CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, OF BATTLE CREEK, MICH., AND E. O. DARLING OF ROCKTON, ILLS.
Response No. 3.
(Continued.)
We find also Tertullian within fifty years of the death of John. He says, "Look into the words of God, our Scriptures, which we ourselves do not conceal, and many accidents bring in the way of those who are not of our religion." This you may consider a partial answer at least to your question as to how these books were received previous to the time of the said councils. In appealing to the heathen on the subject of the miracles of Christ, &c., this writer tells them, if they do not believe his words, to go to Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., and they can find with the churches in those places the originals of these gospels and epistles which he was quoting to them, that is the very ones that Paul and other apostles had written.
But these matters can be traced farther back still. We come to Justin the Martyr, so-called because he suffered martyrdom. He was born ten years before John was banished to the isle of Patmos. In his writings he quotes from all four of the gospels and calls them the genuine records of Christ and his doctrine. He quotes also from the Acts of the Apostles, from the epistles, and says expressly that the book of Revelation was written by John. Certainly he ought to know if any one. All the early Christian writers that have occasion to refer to the New Testament call it the "Sacred Scriptures" or the "Oracles of the Lord," and an appeal to its testimony was final proof in their disputes. It seems to me that this testimony should be sufficient to establish the point as to the time when and by whom the New Testament was written.
But more proof will be advanced on this point in the testimony showing the preservation of the Scriptures. Profane historians have borne witness to many of the facts which are in the New Testament record. But I will confine myself for the present more especially to your questions.
We will now make some inquiries respecting the Old Testament. We find the New Testament making reference to a book called the "Word of God," "The Scriptures," &c. In Christ's discourse to his disciples after his resurrection as recorded by Luke, he speaks of these scriptures by the appellation of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. These were the three grand divisions into which the Jews had divided their scriptures. The books of our Old Testament comprise thirty-nine books, "but among the ancient Jews they formed only twenty-two books according to the letters of their alphabet which were twenty-two in number, reckoning Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, and his Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets respectively as one book."
Josephus says, in his treatise against Apion: "We have not thousands of books, discordant and contradicting each other; but we have only twenty-two, which comprehend the history of all former ages, and are justly regarded as divine. Five of them proceed from Moses; they include as well the law, as an account of the creation of man, extending to the time of his (Moses') death. This period comprehends nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses, committed to writing, in thirteen books, what was done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God [Psalms], and instructions for the life of man."
Here then are three corresponding testimonies as to the number of their books. And allowing these testimonies, the canon of the Old Testament must have been made out previous to the time of Christ. The uniform belief of all Christians from the very commencement of Christianity to the present time, has considered the books above spoken of as constituting all the books held sacred by the Jews. We find lists made by Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, toward the close of the fourth century, by Origen in the middle of the third century, and Miletus bishop of Sardis, toward the close of the second century, all agreeing with the lists above. The Peshito Syriac version, made at the close of the first century for the use of the Syrian Christians, contains the same books as our Old Testament.
Philo, an Egyptian Jew, of the first century of the Christian era, quoted no books as canonical but those of the Hebrew Bible, which are the same as our present list. Thus we trace the canon of the Old Testament to the time of Christ. And he, as I have shown by the testimony of Luke, quoted the Scriptures under the appellation of Moses, Prophets and Psalms, by which the Jews called them. But you may now inquire as to when it was that they were arranged in this manner. It must have been some hundreds of years before the time of Christ. For about three hundred years before the birth of Christ, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Old Testament scriptures were translated into Greek to be placed in the Alexandrian library. This is the origin of what is called the Septuagint or the translation of the seventy, because made by seventy elders of the Jews. The books of the Sept. Bible are the same as those of the Hebrew Bible. This shows that the canon of the Old Testament must have been made out before the time of this translation, that is before 300 B. C., otherwise there would be on bringing them together some discrepancy between them.
It is not probable that that list had just been made out when this translation was called for by Ptolemy Philadelphus; for it seems he had been somewhat conversant with their scriptures, which led him to call for a translation in such a language that his people could read it. They were having no new prophecies at that time, so there could be no cause to alter their scripture canon. I know of no positive testimony by which to trace back the exact canon of scripture later than the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. But from the reign of kings spoken of in the later prophets it can be shown that none of these books were written later than 500 years B. C. And it is not material to our purpose to tell just when the books were brought into the order in which they now stand. The question we wish to ascertain is, are they genuine and authentic documents. On this we will present the proof in its proper order.
As the Jews were a more ancient people than the Greeks and Romans, and were for many ages totally unconnected with them, it is not to be expected that we should derive much evidence as to the genuineness of the Old Testament from those nations. They testify, however, to many facts which the Jewish scriptures record, which were of a public character, that is, of such a character that everybody could know it. But not being acquainted with the Jews or their scriptures, we cannot expect them to tell much about them. We have this much however, that when we come to a time when they are acquainted with them, they assent to their truthfulness, as in the case of the emperor Julian.
In looking at the original languages in which the manuscripts of the Old Testament were written, and comparing the first books with those of later times, we find a material difference in the language used in the writing of them. For instance, in the books of Moses we find occasionally Egyptian words, which would show that he with the Israelites had known something of Egypt. Again, from that time to the captivity in Babylon all the productions were first written in Hebrew, but those after that time are in the Chaldaic language, and the reason of this is obvious; it is a well-known fact that the Hebrew ceased to be the living34language of the Jews just after they went captive to Babylon. Some of the minor prophets also are written in the Chaldaic language, which shows that they must have been written after the time of the captivity. It is also a well-known fact that some years before the time of Christ the Jews were unable to understand the Hebrew language without the assistance of the Chaldae paraphrase.
But I am taking up too much space with this investigation and must hasten. Most of the books in the Old Testament make mention of the writings of Moses, and the laws of Moses, as well as of the acts which are recorded by him. But it is claimed by many that the books ascribed to Moses must have been written by a later hand. The argument for this I shall not notice now, as you will probably present them in your own form. For the reason already assigned, when we call for external testimony as to who wrote the books of Moses, or the laws of the Jews, we get no definite answer. The book of Moses, according to its chronology, is about the oldest production we have. As there are no other histories that go back to his time, we shall have to take such authority as we can find in this matter. The testimony of the Jews is of the first importance and should be admitted in this case, unless it can be shown that there is just cause for believing that they forged these productions. Surely they are best prepared of any one to tell where they got their laws. And would they not be likely to give as just an idea of the matter as we could at this late date? "We all permit the Athenians, Lacedemonians, Romans, and Persians, to testify as to where they got their laws; and we believe their testimony when they tell us they were given to them severally by Solon, Lycurgus, Numa, and Zoroaster. And why should we not believe the Jews' testimony, when they tell us Moses was the founder of their book of laws?" Every book almost of the Old Testament proceeds on the ground of the previous existence of the Pentateuch. Some say it must have been written by Ezra, but why should Ezra refer us to the book of the law of Moses if it was his own writing? See Ezra vi, 18. He never claims that he wrote it, but ascribes it to Moses. The Jews claim that Moses wrote their law.
In the work called Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus, Vol. I, pp. 245, 246, we have two of the ancient Jewish articles of confession of faith, as follows: "Art. 7. I firmly believe that all the prophecies of Moses our master (God rest his soul in peace!) are true: and that he is the father of all the sages, whether they went before, or came after him. Art. 8. I firmly believe that the law which we now have in our hands was given by Moses: God rest his soul in peace!"
Some people have found a difficulty in the book of Moses, saying that there were some things in the book of Moses that he could not have written. But no one claims, that knows anything about it, that he wrote the whole of the books called in the Bible the books of Moses, but that they are called the books of Moses because they were written by him down to the time of his death, the account of which was written by Joshua. I am sure the Bible does not claim that Moses wrote all that is in these books, but it does positively speak of some things which Joshua wrote in the book of the law of Moses." But the Jews understood that Moses was the person through whom they received their law, and the one who had written a history of the race of man to his (Moses') death, as I have before quoted from Josephus. It seems, however, that the Pagan nations supposed, according to their testimony, that Moses was the founder of the Jewish laws. "Thus Manetho, Eupolemus, Artepanus, Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Justin, and Juvenal, besides many other ancient writers, all testify that Moses was the leader of the Jews, and the founder of their laws." Bishop Newton's works, Vol. I, pp. 32-40.
The fact I have before stated, that the Hebrew language ceased to be a living language about the time of the Babylonian captivity, shows that the books of the Old Testament down to Ezekiel and Daniel, were written before the time of that captivity; for they are in pure Hebrew. But as their language shortly after going into captivity became what is called a mixed Chaldee, that is, a mixture of Chaldee and Hebrew, any one writing after that time would of course write in a language they could understand. Ezekiel, Daniel, and the books following, have the mixed language already spoken of, which is a means by which we may determine the time when these books were written at least.
But your questions on the preservation and what you call the intervals of the Scriptures I must defer to another letter, as I have already made this one too long. I will try to have my answer ready by the time I hear from you again.
Yours with respect,
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Battle Creek, Jan. 23, 1862.