he vast majority of the so-called higher critics do not
deserve the denunciations heaped upon them by some who consider
themselves sole defenders of the faith. Most of them are Christian men
whose loyalty to Christ, whose devotion to the truth, and whose
sincerity of motive no one has reason or right to question or doubt.
It is exceedingly unfortunate that many writers have failed to
recognize this fact. No one acquainted with the history of biblical
criticism can accept the following as a true characterization of
serious critics: "I mean by professional critic, one who spends his
time and strength in trying to find some error or discrepancy in the
Bible; and, if he thinks he does, rejoiceth as 'one who findeth great
spoil'; who hopes, while he works, that he may succeed, thinking
thereby to obtain a name and notoriety for himself."[10] In a similar
spirit Sir Robert Anderson speaks of "the foreign infidel type of
scholar ... as ignorant of man and his needs as a monk, and as ignorant
of God and his ways as a monkey."[11] {83} Such abuse is unchristian,
and no good can be accomplished by it. The truth of the matter is more
adequately expressed by James Orr when he says: "There are, one must
own, few outstanding scholars at the present day on the Continent or in
Britain--in America it is somewhat different--who do not in greater or
less degree accept conclusions regarding the Old Testament of the kind
ordinarily denominated critical. Yet among the foremost are many whom
no one who understands their work would dream as classing as other than
believing, and defenders of revealed religion."[12] Then, after
mentioning a number of scholars, he describes them as "all more or less
critics, but all convinced upholders of supernatural revelation." But
even among these Christian, evangelical, higher critics a distinction
must be made between two classes. The one may be called, for want of a
better name, traditional, because its adherents insist that their
investigations on the line of the higher criticism have confirmed in
all essentials the positions held during many centuries. It should be
noted, however, that many scholars who are sometimes quoted as
upholders of the traditional view are ready to make many concessions to
those who believe that the traditional views are no longer tenable.[13]
On the other hand is a class of critics which may be called
nontraditional, critics who claim that {84} their investigations, while