Questions on Chapter 5.
The antiquity of the revelation of God invests it with an awe-inspiring majesty which must impress every reflecting mind. Amid the ceaseless flow of the tide of time, as age has succeeded age, the institutions and productions of human origin have been subject to continual mutation. Cities and empires have arisen and flourished for a season, but soon they have been subverted or blotted from existence: but the Bible of God, dating its origin anterior to all the records of human genius or national greatness, still survives in grandeur unimpaired. Though it has been the object of hatred and opposition, and subjected to the fiercest assaults in every age, it has suffered no diminution of its luster. Can a structure so imperishable in its nature be wholly of earth? What can be found in all the world of earthly origin that has weathered so many storms or passed through so many conflicts as the Bible, still exhibiting its fair proportions unmarred, its beauty untarnished, and its glory undimmed? What but the special superintendence of divine Providence can account for this wonderful preservation of the Bible amid the ravages of so many centuries? The fact that this book now exists after the conflict of ages, is powerful presumptive evidence of its divine origin.
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 5.
QUESTION 1. What relation do the Old and New Testaments sustain to each other?
2. Is the truth of Scripture proved by its antiquity alone?
3. Are any pagan records as ancient as those of Moses?
4. What was the most favorable age for examining the claims of Christianity?
5. What effort was then put forth against Christianity?
6. By whom was this opposition headed?
7. By whom was it successfully met?
8. What claim of antiquity did the Christian apologists assert for the Mosaic records?
9. How was this claim met?
10. What renowned Christian writers are quoted on this subject?
11. What authors, neither Jewish nor Christian, are named as testifying to the superior antiquity of the Mosaic records?
12. What kind of an argument may here be founded on antiquity? CHAPTER 6. — AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES —
GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
HAVING, in the preceding chapter, called attention to the antiquity of the Scriptures, we propose now to examine the authority to which those writings are entitled. To establish in their behalf what has generally been claimed for them by the Christian world, and what is essential to their character as a divine revelation, it must be shown:
1. That they are genuine.
2. That they are authentic.
3. That they were divinely inspired.
4. That they have been preserved, and handed down to us, essentially as they were originally given.
Before we proceed farther in the investigation of the main subject before us, we deem it necessary to define some of the terms to be employed in the discussion. We use the words genuineness, authenticity, and integrity, as applied to the writings of Scripture, each in a distinct and definite sense.
1. By the genuineness of Scripture, or of any particular portion of Scripture, or of any other composition, we mean that it is the production of the author whose name it bears.
2. By its authenticity, we mean that it is not fictitious; but contains a faithful record of facts as they transpired.
3. By its integrity, we mean that it has not been materially altered, but is essentially the same now as when originally given.
In the use of the terms above defined, great ambiguity and confusion have resulted, from the fact that different authors have used some of them in a different, and some of them in an opposite, sense; while others have used them, sometimes in one sense, and sometimes in another. For example, according to Dr. Hill, and some other writers, a book is authentic when it is the production of its professed author, and genuine when it has not been corrupted, or materially altered, from the original. But, according to Horne, and many who have followed him, a book is authentic when it is a real history, relating matters of fact, and not fiction; and genuine, when written by the person whose name it bears. Thus it will be perceived that the definitions of these terms by the above authors have been reversed. What is genuine with some is authentic with others, and vice versa. Bishop Marsh uses the terms as synonymous. Dr. Thomas Scott seems to use the two terms, sometimes interchangeably, and sometimes in the sense given by Dr. Hill; while Dr. Paley is not consistent with himself; for in one chapter he understands by the genuineness of a book that it is the production of the author whose name it bears, and in another he applies this definition to the authenticity, and not to the genuineness of the book. These diversities and inconsistencies, in regard to important definitions, have tended much to perplex and embarrass the student. We consider the definition, as given by Horne, the most natural and accurate, and accordingly, as will be perceived, we have adopted, and shall follow, the same. In favor of this use of the terms, we have also the sanction of Bishop Watson and Dr. Chalmers, as well as the authority of Webster. Before entering on the discussion of the authority of the Scriptures, so far as regards the genuineness and authenticity of those writings, we here premise that all this part of the discussion is only preparatory to the main subject. The great question at issue is this: Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament a revelation from God, or are they not? In examining the claims of these writings to genuineness and authenticity, we do not propose to reach, directly, the main point in controversy; just as, in entering an inclosure by which a mansion is surrounded, we do not suppose that so soon as we have passed through the gate into the inclosure we are also within the mansion; so, in establishing the authority of Scripture, so far as genuineness and authenticity are concerned, we do not suppose that we have also established that authority, as regards the claim of divine inspiration; or that we have established the main proposition — that the Bible contains a revelation from God. But it is evident that if we would enter the mansion, we must first enter the inclosure, and pass through the same to the mansion. Even so, if we would establish the full authority claimed for the Scriptures, as a divine revelation, we must first establish that authority, So far as it is implied in the genuineness and authenticity of those writings. When we have advanced thus far, we have not entered the mansion, but we have made essential progress toward it — we are within the inclosure; we have gained a position from which we may, with facility, make that entrance. Genuineness and authenticity are one thing; divine inspiration is another thing. Genuineness and authenticity are essential to inspiration; but inspiration does not directly and necessarily follow from them. It may be deduced from them, as a plain and irresistible inference; but these things, however kindred, are not identical. By establishing the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, we only claim that these writings are thereby placed upon a level with the productions of honest and faithful historians, who make a true record of facts, of which they have been personally cognizant, or which, from the satisfactory testimony of others, they believe to be true; and which record of facts has been transmitted to us uncorrupted, and in all things material, essentially the same as originally written. That is, we claim by this argument to show that the writers of the Scriptures are entitled to all that credit and confidence which are generally awarded, and which of right belong to any faithful historian, writing in reference to events with which he is supposed to be well acquainted. If this argument be conclusively sustained, the way will then be prepared for entering upon the main question in dispute.
Though, as we have seen, genuineness and authenticity are distinct things — so that a book that is genuine may not be authentic, and a book that is authentic may not be genuine yet, in regard to the sacred writings, the same arguments that establish their genuineness generally prove also their authenticity. Therefore, to avoid repetition, we shall examine these two questions, relating to genuineness and authenticity, in connection. We proceed, first, to consider the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament.
The question here proposed is purely historic, and must be settled by the same mode of argument by which we would determine any other question of a similar nature. Suppose that, for the first time, a friend puts into my hand the Koran of Mohammed — the Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus — and the History of England, by Hume — and, sitting down to the examination of these works, I wish to satisfy myself as to their genuineness and authenticity, what course would I naturally pursue? Would I not, first, inquire whether these works had ever been attributed to any other authors; and if so, to whom, and by whom, and under what circumstances, or by what evidences sustained? Secondly. I would inquire by what evidence (arising from the testimony of other persons and facts, contemporary with these respective authors, and in the succeeding ages) may it be shown that these books were written by the persons whose names they bear? Thirdly. I would examine the contents of the books, to see if they were according to what might reasonably be expected from such persons, as, from all the information we can obtain, we believe the reputed authors to have been. Now, if after this examination, it appear that the works in question were never attributed to any other persons, either contemporary with the reputed authors or in the ages succeeding, but, on the contrary, that numerous other authors, either contemporary or in the succeeding ages, commencing near to that period, have referred to these productions, attributing them, as a matter not questioned, to the authors whose names they bear; and should it appear that numerous other notorious facts and circumstances tend to the confirmation of the same thing; and should it farther appear that the books in question bear strong internal marks, all leading to the same conclusion; should all these things thus appear, I could have no reasonable doubt that the books were written by the persons whose names they bear. And it is by this mode of reasoning, and by this class of testimony alone, that I can be satisfied as to the authorship of any work ever published in the world throughout all the ages past. Discard this testimony, and how can I know that the Iliad of Homer, the Æneid of Virgil, the Annals of Tacitus, the Commentaries of Cesar, the Morals of Seneca, the History of Xenophon, or even the Plays of Shakspeare, or the Poems of Milton, were written by the authors whose names they have rendered so famous? And may I not ask, who that has a reputation for letters or erudition, can doubt the genuineness of any of the books to which we have referred? In the subject before us, it is not very material whether we begin with the Old or the New Testament. We may either commence with the present, and travel up the stream to Christ, and thence to Moses; or we may begin with Moses and travel down to Christ, and thence to the present. Perhaps, to most minds, to examine first the claims of the New Testament would, in the outset, be the more satisfactory and convincing. The evidence in this department, lying nearer to our point of vision, and being more abundant and more striking, would be likely to produce the deeper conviction. Besides, as Christ and his apostles have so thoroughly indorsed the Old Testament, not only as to its genuineness and authenticity, but also as to its divine inspiration, it necessarily follows that the establishment of the New Testament is a full confirmation of the Old. We cannot acknowledge the authority of the former without admitting that of the latter. But as it seems the more natural to pursue the chronological order of things, we will begin with the Old Testament. By this course we trust that, though conviction may be less striking in the former portion of the discussion, it will be the more thorough and satisfactory in the issue.
As Moses is the reputed founder of the Jewish political and ecclesiastical establishment, and by far the most prominent author connected with the Old Testament writings, we first call attention to those books of which he is said to have been the author. These are the first five books of the Bible, commonly styled the Pentateuch.
Now, we inquire, to whom but Moses have these writings ever been ascribed? Among the multitudes who, in all succeeding ages, have referred to these writings, the world has yet to learn the name of that person, except Moses, to whom their authorship has been attributed. The books are in the world, and they must have had an origin. If Moses did not write them, we ask who did? For a hundred and fifty generations the question has been urgently pressed: Who, but Moses, wrote the Pentateuch? And no response has been heard but the voice of echo, answering “Who?”
We next inquire, What affirmative evidence is there to show that Moses was the author of these books? We answer: We have the voice of the Christian world, from the day of Pentecost to the present hour, who, without a single dissentient, have attributed these books to Moses. We have the testimony of the entire nation of the Jews, who, from their entrance into Palestine, under Joshua, to Christ, and from Christ to this hour, and amid all their wanderings, with united voice, have exclaimed, “We are Moses’s disciples,” and “We know that God spake unto Moses.” They have attributed the Pentateuch to Moses, and to no one else; and not only so, but they have acknowledged its authority and inspiration. Again: Josephus is clear and full in attributing the Pentateuch to Moses; and so also were Philo, the Egyptian Jew, and the entire catalogue of the Jewish rabbins.
It is true that some Jews, and Christians also, have admitted that the last two chapters of Deuteronomy, and perhaps a few other sentences in the book, were added to the original copy given by Moses; probably by Samuel, or some of the scribes engaged in copying the work. But this cannot weaken the testimony as to the body of the work. The last chapter of Deuteronomy, containing an account of Moses’s death, it is probable, originally made the first chapter of the book of Joshua; and it never was supposed, by either Jews or Christians, to have been written by Moses. Two or three other brief sentences (originally inserted by some scribe after the death of Moses, as an explanatory parenthesis) have also been admitted into the text; but this cannot set aside the overwhelming testimony, that the Pentateuch was originally given by Moses. Similar interpolations are known to have crept into the works of Homer, and other authors; yet no one, on that account, has ever denied that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey.
But pagan testimony, in addition to Christian and Jewish, abundantly confirms the fact that Moses not only lived at the period assigned to him in the Bible, but that he was the founder of the Jewish polity, and the author of the books containing the laws and religious services of that people. Many writers — Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman — might be quoted to this effect. We deem it necessary to name only a few. Of the Egyptians, Manetho and Cheremon; of the Greeks, Apollonius, Lysimachus, and Longinus; of the Romans, Juvenal, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus, and Celsus. These have all made reference to Moses, as the great Jewish lawgiver, not questioning his existence, or the genuineness and authenticity of his writings, as claimed by Jews and Christians. Now, is it not clear that we have a weight of evidence on this subject sufficient to satisfy all candid and impartial minds, not only that Moses lived at the period in which he is placed in the Jewish history, and is the author of the books attributed to him, but that those writings are neither fictions nor forgeries, but authentic histories of facts? But the evidence upon this subject will be much more conclusive as we advance to the remaining portion of the testimony. In addition to the external evidence already adduced, we may draw from the contents of the Pentateuch the most satisfactory proofs of its genuineness and authenticity.
This will appear, from the very circumstantial manner in which the politico-ecclesiastical system of the Jews, embodied in those books, is blended with their national history. We find here frequent genealogies of the Jewish tribes. According to these genealogies, their lands were divided, and descended in the several tribes from generation to generation. So that, as a matter of necessity, these tables must have been carefully kept and preserved; consequently, had the Pentateuch been a fiction or a forgery of a later day, the imposition would have been easily detected. Again, the frequent reference to geographical places, and the statements, that they derived their names from events recorded in the Mosaic writings, and that the names commenced simultaneously with the events, show that these works could not have been received as a true record, unless they had been such in reality. All these things show that the writer was present at the transactions recorded, and gave a faithful account of them as they occurred.
The argument derived from the contents of the Pentateuch is most forcibly presented by Leslie, in his “Short and Easy Method with the Deists,” an abstract of which we here insert. Mr. Leslie lays down four marks by which the truth of all matters of fact may be proved. These marks will not apply to all matters of fact which are true; but all matters of fact to which they do apply must be true. These are the marks:
1. That the fact be such as men’s outward senses can judge of.
2. That it be performed publicly, in the presence of witnesses.
3. That there be public monuments and actions kept up in memory of it.
4. That such monuments and actions shall be established, and commence at the time of the fact.
The first two of these make it impossible for any false fact to be imposed upon men at the time when it was said to be done, for every man’s senses would contradict it. The two latter marks secure us against being imposed upon in any age subsequent to that in which the fact is said to have been done, for then every man would inquire for the commemorative monuments and actions, and might easily satisfy himself that none such existed, or had been kept up.
These marks Mr. Leslie applies to the facts of the Mosaic record. He takes it for granted that Moses could not have persuaded six hundred thousand men that he had brought them out of Egypt, leading them dry-shod through the Red Sea, fed them forty years in the wilderness with miraculous manna, and given them water to drink from the smitten rock, if these things had not been true; because the senses of every man who was then alive would have contradicted him. So that here are the first two marks. For the same reason, he could not have made them receive his five books as true, which relate all these things as done before their eyes, if they had not been so done. Observe how positively he speaks to them: “And know you this day, for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched-out arm, and his miracles. But your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord which he did.” (Deuteronomy 11:2, 3, 7.) Hence we must admit it to be impossible that these books, if written by Moses in support of an imposture, could have been put upon the people who were alive at the time when such things were said to be done. Neither could they have been written by an impostor, in any subsequent age, and passed upon the people as the writings of Moses; and for this plain reason, that they speak of themselves as delivered by Moses, and kept in the ark from his time, and state that a copy of them was likewise deposited in the hands of the king, “that he might learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.” (Deuteronomy 17:19.) Here these books expressly represent themselves as being, not only the civil history, but also the established municipal law of the Jews, binding the king as well as the people. In whatever age, therefore, after Moses, they might have been forged, they could have gained no credit, for they could not then have been found either in the ark, or with the king, or anywhere else; every one would have known that he had never heard of them before.
But the books of Moses not only contain the laws themselves, but give an historical account of their institution and regular fulfillment — of the Passover, for instance, in memory of their supernatural protection upon the slaying of the first-born of Egypt; the dedication of the first-born of Israel, both of man and beast; the preservation of Aaron’s rod which budded, of the pot of manna, and of the brazen serpent, which remained till the days of Hezekiah; the consecration of the tribe of Levi to the sacerdotal service; the designation of the high-priest, with his robes and his incense, his breast-plate, and his urim and thummim. From all this, and much more of the kind that might be added, it appears how utterly impossible it would have been for an impostor, in any subsequent age, to have palmed these books upon the Jews as the veritable writings of Moses. Could they have been persuaded that they had received these books from their fathers — been taught them from their childhood, and had taught them to their children; that they had been circumcised themselves, and had circumcised their children; that they had never eaten swine’s flesh; that they had uniformly observed the ritual and sacrificial services of their splendid tabernacle; could they have been thus persuaded, when they had never heard of any of these things before? Equally impossible would it have been to impose upon the Jews all these laws and observances, in one age, without any reason or ground of their origin, and then for another impostor, in a subsequent age, to invent all these reasons, and to persuade them that they had all along been observing these things, for reasons of which they had never before heard. Thus it is clear that the two latter marks — the public monuments and actions, and the institution of these at the time of the fact — preclude the possibility of imposition at any subsequent age. And if, as we have shown; the Mosaic writings could never have been received by the Jews, either in the days of Moses or at any subsequent period, as the writings of Moses, unless they had been such, it necessarily follows, since the Jews have always affirmed that they received these records from, Moses, that they must be both genuine and authentic. We now inquire, How may we satisfy ourselves of the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament as a whole?
That the books of the Old Testament, as now published among us, are the same originally received among the Jews, and which have ever been held by them as the divinely-authorized history of their national polity and religion, we have the most satisfactory evidence for believing. Our Old Testament entirely corresponds with that which is now in the possession of the Jews, and which they testify, with united voice, is the same that they have ever had among them from the first receiving of their Scriptures, and which they have ever watched over and preserved with the most scrupulous care. This testimony alone is most indubitable, that these Scriptures have not been corrupted or altered since the origin of Christianity.
Such has been the enmity of the Jews against the Christians, from the commencement of Christ’s religion to the present day, that the followers of Christ, had they been so disposed, could not have corrupted the Old Testament without being instantly detected and exposed by the Jews. And that the Jews have not corrupted their copies we are assured, not only by the sacredness with which they have always held their Scriptures, and the abhorrence with which they have ever looked upon the crime of corrupting or interpolating one jot or tittle of the sacred word, but by the fact that their attempt would instantly have been detected and exposed by the learned doctors with whom the early Christian Church abounded. Neither Jews nor Christians could have made any change in these writings without being detected by the other party. And that no change has been made we may be doubly assured, by the fact that Jews and Christians have, to this day, the same Old Testament, even as to each book, chapter, and verse. In confirmation of the same position, Josephus, about the close of the first century, published in his works a catalogue of the books of Scripture, which he asserts the Jews have ever held as of divine authority, and carefully preserved among them. In this catalogue he names the five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, four of Hymns and Moral Precepts. This — allowing, as critics assert, that Ruth was added to Judges, and the Lamentations to Jeremiah — will make the books given by Josephus correspond with those of the Old Testament as it now exists among us. Next, it is a remarkable fact that, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, some two hundred and eighty years before the Christian era, the Old Testament, as then existing, in possession of the Jews, was translated into Greek for the use of the Jews in Egypt, and a copy of it placed in the Alexandrian Library. This version, called the Septuagint, as the Greek language was then almost universally prevalent, soon became widely disseminated, and was thenceforth accessible to the whole learned world. It was in common use in Palestine in the time of our Saviour; and, to this day, has a place in the library of almost every clergyman. The close correspondence of this version with the Old Testament now in use shows that it must have been a faithful translation, and that the Jewish Scriptures existed in that day substantially as we have them now.
It farther appears that some years previous to the Babylonian captivity, the Samaritans procured a copy of the Pentateuch in Hebrew, which they always afterward religiously observed. Now it is evident, from the fixed enmity always existing between the Jews and Samaritans, that from the time they both had a copy of the Pentateuch, each claiming their own to be the genuine writing of Moses, neither party could have altered it without being detected by the other; and the enmity between the two is a sure guarantee that they never consented together to perpetrate upon themselves a fraud which they viewed with the deepest abhorrence. Hence the agreement of both these copies with each other, and with the Pentateuch, as we now have it, shows conclusively that this very important portion of the Jewish Scriptures has not been corrupted since that period. And this brings us to a point of time only three or four centuries subsequent to the giving of the law. He who can believe that these Scriptures, in view of the circumstances under which they were given, could have either been materially altered or passed upon the Jews as their divinely-authorized laws, which they had ever revered and kept as such, when they had never known any thing of them before, is certainly able to shape his faith to his notion, irrespective of evidence.
When we look at the solemn circumstances under which the law was delivered, and the sacred injunction given by Moses to the Levites, “Take the book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant, of the Lord your God, that it may be for a witness against thee;” when we remember that this law professes to contain, not only the civil code, but the religious ritual of that people, adopted and put in operation at the very time when first given; nothing can be clearer than the conclusion, that if it was not given by Moses, and received by the people, at the time and under the circumstances as detailed in the book itself, it never could have been imposed upon them at any subsequent age; and this is true, not only in reference to the Pentateuch, but to the whole of the Jewish Scriptures. The Jews have ever professed to have received them as divinely authorized from the very day in which they were first delivered by their reputed authors. Of course they could not have been foisted upon them as such by an impostor in any subsequent day. Hence we conclude that the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament is established beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt.
If farther evidence upon this subject were at all needed, we have it, in the most conclusive shape, in that direct and positive sanction which Christ and his apostles gave to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They everywhere referred to them as the authoritative word of God. We will not here pause to quote particularly their testimony to this effect, as we shall present it in another connection. It is enough now to say, that no man can admit the divine mission of Christ and his apostles, and consistently question that the Old Testament, as we now have it, is the inspired word of God. Though our Saviour repeatedly reproved the Jews for neglecting and misconstruing the Scriptures, yet he never once intimated that they had corrupted or interpolated the sacred word. Hence the evidence is conclusive, that the Old Testament, as then in use among the Jews, was genuine and authentic; and if so, we are bound to accord the same divine authority to that volume, as now in our possession.
Deny this divine authority to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and what must be the result? The very world we inhabit, with its myriads of