THE DESTRUCTIVE CHARACTER OF MODERN BIBLE CRITICISM
§ 1. Clashing Views on Bible Criticism.
Such, then, is an outline of the state of apologetics on the subject of
Miracles in general, and of those connected with the central doctrines
of the Church in particular. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory,
nothing more calculated to arouse suspicion of the Faith; and now,
if we turn our attention to the "Higher Criticism," and to the
apologetics it has called forth, we shall find these suspicions still
further strengthened. On the one hand a considerable proportion of
these criticisms are accepted by the more enlightened divines, and,
on the other hand, those who refuse to accept any of them urge that
they undermine Christianity.
The Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Wace, is one of the latter class. Speaking
at a men's service (at St. Mary Bredin's Church, Canterbury, on
December 4th, 1904), he justly twits the critics for describing
a considerable part of the Bible, and particularly the early
part, as "not historical," when "what they mean is that it is not
true." No subtle theories are required to support Dr. Wace's belief
in Christianity, for even the first chapter of Genesis is, in his
opinion, a "substantially accurate" account of "that which happened
on earth before there were any men upon it," and "is the best proof
that the Bible proceeded from God." He remains among the dwindling
number of those who, in these days of Christian storm and stress,
still cling to the old ideas about the Bible. His reasons for doing so
are apparently similar to those given by "Roger" in a little pamphlet
entitled Roger's Reasons (by John Urquhart), where it is sought to
reconcile the Bible and Science at the expense of accuracy, logic,
and common sense. For the obscurantist, belief is made easy, and the
apologies for the Faith can be comparatively straightforward. For the
"enlightened" the conditions are reversed.
An example of the advanced views of a Church of England divine, and
of the objections to these views of a strictly orthodox Churchman,
may prove instructive. Reviewing the Bishop of Winchester's book,
On Holy Scripture and Criticism, the Church Times (of February 10th,
1905) pertinently observes: "Attacks upon the Gospel narratives of the
Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, made with such persistence from
within the Church, are ugly developments which were not anticipated
in 1890. Yet, strange to say, there is no recognition of the new
situation in the Bishop of Winchester's book."
This silence regarding points especially requiring explanation is,
I fear, a common feature in religious apologetics. Look again at
the reviewer's next remark: "The Bishop forgets that the truth of
the message is intimately connected with the authenticity of the
record, and a critical theory which assails the one assails the
other." Here, then, we have an elementary truth frankly recognised;
and, in plain English, it means that, if the Bishop's criticisms be
true, Christianity is untrue. Entering into more detail, the writer
goes on to say: "For example, the Bible record of the Fall and the
truth of our Lord's 'atoning death on the Cross' are closely connected
with each other. Modern criticism discards the former as a myth, and
indications abound on every side that the denial of the Fall leads
to a denial of the Atonement. It is not too much to say that the
new method of interpreting the Bible has helped to overthrow belief
in Christ as a Divine Redeemer. His redemptive work and mediatorial
office have been thrust into the background."
The situation could not be put more lucidly. There is no hair-splitting
or glozing here. The reviewer characterises this silence on crucial
points as "grave omissions," and he might have added that such
omissions are calculated to arouse suspicions of the Faith. He
continues: "Again the Bishop says:--
Think of the use made of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Apostles in
the Acts, or by St. Paul in his Epistles. It is ever the spiritual
and moral lesson.
It is by no means 'ever' the spiritual and moral lesson only. Both
in the Book of the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles the historical and
predictive portions of the Jewish Scriptures are constantly appealed
to, and used as the basis of argument. The suggestion that the Apostles
attached little importance to the latter is far from being borne out
by the evidence. One of the chief things in which they differ from
writers of the modern school is their use of Old Testament history and
prediction. Compare the place which prophecy occupies in the Epistle
to the Romans with the place it holds in the Bishop of Winchester's
book, where no more than sixteen lines in 187 pages are allotted to it.
"Each of the Synoptic Gospels describes the scene at the
Transfiguration, when Moses and Elias talked with our Lord in the
sight of three of His disciples. St. Luke mentions that they talked
about His approaching death. In the face of that narrative, those who
say that our Lord knew no more of Moses than any Jew of the period are
bound to explain how they reconcile the statement with the Evangelists'
account of the Transfiguration. No Jewish scribe of the first century
a.d. could pretend to have seen or conversed with either Elijah or
Moses. Bishop Ryle says of our Lord:--
In His incidental references to Moses, He adopts the language of
the Scribes.... He never displayed knowledge of facts which could
not be possessed by those of his own time.... To His intellectual
powers in His humanity there seem to have been assigned the
natural barriers of the time in which he lived.
"The Bishop does not perceive apparently that these arguments cut
both ways, so that they tell against our Lord's claim to foreknow
the future quite as much as against His knowledge of the past. And
we are entitled to ask how they can possibly be made to agree with
the express testimony of the Evangelists that Moses and Elijah were
seen in Christ's company, and 'spake of the decease which He should
accomplish at Jerusalem.'"
I have quoted these apposite remarks at length because they will
come with more force from the mouth of an orthodox believer than
from anyone in doubt like myself. One cannot help wondering what the
Bishop could have to urge in reply; for the ground is cut from under
him by his own acceptance of so much of modern criticism. As he is a
high dignitary of the Church, it is all the more puzzling. Referring
to the remarks concerning Moses, it may be mentioned that, according
to the critics, Moses is not a historical personage. [50] Whether the
Bishop accepts this or not it is difficult to say; but apparently he
does, from his desire to explain that, "in His references to Moses,"
Christ "adopts the language of the Scribes."
Dr. Driver's new book on Genesis has also called forth some adverse
criticisms from the less advanced. For example, Dr. Lock, the Warden
of Keble, enumerates several considerations in support of the general
trustworthiness of the patriarchal narratives, and observes that the
fact of inspiration, once admitted on the higher level of a moral and
spiritual tone, may "well carry its influence over into details of
fact, and turn the balance when otherwise uncertain." Personally,
I very much doubt whether the general public, once informed of
the truth, will ever be induced to look at facts through Dr. Lock's
spiritual spectacles. Dr. Driver, it should be added, informs us that
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph were presumably monotheists, though
their monotheism is rudimentary, and the terms in which they express
themselves "suggest much riper spiritual capacities and experiences,"
being, "in some cases, borrowed evidently from the phraseology of a
much later age." Can we depend upon such narrators to furnish us with
true history? Commenting on Dr. Driver's "impossible interpretations"
of the words, "it shall bruise thy head," and of "the story of the
Fall," his reviewer in the Church Times asks: "Was it, or was it not,
a promise made by God? This is the plain question which Dr. Driver's
readers are forced to ask." Sceptical truthseekers, also, are asking
the same question. When will they receive a "straight" answer?
§ 2. A Summary of the Results of Bible Criticism.
The general public know little or nothing of the results of Bible
criticism. Why should they? Not only do they deem it a dull subject,
but those who attend church are being informed from the pulpit that
"the Gospels have been battered by years of criticism, but have
come out of it stronger than ever." [51] It is easy enough to make
statements of this kind, and, doubtless, they serve temporarily
to quiet the fears of a congregation who know very little of the
subject, and are only too glad to believe what they are told so
authoritatively; but, unfortunately, such statements are, to put
it mildly, misleading. The ordinary man is wofully ignorant of the
"Higher Criticism." His ideas of Bible difficulties are mostly confined
to common sense. He knows, perhaps, that scoffers of the London parks
freethinking type gibe at Holy Writ, and he may himself have made fun
of some passages that appear absurd; but here his knowledge of Bible
criticism ceases. He is not aware that the critics are a body of the
most erudite experts in theology, whose only motive for offering
their opinion is to give to the world the result of their arduous
research--the motives, in fact, of a Bruno, a Darwin, or a Pasteur.
In view of this widespread ignorance, I propose to enumerate briefly a
few of the results of modern criticism, and, in giving these results,
I shall omit those arising from a study of comparative mythology and
of evolution, as I have devoted separate chapters to that purpose.
A work has been issued lately which sums up the conclusions of Bible
criticism--higher, [52] lower or textual, and historical. It is
called the Encyclopædia Biblica. Its four massive volumes set forth
the new views, and support them by a mass of learning which deserves
our serious consideration. [53] Space permits of my giving only a
few notes of its conclusions, and but meagre details of the wealth
of evidence in support of them.
The Creation Story a Myth.--The story of the Creation as given in
Genesis originated in a stock of primitive myths common to the Semitic
races. Its coincidences with the Babylonian myth are so numerous that
it is impossible to doubt the existence of a real historical connection
between them. Many indications show that not till after the Exile in
the sixth century B.C. did the story take its present shape.
The Patriarchs Unhistorical Figures.--Then, again, all the stories
of the Patriarchs are legendary; they may contain some truth, though
how much will probably never be known; to suppose them entirely true
is to throw historical criticism altogether overboard. Dr. Peters
is the Episcopal rector of a large parish in New York, who has done
good service in the past, both as Professor of Biblical Literature
in the Episcopal Seminary at Philadelphia and as the first leader of
the expedition to Babylonia sent out in 1888 by the University of
Pennsylvania. He has lately written a book called The Early Hebrew
Story: Its Historical Background. Canon Cheyne, reviewing this book in
the Hibbert Journal for January, 1905, remarks: "It will be granted
that Dr. Peters's view of the origination of the stories of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and, to some extent, of Joseph, in myths, legends,
and traditions of sanctuaries, is a sound one."
Book of Genesis Legendary.--The book of Genesis is a composite
narrative based on older records long since lost. It appears to have
been compiled in the seventh century b.c., and to have been added
to again later. The story of the Deluge is a Hebrew version of the
Babylonian epic.
Book of Exodus Legendary.--The book of Exodus, too, is another
composite legend which has long been mistaken for history. Sober
history gives no warrant for supposing that the signs and wonders
wrought by Moses ever occurred, that the first-born of Egypt were
ever slain, or that Pharaoh was ever drowned in the Red Sea.
Moses a Legendary Character.--The historical character of Moses has
not been established, and it is doubtful whether the name is that
of an individual or that of a clan. The alleged origin of the Ten
Commandments is purely legendary; it is probable that they were
framed not earlier than the time of Amos. It is admitted even by
conservative critics that the original worship of the Israelites was
not of an ethical character.
One of the first suspicions that ever crossed my mind was with
regard to the sudden and complete disappearance of the "two tables
of testimony, tables of stone written with the finger of God." [54]
Later on, when I knew of the Moabite stone [55] and the Rosetta stone,
[56] and especially when I learnt that there were inscriptions on
bricks and cylinders of a far earlier date than that ascribed to the
giving of the Ten Commandments, the old perplexity returned with
added force. I remember, too, the same feeling of dissatisfaction
and suspicion as I gazed on the clearly-cut Pali inscriptions in the
Buddhist caves near Poona, and thought of those lost tables said to
have been inscribed by the finger of God. I once put the question to a
well-read clerical friend of mine: "How can these tables, written by
the finger of God or by His direct inspiration, have been lost? How
is it that they have simply disappeared without a word of explanatory
comment in the Bible? It is inconceivably strange. What a witness
would they not have been to the truth of the Old Testament account,
and to the Divine authority for the Commandments!" His reply was:
"It would never have done for these stones to have been preserved,
for they would have become objects of worship." Granted that they
might have become objects of adoration, which is worse--to worship
faked relics such as the water in which Joseph of Arimathea washed the
blood-stained body of Jesus, portions of wood from the true Cross,
bits from the crown of thorns, and thousands of odd pieces of bone
from the anatomy of the Saints; or to venerate stones that would at
least have had the merit of being genuine? Why are we left without
any reliable evidences of God's miraculous revelation of Himself to
men, while we have abundant evidence for occurrences of trifling
importance to mankind that happened thousands of years before the
alleged revelation? Hammurabi (a Babylonian monarch who flourished
two thousand years or more before the Christian era) inscribed a very
excellent, if somewhat drastic, code of laws upon a pillar of black
diorite, and we have now got the stone and read the inscriptions;
but the stone inscribed by God is lost!
The Book of Deuteronomy.--Evidence of every kind concurs to prove
that in its original form it was a product of the seventh, not of the
fifteenth, century B.C. In its present form, Deuteronomy is a composite
and considerably modified version of the older work. Originally it
may have consisted merely of the long speech attributed to Moses,
and this may have been the book which was "found" in the temple in the
reign of Josiah, the rest of the work being added shortly afterwards.
As it is difficult to believe that such a work would have remained in
the temple undiscovered for eight hundred years, is it not reasonable
to conclude that the book was placed there by men who thought the
time ripe for religious reforms--in fact, that a "pious fraud"
was perpetrated?
The Psalms a Composite Book.--The fond delusion that all the Psalms
were written by David (though why we should be anxious to ascribe
what is really of much ethical value to a person confessedly immoral
I never could understand) has been entirely dispelled. It is doubtful
whether David wrote any of the Psalms.
Poetry and Prophetic Literature.--The book of Job is not a literary
unity, nor was it written with any particular purpose; it is not a
manufacture, but a growth.
Jonah is a Jewish midrash, or tradition, like the histories of Tobit
and Susanna, and was certainly written after the Exile. Even orthodox
clergymen now admit (in private) that the Jonah story is a fairy tale.
The great book of Isaiah is the work of several authors.
The book of Daniel was once assumed to be the most definitely
prophetical of the Old Testament writings--a notion which is seriously
discounted by the discovery that it was beyond question written in
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, after or during the happening of the
events which were supposed to be foretold, and nearly 500 years after
the time of its supposed author. It is questionable whether such a
person as Daniel ever existed; but it is certain that his adventure
in the den of lions, and that of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in
the fiery furnace, are as fabulous as any in the collection of Æsop.
"As a rule," says Canon Cheyne, "the prophets directly connect the
final restoration with the removal of the sins of their own age, and
with the accomplishment of such a work of judgment as lies within
their own horizon; to Isaiah the last troubles are those of the
Assyrian invasion; to Jeremiah the restoration follows on the exile
to Babylon; Daniel connects the future glory with the overthrow of
the Greek monarchy." [57]
Referring to non-Christian parallels to the belief in a Messiah,
Canon Cheyne draws special attention to a Babylonian parallel, and
concludes that "it is historically very conceivable that a Babylonian
belief may be the real parent both of this and of all other Messianic
beliefs within the sphere of Babylonian influence." [58]
The manner in which these so-called prophets can be looked upon as
foretelling is explained elsewhere [59] as follows: "The prophets
in the Old Testament, being inspired to interpret human needs,
became unconscious prophets of the Christ.... It is quite true that
prophecy explained in this way is no longer available for the truth
of Christianity to the same extent that it once was--at any rate,
for the convincing of unbelievers."
New Testament Chronology.--We do not know exactly when or where [60]
Jesus was born, when He died, or how long He ministered. As to the
birth of Jesus, the only account which claims to give indications of
date rests on a series of mistakes. No census was possible under Herod,
and none took place under "Cyrenius" until A.D. 7. The only results
which have a high degree of probability are the date A.D. 30 for the
death of Jesus, and the period of about one year--conservative opinion
estimates it to be three years--for the length of His public ministry.
The Virgin Birth.--The Gospels themselves afford the amplest
justification for a criticism of their narratives. Jesus Himself made
no appeal to His supposed miraculous birth. The only two verses in
the first chapter of St. Luke which clearly express the idea of a
supernatural birth so disturb the connection that we are impelled to
regard them as an interpolation. It is Joseph, and not Mary, whose
descent is traced from the son of Jesse. The genealogy of Joseph,
given in the first Gospel, is prior in date to the story of the Virgin
Birth, and could have been drawn up only while he was regarded as the
real father of Jesus. Also St. Paul's statement that Jesus was born
of the seed of David according to the flesh cannot be reconciled with
the account of his having been born of a virgin. There is no recorded
adoration of the Virgin by St. Paul, or, for the matter of that,
by any of the Apostles or disciples.
Apologists point out that among the Jews, generally, the notion
of supernatural birth did not attach to their conception of the
Messiah. This is true; but in the school of thought of which Philo was
head there were traditions that every child of promise was born of a
virgin. Now Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of Alexandria,
was a contemporary of Christ, and the influence of his school is
not disputed. Speaking of him in the article on Alexandria in his
Dictionary of the Bible, Dr. Smith says: "It is impossible not to feel
the important office which the mystic philosophy, of which Philo is
the representative, fulfilled in preparing for the apprehension of the
highest Christian truth." In the next chapter we shall see that this
"mystic philosophy" sprang from a heathen source, and that for the
whole birth and childhood story of St. Matthew, in its every detail,
it is possible to trace a pagan substratum.
Jesus.--Professor A. B. Bruce, [61] writer of the article on "Jesus,"
points out that, while the Gospels may be regarded as, in the
main, a trustworthy tradition, they are unreliable in many of their
details. Those details turn out to be the all-important ones, for he
goes on to show that: The Temptation is a symbolic representation of a
spiritual experience; the story of the Crucifixion is not pure truth,
but truth mixed with doubtful legend; the night trial, the mocking,
the incident of Barabbas, the two thieves, and the preternatural
concomitants of the death are picturesque accessories of doubtful
authenticity; Christ's conceptions of Messiahship were greatly
influenced by the later Isaiah; while His spiritual intuitions are
pure truth valid for all ages, His language concerning the Father
shows limitation of vision; His acts of healing are considered to be
real, though it does not follow that they were miraculous. Referring
to the strange statement that Jesus declined to expound His parables
to the people, lest they should be converted, we are assured that
"it is not credible that Jesus would either cherish or avow such an
inhuman intention, though it is possible that in His disappointment
He may have expressed Himself in such a way as to be misunderstood."
This is all very well; but, if this be granted, we are naturally
anxious to know in how many more matters Jesus may not have
been misunderstood. What is the use of a revelation which can be
misunderstood in this way? What can be the motive of the Omnipotent
Revealer in allowing Himself to be misunderstood? Were not His hearers
who misunderstood Him His own selected expositors?
We even find suspicion thrown on the supposed early belief in the
divinity of Jesus. For the writer points out that, while in the
Gospel of St. Luke Jesus is called "the Lord" about a dozen times,
the earlier Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark refer to Him simply
as "Jesus"--"a fact which seems to indicate the gradual evolution of
the belief in His divinity."
The conclusions of Professor Schmiedel, D.D., of Zürich, one of the
writers of the article on the Gospels, are still more destructive. He
admits [62] that his criticisms "may have sometimes raised a doubt
whether any credible elements were to be found in the Gospels at
all," and that there are only nine passages which "might be called
the foundation-pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus." He
admits also "the meagreness of the historical testimony regarding
Jesus," as well "in canonical writings outside of the Gospels" as
"in profane writers such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny."
The Resurrection.--The all-important subject of the "Resurrection" is
treated by Professor Schmiedel, who tells us that the Gospel accounts
"exhibit contradictions of the most glaring kind." The actuality
of the Resurrection depends for its establishment upon these very
narratives, and in such a case unimpeachable witnesses are naturally
demanded. Such witnesses do not exist. The reality of the appearances
has ever been in dispute. The account of the watch at the sepulchre
and the sealing of the tomb is now given up as unhistorical even by
those who accept the story as a whole. "The statements as to the empty
tomb are to be rejected." [63] The silence of St. Paul with regard
to these details is unaccountable, if the story of the Resurrection
be true. For him nothing less than the truth of Christianity rested
on the actuality of the Resurrection of Jesus. During his visit to
Jerusalem he had had opportunities of acquiring knowledge relating
to it, and it may naturally be assumed that, when endeavouring to
prove to the Corinthians the truth of the Resurrection, he would
state fully and clearly all that he knew about it. It is admitted on
all hands that the appearance recorded by him was in the nature of
a vision--a purely subjective experience. And it is well known that
St. Paul uses the same Greek word to describe both the appearance to
himself and the appearances to the original disciples, thereby implying
the possibility that the latter also were of a visionary or subjective
character. An apologetic tendency is perceptible in the Gospel account,
and this may help to explain the rise of unhistorical elements. It is
probable that, in the absence of knowledge, conjectures were freely
made, and many questions asked, the replies to which were afterwards
assumed to be facts.
The Gospels.--The article on the Gospels by Dr. E. A. Abbott [64]
and Professor Schmiedel is crowded with damaging criticism. The view
hitherto current that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, and appeared thirty or forty years after the death of
Jesus, can, it is stated, no longer be maintained. The four Gospels
were compiled from earlier materials which have perished, and the
dates when they first appeared in their present form are given as
follows:--Mark, certainly after the destruction of Jerusalem in the
year 70 [65]; Matthew, about 119 A.D.; Luke, between 100 and 110; and
John, between 132 and 140. But, even if we accept more conservative
opinions which place the earliest Gospel about 65 A.D., that would not,
of course, make any material difference, nor affect the conclusions
of criticism as to their contents. Some of their statements of fact
are quite erroneous, and the data are often in direct contradiction
to one another. The evangelists made it clear that they wrote with
a "lack of concern for historical precision." The imperfection of
the Gospel accounts is everywhere manifest. Even if His ministry
lasted only a few months, He must have said a thousandfold more,
and repeated His sayings with many variations. The text must not
be taken as a trustworthy guide to His original meaning. It merely
shows us what the evangelists or their predecessors believed him to
mean. The situations in which the words of Jesus are said to have
been spoken cannot be implicitly accepted.
Both St. Matthew and St. Mark seem to have read into the utterances
of Jesus details borrowed from subsequent facts or controversies. The
historical value of the third Gospel is lowered by evidence of the
writer's errors and misunderstandings. It has been widely assumed
that it was written by the physician Luke, and that Luke was a
companion of Paul. This view of its Pauline character, however,
can now be maintained only in a very limited sense. It is clear
that the third Gospel and the Acts are by the same author, but that
author was not Luke. In the fourth Gospel we find more ambiguities
than in all the other three together. The story of the raising of
Lazarus cannot be considered historical. The common-sense view of the
Synoptic omission of the raising of Lazarus is that earlier authors
omitted the tradition because they did not accept it, and probably had
never heard of it. "Is, then, the record of the raising of Lazarus a
fiction?" asks Dr. Abbott. "Not a fiction, for it is a development. But
it is non-historical, like the history of the Creation in Genesis,
and like the records of the other miracles in the fourth Gospel,
all of which are poetic developments." [66]
Lastly, we are plainly warned that "it is vain to look to the Church
fathers for trustworthy information on the subject of the origin of
the Gospels." [67] This is an exceedingly grave admission when we
remember that these same untrustworthy fathers of the Church did the
work of sifting the wheat from the chaff--settling what was and what
was not canonical.
It need hardly be said that these general conclusions, which are
supported by evidence that has satisfied numerous Christian scholars,
entirely do away with the idea that the Gospels are credible and
trustworthy narratives.
The Acts of the Apostles.--The sections of this book in which the
narrative is written in the first person plural (says Professor
Schmiedel) can be implicitly accepted; but it is equally certain that
they are not by the same hand as the rest of the book. Apart from the
"we" sections, no statement merits immediate acceptance on the mere
ground of its presence in the book. The speeches are constructed by
the author in accordance with his own conceptions. This book does
not come from a companion of St. Paul; its date may be set down as
between A.D. 105 and 130.
The Epistles of St. Paul.--The genuineness of the Pauline Epistles does
not appear to be so clear as was once universally supposed. Advanced
criticism, Professor van Manen [68] tells us, in his elaborate article
on "Paul," has learned to recognise that none of these Epistles is
by him, not even the four generally regarded as unassailable. Van
Manen's position, however, is exceptional. In the article on
"Epistolary Literature" the Epistle to Philemon and the Epistles to
the Philippians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians,
and even the Epistle to the Romans, are recognised as real letters
written by St. Paul. The genuineness of four of the Epistles is, in
any case, generally accepted. As these include the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, this conclusion is of the greatest importance. The Bishop
of London is "content to rest his case, for not being intellectually
ashamed of the documentary evidence, on the four undisputed Epistles
of St. Paul." [69]
The Apocalypse.--Criticism has clearly shown that the Book of
Revelation can no longer be regarded as a literary unit, but is an
admixture of Jewish with Christian ideas and speculations. Ancient
testimony, that of Papias in particular, assumed the Presbyter John,
and not the Apostle, to be its author.
This completes a summary of conclusions, arrived at by eminent
Christian scholars of the more advanced school. Though they, or the
majority of them, would be the last to make any such admission, the
net result amounts practically to a surrender of the Christian dogmas.
§ 3. By Whom the "Higher Criticism" is Accepted.
These criticisms are, I repeat, the work not of anti-Christians,
but of Christians, who have devoted themselves to Biblical research,
and who are among the greatest living experts in that sphere of
knowledge. Canon Cheyne, one of the two editors of the Encyclopædia
Biblica, has now written a volume on Bible Problems and the New
Material for their Solution, in which he appeals to Churchmen and
scholars and all who are interested in Bible criticism for thoroughness
of investigation. There can be no doubt that there is a crying need for
this thorough investigation, which at present is being shirked. While
the main results arrived at by the Higher Criticism are, it is true,
largely accepted by enlightened divines, the usual policy so far has
been not to disseminate such knowledge. On this I shall have more to
say in the concluding chapter of this book.
Dr. Harnack in Germany, and M. Loisy in France, may be cited as types
of liberal theologians who proclaim their acceptance of the Higher
Criticism. They both detach Christianity from mere narrative, and
seek to appreciate it as a spiritual reality, which appeals to the
imagination, the emotions, and the soul. Dr. Harnack is the Professor
of Church History in the University of Berlin, and member of the Royal
Prussian Academy, and a book called What is Christianity? is an English
translation of sixteen lectures delivered by him in the University of
Berlin, 1899-1900. In this book the effort to prove that the Gospels
though unhistorical are yet historical, that Christianity though untrue
is yet true, is strongly in evidence to any impartial reader. Take his
remark on the "Miraculous Element" in Lecture II.; we find the same
kind of specious argument on which I have already animadverted in the
chapter on Miracles. He says: "Miracles, it is true, do not happen;
but of the marvellous and the inexplicable there is no lack--that the
earth in its course stood still, that a she-ass spoke, that a storm
was quieted by a word, [70] we do not believe, and we shall never again
believe; but that the lame walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard,
will not be so summarily dismissed as an illusion." Why? Because,
after all, these may have been accomplished by the operation of
a natural law with which we are as yet unacquainted! "Although the
order of Nature be inviolable, we are not yet by any means acquainted
with all the forces working in it and acting reciprocally with other
forces. Our acquaintance even with the forces inherent in matter,
and with the field of their action, is incomplete; while of psychic
forces we know very much less." He gives the whole situation away,
however, by making excuses for the Evangelists, such as "we know that
the Gospels come from a time in which the marvellous may be said to
have been something of almost daily occurrence," and "we now know
that eminent persons have not to wait until they have been long dead,
or even for several years, to have miracles reported of them; they
are reported at once, often the very next day." Again, speaking of
the first three Gospels, he says: "These Gospels are not, it is true,
historical works any more than the fourth; they were not written with
the simple object of giving the facts as they were; they were books
composed for the work of evangelisation." Such reasoning serves only
to confirm one's suspicions. Here is the unedifying spectacle of an
erudite scholar using his intellectual powers to make out a case for
a Faith built upon foundations which he has himself destroyed. We do
not wish to be told that there is a substratum of truth in the Gospel
narratives. The ordinary man feels strongly that the whole should
be true if it be God's Word. That this is, and always will be, the
common-sense view of mankind is proved by the fact that it is held
by the vast majority of the strictly orthodox, as well as by every
Agnostic and every cultured heathen.
M. Loisy writes in much the same strain as Dr. Harnack, and finds
adherents in both English and Roman Catholic Churches, as may be seen
from the correspondence in the Church Times during April, 1904.
In the Hibbert Journal (January, 1905) an Oxfordshire rector, the
Rev. C. J. Shebbeare, presents the same aspect of liberal theology by
means of various illustrations. He remarks: "It is evident that the
lesson taught by our new teachers must have an important bearing upon
popular religious conceptions and upon religious practice. Its chief
effect will be to deliver us from the error of identifying religion
with belief in the supernatural--an error of which it is not difficult
to see the pernicious consequences" (italics are mine). This is all
very well for those who can divest the Christian religion of its
supernatural element, and yet remain honest believers. To my mind,
this is simply non-Christian Theism, and the Theistic Church, Swallow
Street, is the place where such persons should perform their devotions.
I crave the reader's patience while I give one more example of
advanced apologetics. The Rev. Arthur Moorhouse, M.A., B.D., Tutor in
Old Testament Languages and Literature at Didsbury College, offers,
in a lecture [71] delivered at Manchester on "The Inspiration of the
Old Testament," "an unhesitating and emphatic denial" to the statement
that there is any "untruth in the Old Testament." Yet he tells us that
"the early chapters of Genesis are not historical in our modern and
scientific sense," and asks us to remember that, "in the nature of
things, it could not be history, for it deals with facts which are,
of necessity, prehistoric"! Such pitiful shifts and evasions seem
to many of us wholly unworthy of earnest men. "Our fathers," says
Mr. Moorhouse, "may have thought that this was history miraculously
dictated, but the Bible does not say so." No, and the Bible does not
say that it is speaking the truth, but "our fathers" were simple-minded
enough to forget that such a guarantee was necessary on the part of
a book which they, like Mr. Moorhouse, believed to be the inspired
Word of God.
§ 4. Admissions by Orthodox Apologists.
I cannot conclude this review of Bible criticism without an allusion to
the opinions of those theologians who agree with the "Higher Critics"
to an extent far exceeding anything the pious layman suspects. I
shall omit, as being too advanced, the views of Dr. Driver, given in
his "Genesis," or of Canon Henson, as expressed in the Contemporary
Review and in his book, The Value of the Bible and Other Sermons,
or of Archdeacon Wilson, shown in his various interesting books
and pamphlets; and will confine myself to comparatively conservative
theology. I select, as representative of this type, The Divine Library
of the Old Testament, by Dr. A. F. Kirkpatrick (Master of Selwyn
College, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge,
and Canon of Ely Cathedral), and The Study of the Gospels, being a
"Handbook for the Clergy," by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson (Dean of
Westminster).
In the former, which is among the books selected by the Christian
Evidence Society for their Examination in March, 1907, we read: "The
lectures do not attempt to deal with many of the graver questions
which are being raised as to the Old Testament." But it is just
the more difficult questions, such as those examined with such
destructive effect by the Higher Criticism, which specially require
to be answered. Why are they neglected? The author goes on to confess
that "the books were constructed out of earlier narratives; some were
formed by the union of previous collections of poetry or prophecies;
some betray marks of a reviser's hand; and even books which bear the
names of well-known authors in some cases contain matter which must be
attributed to other writers." Also we find the following significant
admissions. Referring to the important last twenty-seven chapters
of Isaiah, he accepts Dr. Driver's criticisms, and says: "I do not
see how we can resist the conclusion that these chapters were not
written by Isaiah, but by an unknown prophet towards the close of the
Babylonian Exile"; and he owns that "it will inevitably seem to many
students of the Bible that, in assigning the prophecy to a date so
near to the events which it foretells, we are detracting from its truly
predictive character and diminishing its value." However, he considers
that "Isaiah is great enough to share his glory with this disciple,
in whom, being dead, he yet spoke; and, paradox as it may seem, the
truly prophetic character of the work gains by being referred to the
time of the Exile." By what process of reasoning he arrives at this
astonishing conclusion it is exceedingly difficult to comprehend.
Further admissions by Dr. Kirkpatrick must be noticed more
briefly. They are: "The first chapter of Genesis is not, as we now
know, a scientifically exact account of Creation." "The account of
the Fall is, it may be, an allegory rather than a history in the
strict sense of the term." "The Deluge was not universal in the sense
that the waters covered the whole surface of the entire globe." "The
Psalms, like the Proverbs, have a long literary history. They are
poems by different authors, and David may be one of them." "Modern
criticism claims, and claims with justice, that the Hexateuch, like
so many of the other books, is composite in its origin, and has a
long literary history." "That the Pentateuch was entirely written by
Moses is merely a Jewish tradition, which passed into the Christian
Church and was commonly accepted until modern times. [Yet how much
hangs upon the trustworthiness of this same Jewish tradition, and
how much else may not the Church have wrongfully accepted?] Some
of the variations of the LXX. [72] from the Hebrew text are due,
no doubt, to errors and interpolations and deliberate alterations;
but after all allowance has been made for these, I do not see how any
candid critic can resist the conclusion that many of them represent
variations existing in the Hebrew text from which the translation
was made." "It was probably at the very beginning of this period
[from the Fall of Jerusalem to the end of the fifth century], towards
the close of the first century a.d., that the final settlement of
an authoritative text took place.... How came it that all the copies
containing other readings have disappeared?... Copies differing from it
[the standard text] would die out or be deliberately destroyed." "The
oldest Hebrew MS. in existence of which the date is known was written
in 916 A.D.--i.e., separated by more than a thousand years from the
latest of the works included in the Canon."
Finally, the following crucial questions are offered (pp. 88-9) and
left unanswered: "In what sense, it is asked, can this legislation,
which is now said to be Mosaic in elemental germ and idea only,
and to represent not the inspired deliverance of a supremely great
individual, but the painful efforts of many generations of law-makers;
these histories which have been compiled from primitive traditions,
and chronicles, and annals, and what not; these books of prophecy
which are not the authentic autographs of the prophets, but posthumous
collections of such writings (if any) as they left behind them,
eked out by the recollections of their disciples; these Proverbs
and Psalms which have been handed down by tradition and altered and
edited and re-edited; these histories which contain errors of date
and fact, and have been, perhaps, 'idealised' by the reflection of the
circumstances and ideas of the writer's own times upon a distant past;
these seeming narratives which may be allegories; and these would-be
prophecies which may be histories; in what sense can these be said
to be inspired? The problems raised are grave." My own thoughts,
and the thoughts of many like myself, are here candidly expressed. I
have nothing to add, and can only echo this learned divine's solemn
words--the problems raised are grave!
Turning now to the Study of the Gospels, we learn from Dr. Robinson as
follows: There is no proof that St. Matthew is the author of the first
Gospel. He is unable to fix the date himself, but quotes Dr. Harnack,
who says "probably 70-75," and who also adds the important reservation,
"except certain later additions." St. Mark's authorship, he thinks, is
practically certain, and the year 65 is the probable date. "It is," he
says, "exceedingly probable that St. Peter would not write or preach,
even if he could speak at all, in any language but his mother tongue,
the Aramaic of Galilee, a local dialect akin to Hebrew. When he wrote
or preached to Greek-speaking people, he would use Mark or some other
disciple as his interpreter." What, then, may I ask, had become of the
"gifts at Pentecost"?
St. Luke is, according to Dr. Robinson, the fellow-traveller of
St. Paul, and the date of his Gospel shortly after 70. Regarding
St. John's, we are informed that Dr. Harnack fixes the date between
80 and 110, and thinks that it was written by another person of the
same name--John the presbyter, or elder, of Ephesus. Dr. Robinson,
however, in a chapter he devotes to the subject of the fourth Gospel,
attempts to show its apostolic authorship.
Dr. Robinson admits that the authorship of all four Gospels is
doubtful, but thinks that, regarding the second Gospel, we may accept
the second-century tradition that it was written by St. Mark, and that
St. Mark was the "interpreter" of St. Peter and wrote the Gospel in
Rome from information derived from that Apostle. Very good; let us
accept this conclusion. We have it, then, that one of the Gospels
is from the mouth of an eye-witness. This eye-witness, however,
was, after all, an eye-witness of only one year (or, according to
conservative criticism, three years) of Christ's life; he was an
illiterate person, and the information he imparted after thirty or
forty years had to be written down by another person in another
language, and there is no telling how faithful or unfaithful the
translation may have been. Besides, as Dr. Robinson points out in
his chapters on "The Great Sermon" and "The Non-Marcan Document,"
there are very important omissions in St. Mark's Gospel. Referring to
a supposed source for the information furnished by other evangelists,
but omitted by St. Mark, he says: "You may gain some general idea
of the scope of this document (the Non-Marcan [73]) by underlining
in St. Luke's Gospel all those portions which are to be found in
St. Matthew, but are not to be found in St. Mark."
Now, what are these omissions in St. Mark? Are they trivial? Let us
judge for ourselves by taking a few selections. There is no mention
whatever of the story of Christ's miraculous birth, nor of the
other incidents of His childhood which are said to be in fulfilment
of prophecy, and there is no mention of the great Sermon on the
Mount. The story of the Resurrection is told in a few sentences,
and the Ascension in one sentence. Unfortunately, too, these very
sentences are admittedly interpolations, and St. Mark really ends
at xvi. 8. [74] So there is no account of either the Incarnation,
Resurrection, or Ascension, and we are left with oral traditions,
"lost" documents, and unknown copyists, as the only source from which
to obtain any detailed information concerning the very groundwork of
our Creed! Could anything be more unsatisfactory, more calculated to
arouse suspicion of the "Christian Verities"--the Gospel truths? I am
completely at a loss to understand how the Bishop of Gloucester [75]
can say that the "Higher Criticism" has been a "gain to the Church,"
or the Bishop of London1 that "the New Testament stands ten times
as strong as it did fifty years ago." It would seem to be a case of
"where ignorance is bliss," etc., or else of the wish being father
to the thought.
There is much more that I should wish to call attention to, did space
permit, but I have now, I think, given some insight into modern Bible
criticism, and the extent to which it is accepted by Christians. It
only remains, in conclusion, to ask for earnest thought on this new
aspect of "the Word of God." In doing so the following additional
considerations may be borne in mind.
§ 5. Some Remaining Difficulties.
WE MUST ACCEPT THE WHOLE OR REJECT THE WHOLE.
The orthodox and traditional view of the Old Testament is preserved
in the unrepealed "Blasphemy Act," 9 and 10, William III., cap. 32,
which enacts that any person who shall deny the "Holy Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament" to be of "divine authority" shall be
incapable of holding any public office or employment, and shall, on
a second conviction, also suffer imprisonment for a space of three
years. The Vatican Council of 1870, "speaking under the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost," declared that the books of the Old and New Testament
"have God for their author, and, as such, have been delivered to
the Church." The Council, therefore, ordained that the man should
be anathema who refused "to receive, for sacred and canonical, the
books of the Holy Scripture in their integrity, with all their parts."
Dr. Bayley expressed the opinion of his day when he wrote [76]:
"The Bible cannot be less than verbally inspired. Every word, every
syllable, every letter, is just what it would be had God spoken from
heaven without any human intervention. Every scientific statement is
infallibly correct; all its history and narratives of every kind are
without any inaccuracy."
Listen, again, to the words of a well-known divine of our own
Church, spoken but yesterday: "The whole of the teaching of the New
Testament is based upon the supposition that God made a covenant with
Abraham." [77] "You have our Lord Jesus Christ building His whole life
on the Scriptures, and submitting to death in obedience to them." [78]
This is the strictly orthodox opinion, and it is consistent with
Christian doctrine. Yet, for obvious reasons, the Old Testament is now
regarded as an incubus by an increasing number of earnest Christians.
In the New Testament there are many cruel sayings attributed to
Jesus. Only the few are to be saved from the eternal torments
of the damned (St. Matt. xiii. 10-13, xxii. 14, xxv. 41; St. Mark
iv. 11-12, xvi. 16, etc.). Happily, owing to the rise of Rationalism
and the consequent subjection of the Bible to criticism, the dogma
of eternal torment is disputed on all sides, and the Athanasian
Creed will soon no longer be forced upon us. The principle of the
"chosen few" is so clearly Christ's teaching, and furnishes such
a convenient explanation for the attitude of the many, that it is
commonly adhered to; but liberal theologians no longer hold that "he
that believeth not shall be damned," or that the punishment of the
sinner is to be excruciating torture for all eternity. Unbelievers and
sinners may all ultimately be saved, or at the worst their existence
will end with this life. Good, very good; such views appeal to us
as being more humane and rational; but are they compatible with the
truth of the Bible? Mark the words of the late Bishop of Manchester:
"The very foundation of our Faith, the very basis of our hopes, are
taken from us when one line of that sacred volume, on which we base
everything, is declared to be untruthful and untrustworthy." Thus it
is that there are many who would still retain the inhuman doctrines
ascribed to the Master. Fearful of losing the basis of their hopes,
and unconscious, apparently, of their sublime egoism, they reason,
and reason with logic: We must accept the whole or reject the whole.
SILENCE OF HISTORIANS.
That the Bible should be open to criticism at all seems to me
inconceivable if it really be God's gift to mankind. How could God,
having determined after æons of time to make a definite revelation of
Himself to His human creatures, permit the account of this revelation
to be handed down in such a haphazard fashion that future generations
cannot be sure that they possess a reliable record? This, too, when a
trustworthy record was the more essential on account of the miraculous
nature of the narrative. As Professor Schmiedel remarks, the meagreness
of the historical testimony regarding Jesus, whether in canonical
writings outside of the Gospels or in profane writers such as Josephus,
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, is most pronounced. Not a single
passage can be produced from the writings of the great historians
and philosophers who flourished between A.D. 40 and A.D. 140 which
makes the slightest allusion to the astounding phenomena connected
with the birth, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth.
It was at one time claimed that Josephus spoke of Jesus. That this
has been given up by theologians may be verified by a reference
to Canon Farrar's Life of Christ, vol. i., p. 63 (and p. 31 of
the cheap edition), where we read that "The single passage in
which he (Josephus) alludes to Him is interpolated, if not wholly
spurious." There is also a disputed passage [79] in Tacitus, where
he speaks of Christians having "their denomination from Christus,
who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the
procurator, Pontius Pilate." And that is all! Could anything be more
disappointing than this must be to thoughtful Christians who wish to
establish the historical accuracy of the miraculous story of God's
life on earth? Eusebius (A.D. 315-340), the celebrated ecclesiastical
historian, is apparently reduced to appealing to a Pagan oracle for a
proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for he says to the heathen:
"But thou at least listen to thine own gods, to thy oracular deities
themselves, who have borne witness, and ascribed to our Saviour (Jesus
Christ) not imposture, but piety and wisdom, and ascent into heaven."
The silence of secular historians is accounted for, by certain divines,
by falling back on a theory of hostility or contempt. Thus Dean Farrar
thinks that Josephus's silence on the subject of Jesus and Christianity
was as deliberate as it was dishonest (see his Life of Christ, vol. i.,
p. 63). Except that this offers a much-needed explanation, I am not
cognisant of any reason for suspecting the famous secular historian,
although, of course, the untrustworthiness of the Christian historians
is notorious. Eusebius, for example, the gravest of the ecclesiastical
historians, confesses, with commendable frankness: "We have decided
to relate nothing concerning them [the early Christians] except the
things in which we can vindicate the divine judgment." [80]
With regard to the prodigy of the darkness, etc., that occurred at
the death of Jesus, Gibbon informs us as follows: "It happened during
the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced
the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the
prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded
all the great phenomena of Nature--earthquakes, meteors, comets,
and eclipses--which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But
the one and the other has omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon
to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the
globe." [81] Any attempt to explain this away by supposing that the
darkness of three hours was local only detracts from the magnitude
of the miracle, which was intended, by its very magnitude, to be one
of the proofs of the death of a God.
THOUGHTS ON "TRADITION" AS GOD'S METHOD FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF TRUTH
TO POSTERITY.
Have you ever, in the days of your early youth, played the game of
"gossip"? It is an amusing game, and also points a moral. A number
of persons put themselves in a long row, and the first will think
of some little incident, which he will carefully whisper to his
neighbour, who will then pass it on, and so on, and so on, till it
reaches the last person, who will proceed to repeat out loud the
story he has heard. The original story will then be divulged, and
much amusement is caused by the differences that are found between
the two stories. This illustration of what occurs in "gossip" came
back to my mind with much misgiving when I first heard how the story
of my Saviour's life on earth was handed down for a long period "by
tradition." Apparently, Christian theologians look quite complacently,
and without any misgiving, upon this process for the transmission of
the Christian verities; but, for myself, whether it were a century,
or whether it were only a matter of thirty or forty years, before the
final committal to writing, it was a heartrending discovery, and all
my confidence in the truth of the Bible story was shaken. My dismay
was not diminished when I learnt also that it was extremely doubtful
whether the authors were eye-witnesses of the events, or especially
inspired by God for their task; also, that there had been subsequent
interpolations by equally unknown and uninspired writers, who, to speak
plainly, were nothing more nor less than forgers, actuated, possibly,
by pious motives. That the writers of the Gospels were vouchsafed
any unusual facilities through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
is discredited by the remarks of the apologists themselves. Thus,
Dr. Robinson, in his book already referred to, alludes to St. Peter's
illiteracy, St. Mark's poor literary attainments, and the limitations
to which all the evangelists in ancient times were subjected.
We find ourselves asking the questions, "Did not God know that a time
would come when we should discover that nature's laws were not of the
fragile or elastic character which our forefathers had supposed? Did
He not know that we should therefore require absolute proof before
we could believe that they had been broken in a bygone and credulous
age?" Instead of this, the only proofs afforded us are copies of
documents concocted from hearsay--we are not sure when or by whom--and
from time to time fraudulently manipulated by interested though "pious"
forgers. Did He, in His Omniscience, purposely allow events to take
their course, and intend the story of His Son's life upon earth to be
handed down to us by the same unsatisfactory process as that of many
another ancient tradition now known to be historically worthless? If
ever special interference with the course of nature were necessary,
surely it would be here--a miracle to prove the miracle on which our
hopes are staked. Or, if this be asking too much, if it be argued that
it is no longer God's pleasure to break the laws which He has made,
and that He now accomplishes His purposes by means of these laws
only, how comes it that, for the safeguarding of this great truth,
the most ordinary precautions have been neglected?
We are often asked to consider the yearnings of man as a proof that
the thing yearned for is a reality. His yearnings, therefore, are not
a negligible quantity. Do not, then, the yearnings of millions of
Christians in the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches for miraculous
proofs of God's residence once upon earth count for something? Are
not all the "miraculous" relics and "wonder-working" ikons a proof
that man feels that God's revelation ought to be assured to us by the
continuance of miracles? In our own Church, Holman Hunt's painting
of "The Light of the World" is being sent round our colonies, to
strengthen people's belief in Jesus Christ. Why, oh why, have we
not the real picture of our Saviour, bringing our God nearer to us,
and enabling us to focus our thoughts on Him? I once mentioned my
feeling on this subject to a clergyman, a doctor of divinity, well
versed in Church history. He replied by suggesting that there was a
tradition which indicated that the true likeness of our Lord had been
miraculously transmitted, and that from this the great Italian painters
had caught their inspiration. [82] It seems hardly necessary to have
recourse to the supernatural when there were natural sources available
in the shape of representations of pagan gods. Thus Mercury, attired as
a shepherd, with a lamb upon his shoulders, was no infrequent object
in ancient art, and this has, in some cases, led to a difficulty
in distinguishing between Mercury and Jesus Christ. Similarly we
know that the pictures and sculptures wherein Isis is represented
in the act of suckling her child Horus formed the foundation for the
Christian figures and paintings of the Madonna and child.
THE ALLEGED SINLESSNESS OF JESUS CHRIST.
It may be urged that we have, what is of far more importance,
the picture of His character. Have we? The absolute sinlessness of
Christ is one of the chief proofs held out to us of His divinity. It
is described as being in itself a miracle so great that it furnishes
us with sufficient grounds for belief in other miracles. Many pious
and learned theists feel that the character of Christ as portrayed
in the Gospels betrays imperfections. But let this pass. What do we
know of His life? Let us assume that in the Gospel of St. Mark we are
put in possession of the impressions of an eye-witness. St. Peter's
personal knowledge of the private life of Jesus was confined to
his recollections concerning a beloved Master during the period
of His public ministry. And that ministry extended over one year,
or at most three years. Have not the disciples of great teachers in
the past invariably extolled the perfections of their masters? Have
they ever dwelt upon their imperfections? Has not the picture handed
down by tradition, and afterwards committed to writing, often been
that of a perfect man? That the writers of the Gospels recognised the
need for Christ to appear sinless, and adopted questionable methods
for their purpose, is only too evident. Dr. Robinson explains [83]
the disappearance from the other Gospels of St. Mark's references to
"anger," "grief," "groaning," "vehemence," etc., as being "the result
of a kind of reverence which belonged to a slightly later stage of
reflection, when certain traits might even seem derogatory to the
dignity of the sacred character." Comment is superfluous.
THE IGNORANCE OF JESUS CHRIST.
There is another difficulty of belief in the divinity of Christ,
which it is all the more essential to bring into prominence because
it usually receives but scant notice from the pulpit. I refer to the
"ignorance" of Jesus Christ. In a review of Le Réalisme Chrétien et
l'Idéalisme Grec, par L. Laberthonnière, the Church Times praises
the Abbé's conception of Christian realism, and then goes on to say:
"Here is found the key to the mystery of the ignorance of Jesus Christ,
and of the other limitations attributed to Him in the Gospels. There
are two untenable theories--the one that He deliberately kept things
back from His disciples; the other that He was Himself ignorant of
His own true nature, which afterwards became known to the Church. The
truth is that He had to reveal Himself by living among men, and not by
giving them an abstract doctrine about Himself--a doctrine which must
have been either inadequate because adjusted to their comprehension,
or else incomprehensible because adjusted to a reality which was
beyond them." The plain question, however, is--Had He, or had He not,
the attribute of Omniscience? Did He, or did He not, know what we now
know? Are we to suppose that He pretended to be ignorant? Was He God
or was He man? The usual answer is that, as Very Man, He had only the
knowledge of His age (or, should we not say, of the very restricted
environment selected by Himself for His activities upon earth?),
but that as Very God he performed miracles, taught spiritually, as
never man taught, and was sinless. This answer, however, would not
be accepted by the Venerable W. M. Sinclair, Archdeacon of London,
who conjectures that "when our Lord said, 'Greater works than these
shall ye do,' He was perhaps thinking of the marvellous discoveries
of surgeons and physicians in times of advanced science" [!]. [84]
Nor would it be accepted by the Rev. David Smith, who holds that
Jesus accommodated Himself to the popular idea, and "after His wont
fell in with the delusion" [!]. [85]
Surely an Omniscient God must have known that grave doubts would
arise in the future from the real or apparent ignorance of His Son,
and, vice versa, that any prescience shown by Him would be hailed
with delight as a proof of His divinity. If it be urged that such
trials of faith are useful, why should it be the thoughtful of future
generations who are chiefly to be so tried? If Christ had chosen His
disciples from among the "wise men of the East" (or West), instead
of from among men of the lowest order of intelligence and education,
there would then have been no necessity for the doctrine to "have
been either inadequate because adjusted to their comprehension,
or else incomprehensible because adjusted to a reality which was
beyond them." Only a very small and remote corner of the world was
favoured by the presence of God when revealing Himself in human form
for the benefit of mankind. Only the most ignorant, for the most
part, heard His personal teaching. Had He revealed Himself to all,
or to a far greater number of persons then living, and satisfied
the ardent longings of the wise men and philosophers of those times,
would this not have conduced to the rapid recognition of Christianity
and to its firm establishment over the whole world for all ages?
The tiny Sea of Galilee, the birthplace of the Gospel, is only
about twelve miles long and seven miles in its widest part, and
Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were all situated close together
at the northern end. Here Jesus made his permanent home after His
fellow-townsmen at Nazareth had rejected Him; here He preached,
and here He performed many mighty works. Not till I had visited the
spot did I fully realise the insignificance of the area to which
the Saviour of mankind confined His ministry. Round the lake stood
such important cities as Tiberias and Taricheæ. They were studiously
avoided by Jesus. (This would account, perhaps, for their great men
hearing nothing of the new teaching, though hardly for their hearing
nothing of stupendous miracles performed at their very door.) The
cities of the Decapolis were also flourishing in this neighbourhood at
the time of Christ's ministry, and were the centre of great literary
activity. Gadara produced Philodemus the Epicurean, a contemporary of
Cicero; Meleager the epigrammatist; Menippus the satirist; Theodorus
the rhetorician, the tutor of Tiberius; and others. Gerasa, also,
was a mother of great teachers. In the words of George Adam Smith:
"Philodemus, Meleager, Menippus, Theodorus, were names of which one
end of the Lake of Galilee was proud, when Matthew, Peter, James,
and John were working at the other end." [86] If it be argued that
for some inscrutable reason God sent His Son only to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel and intended His preaching to reach the Gentiles
through the medium of His chosen people, why was such a learned and
pious Jew as Philo left out in the cold?
Apologists do not explain at all convincingly why the Almighty
could not, or preferred not to, make Himself understood. If He
could say "Let there be light," He could also have said "Let
there be knowledge." Besides, after all, what is there in the
broad facts of modern science which could not be explained to an
intelligent savage to-day? The shape and movements of the earth are
explained in the most elementary geography books, and the theory of
Evolution can be made quite clear to comparative children (I speak
from personal experience). Recent discoveries have revealed to us
that ancient nations must have reached an extraordinarily high state
of civilisation. Six thousand years ago, in the valley of the Nile,
there existed a standard of civilisation incomparably higher than that
of the Jews at the time when God is alleged to have selected them as
His chosen people. "The Old Testament," says Canon C. H. Robinson, "is
the history of a people insignificant in number, occupying a country
about the same size as the county of Yorkshire; remarkable neither for
their superior learning, civilisation, nor military power; remarkable,
if for anything, for their obstinate, grasping, usurious character;
who, nevertheless, were chosen out of all the nations of the ancient
world to be the recipients of peculiar blessings and favours." [87]
This incomprehensible selection of ignorant Jews to be the special
recipients of Revelation only emphasises the contention that we have
no right to assume that learned men of two thousand years ago could
not have understood plain facts, or that it was necessary for them to
believe in purely imaginary explanations of the cosmos, in a flat,
stationary earth, in a blue-basin sky, in an "Adam and Eve" origin,
in devil-possession, in absurd miracles, etc. Their ignorance, which
was natural enough considering their opportunities, could easily
have been dispelled when God graciously condescended to come and live
among them. What a proof would that not have been of His Divinity!
In any case, we are to understand that the Apostles were inspired by
the Holy Ghost, so that they might be able to work miracles and be
witnesses unto Christ, even to the utmost parts of the earth. Surely,
then, they could and should have been enlightened for their
mission work up to the level, say, of some of our twentieth-century
theologians? The miracle of an intelligence and knowledge equal
to that of the average modern apologist is not, after all, so very
inconceivable, and it would, at least, have been more useful than
miracle-working in a miracle-believing age. Christians, who glibly
admit that Jesus had only the knowledge of His age, cannot, I think,
fully realise the force of such an admission. One reason for this
may be that their own knowledge is not completely up to date. That
Jesus had no knowledge of nature's inviolable laws and shared many of
the gross superstitions prevalent around Him; that He accepted the
Scriptures as literally true, and not in the sense now attributed
to them by the Higher Critics; that He believed that He would come
again "in the clouds of heaven with power and great might," and that
the generation in which He lived would not pass away till this had
been fulfilled--of all this they may be dimly conscious; but what
remain still to be studied by them are the startling disclosures of
Comparative Mythology, and of the now fully-established theory of
Evolution, and their bearing upon the Christian Faith. The matter
is one of the utmost importance, as will be seen by a perusal of the
following chapters.
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY