Preface

This book is an exposure of a false system of Biblical Criticism, by which ‘’ the Higher Criticism “has been discredited and almost supplanted. And Professor Driver’s “Book of Genesis,” which has appeared since the following pages were written, may serve to illustrate the distinction here intended.

The first section of the Introduction to that book contains an analysis of the text of Genesis; the two following sections are mainly a presentation of the opinions and theories and dicta of foreign scholars who treat the Bible on Rationalistic principles. The one is an interesting and valuable study in Higher Criticism; to describe the other sections by that title is a mere misuse of words.

The influence of the Rationalists appears not only in the general drift of Canon Driver’s treatise, but in many of its specific statements. To take an instance at random, he writes: —

“We have found that, while there is no sufficient reason for doubting the existence and general historical character of the biographies of the patriarchs, nevertheless much uncertainty must be allowed to attach to details of the narrative “; which means that though the Rationalists have failed to discover any grounds for challenging the truth of the narrative, the Christian has no sufficient warrant for accepting it. Or, to state the matter tersely, there are no grounds for concluding that the Genesis narrative is not true; but in the absence of corroboration from pagan sources, we must not assume its truth. For the testimony of the Bible must never be accorded any higher value than is allovsed to the evidence of “informers” in our courts of justice; and therefore ve are naturally on the alert to find “sufficient reason for doubting it “!

This sort of criticism is gratifying to the Rationalist; but a Christian naturally shrinks from it. And so, in the concluding section of his Introduction, Dr. Driver goes on to formulate the utterly unintelligent and wholly untenable compromise, in which writers of his school take refuge from the obvious consequences of their teaching. Although, according to the writers whose views he adopts,^ Genesis is mainly a compilation of myths and legends, traceable ultimately to pagan sources, he earnestly insists upon “the inspiration of its authors.” This may satisfy a scholar among his books, but it will not do with sensible men of the world. Such men care nothing for controversial subtleties about the inspiration of Scripture, but they will rightly hold that if inspiration be not a guarantee of truth, it may be classed with the superstitions of religion.

Professor Driver’s note on the Cosmogony (pp. 19- 33) is typical of the ‘’ Critical” methods. He proves clearly that Genesis i. may be construed in such a way as to discredit it. People who frequent the law courts know well that this is true of all testimony, no matter

Views, not one of which has originated in this country, our English scholars merely “edit” them in such a way as to make them palatable to Christian readers,

‘P. lxix /. See pp. 87, 88.

PREFACE t

how unimpeachable it may be. But, in contrast with the ways of the ‘’ Critics,” an impartial tribunal always seeks to put a favourable construction upon the statements of a witness of good repute.

To take a single illustrative instance, Professor Driver reads into the chapter the figment of “the creation of the sun, moon, and stars after the earth” (p. 24); whereas nothing whatever is said about the “creation” of the heavenly bodies, save as they are included in the first verse. The word used in verse 16 is of the broadest meaning and widest application, and is never translated by “create” in the English Bible. Of course it is easy in this way to make Genesis clash with science.

The ‘’ narrative,” he avers, “possesses no claim to contain a scientific account of the origin of the world.” vBut the suggestion that in a Revelation intended for all kinds of men in every age God would inspire a “scientific account of the origin of the world,” is nearly as grotesque as the other suggestion which’ Professor Driver elaborates, that He would inspire a whitewashed version of the “creation epic” of Babylon.

The question is not whether the Cosmogony teaches science, which no one asserts; but whether it is discredited by science, which no one has proved. And not even the testimony of such a scientist as Dana in its defence will weigh as much with men of the world, as the fact that such a scientist as Huxley entered the lists to prove it in error and failed.^

The order of the events recorded in Genesis i. could be stated in some four or five thousand different ways.

See p. 23,

[And the fact that the order as given is not inconsistent with the science of our own age, points unmistakably to the conclusion at which Professor Driver arrives, i that it was written by Divine inspiration. The alternative supposition would be that thousands of years ago the Hebrews were abreast of what we call “modern science.”

The Pseudo-Criticism has won its way chiefly because its exponents have been allowed to warn off all who are not philological experts. In the following pages the reader will find proof that these questions are no preserves of the book scholar; that in dealing with them common-sense and acquaintance with the science of evidence are of primary importance; and that, therefore, educated “men of affairs” are better fitted to decide what are the “assured results of modern Criticism” than the pundits and the professors.

The Critics, moreover, seem to think that superstition is the monopoly of those who refuse to accept those “results.” But in discrediting the Bible, superstition becomes their only refuge from Rationalism. And the denial of the Virgin Birth, and of other transcendental truths of Christianity, shows how the current is setting at this moment. Are we in England prepared to follow the lead of Germany in this respect?

The fact is that the Critics are so engrossed with what may be called the surface difficulties of Bible study, that they overlook difficulties of a far graver kind; difficulties which bring all fearless thinkers to the parting of the ways, compelling them to make choice between accepting the Bible as a Divine revelation, or giving up belief in Christianity. The difficulties which the Critics deal in have their counterpart in the sphere of God’s moral government of the world — they are a part of the discipline of the life of faith: the deeper difficulties which the Critics ignore have no parallel in the natural sphere.

The author’s former book on this subject is addressed to Bible students; the present work appeals mainly to men of the world as such. The scheme of it has been suggested by the reception accorded to the Bishop of Durham’s Preface to the ‘’ Bible and Modern Criticism.” Dr. Moule has unique claims to a respectful hearing on questions of this kind. And he has seldom written with more impressive earnestness than in appealing to Christians to take note of the tendencies of this so-called Criticism of the Bible. But his appeal has been entirely ignored by the Critics; and their press organs have dismissed it with scant courtesy. They seem blind to the consequences of their teaching, and contemptuously indifferent to the opinions of all who differ from them.

The nature of those consequences is here illustrated by the case of three representative men — Dr. Harnack, Professor Friedrich Delitzsch, and Professor George Adam Smith.

Chapter V. is mainly an extract from the author’s “Christianised Rationalism and the Higher Criticism, an Answer to Dr. Harnack’s ‘What is Christianity?’”^

As for Chapter VIII., Professor Driver’s” Book of

“Twentieth Century Papers” Series. The author had the honour of presenting a copy of that treatise to the German Emperor, and of receiving His Majesty’s “sincere thanks” for it.

Genesis “may serve to point the moral there enforced. For while he freely discusses the views of eminent Critics, the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ he systematically ignores. The” Bible Dictionary,” of which Dr. Driver himself is one of the editors, tells us that our Divine Lord was the dupe of “current Jewish notions “about the Old Testament.^ This indeed is one of ‘’the assured results of modern Criticism.” Even an English clergyman, therefore, can now afford to dismiss His teaching as unworthy of notice.

In conclusion, the author wishes to acknowledge his obligations to the Rev. Robert Sinker, D. D., Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, for encouragement and valuable help in preparing these pages for the press.

39 Linden Gardens, W.,
London.

See p. 94.