The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1899-09-19

ent throughout, however actually false
it may be. 1t is true to its preconcep-
tons and required by these-and a prior
system OF historic Interpretation. On the
other hand, any individual who admits
that the Old Testament contains a sup
e%rnatural revelation, and yet adopts the
work of the radical critics in the main
is logically inconsistent, for he has adj
ilitted deception and error as part of
the divine system. He has no %alterna-
tive, for the priest-codex, so called, OF
the days OF Ezra is a fraud, and can be
nothing else. In maintaining. the es-
sential veracity of the Old Testament
record, we are not proposing to put
forth any theory of inspiration. If the
record is true its supernatural character
will take care of the question of inspira-
ton. Nor need we stop to discuss the
absolute inerrancy of the text as we now
have it. That errors may have crept
into the text in the numerous transcript
tons through which it has gone, may
be readily conceded, for preservation,
transcription, translation are human
works. All we need maintain, for our
purpose, is, that we have in the Bible
as we now have it the divine will in all
that pertains to our salvation. We can
see great good arising from those diff
cult things connected with the scriptures
that compel us to study, c%ollate, COM
pare, investigate. This is the divine plan
with reference to nature. But we study
nature from natures own standpoint.
The domain of the spiritual has it's w
laws governing it, and these are above
the physical, as the spiritual is above the
physical. How absurd to apply the idea
OF uniformity as seer in the physical
realm to the Interpretation of what is
alleged to be a revelation of moral and
spiritual truth to Gods moral creatures.
Having now prepared the way by
showing what is and what is not within
the range Of our discussion. we wish
once more to call attention to the fact
that radical higher criticism, in its con-
struction of history, turns %lsrael's his
tory entirely about-reverses its order,
making that the outcome which the. his
tory in the form that we now have il
makes the beginning. And this is done
because naturalistic hypothesis demands
it. 1t is done on the assumption that
nothing more enters into the interpre-
tation of Bible history than would enter
into the Interpretation of Xenophon's
Anabasis, or Caesars Commentaries
These are what we call the vitiating as
sumptions or preconceptions Of the de-
s~tuctive critics, and with which they
proceed to their work, to say nothing
OF other assumptions in the matter o.
details, or rather in dealing with the
minutia OF their divisive hypothesis
This suggests the thought that it is
scarcely possible to find anywhere else
a system so built up. hypothesis are
piled up on hypothesis. Delitsch has
said, There is something omnipoten,
in the ink of a German professor" We
quote from memory.
Professor Green has said: develop
ment is in the air, and ii must be applied
to everything connected with the uni
verse" That is, revelation o the Chris
tian system must be conceived as hav-
ing been produced by a slow process OF
evolution from the cruGe and imperfect
and necessarily false to the more COM
pick and relatively more perfect. So it
is assumed that the age of Moses was
a dark age, a age of social crudeness
and general %illiteracy, and the age OF
Abraham was a still darker age, an age
when predatory tribes of barbarians car
ried On perpetual strife with each other.
1t is assumed to begin with that the
Bible story is at fault, in the fact that
it represents the Mosaic era, and ever
the A%brahamic era as periods of con-
siderable culture, when written Ian
guages were in use throughout the
Orient, and cities were built, and per-
manent records were kept Of national
and individual transactions. This, the
destructive Criticism cannot allow, for
it initiates against this development
hypothesis as given above. Abraham,
according to many of them, is SO far
back in the mists of primitive barbar-
ism that it is doubtful if he is any
thing more than a myth after all. The
personality OF Moses may be conceded,
but he must be regarded as a mythical
character very largely, and in what it is
said h" had to do with the founding of
the Israelitish nationality, and their re-
ligious system. These were afterwards
very largely attributed to him by the
cunning priesthood who sought to give
their system the sanction of his great
name.
But it may be said that what we have
described is the most ultra form of the
Ihioher criticism and &c not ,opJ;c,hta