p. 243 | Evidence Reversed by G. D. Ballou

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 1, 1882

Evidence Reversed.

By G. D. Ballou

BY ELD. G. D. BALLOU.

MUCH fault is found with the Bible, by a class of men who might justly be styled theological vultures, on account, as they say, of the scandalous character of its biographies. Occasionally, even professed religious teachers, in their feverish anxiety to pander to the godless sentimentalism of these days, tell us that much of the Old Testament ought to be expunged, on the ground that it is not fit to be read.

Now we will not stop to inquire why it is that this same class of critics never think to criticize the public press, in which are frequently found the most sickening details of crime, written with a special purpose to satisfy the vile cravings of impure minds; nor why it is that some of these critics will gratify their own tastes, by poring over this class of literature; but we will proceed at once to consider whether the manner in which Bible biography is written is an evidence for or against the Bible.

The Bible is either of divine or human origin. It was written solely by human agency or it was not. If it bears the marks of human authorship, we must conclude that it is entirely of human origin. If it bears none of those evidences which characterize the work of men, we must candidly confess that it did not originate with men. Let us see. The writings of men are never entirely impartial. When the historian is writing the life and character of his hero, how carefully he brings out in all its fullness each one of his good deeds; how he eulogizes his motives, and dwells upon the greatness of his character, and if he be possessed of faults how carefully the hand of charity covers them with the veil of obscurity. Or, if the faults are too glaring to be passed by unnoticed, what earnest efforts are put forth to excuse them. What volumes have thus been written to hide the deformities of human heroes.

If it is the life of an enemy which is the subject of discourse, with what distinctness the evil traits of his character are drawn out; with what apparent gusto all the vile deeds are paraded to the public view. And if perchance the individual had some good trait about him, it is forgotten in the effort to defame his character, or is cynically accounted for by ascribing it to some unworthy motive. But are there no impartial biographers? We will only say that profane history has yet to produce a single biography in which there is not more or less of gloss or coloring thrown around the character of the subject. Indeed, this partiality and bias is so universally recognized that no one of any experience ever reads a biography without making more or less allowance for the prejudices of the writer.

So much for writings which are purely human. Now can these same things be said of the delineations of character found in the Bible? Do not be hasty, but look them over carefully and see if you can discover any effort on the part of the writers to magnify the worthy and obscure the unworthy deeds of those of whom they wrote. Or, if they were bad characters, do you observe any disposition to enlarge upon the wrong deeds, or any apparent desire to prejudice the reader against such characters, or even to form an opinion for the reader other than he would gather from the plain unvarnished facts?

Is it not true that the most careful critic is not able to decide from the manner in which the character is handled, whether or not the writer was a friend or an enemy to the one of whom he writes? Do you find any excuses offered for any wrong course of action? Do you discover any attempts to palliate crime or ignore mistakes? Is it not true that the good and bad deeds of Bible characters are quite generally told without note or comment? If a good man sinned, his sin is noted in plain terms, and there it is left. We are to decide whether or not his conduct was approved of God, not by what his biographer has said in praise or blame, but by the eternal moral principles found in the word.

And herein lies the excellence and reliability of the Bible: its delineations of character are trustworthy because impartial. God who sees not as man sees, and who is no respecter of persons, inspired the biographies found therein.

But suppose that the Bible bore the same marks of favoritism and dislike that profane writings bear; the present race of faultfinders would have had no Bible to abuse. It would have been buried long ago in the unfathomable sea of literature, not by the cavilings of critics, but by the universal consent of candid judgment.

Thus we see that that which was made the basis of serious objection to the Bible becomes, on thoughtful consideration, the very best proof of its genuineness. And so it is that all the caviling and ranting and raving of men who are anxious to abolish the Bible because of its moral restraints, may be swept away like cobwebs by a little candid examination.