MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
THE HIGHER CRITICISM
BY
PROFESSOR J. J. REEVE,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
The purpose of this
article is to state in a very brief way the influences which led me to accept
certain of the views of the Higher Criticism, and after further consideration,
to reject them. Necessarily the reasons for rejecting will be given at greater
length than those for accepting. Space will not permit me to mention names of
persons, books, articles and various other influences which combined to produce
these results. I shall confine myself to an outline of the mental processes
which resulted from my contact with the Critical Movement; In outlining this
change of view, I shall deal with —
1. THE PRESUPPOSITIONS
OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM
These presuppositions
and assumptions are the determining elements in the entire movement. Once they
are understood, it is not difficult to understand the higher critics. It is
their philosophy or world-view that is responsible for all their speculations
and theories. Their mental attitude towards the world and its phenomena is the
same as their attitude toward the Bible and the religion therein revealed.
These presuppositions appealed to me very strongly, Having spent some time at
one of the great American universities, thus coming in contact with some of the
leading minds of the country, the critical view was presented to me very ably
and attractively. Though resisted for a time, the forcefulness of the teaching
and influence of the university atmosphere largely won my assent. The critics
seemed to have the logic of things on their side. The results at which they had
arrived seemed inevitable. But upon closer thinking I saw that the whole
movement with its conclusions was the result of the adoption of the hypothesis
of evolution. My professors had accepted this view, and were thoroughly
convinced of its correctness as a working hypothesis. Thus I was made to feel
the power of this hypothesis and to adopt it. This worldview is wonderfully
fascinating and almost compelling. The vision of a
cosmos developing from
the lowest types and stages upward through beast and man to higher and better
man is enchanting and almost overwhelming. That there is a grain of truth in
all this most thinkers will concede. One can hardly refuse to believe that
through the ages “An increasing purpose runs,” that there is “One God, one law,
one element, and one far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves.”
This world-view had to me at first a charm and witchery that was almost
intoxicating. It created more of a revolution than an evolution in my thinking.
But more careful consideration convinced me that the little truth in it served
to sugar-coat and give plausibility to some deadly errors that lurked within. I
saw that the hypothesis did not apply to a great part of the world’s phenomena.
That this theory of evolution underlies and is the inspiration of the Higher
Criticism goes without saying. That there is a grain of truth in it we may
admit or not, as we see fit, but the whole question is, what kind of evolution
is it that has given rise to this criticism. There are many varieties of the
theory. There is the Idealism of Hegel, and the Materialism of Haeckel; a
theistic evolution and an anti-theistic; the view that it is God’s only method,
and the view that it is only one of God’s methods; the theory
that includes a Creator,
and the theory that excludes Him; the deistic evolution, which starts the world
with God, who then withdraws and leaves it a closed system of cause and effect,
antecedent and consequent, which admits of no break or change in the natural
process. There is also the theory that on the whole there is progress, but
allowance must be made for retrogression and degeneration. This admits of the
direct action of God in arresting the downward process and reversing the
current; that is, there is an evolution through revelation, etc., rather than a
revelation by evolution.
On examining the
evolution of the leaders of the Critical School, I found that it was of a
naturalistic or practically deistic kind. All natural and mental phenomena are
in a closed system of cause and effect, and the hypothesis applies universally,
to religion and revelation, as well as to mechanisms.
This type of evolution
may not be accepted by all adherents of the Critical School, but it is
substantially the view of the leaders, Reuss, Graf, Vatke, Kuenen and
Wellhausen. To them all nature and history are a product of forces within and
in process of development. There has not been and could not be any direct
action of God upon man, there could be no break in the chain of cause and
effect, of antecedent and consequent. Hence there can be no miracle or anything
of what is known as the supernatural. There could be no “interference” in any
way with the natural course of events, there could be no “injection” of any
power into the cosmic process from without, God is shut up to the one method of
bringing things to pass. He is thus little more than a prisoner in His own
cosmos. Thus I discovered that
the Critical Movement
was essentially and fundamentally anti-supernatural and anti-miraculous.
According to it all religious movements are human developments along natural
and materialistic lines. The religion of Israel and the Bible is no exception,
as there can be no exception to this principle. The revelation contained in the
Bible is, strictly speaking, no revelation; it is a natural development with
God in the cosmic process behind it, but yet a steady, straight-lined, mechanical
development such as can be traced step by step as a flight of stairs may be
measured by a foot-rule. There could have been no epoch-making revelation, no
revivals and lapses, no marvelous exhibitions of divine power, no real
redemption. With these foregone conclusions fixed in their minds, the entire
question is practically
settled beforehand. As
it is transparently clear that the Bible on the face of it does not correspond
to this view, it must be rearranged so as to correspond to it. To do this, they
must deny point-blank the claims and statements of most of the Bible writers.
Now, if the Bible claims to be anything, it claims to be a revelation from God,
a miraculous or supernatural book, recording the numerous direct acts of God in
nature and history, and His interference with the natural course of events. Are
the writers of the Bible correct, or are the critics? It is impossible that
both should be right.
Reasoning thus, it
became perfectly clear to me that the presuppositions and beliefs of the Bible
writers and of the critics were absolutely contradictory. To maintain that the
modern view is a development and advance upon the Biblical view, is absurd. No
presupposition can develop a presupposition which contradicts and nullifies it.
To say that the critical position and the Biblical position, or the traditional
evangelical view which is the same as the Biblical, are reconcilable, is the
most fatuous folly and delusion. Kuenen and others have recognized this
contradiction and have acknowledged it, not hesitating to set aside the
Biblical view. Many of their disciples have failed to see as clearly as their
masters. They think the two can be combined. I was of the same opinion myself,
but further reflection showed this to he an impossibility. I thought it possible
to accept the results of the Higher Criticism without accepting its
presuppositions. This is saying that one can accept as valid and true the
results of a process and at the same time deny the validity of the process
itself. But does not this involve an inner contradiction and absurdity? If I
accept the results of the Kuenen-Wellhausen hypothesis as correct, then I
accept as correct the methods and processes which led to these results, and if
I accept these methods, I also accept the presuppositions which give rise to
these methods. If the “assured results” of which the critics are so fond of
boasting are true, then the naturalistic evolution hypothesis which produced
these results is correct. Then it is impossible to accept the miraculous or
supernatural, the Bible as an authoritative record of supernatural revelation
is completely upset and its claims regarding itself are false and misleading. I
can see no way of escaping these conclusions.
There is no possible
middle ground as I once fondly imagined there was. Thus I was compelled to
conclude that although there is some truth in the evolutionary view of the
world, yet as an explanation of history and revelation it is utterly
inadequate, so inadequate as to be erroneous and false. A world-view must be
broad enough to admit of all the facts of history and experience. Even then it
is only a human point of view and necessarily imperfect. Will any one dare to
say that the evolutionary
hypothesis is divine?
Then we would have a Bible and a philosophy both claiming to be divine and
absolutely contradicting each other. To attempt to eliminate the miraculous and
supernatural from the Bible and accept the remainder as divine is impossible,
for they are all one and inextricably woven together. In either case the Book
is robbed of its claims to authority. Some critics do not hesitate to deny its
authority and thus cut themselves loose from historical Christianity.
In spite, however, of
the serious faults of the Higher Criticism, it has given rise to what is known as
the Scientific and Historical method in the study
of the Old Testament.
This method is destined to stay and render invaluable aid. To the scholarly
mind its appeal is irresistible. Only in the light of the historical occasion
upon which it was produced, can the Old Testament be properly understood. A
flood of light has already been poured in upon these writings. The scientific
spirit which gave rise to it is one of the noblest instincts in the
intellectual life of man. It is a thirst for the real and the true, that will
be satisfied with nothing else. But, noble as is this scientific spirit, and
invaluable as is the historical method, there are subtle dangers in connection
with them. Everything depends upon the
presuppositions with
which we use the method. A certain mental attitude there must be. What shall it
be? A materialistic evolution such as Kuenen and his conferees, or a theistic
evolution which admits the supernatural?
Investigating in the
mental attitude of the first of these, the scholar will inevitably arrive at or
accept the results of the critics. Another, working at the same problem with
Christian presuppositions, will arrive at very different conclusions. Which
shall we have, the point of view of the Christian or the critic? I found that
the critics claim to possess the only really scientific method was slightly,
true but largely false. His results were scientific because they fitted his
hypothesis. The Christian scholar with his broader presuppositions was
peremptorily ruled out of court. Anything savoring of the miraculous, etc.,
could not be scientific to the critic, and hence it could not be true,
therefore, it must be discarded or branded as Myth, Legend, Poesy, Saga, etc.
Such narrowness of view is scarcely credible on the part of scholars who claim
to be so broad and liberal.
Another question
confronted me. How can so many Christian scholars and preachers accept the
views of the critics and still adhere to evangelical Christianity with intense devotion?
As we have seen, to accept the results of Criticism is to accept the methods
and presuppositions which produced these results. To accept their assumptions
is to accept a naturalistic evolution which is fundamentally contradictory to
the Biblical and Christian point of view. It is therefore essentially
contradictory to Christianity, for what is the latter if it is not a
supernaturally revealed knowledge of the plan of salvation, with supernatural
power to effectuate that salvation? All who have experienced the power of
Christianity will in the main assent to this definition. How then can
Christians who are Higher Critics escape
endorsing the
presuppositions of the Critics? There is art inner contradiction between the
assumptions of their scientific reason and the assumptions of their religious
faith. A careful study of the attitude of these mediating critics, as they are
called, has revealed a sense of contradiction somewhere of which they are
vaguely conscious. They maintain their attitude by an inconsistency. Thus it is
they have many difficulties which they cannot explain. This inner contradiction
runs through much of their exegesis and they wonder that evangelical Christians
do not accept their views. Already many of them are not quite so sure of their
“assured results” as they were. Many evangelical Christians do not accept these
views because they can “see through” them.
The second line of
thinking which led me to reject the Critics’ view was a consideration of:
2. THEIR METHODS
At first I was enthusiastic
over the method. Now at last we have the correct method that will in time solve
all difficulties. Let it be readily granted that the historical method has
settled many difficulties and will continue to do so, yet the whole question
lies in the attitude of mind a man brings to the task. Among the critics their
hypothesis is absolute and dominates every attempt to understand the record,
shapes every conclusion, arranges and rearranges the facts in its own order,
discards
what does not fit or
reshapes it to fit. The critics may deny this but their treatment of the Old
Testament is too well known to need any proof of it. The use of the Redactor is
a case in point. This purely imaginary being, unhistorical and unscientific, is
brought into requisition at almost every difficulty. It is acknowledged that at
times he acts in a manner wholly inexplicable. To assume such a person
interpolating names of God, changing names and making explanations to suit the
purposes of their hypothesis and imagination is the very negation of science,
notwithstanding their boast of a scientific method. Their minds seem to be in
abject slavery to their theory. No reason is more impervious to facts than one
preoccupied with a theory which does not agree with these facts. Their mental
attitude being biased and partial, their methods are partial and the results
very one-sided and untrustworthy. They give more credence to the guesses of
some so-called scholar, a clay tablet, a heathen king’s boast, or a rude
drawing in stone, than to the Scripture record. They feel instinctively that to
accept the Bible statements would be the ruin of their
hypothesis, and what
they call their hard-won historical method. In this their instinct is true. The
Bible and their hypothesis are irreconcilable. As their theory must not be
interfered with, since it is identical with the truth itself, the Bible must
stand aside in the interests of truth.
For this reason they
deny all historicity to Genesis 1-11, the stories of Creation, the Fall, the
Flood, etc. No theory of naturalistic evolution can possibly admit the truth of
these chapters. Likewise, there is but a substratum of truth in the stories of
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses. Nearly all legislation is denied to
the latter, because it represents too rapid an advance, or a stage too
advanced. But is such the case?
Centuries before Moses,
laws, government, civilization, culture, art, education, religion, temples,
ritual and priest-hood had flourished in Babylonia and Egypt and were a chief
factor in the education of Moses. With all this previous development upon which
to build, what objections to ascribing these laws to Moses, who, during the
forty years under divine guidance, selected, purified, heightened, and adopted
such laws as best served the needs of the people. The development of external
laws and customs had preceded Moses and there is no need to suppose a
development afterward in the history of the people. That history records the
fitful attempts at the assimilation of these laws. To maintain that they were
at first put in the exact form in which they have come down to us is wholly
unnecessary and contrary to certain facts in the records themselves. But to my
mind one of the greatest weaknesses of the critical position is, that because there
is little or no mention of the laws in the history that follows the death of
Moses, therefore these laws could not have existed.
To the critic this is
one of the strongest arguments in his favor. Now he has found out how to make
the history and the laws correspond. But does the non-mention or non-observance
of a law prove its non-existence? All history shows that such is not the case.
Moreover, the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel make no pretence at giving a
complete detailed history.
If non-mention or
non-observance were proof of non-existence, then the Book of the Covenant and
Deuteronomy could not have existed until the return from Exile; for the laws
against idolatry were not carried out until then. Apply this same method of
reasoning to laws in general and the most absurd results will follow. The
Decalogue could never have existed, for all of its laws are constantly being
broken. No New Testament could have existed through the Dark Ages, for almost
every precept in it was violated during that period. The facts of life plainly
show that men with the law of God in their hands will continually violate them.
But why did not Joshua and those succeeding him for several centuries carry out
the law of Moses?
The answer is obvious.
The circumstances did not permit of it, and no one, not even Moses, had any
idea of the law being fully observed at once. He looked forward to a time when
they should be settled and should have a capital and central sanctuary.
Moreover, a large portion of the laws was intended for the priest alone and may
have been observed. The laws were flexible and to be fulfilled as the
circumstances permitted. If the Book of Deuteronomy could not be observed, the
Book of the Covenant could be followed. Changes and modifications were
purposely made by Moses to meet the demands of the changing circumstances. If
the non-fulfillment of these laws proved their non-existence, then the Book of
the Covenant and Deuteronomy were not in existence in the time of Jehoiakim,
for idolatry was then rampant.
By its arbitrary
methods, Modern Criticism does wholesale violence to the record of the
discovery of the Law Book as recorded in 2 Kings 22:8-20. It denies any real
discovery, distinctly implies fraud upon the part of the writers, assumes a far
too easy deception of the king, the prophetess, the king’s counselors, Jeremiah
and the people. It implies a marvelous success in perpetrating this forged
document on the people; The writers did evil that good might come, and God
seems to have been behind it all and endorsed it. Such a transaction is utterly
incredible. “The people would not hear Moses and the prophet, yet they were
easily persuaded by a forged Mosaic document.” The critics disagree among
themselves regarding the authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. Some maintain
it was by the priestly class and some by the prophetic class, but there are
insuperable objections to each. They have failed to show why there were so many
laws incorporated in it which absolutely contradict a later date and why the
Mosaic dress succeeded so well although contradictory to some of the genuinely
Mosaic laws.
According to the critics
also, Ezra perpetrated a tremendous fraud when he palmed off his completed Code
as of Mosaic origin. That the people should accept it as genuinely Mosaic,
although it increased their burdens and contradicted many laws previously known
as Mosaic, is incredible. That such a people at such a time and under such
circumstances could be so easily imposed upon and deceived, and that such a man
as Ezra could perform such a colossal fraud and have it all succeed so well,
seems inconceivable except by a person whose moral consciousness is dulled or
benumbed by some philosophical theory. According to the critics, the
authors of Deuteronomy
and the Levitical Code not only produced such intensely religious books and
laws, but were at the same time deliberate inventors and falsifiers of history
as well as deceivers of the people. What such views imply regarding the
character of God who is behind it all we shall consider later.
Space does not permit me
to more than refer to the J. E. P. analysis. That certain documents existed and
were ultimately combined to make up the five books of Moses no one need doubt.
It in no way detracts from their inspiration or authenticity to do so, nor does
it in any way deny the essentially Mosaic origin of the legislation. But the J.
E. P. analysis on the basis of the different names for God I found to require
such an arbitrary handling and artificial manipulation of the text, to need the
help of so many Redactors whose methods and motives are wholly inexplicable,
with a multitude of exceptions to account for, that I was convinced the
analysis could not be maintained. Astruc’s clue in Exodus 6:3, which was the
starting point for the analysis, cannot be made to decide the time of the use
of the names of God, for the text is not perfectly certain. There is
considerable difference between the two readings, “was known,” “made myself
known.” Even if God had not previously revealed Himself by the name Jahveh,
that does not prove the name unknown or that God was not known by that name.
And even if he had so revealed Himself, the earlier record would not be less
authentic, for they were either written or rewritten and edited after the
revelation to Moses in the light of a fuller revelation. Thus it was made
perfectly clear that El, Elohim, El-Elyon, E1- Shaddai, were identical with
Jahveh.
The methods of the
critics in regarding the earlier histories as little more than fiction and
invention, to palm off certain laws as genuinely Mosaic, found some lodgment in
my mind for a time. But the more I considered it, the more I was convinced that
it was the critics who were the inventors and falsifiers. They were the ones
who had such a facile imagination, they could “manufacture” history at their
“green tables” to suit their theories and were doing so fast and loose. They
could create nations and empires out of a desert, and like the alchemists of
the Middle Ages with their magic wand, transform all things into their own
special and favorite metal. To charge the Scripture writers with this invention
and falsification is grossly to malign them and slander the God that wrought
through them. The quality of their products does not lend countenance to such a
view, and it is abhorrent to the Christian consciousness. Such a conception
cannot be long held by any whose moral and religious natures have not been
dulled by their philosophical presuppositions. The habit of discarding the
Books of Chronicles, because they give no history of Northern Israel, lay
considerable emphasis upon the temple and priesthood, pass over the faults and
sins of the kings, etc., and are therefore a biased and untrustworthy history,
has appeared to me an aberration from common sense, and is scarcely credible
among men of such intelligence. When the compiler of
Chronicles covers the
same history of Kings, he agrees with these histories substantially, though
varying in some minor details. If he is reliable in this material, why not in
the other material, not found in Kings? The real reason is that he records many
facts about the temple and its services which do not fit in with the critics’
hypothesis, and therefore something must be done to discredit the Chronicler
and get rid of his testimony. But my third reason for rejecting the critical
standpoint is
3. THE SPIRIT OF THE
MOVEMENT
Grant that there is a
genuine scientific interest underlying it all, the real question is, what is
the standpoint of the scientific mind which investigates. What is authoritative
with him? His philosophical theory and working hypothesis, or his religious
faith? In other words, does his religion or philosophy control his thinking? Is
it reason or faith that is supreme? Is his authority human or divine? There is
no question here of having one without the other, that is, having faith without
reason, for that is impossible. The question is, which is supreme? For some
time I thought one could hold these views of the Old Testament and still retain
his faith in evangelical
Christianity. I found,
however, that this could be done only by holding my philosophy in check and
within certain limits. It could not be rigorously applied to all things. Two
supreme things could not exist in the mind at the same time. If my theories
were supreme, then I was following human reason, not faith, and was a
rationalist to that extent. If the presuppositions of my religious faith were
supreme and in accordance with the Biblical presuppositions and beliefs, then
my philosophy must be held in abeyance. The fundamentals of our religious
faith, as known in the Bible and history, are a belief in divine revelation,
the miraculous birth, the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the God-Man.
Inseparable from these there is also the fact of a supernatural power in
regeneration. The philosophy of the
critics cannot
consistently make room for these. Thus the real question becomes one of
authority, viz.: shall the scientific hypothesis be supreme in my thinking, or
the presuppositions of the Christian faith? If I make my philosophical
viewpoint supreme, then I am compelled to construe the Bible and Christianity
through my theory and everything which may not fit into that theory must be
rejected. This is the actual standpoint of the critic.
His is a philosophical
rather than a religious spirit. Such was Gnosticism in the early centuries. It
construed Christ and Christianity through the categories of a Graeco-Oriental
philosophy and thus was compelled to reject some of the essentials of
Christianity. Such was the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, which construed
Christianity through the categories of the Aristotelian Logic and the
Neo-platonic Philosophy. Such is the Higher Criticism which construes
everything through the hypothesis of evolution.
The spirit of the movement
is thus essentially scholastic and rationalistic. It became more and more
obvious to me that the movement was entirely intellectual, an attempt in
reality to intellectualize all religious phenomena. I saw also that it was a
partial and one-sided intellectualism, with a strong bias against the
fundamental tenets of Biblical Christianity. Such a movement does not produce
that intellectual humility which belongs to the Christian mind. On the
contrary, it is responsible for a vast amount of intellectual pride, an
aristocracy of intellect with all the snobbery which usually accompanies that
term. Do they not exactly correspond to Paul’s
word, “vainly puffed up
in his fleshly mind and not holding fast the head, etc.?” They have a splendid
scorn for all opinions which do not agree with theirs. Under the spell of this
sublime contempt they think they can ignore anything that does not square with
their evolutionary hypothesis. The center of gravity of their thinking is in
the theoretical not in the religious, in reason, not in faith. Supremely
satisfied with its self-constituted authority, the mind thinks itself competent
to criticise the Bible, the thinking of all the
centuries, and even Jesus Christ Himself. The followers of this cult have their
full share of the frailties of human nature. Rarely, if ever, can a
thoroughgoing critic be
an evangelist, or even evangelistic; he is educational. How is it possible for
a preacher to be a power for God, whose source of authority is his own reason
and convictions? The Bible can scarcely contain more than good advice for such
a man.
I was much impressed
with their boast of having all scholarship on their side. It is very gratifying
to feel oneself abreast with the times, up to date, and in the front rank of
thought. But some investigation and consideration led me to see that the boast
of scholarship is tremendously overdone. Many leading scholars are with them,
but a majority of the most reverent and judicious scholars are not. The
arrogant boasts of these people would be very amusing, if they were not so
influential. Certainly most of the books put forth of late by Old Testament
scholars are on their side, but there is a formidable list on the other side
and it is growing larger every day.
Conservative scholarship
is rapidly awakening, and, while it will retain the legitimate use of the
invaluable historical method, will sweep from the field most of the
speculations of the critics. A striking characteristic of these people is a
persistent ignoring of what is written on the other side. They think to kill
their antagonist by either ignoring or despising him. They treat their
opponents something as Goliath treated David, and in the end the result will be
similar. They have made no attempt to answer Robertson’s “The Early Religion of
Israel;” Orr’s “The Problem of the Old Testament,” Wiener’s “Studies in
Biblical Law” and “Studies in Pentateuchical
Criticism,” etc. They
still treat these books which have undermined the very foundations of their
theories with the same magnificent scorn. There is a nemesis in such an
attitude.
But the spirit of the
critical movement manifests some very doubtful aspects in its practical working
out among the pastors and churches. Adherents of this movement accept the
spiritual oversight of churches which hold fast to the Biblical view of the
Bible, while they know that their own views will undermine many of the most
cherished beliefs of the churches. Many try to be critics and conservative at
the same time. They would “run with the hare and hunt with the hounds,”
professing to be in full sympathy with evangelical Christianity while abiding
their opportunity to inculcate their own views, which, as we have seen, is
really to forsake
the Christian
standpoint. The morality of such conduct is, to say the least, very doubtful.
It has led to much mischief among the churches and injury to the work. A
preacher who has thoroughly imbibed these beliefs has no proper place in an
evangelical Christian pulpit. Such a spirit is not according to the spirit of the
religion they profess to believe. But another weighty reason for rejecting the
Higher Criticism is
4. A CONSIDERATION OF
ITS RESULTS
Ten or twenty years ago
these scholars believed their views would immensely advance the cause of
Christianity and true religion. They are by no means so sure of that now. It is
not meeting with the universal acceptance they anticipated. Making a mere
hypothesis the supreme thing in our thinking, we are forced to construe
everything accordingly. Thus the Bible, the Christ and the religious
experiences of men are subjected to the same scientific analysis. Carry this
out to its logical conclusion and what would be the result? There would be all
science and no religion. In the array of scientific facts all religion would be
evaporated. God, Christ, the Bible, and all else would be reduced to a
mathematical or chemical formula. This is the ideal and goal of the
evolutionary hypothesis. The rationalist would rejoice at it, but the Christian
mind shrinks with horror from it. The Christian consciousness perceives that an
hypothesis which leads to such results is one of its deadliest foes.
Another danger also
arises here. When one makes his philosophy his authority, it is not a long step
until he makes himself his own god. His own reason becomes supreme in his
thinking and this reason becomes his lord. This is the inevitable logic of the
hypothesis mentioned, and some adherents of the school have taken this step.
They recognize no authority but their own moral instincts and philosophical
reason. Now, as the evolution theory makes all things exist only in a state of
change, of flux, or of becoming, God is therefore changing and developing, the
Bible and Christ will be outgrown, Christianity itself will be left behind.
Hence, there
is no absolute truth,
nothing in the moral religious world is fixed or certain. All truth is in
solution; there is no precipitate upon which we can rely. There is no absolute
standard of Ethics, no authority in religion, every one is practically his own
god. Jesus Christ is politely thanked for His services in the past, gallantly
conducted to the confines of His world and bowed out as He is no longer needed
and His presence might be very troublesome to some people. Such a religion is
the very negation of Christianity, is a distinct reversion to heathenism. It
may be a cultured and refined heathenism with a Christian veneer, but yet a
genuine heathenism.
I am far from saying
that all adherents of this school go to such lengths, but why do they not? Most
of them had an early training under the best conservative influences which
inculcated a wholesome reverence for the Bible as an authority in religion and
morals. This training they can never fully outgrow. Many of them are of a good,
sturdy religious ancestry, of rigid, conservative training and genuine
religious experience. Under these influences they have acquired a strong hold
upon Christianity and can never be removed from it. They hold a theoretical
standpoint and a religious experience together, failing, as I believe, to see
the fundamental
contradiction between
them. Slowly the Christian consciousness and Christian scholarship are
asserting themselves. Men are beginning to see how irreconcilable the two
positions are and there will be the inevitable cleavage in the future. Churches
are none too soon or too seriously alarmed. Christianity is beginning to see
that its very existence is at stake in this subtle attempt to do away with the
supernatural, I have seen the Unitarian, the Jew, the free thinker, and the Christian
who has imbibed critical views, in thorough agreement on the Old Testament and
its teachings. They can readily hobnob together, for the religious element
becomes a lost quantity; the Bible itself becomes a plaything for the
intellect, a merry-go-round for the mind partially intoxicated with its theory.
As has been already
intimated, one of the results of the critical processes has been to rearrange
the Bible according to its own point of view. This means that it has to a large
extent set it aside as an authority. Such a result is serious enough, but a
much more serious result follows. This is the reflection such a Bible casts
upon the character and methods of God in His revelation of Himself to men. It
will scarcely be doubted by even a radical critic, that the Bible is the most
uplifting book in the world, that its religious teachings are the best the
world has known. If such be the case, it must reflect more of God’s character
and methods than any other book.
The writers themselves
must exemplify many of the traits of the God they write about. What then must
be the methods of a holy and loving God? If He teaches men truth by parable or
history or illustration, the one essential thing about these parables or
histories is that they be true to life or history or nature. Can a God who is
absolutely just and holy teach men truths about Himself by means of that which
is false? Men may have taught truth by means of falsehoods and other
instruments and perhaps succeeded, but God can hardly be legitimately conceived
of as using any such means. Jesus Christ taught the greatest of truths by means
of parables, illustrations, etc., but every one was true to life or nature or
history. The Christian consciousness, which is the highest expression of the
religious life of mankind, can never conceive of Jesus as using that which was
in itself untrue, as a vehicle to convey that which is true. In like manner if
God had anything to do with the Old Testament, would He make use of mere myths,
legends, sagas, invented and falsified history, which have no foundation in
fact and are neither true to nature, history nor life? Will God seek to uplift
mankind by means of falsehood? Will He sanction the use of such dishonest means
and pious frauds, such as a large part of the Pentateuch is, if the critics are
right? Could He make use of such means for such a holy purpose and let His
people feed on falsehood for centuries and centuries and deceive them into
righteousness? Falsehood will not do God’s will; only truth can do that. Is there
nothing in the story of creation, of the fall, the flood, the call and promise
to Abraham, the life of Jacob and Joseph and the great work of Moses? If all
these things are not true to fact or to life, then God has been an
arch-deceiver and acts on the Jesuit maxim, “The end justifies the means.” This
would apply to the finding of the Law in Josiah’s time, and the giving of the
law under Ezra. That such a lot of spurious history, deceptive inventions and
falsifying history should achieve such a success is most astonishing. Is it
possible that a holy God should be behind all this and promote righteousness
thereby? This surely is conniving at evil and using methods unworthy of the
name of God. To say that God
was shut up to such a
method is preposterous. Such a conception of God as is implied in the critical
position is abhorrent to one who believes in a
God of truth.
Perhaps the Book of
Daniel at the hands of the critic best illustrates this point. No one can deny
the religious quality of the book. It has sublime heights and depths and has
had a mighty influence in the world. No one can read the book carefully and
reverently without feeling its power. Yet according to the modern view the
first six or seven chapters have but a grain of truth in them. They picture in
a wonderfully vivid manner the supernatural help of God in giving Daniel power
to interpret dreams, in delivering from the fiery furnace, in saving from the
lion’s mouth, smiting King Nebuchadnezzar, etc. All this is high religious
teaching, has had a great influence for good and was intended for a message
from God to encourage faith. Yet, according to the critics these events had no
foundation in fact, the supernatural did not take place, the supposed facts
upon which these sublime religious lessons are based could never have occurred.
Yet the God of truth has used such a book with such teaching to do great good
in the world. He thus made abundant use of fiction and falsehood. According to
this view He has also been deceiving the best people of the world for
millenniums, using the false and palming it off as true. Such a God may be
believed in by a critic, but the Christian
consciousness revolts at
it. It is worthy of a Zeus, or perhaps the Demiurge of Marcion, but He is not
the God of Israel, not the God and Father of Jesus Christ. “But,” says the
critic, “the religious lessons are great and good.” Are they? Can a story or
illustration or parable teach good religious lessons when it is in itself
essentially untrue to nature, history and life? To assert such a thing would
seem to imply a moral and religious blindness that is scarcely credible. It is
true there are many grave difficulties in the book of Daniel, but are they as
great as the moral difficulty implied in the critical view?
The foregoing embody my
chief reasons for rejecting the position of the Critical School with which I
was once in sympathy. Their positions are not merely vagaries, they are
essentially attempts to undermine revelation, the Bible and evangelical
Christianity. If these views should ultimately prevail, Christianity will be
set aside for what is known as the New Religion, which is no religion, but a
philosophy. All critics believe that traditional Christianity will largely, if
not altogether, give place to the modern view, as it is called. But we maintain
that traditional Christianity has the right of way. It must and will be
somewhat modified by the conception of a
developing revelation
and the application of the historical method, but must prevail in all its
essential features. It has a noble ancestry and a glorious history. The Bible
writers are all on its side; the bulk of Jewish scholars of the past are in the
procession; it has Jesus, the Son of God, in its ranks with the apostles,
prophets, the martyrs, the reformers, the theologians, the missionaries and the
great preachers and evangelists. The great mass of God’s people are with it. I
prefer to belong to that goodly company rather than with the heathen Porphyry,
the pantheistic Spinoza, the immoral Astruc, the rationalistic Reuss, Vatke,
Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, with a multitude of their disciples of all grades.
Theirs is a new traditionalism begun by those men and handed down to others in
England and America.
Most of these disciples
owe their religions life and training almost entirely to the traditional view.
The movement has quickened study of the Old Testament, has given a valuable
method, a great many facts, a fresh point of view, but its extravagancies, its
vagaries, its false assumptions and immoralities will in time be sloughed by
the Christian consciousness as in the past it has sloughed off Gnosticism,
Pantheism, Scholasticism and a host of other philosophical or scientific fads
and fancies.
Return to the Aisbitt’s Homepage
