Mr MacGegor and the Bible. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2569, 10 June 1903, Page 81

Mr MacGegor and the Bible. TO THE EDITOR.

Pir,— Our thanks me tlup io Mi Mi'Cirpgir for h.s a:<i<.lc- c.i tip Bib'c-in-»r io<~ s. iiul I thmk he has demonstrntod thp ir.'<J\ is>ib !■'• of :nt-cduci'ig- Biblc-teac'urg i"to S'^'.i sc'ioo's by the aid c{ Stats-paid "icac'':i^, nnd the diirculty and futility of providing Bi'i'e-rcadmg without the lenching; but, o". the ot'ier han-d, there seems to be an unnecessary arrog&nce in };js mode of presenting the results oi Bible criticism, rse if Iho3e results were received Ijv all =cho!nr= a« matters that had beau placed. Ivj-youd1 v j-youd the region o f doubt, and as if tho adlicren* 1 } of the old tl'eory of inspiration wtre ilip onij otps v.'io }:.t\e had to rpcrdc from their ouginal fo-itiors. If I irustake i.et thp nn'tholo^ical Iheorv was, at one tin.? defended o. -flip pea tli:..t there was nt» sin 11 thirg os v.'nti^.g io- literary purposes' po oar!\ as tli-» iimo of Mo'es, an a^bunini-oi thnt is nov 3a'fiv. n to be baseless. One ir^DresbLon that I gather frcm Mr MacG.'s articles is that lus r>roicssion.'l instincts are too =t-crg for him to be a safe guide in matters of Hilj'e diiMsm, he BC-cnis io me io havp b»en h«^til\ rradii>r; un 11. case, rather than lmparlinl'v u.\e-Ui,iVi.ig . otherwiss he would not have mdde Vie mislah of attributing to Abraham an act of deception on the part of Isaac, a'ao )ip ra.<7ht hav° 1 ten n'jlc to :n v* n*: 8 so^^vrh-'t d.ffire. tl. .." > tabon of the command that the un^ircumc.sc t c' ad should be "cut off." Mr MacG. seems to wish us tobehe\p that the rebgion of ferae! v. as a pureiy natu.al de\e'o>ment. This ri^y pos=ibly be easy to the legal inuid, but ib it voi exrer'ng rathpr much 01 the man in the street or the mi n on thp farm to ask him to believe that the Jewish intellect, environed by ■■v-ten.- of the gTnsT^t pol; - theisnij usjs cauable of evo^inj, by its ortii

■unaided effort, a pure monotheism? A development it may have been, but eliminate the principles of Divine origin and guidance, arid to the ordinary mind the difficulties of credence are wonderfully increased.

"We are favoured with Ur Harnack's assertion as to the Babylonian origin of "Hebrew myths and legends, ' etc. If the Hebrews derived their myths — if they are myths — from Babylonia, how comes it that they did not get their religion from the same place f That they did not we have on the authority of Hilprecht, Professor of Aa=yriolcgy at the Univeisity ot Philadelphia, who has spent 14 years superintending excavations on the site of Babylon, and has unearthed over 50,000 inscribed tablets, his discoveries including a library and school of the priests. Professor Hilprecht pffirnis that the polytheism of Babylon had absolutely nothing in common with the monotheism of Israel, and, with the aid of comparative quotations taken from the writings of the two religions, he has proved that no part of that which forms the ease ice of die faith of Israel has been borrowed from, the religion of BabyIon." This, I take it, does not deny the existence of points of contact, in some of the forms or obsenancts, sikli as the Sabbath, or some portions of the ceremonial.

Dehtzsch, referred to by Six MitcG., and who seems to have arrived at different conclusions, I find apoken of as '"rash, \loient, and iconoclastic fiom lr.s youth up ... a good scholar, but few of lus results have been accepted." I find it stated that lie spent about two months in the neighbourhood 01 Babylon, and in deciding questions of Oriental literature prolonged con+act with the Oriental mind seems to be a factor that counts.

Professor Sayee, of Oxford, says: '"Between the scholar who has trained in a German study and 1113 Oriental, even of to-day, there is a gulf hxo-2, which cannot bo easily p.i^od. It we ktg to ha^e judgments upon ancient Oriental literature based solely on the previous education and beliefs of the critic, let them he pronou..ced by men like Burckha-rdt, or Sir iiichaiJ- Burtoa, not by those whose knowledge of Oriental ida s has been derived frcm book*. But it is ju-t men like Burckhardt axJ iJurtoii who shrink from pro 'ouncir.j such judgments a» all." Also, "the c\idence of Oriental archteology 13 on the whole distinctly nnfavourub'e to the prcten=ion3 of the higher crlicism. The apologist may lose something, but the higher cnt.c .cs-<s more. The cu-ijiform inscriptions have restored the hictoncal credit of ceitain passcgr^ of the Pentateuch which had been resolve* 1 , uito myth, and have demons'rated tiie \vorth'c3>nr33 of the arjjiimei.t3 by vhich their icyriii*. character h.>3 been main' am d."

In one of Mi itacG.'s quotal.o. 1 ? I notice the followirg —"King? and Chronicles aie full of mistakes, and pucticilly ur.re'iab'e. ' Wei', if Mr ilacG. likes to believe this, I suppose no one has any Tight to find fault with him, but cautious minds may feel safer in fol'owi^g Profedssr Sayee, who tells us thit '"the inscriptions of Xigl-itli-pi'.eser piove that he (the K:b.icai histoTia'i) was scrupulously honest 11' recor-hrg th? earlier history of his people, ar.d that the materials he employed were thoroughly trustworthy. But, on the other hand, they also piovo that he was rot an accomplished chrouologist, and that where he attempted to arrange his materials in a ciirono logical system he fell into error. . . . The Assyrian records have g;ven us fixed points of depaiture for dating tho reigns of the Jewish and Israxjhtish lungs ; from Ahab to Hezekiah wo can check the chronological statements of the Book of Kings, and determine the value to be attached to them." A comparison of the tv.o records brings Professor Sayce to the conclusion that it is "a fresh proof that the historical records of the Old Testament do not differ frcm other historical records v/hos? claim to coiJidenco has beea accepted by the verdict of posterity. The facts contained* 111 them aic ■trustweithy, a.nd. have been honestly copied from older, and in many cases contemporaneous, documents, it is only their setting ami framework, the older in which they pre arlanged, and the links cf connection by which they are bound together that belong to the ' later compiler. We can question his chrome - Ic^y while admitting to the fullest the correct ness of his facts. Further on it is admittec that, "where the materials before him ar> scanty or imperfect, it is inevitable that hr should at times draw false conc!u='oiis" — z c for instance, v. hen an Egyptian, general i, spoken of as the "Kmg oE J'ijjpt", but it 1 pointed out that "The existence of such ir*< c'.:rac.e-« m the Bib'ical namli.-e is the be=' pioof we car ha\ c of its coi forruty w.ih otb<>r histcucal v.!itn o -,. . . . 'me ?ub c t;intM truth of the slor/ has been abundant'y vind'ca'cd the errors due to the defectiv'er.c e3e 3 c Iks materials show on.y thi honesty of th. compi'er, a".d c et the gerera] trustworthincs? ■» of the hiatory in a clearer light." I ha\e no lnt/nitioii of entering mio a co,' *ro\eisy with Mr MacG , as I have neither tile leisure nor tl'e ability that would ha nr-c-css.'ry I c.nly d-csire to po.nt out to these v 1 o may feel ulanued by his assumption* that the authorities ars rot all on one side that, there are scholars who ".till contend for the substantial accuracy, considering the peno.l of the records and the d.fference of Eastern modes of thought aiid expre= a :on of JSastern and Western wnter>. of Bibli.'al h:»tory from the t.me c: Abraha '.1 onward. I am, etc . The M\* W'-ii Tra H.jt. Hxiau.a, Jif-e 1. TO THE ' Pip,- Wi*h your 'cave I ml' aco!rg.>>e tn .\. ifucCrc^or for having accuse. l '■ >n of cire'e---- , ness on a ncr-t on which I fi:.d ihat he w. - ouite right -the de'.ir.ou^ucies 01 AbraJ'-'ii I h.d that accoidmjr to the Buok o: Gear .bo '. | l'a'heT ird son cainnutt?d the sair.fi - ii-iic . t-i'l or against the same king cr one of the i-anu iiHir.e. It wa.s m\se'.f who had written m hast ' in that nMtter. net Mr MacGi-gor. A;i r.?\ perhips I ma.y bo avowed to take exceptioa to what i^i/eai^, to be Mr if-cG.'s \ lew with itpu. d to th: le-.g o'i oE Israc' — tiiat it was pciyti'eijtii up to .1 I.iic tua' ■. I "1-oii'd like '.o ask, hciv is the rpligion o[ a pro(/i to be judgpby the practice- of *'ie mu'tUude, or t'le pieccpts of its tnaol'-rs' We k—ov; frcm the B.b'e that i^olj-thcism ha.'l lrres'^tiL c ::tfract.ons for the apc.ent Israelite" 1 , a"*d v.li.i wordci, con{■ideniig that they ver? sm;o,:r r ': 1 b\ 1' on e- ery >4id;? But we:e lot th.ir \'- J "= <>• prophets cnrrtinun'ly I'o'di'-g f o. % . t''« iniquity of the |T.ic ( ].c \. * '... d of an imprcs-.on wo'iU' a rr' 4 . '- • * ••<a~^ lie. re, receive I . to' o re:7 oa o1o 1 C' 1 i<~'.(. 1 at t'lo pic=ei:t t ir.c 1 '•*■ ol*. Pl- !-. , < "'lf> r— ic'ico O r t' •> • ' tilde 1 1 '' ° 1 "•" 1 diy° S ippose he cbi.i cd ,i .e.oid <f .1 iii s". t.'i '. o.u tic imi >Tcr ft G?-mai y t< h.s X" • " - drrmg th* Frai co-I'rii = -.an v <tr, tlutrk'nc; (.ovi for the •.'.pu.ghtpr of h.s en^rai"'- 9 Ihe d. -patch was cat-risci at the t me ij fol'ows -- " I send ynu w&ri!. mv d-ar Angus' 1, We'vi> h". <l anrtlipr awiul bu«ter. Ton tl'on», ::d Frenchmen boo.v. Prai^o Gou .rcm wp.oqi all b!c"-.nrs <low »...-, tvo !• I ot s r 1,1" Lo'. o> \(o: are at t'i" pn. idit tun" ii the 'jnn 0 th; tctf"'' c r T , a'-d t'i \t, accr-dr.ig to 'ome Ic^= than or--'i,i'; of the 1 o-ji '.l* (,• 3"p ntt.ndcis at rli-'i of vor- 1 "' vr • d rot h-s o^.'ion of t^o r?' nor cf hi.rt.w it the l-rc^rtt d\y \j a ju=t u~- u^fl.v' 'e^p-y as til" opi^iO'i of 'O-T 1 n> the h.',' 1 er cri'ics .= cf the ie - !;i().i r f a"t ie t I-t:I -t: c ' With due it jUU to Mr M.icOiet'.r'; üb^UcCj

I beg to submit that it is the minority who are the true exponents of any religion — "the minority that is so easily overlooked; that the religion of ancient Israel must be judged by the seven thousand which had not bowed the knee to Baal, rather than by th© idolatrous mob, even, if it included kings, courtiers, and fal&e propn«ts. — I am, etc., The ALls with the Hoe. Mataura-, June 5.