New-York tribune., 1899-10-28
AGAINST BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

Professor W. Henry Green. of Princeton, IS
almost the only eminent Hebrew scholar In this
country who opposes what Is known rs me
higher criticism Of the Bible. He gives the rea-
sons for his opposition in an article which he
contributes to The Monis" and as this ques
ton is one that profoundly interests the whole
Christian world at the present time It is worth
while 10 note what so representative n conserv-
ative has to urge against the methods and con
clusons Of modern Biblical criticism His first
objection is that the work of the critics Is not
final Not only do they abandon theories from
time to time, but they disagree among them
selves To this it may he replied that exactly
the same thing Is true in every department OF
human knowledge. In astronomy. geology biol
ogy or even history theories to account for facts
are in constant process of construction and
demolition and II follows. OF course that diiter-
ent investigators in the same field may for the
time being honestly adopt contradictory theo-
res. Bat the fact that geologists for instance,
are constantly revising some Of their theories
does not at all discredlt the science Of geology
with intelligent people. II any one were TO say
"There are no certain facts in geology because
investigation is constantly modifying some or
ats theories" he would be laughed at Why,
tied because in the light of new knowledge 1t
abandons old theories?
Next. Professor Green opposes the higher
criticism because the uniform testimony OF
Christianity In support of the traditional view is
more trustworthy than the investigations OF
modern critics To quote his exact words, he
says: This testimony is the impregnaole base
upon which the genuncness Of the Mosaic
nc4c nd
"the speculation Of modern scholars cannot I'M
settle IT," OF this view It may be said that
every one who believes that tradition is neces-
sarily more trustworthy than invesugaton'
even when honest will at once accept IT, But
it must be admitted that in matters outside OF
religion tradition has generally been a stun
bling block in the way Of true progress HAD
the world paid heed to tradition we should sun
be living in the childhood Of the race. We
should have none Of the sciences and wonderful
mechanical developments that have added so III
caculably TO the welfare and comfort or man
kind Tradition would retain the original stereo-
typed forms OF life, while investigation Is for
breaking them up from time to time IN order
that other forms may be cast more truly re-
fecting the facts as they are. Is religion an eN-
ceptIon 10 this rule? II so, Professor Green IS
right and those who strive. however honestly, 10
test the sacred tradition by investigation are 10
he reckoned the enemies Of Christianity.
Lastly, II Is urged against the higher criticism
that II mutates the Biblical narratives. Ihis Is
doubtless true But the modern Biblical critic
would say IN answer that the true facts as TO
the Bible are of vastly more importance than its
poetic beauty OF literary unity. He would, IN
deed 90 further than this. and say that II IS the
traditionalist who really mutilates the Bible ny
onposinr such an analysis Of ts contents, Dnsed
on the results Of scholarly investigation, az
would clarity the narrative. remove many din
cultles and make the Bible more real and vivid
than II ca possibly be when additionally inter
nreted II does certainly disturb the devout
reader Of the Bible to he told that there are TWO
more or less contradictory accounts OF the Crea-
tion dovetalled together In the first two chapters
NJ Gcnesls And It does mutate the narrative
n senarate these accounts But the important
matter is not this Nrenching Of the story pu'
whether the acts Justify the conclusion OF the
critics The cold but honest Investigations OF
historians have tumbled into ruins many beau
tiful tale OF the past yet nobody regrets the loss
of nrettv story where n question Of truth is In
volved. The theory that the Bible is composed
of different documents. some Of them contradlc-
tory. NAV have no basis OF fact to support H.
but II cannot be met by complaining that II
mut,lates the narrative. The only question Is
| whether It is true.