128 THE KING’S BUSINESS The Silliness and Inaccuracy of a Higher Critical Scholar Exposed. I N the HERALD AND PRESBYTER of January 21st, 1914, is found the following article by John Tallmadge Bergen of Minneapolis. It needs little comment. It shows on the one hand how a deliberate attempt is being made to inoculate our Sunday School children with the pernicious falla cies of the Destructive Criticism, and 'on the other hand how weak and un- scholarly and foolish this Destructive Criticism often is. Dr. McFayden is considered as one of the brightest of the Destructive Critics, but this article exposes some of the almost incredible inaccuracies and lack of sound logic of the supposedly “ scholarly criticism” : “ The Sabbath School lessons as taught in THE HOMILETIC REVIEW of August, by Professor J. E. McFayden, are a startling example of the weak ness and poverty of the naturalistic method of biblical study. In his lesson on “ Crossing the Red Sea,” he makes a palpable geographical slip when he writes, Whether the Gulf of Akaba to the right, or, as most scholars suppose, the Gulf o f Suez to the left, or perhaps even a lake north of this , . . ’ It is no matter of doubt that ‘most scholars’ would suppose it to be the Gu}f of Suez or an extension of the same body of water. No scholar can have supposed that the Red Sea of the crossing of the Israelites could have been the Gulf of Akaba, which lie's east of Sinai. “ Again, in the lesson, ‘The Bread from Heaven,’ Dr. McFayden writes: ‘It is Very probable that in some waÿ the quails in Exodus 16 have crept in from Numbers 11; they are certainly of no importance in Exodus 16.’ It is plain to every one who studies the topography of the peninsula on which these events took place, and also, the habits of the birds, that where the miracle is reported to have taken place is the identical locality where the quails cross from Africa to the scores of Asia in the spring time. Even from a naturalistic standpoint one would think that the quails were very much in place in Exodus 16. Only the miraculous enlargement of a natural event is needed to fill every exegetical requirement. “ Our cautious teacher goes on to say : ‘ But again there is reason to be lieve that this chapter appears-earlier in the book than it once did.’ . He cites' the laying up of the pot o f manna before the ‘testimony’ to,prove that, when the pot of manna was laid up, the ‘testimony’ or tabernacle was- standing complete; and therefore the chapter which is constructive and orderly in the history of the jo'urney of Israel must have been later in the book. And does the professor fear that the pot o f manna sealed up. in its divine security would not keep until the ‘testimony’ could be erected? It was a matter of only a few weeks when they would arrive at the Holy Mount, and the building of the ‘testimony’ was completed before the end of the first year. “ But the final and heart-breaking weakness in Professor McFayden’s les sons is his retreat behind the naturalistic explanation of the manna by Professor Driver. The tamarisk tree is brought in once more; and^ts white juice, falling in the night from an insect’s sting, and forming on the sand into small round grains of sweetish tasté and good for Arabs’ food, is the manna. Professor McFayden does not quote all of Dr. Driver’s statements ; that would be going too far ; but the fatal inference suggests itself to the reader and the super natural fades away from the Bible history. But there is a .hilarious side to
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online