SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
DANIEL IN THE
CRITICS DEN
CHAPTER
I
THE "HIGHER CRITICISM," AND DEAN FARRAR'S ESTIMATE OF THE
BIBLE
By "all people of discernment" the "Higher Criticism"
is now held in the greatest repute. And discernment is a quality for which the
dullest of men are keen to claim credit. It may safely be assumed that not one
person in a score of those who eagerly disclaim belief in the visions of Daniel
has ever seriously considered the question. The literature upon the subject is
but dull reading at best, and the inquiry demands a combination of qualities
which is comparatively rare. A newspaper review of some ponderous treatise, or
a frothy discourse by some popular preacher, will satisfy most men. The German
literature upon the controversy they know nothing of; and the erudite writings
of scholars are by no means to their taste, and probably beyond their capacity.
Dean Farrar's Book of Daniel therefore meets a much-felt want. Ignored by
scholars it certainly will be, and the majority of serious theologians will
deplore it; but it supplies "the man in the street" with a reason for the
unfaith that is in him.
The narrowness with which it emphasises everything
that either erudition or ignorance can urge upon one side of a great
controversy, to the exclusion of the rest, will relieve him from the irksome
task of thinking out the problem for himself; and its pedantry is veiled by
rhetoric of a type which will admirably suit him. He cannot fail to be deeply
impressed by "the acervation of endless conjectures," and "the unconsciously
disingenuous resourcefulness of traditional harmonics." His acquaintance with
the unseen world will be enlarged by discovering that Gabriel, who appeared to
the prophet, is "the archangel" ; and by learning that "it is only after the
Exile that we find angels and demons playing a more prominent part than before,
divided into classes, and even marked out by special names." It is not easy to
decide whether this statement is the more astonishing when examined as a
specimen of English, or when regarded as a dictum to guide us in the study of
Scripture. But all this relates only to the form of the book. When we come to
consider its substance, the spirit which pervades it, and the results to which
it leads, a sense of distress and shame will commingle with our amazement.
What the dissecting-room is to the physician criticism is to the theologian. In
its proper sphere it is most valuable; and it has made large additions to our
knowledge of the Bible. But it demands not only skill and care, but reverence;
and if these be wanting, it cannot fail to be mischievous. A man of the baser
sort may become so degraded by the use of the surgeon's knife that he loses all
respect for the body of his patient, and the sick-room is to him but the
antechamber to the mortuary. And can we with impunity forget the reverence that
is due to "the living and eternally abiding word of God" ?
It behoves us
to distinguish between true criticism as a means to clear away from that word
corruptions and excrescences, and to gain a more intelligent appreciation of
its mysteries, and the Higher Criticism as a rationalistic and anti-christian
crusade. The end and aim of this movement is to eliminate God from the Bible.
It was the impure growth of the scepticism which well-nigh swamped the
religious life of Germany in the eighteenth century. Eichhorn set himself to
account for the miracles of Scripture. The poetic warmth of oriental thought
and language sufficed, in his judgment, to explain them. The writers wrote as
they were accustomed to think, leaving out of view all second causes, and
attributing results immediately to God. This theory had its day. It obtained
enthusiastic acceptance for a time. But rival hypotheses were put forward to
dispute its sway, and at last it was discarded in favour of the system with
which the name of De Wette is prominently associated. The sacred writers were
honest and true, but their teaching was based, not upon personal knowledge,
still less upon divine inspiration, but upon ancient authorities by which they
were misled. Their errors were due to the excessive literalness with which they
accepted as facts the legends of earlier days. De Wette, like Eichhorn, desired
to rescue the Bible from the reproach which had fallen upon it. Upon them at
least the halo of departed truth still rested. But others were restrained by no
such influence. With the ignorance of Pagans and the animus of apostates they
perverted the Scriptures and tore them to pieces.
One of the old Psalms, in
lamenting with exquisite sadness the ruin brought by the heathen upon the holy
city and land, declares that fame was apportioned according to zeal and success
in the work of destruction. A like spirit has animated the host of the critics.
It is a distressing and baneful ordeal to find oneself in the company of those
who have no belief in the virtue of women. The mind thus poisoned learns to
regard with suspicion the purest inmates of a pure home. And a too close
familiarity with the vile literature of the sceptics leads to a kindred
distrust of all that is true and holy in our most true and holy faith. Every
chapter of this book gives proof to what an extent its author has suffered this
moral and spiritual deterioration; and no one can accept its teaching without
sinking, imperceptibly it may be, but surely and inevitably, to the same level.
Kuenen, one of the worst of the foreign sceptics, is. Dean Farrar's master and
guide in the interpretation of Daniel. And the result is that he revels in
puerilities and extravagances of exegesis and criticism which the best of our
British contemporary scholars are careful to repudiate. The Book of Daniel is
not "the work of a prophet in the Exile" (if indeed such a personage as Daniel
ever really existed), "but of some faithful Chasid in the days of the Seleucid
tyrant." Its pretended miracles are but moral fables. Its history is but idle
legend, abounding in "violent errors" of the grossest kind. Its so-called
predictions alone are accurate, because they were but the record of recent or
contemporary events. But Dr. Farrar will not tolerate a word of blame upon "the
holy and gifted Jew" who wrote it. No thought of deceiving any one ever crossed
his mind. The reproach which has been heaped upon him has been wholly owing to
Jewish arrogance and Christian stupidity in misreading his charming and
elevating romance. For it is not only fiction, but "avowed fiction," and was
never meant to be regarded in any other light. In a word, the book is nothing
more than a religious novel, differing from other kindred works only in its
venerable antiquity and the multiplicity of its blunders.
Accepting these
results, then, what action shall we take upon them? In proportion surely to our
appreciation of the preciousness of Holy Scripture, shall be our resoluteness
in tearing the Book of Daniel from its place in the sacred canon, and
relegating it to the same shelf with Bel and the Dragon and The Story of
Susanna. By no means. Dr. Farrar will stay our hand by the assurance that-
"Those results . . . are in no way derogatory to the preciousness of this Old
Testament Apocalypse." "No words of mine," he declares, "can exaggerate the
value which I attach to this part of our Canonical Scriptures. . . . Its right
to a place in the Canon is undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a
single book of the Old Testament which can be made more richly profitable for
'teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that
the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work.'
(1 P. 4. Again and again throughout this volume the author uses like
words in praise of the Book of Daniel. Here are a few of them: "It is indeed a
noble book, full of glorious lessons" (p. 36). "Its high worth and canonical
authority" (p. 37). "So far from undervaluing its teaching, I have always been
strongly drawn to this book of Scripture" (p. 37). "We acknowledge the
canonicity of the book, its high value when rightly apprehended, and its
rightful acceptance as a sacred book". And most wonderful of all, at p. i i8
the author declares that, in exposing it as a work of fiction, "We add to its
real value"!)
Christian writers who find reason to reject one portion
of the sacred canon or another are usually eager to insist that in doing so
they increase the authority and enhance the value of the rest. It has remained
for the Dean of Canterbury, in impugning the Book of Daniel, to insult and
degrade the Bible as a whole. An expert examines for me the contents of my
purse. I spread out nine-and-thirty sovereigns upon the table, and after close
inspection he marks out one as a counterfeit. As I console myself for the loss
by the deepened confidence I feel that all the rest are sterling coin, he
checks me by the assurance that there is scarcely a single one of them which is
any better. The Book of Daniel is nothing more than a religious novel, and it
teems with errors on every page, and yet we are gravely told that of all the
thirty-nine books of the Old Testament there is scarcely a single book which is
of any higher worth! The expert's estimate of the value of my coins is clear.
No less obvious is Dr. Farrar's estimate of the value of the books of the
Bible.
It is precisely this element which renders this volume so
pernicious. The apostle declares that "Every Scripture inspired of God is also
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto
every good work;"
and in profanely applying these words to a romance of
doubtful repute, Dr. Farrar denies inspiration altogether. But "What is
inspiration?" some one may demand. In another connection the inquiry might be
apt; here it is the merest quibble. Plain men brush aside all the intricacies
of the controversy which the answer involves, and seize upon the fact that the
Bible is a divine revelation. But no one can yield to the spirit which pervades
this book without coming to raise the question, "Have we a revelation at all ?"
The Higher Criticism, as a rationalistic crusade, has set itself to account for
the Bible on natural principles; and this is the spirit which animates the Dean
of Canterbury's treatise.
(1 2 Tim. iii. i6. I quote the R.V. because it
gives more unequivocal testimony to the inspiration of Scripture than does the
A.V. According to the A.V. the apostle asserts that all Scripture is inspired
of God : according to the R.V. he assumes this as a truth which does not need
even to be asserted. For "every Scripture" here means every part of the Holy
Scriptures mentioned in the preceding sentence. Indeed, ypa4~ has as definite a
meaning in N.T. Greek as "Scripture" has in English, and is never used save of
Holy Scripture. But I am bound in honesty to add that I believe the R.V. is
wrong, albeit it has the authority of some of our earlier versions. The same
construction occurs in eight other passages, viz., Rom. Vii. 12; I Cor. xi. 30;
2 Cor. x. 10; i Tim. i. 15, 3, iv. 4, 9; Heb. iv. 13. Why did the Revisers not
read, e.g., "the holy commandment is also just and good" (Rom. vii. 22); and
"many weak ones are also sickly" (i Cor. xi. 30)?)
Chapter Two
Literature | Photos | Links | Home