(2 of 2)
Biblical critics nowadays are grateful for the work of their 19th Century predecessors. But, says Professor Samuel Terrien of Union Theological Seminary, they "have come to realize that many extreme positions [of the "higher criticism"] which were widely held at the beginning of the 20th Century should be either utterly rejected, or at least corrected in the direction of a qualified conservatism ... It is no longer a matter of crucial importance to know whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its present form, whether or not Isaiah of Jerusalem was responsible for all the chapters of the book which bears his name, whether or not Matthew the publican composed the first canonical gospel."
The scholars, says Scholar Terrien, "are learning that biblical scholarship cannot be divorced from contemporary Christian testimony. Indeed, they even begin to sense that, in order to penetrate to the core of biblical religion, they must give up the delusion of 'absolute' scientific objectivity . . . They must join, with humility and consecration, the [fellowship] of the saved and look at it from within."
The Turning. It is in this new, committed kind of scholarship that The Interpreter's Bible has been written. As Dr. Buttrick sums it up: "There is only one Book. That Book is the noun; other books are but poor adjectives . . .
"There are signs that our era is turning from ruinous doctrines of self-help to a new obedience to God's will and power, from man's exploitive skill to a trust in God's mercy in Jesus Christ. We pray that The Interpreter's Bible may hasten that turning, and prepare the way along which Christ shall come to reign in love, 'King of kings, and Lord of lords.' "