7. Lelation of Criticism to the history of Revela- tion.—In this sketch of the Christian revelation and its herald, the Hebrew, critical problems have not been discussed, not because the writer has ignored or been indifferent to their existence in forming his conclusions, but because the scope of the article seemed to him to exclude their treat- ment, and because in many other articles they have been fully dealt with. But a reference to the bear- ing of these questions on the conception of reve- lation cannot be altogether avoided. Whether myths, legends, and traditions were employed by the writers of the Hebrew records or not, whether the patriarchs were historical persons or personifications of tribal characteristics and rela- tions, how much or how little was involved in the relation between Jehovah and Israel mediated by Moses, how far the prophets were innovators teaching new truths or conservators recalling old beliefs, what were the stages of the development of the Law before it assumed its final form in the Pentateuch, —these all are questions on which scholarship must be left to pronounce judgment. Questions of literary ethics, such as the use of older sources without acknowledgment, the com- position of speeches for historical persons, the ascription of later developments of the ritual system or the moral code to Moses, the treatment of history from the religious standpoint of a later
REVELATION
REVELATION 329
age, must be dealt with, not by applying modern standards but by recognizing the customs of each writer’s age. That the critical reconstruction of the OT exhibits far more clearly than did the traditional views of date and authorship the pro- gress of revelation, must be frankly admitted. That this progress is to be regarded as a merely natural evolution is a conclusion which no results of a legitimate and sober literary and historical criticism warrant, which involves philosophical and theological presuppositions, the acceptance of which must lead to the denial of the reality of a Divine revelation altogether, and which is contradicted, as will be shown in the next section of this article, by the testimony which the OT Scriptures bear to themselves. So long as criticism recognizes the presence and operation of God in the history of the Hebrew people, it may change our opinion of the mode, but it does not affect our conviction of the fact of a Divine revelation. The essential content of that revelation, the idea of God, the law of life, and the hope of salvation, as just described, will not be contradicted by any of these results. The idea of evolution seemed to many Christian thinkers a denial of the fact of creation ; but now Christian theism has recovered from its panic, and confidently affirms that evolution is a creative mode and not a creating cause. So will it be with the results of criticism: it will be seen that it affects only the conception of the mode of revelation, and not the certainty of the fact. When we turn to the NT, it must be frankly conceded that Christian faith must be much more concerned about the results of criticism. If the portrait of Jesus is not substanti- ally historical ; if the witness of the Apostles to His resurrection, and the reception of the Spirit by them, is not to be believed; if St. Paul’s interpre- tation of the Cross is nothing else or more than an individual, and in no way a typical experience ; if St. John’s doctrine of the Logos is a theological speculation, for which the historical Person of Jesus affords no justification,—then assuredly the char- acter and content of Christian faith would be thoroughly changed, as the revelation of God in Christ would be essentially altered. Some indica- tions have already been given how this criticism is to be met ; but the fuller answer must be reserved until the last section of this article on the Hvidences of Revelation has been reached.
8. Assumptions regarding the Supernatural.— Criticism may have much to tell us about the local and temporary forms of the revelation, about the personal characteristics and historical circumstances of the writers, about the literary methods of the writings,—in short, about the earthen vessel which holds the heavenly treasure; but the serious, even decisive, issue for faith lies not in any of these questions, however interesting, but in the affirma- tion or denial of the fact that God has spoken to mankind in the revelation, of which the Bible is the literature. In asserting this fact, care must be taken not to assume an untenable position. Even the most cautious criticism has made impossible the assumption of wltra-supernaturalism, which asserts the absolute infallibility and authority of all the writings in the Bible, which maintains that all human conditions are transcended by Divine revelation, so that its agents must have been raised quite above their individuality, environment, and stage of development into such a relation to God that the Divine content and the human form can be identified ; that they may be regarded as alto- gether undetermined by their own capacity, char- acter, or circumstances, and that accordingly the literature need not be interpreted by the history, as it may have no relation to the needs of the time when it was written, but may anticipate the needs of another age. The vehement defence which is
sometimes met with of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, of the unity of Isaiah, of the accuracy of all the historical narratives, of the literal fulfilment of prophecy and apocalyptic, in- volves this assumption. This may for a long time yet remain the popular attitude, and here and there will be found a theologian in panic, who will seek to save the ark of God by appealing against the findings of scholarship to the preju- dices and the passions of the multitude in the Churches; but in an article such as this it is not necessary to waste any effort in refuting it. What, on the contrary, is much more relevant to the present purpose, is to examine closely the opposite assumption .of anti-supernaturalism, with which it would be unjustifiable to charge the Higher Criticism as a whole, but which does evidently account for some of the views advanced by some of its representatives.