Chapter III: Inspiration Of The Scriptures (3)

Bowne, The Immanence of God, 109, 110—“Those who would find the
source of certainty and the seat of authority in the Scriptures
alone, or in the church alone, or reason and conscience alone,
rather than in the complex and indivisible coworking of all these
factors, should be reminded of the history of religious thought.
The stiffest doctrine of Scripture inerrancy has not prevented
warring interpretations; and those who would place the seat of
authority in reason and conscience are forced to admit that
outside illumination may do much for both. In some sense the
religion of the spirit is a very important fact, but when it sets
up in opposition to the religion of a book, the light that is in
it is apt to turn to darkness.”

10. While inspiration constitutes Scripture an authority more trustworthy than are individual reason or the creeds of the church, the only ultimate authority is Christ himself.

Christ has not so constructed Scripture as to dispense with his personal presence and teaching by his Spirit. The Scripture is the imperfect mirror of Christ. It is defective, yet it reflects him and leads to him. Authority resides not in it, but in him, and his Spirit enables the individual Christian and the collective church progressively to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, and so to perceive the truth as it is in Jesus. In thus judging Scripture and interpreting Scripture, we are not rationalists, but are rather believers in him who promised to be with us alway even unto the end of the world and to lead us by his Spirit into all the truth.

James speaks of the law as a mirror (_James 1:23-25—_“like unto a
man beholding his natural face in a mirror ... looketh into the
perfect law”); the law convicts of sin because it reflects Christ.
Paul speaks of the gospel as a mirror (_2 Cor. 3:18—_“we all,
beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord”); the gospel
transforms us because it reflects Christ. Yet both law and gospel
are imperfect; they are like mirrors of polished metal, whose
surface is often dim, and whose images are obscure; (_1 Cor.
13:12—_“For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to
face”); even inspired men know only in part, and prophesy only in
part. Scripture itself is the conception and utterance of a child,
to be done away when that which is perfect is come, and we see
Christ as he is.

Authority is the right to impose beliefs or to command obedience.
The only ultimate authority is God, for he is truth, justice and
love. But he can impose beliefs and command obedience only as he
is known. Authority belongs therefore only to God revealed, and
because Christ is God revealed he can say: “All authority hath
been given unto me in heaven and on earth”_ (Mat. 28:18)_. The
final authority in religion is Jesus Christ. Every one of his
revelations of God is authoritative. Both nature and human nature
are such revelations. He exercises his authority through delegated
and subordinate authorities, such as parents and civil government.
These rightfully claim obedience so long as they hold to their own
respective spheres and recognize their relation of dependence upon
him. “The powers that be are ordained of God”_ (Rom. 13:1)_, even
though they are imperfect manifestations of his wisdom and
righteousness. The decisions of the Supreme Court are
authoritative even though the judges are fallible and come short
of establishing absolute justice. Authority is not infallibility,
in the government either of the family or of the state.

The church of the middle ages was regarded as possessed of
absolute authority. But the Protestant Reformation showed how vain
were these pretensions. The church is an authority only as it
recognizes and expresses the supreme authority of Christ. The
Reformers felt the need of some external authority in place of the
church. They substituted the Scripture. The phrase “the word of
God,” which designates the truth orally uttered or affecting the
minds of men, came to signify only a book. Supreme authority was
ascribed to it. It often usurped the place of Christ. While we
vindicate the proper authority of Scripture, we would show that
its authority is not immediate and absolute, but mediate and
relative, through human and imperfect records, and needing a
supplementary and divine teaching to interpret them. The authority
of Scripture is not apart from Christ or above Christ, but only in
subordination to him and to his Spirit. He who inspired Scripture
must enable us to interpret Scripture. This is not a doctrine of
rationalism, for it holds to man’s absolute dependence upon the
enlightening Spirit of Christ. It is not a doctrine of mysticism,
for it holds that Christ teaches us only by opening to us the
meaning of his past revelations. We do not expect any new worlds
in our astronomy, nor do we expect any new Scriptures in our
theology. But we do expect that the same Christ who gave the
Scriptures will give us new insight into their meaning and will
enable us to make new applications of their teachings.

The right and duty of private judgment with regard to Scripture
belong to no ecclesiastical caste, but are inalienable liberties
of the whole church of Christ and of each individual member of
that church. And yet this judgment is, from another point of view,
no private judgment. It is not the judgment of arbitrariness or
caprice. It does not make the Christian consciousness supreme, if
we mean by this term the consciousness of Christians apart from
the indwelling Christ. When once we come to Christ, he joins us to
himself, he seats us with him upon his throne, he imparts to us
his Spirit, he bids us use our reason in his service. In judging
Scripture, we make not ourselves but Christ supreme, and recognize
him as the only ultimate and infallible authority in matters of
religion. We can believe that the total revelation of Christ in
Scripture is an authority superior to individual reason or to any
single affirmation of the church, while yet we believe that this
very authority of Scripture has its limitation, and that Christ
himself must teach us what this total revelation is. So the
judgment which Scripture encourages us to pass upon its own
limitations only induces a final and more implicit reliance upon
the living and personal Son of God. He has never intended that
Scripture should be a substitute for his own presence, and it is
only his Spirit that is promised to lead us into all the truth.

On the authority of Scripture, see A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 113-136—“The source of all authority is not Scripture,
but Christ.... Nowhere are we told that the Scripture of itself is
able to convince the sinner or to bring him to God. It is a
glittering sword, but it is ‘the sword of the Spirit’_ (Eph.
6:17)_; and unless the Spirit use it, it will never pierce the
heart. It is a heavy hammer, but only the Spirit can wield it so
that it breaks in pieces the flinty rock. It is the type locked in
the form, but the paper will never receive an impression until the
Spirit shall apply the power. No mere instrument shall have the
glory that belongs to God. Every soul shall feel its entire
dependence upon him. Only the Holy Spirit can turn the outer word
into an inner word. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
Christ comes into direct contact with the soul. He himself gives
his witness to the truth. He bears testimony to Scripture, even
more than Scripture bears testimony to him.”

11. The preceding discussion enables us at least to lay down three cardinal principles and to answer three common questions with regard to inspiration.

Principles: (_a_) The human mind can be inhabited and energized by God while yet attaining and retaining its own highest intelligence and freedom. (_b_) The Scriptures being the work of the one God, as well as of the men in whom God moved and dwelt, constitute an articulated and organic unity. (_c_) The unity and authority of Scripture as a whole are entirely consistent with its gradual evolution and with great imperfection in its non-essential parts.

Questions: (_a_) Is any part of Scripture uninspired? Answer: Every part of Scripture is inspired in its connection and relation with every other part. (_b_) Are there degrees of inspiration? Answer: There are degrees of value, but not of inspiration. Each part in its connection with the rest is made completely true, and completeness has no degrees. (_c_) How may we know what parts are of most value and what is the teaching of the whole? Answer: The same Spirit of Christ who inspired the Bible is promised to take of the things of Christ, and, by showing them to us, to lead us progressively into all the truth.

Notice the value of the Old Testament, revealing as it does the
natural attributes of God, as a basis and background for the
revelation of mercy in the New Testament. Revelation was in many
parts _(πολυμερῶς—Heb. 1:1)_ as well as in many ways. “Each
individual oracle, taken by itself, was partial and incomplete”
(Robertson Smith, O. T. in Jewish Ch., 21). But the person and the
words of Christ sum up and complete the revelation, so that, taken
together and in their connection with him, the various parts of
Scripture constitute an infallible and sufficient rule of faith
and practice. See Browne, Inspiration of the N. T.; Bernard,
Progress of Doctrine in the N. T.; Stanley Leathes, Structure of
the O. T.; Rainy, Delivery and Development of Doctrine. See A. H.
Strong, on Method of Inspiration, in Philosophy and Religion,
148-155.

The divine influence upon the minds of post-biblical writers,
leading to the composition of such allegories as Pilgrim’s
Progress, and such dramas as Macbeth, is to be denominated
illumination rather than inspiration, for the reasons that these
writings contain error as well as truth in matters of religion and
morals; that they add nothing essential to what the Scriptures
give us; and that, even in their expression of truth previously
made known, they are not worthy of a place in the sacred canon. W.
H. P. Faunce: “How far is Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress true to
present Christian experience? It is untrue: 1. In its despair of
this world. The Pilgrim has to leave this world in order to be
saved. Modern experience longs to do God’s will _here_, and to
save others instead of forsaking them. 2. In its agony over sin
and frightful conflict. Bunyan illustrates modern experience
better by Christiana and her children who go through the Valley
and the Shadow of Death in the daytime, and without conflict with
Apollyon. 3. In the constant uncertainty of the issue of the
Pilgrim’s fight. Christian enters Doubting Castle and meets Giant
Despair, even after he has won most of his victories. In modern
experience, ‘at evening time there shall be light’_—(Zech. 14:7)_.
4. In the constant conviction of an absent Christ. Bunyan’s Christ
is never met this side of the Celestial City. The Cross at which
the burden dropped is the symbol of a sacrificial act, but it is
not the Savior himself. Modern experience has Christ living in us
and with us alway, and not simply a Christ whom we hope to see at
the end of the journey.”

Beyschlag, N. T. Theol., 2:18—“Paul declares his own prophecy and
inspiration to be essentially imperfect (_1 Cor. 13:9, 10, 12; cf.
1 Cor. 12:10; 1 Thess. 5:19-21_). This admission justifies a
Christian criticism even of his views. He can pronounce an
anathema on those who preach ‘a different gospel’_ (Gal. 1:8, 9)_,
for what belongs to simple faith, the facts of salvation, are
absolutely certain. But where prophetic thought and speech go
beyond these facts of salvation, wood and straw may be mingled
with the gold, silver and precious stones built upon the one
foundation. So he distinguishes his own modest γνώμη from the
ἐπιταγὴ κυρίον (1 Cor. 7:25, 40).” Clarke, Christian Theology,
44—“The authority of Scripture is not one that binds, but one that
sets free. Paul is writing of Scripture when he says: ‘Not that we
have lordship over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for in
faith ye stand fast’_ (2 Cor. 1:24)_.”

Cremer, in Herzog, Realencyc., 183-203—“The church doctrine is
_that_ the Scriptures are inspired, but it has never been
determined by the church _how_ they are inspired.” Butler,
Analogy, part II, chap. III—“The only question concerning the
truth of Christianity is, whether it be a real revelation, not
whether it be attended with every circumstance which we should
have looked for; and concerning the authority of Scripture,
whether it be what it claims to be, not whether it be a book of
such sort, and so promulgated, as weak men are apt to fancy a book
containing a divine revelation should. And therefore, neither
obscurity, nor seeming inaccuracy of style, nor various readings,
nor early disputes about the authors of particular parts, nor any
other things of the like kind, though they had been much more
considerable than they are, could overthrow the authority of the
Scripture; unless the prophets, apostles, or our Lord had promised
that the book containing the divine revelation should be secure
from these things.” W. Robertson Smith: “If am asked why I receive
the Scriptures as the word of God and as the only perfect rule of
faith and life, I answer with all the Fathers of the Protestant
church: ‘Because the Bible is the only record of the redeeming
love of God; because in the Bible alone I find God drawing nigh to
men in Jesus Christ, and declaring his will for our salvation. And
the record I know to be true by the witness of his Spirit in my
heart, whereby I am assured that none other than God himself is
able to speak such words to my soul.’ ” The gospel of Jesus Christ
is the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον of the Almighty. See Marcus Dods, The Bible,
its Origin and Nature; Bowne, The Immanence of God, 66-115.

V. Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration.

In connection with a divine-human work like the Bible, insoluble difficulties may be expected to present themselves. So long, however, as its inspiration is sustained by competent and sufficient evidence, these difficulties cannot justly prevent our full acceptance of the doctrine, any more than disorder and mystery in nature warrant us in setting aside the proofs of its divine authorship. These difficulties are lessened with time; some have already disappeared; many may be due to ignorance, and may be removed hereafter; those which are permanent may be intended to stimulate inquiry and to discipline faith.

It is noticeable that the common objections to inspiration are urged, not so much against the religious teaching of the Scriptures, as against certain errors in secular matters which are supposed to be interwoven with it. But if these are proved to be errors indeed, it will not necessarily overthrow the doctrine of inspiration; it will only compel us to give a larger place to the human element in the composition of the Scriptures, and to regard them more exclusively as a text-book of religion. As a rule of religious faith and practice, they will still be the infallible word of God. The Bible is to be judged as a book whose one aim is man’s rescue from sin and reconciliation to God, and in these respects it will still be found a record of substantial truth. This will appear more fully as we examine the objections one by one.

“The Scriptures are given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but
how to go to heaven.” Their aim is certainly not to teach science
or history, except so far as science or history is essential to
their moral and religious purpose. Certain of their doctrines,
like the virgin-birth of Christ and his bodily resurrection, are
historical facts, and certain facts, like that of creation, are
also doctrines. With regard to these great facts, we claim that
inspiration has given us accounts that are essentially
trustworthy, whatever may be their imperfections in detail. To
undermine the scientific trustworthiness of the Indian Vedas is to
undermine the religion which they teach. But this only because
their scientific doctrine is an essential part of their religious
teaching. In the Bible, religion is not dependent upon physical
science. The Scriptures aim only to declare the creatorship and
lordship of the personal God. The method of his working may be
described pictorially without affecting this substantial truth.
The Indian cosmogonies, on the other hand, polytheistic or
pantheistic as they are, teach essential untruth, by describing
the origin of things as due to a series of senseless
transformations without basis of will or wisdom.

So long as the difficulties of Scripture are difficulties of form
rather than substance, of its incidental features rather than its
main doctrine, we may say of its obscurities as Isocrates said of
the work of Heraclitus: “What I understand of it is so excellent
that I can draw conclusions from it concerning what I do not
understand.” “If Bengel finds things in the Bible too hard for his
critical faculty, he finds nothing too hard for his believing
faculty.” With John Smyth, who died at Amsterdam in 1612, we may
say: “I profess I have changed, and shall be ready still to
change, for the better”; and with John Robinson, in his farewell
address to the Pilgrim Fathers: “I am verily persuaded that the
Lord hath more truth yet to break forth from his holy word.” See
Luthardt, Saving Truths, 205; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 205 _sq._;
Bap. Rev., April, 1881: art. by O. P. Eaches; Cardinal Newman, in
19th Century, Feb. 1884.

1. Errors in matters of Science.

Upon this objection we remark:

(_a_) We do not admit the existence of scientific error in the Scripture. What is charged as such is simply truth presented in popular and impressive forms.

The common mind receives a more correct idea of unfamiliar facts when these are narrated in phenomenal language and in summary form than when they are described in the abstract terms and in the exact detail of science.

The Scripture writers unconsciously observe Herbert Spencer’s
principle of style: Economy of the reader’s or hearer’s
attention,—the more energy is expended upon the form the less
there remains to grapple with the substance (Essays, 1-47). Wendt,
Teaching of Jesus, 1:130, brings out the principle of Jesus’
style: “The greatest clearness in the smallest compass.” Hence
Scripture uses the phrases of common life rather than scientific
terminology. Thus the language of appearance is probably used in
_Gen. 7:19—_“all the high mountains that were under the whole
heaven were covered”—such would be the appearance, even if the
deluge were local instead of universal; in _Josh. 10:12, 13—_“and
the sun stood still”—such would be the appearance, even if the
sun’s rays were merely refracted so as preternaturally to lengthen
the day; in _Ps. 93:1—_“The world also is established, that it
cannot be moved”—such is the appearance, even though the earth
turns on its axis and moves round the sun. In narrative, to
substitute for “sunset” some scientific description would divert
attention from the main subject. Would it be preferable, in the O.
T., if we should read: “When the revolution of the earth upon its
axis caused the rays of the solar luminary to impinge horizontally
upon the retina, _Isaac went out to meditate_” (_Gen. 24:63_)? “Le
secret d’ennuyer est de tout dire.” Charles Dickens, in his
American Notes, 72, describes a prairie sunset: “The decline of
day here was very gorgeous, tinging the firmament deeply with red
and gold, up to the very keystone of the arch above us” (quoted by
Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 97). Did Dickens therefore
believe the firmament to be a piece of solid masonry?

Canon Driver rejects the Bible story of creation because the
distinctions made by modern science cannot be found in the
primitive Hebrew. He thinks the fluid state of the earth’s
substance should have been called “surging chaos,” instead of
“waters”_ (Gen. 1:2)_. “An admirable phrase for modern and
cultivated minds,” replies Mr. Gladstone, “but a phrase that would
have left the pupils of the Mosaic writer in exactly the condition
out of which it was his purpose to bring them, namely, a state of
utter ignorance and darkness, with possibly a little ripple of
bewilderment to boot”; see Sunday School Times, April 26, 1890.
The fallacy of holding that Scripture gives in detail all the
facts connected with a historical narrative has led to many
curious arguments. The Gregorian Calendar which makes the year
begin in January was opposed by representing that Eve was tempted
at the outset by an apple, which was possible only in case the
year began in September; see Thayer, Change of Attitude towards
the Bible, 46.

(_b_) It is not necessary to a proper view of inspiration to suppose that the human authors of Scripture had in mind the proper scientific interpretation of the natural events they recorded.

It is enough that this was in the mind of the inspiring Spirit. Through the comparatively narrow conceptions and inadequate language of the Scripture writers, the Spirit of inspiration may have secured the expression of the truth in such germinal form as to be intelligible to the times in which it was first published, and yet capable of indefinite expansion as science should advance. In the miniature picture of creation in the first chapter of Genesis, and in its power of adjusting itself to every advance of scientific investigation, we have a strong proof of inspiration.

The word “day” in _Genesis 1_ is an instance of this general mode
of expression. It would be absurd to teach early races, that deal
only in small numbers, about the myriads of years of creation. The
child’s object-lesson, with its graphic summary, conveys to his
mind more of truth than elaborate and exact statement would
convey. Conant (_Genesis 2:10_) says of the description of Eden
and its rivers: “Of course the author’s object is not a minute
topographical description, but a general and impressive conception
as a whole.” Yet the progress of science only shows that these
accounts are not less but more true than was supposed by those who
first received them. Neither the Hindu Shasters nor any heathen
cosmogony can bear such comparison with the results of science.
Why change our interpretations of Scripture so often? Answer: We
do not assume to be original teachers of science, but only to
interpret Scripture with the new lights we have. See Dana, Manual
of Geology, 741-746; Guyot, in Bib. Sac., 1855:324; Dawson, Story
of Earth and Man, 32.

This conception of early Scripture teaching as elementary and
suited to the childhood of the race would make it possible, if the
facts so required, to interpret the early chapters of Genesis as
mythical or legendary. God might condescend to “Kindergarten
formulas.” Goethe said that “We should deal with children as God
deals with us: we are happiest under the influence of innocent
delusions.” Longfellow: “How beautiful is youth! how bright it
gleams, With its illusions, aspirations, dreams! Book of
beginnings, story without end, Each maid a heroine, and each man a
friend!” We might hold with Goethe and with Longfellow, if we only
excluded from God’s teaching all essential error. The narratives
of Scripture might be addressed to the imagination, and so might
take mythical or legendary form, while yet they conveyed
substantial truth that could in no other way be so well
apprehended by early man; see Robert Browning’s poem,
“Development,” in Asolando. The Koran, on the other hand, leaves
no room for imagination, but fixes the number of the stars and
declares the firmament to be solid. Henry Drummond: “Evolution has
given us a new Bible.... The Bible is not a book which has been
made,—it has grown.”

Bagehot tells us that “One of the most remarkable of Father
Newman’s Oxford sermons explains how science teaches that the
earth goes round the sun, and how Scripture teaches that the sun
goes round the earth; and it ends by advising the discreet
believer to accept both.” This is mental bookkeeping by double
entry; see Mackintosh, in Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1899:41.
Lenormant, in Contemp. Rev., Nov. 1879—“While the tradition of the
deluge holds so considerable a place in the legendary memories of
all branches of the Aryan race, the monuments and original texts
of Egypt, with their many cosmogonic speculations, have not
afforded any, even distant, allusion to this cataclysm.” Lenormant
here wrongly assumed that the language of Scripture is scientific
language. If it is the language of appearance, then the deluge may
be a local and not a universal catastrophe. G. F. Wright, Ice Age
in North America, suggests that the numerous traditions of the
deluge may have had their origin in the enormous floods of the
receding glacier. In South-western Queensland, the standard gauge
at the Meteorological Office registered 10-¾, 20, 35-¾, 10-¾
inches of rainfall, in all 77-¼ inches, in four successive days.

(_c_) It may be safely said that science has not yet shown any fairly interpreted passage of Scripture to be untrue.

With regard to the antiquity of the race, we may say that owing to the differences of reading between the Septuagint and the Hebrew there is room for doubt whether either of the received chronologies has the sanction of inspiration. Although science has made probable the existence of man upon the earth at a period preceding the dates assigned in these chronologies, no statement of inspired Scripture is thereby proved false.

Usher’s scheme of chronology, on the basis of the Hebrew, puts the
creation 4004 years before Christ. Hales’s, on the basis of the
Septuagint, puts it 5411 B. C. The Fathers followed the LXX. But
the genealogies before and after the flood may present us only
with the names of “leading and representative men.” Some of these
names seem to stand, not for individuals, but for tribes, _e. g._:
_Gen. 10:16_—where Canaan is said to have begotten the Jebusite
and the Amorite; 29—Joktan begot Ophir and Havilah. In _Gen.
10:6_, we read that Mizraim belonged to the sons of Ham. But
Mizraim is a dual, coined to designate the two parts, Upper and
Lower Egypt. Hence a son of Ham could not bear the name of
Mizraim. _Gen. 10:13_ reads: “And Mizraim begat Ludim.” But Ludim
is a plural form. The word signifies a whole nation, and “begat”
is not employed in a literal sense. So in _verses 15, 16: _“Canaan
begat ... the Jebusite,” a tribe; the ancestors of which would
have been called Jebus. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, however, are
names, not of tribes or nations, but of individuals; see Prof.
Edward König, of Bonn, in S. S. Times, Dec. 14, 1901. E. G.
Robinson: “We may pretty safely go back to the time of Abraham,
but no further.” Bib. Sac., 1899:403—“The lists in Genesis may
relate to families and not to individuals.”

G. F. Wright, Ant. and Origin of Human Race, lect. II—“When in
David’s time it is said that ‘Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son
of Moses, was ruler over the treasures’_ (1 Chron. 23:16; 26:24)_,
Gershom was the immediate son of Moses, but Shebuel was separated
by many generations from Gershom. So when Seth is said to have
begotten Enosh when he was 105 years old (_Gen. 5:6_), it is,
according to Hebrew usage, capable of meaning that Enosh was
descended from the branch of Seth’s line which set off at the
105th year, with any number of intermediate links omitted.” The
appearance of completeness in the text may be due to alteration of
the text in the course of centuries; see Bib. Com., 1:30. In the
phrase “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”_ (Mat.
1:1)_ thirty-eight to forty generations are omitted. It may be so
in some of the Old Testament genealogies. There is room for a
hundred thousand years, if necessary (Conant). W. H. Green, in
Bib. Sac., April, 1890:303, and in Independent, June 18, 1891—“The
Scriptures furnish us with no data for a chronological computation
prior to the life of Abraham. The Mosaic records do not fix, and
were not intended to fix, the precise date of the Flood or of the
Creation.... They give a series of specimen lives, with
appropriate numbers attached, to show by selected examples what
was the original term of human life. To make them a complete and
continuous record, and to deduce from them the antiquity of the
race, is to put them to a use they were never intended to serve.”

Comparison with secular history also shows that no such length of
time as 100,000 years for man’s existence upon earth seems
necessary. Rawlinson, in Jour. Christ. Philosophy, 1883:339-364,
dates the beginning of the Chaldean monarchy at 2400 B. C.
Lenormant puts the entrance of the Sanskritic Indians into
Hindustan at 2500 B. C. The earliest Vedas are between 1200 and
1000 B. C. (Max Müller). Call of Abraham, probably 1945 B. C.
Chinese history possibly began as early as 2356 B. C. (Legge). The
old Empire in Egypt possibly began as early as 2650 B. C.
Rawlinson puts the flood at 3600 B. C., and adds 2000 years
between the deluge and the creation, making the age of the world
1886 + 3600 + 2000 = 7486. S. R. Pattison, in Present Day Tracts,
3: no. 13, concludes that “a term of about 8000 years is warranted
by deductions from history, geology, and Scripture.” See also Duke
of Argyll, Primeval Man, 76-128; Cowles on Genesis, 49-80; Dawson,
Fossil Men, 246; Hicks, in Bap. Rev., July, 1884 (15000 years);
Zöckler, Urgeschichte der Erde und des Menschen, 137-163. On the
critical side, see Crooker, The New Bible and its Uses, 80-102.

Evidence of a geological nature seems to be accumulating, which
tends to prove man’s advent upon earth at least ten thousand years
ago. An arrowhead of tempered copper and a number of human bones
were found in the Rocky Point mines, near Gilman, Colorado, 460
feet beneath the surface of the earth, embedded in a vein of
silver-bearing ore. More than a hundred dollars worth of ore clung
to the bones when they were removed from the mine. On the age of
the earth and the antiquity of man, see G. F. Wright, Man and the
Glacial Epoch, lectures IV and X, and in McClure’s Magazine, June,
1901, and Bib. Sac., 1903:31—“Charles Darwin first talked about
300 million years as a mere trifle of geologic time. His son
George limits it to 50 or 100 million; Croll and Young to 60 or 70
million; Wallace to 28 million; Lord Kelvin to 24 million;
Thompson and Newcomb to only 10 million.” Sir Archibald Geikie, at
the British Association at Dover in 1899, said that 100 million
years sufficed for that small portion of the earth’s history which
is registered in the stratified rocks of the crust.

Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 122, considers vegetable life to
have existed on the planet for at least 100 million years. Warren
Upham, in Pop. Science Monthly, Dec. 1893:153—“How old is the
earth? 100 million years.” D. G. Brinton, in Forum, Dec. 1893:454,
puts the minimum limit of man’s existence on earth at 50,000
years. G. F. Wright does not doubt that man’s presence on this
continent was preglacial, say eleven or twelve thousand years ago.
He asserts that there has been a subsidence of Central Asia and
Southern Russia since man’s advent, and that Arctic seals are
still found in Lake Baikal in Siberia. While he grants that
Egyptian civilization may go back to 5000 B. C., he holds that no
more than 6000 or 7000 years before this are needed as preparation
for history. Le Conte, Elements of Geology, 613—“Men saw the great
glaciers of the second glacial epoch, but there is no reliable
evidence of their existence before the first glacial epoch.
Deltas, implements, lake shores, waterfalls, indicate only 7000 to
10,000 years.” Recent calculations of Prof. Prestwich, the most
eminent living geologist of Great Britain, tend to bring the close
of the glacial epoch down to within 10,000 or 15,000 years.

(_d_) Even if error in matters of science were found in Scripture, it would not disprove inspiration, since inspiration concerns itself with science only so far as correct scientific views are necessary to morals and religion.

Great harm results from identifying Christian doctrine with
specific theories of the universe. The Roman church held that the
revolution of the sun around the earth was taught in Scripture,
and that Christian faith required the condemnation of Galileo;
John Wesley thought Christianity to be inseparable from a belief
in witchcraft; opposers of the higher criticism regard the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch as “articulus stantis vel cadentis
ecclesiæ.” We mistake greatly when we link inspiration with
scientific doctrine. The purpose of Scripture is not to teach
science, but to teach religion, and, with the exception of God’s
creatorship and preserving agency in the universe, no scientific
truth is essential to the system of Christian doctrine.
Inspiration might leave the Scripture writers in possession of the
scientific ideas of their time, while yet they were empowered
correctly to declare both ethical and religious truth. A right
spirit indeed gains some insight into the meaning of nature, and
so the Scripture writers seem to be preserved from incorporating
into their productions much of the scientific error of their day.
But entire freedom from such error must not be regarded as a
necessary accompaniment of inspiration.

2. Errors in matters of History.

To this objection we reply:

(_a_) What are charged as such are often mere mistakes in transcription, and have no force as arguments against inspiration, unless it can first be shown that inspired documents are by the very fact of their inspiration exempt from the operation of those laws which affect the transmission of other ancient documents.

We have no right to expect that the inspiration of the original
writer will be followed by a miracle in the case of every copyist.
Why believe in infallible copyists, more than in infallible
printers? God educates us to care for his word, and for its
correct transmission. Reverence has kept the Scriptures more free
from various readings than are other ancient manuscripts. None of
the existing variations endanger any important article of faith.
Yet some mistakes in transcription there probably are. In _1
Chron. 22:14_, instead of 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000
talents of silver (= $3,750,000,000), Josephus divides the sum by
ten. Dr. Howard Osgood: “A French writer, Revillout, has accounted
for the differing numbers in Kings and Chronicles, just as he
accounts for the same differences in Egyptian and Assyrian later
accounts, by the change in the value of money and debasement of
issues. He shows the change all over Western Asia.” _Per contra_,
see Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 45.

In _2 Chron. 13:3, 17_, where the numbers of men in the armies of
little Palestine are stated as 400,000 and 800,000, and 500,000
are said to have been slain in a single battle, “some ancient
copies of the Vulgate and Latin translations of Josephus have
40,000, 80,000, and 50,000”; see Annotated Paragraph Bible, _in
loco_. In _2 Chron. 17:14-19_, Jehoshaphat’s army aggregates
1,160,000, besides the garrisons of his fortresses. It is possible
that by errors in transcription these numbers have been multiplied
by ten. Another explanation however, and perhaps a more probable
one, is given under (_d_) below. Similarly, compare _1 Sam. 6:19_,
where 50,070 are slain, with the 70 of Josephus; _2 Sam.
8:4—_“1,700 horsemen,” with _1 Chron. 18:4—_“7,000 horsemen”;
_Esther 9:16_—75,000 slain by the Jews, with LXX—15,000. In _Mat.
27:9_, we have “Jeremiah” for “Zechariah”—this Calvin allows to be
a mistake; and, if a mistake, then one made by the first copyist,
for it appears in all the uncials, all the manuscripts and all the
versions except the Syriac Peshito where it is omitted, evidently
on the authority of the individual transcriber and translator. In
_Acts 7:16—_“the tomb that Abraham bought”—Hackett regards
“Abraham” as a clerical error for “Jacob” (compare _Gen. 33:18,
19_). See Bible Com., 3:165, 249, 251, 317.

(_b_) Other so-called errors are to be explained as a permissible use of round numbers, which cannot be denied to the sacred writers except upon the principle that mathematical accuracy was more important than the general impression to be secured by the narrative.

In _Numbers 25:9_, we read that there fell in the plague 24,000;
_1 Cor. 10:8_ says 23,000. The actual number was possibly
somewhere between the two. Upon a similar principle, we do not
scruple to celebrate the Landing of the Pilgrims on December 22nd
and the birth of Christ on December 25th. We speak of the battle
of Bunker Hill, although at Bunker Hill no battle was really
fought. In _Ex. 12:40, 41_, the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt
is declared to be 430 years. Yet Paul, in _Gal. 3:17_, says that
the giving of the law through Moses was 430 years after the call
of Abraham, whereas the call of Abraham took place 215 years
before Jacob and his sons went down into Egypt, and Paul should
have said 645 years instead of 430. Franz Delitzsch: “The Hebrew
Bible counts four centuries of Egyptian sojourn (_Gen. 15:13-16_),
more accurately, 430 years (_Ex. 12:40_); but according to the LXX
(_Ex. 12:40_) this number comprehends the sojourn in Canaan and
Egypt, so that 215 years come to the pilgrimage in Canaan, and 215
to the servitude in Egypt. This kind of calculation is not
exclusively Hellenistic; it is also found in the oldest
Palestinian Midrash. Paul stands on this side in _Gal. 3:17_,
making, not the immigration into Egypt, but the covenant with
Abraham the _terminus a quo_ of the 430 years which end in the
Exodus from Egypt and in the legislation”; see also Hovey, Com. on
_Gal. 3:17_. It was not Paul’s purpose to write chronology,—so he
may follow the LXX, and call the time between the promise to
Abraham and the giving of the law to Moses 430 years, rather than
the actual 600. If he had given the larger number, it might have
led to perplexity and discussion about a matter which had nothing
to do with the vital question in hand. Inspiration may have
employed current though inaccurate statements as to matters of
history, because they were the best available means of impressing
upon men’s minds truth of a more important sort. In _Gen. 15:13_
the 430 years is called in round numbers 400 years, and so in
_Acts 7:6_.

(_c_) Diversities of statement in accounts of the same event, so long as they touch no substantial truth, may be due to the meagreness of the narrative, and might be fully explained if some single fact, now unrecorded, were only known. To explain these apparent discrepancies would not only be beside the purpose of the record, but would destroy one valuable evidence of the independence of the several writers or witnesses.

On the Stokes trial, the judge spoke of two apparently conflicting
testimonies as neither of them necessarily false. On the
difference between Matthew and Luke as to the scene of the Sermon
on the Mount (_Mat. 5:1_; _cf._ _Luke 6:17_) see Stanley, Sinai
and Palestine, 360. As to one blind man or two (_Mat. 20:30_;
_cf._ _Luke 18:35_) see Bliss, Com. on Luke, 275, and Gardiner, in
Bib. Sac., July, 1879:513, 514; Jesus may have healed the blind
men during a day’s excursion from Jericho, and it might be
described as “when they went out,” or “as they drew nigh to
Jericho.” Prof. M. B. Riddle: “_Luke 18:35_ describes the general
movement towards Jerusalem and not the precise detail preceding
the miracle; _Mat. 20:30_ intimates that the miracle occurred
during an excursion from the city,—Luke afterwards telling of the
final departure”; Calvin holds to two meetings; Godet to two
cities; if Jesus healed two blind men, he certainly healed one,
and Luke did not need to mention more than one, even if he knew of
both; see Broadus on _Mat. 20:30_. In _Mat. 8:28_, where Matthew
has two demoniacs at Gadara and Luke has only one at Gerasa,
Broadus supposes that the village of Gerasa belonged to the
territory of the city of Gadara, a few miles to the Southeast of
the lake, and he quotes the case of Lafayette: “In the year 1824
Lafayette visited the United States and was welcomed with honors
and pageants. Some historians will mention only Lafayette, but
others will relate the same visit as made and the same honors as
enjoyed by two persons, namely, Lafayette and his son. Will not
both be right?” On Christ’s last Passover, see Robinson, Harmony,
212; E. H. Sears, Fourth Gospel, Appendix A; Edersheim, Life and
Times of the Messiah, 2:507. Augustine: “Locutiones variæ, sed non
contrariæ: dlversæ, sed non adversæ.”

Bartlett, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1880:46, 47, gives the following
modern illustrations: Winslow’s Journal (of Plymouth Plantation)
speaks of a ship sent out “by Master Thomas Weston.” But Bradford
in his far briefer narrative of the matter, mentions it as sent
“by Mr. Weston and another.” John Adams, in his letters, tells the
story of the daughter of Otis about her father’s destruction of
his own manuscripts. At one time he makes her say: “In one of his
unhappy moments he committed them all to the flames”; yet, in the
second letter, she is made to say that “he was several days in
doing it.” One newspaper says: President Hayes attended the
Bennington centennial; another newspaper says: the President and
Mrs. Hayes; a third: the President and his Cabinet; a fourth: the
President, Mrs. Hayes and a majority of his Cabinet. Archibald
Forbes, in his account of Napoleon III at Sedan, points out an
agreement of narratives as to the salient points, combined with
“the hopeless and bewildering discrepancies as to details,” even
as these are reported by eye-witnesses, including himself,
Bismarck, and General Sheridan who was on the ground, as well as
others.

Thayer, Change of Attitude, 52, speaks of Luke’s “plump
anachronism in the matter of Theudas”—_Acts 5:36—_“For before
those days rose up Theudas.” Josephus, Antiquities, 20:5:1,
mentions an insurrectionary Theudas, but the date and other
incidents do not agree with those of Luke. Josephus however may
have mistaken the date as easily as Luke, or he may refer to
another man of the same name. The inscription on the Cross is
given in _Mark 15:26_, as “The King of the Jews”; in _Luke 23:38_,
as “This is the King of the Jews”; in _Mat. 27:37_, as “This is
Jesus the King of the Jews”; and in _John 19:19_, as “Jesus of
Nazareth the King of the Jews.” The entire superscription, in
Hebrew, Greek and Latin, may have contained every word given by
the several evangelists combined, and may have read “This is Jesus
of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,” and each separate report may
be entirely correct so far as it goes. See, on the general
subject, Haley, Alleged Discrepancies; Fisher, Beginnings of
Christianity, 406-412.

(_d_) While historical and archæological discovery in many important particulars goes to sustain the general correctness of the Scripture narratives, and no statement essential to the moral and religious teaching of Scripture has been invalidated, inspiration is still consistent with much imperfection in historical detail and its narratives “do not seem to be exempted from possibilities of error.”

The words last quoted are those of Sanday. In his Bampton Lectures
on Inspiration, 400, he remarks that “Inspiration belongs to the
historical books rather as conveying a religious lesson, than as
histories; rather as interpreting, than as narrating plain matter
of fact. The crucial issue is that in these last respects they do
not seem to be exempted from possibilities of error.” R. V.
Foster, Systematic Theology, (Cumberland Presbyterian): The
Scripture writers “were not inspired to do otherwise than to take
these statements as they found them.” Inerrancy is not freedom
from misstatements, but from error defined as “that which misleads
in any serious or important sense.” When we compare the accounts
of _1_ and _2 Chronicles_ with those of _1_ and _2 Kings_ we find
in the former an exaggeration of numbers, a suppression of
material unfavorable to the writer’s purpose, and an emphasis upon
that which is favorable, that contrasts strongly with the method
of the latter. These characteristics are so continuous that the
theory of mistakes in transcription does not seem sufficient to
account for the facts. The author’s aim was to draw out the
religious lessons of the story, and historical details are to him
of comparative unimportance.

H. P. Smith, Bib. Scholarship and Inspiration, 108—“Inspiration
did not correct the Chronicler’s historical point of view, more
than it corrected his scientific point of view, which no doubt
made the earth the centre of the solar system. It therefore left
him open to receive documents, and to use them, which idealized
the history of the past, and described David and Solomon according
to the ideas of later times and the priestly class. David’s sins
are omitted, and numbers are multiplied, to give greater dignity
to the earlier kingdom.” As Tennyson’s Idylls of the King give a
nobler picture of King Arthur, and a more definite aspect to his
history, than actual records justify, yet the picture teaches
great moral and religious lessons, so the Chronicler seems to have
manipulated his material in the interest of religion. Matters of
arithmetic were minor matters. “Majoribus intentus est.”

E. G. Robinson: “The numbers of the Bible are characteristic of a
semi-barbarous age. The writers took care to guess enough. The
tendency of such an age is always to exaggerate.” Two Formosan
savages divide five pieces between them by taking two apiece and
throwing one away. The lowest tribes can count only with the
fingers of their hands; when they use their toes as well, it marks
an advance in civilization. To the modern child a hundred is just
as great a number as a million. So the early Scriptures seem to
use numbers with a childlike ignorance as to their meaning.
Hundreds of thousands can be substituted for tens of thousands,
and the substitution seems only a proper tribute to the dignity of
the subject. Gore, in Lux Mundi, 353—“This was not conscious
perversion, but unconscious idealizing of history, the reading
back into past records of a ritual development which was really
later. Inspiration excludes conscious deception, but it appears to
be quite consistent with this sort of idealizing; always supposing
that the result read back into the earlier history does represent
the real purpose of God and only anticipates the realization.”

There are some who contend that these historical imperfections are
due to transcription and that they did not belong to the original
documents. Watts, New Apologetic, 71, 111, when asked what is
gained by contending for infallible original autographs if they
have been since corrupted, replies: “Just what we gain by
contending for the original perfection of human nature, though man
has since corrupted it. We must believe God’s own testimony about
his own work. God may permit others to do what, as a holy
righteous God, he cannot do himself.” When the objector declares
it a matter of little consequence whether a pair of trousers were
or were not originally perfect, so long as they are badly rent
just now, Watts replies: “The tailor who made them would probably
prefer to have it understood that the trousers did not leave his
shop in their present forlorn condition. God drops no stitches and
sends out no imperfect work.” Watts however seems dominated by an
_a priori_ theory of inspiration, which blinds him to the actual
facts of the Bible.

Evans, Bib. Scholarship and Inspiration, 40—“Does the _present_
error destroy the inspiration of the Bible as we have it? No. Then
why should the _original_ error destroy the inspiration of the
Bible, as it was first given? There are spots on yonder sun; do
they stop its being the sun? Why, the sun is all the more a sun
for the spots. So the Bible.” Inspiration seems to have permitted
the gathering of such material as was at hand, very much as a
modern editor might construct his account of an army movement from
the reports of a number of observers; or as a modern historian
might combine the records of a past age with all their
imperfections of detail. In the case of the Scripture writers,
however, we maintain that inspiration has permitted no sacrifice
of moral and religious truth in the completed Scripture, but has
woven its historical material together into an organic whole which
teaches all the facts essential to the knowledge of Christ and of
salvation.

When we come to examine in detail what purport to be historical
narratives, we must be neither credulous nor sceptical, but simply
candid and open-minded. With regard for example to the great age
of the Old Testament patriarchs, we are no more warranted in
rejecting the Scripture accounts upon the ground that life in
later times is so much shorter, than we are to reject the
testimony of botanists as to trees of the Sequoia family between
four and five hundred feet high, or the testimony of geologists as
to Saurians a hundred feet long, upon the ground that the trees
and reptiles with which we are acquainted are so much smaller.
Every species at its introduction seems to exhibit the maximum of
size and vitality. Weismann, Heredity, 6, 30—“Whales live some
hundreds of years; elephants two hundred—their gestation taking
two years. Giants prove that the plan upon which man is
constructed can also be carried out on a scale far larger than the
normal one.” E. Ray Lankester, Adv. of Science, 205-237,
286—agrees with Weismann in his general theory. Sir George
Cornewall Lewis long denied centenarism, but at last had to admit
it.

Charles Dudley Warner, in Harper’s Magazine, Jan. 1895, gives
instances of men 137, 140, and 192 years old. The German Haller
asserts that “the ultimate limit of human life does not exceed two
centuries: to fix the exact number of years is exceedingly
difficult.” J. Norman Lockyer, in Nature, regards the years of the
patriarchs as lunar years. In Egypt, the sun being used, the unit
of time was a year; but in Chaldea, the unit of time was a month,
for the reason that the standard of time was the moon. Divide the
numbers by twelve, and the lives of the patriarchs come out very
much the same length with lives at the present day. We may ask,
however, how this theory would work in shortening the lives
between Noah and Moses. On the genealogies in Matthew and Luke,
see Lord Harvey, Genealogies of our Lord, and his art, in Smith’s
Bible Dictionary; _per contra_, see Andrews, Life of Christ, 55
_sq._ On Quirinius and the enrollment for taxation (_Luke 2:2_),
see Pres. Woolsey, in New Englander, 1869. On the general subject,
see Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, and essay in Modern
Scepticism, published by Christian Evidence Society, 1:265;
Crooker, New Bible and New Uses, 102-126.

3. Errors in Morality.

(_a_) What are charged as such are sometimes evil acts and words of good men—words and acts not sanctioned by God. These are narrated by the inspired writers as simple matter of history, and subsequent results, or the story itself, is left to point the moral of the tale.

Instances of this sort are Noah’s drunkenness (_Gen. 9:20-27_);
Lot’s incest (_Gen. 19:30-38_); Jacob’s falsehood (_Gen.
27:19-24_); David’s adultery (_2 Sam. 11:1-4_); Peter’s denial
(_Mat. 26:69-75_). See Lee, Inspiration, 265, note. Esther’s
vindictiveness is not commended, nor are the characters of the
Book of Esther said to have acted in obedience to a divine
command. Crane, Religion of To-morrow, 241—“In law and psalm and
prophecy we behold the influence of Jehovah working as leaven
among a primitive and barbarous people. Contemplating the Old
Scriptures in this light, they become luminous with divinity, and
we are furnished with the principle by which to discriminate
between the divine and the human in the book. Particularly in
David do we see a rugged, half-civilized, kingly man, full of
gross errors, fleshly and impetuous, yet permeated with a divine
Spirit that lifts him, struggling, weeping, and warring, up to
some of the loftiest conceptions of Deity which the mind of man
has conceived. As an angelic being, David is a caricature; as a
man of God, as an example of God moving upon and raising up a most
human man, he is a splendid example. The proof that the church is
of God, is not its impeccability, but its progress.”

(_b_) Where evil acts appear at first sight to be sanctioned, it is frequently some right intent or accompanying virtue, rather than the act itself, upon which commendation is bestowed.