Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-29


that the results which they have reached are
not only contrary to all known historical facts
but also to the obvious teaching of the Word of
God, it is prepostcrous to ask Christian people
to put confidence in their conclusions.
Criticism of this type ignores the one great
fact in the life and history of Israel. that which
harmonizes and verifes everything in the
Pentateuch as the work of Moses; it fails to
recognize the visible presence Of Jehovah with
the Israelites to control their entire national
life. whether civil or religious.
The Holy Scripture. shown by the texts
| appended to the specification Of this charge,
gives an account OF the origin of the Pen:a-
| touch altogether different from that given by
Dr. Briggs.
The Pentateuch itself points to Moses rs its
author. Hspeaks of him maker of books,
in which he wrote history and laws by the COM
mand of jehovah.
A great part of the document is ascribed to
| the pen Of Moses. Exodus. Leviticus. Num-
bers aud Deuteronomy are credited to him, as
| the medium through whom God communicated
them to his people. when Irael in the
Wilderness. and when Aaron and ElieZer were
high priests. The laws of all the codes appear
in the Pentateuch a unit on the background
| of Isracl's wilderness life, not mutually con-
fiict ting, but mutually supplementary to each
other.
| testimonies to the authenticity of the book of
Moses. also tho testimony of modern scholars
and of the Jewish people.
This teaching of DIR. Briggs in regard to the
nonMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is in
vital conflict with the teaching of the whole
Bible. 1t necessarily involves the positions
that the Pentateuch. We have it. is not only
erroneous. but also fraudulent; that the writer's
of the other Old Testament books either
knowingly connived at the fraud or uninten-
tionally rerpetuated it. and that the testimony
of Christ and tho writer's of the New Testa-
ment must be discredted.
This teaching is far more dangerous than af-
| frming the Scripture to be in error in matter
OF minor importance; it tends to a total de-
struction of faith in the Bible. 1t has done
that already for many. It Is entirely at vari-
nnce with the confessional doc lrine of the Holy
Scripture.
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH.
| H. The question concerning the book of
Isaiah involves the same principles as does that
concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch
The matter is formulated in the fifth charge.
or the sixth of the amended form. in which DR..
Briggs is charged with teaching that Isaiah is
not the author of half the book that bears his
name" He admits this to be his teaching, but
denies that it is an offense.
In his defense he points out the twenty-six
chapters which he allots to Isaiah and the
thirtynino which he takes from him, although
bearing his name.
He is led to this result. not by historic facts,
but. as shown IN his defense opp. 132-l46). by
subjective impressions whereby he finds him
self able to determine the style in which man
like Isaiah ought to have written. what theolog-
ical ideas it possible for him to express
and from what historical situation it was possi-
BILE for him 10 utter predictivc prophecies The
last. however. is the decisive test. 1t is with
the critics n canon of infuliible authority that
prophet of God can predict future events
only from his own historical point of view, and
to the needs of the people of his age. Chapter
xiii to xiv: 90 is taken from Isaiah for the reason
that that section cannot stand this test OF their
canon of criticism. The style and theological
ideas are correct enough. but it contains a
productive prophecy which Isaiah could not
have given from his own historical situa-
ton, and the passage can, therefore. not
be assigned to him. But the Scripture
credits Isaiah with it. 1t begins with the state
ment: The burden of Babylon. which isaiah
! the son of Amos did see." Elsa. 13:1.) The
explanation by which DR.. Briggs seeks to
nullify this distinct affirmation of the Bible is
weak. far fetched and entirely unsatisfactory
In the same way the entire book could be taken
from Isaiah. But 1t shows that any statement
of the Bible which comes in conflict with tho
| theory of higher criticism. must be discredited:
and thus we see here again. as in the case of
the Pentateuch, that this criticism undermines
the trustworthiness of biblical writing by de-
nying its claim about itself. If Isaiah did not
write chapter IS to 1923, then that section il
neither genuine nor authentic. 1t makes a
false claim. 1t pretends to be what it is not,
and so is wholly unworthy of confidence.
DESIGNING THE VALUE OF PROPHECY.
The assumption Of the critics by which this
result is reached also destroys the evidential
value of prophecy. For. if prophet can only
speak from his own historical point of view md
to the needs Of his own times, then predictive
prophecy requires no more divine help than
that long foresight by the help of which wise
| statesmen have often been able to point out
needed lessons for the future from the drift of
present events. Here again the damag-
ing nature of theory of higher criticism. 1t
! aims to explain supernatural phenomena in
biblical history and prophecy on merely natur-
alistic principles.
But this division Of Isaiah is in direct con-
f!ict with the statements of Christ and the
writer's OF the New Testament. They assign
quotations from nil parts of the book to him,
as person of reference to the disputed parts it
is said: For Esaias saith, Lord. who hath be-
lieved our report?' But Esaias is very bold.
Il was found of them that sought me not:
was made manifest unto them that asked not
after me. These thing said Esaias, when he
saw His glory and spake Of Him."
1t is clear that. with all his contemporaries.
Christ believes Isaiah to be the author of the
entire book which bears his name. as He held
Moses to be the author of the Pcnta;euch. And
| it must destroy confidence in Him as the great
Teacher Of the New Testament dispensation. if
He was SO ignorant respecting the character ard
origin Of the Old Testament, which He pre-
fulfill and on which he claimed to found the
doctrines Of the gospel This teaching must
bring discredit on Christ as the Teacher.
These declarations of DR. Briggs in rererenee