For many years the Higher Critics have pursued their way, unsettling the faith of multitudes, as they have proved to their own satisfaction that the Bible is not what it claims to be; that the Books of Moses for instance were not written by Moses, but by a number of authors, whose names are unknown, and who have left no other traces of their handiwork; that Isaiah has not written the whole book that bears his name, but that it is a composite work of several authors, afterwards edited here and there to its present form, etc., etc.
Many have wisely disbelieved in their methods and refused their “assured results.” Bishop Weildon spoke of them as “bordering on insanity,” and well he might. But up to now there has been no present-day example to prove the reliability or otherwise of their methods.
That example has now arrived. We propose to give it very briefly.
A literary lady in Canada, Miss Florence Deeks, wrote the story of the part women have played in history, calling it The Web, and lodged her manuscript in the keeping of the Canadian branch of the well-known publishing house of Macmillan.
A few months later appeared the Outline of History, by Mr. H.G.Wells, published also by Macmillan, but from their London office.
When Miss Deeks read the Outline of History, and compared it with her history, The Web, not yet published, she was convinced that Mr. Wells must have had access to her manuscript in some way or other, and had reproduced her ideas and incidents and many of her phrases. In short, that Mr. Wells had been guilty of distinct plagiarism. Thereupon she consulted eminent counsel. Seeing there was no proof forthcoming that the manuscript of The Web had ever been in Mr. Wells’ hands, or that he had seen any portion of it or any extracts made from it, a means of convincing a court of law that plagiarism had really happened must be discovered.
A happy thought struck someone. Why not employ the methods of the Higher Critics? Why not get an expert, who had side experience of such methods to employ them on this occasion? So Professor Irwin, M.A., D.B., Ph.D., now occupying the professorial chair in the Department of Old Testament Languages and Literature at Chicago University, was appointed to the task. See him with Miss Deeks’ manuscript and H.G.Wells’ Outline of History side by side, diligently comparing the one with the other, and drawing his conclusions. That he sensed the importance of his effort is evidenced by a quotation from a signed statement, filed in court by his own request. In answer to Miss Deeks’ request that he should subject Outline of History to “the Higher Critical” methods, he wrote
“I consented in considerable measure because this is the sort of task with which my study of ancient literatures repeatedly confronts me, and I was interested to test out in modern works the methods commonly applied to those of the ancient world.”
So he diligently pursued his task, and at length formulated his “assured results” in much detail: results proving, as he claimed, that Mr. Wells had access to Miss Deeks’ manuscript, that he had made free use of it, and had been guilty of considerable plagiarism.
Miss Deeks then brought action against Mr. H.G.Wells, the author of Outline of History and the Macmillans as publishers, in a Canadian court, claiming $500,000, or about £100,000 damages.
This court gave a verdict in favour of Mr. Wells. Miss Deeks, not satisfied, carried the case to a Higher Court. Again the verdict was given in favour of Mr. Wells. Still not satisfied Miss Deeks appealed to the highest tribunal in the British Empire, The House of Lords, London. Again the case was given in favour of Mr. Wells and the Macmillan Company of Canada.
At these trials it was sworn on oath that Miss Deeks’ manuscript had never been in the hands of Mr. H.G.Wells, that it had remained in secure custody in the safe of the Macmillan Company in Toronto, that no copy of the manuscript either in whole or in part had been made, that in short no leakage of information had taken place, and that Mr. H.G.Wells had no knowledge whatever of the manuscript.
At the first trial Judge Raney in his written summing-up said,
“The defendants were not, I think, called upon to offer any evidence to refute Professor Irwin’s fantastic hypotheses, but Mr. Wells and the Macmillan Company of Toronto preferred to offer evidence.”
This means that if no evidence had been given by Mr. Wells and the Macmillan Company, the court would still have given the verdict in favour of the defendants, that Professor Irwin’s “Higher Critical” methods were so unconvincing that the judge described his evidence in scathing language as made up of “fantastic hypotheses.”
At the second trial four Judges of Appeal sat on the case. All agreed in dismissing the appeal. The Hon Mr. Justice Riddell, a well-known legal luminary, known throughout Canada and the United States, wrote:
“I have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned trial Judge in the utter worthlessness of this kind of evidence—it is almost an insult to common sense.”
Again before the House of Lords the verdict for the defendants was unanimous.
What must Professor Irwin, M.A., D.B., Ph.D., have felt when he heard such strictures being passed on the results in this case of his “Higher Critical” methods, as;
“Fantastic Hypotheses.”
“Solemn Nonsense.”
“Almost an insult to common sense.”
“Utter worthlessness of this kind of evidence.”
“Comparisons without significance.”
“Arguments and conclusions alike puerile.”
“Not even two grains of wheat hidden in two bushels of chaff.”
“Hard to understand how anyone, party or witness, could imagine that any court could accept or be influenced by it.”
Professor Irwin was in a better position to come to “assured results” in this case, for he had both documents in question before him, and both of recent date; whereas in the case of the Bible, the critics deal with very ancient documents, many of them written in dead languages.
If Professor Irwin’s “assured results” in this modern case, could be characterized by such remarks as in the above list, a smashing blow has been dealt against the Higher Criticism of the Scriptures, from which it cannot recover.
The hand of God is behind the blow, we verily believe.