The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1901-07-04
A MELANGE OF
LIVE TOPICS
Penned for Journal Readers
by a Local Scribe.
HIGHER CRITICISM.

| Cuu dCCtpU liOVAAiIS OII VIC bCH i
mony Of others which does not
tally with what he thinks ought to
be the truth according to certain
rules which he has established for
himself. Az example Of such an
one is found III an individual
named Lyman Abbott, D. D.. who
has Just made the discovery that
the book of Esther, though foun-
ded upon fact is, in reality, a
work of fiction, a Drama from
the Old Testament as he fam boy
antly terms it. This person OBJ
serves:
"He VINO regards the book Of
Esther as scientific history must
explain as best he can how the
historian obtained his knowledge
of the facts in the minute detail
with which he records them. Who
was present to hear the cOnversa-
tion between Hannah and Ahasue-
rus; the colloquy between the
king and queen at the first ban
quet; the conversation between
Haman and his wife the questions
of the king to the kings chamber
lains; the conversation between
Haman and the king; and the
plea of Esther for the life of her
self and her people?'
1t is just such shallow reason
ing as is indicated in the above
objections to the credibility Of the
Biblical narrative, that has created
SO much of the unbelief of the
present time. This preachers at
tltude to the Bible, it will be OBJ
served, is one that entirely rejects
It's supernatural character, basing
his case upon the evidence OF hu-
man beings who should have been
witnesses of the facts recorded in
the sacred volume, and accounting
as unworthy of belief the theory
that God Himself, through divine
ly inspired writer's, conveyed the
information of which they wrote.
If we adopt the reasoning of this
person we must reject not only the
book of Esther but very large
part of the Bible some of which is
of prime Importance to Christian
faith and practice. Thus who
was with Christ and was a witness
competent to testify of His agony
in the garden of Gethsemane lust
prior to His crucifxion ? Who
was witness of His temptation
by Satan ? There is q great
number of cases recorded in the
Bible by writer's who were not
themselves witnesses Of what thew
narrated and so far as the record
goes, no other human beings
could have been present and I'M
parted the facts to the writers.
But even from a human stand
point this does not destroy the
credibility of their statements for
the facts may have come through
strictly reliable human sources
which the writer's of the Bible as a
concise book did not consider it
necessary to mention. For in
stance, taking the cases mention
ed by our critic, what was to pre-
vent the king, Ahasuerus, the hus-
band of Esther, from informing
the latter of all those matters
which transpired within his
knowledge ? Why could not Ha-
man or his wife have confessed,
when Haman was sentenced to be
hanged, the matters mentioned in
their conversation ? And finally
is 1t hot reasonable to suppose
that Esther herself testified to the
writer Of the book of Esther, all
the facts which thus came to her
knowledge ?
Apropos to the higher criticism
(so-called) the following from the
the Christian Observer is much to
the point:
"Some critics of the Bible are
very sure Of their positions Just
as sure as were the critics of one
or two generations ago that read
ing and writing were almost un-
known in the days of Moses. In
the new Encyclopedia Biblica,
Professor George Adam Smith ex-
presses a hope that nobody will GO
to Beer-sheba looking for the sew
en- wells which gave name to the
place. But recently Professor
Geo. L. Robinson, of Mccormick
Theological Seminary, has found
the seven wells, and prints in the
Biblical World a description of six
of them with photographers OF
them. The frequency of such dis
coyeries as this, is very refresh
ing"
WOMAN VS.. MAN.