Substance of an Address to Young Men, by H. P. B.

(Read Jeremiah 36 :14-25.)

My object on this occasion is to deal with the way the Scriptures have been criticized and attacked on the one hand, and gloriously vindicated on the other. But I shall be sorry if our talk has no further result than to remove doubts and difficulties from your minds. That in itself is a great thing, but something more is to be desired. For a man may believe the Bible in a general way without necessarily being a true believer in Christ. No one by the mere acknowledgment that the finger-post is right can reach the place it indicates. One may talk about a finger-post, and be willing, to defend it, but the object of the finger-post is not attained unless the man who seeks direction from it treads the road to which it points.

And the Bible is like a finger-post. We may have to defend the accuracy of its statements, and contend for the truth of the revelation that it brings to us, but let us see that we not only admire it and defend it, but follow its directions, and turn to the blessed Saviour to whom it bears witness from beginning to end. Unless our faith in the Scriptures leads us to living faith in Him who is their theme and topic, our belief will have been in vain.

II.

We are not now concerned to combat, the infidel notions of the Paines, Voltaires, Ingersolls, and Bradlaughs. Views such as are commonly associated with their names do not prevail today to nearly so great an extent as they did fifty years ago. Their arguments may still appeal to a certain set of ignorant people, but, on the whole, those who read and think do not need to be warned against the blatant and blasphemous assertions of rank atheism.

On the other hand, attacks upon the Bible, and upon Christianity itself, are to be found not only in the secular press, but in religious journals and in the writings of "reverend" professors and divines. Pulpits, once the strongholds of orthodoxy, are now the high places of an anti-christian propaganda. Their occupants (wolves in sheep's clothing) are doing far more to undermine the faith of men than all the wild talk of the Paines and Ingersolls.

King Jehoiakim, of whom we have read, may be called the leading "higher critic" of his day. There was much that was distasteful to him in the roll that Baruch had written at Jeremiah's dictation, so, seizing the document, he cut it to pieces with his knife, and finally flung it into the flames. There were not found wanting men who besought the king to treat the word of God with more reverence. Let us mention their names with respect:Elnathan, Delaiah, Gemariah; but their entreaties were of no avail.

There are many Jehoiakims in our day, who cut and slash at the Scriptures. It is not difficult to discern the reason. The Bible is like a mirror. In it the portrait of men is seen, drawn by an unerring hand. It shows them the blackness of their hearts, and tells them plainly what is going to become of them if they do not turn to God in repentance. This is more than they can tolerate; so, as they cannot destroy it, they cry, Impugn it! Criticize it! Deny its accuracy! Affirm that it is only the work of erring men! Anything to get rid of its unpalatable statements!

Depend upon it, there is a moral reason for the persistent efforts to detract from the force and value of the Scriptures.

III.

Sometimes it is asked:"Why may we not treat the Bible as we treat any other book ? It comes to us just as Homer, or Virgil, or Shakespeare, or any other classic, ancient or modern; comes to us, with certain claims as to its authorship, etc. Why not subject the Bible to the same canon of criticism? Why not make it run the gauntlet of competent investigation as other books have to do ? "

I do not think we could object to that, however sorry we might feel for those who sit down to criticize the word of God instead of letting it criticize them.* * In Heb. 4 :12 we read that the word of God is a critic (κριτικός) of the thoughts and intents of the heart. That is the best kind of criticism! Let it criticize us!* But let us ask the critics their own question. Why do they not treat the Bible as they do other books ? Why vent their venom upon it so persistently ? Why judge the Bible by a different criterion ? The usual principles of literary and historical research are fair enough. Why, then, should they not conduct their examination of the Scriptures in accordance therewith ?

IV.

There are three parts of the Bible which more than any others have been made the subject of desperate and repeated attack. They are, the Pentateuch (1:e. the first five books), Daniel, and Jonah. In former days the New Testament came in for its share of opposition, but on the principle of "once bitten twice shy," it is now comparatively unassailed. Having burnt their fingers severely, the critics leave it well alone. The Gospels, Epistles, etc., have been shown to stand upon a foundation, as to their genuineness and their authorship, that cannot be overthrown. So in recent years it is the Old Testament that has become the battle-ground, and my desire is now to show how wonderfully the spade of the excavator and the discoveries of the explorer have come to our help. The critics have been beaten on their own ground; their sophistry and ignorant assertions have been exposed, and the testimony of Scripture has been confirmed in an altogether unexpected way-indicating that God's hand has been in it.

It is worthy of remark that these discoveries have been made at the right time. Why were not the tablets and cylinders, the sculptures and inscriptions, which have done such valiant service in the cause of truth, brought to light long years ago ? Why were they not unearthed in the eighteenth century, or the seventeenth ? Why did not men discover them hundreds of years back, when those eastern lands were nearer the center of civilization, and therefore more accessible to the explorer than they are today ?

We may surely trace the hand of God in this. For it is only during the last century that the school of criticism has arisen, basing its inferences and deductions upon imaginary history. The archaeological relics of bygone times in Babylonia and Assyria would have been mere subjects of academic interest if they had been discovered two hundred years ago. But now they are weapons, effectual to the pulling down of the strongholds of rationalism and unbelief. Is it not wonderful that God, in His providence, should keep all this invaluable evidence buried beneath the surface of the ground, and cause it to have a marvelous resurrection just when it can be of most use ?

V.

There is another very noteworthy fact. The three parts of the Old Testament most bitterly assailed are the three parts most emphatically confirmed and authenticated by Christ Himself in the Gospels!

Take the writings of Moses, the books known to us as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It is sometimes asked :"After all, what does it matter whether Moses wrote these books or not ? Suppose that some scribe wrote them a thousand years after Moses had died, what difference does it make ? The books are in our hands, and they bring us their message all the same, whoever wrote them. Why make all this fuss about their authorship ? "

There is a very grave reason, however, for laying stress on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The Lord Jesus Christ, speaking of Moses, distinctly said, "He wrote of Me" (John 5 :46). If Moses did not write the books ascribed to him, then the omniscience and deity of Christ are at once impugned.

Of course, the force of this argument has been felt. To weaken it men have invented the blasphemous doctrine of what they call the Kenosis.* *The term is derived from the word έκέvωσεv (Phil. 2:7), translated "made [Himself] of no reputation," or "emptied [Himself]." But this refers to the Lord's divesting Himself of the outward majesty of the Godhead, and appearing in humility as man. It affords no basis for the profane assumption that He laid aside any of His inherent qualities such as omniscience.* They say that the Lord voluntarily curtailed His knowledge and spoke from the standpoint of an ignorant Galilean peasant, often saying that which was incorrect and untrue. See to what lengths the theories of " higher criticism " lead! You cannot give them a place in your mind without derogating from the glory and majesty of the person of Christ.

The book of Jonah also is authenticated by the Lord Himself. Skeptics ask:"How could Jonah be in the whale's belly for three days and nights? Impossible!" But the Lord Jesus emphatically says:"Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish's belly" (Matt. 12:40) Who are these men who dare to discredit what is so distinctly affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ?

So, too, with Daniel. None can call that book in question without casting a slur upon Christ. For He calls him "Daniel the prophet," and quotes from the book that bears his name, stamping it as the genuine writing of that selfsame Daniel (Matt. 24:15).

VI.

Now we come to the subject of the recent discoveries in the East, and the way they confirm the accuracy of the Scripture records.

Upon what do the adversaries of the Bible base their assertion that the Pentateuch was not and could not have been written by Moses ?
To put their reply in a nutshell, it is this:At that early stage of the world's history when Moses lived, fifteen hundred years before Christ, the art of writing had not been invented, or, at all events, had not attained such perfection as would make the writing of the Pentateuch possible. The Israelites of that day, they tell us, were a mere horde of illiterate nomads, and could neither read nor write. And if there were no writers and no readers, it is clear that Moses could not have written the books that bear his name. They must have been the production of some scribe hundreds of years later.

When all this was affirmed, as if it were established fact, believers in Christ and in the Scriptures hardly knew what to say. They knew it was all wrong. They would rather believe the Lord Jesus Christ when He said that Moses wrote these books than all the learned professors of the day. But they could not say people could read and write fifteen hundred years B. C.

Ah ! but we can say so now. Recent discoveries have brought to light a world of scribes and readers, of books, libraries, and schools, which stretches away into a past that was already remote in the days of Abraham. The world into which Moses was born has proved to be one of high literary culture, and the wonder would be, not that he should have known how to write, but that any one in his position should not have been able to do so.

M. de Sarzec, a French excavator, has discovered at Tel-loh, in Southern Chaldea, a whole library of tablets, more than thirty thousand in number. This library dates back hundreds of years before Moses. The inscriptions upon these tablets are in the most ancient language known to men, and they show conclusively that even in the remote past almost everybody could write and read. There are letters written by soldiers and merchants. Others were written by women. Even boys and girls could write; they went to school and had clay "copy-books."

In the light of all this, what becomes of the assertion that writing was the invention of a much later age ?

Moses did not, of course, live in Chaldea, but in Egypt. The Egyptians did not write on baked clay like the Chaldeans, but on papyrus, a much more perishable material. In spite of this, however, certain very ancient Egyptian writings have been discovered. One of them is a treatise on mathematics dating from the age of Abraham; there is also a collection of model letters, and a description of a traveler's adventures in Palestine, written in the time of Moses!

Yet learned professors, who ought to be ashamed ever to show their faces again, have sought to shake the faith of believers in the Holy Scriptures because, forsooth, nobody could write or read so long ago as the days when Moses lived ! Recent discoveries have amply and finally refuted such wild statements. But what of those who have been robbed of their confidence in the word of God thereby ?

VII.

What have the Jehoiakims of today – the gentlemen who cut and slash-to say about the book of Daniel ?

They tell us, first of all, that it could not possibly have been written by Daniel. It may have been written by almost anybody else that you like, and at any later date that you please, but it could not have been written in Daniel's day.

When we ask why they make these assertions, they give us several reasons which seem, to be very convincing. But the violence of their hostility makes us suspect that Daniel is particularly obnoxious to the critics.

And such is, indeed, the case. The reason is not far to seek. Of all the books of the Bible, Daniel contains the most detailed and minute prophecies, not only of times yet future, but of events which were near at hand when the book was written. These latter prophecies in due time were fulfilled to the letter. So evident is this that Porphyry, an anti-Christian writer of the third century (a. d.), declared that Daniel was history and not prophecy; that is, that it must have been written after the events prophesied of had happened. Certainly the prophecies and the subsequent history fit into one another like a hand into a glove.

"Oh,"cry the critics, "nobody could foretell things in such a marvelous way. It would be a miracle! " Now, miracles these learned gentlemen will by no means believe in. Nor do they credit such a thing as inspired prophecy. How, then, can they account for the wonderful accuracy of the predictions in Daniel, save by assuming that the book was written at a date subsequent to the events referred to ? So they fixed its date at about 160 b. c-that is, about two hundred years after Malachi, the last of the prophets. Thus they eliminate prophecy and have history in its place.

Unfortunately for these fine theories, they do not square with certain well-established facts. The reader probably knows that, unlike most other books in the Bible, the book of Daniel was written in two languages Broadly speaking, half of it is in Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews; the other half is in Aramaic (otherwise known as Syriac, or Chaldee). There are spiritual lessons to be learned from this fact; but it is with the fact itself that we are now concerned, as affording a very clear refutation of the theory that would date the book about 160 B. C.

We have scriptural proof that prior to their captivity in Babylon the Jews did not understand the Aramaic language. For when Rabshakeh shouted out his abusive words in Hebrew, in the ears of the people on the wall, he was requested to desist, and to speak in Aramaic (or Syriac), which certain nobles could understand, but which was unintelligible to the people generally (2 Kings 18:26).

Scripture also shows that after their captivity in Babylon the Jews had lost to a large extent their own language, Hebrew, and for the most part only understood Aramaic. When Ezra read the law in the hearing of the assembled people, certain Levites had to interpret it. The sacred Hebrew had become a dead language to many of the Jews who had returned from Babylon (Neh. 8:7).

Now, the book of Daniel, though full of instruction for us, was written primarily for the comfort and encouragement of God's people who lived in his day. If it had been written, as the critics affirm, about 160 years B. C., then it would have been written at a time when about half of it would be quite unintelligible to many who were intended to profit by it. The only date in the whole of Jewish history when the book of Daniel could be read in its entirety by the Jewish people was the period of their captivity before they had lost their own language, and after they had begun to speak the language of their conquerors. Thus the fact of the two languages being used proves the book to have been written during the Captivity;" that is, at the time when Daniel lived.

VIII.

The two chief objections to Daniel on the part of the "higher critics" are in connection with what they call (1) the Belshazzar difficulty, and (2) the musical instrument difficulty. Modern discoveries, however, have utterly overthrown and discomfited the objectors.

The "Belshazzar difficulty," briefly, is as follows :The Bible states that on the night when Babylon fell, its king, Belshazzar, was slain (Dan. 5 :30). " But," say the critics, " we know Babylonian history well enough to say that no king named Belshazzar ever reigned over Babylon. The fall of the city is an historic event, but when it took place the reigning king was Nabonidus, not Belshazzar. Moreover, he was hundreds of miles away from Babylon, and we read of him afterwards as a prisoner in the hands of the Persian conqueror." Here was a clear case of conflict! Christians knew not what to say. They could only wait. Nor have they waited in vain.

In 1854 Sir H. Rawlinson discovered in the ruins of the ancient city, Ur of the Chaldees, some terra- cotta cylinders containing an inscription by that very King Nabonidus, who was reigning at the time when Babylon fell. In this inscription he speaks of "Belshazzar, my eldest son." This proves two things :

(1) There was a royal person named Belshazzar.

(2) He was son of Nabonidus,* and therefore lived at the very time that Daniel says he did. *He is called in Scripture the son (or grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar. There is ground for believing that Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. In that case Belshazzar would be rightly spoken of as son, or grandson, of Nebuchadnezzar, though actually the son of Nabonidus.*

In 1876 Sir H. Rawlinson discovered more than two thousand tablets upon the site of Babylon itself. One of these contained an account by the Persian King Cyrus of the invasion and capture of Babylon. Nabonidus is mentioned as having fled and been made a prisoner. Mention is also made of a certain night when "the king" died.

It appears, then, that there were actually two persons who at the same time were kings of Babylon. Nabonidus, the supreme monarch, was absent from his capital city, and it seems that he had left his eldest son, Belshazzar, in Babylon as a deputy king, or regent, during his absence. So that in very truth Belshazzar was "the king," the only king that could possibly have been slain on that terrible night of Babylon's capture.

This fact throws light on a statement in the Bible which otherwise is somewhat difficult of explanation. It was not uncommon in ancient times for signal services to be rewarded by exaltation of the man who rendered them to a place in the kingdom second only to the king himself. Thus Joseph was rewarded by Pharaoh, Mordecai by Ahasuerus, Daniel by Nebuchadnezzar. But in Daniel 5 :29 Belshazzar commands that Daniel should be, not the second, but the third ruler in the kingdom. Why the third ? Sir H. Rawlinson's discoveries enable us to answer this question. Belshazzar himself, though king in Babylon, was only the second ruler; Nabonidus his father being the first. Hence the highest place that he could offer Daniel was that of third ruler.

How accurate, then, is the language of Scripture! How the attacks of the critics recoil upon themselves! How the book of Daniel comes unscathed and triumphant out of the ordeal to which it had been subjected! May God give repentance and self-judgment to the men who have set themselves to discredit and belittle His word!

IX.

There yet remains the question of the musical instruments, upon which the critics have laid great stress.

When Nebuchadnezzar set up his golden image in the plain of Dura, all kinds of musical instruments are said to have been employed (Dan. 3:5). "But," say the critics, "four of these instruments-the harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer -were of Greek origin, and could not have been in use in Babylon at such an early date. This shows that the book of Daniel is the production of a much later age." So reason Dean Farrar and others of the rationalistic school.

Unfortunately for their theories, Strabo, a geographical writer who lived at the beginning of the Christian era, distinctly states that two of these instruments, the harp and sackbut (κιθαρις and σαμβυκη), were not Greek, but Asiatic, in origin. The pages of Strabo were as accessible to Dean Farrar as to any one. ' He could read Greek with facility. What excuse had he for remaining in such ignorance of the subject upon which he wrote ?

But what about the other two instruments, the psaltery and dulcimer ? They are very possibly Greek in origin, as is asserted. But about fifty years before the time of Daniel, the great Assyrian monarch, Assurbanipal, built a huge and splendid palace for himself. This palace, with the sculptures upon its walls, has been laid bare by the spade of the excavator. In one of the designs there has been found a representation of one of those very Greek instruments which we are told could not possibly have been known in Babylon until five hundred years later!

The fact is, it is conclusively proved that a brisk trade was carried on between Greece and Babylon long before Daniel's time, and opportunities were abundant for instruments of music to find their way from one country to the other.

So, once again, the critics are convicted of bearing false testimony ; and the Scriptures are cleared of the aspersions which have been cast upon them.

It is impossible to acquit the "higher critics" of the charge of showing bias and prejudice in their handling of the sacred writings. Their methods deserve the sternest condemnation. Nor are they to be commended who condone their conduct by remaining in church-fellowship with them.

The path of the Christian, who desires to be loyal to Christ and the Scriptures, is clear. He is not to bid God-speed to any who bring not the doctrine of Christ. He is to have no manner of fellowship with such, and is not even to receive them into his house (2 John 10, 11).

My earnest counsel to you is never to sanction by your presence the preaching of any "higher critic," no matter how great his name. Retain no link with congregations who tolerate them in the pulpit. Contribute to no societies which accept their patronage. Be clear, at all costs, of this great evil. You may find yourself in a small minority. Never mind. Better to be few in number and loyal in heart than to march shoulder to shoulder with traitors in the ranks of the majority.

To any reader that has fallen under the influence of anti-scriptural theories let me say a word in closing. Do not believe that the critics have a monopoly of learning. Men as learned as they have considered their theories, and have deliberately cast them aside, not only as unscriptural, but as unhistorical and unphilosophical. Men of the greatest scholarship have been, and are, devout and enthusiastic believers in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. If they find no difficulty in this, why should you or I ?

"The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken:lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them ? " (Jer. 8:9).