Authenticity of the Scriptures by John Norton Loughborough

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 3, 1865

Authenticity of the Scriptures.

By John Norton Loughborough

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, OF BATTLE CREEK, MICH., AND E. O. DARLING OF ROCKTON, ILLS.

Response No. 4.

MR. E. O. DARLING, My dear Sir: I still further reply to your questions in the letter of Jan. 2nd, in accordance with my promise in my last. You say, "Of these manuscripts, how, and where were they preserved, previous to their compilation? In other words, were they at that time genuine, and have they since such compilation been kept beyond the reach of all possible alteration?" Your first question I will answer first; "Were they at that time genuine?" I answer, Yes. A genuine document I understand, is one which is written by a person whose name it bears as the author of it. So my first proof will be to show that at the time of the earliest compilation of which we have any account of the books of the Old Testament, that compilation was of the genuine writings of Moses and others to whom those writings were ascribed. And the earliest compilation of the books of the Old Testament as we now have them, was, as I have shown, back as far as 300 years B. C. And to answer this question, it will carry us back to show the preservation of the books of the Old Testament before the time of its later writers, which may not be out of place here although you ask no question directly upon that point. I have already presented evidence to show that Moses was the founder of the Jewish book of laws, and the principal writer of the facts stated in the five

books of Moses. Of course the evidence presented in the other letter concerning the compilation of the books of the Old and New Testaments is equally valid on this point. But I will pass to notice other testimony bearing directly upon the point of the preservation of the books before and after their compilation. There could be no earthly object for them (the Jews) to change their laws, nor is there any evidence that they ever attempted to change them. Again, there is good evidence that they did not change their Scriptures, from the fact that they themselves thought it an unpardonable sin to change or mutilate them. Philo and Josephus both declare that the Jews would suffer any torment and even death rather than change a single point or iota of Scripture. A law was also given them denouncing him as guilty of inexpiable sin who should alter in the least their laws. See Deut. iv, 2; xii, 32. And for this reason the Jewish doctors got up their traditions in which they explained and gave their ideas of Scripture; but they did not call their tradition Scripture. Christ and the apostles charged them with reverencing their traditions, but they never accused them of altering their Scriptures.

Again, it would have been a great difficulty for any one person to have corrupted their Scriptures at that time; for others would detect them. Their rulers were required to have a copy of the law. The priests had a copy, and parents must have had a copy in order to comply with the requisition, to teach them to their children. So you readily see if any one attempted to alter the law at that time, others would detect them. If the priests or rulers had undertaken to change the laws, a people who had been taught these laws from their earliest infancy could easily detect any such change. These remarks, you understand, I design to apply simply to the Pentateuch, or laws of the people called "the book of the law of the Lord given by the hand of Moses." Their Scriptures which were written from the time of the giving of the law to the captivity, refer to persons and events connected with the affairs of the Jewish kingdom, and these writers refer to the records of their own nation as proof of many of the statements they make. It would be absurd for any one to attempt to write about events and tell the exact time and place, when and where such and such events occurred, if no such event had happened. The record of the affairs of the nation would of course give the lie to their statements, if they were not correct. But they, as already remarked, refer to the records of the nation to prove the correctness of their statements. And allowing that their records of facts when made agree with the records of the nation (as they must have done, or else they would have been rejected), we have a strong testimony for the genuineness of these documents, and an equal barrier to the changing of them, for the records of the nation would at once detect such an alteration if made.

Again, after the Jews were divided into two kingdoms, both the people of Israel and those of Judah still retained the same book of the law; and the rivalry between them would hinder either of them from altering it. For should they either of them alter it, the others would detect them. We find also that after the Israelites went into captivity at Babylon, the Samaritans possessed the Pentateuch in the old Hebrew characters, in which it remains unto this day, while the

Jewish copy (as I have already shown), after they went to Babylon, was copied into the Chaldee language. The jealousy between these two nations would of course be a barrier against either of them altering their Scriptures in any degree; for that alteration would be certainly discovered and used to the detriment of the one so changing them. The general agreement between the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuch, which are both of them now extant, show them to have come from the same source. And in the language of Mr. Horne I would say: "No better evidence can be desired that the Jewish Bibles have not been corrupted than this very book of the Samaritans; which, after more than 2000 years of discord between the two nations, varies as little from the other as any classic author in less tract of time differs from itself by the unavoidable slips of many transcribers." A copy of the Scriptures was always kept by the Jews in the sacred place of the temple and brought forth from thence in the time of some of their feasts, and every Sabbath, and read in the hearing of the people, so that all had an opportunity to know their oracles; not like heathens who kept theirs from the eyes of all except the rulers. As I have stated in my last letter, when we come down to about 300 years B. C. (or rather to be definite, 282 years B. C.), we find the same books we now have comprising the Old Testament translated into Greek. It was not certainly a very hard matter for the Jews at that time to know what books were authentic, as the law and prophets &c., had been read in their synagogues every Sabbath day, long previous to that time.

To sum up these facts already stated. We have the Septuagint Bible, carrying us back to about 300 B. C. The Chaldee Paraphrase carrying us back to 600 B. C., and containing the same books in our Bibles which were written previous to the captivity, and also those which were written in the same language after that time. We have the Old Hebrew text also written previous to the captivity. By comparing these together, we see they agree in their books, and facts related, which is a strong evidence of the preservation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament till the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

The Scriptures of the Old Testament were also translated into the Syriac language at the close of the first century. Of these different versions of the Old Testament which I have mentioned, a celebrated French writer, Cellerier, in his "Authenticity and Divine origin of the Old Testament," pp. 148-151, says: "These three versions have been preserved to our time; numerous manuscript copies and printed editions of them are extant; and, with the exception of a few unimportant differences, they represent to us the same text, the same books, the same predictions, and the same phrases. Now these agreements are not the result of any design on the part of translators, or of any fraud on the part of learned men. These three sister versions, having once issued from their common parent, have been forever separated by events and by a rivalry which still subsists. The Chaldee version which was carefully preserved and consulted by the Hebrews, remained unknown to Christians during the early ages of the church, and has been in their hands only for two or three centuries. The Christians of Syria know as little

of the Greek version, as the Greek did of the Syriac; and the Greek version, which was diffused throughout the West, and translated in its turn into Latin, and which, under this second form, became the object of exclusive respect in the Roman Church, could not borrow anything from the other versions, of the existence of which the inhabitants of the West, were utterly ignorant. The agreement, therefore, of these three witnesses is so much the more remarkable, as they never could have heard that these versions belonged to rival and hostile churches. They were the work of inveterate enemies of Christians and Jews, of Eastern and Western Christians, of Jews of Palestine, and Alexandrian Jews. They do, however, agree together. Therefore they give us, with certainty, the ancient and true text of the Old Testament, precisely as it was extant before the time of Jesus Christ." Since the time of Christ the alteration of the Old Testament would have been a greater difficulty than previous to that event, for we have the Jews of two or three classes, the Samaritans, the Syrian Christians, and finally the other hostile sects of the East and West. Many of these sects were at variance and utterly hostile to each other, yet all of them reverenced the Old Testament as the word of God, and had copies of it in their respective languages. The agreement of these different versions on bringing them together after being separated for so long a lapse of time, is the best of evidence of their uncorrupted preservation.

In answering your question on the genuineness of the books of the Old Testament at the time of their compilation, I have (virtually) also answered your question on their preservation. The two questions are in fact inseparably connected. Concerning the genuineness of the Old and New Testaments, the testimony given on their compilation, is a sufficient proof of their being preserved as genuine documents to the present time. But I will pass to notice some further evidence for their preservation. First, then, I prove their preservation, by the facts they contain. I have already presented proof that the apostles wrote a record of the life and sayings of Christ, and also epistles enforcing his doctrines. And on the genuineness of the New Testament, I have already presented some evidence that what they wrote is the same as we now have in the New Testament, which of course is evidence for its preservation.

But the question now comes up as to their uncorrupted preservation. We use the same arguments to prove their uncorrupted preservation, that would be used to prove the genuineness and preservation of any ancient manuscript extant. First then, these writings could not be corrupted during the lives of the writers of the books, without being detected. If like the "Sibylline oracles," they had been looked up from public view where no one could look at them without special authority from the emperor or king, there might be some chance for them to be corrupted without the common people knowing it; but we find, on the contrary, that these writings of the New Testament were addressed to large societies in different parts of the world. Within twenty years after the ascension of Christ, churches were formed in the principal cities of the Roman empire; and in those churches the writings of the New Testament, as then extant (namely, the gospels and some of the epistles) were read as a part of their public worship. Their Scriptures were exposed to public examination, and taught in public. When these writings were delivered to the world, the Christians held them in the highest estimation as giving a record of the life and sufferings of Christ, &c. Hence, copies of them were multiplied and disseminated as rapidly as the doctrine of Christ was spread abroad. Translations were made in as many languages as the Christians spoke, and were scattered throughout the empire, and many of these translations remain to the present time. And as Mr. Horne says: "We see by it being thus translated and copied by various individuals, it would very soon be rendered absolutely impossible to corrupt these books in any one particular word or phrase. Now, is it to be supposed (without violating all probability) that all Christians should agree in a design of corrupting or changing the original books? And if some only should make the attempt, the uncorrupted copies would still remain to detect them."

As these books could not be corrupted during the lives of their respective authors, and while a great number of witnesses were living to attest the facts which they record, so neither could any material alteration take place after their decease without being detected, while the original manuscripts were preserved in the church. The Christians who were instructed by the apostles, and their immediate successors, traveled into all parts of the world, carrying with them copies of their writings; from which other copies were multiplied and preserved. Harmonies of the gospels were also anciently constructed, and commentaries were written upon them, and the other books of the New Testament. Manuscripts were multiplied, and editions of the New Testament were put forth. These sacred records being universally regarded among Christians as the supreme standard of truth, were received by every class of Christians as possessing an authority belonging to no other book. The scriptures of the New Testament were appealed to by every one of them in matters of controversy, as being conclusive testimony. So you see, as these writings were appealed to by those who were at variance with each other in sentiments, it would be actually impossible for either of them to alter these scriptures without being detected by the others, as they each possessed them. If one party was inclined either to omit what opposed their creed, or peculiar tenets, or to insert what might afford them additional evidence, there was always some other party both ready and willing to detect the fraud whenever attempted to be made.

Again. Those books of the Greek New Testament have been transcribed thousands of times more than any other Greek author, and of course the difficulty of corrupting them increases with every transcription.

Again. The early opponents of Christianity, among whom we may mention Celsus, Porphyry and Julian, have never mentioned any attempt by the early Christians to alter their scriptures, and had any such alteration been attempted, it certainly would have been so public a matter, that it would have been known by them, and they would have siezed upon and used it against the Christians. But on the contrary Celsus quotes the New Testament books by the names they are now called, and speaks of them as teaching the same facts and doctrines which we now find them to record.

Again. You are perhaps well aware that in the fourth century, a division commenced between the churches of the East and West, which in the ninth century was irreparable and resulted in the establishment of the Greek and Latin, or Eastern and Western churches, and that that division of Latin and Greek churches exists at the present time, under the names of the Roman Catholic church and the Greek church of Russia. Now if after this division was commenced, the Eastern church had attempted to alter or falsify their copies of the Scriptures, those of the Western church would certainly have detected them. And so also the Eastern would have detected the Western, had they attempted to change their copies. But we find that the versions of these two churches agree, which is an additional evidence that neither of these sects falsified the sacred text.

Again. In the first centuries the New Testament was read over three quarters of the globe, while profane writers were limited to one nation or to one country. These writings have also been quoted by an uninterrupted succession of writers from the first century to the present time. These quotations were not only made by friends to the doctrines of the Scriptures, but by opposers to the Christian faith. This cannot be asserted of any of the best classic authors. And as translations of the New Testament were made in the second century, which in the course of two or three centuries more were greatly multiplied, it became absolutely impossible to forge new writings, or corrupt the sacred text, unless we suppose that those differing in sentiment and hostile to each other should all agree in a forgery, which would be an absurdity. The quotations from the New Testament by the early church writers are said to be so numerous that all the New Testament could be compiled from their writings. That is, in referring to passages in their various writings, they have quoted almost the entire New Testament.

One point I neglected to state on the preservation of the Old Testament, which I will notice here, although a little out of place. It is this: The Jews, since the destruction of their temple, have been scattered into every nation under heaven, and as they have gone into their various places of exile, they have carried their Scriptures with them, in the Hebrew and mixed Chaldee languages. And although these Scriptures in many of their testimonies which speak of the Messiah condemn them in rejecting Christ, still we find even those texts are unaltered; and surely if they were to change any of their Scriptures, here would be the texts which they would most naturally change. And we find by comparing various copies of their Scriptures together, that they agree, which of course is good evidence that they have not corrupted their scriptures of the Old Testament.

I know not how I could better close this testimony for the preservation of the New Testament than to quote a testimony from the writings of Rousseau on the subject.

He says: "I confess to you that the majesty of the Scripture strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our Philosophers with all their pomp of diction, how mean, how contemptible, are they when compared with the Scriptures! . . . Socrates, with all his wisdom, was nothing more than a vain sophist. He invented, it is said, the theory of morals. Others, however, had before put them in practice; he had only to say, therefore, what they had done and to reduce their examples to precepts. And where could Jesus learn among all his competitors, that pure and sublime morality of which he only has given us both precept and example? . . . Yes! If the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus, were those of a God. Shall we suppose the evangelic account of him a mere fiction? Indeed my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction; on the contrary, the history of Socrates which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposition, in fact, only shifts the difficulty without obviating it; it is more inconceivable, that a number of persons should agree to write such a history, than that one only should furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality contained in the gospel, the marks of whose truth are so striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero."

You say, next, "The Bible, its internals. Is it as a whole in its matter essentially different from any and every other book or books of which we have any knowledge? If so, in what does that difference consist?" I suppose the Bible is different from other books, not because its paper or letters in and of themselves are any more holy than those of any other book, but because it treats of matters which are of the greatest and gravest importance to man, even matters that decide his eternal welfare. Other books, some of them at least, tell us how to live, to secure the greatest benefit in this world; but the Bible tells us how to live to secure eternal life in the world to come.

You say still further; "Is it in a more direct manner than any other book composed by an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good Being, so that in its every narration of fact and every precept enjoined, it can be depended upon as strictly true, so clear, concise, and plain that to a moderately well-balanced mind previous to all theological tinkering, it would be a 'safe guide to follow?'" I understand wherever moral precepts are enjoined they are a safe guide to follow, but I shall not take the position that every circumstance related that some one has done is a moral precept. And as to the "theological tinkering" of which you speak, I think much of it has tended more to blind the minds of men than to help them. For instance such tinkering as you sent me a sample of in the Elder's sermon on the Sabbath question, preached at Rockton, of which you gave me a brief report. A great deal of the tinkering that has been going on, has been to prove the truthfulness of doctrines which are not once expressed in the Bible. And of course to make such doctrines agree with the Bible, there must needs be a great amount of tinkering done. Of course, like other books, the Bible may use figures; but we shall expect

that those figures will be explained in the book, and that it will be necessary to understand the writer's use of figures and parables in order to understand their teachings in such testimonies. As to the Bible being composed by an omniscient, omnipotent and all-good Being, I suppose he gave directions to the people to write and what to write, and showed them in holy vision (in which they were under the absolute control of his Spirit) things to come. I do not know that it is essential to the truth of the book, or to show that it is an inspired book in the sense that we commonly understand the term, to claim that every word in it was spoken by the Lord to man. But I should claim that the moral precepts and prophecies of the book were directly taught to man by the Lord, while matters of fact which had transpired under the immediate observation of the people, they were commanded of the Lord to write. And as I have before shown, they of course could not fabricate facts of so stupendous a character that anybody could detect them if no such events had happened.

You say still further in speaking of the Bible: "In a word, is it as we generally understand the term plenarily inspired?" As I understand the term inspiration, I will say, Yes, to the above question. Then you will want to know how I understand the term inspiration. I understand a book to be inspired which the Lord directs a man to write, if he reveals to the man so writing, prophecy, moral precepts or even facts contained in such book, although the book itself perhaps may also contain facts which the said man is commanded of the Lord to write which he may know by actual observation without any express revelation being made of the said facts to him. Your next question is now due, "If you say it is so inspired I, of course, can only ask, what, and where is the evidence?" The two principal evidences relied upon to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, is that of miracles, and prophecy. An inspired man, I understand, is one who is directed in his doctrine, and receives information by the teachings of the Spirit of God. The fact of such man's working miracles, would prove him to be possessed of some power superior to human power; then the foretelling of events which concern things perhaps hundreds of years in the future, when fulfilled would show him to be directed by some power or Spirit that knows all the future, "the end from the beginning", and that power must be that of the Spirit of God. This latter evidence of course in the form here stated becomes a stronger evidence to us than to those to whom such prophecies were made; but events were prophesied of by them which were immediately to come to pass, which when fulfilled would of course confirm them in the conviction that the one who had spoken of these events, was directed of the Lord. And then the miracles which these prophets wrought, were to the people an evidence that they possessed a power superior to that of human beings.

But in connection with all this, they were to watch the tendency of the teaching of such prophecies, or prophets, and if their teachings were of an immoral character, that would have a great bearing in the settlement of the matter, as to whether they were of God, or not. As we come to Sinai, we find testimony that the Lord spoke to the whole house of Israel in an audible voice, as he declared to them his law. Of course no man could write and tell them that they had heard God speak his law if they knew they had never heard any such thing. So we conclude they had heard such law spoken. And that now these laws, after that time, (according to the record) became the standard by which all teachings in the shape of prophecies must also be tried. These laws we think could not have been originated by the people at that time, for there was no model of them among the nations around them, but nearly all the people of the world were sunk in the depths of heathenism. But I am going much beyond my limits in the letter also, and must close for the present. I have now written you two letters in reply to yours of Jan. 2nd, and have received no reply. Yours with Respect.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Feb. 20, 1862.