DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN
CHAPTER I
THE
"HIGHER CRITICISM,"
AND
DEAN
FARRAR'S ESTIMATE OF THE BIBLE
By "all people of discernment" the "Higher Criticism" is
now held in the greatest repute. And discernment is a quality for which the dullest
of men are keen to claim credit. It may safely be assumed that not one person
in a score of those who eagerly disclaim belief in the visions of Daniel has
ever seriously considered the question. The literature upon the subject is but
dull reading at best, and the inquiry demands a combination of qualities which
is comparatively rare. A newspaper review of some ponderous treatise, or a
frothy discourse by some popular preacher, will satisfy most men. The German
literature upon the controversy they know nothing of; and the erudite writings
of scholars are by no means to their taste, and probably beyond their capacity.
Dean Farrar's Book of Daniel therefore meets a much-felt want. Ignored by
scholars it certainly will be, and the majority of serious theologians will
deplore it; but it supplies "the man in the street" with a reason for
the unfaith that is in him.
The narrowness with which it emphasises everything that either erudition or
ignorance can urge upon one side of a great controversy, to the exclusion of
the rest, will relieve him from the irksome task of thinking out the problem
for himself; and its pedantry is veiled by rhetoric of a type which will
admirably suit him. He cannot fail to be deeply impressed by "the
acervation of endless conjectures," and "the unconsciously
disingenuous resourcefulness of traditional harmonics." His acquaintance
with the unseen world will be enlarged by discovering that Gabriel, who
appeared to the prophet, is "the archangel" ; and by learning that
"it is only after the Exile that we find angels and demons playing a more
prominent part than before, divided into classes, and even marked out by
special names." It is not easy to decide whether this statement is the
more astonishing when examined as a specimen of English, or when regarded as a
dictum to guide us in the study of Scripture. But all this relates only to the
form of the book. When we come to consider its substance, the spirit which
pervades it, and the results to which it leads, a sense of distress and shame
will commingle with our amazement.
What the dissecting-room is to the physician criticism is to the theologian. In
its proper sphere it is most valuable; and it has made large additions to our
knowledge of the Bible. But it demands not only skill and care, but reverence;
and if these be wanting, it cannot fail to be mischievous. A man of the baser
sort may become so degraded by the use of the surgeon's knife that he loses all
respect for the body of his patient, and the sick-room is to him but the antechamber
to the mortuary. And can we with impunity forget the reverence that is due to
"the living and eternally abiding word of God" ?
It behoves us to distinguish between true criticism as a means to clear away
from that word corruptions and excrescences, and to gain a more intelligent
appreciation of its mysteries, and the Higher Criticism as a rationalistic and
anti-christian crusade. The end and aim of this movement is to eliminate God
from the Bible. It was the impure growth of the scepticism which well-nigh
swamped the religious life of Germany in the eighteenth century. Eichhorn set
himself to account for the miracles of Scripture. The poetic warmth of oriental
thought and language sufficed, in his judgment, to explain them. The writers
wrote as they were accustomed to think, leaving out of view all second causes,
and attributing results immediately to God. This theory had its day. It
obtained enthusiastic acceptance for a time. But rival hypotheses were put
forward to dispute its sway, and at last it was discarded in favour of the
system with which the name of De Wette is prominently associated. The sacred
writers were honest and true, but their teaching was based, not upon personal
knowledge, still less upon divine inspiration, but upon ancient authorities by
which they were misled. Their errors were due to the excessive literalness with
which they accepted as facts the legends of earlier days. De Wette, like
Eichhorn, desired to rescue the Bible from the reproach which had fallen upon
it. Upon them at least the halo of departed truth still rested. But others were
restrained by no such influence. With the ignorance of Pagans and the animus of
apostates they perverted the Scriptures and tore them to pieces.
One of the old Psalms, in lamenting with exquisite sadness the ruin brought by
the heathen upon the holy city and land, declares that fame was apportioned
according to zeal and success in the work of destruction. A like spirit has
animated the host of the critics. It is a distressing and baneful ordeal to
find oneself in the company of those who have no belief in the virtue of women.
The mind thus poisoned learns to regard with suspicion the purest inmates of a
pure home. And a too close familiarity with the vile literature of the sceptics
leads to a kindred distrust of all that is true and holy in our most true and
holy faith. Every chapter of this book gives proof to what an extent its author
has suffered this moral and spiritual deterioration; and no one can accept its
teaching without sinking, imperceptibly it may be, but surely and inevitably,
to the same level. Kuenen, one of the worst of the foreign sceptics, is. Dean
Farrar's master and guide in the interpretation of Daniel. And the result is
that he revels in puerilities and extravagances of exegesis and criticism which
the best of our British contemporary scholars are careful to repudiate. The
Book of Daniel is not "the work of a prophet in the Exile" (if indeed
such a personage as Daniel ever really existed), "but of some faithful Chasid
in the days of the Seleucid tyrant." Its pretended miracles are but moral
fables. Its history is but idle legend, abounding in "violent errors"
of the grossest kind. Its so-called predictions alone are accurate, because
they were but the record of recent or contemporary events. But Dr. Farrar will
not tolerate a word of blame upon "the holy and gifted Jew" who wrote
it. No thought of deceiving any one ever crossed his mind. The reproach which
has been heaped upon him has been wholly owing to Jewish arrogance and Christian
stupidity in misreading his charming and elevating romance. For it is not only
fiction, but "avowed fiction," and was never meant to be regarded in
any other light. In a word, the book is nothing more than a religious novel,
differing from other kindred works only in its venerable antiquity and the
multiplicity of its blunders.
Accepting these results, then, what action shall we take upon them? In
proportion surely to our appreciation of the preciousness of Holy Scripture,
shall be our resoluteness in tearing the Book of Daniel from its place in the
sacred canon, and relegating it to the same shelf with Bel and the Dragon and
The Story of Susanna. By no means. Dr. Farrar will stay our hand by the
assurance that- "Those results . . . are in no way derogatory to the
preciousness of this Old Testament Apocalypse." "No words of
mine," he declares, "can exaggerate the value which I attach to this
part of our Canonical Scriptures. . . . Its right to a place in the Canon is
undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a single book of the Old
Testament which can be made more richly profitable for 'teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
complete, completely furnished unto every good work.'
(1 P. 4. Again and again throughout this volume the author uses like words
in praise of the Book of Daniel. Here are a few of them: "It is indeed a
noble book, full of glorious lessons" (p. 36). "Its high worth and
canonical authority" (p. 37). "So far from undervaluing its teaching,
I have always been strongly drawn to this book of Scripture" (p. 37).
"We acknowledge the canonicity of the book, its high value when rightly
apprehended, and its rightful acceptance as a sacred book". And most wonderful
of all, at p. i i8 the author declares that, in exposing it as a work of
fiction, "We add to its real value"!)
Christian writers who find reason to reject one portion of the sacred canon or
another are usually eager to insist that in doing so they increase the authority
and enhance the value of the rest. It has remained for the Dean of Canterbury,
in impugning the Book of Daniel, to insult and degrade the Bible as a whole. An
expert examines for me the contents of my purse. I spread out nine-and-thirty
sovereigns upon the table, and after close inspection he marks out one as a
counterfeit. As I console myself for the loss by the deepened confidence I feel
that all the rest are sterling coin, he checks me by the assurance that there
is scarcely a single one of them which is any better. The Book of Daniel is
nothing more than a religious novel, and it teems with errors on every page,
and yet we are gravely told that of all the thirty-nine books of the Old
Testament there is scarcely a single book which is of any higher worth! The
expert's estimate of the value of my coins is clear. No less obvious is Dr.
Farrar's estimate of the value of the books of the Bible.
It is precisely this element which renders this volume so pernicious. The
apostle declares that "Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good
work;"
and in profanely applying these words to a romance of doubtful repute, Dr.
Farrar denies inspiration altogether. But "What is inspiration?" some
one may demand. In another connection the inquiry might be apt; here it is the
merest quibble. Plain men brush aside all the intricacies of the controversy
which the answer involves, and seize upon the fact that the Bible is a divine
revelation. But no one can yield to the spirit which pervades this book without
coming to raise the question, "Have we a revelation at all ?" The
Higher Criticism, as a rationalistic crusade, has set itself to account for the
Bible on natural principles; and this is the spirit which animates the Dean of
Canterbury's treatise.
(1 2 Tim. iii. i6. I quote the R.V. because it gives more unequivocal testimony
to the inspiration of Scripture than does the A.V. According to the A.V. the
apostle asserts that all Scripture is inspired of God : according to the R.V.
he assumes this as a truth which does not need even to be asserted. For
"every Scripture" here means every part of the Holy Scriptures
mentioned in the preceding sentence. Indeed, ypa4~ has as definite a meaning in
N.T. Greek as "Scripture" has in English, and is never used save of
Holy Scripture. But I am bound in honesty to add that I believe the R.V. is
wrong, albeit it has the authority of some of our earlier versions. The same
construction occurs in eight other passages, viz., Rom. Vii. 12; I Cor. xi. 30;
2 Cor. x. 10; i Tim. i. 15, 3, iv. 4, 9; Heb. iv. 13. Why did the Revisers not
read, e.g., "the holy commandment is also just and good" (Rom. vii.
22); and "many weak ones are also sickly" (i Cor. xi. 30)?)
See Chapter 2