'Y^LEoWMIIVIil^SflirY-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE BIBLE
ITS ORIGIN, ITS SIGNIFICANCE, AND
ITS ABIDING WORTH

THE BIBLE
ITS ORIGIN, ITS SIGNIFICANCE,
AND ITS ABIDING
WORTH

ARTHUR S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D
KTLANDt PROnSSOR Or BIBLICAL EZEGIU3 IN
TBE CNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

HODDER AND STOUGHTON
NEW YORK AND LONDON
MCMXIII

TO MY WIFE
This Volume is Dedicated
Affectionately Commemorating
Twenty-one Years of Wedded Life.

PREFACE
This volume has been written in the hope that it may
prove helpful in the present perplexity. The Bible has
irretrievably lost the place once accorded to it by the
consent of Christendom, and this is coming to be rea
lized by an ever-increasing number. Not criticism
alone, nor even chiefly, has been responsible for the
change ; combined advance from several sides has
made the old position untenable. It is a momentous
change and might easily prove tragic. The retribution
for extravagant claims is apt to be the repudiation of
all claims whatsoever. But those who accept the
truth of Christianity must find in Scripture the classical
documents of their religion. To plead for the accept
ance of our faith is no part of the present enterprise ;
for what the author has to say on this theme he would
refer the reader to his volume, Christianity: Its
Nature and Its Truth, to which this work is intended to
be a companion. But while in many ways the defence
of the Bible has been lightened by the earlier work, he
has felt that some statement of the attitude he has
adopted towards Scripture was its necessary completion.
It is the writer's conviction that while a position
injudiciously selected can be no longer held, the
defenders of the Bible have been driven to groimd
from which they will not easily be dislodged. If some
claims made for it cannot be sustained, other claims,
and those the most vital, may be substantiated. The
abandonment of the indefensible has concentrated at-
vii

yiii PREFACE
tention on qualities m the literature which have been
neglected to our impoverishment. If the view advo
cated in this volume is accepted, the Bible will mean
to us not less but far more, since much that on the older
view appeared obsolete is now seen to possess an abid
ing worth, much that might weU be deemed irrelevant
is realized to be indispensable to the true estimate of
Scripture as an organic whole. Nor is it merely that
the newer view has reclaimed much for us of which the
older could make little or no profitable use. Its greatest
service has been in its shifting of the emphasis from
the secondary to the primary qualities of the Bible.
It has transformed the conception of revelation by its
adoption of the scientific method. The formulation
of a theory has been controlled by close observation
of the actual phenomena. It has thus rendered a
service to apologetics by placing the student of Scrip
ture at the right point of view and thus saving him
from approaching it with expectations it was never de
signed to satisfy. But yet more important has been
the service it has rendered in showing us what revela
tion is, and in what relation it stands to the Bible.
We have come to see that revelation was a process in
history and in experience ; working at first slowly and
almost imperceptibly because its sphere was co-exten
sive with a whole nation, but, as it moved to higher
levels, selecting for its vehicle the choicer spirits, through
whose experience it might be apprehended and then
conveyed to the people as a whole. It found its most
congenial expression not in word but in deed ; national
life and individual experience, rather than doctrine
or ethics, were the chosen field of the Spirit's operation.
And its content was not in the first place trath about
God or precepts on conduct ; it was God Himself, who
came into direct contact with man, and in this intense,

PREFACE

IX

exceptional action disclosed Himself as the living,
holy, gracious and redeeming God, and became the
possession of His people and their highest good. This
action of God then was the revelation, in which He
unveiled Himself to His people, slowly as they could
bear it, and imparted Himself to them, gradually as
they gained the power and capacity to receive Him.
But more than this was needed; the meaning of the
revelation had to be made plain. Interpreters were
therefore chosen, who were made aware of it so far
as it was fitting at the time, and they communicated it
to their fellows. Nor yet was this enough, for the
revelation and its interpretation involved a record if
they were to become the abiding possession of our race.
This we have in the Bible, which is not the revelation
itself but its record, made by men who under the Spirit's
impulse created a literature which adequately pre
served what it was essential for us to know. In each
of the three processes, in revelation, interpretation,
and the making of the record, the human and the Divine
interpenetrated. No sharp definition of their mutual
adjustment, no apportionment of their respective shares
in the product, can be given beforehand as something
for which we have a right to stipulate ; nor ^ yet can it
be given after the closest scrutiny of the product itself.
It is clear, however, that the human factor played a
much larger part than we should naturally have antici
pated, and that such Divine guidance as was granted
to the writers was tolerant of human error and imper
fection to a degree that can hardly fail to surprise ms.
Yet the Bible in actual practice does its work with an
efSciency which its limitations do little to impair.
It is the author's hope that this book may be found
by many reassuring in the best sense of the term.
An old foundation on which multitudes have rested

X PREFACE
could not with a light heart be pronounced insecure,
were he not able io point them to higher ground and
the sohd rock. If it should seem that the uncer
tainties which surround the Bible are only too per
tinaciously pushed home, it is not sunply that he does
not wish to fail in candour, but that only so can an
opening be made for the emancipating tmth. In par
ticular he regrets that so much space has been claimed
for the consideration of criticism. He has never had
more than a lukewarm interest in it for its own sake.
But, as the book explains at length, criticism is not
simply legitimate but imperative, when the revelation
recorded in the documents has been given through
history. So far as the account of criticism goes the author
has simply summarized well-known conclusions. He
sees no reason to believe that the traditional views as
to the Old Testament are likely to be rehabilitated,
nor does he feel any inclination to take the wandering
stars of the astral theory for his guides. In the study
of the New Testament he has reached more conserva
tive results than many will approve, but without, as
he trusts, any disloyalty to sound principles of criticism.
In the later part of the book the really important ques
tions are discussed. Here the author is conscious of a
special debt to the writings of Robertson Smith for
the general view of what the Bible is. This was in
curred now many years ago, but while the literature
« on the criticism, the interpretation, and the theology of
Scripture has been studied as opportunity has per
mitted, the author deliberately left even the better
known books on the nature of revelation, inspiration,
and Scripture unread, that he might so far as possible
form an independent and first-hand opinion. On tak
ing up some of these books recently, he found that they

PREFACE xi
added little to the conclusions he had reached. He has,
of course, learnt much from the detailed study of
Scripture itself, but much has become clearer as he
has had to work out the implications of his view, when
expounding it to his students or popular audiences,
and especially when answering questions or rebutting
objections. It is his experience in the lecture-room that accounts
for what to some may seem a defect. There may appear
to be an imdue amount of repetition in the book.
But it has been quite deliberate. Experience has re
peatedly shown that after this theory of the Bible has
been expounded, as fully, as forcibly, and as lucidly as
possible, questions have been asked which implied
that the older view had not been left behind. It is
one thing to have learnt a theory, another to have as
similated it. After an old attitude has been formally
abandoned, its influence often lives on but little
abated. It is only by approaching it from different
sides, by stating and restating it, in new contexts and
with fresh expression, that one can hope to secure in
many instances some real, if all too feeble, appropri
ation of a novel point of view.
Some topics which might naturally have been dis
cussed, have been excluded or but slightly handled,
because they had been dealt with in the volume on
Christianity, or one of the author's Biblical works.
Footnotes might have been much more liberally added,
in defence or elucidation of the statements in the text,
but it seemed better not to increase the length of the
book, or repel the readers for whom it is designed by
too technical a character. A fuU analysis of the con
tents has been provided to aid those readers who are
unfamiliar with the subject.
Part of the earlier portion of the book was published

xii PREFACE
in The Sunday Strand. The series of articles was broken
off abmptly owing to the absorption of that excellent
and admirably edited magazine in a woman's journal,
for which such a theme was inappropriate. The articles
have been revised and expanded, and much of the
volume now appears in print for the first time. The
author tenders his cordial thanks to the editors of The
Contemporary Review and The Interpreter for permission
to use articles contributed to these journals.
September, 19131

CONTENTS PAGBS
CHAPTER I
The Situation ....... i-n
The attitude of our age to the Bible is part of its attitude to
Christianity, hence we must touch upon the general
religious situation ....... i
The prevalent ignorance of Scripture, due to social conditions,
the collapse of earlier sanctities and beliefs, the seculari
zation of Ufe, the spirit of revolt, the growing disbelief in
reUgion, the distaste for serious reading . . . i
Effects of this neglect in lowered spiritual vitaUty and im
paired ef&ciency of preaching ..... 2
The propaganda of unbeUef ...... 3
The unsettlement of faith and the disUke of Theology as
unpractical ........ 4
The Copernican theory. Geology, the theory of evolution.
Archaeology, Comparative ReUgion, have discredited
Scripture in the eyes of many ..... 5
The Lower Criticism, as illustrated in the Revised Version, has
revealed the uncertainty of the text, the Higher Criticism
has dissected the Bible and swept away traditional views
as to authorship, while Historical Criticism has thrown
doubt on its historical character. .... 7
The older theory of Scripture regarded it as teaching the Gospel
throughout. Biblical Theology reveals different theologi
cal systems and doctrines of foreign origin ... 9
The moral difficulties of Scripture . . • m • ¦ ^°
Can we still defend the pre-eminence of the Bible '? - -Uv . n
i

CHAPTER II
The Method and Temper of the Apologist. . 12-27
We may not be indififerent to the attack upon our faith . . 12
The defence of the faith by the average beUever may be effec
tive but cannot well be adequate . . .13
2dii

xiv CONTENTS PAGES
The argument from experience is strong, but we must not
press it to an illegitimate extent or forget that the Chris
tian consciousness is the product of many factors . • ^4
The argument from results is also strong, but other causes, it
will be said, may produce similar results, and what of the
evil fruits 7 .....••• ^°
If the truth of Christianity is staked on the authority of the
Bible, this authority needs to be proved, and even then,
what is the true interpretation of Scripture ? . . ' ^1
Something more fundamental is needed by many minds . . i8
The apologist must be frank, discriminating, scrupulous,
sympathetic, conciUatory, and courageous . . -19
Inquiry must be unflinching, sincerely unpledged as to con
clusions, and conducted with a clear sense of the distinc
tion between the essential and the accidental . . . 20
The right presentation of the truth is often its most effective
defence, since a caricature is frequently mistaken for the
reality ; yet even when accurately stated Christianity
is exposed to grave difl5culties, so we must help the per
plexed in spite of the censorious, who have never been
troubled by doubt . . . . . . . 23
We must avoid aU uncharitableness in our verdict on unbelief,
remembering that in God's sight the spirit of the inquiry
matters more than the conclusions reached ... 25
The conditions of success in apologetic work ... 26

CHAPTER III
New Light on the Bible ..... 28-41
We must set aside preconceived theories as to the Bible and its
inspiration, and discover by patient research what it is . 28
The new Ught which has come to us from exploration has
illuminated the history and the reUgion of Israel, and so
^ has the discovery of new documents such as the Moabite
Stone, the Tel el-Amarna tablets, the Code of Hammurabi,
and the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine ... 29
The study of the New Testament has been aided by the dis
covery of very important manuscripts and of the Greek
papyri  31
The Greek non-Uterary papj^ri have enabled us largely to re
construct the civilization into which Christianity came . 32
The New Testament and contemporary Jewish Literature . 35
Our debt to Geography and History, the relations between the
Empire and the Church •••••. 35
Anthropology and the reUgious institutions of Israel . . 36
We have a far purer text of the New Testament and are on the
way to recover a purer text of the Old Testament . . 38

CONTENTS XV
PAGES
We have largely determined the structure and date of the
Biblical Books and made great advance in the interpre
tation of Scripture ....... 39
Biblical Theology has revealed the glorious variety of the Bible 40

CHAPTER IV
The Bible in the Original Languages and in Eng
lish ........ 42-63
We must examine the facts about the Bible, and may best
begin with the original languages .... 42
Aramaic .......... 43
General characteristics of the Semitic languages ... 43
Hebrew is a difficult language on account of the character in
which it is written, its system of vocaU'zation, the pecu
Uarities of the gutturals and weak letters, and its use of
the tenses ......... 44
Yet the Old Testament would have been much more difficult
if it had been written, as it quite easily might have been,
not in an alphabetic script, but in a syUabic like cuneiform 45
Hebrew is concrete, simple in its style, without philosophical
terminology, and lends itself well to translation . . 46
The New Testament is written in the Greek of the common
people ......... 47
The language presents less difficulty to the student than
Hebrew . . , • • • • • • -49
It was providential that the New Testament, as the classic of a
universal reUgion, was written, not in a parochial lan
guage Uke Hebrew or Aramaic, but in a universal lan
guage, with such splendid qualities as Greek . . 49
The WycUffe Bible  52
Tyndale and his successors ...... 53
The Authorized Version and its predecessors .... 55
The defects of the Authorized Version . . . • • 57
The period in which it was written ..... 59
Its great quaUties as a translation ..... 59
The Revised Version and the question of further revision . . 61

CHAPTER V
The Problem of the Canon ..... 64-75
The question. What do we include under the term " The Bible ' ' ?
raises the problems of the Text and the Canon . . . 64
The Hebrew Canon consists of the Law, the Prophets and the
Writings, but the two latter terms do not cover quite
what the EngUsh reader would expect ... 64

xvi CONTENTS PAGES
This threefold division found in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus . 66
The division was not accommodated to subject-matter, but
reflects stages in the growth of the Hebrew Bible . . 67
The second Canon was closed about 200 B.C., the first Canon
in the fifth century ; the evidence as to the formation of
the third Canon is inconclusive . . . • . • ^7
The Septuagint contains a number of books which are not m
the Hebrew Bible  °»
The Bible of Jesus and the New Testament writers ... 7°
Tbe restriction of the Old Testament Canon to the Hebrew
Bible is difficult to justify except on arbitrary grounds, as
may be seen from the case of 1 Maccabees ... 70
The canonicity of the Apocrypha is not affected by the lan
guage in which it is written, or how could we defend the
canonicity of the New Testament ? . .... 72
Disputes as to the Canon touch the New Testament as weU as
the Old, and the canonicity of certain books has been
denied both in the Early Church and by the Reformers . 72
Difficulty of the problem ....••¦ 74
Would our Canon commend itself to the Early Church ? . . 74

CHAPTER VI
The Lower Criticism ...... 76-87
The term ' Higher Criticism ' is often misunderstood to mean
the repudiation of traditional views about Scripture, but
it is used to distinguish one branch of inquiry from another,
the latter being known as ' Lower ' or ' Textual Criti
cism,' without reference to whether the results reached
are conservative or otherwise ..... 76
The scope of the two types of criticism .... 78
The preconceived idea that God has miraculously preserved-
the text of Scripture from error cannot be maintained for
the Old Testament in view of its proved inappUcabiUty to
the New  78
The elaborate precautions to secure the accurate transmission
of the Hebrew text were taken after it had been for many
centuries exposed to corruption and to the terrible
catastrophes from which Israel and Judah suffered . . 79
Proofs that the Hebrew text is not free from error . . .81
Even in the New Testament there must be much uncertainty . 82
The corruption of the text has been caused by scribal errors,
by the introduction of marginal comments into the text,
and even by deUberate alteration .... 83
In its restoration the competent critic may be aided by rhythm
and parallelism, by the Versions and by conjecture . . 84

CONTENTS xvii
pages
Th« investigation brings home to us the uncertainty of the
text, but it also reassures us . . . . .86

CHAPTER VII
The Legitimacy and Necessity of Biblical Criti-,
CISM ....... 88-112
Criticism is appUed to secular as well as sacred Uterature and
history, and critical method is best learnt in its appUca-
tion to the former since the resuUte do not affect our
reUgious Ufe ........ 88
Criticism rigidly tests tradition in the matter of nearness to the
event and the character of the witnesses, recovers lost
stages of tradition by the comparative method, and also
investigates internal evidence ..... 89
The historian tests the authorities as well as the story they tell . 90
Criticism is essentially constructive ..... 91
The critical investigation of the Bible must not be controlled
by preconceived conclusions ..... 91
It is irrational to treat it as intrinsically illegitimate, false to
find its motive in hostility to Scripture .... 92
If we regard it as legitimate we must permit it to work by its
own methods ........ 93
The assertion that Old Testament criticism is dominated by
antipathy to the supernatural would be serious if true,
but it is disproved by the testimony of representative
critics ......... 93
We must not confuse criticism with the history of reUgion . 96
The expert is often distrusted as compared with the juryman,
but it is forgotten that the juryman has heard the evidence
and the expert comment upon it . . . .98
A difficulty is occasioned by the definite statements as to
authorship, but these may be only legal fictions and the
Bible itself indicates that such statements must not be
pressed ......... 99
The charge that criticism denies inspiration is illegitimate,
for no theory may prejudice our investigation of the
facts, inerrancy cannot be affirmed of the Bible as we
have it, and the theory that the autographs were inerrant
is baseless and useless . . . . . .101
Christ's references to the Old Testament were not intended
as pronouncements on authorship .... 103
But His knowledge probably did not embrace these matters ;
the Incarnation involved limitation of knowledge, and
some of His temptations were impossible to omniscience . 103
The truth of traditional views is now less confidently staked
on His authority ........ 105
The Bible as we might have expected it to be is very different
from the Bible that we actually possess . . . ,106

xviii CONTENTS pages
History and close contact with life are very prominent in it . i o7
Revelation is a process in history, we must know the history
if we are to understand the revelation, since the local and
temporal element in Scripture forces us to study it as an
historical development . . . . • .108
Accordingly the Uterature must be analysed and the docu
ments chronologically arranged, but since criticism alone
can do this, criticism is indispensable . . • .109
Criticism is a special science and therefore cannot say the last
word, but it must be independent within its own sphere . no
A plea for patience ......•• ^^*

CHAPTER VIII
The Story of Old Testament Criticism . . 113-123
Criticism in the pre-critical period . . . • .113
Astruc discovered the clue to the analysis of Genesis given by
the Divine names .....-¦ 113
Geddes recognized that the Pentateuch could not be by Moses . 114
Ilgen improved on his predecessors not simply by combining
elements from them but by recognizing two Elohistic
writers ......... 115
De Wette identified the Law-book of Josiah and dated the
codes by comparison with the historical books. . .116
Ewald and Hupfeld : the Uterary analysis of the Pentateuch
into four main documents . . . . . .117
The view that the Priestly Document was very early, for long
dominant ......... 118
Reuss taught but did not pubUsh his view that the priestly
laws were late . . . . . . . .118
Vatke pubUshed this view in a masterly work made repulsive
by HegeUan terminology ; but he and George exerted no
influence on contemporary criticism . . . . n8
Colenso shook the conviction that the minute detail of the
Priestly Document estabUshed its early date . . 119
His work was completed by Noldeke, but both still adhered to
the older view, though Noldeke has recently abandoned it . 120
Graf revived the theory of the late date of the Priestly Docu
ment, Kuenen and Duhm defended it, Wellhausen secured
its triumph ........ 121
The criticism of several other portions of the Old Testament . 122

CHAPTER IX
Reasons for the Critical View of the Old Testa
ment ....... 124-150
The distinction between the Divine names is not the most
important ground for the analysis of the Pentateuch. . 124

The critic's threefold task

CONTENTS xix
PAGES

124
125,
125

Critical criteria of complex authorship
DupUcate narratives. ......
Chronological incongruities .....
Divergent regulations as to tithes, the support of the clergy,
priests and Levites ....... 127
The inconsistencies in legislation cease to be perplexing on the
critical view ........ 129
Differences in style and vocabulary imply distinction of authors 1 29 '^
The denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch does
not rest on the belief that the invention of writing was
post-Mosaic, but on the actual phenomena of Scripture . 131
References to Moses are in the third person and the geographi
cal references do not favour his authorship . . -131
The Pentateuch contains many references to the post-Mosaic
period ......... 132
Defenders of the Mosaic authorship explain the phenomena as
due to later revision ; they ought to be regarded as proof
of non-Mosaic authorship ...... 133
The composite character of the Pentateuch and its non-Mosaic
authorship are mutually corroborative positions . .134
The four main documents . . . . . .134
The structure of Deuteronomy . . . . . .135
The CentraUzation of Worship, the fundamental requirement
of Deuteronomy . . . . . . • i33
The Law-book of Josiah's Reformation to be sought in Deu
teronomy, hut its date is more probably the reign of
Manasseh than that of Josiah . . . . .136
The Exile made the law of a single sanctuary a reaUty . .138
Ezekiel was the first to draw the distinction between priests
and Levites, which is so fundamental in the Priestly Code . 138
The late date of the Priestly Code is confirmed by comparison
with the prophetic and historical books . . .139
J and E are the oldest documents, but even they are not the
work of Moses  140
The criticism which has been appUed to the Pentateuch has
also been exercised on the rest of the Old Testament . .140
The theory of the history formed by the editor of Judges . . 141
, The structure of the Books of Kings . . . .141
The double stories of the foundation of the monarchy and of
David's introduction to Saul . . . . .142
The Chronicler rewrites the history from his later standpoint . 1 44
In the second part of the Book of Isaiah we have a work later
than Isaiah's age. Isaiah might have Uved a trance Ufe
in a later generation, but such a miracle would be unneces
sary for its purpose  144
The prophecy dates itself at the close of the exile, and the
phenomena of the section require a personaUty other than
Isaiah for its author ....... 143
The earUer portion of Isaiah is more complex than the later . 146
Other problems of the prophetic Uterature .... 147

XX CONTENTS PAGES
Pre-exilic prophecy mainly prophecy of judgment, post-exiUc
mainly prophecy of restoration . . . . .147
The Book of Daniel a product of the Maecabean period . .148
The Book of Job, in spite of its early historic setting, probably
post-exiUc ......... 149
The three coUections in the Psalter and their dates . . . 1 49
The majority of Psalms post-exiUc ..... 150

CHAPTER X
The Conservative Reply to the Old Testament
Critics  151-182
It is now appropriate to examine the strictures passed on the
critical view ........ 151
The prediction of a triumphant reaction against criticism has
often been made aud falsified ; but are there not signs
that it is at last to be verified ? . . . .151
The argument derived from our Lord's references to Old Testa
ment Uterature and other objections are urged, often in
most unbecoming language, to warn us off forbidden
ground ......... 153
The opposition largely comes from theologians who are not
experts in Old Testament science .... 154
The opposition of Hebraists is based sometimes, not on critical,
but on dogmatic grounds, as in the case of Dr. C. H. H.
Wright  155
The discovery of written documents older than the time of
Moses does not affect the argument for the post-Mosaic
origin of the Pentateuch . . . . . .156
The so-caUed refutations of criticism often rest on the strang
est misconceptions of the critical position . . . 158
It is said that the Grafian theory will meet the fate of the
Tiibingen criticism, but the two cases are quite different . 160
The external evidence is much fuller and earUer for the New
Testament books, the acceptance of the Grafian theory
by experts has far surpassed that accorded to the Tubin
gen criticism, and unUke the latter has increased with
time, nor did it grow out of the HegeUan philosophy,
though it numbered HegeUans among its earUest expon
ents  162
The internal divisions in the critical ranks do nothing to
rehabilitate traditional views, they are much exaggerated,
are due largely to the complexity of the problems, and
critical excesses ought not to discredit a moderate criticism 165
The challenge to analyse the novels of Besant ajid Rice irrele
vant  . . 168

CONTENTS xxi
PACKS
The Bible and th« Arabic chronicles furnish examples of the
methods of composition discovered by critics in the Penta
teuch ......... 169
The attempts to discredit the clue to analysis by the Divine
names, notably by Eerdmans, is not momentous, since it
Bixaggerates the importance of this criterion, while others
are of more importance, and analjfsis is often more
successful in sections where it fails us than in those where
it is present ; moreover, Eerdmans' own views are more
objectionable than those of the Grafians . . .170
Similarly Winckler would prove an unsatisfactory substitute
for Wellhausen ; his astral theory is weighted with the
most serious improbabiUties, and Pan-Babylonianism is
very speculative but would not, if true, discredit the Grafian
theory ......... 17a
The veto of archaeology has no substantial existence, not even
in the story of Chedorlaomer's expedition, and no dis
covery can confirm two contradictory statements . .176
The unwarranted prejudice against criticism on account of its
German origin ........ 179
The beUeving critic takes his stand by the traditionaUst in the
most vital matter . . . . . . .180
The ablest traditionaUsts have made notable concessions to
criticism ......... 183

CHAPTER XI
The Critic and the Apologist . . . 183-192
While it may be granted that criticism is inevitable, may not
its results be inadmissible ? The false view of the Bible,
not criticism, has been fatal to faith . . . .183
The disturbance of cherished convictions is unwelcome, but
the memory of the colUsion with astronomy, geology,
archseology and the theory of evolution, and of the trials
for witchcraft should serve as a wholesome warning against
excessive claims for Scripture . . . . .184
The old certainty has given place to doubt and dear famiUar
associations have disappeared, but other factors than criti
cism have been at work and the gain outweighs the loss . 185
Criticism has shown how much of the Old Testament is anony
mous, and thus made plain Israel's wealth in inspired
writers and proved that periods once thought barren were
very fruitful . . . .j^-f?. ¦ • • i'T
The difficulty of believing in the inspiration of the Pentateuch
created by the inconsistency of its laws is removed by the
demonstration that the codes contemplate different con
ditions ......... 188

xxii CONTENTS PAGES
Other gains from Old Testament criticism . . •. . • ^^
We must assert the legitimacy of New Testament criticism,
while recognizing that it may vitally affect faith . .19°
Yet we must discriminate between elements which are and
elements which are not vital . . . • • ^^l

CHAPTER XII
The Criticism of THE New Testament . . . 193-224
Protestant scholasticism retreated from the free handUng of
Scripture by the Reformers  193
F. C. Baur treated the New Testament as an organic whole
and in close relation to the development of the Church . 193
His theory of radical antagonism between Jewish Christianity
and Paulinism necessitated a radical criticism, but his
late dates, his arrangement of the documents, his rejec
tion of so many PauUne Epistles, the theory of antagon
ism, the stress on the Clementines, the tendency attributed
to the Acts, are generally abandoned .... 194
His theory was too simple to account for a product so complex
as the Old CathoUc Church  196
The Gentile Christians reverenced Paul but could not under
stand him . . . . . . . .197
Judaism itself was many-sided . . . . ¦ 197
The hjrper-critical school must not be passed by. It regards
the PauUne Epistles as too advanced for the first century.
But Paulinism was almost an inevitable deduction from
the fact that the Messiah had been crucified ; moreover,
Jewish antagonism to Jesus had been bitter in His lifetime 198
The problems of the Epistles were of Uttle interest in the second
century, and Marcion's treatment of them impUes a long-
estabUshed position ....... 200
They were not specially congenial to the second century Church,
and would, if spurious, have been repudiated by the
churches to which they professed to be addressed . . 200
They are for the most part beyond the art of the forger . . 201
The genuineness of i Thessalonians, PhiUppians, and Philemon
is now almost universaUy accepted. .... 202
It is hard to dispute the genuineness of letters addressed to
definite Churches, yet this constitutes presumption rather
than proof of authenticity ...... 203
The reasons against the authenticity of Colossians and 2 Thes
salonians inconclusive ; the weightiest objection to
Ephesians is its style, but it is probably genuine ; the
Pastoral Epistles seem not to be Pauline as they stand, but
they contain a PauUne nucleus ..... 204
The Epistle to the Hebrews cannot be the work of Clement,
Luke, or Paul, but may be the work of Barnabas or
ApoUos, or Priscilla and Aquila ..... 208

CONTENTS xxiii
PAGES
There is no decisive reason against accepting the Petrine
authorship of i Peter, but very grave reasons for regard
ing 2 Peter as spurious ...... 209
Very different views are current about James, but it is prob
ably late ......... 210
The older critical theory placed the Revelation before the
Destruction of Jerusalem, and read it in the Ught of other
Apocalypses and the contemporary situation. This has
been modified by analytic critics and by Gunkel, and prob
ably elements from all their views must be combined . 21 X
The Gospels are the citadel of faith. . . . .213
For the Synoptic Problem many solutions have been offered . 214
The view that the Synoptists drew on a common oral tradition
is exposed to insuperable difficulties . . . .214
Mark was prior to the First and Third Gospels and employed
in them, their compilers also used a second main source,
both sources dating probably from the seventh decade of
the first century ....... 215
The First Gospel bears Matthew's name because it incorpor
ates Matfiiew's ' Logia '...... 216
Opinion is sharply divided on the Lucan authorship of the third
Gospel and Acts, but the ' We-sections ' plead strongly
for it ......... 217
The date of the First and Third Gospels and the Acts possibly
as early as the seventies, but probably later . . .218
The story of Johannine criticism . . . . .219
. A much earUer date is now generally assigned to the Fourth
Gospel than by Baur, but the Asian residence of the Apos
tle John is widely denied, and his martyrdom in Palestine
affirmed by many. This is very improbable, as is the
denial of his residence at Ephesus and of his identity with
the beloved disciple ....... 220
The author was certainly a Jew, almost certainly a Palestinian,
probably an eye-witness and the Apostle John . . .221
Yet the divergence from the Synoptists is a serious objection,
though the Synoptic tradition attests some disputed points
in the Johannine ....... 222
A grave difficulty is raised by the Johannine representation
of Christ's teaching, though some recent investigation
tends to confirm it ...... . 223
The First Epistle of John is almost certainly from the same
hand as the Fourth Gospel, the Second and Third were
perhaps by the Presbyter John ..... 224

CHAPTER XIII
History as a Channel of Revelation . . 225-253
Criticism inevitable since revelation has come through history . 225

xxiv CONTENTS PAGES
The value of the Bible largely consists in the fact that it is a
record of God's self-revelation in history . . . • 225
Israel selected as the people of revelation, and God's self-
manifestation speciaUy intense in its case . . • 227
The lowly origin of its religion makes plain the exceptional
Divine energy at work within it . . • • 228
It was a covenant religion resting on a free choice of each other
by Yahweh and Israel, the relationship was ethical, the
people gifted with reUgious genius, its God ethically con
ceived .....•••• 230
Yahweh was revealed by deeds as well as words, Israel's history
was its training and its response to the Spirit . . . 232
The reUgion as founded by Moses was intensely national and
so remained ....¦¦•• 234
The perils due to the settlement in Canaan .... 234
The prophetic protest against debased religion, and its unifica
tion of religion and ethics ...... 236
Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, the Reformation of Josiah, Jere
miah  236
The transformation of reUgion by the exile .... 239
Ezekiel and the Second Isaiah ...... 240
The post-ex iUc community . . . • . . .241
The reUgion and ethics of the Old Testament .... 242
Its limitations ......... 245
Has not the Gospel rendered it obsolete ? . . . . 247
The preparation for the Gospel was very varied, but the most
important element in it was the reUgion of Israel . . 247
The revelation given by Jesus, great as it was in utterance,
was greater still in character and act. . . . 248
The Gospels embody the record of God's supreme utterance, but
the rest of the New Testament is needed that its meaning
may be understood ....... 249
The fuU significance can be unfolded only through the later
history, but to include this in our Sacred Book is needless
and would be practically inconvenient. Moreover, the Ut
erature of the classical period is that which can best be
treated as classical ....... 250

CHAPTER XIV
The Part Played by Experience in the Creation of
Scripture ...... 254-886
The Spirit's exceptional energy in the history of Israel con
stituted it pre-eminently the people of revelation . . 254
As revelation was conveyed through the history of the nation,
so it was through the experience of individuals . . . 255
Though in most instances we have little direct information, we
can sometimes infer the creative action of experience, as in
the case of the author of Job ..... 255

CONTENTS xxv
pages
Three types of revelation through experience . . . 256
Isaiah's vision of God in His HoUness and Majesty fills him with
a sense of sin which is purged by the glowing coal . 257
He reaUzes that a holy God cannot permanently tolerate an
unclean people, but that a remnant will survive . . 258
He appUes these principles to the politics of his time . . 259
His contribution to reUgion and theology .... 260
Ezekiel's vision overwhelms him with a sense of God's sove-
' reignty and holiness ....... 261
The sin of Israel compromises the character of God . . 261
God's dilemma and its solution ..... 262
The equity of God estabUshed by the doctrine of individual
responsibiUty ........ 263
The unfaithfulness of Hosea's wife reflects Israel's unfaithful
ness to Yahweh. ....... 264
His love saves the guilty woman from slavery and refuses to
despair of her reform. ...... 265
So the love of Yahweh will achieve the reformation of Israel . 266
The prophet's own heart became a window through which he
looked into the heart of God ..... 267
Jeremiah looked forward to the time when, after the discipline
of exile, God would make a New Covenant with Israel . 268
This involved the profoundest transformation of reUgion, the
individual not the nation, became the reUgious unit . . 269
He was by nature preoccupied with the inner life, but his doc
trine grew out of the close intimacy with God to which
persecution and isolation drove him .... 270
The central doctrines in Paul's theology were not derived by
him from the Judaism or Paganism of his time, and though
he owed much to the Old Testament and the teaching of
Jesus, his experience before conversion largely created his
doctrines of the flesh, sin and the Law, his experience of
union with Christ created his doctrine of salvation . . 273
But the Bible contains not merely the lessons taught by experi
ence, but the classical expression of the experiences them
selves, for example the sense of penitence and passion for
purity in the fifty-first Psalm, the reaUzation of God as the
only good in the seventy-third Psalm. . . . 277
iDoesthe BiWe lose or gain through the fact that revelation has
come through experience ? /Does not the human element
contaminate the purity of the Divine communication ? . 279
This method secures a large variety in the presentation of the
truth  280
White heat is better than white Ught,' truth coloured by
human experience than cold abstractions . . .381
The limitation may be cheerfuUy accepted in view of the
assurance which creation by experience gives . . . 283
And aU the cases examined make it plain that God Himself
was behind and in the experience .... 384
•The value of such an origin becomes clear when we contrast
the Bible with a Systematic Theology. The latter has the
same kind of value as a botanical museum the Bible is au

xxvi CONTENTS

PAGES

enchanting country-side, with Ufe and beauty in profusion
aU around us ....... . 285
Where we might have expected a Systematic Theology God
has given us His Uving Word ..... 286

CHAPTER XV
Revelatiox^ and its Record .... 287-295
In His self-revelation God must take the initiative, yet revela
tion must not be forced unduly upon men, since He must
educate their faculty of response .... 287
Nature and History speak with an ambiguous voice, and even
the witness of man's own nature does not suffice . . 287
Great advantages are secured through the choice of history
as the medium of revelation. God Himself and not doc
trine about Him is its primary content ; He is revealed
through act, but the act must be interpreted . . . 288
The process must in the nature of the case be slow, and there
is no urgency to cause unwholesome haste . . .289
A selected people was needed and Israel was chosen . . 290
Revelation is not to be identified with the Bible. It long ante
dated the earliest written record and took the whole his
tory of the nation as its organ ..... 290
Yet while in the abstract the revelation is independent of writ
ing, it would, apart from a written record, have soon been
distorted out of recognition ..... 292
We can thus apprehend aright each stage in the development,
which has the unity of a great organic growth . . . 293
The Church and its institutions cannot take the place of the
Bible, either in the interpretation of the reUgion or as
channels of grace ....... 294

CHAPTER XVI
The Problem of Historicity .... 296-322
The BibUcal record of Israel's history is very incomplete as
judged by the historian's standard, and the same is largely
true of New Testament history ..... 296
But the Old Testament history is not merely incomplete, its
accuracy is open to serious doubt . . . ' . 301
In the- New Testament the Fourth Gospel raises the difficulty
in its acutest form, and here rather than in the question of
authorship the problem of the Gospel is now generally
held to Ue. 

CONTENTS xxvii PAGES
But the ancient view of history differed from our own, and
even if we treat the Gospel as a record of facts we should
recognize that the alternative view is not to be dismissed
as iUegitimate .  303
The author wrote with the contemporary situation in mind,
especially the controversy with the Jews, but his record
need not on that account be unhistorical . . . 305
The Synoptic narrative is not always to be preferred to the
Johannine, but the fact of divergence is important . . 307
Discrepancies must be recognized between the Synoptists, and
even Mark may not at all points be entirely trustworthy . 309
Historical accuracy cannot be claimed for the Bible through
out, but this is unnecessary, and the ' aU or nothing '
attitude is barely rational . . . . . .310
We have an adequate historical basis for our vital beliefs . . 312
For the facts the PauUne Epistles are a valuable source . .312
The Gospels contain much that cannot have been invented
and the trivial incidents admirably serve the purpose of
reveaUng character . . . . . . -313
Mark and Q, to say nothing of other sources, are documents
of first-rate importance, jaelding a consentient witness . 315
Christianity cannot be explained apart from the Jesus of history 316
Jesus cannot be reduced to the measure of our ordinary human
ity  318
The interest of our own age in Jesus . . . .319
The interest of the early Christians in His earthly life . . 320
The Gospels incomparable . . . . . .321

CHAPTER XVII
The Problem of Biblical Theology . . 323-361
The close paralleUsm between the Bible and other sacred books
seems to destioy its uniqueness ; and we have also to
reckon with internal divergence in teaching . . . 323
Israel's debt to earUer people for reUgious ideas and institutions
was considerable ....... 323
We cannot, as John Spencer pointed out, explain the Hebrew
ritual as prefiguring the Christian reUgion . . . 325
It was derived from earlier Semitic custom and goes back be
hind this to savage beliefs and practices .... 326
The New Testament drew to some extent on a Judaism which
had been influenced by Paganism, and perhaps it drew
directly on Gentile thought ..... 327
The attempt to explain Christianity as largely the product of
its complex environment demands far more caution than
its exponents always show. ..... 328

xxviii CONTENTS fagss
«iant AUen's The Evolution ofthe Idea of God is an instructive
example on account of its extreme character. He re
garded Christianity as the cult of a corn and wine deity,
¦with a possible historical nucleus in a slain Jesus . . 329
But however Christianity may have been affected, after it
passed into the heathen world, by pagan influences, Jesus
and the Palestinian community were untouched by them . 331
The Gospel narratives make an entirely different impression ;
the followers of Jesus should not on this theory have been
persecuted by the Jews ; the agricultural parables and
metaphors do not stand alone ; the general attitude to
the history is unwarrantably sceptical ; the PauUne Epis-
ties conclusively negative it ; the earUest documents are
those which show least tiace of the agricultural element ;
the whole treatment of the Bible is amateurish and be
trays the strangest misapprehensions .... 333
The view that the New Testament Christology was pre-Chris
tian and simply transferred to Jesus when His disciples
identified Him with the Messiah  336
The value of Christianity is affirmed, the recognition of older
elements does not deny that their combination is original
or lose sight of differences ...... 337
But the identification of the historical Jesus with the eternal
Christ is denied and thus Christianity is freed from the
dominion of history — a fatal freedom ! . . . . 338
The recognition that Christianity has incorporated older ideas
is helpful as showing that the Gospel fulfils the universal
human aspirations ....... 338
But the New Testament Christology was created by the im
pression Jesus made. His witness to Himself, His resurrec
tion, and the Church's experience of Him as Lord . . 339
The differences within the Bible create a more serious diffi
culty ; and first those between the Old Testament and
the New ......... 340
No problem is raised by reUgious or moral features of the Old
Testament which Jesus expUcitly repudiated as belonging
to a more rudimentary stage ..... 340
But the lower level of the BibUcal writers themselves, or un
worthy representations of God cannot be reconcUed with
an inspiration which subdued the human instiument to the
mind of the Spirit ....... 341
Differences within the Old Testament partly explained by idea
of development ........ 342
The earUer documents exhibit a remarkable anthropomorphism 342
Israel rendered an imperishable service by moraUzing the
conception of God ....... 344
But the Old Testament often exhibits God in an unworthy
Ught, not only in its cruder period, but even in the pro
phets ......... 345
Ezelael is a noteworthy example of this ; but in his attitude
to thp heathen other prophets foUowed him . . 345

CONTENTS xxix
PAGES
There is a striking difference between the earUer prophets on
the one side and the Law and Ezekiel on the other as to
the ceremonial element in religion .... 347
Both tendencies are legitimate, reUgion craves some external
expression and the ceremonial system secured the survival
of Judaism ........ 351
The inconsistencies which, it is asserted, are to be found in the
New Testament ....... 352
No need to linger on the relations between Paul and James . 352
Paul's alleged indifference to the Ufe and teaching of Jesus
incredible . . , . . . . . . . 353
True he says comparatively Uttle, and he had not the intimate
knowledge possessed by Christ's owu disciples, but had
come to know Him as the glorified Lord . . . 353
The view that i Peter cannot be the work of Peter because it
shows so Uttle of the influence of Jesus, so much of Paul's
influence, fails to give due weight to the revolution in
standpoint wrought by the Cross .... 354
The suspicion entertained against Paul by the Jewish Chris
tians and his wish to commend his Gospel to the Apostles
forbade both indifference on his part to Christ's teaching
or serious divergence from it .... . 355
His irfterpretation of Christ's death and resurrection was a
development of apostoUc doctrine, and the estimate of
the Work was demanded by the estimate of the Person ;
that estimate can probably be tiaced back to the teach
ing of Jesus, hence Paul's Christology, unUke his doctrine
of the Law aroused no protest ..... 336
Further, is the Johannine account of Christ's teaching a read
ing back of Paulinism into it, and even the record of it
given in the Synoptists touched by PauUne influence ? . 357
Such a view is too much controlled by theological prejudice.
Jesus taught the uniqueness of His Person ; when the
Death occurred it created an urgent problem . , 359
Paul therefore best understood Jesus and carried on His work,
and that in a far fuller degree than is admitted by many
who pass this verdict on him ..... 360
The variety of teaching in the New Testament gives a more
adequate interpretation of the Gospel. . . . 360
The charge of inconsistencies in the PauUne Theology itself is
best met by its presentation as a coherent whole • . 360

CHAPTER XVIII
The Old Testament and the New • . . 362-377
In place of the argument from credentials, notably miracle
and prophecy, we now lay stress on the argument from
intrinsic worth  362

XXX CONTENTS PASES
The acceptance of miracles can be defended when the Chris
tian position has been made good, they cannot prove the
claims or teaching of the miracle worker .... 362
The argument from prophecy played a part in Jewish, but much
more in early Christian apologetics, and its excesses des-
tioyed for Christians aU sense of the Old Testament's true
meaning '.....-••¦ 363
We have broken with this ilUcit handUng of Scripture, but does
this involve the abandonment of the argument from
prophecy ?....... ¦ ¦ 365
The emphasis must be placed on the general movement, not *
on the matching of details in the Old Testament with
details in the career of Jesus, all the more that exegesis has
discredited the Christian interpretation of the former, and
criticism has thrown doubt on the latter .... 366
The history of Israel's reUgion is the true argument from pro
phecy, just as the theory of evolution gave us back the
argument from design in a more impressive form . . 367
Prophecy was not primarily prediction, it was the appUcation
of eternal principles to the conditions of the time . . 368
Yet prediction was an element of the prophets' work, but the
future they foretold sprang out of the present . . 369
Their predictions must not be prosaically interpreted, we must
not press the details, or fall back from the Christian to
the nationaUst standpoint ...... 370
The New Testament often regards events in the Ufe of Jesus
as fulfilUng prophecies which had quite a different mean
ing  371
Jesus regarded Himself as the Messiah, though His conception
of the Kingdom of God differed much from that learnt by
the Jews from the Old Testament .... 372
He identified Himself with the Servant of Yahweh. The pro
phet meant by the Servant the IsraeUtish nation, but it
was the Servant because it revealed the tine God to the
world and suffered for its sin. Je^s is in this sense the
tiue Israel and thus rightly identified -(^th the Servant . 373
The prophet had no thought of Jesus, but the true fulfil
ment was known to Him who spoke by the prophets . . 374
The Hebrew ritual was not instituted as a type of the Gospel,
but it and the pagan ritual out of which it sprang were its
unconscious prophecy. ...... 375
Israel alone could give birth to Christ, since only a long special
preparation could lead up to Him .... 376
We can admit Umitation and error in the Old Testament and
refuse to put a Christian interpretation on it, while we
recognize its permanent value ..... 377

CONTENTS xxxi
PAGES
CHAPTER XIX
The Nature and Mechanism of Inspiration . 378-407
However exaggerated Christian theories of inspiration may
have been, they have faUen far short of theories held in
other reUgions ........ 378
The ordinary docteine was the statement of the way in which
men thought God must have inspired the writers, now
we ask. How did He inspire them ? . . . . 379
The docteine was said to be drawn from Scripture, but it rested
on proof -texts, and these ambiguous, not on a broad study
of the actual phenomena . . . . . .381
The human element was really far larger and the Bible has
gained by it . . . . . . . . 382
God is in the history and experience, but the human person
ality is not passive . . . . . . - 383
The phenomena of inspiration are continuous with those which
we find in lower reUgions, but the greatness of the Bible is
all the more steikingly manifest ..... 385
Possession by an aUen spirit is familiar to the savage, this idea
is a preparation for the Biblical conception of inspiration . 386
The Hebrews atteibuted unusual physical steength, artistic
skill, inteUectual ability to the Spirit, He creates the
ecstasy so characteristic of early prophecy . . .387
The early stages of reUgious movements have constantly ex
hibited ecstatic phenomena, which die down in course of
time .......... 389
Paul reduced the abnormal to its proper place, and found the
most conspicuous sign of the Spirit's working in the
ordinary spiritual and moral life .... 389
These obscure ecstatic phenomena are to be teeated not with
ridicule but with sympathy, yet the practical test must
be supreme, and Paul's principles afford the wisest
guidance ......... 391
Inspiration selects its congenial medium, the psychical subject
in its lower stages, the reUgious genius in the higher, yet
genius Divinely teained for the task .... 394
The duty has to be forced on human reluctance by Divine
compulsion, yet the deepest bliss is found in surrender
to God's wiU ........ 396
The adequate recognition of the human factor disproves ver
bal inspiration, for which the appeal to the original auto
graphs suppUes a rather disingenuous refuge . . . 397
The Divine and human factors interpeneteate, the old anti
thesis between the Bible as the Word of God and the Bible
as containing the Word of God states the problem falsely . 398
We can freely recognize all grades of inspiration, since our
vital concern is not with a coUection of purple patches and
elegant exteacts but vdth the Bible as a whole, and this
amply conveys the Divinely intended impression . . 399

xxxii CONTENTS PAGES
The plea that non-BibUcal writers often display a higher degree
of inspiration than much in the Bible is therefore irrele
vant, the Bible is not to be teeated in this atomistic way,
and it is the record of a wholly unique action of God in
self -revelation and the redemption of the world . • 4°i
Nor could we replace the Bible by an anthology from the
sacred books of various reUgions, radically different as
these are .....-¦•' 4^4
Nor yet do we want a Bible pruned by the eUmination of what
might seem objectionable or irrelevant ; all is needed lor
the comprehension of the whole. .... 4°5
Inerrancy and verbal dictation need no discussion, the use of
the Old Testament in the New is our charter of freedom . 406
Some general principles which emerge from our discussion . 407

CHAPTER XX
The Misuse of the Bible  408-420
The Bible is not a book of puzzles, in particular it is a degrada
tion of it to construct almanacs of the future from it . . 408
It is a worthier view that it is a manual of poUtics or sociology.
Yet while it says much on these themes, its value is in
underlying principles, and these are moral and spiritual,
not poUtical or economic ...... 409
It is not a manual of science and the attempts to gag scientific
research by appeal to Scripture make a humiliating story.
The fact that science is possible constitutes a steong proof
of Theism. It cannot coUide with history or take the
place of philosophy, and scientific theory is itself moving
very rapidly ........ 410
The teials for witchcraft with the fiendish cruelties they in
volved are a terrible example of the misuse of the Bible . 416
The defence of slavery a still more shameful misuse of the
Bible  418
Great mischief has been done by the use of proof texts of which
each faction has its favourite selection ; impartial exegesis
makes short work of such reasoning . . . -418

CHAPTER XXI
The Bible and Theology .... 421-445
In spite of the outcry against it, theology is indispensable
while religion abides ; yet salvation does not depend on
the profession of an accurate creed .... ^gj

CONTENTS xxxiii PAGES
The confession of the Divinity of Christ takes us into the most
inteicate theological problems, on which if orthodoxy
is essential to salvation the right opinion may legiti
mately be demanded ; but we have come to see that such
a demand is absurd ....... 423
The reconstruction of theology will claim the eo-operation of
different types of mind ; we must therefore humbly recog
nize our own Umitations and encourage the utmost free
dom of expression ....... 429
The problem is much more difficult than formerly, older
methods are no longer adequate. .... 431
Our regulative principle should be the doctrine of God, con
ceived as Father in loyalty to the teaching of His Son . 431
What is involved in the scientific exposition of a Christian
doctrine ......... 432
Our philosophy largely fixes our general theological position . 434
Psychology and Comparative ReUgion have t£eir contribution
to make ......... 435
Scripture, in the light of criticism and BibUcal Theology, is a
stiU more important source ..... 436
Biblical Theology is the foundation of Systematic Theology . 439
The History of Doctrine is of the greatest value since it brings
before us many living issues in an earlier dress ; shows
what lines of thought lead to nothing ; and helps us to
understand how our doctrines have come to be what they
are .......... 440
The development of Theology has been constantly influenced
by the environment ....... 443
Enumeration of the duties and opportunities which Ue before
ns  444

CHAPTER XXII
The Question of Authority. . . . 446-465
The common Protestant view that the Bible, understood in
its literal sense, is an infalUble authority, is no longer ten
able .......... 446
Yet this brings reUef as well as perplexity .... 447
Are we to abandon all external authority and seek God and
His truth only in our souls ?..... 448
Mysticism supplies us with a much-needed corrective but not
with infalUble truth, and we must aim at a balanced
judgment of its virtues and defects .... 448
Apart from the Umitations common to mystics in general,
there is the divergence in the reports they give, and how
are we to discriminate ? . . . . . • 43i
If they claim the endorsement of their views by Scripture,
can we admit the legitimacy of their interpretation ?
Scripture means what it says, but the author may say
deeper things than he reaUzee . . . . -451

xxxiv CONTENTS PAGES
The Christian interpretation of the Servant of Yahweh is a
case in point ; that interpretation is justified, but cannot
determine the primary sense, the neglect of which is
disasteous in every way . - • • • -453
The critical movement has happily made some types of sermon
impossible, but it has recovered vast tracts of Scripture
for the pulpit, and wiU as we emerge from our era of
teansition become more helpful still . . • • 454
The mystics often talk, not the language, but a dialect of
Canaan ....-•¦•• 455
Does the Church then give us authoritative guidance ? It has
the advantage of recognizing the collective consciousness,
it is claimed that its authority is the authority of God, it
rightly demands our loyalty and the free-lance temper is
to be deprecated ....... 456
But our allegiance is to the universal Church, and the Churches
speak with discordant voices . . . . -457
The assertion that the Church wrote the New Testament is
almost unmeaning. It formed the New Testament Canon,
its Ufe is the presupposition of the writings collected in the
Canon, but the collective consciousness is not expressed
in them, it is guided by them ..... 457
The testimony of the experts in reUgion and of the Church as
a whole is most valuable, and in this sense the Church
suppUes us with an objective standard, but the Bible
even more so ....... . 458
But the Bible also contains the authoritative teaching of Jesus
and the teaching of the New Testament writers, and these
give us all we need ....... 459
We cannot draw rigid lines between the realms in which Scrip
ture is and those in which it is not authoritative . . 461
But Scripture authenticates itself in the things it is most vital
for us to know ; the reason illuminated by the Holy Spirit
recognizes the tenth ....... 462

CHAPTER XXIII
The Verification of Revelation in Experience 466-478
The problems raised by this subject ..... 466
Much in the Bible is apparently irrelevant and we may not
force a spiritual meaning upon it, but recognize its value
as part of the whole in that it supplies the atmosphere
and background for the development of the reUgion . . 467
We may expect that a revelation which has come through his
tory will be verified in Ufe, all the more that it is largely
the creation of experience ...... 470
But experience cannot do the work of criticism or prove the
tenth of historical events. Hence it is reckless to stake
the Christian case on experience alone . . . .jq

CONTENTS xxxv PAGES
Our individual experience is the product of many factors,
and while it must be first-hand, it should be checked and
enlarged by the collective experience .... 472
Experience alone and history alone can neither of them bear
the weight of the Christian case. Locked into an arch
they can ......... 473
The Christian experiences are real facts which steongly corro
borate the great Christian docteines, but not developed
theories ......... 473
Need of caution in stating the doctrine of assurance . . 474
Experience may be verified by repetition, but this must be in
the spirit, not in the letter ..... 475
The Christian verifies the New Testament by the inward
witness it eUcits ....... 476
No Christian Uterature, highly though we prize it, stands in the
same category as the Bible ..... 477

CHAPTER XXIV
The Permanent Value of Scripture . . 479-503
The Bible is primarily 'a record of God's self -revelation through
history and experience culminating in the Gospel . . 479
Further it is very rich in immediate spiritual nourishment and
has a universaUty in its range which ensures the univer-
saUty of its appeal ....... 480
It has great emotional value, its Uterary quaUty conferring
much of this on it . . . . . . . 481
The Old Testament is not the New Testament in hieroglyphics . 483
Its Umitations should be fuUy recognized, but the New Testa
ment presupposes it and is its culmination, it contains
much of abiding value which the New Testament does not
repeat, and we cannot forget our Lord's attitude to it . 484
Much is rightiy included in the Old Testament which seems
irrelevant, some things, like Ecclesiastes, which give a
false view of Ufe. The Old Testament would be impover
ished by their exclusion ...... 487
The Old Testament is the precipitate of a great national history.
It fused reUgion and ethics, and the history was guided
by reUgious teachers whose peers no nation has produced . 488
But God was working in the history with exceptional energy
and His Word abides even for us of the New Testament . 490
The lofty ethics, the faith in the future, the disinterested piety
rebuke us, and its words have incomparable power and
value for us ....••• • 49°
It is unnecessary for us to speak further on the New Testament
so far as it is a record of the Ufe and teaching of Jesus, or
to prove the need of an interpretation of these. . . 491

xxxvi CONTENTS PAGES
Bnt we must stiU ask whether the PauUne Theology can be
accepted as true, since our own theology is so largely con-
teoUed by it  4»2
Paul was a child of his age and we need not defend outiying
regions of his thought, if we can vindicate his centeal
doctrines ....••••• 493
Some are repelled by his dialectic, which was in fact very
brilUant, but he is most himself when he has escaped
from it to the rapturous exposition of some vital truth . 493
It is not the case that science has destroyed the basis of his
theology, which does not rest on the historical character
of the story of Adam . . . .- • • 495
The modernness of Paul, as illusteated by his idea of solidarity,
his enthusiasm for humanity, his doctrine of election, his
philosophy of history. ...... 496
He is charged with turning the pure ethic of Jesus into a
theology, but the teaching of Jesus was full of theology,
expUcit or impUcit ; ethic needs a dynamic and finds it
best in reUgion ........ 496
But the efficacy of reUgion as a dynamic depends largely on
theology ; thus the pre-existence of Christ gives an ir
resistible appeal for our love in the sacrifice of the Incarna
tion ; His death as interpreted for our salvation demands
more than our admiration ; our need of authentic know
ledge of God is met if Paul's docteine of Christ is true ;
the need for pardon is met if he rightly tells us that it was
attained by Christ's death ; while his doctrine of the God-
' head embracing Father and Son in mutual love becomes
our pattern, our moral ideal, our assurance of God's love . 497
Paul's most theological teaching enforced the most practical
duties ......... 499
The experience which largely created his theology also guar
antees it ........ . 500
He had a deep conviction of sin, a genius for moraUty, with
which were united a genius for religion, a cool practical
sagacity, and a genius for speculation . . . 501
His theology satisfies the final test, created by experience it is
constantly verified in experience. .... 503

CHAPTER I
THE SITUATION
Our theme is the Bible and we best approach it
through a description and estimate of the attitude of
our own age towards it. But since the Christian
religion and its sacred books are so vitally connected
that the influences which affect the one inevitably act
upon the other, we must touch upon the general
religious situation in which the attitude to the Bible
is but part of a larger whole, and consider by what
methods and in what temper we ought to handle it.
It is probably not seriously questioned that there is
a very widespread indifference to religion and not a
little alienation from all forms of organized Chris
tianity. One of the most ominous signs in the life of the
Churches at the present time is the ignorance of Scrip
ture which meets us on every hand. The causes for
this are probably not difficult to discover. In the
first place, there is the great change which has come
over our social conditions. The pressure of business
and professional life has made daily family worship
extremely difficult. I need not dwell on the way in
which these conditions operate — they will be only too
familiar to most of my readers — but the inevitable
consequence has been that one very effective means
of familiarizing children and young people with the
actual text of Scripture has been largely taken from us.

2 THE SITUATION
In the next place we have the widespread collapse
''of earlier sanctities and theological behefs. The
secularization of hfe has gone on apace. In innumer
able lives religion is being steadily pushed into the
background, and whereas in earlier days public opinion
was steadily hostile to such relaxation in the standard
either of conduct or behef, nowadays the tone of
society is quite friendly to those who set old-fashioned
conventions at defiance. And it is not merely those
who wish to throw off irksome restrictions who have
turned away from religion. There are multitudes— ^
and their numbers seem likely to increase — who
believe that Christianity will soon be classed with
stages of thought and feehng we have outgrown.
And where that feeling prevails it is inevitable that
the Bible should fall into disuse. It may still be
read as great literature, but it is only a remnant who
will be attracted to it for this. -' The vast majority will
either read the Bible as containing a Divine revelation,
or they will not read it at all. Another reason for the
neglect of the Bible is due to the impression that it is a
duU book. Those who used to read it conscientiously in
earlier days did so often as a duty rather than as a
delight ; and nowadays, when light, bright, and frothy
literature — if literature much of it can be called—
is all the food on which the great masses of people
nourish their intellects, what wonder if from this tasty
confectionery they turn with wry faces to the Bread
of Life ? And where the sense of duty has disappeared
they are naturally tempted to neglect it altogether.
The consequences of this neglect are disastrous.
I It is unquestionable that neglect of the Bible is com-
' cident with a lowered spiritual vitality. Even those
who are members of the Church, and take their pro
fession with some measure of seriousness, are too often

THE SITUATION 3
tempted to imagine that their spiritual growth will
largely take care of itself. At any rate, they are not
keen and eager in their efforts to foster it, hence their
Bible reading tends to become perfunctory. Their
' daily portion,' if they have one, is something to be
got through rather than embraced as a precious oppor
tunity of storing new force and winning new insight.
And if the individual life suffers, so also does the col
lective. The preacher is largely paralysed when his
people have given up the habit of Bible study. Allu
sions which would otherwise be plain fall on uncompre
hending ears. The context in which his message is set
they cannot mentally supply as they hsten, and thus
the force of his appeal is broken and the fulness of his
message largely missed. And more and more the
people are at the preacher's mercy. They cannot
check his utterances with the same readiness and
confidence as before, because they have never acquired
the standard by which to test the vaHdity of his
message. i.\ ;
But it may be less readily admitted that we are
confronted with a collapse of faith on a considerable
and increasing scale. Yet this is well-nigh as certain.
Our difficulty is partly one of atmosphere ; in the
general tone and attitude of the society in which we
move the faith of many is in danger of asphyxiation.
Indeed it would be strange were it otherwise. There
is an energetic and skUfuliy conducted propaganda of
unbelief, promoted by men who acknowledge no God,
no freewill, no sin, no redemption, who cast doubt
on the very existence of Jesus, and are determined
to leave no stone unturned that they may extirpate
a belief in the religion of which He is the foundation.
The land has been flooded with cheap pubUcations,
skilfully designed to further the emancipating work.

4 THE SITUATION
The most sacred problems are ventilated in our leading
reviews and magazines, they are discussed in the work
shop, the factory, and the ofiice. If we could carry
away our young people to an island, establish a strict
censorship of the press, and let nothing reach them till
it had been carefully filtered, theti we might hope to
keep them in a state of innocence. But any one who
is living in the fuU tide of modern life, or is even watch
ing it intelligently and with knowledge as it rushes by
him, knows that our young people cannot be pro
tected in this way. They are bound to hear of these
things, and if we do not tell them others will. Accord
ingly, if concealment were desirable, and it is not desir
able, it would be completely impracticable.
And within the Church itself there is an uncertainty
even on the most vital questions of theology, the vague
sense that foundations are tottering and that old land
marks are sinking below the surface. The younger
people in particular are more and more coming to recog
nise that the old orthodoxy is impossible, but they do
not know how much must be surrendered, nor what
should be put in its place. In the general unsettle
ment which is so characteristic of our time it is not
wonderful if many feel that the whole rehgious terri
tory has been converted into a quivering morass.
' Where are we to find a foothold,' they cry, ' now
that the sohd rock has been irretrievably broken
up ? In the old days everything was so plain and
certain. We had a Bible unquestioned from cover
to cover, we believed that from Genesis to Revelation
it was all the infaUible word of God. Now criticism
has come and shown us that we were wrong in our
views of authorship and date, that the history is in
many places very uncertain, and that much would
have to be surrendered on which we had stayed

THE SITUATION 5
our faith and comforted our souls. Comparative
Religion has demonstrated that much which we
thought peculiar to the religion of Israel was shared
by nations all over the world. Science and archae
ology have attested the antiquity of man and his
kinship with the lower creation, and have revealed
him to us as a mere ephemeral creature on one of
the most insignificant of worlds.' ' What,' ' they
ask in bewilderment, ' can we still believe ? '
Moreover our age is impatient of theology, with
its abstractions and refinements, its remoteness from
common affairs, and the urgent business of practical
life. What has made the cry ' Back to Christ ' so
popular with many is the implication ' Away from
Paul ' which they read into it. The reign of theology,
we are told, is over : the pulpit must direct its atten
tion to the moral and social questions which loom
larger and larger before us, or even descend into the
arena of political and economic controversy. The
preacher must turn his eyes from eternity to time,
to the stern realities of our modern civilization, and
give a lead to the people in solving the problems that
bafile them. For those who are deaf to such a sum
mons Democracy, it is said, has no use.
And this grave disquiet or cool indifference, this
scornful impatience or settled hate, centre inevitably
on the Bible. I have touched ahready on some of
the causes for this change of attitude, since they are
largely the same as those which have tended to dis
credit Christianity in the eyes of many.
I might allude first of all to the change which has
come over our whole conception of the universe. We
no longer live in the days of the Ptolemaic theory when
the earth was regarded as stationary and con
ceived as a circular plane, with heaven above the

6 THE SITUATION
solid firmament not so very far away, and with the
under-world the home of the dead, or as later conceived
the abode of lost spirits, in the dark recesses under
ground. The coming of the Copernican theory has
meant a change in our general view of the universe,
which has not left our theological systems unaffected,
while the Bible is supposed to be discredited by its
adhesion to an antiquated theory of the universe.
Even more serious is the blow which modem science
is thought to have struck at the authority of Scripture.
First geology and then the theory of evolution were
imagined to have disposed of the claims made on
behalf of the Bible with its six days' scheme
and its doctrine of special creation and the brief
period that it allows for the existence of man on this
planet. And in this conflict with the Bible the physi
cal and biological sciences have been reinforced by
archaeology. We have now evidence not simply for
the antiquity of man but for the development of an
elaborate civilization at a period earher than that to
which the Bibhcal chronology assigns the creation
of the human race. I pass over other points in the
quarrel, such as the creation of the heavenly bodies
on the fourth day, or the questions raised touching the
historical character of the Deluge. And here in parti
cular it is thought that the advance of these sciences
has hit Christianity in a vital place. The PauHne
theology, we are told, is built on the assumption that
the third chapter of Genesis contains a record of literal
fact, and this assumption has now been proved to be
incorrect. Another influence that has tended to undermine
the authority of the Bible has been Comparative
Religion. The patient and sympathetic study which
has been devoted by a large number of able scholars

THE SITUATION 7
to the exposition of non-Christian religions has dis
closed many very striking parallels with ideas that were
formerly regarded as exclusively Biblical, yet which
were not derived frorn the Bible, but were probably, in
many instances, chronologically earher.
And while the assaults delivered from these various
quarters have seemed to make many a breach in the
walls, those within the camp have appeared to join
hands with the assailants from without. The
plaintive cry goes up that it is Christian scholars
themselves who are making the most damaging
attacks upon Scripture, compared with which those
that are delivered from the side of physical science
and archaeology are comparatively insignificant. In
the first place, we have the very rigorous criticism which
has been brought to bear upon Scripture. There
has been the Lower Criticism which has taught us
that the text both of the Old and the New Testament
is in a very defective and insecure condition. Even
so mild an event as the publication of the Revised
Version of the New Testament must have come home
to many with a sense of shock. It was not a matter
simply of translation, though it was disagreeable to
learn that much which had passed for centuries as a
faithful reproduction of God's Word was really mis
translation of it. But the mistakes of King James's
translators could not reasonably be held to affect the
quality of the inspired original. The pubhcation
of the Revised Version, however, revealed to many
that the Greek text was itseK in many instances un
certain, so that those who had taken refuge from
the blunders of translators in the infallibihty of the
original, were now hard put to it to say what was and
what was not the real utterance of the Holy Spuit.
Of course those who were in any real sense Bible stu-

8 The SITUATION
dents had been long aware of these facts, but it was
otherwise with many devout readers of the Bible.
And if this was the case with the New Testament
what were we to say about the Old ? It is true that
here matters looked somewhat better on the surface,
for the alterations of the text m the Revised Version
were much shghter than m the case of the New Testa
ment. But no sooner did the reader look below
the surface than he found cause to change his opinion.
For while in the New Testament the enormous number
of various readings seemed at first sight to leave the
reader in hopeless uncertainty as to the original, he
soon reahzed that this was a ground of congratulation.
Where the evidence was so abundant it was not likely
that the true text had often been lost, and in the hands
of the skUled critic it provided plentiful material for
recovery of the original. But in the Old Testament
the student learned to his dismay, that the uniformity
of our Hebrew manuscripts in presenting one type
of text left the original text in a condition of great
uncertainty, and that in many instances he had to
regard it as irrecoverably lost, though in other cases
he might hope to restore it by the help of the Septua
gint and the rest of the Versions.
But if the Lower or Textual Criticism created un
easiness, the effect of the Highe^ Criticism was even
more disturbing. It examined the traditional views
as to the dates of the Biblical books, frequently denied
them to the authors for whom tradition had claimed
them, analysed them into earlier documents, detected
a large number of later insertions and reduced, as it
seemed, to a polychrome patchwork what had been
regarded as a beautiful and artistic unity.
But this was by no means all. For in the train
of the Lower and Higher Criticism there came Historical

THE SITUATION 9
Criticism. Not only was the text discovered to be often
incorrectly transmitted, not only were traditional
views as to authorship and structure roughly shattered,
but the history itself was declared to be very dubious
in its character. Particularly this was the case with
the earlier history of mankind, though here there had
been much to prepare the way. But it was by no
means confined to that dim period. Much that seemed
to lie in the clear daylight was called in question, until
the reader began to wonder whether the knife of
a surgical criticism would cut the very vitals from
Bibhcal history.
Nor yet was this all. The older way of reading the
Bible was to look at it as presenting a homogeneous
system of doctrine. No doubt it was realized that
there was a difference both in the clearness and in the
fulness with which the great truths of revelation
were set forth. In the earlier stages they might
be vaguely hinted or darkly shadowed forth in type
and symbol, taught by ritual acts, enshrined in obscure
prophecy. But it was always held that the same
truth was there and that these forms were a disguise
dehberately chosen for His own wise purpose by the
Holy Spirit. And when the clearer daylight dawned,
in which the truth could be plainly revealed and men
were able to receive it, then the different writers,
though varjdng in mode of expression and presenta^
tion, yet all uttered the same harmonious Gospel.
Moreover, it was now possible for the reader to go back
to the earher writings, and with the clue he had in his
hands discover the Gospel in them. If, for example,
he wished to understand the Christian doctrine of the
Atonement, he would find valuable material in the
laws on priesthood and sacrifice in the legislation of
Moses. But now there has arisen a new science of

10 THE SITUATION
Bibhcal Theology. This is concerned with tracing the
historical development of the religion of Israel and
early Christianity, and with reconstructmg the theolo
gical systems of individual writers. And thus, instead
of uniformity, we get diversity ; in place of a single
system we have a multitude of individual systems,
or fragments of systems, and these often, it is said,
divergent. Where, then, it may be asked, is the old
sense of security with which the simple Bible reader
could turn to any part of the sacred volume assured
that what he read in one woriter was harmonious with
what he might read in another ? And this science has
brought a new problem in its demonstration that much,
which had been regarded as directly due to the special
inspiration accorded to the Biblical writers, was really
taken over by them from a foreign source.
Another difiiculty is that occasioned by elements in
Scripture which are felt to be morally objectionable.
These have been the famihar stock-in-trade of the
secularist lecturer, who has delivered many a telling
attack on the morahty of Bible heroes or uttered a
scathing condemnation of the wars of extermination
which Israel undertook at the exphcit command of
God. Some of the ethical principles of the Bible
appear to be objectionable in themselves, and in the
Hght of our modem culture and ethical refinement
they seem to belong to a stage which our better civihza-
tion has left behind.
Such, then, I take to be some of the main causes that
have tended to discredit -the Bible in the eyes of many,
and to these we must add the wider objections which
many entertain to the Christian rehgion as a whole,
in which the Bible is naturally included. With the
latter I am not now speciaUy concerned, since I have
dealt with them in my volume Christianity : Its

THE SITUATION ii
Nature and Its Truth. But, if we leave these out
of account, are we able to rehabilitate the Bible and
give a reason for our conviction that it stiU rightly
holds its pre-eminent place in the literature of the world ?
It is my own belief that we can still make this claim for
it. But it is one thing to make a claim and another to
make it good. In what temper and by what methods
are we to defend our position ?

CHAPTER II
THE METHOD AND TEMPER OF THE APOLOGIS:
It is an urgent question how we may most wisely mee
the attack on our rehgion. It is not possible to guar(
people from a knowledge of it, and were it possibl
such protection would be mischievous.
Were we in the Garden of Eden itself the serpen
would not be kept out of it. Are we then to shut ou
eyes and ears to the doubt that surges about us oi
every hand ? It is futile, but it is far worse than futile
/What could make a more fatal impression on the candi(
land open-minded than the conviction that we wen
'dehberately suppressing our knowledge of the actua
conditions ? Are we to send those away who ar^
looking for leadership and guidance, disheartened a
our silence and contemptuous of our cowardice
How can they trust us if we refuse to help them to i
sure foothold ? With the best we can do for then
their case may be difficult. Multitudes, especiall;
of young people, feel that they have no firm foothold
the ground quivers with every step they take. It is n(
easy task to restore confidence, to lead them to soli(
rock. The arguments against Christianity can be pu
in lucid, compact, and telling form ; whereas it is b]
no means so easy to answer them with replies equall;
lucid, compact, and telling. We are all well aware tha
it is quite easy for the sunple to ask questions whicl
the wisest would find it hard to solve. Difficulties ma^
12

METHOD AND TEMPER OF APOLOGIST 13
be stated in a few sentences, which only an elaborate dis
cussion could remove. Those who have been trained
in physical science, with its rigorous demonstrations,
often fail to appreciate the validity of the methods,
which alone are open to the historian or the philosopher.
The narrowness of outlook, which constant preoccupa
tion with material things brings with it, tends to make
them impatient of what cannot be measured or weighed,
or made the subject of some experiment. It is aU the
more necessary to arm our young people beforehand
with that which wfll keep them steady before the attack.
The task of investigating the grounds on which
Christianity rests is one from which the great multitude
of behevers is exempt. They may make an effective but
hardly a fundamental defence of their faith. If a Pro
testant Christian who was no expert in Apologetics
were approached by one in quest of the true rehgion, how
would he deal with him ?
He might begin by teUing him that the true religion
was imdoubtedly some form of Protestant Christianity.
But our inquirer is not in the least moved by assertions.
He knows quite well that other tj^pes of Christianity
and other rehgions than the Christian are just as fer
vently believed by their devotees to be the only true
rehgion. He will say, ' How am I to choose where
the competing voices are so many ? If I ask for the
genuine Christianity am I to find it in Rome or Canter
bury, in Greneva or Epworth ? Why should I accept
your statement that Christianity is to be preferred to
other religions ? Buddhist and Brahmin, Jew and
Mohammedan, all as firmly beheve that theirs is the
only right Way. You are a Christian simply because
you were brought up in that form of rehgion. Had
you been bom in a Buddhist or Mohammedan family,
y9u would have taken your rehgion from your parents

14 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
with just the same dociUty, and been as sure as you
are now that your rehgion was the only tme one.' Here,
however, the Christian might interrupt him. He
would very likely say, ' I was bom in a Christian country
and thus received a natural bias towards Christianity ;
but my faith in the peerless excellence of my religion is
not simply faith at second hand, it is something I have
tested in my own experience, and experience has proved
it to me to|^be tme.' Now I think that here the Christian
has really strong ground under his feet. What he at
first accepted on the authority of others, has been
guaranteed to him by his own experience. His experi-
^ ence of Christianity is something out of which he will
not be easily argued. Nevertheless, I do not see how
this can in the nature of the case have the same value
for another as it has for himself. It is inconununicable
in its very nature. It can be described to a certain
extent, but it cannot carry with it to the mind of an
other the same consciousness of certainty.
Besides, whUe first-hand experience must receive
its fuU weight in our ultimate verdict, we must
remember that it is not the only factor to be taken
into account. And in addition to this we need to
determine carefully just how much it proves when
the fullest weight is attached to it. In other words,
we have to discriminate, when we are arguing back
from the proved worth of the Gospel or of Scripture
to the qualities in which this worth resides. It by no
means follows, if experience attests their unique value,
that we must without more ado accept the old-fashioned
way of accounting for it. Rather we should put to
ourselves the question, ' What precisely does the kind
of experience they give me, warrant me in beheving as
to the characteristics they possess ? ' Moreover, there
is another difficulty which I have always felt strongly

OF THE APOLOGIST 15
about the argument from Christian experience. That
experience is a very composite product. What seems
to the subject of it a single white ray of conviction,
splendid and indivisible, breaks up under analysis into
its coinponent colours. Into it there have entered
elements derived from earher training, from the home
and the school, or intimacy with friends, from Scrip
ture, from sermons, from books, from conversations
on rehgion, from the soul's own brooding, and from all
that atmosphere of religious thought and emotion,
which is none the less potent in shaping our character
and convictions, that for the most part we are uncon
scious of its influence upon us. I neither say nor
think that these are aU the elements which enter into
the Christian consciousness. Nor yet do I beheve
that adding all of them together would produce an
equivalent to the experience itself. In the creation
of the Christian consciousness there has been the direct
action of the living God. But He has not created it out
of nothing, He has rather filled elements already ex
isting with His transforming energy, or to use my
earlier metaphor, He has blended the separate colours
into one white shaft of radiant certainty. So much I
believe as a Christian ; but the very fact that we can
trace back the elements of experience into their separ
ate existence makes it difficult to rely on such an
argument as this in discussion with one who is hot
himself a Christian. He may be deeply impressed
by the confident witness-bearing of the Christian,
in some cases he may even be won by it ; but the
fact that the experience to which appeal is made is
composite in character wiU quite probably lead him
to the conclusion that it may be fully accounted for
by the simple addition of its parts. ' You,' he might
say, ' claim to be certain that your religion is true, but

1 6 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
the adherents of other religions are also quite certain.
Your argument is good for yourself, but obviously
I want something stronger to convince me.' (See
Chap. XXIII.)
Possibly the Christian might then urge the actual
results achieved. He would point to lives that have
been transformed by the power of the Gospel, to the
triumphs of missionary or evangelistic enterprise.
And here agam I think that he would be on strong
ground. He could say, ' See how these people, who
were the despair of the society in which they lived,
whom nothing could reform or restrain, have been won
by the power of the Gospel and are sitting at the feet
of Jesus, clothed and in their right mind.' This is
certainly one of the most impressive arguments for
Christianity. A great revival is in itself a tremendous
piece of apologetic. If such preaching rests on a
fiction, how do you account for its real results ? Yet,
while this argument must always appeal strongly
to 'a large class of minds, there are many whom it
would be far from satisfying. They might urge that
what we see is to be accounted for simply as the result
of a great upheaval of rehgious emotion. It is well
known that one of the strongest passions in human
nature is the religious. They will argue that similar
transformations have been produced in other cases
under the stress of emotion, sometimes not of a religious
character at all, and when rehgious, not necessarily
Christian. AU that is strictly proved by such inci
dents, they wUl say, is that where rehgious emotion is
powerfuUy excited certain permanent changes in
disposition do seem often to take place, but similar
changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the
worse, take place when other passions are powerfuUy
stimulated, for example, love or patriotism, vindictive-

OF THE APOLOGIST 17
ness or hate. A man may be redeemed by his love"
for a woman from a career of vice, or from selfish
pleasure by enthusiasm for his country. Can we
legitimately argue back, they ask, to a supernatural
cause at work, or infer the tmth of a religion which so
powerfuUy stimulates the corresponding emotion ?
Moreover, they may argue that if we are to judge
the tmth oi rehgion by its fmits, we ought not to
overlook the evil as weU as the good. NaturaUy we
regard these evil results as due to perversions of
Christianity, not to Christianity itself, though I fear we
are not always so careful in our judgment of rehgions
other than our own. Nevertheless the anxious
inquirer cannot be expected to discriminate in this
way. He wiU say, ' You have tried Christianity for
more than eighteen centuries, but look at your Chris
tian civilization.'
Perhaps the Christian wiU now faU back on the
argument that he believes Christianity to be true,
because he finds it in the Bible. The difficulty which
our inquirer might feel in admitting the' cogency of
this argument is that he needs first of all that the
authority of the Bible should be proved to him. He
wUl urge that the claim which even the most ardent
behever in verbal inspiration makes for the Christian
Scriptures is far short of the claim made by the Brah
min for the Vedas, or by the Mohammedan for the
Koran. How, once more, are we to discriminate ?
And he will say further, ' Even if I grant all you affirm
about the Bible, yet among the many competing sects
that appeal to it, how am I to decide which interprets
it most truly ? Each finds its own doctrine in the
Bible. Rome says that the Bible is her
she alone possesses the right to interpret^ Tile Pko-,
testant finds his creed in the Bible, ai^y^a^nts^fena^

i8 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
Romanism because that system seems in conflict with
it.' Besides, wiU he not urge with some force, ' You
ask me to accept Christianity, but when I say. Why
should I accept it ? you say, Because it is m the
Bible. In other words, I find it hard to accept one
thing, and you try to make it easier for me by teUing me
that I must accept two.'
Does it not become clear to us, as we ponder these
various fines of argument, that something more is
needed, that when once the question of the trath of
Christianity is seriously raised, it demands a serious
and not a superficial answer ? By aU means let
those, who have neither time nor abUity to make them
selves famihar with apologetics, give such answers
as they can to the difficulties they may have to meet.
Let them press with aU their force the argument from
experience, ' Whereas I was bhnd, now I see.' Let
them point to the beneficent influence which the
Gospel has had in their own hves and in the lives of
others. Let them urge the fact that their rehgion
finds its sanction in so great a religious literatmre as the
Bible. They wUl meet with many minds constituted
hke their own, for whom these arguments wUl pos
sess much cogency. But they must not be puzzled
and distressed if there are others who probe'
more deeply and discover that these answers will not
still their obstinate questionings. It is just those
who feel the difficulties so acutely whom it is often best
worth our while to win for the Gospel. They wiU
bring a much needed element of inteUectual strength
to reinforce the other tj^es of Christian character.
But Hort's complaint in his Hulsean Lectures of
the creduhty of Christians and the mischief which it is
working seems to me only too abundantly justified
by the kind of flimsy argument that with so many does
duty for apologetics.

OF THE APOLOGIST 19
It is a significant fact, and as sad as it is significant,
that the apologist has for many come to mean a man
who is bent on winning his case, and is not too scrupu
lous in his way of doing it. In few instances is the
maxim that the end justifies the means more dangerous.
The reading of some apologetic books has left on me
the feehng that any kind of plausible sophistry was
thought by the writers good enough for their readers so
long as it threw ridicule on the antagonist and lent a
specious appearance to the writer's case. Arguments
which no one would adduce in any other kind of dis
cussion were cheerfully paraded as apologetic dia
monds of the first water. The line often foUowed con
sisted in reaffirming positions with emphasis, in closing
the eyes to the cogency of hostile arguments, and
meeting them, if not with bare assertions or denuncia
tions, yet with reasoning which in any other depart
ment of knowledge or opinion would impose on no one.
It is with this indiscriminate defence that we must
break decisively. We must be ready to listen to our
opponents, frankly to consider what they have estab
lished. We must not defend positions irretrievably
lost. We must desire the truth with sincerity and
purchase it at whatever cost. We must distinguish
between essentials and accidentals, and toncentrate on
what is vital. Om- furst duty is to find the truth, our
second is to commend it to others by such arguments
as are really solid and weighty. We should never
descend to the arts of the demagogue, appeal to men's
passions or prejudices, throw dust in their eyes or
deceive them, as we may say, for their own good.
We must cherish the most scmpulous sense of honour.
Moreover we must be sympathetic. Too often the
apologist has been a mere bruiser ; to hit and to hit
hard has been his motto. That, however, is not the

20 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
true way to victory. The man who really helps the
doubter is the man who has felt the pressure of the
problems, who knows from his own experience what it
is to fight for his ground. His method is not to put
the pistol at the heads of those whom he would per
suade, but first to understand thek position, to show
them that he knows the burden of their difficulties,
and then step by step, persuasively and with sweet
reasonableness to win them to faith. And we must be
concUiatory. Formerly the task of the apologist was
thought to be to resist to the uttermost every con
cession tothe views of his opponents, f The tme apolo
gist instead of fighting them all along the hne seeks
rather to come to an understanding with them, to ask —
How far can I go in meeting .^them without com-
projnising.essentiaLtruth ? And he has his reward, not
only in the increased power he thus gains with those
whom he wishes to convince, but in the added strength
that his arguments thus acquire.
Moreover the apologist must not be lacking in
courage. To this danger some teachers, just because
of their reverence, are too often exposed. We catch
in their utterance that note of timidity which unfits
them for leadership in the present crisis. This type
of piety is beautiful and all too rare, and my only wish .
is that it were not too dehcate to stand a more bracing
air. One of the few things to be regretted in their work
is the cramped movement which may be discerned in
it ; to be regretted aU the more, because of the frequent
insinuations that those are disloyal to their Master who
strike for a more open sea.
He who would help his fellows in this domain must
gird himself to the enterprise with aU the difficulties
and even with the dangers that the task involves.
For we must not suppose that the work is easy or

OF THE APOLOGIST 21
lightly to be undertaken. Matthew Arnold's criticism
of popular religion was often unjust. But I think he
detected a real weakness when he spoke of our lack
of inteUectual seriousness. There ought to be no
excuse for this. Just because the questions involved
are so vital we ought not to flinch from the most
searcliing investigation. We must be sure of our
foundation, and never cease excavating tiU we strike
the solid rock. But in this there is involved the neces
sity that inquiry should be free. We are to enter upon
it with an open mind. Our motto must be, ' The truth
at aU costs.' We may leave no room for the common
charge, that whUe we are professing to conduct an im
partial investigation, we have aU the whUe made up our
minds as to the conclusions that we shaU reach.
But it foUows from this also, that the enterprise
has its dangers. Dr. Hort reminds us that there can
be no certainty that those who plunge into the stream
wUl emerge on the Christian side. And it is 'a very
common experience for those who undertake this
quest to find their own position more or less modified
by it. For the worse perhaps in some cases, but in
other cases for the better. Out of such an experience
there may grow a truer sense of the right proportions
in which the faith is to be held. Accidents wiU be
clearly distinguished from essentials, foreign excres
cences wiU be cut away. And so there slowly takes
shape before the mind, in aU its beauty of outline
and harmony of parts, the majestic structure of Chris
tian truth. And thus he who started on this fearless
investigation, renouncing aU prejudices and foregone
conclusions, and seeking only to find the truth, wms
for himself a rich reward and is enabled to render
precious service to his feUows. But the very condi
tion of rendering this service is that he undertakes his

22 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
task sincerely unpledged to a particular result. Free
dom is the very nerve of his investigation ; seek to
restrain it and its effectiveness is at once paralysed.
Much of the mischief which afflicts us to-day arises out
of the distrust that Christians have themselves created
in the past by then: attitude towards free inquiry.
The position of one whose profession is bound up
with a particular belief has difficulties of its own which
lie in the very nature of the case. The coarse type of
controversialist is always ready to say that his liveli
hood or his position in society forbids him to embark on
an inquiry which might imperU these, and enlists him
as a defender of the present conditions. The more
refined and generous controversialist wiU not put it
so bluntly, but he wUl probably say that his position
unconsciously warps his judgment. When the in
trinsic difficulties are so considerable, surely we ought
to avoid making the impression as to our inteUectual
courage and honesty stUl more unfavourable than it
is at present. If the churches have deservedly lost
much of men's confidence in the past by this short
sighted pohcy, let us strive to win that confidence
back by fairness in discussion, by readiness to hear
what our opponents have to say, by careful weighing
of their arguments and patient restatement of our
own position. For these high debates we can be pre
pared only if we are serene in spirit, unruffled in temper,
sympathetic in understanding, and prepared, at what
ever sacrifice, for the mifaltering pursuit of tmth.
In the present difficulties with which faith has to
contend it is desirable that those who speak for the
Christian side in the debate should be men of large
outlook, flexible inteUect, sympathetic temper, and
open mind. They must especiaUy have the faculty
of discrimination, so that they may be able to dis-

OF THE APOLOGIST 23
tinguish between what is an essential and what is an
accident of belief. They must get beneath the cmst
of accretion that has gathered over the original message
and beware of staking the tmth of the Gospel upon the
tmth of the precise form in which they themselves
hold it.
We must not forget'^that the' presentation of the
tmth is often its most effective defence. We ought
to throw much stress upon teaching, and we should
give the teaching in such a way as to secure for
our people a genuine understanding of Christianity,
and the grounds on which it rests. Some sceptical
criticism, at least, hits really weak points in the popular
presentation of Christianity. Our duty is not to be
angry with our critics for showing us our faults, but
to be grateful for the stimulus they give us to mend
our defective statements. Very many who have been
trained in a type of theology, which is becoming
more and more impossible to thoughtful people,
have broken not only with it but with Christianity
altogether, because for them the two were identical.
It may have been just one part of the system which had
become incredible, but they had never been so trained
as to put even this most obvious question. Is it an
integral part of the system or an accidental accretion,
or at least something which might be sacrificed without
endangering the whole ? Our young people are not
to be blamed if they have been so badly brought up
that they cannot distinguish an attack on views which
they erroneously imagine to be part of Christianity
from an attack on the Gospel itself. They ought never
to have been allowed to make the initial mistake.
What is presented for their acceptance should be the
Gospel rather than some popular caricature of it. The
better they understand the Bible the easier it wUl be

24 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
to save them from the tragic blunder so many have
made, who have thought that the abandonment of
a false but famihar type of Christian doctrine was
equivalent to the surrender of Christianity itself.
Accordingly, attacks from the outside are a chaUenge
to ourselves to see that our views reaUy are
Christian, in harmony with the classical documents
of our faith as they are incorporated in the New
Testament, and if they are not in harmony with them,
then to readjust them to those standards. Much of
the rationalistic attack then falls to the ground ; the
weU-instmcted Christian feels on reading it, ' This does
not touch me at aU, for my position is altogether different
from that on which the assault is made.' Prevention
is better than cure, and one of the best preservatives
against unbelief is an adequate statement of the tmth. >
But this does not reaUy cover the whole ground, for
one ought not to disguise the fact that grave difficulties
are urged against Christianity even when it is correctly
understood. There are many Christians who have
never been troubled from first to last by a single in
tellectual doubt. Their temptation is to plume them
selves upon this, and to be censorious of those who
have passed through periods of inteUectual struggle.
Frequently, of course, their freedom from doubt is
simply due to mental shallowness and laziness, though
in other cases it has a worthier origin. But whatever
its origin, they are whoUy unjustified in their censor-
iousness, and no attempt on their part to interdict
free discussion with a view to helping the perplexed
ought to be tolerated for a moment.
There is a famous line of VergU's which often
returns to me as I think of the duty that hes upon the
Church to protect its people from scepticism. When
^neas is wrecked on the Carthaginian shore, Dido takes

OF THE APOLOGIST 25
compassion on him, her own troubles having taught
her to be sympathetic with the unfortunate. It is in
her address to ^Eneas that the Ime occurs whose
exquisite beauty in the original is sadly spoiled by an
English rendering : —
'Myself not unversed in misfortune, I am learning to
succour the wretched.'
We can expect little sympathy, perhaps, in our work
of helping the doubting from those who impatiently
wonder why people should be troubled with doubts at
all. But those of us whose faith is aU the more precious
that we have had to fight for our ground wiU certainly
not be hindered in our task by the failure of sympathy
and comprehension on the part of the self-complacent
and censorious.
Again we must avoid the uncharitableness which
often mars the Christian's attitude to unbelief. It is
perhaps true that a man is sometimes to blame for
his loss of faith, and that a moral defect lies at the
root of the change. But in the main nothing is more
inadequate as an explanation than the easy ascription
of such results to inteUectual conceit or restiveness
beneath the curb of the moral law. To many hearts
the loss of faith is a tragedy of desolation, in which
the soul is neither numb nor dead, but quick with
the acutest pain.
StUl more must we avoid the too common assumption
as to the destiny of those who have rejected the Gospel.
We may lament the conclusions reached, but for
our judgment on the inquirer it is not the conclusions
reached which are aU important, but rather the love
of tmth that prompts the search and the spurit in
which the quest is conducted. The disinterested
seeking after truth is one form of the search for God,

26 THE METHOD AND TEMPER
who is the Eternal Trath itself, and cannot be other
than praiseworthy in His sight so long as the temper
and spirit of it remain such as He can approve. It is
very unbecoming for a fraU mortal to usurp the func
tion of Omniscience, and say with reference to any
particular mdividual that he is destined to perish.
I am much shocked by the irrehgious temper Christians
have often displayed in this respect. It is one thing
for us to lay down general principles as to future
retribution, it is quite another thing to arrogate to
ourselves the function of deciding individual cases
which belongs to Him alone who is the searcher of
hearts. Language that was fitting on the hps of
Jesus, or those who were commissioned by Him to
utter it, is language which we may have no warrant to
use. But in the next place, it is to me quite incredible
that God could send any man to heU for an inteUectual
mistake, sincerely held after the attempt had been made
to reach the truth. If Christianity involved the
conclusions sometimes deduced from it, it would not
deserve to be true. For an increasing number the pre
servation of behef grows harder and harder, and it is only
with difficulty that they cling to the life-boat whUe
the biUows of unbehef seek to snatch them from it.
Is this a time for defenders of Christianity to beat oft
those numb, relaxing fingers by definitions of the
Gospel that make it so incredible ?
And now to draw this discussion to a close. I
beheve that the policy of silence is impracticable,
and even if it were not so, it is neither safe nor wise. I
regard it as one of our most mrgent tasks to arm our
yoimg people against unbelief. I further believe
that no surer means can be foimd to win their con
fidence in us than to give them practical assurances
that we reaUy know the difficulties ourselves, and

OF THE APOLOGIST 27
have felt them as such, but stiU in spite of them
retain our faith. I thmk, too, that they wiU be
favourably impressed if we cultivate faimess of tone,
avoiding aU denunciation and anathema of those who
do not agree ,with us. They wiU also be helped if
we show a readiness to learn and to restate our posi
tions, removing such weaknesses as criticism has
detected and patiently conforming our conceptions
to such higher visions of truth as it may please God
to grant us. We shaU never make any headway
in meeting the present attack on our faith unless cer
tain conditions are observed. First, we must take
pains to understand it. Secondly, we must recognize
that objections in many cases do not arise out of either
inteUectual or moral perversity, and are not to be
treated as mere cavils. They really rest on difficulties
which are inherent in the Christian position itself.
Thirdly, unless we show that we have mastered them,
and have tried in a dispassionate spirit to do them
justice, we cannot expect our protestations of belief to
have weight with those who look to us for leadership.
We must know the worst, we must show that we know
the worst, we must be prepared ourselves fairly to
state the worst that can be aUeged against us. The
time has gone by for keeping faith in a sickly hot
house, the glass is crashing aU about us, and God
has let loose upon us the keen and searching winds of
hostile criticism. It is to the end that faith may be
no longer merely a delicate and beautiful flower,
but tough and sinewy, deep-rooted and unbending to
the fiercest winds that blow.

CHAPTER III
NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
Such then must be the temper in which we approach
our task. And our method must correspond with
it. We can rightly appraise the value of the Bible
only when we have apprehended its true nature.
And this cannot be settled by mere assertion.
We must set aside the dogmatic and adopt the
scientific method. In other words, we shall not put the
question. What must the facts have been ? We shall
seek to discover by patient inquiry what they were.
We shall not set out with preconceived theories but
start with an open mind, ready to accept whatever
truth our researches may bring to hght. It is neither
reverence nor humUity to force a theory of the Bible
upon it instead of ehciting one from it. We must be
content to take up the Bible just as we should take up
any other piece of literature. It may be said, of
course, that the Bible is unlike other books, and must
be placed in a class by itself. But in the first place, it is
useless to make assertions of this kind to' those whom
we are anxious to help, when they have been already
disturbed by the confident assertions that the Bible
holds no longer the position which an earlier age as
signed to it. Moreover, if the Bible possesses the excep
tional qualities which are claimed for it, we may natur
aUy expect them to be established without difficulty.
Qualities so conspicuous ought easily to be made plain.
28

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 29
When once the question has been started it must be set
at rest.
If, for example, we sum up our impression of the
Bible in the old-fashioned way of asserting its inspira
tion, we must be on our guard lest we fiU the term with a
content and a significance which our experience does
not warrant. The danger of these large and vague
terms is that people use them without submitting them
to analysis, and draw from them conclusions for which
the facts give little or no reason. What the inspiration
of the Bible is we can ascertain only from an investiga
tion of the Bible itself, and an observation of the effects
it produces. The study of the facts must precede the
elaboration of theories. If we bring a ready-made
theory of inspiration to the study of the Bible, we shaU
be in perU of suppressing or manipulating phenomena
inconsistent with it. It is further clear that this course
is fundamentaUy inconsistent with the reverence for
the Bible which the theory presupposes. The truly
reverent method is to investigate the Bible and let the
facts speak for themselves ; the method of making the
Bible say what we think it ought to say is one of which
it would be hard to decide whether it was distinguished
chiefly by its irreverence or its conceit.
It wiU be a convenient starting point to inquire into
the conditions which make it so much easier for us to
understand it than for the men of earlier generations.
I place first the gains that have come to us through
exploration. We are aU famUiar with the way in which
the spade has brought to light long-buried civUizations
in Assyria, in Babylonia, in Arabia, in Egypt, in Crete,
and in Palestine. These explorations have taught us
much concerning the pohtical history and social condi
tions of the peoples with which Israel was in contact,
and which vitaUy influenced their pohtical and religious

30 NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
development. Personalities that were Uttle more than
names to the Old Testament reader have now become
famUiar characters, their career known m detaU, and
their significance for Israel's history Uluminated with a
flood of light. We see, for example, how vitaUy the
religion of Israel was affected by the relations of the
northern and southern kingdoms to the great empires of
Assyria and Babylonia from the eighth to the sixth
centuries before Christ, how much that was greatest in
Hebrew prophecy was to some extent elicited and to a
large extent conditioned by these relations. It is stiU a
subject of keen dispute how far the Babylonian culture
affected the civiUzation and religion of Israel, and some
of the extremer theories probably need very consider
able modification. But the sum total of influence,
direct and indirect, must have been very great, and it is
only in comparatively recent times that the student of
the Bible has had the material in his hands for judging
how great it was.
Intimately connected with the light that has come
from the recovery of older civiUzations is that which we
have received through the discovery of documents.
Of these I wUl mention only a few. The Moabite Stone
and the SUoam inscription have been valuable not oiUy
for the light they have thrown on history but for
pateography. They enable us to see how Hebrew was
written many centuries before Christ, and have thus
given assistance in the textual criticism of the Old
Testament. Moreover, the Moabite Stone has revealed
a remarkable affinity in certain respects between the
religions of Moab and Israel. Sennacherib's inscription
has supplemented the Biblical narrative of his invasion,
and raised a series of interesting new problems. Far
more important than these, however, was the dis
covery, first of the Tel el-Amama tablets, and secondly

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 31
of the Code of Hammurabi. The significance of the
former discovery consisted in this, that it revealed the
extent to which Palestine was saturated with Babylon
ian civiUzation some centuries before the time when
Israel settled in Palestine. The addition the tablets
have made to our knowledge of history is by no means
insignificant, but their main significance lies in their
disclosure of the startUng fact that the very difficult
cimeiform language and script were used for diplo
matic intercourse between the Canaanite mlers and
their Egyptian suzerain. Even more important is the
discovery of the Code of Hammurabi, which is prob
ably at least half a miUennium older than the Tel el-
Amarna correspondence, and older stiU than the
time of Moses. It exhibits very striking affinities
with the earhest stratum of Hebrew legislation, but
how that relationship is to be accounted for stiU
remains a problem. In any case it shows what on
other grounds had previously been probable, that
the Hebrew legislation was not original, but drew upon
earlier sources, and had, in fact, a long history behind
it. Possibly the most sensational of aU the discoveries
is that of the Aramaic papyri which have been found in
Egypt, written by Israelites in the fifth century before
Christ. It is true that iUegitimate inferences have been
drawn from them by zealous opponents of Biblical
criticism, and that they are less momentous as a contri
bution to our knowledge of the period or for the light
they throw on the Old Testament than had been hoped.
Yet they are of great interest and of considerable value,
Unguistic, hterary, and historical.
SimUarly, if we turn to the New Testament there is
much to encourage us. First of aU we have fresh manu
scripts of the highest importance, such as the Greek Codex
found at Sinai by Tischendorf and the Syriac Codex of

32 NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
the Gospels more recently discovered by Mrs. Lewis and
Mrs. Gibson. I have just spoken of the Aramaic
papyri, but the Greek papyri, which have been found
in vastly greater numbers have proved to be of excep
tional importance. I touch m another chapter on their
bearing on the language of the New Testament, and
restrict myself here to the light they throw on the
contemporary civUization, and the fuUer understanding
we have thus gained of the world into which Christianity
came. From the dry sands of Egypt vast multitudes of docu
ments have come to Ught. It is tragic to think that
even vaster quantities had been destroyed, often in sheer
wantonness. NaturaUy for the feUaheen of Eg3rpt or for
illiterate European soldiers there was a good deal of
excuse, since they coiUd not guess the loss that they
might be inflicting on scholarship and research. In
deed, one might go further and say that even Greek
scholars might with some excuse have surrendered after
examination many of these documents to the flames.
The natural instinct of the scholar in coming across a
quantity of Greek documents would be to search for
literary remains. He would wish above all things to
recover some of those precious treasures of classical
Uterature which we seemed to have lost irretrievably, or
to find the works of historians which would enable him
to correct and complete his knowledge of many an
obscure episode in ancient history. Or, if his interests
were specificaUy Christian, he woiUd desire to find an
early Gospel or the lost work of Papias, or some other
priceless rehc, such as genuine Gnostic treatises or the
non-apologetic works of Justin Martyr. And such
treasures of Egypt have come to us, though aU too spar
ingly. And when these had been sifted out of the pUe
there are probably many scholars who would hava

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 33
thought what remained to be of little value. For of
what use, it might be asked, are old leases, wUls, con
tracts, petitions and invitations, Ul-spelt and ungram-
matical letters scrawled by uncultured and common
place people, or their account-books and memoranda ?
So it might plausibly have been argued. And yet some
of the most eminent students would affirm that the non-
hterary papyri are of the greater value. Such a judg
ment might indeed be reversed if by a series of sensa
tional finds we recovered much of the most important
lost Uterature. But it is at present arguable that the
non-Uterary papyri are the more valuable. They enable
us in the first place to reconstruct the life of the ordin
ary individual and of the community. A civihzation is
raised from the dead for us. It stands revealed in its
actual colour and clothing, characteristic attitudes are
caught for us with the fidelity of an instantaneous
photograph. Hitherto we have known the Ufe of
antiquity in the main from the hterary sources, and
there is in such descriptions an inevitable touch of
artificiality. This is most felt when a man is describ
ing his own experiences, for self-consciousness is fatal to
naturalness and simplicity. But even when he is
describing the life about him the desire for hterary effect
spoUs the truth of the portrait. We have exaggeration
here and understatement there, since the artist selects
his material in order that he may produce an artistic
impression. Moreover, literary people are too apt to
write with their own prepossessions and from a some
what narrow and prejudiced outlook. They stand out
side the Ufe of the uneducated masses, and do not enter
into their experiences with the intimate sympathy
which is essential for a completely adequate representa
tion. It is their tendency to neglect the poorerstrataof
society and depict by preference the^^^iscm ofe^|^

34 NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
to which they feel themselves to be most akin. Thus
the multitudes are dumb to posterity, and their hfe,
with its hopes and fears, its struggles and its triumphs, "
its pleasures simple or debased, its hunger, its weari
ness, and its pain, is known to us by partial and one
sided description, or dimly guessed by the sympathetic
imagination. But the voiceless masses have become
articulate for us in these latter days, and a society which
ages ago sank into obhvion is brought back on the stage
of history. Across the intervening centuries, from a
civihzation so ahen to our own, we hear that universal
human language which strikes its immediate echo in our
heart. Especially the famUiar imstudied letters, written
with no thought that any eye but that of the recipient
woiUd ever rest upon them, but now scrutinized by
scholars with the keenest interest, touch us in their frank
and artless revelation of feehng, with that touch of
nature which makes the whole world kin. The pessimis
tic impressions derived from satirists and historians are
corrected by the pap3^i, which have shown us that the
picture was painted in colours altogether too dark, and
that the life of the masses was much sounder than we
had imagined. And even those things which have
been long famihar come to us with a strangely vivid
freshness when we read them in these letters. Female
infanticide, for example, or exposure of new-bom chU
dren, is a quite familiar custom of antiquity. But this
brutal and unnatural custom stands out with a new dis
tinctness when we read a letter sent by HUarion to his
wife Alls bidding her save her chUd if it was a boy, but if
a girl to " cast it out." It is an interesting and sugges
tive coincidence that this letter was written in the year
I B.C. Deissmann devotes not a little of his Light
from the Ancient East, to the task of reconstmcting
much of the social life of the period from the new evi-

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 35
dence which has come to hand. And the importance of
this does not lie simply in the new material it offers to
historians of antiquity. It has a, special interest for
those who are engaged in the investigation of primitive
Christianity. It is not possible for us to understand
any movement in history apart from its environment,
and whUe Christianity came to us out of the eternal, it
clothed itself in the raiment of time. It stood in inti
mate connexion with the religion and culture of its age,
it sought for points of contact with earlier ideas and
institutions that it might fUl them with a new spirit and
power. Its wisest thinkers claimed for Christ all that
had been tmly and nobly said by men who had never
heard His name. And thus Christianity was not
isolated from the world in which it was lived ; it was
placed in that world as the leaven in the three measures
of meal.
It is now generaUy agreed that the study of New
Testament theology has gained much and is likely to
gain more from famUiarity with the contemporary
Judaism. This line of research has in recent times
been worked with great enthusiasm. New documents,
such as the Book of Enoch or the Book of the Secrets of
Enoch, have come to light and received minute and
prolonged investigation. Documents which were pre
viously known have been studied afresh to great pur
pose. It is quite true that much stUl remains to be
done, and the enthusiasm of discoverers has probably
carried them too far. It is nevertheless undeniable
that many obscurities in the New Testament have been
mitigated and many passages have gained a new fulness
of meaning through the study of the contemporary
Jewish hterature.
A great debt is due also t® geography and history, and
that both in the Old Testament and in the New. The

36 NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
work which has been done in the survey of Palestine, in
the tracing of routes, the identification of sites, the in
vestigation of geological questions, has been of very
great value ; and simUarly the explorations which have
taken place in Asia Minor have done much to iUuminate
for us the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. Of
historical research as it affects the Old Testament I have
already spoken, but it has also been fruitful for the
New Testament. The Gospel was not a revelation in a
vacuum. It was no isolated phenomenon, but one that
touched hfe intimately at many points. It was con
nected by very close ties with the contemporary civi
lization, culture, and thought ; therefore what helps us
to understand the latter contributes also to our know
ledge of the former. To take one instance — In what
relation did the Roman government stand to the new
rehgion ? When did it recogn.ize it as a religion distinct
from Judaism ? Through what phases did the^ imperial
policy respecting it pass ? The answer is of moment
when we come to date our New Testament books. We
are driven to ask what attitude towards the Roman
government did the writers adopt, and what attitude of
the Roman government to the Gospel do they reflect ?
These questions have an important bearing on the date
of such books as the First Epistle of Peter or the Acts
of the Apostles. It must be confessed that in their
application of this criterion scholars widely differ.
Nevertheless they are largely indebted to historical
students that they have the criterion to apply.
Another science which has contributed much to the
interpretation of the Bible is anthropology. This has
been especiaUy iUuminating for the religious institu
tions of Israel. The Hebrews were a Semitic people,
and they brought with them into their independent
existence a very rich inheritance of Semitic customs,

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 37
rites, and beliefs. A study of Semitic heathendom re
veals a large number of paraUels with customs famihar
to us from the Old Testament. This is especiaUy trae
of Arabian heathenism. But the student of anthro
pology is struck by the constant emergence in the Old
Testament of religious ideas and practices which closely
resemble those to be met with among savage peoples.
What importance in our general estimate of Scripture
we should attach to this fact wUl, I hope, become clear
at a later point. MeanwhUe, I simply wish to point out
how much our understanding of the Old Testament has
been enriched by this science. Rehgious practices, for
which even enlightened scholars tUl recently assigned
some far-fetched sentimental reason, or in which they
saw concealed some deep religious mystery, have re
ceived their true explanation from the researches of the
anthropologist . The student of ritual is often confronted
with a custom which seems to stand quite isolated in the
religion he is investigating. It belongs to a lower stra
tum of thought and practice than that which the religion
as a whole has reached. Accordingly he regards it as
probably a survival from an earlier stage with which it
woiUd be more in harmony. But how is he to know its
meaning ? Here the comparative method comes to his
help. He inquires whether a simUar rite is practised
among other peoples, first of aU looking for it among
neighbouring peoples and then among peoples more re
mote. He may find it, or something very much like it,
perhaps widely diffused, perhaps only here and there.
But he studies each individual instance in its context.
He wUl find that in several cases the rite is not isolated
as in the instance from which he starts. Other rites
are connected with it, this rite perhaps in one case, that
in another. He has then carefuUy to compare his re
sults and decide what is essential and what is irrelevant.

38 NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
and by this delicate process of combination and elimina
tion try to reconstruct the rite in its original form and
interpret its significance. Then he can return to the
point from which he started, and in the light of his re
searches not simply interpret the practice which' he set
out to explain, but gain some information as to van
ished stages in the religion itself. By the pursuit of this
method much has been learnt as to the original meaning
of such practices as those of sacrifice or circumcision,
and such ideas and usages as we associate with the term
uncleanness. In the next place we are in possession of a far purer
text of the New Testament. This has not been wholly
due to the discovery of new manuscripts but very
largely to the employment of more scientific methods.
The old material has been investigated with unprece
dented thoroughness, and the new material has proved
most valuable in determining the famUies and genea
logical relations of the manuscripts. It is tme that
much stiU remains to be done. Some of the old pro
blems are stUl debated with great keenness and new
problems have come to the front. Nevertheless, in two
respects the student of the New Testament is now in a
better position than in earher times. He heis by
common consent a much purer text than the Received
Text ; he has also a much larger mass of material on
which to base his judgment and much sounder methods
to bring to bear on it. In the Old Testament, it is true,
we are stiU a long way from having reached the position
we have attained in the New. Nevertheless, even here
much has been done to restore the original text, and in
some instances, where that has not been possible, to
show us how much it stands in need of restoration. Un
fortunately, as I have said before, we have only one type
of Hebrew text preserved to us, and therefore cannot

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 39
work back by the comparative method to an earher text ;
but the translations give us much help, especially
the Septuagint, though the original text of this version
is itself far from determined.
The next advantage I woiUd mention is that, by their
thorough and minute study of the Biblical literatture,
scholars have in many instances succeeded in discover
ing the structure of the documents and placing them in
their approximate chronological order. We under
stand the construction of the Bible in a way which was
impossible to our predecessors, and this has lent a
whoUy new interest to it. I have no wish to exaggerate
the importance of criticism or the finality of its results.
On both of these points I shaU have something to say
later, but it is no exaggeration to say that there is a very
remarkable consensus of critics in the analysis of the
Old Testament and several important points of agree
ment reached by general consent in the New.
There has also been an equaUy minute investigation
into the meaning of Scripture. I do not desire to dis
parage the older commentators. The best of them are
stUl worth reading, and to them we owe many valuable
elements in our modern commentaries. At the same
time, no one whose business it is to foUow this line of
study would be hkely to deny that a quite unprece
dented advance was made during the nineteenth century
in the interpretation of Scripture. The reason for the
difference is not to be found in the greater penetration
or the finer exegetical genius or the riper scholarship of
our modern commentators, but in the much improved
conditions imder which they do their work and the
more adequate methods by which their research is
guided. The Bibhcal writings are now much better
understood, thanks to the far more thorough knowledge
we possess of Semitic languages and the principles of

40 NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE
•^comparative phUology, thanks also to the new light
which has shone on the Greek of the New Testament,
and aU the other advantages to which I have aUuded,
that have infiuenced the interpretation of Scripture,
and thus made it possible for commentaries to be
written which represent an immense advance on earher
work of the kind.
And as the crown of aU this prolonged and arduous
study we have the science of Biblical Theology. To
this I have previously aUuded, and I must return to
discuss at some length the crucial problems it raises.
But some additional words are necessary at this point.
It was the bane of old-fashioned Biblical study that it
treated the Bible as a homogeneous book, written from
a single point of view and exhibiting a consistent scheme
of theology. Differences could not faU to be recog
nized, but their significance was misunderstood. They
were supposed to consist simply in the greater or less
degree of clearness with which the doctrine was
enunciated. Development was admitted, but it was a
development from obscurity to clearness, the same
thing being meant aU the time. In the New Testament
divergences between the different writers in the presen
tation of Christianity were blurred or whoUy lost sight
of. For example, no difficulty was felt in attributing
the Epistle to the Hebrews to the Apostle Paul,
a feat impossible to anyone who has reaUy under
stood the Pauhne theology and the theology of
that Epistle. Now the rise of Biblical Theology has
impressed upon us the necessity of keeping the various
Bibhcal writers distinct and reconstructing the develop
ment of the religion from its dawn to the point where we
take leave of it at the close of the Canon. And this has
been an enormous gain. Our predecessors were apt to
be colour-blind to the glorious variety of Scripture.

NEW LIGHT ON THE BIBLE 41
We who understand better how rich is the treasure we
possess in it, echo with fuller appreciation the great
words with which the Epistle to the Hebrews opens ;
" God, who in many parts and in many ways spake of
old time to the fathers in the prophets, has at the end
of these days spoken to us in a Son."

CHAPTER IV
THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
AND IN ENGLISH
In my opening chapters I endeavoured to indicate the
causes of the present disquiet with reference to the
Bible, and to plead that they must be met, not,, with
denunciation or panic, but with that calm and resolute
determination to face the real situation which is alone
worthy of a Christian. Accordingly it is our first task
to examine the actual phenomena in order that we may
buUd securely on a basis of observed fact. The bane of
so much discussion in the past has been its a priori
character. In other words, people have talked as
though the main problem could be settled by purely
speculative considerations rather than by patient exam
ination of the facts themselves. The nature of the
Bible and the quahty of its inspiration were theoreti
cally deduced from a sense of the fitness of things, and
God was assumed to have acted on the principles which
would have guided His exponents if they had been in
His place. But the dogmatic method has given place
to the scientific method, and the question we now ask is
not. What must the Bible be ? but, What is the Bible ?
I begin, then, with the languages of the Bible. It
may seem that this is a question rather for students or
scholars than for the general reader. But I deliber-
42

BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES 43
ately begin with the languages, firstly, because we can
not assume that it is a matter of indifference that these
languages were chosen to be the vehicle of revelation,
and secondly, because points wiU emerge in the course
of our exposition which will prove of value to us at later
points in our discussion.
We have three languages in the Bible — Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek. The second of these need not
detain us. Comparatively little of the Old Testament
is written in it ; it is found chiefiy in Ezra and Daniel.
This language used to go by the name of Chaldee, since
it was the common opinion that the Jews had learnt
to speak it in the Babylonian exile and brought it
back with them to Palestine. As a matter of fact, this
was not the case. The language was already on the
ground, and was spoken over a large area. Further,
the Babylonian language was not Aramaic. Lastly,
we know that Hebrew was spoken at Jerusalem in the
time of Nehemiah, nearly a century after the return
under Cyrus. It was slowly strangled by Aramaic,
which was the language of the country in the time of
Christ. Hebrew continued to be written as a hterary
language, so that it is not unnatural that the later
books of the Old Testament exhibit a strong Aramaic
colouring. Aramaic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages.
The group to which they belong embraces, among other
languages, Assyrian, Arabic, Phoenician, and Ethiopic.
With a few exceptions, especiaUy pronouns, Semitic
roots consist of three letters which have been ultimately
derived from roots of two letters. These letters are
consonants, for the vowels simply express the modifica
tions of the idea, while the root meaning is expressed by
the consonants. AU things are looked upon as living,
so that there are only two genders, the neuter being un-

44 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
known. The Semitic languages also differ from those
with which we are famUiar in the absence of compounds.
Some things that I shaU have to say about Hebrew are
true of the Semitic languages generaUy.
Perhaps it may serve as weU as anything else to intro
duce us to the consideration of Hebrew if I begin with
a question which may stir a sympathetic response in
the minds of some of my readers, Why is it that stud
ents find Hebrew so difficult ? In the first place there
is the uncouth character which makes it much less
agreeable and easy to read than many languages. A
Western student has often been reading Hebrew for a
considerable time before he attains any fluency.
Moreover, many of the letters are much alike, so that the
beginner finds it difficult to discriminate between' them.
The character is written from right to left, and thus the
instinct we have formed in this respect has to be
violated. What, however, constitutes a much more
serious difficulty than either of these is the fact that
Hebrew was written without vowels. It was only
several centuries after the time of Christ that a series of
signs was introduced into the text to indicate the vowels
which should be supplied. This fact is of the utmost
importance in other respects, but it is quite easy to see
how difficult it must be for a student, who has always
been accustomed to read consonants and vowels
continuously, to have a system of this kind, in which
vowel sounds are indicated by an elaborate system of
dots and dashes placed above and below the con
sonants. And the difficulty is aU the greater that the
law of the syUable and the constant shifting of the
accent introduce frequent changes in the vocalization.
This difficulty is intensified by the peciUiar laws which
govern the punctuation of the gutturals, whUe a new
series of difficulties emerges with the tendency of the

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 45
weak letters to faU out or to be assimUated to stronger
consonants. As I have already said Hebrew roots con
sist of three consonants, but the student is frequently
baffled by the fact that one or possibly even two of these
consonants have disappeared from the form which
he has before him, and he has to reconstract them.
Lastly, in the question of . syntax considerable diffi
culty is created by the character of the Hebrew tenses.
These do not, as with ourselves, express time relations
so much as the completeness or incompleteness of an
action. Accordingly the student, if he is to gain the fuU
force of the Hebrew, has to think himself into an en
tirely different mental attitude or he misses the vivid
ness of much that would be felt by the original readers.
The enumeration of these difficulties might seem to
suggest that the Hebrew language was badly designed to
be the medium through which God's revelation should
be conveyed. And I have no wish to minimize them.
But there are several considerations which it is weU for
us to bear in mind. The most important fact is that
Hebrew was written in an alphabetic and not in another
type of script. There were more advanced civUizations,
such as the Chinese or Assyrian, which had not invented
an alphabet. In an alphabetic system a letter stands
for an individual sound, so that a syUable often consists
of more signs than one. But in Ass5a'ian the characters
represent not letters but syUables. Moreover, these
characters are also ideograms — ^that is, they frequently
represent ideas rather than sounds. In some cases the
signs are what is known as polyphonic. In other words,
the same sign may be pronounced in two or more ways.
Now it would not have been an unnatural thing for
the Old Testament to have been written in the Assyrian
rather than in the Hebrew script. We know that
Babylonian culture had penetrated into Palestine many

46 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
centuries before the birth of the IsraeUtish people.
It is a fact of immense significance that the diplomatic
correspondence which has been recovered from Tel el-
Amarna presents us with letters written in the fifteenth
century before Christ from Canaan to Egypt in the
Babylonian language and the cuneiform script. It
would not, therefore, have been surprising if the He
brews from the desert, when they learnt the civihzation
of Canaan, had adopted the cuneiform writing. It is a
matter for devout thankfulness that they did not do so,
for the obstacles which the student of Hebrew has to
confront would have been multiplied tenfold if he had
had to learn cuneiform in order to read his Old Testa
ment in the original. By the side of this the difficulties I
have mentioned shrink into comparative insignificance.
And in certain respects we may thankfuUy recognize
that Hebrew was weU adapted for its purpose. The
language expresses the genius of the people, and it is
a,ltogether fitting, that there should be this corre
spondence between the characteristics of the people
and the language in which the religious literature
it gave to the world was enshrined. It is a very
concrete language, remarkably picturesque and graphic.
The structure of its sentences is very simple. The
Hebrew temper of mind did not favour complexity. It
did not build complicated periods in which a whole series
of statements or ideas were elaborately connected to
gether and placed in their logical relations by anumberof
subordinate clauses, precisely related to the main clause
of the sentence, whUe the sentences themselves were
woven together into a closely-knit fabric of argument
or narrative. The note of Hebrew style is that the
sentences are brief and co-ordinated together. It is the
child's way of putting things which we find in the Old
Testament, and it is this quality which makes much of

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 47
the narrative of the Old Testament so singularly fascin
ating. Closely allied to this simplicity of stracture is the
almost complete absence of phUosophic terminology.
This corresponds to a marked quality of the Hebrew
genius. It was not speculative and did not concern
itself with the problems of metaphysics. Hebrew
wisdom was concrete not abstract, engaged with the
problems presented by the pressing needs of life rather
than those which are suggested by inteUectual curiosity.
For the Israelites the fear of the Lord was the beginning
of wisdom, and the questions which challenged their
reflection were rather such as those created by the
suffering of the righteous or the prosperity of the
wicked. Now this practical ethical temper, which
finds such admirable expression in the language, was one
element in the equipment of the Hebrews to become the
people of revelation. For it is the note of the prophet,
as distinguished from the philosopher, that he is a man
of vision rather than reflection. He employs affirmation
rather than argument, and by throwing religion and
morahty into the foreground he reads us a needed lesson
on the relative importance of conduct and speculation.
There is another quality to which attention should be
caUed — ^namely, that Hebrew loses comparatively little
in translation. It is tme that Hebrew can often ex
press in one word what a more analytic language such
as English has to express in several. Moreover, a
thorough mastery ofthe tenses brings out the beauty and
vividness of the style in a way which cannot be trans
ferred into English. But, in the mam, I think it is trae
that Hebrew lends itself singularly weU to translation, a
matter of great importance in a book designed to teach
the world the truth about God.
But now it is time to turn to the other language in
which God's supreme revelation^has come to us. It

48 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
used to be thought that the Greek of the New Testa
ment was something quite isolated in its character with
out any counterpart in secular literature and fitted by
this uniqueness in grammar and vocabulary to be, as it
was sometimes caUed, the language of the Holy Ghost.
It was supposed to be largely Hebraistic in its character.
On this subject a flood of light has been thrown in re
cent years by the discovery in Egypt of very large
numbers of Greek documents written upon papjnnis.
Among these there are, of course, fragments of ancient
literature. But there are a great number of non-
literary letters, many of them written by uneducated
people. By a briUiant intuition a young German
scholar, Adolf Deissmann, saw that these papyri in
which ordinary people expressed without artifice their
thoughts and emotions, or recorded the commonplace
incidents of their everyday life, were written in the lan
guage in which the New Testament writers expressed
the sublime truths of the Gospel and told the story of
Jesus and His apostles. The fiction of Biblical Greek
has disappeared before evidence which shows us that
alike in grammar and vocabulary New Testament
Greek was just the coUoquial Greek of its time, which
was much simpler and less elaborate in its syntax than
classical Greek. Thus by the disclosure of a whoUy
new set of facts the language of the New Testament has
been brought out of the isolation to which it had so long
been relegated and replaced in its true historical set
ting. It is a great discovery which has thus come to us,
for it is likely to settle many problems which have been
raised by the language of the New Testament and to
remove many misconceptions. Words which were re
garded as peculiar to Bibhcal Greek now often prove
to have been quite common at the time ; grammatical
constractions which were traced to Hebrew influence, or

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 49
which were interpreted rigorously by the usage of
Attic Greek, are now found in use among peoples who
can scarcely have created them under Jewish influence,
and employed with much greater laxity than strict
Attic would have permitted. This has far-reaching
results for the interpretation of the New Testament,
and as a consequence for the construction of theology.
And it teaches us that there is no such thing as a
specialized language of the Holy Ghost, but that, as Dr.
J. H. Moulton has finely said, when He spoke it was, as
we should have expected, in the tongue of the common
people. If we ask how Greek compares with Hebrew from the
learner's point of view, the foUowing facts may be men
tioned. The characters in which it is written are much
simpler, and, what is stUl more important, the alphabet
includes vowels as weU as consonants. The vowels are
thus an integral part of the word, and the forms are
therefore learnt and remembered with much greater
ease, since the eye takes them in and retains them with
much less difficulty. The syntax is also more congenial
to the Western mind. In particular, although the
tenses present difficulties of their own, they are less
fundamental than those which attach to the tenses in
Hebrew. It is not easy for us to overrate the significance of the
fact that the New Testament was written in Greek.
Since nearly aU the New Testament writers were Jews,
it would not have been surprising if they had written
some parts of it in Hebrew or Aramaic. NaturaUy this
would not be expected in the case of Epistles written to
Greek-speaking communities, but there are other parts
of the New Testament, especiaUy the First Gospel,
which Renan has rightly caUed the most important
book in the world, that might quite easUy have been
B.O. 4

50 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
written in Aramaic, and behind which it is almost cer
tain that an Aramaic source actuaUy stood. In many
respects the scholar would have welcomed the pre
servation of an Aramaic Gospel. But against this
we must set the fact that it would have greatly in
creased the difficulties of the ordinary New Testament
student. In the next place, whUe it was fitting that the Old
Testament should come to us clothed in a language
which so perfectly expressed the Hebrew genius, it was
fitting that another medium should be chosen for the
New. The religion of Israel from first to last was
national in its character and hmited in its appeal.
But Christianity burst the contracted hmits of the
Jewish race and offered itself as a religion for mankind.
And therefore it was fitting that the classical documents
of our religion should not be enshrined in a language so
parochial as Hebrew, but in a language which could
aspire better than any other to be regarded as the
universal language of the time.
No doubt it may be urged that this language was itself
destined to give place to other languages. But what
is true of Hebrew is largely true also of the Greek in
which the New Testament was written. Just in virtue
of the fact that it was the language of the common
people, less elaborate and literary than classical Greek,
it also suffers comparatively httle in translation.
Moreover, inasmuch as there is Uttle poetry in the New
Testament the peculiar difficulties incident to the
rendering of poetry into another language are almost
entirely absent.
And the premier rank which belongs to Greek con
sidered as a language must be borne in mind. It was
a language very rich in vocabulary and wonderfuUy
flexible in stracture. It was thus capable, as Hebrew

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 51
was not, of expressing the finest shades of meaning and
the subtlest abstractions of thought. For the adequate
statement of a religion which was to appeal not simply
to the Semitic but to the Indo-European mind with its
speculative impulse and need for metaphysical satisfac
tion, such a language as Hebrew would have been inade
quate. The qualities of Greek have been described in
glowing language by H. N. Coleridge, from whom I make
the foUowing quotation : —
' Greek, the shrine of the genius of the old world, as
universal as our race, as individual as ourselves ; of
infinite flexibUity, of indefatigable strength, with the
complication and distinctness of Nature herself, to
which nothing was vulgar, from which nothing was ex
cluded ; speaking to the ear hke Italian, speaking to the
mind like English ; with words hke pictures, with
words like the gossamer film of the summer ; at once
the variety and the picturesqueness of Homer, the
gloom and the intensity of iEschylus ; hot compressed
to the closest by Thucydides, not fathomed to the bot
tom by Plato, not sounding with aU its thunders, not Ut
up with aU its ardours, even under the Promethean
touch of Demosthenes himself.'
We could not, indeed, apply this splendid description
without considerable qualification to the Greek of the
New Testament. Yet, when we look at the language
and the style, not as an end in themselves but as the
means to an end, we may gratefully admit that the very
Umitations are turned into advantages. And as the
conclusion of this part of our theme we may reverently
and thankfuUy recognize that even the choice of the
languages of revelation was not left uncared for by the
providence of God.
But since many who wUl read this work cannot go
behind the English to the original languages, it is fitting

52 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
that this chapter should close with some words on the
English versions of the Bible. I have no space to dweU
on the earher paraphrases and translations, the work of
Caedmon, King Alfred or Bede. It would be impossible,
however, to omit Wycliffe and his helpers. The
difficult questions which are raised about the authorship
of the Wycliffe Bible may here be left aside. The
translation was made from the Latin Vulgate, not from
the Hebrew and Greek originals. It was, of course,
distributed in manuscript, but even so had a wide circu
lation, as is iUustrated by the fact that at the present
day not less than 150 manuscripts are in existence
containing the whole or part of it. It is an interesting
question how far it influenced later translations.
Tyndale explicitly says that his work was undertaken
without help from any predecessor. Some have in
ferred from coincidences between his version and the
Wycliffe Bible that he had been influenced by the latter.
Such influence as there was, however, was more probably
indirect. Much in the earlier translation had been
absorbed into the language of the time, and was pro
bably taken over by Tyndale without any conscious
ness that the phrases he thus employed were derived
from the earlier work. It is pleasant to think that
Wychffe's influence was exerted in this way, making
his renderings circulate as current coin in the language
of the people, and indurectly preparing the way for the
later versions. It must, however, be remembered that
the coincidences may be partly accounted for by the
fact that while Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate
and Tyndale from the original languages, the later
translator also dUigently used the Vulgate, and to its
infiuence identical renderings may very weU be traced.
Between the two versions, however, there had come in
one of the most revolutionary factors in the progress of

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 55
civUization — ^the invention of printing. It was possible
for the later translations to gain a wide diffusion un
dreamed of when every copy had to be laboriously
written out by hand.
Beyond aU other names of translators we should pro
bably hold that of WUliam Tyndale in most grateful
remembrance. It is matter of common knowledge
that whUe he was stUl quite young he expressed the in
tention that if his life were spared he would make it
possible for the ploughboy to know more of the Bible
than the Pope himself. It was, indeed, a misfortune
that fidelity to his work curtaUed his career whUe much
stUl remained to be done. When in 1535 his enemies
at last brought him to his death he had published a
translation of the New Testament, the Pentateuch, and
the Book of Jonah. He left behind him in manuscript
the translation of the Books from Joshua to 2 Chroni
cles. When we remember how much of Tyndale's work
survives in the Authorized Version we are tempted to
regard it as an irreparable loss that he was not spared
to complete the translation of the Old Testament. On
an average it may be said that five-sixths of the Author
ized Version is Tyndale's work, in those portions which
he had translated. When the praise of the Authorized
Version is in our hps it should never be forgotten that
to him rather than to any other man the chief credit for
it is due. Nor must we forget the fact to which I have
already alluded — ^that Tyndale was the first to make a
translation into Enghsh direct from the original. A
comparison between the first edition of his New Testa
ment and the revision of it in 1534 warrants a belief
that had his life not been cut short by violence he would
have succeeded in reaching a higher standard of excel
lence than that which he actuaUy achieved. In the
year of Tyndale's death the first complete translation

54 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
of the Bible to be printed m EngUsh appeared. This
was Coverdale's work. He did not, however, go back
to the Hebrew and Greek originals ; he translated from
Latin and German, especiaUy from the Latin Vulgate
and Luther's German translation. But he made great
use of Tyndale's Version. Two years later Matthew's
Bible appeared. This was compUed by John Rogers,
who was the first to suffer for his faith under Queen
Mary. PracticaUy it was Tyndale's Version, the parts
which Tyndale had not translated bemg suppUed from
Coverdale. Passing by Taverner's Bible in 1539, we
come to the'Great Bible which was published in the same
year. This was prepared by Coverdale with the help of
other scholars, and was substantiaUy a revision of
Matthew's Bible. In the Church of England this Ver
sion stiU holds its ground so far as the Psalter is con
cerned, the Prayer-Book Version being derived from it
rather than from the Authorized Version. In obedi
ence to a royal proclamation, a copy was placed in
every church. It is remarkable that no fewer than four
versions of the Bible thus appeared in the brief period
1535-1539. The Great Bible held its ground for
several years, and it was not tiU 1560 that it had to face
the rivalry of one of the most important of aU the pre
decessors of the Authorized Version. This was the
Geneva Bible, pubhshed in 1560. It was an admirable
translation, both leamed and accurate. Printed in
Roman type rather than in black letter, issued in a far
handier form than its predecessors, supplemented hke
some of these with pungent controversial notes, it is not
wonderful that it became the most favourite of aU
versions and was at a later time the most formidable
rival to the Authorized Version. The Puritans natur
aUy preferred a Bible with so Calvinistic a flavour. It
was this quality, however, which Umited its appeal, and

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 55
led to the next translation, that known as the Bishops'
Bible, which appeared in 1568. The dignitaries of the
Church of England, true to their dishke of extremes,
desired a Bible that should be free from a polemical
element, which they felt to be mischievous to Anglican
loyalty. The result, however, was not satisfactory,
whether we have regard to the intrinsic quahty of the
translation itself or to its popular appeal. It is, how
ever, important, since it was the Bible recognized by
Convocation and used in the services of the Church, and
also because it was the standard text from which the
makers of the Authorized Version were instructed to
depart only when necessity required, an instruction
which, happily, they interpreted liberally. Finally, I
have to mention the Roman Cathohc translation of the
New Testament made at Rheims in 1582. The trans
lation of the Old Testament made at Douai in 1610
appeared too late to be used in the preparation of the
Authorized Version, but the Rheims New Testament
exerted a deep influence upon it, perhaps not always to
its advantage, though some elements of strength were
certainly derived from it. The extent of our debt to
this Roman Catholic rendering may be seen in Dr.
J. G. Carleton's elaborate work. The Part of Rheims
in the Making of the English Bible.
It is important to recognize quite clearly that the
Authorized Version is itself a comparatively recent
work which is the outcome of repeated revision of
earlier translations. It is not yet four centuries since
the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek mto
English. It is little more than five centuries since a
complete Bible in any form has been made accessible
to the English public. The fact is too often overlooked,
that the Enghsh Bible, which has for so long held an
unchallenged supremacy, was issued little more than

56 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
300 years ago, less than one-sixth of the period which
separates us from the time of Christ. The preparation
of this version was due, as aU men know, to a suggestion
made by Dr. Reynolds at the Hampton Court Confer
ence in 1604. James I found this request far more
congenial than anything else the Puritans had to urge,
for he was quite in his element in such an enterprise as
this, to which, moreover, he was the more readily in
clined that he had a strong dishke for the Geneva Ver
sion, which was at the time the most popular. Ulti
mately forty-seven translators were appointed, who
were divided into three companies, which met at Oxford,
Cambridge and Westminster respectively. As already
mentioned, their work was based on the Bishops' Bible,
but other translations were employed, especially the
Geneva Version and the Rheims New Testament. It
is an interesting fact that Fulke published the New
Testament according to the Bishops' Bible and the
Rheims Version in paraUel columns, and if the Bishops'
Bible was used in this edition the great influence of the
Roman Catholic rendering on the Authorized Version
may be explained. But it should be stated explicitly
that while earlier translations were employed, the
makers of the Authorized Version had the Bible in the
original languages continually before them, and strove
to give a rendering which should be faithful to the sense
of the Hebrew and Greek. Apparently the actual
work did not begin tiU about 1607, but it was completed
in 1611. Although it popularly bears the title ' The
Authorized Version,' no evidence that it ever was
authorized exists, although a strong case may be made
out for the view that its title is justifiably borne. But
what secured for it its victory over aU rival versions and
its undisputed pre-eminence was its own intrinsic excel
lence and indisputable superiority.

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 57
Coming at the end of a series, it sought to combine
the exceUehces of aU and avoid the faults which criti
cism had detected in its predecessors. It was also
fortunate in that it united the advantages of individual
with those of collective translation. Ultimately it
went back to Tyndale and Coverdale. Each of these
had his characteristic exceUences, but each also his
limitations. The Geneva Version, on the other hand,
was prepared by a number of scholars, and similarly the
Bishops' Bible. The Authorized Version itself was the
work of three committees revised by a supervising
committee. The value of coUective revision is that the
eccentricities of individual translators are pruned and
their defects made good, while each contributes some
thing positive to the common stock. Another element
of superiority to some of the best versions which had
preceded was the absence of controversial notes.
The Geneva Bible on the one hand, the Rheims New
Testament on the other, took sides so strongly in their
marginal annotation that their constituency was greatly
hmited. It was obviously impossible for a translation
of the Bible to be used by an Arminian Anglican which
was deeply tinged with Calvinism or opposition to pre
lacy. In a version intended for universal use the only
safe and proper rale was to make it colourless so far as
theological or ecclesiastical difference was concerned.
This was so successfuUy accompUshed by the Authorized
Version that, though it had to meet with bitter oppo
sition for a time, it was before long so fuUy accepted,
both by Anghcan and by Puritan, that even the Geneva
Version, its most formidable rival, has been practicaUy
dead for more than two hundred years. It had its de
fects, it is trae. The science of textual criticism had
not yet been bom, and the materials for constructing a
sound text have been considerably augmented since

58 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
that time. In the Old Testament, indeed, much stiU
remains to be done before we have even approximately
recovered the original Hebrew. The scholarship of the
Old Testament translators was of a somewhat Rabbini
cal kind, and great advance has since been made in the
grammars and lexicons of the sacred languages as weU
as in Biblical exegesis and knowledge of the contem
porary conditions. The division into verses, which, of
course, it shared with some earlier translations, has
been a grave hindrance to the apprehension of the mean
ing, and seriously obscured the logical movement of the
thought. The summaries prefixed to the chapters have
put many false opinions into circulation. Moreover, a
certain tendency to tone down difficulties and to elimi
nate what might cause offence is also to be noticed. To
this it must be added that the renderings are in too
many instances barely inteUigible, that the more deli
cate shades of meaning are not brought out with pre
cision, and that the translation is too often incorrect.
The principle which was dehberately followed of using
a variety of EngUsh words to render the same Hebrew
or Greek term, and the opposite practice of using the
same Enghsh term to render several different words in
the original, has made the task of those Bible students,
who know no Hebrew or Greek, far more difficult by
suggesting paraUels where they do not exist and making
it impossible to trace many parsdlels which the original
texts actuaUy present. I am aware that the practice
of using the same translation for the same word ought
not to be rigidly pressed, since it also may in some
instances give misleading results. But it is indefen
sible to vary the rendering at haphazard, and change of
rendering should be permitted only on carefully-con
sidered grounds.
But whUe these and other defects may not unjustly

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 59
be urged against the Authorized Version they are not
such as to lessen our appreciation of the splendid
achievement it was. The scholarship of the translators
was the best of their time, they worked on the original
texts and used all the helps that were accessible to them.
The period was favourable to their enterprise. It was a
time of spiritual and inteUectual exaltation. New
realms in Uterature, in philosophy, and in art had been
recovered at the revival of learning. The Reformation
had snapped the yoke of Rome, vindicating the right
of private judgment, setting the individual conscience
free, securing to each immediate access to God. The
discovery of the New World had expanded the horizon,
opening up new and hitherto unimagined vistas. The
problems of theology engaged widespread and serious
attention ; religion was the subject of an interest at
once deep and intense. It was in no stagnant atmo
sphere that the men of those days hved. The Spirit
swept over England Uke a rushing mighty wind. The
air was charged with electricity, the elements met in the
shock of war, men drank deUght of battle, or, with stiU
nobler courage, laid down their hves for the trath.
The heroism of conflict, the finer heroism of mart37r-
dom had touched the spirits of men with a deeper ser
iousness or thrUled them with a keen and high elation.
The dread of a Spanish conquest had passed away,
never to return, the stir and exhUaration of that spaci
ous age had found its fit expression in our most splendid
hterature. And as the chmax of all this marveUous
movement, there came the supreme Enghsh classic, the
Authorized Version.
What then are the quaUties which conspire to en
throne this book in its position of unquestioned supre
macy ? In the first place it is so admirable a transla
tion that it reads as if it were an original work. Of

6o THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
course, it must be remembered that the Bible passes
the test of translation very weU. Moreover, as Tyndale
saw, English forms an exceUent medium for conve5dng
the qualities of the original languages. He says :
' The Greek tongue agreeth more with the EngUsh than
with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew
tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the Enghsh
than with the Latin.' But while Enghsh is so excel
lently adapted for the purpose, it would be only too
easy to produce a translation of Scripture which would
bear its foreign extraction aU too clearly upon it. And
perhaps in faimess one ought to admit that the Author
ized Version has made some idioms seem native to us
which on their first introduction must have sounded
somewhat strange. Yet, when all is said, the transla
tion is a triumph of the highest kind. Its authors
spared no pains, but their work does not smeU of the
midnight oil. It is faithful without being unduly
literal or pedantic. It is easy and graceful, not crabbed
and uncouth. Happily it is not fiUed, like the
Rhemish New Testament, with uninteUigible Latinisms
and technical ecclesiasticisms. It was written so that
the common people might read it gladly, in language
that was at once simple and homely, racy and pictur
esque. Yet it does not carry this racy, homely quahty
to an excess ; it does not sink below the level of its sub
ject matter. There is in it a noble splendour and dig
nity, a purity and feUcity, a sense of satisfying rhjrthm
and melodious harmony, an easy grace, a diction ner
vous and flexible, which have made it not only an
Enghsh classic of the first rank, but the joy, the inspira
tion and comfort of multitudes upon multitudes in age
after age through these three hundred years. Scripture
is indeed so quick and powerful, stored with such radiant
energy, that through the most imperfect medium its light

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 6i
and heat wUl be conveyed. But it is a great mistake to
imagine that the facts and the ideas are aU that matter,
while the expression may safely be neglected. The
inspiration of the original does not reside simply in the
subject matter, it touches the form in which it was
given. And simUarly no translation can do justice to
the Bible unless the expression is on a level with the
thought. The beauty and the power would be largely
lost if clothed in a mean and Ul-fitting dress. It has
been of the greatest value to us that through so many
generations the religion of the Enghsh people has been
nurtured on a translation of Scripture which is through
out of the highest literary quality.
It is at present uncertain whether the Authorized
Version will succeed in maintaining its position. As
yet the Revised Version seems not to have proved a
serious competitor in the affections of the English-
speaking people. It is in many respects more accurate
than the Authorized Version, but in the New Testament
the changes have been felt by multitudes to go far be
yond what was required. Largely, of course, it is a
question of what we want. If we want beautiful litera
ture with choice diction, felicitous phrasing, and exqui
site rhythm, a strong case can be made out for retaining
the Authorized Version. If, however, it is our main
concern to have a text as pure and a translation as
accurate as possible, I do not doubt that the Revised
Version is superior when judged by this test. There
can hardly be any dispute that a translation of Scrip
ture must above aU things aim at fidehty. If we are to
be faithful to its teaching we must know with exact
ness what it says, and those who cannot go to the
original for themselves ought to be brought as close as
possible to its actual language. In the nature of things
a translation must be imperfect, for words in one Ian-

62 THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL
guage often have no precise equivalent in another, and a
construction barbarous in one idiom may be quite
legitimate in another. Even when the best has been
done much imperfection must inevitably remain. The
Revised Version has often suffered injustice since peo
ple have felt the famUiar rhythm to be unquestionably
better than the unfamihar. The charge is probably
much exaggerated and partly the effect of an Ulusion.
It is quite an open question whether one who had been
brought up on the Revised Version and turned for the
first time to the Authorized might not urge against the
latter that it had less Enghsh felicity than the former.
No doubt many ardent Anglican admirers of the
Authorized Version would prefer to its version of the
Psalms that in the Prayer Book, simply because they
are better acquainted with it, whereas the Free Church
man would probably marvel at the preference. The
famUiar rhj^hm is often changed. But this need not
mean that the new version may not have as good a
rhj^hm of its own ; but it takes time to become used
to it, to get the run of it, so to speak, and this is often
forgotten by those in a hurry to judge. At the same
time, whUe in many respects I think that the Revised
Version marked a great advance, especiaUy in the more
difficult portions of Scripture, such as the poetry and
prophecy in the Old Testament and the Epistles in the
New Testament, I doubt whether it is built for perma
nence. I do not beheve that the time is ripe for at
tempting a new revision. I think, indeed, that it was
not ripe when the revision was actuaUy made. Much
preliminary work stiU remains to be done. Textual
criticism is in a very unsettled condition, so far as the
New Testament is concerned ; whUe the textual criti
cism of the Old Testament is in a quite rudimentary
stage. The new light which is being thrown by the

LANGUAGES AND IN ENGLISH 63
recently-discovered papyri on the vocabulary and the
grammar of the New Testament may be confidently
expected to iUuminate much that is stUl dark and settle
much that is doubtful. It is by no means unlikely that
the discovery of Hebrew documents may make the Old
Testament much clearer to us. Biblical exegesis has
made not a little progress in recent years, but it would be
quite a mistake to suppose that nothing more remained
to be done. When a revision is again undertaken we
may anticipate that the help of styhsts as weU as of
scholars wiU be secured. Meanwhile, something may
be done by the dissemination of unofficial translations.
These have at least this value that they shock the
reader out of that deadening famiharity, which is one of
the worst enemies to appreciation of the Bible. The
English reader is so familiar with the Authorized Ver
sion, that the words of Scripture skim easUy over the
surface of his consciousness, losing the bite which they
reaUy possess. This may be counteracted by the study
of an entirely new translation. But no student should
neglect the constant use of the Revised Version unless
he is able to go back to the original for himself. Yet
whatever the future may have in store for us, we cannot
be other than grateful as we look back over the past,
and remember the splendid history of the Authorized
Version. For three centuries it has been the educator
of aU the English-speaking peoples, the source from
which the vast majority have drawn most of the liberal
culture they have possessed. It has famiharized them
with great ideas greatly spoken, widened their out
look, and enriched then- thought. But it has been far
more than this, a true river of water of life bringing to
us cleansing, refreshment and peace. Of aU the gifts
which have made our nation great, the most precious
has been the gift of the EngUsh Bible.

CHAPTER V
THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
So far I have been speaking of the Bible as if we were
all quite agreed what we mean by the term ; but now
it is necessary to deal with this question more definitely,
and to ask, what do we embrace under that designa
tion ? In this connexion there are two problems
which confront us. The first is : By what stages have
the individual books been formed into a single collec
tion ? What motives governed this process and what
qualifications were required to fit a book for the position
accorded to it ? The second question is : How far
have the Biblical writings been correctly transmitted
to us ? or. How far do our manuscripts diverge from
what the authors actually wrote ? The latter of
these questions raises the problem of the Text, the
former the problem of the Canon. It is a familiar
fact that the Christian Churches have differed, and still
differ, very considerably on the question what limits
should be set to the Canon of Scripture. And the more
rigid our doctrine of inspiration the more necessary it
is for us to have a clear idea with reference to what is
and what is not the inspired Word of God.
The history of the Old Testament Canon is extremely
?'obscure. We know very little about it, though we
can form some probable conjectures to eke out what
slender information we possess. Many of my readers
wiU probably be familiar with the threefold division
64

THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON 65
of the Hebrew Canon — ^the Law, the Prophets, and the
Writings. Such a division at once strikes those who
are famihar only with the English Bible as strange,
inasmuch as the Prophets hold the second place
and not the last in order. Then they would
naturaUy suppose that the Law embraced the Penta
teuch ; the Prophets, the four Major and twelve
Minor Prophets, as we unhappily caU them, together
with the Book of Lamentations ; and that all the rest of
the Old Testament would be included in the Writings.
But in this they would be quite mistaken. The
section entitled "' the Prophets ' embraces both more
and less than the seventeen books I have named.
It embraces more, inasmuch as some of the books that.^^
we are wont to count historical are reckoned among the
Prophets. And yet not aU of these, for only Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings belong to this second
division, in which they are distinguished from the
prophetic writings in the narrower sense by being
caUed the Former Prophets. It is a point of some
moment that these books which we are wont to call
historical the Jews themselves regarded as prophetic.
And this is a description of them that would repay
consideration. The other books which we are accus
tomed to class as historical — namely, Ezra, Nehemiah,
and Chronicles — are not only placed among the Writ
ings but are found at the very end of the Hebrew Bible,
one very strikmg fact being that,' although Ezra and
Nehemiah are a continuation of Chronicles, the chrono
logical order is not foUowed in their arrangement in the
Canon, but the Hebrew Bible closes with the Books of "^
Chronicles. Moreover, the Prophets in the Hebrew
Bible include less than the Prophets in the Enghsh
Bible, for in the latter the Books of Daniel and Lamenta
tions are treated as prophetic, whereas in the Hebrew

66 THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
Bible they are classed with the Writings. The third
division is of a very composite character. It includes
Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, all three of which are
poetical books ; then what are known as the five roUs,
the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther ; and finally the Books of Daniel, Ezra and
Nehemiah, and Chronicles. It will thus be observed
that the contents of this third division are somewhat
misceUaneous. We have poetical writings, such as the
Psalms, the Lamentations, the Song of Songs, the Book
of Proverbs, and the Book of Job. The two latter
belong, in point of subject-matter, to what is known
as the Wisdom hterature of the Hebrews, to which
Ecclesiastes also belongs. Ruth and Esther contain
biography rather than history, but Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles are historical writings.
This threefold division, which is expressed ahke in
the title and the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible,
is found as early as the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, which
" was probably written shortly before 130 B.C. In that
work we have the Law and the Prophets referred to
under these titles, but the third division is described
by different forms of expression as though no title had
been devised for it. Thus the writer speaks of the many
things which ' have been delivered unto us by the Law
and the Prophets and by the others that have foUowed
upon them.' Again he refers to Jesus, his grandfather,
as having devoted himself to ' the reading of the Law
and the Prophets and the other books of the fathers.'
And later he says, referring to the translation into Greek,
' The Law itself and the Prophets, and the rest of the
books, have no small difference when they are spoken
in their own language.' It has been inferred with
some justice that, while the Law and the Prophets were
titles of collections definitely fixed, this was not the

THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON 67
case with the final coUection. In fact the author's
language suggests that the Umits of this division were
still rather fluid.
On what principle then, it may be asked, was the
division made ? It can hardly have been based simply
on considerations of subject-matter. The third portion
of the Canon contained historical books that might
have been naturally combined with Judges, Samuel,
and Kings, while Daniel might naturally have been
placed among the Prophets. How fitting both of these
arrangements would have been is shown by the fact
that the versions, including the Enghsh version,
actuaUy set aside the Hebrew arrangement and intro
duced one of their own in which this more appropriate
division in accordance with subject-matter was effected.
Why then, was this not done in the first instance ?
Thfe most obvious answer is that when the second Canon ,,
was completed these books, which would properly
have found a place within it, were either not written or
were not regarded as canonical. The former alterna
tive should probably be accepted with reference to
Daniel, the latter with reference to Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles, since the Book of Daniel would presumably
have been included with the Prophets had it been known
to the compilers of that coUection. We may assume
with some measure of likelihood that this collection
was already closed before the middle of the second
century B.C., inasmuch as the Book of Daniel seems to
have been written about the year 165 b.c We may
probably go back somewhat earlier, and take it that
the second Canon was substantiaUy completed by the
close of the third century B.C. We may regard the
great assembly at which the Law was read and accepted
in the time of Nehemiah, according to the usual view in
the year 444 b.c, as stamping the final stratum of the

68 THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
Law with the same canonical authority which the
Deuteronomic Code had received in the reign of Josiah,
621 B.C. But we should probably place at a somewhat
later point the literary compilation of the Pentateuch in
its present form.
We have no positive evidence enabUng us to deter
mine when the third coUection was completed. Pro
bably it contains some elements later even than the
Book of Daniel — namely, some of the Psalms and the
Book of Esther. I do not think, however, that there
is any need for us to follow those scholars who bring
down the dates of many of the Psalms into the first
century B.C. We do not possess any evidence which
definitely settles the question when this coUection was
formed. The greater part of it was apparently recog
nized as fuUy canonical before the time of Christ, but
it is weU known that the canonicity of certain books was
in dispute towards the close of the first century of the
Christian era. This was notably the case with Eccle
siastes, the Song of Songs, Esther, and Ezekiel. The
last of these was questioned on account of the difficulty
experienced in reconciling the legislative sketch in the
closing chapters of his book with the legislation in the
Pentateuch. This difficulty was surmounted by the
heroic efforts of Hananiah, who, with the help of three
hundred measures of midnight oil, succeeded in recon-
cihng the two. The practical problem seems not so
much to have been whether it was canonical, but
'whether it was wise to read it in the sjmagogues.
Ecclesiastes was suspected since it contained apparently
heretical statements and self-contradictions ; Esther
because it omitted the name of God ; the Song of Songs
probably on account of its theme. It is a matter of
dispute whether these books were already in the Canon,
and the debate which went on into the second century

THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON 69
of our era turned on the question of their removal,
or whether they were candidates for admission, and the
discussion centred round the proposal to accept them.
My own judgment leans rather towards the latter in
terpretation in the case of Ecclesiastes, Esther, and the
Song of Songs.
But another point emerges. The Septuagint includes
a considerable number of books which are not in the
Hebrew Canon, and these are tfie so-caUed Apocrypha. '
It is questionable, however, if we can infer from this
fact that the Greek-speaking Jews included these books
in their Bible. It is possible that they regarded the
writings as profitable without attributing to them
canonical authority. The Canon recognized by
Josephus was apparently identical with our own Old •^
Testament, and he regards himself as speaking in this
matter for aU Jews. What books were recognized by
Philo of Alexandria is uncertain. Apparently he does
not quote the Apocrypha, but there are several Old
Testament books to which no reference is made in
his writings, so that we cannot feel the same confidence
with reference to him as with reference to Jose
phus. But the question what books the Jews included in
their Bible, whUe very important, is after aU not de
cisive for ourselves. This does not mean that we must
without more ado cast aside the books which attained
fuU canonical rank only at the Synod of Jamnia, held
by the Rabbis after the Destruction of Jerusalem.
We may find principles on which we may as Christians
consistently admit them, though they would be prin
ciples of a different kind from those on which the Rabbis
acted. What is meant is that we cannot accept the
infaUibiUty of their decisions, but must test them for
ourselves. The final settlement of the Hebrew Canon

70 THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
was the work of men who rejected the claims of Jesus,
and were probably not in aU respects in line with their
national tradition in this matter. It is, indeed,
fortunate that the Scribes did not have the formation
of the Canon altogether in their own hands. They
were driven to accept books, which on their principles
would have been excluded, by the fact that devout Jews
found their spiritual life nurtured by them. They did
not get matters completely into their own hands tiU
after the Destruction of Jerusalem. We are interested
by the question. What Bible was recognized by Jesus
and the New Testament writers ? This is a question
which cannot be answered with certainty. In the main
there can be no doubt that it was identical with the
Hebrew Canon as we now possess it. But books were
quoted which are not* in the Canon. Jude refers to
the Book of Enoch as giving us an authentic prophecy
of that patriarch. He probably had before him also
the Assumption of Moses. It is possible that Paul
quotes in i Corinthians from an Apocryphal work, and
the same may be trae of the First Epistle of Peter. It
is by no means certain that such a quotation was not
made by Christ Himself.
And in the Church itself the range of the Old Testa
ment was certainly extended beyond that recognized
by the Hebrews. In particular, as is well known, the
Roman Church attributes canonical authority to the
Apocrypha. Protestant writers have generaUy held
to the Hebrew books as alone inspired and authorita
tive. It is difficult, however, to regard the distinction
in many cases as other than arbitrary. For example,
it is hard to find any principle worthy of consideration
which would justify the inclusion of Esther and the
exclusion of the First Book of Maccabees, or the in
clusion of Ecclesiastes and exclusion of Ecclesiastictis

THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON 71
and the Wisdom of Solomon. And this is by no means
an exhaustive statement of the case. It must, of course,
be understood that the Canon might be so defined as to
warrant such a distinction. But this raises the question
which we are not yet in a position to discuss : In what
sense can we speak of the Old Testament as possessing
Canonical authority for ourselves with our more modern
view of Scripture ? At present I am speaking of it
from the older point of view. But at least I may
iUustrate my point by a reference to i Maccabees, that
it may be clear how admirably it meets some of the
qualifications which are often put forward to justify
the inclusion of books in the Old Testament. The
story which it records is the most stirring of any in the
long roll of Israel's romantic history. It teUs us of a
people faithful to the uttermost to their Law, and in the
strength of their faith doing deeds of heroism, and turn
ing to flight armies of aliens in a way that iUustrated, as
no other episode in their history, the power of heroic
faith in God. As a lesson of fidehty to duty and con
viction which overcame the fear of man, and of the
faith that gave victory against overwhehning odds,
the record is precious for all time. Not only so, but
hke the historical books of the Old Testament it has
great importance in that it helps us to understand the
historical circumstances out of which precious monu
ments of God's revelation sprang. How helpful is the
light it throws on Daniel and the Maecabean Psalms !
But we may go a step further. How great is the import
ance of this period of Jewish history for Christianity
itself ! For it was the deliberate aim of Antiochus
Epiphanes to extirpate Judaism, and, humanly speak
ing, that would have meant the nuUification of all God's
long preparation for the sending of his Son. And
the reUgious Ufe of the Judaism of Christ's own day

72 THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
also receives illuminafion from the history of this time,
for in it we find the source of powerful tendencies which
meet us ever37where in the Gospel history.
In view of the fact that the Apocr57phal books are
all in Greek, some have thought that this is an argu
ment against their canonicity, since a canonical Old
Testament book should be written in Hebrew. This is
an amazing opinion. In the first place, as I have
previously mentioned, parts of the Old Testament are
written not in Hebrew but in Aramaic. In the next
place some of the Apocrypha, although they are pre
served only in Greek, were originaUy written in Hebrew.
Lastly, the fact that the New Testament is entirely
written in Greek ought to have prevented such a suici
dal argument from being put forward. Besides, it is
surely obvious that the canonicity of a Biblical book
must depend on something other than the mere lan
guage in which it was written. It wpuld hardly be
worth while mentioning this if it did not iUustrate
the well-known fact that people wiU gravely aUege
arguments to prove their particular theories of Scripture,
which they would never dream of suggesting in any
other department of research.
But the difficulties are by no means confined to the
Old Testament Canon. Several of the New Testament
books were disputed for centuries. The whole or
portions of the CathoUc Epistles have been rejected, so
also the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.
On the other hand, some books, such as the First
Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the
Epistle of Barnabas, were looked upon by several early
Christian writers as canonical. Into the details of this
it is quite unnecessary to go. But several centuries
elapsed before the disputes about the Canon came to
an end. And it is a question how far we are bound by

THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON 73
the decisions on this point reached at so late a period
in the history of the Church.
It is at least worth our while to recaU the
attitude of the Reformers on this question. Luther
shook the world, but he did not do it by a
timid adherence to Catholic principles. He confronted
the Roman system with the New Testament, but to
wards the New Testament itself he took up an attitude
of great freedom. He was a BibUcal critic in his way,
and spoke with astonishing freedom about some parts
of the New Testament. Comparing the Epistle of
James with the New Testament books that he regarded
as of primary importance, he characterized it as 'a
right strawy Epistle compared with them, for it has no
character of the Gospel in it.' He says, ' It contradicts
St. Paul and aU other Scripture in giving righteous
ness to works.' His test of a book was that it should
preach and urge Christ ; ' It is the duty of a trae
Apostle to preach Christ's sufferings and Resurrection.'
This test the Epistle of James did not satisfy. ' It
teaches Christian people, and yet does not once notice
the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ.'
The Epistle to the Hebrews he refused to place on a
level with the Apostohc Epistles, and hints that wood,
straw, and hay were to be found in it. Jude, also,
he did not reckon among the capital books which ought
to. lay the foundation of faith. He brought the New
Testament books to the touchstone of agreement with
the doctrines he had learned from Paul. If they taught
the Gospel as he understood it, they were to be fully
accepted ; if not, their authority must be denied.
The other Reformers were also bold in their attitude,
and the greatest Biblical scholar of them aU, Calvin,
put his objections in a more scientific form than Luther.
It was only after the freshness and initial force of the

74 THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
Reformation had spent itself, and it was when against
the Roman attack the Lutheran and Reformed Churches
were driven to seek for infaUible authority to pit
against an infaUible Church that they took the back
ward step of asserting infaUible Scripture. They did
not trast the Gospel enough, and therefore needed to
buttress it by an external authority. Now that we
have shaken ourselves free once more, we must not
suffer ourselves to be again entangled.
The subject of this book is the Bible, and it would
seem at first sight to be self-explanatory. Everyone,
it may be said, knows what the Bible is. But by this
time it wiU have become clear that the matter is not
so simple. We shall see that we cannot be sure in
multitudes of cases what the exact wording of Scripture
is, and some of these cases are by no means unim
portant. And if this is so with the Text, the problem
of the Canon is even more serious. For those on whom
the duty of compiling the Canon feU have been by
no means agreed as to the books which should be
inserted and those which should be excluded. The
Bible with which we are familiar holds its position
with ourselves in virtue of long usage. But if one of
the early Fathers came back, knowing nothing of the
intervening development, he would probably find some
things to criticize in our hard-and-fast selection. He
might condemn us for including the Epistle to the
Hebrews, or the Apocalypse, or the Second Epistle
of Peter ; or he might find fault with the omission of
the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, or the Shepherd of Hermas. We may be
thankful that the task of the defender of Scripture has
not been made more difficult by the inclusion of some
of these books. And yet we might find it hard to
justify to antiquity the choice embodied in our Eng-

THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON 75
lish Bible. It has been necessary to emphasize these
considerations, not because it is any pleasure to disturb
long-settled and cherished opinions, but because we
must see as clearly as possible the conditions which
have to be taken into account in constructing our theory
of Scripture. It is perhaps clear already that a re
vision of old-fashioned opinions is inevitable in the logic
of the situation.

CHAPTER VI
THE LOWER CRITICISM
In Mr. A. E. Waite's fascinating and instructive volume
Studies in Mysticism, the foUowing sentences occur :
' Interpretations of this order are not less unprofitable
to the soul than the enhghtenments of the Higher
Criticism — which are understood to have failed. Very
likely the Lower Criticism — ^if that means ordinary
church teaching — has faUed after its own manner ; but
there are greater issues outside these alternatives.'
The maxim that the cobbler should not go beyond his
last is rarely transgressed by Mr. Waite, and it seems
ungrateful to quote this momentary aberration against
him. We may weU ask, however, " if they do these
things in the green tree, what shaU be done in the dry ? '
The answer is writ large in the books on Biblical criticism
by authors whose quaUfications for their task are of the
slenderest. For the most part indeed, they betray no
knowledge that such a thing as Lower Criticism exists,
and the term Higher Criticism they habituaUy misuse.
This term, though already familiar in other branches of
Uterary science, was first used with reference to Scripture
by Eichhorn in the closing years of the eighteenth
century. It was intended to distinguish one depart
ment of investigation from another. The Lower, or
Formal, or Textual Criticism wais concerned with
restoring to its original stdte, so far as might be, the
text of an author. When the student proceeded to
76

THE LOWER CRITICISM 77
investigate questions of the date and authorship, the
stracture and literary analysis of his documents, the
name given to the field of science that he cultivated
was the Higher Criticism. As it turns out, the intro
duction of this name has led to much misunderstanding.
Owing to the fact that its companion discipline has
commonly been known as Textual rather than as Lower
Criticism, the antithesis implied in Higher has been
rarely understood. It has been foolishly supposed by
many to express the attitude of a conscious superiority
arrogantly assumed by those who have broken with
traditioucil views. Hence we often read of ' the so-caUed
Higher Criticism.' This reminds me of the popular
preacher who ruined his glowing peroration by a scath
ing reference to ' the boasted progress of this so-called
nineteenth century.' And it has come to be so com
monly identified with opinions opposed to the traditional
views, that when I have asked beginners to define
Lower Criticism and Higher Criticism, my experience is
that nine out of ten, never having heard of Lower Criti
cism before, imagine that it is a label for the set of
opinions as to the authorship of Biblical Books which
has been common in the Church, and that Higher
Criticism implies the rejection of those views. This
is a complete mistake. The names indicate a difference
in the range of investigation. They have nothing to
do with the results reached. In fact, the subject-
matter of both is entirely different, and therefore they
cannot come into conflict in their results except in
those rather rare cases where the one department of
^science insensibly passes into the other, as an instance
of which I might refer to the authenticity of the last
twelve verses in the Gospel of Mark.
'^ For example, Ferdinand Christian Baur reached the
result that only four of the Epistles ascribed to Paul

78 THE LOWER CRITICISM
were written by him. Many other scholars have
concluded that aU the Epistles ascribed to him were his
work. But so far as both attempt by reasoned inquiry
into the facts to attain a conclusion, so far all are
critics, whether they come to one result or the other.
If a man seeks by scientific scholarship and reasoned
argument to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch,
he is practising Higher Criticism just as much as the
man who seeks, by the same methods, to disprove its
Mosaic authorship ; the only difference is that one is
bad and the other is sound Higher Criticism. It is
true that aU this ought not to need explanation, for it
has been explained times enough already, but the
error is so deep-seated that a brief explanation cannot
be superfluous.
Of the Higher Criticism I shall have to speak later.
Meanwhile it may suffice to say that it is the science
which investigates the age of individual books, asks
whether a book is the work of a single author, and if so
to what author it belongs and to what date ; if not,
what documents may be detected in it, how may the
analysis into its original elements be effected, and to
what dates should they be assigned ? The Lower
Criticism occupies a preliminary stage. It seeks to
ascertain whether the text we now possess corresponds
with that which the author actually wrote, and, where
we have different texts, to decide between them.
Finally, where we have reason to believe that the tme
text has not been preserved at all, it attempts to work
back to the original as nearly as can be done.
No doubt it comes on many readers with a sense of
shock that any discussion as to the accurate trans
mission of the text should be raised. The average
reader of the Bible, even if he is wilhng to admit that
he must go back to the Hebrew or the Greek for the

THE LOWER CRITICISM 79
immediately inspired word of God, is nevertheless
incUned to suppose that once the original languages have
been reached all debate is at an end. Now such a
claim that we possess an exact copy of the original
writings might appeal vrith some show of reason to the
plea that God Would naturaUy take special precautions
to protect the transmission of this literature from ail
chance of error. It is very instructive to have this
natural anticipation placed clearly before us, for it
affords an excellent object-lesson on the danger of
permitting our views to be formed in harmony with our
opinions of what is fitting rather than in deference to the
actual facts.
To these facts I have already drawn'attention. It
might, in view of the great unanimity of the Hebrew
manuscripts of the Old Testament, be argued with
apparent plausibility that a special Divine Providence
had worked the perpetual miracle of preserving the
text from damage. But it will hardly be possible for a
Christian to adopt this position, since such a miracle
has certainly not been worked in the case of the New
Testament, where the various readings mount up to
many thousands. It is indeed a demonstrable fact
that the text of the New Testament, which has been
current in Christendom for a millennium and a half,
contains a very large number of deviations from the
original. No Christian could consistently admit that
Providence extended a miraculous oversight to the
preservation of the Hebrew text which He has with
held from the far more important Scriptures of the
New Covenant.
This, however, does not settle the question of fact ;
it simply warns us that we must beware of invoking
Divine intervention to guarantee the purity of the
Hebrew text. It is quite possible that the Hebrews

8o THE LOWER CRITICISM
were more careful of their Scriptures than Christians have
been, and thus have preserved them intact. And in
favour of this it may be urged that the care which the
Jews have shown in this respect isnotorious. They took
the most amazing precautions to secure by an elaborate
system of calculations and checks the literal accuracy of
the copies that they made. The labour which they
undertook was of a stupendous character and must have
extended over scores of years. /
But there is such a thing as locking the stable door
after the horse has been stolen, and unfortunately the
history of the text of the Old Testament presents us
with an iUustration of that proverb. The Jews took
elaborate precautions to prevent the corruption of the
text when such corruption had run riot for several
centuries. The oldest dated Hebrew manuscript
that we possess is not earUer than a.d. 916. The work
of the Massoretes, who accompUshed the mighty task
which was intended to secure the minute accuracy of
the text, may be dated within the period covered by the
sixth to the eighth centuries after Christ. By other
means it is true we can f oUow back the present Hebrew
text substantiaUy to the second century a.d. But
think what this means. There is first of all a period of
many centuries l57ing between the earUest date to
which we can trace our present text and the actual
composition of many Old Testament books. Amos, for
example, prophesied about the middle of the eighth cen
tury B.C., but there is an interval of something Uke nine
hundred years between his lifetime and the earUest date
at which we can discover the Hebrew text'in its present
form, and more than sixteen hundred years before the
earhest Hebrew manuscript that we possess. How great,
then, was the chance that in this earher period many
errors might creep into the copies of the prophet's

THE LOWER CRITICISM 8i
writings ! And the probability of this is greatly en
hanced by the many catastrophes which overtook Israel
and Judah. First there was the overthrow of the
Northern Kingdom, which may very weU have been a
Uterary calamity of the first magnitude. Then there
was the downfall of the Southern Kingdom and the
destraction of Jerusalem, foUowed by the Babylonian
captivity in the early years of the sixth century B.c
Later, there came the terrible Maecabean persecu
tion, in which the Scriptures were specially singled
out for annihilation. Lastly, there was the second
destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter of vast
multitudes of Jews, foUowed in about sixty years by
the revolt under Bar-Kochba, which entailed a fear
ful vengeance on the unhappy people.
It is, however, no mere speculation that our copies
are often incorrect. There are many cases where the
text gives no proper sense, where in fact it can be
translated only by violence to grammar or where some
words have evidently dropped out. For example, if
we look at the Hebrew text of i Samuel xiii. i we read
the extraordinary statement ' Saul was a year old when
he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel.'
In other cases we have the same passage occurring in
two different parts of the Old Testament. When
they are compared together we meet with divergences.
Some of these are of course deliberate alterations, but
in other cases the only reasonable explanation is that
one of the texts is corrupt. Lastly, we have the evidence
of the ancient translations, especiaUy the early Greek
version, known as the Septuagint, which seems to havel
been completed before the time of Christ. This differs'
very much from the Hebrew. In a large number of
instances the Hebrew text is unquestionably superior,
but this is by no means always the case. It is in fact
B.O. ^

82 THE LOWER CRITICISM
quite clear to any unprejudiced student that the
Septuagint has frequently preserved the better reading.
And this is aU the more significant in view of the fafct
that many of the New Testament writers quote the
Old Testament according to the Septuagint and
not according to the Hebrew. It should also be
added that the Greek evidence is earlier than the
Hebrew. Similarly, the other versions occasionally
preserve a text superior to our present Hebrew text.
But, in view of the fact that a long interval Ues
between the age of many of the Bibhcal writers and the
earliest literary attestation we have for them in any
form, we must be prepared to face the possibUity that
in many cases neither the Hebrew nor the versions pre
serve the original text . If so, we have what wiU to many
seem the difficult situation, that some things which
have passed for the inspired utterances of historian,
prophet, or Psalmist, are really only the mistake'of some
scribe. But scholars are almost all agreed that this has
actually happened in not a few places, and that the
true text, unless it can be restored by successful con
jecture, is irretrievably lost. Such a contingency may
appear distressing, for it is unnecessary to insist how
precarious the process of mending the text by con
jecture must be. Its significance wUl have to be
estimated at a later point ; meanwhile it wiU suffice
to say that, while I consider it to have an important
bearing on the general view we take of the Bible, and
particularly of its inspiration, it leaves the real value
of Scripture practicaUy untouched.
It is not necessary to deal at any length with the
question of the New Testament. As I have already
pointed out, the immense number of various readings
assures us that the true text is hkely to be preserved
somewhere and a learned and judicious criticism may

THE LOWER CRITICISM 83
in numerous instances successfully restore it. At the
same time it is necessary to remember that in many
cases the best critics are divided between two or more
readings, the claims of which seem to be fairly evenly
balanced. Accordingly, when we have done our best,
some elerhent of uncertainty must remain. Moreover,
we must also remember that passages which at one time
were regarded as unquestionable portions of Scripture
are now by common consent looked upon as spurious.
Nor is it necessary for me to treat in more than out
line the sources of corruption, the methods which may
be employed to detect it or to heal it when it has been
discovered. Sometimes corruption has been caused by
the similarity of letters in sound or in appearance, at
other times by the rubbing off of the ink. Sometimes,
when the same word occurred twice, the scribe would
copy down to its first occurrence, and then his eye
would Ught on the second, and the intervening matter
would be omitted. At other times the opposite mistake
would happen, and he would write down to the second,
and his eye would then light on the first and he would
write the intervening words twice over. Sometimes
words or letters would get in their wrong order, at
other times abbreviations would be misunderstood.
There was also at one time no division made between
the words, and when the division was effected it might
be made at the wrong place. Or the scribe might be
careless or sleepy, and mistakes be introduced in this
way. It would often happen that when errors were
introduced the text would not make sense. This
would be discovered by the next coppst, and he
would naturally seek to restore it to its original form,
but his attempt would be very hkely to be unsuccessful,
and new errors would thus be occasioned. Another
rather frequent source of corruption was the intra-

84 THE LOWER CRITICISM
sion of marginal comments, or, as they are techni-
caUy caUed, glosses. Some reader would make a
comment in the margin of his manuscript, and then a
scribe would put it in the text under the impression that
it had been accidentaUy omitted from it. Even when
the scribe accidentally omitted a word or clause and
then tried to repair his mistake by putting the omitted
words in the margin it was quite easy for the later scribe
who restored them to the text to insert them at the
wrong point. If, for example, more columns than one
were on a page and the words in question were placed be
tween the columns they might be reinserted in the wrong
column . FinaUy we have to aUow for deliberate altera
tion. Harsh expressions would be toned down, what
was felt to be theologicaUy objectionable would be
harmonized with more conventional modes of expres
sion, what seemed to be too daring would be replaced
by something tamer. Jewish tradition itself reckons
eighteen of these so-caUed ' corrections of the scribes,'
but probably they were really much more numerous.
How then, it may be asked, are we to get back to the
original text ? The critic must prepare himself for
his work by a thorough famiharity with the causes of
corruption such as I have already sketched and with the
different types of corruption. In the second place
he must be familiar with the history of the Hebrew
alphabet, since letters which were clearly distinguished
in one stage of its history might be easily confounded in
another. In certain cases he may receive help from
rhythm, but unfortunately not so much as in our own
or other Western languages. The problem of Hebrew
metre is at present in a very unsettled condition, though; f
some critics freely correct the text where it does not
correspond to what their metrical theories require.
Abnormal length or abnormal brevity may reasonably be

THE LOWER CRITICISM 85
considered an indication of corruption, but it is scarcely
safe to go beyond this at present. Much help, however,
may often be derived from the parallelism which is so
characteristic of Hebrew poetry. AU readers will be
familiar with the way in which the two lines of a couplet
answer each othef in sense. For example :
He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man :
He that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich.
In many cases the atteiitive reader is arrested by a
deviation from the paraUelism he would have antici
pated. This, it is true, may not imply any error in the
text, but it frequently happens that a slight alteration
wiU restore a satisfying parallelism. In that case the
correction has a certain measure of probability.
Again, the ancient versions, especially the Septuagint,
are most helpful. Where they preserve a clearly better
text they should be preferred, even though the precise
retranslation into Hebrew may be uncertain. But
that is by no means the limit of their helpfulness. For
the text of a version may be clearly incorrect, but it
may help to restore the original, since when it is re
translated into Hebrew it is often possible by slight
alterations to secure a text which has aU the marks
of originahty. This, of course, is a form of emendation
by conjecture. But it is not pure conjecture. Inas
much, however, as we have every reason to suppose that
there are many instances where the true text is pre
served neither in the original nor in the translation, we
must, if we are to restore it, have recourse to conjecture.
In the New Testament the range of such emendation
is very limited in view of the immense amount of
evidence that we possess ; but in the Old Testament it
is impossible to exclude it, though it need hardly be

86 THE LOWER CRITICISM
said that it must be reserved for thoroughly equipped
scholars. This chapter is not intended to be a mere disquisition
on the Textual Criticism of the Bible. That would have
been outside the scope of this work. But it raises a
question which is vital to our investigation. It forces
home upon us the large measure of uncertainty which
gathers about the problem. How far does the Bible
which we possess represent the original utterances
of its authors ?
Our reluctance to admit the presence of errors wiU
vary with the rigour of our theory of inspiration ; but
we are warned to be cautious when we remember that
men have often dogmatically asserted the verbal
inspiration of a passage which is demonstrably corrupt.
But if our theory of inspiration is more flexible, we are
not reUeved of the duty of determining exactly what
the authors wrote whenever this is possible. It is, I
(fear, a vain dream to hope that we shall ever succeed in
j restoring the original text in every detail. God has not
judged the exact transmission of the Scriptures of
.sufficient importance to secure them miraculously from
error. Such studies as these are of the greatest value. They
have at once a chastening and a reassuring influence.
They prune away the rash and confident dogmatism of
inexperience and teach that sober self-distrust, which is,
in criticism, the beginning of wisdom. Our prejudices
disappear and we are trained by long and careful
apprenticeship to the scientific and historical tone and
temper which are of the very essence of all true criticism.
: The objective historic method is the note of the new
Textual Criticism, as dogmatic caprice was too often the
, note of the old. Where the truth lies cannot be doubted.
But while these studies are fuU of caution, they also

THE LOWER CRITICISM 87
reassure. Ignorance magnifies the extent of uncertainty
and its effect upon the faith. Criticism reduces it
to its true proportions. And when this is done it is seen
how slender is the cause for panic. What looms before
the uncritical as a vague and shadowy spectre of un
known power for evil, stands, in the clear light of know
ledge, defined with the sharpest precision, impotent
to harm. It is only a timid faith that can be disturbed
by the knowledge of the truth, or scandahsed by proved
errors in the text. Details may be inaccurate, but
the main truth stands clear ; the inspiration is not in
verbal niceties, but in the fuU and radiant revelation of
God in the minds of those who spoke as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost.

CHAPTER VII
THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY OF
BIBLICAL CRITICISM
I MAY now pass on to the critical treatment of Scripture
in the more commonly understood sense. The dis
tinguishing characteristic of modern literary and his
torical investigation is its critical character. Criticism
itself is not a recently-discovered method. It was
practised in the early Church, and again at the revival
of learning and in the Reformation period and subse
quently. But in its keenness and thoroughness, in its
minute and exhaustive coUection of facts and pheno
mena, in its careful scientific method, in the strictness
with which it apphes its tests, criticism became in the
nineteenth century practicaUy a new thing. It is
characterized by a courage, a penetration, a breadth and
a minuteness previously undreamed of. It is used to
settle problems of secular Uterature and history, and
it is well that its principles should be learnt in their ap
plication to these rather than to sacred books or events,
since we are not disturbed by any uneasiness lest our
results should undermine beliefs vital to our spiritual
life. For example, it would be weU for the critical faculty
to^be trained in some such hne of study as the Uterary
analysis of the Homeric poems. Our own reUgious
experience and theological behef are not bound up in
any way with the authorship or structure of the Homeric
Uterature. It wiU make no difference to iis whether we
88

LEGITIMACY OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 89
beUeve that the lUad and the Odyssey were the work
of a single writer, or whether one great poet wrote the
lUad and another the Odyssey, or whether both poems
are of long and gradual growth, the outcome of a hterary
process which may have extended over centuries.
We can therefore approach a problem of this kind
and concentrate our attention upon the Uterary question
itself, undeterred by any fear lest our investigation
should lead us into perplexity concerning our faith.
It would, of course, take us far beyond our limits to
Ulustrate critical method by detailed reference to the
Homeric or any other problem of the kind, but it is
desirable to remind ourselves at the outset that critical
method is not something which has been invented to
discredit the Bible, but it is the universally accepted
mode of inquiry apphed to hterary or historical pro
blems. But a few words on criticism in general wiU
be desirable before I pass on to the special question of
BibUcal criticism.
Modem Scholarship, as it stands face to face with a
piece of Uterature, cannot be satisfied tiU it has sub
mitted the tradition about it to a searching examina
tion. If tradition assigns a poem to a man living at
a certain time and in a certain place, it tests that
tradition in the most rigid way. It foUows it back
to its origin, so far as that can be ascertained. It
attaches far less weight to its antiquity than to its
nearness or distance in origin to or from the date to
which the poem is assigned. An unbroken tradition
stretching back two thousand years may seem very
impressive. But if it professes to attest an event
happening two thousand five hundred years ago, the
gap of five hundred years reduces its value to very httle.
In that period, especiaUy if it be an uncritical one,
legend has ample time to grow and false conjecture

90 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
to arise, so that evidence which cannot be brought
nearer to the event than five hundred years is for the
critic little better in many cases than no evidence at all.
The first hnks are all-important ; if they are missing,
the unbroken chain of later hnks counts for little or
nothing. But the nearness of the tradition to the event
of which it speaks is not all. The character of the
witnesses must be taken into account ; and this includes
their opportunities for knowledge, the soundness of
their judgment, their fidelity as transmitters of what
they had received. Further, the scholar must try,
if possible, to feel his way back from the tradition
in its earliest existing form to stiU earlier forms. In
this he may be much helped by the preservation of
different traditions. By careful comparison of these it
may be possible to work back to the point from which
their divergences sprang. He must also investigate
the credibihty of the tradition as well as its history.
By the side of this external evidence of tradition
must be set the internal evidence derived from study of
the poem itself. Here it would be necessary to search
for aUusions which might help to fix its date, the country
in which it was composed, the social hfe and poUtical
conditions reflected in it, its place in the development
of thought and poetical form. But another question
would demand attention, whether the poem was the
work of one or more authors. If the latter were found
to be the case, the next step would be to analyse it into
its constituent elements, and ascertain in what order
of time they should be placed and to what period they
should be assigned. When external and internal
evidence have been carefuUy studied, the results reached
along the two Unes of investigation should be com
pared. The modem historian finds critical method similarly

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 91
indispensable. Few would be so uncritical as to relate
whatever they found in their authorities, without any
regard to its probabUity. But the critical method
attaches much importance to a criticism of authorities.)
A historian must not only bring his critical faculty tol
bear on the narrative of his authorities, he must examine
the value of the authorities themselves. The docu-f
ments in which the story is conveyed must be sub
mitted to a searching scrutiny. He must interrogate
the witnesses and discover the relations in which they
stand to each other. He must ask what were their
motives in writing, what audience they had in view,
what impressions they wished to create, through what
channels they derived their knowledge. He must
fix as far as possible the date and chronological order
of the documents and inquire what sources, written
or oral, lay behind them. He will attach far more
weight to the story of an author whom he has found
trustworthy and judicious than to that of one who has
proved credulous and inaccurate. Contemporary evi
dence wiU naturally receive the greatest consideration.
It will be clear that alike in literature and history
the function of criticism is essentiaUy constructive. If
it puUs down it is that it may build better, if it proves all
things it is that it may confidently hold fast what is
good. If its construction is to be stable and enduring
it must rigidly test the materials with which it buUds.
Its single aim is to discover the truth.
As appUed to the Bible, criticism investigates the
questions of the date, authorship, and stracture of the
various books, and seeks to ascertain the sources from
which they have been compiled. It refuses to be
fettered in its work by any traditional views. If
inquiry is not to be worthless, it must be free. No
investigation can merit confidence if it carefuUy works

92 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
towards a goal fixed at the outset. It must foUow the
line suggested by the facts which it brings to light.
This position is assaUed by two sets of antagonists.
We have, in the first place, those who treat Biblical
criticism as something iUegitimate in itself. These
questions, they say, have' been settled for us, we may
not reopen them, but must accept what we have been
taught, without inquiry whether it be trae or false.
Such an objection cannot be;TogicaUy urged by a Pro
testant, inasmuch as it brings in an anti-Protestant
principle of authority. But it is also irrational, for by
precisely the same argumeijit it could be shown that
the heathen should never have embraced Christianity,
and that the Reformation/ should never have taken
place. What cannot commend itself to the reason can
not be permanent in our faith, and what wUl not bear
the light of searching inquiry is doomed to pass away.
It is the glory of Christianity that it appeals to the
reason, and Christians should be the last to deprecate
free inquiry into the documents in which their faith
finds its authoritative expression. We need to put up
no warning notice-board that trespassers wUl be prose
cuted. We have so firm a confidence in the triumph of
truth that we welcome the freest and most searching
investigation. No gold is of any value to us if it wUl
not stand the severest acid test. And this is pretty
universaUy acknowledged both by those who accept
and by those who reject traditional views. Most are
agreed that it is a legitimate inquiry to ask at what date
a document was written ; who was its author ? is it
the work of one hand or of several ? at what date
was it compiled ? and to what dates should the various
elements in it be assigned ? what were the motives
that led the writers to do their work ? from what
standpoint did they regard the story they told ? how far

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 93
have the selection and grouping of material and the
proportions they observe been controUed by the aim
that they set before them ? Have we the text of the
work in one or many manuscripts ? if in one only, how
far may we beUeve that it correctly represents the
original ? if in more than one, how far do they agree,
and when they vary, which text is to be preferred ?
These are the questions with which criticism has to deal,
and the Bible can as Uttle escape them as any other
historical hterature. It is a complete mistake to
suppose that criticism, as apphed to Scripture, is
necessarUy animated by any hostUity, either to rehgion
or to the Bible. In many cases it is precisely the
opposite feeling, the sense of its unique value and
importance, that drives us forward to undertake irksome
and minute investigation, which we should regard as
too laborious for any other Uterature.
But there are many who whUe they admit that
BibUcal criticism is legitimate in itself, yet regard
certain methods or conclusions as incompatible with
fimdamental Christian trath. The discussion of this
position may start with the assertion of a general
principle. This is, that once we have admitted the
right of scientific scholarship to deal with the Uterary
and historia! problems of the Bible we cannot hmit its
scope. We must permit it to work by its own methods,
and reach its own results, without external dictation
as to what these results should be. It is only after they
have been reached that the question can properly arise.
How may they be adjusted to conclusions reached in
other realms of thought ? It is impossible to be asking
all the whUe, Is this or the other result ' safe ' ? If we
trust our method at all, we must trast it altogether.
I must briefly examine, however, the objection that
the presuppositions or the results which have in many

94 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
cases been reached by critics are such that we cannot in
loyalty to fundamental truth accept them. There is
no charge more frequently or with more assurance
brought against the criticism with which we are dealing,
than that it starts from a disbelief in the supernatural,
and is throughout controUed by it. The results to
which it comes are determined, it is said, by the theory
that there can be in rehgion no supernatural revelation,
but only natural evolution. Miracle and predictive
prophecy are alike excluded by it. If critical results
really involved these premisses, it would be a serious
matter for Christians. For Christianity rests on histori
cal facts, from which the element of the supernatural
cannot be excluded. In our reply to this charge there
are several things that must be taken into account. It
is perfectly tme .that many of the most distinguished
critics have not been believers in the supernatural.
Kuenen is a conspicuous example of this, aU the more so,
that his work is often marred by the obtrusion of his
antipathy to the supematuralism of the Bible. But,
on the other hand, it must be remembered that there is
a reason for this element in critical works. Orthodox
Christians for a long time refused to have anything to
do with a criticism which did not lead to the accepted
results. Theologians were so pledged to the old way of
looking at things that any doubt as to the traditional
authorship of the Pentateuch or any reflection on its
historical character was regarded by them as blasphemy ;
so little were they able to distinguish between an
accident and an essential of the Christian faith. So the
work was left to those who had no sympathy with some
of the fundamental views of evangelical Christianity.
If the Churches had from the first taken their share in
the work of criticism, and refused to leave it to ' the
Left,' this charge could never have been brought. But

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 95
unhappily the Churches stood aloof, and a great deal of
the work was done by rationahstic critics. Much of
the criticism is not essentiaUy the worse for this, for the
simple reason that the question of the supernatural
emerges very much less in the investigation of the Old
Testament than the remarks of opponents would lead
people to suppose ; in the crucial problems it does not
emerge at aU. And while I think it highly important
that criticism should be largely in the hands of beheving
critics, there is httle ground for supposing that a
beUef in the supernatural would have seriously modified
the results.
But is it trae that antisupematurahsm is so woven
into the texture of this criticism that we must believe
that those who accept it and remain believers in a
supernatural revelation are unconsciously inconsistent ?
That is reaUy a vital question for us, for such an in
consistency wiU sooner or later be revealed, as logic
accomplishes its task. We ought to make sure before
we commit ourselves to a critical position, that it wiU
not carry with it an implicit surrender of the funda
mental truths of our religion. I am not pleading here
that a critic should be hampered in his search for truth
by any fear of consequences ; fearlessness and honesty
are the very breath of life to criticism. But no principle
should be assumed in the investigation such as the
impossibUity of the miraculous, because such an assump
tion is unscientific. With presuppositions of this kind
criticism has nothing to do. Criticism is literary and
historical. So far as it is controUed by such a postulate
it has ceased to be criticism. And this is recognized by
critics themselves.
It may be best to quote two passages from representa
tives of different theological schools, each of whom is
universaUy recognized as an authoritative exponent of

96 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
modem criticism. Kuenen says : ' Without for a
moment concealing my own conviction that there is not
one single miracle on record which we can accept as a
fact, I would, nevertheless, place in the forefront of
historical criticism the principle that miracles are
possible. To this principle I have never been consciously
untrue while pursuing the very path which has led me
to the conviction I have just avowed.' (Article on
' Critical Method ' in the Modern Review, 1880, page
485.) Robertson Smith says : ' If in the apphcation
you find me caUing in a rationalistic principle, if you
can show at any step in my argument that I assume
the impossiblity of the supernatural or reject plain
facts in the interests of rationahstic theories, I wiU
frankly confess that I am in the wrong.' (Old Testa
ment in the fewish Church, 2nd edition, page 19.)
In spite of these disclaimers we are assured that the
very origin of the critical hypothesis justifies an attitude
of suspicion towards it. It was bom and cradled in
rationahsm and this original taint inheres to this day
in its very essence. The modem theory has largely
been built up, Dr. Orr teUs us, on ' the rationalistic
conviction that a supernatural explanation of facts
cannot be admitted.' It is quite tme that he admits
that there are moderate and devout men, who tone
down the negations and breathe into criticism a more
beUeving spirit, but he teUs us that we are not to take
our views of the Grafian criticism from these writers.
They are not its true representatives ; we must go to
the rationalists ; they are the only authorized spokes
men from whom we can learn what the critical move
ment reaUy means. I thmk that we must carefully
distinguish criticism from the history of reUgion. When
I defend the Grafian position, I am defending the com
mon view as to the analysis of the Pentateuch and the

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 97
order of the documents according to which Deuteronomy
forms the middle term between J E and P, the latter
document being placed after Ezekiel. If a man accepts
these views, whatever theological position he may hold,
whether he beheves in miracles or rejects them, whether
he is a conservative in New Testament criticism or a
radical, whether he is evangehcal or rationalistic, he is
a Grafian ; and my own grounds for beheving in the
tmth of the Grafian position are whoUy independent of
any rationahstic pre-suppositions whatever. My behef
in it is not determined by any a priori evolutionary
theory, nor do I rest at aU on the argument from sUence.
The theory seems to me to be required by the pheno
mena in the Old Testament itself. Accordingly I
refuse to institute an Index Expurgatorius, and to say
that there are no authoritative exponents of the trae
inwardness of the Grafian theory outside the ranks of
the rationalists. If the meaning of criticism is iUegiti-
mately stretched to embrace the history of reUgion
that is a different matter, but such an extension is un
warrantable. In the New Testament no doubt
antipathy to miracle counts for a great deal more.
But in the main problems of Old Testament criticism,
whether they touch the analysis or the dating of the
documents, this antipathy is little, if at aU, discernible.
Not philosophical postulates but hard facts in the
documents themselves form the ground on which the
critical conclusions rest. I may quote as a paraUel
case the higher criticism of the Homeric poems. The
supernatural is present in those poems in fuU measure.
But the Uterary analysis of them into their constituent
parts is made with no intention of eliminating the
supernatural. The champions of the unity of the
poems are at one with impugners of it in disbeheving the
supernatural stories that are told. It is the phenomena
B,Oa 7

98 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
presented by the writings themselves which have led to
the denial of the unity of authorship. And it is the
same with the Old Testament Books. It is not the
supernatural element in the Pentateuch that has forced
critics to a denial of the Mosaic authorship. It has been
the difficulty felt in ascribing to one writer the widely
different styles, the inconsistent codes of legislation,
the remarkable divergence in points of view, and
all the other features which indicate plurality of
authors. It is quite true that people who start from
the naturalistic standpoint may find that the critical
conclusions fit very weU into their scheme of the uni
verse, and they are of course less exposed to some of the
antecedent difficulties which are felt by the devout
Christian. But it is only a confusion of issues to argue
that they alone have the right to teU us what the critical
movement means. If from two different starting-
points the same conclusion on a certain matter is
reached, we have no justification for the assertion that
only one Une of approach may be legitimately foUowed.
Others, again, distrust the results because they have
been reached by experts, and experts, though their
evidence is very valuable in its place, generaUy push
their views too far. It is the jury, we are reminded,
who give the verdict, the speciaUsts are too liable to
be one-sided. The practical inference often drawn
from this is that it is for the ordinary man to de
cide these questions. It must be remembered, how
ever, that the juryman is not the man in the street
with an off-hand judgment, but the man in the jury-
box, who has patiently foUowed the evidence and the
searching cross-examination of witnesses, who has
carefuUy weighed the facts on both sides, who has
Ustened to the expert comment of the counsel and the
summing up of the judge, who has watched the de-

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 99
meanour of the witnesses and the parties to the case,
and thus has gained the competence and the right to
form an opinion, and gives it in accordance with the
facts and the evidence, not in accordance with any
prejudices with which he entered on his task. And
criticism has no cause to shrink from a similar judg
ment, by a non-expert audience, if the audience is
free from prejudice, has carefully followed the evidence,
and taken due account of the arguments of experts.
But on matters of such difficulty, complexity, and un-
familiarity uninstmcted common sense has no right
to pronounce at aU. A man may have the common
sense of Benjamin Franklin himself, but unless he has
famiharized himself with the problems, he has no
right to say a word on either side. The practice of
giving a verdict when one has never been in court at aU
cannot be too strongly condemned.
One of the most serious difficulties in the way of
acceptance of critical results is caused by the definite
ascription of certain things to particular authors, which
modern investigation has seen reason to date at another
period. The most noteworthy example is the formula,
' And the Lord spake unto Moses, sa5dng,' which is
constantly prefixed to laws that we have reason to
beheve are later than his time. There are several sug
gestions which may tend to remove this difficulty.
Law has its own peculiar methods, and in ancient
systems especiaUy certain forms are required to confer
vaUdity on laws. It may be suggested that this
formula was considered to give legal vahdity to a
law. The -question may arise whether such a for
mula couldf have been used unless it was strictly tme.
In reply toXthis it may be pointed out that what
are known as ' legal fictions ' have been common in
legal systems, in none more so than in Enghsh law.

100 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
In a developing society it is inevitable that new
conditions should continually arise. It is, therefore,
obvious that a legislation which is suitable to an early
and simple stage of society becomes speedily inade
quate as society grows more complex. It hes in the
nature of the case that if justice is to be upheld and
right is to be done, law must keep pace with the move
ment of society, or at any rate not lag too far behind it.
Now this necessity might be satisfied by the constant
creation of new laws, but the incessant interference
with legal machinery which this would involve renders
such a method rather unsuitable to society at that point
of development. Accordingly another method is con
stantly foUowed. Instead of creating new laws the old
laws are stretched to cover the new requirements.
This has to be done by a legal fiction in order that a
plaintiff may bring his case before the court. In
such instances he is obliged to put his suit in order by
feigning to be in a position which is recognized by
the existing law. There is in all this no deception,
but an extension of the old legislation to cover a
situation which was not originaUy contemplated.
Now, in the case before us we have a much shghter
fiction through which the new legislation is made
valid by the old formula. And its justification hes in
this, that Moses was the original legislator, and these
regulations were regarded as deductions from his laws,
implicitly contained in them, but made exphcit only
in a later age, when new conditions had arisen, and
new laws had to be made. Further, we have a signifi
cant hint in the Bible itself that this formula must not
be pressed. According to later Jewish theology, it was
believed that the Law was given by angels. What is
important for us is that this behef is endorsed in the
New Testament. It occurs in the speech of Stephen

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM loi
(Acts vii. 53, cf. 38), in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(u. 2), in the Epistle to the Galatians (iii. 19), while it
underhes much of the argument of the Epistle to the
Colossians. If, then, it was legitimate for New Testa
ment writers to interpret so freely the words ' and
God spake,' it can hardly be wrong for the critic to
refuse to be tied down to a literal interpretation of the
words, ' unto Moses.' This principle largely covers
the addresses attributed to Moses in Deuteronomy. It
may be added, however, with reference to these, that
the Hebrew language had no reporting style, and there
fore, if an address was to be reported, it had to be writ
ten in the first person. But it would be absurd to
argue that a report in the first person must be verbatim,
if the language had no means of reporting in any other
way. Another charge often urged against Biblical criti
cism is that the results if true destroy the inspiration
of the Bible. What they reaUy destroy is certain un
authorized, even though widely-held, human theories
of inspiration. But in any case the objection is ille
gitimate. We must derive our theory of inspiration
from the phenomena of Scripture, not study the pheno
mena in the light of theories which have been formulated
with no reference to embarrassing facts. The reverent
student wiU shrink from imposing his abstract specu
lations on the very complex mass of facts to which any
adequate and scientific explanation must be adjusted.
Moreover, it is foohsh to frame hard and fast theories
which have no practical rehgious value but
which strain faith to the snapping point. Such a
theory is that of the infallibihty or the inerrancy of
Scripture. The ordinary Christian can read the Bible
only in a translation, at the best very imperfect.
Even the best equipped scholar is confronted with

102 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
frequent uncertainties as to the trae text of Scripture,
and with innumerable difficulties as to its meaning.
If any real value attached to the infaUibiUty of the
original record we should have expected an absolutely
correct transmission ofthe text, and a freedom from
aU obscurity in the sense. What God thought it
worth while to give He might be expected to preserve.
Yet even the defenders of verbal inspiration are
usually driven to admit that our presetit text cannot be
everywhere defended. They faUback onthe original
autographs, and assert that if these could be dis
covered they would be found to be absolutely free
from error of any kind. But the dogma of the infaUi-
bihty of the autographs is a device to get rid of incon
venient facts, without one shred of evidence in its fa
vour, and with the evidence of textual criticism strongly
against it (see pp. 397 f . ). Besides, we have to deal with
the text as it has come down to us, not with some quite
different documents, which God supernaturaUy kept
free from error for the handful of original readers, but
abandoned to inaccurate transmission in the copies
read by the whole Church of subsequent ages. We need
not be more concerned about the infallibility of Scrip
ture than God has been. And the infaUibihty of an
infalUble document is of little use to the majority
of Christians without an infallible translation and inter
pretation. Nevertheless, the ordinary Christian derives
constant spiritual profit from his imperfectly transmit
ted, imperfectly translated, and imperfectly understood
Bible. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is dangerous,
because it conflicts with so much in the Bible ; and
to stake the trath of Christianity upon it is disastrous
in the extreme. The duty of a student of Scripture
is to examine the Bible itself, patiently coUect the
facts that bear upon the subject, and then try to

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 103
formulate a theory which shall do justice to aU the
facts, and not by a hasty generalization or acceptance
of a traditional theory blind his eyes to phenomena
that would otherwise be obvious to him. We may
therefore dismiss as illegitimate this objection, that
criticism is to be rejected because it is inconsistent with
the inspiration of the Bible.
No doubt what weighs most with many Christiana
is the supposed testimony given by Christ to the author
ship of Old Testament books. An appeal to the
authority of Christ must be received with the greatest
reverence, but it becomes us here specially to be sure
of our ground lest we profanely use His name to en
dorse our own views. In the first place it should be
noticed that Christ's references to authorship are few
and usuaUy very general. If pressed to their fuUest
extent they would not attest anything like the whole
traditional view. It is not probable, however, that
Christ's references involved a pronouncement on author
ship. He naturaUy used the language of His own time,
not raising side-issues away from His message, nor
casting needless stumbhng-blocks in men's way. Even
the explicit reference to David as the author of Psalm
ex. is really no more than the acceptance for controver
sial purposes of a position held by His antagonists in
order to refute them from their own point of view.
The case is parallel with His challenge to the Pharisees :
' If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your
sons cast them out ? ' Many who hold that the one
passage commits us to the behef in the Davidic author
ship of Psalm ex., would shrink from applying the
same principle in the other passage, and insisting that
we must believe that the disciples of the Pharisees
actually cast out devils.
But the further question may be raised whether in

104 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
these matters the knowledge of Christ was greater
than that of His time. Our surest source of informa
tion, as I have said before, is the Gospel narrative.
Not only does this preserve for us an actual assertion
by Christ of His ignorance as to the time of His coming,
but it is abundantly clear that in many matters His
knowledge was Umited, unless we dishonour Him by
accusing Him of unreahty. Where He enters the
region of moral and spiritual trath, His teaching is final.
But in such matters as the authorship of books, to
which no vital importance attaches, we may beheve
that His words do not and were never intended to
bar the fuUest investigation. And this brings us in
face of the problem of the Incarnation. Here I
revert to a question I discussed at some length in
my volume, Christianity : Its Nature and its Truth ;
but the importance of the subject must be my apology
for dealing briefly with it. The essential conditions
of a true solution are a full recognition of the Deity
of Christ coupled with as full a recognition of His
humanity. Such a union of the human and Divine
must in the nature of things be full of mystery to us,
who only imperfectly know what humanity is and stiU
less what is the essence of the Divine. Yet we can see
to some extent what it would involve. It could not
take place without some surrender on the Divine side.
We must hold fast at aU costs the reality of Christ's
experience, which, as we learn from the Epistle to the
Hebrews, qualified Him to be our High-priest. It
was therefore necessary for Him to surrender every
thing that was incompatible with a truly human life.
And this is especiaUy true in the sphere of knowledge.
He had to grow in wisdom as He grew in stature (Luke
u. 52). He had to become like His brethren in aU
points except sin. He had to undergo the same tempta-

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 105
tions. This condition of the Incarnation involved a
limitation in His knowledge. There are some tempta
tions, and those among the most difficult to resist,
which would be impossible to omniscience. They derive
aU their power from the imperfection of knowledge
in those to whom they are addressed. Knowledge is
a counter-speU which breaks at once the fascination
they would cast over them. Such knowledge had
therefore to be withheld from Christ that He might
experience the temptations by which His brethren
are racked. Since then we have no right to claim
. omniscience for Jesus during His earthly hfe, we need
feel no obUgation to foreclose by an appeal to His
authority questions of hterary or historical criti
cism. I am glad to say, however, that the authority of our
Lord is now much less confidently thrown into the
anti-critical scale. The more cautious defenders of
tradition are beginning to realize how imprudent it
is to gamble with such high stakes. Speaking now,
not as a critic, but simply as a theologian, I regard
the appeal to the authority of Christ to foreclose the
discussion of critical questions as very dangerous to a
soimd Christology. Accepting the Divinity of our
Lord in the strictest sense of the term, I am not dis
posed to treat an appeal to the authority of Christ as
demanding from us an5d:hing but the most reverent
attention. But I am aU the more concerned that it
should not be invoked, as it is by the more reckless
spuits Ul the traditional camp, in a cause that would
not command His approval. It is trae that m the
very leamed works recently pubhshed on Daniel by
Dr. C. H. H. Wright, the stress is largely laid on the
authority of Christ, though even he has to make a very
significant concession to the critics with reference to the

io6 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
Maecabean date of some of the later chapters in their
present form. But Dr. Orr, whose strength Ues
especiaUy in Systematic Theology, makes very httle
reference indeed to this side of the question, confessing
that Christ accepted current views of authorship which
it was no part of His mission to pronounce upon, and
never thought in His reference to Moses, David and
Isaiah of giving an authoritative judgment on the
history or mode of origin of these books. Dr. Orr, it is
trae, thinks that Christ would have pronounced a very
emphatic judgment on some of the modern theories of
Scripture, had they been brought before Him. It is
unfortunate that he does not specify what theories
he has in mind, or possibly he might have found
many beheving critics to agree with him. But any
how this is only his pious opinion, with which in the
absence of any evidence it is unnecessary to concern
ourselves. But now I advance a step farther. The very nature]
of the Bible makes criticism not only legitimate but
imperative. This will be best appreciated if we ask^
ourselves what kind of a book we should have ex
pected the Bible to be, supposing that we had no know
ledge of the Bible we actually possess. We should
naturally have expected in the first place that it
would be a compendium of religious trath. It should
expound the nature of God and of man, the relations
between them, the rectification of the abnormal
tendencies in human nature and similar topics in a
clear and orderly manner ; in other words, it should
present us with a system of doctrine. Further, it
would naturally be consulted for a perfect system of
conduct ; in other words, it should be a treatise on
morahty. We might, perhaps, further expect it not
only to direct our thought concerning Divine things and

* OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 107
control our conduct, but to stimiUate the rehgious
emotion. But it is quite clear that such a book would
be very different from the Bible we actuaUy possess.
For the Bible is neither a treatise on Systematic Theo
logy, nor a handbook on Ethics, nor yet a manual of
devotion. It is tme that it contains more teaching on
Theology than any system of dogmatics has been able
to incorporate, and a mass of moral teaching that no
moraUst has exhausted. For devotional reading it is
unrivalled in its power to Uft the soul into immediate
and unhindered feUowship with God. Yet it possesses
aU these great quahties in virtue of the fact that
primarily it is something else.
If we examine it, apart from any theory, we are
struck at the outset by the large proportion of histor*
or narrative, in much of which rehgion seems to hold
a subordinate place. Often it is the development of
extemcd events, wars, aUiances, rebeUions, and other
concerns of the statesman. Sometimes it is a series
of anecdotes which woiUd not suggest a spiritual signifi
cance to us if we met them in other Uterature. The
historians are invaluable in that they exhibit to us
the course of Israel's pohtical fortunes, they give
us a firm skeleton of fact, but for the flesh and blood
and breath of Ufe we have to turn mainly to prophet
and poet. The prophets are not engrossed with the
far-away past or the distant future, but stand face to
face with their contemporaries, deaiUng closely with
their actual Ufe, testing their diplomacy and adminis
tration of justice by their exalted social and pohtical
ideals, seeking to rectify their relation to God and
conduct to then: feUow-men. Again in the Wisdom
Uterature of the Old Testament we have the problems
of hfe discussed, as in Job, or its duties enforced, as
in Proverbs. In the Psalms we have the expression

io8 THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
of religious experience, often of marveUous depth and
range. There is much that is parallel in the New Testa
ment. Here also we have narrative books,, describing
the hfe, the teaching, the death, the resurrection of
Jesus, and the growth of the early Church. But we
also have the Epistles, in which we may see the counter
part to the prophetic Uterature of the Old Testament.
They deal with the urgent present and its problems ;
even where speculation takes its boldest flight it is that
some commonplace duty may be enforced, some pro
blem of conduct grow clear under an intenser hght.
Now aU this means that revelation is a process in
history. It is exquisitely fitted to the concrete reality ;
is no body of abstract propositions, but everjrwhere in
timately associated with life. Its lack of system may
perplex us when we first observe it, but when we come
to reflect on it, we realize how natural it is for a liter
ature which is a transcript of Ufe to be so inci
dental. But, if revelation is mediated through history, we
must understand the history in order that we may know
the revelation. To gain the greatest good from the
Bible we must place ourselves in line with the main
stream of it. If we open the writings of a prophet we
read words addressed to his own time with its special
conditions and peculiar needs. The value of the
message, when originaUy uttered, depended largely on
its close applicability to, the circumstances with which
it dealt. Hence there is often a local and temporal
element in Scripture, which must be allowed for if
we are to appropriate its permanent message. We
must go behind the special apphcation and reach the
universal principles applied if we are to reapply
those principles to our own whoUy different conditions.
But we cannot do this without knowing the con-

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM 109
ditions to which the apphcation is made. It is not
too much to say that, for want of this historical study,
a large part of the Old Testament and some things
in the New have been a sealed book to most readers
of the Bible. It is true that much in the Bible is not
of special application, but is the utterance of the
universal and the eternal. But while such passages
speak immediately to the heart and are independent
of circumstances of time or place, much is lost through
failure to understand the historical conditions in
which the word first came to the men who heard it.
Since the fortunes of Israel changed much from
time to time, a book may have quite a different light
cast upon it according as its composition is placed in
one period or another. Thus questions of date and
authorship are of importance for the tme interpretation.
So also is the determination of the structure of individual
books. It will clearly make a great difference to the
interpretation of a book if the whole of it is judged to
belong to a single period and to one author, or if pieces
of different periods and by different authors have
been incorporated in it. There is another matter of
importance. Christians see in the Rehgion of Israel a
Divinely-ordered preparation for Christianity. But
if we have in the Old Testament a progressive revela
tion leading up to Christ, we need to place its docu
ments in the true order if we are to understand the
course which the development took.
But if the Bible is to be studied historicaUy, criti
cism is indispensable. The history is enshrined in
documents, and these documents must be dated and
analysed that we may fit each into its proper place in
the onward march of God's self-revelation. It is
criticism alone that can answer questions as to time
and place, circumstances of origin or the composite

IIO THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY
authorship of the documents. No modern historian
would write a history untU he had examined by the
best methods of scientific criticism the documents
from which his narrative was drawn, and there is no
reason why sacred history should be deprived of the
great advantage derived from critical examination of
the sources. It has pleased God to give us the Bible
in such a form as to make criticism of it essential
if we are truly to understand it in all its fulness and
depth of meaning. It is a perpetual chaUenge to aU
the quahties of mind and heart, rewarding those
most richly who lavish the most loving study upon
it, and count no tedious toU too arduous that they
may more tnUy understand by what way God has
given it to us.
It must, of course, be clearly understood that what
I have said so far, has been designed to justify a
method rather than to commend for acceptance any
set of results. I have wished to vindicate the right of
criticism to carry through its investigations by its
own methods, and to reach its results in its own way.
I have, at the same time, had in mind the fact that
criticism is a special science, and that we must look
forward, at the end of its investigations, to a final
decision on the nature of Scripture which shaU take into
account the results reached by other methods of inquiry.
The case is the same here as in other special sciences.
The philosopher desires to reach a unified conception
of the universe. In that scheme of things as he ul
timately reconstructs it he must find room for the
results of the special sciences. He does not insist
that the chemist or the biologist, the historian or the
anthropologist, the physiologist or the psychologist
should conduct their researches under his control.
They have not to look at their facts through the

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM iii
spectacles of phUosophic theory. But while he recog
nizes the independence of the special sciences he
cannot admit their finahty. Not one of them is
entitled to set itself up as a philosophy and to inter
pret the universe in its special dialect. The philo
sopher has to co-ordinate the results which each of these
sciences offers him, to adjust their contributions to each
other, and weave the various strands of knowledge into
a harmonious pattern which shaU copy the total
reality. And simUarly he who seeks to understand the
Bible must recognize that the contribution made by
criticism is not the last word upon Scripture. Room
must be made for it in the fuU-orbed theory of the
Bible which it is our aim to secure, but it is not com
petent to give us our ultimate conception of it. There
are many factors beside the critical factor which must
be taken into account by aU who would seek to form a
theory of Scripture which shaU be in harmony, not with
human fancies or with ecclesiastical tradition, but with
the Divine fact. But we must not for that reason in
vert the tme order of things and impose the shackles of
a preconceived theory on the freedom of critical re
search. It is my ultimate aim to vindicate for the Bible
an even higher, because truer, place in the affectionate
regard of Christians than that which has often been
uninteUigently accorded it. To do this successfuUy
involves preUminary discussions with which some
readers may be tempted to grow impatient ; stUl more
it may seem to those who have not learnt to -dis
tinguish between essence and accident, between sub
stance and form, as if I were tr5dng to sap the founda
tions of behef. But I would appeal to those who are
disturbed by the facts I have to bring before them to
be patient tUl the whole case has been presented, and

112 LEGITIMACY OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM
to remember those who have to struggle with in
teUectual difficulties to which they themselves are
strangers and whom it is our duty, if possible, to
reclaim for faith.

CHAPTER VIII
THE STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM
It wiU probably assist us in forming an estimate of the
results reached by criticism if we look back over the
long history which has brought it to its present position.
I said in an earher chapter that criticism is by no
means a purely modem invention. If, for example,
we think of secular literature, we have the Alexandrian
critics who denied that the Iliad and the Odyssey
were the work of a single author. We find an ad
mirable discussion of the differences between the
Apocalj^se and the Fourth Gospel from the pen of
Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria, a.d. 247-
265, which might have been written by a modem
Biblical critic' From the period of the Renaissance
we may recaU the demonstration that the Donation
of Constantine was a forgery. Luther and the other
Reformers occasionaUy expressed acute and pene
trating judgmtents on some of the Bibhcal books. I
need only mention Luther's briUiant suggestion that
the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by ApoUos.
At a later period Hobbes, Spinoza, Simon, and others
had pointed out several phenomena in the Pentateuch
which negatived the idea of its Mosaic authorship.
These, however, were somewhat desultory observa
tions, and the clue to a scientific treatment of the
Pentateuch was first discovered by Jean Astrac. He
was a Roman Cathohc physician, and published anony-
B.O. 113 8

114 STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM
mously in 1753 a book which was of epoch-making
importance. He started from the observation that
in some narratives in Genesis the Divine name used
was Yahweh, and in other sections it was Elohim. The
former of these names is familiar to us in its modem
form Jehovah, a barbarous invention only a few cen
turies old. It is usually translated LORD. The latter
name, Elohim, means God. Astruc's criticism was of
a very conservative type. He did not dispute the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. His book, in
fact, bore the title : Conjectures on the Original
Memoirs which it Appears that Moses Employed to
Compose the Book of Genesis. Curiously, he thought
that Moses had also employed documents for the first
two chapters of Exodus. But conservative though he
was, his significance was immense, since he was the
first to set criticism in the way of analysing the Penta
teuch into its constituent elements. In 1783 J. G.
Eichhorn pubhshed his Introduction to the OU
Testament, the first great critical work on this subject.
He also attributed the Pentateuch to Moses, but as a
result of independent investigation adopted views as
to documentary analysis similar to those of Astruc.
His book exerted great infiuence on German opinion.
If a Roman Catholic layman had been the first to
point out a clue to the analysis it is a Roman Catholic
priest whom I have next to mention. This was A.
Geddes, a very learned scholar, whose chief books were
written in the closing decade of the eighteenth century.
In one respect his work may appear reactionary, since
he discarded the clue to analysis which had been placed
in the hands of scholars by Astruc and Eichhorn.
Nevertheless he accepted the theory that the Penta
teuch had been put together from earlier writings
and oral tradition. Among these earher writings he

STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 115
included the journals of Moses. His improvement on
earher critics consisted mainly in his recognition that
the Pentateuch could not be the work of Moses, al
though he did not deny a large Mosaic element in it.
He thought that it might be assigned to the reign of
Solomon, but that it was not earher than David or
later than Hezekiah. In another respect Geddes was
a pioneer. Most readers wiU be famUiar with the fact
that modem scholars often speak of the Hexateuch
rather than the Pentateuch. They do so to express
the fact that the documents, which may be traced
through the Pentateuch, are continued in the Book
of Joshua. Geddes, to a certain extent, anticipated
this by his view that Joshua was written by the
authors of the Pentateuch. A German scholar, J. S.
Vater, took up Geddes's results in a Commentary on the
Pentateuch, which he wrote at the beginning of the
nineteenth century (a.d. 1802-1805). With remarkable
acuteness he detected a great number of disconnected
fragments in the Pentateuch, but he faUed in the power
of combination, or he might have succeeded in dis
covering that many of his fragments were really parts
of one and the same document.
So far, then, we have two streams of criticism, one
recognizing the use of Divine names as a clue to the
analysis of Genesis, but maintaining the Mosaic author
ship of the Pentateuch, the other rejectmg this clue,
though admitting a documentary analysis, but deny-
mg the 'Mosaic authorship. The next writer whom I
have to vnention had points of contact with both.
This was B. D. Ilgen, who pubhshed, m 1798, the first
part of a work which he never completed, discussing
the composition of Genesis. This marked a noteworthy
advance in several respects. WhUe his affinity with
Geddes and Vater was revealed m the fact that his

ii6 STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM
also was a ' fragment hypothesis ' in the sense that he
regarded Genesis as composed of seventeen originaUy
distinct documents, he displayed a surer constructive
abihty in the recognition that these need not be
assigned to more than three writers. Moreover,
while he gave one hand to Geddes, he gave the
other to Astruc and Eichhom, since he granted the
validity of the key to the analysis found by them in
the use of the Divine names. But here, too, he made
an important advance. For just as he improved on
the work of the fragmentists, so he improved on that of
Astruc and Eichhom. He recognized tl^at there
were two Elohistic writers — that is, that two authors
used Elohim as a proper name. In this Ilgen was
much before his time, and it was not tiU fifty years
later that this premature observation, which is now
practically universaUy accepted, was rediscovered
and estabUshed by Hupfeld.
Just after the completion of Vater's Commentary
one of the great Bibhcal scholars of the last century, De
Wette, described by Wellhausen [Prolegomena, p. 4)
as ' the epoch-making pioneer of historical criticism
in this field,' published his Contributions to Old
Testament Introduction (1806-7). He was quite
young at the time, but he advanced the science ahke
by the methods he introduced and the results he reached,
though his later pubhcations hardly justified the great
expectations aroused by this very brilUant youthful
work. He identified the Law-book, on which the
Reform of Josiah was based, with Deuteronomy, one
of the positions which has stood the test of time, and
secured almost universal adhesion. He set the history
of religious institutions as described in Judges, Samuel,
and Kings alongside of the regulations in the Penta
teuchal codes. It is tme that the conclusions be

STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 117
attained by this method have had to be revised in a
very important respect, but the method itself has
been of the highest value to criticism. He also took a
very unfavourable view as to the historical character
of the Books of Chronicles. No substantial change
m the critical position was made by Ewald, though
he was among the greatest of Old Testament scholars
in the nineteenth century, and his Hebrew Grammar,
his History of Israel, and his Commentaries
enormously advanced BibUcal science. A work by
Hupfeld, however, on the Sources of Genesis, which
was pubUshed in 1853, completed the work initiated
by Astruc exactly a hundred years before. As I have
already mentioned he demonstrated the fact that
two Elohistic documents had to be recognized. It
had already become clear that the documents detected
in Genesis ran through the rest of the Pentateuch, so
that now, so far as Uterary criticism was concerned, the
analysis into four main documents had been effected.
Deuteronomy obviously stood by itself, and in the
rest of the Pentateuch there was a document in which the
Divine name Yahweh was preferred and two documents
which avoided that name and used Elohim. These two
Elohistic documents, while they were at one in their
preference for Elohim, were in almost every other
respect distinct. One of them had marked affinities
with the Yahwistic writer. Both are characterized
by charm of Uterary style, by their deep human in
terest, by narrative skiU, by exquisitely trathful
portraiture of character. The other Elohistic docu
ment, commoiUy known as the Priestly Document,
is noteworthy for its ecclesiastical interests, its precise
and formal style, its partiaUty to stereotyped ex
pression, its lack of human interest.
But, while the labour of a hundred years had achieved

ii8 STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM
so much, much still remained to be accompUshed.
For, after the documentary analysis had been effected,
the question had to be settled, in what order were the
documents written and to what dq,te ought they to be
assigned ? I do not, of course, mean to suggest that
the earUer critics had no views upon this matter.
The date of Deuteronomy had been pretty closely
determined. The vital question, however, that was
at issue touched the date of the Priestly Document.
And here the earher critics for the most part accepted
a very early date. This date was favoured by two
considerations. In the first place this document
forms the framework in which the other documents are
inserted, and it seemed the more natural order that
the framework should be written first. On the other
hand, critics were impressed by the minuteness of
detaU which appeared to attest its early date.
But this generally-accepted opinion had not com
manded unbroken assent. In his lecture-room at
Strassburg, Reuss, as early as 1833, communicated to
his students a series of theses. The traditional view
had placed the chief parts of the Old Testament in
the order. Law, Psalms, Prophets. Reuss argued that
the tme order was Prophets, Law, Psalms, which
corresponds roughly to that now generaUy accepted.
So far as the internal criticism of the Pentateuch is
concemed, his most important result, anticipating what
is commonly called the Grafian Theory, was that the
Priestly Laws were later than Deuteronomy. He had
not, however, the courage of his convictions, so he failed
to put forward his views for the judgment of a wider
pubhc. A couple of years later (1835) a very important
work was pubhshed by Vatke. It was designed to
set forth a history of BibUcal reUgion, but only the
first part of the Old Testament portion was pubUshed.

STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 119
Although it was masterly ahke in its grasp and its
method it made little impression at the time. Partly
this was due to the uncouth Hegehan terminology in
which the writer expounded his views, partly to the
unwelcome character of the views themselves. Reuss
himself actually had the book in his hands, but was so
repeUed by the jargon in which the Table of Contents
was written that he entirely failed to recognize that
his own conclusions had been independently reached
by its author. It was only at a much later period
that the book came to its own, but a tardy justice
was done to the writer when WeUhausen declared that
from Vatke he had learnt best and most. The
supreme merit of Vatke's work consisted in this : that
he realized that the question of the order in which the
documents were to be placed must be settled in
connexion with the history of reUgious institutions.
A special department of that subject was discussed by
another Hegelian, George, in a work on The fewish
Feasts, pubhshed the same year. Both of these
scholars paid the penalty exacted from those who
are in advance of their age. Their demonstration
that the Priestly Code was later than Deuteronomy
was met with ridicule rather than with argument.
The dominant school of Old Testament criticism
treated such a novel view as a critical heresy, and
placed the Priestly Document at the beginning and
Deuteronomy at the end of the series of documents
now combined in the Pentateuch. No further attempt
was made to disturb the cunent opinion for thirty
years, and it continued to be dominant for more than
forty years.
The prejudices on which it rested, however, were
to some extent undermined by its own supporters.
And here we touch the contribution of an EngUsh

120 STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM
writer. The name of Colenso is stiU weU known, though
nearly half a century has elapsed since he threw British
Christianity into convulsions by the pubUcation of the
first part of his work. The Pentateuch and the Book
of f oshua Critically Examined. This book in its
later portions was concerned with hterary analysis,
but in this domain Colenso's work had no particular
importance, and would caU for no mention in this brief
survey. He acquiesced at the outset in the common
belief that the Priestly Document was the earUest.
This behef rested largely on the impression of accuracy
made by its wealth of minute detaU. Colenso's
examples of the unhistorical character of the Pentateuch
were drawn mainly from this document. But while
he thus undermined one of the chief arguments for the
common view, he failed to draw the inference that the
least accurate document might very weU be the latest.
The first part of his work was accordingly important,
just because he quite unwittingly prepared the way for
the now dominant theory. His criticism of the narratives
in the Pentateuch was carried through without reference
to documentary stracture, but, as it happened, his
examples were almost entirely drawn from the Priestly
Document. The work begun by Colenso was completed
by Noldeke in 1869. This scholar, perhaps the greatest
of our Uving Semitists, sketched in masterly fashion
the characteristics of the Priestly Document and de
fined its limits with greater precision than had been
previously attained. But while he exhibited, in an
even fuUer form than Colenso, the weakness of the
argument on which the claim to its early date had been
based, he stiU placed it earUer than Deuteronomy,
alleging among other reasons that the post-exiUc
period was unequal to the production of such a work.
One of the most interesting developments in recent

STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 121
Old Testament criticism has been that in consequence
of the recent discovery of Jewish Aramaic papyri
Noldeke has felt himself compeUed to accept the post-
exiUc origin of this document, a step which he had
been for some time anticipating that he must take.
I have deserted the chronological order so that I
might bring Noldeke into connexion with Colenso.
But three or four years earher, K. H. Graf, one of
Reuss's pupUs, had pubhshed a very important work on
The Historical Books of the Old Testament (1865), in
which what had been a brilUant divination by the
master was estabhshed on firm grounds by the pupU.
He revived the post-Deuteronomic dating of the
Priestly Legislation. At first he made the mistake
of separating the Priestly Legislaiion from the Priestly
narrative. Riehm proved that this was inadmissible and
argued that since, by Graf's own admission the narrative
was early, the legislation must be early. Obviously,
however, the argument might be reversed. Kuenen,
the famous Dutch critic, who was convinced by Graf's
arguments, felt that his division between laws and
narratives was the AchiUes heel of his theory, and argued,
since the legislation is demonstrably late, the nanative
must be late. Under the pressure of this criticism
Graf wisely revised his view, and put forward the
theory that the Priestly Document as a whole, and not
simply in its legislative-portion, was the latest. In Ger
many, it is tme, the Grafian theory met with no more
acceptance than when Vatke andCeorge had expounded
it. It was powerfuUy defended by Kuenen, however,
and in 1875 Duhm's work. The Theology of the Pro
phets, removed from Germany the stigma of obstinate
inaccessibUity to the new critical Ught. It was WeU
hausen, however, who swung Germany into Une with
the Grafians by the pubUcation in 1878 of his epoch-

122 STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM
making work, The History of Israel, vol. i., which, to
use Kuenen's happy phrase, was " the crowning
fight in the long campaign.' He had in the two pre
vious years done much for the Uterary analysis by
his briUiant articles on ' The Composition of the Hexa
teuch.' During the thirty-five years that have elapsed
the Grafian theory has steadily made its way. It is,
of course, not trae that aU critics have accepted it,
such scholars as Kittel and Baudissin refused to give in
their adhesion, and to the last Dillmann was a tower
of strength to those who stood by the older critical
theory. But the number of dissentients has grown
less and less. The vast majority of those who are
teachers of the Old Testament by profession accept the
analysis of the Pentateuch into four main documents
and date the Priestly Document after Deuteronomy
and Ezekiel.
I have spoken at length on the story of Pentateuchal
criticism, since it will be admitted on all hands that this
is by far the most important critical problem which the
Old Testament presents. But the analysis which has
achieved so much in the Pentateuch has naturaUy
not left the rest of the Old Testament untouched.
It has moved forward into the historical books, unravel
ling the older and later strands of narrative. It has
done much to make the prophetic literature more in
telUgible. This is most conspicuously true in the case
of the Book of Isaiah. Here we have learnt to recog
nize, not only the work of Isaiah of Jerusalem in the
eighth century before Christ, but the work of several
other, both exUic and post-exiUc, writers. New
reaUty has been imparted to what was once an almost
uninteUigible Uterature. It is trae that both with
the prophets and with the poets critical opinion is in
much greater flux than with the Pentateuch. Many

STORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM 123
things, no doubt, are clear already, but obscure and
difficult problems stiU remain to chaUenge the critic's
keen and eager investigation. Some of these are
probably in their very nature insoluble, but others may
yield their secret to patient and persistent inquiry.
I have stiU, however, to indicate the reasons which
have led the great majority of Old Testament scholars
to desert so decisively the traditional view touching
the 'authorship and date of our Old Testament
Scriptures.

CHAPTER IX
REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT
Having sketched the history of Old Testament criti
cism, speciaUy as it concerns the Pentateuch, it is now
my duty to indicate the grounds on which the critical
view may be said to rest. So far as the Pentateuch
is concerned, I stated that the clue to scientific analysis
was discovered by Astruc in the use of the Divine
names Yahweh and Elohim. It is necessary to point
out, in view of misapprehension on this point, that
the analysis of the Pentateuch does not rest exclusively
or even mainly on this distinction. This is clear from
the fact that critics found themselves forced to recog
nize that two documents used Elohim as a proper
name and from the further fact that this clue largely
faUs us after the double revelation of Elohim to Moses
as Yahweh in the early chapters of Exodus. Many
of the phenomena which demonstrate the composite
character of the Pentateuch were quite famUiar to
scholars before Astruc made his famous observation.
We have to distinguish between the different parts
of our problem. The critic's first task is to discover
whether the document he has before him is a imity,
or whether he can detect various strata within it.
If he adopts the latter alternative, his next problem
is to separate the different strata from each other.
Lastly, when he has thus disentangled the elements
124

REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW 125
in the compUation, he has to inquire into the question
of their order and date.
If, then, we take up the Pentateuch with these
problems in our mind, our first task is to discover if
there is evidence for the use of earlier documents.
Such evidence is to be found in differences of style
and vocabulary, of representation and point of view,
also in repetitions or, as they are technicaUy caUed,
doublets. It is also probable that, where documents
have been combined, certain incongruities may arise
which are explained by reference to the sources of
the compUation. Now along aU these lines the
Pentateuch is clearly demonstrated to be a highly
composite work Of doublets I may refer to the two
stories of the Creation which foUow a different order
in their representation of God's creative activity. The
story of the Flood is not single, but composite, and
marked by differences of representation. Double
explanations are given as to the origin of the names
Israel, Bethel, and Beersheba, and different hsts of
the names of Esau's wives. Two narratives are
given of the caU of Moses, and the 3elf-revelation of
Elohim to him by the new name Yahweh. We find
simUar evidence of composite structure in later historical
books. For example, we have two accounts as to the
origin of the proverb, ' Is Saul also among the pro
phets ? '
As examples of incongruities which have arisen
through the compUation of documents I might refer
to some of the chronological discrepancies which
have been thus created. I might have included in
my list of doublets the stories of Abraham and Isaac's
attempts to pass off their wives as their sisters. But,
inasmuch as these might be regarded as three distinct
events, I refram from quoting them as Ulustrations

126 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
of duplicate nanatives. But it is at least strange
that Sarah, who is sixty-five at the time of the
former incident, is apparently eighty-nine on the
occasion of the latter. There appears to be a differ
ence in the representation of Ishmael's age when he
is sent away with Hagar. According to the chronology
he was fifteen or sixteen, but other features in the
story seem to suggest that he was a chUd. Similarly
Benjamin is represented as a little one, the child of his
father's old age. ' We are accordingly surprised to find
him mentioned as the father of ten sons (Gen. xlvi. 21).
We need not, perhaps, lay stress on the fact that,
though Isaac believes himself to be at the point of
death when he bids preparations to be made for the
blessing of Esau, he dies, as a matter of fact, about
forty-four years later. Yet it must be granted that
the chronology of the story which foUows is somewhat
disconcerting. There are few who can fail to be
deeply moved by the exquisite story of Jacob's love
for Rachel. But, when we have been enthraUed by
the romance of it, it is somewhat disenchantuig to
investigate the chronology. When we do so, we find
that to avoid the mistake made by Esau, who had
married Hittite wives at the age of forty, Jacob is
sent from home when he is seventy-six to marry into
the family of Laban. At the time of his marriage
he is eighty-three. He remains thirteen years with
Laban, and then returns to Canaan, where his famUy
is completed by the birth of Benjamin. It might
be urged in reply that in view of the greater longevity
attributed to the patriarchs these high figures should
not be considered surprising. In reply to this, how
ever, it must be pointed out that such an assumption
is conclusively negatived by the story of the miracu
lous birth of Isaac. An even more striking example

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 127
is to be found in the case of the story of the grand
sons of Judah and Tamar. Details of this series of
incidents cannot be given here ; suffice it to say that
Judah is represented as becoming a grandfather in
considerably less than ten years. It is a great relief
to those who are perplexed by such difficulties, to
reahze that they have simply been created by com
bination of different documents.
I pass on now to inconsistencies which point to
composite authorship. The legislation naturaUy
provides us with the clearest examples. One of the
most remarkable is the case of the tithe. According
to Num. xviu. 21-24, the whole tithe of Israel is the
legal possession of the Levites, who, in their turn,
give a tithe of their tithe to the priests. We are very
much surprised when we read Deuteronomy to find
an entirely different regulation. Every third year
the tithe is employed in relief of the poor. As an
object of this charity it is true that the Levite is men
tioned. But he is mentioned along with the stranger,
the widow, and the orphan. In other words, he
participates in it as a member of the destitute and
defenceless classes. But while in this third year all
the tithe of Israel is not given to the Levite, but to him
only in common with others who are needy, in the
other two years the tithe remains the property of the
farmer in his own absolute control. He is to use it for
a feast at the central sanctuary. The poor, the Levite,
the widow, and the orphan are, it is true, recommended
to his bounty, but as a moral rather than a legal obliga
tion. This distinction leads on to a larger distinction.
We are not unnaturally puzzled by the description
of the Levites as dependent on charity when we are
told that they are to have all the tithe of Israel, which
was in itself no mean endowment. But this difference

128 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
is reaUy characteristic. Deuteronomy consistently
represents them as having no inheritance in Israel,
but as dweUing in the cities of the other tribes,
dependent on the generosity of their neighbours. But
elsewhere they have, in addition to the whole tithe,
forty-eight cities with a considerable part of the
adjoining pasture land. The priestly perquisites
from the sacrifices also differ considerably. Deuter
onomy assigns the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the
maw, but if we turn to Lev. vi. and vii. we find that the
priests have the breast and thigh of the peace offerings,
the hide of the burnt offering, and the whole of the
sin, guUt, and meal offerings, except those portions
which were devoted to God, or, as in the case of the
more important sin offerings, were consumed by
fire outside the camp, because they were too sacred
to be eaten even by the priests. SimUarly the first
lings, which according to Deuteronomy are to be
used for a feast at the sanctuary, are, according to
Numbers xviii. 15-19, made over to the priest.
A noteworthy feature in some portions of the Penta
teuch is the distinction which is made between the
priests and the Levites. The former are described
as the descendants of Aaron, and to them alone priestly
functions are restricted. The menial service of the
tabernacle is entrusted to other members of the
tribe of Levi, who are strictly forbidden to usurp |
the functions of the priest. This distinction is un
known to Deuteronomy, which regards the whole
tribe of Levi as consisting. of priests. As will appear
later, this distinction becomes of the utmost impor
tance when we investigate the question as to the date
and order of our documents. Meanwhile it may be
noticed as an example of inconsistency in legislation.
Other examples touching the law of release of Hebrew

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 129
bond-servants or the eating of that which had died
of itself might be quoted.
I may linger a moment at this point to lay stress
on the value of criticism for apologetics. I shaU speak
of this in more detail at a later point. But meanwhile
it is desirable to emphasize how great is the relief
to faith which criticism brings us. The traditional
view which considered that these divergent and indeed
irreconcilable laws were given by God to Moses within
a very brief period of time created a most serious
problem for faith. How could we explain the
apparent capriciousness of the Divine action and how
were we to understand that contradictory laws should
be binding on the people ? When the critic has made
clear to us that these laws belong not only to different
documents but that they reflect different periods in
the reUgious development of Israel our difficulty
vanishes of itself in view of the principle that changed
conditions justify new legislation.
Some of the other arguments I have touched upon
already. I have pointed out how we find various docu
ments indicated by marked differences in style and
vocabulary. Unfortunately this is a part of the
subject which does not lend itself to detaUed treat
ment in a popular work. EspeciaUy is this the case
with the vocabulary; but it may simply be stated
that we find characteristic words aggregated in sections
which, on independent grounds, we have reason to
suppose, belong to the same document. So far as
style is concemed the difference can be felt even in
the English translation by any reader who is sensitive
to style, if he turns from some of the exquisite stories
in Genesis, which we stiU read with unfaiUng deUght,
to some of the dry and formal passages, even of a narra
tive character and stiU more of a legislative, which
B.O. g

I30 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
occur in the middle books of the Pentateuch. One set
of passages we find written in a free, glowing style, in
which Hebrew prose is seen at its best, a style graphic
and picturesque, abounding in vivid description,
giving fuU play to the emotional and human side of
its stories. Another set of passages we find to consist
of a dry and precise chronicle, formal, colourless, and
monotonous, fuU of constant repetition and set
formulae, the work of a lawyer whose skin has turned
into parchment and his blood into scrivener's ink.
Now it might, of course, be urged that difference
of style may be accounted for by other causes than
difference of personality or documents. The subject
matter may vitaUy affect it — ^indeed, the style may
change with the author's mood. Yet, whUe this is
an abstract possibiUty, it has the defect that it does
not fit the facts. For what we reaUy find is that the
changes in vocabiUary and in style do not stand by
themselves. They are constantly associated with
other changes. The strength of the case for analysis
lies largely in this fact. It is not an accident that
when style and vocabulary change, other changes
occur as weU. The subjects which engage the author's
interest, the standpoint from which the history is
regarded, the theological and ecclesiastical system
which is presupposed, alter with the alteration in
vocabulary and style. The conception of the history
that we gain from one is quite different from that
which dominates the other ; the standards of judg
ment have altered, and the favourite themes of this
group of passages find very little place in that. Now,
this does not mean that the different styles are the
expression of the same personality ; the personality
itself changes with the variation of the style. At a
pinch we might explain two or three instances on the

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 131
traditional view; but it is impossible to argue for
it in face of the cumulative evidence without shutting
our eyes to the Ught. Thus, along these hues of
varied and mutuaUy independent evidence, we are
driven irresistibly to the conclusion that the Pentateuch
is not the work of a single writer, but that it embodies
different documentary sources. And so much is
granted by some of the ablest conservative scholars.
Long ago. Dr. James Robertson, in his important though
inconclusive work, The Early Religion of Israel,
admitted the vaUdity of the analysis in words which
wiU bear repetition : ' Too much praise cannot be given
to those who have laboured in the field of Pentateuch
criticism, for the minute examination they have made
of detaUs in the endeavour to sift and distinguish the
sources ; and as a literary feat, the labour may be
pronounced on the whole successful, although it will
hardly be asserted that the last word on the subject
has yet been spoken (pp. 382 f.). And Dr. Orr has a
whole series of passages admitting the validity of the
arguments used to prove that P and J E are not from
the same hand. I must next endeavour to show
along other lines of argument, what is already a certain
inference from our present investigation — ^that Moses
cannot be the author of the Pentateuch. I shaU
then proceed to inquire in what order we should place
the documents, and to what dates we ought to assign
them. My first task is to show that Moses cannot have
written the Pentateuch. In view of much misrepre
sentation it may be pointed out at once that this
conclusion is not based on the long obsolete view that
writing was not invented in Moses' time, but on
considerations which are suggested by the Bible itself.
The constant reference to Moses m the third person

132 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
is, of course, compatible in itself with Mosaic author
ship, although for a similar phenomenon we have
to leave the field of Hebrew for that of classical litera
ture. Taken in itself it unquestionably suggests
that the writer did not wish to represent himself as
Moses. In this connexion attention has often been
called to the passage in which Moses is praised by the
writer as very meek above aU men Uving. Added
to this, we have the fact that several geographical
indications point to the residence of the writer on
the west of Jordan. This is incompatible with
Moses' authorship since he died on the eastern
side, and was not permitted to cross into the Promised
Land. If indications of place are inconsistent with Mosaic
authorship, the same must be said with reference to
indications of time. Many of these cany us down
long past the time of Moses. The period when the
Canaanite was in the land is looked back upon as lying
in the past. Abraham pursues his foes as far as Dan,
though Laish first received this name in the time of
the Judges. Canaan is caUed by Joseph ' the land
of the Hebrews.' The phrase, ' unto this day,' used
with reference to incidents or conditions which origin
ated at the close of the wandering, points to a period
long subsequent to Moses. We even read ' when the
children of Israel were in the wUderness ' (Num. xv.
32) ; and we have a list of the kings of Edom who
reigned ' before there reigned any king of the chUdren
of Israel.' This carries us at least into the time of
Saul. Moreover, the author draws upon documents
descriptive of the events of the wildemess period,
which it is hardly likely that Moses would use to
write the history of his own leadership of the people.
It is certainly most improbable that for an event

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 133
which happened a few months only before his death
he should have employed such a document.
• Tnese phenomena are of course notorious, and
it may be asked how they are treated by opponents
of the critical view. The more sober opponents generaUy
recognize that the traditional opinion cannot be held
in aU its extent in view of these facts. Accordingly,
they substitute for it what they would call a rectified
traditional view. In some cases this means a recogni
tion of editorial revision apphed to a substantiaUy
Mosaic document. Others, again, urge that it is a
mistake to emphasize Mosaic authorship, provided
that substantial historicity and very early date be
affirmed, together with a certain revision at a later
period. In both cases, however, it is aUowed that
the Pentateuch, as it stands, cannot be the work of
Moses. No doubt there are those who would hold
to the tradition, in spite of aU these difficulties, and
others which have not been mentioned, though few,
it may be imagined, would carry superstition to the
point reached by some Rabbis, who affirmed that Moses
wrote by anticipation the account of his own death.
If we had a weU-attested tradition, which guaran
teed for us the Mosaic authorship, nothing could
be done with these facts, except to ascribe them to
later editorial revision. But in the absence of any
evidence of Mosaic authorship we must adopt an
altogether different Une. If we take up a piece of
hterature which has come to us from antiquity the
first thing to do with it is to examine it for evidence
as to authorship and date. We regard the date as
largely determmed by the aUusions which it makes
to various events or conditions. Unless there is very
strong reason for regarding such aUusions as later
insertions, it is everywhere taken for granted that

134 "REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
the document can at any rate be no earUer than the
incidents which it mentions. If we apply this method
to the Pentateuch we must admit that it was compiled
long after the time of Moses. We have no right to
force the facts into harmony with a preconceived
theory for which there are no substantial grounds.
If there are non-Mosaic and post-Mosaic elements in
the Pentateuch, this must be held in defaiUt of grave
evidence to the contrary to prove that the Pentateuch
is itself non-Mosaic and post-Mosaic.
So far then we have reached two results. One is
that the Pentateuch is composed of various documents,
the other is that it cannot be the work of Moses, but
must be much later than his time. Although I have
argued for these two positions on independent grounds,
it may be pointed out, before I pass on, that they
mutuaUy support each other. If the work is com
posite it cannot weU be Mosaic. There is no reason
why Moses should not, as Astruc beUeved, have com
posed a record of earlier history on the basis of docu
ments. It is, however, inconceivable that he should
have employed documentary sources, written by
different authors, to compose a history of his own
career and legislation. On the other hand the
fact that the Pentateuch was written long after the
time of Moses makes it natural to anticipate that
the compiler would have woven documents together
in its composition. We have several examples both
in the Old Testament and in other Oriental literature
which show us that this method was one normaUy
adopted by historical writers. What we find then
is according to what we should have anticipated.
We have already seen that critics are practicaUy
agreed in the view that four main documents can be
distinguished in the Pentateuch. I do not, of course,

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 135
wish to imply that analysis is at the end of its task
when these main documents have been disengaged
and their limits have been traced. But for our purpose
it is not necessary to pursue the subject into its minuter
ramifications and detect strata within the documents
or the marks of editorial revision. It will suffice if
a general statement be made, roughly indicating the
main conclusions which scholars have reached. I
begin with Deuteronomy.
The kernel of Deuteronomy consists of a code of laws
contained in chapters xii. to xxvi. To this there is
prefixed a speech of Moses, exhorting the Hebrews
to obey the laws which foUow. To that, again, there
is prefixed another speech of Moses, containing a brief
historical retrospect and closing with an appeal to
Israel . to obey the statutes and judgments which he
was teaching them. Following the code of laws we
have other sections largely hortatory in character, but
containing also the Song of Moses and his Blessing on
the Tribes. The problems presented by the intro
ductory and the concluding chapters are very complex,
but they must not detain us. Our fundamental
question is that of the date to be assigned to the
Code of Laws which forms the nucleus of the book.
The demand, which is placed in the forefront of the
Deuteronomic Code, is that the worship of Israel is
to be concentrated at the sanctuary which God shaU
choose out of aU their tribes. It is only at this one
sanctuary that sacrifice may be offered. Local sanc
tuaries are , stringently prohibited. There are several
consequential regulations which fiow from this primary
demand. Thus, in antiquity, slaughter and sacrifice
were intimately associated. It appears to have been
the rule in Israel for the slaughter of an animal victim
to take place at the sanctuary, so that the blood, which

136 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
was the vehicle of the life, and therefore too sacred
to be eaten, might be devoted to God. But when
the local sanctuary was abolished, and one alone was
recognized and legitimate, it was obviously imprac
ticable to maintain this regulation. Accordmgly,
sacrifice and slaughter were disconnected, permission
was given for animals to be kiUed for food anywhere,
only the blood had to be poured out on the earth as
water. On other consequential changes I need not
dweU. One of them, and that among the most
important, wiU meet us later.
To what date, then, are we to assign this document ?
For a century the view has held its ground that the
Law Book found by Hilkiah in the temple during
the reign of Josiah is to be identified with Deuter
onomy either in whole or in part. This conclusion
is based primarily on the fact that a comparison of
Deuteronomy with the story of Josiah's Reformation
establishes the conclusion that the one supplied the
programme for the other. Point by point we can
match the story in Kings from the regulations and
injunctions in Deuteronomy. At present I am not
convinced that we need to descend below the year
621 B.C. for the nucleus of the book. Of course this
does not determine the upward Umit of date, but this
has been fixed to the general satisfaction of critics
within fairly nanow limits. The law of the single
sanctuary was not recognized as binding tUl a com
paratively late period in Hebrew history. We are
constantly told even of good kings that they did not
abolish the high places. We find that even good men
and prophets freely used the local sanctuaries and
offered on altars which from the standpoint of Deuter
onomy were iUegitimate. We read, it is true, of a
reformation in the time of Hezekiah, in which the

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 137
local sanctuaries were suppressed ; though of course
they were revived, and many heathen abuses were
introduced in the reign of Manasseh. But there is
no mention of any law-book in connexion with this
reform of worship, and the abuses which abounded at
the local sanctuaries supphed ample warrant for their
abohtion. It is more Ukely that we should fix the date
of the Code not earUer than in the reign of Manasseh.
It was the outcome of the work achieved by the great
prophets of the eighth century. The types of idolatry
which are speciaUy singled out for condemnation
came into great prominence in Manasseh's reign.
The later prophets from the time of Jeremiah onwards,
and also the historians, exhibit the influence of Deuter
onomy to a very marked degree, whUe the earher
prophets are free from it. But it may be asked. Ought
we not to go beyond the reign of Manasseh and suppose
that it was written in the reign of Josiah, and that
its discovery in the temple by Hilkiah was a matter of
deUberate arrangement ? Quite apart from the ques
tion whether we ought to accuse the reformers of
such deception there are grave reasons against accepting
this view. If the book was discovered in the temple by
the connivance of the priesthood we should have had
to recognize that their co-operation was prompted by
sjmipathy with the requirements of the code. At
one point, however, we find that the law was not carried
into effect. Deuteronomy provided for the priests
of the local sanctuaries by giving them a priestly
position at the central sanctuary. This obviously
touched the interests of the Jerasalem priests and we
are not surprised to find that it was not carried into
effect. But it is hardly likely that the priests would
have associated themselves with the introduction
of a law one of whose provisions they defeated. We

138 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
may conclude accordingly that the book was older
than the reign of Josiah and that Hilkiah's discovery
was genuine and not pretended.
This may form a convenient point of transition to
our consideration of the next document. This is a
document commonly known as the Priestly Code
which is dominated by ecclesiastical interests and
written in a dry and formal style. The expedient
suggested by Deuteronomy for dealing with the dis
possessed priests of the local sanctuaries had proved
a failure. The problem soon ceased to be so urgent,
because with the death of Josiah old abuses came back
to some extent, though we have no evidence that the
Law was formaUy repealed. But the destraction of
Jerusalem and the exUe gave the reforming party its
opportunity. The violent divorce of the people from
their native land snapped the old associations and
the new generation grew up in Babylon far from those
sanctuaries of immemorial antiquity to which their
ancestors had been bound by such close and tender
ties. The centralization of the worship which was
enforced against no little prejudice by a strong king
excited no serious opposition from the returned
exiles, when fifty years of captivity had intervened.
It was Ezekiel who prepared the way for the new
state of things. He solved the problem which Deuter
onomy had faUed to solve by degrading the priests of
the local sanctuaries from their priestly functions,
and restricting these functions to the sons of Zadok,
that is the priests of Jerusalem (Ezek. xliv. 10-16).
This distinction between priests and Levites, which
Ezekiel was the first to make, was taken up in a some
what different form in the Priestly Code. There it
is regarded as an honour that the tribe of Levi should
be separated for the service of the sanctuary, and a

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 139
stiU loftier distinction that the descendants of Aaron
should be selected for the priesthood. It is clear that
Ezekiel is prior to the Priestly Code. For him the
future of the Levites is an urgent problem. Had he
known the Priestly Code it could have been no problem
at aU, he would have felt no need to legislate on the
subject. That the Levites should ever aspire to
priestly privUeges would have been inconceivable to
him. But when he had once drawn the distinction,
it was natural for the Priestly Code to foUow in his
train ; and, since it refers aU its legislation to the
wUderness, to represent the distinction as one made
from the first rather than as a degradation due to
offences Ijdng centuries ahead of its assumed stand
point. We may accordingly fix the Priestly Code
as later than the time of Ezekiel.
This date is conoborated by a whole series of argu
ments. We have a much more elaborate development
of the cultus in the Priestly Document than in Deuter
onomy, and some of the developments can be definitely
traced, either to the Reformation occasioned by the
discovery of Deuteronomy, or to theological causes
which began to operate about the period of the exUe.
The centralization of the worship, which had been
the main object the Deuteronomist set himself to
secure, had become so much a matter of course, that
in the Priestly Code it was taken for granted. A
comparison with the prophets reveals that down to the
time of Ezekiel no acquaintance with the Priestly
Code can be traced, whUe there is much that is incon
sistent with such acquamtance. SimUarly, if we
examine the historical books, the earlier historians
are almost completely free from affinities with the
Priestly Code, whereas the late Books of Chronicles
are everywhere donunated by the completed Law. We

140 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
may therefore assume that the Priestly Code was not
written before the time of Ezekiel. For a lower limit of
date we have the Reformation of Ezra, which is usuaUy
assigned to the year 444 B.C.
The two remaining documents, which are commonly
known by the symbols J and E, form the earliest
constituents of the Pentateuch. How much older
than Deuteronomy they may be it is impossible to
determine. The legislation which they contain pre
supposes that the wilderness life is over, and that the
people are settled in Canaan and practising agricul
ture. They can hardly therefore be the work of
Moses, but if anything from Moses' hand is contained
in the Pentateuch it is in these sections rather than
elsewhere that we must seek it.
So far I have been mainly concemed with teUing
the story of Pentateuchal criticism and expoimding
the reasons which have led scholars to accept results
differing very widely from those accepted in tradition.
It hardly needs apology that such prominence should
be given to the question of the Pentateuch in view
of the fact that the controversy has centred around
this portion of the Old Testament and in view of the
far-reaching influence which these results must haVe
upon our reconstruction of the stages through which
the Religion of Israel passed. But naturaUy investiga
tion did not hold its hand when it had analysed
the Pentateuch and dated the documents which it
discovered. The other books of the Old Testament
invited a simUarly searching examination, and although
in some respects it can hardly be said that the work
has been done with such completeness as in the case
of the Pentateuch, yet a large number of definite
results have been established to the general satisfaction
of scholars.

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 141
I touch only briefly on the historical books. The
same characteristics which force upon us the conviction
that the Pentateuch is a composite structure compel
a similar judgment with reference to the historical
literature. So far as Joshua is concemed that has
already been indicated by the common substitution
of the term Hexateuch for Pentateuch, which rests
on the discovery that the documents which are to be
traced in the first five books of the Bible are to be
found also in the Book of Joshua. But it is clear
also that Judges, Samuel, and Kings are composite
in structure. In the case of Judges and Kings we can
without difficulty disengage an editorial framework
in which the stories have been inserted. In Judges,
for example, the editor has compUed the work from
the standpoint of a theory of the history. This theory
was to the effect that the fortunes of the Hebrews
followed a regular cycle. The Israehtes forsook God,
then He deUvered them into the hands of oppressors,
They were thus brought to repentance, and then God
raised up a judge to deliver them. When we examine
the nanatives in closer detaU we find that they do not
all of them iUustrate this leading principle. Thus the
story of Abimelech and to a large extent the stories
of Samson faU to do so. It is accordingly probable
that we should distinguish between the editor who
formulated this theory of the history and the earher
compUer who gathered the stories together. And
this is borne out by an examination of the style. But
the stories themselves existed long before the compUer
wove them into a connected whole. In fact they include
some of the oldest sections in the Old Testament. Some
of these stories are themselves not improbably com
posite. It is simUarly easy ui the case of the Books of
Kings to detect the editorial framework. Here, too, the

142 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
editor writes from the standpoint of Deuteronomy,
and he betrays ever5rwhere the influence of its phraseo
logy as weU of its point of view. He himself refers
to other works, now unhappUy lost, from which the
reader may gain fuUer information. Quite apart from
such an indication, however, it would have been easy
to infer that a variety of sources lay behind the work.
Partly the author drew on the official annals of the
kingdoms, partly on a document which gave the
history of the temple. But when we turn from these
official and statistical records to other parts of the
work, for example the stories of EUjah and Elisha,
we are conscious of a marked difference in style,
in standpoint, in structure, and in interest. Here
we may presume that the author is drawing on
some history of the prophets who had worked in
the Northern Kingdom, a history already ancient at the
time when he compUed his work.
If we turn back from Kings to the Books of Samuel
the evidences of composite structure are very striking.
If, for example, we study the story which is given us
concerning the establishment of the monarchy we
find two different representations. According to one,
God Himself takes the initiative and raises up Saul
that he may deliver the people from the PhiUstine
oppressors (i Sam. ix. i6). Samuel is the seer who
is entrusted with the task of effecting the change.
He anoints Saul in obedience to the Divine WiU, and
his whole attitude to the new king is quite friendly.
But according to the other nanative the PhUistines
had been long before crushed and their aggression
against Israel had ceased, so that ' they came no more
within the border of Israel ' (i Sam. vu. 13J.
The desire for a king arose partly from dissatisfaction
with the government by Samuel and his sons, partly

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 143
from their desire to be like other nations. So far is
God from taking the initiative and Samuel from
cordially co-operating in the enterprise that Samuel
takes the request for a king as a personal insult,
whUe God teUs him that it is Himself and not the
prophet whom they have rejected (i Sam. viii.).
SimUarly we have a double nanative of David's
introduction to Saul. According to one story David
was unknown to Saul when he went out to fight the
giant, and he is described as quite unused to warfare.
According to another story, however, he had akeady
been some time in attendance upon Saul as his
minstrel to charm away the attacks of mania to which
he was subject. Even when Saul's servants recom
mended him for the position they described him as a
mighty man of war. Other examples of the same
type might be given. It would be a mistake, however,
to suggest that this characteristic runs through the
book. In what is commonly known as the Court
History of David, which embraces 2 Sam. ix.-xx., we
have a nanative written with such intimate know
ledge of the circumstances and such an insight into
the motives of the characters that we are compeUed
to attribute it to an eye-witness who had first-hand
acquaintance with the events he describes. And
there are other sections in the book which probably
come to us from the same writer.
It is remarkable that we shotUd have another version
of much of the history. This is to be found in the
Books of Chronicles. When we compare this late
post-exiUc work with the earher historical hterature
we are struck by several singular features. The
whole period from the Creation to the death of Saul
is practicaUy fiUed up with genealogies. The Northem
Kingdom is almost enturely ignored. The sins of

144 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
David and Solomon are passed over in sUence. The
author lays great emphasis on the prompt working
of a rigorous law of retribution. The book is written
throughout from a late ecclesiastical standpoint, and
the writer applies to the doings of earUer ages the
standard of the completed Law. To the same author
we owe the compilation of the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, in which he has incorporated precious
portions from the memoirs of both leaders. The
date of his work cannot, in its present form, be earlier
than towards the close of the fourth century B.C., and
it is possibly later.
From the historical books I pass on to the prophetic
literature, and I begin with the case of Isaiah, because
that is the most famUiar. One of the earliest achieve
ments of criticism was the discovery that this book
was not the work of one hand. The last twenty-
seven chapters, it was clear, presupposed an entirely
different situation from that occupied by Isaiah.
For whereas this prophet did his work in the latter
part of the eighth century B.C., in the reigns of Ahaz
and Hezekiah, we are transported with the fortieth
chapter into the Babylonian captivity, which began
in the sixth century B.C. The writer does not predict
the captivity, he describes it as something akeady
experienced by the people. If Isaiah wrote these
chapters he must not simply have seen the— future
as a future, but he must have experienced it as a
present, though when it actuaUy became a present he
had already been about a century and a half in his
grave. No beUever in the possibiUty of miracle wUl
argue that such an experience was impossible. Isaiah
may have lived this trance life among the Babylonian
exUes. He may have marked their despondency and
been inspired to utter his message of approaching

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 145
deliverance. Yet the firmest beUever in the Divine
Omnipotence cannot belittle the plea that we should
have regard to the reasonableness of the Divme action.
God exquisitely adapts His means to His ends, and it
is a pertinent question whether a stupendous miracle
of this kmd was required to effect the purpose He
had in view. This purpose was to console the
exUes with the assurance that Cjnrus would set them
free and cause Jerusalem to be rebuUt, to expound
the meaning of then: suffering, and summon them to
carry to the GentUes the knowledge of the true God.
It is inexpUcable why a prophet in the eighth century
should be chosen to proclaim a message which had
no relevance to the conditions of his own time, and
could in fact have no meaning to the Jews for more
than a hundred years after his death. The analogy
of prophecy leads us to anticipate that the prophet
wiU speak to the men of his own time, and deal with
the problems with which they are confronted. As
new generations arise with their new problems, God
raises up His messengers to de^l with them. But what
would be stUl stranger than the psychical experience
of Uving in a future age of the world's history would
be that the prophet should speak throughout to the
people of that assumed time who were yet unborn,
and appeal to events which had not yet happened as
proving the power of Israel's God to foreteU and
therefore to control the future. If we are to foUow
the explicit statements of Scripture we must beheve
that, when the prophet wrote, Jerasalem lay in mins,
the people were in exile, and Cyrus had just begun
his great career of victory. These things are
described as having already happened. The prophet
points to the rise of Cyras as a fulfilment of
earUer predictions, while he himself predicts that
B.O. 10

146 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
salvation is soon to come. Surely it is wiser to sur
render the mere evidence of a title than to set aside
the definite assertions of the prophet himself. And
this conclusion that these chapters are not the
work of Isaiah is fuUy borne out by an examination
of the vocabulary, the style, and the teaching. That
they have quahties in common no critic would deny,
but these are less important than the points of dif
ference. For we have no reason to doubt that the
later prophet had studied the work of his predecessor
and been deeply influenced by it. But the differences
require us to postulate for their explanation a dis
tinction of personality.
It is popularly supposed that critics beUeve in two
Isaiahs, one of whom wrote the first thirty-nine chapters
whUe the other was responsible for the last twenty-
seven. This is a very strange misapprehension. It
is trae that critics for a long whUe looked on the last
twenty-seven chapters as a unity. It is probable,
however, that the work of the Second Isaiah does not
extend beyond the fifty-fifth^ chapter. Some assign
the remaining chapters to a single writer, but this
seems to me not to do justice to the differences which
are to be found within this section. But be that
as it may, the structure of the last twenty-seven
chapters is simple compared with that of the first
thirty-nine. I am far from sharing the views which
are held by extreme critics either as to the extent
of non-Isaianic matter in these chapters or the very
late dates to which some of the prophecies are
assigned. But aU critics who admit the pluraUty
of authors recognize the highly complex character
of these chapters. The arguments which avaU to
prove the later origin of the concluding chapters are
equally cogent when apphed to many of the earUer.

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 147
For example, the apocalyptic section (chapters xxiv.-
xxvii.) carries us beyond the exile in which the Second
Isaiah uttered his message of consolation and find
their worthiest occasion in the conquests of Alexander
the Great, that great convulsion which overthrew the
Persian Empire. This is not the place to pursue the
fascinating problem of the Isaianic literature into
further detaU, but I have spoken of it with some
fulness both because of its intrinsic importance and
the prominence it has assumed in critical discussion.
Of the other prophets I may speak more briefiy.
Some of them present us with scarcely any problems
of Higher Criticism. Of these the most conspicuous
example is Ezekiel, but the same may be said of
Haggai and Malachi. Joel is generaUy, though not
universaUy, regarded as the work of one writer, but
his date has been much contested. The balance of
probability inclines towards the view that it is one
of the latest books in the prophetic Canon. That
only the first eight chapters of Zechariah were written
by the cont emporary of Haggai was one of the earhest
results of criticism, but the closing chapters present
a very difficult problem. It is equaUy difficult to
solve the questions raised by Habakkuk.
But without attempting to grapple with a task
which would demand both excessive space and a
somewhat intricate argument, I must content myself
with onie general observation. It is undeniable that
there is a sharp distinction between the pre-exUic and
the later prophecy. The former is characterized by
its severity, by its strong attack on the sins of the
people, and its prediction of swift and exemplary
punishment. When, however, the blow had actuaUy
fallen, prophecy changed its note and became a pro
phecy of comfort and restoration. The question

148 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
accordingly arises how far we must judge the de
scriptions of a happy future which we find in pre-
exUic prophecies to be later interpolations. Although
I beheve that this estimate of them has been pushed
to an extreme, I agree that it has a relative justifica
tion. I entertain little doubt, for example, that,
the closing verses of Amos, in which the sternest
prediction of extermination is foUowed by a luscious
picture of prosperity, are a later addition. We must
remember that, as conditions changed, it was not
unfitting that new messages should be added to the
old, and especially that harsh utterances addressed
to stiff-necked and rebeUious Hebrews should be
softened and iUuminated by a message of hope for
their down-trodden and despairing descendants.
So far I have said nothing of the Book of Daniel,
but I must remind my readers that this book is not
included among the prophets in the Hebrew Bible.
It belongs rather to the third collection, which is
sometimes described as the Hagiographa. It is more
properly described as an apocalypse than a prophecy.
Yet, inasmuch as the one graduaUy shaded into the
other, and there are several apocalyptic sections to
be found in the Canon of the prophets, it is probable
that had Daniel been written in the period of the exile
and the return it would have been included among the
prophets. The reason for its exclusion is presumably
to be sought in the fact that when that Canon was
closed the book had not yet been written. In view
of its close reproduction of the early stages of the
Maecabean struggle, and the events which led up to
it, it is commonly held by critics that we must date
it about 165 B.C., a conclusion which is confirmed
by several other arguments.
A few words must be devoted to the more important

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 149
books in the third Canon. At one time it was thought
by many that the Book of Job was the oldest book in
the Bible. It was quite trae that the scene was laid
in the patriarchal period, the features of which were
skUfuUy delineated, but this proved nothing as to
the date, and evidences of acquaintance with later
history occasionaUy shine through. That there is
no reference to the Hebrew Law is accounted for,
not by its pre-Mosaic origin but by the fact that
Job and his friends are represented as non-Israelites.
It is now generaUy recognized that the book is fairly
late. We trace the rise of the problem of suffering
just before the downfaU of the Jewish state, and it
had been long discussed before the stage was reached
at which so elaborate a treatment could be given to
it. Moreover, the problem was concemed with the
suffering of the nation before it touched the suffering
of the individual. The national problem is, as I
have already said, discussed by the Second Isaiah,
and it is probable that this was earUer than its treat
ment in Job. The theology of the book also points
us to the post-exUic period. It may be added that
the speeches of Ehhu and the poem on Wisdom in
the twenty-eighth chapter are later insertions, and
that there has probably been some dislocation of
speeches in the third cycle of the debate.
The problem of the Psalter is so large that a few
points only can be touched. It was a work of gradual
growth. It can be analysed into three main coUections.
The first contains Book I., the second Books II. and IIL,
and the third Books IV. and V. Book I. was pro
bably the first to be compiled, but its compUation
was effected m the early post-exUic period. The
third coUection was the latest, and, since it apparently
contains Maecabean Psalms, it probably dates from

150 REASONS FOR THE CRITICAL VIEW
the latter half of the second century B.C. The date
of the second coUection is more difficult to determine.
The majority of scholars beUeve that it also contains
Maecabean Psalms. In that case it wUl not be much
earlier than the third coUection. There are strong
reasons, however, for believing that these Psalms
are earher, and if so the coUection may be as early
as the fourth or third century B.C. Of course the
dates of the coUections must be distinguished from
the dates of individual Psalms. How many of
these come down to us from the pre-exUic period
it would be impossible to say. But it seems an
exaggerated scepticism to deny the inclusion of any
pre-exUic Psalms in our Psalter. It is probable,
however, that the number is not large. Whether
among these any are to be attributed to David must
be left an open question. Even if their existence
is recognized it would be impossible to identify them
with any confidence. The great majority of the
Psalms probably belong to the Persian or the Greek
periods. That in many respects the critical view of the Old
Testament differs widely from the traditional wiU
be abundantly clear from what I have said, but I
trast that our subsequent discussion wUl make it
plain that the loss we feel is more than counterbalanced
by the new reality which it has conferred on the Bible
and the firmer apologetic position in which it has placed
it.

CHAPTER X
THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY TO THE OLD
TESTAMENT CRITICS
I have now traced the course of Old Testament criti
cism and in a very abbreviated fashion indicated some
of the grounds on which the vast majority of Old Testa
ment scholars have signified their acceptance of its
results. I have not, of course, been oblivious of the
fact that these results have met with strenuous resist
ance on the part of many theologians. In fact I have
already indicated the attitude adopted by them to some
of those phenomena which have forced critics to aban
don the traditional position. But it is only right that I
should now proceed to speak more fuUy on this side
of the subject. Obviously I could not be continually
interrupting my exposition of the critical case by con
stant reference to the objections urged against it.
It would have left only a confused impression on the
mind of my readers had exposition been continuaUy
broken off for polemics. It is fitting, however, that
at this point I should say something with reference to
the strictures passed by defenders of tradition on
the critical case. The signs are multiplying, we are
told, that the critical stracture which has commanded
the field for more than a quarter of a century wiU soon
be captured, that its ramparts are being undermined
by the spade of the archaeologist, whUe the extremists
within the citadel are pla57ing into the hands of the
151

152 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
enemy. We have heard it aU before. Almost ever
since it became my duty to study BibUcal criticism.
triumphant prophecies of a reaction have been a con
stant feature of the situation. StiU, however ardently
desired and confidently predicted, the fact remains
that the reaction has not come, and, to tell the tmth,
shows httle sign of coming. Accordingly my pulses
do not quicken with excitement when I learn that some
new refutation of the Grafians has been pubUshed.
I have heard it too often, and have seen the Grafian
criticism survive the threatened exposure. Nor if
reaction came is it to be assumed that it would come
in the desired direction. From Ewald to WeUhausen
was out of the frjdng-pan iilto the fire, and from
Wellhausen to Winckler would be out of the kitchen
fire into Nebuchadnezzar's furnace. In fact, it is
quite amusing to watch the attitude towards Winckler
taken by opponents of criticism. To some he stands
as the representative of the Higher Criticism, while
others take comfort in his recent refutation of WeU
hausen. As a matter of fact Winckler's theories have
found very little acceptance among critics of the
Grafian school, and anyone who imagines that to dis
credit Winckler is to discredit criticism is simply living
in a fool's paradise.^
Those who are rooted and grounded in their faith
that the traditional view is untrue are not likely to be
1 OnWinckler, see below, pp. 172-176. Dr. Orr, who shows a
strong tendency to play Winckler off against Wellhausen, has
no sympathy with Winckler's views, which he regards as more
revolutionary than anjrthing which has gone before. He
speaks of the ' fantastic tricks ' associated with Pan-Babylon
ianism, and says * An extreme newer phase is the " Pan-Baby
lonianism " of the Winckler school, against which Old Testament
scholars are setting themselves with sturdy determination.'
(Review and Expositor, Oct. 1906).

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 153
greatly disturbed by the news that an anti-critical
dynamite has been invented which wiU blow us into
the air ; and as the prophecy that we are Ukely to be
soon in fuU retreat grows wearisome from repetition, it
becomes less easy to arouse us even to a languid interest
from what our opponents would caU the self-satisfaction
of the so-caUed Higher Critics. But it may be asked,
is it not trae that the signs are really accumulating,
that after its almost unchallenged supremacy among
Old Testament scholars they are themselves beginning
to waver in their allegiance, while from other sides a
formidable attack is being developed which is likely
to lead to the speedy coUapse of the fortress ? And is
not wisdom once more justified in her children who have
held fast the old positions in the serene confidence that
in God's good time those who assailed them would be
driven like stubble before the storm ? It is, of course,
quite trae that there are features in the situation which
give some colour to these confident predictions, but I
do not regard these as reaUy bearing them out.
On some of these I have touched at an earher point.
I have dealt at length with the argument which weighs
much with many Christians — that loyalty to our Lord's
declarations forbids us to renounce the traditional
views as to the authorship of Old Testament books.
With the fuUest acceptance of our Lord's Divinity, for
which I have elsewhere argued exphcitly, with the
fuUest recognition that in matters of rehgion and ethics
He was our court of final appeal, I tried to show that
His words did not bar out, and were never intended
to bar out, the most unfettered investigation of the
questions of Uterary criticism. I have also dealt with
the objections that the critical treatment of the Old
Testament is inspired by disbeUef in the miraculous,
that it is inconsistent with any recognition of its

154 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
inspiration, and that it denies the expUcit statements
as to authorship contained in the Bible itself. It
wiU be seen that these objections are notice boards
warning us off forbidden ground. They are intended
to persuade us that we are embarked on an iUegitimate
enterprise, that if only we take our Christian faith
seriously we shaU have nothing to do with the unclean
thing. In the eyes of those who utter them, we are
consorting with the enemies of the faith, and they ad
dress to us the cry, not always in the sweetest accents,
to come out from among them. Indeed, one could say
much on the whoUy unfitting tone in which some
opponents of criticism speak of their feUow-Christians.
This kind of language is not only worse than useless,
since it succeeds simply in irritating those whom they
should seek to win ; but its effect must be to create a
doubt in the mind of many readers how far these self-
constituted apologists have understood the religion
they profess to serve and how far they have learnt to
exempUfy the meekness and gentleness of Christ. But
whUe in certain cases the chief quaUfications are faciUty
in vituperation and a talent for caricature, some of the
best representatives of tradition, such as Dr. Orr and
the late Dr. C. H. H. Wright, are happUy free from
the rancour which is such a scandal to Christianity.
NaturaUy, however, the traditionalists seek to fight
the critics on their own ground and to show that their
arguments reaUy wiU not bear the weight which it im
poses upon them. Before coming to detail I have my
self some preUminary remarks to offer. In the first
place we do weU to remember that the opposition does
not, as a rule, come from acknowledged experts in the
field of Bibhcal scholarship. Very largely it comes from
dogmatic theologians. Now I readUy grant that we
must not make too much of this. If the broad Unes

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 155
of the critical case can be made intelUgible to intelU-
gent Christians who have no familiarity with the
original languages, we ought not to think that we have
disposed of a writer's objections to criticism by the
reminder that he is ignorant of Hebrew. In some
departments of Biblical scholarship such a disquahfi-
cation would, of course, be fatal. It is unquestionably
a disadvantage for critical study. Yet, looking at the
matter broadly, I do not conceive this deficiency to
wanant the conclusion that the arguments of such an
opponent are to be treated with neglect, as though they
did not count. I am not, of course, forgetting that
there are eminent Hebraists who have ranged themselves
against the critics. But we must remember that Old
Testament scholars may permit their criticism to be
dominated by what are properly extraneous considera
tions, and it is certainly the case that objection to
critical results has, at any rate in some instances, been
inspired by theological considerations.
On this point I wiU quote the statements of a learned
opponent of criticism. In his two works on Daniel,
entitled respectively Daniel and His Prophecies, and
Daniel and Its Critics, Dr. C. H. H. Wright frankly
confesses that ' it is unwise in the present state of
information to rest the defence of the book of Daniel
upon the historical narratives therein recorded.'
He pronounces the Une of argument taken up by
Pusey, Urquhart, and Anderson to be injudicious.
He himself lays more stress on the prophetical
part, but what is decisive for him is the authority
of Christ. In both books he makes emphatic state
ments on this point. It would occupy more space than
I could spare to transcribe these at length, but I
must find room for some brief quotations. He says,
' A professedly Christian commentator ought to foUow

156 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
the teaching of Christ. The books of the Old Testa
ment, viewed from a Christian standpoint, derive their
authority from the recognition accorded to them by our
Lord aild the Apostles. The historical parts of the Old
Testament endorsed in the New Testament writings
ought to be accepted by Christians as trae. ' And again,
' We dechne to admit that the Christianity of the Bible
has yet to be created out of the ever-fluctuating opin
ions of critics who consider themselves wiser in their
own departments than the Lord Jesus or His Apostles.
We confess to be among those who deny the right of
any men in Divine matters to go beyond the teaching of
the New Testament. We are quite willing to learn from
critics on any questions on which no distinct teaching
can be found in the New Testament. But in cases
where the New Testament utterances are plain and
distinct we humbly desire to adhere to its teaching and
submit to its authority." These quotations wiU suffice
to establish my position that even those who may be
reckoned as Old Testament scholars in the fullest sense
of the term, but who disagree with the views of their
coUeagues, are, at any rate in some cases, constrained
to do so, not on critical but on theological grounds. I
am myself in much sympathy with their theological
position in general, but I gravely dissent from their
inference that this rules out the critical view of the Old
Testament as iUegitimate. When, however, we are
told that eminent Hebraists reject the critical con
clusions, it is pertinent to ask whether they do so for
critical or for doctrinal reasons.
I have already touched on the threadbare misrepre
sentation that the critical theory rested on the assump
tion that writing was not invented in the time of Moses.
I do not, of course, deny that such an assumption may
have been made by some scholars. But the promin-

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 157
ence assigned to it has been greatly exaggerated, and
for a long time it has ceased to fiU any place in the
critical argument. Nevertheless this long obsolete
accusation is stiU paraded as a triumphant refutation of
the critical view. Some time ago I went to hear Father
Ignatius preach. He took his text from Job and began
by teUing us that this was the oldest book in the world,
it was written in fact before writing was invented.
' You know,' he said, ' that the Higher Critics said
Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because
writing was not invented in his time.' Then we had
the weU-worn reference to Tel el-Amama and Professor
Sayce, who ' called at our monastery,' and the conse
quent coUapse of the Higher Critics. ' However,' he
went on, ' they've jumped up again on some point
or other ; for you must know, my friends, that Satan
is very clever.' No one, of course, who knew anything
about the subject would attach the shghtest weight to
anything Father Ignatius said upon it, but I quote him
since he expressed the prevailing ignorance very faith-
fuUy. As a matter of fact it wotdd be very difficult
to find much evidence for the attitude he attributed to
critics. The antiquity of writing was recognized long
before the discoveries at Tel el-Amama and it has
played next to no part in the discussion. Accordingly,
it is a serious misrepresentation to say that the critical
case was affected by the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna
tablets. I have already alluded to the discovery of
these documents, which proved that in the fifteenth
century before Christ the Babylonian language and
script were used over a wide area outside Babylonia,
including Egypt and Canaan, to a degree of which we
had previously no conception. Later discoveries
have pushed back our documentary material to a very
much earUer period. But this makes no real difference

158 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
to Pentateuchal criticism. Critics had been perfectly
wiUing to grant the probabiUty that writing was much
older than the time of Moses long before this had been
proved. They did not argue for the non-Mosaic author
ship of the Pentateuch on the ground that Moses could
not write. It is trae that they regarded it, and stiU
regard it, as a question how far we may assume that
Hebrews, who had been ground down by Egyptian
bondage, could have been spoken of as in any sense a
Uterary people. But no critic would feel that his confi
dence in the trath of the critical theory was shaken
in the shghtest if he learnt that the emancipated He
brews had attained a far higher level of culture than we
can, on our present information, beUeve them to have
possessed. His behef rests, as I have already shown,
on entirely different grounds.
It might similarly be shown that other statements as
to a reaction are not calculated to bring the comfort
to the opponents of criticism which those who make
them too fondly beUeve. Not infrequently, as a con
siderable experience in this type of Uterature has proved
to me, the refutations of criticism rest on strange mis
understandings of the critical position. I weU remem
ber counting in an article of this kind eleven mis-state
ments in as many hues. In a book that professed to
give an account of critical theories as to the Pentateuch,
the author was so ignorant of the elementary facts that,
being unaware that WeUhausen used the symbol Q
(i.e., Quatuor, the Book of the Four Covenants) for the
document now commonly caUed P, after he had given
a description of the latter, went on to explain that there
was another document caUed Q which had mainly to
do with covenants. We want someone who wiU mind
his P's and Q's better than that. The student cannot
be warned too emphatically that, as a rule, it is not

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 159
safe to trast the statements on Old Testament criti
cism given by defenders of the traditional position.
Unfortunately, people who write against criticism often
seem to consider themselves exonerated from the neces
sity of acquiring any accurate information as to the
views which critics hold, and the grounds on which they
hold them. It would be quite easy for me to fiU pages
with iUustrations of this disregard for the elementary
ethics of controversy. It would be a good thing if
those who write against criticism would get someone
who reaUy understood the subject to read their refuta
tions before they were pubhshed, since in this way the
descriptions would gain immeasurably in accuracy,
and their attacks in relevance. And I would recommend
those who imagine that its opponents have demoUshed
the critical case to make themselves acquainted with it,
not simply in the works of its opponents, but in the
authoritative statements of its defenders. Even some
of the books, which in this respect stand far above the
usual level do very scanty justice to the critical case.
Those who know the case simply from the statement
of opponents have no right whatever to an opinion on
the subject. Even of so eminent a scholar cis Professor
James Robertson, Stade is provoked to say that what he
refutes in his Early Religion of Israel, is a caricature
of the critical view. And whatever verdict we may
pronounce on this, it is unquestionably trae of many
who have rashed in to defend the ark. Their work is
recommended neither by grasp of the facts nor by
sobriety of judgment. And they have yet to learn that
it is not enough to sit down and pick what holes they
can in a theory they dishke. They must look at it
from the inside, and not simply from their own stand
point before they can deal effectively with it.
I pass to another statement often made. It is that

i6o THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
' the attack on the Bible,' or ' rationahstic criticism,'
or whatever other opprobrious and question-begging
title the objector chooses to adopt, having failed in its
assault on the New Testament, is now making a deter
mined onslaught on the Old Testament. This is
usuaUy foUowed by the reassuring prediction that the
failure of the Tubingen criticism will be repeated in the
failure of the Grafian," which wiU foUow its predecessor
to the lumber-room of discarded absurdities. Grattan
once said in the Irish Parliament, ' Mr. Speaker, you
cannot argue with a prophet, you can only contradict
him,' but sometimes one is so fortunate as to be able to
do both. Whether the prosppct that the Grafian will
go the way of the Tubingen criticism is calculated to
bring much comfort to those who are famihar with
the present condition of New Testament criticism in
Germany is irrelevant to the present purpose, but
would repay some consideration. In any case, however,
the parallel will appear to many to yield a very apt
and teUing argument. I shaU return to the Tiibingen
criticism at a later point ; meanwhile I may devote a
few sentences to it, that the point of the argument may
be clear. As is well known, F. C. Baur, the founder of
the Tiibingen School, saw everywhere in the primitive
Church the conflict between the Pauhne and the
Petrine parties. The legalism of the Judaisers, the
antinomianism of Paul, the particularism of the former,
the universahsm of the latter, were arrayed in an antag
onism which embraced not principles only but persons
in its scope. The original antagonism between Paul and
the primitive Apostles gradually softened through
mutual approximation until the Jewish Christian and
Pauline tendencies blended in the Catholic Church, the
higher unity in which the old antithesis had been over
come. Only four genuine Epistles were left to Paul,

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS i6i
Romans i.-xiv., Corinthians, and Galatians, and the
Book of Revelation to the Apostle John, as it was be
Ueved to reveal a bitter hostility to Paul. All the other
books of the New Testament were supposed to be later,
since they exhibited a retreat from the original fierce
opposition. It is generaUy agreed that this criticism is
dead ; though it has left a deep and enduring mark on
the handling of the subject. It must be admitted that
Paul aroused an envenomed enmity among the extreme
Judaists, and one cannot feel the attitude of such a
leader as James of Jerusalem to have been other than
unsympathetic. It was one of the merits of the
Tiibingen School to force the antagonism into promin
ence ; though I think it would be the unanimous ver
dict of New Testament scholars that Baur and his col
leagues exaggerated the significance of it beyond
measure. They explained the development of the
primitive Church into the Catholic Church of the second
century almost entirely from the interaction of these
two tendencies, whereas we can now see clearly that a
large number of other factors were at work, which the
Tiibingen critics left out of account, or to which they
attached far too httle importance. Yet it is more to
my present point to express the misgiving I have felt
for many years that reaction has swung too far in the
opposite direction and that recoU from the extravagance
of the theory has carried some critics into undue dis
paragement of the evidence which could be marshalled
in its favour. The fact of its enormous influence
attests the presence of some tmth in it, which it is
our business to retain ; and there are phenomena to be
accounted for, of which it offered some explanation.
No one who has worked at the subject can deny his
debt, directly or indirectly, to Baur. He gave the
greatest stimulus to investigation and was the first to
B.O. II

i62 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
set many of the problems of New Testament science
and Early Church History. But this does not exhaust
our debt to him. His views were one-sided, extreme,
often unhistorical, but there was a residuum of positive
trath in them that we cannot afford to neglect, and he
initiated a method which is our permanent possession.
There are many considerations which warn us against
the too hasty inference that Kuenen and WeUhausen
wiU see their theory relegated to a place beside Baur's.
The argument, I suppose, rests on the consideration
that history repeats itself. So it may, more or less.
But the real question is — ^Are the two cases paredlel ?
It wiU be easily seen that they are not. It is useless to
institute a comparison between them in order to discover
a basis for prediction. There seems to be no reason
whatever in the nature of things why the criticism of the
Old Testament should mn the same course as the criti
cism of the New. The conditions are entirely different.
The limits of date are far more rigidly determined in
the case of the New Testament than in that of the Old.
In the latter our earliest evidence for the authenticity
of some disputed writings is separated by many cen
turies from the time to which tradition assigns their
composition. What evidence there is is extremely
scanty at the best. Nearly all our criticism has to be
based on internal evidence, and it is only from examina
tion of the books themselves that we can reach vahd
conclusions about them. In the New Testament aU is
different. The evidence, whUe it leaves some range
of uncertainty, is on the whole, both early and extensive.
We have a wealth of external testimony which goes
back to a very early period and is very convincing,
quite apart from that which we derive from the study
of the books themselves. We have also early manu
scripts, the textual history of which requires us to

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 165
place the origmal documents themselves at a far earUer
date. Further, we have weighty conoboration from
archaeology, such as, in spite of the numerous state
ments to the contrary, has certainly not been suppUed
to disputed sections of the Old Testament. It is,
therefore, clear that since the cases are so dissimUar
no argument can be founded on a paraUeUsm which does
not exist.
In the next place it is weU to remember that there was
never anything approaching the large consensus of
scholars in favour of the Tubingen theory which it has
been possible for a long time to claim on behalf of the
Grafians. Several of the most eminent New Testa
ment scholcirs in Germany, some of them quite free in
their attitude to the Bible, were never ranked in the
school of Baur. It is tme, of course, that Old Testa
ment scholars, pre-eminently DUlmann, held aloof
from the Grafian theory. But there is this significant
difference between the two cases. WhUe time weakened
the Tiibingen ranks by defection or diversion of interest
to other fields, it has strengthened the hold of the
Grafian criticism. The most noteworthy of all its
recent triumphs has been the adhesion of Noldeke, who
is among the foremost of our Semitici scholars. His
adhesion is aU the more remarkable that more than
forty years ago he refused to admit the vahdity of
Graf's arguments, and it is only the sheer weight of
evidence which has at last forced him to announce
a change of view. I am not forgetful of defections
from the dominant critical school, but of these I
wiU speak directly.
Nor must we forget that the Tubingen criticism rested
on a phUosophic principle, and the history of primitive
Christianity was read in the hght of it. But for the
fact that Baur was a HegeUan it wotUd probably never

i64 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
have come into being. But it may be asked. Is not the
same thing true of the Grafian theory ? Do not both
start from philosophical presuppositions, which are
identical ? Is not the spirit which animates their
attack ' a veiled HegeUanism ' ? Is it not ominous that
Vatke and George, the first to pubhsh it, were them
selves Hegehans, and that Vatke's exposition of
Israel's rehgious history was constructed on HegeUan
Unes and expounded in Hegelian terminology ? This
is perfectly true, and I have already called attention
to it. But HegeUanism is not of the essence of the
Grafian criticism. The theory was reached by others
on non-philosophical grounds ; especiaUy was this
the case with Reuss, who actuaUy had expounded
these views in his classroom before Vatke's work was
published, and who was positively detened from reading
Vatke's book by the sight of its Table of Contents with
its repulsive Hegelian terminology. And this is char
acteristic. The most eminent of the Tiibingen critics
— Baur, Zeller, and Schwegler — were philosophers,
the most eminent exponents of the Grafian theory
have not been such. The Tiibingen theory rested
largely on a preconception as to what the course of
history must have been, the Grafian theory has been
built on a firm foundation of hard facts derived from
the literature itself. It has been adopted by critics of
aU kinds of metaphysical and religious standpoint,
not through any a priori theories as to what the history
must have been, but in deference to a multitude of phe
nomena which research has brought to light in the Old
Testament. There is, accordingly, good reason for
what might strike any one unacquainted with the sub
ject as an inconsistency. I mean the very frequent
combination of radicalism in Old Testament with
conservatism in New Testament criticism.

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 165
In another case history serves as a basis for prediction
We are told that the history of criticism warns us only
too emphaticaUy against the futility of supposing that
we have reached finahty. Fashions change ; some time
ago Ewald was aU the rage, and it was thought that
Old Testament criticism had been placed in an impreg
nable position. But now it is the Grafian school, and
Kuenen and WeUhausen have settled aU the main
problems, and made the history of Israel for the first
time inteUigible. And they wiU pass away like Ewald,
and some new school wiU hold the field, and give way
in its turn. Or the argument has taken this form : It
wiU be time to discuss what the critics have to say when
they have settled their differences among themselves ;
or. We have only to enjoy the spectacle of these mutu
aUy destructive theories making away with each other.
It is the internal divisions of the critics that give to these
statements whatever cogency they possess. And
thus Satan is set to cast ' out Satan. WeUhausen is
played off against DiUmann, Winckler against WeU
hausen. The theories, we are told, ' eat each other up,'
a feat which reminds us of the Kilkenny cats. It is not
unusual to pit scholar against scholar, on the principle,
one may presume, that when critics fall out, tradition
alists wiU come by their own. The discordance of
experts is urged to prove that the traditional theory is
right ; but the one fixed point with the great majority
of experts is that, whatever theory is true, the traditional
view is false. I may take a paraUel case. I suppose
that no weU-informed critic would now uphold the
Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. It is irrecon
cUable with the linguistic character of the book and
with its whole tone and point of view. But the critics
are not agreed as to its date, many placing it in the
Persian period and many in the Greek. But no one

i66 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
would seriously suppose that this difference of opinion
constitutes an argument in favour of the older view.
Or take the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews. If we
are entitled to be dogmatic about any point in New
Testament criticism, it is surely this, that Paul did not
write it. And yet how much disagreement there is as
to the authorship ! Barnabas, Luke, Clement, ApoUos,
PrisciUa, have aU been credited with it. Few, how
ever, I presume, would argue that because scholars
are all at sixes and sevens on the matter their dis
agreement does anything to rehabilitate the theory
of Pauhne authorship. The one fixed point in both
cases is that the traditional view is wrong, and the
difference of opinion among critics does not make it
right. A negative conclusion in these matters may
frequently be reached with certainty where a positive
conclusion is impossible. It is often quite easy to
show that a document could not have been written by
the author to whom tradition assigns it, but its actual
authorship may remain altogether uncertain, and the
limits of its possible date may lie centuries apart.
Moreover, the extent to which critics differ is con
stantly exaggerated. The unwary reader might easUy
be misled if he had no information as to the real state
of the case. On the main problems critics have reached
a very large measure of agreement. The Grafian
criticism was an advance on its predecessor not a re
versal of it. The new criticism took up and accepted
very many of the results reached by the old. So
competent an opponent as Dr. Orr agrees that if the
results held by the two schools in common are accepted,
the later canies out these results to their logical issue,
the criticism of the mediating school, best represented
by DiUmann, being an Ulogical compromise. And is
not this aU that we can fairly ask ? No science is fuU-

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 167
grown at its birth, it proceeds by tentative steps through
many blunders to ever clearer perception of the truth.
I suppose we must not complain if the opponents of
criticism create the impression that they make the
range of divergence more prominent than the facts war
rant, if differences are accentuated and agreements are
ignored. The fact, however, remains that, as wiU have
been clear from earUer chapters, a very large consensus
of opinion has been reached on the main issues. No
doubt when we come to detaU there is considerable
divergence of view and it is not surprising that this
supphes the traditionalists with not a httle of their
ammunition. One would, in fact, imagine that where
such disharmony existed they regarded themselves as
exonerated from recognizing the existence of any pro
blem at all. But the disagreement is largely due to
the complexity of the problems, and is no more than is
famUiar in other departments of historical and hterary
investigation. A more prolonged study has in fact
shown that the earUer critics, so far from ovenating,
often undenated the complexity of the problems.
When we are taunted with the mania for excessive
analysis the answer is ready to hand. A critical theory
is simply an endeavour to do justice to the phenomena
of the documents. As investigation goes forward and
new facts come to Ught, the theory has to be modi
fied to fit them. Hence we have the somewhat
elaborate attempts at sphttmg up the mam documents
and detecting the work of redactors and editors. It is
not fair to make too much of this. On the one hand,
the excesses of analysis should not be used to discredit
the analytic method altogether, and the critics con
stantly point out that theur attempts at mmuter dis
crimination of sources are quite tentative, and that
an element of uncertainty must necessarily hang over

i68 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
them. On the other hand, it is clear that growing
famUiarity with the documents may sharpen the sense
of the investigator for finer and finer analysis. The
clues which he foUows to unravel his tangled skein
seem altogether too intangible to people whose fingers
are all thumbs. If we are bent on settling these mat
ters by a priori principles, it is natural enough to scoff
at the idea that even if the documents had been com
posed on the lines suggested by the critics they would
ever have been able \q discover the process and its
detaUed history.
In this connexion I may caU attention to the strange
parallel which has now and again been drawn between
the Pentateuch and the novels of Besant and Rice.
Has any critic, we are triumphantly asked, ever suc
ceeded in analysing their work and assigning to each
of these authors his own portion ? But obviously
there is aU the difference between an artificial Uterary
product, written by a couple of self-conscious novelists,
with whom style was necessarily a dehberate study and
whose work was meant to be a unity and represent the
same point of view, and the composition formed by the
blending of two or more distinct works, the spontaneous
products of unsophisticated writers who were giving
without any artifice of style a plain unvarnished tale.
I may add that criticism has been at work on the Pen
tateuch for a good deal over a century, that an army of
keen-sighted investigators has been enUsted in its ser
vice, that they have gone over the text with a micro
scope, coUected phenomena of aU sorts pointing to
difference of authorship, and have been so successful in
their work that many of their most strenuous opponents
have been compelled to recognize partiaUy, if not com
pletely, the validity of their literary analysis. And
it is by no means certain that if the novels of Besant and

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 169
Rice had been put through the same process the results
reached might not have been equaUy convincing, only
in their case no one would think the labour worth whUe.
The analytic critics frequently meet with the ob
jection that books are not compUed as critics affirm
that the Pentateuch was put together. And this is quite
true of the books with which objectors are famiUar.
A modem historian studies aU the information which
earher authorities can give him and then writes a
new account on the basis of his research. If he quotes
from one of the original sources or from a historian
who has treated the subject before him he is careful
to indicate that he is quoting, by the use of inverted
commas and explicit reference to his authorities.
Hence when the Biblical scholar puts forward a theory
of composite authorship, when he professes to go back
behind the documents we possess and largely recover
the documentary sources from which they have been
put together, he meets with an initial prejudice on the
part of his reader who is asked to believe that here a
method of procedure has been foUowed which has no
paraUel in the literature with which he is famUiar.
But if only he knew his Bible better he would have felt
some hesitation in pressing this criticism. The Books
of Chronicles for example present us with long extracts
from the earUer historical books, which are inserted
without any indication that such was their origin.
Similarly the Ssmoptic Gospels exhibit a surprismg ex
tent of coincidence which can be accounted for only on
the assumption that they drew upon common sources.
Or one might refer to the way in which the Second
Epistle of Peter has incorporated much of the Epistle
of Jude. But quite apart from BibUcal examples of
the very processes pronounced to be incredible, a Uttle
reflection might have sufficed for the remmder that the

170 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
Bible is not a Western but an Eastern book and that
there is no necessity why the authors should conform to
what appears to us the proper method of writing history.
Robertson Smith long ago iUustrated this^ from the
practice of Arabic chroniclers who write history just
along the lines on which critics say the Pentateuch was
compiled. Examples are given in the Cambridge Biblical
Essays by Prof. Bevan, so that the reader who is un-
famUiar with Arabic Chronicles has not to be con
tent with a general statement but can see the process
exemplified in long quotations. Thus there are paral
lels to the process pronounced in the outraged name
of common sense to be inconceivable.
At this point it might be weU to say something as to
the recent attempts to discredit the clue to analysis
afforded by the Divine names. The most notable
case is that of Eerdmans. He was a pupU of Kuenen,
and now occupies at Leyden the chair formerly held
by the great critic. For a long time he adhered to
the generaUy accepted view, so that his defection may
weU seem a very ominous fact. For why should a man
go back on his training and his earlier faith and confess
that he had been completely mistaken unless the reasons
were grave indeed ? It must of course be remembered
that his breach is not simply with the Grafian theory
but with the documentary analysis altogether. In the
first part of his AlttestamentUche Studien he explained
that he had been led to a different view as to the
Divine name Elohim from that taken by critics, and
therefore rejected the analysis based upon it. I be
Ueve it would be a mistake to attach any special import
ance to his withdrawal. It is sensational rather than
momentous. Although the distinction of the Divine
names is the most famous clue to the analysis, it is
perhaps not the most important ; but in any case a

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 171
multitude of phenomena converge on the generaUy
accepted critical analysis, as is confessed, not simply by
Grafians and the older critics, of whom DiUmann was the
most distinguished of recent representatives, but by
many opponents of criticism such as Dr. James Robert
son. Before anyone can hope to convert us to the
denial of documentary analysis he must deal with
those phenomena. The fact that the criterion of the
Divine names is not the most convincing ground for
analysis is readUy proved by one simple fact. Leavuig
Deuteronomy aside, critics distinguish three main docu
ments in the Pentateuch, known by the convenient
symbols J, E, P. The first of these uses Yahweh,
the other two use Elohim as a proper name. Our
criterion then would have simply enabled us to recog
nize two documents, one of which would have used
Elohim in this way and the other not. Not only, how
ever, has it been possible to draw by other criteria a
clear hne of distinction between the two Elohistic docu
ments, but they are separated by far more striking
differences than those between the Elohistic document
E and the non-Elohistic document J. The hmitations oi
P have been settled to the general satisfaction of aU
schools, whereas a large measure of uncertainty stUl
hangs over the analysis of J E. The variations in the
Septuagint have perhaps been unduly neglected, but
I am convinced that an excessive importance has been
attached to the element of uncertainty which this in
troduces. No variant in a translation can be counted
a real variant unless we have good grounds for beheving
that it existed in a Hebrew manuscript, and even then
it does not foUow that it is the original reading. More
over it is true in the case of Eerdmans, as in other cases,
that the attack on criticism is if anything worse than
the criticism itself and more unacceptable to tradition-

172 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
alism. His interpretation of Elohim conservatives
would be the first to repudiate. He beheves that poly
theism is to be found not simply in the Book of the
Covenant where he first observed it but elsewhere.
We have legends in which Elohim stands for a plurality
of deities ,and Yahweh for one of them. This interpret
ation the traditionalists would hotly reject. More
over, whUe Eerdmans sets aside the current analysis,
he analyses on his own Unes and recognizes not only
pre-exilic but post-exilic sections. His discussion
of Deuteronomy has not yet been published, but the
aUusions he makes suggest that he takes the critical
view of it. It is accordingly not surprising that he
hesitated for a long time before he pubUshed his work,
just because he feared that the traditionalists would see
in it a vindication of their position which he was far
from wishing to supply.'
Another name with which the conservative moral is
not infrequently pointed is that of Winckler, who has
been very vigorously seconded by Jeremias. But it
equaUy well points the other moral, for the acceptance of
his theories would be a far more serious matter than an
acceptance of the comonly received critical hypothesis.
Since any rod is good enough for the backs of the Gra
fians, people are only too ready to cry ' Up with Winck
ler,' because that means ' Down with WeUhausen,'
without asking themselves whether ' Up with Winckler '
does not mean an even worse condition of things,
from the traditional point of view, than that which
prevaUs at present. Again, it must be remembered
that Winckler's special theories, while briUiant and
ingenious, rest at present on somewhat speculative
combinations. The conception of the universe which
Winckler believes to have been formulated in Baby
lonia at a very early period, and to have dominated the

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 173
reUgious creed and practice of antiquity, has been put
together by him out of scattered data and, so far as we
know, never had any existence tUl it was formulated by
his brilliant and ingenious brain. It involves the con
clusion that the Babylonians had reached a height of
astronomical knowledge which is antecedently aU but
incredible. For example, they must have known the
precession of the equinoxes. Jeremias actuaUy sug
gests in one place that they may have had optical
instruments, and that the modem invention of the
telescope may have been the rediscovery of a miracle
of civilization lost for thousands of years. Much more
evidence than he is able to bring would be needed to
make such a suggestion seem anything but fantastic.
It would cany me too far to expound in any detail
Winckler's astral theory, suffice it to say that the uni
verse was regarded as divided into a celestial and an
earthly world, in both of which there were three sub
divisions, the heavenly and the earthly corresponding
exactly to each other. Our earth answers to the zodiac,
and it is thus possible to read in the heavens the history
of the earth. The heavenly bodies were identified with
the chief gods. If therefore the phenomena of the
heavens can be understood, man has found out what
the gods are going to do. It was thus possible for the
astrologer, in virtue of this co-ordination between heaven
and earth, to forecast the future. The astrologers seem
to have thoroughly believed in their own system and
naturaUy studied with the closest care the changes in
the appearance of the heavens, especiaUy of the moon
and in a less degree of the sun and the planets. Of the
latter Jupiter and Venus were the most important,
since they were identified with Marduk and Ishtar.
Curiously enough the liver of animals offered in
sacrifice was supposed also to be a representation of the

174 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
universe from which the priest might read the wiU of
the gods and the course of fate. This method of
divination, Hepatoscopy as it is technically caUed, seems
to the modem mind singularly inational. There was,
however, a plausible defence of it ; the fault lay in the
underlying principles rather than in the logical character
of the deductions from it. The fuU explanation of
the system and the grounds on which it rested would
involve a very long discussion. Here I can find space
only for the most general description. The sacrificia,l
animal was beheved to be united to the deity to whom
it was dedicated. The soul of the animal was attuned
to the deity, so that it was possible by the examination
of the animal soul to understand the mind of the deity
who controUed future events. The sanctity attached
to blood not unnaturally suggested that the seat of the
soul was in the hver, one-sixth of the blood in the human
body, for example, being contained in it. To read the
soul of the animal, and thus divine the purpose of the
god, was effected by studying the conformation and the
markings on the liver of the sheep, which was the animal
invariably used. These are never precisely the same
in any two animals, and most elaborate directions
were given for reading the signs.
Experts generaUy have taken up a sceptical attitude
towards the astral theory, however amply they may
acknowledge its ingenuity, not to say its audacity,
and it is rather difficult to see what ground there is for
the assertion that the younger scholars of Germany are
raUjdng to Winckler's side. Even if one were to admit
that he had rightly reconstructed the Babylonian view
of the universe we should stiU be a long way from the
conclusion that Israel was, inteUectuaUy and reU-
giously, just a mere province of Babylonia, to which, on
highly speculative grounds, Winckler practicaUy re-

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 175
duces it. Unquestionably there are very remarkable
coincidences between the Old Testament and the
Babylonian myths, especiaUy the stories of the Creation
and the Deluge. But whUe the coincidences are un
deniable and point to lUtimate derivation of the Hebrew
stories from Babylon, the significant thing is the way
in which the mythical element is minimized in the
Hebrew form and the ethical element introduced.
Some Old Testament scholars under Pan-Babylonian
influence, notably Baentsch and Volz, have been in
clined to emphasize the originaUy monotheistic char
acter of Hebrew reUgion on the ground that monothe
ism had been reached in Babylonia and Egypt. Some
accordingly have seen in Baentsch's work on the subject
a veritable portent, heralding the downfaU of the
dominant school of criticism. In this I cannot foUow
them. We have to remember that not only has the proof
of Winckler's theory stUl to be given but there is the
question whether we have adequate ground for beUeving
that the doctrine was so widely diffused in Western
Asia as is assumed. Moreover, wkUe Baentsch's
conclusions, if they were conect, would affect the
constraction of the history of the rehgion which has
been most popular with critics, it would not affect, so
far as I can see, the critical position in the strict sense
of the term. It would uideed have been an amazmg
thing if this eminent scholar, whose too early death we
had recently cause to deplore, had gone back on aU the
critical work that is to be found m his Das Bundesbuch,
his Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, and his masterly and extensive
commentary on the middle books of the Pentateuch.
If I understand aright the reference on page 108 of his
Monotheismus, he held fast to the abidmg value of the
Grafian criticism. He expressly refened m this con
nexion to the historical position assigned to the Law.

176 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
He expUcitly dissociated himself from the account of
early Hebrew rehgion given by Wellhausen and Stade.
But, whUe doing so he made it quite clear that his
dissent did not touch the Grafian theory, which he con
sidered it the merit of these and other critics to have
established. For my own part I have never felt that
I should compromise my Grafian orthodoxy by placing
Hebrew monotheism at the fountain head of the re
Ugion. At the same time I have never been convinced
that it held this position, but have inclined to the belief
that down to the eighth century the religion was
characterized by monolatry rather than by monotheism.
I may add that Benzinger, in the recently published
second edition of his Hebrdische Archdologie (1907),
whUe he has revised the work in a thoroughly Pan-
Babylonian sense, and foUows Winckler very closely,
adheres to the usual analysis into four documents.
He reverts (with Winckler) to the view that E is the
oldest, but he bases his history of institutions on the
assumption that the Grafian date of P is correct. What
Pan-Babylonianism may come to, can be seen from
Jensen's Gilgamesh Epos, which turns nearly all the
sacred characters and incidents of the Old and the
New Testament into forms of that story. And perhaps
our apologists would do weU to practise rather more
caution when they avail themselves of such Pan-
Babylonian views as may seem to come in handy for
the attack on the Grafians.
This brings me to the aUeged veto of archaeology.
We constantly hear that the discoveries in this field
have completely discredited critical conclusions. It
it weU known on the other hand that there has been no
such stampede as is asserted, that several archaeolo
gists accept the main critical results and that some go
far beyond the opinions of critics in their scepticism of

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 177
traditional views. Nor is it tme that archaeology even
on the Ups of criticism's bitterest opponents rehabiU-
tates tradition. We have only to remember their treat
ment of Daniel and Esther to convince ourselves of this,
or the acceptance of the Uterary analysis on the part of
some of them. It is very difficult in reading them to know
whether what they give us is a fact or something which
one or two scholars beheve to be a fact, or some ingenious
combination which rests purely on hypothesis. The lack
of knowledge as to the kind of evidence required to prove
their case is sometimes remarkable, as is their faUure
to see exactly what they want to prove. Sometimes
' confirmations ' are flourished as if they overthrew
critical opinions when as a matter of fact they are
confirmations of what no sober critic has ever doubted.
How hoUow the contention is that criticism has been
discredited by the monuments may be seen from Dr.
Driver's statement that if everything Prof. Sayce says
in his Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monu
ments were correct he would have to alter only two
statements in the fiirst edition of his Introduction,
both of them conservative statements. The fourteenth
chapter of Genesis always figures very prominently in
this discussion, but here as elsewhere statements are
made of the most extravagant and unwananted char
acter. A measure of doubt stiU hangs over the identi
fication of the four kings, but no one would guess from
the anti-critical accounts of the controversy that those
who had most sharply criticized the historicity of the
narrative had, even before the discoveries, now paraded
as proof of its historical character, had been made,
freely granted that even more than has yet been veri
fied might very weU tum out to be conect. Admittmg
all and more than aU which the monuments have smce
estabUshed they nevertheless held thatjhe nanative
B.O. 12

178 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
was unhistorical. What has subsequently come to
Ught was fuUy aUowed for in this estimate. The dis
coveries were discounted before they were made, if
indeed they have been made, which is more dubious
even now than some are wiUing to admit. Besides,
these discoveries, as they have a way of doing, if they
settle some problems, raise others. In particular it is
difficult to harmonize the view that Abraham was a
contemporary of Hammurabi with the most probable
date for the Exodus, the interval between Abraham
and Moses being then much too long.
i- The prophecy that we are going to dig up a cuneiform
Pentateuch in Palestine is only another glaring example
of the tmth that uninspired prediction is one of the most
gratuitous forms of foUy. Were such a discovery to be
made it would hit the critics hard, but it may be ques
tioned whether it would not hit the conservatives
harder still. For while criticism helps apologetics by
explaining that the inconsistencies in narrative and
legislation have not unnaturaUy arisen through the
combination of different documents and the fact that
the legislation was spread over a long period, those who
stand for the traditional view have the problem of
accounting for these discrepancies in a much acuter
form, especially when they link with it, as they com
monly do, a rather high theory of inspiration. The
critical theory rests in other words on a mass of pheno
mena in the Old Testament itself, and the critic can
therefore await with equanimity whatever the spade
of the explorer may bring to light, since he is assured
that while archaeology may conceivably confirm a
Biblical statement that has been doubted, it cannot
well in the nature of the case also affirm a statement
that directly contradicts it.
Another point may betouched upon not because it is of

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS 179
any intrinsic importance but because it is so frequently
made prominent. Tt is by now a fairly old reproach
that our criticism is made in Germany. Of course we
expect no better than the'use of ' German ' as a sjonbol
of what is wild, speculative, and extreme on the lips of
the ignoramus, such as the man who in the course of a
violent address on Herbert Spencer repeatedly spoke of
him as ' that German phUosopher.' But even leamed
Professors sometimes indulge in suggestions of this
kind. Thus Dr. On invites us to be less dependent on
German speculations and have the courage to call our
soiUs our own. I cannot for my part see what nation-
aUty has to do with criticism. The tme antithesis
should not be between German and British, but be
tween trae and false. If we foUow German and
Dutch lead here, we do so not because we are critical
Uttle Englanders, any more than Dr. On rejects it be
cause he is a critical Jingo, but because we have con
vinced ourselves that the arguments by which the
Grafian theory is supported are sound. A theory
need be none the worse because it is made in Germany.
And how Uttle the beUeving critics to whom Dr. On
directs this appeal really deserve his censure for slavish
dependence is clear from the attitude adopted by many
on the problems of New Testament criticism. Were
we afraid to eaU our souls our own we should be indus
triously retailing Holtzmann and Pfleiderer, Wellhau
sen and Wendland, Wrede and Wernle and Schmiedel.
But here many of us, who assent to the critical con
clusions of the leading Old Testament scholars in Ger
many, dissent from some of the German leaders in New
Testament criticism, though we freely admit that we
have learnt a great deal from them. And we are by
no means without eminent alhes in Germany itself. Of
course, Dr. On wiU insist that we reaUy don't know

i8o THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
what we are doing, or we should see the fatal inconsis
tency of our position. Thus he says : ' This, one may
be excused for thinking, is a defect of our critics of the
more beheving school; that they do not sufficiently
recognize the sohdarity which exists between the theory
of religious development which they reject, and the
critical opinions which they retain, and, in consequence,
do not do justice to the logic of their own positions '
(The Review and Expositor, Oct. 1906). He seems in
fact to think that the moderate criticism represented
by many of the leading Old Testament scholars
in Great Britain has no real right to existence. If
we were only thorough with it we should go over to the
extremists. But we must take leave to assure him that
we do understand quite weU what we are about, and are
quite ready to defend our combination of radicaUsm in
Old Testament criticism with a moderate conservatism
in the criticism of the New. The charge that criticism
is based on rationalistic presuppositions has much more
relevance in the latter than in the former case.
Yet the critical aspect is on the whole quite subordi
nate, and those who combine loyalty to the evangehcal
faith with an acceptance of the main critical results
might very well feel that Dr. Orr draws the hne of demar
cation where it ought to be drawn and that they stand
on his side of it. After all, the fundamental antithesis
is not between criticism and traditionahsm. It is
between rationalism and what, for want of a better
term, may be caUed supernaturaUsm. Dr. On would,
of course, urge that those of us who accept the critical
position are weakened for our war with rationahsm.
StrategicaUy he will claim that his position is much the
sounder, and that the logic inherent in our acceptance
of critical views is likely to force us into ultimate
capitulation. I must content myself with reasserting

TO THE OLD TESTAMENT CRITICS i8i
my behef that our position is by no means so'jexposed as
Dr. Orr considers, and that what he says co us might
very weU be said to him by those who view with hos
tUity such concessions as he has made to the anti-
traditionaUsts. But on his main contention I rejoice to
find myself at his side. The things which supremely
matter touch the question. What think ye of Christ ?
Is the universe a closed order for us, which admits of no
such breach of continuity as the Incarnation would
involve ? Is Jesus man's highest point of human
aspiration towards God, or is He the stooping of God to
man ? And according as we come to this answer or to
that so shaU we construct our theory on other theolo-
gicEd issues. On this subject Dr. Orr. as is to be
expected, takes a firm Une. The real Divinity of our
Lord, the revelation of God in the Old Testament and
in the New, and that in a unique sense, the real inspira
tion of the Biblical writers, the actual emergence of the
miraculous in sacred history — on all these points he
leaves no room for question as to his opinion.
Lastly it must not be forgotten that those who stand
out as the most prominent defenders of tradition have
made very serious concessions to criticism,* and those
1 It may be worth while to put together some of these con
cessions in Dr. Orr's The Problem of the Old Testament.
The author admits ' an element of " idealization " in the Bibli
cal narratives ' (p. 93, cf. p. 87) ; that a considerable part of
Genesis can really, by the use of the criterion of the Divins
names, be divided into Elohistic and Jehovistic sections
(p. 196) ; that ' the Pentateuch has a history — that, Uke other
books of the Bible, it has undergone a good deal of revision,
and that sometimes this revision has left pretty deep traces
upon the text ' (p. 226) ; that it is not necessarily impUed in the
recognition of ' a substantiaUy Mosaic origin of the Laws,'
' that Moses wrote aU these laws, or any one of them with his
own pen ; or that they were aU written down at one time ;
or that tbey underwent no subsequent changes in draft-

i82 THE CONSERVATIVE REPLY
who imagine that their works rehabiUtate tradition
would probably be surprised to see how different from the
rigidly traditional is the attitude they have been forced
to adopt. These concessions have been wrung from
them against all their prepossessions by the sheer
pressure of the evidence. In the judgment of the vast
majority of Old Testament scholars they are far below
the minimum of what will ultimately have to be
accepted.ing or development ; or that the collection of them was not a
more or less gradual process ; or that there may not have been
smaUer coUections, such, e.g., as that Ijdng at the basis ofthe
Law of HoUness — in circulation and use prior to the final
coUection, or codification as we now have it ' (p. 328) ; that
the sections ascribed to P ' have a vocabulary, and a stylistic
character of their own, which renders them in the main readily
distinguishable ' (p. 335) ; that the differences of style and
vocabulary within P itself render probable the idea ' of a
process of composition, rather than of a single author ' (p. 340) ;
that Deuteronomy ' shows traces of editorial redaction '
(p. 251), ' editorial revision and annotation ' (p. 283) ; that
' there are marked differences between the Deuteronomic and
the J E and P styles ' (p. 253) ; that * there may be a measure
of freedom in the reproduction of the speeches ' in Deuteronomy
(p._ 380) ; that 'the extremely detaUed characte r of the prediction
in chap, xi ' (of Daniel) ' may point to later redaction ' (p. 458) ;
that the inscriptions ' afford valuable aid in rectifying the
Bible chronology ' (p. 426). To these may be added the signifi
cant modifications of the older view of the Pentateuch in the
general statements on pp. 369 and 376.

CHAPTER XI
THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST
The previous discussion may have left a somewhat dis
heartening impression on many readers. They will
have felt, perhaps, that some of those beliefs, which
have meant so much for their religious life, rest, if what
I have said be trae, on an uncertain foundation, and
that the Uterature which has done so much to enlighten,
inspire, and control them is not what they have fondly
supposed it to be. I trust that while such an impres
sion is natural it wiU become clearer and clearer as the
discussion proceeds that criticism has given us even
more than the traditional view was able to do. But it
is desirable at this point to raise the question explicitly
of the relation in which criticism and apologetics stand
to each other.
I have already tried to demonstrate that the very
nature of the Bible as an historical work makes criticism]
inevitable, since historical method requires us to place
the criticism of documents at the basis of a historical
reconstruction. I have sought to show that the ante
cedent objections which are frequently urged do not pre
vent us from approaching the critical problems with a
view to solving them by critical methods. But, while
this may be freely granted as a matter of principle, the
question is bound to be raised whether the results
actuaUy reached are not such as radically to affect our
Christian faith. Such a question is vital to critics who
183

i84 THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST
feel that it is not open to them to save their results at
the expense of throwing overboard the Christian
reUgion. But just here I touch one of the most ominous
features of the present rehgious situation. We are told
that critical results have proved fatal to behef, and
there is no reason to doubt the fact. But before con
demning these results out of hand, as many are incUned
to do, we must raise the question whether they ought to
have been fatal. My own conviction is that what is to
blame for this deplorable condition is not criticism but
the false view of Scripture which had been presented as
an integral part of Christianity. ReUef must be sought
neither in the rejection of Christianity on the one side.
nor in repudiation of the critical results on the other,
but in such a revision of our conception of Scripture as
shall enable us to be loyal to both.
It cannot be denied that a period of transition such as
that through which we are at present passing is one in
which results are not always easy to estimate, or the
issues easy to gauge. The dislocations involved in our
change of views jar and distress us. With our natural
tendency to be at ease in Zion we resent the disturbance
of our cherished convictions. Yet the history of the
past should prove at once a warning and an encourage
ment. It should warn us against leaping to premature
conclusions, against making Christianity answer with
its Ufe for the conectness of our traditional theory.
Is it not enough that we have before us the humiUat-
ing history of the conflicts between science and theo
logy ? We are too ready to condemn our predecessors
for stoning the prophets of science, too reluctant to ask
the searching question how far we are walking in their
steps. The Coperniccin theory of the universe was
denounced as inconsistent with the Bible ; and a
plausible case could be built up for the view that the

THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST 185
whole Christian scheme was shattered by the proof
that our world is but an infinitesimal item compared
with the vast masses that exist throughout steUar space.
Yet Christianity survived the destruction of the Ptole
maic theory, though this was more revolutionary than
the estabhshed results of criticism are ever hkely to be.
But astronomy does not stand alone, nor is the name
of Gahleo the only one that can bring a blush to the
cheek of those who value the fair fame of their reUgion.
It is wholesome for us to remember our unhappy record
with reference to geology. That could not be true,
because the Book of Genesis said that the world was
created in six days. But only a few obscurantists
would venture on such a position to-day. The beUef
in the antiquity of man, which archseology has forced
us to accept, was for long vehemently contested in the
interests of Old Testament chronology. The theory
of evolution is stiU denounced because it is supposed to
be precluded by the Bible. And who does not
recaU the horrible sacrifice of human Ufe, often
after the infliction of the most atrocious torture,
because the behef in witchcraft and the duty of
the death penalty were conceived to be necessi
tated by the Old Testament ? It is no pleasure to
emphasize the blunders of the past, but they are re
corded for our instraction and we must beware of re
peating the foUy of our fathers, and making claims for
the Bible which we shaU be unable to substantiate.
We must put our foot down firmly somewhere, but let us
take heed that we put it down only where we can keep
it down.
I am not concemed to deny that Old Testament
criticism brings a measure of loss with it. The Bible
reader a hundred years ago felt that he had a sure know
ledge of much that is now either doubted, disproved, or

i86 THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST
shrouded in obscurity. The story of Creation as told
in the early chapters of Genesis, the happy innocence
in which our first parents lived, their disobedience and
expulsion from Paradise, the rapid and monstrous devel
opment of sin, the Flood which weU-nigh swept away
the human race, the patriarchal history, the bondage in
Egypt, the Exodus, the elaborate Mosaic legislation, aU
these were famihar to him, and no shade of misgiving
as to their historical accuracy ever crossed his mind.
He read the Old Testament in the Ught of the New and
traced the gradual unfolding of God's purpose to send
His Son to redeem the world, obscurely hinted in the
prophecy that the seed of the woman should bruise
the woman's head, growing clearer and clearer tiU it
came to fuU and radiant expression in the prediction of
the Virgin's Son. Immanuel. of the Messianic King, and
the Suffering Servant of the Lord. But now how
vast is the difference ! The primeval history is
subject to the gravest doubt. The chronology is
definitely disproved, much which passed for cer
tain is now seen to be very dubious, and the bewildered
reader not unnaturaUy inquires where he can find rest
for the sole of his foot. Even the prophecies which
seemed so clearly to predict the coming of the Messiah
he learns are otherwise interpreted. Isaiah wUl not
have given an event which was to happen more than
seven hundred years later as a sign to reassure Ahaz
of rehef in his immediate necessities, and the figure of
the Servant of Yahweh is definitely identified by the
prophet with Israel. Then, again, what meaning
the Psalms had for him when he could read so
many of them as expressions of the experience
of David ! Now that his authorship is reduced
to such slender Umits, or even set aside altogether,
there is not the same reaUty about the spiritual

THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST 187
history of David that there once was. Thus the tender
and famihar associations with which so much of the
BibUcal Uterature was endeared to the reader have de
parted, and in their place we have a series of anonymous
compositions whose date cannot be determined with
any degree of certainty. Not unnaturaUy many good
people feel an unreasoning prejudice against any at
tempt to discuss this subject in a scientific way. But
the interests of rehgion are better served by finding out
the circumstances under which individual Psalms were
written than by inventing elaborate m3rths about
David to account for his authorship of Psalms that he
never wrote.
In these and other respects the reality of the loss
can hardly be denied. So far as the primeval history
is concemed, however, it is not criticism but science and
history which have made the difference. For tradition
did not assign the composition of the Pentateuch to a
date earUer than the time of Moses, and an interval of
more than two and a half miUenniums lay between his
date and that to which the Creation was assigned.
And if criticism has detached many writings from the
names of their traditional authors, if it has shown that
books hitherto regarded as unities were composite in
character, surely the gain of this far outweighs the loss.
It is good for the Bible reader to have it brought
home to him how largely anonymous the Old Testa
ment writings are. He is too prone to demand the
name of the human author, and, when it is not given, to
anchor a piece of hterature to some weU-known name.
The Book of Job is anonsmious, but many could not be
content to leave it so, and so they eiscribed it to Moses.
But we ought to find the anonymity suggestive. The
writers did not care for personal reputation. They
were too absorbed in their task to covet Uterary

i88 THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST
fame. Their message was their supreme concern ; the
messenger gladly concealed himself behind it. But
this is not all. The whole drift of the earUer
tendency was to concentrate inspiration in a few chan
nels of revelation. The drift of our modern investiga
tions is to insist on the wide range of inspiration, the
multitude of writers, the large outpouring of the Spirit.
And this seems to be a clear gain since it brings home
to us the richness of religious Ufe in Israel which could
produce such a splendid galaxy of writers. I suppose
that some have the uneasy feeling that to deny the tra
ditional authorship of a book is to depreciate its value.
But the book remains what it is, whoever wrote it. I
am reminded of Thiersch's striking saying, ' If it
should turn out that a great painting which had been
attributed to Raphael was not his work, but the work of
an otherwise unknown artist, there would not be one
great picture the less, but one great painter the more.'
And not only was inspiration distributed over a much
larger number of individuals, but it was active in
periods which tradition regarded as unfruitftU. How
barren on the older view were the four centuries of
silence which lay between Malachi and John the Bap
tist, how rich in inspired works that period has become
for the modern critic ! The gap which used to yawn
between the Old Testament and the New is now seen to
be largely iUusory, and we have a continuous develop
ment culminating in Christ.
But one of the greatest gains which criticism has
brought to many of us is that it has made it easier for us
to beUeve in the Divine element in the Old Testament.
Of this one of the most conspicuous examples is afforded
by Pentateuchal criticism. I confess that on the tradi
tional theory I should find it extremely difficult to
accept the Divine origin of the Mosaic Law. I have

THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST 189
already pointed out the presence in the literature of
regulations which are at direct variance with each other.
The traditional theory represents God as giving through
Moses three sets of laws ; the third of these agrees in
many respects with the first, though it is more detailed.
and in some important points there is divergence.
Wedged between these two codes there is a large mass
of legislative matter which in numerous important
points it is hard to reconcile with the other two. It is
not possible to regard the first as temporary legislation
devised for wildemess conditions, since it contemplates
a set of people engaged in the practice of agriculture,
and is therefore designed for Palestinian con
ditions. The traditional view accordingly represents
Israel as beginning its national Ufe in Canaan with
laws given by God to Moses, which are. nevertheless.
largely inconsistent with each other. If we cannot
evade the conclusion by denying the facts, the
question is forced upon us : How can we re
gard mutuaUy inconsistent precepts as given by God
through the same legislator for the same people in con
templation of the same conditions and with a sUght
interval only between two of the codes ? I do not see
how the Divine origin of the legislation could reasonably
be maintained on this hypothesis. When, however, we
regard these laws as given at different times in Israel's
history, and as designed to meet very different condi
tions, our difficulty in recognizing their inspiration
largely disappears. Here criticism has proved to be a
bulwark of faith.
This is an example of a principle which has a much
wider range, and that is the close adjustment of revela
tion to the time at which it was given. This is one of
the characteristics which has been brought out most
impressively by the modem study of the Bible, and it

190 THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST
imparts a reaUty tothe Uterature which onthe older view
was too often lacking. And not only is there this ad
justment, but the preparation for Christ in the reUgion
of Israel is fiUed with a new meaning, when we have
dated our literature correctly and can watch the move
ment as it steadily advances from its lowly origin in the
early behefs and practices of the Hebrews tiU it attains
its consummation in the coming of Christ. Of this I
shaU need to speak again when I come to discuss the
permanent value of the Old Testament. And in the
same way I shall have to point out how our modern
view of the Bible as a progressive revelation destroys at
a stroke many of the difficulties which once were raised
touching the moraUty of the Old Testament. The
same thought also saves us from the peril of iUegiti-
mately reading back the New Testament into the Old,
or later into earlier stages of the religion of Israel itself.
Moreover, when all is said and done, whatever view of
criticism we adopt, the Old Testament remains a
colossal fact which has to be accounted for. On these
points, however, I do not at present linger, since they
must be discussed in more detail at a later stage.
But although Old Testament criticism raises a pro
blem in Apologetics, it is the New Testament rather than
the Old which is cracial for us, and those who have
foUowed me so far with hearty agreement, in the con-^
sciousness that what I have said does not touch the
essence of their faith, may not unreasonably feel some
trepidation as they approach the problem of New Testa
ment criticism. I wish to make some general remarks
on this aspect of the subject before I proceed to a more
detailed exposition. In the first place we must hold
fast our principle as to the legitimacy of Bibhcal
criticism. If we admit it with reference to the
Old Testament we have no right to exclude it

THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST 191
when we come to the New. In it also revela
tion assumes the garb of history, and we have no right
to warn off the critic from the field of history. In
the next place we cannot deny that the issues are
really serious for Christianity, much more so than in
the case of the Old Testament. It might, for example,
tum out as the result of our inquiry that not only tradi
tional views as to authorship broke down under our
investigation, but that the history itself emerged greatly
shaken from the ordeal. But the question might be
put, Does it reaUy matter if the history should have to
be thrown overboard ? What is important for us, it
may be urged, is not the facts but the teaching, not the
question whether the Ideal Character actuaUy Uved on
earth, but the presentation of the Ideal Character itself.
I have dealt with this problem exphcitly elsewhere and
urged that with aU the risks attending it we must main
tain the inseparable connexion of Christianity with
history.! Accordingly we cannot, in my judgment,
approach New Testament criticism with the light-
hearted feeUng that, whatever our results may be, they
wiU not matter. We must make up our minds that
they may matter a great deal, for nothing less than
Christianity itself is at stake in our inquiry.
But it would be a great mistake to make an illegitimate
apphcation of this principle. It is not aU results which
would be fatal to the Gospel. If, for example, we
reached the conclusion, on historical grounds, that Jesus
of Nazareth never existed, or that we have no informa
tion we can trast respecting His hfe and teaching, if we
should see ourselves driven to deny His execution, or,
acknowledging it, to beheve that it was the end of Him,
it is hard to see how Christianity in any tenable sense
could remain our behef. In aU these respects the Gos-
1 See Christianity : Its Nature and Its Truth, chap. VIII.

192 THE CRITIC AND THE APOLOGIST
pel is inseparably united with history and a blow strack
at one would inevitably hit the other. I have previously
given my reasons for beheving that the Gospel passes
safely through this ordeal and that its vital facts may
StiU be heartily accepted. But there are other results
which would not, I think, be fatal. They might
maim our presentation of the Gospel, they would not
stab it to the heart. This is trae to a large extent
with reference to problems of literary criticism. The
origin and mutual relations of the Synoptic Gospels,
the authorship of the Fourth Gospel or the Apocalypse,
the authenticity of the PauUne Epistles ; these are
important questions, but we may enter on the dis
cussion without the feeling that the interests of
Christianity are vitally concerned in the results we
reach. Even in the domain of fact the same thing
is tme. While I have argued for the supernatural
birth of Jesus, I have also affirmed my conviction that a
negative conclusion ought not to destroy our faith in
His Divinity. With these considerations in our mind
we may approach the discussion of New Testament
criticism.

CHAPTER XII
THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The criticism of the New Testament is not whoUy a
creation of modern times. It was practised in the
ancient Church, an admirable example being the dis
cussion by Dionysius of Alexandria of the relations
between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. The
stagnant acquiescence of subsequent times in the
officiaUy-received conclusions as to authorship was dis
turbed by the Reformation when Luther and Calvin,
along with others, boldly challenged traditional opinions.
In the exigencies of the Roman controversy the later
Protestant theologians were driven to a very high doc
trine of inspiration and a very conservative attitude on
questions of authorship. Accordingly the era of
Protestant scholasticism was marked by a retreat from
the freedom which had characterized the fresh reUgious
awakening that had come with the Reformation. As a
result of this it is only recently that orthodox Protest
ants have been wiUing to face the possibihty that the
accepted views may need critical revision.
Just as Old Testament criticism in its modem form
took its rise with Astrac, though he had several pre
decessors, so we may date our starting point for modern
New Testament criticism from the work of Baur and
the Tubingen School.* The reason why so much import-
1 1 have dealt expUcitly with this in my Inaugural Lecture
B.O. ' 193 13

194 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ance is attached to Baur, the critic to whom we owe
so much in the way of stimulus and challenge, does not
Ue simply in the very wide influence which his criticism
exercised ahke on adherents and opponents, but in the
fact that Baur was the first to hft the subject out of the
atomistic treatment which had been accorded to it, to
treat the New Testament books not as individual units
but as an organic whole, and to connect the growth of
the Uterature at every point with the development of
the Church. Whatever be the verdict based on his
general theory or on individual results, there can be no
dispute as to the service he rendered in the introduction
of a new and a fruitful method.
I pointed out in an earUer chapter that Baur was a
HegeUan. He reconstracted the history of Primitive
Christianity by the apphcation of Hegel's formula that
thought moves through thesis and antithesis to S5ni-
thesis. through a conflict of opposites to reconciliation
in a higher unity. Translating this from the general
abstract principle into the particular concrete appUca
tion. his theory was as foUows : The Christianity of the
primitive Apostles was Judaistic. It held to the neces
sity of the Law for all Christians, and that Gentiles if
they were to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel must
submit to the yoke of the Law. Over against this rose
its antithesis or contradiction. Paul proclaimed free
dom from the Law and the validity of the Mission to the
Gentiles. By a gradual process of mutual approach,
softening of antagonism, and elimination of extremes
the Catholic Church of the second century was created in
at the University of Manchester on ' The Present Movement
of BibUcal Science,' and in my recently -pubUshed Critical
Introduction to the New Testament. Accordingly I may
confine myself to a somewhat briefer summary than it would
otherwise have been necessary to give.

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 195
which the two tendencies that had at first stood in bitter
antagonism were harmonized and blended in a higher
unity. The legalism of the Jewish Christians held its
ground on the one side, the universahsm of Paul main
tained its hold on the other.
Now it was quite plain that the New Testament
documents contained much which contradicted Baur's
theory. So much the worse for the documents ! Since
they did not yield the pure milk of the HegeUan
philosophy of history, it was clear that they were largely
adulterated. Only four Epistles of Paul were aUowed
to be the great Apostle'sgenuine work — Galatians, Corin
thians, Romans i.-xiv. The Apocal5^se was left
with the Apostle John, since it was supposed to contain
an acrimonious attack on the apostolic status and
teaching of Paul. The other documents were dated by
the place they held in the movement from hostihty
through compromise to Catholicism. The most ex
treme or polemical writings were placed earliest, those
that were least coloured by controversy or most marked
by tendency to conciUation were placed last. So the
Uterature was dated to match the history as thus re
constructed. In spite of the vast learning and massive argument
devoted by Baur and his briUiant foUowers to the pro
pagation of this revolutionary theory, it could not
permanently hold its ground. The school was weakened
by defection and also by the fact that some of its
most eminent representatives abandoned New Testa
ment criticism for other fields of research. And the
progress of investigation has set steadily in another
direction. The very late dates to which Baur relegated
many of the New Testament writings have been practi
caUy universaUy abandoned. The order in which he
placed some of the books, an order necessitated by his

196 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
theory of development, has also been given up. Thus
the Gospel of Mark was considered by Baur to be the
latest of the Synoptists, because it bore the slightest
marks of the antagonism of the parties. With very few
exceptions scholars of aU critical schools are now agreed
that Mark is the earliest of the Synoptists. The Fourth
Gospel has been brought back to a date half a century
earUer than that to which Baur assigned it. Again,
the genuineness of most of the Pauline Epistles is recog
nized even by advanced critics.
The antagonism which Baur discovered in the Early
Church he is now believed to have greatly exaggerated.
The importance which he attached to such polemical
literature as the Clementine Homihes and Recognitions,
anti-PauUne romances of a late date, is seen to have
been excessive. It is questionable whether any scholar
whose opinion deserves serious consideration would now
regard the Revelation of John as containing an attack
on the Apostle Paul. The view that the Acts of the
Apostles supplies a distorted history of the ApostoUc
Age expressly designed to suppress or smooth over the
old quanels between Paul and the primitive Apostles,
and represent them as in perfect harmony instead of
being at daggers drawn, finds few. if any, supporters
to-day. Ahke in principle and in detaU the theory lies
in ruins.
The causes of this coUapse are not difficult to dis
cover. Baur thought that he could solve the problem
of the origin of the ancient Cathohc Church by the
action of a single principle — the conflict between Jewish
Christianity and Paulinism. But this was altogether
too simple. One of the chief gains of more recent study
has been a conviction of the immense complexity of the
problems presented by early Christianity, and the cer-
tamty that no single solution wUl do. Other factors

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 197
had to be taken into account. Pre-eminent among
these was the influence of the Graeco-Roman environ
ment. For example, Baur made much of the fact that
the characteristic teaching of Paul feU into the back
ground in the Church of the second century. In this
speedy oblivion he found a confirmation of Jewish-
Christian antagonism to Paul. But reaUy a much more
reasonable explanation lies ready to hand.
No one can read the PauUne Epistles without feeling
how intensely Jewish they are. Paul brought his
Rabbinism to some extent with him into Christianity.
He looked at the Gospel from the point of view of the
Old Testament and Jewish Theology, as weU as from
the new standpoint given to him by his Christian
experience. But it was just this Jewish element which
made it difficult for GentUes. who brought entirely
different presuppositions from heathenism to the inter
pretation of the Gospel, to understand him. It was not
the influence of the dwindling minority of Jewish
Christians which thrust Paulinism into the background
in the second century, but the incapacity of the GentUe
Christians, with aU their reverence for Paul, to under
stand him.
Another defect in Baur's handling of the subject was
of an analogous character. He spoke of Judaism as if
Judaism was a homogeneous thing. But this was far
from being the case. There were numerous currents
in the contemporary Judaism. Not only were there
the three commonly recognized sects — ^the Pharisees,
the Sadducees, and the Essenes — there was also the
piety of the common people, which had more affinity
for the Gospel than any of these sects. There was the
type of Judaism which is reflected in the Apocalyptic
Literature. There was also the Judaism of the Dis
persion, notably the Alexandrian Judaism. ITie latter

198 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
had been profoundly influenced by Greek phUosophy.
It is stiU a problem to what extent the non- Alexandrian
Judaism had been affected by its Pagan environment.
The importance of this question wUl be clear when it is
remembered that the sjmagogues in the Dispersion
largely provided the early Christian missionaries with a
starting-point for their propaganda.
The main stream of advanced critical opinion has
been in the direction of a much fuUer acceptance of tra
ditional views. It would, however, be unwise if I were
to ignore the fact that there has been a critical move
ment in the opposite direction. There are those who
consider that Baur's main fault was that he did not go
far enough. They deny the genuineness of the New
Testament literature altogether, and claim that in doing
so they are canying Baur's principles to their logical
result. I do not regard this school of critics as really
important. Nevertheless, in view of the prevalent
misconceptions which are industriously circulated, I
think it is imprudent to imitate the example of those
who pass it by in contemptuous silence. When once
the authenticity of aU the Pauline Epistles has been
chaUenged it is desirable to indicate the grounds on
which we may stUl maintain it, though their rejection
be a view which fails to commend itself to the vast
majority even of radical critics.
The main ground on which these critics rely is that
the belief in the genuineness of the Pauline letters
presupposes altogether too rapid a development of
primitive Christianity. They think it incredible that
within a few years of the death of Jesus so violent a
break with Judaism as Paulinism was could have
occuned. In reply to this I must urge that the very
conditions which gave rise to the primitive Church
made such a break with the Law almost inevitable. I

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 199
have pointed out elsewhere (see p. 3i8)thatthehistoricity
of Jesus is guaranteed by the story of His cracifixion.
No Jew could possibly have invented the scandal of the
Cross concerning any one whom he regarded as the
Messiah, for crucifixion was a death on which the curse
of the Law rested. But this in itself makes it clear
that some such movement as PauUnism was inevitable.
For as soon as ever a thinker arose who set before him
self the question. What does the confession of a crucified
Messiah mean ? the relation of the Gospel to the Law
was bound to become an acute problem. The question
could not be avoided. How are you to adjust your belief
in a crucified Jesus to the fact that the Law holds the
crucified accursed ? Given a thinker sufficiently bold
and logical to work out what was involved in this
situation, and the rise of Paulinism shortly after the
death of Jesus wUl appear not simply credible but in
evitable. Even were we to treat the Epistles as purely
human productions, it would be altogether to under
rate the possibUities of genius to suppose that a great
speculative inteUect could not have broken so decisively
with Judaism and constructed a reUgious theory such as
we find in the Pauline Epistles.
But the argument does not stop there. Why was
Jesus cracified ? He was crucified partly through the
disappointment of the people, but stiU more through the
antagonism of the religious leaders. But why were the
reUgious leaders antagonistic ? It was becahse Jesus
was so imsparing a critic of their rehgious theories and
practices. Now the importance of this for our purpose
lies in the testimony it bears to the inward antagonism
which existed from the first between Jesus and Judaism.
Accordingly it was not the crucifixion alone which
raised the problem of the Law. This had been fore
shadowed by the teaching of the Master before He met
His fate.

200 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
But, while the conditions for the rise of the PauUne
Epistles were present long before the first century of
our era had half run its course, we have not the shghtest
evidence that the question occasioned any deep interest
at the time when the ultra-radical critics beUeve that
the PauUne Epistles were written. It was quite other
concems than the permanence of the Law which
claimed the Church's attention.
Moreover, the literary history of the time decisively
forbids the theory. About the year a.d. 140 Marcion
compiled a coUection of Christian writings consisting
of ten Pauline Epistles and a mutUated Gospel of Luke.
Marcion was separated by his theological opinions from
the great mass of his feUow-Christians, who held his
views in abhonence. From this we may infer with
certainty that the Epistles were neither composed by
Marcion himself nor in his school. Such an origin
would have been fatal to their acceptance by the
Church, which would never have derived its classical
documents from so tainted a source. Moreover, the
fact that Marcion accepted them proves that, antagon
istic as he was to the cunent ecclesiastical dogma, he
recognized the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles.
This is aU the more striking in view of the fact that in
several respects they did not harmonize with his own
convictions. Accordingly he submitted them to a
process of expurgation on the ground that they had
been corrupted by interpolation and alteration. We
may infer with certainty that they cannot have been
late productions, but had for long held a position of
unique authority in the Church.
To this I might add that the acceptance of the
Epistles as genuine by the Church would be an
insoluble puzzle if they were reaUy spurious. For the
PauUne Epistles reflect a type of Christianity very

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 201
different from an5rthing we find in the second century —
indeed, we might say somewhat uncongenial. The
point on which I have already laid stress, the neglect
of Paul in the second century, and the faUure to under
stand him even when his Epistles were known and
read, sufficiently indicates how ahen from the temper of
the time much of his writing was felt to be. It is there
fore unUkely that such Epistles would have been written
at that time, and, even if written, would have been
accepted without question by the Church.
And it is especiaUy difficult to suppose that Epistles
could have been accepted which were addressed to
individual Churches. In Thessalonica, in Corinth, in
PhiUppi, there were Christian Churches which had had
a long and continuous history. How could any second-
century forger palm off on these Churches letters which
claimed to be addressed to them, but of which they had
never heard ?
But the letters themselves forbid the hypothesis of
such an origin. The precise but often trivial detaUs
that aboimd in some of them, the extremely complex
relations between Paul and the Churches which they
exhibit, above aU the colossal and many-sided person
aUty which they reveal, attest their genuineness beyond
all reasonable question. One must be strangely blind
to reaUty if he faUs to realize that it is a Uving person
aUty deaUng with concrete vital issues that is respon
sible for these letters. How any one could read the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians and imagme that he
was deaUng with an artificial historical situation is in-
exphcable. The very complexity of the history which
it presupposes, the aUusiveness of it, the passionate
emotions which it expresses, are aU unequivocal signs
of authenticity. To doubt the genuineness of such a
document is hypercriticism run mad. It is a human

202 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
document which bears its credentials on its face. I
have not yielded to the temptation of dismissing the
whole theory without more ado, though I understand
that when criticism has faUen into such arbitrariness
and subjectivity one might naturaUy be disinclined to
spend time on a patient examination. The experi
enced scholar is weU aware that many theories which
have ultimately failed to justify themselves have had
the advantage of forcing neglected facts into the Ught.
But whUe I beheve that we are not weU advised if we
unceremoniously reject aU novel suggestions which seem
to us revolutionary, I cannot feel that the hypercritics
have appreciably advanced the study of the subject.
There is such a thing as the scientific use of the imagina
tion, and briUiant intuitions are sometimes confirmed
by detaUed research ; but if anywhere, then here we may
say that this is not a theory destined to win wide or
weighty acceptance. There is no conclusion of criti
cism more certain than that the great biUk of the
Pauline literature is the work of Paul of Tarsus.
I must now indicate the present position of critical
opinion, explaining the reasons for the positions which
I am constrained to adopt. In doing so it wUl be neces
sary for me rapidly to traverse ground which I have
covered at much greater length in my Critical Introduc
tion to the New Testament, to which I would refer
those who may be interested in reading a fuUer exposi
tion of my views.
We have seen good reason for accepting the aU but
universal opinion of scholars that the Pauline hterature
must be regarded as in the main genuine. Even in the
Tiibingen School itself Hilgenfeld initiated a reaction
by accepting three Epistles — i Thessalonians, Philip
pians, and Philemon — in addition to Baur's four, and
also the authenticity of the last two chapters of the

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 203
Epistle to the Romans, thus substituting, as he put it,
the sacred heptad for his master's heathen quaternion.
His judgment in this respect has been endorsed by
almost aU critics — ^in fact, Baur's Unes of demarcation
between what was genuine and what was spurious
were drawn with no httle arbitrariness. It was diffi
cult to give any sohd reason why, if the Epistle to the
Romans was accepted, that to the PhiUppians should
be rejected. The great Christological passage (Phil.
ii. 5~ii) does not reaUy go beyond what is implied in
certainly authentic passages. It was a singular faUure
in Uterary tact to imagine that the exquisite letter to
PhUemon could by any possibUity be an invention.
And what must we think of a writer who when compos
ing I Thessalonians put in Paul's Ups the expectation of
the Second Coming during his Ufetime when he knew
that it had been falsified ? On the genuineness of
these Epistles it is unnecessary to hnger.
The case is different with some of the other Epistles.
There are some scholars who reject the Epistle to the
Colossians, rather more who reject the Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians, stUl more who reject the Epistle
to the Ephesians. All advanced critics and some rather
conservative critics refuse to beUeve in the genuineness
of the Pastoral Epistles, though even here they are
inclined to admit a genuine Pauline nucleus. I may
point out first of aU that in the case of Epistles addressed
to Colossae and Thessalonica, it is very hard to be
Ueve they can be other than authentic, in view of the
fact that no protest was made from either of these
places against their acceptance as the work of Paul.
With Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles the case is
somewhat different. According to the best text the
words ' in Ephesus ' were not m the origmal Epistle,
and it has been held by a large number of scholars that

204 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the Epistle was reaUy a circular letter addressed to a
large group of Churches, Ephesus probably being in
cluded among the recipients. In this case we cannot
appeal so confidently to the absence of protest against
its recognition, since no one Church is mentioned as
having received it. With stUl less confidence can we
urge this argument in favour of the genuineness of the
Epistles to Timothy and Titus.
But this is a consideration which is independent of
any detailed examination of the Epistles themselves.
The absence of protest may not count for so much in the
case of Ephesians as in the case of the other Epistles,
stiU it counts for something. On the other hand we
could conceive that a letter might be spurious, even
though no such protest had come down to us. The
objections have to be weighed in detail before a final
verdict can be given. NaturaUy in a brief discussion
like the present any elaborate examination is out of the
question. The Epistle to the Colossians has been rejected
partly on account of its style, which is heavier and
slower, and its vocabulary, which diverges a good deal
from that of the generaUy accepted Epistles ; of its
advanced doctrine of Christ's Person ; of its confUct
with the false teaching which is thought to be second-
century Gnosticism ; of its relations to Ephesians ; and
for minor reasons. The number of unusual words is
not, however. exceptionaUy high, and the subject-
matter of the second chapter sufficiently accounts for
the employment of many of these. The difference of
circumstances largely explains the difference of style.
In the four great Epistles Paul was fighting against
unscrupulous antagonists for the very life of the Gospel.
Colossians also was directed against a form of false
teaching which was incompatible with the Gospel.

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 205
But the perU was by no means so serious. It was with
no slanderous and fanatical agitators who sought to
poison the minds of his converts against himself and his
Gospel that Paul had to deal, but with a type of false
doctrine which he could easUy meet. Moreover, Paul
was now a prisoner and no longer in the flood-tide of
his activity, living crowded days of action and writing
his letters at white heat. It was one thing to dictate
letters in the rush of a busy hfe to churches in rebelUon
and in danger of losing then: faith ; quite another to
write to a loyal Church from the enforced leisure of a
prison. Seclusion and meditation imparted a very
different quahty to his style. The doctrine of the
Person of Christ is not higher than what we find in
PhUippians, it is fundamentaUy PauUne, and when it
shows advance, it is a simple development of what was
impUcit in the Christology of the earher Epistles. Per-
sonaUy I do not beUeve that the type of false teaching
attacked is Gnostic in its character, it is rather Jewish
without trace of Gnosticism, but, if it is Gnostic there is
no reason why such rudimentary Gnosticism might not
have been developed in Asia by the middle of the first
century. The relation to Ephesians presents a unique
phenomenon, but it teUs rather against Ephesians than
Colossians, since the latter is probably the original on
which the former is based. And if Ephesians were an
imitation by another writer, it is surely improbable that
he would imitate a spurious Epistle.
The difficulty about 2 Thessalonians arises partly from
its remarkable simUarity to i Thessalonians, partly from
the difference which is discovered in its forecast of the
future, partly from the character of the section on the
' man of lawlessness ' in the second chapter. The first
of these may not unreasonably be accounted for by the
suggestion that, in view of the misunderstanding to

2o6 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
which his earUer letter had given rise, Paul thought him
self _^back into the circumstances of its composition, and
not unnaturaUy feU into the same train of thought and
mode of expression. The difference in anticipation is
no greater than is found elsewhere, and there is no real
discrepancy. In the First Epistle Paul says that the
Day of the Lord wUl come as a thief in the night on
those who are unwatchful. In the Second Epistle
he warns his readers that its coming is not immediate,
a certain development has first to take place. SimUarly
Christ describes the Second Coming as sudden, and yet
points out several signs which are to lead up to it. The
section on the ' man of lawlessness ' contains some things
which do not meet us elsewhere, but this is by no means
an unexampled phenomenon in the Pauline letters, and
all the features of the description were quite possible
long before Paul's time. He may have drawn on an
ancient apocalyptic tradition, but, even if this was not
the case, history had already supplied figures that
might have sat for the portrait of Antichrist, such as
Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maecabean period and the
Roman Emperor Caligula.
Against the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephe
sians the most weighty objection is the style. Even
those who are inclined to a conservative view have not
infrequently felt it hard to recognize the genuine Paul
in this letter. I grant that the objection is by no means
frivolous, yet the Epistle to the Colossians provides us
with a kind of bridge which makes the transition to the
style of this Epistle much easier. The other objections
are less cogent though they have a measure of force.
they touch mainly points of theology, the relation to
Colossians. and modes of expression. To the best of
my behef the hypothesis of genuineness is less difficult
than that of spuriousness.

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 207
With the Pastoral Epistles the case is different. The
objections to their genuineness are of a very serious
character, and there is a strong consensus of opinion
among scholars who are not fettered by traditional
views, that in their present form they cannot be from the
hand of Paul. I do not, it is true, feel that aU the objec
tions are weighty, but I find it difficult to beheve that
Paul was released from the imprisonment recorded in
the Acts, and it seems to me that, if genuine, the Epistle
must be assigned to an otherwise unknown period of his
hfe. Further, whUe I do not think that the organiza
tion is necessarUy too advanced for Pauline authorship,
the ecclesiastical tone of the letters and the preoccupa
tion with details of administration and office are not
quite what we anticipate in Paul. The heresy attacked
is not necessarily post-Pauline, but the warning to his
trusted foUowers to keep clear of such teaching is some
what unnatural, as is the solemn assurance he gives them
of his apostleship. The insistence on the wholesome
teaching, and especiaUy the un-Pauline use of the term
' faith' in a sense that can hardly be distinguished from
orthodoxy, are also rather suspicious. The style
especially creates an almost insuperable obstacle to my
own acceptance of their authenticity. It is very differ
ent from what we find elsewhere in Paul, and I do not
see how the difference can be explained away. Never
theless I do not agree with those who condemn the
Pastoral Epistles as entirely spurious. I beheve that
large sections of 2 Timothy and not a httle of Titus
may be regarded as authentic. Even in i Timothy,
which is the least Pauline of the three, some Pauhne
materials may not improbably be contained. It seems
to me hkely that the Pastoral Epistles have grown up
around this Pauline nucleus by a process of expansion in
order to fit them more fuUy for use as ecclesiastical

2o8 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
manuals. No objection was probably felt to such a
process. It is not with forgery that we have to deal,
but with what would seem legitimate appUcation of the
Apostle's own principles to new conditions. This type
of letter, deaUng largely with Church organization,
lent itself readUy to expansion, and probably some of
Paul's notes to his feUow-workers were expanded by
later writers into the Epistles as we now have them.
Passing now from the Pauline Epistles I turn to the
Epistle to the Hebrews. It is very strange that this
should ever have been regarded as an Epistle of Paul.
It makes no claim to this character in the oldest form of
the title. In the early Church Barnabas, Clement of
Rome, and Luke were named as weU as Paul. Clement
may be set aside on the sufficient ground of marked
inferiority in inteUectual power, to say nothing of style.
Luke was a Gentile, and the author of the Epistle
was surely a Jew. Paul may be set aside with confi
dence. The style, the plan of the letter, the handling of
Scripture, the method of argument, the theological
standpoint entirely differ. Any one of these taken by
itself wotUd create grave suspicions, some seem to me to
be quite incompatible with Pauline authorship ; taken
together the cumulative evidence is irresistible.
Barnabas has in his favour that he is mentioned by
TertuUian without any sign of misgiving. His author
ship has been favoured by several scholars, and if the
Epistle was sent to Jerusalem, no more Ukely member
of the PauUne circle could be named as its author.
That it was sent to Jerasalem, however, seems to me
highly improbable ; it is much more likely that it was
sent to a congregation of Jewish Christians in Rome.
Luther was apparently the first to suggest ApoUos as the
author, and this conjecture has met with very wide
acceptance. ApoUos^^answers very weU to many of the

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 209
conditions. The Alexandrian character of the theology
and mode of argument would be natural in an Alexan
drian Jew, while the Epistle is such as we should expect
from an eloquent man who was mighty in the Scrip
tures. We have no evidence for ApoUos's connexion
with Rome, and this rather favours the suggestion of
Hamack that the letter was written by PrisciUa and
AquUa, who were the teachers of ApoUos and belonged
to a house Church in Rome. Another suggestion is
that it was written by Silas.
Silas is named in i Peter as the writer of that letter.
By this it is probably intended that he acted as Peter's
secretary. Several scholars have denied Peter's au
thorship of the Epistle. It is thought unhkely that one
of the primitive apostles should betray so httle influence
from Christ's teaching and so much from the teaching
of Paul. We must not forget, however, that the fact of
Christ's death completely changed the perspective of
the apostles, and shifted the emphasis from the teaching
of Jesus to His Person and Work. Before the conver
sion of Paul the apostles were already proclaiming that
Jesus died for our sins. It was therefore not unfitting,
even for an immediate foUower of Jesus, when he was
writing to comfort Churches under persecution, to give
prominence to the sufferings of his Master and draw
upon the exposition of their significance which had been
fumished by Paul (see pp. 354 f . ) . It has also been urged
that the relation between Christianity and the Roman
Empire was such as was not reached till long after Peter's
death. But very eminent authorities on Roman His
tory have held that, even before the death of Peter.
the profession of Christianity was itself regarded as
criminal by the Roman Empire. There seems accord
ingly to be no conclusive reason for setting aside the
claim to Petrine authorship which the Epistle makes.
B.O. 14

210 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
We have another Epistle which professes to be by
Peter, but by the judgment of the great majority of
critics, both conservative and advanced, the claun is
disaUowed. The chief exceptions are Zahn, Spitta,
and Bigg. The grounds on which scholars have
reached their conclusions are first of all the extra
ordinarily late and doubtful character of the external
evidence in the early Church ; the reference to the age
of the Fathers — that is. the apostles — and to their
having long ago fallen asleep ; the disbeUef in the
Second Coming ; the aUusion to the Epistles of Paul as
already canonical Scripture which had been consider
ably misinterpreted ; the very marked difference in
style and vocabulary from the first Epistle"; and the
incorporation of almost the Whole of Jude's Epistle.
On the latter Epistle I must not Unger. Whether it
was written by Jude, the Lord's brother, or. as seems
more likely, at a later time by some other Jude we can
not say.
I The Epistle of James presents one of the most per
plexing problems in the New Testament. Many
scholars consider it to be the earliest New Testament
writing, others place it among the latest, while some
occupy an intermediate position. It has been com
monly assigned to James, the brother of the Lord.
There is much that favours this supposition. Its
Jewish character is very marked, so much so that some
have even imagined that it was originaUy a Jewish
writing which by very slight interpolations has been
made into a Christian one. This is most improbable,
since the Christian editor would not have stopped short
with so slight a revision, and the echoes of the Sermon
on the Mount cannot easily be explained as Jewish in
their origin.
Its early date is supposed to be guaranteed by the

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 211
radimentary character of the theology ; the reference
to the synagogue as the readers' meeting-place ; the
attitude to the rich ; the legahst conception of the
Gospel. On the other side the address to the Christians
of the Dispersion ; the general situation presupposed ;
the absence of reference to the points at issue between
Christians and Jews ; the section on justification which
seems to be directed against the misuse of the Pauline
doctrine ; the very late external attestation — these
arguments seem to me to suggest a post-apostohc date.
It would be easier to accept an early date and the
authorship by James if we could adopt the interesting
theory of Dr. J. H. Moulton that the Epistle was
originally addressed not to Christians but to Jews.
The Apocalypse has been for so long the cherished
domain of faddists that the ordinary Christian has been
tempted to renounce any attempt at understanding its
mysteries. He has Ustened with amusement and in-
creduhty to the makers of prophetic almanacs, distrust
ful alike of their principles and their results, in memory
of the discomfiture which has so often been the lot of
their predecessors. But leaving aside the strange
vagaries of the prophetic school, the question arises
whether we can break the seals which are placed upon
the book. It is well within my own memory when it
was thought by many scholars that the book had
pelded up its secret and scholars had successfuUy
solved the riddle. The book, it was supposed, was
written shortly before the destraction of Jerasalem
and depicted the conflict between the Church and
the Roman Empire. It was read in the Ught of other
Apocalypses and of the contemporary situation.
But rather more than twenty-five years ago a new
method was appUed. It was thought that the book was
not a hterary unity but had been put together out of

212 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
earUer documents. This analytic theory assumed
several different forms, but it was commonly beheved
by the authors of documentary theories that Jewish as
weU as Christian authorship could be traced in the
work. This, again, gave way to another phase, which
we owe especiaUy to Gunkel. This scholar held that the
Revelation incorporated a very ancient apocalyptic tra
dition which had originated in Babylonia, and that the
incongruities which gave a colour to the documentary
analysis were to be explained as having arisen in the
very long process through which the apocalyptic tradi
tion had passed. Similarly he dismissed most of the
allusions to contemporary conditions. In spite of the
profound impression which Gunkel made, some
scholars, notably Pfleiderer and J. Weiss, have more
recently argued for composite authorship.
My own conclusions on the subject I may briefly
summarize as foUows. I believe that we cannot under
stand the canonical Apocalypses, the Book of Daniel and
the Book of the Revelation, while we isolate them from
the non-canonical. There is a good deal of apocalyptic
literature, such as the Book of Enoch or the Apocalypse
of Baruch, which throws much Ught on them. Nor can
we set aside the allusions to contemporary history.
The older interpreters were right in the view that in its
present form the Apocalypse was designed to strengthen
and comfort the Church in its hfe and death straggle
with the Roman Empire. But I beheve it is also neces
sary to admit that the Apocalypse has incorporated
older documentary material, some of which was
originaUy Jewish and not Christian. At the same time
the book is not a mere patchwork. It was an author
and not a mere editor who put it together. But I also
hold that Gunkel has rightly divined the emplojnnent in
the book of an old apocalyptic tradition. In its pre-

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 213
sent form the work dates from the time of Domitian, as
Irenaeus said, but the marks of earher date which led
to its being placed before the destraction of Jerasalem
are reaUy there, only we must account for them on the
view that they belong to earUer material which the
author has included in the work.
It stUl remains to speak of the historical books, the
Synoptic Gospels and the Acts, and the Gospel of
John, with which the Epistles may be most conveni
ently taken. And here we approach the very citadel
of faith. For if we have decided that we cannot dis
pense with history we naturaUy tum to the Gospels
to see how far our historical behefs can be warranted.
We cannot calmly throw overboard the historical
element in Christianity, and feel that the great thoughts
which the New Testament contains, and the presentation
of the ideal character in the Gospels wiU give us aU
that we need. Far from it ; Christianity is not inde
pendent of the historical Jesus. If it is detached from
Him it ceases to be Christianity in any trae sense of
the term, and we lose one of the most important
guarantees for the trath of the ideas themselves.
If it could be demonstrated that Jesus never Uved, a
blow would be strack at the very vitals of Christianity,
and even a much less radical position might be fatal to
the Church's faith in her Lord. And the Christian
consciousness has not been slow to recognize this.
However strongly negative criticism has assaUed other
portions of Scripture the Church has borne it with
much more equanimity than an attack on the Gospel
history. The m5d;hical theory of Strauss created a
far greater sensation among the general mass of
Christians than the much deeper and stronger criticism
of the Tiibingen School. And the instinct was a sound
one ; it was felt that Strauss had strack at the heart.

214 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
But it is a great mistake to begin with the
criticism of the Gospel history. The criticism of
documents must precede the criticism of the history
they contain. We must examine the character of our
witnesses before we investigate the story they teU.
Now the literary problem which is presented by the
Synoptic Gospels is one of singular interest. If we
put these Gospels side by side we find that they present
us with very marked similarities and also with very
striking differences. They agree very largely in
their selection of narratives, in the order in which they
teU them, and even in the phraseology which they em
ploy. At the same time Matthew and Luke have much
that is peculiar to each, and even in the sections com
mon to two or three evangeUsts there is a constant
divergence in phraseology.
Various theories have been formulated to account
for these phenomena. A very popular explanation
has been that our evangelists drew independently on
an official oral tradition. This must, however, in
my judgment, which coincides with that of the great
majority of scholars, be set aside on what seem
decisive grounds. We have first to observe that we
have two sets of common matter to account for — ^the
Triple Tradition found in aU three of the Gospels and the
Double Tradition found in Matthew and Luke. Which
of these represents the official tradition ? If both,
why does Mark omit so much ? And if one only, how
are we to explain the origin of the other ? Then how
were the framers of the oral tradition guided in their
choice of incidents ? It is difficult to recognize in
this respect a deliberate official selection. The order
in which they appear is also fixed and the language
is largely stereotyped, and, what is important, stereo
typed in Greek, not, as we should have expected, in

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 215
Aramaic. It is also unUkely that, without the help of
writing, the tradition should have been so accurately
remembered by independent writers. It is difficult to
beUeve that the slight touches which so often adorn
the narrative should have held their ground in oral
tradition to the extent that we see. We seem to have
definite proof of the employment of a document in the
words : ' Let him that readeth understand.' which
occur both in Matt. xxiv. 15 and Mark xui. 14.
Accordingly we must suppose that the coincidences
should be accounted for by the employment of two
common documents. Many theories have been
devised to explain the facts, but the labours of a hun
dred years have estabhshed at any rate one conclusion,
to the general satisfaction ofthe great majority of critics.
This is to the effect that the Gospel of Mark or a
document very much like it was used by the authors of
the First and Third Gospels. This is proved by a
variety of considerations. Matthew and Luke are
independent up to the point where Mark's nanative
begins ; where Mark ends they diverge again. The
order also substantiates the priority of Mark. When
there is divergence of order Mark is practicaUy always
in the majority; Matthew and Luke do not agree
with each other in opposition to Mark. If from the
order we tum to the detailed study of the language
the same conclusion results. When a detaUed com
parison is made it is found that the agreement in
language between Matthew and Luke is much less
than the agreement of Matthew with Mark or of Luke
with Mark.
But how are we to account for the sections common
to Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark ?
It is generaUy supposed that these were derived from
a second document, which used to be identified with the

2i6 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
coUection of Logia or Sayings of Jesus which Papias
teUs us was compUed by Matthew. This document,
however, is now very commonly referred to by the
colourless symbol ' Q ' — that is, the German QueUe,
or source. It consists mainly of discourses. To what
extent it contained narratives is stiU a moot question,
especially whether it included the story of the Passion.
In the judgment of most scholars it did not, though Dr.
Burkitt argues that Luke derived his story of the
Passion largely from it.
The problem of its date is also perplexing. For
my own part I believe that it is simplest to suppose
that the author of Mark was not acquainted with it,
and that the author of ' Q ' was not acquainted with
Mark. It is therefore likely that the documents were
not widely separated in time. It is, on the whole,
probable that we should place both of the sources in the
sixties of the first century. I see no valid reason to
doubt that Mark was the author of the Second Gospel
and that his Gospel embodied much in the preaching
of Peter, though naturally it need not have been con
fined to this. And in spite of objections which have
been urged I stiU think it most hkely that Matthew
was the author of ' Q,' and that we should identify
this document with the Logia mentioned by Papias.
But this conclusion at once suggests a question
touching the authorship of the book as it stands.
Tradition affirms that Matthew wrote in Hebrew,
by which Aramaic is probably intended. It is, there
fore, a natural supposition that our First Gospel is a
translation into Greek of Matthew's work. I believe,
however, that we must set this aside. The fact that the
style is not that of a translation, and the description of
Matthew's work as Logia, are not favourable to the
view that the writing of the Apostle was a Semitic

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 217
original of our First Gospel. What, however, is quite
decisive on this point is the fact that the Greek Gospel
of Mark has been employed by the writer. It is im
probable that one of the twelve Apostles should in
any case have drawn on a Gospel written by one
who was not an eye-witness of the events. But the
fact that the source from which he derived much of
his material was in Greek, demonstrates that the first
Gospel cannot be the translation of a Semitic original.
We have accordingly to conclude that it bears Mat
thew's name, not because he wrote it but because
his Logia was one of the main sources on which the
writer drew.
It may be urged that the Gospel of Luke had just
as much right to the name, since it also employed the
Logia as weU as Mark. But tradition consistently
affirmed that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles,
and obviously the Third Gospel was the work of the
same author, so that there could be no question of
describing that Gospel by the name of Matthew.
This very ancient and uniform tradition has been
greatly (Usputed in modem times. It was an axiom
with the Tiibingen School that the Acts of the Apostles
was a late second-century production, written long
after the conflicts of the ApostoUc Age had died away
and designed to suppress the recoUection of these un
fortunate incidents. This view is now pretty generally
abandoned, and usuaUy a much earUer date is assigned
to the work.
It stUl remains the prevalent critical opinion that
the Lucan authorship is to be denied. In Britam the
traditional view has been generaUy mamtained and
British scholars have been much encouraged by the
recent vigorous defence of it given by Hamack in his
Contributions to New Testament Introduction. The

2i8 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
usual critical opinion has been that the relation of the
Acts of the Apostles to Luke is similar to the relation
in which the First Gospel stands to Matthew.
There are certain sections in the Acts in which
the author uses the first person plural and thus gives
himself out as present at the scenes which he is describ
ing. These ' we-sections,' as they are commonly
caUed, are said by many critics to have been derived
from a work written by Luke and to have been in
corporated by the author. It is a very serious objec
tion to this that the author should have thus contrived
to convey an impression which was untrue — namely,
that he was himself present at these scenes. Schmiedel,
in fact, goes so far as to say that the impression was
intentional. It is very hard to beUeve, however,
that the moral sensitiveness of the author was so blunt
that he should have deliberately created the impressioii
that his nanative rested on the authorship of one of
Paul's companions, whereas it was in fact a second-
century compilation.
But, in addition to this, the mzirked resemblance in
the style between the we-sections and the rest of the
Lucan writings is a strong argument in favour of
the view that the whole is from a single pen. If
against this it is urged that the we-sections have them
selves been edited by the author, this is not only
unhkely in itself, since such a revision would have
had to be more drastic than is at all probable, but it
conflicts with the fact that the first person plural is
left untouched. Accordingly we may stiU accept.
the Lucan authorship with a considerable measure of
confidence. The date of the Third Gospel is a difficult problem.
Since the Acts of the Apostles closes early in the sixties
some have supposed that it was written then. But so

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 219
early a date for the Acts is very difficult to accept.
We should have to place the Third Gospel earher stUl,
and this would take back Mark and ' Q ' into the fifties
at the latest, a date which conflicts with ancient tradi
tion and is itself improbable. Moreover, at the time
when Luke wrote, several other Gospel narratives
were in circulation, and this appears to point to a pretty
late period. I can find no probable date for the Third
Gospel earlier than the seventies, but in view of the
dependence on Josephus which has been asserted by
some scholars, and which on the whole I am disposed
to accept, I am rather inclined to place both the Gospel
and the Acts towards the close of the first century, and.
in view of the mutual independence of the First and
Third Gospels which I believe to exist, I favour a similar
date for the First Gospel, though I admit that it, as
weU as Luke, may quite weU belong to the seventies.
The problem of the Fourth Gospel is even more hotly
contested than that of the Synoptists. The tradi
tional view is that it was written at Ephesus by the
Apostle John towards the close of his life. There were
isolated denials in antiquity, but on dogmatic rather
than on critical grounds, and it was not tiU the nine
teenth century that, with the publication of Bret-
schneider's Probabilia, the question was reaUy raised
in its modern form. In spite of the preference ac
corded to the Gospel by Schleiermacher and those
who stood under his influence, such as Neander and
Bleek, the opinion continuaUy gained ground in
Germany that the Gospel was not the work of the
Apostle. A late second-century date was assigned to it
by the Tiibingen School, which saw in it the flower of
the movement for unity that had brought together the
two parties in the Church. And many of those who
rejected the Tiibingen formulae stUl adhered to the

220 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Tubingen view that the Gospel was neither apostoUc nor
historical. It is true that the extravagantly late date to which
the Tubingen criticism relegated it has been generaUy
abandoned, and that criticism has brought it back to
the opening years of the second century. But many of
those who place it so early are equally convinced of
its non-apostolic origin and its non-historical character.
In one respect, indeed, they go against tradition in a
point where the Tiibingen School foUowed it. It has
been the constant ecclesiastical tradition that the
Apostle John died, at a very advanced age, a peaceful
death in Ephesus after a prolonged ministry there.
Many now believe, on the basis of a statement
attributed to Papias. that the Apostle did not leave
Palestine but was mart5n:ed there by Jews. Schwartz,
in fact, goes so far as to argue that he was put to death
by Herod at the same time as James. The improba
bilities of so early a death are overwhehning, but
personaUy I do not beUeve that Papias made the
statement attributed to him, since otherwise I faU to
understand how the tradition of a peaceful death at
Ephesus could have gained its practically universal
currency. Nor do I beUeve that criticism has successfuUy
shaken the story of the Apostle's residence in Ephesus.
Since Papias mentions a Presbyter John as weU as the
Apostle, many modern scholars beUeve that the John
of Ephesus, the teacher of Polycarp, of whom Irenaeus
and others tell us, is to be identified with the Presbjd:er
rather than the Apostle, and that it is to him that we
are to attribute such genuine reminiscences as may
have been incorporated in the Fourth Gospel. Some
scholars are strongly of the opinion that it is the Pres
byter rather than the Apostle who is intended by the

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 221
disciple whom Jesus loved. On aU these points my
own judgment, for reasons I have stated at length in
my Introduction, stiU adheres to the traditional view.
In other words, I beheve that John of Ephesus was
the son of Zebedee ; that he died a natural death and was
not martyred ; that he is the source, directly or indi
rectly, of the tradition incorporated in the Fourth
Gospel ; and that he is to be identified with the beloved
disciple. The consideration of the internal evidence of author
ship opens a very wide field. It is practicaUy on all
hands recognized that the author was a Jewish Christian;
it is widely, though not so widely, admitted that he
was a native of Palestine. The crucial question is
whether he was an eye-witness. There is a considerable
body of evidence which has been put forward to prove
this claim for him. I cannot candidly believe that
it is so decisive as many of its advocates assert. The
case of Mark is sufficient to show that the phenomena
which appear to attest authorship by an eye-witness
may be compatible with second-hand rather than with
first-hand evidence. What in my judgment favours
direct authorship by an eye-witness is the assertion in
John i. 14, ' we beheld his glory,' which, when taken
in conjunction with the opening words of the First
Epistle of John, seem to me most naturaUy interpreted
of perception by the physical sense. In itself this
does not demand apostolic authorship. But in view
of the identification of the disciple whom Jesus loved
with the Apostle John; in view of the aU but unanimous
tradition of antiquity ; in view of the improbabUity
that any one but an Apostle should have been present
at so many scenes as are described ; I stiU consider it
the more probable opinion that the apostohc authorship
should be maintained.

222 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
And yet it cannot be denied that there are very
serious difficulties in the way. Among these I do not
reckon the exalted doctrine of Christ's Person, which
it is said no Apostle who had known Jesus could have
accepted. Those of us who believe that the doctrine
of Christ's Divinity is true, and was part of His own
teaching about Himself. wiU find in the Johannine
Christology no stumbhngblock in the way of its
apostolic authorship. But other difficulties are more
serious. EspeciaUy there is the objection or whole
series of objections based on a comparison of the
Gospel with the Synoptists. The S3moptists place
the activity of Jesus in Galilee till the last period of His
ministry, John teUs us of several visits to Judaea. The
Synoptists require little more than a year for their
narrative. John at least two years and a half. The
Synoptists date the Last Supper and the Crucifixion a
day later than the Fourth Gospel ; they present the
teaching of Jesus in a form entirely different from that
given in the Fourth Gospel ; an4 the contents of the
teaching are as distinct as the form of their expression.
Into these difficulties it is. of course, impossible
for me to enter in detail. I must content myself with
some general observations. We must not lose sight
of the fact that, so far as historical questions are
concemed, the Synoptists are not three independent
witnesses. Both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark.
so that the question reduces itself to one between
Mark and John rather than the Synoptists and John.
In the next place the S5nioptists themselves bear wit
ness in several respects in favour of the Johannine
account. They have preserved sajdngs or incidents
which point to a much more intimate relation between
Jesus and Jerusalem than their detailed narratives
would suggest. So far as chronology goes, that in the

THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 223
S5moptists is of the vaguest possible character. We
should not be justified in forming any exact estimate
from them as to the duration to be assigned to the
ministry of Jesus. As to the date of the Last Supper
and the Cracifixion there are many features in the
Synoptic nanative itself which testify in favour of
the Johannine date.
The question of the teaching is. I admit, more serious.
The difference between the Johannine and Ssmoptic pre
sentation has often been exaggerated, and inspection of
the former reveals a large number of sayings embedded
in the Johannine discourses which bear a stamp very
simUar to that in the Synoptists. Yet I am forced to
admit that the discourses in the Fourth Gospel cannot
be exact reports of what Jesus said. The selection of
material and the pecuUar Johannine phraseology
in which it is conveyed must be assigned to the Evan-
gehst rather than to Jesus Himself.
Yet even here over-statement is easy. Much of the
material can hardly have been invented. Exception has
often been taken to the accounts of the controversies
betweenjesus and the Jews. On this I refer to the quota
tion given on pp. 3o6f . from a Jewish scholar who cannot
be suspected of any undue partiahty towards the New
Testament. Mr. Israel Abrahams, in the Cambridge
Biblical Essays after pointing out that the writings of
recent Jewish critics have tended to confirm the Gospel
picture of external Jewish hfe. and that the blame for
discrepancy hes not with the New Testament originals
but with their interpreters, caUs special attention to
' the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced
by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of
the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especiaUy in
relation to the circumstances under which they are
reported to have been spoken.' In view of this judg-

224 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ment it is not unreasonable to suppose that the sub
stantial authenticity of the discourses may come to
be widely recognized at no very distant date, and thus
the most serious objection to the Johannine authorship
wiU disappear.
On the question of the Johannine Epistles I must
content myself with a few words. I see no vahd reason
to doubt that the First Epistle is by the author of the
Fourth Gospel. The points of contact, both in phrase
ology and in thought, are too close to make it probable
that we have to do with difference of authorship,
especiaUy as the external evidence decidedly points in
the same direction. The case is somewhat different
with the other Epistles. They, too, bear a Johannine
stamp, but this can quite possibly be accounted for by
the view that they emerge from the same school. The
fact that the author describes himself as the Presbyter,
combined with the ecclesiastical conditions presup
posed in the third letter, perhaps favour the view
that the author was the Presbyter rather than the
Apostle. It would be easier to think of Diotrephes as
opposing the Presbyter than one so universaUy revered
in Christian communities and so authoritative as the
Apostle. Fortunately the question is one of only trifling
moment.

CHAPTER XIII
HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
I have now brought to an end my sketch of the move
ment through which Bibhcal criticism has passed and
indicated my judgment as to the probable results.
I am conscious that such a discussion is dry and
tedious, yet the very character of the Bible has made
it inevitable. For, as I have already indicated, a
distinctive feature of Scripture is that revelation has
come along a channel of history, and, wherever history
is, criticism cannot be excluded. This is tme both
of Uterary and historical criticism. The former is
imperative, because if we are to foUow the great on
ward march of revelation, we must analyze our docu
ments and arrange them in their chronological order.
And historical criticism is necessary, for, once we have
bound revelation and certain historical facts together,
it is vital for us to inquire whether the facts happened
or not. So far as the most important of these revealing
and redemptive facts of our reUgion are concemed,
I have argued for their historicity in Christianity :
lis Nature and Its Truth. But, having summarized
the conclusions which seem to me to have been reached
in the Uterary criticism, I return to the relation between
revelation and history, on which I dwelt in the chapter
on ' The Legitimacy and Necessity of Bibhcal Criticism.'
In speaking of revelation as a process in history,
v.o. 225 15

226 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
the point which I wish speciaUy to emphasize is that
the Bible is largely the direct outcome of national
history and individual experience. This close con
nexion of the Divine self-manifestatiqn with human
history is probably the fact which it is most necessary
to drive home. Many of the difficulties that are felt
with reference to the Bible would vanish of themselves,
many of the unwananted expectations with which
it is approached, or the illegitimate demands that
are made upon it, would finally disappear, if this
characteristic of Scripture, with all that it impUes.
were once grasped in all its length and breadth. I
have already shown how greatly this differentiates the
Bible from what we should have expected such a work
to be. Instead of a manual of theology or a treatise
on morals it gives us very much which seems irrelevant
to the purpose of a revelation. But I am firmly
convinced that it is in this close and intimate con
nexion with history that the value of the Bible as a
record of revelation is largely to be sought. For
revelation is not a mere communication of truths and .
principles. Had this been aU. the Bible would cer
tainly have been an entirely different book. But
what we find in Scripture is the record of an intense
activity of the hving God in human Ufe. and that is far
more than the bare communication of abstract ideas.
It is this which gives unity to the Bible, the steady
direction of it towards a goal which could be reached
only through a long and arduous upward movement.
It is not the unity which comes from consistency in
the teaching, for this cannot truthfuUy be claimed
for the Bible. The unity is not so colourless and
monotonous as that, it is compatible with a rich
diversity and even with far-reaching differences.
It is the unity of a definite journey towards a definite

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 227
goal in which the lower stages are graduaUy left
behind.
The Old Testament, then, is the history of God's self-
revelation through a chosen people. He works here,
as often elsewhere, by the method of selection. Out
of the whole human race He chooses a tiny people
to be the instrament of His purpose and the vehicle of
His self-communication. Why it was Israel rather
than another people we are not told ; but, since God
exquisitely adapts His means to His ends, we may
weU beUeve that Israel had a natural genius for re
Ugion, which pre-eminently fitted it to fulfil the task
assigned to it in the education of the world. It is a
commonplace that while Greece was called of God to
educate the world by the creation of great hterature
and glorious art and by philosophical speculation,
and while it was the mission of Rome to driU the
world in the great principles of law and order, Israel
was selected to teach mankind religion. It was chosen,
we may beUeve, in virtue of its supreme qualffication
for the task.
We are to think, then, of revelation as slowly emerg
ing through a long historical process by which Israel was
graduaUy trained to apprehend in ever-growing fulness
the truth concerning the deep things of God. We can
understand the fuU meaning of this Divine disclosure
only as we foUow the course of Israel's religion from its
dawn to its meridian splendour. We can rightly mea
sure the Divine influence which was at work within it
only when we set it side by side with the religions of
other peoples. I do not wish it to be imagined that I
regard man's search for God as ever met by Him with
indifference or rebuff ; yet the rehgion of Israel displays
His action in a wholly unique degree. I cannot, of
course, trace in any detail the history of Israel's re-

228 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
Ugion ; but those who care to see the lines on which
I construct it may consult my httle Religion of Israel.
I must content myself with indicating the leading
features of the story.
I caU attention, in the first place, to the low level
from which Israel began its ascent towards the heights
it ultimately attained. It may seem to some a degra
dation to say that the religion grew out of Semitic
paganism. It is no degradation to the missionary to
associate with the thief, the murderer, the cannibal,
the man steeped to the lips in the foulest vice. He is
no Pharisee holding his robes tightly about him lest
they be profaned by the touch of the unclean. He
is in his measure the friend of sinners, careless whether
he is soiled by their contact if he may but win them
to a sweeter and higher life. Our Lord outraged the
religious conventions of His time by consorting with
the outcasts, for He was sent to seek and save the lost,
to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.
So God did not shrink from taking Israel very low
down, but little removed from heathenism. Its re
ligion was certainly affiliated to the common Semitic
institutions and beliefs, just as Judaism grew out of
the earlier Hebrew religion, and Christianity out of
Judaism. There are many things, especiaUy in Hebrew
ritual, which can be explained only in this way.
Indeed we must go further back, since it is only in the
rehgion and customs of savage peoples that we find
a clue to the meaning of many details in the religious
rites of Israel. No new religion which has reaUy
Uved has ever made a completely fresh start ; it is
linked by many a tie to anterior beliefs and rites. And
so far from deploring this or flinching from the
fuUest recognition of it, we have everything to gain by
emphasizing the pagan antecedents of Israel's reUgion.

fnsTORY AS A Channel of revelation 229
Nor does this diminish the reverence with which we
stand before the complete product as it exists in the Old
Testament. We measure the height attained by the
depth from which the movement started. We realize
how tremendous must have been the power of a religion,
which could take up and transform materials so un
promising into the finest and mightiest creation that pre-
Christian religion ever achieved. It attests the action of
a Divine power which alone was adequate to a task so
great. If we put the question. Why did the religion of
this people alone scale those dazzhng and dizzy heights,
while the religions of kindred peoples remained in
stagnant indolence in the valley below ? the only
answer can be that the Spirit of God was at work in it to
an altogether unparaUeled degree.
Israel was a very young people. So far from originat
ing after only a comparatively brief period had elapsed
since the world and its history made a fresh start with
Noah and his sons, we are now aware that thousands
of years before the birth of Israel great empires had
risen possessed of an advanced civUization. It was
inevitable that Israel's debt to them should be incalcul
able. The Hebrews inherited the arts and crafts, the
organization of society, principles of law and justice,
an ethic which was by no means radimentary, and not
a little rehgion, especiaUy on the ritual side. The sacri
ficial system, the rite of circumcision, ideas and regula
tions as to cleanness and uncleanness, are iUustrations of
their debt in this respect. But the important thing
for us to notice is not the features which they have in
common with earher or contemporary peoples but
those that differentiate them from all others. Israel
made no contribution to the world which deserves
mention save its religion and the Uterature created by
it. But this contribution was the greatest that any

230 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
people made. In the strict sense of the term the re
ligion of Israel came into existence after the Exodus
from Egypt. But it was not then for the first time
that the people and its God came together. The earUer
history is no doubt very obscure. Yet the representa
tion that Moses appealed to the Hebrews in the name of
the God of their fathers may probably be accepted ;
and if we are right in supposing that the patriarchs
were historical characters, then we may weU believe
that the story of the caU of Abraham may mark the
real origin of the religion. For our purpose it is need
less to grope in the darkness which shrouds the earlier
period ; but coming to the time of Moses, itself by no
means too clear, we may seek to discover in it some
light on the qualities that gave its unique character to
the reUgion of Israel. The feature which speciaUy
anests attention is that the religion was based on a
covenant between Yahweh and Israel. For the
thought of antiquity a God and His people belonged
to each other by the very nature of the case. It would
not have occurred to any one to ask how it came to
pass that Chemosh was the god of Moab. They were
bound together by a natural tie and no one raised the
question what created this bond. Now it is not to
be denied that the Israehtes themselves often practic
ally declined to the same level in their conception of
the relations they sustained to Yahweh. Yet theoretic
ally it was probably always recognized that the rela
tionship rested on no natural necessity but on Yah
weh's free choice. It would not have occuned to a
Hebrew that Chemosh could have any other people
than Moab. But he was aware that Yahweh might
have chosen another people than Israel, and even after
the choice had been made might for adequate reason
cast His people off emd choose another nation. And as

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 231
Yahweh chose Israel, Israel also chose Yahweh ;
and this act of mutual choice was ratified by the
Covenant rite. But a free choice of this kind, entered
into by mutual consent, has a moral element in it.
The bond which unites the contracting parties is
ethical and not compulsory, and thus from the outset
a moral direction is given to the religion. Yet this is
by no means a complete account of the matter. We
have to operate with three factors, the people, their
God, and the relation between them. The last of these
we have seen to be ethical. It is not easy for us to form
a confident judgment on Israel's natural qualities,
since it always had its higher religion to counteract the
baser and lower elements within it. We are therefore
left to probabihties. Since there is nothing arbitrary
in God's action, the fact that He chose Israel suggests
that He discerned quaUties in that people which
speciaUy fitted it to be the instrument of His purpose.
It was not unusual among ancient writers on inspiration
to iUustrate the relation of the Holy Spirit to the
human vehicle by the relation between a musician and
his instrament. But the musician does not select an
instrument which is cracked and out of tune, he chooses
one which wiU lend itself most perfectly to his purpose.
And we may similarly believe that the Spirit selected
the most pliable and sympathetic organs of inspiration.
Accordingly we may reasonably conclude that Israel
possessed a reUgious and moral genius which made
it most appropriate for it to be the people of revelation.
Then we have the question as to Israel's God. The
question, Was Yahweh a moral deity ? wiU perhaps
seem superfluous or even irreverent, since the God of
the Old Testament is for us identical with the supreme
God. From our modern point of view we must put
the question rather differently and ask whether the

232 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
conception which the Hebrews had of Yahweh was
moral from the first. Some scholars have argued
that the ethical monotheism of Israel was the creation
of the prophets and that if we go back to Moses the
conception of God wiU not be found to differ consider
ably from that entertained by the surrounding peoples,
Grave protests have been entered against this view by
eminent scholars and it seems to me increasingly
difficult for it to be maintained. It is hard to explain
the ethical monotheism of the prophets unless there
was a development, starting from the time of Moses,
which led up to it. We must account for the prophets,
and that so stupendous a phenomenon should suddenly
have appeared in the eighth century hke a bolt from
the blue is most improbable. We must go back to
the origin of the religion itself and find already present,
even though it be in a rudimentary form, the qualities
which differentiated the religion of Israel from the
rehgion of aU other peoples. And there we find a
race gifted with a genius for religion and morality,
its national existence established on an ethical founda
tion of free mutual choice of God and people, and
a conception of God which even though it may not be
described as ethical monotheism may fitly be named
ethical monolatry. It is indeed a matter of compara
tive indifference whether Moses inculcated the specula
tive doctrine of the Divine Unity, but of vital import
ance that, whether there were other gods or no, Yahweh
alone should receive the allegiance of His people.
Moreover this God was a God who loved righteousness
and hated iniquity and demanded from His people a
conduct worthy of their lofty privilege.
But the revelation consisted in deed as weU as
speech. The mighty acts of dehverance which cul
minated in the Exodus, the Providence that watched

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 233
over the desert wanderings, the conquest of Canaan,
were all to the pious Israehte manifestations of the
character and the power of his God. The election of
Israel, its lofty destiny, the righteousness of Yahweh,
His manipulation of Nature and history to achieve His
ends, were not mere articles of a creed communi
cated through God's inspired spokesman, they were
facts visibly enacted in the sight of aU the people.
Thus Israel came to know as weU as to hear about its
God. But of course the people with aU the genius
for. religion which slumbered in it, and for aU its more
elevated ethical standard, its higher thought of God,
its consciousness of a pecuhar relation to Him, was
nevertheless but Uttle removed from heathenism.
Its leader was one of the colossal figures in universad
history, and it took many centuries to work out into
clear consciousness the ideals which inspired him and
the principles which he affirmed. The new religion
indeed seemed to make its way but slowly owing to
the imperfections of those to whom it was entriist'ed.
Again and again we observe how the mass of the
nation stood on one side and the representatives of a
loftier spirituality and a more exacting ethic on the
other. The Old Testament also reveals a gradual
narrowing of the elect people. Of Abraham's sons
Isaac is chosen and Ishmael is rejected, of Isaac's sons
Jacob alone receives the blessing and the birthright.
The Northern Kingdom faUs in the eighth century,
and the Southern Kingdom alone is left. The Jews
were themselves sifted by exile, which caused many
to abandon their faith. But the behefs were more
and more purified from grosser elements, the standard
of conduct was continuaUy raised, a more refined
spirituaUty, a warmer and more passionate piety was
slowly developed. Thus Israel was trained, thus it

234 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF RE VELATI ON
responded to the Spirit's impulse. And the Old Testa
ment is the record of that education, it is largely the
utterance of that response.
In the flame of an intense religious conviction Moses
fused the clans of varied origin into a Uving whole,
conscious of its own unity. The religion had made
-^ the nation. The union of religion with the national
V consciousness was a fact of immense importance.
It conferred strength and prestige on the religion as
the nation grew stronger, it stimulated the appeal of
patriotism by adding the sanctions of rehgion. But
ultimately it proved a fatal limitation. For reUgion
cannot permanently be confined within such cramping
boundaries. When men have come to recognize the
Unity of God they are logicaUy committed to the
admission that all nations stand on the same level
before Him. In this position the Jews could not
acquiesce, they could not nobly rise above the cher
ished iUusion that they were God's favourite people.
This thought indeed limited the outlook of some who
had attained the belief that their God was the God of
other nations and that Israel had a mission to proclaim
the true God to the world. We are therefore not sur
prised that when the time came for the barriers to be
broken down and the Gentiles to be accorded the same
position as the Jews, the Jews made the great refusal,
they held fast their monopoly and the religious leader
ship of humanity passed into other hands.
The settlement in Canaan brought with it the dis
integration of the nation into a number of largely
independent units. And religion was exposed to an
even more serious peril through the settlement in
Palestine, which involved the adoption on a large scale
of the agricultural mode of life and the worship of the
Baalim, the givers of fruitfulness. The wild licence

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 235
which generaUy accompanies the cult of the powers of
fertility cannot have left the morals of the people un
stained ; and when they came to think of Yahweh as
the giver of fertihty, it was not unnatural that He
should be assimilated to the Baahm and the purity of
His religion be compromised by the foul rites intro
duced into His worship. Yet Israel and its religion
came through the ordeal, if by no means unscathed,
yet on the whole triumphant. It succeeded in absorb
ing the Canaanites and maintaining the supremacy
of Yahweh. The poor and narrow Ufe of the nomads
was enriched and widened by the culture of the van
quished, and even the religion itself received something
more than defilement from the touch of Canaan.
What we commonly caU the period of the Judges
was marked by many conflicts with the surrounding
peoples, in which now Israel and now its enemies
gained the upper hand. The most desperate struggle
was with the Phihstines. It imperiUed the very
existence of the nation but it created the monarchy
and gave rise to Hebrew prophecy. The former meant
much for the cohesion of the people, the creation of a
stable State, the increased prestige of the religion ; the
latter, while of course crude and rudimentary, yet
initiated the movement which was destined to yield
Israel's supreme contribution to religion. The great
prophets were as I have said already not altogether in
novators, they did not create for the first time in the
world's history an ethical monolatry, though to them
may belong the credit of sharpening practical mono
latry into a theoretical monotheism. They only pro
claimed in clearer language what had been implicit and
to a certain extent expUcit in the rehgion from the
first. But they stood face to face with a nation which
had largely forgotten what had been emphasized by its

236 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
earlier leaders. Yahweh had come to be regarded
as a national deity in much the same way as other
nations thought of their deity. The prescribed ser
vice must be rendered on the one hand and triumph
over their enemies would be granted on the other.
This tie of mutual obligation was sanctioned by the
bond of a common interest. Yahweh could not destroy
His people, for who then could render Him the sweet
scent of sacrifice so dearly loved by Deity or utter His
praise before men and exalt Him above aU gods?
The prophets assume that in their heart of hearts the
people know better. In such a question as, ' Is it not so
O house of Israel ? ' they imply that if their hearers are
faithful to the light they already possess they wiU know
that the prophetic message is cortect. Yet whUe
their thoughts were such as ought to have been famUiar,
they were expressed with a clearness and precision,
a power and a passion which were altogether new.
The greatest service they rendered lay in their com
bination of religion and morality as alike involved in
the nation's relation to its God. Here the note was
struck by Elijah who withstood Ahab to his face
for the murder of Naboth with the same vehemence
with which he denounced the worship of the Ts^rian
Baal as a virtual apostasy from Israel's jealous God.
The emphasis with Amos lay upon morahty rather
than religion. Yet since it was God who set the stan
dard of righteousness, it might be said that he looked
upon justice and equity as the highest form of religion
and denounced cruelty and oppression because it was
so hateful to Yahweh. A theoretical monotheist
he may or may not have been. But a man who was
assured that Yahweh swayed for His own ends all
the forces of Nature and hdd aU peoples in the hoUow
of His hand, that He chose them with sovereign freedom

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 237
or cast them aside if they proved imworthy, certainly
did not imagine that He divided the dominion of
the world with any rival power. He beUeved in a
Divine righteousness so unflinching that the Day of
Yahweh, so eagerly desired by the people, would prove
to be a day of unsparing judgment ; that God woidd
rather let His people be exterminated than suffer
righteousness to be trampled under foot. And side by
side with the stem Amos we have the more gracious
figure of Hosea who through the tragedy that had
broken up his home and wrecked his hfe leamed to
know the unfaiUng love of God, a love mirrored in
his own heart in his inexhaustible patience, his readi
ness to forgive, his longing to reclaim. Then came
the fall of the Northem Kingdom and the limiting
of the people of revelation to the tinier Kingdom of
Judah. Here worked Isaif h with his thought of the
holiness of God and the intolerable uncleanness of His
people ; the solution of the problem, set by this
collision, in his doctrine of the terrible judgment,
from which only a remnant would survive to form a new
nation, righteous and happy under the rule of the
Messianic King. In his time it seemed as if the
fate which had already overtaken the Northem
would be the portion of the sister kingdom. But here
in the most desperate crisis of the reUgion there came a
deUverance from Sennacherib in which faith beheld
with justice a manifest act of God. So far as we can
see, the destraction of the Southern Kingdom would
at that time have meant the ultimate dissolution of
the rehgion. Here if anj^where in the history we can
see God's arm made bare. Through the dark period
of reaction under Manasseh, the representatives of
spiritual rehgion were forced to prepare in secret for
the victoiy of then: cause. To their work we owe the

238 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
Deuteronomic Law and thus the Reformation carried
through by Josiah on its bcisis. In a sense this might
be spoken of as one of the most important turning
points in the history of the reUgion. It made a written
Law the rale of the people's life and worship and thus it
became the first step towards the creation of the Old
Testament Canon. By its centrahzation of the worship
at Jerascdem and abohtion of the local sanctuaries, it
initiated a movement that was carried forward by
Ezekiel and culminated in the Priestly Code which has
dominated Judaism to this day.
In somewhat striking contrast, though not in
fundamental antagonism to it. we see the greatest
of all the prophets. He denounces with the"^ same
emphasis as his predecessors the sins of his people,
but he is far more searching in his analysis of sin ;
he demands righteousness with the same inflexible
strictness, but as in the case of sin he goes beneath
the external act to the heart of the individual man.
And thus in his doctrine of the New Covenant he trans
forms the conception of reUgion by making it a personal
relationship with a personal God rather than primarily
a relation between God and the whole people. The
centre of gravity was thus transferred from the nation
to the individual. Religion was interpreted as inward
rather than external. It was thus detached essentiaUy
from the State with which it had from the first been
organically united. And so religion, transcending
its racial limitations, became impUcitly universal, even
though this inference was not actually drawn. Nor
must we leave Jeremiah without remembering that of
him pre-eminently it was tme that his contribution
was his personality, his character, his achievement,
no less than his uttered word. He created a new type in
which the Christian experience was largely anticipated.

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 239
The time had now come, however, when it was well
for the rehgion to be divorced from the political
organization, apart from which at an earher time
it could hardly have continued to exist. The State had
to be destroyed and the people carried into exUe, in
order that the rehgion might be emancipated from its
local hmitations and set free from otherwise ineradi
cable abuses. Only in a maimed form could the cult
continue in an unclean land. The worshippers of
Yahweh whose faith had not been shattered by His
apparent abandonment of His people and «defeat by
Babylon were therefore driven to a more inward form
of worship. If all other lands than Palestine were
profane, holy seasons were independent of locaUty
and could be observed under every sky. Thus a new
significance was accorded to the Sabbath, audit was
natural that by a spontaneous impulse gatherings
should be held in which prayer could be offered,
mutual encouragement and counsel could be given, and
the sacred writings of prophets and historians be read
and expounded. In this way, in spite of the destruc
tion of the nation the sense of racial identity was
not lost, the people remained aware of their distinction
from the heathen and the relation in which they stood
to their God. Everything no doubt would be done
to foster this consciousness of differentiation from
other peoples and a maintenance of racial peculiarities.
Those ceremonies which were independent of local
conditions received a new emphasis, such as circum
cision, the laws of uncleanness and purification and
the Sabbath. The necessity of maintaining their
religion in face of a splendid and impressive polytheism
sharpened their monotheistic convictions. And the
long absence from Palestine destroyed the hnks which
bound the people to the local sanctuaries. But for

240 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
this decisive rupture with places and rites endeared
to them by long association it would hardly have been
possible for the reformed worship to have been heartily
accepted. The fascination of the high places would
have proved too strong.
It would be pressing Jeremiah's teaching too far if
we imagined that he looked forward to a demateriaUzed
religion. The inward spirit was no doubt aU import
ant, but it would naturally seek expression in a col
lective and therefore external form. Exile was only
an episode in the nation's hfe, Yahweh would bring
back His people to His land and theirs. Such had
been Jeremiah's conviction, but the task of providing
for a situation two generations distant he did not
undertake. This was the achievement of Ezekiel.
His ruling doctrine is the holiness, the sovereignty
and the glory of Yahweh, and it is in the light of it
that he forms his verdict on the history of Israel,
predicts jiidgment and then restoration with equal
certainty. He marks in the sharpest form the change
introduced into prophecy by the ExUe. He judged
Israel's conduct with unparalleled severity and his
message, like that of his predecessors, was one of
doom. But when the State had been destroyed and
the people were in captivity, he turned his face to the
future and predicted a happy restoration. He em
phasized the individual even more strongly than
Jeremiah had done, though he threw the emphasis
on individual responsibility rather than on personal
reUgion. It is all the more striking that the com
munity meant so much to him, and that he should
have taken such pains to secure a religious organiza
tion for it. He thus became the father of Judaism,
which was controUed by his principles and carried out
his ideals more than those of any other man

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 241
To the Second Isaiah we owe a doctrine, expressed
with a sublime eloquence, of God as the Maker of the
universe and the Lord of history, a God who, whUe
incomparable in majesty, in wisdom and in power,
cares for His people with far more than a mother's
tenderness and love. To him we owe the thought
that the election of Israel is for the sake of the world,
that the nation is the Servant of Yahweh whose task
it is to cany to the heathen the knowledge of the
tme God, whose calamities and exile are a vicarious
endurance of suffering which the heathen had de
served. The return of the Jews from exUe made possible
the rebuUding of the Temple and the estabhshment
of the cultus on the Unes laid down in Deuteronomy.
Only at Jerusalem could the sacrificial system be earned
on. But whUe in this way Yahweh's forgiveness was
manifested and His complete worship was re-established,
the forces which made for progress were stiU for the
most part resident in Babylon. There the successors
of Ezekiel carried on his work and by the compilation
of the Priestly Code brought the Law to relative
completion. The acceptance of it marked the birth of
Judaism. Prophecy naturally dwindled in the atmo
sphere of legahsm or was transformed more and
more into apocalyptic. While the priesthood and
the temple and the system of worship carried on there
held the central place in the religion they were reaUy
less important for Judaism as a whole than the Law
and the scribes who were its interpreters. The priests'
function was restricted to Jerusalem, the scribe was
ubiquitous. Yet Judaism was not simply a barren
legahsm. Of this the Psalter is our sufficient evidence.
Nor yet was it so bitter and exclusive as it has some
times been pictured, though only too much justifica-
B.O. 16

242 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
tion is given for such a representation by many a
page in the Old Testament. The Book of Jonah is an
impassioned protest against the nanowness of the
cunent Judaism and its vindictive longing for the
destraction of the heathen world. The practical and
speculative problems of religion and ethics were treated
from different points of view in the Wisdom Literature.
The hope of Judaism amid the persecutions which
assailed it, is expressed in its Apocalyptic Literature.
its despair in the Book of Ecclesiastes.
If then we ask as to the record of Israel's religion
contained in the Old Testament we may summarize
certain of its main features as foUows : There is, to
begin with, a doctrne of God to which no other pre-
Christian reUgion presents any paraUel. He was of
course realized as the living God. intensely personal,
far removed from the Absolute of the speculative
philosopher. So far indeed, that at first He is pre
sented to us in a very human way, limited by human
imperfections, marred too often by a ruthless
ferocity. But no goddess reigned by His side, so
that the foul sexual hcence, in which kindred peoples
found a congenial expression for their religion, was
hateful in His sight. He was from the outset regarded
as a righteous Deity, the vindicator of justice and the
defender of the oppressed. For Israel He stood as the
sole object of worship. He was a jealous God who
would tolerate no rival. With the teaching of the
great prophets the cruder features were refined away
and the earher hmitations transcended. Although
metaphysic was ahen to the Hebrew mind, a concep
tion of God was reached in which metaphysical as weU
as ethical elements had their place. The eternity,
the infinity, the spirituality of God are implied, though
they are conveyed in popular language, not asserted in

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 243
the formulae of the phUosopher. But the emphasis is
placed on His moral qualities. His holiness. His right
eousness, revealed now in inflexible judgment and now
in forgiving grace. His lovingkindness and His pity.
He is the Creator of the universe whose forces are
all at His disposal; He is the controUer of history
who ovenules for His purpose the plans and achieve
ments of the mightiest empires. Through all apparent
defeat and inexplicable delay He is moving with
serene confidence and sure directness to His long pre
destined goal. He waits till His time is ripe, while His
foes thwart His designs and mock His weakness. But
when He strikes. He strikes once and needs to strike
no more. They that hate Him lick the dust. His ser
vants are exalted and His Kingdom is set up on earth
in power.
And as the conception of God was deepened and puri
fied, moraUty and religion also gained in elevation,
in inwardness and in purity. The character of God
necessarily reacted on the human ideal, as the one was
morahzed so inevitably was the other. By many a
stern lesson the people were taught that He who was of
purer eyes than to look upon iniquity could endure
it least of aU in His own chosen people. The mass
of the nation no doubt feU far below the ideal pre
sented to them by their prophets and lawgivers ; yet
even they were conscious that a special standard was
set before them, a feehng expressed in such a phrase
as ' such things ought not to be done in Israel,' or
the condemnation on those who ' had wrought foUy
in Israel.' And it is the ideal rather than the often
squaUd reality that for our purpose it is important to
notice. Justice in the law courts, integrity in commer
cial relationships, equity as between employer and
employed, generosity in the treatment of the de-

244 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATI ON
fenceless, the widow, the orphan, and the resident
alien, humanity towards slaves, the repression of
slander and falsehood, temperance, chastity, pru
dence, readiness to forgive injuries and to repay evil
with good, these and other virtues were clearly taught
the Israehte by precept and example. Not in the
Decalogue with its too negative moraUty and its re
gard for rights which must not be invaded, but in some
of the classical utterances of the prophets, now and
again in the Psalms or in the Book of Proverbs, es
peciaUy in such a great passage as Job's oath of self-
vindication, we should seek for the loftiest expression
of Old Testament ethics. Nor were the writers so
absorbed in details that they could not rise to the
expression of great principles. It is a Hebrew prophet
who asks the question : ' What doth Yahweh require
of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk
humbly with thy God ? ' It is a Hebrew lawgiver to
whom we owe the great precept, ' Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.'
And in reUgion as well as ethics a very lofty level
was attained. At first religion was primarily a re
lationship between God and the nation, involving
mutual obligations both of a rehgious and of a moral
kind, on which it is unnecessary to dweU. But with
Jeremiah the individual came to his own, and al
though the sense of the bond between Yahweh and
Israel remained unimpaired, the consciousness that
the individual might have his own relationship to God
became more and more widely diffused, and found
many an expression in the later hterature. To walk
with God in humility and in confidence ; to be assured
of His goodness and His love, though the dark experi
ences of hfe seemed to mock such a trast ; to obey His
law, not with punctihous and painful exactness but

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 245
with alacrity and joy ; to make the moral ideal which
was the expression of His wiU an integral part of the
personaUty; to find in unbroken feUowship with
Him Ufe's perfect bUss ; to mourn over sin with a
passionate penitence ; to long for cleansing and purity
with an unquenchable desire ; aU this and more
reUgion meant to the Old Testament saint.
Yet with all the great qualities which we find in the
Old Testament, we must not forget its limitations.
We ought not of course to lay any undue stress on
the lower elements in the book, whether theologicaUy
crade or moraUy repeUent, at least where these had
been left behind. They are valuable as landmarks on
Israel's upward way. Yet we must beware of the
opposite danger, that of taking the Old Testament
at its best, in those rare and outstanding passages
where it approximates to Christianity, as if they gave
us a just measure of its true character. And judging
it with these cautions in our mind we cannot be bUnd
to its-_Uinitations. It contains, especially in its later
sections, a highly developed and clearly expressed
monotheism. Yet it largely neutralized its own
achievement by its special appropriation of God. The
nations belonged to Yahweh no doubt, but Yahweh
belonged to Israel ; an attitude which found ex
pression sometimes in the thought that while the Gen
tUes were ultimately to be brought into the Kingdom
of God they were yet to be subservient to Israel,
sometimes in lurid and exultant anticipations of the
fiery judgment which was to come upon them. Again,
one may rightly recognize a real advance in the cen
trahzation of the cultus at Jerusalem. The suppression
of the high places eUminated many abuses at one stroke,
and secured a far more effective supervision. Yet
the hmitation to locality was a mark of the imper-

246 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
fection of the reUgion. It was transcended when
the words were uttered ' Neither in this mountain
nor yet in Jerasalem shall men worship the Father.'
Further, the physical element was over-emphasized.
Physical victims offered on material altars in a material
stracture by priests whose tenure of office was con
ferred by physical descent, these were the media
through which the worshippers drew near to God and
sought to cleanse their conscience from the guilt of
sin. Similarly the ancient system of taboo had sur
vived in the laws of clean and unclean, into which it
is true some spiritual meaning might be put, but
which were essentiaUy irrational none the less. Food
taboos, such as are familiar among savage peoples,
are present in the legislation in considerable numbers
and reduced to system. Physical states which were
inevitable or accidental and to which no ethical quaUty
attached were pronounced unclean and an elaborate
ritual was enjoined for their purffication. The ideal
of religion, especially in Judaism, was legalistic, the
relation between God and man was conceived as a
matter of merit to be achieved by a man's own acts.
Legalism led naturally to an unhealthy casuistry and
often to a self-righteous temper. Nor had the Old
Testament any assured doctrine of immortality in the
higher sense of the term. The persistence of the human
spirit after death was generally accepted, but we could
hardly dignify this flickering consciousness, which just
held on to existence, with the name of ' Ufe ' in any
worthy sense of the term. We can trace in the Old
Testament the beginnings of a higher behef. Some
times this took the form of a doctrine of resurrection,
the body being recalled from the grave and the shade
from Sheol and the reunited personality Uving on
earth in the Messianic period. Sometimes, however.

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 347
the conviction is expressed that death itself cannot
destroy the feUowship of the saint with his God but
that the disembodied spirit wiU within the veil enjoy
a blessed immortahty in His presence. But these
loftier flights of faith are rare indeed ; .in the main we
must say that the Old Testament stands at the lower
level. It was, therefore, natural that the evidence of
God's favour should be sought especiaUy in material
prosperity and length of days, and virtue be commended
as the passport to their attainment. The trath ex
pressed in Bacon's weU-known aphorism that pros
perity is the beatitude of the Old Testament and ad
versity the beatitude of the New very weU expresses
one of the limitations of the earlier literature.
But it may be said, Has the Old Testament not been
left behind ? Has it any significance for ourselves
to-day ? Our very conception of it as the history of
a long development in which stage after stage was out
grown reminds us that even the highest stage it
reached was outgrown at last. The Gospel came and
superseded aU that had gone before. To this question
I shall return, but I cannot ignore the fact that the
movement of which I have been speaking did not come
to its close with the Old Testament. The supreme
tj^pe of rehgion is the Gospel, and it is revealed to us
not in the Old Testament but in the New.
We cannot, of course, forget that the preparation
for Christianity was many-sided. The Gospel came,
as was fitting, in the fulness of time, when many Unes
of progress converged to create the best conditions
for the spread of the new religion. Many states
and civiUzations had been unified in the Roman
Empire. The diffusion of Greek gave to the mission
aries of the Cross a language in which they could
preach their faith to the most varied races, and to its

248 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
theologians a flexible and subtle terminology exqui
sitely adapted to express the finest shades of meaning.
The old religions had largely lost their hold, there was a
breakdown of morality on a large scale. And this bank-
raptcy of the old world in faith and conduct prepared
men to turn with eagerness to a Gospel which offered
power to the broken wiU and healing to the broken heart.
Yet it is not on these things that our mind chiefly
dweUs when we speak of the preparation for Chris
tianity, but rather on the history of the religion of
Israel. Here rather than in the Imperial system which
furnished the conditions in which the Gospel might
win its peaceful triumphs, or the creation by Greece
of the moulds into which its thought might be cast,
or even in the aching heart that longed for nothing
so much as peace, we find the most important factor
in the preparation for the new religion. Jesus knew
Himself to be the final revelation of God, since He
was the Son of God, standing in a relationship to Him
unshared by angel or man. Yet, whUe He stood in
lonely greatness above Moses and the Prophets, and
set the Law aside without hesitation, He asserted
His continuity with the old order, which He super
seded by fulfiUing it. We can as Uttle deny His
affinity to the Old Testament as we can deny His match
less originality.
! And the religion which Jesus came to estabUsh was
the final revelation of God. It was a revelation given
through teaching but even more through act. Its
message was clothed in language of whoUy new charm
and beauty. Its doctrine of God was more tender
and gracious and yet free from aU touch of weakness or
sentimentaUsm. Its ethical ideal was more searching
and more inward, loftier in its demand, yet fiUed With
a new sweetness and inspired by a warmer, humaner

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 249
spirit. A new worth was attributed to the individual,
even the meanest was of untold value to God.
But greater stiU than the revelation in utterance
was the revelation in character and action. The un
earthly purity of Christ's hfe, the freedom from aU
self-seeking, the radiant certainty of God, the love
which shrank from no sacrifice that it might redeem
from sin, brought home to men an intimate realiza
tion of the character of God with which no earUer
revelation can be even remotely compared. And
whUe in the hfe and death of Jesus the revelation
of God attained its climax. He also revealed for the
first time the human ideal. In His perfect character
there were blended all the virtues and graces in ex
quisite proportion and mutual adjustment, and yet
not as a mere disconnected series but fused into a
perfect unity by the personaUty to which they belonged.
Thus we may say that the Person of Jesus, His
teaching and His character, His hfe and His death,
constituted the supreme revelation of God, Here,
as before, that revelation comes as a process in history,
a process by which God unveUed to us His nature and
His love till we were able to bear the splendour and
estimate the worth of His loftiest self-manifestation.
And as the Old Testament contains the story of the
earher stages in this process, so the Gospels embody
the story of God's last and greatest utterance.
But it may be asked. Why, then, do we have the
Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles ? If the last
word is uttered in the career of Jesus, what room is
there for ans^thing more ? The answer to this it is
not difficult to give, for the fuU signfficance of any
historical figure is not to be gauged so long as we
Umit ourselves to the record of His hfe, and rehiain
content with estimating His character, the work that

250 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
He did, the influence He exerted m His Ufetime.
There are many of whom it may be said that the
impact of their personality on the world has been far
greater after their death than during their Ufe. And
this was pre-eminently the case with Jesus. His work
culminated in His death, which was the cUmax at
once of the revelation He gave and the redemption
He achieved. And especially where it is the question
of founding a new reUgion, we cannot adequately
appreciate the success or faUure of the founder untU
we have observed the response which he has succeeded
in ehciting. We must see the religion at work, judge
it not simply as a speculative dogma, but watch it
in actual practice. We must test it by the men it
transforms, by the communities it creates and in
spires. The full meaning of Jesus can be seen only in
the effects which He creates. Hence the New Testa
ment is not Umited to the Gospels, it embraces
also the Acts and the Epistles. For in some respects
these make the meaning of Christ and His Work more
clear to us than the Gospels themselves. Without
them our means for reaching a tme estimate of the
Founder and His achievement would indeed be meagre.
We might truthfuUy say that not the first century only,
but all the centuries which have foUowed, make their
contribution to our interpretation of Him. And doubt
less the future wiU have its own gift to bring of fresh
insight into His significance. There are races but Uttle
touched as yet by the Gospel, from which a new and
iUuminating exposition may be confidently expected.
And so it may be asked. If the history of Christ's
achievements, which is found in the Acts of the Apostles,
is needed for our due appreciation of Him, and if the
interpretation of His Person and Work contained in
the Epistles are an indispensable guide to ourselves

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 251
in forming a right judgment, why should we not in
clude also the history of His later action in the
Church and aU the deep and wide utterances on
that exalted theme by the great theologians of
Christendom ?
Such a question, perhaps, deserves a more detaUed
answer than I am able to give. But in a few words I
may make my attitude clear. It is in the first place
plain that we are not debarred from gaining the fuU
benefit from the story of Christ's triumphs in many
fields during the Christian centuries. They are a
support to our faith and a stimulus to our toU. Nor
is there an5^hing to prevent our appropriating what
ever the great saints and thinkers of the Church have
uttered with reference to their Master. But a sacred
book which has to be the treasured companion and
guide of commonplace men and women, on whom
rests the heavy burden of constant and exacting
labour, must be comparatively brief. And it needs
no words to show that if we were to extend the New
Testament Canon to embrace the subsequent history of
the Church, or even its more salient features, and the
contributions to the interpretation of the Gospel made
by later theologians, our sacred hterature would soon
become unmanageable in size. And this would have
the very unfortunate effect either of discouraging
large numbers from aU attempt to assimUate it, or
of placing a mass of inferior Uterature before them,
and thus causing a neglect of the primary for the
secondary and inferior portions. Obviously the
Une must be drawn somewhere, and looking at
the matter broadly, it cannot have been drawn at
a more fitting pomt than it has been. I have urged
that the Uterature is the outcome of Ufe, and it is
the Uterature of the classical period of our rehgion

252 HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION
which we can most fitly regard as classical. It is
noteworthy that while the Old Testament embraces
a Uterature, the production of which extended over
several centuries, the whole of the New Testament was
probably produced within less than a hundred years.
There is a reason for this difference, and for the fact
that Scripture reached a definite close when it did.
The Old Testament teUs the story of a long-continued
preparation, while the New Testament relates the
story of God's supreme achievement. Jesus Christ was
His final Word, and aU that remained was that the
narrative of His life and teaching. His death and
resurrection should be told, and that their meaning
should be unfolded, whether by direct exposition
or through a narrative of His achievement in the
creation and extension of the Church. At a very early
period foreign elements streamed into the Church,
later the Church itself was rent asunder. The Chris
tian literature of the times that foUowed cannot be
mentioned in the same breath for freshness or power.
for expression or insight, with that in the New Testa
ment. No one who passes from the New Testament
to the non-canonical hterature of the second century,
wiU fail to observe the almost starthng contrast be
tween the two. Possibly the Church ultimately
admitted too much into the New Testament, for some
portions of the Uterature were long held in suspense,
but few wiU be found to declare that she admitted
too httle. Whatever our conception of canonicity
may be, and whatever we may consider it to involve,
we must recognize that the New Testament contains
the classical documents of our religion.
Thus far I have spoken of Scripture as the record of
God's self-revelation through history, but this brings

HISTORY AS A CHANNEL OF REVELATION 253
me to another phase of the Bible to which it is most
important that we should direct our attention — I mean
the extent to which it was created by individual
experience.

CHAPTER XIV
THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE IN THE
CREATION OF SCRIPTURE
In my last chapter I sought to show how revelation
was closely connected with history, how it was inti
mately bound up with the career of the chosen people.
We miss altogether the great significance of the method
God has chosen when we think of revelation as a mere
communication of abstract truths. The Bible shows
us how in the training of Israel God strikes into the
stream of human affairs with a whoUy new intensity and
energy. The breath of the Spirit is indeed every
where, though its soft and gentle movement may elude
our duU powers of observation. But through the
history of Israel it blows as a rushing, mighty wind, and
only those who are bUnd to the effects it leaves in its
train, or deaf to the thunder of its voice, can faU to mark
with what unparaUeled power it has swept through that
history. The history as a whole is in truth inspired,
when we look at it, that is to say, as an element in the
development of our race. I am not forgetful of the
degree to which the career of Israel was maned by
ignoble features. But in this connexion these con
siderations may be neglected. What pre-eminently
concems the historian is to estimate the contribution
which was made by any particular people to the pro
gress of the world. And in universal history Israel
may truly be caUed the people of revelation. That
254

THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE 255
over long periods the exceptional action of the Spirit
seemed to be quiescent, and that from begiiming to
end the great mass of the people was largely unspiritual,
ought not to deflect our judgment as to the significance
of the part played by the nation.
But the recognition of this widespread indifference
to the deepest thmgs of the Spirit, which at aU times
characterized a large proportion of the people, only
throws into brighter rehef the achievement of those
who were its spiritual leaders. As we look at the
over-arching sky it is not the dark spaces which fasten
on our attention, but the ghttering points of Ught that
shine aU the more brightly for the deep blackness in
which they are set. And so as we look at Israel our
attention is concentrated on those brUliant luminaries
in whom the Spirit glows with such radiant heat. And
here it is my wish to emphasize the action of the same
principle in the individual, which I have sought to
exhibit in the nation. Just as the Spirit conveyed the
trath He desired to teach the nation through the
straggles and crises, the victories and defeats, the joys
and sonows of the people, so He acted also with the
individual. And the great truth which I have now
to emphasize and Ulustrate is the large part which
experience has played in the creation of Scripture.
I am thinking especiaUy of the way in which the
message of a Bibhcal writer was leamt by him through
his own experience. UnhappUy it is only in a com
paratively few cases that we find the action of this
principle expUcitly recognized. It is aU too rarely
that we are admitted into the secret places of the soul
and suffered to trace the conditions which brought the
trath to birth. If only more of the BibUcal writers
had revealed to us the storms and conflicts, the tempta
tions and the triumphs, the rapture and the pain of

256 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
their spiritual life, we should probably have been able
to enlarge greatly the sphere of our observation and
have watched the Spirit at work disclosing to man the
messages of God. But in certain cases where we know
nothing of the author's inner emotions and thoughts.
we can stiU with confidence infer something of his
soul's history from what he has given to the world.
Who, for example, could read the Book of Job, a
book written, as one of its most penetrating inter
preters has truly said, with the writer's heart's blood.
and not learn something of the tragic story of his
own spiritual conflict? Like his hero he must have
known by bitter experience what it was to have the
soul shaken to the very foundations by doubts as to
the righteousness of God. He must have found it
hard to maintain his faith as he contemplated aU
the misery of the world. And then he must have
regained his footing, not because he had fought his
way out to an answer which satisfied his inteUect,
but because he had been lifted above his problem into
a mystical certainty of God. So too we may infer
from many of the Psalms the experience through
which the Spirit taught their authors the lesson He
would have them reveal to the world.
But there are cases where we are in a more fortunate
position, where the experience through which the
revelation came has been divulged to us. I desire
to speak of three types. We have first of aU those
instances where some great experience is the medium
through which the chosen instrament of revelation
learns the truths which he is to apply to the con
ditions of his time. But we have a profounder and
more indirect type where the supreme conviction
with which the Biblical writer is entrusted comes
slowly to his consciousness, distiUed drop by drop out

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 257
of his own experience. And the third type is that in
which it is not the lesson leamt through the ex
perience but the expression of that experience in iti
classical form. What I mean by these different types
wUl become clear to us from the examples I shaU choose
to iUustrate them.
As examples of the first type I select Isaiah and
Ezekiel. To each of these the trath which dominated
his whole career was conveyed in a vision. Isaiah
stands at the entrance of the Temple when his eye is
unsealed to receive his vision. Looking into the in
most shrine where the invisible presence of Yahweh
was thought to be enthroned on the cherubim, he sees
God exalted in majesty, while the skirts of His robe
stream out of the innermost shrine and fiU all the
Temple. With wonderful reticence the prophet teUs
us nothing as to the Divine appearance. But we
gain an even more powerful idea of it as it is reflected
back to us from the demeanour of Isaiah and the
attendant seraphim. For the latter veil their faces that
they may not see Him and reverently conceal the lower
part of their body from His gaze, whUe they are poised
above Him ready for instant flight to accomplish
His wUl. And whUe such is their attitude in His pre
sence, by their unceasing antiphonal chant they pro
claim God's hoUness and God's glory. And as they
sing, Isaiah feels the foundations of the threshold
rock beneath his feet, whUe the smoke which fiUs the
house is the reaction of Divine resentment against the
man who has intruded in his uncleanness into His
presence. As he Ustens to their song of hohness it
finds an echo in his own breast. For the vision of
God, that great and holy God on whom even those
who stand always in His presence do not dare to look,
has filled him with a whoUy new sense of God's in-
B.O. 17

258 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
finite purity. And as he feels the threshold rock be
neath his feet, his whole heart throbs in unison with it.
For he is shaken by a dread he has never known before.
In the light of God's white purity he sees for the first
time in aU its honor the blackness of his own and of
his nation's sin, which by his sohdarity with his people
he feels to be his own. His sense of impending ruin,
aroused by the consciousness of his uncleanness. fiUs
him with dismay. tiU the seraph touches his lips with
the hot coal and his iniquity falls from him and his
guUt is purged away. Now at last it is possible for
God to speak, and for the man to hear His voice. Yet
it is not to him that He speaks but to the attendant
seraphim. He asks them whom He shall send as their
messenger on some unnamed mission. But though
Isaiah only overhears the call he discerns the chal
lenge in it and feels that he may offer himself al
though he does not know what the task is to be. And
God accepts him for His service warning him that
his ministry wiU only harden his people and that the
outcome wiU be a fearful desolation of the land.
It is the trath leamed by Isaiah in this vision,
which through a long forty years he was able to apply
to the conditions of his time and the problems which
they presented. The first tmth was that of the hoU
ness and majesty of God. The second was that of the
uncleanness of His people. The third arose from the
coUision between these facts. Since a holy God could
not permit Himself to be compromised by an unclean
people, and since the people would not reform, judg
ment must overtake the impenitent nation. Whether
then or only a Uttle later he came to reaUze that a
remnant would return to God and form the nucleus of a
new and holy people we do not know. If with the
Septuagint and several modem critics we omit the

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 259
words ' so the holy seed is the stock thereof.' the story
of the vision does not contain his characteristic doc
trine of the righteous remnant, but only an unreheved
picture of utter destruction. When the tree is feUed,
the stump is burned. Yet the doctrine of the remnant
was embodied in the name of his son Shear-jashub,
whose birth cannot have taken place much later than
the vision. The name he gave his son expressed his
conviction that a remnant would turn to God. And
there were two elements, perhaps three, in the vision,
which might have suggested it. These were that
Zion could not be overthrown, since it was the earthly
home of Yahweh, who had His fire in Zion and His
furnace in Jerusalem ; that as he had repented and
been forgiven, so a few might foUow his example,
and share his pardon and cleansing ; and finaUy that
the purpose of so mighty a God concerning Israel
could not be ultimately frustrated by the complete
extirpation of His chosen people.
It would be easy to trace the application of these
principles in his ministry. The warning that this
ministry would prove a failure did not exonerate
him from the task of urging his people to reform.
But his warnings fell on unheeding ears. He coun
sels the panic-stricken Ahaz not to purchase, at the
price of accepting Assjnria's suzerainty, rehef from the
temporary embarrassment caused by the invasion of
Syria and Ephraim. But when Ahaz had taken
the reckless plunge and the Jews chafed under the
Assyrian yoke he bade them bear it patiently. For
he came to see in Assyria the rod with which God would
chastise His people, and therefore he saw that it would
be broken by no human power. Yet he was sure that
Zion could not be overthrown and that the destruc
tion of Judah would not be complete, so in th« darkest

26o THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
hour he faced the might of Assyria without dismay,
secure in his conviction that in the Day of the Lord
He alone would be exalted and aU earthly powers
would be abased. The remnant that would turn to
God would be a pure people from which a larger and
happier Israel would spring. And this new holy people
would naturaUy continue under the monarchical
government. The king would be of the Davidic line,
a great hero and warrior, who would pass to un
disputed dominion through a crushing victory over his
foes and would reign henceforth as the Prince of Peace.
Isaiah's conception of the Messiah does not flow directly
out of his vision. But he would take for granted the
permanence of the Davidic monarchy, and the king
who Would reign over the redeemed and renewed people
must correspond to his ideal of what a king would be.
Looked at from one point of view it might be argued
that we have elements in the work of Isaiah which Ul
accord with his claim to be a vehicle of revelation.
The catastrophe did not come precisely as he had antici
pated, neither when it came did it leave the pious
remnant to form the nucleus of a holy people over
which the Messiah should reign. But since this diffi
culty has a wider application in the Old Testament
it will be desirable to treat it at a later point. Mean
while I call attention to the contribution which he
actually made.
The doctrine of God's holiness and exaltation was,
indeed, no new doctrine, but never before Isaiah's time
had it been expressed with such power. And for this
the experience in his vision was responsible. For it
was not a doctrine which he drew at second hand
from the theology of his day. It was a conviction
burned into his soul in one intense moment of piercing
spiritual insight. And thus his doctrine was original.

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 261
not in the sense that it was new but that the certainty
of it had been conveyed to him by an experience at
first hand. So, too, the uncleanness of his people had
been proclaimed by his predecessors, and they also
had drawn the inference that a holy God and an un
clean people were too incompatible for the present
relations to be continued. But here again the power
with which Isaiah drove home his indictment was
derived from the shock of the contrast he had rea
hzed in his vision between the hohness of God and
the sinfulness of His people. Alike in his doctrine
of God and in his ethical and social ideal what
counted for most was the vision that came to him at
the threshold of the Temple.
It was the lot of Ezekiel also to receive his funda
mental doctrine in a vision of God. The vision differs
in significant respects it is true from that of Isaiah, and
the difference in the descriptions which are given also
reflects the diversity of the men. Yet the aspects of
the Divine nature which impress the two prophets are
substantiaUy identical. Ezekiel learns from his vision
the sovereignty, the glory, the holiness of God. From
this conception of God, apphed to the history of his
people and the conditions which confronted him in the
circumstances of the time, the whole of his theology
may be said to be deduced. On the one side he saw
the unsuUied hoUness of God, the purity to which not
only moral but ceremonial uncleanness was intoler
able, the consideration for His own glory which
animated aU His action, the compassion which had
prompted His choice of Israel, the loving care with
which He had studied its prosperity. And on the
other side he looked at the history of Israel, which
stood out in unrelieved blackness against the white
background of God's nature and God's grace. His

262 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
eye ranges down the whole history of the people from
the period of its servitude in Egypt to his own day.
And everjrwhere his verdict is the same. The grace of
God is repaid by base ingratitude, the holiness of God
is famished by His people's sin. His concern for
His own glory is thwarted by Israel's misconduct.
His sovereignty cannot achieve its due expression
because of the inward conflict which Israel excites
within Him. For He is confronted by a tormenting
dilemma. His holiness would lead him to chastise
Israel for its sin, to cast away the nation which has
so stained His honour and defied His rule. But on the
other hand if He aUows this feehng to prevaU He
will be discredited among the heathen, who wiU
ascribe the overthrow of Israel to His inability to
save His own people. Hence in pity for His own Holy
Name He had again and again forborne to smite the
people which had justly deserved the sentence of
national death. But the situation was aU the time
becoming more and more strained, the smouldering
anger of God was rapidly approaching the point when
it would burst into a devastating flame. The hour
of judgment has aU but struck, for Ezekiel the destruc
tion of the State has become a prophetic certainty,
based upon his conception of God derived from his
experience. But how was the dUemma to be solved ? If God
rewarded the sin of His people by weU-merited punish
ment His action was exposed to the misconstruction of
the heathen, the prospect of which had hitherto in-
chned Him to mercy. At once the heathen would say
Where is now their God ? National extinction would
imply thg downfall of the national Deity. But since
God's action is, according to Ezekiel. controUed
supremely by consideration for His own glory and

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPIURE 263
reputation, it is mevitable that He should make it
plain to the world that Israel's downfaU was due to its
own transgression and not to the weakness of its God.
Thus there grew out of his fundamental doctrine of
God the certainty of Israel's restoration. By the
triumphant re-estabUshment of Israel in its own land
it would be made plain to all the world that not the
weakness but the anger of its God was responsible for
the exile. But was He to pass over the mocking
taunts which the heathen had hurled against Him
when His people were carried into captivity ? Far
from it. He would clear His fair fame from these re
proaches by a signal vengeance on the scoffers.
Thus the exUe and the return from exUe and the over
throw of Gog with his innumerable hordes, would aU
contribute to the vindication of His honour which
Israel and the heathen had so besmirched.
But Ezekiel heard also the murmuring of his people
against the equity of God's rule. Their fathers had
sinned they said and they were paying the penalty.
Confronted with this challenge to the Divine justice
the prophet developed his doctrine of individual
responsibUity. Against the older doctrine which we
find enshrined in the Decalogue that the sins of the
fathers are visited on the children to the third and
fourth generations, while God shows mercy to thou
sands who are connected with those who love Him,
Ezekiel affirms in the most unshrinking terms that there
can be no transference of merit or guilt, of reward or
punishment. The soul that sinneth, he says, it shall
die, it and no other in its place. The goodness of one
man cannot avaU for another, nor can any bear
the responsibihty for his brother's sin. The ways of
God are rigorously just and each receives in accordance
with his deeds.

264 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
, Thus we see how point by point the whole of Eze
kiel's elaborate theology grew out of his fundamental
conception of God which he received in the vision that
constituted his call. He, like Isaiah, iUustrates the
way in which a great spiritual truth, communicated
to the prophet in the hour of his caU. completely
dominates his later activity and is the source from
which the whole of his teaching is directly or in
directly drawn. I pass on to the second type and
desire to illustrate the way in which an experience
spread over a long period brought home to him who
passed through it some new and precious revelation.
As my first example of this I take the tragic story of
Hosea. I do not believe that those are right who see
in it only an allegory. In various ways the allegorical
interpretation breaks down so that we must find in this
nanative, obscurely expressed and tingling with
pain, the prophet's story of the tragedy which wrecked
his home and broke his heart. The career of the faith
less wife who at last deserted her husband and sank
to lower and yet lower depths tiU she was about to
be sold into slavery brought home to the prophet a new
insight into the relations between Israel and her God.
The sin of the woman reflected on a tiny scale a guilt
yet more colossal, a tragedy more cruel. For Yah
weh had won Israel for His bride in the purity of
her springtime when He had gained her love by re
leasing her from bondage. There in the wildemess
they had pledged their troth to each other and He
had given her the fertile land of Canaan. But she had
counted the corn and wine and oil of that fruitful
domain as the gift of the Canaanite Baalim. And so
she had gone after these false deities, forgetful of the
aUegiance she owed to Yahweh alone. It was there
fore inevitable that punishment should follow in the

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 265
wake of sin. Lower and lower the guUty nation must
sink tiU at last she is cast out of her land and driven
back into the wUderness.
But is this to be the end of God's deahng with her ?
Is she to be utterly rejected and the marriage tie which
bound her to her God completely dissolved. The
prophet's heart suppUes him with the answer, an
answer already foreshadowed in his own action, as the
sin of Israel had been minored in the infidehty of his
wife. For when she had fallen into abject misery, and
the loss of hberty was to foUow the loss of honour and
home and even the protection of her lovers, the injured
husband stepped in and saved the profligate woman
from the extreme consequences of her foUy and her sin.
He took her home, and though he could not restore her
at once to her old position he secluded her from the un-
pitying world, sheltered her from destitution, and re
moving her from temptation gave her the opportunity
to reform. And as he looked into his own heart and
watched himself for the motives which prompted his
conduct, he found that the mainspring of his action
was an unquenchable love, which would not let him
rest untU he had reclaimed the offender, and which
kept the fire of hope burning in his breast with a bright
and steady flame. In him the noble sajdng of the
Song of Songs, ' Many waters cannot quench love
neither can the floods drown it,' received a wonderful
vindication. He rose above the memory of aU those
weary years through which he had watched her de
clension from the path of honour, above aU the agony
which had wrung his heart as love was repaid by scorn
and defiance, above aU the accumulated evidence of the
ineradicable corruption of her nature which the passing
years had made aU the time darker and heavier, and
with a faith which would not die because it was rooted

266 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
in an inextinguishable love. beUeved that the way of
retum was stiU open and that she might chmb once
again to the heights from which she had fallen.
And as he reflected on his own experience and came
to understand its meaning, he realized that he had in
his hand the clue which led him into the secret place
of the Most High. For if such was his attitude to his
wife, if the long years of shame could not blot out the
memory of the happy past, if braised and buffeted by
many a blow, love ever renewed its strength and met
aU its mishandUng with free and sincere forgiveness,
did not this throw a new light on God's relation to
Israel ? He also had passed through the same ex
perience as His servant though on a vaster scale. For
His love had rested on Israel in the fresh period of her
youth when He had redeemed her from bondage and
wooed and won her in the wilderness. And then the
bride of Yahweh had been enticed from her loyalty by
the fascination of Canaan. WiU her God then fling
her aside and choose another people for His own ?
Such had been the threat which Amos held out to the
apostate people. But for Hosea. who had the deeper
nature, who had passed through the fire and come out
as fine gold, such a solution was wholly impossible. If
a frail man could rise to such heights of forgiveness and
could lavish on the unworthy a love so rich, what might
one not expect Him to do who was God and not man ?
Yet Hosea in no wise relaxes the rigour of his moral
standard. Just because God loves Israel with such
intensity He is satisfied with nothing short of the
highest. And to secure this end He wiU spare Israel
no^chastisement. however it may wring His own heart
to inflict it. She must prove to the uttermost the
weariness and cruel indifference of her lovers, must be
cast away by those gods whom she had worshipped.

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 267
she must be driven out into the wilderness away from
all the conditions which had proved such a snare to
her. Thus having fathomed the abyss of misery she
wUl look back with longing on the blissful past. Then
as the prodigal said ' I wiU arise and go to my father,'
so she wiU say ' I wiU go and return to my first husband
for then was it better with me than now.' And then
the love of Yahweh, which through aU this long period
had never wavered or grown less, would have achieved
its desire and could receive unhindered expression.
Andjin language of surpassing beauty the prophet
paints for us the new blessedness which wiU crown their
reconcihation. For Yahweh wiU lead back His people
from the banen waste. He wiU bless her once again
in her beauteous land, once again He wUl endow her
with the com, the wine, and the oil, once more they will
dweU together in intimate affection and unclouded bhss.
So the dark and sordid story moves to its radiant close
in an idyUic peace, when she shaU make answer as in
the days of her youth, in the time of her unsoiled purity
when Yahweh won her for His bride.
It wiU be clear to us that this conception of the love
of God, which Hosea was the first to utter with such
breadth and depth, in utterances of a quenchless
affection and undying hope, among the lovehest and
most thriUing in Uterature." was taught him directly by
his own experience. He looked into his own heart,
tiU it grew transparent, and it became a window through
which he looked into the heart of God. And therefore
he rightly read the meaning of it when he said that it
was by Divine impulse that he took Gomer for his
wife. For it was God Himself who had thus planned
that the revelation should come, it was He who had
kindled the fierce furnace in which this precious word
of God was to be smelted out of the prophet's heart.

268 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
As a second example I select the case of Jeremiah.
In his case more than in that of any other prophet we
are taken into the secret of the prophetic consciousness,
and gain, as nowhere else, a vivid idea of the imperious
force with which the urgency of the Divine call made
itself felt. It is not my purpose to speak concerning
many aspects of the work of one whom we may tmly
account to be the greatest of Israel's prophets, all the
more that I have already spoken of these in detail in
my Commentary in the Century Bible. But in that
which constitutes his main contribution to religious
thought, the principle which I am expounding finds one
of its most iUustrious exemplifications. It was in his
doctrine of the New Covenant that the teaching of
Jeremiah achieved its worthy climax. He looked back
as Hosea had done to the time when Israel had been
redeemed from Egypt, ' I remember for thee the kind
ness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, how
thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that
was not sown.' It was then that Yahweh had made
His Covenant with Israel, but His people had repaid His
kindness with ingratitude and disobedience, they had
trampled the Covenant underfoot and refused to fulfil
its conditions. And yet Yahweh had been long-
suffering and He had forborne to mete out to Israel the
measure she had meted out to Him. But just as the
conviction had been forced upon Hosea that Israel
must be uprooted from Palestine since thus alone could
she be freed from her entanglement with idolatry, so
Jeremiah looked forward to the downfaU of the Jewish
State and the transplantation of the people to Baby
lon. But this would not be the end of Yahweh's
dealings with Israel ; the nation would be as those who
pass through a dark tunnel, which leads from a cold
Northern land, and emerge in the bright and sunny

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 269
South. So Israel would pass through this dark
experience of exile and then return to its own loved
country and to a happier destiny. For when Yahweh
had thus turned the captivity of His people He would
make a New Covenant with them, not as the Covenant
He made with their fathers when He brought them out
of the land of Eg57pt. For that had been a Covenant
inscribed on tables of stone, while the Ark was a material
embodiment of the Divine presence. But now this
external and material order of things would give place
to one which was inward and spiritual. For God
would no longer seek to control their conduct by a
code of laws written on stones, but He would put His
law in their inward parts and write it on their heart.
In other words the impulse which would control con
duct would be not only Divinely given but planted as
an inward monitor "in each man's breast. And yet
we must not imagine that Jeremiah means no more
than that the Divine wiU is imposed on the conscience
as an external authority. He means that God's will
is made an integral part of the man's own personality.
It is not simply a higher power forcing its wiU upon a
lower, the lower has accepted that wiU and made it
part of itself.
And when we ask what this impUes, it wUl be plain
that it involves one of the greatest advances ever made
in the history of reUgion. For while it is trae that
the Covenant is made with the nation it is fulfiUed by
the transformation of the individual. Rehgion thus
ceases to be a relation between a nation and its God
and it becomes a relation between the individual and
God. It is no longer necessary for one to say to an
other, ' Know Yahweh,' since aU wiU know Him from
the least to the greatest. In other words each indivi
dual possesses through the Divine initiative an im-

270 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
mediate and mystical sense of God which supersedes
the necessity of instruction by others. And thus
Jeremiah's supreme doctrine constituted the most
penetrating transformation which rehgion ever ex
perienced, the religious unit ceased to be the nation
and became the individual. He solved the problem of
righteousness by placing aU the emphasis on the heart,
assured that if the centre was rightly fixed aU else would
faU into its proper place ; if man was rightly adjusted
to God in his inmost soul a hfe whoUy attuned to His
wiU must foUow as an inevitable consequence.
Such then was Jeremiah's doctrine of the New
Covenant, the loftiest height reached by the reUgion
of Israel. The New Testament in the identification
it makes of Christianity with the New Covenant
justifies us in this estimate. For Jesus the outpouring
of His blood was the institution of the New Covenant.
Paul takes up the language of Jeremiah, speaking of
himself and his fellow-labourers as ' ministers of the
New Covenant ' and contrasting ' the ministration of
death, written and engraven on stones ' with the
ministration of the Spirit, and affirming that his readers
were ' an epistle of Christ,' ' written not with ink but
with the spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone
but in tables that are hearts of flesh.' And the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews explicitly bases a large part
of his argument on the same great passage. These facts
justify us in the lofty place we assign to Jeremiah's
greatest utterances, in which we may truly see an
expression of Christianity before Christ.
And this makes aU the more significant the question
how it came to pass that Jeremiah rose to this lofty
height. It was through his own experience that this
great revelation came to him. From the beginning
of his ministry we observe in him a whoUy new pre-

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 271
occupation with the iimer Ufe. It is on the heart of
man that his attention is concentrated. There is a
firmness and deUcacy, a penetration and analytic power
in his psychological observation which have no paraUel
in any of his predecessors. But he is also eminent
for his gift of introspection, for the way in which he
probes his own motives and lays bare for us the interplay
of his complex and tangled emotions. He was thus
naturaUy predisposed to the view of rehgion which we
speciaUy associate with his name. The inner hfe of
the individual meant so much more to him than it had
meant to those who had gone before him. Yet this
might not have sufficed to create the doctrine, had
it not been for the bitter sonows which his vocation
brought upon him. It was his fate to set himself in
unflinching opposition to the dearest convictions
of his people. He was impeUed by motives of the
purest patriotism, controUed by the clearest fore
sight, to withstand its pohtical poUcy. Thus he-was
forced to play the part of an apparent traitor to his
country and watch with a breaking heart the optimism
which lured the nation to take the bUnd plunge to
destraction. He was condemned to a Ufe of loneU-
ness with no retreat in domestic happiness from the
pitUess storm of scornful increduUty and fanatical
hatred with which he was assaUed. And his lot was
aU the more painful that he Wcis so Ul-fitted by nature
to bear it. Timorous and gentle, he had to confront
implacable hostiUty; sensitive and high-strung,
wincing at the shghtest touch of contempt, his soul
was cut with the stinging lashes of mockery or bruised
by ribald unbehef. He loved his people with the
deepest and richest affection, yet he was compeUed
to utter the most unsparing denunciations of its sin,
and predict with unfaltering certainty its imminent

272 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
ruin. When at the beginning of his ministry he
timidly shrank from the responsibihty of declaring
God's message, he received the promise of God's
unfaiUng support. But as time wore on and his
people seemed deaf to his appeals, as the tide of hos
tility became more menacing, and his pain was harder
to bear, he found his faith severely tried. He had
spoken of God as the fountain of living waters, but
he came at last to put the despairing question, ' Wilt
thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook, as waters
that faU ? '
And yet there was no one to whom he could take
his troubles or before whom he could lay his perplexi
ties, no one but God. From the strife of tongues, from
the hostility of open foes or the more dangerous
treachery of false friends, there was no way of escape
for him save to God. And God seems to repulse
him. He answers his complaint, his sharp cries of
pain, his remonstrance for appointing him such a
task with stern rebuke and the promise of stUl harder
trials. ' If thou hast ran with the footmen and
they have wearied thee, then how wilt thou contend
with horses ? and if in a land of peace thou fleest,
then how wilt thou do in the jungle of Jordan ? '
He would gladly sunender his vocation, which brings
him nothing but scorn and persecution ; but God is
stronger than he is and makes silence more intolerable
to him than speech. For when he would fain sup
press the message which he is commissioned to dehver,
it burns like a raging fire in his bones and gives him
no rest tiU he has discharged his task. And yet
it is to God that he must betake himself, sternly though
God may deal with his weakness. In His presence
he is braced and strengthened, the defects of his
nature are subdued. The intimate communion with

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 273
God to which he is thus driven becomes for him an
experience which he cannot forego. And slowly there
dawns upon him the great thought that this close
personal feUoWship with a personal God constitutes the
inmost essence of religion. And so when he looks
forward to the future in which the religious ideal will
be perfectly realized, he anticipates a New Covenant
of which the distinctive feature wiU be the intimate
knowledge of God by each for himself and the writing
on the heart of the inward law. Thus the large part
played by experience in the creation of Scripture
receives a splendid iUustration in Jeremiah's greatest
contribution to religion.
As a further iUustration of the part played by
experience in the creation of Scripture I take the
case of the Apostle Paul. He iUustrates a combina
tion of the two t3rpes of which I have already spoken,
though the latter predominates. For while it is
trae that it was in one great experience that the decisive
change came, it is also trae that what was most charac
teristic in his teaching was borne in upon him as
the result of a long rehgious development. He was,
of course, a chUd of his time, and many elements
were built into the stracture of his theology; but
it is my conviction that for what was central and
most characteristic in his teaching we must find a
source in his own inward struggles and victory. His
fundamental doctrines of sin, of the Law, and of
salvation, bear everywhere the stamp of his own
history. No doubt he derived not a little from
the Old Testament. Indeed since this was the indis
pensable background of Christianity, apart from
the Old Testament his theology could never have come
into existence. But it is in my judgment a mistake
to reduce the Pauline doctrine to the Old Testament
B.O. 18

274 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
level. In the case of a doctrine so fundamental as
that of the flesh the tragic depth and ethical intensity
are much impoverished by this reduction. His
doctrine of the Law as suggesting disobedience and
stimulating the principle of sin into active revolt
is far removed from the attitude of the Old Testament
writers towards the Law, to whom the proposition
that the Law was the strength of sin, that it was given
for the sake of transgressions, and came in beside
that the trespass might abound would have seemed
bewildering and blasphemous. To the cunent Juda
ism of his time he was no doubt indebted at several
points, but these belonged more to the outer rim of
his theology than to what was nearer its heart. To
Greek thought and the Mysteries he probably owed
stiU less.i The influence of Jesus was of course very
1 Several scholars think that Paul was deeply influenced by
the Mysteries and attached an eflScacy to sacraments which
can only be described as magical. This will no doubt come
as a surprise to those readers who see in Paul the great cham
pion of characteristically Protestant positions ; but it is held
by not a few German scholars, and not unrepresented among
ourselves. It is too big a question to discuss here, but I
should like to quote a couple of significant sentences from the
fourth instalment of Harnaclf's " Beitrage." Speaking of
Paul, he says : " Criticism, which is to-day more than ever
inclined to make him into a HeUenist (so e.g. Reitzenstein),
would do well to gain at the outset a more accurate knowledge
of the Jew and the Christian Paul before it estimates the
secondary elements which he took over from the Greek M5rs-
teries. It would then see at once that these elements could
have obtruded themselves on him only as uninvited guests,
and that a deUberate acceptance is quite out of the question."
Coming from one who holds no brief for conservative theology,
and who ranks among the foremost authorities on Primitive
Christianity, it may be hoped that such a verdict wiU do some
thing to prevent too hasty an acceptance of positions which
have yet to be made good.

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 275
great and Paul recognized the essential identity of
his Gospel, at least in a certain sense, with that preached
by those who were Apostles in Christ before him.
Nevertheless the form which that Gospel assumed was
original and it was the outcome of a great religious
experience original in the highest degree.
He started with the death of his old life of innocence
through consciousness of the Law which came with
the dawn of moral discernment ; he woke to the inner
conflict of the flesh and the mind, and realized in all
its tragedy the awful bondage of sin. In those long
years of struggle his conscience was quickened to the
finest sensitiveness, and his moral feeling deepened
in intensity. He knew by bitter experience what
the Law could, and what it could not do ; he knew
what it was to agonize for peace with God and find
his utmost endeavours aU in vain. He grew familiar
with the guilefulness of sin, and the victorious tyranny
of the flesh. And then, in one great moment he had
learnt that the Cracified whom he had persecuted
was God's Son, who had plucked him by a miracle
of mercy from his old hfe of failure and sin, and given
him righteousness and peace with God. He realized
that his salvation had been due to no merits of his
own, but to the abounding grace of God. And the
inmost secret of that experience he felt to be this,
that he was one with the Saviour who had loved and
given Himself for him. As one with Him he was
conscious that he was a new creature, that the old
Ufe of servitude to sin and the curse of the Law had
passed away, and that aU things had become new.
Out of this experience of union with Christ grew the
conviction that the Law was abolished. The Law
had proved incapable of doing what Christ had done
for him, and his grateful love forbade him to assign

276 THE PART PLATED BY EXPERIENCE
any value to it. Nay more, he had discovered
that m this Christ who lived within him, he had all
that he needed for the highest life. And as one with
Christ, he knew that he was righteous before God.
Faith had been for him that act of personal and loving
trast through which he had become united with Christ.
And, therefore, he could speak of himself as justified
by faith, or again as justified in Christ. And with
the inward recognition of the Saviour who was re
vealed within him as the Son of God there was given
his new doctrine of the Godhead.
It is thus clear how his own experience was the
origin of his most fundamental doctrines. But it
may also be shown how some other doctrines, at least,
had indirectly the same origin. For when he had
realized that so it was in his own experience, he was
driven by an inward impulse to erect the personal
into a universal principle. With the philosopher's
passion for unity, he sought in the universal the key
to the individual experience. Thus he created his
doctrine of the two Adams, in whom the two stages
of his religious Ufe found their representatives and
were embodied in two racial acts. It is trae that
this scarcely gives a complete account of his doctrine
of the Person of Christ, but the enrichment which
that received came, as I have already pointed out,
from his own experience.
It wiU now I trast be clear that the most important
factor in the creation of Paul's theology was the
experience of sin and redemption through which he
had passed. Through a series of years he had found
his aspirations for righteousness defeated by sin which
entrenched itself in the flesh and forced him into
hostiUty with the Law of God. And then there had
come to him the great revelation which Ulumined

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 277
his darkness and hfted him out of his despair, that
what he had sought through his own efforts and sought
in vain was freely bestowed by God through faith
in the grace which He had manifested in Christ. His
theology is an interpretation of his experience and
an elucidation of its significance for humanity at
large. Thus we are taught once more how large
is the part played by experience in the creation of
the Bible.
So far I have spoken of the Bible as embodying
the great doctrines which the writers learnt through
their own experience, whether concentrated in one
great moment of radiant vision, or stretching through
years of pain which slowly brought to consciousness
and expression profound spiritual truths. But I
must not omit to point out how much the Bible con
tains which is less the lesson taught by experience
than the expression of the experience itself. It is
constantly the case that as we read it we meet with
utterances in which the deepest and loftiest emotions
of the human heart find expression. It is very un
fortunate that the designation of the Bible as the
Word of God, while emphasizing one very important
side of the trath should have obscured an aspect
hardly less important. For there is much in the
Bible which is not God's word to man, though it belongs
to what is most precious in Scripture. It is man's
word to God, uttering his deepest feeUngs of praise and
adoration, of penitence and longing for purity, the
passionate desire for feUowship with Him or the rap
turous joy which such communion brings. In one of
his noblest passages Paul has spoken of the Spirit
who helps our infirmities, pleading for us with groan-
ings that cannot be uttered. But as I have pondered
©n some of these great words of man to God, I have

278 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
felt that we might almost dare to utter the paradox
that the Spirit has expressed the inexpressible, rising
above the inarticulate groaning into articulate and
imperishable speech.
And it is in the great crises of spiritual history, in
moments of the deepest emotion, when the fountains
of the great deep within us are broken up, and the
surging flood of feeling craves an outlet, and all its
own words seem poor, that the soul turns instinctively
to these classical utterances as the perfectly fit expres
sion of all it feels. We make our own the great words
which enshrine the thoughts and feeling that weU up
within us; here we realize that Scripture, as no other
hterature. has uttered the ideas and emotions which
mean most to ourselves.
Thus when there has come to the spirit a trae con
ception of its sin, and it understands in some measure
the dark and ruinous mischief which its virulent
poison works in human life, while the sense of its
tragedy fiUs it with penitence, where can its passionate
sorrow find an utterance more poignant than in
the fifty-first Psalm, in the language of the broken
and the contrite heart ? And when shaken to its
centre by grief and repentance for the past, it would
utter the prayer for cleansing and a renewal of its
purity, where better than in the same Psalm could
it find the words which will utter its desire ?
' Purge me with hyssop, and I shaU be clean.
Wash me and I shaU be whiter than snow.
Make me to hear joy and gladness.
That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
Hide thy face from my sins,
And blot out mine iniquities.
Create in me a dean heart, O God ;
And renew a right spirit within me.'

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 279
Or when again, having passed, it may be, through
some great disiUusion, in which the foundations on
which the hfe has rested seem aU to have been shat
tered, and time and the world offer us no promise of
stabihty, we have learnt the vanity of aU earthly
things, and from the creature tum to the Creator and
find in God not simply our highest but our only good,
where can such experience receive a more satisfying
expression than in the wonderful close of the seventy-
third Psalm ?
' But I am continually with thee.
Thou boldest my right hand.
With thy counsel thou wilt guide me.
And afterwards to glory thou wilt take me.
Whom have I in heaven ?
And possessing thee I deUght in nought upon earth ;
Though my flesh and my heart fail away,
God is for ever the rock of my heart and my portion. '
But when the claim has been made good that revela
tion has largely come by the channel of human ex
perience the question may weU arise whether the
Bible loses or gains by this. It might possibly be
argued that the value of the revelation is impaired
because it has passed through the human medium
and thus taken into itself some element of human
inperfection. No difficulty would be felt were it
merely asserted that the treasure had come to us in
earthen vessels, that the jewel was enshrined in a
casket far less precious than itself. For no influence
is exerted by one upon the other, the intrinsic value
of the jewel suffers no deterioration from the meanness
of the casket, nor is the worth of the casket enhanced
by its association with the jewel.
But is it not otherwise, it may be said, with this
view of Scripture ? So long as the pure water of

28o THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
Ufe is conveyed by channels which do not communicate
any of their properties to it, so long the Divine quaUty
remains unimpaired. But if you once allow such an
interaction of the Divine and human elements, as that
which I have affirmed, does it not seem as if the Divine
perfection of the revelation is contaminated and
adulterated by the human admixture ? The old view
gave us a homogeneous Bible uttering ever5rwhere
the same doctrine. The various writers were but the
organ of the Holy Spirit through whom His Divine
speech streamed forth, taking neither content nor
colour from their personaUty. The reader was thus
in direct contact with the Divine mind uttered in
Divinely chosen language with no room for misgiving
as to the whoUy Divine character of the Uterature.
But if we allow that the human experience has
contributed so much are we not in danger of losing
our guarantee for the fuU Divinity of the hterature ?
Can it be to us a revelation in the same sense as before ?
We have to take things as they are, not as we would
hke them to be ; and the phenomena of Scripture
make plain the trath which I have been expounding.
If we compare one Bibhcal writer with another we
are at once strack with the differences that emerge.
The patient examination of the writings by individual
authors has shown us with the utmost clearness how
far they are from presenting us with so colourless a
uniformity of teaching . How different Taul is from
John and the author of the Epistle to'the Hebrews
from both ! This fact makes it plain that, whatever
scope we aUow to the Spirit's inspiration, it was com
patible with a wide diversity in the presentation of
trath by individual writers. In itself this may not
appear objectionable, since naturaUy no single indi
vidual might seem adequate to represent and express

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 281
every side of the Divine revelation. At the same time
it must be pointed out that it is only the co-operation
of the human factor which introduces a Umitation
of this kind. If the Biblical writer had been but the
mechanical mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, there
would have been no need for this large variety of
human writers. The very fact, however, that there
is this large variety, this far-reaching difference in
presentation, is itself most significant, and we are
not entitled to lose sight of it. It warns us to shake
ourselves loose from a mechanical conception of
revelation and replace it by one which is vital and
dynamic. And when aU has been said touching the human
element in Scripture do we lose anything by the frankest
recognition of it ? We lose, it may be said, in abstract
correctness ; it is no longer the pure white Ught which
streams forth through the sacred page, but Ught
which has passed to us through coloured glass. It
has been tinted by the writer's environment, his
training, and above all his own spiritual experience.
Now it may be granted that for some minds the
pure white Ught is most congenial. Those who have
keen speculative interests, who prize inteUectual
trath supremely, these wUl naturaUy prefer to have
the Ught uncoloured and undistorted. But these
are after aU comparatively few, and the book which
aspires to be the book of humanity has other and
deeper needs to meet. We do not want in Scripture
the whiteness and purity of the icicle; abstract accuracy
in formal expression may leave the wiU untouched
and the heart unmoved. White heat is better than
white hght, and if revelation has come to us sometimes
in broken Ughts, if it is dimmed by tears or made
more radiant by joy, it comes nearer to us than it

a82 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
otherwise could have done. The rich and variegated
hues are more attractive to us than the bare Ught in
its cold beauty. '
*** The word which has been won for us through the
clash of human interests, through the strife of human
inteUects, or has struggled into consciousness through
the wrestUngs and agony of human experience, comes
to us with unrivaUed claims to authenticity and un
equalled power to constrain our hearts. For the
divinest truth when it remains a speculative abstrac
tion may satisfy the inteUect. but wiU arouse no
enthusiasm in the hearts of any save the few who are
gifted with a passion for ideas. It must submit to
incarnation, must clothe itself in human form, be born
out of the throes of human need or human aspiration,
_that it may come to us not simply with the power to
1 Compare the noble words of Martineau :
" Yes : the heavenly essence in the earthen jar, the ethereal
perfume in the tainting medium, the everlasting truth in the
fragUe receptacle — ^this is just the combination which does
not content the weakness and self-distrust of men. They want
not the treasure only, but the casket too, to come from above,
and be of the crystal of the sky ; they are afraid of having the
water of Ufe spiUed, Uke the rain, upon the meadows and
trickle through the common mould to feed the roots of beauty
and of good j and they would store it apart, and set it aloft,
and secure for it a sacred enclosure to which common men
may come for their supply " (The Seat of Authority in Religion,
2nd ed. p. 288).
" The higher agency could live on, only by entangling itself
with the lower in every fibre, and making the joint harvest
richer from the infusion of a purer sap. As the divine
element does not suspend the human, the appearance of the
human does not disprove the divine ; everywhere in history,
even in Christendom — their supreme product — their work is
blended ; Uke a single drama by two authors, or like the
melody and harmony of the same piece " (Ibid., p. 290).

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 283
sway our inteUects but with the glow that shaU kindle
our imagination and the beauty that shall enchain
our hearts. What might otherwise have been gained
in conectness would have been far more than lost
in vitality and warm human interest. It is because
Scripture is often so instinct with emotion begotten
of experience that it casts so strange a speU upon us
aQdL stirs us to the inmost depths. The subhmities
qf thp. ahtitrart mav move us to wonder but they do
not warm and comfort us. ^It is a human heart which
throbs in the Bible and it is this which grips us with
such unequalled power.
And while the limitation which this involves must
be freely granted I would urge that it is more than
made good by the assurance which experience gives
us. As hfe goes on we are inclined more and more
to throw weight on experience. Fine ideals are all
very weU, but the question becomes more and more
important to us. Can we verify them in experience ?
WiU they stand the strain of everyday hfe ? Unless
they satisfy this test we are disposed, even if we do
not deny their conectness, to let them faU into the
background and attach but Uttle importance to them.
If as we read a portion of Scripture wejee^that the
writer communicates something to_jis_jt^i^LJ^as
rieKer-paasad thtou^liis own spnitjT^^p^^p'- bp-pn
tpgj-pH ^n bis own Ufe. has, never possessed and swayed
hmi. then we feel that this lacks an important note
of authenticity. If it be said that it verities itself
m the experience of others, I am far from denying
the value of this ; yet I must point out that there is
always the suspicion possible that the experience has
been artificially created by the knowledge of Scrip
ture. But when we know that in the first instance
it was created by experience, then it reaches us with

284 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
a stamp of genumeness. which if it does not conclu
sively guarantee its truth at least affords a strong
presumption of it.
And let us have the faith to see the Divine element
in the human experience. We do not eUminate it
at any point in the process. For if the revelation
in its pure ideal form came from God, yet the human
media through which it passed, were none the less
the creation of His hands. This has come out clearly
enough in the instances I have quoted. If Isaiah
sees God enthroned in majesty, if he hears the seraphim
chanting the praises of the Divine HoUness, if a whoUy
new sense of sin possesses him, and if thus he learns
the truths which are to control aU his subsequent
ministry, these great experiences are from first to last
granted to him on the Divine initiative. So too it
was with Ezekiel's vision which taught him that
conception of God's glory and holiness which he was
to apply to the history of the past, the conditions
of the present, and the problems of the future.
But even in the second tj^pe of experience the same
holds good. Hosea recognized that his maniage
with Gomer was due to the Divine impulse and that
God had Himself planned the tragic history which was
to teach him so lofty a trath. The experience of
Jeremiah was none of his seeking. At first he would
put the prophetic office from him and later he com
plains of the intolerable lot it brings him. But
God forces the office on His reluctant servant and
wiU give him no rehef or respite as he pursues his task.
The prophet is bewildered and resentful, a cogent
proof that a Higher Power was at work in his career.
And as we look back on its outcome in his great doc
trine of the New Covenant we reahze more than ever
the reality of the Divine factor in the revelation he

IN THE CREATION OF SCRIPTURE 285
made. And simUarly with Paul one might show how
the experience even apart from the vision was of
God's contriving, so that he might be fitted to under
stand the impotence of human nature to fulfil the Law
of God and the hberation from guUt and enslavement
effected in the death and resunection of Christ.
TTie force of what I have been saying may be more
adequately estimated if I retum to the contrast I
have akeady mentioned (pp. 106 f.) between the Bible
and Systematic Theology. It is the fashion in some
quarters to disparage Systematic Theology. With
that fashion I have myself no sympathy. So long
as we remain inteUectuaUy constituted as we are, we
cannot be satisfied tiU we have reached an ordered
and consistent presentation of Christian tmth. It
is of great value to the student of Divine things that
he should accurately understand them, that he should
conelate them into a harmonious system in which
every part faUs into its proper place, receives its
tme proportion and is adjusted aright to the other
parts and to the great whole. ^ But we may indeed
congratulate ourselves that the Bible is not a treatise
on Systematic Theology.
We go. it may be, into a botanical museum, richly
stored with plants, aU duly ananged to exhibit the
scientific classification, the relation of one species to
another, the upward movement from simpler to more
complex forms. We feel at every tum how great
has been the labour expended and how valuable
the material thus rendered accessible to aU who seek
an ordered conception of the vegetable kingdom.
And such a botanical museum is what we find in
Systematic Theology where the tmths of the spkitual
1 See Chap. XXI.

286 THE PART PLAYED BY EXPERIENCE
kingdom are exhibited to us, arranged and classified
and expounded with scientific precision.
But we may. indeed, be glad, as I have said, that
the Bible is no Systematic Theology. As we read it
we are not in the botanical museum with its labeUed
specimens cut from the root and dried, dissected, and
analysed, from which the vital force has long since
departed and which appeal only to our scientific inter
est. But we have passed from the close atmosphere
of the museum into the open air and we find our
selves in an enchanting country-side. Correctness
and classification and proportion are aU forgotten,
but everywhere there is life, expressing itself in reck
less profusion. The green and elastic turf is under
our feet, the blue sky is above our head, the sun shines
with unclouded brilliance and when we wiU we may
turn with relief to the shadow of the trees, the music
of waters is in our ears, the breath of heaven upon
our cheeks, the glad song of the birds wakes an echo in
our hearts. We wander hither and thither, not
anxiously hurr5dng or fearful that we may miss our
way, for hterature has no better country than this
to offer us and the loveUness enchants us whichever
way we turn.
Such a treasured possession able to bestow at
all times, if we are rightly receptive, such enjoyment
upon us. is our sacred Book. And such it is because
God in His wisdom has not followed the method we
should naturally have expected Him to take. His
ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts
than our thoughts. Where we should have expected
a Systematic Theology He has given us His living
Word, living none the less because human emotion
and experience have played their part in its creation.

CHAPTER XV
REVELATION AND ITS RECORD
The very nature of God demands that if He is to be
made manifest it must be by His own choice. In
scrutable in His inmost essence. He might have closely
shrouded Himself in the impenetrable darkness, aware
of all our thoughts and emotions, appointing our destiny
and moving us like pawns at His wiU, yet all the while
leaving us with no ray of light on the central mystery.
But a God whose inmost being is love desires by the
very necessity of His nature to communicate Himself
to His creatures. He must disclose the fact that He
is, and that He is concerned for their welfare ; and He
must seek to draw them into fellowship with Himself.
Yet He will tiot force His revelation too insistently
upon them, since He must draw out their own faculty
of response, granting enough to stimulate but not
enough to overwhelm. He gives that on which their
own minds may work and as their spiritual vision grows
more accustomed to increasing light, more and more
of the veil can be withdrawn. Most naturaUy we should
look for God to manifest Himself in the Universe.
And in truth Nature attests His stupendous power and
a skiU far beyond our thoughts to grasp. It reveals a
stern law of retribution against the transgressor, but
it speaks with an ambiguous voice on the question
which most nearly concerns us touching the goodness
and the love of God. In History also we see on the
287

288 REVELATION AND ITS RECORD
whole and in the long run the triumph of justice and the
downfaU of the oppressor. Yet we see too often how
History as weU -as Nature is red in tooth and claw.
the strong are triumphant, the weak trampled under
foot. But in human nature we see the emergence of
self-forgetting love, of readiness to sacrifice, not simply
in obedience to a blind instinct, but clearly seeing,
deliberately counting, and gladly accepting all the cost.
The universal existence of religion also testifies to a
nature made for God and thus to the nature of Him
who formed a creature capable of communion with
Him. Yet it is but a troubled and distorted reflection
of God that we see in the mirror of man's religions.
If God was to be known as He truly is and not as man
darkly conceives Him to be, it was necessary that God
Himself should take action ; and He revealed Himself
as we have seen through history and experience.
We can readily see great advantages gained by the
choice of history as the medium through which revela
tion came. This slow method enabled God to give a
natural, unforced manifestation of Himself, a gradual
unfolding of His character. His demands, and His aims.
His people learned to know Him through the deliverances
He wrought for them or the penalties He exacted for
their perversity. His inflexible righteousness. His un-
faihng grace. His imperious claim on their obedience,
His plans for them and through them for the world.
No doubt His essential nature. His relation to His
people. His designs for them were also made plain by
explicit declaration through the lips of prophet, of
lawgiver, of sage, and of poet. Indeed we might say
that the word and the act supplemented each other.
For the act needs to be interpreted that its fuU signifi
cance may be laid bare, and the word must be fiUed,
iUustrated and guaranteed by action that it may be-

REVELATION AND ITS RECORD 289
come a concrete living reality. A mere description is
entirely inadequate. Better than good news about
God is God Himself. That such a revelation should be
slow Ues in the nature of the case. It had to be com
municated on the large scale of a national history
stretching over many centuries. Yet it may be asked.
Why so slow, and stiU more why so limited in the range
of those to whom it was addressed ? Ought not love
to have moved more swiftly to its end and caught all
nations in its universal embrace ? It is to many a
great difficulty that in a world so dark there should
have been just this one centre of iUumination, and that
even in this selected area it should have burnt for long
with such feeble and intermittent flame. But this
Ues largely in the nature of the case and is in line with
what we learn from God's working elsewhere. He selects
nations for this task or that, not because they are His
favourite peoples but that through them all nations
may be blessed. And revelation involves something
more than the uttering of trath. it must secure the true
understanding of it. Education is needed to train its
recipient in appreciation and response, and this involves
a long process. Love must be patient if it is to be
thorough, slow if it is to succeed in being sure. What
lends much of its force to the difficulty created by God's
apparent slackness is the feeling, which it is to be
trusted we have outgrown, that the eternal destiny of
men is involved in their knowledge of the way of
salvation. If it were indeed true that every tick of the
clock registered the irretrievable doom of an immortal
soul, then at aU hazards one might say the revelation
must not tany, no soul could be left unwarned of the
perU or uninformed as to the way of escape. But since
it is quite incredible that God should thus deal with His
creatures we need not aUow ourselves to be influenced
B.O. 19

290 REVELATION AND ITS RECORD
by such an objection. He and they have eternity before
them. He could therefore choose that method of
revelation which best suited the end He desired to
attain. And this was most adequately secured by
the slow self-disclosure and self-communication to a
selected people in its history and in particular to
chosen spirits through their experience.
Now it is far from my purpose to deny that God
manifested Himself through history and experience
in other lands than Palestine and to other peoples than
Israel. Yet with the fuUest recognition of this, we
may none the less claim that Israel was taken out from
the nations for this purpose that it might be definitely
trained by the Spirit to reveal the true God to the
world. Other nations had other functions, for Israel
this supreme function was reserved. Alike in the fact
that it said greater, deeper, truer things about God and
rehgion, and in that reUgion was in it a speciaUy guided
development with the Gospel in view aU along as its
climax, the choice was vindicated. In the case of
other peoples we have not to do with quite the same
connected continuous movement nor does it issue
in the same result.
At this point then we raise the question of the
relation in which revelation stands to the Bible. We
have identified revelation so exclusively with the
Bible that only with difficulty do we recognize that in
the strict sense of the term revelation Ues behind the
Bible. In a sense we may say that it is only a
secondary revelation which we have in Scripture ; and
by this I do not mean simply that the written page is
the transcript of something which had previously been
in the mind of the writer. Obviously unless we think
of the inditing of Scripture as a kind of automatic
writing, in which the hand of the penman was used by

REVELATION AND ITS RECORD 291
the Holy Spirit, without any participation of the writer's
own consciousness or wUl, we must suppose that the
author had thought of ideas and fashioned the expres
sions before he committed them to paper. And pro
bably it would be generally agreed by defenders of the
strictest doctrine that the Biblical writer was in full
possession of his faculties and was conscious alike of the
ideas and of the words, before he actuaUy wrote them
down. But my meaning isnot that the written form
is secondary in the sense that the thought and expres
sion were in the mind before they were fixed in written
form. We make a fundamental mistake if we imagine
that revelation begins at the moment when the writer
takes up his pen and that its action is intermitted when
he lays it down. Far wider and deeper was it in
reahty. It took the whole history of the nation in its
sweep. It began with the fashioning of a people to be
the people of revelation. The selection and the training
of this people, its rehgious development, the land in
which it lived, the civihzation by which it was infiuenced,
the nations and tribes with which it came in contact,
whether in conflict or in friendly intercourse, or under
the direct guidance of God, shaped this instrament to
His hand. It was within the national life that the
Spirit was acting first of aU, slowly fashioning the
higher conception of God, training to a finer dehcacy
the spiritual and the moral sense. When as yet there
was but little or no written record the work of revela
tion was proceeding, ahke in the history of the nation
as a whole, in its specific religious institutions, and in
the consciences of elect spirits. To a certain extent
we might say that the revelation was independent of
writing altogether, but this would not be strictly true,
inasmuch as what was written in one age determined
to some extent the development which foUowed. But

292 REVELATION AND ITS RECORD
leaving that modification aside it would have been quite
conceivable that the revelation might have been
canied through from beginning to end without re
course to writing at any point. In other words
revelation does not necessarily imply a book religion.
Nevertheless it is obvious that if the revelation which
is thus conveyed is to bless wider circles and later genera
tions, it must not be left to oral transmission alone.
Unless it is protected by a written record it is bound
very soon to become conupt and almost unrecognizable.
For human memory is treacherous and it may make
vital additions and omissions, or garble to some extent
the sense of what is retained. Human inteUigence is so
limited that the meaning of the revelation might easUy
be largely missed. Even the testimony of the original
witnesses is in the nature of the case exposed to the
defects of incomplete and inaccurate observation,
bluned memory, and lack of precision in statement due
to imperfection in the faculty of expression. If then
the original witnesses write their story it is stiU a story
Umited by their powers of careful observation, veracious
memory and accurate expression. But if they faU to
write and their story is reported by some one who has
heard them, then we have to aUow once more for
partial observation, incomplete or mistaken recoUection,
and an expression which may by no means do justice
even to what has been faithfuUy remembered. But
suppose there were no writing at aU, then with every
oral repetition we should have to reckon with the
danger that the story would drift further and further
from the facts. The malign influences would play
upon the report, toning down here, exaggerating there,
distorting the proportions, changing the emphasis,
disturbing the order, mutUating the form, leaving out
here, introducing a foreign element there, untU quickly

REVELATION AND ITS RECORD 293
the original message would be changed out of aU
recognition. We may of course talk slightingly of
book reUgion, but it remains tme that writing alone
can guarantee us against the corrosive forces I have
enumerated even where there is no failure in good faith.
But we have to admit the possibility of deliberate
alteration in a theological or ecclesiastical interest, the
sharpening or invention of what was congenial, the
blunting or suppression of what had ceased to prove
acceptable. Scripture accordingly fixes for us in a permanent
form the record of the revelation and enables us to
trace the process which gave it birth. By its means
we can to no smaU extent put ourselves back into the
condition of those to whom the revelation was made
and apprehend its meaning more vividly and fuUy in
the hght of this knowledge. Prophecy as it was uttered
was the fleeting word, spoken for the immediate need,
striking, it might be, with tremendous impact on the
Usteners, bringing matters to an issue, forcing or re
solving a crisis, creating an epoch in political or re
Ugious Ufe. But it remained only in its effects, in
which it was soon merged and lost. But when writing
was called in as the supplement of speech, it caught
and fixed for ever the otherwise transient utterance.
Now for all time the relation of the prophetic word to
the effects it created was made clear, and thus its
eternal significance could be disengaged. Moreover
in some instances we have to aUow for the transforma
tion occasioned by transplantation into a new environ
ment. The very task of making the Gospel intel
Ugible to men of a totaUy different culture involved
some adaptation in the teUing. but a stUl deeper change
m the assimUation. It is therefore a matter for great
thankfulness that the Gospel history became fixed in

294 REVELATION AND ITS RECORD
writing to a large extent before it had been touched by
the Greek spirit to any appreciable degree. Apart from
the control of writing, the history would soon have passed
over into a legend, assuming aU manner of wild and
fantastic shapes, expressing all kinds of extravagant
or debased ideas. From an overgrowth so tangled one
might have despaired of extricating the genuine Gospel.
We need not concern ourselves with the taunt that ours
is a book religion, if by this it is intended that the classi
cal expression of our faith and the sources from which
we have learnt the story of its origin and early history
are permanently fixed for us in a hterary form. True,
the revelation might have been given through history
and experience and never entrusted to writing at aU ;
but apart from a perpetual miracle it is hard to see how
it could have been protected from far-reaching and
indeed vital misinterpretation. And what appUes to
any given section of Scripture appUes similarly to the
revelation as an organic whole. This wiU not seem to
us a sUght matter if once we have grasped the fact that
it is only when so discerned that its fuU significance is
to be understood. Scripture is a unity, not altogether
in the sense in which this quaUty has often been
claimed for it, but in. the sense that it brings before
us the history of a great connected movement which
culminated in the Gospel. But for the written record
the history of this movement, which it deeply concerns
us to understand, would have been hidden from us.
It may be urged, however, that this is an unduly
pessimistic estimate. It overrates, it will be said, the
place of the Bible. It undenatesthe hving witness of
the Church, its vigUant custody of the sacred truth and
the institutions through which that truth is conveyed
and appUed. In other words our case would not be so
bad if the Bible were to go, provided we had the Church

REVELATION AND ITS RECORD 295
as the continuous organ of the Holy Ghost, led by Him
into aU truth, continually testifying in its sacraments
to the great redemptive facts and communicating
through them its streams of redemptive energy. The
issue here raised goes to the roots of the difference
between Protestantism and the various types which
claim the title of CathoUcism. It is an issue which at
this point I do not desire to discuss. One may value
highly the coUective testimony of the Church and yet
recognize that with a divided Christendom such a
testimony is inevitably maimed and uncertain. The
institutions of the Church we may rightly prize, yet
they expound the mysteries of the religion in a form
which at the best is very general and patient of
divergent interpretations. And history warns us
how deeply corrupt, how sunk in sloth and ignorance
a Church may become, which relies for its purity of
faith or elevation of conduct on a sacramental system
divorced from Scripture. The facts themselves
and their true interpretation are presented to us
with far greater certainty and fulness in Scripture
than they can be in institutions. Moreover, as
experience abundantly proves, Scripture is among
the most valuable means of grace. For instruction
in the truths of our religion, for the buUding up of
Christian character, for warning and for disciphne,
for comfort and encouragement, for example and
inspiration, the Bible stands incomparable. We must
accordingly hold fast to the conclusion that it would
have been an irreparable loss if the revelation had not
been fixed in a written form.

CHAPTER XVI
THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
Our emphasis on the historical character of revelation
seems to involve us in a difficulty. For even the
historical books are very unhke what we might naturally
expect to find. It is not merely the difference between
ancient and modern ways of writing history that makes
them strange to us. The Hebrew writers are divided
by a deep gulf from the ancient classical historians.
It is far more difficult to write a satisfactory account
of Hebrew than of Greek and Roman history on the
basis of the literary sources alone, even when these
have been carefuUy sifted by the most competent
critics. And this first of aU on account of their incom
pleteness. The history of Israel is the chosen sphere
of Divine self-manifestation. We therefore approach
the Old Testament with the anticipation that here at
any rate great pains wiU have been taken to bring it
clearly and completely before us. And yet how far
it is from satisfying the tests which we have in our
minds ! We are surprised to observe how meagre is the
account of events which to the scientific historian would
be of the highest importance, while on the other hand
incidents which to him would seem quite trivial are
treated with great fulness of detail. Events of incalcu
lable importance to the historical development of the
nation may receive the barest mention, or may even be
completely ignored. Even the critical events are often
296

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 297
left in deep obscurity. The New Testament attaches
very much importance to Abraham in the history of
the reUgion. He receives the promise which is fulfiUed
in Christ ; justified by faith in that promise he becomes
the father of the faithful, the type of the believing
Christian. He is the fountain-head whence is derived
the people destined to be the channel through which
God communicated His grace to the world. Yet how
little we know about Abraham in some respects which
to the historian would seem very vital. If we can
trust the story of Chedorlaomer's expedition in Gen.
xiv., Abraham was a contemporary of Amraphel, who
is identified by several, though not by aU authorities,
with the famous Babylonian King. Hammurabi. But
this synchronism itself creates serious difficulties, and
notwithstanding aU that has been said, the historical ac
curacy of the nanative is stiU exposed to the gravest sus
picion (see pp. 177 f. ) . Accordingly in spite of the crucial
importance assigned to Abraham in the world's religious
history we cannot with any confidence place him in his
true historical context. And the same thing may be
said of the other patriarchs. From Abraham onwards, for
example, they are brought into relation with Egypt, and
yet owing to the indifference of the writers to precision
we are largely in the dark as to the period when the
Hebrew migration to Egypt took place. The same
vagueness characterizes the story of Moses and the
Exodus. As with Abraham. Jacob and Joseph, so here
we simply read of the Pharaoh or of the King of Egypt
with nothing to guide us as to the identification. The
consequence is that the greatest uncertainty hangs over
the chronology of the whole period. A large number of
theories are stiU put forward as to the identity of the
Pharaoh of the Oppression, the Pharaoh of the Exodus,
and the date when the Hebrews escaped from Egypt.

298 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
So far as I am able to judge, the safest view stiU appears
to be that Rameses II was the Pnaraoh of the Oppres
sion and his son Merenptah the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
But it must be frankly admitted that scholars of the
highest rank dissent from this view, though they
differ considerably from each other. Great uncer
tainly hangs also over the sequel. The Covenant with
Israel on which its rehgion was based was made at
Horeb or Sinai. But where the scene should be placed
has been the subject of long debate. Our estimate of the
pohtical conditions which the Hebrews found in Canaan,
vitally important as they were for the history of the
nation and its religion, depends on the view we form as
to the date of the Exodus, and is therefore itself very un
certain. The description of the period of the Judges is
such that no clear idea can be formed as to its duration,
or how the various incidents are related to each other
and to the whole. Even when we reach the period
of the monarchy we are constantly beset by
similar uncertainties and incompleteness. For the
historian it is often the incidental remarks on foreign
relationships which yield him the most valuable clues
to the reconstruction of the history. Some of the reigns
which must have meant most for the nation's develop
ment are passed over in a few verses, while whole chap
ters may be devoted to what seem but trivial anecdotes.
For example, the reigns of Omri and Jeroboam II were
momentous for the fortunes of the Northern Kingdom,
yet they are dismissed by the writer of Kings in a few
hues. In both cases the political conditions were
important for the religious development. Omri not
only brought to an end the feud with Judah, it is by
no means unhkely that he contracted the alhance with
Tyre which led to the setting up of Melkart, the Baal
of Tyre, as Yahweh's companion in the allegiance of

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 299
Israel, with aU the significance that attached to Elijah's
ever memorable protest. And the reign of Jeroboam
II was even more critical. The briUiant recovery of
Israel from the calamitous war with S5n:ia led to a period
of national expansion unmatclied since the time of
Solomon, the recovery of all its lost territory with enor
mous increase in wealth and luxury at home. The poli
tical and economic conditions were the direct occasion
whicli brought about the rise of the canonical prophets.
Yet it isonlybyreferenceto these that we can adequately
realize how important the period really was. And after
the downfall ofthe Jewish State the history becomes
stiU more incomplete. We know very little of the
conditions which prevailed during the exUe. After
the return under Cyrus it is only at a very few points
that the liistorians give us any light. We learn of the
return itself and the re-erection of the temple. Then
for about seventy years there is a blank, after which
we read of Ezra's first visit. Then silence once more
for a dozen years, and we learn of Nehemiah's mission
to Jerusalem and the introduction of the Law. At
this point, more than four hundred years before the
birth of Christ, the History of Israel, so far as the Old
Testament directly records it, comes to an end. And
yet these centuries were singularly important, for in
them we have the training of the people by the dis
ciphne of the completed Law ; the transformation of
prophecy into Apocalj^jse ; the downfaU of Persia ; the
conquests of Alexander whicli changed the face of the
world ; the subtle penetration of Jewish hfe by the
Greek spirit ; the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to root
out the Jewish religion ; the Maecabean rising and all
that followed it ; the creation of the Judaism into which
Jesus came. The epocli is one whose importance for
the history of Israel's reUgion and for Christianity itself

300 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
it would not be easy to over-estimate; yet the Hebrew
Bible gives us scarcely any information about it.
And the Gospel history exhibits the same remarkable
incompleteness when judged by our historical standards.
Only in Luke is there any attempt to relate the life
of Jesus to contemporary history. The practical
ornission from the story of the years which lay between
His infancy and His baptism ought perhaps not to be
emphasized in this connexion. But of the ministry
itself how httle we actuaUy learn ! Even the main
course of it is very obscure and stiU warmly debated.
And then how scrappy the story is I Long months at
a time are a complete blank to us, we have simply a
selection of incidents and discourses out of a very large
number, the majority of which have been inetrievably
lost to us. The length of the ministry is quite uncertain ;
where and how it was spent we know only in a very
fragmentary way; the Synoptists at least have no
chronology worth mentioning. They are careless
about time and place, the anecdotes are introduced in
the vaguest fashion with such phrases as ' in those days,'
' in a certain place,' ' on a certain mountain.' Very
Uttle is told us about the Apostles ; the evangelists have
no special interest in them save as their relations to the
central figure tend to set Him in a clearer hght. But
their interest even in Him is not that of a modem
biographer, and for the answer to many questions on
which he would have given us information we turn to
the Gospels in vain. And we are strack by the same
phenomena when we take up the Acts of the Apostles.
Luke has more interest in chronology than most New
Testament writers, but very important questions get no
answer, and were it not for references to persons or
events known to us from secular history we should be
in much greater perplexity than we are. We have no

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 301
satisfactory answer to the question how long an interval
elapsed between the death of Christ and the Conversion
of Paul, and the date of neither event can be fixed with
any certainty. GalUee had played a large part in the
ministry of Christ but of the Gahlean communities
after His death we hear practicaUy nothing. Even
the history of the Jerusalem Church is told us merely
in outhnes and fragments, and in the latter part of the
book only as it comes into connexion with the Pauhne
mission and the problems which it raised. Peter
disappears suddenly from the scene and our interest is
transfened to Paul. But even of him the account given
is very incomplete as a perusal of his Epistles quickly
shows. We should not know of the existence of his
Epistles, we should not know many of the auto
biographical details mentioned in the Epistles them
selves. We should form a different view of the Judaistic
controversy from that given us in the Acts of the
Apostles. Thus in the strict sense we cannot speak
of a hfe of Jesus or Paul. For a biography in the
ordinary sense of the term the materials do not exist.
Even an event so momentous for the history of Judaism
and Christianity as the Destruction of Jerusalem is not
recorded in the New Testament. Christ's predictions
of it are included, but no mention of their fulfilment is
made. Were it a matter of incompleteness simply it would
not be so grave. But our difficulties go much deeper
than the omissions and touch the accuracy of what we
are told in the Bible. And it can hardly be denied
by impartial students that the historicity in many cases
cannot be successfuUy maintained. Nor is it a question
here of minutiae and trivial detaU. The early nana
tives of Genesis are regarded by most scholars as
mythical or legendary in character. The more advanced

302 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
critics pass the same judgement on the patriarchal
history. Even those who contend for the historicity of
the patriarchs do so with large qualifications and re
serves. For my own part I am convinced that the
theory which sees in the patriarchal history a reflection
of the later national or tribal history breaks down in
application, and even less satisfactory are the attempts
to regard the patriarchs as originally deities, or explain
them by means of the astral mythology. Accordingly,
while I think it probable that certain stories which are
ostensibly personal are really tribal, I am constrained
to believe that some at least of the patriarchs are his
torical figures. Yet this carries us only a little way
towards the acceptance of the details. The double
accounts of what are apparently the same events warn
us at the threshold against too implicit a reliance on the
narratives, and the chronological inconsistencies to
which attention has been called in a previous chapter
show us that we are not dealing with literal history.
It is generaUy held that we are on firm historical ground
when we affirm the Egyptian bondage of Israel, its
Exodus under Moses, his creation of the nation on a
religious basis. But much in the story would not be
insisted on, and in particular the codes of laws would
be regarded as for the most part later than his time.
Nor is it readUy to be beUeved that the just emanci
pated slaves who left Egypt in haste had the materials
in their possession to make the splendid and costly
tabernacle described in the Priestly Document. Simi
larly with the narratives in Joshua, Judges, Samuel
and Kings. Even those who consider them to be largely
trastworthy wiU recognize not a Uttle which cannot be
strictly described as historical. A comparison of
Chronicles with the older history leads to an even
more unfavourable verdict. The Book of Esther is by

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 303
most scholars regarded either as a largely legendary
story with a historical kernel or as throughout un
historical with perhaps a mythical background.
There is no such agreement among critics on the
question of the New Testament. The difficulty is felt
most acutely with reference to the Fourth Gospel.
It might seem at first sight as if here the question of
historicity was largely bound up with that of authorship.
If the Gospel is the work of an eye-witness, then, it might
be argued, it comes to us with the fuUest credentials
and may be completely trusted as a record of actual
facts. If we judge it to be the work of one who
had no personal acquaintance with our Lord but was
far removed in time and place from the original
scene of the history, then we have not the same reasons
for regarding it as a firstrate historical source. Indeed
the negative verdict on its historical value has often
been made the determining factor in the repudiation
of apostoUc authorship. But recently there has been a
shifting in the centre of gravity. WhUe not so long ago
the chief alternatives were — ^The Gospel is the work of
an eye-witness and therefore historical, and The Gospel
is not historical and therefore cannot be the work of an
eye-witness, the problem of authorship whUe stUl a
burning one is now relegated by many to a subordinate
place. It is felt to be less crucial than the question of
historical value, so that whatever view we take of the
secondary it would be possible to adopt a different view
of the primary issue. Dr. Drammond, for example,
argues strongly for the apostoUc authorship but thinks
that the Gospel neither is, nor was intended to be, a
historical record. Thus the opinion we form on its
value as a historical source depends to some extent on
our judgment as to the character of the book.
Did the author mean us to understand him as writing

304 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
history or an interpretation of the Ufe and teaching of
Christ ? The question is not altogether a new one.
The Alexandrian theologians in the second and third
centuries considered that the Gospel was not to be
taken as at aU points literal history, but as aUegory.
Clement of Alexandria contrasts the Ssmoptists with
John, sapng that the former exhibited the bodUy
things, while the latter, inspired by the Spirit, produced
a spiritual Gospel, ' spiritual ' bearing the sense of
' aUegorical.' Origen stated this even more expUcitly,
affirming that where the writers could not combine the
allegorical and the literal sense, they prefened the
spiritual to the bodUy, the genuine spiritual being often
preserved, as one might say, in the bodily falsehood.
Even so rigidly orthodox and conservative a writer as
Epiphanius, noted for his hatred of heretics, said that
most of the things uttered by John were spiritual
things, the fleshly things had akeady been certified.
Dr. Drammond points out how essentiaUy different the
ancient, and specificaUy the Jewish, view of history was
from our own, and the question arises whether we are
justified in imposing our modern view touching history
on the New Testament Evangelist. Natursdly, to our
selves the suggestion contained in the accounts of the
Gospels by the ancient Christian Fathers is startUng, not
to say repeUent. For us history means that the events
took place exactly as they are described. Had we been
present we should have seen the events and heard the
words spoken just as they are recorded. If we could
transport our modern inventions back to the first
century, photography, the phonograph, and the cine
matograph would have matched down to the most trivial
detail the story as it stands recorded for us in the
Fourth Gospel. That is the demand made by the
twentieth-century reader, to which an inspired narra-

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 305
tive he says must conform. The question is. however,
whether we have any right to insist that our notions
of the proper way in which to write history were neces
sarily those that were followed by an evangelist writing
about the close of the first century for an audience
which was famiha!r with a wholly different conception
of history. Our problem is not what would the writer
have intended to convey by selecting such a mode of
narration in our own time, but what did he mean to
convey to those who understood history very differently
from ourselves. In view, then, of ancient historical
practice, in view also of the opinion widely entertained
in the Early Church, in view further of certain features in
the Fourth Gospel itself and its relation to the other
Gospels, I think the question should be regarded as
one for dispassionate inquiry rather than for dogmatic
assertion. I say this aU the more readily that my own
view of the Gospel is different. I have recently dealt
with the question in my New Testament Introduction
(pp. 205-209), and expressed my belief that the aUegori
cal interpretation cannot be accepted. That there is a
great deal of symboUsm in the Gospel I do not, of course,
deny, but I believe that the author intended his state
ments to convey facts as weU as truths. I think it ought
to be granted, however, that this is one of the points on
which opinions may legitimately differ, and that we
should not denounce the opposite view as inconsistent
with a recognition of the real inspiration of the book.
If it is conect to say that the Fourth Gospel is the Gos
pel of the Eternal we must not suppose that in his stress
on timeless realities the mystic who has expounded them
for us in this immortal work was indifferent to history or
to the actual questions which confronted the Church in
his own day. The latter were indeed his constant pre
occupation. His book was written not simply with
B.O, 20

3o6 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
an eye on the past which it describes but with an eye
on the present whose problems he desired to solve.
There were forces within and without the Churches
which he had to attack. There were those whose
adherence to the Gospel it was his desire to win. For
example, the reports of controversies with the Jews,
which seem to us so puzzling, were presumably included
because the author had the Jewish attack on the Gospel
to meet in the Church. The arguments which he
refuted were those employed at the close of the first
century. But it would be precarious to infer from this
that the author simply canied back the contemporary
controversy to the time of Jesus. Such arguments
may weU have been employed in the lifetime of Jesus.
It is well known that one of the great difficulties
which has been urged against the Fourth Gospel has
been the account it gives of the controversies between
Jesus and the Jews. This has rested largely though
not exclusively on the very different impression made
by the Synoptic Gospels. Even in the other Gospels
similar difficulties have been raised. It is therefore
very remarkable to see how the subject presents itself
to a Jewish scholar who is in a better position than most
Christian scholars for appreciating the appropriateness
and credibUity of the Gospel story. I quote the foUow
ing passage, which, coming from Mr. Israel Abrahams,
deserves the most respectful consideration. ' One of the
most remarkable facts about the writing of recent
Jewish critics of the New Testament has been that they
have tended on the whole to confirm the Gospel picture
of external Jewish life, and where there is discrepancy
these critics tend to prove that the blame lies not with
the New Testament originals but with their interpreters.
Dr. Giidemann, Dr. Biichler, Dr. Schechter, Dr. Chwol-
sohn. Dr. Marmorstein, have aU shown that the

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 307
Talmud makes credible details which many Christian
expositors have been rather inclined to dispute. Most
remarkable of aU has been the cumulative strength
of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable
to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth
Gospel, especiaUy in relation to the circumstances under
which they are reported to have been spoken. Much
more may be expected in this direction, for Jewish
scholars have only of late turned themselves to the
close investigation of the New Testament.' »
This quotation is very significant since the objections
to the historical accuracy of the Fourth Gospel have
rested very largely on the difference between the dis
courses it contains and those reported in the Sjmoptic
Gospels. I do not myself believe that the difference can
be completely bridged. In particular the phraseology
often bears the stamp of the evangelist and it is hard
to convince oneself that the discourses were spoken in
their present connected form by Jesus. Largely they
are the composition of the writer, but with the inclusion
of many utterances which had faUen from the Lord's
own hps.
It is not only in the discourseis that the divergence
from the Synoptists makes itself felt. The representa
tion of Christ's ministry differs very remarkably both
in its general course and the scene on which it was
mainly enacted. Matthew and Luke indeed scarcely
come into consideration at this point, inasmuch as it
is generally agreed that the representation of Mark Ues
at the basis of these Gospels. But Mark is itself very
fragmentary, it possesses no chronology to speak of and
it can by no means be taken for granted that it repro
duces with any approach to accuracy the actual devel
opment of Christ's public career. Accordingly the fact
1 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 181.

308 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
that with Mark the main scene of our Lord's ministry
is in Galilee should not necessarUy be held to condenm
as unhistorical the scheme which makes room for several
visits to Jerusalem, nor should the Johannine repre
sentation of the duration of the ministry be discredited
because from the Sjmoptists we should gather that it
lasted a little over a year. At certain points indeed some
of those who are very sceptical on the Johannine version
of the history recognize that it is superior to the
Synoptic and in particular this is the case with the
date of the Last Supper and the Cracifixion. Only
we must not forget that in case the documents are at
variance the rehabilitation of one would involve the
setting aside of the other. For our estimate of Scrip
ture the important point to observe is that even the
central documents of our faith are at variance on ques
tions of no Uttle moment for the reconstruction of the
Gospel history.
And this brings us to the question of the Synoptists.
In view of the widespread feeling that here if an3rwhere
we must look for trustworthy information, it becomes
a matter of great moment to determine how far we may
rely on the accuracy of the record. And it is undeni
able that there is cause for disquiet. Once again the
earliest Gospels are in the crucible. We have the
difficulties which lie on the surface. The birth stories
in Matthew and Luke differ very widely from each
other and can scarcely, even by the exercise of excep
tional harmonistic ingenuity, be made to dovetail into
each other. And still more difficult of reconciUation
are the stories of the resurrection, even if we limit
ourselves to the Synoptists and leave out of account
the evidence of Paul and John. The difficulties are
less acute with the Passion story but they are by no
means absent. And similarly with the report of the

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 309
words of Jesus. It is just in some of the most vital
points that the difference is most marked ; the beati
tudes, the Lord's Prayer, the words of institution at
the Last Supper, the words from the Cross. A more
minute investigation discloses a stiff larger range of
discrepancy. We can often, in fact, see how the dis
crepancy between Matthew and Luke in the threefold
tradition has arisen from their different handling of
the common source in Mark. And this shows that it
is not with independent information that we have to do,
from which we may supplement the account of Mark,
but with the transformation of the original material
in harmony with the evangelist's point of view. Not
necessarUy that this is always the case. It is quite
likely that at several points historical detaUs which
were either floating in the tradition of the Church or
fixed in writing, or derived from some eye-witness may
have come into the later Gospels, in particular Luke,
who appears to have investigated on his own account
and possessed in addition to Mark and Q a valuable
special source. But I could not deny that a consider
able element of uncertainty attaches to the features
in the Triple Tradition which are pecuhar to Matthew
and Luke. So far as the Double Tradition is concemed,
the coincidence between the sources is greater than in
the Triple Tradition. This of course is natural, inas
much as the report of speeches would vary less than
that of incidents, and presumably be more fuUy pro
tected by the sense of reverence. Yet, even here, as I
have already pointed out, there are striking differences
which Ue on the surface, and warn us against too
impUcit a trust in the uncriticized record. And in the
matter pecuhar to Matthew and Luke the scientific
historian is bound to a simUar caution, more fuUy
perhaps in the case of the First Gospel than in that of

310 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
the Third. Nor can we acquiesce in the position that
at any rate we have the rock beneath our feet when we
come to the Gospel of Mark. The fact that this is our
earUest source, while it entitles it to primacy does
not in itself wanant an indiscriminate acceptance of
its statements. The interval which lay between the
events and the composition of the Second Gospel was
probably not less than a quarter of a century and was
in aU likelihood more. It lies in the nature of the case
that during this period the sharpness of detail might
become bluned, the material might pass into new com
binations. The practical purposes for which the
incidents were narrated may have coloured them, the
conditions and problems of a later generation may have
been unconsciously read back into the Master's Ufe.
We might conceivably have also to lay our account with
deUberate transformation of the material in the interests
of a theory, as indeed Wrede caUs us to do in his work on
The Messianic Secret in the Gospels.
Now aU these conditions warn us that historical
accuracy must not be claimed for the Bible to the
extent that was once considered essential. We must
in fact be prepared to admit that the unhistorical
elements in it are more considerable than many who
would repudiate the doctrine of verbal inspiration have
yet realized. No doubt what really prevents many
from frankly recognizing this is the feehng that if once
they relax the rigid doctrine of inenancy they wiU be
able to find no secure basis on which to rest. If once
they admit the presence of error, with what confidence,
they ask, can they turn to the Bible assured that they
have in it a faithful record of the essential facts or an
infaUibleJguide in faith or conduct ? Some even go so
far as to teU us that it is aU or nothing with them, a
proved error in Scripture would invaUdate the whole.

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 311
This extreme position is barely rational. ^ No one would
dream of handling any other history or hterature in that
way. No one would contend that, because the begin
nings of Greek and Roman history are fuU of legends,
we cannot therefore accept the later history as accurate
or beUeve in the historical existence of Alexander the
Great or JuUus Caesar. There is much both in the
Old and the New TestEunent which is accepted as
genuine history by extreme critics who have not
completely lost touch with reality or bidden adieu to
historical sanity. Moreover I must remind those who
insist on the highest doctrine of Scripture that no one
can precisely say what Scripture contains. I have
already dwelt on this in what I have said with
reference to Textual Criticism and the growth and
definition of the Canon. There is the greatest uncer
tainty as to the trae text of innumerable passages of
Scripture some of which are of grave theological
importance. Even now Christendom is by no means
united on the very important question as to what
books should be included in the Canon. Accordingly
it is not possible for us even to define with any approach
to certainty the Uterature for which infalUbUity is
claimed. 1 Compare what Martineau says on this point : " Thus
to stipulate for everything or nothing, and fling away what
ever is short of your fancied need, is the mere wa3nvardness
of the spoUt child : it is a demand absolutely at variance
with the mixed conditions of any possible communion between
perfect and imperfect natures. Not heaven itself can pour
more or purer spiritual gifts into you than your immediate
capacity can hold ; and if the Holy Spirit is to ' lead you into
all truth,' it wiU not be by saving you the trouble of parting
right from wrong, but by the ever keener severance of the evil
from the good through the strenuous working of a quickened
mind." (The Seat of Authority in Religion, 2nd ed., p. 288.)

312 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
The question, however, is not, Have we everything in
a form on which we can entirely rely ? but Have we
as much as is necessary for our vital beliefs ? Criticism
might no doubt eat away the historical foundations
until they were at once too narrow and too fragUe to
bear the weight of our religion or make room for it in all
its length and breadth. But while criticism may have
introduced an element of uncertainty into the BibUcal
narrative enough remains to form a secure historical
foundation for Christianity. So far as the story of the
Old Testainent is concemed we may cheerfuUy aUow
the presence of myth in the earlier and of legend in the
later sections. The main hues along which the nation
developed are nevertheless quite clear, so too are the
intimate relations in which the reUgion stood to the
history. We can make out enough to be assured
that here we have a guided development which moves
on with steady march to its culmination in the Gospel.
And in the New Testament this is even more the case.
The fuU recognition that the story even in the Synoptic
Gospels is not aU on the same level of accuracy and
that into the oldest sections of it inaccuracy may have
entered, does nothing to discredit the central facts.
Strained harmonistic devices are distasteful to those
who abide in a region where petty discrepancies
cannot rise to ruffle the cahn. Their hold on the
essential trutlj of the history is too firm for their grip
of it to be shaken by the nervous tremors which un
settle the faith of more timid and anxious souls.
What we reaUy need is first of aU an assurance as to
these central facts, secondly a vivid impression of the
personality, and thirdly an authentic report of His
message. And we are not hmited to the Gospels in our
attempt to discover these. We have the evidence of the
PauUne Epistles, many and perhaps aU of them probably

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 313
written before our Gospels had been compiled. These
ELSSure us of the facts apart from which the religion could
not Uve. They contribute, it is true, comparatively
little to our knowledge of Christ's teaching. It might
seem that we learn comparatively little from them as
to the character of Jesus. But quite apart from the
explicit references, which while incidental are signifi
cant, we must aUow not a Uttle for the impression of
Christ reflected in the ideal of Christian character
sketched in Paul's great ethical passages. His own
character had been profoundly transformed by his con
tact with Christ, and it was with no visionary Christ
of his own fancy, the projection of his own ethical ideal.
The Christ of his faith was no abstraction of theology
but fiUed with a living content by his famiharity with
the Jesus of history. Thus Paul conoborates the
impression made upon us by the Gospels. Even if
negative criticism refused us the use of the Synoptic
Gospel, we could make out a substantial case from
the four Epistles which the Tiibingen' criticism left
us.. And when we turn to the Gospels themselves we do
weU to trust the immediate impression which they
make upon us. Schmiedel has argued that we can
infer with certainty the historical existence of Jesus
from the presence in the Gospels of things which cannot
have been invented. In view of the fact that reverence
for Jesus tended more and more to obUterate the
features in the tradition which accentuated His human
limitations we may be quite sure that passages of this
kind point to the existence of a man, whom by succes
sive stages His foUowers exalted to Divine rank. Of
course those who hold that the Christian religion grew
out of a pre-Christian cult of a Jewish god Jesus,
explain these passages in a diametricaUy opposite way.

314 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
finding in them the last stages in the humanization of
this Divine being and denying altogether that Jesus of
Nazareth ever existed at aU. As this view needs no
discussion at the present point we may recognize the
vaUdity of Schmiedel's principle, that features of this
kind cannot have been invented, since they created
difficulties for the growing reverence of the Church
and we can stiU observe the tendency to explain
them away at work. Perhaps it should be expUcitly
said, in view of the strange misunderstanding to the
contrary, that Schmiedel had no intention of affirming
that these passages alone survive a searching scientific
criticism. On the contrary he fuUy recognized the
existence of much besides that was genuine. The nine
passages which could not have been invented, served
him as a criterion by which to test the authenticity
of the rest. They were, however, picked out with a
prejudice. Holding a purely humanitarian doctrine
of Christ's Person, he made too arbitrary a selection of
the nine foundation piUars on which the stracture was
to be reared, the interpretation was occasionaUy
strained, and certainly he did not bring out the features
which were most characteristic. If we read the
Gospels and permit them to make their direct impres
sion upon us, there is a very large element in them
which authenticates itself to us as impossible of inven
tion. This is peculiarly the case with many of the
words of Jesus. They bear unmistakably His inimit
able stamp. But the incidents also constantly carry
with them their own guarantee, at least to minds that
are not too much sophisticated by the over-suspicious
scrutiny which is always asking what tendency has
been at work, what motive has led to the shaping of
the story in this form ? The very triviality of some
of the incidents bespeaks our favourable consideration.

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 315
these can never have been invented for they would
have been less homely and more dignified. But for our
purpose they are often most valuable. It is just these
, Uttle touches which are the most characteristic and
reveaUng. The greatness of a man is not always best
measured by his handling of a great situation, for there
the very occasion is a chaUenge and may make him
for the time nobler and greater than himself. His
greatness is sometimes more vividly seen in httle
affairs, where he is not conscious that he has a great
part to play, but just acts as he is. He is not then
posing in fuU uniform for the painter, but caught all
unawares in undress by the photographer. It would
be foohsh then to complain that at times through
their very trivialities the Gospels f aU below the dignity
of their subject, they are in the very nanatives against
which such complaint might be urged making an
invaluable contribution to our knowledge of the
Person. Nor must we forget that for our Lord's ministry we
have at least two sources which we may fairly regard
as first-rate, Mark and Q. I should go further and
claim for some of the special matter in Luke a rank
very Uttle, if at aU, inferior. Moreover, I beUeve that
the Fourth Gospel contains a certain amount of first-
rate historical matter. But, waiving these two latter
sources, Mark and Q, by general if not universal consent,
do give us largely trustworthy inf ormation, or at least
are sources from which not a httle historical matter may
be derived. Opinion is divided as to whether either
of the writers was acquainted with the work of the
other. But whether we argue for such acquamtance or
believe, as I am inclined to do, that they are independ
ent, they at least m aU probabiUty represent different
currents of tradition. At several points they coincide.

3i6 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
but owmg to the fact that one is largely narrative the
other almost entirely discourse, the range of coincidence
is naturaUy much less than it otherwise might have
been. Still the two documents give a harmonious
picture of Jesus, though the impression we should
derive from either alone might be different from that
given by the other, just as the two eyes combine to
give a single representation of the object, though each
of them acting independently would place it in a
different position.
Moreover we must insist that an effect demands an
adequate cause. Even were much more in the Gospels
than is at aU Ukely, the creation of the primitive
Church rather than of Jesus, yet the primitive Church
was His creation and what it achieved was due to the
impulse which He and no other gave. And indeed the
same is true of Christianity as a whole. It is ho in
vincible prejudice which causes one to read the
elaborate demonstrations that Jesus never Uved with
out feeling that they reaUy shake the ground on which
our faith in His historical existence rests.
It is sometimes said that we ought to approach the
fresh discussion of a subject with an open mind, and in
a sense such a demand is legitimate. We ought, in
other words, to be ready to revise our dearest behefs if
adequate reason should be offered. But if it means
that we are to enter upon a discussion of this kind with
out strong initial bias in favour of our own views, then
I must disclaim any attempt to reach a standard of this
kind. When one has been engaged in the investigation
of the subject for a good number of years and has reached
definite conclusions with reference to it, he approaches
the attempt to overthrow long-estabUshed conclusions
with a readiness to hear and to weigh what can be said
for the new position, but with very Uttle expectation

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 317
that the writer wiU be successful in the enterprise.
He approaches it with the long-held and carefuUy-
tested arguments for his own position in his mind, and
he knows that the author must not simply bring forward
ingenious and plausible arguments for his position, but
that he must dislodge his reader from his entrench
ments. It is quite easy to heap together parallels to
this detail or that, especiaUy if one is unfamihar with
the language or the reUgion from which the parallels
are drawn, if one ventures on equations with an
audacious disregard for the laws of Comparative
PhUology, or is indifferent to taking paraUels where
one can find them, from Greenland to Patagonia
and from China to Peru. It is quite easy to let bold
affirmation take the place of strict, methodical and
scientific investigation. It is quite easy, as Whately's
Historic Doubts showed, to point out glaring
improbabilities in what every one knows to be un
questionable fact. But what is not easy is to write
an account of the origin of Christianity from which
the Person of Jesus is left out and to make it plausible
even to those who have been impressed by ingenious
manipulation of paraUels with other religions. It is not
easy to explain how the figure of Jesus was invented
or even grew^up by mj^hical accretion into the creation
which has for many centuries seemed to an innumer
able multitude, and these in many instances themselves
not Christians, to embody alike the human and the
Divine ideals. Nor yet is it easy to explain how
Christianity, handicapped as it was in many ways,
should have had the career which has been accorded to
it, or won the position which it has attained. That a
petty Jewish Messianic sect, despised and cast out by its
own people and weighted with what must have seemed
the grotesque absurdity of proclaiming as its Leader

3i8 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
one who had died on the cross ^ and risen from the dead,
should have gained its amazing triumph is an
insoluble puzzle apart from the impact of the person
ality of Jesus Himself.
And when we turn from those extremists who deny
the historical existence of Jesus to those scholars who
heartily accept it but refuse to admit that He
transcended the limitations of our humanity, we have a
simUar feehng that the effect is too great for the cause.
Either we feel that the facts as presented by the
writers distend their cramped formulae to bursting
point, and we reahze how deep-seated is the prejudice
against the CathoUc doctrine which necessitates the
violent pressure to which the facts are exposed ; or we
are left wbndering how. if Jesus was no more than
the rather commonplace reformer and martyr whose
acquaintance we have made in their pages. Christianity

1 We cannot account for the form which Jewish Messianic
doctrine assumed in Christianity apart from the fact of the
Crucifixion. It is possible that in the first century of our era a
doctrine of a suffering Messiah may have been current in Juda
ism, though no adequate evidence for this has been offered, but
the mode of death was such that no Jew could ever have attri
buted to a Messiah. Crucifixion was an accursed death, and
brought the victim under the ban of God's Law. We can see
what a dif&culty it presented to the early Christians themselves.
Propagandists of a new faith do not invent gratuitous diffi
culties, and while the message of a crucified Messiah was fool
ishness to the Greeks, it was a grave and in many instances an
insuperable stumbUng-block to the Jews. There are many
other arguments which seem to me quite conclusive, but until
this particular argument is met, one would be justified in con
sidering oneself as dispensed from further troubling about the
matter. For a fuUer development of the argument I may refer
to the lecture ' Did Jesus Rise Again ? ' in which I first put it
forward, also to Christianity : Its Nature and Its Truth,
pp. 156-158.

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 319
ever got away sufficiently to outdistance aU its rivals
in competition for the aUegiance of the most progressive
nations in the world. But if from the effect we argue
back to the personaUty then our estimate of the per
sonaUty reacts on our valuation of the nanative.
Much which might be set aside as mythical or deemed to
be legendary excrescence on a slender historical nucleus
assumes another aspect when we consider who He was
of whom these things are told. These scholars, in fact,
leave us at the end much unassaUable tenitory, from
which we may proceed to reconquer not a Uttle that
they have abandoned to the enemy.
It is very signfficant how from so many sides we are
being forced back to a study of Jesus. It is not the
theologian only, nor even the members of Christian
Churches, who take their profession seriously, for whom
Jesus constitutes an object of deep and abiding interest.
The rumour that from the sands of Egj^t some new
fragments of His utterances have been discovered
arouses widespread notice even among those who are
not identified with religion at all. Those who are
interested in the social and political problems of our
time, or in its deep ethical questions, are eager to know
what Ught the words of Jesus cast upon these. Where
the churches have lost the confidence of the people, the
name of Jesus stUl excites enthusiasm. And all who
are alive to the enormous place that Christianity has
fiUed and is Ukely to fiU in the history of the world
recognize how important it is that we should under
stand the hfe and character and teaching of Him who
gave the first impulse to the movement. But then the
question comes. How are we to assure ourselves that we
know Him aright ? We cannot foUow the suggestion of
those who would lay claim to a mystical knowledge of
Jesus such as would release them from the need of

320 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
historical study. To reconstruct the character of Jesus
from our inward experience of Him is a pursuit which
can lead only to disappointment. The Christ of faith
is identical with the Jesus of history, but unless we
wish to create a Christ of our own imagination we
must not cut ourselves loose from the Jesus of the
Gospel story. And therefore we must go back to the
documentary sources and gain our knowledge in the
first instance from these.
It is thought by some that the early Christians were
concemed but httle with the memories of Christ's
earthly life. They were too conscious of His presence
with them in the Spirit, too absorbed in the expecta
tion of His visible return on the clouds of heaven to
spare time for reflection on the past. But what are
we to make of the existence of our Gospels ? Do they
not testify to the existence of a historical interest
in the Early Church ? I grant, of course, that they
are not history in our sense of the term ; on that I
do not need to repeat what I have already said. But
we can see that there was a section in the Early
Church keenly interested in detaUs of our Lord's
Ufe and teaching, otherwise we should have had no
Gospels at all. It was because a healthy instinct saved
the Church from separating the historical Jesus from
the glorified Christ that Gospels began to be written.
It is tme that these Gospels in their present form are
later than the Pauhne Epistles. Our earUest narrative,
the Gospel of Mark, belongs probably to the sixties,
and when it was written Paul had passed away. But
this Gospel embodied the reminiscences of Peter, and
not reminiscences, be it observed, that he communicated
to Mark privately, but reminiscences which formed
much of the staple of his pubhc discourses. In other
words, not only was Peter interested, £is would be

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY 321
natural, but there was a widespread interest among his
hearers in these matters. Perhaps even earher than
this, Matthew had composed in Aramaic his collection
of the sayings of Jesus which are now embodied in our
first and third Gospels. And here again we must
suppose that a long-standing interest has found hterary
expression. In view of these facts, to which I may add
the reference to the numerous attempts at writing
Gospels mentioned by Luke, it seems unreasonable
to argue that the early Christians thought little of the
Ufe or teaching of Jesus when He was with them on
earth. We have had many Lives of Jesus within the last
century. To mention only a few of the more out
standing, we have had the works of Strauss and others
dehberately designed to shatter faith in the correctness
of the Evangelic records ; Neander's counter-life for
which Strauss proposed the biting motto, ' Lord, I
believe, help thou mine unbelief ' ; the famous work
of Renan designed to interpret Jesus, but misreading
Him vitaUy through his own limitations ; Keim's
fesus of Nazara, noblest of aU the rationalistic Lives
of Jesus, if indeed ' rationahstic ' be not too unjust an
epithet ; the laborious work of B. Weiss resting on a
criticism more sound than that of Keim, and with a
mastery of New Testament scholarship few have been
able to rival, the work withal of a believer. But from
the best of our biographers — critical, painstaking,
iUuminating though they may be — we turn back to the
Gospels with relief. With aU the best resources of
modem scholarship and literary skiU we have nothing
that can be mentioned in the same breath with these
wonderful books. They are simple, unpretentious,
unadorned ; they are without the graces of style and
expression and rely for their gift of enchantment on
8.0. o I

322 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY
nothing but the fascination of their story. Some
things which they teU us seem but of trivial importance,
while on other matters of great moment the record is
bald and meagre, or perhaps they are silent altogether.
Even the words of Jesus are not preserved to us in their
original form, they are but a translation into Greek
of His. Aramaic discourses. And yet in spite of all
these grave limitations, made graver still for the
ordinary Christian, that he must be content with an
inadequate translation into English, where in all
literature have we anything that vies for its magic
power with these plain and simple narratives ? It was
no genius, in the authors of the first three Gospels at any
rate, which endowed these writers with their quahties.
it was rather the Figure of whom they spoke that
turned these commonplace men into the creators of
the most vital hterature the world has known.

CHAPTER XVII
THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
One of the gravest problems wiU be felt by many to lie
in the realm of Biblical Theology. It is created partly
by a comparison with the institutions and ideas
of other peoples, partly by the divergence which
seems to exist within the Bible itself. Instead of a
Divine revelation incomparable and unique, wholly
heavenly in its origin and protected against foreign ad
mixture, we have innumerable links of connexion
with the ritual, the laws, the religions of other
peoples. The isolation, which seemed to set in
solitary splendour the Bible and the revelation that it
enshrined, appears to have passed away, and now it
stands in the judgment of many as just one member,
even though it may be the most important in a series of
sacred books. And to the loss of uniqueness we must
add a loss of unity, and that not only between the Old
Testament and the New but within the Old Testament,
while within the New Testament itself we have to recog
nize the presence of divergent points of view.
We cannot escape from the former difficulty by deny
ing the intimate connexion with the foreign environ
ment. The average man is inclined, when he thinks of
coincidences between the Bible and the literature or
customs or religious ideas of another people, to assume
that the originahty Ues with the Bible and the indebted
ness on the other side. Thus I have heard a missionary
323

324 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
express his conviction that the people among whom he
laboured must at some time have been under Hebrew
influence because he found notions and customs pre
valent amongst them which are famihar to us from the
Book of Leviticus. But these very notions and cus
toms are far too ancient and too widely spread for
such an explanation to be tenable. They are found
existing among the remotest peoples, separated from
the main stream of progress for many thousands of
years and dissociated both from each other and
from the Hebrews. Those who knew ancient history
simply from the Bible not unnaturaUy thought of
the Hebrews as one of the oldest nations of antiquity,
but now we know that they were a very young
nation. Great empires and advanced civUizations
had existed for thousands of years before the time
of Moses, and both he and the people whom he formed
into a nation drew on resources of foreign origin.
Their debt to Egypt was trifling at the best, but their
debt to Babylonia was conspicuous. We need not fall
into the extravagance of regarding Israel as httle better
than an inteUectual and religious province of Baby
lonia, but the coincidences between the Babylonian and
the Hebrew stories of the Creation and the Deluge and
those between the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of
the Covenant show clearly that what has been almost
universally regarded as communicated to man by
Divine revelation had its close counterpart in
Babylonian myth and legislation. We may speak of
direct borrowing on the part of the Hebrews, or in view
of the differences we may prefer to suppose that they
and the Babylonians were alike indebted to a common
source. The important point for our particular purpose
is that far-reaching coincidences exist.
Moreover when we study the Hebrew ritual which has

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 325
often been regarded as given to prefigure the mysteries
of the Christian faith we are confronted with the same
problem. It was not indeed reserved to our own time
to point out the difficulties inherent in the interpreta
tion of the religious institutions of Israel as S3nnbols of
the facts recorded and the theology expounded in the
New Testament. John Spencer, the learned theologian
of Cambridge, whose massive and masterly work on the
Ritual Laws of the Hebrews has received the highest
praise from our greatest Old Testament scholars, has a
pungent passage in which the objections to this mode of
explanation are incisively stated.
" For who that has a Uttle ounce of brain can persuade him
self that God has appointed so many and manifold rites in
order to represent the few and simple mysteries of Christianity ?
or has wished to use those shadows and figures for foreshadow
ing the Gospel facts, which are so obscure and uncertain in
meaning, that no one has been skilled enough hitherto to unseal
their mystical senses by any sure method ? What mystery
underlay that precept about throwing the intestines and
feathers of birds away only on the east side of the altar ?
What mystery was intended by the fact that eucharistic offer
ings were to be accompanied by unleavened bread ? that the
hair of the Nazarite should be burnt beneath the cauldron in
which the sacrificial flesh was cooked ? that a red cow should
be slaughtered by way of expiation ? and not to speak of many
other things that at the Feast of Tabernacles thirteen buUs
should be slain, on the second day twelve, on the third eleven,
and so on down to seven, which were to be presented on the
last day ? These and many other institutes of the Law do
not present the least shadow of a more secret meaning or of
anything mysterious to be wrung from them even by torture.
I know that the genius of an alchemist can extract something
spiritual from the most arid rite and tum the tiniest detail of
the Law into a sacrament ; but we should be very cautious
when endeavouring to lay bare the inner senses of the Law that
we are not mistaken, and take a cloud to our bosoms instead of
Juno, a figment of our own brains instead of a divine mystsry."

326 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
His own derivation of the Mosaic system from foreign
sources hit the mark in principle, though naturaUy
at the time when it was written the vast accumulation
of facts gathered by the students of Comparative
Rehgion and Anthropology was as yet unknown, so
that learned though the book was, the tme source
for many of the Hebrew customs was not rightly
stated. Now thanks to the epoch-making researches
and theories of such scholars as Robertson Smith and
WeUhausen the real state of the case is before us in
a much clearer hght. We see that the Hebrews
drew largely on the common stock of Semitic custom
best preserved for us among the Arabs. But this
went back in many cases to a type essentiaUy savage.
The ideas of holiness and uncleanness ahke spring
out of the primitive conception of taboo. Sacrifice
was a rite of immemorial antiquity, probably in its
origin a communal feast between the deity and his clan,
crade, repulsive, and it may be cruel, as the reUgious
customs of primitive peoples often are. The Hebrew
institutions may be traced from them by lineal descent.
The question accordingly arises whether we can still
continue to claim a Divine origin for them.
It is not a matter, however, of law and ritual alone,
even the ideas are said to have a close affinity in many
respects with what we find among heathen peoples.
And this affects not the Old Testament only but the
New. It is true that the Hebrew people did not present
a sheet of white paper on which the Holy Spirit wrote
the heavenly message. It was rather like a palimpsest,
that is one of those manuscripts on which beneath the
document at present inscribed upon them we can detect,
and by a chemical reagent make legible, a writing stiU
more ancient. Ideas with reference to God, the uni
verse, man, the future, were a part of the spiritual

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 327
possession of the Hebrew people when it first became
conscious of its existence as an independent nation.
Thus when the Spirit went forth to sow the seed of the
Kingdom. He did not cast it into virgin soU. It
needed no enemy to sow darnel among the wheat, rank
growths sprang from the ground itself and competed
with tenacious obstinacy in the struggle for survival.
Even a phenomenon so characteristic of the religion as
prophecy has its affinities in heathen rehgion. The
tribal or national character of Yahweh with its coroUary
that His interests and those of Israel were identical.
was a firm conviction among the Israelites and all the
protests of the prophets never succeeded in eradicating
their belief in the favouritism of heaven. The pagan
estimate of ceremonial as of like importance with
morahty was also most difficult to extirpate in Israel.
The greater part of the Old Testament ritual is essen
tially heathen in character. It is possible that for its
higher doctrine of the future life Judaism owed some
thing to Zoroastrianism and that religion has left its
mark on the Jewish doctrine of angels and demons. It
is argued by some that the Messianic hope of Israel and
its expectation of a Kingdom of God were derived from
Pagan sources. ''
And whUe the New Testament has escaped some of
these cradities of the Old, we cannot ignore the sus
picion that in its apocalyptic and eschatology, its doc
trine of angels and demons, it drew upon a Judaism
which was in these respects itself dependent on foreign
sources. This seems to be quite clear, for example,
with reference to the section on the heavenly woman,
the dragon and the man chUd in the twelfth chapter
of the Revelation, where a piece of Jewish Messianic
theology has been incorporated, which presents us with
a transformed version of a widespread heathen myth.

328 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Not the Apocalypse alone, however, in this and in other
passages, but other parts of the New Testament, exhibit
similar features in their eschatology, and we have to
make allowance for factors here which had Uttle, if any,
influence on the Old Testament. It is stiU a much
debated point whether the teaching of Paul was
moulded in any way by Greek thought or Greek reU
gion. Some scholars assert far-reaching coincidences
with Stoicism, while the Greek mystery cults are
supposed to have profoundly affected his sacramental
theories and even his doctrine of salvation. PersonaUy
I am very dubious about this, but in principle I can raise
no objection to the recognition of such influences. For
it can be asserted with confidence that the conception of
the two ages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the
heavenly archetjTpes which are copied in this lower order,
goes back through the Jewish theology of Alexandria
to the phUosophy of Plato. And it is probable that the
doctrine of the Logos in the Fourth Gospel has a foreign
rather than a Jewish origin. This doctrine also may
come through the Jewish school of Alexandria from
Greek philosophy, though possibly the Hermetic writ
ings may give us the clue to its origin. But in any case
it is to Gentile rather than to Jewish thought that its
origin is in the last analysis to be traced. And even
where we are not driven back behind Judaism for the
origin of New Testament doctrine it is frequently to
Jewish ideas which are not present in the canonical
hterature of Israel. And this may affect the teaching
of Jesus Himself, in particular on its apocalyptic side
which has recently been forced into such promin
ence. This brings me to the tendency represented by a
large and increasing number of eminent scholars,
especially in Germany, to explain Christianity largely

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 329
out of the complex environment in which it originated.
The method adopted by such scholars as Gunkel,
Bousset, Heitmiiller, Chejme, and Pfleiderer is to bring
together parallels to the Gospel narratives or to the
beliefs of the Apostolic age from aU manner of sources.
Greece, Asia Minor, Babylon, Persia and in some cases
even India are supposed to have contributed. Now no
objection can be made to this tendency, but simUar
attempts in other fields warn us all too clearly that the
method must be employed with the utmost caution.
A long and thorough discussion wiU be necessary before
the new suggestions can be really available for the
reconstruction of Primitive Christianity. The need for
caution is of course admitted, even by some of the
extremer representatives of the method. For example.
Pfleiderer in his ' Early Christian Conceptions of Christ '
gives a statement on this very point which is excellent
so far as it goes, though I could have wished that his
cautions had been even more emphatic in enforcement
and more stringently observed in application. If one
examines his paraUels, while it must be recognized that
they are in some cases remarkable, what is reaUy
impressive is the fact that the differences outweigh the
resemblances. For example the stories of the child
hood of the Buddha which he quotes contrast strongly
in their extravagance with the sobriety of the infancy
nanatives in the New Testament. How different from
the latter is the story of Buddha crying out immediately
after his birth with the voice of a hon : ' I am the
noblest, the best thing of the world ! This is my last
bkth ; I wiU put an end to birth, to old age, to sick
ness, to death ! ' The same apphes to much that
foUows. It is more instructive stiU perhaps to study this ten
dency in a form yet more extreme, and an exceUent

330 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
example may be found in Grant AUen's The Evolution
of the Idea of God. Of course one could not put the
author in the same class with Pfleiderer as an authority
on Philosophy, the History of ReUgion, the Bible or
Christian Theology. But his work has been widely
circulated and it is typical of a movement which is
attracting increasing attention. He was a man of wide
culture and varied interests. Science and phUosophy,
fiction and rehgion, all in tum commanded his devo
tion. His reading was extensive and he had the art of
turning it to account. He was fertUe and ingenious
in the propounding of theories. He was master of a
very interesting style. But there is such a thing as
being too versatile and clever, as letting ingenious fancy
outrun sober judgment. With the theory as a whole I
am not now concerned. It was a combination of the
views of Herbert Spencer with those of Dr. Frazer,
the latter developed, however, in a pecuhar way, and
to this combination the author added a good deal of his
own. In particular the h37pothesis as to the origin of
Christianity was suggested by Dr. Frazer's The Golden
Bough but with extensive modification. Christianity
rose in Lower Sjn:ia, a region rich in cults of corn and
wine deities, and saturated with such ideas as the kiUing
of the god and sacramental feasting on his body and
blood. If Jesus ever existed, which the author was
half inclined to doubt, it is not unUkely that He was put
to death at the instigation of the rabble of Jerusalem.
as a corn and wine-god. or that He may have been a
teacher and reformer actuaUy put to death by the
Romans, and worshipped by His foUowers after His
death. But whether this be so or not. His name be
came the nucleus around which gathered aU the innu
merable practices and ideas associated with vegetation
cults. While this remains comparatively shadowy in

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 331
the earUest documents, the Epistles, it is yet to be seen
in such a reference as Paul's to the seed that dies and
rises with a new body. In the Gospels the legend has
grown clear and consistent. ' AU the elements of the
slain and risen corn and wine-god are there in perfec
tion.' In the accounts of the institution of the Supper,
especiaUy that in the Fourth Gospel (he means the dis
course on the Bread of Life, John says nothing of the
Last Supper), the language is strikingly paraUel. ' I
am the trae vine,' ' I am the bread of Life,' ' this is my
blood of the New Testament.' So the first miracle is
the turning of water into wine, the sending of the Son is
refened to as His mission to the vineyard, where the
workers slay Him. Like many Divine victims. He is
made a temporary king before His death (and one
wonders that the author did not refer to Jesus crowned
with glory and honour that He might taste of death).
He has a triumphal procession, with palm branches
strewn in the way, as befits a god of vegetation. He is
a wiUing victim and bought with a price, as in other
similar rituals. He is scourged that His tears may flow,
crowned with thorns that the blood may trickle from
the sacred head, struck by the soldiers, yet worshipped
by them, recaUing in these and many other details old
famihar rites.
What is to be said of such an imposing hst of paral
lels ? It may be gravely doubted whether parallels
raked together from the four quarters of the globe have
much scientific value. We need to be careful m every
case to interpret by the context before we can be sure
whether we have genuine or superficial parallels. But
when we practise this necessary discrimination we shall
discover that the theory breaks down. The paraUels do
Ue largely on the surface, the context of the rehgions
gives them a radically different significance. It may, of

332 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
course, be granted that at a quite early period heathen
ideas and practices entered the theology and worship of
the Church. I have akeady caUed attention to the fact
that the beginnings of this can be traced in the New
Testament itself. But it is one thing to say that in a
work hke the Fourth Gospel, written when two genera
tions of Christian history had gone by, and designed
for Gentile readers, the thought has been affected by
influences which went back ultimately to Greek Philoso
phy or the Hermetic writings ; or that a simUar thing
had happened a generation earUer in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, or even that Paul had assimilated much in
the mystery-religions or the speculations of those among
whom he worked. It is quite another thing to argue
that the Judaism of Palestine had absorbed such ideas
and practices, stiU more that Jesus or the primitive
Christian community had been affected by them. It
was a critical moment in the history of the new religion
when from the rigid monotheism and fanatical legalism
of its native soil it passed into the Gentile world and
sought to win a people steeped in the superstitions of
the populace or trained in the philosophy of the schools.
That Paul should in this respect have become a Greek
to the Greeks could have occasioned no surprise ; what
is in my judgment reaUy astonishing is rather to how
shght an extent he put the Gospel into Greek moulds.
But we have no wanant for supposing that Jesus Him
self or the Palestinian community were affected in this
way. There are striking resemblances between genu
inely primitive elements in Christianity and elements in
heathen reUgions. This has been long recognized and
readers of The Golden Bough must have had it brought
home to them forcibly. But this means that these
rites in the heathen world testify to the need for fellow
ship with God, which is implanted in the human breast ;

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 333
and strike out the lines on which its satisfaction was to
come. This was done most successfully in Judaism,
but not quite fruitlessly in other cults. Yet, surely, all
does not depend on external similarity. If other hu
man victims were sacrificed as Christ was, is the charac
ter or worth of the sacrifice necessarily the same ? Is
not the quality of the victim a vital factor in estimating
its value ? But aU this gets no recognition, nor could we
expect that it would from a writer who airily dismissed
the Gospel history as obviously untrustworthy. But
when everything is granted as to the possibilities of
paraUelism, I have no shadow of a doubt that the thesis
is radicaUy wrong. In the first place, no cautious
scholar wiU lightly commit himself to ingenious combi
nations of this kind. It is a very striking fact that no
one could naturally get from the Gospel narratives the
impression which the author gives. The death of
Jesus does not come as a bolt from the blue. It is the
outcome of a growing hostility to Him created by His
teaching and work. It is a deed of darkness, con
summated in desertion, hate ai^d treachery. The tri-
umpihal entry is no part of His murderers' programme,
nor is the mock coronation and homage to be compared
with the temporary kingship of the victim, which, as
Frazer points out, was real while it lasted. The nana
tives, too. represent Him as praying in an agony that
the cup might pass from Him. in face of which, Mr.
AUen says, He does not seriously ask it ! I am not now
arguing the question of the history. I am controverting
the proofs for the assertion that Jesus is represented in
the Gospels as a vegetation deity. The fact that the
Gospels make an altogether different impression con
clusively demonstrates that the writers had no wish to
give such a representation. I might point out further
that, according to the Gospels, the Jewish authorities

334 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
contrived the execution, not by any means as an agri
cultural sacrifice, but as a piece of poUtical expediency.
WUl any competent writer seriously contend that such
passionate monotheists occupied themselves in creat
ing wine-gods ? We must remember, too, that our
records represent that Jewish hostihty to the disciples
persisted after Christ's death, which is inexphcable if
He was put to death that He might be made into a god.
His executioners ought on this theory to have been His
worshippers. It is trae that the Gospels represent
Jesus as using the expressions to which Mr. Allen refers.
But, surely, it does not lie so far away to take these as
figurative. Or, if not, let us be consistent, and say
that when Christ spoke of Himself as the Shepherd we
are to think of Him as a pastoral as weU as an agricul
tural deity, and when He said He was the Door or the
Way, He meant He was a threshold God (Mr. AUen
might have been glad of this for his threshold coUec
tion), or a tutelary deity of highways. There are
numerous agricultural parables, the Sower, the Tares,
the Mustard Seed, the Vineyard ; but there are fishing,
trading and other parables, which no one dreams of
treating in this fashion. The choice of such compari
sons was not dictated by the ingenious considerations
mentioned by Mr. AUen, but simply by their intimate
connexion with the daily life of those to whomHespoke.
Not only is it clear that the Gospels, and the earUest
Gospels in particular, do not suggest any such interpre
tation, but it can be carried through only at the cost of
treating their record in the most sceptical way. Mr.
Allen vaciUated, it is true, on the question whether
Jesus ever reaUy existed, but in his book he called it in
question. He even spoke dubiously with reference to
Paul's existence and thus revealed a levity of judgment
and absence of historic sense which largely discounts tbe

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 335
value that might otherwise be attached to his opinion.
But if it be granted that Paul hved and was the author
of even the bare minimum of writings left him by the
Tiibingen School, the existence of Jesus is guaranteed
by not a Uttle historical information expressed or im
plied. It is trae that since nothing is too eccentric to
be beyond the Daniels-come-to-judgment who move
airily over our field. Prof. Drews has actually argued
that these Epistles may be authentic and yet the Jesus
of whom they speak have been no being of flesh and
blood. But this passes the hmit of serious discussion,
and it may be taken for granted that, admitting the
authenticity of the literature, the historical existence
of a human Jesus cannot be denied. And certainly
not as a corn-god of which no trace is to be found in
Paul's writings. Nor could we understand the conver
sion of a highly cultured fanatical monotheist hke Paul
to any cult of this kind. His interests did not Ue in
agriculture but in righteousness. The fact is, waiving
smaU detaUs, which are not of moment in this connexion,
that the hfe of Jesus is in the fuU light of history, that of
Paul in its fuU blaze. Now everyone is aware that it is
quite easy to weave ingenious theories to disprove what
we aU know to be tme ; as Whately did in his Historic
Doubts Concerning the Existence of Napoleon. But if
the soUd fact of Napoleon's existence and career was not
dissipated in this way, it is not Ukely that similar
theories respecting Christ and Paul wiU stand. Mr.
AUen aUows that the verisimihtude of Christ's character
as sketched in the Gospels is a strong argument for His
existence. True, a conclusive argument. But here is
his dilemma. If he accepts the historical existence he
faces the immense difficulty that such a character should
have played the part indicated. If he does not. he has
not only the difficulties caused by the witness of Paul,

336 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
and by the verisimUitude of the character, but also that
of explaining how the myth which was intended to
depict a vegetation god failed so completely to achieve
its end.
Moreover, on his own showing the agricultural ele
ment comes out most fuUy in the later Uterature. For
one who plumed himself on his scientific standpoint
that is a rather odd confession. It would be truly a
grotesque canon of historical criticism that we should
draw our ideas as to the original character of a move
ment not from the documents which stand nearest it in
point of time and are redolent of the soil from which it
sprang, but from documents written under other skies
for readers of an alien race and in an atmosphere swarm
ing with germs of quite another order. And indeed.
leaving aside the rest of the book as to which it would be
possible to say much were this the place, the whole
Bibhcal section of it, especially that which deals with
the New Testament, betrays the strangest misapprehen
sions. The trail of the amateur is over it aU. without the
redeeming qualities sometimes to be found in the work
of those who are not experts, with no trace of a con
sciousness how amateurish it is or of the misgiving
which such a consciousness might have inspired.
Before leaving this part of the subject I must touch
on the question of the value which would stiU belong to
Christianity had it originated, not indeed as the gifted
amateurs suppose, but as such competent Bibhcal
scholars as the leading representatives of what is known
in Germany as ' die religionsgeschichtliche Schule,'
which draws on the History of Religion for its explana
tion of many features in primitive Christianity. Con
fronted by the undeniable fact that within a very brief
period after His death the most exalted position had
been accorded to Jesus, and yet unwilUng to recognize

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 337
in Him the Incarnate Son of God, they are compeUed
to account for so strange a fact. They affirm that this
lofty Christology was ready to the disciples' hand. A
whole series of propositions about the Messiah had been
akeady created in Judaism itself. The foUowers of
Jesus identified Him with the Messiah and then they
simply transferred this ready-made Messianic dogma to
Him in spite of the fact that it was a glaring misfit.
Arguments may of course be adduced in favour of this
view, but I beUeve in spite of them that the picture of
Christ is a portrait of Jesus rather than a mask conceal
ing the real Jesus from our view.
When we inquire further as to the origin of the Jew
ish Messianic dogma, we are taken far back into
Paganism, and the question arises whether if Chris
tianity is an amalgam of crude, animistic ideas, of
myths, legends and lower religions, it has any message
for us. Pfleiderer answers very emphatically in the
affirmative. It is only the crudest form of an evolu
tionary theory, he says, that would draw a negative
conclusion. We have to be very circumspect in ans
wering the question whether similarities are due to direct
bonowing. or whether they have arisen independently
from the working of similar causes. At the same time
he thinks that many of the details in the Gospel story
did originate by borrowing. But on the other hand the
idea of the Divine Sonship of Christ was not derived
from any definite pre-Christian legend, but has its ulti
mate source in the depths of the reUgious consciousness.
We have further, he insists, to emphasize points of
difference as weU as of agreement, and especiaUy to re
member that a new development is not merely the sum-
total of its elements. There has been a creative synthesis
which has not simply combined the old elements, but
transformed them into something entirely new. Pflei-
B.o- 22

338 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
derer does not at aU beUeve, of course, that the histori
cal Jesus was, as a matter of fact, the Incarnation of the
Eternal Son of God. For him that doctrine is a myth,
but it is a precious myth, inasmuch as it enshrines the
highest truth. To the question whether it would not
have been better to preach the historical Jesus rather
than the Eternal Christ he repUes in the negative. To
win its way in the world the Gospel had to accommo
date itself to the myths, and this had the advantage that
thus the Umitations of the historical Jesus were trans
cended. It is here, of course, that the antithesis comes
to its sharpest expression. Those of us who beUeve
that Christianity depends for its very existence on the
real identification of the historical Jesus with the Son
of God, that our faith needs historical facts and cannot
live without them, are forced to take up an attitude of
complete contradiction to Pfleiderer's wish that we
should be free from the slavery of history. It is not by
volatilizing away the historical basis of Christianity
that the permanence of Christianity is to be assured.
Nor do we feel ourselves hit by the reproach that we
seek God's revelation only in the records of a dead past
and thus lose the power of finding it in the living pre
sent. For us the Jesus of history and the living Christ
are not two things but one.
. But we could cheerfuUy admit that Christianity, and
the religion of Israel before it, had taken up a good deal
of heathen matter without feeling that the trath of our
rehgion was in any way touched. We have no objection
to tracing back what we can to the primitive savage,
so far at least as we are able to rediscover him. The
keenest eye for survivals and fearlessness in seeking
for them isnot outof harmony with a genuine Christian
faith. It is an inteUigible, though a real faUacy, into
which some writers faU, that they can discredit a behef

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 339
by tracing it back to the peoples of a lower culture.
But we should rather see in these the expression of
yearnings and needs as old as man, and experienced by
him in all ages and lands. So far from being discredited
by their antiquity, their reahty is guaranteed by their
ubiquity and persistence, and by adopting them in a
purified form the Church has recognized in them un
conscious prophecies of Christ. A powerful apologetic
may be built up on the very facts used to discredit
Christianity. If, for example, we can trace back the
idea of communion with God, no doubt in a very crude
form, to a pre-historic period, we should not argue;
This idea springs up among barbarians and therefore
may be set aside as absurd, but rather, Here in the
lowest stage we find men vaguely crying for feUowship
with the Unseen Power ; that craving is wrought into
man's nature, and is a witness to the hving God for
whom it cries. What reaUy created the Christology of
the New Testament was not the heathen m5^hs but the
impression created by Jesus on His foUowers, the testi
mony He gave to Himself, the behef in His Messianic
dignity which had been attested by His resurrection,
the experience of His activity as the ascended and
reigning Lord. The personality itself and its impact on
history created the doctrine. It was not formed by the
.accretion of all sorts of floating ideas aroimd an almost
accidental nucleus. That the thought-forms of the
time may have provided a garb in which the body of
Christian truth was clothed is in no sense surprising,
but the body is more than raiment and must not be
confused with it. This is not to say that the teach
ing of the New Testament is itself purely Christian
or that alien elements may not have been in
corporated in it, it is simply to affirm that what is
central in the New Testament religion has not been

340 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
borrowed from some heathen source. We may feel
then that no serious difficulty is raised by the frankest
admission of whatever indebtedness of Scripture to
foreign sources may ultimately be made good.
But even more than the derivation from foreign
sources, the differences within the literature itself con
stitute a serious difficulty. There is first of aU the most
obvious of these differences, that betweeti the Old Testa
ment and the New. So far as moral standards are con
cerned, their existence is widely recognized. Indeed the
teaching of Jesus on this point is too clear to admit of
being plausibly explained away. His sharp distinction
between the lower rules with which His hearers were
famUiar and the loftier ideals which He set before them,
His explanation that some precepts were written for the
hardness of men's hearts, leave no reasonable doubt
that He regarded the Old Testament ethic as some
thing which was to be superseded by the teaching that
He gave. And when we move into the sphere of reUgion
we discover that the New Testament sets aside the cere
monial system, which fills so large a place in Hebrew
religion. That this is so in the Pauline Epistles needs
neither proof nor illustration. But in this sphere also
the principles enunciated by Jesus went deep, and in
such utterances as those on cleanness and uncleanness
He definitely set aside not merely the traditions of the
scribes but the regulations of the Law by making aU
meats clean. And here again there is no disposition in
modem Christendom to galvanize into new life those
long obsolete ceremonies.
But it will readily be seen that these considerations
do not touch the centre of our problem. That to a race
whose religion and moraUty were originaUy quite
rudimentary there should be a gracious accommoda
tion ; that too much should not be expected of them ;

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 341
that material forms should be prominent in the worship
of a people as yet incapable of more spiritual religion ;
these are things which occasion no surprise. No
serious difficulty is created by the low level of moral
ity which many of the characters display. The cen
sure of their conduct by the writers is often unmistak
able and severe. It has long been recognized that we
must not expect conformity with the ethics of the
Gospel fiom those who were hving in a time of less
adequate iUumination. It is a famiUar thought that
God took the Hebrews where He found them, in a
radimentary moral and religious condition, bore with
their infirmities, revealed loftier ideals to them as they
could bear them, and gradually trained them to appre
ciate the lofty principles enunciated by the prophets.
Many of the so-called moral difficulties of the Old
Testament have no substantial existence. But when
this elementary fact has been amply recognized there
stiU remain genuine difficulties. There are cases where
the Biblical wiiters themselves faU below the level we
expect or where God is represented as acting in a way
which we must regard as unworthy. The many vindic
tive utterances which we find in Psalmist and Prophet
fumish us perhaps with the best example of the former
type. I am not unaware of the explanations which have
been offered and the excuses which have been urged for
such language. I fuUy recognize that they afford some
paUiation. But they do not completely justify it,
even if we regard the authors as untouched by the
Spirit of inspiration. And what is more important.
Can we beUeve that God inspired the speakers to utter
such sentiments as these ? On a historical view of reve
lation, however, their inclusion in the Bible is a reaUy
valuable feature inasmuch as they help us to form a
truer estimate of Israel's reUgion and especiaUy as they

342 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
enable us to measure the advance made by the Gospel.
We have in this respect to recognize that, whatever
inspiration may have done, it did not suppress those
elements of human personality which were not entirely
in harmony with the mind of the Spirit. With reference
to the second type of difficulty it may suffice to say that
an alleged action of God has been occasionaUy con
demned as unworthy simply because it has been judged
by inappropriate standards. But in cases where the
charge is reaUy vaUd we must firmly maintain that on
no account can it be admitted that God ever acted
unworthily. It is far better to beheve that the human
writer was deficient in spiritual or ethical insight.
I pass on to the difficulty created by the internal
inconsistencies of the Old Testament. Partly these
may be explained by the same principle of development
as we find helpful in accounting for the differences be
tween the Old Testament and the New. Granting
that the Old Testament preserves for us the record of a
Divine education given to Israel, the presence of lower
and higher ranges of spiritual and moral teaching
appears quite natural. It would be unreasonable to
expect the earlier writers to exhibit the same grasp of
moial and rehgious truth as those who came later.
The conception of God, for example, exhibits a very
remarkable growth from naive anthropomorphism to a
lofty spirituality. Thus we read of the Creator as
moulding man out of the dust of the ground, and by
breathing into his nostrils imparting to him the breath
of Ufe. ReaUzing that man needs a companion He
fashions from the ground the various animals^'and
brings them to him. Finding that none of these meet
the need He tries a fresh experiment, and now, casting
the man in a deep sleep, He takes a rib from his side and
builds it into the woman whom the man recognizes as

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 343
flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. He forbids
them to touch the magical tree, which would impart
to them a knowledge such as is reserved for the heavenly
beings, and when they have eaten of the tree of know
ledge He prevents their access to the tree of life,
lest by winning immortality in addition to their
knowledge they should be a menace to the heavenly
powers. He walks in the garden in the evening as men
do in Palestine, when after the heat of the day the cool
wind blows in from the sea. Pitying the crade at
tempts of the guilty pair to hide their shame He makes
them coats of skins and clothes them. Prompted by
the same dread of what men might do if their adven
turous enterprises were not nipped in the bud He comes
down to see the tower which they were building as their
rall5dng centre, and fearing that they may achieve their
purpose of reaching the sky. He scatters them over the
earth and confounds their speech. And just as He
comes down to see the city and the tower, that by per
sonal observation he may inform Himself of the facts, so
He comes down to Sodom to see whether it has acted
according to the rumour which has reached Him.
With two companions He visits Abraham and eats of the
meal which the patriarch has prepared for them. He
meets Moses at the inn and seeks to slay him. though
He would thus have made impossible the very task to
which He had summoned him, but is turned from His
deadly purpose by the prompt action of Moses' wife.
At Sinai Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, with
seventy of the elders of Israel, ascend the mountain and
see God who refirains from laying His hand upon them.
In another passage, however, the desire of Moses to see
His luminous glory is not granted, since no man could
behold His face and Uve. Nevertheless God places him
m the cleft of the rock and while He passes He covers

344 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
him with His hand that he may not see His face, but
when He has passed by and the fatal perU is over He
takes away His hand that Moses may see His back. So
physically by the author of this narrative was God con
ceived ! In the later writers we find a progressive
refinement in the representation of God. In its highest
expression the Hebrew doctrine of God as Spirit feU
httle if any short of the New Testament standard. The
crude anthropomorphism of earher times need occasion
us no trouble. It wels better that God should be repre
sented in a way which secured a vivid impression of His
reahty than that by premature spirituaUzation He
should be conceived as a mere abstraction.
But we cannot so readily sympathize with some repre
sentations of God on the moral side. It is the pecuUar
glory of the Hebrew rehgion and above aU of the pro
phets, that it moralized the conception of God. The
rehgion had as its characteristic quality that it was a
covenant rehgion.^ In other words Jt was not a matter
of natural necessity that Yahweh and Israel should
belong to each other as did other people and their gods.
He was not to Israel what Chemosh was to Moab. He
had freely chosen Israel though He might have chosen
any people. And since His existence and His fortunes
were not inseparably hnked with those of His people He
was free to cast off Israel if she proved unfaithful to
Him. Thus the religion rested on a moral basis of free
choice and on no necessity imposed by Nature. But
the ethical quality of the religion was secured also by
the character of Israel's God. This is apprehended and
expressed in its full splendour by the great prophets
and those who wrote under their influence, but from the
first we may believe that the sense of His righteousness
differentiated Yahweh from other gods in the conscious-
^ See further on this pp. 230-232.

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 345
ness of His people. There is no need to iUustrate this
in detaU or hnger on the depth and elevation of Israel's
conception of God. It is the imperishable possession of
our race. But I must touch on the other side. I have
refened already to the nervous apprehension attributed
to Yahweh lest man by passing his appointed hmits
might become a menace to God Himself. The incident
with Moses at the inn ; the impulse with which He
inspires David to number the people, aU the more that
obedience to the Divine prompting involves the mon
arch in a sense of guilt and brings on His land a terrible
pestilence ; ' the approval accorded to the suggestion of
the spirit that he should be a lying spirit in the mouth
of Ahab's prophets to lure him to his doom ; the ruthless
extermination of a people in revenge for a wrong
inflicted on Israel generations earlier, and the inclusion
even of the innocent children in this indiscriminate
massacre ; are iUustrations of the difficulty I have in
mind. Here the BibUcal writers sanction a thought of
God which is not only unworthy as judged by a Chris
tian standard but inconsistent with much in the Old
Testament itself. And it is not simply in the earUer
and cruder stage of the religion that the difference is to
be found. It reaches into the later period and appears
in the ranks of the prophets themselves.
Of this harsher and more repellent tendency Ezekiel is
perhaps the most conspicuous example. It would not be
easy to over-estimate his importance for the subsequent
development. It is not only that he was the first to
assert principles which found their embodiment in the
completedLaw which was to rule the Ufe of Judaism, but
in other respects he initiated movements and lines of
thought which were to come to great prominence in the ^
later history of his people. We see the tendency al
ready at work in him which transformed prophecy into

346 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
apocalyptic. His sense of the transcendence and aloof
ness of God left a very deep mark upon the later Jewish
conception. His emphasis on ritual secured a place for
the external in the service of Yahweh, with which the
older prophets would not have been very sympathetic.
His nanowness towards the heathen, most luridly re
vealed in his prophecy of Gog, was only too
characteristic of his successors. His fundamental
doctrine of Yahweh's sovereignty, and glory is
appUed by him in a form which a Christian can
hardly approve. For him God is an egoist, con
cerned above all things for His own glory, brooding over
the shghts offered to His dignity, punctUiously exacting
vengeance for the insults with which the heathen have
affronted Him. In order to wipe out the stain which
had been cast upon Him by the destruction of the Jew
ish State and the exUe of Judah, He entices Gog to
come against His apparently defenceless people, so
that by its supernatural destruction He may prove to
the woild that not His weakness but His people's sin
was the cause of its punishment. Thus a vast multitude
is lured to death in order that God's might may be made
known, a multitude that would have hfted no finger
against Israel had God Himself not dangled the fatal bait
before it. We must feel how sinister a hght this casts
on Ezekiel's whole conception of God. Can we seriously
think that Yahweh entices Gog and his hordes from the
far countries, that by their overthrow He may get Himself
glory, and that in the name of morality, humanity, and
reUgion ? And this calm sacrifice of the heathen to en
hance the prestige of God strikes a note which finds too
many an echo in the hterature of Judaism. Mingled
with much that is good we find a bitter hatred of the
heathen far too often on the pages of the prophets. The
attitude towards Edom is the most striking example of

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 347
this. It is found in Obadiah and Malachi but the most
lurid expressions occur in two late sections of the Book
of Isaiah, in chapter xxxiv. and the opening verses of
chapter Ixiii. The latter passage in particular is as
repulsive as it is powerful. The poet describes a figure
coming from Edom with dyed garments, ruddy Uke the
garments of those who have trodden the winepress.
It is Yahweh who has been in Edom, with the day of
vengeance in His heart, trampling in the winepress of
His wrath the foes of His redeemed tiU aU His robes
were crimson with the Ufe blood which had spurted
from their veins. AU too rarely could one of the later
prophets rise to the lofty level of the Book of Jonah
with its wonderful width of charity, its noble faith in
the readiness of the heathen to welcome the trath, its
clear insight into the pitiful bigotry and vindictive
hatred of the heathen, which was too characteristic of the
later Judaism. Even the Second Isaiah who summoned
Israel to accept its vocation as God's prophet to the
world nevertheless sank back into a nanow nationaUsm
and regarded Israel as God's favourite and the nations
as its menials. And other prophets were only too
ready to fan the unholy flames of racial antipathy, and
bitter remembrance of wrongs. This feature of course
is even more prominent in some of the Psahns and
assumes its most objectionable form in the Book of
Esther. Or take again the difference in the attitude towards
the ceremonial element in reUgion. It has been pointed
out already that the Hebrews drew for their ritual
largely on the common stock of Semitic custom and
that behind this we can discern a stage for which the
closest parallels are to be sought in savage practice.
Thus the cultus was, as Wellhausen has put it, the
heathen element in the religion. It remained largely

348 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
uncriticized in the earUer period, though we are not
without great sa5dngs emphasizing the inferiority of
ritual to morality : ' Hath the Lord as great deUght
in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obepng the voice
of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to hearken than the fat of rams.' But it is with the
great canonical prophets that this principle finds its
classical expression. First there are the impassioned
words of Amos : ' I hate. I despise your feasts, and I
wUl take no deUght in your solemn assembUes. Yea,
though ye offer me your burnt offerings and meal offer
ings, I wiU not accept them, neither wiU I regard the
peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away
from me the noise of thy songs ; for I will not hear the
melody of thy viols. But let judgment roU down as
waters, and righteousness as an everflowing stream '
(Amos V. 22-24). Hosea says, ' I desire mercy, and not
sacrifice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt
offerings ' (Hos. vi. 6). Isaiah asks the abandoned rulers
and the misguided people, who throng to the temple in
their darkest hour, of what avail their sacrifices may be :
' To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices
unto me ? saith the Lord. I am fuU of the burnt offer
ings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts ; and I deUght not
in the blood of buUocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
When ye come to see my face, who hath required this at
your hand ? No more shall ye trample my courts to
bring me oblations, incense of abomination is it unto
me ; new moon and Sabbath, the caUing of assembUes,
I cannot away with, fasting and festal assembly. Your
new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth :
they are a trouble unto me ; I am weary to bear them '
(Isa. i. 11-14). Jeremiah strikes a simUar note : ' To
what purpose cometh there to me frankincense from
Sheba, and the sweet cane from the far country ? your

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 349
burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices
pleasmg unto me ' (Jer. vi. 20). In the Psahns too the
same attitude is expressed, notably in the great words
in the 51st Psahn : ' For thou dehghtest not in sacri
fice ; else would I give it : Thou hast no pleasure in
burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit : A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wUt
not despise' (Ps. li. 16, 17).
And now tum to the Law and mark the difference.
Here we have the most elaborate regulations as to
sacrifice and other ritual observances. Great import
ance is attached to them and they are enjoined with
severe penalties for non-observance or even for inegular
obedience. The covenant between Yahweh and Israel
was instituted by blood of sprinkling. It was main
tained by the daUy sacrifice. The suspension of this
offering strack the deadhest chUl into the hearts of the
Jews, just because it seemed to snap the tie which
bound Yahweh and His people together. We can see
this from the way in which for Joel the cessation of the
meal and drink offering stands out among the ravages
occasioned by the locusts ; from the manner in which
Daniel speaks of it ; and from the deep despondency
which the suspension caused to the Jews in the siege of
Jerusalem by Titus. No event could be more ominous
of disaster. One of the bitterest consequences of exUe
was that no sacrifice could be offered in an unclean
land. Two facts, moreover, must be remembered about the
attitude of the Old Testament to the sacrificial system.
One is that prophets and priests were not ranged m
entkely different camps, the other is that the rehgion
does not exhibit a progressive emancipation from
ritual and ceremonial. On the former of these points it
is important to remember that, whereas the Canonical

350 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Prophets from Amos to Jeremiah took up the attitude
to the ceremonial system which I have described, with
Ezekiel a new tendency emerged which was destined to
have very far-reaching consequences. Deuteronomy
it is true represents a blending of prophetic with priestly
ideals, but Ezekiel carries this out in a far more
systematic way. He emphasizes the ethical and spirit
ual as the older prophets had done, but he is a man of
anxious legaUst temper and the hoUness for which he
shows such deep concern is ceremonial as weU as moral
and religious. The Divine hoUness is compromised by
Israel's infraction of the ceremonial law, just as much as
by sins against moral purity; and in this respect, as in so
many others, Ezekiel strikes a note which is taken up by
later prophets. And, so far as the second point is con
cerned, it is to the influence of Ezekiel rather than any
one else that the great development of ceremoniaUsm in
the later religion is due. No doubt the priestly sections
of the Pentateuch to a large extent embody a far more
ancient ritual. But in some respects they introduce
new features of importance, and, what is much more
momentous, the ceremonies gain a new significance.
For hitherto they had been largely matters of use and
wont. Now they were stereotyped in minute detail and
made no longer merely a part of the official religion.
They were imposed on the people by explicit Divine
command and presented to them as a great series of
institutions, which were the Divinely appointed means
through which they might draw near to their Deity in
praise and thanksgiving, atone for sins of ignorance, and
maintain intact the communion of the nation with its
God. It would of course be untrue to say that the ten
dency initiated by Ezekiel and registered most fully in
the Priestly Code relegated the moral and spiritual
elements in the religion to a position of minor import-

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 351
ance. Nor yet would it be fair to say that the prophets
attacked the ceremonial system in itself, for their attack
was aimed rather at the behef that sacrifice was of
value apart from morality. But whUe it is true that
even the most ardent ceremonialist would have empha
sized the necessity of right conduct, and while even the
most strenuous preacher of righteousness would pro
bably have recognized the value of ritual nor have
wished to demateriaUze reUgion completely, there is a
very real difference of emphasis.
And yet even here we can recognize the legitimacy of
both tendencies. Religion cannot be for us just a dis
embodied spirit, a temper and attitude of the soul. It
craves an external expression, some form of common
worship, some sjmibohsm, some organization. The
ritual may be austere or luxuriant, the sjmibohsm simple
or complex, the organization shght or elaborate, but few
can dispense with some visible and tangible embodi
ment of religion. The less or the more is largely deter
mined by temperament, to some extent by one's general
view of the universe, but for most of us a minimum is
indispensable. And whatever be our verdict in the dis
pute between exponents of the more materialistic and
the more spiritual forms of Christianity, there can be no
serious debate that for Judaism the ceremonial was in
dispensable. One may weU doubt in fact whether the
Jewish religion could, apart from the firm organization
and the ceremonial expression given it by Ezekiel and
his successors, have survived the most serious of all its
ordeals, the danger of complete disintegration by the
solvent of Greek influence. He encased the stiU tender
prophetic religion in a hard protecting sheU. which
enabled it to withstand even the deadly fascinations of
Greece and the horrors of Antiochus' assault on the very
existence of the Jewish faith. We may surmise, with

352 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
some measure of probabihty, that otherwise the reUgion
would have gone down before this combined assault.
The protest of the prophets against the over-valuation
of ritual remains permanently vahd and indeed indis
pensable. But it would be driving their principles to an
iUegitimate extreme were we to infer that the abolition
of ceremonial would have been gain not loss. The
religious institutions of Israel were largely pagan in
their origin and among the Hebrews themselves sank
often into vehicles of an immoral formalism. Yet the
heathen and the chosen people ahke expressed in them
some of the deepest instincts and yearnings of man's
spirit, and received some measure of satisfaction.
Crude though the rites might be. along even these
gloomy avenues their souls drew near to God. More
over while the old typology which found in the Levi
tical system a symbolic presentation of the mysteries
of Christanity that were to be divulged in fuUness
of time has now become im-possible for us, it did con
tain this element of truth that the needs which it
uttered and the responses which it offered were the
permanent needs of human nature which receive their
final and all-sufficient satisfaction in ihe Gospel. In
this way we may say that Hebrew ritual supphed a fit
training for Christianity.
I pciss on to the inconsistencies which are discovered
by some within the New Testament. The most im
portant question touches the relation in which the
teaching of Paul stands to that of Jesus. But other
questions are raised, notably that of the difference
between Paul and the Epistle of James. On the
last of these it is not needful to say much. The con
tradiction as to the doctrine of justffication by faith
may quite weU be formal rather than real, the terms
not bearing perhaps the same significance in the two

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 353
writers. There is, I think, a genuine difference in their
general interpretation of the new rehgion ; but it may
be argued that the difference does not amount to
incompatibUity. each writer makes his own contribu
tion, which is the reflection of what he had found
Christianity to be. I am not myself sure that this
quite covers the ground ; but in a general discussion
of this kind the question is hardly worth arguing,
partly because the Epistle of James is a relatively
insignificEint book, partly because the question is part
of a larger one. And even this larger question may
perhaps be better discussed as part of the problem
as to the permanent value of the Pauline theology.
A few general considerations may be offered at this
point on the relation of Paul to Jesus. In the first
place it is very improbable in view both of his lofty
doctrine of Christ's Person and the necessities of
his own strategical position as against his Jewish
Christian opponents that Paul was so indifferent to
the teaching or to the hfe of Jesus as is frequently
asserted. It is true that we have reference to the
betrayal and the Lord's Supper, but these stood in
such close connexion with the death that they were
not to be separated from it. It is also true that we
have references to regulations laid down by Jesus which
are quoted by Paul as a final settlement in matters of
dispute. He refers to the meekness and gentleness
of Christ, he says of Him that He knew no sin ; he
affirms the Davidic origin of His humanity. But
beyond this, it is said, Paul exhibits very httle interest
in or knowledge of Christ's earthly Ufe. UsuaUy it is
considered that in this he stands in marked distinction
from the original Apostles. This was quite natural,
they had begun to know Jesus simply as a teacher.
they had Uved with Him in famUiar intercourse, and
B.O. ' 23

354 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
it was only gradually that a sense of His true nature
had dawned upon them. Hence even when their
Master was taken from them they could stiU read into
their thought of the ascended Christ aU the tender
and sacred reminiscences of the earthly ministry.
They started with one who was a man hke themselves,
and only gradually came to think of Him as the
Son of God. Paul at one bound passed from the
thought of Him as a blaspheming pretender to Messiah-
ship to the immovable conviction of His Divinity.
Hence one of the arguments, which has been urged
by many against the authenticity of the First Epistle
of Peter, is based on the absence in it of echoes from
the teaching of Jesus and the presence in it of a strong
Pauline element. Is it likely, we are asked, that one
who had been an Apostle of Jesus would show so
little trace of the teaching we find in the Gospels,
and so much trace of the teaching we find in the
Pauline Epistles ? I think that this criticism, while
it is teUing at first sight, really faUs to take account of
the stupendous influence that the Cross must have had
on Jesus' own disciples. It was to them a perplexing
riddle, mitigated, it is true, but not solved by the
resurrection. It was a chaUenge to thek own thought,
pressed home upon them with relentess power by
the criticism of the Jews. How could a crucified felon,
accursed by the Law. be God's Messiah ? Probably
they quite early found relief in the picture of the
Suffering Servant of Yahweh, and learnt through it to
connect the death of Jesus closely with the forgiveness
of sins. It is a remarkable thing, as reflecting the
sense of importance attached to the death of Jesus
by the primitive Apostles, that the Passion narrative
fills so large a place in our earliest Gospel. It is not
therefore wonderful that Peter should have felt that

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 355
even the teaching of Jesus and the reminiscences of
His earthly career feU into a secondary place when
compared with the cUmax which His career achieved
in His death. Once the Messianic dignity of Jesus
was granted, the facts called aloud for interpretation ;
the Cross and the Resurrection pressed forward to
the centre, and inevitably thrust the teaching into a
subordinate place. And since Paul had developed
the teaching of His predecessors, that the death of
Jesus was on account of sin, into a coherent and ela
borate theory of redemption, is it strange that so
receptive a person as Peter should have utilized Paul's
teaching in writing his own Epistle ?
In the next place we ought never to lose sight of
the fact that Paul was a suspected person in the Chris
tian Church, that much of his teaching was cordially dis-
Uked by many of his fellow-Christians and that he was
bitterly persecuted by a section of them. Are we
then to suppose that he left himself open to the serious
charge that his teaching fundamentally diverged
from the teaching of Jesus ? Could he have afforded
to give such a handle to enemies, who were only too
ready to denounce him as no true Apostle of Jesus, as
ignorance of the Lord's teaching and indifference to
the facts of His hfe would have yielded them ? How
could he have gone to those who were his seniors in
the apostleship and laid his Gospel before them without
being assured that his teaching was in harmony with
the teaching of Jesus ? And how on their part could
these Apostles have recognized the validity of Paul's
Gospel and its genuinely Christian character if they
had felt that it had been constructed in complete
indifference to the teaching of the Founder ? For
this purpose it was not indeed necessary that everything
Paul said should akeady have been said by Jesus.

356 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
What was pecuUar in PauUnism was very largely
its interpretation of Christ's death and resurrection.
But even here he was only canying forward into a
developed theory what the Apostles had akeady
taught in a general way. When we remind ourselves
that for them also the centre of gravity had shifted
with the death of Jesus, we can weU understand that.
given the Pauhne doctrine of His Person, they would
have recognized the legitimacy of the PauUne doctrine
of His work. If he saw in the death of Jesus not
simply a martyrdom but a great redeeming act. he
was. as he teUs us. in harmony with those from
whom he received the Gospel, who also taught that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
The question therefore is not so much whether
Jesus had expounded the doctrine of His death
as Paul expounds it. but whether He had given
the Apostles the same conception of His Person
as that which Paul entertained. And when we go
to the Synoptic Gospels we find several claims made
by Jesus which are best satisfied by the doctrine
of His Divinity. It is true, of course, that there are no
Synoptic statements asserting His pre-existence,
though there are Johannine statements. But when
we remember how fanatically monotheistic the Jews
were, and remember, further, that Paul's doctrine of
Christ's pre-existence created no opposition in the
Church, the simplest explanation is that the disciples
were aware that Jesus had made claims of this kind.
The very bitterness of the controversy as to the Law
shows us how bitter would have been the controversy as
to the Person of Christ if the Christians had been con
scious of any divergence in Paul's doctrine from their
own views. Again, the very conception that Paul
entertained of Jesus and the passionate love which

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 357
he felt for Him, does not permit us to suppose that he
could have been indifferent to the Ufe and teaching of
his Master. When his Epistles are carefuUy scrutinized,
many features are revealed that may with much
plausibility be explained as reminiscences of Christ's
teaching. Nor can we forget that in his Epistles he
was writing to Churches which may be presumed to
have had a famiharity with the details of Christ's hfe.
Further, much depends on the conclusions that we
form as to the actual contents of Christ's teaching.
Many of our present-day critics summarUy set aside
the Fourth Gospel as whoUy unauthentic, and restrict
the knowledge of His teaching to what we may find
in the Synoptics. But even this they pass through
a rather fine critical sieve, and are not content without
distinguishing between the genuine teaching that
they may embody and the late accretions which have
gathered about it. Now. it obviously makes a great
difference to our estimate of Paul's dependence on
Jesus if we remove from the teaching of Jesus all
those elements which reveal most affinity with Paul
inism. A very frank and incisive statement of this
position is to be found in Wemle's Beginnings of
Christianity. After a long exposition of the Fourth
Gospel, in which the writer constantly exhibits the
author's dependence on Paul, he asserts that there is
no Johannine Theology apart from the Pauline.
'Were we to accept that John formed his conception
of Christianity either originaUy or directly from Jesus'
teaching, we should have to refuse Paul aU origin-
aUty, for we should leave him scarcely a single inde
pendent thought. But it is Paul that is original.
John is not. In Paul we look as through a wmdow into
a factory where these great thoughts fiash forth and are
developed; m John we see the beginning of thek trans-

358 THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
formation and decay.' In other words, the ratification
given by the Fourth Gospel to Paulinism as a general
reproduction of the teaching of Jesus is here largely
denied. The Fourth Gospel according to Wernle, and
many another, so far from embodsdng the genuine
teaching of Jesus is a canying back of Paulinism into
His teaching. Our attitude to this wiU depend on
the general view we have formed on the Johannine
problem. It is not necessary for me here to travel over
the oft-trodden ground, but I may say briefly that
neither on the side of external nor internal evidence do
the more negative scholars seem to do justice to the
facts, and they certainly are betrayed more than once
into exaggeration. Every one is aware in a general
way of the difference between the two traditions.
The student who has worked at the problem in detail
knows how marked the difference is. I think, how
ever, that when we have aUowed for the didactic
and apologetic character of the work which has led
to its selection of material, we ought to recognize that
we have in it a more precious collection of reminiscences
than many are wiUing to admit. (See pp. 223 f., 306 f .)
But even the Synoptic Gospels are not held to be
free from Pauline influence, which is detected by
some scholars on a large scale even in Mark the earUest
Gospel of aU. The abstract possibihty cannot of
course be denied, but this is pre-eminently a case
where criticism is controUed by theological pre
possessions. It is assumed that where Paul's doctrine
of Christ's Person and Work is found in the Gospels
it is not an independent corroboration from the lips
of Jesus Himself, but the attribution to Jesus of ideas
which in the nature of the case He could not have
uttered. Our decision here is of course largely deter
mined by our attitude on the general problem of

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 359
Christology. My own reasons for stiU holding that our
Lord beheved Himself to be the Son of God in the
strict sense of the term and was right in His belief, I
have given elsewhere.^ NaturaUy therefore I cannot
admit the legitimacy of the theological prejudice
which controls this type of criticism. Nor do I
beheve that a sound criticism of the Synoptic Gospels
can successfuUy disentangle an earlier stratum, in
which Jesus regarded Himself as merely a prophet
and teacher or even as a purely human Messiah,
from a later stratum in which He was represented
cLS the Divine Son of God. Only an unreasonable
scepticism could deny that Jesus assigned a unique
place and mission to Himself. But, if so, a real problem
was created for the Church by the death of such a
personality. The shifting of the emphasis from the
teaching of Jesus to His Person and Work thus became
inevitable ; for the death of such a Person must possess
a high theological import. The meaning of the death
became the most urgent problem, and thus the whole
theological perspective was altered. The fact that we
have no such developed doctrine in the words of Jesus
as in the Epistles of Paul is sufficiently accounted for
by the circumstances of the case. The teaching of
Jesus is pre-Passion teaching, that of Paul an ex
position of his own experience as a sinner who had
found in Christ the redemption he had vainly sought
in the Law. It is only what we might naturaUy
expect that much should come to Ught in the teaching
of Paul, which could only be hinted at m the teaching
of Jesus. Enough that Jesus Himself gave significant
hints and uttered certain truths which when read in the
Ught of events and experience justified the development
which Paul gave them. The authentic teaching of
1 See Christianity : lis Nature and Its Truth, pp. 209-245.

36o THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Jesus accordingly contains elements which, if they
do not present us with a full-grown PauUnism, at
least suggest certain lines along which the PauUne
thought subsequently travels.
I desire therefore to endorse the verdict passed on
Paul by not a few scholars, that he was the man who
best understood Jesus and carried on His work. Only
I desire to affirm it with much less reserve. For several
of them believe that on the topics I have just discussed
there was a very real difference between the Master
and His apostles, a difference which appears to justify
as far more logical the judgment of Wrede that this
favourable verdict contains serious historical enor.
If Paul deflected Christianity so gravely as to swing
the simple and subhme ethical monotheism of Jesus
on to a line which led it rapidly down to a fantastic
mythology, from the incubus of which the Gospel has
suffered ever since, it would be perhaps just as weU if
we ceased to speak of him as the disciple who best
understood the great Teacher and most successfully
carried on His work.
It is of course to be freely granted that the New
Testament presents us with several types of theology.
The writers are not engaged in the attempt to reproduce
some standardized doctrine, nor did inspiration secure
a uniformity in their theology. The teaching of
Jesus. PauUnism, the Theology of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the Johannine Theology, are aU quite
distinct. But this is as we should desire ; such is
the richness of the Gospel that it needed to be ap
proached from several sides and to be expressed in
various ways, if it was to receive an adequate presenta
tion in its classical documents.
I do not linger at this point on the internal inconsis
tencies which are found by some scholars in the Pauline

THE PROBLEM OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 361
theology, since such a criticism would be best answered
by the presentation of Paulinism as a coherent whole.
While it can hardly be denied that there are difficulties
in relating the various parts of his teaching to each other,
we owe it to a thinker of such originahty and power to
be very chary in accusations of logical incoherence and
to make a serious effort to weld his statements into a
harmonious whole. In my judgment his utterances
are not mere opinions expressed according to the
mood or the situation in which he happened to be at
the time, or the practical necessities of his argument,
nor yet the unreconciled juxtaposition of views derived
from different sources, which he had not the power to
combine into a unity, biit they are the application of a
clearly understood and connected system of thought.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW^
The apologetic of an earlier day defended the truth
of Christianity by the convincing quality of its creden
tials, notably miracles and prophecy. There was
apparently much justification for a form of proof which
emphasized such excellent guarantees. The argument
from miracle naturally seemed very cogent. How
could any one do the mighty works that Jesus did
unless God was with him ? The argument from
prophecy was essentially of the same type, miraculous
foreknowledge certified the truth of the religion thus
foreseen. In our own age when religion is conceived
in a less mechanical way, these time-honoured argu
ments have faUen into the background. Religion,
we feel, is not, as used to be thought, a matter to be
received on credentials, for, as Hort said, even if the cre
dentials be true what do they prove but themselves ?
We have now taken the weight of our apologetic from
the external warrant and thrown it upon intrinsic
value. Unless the Gospel is worthy of all acceptation
for its own sake, argument from miracle or prophecy
wiU do Uttle nowadays to estabUsh its credit. The
temper of our time is too impatient of such proofs.
With reference to miracles the situation has altered
completely. So far from basing the case for Christ
ianity upon them we find that many regard them as
one of the chief difficulties in the way of its acceptance.
^ See for a fuller discussion my paper on Messianic Pro
phecy in Lux Hominum (1907). 362

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 363
We are burdened with the task of defending them to a
generation which has largely come to the conclusion
that miracles do not happen. So our process has to
be reversed, we first have to make good the Christian
position generaUy. and on the strength of that defend
the miracles as a part of the whole. This is obviously
a more religious attitude than the other, since it is
better to receive Christ for His own sake, than because
His claims are attested by a number of signs. When we
have accepted Him we recognize how worthy of Him are
the works that He wrought. But beyond this we have
the further question whether we are justified in arguing
from them to the truth of a doctrine proclaimed
by one who is able to work them. AU that miracles
strictly prove is that a power is at work doing things
which we are not able to perform. They do not ne
cessarily teU us anything as ^ the moral character of
that power or the spiritual truth of any message it
may bring us. The Bible speaks of miracles wrought
by evil powers, and Jesus Himself teUs us of those
who show signs and wonders that they may lead
astray, if possible, the elect. Nevertheless, if
properly stated, the argument from miracles has by
no means lost its value.
The argument from prophecy also played a very
important part in Jewish and Christian apologetics.
The Second Isaiah had proved the Divinity of Yahweh
and the nothingness of the heathen deities by the fact
that He could, and they could not, predict the future.
The power to predict carries with it the power to con
trol the future, for if another is able to control it, one
can never be sure that he may not divert it along hnes
which wiU falsify the prediction. Hence the prophet
can appeal to the rise of Cyrus and his victorious career
as proofs that Yahweh, who has predicted this in

364 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
earUer prophecies, is the Power who has the destinies of
nations in His control. And the argument from prophecy
was prominent in the apologetics of the early Church.
The question at issue between Jews and Christians
was that of the Messiahship of Jesus, and in this the
argument from prophecy was naturally very prominent.
Again and again we read in the accounts of the primi
tive apostoUc preaching how the Christian missionaries
employed the argument from the Old Testament
to confute the Jews and estabhsh the Messiahship of
Jesus. The Bereans are speciaUy commended for
searching the Scriptures with an open mind in order to
test by them the Messianic claims of Jesus. The con
troversy has left its mark on the Gospel history.
Mark and Luke are not so much affected by it, but it
has done much to determine the character of the
Gospels of Matthew and John. And the early patristic
literature shows us with what keenness the argument
was pursued; of that the Epistle of Barnabas and
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho are sufficient evidence.
Probably at a quite early period coUections of Messianic
proof texts from the Old Testament were drawn up for
use in controversy with the Jews. The Christians felt
that it was a matter of the utmost importance to their
cause to make good their claim to the possession of the
Old Testament. They were conscious that they could
not present a new religion for the acceptance of the
Gentile world with ans^thing Uke the same confidence
as an old reUgion. Accordingly they argued : ' Ours
is not a new, but an old reUgion. We are the true Israel,
the Old Testament is our book, we, and not the Jews,
are in the true succession of patriarchs and prophets.'
And it was a great point gained if they could prove
that hundreds of years beforehand the career of Jesus
had been foretold in minute detail. Accordingly they

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 365
went to extravagant lengths in pursuit of their purpose
to find Christ everywhere in the Old Testament. Read
ing it with this purpose in mind, it is not wonderful
that they constantly missed the original sense of the
Old Testament, and that its true meaning was in many
respects entirely hidden from them. The interpreta
tion of prophecy which has been current in the Chris
tian Church is a terrible example of the nemesis that
overtakes those who use false methods even in the
best of causes. Treated by such methods, the Old
Testament lost all its proper significance ; and this
was aggravated by the wide prevalence of allegorical
interpretation, which left Scripture at the mercy of the
interpreter's caprice.
Fortunately we have shaken ourselves pretty free
from these unhistorical devices. AU scientific stu
dents of Scripture start from the principle that Scrip
ture means what it says, and that we are to take it
in its plain and straightforward sense, after this has
been determined by the best methods at our disposal.
This is not necessarily always the obvious sense to the
English reader, it is true ; nevertheless we can make no
terms with aUegorical exegesis. Moreover, we are
convinced that the Old Testament had a message and
a meaning of its own. It is not a mere roundabout
way of sajang what is said more plainly in the New
Testament. Nevertheless it is my own behef that
the argument from prophecy as weU as the argument
from miracles may stiU play a useful part in the de
fence of the faith. Old Testament criticism generaUy
has greatly strengthened apologetics, and we might
expect that the argument from prophecy should be
capable of reconstruction, so as to be a strength rather
than a weakness to Christianity. But it needs to be
stated in* a very different form from that which it used

366 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
to assume. The progress of Bibhcal scholarship has
destroyed the argument in its old form. Some of the
passages that Were quoted with the greatest confidence
have been shown by a strict exegesis, which has taken
fuU account of the context, to have no such reference at
aU. To keep it up in its old form is no longer honest,
and is in fact to do harm rather than good. The
problem thus presented is whether the argument
should be restated or abandoned.
The first principle on which I should lay stress in
reconstructing the argument from prophecy is that
its main emphasis must Ue on the general movement
rather than on details. The old-fashioned line of
proof could not as I have said elsewhere (Lux Hominum,
p. 46), see the wood for the trees. It was too much pre
occupied with proving that the Old Testament contained
a life of Christ written centuries beforehand. It busied
itself with instituting a parallel between isolated facts
in the career of Jesus and isolated texts or passages in
the Old Testament. The objections to such a procedure
are clear. It involved a good deal of violence in
many instances to force the correspondence ; passages
were taken out of their original context and a meaning
imposed on them which they could not honestly bear.
In the next place there was the possibihty that in some
instances Jesus deliberately adapted His action to
details in the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testa
ment. For example the form which His Triumphal
Entry into Jerasalem took was due to His dehberate in
tention to put forward the claim to be the Messiah.
In that case we can base no argument on the corre
spondence between the Old and New Testament to
prove that the prophet had supernatural knowledge
of details in Christ's career. We should also have
to reckon with the argument that the history has been

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 367
told under the influence of these Messianic behefs.
Such and such things were predicted of the Messiah,
therefore since Jesus was the Messiah they must have
been fulfiUed in His life. So long as the old interpreta
tion of the prophetic passages held good, and so long
as the facts of the Gospel history remained unchallenged,
it was possible to build up an impressive argument by
ananging prediction and fulfilment side by side. With a
scientific exegesis on the one side, however, and a
sceptical criticism on the other, this line of reasoning
has lost most of its cogency. I am not saying that
it is on this account whoUy incorrect, but it has ceased
to be of much value as evidence for the trath of the
Christian religion to any who are disposed to caU it in
question. A far more impressive proof may be buUt up by
leaving out of account the pe^y details and concentrat
ing attention no longer on trivialities but on the
general movement of Israelite religion towards its
climax in Christianity. It is the same here as with
the old-fashioned argument from design. The con
stant adjustments that are found in Nature were urged
as proof of design, and were considered one of the
main supports of the theistic argument. When Dar
win's theory of natural selection was first put forward
it was thought, both by friends and foes of Christianity,
that if true it had given the argument from design its
death-blow, inasmuch as the adjustments which were
supposed to bespeak inteUectual purpose were ex
plained by it as due to the struggle for existence in
which organisms, survived since they were better
adapted to their environment. The extent to which
this was reaUy the case is not a matter with which I
am at present concemed ; but it has long been clear
that an evolutionary theory, so far from destroying

368 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
the argument from design, really gives it back to us in
a far more impressive form. For now it shows us the
whole movement steadily moving upward to its goal,
and speaking to us of a vast cosmic purpose on a
scale infinitely larger and more comprehensive than
was dreamt of by the older apologetics. So, too,
the great argument from prophecy is that which
views the whole history of Israel as moving steadily
forward to its climax in the Gospel. Such an argument
makes a far deeper impression upon us than the accu
mulation of detailed fulfUments which used to constitute
the proof from prophecy.
In another respect the situation has changed. We
now reahze that it is a far more reverent thing to suffer
the Old Testament to speak for itself, than to make it
speak the language of the New, and our reward has
been very great. Popular theology has fixed on
prediction, and in particular the prediction of the
Gospel history as the chief characteristic of prophecy.
We have ceased to reduce the prophets to mere fore
tellers of events, and have reahzed that their message
was primarily to the men of their own time. Their
value did not consist in their being a class of superior
soothsayers, but in the fact that they proclaimed
God's wiU to the men of their time and were His
inspired spokesmen, who revealed the higher truths of
His Spirit as men were able to receive them. Thek true
greatness and signfficance was never so manifest to us
as to-day, though the element of prediction in their
work has faUen into a subordinate place. Theirs is a
message which can indeed be understood only through
famiharity with the ckcumstances of their own age.
It was to thek own contemporaries that they spoke
their flaming words of denunciation, their inflexible
demands for civic and judicial righteousness, the

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 369
glad tidings of God's love and compassion, the tender
and urgent appeals to turn from the evU way and live.
The essence of their message was, it is true, some great
eternal principle. But they did not concern them
selves with abstract statements of it, rather they fitted
it with exquisite precision to the sins or folUes. the ill-
timed optimism or apathetic despair of their own
generation. They were pre-eminently preachers, and
among the greatest of their order. The better we
understand their age, the more prepared we are to
appreciate their marveUous greatness ; and the more
that is appreciated, the greater will be the impression
of Divine origin that their teaching makes upon us.
As by an effort of sympathetic imagination, we place
ourselves in the prophet's audience and listen to his
glowing and passionate words, we feel that here we
have something which surpasses the reach of mere flesh
and blood. In and for themselves, quite apart from
any relation to the future, thek words often impress
us by their weight and grandeur, their keen and
penetrating power, as the utterances of the Uving God.
Yet it would be a mistake to deny the element of
prediction in their prophecies. That they did on
certain occasions successfuUy foretell the future cannot
reasonably be denied ; the evidence for it is too con
clusive. Yet so far as it was detailed prediction it
sprang as a rule out of the present. They were not
concerned with the far distant future. Even the
glorious future which so many of them predicted
they imagined to he quite near their own day. They
were like those who, looking at mountains from a dis
tance, blend into one great mountain mass what is in
fact a whole series of heights. They never guessed
through what slow and tedious stages history would
bring to reahzation. their splendid visions of the future.
? p. 24

370 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
Moreover, in reading the prophets' descriptions of the
future, we must beware of treating them in a prosaic and
hteral fashion. They are not writing history before
hand in the same way in which the modern historian
would narrate the past. They conceive the future
largely under the conditions of the present. Jera
salem and Palestine are for them the scene of the
ultimate development, and the neighbouring nations
StiU play their part, Egypt and Assyria, Moab and
Ammon, and the rest. Jerusalem is the political
capital of the world and the centre of its rehgious
iUumination. These are features which cannot be
spiritualized away; the prophets meant them in the
literal sense ; but it would be foolish to imagine that
they are literally to happen, they belong to the drapery
in which the prophets clothed their great conceptions.
Only so could they have been inteUigible either to
themselves or others. This is one of those cases
where the letter kiUeth but the spirit giveth life.
It is not for us to concern ourselves with the foUies
of the prophetic interpreters, but to penetrate to the
eternal core of the prophetic message. If, however,
we give up the expectation that Moab and Ammon will
occupy the position in the future assigned to them by
the prophets, why should we hold to the behef in the
future predicted for the Jews in Palestine ? A robust
faith is not divorced from robust common sense, and
our faith in the Divine origin of prophecy ought to be
strong enough to be undismayed by the non-fuffilment
of such details. We should be unfaithful to our fuUer
revelation if we aUowed ourselves to faU back into
the nationalist ideas from which the Old Testament
at its best rarely emerges. We must replace political
by spiritual ideals, and recognizing that the supreme
interest of the prophets is the Kingdom of God, dis-

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 371
engage the great spiritual conceptions of it with which
they present us, from the local and temporal elements
in which they are inevitably entangled.
I now come to the question of New Testament fulfil
ment. It is an axiom with Old Testament commenta
tors nowadays that in determining the original sense of
the Old Testament prophecies we must leave the New
Testament interpretation altogether out of account.
But when we take up the New Testament we are con
fronted by the large range of quotations from the Old
Testament, many of which are said to be fuffilled in
certain details of the hfe of Christ. I could recommend
those who resent even the most cautious conclusions
no more educative study than a careful comparison
of the New Testament quotations with the Old Testa
ment passages from which they are taken, including
the context. Fortunately certain instances are too
clear to admit of dispute. When the evangehst sees
in the return of Jesus from Egypt a fuffilment of the
prophecy, ' Out of Egypt have I called my Son,' he is
certainly not giving us the original sense of the words, for
the reference in Hosea is to Israel's exodus from Egypt,
* When Israel was a child, then I loved him and caUed
my son out of Egypt.' How httle the prophet had
Christ in his mind is clear from the fact that he con
tinues to denounce Israel's unfaithful disobedience and
idolatry, and to predict its subjection to the Assyrians.
This instance is, however, instructive, for it shows us
that the evangelist had no hesitation in applying pas
sages to Jesus which were originaUy spoken with
another reference altogether. SimUarly he sees
Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel fuffiUed in the birth
from a Virgin of the Incarnate Son of God. But it is
quite clear that Isaiah himself had something alto
gether different in his mind. When the Evangehst

372 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
regards the residence of Jesus at Nazareth as fulfiUing
what was spoken by the prophet, ' He shall be called a
Nazarene,' he sets us a very difficult problem, for no
such prophecy exists in the Old Testament. These
facts constitute a charter of freedom for the Christian
interpreter, since they make it plain that we are not
compelled to conform our Old Testament exegesis to
New Testament appUcations. We cannot suppose
that the Evangehst was ignorant that the words. ' Out
of Egypt have I caUed my Son.' had reference to the
exodus of Israel, inasmuch as this was definitely stated
in the passage itself. Accordingly in other places
where the Old Testament reference is not so manifestly
different from the New Testament appUcation, we are
right in refusing to be bound by the latter when we
are seeking to determine the sense of the former.
If, however, we look more deeply, we shaU certainly find
that in some cases, at any rate, the correspondence is
not merely literary.
It has been disputed by some of the more radical
New Testament critics whether Jesus ever identified
Himself with the Messiah. That He did so seems to
me to stand fast even after the most searching criticism
of our documents. The facts which point in the con
trary direction are sufficiently explained by the ne
cessity that He felt for reticence. His situation was
really difficult, inasmuch as while He believed Himself
to be the Messiah, He attached a different conception
to the Messianic vocation from that which it popularly
possessed. And we ought not Pharisaically to blame
the Jews too harshly for their refusal to recognize in
Jesus the Messiah. The Old Testament had spoken
of the Messianic King as a great warrior who should
crush the enemies of Israel, should rule them with a
rod of iron, and shiver them like a potter's vessel.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 373
This miUtary, poUtical ideal was ahen to the mind of
Jesus. Yet He also made much of the Kingdom of
God, and penetrated through the outer nationaUst husk
m which the prophetic hope had been contained to its
spiritual kernel. He had, therefore, to work with the
utmost caution, and begin by transforming the ideals
of those who came under His sway. He preached the
Kingdom of God, but attached such descriptions to it
as tended to cancel the pohtical associations that had
gathered about the term. When at a single word He
might have plunged Palestine into war with Rome, it
is not difficult to understand the reserve He exercised
with reference to His Messiahship. He did not on
that account waver in His own conviction that He had
been appointed Messiah by God. Even with the cer
tainty of death before Him, He suggested His claim
by the Triumphal Entry, and asserted it before the
Sanhedrin at His trial. But He realized that before He
could fulfil His Messianic functions He must suffer as the
Servant of Yahweh.
The identification of Jesus with the Suffering Servant
was made quite early in the Apostohc Church. It can
hardly be doubted that our Lord Himself had set the ex
ample. I have akeady said, however (p.241). that by the
Servant of Yahweh the prophet intended the IsraeUtish
nation which had died in the exUe and was to rise again
at the restoration. The question naturaUy arises. What
justification is there for the Christian interpretation of
the Servant passages ? The answer to the difficulty
Ues almost on the surface. I have akeady expressed
my view on this point in my Problem of Suffering in the
Old Testament (1904), pp. 65, 66, and need devote only
a few words to it now. The Second Isaiah regards Israel
as the Servant of Yahweh in virtue of Israel's function-
in universal history. He defines that function as two-

374 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
fold. Israel is Yahweh's prophet to the Gentiles and
the vicarious sufferer for their sin. This is the meaning
of the exile and the exaltation which is to follow.
Now it is plain that the prophet sketched a role
for the nation which it was inadequate to fiU. And
on the other hand it is plain that the two functions
he ascribed to the Servant were actually performed
by Jesus of Nazareth. He is the supreme revealer of
God to the world and the vicarious sufferer for the
world's sin. Can we then justify the prophet in
attributing to Israel what was as a matter of fact
achieved by Jesus ? To a large extent we can if we
take the step of identif5dng Jesus with Israel. He
is the Israehte in whom the essential significance of
His people is concentrated, its significance as prophet
and as vicarious sufferer. Israel is the Servant of
Yahweh only in so far as these functions are em
bodied in it, and Jesus is Israel just because He is
their perfect embodiment. If, then, we ask. Did
the prophet himself contemplate the career of Jesus
when he wrote his poems ? the only answer we can
give consistent with the actual phenomena is that he
did not. The language of the whole prophecy is too
clear to leave any doubt. But that does not in the
least forbid us to hold that the Christian meaning was
there aU the time. We are aU famihar with the fact
that even human genius utters thoughts deeper
than those of which the writer is himself con
scious. And where we are deaUng with the works of
one who was not simply a genius, but an inspired
prophet, we may well find that his utterances express
truths of whose depth and significance he was himself
unaware. This accounts for those marked resem
blances to the actual career of Jesus which the poems
present, since He who spoke by the prophets knew how

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 375
the prophet's words were in history to be realized
(see pp. 453 f.).
I may touch more briefly than would otherwise be
necessary on the view that in the Old Testament ritual
we have a foreshadowing of the Gospel, since on some of
the points involved I have spoken in an earUer chapter.
Even to-day it is not unusual to find those who firmly
believe that the redemptive facts of our reUgion were
concealed in the tabernacle and its ritual. This view
cannot be carried out in detail and yet the typology be
kept within the limits of sanity. If we would avoid
grotesque extravagances we must turn away from
minutiae and concentrate on principles. For my own
part I find it difficult to beUeve that Hebrew ritual
as a wkole was instituted with any conscious reference
t6 Christianity. Its origin in Semitic Paganism and
its roots stiU farther back in savage custom suggest
that if we form this judgment of Hebrew ritual we
cannot easUy defend our refusal to pass a similar
judgment on its sources. And indeed if for something
so much loftier than the ceremonial system of the Old
Testament, I mean the figure of the Suffering Servant,
we refuse to read back the New Testament into the
Old, how could we do so for the Levitical Laws ? Yet
we need not refuse to see in it an unconscious prophecy
of the Gospel, in the needs which it expressed and the
responses it devised. This is pre-eminently trae of the
Jewish sacrffices, which uttered in a material form
the deepest aspirations of the human heart for feUowship
with God. for cleansing and for pardon. But essen
tiaUy it is the universal need which long before the
bkth of Israel had been felt throughout the world and
formed for itself simUar channels of satisfaction.
But after aU it is the reUgion of Israel itself rather
than this or that element in it which is the supreme

"m

376 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW
prophecyof Christianity. We rise above the details, even
the greatest, to the contemplation of the movement as a
whole. And as we follow it from point to point the con
viction grows upon us that in this rehgion we have indeed
a Divinely ordered preparation for the coming of Christ.
It would be quite possible to argue that Christ
might have come along some other line than Judaism.
that some other people than Israel might have given
Him birth. And although this question may seem
to possess but an academic interest, a reference to it
will make clearerTolis" why the Old Testament must
retain its permanent value for Ckggtians. Just as in
the case of man the special Une ofancestry along
which he came had to diverge from other branches at a
point far anterior to his emergence, so we may say
that the people and religion out of whica Christ was
to come had to be selected for special training many
generations before He was born. And had He come
in any other people or religion it would have been
necessary for a simUar process to have been initiated
far back in its history. To none of the great ethnic
religions outside Judaism in their developed form
Would it have been possible to append Christianity as
the final stage, and it is futUe to imagine that it could
now be tacked on to any of them. It grows organicaUy
out of Judaism and could have grown out of nothing else.
But since the Old Testament is our main source of in
formation as to the history of Israel's religion, it is indis
pensable to us for the light which it casts upon Chris
tianity. Apart from it we could not understand Jesus
Himself, what new thing He brought, the redemption
He achieved, the final word He uttered, the supreme
figure in the history of religion He was. He is in
truth the lonely summit dominating in unapproachable
majesty the whole field of history. Yet He does not

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW 377
rise sheer and precipitous from its dead level. The
history of Israel slopes up towards Him in gradual
and sure ascent. We may not detach Him either from
the process which led up to Him or the movements
which issue from Him. AU are needed that He may be
placed in His proper context and truly apprehended
in all the depth and fullness of His meaning for history.
From this point of view it wiU be plain that while
asserting the permanent value of the Old Testament
and its secure position in the Christian Canon we can
cheerfuUy recognize whatever of limitation or error
may be rightly discovered in it. We are no longer
tempted to impose unnatural meanings upon its
words, to fiU with Christian content its inferior teach
ing, to discern a Christian significance in its crude and
repulsive rites. Scarcely even by stretching them on
the rack could our predecessors extort a Christian con
fession from them. And we take them for what they
are, the utterances of those who stood at a position we
have largely left behind. For us they are precious
landmarks helping us to retrace the path by which
the race has risen. We discern how the Spirit has
moulded His reluctant material into growing conformity
with His ideal. Hence we expect to find imperfections
in fuU measure, low thoughts of God, low ideals of con
duct, false views of hfe. What is really remarkable
to those who come to the Old Testament thus prepared.
is that this element should be so much less than we
might have expected. The moral difficulties of the
Old Testament as they are caUed, for such an attitude
practicaUy cease to exist. They could arouse anxiety
only if we insisted on disregarding the plain evidence
as to the true nature of the hterature and imagine that
it was designed to give us a spiritual and ethical stan
dard vahd for aU time.

CHAPTER XIX
THE NATURE AND MECHANISM OF
INSPIRATION
It has been usual to express the pecuhar quality
which differentiates Scripture from aU other literature
by claiming for it that it is Divinely inspired. The
degree of this inspkation and the correct formula
for it have been the subject of prolonged and acrimon
ious debate. But the Bible has no monopoly of this
claim. It is constantly put forward to express the
Divine origin of other sacred books and in a degree
happily unknown in Christian theology.
We are perhaps incUned to think that certain
familiar doctrines of inspiration are rigid to an extent
that could hardly be surpassed. One weU-known
scholar, for example, was not content with asserting
verbal inspiration, but went so far as to assert what
has been called accentual inspiration. Yet even he,
with his high-pitched doctrine, feU below the claims
made in some other religions, for he never denied
that the books came into existence at different times.
and were written by different human authors, and
had no existence before they were so written. But
in some other rehgions there is a dogma of the pre-
existence of the sacred books, or even of their eternity.
For example, when Dr. Fairbairn was in India he
378

THE NATURE OF INSPIRATION 379
was discussing a question of theology with a Brahmin,
and indicated certain elements in the Vedas which
pointed to their composite character. The Brahmin,
however, met his argu^lent with the objection that
the Vedas were eternal, and therefore could not exhibit
signs of composite structure. Now, however strongly
our traditional scholars may deny composite structure
in our own sacred books, where other scholars detect
its presence, they never make such extravagant
claims for the Bible as to argue that it is pre-existent
and eternal. Nor could a Christian ever be guUty
of the blasphemous fancies of some Rabbis that God
Himself spent a certain portion of each day stud5dng
the Law. Some held that each passage in the Law
was capable of seventy interpretations. It was also
beUeved that the vowel points were communicated
to Adam along with the consonantal text. Philo held
a high doctrine of the inspiration not of the Hebrew
text alone, but also of the Septuagint. It is quite
true that the doctrines of inspiration ,which used to
be cunent, but are happUy fast disappearing, were
not suggested by the phenomena of Scripture itself,
but by a priori theories as to what a Divinely inspired
book must have been. But fortunately the most
extreme has not been disfigured by the grotesque
and profane behefs famiUar in other religions. Na
turaUy the dogma of the eternity of the Vedas does
not prevent a modern scholar from investigating them
by the usual laws of criticism.
It has been debated among theologians whether the
thought in the Bible was supernaturaUy communicated
and the expression left to the human author, or whether
thought and expression ahke were dictated by the Holy
Ghost, whether the inspiration embraced all topics on
which the authors spoke or simply matters of faith

38o THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
and conduct. But the average Christian probably
thought of Scripture as the unmixed utterance of the
Holy Spirit. True it came to men through human
channels, but it lost and gained nothing in the process.
the human element was not suffered to mingle with the
Divine. Wherever we turned we had the immediate,
uncontaminated word of God. The fault of this whole
point of view lay largely in its indifference to the actual
phenomena of Scripture. The systematic theologian
was considered to be the most competent to deal
with the question. Inspkation and Revelation were
treated in the Prolegomena to Dogmatics and a
knowledge of Dogmatic Theology was considered the
proper equipment for its correct treatment. The
true conception of Holy Scripture had been fixed by
a priori methods, and its adequacy was rarely tested
by its relevance to the Contents of the Bible in
anything but a very perfunctory fashion. It was
thought quite proper to construct a doctrine of Scrip
ture on abstract principles. Certainly it was much
easier to sit down in an easy chair and spin theories
of revelation out of one's own brain in accordance
with one's sense of the fitness of things than by patient
and protracted labour to discover along what Unes
the reveaUng activity of God had reaUy moved. And
there was a spurious appearance of reverence about
this method. UntrammeUed by any regard for facts,
the theologian could expatiate with the utmost
freedom on the perfections of the Bible. Thus a
very rigid doctrine of inspiration could be constructed
in this aky fashion ; and woe to the man who insisted
on bringing these high-sounding phrases to the actual
test of confronting them with the facts ! This attitude
no doubt stiU survives among vast multitudes of our
feUow-Christians, but for reflecting Christians its

OF INSPIRATION 381
day is really done. The scientific method reigns
supreme, and no one can hope for a hearing from
those who have been touched by the modern spirit
unless he builds his doctrine on a broad and firm
foundation of observed and tested facts. The pro
gress of scholarship may be opposed in the name of
tradition, but this is almost as belated as an attempt
to confute the Copernican theory by an appeal
to mediaeval theology. The great question is that
of method, everything else foUows in due course;
though, no doubt, agreement as to method is com
patible with very wide divergence in results. Once the
principle is laid down that knowledge of the facts
must precede the construction of theories, no person
competent to form an opinion wiU dispute its vaUdity.
And if any should fear that to abandon the older
standpoint is a lapse from piety, I wUl simply
ask whether it is reaUy reverent to impose on the facts
a human theory, constructed out of our own ima
gination, and to determine beforehand by our own
puny and faUible judgment how God must have re
vealed Himself, or whether we should humbly go
to the facts themselves and by deep and careful study
discover how God has revealed Himself ? There
can, I imagine, be no doubt as to the answer. When
we have the Bible to investigate, it is lazy arrogance
to formulate our own theories without undergoing
the labour of examination ; and to lay down the rules
for the Divine action and insist that God must have
foUowed them wUl seem ineverent to those who know
how far above our human comprehension are His
thoughts and ways.
It may, of course, be urged that this criticism is
hardly just to the older method. Those who practised it
might retort that they went to the Bible as the source

382 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
of their theory of revelation, and therefore conformed
to the conditions which I have laid down. But this
can hardly be admitted. The method of estabhsh
ing the doctrine was that of appeal to proof-texts. On
the unsatisfactoriness of this method in its wider apph-
cations I need not repeat what I am saying elsewhere
(pp . 4 18 ff .) . In the present case it is perhaps more than
usuaUy unsatisfactory, because the passages to which
appeal is made are not themselves entirely unambigu
ous, and they are very far from giving an exhaustive
account of the subject. Moreover, we have no right
to confine our attention to a comparatively few formal
statements and leave the great tract of evidence
unexplored ; with the open Bible in front of us it is
culpable negligence to leave the phenomena of revela
tion unexamined.
Such an examination, of course, I do not propose to
institute here, but there are two points on which I
have frequently insisted that I may mention. One
is the fact that revelation has come through history ;
the other is the large part which has been played in
it by personal experience. These are facts which are
susceptible of strict demonstration, and may be verified
for himself by any student of the Bible. Now what
ever else this and other facts may mean, we cannot
fail to learn from them that the human element in
the Bible has been far larger and more important than
antecedently we might have imagined. The water of
life has not been conveyed through channels which
have left it unaffected. The human factor has here,
as in so many other instances, co-operated with the
Divine.' Let us not be guilty of irreverently wishing
1 Dr. Orr says : ' There is not, nor could be in Divine inspira
tion any suppression of human genius, faculty, or individual-

OF INSPIRATION 383
that it had been otherwise, and let us not accuse
those who emphasize it of a deske to behttle the
Bible. Many Christians have resented any real
insistence on our Lord's fuU humanity whUe they
have formaUy affirmed it. We are, it may be hoped,
wiser, in that we have come to see that His Divinity
won its fullest expression through the sacrifice and
love which determined the Incarnation. Similarly
we insist onthe co-operation of man with God in the
work of salvation. So, too, we may be glad to recog
nize that men have been feUow-workers with God in
the process of revelation to a degree which has con
stantly been underrated. But when we have said
thus much we have passed into the domain of
psychology, and we are brought face to face with
the problem in its modern form.
It is a real action of the human spirit, a real effort
on its part which is here implied. It would be very
unlike the Divine mode of action for the Spirit of God
to co-operate with the laziness of man and reveal to
him supernaturaUy what he was capable of discover
ing for himself. This may be easily shown by a
reference to the very instructive preface to the Third
Gospel. Luke does not say that he received from
the Holy Spirit exact information as to the facts of
Christ's career, but he states as his qualification for
writing that he has ' traced the course of aU things
accurately from the first.' This single example is
quite enough to prove that in whatever way inspiration
worked, it did not exonerate the writer from the labour
of patient and exact research.
Revelation is not, I have said, a purely Divine
thing, the human factor blended with the Divine,
ity. Limitations in the instrument condition receptivity for
the message' (The Faith of a Modern Christian, p. 16).

384 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
the mental and spiritual energy of the human instru
ment responded to the stimulus of the Holy Spirit.
It was not in communication of abstract truths
received and uttered by the human spokesman that
the Spirit's activity was mainly to be sought. The
truth might be flashed on his soul in some critical
moment of ecstatic vision, or it might be a lesson
slowly borne in upon his consciousness through pro
longed wresthngs and agony of soul. It is a mistake
to imagine that this tends to eliminate or even reduce
the Divine element, for God is behind and in the
history and the experience, with aU His living energy
and self-communicating grace, as much as in an utter
ance of which He is the author, and His spokesman
the mere recipient. And I need not Unger to show
once more how much of power and warmth is im
parted to the Bible by the fact that God has chosen
to speak to us through the history and experience of
our fellows. I have in an earlier chapter (p. 281) used
the metaphor of light coming through coloured glass,
but this suggests too passive an attitude on the part
of the medium. The human personahty seizes on
the truth thus presented, but in assimUating must in
a measure transform it. It is much more important
to reahze how revelation came through a Divinely
guided national history, and through the experience
of the chosen organs of Divine inspiration, than to
worry ourselves to coin a formula in which inspiration
should be accurately defined. It is much more import
ant for us to feel the inspiration of the Bible than
to construct an adequate dogma about it ; far more
vital that deep should answer to deep, and that the
experience of redemption which it enshrines in clsissical
utterance should be met by a response in our own
experience.

OF INSPIRATION 385
We have grown familiar with the fact that the
higher developments of rehgion exhibit a certain
continuity with the lower. This is tme not only of
other rehgions. but of those whose classical documents
are to be found in the Bible. Much, for example,
in Hebrew ritual has its paraUels not simply in other
Semitic peoples, but among savages. There were
elements in these earlier types which had to be left
behind and sterrUy prohibited. Other elements could
be taken up, raised to higher powers, and worked
into the texture of the rehgion. And we find this
tme of the prophetic and analogous gifts. Early
prophecy as we meet with it in the days of Samuel
has points of contact with what is famiUar to us in
cruder reUgions. It would be unfair to taunt Hebrew
prophecy on account of its poor relations. It is far
more to the point to inquire why, with such lowly ante
cedents, Hebrew prophecy rose to such unparaUeled
heights. The more we insist on the low level
from which it started the greater wUl be our estimate
of the Divine power which raised it to the summit it
attained. Not only, however, is there continuity
in the historical, there is continuity in the psycholo
gical sphere. Many of the phenomena of the prophetic
experience are familar to the psychologist, and
especially to those who are engaged in psychical
research. Clakvoyance, clakaudience, trance-speech,
thought-reading, telepathy, prediction are common
to the two types. But here agam the fuUest recogni
tion that the two realms are contmuous should go along
with an equaUy clear perception of the dUferences.
That the Holy Spkit should seize and use human
faculties which were ready to His hand is only what
we should anticipate, but the fact that He starts
from the natural ought not to betray us into an inter-
•,o. 25

386 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
pretation of prophecy as a purely natural phenomenon.
Here again we must judge by the fruits, and they are
of such an order as to convince us that the direct
action of God was needed to produce them.
The conception of inspiration itself presents us with
one of those cases in which we may observe the prepara
tion for a higher doctrine in the earlier stages of human
thought and reUgion. In what we know as animism
there is a behef in the universal diffusion of spirits.
These non-physical entities pervade the whole of
Nature. If the savage finds that his anow does not
speed to its mark he wiU say that some evU-disposed
person has given his bow medicine to make its spirit
sick. The distinction between the animate and the
inanimate which is so obvious to ourselves has no
meaning to him. He is, of course, the owner himself
of one or more spirits ; four is quite a moderate allow
ance for him. But he is always in perU of invasion
from an ahen spirit. Under certain conditions,
against which he has to take constant precautions,
this foreign parasite may attach itself to the unwilUng
host. We have, then, the phenomenon of possession ;
a power other than his own takes possession of him
and controls him. It is, of course, possible that such
possession may be voluntarily induced. A man for
some purpose or other passes into this state.
In the religious sphere the condition is marked by
wild ecstasy. Our word enthusiasm means that the
person who is so affected is ' possessed by the God.'
An inspired frenzy is the characteristic of this state
in which the victim of possession is swept out of
himself and carried away on the rushing cunent of
emotional intoxication. Thus the Delphic priestess,
inspired by the god ApoUo, breaks out into the wild
chant of her oracle, or the medicine man spins found

OF INSPIRATION 387
and round in the giddy dance tiU he sinks exhausted
on the ground.
A fuU examination of these phenomena would
carry us much too far, and simUarly the abnormal
psychical states which are closely alhed to these
would call for an equaUy minute investigation. AU
that it is necessary for us to remember here is that
the conditions with which we are familiar in Scripture
and in religious experience have their analogies in wholly
inferior types of thought and culture and spiritual hfe.
Here, as in so many other cases, the lesson is being
forced upon us that God has prepared for His supreme
revelation on a scale which we have hitherto but
dimly apprehended, and that He has laid the founda
tions deep in the very constitution of human nature
itself. Instead of arguing, as some would do, that
these lower stages discredit the higher, I would rather
argue, reverting to a point I have already indicated.
that they are the lowly prophecies of the ultimate
achievement. The important thing is not the form
which the instincts assumed, or the crude explanations
which were given of the phenomena, but the fact that
the instincts were there and forced themselves into
expression. The devout Christian, looking back over
that long history in which God did not leave Himself
without a witness, as he ponders with tender respect
even the darkest and most repulsive features of primi
tive religion, reverently recognizes that even here
the Spirit of God was at work, coaxing, one might
almost say, the tiny spark of spiritual hfe into a clearer
and a brighter flame.
The reasons why I have dwelt on these things at
the outset wiU be plain when I proceed to point out
that they lead us directly to some of the phenomena
in the Bible itself. We are famihar with the way in

388 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
which, especiaUy in the Old Testament, the Spirit
of God is connected with ecstatic conditions, some
times rehgious and sometimes non-religious in charac
ter. For example, we have the striking statement
that when the lion roared against Samson the Spirit
of the Lord came mightily upon him, and he rent
him as he would have rent a kid. Then at a later
period, when he kiUs the thirty men of Ashkelon in
order that he might pay with their changes of raiment
the wager he had forfeited to his companions for
guessing his riddle, we are similarly told that the
Spirit of the Lord came mightUy upon him. The
same formula is used when the ropes with which he
was bound became as flax that was burnt with fire
and feU from him, and he smote a thousand men.
In aU this there is no religious or, indeed, moral
character. The Hebrews attributed a great endowment
of physical strength to the Spirit of God. So, too,
the Spirit came upon the heroes who delivered Israel
from its enemies. It is a similar though somewhat
higher conception when to His inspiration more
inteUectual quaUties are assigned, such as the skiU
with which the tabernacle was constructed. A
more purely reUgious form is to be found in the
case of the prophets. Here the Spirit of God seizes
them in a form that reminds us of the ecstatic
phenomena to which I have already referred. Thus,
in the case of Saul and the prophets whom he
joined, we notice that there was a contagious ecstasy
which fell suddenly on a man, and, as we see
from a later story, it might even lay hold on him
against his will. What is impressive about Old Testa
ment prophecy is not this enthusiastic character, but
that starting from a level so low, it attained so lofty
a height. As prophecy advances we notice that

OF INSPIRATION 389
ecstasy retreats ; the prophet speaks in a condition
of self-control, and what he says is none the less but
aU the more the Word of God, because the Divine
Spirit has gained an instrument more perfectly attuned
to His WiU.
But without stopping to complete the Old Testa
ment presentation of our subject at this point, I pass
on to notice the persistence of this type within the
New Testament. The incidents of the Day of Pente
cost, and similar manifestations in the early Church,
show us that we are still moving in the same region
as in the Old Testament. Speaking with tongues,
whatever that may mean, was a characteristic note
of possession by the Spirit. And when we pass from
the New Testament, and study the later history of
the Church, we are surprised to find how frequently
similar, conditions tend to recur. In times of great
religious awakening they are especially prominent,
and the student who has sympathetically studied
revivals is constantly struck with the way in which
he is met again and again in his investigations by
the same sort of incidents. The rule is for conditions
of this kind to go on for a more or less limited period
and then to die down. The early glow and enthusiasm,
the rapture and ecstasy, fade into the light of common
day, but if the transition is wisely guided it should
be effected without loss and with a real gain.
It is one of the many signal services which Paul
rendered to the Church that he placed these things
in their right position. It is inevitable that, human
nature being what it is, the tendency should be to
over-estimate that which is striking and exceptional.
People are dazzled by these things, they cannot
see God except in a miracle. They are not moved
to wonder by the normal course of things, which is

39® THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
far more marvellous, if we could only see it, than
any miracle could be. Hence the Church was in
danger of overrating the value of the abnormal pheno
mena. And in the later history we have constantly
to notice how communities which have sprung out of
a revival have been tempted to overrate the value
of abnormal accompaniments, as if the action of
the Divine Spirit were speciaUy to be discerned in
physical convulsions or prostration. Scarcely any
where is Paul's greatness shown more than in the
treatment which he accorded to them. He saw
the movement of the Holy Spirit, it is true, in
the tongues and other ecstatic manifestations. He
was himself so singularly endowed that he spake
with tongues more than they aU. Had he been a
smaller man than he was he would have been swung off
his balance by this very fact, and would have thrust
into the foreground those elements in the Church's
life in which he was himself specially calculated to
shine. But he is so far from doing this that he gives
them an extremely subordinate position. He submits
everything to practical tests. Unless a thing tends
to edification it is to find no place in the public meetings
of the Church. Everything must be controlled by
a spirit of love and not by desire for display. But,
while he served the Church well in discouraging
these exceptional and unpractical expressions of
reUgious life, he did a service which cannot be over
rated in his positive teaching onthe work of the Spirit.
It is not, he says to his Churches, in the abnormal
that you are to find the Spirit of God doing His most
characteristic work, it is in the most commonplace
circumstances that He is to be sought, wherever a
man truly seeks to lead the higher moral and spiritual
life. The fruit of the Spirit is to be seen in those

OF INSPIRATION 391
spiritual states and those moral virtues which we are
called upon to exhibit in our everyday life. He found
the most conspicuous and valuable tokens of the Spirit's
presence and working, not in such showy gifts as
speaking with tongues, but in those gifts which tended
to edification, in the transformation and enrichment
of character, and above all in the supreme gift and
grace of love. Thus he saved the Church from being
carried forward on false lines and set it in the way
of a true moral and religious development.
It may perhaps not be thought irrelevant if at this
point I touch on a question that is troubling the minds
of many to day. What ought to be our own attitude
towards similar phenomena as we meet them at the
present time ? It is not simply a practical problem,
but it has some bearing on our special theme, not only
in the illumination it casts back on the inspiration
of the Biblical writers, but in helping us to judge how
far we may fitly talk of modern prophets. When
we remember that a large number of reUgious move
ments have been accompanied by such manifestations
in their earlier stages, we shall look to history for a
measure of guidance. It was so with the rise of
prophetism in Israel, it was so at the birth of the
Christian Church. Again and again they have sprung
to hfe ; they are found in Montanism. in the mediaeval
Church, in some of the sects at the time of the
Commonwealth, in the history of Methodism. After
a time they die away and a more organized type of
worship takes their place. Modern revivals are
marked by this accompaniment of spkitual gifts.
It is, in my judgment, a belated attitude to treat
them with ridicule. We are dealing here with a very
complex set of conditions of which we know extremely
Uttle. The laws which govern them are obscure.

392 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
and we have stiU much to learn about them.
They hnk on to such things as telepathy, automatic
writing, trance-speech, and similar psychical mani
festations. Ultimately we shaU probably have
sufficient material to form a coherent theory. The
first commandment for a scientific observer is that he
should clear his mind of prejudice. Great discoveries
may easily be missed if dislike or contempt should
disquahfy the observer from placing himself at the
right point of view.
But, while this is advice for the theoretical student
of rehgion, it may be asked, what is to be done as a
practical measure with reference to them ? What is
one to do when he is not cooUy studying these things
at a distance in an arm-chair, but when he is face
to face with them as a state of things to which he
must take up a definite attitude ? This is just the
problem with which Paul had to deal at Corinth.
His treatment of it is remarkably sane. The ques
tion was very difficult for him because theoreticaUy
he recognized that speaking with tongues was a
genuine result of inspiration by the Holy Ghost. He
had himself told the members of another Church
that they were not to quench the Spirit or show con
tempt for prophesying. His own consciousness at
tested to him the genuineness of the manifestations
and a Divine origin. We should have expected him
to draw the inference that no check was to be placed
upon them. And yet he rises above what his own
theory seemed to demand into a clear perception of
what the situation reaUy required. It is characteristic
of him that he dares to bring his theories to the test
of practical necessity, and to subordinate them to
his fundamental principles. Tongues are to be kept
in check unless they can be interpreted, inasmuch

OF INSPIRATION 393
as otherwise they do not edify the Church.
Prophecy — that is, inteUigible address of an edifying
character — is to be encouraged, but subject to cer
tain regulations. His master-principle, however, is
that aU gifts are valueless apart from love. And
since the Spirit is the Spirit of God, His action can
not be out of harmony with the Divine character.
Hence, there must be no disorder in the Church
meetings, for God is a God of order and of peace,
and not a God of confusion. The principles on
which Paul rehes, and which guided him so wisely
in the handUng of a difficulty that even from his own
point of view might weU have seemed intractable,
wiU lead aright any one who is confronted with a
similar question to-day.
It is, of course, necessary that certain precautions
be taken. For example, it is obvious that these things
are intolerable unless they are spontaneous. It is
quite possible for such conditions to be artificially
produced. In one religious movement trances were
not uncommon, and the wise rule was made that people
were not to ' go into vision,' as it was called, if they
could help it, but otherwise no steps were to be taken
to prevent a genuine and spontaneous experience.
We have also noticed that these manifestations have
a very contagious character. There is a peril that
they may in many cases be purely imitative and
external. Then, again, people who are in a state of
nervous instabihty are better away from an atmosphere
of this kind. After aU, the Christian experience
should be healthy and not morbid in its character.
And the peril to some temperaments is not simply
physical and mental, to nerve and brain, it may be
dangerous even to morality. While, then, we must
take to heart the warning, ' Quench not the Spirit,

394 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
despise not prophesyings.' we must combine with it
the companion injunction, ' Prove all things, hold
fast that which is good,'
It wiU be clear from what has been said that we
should expect to find in those who are chosen to be
the vehicles of inspiration a certain natural fitness
for this function. Those who are psychical subjects
by nature are those qualified to become medicine
men. clairvoyants, mediums. And it is a certain
natural endowment which qualifies a man for inspira
tion. True the flame may be suddenly Ut in a nature
that has hitherto seemed cold and irresponsive.
fitted neither by heredity nor by personal character
for membership in the prophetic order. When
without warning the steady yokel, himself a steady
yokel's son, is touched by the Divine fire and what
had seemed a duU clod bursts into a blaze, it is a nine
days' wonder to his friends that Saul should be found
among the prophets. Yet, unknown to himself and
unsuspected by his friends, he must all along have
possessed a nature fitted to kindle when it was touched
by the Uve coal from the altar. But this is only a
low type of inspiration compared with that which
meets us in the BibUcal writers themselves. One of
the most striking features in the history of prophecy
is the dwindhng of the abnormal psychical and phy
sical manifestations and the rise in moral and reUgious
quality. It is true that the former do not entirely
die out. Isaiah himself experienced both vision arid
ecstasy, and in Ezekiel's career these were present
in a much fuUer degree. But in the main we may
say that as inspiration becomes loftier it operates
more and more through the normal conditions of
human hfe. The personahty is more self-possessed
and balanced, liie wild gesture passes into the elevated

OF INSPIRATION 395
and serious demeanour, and the ecstatic utterance
into the quiet beauty of perfect expression. In place
of the shriU and excited declaimer we have one who
does not strive nor cry nor make his voice heard in
the street.
And with this change in the quality there goes a
change in the qualification. StiU the Spirit needs
His congenial instrument, but now He desires the
religious genius rather than the psychical subject.
This is not to reduce inspiration to a higher form of
religious genius. But in our desire to guard against
the exclusion of the Divine element we ought not to
think of the Biblical writers as in themselves no more
than ordinary men. It might seem as if the doctrine
of passive inspiration rendered the question of the
human agent a matter of complete indifference. The
relation of the Spirit to the writer was illustrated by that
of a musician to his instrument. Yet this metaphor
which likens the prophet to the unconscious flute,
through which the player breathes what melodies
he wiU, leaves room for the thought that the Spirit's
choice is controUed by fitness just as a flutist selects
the instrument most suitable to his purpose. And
those of us who reject the doctrine of passive inspira
tion and are unwilUng to degrade Scripture into a
piece of automatic writing, are aU the more bound to
emphasize the quahties in the men whom God chose
for co-operation with Him in His task. Hence we
do weU to emphasize the spiritual and ethical genius
which was the natural endowment of the writers.
And this is not to minimize the Divine element in
the creation of Scripture. On the contrary k enhances
k. Just as the Spirit of God was at work in the
history of Israel preparing a fruitful soU for revelation,
so too He was active in the creation of the efficient

396 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
medium through which He imparted the revelation
itself. The Une of ancestry from which His spokesman
came, the family into which he was bom, the society
and the circumstances that had fashioned the plastic
character in those early years when indeUble impres
sions are so easily made, above evers^thing the original
personahty itself, were aU the expression of the Divine
forethought. The chief of the prophets and the
chief of the apostles ahke knew themselves to be
children of destiny, chosen before their birth for the
high functions to which God was later to caU them.
And this emphasis on rehgious genius as the favourable
soil in which inspiration may secure its most abundant
harvest is reaUy helpful. When we are arrested by
the patent differences between Biblical writers of
the same period, we more easily accoknt for it on the
view that one was equipped with a higher genius than
the other and therefore his sensitiveness to Divine
tmth was finer, his spiritual insight deeper and his
gift of expression more adequate.
But the co-operation of man with God was not
always willing co-operation. Moses shrinks from
the task of demanding Israel's release from Pharaoh,
Jeremiah from the burden of uttering the prophetic
word. But God forces His wiU upon them so that
they have no help for it. When his first forebodings
had been verified by the isolation and increduUty, the
misery and persecution, to which his vocation doomed
him, Jeremiah would resolve in his desperation
never again to invite the mockery of his countrymen
by speaking to them in God's name. But the torment
of the suppressed message was harder to bear than
the cruelty and derision of his fellows. It was as
he teUs us in his piercing words hke a burning fire
shut up within his bones so that he was weary with

OF INSPIRATION 397
forbearing and coiUd not hold out (Jer. xx. 7-9).
Surely such an experience testifies to the compulsion of
a real inspkation which had its source in a personal
wUl that claimed him for its purpose, which held him
fast in spite of his straggles and would not let him go.
Paul who before his conversion had found it hard to
kick against the goads had the same sense of Divine
urgency. Compulsion was laid upon him, ' Woe is me
if I preach not the Gospel.'
Yet we must not suppose that the prophets resented
the experience as an unwelcome Divine invasion,
which broke down the fences that secured the sanctity
of the soul's reserve. Jeremiah is fiUed with exultation
by the word which he dreads to proclaim (Jer. xv. 16).
Ezekiel eats the book and finds it sweet as honey in
his mouth. Yet he goes in bitterness, when the
hand, which plunged him into the trance and held
him down, was strong upon him (Ezek. iu. 3, 14).
Another prophet looks forward with longing to the
evening when in the stUlness after the day's tumult
his spirit may be serene enough to see the heavenly
vision and to hear the heavenlj- voice (Isa. xxi. 4).
If at times it seems as though God tramples ruthlessly
on the weakness of His serx'^ants, or with inexorable
sternness forces them to tread a path which lacerates
thek feet, yet they know that thus to suffer is a bliss
deeper than any that the world can give. They have
exp)erienced the satisfaction of surrender to the stronger
wiU when struggle against it had proved in vain.
It is obvious that the hearty recognition of the human
element is incompatible with a behef in verbal inspira
tion. This is indeed negatived by too many pheno
mena in the Bible to be acceptable for its own sake.
Even those who claim inerranc\- for Scripture do not
venture to f-laim it for the Bible as it stands. One

398 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
cannot complain that they do not assert it with refer
ence to translations, though it is only in these that
the revelation is accessible to the vast majority of
readers. But they do not affirm it even of the
Scriptures in their original languages as we now possess
them. Infallibility is attributed to them only as
they came from the hand of their writers, before the
errors of copyists had infected the text. Of the
autographs very much is made by the inerrantist.
Whenever anything is pointed out inconsistent with
his position he can always faU back on these autographs
and say that they were free from the error in question.
This, to be sure, is in defiance of aU sound Textual
Criticism; but, quite apart from this, the obvious
question arises. Of what use is it to predicate infaUi
biUty of documents which no longer exist ? The interest
of these people is really to transfer the credit they
get for the autographs by this daring assumption
to the texts as we now possess them. I venture to
think that this is a little disingenuous. One has also
good reason to dislike the harmonistic evasions, put.
forward to reconcile discrepancies, with a perverted
ingenuity, which has at times passed into something too
much like dishonesty. But the theory of verbal
inspiration renders largely meaningless the function
of experience in conveying revelation. Even where
the Divine element is dominant it does not obUterate
the human. The two factors interact and we cannot
draw a sharp Une between them or say what part of
the composite product is to be credited to one, what
part to the other.
People have disputed whether we should say ' the
Bible is the Word of God ' or ' the Bible contains the
Word of God.' The former way of putting it suggests
that from beginning to end the Bible was dictated

OF INSPIRATION 399
by the Holy Spirit Himself to selected men who acted
as His amanuenses. Nothing in it had a human origin,
the book was whoUy divine in aU its parts. But when
this high-sounding theory was brought to the test
of its ability to explain the phenomena many felt
that it broke down. There was much in Scripture
and especially in the Old Testament which it was
difficult to beheve could be the Word of God. The
crude morality, the low spirituahty, the defective
theology, were difficult to account for on such a view
of its origin. Then there was much which was matter
of common knowledge, or that men might have
found out for themselves, where no exceptional
iUumination from the Holy Spirit was required. It
was aU too human a book to be caUed the Word of
God. But since it contained much which might not
unfitly be so described the suggestion was put forward
that a distinction might be made between the two
elements, part could be regarded as the word of man,
part as the Word of God. Hence the formula was
coined, the Bible is not the Word of God but it
contains the Word of God.
We have, I think, passed this stage of the discussion.
The antithesis is unreal, the distinction concentrates
attention on a false issue. What hes behind it is
the old conception of Scripture as mainly a com
pendium of doctrine and ethics, a view which it may
be trusted we have left behind. We do not go to the
Bible now to ask at what points God is speaking
and at what points it is only man's voice that we hear.
We do not say this is inspired, that obviously is not.
Such an attkude leads straight to the demand for a
selection of elegant extracts and purple patches.
What our investigation yields us is a theory which
recognizes that the whole Bible is not only greater

400 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
than any of its greatest parts, but is not merely the
sum total of them taken as disconnected fragments.
It is an organic whole and must be judged as such.
Then we see that what it discloses to us is the pro
gressive unfolding of God Himself, His gradual self-
communication to man. It records the coming of
God into human life in an intense and exceptional
way. And since the whole is needed to convey the
full significance of this self-disclosure and activity,
we are quite beyond the state of mind to which the
antithesis I have been discussing is a question for
real debate, the issue has become inelevant. There
are in the Bible words of God to man, authenticating
hemselves as such by their intrinsic quahty; but
these words, Divine in origin, had become part of the
consciousness of the human organ before they were
framed in speech or committed to writing. There
are in the Bible words of man to God ; but these
words have been prompted by the Holy Spirit ; so
that just as in God's word to man there is a human
element, so there is a Divine element in man's word
to God. Hence in the experience of inspiration all
the energy does not he on the Divine side, nor one may
even venture to say all the receptivity on the human.
In that mingling of God and man each gives and
each receives. For while it is true that man can add
nothing to God's knowledge or His power, and all that
he knows or can achieve is the gift of heaven, yet it
is his lofty privUege to respond to the Divine advance.
And though there is no self-seeking in God and His
love moves out to us and embraces us in its warmth
whether we respond or not, yet there must be within
Him a wistful yearning for our affection and some
thriU of happiness must stir within Him when His
love ehcits an echo in our heart. And since inspira-

OF INSPIRATION 401
tion is not simply intellectual iUumination but is a
reUgious experience in which the Spirit of God flows
into the spirit of man. but man's spirit also flows
into the Spirit of God. we may dare to say that man
gives as weU as takes.
In a book of such varied subject-matter as the Bible
inspiration might naturally operate in different ways.
Where it was a question simply of recording events
accessible to research, weU within common knowledge,
or actuaUy witnessed by the writer, there seems to be
no occasion for any exceptional Divine interference.
The selection of the incidents might, it is true, appear
worthy of Divine superintendence, and even more
perhaps the securing of accuracy in the nanative.
But an unprejudiced examination of the documents
themselves makes it difficult to beheve that as a
matter of fact, either the selection or the accuracy
is guaranteed at aU points by inspiration. At the
other end of the scale we have many passages where
not the content alone but the expression tingles with
inspiration, and between the two extremes every
grade is probably represented. The Divine invasion
was not always at high-water mark. It might differ
from age to age, from man to man within the same
period, and there would be ebb and flow within the
experience even of the same writer. Nor need this
occasion any misgiving as to the value of the Bible.
For what is really vital is that the Bible as a whole
should convey the Divinely intended impression and
this it does in the amplest way.
And this brings me to another question which is^often
raised in this connexion. Whether the inspiration of
the great poets, phUosophers, or essapsts is not of
the same order as that which we find in the Bible.
We are challenged to justify the exceptional claims we
B.O. 26

402 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
make for it and to vindicate for it a worth and authority
greater than that accorded to aU other Uterature.
Why, it is asked, skould we place it in a position of
such unique significance when it contains much of
lower spiritual and moral level than many modem
writings ? If the devout and serious reader finds in
Carlyle or Ruskin, in Tennyson or Browning, a richer
nourishment than he can gain from many a page of
the Old Testament and some pages of the New, why
should he not boldly say that the modern writer
has experienced a deeper and fuUer inspiration ? Is
there not really a loftier inspiration in Dante or Spen
ser, in Shakespeare or Milton ? One who is in search
of stimulus or knowledge finds that these writers
respond to his need. He is kindled and exhUarated or
purified and chastened, he is edified and informed, as
he reads their words, in a degree which he does not
experience when he reads many parts of the Bible.
If it be the mark of inspiration to convey that inspira
tion to others, there are modem prophets whose Ups
have been touched with the Divine fire. Might not our
Canon then be enriched, were we to widen it to include
great Uterature of this inspired quahty ?
In reply to this I would point out first that the
inspiration in these writers is primarily of a secular
kind. In Shakespeare it is the inspiration of supreme
poetical genius. But the Bible is not in the first
instance a coUection of literary masterpieces. That
it abounds in great Uterature wiU be denied by no
competent judge, and to this it owes no httle of its
power. For great literature ennobles our thought
and speech, quickens our imagination, controls our
life, cheers us in depression, comforts us in trouble,
stimulates us in lethargy. The inspiration we find
in the Bible is that of supreme religious genius, often

OF INSPIRATION 403
combined, it is tme. with a superb gift of expression,
but stiU having its value rather in the fact that it
is reUgious, than that it is great literature. But
although it is necessary to draw this distinction between
the Uterary genius in the one and the rehgious genius
in the other, the question is one that could not arise
from the point of view which I am expounding. Who
ever utters such a challenge makes it plain tkat he has
never understood what the Bible reaUy is. He is
tr3dng it by inappropriate standards and bidding it
respond to iUegitimate tests. If the Bible were an
anthology of great but disconnected passages, if it
were timeless and abstract, concerned with great
ideas fitly expressed, one might feel that many pas
sages in other hteratures could appropriately replace
the more prosaic and unspiritual pages of Scripture.
But when we speak in this manner we make it plain
that we are not yet emancipated from the atomistic
conception of Scripture, nor have attained to the
view of it as a great Uving wkole. Our modern writers
are what they are largely through their debt to Scrip
ture. But, leaving aside this derivative character,
they have no place in revelation. For ®ne must
never forget that it is not the Bible itself which is
the supreme revelation but what Ues behind the
Bible. We naturaUy think of revelation far too
exclusively as something which is conveyed in words
as the expression of ideas ; the characteristic outcome
of revelation is regarded as doctrine. But this is
to miss the deepest element in it. Revelation con
sists rather in the self-communication of personaUty,
in free intercourse between spirits, in the unfolding
of character, in the achievement of deeds. It is in
God's impact upon history, in the moulding and
controlUng of the forces which work within it that the

404 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
ukimate revelation has to be sought. It is history
rather than the Bible which is the sphere of God's
original self-revelation. The content of revelation
is not so much truths about God as God Himself.
Now everywhere in humanity the Spirit of God is
present, but at certain points He works witk an in
tenser energy and burns with a more briUiant iUumina
tion. And pre-eminently this is the case with the
history which lies behind the Bible. We shaU see
then that the incomparable and unique value of
Scripture does not lie in the fact that it said finer and
greater things than are said by the poets, but in the
fact that what it says is closely and inseparably con
nected with a unique and supreme action of God in
human history, which culminates in Christ. Our
final aim is to understand Christianity, to be assured
of its truth, to experience its power. However we
may prize our modern prophets and poets, however
grateful we may be to them for strengthening our hold
on the Gospel and sharpening our insight into it, no
one would contend that they are essential to our
understanding of the religion. But the Bible is indis
pensable, not the New Testament alone but also the
Old, just because the religion of Israel stood in indis
soluble connexion with Christianity.
And this consideration helps us to answer the ques
tion whether it would not be better to replace the
Bible by an anthology of sacred literature in which
the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures would no doubt
be largely used, but which would contain copious
extracts from the sacred books of other religions.
I have seen the question put in this form for example,
Would it not be a good thing to read in our Churches
the inspired literature of aU nations instead of only the
sometimes uninspired and sometimes unedif 5nng sacred

OF INSPIRATION 405
Uterature of the Jews ? One might, I suppose, without
behttUng other rehgions, reply, the stiU more often
uninspired and stiU more often unedifying Uterature
of other peoples in their sacred books. If we believe
that the Spirit of God was working in the history of
Israel in a whoUy unique way and with a definite goal
in sight, which was attained in Christianity, we must
recognize that the Old Testament is an integral part
of our religion as the sacred Uterature of no other
nation is or can be. One may have, for example,
the warmest and deepest admiration for the Buddha
and recognize that the pity for man's wretched lot
which inspired him is beyond all our praise. But
Buddhism is an atheism rooted in a despairing pessim
ism. How could one take snippets from its religious
literature and stitch them with snippets from the Bible
into a crazy patchwork ? We can read them for ourselves
for what good we can get out of them ; but to blend
them with the classical documents of our own religion
is to lose aU sense of historical proportion and to miss
entirely the difference which Ues between the rehgions
at their root. The question is not whether they are
inferior ; they proceed on absolutely different lines,
they are not founded upon the same principles, nor
have they the same views of God or man or human
destiny. It is useless to match or combine isolated
detaUs. We must look at the tendency of the rehgions
as a whole. We could not by giving their Scriptures
a place in the services of our Churches suggest
that they stood on the same level or have the same
significance as we attach to our own reUgious Uterature.
I SimUarly k might be urged that the Bible would gain
much in reUgious value if it were boldly praned and
edked so as to eUmmate those elements which from
the Christian standpoint are objectionable or irrelevant.

4o6 THE NATURE AND MECHANISM
It is, I suppose, unquestionable that most Christians
go by instinct to those portions of the Bible which
they find spiritually most profitable, which speak
to them immediately with the voice of God. They
cannot be blamed for this ; yet if the point I am urging
is true they cannot confine themselves to these speci
ally congenial portions without serious loss. The
passages which they study and assimilate are no
doubt of great devotional value ; yet by this restriction
they miss much which is indispensable to the fuU
devotional use of Scripture. I cannot admit that
the neglected passages are really irrelevant. They
are there for the sake of the whole. My task is not,
to advocate the use of the Bible in purple passages,
but to defend the value of the whole. And there
are many passages that taken by themselves may be
completely devoid of devotional worth, which are
nevertheless necessary for the comprehension of the
whole» Moreover there is a danger that if we guide
our reading of Scripture by the principle of selective
affinity our religious and moral life may grow one
sided because it misses the corrective which would
come from passages not naturally so congenial.
I need, after what I have said, waste no words on
the questions which used to be anxiously debated
as to the true character and extent of inspiration.
That it does not guarantee inerrancy is clear from what
has been said, and simUarly it is plain that any mechan
ical theory of verbal dictation is out of the question.
Such a theory is disproved by actual discrepancies
and the presence of statements the historicity of which
is more than doubtful. How little concerned we
ought to be is clear from the freedom with which the
Old Testament is handled by the writers of the New, and
in particular from the fact that some of them not

OF INSPIRATION 407
only quote from the Septuagint where it differs from
the Hebrew but base their argument on renderings
which yield an entirely different sense. In their
arguments from prophecy also they attach meanings
to Old Testament passages which a mere reference
to the original context shows at once that they did
not bear. But these considerations, and such as
these, appear pettifogging in the light of the general
conception of Scripture which has been here unfolded.
We can formulate no hard and fast theory but must
content ourselves with recognizing that Scripture is the
precipitate of national history and individual experi
ence ; that it was created by the joint action of Divine
and human factors ; that no boundary line should
be drawn between the two; that its primary purpose
is not to divulge doctrines or lay down moral principles
but to bring us into contact with God Himself and
disclose His action in revelation and redemption ;
that whatever enors be recognized or uncertainties
remain we have enough and far more than enough
for all our reUgious and moral needs.

CHAPTER XX
THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
Before I approach the question of the permanent
value which belongs to the Bible, I may clear the ground
by pointing out some things that the Bible is not.
And first of all it is not a book of puzzles. We must not
degrade that glorious Uterature into a coUection of
ingenious conundrums. It was not given to humanity
as a whetstone on which it might sharpen its wits
by propounding clever guesses in answer to obscure
riddles. It was not the Divine intention that we should
use the Bible as a picklock to force our way into those
secrets of the times and seasons the knowledge of
which the Father has reserved to Himself alone.
They present a melancholy spectacle who understand
so little the true meaning of Scripture that their at
tention is concentrated on prediction and apocalypse,
and who can find nothing better to do with the pro
phets than construct almanacs of future events out of
tkek writings. Suck speculations are intrinsically
unprofitable. But even if this were not the case, the
Bible is not patient of such a method of interpretation.
The prophets were not concerned with a far distant
history, and it would be to take our own concerns too
seriously to imagine that thek gaze was fixed with
exceptional keenness of scrutiny on the opening
years of the twentieth century after Christ or the
changing conditions of the British Empke. And
408

THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE 409
although there might seem to be more excuse for such
study of the apocalypses, yet even Daniel and the
Book of Revelation are occupied with the fortunes of
Israel or the Christian Church in the immediate future.
Besides, these writings form a comparatively smaU
part of Scripture, and those who turn their atten
tion to the seals, the trumpets and the bowls, to the
beast, the false prophet, and the Uttle horn, are neglect
ing what is vital and substantial for the trivial and
fanciful. Happily the number of those who are
preoccupied with such fantastic investigations is not
large, and the suspicion with which a sturdy common
sense has always regarded them is abundantly justified
by the faUure which invariably attends such forecasts.
We may trust that the number of cranks and faddists
who treat the Bible as a quarry for their own crotchets
wiU steadily diminish.
A worthier treatment is that accorded to it by
those who regard it as a manual of politics or sociology.
For these subjects at least are not matters of curious
and unprofitable speculation, but they vitaUy concern
the well-being of the race, of nations and of individuals.
The happiness or misery of vast multitudes is largely
conditioned by the social order in which they are
forced to hve. and the virtues or vices of a com
munity are affected by such conditions in no shght
degree. Politics ought to be the expression of moral
and rehgious principles, and to enunciate such prin
ciples is a service of real value to the right constitu
tion and just government of society. The Hebrew
prophets did not shrink from expressing expUck judg
ments on social, political and even economic issues.
Their writings are stiU a storehouse of weighty and
pungent utterances on these topics. It is precisely
this, however, which constitutes the peril of many en-

410 THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
thusiasts who turn to the pages of prophecy to find
for thek views the sanction of Holy Writ. It ought
not to need pointing out that such a treatment is
whoUy iUegitimate. Obviously what prophets said
with reference to a situation which existed in Israel
or Judah many centuries before Christ cannot be
appUed without more ado to the condition of things
in England in the twentieth century after Christ.
They were deahng with a social and poUticcd order
entirely different from our own. The whole stracture
of our society, the intricate machinery of our govern
ment would be so remote from thek own, so contrary
to aU thek habits of thought and outlook on hfe as to
be barely, if at aU, intelUgible to them. The prophets
are nevertheless of permanent value to the student
of sociology, since the vaUdity of the principles which
they apply is not affected by changed conditions.
But these principles are in their essence moral and
spiritual rather than pohtical or economic. The
prophets view social conditions under the search-Ught
of ethical and reUgious trath, and then express their
judgment on the situation in which they find themselves.
Nor is this all. They put the stress on the spiritual
and the ethical. If they sought to reform society
their interest came rather from the deske that Israel
should be a just and God-fearing people than from any
wish to construct an ideal State. They are thus valu
able not only because they teach us those principles
which we may apply to the solution of our own
social problems but for the reminder they give us that
the things of the Spirit ought to be accorded the first
place. Once more the Bible is not a manual of science. It is
within the memory of most men how the self-appointed
champions of faith bitterly assailed the theories of

THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE 411
what they styled science falsely so-caUed, while the
more belligerent representatives of science scornfuUy
disposed of theology as so much belated nonsense. The
discussions wearied the judicious with their futUity
and shocked them by their acrimonious temper. It
is true that we have not passed entirely from this era
of mutual hostility and contempt, yet the temper is
much more admirable and the rea(Uness to discover
points of contact and work for a reconcUiation has
perhaps never been more conspicuous. The story
has been sufficiently humiliating to aU enlightened
lovers of religion. Again and again history has repeated
itself. Starting from the principle that Scripture is
a court of final appeal on aU matters which it touches,
the Church has constantly blocked the progress of
research by appeals to the Bible. NaturaUy the Word
of God must be preferred to the faUible opinions of men.
Keeping itself aloof from the task of investigation the
Church constructs its theories, with but Uttle reference
to the facts, out of texts of Scripture and the imagina
tions of speculative theologians. Whenever a man
arises, with a talent for observation and research and
for deducing laws from the facts that he discovers, and
propounds views which are in collision with the ac
cepted doctrine, the Church places him and his views
under the ban and if possible forces him to recant.
Facts accumulate, however, tUl the accepted theory
snaps under the strain. Then the ecclesiastical autho
rities give a grudging assent, and it is much if they
do not deny that the Church has ever reaUy opposed
the theory at aU. It is explained that objections have
been taken to the ineUgious spkit ki which results
have been put forward or that it is only some vuhierable
detaU which has occasioned her censure. The last
stage is reached when theologians try to show that, so

4X2 THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
far from weakening faith, the results attained by science
have really strengthened it.
The salient instances are famiUar to aU. The
astronomer who asserted the Copernican theory of the
universe, the movement of the earth and its spherical
shape, was rebuked as one who set himself up to be
wiser than the Holy Spirit. Geology was discredited
by a reference to the story of creation in six days ;
tke theory of evolution is stUl largely rejected as in
compatible with Genesis. Meanwhile investigation
goes on. The scientist, assured that whatever else is
true or false, his researches may be trusted to give
him the knowledge of the facts, meets the charge that
his views are unscriptural with the retort that if the
claim made for the Bible involves the acceptance of its
scientific accuracy, so much the worse for the Bible.
History is the surest basis for prediction and he knows
quite weU how the passionate attack on his results
wiU end. he has seen the humihating surrender often
enough before. Nothing burns lessons into us Uke
experience, but the wise take warning by the experience
of others. The past has again and again inesistibly
pointed the moral that whenever the Church has stood
in the path of scientific advance she has suffered for it.
Her truest friends have warned her not to commit
inteUectual suicide or climb down at ruinous cost of
influence and prestige from a position she has un
warrantably assumed, or to repeat the ignominious
blunders previously made in the case of astronomy,
geology or other sciences. We must be jealous of aU
attempts to gag research in the name of theology,
such scores accumulate at compound interest. To
urge theological objections against a scientific hypo
thesis is disloyal to science and puts an unbearable
strain on the authority of religion. Nor can we tolerate

THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE 413
any fettering of research by dictation of the result it
must be made to reach. Investigation must be free
in spirit, rigorous in method, and honest in aim.
When we think of the marvellous advances made by
science, since its domination by theology has been
broken, we cannot help reflecting how great the ad
vance might have been if human progress had not
been checked in the name of reUgion. Centuries ago
men might have enjoyed the advantages which we
possess to-day, and we might have been enjojdng
what wiU be reached centuries later than our time.
Few things compromise the Church more seriously
or shake her authority more deeply than attempts to
settle scientific questions by theological arguments.
The battle of faith is hard enough without such gratu
itous complications. We have every reason to con
gratulate ourselves on the wide acceptance of the prin
ciple that the Bible was not given to teach us science,
and does not tie our hands or make it impossible for
those who recognize the validity of scientific results to
accept its authority in its own sphere. Its utterances
on such questions are of a popular character and in
harmony with the naive conceptions of the pre-scientific
period. It would be unreasonable to expect any
thing else. Those who are concerned with such pro
blems as the reconciliation of Genesis with geology or
the incompatibihty with physical science of the
Creation and Flood stories might have spared them
selves much labour and perplexity if they had once
grasped the tme functions of Scripture. When the
main concern was with rehgion and morahty it could
only have occasioned a gratuitous difficulty if to a
people in that stage of culture the story of Creation had
been told with scientific precision. Or wUl any one urge
that it would have been educationaUy sound to dis-

414 THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
tract attention from the essential to the irrelevant
and largely uninteUigible ? Nor is it the Divine way
to teach men those tmths which they can discover
for themselves or to anticipate by premature disclosures
the slow movement of research.
Happily from the triviaUties which formerly fiUed
so large a part in the debate we have passed on to more
essential issues. And the outcome is that many are
already grasping in a higher unity those conceptions
of the universe which on the lower plane seem so anta
gonistic. The theologian has come to look calmly and
without panic on the advance of science, just because
on the one side he is so sure of his ground, and on
the other he knows that in the nature of things the
inexorable limitations of science preclude a conflict
on vital issues. Rather he now regards it as a valuable
aUy. In one respect it has powerfuUy reinforced
reUgion. The possibiUty of science is a powerful argu
ment for the existence of God. Science, it is sometimes
said, has destroyed the very basis of Theism. But the
most importemt thing is not that science should assert
this view or that, but that there should be such a thing
as science at all. The very existence of science testffies
to a rational order in the universe. It rests upon an
axiom, which is that nature is inteUigible, that it is not
a chaos but an ordered whole. When, therefore, the
scientist comes to study it he does so with the conviction
that it can be interpreted. But this conviction im
plies that it has meaning, and that the closest study
of its phenomena wiU reveal to him the laws which
control it. Now, what speaks to the mind with mean
ing cannot itself be independent of mind in its origin.
If we take up a book and begin to read it. we can
argue infaUibly from the fact that it conveys a definite
meaning to our mind, that a mind like our own created

THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE 415
it. And so the fact that nature speaks to our thought
in language it can understand proves that it is itself a
product of thought. Thought has gone to the making
of the universe. For what else can the fact that it
speaks to thought in us mean, but that there is an
intellectual element in it ? Thought cannot interpret
the unmeaning, the capricious, the irrational. But
if our search discloses to us that which thought can
interpret, we are confident that in Nature thought is
to be found. Nature itself, therefore, points to a
thinker for its author. And science has powerfuUy
reinforced Theism, for the very existence of science is
due to faith in the reasonableness of the universe.
There is no truer description of the scientist than this,
that he thinks the thoughts of God after Him. Accord
ingly, that which makes science possible is itself a proof
of the existence of God.
It may be worth while pointing out in a sentence or
two that so far as religion rests on a historical basis
it is unaffected by physical science. It is not in its
province but in that of criticism to pronounce on the
historical character of an aUeged fact. Since Christi
anity rests on aUeged facts the conflict of our faith
must ultimately be decided by the critic. Here the
competent critic is in court and the incompetent
scientist, however brilUant in his own department, is
not. It is weU for us to remember two facts in this con
nexion. One is that scientffic discovery is advancing
at a tremendous rate, and the other is that scientific
opinion is undergoing rapid transformations. We
might take the more recent investigations into the
nature of matter as illustrating the former, and the
far-reaching changes in the theory of evolution as
iUustrating the latter. Any one, for example, who

4i6 THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
looks at the tabular comparison of the Darwinian and
post-Darwinian theories given by Korschinsky, and
reproduced in a form accessible to Enghsh readers in
Orr's God's Image in Man, Foster's Finality of the
Christian Religion and Otto's Naturalism and ReU
gion, will recognize how necessary it is for the non-
specialist to maintain an attitude of reserve in this
matter. Some theory of evolution is probably true,
but it is quite possible that the forms which are now
most favoured may be proved by subsequent investi
gations to be as inadequate as those that have preceded
them. And in the nature of the case science cannot
do the work of philosophy. In her own sphere she is
mistress, but when she sets up to explain the universe
in its widest sense she loses aU title to consideration.
The mischief which a false view of Scripture might
entail is seen with exceptional clearness in the treat
ment of those who were supposed to be guilty of witch
craft. This was denounced as a sin, both in the Old
Testament and in the New, and the Law prescribed
death as its penalty. It is not of course fair to lay
to the account of the Bible the hideous atrocities
which were perpetrated in the trials for witchcraft.
The story of religious persecution is ghastly enough, yet
it is possible that far moie suffering was caused by
trials for witchcraft than by trials for heresy. Not
only were those suspected subjected to torture, but no
hmit was placed to the torture inflicted. For the
theology which asserted the fact that men and women
sold themselves to the devil drew the natural theolo
gical inference that the devil would supply his servants
with supernatural strength to endure the torture, and
therefore, the hmits which were observed in other cases
were not observed here. Tortures of the most fiendish
description were appUed untU the poor victims incrimm-

THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE 417
ated themselves and others. Thek evidence was received
as conclusive, and the new victims thus accused were
similarly forced by the most exquisite and persist
ent torture to confess and accuse others. Then the
evidence thus wrung from them in a frenzy of pain was
regarded as giving a true account of witchcraft . In this
way a kind of science of witckcraft was compUed out
of tkese confessions, which were conoborated by thou
sands who confessed anything and everything the
authorities desired, that they might have a respite
from the cruelties they were enduring. That the
development of knowledge should have been held up
for centuries in the name of religion is deplorable
enough ; but less deplorable than that so many vic
tims of superstition should have suffered agonies, which
fiU us to-day with horror and unavaihng sympathy,
though long centuries have passed since from the ruth-
lessness of man they escaped to the healing pity of God.
The responsibility does not Ue so much with the Bible
as with the misuse of it. Witchcraft was evil in in
tention and it was inimical to the stabUity of the .State,
and therefore as an anti-social practice deserved a
severe penalty. Even in modern times tke death
penalty in itself, though from our point of view outrage
ous, was aU of a piece with the hideous brutality of the
criminal code and much less indefensible for this
offence than for many others. Torture and the stake
were also only too normal incidents in the administra
tion of the law. Possibly even had witchcraft never
been mentioned in the Bible it might have made Uttle
dkference. The seUing of oneself to Satan would
always have seemed sin and blasphemy of the darkest
hue, dangerous to society, high-handed defiance to
God. The prosecutions reveal the most pitiable mix
ture of superstition, credulity, and self-protection in a
B.a. 27

4i8 THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
panic, of bUnd prejudice and unreasoning fanaticism.
But it cannot be denied that their promoters firmly
beheved that they had the wanant of Holy Writ.
StiU more disgraceful was the defence of slavery
by appeal to the Bible. That Noah's curse on Canaan,
that is to say the Canaanites. could have been quoted as
a justffication for the enslavement of negroes would
have seemed incredible had it not been the stock argu
ment from Scripture. That the exquisite letter from
Paul to Philemon in which he sent back his escaped
slave Onesimus. " no longer as a slave but a brother
beloved," should have been aUeged as a warrant for
sending back fugitive slaves to a life often worse than
death, wiU remain an indeUble blot on the fair fame of
those who from the vantage ground of the Christian
pulpit defended this masterpiece of Satan. Yet it
remains true that the Old Testament recognized and
legislated for slavery as a legitimate institution. It is
also true, however, that slavery meant something very
different from what we understand by the term ;
that the tendency of Hebrew legislation was towards
greater humanity and justice in the treatment of slaves ;
and that their interests were guarded in those un
enlightened days in a way which might weU have caused
Christian legislators in the last century to blush for
shame. And I need not linger to point out how assassi
nation, Ijdng, wars of extermination, forced conversions,
religious persecution have found their apologists with
misused passages from the Bible on their lips. The
New Testament is indeed so plain that these miscon
ceptions are inexcusable.
Abundant mischief has been wrought by the practice
of buUding proofs upon isolated texts. This has come
to hght in what has been said akeady with reference
to slavery, where an institution which was a radical

THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE 419
contradiction of the spirit of the Gospel was defended
by an entkely krelevant Old Testament text. Those
who have any ear for the teaching of history know
what erroneous inferences have been derived from
Scripture in this way. The futUity of the method is
demonstrated by the completely divergent results
which are reached. Each faction has its own array of
favourite texts, and they value Scripture largely because
it is an armoury for their own favourite views. They
read the New Testament with a scheme of theology in
thek heads. When they come across the passages
quoted on the opposite side they either force them into
harmony with thek scheme by violent exegesis or thek
sensitiveness to the natural meaning is so benumbed
by thek prepossessions that they are not conscious
of any difficulty at aU. But thek opponents have
developed an abnormal sensitiveness for just these
passages and quote them with gusto and confidence
as Completely guaranteeing thek view. Those who
are familiar with the history of exegesis of this partisan
type are not likely to be much impressed by this method
of proof ; stiU less wiU those be impressed by it who
have had much experience in exegetical work. They
know only too weU the extreme difficulty and deUcacy
of the task. No doubt there are questions where a fak
measure of confidence is not out of place, but on the
whole the commentator becomes more and more
diffident, more and more ready to admit that the argu
ments for different views axe very evenly balanced,
and that no confident decision is reaUy artainable.
He grows more and more ahve to the difficulties and
complexities of his task, to the need for a large induc
tion on which to base his conclusions. He understands
how necessary it is for him to trace carefully the history
of the terms which he has to interpret, to study the

420 THE MISUSE OF THE BIBLE
whole system of his author in order that the detail may
be rightly understood through the general and fitted
into its place in the whole. He shrinks from off
hand judgments and superficial impressions, knowing
how liable he is to be misled by them. And even
with aU these precautions against errors he knows only
too well how easy it is for him not to hit the truth.
The commentator has missed much of the moral blessing
that should come to him from his work if ke kas not
learnt many lessons of humiUty and self-distrust. Let
no one fondly imagine that the interpretation of
Scripture is an easy task. It is one tkat demands from
aU who would undertake it the best equipment of know
ledge and spiritual insight, the most scrupulous regard
for trath, the most patient and exacting toil.

CHAPTER XXI
THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
The principle for which I have been contending that
the Bible is not primarily a manual of theology is not
incompatible with a firm behef in the necessity for theo
logy. It cannot of course be doubted that doctrine is
viewed in many quarters with indifference or open
hostiUty, the outcry against it is loud and violent, and
the demand for an ethical Gospel is constantly ringing
in our ears. Partly this is owing to an unduly narrow
view of Systematic Theology, as though it imphed a
system in which everything was defined with the
minutest precision and the whole structure with all its
details was framed with cast-iron rigidity. Against
anything so lifeless and inflexible it is no wonder that
men revolt. Some no doubt denounce theology be
cause they disUke clear thinking on matters of reUgion
or perhaps are incapable of it. With the former feeUng
I sympathize to this extent that there ought to be some
room left for mystery, a trath which dogmatic theo
logians too frequently forget. There is such a thing
as pushing inquiry and definition into regions where
it verges on the profane, and the world has not been
without examples to point this moral. This is no
argument against the legitimacy of Systematic Theology
but merely against canying it to an extreme. But on
the general question it need only be said that the
choice is between good and bad thinkmg not between
theology and no theology at all. We are so consti-
421

422 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
tuted that assuming we have a reUgion it is impossible
for us to avoid theology. We cannot take one step
in reUgion without giving impUcit assent to some
theological idea, and however important feeUng may be
in the reUgious consciousness, and for myself it is the
essential core of it, unless thought be present it re
mains a vague emotion without either ethical or
spiritual worth. But if thought be indispensable to
any worthy religion we cannot be content without a
rational interpretation of our spiritual experience, and
this Systematic Theology gives us.
It would, indeed, be otherwise if it were true that
religion, once the unchaUenged arbiter of human life
and for ever the supreme satisfaction of the soul, was
so much on the wane that the question had become
urgent, what barriers should be erected in its place to
restrain the surging flood of hcence that threatens to
overwhelm civihzation. But those of us who are per
suaded that religion must be a permanent factor in
human Ufe need have no misgiving as to the permanence
of theology. When writers praise religion at the ex
pense of theology they may be doing a needed piece
of work, but it is so easy in the interests of religion
to reject as mere theology that without which the
rehgion itself cannot permanently live. Sometimes,
moreover, theology is attacked for what might better
be put down to the score of bigotry or something that
would be more fitly charged against philosophy. And
in view of the close relation between our opinions and
our character and conduct we may confidently hold
that the maintenance of theology is valuable not for
religion alone but for moraUty. That preachers should
take the great Christian doctrines and exhibit them, not
in a dry and abstruse way but as forms of Uving
trath with an intensely real relation to practical Ufe,

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 423
is one of the secrets of a sohd and successful ministry.
This is aU the more the case when the sermons contain
a wealth of theological ideas which are no mere repro
duction of technical dogmatics expressed in conven
tional and stereot5rped formulae, but the freshly minted
thoughts of an independent thinker who has had a
deep and original rehgious experience. In particular, a
fuUer dogmatic element should enter into the trainmg
not, to be sure, of chUdren, but of young people. Thek
hold on Christian trath is frequently less strong than
could be wished because care has not been taken to
present it in an ordered form and forestaU attacks wkich
may be made upon it.
At the same time I do earnestly deske to guard
myself against tke misconception that I regard sal
vation as dependent on the profession of an accurate
creed. Since experience teaches me that this position
is stiU hotly contested, I may be pardoned for what
may seem to be a digression in explanation of my atti
tude. I agree with those who adopt this view, in
holding that an inteUectual apprehension of the truths
of the Gospel is much to be desked ; but I repu
diate the position which finds one of its best
known expressions in the damnatory clauses of the
Athanasian Creed. If they say that they join with
me in that repudiation I am afraid they cannot be let
off so easUy; for if we insist on kiteUectual orthodoxy as
the indispensable condition of salvation we are on a
sUppery slope which wUl carry us perhaps further than
we should care to go. James teUs us that the devils
beUeve and shudder, and MUton's description of these
paragons of orthodoxy, discussing the problems of fate,
foreknowledge, and free-wiU reminds us of some later
theologians. Those who have ever tried to think out
to its last issues what they mean by the words ' Divinity

424 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
of Christ ' wUl perhaps understand what I mean.
They wiU reaUze how extremely intricate are the pro
blems and how difficult it is to define the doctrine with
out faUing into enor on this side or on that. Often
the path nanows to a razor edge, along which only the
most skUful balancing can conduct us safely. Wken
we speak of the Divinity of Christ we have first of all to
define our idea of God. The need of this may not at
first seem obvious, but it becomes clear when we reach
the point of determining in what sense a Divine Being
can become incarnate, accepting the conditions of a
genuine human hfe and yet not parting with the
essential attributes of His pre-incarnate state. Are
we to lay stress on such qualities as omnipotence,
omniscience, immateriahty, and impassibUity ? or is
our emphasis to be placed on the ethical and spiritual
quaUties, the love and the holiness of God ? What is it,
in other words, that makes God to be God ? Are we to
thrust into prominence the metaphysical or the moral
and spiritual aspects of Divinity ?
Next we have to raise the question of the constitu
tion of the Godhead, which, as expressed in the CathoUc
faith, confesses God as a Trinity in Unity. In this
section of our investigation we have to face the question
whether we should interpret the Trinity as economical
or essential. Are we to say that God etemaUy exists
as a Trinity of Father. Son, and Spirit ? or are we to
say that this is the aspect in which He manifests
Himself to mankind in creation, revelation and redemp
tion ? If we assert the essential Trinity, as I think
we should, then our narrow path becomes a razor edge
indeed, for how are we to devise such a statement of
the doctrine as to avoid tritheism on the one hand,
and SabeUianism on the other ? How secure at once
the pluraUty and the unity ? What form of words

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 425
may we rightly adopt which shaU express the tmth
with precision and with fulness ? Obviously there is
no form of words that can perfectly serve our
purpose, for words are the precipitate of human
experience, and we have nothing in our consciousness
or our social relations which stands in the same cate
gory as the eternal life of God. Any words that we
use to define the doctrine must in the nature of the
case be inadequate, and to a certain extent misleading.
We speak of three Persons in one God, but the sense
in which the term ' Person ' is here used has nothing
to conespond to it in the range of our experience.
Then we have the difficult question as to the distri
bution of the attributes of God among the Persons of
the Godhead. How far we can say that the differentiat
ing attributes of each are shared by the others in virtue
of their mutual indweUing, is a problem of some moment
when we come to consider the conditions of the Incar
nation. But our difficulties hardly lessen'when we move on
ward to the next point, and that is the jungle of ques
tions which have grown up about the doctrine of the
Incarnation. Here we are deahng with the union of
two factors, neither of which we understand in their
separation, except very imperfectly. Recent psy
chology has driven home to us how little we know of
the mystery of our own personaUty. Below the thin
jet of consciousness we have learnt to recognize that
dim and iU-explored region of the subconscious and
unconscious within us. And if the mystery of our own
personaUty almost completely baffies us, who wiU have
the hardihood to pretend that he understands the per
sonaUty of God ? But the problem of the Incarnation
is even more difficult, for how, out of these two factors,
is the third produced ? What are the conditions of His

426 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
being ? What surrender and mutual accommodation
did the union demand ? Was the union effected in a
moment, or did it take the form of a process ? What
was the relation of the Incarnate Christ to the cosmic
functions of the Son of God ? How was the hfe of the
Godhead affected by the entrance of the Son into the
conditions of humanity, and again by His return to the
Father ? Whether the personality resided in the
human or in the Divine nature, or in the blending of
both ; whether there was a communication of pro
perties from one nature to the other, are other questions
involved, which must be satisfactorily answered before
the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ can be adequately
understood or explained. We should have to pass in
review the theories that were considered by the Coun
cils ; to make up our mind on the ApoUinarian, the
Nestorian. and the Eutychian controversies, and
come to a decision on Monophysite and Monothehte
opinions. Nor even then would our quest be over, for
we should have to face the abstruse issues presented
by the Lutheran doctrine of the Communicatio Idio-
matum, forced upon the Lutheran Church by Luther's
doctrine of the Lord's Supper with the ubiquity of
Christ's body as its coroUary. And then we should
have to confront all the questions concerning the
Kenosis. Nor would our weary pUgrimage be even
now at an end, for we should stiU have to come to a
conclusion on the interpretation of the Divinity of
Christ given by Ritschl and his school.
But those whose attitude I am criticising may say,
long before they reach this point, that I am caricatur
ing their views, that they do not suppose that a man
needs to be a finished theologian before he can be saved.
But that is only because they are so much under the
influence of the modern inteUectual atmosphere, and

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 427
of our own evangeUstic practice that they do not hold
the views they profess with due seriousness. For it is a
simple matter of fact that aU the questions I have enu
merated spring directly out of and are involved in
the statement ' I beheve in the Divinity of Christ.'
Speculative theology is an exacting master, and
if we decide to go with him one mile he wiU make us go
twenty. If they appeal to Caesar, to Caesar they must
go. NaturaUy when they have to deal with a penitent
with the question on his lips ' What shaU I do to be
saved ? ' they do not begin by catechising him as to
whether he is sound on the doctrine of the Trinity.
and understands its intricate mysteries, or whether
he can pass a satisfactory examination in aU the
heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries. They pro
bably enter very httle into theology at aU. What they
are concerned with is the practical problem of bringing
God and the human soul together, not an easy enter
prise always by any means, and one not hkely to be
easier if it is compUcated with elaborate discussion
of speculative dogmatics. But that is because their
practice has much more sanity than their theory. They
are the anaemic survivors of a more robust race. Even
to-day in great Christian Churches it is not a mere
belief in the Divinity of Christ that is. formaUy at least,
required as the intellectual condition of salvation, but
an accurate acquaintance with, and a hearty behef in
the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. We
are aU familiar with the elaborate theological refine
ments of the Athanasian Creed. Probably many be
hevers in the orthodox doctrines of the Godhead and
the Divinity of Christ have felt incUned to scoff at it.
Yet it is the outcome of the elaborate controversies
in which many of the most powerful and subtle intel
lects the Christian Church has ever possessed battled

428 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
together to secure the trath. And now let me quote
the weU-known opening clause of that creed : ' Who
soever wiU be saved : before aU things it is necessary
to hold the CathoUck Fakh. Which Fakh except every
one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he
shaU perish everlastingly.' And after the very elabo
rate doctrines have been set forth the Creed concludes,
' This is the CathoUck Faith : Which except a man
beUeve faithfuUy, he cannot be saved.' And I may
observe that the necessity for right behef in these mat
ters is more than once asserted in the body of the Creed
as the foUowing quotations show : ' He therefore
that wiU be saved : must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation :
that he also beheve rightly the Incarnation of our
Lord Jesus Christ.' Those who put forward this Creed
understood perfectly weU what they were about, they
shared the behef that every one must perish ever
lastingly unless he confessed the Divinity of Christ.
Only they were sufficiently consistent to see that
this involved a great deal more than many of thek
more modern representatives would be wiUing
to admit. Once we make inteUectual assent to a
creed an indispensable condition of salvation we are
driven by tke logic of tke situation to define tkat creed
in detaU, and to express an autkoritative opinion upon
the numerous difficulties involved. Saving faith, how
ever, thank God, is not behef about Jesus, but trast
in Him.
Now I not only admit, but I emphasize the fact that
trust in Him does raise questions of a speculative
character. I hold very strongly the great importance
of theology, the sound and accurate definition of the
traths concerning God, Christ, and salvation. But I
entirely refuse to beUeve that God wiU send men to

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 429
heU for want of it . This would be hard in the first place
on those who have not the inteUectual capacity for
such inquiries, but who feel that the acceptance of a
proposition which they do not understand save in the
most superficial way is unsatisfactory. Moreover, if
we are rigorously logical in our theology — and I must
insist that those who take the opposite view shaU be
rigorously logical — we shaU be obUged to think of the
heathen, as the old theologians did without scruple,
and of aU who die in infancy before tkey are capable
of understanding tke proposition, ' Jesus is the Son of
God ! ' as incapable of salvation. The Christian
Church, it is trae, has for the most part modified its
demand for a particular beUef about God and Christ
in the latter instance, by asserting the salvation of in
fants who had been baptised; but that was because
baptism was supposed to be on the one hand an indis
pensable, but on the other an efficacious instrament of
regeneration. Of course I do not suppose for one mo
ment that those who insist on the necessity of ortho
doxy for salvation, hold the horrible doctrines I have
mentioned, but these are involved in the logic of thek
position, and they must either move forward to them or
retreat from the position they have taken. It is.
indeed, not so long since the appeal used to ring out
on missionary platforms that the heathen were dropping
into heU at the rate of sixty a minute, because the
Church had not sent the Gospel to them. Now, people
have come to understand that such a behef is Uke d5ma-
mite in the heart of Christianky kself, contradictmg
ki its blood-curdUng brataUty the very basis on which
Christianity reposes, the love of God and His universal
Fatherhood. |j
Returning now to the question of the Reconstruc
tion of Theology, I would point out that an adequate

430 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
doctrine wiU probably be reached only when we com
bine contributions from different types of mind.
We aU have our limitations — in many respects very
severe Umitations — and it is folly to suppose that the
truth of God is exhausted by what happens to com
mend itself to the individual temperament of any one
of us. We have constantly to be on our guard against
rejecting things as untrue because they are not con
genial to us. There are theologians who see what
appeals to them with remarkable clearness, and express
it with great cogency, who scornfully deny the exist
ence of other sides of truth because their limited vision
cannot take it in. When a particular presentation of
truth has won the acceptance of a very large number
of people, it is more modest for us to admit that it
probably contains an element of truth than to deny its
right to be because it does not touch any responsive
chord in our own being. Accordingly, we ought to
welcome contributions to our subject from all points
of view. We should not be so anxious for people to
talk our own dialect as for them to say with decision
and force what seems to them to be true. It may be
extravagant and one-sided, but these difficulties wUl
be pruned away in the ultimate statement. What we
want above aU is that the Church should give a full
testimony, and we should, therefore, encourage the ut
most freedom of expression lest we stifle the voice of the
Spirit by imposing on our brethren an unworthy dread.
There will always be plenty to criticize crudity and
lack of balance, and we ought to believe so much in
tmth as to encourage the frankest utterance of aU
sorts of opinion. The risks of utterance, no doubt,
are real, but the risks of repression are more fatal stiU.
I therefore welcome every sincere attempt to grapple
with the great and deep problems of theology. I am

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 431
so convinced of its importance, and at the same time
so sensitive to the difficulties of constructing a satis
factory system, that I am eager for every ray of light.
I may find myself quite out of harmony with the main
cunent of a writer's thought, but it wUl be a strange
thing, granted that he has thought at aU earnestly on
the subject, if he has not something to say which casts
Ught on its dark places.
Systematic theologians had formerly an easier
task. They had already at hand their formal sources
in Scripture, ecclesiastical decisions, authoritative
statements by recognized theologians. The stability
of the foundations was unquestioned, the Unes within
which thought might move freely were rigidly deter
mined. But whether we hke it or not, we are forced
to recognize that the old method is no longer ade
quate. We do not mean necessarUy that it is super
seded, for there are stiU many whose need it suits, and
who do not quarrel with the dogmatic character of its
assumptions. But there are many now to whom
theology, if it is to appeal at aU, must appeal on
different terms. They are in no mood to take things
on trust, and the older type of apologetic does not
command their assent. For their sake some attempt
is necessary to state the truths of Christianity in a form
to win their allegiance.
A word must suffice on the regulative principle in
the construction. Theology is a highly developed
organism of which it is true that if one member is
affected, the whole body must be affected with it.
And this applies especiaUy to the fundamental doc
trine. But what should this doctrine be ? If, as some
would have us do, we construct our system entkely
according to man's nature and needs, certain things
wiU get no natural place in it which ought not to be

432 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
excluded. The material source should be, as Calvin
rightly saw, the doctrine of God. Only instead of
thinking of God primarily as Sovereign WUl we must
go back again to the Gospels, take the experience of
Christ as our point of departure and learn from Him
that decisive conception of God which has to control
the whole statement of Theology. What was central
and fundamental to Him who knew God as no one
else has known Him must be central and fundamental
to us. The dominating conception must be that of
the Fatherhood of God and its acceptance wiU pro
foundly modify the theological construction in all
its parts. It may, of course, be said that the question
as to the hnes on which a system should be worked
out is purely technical and has no necessary reference
to the actual content. But whUe the doctrines ex
pounded may in each case be the same, the perspective
and the proportion are likely to be different, and these
are best preserved by making the doctrine of God
the controlUng principle.
Passing on to the principles and method which
must be foUowed in the constraction itself, it may be
most convenient to begin with a summary statement
and then return to expand it in fuUer detail. The
scientific exposition of any Christian doctrine is the
outcome of a long series of special and often compUcated
investigations. Fkst of aU, the BibUcal student
must trace the development in the Old Testament.
Hemust then examine the movement of Jewish thought,
so far as that can be recovered, in the interval between
the close of the Old Testament and the rise of Chris
tianity. Thus he will form an estimate as to the
contribution taken over by Christianity from its pre
decessors. Next he has to study the New Testament
writers each for himself in independence of the rest.

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 433
He must, if necessary, watch for signs of advance in
the thought of the writer, and in particular he must in-
quke into the sources of his teaching and his relation
to his envkonment. It makes a considerable difference
in interpretation if we decide that a writer was mainly
influenced by Hebrew or by Greek thought. Then
when the individual contributions which the New Testa
ment contains have been discovered, they must be
brought together, compared, and woven so far as may
be possible into a coherent and connected whole.
Ike task is next to be handed over to the historiam
of doctrine, that he may foUow the development
through aU its varied forms down the Christian cen
turies. He must observe how foreign influences
have played upon it, have shaped its form or changed
its substance. The psychologist has then to investigate
the experience of which the doctrine professes to
give an account. The material on which he works
wUl be suppUed by those who are intimately famiUar
witk that experience as they have observed it in
others ; or better stiU, as they have realized it in them
selves. And then the systematic theologian must take
up the results of aU these lines of inquiry and combine
them into a statement which shaU do justice to them
aU, which shaU seize the essential and eternal trath,
disengaging it from obsolete forms of expression. He
wiU not forget that even in the classical documents
of Christianity the influence of cunent modes of
thought is often to be detected in the garb with which
they have clothed great Christian reaUties. And
whUe he wiU not force the great Christian traths into
philosophical moulds which are inadequate vehicles
for them, remembering that phUosophies themselves
change, he wUl seek to relate his presentation of
the doctrine to the best thought of his time. But he
B.O, 28

434 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
wiU also not forget that much which has passed for
orthodox theology has been created by the appUcation
of ancient philosophy to timeless Christian truth.
For such a restatement of doctrine I beheve that the
time has not yet come. What is meanwhile desirable
is that from varied points of view competently equipped
scholars should push on with the preUminary studies
and with tentative reconstruction of the doctrine
kself. From this general statement I pass on to a more
detailed discussion. In the construction of Christian
Theology we have to take account of elements which
are not, as weU as of elements which are, definitely
Christian. In the first place it is quite obvious that
philosophy wiU have much to say on theological ques
tions. It has often been remarked that the funda
mental questions of theology are reaUy settled before
we get to theology at all ; in other words, our general
view of the universe pledges us to take this or that
side on questions of theology. If we are consistent
and logical thinkers the position we adopt in meta
physics determines in many respects tke point of
view from which we construct theology. It is there
fore desirable that those who wish to come to an under
standing of the problems should be clear as to their
first principles. It is wonderful, indeed, how many
logical inconsistencies can dweU together in the same
mind, but in the long run the inconsistency is Ukely to
force itself into prominence, and a readjustment be
made necessary.
It may be said tkat as a matter of fact theology
has often been independent of metaphysics, and that
such an independence is the watchword of an
important school in Germany to-day. But an influence
is not the less powerful because we are unconscious of

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 435
the sway it exercises over us ; and it is possible to ban
metaphysics on metaphysical grounds. PersonaUy, I
have never been able to see how theology can dispense
with philosophy. It is clear, however, that phUosophies
change, and the change is bound to affect theology.
This has been proved abundantly throughout its
history. Our own philosophy, whether imphcitly
or explicitly held, is inevitably influenced very con
siderably by the intellectual atmosphere of our time.
The spirit of the age in which we live is something from
which we cannot escape, and even if we set ourselves
in antagonism to it, its subtle, all-pervasive influence
moulds us in spite of ourselves. Yet the history of
philosophy warns us that whatever view we may
adopt is likely to be superseded by a later age. And
the result of this is, that while our theology may en
shrine the imperishable truth, the systematic form in
which we expound it must in the nature of things have
a temporary element in it. We cannot escape from it,
but we have to recognize its provisional character.
Further, a special place must be assigned to psycho
logy. Investigations and expositions such as we find
in Granger's Soul of a Christian, in Starbuck's
Psychology of Religion, and in James' Varieties of
Religious Experience, open out a most important
field of study. If we are to be theologians, we must
imderstand the religious instinct in its manifold
types, the course of its development, the methods
of its satisfaction . This is a comparatively new field of
study, and much remains to be done before it can be
regarded as having achieved very definite results.
Yet the analysis of the various types of reUgious person
aUty and of the conesponding types of reUgion evolved,
ought to supply the theologian, not only with valuable
raw material, but with important practical tests for

436 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
the correctness of his theories. Once more, the theolo
gian needs to take into account the non-Christian mani
festations of reUgion. Much wiU become clearer
to him as his studies in this department proceed, and
he wiU be the better able to appreciate the intrinsic
nature of rehgion, and wiU see how many of the pro
blems that confront him in Christian Theology have
previously emerged on non-Christian soil. He wiU
appreciate aU the more deeply the unique success of
Christianity when he becomes famiUar with the less
satisfactory solutions reached by other reUgions.
Now, it is clear that the great system-buUders of
the past were not in the same favourable conditions in
many of these respects as we are to-day. So far as the
psychology of reUgion was concerned, it is true that
important material had been coUected ; the Confessions
of Augustine, for instance, yield many brilUant
examples of keen self-analysis ; but there was nothing
conesponding to the careful coUection of cases with a
view to the formation of theories with which we are
now beginning to become familiar. Philosophy, too,
as I have said, has always had a very vital relation
to theology. But phUosophy is, and must be, some
thing different from what it was to them, something,
let us kope, more adequately reflecting tke ultimate
trutk of things. And as for the science of Comparative
ReUgion, that did not exist for them. In the modern
study of the subject the theologian has been provided
with a very rich mine of material.
But while all this is trae about the non-Christian
contribution to theology, it is trae also of the definitely
Christian elements. Here Scripture is the most import
ant source, and in the study of Scripture pre-eminently
we kave advanced far beyond the position held by the
great theologians of the past. In the first place we have

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 437
to reckon with the modem critical movement. And
as an outcome of it we are ki a far more favourable
position for understanding the classical documents of
our reUgion than theologians have been in any pre
vious age. It would be melancholy to think that
more than a century's study of the Scriptures by a host
of trained and earnest scholars had been in vain.
Criticism has not been the mere foUowing of a wUl-o'-
the-%visp ; through many mistakes and faUures it
has achieved numerous results, which are not hkely
to be set aside. We cannot therefore employ the
classics of our faith in the same way in whick the
older theologians employed them. We must, if
we axe to be faithful to trath, see that the new know
ledge as weU as the old comes to its rights.
I have myself no doubt that the apologetic position
has been much strengthened by the critical movement.
Tliere is such a thing as an unbeUeving criticism ; but
criticism is also in many instances joined with the
most strenuous faith. And it is plain that when
criticism has completed its work the documents
remain. They are placed in different order, tkey are
assigned to different dates, our views of authorship
are in many instances changed, but none of these
things destroy the documents for us or nuUify the re
velation which they enshrine. And criticism has
made plain how much more diffused was the spirit of
revelation than we have been in the habit of supposing.
Now, out of the critical movement has come a new
conception of the development of the reUgion of
Israel. It is a marveUous story, and one which
makes the reaUty of Divine action even more im
pressive than we had realized it to be. And in con
nexion with this I have especiaUy to notice the rise
of the science of BibUcal Theology. It ought to be

438 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
a commonplace that Systematic Theology should be
founded on BibUcal Theology. But in many instances
the Bible has been viewed rather as an arsenal of texts
by which doctrines may be proved, than as a source
from which theology is directly to be constructed. From
the point of view of scientific theology a great objection
to this is its indiscriminate character. The various
parts of , the Bible were placed on the same level not
simply in the authority with which they spoke, but
also in tbe tkoughts which they were believed to ex
press. A more careful study of the Bible has shown to
us a more excellent way. We recognize that there was
a Divine purpose in the method which was actuaUy
followed. That the process of revelation stretched over
so many centuries, and that the message was uttered
through such different types of personality has for us a
real significance. We recognize that an indiscriminate
employment of certain parts of Scripture involves a
bhndness to the method which the Spirit of God
actuaUy pursued. It foUows, therefore, that we must
study in the first instance each author for himself,
apprehend his individual message in its historical
context, for it is not without meaning that the various
Biblical writers came when they did. We fuUy under
stand that it is iUegitimate to quote passages of Scrip
ture without reference to their context, inasmuch as
that modifies in many instances the sense to be im
posed upon them. But this principle has a wider
apphcation. Just as we cannot quote the individual
passage without its context, so we need to place the
author himself in what I may caU his historical context.
In other words, we have to recognize that a vital
element in revelation is its relevance to its own time.
There is much that will be misunderstood if this caution
is not borne in mind. There is a great deal in the

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY

439

Old Testament which is not of permanent significance.
And here I refer, not simply to the Law, which has
always been recognized on its ceremonial side to have
no more than a temporary vahdity. The same thing
is true of much in the prophets. When we read the
burning utterances of Amos and Isaiah upon the social
evUs of their time, it needs but Uttle reflection to see
that we cannot apply those utterances to the conditions
of our own day. Land-grabbing and estate-hunger
may be things to be reprobated, but we cannot quote
Isaiah's denunciation of those who add house to house
and field to field as if it had any bearing whatever upon
the question, until we are sure that the principle which
found expression in that denunciation is also violated
in our own time. It is plain that a prophetic message,
which was relevant to the conditions of Palestine
in the eighth century B.C., may be utterly inelevant to
the conditions of England in the ^twentieth century
A.D. The eternal element lies in the principles, not in
their apphcation, and we have to discover what those
principles were, through an understanding of the circum
stances of the time (see pp. 409 f.). Now. the relevance
of Scripture to its own age involves as another conclu
sion a recognition of the fact that the same utterance
may bear a different significance at one time from what
it possesses at another. We have to read the revelation
through the historical conditions, and for this it is
necessary to understand what those conditions were.
Since it is criticism alone which can determine ques
tions of date and authorship and stracture. it is clear
that the critical movement is bound to modify in many
respects time-honoured interpretations.
BibUcal Theology should be the foundation of Sys
tematic. This does not mean that an indiscriminate
collection of Biblical statements should be made on

440 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
any particular topic, and the conglomerate thus created
be regarded as the BibUcal teaching on that subject.
Each writer must be kept distinct, and the individual
system so far as possible constructed. Only when
this has been done can these systems be compared and
built into a coherent whole. Thus we need to recon
struct the theological system of Paul without any
reference to the teaching of John. To make an indis
criminate amalgam of both, and call it New Testament
Theology, is to do justice to neither. And it is especi
ally important to remember this in the matter of ter
minology. A Bibhcal writer has often his own specific
vocabulary, which differs widely from that of another
writer. This is pre-eminently the case with Paul, and
it is accordingly very precarious to argue from his
terminology to the interpretation of other writers.
One might take, for example, his conception of the
flesh, which is pecuUarly his own ; or one might quote
the great difference between his use of the word
' faith ' and that which we find in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Another science which was largely the creation of the
last century is the History of Doctrine. According to
the various theological circles in which we have been
brought up, we most of us start Ufe with a certain theo
logical outfit, which we identify with Christianity ; and
our tendency is to read this theological system into
the New Testament. We may be right in so doing in
the main, but it is a far cry from the twentieth century
to the first, and we have to face the question whether
our own point of view does coincide so exactly with
that of the New Testament. And the problem becomes
much more urgent when we find that other types,
equaUy with our own, claim identity with primitive
Christianity. Now, here the History of Doctrine has

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 441
much to teU us. The subject is so important because
it is hard to understand a theological system aright
apart from a knowledge of its history. The tendency
to forget this is responsible for much misapprehension
as to the meaning of certain tkeological propositions.
Tkey have a history and cannot be rightly understood
apcirt from it. Indeed, it may be said to be an axiom
in scientffic research of aU kmds, that the historical is
the sound method, where it is practicable to employ it.
The theology of our own time in all its varymg shapes
has a very long history behind it ; it has never sprung
fuU-grown from the brain of any thinker, nor, mdeed,
has any thinker derived it straight from the pages of
Scripture. We might jump off our own shadow
as readUy as cut ourselves loose from the ubiquitous
past. But if we cannot escape from the past we can
assimUate it and so tum it to account, find in it the
material for a worthier construction. And we can
leam how to buUd better. We can see what lines of
tkought end in disappointment, which give promise
of fmitful result, what pitfalls to avoid, what paths to
foUow. Experience is the great teacher, and history
is systematized experience.
Few things can form a better preparation for the
trae appreciation of the worth of a doctrine than to
trace it in its history, to note how point after pokit
has been the subject of thorough discussion, and why
the doctrine has assumed the form ki which it is held
by the Church. It might seem that many of those
whose views are discussed in the Histories of Doctrine
might have been suffered stUl to sleep in thek obscurity,
with the dust of ages undisturbed. Of what concern to
us in the twentieth century k may be asked, is k
to tum from tke urgent duties which he aU about us
and busy ourselves with long extinct controversies and

442 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
speculations which centuries since have been relegated
to hmbo ? Why should the historian delve assidu
ously in the records of obscure sects, or track tke
intricate windings of underground streams of specula
tion and experience ? The value of such a study
lies in this — that these controversies are by no means
extinct, but are matters of pressing moment. There
is much,' for example, in our present reUgious situation
to recaU the pantheistic mysticism which was in
danger of denying the gravity, and even the reahty,
of sin. The old forms may have perished, the old
phraseology may have become obsolete, but the specu
lative impulse abides, the essential theory continuaUy
tends to re-appear. One of the perils of rehgious hfe
at the present time lies just here, that people are con
stantly captured by what they take to be fresh and
iUuminating conceptions, which the student of the
History of Doctrine recognizes as old acquaintances in
a new dress. Apart from this historical training the
student, especiaUy if he is of a speculative turn of
mind, is liable to set an undue value on his own ideas,
quite ignorant that he is trying to open a lock witk a
key which has akeady been tried and found to be
useless. Tke History of Doctrine is thus one of the
greatest correctives to self-confident speculation. Of
course, the fact that a theory has been rejected in the
past after a prolonged discussion does not necessarily
imply that it has lost a claim on our attention. Very
much the reverse is often true ; we coi;istantly meet
with cases where it is some lonely thinker, some des
pised and kanied sect, that has been far in advance of
the age, and uttered truths almost universally rejected
then but cordiaUy accepted by us to-day. But while
this is true, it is also true that many views were tested
on their merits, and found to be false, and that our

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 443
judgment cordiaUy concurs in the verdict. Even those
who count it of no moment that these opinions were
rejected bj' authority cannot treat with indifference
the weighty arguments by which thek rejection
was justffied. The inteUectual acumen which was
brought to bear on these questions was very remark
able. It is true that in some cases inteUectual subtlety
was not united with a high tj^ of piety. But with
men Uke Athanasius and BasU and many more,
the two went hand in hand, and what gave the chief
impulse to thek controversy was the feeUng that the
very essence of Christianity was at stake. Moreover,
acquaintance with the history of thought enables
a man to keep his balance ; he is not so easUy swept
off his feet, his judgment is not warped by the fascina
tion of noveltj' on the one side, or by conservative
prejudice on the other. He has also the advantage
of knowing what his predecessors had to say with
reference to such theories. Again and again one is
strack with the inextinguishable character of specula
tions and practices which a superficial judgment
would consider to be obsolete. Frowned on by ecclesi
astical authorities, or suppressed by brutal persecu
tion, they have shown thek vitaUty by thek constant
reappearance. The student quickly discovers how deeply the non-
Christian environment influenced the development
and formulation of Christian doctrine. Christianity
was at a quite early date profoundly affected by
the thought, reUgion, and institutions of the Pagan
world. Greek philosophy quickly entered into, and
profoundly coloured the stream ; the reUgious ideas
alike of Paganism and Judaism soon modffied the sim
ple worship of the new reUgion, and the civU oi^aniza-
tion of the empire speedUy unpressed its stsanp upon

444 THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY
the organization of the Church. Throughout the
whole history of Christian Theology this action of the
envkonment kas gone on. The decisions of the great
(Ecumenical CouncUs in the fourth and fifth centuries
may have been in harmony with profound Christian
trath, but we cannot fail to recognize that they were
largely influenced by cunent Greek Pkilosopky.
Anselm's doctrine of the Atonement reflects the social
conditions of his own time. Theologians who had
been trained as lawyers introduced into Christian
Theology the conceptions of jurisprudence. Now, all
this may be right or may be wrong. We may weU
beheve that Greek PkUosopky and Roman Law
had their definitely appointed part to play in the forma
tion of Christian Theology. It is our duty to recognize,
however, that they did play such a part, and to refuse
to label with the stamp of Primitive Christianity
wkat reaUy has come into theology from a different
source altogether.
It is, I beUeve, true that the systematic study of
the New Testament has vindicated the essential har
mony with apostoUc Christianity of the main hnes
of our evangehcal beUef. But whether this be so or
not, the leading principles for which I am contending
are clear. Let me briefly summarize them. In the
first place since rehgion is a permanent factor in
human hfe the necessity for a theory of religion,
that is, for a theology, can never pass away. Secondly,
our own age must reconstruct theology in tke Ugkt of
the best knowledge it can obtain. We must be faitkful
to tke call given us by tke Spirit in tke growing iUumina
tion of tke Christian consciousness. Thkdly, our own
age is in a more favourable position tkan any that
have preceded it to create an adequate Cluristian
Theology. We understand the nature of religion

THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY 445
through its numerous historical manifestations as it
has never been understood before. The science of
Comparative ReUgion, the investigations into the
phenomena of the rehgious consciousness have ahke
helped us to reaUze what the rehgious instinct is, and
the various Unes on which it has sought its satisfaction.
And since the great source of our theology and the
test of its genuinely Christian character must always be
Scripture, the immense service rendered by the critical
movement and by the study of Biblical theology has
placed us in a position far more favourable than before
for constructing a scientific theology which shaU be
trae to the religion of the Bible. And lastly, the care
ful and prolonged investigation into the History of
Doctrine has helped us to appreciate the influence of
environment and to sift out the non-Christian accre
tions which have gathered about the Gospel. We need
not anticipate that a theology so constructed wiU set
aside the main Unes of Christian doctrine, and we shall
have, let us hope, a richer, fuUer, more scientific con
ception of the Gospel, with the proportion and the
connexion of tmth more clearly exhibited, and with the
emphasis more conectly distributed.

CHAPTER XXII
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
It is one of the infirmities of human nature to desire an
infalUble authority. And this authority is sought now
in Scripture, now in the Church, now in inward personal
iUumination. It has been one of the serious difficulties
of Protestantism that it has constantly found an infalU
ble seat of authority in Scripture. The difficulty was
less serious for the mediaeval Church since it accepted
the aUegorical interpretation and also claimed the right
to determine the true meaning of Scripture. It could
thus escape the difficulties which Protestantism with its
insistence on the hteral sense has found so grave. But
for a long time the position of Protestantism in this
respect seemed satisf5nng and secure. The humblest,
the most unlettered Christian could read his Bible
assured that he was Ustening in his spirit to the very
voice of God. It came to him with unquestioned claim
on his behef. On whatever theme it spoke it uttered the
final word, setting aside in their own subjects the pro
foundest thoughts and most searching investigations of
philosopher, scientist, or historian. When Omniscience
had spoken, the word of faUible man could not be
placed in competition with the Divine utterance. The
Book was enthroned as God's vicar on earth. It taught
men the truth without any admixture of error, laid down
the right Une of conduct and set the standard by which
they would ultimately be judged. Vast multitudes no
446

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 447
doubt, who are as yet untouched by modern problems,
StiU maintam this attitude. But as the newer genera
tions push them aside, the number of those who
believe in an infallible Bible in the fuU sense of the
term is bound steadily to diminish.
The problem is in trath much less simple than this high
and rigid theory recognizes. Those who want a plain
answer to a plain question wiU no doubt be dissatisfied
with what one has to say about it ; but one of the things
it is well for us to learn is that however much we may
demand such an answer we have frequently to make up
our minds to go without it. Our situation is much less
easy and it is more responsible. Yet if we have cast
upon us the burden of discrimination there is a corre
sponding relief. If it is said that we lose aU sense af •
security unless at every point we can feel that we are
reading the actual utterances of the Holy Spirit, are
there not many points where we may be much reUeved
to feel that we are not reading them ? If as I have
tried to show, the human factor has co-operated on a
large scale in the creation of Scripture, is it not what we
should expect that human infirmity and error should
mingle With the heavenly truth ? And if our natural
anticipation is verified by a judgment which refuses to be
bUnded by theory, is it not a cause of thankfulness th at
we are not committed to a theory which involved an
almost dishonest apologetic ? For its purpose the
Bible may possess aU that we reaUy need to have in it,
and we ought not to be more disturbed in our use of it
than in our trust of our senses because occasionaUy they
deceive us. But it is an important question on what we
can stay our souls when the old foundations have irre
trievably broken up. After aU we may easily over
rate the degree of certainty which the older theory gave
us. The controversies of a divided Christendom, each

448 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
side appeaUng to the same infalUble authority, show us
clearly enough some of the practical limitations to
which the use of such an authority is exposed.
There are those who would call us away from aU
external authority to find God and His truth within our
own souls. To aU of us the thought of the Ught that
Ughteneth every man should be precious, and the insist
ence on first-hand experience is never untimely. Yet
the trath is here as elsewhere, only in a fuUer degree.
that infaUibility is not to be expected. Indeed for the
rank and file, individualism is beset with the most
serious perils and limitations. On these I need not dweU,
for the case of the mystic and saint shows them clearly
I enough. Of Mysticism I would desire to speak with
I warm but discriminating appreciation. To our own
' age the message of Mysticism should be of great value.
On the one side it is a valuable corrective to the gaudy
materiaUsm that finds expression in so many forms ;
and on the other side it should give depth to our pre
sentation of the Gospel, which is too often disastrously
superficial. The impatience with theology, for which
theologians, it is true, are much to blame, the tendency
to reduce religion to emotionaUzed ethics, or to philan
thropy, are ominous signs which remind us how
urgent is our need to give ourselves to meditation on the
deep things of God. Here the brooding mystic and the
spkitual clairvoyant may carry us forward into deep
and secret places, and hft us in thek clear and steady
fligkt above the sheer precipice to heights we cannot
scale alone. It is the saints who are the tme experts,
and call to renewed study of them is worthy of all
acceptance. We must approach them in humility and
seLf-distrust, beUeving that to them is given, as it is not
given to ourselves, to see the heavenly vision and to
hear the unutterable words. Yet we must call no man

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 449
master, not even the mystic and the saint ; otherwise
we fall into one-sidedness and axe in danger of placing
the bizane accident on a level with the essential and
precious trath. The spiritual imagination is not to
have its wings cUpped, and its eyes hooded, and its feet
tethered to the ground, yet in its most daring flights it
should not be divorced from sanity and common sense.
When the mystic seems to talk pure folly, what is the
bewUdered reader, with the best wish to be sympathetic,
to do ? Certainly he must not sacrifice his inteUect and
bUndly swaUow on authority that of which his reason
can make nothing. Yet not being himself an expert, he
must recognize that what seems to him to be f oUy may
be that foohshness of God which is wiser than the wisest
wisdom of man. He can, I think, make no use of such
material, but he can suspend his judgment.
It is the temptation of the mystic to foster an undue
subjectivity, to despise external aids, to become de-
tacked from his feUows and miss the disciphne of thek
criticism. Of course it is very easy to be unjust kere.
Mysticism kas often been studied as an abenation of
the human inteUect. And to those who approach it in
this temper it is clear that its real value must remain
undisclosed. But our eyes may be blinded by indis
criminate enthusiasm as weU as sealed by impatient
contempt. In this as in ever5rthing else we should
deske a balanced judgment. Thus when we consider the
phenomena of mystical states we are often strack by
something abnormal in the constitution of mystics, some
times physical, sometimes psychical, often both. We can
hardly doubt that some of their experiences were the out
come of hysteria or haUucination. But we must beware
of drawing the wrong inference from this unquestionable
fact. They must be judged by their work. We do not
think of JuUus Caesar merely as a victim of epilepsy.
B.O. 29

450 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
We judge him by the tremendous impact of his per
sonaUty on the history of the world. It is certainly
tme that the presence of some abnormahty in body or
mind has been frequently found in persons who have
profoundly influenced tkeir contemporaries. It may
have made them more sensitive than their feUows to
suggestion from a higher sphere. But it is remarkable
how often such men have exhibited a sanity of judg
ment combined with great executive abihty. It is tme
that there is something to be said on the other side.
Too often the mystic has been a recluse, seffishly ab
sorbed in the culture of his own spiritual Ufe and indif
ferent to the needs of his feUows, building tabernacles on
the Mount of Transfiguration when he ought to have
been with the crowd at its foot, strengthening the weak
faith of his brethren and driving demons out of the
possessed. But it is only the barest justice to say that
there have been many mystics who have been fired
with a zeal for social service and for whom religion has
been no luxurious emotion but a passion to win the best
for their feUows. Yet it cannot be doubted that we are
confronted here with one of the great perils against
which the mystic needs to guard. He may tum his eyes
inward tiU he has no sense for the want and misery and
sin about him. And the practice of introspection is
itself beset with peril to the soul. There is something
morbid in a constant preoccupation with our own spirit
ual states ; it is not good for us to be alway feeUng our
pulse and taking our temperature. Ours is to be a
hidden hfe ; we must suffer it to grow in stillness and
seclusion witkout tkat unremitting probing and analysis
which is so unhealthy a feature in many hves. There
are rehgious diaries which remind one of the clinical
charts kept by nurses to skow the progress of thek
patients, AUthe fluctuations of temperature are care-

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 451
fuUy noted and described. There is, however, this
knportant difference that in this case the patient keeps
his own chart ; and with aU due recognition of the place
for self-examination in the Christian hfe this dangerously
ens on the side of excess. Every one recognizes that it
is bad for the sick person to dweU upon his symptoms.
We cannot argue unreservedly from one case to the
other but it is surely better to leave the Great Physician
to do His work witkout kampering Him over much by
our own interference.
And when we look at the content of the revelation
we are struck by its tendency to substitute negative
and abstract for positive, concrete, and vivid concep
tions of God, by its leaning to Pantheism, and its im
patience of history. And of course the mystics do not aU
say the same things. There are mystics and mystics.
How are we to discriminate ? If St. John of the Cross
and Santa Teresa, why not Swedenborg ? If the reply
comes that the Scriptures are the sure word of pro
phecy, this does not settle the question, since the mystic
also teUs us that his own thoughts are quite in harmony
with Scripture. For Scripture contains a mystical
sense, and his own revelations wiU be found in complete
agreement with this. The question, therefore, arises
whether such a second sense can be accepted. Protes
tants have as a rale denied it, admitting it only in the I
case of the Song of Songs. The truth is that if we once
surrender ourselves to aUegorical interpretation we are
in danger of abandonmg the Scriptures to the play of
endless caprice. The only safe rule to work with in the
first instance is that Scripture means what it says. The
scientific exegete is the expert who tells us what the
actual meaning of Scripture is. But aU exegetes
are not experts alike. The interpreter needs a philo
logical equipment in the first place, he needs also to

452 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
know the circumstances out of which the piece he is
interpreting comes. Therefore he must be a critic who
can date his documents, and a historian that he may
have the requisite familiarity with the circumstances
that gave it birth. But to be a perfect interpreter he
needs much more than these ; he should be familiar
with great literature that he may gain a sure exegetical
tact and delicacy of insight into his author's meaning.
And to crown all, he should be an expert in the subject
matter itself. If he is expounding a religious classic he
should be in deep sympathy with rehgion. It is his
duty to think himself back into the mind of his author,
and to expound in the first instance what his author
meant. If we must recognize a secondary sense we
have here something like an objective standard by con
formity with which its discovery may be controlled.
But should such a sense be admitted at aU ? We
often find meanings in great works of Art which were
probably not intended by the authors themselves.
Yet they may be genuine interpretations of the poem or
painting, since it often happens that unconscious genius.
has been at work and the author has written or painted
better than he knew. Accordingly where inspiration
works at so high a level as it often does in the Bible we
may not unnaturaUy expect to find deeper senses than
those of which the original author was aware. But
these are probably extensions of the principle which the
writer embodied in a nanower appUcation. I revert
here to a point dealt with when I was speaking of the
argument from prophecy. Quotations from the Old
Testament often receive in the New Testament a Mes
sianic application. Sometimes we can hardly think
that this is more than an almost mechanical use of some
quite accidental point of contact, at times purely veAal.
But this is by no means always the case. The'^Old

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 453
Testament prophecy and the New Testament fuffilment
have a real unity, not in the sense that the prophet was
consciously writing history beforehand, but in the sense
that he did express a great principle which found its
fuUest appUcation in Jesus. I hold, for example, that
the Christian interpretation of the Servant of Yahweh
is quite justified. The prophet's language is fulfiUed in
Jesus as m no other. Are we then to say that the New
Testament fulfilment controls the Old Testament inter
pretation ? Surely not, if it is clear, as I think it is,
that the author had not our Lord in his mind at all.
Are we then to say. It is quite unimportant what the
author meant, since for the Christian his prophecy refers
to Christ ? This I believe to be quite Ulegitimate.
We must ascertain the author's meaning before we
permit ourselves to find the reference to Christ in it.
In the first place we owe it to the prophet himself.
The meaning he meant to convey was one of real
moment . Let us not forget that the passages which deal
with the Servant of Yahweh are, leavkig Christianity
out of account altogether, among those of the first
importance for the interpretation of the reUgion of
Israel, ranking with the New Covenant passage in
Jeremiah. For those of us who wish to understand that
rehgion. in the assured beUef that k was the Divinely
ordered preparation for Christianky. a neglect of tke
primary sense would be a disastrous impoverishment of
our interpretation and a wilful blinding of ourselves
to the lessons that history was Divinely intended to
convey. In the next place I am convinced that the
coUective judgment of Christendom has been right in
finding the fulfilment of these prophecies in Christ. But
let us suppose tkat we leap to this conclusion. We losse
one very important thought in our interpretation of
Christ Himself. I do not doubt, for reasons I have

454 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
given at length elsewhere,* that by the Suffering Ser
vant the prophet intended Israel, which had died in the
captivity and was to be raised again in the restoration.
When we look more closely at the Servant's mission as
described by the prophet, we see that it is a two-fold
one. Israel is on the one side the revealer of God to the
world, on the other side it is the sufferer for the world's
sins. Now. it is a thought of great value to us that
Christ is Israel, inasmuch as He concentrates Israel in
Himself, so far as Israel had a meaning in universal
history. The functions of Israel as teacher and sufferer,
which could, in the nature of the case, be realized only
imperfectly in the nation, were completely realized in
Christ.who embodies Israel inHimself and carries its task
to completion (see pp. 373 f.). The great thought of the
election of nations to fulfil God's ends is completely lost
if we set aside the primary interpretation of the words
as immaterial for ourselves, while much is lost on the
\other hand in our appreciation of Christ's significance.
"Sometimes the complaint is made that the newer
attitude to the Bible has deprived the modern preacher
of many parts of the Old Testament which his predeces
sors used with great profit in their mmistry. If this
means that the ' Christ in Leviticus ' type of sermon has
disappeared for good from our pulpits, I can only be
thankful that preachers are diverted from the unhis
torical treatment of an obsolete Law to such parts of
Scripture as do not need to be distorted by fancy and
caprice into expressing the mighty truths of the Gospel.
And I should say quite confidently on the other side
that vast tracts of Scripture which were left alone or
abandoned to the faddist have been recovered by Bib
Ucal criticism for the edification of the Church. Only in
^ The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament, pp. 180-193.

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 455
criticizing present-day preaching, we should make
allowances for the fact that we are now in a transition
period. As the critical view of Scripture comes to its
own, it wiU be possible for the ripe fruits of reverent
Bible study to be made accessible in a way which at pre
sent is not possible. For my own part I may say that
criticism has never attracted me for its own sake. The
aU-important thing for the student of the Bible is to
pierce to the core of its meaning. Now, since it has
pleased God to give us His revelation in the form of a
history, it is necessary for us to approach its interpreta
tion by a historical path. But no history can be scienti
fic, in accordance, that is, with the tmth of things,
unless it criticaUy examines its documents and the
material they enshrine. Thus criticism becomes for the
interpreter of Scripture, not a task he may decline at his
will, but an obvious duty that he dare not shirk.
In any case I am clear that we must neither deny the
primary sense nor set it aside as unimportant . Whether
we can recognize a secondary sense or not, reverence
for Scripture requires that we should first ascer
tain the primary sense. Perhaps we ought to judge the
legitimacy of a secondary sense by the naturalness with
which it grows out of the primary. It is probably
safest to take the New Testament in its primary sense as
our standard. What is in conflict with that sense as a
whole is ruled out as an individual idiosyncrasy, even
though it come to us through the greatest of the non-
canonical mystics. The chief concern for us, after aU, is
the apprehension of the essential things. And I cannot
beUeve that these are other than those which he plainly
expressed and level to the reception of the whole Chris
tian people. These are not the things of which the
mystics tell us. They have much to say of which
Scripture says but little. What they have to say may

456 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
be true and important, and may contribute much to the
deepening of our thought and a quickening of our Ufe.
Yet there are very many who find themselves at home
in the deep passages of Scripture to whom the mystics
wiU always seem to talk, not the language, but a dialect
of Canaan. The great thing for us is to know tke lan
guage, the dialect also if we can. If we cannot, there is
no cause for distress. We have the one thing needful ;
as for everything else have we not eternity in which to
learn it ?
With aU our appreciation then of the value of Mysti
cism and the recognition that a Christianity without it is
an impoverished Gospel, we cannot find in the mystical
experiences of the great mystics themselves, to say
nothing of the ordinary man, a guidance which super
sedes that given by Scripture. Do we find what we want
then in the Church ? This has the advantage that it
recognizes the collective consciousness as Mysticism
fails to do. It is the community which speaks and not
the gifted individual, a commimity founded by Christ
Himself, the recipient of His gift of the Holy Spirit.
It is claimed by great organizations that here the indivi
dual finds the authority he needs both for certainty and
for control. It is an authority which functions through
human agents but in its origin and imperious claim to
obedience it is the authority of God Himself. But
while no Christian could do other than recognize with
humihty and prostration of spirit the authority of God
as something to be accepted with the whole heart and
obeyed to the uttermost of his power, it is a truly dan
gerous thing to assert this kind of Divine rigkt for any
lower tribunal, even for tke Church of Christ.
In saying this it is far from my intention to minimize
the allegiance which the Christian owes to the Church.
There is among us too much of the freelance spirit, too

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 457
self-assertive an individuahsm, too great a readiness to
set at naught the authority of the Church ahke in action
and belief. Loyalty to the Church and enthusiasm for
it are indispensable if we are to win for our reUgion the
inward strength and outward victory for which we pro
fess to be so eager. Only our supreme loyalty kere
must not be to that section of the Church to which we
belong but rather to the whole body of Christian people
dispersed throughout the world. We must be Cathohcs
in the fullest sense of the term, and with no contracted
vision of the Church embrace in our conception of it aU
who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, with any organiza
tion or with none. Had the Church been so faithful to
the guidance of the Spirit that no disastrous schisms
had shattered her unity and split her into warring
factions with contradictory messages, then we might
have spoken of her authority in a sense which is no
longer possible, though not even to the undivided
Church could we accord a plenary authority over our
faith. When we are invited to recognize the authority
of the Church on questions of belief, we cannot close
our eyes to the very discordant voices that come from
Churches which lay claim to possess the true notes of
CathoUcity in an apostolic type of ministry, a pure doc
trine, and an uninterrupted succession.
The relationship in which the Church and the Bible
are placed by advocates of this view is also unaccept
able. A derivative rather than a primary authority is
accorded to the canonical Uterature. It was written by
the Church and must be read and interpreted through
the behefs of the Church. The statement that the
Church wrote the New Testament is one to which it is
hard for the BibUcal scholar to attach any meaning.
It is, of course, trae that the New Testament did
not create the Church, that the Church had been in

458 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
existence probably for decades before any New Testa
ment book was written. It is also trae tkat in a sense
the New Testament was created by the Church — in
other words, the coUection of the various writings into
a Canon was the Church's achievement, an unconscious
achievement though it may have been. Moreover the
hfe of the Church Ues behind the New Testament litera
ture and is the presupposition of its origin. But aU of
these taken together do not justify the statement that
the Church wrote the New Testament, still less do they
justify the practical inferences which are drawn from this
position. It is unhistorical to suppose that the mind of
the Church was crystaffized in the Epistle to the Ro
mans or the Epistle to the Galatians. That is to invert
the true order. It was not the coUective consciousness
of Christians which guided Paul to pen his immortal
expositions of fundamental Christian trath. These had
their source in his own experience of sin and redemp
tion ; they guided the Church, and were not the expres
sion of her mind. The Church guarantees the New
Testament — she did not write it.
The point on which I should desire to lay stress is
the coUective witness given by experts in the deep
things of God. So long as we are preoccupied with
individuals we are exposed to the serious perU of sub
jectivity, but when we turn from the single expert to
the experts in a body we find that the eccentricities of
individuals may be controUed by the testimony of the
whole number. We need an objective standard to
enable us to decide between the competing claims of
those who profess to be equaUy iUumined by the Holy
Spirit. Viewed in this way our thought does not rest
when we are speaking of the authority of the Church, on
the official pronouncements, on councils and formular
ies, but on the witness borne by the saints who are the

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 459
true experts in rehgion, but also on the consentient
testimony of the Church as a whole.
Now it is along this Une that we can affirm the
authority of the Bible. If the subjective Ulumination
experienced by a saint is committed to writing or ex
pressed in oral utterance, then the same kind of
authority might be claimed for the outer expression as
for the inward certainty. Not perhaps the same degree,
for experience is incommunicable and the hmitations of
expression must be taken into account. But on the
other hand one would sooner trust what the expert
with the largest measure of Ught was able to convey
than one's own inward apprehension, darkened by im
perfection of character and a feebler religious instinct.
Very much in the Bible comes under this head, it con
tains by far the most precious coUection in existence of
classical utterances upon rehgion. And the truth of
these is attested to us by their self-authenticating
quaUty on the one side and their constant verification in
experience on the other.
But we can start also from another point. Most
Christians would regard the words of Jesus as unques
tionably authoritative. It is tme that these have been
transmitted to us by others, and questions are raised
as to the accuracy of the report, especiaUy in view of the
divergence between the reports on quite important mat
ters. Even where we reach what we may take to be
certainly authentic in substance we must aUow for the
influence of transmission and of translation into Greek
on the form. There is also the question how far what
is uttered was affected by the temporary views of His
time. But it is quite easy for us here as elsewhere to be
daunted by difficulties in theory which are by no means
so formidable in practice. (Even when we have em-""
ployed such tests as a sane criticism would suggest we

L

46o THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
have a large body of authentic teaching amply guaran
teed to us in substance, largely guaranteed by its inimit
able character in form. And in the main at least this
may be recognized as authoritative even when we have
aUowed to the fuU for the influences of the inteUectual
environment?^ That a temporary element derived from
the views oflHis time should mingle with His teaching
is no more surprising than that on the authorship of
Biblical books He should accept the views cunent in
His day. Questions of this kind are of little, if any,
practical importance, whatever theoretical perplexities
they may raise. What is perhaps most important of all
is that Jesus gives us the right point of view. His concep-
Ition of God is not only final in itself, it gives us the
I dominating principle for the construction of our theo
logy. The authority which attaches to the New Testament
writers is less easy to place on the right basis. Their
teaching is more mixed than that of the Master. The
non-Christian environment and inheritance have in
fiuenced it more deeply. It is less completely con
trolled by His fundamental conception of God. But
they are faithful in the main to the hnes He had laid
down, they interpret His Person and His Work more
fully than had been possible to Him, and thek teaching
was largely the outcome of an experience which He
created. Here as elsewhere we must be content with
recognizing that we have ample guidance both for
thought and conduct if we refrain from that passion for
logical completeness which so frequently commits us to
indefensible positions. And there are considerations
which may reconcile us to some of our difficulties. The
rich variety with which Christianity is treated is ample
compensation for such divergence of view as may be
detected in the New Testament. It is a positive gain

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 461
that we have ceased to regard the Bible as in aU its
parts a final guide in matters of morality, and by the
recognition that its morality is progressive have effect
ually corrected a dangerous misuse. And simUarly
in theology it is a great thing that we should have learnt
to go to the Bible for what it is rather than for what it is
not. The indiscriminate use of Scripture as a single
source of equal value, as a quarry from every part of
which stones may be indifferently collected to build up
the temple of constructive dogmatics wiU, it may be
hoped, soon pass away never to return. The new view
does not, it may be urged, give the same certainty as
the old. But if the old is becoming incredible, what
then ? May we not be meant to understand that the
desire for infallibility is itself unhealthy and that while
we have abundance for our needs there is much which is
dehberately left undefined ?
We can readily see how impossible it is to draw hard
and fast hnes when we attempt to do it. Thus many
have found great rehef in the principle that on some
topics we must not suppose that the Bible was intended
to instruct us, since they are remote from the domain of
religious and moral truth where it is supreme. And
such a principle is valuable provided we do not wish to
apply it too strictly. We cannot say in any hard and
fast way that the authority of the Bible is to be re
stricted to the ethical and spiritual region, whUe what
lies outside may be freely surrendered. We cannot
create a scientific frontier on these lines. The terri
tories overlap, the spheres of interest intersect at many
points. ReUgious and ethical trath are inseparably
bound up with history, and the question inevkably
arises. How far does our interest in the former pledge
us to accept the latter ? We cannot be indifferent to
history, since such indifference would vitaUy imperil

462 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
the essence of our religion. But how far is that prin
ciple to be pushed in the case of the Gospel history and
the records of Christ's teaching ? Or it might be
argued that the historicity of the Old Testament could
be surrendered without any fatal loss to Christianity.
Yet here again we are bound to remember that Chris
tianity stands in organic relation with the reUgion of
Israel and that revelation has taken for its ckannel
tke history of that people. Accordingly it reaUy does
concern us to reconstract so far as we can the actual
development through which the nation and its religion
passed. And whUe on the one side we cannot easily
hand over aU the non-spiritual, non-moral elements in
the Bible, we cannot on the other hand claim indisput
able authority for the elements which remain. We
have seen that the historical form which revelation
assumed necessarUy involved progress from lower to
higher levels, and that the mediation of revelation
through human personaUty and experience has deeply
coloured the Divine truth. As a matter of fact our
attitude is not determined solely in such matters by
formal logic. We are not mere thinking mackines.
We feel ourselves as weU as think ourselves into our
deepest convictions. We settle down into them not by
a mere process of argument, which after all affects and
shapes our inward behefs much less than we sometimes
suppose, but by a process far more subtle and com
plex, in which argument. feeUng. experience, authority,
and sensitiveness to envkonment are inextricably
blended. But convictions tkus reacked are rooted far
more firmly and keld more tenaciously tkan tkose
wkich are simply the conclusion of a chain of reasoning.
And vague though our theory may be, for our practi
cal attitude to the authority of Scripture this is not
important. What it most concerns us to know carries

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 463
its own witness within itself and is recognized by our
inward faculty. GOur reason iUumined by the Holy"
Spirit recognizes tke trutk which reason iUumined by
th6 Holy Spirit commumcated. TVip ¦yyjl"'""' ^" the
heart responds to the witness in the Wordjit was one
of the leading principles of the Reformers to ground our
acceptance of Scripture not on the authority of the
Church, highly though that might be esteemed, but on
its own quaUties as immediately recognized by those
who had experienced the work of tke Holy Spirit.
This is constantly stated in the authoritative docu
ments of the Reformation. Thus Calvin says in his
Institutes :
' For as God alone is a sufftcient witness of Himself in His
own Word, so also the Word wiU never gain credit in the hearts '
of men tiU it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the
Spirit. It is necessary, therefore, that the same Spirit who
spake by the mouths of the prophets should penetrate into our 1
hearts, to convince us that they faithfuUy deUvered the oracles j
which were divinely intrusted to them.'
And in very noble language the Westminster Confession
sets forth the same doctrine. From our standpoint
it may be difficult to endorse the whole of this state
ment, but at least the emphasis is in the right place.
The passage is as foUows :
' The Authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought
to be beUeved and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony
of any man or Church, but whoUy upon God (who is truth it
self), the author thereof ; and therefore it is to be received be
cause it is the word of God.
' We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ;
and the heavenUness of the matter, the efficacy of the doc
trine, the majesty of the style, the consent of aU the parts, the
scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full

464 THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the
many other incomparable exceUencies, and the entire perfection
thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our
fuU persuasion and assurance of the infaUible truth, and divine
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit.
bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.'
This majestic passage, vuffierable as it may be in detaU
is yet most valuable in that it refuses to rest the
authority of the Bible on any external witness, however
august. Not m any institution, though that institution
be the Church of Christ, but in its own Divine quality,
self-attesting to whosesoever heart was ht by the same
Spirit who spoke in prophet and in apostle, was its
authority securely based. But just as there was an
interaction of the Divine and the human in the creation
of Scripture, so there is a co-operation of man with God
in the estimate which is formed of it. For the inward
witness of the Spirit to the Word is not to be found sim
ply in some whoUy supernatural assurance in which
God speaks and there is nothing for man to do but to
hear His voice. I am not concerned to deny the reality
of such an experience. But I desire to claim the other
type of experience as one which the Holy Spirit may
equaUy select. In this experience the reason has its
place and its rights. Those are not the best friends of
religion who decry the human reason. It is the glory of
our reUgion that it appeals to the reason. No doubt
Uke every human thing it has its imperfections and we
must seek to enhghten it by every means in our power.
If we throw discredit upon it, what is left but a philo
sophic scepticism ? For even submission to an external
authority, the renunciation of private judgment, the
sacrifice of the intellect, involves in the last analysis an
act of private judgment. Ifwe^nnot trust reason tn

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 465
discover truth or at least to recognize it when revealed,
we must renounce aU hopes of knowmg it. We dishon
our God by distrasting the faculty which He has Himself
planted within us, aU the more when that faculty has
been redeemed by His Son, renewed and enhghtened by
His Holy Spirit. No doubt the claim for the individual
reason needs to be stated far more cautiously than has
often been the case. The right of private judgment of
course does not mean that every man has a right to
think as his caprice or inchnation may dictate, that one
man's opimon is as good as another's, that the authority
of society or the Church should cany no weight with it
and may be Ughtly set aside. It is imphed in the affir="
mation of the right, that whoever claims to exercise it
should have fuffiUed the conesponding duty. LWe must
earn the right to our opinion. We must have famihar
ized ourselves with the issues, studied the facts, ex
amined the arguments for the various opinions, sincerely
cleansed our mind from prejudice, humbly sought the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. And having thus prepared
ourselves, we must also have given its due significance to
the large coUective judgment expressed by society or the
Church. But when after such an inteUectual, moral.
and spiritual preparation we have reached our conclu
sion we may without arrogance or impropriety claim the
right to form and accept the responsibihty of holding it._
Even Scripture itself may be judged by us in this way.

CHAPTER XXIII'
THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION IN
EXPERIENCE *
This title at once suggests a whole series of questions.
Assuming that the Revelation given in Scripture is that
intended, in what sense do we propose to make it the
subject of verification ? Is it the whole Bible as it
stands or certain portions of it ? Again is it the whole
range of subjects on which Scripture has spoken or only
a selection that is contemplated in our inquiry ? Do
we emphasize the unity of Scripture or do we recognize a
large diversity within it ? Do we confine ourselves to
the Bible itself or do we include the affirmations which
theology has made about it ? What is it that we want
to verify ? Is it fact or idea, or both ? Do we pursue
our search in the field of psychology, or history, or
metaphysics, or doctrinal theology ? How far is
experience competent to take us in our search ? To
whom is the verification given, to him who is immedi
ately conscious of the experience or to others ? Whose
experience have we to take into account, the individual
or the collective ? our own merely or that of others ?
If the latter what limits are we to set to our search ?
^ Paper read at the Methodist Assembly held in Wesley's
Chapel, City Road, London, on October 5, 1909. Some
passages have been restored, which had to be omitted in
reading for want of time, and some trifling alterations have been
made to fit it for its new function. 466

THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION 467
Is there a standard type of experience, the common
possession of aU who call themselves Christians ? or are
there types of experience eacli of which may claim to be
a legitimate though not a monopohst form of Chris
tianity ? And indeed have we the right to Umit our
selves to Christianity ? By far the larger though not
the more precious portion of our Bible is pre-Christian
and ought therefore to admit of verification from
those who remain at the Old Testament point of view.
I have enumerated these questions not because it is
my intention to attempt the task of answering them in a
time which would be whoUy inadequate for the purpose
but that some of the saUent issues may be before us at
the outset. I hof>e, however, to indicate my position
with reference to some of the problems involved.
I begin with the Uterature which we propose to test.
In a sacred book it is at fixst surprising to find so much
that is secular, not a httie that seems unfitted to be the
vehicle either of reUgious or moral instruction. Wliat
are we to do with elements in the Bible apparentiy so
intractable to spiritual handUng as the genealogies in
Chronicles, or the account of the division of Canaan in
Joshua ? If every part of Scripture, just because it is
Scripture, must jield spiritual or ethical edification, we
shall be driven to aUegorical interpretation. But that
^\¦ay of escape is closed against us. Scripture means
what it says and it is not to be nm into tke moulds of
this or that interpreter's caprice. We cannot escape
by reading back tke New Testament into the Old.
By such an illegitimate anaclironism we wrong both the
Old Testament and the Xew. we deprive the former of
its independent %'alue and we depreciate the uniqueness
of the Christian revelation. Are we then to strike out
large sections^'of the Bible on the ground that in our
sacretl Uterature they have no right to be there ? It is

468 THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION
only an enoneous theory as to tbe real character of the
Bible, that could lead us to answer such a question in
the affirmative. We must rise from the mistaken view
of Scripture wkich it implies, to a conception that shaU
enable us to rejoice in their inclusion. We must break
with an atomistic view of the Bible, or we shaU never
discern its fuU value. We have no right to insist that
every part of it shaU yield a direct spiritual message;
Such a demand involves an iUegitimate and violent
exegesis. There is much which has no spiritual value
when it is torn from the organism of which it forms
part. A very large number of passages come home to
the soul with immediate and self-authenticating power.
And it is these passages which sustain the average
reader's estimate of the Bible. He extends to the
whole hterature the impression that is made by these
portions of it. But what of the other portions which
do not satisfy this test ? The ordinary Bible reader
theoreticaUy recognizes the inspiration of these as of
the other portions. But the practical treatment varies.
Some read them in the behef, which is not free
from superstition, that the reading of them is in itself
bound to bring a blessing, whUe others who equaUy
recognize their inspired character, wiU neglect them for
passages which are charged with rehgious and moral
power. Both attitudes are unfortunate and they rest
on what I have called an atomistic view of Scripture.
It is only when we rise above this idea of the Bible and
regard it as a great connected whole that these parts of
Scripture which are either neglected or read without
benefit wiU be appreciated at their proper worth. The
lack of historical imagination is responsible both for
the abuse of many parts of Scripture and for the faUure
to use them. Once we\ have grasped tke principle
that revelation has come as a process in history,

IN EXPERIENCE 469
Scripture is invested for us with a new significajice.
To a large extent we may say that the Bible is occa
sional and incidental, concemed with immediate neces
sities and contemporary problems. Even when it nar
rates the history of earlier ages it does so with a mainly
practical motive. The selection of incidents is dehber
ately made for its bearing on the writer's own age. The
interest of the scientffic historian is almost entkely
absent, tke dominant interest is edffication. And wken
we turn to tke prophets, m many ways the most impor
tant part of the Old Testament, this interest in the
contemporary situation becomes much more apparent.
The consequence is that the prophetic Uterature has
been very widely neglected and where not neglected it
has been misunderstood. Its relevance to contem
porary conditions prevents it from being immediately
avaUable for conditions altogether different. And yet
there is no part of the Old Testament which we can so
Uttle afford to neglect. For wffile the message was
Umited by the ckcumstances of the hour the principles
it embodied were of eternal vaUdity. If then we are to
win thek fuU value from the prophetic utterances we
must aim at two things. We must reach the eternal
principle by divestmg it of its temporary garb, and we
must observe how the prophets apply the principle to
the situation with which they deal. But we can achieve
our double purpose only through a precise apprehension
of the actual conditions to which the eternal tmth was
so exquisitely adjusted. And it is from this pomt of
view that much in the Bible, which on an atomistic
conception appears to be superfluous or even out of
place, becomes valuable. For it gives us indispensable
assistance in reconstmcting these conditions, it supphes
us with atmosphere and background. It may have Uttle
independent value, but it was not included m Scriptur«

470 THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION
for its own sake but for the sake of the whole organism
of which it forms a necessary part. ' The eye cannot
say to the hand I have no need of thee.' We have not
made the highest use of the Old Testament when we
have nourished our souls on its loftiest and choicest
passages. It is when we have apprehended it as a great
living organism in which each part has its place and
function that we have rightly understood it. It is a
whole which is more important than the greatest of its
parts. Moreover on a tiue view of Scripture even the
hmitations and imperfections of the Old Testament
have thek significance. The Old Testament is not our
final authority. Judaism is not for us on the level of
Christianity. The contrast between the prayers of the
Psalmists for vengeance on tkeir persecutors and the
prayer of Stephen for his murderers is a precious testi
mony to the revolution wrought by Christ.
It has been with no intention of deserting my theme
that I have spoken at such length on the nature of Scrip
ture. We must know what it is that we want to verify
before we attempt the process of verification. More
over, what I have ah-eady said forms an introduction to
this section of the subject. That revelation is a process
in history prepares us to beUeve that it wiU find its veri
fication in Ufe. And especiaUy I would emphasize
that much in Scripture is the dkect creation of experi
ence. Tke Bible is pre-eminently a book of experimen
tal reUgion. What experience has a-eated we may
expect experience to verify. But we must not overlook
the inherent limitations of experience, even when inter
preted in the largest way, as an instrument of verifica
tion. Experience cannot verify aUeged historical
events in a sacred book ; they must be left to historical
investigation. It cannot directly verify the authorship
of books, that is the province of criticism. It is impera-

IN EXPERIENCE 471
tive to insist on this because it is constantly overlooked.
Cowper's famous couplet on tke poor cottager wko
' Just knows, and knows no more, her Bible true —
A truth the brilliant Frenchman never knew,'
iUustrates wkat I mean. Her conviction that the Bible
was tme rested simply on her experience of redemption.
But obviously the reUgious element in the Bible is aU
that reUgious experience can dkectly verify. Tke
Bible, kowever, contains very muck more than a reU
gious element. In particular it includes much of a his
torical character which in the nature of the case experi
ence cannot verify. Were Christianity simply a matter
of inward experiences with such outward results as flow
from them we might stake our position on the verifica
tion they supply. But the Gospel stands or falls by a
series of facts in space and time, and by certain tkeo
logical affirmations which it makes about these. And
it is very difficult to argue on the strength of transac
tions within the soul for the trath of historical events
or theological doctrines. The cures effected by Chris
tian Scientists do not guarantee the metaphysics of
Christian Science. It is unquestionable that through
the gracious condescension of God spiritual blessmg has
often come to devout souls where the explanation of the
experience has been entkely false. The sense of imion
with Christ which comes to the pious Romanist m the
Eucharist does not prove the Roman theory of the Mass.
The BibUcal doctrine of sin's universal dominion I find
attested m experience, but experience can give no direct
attestation to the events nanated m the thkd chapter
of Genesis. The proclamation of redemption has found
its echo in the experience of the redeemed, but that
experience cannot vindicate the historicity of the facts
on which the Church has always insisted that salvation

472 THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION
depends. Accordingly as one who is deeply concerned
for the acceptance of the great Christian traths I can
only express my dismay at the recklessness with which
the Christian case is sometimes staked on experience
alone. It is a combination of historical proof with the
argument from experience which alone can bear the
weight. A second Umitation of experience is to be found in its
mixed origin and character. It is not simple but com
plex and many factors have gone to its making. The
Christian hfe is created and fostered by the Divine
action, but the Divine is inevitably coloured and Umited
by the human. Elements which we contribute mingle
with those that have their source in the gracious working
of the Holy Spirit. It is the play of innumerable
forces, many of them hardly guessed by us, which has
made us what we are. We must beware therefore of
resting a weight on our experience which it wUl not
bear, or we may even sunound with a halo our own
foibles and eccentricities. We escape to a certain extent
from these dangers when we permit the experience of
others to enlarge and conect our own. It is trae that
we cannot be content with a second-hand experience.
Our relationship to God must be immediate and dkect.
It is also trae that the soul's secrets are largely incom
municable, and the most briUiant combination of psycho
logical analysis with gift of expression inevitably leaves
the deepest things unsaid. But when aU this has been
admitted it remams trae that for our own profit we do
weU to enrich and expand our own spiritual hfe by com
munion with rarer and riper spirits, while it is impera
tive that when we use experience as an instrument of
verification we should understand it in its coUective
rather than in its individual sense. I must be able to
say what Christ has meant to me — otherwise my testi-

IN EXPERIENCE 473
mony loses its note of authenticity and conviction and
the intimate glow of feehng which gathers about the
most cherished possession. But if I am to press on
others the argument from experience, or if I seek to find
tke Bible mirrored and verified in experience. I must
interpret this in the largest way. humbly conscious how
nanow at the best is the reflexion my own life can give.
What then can experience do for us ? It is in the
fkst place tke indispensable complement of history.
If after we have studied the historical evidence we reach
the conclusion that Jesus was what the Church claims
Him to have been, and did what she claims Him to have
done, that conclusion itself wiU not be long maintained
unless experience continuaUy reaffirms it. For if the
proof from experience has its limitations, so also, as
every historical critic knows only too weU, has the argu
ment from history. Left alone neither can bear the
weight of the Christian case. Locked into an arch where
each supports the other we can securely trast our faith
to them. Experience corroborates the testimony of
history to the Divinity of Christ and the redeeming
quaUty of His work. In the next place, the reUgious
experience is in itself a fact for which an explanation
must be found. It is with no mere individual nor even
with a group that we are concerned, otherwise haUuci
nation, individual or coUective, might be a reasonable
explanation. But in the vast experience of Christen
dom we are deaUng with facts as real as any which are •
investigated by the scientist or the historian, and which
requke some great and wortky cause. Moreover this
specfficaUy Christian experience has been associated
with a high view of Christ's Person and Work. Wken
these have been abandoned, the experience tends to die
out and the enthusiasm to die down. From the msepa-
rable connexion of the fact with the doctrine we cannot

474 THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION
strictly infer the trath of the latter, but at least we are
strongly predisposed to accept it. In view, however, of
the fact that this experience is associated with very
different theories, or with theories of the most rudimen
tary kind, we cannot regard it as verifying more than the
general doctrine. In other words we cannot build on
it any developed Christology or any particular theory of
the Atonement. Again, while experience is largely
incommunicable and therefore comes with its note of
immediate assurance only to him who receives it, yet his
testimony as to his experience is calculated to im
press and win those who are without. At this point
also a quahfication may be made which we are
sometimes tempted to overlook. A Church that has
been created by a revival, in which conversion has
meant that for a large number of its members
the continuity of life has been violently raptured,
tends to state and to go on stating the doctrine of
assurance in a one-sided way. The old and the new are
set in sharp and definite opposition, and the experience
of the new Ufe is made aU the more vivid by the shock of
contrast with the old. The danger is that this should
come to be regarded as that which is alone legitimate.
And thus on the one side Christians faU into the sin of
censoriousness, whUe on the other side the incautious
presentation of the doctrine depresses anxious and
scrapulous souls. As a conective to this we must
always keep weU to the front our objective tests. On
the other hand we must insist that the Divinely ap
pointed conditions are faithfuUy observed on the human
side and leave with God the responsibiUty for the
Divine response. I might add that the doctrine of
assurance is a subject which more than most needs
judicious handUng, and more than most, perhaps,
has suffered from the want of it. What is most

IN EXPERIENCE 475
mischievous in the Christian hfe is unreahty, and
where this takes the form of a manufactured con
sciousness in obedience to the exigencies of a theory,
the gravest harm is done to the spiritual develop
ment. No man has the right to make his^ personal
experience normal for all thej chUdren of God, and
the witness of the Spirit, hke all His holy and
saving operations, may not assume in eack the same
form. That the temperament and previous training of
the man may condition the precise form it takes is clear.
In some it wiU be more objective in its ckaracter tkan
in otkers.
In what I have said about the Bible and about ex
perience I have to some extent anticipated the consider
ation of the question how far one is verified by the
other. One or two further points demand a few words.
Experience may first be verified by repetition. But
repetition may be false or true. As false repetition I
must reckon tke imitation of Christ as it has been often
practised. Quite apart from the fact that Christ is the
Redeemer, and we the redeemed. He the Master and
we the servants, the painful imitation of Him is the
mark of a servile temper wkich kas not risen to the
Uberty of the children of God. Nor do we necessarUy
reproduce the apostohc type. It is not our aim to
restore primitive Christianity, but to fiU our own very
different conditions with the same spkit. It is tke
glory of this spkit that it is so fluid and so flexible, that
it has a Protean variety of incarnation. There is need
of all types, and ki eack type of much charity towards
the rest. So much, indeed, we may learn from primitive
Christianity. There was no apostoUc type, there were
several types. It is' natural that many of us should
feel the PauUne type to be the most congenial. Yet
since it has pleased God that other types should be re-

476 THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION
presented in the classical documents of our faith, we do
weU to nourish ourselves on these also. Genuine Chris
tianity must be discerned in very divergent forms. It
varies from age to age. Within the same age there is
wide divergence of groups, within groups there is diver
gence between individuals.
The individual verffies the New Testament by the
immediate response which it awakes within him. The
tones struck by these ancient writers set our own heart
strings in S5mipatketic vibration. It is verified also by
tke course of our own spiritual history. We may
feel, indeed, that our experience is sadly lacking in the
intensity which we find in the New Testament, and that
there are expressions of it which would have seemed too
daring for us to use had we not the wanant which it
suppUes. Yet with aU its shortcomings we may claim
that the witness in the heart answers to the witness of
the Word. And this argument becomes much more
impressive when we turn from the personal to the col
lective experience. The existence of the Canon is to
some extent a proof that the writings had been verified
Of course this statement needs qualification, for
there were other criteria of canonicity, and there is a
fringe as to which doubt may be legitimately enter
tained. But the margin of uncertainty is neither
large nor important. We should have in the New Test
ament aU we want, even if books whose canonicity has
been widely doubted were excluded from it, although
the exclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews would
greatly impoverish the New Testament. Moreover, we
may thankfuUy admit that a book is in its right place
in the Bible, and yet recognize that it secured that place
on grounds which we must regard as false or inadequate.
But looking at the matter broadly, the creation of the
Canon is one of the most impressive examples of the

IN EXPERIENCE 477
response given by experience to Revelation. The
Church did not write the Bible, but in a sense she guar
antees it . The Church f oun d in the New Testament the
record of an earher experience. There she read the
record of what the primitive Church had found Christ to
be. And age after age, as she studies that record, she is
conscious that here she has the classical expression of
what in her turn she has proved Christ to be.
It may, indeed, be urged that much which we claim
for the New Testament may also be claimed for other
Christian literature. Why should we attach a value to
certain parts of the New Testament or even of the Old
exceeding that which we attach to some of the finest
monuments of the eloquence, the consecration, and the
insight into Christian truth, which the later ages of
Christendom have produced ? Why should we deny
to some of our great Christian hymns, which move us
profoundly as we sing them, a rank which we accord to
many a composition in the Old Testament, that seems to
stand on a lower level and moves us far less deeply ?
Our great books of devotion, our masterpieces of theo
logy, our prayers, our hymns, they too register experi
ence to which we respond. But they are largely second
ary and derivative, the New Testament is primary and
classical. And from the best which the non-canonical
literature of Christendom has to offer us. we turn to the
Bible to gain an ever-renewed sense of its uniqueness, of
its inexpressible value. It is a Ught whose radiance
iUumines our way. while its glow cheers our hearts. It
has something to fit our varied individualities and our
changing moods. It is. indeed, the river that makes
glad and sweet the city of God, a river with clear shal
lows and unfathomed depths, reflecting now the bright
untroubled sky and now the dark and lurid thunder
cloud, bathing om: tired spirits ki its warmth and soft-

478 THE VERIFICATION OF REVELATION
ness, or bracing them by the rigour of its cold, moving
here in a great stiUness, and there in a rushing flood,
cleansing us from our defilement, reviving us as we
drink its Ufe-giving waters, bearing us on its broad
bosom through an enchanted land.

CHAPTER XXIV
THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
When we speak on the value of Scripture we must
beware of too narrow an interpretation of the term.
So much emphasis has been placed on Scripture as
a storehouse of theology and ethics that the value of
the Bible has very probably been held to be largely
doctrinal or moral. The function of Scripture has
been to prove the truths taught by the Church. But
as we have seen over and over again the Bible has a
far profounder value than this. We have found it
to consist in the fact primarily that it is the record
of God's self-revelation through the history of a chosen
people and the experience of chosen individuals cul
minating in His supreme self-disclosure and the redemp
tion of the race through His Son. But the Bible is
not just a historical manual. It is necessary to say
this explicitly in view of the importance which I have
attached to the historical character of revelation.
Revelation has in truth come through history, but
we find in the Bible a history of God's self-revelation.
of sin and redemption, rather than a history in
the common sense of the term. There is no doubt
a good deal of secular history, as we may call it, in
the Bible, but its importance hes in the fact that, as I
have said, it provides the atmosphere and the back
ground for the history of revelation. It is of interest
to trace the growth and fortunes of the Hebrew people
479

48o THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
just as it is to foUow the development of Greece
or Rome ; and the Old Testament suppUes us with
much material for that purpose. But we ought
not to put the emphasis there, it should be placed
rather on the spiritual truth and hfe which flow along
this channel. And the history is unique. We ought
not to doubt that in other religions than Judaism or
Christianity there has been a real activity of the Holy
Spirit. The more triumphantly sure we are that
our own religion is supreme, the more generous we
can afford to be in our recognition of other religions.
But since for us Christianity is the absolute religion,
while the reUgion of Israel is the Divinely ordered
preparation for it, the Uterature which conveys to us
the knowledge of God's supreme self-manifestation
must outweigh in reUgious value all other Uterature.
But while this primary character of the Bible must
be placed in the forefront and its significance stated
and restated, that some sense of it may be communi
cated to those who find it difficult to divest themselves
of an old view and adjust themselves to a new. I
have no desire to forget the other features of Scripture
which confer upon it much of its value. In the first
place I would put the fact that it is so rich in immediate
spiritual nourishment. Large tracts of Scripture may
seem to be barren of aU rehgious nutriment, though
from our more adequate conception of it we can now
see the place they fiU in a record of revelation. But
there is very much in the Bible which can be at once
appropriated by those who read it without any his
torical imagination. It is true, indeed, that they miss
not a Uttle even in spiritual edification through this
lack ; but it has been wisely ordained that a great
deal should Ue on the surface ready to be apprehended
by the least instructed. There is much that is time-

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 481
less in Scripture, much that is not limited by local
or racial conditions, which in every age and under
every sky utters its direct message to the spirit of
man. And these universal and eternal utterances
embrace some of those elements in Scripture which
are intrinsically most precious. No doubt even these
gems sparkle with brighter lustre for those who can
place them in their historical setting, whUe they are
also able as they excavate below the surface to bring
many a hidden jewel to Ught. This quaUty in Scrip
ture is largely given to it by the range of subjects which
we find in it. It has a universaUty Uke that of Shake
speare, appeaUng to every emotion, reflecting every
situation. It has a message for all our moods, an
answer to our deepest perplexities, a response to our
sorest needs. It meets us at levels of our being which
other Uterature cannot touch, it lends our spkits
wings tkat we may soar to heights which would other
wise be unreached. And when we are neither mounting
upwards on flights of ecstasy, nor in the gloomy vaUey
of depression, but moving on the somewhat weary
path of everyday life, it is our intimate companion,
reUeving the tedious monotony of the way. cheering
and strengthening us when we faint beneath the burden
we are caUed to bear.
And the Bible does aU this largely in vktue of
wkat may be caUed ks emotional value. Tkis is
a quaUty that is possessed by some of our hymns,
which would not bear a strict interpretation from
a prosaic point of view, but which nevertheless make
a most powerful impression upon us. -We sing for
example : Oh teU of His might,
Oh sing of His grace. 31

482 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
Whose robe is the Ught,
Whose canopy space.
His chariots of wrath
The deep thunder-clouds form.
And dark is His path
On the wings of the storm.
The language is not patient of exact scientific analysis,
but no one I hope would argue that it is therefore
unfit for use in Christian! worship. As I have pointed
out elsewhere the language is mjrthical in origin, but
tke m5rtk has faded into poetry.' No one would be
so prosaic as to interpret the writer to mean that
the dense thunder-cloud was reaUy the chariot on
which God was conveyed. But how profoundly the
words move us as we smg them in the great congrega
tion ! Their value consists in the frame of mind
which they induce rather than in any inteUectual
statement as to the Divine mode of action. And this
is characteristic of not a Uttle which we find in Scrip
ture. No one but a duU pedant or an unimaginative
UteraUst would insist that language of this kind was
a contribution to Systematic Tkeology. Every one
else would see that here we have to do with poetry,
the value of which was to be sought in the emotional
response that it evoked in tke reader. It is from
this standpoint that we may rightly estimate the
value confened on the Bible by its Uterary character.
^ have akeady said that its main importance is not
to be found here but rather in its spiritual and moral
quaUty. But the Uterary element is important just
because the fit expression adds so immeasurably
to the power with which the subject-matter appeals
to us. There are many passages in Scripture whose
speU over us would be completely broken were tkey
* Faded Myths, pp. 5-8.

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 483
to be so rewritten that whUe the ideas remained the
same the expression was changed into pedestrian
prose. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is to be
heartUy repudiated, but it would be a great mistake
to suppose that inspkation does not affect the choice
of words. It does not convey the idea and leave
the expression untouched ; but the elevation of the
spirit which the writer experiences not only fiUs his
soul %vith great thoughts, but enables him to clothe
the thoughts in perfectly fit language.
From these general observations on the value of
Scripture I pass on to speak of the value which attaches
to the Old Testament in particular.*
Probably many Christians have been tempted to
suppose that it would have been better for the Church
if she had broken loose from the reUgion of Israel
altogether and abandoned the Old Testament to the
Synagogue. There were those in the second century
who took that view, and it is not difficult to sympathize
with some of the motives which knpeUed them to it.
I beUeve, however, that the Church was Divinely
guided in the resolve to keep the Old Testament
as part of her sacred Uterature, though few would
deny that she has not been whoUy successful in escap
ing the perils involved in her choice. Yet it was not
for a very long time that she became clearly aware,
if indeed she has even yet understood the signfficance
of that action wherein she buUded better than she
knew. Too often the meaning of the Old Testament
has been largely missed because its readers have
insisted on the anachronism of carrying back the
Gospel into tke reUgion of Israel. Tke great sigmfi-
1 The Section on the Old Testament which foUows (pp. 483-
491) was read as a paper at the National Free Church Council
held at Leeds in 1907-

484 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
cance of the earlier literature has been supposed to
Ue in the presentation of the Gospel in type, in symbol,
and prophecy. This seems to me a hopeless line on
which to defend the value of the Old Testament for
ourselves to-day. For if the main drift of the earUer
literature is that it said in an obscure and round
about way what is expressed in the New Testa
ment in a plain and direct way it seems to foUow that
the New Testament largely supersedes the Old. When
that which is perfect is come that which is in part
has been done away. What measure of truth under
lies this description of the Old Testament I need not
inquire, but in dwelUng on the place of the Old Testa
ment in the religious life of to-day it is obvious that
we must present it in some other light than to say
that the Old Testament is simply the New Testament
in hieroglyphics.
At the outset we ought frankly to recognize the
Umitations of the Old Testament, a duty imposed
upon us not simply by fidelity to patent facts but by
the example of our Lord. That the Old Testament
represents a lower religious stage than the New Testa
ment, that it is marred by outbursts of ferocity,
of national and even personal hate, by vindictiveness,
and intolerance, ought to be confessed without reserve.
But in justice we ought to remember how much can
be said on the other side, even with reference to those
qualities where the literature is most vulnerable.
Had we taken the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount
to heart, the defects of the Old Testament would
have caused us no trouble. That it does not stand
upon the level of the Gospel ought to be a common
place rather than a paradox. At its very best it is
true it rises to the New Testament level, in Jeremiah's
prophecy of the New Covenant, in the description of

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 485
the Suffering Servant of Yahweh, in the Book of Jonah,
in some of the Psalms such as the 51st and 73rd.
But this wide range of diversity reminds us how diffi-
cuk it is to speak of tke Old Testament as a whole,
to construct a formula for example which shaU embrace
the Book of Jonak at one end of the scale and the
Book of Esther at the other. It woiUd be foohsh
to seek in this large hterature for a spiritual or ethical
uniformity. Whatever theories people may hold,
their practice clearly proclaims their conviction that
it is not equaUy authoritative and helpful throughout.
Now as we shall see this does not mean that the less
dkectly helpful portions ought not to be there at all,
it means that we must not misunderstand the purpose
for which they ai-e included. And it is speciaUy
necessary for us to remember this in view of the progress
of modern knowledge. We must try to tkrow the
emphasis in the right place and to put the Old Testa
ment where the progress of physical science, Uterary
criticism or historical research cannot nulhfy the
claims that we make for it.
Why then do we beheve that the Old Testament
with aU its Umitations stiU remains precious to us
who hve in the clear sunUght of the Gospel ? First
of all because the New Testament itself would be
largely uninteffigible apart from the Old. It every
where pre-supposes the Old Testament, builds upon the
foundation it had laid, speaks to a people who had
been trained by it. Jesus Himself stood in the succes
sion of the Prophets. He summed up in Himself aU the
rehgious meaning of Israel as the revealer of God to
the world. He transcended indeed the national
Umitations of His race and became the great Prophet
of the world, but His work was rooted in the Old Testa
ment and would have been impossible without it.

486 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
And how are we to understand the theology of Paul
or the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews without
reference to that Old Testament literature in which
their heart and inteUect had been steeped ? Further,
iwe cannot forget that Christianity is itself the culmina
tion of the rehgion of the Old Testament. It is true
that the old argument from prophecy is largely obso
lete, partly because the centre of gravity in apologetics
has shifted from external credentials to intrinsic
worth, and partly because the propounders of that
argument could not see the wood for the trees. But
in a larger sense the earlier revelation is a prophecy
of Christ since it moves forward to Him so steadily
as its goal. It further becomes a very important
element in Apologetics to trace the history of Hebrew
reUgion and show how the trend of it pointed inevitably
to the Gospel. Once more there is much in the Old
Testament that we do not find in the New. Just
in virtue of the fact that the New Testament writers
pre-suppose the Old. a great deal is omitted that
must have been included had they been building from
the foundations. Much in the Prophets for example.
especially in their treatment of social questions,
remains of permanent importance to ourselves, at
any rate in the ideals and principles by which they
were animated if not in the precise appUcations which
they made to the conditions of their own time. Or
again the New Testament has nothing corresponding
to the Book of Psalms or the Book of Job. More
over, we cannot forget our Lord's own attitude to
the Old Testament. It was discriminating and free
it is true, but it was also reverent and sympathetic.
To it He turned for solace and spiritual refreshment
and with it He repelled the temptations that assaUed
Him.

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 487
Perhaps the value of the Old Testament wiU become
clearer to us if I now turn to speak of its positive
qualities. We cannot lay too much stress on the
fact that revelation was a process in history, that it
was ever3rwhere in the closest contact with life. This
helps us to avoid certain difficulties which axe often
experienced. I have akeady said tkat tkere is much
in the Old Testament which does not minister dkectly
to our spkitual needs and wkich may not be authori
tative for our theology. But it is nevertheless rightly
included in the Bible, for we were not intended to
use Scripture simply as a coUection of detached utter
ances, every one of which must have an immediate
message of God to the soul. There is much in the
Old Testament that would satisfy this test, there is
much, however, which would not satisfy it . We need to
gain a conception that shaU find a place for those
parts of Scripture which do not lend themselves to
immediate edification. And we gain tkis wken we
remember tkat tke vital thing is not to understand
this or that section which speaks directly to us but
to understand the Old Testament as a whole, as a
great record of God's reveaUng and redeeming activity
in Israel. Everywhere the Old Testament is in inti
mate touch with hfe. It is vivid and concrete in the
highest degree. Hence the historical books, even
where they deal with purely secular matters and
convey no special message, are yet of great value
for our conception of the whole. They supply the
necessary atmosphere and background ki which we
see revelation at work. Even tkose parts of tke Old
Testament wkick seem to us most in conffict witk
the temper of the Gospel may have their right to a
place in Scripture vindicated from this point of view.
What, for example, are we to make of the Book of

488 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
Ecclesiastes ? Some would say it is in the Old Testa
ment, therefore it cannot give us a false view of Ufe,
and an orthodox meaning would be put into it by
exegetical violence. Others would say its teaching
is radicaUy false, therefore it ought not to be in the
Old Testament. I agree with neither. In spite of
qualities that compel our admiration the book presents
a view of existence fundamentaUy incompatible with
Christianity. It is not true that Ufe is vanity and
striving after wind, that progress is a delusion, that
man dies hke the beasts, that the knowledge by wkick
men migkt order their Uves aright has been withheld by
God, that existence is an evil which may be paUiated
but cannot be cured. And yet the Old Testament,
from my point of view, would be distinctly impover
ished by the omission of the book from the Canon. It
sets before us possibiUties in Judaism which we ought
not to ignore and helps us to reaUze more intensely
how great was the urgency that the Saviour should
come. Take Christ from the world, and Ecclesiastes
describes with clear-sighted despair what for many
of us existence would mean. This, it is trae, is an
extreme case, but it helps us to a more adequate
sense of what the Old Testament is, the record of the
spiritual history of the Hebrew people.
/ The Old Testament then is the precipitate of a
great reUgious experience. It came through a people
which combined in a unique degree a genius for reUgion
with a passion for righteousness. It worshipped a
God who counted all reUgion as vain which was not
penetrated throughout with an enthusiasm for con
duct. It fused religion and ethics, those elements
so often disjoined, into an inseparable unity. It
gave the sanction of religion to the loftiest moraUty
^in a way hitherto unknown. Not untruly has it

THE PERiL\NENT VALU-E OF SCRIPTURE 489
been said that in matters of leUgion the Hebrews
appear among the peoples of antiquity as a sober
man among drunkards. And thek reUgious develop
ment was guided and inspked by a series of teachers
who stand alone in the hision.- of our race. We can
watch the religion grow under tbe hands of its great
leaders : the Titanic figure of Moses who created the
nation and the religion ; the rugged EUjah with his
wrathful protest alike against the worship of the
Tyrian Baal and the judicial murder of Xaboth ; Amos
the prophet of a righteousness so inflexible that tke
nation must be sacrificed to its vindication ; the
broken-hearted Hosea who through the love that
rose above contempt and injury leamt to understand
the love that would not give Israel up ; Isaiak with
his thought of God's holiness and majesty, of the
judgment that must come upon the sinful people,
and of the righteous remnant under its Messianic
King; Jeremiak the greatest of them aU who by
his doctrine of the New Covenant transformed the
very conception of reUgion ; Ezekiel with his doctrine
of God's glory to wkich tke wkole course of history'
is made subservient ; the Second Isaiah with his
wonderful interpretation of Israel as the Sers^ant of
Yahweh who proclaimed the trae God to the world
and suffered for the sin of the heathen ; the author
of the Book of Jonah with his matchless proclamation
of God's afl-embradng love ; the thinker who wrestled
with the dark problem of evU and uttered his thoughts
in one of the great poems of the world ; the Psaknists
who took the teaching of the Prophets and enshrined
it in thek moving and inspiring h-rics. And as we
thus leam to know the hfe-history of the rehgion the
Old Testament becomes a new book to us. We do
not restrict our reading to this or that favourite pOT-

490 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
tion, we recognize that even more important is it
to understand these as parts of a mightier whole.
It is not a system of theology, an ordered and coherent
statement of the lofty truths about God and man,
but something far better than that. It is a great
collection of the testimonies of experts on the deep
things of God, and it shows us revelation at work not in
a restricted area but on a vast national scale.
And while the development is intensely human it
is not exclusively such. There must have been fea
tures in Israel which led God to choose it as the fittest
vehicle of His revelation. And yet Israel alone would
have been unequal toT^'the^task. It thought of its
own rehgion as restingj^on a Covenant|between God
and the nation. The action of the Uving God was
reaUzed throughout and with pecuUar vividness by
its great spiritual leaders. When we think of the
theatre on which its history was enacted, when we
remember the great critical events through which
the people came to a deeper and deeper apprehension
of God's nature and His ways, the impression is borne
in upon us that here we have something for the
creation of which mere flesh and blood even at its
best is inadequate. Here the God who is never absent
from history strikes into its stream with an intenser
energy. And thus even for us of the New Testament
His Word lives on in the Old with a vitality and
power that could belong to no mere human utterances.
As we ponder these ancient writings we feel across
all the gulf of centuries, amid conditions so utterly
different, that quaUty within them which speaks to
our inmost heart. Their unshrinking apphcation
of moraUty, not simply to individual but to social
and to poUtical affaks, tkeir unwavering faitk in tke
triumph of the Kingdom of God, the disinterested

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 491
piety which sought God for Himself alone and con
ceived feUowship with Him to be man's highest good,
rebuke our own opportunism, our despair, our selfish
religionism. And how inexpressibly precious the
great passages remain ! The noble rhetoric in which
they are written stks and thriUs us as no other litera
ture can, and in seasons of great spiritual emotion and
stress there are no words like the dear famihar words
to express with perfect adequacy the thoughts and
feelings which Ue too deep for any poor words of our
own. We cannot then eliminate the Old Testament from
our religious life and feel that the New makes it super
fluous for us. We ought not to love it less than
our predecessors, though we should love it more wisely
by frank recognition of its hmitations and especially
by laying stress upon its meaning as a whole. It
will be a happier augury of the enrichment and deepen
ing of the religious life in our Churches when it shaU
be the aim of our teachers to see that the meaning
of this great reUgious movement which gave Israel all
its significance for the world's history is clearly under
stood, at least in its main outline, by all who have
any claim to a reUgious education.
After what has been said in earUer chapters it
might seem to be unnecessary to add ansrthing on
the reUgious value of the New Testament. In the
chapter on 'History as a Channel of Revelation' I
have given a brief estimate of what Jesus brought, not
only in His teaching but in Himself and His work.
I have also explained why it was necessary that the
Acts and the Epistles should be included in order j
that we might see how the revelation He brought and ;
the redemption He achieved entered into and moulded \
history and were thus tested not merely as theory \

492 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
but in practical hfe. The interpretation is an
iiifegrai part ol the revelation, which was not Jesus of
Nazareth simply as He hved and died but Jesus as
He was interpreted by those who were conscious how
He had transformed human lives, who were assured
that He reigned at God's right hand, and that aU
power was given unto Him in Heaven and on earth.
And in particular I have tried to show (Chap. XIV.)
that the Pauline theology sprang in the main from
Paul's experience and comes to us with the guarantee
which such an origin carries with it.
I have also spoken (Chap. XVII.) on the question
whether the teaching of Paul is out of harmony with
the teaching of Jesus, and have given reasons for
supposing that, even where the two do not coincide,
the PauUne theology is in its main lines a legitimate
development of elements which were present in the
teaching of Jesus ; that the theology of the primitive
Church had akeady moved in tkis dkection; and
that the problem of which Pauhnism was a solution
was necessarily pushed to the front by the crucifixion
and resurrection of Jesus. Nevertheless the question
stUl remains whether PauUnism can be accepted as
true. We do not require to prove that we can cany
it back to the teaching of Christ in order to defend
its genuinely Christian character, but we need some
thing more than a proof that it can be reconciled with
the teaching of the Founder to assure us that it is
true. For good or ill our evangelical theology has
been so constructed on the lines of Paul that to ehminate
the Pauline element would empty it of much of its
meaning and vital force. Such an attempt would, I
am convinced, be a fatal mistake. I believe that
PauUnism is destined to be a permanent factor in
Christianity, and that the way to rectify our theology

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 493
is not by casting it aside, but by a deeper and more
thorough understanding of it.
It is not necessary, I think, to argue for the truth
of all the opinions expressed in the Epistles. The
Apostle was a chUd of his age and in his case as in
that of others the inteUectual and religious environ
ment played its part. It could not in the nature of
the case be otherwise. It lent indeed much of its
immediate value to Paul's teaching. For ourselves,
whose conditions of thought and hfe are so widely
different, the elements borrowed from the environ
ment are naturaUy of less value. But this ought not
to disturb us. For what we should seek in Scripture
is the satisfaction of our permanent human needs,
rather than truth adjusted to our passing modes of
thought. And Paul certainly stands this test very weU.
He was unquestionably influenced by his Jewish
training, and brought over into his Christian theology
elements derived from Pharisaism. But I venture
to say that these are secondary in his theology, in
fluencing his modes of argument and outl5dng pro
vinces of his thought rather than those central doc
trines which constitute what we caU Paulinism. And
we must not forget that even this environment had
its place in the providence of God.
It is also not surprising that the style of his Epistles
and their scholasticism are responsible for much of
the neglect or cold disUke with which he has been
treated. It is not to be wondered at that some of his
chapters, with thek difficult and subtle arguments,
repel many readers. But Paul must not be blamed
because he was so briffiant a dialectician. The cunent
of his reasoning often does not move with such shaUow
lucidity that its meaning Ues on the surface. Such
is the nimbleness and speed of his thought and such its

494 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
depth that we must count continuaUy on an obscurity
which baffles us, unless we are prepared to spend much
sweat of brain in the effort to understand him. and
on a swift logic which leaps from point to point often
with but scanty clues to guide those, who are pain-
fuUy tracking his progress, as to the intermediate
links. If we find him hard to follow, we must remem
ber not only that the web of his argument is of a
complicated pattern, but that the ckcumstances with
which he had to deal are not easily inteUigible to us.
If we could put ourselves in the place of his opponents,
we should be m a better position to estimate the
value of his discussions. But it is a mistake to judge
Paul by his scholasticism. To the dialecticians ke
became a dialectician. He could Rabbinise on occa
sion with the best of them. Yet even his Rabbinism
was not the hair-spUtting of the Rabbis. It was
never logic for logic's sake, but for the sake of some
precious and vital trath. But he was most himself
when he had left aU controversy behind him and
soared up on the wings of an inspired eloquence into
the clear sky of God's unclouded truth. His was
not that arid type of inteUect which sees nothing
in heaven and earth but what it can grasp in its own
weak and tiny grip. With aU the bold flight of his
speculation he never forgot that beyond aU he knew
stretched the iUimitable mystery of God's eternal
will. And so it was for him most characteristic
that after his famous discussion of the mystery of
national election and apparent rejection he should
conclude the discussion, which has been the battle
field of contending theologians, with that magnificent
passage beginning : ' Oh the depth of the riches both
of the wisdom and the knowledge of God ! How
unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 495
tracing out ! ' He never lost the sense of mystery
and awe.
But we are met by a further objection, that the
advance of modern knowledge has definitely disproved
the historical character of the fact on which Paul's
system rests. Science and historical criticism alike
have discredited the truth of the story of Adam. And
this is supposed to be fatal to Paul's theology, cutting
away the basis of his doctrine not merely of sin but
also of salvation. It is rather difficult to take this
so seriously as it is meant, for it is quite evident to
students of Paul that his system is not bound up
with the historical character of the story of the Garden
of Eden. I do not lay stress on the fact that the
doctrine occurs only incidentally in the Epistles, for
it seems to me clear that it had an important place
in the Apostle's theology. But it was not so much
historical as psychological. Of course it never occuned
to him to doubt the historical truth of the story ;
it is aU the more remarkable tkat kis doctrine was
so constructed as to be reaUy independent of it. He
had Uttle interest in tke kistorical Adam, but in tke
psyckological or tkeological Adam he was deeply
interested. Adam was to him the race as left to it
self ; his act was a racial act, and except as racial had
no significance. It was the act in which the whole
character of the race found its expression, and according
to which it was judged guilty by God. And therefore
the precise historical expression which this universal
racial character received is a matter of complete
indifference. Whenever the dawnkig moral conscious
ness of man reahzed the, existence of amoral law, and
his own disharmony with it, then what Paul says of
Adam reaUy took place. So far then is it from being
tme that Paul's doctrine of salvation stands or faUs

496 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
with the historical character of the third chapter
of Genesis, that not even his doctrine of sin depends
upon it. He came to both by quite another road.i
At this point one may appropriately call attention to
the modernness of Paul. Stress is laid to-day on our
sohdarity, but this idea dominates much of the thecK
logy of Paul. It finds expression in his interpretation
of the acts of Adam and Christ as racial acts ; in his
great doctrine that we are aU members one of another,
and that if one member suffers the whole body suffers
with it. And along with this goes his enthusiasm for
humanity, and his feeUng that even the most radical
distinctions of race and culture, yes, and the darker
and deeper passion of reUgious hate, have been can-
ceUed by the Cross of Christ. An age such as ours,
which stiU lags so far behind his thought and feeUng,
is not in a position to scoff at his antiquated teaching.
Indeed our age, which so emphasises the thought
of natural selection, might have been expected to
show more sympathy towards a side of Paul's doctrine,
which, in spite of much misrepresentation, contains
nevertheless, very important tmth. I mean his doc
trine of election, not mdeed as it is often explained,
but as he intended it. Nor should we forget how he
has laboured to give us a phUosophy of history, 'an
ordered conception of God's education of the race./^
I pass on to the point frequently urged against
Paul, that he was the conupter of the pure Gospel of
Jesus. He. it is said, taught a pure and elevated
morahty which Paul perverted into a system of theo
logy. One may weU ask if tkose wko speak in this
way have ever read the Gospels at aU. For the striking
thing about them is the way in which the loftiest
1 On the subject of this paragraph see Christianity ; Its
Nature and Its Truth, pp. 1 17-126.

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 497
moraUty is inextricably associated with the purest
religion. The love of God with every faculty of our
being is the first and greatest commandment to which
the love of our neighbour is made secondary. The
Sermon on the Mount, of which some speak as if it
were purely a moral code, is fuU of tkeology. And
in tke interests of moraUty. reUgion must be insisted
on. For a truly moral Ufe it is not teaching that we
chiefly need, but power. A course of ethics may
be of value to us in the right direction of our hves. but
is it not the universal confession that it is not so much
a fuUer knowledge tkat we need, but a fuUer power to
do ,wkat we akeady know ? We look around us for
a moral djmamic and we find it in reUgion. It is this
which has the power to Uft us out of our lower selves,
to flush our Uves with the glow of achievement other
wise unattainable, to give us the joyful sense of the
mastery of evil and victory over tke world.
But here religion depends for its efficacy largely
upon theology. And this I may iUustrate from some of
those doctrines of Paul with which so much impatience
is manifested. There can be no question that one
of the greatest of moral forces has been the personal
love of Christians to Ckrist. This is a fact weU attested
by many who would not regard themselves as
Christians. And if we ask ourselves on Vhat this
immeasurable devotion rests, we shaU see how much
of what may be caUed the theological element
enters into it. Such a doctrine as that of the pre-
existence of Christ is often regarded as one of those
speculations whose truth or falsehood makes no differ
ence to reUgion. But reaUy it is not so. How constrain
ing is the appeal of the sacrifice which that doctrine
involves ! What ground for gratitude and for love
we find in the thought of His great self-surrender !
B.O. 32

498 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
The earthly life of Jesus was in itself most beautiful,
but how much more beautiful- it becomes to us when
we set it against the background of the Ufe in heaven.
With what inesistible appeal do those words come to
us ! ' though he was rich yet for our sakes he became
poor ! ' Tkat He humbled Himself even to the death
of the Cross claims our admiration, but that this was
the act of one who was in the form of God, and chose
to empty Himself and be found in fashion as a man;
compels not admiration but grateful and adoring
love. And such love is among the most powerful
forces that can be caUed to the aid of Christian moraUty.
Once more, if we beUeve that the death of Jesus
was a martyr's death, we honour Him as we honour
many another for His heroic constancy. But if it
was for our salvation, the warmest admiration would
be a cold return. Again, the aim of reUgion is unhin
dered feUowship with God. And for this we need a
knowledge of Him. But such a knowledge we could
not easily gain. Nature speaks to us with an am
biguous voice, for she is not only the bountiful sup
plier of our needs, but cruel and relentless, ' red in
tooth and claw.' We need an authentic voice from
God Himself. And this we have in Jesus, if Paul's
doctrine of Him is true. If Jesus is the image of the
invisible God, the Son of His love, then in Him we
have a manifestation of the character of God, which
prepares us for feUowship with Him. And deeper
than our ignorance ol God Ues the hindrance of sin
which unfits us for communion with His perfect
purity. If then a theology tells us of a means by
which this barrier may be removed, this, once more,
is a debt which religion owes to it.
For the doctrine of Christ's Divinity Paul is also
made responsible, not altogether conectly, it is true-

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 499
But here, too, the doctrine has a value for moraUty.
To many it wiU seem remote from our practical Ufe
that we should be carried in thought into the inner
Ufe of God, and see the Father in communion with
His Eternal Son. And yet it is not so. For God is
to us a moral ideal, and as we think of Him so shaU
we strive to be. And this conception of the Godhead
as embracing Son as well as Father gives us a deeper
and more ethical conception of God. For it shows
that God is no abstract unity, isolated and self-centred.
but a higher unity of richer and more complex Ufe,
in which there is room for the play of emotion, and in
which ethical relations have their home. Thus we
find in God not Fatherhood only, but Sonship, not
rule and authority only, but the filial obedience which
seeks always to do the Father's will. We see love
given and love received, and love given back again.
Thus the great truth that God is love gains for us a
depth of meaning it could not otherwise possess.
Thus we know that that which is the highest in our
selves finds its pattern and fullest expression in the
hfe of God. And thus the moral ideal comes to us no
longer with the stern face of inflexible and imperious
law, but as the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
And how welcome is the Ught which this throws- on the
darkness of our hfe. I need hardly point out. For
it is our great question, if in spite of everything we
may stiU beUeve that God is love, and k is the doctrine
of the Divinity of Christ which gives us this assurance.
How closely, for Paul, ethics was associated with
theology, aU who have studied his Epistles with care
wiU know. His central doctrine was that to which he
appeals as the spring of trae morahty. His doctrine
of union with Christ in His sufferings, death and resur
rection, was of the most mystical character. And

500 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
yet ke drew from it tke most practical conclusions
and hnked to it tke most commonplace duties. Tke
sixtk ckapter of Romans is tke classical example
of tke way in wkick he based his ethics on his dog
matics, and solved the problem which had utterly
baffled him before his conversion, how he might attain
righteousness. It was because he knew himsek
to be one with Christ that he reaUzed victory over
sin. and Ufe in conformity with God's wiU.
I have akeady pointed out tkat Paul's most ckax-
acteristic teaching is to be explamed as the outcome
of his own spiritual experience. It may. no doubt,
be said that it is therefore marked witk his mdividual
hmitations. But I would urge on the contrary that
the note of personaUty should be to us the certificate
of truth. For though there are not many in whom the
experience takes so intense a form, yet in aU tke need
is more or less acutely felt, and for all tke remedy is
alike of value. His richer experience and deeper,
more piercing insight enable us to read more clearly
the inner secrets of our own spiritual history. In the
battle of faith which rages no longer about the outworks
but the fortress of Christianity, we shaU be wise if
we stake on experience no Uttle of the issue of the
fight. For, as I have ventured akeady to urge,
experience has an element of authenticity which
guarantees it as few things can be said to be guaran
teed. The great problems with which Paul had to deal
were permanent problems, and they are vital to our
selves. No doubt the answer we give to them wiU
depend largely on the attitude we adopt to the Christian
facts. To those of us for whom the Christian
facts are trae tke question is urgent — Can we accept
the great Apostle's solution ? Leavkig aside tke

THE PERMANENT VALUE^OF SCRIPTURE 501
question of inspiration and the deference to be paid
to an inspired writer, we may lay stress on the witness
which Pauhnism bears in itself. To put it on no
higher ground at present, the teaching of Paul on
religion is the teaching of an expert of the highest
rank, wkose word claims from us at least tke defer
ence we pay to tkat of great masters in science or in
art. Tkis, it is true, does not carry us very far towards
establishing the vaUdity of his beliefs, but it places us
in a proper attitude of respectful attention to what
he has to say. This is a great step gained, and those
who thus approach the great Apostle may see much m
him that the supercihous reader altogether overlooks.
'^Let us remember kow unique was his endowment.
He had, to begin with, a deep conviction of sin. It
is no accident that some of the greatest rehgious
reformers have passed through this stage. One
thinks of Augustine, of Luther, and of Bunyan. He
was also by nature deeply concerned for conduct,
and his conviction of sin did not spring merely out
of dread of God's wrath, but out of the profound
consciousness of disharmony with the moral ideal.
He had what we may truly caU a genius for moraUty.
But while moraUty moves in the region of conduct
and the wiU. reUgion moves in the sphere of
emotion. And, inflexible moralist though he was.
he was a man of the most marveUous richness and
depth of feehng. Only such a man could have borne
about unceasing sonow in his heart for Ms kinsmen
according to the flesh, and have wished himself
anathema from Christ for thek salvation. AU the
intense and passionate ardour of love which possessed
him was turned in utter devotion towards Christ.
With genius for moraUty he combmed a genius for
rehgion of the most transcendent kind.

502 THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE
Yet he was not swept away from sobriety by the
flood-tide of feeUng which bore him on its bosom.
The visionary who was caught into the thkd keaven
and heard unspeakable words, the enthusiast who
saw in the ecstatic phenomena of the Corinthian
Church the gifts of the Spirit and himself spake with
tongues more than they aU, yet knew how to keep
these revelations and gifts in their proper place. It
is the almost irresistible temptation of rehgious
leaders, whose career is marked by such phenomena,
to set an inordinate value upon them, especiaUy
when they are themselves endowed. It is no small
tribute to the sanity of Paul's mind that he relegated
such things to a position of very slight importance
compared with the fundamental graces of faith and
love, and that he tested their value not by their extra
ordinary character but their fitness for edification.
It is remarkable that in a time of such spiritual fer
ment, frail in body, harassed by untiring enemies,
troubled by the defection of his converts, stung to
the quick by base insinuations, continually founding
new churches, with the care of those akeady founded
always pressing on kim, he retained his mental balance
absolutely unimpaked. organized kis churches with
consummate skiU, and settled their difficulties with
unfaiUng sagacity.
But to this enthusiasm for moraUty, this passion
for reUgion, this cool practical sagacity, he added a
genius for speculation. It touches us with wonder,
and at times almost with awe, to see how easUy he
moves amid the most intricate problems, how sure
and steady is his flight in the rarest atmosphere of
speculation. If I have triUy described him and rightly indicated
the source of his theology we have got beyond the

THE PERMANENT VALUE OF SCRIPTURE 503
judgment of him from which we were wiUing to start,
that he was a great expert in religion. His teaching
comes to us with the highest credentials that we can
expect. But there is one thing more to be said.
However high credentials may be they ought not
to win assent unless they are ratified by experience.
And this test also it satisfies. Not only did the
theology take its rise in experience, but its truth
is always being verified in new experience, and
wiU, therefore, I believe, continue to be so verified.
Deep stiU caUs to deep as his experience is answered
in our own.

INDEX

Aaron, 128, 343
Abihu, 343
Abimelech, 141
Abraham, 125, 132, 178, 233,
297. 343
Abrahams, I., 223, 306 f.
Absolute, The, 242
Acts of the Apostles, 36
196, 213, 217-219, 249 f.,
300 f., 491
Adam, 379, 495 f.
Adam and Christ, 276, 496
Mneas, 24 f.
.ffischylus, 51
Ahab, 236, 345
Ahaz, 144, 186, 259
Alexander the Great, 299, 311
Alexandria, 328
Alfred, King, 52
AUs, 34
Allegorical Interpretation,
365, 446, 451-456. 467
AUen, Grant, 330-336
Alphabetic script, 45
Ammon, 370
Amos, 80, 236 f., 348, 350,
439. 489
Amos, Book of, 148, 266
Amraphel, 297
Angels and Demons, 327
Animism, 386
Anselm, 444
Anthropology, 36-38. 326

Apocalypse, The, see Revela
tion, Book of
Apocal3rptic, 147 f., 212, 299,
327 f., 346, 408 f.
Apocalyptic Literature, 197,
242
Apocr37pha, 69-72
ApoUinarian Controversy, 426
ApoUo, 386
ApoUos, 113, 166, 208 f.
Apologetics. 12-^7, 339, 362-
368, 431, 447, 486
Argument from results, 16
f.
False, 19
Methods of, 12-27
Need for, 12 f., 18 f., 23-27
Temper of, 19-22, 24-27
Apologetics and Criticism,
129, 178, 183-192, 365,
437
Apostles, 156, 160, 194, 196,
209 1, 217, 275, 300,
353-356
Aquila, 209
Arabia, 29
Arabic, 43
Arabic Chionicles, 170
Arabs, 326
Aramaic, 43, 49 f., 321 f.
Aramaic Pap3rri, 31 f., 121
Archaeology, 5, 7, 176-178,
185

Anthropomorphism, 342-344 ^^' ^69
Antiochus Epiphanes, 71, Argument from Design. 367 f.
3o5 299 Argument from Prophecy,
Antiquity of Man, 6, 185 see Prophecy
505

5o6

INDEX

Arnold, Matthew, 21
Ashkelon, 388
Asia Minor, 36, 329
Assumption of Moses, 70
Assurance, Doctrine of, 474 f .
Assyria, 29 f., 259 f., 370
AssjiTian, 43, 45
Assyrians, 371
Astral Theory, 172-175, 302
Astrology, Babylonian, 173 f.
Astronomy, 185, 412
Astruc, 113 f., 116 f., 124,
134. 193
Athanasian Creed, 423, 427 f.
Athanasius, 443
Atonement, 444, 474
Augustine, 501
Confessions of, 436
Authority, 446-465
Automatic Writing, 392, 395
Baal of Tyre, 236, 298, 489
Baalim, 234 f., 264
Babylon, 239, 241, 268, 329
Babylonia, 29-31, 212, 324
Babylonian ExUe, 43, 81, 138,
144 f., 147, 233, 239-
241, 263, 268 f., 299,
346, 349. 373 i-
Babylonian Influence, 30 f.,
45. 157
Back to Christ, 5
Bacon, 247
Baentsch, 175
Baptism, 429
Bar-Kochba, 8x
Barnabas, 166, 208
Epistle of, 72, 74, 364
Baruch, Apocalypse of, 212
BasU, 443
Baudissin, 122
Baur, F. C, 77, 160-164, ^^93-
198
Beatitudes, 309
Bede, 52
Beelzebub, 103
Beersheba, 125

Belief, Unsettlement of. 2,
4-10, 12
Beloved Disciple, The, 221
Benjamin, 126
Benzinger, 176
Beroeans, 364
Besant and Rice, 168 f.
Bethel, 125
Bevan, 170
Bible, Authority of the, 17,
446-448, 451,457. 459-464
Autographs of the, 102, 398
Changed views of the, 4,
9 f., 28
Chronology of the, 6
Disquiet concerning the,
4-10, 42
Divergence within the, 10,
280-282, 323, 340-361,
406, 466
EngUsh translations of the,
52-63
Foreign elements in the,
10, 323-340, 433
Historicity of the, 4, 6,
9, 125-127, 156, 213 f.,
230, 296-322, 406
Inerrancy of the, loi f., 310,
397 f., 406
InfaliibUity of the, loi
f., 398, 446-448
Inspiration of the, 29, 61,
64, 86, 101-103, 181,
188 f., 231, 254, 305,
341 f., 360, 374, 378-407,
452, 468, 483, 500
Moral dif&culties of the, 10,
190, 341 f.
Neglect of the, 1-3
Original languages of the,
42-51
Permanent value of the,
479-503
Uniqueness of the, 28
Unity of the. 226, 294,
323. 466
Variety of the. 40 f.

INDEX

507

Biblical Greek, 48
Biblical Theology, 9 i„ 40 f.,
323-361, 437-440
Bigg, 210
Birth Stories, 308, 329
Bishops' Bible, 55-57
Bleek, 219
Blood, 349
Book of the Covenant, 172,
324
Book religion, 292-294
Bousset, 329
Brahmin, 17, 378 f.
Bretschneider, 219
British Empire, 408
Browning, 402
Biichler, 306
Buddha, 329, 405
Bunyan, 501
Burkitt, 216

Caedmon, 52
Caligula, 206
Calvin, 73, 193. 432, 463
Canaan, see Palestine
Canaanites, 418
Canon, 64-75, 311, 377. 402,
476 f., 488
Canon of the N.T. 72-74, 251,
458
of the O.T. 64-72, 238
Canonicity, Principles of, 68-
74
Carleton, J. G., 55
Carlyle, 402
Casuistry, 246
CathoUc Church, 160, 194-
196
CathoUc Epistles, Canonicity
of, 72
CathoUcism, 295
Central Sanctuary, 127, 135
CentraUzation of Worship,
135-139. 238, 245 f.
Chaldee, 43
Chedorlaomer, 297

Chemosh, 230, 344
Cherubim, 257
Cheyne, 329
Chinese, 45
Christ, 496
Death of, 209, 249 i., 285,
301, 330 f., 333 f., 336,
353-356, 359.
Divinity of, 192, 248, 275
f-. 337 f-. 354. 356, 359,
383, 423-429. 498 f.
Knowledge of, 104-106
Person of, 209
Pre-existence of, 497 f.
Work of, 209
Christ and Criticism, 153,
155 f-
Christian Consciousness, 14-
16
Christian Science, 471
Christianity, i f ., 5 f ., 9 f ., 13-
18, 21-24, 32, 35 i-' 40.
71. 73 i-> 92-94, 102, 109,
154, 183-185, 190-192,
196-200, 213, 228, 245,
270, 316, 318 f., 336-
339. 351-353. 360, 362-
368, 375 f., 404 f., 429,
440, 443, 453, 470-472.
480, 486, 500
a universal reUgion, 50
Attacks on, 3
Growing Disbelief in, 2
Preparation for, 247 f ., 338-
340
Christianity and History, 191,
213, 471-473
Christology, 204 f ., 222, 249 f .,
276, 318 f., 337-339.
356. 473 f-
Chronicles, Books of, 117, 139,
143 f., 169, 302, 467
Chronological discrepances,
125-127
Church, The, 294 f ., 456-459,
463-465, 477, 479. 483
Church of Rome, 17, 70

5o8

INDEX

Chwolsohn, 306
Circumcision, 38, 229, 239
Clairaudience, 385
Clairvoyance, 385, 394
Cleanness, 229, 246, 340
Clement, First Epistle of, 72
Clement of Alexandria, 304
Clement of Rome, 166, 208
Clementine HomUies and
Recognitions, 196
Codex Sinaiticus, 31
Colenso, 120 f.
Coleridge, H. N., 51
Colossae, 203
Colossians, Epistle to the, loi,
203-206
Communicatio Idiomatum,
426
Comparative Method, 37 f.
Comparative Religion, 5-7,
326, 436, 445
Conjectural Emendation, 85 f.
Copernican Theory, 6, 184,
381, 412
Corinth, 201, 392
Church of, 502
Corinthians,Epistles tothe,i95
Second Epistle to the, 201
Corrections of the Scribes, 84
Councils, 426, 444
Covenant, 231, 344, 349
Coverdale, 54
Cowper, 471
Creation, 187
BibUcal doctrine of, 6
Stories of, 125, 175, 185 f.,
324, 342 f., 413
Crete, 29
Criticism, 4, 88-93, 312,
379. 415. 437. 439. 454 i->
470. 485
Concessions to, 181 f.
Higher, 8, 39, 76-78
Historical, 8, 9, 495
Legitimacy of, 88-106,
190 f.
Lower or Textual. 7 f .. 30,

38f., 57f.,62, 64, 76-87,
311, 398
O.r. story of, 113-123
Criti Dism and Archaeology,
151, 163, 176-178
Criticism and the Super
natural, 94-98, 153
Crucifixion, 222 f., 317 f.,
354 i-> 492, 498
Cuneiform, 46
Cyrus, 43 145, 299, 363
Dan, 132
Daniel, Book of, 67, 71, 148,
155. 177. 182, 212, 349,
409
Dante, 402
Darwin, 367, 416
David, 103, 143 f., 150, 186 f.,
345
Day of Yahweh, 237, 260
De Wette, 116
Decalogue, 244, 263
Deissmann, 34, 48
Delphi, Priestess of, 386
Deluge, 125, 175, 186, 324,
413
Demosthenes, 51
Deuteronomic Code, 68, 135,
238
Deuteronomy, loi, 116-122,
127 f., 135-140, 171 f.,
182, 241, j,50
Dido, 24
DUlmann, 122, 163, 165 f.,
171
Dionysius of Alexandria, 113,
193
Diotrephes, 224
Dispersion, 197 f., 211
Divine names as a clue to
analysis, 114-116, 124,
170-172, 181
Documentary analysis, 124-
131
Domitian, 213
Donation of Constantine, 113

INDEX

509

Douai Version, 55
Double Tradition, 214-216,
309
Doublets, 125
Driver, 177
Drummond, J., 303 f.
Duhm, 121

E., 117, 140, 171, 176
Ecclesiastes, Book of, 165,
242, 488
Ecclesiastes, Canonicity of,
68-70
Ecclesiasticus, Canonicity of,
70
Prologue to, 66
Ecstasy, 384, 386-390, 394
Edom, 132, 346 f.
Eerdmans, 170-172
Egypt, 29, 31 f., 46, 186, 262,
268 f., 297, 302, 319, 324,
370-372
Eichhorn, 76, 114, 116
Election, 496
Elihu, Speeches of, 149
Elijah, 142, 236, 299, 489
Elisha, 142
Elohim, 114, 116, 124, 170-172
Elohistic writers, 116, 117,
125
Emotion, 16 f., 422, 501 f.
Emotional Value, 481-483
Endowment of Clergy, 127 f.
England,- 439
Enoch, Book of, 35, 70
Ephesians, Epistle to the,
203-206
Ephesus, 204, 219-221
Ephraim, 259
Epiphanius, 304
Epistles, The, 249 f., 491
Esau, 125 f.
Eschatology, 327 f.
Essenes, 197
Essentials and accidentals,
19, 21-23

Esther, Book of, 177, 302 f.,
347. 485
Canonicity of, 68-70
Ethics, 106 f., 229, 231, 233,
242, 246, 340-342, 344-
351. 461, 497. 499-502
Ethical monolatry, 232, 235
Ethical monotheism, 232, 360
Ethiopic, 43
Eucharist, 47
Eutychian Controversy, 426
Evolution, Theory of, 6, 185,
412, 415 f.
Ewald, 117, 152, 165
Exegesis, 39, 419 f., 451 f.
Exodus, The, 178, 186, 230,
232, 297 f., 302
Experience, 339, 466-478, 503
Argument from, 14-16, 18
Experience and the Creation
of Scripture, 254-286,
382-384, 398, 407, 462,
470. 479. 500, 503
Experts, 98 f.
Exploration, 29-36
Ezra, 299
Ezra and Nehemiah, Books of,
144
Ezra's Reformation, 140

Fairbairn, 378
Father Ignatius, 157
Fatherhood of God, 432
Feast of Tabernacles, 325
Flesh, The, 274-276
Flood, see Deluge
Foster, 416
Fourth Gospel, 192 f., 196,
213, 219-224, 303-308,
315. 328, 331 f., 357 f.,
364
AUegorical interpretation
of the, 303-305
Authorship of the, 303
Controversies with the Jews
in the, 223 f., 306 f.

510

INDEX

Historicity of the, 303-308
and the Synoptists, 222-
224, 306-308
Frazer, 330, 332 f.
Fulke, 56
Galatians, Epistle to the, loi,
195
Galilee, 222, 301, 306
Galileo, 185
Garden of Eden, 495
Geddes, 114 f.
Genesis, 114-116, 185, 301,
412 f.
Third chapter of, 6, 471, 496
Fourteenth chapter of, 177
f.
Geneva Bible, 54, 56 f.
Genius, Religious, 395 f ., 402 f.
Geography, 35 f.
Geology, 6, 185, 412 f.
George, 119, 164
Gibson, Mrs., 32
Gifts of the Spirit, 502
GUgamesh Epos, 176
Gnosticism, 204 f.
Godhead, 499
Gog, 263, 346
Gomer, 267, 284
Gospels, 213-224, 249 f., 312-
316, 331, 333-335. 337
i-> 354. 358
Graf, 121, 163
Grafian theory, 96 f., 1 18-122,
152, 160, 162-166, 170-
172, 175 f.
Granger, 435
Grattan, 160
Great Bible, The, 54
Greece, 227, 329
Greek, 43, 47-51, 60
Greek History, 296, 311, 480
Language, 247
Papjnri, 32-34, 48 f.
Religion, 328
Thought, 328, 332, 433,
443 i-

Greeks, 318
Giidemann, 306
Gunkel, 212, 329
Habakkuk, 147
Hagar, 126
Haggai, 147
Hagiographa, 148
Hammurabi, 178, 297
Code of, 31, 324
Hampton Court Conference,
56
Hananiah, 68
Harnack, 209, 217, 274
Hebrew, 43-47, 49, 60
Hebrew people, 324-327, 341
Wisdom, 47
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 40 f.,
101, 113, 166, 208, 270,
280, 328, 332, 360, 440,
476, 486
Canonicity of, 72-74
Hegel, 194
HegeUanism and criticism,
119, 163 f., 194 f.
HeitmuUer, 329
Hepatoscopy, 174
Hermetic Writings, 328, 332
Herod, 220
Hexateuch, 115, 141
Hezekiah, 136, 144
HUarion, 34
Hilgenfeld, 202
HUkiah, 136-138
Historical Books, 141-144
Historicity, The problem of,
296-322
History, Ancient and modem
views of, 304 f., 320
History of Doctrine, 433, 440-
445
Hobbes, 113
Holiness, 257-262, 284, 326
Holtzmann, 179
Holy Spirit, 7, 9, 49, 87, 229,
231, 254-256, 270, 277 f.,
280 f.. 290 f., 295, 311,

INDEX

511

320, 326 f., 341 f., 368,
377. 379 f.. 383-385.
387-393. 395. 399-401.
404, 410, 412, 424, 438,
444. 447. 456-458, 463-
465. 472
Homer, Homeric Poems, 51,
88 f., 97, 113
Horeb, 298
Hort, 18, 21, 362
Hosea, 237, 264-268, 284,
348, 371, 489
Hupfeld, 116 f.
Hypercritics, 198-202
Ideograms, 45
Rgen, 115 f.
Imitation of Christ, 475
Immanuel, 186, 371
ImmortaUty, 246 f.
Individualism, 238, 240, 244,
263, 269-273
Incarnation, The, 104 f., 181,
338, 383. 424-428
India, 329, 378
Inspiration, see Bible
Irenaeus, 213, 220
Isaac, 125 f., 233
Isaiah, 122, 144, 186, 237,
257-261, 264, 284, 348,
371. 394. 439. 489
Book of, 122, 144, 347
Ishmael, 126, 233
Ishtar, 173
Israel, 29-31, 125, 186
Election of, 227-233, 241,
290 t., 454
Genius of, 227-233
Its debt to other peoples,
228 f.
Mission of, 227, 234, 241,
290, 454
Religion of, 29 f., 50, 227-
248, 375 f-. 404. 437. 462,
480, 483, 489-491
J., 117. 140, 171

JE., 131, 171, 182
Jacob, 126, 233, 297
James I, 56
James, W., 435
James the Apostle, 220
James, the Lord's brother,
161, 210 f.
James, Epistle of, 73, 210 f.,
352 f., 423
Jamnia, Synod of, 69
Jensen, 176
Jeremiah, 137, 238, 240, 244,
268-273, 284, 348-350,
396 f., 453, 484, 489
Jeremias, 172 f.
Jeroboam II, 298 f.
Jerusalem, 43, 45, 208, 238,
241, 245, 259, 299, 301,
308, 330, 349, 370
Jesus, 26, 70, 181, 198 f., 213,
228, 248-252, 270, 274,
299-301, 306-310, 312-
322, 330-340. 352-360,
362-367,4591, 473,484-
486, 491 f., 497, 499
Historical existence of,
191 f., 199, 213, 316-318,
330, 334 f-
Supernatural birth of,
192, 371
Teaching of, 328, 352-
360. 459 f., 496 f.
Jesus and the Old Testa
ment, 103,
Job, Book of, 149, 187, 244,
256, 486, 489
Joel, 147, 349
Johannine Theology, 357 f.,
360, 440
John, ist Epistle of, 221, 224
2nd and 3rd Epistles of,
224
John, Gospel of, see Fourth
Gospel
John of the Cross, 451
John, The Apostle, 161, 195,
219-224. 280, 331

512

INDEX

John the Baptist, 188
John, The Presbjrter, 220, 224
Jonah, Book of, 242, 347,
485, 489
Jordan, 272
Joseph, 132, 297
Josephus, 69, 219
Joshua, Book of, 65, 115,
141, 302, 467
Josiah, 137 f., 238
Josiah's Reformation, 68, 116,
136-139, 238
Judah, 127
Kingdom of, see Southern
Kingdom
Judaisers, 160 f., 353, 355
Judaistic Controversy, 301,
356
Judaism, 197-199, 228, 238,
241 f., 274, 299, 301, 318,
327 f., 332 f., 337, 345-
347. 375. 470, 480
Jude, 70, 210
Jude, Epistle of, 73, 169, 210
Judaea, 222
Judges, Book of, 141, 302
Period of, 235, 298
Julius Caesar, 311, 449
Jupiter, 173
Justification, 276, 297, 352
Justin Martyr, 32, 364
Keim, 321
Kenosis, 426
Kingdom of God, 327, 370
Kings, Books of, 141 f., 298,
302
Kittel, 122
Koran, 17
Korschinsky, 416
Kuenen, 94, 96, 121 f., 162,
165, 170
Laban, 126
Laish, 132
Last Supper, 222 f., 308 f.,
331

Law, The. 241, 248, 274-276,
285, 299, 325, 340, 349,
354. 356, 359. 379. 439
Babylonian, 31
Hebrew, 31
Roman, 444
Law given by angels, 100 f.
Law of Holiness, 182
Law ,of release, 128
Legal fictions, 99 f.
Legalism, 246
Legislation, Discrepancies in,
127-129
Liver, Use of, in divination,
173 f- ¦
Levites, 127
Leviticus, Book of, 324, 454
Lewis, Mrs., 32
Local Sanctuaries, 135-138,
238-240, 245
Logia, 216 f.
Logos, 328
Lord's Prayer, 309
Lord's Supper, 353, 426
Luke, 166, 208, 217-219, 300,
309. 321. 383
Luke, Gospel of, 200, 214-219,
300, 307-310, 315, 364
Luther, 54, 73, 113, 193, 208,
426, 501

Maecabean conflict, 81, 148,
299
Psalms, 71
Maccabees, First Book of, 70 f .
Malachi, 147, 188, 347
Man of Lawlessness, 205 f.
Manasseh, 137, 237
Marcion, 200
Marduk, 173
Mark, 216, 221
Mark, Gospel of, 196, 214-217,
219, 307-310, 315, 320,
358, 364
Marmorstein, 306
Martineau, 282, 311

INDEX

Matter, 415
Matthew, 216-218, 321
Matthew, Gospel of, 214-219,
307-309, 364
Matthew's Bible, 54
Melkart, 298
Merenptah, 298
Messiah, 186, 237, 260, 318,
337. 354 f-. 364. 367
Messianic Prophecy, 186, 260,
364-367, 452
Theology, 327, 337
Method, 13-29, 42, 381
Methodism, 391
Metre, Hebrew, 84 f.
Milton, 423
Miracles, 362-365
Moab, 230, 344, 370
Moab, Religion of, 30
Moabite Stone, 30
Mohammedan, 17
Monolatry, 176, 232, 235
Monophysite doctrine, 426
Monotheism, 175 f., 235, 239
Monothelite doctrine, 426
Montanism, 391
MoraUty, see Ethics
Mosaic Authorship of the
Pentateuch, see Pen
tateuch
Mosaic Legislation, 186, 188 f.
Moses, 31, 99-101, 124 f.,
131-135. 156-158. 178,
' 181, 187, 189, 230, 232,
248, 297, 324, 343-345.
396, 489
Blessing of, 135
Song of, 135
Moulton, J. H., 49. 211
Mysteries, 274, 328, 332
Mysticism, 319 f-. 442. 448-
456
Naboth, 236, 489
Nadab, 343
Natural Selection, 496
Nazareth, 372 '

513

Nazarite, 325
Neander, 219, 321
Negroes, 418
Nehemiah, 43, 67, 299
Nestorian Controversy, 426
New Covenant, 238, 268-
270, 273, 284, 453, 484,
489
Noah, 229, 418
Noldeke, 120 f., 163
Northern Kingdom, 233, 237,
298
Obadiah, 347
Old Testament, Gospel in the,
^ 9 f., 454
Old Testament and the New,
109, 186, 190, 340, 342,
362-377, 406 f., 467,
483 f.
Omri, 298
Onesimus, 418
Oral Tradition, 214 f.
Origen, 304
Orr, 96, 106, 131, 152, 154,
166, 179-182, 382, 416
Orthodoxy, 423, 426-429
Otto, 416
P., see Priestly Document
Palaeography, 30
Palestine, 29, 31, 36,43, 45!,
132, 189, 220 f., 234 f.,
239, 264, 266, 268, 298,
332, 370. 373. 439. 467
Pan-Babylonianism, 152, 174-
176
Pantheism, 442, 451
Papias, 32, 216, 220
Papyri, Aramaic, 31 f.
Greek, 32-34, 63
Paradise, 186
Parallelism, 84 f.
Pastoral Epistles, 203 f.,
207 f.
Patriarchal History, 186, 297,
302 33

514

INDEX

Paul, 40, 73, 77 f., 160 f., 166,
194-210, 218, 270, 273,
277, 280, 301, 308, 313,
320, 331 f., 334 f., 352-
361, 389 f., 392 f., 396 f.,
418, 440, 492-503.
Pauline Epistles, 192, 195-
208, 312 f., 320, 331,
340, 493.
Pauline Theology, 5 f., 40,
198 f., 328, 352-361,
440, 486, 492-503
Pentateuch, 68, 96-101, 113-
122, 124-141, 350
Mosaic authorship of, 78,
113-115, 129, 131-134.
156-158, 181
Pentecost, 389
Persia, 299, 329
Personality, 425 f.
Persons in the Godhead, 425
Peter, 209, 216, 301, 320,
354 f-
Peter, ist Epistle of, 36, 70,
209. 354 i-
2nd Epistle of, 74, 169, 210
Pfleiderer, 179, 212, 329 f.,
337 i-
Pharaoh, 297 f., 396
Pharisaism, 493
Pharisees, 103, 197
Philemon, 202 f., 418
PhiUppi, 201 ,
PhUippians, Epistle to the.
202 f., 205
PhUistines, 142, 235
PhUo of Alexandria, 69, 379
PhUosophy, 47, i63f ., 433-436
Phoenician, 43
Plato, 51, 328
PoUtics, 409 f.
Polycarp, 220
Poljrtheism, 172, 239
Possession, 386
Prayer Book Version, 54
Precession of the Equinoxes,
173

Priestly Document (P), 117-
122, 138-140, 171, 176,
182, 238, 241, 350
Prediction, 368-370
Priests, 127, 349
Priests and Levites, 128, 138 f.
Primitive peoples, 326
PrisciUa, 166, 209
Private judgment, 464 f.
Problem of Suffering, 149
Proof Texts, 382, 418 f.
Prophecy, 30, 145-148, 235,
299. 327. 345 i: 385 f-.
393-397
Prophecy, The argument from,
362-368, 388, 407, 452-
454. 486
Fulfilment of, 452-454
Prophetic Literature, 144-
148
Prophets, 47, 232, 235-244.
248, 299, 344, 347, 349-
352, 408-410, 469, 485 i,
489
Protestantism, 13, 17, 295,
446, 451
Proverbs, Book of, 244
Psalm, The 51st, 278
The 73rd, 279
Psalmists, 489
Psalms, Book of, 68, 149 f.,
186 f., 241, 244, 256,
349. 470. 485 i-
Psychology, 425, 433, 435 f,
Ptolemaic theory, 5, 185
Purification, 239, 246
Pusey, 155
Q., 216, 219, 309, 315
Rachel, 126
Rameses II, 298
Raphael, 188
Rationalism, 180 f.
Reason, 463-465
Red Cow, 325
Redemption, 249 f., 276, 355

INDEX

515

Reformation, The, 193
Reformers, 113, 463
Reitzenstein, 274
Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, 336
Remnant, Doctrine of the,
237, 258-260
Restoration of Text, 84 f .
Resurrection, 73, 108, 246,
308, 318, 339, 354 f., 492
Reuss, 118 f., 121, 164,
Revelation, 248-250, 287-
295. 341. 438 f.
mediated through history,
107-109, 191, 225-253,
254 f., 288-291, 382-
384. 395. 403 f- 407. 455.
461 f., 468, 470, 479 f.,
487 f.
Progressive, 190
Revelation and the Bible,
290-295
Revelation, Book of, 161, 192 f .,
195 f., 211 f., 327 f., 409
Canonicity of, 72, 74
Revised Version, 7 f., 61-63
Revivals, 389-391
Reynolds, 56
Rheims Translation, 55-57, 60
Riehm, 121
Ritschl, 426
Ritual, Hebrew, 324-327, 340,
346. 352, 375. 385
Robertson, James,i3i, 159,171
Rogers, John, 54
Roman Controversy, 193
Empire, 247 f.
Empire and the Church,
36, 209, 211 f.
History, 296, 3". 480
Romanism, 17 f-
Romans, 330
Epistle to the, 195. 203
Rome, 208 f., 227, 373
Ruskin, 402
Sabbath, 239, 348

SabeUianism, 424
Sacraments, 274, 295, 328,
330 f.
Sacrifice, 38, 135 1, 229, 246,
326, 333, 348-351. 375
Sadducees, 197
Samson, 141, 388
Samuel, 142 f.
Books of, 141-143, 302
Sanhedrin, 373
Sarah, 126
Satan, 416-418
Saul, 125, 132, 1421, 388,394
Sayce, 157, 177
Schechter, 306
Schleiermacher, 219
Schmiedel, 218, 313 f.
Schwartz, 220
Schwegler, 164
Science, 5-7, 13, 184 f., 410-
. 416, 485, 495
Second Coming, 203, 206, 210,
320
Second Isaiah, 145-147, 241,
347. 363. 373. 489
Secrets of Enoch, 35
Semitic heathenism, 36 f.,
228, 326, 347, 375
languages, 43 f.
Sennacherib, 30, 237
Septuagint, 39, 69, 81 f., 85,
171. 258, 379, 407
Seraphim, 257 f., 284
Sermon on the Mount, 210,
484. 497
Servant of Yahweh, 186, 241,
354.373-375. 453 f-. 485-
489
Shakespeare, 402, 481
Shear-jashub, 259
Sheba, 349
Sheol, 246
Shepherd of Hermas, 72, 74
SUas, 209
SUence, Policy of, 4, 12, 26 i.
SUoam Inscription, 30
Simon, 113

5i6

INDEX

Sinai, 31, 298, 343
Slavery, 418
Smith, W. Robertson, 96, 170,
326
Sociology, 409 f.
Sodom, 343
Sohdarity, 258, 496
Solomon, 144, 299
Song of Songs, 265, 451
Canonicity of, 68 f.
Southern Kingdom, 233, 237,
259, 298
Speaking with Tongues, 389-
392
Spencer, Herbert, 179, 330
Spencer, John, 325
Spenser, 402
Spinoza, 113
Spitta, 210
Stade, 159, 176
Starbuck, 435
Stephen, 100, 470
Stoicism, 328
Strauss, 213, 321
Style as criterion of author
ship, 129 f.
Subconscious, 425
Suffering Messiah, 318
Supematuralism, 180 f.
Survivals, 37 f.
Swedenborg, 451
Synoptic Gospels, S5moptists,
169, 196, 211, 213-219,
222 f., 300, 356-359.
Problem, 192, 214-216
Syria. 259, 299, 330
Syriac Codex of the Gospels,
31
Tabernacle, 128, 375, 388
Tables of Stone, 269 f.
Taboo, 246, 326
Talmud, 307
Tamar, 127
Taverner's Bible, 54
Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, 74

Tel el-Amama Tablets, 30 f.,
46, 157
Telepathy, 385, 392
Temple, 241, 257, 261, 299,
348
Temptation, 105
Tennyson, 402
Teresa, Santa, 451
TertuUian, 208
Text of Scripture, its uncer
tainty, 7 f.
Textual corruption. Causes
of, 83 f.
Theism, 414 f.
Theology, 5, 285 f., 421-445,
497-500
Thessalonians, ist Epistle to
the, 202 f., 205
2nd Epistle to the, 203,
205 f.
Thessalonica, 201, 203
Thiersch, 188
Thought-reading, 385
Thucydides, 51
Tischendorf, 31
Tithes, 127
Titus, 349
Torture, 416 f.
Tower of Babel, 343
Trance, 393, 397
speech, 385, 392
Translation, Principles of, 57-
63
Tree of Knowledge, 343
Trinity, 424 f., 427 f.
Triple Tradition, 214, 309
Tritheism, 424
Triumphal Entry, 366, 373
Tyndale, 52-54, 60
Typology, 352, 375
Tyre, 298
Uncleanness, 38, 229, 239,
246, 326, 340
Union with Christ, 275 f.,
499 i-
Unity of God, 232, 234

INDEX

517

Universe, Ancient and mo
dem conceptions of, 5 f.
Urquhart, 155
Vater, 115
Vatke, 118 f., 121, 164
Vedais, 17, 379
Venus, 173
Vergil, 24
Verification of Revelation in
Experience, 466-478, 503
Vocabulary as criterion of
style, 129 f.
Volz, 175
Vulgate, 52-54
Waite, A. E., 76
We sections, 218
Weiss, B., 321
J-, 212
WeUhausen, 116, 119, 121 f.,
152, 162, 165, 176, 179,
326, 347
Wendland, 179
Wernle, 179, 357 f-
Westminster Confession, 463
Whately, 317, 335
Winckler, 152, 165, 172-176

Wisdom of Solomon, Canon
icity of, 71
Wisdom Literature, 242
Witchcraft, 185, 416-418
Witness of the Spirit, 463-
465. 475
Word of God, The, 277, 398-
400, 464, 490
Wrede, 179, 310, 360
Wright, C. H. H., 105, 154-
156
Writing a necessary supple
ment to Revelation, 292-
295
Writing and criticism of the
Pentateuch, 131
Wycliffe, 52
Yahweh, 114, 117, 124 f., 171
f., 230-233, 235-237, 327,
363 f-
Zadok, Sons of, 138
Zahn, 210
Zebedee, 221
Zechariah, 147
Zeller, 164
Zion, 259
Zoroastrianism, 327

Butler »nd Tanntr, TM, Sehutd Printing Works, From*, and London

YALE UNIVERSITY L

'¦'??^:^?f ¦¦

i-V

-: ¦ ^=i*-.--^Tr'- .
•Vv-'-. '; . - ¦¦-::h:.. ...;v

:. *-'

'*

... , '. , .
. .- . ¦• 1." ' ¦• '
. - J . . i' . "» ¦ ¦ ' '