In presenting a report on the progress of the Advent Source Research Project to this important group of Adventist educators, I shall concentrate upon six major points by way of statement, clarification, and explanation. I wish to clear away, if possible, certain misunderstandings and misapprehensions that apparently obtain among a few of our college teachers. The six aspects I desire to set forth are: (I) The Purpose of the Project. (2) The Question of Collaborators, (3) The Vast Scope of the Quest, (4) Favoring Providences Attending, (5) Relationship of the Findings to the Witness of the Ages, and (6) The Deeper Significance of the Findings. I shall consider these in order.
1. The Purpose of the Project
The primary purpose of this project is to fortify the advent movement against the coming days of scrutiny and attack, and for the destined forward movement that impends, by baying in our possession these irrefutable source documents that establish the facts of faith. Thus our own faith and confidence in the historical certainties of the advent faith, and in the validity of the historical school of prophetic interpretation, are established. This comprehensive collection not only provides defense materials to meet the increased tempo of attacks by critic and foe, but furnishes the materials for the most aggressive, appealing, and successful prosecution of our case ever undertaken before the world —a presentation commensurate with the supreme challenge of this last hour.
May I add, parenthetically, that this research project, which has resulted in the assemblage of a priceless collection of some seven thousand source documents, has been gathered literally from the ends of the earth. The component items have been secured not only from all parts of North America, but through two extensive research trips which covered the larger portion of Europe. In addition, a few items have been obtained by correspondence from other overseas divisions. This has indisputably resulted in the greatest, most complete, and most valuable document collection of its kind ever assembled.
The immediate objective of the project is to make the full findings available in tangible form to the full working force of the movement, not solely to any one group, but for all —preacher, teacher, student, and layman. It is to present all the essential findings in completely documented form for use (a) in individual study, (b) for public presentation, and (c) for classroom use, if desired. This was covered in my commission.
When this immediate objective has been accomplished, the next purpose is to make the documents themselves available by placing them where they will be accessible to duly accredited students of the movement. To this end they will be housed in the new Theological Seminary building in a vault especially prepared for them, and primarily available to Seminary students in their study of the history of prophetic interpretation and related church-history fields. It is only fair to add that these materials were not gathered originally to form a service for denominational students, but for the preparation of a history of prophetic interpretation. But the desirability and need of such a service became evident some time ago. This development was voluntarily proposed and has been our settled purpose for several years.
To the end of accomplishing this manifold objective, I have toiled early and late, forgoing holidays and indulging in few respites. The results have justified this intensive and sustained effort. The initial five years were consumed in the difficult task of gathering this great collection piece by piece, assembling and grouping the leading parts, and finding and filling in the various gaps, until the evidence is now essentially complete. The last two years have been employed in analyzing, organizing, and correlating the materials, so that now the evidence is in properly documented, balanced, sequential form. This has involved expert translation, as much of the material is in Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Hebrew--not to mention some in Russian, Polish, and Arabic. In fact, the most important documents of the past centuries are in languages other than English. This has added to the complexity and to the time element. None need be unduly concerned about the trustworthiness of these translations, however, for experts have made the technical translations, and they can be relied upon.
The first stage of the dual objective—of completing the analysis and organization of materials--was finished on August 8, 1940,when the last page of the 406-page "History of Prophetic Interpretation Syllabus, With Documented Source Readings," covering seventeen periods from 332 B.C. to 1854, was completed for use in my Theological Seminary class on the history of prophetic interpretation. Perhaps I should add that all but the last period of this syllabus was completed in the winter of 1939-40, and has been used in two consecutive classes at the Seminary, in the winter of 1939 and in the summer of 1940. It is thus available to all qualified persons who matriculate for the course. The next and final step toward general availability is the completion of the book—or more accurately, books—upon which I am now working, which will place the materials in full and permanent form, available to all. The heaviest and the most grueling part of the task is really over, for the printed form will be based upon the syllabus, and will follow its essential outline.
A series of indispensable charts, maps, and graphs that visualize and correlate all these findings has just now been finished, after years of improvements and revisions. These show the chronological relationship of part to part, and portray, as nothing else could do, the progressive, historical development and the climax of the general outline. There are four large comprehensive charts, and a score of smaller ones which exhibit the more essential technical detail. These supersede the former work sheets and are used in the Seminary classes, with miniatures of the two main charts as a requirement.
Now a parenthetical word in response to two criticisms that frequently come to me. The first concerns the time that has been spent on the project, as well as that which will yet be required. In reply, I would say that this project is really a life task which I have tried to crowd into a few intensive years. Those who really know both the task and the progress feel that I could not have gone faster with safety. I have been persistently unwilling to be crowded into releasing material for the press when the full body of materials has not all been thoroughly digested and properly checked, for fear that an immature product might result. The field is too important for hasty conclusions. Expenditure of more time was therefore imperative, because of the increased scope involved, and because the initial project, just that of the nineteenth-century advent awakening, has had to be extended back through the centuries until it now compasses not only the Christian Era, but three or four centuries of antecedent Jewish interpretation. This became necessary because one cannot rightly or truly understand the nineteenth-century advent awakening without this background of the centuries.
Three years ago some who did not comprehend the task urged the quick completion of the writing. I accordingly wrote eight chapters at that time, but soon saw gaps and weaknesses and immaturity, and knew that I was unprepared to complete the work without a second European trip. That was therefore authorized and carried through, with invaluable returns. Extension of time was unavoidable, and those acquainted with the results declare that they fully justified this extension, for the presentation would otherwise have truly been incomplete and inadequate.
The second criticism refers to occasional field trips for lecturing to college and worker groups. Some have pointedly said, Why do you not stay at home and attend to business and finish these books for us? To such I would say, Periodic field trips are indispensable, (a) to the development of the best methods of presentation, by the trial of first this approach and then another ; (b) to the elimination of nonessentials and the truer evaluation of essentials, by finding out what is necessary and practical, and what is not, in order to carry the presentation through to successful conclusion; (c) to the keeping of one's perspective, for by doing this, distortion and unbalance are avoided; and (d) to the securing of the best historical checkup afforded by history experts in this movement, by the questions and helpful criticisms that conic through such group presentation. There is always a tendency to overemphasize the part under specialized study at the moment. One must occasionally pull away from the immediate task and survey the whole in order to keep balanced—turn from the microscopic study of a small area to the telescopic study of the whole.
2. The Question of Collaborators
The second general aspect is the question of collaborators in this task. I wish to state explicitly that this has not been a one-man enterprise, for the principle of collaboration has been assiduously practiced throughout the entire project. I have never worked alone. At least twenty experts, found within and without our ranks, have served as collaborators and consultants for the various sections. No individual is qualified to do this work alone. The period is too great in extent, and the languages are too diversified. Therefore, there must be recourse to numerous collaborators for the various periods and problems. May I enumerate a few, indicating their geographical distribution:
a. Pastor Dorner and Doctor Reinhold, in Germany; Pastor Vuilleumier, in France ; Pastor Vaucher, in Italy and Switzerland; Pastor Lindsay, in Sweden.
b. Numerous non-Adventist specialists in Europe: Professor Raymond Klibansky- of Oxford. professors in the University of Geneva, professors in the University of Vienna, Doctor Ellis of the British Museum, experts at the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, Waldensian library professors at Torre Pellice, specialists at the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, custodians of the Luther Museum at Wittenberg, etc.
c. American consultants : Specialists in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library, Harvard and Columbia Universities, Union and Andover Theological Seminaries, the American Antiquarian Society, and other institutions too numerous to mention.
d. Jewish collaborators, consultants, and translators : Dr. Louis Ginzberg, foremost Talmudist of America; Dr. Joshua Bloch, of the New York Public Library; Dr. Abraham Shinedling, of the editorial staff of the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia; Rabbi Abba Silver of Cleveland, Ohio ; etc.
e. On the Millerite time question of 1843 and 1844: the special research committee on the 1844 and related dates, which is comprised of L. E. Froom, chairman, L. H. Wood, secretary, M. L. Andreasen, M. E. Kern. W. H. Teesdale, A. W. Werline, F. H. Yost, F. C. Gilbert, and Grace Amadon. And for the technical astronomical checkup: Dr. Glenn Draper, of the United States Naval Observatory, computer of the United States Naval Almanac, and others.
f. On the Millerite movement: Dr. O. R. Jenks of Aurora College.
g. On the first decade of our movement, from 1844 to 1854: Elders D. E. Robinson and A. L. White.
II. Translators: Pastor Vuilleumier, French; Pastor Huenergardt, German ; Pastor Vaucher, Italian and French; Professor Prescott and Miss Grace Amadon, Latin and Greek; Doctor Shinedling, Hebrew; Pastor Lindsay, Swedish; Pastor Odom, Spanish ; Miss Erna Borm, Russian. And others for lesser items.
3. The Vast Scope of the Quest
Why, it has been asked, has this study not been strictly confined to the advent movement of the nineteenth century ? And one leader whom I greatly esteem once said, "Why can't Brother Froom confine the discussion of all preceding ages to seventy-five pages?" I would answer that our vision of the field, the facts, the need, and the possibilities have been a matter of distinct growth. They were limited at first to the defensive—to answering a large group of questions pertaining to the decade following the great disappointment of 1844, originally placed with us seven or eight years ago by an overseas division. None at first had any Concept of the present objectives and achievements. The chronology of the expansion has been as follows:
1. We started out just to meet the charges and insinuations of a former European critic, pertaining to facts in the decade from 1844 to 1854.
2. We were soon forced to project our search back to include the full Millerite period, for it was impossible to understand the problems, phrasing, and allusions of our first decade without this preliminary study.
3. This in turn necessitated compassing the antecedent and connected British advent awakening, for British advent articles were quoted and numerous British books were advertised in the Millerite journals.
4. This British awakening was definitely tied to the Reformation period. There was constant allusion to the writings of the Reformers for justification of their own positions, for they contended that they were simply continuing the Reformation positions.
5. Similarly, the Protestant Reformers, in their conflict with Rome, quoted the writers of the early centuries in justification of their own stand, and these we were next compelled to study, since the Reformers averred that they had simply recovered the early Christian positions.
6. Finally, the Jewish antecedents and writers, before and following the cross, became the obvious and natural starting point for the entire series, as the secular record of prophetic interpretation begins in the fourth century ac. Thus the scope is now complete and logical in progression.
7. The extensive supplemental research project arising from late challenges as to the validity of the three structural dates of the 2300-year prophecy-457 B.C., 31 A.D., and October 22, 1844—has likewise necessitated many additional months of most intensive work. Referred to a special research committee of seven, before mentioned, this highly technical field of study was so closely tied to the nineteenth-century advent phase that it would have been highly inappropriate, yes, entirely improper, to close my general research until this special study was first completed—as well as impossible to do two major things at once.
Thus the original plan has long since undergone radical changes. The first defensive objectives, long ago achieved, have been largely forgotten. The initial quibbles having been answered, we have passed from the defensive to the aggressive and constructive, from the negative to the positive. This great project has now become a major supporting contribution to the movement, quite apart from the questions which originated it. A,s such, it is destined to play a fundamental part in the grand finale of our message, at the time when the world's spotlight is focused upon us, and we become the object of joint Protestant and Catholic attack.
--To be concluded in February