, while the source used by Matthew and Luke 
 must be supposed to be in Greek. 
 
 Chiefly I feel difficulty with the theory about 
 
 MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 
 
 There is no good reason for supposing that the " Oracles " 
 (Logia) which Matthew is attested to have written were 
 
 * Cf. e.g. Mark i. i3 = Matt. iv. i-nj Mark i. 14-15 = Matt. 
 iv. 7; Mark iii. 1.5 = Matt, xii, 10-13 : Mark Hi. 24-26 = Matt. 25-26; 
 Mark iv. 35-41 = Matt. viii. 18, 23, 27 ; Mark v. I-20 = Matt. viii. 
 28-34, &c. 
 
 t Cf. e.g., Luke x. 23, 24 = Matt. xiii. 16-17 ; Luke xi. 11-13 = 
 Matt. vii. 9-11 ; Luke xii. 4-6 = Matt. x. 28, 29 ; Luke xii. 22-31 
 = Matt. vi. 25-33 (alike, yet inexplicable variations), &c. 
 
 185 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 only a collection of the Lord's sayings. B. Weiss and others 
 seem to me to have established that it must have em- 
 braced narrative matter as well.* If so, it can hardly 
 have been other than our present Gospel, as Eusebius and 
 the other witnesses took it to be. The statement of 
 Papias that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic) must in 
 that case have arisen, either (i) from a confusion with 
 the related Gospel of the Hebrews, which Papias may have 
 mistakenly thought to be the original ; or (2) from some 
 tradition of an older draft or sketch of the Gospel in 
 Aramaic, which the later Greek Gospel of Matthew 
 afterwards replaced. It is in itself highly probable that 
 such notes would be made by Matthew at an early stage; 
 and copies and translations of these, and of the teaching 
 of the other Apostles, may, as both Luke (i. 1) and Papias 
 hint, have been in circulation. It is difficult to see how 
 otherwise so accurate and well-defined a circle of sayings 
 and narratives could have been preserved. 
 
 It is to be remembered, in further elucidation of this 
 
 COMMON BASIS 
 
 of the first three Gospels : (1) that for a considerable 
 time the Apostles laboured together and taught in 
 Jerusalem ; (2) that Peter, as foremost spokesman, 
 and an energetic personality, would naturally impress 
 his type upon the oral narratives of Christ's sayings 
 and doings in the primitive community (the Murk 
 type) ; (3) that Matthew's stores, in part written, 
 would be the chief source for the sayings and longer 
 discourses ; (4) that the instruction imparted at 
 Jerusalem, or by the Apostles and those taught by 
 * Schmidt appears to me to have reason on his side in his remarks 
 on this point, and in his remarks on the Login theory generally 
 (pp. 219-220, 227-228). He disputes the priority of Mark, and makes 
 Matthew the oldest of the Gospels, but, of course, in its present form, 
 late (pp. 223, 227). 
 
 186 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 them during visits to the Churches, would everywhere 
 be made the basis of careful catechetical teaching ; 
 (5) that records of all this, more or less fragmentary, 
 would be early in circulation. This would readily 
 explain the Petrine type of the common narrative 
 tradition, and the seeming dependence of Matthew, 
 without the necessity of supposing that one Gospel 
 copied from another, or drew from a special Logia 
 source. 
 
 This, also, it seems to me, is precisely the process 
 suggested by 
 
 LUKE'S REMARKABLE PREFACE 
 
 to his Gospel, which furnishes, in so interesting a way, 
 a glimpse into the mode of Gospel composition in that 
 early age. Luke is dealing, he tells us, with matters 
 which were already " fully established " among Christians ; 
 the knowledge of which had been derived from " eye- 
 witnesses and ministers of the Word;" in which Theo- 
 philushad already been" catechised; " of which many had 
 already " taken in hand " to draw up narratives ; regarding 
 which the Evangelist, as " having traced the course of 
 all things accurately from the first," was able to give 
 him "certainty" (Luke i. 1-4). Could there be a much 
 surer guarantee for the credibility of a narrative ?* 
 
 IV. 
 
 We have still to glance at the most difficult of these 
 problems in the 
 
 RELATION OF JOHN TO THE SYNOPTICS. 
 
 The slightest inspection of the Fourth Gospel shows that 
 it is very different in style and character from the former 
 * It need not be said that all this which Luke tells us is perfectly 
 compatible with his feeling that he was moved to do what he did 
 by the Spirit of God, and with his being conscious of the Spirit's 
 guidance in his work. 
 
 187 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 three. Yet the internal evidence of the Apostle's author- 
 ship is nearly as conclusive as the external. No one can 
 read the Gospel fairly without perceiving that the author 
 claims, in numerous direct and indirect ways, to be an 
 eye-witness of the events which he describes {e.g., John i. 
 14 ; xix. 35 ; 1 John i. 1-3). He lays emphasis on his 
 witness, and in an appendix to the Gospel the truthful- 
 ness of his testimony is attested by others (John xxi. 24). 
 He is quite evidently " the disciple," " the other disciple," 
 the disciple " whom Jesus loved " (John xiii. 23 ; xxi. 20), 
 so often mentioned in the Gospel, but never named. The 
 simple fact that John's name never once occurs, but that 
 he is always referred to in this periphrastic manner, is 
 itself convincing proof that John, and no other, is the 
 author. In one way the very difference in style between 
 the Fourth and the other Gospels is corroboration of this 
 conclusion. John, according to consentient tradition, 
 was an aged man when he wrote the Gospel. He had so 
 often retold, and so long brooded over, the thoughts and 
 words of Jesus, that they had become, in a manner, part 
 of his own thought, and, in reproducing them, he neces- 
 sarily did so with a subjective tinge, and in a partially 
 paraphrastic and interpretative manner. Yet it is truly 
 the words, thoughts, and deeds of his beloved Lord that 
 he narrates.* His reminiscences, even of minute details 
 of time, place, circumstance, were vivid and accurate, and 
 he sets all down faithfully and carefully. 
 
 Yet the differences between John and his fellow- 
 Evangelists 
 
 *Godet has said : " The discourses of the Fourth Gospel, then, do 
 not resemble a photograph, but the extracted essence of a savoury 
 fruit. From the change wrought in the external form of the sub- 
 stance, it does not follow that the slightest foreign element has been 
 mingled with the latter" (Com. onjo/m, Introd. p. 135, E.T.) The com- 
 parison has often been suggested of the reports of the teaching of 
 Socrates by Xenophon and Plato respectively. 
 
 188 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 SHOULD NOT BE EXAGGERATED. 
 
 The statements made on this subject by critics bent at 
 all costs on destroying the credit of the Gospel are often 
 quite unwarranted. John writes to convince his readers 
 that Jesus was "the Son of God" (xx. 31), and in his 
 prologue he declares that in Jesus the divine " Logos " 
 had become incarnate (i. 1, 14). But the term " Logos " 
 is never put into the mouth of Jesus Himself, who, not- 
 withstanding His lofty claims — and none could be greater 
 — is pictured as living a truly human life, hungering, 
 thirsting, being wearied, sorrowing, sympathising, weep- 
 ing, being troubled in soul, agonising, dying. In none 
 of the Gospels does Jesus appear more tender, sympa- 
 thetic, loving, and eager for the salvation of men. Even 
 in the point of 
 
 THE DISCOURSES, 
 
 which are apt to appear long and controversial in com- 
 parison with the Synoptics, Dr. Drummond has shown 
 by a careful induction that this impression is largely a 
 mistaken one. The speeches in John are not really 
 longer than those in Matthew, and they abound in short, 
 concise sayings, like those in the Synoptics.* It should 
 be remembered also that a writer like John uses the 
 " direct " form of speech where we would use the " in- 
 direct " — a fact which gives the appearance of literal 
 quotation, where sometimes the author is not professing 
 to do more than give the substance of a remark or con- 
 versation in his own words. 
 
 ^Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel pp. 16-20. His 
 tables, which draw out the evidence in detail, should be studied. 
 Professor Peake also reminds us that, "As Matthew Arnold pointed 
 out long ago, when we look into the speeches we find a large number 
 of sayings of the same pithy, aphoristic character as those contained 
 in the Synoptic Gospels " {London Quarterly Review^ October, 1905, 
 p. 283). 
 
 189 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 But beyond these considerations, which bear directly 
 on the form of John's narratives, there are certain others 
 which require to be taken into account as yielding 
 
 THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 
 
 for a just estimate of this Gospel. It is necessary, e.g., 
 to remember : (i) How small a part of Christ's ministry 
 is really covered by the Fourth Gospel — some eighteen or 
 twenty days, perhaps, at most* ; (2) that the scenes in 
 this Gospel are mostly laid in Judaea, under quite different 
 conditions from those of the Galilean ministry (John's 
 narratives and those of the Synoptics, therefore, hardly 
 ever intersect. John was acquainted with the other 
 Gospels, and purposely refrained from reproducing 
 matter already found in them) ; (3) in the few cases where 
 the narratives do intersect — as in the narrative of the 
 feeding of the five thousand (John vi. 6-13), and part of 
 the scenes of the Passion — the resemblance is often very 
 close ; (4) that the reports of Christ's sayings and 
 discourses in the Synoptics (in part also in John) are but 
 notes, summaries, condensations, of what must often 
 have been addresses of considerable duration ; (5) that in 
 the privacy of familiar intercourse with His disciples 
 (e.g., John xiii.-xvii.) Jesus would express Himself in a 
 very different way from what He did in His popular 
 preaching to the multitudes. The objective parabolic 
 character of the latter would give place to a style more 
 intimate, flowing, and tender. I conclude that there need 
 be no hesitation in accepting the Fourth Gospel as 
 
 *See an interesting little work by Dr. Elder Cumming, He Chose 
 Twelve. An analysis of John's Gospel at the close brings out that in 
 this Gospel, "out of the three years' ministry and 33 years' life, we 
 have [only] 18 days and their events, besides discourses." In another 
 admirable work which should be better known, The Days of the Son 
 of Man, by G. W. Macalpine, an analysis is also given, which brings 
 out nearly the same results (pp. 7-9). 
 
 190 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 A GENUINE WORK 
 
 of the beloved disciple. Such being the general character 
 of our four Gospels, it needs no elaboration of argument 
 to prove how strong and reliable is the evidence they 
 afford to the character, claims, words, deeds of the Jesus 
 whose portrait they enshrine. 
 
 A FOURFOLD ASPECT. 
 
 If Matthew writes predominatingly for Jews, to set 
 forth Jesus as the Messiah, Mark for Gentiles, to exhibit 
 Him, by His wondrous works, as the Son of God, Luke, 
 as the companion of Paul, to picture Him as the 
 gracious Saviour, John, rising above time relations, to 
 declare His oneness in eternity with God, it is yet the 
 same Christ that, under these several aspects, they depict. 
 The harmony of character is as remarkable as the variety 
 of representation. 
 
 Of special interest is the value of the evidence which 
 the Gospels afford to the element most impugned in the 
 life of Jesus — 
 
 HIS MIRACLES. 
 
 That evidence is often represented as weak ; rightly 
 apprehended, it is irresistibly strong. The special fact to 
 be kept hold of here is that behind the individual miracle 
 there stands the whole mass of evidence sustaining the historicity 
 and credibility of the Gospels as a whole. There are three 
 main strands in this evidence for the miracles of Jesus : 
 (i) There is the fact that the miraculous element can- 
 not be eliminated from the narratives of the Gospels. 
 The miraculous is 
 
 MINUTELY AND INSEPARABLY INTERWOVEN 
 
 with the texture of the Gospels, and it is impossible to 
 get rid of it without destroying the whole. Instead of 
 
 191 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the miracle discrediting the narrative, the internal marks 
 of truth in the narrative and other evidences of historicity 
 sustain the credit of the miracle. As little can miracle 
 be got rid of by mutilation of the text. It is a purely 
 arbitrary procedure, e.g., on the part of Wellhausen, to 
 leave out the first two chapters of Matthew from his 
 version of the Gospels. The account of the Nativity in 
 Luke, again, likewise omitted by Wellhausen, is an 
 integral part of the Gospel, exhibiting the well-known 
 marks of that author's style. 
 
 (2) The miracles are sustained by the fact that the 
 narratives of the ministry to which they belong rest on 
 
 FIRM APOSTOLIC TRADITION, 
 
 or, better, testimony. The story as it stands in the 
 Gospels does not rest on the individual testimony of the 
 author of the Gospel. He is putting down what was 
 known and believed in the Church generally as derived 
 from those who had been " eye-witnesses and ministers 
 of the Word." There was a fixed tradition carefully con- 
 veyed to the Churches, and made the basis of catechetical 
 instruction. The Gospels are the deposit of it in writing. 
 
 (3) Taking the Gospels by themselves, they rest 
 ultimately on the 
 
 TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESSES. 
 
 The value of the testimony does not suffer by its being, 
 in some cases, the testimony of the twelve (or eleven) 
 combined. The Resurrection, e.g., rests on the combined 
 witness of all the Apostles. But in the Gospels we have 
 individual testimony also. Few now doubt that at least 
 the ground-stock of Matthew is from the pen of that 
 Apostle, and we have seen reason to believe that the 
 whole Gospel is so. Even if Logia are assumed, it is 
 certain that these embraced narrative elements. Mark, 
 
 192 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 it has been seen, is really the Gospel of Peter, whose 
 estimony to the facts of Christ's ministry the Evangelist 
 preserves. Luke, in his preface, carries us back to eye- 
 witnesses as the source of his information. In John's 
 Gospel, finally, we have the testimony of an eye-witness. 
 All these witnesses include miracle in what they report 
 of the life of Jesus. The miracles themselves have a 
 congruity with the character of Christ, and the ends of 
 His ministry, which give them a claim upon our faith. 
 
 V. 
 
 Only one point more, and I leave the subject. It 
 relates to the alleged falsification by history of Christ's 
 repeated predictions of His 
 
 RETURN IN GLORY. 
 
 These also form an essential part of the Gospel testimony 
 about Jesus, and cannot be separated from it. Yet well 
 nigh nineteen centuries have passed, and the Lord has 
 not returned yet. As Prof. Huxley puts the point in one 
 of his essays:* " One thing is quite certain : if that belief 
 in the speedy second coming of the Messiah, which was 
 shared by all parties in the Primitive Church, whether 
 Nazarene or Pauline, which Jesus is made to prophesy, 
 over and over again, in the Synoptic Gospels, and which 
 dominated the life of Christians during the first century 
 after the Crucifixion ; if He believed and taught that, 
 then assuredly He was under an illusion, and He is 
 responsible for that which the mere effluxion of time has 
 demonstrated to be a prodigious error."* 
 
 I do not stay to discuss the many subsidiary questions 
 that arise here — whether, e.g., the Parousia of Christ was 
 conceived of by Him as a single event, or not, rather, as 
 a process, with many stages, culminating in His Personal 
 
 *Agnosticis?n : A Rejoinder. 
 
 193 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Return at the end of the age. I accept the fact that the 
 Personal Return of the Lord was clearly predicted by 
 Himself in many passages, and that in the New Testa- 
 ment it appears throughout as the great 
 
 IMPENDING EVENT OF THE FUTURE, 
 
 for which His people are exhorted to watch and wait ; 
 which, therefore, must ever, if they truly look for it, be 
 near to them in spirit. And I make on the predictions 
 of this great event but two remarks : — (i) It is 
 repeatedly declared, and by none more emphatically than 
 by Jesus Himself that 
 
 THE "TIMES AND SEASONS" 
 
 of these final events were kept by the Father in His 
 own power, and were not made known to man (Acts i. 7). 
 Even in Matt. xxiv. Jesus distinguishes clearly between 
 " these (nearer) things," which were to be fulfilled in that 
 generation (ver. 34), and " that day and hour," of which 
 He says that no man knoweth, neither the angels, nor 
 even the Son (ver. 36, Mark xiii. 32). (2) Has 
 
 THE CHURCH ITSELF NO RESPONSIBILITY 
 
 for the delay in the Lord's coming ? This is an aspect 
 of the subject often overlooked. Prophecy is conditional 
 (Cf. Jer. xviii. 7-10, &c). From the point of view of the 
 absolute knowledge of the Father, the time of the Advent 
 (like the day of one's own death) is fixed ; but relatively 
 and humanly we can do much either to hasten or retard 
 the fulfilment of God's promises, and the triumph of His 
 Kingdom. The Westminster Catechism interprets the 
 second petition in the Lord's Prayer as a prayer that " the 
 Kingdom of grace may be advanced, and the Kingdom of 
 glory may be hastened." But if the Kingdom of glory 
 
 194 
 
The Bulwark of the Gospels 
 
 may be hastened, may it not also be kept back ? Had 
 the Church been more faithful in the Apostolic and in 
 subsequent ages, would the consummation not have been 
 nearer ? Would it not have been here ? This is, to my 
 mind, an all-important fact to be considered when we ask 
 the question — Why has the Lord not come ? 
 
 195 
 
IX 
 
 Oppositions of Science 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 IT is taken for granted in many quarters that there is 
 a wide and growing gulf between science and 
 Christian faith. This impression, fostered by such 
 books as Draper's Conflict Between Religion and Science, 
 White's Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 
 and now Foster's Finality of the Christian Religion, is 
 commonly accompanied by the belief, often by the bold 
 assertion, that the general attitude of scientific men is 
 one of alienation from Christianity. While criticism has 
 been undermining belief in the Bible from within, 
 science, it is assumed, has been demonstrating its irre- 
 concilability with the actual constitution of things in the 
 outward world. 
 The whole 
 
 ARRAY OF THE SCIENCES 
 
 is brought in as witness against the Bible. The 
 Copernican astronomy, it is alleged, has destroyed its 
 view of the cosmos ; geology has disproved its cosmogony, 
 and view of the age of the earth ; anthropology has 
 similarly confuted its teaching on the age of man ; 
 evolution has taken the ground from its belief in Eden, 
 and a pure beginning of the race. Once it is realised, 
 say the objectors, that the earth is not the centre of the 
 universe, but a mere speck in the infinity of worlds ; that 
 the world existed for untold ages before man's advent ; 
 that man himself is a slow development from inferior 
 
 199 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 forms, and appeared as far back as 100,000, 200,000 or 
 500,000 years ago ; that his original condition was one of 
 brutishness, rising into savagery, then, after long 
 struggling, into civilisation, the whole scheme of 
 Christianity, based on the idea that our planet was the 
 peculiar scene of God's revelations, of the fall and 
 redemption of man, and of the incarnation of God's Son 
 for the purposes of that redemption, sinks in irretrievable 
 ruin. Advancing knowledge has given it its death-blow. 
 
 I. 
 
 It may be of some service if I attempt in this paper to 
 show that such statements are 
 
 EXTREMELY WIDE OF THE MARK, 
 
 and that neither Christianity nor the Bible are in the 
 slightest danger from any results that genuine science 
 has succeeded in establishing. There are certain things, 
 however, which it is desirable I should say at the outset 
 on this alleged conflict between the Christian religion 
 and science. 
 
 The first is, that much which passes under the name 
 of "science " is not science at all, but 
 
 CRUDE AND UNWARRANTED SPECULATION, 
 
 and often extremely bad philosophy. This is peculiarly 
 true of that remarkable mixture of scientific facts, rash 
 theorising, and bad metaphysics met with in the works of 
 the Jena savant Haeckel recently popularised among us. 
 Haeckel sets himself to disprove, on scientific grounds, 
 the cardinal religious ideas of God, the soul, immortality ; 
 but the weapons by which he assails these ideas are not 
 derived from anything properly called science, but from a 
 semi-materialistic theory of " Monism " — a so-called 
 
 200 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 " law of substance" — which scarcely anyone possessed of 
 a smattering of philosophic knowledge at the present day 
 would discredit himself by countenancing. It is a 
 singular fact that, by confession of his own pages, most 
 of Haeckel's chief authorities — Virchow, Du Bois- 
 Reymond, Wundt, Romanes, &c. — later in life deserted 
 him, and became advocates of an opposite and spiritua- 
 listic interpretation of the universe — Romanes becoming 
 decidedly Christian. Wundt, in the second edition of 
 his work on Human and Animal Psychology declared that 
 the first edition, in which he had advocated views like 
 Haeckel's, "weighed on him as a kind of crime, from 
 which he longed to free himself as soon as possible." 
 
 A second thing I desire to observe is, that the alleged 
 divorce between scientific thought and Christian belief in 
 our own time is, to say the least, 
 
 A GROSS EXAGGERATION. 
 
 Multitudes of scientific men themselves, if they were 
 consulted, would resent the imputation. I give two 
 illustrations. When, many years ago (1879), ^ r - Froude 
 had indulged in the usual declamation about " the 
 ablest," " the most advanced," " the best scientific 
 thinkers " having abandoned Christianity, and even 
 theistic belief, the late Professor Tait, of Edinburgh, 
 as distinguished a representative of physical science as 
 then lived, replied in an article in the International 
 Review with " a prompt and decided ' No ! ' " He 
 asked of any competent authority, who were the 
 " advanced," the " best," and the " ablest " scientific 
 thinkers of the immediate past, or of that time, 
 and, after giving his list of those whom he con- 
 sidered such, he declared them to be on the side of 
 faith. He summed up : " The assumed incompatibility 
 of religion and science has been so often and confidently 
 
 201 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 asserted in recent times, that it has come . . . to be 
 taken for granted by the writers of leading articles, &c. ; 
 and it is, of course, perpetually thrust before their too 
 trusting readers. But the whole thing is a mistake, and 
 a mistake so grave that no truly scientific man . . . 
 runs, in Britain at least, the smallest risk of making it. 
 . . . With a few, and these very singular, exceptions, 
 the true scientific men and true theologians of the present 
 day have not found themselves under the necessity of 
 quarrelling." Lord Kelvin has recently spoken in the 
 same strain for himself and others. 
 
 My other example is from the late George G. 
 Romanes, who, after a long eclipse of faith, died a devout 
 believer, in full communion with the Church of England. 
 In his posthumously published Thoughts on Religion, he 
 has left the avowal that one thing which specially 
 impressed him was the large number of 
 
 CHRISTIAN MEN OF SCIENTIFIC ATTAINMENTS 
 
 in his own University of Cambridge. "The curious 
 thing," he says, " is that all the most illustrious names 
 were ranged on the side of orthodoxy. Sir W. Thomson, 
 Sir George Stokes, Professors Tait, Adams, Clerk 
 Maxwell, and Bayley — not to mention a number of lesser 
 lights, such as Routh, Todhunter, Ferrers, &c. — were all 
 avowed Christians" (p. 137). It maybe thought, 
 perhaps, that it is different now. Romanes himself, with 
 his return to faith, is an instance to the contrary. But, 
 generally, I should be disposed to say that the conditions 
 were less favourable to faith a quarter of a century ago 
 than they are in the more spiritual atmosphere of to-day. 
 I have the privilege of the acquaintance of many pro- 
 fessors and teachers of science, and the majority of them 
 are Christian men. 
 
 There is yet another fact which it is important I should 
 
 202 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 emphasise. The assumption commonly made in discus- 
 sions of this sort is that, in the conflicts of science and 
 religion, it is invariably science that comes off the victor. 
 This, however, is a proposition which needs much quali- 
 fication. It would be truer to say that, in the alleged 
 conflicts of science and religion, the victory is 
 
 SELDOM, OR NEVER, ALL ON ONE SIDE. 
 
 If theology makes mistakes, so assuredly does science. 
 Progress has been accomplished, in science as in 
 theology, by the gradual unlearning of errors and discard- 
 ing of defective theories for new and more adequate ones. 
 If theologians looked askance on Copernican astronomy 
 or on Darwinian theories of evolution they were not alone 
 in this ; the science of their time did the same. The 
 foolish attacks of theologians on science have been more 
 than paralleled by the foolish attacks of scientific men on 
 theology. 
 
 What is more to the point, the opposition of religion 
 to new scientific theories has not always been wholly 
 wrong. It will be seen as we proceed that many of the 
 theories to which defenders of religion took exception 
 were really in their original form liable to objection, and 
 have since, by the progress of science itself, been greatly 
 modified. This is specially true of the Darwinian theory 
 of evolution, and of the anthropological speculations con- 
 nected with it. Theologians were not unjustified in the 
 strictures they passed on the specific Darwinian theory, 
 with its apotheosis of fortuity. In the progress of dis- 
 cussion it is not too much to say that the objections they 
 took to the sufficiency of that theory have in the main 
 been found valid. 
 
 One further caution I would venture to give, viz., that 
 in science, as in criticism, it is well not to allow the mind 
 to be overborne by the mere weight of 
 
 203 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 EXPERT OPINION. 
 
 Experts may err, and do err, and their judgments often 
 seriously conflict. Examples might easily be given of 
 the danger of trusting too implicitly to untested assertions 
 even in plain matters of fact. 
 
 II. 
 
 Looking now, first, at the bearings of science on 
 religion 
 
 ON THE WIDE SCALE, 
 
 can we say that science has destroyed any of the great 
 fundamental ideas of the religion of the Bible — God, the 
 soul, the future life, moral and spiritual government of 
 the world — or has it not rather brought manifold con- 
 firmations to these ideas ? Has it succeeded, e.g., in 
 breaking down the barrier between the spiritual and the 
 material, the vital and the non-vital, the free and the 
 necessitated, or in banishing from the interpretation of 
 nature the ideas of creative power and of wise and 
 purposeful action ? Everyone acquainted with the best 
 scientific thought knows that the opposite is the case. 
 The trend at present is all in the direction of 
 
 A SPIRITUALISTIC INTERPRETATION 
 
 of nature. The idea of " teleology " (ends, design, final 
 cause) has had a remarkable revival in connection with 
 evolutionism, in opposition to " naturalistic " theories. 
 Prof. Foster may be our witness here, for he devotes a 
 whole chapter of his book to illustration of the fact, and 
 what he says is only the echo of what the men of insight 
 are proclaiming everywhere.* The attempts at a 
 
 *Ch. vi. of Professor Foster's work is entitled " The Naturalistic 
 and the Religious View of the World." It is really largely indebted 
 to a German work, by Rudolf Otto, mentioned below, Naturalisiiche 
 unci Religbse Weltansicht. [This book is now translated in the 
 "Crown Theological Library" under the title, Naturalism and 
 Religion.'] 
 
 204 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 mechanical or merely chemical explanation of " life " 
 have broken down utterly.* The declaration in May, 
 1903, of Lord Kelvin — than whom no man stands higher 
 in physical and mathematical science — that science not 
 only did not deny, but positively affirmed, the reality of 
 creative power and directive intelligence, will long be 
 remembered. 
 
 Take the question of 
 
 THE SOUL AND THE FUTURE LIFE. 
 
 Science, of course, cannot make positive assertions on 
 immortality, but it lends at least powerful support to that 
 belief in the distinction which every advance in deeper 
 knowledge of ourselves enables us to make between 
 spiritual mind and material brain — between our souls and 
 the corporeal organism which meanwhile they inhabit. I 
 leave aside the strange region explored by " Psychical 
 Research," and keep to open, everyday facts of common 
 experience. And here, if one thing emerges more clearly 
 than another, it is the fallacy of a materialistic explana- 
 tion of mental phenomena, and the truth of the impass- 
 able distinction between mind and brain. I will not use 
 my own words, but will quote those of one of the acutest 
 of recent German writers, 
 
 RUDOLF OTTO, 
 
 on the subject. "Consciousness, thought," he says, 
 11 nay, the humblest feeling of pleasure or pain, or the 
 simplest sensuous perception, are nothing that can be 
 compared with ' matter and force,' with movements of 
 parts of masses. They are a foreign, perfectly inexplic- 
 able guest in this world of matter, molecules, and 
 elements. Even if we could follow most precisely and 
 
 *See an article on " The Origin of Living Organisms,'' by Professor 
 J. Arthur Thomson, in the London Quarterly Review^ October 
 1906. 
 
 205 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 minutely the play of the nervous processes with which 
 feeling, consciousness, pain, or pleasure are connected, 
 if we could make our brain transparent, and magnify its 
 cells to houses, so that, wandering among them and 
 glancing around, we could count and watch all that takes 
 place, and follow even the dance of the molecules, we 
 should never see * pain,' ' pleasure,' ' thought,' but always 
 only bodies and their movements. A thought, say the 
 recognition that 2X2 = 4, is not long or broad, not 
 above or below, not to be measured or weighed by inches 
 or pounds like matter . . . but is something entirely 
 different, which must be known from inner experience, 
 yet is known from this far better and more immediately 
 than anything else, and which can absolutely be com- 
 pared with nothing but itself." * 
 Is it, then, in the idea of 
 
 A REIGN OF LAW 
 
 that science strikes athwart belief in a revelation from 
 God, undeniably involving miraculous elements ? So, as 
 we saw before, think Prof. Foster and a multitude of 
 others in these times; but their confident assertion that 
 law excludes miracle would not have been endorsed by 
 such thinkers as Prof. Huxley or J. S. Mill, and is with- 
 out justification in either science or reason. The Bible 
 also recognises law in nature. " For ever, O Lord, Thy 
 word is settled in heaven. . . Thou hast established 
 the earth, and it abideth. They abide this day accord- 
 ing to Thine ordinances ; for all things are Thy servants " 
 (Ps. cxix. 89). But law is God's servant, not His master; 
 and nothing prevents His acting above, without, or 
 beyond it, if the highest ends of His government call for 
 such action. 
 
 We may go further, and say that in the 
 
 * In the work above referred to, Nat. unci Rel. Weltansicht^ pp. 
 233-4. [E. T., p. 300.] 
 
 206 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 HISTORY OF NATURE ITSELF 
 
 science reveals to us facts which rational thought can 
 only construe as " miracles." Nature's course is marked 
 by the breaking forth of ever new powers — as in the 
 transition from inorganic to organic — and the founding 
 of higher orders of existence, for the explanation of which 
 we are compelled to go directly back to the Central 
 Creative Cause.* In another way science does some- 
 thing to remove the offence of miracle by its constant 
 discoveries of the depths of hidden powers in nature of 
 which Omnipotence can avail itself for the accomplish- 
 ment of its purposes — thus softening the transition from 
 natural to supernatural. But no powers of mere nature 
 can avail for the restoring of sight to the totally blind, 
 the instantaneous cleansing of the flesh of a leper, or the 
 raising of the dead to life, so that the idea of miracle, in 
 the stricter sense, remains. Yet such acts are neither 
 beyond the power of God, nor unworthy of Him, if 
 sufficiently weighty reasons, of which He alone can judge, 
 are present for its exercise. 
 
 There is a further difficulty connected with law on 
 which a word — and it can only be a word — may here be 
 said. Does not a reign of law, it may be asked, at the 
 very least, exclude 
 
 SPECIAL PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER, 
 
 both elements in the religious conception of the Bible ? 
 The difficulty is to many minds a very real one ; yet help, 
 I think, may be got from considering that laws and forces 
 
 ♦Sabatier has said: "At each step nature surpasses itself by a 
 mysterious creation that resembles a true miracle in relation to an 
 inferior stage," and infers that " in Nature there is a hidden force, an 
 incommensurable ' potential energy,' an ever-open unexhausted fount 
 of apparitions, at once magnificent and unexpected.'" — Phil of Rel., p. 
 84. Call this Power " God," and the analogy with miracle is com- 
 plete. 
 
 207 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 of nature of themselves explain nothing — apart, that is, 
 from the way in which these laws and forces are combined, 
 and co-operate to the production of special results. As 
 the Apostle puts it, all things "work together" for gocd 
 to them that love God (Rom. viii. 28). To borrow a 
 phrase for which J. S. Mill acknowledges his indebtedness 
 to Dr. Thomas Chalmers — in order to explain nature as 
 we find it, we need to take account, not only of "laws," 
 but of the " collocation " of laws. A machine — e.g., a 
 printing-press — produces its results through the operation 
 of laws. Yet the laws would accomplish nothing were it 
 not that the machine is put together in a certain way, 
 and that the forces at work in it are regulated and directed 
 to a certain end. Laws alone, therefore, do not explain the 
 universe ; there is needed plan, direction, guidance ; there 
 is needed the mind and the hand behind the machine — 
 the combination of laws and forces — guiding it in the 
 work it has to do. When it is remembered that the mind 
 behind Nature — the mind which has the whole plan at 
 every instant before it — is that of the infinitely wise 
 Author of Nature Himself, it will be seen what large 
 room there is for a providence as special as Jesus teaches 
 us to believe in (Matt. vi. 30-34, x. 29-30), a prayer as 
 effective as His promises are great (Matt. vii. 7-11, Mark 
 xi. 24, Luke xviii. 1-7, John xiv. 13, 14). 
 
 III. 
 
 From these general considerations on the scientific 
 conception of nature we are brought back to the diffi- 
 culties presumed to arise from 
 
 THE SPECIAL SCIENCES, 
 
 some of the chief of which may now receive attention. 
 The result, I believe, will be to show that there is as little 
 
 208 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 reason to fear for the Bible in this special sphere as in 
 the general. 
 
 I mentioned in the opening paper that few Christians 
 are now troubled in mind, even in the least degree, by the 
 stupendous enlargement of our knowledge of the physical 
 universe through the discoveries of astronomy. Yet there 
 are scientific men, with scholars in other departments, 
 who seriously persuade themselves that the acceptance of 
 
 THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM 
 
 is absolutely fatal to the ordinary Christian scheme. 
 " The earth," says Professor Foster, "is but an ordinary 
 satellite of a planet which is itself only a star among 
 numberless stars, a mere vanishing point in the illimitable 
 All. This grain of sand on the shore of the infinite sea — 
 how could centrality and supremacy be still accorded to 
 it ? And that which takes place upon its surface — how 
 could it be decisive of the fate of the shoreless All ? " (p. 
 165).* How could such an insignificant point in space 
 be conceived of as the theatre of the grand divine drama 
 of Incarnation and Redemption ? 
 This is the so-called 
 
 "astronomical objection " 
 
 to which Dr. Chalmers sought to reply in his Astronomical 
 Discourses, and which has so often been replied to since. 
 It was an objection keenly felt at first by believers in the 
 old Ptolemaic astronomy, which made the earth to be 
 the centre of the universe. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, 
 John Owen, John Wesley even, all opposed the new 
 doctrine as contrary to Scripture. They were mistaken. 
 It has now long been recognised that what enlarges our 
 
 * It is not easy to see how, with his own view of the Christian 
 religion and of God's great and final revelation to the world in Christ, 
 Dr. Foster is in much better case than others for meeting this 
 objection, in his eyes, so formidable. 
 
 209 P 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 thoughts of God's universe enlarges our thoughts of God 
 Himself. It has come to be perceived that these good 
 men made 
 
 A WRONG USE OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 and that it is no part of the function of the Bible to 
 anticipate modern physical discoveries. The Bible is no 
 manual of sixteenth or twentieth century astronomy, but 
 speaks of the world and of natural appearances from the 
 point of view of the ordinary observer, as, indeed, we our- 
 selves do when we speak of the sun rising and setting, 
 and of the movements of the moon and stars across the 
 heavens. Does anyone now dream, e.g., of interpreting 
 the language of the Bible in the igth Psalm in any other 
 way ? The Copernican discovery helped men to get the 
 right point of view in relation to the Bible, as well as the 
 right point of view in the relation of the earth to the sun. 
 But does not the Copernican system, in itself, it may 
 be said, conflict with the Biblical teaching on man's place 
 in the universe, and with God's great love for him, and 
 care for him in his salvation ? I do not think that, once 
 
 THE TRUE STATE OF THE CASE 
 
 was clearly grasped, Christian people in any great numbers 
 have ever felt that it did. It is to be remembered that, even 
 when the world was believed to be the centre of creation, 
 man was not thought of as the only intelligent being in the 
 universe. Beyond this visible system were the heavens 
 of heavens, peopled with innumerable hosts of spiritual 
 intelligences, " thrones, dominions, principalities, 
 powers," standing, many of them, in the immediate light 
 of God's presence. The change was not very great when 
 the visible universe also was thought of as possibly 
 tenanted by rational beings more nearly resembling man 
 himself. What, as regards the main fact, does it matter, 
 even if it were so ? As I have put the point elsewhere 
 
 210 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 — " Be the physical magnitude of the universe what it 
 may, it remains the fact that on this little planet life has 
 effloresced into reason ; that we have here 
 
 A RACE OF RATIONAL BEINGS 
 
 who bear God's image, and are capable of knowing, 
 loving, and obeying Him. . . . Even supposing that 
 there were other inhabited worlds, or any number of 
 them, this does not detract from the soul's value in this 
 world. Mind, if it has the powers we know it has, is not 
 less great because other minds may exist elsewhere. Man 
 is not less great because he is not alone great."* It does 
 not exalt, but really derogates from, the perfection of God 
 to suppose that He will love man less, or do less for his 
 salvation, because the universe holds other objects of His 
 love and care. Is it not the part of the Good Shepherd 
 to leave the ninety-and-nine, and seek out the one lost 
 sheep (Luke xv. 3-7) ? 
 
 This alone is sufficient to meet the objection, but 
 science itself now forces on us another question of 
 surprising import. Is it, after all, the case that the 
 universe is infinite in extent, and that it 
 
 TEEMS WITH WORLDS 
 
 peopled with intelligences, like to, or greater than, our 
 own ? So, on a priori grounds, it is often supposed ; but 
 those who have read Dr. A. R. Wallace's recent book, 
 Man's Place in the Universe, will know how much courage 
 it takes to answer that question in the affirmative. Dr. 
 Wallace's book is nothing less than the reaffirmation of 
 the thesis, on what claim to be grounds of " the new 
 astronomy," that our earth — or rather the solar system ot 
 which it forms a part — is situated somewhere at or near 
 the centre of the stellar universe, shown by him to be 
 
 *Christian View of God and the World, p. 325. 
 
 211 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 limited in extent ; and that, according to every proba- 
 bility, the inhabitants of this planet are the only rational 
 intelligences in the worlds the telescope reveals. The 
 book has been criticised on astronomical and other 
 grounds ; but, on the whole, the author seems to have 
 made out his case that our system is situated in the 
 medial plane of the Milky Way, and near the centre of it, 
 and that the constitution and conditions of the other 
 planets of our system, and of the more distant parts of 
 the universe now known to us by the telescope and 
 spectroscope, are entirely unfavourable to the idea of 
 their being the abodes of intelligent life.* If such 
 
 11 GEOCENTRIC " SPECULATIONS 
 
 are admitted, what becomes of the "astronomical 
 objection " ? Science throws an altogether unexpected 
 weight into the scale against its cogency. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The lesson taught as to the right use of Scripture by 
 the astronomical difficulty received new application and 
 accentuation in the controversy that arose in last century 
 as to the bearing on the 
 
 BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION 
 
 of the discoveries of geology. The law applies here also 
 that the Bible is not designed to anticipate the discoveries 
 of nineteenth century science, but speaks of natural things 
 as they lie open to the eye of the ordinary observer, and 
 
 *Cf. interesting critical articles on Dr. Wallace's book in the 
 Edinburgh Review, July, 1904; Church Quarterly Review, July, 1904; 
 and the London Quarterly Review, January, 1904. I had myself 
 urged like considerations in my Christian View of God, pp. 324-5. 
 Cf. Note, pp. 468-70 (8th edition). 
 
 212 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 uses the language that would be understood by readers of 
 its own time. Gen. i. says, " God created," but leaves 
 it open to any subsequent discovery to show the method 
 of His creation. This Genesis record is utterly unlike any 
 other cosmogony that ever was given. Its inspiration is 
 attested by its monotheistic character, its sublimity of 
 thought and style, and its truth of representation in 
 essential points. Comparison with the debased, poly- 
 theistic creation-legend of Babylonia only brings out 
 more forcibly the unchallengeable superiority of the 
 Biblical account. Its intention is primarily to be the 
 vehicle of the great religious ideas that inform it ; yet, so 
 true is the insight yielded by 
 
 THE SPIRIT OF REVELATION, 
 
 that the writer or seer is able really to seize the great 
 stadia in the process of creation, and to represent these in 
 a way which conveys a practically accurate concep- 
 tion of them to men's minds. Proof of this is hardly 
 needed when we have a certificate to the fact from no 
 less redoubtable an authority than Haeckel himself. He 
 speaks of " the simple and natural chain of ideas which 
 runs through " the Mosaic account, emphasises how " two 
 great and fundamental ideas, common also to the non- 
 miraculous theory of development, meet us in the Mosaic 
 hypothesis of creation with surprising clearness and 
 simplicity — the idea of separation or differentiation, and 
 the idea of progressive development or perfecting" and 
 bestows his "just and sincere admiration on the Jewish 
 law-giver's grand insight into nature, and his simple and 
 natural hypothesis of creation."* 
 The tribute thus paid is just. I do not touch on the 
 
 HARMONIES OF GENESIS AND GEOLOGY, 
 
 but only ask the reader to consider if it would have been 
 *Hhtory of Creation, I., pp. 37-8 (E.T.) 
 
 213 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 possible to construct such parallels as we have, for 
 instance, in Hugh Miller's Testimony of the Rocks, had there 
 not been at least very remarkable general resemblances 
 to go upon. To my own mind the general harmony does 
 seem very striking. I quote again words of my own — 
 " The dark watery waste over which the Spirit broods 
 with vivifying power, the advent of light, the formation 
 of an atmosphere or sky capable of sustaining the clouds 
 above it, the settling of the great outlines of the con- 
 tinents and seas, the clothing of the dry land with 
 abundant vegetation, the adjustment of the earth's rela- 
 tion to sun and moon as the visible rulers of its day and 
 night, the production of the great sea monsters and 
 reptile-like creatures and birds, the peopling of the earth 
 with four-footed beasts and cattle, last of all, the advent 
 of man — is there so much of all this which science 
 requires us to cancel ? " * 
 Even with regard to 
 
 the "days " 
 
 — the duration of time involved — there is no insuperable 
 difficulty. The writer may very well have intended 
 symbolically or pictorially to represent the Creation as a 
 great Week of work, ending with the Creator's Sabbath 
 rest. It seems to me, however, more probable, in view 
 of the fact that days of twenty-four hours do not begin to 
 run till the appointment of the sun on the fourth day 
 (Gen. i. 14), that he did not intend to affix a precise 
 length to his Creation "days." These, therefore, may 
 be allowed to represent long periods of duration. This 
 view was taken, on exegetical grounds alone, by Christian 
 writers long before geology was heard of.t 
 
 * Christian View of God, p. 421. 
 
 t E.g. by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XL, 6-7 ; " Of what fashion 
 these days were, it is exceedingly hard or altogether impossible to 
 think, much more to speak," &.c. 
 
 214 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 But suppose it granted that the difficulty is largely 
 past in regard to the age of the earth, is there not still a 
 serious obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible's teaching 
 in the declarations of science on the extreme 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF MAN ? 
 
 If man's appearance on the earth is to be carried back 
 100,000 or 200,000 years, or even farther, how does this 
 fit in with the Bible's account of his creation, apparently 
 some 6,000 years ago ? 
 
 A preliminary inquiry would be, Is it clear that man's 
 existence needs to be carried back so far ? I prefer, how- 
 ever, to look at the matter first on its Biblical side. I 
 leave to those who care for them speculations on " pre- 
 Adamic " man and the like, and accept for myself what I 
 take to be the plain teaching of Scripture, that man, 
 made in God's image, was the last of the Creator's works 
 (Gen. i. 26, 27), and that the whole race of human beings 
 has sprung from " Adam," the first created man (Gen. 
 iii. 20). How is the date usually assigned to this event 
 to be reconciled with the alleged facts of anthropology ? 
 
 The honest answer to this question must be, It cannot 
 be reconciled ? Apart from anthropology altogether, the 
 course of discovery in Babylonia and Egypt has been 
 such as to show that man existed on the earth in a state 
 of civilisation 
 
 MANY MILLENNIUMS EARLIER 
 
 than was formerly believed. The Bible itself, however, is 
 not thereby discredited, but only the human chronologies 
 based on it — as it has proved, mistakenly. The Bible 
 gives, indeed, summaries of early human history, and 
 genealogical tables extending in apparently unbroken 
 line from Adam to Abraham and Moses. But just here 
 the fallacy comes in. For, setting mythical explanations 
 
 2I 5 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 aside, who is to guarantee that these genealogies are or 
 were ever intended to be complete, or that they do not in 
 some cases represent heads of families, or clan-fathers, or 
 typical links in a long chain of descent, the intermediate 
 links of which are dropped out ? The 
 
 HIGHLY TECHNICAL MANNER 
 
 in which genealogies were commonly constructed (Cf. the 
 list of the seventy who went down with Jacob to Egypt, 
 Gen. xlvi., which, with other anomalies, includes Jacob 
 himself, and the two sons of Joseph, born in Egypt, ver. 
 20, in the number) * the frequent mingling of clan or 
 tribal names with personal (as obviously in Gen. x. xi.), 
 the compression of lists by omission of names (as in 
 Christ's genealogy in Matt. i. where three names are 
 omitted between Joram and Uzziah, ver. 8), show con- 
 clusively that it is impossible to use such genealogies as 
 we have in Gen. v. and xi. as a basis for accurate chrono- 
 logical reckoning. So obvious is this on reflection that 
 the most conservative Biblical students seem now agreed 
 that the early genealogies must be interpreted with great 
 latitude, and that nothing stands in the way of a large 
 extension of the period of man's existence on the earth, if 
 such should prove to be required.! 
 It does not follow, however, that the 
 
 EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS 
 
 put forth in certain scientific quarters for man's antiquity 
 are offhand to be accepted. There are the best reasons 
 
 • Cf. my Problem of the O. T., p. 367. 
 
 t I need instance only the Princeton theologians Dr. A. A. Hodge, 
 in his Outlines of Theology (Edit. 1879), p. 297; Dr. W. H. Green, in 
 a striking article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1890, in which the 
 whole subject is discussed ; Dr. J. D. Davis in Art. " Chronology '' in 
 his Did. of the Bible. Cf. also Bishop Ellicott's O. T. Coin. Jor 
 English Readers, I., pp. 33-35, &c. 
 
 2l6 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 for not accepting them. The older estimates of geological 
 time, generally, have had to be enormously retrenched, 
 and one by one the criteria relied on to prove man's 
 extreme antiquity have been shown not to be reliable. 
 The assumption of Tertiary (even of Miocene or Pliocene) 
 man may, in the present state of the evidence, be 
 dismissed from consideration. The question of man's 
 age now resolves itself pretty much into that of man's 
 relation to the glacial period (pre-glacial, inter-glacial, 
 post-glacial), and on this experts are far from agreed. 
 Two things seem to myself fairly well ascertained — first, 
 that the earliest certain traces of man are towards the 
 close of the glacial period, and, second, that the close of 
 this period, and, with it, the 
 
 ADVENT OF MAN 
 
 are much more recent than was some time ago imagined. 
 There seems good and constantly accumulating evidence 
 that, in America at least (the conditions in Europe were 
 probably not widely dissimilar), the glacial age closed 
 not more than from 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. This 
 brings the age of man within quite reasonable limits. 
 
 The evidence on these points, so far as I know it, I 
 have set forth in a recent book,* and I need not here 
 repeat it. I only observe, in illustration of the first, that 
 in the latest book I have seen on the subject — that on 
 North America, by I. C. Russell, Professor of Geology in 
 the University of Michigan (1904) — it is very confidently 
 stated that " we find no authentic and well-attested 
 evidence of the presence of man in America, either 
 previous to or during the glacial period ... all the 
 geological evidence thus far gathered bearing on the 
 antiquity of man in America points to the conclusion that 
 he came after the glacial epoch " (p. 362). The case 
 
 *Cf. my volume on God's Image in Man and Its Defacement. 
 
 217 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 does not seem to be very different in England, and pro- 
 bably is not on the Continent of Europe either. 
 
 In this connection many authorities, as Prestwich, 
 Howarth, the late Duke of Argyll, Dawson, G. F. Wright, 
 &c, think that geology proves an extensive post-glacial 
 submergence, after the advent of man, which they relate 
 with 
 
 THE NOACHIAN DELUGE. 
 
 Sir Henry Howarth says : "I do not see how the 
 historian, the archaeologist, and the palaeontologist can 
 avoid making this conclusion in future a prime factor in 
 their discussions, and I venture to think that before long 
 it will be accepted as unanswerable."* 
 
 V. 
 
 What now, finally, is to be said of the 
 
 BRUTE ORIGIN OF MAN ? 
 
 Has evolution not demonstrated that man is a slow 
 development from the ape,t that his original condition 
 was one of unrelieved animalism, and that his first 
 appearance on earth must be put back countless ages — 
 perhaps to Eocene times — to allow of his making the 
 advances he has done? If so, what becomes of his 
 
 * The Mammoth and the Flood, p. 463. Cf. Argyll's Geology and 
 the Deluge, 1885 ; Arts, by G. F. Wright in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1902. 
 &c. 
 
 tHaeckel writes : — " I have given fully in my History of Creation 
 the weighty reasons for claiming this descent of man from the 
 anthropoid apes." . . . " It is, therefore, established beyond 
 question for all impartial scientific inquiry that the human race comes 
 directly from the apes of the old world." ..." The resistance to 
 the theory of a descent from the apes is clearly due in most cases to 
 feeling rather than to reason." — {Evolution of Man, Pop. Edit., 
 pp. 264, 352). 
 
 3l8 
 

 Oppositions of Science 
 
 being made in the image of God, as Scripture affirms, 
 and of his fall from innocence in Eden? If his primitive 
 condition was not one of innocent simplicity, what 
 becomes of the whole Scripture doctrine of sin ? These 
 are grave questions, but I believe that, without contra- 
 vening any established scientific facts, a satisfactory 
 answer can be given to them. 
 
 There is no need for challenging the general 
 
 DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION, 
 
 supported as that is by many evidences. But, as every 
 scientific man knows, evolution and the Darwinian 
 theory of evolution are very distinct things. The former 
 may be accepted and the latter rejected. Darwinism 
 is, in fact, at the present moment being largely super- 
 seded by a type of evolution of a quite different stamp. 
 This " newer evolution," as it is sometimes called, denies 
 the sufficiency of the Darwinian theory of natural 
 selection acting on fortuitous variations : seeks the causes 
 of organic development chiefly within the organism; 
 affirms purpose and design ; above all, challenges the 
 view that new species originate by slow and insensible 
 variations out of others, and lays the stress on "sudden 
 changes," "abrupt mutations," the rapid "breaking up" 
 of existing types, and appearance of new and higher 
 forms. Professor Foster, in his book already frequently 
 quoted, gives some account of it, as I myself had done 
 in my book on God's Image in Man, and goes so far as 
 to say that "it sets aside Darwinism as an overcome 
 hypothesis" (p. 235).* 
 
 It is obvious that if this new theory of 
 
 "saltatory" or "mutational" evolution 
 
 *I have pointed out that Prof. Foster owes much to Rudolf Otto, 
 whose papers on the subject I frequently refer to in the Notes to my 
 own book. [These able papers are now republished in the volume 
 previously alluded to. Cf. E.T. chaps, iv. to vii-] 
 
 219 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 is accepted it does away at a stroke with nearly all the 
 difficulties connected with the origin of man. It involves 
 a revolution in the way of conceiving the evolutionary 
 process at once as regards the time required, the 
 nature of the forces employed, and the need of sup- 
 posing minute gradations between the lower and 
 higher forms. In man's case there is no longer need 
 for supposing a slow and gradual ascent from ape to true 
 man ; the "leap," when the proper time comes, may be 
 taken with all the suddenness needed to introduce the new 
 being, with his distinctive attributes, upon the scene. 
 Neither is there any need for picturing man, on his first 
 appearance, as a semi-animal, the subject of brute 
 impulse and unregulated passion ; his nature may have 
 been internally harmonious, with possibilities of sinless 
 development, which only his own free act annulled. 
 Room is given on this view for 
 
 A DOCTRINE OF SIN 
 
 — both individual and racial — such as Scripture affirms 
 and requires as the basis of its doctrine of redemption, 
 and as experience so abundantly ratifies. 
 
 In corroboration of the view now presented of the 
 origin of man and in opposition to the Darwinian and 
 Haeckelian theories of the descent of man, two all- 
 important facts may be briefly adverted to. 
 
 The first is the continued 
 
 ABSENCE OF ALL REAL MIDDLE LINKS 
 
 between man and his hypothetical ape-ancestor. The 
 Miocene " Dryopithecus " is now generally given up, and 
 hope is chiefly rested on the remains of the supposed " Ape- 
 Man" (Pithecanthropus Ercctus) — roof of a skull, some 
 teeth, a thigh-bone — discovered in 1892-4 by Dubois, a 
 Dutch doctor in Java. But scientific opinion steadily tends 
 to the rejection of this also as a true intermediate form. At 
 
 220 
 

 Oppositions of Science 
 
 an Anthropological Congress, held at Lindau in Sep- 
 tember, 1899, Dr. Bumiiller read a paper in which he 
 declared that the supposed " Pithecanthropus " is nothing 
 but a gibbon, as Virchow surmised from the first. Last 
 year an eminent anatomist, Prof. J. Kollmann, of Basel, 
 contributed to a scientific magazine {Globus) an elaborate 
 article on the Descent of Man. In this he discusses the 
 Java specimen, and rejects it as a middle link between 
 man and the apes.* More than this he holds, and argues 
 for, the view that man's line of descent is not through the 
 larger anthropoid apes at all — some anthropologists con- 
 tend, not through apes of any kind ! Of course, if this 
 is true, the whole question falls to the ground. 
 The second fact is that 
 
 THE OLDEST SKULLS 
 
 yet discovered do not afford support to the theory of the 
 slow ascent of man from the ape. Some of them, as the 
 Engis and Cro-magnon skulls, are of excellent brain 
 capacity ; others, as the Neanderthal, Canstadt, and Spy 
 skulls, are more degraded. A recent discovery (1900) of 
 a skull of a diluvial man in Krapina, in Croatia, of the 
 Neanderthal type (with differences), adds interest to the 
 problem. All these skulls are truly human, and can be 
 paralleled by existing races. Huxley, in his work on 
 Man's Place in Nature, in 1879, affirmed of the Neanderthal 
 skull that it could in no sense be regarded as inter- 
 mediate between man and the ape, and in an article in 
 The Nineteenth Century, 1900 (pp. 750 ff), he reaffirms, 
 with slight qualifications, his former verdicts. He 
 
 *He adheres to the view he expressed at a Berlin Congress that the 
 Javan specimen is, indeed, a highly interesting ape of the great group 
 of the anthropoids, but cannot be regarded as a transitional form to 
 man. An account of this article was given in the Westminster Gazette 
 for August 30, 1906. I quote from the article itself. 
 
 221 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 endorses the words of M. Fraipont : " Between the man 
 of Spy and an existing anthropoid ape there lies an abyss." 
 Prof. Kollmann is of opinion that the better-formed skulls 
 are the older. 
 
 I would only add that, so far as history has any voice 
 in this matter, it does not confirm the idea of a gradual 
 ascent of man from lowest barbarism. The further we 
 push back 
 
 THE ANCIENT CIVILISATIONS 
 
 we find still true man, in all the plerititude of his powers, 
 and possessed of arts, cities, culture, and religion. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, we may still affirm without 
 mistrust the old genealogy, which alone answers to the 
 facts of man's nature — " . . . the son of Adam, the 
 son of God " (Luke iii. 38). 
 
 VI 
 
 To this discussion of the general relation of religion to 
 the sciences, I may, in conclusion, append a few words 
 on the objection sometimes raised to the Gospels in the 
 name of science on the subject of 
 
 DEMON-POSSESSION . 
 
 Professor Huxley, who may speak for all, puts the matter 
 in his usual strong way thus : — " If Jesus taught the 
 demonological system involved in the Gadarene story — if 
 a belief in that system formed a part of the spiritual 
 convictions in which He lived and died — then I, for my 
 part, unhesitatingly refuse belief in that teaching, and 
 deny the reality of those spiritual convictions."* In 
 
 * Essay on Agnosticism and Christianity. 
 
 222 
 
Oppositions of Science 
 
 strictness, as, indeed, Professor Huxley occasionally 
 admits, the question is not one of science at all*, for the 
 existence and operation of a spiritual kingdom of evil lies 
 beyond the province of a science of nature altogether. 
 On the point of fact, however, many feel as Professor 
 Huxley did on demoniacal possession, and resort to 
 theories of " accommodation," or to Kenotic views of the 
 limitations of our Lord's human knowledge, to get rid of 
 the difficulty. 
 
 It seems to me, on the other hand, that, if Jesus stood 
 in the spiritual rapport with 
 
 THE INVISIBLE WORLD, 
 
 which the Gospels declare He did, this is precisely one of 
 the things on which it is impossible that He could be mis- 
 taken. It is granted that Jesus believed in an evil 
 spiritual world, and in an " Evil One," who was its 
 prince and ruler. I accept the belief on His authority 
 and because I think it not unreasonable in itself, and 
 borne out by many facts in experience and history. t I 
 am not at all prepared to affirm that demoniacal posses- 
 sion in the strict sense does not yet exist. I believe that 
 many things could be adduced to show that it does. I take 
 the Gospels, accordingly, as they are on this point, without 
 attempting to explain their testimony away.J It is 
 
 * He repeatedly declares in the course of his discussion with Dr 
 Wace that he has "no a priori objection to offer," that "for any- 
 thing" I can prove to the contrary, there may be spiritual beings 
 capable of the same transmigration," that he is '' unable to show 
 cause why these transferable devils should not exist." (Essays on 
 Agnositicism, &c.) 
 
 t See the weighty remarks on this subject in Gore's Dissertations, 
 pp. 23-27. 
 
 X The Rev. D. Smith, in his work The Days of His Flesh, thinks 
 that Jesus, "knowing right well what the ailment was," "dealt with 
 the demoniacs after the manner of a wise physician. He did not 
 seek to dispel their hallucination. He fell in with it, and won their 
 
 223 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 reasonable to believe that the hour of "the power of 
 darkness " (Luke xxii. 53) would be marked by exceptional 
 manifestations of this form of evil. It is not the case, 
 besides, that, as sometimes said, all diseases were ascribed 
 to demoniacal agency,* though possession was usually 
 accompanied by some form of disease {e.g., Mark ix. ijff). 
 Distinction is clearly made in the Gospels between 
 ordinary sickness, disease, lunacy, and possession (Cf. 
 Matt. iv. 23, 24 ; ix. 32-35 ; x. 8, &c). 
 
 confidence" (p. 108). In the case of the Gadarene demoniac, Mr. 
 Smith thinks that the Lord, humouring the mans delusion, " pressed 
 the swine into the service of His humane endeavours. . . . He 
 smote the creatures with a sudden panic, and they rushed down the 
 incline to their destruction. The stratagem was entirely successful" 
 (P- l 93)- To me it seems easier to believe in the demons. 
 
 * Cf. The Days of His Flesh, p. 105. 
 
 224 
 
X 
 
 The Bible and Ethics: 
 "God and My Neighbour 
 
 5? 
 
 
The Bible and Ethics : 
 
 44 God and My Neighbour 
 
 THE Bible is assailed on its ethical side. The attack 
 has been continuous from the days of Celsus and 
 the Gnostics in the second century, down through 
 the Deists of the eighteenth century, to the philo- 
 sophical, critical, and freethinking schools of our own 
 day. Sometimes there is a genuine zeal for morality in 
 the accusations made : at other times, as in the coarser 
 free-thinking organs, the attacks are wanton, ribald, and 
 vulgar. 
 The shapes which this assault upon the Bible assumes 
 
 ARE PROTEAN. 
 
 The character of Jehovah in the Old Testament is 
 vehemently assailed. The ancient Gnostics represented 
 the God of the Old Testament as partial, passionate, 
 vindictive, cruel, and many moderns reiterate the charge. 
 Even a writer of the better order like Dr. Ladd does not 
 hesitate, in his recent book on The Philosophy of Religion, 
 to endorse the statement : " The Black Man of some 
 shivering communistic savages is nearer the morality of 
 our Lord than the Jehovah of Judges" (I. p. 226). If 
 that be so, it need not be said that the "Jehovah of 
 Judges " is no true God, and there is no meaning in 
 
 227 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 speaking of " revelation " in connection with Him. 
 Much of the teaching of the Old Testament is denounced 
 as barbarous. Its heroes are pilloried as unworthy and 
 immoral.* The prophets are commonly allowed to 
 have higher conceptions, but even they are held in many 
 ways to have fallen short of perfect morality. Jesus Him- 
 self, while generally an object of reverence, does not 
 wholly escape censure. His ideals are thought to be 
 visionary and unpractical. Extremists like Nietzsche go 
 further, and rave against Him as the arch-misleader of 
 the race. His morality is a " morality for slaves." 
 Paul's doctrines are alleged to have an immoral tendency. 
 The inferences which the Apostle repudiated as 
 blasphemy — " Let us do evil that good may come " 
 (Rom. iii. 8) — " Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
 abound ? " (Rom. vi. i) — are held to be the true outcome 
 of his teaching. 
 
 All this seems very shocking, but it has to be dealt 
 with. No one denies that there are 
 
 GENUINE MORAL DIFFICULTIES 
 
 in the Bible, as there are in the ordinary providence of 
 God. But this is not the spirit in which to approach 
 them. If there is one force that has wrought for the 
 moral upbuilding of mankind more than another, every- 
 candid mind knows it is the Bible. It is not difficult to 
 show that the greater number of these so-called " difficul- 
 ties," at any rate, are due to misconception and 
 
 *Cf. Mr. Blatchford on " The Heroes of the Bible," in his book 
 God and My Neighbour. " It seems strange to me," he says, "that 
 such men as Moses, David, and Solomon should be glorified by 
 Christian men and women, who execrate Henry VIII. and Richard 
 III. as monsters. My pet aversion among the Bible heroes is Jacob; 
 but Abraham and Lot were pitiful creatures." Is Lot a Bible 
 " hero " ? 
 
 228 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 perversion, and that much of the argument against the 
 morality of the Bible is pure irrelevance. While, if the 
 Bible is regarded in the balance of its parts, in its true 
 character as a progressive revelation, and in the total 
 impression its teaching makes upon the mind, it is seen 
 to be a book which, from its first page to its last, " makes 
 for righteousness " — exalts holiness, condemns sin, aims 
 at nothing so much as the complete conquest of evil in 
 human hearts and subjugation of it throughout the 
 universe. 
 
 I. 
 
 I have said that many of the objections to the morality 
 of the Bible arise from 
 
 MISCONCEPTION AND PERVERSION. 
 
 I need hardly stay to vindicate the character or religion of 
 Jesus from Nietzsche's extravagances, or to show that 
 the Bible is not committed to the approval of the sins it 
 impartially narrates, even in the case of those who are 
 called its " heroes." What is to be said of the character 
 and shortcomings of these will be seen after. 
 
 But even those who have higher ideas of the morality 
 of Israel make sometimes very indefensible statements. 
 It is difficult to understand, e.g., how a writer like Dr. 
 Buchanan Gray can permit himself to say, as he does in 
 his Divine Discipline of Israel, that the Hebrews " were 
 bound by moral obligation and the sanction of religion in 
 their dealings with one another, but were entirely free of 
 these in their dealings with foreigners" (p. 48). What 
 grounds exist for such a statement ? Who can read the 
 early chapters of the Bible without seeing that it is con- 
 stantly assumed that there are moral laws which 
 
 BIND HEBREWS AND HEATHENS ALIKE, 
 
 and that the transgression of these is sin, which "the 
 
 229 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Judge of all the earth " (Gen. xviii. 25) must punish ? 
 Why else the judgment of the flood (Gen. vi. 11-13), the 
 destruction of the cities of the Plain (Gen. xviii. 20), the 
 rooting-out of the Canaanites (Gen. xv. 16 ; Lev. xviii. 
 24 ff. ; Deut. xii. 29 ff.) ? Had Abraham no sense of 
 rights as between man and man in his transactions with 
 the sons of Heth about a burying-place (Gen. xxiii.), or 
 Joseph in his behaviour in the house of his master the 
 Egyptian (Gen. xxxix. 4-6, 9) ? Even in the passage 
 which Dr. Gray cites in support of his theme — Abraham's 
 passing off his wife as his sister at Gerar — Abimelech 
 reproaches Abraham : " Thou hast done deeds unto me 
 that ought not to be done" (Gen. xx. 9). 
 
 Many of the objections to the ethics of the Bible arise 
 from ignoring the law of 
 
 PROGRESS IN REVELATION, 
 
 which, even in respect of morality, is one that must cer- 
 tainly be recognised. It was as impossible in the 
 twentieth century before Christ as it is in the twentieth 
 century after Christ to introduce a ready-made system of 
 morality, perfect in its principles and applications, and 
 carried out with full consistency in an ideal constitution 
 of society. It may, in our eyes, be a drawback that 
 society is constituted on the principle of historical 
 evolution : but so it is, and even revelation has to take 
 account of the fact. I do not undervalue the amount of 
 moral light which even the ancient world possessed. As 
 the study of ancient religions shows (Babylonia, Egypt), 
 that moral light was often very great. The world as Paul 
 affirms, had from the first a great deal more light, both 
 religious and moral, than it knew well how to make use 
 of (Rom. i. 21, 25, 28). 
 
 Yet there is progress. One has only to compare 
 
 THE CONCEPTIONS OF THESE ANCIENT TIMES, 
 23O 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 even within the Bible, with those of later periods, to see 
 how much purer and more spiritual moral ideas had 
 become in the days of the prophets ; and how far even 
 beyond the teaching of the prophets is the perfect 
 spirituality of the law of love as enunciated by Jesus 
 Christ. Polygamy, slavery, marriage of near-of-kin, 
 blood-revenge, corporate responsibility, the unsparing use 
 of the sword in war, were features of that old society into 
 which revelation entered, and it was plainly impossible to 
 abolish them at a stroke. Christianity itself, while incul- 
 cating principles which strike at the root of slavery, war, 
 and many other evils, has even yet not been able to 
 banish these evils wholly from society, though it is 
 working steadily to that end. What then was possible 
 at an earlier time but to take a single people out of the 
 mass — or rather develop such a people from the indi- 
 vidual and family — and, starting, as was inevitable, at the 
 stage the world then occupied, to train and discipline 
 this selected people, under the guidance of special revela- 
 tion, to something better, for the ultimate benefit of the 
 whole of mankind (Gen. xii. 1-3) ? And, as we know, 
 this was actually the method adopted. 
 
 When this principle of development in God's methods 
 is grasped, 
 
 THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 
 
 is obtained, and each stage and phase of revelation is 
 judged of by itself, in the light of its aim and outcome, 
 instead of being unhistorically judged by the standards of 
 a more perfect time — a law of judgment the moralist 
 would apply to nothing else. It does not follow that all 
 difficulties disappear, but we are now, at least, in the 
 right position for dealing with them. It becomes 
 apparent how, in the history of God's dealing with His 
 people, many forces — for instance, the great religious 
 ideas embodied in patriarchal and Mosaic revelations, 
 
 231 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the principles of the moral law itself, as expanded in 
 the "statutes and judgments" given at Sinai, with the 
 various checks and restraints put on practices, as blood- 
 revenge, polygamy, slavery, which it was not possible to 
 remove at once — tended of necessity to a gradual 
 elevation of the moral ideal, and to the ultimate abolition 
 of the practices in question. It cannot but strike us that 
 polygamy, slavery, blood-revenge, and similar evils, had all 
 but disappeared in the time of our Lord, and hardly appear 
 in the pictures of Jewish society in the Gospels. 
 
 II. 
 
 The real character of the Biblical revelation may now 
 be looked at, and the objections taken to it in an ethical 
 respect considered. 
 
 It is, first of all, I would say, 
 
 FALSEHOOD AND CALUMNY 
 
 to speak of the Jehovah of the Old Testament as a 
 capricious, cruel, passionate, and vengeful being. Caprice, 
 partiality, favouritism, have reference, I suppose, 
 to the law of election which conspicuously marks 
 the Divine procedure in revelation. But arbitrariness is 
 the last word to apply to this method of the Divine 
 action. What God does in His elections He does on 
 wise and holy grounds. His election, which is a historical 
 necessity, if a beginning is to be made somewhere, and 
 His purpose is not to lose itself in indefiniteness, but is to 
 be realised along definite lines, has not for its object 
 exclusion, but an ultimate wider delusion. Abraham was 
 called, that in him and his seed all families of the earth 
 should be blessed (Gen. xii. 3). Israel was chosen to be 
 God's " servant," to carry the knowledge of God, in due 
 time, to the Gentiles (Is. xliv. 1-8, &c). To speak of 
 
 232 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 Jehovah's choice of Israel as a piece of private favouritism 
 is to show a colossal ignorance of the ABC of the Bible's 
 teaching. 
 
 The other imputations on the Divine character are 
 equally baseless. From the beginning of the Bible God 
 is represented as a 
 
 HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS BEING, 
 
 condemning sin, punishing the evil-doer, protecting and 
 rewarding the righteous. Everywhere His holiness, 
 righteousness, wrath against sin, condescending grace, 
 and covenant-keeping faithfulness are implied. Holiness, 
 as " the principle which guards the eternal distinction 
 between Creator and creature " (Martensen), necessarily 
 reveals itself in God as "zeal" or " jealousy " for His 
 own honour (Ex. xx. 7), and, in reaction against daring 
 and presumptuous transgression, as wrath. Without an 
 indignation that burns against sin in proportion to its 
 heinousness, God would not be God — the absolutely Holy 
 One. Mercy or forgiveness would be emptied of all its 
 value were there not this sense of the evil of sin, and of 
 God's holy judgment upon it, behind. But cruel and 
 vindictive the God of the Bible is not. On the contrary, 
 His character is 
 
 ESSENTIALLY MERCIFUL. 
 
 Witness His name, as revealed in awful majesty to 
 Moses : " The Lord, the Lord, a God full of compassion, 
 and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and 
 truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity 
 and transgressions and sin " ; though it is added : " That 
 will by no means clear the guilty " (Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 ; Cf. 
 Ps. ciii. 8-18). The history is but a prolonged com- 
 mentary on this character of God. It is stamped upon 
 His law. It is written in its exhortations and com- 
 mands. 
 
 233 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 If this is the true character of the Jehovah of the Bible, 
 the answer is already given to many of the objections 
 
 DRAWN FROM THE BIBLE CHARACTERS. 
 
 Jehovah's command to Abraham was, " Walk before Me 
 and be thou perfect " (Gen. xvii. i). Abraham's own 
 challenge to Him was, " Shall not the Judge of all the 
 earth do right ? " (Gen. xviii. 25). As his intercession for 
 Sodom shows, Abraham knew perfectly clearly the dis- 
 tinction between "righteous" and "wicked." It is 
 therefore incredible that the intention of the narrator 
 should be to represent God as approving of, or indifferent 
 to, Abraham's prevarications about his wife, which the 
 patriarch weakly excused to his own conscience by the 
 half-truth that Sarah was his sister by the father's side 
 (Gen. xx. 12). The "plagues" by which the sin was 
 prevented showed God's estimate of the transaction (Gen. 
 xii. 17 ; xx. 18). God destroyed wicked Sodom with fire 
 and brimstone (Gen. xix. 24). How, then, should He be 
 supposed to do aught but abominate the vileness of that 
 city, or any taint that Lot or his daughters had con- 
 tracted from it. David sinned grievously about Bath- 
 sheba and her husband ; no palliation can be offered for 
 his offence. But God sent Nathan to David to denounce 
 him for his crime, and declare his sore punishment — a 
 denunciation which led to the king's sincere repentance 
 (2 Sam. xii.). How should it be represented as if the 
 God of the Bible were implicated in, or condoned, David's 
 trangression ? I have read carefully the Book of Judges. 
 It it the story of a rude, disorderly, in many ways evil, 
 time (Judges xxi. 25). But what I see chiefly in the 
 narrative is that, when Israel forsook God, He gave them 
 into the hands of their enemies, and they were grievously 
 afflicted, but whenever they turned to Him with the 
 whole heart, He raised up saviours for them, and 
 
 234 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 delivered them. When, moreover, I read of Deborah, of 
 Gideon, or Boaz, and Ruth, I cannot regard this age, 
 with all its faults, as wholly destitute of a nobler piety. 
 The men of the Bible must be 
 
 JUDGED BY THE STANDARD OF THEIR OWN AGE 
 
 — not by ours. Judged even by that, they have faults grievous 
 and many, and, as respects these, are set forth as examples 
 for our warning, not as models for our imitation. But 
 the wholesale blackening of their characters in which 
 certain writers indulge can only be described as malicious 
 and unpardonable exaggeration. Only the crassest, 
 surely, will believe that God chose Jacob as heir of the 
 blessing because of his worldly cunning in over-reaching 
 Esau, or that David is pronounced to be the man after 
 God's own heart because of his adultery with Bathsheba. 
 There were far other and deeper things in these men, or 
 they would not have occupied the place they do in the Bible. 
 Despite his error in his evasion about his wife — an error 
 which he, no doubt, thought an excusable means of 
 defence for both — the character of 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 is one of the noblest in the history of religion.* His 
 heroic faith, his prompt and unhesitating obedience to 
 God's word, his largeness of soul, which displays itself in 
 all his conduct, his unfailing courtesy, unselfishness, and 
 meekness, with which is joined, when need arises, the 
 most conspicuous courage and decision, all vindicate for 
 him the place he will continue to hold at the head of 
 revelation as the Father of the Faithful. 
 
 JACOB'S 
 
 is a more complex character — deep, subtle, with a strong 
 
 *See the remarks of Mozley on Abraham in his Ruling Ideas, &c. 
 p. 21 f 
 
 235 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 gravitation earthwards, and a tendency to craft, inherited 
 probably, from his mother — but none the less with a strong 
 religious bent, a grasp of the ideal, a power of respond- 
 ing to God's revelations, a sense of the value of spiritual 
 privilege, and, on the whole, a patient, faithful, affec- 
 tionate spirit, which grew nobler and better as time went 
 on. " The substance, the strength of the chosen family," 
 as Stanley says, " the true inheritance of the promise to 
 Abraham, was interwoven with the very essence of ' the 
 upright man dwelling in tents,' steady, persevering, 
 moving onward with deliberate, settled purpose, through 
 years of suffering and prosperity, of exile and return, of 
 bereavement and recovery. . . . The dark, crafty 
 character of the youth, though never wholly lost — for 
 ' Jacob ' he still is called even to the end of his days — 
 has been by trial and affliction changed into the prince- 
 like, godlike character of his manhood." * 
 
 DAVID'S CHARACTER 
 
 has its huge, dark blot, and minor faults may be pointed 
 out in it, but no impartial student of David's history can 
 easily deny that the character which the Bible gives 
 him as a man and king who sought to do God's will is 
 well sustained throughout. His youth is blameless ; his 
 behaviour at the court of Saul is without reproach ; his 
 relations with Saul and Jonathan are magnanimous and 
 affectionate : his conduct as leader of a band of rude, 
 rough men in the wilderness is such as to inspire them 
 with the most devoted attachment (2 Sam. xxiii. 15-18). 
 His sorrow at the death of Saul and Jonathan is genuine 
 and intense. His services to his nation as king were the 
 greatest a ruler could render ; his labours for the revival 
 of religion and the worthy celebration of God's worship 
 
 * Jewish Church, I., pp. 46, 56. See the whole sketch in Stanley, 
 in contrast with Mr. Blatchford's caricature of his "pet aversion." 
 
 236 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 were the fruit of sincere conviction. The whole founda- 
 tions of his character in his love to, and trust in, God his 
 " Rock," are laid bare in such a psalm as the 18th, which 
 there need be no hesitation in ascribing to him. As I 
 have said elsewhere : " David's sins were great, but we 
 may trust a Carlyle or a Maurice for a just estimate of 
 his character, rather than the caviller, whose chief delight 
 is to magnify his faults." * 
 
 III. 
 
 These attacks, then, on the characters of the men of 
 the Bible may be dismissed, but what, it will be objected, 
 of the 
 
 OTHER STRAINS IN THE NARRATIVE 
 
 — of God's tempting of Abraham, of His visiting the 
 iniquity of the fathers on the children, of His commands 
 to exterminate the Canaanites ? It will be well to glance 
 at these objections separately. 
 The story of 
 
 THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC 
 
 stands in close connection with what is told of the gift 
 of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, and with 
 the hopes bound up in that child of promise. In this lay 
 the essence of the trial. The story itself, it may be noted, 
 is a witness to the early date of the narrative. The 
 temptation described is such as could only belong to an 
 early stage in the history. No Israelite would have 
 invented such a tale about his progenitor, and the 
 narrative cannot be explained as a reminiscence of any 
 " tribal " event. The incident clearly presupposes that, 
 in Abraham's day, human sacrifice, especially the 
 
 *Prob. of the 0. T., p. 445. Cf. Carlyle, Heroes, p. 72, Maurice, 
 Prophets and Kings, pp. toff. 
 
 237 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 devotion of the first-born to God, was a familiar fact of 
 Canaanitish religion. That the temptation to sacrifice 
 his son arose, as some suppose, from Abraham's own 
 thoughts, seems to me, in all the circumstances of the 
 case, most improbable. The test was one truly imposed 
 on him by the God who had given him his son. The 
 object of the trial, however, was not to give approval of 
 human sacrifice, but, as the event showed, after proof 
 had been obtained of Abraham's willingness to surrender 
 even his dearest and best at the call of God (Gen. xxii. 
 12), to put on such sacrifice the stamp of the Divine 
 disapprobation, and rule it out of God's worship for all 
 time thereafter. Standing at the commencement of 
 revelation to Israel, this incident barred out all thought 
 of human sacrifice as an acceptable form of God's 
 service. 
 
 When objection is taken to the language in the Second 
 Commandment (Ex. xx. 5 ; Deut. v. 8) about 
 
 VISITING THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON 
 THE CHILDREN, 
 
 the question may first be put, Is it not the fact that, in 
 the natural order of things, the sins of parents are visited 
 upon their children ? What is the law of heredity but 
 the declaration of this fact ? One of the most terrible 
 aspects of wrong-doing is that the penalties are seldom or 
 never confined to the transgressor, but overflow on all 
 connected with him — often most severely on his innocent 
 offspring. This follows from the solidaric constitution of 
 society. But the point is missed in the Second Com- 
 mandment when the stress is laid on the unrelieved 
 operation of this providential law. The contrast in this 
 place is rather with what is said in the next clause about 
 God's showing mercy unto thousands of them that love 
 Him (Ex. xx. 6). The entail of evil is viewed as 
 
 238 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 descending only to the third and fourth generation. God 
 is reluctant, as it were, to think of it descending further. 
 But His mercy, in contrast, is viewed as descending to 
 thousands of generations (Cf. Ps. ciii. 17). Mercy, in the 
 prospect, swallows up judgment. How different an 
 aspect does the Commandment assume when regarded 
 in this light! 
 
 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITES 
 
 presents a real difficulty which everyone, I suppose, in 
 proportion to the humanity of his disposition, feels. The 
 various expedients which have been suggested for relieving 
 it do not, I confess, bring much help to my mind. I can 
 neither persuade myself, with the critics, that the com- 
 mand was not really given, nor can I rid my mind of the 
 sense of awfulness in connection with it. One thing, 
 however, I do see, that the judgment was not an arbi- 
 trary one, but was connected with a moral state. It had 
 a moral basis. If the land was already in the days of 
 Abraham promised to his descendants (Gen. xii. 7 ; xv. 7, 
 18 ; xvii. 8), this was not without regard to the character 
 of the inhabitants. The fulfilment is delayed to a later 
 time, " for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full " 
 (Gen. xv. 16). Sodom and Gomorrah already in that age 
 furnished examples of the growing wickedness of the land 
 (Gen. xiii. 14-18, xviii. 20, xix.). The vileness of the in- 
 habitants was such that in the days of Moses the land 
 "spued" them out (Lev. xviii. 24-30). Their transgres- 
 sions are dwelt on in Deut. xii. 29-32. Corruption, in 
 short, had eaten into the core of this people. What was 
 to be done with them ? When the ancient world had 
 become similarly corrupt, God destroyed it by a flood 
 (Gen. vi. 5-8, 11-13). When the Canaanites had filled 
 up the cup of their iniquity He gave them over to the 
 sword of the Israelites. " After all," as Ottley says, 
 
 239 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 quoting Westcott, "the Canaanites were put under the 
 ban, 'not for false belief, but for vile actions.' "* Nor 
 was there any partiality in this. As I have said in my 
 Problem of the Old Testament, "The sword of the Israelite 
 is, after all, only a more acute form of the problem that 
 meets us in the providential employment of the sword of 
 the Assyrian, the Chaldean, or Roman to inflict the judg- 
 ment of God on Israel itself" (pp. 471-2). 
 
 If the difficulty is acute in the case of the Canaanites, 
 we have to remember that this case, on account of its 
 special aggravations, stands all but alone. Though 
 belonging to a dispensation of severity, under which 
 "every transgression and disobedience received a just 
 recompense of reward " (Heb. ii. 2), yet, judged of as a 
 whole, and in its prevailing spirit, 
 
 THE LAW OF MOSES IS NOT UNMERCIFUL. 
 
 It is the very opposite. A spirit of humanity breathes 
 through it such as is not met with in any other ancient 
 code. Its laws of warfare even have many humane and 
 considerate provisions (Deut. xii.). They give no sanction 
 to the dreadful barbarities and tortures — the impalings, 
 flayings, blindings, mutilations, &c. — of Assyrian and 
 Babylonian conquerors. t In besieging a city the very 
 fruit trees are to be spared (Deut. xii. 19-20). Captive 
 women are to be delicately treated (Deut. xxi. 10-14). 
 The poor, the widow, the fatherless, the stranger, the 
 homeless, the distressed, are Jehovah's special care, and 
 
 * Aspects o/O.T., p. 179. 
 
 t David's treatment of the Moabites (2 Samuel viii. 2) and Ammon- 
 ites (2 Samuel xii. 31) -in this case, under great provocation — and 
 Amaziah's of theEdomites (2 Chron. xxv. 12) are not to be approved. 
 For another spirit cf. 2 Chron. xxv. 3, 4— the law; 2 Kings vi. 21- 
 23 — the prophets. The severe treatment of Adonibezek in Judges i. 
 6 is somewhat different ; it was (as he acknowledged, v. 7) a not 
 unrighteous retribution for his own habitual cruelty. 
 
 240 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 His law is full of provisions for them (Cf. Ex. xxii. 21-27, 
 xxiii. 9-12, Deut. xi. jff, xxiv. 14-22, &c). Private ill- 
 will is not to be allowed to enter into the treatment of an 
 enemy (Ex. xxiii. 4, 5 ; Deut. xxii. 1-4). 
 
 An illustration may be taken from the laws on 
 
 BOND-SERVICE, 
 
 which are often spoken of as a dark spot in the Hebrew 
 legislation. The Mosaic law did not establish bond service. 
 It accepted it as an existing usage, labouring to the ut- 
 most to reduce, and, as far as that was practicable, to 
 abolish the evils connected with it. If from temporary 
 causes a Hebrew lost the use of his freedom, the right to 
 it was not thereby destroyed. It returned to him at the 
 beginning of the seventh year (Ex. xxi. 2 ; Lev. xxv. 39$). 
 A law cannot be regarded as favourable to slavery which 
 makes man-stealing a crime, punishable by death (Ex. 
 xxi. 16), and which enacts that a fugitive slave, taking 
 refuge in Israel from his heathen master, is not to be 
 delivered back to him, but is to be permitted to reside 
 where he will in the land (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16). Bonds- 
 men, both Hebrew and non-Israelite, were incorporated 
 as part of the nation, had legal rights, sat with the other 
 members of the family at the board of the passover, took 
 part in all religious festivals, and had secured to them the 
 privilege of the Sabbath rest. The masterwas responsible 
 for the treatment of his bondsman ; and, if he injured him, 
 even to the extent of smiting out a tooth, the bondsman 
 thereby regained his freedom (Ex. xxi. 26, 27). Humanity 
 and kindness are constantly inculcated. When the He- 
 brew bondsman went out in the seventh year, he was to 
 go forth loaded with presents. The one 
 
 SEEMING EXCEPTION 
 
 is Ex. xxi. 20 — the passage about the bondsman dying 
 under chastisement. This, however, must be taken in 
 
 241 R 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 its connection with preceding laws. It certainly gives no 
 sanction to the master to endanger his servant's life. The 
 question is one of criminal jurisprudence. The case is 
 presumed to be one of bona fide chastisement with the rod, 
 and murderous intent, if present, had to be proved. If 
 the slave died under the master's hand such intent — at 
 least, sinful excess of anger — was held to be proved, and 
 the master was " surely punished " ; if he did not, even 
 though he died afterwards, the master received the benefit 
 of the doubt, and escaped with a fine of money. The 
 obvious aim of the law is not to place the bondsman at 
 the master's mercy, but to restrict the master's power over 
 him. Ancient law recognised no restriction. 
 The whole design of the law, in one word, was 
 
 TO MAKE MEN HOLY 
 
 as God was holy (Ex. xix. 6, Lev. xix. 2). It was based 
 on a moral code which, as Jesus says, had for its two 
 great principles, love to God and love to one's neighbour 
 (Matt. xxii. 36-40). On this moral law was built the 
 covenant between God and Israel. The tables of stone 
 on which it was written — " the tables of the testimony " 
 (Ex. xxxii. 15) — were the only objects in the ark of the 
 covenant in Israel's holiest place.* So far as the law 
 mirrors it, the religion of Israel is ethical in its inmost 
 fibre. 
 
 I need not delay long on the ethical conceptions of the 
 
 PROPHETS AND PSALMS, 
 
 for the elevated moral strain of these is commonly 
 admitted. The critics in the main are with us here, for, 
 according to them, it was the prophets who first gave a 
 perfectly ethical character to Israel's religion. The 
 prophets are nothing if they are not preachers of 
 
 * See my Problem of the 0. T., p. 48. 
 
 243 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 righteousness. " Cease to do evil ; learn to do well " 
 (Is. i. 17). " He hath showed thee, O man, what is 
 good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to 
 do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy 
 God " (Mic. vi. 8). The Psalms in every line express 
 an abhorrence of evil, and love of truth, righteousness, 
 and mercy. "Who shall ascend into the hill of the 
 Lord ? . . . He that hath clean hands and a pure 
 heart" (Ps. xxiv. 3, 4; Cf. Ps. i., xv., &c). "Behold, 
 thou desirest truth in the inward parts. . . . Create 
 in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit 
 within me " (Ps. li. 6-10). The Book of Proverbs is a 
 vade mecum to a straight, pure, virtuous life. He who 
 guides himself by its wisdom will not go astray, but will 
 find its counsels profitable for the life that now is, as well 
 as for that which is to come (Prov. iv. 7-9 ; 1 Tim. iv. 8). 
 The one point on which a caveat may be raised here 
 is in regard to 
 
 THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS. 
 
 Here, indeed, a note is heard which belongs to an older 
 dispensation, and which Christians, who have learned a 
 higher lesson in the school of Jesus, cannot ordinarily 
 imitate. If the frequent prayers for the destruction of 
 enemies in the Psalms were the expression of private 
 revengefulness or hatred, they could not, of course, under 
 any dispensation, be defended. But that, very plainly, is 
 not their real nature. The spirit of private revengefulness 
 is as heartily condemned in the Old Testament as in the 
 New (Cf. Ex. xxiii. 4, 5 ; Ps. vii. 4). It is proud and 
 triumphant wickedness, enmity to God and to His cause 
 and people, which is the subject of these denunciations, 
 prayers, and imprecations of doom. Let anyone read 
 such Psalms as the 4th, 7th, gth, 10th, 12th, &c, and see 
 if there is not a very real sense in which he can even yet 
 sometimes share in them ? 
 
 243 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 IV. 
 
 With what grace shall I now speak of defending the 
 ethical teaching 
 
 OF JESUS AND HIS RELIGION, 
 
 as that is exhibited in the pages of the New Testament ? 
 Where shall we look for purity like His, which descends 
 into the inmost thoughts of the heart, and forbids even 
 the faintest uprisings of unholy passion and desire (Matt. 
 v. 22, 28, &c.) ? Where shall we find the inculcation of 
 every virtue — of everything true, honourable, pure, lovely, 
 of good report (Phil. iv. 8) — earnest, repeated, continuous, 
 as we do in the apostolic writings ? What can match the 
 Apostle's great hymn on love in 1 Cor. xiii. ? How 
 beautiful the cluster he presents of " the fruit of the 
 Spirit" in Gal. v. 22, 23 — ''love, joy, peace, longsuffer- 
 ing, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance " ; 
 and how foul the catalogue of the " works of the flesh " 
 to which he opposes it (Gal. vi. 19-21). How com- 
 prehensively he argues : " Love worketh no ill to his 
 neighbour ; love, therefore, is the fulfilment of the law " 
 (Rom. xii. 10). How strenuously he exhorts to the 
 fulfilling of all relative duties (Eph. v. 22 ff., vi. 1-9 ; Col. 
 iii. i&ff. iv. 1). How practical his everyday teaching: 
 " Let him that stole steal no more " (Eph. iv. 28) ; " If 
 any will not work, neither let him eat " (2 Thess. iii. 10) ; 
 " Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live 
 soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world " 
 (Titus ii. 12), &c. 
 Alike with Jesus and His Apostles, the supreme 
 
 TEST OF DISCIPLESHIP 
 
 is the doing of good works, the bringing forth of fruit 
 unto holiness, the dying to sin and living to righteousness 
 (Matt. v. 16 ; vii. ziff; John xv. 8 ; Rom. vi. 22 ; Titus iii. 
 
 244 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 8, &c). The whole end of redemption is that, being 
 redeemed from all iniquity, God's people should be holy 
 (Rom. vi. 6 ; viii. 3, 4 ; Gal. i. 4 ; Tit. iii. 14 ; 1 Pet. i. 14-24, 
 &c). 
 
 How gross a libel on Christianity it is to represent it, 
 as is sometimes done, as immoral in character and tendency, 
 must already be evident from the above. Confirmation, 
 however, if that is needed, may be drawn from 
 
 THE MOUTH OF THE ADVERSARY 
 
 himself. Mr. Blatchford's book, God and My Neighbour, 
 is, in intention, an attack on Christianity and the Bible. 
 The impression I have formed in reading it is that Mr. 
 Blatchford does not realise how much he himself owes to 
 Christ and His ideals. He vehemently assails Christian- 
 ity ; but on what grounds ? Paradoxical as it may seem, 
 chiefly on the ground that Christian society fails to realise 
 the ideals of its professed Master. His picture of 
 Christian society as chiefly a collection of shams, 
 hypocrisies, self-indulgences, and vices is, no doubt, 
 frightfully overdrawn. But let it pass, and see what he 
 makes of it. 
 
 Here are a few sentences : — 
 
 " As London is, so is England. This is a Christian 
 country. What would Christ think of Park-lane, and 
 the slums, and the hooligans ? What would He think of 
 the Stock Exchange, and the Music Hall, and the race- 
 course ? What would He think of our national ideals ? " 
 
 " Pausing again, over against Exeter Hall, I mentally 
 apostrophise the Christian British people. ' Ladies and 
 gentlemen,' I say, ' you are Christian in name, but I dis- 
 cern little of Christ in your ideals, your institutions, or 
 your daily lives. You are a mercenary, self-indulgent, 
 frivolous, boastful, blood-guilty mob of heathen.' 
 
 " If to praise Christ in words, and deny Him in deeds, 
 be Christianity, then London is a Christian city, and 
 
 245 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 England is a Christian nation. For it is very evident 
 that our common English ideals are anti-Christian, and 
 that our commercial, foreign, and social affairs are run 
 on anti-Christian lines " (Preface). 
 
 Once more : " Is Christianity the rule of life in 
 America and Europe ? Are the masses of people who 
 accept it peaceful, virtuous, chaste, spiritually minded, 
 prosperous, happy ? Are their national laws based on 
 its ethics ? Are their international politics guided by 
 the Sermon on the Mount ? . . . From Glasgow to 
 Johannesburg, from Bombay to San Francisco, is God 
 or Mammon king ? ..." (p. 166, Popular Edition). 
 
 What, now, does all this mean, I would ask, if not that 
 the sin of Christendom is that it is not obeying the pre- 
 cepts of Christ its Master, who is still held up as 
 
 THE IDEAL 
 
 to be obeyed ? It is His teaching, His ethics, His 
 religion, which yield the standard by which the Christian 
 peoples are judged and condemned. They ought to be 
 living in accordance with Christ's teaching, but are not. 
 If they did, it is implied, they would be " peaceful, 
 virtuous, chaste, spiritually minded, prosperous, happy." 
 Was there ever so strange an indictment against a 
 religion before ? " If to praise Christ in words, and deny 
 Him in deeds is Christianity, then London is a Christian 
 city," &c. ! But who will endorse this as a definition of 
 Christianity ? And if Christianity is not this, but the 
 opposite of this, what do we come to but that it is the 
 purest and best religion the world has yet seen? Christ 
 is to-day the conscience of humanity. He is the touch- 
 stone, even for Mr. Blatchford, of what is good and 
 evil ! 
 
 The same fallacy runs through the whole of this 
 singular book. On a later page (p. 197) we have drawn 
 
 246 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 out the qualities of "a really humane and civilised 
 nation." In 
 
 SUCH A NATION 
 
 there should be no such thing as poverty, as ignorance, as 
 crime, as idleness, as war, as slavery, as hate, as envy, as 
 pride, as greed, as gluttony, as vice. But, the author 
 says, " This is not a humane and civilised nation, and 
 never will be while it accepts Christianity as its religion." 
 He adds: "These are my reasons for opposing Chris- 
 tianity." But who, with the least sense of fairness, does 
 not see that the things he contends for are the very things 
 which Christianity is constantly inculcating ? These are 
 Christian virtues. In the Christian ideal of the Kingdom 
 of God every one of the things here contended for is 
 embraced. Nay, in opposing Christianity, Mr. Blatch- 
 ford is opposing the only agency that can produce them. 
 Mr. Blatchford's reply to all this is that, however 
 beautiful Christianity (ethically) may be in theory, it is 
 a failure in practice. It is, therefore, not Divine (p. 166). 
 As will be seen later, it is far from true that Christianity 
 is a failure in the sense intended. But one thing perfectly 
 clear is, that, where Christianity fails, Mr. Blatchford's 
 scheme — if scheme it can be called — 
 
 WILL NOT SUCCEED. 
 
 In the nature of things it cannot. Christianity holds up 
 lofty ideals. But it does not stop there. It nourishes 
 the sense of obligation and responsibility, and furnishes 
 motives and aids adequate to produce the results it aims 
 at. It is " the power of God unto salvation " (Rom. i. 
 16). Mr. Blatchford has nothing of the kind to offer. 
 On the contrary, he destroys the very possibility of the 
 realisation of his own ideals by his audacious denial of 
 human freedom and accountability. Man, he glories to 
 teach, is not a free agent, but a machine. He is what 
 
 247 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 heredity and circumstances have made him. He is not to 
 blame for his wrong-doing. He cannot sin against God. 
 I do not discuss this theory, uncompromisingly expounded 
 in his chapter on " Determinism." I only point out the 
 folly of seeking an ethical millennium along lines that do 
 away with ethical conduct altogether. 
 
 It is indeed a singular confusion when men oppose the 
 service of God to 
 
 THE SERVICE OF HUMANITY J 
 
 when " God and my neighbour " becomes " God or my 
 neighbour " — which is pretty much Mr. Blatchford's 
 point of view. What reader of the Bible does not know 
 that the service of God includes service of my neighbour ? 
 In Law, Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Gospels, Epistles, 
 love of the neighbour is never left out. It is made the 
 chief part of practical religion. " Is not this the fast that 
 I have chosen ? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo 
 the bands of the yoke . . . ? Is it not to deal thy 
 bread to the hungry, and to bring the poor that are cast 
 out to thy house, &c. ? " (Is. lviii. 6, 7). " Whoso hath 
 the world's goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and 
 shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love 
 of God abide in him ? (1 John iii. 17). " Pure religion 
 and undefiled before God and the Father is, to visit the 
 fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep him- 
 self unspotted from the world " (J as. i. 27; Cf. ii. 15, 16). 
 Jesus supremely inculcates love of the neighbour — who 
 can forget the parable of the good Samaritan ? (Luke x. 
 25-37) — even of the enemy (Matt. v. 43-48 ; Cf. Rom. xii. 
 20). Only, where secular ethics would fain divorce these 
 two things, and make love of the neighbour independent 
 of religion, the Bible connects them, and pours into the 
 earthly duty the whole force of the higher motive (Matt, 
 xxii. 36-40). Separated from its true fountain in the love 
 of God, the love of humanity dries up and dies. History 
 
 248 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 is the proof of the intimate relation of the two, as will 
 afterwards be shown. 
 
 V. 
 
 The morality of Christianity has been assailed on 
 various other grounds. The charge, e.g., has sometimes 
 been brought against it that, while praiseworthy up to 
 a certain point, the ideals of Jesus are 
 
 NARROW AND LIMITED 
 
 in their outlook. F. D. Strauss may be the mouthpiece 
 here. In the closing paragraphs of his New Life of Jesus 
 (1864) he says : " The life of man in the family retreats 
 into the background with this Teacher, who himself was 
 without a family. His relationship towards the State 
 appears a purely passive one. He is averse to acquisition 
 of property, not merely for Himself because of His calling, 
 but He is also visibly disinclined to it ; and all that con- 
 cerns art and the beautiful enjoyment of life remains 
 completely outside of His circle of vision."* The one 
 thing true in this objection is that in His 
 
 INTENSELY COMPRESSED 
 
 public life, Jesus did not concern Himself in His teaching 
 with education, art, politics, science, trade, and a 
 thousand other human interests in themselves most 
 legitimate. He had infinitely greater things to occupy 
 His mind; an infinitely greater work to do; infinitely 
 greater truths to teach a world lost to the knowledge of 
 God and of the way of eternal life. In comparison with 
 the work the Father had given Him to do — the redemp- 
 tion of the world, the founding of the Kingdom of God, 
 
 """Similar objections are urged by Mr. J. S. Mill, in his essay on 
 Liberty, and latterly by Mazzini {Essays, v. p. 363). See remarks on 
 these writers by Rev. D. S. Cairns, MA., in his volume, Christianity 
 and the Modern World, Ch. iv. 
 
 249 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the imparting of spiritual and eternal blessings, the 
 restoring of lost men to the love and fellowship of their 
 Heavenly Father — all merely secular interests paled into 
 insignificance. " Man, who made me a judge or a 
 divider over you ? " was His reproof to one who wished 
 Him to interfere in a question of inheritance (Luke xii. 
 14). His life was full of sacrifice, and He knew that a 
 Cross awaited Him at the end. " I have a baptism to be 
 baptised with ; and how am I straitened till it be accom- 
 plished!" (Luke xii. 50). What sort of mind is it that 
 can combine the thought of Jesus — these momentous 
 interests weighing hourly on His spirit — with the idea of 
 His giving little parlour or lecture-hall discourses on 
 poetry, painting, music, political economy, the best 
 methods of education, or, say, of agriculture ! The idea 
 is preposterous. 
 Yet it would be 
 
 A TOTALLY FALSE INFERENCE 
 
 from these facts to assume that Jesus Himself meant to 
 belittle the importance of such matters in their own place, 
 or that His religion is hostile to their cultivation or 
 development. The very opposite is the case. One might 
 ask, indeed — What kind of government was there in 
 Christ's time, what sort of education, what forms of art, 
 what species of science, of which One such as He could 
 be expected to approve ? Jesus came assuredly to make 
 all things new in these as in every other department of 
 life ; to reconstitute society, from top to bottom, on new 
 bases. His religion, e.g., strikes in its fundamental ideas 
 at slavery, but He did not therefore begin a political 
 crusade against slavery as existing in His time. Christ's 
 teachings embody 
 
 DEEP, ENDURING PRINCIPLES, 
 
 set forth grand master truths, occupy themselves with 
 
 250 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 the eternal, not with that which is simply temporal. It 
 is this which gives Christ's words weight. Each age as 
 it comes round finds them fruitful in applications to itself. 
 Jesus commits Himself to no one side in party politics ; 
 to no one denomination or party in the Church ; to no 
 one form of Church government or action exclusively ; 
 to no one mode of social organisation ; to no one solution 
 of the questions of capital and labour, of rulers and 
 subjects, of rich and poor. The reason is that the 
 solution of these questions proper to one age or stage of 
 society might not be the solution proper to another ; and 
 Christ is not the teacher of one age only, else His words, 
 like those of all other teachers, would become obsolete, 
 but the teacher, 
 
 OF ALL TIMES AND ALL AGES. 
 
 Hence His words never grow old ; never are left behind 
 in the world's progress.* 
 
 Yet no one, reading the Gospels, would conclude that 
 because of this Jesus was indifferent to the beauty of 
 God's world, to human life and its relationships, to the 
 necessity of civil government, to trade, industry, or any 
 of the ordinary occupations of life. As I have written in 
 another connection : " The world to Him is 
 
 god's world, not the devil's. 
 
 He has the deepest feeling for its beauty, its sacredness, 
 the interest of God in the humblest of its creatures ; His 
 parables are drawn from its laws ; He recognises that its 
 institutions are the expressions of a divine order. The 
 world of nature and society, therefore, in all the wealth 
 and fulness of their relations, are always the background 
 
 *This was one of the things which most powerfully impressed the 
 late Prof. Romanes. " It becomes most remarkable," he says, "that 
 in literal truth there is no reason why any of His words should ever 
 pass away in the sense of becoming obsolete." ( Thoughts on Religion^ 
 pp. 157-8). 
 
 251 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 of His picture. We see this in His parables, which have 
 nothing narrow and ascetic about them, but mirror the 
 life of humanity in its amplest breadth — the sower, shep- 
 herd, merchant, handicraftsman, the servants with their 
 talents (and proving faithful and unfaithful in the use of 
 them), the builder, the vineyard-keeper, weddings, royal 
 feasts, &c."* 
 
 STRANGE, TRULY, 
 
 that any should think Jesus indifferent to beauty in 
 nature, who remember His words on the lilies of the field 
 (Matt. vii. 28, 29) ; or indifferent to beauty of thought, or 
 word, or act, who recall His appreciation of Mary's deed in 
 breaking the costly alabaster box of spikenard (Matt. 
 xxvi. 6-13) ; or indifferent to the family, who think of 
 Him as one to whom marriage was a divine institution to 
 be jealously guarded, and who consecrated it by His 
 presence and blessing (Matt. xix. 3-9 ; John ii. 1-11), to 
 whom human paternity was but an image of the divine 
 Fatherhood (Matt. vii. 9-11), and who took the little 
 children in His arms and blessed them (Matt. xix. 13-15) ; 
 or indifferent to civil government, who consider that He 
 inculcated, and exemplified in practice, the duty of sub- 
 mission to lawful authority (Matt. xxii. 19-21). Jesus 
 had a higher ideal than national " patriotism," even that 
 of a universal Kingdom of God. Yet He, like Paul, had 
 the deepest love for His own nation, and wept at the 
 thought of its coming inevitable woes (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; 
 Luke xix. 41, 42). 
 
 Christ's morality, in brief, is 
 
 NOT ANTI-SOCIAL, 
 
 and His religion has proved to be in history a constant 
 source of inspiration to social and moral progress — to art, 
 education, science, reforms, refinement of life, civil order, 
 
 * Christian View of God, p. 357. 
 
 252 
 
The Bible and Ethics 
 
 the elevation and purification of political ideas. The 
 proof of this must be reserved for another paper ; but it 
 follows from the very nature of the religion. Christ's 
 disciples are not to withdraw from the world, but are to 
 live in it, and to be its salt and light (Matt. v. 13, 14). 
 Out of this life in the world, in obedience to Christ's 
 ideals, will spring a new type of marriage relation, of 
 family life, of relations between masters and servants, of 
 social life generally. It cannot be otherwise, if Christ's 
 Kingdom is to be the secretly transforming influence He 
 says it will be. Affection, intelligence, love of all things 
 pure and beautiful, will be quickened ; knowledge of 
 nature will be sanctified, and science be pursued in a 
 devout and reverent spirit ; order and industry under 
 righteous government, in society, will lead to prosperity. 
 The love of knowledge has ever attended the spread of 
 true religion. Strange as it may sound to many, the great 
 discoverers in science have mostly been religious men.* 
 
 *See the striking evidence of this in E. Naville's Modern Physics. 
 On the influence of Christianity on art, there is an interesting supple- 
 mentary chapter in Bruce's Gesta Christy Second Edition. 
 
 253 
 
XI 
 
 Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
Discrepancies and 
 Difficulties 
 
 MANY find a chief ground of objection to the Bible 
 in the "discrepancies" and "mistakes " in which 
 its pages are alleged to abound. To read some 
 writers, one would imagine that discrepancy and error 
 were the chief features of the sacred book. There is a 
 positive delight shown often in hunting up, multiplying, 
 and mercilessly exposing these supposed mistakes of the 
 Bible. Delitzsch speaks of the Widerspruchsjagerei — the 
 11 hunting for contradictions " — characteristic of the 
 modern critical school. 
 
 Some of the alleged discrepancies are as 
 
 OLD AS THE HILLS 
 
 — Celsus, e.g., serves up those on the resurrection — others 
 are genuine discoveries of the modern spirit. Popular 
 infidelity willingly appropriates the material thus pro- 
 vided for it in the works of Christian and rationalistic 
 writers, and thinks that thereby the Bible is effectually 
 discredited. 
 
 This raises at once the question which troubles so 
 many minds as to whether inspiration is bound up with 
 what is called 
 
 " INERRANCY " 
 
 of the sacred record — i.e., positive and absolute accuracy 
 in even the minutest, and seemingly most unessential 
 
 257 s 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 details of historical, geographical, and chronological 
 statements. If, it is argued, the Bible is an inspired 
 book, must it not be free from error, even in the minutest 
 degree, in outward as well as inward things ; and is not 
 this involved in a right conception of its infallibility 
 as a rule of faith and practice ? On this point it should 
 be frankly recognised that 
 
 OPINIONS DIFFER, 
 
 and to some extent are likely always to differ, among 
 those who are the most devoted believers in, and 
 defenders of, the Bible as, through and through, the in- 
 spired Word of God. It is not a question, really, which 
 arises in our present discussion, for the issues between 
 the defenders and the assailants of the Bible at the 
 present moment are not of the minute character here 
 described, but affect the claim of the Bible to be a 
 veracious record of the history of God's revelations, and 
 the inspired vehicle of His message of salvation to man- 
 kind, in any proper sense at all. 
 
 I approach the subject from a somewhat different 
 standpoint. Without attempting to adjudicate between 
 rival theories of inspiration, or using watchwords like 
 " inerrancy," " verbal inspiration," " infallibility," which 
 might breed debate, and prejudice my treatment, I pro- 
 pose to offer some considerations which may tend to 
 restore confidence in the Bible as 
 
 A RELIABLE BOOK, 
 
 and, by removing misconceptions, may incidentally 
 throw useful light on the doctrine of inspiration itself. I 
 take this line, because I am persuaded that many of the 
 disputes on inspiration arise from misunderstandings 
 between the parties- which a more careful study of the 
 facts of the Bible itself would do much to clear away. 
 
 258 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 On the main point, I would only record my own convic- 
 tion that the working of the objection from " discrep- 
 ancies " has been vastly overdone. What continually 
 impresses me, in a candid survey of the field of Scripture, 
 is not the amount of error in the Bible, but how surpris- 
 ingly free the sacred text is, judged with fairness, from 
 anything that can be described as demonstrable contra- 
 diction, or historical mistake. This of itself, if it can be 
 established, may be felt to furnish a sufficiently striking 
 proof of inspiration. 
 
 I. 
 
 I may first 
 
 CLEAR THE GROUND 
 
 by ruling out of consideration a number of cases covered 
 by principles already laid down, and in part illustrated, 
 in previous papers, or by principles which are in them- 
 selves obvious. 
 
 Thus it is freely acknowledged, and is beyond dispute, 
 that the books of the Bible — especially those of the Old 
 Testament — have a long literary history, and, though 
 preserved by a wonderful providence of God from 
 destruction or fatal corruption, have yet, to no small 
 extent, undergone 
 
 THE VICISSITUDES 
 
 to which all works frequently transcribed, and handed 
 down in more or less imperfect copies are liable. Errors 
 in this way creep into the text, specially into names and 
 numbers; and changes of a more serious kind occasion- 
 ally occur, as from interpolation, explanatory annotation, 
 editorial revision for a special purpose (e.g., temple use of 
 psalms, &c). Such causes give rise to difficulties, which 
 it is the business of a cautious criticism to endeavour to 
 remove, or at least to lessen. In the New Testament the 
 
 259 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 aids to textual criticism are abundant. In the Old 
 Testament they are much less so (existing MSS. but 
 represent one exemplar), and we are thrown back on 
 internal comparison of the books, or comparison with 
 still more defective versions, or on conjecture. 
 
 No theory of inspiration is here involved, and one can 
 readily see by comparison of the Books of Samuel and 
 Kings with Chronicles, how many 
 
 SEEMING " DISCREPANCIES," 
 
 in names, numbers, lists, &c, have this as their explana- 
 tion. Thus, in 2 Sam. viii. 4 we read " 700 " horsemen, 
 where the parallel passage in 1 Chron. xviii. 4 has 
 " 7,000 " ; in 2 Sam. x. 18, again, we have "700," where 
 
 1 Chron. xix. 18 has " 7,000 " ; in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 we 
 have " 800 " slain, where 1 Chron. xi. 11 has " 300 " (here 
 also the words in 2 Sam., A. V., " that sat in the seat " are 
 probably a corruption for the " Jashobeam " of 1 Chron. 
 — See R.V.) ; 1 Kings iv. 26 has " 40,000 " stalls, where 
 
 2 Chron. ix. 25 has the more likely number " 4,000." 
 The " 50,070 " men slain at Beth-shemesh, 1 Sam. vi. 19, 
 is almost certainly a corruption of the same order 
 (Josephus has " 70 ") ; and there are numerous other 
 examples. As instance of changes in text, accidental or 
 designed, Ps. xviii. may be compared in its two versions 
 in the Psalter and in 2 Sam. xxiii., or Ps. xiv. (Jehovistic) 
 may be compared with Ps. liii. (Elohistic). 
 
 Another class of cases of " discrepancies " which may 
 be briefly dismissed are those which arise, not from the 
 text as we actually have it, but from the arbitrary asser- 
 tions and 
 
 HYPOTHESES OF CRITICISM. 
 
 The number of these " discrepancies " is legion, but they 
 are mostly self-created. 
 
 Thus, we ha.ve " contradictory narratives of the 
 
 260 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 ... 
 
 creation " in Gen. i. and ii. But this depends on the 
 critics' way of looking at the history. The two narratives 
 are in no way parallel. The first gives an orderly 
 account of the creation of heaven and earth ; the second 
 is not, in strictness, an account of the creation at all (it 
 says nothing of the creation of heaven or earth, or of the 
 general plant creation), but has for its object to show how 
 man was dealt with by God at his creation, how he was 
 placed in suitable surroundings, how a helpmeet was pro- 
 vided for him, &c. ; and the whole material is grouped 
 from this point of view. In the Book of Genesis itself 
 the narratives are connected in the closest way (Gen. ii. 
 4) without the least sense of " contradiction." 
 
 A favourite method is to divide out a narrative among its 
 several assumed authors (J, E, P, &c), then, treating 
 each part as complete, to 
 
 PIT ONE AGAINST ANOTHER, 
 
 and mark off the differences between them. As in reality 
 the parts of the narrative are closely interrelated, and all 
 are needed to give the complete story, the semblance of 
 contradiction is easily produced. Thus the P writer is 
 supposed to " know nothing " of a " fall " ; yet, as Well- 
 hausen admits, he was acquainted with the J narrative of 
 Gen. iii., and presupposes it.* There is alleged to be 
 " contradiction " between J and P as to the duration of 
 the flood ; yet, when the narrative is taken as a whole, 
 harmony, not discrepancy, is revealed.! The story of 
 Joseph is split up between two writers, J and E, who are 
 affirmed to give discrepant accounts of the sale of Joseph, 
 and of his fortunes in Egypt. But the ground for this 
 discrepancy disappears, if the narrative is accepted in its 
 
 *Hist. of Israel, p. 310. 
 ' tCf. my Problem of O.T., pp. 349-50. The J and P parts are 
 throughout complementary. 
 
 26l 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 integrity. Wonderful things are made of the story of 
 Moses and Aaron in Exodus, of the story of the mission 
 of the spies, of the account of the rebellion of Korah. 
 But the narratives have first to be torn to pieces before 
 the discrepancies can be made out.* 
 
 Another part of the same method is to regard all 
 resembling narratives, especially if found in distinct 
 " sources," as 
 
 "duplicates," 
 
 and to evolve, as before, " contradictions " between 
 them. Thus Hagar's flight, Gen, xvi., is identified with 
 her expulsion by Sarah, ch. xxi. ; Abraham's denial of his 
 wife at Egypt, Gen. xii., is identified with his repetition 
 of the offence at Gerar, ch. xx.; Jacob's vision at Bethel, 
 before going to Paddan-Aram., Gen. xxviii. iq^, is 
 identified with God's appearance to him on his return, 
 Gen. xxxv., ff; the call of Moses at the bush in Midian, 
 Ex. iii. iff, is made the same as the revelation to him in 
 Egypt, ch. vi. 2ff, &c. Yet there are plain indications in 
 the narratives themselves that the incidents mentioned 
 are distinct, and, generally, the later is seen to imply the 
 earlier.! But the "contradictions" of time, place, and 
 circumstance fall, if the incidents are not the same. 
 
 I do not need to repeat what was said in a previous 
 paper of the supposed 
 
 SCIENTIFIC "MISTAKES" 
 
 of the Bible. Defenders and impugners of the inspira- 
 tion of the record alike need to bear in mind the fact that 
 it is not the object of the Bible to give scientific descrip- 
 v tions of events in a form anticipative of 19th or 20th 
 century discoveries. Its language is popular in character, 
 
 *Cf. Problem of O.T. for details, pp. 354-59. 
 tCf. Problem of the O.T., pp. 236^ 361. 
 
 262 
 

 Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 in accordance with the standpoint of the observer, and 
 the state of knowledge of his time ; still, as was before 
 observed, with a wonderful freedom from positive error. 
 Talk, therefore, such as one sometimes hears, about the 
 " mistakes of Moses," is wholly irrelevant. Such 
 language might properly be used if it were the Babylo- 
 nian myth of the creation — Tiamat being cut in two by 
 Merodach, and heaven made from one-half of her, 
 earth from the other — that was being dealt with. But 
 the Genesis narrative, in its monotheistic grandeur, and 
 the true and sublime ideas that inspire it, is above all 
 such criticism. Similarly in the story of the flood. The 
 language employed is that of broad, popular description, 
 as the catastrophe might appear to one who actually 
 observed it. Beyond declaring the destruction of the 
 race of mankind, there is no attempt, as there is no call, 
 to describe scientifically the range or effects of the 
 deluge. 
 
 II. 
 
 I have next to remark that very many alleged "dis- 
 crepancies " and "errors," not falling within the above 
 classes, are, when properly examined, found to be, in 
 reality, 
 
 NO DISCREPANCIES 
 
 or mistakes at all. This is frequently obvious from simple 
 inspection ; it is sometimes made clear by the progress of 
 discovery. If no book has been so often assailed as the 
 Bible, none has so often been vindicated from charges 
 brought against it. Such, e,g., are the Biblical state- 
 ments, formerly referred to,* on the non-Semitic character 
 of the early Babylonians, on the priority of Babylonian to 
 
 * Cf, the paper on Archaeology. 
 
 363 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Assyrian civilisation, on the Semitic origin of Elam, on 
 the power of the Hittites, on Sargon II. and his siege of 
 Ashdod, on the existence of Belshazzar, on the governor- 
 ship of Quirinius, &c. — all now corroborated by research 
 and scholarship. Sargon claims in his inscription to be 
 the conqueror of Samaria, but the impression given by the 
 Bible narrative (2 Kings xvii. 3-6) — though that interpre- 
 tation is by no means necessary — is that the conqueror 
 was Shalmaneser. Now it appears that, after all, Shal- 
 maneser was probably the conqueror of Samaria.* 
 
 I take an example of " discrepancy " cited in a recent 
 able work in proof that 
 
 our lord's authority 
 
 is not to be extended to His statements about the Old 
 Testament. " Let us test this," the writer says, "by a 
 simple case. He speaks of the drought in the days of 
 Elijah as lasting three years and six months. The same 
 statement is made in the Epistle of James (Luke iv. 25 ; 
 Jas. vi. 17). But in the First Book of Kings we are told 
 that the rain came ' in the third year ' (1 Kings xviii. 
 1), which would make the drought about two years and 
 a-half, possibly less. How are we to explain the dis- 
 crepancy ? " Even if, as the author supposes, Jesus was 
 simply following here a current Jewish reckoning,! it 
 would not trouble me, for such cases undoubtedly occur 
 (see below). But, as a " test " case, the example is 
 unfortunate, for there is no need for assuming any 
 discrepancy. It is forgotten that in Palestine rain is not 
 an everyday occurrence, as it is with us. The ground had 
 
 * Interpreter, April, 1906, p. 316. 
 
 t I much doubt the explanation of Plummer and others that "ever 
 since the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, three years and 
 a-half (equals 42 months, equals 1,260 days) had become the traditional 
 duration of times of great calamity." 
 
 264 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 already been dry for six months — since the previous rainy 
 season — when Elijah stayed the rain by his word at the 
 commencement of the new rainy season. If the cessation 
 lasted till the third year thereafter, the total period of 
 drought would necessarily be about three years and six 
 months.* It was strictly true, therefore, that, as Jesus 
 said, " in the days of Elijah," " the heaven was shut up 
 three years and six months " (Luke vi. 25). 
 Another instance, 
 
 TYPICAL OF MANY, 
 
 may be taken from the Old Testament. The critics urge 
 that Deut. x. 3, according to which Moses himself 
 made the ark before his second ascent of the mount, is in 
 palpable contradiction to the narrative in Exod. xxvii. iff, 
 xxxvii. iff, where we are told that Moses received elaborate 
 instructions for the making of the ark during his first 
 sojourn on the mount, and that these were carried out by 
 Bezaleel after his second descent. There is, however, no 
 real discrepancy between Exodus and Deuteronomy on 
 the matter. Moses, in Deuteronomy, at the distance of 
 forty years, and in the freedom of hortatory speech, men- 
 tions the making of the ark as a receptacle for the tables 
 without regard to chronology, and it is pedantic to under- 
 stand him otherwise. Can anyone suppose, in view of the 
 narrative in Ex. xxxiv. 1-4, which Deuteronomy 
 admittedly follows, that the writer actually intended to 
 convey that Moses literally, and with his own hands, 
 constructed an ark of acacia wood in the interval between 
 his receiving the command to hew the tables (ver. 1) — 
 
 * " It is certainly correct," says Huther, "as Benson remarks, that 
 if the rain, according to the word of Elias, was stayed at the beginning 
 of the rainy season, and it again began to rain in the third year at 
 the end of the summer season, the drought would continue in all three 
 and a-half years," {Com. on James V., 17.) Huther himelf prefers to 
 see "error" in James. 
 
 265 
 

 The Bible Under Trial 
 
 itself no slight work — and his rising up early the next 
 morning to ascend the mount (vers. 3, 4) ? My imagination 
 is not equal to the effort.-* 
 A real difficulty lies in the 
 
 LARGE NUMBERS 
 
 frequently met with in the books of the Old Testament — 
 in Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles. Some of these 
 may be accounted for, as already seen, by corruption of 
 the numbers ; some by the use of round numbers (see 
 below), and of large totals intended to convey a general 
 idea where precise enumeration was not possible. E.g., 
 the accounts of David's census of Israel and Judah in 2 
 Sam. xxiv. and 1 Chron. xxi. are evidently taken from 
 the same original — yet the numbers in Samuel (ver. 9) are 
 800,000 warriors for Israel and 500,000 for Judah ; in 
 Chronicles (ver. 5) 1,100,000 for Israel and 470,000 for 
 Judah. One is tempted here to suppose corruption, 
 as in so many places elsewhere ; or there may be a 
 designed change from some motive not known to us. 
 Still, the enormous totals (Cf. 1 Kings xii. 21 = 2 Chron. 
 xi. 1; 2 Chron. xiii. 3, 17; xiv. 8, 9; xvii, 14^; xxvi. 
 13, &c.) are not readily explained, and the expedients 
 sometimes suggested for reducing the numbers have not 
 much probability. 
 
 Perhaps the best defence of the numbers is that they 
 are uniformly so large. Every account and enumeration 
 we have implies a population of unusual density, and 
 
 VERY LARGE MUSTER-ROLLS 
 
 of the males fit for war. It is remarkable that Dr. 
 Flinders Petrie, in his Researches in Sinai, while advocat- 
 ing a method of reducing the numbers of the Israelites at 
 
 * F°r similar examples see Problem of O.T., pp. 278-9. 
 
 266: 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 the exodus which I think untenable, yet defends in the 
 main the large numbers of the later books, especially of 
 Judges (pp. 219-20). He upholds the figures in the wars 
 of Barak and Gideon (Judg. iv. viii.), and says : "The 
 last great fight before the monarchy, the civil with 
 Benjamin, demands a roll-call of 426,000 of all Israel. 
 
 . . . One in ten of Israel are said to have been 
 levied, or 40,000, to fight 26,000 of Benjamin. The 
 extermination of a defeated tribe under these conditions 
 is not surprising. The only figures that we need set 
 aside are those of the 22,000 and 18,000 Israelites who 
 were slain [yet why, in so fierce a war of extermination ?] 
 
 . . . But the totals of men involved, and the 
 catastrophe which befell the tribe are not surprising" 
 (p. 220).* 
 
 III. 
 
 To obtain just views on this whole subject, and per- 
 ceive more clearly 
 
 ITS RELATIONS TO INSPIRATION, 
 
 we need to go a little deeper, and ask ourselves more 
 distinctly how inspiration, on any view we may take of it, 
 is related to the form of the record in Holy Scripture. On 
 this point a good deal of ambiguity and misunderstand- 
 ing exists, which it is desirable, if possible, to remove. 
 
 *Dr. Petrie's methods are somewhat arbitrary, but his general con- 
 clusions are sound. " Now we have seen," he says, " how much 
 there is in the general cry about the great exaggerations of the 
 numbers of the priestly writer in Judges. So far as what may be 
 called national documents go, there is nothing impossible. . . The 
 question of the setting of the history, of the editing of it, and the 
 introduction of collateral records and traditions, is quite outside of 
 our scope here. But we see that the supposed discredit of it as being 
 radically encumbered with exaggeration is quite untrue, and that 
 there are no large numbers which disagree with the known conditions 
 of the history " (p. 220). 
 
 267 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 The phrase " verbal inspiration " is sometimes under- 
 stood as if it were equivalent to a direct or mechanical 
 " dictation " of the very words of inspired Scripture to 
 its several authors. Conclusions are then drawn from 
 this idea by opponents which, it is safe to say, no intel- 
 ligent upholder of the inspiration of the Bible would con- 
 sent to be bound by. 
 
 I myself, partly for this reason, prefer to speak of a 
 
 11 PLENARY " INSPIRATION 
 
 — plenary for the end for which inspiration is given, 
 that is, viewing Scripture as a whole, the imparting in 
 a complete and infallible way of the mind of the Spirit on 
 the great subjects of God's revelation.* It is by this time 
 a commonplace with writers on inspiration of all schools 
 that the action of the Spirit does not suspend or annul 
 the natural workings of the human faculties, but quickens, 
 exalts, and uses these to the fullest degree in the com- 
 munication, orally, or in writing, of the divine message. 
 The books of the Bible show as clearly the marks of the 
 individuality and genius of their human authors as they do 
 of the mind of the Spirit expressed through them. When 
 we trace further this action of the Spirit in relation to 
 the form of the record, we get much light that is of use 
 to us on the subject of " discrepancies." 
 
 To make my point clear at once, let anyone ask him- 
 self in what precise sense he uses the phrase " verbal 
 inspiration " in regard to 
 
 THE WORDS OF OUR LORD. 
 
 The first three evangelists have a great deal of common 
 matter, and report in many places the same sayings and 
 
 *I say, taking Scripture as a whole, for necessarily the various 
 parts of Scripture are relative to the age and stage of revelation to 
 which they belong, and the earlier parts show the incompleteness of 
 the earlier stages. 
 
 268 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 discourses of Jesus. Yet, as everyone knows, while they 
 often agree verbally, in a far larger number of cases their 
 reports show considerable variation of expression. It is 
 not simply that one report is longer or shorter than 
 another, but, while the idea is the same, the words used 
 to express the idea are often widely different. 
 
 AS INSTANCES, 
 
 take the following from Matthew and Luke. In Matthew 
 Jesus says : " Blessed are ye when men shall reproach 
 you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil 
 against you falsely, for My sake " (Matt. v. n). Luke 
 reports the same saying: " Blessed are ye, when 
 men shall hate you, and when they shall separate 
 you [from their company] , and reproach you, and cast 
 out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake " (Luke 
 vi. 22). Matthew reads: "And be not afraid of them 
 which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ; but 
 rather fear Him which is able to destroy both body and 
 soul in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? " 
 &c. (Matt. x. 28, 29). Luke gives this saying: "And I 
 say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them which kill 
 the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 
 But I will warn you whom ye shall fear ; Fear him, which 
 after He have killed hath power to cast into hell ; Yea, I 
 say unto you, fear Him. Are not five sparrows sold for 
 two farthings ? " &c. (Luke xii. 5, 6). Matthew gives the 
 saying: " There be some of them that stand here which 
 shall in no wise taste of death till they seethe Son of Man 
 coming in His Kingdom " (Matt. xvi. 28). Mark gives 
 the latter part of this utterance ; " Till they see the 
 Kingdom of God come with power " (Mark ix. 1), and 
 Luke yet more simply : " Till they see the Kingdom of 
 God " (Luke ix. 27) So constantly. 
 
 269 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Now it is perfectly obvious that in all these passages 
 the thought or meaning is 
 
 ABSOLUTELY THE SAME, 
 
 but it is just as obvious that the form of expressing the 
 thought varies, and that Jesus did not use both forms of 
 expression at one and the same time. It is a difference 
 in the mode of reporting the same thing.* We see plainly, 
 therefore, that it is the thought or idea about which in- 
 spiration is chiefly concerned, and not the precise words 
 in which that idea is conveyed, though, of course, in 
 Christ's case, the words are in substance the same also. 
 " Verbal inspiration" can mean here only that the words 
 are a perfectly accurate medium for conveying the meaning 
 intended ; not that they are always literally and exactly 
 the very words Christ used, in the precise form in which 
 He used them. This principle of itself is a solvent of 
 many of the alleged discrepancies in the Gospel, e.g., in 
 the case of the varying forms of the titles on the Cross 
 (Matt, xxvii. 37 ; Mark xv. 26 ; Luke xxiii. 38 ; John xix. 
 
 19). 
 
 IV. 
 
 A quite similar lesson is taught by another class of 
 phenomena ; I refer to the 
 
 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 in the New. Some 250 of these are reckoned.! There is 
 great diversity in the mode of quotation — sometimes 
 more exactly in agreement with the Hebrew ; sometimes 
 in freer paraphrase, or with unessential modifications ; in 
 
 * I discard the idea favoured by some of the wilful manipula- 
 tion of the text from a "tendency" motive. Cf. Rev. D. Smith, 
 The Days of His Flesh, Introd. p. xxiii. 
 
 t If repetitions are excluded, the number is reduced to about 136. 
 
 270 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 the great majority of cases, from the Greek version known 
 as the Septuagint, but here also often with considerable 
 liberty. In many cases the Greek version is followed 
 where it deviates from the Hebrew in important respects. 
 As examples, in Matt. ii. 5, 6, " And thou Bethlehem, 
 land of Judah," &c, the differences are very considerable 
 both from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint (these 
 have " Bethlehem Ephrathah." Cf. Mic. v. 2). In Matt, 
 xii. 17-21 we have, with other changes, the adoption of 
 the Septuagint rendering, " In His name shall the 
 Gentiles hope," for the Hebrew, " The isles shall wait 
 for His law" (Is. xlii. 1-4). In Rom. ix. 33 and 1 Pet. 
 ii. 6, the Septuagint is followed in rendering the last 
 clause of Is. xxviii. 16, " Shall not be put to shame," 
 where the Hebrew has " shall not make haste." To 
 take only one other case. In Heb. x. 5-7 the Septuagint, 
 as usual in this epistle, is followed, even in the rendering 
 of Ps. xl. 6, "A body hast thou prepared me," where 
 the original has, " Mine ears hast thou opened " (digged). 
 In brief, the sacred writers took their quotations from 
 this Greek version (the one familiar to their readers), 
 where it served in 
 
 ILLUSTRATION OF THEIR MAIN POINT, 
 
 without troubling themselves, except in special cases, with 
 its greater or less precision of rendering in detail. Inspira- 
 tion, as before, shows itself concerned with the thought, 
 not with the precise form of words used to express it. 
 
 An older writer, Dr. Patrick Fairbairn, has some 
 sensible remarks on this subject, which I may venture 
 to quote. After observing that " in none of the cases 
 are we presented with a different sense, but simply 
 with a modified representation of the same sense," he 
 proceeds : " It is, therefore, a groundless and unwarranted 
 application to make of these occasional departures from 
 the exact import of the original, when they are employed 
 
 271 
 

 The Bible Under Trial 
 
 as an argument against the plenary inspiration of 
 Scripture. . . . Even in those cases in which, for 
 anything we can see, a closer translation would have 
 served equally well the purpose of the writer, it may have 
 been worthy of the inspiring Spirit, and perfectly consis- 
 tent with the fullest inspiration of the original Scriptures, 
 that the sense should be given in a free current translation. 
 . . . The stress occasionally laid in the New Testa- 
 ment upon particular words in passages of the Old 
 sufficiently proves what a value attaches to the very form 
 of the divine communications. ... It shows that 
 God's words are pure words, and that, if fairly interpreted, 
 they cannot be too closely pressed. But in other cases, 
 when nothing depended upon a rigid adherence to the 
 letter, the practice of the sacred writers, not scrupulously 
 to stickle about this, but to give prominence simply to 
 the substance of the revelation is fraught with an impor- 
 tant lesson, since it teaches us that the letter is valuable 
 only for the truth couched in it, and that the one is no 
 further prized and contended for, than may be required 
 for the exhibition of the other." * 
 
 A third group of cases of interest in this connection are 
 those which relate to the use of 
 
 ROUND AND INDEFINITE NUMBERS. 
 
 Without accepting the principle of systematised numbers 
 to the extent to which some would carry it, we must 
 recognise that the use of round or indefinite numbers, 
 where the precise figure, perhaps, was not known, is a 
 not uncommon fact in Scripture. " Forty " is a favourite 
 round number of this kind, as seen, e.g., from its frequent 
 use in the Book of Judges (Judg. iii. n, 30 [40X2 --80] ; 
 v. 31 ; viii. 28, &c). Where it is intended to express that 
 the whole armed force of the nation is called out, or that 
 * Hermeneutical Manual, pp. 412-14. 
 
 272 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 an army is half destroyed, large round numbers, based on 
 census lists, or current enumerations, are employed. 
 This seems the simplest way of explaining such very large 
 figures — which it is impossible to take literally — as in 2 
 Chron. xiii. 3, 17. 
 
 This principle rules in another way — in giving a cer- 
 tain technical or artificial form to 
 
 GENEALOGIES AND LISTS. 
 
 Thus the list of the seventy souls that went down to 
 Egypt in Gen. xlvi. 8-27 (described in Ex. i. 5 as " all 
 the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob") embraces 
 Jacob himself, Er and Onan, who died in Canaan, repre- 
 sented by Hezron and Hamul (ver. 12 ; these were 
 born in Egypt), and Joseph's two sons, expressly 
 stated to have been born in Egypt (ver. 27). In 
 our Lord's genealogy in Matt. i. the names are given 
 in three " fourteens " (ver. 17) ; yet, to make the 
 second " fourteen," three names of kings have to be 
 omitted. 
 
 A chronological difficulty is sometimes found in Paul's 
 statement in Acts xiii. 20 : " After that He gave them 
 judges, about the space of 450 years, until Samuel the 
 prophet " (A. V.), which conflicts with the 480 years given 
 in 1 Kings vi. 1 as the period from the Exodus till the 
 founding of Solomon's temple. The discrepancy might, 
 if it were real, be solved on the above principle of the 
 adoption of a current reckoning, where precise enumera- 
 tion is not intended. In reality, the difficulty disappears 
 with the true reading : " He gave them their land for an 
 inheritance for about 450 years ; and after these things 
 He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet " 
 (R.V.). The allusion in the passage is probably to the 
 very reckoning in 1 Kings vi. 1. 
 
 273 T 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 v. 
 
 Let me now take a class of cases of a different kind. 
 Many of the books of the Bible are 
 
 COMPILATIONS FROM OLDER RECORDS. 
 
 They use, and in some cases embody, materials derived 
 from uninspired sources — e.g., the letters of the Persian 
 Kings embodied in the Book of Ezra, portions of State 
 chronicles, genealogies, tribal lists, &c. ; but they also 
 embody older prophetic histories and biographies (Cf. I 
 Chron. xxix. 29 ; 2 Chron. ix. 29 ; xii. 15 ; xiii. 22 ; xxvi. 
 22, &c). Some of these documents had been handed 
 down for centuries, and doubtless had suffered in the 
 usual way in the process of copying and transmission. 
 What relation does inspiration sustain to such materials ? 
 Is its function ended in their faithful reproduction and 
 use as given, for the purpose intended by the Spirit of 
 God ? Or does it lie with inspiration to supply all 
 defects, correct all corruptions in names and numbers, 
 check mistaken readings, and the like ? It will be very 
 difficult to maintain that it does. 
 
 Perhaps an illustration from Matthew Henry, whose 
 devotion to Scripture, even in its letter, will not be gain- 
 said, may set this matter in a clearer light. He is speak- 
 ing of 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES IN CHRONICLES, 
 
 with special reference to 1 Chron. viii. 1-32. "As to 
 the difficulties," he says, that occur in this and the 
 foregoing genealogies we need not perplex ourselves. I 
 presume Ezra took them as he found them in the books 
 of the Kings of Israel and Judah (chap. ix. 1), according 
 as they were given in by the several tribes, each observing 
 what method they thought fit. Hence some ascend, 
 
 274 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 others descend ; some have numbers affixed, others 
 places ; some have historical remarks intermixed, others 
 have not ; some are shorter, others longer ; some agree 
 with other records, others differ ; some, it is likely, were 
 torn, erased, and blotted, others more legible. Those of 
 Dan and Reuben were entirely lost. This holy man 
 wrote as he was moved of the Holy Ghost ; but there was 
 no necessity for the making up of the defects, no, nor for 
 the rectifying of the mistakes of these genealogies by 
 inspiration. It was sufficient that he copied them out as 
 they came to hand, or so much of them as was requisite 
 for the present purpose, which was the directing of the 
 returned captives to settle as nearly as they could with 
 those of their own family, and in the place of their former 
 residence." * 
 
 In such cases, as I have ventured to remark elsewhere,! 
 inspiration does not create the materials of its record, 
 but works with those it has received. In strictness, the 
 providing and preserving of sound historical material for 
 the sacred record is 
 
 THE WORK OF PROVIDENCE 
 
 rather than that of inspiration ; and a wonderful provi- 
 dence it has been. For instance, Luke appeals for the 
 trustworthiness of his Gospel, not to his inspiration, but 
 to the fact of his " having traced the course of all things 
 accurately from the first," " even as they delivered them 
 unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses of 
 the word" (Luke i. 1-3). Inspiration is a free, living 
 force which informs and moulds the material thus 
 received for the ends which God designs in His written 
 Word. 
 
 * Com. in loc. 
 t Cf. Problem of O.T., p. 486. 
 
 275 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 VI. 
 
 On the principle now stated one might easily explain 
 the appearances of discrepancy occasionally met with in 
 the narratives of the Gospels, without detracting in any 
 way from the reality of inspiration — e.g., as to whether 
 Bartimseus was cured by Jesus on His going into, or His 
 coming out of, Jericho (Cf. Matt. xx. 29, 30 : Markx. 46 ; 
 Luke xviii. 35). Such cases, however, seem to me to be 
 perfectly explicable on other, and more probable lines. 
 They belong to that part of the synoptic tradition which 
 may be supposed to have assumed a fixed form while yet 
 the Apostles were labouring together in Jerusalem, and it 
 is a priori highly unlikely that the statements in the 
 different evangelists are actually discrepant. I would 
 conclude, therefore, with a few remarks on certain 
 principles which apply to the alleged 
 
 DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Many of these so-called " discrepancies," as already 
 seen, are not real. It is not a real discrepancy if a say- 
 ing is reported, or an incident related, in slightly varying 
 language ; or if one narrative is fuller than another, or 
 gives details which another omits ; or if it presents 
 incidents from a different point of view. It is not a true 
 discrepancy, e.g., if Matthew tells of two demoniacs at 
 Gadara (Matt. viii. 28), while Mark and Luke speak only 
 of one (Mark v. 2 ; Luke viii. 27) ; or if Matthew speaks 
 of two blind men at Jericho (Matt. xx. 30), while 
 Mark and Luke again tell only of one (Mark x. 46 ; 
 Luke xviii. 35). As Matthew Henry, in his quaint 
 way, puts it: "If there were two, there was one" 
 (on Mark v. iff). 
 
 A letter comes in as I write which affords an interesting 
 illustration of this very point. In Huxley's Darwiniana 
 
 276 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 the Professor makes two references in different papers as 
 to the origin of the breed of Ancon sheep. Here are the 
 two passages : — 
 
 At pp. 38, 39 : " With the 'cuteness characteristic of 
 their nation, the neighbours of the Massachussetts farmer 
 imagined that it would be an excellent thing if all his 
 sheep were imbued with the stay-at-home tendencies 
 enforced by nature on the newly-arrived ram, and they 
 advised Wright to kill the old patriarch of his fold, and 
 instal the Ancon ram in his place. The result justified 
 their sagacious anticipations." 
 
 At p. 409 : " It occurred to Seth Wright, who was, like 
 his successors, more or less 'cute, that if he could get a 
 stock of sheep like those with the bandy legs, they would 
 not be able to jump over the fences so readily; and he 
 acted upon that idea " (italics mine). 
 
 My correspondent suggests this as a parallel to the 
 alleged " discrepancy" between Deut. i. gff, and Ex. xviii. 
 (Cf. my Prob. o/O.T., p. 278) ; but it is quite as applicable 
 to many of the so-called " discrepancies " of the 
 Gospels.* 
 
 One principle which explains at least some of the 
 apparent discrepancies in the Gospels is that of occa- 
 sional 
 
 "grouping." 
 
 There seems no doubt that, having regard to the spirit 
 rather than to the exact letter of their narratives, the 
 Evangelists in certain instances allow themselves the 
 freedom of grouping or combining their material. In the 
 discourses this is commonly allowed. In the Sermon on 
 the Mount in Matthew, e.g., long passages are brought 
 together, which in Luke are found in quite different con- 
 nections (Cf. Matt. vi. 9-13 ; Lukexi. 1-4 ; Matt. vi. 25-33; 
 
 *Good illustrations, with pertinent remarks, may be seen in 
 Ebrard's Gospel History, pp. 59, 60. 
 
 277 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Luke xii. 22-31 ; Matt. vii. 7-11 ; Luke xi. 9-13). No 
 doubt Jesus repeated many sayings at different times and 
 places : but in part there is plainly a grouping of like 
 material where occasion offers. 
 
 The same applies to the incidents. This is probably, 
 e.g., the real explanation of the diversity in the accounts of 
 
 THE CURE OF THE BLIND MEN, 
 
 on the occasion of Christ's visit to Jericho. Luke 
 narrates the cure of a blind man as Jesus "drew nigh" 
 to Jericho (Luke xviii. 35-43) ; Mark narrates the cure 
 of blind Bartimaeus (naming him) as Jesus " went out " 
 from Jericho (Mark x. 46-52) ; Matthew gives the story 
 of the cure of two blind men as Jesus leaves Jericho 
 (Matt. xx. 30-34). The accounts of the cure in the three 
 cases are very similar. It is simplest to suppose that 
 there were really two cures — one at the entering, the 
 other at the leaving, of the city — and that Matthew's 
 account is the synopsis of the two. 
 
 Much difficulty has often been felt in regard to the 
 harmonising of 
 
 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF JESUS. 
 
 These are found, one in Matt. i. 1-18, the other in Luke 
 iii. 23-38 (one descending, the other ascending), and they 
 vary completely after the mention of David. They are 
 both, in form, genealogies of Joseph, but they plainly 
 represent quite different lines of descent. We must 
 assume, therefore — holding them, as we do, for genuine 
 — that they are constructed on different principles. The 
 view has often been advanced in modern times that one 
 is the genealogy of Joseph (Matt.), the other the genealogy 
 of Mary (Luke) ; but most scholars now reject this as 
 contrary to the fair meaning of the text. Yet, in reality, 
 
 278 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 if not in form, there is every probability that the 
 genealogy of Mary is involved. The supposition which 
 has most likelihood is that, as Lord A. Hervey, in his 
 work on the subject, argues, the genealogy in Matthew 
 represents the legal, that in Luke the natural descent of 
 Joseph. Both appear to touch in Matthan or Matthat — 
 the grandfather of Joseph — and here we may naturally 
 suppose that the key to the solution lies. Jacob is the 
 son of Matthan in Matthew's list (i. 15) ; Heli is the son 
 of Matthat in Luke's (iii. 24). If we suppose Jacob to 
 have had no sons, but only a daughter, Mary, whom 
 Joseph, the son of Heli, married, then Joseph, as next of 
 kin in the male line, became (on Matthew's principle) 
 the son of Jacob, and legal heir to the throne.* Mary 
 and Joseph, on this view, were related as cousins. 
 
 The only other example I take is that of the alleged 
 discrepancies in connection with 
 
 THE NARRATIVES OF THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 The accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus in the four 
 Gospels are declared by many to be perfectly irreconcil- 
 able.! Is this certain ? I am far from thinking so, if 
 the narratives are treated in a reasonable way. The 
 resurrection day was one of great excitement. Events 
 and experiences were mingled, grouped, blended in a 
 
 *Dr. Patrick Fairbairn, in a judicious discussion of this subject, 
 says : " We have the best reason for supposing that the relationship 
 of Mary, immediately to Joseph, and remotely to the house of David, 
 was such, and so well known, that the genealogy of the one, at a 
 point comparatively near, was understood to be the genealogy also 
 of the other" (Hermen. Manual, p. 189). 
 
 tRev. D. Smith goes so far as to say in his The Days of His Flesh 
 that "in their accounts of the Resurrection the Synoptic narratives, 
 elsewhere so remarkable accordant, bristle with discrepancies which 
 refuse to be harmonised even by the most violent expedients " 
 (p. xxxvi.). 
 
 279 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 way which no one who was not an eye-witness, like 
 John, would venture afterwards to attempt to disen- 
 tangle ; the different evangelists give outstanding names 
 and facts, without pretending to furnish complete or 
 detailed accounts ; in default of more precise know- 
 ledge, their statements are more or less generalised. 
 John, alone, probably for the very end of giving greater 
 precision to certain events in which he was concerned, 
 furnishes a clear and consecutive statement. 
 Yet through the whole the 
 
 MAIN FACTS 
 
 stand out clearly. The early visit of the women to the 
 sepulchre (Mary Magdalene grouped with the rest, though 
 in reality she may have gone earlier) ; the stone rolled 
 away ; the vision of the angels and their message (the 
 appearances to the women and to Mary Magdalene 
 again grouped in the narrative of Luke) ; the going to 
 tell the disciples (Mary's going and that of the other 
 women grouped again). John makes the order of events 
 a good deal clearer. Mary Magdalene probably arrived 
 first, it may be with the other Mary as companion (Cf. 
 the " we " in John xx. 2) — the rest of the women coming 
 somewhat later — but on seeing the stone rolled away she 
 immediately fled and told Peter, returning in the wake 
 of Peter and John to the tomb. Then followed the 
 vision of angels, and the meeting with Jesus in the 
 garden : according to Mark xvi. 9 (an addition to the 
 Gospel, based here on John), Christ's first appearance. 
 Meanwhile, the other women had received the angel's 
 message, and departed, filled with fear, joy, and amaze- 
 ment. One point on which real difficulty rests is — 
 whether the appearance of Jesus to the women in Matt, 
 xxviii. 8, 9, is a distinct event, or whether, as some think, 
 the passage is to be taken as simply a generalised state- 
 
 280 
 
Discrepancies and Difficulties 
 
 ment of the single appearance to Mary Magdalene re- 
 corded by John. It seems most naturally to refer to a 
 distinct or second appearance of Jesus. If so, then some- 
 what more time must have elapsed during or after the 
 women's visit to the sepulchre than we should otherwise 
 have supposed : time to allow of Mary's return, and of 
 Christ's appearance to her. Possibly Mary overtook the 
 others on their way back, and all told the apostles 
 together. 
 
 The events of the resurrection morning thus do 
 
 FIT INTO EACH OTHER 
 
 better than the ordinary catalogue of minute "discre- 
 pancies " would suggest. It is at least an exaggeration 
 to say: "It is hardly too much to affirm that, as they 
 [the Synoptic narratives] stand, they agree only in their 
 unfaltering and triumphant proclamation of the fact that 
 Jesus rose and appeared to His disciples " (Smith, 
 p. xxxvi.). 
 
 281 
 
XII 
 
 The Bible the Hope 
 of the World 
 
 
The Bible the Hope 
 of the World 
 
 IT was remarked in the first paper that the best proof 
 of the inspiration of the Bible is the spiritual effects 
 which it produces. These are of a character 
 
 WRIT LARGE 
 
 on the page of history. Moses extolled the unique 
 privilege of Israel in having " statutes and judgments so 
 righteous as all this law" (Deut. iv. 8). Psalmists 
 celebrate in glowing terms the spiritual power of God's 
 "law" in converting, enlightening, sanctifying, comfort- 
 ing, and guiding the soul (Pss. i., xix. 7-11 ; cxix). Paul 
 counts it the chief privilege of his nation that " they were 
 entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom. iii. 2). The 
 same apostle declares that the Old Testament Scriptures 
 which Timothy possessed were " able to make wise unto 
 salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," and 
 that, as " inspired of God," they were profitable for 
 teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
 righteousness, "that the man of God may be complete, 
 furnished completely unto every good work " (2 Tim. iii. 
 
 15-17)- 
 
 The New Testament Scriptures have since been added 
 to the Old, and we have now in our hands a complete 
 Bible. Few will maintain that the inspiration of the 
 New Testament falls beneath that of the Old, or that 
 
 285 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 the spiritual powers its teachings exert are less wonderful 
 than those of the earlier Scriptures. 
 
 The claim made for the Bible is one that can be 
 
 PUT TO THE TEST. 
 
 The Bible influences the world through the many-sided 
 revelations of God's character and will it contains ; it 
 specially influences it through the historical image, and the 
 moral and spiritual teaching, of Christ in the Gospels, and 
 through the hopes, promises, exhortations, and motives, in 
 which the Apostolic writings abound. We speak with 
 gratitude of the profound influence which has been 
 exercised on the world by Christianity. But it is to be 
 remembered that Christianity only comes to men, and is 
 kept alive in their memories and hearts, through the 
 Bible — through the possession, translation, diffusion, and 
 devout and prayerful reading, preaching, study, and 
 teaching of the written Word. Without the Bible to 
 revert to, 
 
 KEEPING THE TRUTH FRESH AND LIVING, 
 
 the image of the Master would long since have been 
 blurred and distorted beyond recognition. His Gospel 
 would have been perverted beyond recovery by corrupt 
 human tradition. His doctrines and moral teaching, with 
 those of His Apostles, would have been buried under a 
 mountain-load of human inventions. 
 
 It is not, therefore, an exaggeration to say that it is the 
 Bible which has 
 
 PRESERVED CHRISTIANITY 
 
 to the world. If, as we believe, the religion of Jesus is 
 the hope of the world, it is the possession of the Bible 
 conveying and maintaining the knowledge of that religion, 
 which makes the hope possible. In saying that 
 Christianity is the hope of the world, and that the Bible 
 
 286 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 is the hope of the world, we use nearly equivalent 
 expressions. 
 
 I. 
 
 A powerful argument for the divineness of the Bible 
 might be drawn from a simple comparison of the Bible 
 with 
 
 THE SACRED BOOKS OF OTHER RELIGIONS. 
 
 There is a large group of religions in the world which 
 students of the subject are accustomed to designate 
 11 book-religions " — this for the reason that they possess, 
 like our own, sacred books or scriptures. Such books are 
 the Hindu Vedas, the Parsee Zend-Avesta, the Tripitakas 
 and other sacred writings of the Buddhists, the Moham- 
 medan Koran. Whatever light of wisdom, or gleams of 
 truth about God and duty such books contain — and we 
 need grudge to them no real "gems" of this kind they 
 possess — there is, as every candid judge will be ready to 
 admit, no true comparison between these ethnic scrip- 
 tures, even at their best, and the collection of writings 
 which we term pre-eminently the Bible — the Book. 
 Whether regarded as literature, as history, or in the mes- 
 sage they convey, the unique superiority of the Bible 
 stands out unchallengeable. 
 Take the Bible, for instance, 
 
 AS HISTORY. 
 
 It is the simple fact that there is nothing that can be 
 properly called history in these other sacred books of the 
 world. They are, as every student of them knows, for the 
 most part jumbles of heterogeneous material, loosely 
 placed together, without order, continuity, or unity of any 
 kind. There is no order, progress, or real connection of 
 parts. The Koran, e.g., is a miscellany of disjointed 
 pieces, loosely placed together, arranged chiefly in order 
 
 287 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 of length. The Bible, on the other hand, is a history 
 with a beginning, a middle, and an end ; a history of 
 revelation ; the history of a developing purpose of God, 
 working up to a goal in the full-orbed discovery of the 
 will of God for man's salvation in His Son Jesus Christ. 
 There is nothing like this, nothing even approaching it, 
 in any other collection of sacred books in the world. 
 As distinctive in its character is 
 
 THE MESSAGE 
 
 of the Bible. The Bible is not a book of mere secular 
 wisdom, though much secular knowledge is embodied in 
 it ; not a book merely of grand thoughts about religion, 
 or of theories and speculations about divine things ; not 
 a book simply of fine ethical teaching, of noble biography, 
 of soul-stirring narrative. It is, as just said, pre-eminently 
 a book of revelation ; of God's historic revelations down 
 through the ages to the coming of Christ and the advent 
 of the Spirit. These revelations form a series. Each 
 adds something to those which went before ; each carries 
 the course of revelation a little further ; each fore- 
 shadows a yet richer development in the future ; and when 
 the whole is before us, we see in it the unfolding of a 
 great purpose which has its consummation in Christ and 
 His redemption — a purpose the very character of which 
 is the guarantee to us that it is the purpose of God, not 
 the thought of man. 
 
 II. 
 
 This imperfect glance suffices to show the uniqueness 
 of the Bible, and the inestimable treasure we possess in 
 it. We are now to see how the Bible 
 
 VERIFIES ITS EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER 
 
 and claims by its history and influence, and by the 
 blessings it confers. 
 
 288 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 It is not too much to say that the Bible, regarded 
 simply as a book, has had an 
 
 UNEXAMPLED PLACE IN HISTORY. 
 
 Its authors were not learned men, as the world counts 
 learning ; yet their writings have been preserved, read, 
 copied, translated, and spread abroad to the utmost 
 corners of the earth, as no works of philosophers or sages, 
 poets or orators, historians or moralists, have ever been. 
 Take the witness of manuscripts. While of some im- 
 portant classical works only one manuscript is known to 
 exist, and ten or fifteen is thought a large number for 
 others — few of these dating beyond the tenth century of 
 our era — the manuscripts of whole or parts of the New 
 Testament are already reckoned by thousands, the oldest 
 of which go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, and 
 parts are still older. 
 Or take the 
 
 TEST OF TRANSLATION 
 
 as a mark of this book's influence. It is no uncommon 
 thing for a popular book to be translated into many 
 languages. Here, again, however, the Bible has a 
 record which casts every other into the shade. The 
 books of the New Testament had hardly been put 
 together in the second century in what we call the Canon 
 before we find translations made of them into Latin and 
 Syriac and Egyptian, and by-and-by into Gothic and 
 other barbarous tongues. In the Middle Ages, notwith- 
 standing the discouragements put upon the possession 
 and reading of the Scriptures, we find translations made 
 into nearly all the leading languages of Europe. With 
 the art of printing the work of translation received a new 
 impetus. To-day there is not a language in the civilised 
 world, hardly a language among uncivilised tribes of any 
 importance, into which this marvellous book has not been 
 
 289 U 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 rendered. Whatever men may say of decay of faith in 
 the Bible, it is, as remarked earlier, the undeniable fact 
 that its circulation in the different countries and 
 languages of the world to-day outstrips all previous 
 records. The reports, e.g., of the three great Bible 
 Societies — the British and Foreign, the American, and 
 the National Bible Society of Scotland — show for the 
 year 1905 the enormous total of over 9,000,000 of issues 
 of the whole or parts of the Scriptures in European and 
 heathen lands ! 
 
 EVERY OTHER TEST 
 
 we can apply to the Bible yields a similar result. No 
 book has ever been so minutely studied, has had so many 
 books written on it, has given birth to so many com- 
 mentaries and works of exposition, has evoked such keen 
 discussion, has founded so vast a literature of hymns, 
 liturgies, works of devotion, has been so determinedly 
 assailed, has rallied such splendid defences, as the Bible ! 
 Why do I mention these things ? Not merely for their 
 own interest as facts, but as proofs of the 
 
 UNCONQUERABLE VITALITY 
 
 which resides in this book, of the universal appeal it 
 makes to human hearts, and of the need of ascribing 
 the power it exercises to some higher than natural 
 cause. Genius alone in the writers, even if they were 
 allowed to take rank as men of genius, would not explain 
 it. What boasts are sometimes made of the genius and 
 scholarship ranged against the Bible ! Yet, as I said at the 
 commencement, the Bible holds on its career of conquest 
 unchecked, while the works of its assailants, after a 
 generation or two — often much less time — lie on the 
 shelves unread. These books have no message to the 
 , world, as the Bible has. The Bible is a book, as 
 experience shows, for all races ; and it has this character 
 
 290 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 because, like the Gospel it enshrines, it goes down beneath 
 all differences of rank, age, sex, culture, to that which is 
 deepest, most universal in man. It bears translation 
 into all languages, because the language of the deepest 
 things of the soul is, all the world over, one. 
 This 
 
 VITAL PENETRATIVE CHARACTER OF THE BIBLE, 
 
 attesting its divine quality, shows itself not simply in the 
 place it holds in history, but in the unexampled character 
 of the influence it has been enabled to exert. To tell 
 what the Bible has been and done for the world would be 
 to rewrite in large part the history of modern civilisation ; 
 to re-tell the story of Christian missions, including those 
 which brought the Gospel to our own shores ; to extract 
 the finest qualities in much of our best literature ; to lay 
 bare the inner springs of the lives of those who have 
 laboured best and most for the moral and spiritual well- 
 being of their kind. Trace back to their springs the 
 great movements, the great struggles for civil and 
 religious liberty, in our own and other lands, the social 
 and humanitarian movements which were the distinc- 
 tion of the past century, the sources will be found 
 ultimately in the high mountain levels of the Bible's 
 teaching. And say what men will, it is the Bible which 
 is the source of our highest social and national aspirations 
 still. 
 
 I shall return immediately, with more particularity, to 
 the proof of these statements. But I may here cite the 
 witness of one who will not, I think, be regarded as 
 unduly biassed in favour of the Bible — I mean 
 
 PROFESSOR HUXLEY. 
 
 Secularist and agnostic as he was, Professor Huxley, 
 on more than one occasion, expressed himself in very 
 
 291 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 remarkable terms on this unparalleled influence of the 
 Bible.* Here is one of his latest utterances : — 
 
 "Throughout the history of the Western world," he 
 says, " the Scriptures, Jewish and Christian, have been 
 the great instigators of revolt against the worst forms of 
 clerical and political despotism. The Bible has been the 
 Magna Charta of the poor, and of the oppressed ; down 
 to modern times no State has had a constitution in which 
 the interests of the people are so largely taken into 
 account, in which the duties, so much more than the 
 privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up 
 for Israel in Deuteronomy and Leviticus ; nowhere is the 
 fundamental truth that the welfare of the State, in the 
 long run, depends on the uprightness of the citizen so 
 strongly laid down. Assuredly the Bible talks no trash 
 about the rights of man ; but it insists upon the equality 
 of duties, on the liberty to bring about that righteousness 
 which is somewhat different from struggling for ' rights ' ; 
 on the fraternity of taking thought for one's neighbour as 
 for one's self."+ 
 
 Here is another passage. Arguing in one of his essays 
 for the reading of the Bible in the schools, Professor 
 Huxley bids us consider "that for three centuries this 
 Book has been woven into the life of all that is best and 
 noblest in English history ; that it has become the national 
 epic of Britain . . . that it is written in the 
 noblest and purest English, and abounds in exquisite 
 beauties of mere literary form " ; and he asks, " By the 
 study of what other book could children be so much 
 humanised, and made to feel that each figure in that vast 
 historical procession fills, like themselves, but a moment- 
 ary space in the interval between two eternities, and 
 
 * The attention of Mr. Blatchford and his friends, who republish 
 Huxley as wholly on their side, may be directed to these passages. 
 
 t Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions, Prologue, pp. 52-3. 
 
 292 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 earns the blessings or the curses of all times, according to 
 its efforts to do good and hate evil, even as they also are 
 earning their payment for their work ? "* 
 
 Are not statements like these the best reply to such 
 strictures on the " narrowness " of the Christian ethics as 
 we had before us in a previous paper ? Can a religion be 
 really regarded as inimical to political freedom, to duties 
 of citizenship, to education, to patriotism, which produces 
 results like the above ? 
 
 III. 
 
 Let me now trace a little more in detail some of 
 
 THE ACTUAL BLESSINGS 
 
 which the world owes to the Bible. For practical pur- 
 poses, the influence of the Bible and the influence of 
 Christianity are, as I have said, convertible ideas. It 
 will be convenient for me to speak, first, of what the 
 world owes to the religion of Christ in a temporal respect 
 — on the plane of moral and social benefit ; then of 
 what the world owes to it in a spiritual respect, or in 
 regard to its eternal hopes. 
 
 There are, I know very well, and we are never allowed 
 to forget it, 
 
 TWO SIDES TO THIS PICTURE. 
 
 Deeds have been done in the name of Christ, and of 
 His official Church, which reflect eternal dishonour upon 
 humanity. It is a dark picture the historian has to draw 
 of the abounding corruption, the dead formalism, the 
 gross immorality of certain ages of the Church ; of the 
 frightful evils of the periods of Roman and Byzantine 
 ascendency ; of the spirit of intolerance and persecution 
 directed against heretics and unbelievers, and often 
 
 * Critiques and Addresses, p. 61. 
 
 293 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 against Christ's own faithful witnesses, when truth had 
 to be confessed in peril of the dungeon and the stake ; of 
 superstitions like witchcraft ; of the feuds and divisions of 
 churches and sects ; of the moral blots, the inconsistencies, 
 the festering sores of vice and misery, of our so-called 
 Christian civilisations. 
 
 WE ACKNOWLEDGE IT ALL, 
 
 and blush in the acknowledgment. To dwell on such 
 things is the stock in trade of the anti-Christian agitator. 
 But in this he is unjust. A fair mind will always 
 distinguish — or try to distinguish — between effects really 
 due to the spirit and principles of Christ's religion, and 
 the false and perverted readings of that religion given by 
 those who had nothing in common with its spirit, and 
 made it too often the engine of their own temporal 
 ambitions. Much human infirmity and folly must be 
 stripped off if we are to do justice to this religion as it 
 lies before us in the Bible. Mr. Blatchford's formerly- 
 quoted words : " If to praise Christ in words, and deny 
 Him in deeds, be Christianity," is not the definition we 
 would accept of Christianity.* To Christ Himself we 
 appeal, as against the people who deny Him. 
 
 If, then, we look to the Gospel as it came forth in its 
 purity from 
 
 THE LIPS OF CHRIST HIMSELF AND OF HIS APOSTLES, 
 
 what do we find it teaching ? What ideas did it com- 
 municate to the world ? I look at the subject, first, 
 as proposed, from the standpoint of moral and social 
 benefit. 
 
 To understand what the religion of the Bible has 
 accomplished, we have to think of the kind of world 
 
 * God and My Neighbour. Pref. p. ix. 
 
 294 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 into which Christianity entered. It found a world in the 
 
 LAST STAGE OF DISSOLUTION — 
 
 in a state of utter decrepitude and decay. The old 
 religions had lost their power, and with religion the 
 foundations of morals were well nigh universally 
 loosened. Dissoluteness flooded society. Even duty to 
 the State — the one duty that was held supreme — was 
 breaking up in all directions. There was little sense of 
 individual right. In the family, e.g., the father held all 
 power in his own hands, and wife, and children, and 
 slaves, were subject to his absolute authority. Infanti- 
 cide and exposure of children were common and recognised 
 practices. The 
 
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 
 
 was built on slavery, and slaves had no protection of 
 any kind. Work was held to be beneath the dignity of 
 citizens, who, if not possessed of wealth, claimed to be 
 supported by the State. The favourite amusements of 
 the populace were the sanguinary spectacles of the 
 amphitheatre. Marriage had fallen into such disuse 
 that, though the emperors set a premium on marriage, 
 people could hardly be induced to enter into the bond. 
 Worse than all, heathen society had not within itself — 
 nor was it able to find — any principle of regeneration, for 
 religion had lost its hold, the moral codes of the 
 philosophers were without sufficient sanction, and there 
 were not those ideas of the dignity and worth of the 
 individual which could create any noble or sustained 
 efforts on his behalf. Noble examples of virtue, no 
 doubt, there still were ; friendship, piety of a sort, family 
 affections, a deploring on the part of the better spirits 
 of the evils they could do nothing to check or subdue. 
 But ancient civilisation had played itself out in both 
 
 2 95 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 thought and life, and had not a spring of renewal from 
 which recovery could come. 
 
 What now did Christianity bring to this 
 
 EFFETE AND CORRUPT AND SINKING HEATHENISM ? 
 
 It brought for one thing a totally new idea of man 
 himself as a being of infinite dignity and immortal worth. 
 It taught that every man, as made in God's image, and 
 capable of eternal life, had an infinite value — a value 
 which made it worth while God's own Son dying for him. 
 It taught that no man was worthless in God's sight ; that 
 every man, however lost in sin, was redeemable, and that 
 no efforts should be spared for his redemption. It brought 
 back the well-nigh lost sense of responsibility and 
 accountability to God. It breathed into the world a new 
 spirit of love and charity — something wonderful in the 
 eyes of the heathen, who looked on in amazement as they 
 saw institutions growing up around them such as 
 paganism had never heard of ; institutions for the care of 
 the poor, the orphan, the aged, the helpless, the fallen, 
 the leper ; that wealth of charitable and beneficent 
 institutions with which Christian lands are full.* It flashed 
 into men's souls a 
 
 NEW MORAL IDEAL, 
 
 and set up a standard of truth, integrity, and purity, 
 which has acted as an elevating force on moral concep- 
 tions till this hour.t It restored woman to her rightful 
 place by man's side as his spiritual helpmate and equal. 
 It taught care for the children, and created that best of 
 
 *Cf. Lecky's History of European Morals, I., p. 412 ; II., pp. 84- 
 91, 107. Uhlhorn s Christian Charity in the Ancient Church. " It 
 has covered the globe," says Lecky, " with countless institutions of 
 mercy, absolutely unknown in the whole pagan world" (II., p. 91 ; 
 Cf-, p. 107). Thirty years ago hospitals were unknown in Japan. 
 
 t Lecky, I., p. 412. 
 
 296 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 God's blessings on earth, the Christian home. It taught 
 the slave his spiritual freedom as a member of the King- 
 dom of God ; gave him an equal place with his master in 
 the Church ; and struck at the foundations of slavery by 
 its doctrines of the natural brotherhood and dignity of 
 man. It created self-respect, and a sense of duty in the 
 use of one's powers for self-support and the benefit of 
 others ; urged to honest labour ; and in a myriad ways, 
 by direct teaching, by the protest of holy lives, and by its 
 general spirit, struck at the evils, the corruptions, the 
 malpractices and cruelties of the time. 
 
 In all these and in numberless other ways that cannot 
 now be mentioned, Christianity, as impartial investigators 
 recognise,* entered as a revolutionising, regenerating, and 
 
 RENEWING PRINCIPLE 
 
 into that ancient society, and produced effects which 
 have borne fruit in the new world that has sprung up on 
 the ruins of the old. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Once the ideas I have mentioned had been introduced, 
 and had taken possession of the world, they liberated 
 other forces, and gave birth to new ideas, which have 
 co-operated with them in advancing the progress of the 
 race ; but no one who goes to the bottom of what is 
 
 DISTINCTIVE OF OUR MODERN CIVILISATION 
 
 will deny that the ideas I have named are the basis on 
 which our modern civilisation rests, and will as little 
 deny that, however self-evident some of them may now 
 seem to us, it was Christianity which practically put the 
 
 *Cf. Lecky, ut supra, Vol. II., throughout ; Brace's Gesta Chris ti, 
 Schmid's Social Results of Early Christianity, &c 
 
 297 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 world in possession of them, and still sustains them in 
 men's minds as living convictions. 
 
 These ideas are now, in large part, as I say, 
 
 THE COMMON POSSESSION OF MANKIND. 
 
 They exist and operate far beyond the limits of the 
 visible Church. They have been taken up and contended 
 for by men outside the Church — unbelievers even — when 
 the Church itself had become unfaithful to them. But 
 none the less are they of Christian parentage. They are 
 the principles of the Bible — of the Gospel. They lie at 
 the basis of our modern assertion of equal rights ; of 
 rights of conscience ; of justice to the individual in social 
 and State arrangements ; of the desire for brotherhood, 
 and peace, and amity among classes and nations.* It is 
 the Christian leaven that is fermenting, sometimes in turbid 
 enough forms, in all this social seething we see going on 
 around us ; Christian ideas which are propelling the race 
 on in its march of progress ; Christian love which is 
 sustaining the best, and purest, and most self-sacrificing 
 efforts to raise the fallen, rescue the drunkard, and make 
 the condition of the race happier and better. And if 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN ROOT OF THESE IDEAS 
 
 and efforts were withdrawn, it would soon be seen how 
 many of them would come to be laughed at as baseless 
 ideals, and a very different range of ideas and motives 
 would take their place ; how, in their race for riches, lust 
 for pleasure, and greed of power, men would be willing to 
 trample the poor and helpless under their feet, if only 
 they could by that means raise themselves a little higher. 
 We thus see that, even in a temporal respect, the Bible 
 and its teachings are 
 
 *We saw in a previous paper how Mr. Blatchford's own book, God 
 and My Neighbour, is itself an inverted testimony to this. 
 
 298 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 THE GRAND CIVILISING AGENCY 
 
 of the world. The experience of the past proves it. 
 Christian Missions, with their benign effects in the spread 
 of education, the checking of social evils and barbarities, 
 the creation of trade and industry, the change in the 
 status of women, the advance in the social and civilised life 
 generally, prove it.* We are still far enough from the goal, 
 God knows. But contrast ancient Pagan with modern 
 society, with all its faults, and mark how far we have 
 already travelled ; contrast Christian nations with nations 
 yet in 
 
 THE NIGHT OF HEATHENISM 
 
 — even with such lands as India and China — and note 
 the contrast in the life of to-day; take the Christian 
 nations themselves, and see how it is those that have drunk 
 most deeply into the Spirit of Christ, who most revere 
 His word, respect His day, and observe most purely His 
 worship, that stand foremost in all the elements that 
 constitute true progress — foremost in enlightenment, in 
 wealth, in virtue, in social order and happiness ; take, 
 finally, the godly and godless classes in the same society, 
 and mark how the tone of our public life, and the 
 stability of our institutions are strengthened by the 
 former, and are daily put in jeopardy by the latter! 
 
 " The fear of the Lord is to hate evil " (Prov. viii. 13) ; 
 and in proportion as that fear spreads itself through a 
 community, the community will be stable, progressive, 
 prosperous. Given a 
 
 BIBLE-READING, BIBLE-LOVING PEOPLE, 
 
 and it will not be long before such a people is found well- 
 
 *See Dr. Dennis's remarkable volume, Christian Missions and Social 
 Progress- 
 
 299 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 housed, well-clothed, industrious, and content ; before 
 the demons of drink and poverty disappear from its 
 midst ; before schools and colleges spring up to educate 
 its children ; before all the tokens of a genuine prosperity 
 are visible within its borders. 
 
 V. 
 
 Thus far I have been speaking of the temporal advan- 
 tages accruing from the religion of the Bible. But the 
 
 CHIEF BLESSING 
 
 of the possession of the Bible is not told till we speak of 
 what the world owes to it in a religious respect, and in 
 regard to its eternal hopes. The two things are con- 
 nected, for the moral reforms wrought by Christianity 
 can never be dissociated from its religious' ideas. Nothing 
 elevates the mind or raises the affections so much as right 
 thoughts of God. In the light of His relation to God, man 
 attains to the sense of his dignity and worth as a moral 
 being, and feels that life has an end which makes it worth 
 living, The chief gain of the Bible, therefore, is still 
 untold when we speak only of its literary, and moral, and 
 civilising effects. It is not disclosed till we think of its 
 message of the love of God, and that light of eternal hope 
 which streams from it into a world which, despite all 
 speculations of reason, and brilliance of civilisation, 
 would be hopelessly dark as respects the future with- 
 out it. 
 
 It is the Bible which gives the knowledge of God. I 
 need not do more than lift a corner of the veil which at 
 this distance of time hides from us the condition of 
 
 THE ANCIENT WORLD 
 
 in a religious respect. What a spectacle of ignorance of the 
 true God and of the way of life it is which presents 
 
 300 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 itself! In one place it is the sun, moon, and planets 
 which are the objects of worship. Elsewhere, as in 
 Egypt, temples are built to four-footed beasts and 
 creeping things of the earth (Cf. Rom. i. 23). In other 
 places, as in India, the great natural objects — the sky, 
 the dawn, the rain, the rivers, fire, &c. — are the 
 favourite deities. In Greece men adore gods sculptured 
 in forms of human beauty. In Rome gods of all countries 
 are swept together, and worship is paid to them. Round 
 the roots of these religions clung innumerable superstitions ; 
 the rites of many of them were licentious and revolting ; 
 in the service of gods of lust and gods of wine, the most 
 shameful orgies were enacted. Where, from the list of 
 these heathen gods, or in the stories told of them, could men 
 get one idea to elevate them, one impulse to raise them 
 above themselves to nobler life ? When Plato sketched 
 an ideal Republic, his first concern was to banish the 
 myths of the gods out of it.* 
 Think of 
 
 OUR OWN ISLAND 
 
 at the time when the light of Christianity first broke 
 upon it. Druid priests chant their mysterious songs, go 
 through their mystic ceremonies in dim forest recesses, 
 plunge the sacrificial knife into shrieking human victims. 
 The tribes who supplant them bring over their wild 
 Scandinavian traditions ; sing the praises of Thor and 
 Odin ; revel in the prospect of a Valhalla, where they 
 will drink blood from the skulls of their slain enemies ! 
 Look at the lands which lie even yet in the shadow of death 
 of heathenism. See their lords many and their gods 
 many, their cruel practices, their revolting superstitions. 
 As every student of social progress knows, their false 
 
 * Republic Bk. II. 
 
 301 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 religions rest on these lands with the weight of an incu- 
 bus, and there can be no real progress till this incubus 
 is shaken off. 
 
 It is the poet Milton who in his great 
 
 ODE ON THE NATIVITY 
 
 has described the dire consternation in the ranks of the 
 heathen deities at the announcement of the birth of 
 Christ. Christ came, and as His religion spread, the 
 vapours of a dense heathen superstition rolled away 
 before it, and gave place to a purer faith, and to a nobler 
 worship. Corruption, as we know, early seized on 
 Christianity also, and in the course of centuries attained 
 huge proportions. But we know, too, how, from time to 
 time, as at 
 
 THE REFORMATION, 
 
 through the force of that vitality within it, which is but 
 another name for the abiding presence of God's Spirit in 
 its midst, Christianity has risen up, and thrown the worst 
 of these corruptions off, and come forth stronger and purer 
 than before. It is the Bible which in every case has been 
 the instrument of God's Spirit in these Reformations. 
 It is the same Bible which has been the agency in that long 
 series of historical Revivals by which the Church has once 
 and again been saved in days of stagnation and unbelief. 
 Without the Bible not one of these great changes would 
 have been brought about. 
 And how 
 
 MARVELLOUS THE RESULTS ! 
 
 To the Gospel of Christ we owe it that we ourselves are 
 not to-day worshipping stocks and stones, but are bowing 
 in acknowledgment of the one God and Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who is above all and in all. It was 
 
 302 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 Christianity that, in the early centuries, overthrew the 
 reign of the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome, 
 and swept them so entirely from faith and history that no 
 one now so much as dreams of the possibility of the 
 revival of their worship. It was Christianity that, still 
 retaining something of its youthful energy, laid hold 
 of the 
 
 ROUGH, BARBARIAN PEOPLES 
 
 that overran Europe, and, with the Bible's aid, trained and 
 moulded them to some kind of civilisation and moral life. 
 It was Christianity that, in Scotland, lighted a light in 
 the monasteries of Iona and other places, that by-and-by 
 spread its beams through every part of the country. 
 Just as to-day it is Christianity that is teaching the 
 idolaters to burn their idols, to cease their horrid 
 practices, to worship the true God, and take upon them 
 the obligations of decent and civilised existence. 
 As it is with the knowledge of God so is it with 
 
 HOPE FOR THE FUTURE. 
 
 The ancient world was as much in the darkness about 
 a future life as it was about the being and character of 
 God, and what notions it had were perplexed, confused, and 
 erroneous in the extreme. But Christ, as He came from 
 God and went to God, has shed a new light into the depths 
 of the Unseen, and, by His own Resurrection, has opened 
 the gates of a new and assured hope to mankind (i Pet. 
 i. 3). The lesson of all history is that, apart from the 
 Bible, and this hope which it contains, the world but 
 gropes in darkness, and wanders into 
 
 DEEPER AND EVER DEEPER UNCERTAINTY, 
 
 from the scepticism in which ancient Rome and Greece 
 ended, to the unconcealed Agnosticism, and deeper than 
 
 303 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Agnosticism, the Pessimism, under the depressing 
 influence of which our modern age groans. 
 Take a single illustration. I took up lately a 
 
 WORK OF FICTION 
 
 — a book written, its lately deceased author* tells us, 
 " for the first time in my life wholly and solely to satisfy 
 my own taste and my own conscience " — and this is the 
 kind of teaching it offers. The author is speaking in his 
 own name. " Blank pessimism," he says, " is the one 
 creed possible for all save fools. To hold any other is to 
 curl yourself up selfishly in your own easy chair, and say 
 to your soul, ' O soul, eat and drink ; O soul, make merry.' 
 . . . Pessimism is sympathy ; optimism is selfishness. 
 . . . All honest art is therefore of necessity pessi- 
 mistic." The close of the book describes the suicide of 
 the heroine, and its last words are : " Her stainless soul 
 ceased to exist for ever." 
 In such an 
 
 ECLIPSE OF HOPE 
 
 — and there is more of that eclipse at this hour in human 
 minds and hearts than one sometimes realises — what can 
 bring light to the world, but the glorious message of life 
 and immortality through the Gospel of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Look once more at heathenism. Here is an extract 
 from a letter recently received from a young missionary 
 
 WORKING IN INDIA. 
 
 " I have had to give up the idea," he says, " of 
 sending%home impressions of heathenism. Much of it is 
 literally indescribable, and a good deal of it too awful to 
 describe. It does not enter into one's mind all at once 
 that one's whole environment in a place like this is 
 almost incredibly vile. Things have not so appalling an 
 
 * Grant Allen. 
 
 304 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 appearance on the surface, but here and there are breaks, 
 and one gets a glimpse inside." Then follows a " counter- 
 picture" of the changes seen in the " boys " at his Insti- 
 tution. " Here is a very primitive Christianity, if you 
 like ; but for pluck, frank good nature, real affection, and 
 honest, downright fidelity (according to their lights), as 
 widely different from heathen boys as night from day." 
 
 It is this Gospel which to-day is flooding with hope 
 and courage 
 
 MYRIADS OF HEARTS 
 
 that would otherwise be in deepest despondency ; that in 
 India, in China, in Africa, in the New Hebrides, in every 
 land to which it comes, in rising like a great " rose of 
 dawn," a " dayspring from on high," fraught with hope 
 and healing for the woes of men. But in this great work 
 of the recovery of mankind to God, of the regeneration of 
 the world, how absolutely indispensable is the Bible ! 
 Without it, what could the missionary, 
 
 ARM AND TONGUE PARALYSED, 
 
 accomplish ? With it, even in the absence of the 
 missionary, what wondrous changes, moral miracles even, 
 are sometimes effected ! Like seeds wafted by the wind 
 into the crevices of hard rock, that grow, and flourish, and 
 by-and-by split the rock, the simple truths of the Bible, 
 without a human tongue to expound and enforce them, 
 have often taken root, and brought forth amazing fruit, 
 to God's sole glory. It was through a copy of the New 
 Testament, found floating in the waters of the Bay of 
 Yeddo, that the Gospel re-entered Japan, and created the 
 first band of disciples — the nucleus of the future Church — 
 when as yet no Christian teacher was permitted to enter, 
 and the profession of Christianity was prohibited on pain 
 of death. 
 
 Need I, finally, in this plea for the power of the 
 Bible, go further than its 
 
 305 x 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 BLESSED RESULTS TO OURSELVES? 
 
 What do we not owe to the Bible, and to the Gospel which 
 it brings ? I have spoken already of civil blessings ; I 
 look now only to the spiritual. Our innumerable 
 churches, our Sabbath rest and privileges, the religion 
 whose power inspires so much earnest life, and so much 
 noble work, the blessed effects of that religion in peace, 
 in strength, in moral impulse in the minds that possess 
 it, the comfort it dispenses in trial, and the joy and 
 triumph it gives in death — all this is the fruit of the 
 message of the Bible. Whatever blessings or hopes we 
 can trace to our Christian faith ; whatever light it 
 imparts to our minds, or cheer to our hearts ; whatever 
 power there is in it to sustain holiness or conquer sin — 
 all this we owe to the fact that Jesus came, and lived, and 
 died, and rose again, and has given us of His Spirit ; and 
 that we have the Bible in our hands to tell us that He 
 did it, and what He expects us to be and do as His 
 disciples. 
 
 Here I close these papers. Surveying the whole road 
 we have travelled, am I not entitled to claim that 
 
 THE ROCK OF GOD'S TRUTH 
 
 stands fast, and that Jesus, His Gospel, and the Book 
 that sets forth both, are still, let men gainsay as they will, 
 the spiritual powers that hold in them the hope of the 
 world's future. Christ's reign is not ending. It will 
 endure. In many ways, voluntary or involuntary, 
 His supremacy is owned by the very persons who most 
 loudly dispute His claims. 
 In Browning's poem, 
 
 "CHRISTMAS EVE," 
 
 we are introduced to a German Professor, who, after 
 having in the usual way resolved the life of Jesus into 
 
 306 
 
The Bible the Hope of the World 
 
 myth, suddenly changes his tone completely. " Admire 
 we," the poet says, how — 
 
 " When the Critic had done his best, 
 And the pearl of price, at reason's test, 
 Lay dust and ashes levigable 
 On the Professor's lecture table, — 
 When we looked for the inference and monition 
 That our faith, reduced to such condition, 
 Be swept forthwith to its natural dust-hole, — 
 
 He bids us, when we least expect it, 
 Take back our faith, — if it be not just whole. . . . 
 
 ' Go home and venerate the myth 
 
 1 1 thus have experimented with — 
 
 'This man, continue to adore Him 
 
 ' Rather than all who went before Him, 
 
 ' And all who ever followed after ! ' " 
 
 Thus paradoxically does even unbelief confirm the Scrip- 
 ture statement that God has given Jesus " the name which 
 is above every name "* (Phil. ii. 9). Christ's own Church, 
 with more consistency, echoes the confession. But so 
 long as Christ, in His self-attesting power, commands 
 the allegiance of believing hearts, the Bible, which 
 contains the priceless treasure of God's Word regarding 
 Him, will remain in undimmed honour. It will be 
 read, prized, and studied by devout minds, while the 
 world lasts. 
 
 *It would be easy to collect striking testimonies to the moral and 
 spiritual supremacy of Jesus from those who deny His supernatural 
 claims. Mr. Blatchford's holding up of Christ as the ideal has 
 already been remarked on. I notice that in my copy of his book, 
 God and My Neighbour, the pronouns referring to Christ are printed 
 with capitals (" He," " Him," " His," &c). A copy of the Clarion I 
 bought a year ago proved to be a " Christmas Number " ! Even in 
 dating his letters and papers by the year of our Lord, the unbeliever 
 unwittingly shows that for him also history is divided into two great 
 sections— before and after Christ. 
 
 307 
 
Appendix 
 
Appendix" 
 
 PROF. G. A. SMITH ON 
 
 "RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF OLD 
 
 TESTAMENT CRITICISM." 
 
 A STRIKING corroboration of the statement that the 
 "shaking" in Old Testament criticism is not all in 
 one direction is furnished by the able article on " Re- 
 cent Developments of Old Testament Criticism" in the 
 January number of the Quarterly Review, from the pen of 
 Dr. G. A. Smith. Eighteen or twenty years ago, Dr. 
 Smith says, everything was thought to be tolerably well 
 settled. Now, apparently, it is mostly all unsettled 
 again, except as to the main facts of the analysis, and 
 perhaps the exilic date of the priestly law (the latter a 
 view which seems to be to the present writer de- 
 monstrably untenable). With three-fourths of the article 
 one can express hearty agreement. The criticism of Dr. 
 Cheyne, who "stalks through the Negeb and Northern 
 Arabia, sowing forests on the hills, and lifting kingdoms 
 from the sand," of the new textual criticism of the 
 poetical and prophetical books, "through which it drives 
 like a great ploughshare, turning up the whole surface, 
 and menacing not only the minor landmarks, but, in the 
 case of the prophets, the main outlines of the field as 
 
 ♦Reprinted by permission from an article on "Things that Remain," 
 by the present writer, in The Churchman for March, 1907. 
 
 3" 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 well," and of the new and revolutionary Babylonian 
 school of Winckler, is trenchant and successful. It is a 
 large admission when the writer allows that Wellhausen 
 and Professor Robertson Smith were wrong about the 
 dates of the patriarchal narratives, and signifies his 
 adhesion to Gunkel in carrying back these narratives to 
 1200 B.C. Gunkel may still regard the narratives as 
 legendary — though he " has shown that we must read in 
 them the style, the ideas, and the historical conditions of 
 the ages before Moses" — but we are certain that, if Dr. 
 Smith applied his pen to the task, he could as effectively 
 dispose of Gunkel's fantastic theory of the origin of the 
 "legends" as he has done in the case of Winckler's 
 hypothesis that the prophets were the kept agents of 
 foreign powers. Stories such as we have about the 
 patriarchs, with their depth of meaning, and penetration 
 with promise and purpose, are not the kind of thing that 
 legend produces. 
 
 Larger results follow from the range of these ad- 
 missions than appear in the article. If the patriarchal 
 narratives existed in 1200 B.C., who will certify that they 
 may not have existed much earlier ? If they existed then, 
 why could they not be written then ? (The article has 
 little to say on the recent discoveries on the early de- 
 velopment of writing.) The chief reasons for the ordi- 
 nary dating of J and E fall to the ground if the narratives, 
 as Gunkel thinks, have no mirroring of events after 900. 
 Or, again, if the narratives go back to 1200, how far are 
 we supposed to be from the Exodus ? If the Rameses II. 
 theory of the Oppression is maintained, the Exodus will 
 fall, in the opinion of recent scholars, not earlier than 
 about 1230 or 1250. Dr. Smith may put it a little 
 sooner. In any case, on this view 1200 B.C. takes us 
 back so nearly to the Mosaic age that the difference 
 hardly seems worth fighting for. 
 
 312 
 
Appendix 
 
 In the article some friendly criticisms are offered on 
 the present writer's volume on the Old Testament, and 
 certain objections are mentioned to the early date of the 
 Deuteronomic and Levitical legislation there maintained 
 which are thought to be " insuperable." A word may be 
 said on these in concluding. They may not leave the 
 same impression of " insuperableness " on other minds. 
 
 The objections (specified) are three in all : i. That 
 Elijah " repaired " and sacrificed at the altars of Jehovah 
 — this in disproof of the existence of the law of a 
 central altar (Deut. xii.). But one may well ask: 
 What was Elijah to do after the complete suspen- 
 sion of political and religious relations between the 
 Northern and Southern Kingdoms which ensued almost 
 immediately after the house of Jehovah had been built ? 
 What could he do, or would he be likely to do, but just 
 what is narrated — fall back on the simpler forms of 
 worship that previously had prevailed ? The repairing 
 of the altars of Jehovah does not show, at least, much 
 sympathy with the calf-worship, the flocking to the 
 shrines of which was probably the cause of neglect of the 
 altars. 
 
 2. That Jeremiah states (vii. 22) that Jehovah gave no 
 commands to Israel concerning burnt-offerings and sac- 
 rifices — this in proof that, if the Levitical laws were 
 extant in Jeremiah's time, he was ignorant of them. But 
 this surely is a large and impossible inference from a 
 passage that can quite easily be understood in a less 
 absolute way. It involves the view that Jeremiah did not 
 know (or accept) Deuteronomy in a form which included 
 chapter xii. (" all that I command you," ver. 11) ; it over- 
 looks that it is not the Levitical laws only that command 
 and regulate sacrifice — surely Jeremiah knew the Book of 
 the Covenant (Cf. Exod. xx. 24, xxiii. 18), and was not 
 ignorant of the sacrifices at the making of the covenant 
 
 313 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 (Cf. Exod. xxiv. 5-8) — and it is contradicted by the fact 
 that Jeremiah, like other prophets, himself pictures sacri- 
 fices and offerings as part of the order of the perfected 
 theocracy (xvii. 26; Cf. xxxiii. 17, 18). In any case, is it 
 not true, according to the Pentateuch itself, that when 
 God brought the people out of Egypt, and made His 
 covenant with them, the stress was laid primarily on 
 moral obedience (Exod. xix. 5, xx., xxiv. 7), and that the 
 Levitical sacrifices had a secondary place ? 
 
 3. A special disproof of the existence of the Levitical 
 law is found in the narrative of the sins of Eli's sons in 
 1 Sam. ii. " The demand of these sons of Belial, as the 
 narrative calls them [to have the flesh given to them 
 raw] , is the very thing that Leviticus enjoins." But is 
 this criticism cogent ? First, the rendering probably 
 needs to be amended. Instead of, " And the custom of 
 the priests with the people was that," etc. (ver. 13), the 
 rendering of the Revised Version margin, " They knew 
 not the Lord, nor the due [right] of the priests from the 
 people," has the balance of scholarly opinion in its favour. 
 It is the rendering adopted or preferred by Wellhausen, 
 Nowack, Klostermann, Van Hoonacker, H. P. Smith, 
 Driver, etc. Then, the practice of the sons of Eli in 
 taking their portion of the sacrifice with a hook out of the 
 pot in which it was boiling falls into its place as an abuse. 
 When contradiction is found in their demand to have 
 their portion given to them "raw" — which was the thing 
 the law contemplated — the accent is laid in the wrong 
 place. The quarrel of the people with the priests was 
 that the priests refused to burn the fat on the altar before 
 claiming or seizing their portion. They seem to have 
 been willing to give the priests their portion in any form 
 desired — why should they not ? — provided the fat was 
 first burned (ver. 16). The "sons of Belial" refused, 
 and helped themselves by violence when the flesh was 
 
 314 
 
Appendix 
 
 being cooked. So far from contradicting the Levitical 
 law, the passage testifies— (i) to a " right " or "due" of 
 the priests from the people, (2) to the fact that portions 
 were assigned them from the sacrifices, and (3) to a law 
 requiring them to burn the fat before doing anything else. 
 There was certainly no Levitical law entitling them to 
 neglect or postpone the burning of the fat. 
 
 It looks as if the existence of the ritual laws, instead of 
 being overthrown, was very clearly established. 
 
 3i5 
 
Index 
 
Index 
 
 Addis, W. E. ... ... ... ...59, 61, 74, 81, 86, 91, 98^. 
 
 Archaeology, 19, 35, ii\ff.\ discovery in Babylonia, 122-4, 137; 
 
 in Egypt, 122, 131, 138; bearing on traditions, 125; 
 
 Hittites, 124, 128 ; writing, 127 ; bearings on chronology, 
 
 J 33» 135-7 ; on Daniel ... ... ... ... 140 
 
 Astronomy, objections to Bible from, 11, 199, 203, 209; Dr. 
 
 R. A. Wallace on ... ... ... ... ... 211 
 
 Blatchford, R., on Bible and Christianity, 228, 236, 245, 292, 294, 307 
 
 Baur, F. C, 25, 27 {see " Tubingen School")- 
 
 Bleek, J. ... ... ... ... ... ... 65 
 
 Bible, The, a tried book, 4 ; forms of assault on, 11 ; inspira- 
 tion of, 4, 53, 187, 257, 267, 285, 288; science and, 11-13, 
 199 {see "Astronomy," "Geology," "Evolution," etc.); 
 Criticism and, 12, 13, 54, 154 {see "Criticism") ; organic 
 character of, 53, 288 ; alleged discrepancies in, 257, 276 ; 
 circulation of, 8, 26, 290 ; translations of, 7, 289 ; the 
 hope of the world ... ... ... 286,294,299,303 
 
 Briggs, E. A. ... ... ... ... ... ... 21, 75 
 
 Bousset, W., on Christ and the Gospels ... 56, 149, 152, 170, 183 
 Browning, R. ... ... ... ... ... ... 307 
 
 Budde, K. ... ... ... ... ... 59, 60, 101 
 
 Celsus ... ... ... ... ... 25-6, 181 
 
 Cheyne, T. K., 16, 59, 100 ; on N.T. ... ... ... 157-8 
 
 Christ, centre of controversy, 147, 149 ; humanitarian views 
 of, 148; sinlessness of, 160; Messiahship of, 155-6; 
 oneness with Father, 162; birth, 157, 164-6; resurrec- 
 tion, 166-7 ; miracles, 191 ; ethical teaching and ideals of, 
 229, 244, 249 ; influence of ... ... ... 250, 307 
 
 3*9 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 Christianity, ethics of, 244 ; contrast with Paganism, 295, 
 299, 304 ; its renovating influence, 296, 302, 306 ; effects 
 on civilisation, 296-8, 299 ; spiritual blessings of, 300, 
 306; alone brings hope ... ... ... ... 303 
 
 Criticism, Higher, what? 13, 49 ; Wellhausen School of, 14, 
 51, 55; methods of, 54; results of, 55, 73; stages of 
 development, 76 ; theory of religion, 97 ; application to 
 
 N.T 150, 154, 171 
 
 Codes in O.T. ... ... ... ... 55, 62, 68, 74, 82 
 
 Colenso, Bp. ... ... ... ... ... ... 65,78 
 
 Comparative Mythology, applied to N.T.... ... 11, 21, 157 
 
 Daniel ... 55, 75, 140 
 
 Davidson, S. ... ... ... ... ... 27, 92-3 
 
 De Wette ... ... ... ... ... ... 57,76 
 
 Delitzsch, F. ... ... ... ... ... ... 97 
 
 Demon-Possession ... ... ... ... ... 222 
 
 Deuteronomy... ... 62-3,67-8,70,76,83-4,86,105,113,115-6 
 
 Dillmann, A. ... ... ... ... ... ... 67, 84 
 
 Discrepancies, alleged ... ... ... 257, 260, 263, 276 
 
 Driver, S. R. ... ... ... ... 70,82,84,99,116-7 
 
 Drummond, J.... ... ... ... 172-3,181-2,189 
 
 Duhm, B 59, 77, 97 
 
 "Duplicates"... ... ... ... ... 89,262 
 
 Evolution in O.T., 59; and Darwinism, 203, 219-20; and 
 design, 204, 219; and origin of man, 199, 218; newer 
 views of ... ... ... ... ••• ••• 219-20 
 
 Ethics, relation of Bible to, 227^; progress in ethical 
 conceptions, 230 ; misrepresentations, 232 ; of Jesus, 
 229, 244, 249 ; not anti-social ... ... 248, 253-3 
 
 Frazer, J. G., on Christianity ... ... ... ... 158 
 
 Foster, G. B. 57, 73, 15°> 155, 160, 182-3, 204, 206, 207, 219 
 
 Graf, K. H 17,55,77,83 
 
 Genealogies of Christ, 216, 278-9 ; in O.T. ... 215-6, 273 
 
 Geology, and the Bible, 12, 199, 212 ; Haeckel on Creation 
 
 narrative ... ... ... ••• ••• ••• 2I 3 
 
 God, names of ... ... ••• ••• ...76,88-9 
 
 Gospels, Baur's theory of, 31, 35 ; criticism of, 154, 171-2 ; 
 evidence for genuineness, 175 ; relations of, 184 ; trust- 
 worthiness of, 191 {see "Matthew," "Mark," etc.). 
 
 320 
 
Index 
 
 Gunkel, H., 20, 87-8 ; on N.T. ... ... ... 150, 157 
 
 Haecekel, E., his" Monism," 200-1 ; on Genesis i., 213 ; on 
 
 man's origin '' ... ... ... ... ...218220 
 
 Harnack, A. ... ... ... ... ... 39-42, 73, 172-3 
 
 Hammurabi, Code of ... ... ... ... 68, 128, 130-1 
 
 Hexateuch ... ... ... ... ... 75, 79, 8x 
 
 Hilprecht, H. V. ... ... ... ... ... 137 
 
 " Historical-Critical" School ... ... 19,149-50,154,182 
 
 Holyland ... ... ... ... ... 149, 152, 161 
 
 Holtzmann, O. ... ... ... ... ... 167 
 
 Huxley, T., on Second Advent, 193 ; on pre-historic man, 
 
 221-2 ; on demon-possession, 222-3 ; on value of Bible ... 297 
 
 Inspiration ... ... ... 4, 53, 187, 257, 267^ 285, 288 
 
 Image-worship, in Israel ... ... ... 101-3, 112-3 
 
 John, Gospel of, 31 ; discoveries bearing on, 36, 162, 165 ; 
 
 genuineness of, 172, 179, 181-2, 188, relation to Synoptics 187 
 J and E documents ... ... ... 55,76,78,81,86,88,108 
 
 Kaftan, J. ... ... ... ... 56-7,151-2,163,173 
 
 Kautzsch, E. ... ... ... ... ... 6i, 81, 99 
 
 Kelvin, Lord, on science and religion ... ... ... 202 
 
 Kent, C. F. ... ... ... ... ... ... 60 
 
 Kollmann, J., on Pithecanthropus erectus ... ... ... 221 
 
 Kuenen, A. ... ... ... 17, 55, 57, 78, 81-2, 89, 97-8, 104 
 
 Levites, ... ... ... 55,61,64,66,106,114-15 
 
 Luke, Gospel of, and Acts, 31, 37 ; genuineness, 39 ; accuracy 
 
 of ... ... ... 42, 165, 172, 181, 183, 187 
 
 McFadyen, J. E. ... ... ... ...89,111,140,142 
 
 Miracles, denial of, 57, 149, 151; possibility of, 153, 206-8; 
 
 of Jesus ... ... ... ... ... ... 191 
 
 Missions ... ... ... ... 10, 291, 299, 301, 304-5 
 
 Man, antiquity of, 215 ; origin of, 218 ; and ape, 218, 220-1 ; 
 
 oldest skulls of ... ... ... ... ... 221-2 
 
 Mark, Gospel of ... ... ... ... 31, 179, 183-4 
 
 Materialism ... ... ... ... ... 200, 205-6 
 
 Matthew, Gospel of ... ... ... ... 31, 179, 183 
 
 Monotheism, in Israel, critical denial of, 100 ; in prophets, 
 
 104; proof of ... ... ... ... ... no 
 
 321 Y 
 
The Bible Under Trial 
 
 N.T. Criticism, 20- i, ; Baur School of ... 27,56,150,154,171 
 
 Nietzsche, F., on Christ's morality ... ... ... 228-9 
 
 O.T., Criticism, 11, 13, 49 ; relation to N.T., 20, 150 ; stages 
 
 in 76, {see " Criticism") ; ethics of ... ...227, 232, 237, 242 
 
 Otto, R., ... ... ... ... ... 204-6, 219 
 
 Prayer, and law .,. ... ... ... ... 207-8 
 
 Psalter ... ... ... ... ... 75, 103, 117-18 
 
 Patriarchal Period ... ... ... 99-100, 109-10, 130-1 
 
 Peake, A. S ,.37-8,63,74,91,173,187 
 
 Pentateuch, 51, 62, 74 ; analys s of, 76 {see "Criticism"). 
 
 Pessimism ... ... ... ... ... ... 304 
 
 Petrie, W. M. Flinders ... ... ... 128-9, x 34> J 3^-9 
 
 Priestly Law 55, 60-1, 63, 69-70, 75, 83-5, 88, 101, 106, 114, 116 
 
 Prophets ... ■••74S, 91. io2 > 10 4> "2) I3 8 » I43"4> ^94. 242-3 
 
 Providence, and law ... ... ... ... ... 207-8 
 
 Ramsay, Sir W. ... ... ... ... 39, 42, 45 
 
 Rationalism, in Middle Ages, 7 ; in eighteenth century, 7-8 ; 
 in O.T. Criticism, 14, 17, 56, 97 ; in N.T. Criticism, 21, 
 
 27, 151, 182 
 Religion of Israel, critical theory of, 97 ; Biblical view of ... 107 
 Revelation ... ... ... ... 55, 58, 288, 299, 304 
 
 Revivals ... ... ... ... ... ... 10, 302 
 
 Ritschl, A. ... ... ... ... ... 27, 33-4, 37, 162 
 
 Romanes, G. J., 201 ; on science and religion ... ... 202 
 
 Resurrection of Christ ... ... ...153,157,166-7,192,279 
 
 Sacred Books ... ... ... ... ... ... 287 
 
 Sanday, W. ... ... ... ... ... 172-3, 176 
 
 Second Advent ... ... ... ... ... 193-5 
 
 Strauss, D. F., 11 ; on Christ's morality ... ... ... 249 
 
 Steuernagel ... ... ... ... ... ... 82-3 
 
 Schmiedel, P. W S. ... ... ... ... 155, 182 
 
 Science, and religion, 11, 199, 202-3 5 P r °f- Tait on, 200-1 ; 
 
 G- J- Romanes on, 202 {see "Astronomy," "Geology," 
 
 " Evolution," etc.). 
 Schmidt, N. ... ... ... 148, 152, 155, 158, 160, 182-4 
 
 Smith, D. ... ... ... ... 223-4, 270, 279, 281 
 
 Smith, W. R 64 
 
 322 
 
Index 
 
 Supernatural, denial of, in O.T., 56-7; in N.T., 151; in 
 Christ, 160-3, x 9 ! 5 birth and resurrection, 164 ; in religion 
 of Bible ... ... ... ... ...290-1,302,304-5 
 
 Tait, P. G , on religion and science ... ... ... 201.2 
 
 Tatian, his Diatessaron ... ... ... ... 36,175-8 
 
 Tubingen School of Criticism, 17, 27^ ; its prestige, 32 ; its 
 
 decadence, ^ ■ modern break with, ... ... ... 37 
 
 Virgin Birth of Christ ... ... ... 152,157,164-6,192 
 
 Voltaire ... ... ... ... ... 5,11,26 
 
 Wallace, A. R. on astronomy ... ... ... ... 211 
 
 Wellhausen, J. 14, 28, 32, 41, 57, 60, 62, 78, 82-3, 97, 104, m, 
 
 126; on N.T. ... ... ... 150, 155, 157, 192 
 
 Westphal, A. ... ... ... ... ... 15,80,81 
 
 Winckler, H. W. ... ... ... 20, 61, 69, 75, 98, 125 
 
 Writing, early use of ... ... ... ... ... 127 
 
 323 
 

 R. VV. SIMPSON AND CO., LTD., 
 
 PRINTERS, 
 
 RICHMOND AND LONDON. 
 
BS500 .075 
 
 The Bible under trial : in view of 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00043 7774