Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1922-03-04

To the Editor-Pardon me for
encroaching upon your patience
with another Infliction.' a..
Mr.. Fereshetian leaves me in
undisputed possession Of the field
from the standpoint of science
and evolution. And l had not dis
charged more than a fragrant OF
my admiration! He leaves mater
ialistic evolution to care for it.
self and swings over to the Ques-
ton of the credibility Of Genesis.
The question Of the morals is
not at Issue. Mr.. Fereshetian's
views are all very well for the
man with a clean heredity and a
suitable environment. But one
old fashioned Methodist or Bap-
tist or United Brethren, or Pres
byterian revival will do more to
make decent citizens Of down
and-outs than all his theorizing
has accomplished since the begin
ming of time. A vision of Cal
vary and the new birth accom-
plishes in a few seconds what all
the ethics of all the ages could
not do in eternity.
"Authorities" are only of value
in defining the teachings Of the
parties to which they belong. Mr..
Fereshetian quotes two-Cook
Encyclopedia Brittanica) and
Driver Westminster Commen-
tary). Both are prejudiced rad
ical critics, working with the sole
aim of establishing their conten-
tion. He might have quoted Mol
Ter Of Halle, the equal Of either
in learning, who in the Interna-
tional Bible Encyclopedias, takel
the opposite position. He refers
to Drs. Orr and Green byname,
Both men hold to the unity and
credibility of Genesis. OF course
they are prejudiced upon their
side also. But whereas Driver
and Cook represent the older
school, Moller and the school Of
ahn represent the later tendency,
which is back to the Mosaic au-
thorship of the pentateuch, Rrs.
Kent, Matthews, ct al-notwith-
standing.
All radical criticism is based
upon the assumption that there
can be no manifestation Of the
supernatural outside of the regu-
ular order OF nature. To put this
supposition in another way: II
am blind. l never saw the hues
of a sunset, or the coloring of a
rose. Therefore there is no such
thing, and in my superior know
ledge I can laugh at the folly Of
the poor fool who thinks he sees
those things" Cheyne uses this
line of argument basis in sep
arating the prophet Isaiah UP in
to segments. This happened af-
ter Isaiah wrote. He never could
have forseen it. Therefore later
hand wrote it. This is his main
line Of argument.
Recent discoveries in the ORR
ent have revealed civilizations
with an extensive literature long
prior to Moses. 1t has just been
discovered that the most prima-
tive known civilization in Egypt
was monotheistic. Moses lived in
the golden age" of Egyptian lit
erature, the days of Emma and
Pentaur. Mr.. Fereshetian was
wise in not using the archaeoli-
gical argument of the critics. 1t
is exploded. But he does use, in
a way characteristic of the school
he defends, the alleged "anthrop-
omorphisms" Of the record ,and
the Documentary Hypothesis.
I must say that he does it we'll.
The attack upon the credibility
Of Genesis because of antnropo-
morphisms Is far weaker than it
looks. 1t is fundamental law of
thought that you can only explain
the unknown in terms of the un.
known. In Revelation 21st John
speaks Of the future bliss of the
saints under the anthropomor-
phic figures of Christ's throne,
city with streets of gold, water of
life, and tree OF life. Are we
to argue from this that John