Telegram-herald., 1891-02-17
The BIBLICAL WRITER'S
A nesk HAT - 1stFtasasAaas ssea sss>ss
~ AathSFs tGaxaates

Wash ia Al agss nssn have ieokea foF
authoritative oraries, u order lh&i tie
real erteroas OF truth Ray be clearly
sesa TAKE tAs BOOK Of JOB. for Ia
stance the z0tAoF Of the book : Mhol-
y ankRow1. Ii Is Impossible e hx tbs
date " Is composition With say aegsee
Of esFtAsHty. II 5 not literal history,
th0agh 4 doubtless reposes on a. nss-
toF.oAi tradition. Mhst OF is l. tue
book aey the less y4laatls bseaase %
these facts Net % the man who has
learned " value truth fer rs eva sake,
and Who recognizes the sushonty Of
truth when II appeals 10 the oracle
within uls own soul. Such man does
not care who wrote this matches
book, snd be knows il WOULD be neither
greater nor less II the author should
ever be known. musician cares little
about the author of A composition; he
measures the greatness OF II hy rs Won
dfous effects upon his sensiblllties A
great name attached Ia piece of no
merit does not improve lis quahly one
iota. Some people look only AT the la
bell others, Who are more wise, examine
carefully into the quality and work
manship.A
Take the collection OF sacred songs
known IS the Psalms OF DAVID. as an-
other illustration. Would they STR
your spiritual nature any the les. deep
~ II you should chance 10 discover
that another man besides David wrote
these songs You must confess that
some OF these chapters are not espe-
claily edifylng; anu that some of them
are decidedly repuisiye; and these latter
ones are no better for having dis
tneulshed name attached 10 them.
Jewish tradition does not make David
the author of all these psalms. Ten
other authors are supposed 10 have had
hand IN their composition, viz: Adam,
Mlich.zedek, Ahra ham, Moses, Heman,
Jeduthum, Asaph and the three sons OF
korah; but what possible difference
does II make who wrote them, or when
they were written? Ii is claimed by
critics that the latter part of the book
OF Isaiah was not written by that great
prophet, and yet these anonymous al
ditlons are really the most valuable
part of the book.
All college boys are supposed TO be
very familiar with the author of IIo-
mer, who, next to Virgil, was the great
est Of the worlds ancient poets; and yet
it IS very doubtful whether there ever
was such man as Homer, or whether
no a fral nI 70
him; 1t seems impossible TO tell when
he lived, il he ever lived At all; but
would anyone who is competent to
criticise this work value 1t any the less
because we shall probably pever be able
TO solve these III consequential prob
lens? Even III our own day we have
had elaborate discussions as 10 whether
Bacon wrote the great plays attributed
to Shakespeare: but would Hamlet he
any the less dramatic 4 it could be
proved that neither OF these men con-
ceived him?
We have most remarkable illustra-
ton OF the worthlessness of assumed
authorship III the works of Euseblns. a
church historian, born A. ID. 270. He
pretends 10 give us the only words Jesus
ever committed to waiting, viz, a letter
written by him to Agbarus, prince OF
Edessa; and yet, while tho church re-
ceipts Eseubius as a reliable orthodox
historian, it places no value whatever
on this so-called letter, because il pro-
nounces it TO be forgery. Why does
il do this? Simply because the general
tono and contents of the letter are
clearly not IN harmony with the char
acter OF Christ as set forth in the four
gospels. The theologian uses his rea-
son with wonderful force and keenness
IN this particular case; and also when
reads what are known rs the Apocry
phal gospels; and does not hesitate TO
discard them because they lack that
peculiar quantity which he finds in the
economical gospels. Indeed. in all ages
the fathers OF the church have had
their doubts whether certain books now
in the New Testament, had any right
TO be there. There never was much
doubt about the gospels. several of
Paul's apostles and /. John. but even as
late as Luther's day a. ID. l4S3-l5f6l
theologlars did not hesitate TO express
their doubts about parts of the New
Testiment. Luther did cot consider
Hebrews to be the work of an
apostle; and did not consider il of
much weight. James epistle he pro-
nOunced 10 bc can episte Of straw" he
did not believe the Apostle John wrote
the Apocalypse, or that an apostle
wrote Jude. Zwingli asserts that the
Apocalypse is not n biblical book. CAL
vim did not think Paul wrote Hebrews.
or Peter wrote 2d Peter. The Roman
Catholic church did not have n settled
canon until the Council of Trent 1916.
In our own day, many of these doubts
have become assured facts, and
while scholars, during sill these
ages, must have known the
truth about these matters. they
kept right on teaching the people that
the Bible was an immaculate and infal-
lible book, let down as IL we're complete
from the very throne of God. As Mo-
BANNED claimed that he copied the
Koran from golden book held before
hIm bv an angel; and "a Joseph Smith
claimed his Bible was copied from
golden plates gwen him by an angel; 40
have so-called Christian apologIsts
claimed that our Bible was in its en-
trety nearly if not quite a. divine n
production as these above mentioned,
and composed much in the same way.
Now. no one can have a rational aud
truthful understanding of Christianity
who does not know tne facts concern
ing the hooks which clam to give re a
record OF what II was at its iBce ptIon.
and its development during that gener-
alton. These records must be stucIed
critically. They must be gwen an
elective treatment. OF necesstv. one
must read between the lines, sc il were.
He must try 81 fiii in the vacant spaces.
and retrace the faded and broken
features. lie must remember that