New-York tribune., 1902-03-30
S0vE DEFENDERS or THE BIBLE.

SOME DEFENDERS OF THE BIBLE.
During the last few months some religious
denominational Journals have been giving a
large amount of space to attacks on modern Bib
lcal criticism and scholarship. In large part
these articles consist Of references to modern
Biblical scholars as dishonest or ignorant men,
coupled with eulogies of the grand old Book
whose infalbility from Genesis to Revelations
sis only made more apparent by the dishonest
attacks of the critics" Little effort is made
by these denomnationaI journals to discuss the
question of modern Biblical criticism its
merits On the contrary, the views and Conclu-
sions of the critics are so nadequately stated
that the task of answering them becomes easy
Modern Biblical criticism has certainly modi-
fed the modern Christian conception of the
Bible It's conclusions are preached to-day in
the pulpit taught in Sunday schools and its
works are TO he found rs textbooks and books
of reference in every theological seminary Of
the country. But many denominational papers
do not bring these facts out. To read them one
would suppose that the new views Of the Bible
were being exploited by a few obscure, ignO-
rant and dishonest sceptics animated by n fanat
ical desire TO destroy Christianity.
This is the more unfortunate because Biblical
criticism is by no means infallible either as to
its theories or conclusions. Whatever of truth
it contains would he established much more
quickly and surely If its opponents would make
an earnest attempt 10 understand It; while, on
the other hand. intelligent criticism of its work
would force il sooner to drop its untenable
theories and mistaken views Windy rhetoric
however. counts for nothing while undeserved
abuse Of Biblical scholars and Biblical scholar
ship does more harm than good. Here for IN
stance is an argument against the conclusion
Of Biblical scholars that many books Of the
Bible composed Of different documents
dovetailed together: Two prominent clergy
men, are told, not long ago united in writing
an account of a religious gathering. and sent
their combined article to n number Of higher
critics, requesting them to separate it into two
documents, assigning TO each author his por-
ton. Not only were they unable to do so. but
no two of them agreed N dividing the docu-
ments. Therefore the writers conclude that no
higher critic can separate the documents of the
Pentateuch or the First and Second Isaiah
But the cases here assumed to be parallel are
not parallel at all. Biblical scholars rest their
documentary theory on differences Of style in
dicating different ages in the language. not TO
speak of incidental references to institutions
and events that furnish Clew to the time in
which the writers lived. An analogous case
would be a dovetailed story in English, some
parts being written in the English of Sponsors
'Faerie Queene' and the rest I'm the English
of William Dean Howells. In such a case any
man Of ordinary intelligence leaving scholars
out Of the question altogether, would at once
be able to separate these two documents-in
fact, even the most unintelligent reader would
note the difference in style in a curSorv reading
Suppose, further. that the claim was made
for this document that it was really written by
some man contemporary with Spenser, and
that in the face Of this claim, authenticated
by a venerable tradition, the question Of differ
ence or style was mere trivial detail not TO be
considered There we should have a case similar
to that of the conservative argument against the
documentary theory Of the Bible. Not quite
similar, though, unless we assume that in the
modern English portions of our supposed docu-
ment there were illusions to events that oc-
CURED long after the time of Edmund Spenser
With such facts before them most sane men
would conclude that the document in oues-
ton was a mosaic the work Of two writers
| one who lived in the sixteenth century and
one Of the present day Why should Biblical
| scholars be denounced for coming to the same
sort Of conclusion when they are confronted
| with similar facts IN books OF the Bible? When
! the putative author Of a work employs words
| not in use until later age. there is nothing
| absurd in assuming that the work in question
may have been touched by a later hand The
| absurdity would be in insisting that such evi-
| dences OF later authorship must be ignored
Some UNCONVENTIONAL papers lament the grow
| ing Indifference Of religious people to religious
| papers. We believe that this Indifference indi-
| Gates, not hostility to religion, but simply
| suspicion that the religious press does not
fully and adequately treat the great questions
| Of the day that affect religion. 1t is certainly
| a suggestive fact that the RELIGIONS iOI1rna lie
which take truth for authority. and not au-
| thorty for truth, were never more prosperous
| or influential than they are to-day.