“A Jew on the Briggs Case.” New York Times, June 15, 1893, page 11.

A JEW ON THE BRIGGS CASE.

To the Editor of the New-York Times:

Not being a Christian of any denomination, I am disqualified from dwelling upon the Briggs episode. But as the agitation hinges upon the errancy or inerrancy of the Jewish Bible, I consider myself justified, as a Jew, in expressing my opinion upon the question. I fully agree with the Presbytery in its desire to guard the morals of its future religious leaders by checking their teachers from inculcating anti-Christian doctrine in the minds of their pupils. Hence, the rebuke which Dr. Briggs received at the hands of his superiors in authority should have been sanctioned by any and every religiously-inclined individual, irrespective of creed and denomination. But the question presents itself, Are those who pronounced Dr. Briggs guilty of heresy competent judges? In other words, will any of the General Assembly claim to understand the Bible better than does Dr. Briggs?

To be more explicit, I will state that, without the knowledge of the original Hebrew text, it is utterly impossible for any one to understand the Bible. To substantiate my assertion, I venture to state that while the entire General Assembly Presbyterians boast of their knowledge of “original sin” and their familiarity with every movement made by the serpent at the private chamber of Adam and Eve, yet I doubt whether any presbyter is ready to explain where Cain got his wife. This incident is related in the very next chapter after the original-sin-and-serpent episode.

The solving of this problem is known to those who are familiar with the original Hebrew text. Consequently, Dr. Briggs, who, I am told, is a Hebrew scholar, is more competent to understand the Bible than are his colleagues who use prayers and faith as their Bible dictionary. The Jew, however, studies his Bible with the aid of the Talmud, a stupendous encyclopedia which contains an analysis of every word, letter, and punctuation of the Bible, and its keen criticism by far excels that of the modern school of Bible critics. It is no wonder that the Talmud survived the fury of the mediæval age and is also presenting a bold front against the arrows directed by our modern anti-Semites. It is fortunate for the Talmud that the Presbyterian General Assembly lacks the knowledge of its contents, else it would have been adjudged as heresy and its compilers [compliers?—hard to read—JMH ed.] as full-fledged infidels.

But apart from arguments, I fail to see the consistency of the General Assembly. Since Dr. Briggs is a stanch and scholarly Christian, it is consonant to adhere to what Christ Himself said: “The truth shall make you free.” Yet the General Assembly, which assumes to carry out Christ's injunctions, objects to Dr. Brigg's freedom of thought. I venture to believe that Christ Himself throws considerable light upon this subject in St. Matthew, vii., 1-5, inclusive.

A. BENJAMIN.

NEW-YORK, June 5, 1893.