Critical Objections Tried

It remains only to consider more in detail some of the special objections which have been put forward against this doctrine in the name of criticism. It cannot be, indeed, demanded that every one urged should be examined and met, but it may be justly expected that the chief classes of relevant objections should be briefly touched upon. This, fortunately, is no illimitable task. There are, as already stated, two main presuppositions lying at the base of the doctrine, essential to its integrity, while to them it adds one essential supposition. The presuppositions are — 1. The possibility of supernatural interference, and the actual occurrence of that interference in the origin of our Bible; and, 2. The authenticity, genuineness and historical credibility of the records included in our Bible. The added supposition is — 3. The truth to fact of every statement in the Scriptures. No objection from the side of criticism is relevant unless it traverses some one of these three points. The traditional view of the age and authorship of a document or of the meaning of a statement may be traversed, and yet no conflict arise with the doctrine of a strict inspiration. But criticism cannot reach results incon- 4 sisteDt with the genuineness and authenticity of a document judged according to the professions of that document or the statements or implications of any other part of Scripture, or incompatible -with the truth of any passage in the sense of that passage arrived at by the correct applica tion of the sound principles of historico-grammatical exegesis, without thereby arraying herself in direct opposition to the Church doctrine of inspiration. All objections to that doctrine based on such asserted results -of criticism are undoubtedly relerantP Our duty is, therefore, to ask what results of criticism are claimed which traverse some one of the three assertions — of a supernatural origin for the Scriptures, of genuineness and authenticity for its books, and of absolute freedom from error of its statements.

1. The Authenticity and Integrity of thb Books of the Old and New Testaments, AS they have come down to us. The first point for us to examine would naturally be the bearing upon the Church doctrine of inspiration of the various modern critical theories concerning the origin and present integrity of the several books of the Old and Ne Testaments. This is at present the most moment ouy question which agitates the believing world. The critical examination of all the most intimate phenomena of the text of Scripture is an obvious duty, and its results, when humility, docility and spiritual insight are added to competent learning and broad intelligence, must be eminently beneficial. It is obvious, however, that this department of the subject could not be adequately discussed in this paper. It is consequently postponed to the near future, when it is intended that the whole subject shall be presented as fully as possible.

In the mean time, the present writers, while they admit freely that the traditional belief as to the dates and origin of the several books may be brought into question without involving any doubt as to their inspiration, yet confidently affirm that any theories of the origin or authorship of any book of either Testament which ascribe to them a purely naturalistic genesis, or dates or authors inconsistent with either their own natural claims or the assertions of other Scripture, are plainly inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration taught by the Church. Nor have they any embarrassment in the face of these theories, seeing that they believe them to rest on no better basis than an over-acute criticism overreaching itself and building on fancies. Here they must content themselvea with reference to the various critical discussions of these theories which have poured from the press for detailed refutation of them. With this refutation in mind they simply assert their conviction that none of the claims or assertions of the Scriptures as to the authenticity of a single book of either Testament has hitherto been disproved.

II. Detailed Accuracy of Statement.

We are next confronted with objections meant to traverse the third of our preliminary statements, consisting of bold assertions that, whatever may have been their origin, our Scriptures do exhibit phenomena of inaccuracy, that mistakes are found in them, errors committed by them, untrue statements ventured. Nor is this charge put forward only by opponents of revelation: a Van Oosterzee, as well as “a Tholuck, a Neander, a Lange, a Stier,” admits “errors and inaccuracies in matters of subordinate importance.” * It is plain, however, that if the Scriptures do fail in truth in their statements of whatever kind, the doctrine of inspiration which has been defended in this paper cannot stand. But so long as the principles of historico- * See Yan Oosterzee’s Dogr-iatics, p. 205.

grammatical exegesis are relied on to determine the meaning of Scripture, it is impossible to escape the fact that the Bible claims to be thus inspired. And thus it is not a rare thing to find the very theologians who themselves cannot believe in a strict inspiration yet admitting that the Scripture writers believed in it * We cannot, therefore, occupy the ground on which these great and worthy men seem to us so precariously to stand. A proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration in making those claims. It is therefore of vital importance to ask. Can phenomena of error and untruth be pointed out?

There is certainly no dearth of “instances” * Thus Tholuck: “Yet his [the author of Hebrews] application of the Old Testament rests on the strictest view of inspiration, since passages where God is not the speaker are cited as words of God or of the Holy Ghost (i. 6, 7, 8; iv. 4, 7; vii. 21; iii. 7; x. 15).” — OW Tesiorment in the New, in Bibliotheca Sacra xi. p. 612. So also Richard Rothe: “It is clear, then, that the orthodox theory [i. e. the very strictest] of inspiration is countenanced by the authors of the New Testament.” So also Canon Farrar: “He [Paul] shared, doubtless, in the views of the later Jewish schools — the Tanainr and Amoraim — on the nature of inspiration. These views... made the words of Scripture coextensive and identical witbthe words of God.” — Life of Paul, ii. p. 47. 4« confidently put forward. But it is abundantly plain that the vast majority of them are irrelevant. We must begin any discussion of them, therefore, by reasserting certain simple propositions, the result of which will be to clear the ground of all irrelevant objections. It is to be remembered, then, that — 1. We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text, was inspired. No “error” can be asserted, therefore, which cannot be proved to have been aboriginal in the text. 2. We do not deny an everywhere-present human element in the Scriptures. No mark of the effect of this human element, therefore — in style of thought or wording — can be urged against inspiration unless it can be shown to result in untruth. 3. We do not erect inspiration into an end, but hold it to be simply a means to an end — viz. the accurate conveyance of truth. No objection, therefore, is valid against the form in which the truth is expressed, so long as it is admitted that that form conveys the truth. 4. We do not suppose that inspiration made a writer false to his professed purpose, but rather that it kept him infallibly true to it. No objection is valid, therefore, which overlooks the prime question: What was the professed or implied purpose of the writer in making this statement? These few simple and very obvious remarks stt aside the vast majority of the customary objections. The first throws out of court numbers of inaccuracies in the Old and New Testaments as either certainly or probably not parts of the original text, and therefore not fit evidence in the case. The second performs the same service for a still greater number, which amount simply to the discovery of individual traits, modes of thought or expression, or forms of argumentation in the writings of the several authoi-s of the biblical books. The third sets aside a vast multitude, drawn from pressure of language, misreading of figures, resurrection of the primary sense of idioms, etc., in utter forgetfulness of the fact that no one claims that inspiration secured the use of good Greek in Attic severity of taste, free from the exaggerations and looseness of current speech, but only that it secured the accurate expression of truth, even (if you will) through the medium of the worst Greek a fisherman of Galilee could write and the most startling figures of speech a peasant could invent. Exegesis must be historical as well as grammatical, and must always seek the meaning intended, not anymeaning that can be tortured out of a passage. The fourth in like manner destroys the force of every objection which is tacitly founded on the idea that partial and incomplete stalemente cannot be inspired, no documents can be quoted except verbatim, do conversations reported unless at length, etc., and which thus denies the right of another to speak to the present purpose only, appeal to the sense, not wording of a document, give abstracts of discourses, and apply, by a

true exegesis, the words of a previous writer to the present need. The sum of the whole matter is simply this: No phenomenon can be validly urged against verbal inspiration which, found out of Scripture, would not be a valid argument against the truth of the writing. Inspiration securing no more than this — truth, simple truth — no phenomenon can be urged against verbal inspiration which cannot be proved to involve an indisputable error. jn

It is not to be denied that such phenomena are asserted to be discoverable in the Scriptures. Is the assertion capable of being supported by facts? That is the only question now before us. And it thus becomes our duty to examine some samples of the chief classes of facts usually appealed to. These samples — which will, moreover, all be chosen from the New Testament, and all at the suggestion of opponents — must serve our present needs. niiTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL ACCURACY.

1. It is asserted that the Scripture writers are inaccurate in their statements of historical and geographical facts, as exhibited by the divergence existing between their statements and the information we derive from other sources, such as profane writers and monuments. When we ask for the proofs of this assertion, however, they are found to be very difficult to produce. A generation or two ago this was not so much the case; but the progress of our knowledge of the times and the geography of the region in which our sacred books were written has been gradually wiping out the “proofs “one by one, until they are at this day non-existent. The chief (and almost the only) historical errors still asserted to oxist in the New Testament are — the” fifteenth year of Tiberius” of Luke iii. 1; the enrollment during Cyrenias’s governorship of Luke ii. 2; and the revolt of Theudas of Acts v. 36. It is not denied that these statements present difficulties, but it is humbly suggested that that is hardly synonymous with sajdng that they aie proved mistakes. Ij Herod died in the spring of A. U. c. 750 (which seems wellnigh certain), and if, in Luke iii. 23, the “about” be deemed not broad enough to cover two years (which is fairly probable), and if Luke iii. 1 means to date John’s first appearance (as again seems probable), and if no more than six months intervened between John’s and Jesus’ public appearance (which, still again, seems probable), — then it is admitted that the “fifteenth year of Tiberius “must be a mistake — -provided that, still further, we must count his years from the beginning,,’ of his sole reign, and not from his co-reguaucy with Augustus; in favor of which latter mode of counting much, has been, and more can be, urged. Surely this is not a very clear case of indubitable error, with its five ifs staring us in the face. Again, if the Theudas mentioned in Acts is necessarily the same as the Theudas mentioned by Josephus, then Luke and Josephus do seem to be in disaccord as to the time of his revolt; and if Josephus can be shown to be, in general, a more accurate historian than Luke, then his account must be preferred. But neither of these ifs is true. Josephus is the less accurate historian, as is easily proved; and there are good reasons — convincing to a critic like Winer and a Jew like Jost, neither certainly afiected by apologetical bias — to suppose that Acts and Josephus mention different revolts. Where, then, is the contradiction? The greatest reliance is, however, placed on the third case adduced — the statement of Luke that Jesus was born at the time of a world-enrollment which was carried out in Syria during the governorship of Cy renins. Weiss* offers three reasons why Luke is certainly incorrect here, which Schurerf increases to five facts — viz.: 1. History knows nothing of a general empirecensus in the time of Augustus; 2. A Roman census would not force Joseph to go to Bethlehem, nor Mary to go with him; 3. Nor could it have taken place in Palestine in the time of Herod; 4. Josephus knows nothing of such a census, but, on the contrary, speaks of that of Acts V. 37 as something new and unheard of; and, 5. Quirinius was not governor of Syria during Herod’s life. This has a formidable look, but each detail has been more than fully met. Thus, Objection 1 turns wholly upon an argumentum e silentio, always precarious enough, and here quadruply so, seeing that (1) an empirecensus is just such a thing as Roman historians would be likely to omit all mention of, just as Spatian fails to mention in his life of Hadrian the famous rescript of that monarch, and all contemporary history is silent as to Augustus’s geometrical survey; (2) “We have no detailed

* Meyer’s Markus und Lukas, p. 286 (ed. 6). t N. T. ZeiigesckicJUe, pp. 268-286. contemporary history of this time, the inaccurate and gossipiug Suetonius and Josephus being our only sources of information; (3) Certain oft-quoted passages in Tacitus and Suetonius acquaint us with facts which absolutely require such a census at their base; and (4) We have direct, though not contemporary, historical proof that such a census was taken, in statements of Cassiodorus and Suidas. Objection 2 gains all its apparent force from a confusio verborum. Luke does not represent this as a Roman census in the sense that it was taken up after Roman methods, but only in the sense that it was ordered ultimately by Roman authority. Nor does he represent Mary as being forced to go to Bethlehem with Joseph; her own choice, doubtless, determined her journey. The same confusio verborum follows us into Objection 3. It may be improbable that Herod should have been so far set aside that a census should have been taken up in his dominions after Roman methods and by Roman officials; but is it so improbable that he should be ordered to take himself a census after his own methods and by his own officials? Josephus can give us the answer.* Whatever may have been Herod’s official title, whether rex

* Cf. Ant, XV. 10, 4; xvi. 2, 5; 4, 1; 9, 3; xvii. 2, 1; 2, 4; 5, 8; 11, 4, etc., for Herod’s status. aocius or, as seems more probable (one stage lower), rex amicus Ccesaris, it is certuin that he felt bound to bow to the emperor’s every whisper; so that if Augustus desired statistics as to the regna (and Tacitus proves he did), Herod would be forced to furnish them for his regnum. Objection 4 again is easily laid: Josephus not only mentions nothing he could escape which exhibited Jewish subjection, but actually passes over the decade 750-760 so slightly that he can hardly be said to have left us a history of that time. That he speaks of the later census of Acts V. 37 as something new is most natural, seeing that it was, as carried on by the Roman officials and after Roman methods, not only absolutely new, and a most important event in itself, but, moreover, was fraught with such historical consequences that it could not be passed over in silence. Objection 5 is the most important and difficult, but not, therefore, insuperable. It states, indeed, a truth: Quirinius was not governor of Syria until after Herod’s death. But it must be noted, on the one hand, that Zumpt has proved, almost, if not quite, to demonstration, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the first time beginning within six months after Herod’s death; and, on the other, that Luke does not say that Christ was born while Cyre- 60 IXSPURATION.

uius was governor of Syria. What Luke says is» that Christ was born during the progress of a census, and then defines the census as the first which was carried on when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. If this census was begun under Varus and finished under Quiriuius, Christ may have been born, according to Luke, at any time during the progress of this census. This, because Luke ii. 2 is not given to define the time of Christ’s birth, but more narrowly to describe what census it was which had in verse 1 been used to define the time of Christ’s birth.* Thus, doubtless, it is true that Christ was born under Varus, and yet during the course of the first Quirinian census; and thus Schiirer’s fifth objection goes the way of all the others.

The wonderful accuracy of the New-Testa-

* Take an example: If one should say of any event, that it occurred during our war with Great Britain, and then add, “I mean that war wherein Jackson fought,” would he necessarily refer to an event late in the war, after Jackson came to the front? Not so, because the war alone defines the time of the event, and Jackson onlj which war. So in Luke the census alone defines the time of Christ’s birth, and Quirinius only which census. It ought to be added that there are at least three other mpithods of explaining Luke’s words, all possible, and none very improbable, on the supposition of any one of which conflict with history is impossible. merit writers in all, even the minute and incidental, details of their historical notices cannot, however, be made even faintly apparent by a simple answering of objections. Some sort of glance over the field as a whole is necessary to any appreciation of it. There occur in the New Testament some thirty names — emperors, members of the family of Herod, high priests, rabbis, Roman governors, princes, Jewish leaders — some mention of which might be looked for in contemporary history or on contemporary monuments.* All but two of these — and they the insignificant Jewish rebels Theudas and Barabbas — are actually mentioned; and the New-Testament notices are found, on comparison, to be absolutely accurate in every, even the most minute, detail. Every one of their statements has not, indeed, passed without challenge,

♦These are: Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius — Herod Antipas, the two Philips, Archelaus, Agrippa L, Agrippa II., Herodias, Herodias’ daughter, Bernice, Drusilla — Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias — Gamaliel — Quirinius, Pilate, Felix, Festus, Gallic, Sergius Paulus — Aretas (Candace), Lysanias — [Theudas], Judas of Galilee [Barabbas]. Candace seems to represent a hereditary title, not a personal name; Theudas and Barabbas are not named in profane sources. Cf. the (incomplete) list and fine remarks of Rawlinson {Hist. Evidences, Boston, 1873, p. 195 sq.).

6ut challenge has always meant triumphant vindication. Some examples of what is here meant have been given already; others may be added in a note for their instructiveness,* Now, the period of which these writers treat is absolutely the most difficult historical period in which to be accurate that the world has ever seen. Nothing was fixed or stable; vacillation, change, was everywhere. The province which was senatorial to-day was imperial to-morrow — the boundaries that were fixed to-day were altered to-morrow. That these writers were thus accuriate in a period and land wherein Tacitus failed to attain complete accuracy means much.

We reach the same conclusion if we ask after * It Wcos long boldlj asserted that Luke was in error in making Lysanias a contemporary tetrareh with the Herodian rulers. But it is now admitted that Josephus mentions an earlier and a later Lysanias, and so corroborates Luke; and inscriptions also have been brought forward which supervindicate Luke’s accuracy, so that even M. Kenan admits it. Again, it was long contended that Luke had inaccurately assigned a proconsul to Cyprus; but this was soon set aside by a reference to Cyprian coins of Claudius’s time and to Dion Cassius, liv. 4; and now Mr. Cesnola publishes an inscription which mentions the veritable proconsul Paulus whom Luke mentioned {Cyprus, p. 425). So with reference to the titles of the rulers of Achaia, Philippi, Ephesus, etc (See in general Lee on Inspiration, p. 364, note 2.) their geographical accuracy. In no single case have they slipped here, either; and what this means may be estimated by noting what a mass of geographical detail has been given us * Between forty and fifty names of countries ‘can be counted in the Kew-Testaraent pages; every one is accurately named and placed. About the same number of foreign cities are named, and all equally accurately. Still more to the purpose, thirty-six Syrian and Palestinian towns are named, the great majority of which have been identified,! and wherever testing is possible

* Compare the efibrts of a real forger with the accuracy of these autoptic writers — e. g. of Prochorus, as given in Zahn’s Acta Joannis, p. Hi. Only nine real places can be found in a long list of geographical names invented for the need. Thus, to the little Patmos a number of cities and villages is ascribed which would require a Sicily or Cyprus to furnish ground to stand on.

t These names are: non, *Antipatris, f Arimathea, *Azotus, *Bethany, fBethany beyond Jordan, *Bethlehem, llBethphage, gBethsaida, gCana, Capernaum, ^Csesarea, -Cssarea Philippi, *Chorazin, IJDalmanutha, *Damascus, tEmmaus, *Ephraim, Gadara, *Gaza, gGerasa, *Jericho, Jerusalem, *Joppa, fJouda, fKerioth, *Lydda, *Magdala, *Nain, Nazareth, Salim, *Seleucia, *Sychar, Tiberias, *Tyre. Those marked are pretty certainly identified; those f, with great probability; those §, with a choice between the two places; and those ||, as to their neighborhood. There are, besides, some names 6* the most minute accuracy emerges. Whether due to inspiration or not, this unvarying accuracy of statement is certainly consistent with the strictest doctrine of inspiration.