The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1899-09-19
SERMON BY DIR. T. Mex STEWART
FIRST CHURCH DEs MONIES.

FALSE ASSUMPTION AND LILLE
GITIMATEP PRO- ESSES OF THE
DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
l take it for granted that is is unnec-
essary for me to devote much time to a
definition of the higher criticism, as its
provinceas a method of criticism is gen
orally understood. No student OF the
scriptures can seriously object to the APP
plication of the principles of historical
criticism so far as they properly apply
to the Bible text. An inquiry into the
authorship, general structure, origin,
date and historical bearings of the
statements the several books of the
Bible contain is perfectly legitimate.
Higher criticism as distinguished from
lower or textual criticism is not to be
regarded as necessarily inimical to the
scriptures. 1t is only when the critical
student ome to the scriptures with
preconceptions, and assumptions that at
once set aside the claim of the Bible to
be a divine revelation, and attempts to
deal with that claim and everything sup
ernatural connected Herewith as a vi
tiating circumstance that must be ex-
planned away at all events, because the
higher criticism as employed by very
many of its opponents, has been applied
to the Bible exactly as to purely secu-
lar history. It is patent at once that
rules so applied would set aside the
contention that in the Bible we have a
divine revelation. For if it is a divine
revelation it is taken out of the cate
CORY of secular history. The individual
who denies the possibility OF the miracu-
lous either in knowledge or poverty
prophecy or supernatural works-is dis
qualified thereby for a fair and impair
tial criticism Of the scriptures. All his
efforts in that direction are open to sus-
picion because of his skeptical precon-
ceptions. This is the attitude of many
OF the higher critics.
There are, therefore, preliminary ques-
tons to be settled between the orthodox
critic and the radical critic. These are,
first, the possibility OF miracles; second,
the possibility OF prophecy. Or, in other
words, is a divine, supernatural revela-
ton possible? Deny these propositions
and any common ground is gu of the
question. The orthodox critic who ac-
cepts conclusions, based upon a denial
OF these propositions, should moi com.
plain if he is ciassed with destructive
critics. 1t might be regarded as anti
cipating the discussion that follows, Blu,
we believe it opportune to say at this
juncture, it is not what radical critics
have found in the structure OF the Pen
tateuch, and the peculiarities of its text
that have led them to the positions they
have taken regarding diversified author
ship, and a late, date for its compilation
but antagonism to its story of the mi.
raculous.
Again, it is not a question of the
composite structure of many of the
books of the Bible, for that may be con.
coded in many instances without de-
struction Of the genuineness and authen-
ITCHY of the books. For example, we
may concede the composite character
of the book of Genesis without ques-
tioning Mosaic authorship, substantially
as we now have it. Moses may have
transferred bodily into his work large
sections from more ancient works. We
believe he did. There is an archaic look
about the story of the book of the
generations of Noah in the tenth chap
ter OF Genesis, also about the account
of Chedorlaomer's military expedition
into the valley of the Jordan. Especial
ly do we believe the account of the crea-
ton to be very ancient. Oriental crea-
ton, flood and Edenic legends are very
ancient-older than the days of Moses.
The era of literary activity dating from
1900 B. c. to the days of Israel's en-
trance into Canaan produced an inn
mense literature, much of which was no
doubt accessible to Moses. To illus
trate, the Tel-el-Amarna records were
made but a short time before his birth.
If He was learned in all the wisdom OF
the Egyptians, and it is sheer audacity
with the data at present accessible for
any critic to question this, he might
have known of Ebedtob, prince of Ur-
Salim, who claimed to be a priest king,
therefore a successor of Melchizedek.
In fact, all around him were unlimited
literary and historic resources, so that
he was fully qualified for the work of
compiling just such a history as he has
given us in Genesis. And we believe
that uniform tradition and the monu-
ments attest the correctness of his work.
Nor is it a question whether Moses
wrote all Of the Pentateuch. 1t may be
conceded that there are parts that might
have been written by others, and com
bined by him in his worl- &c above =.