value to us-if, e.g., Abraham be "a free creation of unconscious art," and a great part of the narratives of the Hexateuch "the fruit solely of late Jewish fancy," and if there be "not a particle of truth in the whole narrative" of something else? It is altogether inadequate to reply to such a question, that "criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament; it presupposes it" (Pref., p. xix). Such scholars would do an invaluable service to the Church at the present time if they would explain what they mean by inspiration in this connection, and define wherein their position differs from that of critics who profess no such reverence for the Old Testament. I can quite well understand the position of one who should say it does not matter whether the Old Testament story is true or not, provided we can draw from it good religious instruction. So in a certain sense one might call the religious novel inspired Scripture. But the Christian scholar must be prepared to meet the objector who insists on meting out the same measure to the New Testament writers; for, in spite of what Professor Driver says (p. xvii), we are dependent upon the evangelists for the picture of the Christ, and, in the field of Old Testament history, critics find room for great " modifications of tradition" within the space of half a century, not to say more. So it is quite inadequate to the case when Horton, speaking of the Law and Christ's references to it, says,1 "Now, supposing the book had been compiled actually by His contemporaries, this practical value of it would remain just what it is." For the question Inspiration and the Bible, p. 179. 1 recurs, Would the historical value of Christianity remain just what it is? I have a strong conviction that it is their connection with a divinely guided history, more even than their high tone of teaching, that gives to the Old Testament books their special authority; and for this reason I regard it as most important to determine what the movement and character of the history were. Professor Briggs tells us 1 that the higher criticism can never determine whether the writings contain the Divine Word; but I think that, inferentially at least, it can. I believe a sober and unprejudiced criticism will show that Israel, at the dawn of its national existence, had a very exalted conception of God and a high rule of duty, and that these things were neither borrowed from their neighbours nor excogitated by themselves. If the inference is legitimate that they must have come "from above," then the writings which exhibit the process of this revelation contain no "cunningly devised fable," but have from their connection a divine character. Criticism, as an exercise of human reason, having come so far, may reverently give place to another faculty with a nobler name, by which divine things are "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. ii. 14). 1 Biblical Study, p. 220. CONTENT S. CHAP. INTRODUCTION, PAGE 1 I. THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL, 11 II. TWO CONTENDING THEORIES OF THE HISTORY, 27 VII. PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION-NAMING OF THE DEITY, 167 X. PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION CONTINUED: MOLOCH-WOR EARLY RELIGION OF ISRAEL. INTRODUCTION. Attitude of the reader of the English Bible to recent critical studies of the Old Testament-Preliminary difficulties of a technical kind—Attempt to present the argument in a new form-The fundamental matters in dispute are not questions of scholarship—The temptations of specialists -The final appeal must be to intelligent common-sense. WITHIN recent years there has been such an advance in the critical study of the Old Testament that a perceptible change has taken place in the attitude of ordinary readers toward the whole subject. So long as the matters in dispute were questions as to the age, authorship, and mode of composition of certain books, particularly of the Pentateuch, and these subjects were handled simply or mainly as matters of technical criticism, the general reader, if he did not altogether abjure "unsettling" discussions, was perplexed by inquiries demanding special skill and training for their prosecution, or took little interest in problems which appeared to admit of the most diverse solutions. But since a thorough-going theory was adopted A |