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

Having ascertained by canonical criticism
what books belong in the Bible. and by te1tual
criticism what are the best obtainable texts
OF those books. we come now TO the province Of
the so-called higher criticism which interprets
the texts from n literary and historical view
point. and aims to determine the limits OF their
credibility. To the literary features OF the
Bible. little attention was paid In the sixteenth
century. We may infer how the Reformers
would have met questions Of authorship and
date from their freedom with regard TO tradi-
tional views in the few cases wherein they
expressed themselves. Luther denied the
Apocalypse to John and Ecclesiastes to Solo
mon. He maintained that the Epistle Of James
was not an Apostolic writing. He regarded
Jude as an extract from ii. Peter. and said:
What matters It IL Moses should not him
self have written the Pentateuch? He thought
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by
a disciple OF the Apostle Paul. who was a
learned man. aud framed the epistle as a sort
OF composite piece. in which there are some
things hard to be reconciled with the Gospels.
Calvin denied the authorship of the Pauline
Eplstle to the Hebrews. and doubted the
Petrine authorship OF II. Peter. He thought
that Ezra or some one else edited the Psalter,
and made the first Psalm an introduction to
the collection. Calvin did not hesitate to op-
l'Nc lllt bIt'lltlOIlul view lHuI DuNlu was tne
author or editor of the entire Psalter. He also
regarded Ezra as the author OF the prophecy Of
Malechi-Malachi being Ezra's surname. He
furthermore constructed. after the model Of
the harmony OF the Gospels, a harmony OF the
Pentateuchal legislation about the Ten
commandments as Il centre. considering
all the rest OF the commandments mere
appendages which add not the smallest
completeness to the law. Xwingli. Fcolam-
padius and other Reformers took similar posi-
tons. Questions Of authorship and date trou-
bled the Reformers but little they had to bat
tie against the Vulgatc. the Latin version Of
the Scriptures made by Jerome. for the origi-
nal text and popular versions thereof and for a
simple grammatical exegesis. as opposed to
traditional authority and tho manifold sense.
Until toward the close of the seventeenth cen
fury. those who. in brief preliminary words to
their commentaries on the different books Of
Scripture. took the trouble to mention the au-
thors and dates OF writings. either followed the
traditional views without criticism. or deviated
from them in entire unconsciousness Of CIV
ing offence to the orthodox faith. This
faith was firmly fixed on the divine In
spirer OF Scripture. and little concern was
felt about the human Intermediates en-
ployed. Thus the literary questions opened by
Lowth. Herder. Astruc and others were essen
italy new questions. The revived attention to
classical and Oriental history and literature
had brought with 1t a fresh study of Hebrew
history and literature. The battle OF the books
waged between Bentley and Boyle. which was
decided in the interest OF literary criticism by
Bentley's masterpiece. was tho prelude to a
struggle over all the literary masterpieces OF
antiquity. in which the spurious were to be
separated from the genuine. 1t began to be
recognized as Indispensable that the Hebrew
n wall ma Graay nnI I attn lEtau l-,I
pass through the fires Of the literary and his
torical research. which soon received the name
Of higher criticism" The traditional views
Of the Old Testament. as fixed in the Talmud,
and stated in the Christian Fathers, had
come down as a body OF lore to be Investigated
and tested by the principles applicable to an
cient literature in general. There were four
ways OF meeting the issue thus Joined: First.
by attacking the traditional theories with the
weapons OF the higher criticism and testing
them at all points, dealing with the Scriptures
precisely as with all other writings Of %anti1ul-
ty: secondly. by defending the traditional theo-
ries. rs the established faith of the Church. on
tho ground of the authority of tradition. as
Buxtorf and Owen had even ventured to de-
fend the inspiration Of the Hebrew vowel
points: thirdly. by ignoring these questions
as matters OF scholarship and not OF faith
and resting on the divine authority OF the
writings themselves. In point Of fact. these
three methods were pursued by three parties,
to wit the deistic. or rationalistic: the tradi-
tionnl. or scholastic. and the p~ietistic. or
mystical. DR., Briggs submits that there was a
fourth and better way, which few pursued:
First. inquire what the Scriptures teach about
themselves and separate the divine authority
asserted from all other authority: secondly.
apply the principles OF the higher criticism to
decide those questions which are not decided
by divine authority, and. thirdly. let tradition