THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11733, 10 September 1902, Page 7

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor. Sir, —In my last letter I took some .pains to show that the Bible had, in part, been proved by ita own professors and expounders to be largely composed of matter purely mythical and legendary. I quoted Dr. Driver, of Oxford, as one of the leaders of this so-called "Higher Criticism." Yet the very next day a letter appears from your correspondent "Vindex," in which he absolutely ignores the authority given and contends that there is nothing but my statement for it. What can one make of a person who acts in this way? Let me refer !him to a work just, beinf published by Messrs A. and C. Black—l refer to the "J2/ncyclopaedia Biblica," of which three volumes have already been issued. The last volume contains matter that will startle the general reader, and must, if he brings to his task an impartial mind, convince him of the mythical character of as much of the New Testament as did Dr. ColMns's "Work of the Old. One of the writers of this truly comprehensive work, Dr. Manen, of Leyden, has, as the mult of a thorough study of the canonical and uncanonical works of Christian literature, come to the conclusion that tha Gospels we now possess wero based on a yet older written Gospel differing greatly from the present in many important particulars. He characterises the Book of Acts as "not a true and credible first-hand narrative of what had actually occurred, nor yet as the ripe fruit of earnest historical research." He further makes this startling proposition: "With respect to the canonical Pauline epistles, the later criticism here under consideration has learned to recognise that they are none of them by Paul —neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or ten, nor seven or eight, nor yet even the four so long universally regarded as ■unassailable." In the face of this evidence, from one of the ablest of European schol- . ars, are we in New Zealand justified in not only teaching these portions of the Book .as true, but even those essentially mythical and legendary portions of the Old Testament, which one might) truly say is composed largely of matter that is ridiculous, contradictory, or impure. Your correspondent "Fight Fair" taxes "Pro Veritote" with hiding' ebhind a norn de plume, while he goes and does likewise-himself. Does not "F.F." know that the true Christian spirit of these times is such that any man who openly proclaims himself an opponent of this Bible as the inspired woid of God stands a very good/chance of losing his sitaation or the support of Christian (?) people. Yoar correspondent's ("Best Book") argument that the, Bible is> the best book is, aa before show', an absurd one; for has it not been proved time and again that all ■which is "best" in this book has been taken from the older books and thoughts of the works off men who came before it? His simile of the brightness of the sun compared with a star might be turned to account in lis own instruction. We know (not by inspiration or from the Bible) that the stars are suns shining by their own inherent brightness, and we are told that many of the stars are vastly superior to our own in magnitude and brilliancy. It has been shown that if placed at the distance at which faany of these "twinkling stars" are situat-'xt, our own sun would become invisible from our present position. "8.8.." judges the worth of the Bible as he estimates the magnitude of the sun—he takes tiSat which is nearest and forgets that nojfching in the universe is of essential import- . tance but through the relation it bears to )bther things, our own sun and the Bible in- ? eluded. "B.B." says: "The non-believers' / Lave had their innings; their feelings, have ' faesn considered long enough," etc. This is 1 absurd. The present system concedes no thing to the "non-believer" ; it is simply carrying out a system of education that is open to all, and into which no reli^oujs difficnlties are imported. It may be reiterated that this iv the duty of the State. If the State goes beyond this it exceeds, its province. It introduces a system that, in itself, is against all fair legislative precedent. It makes it obligatory upon people who are opposed to Bible teaching in schools to contribute through the various channels of taxation the fund which goes to defray the cost of this proceedings It moreover - imposes upon the teachers a task for the execution of -which many will be altogether ■unsuited and many more out of sympathy with. Furthermore, it increases the tendency to partial selection on the part of School Committees, which would be an evil, and a premium would be put upon dissimulation in teachers—for what teacher would refuse to comply with this practice if he or she thought it would be a bar to their promotion. You then have the spectacle of a parson looking upon that which he is teaching' as> mythical, yet nevertheless forced by circumstances to impart it. What sort of force may be expected from such a method? The Utilitarian basis of ethics and morality has been totally misrepresented in your columns. This system is founded on the contention that what promotes and consolidates the social order is good, and all that works in opposition is evil or undesirable and to be avoided. The child would not be taught to avoid telling lies because of the risk of being found out, as stated, but for the reason that if lying became general the social order under which we live would become disorganised. While the Christian deprecates the recognition of this basis for morality,, he fails to percive that the Old Testament teaches nothing else. It is only when we come to the Golden Rule, which is hundreds of years older than Chrst, that the higher view of morality presents- itself. Yet even here it is utilitarian as it appeals for the sama treatment to all as you would hope to receive from all. An appeal to inspiration becomes unnecessary and absurd; besides, how can anyone. conceive of a Supreme Being as influenced by action of any kind? 'A Supreme and Omnipotent Being should bo above all change or condition whatever, yet the Bible makes Him out to be pleased •with the smell of roast meat and subject to all moods and caprices. In the scheme of salvation as preached generally from the Bible, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" figures largely even now. This is only in keeping with Nature's method of exactly a penalty for all offences against her, but is not ennobling. Still, it shows the human origin of this book perhaps better than anything else could. Re the suggestion that those who are opposed to Bible I reading in schools should hold a meeting j and protest against it there and not through ! tha newspapers, your correspondent knows very well that this is well-nigh impossible. For ono reason, Agnostics have not com bined; they are satisfied that the tiutli wiil make its Tray, and take no steps to hasten it beyond a few lectures and pamphlets, but the increasing range of Rationalistic literature proves vhe expansion to be very real for all that, and to such agencies and a voice occasionally in the press, for which out thanks are given, we must rest content. —I am. etc.. OMEGA. To the Editor. Sir,—Amongst your numerous correspondents re Bible in schools are some with views not to be expected in what we call a Christian community. Those I would advise to read a lecture given by Dr. Torrey in the Melbourne Town Hall on i'The Bible, the Word of God." It

appear* in the last) Auckland "Weekly" I ({September 4). Still, I ami not in favour ;of the Bible in schools in New Zealand, although for countries with a higher moral standaM' I would say certainly. The Word of God should not be trampled in the gutter, and any observant man, or woman can see enough of that already without introducing more scone for such. The old. parochial school system in vogue in ScotAuid at one time answered .admirably, with its Bible teachings!, amongst an unmixed Protestant class of people, as well as in Dutch communities, wherever they are—again a Protestant people)—but neither of those were a free or pauper system of education. Therefore, it would not suit this_ colony, where the children are educated! by the State. Besides, larrik'inistai has got so strong a hold that nothing but the strong arm of ;tihe law now can cope witih that element ,and the Sabbath breaker. To. quote an instance, I happened to be in Waverley on a Saturday night nearly three months ago, when between eleven and; twelve o'clock a dreadful row commenced in the main street of that little tomnship—kicking tin cans along, yelling, and using moist filthy language. Why, if the strong arm of the law had been available there those blackguards shouldhave been taught a lesson that they would fail to repeat it. No Bible would ever teachi such ruffians. Then (as your correspondent "Secular Education" says, in his of the 23rd August), referring to Sir Samuel Baker's travels in Africa, that nevertheless it is a fact that he had seen whole tribes in Central Africa, who knew no Geod or of any form of' worship, who were leading daily lives that would put civilised nations to the blush. This is quite true in my own experience. Where the English nation takes the Bible the devil follows in its rear in full force. Take, for instance, the Kaffir colleges established by the late Sir George Grey in South Africa—one in Capetown, the other in Kingwilliams Town. There you could have seen some forty years ago innocent Kaffir lads, in fact young men from 20 to 25, go there for a two years' education, come away at the end of that time regular devils, and to learn others their vices.. No one would employ them if they knew it. It is an old saying that history repeats itself. To all appearance it is our Empire's turn. We may be riding for a fall, and what is the use of locking the door when the horse isi gone? If we want Bibles in schools or Christianity in this colony, or anywhere- else, we must ,pufc upright Christian men at the helm. Even now we might have retained! our fair name in the eyes of the world had we kept our Premier and his troops at home. Now we nave exposed our hand1. Even from the start we dragged! the name of God into olir enthusiasm, and made Him a fighting God on our behalf. This is certainly very degrading, and of such has been the cause of the fall of great nations —dragging God into uiie gutter. Bible or no Bible, we should! set ourselves against such cowardly actions.—l am, etc., SECTARIAN.

To the Editor. Sir, —"Young New Zealander" is wrong in saying that this is "an avowedly Christian country." It is not so. England is so, and even Anglican, but here all religions are on an equality, and the great objection to the present movement is that its promoters are tryingl to put not only one religion, but a particular phase of that religion above all the rest. We old colonists have been most careful not to do so, and therefore carefully kept religious teaching of iany kind out of our old common schoiols and modem State ones. Secular education is equally acceptable and useful to all, and as regards religions there are the Sunday schools of the various denominations, andi the day ones connected with the various religious bodies. So why try to force unpalatable views on peoiple's children? The writer who miscalds himself "Fair Play" accuses "P.V." of wanting to throw lumps of Huxley and others at the clergy. "P.V." proposed nothing of the kind. He evidently wants the chance to draw attention to the untrue and contradictory statements in the Bible, and thisi is just what I the promoters of the movement dare not allow. "Best Book" asserts that the Bible is justly entitled to be so regarded. No doubt-it is so in his opinion; yet of late years many persons, probably far better educated than he, prefer the teaching of the Koran and Tripitakas. The reasons which he gives are pure fanaticism, and though no doubt satisfactory to him, are not so to the great mass of thinking men, who ask for actual proof and not mere belief, or doubtful statements as a basis for teaching; and this is just what the Bible does not give, but mere unsupported and contradictiorv assertions. I do not believe "Best Book" could tell us how the Bible came in the 14th century to be called! "The Word of God" and "insfpired." Till that date the former term was only applied to the second person of the Trinity. "B.B." argues merely from his feelings', not his reason. "C.W.C." seems unaware that the sacred books of all religions have professed to foretell the end of all thinjrs, and if modern scientists object to do the same, and decllare that we can have no positive knowledge or even information about it, they still, Iby tracing out progress in the past and present, enable us to form, far juster ideas of God and His ways and designs than the sacred books of any religion have done.. Godl is enabling us, by study of His Works, to get continually more know--1 p.dore of Himself. For instance, we now s=p'< that death is a necessary complement of life, and that if wie had no knowledge of evil 'we shoul3 not appreciate good; that, in fact, both evil and' good are parts of God's (plans' for progress in development of the human race. "Scotchman" writes sensibly, but he does not touch the real difficulty, viz., the selection of passages to be taught. Probably the Virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension legends would be included; but in what foam? Out of the six (Sbspels now in our possession only two assert the first, and both these have beside it genealogies which not only contradict each other, but are utterly irreconcilable with, the Virgin birth stoiy. Th© two Gospels which contain the story are the two latest of the canonical ones, and their contents prove that they are not of earlier date than the very end of the. third century, or beginning of the fourth, by which time plenty of legends had grown up. We have six versions of.the Resurrection, all materially differing from each other, in a fashion utterly irreconcilable. It ia evident that the writers of all drew on their imagination for their facts. The only point on which they agree is that tihe tomb in which Jesu* was placed late on Friday afternoon was found empty on Sunday morning. The only Gospel which gives a reasonable explanation of this ia the one which says -13he body was removed by order of Pontius Pilate, and secretly interred elsswhere, to keep the disciples from assembling to worship at the tomb; and that thus'these last set abroad the tale that Christ had risen from the dead. This version is not only credible in itself, but it explains why the soldiers who had be<in put to guard the tomb were not punished

for deserting their posts and why tL«y should have asserted that the disciples stole the body while they slept. There is no necessity to go to Professor Huxley s examination of the story for a reasonable explanation of it, though many would prefer his, viz., that Jesus did not die on the cross, but lived quietly for twelve or fourteen years afterwards, and then died a natural death, as this would tally with -the historical fact that the disciples did not separate and start to teach the new religion for that length of time. As regards the ascension, we have three accounts which state it td have occurred at three different (places, a hundred miles or more apart. In all these cases can say which account would be the one selected for inclusion in a "Reader"? The whole question is such a difficult one that I am sure it is a pity that it has been raised, and that had far better have been left aJUone.—l am, etc., OLD SETTLER.