The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-06-08
MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
BY REV. C. G. CONNER.

Modern biblical criticism, it may
be assumed in the outset, is radical
and regardless of past opinions and
Standards the extent, at least,
that it does not acknowledge them
as necessarily true or final, rather
than conservative. The radical and
progressive belongs to the present
and has place and expression in the
present. That which is conservative
merely has it's source in the past; it
would keep the past in the present and
unto the future, and may be said
to belong to the past. 1t may have
place and expression in the present,
it is true, with the radical and pro-
gressive, as age may dwell with youth,
but might as properly refuse to be
called modern as an old man might
disown being young.
In this definition of "modern" as
applied to biblical criticism, judg-
ment is withheld upon the merits of
the radical and conservative.
shall proceed at once to say that
certain amount of conservatism is
well, for the good and true of the
past should be received and treasured
by us. A thing is not good because
it is modern, nor is another thing
evil because it is ancient. A radical
ism that would deny the good of the
past, and break away altogether from
that, and lift its banner with
the inscription Coward in the pres
ent, onward if we must forget what
has been taught, onward if we must
go unguided," would itself be evil.
Yet, on the other hand, thing is net
true because it has been held or be-
lieved in the past. Differing concep-
tons of the Bible have had their day
and date. Conservatism differently
dated would be unlike. Two unlike
pictures could not answer truly for
one real face. So conservatism as
rule or process is alone inadequate.
| There must be discrimination,
criticism that shall be thorough, yet
just. to supplement conservatism, and
that shall be so inclusive and far
reaching and vital as to be the ever
present companion and ever welcome
help of the generations of men and
entitled at any time to the term "mod-
ern."
Modern criticism may apply to the
text of the Bible itself and to the
opinions of men regarding the text,
authorship or dates of composition.
Criticism that applies to the text is
: of two classes, called the lower and the
higher, the former dealing with the
meaning of the text, the latter with it's
authenticity. That dealing with the
authorship or date of composition
of book is classed, of course, as
higher criticism.
The lower criticism of the Bible
could not be distinctively modern.
The Bible is being read in new lights
and with a more careful vision, it is
true, and this reading is yielding
meanings which were not discerned
in DINNER light and with less en-
dowed mind. But what the text
means now it has always meant, and
no criticism that deals with it should
attempt to put new meanings into it.
So criticism which merely concerns
the teaching of the text which, when
written, is 1.-The same yesterday, today
and forever" we should not class as
modern in distinction from a kindred
process of Interpretation, with less
perfect helps, which took place in
the past.
The criticism which is upon the
authenticity of texts, authorship and
dates, touches opinions relating to
them which may have been held with
out adequate grounds and which are
subject to correction; back of that,
involving what was written, the time
it was written, and by whom, are mat
tiers external to the meaning of the
text, and accidental in time, and are
therefore subject to broad judgment
with the cumulative evidences of the
ages. Here is the space for class of
criticism which, in its character,
stands apart, and belongs to the age
in which it is assayed. Upon these
matters, too, men may judge best
after the last evidences are in. Crit
cism upon these in the present, if it
be reverent, is likely to be better,