The Denison review., 1899-09-19
chapter of Isaiah, which on any hy-


(. pothesis OF the critics was produced
hundreds of years before Christ came
into the world. But the leaders in this
system do not accept these prophecies,
and their critical scheme is produced to
get rid OF them if possible. But what
shall we say of the logical consistency
OF the believer in divine revelation in
prophecy in the Old Testament, when
he admits the whole Levitical system a
fraud, its prophetic symbols, types and
shadows, sheer inventions, for such they
are on the obvious Interpretation of the
face OF the record if the claims of the
critics are true. The individual who,
therefor, accepts these critical assump-
tions may retain his faith at the ex-
pense OF his logical consistency.
Again, interpreted in the light of
Christ's revelation, what is the mean
ing Of the whole Old Testament econo-
my! Does not such an Interpretation
show it to be preparatory in all its parts
to the coming OF Christ? Was not the
Leviticai priestly system preparation
for the great mission OF Christ? These
must be pertinent questions to an ortho-
dox critic. Was the Old Testament a
preparation for the coming Of Christ in
any sense that involves divine interposi-
ton? If it was, what part is priestcraft
and what is divine. Does Isaiah, for ex-
ample, contain unquestionable prophecy
concerning the Christ? Who was it
that is meant in the language, He was
wounded for our transgression, bruised
for our iniquities." Who was this man
of sorrows and acquainted with griefs?"
Is it any easier to believe in this Ian
guage as a prophecy OF Christ than to
believe that Thus saith the Lord to His
annointed Cyrus" is prophecy? The
God that could reveal one could reveal
the other. No more difficult to predict
the one than to predict the other. For
in the verse in which Cyrus name is
found we have the language OF prophe-
cy, Il will loose the luins of kings to
open before him the two-leaved gates"
II this had been done it was not prophe-
cy. 1t was fraud What is said of
Cyrus in Isaiah is all in the future and
is prophecy unless it was written after
the events. Let us now inquire OF the
conservative critic, is this a pretence,
and if so, what is the moral value of
book. containing such deceptlons?
1t is decidedly amusing to be told
OF the. marvellous things that criticism
has discovered, and its great benefits
to the student of the Bible If it means
that the advocates OF the destructive
criticism have by their processes helped
to a better understanding OF the Bible,
we demur. The additional light that
has come to us has not been through
higher criticism, but through archaeolo-
gical discoveries, and rextual or lower
criticism. Some enthusiastic admirers
of the higher criticism have said that
Its facts canonot be ignored, and must
be fairly and honestly met" and our
attention has been called to the fact
that the Church once put the discover
les OF Calico under the ban. But this is
an infringement upon the scientific
theorists, copyrighted citation. 1t is
abouttime that it be retired from further
service. What are the facts that have
been discovered that require restate-
ment of our beliefs concerning the di-
vine authenticity OF the Old Testament
scriptures? We have searched for them
in vain. The arcfaeologists have dis
covered some great and instructive facts,
but these are ignored by the higher
critics of the radical school. Canon
Driver, for example, says that the dis
coveries OF archaeologists have not
overthrown any of the conclusions OF
criticism" We are not exactly able to
see what in the estimation OF these crit
les would be requisite to overthrow
their conclusions, but we think these
conclusions have been put into an awk-
ward situation by some of the discov-
cries of the archaeologists, and so think
such men as Sayce and Hommel. But
again, we inquire what are the alleged
facts OF this higher criticism. We will
take, for example, few of the most
striking facts as alleged by them. First,
the supposed two accounts OF the crea-
ton in Genesis and III, and their sup
posed marks Of diverse authorship, and
imagined discrepancies. The great dis
tinguishing mark that discriminates
these supposed two accounts OF the crea-
ton is the appellation employed for
deity. In tle one He is called Elohim,
in the other Yaveh Elohim. And by the
way, the terms applied to deity are the
distinguishing marks OF two of the hy-
pothetical documents throughout. One
is called an Elohist and the other a Je-
hovist But here the two supposed au-
thors are P-the primary author of the
Priest-codex, and ]. P. is alleged to