CANONS OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM.

Having reached the conclusion in Part Second, that the New Testament books were written by the authors to whom they are commonly ascribed, we now inquire whether they are credible writings. By this inquiry is meant, not whether they are infallibly accurate, but whether they possess that degree of reliability which belongs to historical works of the better class. The question of their infallibility will be considered farther on.

It is obvious that this inquiry has reference chiefly to the historical books of the New Testament, but it does not refer to them exclusively. The Epistles and the Apocalypse contain some historical matter, and to this extent the question of credibility applies to them equally with the books formally historical. In other words, it applies to all the statements of fact found in all the books. These statements are distributable into four classes: those of ordinary history; those concerning miraculous events; the reports of speeches written long after they were delivered; and the revelations which the writers claim to have received from God. We are to inquire, first, whether the events here mentioned, which belong to the ordinary course of human history, actually took place; second, whether those of a miraculous character really occurred; third, whether the reports of speeches delivered by Jesus and certain others, not one of which was written at the time of delivery, but some of which were written almost a life-time after delivery, can be relied on as correct; and, fourth, whether the direct communications of God's will on various subjects pertaining both to the present and the future, which some of these writers claim to have received, should be accepted as such.

The subject of this inquiry is a branch of the modern science of Historical Criticism.1 The province of this science is to distinguish the true from the false in historical documents. It differs from Textual Criticism, in that it deals with facts, while the latter deals with words. It has acquired the title, Higher Criticism, because of the greater importance attached to facts than to the exact words in which they are described, and because of the greater learning necessary to its application. By the application of its rules of evidence the secular history of the ancient world has been revolutionized, and a new ancient history constructed. So complete is this revolution, that such works as Rollings Ancient History, which was a standard in the early part of our century, is now obsolete, and the same fate has befallen many other works once regarded as authentic.2 In the later development of the science an attempt has been made to revolutionize in a similar manner the history contained in the Bible. So zealous have been the efforts of some scholars in this direction, that the science itself has become associated in the popular mind with unbelief in the Scriptures, and has thus come into disrepute. This result is by no means legitimate; for by a proper application of the rules of historical criticism the authenticity of all histories, sacred as well as profane, must be determined.

The Canons of historical criticism were first formulated by George Rawlinson in his Bampton Lectures of 1859 (Lecture First), and published in his work entitled Historical Evidences. Abbreviated and otherwise modified, they are as follows:

Canon I. The writings of a contemporary, who is credible, and who has had opportunity for personal knowledge of the facts recorded, have the highest degree of credibility. Under this head must be included public records, monuments and inscriptions, made by persons who are contemporary with the events.3

Canon II. Those of a writer who may be reasonably supposed to have obtained his information from eye witnesses possess the second degree of credibility.

Canon III. Those of a writer who lived in an age later than the events, and whose source of information was oral tradition, have the third and least degree of credibility. But if, in this case, the events are of public notoriety, and of such importance as to have affected national life, or to have been commemorated by some public observance, their credibility is greatly enhanced by these considerations.

Canon IV. When the traditions of one people are corroborated by those of another, especially by those of a distant and hostile people, this greatly increases the probability of the events. The value of such evidence depends on the improbability of accidental agreement, and the impossibility of collusion.

CANON V. The concurrent testimony of independent writers greatly increases the probability of an event; and their agreement has the greater force when it is incidental, as when one only alludes to an event which the other narrates, or mentions a circumstance incidentally explained by another. The probability in this case is increased in a geometrical ratio to the number of witnesses. That is, the testimony of two is not twice as strong, but four times as strong as that of one.4

If we make a general application of these Canons to the writers of the New Testament, we find them arranged as follows: Of the four Gospels, Matthew and John come under Canon I., seeing that these writers were eye-witnesses of nearly all the events which they record. The same is true of Luke as respects those portions of Acts in which he speaks in the first person; and of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John in their epistles, so far as they mention events which transpired under their own observation. The two Gospels of Mark and Luke, together with those parts of Acts in which Luke does not use the first person, come under Canon II., seeing that these writers were not eye witnesses, but wrote what had been narrated to them. Thus we see that of the eight writers of the New Testament, six possess the highest degree of historical credibility so far as opportunities to know are concerned, and only two have the second degree. Not one of them belongs to an age later than that of the events, or was dependent for his information on uncertain oral tradition. As to the credibility of these writers, we may say in general terms, in advance of a more critical inquiry, that their high character, indicated by the unvarying purity of the sentiments found in their writings, lifts them above the suspicion of being untrustworthy, and secures to them a credibility at least equal to that of the best secular historians. This consideration unites with the preceding to place them among the most credible of writers, and to render any event which they record, concerning which there is no special ground of doubt, as probable as any of the facts that make up history. This much is conceded by all, even among unbelievers, whose opinions are respected by intelligent men; and it is conceded on the ground which we have stated. 

1 "The last century has seen the birth and growth of a new science of Historical Criticism. Beginning in France with the labors of Pouilly and Beaufort, it advanced with rapid strides in Germany under the guidance of Niebuhr, Otfried, Muller and Bockh, and finally has been introduced and naturalized among ourselves by means of the writings of our best living historians." (George Rawlinson, Historical Evidences, 28).

2 "The whole world of profane history has been revolutionized. By a searching and critical investigation of the mass of materials on which that history rested, and by the application to it of canons embodying the judgments of a sound discretion upon the value of different sorts of evidence, the views of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ten thousand points either modified or reversed; a new antiquity has been raised up out of the old, while much that was unreal in the picture of past times which men had formed to themselves has disappeared, . . and a firm and strong fabric has arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen system." (Ib.)

3 "The most important documents for history are those which possess in the least degree the historic form. The authority of chronicles must give place to medals, maps, or authentic letters." (Renan, Apostles, 27).

4 Butler's Analogy, Part II., ch. vii.