M $ths and Moths of Criticism A n Examination of the Moths and their Doings. The Origin of the Myths
By DR. A. C. DIXON
E "have tried honestly and fairly to investigate the claims of these higher critics, and to study the processes by which they have come to their conclusions, and we are com pelled to say th a t we believe
acquainted with them, had heard them preach, had read from their pens, and had met them frequently in private. The orthodox pastor went to Dr. A. and asked him to write an account of one day’s proceedings in the Assembly. He then went to Dr. B. and made of him the same request. The accounts were written, and the orthodox pastor then became a sort of redactor, and mixed up th;e sentences of the two writers so as to make only one story. He then handed It to his higher critic friend, and asked him to separate the mixed article. and restore the original docu ments. The result was a dismal, ludi crous failure. And yet learned men seriously claim that they can decide as to the authorship of chapters, para graphs, sentences and words simply on the ground of literary style. MYTH NO. 2—I t is claimed that evo lution compels us to believe that cer tain parts of th e Bible were written at a later date than is claimed by ortho dox believers. The theory of evolu tion is a pagan and not a Biblical con ception. It is supported b y fancy and not fact. It is imagination run wild. It is a myth born in the brains of scien tific men who have a craze for general ization. Paul met it in the Greek phil osophy of his day. It was one of the high things that exalted themselves against the knowledge of God, and was used then as now by the opponents of Christianity as an engine against re vealed truth. One is not surprised, however, th a t men who make such ab surd claims for their delicate and subtle discernments of style, should accept as established science a myth of Greek
their claims are myths, and .their con clusions are moths which are eating away the texture of faith and char acter.- Let us look first a t the myths and their origin, and then we will examine the moths and .their doings. MYTH NO. 1.—-A critic can tell by the literary style of portions of the Scripture th a t they were written by cer tain persons whom he has never seen, and of whom he has never heard nor even read in history. The style of the Junius Letters did not reveal their au thor to the critics of that day, though he was a contemporary. They made their guesses differing one from an other, but no one could positively as certain. An American firm published an anonymous book some years ago, which had been written by an author of national fame, an d 'th e public were invited to guess from the style of the book the author’s name. The literary world sent in their guesses, most of which were wide of the mark: Two pastors, one orthodox and the other a higher critic, were spending their va cations a t a summer assembly, and they discussed in a friendly spirit the merits of the higher criticism. The orthodox pastor asked his higher critic friend whether he ki^w intimately two preachers whom we will call Dr. A. and Dr. B. He replied th a t he was well
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs