p. 6 | The Destructive Critics' Objective

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 11, 1914

The Destructive Critics' Objective

Every passing day adds to the ground on which is based the suspicion that the destructive Bible critics have as their ultimate object the undermining of Christianity's chief corner stone. In times farther back, when infidelity, bare-faced, undisguised, attacked the Scriptures, it was at no pains to conceal the fact that its object was the person and work of Christ. The wily instigator of this attack understood full well that the whole fabric of the Scriptures is built on Christ, and that to discredit them is to discredit him. But this attack was too openly of the enemy. The method was too coarse. There were resentment and reaction. The result was that while many were kept away from Christ, the Christian world, though somewhat disturbed, was not appreciably weakened in its faith.

But the archenemy of the Scriptures, and the instigator of all attacks upon them, elected to change his tactics. He withdrew his forces for reorganization. A new method was adopted. This new method provided for a disguised purpose. According to the revised strategy there was needed a change in the base of operations. This new base must be within the Christian ranks. The new method must be christened Christian, and its operators must get themselves called Christians. And Christian terminology must be adopted. Not otherwise could the Christian faith, the Christian Scriptures, and the Christ of the Scriptures be effectively discredited. A university professor calling himself a Christian, or a seminary professor, or a preacher can do more, ten times over, in creating distrust of the authenticity and authority of the Scriptures than can an Ingersoll or a Paine.

Candid and competent defenders of the Scriptures have so perforated the disguise of the destructive critics that the ordinary observer can hardly fail now to see their real object. Since the critics tell us that their findings are, after all, of no great consequence, that neither good nor harm is done, it is evident they are making too great an investment for such small results if this be all. If the Scriptures are not enhanced in value by the discovery of the critics that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that Isaiah is not the writer of the book ascribed to him, then why trouble about it? If it makes no difference who wrote the books of the Bible; if the matter of their human authorship is a matter of no consequence, then why not leave us alone to believe with Jesus and the writers of the New Testament books that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Isaiah the book that bears his name?

There is method in the madness of the critics. There are books in the Old Testament not referred to nor quoted from in the New Testament. But, strangely enough, the critics have shown no disposition to train their guns on these books. The human authorship of the book of Isaiah and the Pentateuch is more fully vouched for in the New Testament than any other of the Old Testament books, and these are the books most assailed and discredited by the critics. This can be accounted for only on the ground that their ultimate object is to discredit Jesus and the New Testament writers. At least eighteen times is Isaiah mentioned in the New Testament as the writer of quotations taken from the book bearing his name. Moses is mentioned as many times in a similar way. If the critics can make it appear that Jesus and the New Testament writers were mistaken as to the authorship of the books from which they quoted and to which they referred, then they have invalidated their testimony. Their object seems to be to convict Jesus of giving either ignorant or perjured testimony. The probability is that the critics would have left the book of Jonah unnoticed if it had not contained the miracle of Jonah's being swallowed by the great fish. If they can discredit this miracle, they can discredit Jesus, who vouched for the miracle. So it must be that it is Jesus the destructive critics are after.—The Word and Way, May 14, 1914.