IS THE BIBLE THE WORK OF INSPIRATION?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6089, 22 December 1906, Page 3

IS THE BIBLE THE WORK OF INSPIRATION?

(To tho Editor, "N.Z. Times.”! Sir,—Tlio article running through the columns of your paper lately on “The Trend of Religious Thought,” being in ita arguments a direct negation of the Infallibility of the authority, viz., tho liiblo, from whence springs all Christian religions thought, X crave the uso of your valuable paper in tho defence, nud for tho purpose of proving the inspiration, and therefore tho infallibility, •of tho Bible.

The question is not as to translation, but aa to tho original writing. Yet the answer as to tho original writing will apply substantially to tho translations, because the translation of a book into another language is a mere feat of technical expertncss. by which tho ideas expressed in one tongue are reproduced in ' iho appropriate terms of another—a ! work, doubtless, of some difficulty, in : noma cases, because of tho idiomatic and constructive difference of most languages from one another, but not a work for which inspiration i8 i necessary. What is called "genius” in natural 'Writers may illustrate. It requires this '‘genius** to writ© Tennyson*© poems ; but any frenchman, with a * good knowledge of English, could render them Into French, and in French they would. ?or all practical purposes, have thastamp jf Tennyson's idiosyncrasies, os much as in tho original English. , Or, let us say, u political article appears in a Russian paper, "inspired** by the Government of tho country; the article is translated into English, and appears in the “Times.** It is as much an inspired article in English as it is in Russian. It is the ideas expressed that are everything; tho form vf tho expression is only secondary. If therefore, we say the Bibio, as originally, Written in Hebrew and Greek, is tho work ‘ at inspiration, the answer will apply to tho English Bible, which for all practical purposes is a substantially correct translation of the original. I Tho question relates just now to tho Old Testament. Tho inspiration of tho Now Testament is conceded by numbers )f those who hold loose views of tho inspiration of’ the Old Testament. Consequently, I may leave tho New Testament out of account in tho present article, exoopt in so far as it may bo brought to boar in tho determination of the character of the Old Testament./ There are two ways of studying the question, one ■of which is unspeakably more direct and conclusive than the other. Tho one that is not conclusive is the plan of studying tho Old Testament by itself, and judging it by the principles ordinarily applicable in tho determination of literary problems. By this plan, a man will never reach solid ground. Ordinary principles of criticism will never explain the Bible, i.e., the Bible will not adapt itself to the requirements of such principles, for a good reason, aa you shall •see. The German mystic, Novalis, or Jean Paul Richter (I forget which), pronounces tho Bible "the problem of authorship/* in the sense of being an insoluble problem; and Carlyle never attempted the subject. The way that ia direct and conclusive is this. Christ stands related to the subject. If Ho rose from the dead, hisviows of it are true, and the views also of his apostles, who, in that case, were illuminated by tho Spirit of God expressly for their guidance into “all truth.” In the present case, I assume the resurrection of Christ, because it is conceded by the majority of those who have raised the question at the head of this article. I, therefore, propose to ask the following questions: 1. What waa the estimate of the Old Testament entertained by Christ and the A-poetles P ’ , 2. Does the Old Testament itself boar evidence of tho correctness of that estimate, or otherwise?

3. I a it possible to reconcile all the facta of the case with the view which they propound f I need not encumber the subject with any discussion of what is called the "canon" of the Old Testament. The material facts are simple. The Old Testament, as we have it, is the Old Testament as it waa In the hands of tho Jews in' the first century, as, proved by Jewish and Christian witnesses. This was the Old Testament to which tho allusions of Christ and the Apostles apply, whether in Hebrew or Greek. Consequently, there is no difficulty in making a proper use of tho argument. In what estimate, then, did Christ hold the Script tires of tho Old Testament, of which Scriptures, Josephus, a W of the first century, spooks thus: ‘•HW firmly we have given credit to those boom oI our own nation Is evident by what wa do; tar during so many ages os have already passed, no one has been so hold m either to add anythin* to thorn or take anything from them, ■ or to make any change in ’ thanf, and if occasion bo to willingly die tor them.” (Joa. v. ap. book 1. par, 81. Christ al-lndea to the GUI Testament under various names. He sneote of "The Scriptures" "llosps and Mm prophets.” '■'The word ot God, ihe (hincs that are written, ’ etc. But, whatever bo tho form of the allusion, ho

never speaks of them without recognising their divine authority, expressly or by obvious inference. 1. lie makes tho fact of a thing being written in the Scriptures always a sufficient reason for its reception as divine. His answers to the tempter in tho wilderness were all of this character, 0.g., “Xt is written. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. and Him only shalt thou serve” (Hath. 4 10), Of John the Bap-

list. Ho says—‘"Flits is he of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger,” etc. (Math. 11-10). He supported his doctrine concerning the holy character of the true children of Abraham by saying, 1 “It is written in the prophets they shall bo all taught of God.** (John B-45). The I Apostolic record shows us Jesus using this phrase on many other occasions, but these arc sufficient. Tho nee of it could not bo accounted for except on the principle that he regarded the Old Testament as a divine document. His references in tho form of this phrase extend ; from Moses to Malachi, taking the his- ; torical books and psalms between. 2. His statements concerning the writings of Moses and the prophets are all of a character that recognise them as divine. These statements occur in various connections, but they are all of one character. When ho said, "I am not coma to destroy (the law and the prophets), but to fulfill" (Math 5-17), it was as good as saying that the law and the prophom were divine, for with man there can never originate anything for the Son of God to "fulfil.*’ He expressly said; “Ail the prophets and tho law prophesied till . John" (Math. 11-13). This affirms the matter in question. Ho made Abraham in parable say, “They have Moses and tho prophets; let thorn hear them" (Luke 18-29),, which he could not be imagined to have done on any supposition but that Moses and tho prophets were divine, Moses, tho prophets, and . the Psalms (thus endorsed by Christ. as divine) are practically the whole Bible. * i 3. Jesus constantly evinced a reverence for tho Scriptures of the Old Testament, and an anxiety that men should understand them, which cannot bo understood | unices ho recognised them as of divine ' origin and authority. The evidence of this is partly comprised in the statements quoted already. But it is found particularly in those that refer specifically to tho Scriptures as a whole. In his argument with the Sadducoes. he said: "Ye do greatly err. “Not knowing the Scriptures** (Math. 22-29). What is this but saying that the Scriptures are an unerring guide to divine truth? On another occasion he opened the understanding of his disciples, "that they might understand the ’Scriptures.” (Luke. 24-45.) Taking such pains to make His disciples understand the Scriptures is proof of His recognition of their divine character. Why should he bo so anxious for them to understand the Scriptures if the Scriptures were in any degree of human origin? In no plainer way could Jesus have asserted the divine character of the Old Testament unless it be in his parenthetical declaration in an argument with the Jews concerning a quotation he had made: “The Scripture cannot be broken." (John, 17-35.) , The trend of religious (?) thought is undoubtedly leading to so-cfflled' liberalism in our- day; but instead of that uprooting the character of the Bible as an inspired book, it rather confirms it as such; because it is written (Genesis 6, 5-12) that God brought the flood and destroyed all people at that time on account of their "corrupting his way." Jesus said that previous to his second coming tho people of tho earth would be in tho same state of Godlessncss as at the time of the flood, which, according to tho trend of thought to-day. is a complete fulfilment of' the words of Christ, showing his word inspired (Math. 24, 37-39). Tho state of the i world to-day is a complete denial of all authority based on the Book from whence comes all "religious" thought; but that state, instead of disproving the Bible, rather proves its inspiration, because it is written that that is exactly the state tho world was to be in, in the latter days. Very much more could be put forward to jirove the inspiration of the Bible as an infallible Book; but, fearing I have already trespassed too much on your valuable space, I will conclude byagatn quoting the words of Christ, which hold as good to-day as the day he spoke them: “The Scripture cannot be broken."—l am, etc.,

R. ROBERTS. Potone, December 17th.