The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-05-28
VIII.

Again the higher criticism exhibits the pro-
cess by which the sacred hooks were produced.
II shows that most OF them were composed by
unknown authors. and that they have passed
through the hands of a considerable number OF
unknown editors. who have brought together
the older materials without removing discrep.
ancies. nconsistencie and errors. Take. for
example. the Pentateuch. the earliest canon
Of the Old Testament. II is composed OF four
great documents. whose authors are unknown
to us. These were consolidated by
an unknown editor in the time Of the ~restora-
ton OF the Jews from exile. Each OF
these principal is made ur Of
still older materials. These documents
NAV. within certain limits. be assigned TO
their time of composition. but not to
their authors. In this process OF editing. ar
ranging. adding. subtracting. reconstructine
and consolidating. which extended over many
centuries. there is no evidence that these I'M
known editors were exempt from error in all
their work.
1t should he. at the same time. distinctly IN.
derstood that those who uphold the higher
criticism are not prepared to admit errors in
the Scriptures until they shall be proven
Very many alleged mistakes have received
sufficient or plausible explanation. Others are
still the subjects Of dispute between truth
seeking scholars. and satisfactory explana-
tions OF them may be given hereafter. New
dihculties are continually arising and being
overcome. The question whether there are
errors in the Bible is. obviously. a question Of
fact. to which all theories and dogmas must
yield. 1t cannot be determined by a prior;
definitions and averments on either side. The
original autographs. as we have said
have been lost for ages. and never cnn
be recovered. How are we TO ascar-
tain whether they were absolutely errorless or
no? To assume that they must have been 40
which Is a deduction from the theory Of verbal
inspiration. is to beg the whole question.
There are. undoubtedly mistakes OF chronol-
oGy. geography and science. errors as to his
torical events and persons. discrepancies and
Inconsistencies which cannot be explained away
by any legitimate method Of Interpretation
Thus the historical criticism OF the Old Testa.
ment finds discrepancies between the parallel
narratives % Kings and Chronicles, and be-
tween me, dlnerent sources which have been
compacted by later editors In the Hexateuchl.
and in the prophetic historians. 4 comparison
noetical writings also makes 1t evident that
there are historical errors IN these books. tits
to copyists and scribes who worked upon the
ssaaSred me subsequently to the forma-
1 r.aso on t bls % 4Id au Testament Can0n II e more
framework Of the divine revelation the ORIGINAL
sacred writer's were left to themselves to make
men are likely to commit In their most con.
tory. VI ms
The c9nclusion reached In the work here
reViewen Is that al departments Of that study
criticism lead TO the result that there are nu.
merous errors OF detail In the Scripture; that
errant, documents Of any kind but that, on the
9tner hand. the substance Of the Scripture. its
iS errorless and infallihle. At a later time we
snail point out to what extent the same con-
Slusion i. supported by other lately published
criticism. We reier particularly to the volumes
Lespectlvely. entitled Ancient Sacred Writ
to Prof MeGifert's Apostolic Age"
y. ". n.