New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-05
DIR. w. R. HARPER'S DEFENCE
HIS AIMS IN OLD TESTAMENT STUDY.
HIS EXTREME CRITICS MIsI INTERPRETING HIS
ATmTUDE-THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN THE
SCRIPTURES A LEGITIMATE SUB.
JECT OF STUDY.
my TELEGRAPH tn THE rptpusr

Chautauqua n. Y, Aug. a.-Dr. william Il. Harper,
Of Yale who has hitherto refused to talk upon his
controversy with Dr. Mendenha concerning the Higher
Criticism has at last consented break through his
rule.
DR.. Mendcnhall's attack on me- he said in reply
to q question: Z" is entirely unwarranted, and
sorry that his zeal and eageess should have led him
10 such a woful mscOncepton of the facts. The
charge he makes In The Tribune that l accept the
conclusions of the extreme German Ratlonalists, is
entirely without foundation. I neither accept their
conclusions have any sympathy with them, and l
challenge him anybody else to make good his
sertion Of the established identity between my work
and theirs.'
Isn't it true that the two are alike In method.
spirit and results?'
at is absolutely untrue. The only possible SINH
larify is in the method. and not DR.. Mendenhal
himself would assert that the method is Inherently
wrong AS Professor Bumham said in his lecture
yesterday, / believe that 1t is the duty OF true
Christian TO welcome truth, from whatever quarter 1t
comes and in applying scientific principles to the in
depreciation Of Biblical material, do so with the firm
conviction that II only result in establishing the
Divine origin Of the Scripture. and in that aone.'
Then you really agree with DIT Mendenhal in his
ienunciation of destructive rationalism?'
Il have never disagreed with him as 10 that. All
my efforts and energies have been employed in that
very direction In my lectures before my classes at
Sew-Haven, / have combated with argument after
argument the conclusions of Wellhausen and
Renan, whom he accuses me Of defending.
It is part Of my work there TO expose
.beir erroneous and radical tendencies and lecture
lecture have devoted to that purpose alone and
next year TO give course on the early institu
lions of Israel, with the special purpose of proving
the supernatural origin of the Old Testament religion
and literature"
Have you ever thought to substitute illumination
.or Inspiration DR.. Mendenhall asserts ?"
a never have. My idea of the Divine influence
upon the Old Testament writers Is substantially that
of a recent commentator-that God never left them
I'm uncertainty as 10 the message they were to de-
liver and that the natural promptngs of their heart
and intellect guided and overruled so that they
gave forth the only true conception of the DIVINE
will which the language could express or the people
Of Israel comprehend. In fact DR.. Mendenhall Is
sncary at fault in this particular charge, and does
gross injustice TO the largo number OF conservative
critics who differ only I'm details with Professors Green
and Strong and yet employ the scientific and historical
methods They would shrink from the thought OF sub
stuting illumination for inspiration. To accuse them
of either ignoring the supernatural or regarding the
Bble as superior in ethics other books simply be
cause of the evolution of its ethical principles through
the ages is absolutely unfair"
"Haye you ever professed TO occupy neutral posi-
toni"
Ear from 1t. / am not neutral and never have
been except I'm holding back my opinion until the
results of my Investigations apparent From the
beginning | have warmly defended the supernatural
origin of the Bble and this anybody who has read
nv Old Testament listened TO my lectures
will testify to. 1t is also entirely untrue
that have emphasized the results OF
rationastic investigation, urged them as worthy
of attention. The only way in which l have ever
emphasized them has been In warning against the'n'
and that my scholars can also prove. As 10 mo dS
sertion that have never received a Methodist IN
aorscment that is groesquely Inaccurate nave
et eived scores Of letters from Methodist ministers
and professors Of the highest rank. uphodnG ii! views
and dsclaming all sympathy with those presented Dy
DR.. Mendenhall.' .
"Win you please define your exact pos4'loh VIII"
regard 10 the whole natter"
1T is this: l believe in applying to the Bloie inc
principles of literary criticism. 10 determine "heh
ifs books were written. and the particular purpose
for which they written. 1t might be that uloSe
who try TO destroy the force Of the evidence Oh the
validity of the Bibc employ the same methods But
the results are wholly different The object OF W ell
hansen his school is TO disprove the supernatural
element; is 10 prove it, Inquiry does no. iInpE
a doubt in the divine origin of the Bible. IL Simply
implies desire for knowledge IN relation 10 ule
human circumstances connected with that origin
For example, Isaiah prophescd for over iorg yedrSS
in Connection with two or three different political
situations Literary criticism tries to hnd ON what
sermons were delivered in connection with each VI
these political crises in order that the thought ana
contents of that sermon may be better undeiStoou'
and II that I'm any way implies denial of their
natural origin / confess l am unable to see it
DR.. Harper although young man Is "ideiy KNOW
as one of the leading Biblical sS TOE fsSS Ws
educated at Muskingum College. and took post
OF Phi d. He has taught at the Macon Masonic
College Memphis Tenn; at Denlson nhNersiS;
Granville Ohio at the baptist 1 or the as rs
years in the philosophical department at ale; ms
special branches there being Hebrew AraoG ana ID
he publishes a monthly magazine in connection with
this work.