The Biblical World for February contains a long article by Professor Terry, of the Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Ill., under the heading, "The Need of a New Apologetic, from the Point of View of Biblical Criticism." He accepts the so-called results of destructive criticism, and yet he wishes to defend the Bible. It is not surprising, then, that he should call for a new way of defending it. In Webster's Dictionary, apologetics (the right form of the word) is defined, "The branch of theology which defends the Holy Scriptures, and sets forth the evidence of their divine authority." After proving, as this criticism does if its conclusions are true, that much the greater part of the Scriptures has no divine authority, that it is purely human and replete with errors of fact and teaching, it is surprising to hear a [424] man who accepts these conclusions, call for any defense of the Scriptures at all; but, if he must have one, it is not surprising that he calls for a new one. If he finds one, it will not only be a new one, but it will be such as was never heard of or thought of before. He is in the predicament of an attorney who, after impeaching a witness by proving that he is a habitual liar, should then turn round, and bring forward evidence that he is a man of veracity.

      That this Professor does accept the conclusions of destructive critics, is abundantly set forth in his article. For instance, to show that the speeches recorded in the Bible are not to be accepted as having been made by the speakers to whom they are ascribed, he quotes from Thucydides the frank statement that in his history he put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, and argues from this honest confession of a heathen author that the Biblical writers did the same thing. After the quotation from Thucydides, he says: "Admonished by such a statement from one of the most trustworthy historians of 400 B. C., the Biblical apologist of to-day ought not to commit himself to the hazardous and needless task of affirming the genuineness of all the speeches and songs which are attributed to the Old Testament heroes who lived, many of them, long before the time of Thucydides." Here it is argued that because a heathen historian composed speeches, and put them into the mouths of his heroes, but forewarned his readers that he did so, therefore Biblical historians, who gave no such warning, must have done the same thing. They did the same, but were not honest enough to acknowledge it. Conspicuous examples of this are the speeches and songs ascribed to Moses in the Pentateuch, Solomon's dedication prayer, many of the Psalms, and [425] multitudes of other speeches and songs. The argument is not limited to the Old Testament examples; for these critics find no better evidence of the genuineness of New Testament songs and speeches than of those recorded in the Old Testament. They thus deal with the songs of Mary, Elizabeth and Zacharias, and with the speeches of Jesus in the Gospels, and of Peter, Stephen and Paul in Acts. When Professor Terry reached the conclusion that all of these were composed by others, and put into the mouths of the hypothetical speakers and singers, there is no wonder that he began to rub his eyes, and look around for "a new apologetic."

      In his bewilderment he sees glimpses of another line of argument to be supplied by his new apologetic. He thinks that the old apologists, including the authors of our Gospels, made an improper use of the argument from fulfilled prophecy. In this connection he sets forth the old infidel argument about Isaiah's "virgin prophecy," which I copied from President Harper recently and refuted, and then, to show how poor an apologist Matthew was, he says: "It is also said in Matt. 2:15 that Hos. 11:1 was fulfilled in the return of the child Jesus from Egypt after the death of Herod. In Hosea it is written: 'When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' The language is obviously not a prediction of a future event, but a reference to the exodus in the days of Moses." And I wonder if Matthew did not have sense enough to see this as plainly as Professor Terry does? What man with three grains of sense, on reading the words, "When Israel was a child I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt," could fail to see that they contain, not a prediction, but a statement of a past historical event? Was Matthew, then, such a fool as to think that here was a prediction, or are those [426] who ascribe such folly to him guilty of it themselves? Why not give Matthew some credit for common sense, and suppose that when he found the words descriptive of an ancient event exactly descriptive of one more recent, he meant to assert that these words were again fulfilled? Or why not permit him to think that the calling of Israel out of Egypt, under the remarkable title "my son," was typical of the greater event of calling the actual Son of God out of that same country? I am not able to say why this is, except that it is the habit of these critics to deny to inspired writers the common sense of which they themselves have so little.

      The extent to which this seeker for a new apologetic is sunk in the slough of destructive criticism is seen in the estimate which he places on Hastings' "Dictionary of the Bible" and Cheyne's "Encyclopædia Biblica." He claims that the Biblical criticism represented in these works "demands recognition in the apologetic of the present time." In this he is undoubtedly correct in word, though not in meaning. That criticism certainly does demand recognition, and I have not a doubt that in due time it will receive full recognition--not by accepting it as correct, and from that point of view seeking to defend an indefensible Bible, but by thoroughly exposing its sophistry, and furnishing a dictionary that will prove the Bible to be at all points what it claims to be.

      There are some isolated statements in this essay which are characteristic of the class of writers to which Professor Terry belongs, and which they never weary in vociferating. He says, for, instance, "We have no fear that faithful criticism of the most searching kind can ever destroy God's truth." And who has? Who is silly enough to fear that criticism, either faithful or unfaithful, can destroy God's truth? What it can [427] destroy is not God's truth, but belief in God's truth on the part of men who are deceived by it.

      "Why should it be supposed that the sacred writers must needs be supernaturally secured against all historical inaccuracy more than against inaccuracies of grammar and rhetoric?" Any child can answer. Because inaccuracies of grammar and rhetoric do not involve untruthfulness, but historical inaccuracy does. A witness in court who violates every rule of grammar is not thereby discredited with the jury, but if he is inaccurate in a single matter of fact, his whole testimony is impaired, if not impeached.

      "The human element in the Scriptures is seen to be as conspicuous as in other writings, and it is worse than folly to ignore or try to cover up the facts." By the human element is here meant human errors; for about the human element in other particulars there is no dispute. If, then, human errors are as conspicuous in the Scriptures as in other writings, why want a new apologetic for the Scriptures any more than for Mark Twain's "Innocents Abroad"?

      "It is of no religious importance to know the exact facts about the Galileans whose blood Pilate is said to have mingled with their sacrifices; but it is of great importance to be admonished that they were not sinners above all the Galileans, and 'except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish'." In other words, it is of no religious importance to know whether Christ, in warning his disciples from a recent disaster to some of their countrymen, told the truth about that disaster or not. And so about the eighteen on whom the tower fell. In this instance Professor Terry anticipates our objection by supposing that a bystander had said to Jesus, "Master, that was a false report; the tower fell, but nobody [428] was harmed." He claims that Jesus would have answered, "Except ye repent, ye shall all perish in a manner as dreadful as the report declared." But the bystander would have responded, "Ah! Master, that is too late; you have already committed yourself to the statement that eighteen perished, and if you take it back, you show yourself as unreliable about facts as the rest of us."

      What we really need is not a new apologetic based on the admissions which Professor Terry makes, but a new edition of Smith's "Bible Dictionary" which will bring all of its articles down to date, and shall especially expose the pretension of self-styled "modern scientific criticism." Sooner or later we shall have it, or something equally effective.

[SEBC 424-429]