Many Infallible Proofs. Dr. Henry M. Morris

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ several times as many manuscripts of writings from early Christian writers containing quotations from the New Testament Scriptures. Certain of these men, known as the Apostolic Fathers, wrote originally during the period A.D. 90 to 160 and exhibited a remarkable grasp of the New Testament. Scholars agree that if all manuscripts of the New Testament had been lost, it would have been possible to reconstruct it altogether from quotations in the writings of these and other early Christians.

      Since these church fathers in many cases lived in the years immediately following those of the Apostles themselves, in some cases even overlapping their times and in fact some papyrus fragments of the New Testament itself, notably in the Gospel of John, are dated from about A.D. 150, there can be no doubt whatever that the New Testament as we have it today is essentially identical with that possessed by Christians at the close of the first century.

      Kenyon has said in another place: "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."[3]

      This being so, it hardly seems likely that there could have been any significant change in the writings during the relatively short interval between their original composition by the Apostles and their general distribution among the churches by the close of the first century. Any significant alterations would certainly have been quickly discovered and corrected. Men who had known and heard the Apostles were still living in considerable numbers at that time. In fact, John the Apostle himself lived through the end of the first century.

      Even if we were to allow the possibility, for the sake of argument, that considerable changes could have taken place in the written records in the last half of the first century, there is still no way in which such changes could have been of sufficient magnitude to transform the person of Christ himself. The Roman world of the first century was a world of scholarship and skepticism, not of ignorance and gullibility, a world of abundant transportation and communication, not of isolation. The contention of religious "liberals" that the great truths of the character and work of Jesus Christ, as presented in the New Testament, were nothing but the gradual accretion of myths and traditions with no basis in fact is naive at best.

      If we can believe anything at all that has been preserved for us from ancient history by the writings of men of those days, we are more than justified in believing that our New Testament was originally written in essentially its present form by the traditional authors. The world's foremost biblical archaeologist, William F. Albright, has said: "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."[4]

       Indirect Confirmations

      The general authenticity of the events reported in the New Testament has been amply verified by close examination of the internal consistencies of the writings and also by external researches in the history and archaeology of the time. The books of the New Testament individually make claims concerning their own authorship and it is absurd for modern skeptics to presume to deny these claims merely on the basis of their own anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions. The Apostle Paul, for instance, always begins his epistles with his own name, clearly claiming authorship, and each epistle contains great numbers of incidental allusions which support such claims. One of the great classic works on Christian evidences (William Paley's Horae Paulinae) consisted of an extensive volume of compilations of such undesigned coincidences which proved Paul to be the author of all the epistles bearing his name.

      Similar studies on the internal evidences in each book likewise confirm that Peter was the author of his epistles, John of his, and so on. Events referred to in these epistles frequently tie in with the earlier histories of these men as recorded in the gospels and in Acts. For example, Peter refers to his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16-18; Matt. 17:1-5), and Paul to his stoning at Lystra (2 Cor. 11:25; Acts 14:19). Examples of this sort could be added almost without number. Linguistic evidence also is consistent with the traditional authorship. For example, the vocabularies of the Gospel of John, the three epistles of John, and the Revelation are all strikingly similar (note use of "the Word" as a name of Christ — John 1:1; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13).

      In addition to these and other internal evidences, archaeological studies have provided still further confirmation of the New Testament writings and their authenticity. The Book of Acts is especially important in this connection. Dealing as it does with the spread of the gospel in the first 30 years after Christ, it incorporates a large number of references to places, times, customs, and events of the Roman, Greek, and Jewish worlds of that time. If the book were an accumulation of uncertain traditions compiled long after the events, or if its writer, Luke, were merely a careless reporter, there would exist an abundance of opportunity for factual mistakes in the book.

      So far is such from being the case, however, that the greatest of all New Testament archaeologists, Sir William Ramsay, who made the most extensive studies anyone has ever undertaken on the authenticity of these data recorded in Acts, finally said (even though he began his studies as a skeptic), "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense…. In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."[5]

      It might be noted in passing that this same very careful and accurate historian, Luke, was also the author of the gospel that carries the fullest account of Christ's virgin birth and resurrection.

      The other books of the New Testament do not, of course, lend themselves as readily to archaeological investigation as well as does the Book of Acts. Nevertheless, the description of Jerusalem and other cities and regions of Judea and Samaria, references to customs and political situations, and many other such incidental allusions have frequently been confirmed and illustrated by archaeological and historical studies. On the contrary, no statement in the New Testament has to this date been refuted by an unquestioned find of science or history. This in itself is a unique testimony to the amazing accuracy and authenticity of the New Testament records.

      Finally, it is important to note that the New Testament was not written in the classical Greek language as scholars once thought it should have been. Instead, it was written in the common language of that era, the Koine (i.e., "common") Greek, which had been actually forgotten until it was rediscovered by archaeology in modern times.

       Implications of Authenticity of Documents

      Once we establish the fact that the books of the New Testament are authentic historical documents, written by contemporaries and often eyewitnesses of the events they describe, we are then able to examine the events and personages with genuine confidence that we can determine their real nature and significance. We are not dealing with elusive theological or philosophical questions at all, but with matters of fact, determinable by objective investigation.

      Such an investigation is still quite independent of the question whether or not these documents are divinely inspired. Rather, we are concerned at this point whether, as valid historical documents, they describe the person and work of Christ as divine in origin and essence, or rather as truly and only human.

      If indeed He is shown forth in the writings as deity, then a number of options may still be considered. Were the various writers involved in a monstrous plot, with the purpose of establishing themselves as leaders in some new religious or political movement? Or, if not, were they merely under some kind of delusion, thinking that Christ was God when really He was not? If they had been deceived in this way, did Jesus intentionally deceive them? Or was He also deceived, either by His own enthusiasm or by the persuasion of others, that He was God? All of these possibilities can be evaluated by a study of the writings themselves, once they are recognized СКАЧАТЬ