Credibility of the New Testament—In our investigation thus far, we have learned that the New Testament is an authentic book; also that it has preserved its integrity; but we do not claim that this alone, establishes its truth. All we ask of our readers is to let us proceed in our investigation, upon the ground that the New Testament was written in the apostolic age, and by the authors to whom it is ascribed. We now proceed to an examination of its credibility.
A book may be written by its reputed author, and descend to future generations unchanged, and yet not be worthy of credit. This is not often the case, but there is a possibility of its being so in this case. Let us see how the matter stands.
Does the New Testament contain a true history of the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the subsequent life and ministry of his immediate disciples, so that we may receive as historically correct whatever is related therein? Lest this question should be misapprehended by some, we will observe that it is not the inspiration of the New Testament that we now design to prove, nor do we design to prove that the apostles were holy men. All that we design to prove in this chapter is to prove that the facts related in the New Testament are true, as matters of fact, in the same sense that the facts related in the history of the revolutionary war, or the lives of general Washington or Marion, are true—that the New Testament is true as a book of facts, independent of inferences or doctrines which may be deduced therefrom.
We prove the credibility of the New Testament just as we do that of any other book. The fact that this book relates the actions of a holy Jesus and his apostles, and other ancient books relate the actions of wicked men, does not change the nature of the evidence in this case, from what it would be in others.
We have proved that the books of which the New Testament is comprised, were written in the first century of the Christian era, by the original disciples of Christ. This should be considered as strong presumptive evidence that the main events recorded in them are true. The proof of the authenticity of a book should always be taken as an evidence of its truth, unless it professes to be a romance.
Suppose that a number of the friends of Napoleonic Buonaparte—members of his staff—had written each of them a book professing to be a biography of that man, and had vouched in every way for the truth of their statements, had periled their reputation upon the accuracy of what they had written, and that, in the midst of a generation familiar with the life and actions of that man. Now suppose that all of these books agree precisely in their statements, would it not be reasonably inferred, that in point of historical facts, these books are correct?
Would not any sane man know that his works, if not true, could not escape detection? The fact of these books being published in the midst of the generation and nation where Buonaparte lived, and circulated among those who were acquainted with his history, that, notwithstanding their notoriety, they were not detected and refuted when first published, that the authors expected these books to be received as correct biographies of this great general, is a sufficient warrant for the accuracy of the general features of these books, though in some of the minute details they may be mistaken.
Such a thing cannot be produced as a series of books written in the age when their principal events are said to have occurred, and circulated among the people, who are said to be familiar with the facts they record, their authors defending the truth of their statements to the last, and finally sealing their testimony with their blood, and yet their principal narrations being untrue.
Even though men were destitute of honesty, they have too much common sense to attempt such a thing; especially when there can be no possible worldly gain in the adventure.
But this remark is especially applicable to the books of the New Testament. They were published in the age in which the principal events narrated are said to have occurred, and among the people where they are said to have occurred. Not only so, but the people where the New Testament was first circulated, were wide awake and anxious to take advantage of the smallest misstatement which their acquaintance with the facts which it records would enable them at a glance to do. With these facts the authors of the New Testament must have been acquainted. They must have known that their adversaries possessed an advantage which nothing but truth could overcome. Hence, whether they were honest or not, their statements must have been true, as nothing could have stopped the mouths of their enemies but the knowledge of the facts related.
Again, when we take up the book concerning which we make our present inquiry, we find it teaching a pure system of morals, one particular of which was, "Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds." Col. iii, 9. This book also informs us that "all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev. xxi, 8. Now the question is, Can we credit the testimony of those who said, "Lie not?" or are they themselves such notorious liars that they lied publicly and repeatedly? That it was the continual business of their lives to lie? and that they died with a lie in their mouths when they, for the word of their testimony, were put to death?
"O," says the objector, "we think that the witnesses were honest, but they, being naturally superstitious, were so deluded that they were incapable of bearing witness to the truth."
The superstition of the witnesses is not now under investigation. The whole question is therefore reduced to two propositions: 1. Were the witnesses competent? and, 2. Were they honest? In proof or disproof of these, lies the proof or disproof of the truth of the New Testament.
If the writers of the New Testament had sufficient opportunity to become acquainted with the facts which they relate, they are certainly competent witnesses. We do not think it necessary to bring a great array of facts upon this point. Some of the writers of the New Testament were eye-witnesses of the facts which they relate. Luke i, 2; 1 John i, 1-4. Others had a perfect understanding of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. Luke i, 3; Acts i, 1. It does not require a great amount of knowledge to be able to write the gospel history. It is contained in a small space. Thirty pages of a common family Bible contains the whole of what either of the evangelists have written, and there are no perplexed questions in these writings. They are simply a plain, straightforward history of events as they transpired, without any painting, gilding, notes of explanation, or criticisms. Now when we consider that Matthew and John were both companions of Jesus Christ, that they accompanied him in all his journeyings, and sat at his feet to receive instruction from him in his retired moments, we must conclude that they were competent witnesses. Consider also that the book of Mark was revised and corrected by Peter, another eye-witness of his majesty [2 Pet. i, 16]; that Luke's narrative was written under the supervision of the apostle Paul who had also seen Christ [1 Cor. ix, 1]; and that Mark and Luke harmonize with Matthew and John, the latter of which was not written until after the books of Mark and Luke were in circulation, and we must conclude that in no other series of events recorded in ancient history have we such ample security against fraud and deception.
In addition to the four systematic memoirs of Christ to which we have referred, we have a collection of letters written by four others, in which the events of these memoirs are continually referred to. These eight persons, scattered over a wide extent of territory, give us their separate and independent statement of things which they deemed worthy of record, in the life of Christ, and the sayings and doings of many of his friends and enemies.
These witnesses being scattered and persecuted as they were, could not possibly confederate together, or copy their statements from each other, without detection and immediate exposure. Yet when their books were brought together and compared, their agreement is such that every one must conclude that they are all competent witnesses. A crooked stick will not tally with a straight one—so in this case, if either of these writers are incompetent to bear witness to the truth, a discrepancy between what he and others have said will manifest itself. While if none of the writers are capable of telling the truth, we shall not expect harmony in any of them. But that there is a perfect harmony, yes, an undesigned co-incidence, we will now prove.
Does Matthew say that Jesus took Peter, James, and John up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them? Matt. xvii, 2, 3. Mark and Luke in their own appropriate language record the same fact. Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 22. And Peter testifies that we were eye-witnesses of his majesty, that we saw the bright cloud and heard the voice when we were "with him in the holy mount." 2 Pet. i, 15-18. If Matthew has made a mistake here, and recorded something that never occurred, how does it happen that Mark and Luke have fallen into the same dilemma?67and if it were possible for these three writers to make a mistake upon this point, why make the same mistake? But the co-incidence becomes stronger than ever when Peter, writing from Babylon to his brethren scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, refers to the same event, which never occurred, and gives it as an evidence that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables."
Take another case. The four evangelists are very precise in recording the last supper that the Lord ate with his disciples, and three of them very distinctly record the partaking of the bread and wine, and the language of their Master concerning it. Also their Master's betrayal the same night. In this they agree precisely. Now if they did not know this to be a fact, it was a strange co-incidence. But it becomes as strange and incredible a miracle as any recorded in the Bible, when the fifth one fabricates the same story, and publishes it to the world, as infidels must claim that Paul did when he said, "For I have received of the Lord (not from the evangelists) that which I also delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi, 23-26. If the writers of the above knew it to be a fact, they are competent to hear witness to its truth. But if they did not know it, we ask how they all happened to record it?
The agreement among the Evangelists, or between them and the Epistles, is no greater than that of the Acts of the apostles with the records of the Evangelists or the Epistles. Do the Evangelists say that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ [Matt. iii, 16; Luke iii, 22; Jno. i, 32]; that he went about doing good and healing the sick [Matt. iv, 23; Mark i, 21, 39]; that he was hanged on a cross and slain [Matt. xxvii, 32, 40, 50]; that he was raised the third day [Matt. xxii, 63; xxviii, 6]; and that the apostles were witnesses of these things? Luke xxiv, 48. The same truths are delineated by Peter at the house of Cornelius, and recorded in full by Luke in Acts xi, 38-41.
Now if the reader will turn to Acts xvi, 21-40, he will find that Luke records that Paul and Silas were beaten and put into prison at Philippi, and their feet made fast in the stocks, and that notwithstanding this, Paul manfully defended his citizenship, and made the proud rulers humble themselves and apologize for their conduct. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians, a neighboring church, refers to their knowledge of the same facts. "For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not off vain; but even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention." 1 Thess. ii, 1, 2.
Hundreds of such co-incidences might be produced, but the above are sufficient to prove that the disciples were familiar with what they recorded, and hence competent witnesses.