a study of bible-第35节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



It　is　a　natural　but　a　most　mistaken　idea　that　the　critical　study　of　the　Bible　is　a　new　thing。　From　long　before　the　childhood　of　any　of　us　there　has　been　sharp　controversy　about　the　Bible。　It　is　a　controversy…provoking　Book。　It　cannot　accept　blind　faith。　It　always　has　made　men　think；　and　it　makes　them　think　in　the　line　of　their　own　times。　The　days　when　no　questions　were　raised　about　the　Bible　were　the　days　when　men　had　no　access　to　it。

There　are　some　who　take　all　the　Bible　for　granted。　They　know　that　there　is　indifference　to　it　among　friends　and　in　their　social　circle；　but　how　real　the　dispute　about　the　Bible　is　no　one　realizes　until　he　comes　where　new　ideas；　say　ideas　of　socialism；　are　in　the　air。　There；　with　the　breaking　of　other　chains；　is　a　mighty　effort　to　break　this　bond　also。　In　such　circles　the　Bible　is　little　read。　It　is　discussed；　and　time…　worn　objections　are　bandied　about；　always　growing　as　they　pass。　In　these　circles　also　every　supposedly　adverse　result　of　critical　study　is　welcomed　and　remembered。　If　it　is　said　that　there　are　unexplained　contradictions　in　the　Bible；　that　fact　is　remembered。　But　if　it　is　said　further　that　those　contradictions　bid　fair　to　yield　to　further　critical　study；　or　to　a　wiser　understanding　of　the　situations　in　which　they　are　involved；　that　fact　is　overlooked。　The　tendency　in　these　circles　is　to　keep　alive　rather　the　adverse　phases　of　critical　study　than　its　favorable　phases。　Some　of　those　who　speak　most　fiercely　about　the　study　of　the　Bible；　by　what　is　known　as　higher　criticism；　are　least　intelligent　as　to　what　higher　criticism　actually　means。　Believers　regret　it；　and　unbelievers　rejoice　in　it。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　in　developing　any　strong　feeling　about　higher　criticism　one　only　falls　a　prey　to　words；　he　mistakes　the　meaning　of　both　the　words　involved。

Criticism　does　not　mean　finding　fault　with　the　Bible。＇1＇　It　is　almost　an　argument　for　total　depravity　that　we　have　made　the　word　gain　an　adverse　meaning；　so　that　if　the　average　man　were　told　that　he　had　been　〃criticized〃　by　another　be　would　suppose　that　something　had　been　said　against　him。　Of　course；　intelligent　people　know　that　that　is　not　necessarily　involved。　When　Kant　wrote　The　Critique　of　Pure　Reason　he　was　not　finding　fault　with　pure　reason。　He　was　only　making　careful　analytical　study　of　it。　Now；　critical　study　of　the　Bible　is　only　careful　study　of　it。　It　finds　vastly　more　new　beauties　than　unseen　defects。　In　the　same　way　the　adjective　〃higher〃　comes　in　for　misunderstanding。　It　does　not　mean　superior；　it　means　more　difficult。　Lower　criticism　is　the　study　of　the　text　itself。　What　word　ought　to　be　here；　and　exactly　what　does　that　word　mean？　What　is　the　comparative　value　of　this　manuscript　over　against　that　one？　If　this　manuscript　has　a　certain　word　and　that　other　has　a　slightly　different　one；　which　word　ought　to　be　used？


＇1＇　Jefferson；　Things　Fundamental；　p。　90。


Take　one　illustration　from　the　Old　Testament　and　one　from　the　New　to　show　what　lower　or　textual　criticism　does。　In　the　ninth　chapter　of　Isaiah　the　third　verse　reads：　〃Thou　hast　multiplied　the　nation　and　not　increased　the　joy。〃　That　word　〃not〃　is　troublesome。　It　disagrees　with　the　rest　of　the　passage。　Now　it　happens　that　there　are　two　Hebrew　words　pronounced　〃lo；〃　just　alike　in　sound；　but　spelled　differently。　One　means　〃not；〃　the　other　means　〃to　him〃　or　〃his。〃　Put　the　second　word　in；　and　the　sentence　reads：　〃Thou　hast　multiplied　the　nation　and　increased　its　joy。〃　That　fits　the　context　exactly。　Lower　criticism　declares　that　it　is　therefore　the　probable　reading；　and　corrects　the　text　in　that　way。

The　other　illustration　is　from　the　Epistle　of　James；　where　in　the　fourth　chapter　the　second　verse　reads：　〃Ye　lust；　and　have　not；　ye　kill；　and　desire　to　have；　and　cannot　obtain；　ye　fight　and　war；　yet　ye　have　not；　because　ye　ask　not。〃　Now　there　is　no　commentator　nor　thoughtful　reader　who　is　not　arrested　by　that　word　〃kill。〃　It　does　not　seem　to　belong　there。　It　is　far　more　violent　than　anything　else　in　the　whole　text；　and　it　is　difficult　to　understand　in　what　sense　the　persons　to　whom　James　was　writing　could　be　said　to　kill。　Yet　there　is　no　Greek　manuscript　which　does　not　have　that　word。　Well；　it　is　in　the　field　of　lower　criticism　to　observe　that　there　is　a　Greek　word　which　sounds　very　much　like　this　word　〃kill；〃　which　means　to　envy；　that　would　fit　exactly　into　the　whole　text　here。　All　that　lower　criticism　can　do　is　to　point　out　such　a　probability。


When　this　form　of　criticism　has　done　its　part；　and　careful　study　has　yielded　a　text　which　holds　together　and　which　represents　the　very　best　which　scholarship　can　find　for　the　original；　there　is　still　a　field　more　difficult　than　that；　higher　in　the　sense　that　it　demands　a　larger　and　broader　view　of　the　whole　subject。　Here　one　studies　the　meaning　of　the　whole；　the　ideas　in　it；　seeks　to　find　how　the　revelation　of　God　has　progressed　according　to　the　capacities　of　men　to　receive　it。　Higher　criticism　is　the　careful　study　of　the　historical　and　original　meanings　of　Scripture；　the　effort　to　determine　dates　and　times　and；　so　far　as　may　be；　the　author　of　each　writing；　analyzing　its　ideas；　the　general　Greek　or　Hebrew　style；　the　relation　of　part　to　part。　That　is　not　a　thing　to　be　afraid　of。　It　is　a　method　of　study　used　in　every　realm。　It　is　true　that　some　of　the　men　who　have　followed　that　method　have　made　others　afraid　of　it；　because　they　were　afraid　of　these　men　themselves。　It　is　possible　to　claim　far　too　much　for　such　study。　But　if　the　result　of　higher　criticism　should　be　to　show　that　the　latter　half　of　the　prophecy　of　Isaiah　is　much　later　than　the　earlier　half；　that　is　not　a　destruction　of　the　Word　of　God。　It　is　not　an　irreverent　result　of　study。　If　the　result　of　higher　criticism　is　to　show　that　by　reason　of　its　content；　and　the　lessons　which　it　especially　urges；　the　Epistle　to　the　Hebrews　was　not　written　by　the　Apostle　Paul；　as　it　does　not　at　any　point　claim　to　have　been；　why；　that　is　not　irreverent；　that　is　not　destructive。　There　is　a　destructive　form　of　higher　criticism；　against　that　there　is　reason　to　set　up　bulwarks。　But　there　is　a　constructive　form　of　it　also。　Scholarly　opinion　will　tell　any　one　who　asks　that　criticism　has　not　affected　the　fundamental　values　of　the　Bible。　In　the　studies　which　have　just　now　been　made　we　have　not　instanced　anything　in　the　Bible　that　is　subject　to　change。　No　matter　what　the　result　of　critical　study　may　be；　the　fundamental　democracy　of　the　Scripture　remains。　It　continues　to　make　its　persistent　moral　appeal　on　any　terms。　Both　those　great　facts　continue。　Other　great　facts　abide　with　them。　And　on　their　account　it　is　to　our　interest　to　know　as　much　as　we　can　learn　about　it。　The　Bible　has　not　been　lessened　in　its　value；　has　not　been　weakened　in　itself；　by　anything　that　has　taken　place　in　critical　study。　On　the　other　hand；　the　net　result　of　such　studies　as　archaeology　has　been　the　confirmation　of　much　that　was　once　disputed。　Sir　William　Ramsay　is　authority　for　saying　that　the　spade　of　the　excavator　is　to…day　digging　the　grave　of　many　enemies　of　the　Bible。

Take　the　second　question；　whether　these　times　have　not　in　them　elements　that　weaken　the　hold　of　the　Bible。　There　again　we　must　distinguish　between　facts　and　judgments。　There　are　certain　things　in　these　times　which　relax　the　hold　of　any　authoritative　book。　There　is　a　general　relaxing　of　the　sense　of　authority。　It　does　not　come　alone　from　the　intellectual　awakening；　because　so　far　as　that　awakening　is　concerned；　it　has　affected　quite　as　much　men　who　continue　loyal　to　the　authority　of　the　Bible　as　others。　No；　this　relaxing　of　the　sense　of　authority　is　the　result　of　the　first　feeling　of　democracy　which　does　not　know　law。　Democracy　ought　to　mean　that　men　are　left　independent　of　the　control　of　other　individuals　because　they　realize　and　wish　to　obey　the　control　of　God　or　of　the　whole　equally　with　their　fellows。　When；　instead；　one　feels　independent　of　others；　and　adds　to　that　no　sense　of　a　higher　control　which　he　must　be　free　to　obey；　the　result　is　not　democracy；　but　individualism。　Democracy　involves　control；　individualism　does　not。　A　vast　number　of　people　in　passing　from　any　sense　of　the　right　of　another　individual　to　control　them　have　also　passed　out　of　the　sense　of　the　right　of　God　or　of　the　whole　to　control　them。　So　that　from　a　good　many　all　sense　of　authority　has　passed。　It　is　characteristic　of　our　age。　And　it　is　a　stage　in　our　progress　toward　real　democracy；　toward　true　human　liberty。

Observe　that　relaxed　sense　of　authority　in　the　common　attitude　toward　law。　Most　men　feel　it　right　to　disregard　a　law　of　the　community　which　they　do　not　like。　It　appears　in　trivial　things。　If　the　community　requires　that　ashes　be　kept　in　a　metal　receptacle；　citizens　approve　it　in　general；　but　reserve　to　themselves　the　right　to　consider　it　a　foolish　law　and　to　do　something　else　if　that　is　not　entirely　convenient。　If　the　law　says　that　paper　must　not　be　thrown　on　the　sidewalk；　it　means　little　that　it　is　the　law。　Those　who　are　inclined　to　be　clean　and　neat　and　do　not　like　to　see　paper　lying　around　will　keep　the　law；　those　who　are　otherwise　will　be　indifferent　to　it。　That　is　at　the　root　of　the　matter…of…　course　saying　that　a　law　cannot　be　enforced　unless　public　opinion　sustains　it。　Under