THE HIGHER CRITICISM.*

WHAT this excellent little book chiefly wants to complete its usefulness is a more detailed illustration by example. We do

not say that Professor Nash is to blame for not supplying it.

The limits of space within which he was bound to keep him- self forbade, it is obvious, that he should attempt it. Yet to

the uninstructed—or shall we say the non-expert ?—reader much that is both true and apposite will remain, to say the least, somewhat vague. He tells us, for instance, that Baur- " took up and developed the suggestion of Semler and Paullus regarding the opposition between Jewish and Pauline Christianity." It would have been very useful—for some readers it is almost necessary—to exemplify this general

statement by giving, at least in outline, Banes treatment of the passages which he supposed to bear out his theory. Another characteristic position of Baur was to deny the Pauline author- ship of the Pastoral Epistles. These he declared to be com- positions of the second century. A note, giving a synopsis of the argument under the headings of vocabulary, style, and matter, would have been instructive. But it is clear that this could not have been done. In both these instances the examples would have much exceeded in bulk the statements which they would have illustrated. Could room be found in the series— the book belongs to the series of "New Testament Hand- books "—for a supplementary volume ? Another thing that we desiderate is a clearer drawing out of the distinction between the Higher and the Lower Criticism. It is easy to say that the Lower is the criticism of the text, the Higher that of the subject-matter; but the very definiteness of the statement is misleading. Practically, the two things run very

much into each other. It is necessary to remember that the Lower is very apt to intrude itself into the province of the Higher. It is very easy to pass from considering what a writer did say to speculating on what he should have said. The theory, for instance, of a Western and Alexandrian text can hardly be kept quite clear of considerations that concern sub- ject-matter. It is not easy, to take an example, to estimate the textual value of the Codex Bean without taking into account things that concern Church history and theology. Taking an example from another region of study, we might say that the textual criticism which Bentley exercised upon Horace was in large degree a trespass beyond the bounds of its province. For bounds there are and must be. It would have been useful to see them approximately drawn,—more would not be possible. Again, we find no fault with Professor Nash. We do not know that his space could have been more profitably occupied than it is.

Our author takes, and is right, we think, in taking, a high line. He speaks of the "divine right" to criticise which belongs to the Churches of the Higher Criticism. He declares that its only defence is "by showing that the history of our religion has made it inevitable." But he makes these claims without arrogance. and with sympathy for those to whom they may seem strange and perplexing. For lie takes account of the dangers to which Bible-study is liable, dangers for those who follow it and for those to whose convictions it seems to be hostile :—

" A sober-minded scholar cannot think without pain of the many devout 'souls whO cy out,—when criticism shatters 'some old statement or -view,—' They ,have taken away my Lord, and I know-not vihere they have laid- him.' No- matter how erroneous the statement—may have been or imperfect the view, the pain infli.ted by its destruction must needs .bring grief to the

TronVe•

• The History of the Higher Criticism, of Ttistantellt- 333' •••••••-+ — sash. London: Macmillan and Co. [83. - '

destroyer. A youthful critic may take pleasure in the use of his apparatus, even as a young surgeon delights to use his instru- ments upon the human body. And sincere Christians, ripe in faith, see things most dear to them, and to many generations of believers before them, handled as intellectual playthings, or at best as a chemist handles elements in his laboratory. The academic thinker is not intr. quently far away from the body of the people, and through sheer lack of imagination cannot realise the grief and alarm that criticism is causing. But no et scholars who keep their hearts as well as their heads, these things weigh heavily.'

We hare had occasion more than once to say something of the same kind. Some critics certainly lay themselves open to the reproach of using a treatment which is unfeeling, if not wanton. It seems to be their delight ontnia in. peius inter- pretari. The "sacred" writer is more hardly dealt with than the profane." This is, perhaps, an inevitable reaction from the unreasoning idolatry of the past, and the less defensible obscurantism of the present, but it is not the less injurious and lamentable.

The earliest form of Bible-study was, as Professor Nash argues with much force, the processes of thought which ended in the formation of the Canon. Some of the New Testament books, we can hardly doubt, occupied their position of accept- . ance from the earliest time. But there must have been much scope for criticism before the final choice was made. The. word " Antilegomena," for instance, suggests a series of con- troversies of which we catch only an occasional glimpse. In the end, the general judgment of the Christian world pre- vailed. And this judgment, it may be remarked by the way, stands substantially confirmed by the latest research. The Canon, as a whole, has suffered but very little loss. We do not mean that all the Pauline Epistles are as unanimously received as the four which even Baur accepted, or that the Pastoral Epistles would receive as many critical suffrages as Colossians and Ephesians. Nor has the same secure position been accorded to the Fourth Gospel as to the Second. But on the whole the genuineness of the Canonical books is commonly conceded, whatever may be said of their authority. The Second Epistle of Peter is, perhaps, the only document - which is more seriously questioned than it was fifty years ago. That the criticism of what was, in one sense, an un- critical age should have reached conclusions so firm is a surprise, but only to those who cannot conceive of a guiding Power.

This necessary work accomplished, the faculties which had been employed in doing it suffered an eclipse. This did not come at once. Jerome was a great critic. He wished, indeed, if his own rhetorical account of the matter is to be received, to cut himself off from the secular learning which forms part of a critic's equipment, but he could not do it, What be had learnt he could not forget, or cease to use. But with the sixth century a change began. The knowledge of Greek became rarer and rarer. The Latin of the Vulgate stood for the original, a language which it was uncommon, and at last even dangerous, to know. "Ignorance, piety, and habit, a mighty triumvirate," combined to make men content with this uncritical position. And from the worse side of human nature there came the help of indolence. As Professor Nash well puts it :— " There is a well-known kind of sloth that gladly finds an asylum in religion. So subtly do the noble and base elements in humanity intermingle, that the holiest things are sometimes made the cloak and cover for the meanest. Piety often stands hard by mental laziness. So the ignorance and inertia of the period, using the noble nem° of religion, accumulated upon the sacred text a great mass of traditions, coming indeed from various sources, yet all claiming the highest authority, even the authority of Holy Writ. The monks of Sinai, in course of time, placed within easy walking distance of their monastery all the sacred sites associated with the giving of the Law."

(That last illustration is admirably forcible.) It was thus and by other correlated processes in religious life and thought that criticism became necessary. Then we are told how it became possible. The Reformation was, in a way, the moving eau's°. But the effect had to wait. The Protestant Churches even exaggerated the isolation of Scripture. "The Bible

• without note or comment," though a watchword invented _Viler on-for Other purposes, expresses in a way their positicn. --Thejr used the Bible for-offence and defence in their perennial controversy with Rome, and they were bound not to blunt the edge of the weapon, or &nisi& the impenetrability of

the armour. Still, the sixteenth century really opened the way for the work which the eighteenth was to begin, the nineteenth to carry on, and the twentieth, we hope, to crown with a concordat between reason and reverence. - In the second half of his book (chaps. 6-11) Professor Nash traces the history of criticism from Semler (b. 1725)-he refuses the title of "Father of Modern Biblical Study" to Simon, a Roman Catholic divine (d. 1712)—down to the present time. Here we must leave him. With the reserva- tions made at the beginning of this notice, we welcome his book as all that it should be. It will help, we believe, to the end for which all, whatever their standpoint, will join in prayer, "that the Word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified."