MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP. 



241 



One last point and I have done. We must frankly admit that in 

 questions of natural science truth has often been reached by the 

 framing of theories as an attempt to give a connected account of 

 a number of observed facts. Of course, the next step must be 

 rigidly to test the theory to ascertain whether it really does explain 

 and connect the observed facts, and in those sciences which admit 

 of it experiment is the obvious method of doing this. But in 

 applying this test to sciences or branches of knowledge dealing with 

 the past, such, for instance, as geology or history, we cannot easily 

 make experiments, and this . particular test resolves itself into this : 

 can we, by means of our theory, predict the existence of facts 

 which subsequent research may show to have really occurred. 



As we all know there have been striking instances of this in the 

 history of natural science. The existence of the planet Neptune 

 was discovered as a consequence of the working out of a theory 

 that observed variations in the movements of the planet Uranus 

 were due to the action of an unknown planet. 



Again, quite in our own days, the famous Eussian chemist 

 MendeleefF framed a theory known as the Periodic Law, with 

 regard to the relation of the atomic weights of the elements. In 

 accordance with this theory he asserted the existence of certain 

 unknown elements, three of which were afterwards discovered. He 

 also questioned the correctness of certain " accepted atomic weights " 

 because they did not correspond with his theory, and here also his 

 predictions were justified by the result of subsequent experiment. 



Now, while we cannot object to the framing of theories with 

 regard to the character and composition of the books of the Bible,, 

 we are fully entitled to demand that the most searching tests shall 

 be applied to those theories before we accept them. And, in 

 so doing, we are acting in a truly " scientific " spirit. Now, as 

 Mr. Tuckwell has shown us, the discovery of new facts by archaeo- 

 logical research supplies the means of applying this very test. 

 Did the Biblical " critics " with whom he is dealing truly predict, as 

 a consequence of their theories, any facts which have subsequently 

 been discovered 1 The only possible answer is that they did not. 



Did they, on the other hand, assert, as a consequence of their 

 theories, that many accepted facts were not, in fact, true ? We 

 know that they have done that in great number. Then, has sub- 

 sequent archaeological research in any important instances verified 



R 



