No. The ethical code of the Bible gradually develops and improves. Had
it been divine it would have been perfect from the first. It is because
it is human that it develops. As the prophets and the poets of the Jews
grew wiser, and gentler, and more enlightened, so the revelation of
God grew wiser and gentler with them. Now, God would know from the
beginning; but men would have to learn. Therefore the Bible writings
would appear to be human, and not divine.
Let us look over these points again, and make the matter still clearer
and more simple.
If the children of an earthly father had wandered away and forgotten
him, and were, for lack of guidance, living evil lives; and if the
earthly father wished his children to know that they were his children,
wished them to know what he had done for them, what they owed to him,
what penalty they might fear, or reward they might ask from him; if he
wished them to live cleanly and justly, and to love him, and at last
come home to him--what would that earthly father do?
He would send his message to _all_ his children, instead of sending it
to one, and trusting him to repeat it correctly to the others. He would
try to so word his message as that all his children might understand it.
He would send his children the very best rules of life he knew. He would
take great pains to avoid error in matters of fact.
If, after the message was sent, his children quarrelled and fought about
its meaning, their earthly father would not sit silent and allow them to
hate and slay each other because of a misconception, but would send at
once and make his meaning plain to all.
And if an earthly father would act thus wisely and thus kindly, "how
much more your Father which is in Heaven?"
But the Bible revelation was not given to all the people of the earth.
It was given to a handful of Jews. It was not so explicit as to make
disagreement impossible. It is thousands of years since the revelation
of God began, and yet to-day it is not known to hundreds of millions
of human beings, and amongst those whom it has reached there is endless
bitter disagreement as to its meaning.
Now, what is the use of a revelation which does not reveal more than is
known, which does not reveal truth only, which does not reach half those
who need it, which cannot be understood by those it does reach?
But you will regard me as a prejudiced witness. I shall therefore, in my
effort to prove the Bible fallible, quote almost wholly from Christian
critics.
And I take the opportunity to here recommend very strongly _Shall We
Understand the Bible?_ by the Rev. T. Rhondda Williams. Adam and Charles
Black; 1s net.
There are two chief theories as to the inspiration of the Bible. One is
the old theory that the Bible is the actual word of God, and nothing but
the word of God, directly revealed by God to Moses and the prophets. The
other is the new theory: that the Bible is the work of many men whom God
had inspired to speak or write the truth.
The old theory is well described by Dr. Washington Gladden in the
following passage:
They imagine that the Bible must have originated in a manner
purely miraculous; and, though they know very little about its
origin, they conceive of it as a book that was written in heaven
in the English tongue, divided there into chapters and verses,
with headlines and reference marks, printed in small pica,
bound in calf, and sent down by angels in its present form.
The newer idea of the inspiration of the Bible is also well expressed by
Dr. Gladden; thus:
Revelation, we shall be able to understand, is not the dictation
by God of words to men that they may be written down in books:
it is rather the disclosure of the truth and love of God to men
in the processes of history, in the development of the moral
order of the world. It is the light that lighteth every man,
shining in the paths that lead to righteousness and life. There
is a moral leadership of God in history; revelation is the record
of that leadership. It is by no means confined to words; its
most impressive disclosures are in the field of action. "Thus
_did_ the Lord," as Dr. Bruce has said, is a more perfect formula
of revelation than "Thus saith the Lord." It is in that great
historical movement of which the Bible is the record that we find
the revelation of God to men.
The old theory of Bible inspiration was, as I have said, the theory that
the Bible was the actual and pure word of God, and was true in every
circumstance and detail.
Now, if an almighty and all-wise God had spoken or written every word
of the Bible, then that book would, of course, be wholly and unshakably
true in its every statement.
But if the Bible was written by men, some of them more or less inspired,
then it would not, in all probability be wholly perfect.
The more inspiration its writers had from God, the more perfect it would
be. The less inspiration its writers had from God, the less perfect it
would be.
Wholly perfect, it might be attributed to a perfect being. Partly
perfect, it might be the work of less perfect beings. Less perfect, it
would have to be put down to less perfect beings.
Containing any fault or error, it could not be the actual word of God,
and the more errors and faults it contained, the less inspiration of God
would be granted to its authors.