The Testimony of the Bible Concerning the Assumptions of Destructive Criticism

In Short

This book is a theological polemic written to reassure believers—specifically Sabbath-school teachers and young church members—that the Bible remains an inspired, historically accurate, and unified document. It addresses the "destructive criticism" of its era, which sought to redate biblical books and question the authorship of figures like Moses and Isaiah. By grounding its argument in internal biblical testimony and the words of Christ, the text functions as an apologetic guide, encouraging readers to trust the traditional account of the Scriptures rather than the changing theories of contemporary academics.

The Story

The argument begins by establishing a firm, calm stance for the reader. The author contends that the rise of "destructive criticism"—a movement that analyzes the Bible through a secular, rationalistic lens—poses an insidious threat to the faith of the younger generation. He argues that the Church has survived for nearly two thousand years on the strength of its foundational beliefs and should not abandon them simply because a group of modern scholars claims to possess superior "expert" knowledge. The central tension of the book is the battle for the Bible’s integrity: if the critics are correct, the author posits, then the traditional understanding of the Scriptures is a fraud, and the reliability of the prophets and apostles—and even Christ himself—is called into question.

The core of the argument focuses on the Pentateuch. The author rejects the scholarly consensus that the first five books of the Bible were compiled long after the Babylonian exile. Instead, he points to repeated internal references to Moses writing by divine command and the consistent testimony of later Old Testament figures, such as Ezra and Nehemiah, who accepted the Mosaic law as an ancient, established fact. He argues that the critic’s claim that this literature was an exilic invention ignores the historical reality of writing in the ancient Near East and contradicts the explicit testimony of the prophets.

Moving to the New Testament, the author raises the stakes significantly. He argues that because Jesus and his apostles frequently quoted the law of Moses and the prophecies of Isaiah as authentic, any attempt to prove these books are "fictions" inherently attacks the credibility of Christ. If Jesus, as a teacher, were either mistaken about the origin of these texts or afraid to correct the errors of his followers, he could not be the "faithful witness" presented in the Gospels. The author systematically defends the historical reality of figures like Jonah and the unity of the book of Isaiah, dismissing the "composite authorship" theories as arbitrary and lacking in evidence.

The narrative arc of the book concludes with a call for confidence. The author asserts that the "destructive" critics, in their attempts to eliminate the supernatural, are essentially echoing the doubt first introduced by the serpent in the garden of Eden. By framing the critical movement as a spiritual conflict rather than merely an academic one, he encourages his readers to hold fast to their traditional faith. He ends by affirming that God, not the critic, is the ultimate interpreter of his Word, and that the prophecies and promises recorded in the Bible will continue to be fulfilled regardless of contemporary academic debate.

How It Unfolds

The call to vigilance The author identifies the threat posed by modern critical literature, which he views as a challenge to the divine origin of the Scriptures. He advocates for a posture of calm, patient study rather than panic.

The case for Moses The argument shifts to the authorship of the Pentateuch, utilizing internal biblical references to demonstrate that the written law of Moses existed centuries before the exile. By citing the historical records of Josiah and Ezra, the author attempts to dismantle the theory that these books were "literary fictions" created by later priests.

The witness of the Savior The focus turns to the New Testament, where the author contends that Christ’s own references to Moses and the prophets confirm their authorship and historicity. He argues that to accept the critics' views is to accept that Jesus was either deceived or deceptive.

Refuting the critics The final sections tackle specific critical claims regarding the book of Jonah and the authorship of Isaiah. The author argues that God’s omniscience is the bedrock of prophecy, and that the "critical acumen" used to divide the book of Isaiah is merely an attempt to strip the Bible of its supernatural elements.

The People

The central figure in this work is S. E. Wishard, who positions himself as a defender of the faith and a mentor to the laity. He wants to arm his readers with clear, accessible arguments so they are not swayed by the "insidious poison" of skepticism. Standing in his way is the academic establishment, referred to as the "destructive critics." Wishard views these critics as over-reliant on human reason and lacking in spiritual depth, accusing them of trying to "eliminate the supernatural" from the record.

He also centers the narrative on Jesus Christ, whom he presents as the ultimate authority. For Wishard, the critics' theories force a binary choice: either Christ was a reliable witness who knew the truth about the Old Testament, or he was a flawed, fallible teacher. By framing the conflict this way, Wishard forces the reader to move beyond dry academic debate and choose between their loyalty to the biblical figure of Jesus or the findings of the modern scholar. Moses also acts as a primary figure of vindication; he is portrayed as the literal author and servant of God, whose legacy is vindicated by the testimony of later prophets and the New Testament writers.

In Its Own Voice

The work of the destructive critics has been widely disseminated in current literature.

This sentence sets the stage by characterizing the scholarly climate of the time as one of skepticism that threatens the faith of young people.

If the Bible itself is not a fraud, writing was constantly in use in the time of Moses.

This statement summarizes the author’s foundational historical argument regarding the possibility of ancient authorship.

There is no rational possibility of denying our Lord's positive statement without impeaching his veracity.

This line encapsulates the author's primary apologetic strategy: that the integrity of the Bible is inextricably linked to the personal character of Christ.

What It's Really About

At its heart, the book is about the nature of authority. The underlying question is whether the Bible interprets itself through the lens of divine inspiration, or whether it should be interpreted as a human document subject to the tools of historical-critical analysis. The author is deeply concerned with the preservation of a supernatural worldview in an age of encroaching secularism. He argues that once the "supernatural" elements of the Bible are removed to satisfy critical standards, the entire structure of the Christian faith begins to collapse. The book is not interested in engaging with the critics on their own terms; rather, it seeks to establish the Bible as an autonomous, self-authenticating source of truth that stands above the reach of historical revisionism.

Why Read It Today

This book will be of interest to readers who appreciate the history of Christian apologetics and the development of conservative biblical thought in the early twentieth century. It offers a rare, unfiltered look at how traditionalists responded to the rising tide of higher criticism. Readers will find a prose style that is direct, urgent, and deeply anchored in the King James Version of the Bible.

However, it is a product of its time. The author’s dismissal of "expert scholarship" as "bluff" or "egoism" may feel abrasive to modern readers accustomed to more nuanced academic discourse. Furthermore, the book assumes a high level of familiarity with the Bible, often moving rapidly between passages to build its case. You will not find modern literary analysis here; instead, you will find a rhetorical style that focuses on the clash between faith and rationalism. If you are looking for a dispassionate survey of criticism, you will not find it. But if you want to understand the heartbeat of a traditionalist movement that felt its most cherished values were under siege, this book provides an essential, primary-source window into that struggle. What stays with you is the author's unwavering conviction and his insistence that faith must be defended on the battlefield of the intellect.