the Bible?

How can we know until we have examined the question whether the book of Isaiah is the work of a single author in the reign of Hezekiah, or whether it is a collection of writings of different prophets gathered about the prophecies of Isaiah as the most important nucleus? It is necessary for the critic to determine whether the Psalter is in its original condition or whether we may not trace a series of minor psalters going through the hands of many different editors until at length the present Psalter was produced as the crown of many centuries of prayer and praise in Israel.

(2) As to the authenticity of the writings.

Is the writing anonymous like most of the editorials in our newspapers and so much of the epistolary advice of our selfconstituted friends and counsellors? Is it pseudonymous, where the author wishes to disguise his hand from fear of persecution, as in the Martin Marprelate tracts; or to instruct as a prophet in the guise of antiquity, as in the Apocalypse of Baruch; or to gain an unbiassed hearing to unpalatable truths, as in the Letters of Junius; or to speak slanderous words without the peril of detection, as in the pamphlet literature of political and ecclesiastical controversies; or to hide the blushes of modest beginners in literature?

Or does the writing bear the author's name; and if so, is it genuine? Did it come from the author himself? Or is it the conjecture of a later editor, as in the assignment to Gerson of the De Imitatione Christi? Is it a forgery, as the Epistles of Phalaris? Or does the writing bear a name which has been suggested by its contents? May not the proper name attached to the book be the name of the hero or the heroine of the story, or the name which the author has chosen to honor by the production of his pen? All these methods of attaching names to writings are common in the world's literature. We must ask these questions of the writings contained in the Bible. How did the name of Moses become attached to the Pentateuch? Is there any valid ground for it in the Pentateuch itself, or in any original title; or has it come from a late, and unreliable conjecture? Is Malachi the name of the prophet, or a pseudonym, as Calvin supposed? Are the books of Daniel and Ecclesiastes

pseudonymous, as modern critics suppose, or were these writings really written by Daniel and Solomon? Did Ruth and Esther write these books, or are they simply the heroines of these stories? What is the meaning of the proper names in the titles of the Psalms? Such are the numerous questions which arise under the head of authenticity in the study of the Hebrew Scriptures.

(3) As to literary features.

What is the style of the author and his method of composition? Does he write in poetry or in prose? What kind of poetry does he produce; lyric, gnomic, dramatic, or epic poetry? What is the measurement of his lines? How does he arrange his strophes? Or if he writes prose, is it history, oratory, the epistle, or the treatise? Is he easy and graceful, or rapid and brilliant, or steady and forceful, or slow and dull, or stiff and pedantic? What are the characteristics which distinguish him from other authors? These questions are familiar to students of the world's literature. Literary critics have to answer them. The biblical critic cannot escape them simply because the biblical writers are said to be Moses and David, Solomon and Isaiah; or because we believe that the Divine Spirit Himself speaks to us in these writings; for they contain different varieties of prose and poetical style. The discovery of the principles of Hebrew poetry by Bishop Lowth made a revolution in our knowledge of the psalmists, the wise men, and the prophets. It makes an immense difference whether the early chapters of Genesis are poetry or prose. A comparison of the styles of the chronicler and the prophetic historians enables us to form a far better judgment upon the value of their history and its lessons than we otherwise could. The whole interpretation of Job, Esther, Ruth, and Jonah depends upon whether we regard them as historical narratives, or as essentially works of the imagination. All of these literary questions will be asked of the biblical books whether we wish it or not. That man is not a biblical scholar who hesitates to ask them, out of fear lest his traditional opinions may be imperilled. Such a man, though he may be studying the Bible, so far as it is possible through the coloured glasses set in the

rigid frames he has imposed upon his eyes, is yet not a sincere biblical student, for he declines to open his eyes in the sunlight of divine truth.

(4) As to the credibility of the writings.

We are obliged as biblical critics after we have determined all these preliminary questions of the Higher Criticism to face the most serious question of credibility. Literary critics are compelled to ask these questions in their study of the world's literature. Is the writing reliable? Do its statements accord with the truth, or are they coloured and warped by prejudice, superstition, or reliance upon insufficient or unworthy testimony? What character does the author bear as to prudence, good judgment, fairness, integrity, and critical sagacity? Biblical critics cannot shut their eyes to these questions of criticism. Whatever may be their reverence of Holy Scripture they must ask these questions of it. The reverent critics will ask these questions reverently. Rationalistic critics will ask them soberly and impartially. Critics whose aim it is to dispute the divine authority of Holy Scripture will be irreverent and unfair. The spirit of the investigation is determined by the temper and character of the investigators, not by its principles and methods, which are the same to all scientific students of the Bible. The investigation must go on. It matters little how many oppose it. Opposition may delay the end; it cannot prevent it. It may make the investigation a holy war and the establishment of its results a catastrophe to the faith and life of its opponents. But the normal development of the investigation is the calm, steady, invincible march of science.

The Higher Criticism has its scientific principles by which it determines all these questions.1

(1) The writing must be in accordance with its supposed historic position as to time and place and circumstances.

A writing is the product of the experience of the author or editor. It could not be produced without that experience. The historic writings of the world are born, not made. They

1 A brief statement of these principles is presented in relation to Biblical Criticism by Professor Henry P. Smith, in his article on the "Critical Theories of Julius Wellhausen,” Presbyterian Review, 1882, III. p. 370.

could not be born before the time. When born they show the marks of their parentage and the times of their birth.

"Time is one of the most certain proofs; for nothing more evidently shows that a book cannot belong to that time wherein it is pretended to have been written, than when we find in it some marks of a later date. These marks, in the first place, are false dates; for 'tis an ordinary thing for impostors, that are generally ignorant, to date a book after the death of the author to whom they ascribe it, or of the person to whom it is dedicated, or written; and even when they do fix the time right, yet they often mistake the names of the consuls, or in some other circumstances: All which are invincible proofs that he that dated this book did not live at that time. Secondly, impostors very often speak of men that lived long after the death of those persons to whom they attribute those spurious discourses, or they relate the history of some passages that happened afterwards, or they speak of cities and people that were unknown at the time, when those authors wrote."1

Dr. Henry M. Dexter has recently shown that the records published a few years ago in England as the records of the Baptist Church of Crowle, 1599-1620, were forgeries, by the heaping up of references in these records to men and events long subsequent to those times.2

But this principle may be used in a positive argument. A few years ago I discovered a letter in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, giving the names of all the magistrates, churches, and ministers of New England, when the letter was written. The letter was a copy and not the original. It was unsigned; it had no address; there was no external evidence except the fact that it had been in this collection of American books, tracts, and manuscripts for a long time, and came from a reliable source, making its genuineness altogether probable. By a careful study of the names of persons and places, and of the events described in this letter, I was able to determine that the letter was written by John Eliot, the apostle to the American Indians, not earlier than May 22nd, 1650, nor later than June 5th, 1650, that is within the narrow limits of two weeks. No one has ever questioned these results of my higher criticism of this document.3

This principle when applied to the writings of Holy Scripture leads to sure results. As surely as the different geological 1 Du Pin, New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, 3d edit., corrected, London, 1696, pp. vii. seq. 2 John Smythe, the Se Baptist, Boston, 1887.

3 Briggs, American Presbyterianism, Appendix, xxix.-xxxvi, N. Y., 1885.

epochs leave their traces on the strata of the rocks, and the astronomical epochs are disclosed in the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, so surely literature reflects the history of the times which gave it birth. A biblical writing could not be born before its time any more than any other writing. Holy Scripture bears upon it the traces of its historic origin as truly as any other scripture. Higher Criticism may determine the historic origin and development of the writings of Holy Scripture by these traces as surely as in any other department of the world's literature. We may not always be able to detect the historic origin of the book, but to find it is like the dawn of the sun after a cloudy night.

(2) Differences of style imply differences of experience and age of the same author; or, when sufficiently great, differences of author and of period of composition.

"In short, stile is a sort of touch stone, that discovers the truth or falsehood of books; because it is impossible to imitate the stile of any author so perfectly as that there will not be a great deal of difference. By the stile, we are not only to understand the bare words and terms, which are easily imitated; but also the turn of the discourse, the manner of writing, the elocution, the figures, and the method: All which particulars, it is a difficult matter so to counterfeit as to prevent a discovery. There are, for instance, certain authors, whose stile is easily known, and which it is impossible to imitate: We ought not, however, always to reject a book upon a slight difference of stile, without any other proofs; because it often happens that authors write differently, in different times: Neither ought we immediately to receive a book as genuine, upon the bare resemblance of stile, when there are other proofs of its being spurious; because it may so happen, that an ingenious man may sometimes counterfeit the stile of an author, especially in discourses which are not very long. But the difference and resemblance of stile may be so remarkable sometimes, as to be a convincing proof, either of truth or falsehood.” 1

This principle has intelligently deny it. the expressions of its

been so firmly established that no one can Style is the dress of thought, or rather face and the graceful movement of its form. Every human being has his individuality of face and

1 l.c., p. viii.