Study Of The Bible

( Originally Published 1891 )

I WILL give a note or two, pretty much by way of refreshing the memory about the Bible and how to look at it.

First: The Bible came out of religion, not religion out of the Bible. The Bible is a product of religion, not a cause of it. The war literature of America which culminated, I suppose, in the publication of President Grant's life, came out of the war ; the war did not come out of the literature. And so in the distant past, there flowed among the nations of heathendom a small, warm stream, like the Gulf Stream in the cold Atlantic—a small stream of religion ; and now and then at intervals, men, carried along by this stream, uttered themselves in words. The historical books came out of facts; the devotional books came out of experiences ; the letters came out of circumstances; and the Gospels came out of all three. That is where the Bible came from. It came out of religion; religion did not come out of the Bible. You see the difference. The religion is not, then, in the writing alone ; but in those facts, experiences, circumstances, in the history and development of a people led and taught by God. And it is not the words that are inspired, so much as the men.

Secondly: These men were authors; they were not pens. Their individuality comes out on every page they wrote. They were different in mental and literary style ; in insight ; and even the same writer differs at different times. II Thessalonians, for example, is consider-ably beneath the level of Romans, and III John is beneath the level of I John. A man is not always at his best. These writers did not know they were writing a Bible.

Third : The Bible is not a book; it is a library. It consists of sixty-six books. It is a great convenience, but in some respects a great misfortune, that these books have always been bound up together and given out as one book to the world, when they are not; because that has led to endless mistakes in theology and in practical life.

Fourth: These books, which make up this library, written at intervals of hundreds of years, were collected after the last of the writers was dead—long after —by human hands. Where were the books ? Take the New Testament. There were four lives of Christ. One was in Rome ; one was in Southern Italy; one was in Palestine ; one in Asia Minor. There were twenty-one letters. Five were in Greece and Macedonia ; five in Asia ; one in Rome. The rest were in the pockets of private individuals. Theophilus had Acts. They were collected undesignedly. For example, the letter to the Galatians was written to the Church in Galatia. Somebody would make a copy or two, and put it into the hands of the members of the different churches, and they would find their way not only to the churches in Galatia, but after an interval to nearly all the churches. In those days the Christians scattered up and down through the world, exchanged copies of those letters, very much as geologists up and down the world ex-change specimens of minerals at the present time, or entomologists exchange specimens of butterflies. And after a long time a number of the books began to be pretty well known. In the third century the New Testament consisted of the following books : The four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, I John, I Peter; and in addition, the Epistles of Barnabas and Hermas. This was not called the New Testament, but the Christian Library. Then these last books were discarded. They ceased to be regarded as upon the same level as the others. In the fourth century the canon was closed—that is to say, a list was made up of the books which were to be regarded as canonical. And then long after that they were stitched together and made up into one book—hundreds of years after that. Who made up the complete list ? It was never formally made up. The bishops of the different churches would draw up a list each of the books that they thought ought to be put into this Testament. The churches also would give their opinion. Sometimes councils would meet and talk it over—discuss it. Scholars like Jerome would investigate the authenticity of the different documents, and there came to be a general consensus of the churches on the matter. But no formal closing of the canon was ever attempted.

And lastly: All religions have their sacred books, just as the Christians have theirs. Why is it necessary to remind ourselves of that ? If you ask a man why he believes such and such a thing, he will tell you, because it is in the Bible. If you ask him, " How do you know the Bible is true? " he will probably reply, Because it says so." Now, let that man remember that the sacred books of all the other religions make the same claim; and while it is quite enough among ourselves to talk about a thing being true because it is in the Bible, we come in contact with outsiders, and have to meet the skepticism of the day. We must go far deeper than that. The religious books of the other religions claim to be far more Di-vine in their origin than do ours. For example, the Mohammedans claim for the Koran—a large section of them, at least—that it was uncreated, and that it lay before the throne of God from the beginning of time. They claim it was put into the hands of the angel Gabriel, who brought it down to Mahomet, and dictated it to him, and allowed him at long intervals to have a look at the original book itself—bound with silk and studded with precious stones. That is a claim of much higher Divinity than we claim for our book ; and if we simply have to rely upon the Bible's testimony to its own verity, it is for the same reason the Mohammedan would have you believe his book, and the Hindu would have you put your trust in the Védas. That is why thorough Bible study is of such importance. We can get to the bottom of truth in itself, and be able to give a reason for the faith that is in us.

Now may I give you before I stop, just a couple of examples of how the Bible came out of religion, and not religion out of the Bible ? Take one of the letters. Just see how it came out of the circumstances of the time. The first of the letters that was written will do very well as an example. It is the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians. In the year 52 Paul went to Europe. He spent three Sundays in Thessalonica, created a great disturbance by his preaching, and a riot sprang up, and his life was in danger. He was smuggled out of the city at night—not, however, before having founded a small church. He was unable to go back to Thessalonica, although he tried it two or three times ; but he wrote a letter. That is the first letter to the Thessalonians. You see how it sprang out of the circumstances of the time. Take a second ex-ample. Let us take one of the lives of Christ. Suppose you take the life recorded by Mark. Now, from internal evidences you can make out quite clearly how it was written, by whom it was written, and to whom it was written. You understand at once it was written to a Roman public. If I were writing a letter to a red Indian I would make it very different from a letter I would write to a European. Now, Mark puts in a number of points which he would not if he had been writing to Greeks. For ex-ample, Mark almost never quotes prophecy. The Romans did not know any-thing about prophecy. Then, he gives little explanations of Jewish customs. When I was writing home I had to give some little explanations of American customs—for example, Commencement Day. When Mark writes to Rome about things happening farther East, he gives elaborate explanations. Again, Mark is fond of Latin words—writing to the Latins, who could understand them. He talks about " centurion," " proetorium," and others. Then, he always turns Jewish money into Roman money, just as I should say a book, if I were writing to Europe about it, costs two shillings, in-stead of fifty cents. Mark, for example, says, ",two mites, which make a codrantes." He refers to the coins which the Romans knew. In these ways we find out that the Bible came out of the circumstances and the places and the times in which it was written. Then if we will we can learn where Mark got his information, to a large extent. It is an extremely interesting study. I should like to refer you to Godet's " New Testament Studies," where you will get this worked out. Let me just indicate to you how these sources of information are arrived at—the principal sources of information. There are a number of graphic touches in the book which indicate an eye-witness. Mark himself could not have been the eye-witness; and yet there are a number of graphic touches which show that he got his account from an eye-witness. You will find them, for example, in Mark iv. 38 ; X. 5o; vi. 31; vii 34. You will find also graphic touches indicating an ear-witness—as if the voice lingered in the mind of the writer. For example, the retention of Aramaic in v. 41; and in vii. 34—" Talitha cum.; Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." He retained the Aramaic words Christ said, as I would say in Scotland, " My wee lassie, rise up." The very words lingered in his ear, and he put them in in the original. Then there are occasional phrases indicating the moral impression produced—v. 15 ; X. 24; X. 32. Now, Mark himself was not either the eye-witness or ear-witness. There is internal evidence that he got his information from Peter. We know very well that Mark was an intimate friend of Peter's. When Peter came to Mark's house in Jerusalem, after he got out of prison, the very servant knew his voice, so that he must have been well known in the house. Therefore he was a friend of Mark's. The coloring and notes seem to be derived from Peter. There is a sense of wonder and admiration which you find all through the book, very like Peter's way of looking at things—i. 27; i. 33; i. 45; H. i 2; V. 42; and a great many others. But, still more interesting, Mark quotes the words, " Get thee behind Me, Satan," which were said to Peter's shame, but he omits the preceding words said to his honor—" Thou art Peter. On this rock," and so on. Peter had learned to be humble when he was telling Mark about it. Compare Mark viii. 27-33, with Matthew's account—xvi. 13-23. Mark also omits the fine achievement of Peter—walking on the Iake. When Peter was talking to Mark he never said anything about it. Compare vi. 5o with Matthew's account—xiv. 28. And Mark alone re-cords the two warnings given to Peter by the two cock-crowings, making his fall the more inexcusable. See Mark xiv. 30 ; also the 68th verse and the 7 2d. Peter did not write the book ; we know that, because Peter's style is entirely different. None of the four Gospels have the names of the writers attached to them. We have had to find all these things out ; but Mark's Gospel is obviously made up of notes from Peter's evangelistic addresses.

So we see from these°simple examples how human a book the Bible is, and how the Divinity in it has worked through human means. The Bible, in fact, has come out of religion ;not religion out of the Bible.