The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-04-18
AN ESSAY.
l.HGHRR CRITICISM OF TIE
BIBLE.
By President s. B. Dole



ecclesiastic authority. There are
no longer any limitations of force up
on the freedom of the individual in
matters of investigation, religious or
secular; but there are yet powerful
influences which oppose private free
dom ofjudgment. The mother Church,
forgetting the woe pronounced against
those who take away the key of
knowledge, not entering in them
selves and hindering those DESTROYS
of entering in, retains its somewhat
broken-down anathemas for the here
tic; and various Protestant Churches
follow in its wake in trying to make
the exercise of this freedom too un-
comfortable to be much INDUCED in
by those of their followers who are
not very much in earnest.
The result of this is that large pro-
portion of religious people look with
alarm upon the proposition to freely
discuss the religious questions or sub
Affects which they have been taught to
regard as settled, and the term free
thinker still is synonomous in their
minds with the words infidel and
skeptic.
The study of the Bible is naturally
largely affected by the attitude, main
ly from the dogmas of infallibility
and divine revelation which prevail
in regard to it. This influence has
been so strong that only within recent
years have learned men devoted their
attention to that analysis of the books
of the Bible which is known as the
higher criticism, and the pioneers iii
this enterprise, have been mainly
those whose attitude toward the Bible
was philosophical rather than relig-
ious. The work of these scholars, and
particularly some of their conclusions,
which have opposed positions very
generally regarded as impregnable,
has been of great use in enlistlng the
interest of other scholars in the sub
iect, including those whose attitude
toward the Bible was a religious one.
Many of this latter class having been,
as it were, forced into the discussion
to defend doctrines that they felt were
assailed by the results reached by
others. Thus it has happened that
the Bible has become in a sense field
of warfare among critics; those on
one side treating it as a national liter
AZURE to be freely and eXhaustively
analysed, and those on the other side
resenting this free tr- atment and
entering the lists rather to sup
port certain views than to find
out what the Bible really is
and means, - to maintain rather
than to ascertain. Hetween these
two defined parties, are investi-
III - IF OF
iowa ID the subject.
Both wings of the body of higher
critics of the Bible have undoubtedly
\ carried into their studies assumptions
4 which are obstacles to criticism. On
one side all reports of miracles are
taken to be historically erroneous
on their face; on the other they are
taken to be reliable. We do not
know what are the accepted canons
of higher criticism in the analysis of
the sacred literature of other ancient
nations,-of the Ved@s, and the Qend
Avesta for instance; but there cannot |
ENTHUSIASTICALLY be one rule for the |
Study of one literature and another |
for others. Whatever the field Of in
vestigation, it would seem that any |
preliminary assumption either of the |
truth or the untruth of any class of |
statements, would be equally fatal to |
criticism The question of the truth |
or falsity of the biblical statements of |
miracles as of similar statements in |
other sacred books is one of investiga- |
ton, of weighing of evidence, intrin- |
sic and extrinsic, in other words it is |
a question for the higher criticism to |
solve and for that only. The same is
true of the various other questions OF |
historical accuracy arising in the |
biblical record.
1t seems unfortunate that so few OF |
the critical students of the Bible are |
able to take up their work without |
prejudice one way or the other. One |
who has made up his mind upon any |
point cannot as rule fairly consider |
it afterwards. The juryman who has |
an opinion upon the question at issue |
or even who is related to one of the |
parties in interest, is not allowed to |
assist at the trial. The difficulty |
which prejudices among the higher |
critics of the Bible put in the way of |
success in their Investigations is par |
tally overcome by reason of the fact |
that these prejudices are both for and |
against the accepted estimate of its |
origin and position for when an in
vestigator decides against his predi-
lections his conclusions are more
than usually reliable; and so from
such concessions to truth won
from the unwilling champions of one
side, and the other by the irresistible
logical force of the evidences bearing
upon the question at issue, step after
step is gained, and one disputed point
after another is transferred from the
field of discussion to the treasury of
conclusions, fairly fortified by a con
sensus of opinion from both sides.
There are many, as we have men
toned above, who disapprove of these
investigations into the origin, author
ship, authenticity and so forth of the
biblical books. They are afraid of it.
Although due allowance should be
made for this natural human weak
ness, this dread of calling unwelcome
truths from their sleeping places, and
the influences of education and en-