At the time of writing this I have just concluded an institute on Pentateuchal criticism, held at Albany, Mo., and attended by 126 members from abroad, besides quite a number of the citizens of Albany. Of these, fifty-five were preachers, and the rest elders, deacons, teachers, etc. Among them were a large number of "chief women." One part of my work consisted in answering written questions which were handed in for the purpose of eliciting fuller information on some points, challenging others, and drawing me out on some not included in the lectures. I have preserved these, and it is my purpose to publish some of them, with the answers, for the benefit of the much larger audience addressed through these columns. I present a few below.

      "Does it make any difference whether Moses did or did not write the Pentateuch?"

      Yes; it makes at least this difference; that if he did, the account which the book gives of itself is true; and if he did not, it is false.

      "Would there be any loss to the Christian religion should it be proved that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch?"

      Yes; there would first be this loss: that we should have to concede that Jesus and his apostles were [221] mistaken in claiming that Moses was its author. This would lessen our confidence in them as teachers. Second, the alternative being that its real authors were men who lived from six hundred to one thousand years after Moses, who therefore had no correct information, but wrote legends and folklore for history, and falsely ascribed to Moses the enactment of many laws recently enacted, the loss to the Christian religion would be that all of the teaching by Jesus and the apostles based on the Pentateuch would be based on false premises.

      "The destructive critics say that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because writing had not been invented at the time of Moses. Please explain."

      These critics once said that the art of writing was not sufficiently developed in the time of Moses for historical compositions like the narratives of the Pentateuch, but they say that no more; for the disinterment within the last three years of inscribed tablets in various localities, which date back to the time of Abraham, has demonstrated the falsity of this assumption.

      "If a later hand had written the Pentateuch, would he not naturally say of any particular speech or law, 'These are the words that the Lord spoke unto Moses'? Does not this mode of speech suggest a later writer, rather than Moses himself?"

      The point in this question turns upon the use of the name Moses in the third person; but it was the custom of ancient writers, both Hebrews and others, to speak of themselves, in historical compositions, in the third person. All of you who have read Cæsar in college will remember him as a conspicuous example. While it is true, then, that a later writer would speak of Moses in this way, it is equally true that he would speak of himself in this way, and the circumstance has, therefore, [222] no bearing on the question of authorship, one way or the other.

      "Who was the author of Deut. 34:5, 6? When was it written, where, and by what authority?"

      I can not answer these questions with precision, except that neither these two verses nor any part of the chapter was written by Moses. This chapter is a supplement to Deuteronomy, giving an account of the death and burial of Moses, of the thirty days' mourning for him, of Joshua becoming his successor, and closing with a comparison between him and later prophets. If it was all written by one person, it must have been written after some later prophets arose with whom Moses could be compared; but the different statements in it may have been appended to the book at various intervals. By whose authority they were appended we are not informed if done by inspired men, it was by the authority of God; if by uninspired men, it was by their own authority.

      "Does the Hebrew word in the plural number translated God in Genesis 1, prove that the author was a polytheist?"

      No. In the Hebrew tongue words often have the plural form without the idea of plurality. The language was not exact in this particular, like modern languages. The English reader can see this in the first chapter of Genesis; for, although God (Elohim) says in one verse, "Let us make man in our image," in another he says, "I have given you every herb bearing seed," etc.; thus using at one time the plural pronoun and at another the singular. The latter could not have been used had the Elohim meant a plurality of gods.

      "Does Ps. 97:7 indicate that the author believed in a plurality of gods?" [223]

      The author says, "Ashamed be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols; worship him, all ye gods." He is speaking, I think, to the graven images and idols, and, taking them as their worshipers took them, calls upon them, in a poetic vein, to do homage to Jehovah. Rocks, mountains and hills are elsewhere called upon to do the same thing. The passage no more proves the author a polytheist than Paul is proved one when he says, "There are lords many and gods many" (1 Cor. 8:5).

      "Do Jewish rabbis, as Gotheil, of New York, maintain the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?"

      I am not acquainted with Mr. Gotheil; but there are many Jewish rabbis who have accepted the destructive criticism of the Old Testament. American Jews are divided into two classes, the orthodox and the rationalistic. The former still cling to the old Jewish faith; the latter have departed from it.

      "Is it not an insult to the Hebrew people to affirm that this people does not know the authorship of its greatest historical books?"

      I can not say that this is an insult to the present generation of Hebrews, for they have no better means of information on such subjects than Christians have; but such an assertion does reflect seriously upon the generations of Hebrews in which the critics fix the origin of the documents of the Pentateuch. For example, if Deuteronomy was first known to them in the reign of Josiah, and was then newly written, they were a set of consummate blockheads to believe that their early ancestors had received it from Moses.

      "Is there any evidence from classical writers of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch? If so, what is the value of it?" [224]

      The classic writers of Greece and Rome lived too late to be witnesses on this question, and the most of them knew nothing at all about the Pentateuch. True, Longinus, whose Greek treaties on "The Sublime" was a text-book in my college days, quotes as a remarkable specimen of sublimity of style the words, "Light let be; and light was;" and he ascribes it to Moses, but he had no special means of knowing its authorship.

      "Would not the condition of the writing and the color of the manuscript show whether the book found in the temple was of recent origin or not?"

      Of course they would, unless the priests who, according to the theory, composed it had smoked or stained the manuscript to make it appear old, as some dealers in manuscripts now do. It is not necessary to understand that this manuscript was supposed to have existed from the time of Moses, which would make it seven or eight centuries old; but it could not have appeared to be a recent copy, or a demand would have been made for the original. Men of sense would not have trusted a freshly written document without knowing from what it was copied, if copied at all.

      "Does not the repetition of thought in the first and second chapters of Genesis prove that they were written by different authors?"

      The critical argument for two authors is based, not on repetition of thought, but on alleged contradictions. It is claimed that while the order of creation in the first chapter is, first, vegetation; second, the lower animals, and, third, man, in the second chapter it is, first, man; second, vegetation; third, the lower animals, and, fourth, woman. If you first assume that the second chapter is a separate and independent attempt to describe the order of creation, these contradictions show themselves; but if [225] you take the two chapters as a continuous account by one writer, the second chapter necessarily takes the position of a supplement furnishing details omitted in the first, and all appearance of contradiction vanishes.

      "Will not the theory of the critics have a tendency to lessen the authority of the Bible?"

      The real authors of the critical theory deny that the Bible has authority; consequently a full acceptance of the theory carries with it a complete rejection of authority as attached to the Bible, or to any part of it.

      "Is scientific demonstration the test by which Scripture is to be tried?"

      The Scriptures are not to be tested by the science of chemistry, or that of astronomy, or that of geology, or that of mathematics, but they are to be tested by the science of logic. Demonstration is not the right word. Demonstrations are addressed to the eye. But scientific proof--that is, logical proof--is the test by which the Scriptures are to be tried; and no man is required to believe them except on such proof.

      "Is not the scholarship of the world on the side of advanced criticism?"

      It is common for critics to claim that it is, but when they parade a list of names, it includes the names of many infidels; and these should not be counted in an argument between Christians, because they stand equally against Christianity itself. Of believing scholars, even in Germany, a very great majority are against it, and the majority is still greater in Great Britain and America.

      "Is not advanced criticism gaining ground rapidly?"

      On the whole, it is not. It is gaining in America, though not so rapidly as it did five years ago; it is standing still in Great Britain, and it is beginning to lose ground in Germany, where it originated. In respect [226] to the evidences by which it is supported, it has said almost its last word, as is proved by the fact that its new books and essays are but repetitions or amplifications of utterances repeated often and long ago.

      "Is reason the supreme guide in religion?"

      No. Reason must determine for us whether the Bible is from God; must detect and correct all mistakes and changes made by copyists, and must ascertain as best it can the meaning of all obscure passages: but here her work terminates. These questions being settled, the Bible itself is our sole guide and authority.

      "Do the earliest Jewish writers, whose writings have come down to us, regard Moses as the author of the Pentateuch?"

      Yes. The earliest of these are the authors of the later books of the Bible. These, as many as speak of the authorship, ascribe it uniformly to Moses. The same is true of the apocryphal writers, of Josephus, of Philo, and of the authors of the Talmud.

      "Why do the critics who profess to be Christians wish to discredit the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch? Would this not weaken our faith in its inspiration?"

      This class of critics do not admit that they wish to discredit the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; they say that they are driven to their conclusions by conclusive evidence, and that their wishes are not to be consulted in the matter. They charge those who reject their conclusions with being governed by their wishes in the form of traditional prejudice which blinds them to the truth. As to the inspiration of the Pentateuch, they do not believe it in the sense attached to the word by this querist. The men to whom they ascribe the authorship, J, E, D, H, P and R, were moved by a so-called [227] inspiration, the same that now moves godly men to write edifying books and essays, but by nothing more. The acceptance of their theory, therefore, does not weaken, but it destroys, faith in the inspiration which we have been taught to ascribe to prophets and apostles. It denies the existence of such inspiration.

      "If in the days of the prophets angels could set aside the law of God with reference to altars and offerings, as you taught in your last lecture, why could they not do the same in the days of the apostles [see Gal. 1:8, 9]; and why not the visions, revelations, inner lights, etc., received by men to-day, enable them to do the same thing?"

      The reason is that the ritual of the Mosaic law was not intended, like the ordinances and precepts of the gospel, to be perpetual. If God intended to eventually set aside all of the Mosaic ritual, he could very consistently suspend for an occasion, like that of Gideon's or Manoah's offering, or for a period of time, like that in which the ark was separated from the tabernacle, the statute in reference to a single altar and the exclusive privilege of the priesthood; and the testimony of a visible angel or that of an inspired prophet like Samuel was sufficient evidence of his will in the premises; but this could not be the case in respect to the appointments of Christ, which are to endure to the end of time. Moreover, the fact that such suspensions had taken place under the law may be the very consideration which led Paul to warn the disciples not to believe an angel from heaven who should proclaim another gospel than that which they had received. If the Jews had been left without this warning, they might have adopted the reasoning suggested in this query: and the men and women who now see visions and enjoy inner light, might [228] have some ground of pretense for their folly; but all this is precluded by Paul's words.

      "Drummond says, 'The Bible came out of religion, and not religion out of the Bible.' Please give your view of this."

      Drummond is mistaken., He fell into this conceit as a result of becoming an evolutionist. If religion and religious literature came into being as a result of evolution from within the soul of man, then the Bible contains no direct revelation from God, and all that it claims for itself in this respect is false. The Mosaic religion, so far as it is Mosaic as distinct from the patriarchal, came into being as a result of the revelations given through Moses, and written in the Pentateuch. The religion of Jesus, so far as it differs from that of the Old Testament, did not come originally from the written books of the New Testament, seeing that it was, in its main features, taught orally by Jesus and the apostles before it was committed to writing; but still these books did not come "out of religion," but out of the inspired men who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to commit to writing that which the same Holy Spirit had moved them and their divine Master to deliver orally. It was, then, that which was spoken or written which brought the Christian religion into being; and Drummond has reversed the true order, as evolutionists are very apt to do.

      "Did not the idea of sacrifice originate among idolaters, and was it not borrowed from them by the Israelites?"

      No; for it originated, if the Bible is true, before idolatry came into existence. It is self-evidently an institution of divine appointment; for it is impossible that man could have conceived, by a priori reasoning, [229] that the true God or any god would be more favorable to him because he slew an innocent animal or child.

      "How can the critics have any respect for the Pentateuch, when it is full of false statements about its origin?"

      The scholars who invented the so-called critical theory of the Pentateuch have no respect for it. They do not pretend to have any. How the so-called "evangelical critics," who accept the theory, can have any respect for it, is beyond my comprehension; yet it is common for them to say that the book is far more precious to them now than it was when they believed as we do.

      "Can it not be as easily proven that the Gospels are of composite origin as it can be that the Pentateuch is?"

      Yes; and, according to the critics, it is proved. Not only the Gospels, but Acts, some of the Epistles and the Apocalypse are composite. Professor Briggs tells all about the gradual growth of the Apocalypse in his book "The Messiah of the Apostles."

      "Is it not a little strange, the critical theory being true, that not one of the documents from which our Pentateuch was made has ever reached the people of this age?"

      I think not; for very few books of antiquity have been preserved, and if these documents ever existed they were very naturally neglected after the final redactor had done his work. But it is strange, if this theory is true, that no historical trace of the former existence of these documents, or of their authors, can be found either in the Bible or out of it.

      "What of the allegorical theory of the Garden of Eden?"

      The next time you meet a man who holds that the story of the garden is all allegory, remind him that all [230] allegories are unreal narratives which represent something real--that all the parts of the story correspond to some part in the reality. Then ask him to tell you what, in the reality, is meant by the garden; what by the two special trees; what by Adam; what by Eve; what by the "rib story;" what by the serpent; what by the temptation and the sin: and what by the expulsion from the garden. If he knows that it is an allegory, he knows the explanation of it, or at least some explanation of it; so ask him to explain it. Then I shall thank you to report to me what his explanation is. If he refuses to give the explanation, tell him he is talking nonsense when he says it is an allegory.

      "Was not Melchizedek a mythical character?"

      The critics answer that he was; but Professor Sayce has found among the Tel-el-Amarna tablets one which he claims to be a letter from Melchizedek to the king of Egypt; and Professor Hommel, in his book recently noticed in these columns, has furnished strong confirmation of Sayce's claim. It has at least been made certain by means of recently discovered inscriptions that the leading features of the episode in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis are real history.

      "Is not the Biblical account of the Hittites unhistorical?"

      It was so thought by unbelievers for a long time, and believers had no proof to the contrary except the statements of the Scriptures; but now it is known and admitted that a powerful kingdom under this title did exist. Inscriptions left by Rameses II., who had continuous war with them during his long reign, have fully vindicated the sacred record.

      "Were the Hebrews in Egypt two hundred and fifteen or four hundred and thirty years?" [231]

      It is plainly stated in Ex. 12:40 that they were there four hundred and thirty years.

      "Do you believe that everything written in the Old Testament is the product of inspiration?"

      No; for there are some passages which are known to be interpolations, and some mistakes of transcribers. It may be also that some of the smaller documents received a place among the sacred books by misjudgment. But I believe that everything written by the original authors of the several books was written by inspiration of God.

      "Have you any faith in the theory of the evolution of man? In what way, if any, does this theory conflict with the Bible account of man's origin?"

      I believe it to be a false theory. It conflicts with the Bible account in that it represents man as having been evolved from a brute, whereas the Bible represents him as having been created directly from inanimate matter, and as having received his spirit directly from God. No one who believes the first and second chapters of Genesis to be historical can believe in the evolution of man.

      "What do you think of the idea that the prophets were not foretellers, but teachers?"

      I think that the negative part of the statement is false. The prophets were unquestionably teachers, and the chief part of their work consisted in rebuking the sins of their contemporaries; but that they were not foretellers is false, for they foretold many things which no human foresight could have anticipated.

      "What will be the destiny of men who spend their lives in casting suspicion on the Bible, and undermining the faith of the unsuspecting?"

      I am not their judge, and I am glad that I am free from that responsibility. But I know one who has said, [232] "It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble."

[SEBC 221-233]