IT is evident from the quotations already given that the author of this book regards the composition of the Holy Scriptures from the standpoint of the higher criticism. His special views of demonic possession, as well as his particular statements on passages of Scripture, set aside any sound doctrine of inspiration. “The Evangelists represent a Triple Tradition,” he says, and so their statements are not to be relied upon as fact. It is also his opinion that they give considerable expression to the ancient ethnic (that is, pagan) theory of possession by evil spirits, which originated in the primitive untutored mind. The Jews like the heathen ascribed insanity in its various forms to the presence of evil and unclean spirits, and the writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke did the same. It is clear, then, that in Dr. Alexander’s judgment these Evangelists were not infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote. He manifestly regards the recorded history of Christ’s life and work as a very uncertain quantity. In fact, the Bible as a whole is in his estimation not an infallible book. Some further quotations will make this clearer than ever.
In Chapter V. Dr. Alexander treats of the existence of genuine demonic possession, and at the beginning he lays down “two simple rules” for guidance in the inquiry. The rules are as follow:—”(a) Whatever is explicable on the principles of modern science is to be regarded as natural. (b) Whatever is inexplicable on the principles of modern science is to be regarded as supernatural.” By means of these rules he finds “two classes of the possessed.” “(a) Cases simply natural and not genuinely demonic. (b) Cases truly supernatural and genuinely demonic.” Now, we remark that at least the first of these rules is open to decided exception. Modern science is not infallible; some of it is very untrustworthy. And, moreover, the principle that everything in the Bible which any critic possessed of modern science chooses to set down as purely natural must therefore be so regarded is not to be accepted for a moment by loyal believers in the infallibility and authority of the Scriptures. The conclusion, indeed, to which Dr. Alexander comes, that there are cases “not genuinely demonic” though thus described, just exposes the unsound nature of the rules by which he is guided. No doubt, on page 148, he affirms “the veracity of the different authors of the Gospel narratives,” but he holds at the same time, in the case of the Gadarene demoniac, that “a theory of the occurrence” is to be found in the narrative (pp. 149, 201). There is a lack of consistency among our author’s statements. If a reporter inserts theories of his own as if they were solid facts in his account of any event or events, he cannot be said to be distinguished for veracity or truthfulness. And yet it is this sort of reporting which our author affirms is found in the Gospels. Dr. Alexander maintains that it is only those demoniacs in the Gospels that made confession of Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God that are real cases of possession by evil spirits; all the rest, and they are the greater number, though described as possessed with devils, were not so at all; they were simply insane and nothing more. This opinion is not supported by any sufficient grounds, and is entirely contrary to Scripture. Observe how he handles the case of Paul and the damsel “possessed with a spirit of divination” at Philippi. He holds that here “no genuine demonic activity is discoverable,” though we are told most distinctly that Paul “said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Dr. Alexander proceeds, “Was Paul then mistaken when he charged the spirit to go forth? It is possible that at this stage he was not fully emancipated from the traditions of the fathers; but even that cannot be proved. Rabbinic custom permitted a certain amount of personification in the nomenclature of disease. Paul may have used an ethnic formula without endorsing ethnic doctrine.” Our author considers that the apostle, under the influence of Rabbinic custom, may have commanded a disease to depart under the name of a spirit, though he believed there was no spirit present. This cannot be admitted as likely or possible. The very thought is degrading. Is it credible that the apostle either would or could work a miracle by lying words?
In Chapter VII. Dr. Alexander deals with “The Difficulties of the Gerasene (Gadarene) Affair,” and in this part of his work he exposes more conspicuously than anywhere else how far astray he is on the subject of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He no doubt strikes at Huxley the unbelieving scientist for his contemptuous attack upon the writers of the Synoptic gospels because of their narration of “the Gadarene and other like stories,” but in resisting Huxley he falls upon the Evangelists themselves, and declares that they have put down their own surmises as truth. In dealing with the case of the man of Gadara, who was possessed of an unclean spirit, and who met Jesus out of the tombs, he maintains that the spirits, whom Jesus commanded to depart, never entered the swine at all, though the three inspired Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, most explicitly say that they did. The title of one of the subordinate sections of this chapter is “The Alleged Transmigration of the Demons.” Dr. Alexander considers “anew the fundamental facts” as narrated in the gospels, and proceeds to affirm: “We recognise here a solid nucleus of fact, which remains after the application of the canons of historical criticism. That unassailable residuum comprises the cure of the demoniac and the precipitation of the swine. We recognise here also a certain theory of this occurrence. The facts are separable from the theory, and furnish material for testing its validity. The facts remain unchallenged; the soundness of the theory is legitimate matter of inquiry.” (The italics are ours.) Dr. Alexander here affirms that only a nucleus of fact remains after the canons or rules of historical criticism have been applied to the statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This residuum or remainder is no doubt “unassailable,” but only comprises the cure of the demoniac and the downward rush of the swine. Other statements therefore are not to be accepted as truth; they only make up “a theory” as to how things happened. Dr. Alexander quotes Matt. viii. 31, 32; Mark v. 9, 10, 12, 13; Luke viii. 30-32. The Evangelists supplement one another in their narratives. Upon these, however, our author comments as follows:—”These remarkable differences of the Triple Tradition give us the theory emergent from the facts—1. The prayer of the demoniac becomes the prayer of the demons themselves. 2. Leave to remain in the district becomes a request to escape the abyss. 3. The word, Go, is interpreted as permission to enter into the swine.” Let our readers observe that the gospels are again called “the Triple Tradition.” And let them also particularly notice that Dr. Alexander in the most arbitrary manner undertakes to distinguish between what he calls the theory and the facts. He says in effect that the prayer of the demons was not theirs but that of the demoniac, that Luke improved upon Mark in asserting that there was “a request to escape the abyss,” and that the word “Go” in Matthew is interpreted by Mark and Luke “as permission to enter the swine.” What irreverent and unwarrantable handling of inspired records is this! Dr. Alexander then declares that “the possession of animals by demons is an ethnic idea;” that the transference of demons from human beings to objects animate and inanimate is likewise an ethnic conception:” and further that the idea of such a transference “could not be quite foreign to the Jews.” The word “ethnic” has a pleasant, inoffensive appearance, and its meaning is apt to elude the ordinary reader not over skilled in scholastic terms, but it is just another word for pagan, heathen or gentile. And the position of our author is that the Evangelists, in stating that the devils entered the swine, give expression to a heathen notion or opinion. Dr. Alexander then puts the question, “Did Christ sanction that belief by directing or permitting the demons to invade the swine?” And the substance of his answer is that He did not; that He never gave them leave to enter the swine, and that the evil spirits never did enter, though the Evangelists say most expressly—without the slightest suggestion or appearance of “a theory”—Jesus gave them leave, and that they entered the swine.
But this is not all the havoc our critic makes of the inspired records. He maintains that there are two opinions set forth in the narratives of Mark and Luke, one that of Jesus Himself, the other that of the demoniac and the evangelists. The first opinion is that there was only one unclean spirit in the man; the second that there were many such spirits; and Mark and Luke have “oscillations” between these opinions. Dr. Alexander quotes Mark v., verses 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and then adds in italics: “Jesus allows of only one demon throughout; Mark has one also in v. 2. The demoniac surmises a multitude; so does Mark in v. 12, 13.” Similarly, our author quotes several verses from Luke viii., and adds in italics, “Jesus allows of only one demon throughout; Luke has one also in viii. 20. The demoniac surmises a multitude; so does Luke in viii. 30, 31, 32, 33.” Now, what are these astonishing views based upon? First, on our author’s disbelief in the idea of manifold possession; secondly, on the fact that the opening part of the narrative in Mark and Luke makes mention of only one unclean spirit; and thirdly, on the circumstance that it is after the man declares “My name is legion; for we are many,” that a plurality of devils are referred to. In answer, it may be said that it is most gratuitous and unwarrantable to put the “one” in conflict with the “many.” The one and the many are both in the narrative, and it has always been the sound commonsense way among reverent interpreters to recognise in it the presence of one chief or leading spirit and many others associated with him. There is nothing inconsistent or unthinkable in this. But Dr. Alexander has landed himself on the horns of a dilemma from which he will not easily extricate himself. Apart from the doctrine of inspiration, which is here set at nought, is it reasonable, or is it morally thinkable, according to his interpretation, that the evangelists, who were the loyal and devoted followers of Christ, should have put down the surmises of the demoniac and their own surmises in direct succession to, and positive contradiction of, the testimony of their Lord and Master Himself? Does it not come to this, that they regarded the surmises of the demoniac and of themselves as of equal value with the authoritative and unerring testimony of Christ? Can any Christian person admit such an unworthy idea for a moment? Does it even stand to ordinary reason? By no means. And yet this is the plain outcome of Dr. Alexander’s interpretation of the inspired narrative.
Dr. Alexander, as has already been shown, holds that Mark and Luke had no warrant for saying that Jesus gave either the devil or devils leave to enter the swine (p. 205); He simply said “Go” or “Begone,” as in Matthew. But even this account he regards as only “the nearest approximation” to the very word of our Lord on this occasion, while he also fails to get rid of the fact that Matthew records Jesus’ answer, “Go,” in response to a request from the devils, “to go away into the swine” (Matt. viii. 31). In any case he states that “neither direction to enter the swine, nor permission to do so, nor compensation for disturbance can be thought of here.” His explanation as to how the swine rushed down into the waters is to the effect that they first heard the wild shouts of the demoniac and then “the great commanding word of Christ, addressed to the demon, ‘Begone,'” and were driven by terror down the declivity (p. 211-12). It needs hardly to be emphasised how much of the higher critic is to be seen in this manner of dealing with the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Alexander agrees with the higher critics as to the dates of Ecclesiastes and Daniel, bringing them down to a late date before Christ, the former to about 200 B.C. instead of 975 B.C.
We do not attempt to deal with all that is objectionable in this book, but, in closing, we notice one other section, namely, “Appendix J,” which is entitled “The Use of Popular Language by Jesus.” Here Dr. Alexander endeavours to defend his conclusions at page 159, in which he affirms the “the lad with the dumb and deaf spirit” had no demon. He says, “The foregoing conclusions may seem to be at variance with the records of the evangelists,” and then quotes Matt. xvii. 18, Mark ix. 25, and Luke ix. 42, on which he remarks, “Harmonists may attempt to reconcile these discrepancies by a process of amalgamation; while critics prefer to seek the archaic and germinal matter of the real original in the first Gospel. . . . The precise words used by our Lord on this occasion are evidently no longer recoverable. At most it can only be said that a formula was employed which was capable of being construed into the menacing of an unclean spirit. . . . This is not the only occasion on which Christ used language which was open to distortion by a crude literalism. The description of the forty days’ temptation, the second advent, and the doom of the wicked have been much misunderstood on this wise.” Our readers can study these quotations for themselves, but it is plain that, according to Professor Alexander, those who interpret the Scriptures literally, after the manner, say, that has been done in these articles, are guilty of what he calls “a crude literalism.” It might be interesting to know, in this connection, in what way he interprets scientifically the Bible accounts of “the forty days’ temptation, the second advent, and the doom of the wicked.” He evidently adheres firmly to the opinion that “the real original” of the Gospels is only in Matthew, while he does not hesitate to assert that the words of Christ to “the boy with the deaf and dumb spirit” are “no longer recoverable,” though Mark states distinctly that Jesus said, “Thou deaf and dumb spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.”
But enough. It is perfectly plain that Dr. Alexander is far from being sound on the fundamental doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. In professedly attempting to free Christ from the charge of agreeing with the superstitions of His age, he has handled the inspired records in rationalistic fashion. Truly, it appears most strange and unaccountable that the author of such a book should have found his way into the important positions of Principal and Professor in the New College, Edinburgh, under the auspices of the present Free Church, whose representatives profess strict loyalty to the Confession of Faith and the Word of God. There is verily room for inquiry.