The authenticity of the New Testament. The preceding chapter was only designed to show the need of a revelation from God. In the present we shall present one of the reasons for believing the Bible to be that revelation.
We have found that those who are destitute of God's word and will to man, have ever been, and now are, miserable and wicked. If it were necessary we might commence this chapter by giving the history of those who bow to the authority of the Bible, and show that they are the people who have good clothing, comfortable houses, a market, and grain to take to it. They are the people who have schools, the pupils of which are wiser than the Egyptian priests or Grecian philosophers; that they are the people who step into the "chariots which rage in the streets," and travel from thirty to fifty miles per hour; that they are the ones who live in a land of liberty and improvements.
The fact being perfectly undeniable, that these blessings follow the Bible, and go no where else except where the Bible has been, leads us to ask
why is this? Infidels will not attempt an answer.
The examination of the evidences of Christianity may be lengthy or short, according to the object had in view. If we are only after one or two clear and distinct arguments, these can soon be obtained. The proof of the fulfillment of a single prophecy; the narrative of any miracle, or the history of the resurrection of Christ, is the proof of Christianity. But if our object is not only to satisfy our own minds, but a full view of all those great chains of evidence which draw around Christianity from every quarter, if we would learn that Christianity is not only susceptible of conclusive proof, but how wonderfully its divine Author has hedged it in with proof on every side, we may prepare to go into the labor of research, and expect as a reward the pleasure of knowing why we believe in Christianity, besides the ability to "give an answer" to the skeptic who asks us the reason of our hope.
We do not design to enter the investigation of inspiration, or even the truth of the Bible until we shall have ascertained its origin; for if it is the work of some lying spirit, or a forgery of the second, third, or fourth centuries, we may, as soon as we shall have learned that fact, dismiss any further examination of its contents.
Our motto is one thing at a time, and the New Testament is nearest to us, let us therefore commence with that. We possess a volume under this title, consisting of twenty-seven separate and independent books, reputed to have been written by eight different authors, who were cotemporaries of Jesus Christ, the author of Christianity. Four of these authors have written histories of Jesus Christ and his works, many of which they saw with their own eyes. They have also given the history of the death, burial, and resurrection of this individual, besides the planting of the Christian church, its ordinances, &c.
Is there insurmountable evidence that the several tracts of which the New Testament is composed were written in the first century of the Christian era, by those whose names they bare? We believe there is, infidels deny it; so here we make our first issue.
It is a notorious fact that we have the New Testament now. There is also a general opinion among all Christians, and ever has been, that this book was composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, in the first century. Where did men get this idea? How did they get it? How did the opinion become so general?
It is true that some deny the authenticity of the Bible, but upon what do they base their denial? We can not in justice be required to prove the Bible to be an authentic book. The laboring oar is in the hand of the infidel; the burden of proof rests upon his shoulders. Should the authenticity of the Declaration of Independence be called in question, no believer in its Jeffersonian origin would feel called upon to prove it; they would patiently wait to hear the objector prove his objection. This document has lived long enough to gain a reputation. So with the New Testament. Eighteen hundred years of high reputation are enough to prove its authenticity, until skeptics show what lying monks forged it, or at least prove it to be a forgery. Let the infidel show its spuriousness. Let him show a flawed link in the chain of evidence by which its authenticity is sustained. Let him undertake a work that a Celsus, a Porphyry, or a Julian was afraid to undertake. Let him try to show who made it, and when. Then it will be time for those who "tremble at the word" to show its apostolic origin.
Opposers of Christianity do not pretend to show how, when, or by whom, the New Testament was made. They find it very easy to throw out a suspicion. They know that many will grasp at a supposed objection, who would not take the trouble to investigate the evidences which cluster around Christianity. Mr. Horn says: "Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same
question will be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation, if it can be styled such, the odds must be ever against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question." Letters on Infidelity.
Yes, ours is a laborious task, and men do not like to labor, hence, "the odds must ever be against us." It takes the incendiary but a moment to touch a match to the edifice which cost the mechanic years of hard labor. But we ask no odds of the infidel, as they cannot prove their assertion that "there was no such book as the New Testament, till more than three hundred years after the time that Christ is said to have existed." Age of Reason, p. 136. We will trace it back to the time in which it is said to have been written.
We have a book called the New Testament. Our fathers had it, our grandfathers, and great-grandfathers had it of their fathers, and they of theirs, and they of the century preceding that, and thus we trace the stream up to its source.
We claim no peculiar process of argumentation; we ask for no favors. The New Testament shall be submitted to the closest scrutiny. We prove its authenticity just as we would that of any other work of antiquity. What would prove it? Would the fact that it has been received by all Christians of all ages be admitted as proof? We have it. Would the testimony of those who are neutral prove it? It shall be presented. Would the testimony of apostates, heretics, and all the early opposers of Christianity be sufficient? Nothing more can be required. These embrace all the proofs that human reason can grasp, yea, more than can be presented to prove the authenticity of any other ancient work except the New Testament, yet they all testify in its behalf.
A person would be suspected of mental derangement who would question the authenticity of the Poems of Virgil, the Annals of Tacitus, Orations of Cicero, or Milton's Paradise Lost; yet we have not half the proof of the authenticity of either of the above-named works that we have of that of the New Testament.
The following reasons compel us to believe that John Milton wrote the poem bearing his name. 1. The title page ascribes it to him. This, in the absence of counter testimony, is proof enough. 2. It has been received by our fathers of their fathers, as his. 3. Cotemporary writers ascribe it to him. 4. Writers of every succeeding age quote it, and refer to it as his work, and 5. Its spirit and style display the distinctive features of Milton's mind and character. All of these evidences can be brought in favor of the apostolic origin of the New Testament
PROPOSITION 1. The New Testament is quoted or alluded to by an unbroken chain of writers, extending from the present time to the first century.
As before remarked, the present existence of the Bible is a great fact. It begun to exist somewhere. Infidels are not agreed as to where. One fact however is admitted by all, and that is, that it was bound in one volume and in general circulation as early as the fourth century. We have found Paine denying the existence of the New Testament prior to this time. But in another place he says: "The first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as upon those of the Old, is, are they genuine. Were they written by the person to whom they are ascribed? for it is upon this ground only that the strange things related therein have been credited. Upon this point there is no direct proof either for or against." Age of Reason, p. 125. If there is no direct proof as to when or by whom the New Testament was made, why does he accuse those who do not know that it was made27"more than
three hundred years after the time of the Saviour is said to have existed," of not being acquainted with history? Age of Reason, p. 136. If Mr. Paine had the history of the making of the New Testament "more than the three hundred years this side of the Saviour," why did he not give it? His "Age of Reason" certainly should have contained the historical facts, with reference to where they could be found. He would have immortalized his book by publishing those facts in it; at least, his book would have been something more than a summing up of old antiquated objections against the Bible.
Some affirm that the Bible was made by the Laodicean council, in the year A. D. 364, others that it was made by the Nicene council in A. D. 325. But they might as well affirm that it was made by the council of Trent, the Westminster assembly, the American Bible Society, or Methodist conference, either of which had just as much to do with Bible-making, as either of the others.
The council of Laodicea did what others had done before them. As many apocryphal gospels and epistles were in circulation, it investigated the merits of all the books claiming apostolic parentage, and ascertained which were authentic and which were not. Having ascertained that the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written by their reputed authors, and that the others were counterfeit, they published a list of those of undoubted authenticity, for the benefit of those who had not the means of examining the claims of each book as they had. From that time forward these books were all bound in one volume. Prior to this the four Gospels were bound in one volume, and called "The Gospel." The Acts of the Apostles and part of the epistles were bound in another volume, and called "The Apostle." The other epistles and the book of Revelation were sometimes bound in another volume, as a second volume of apostolical writings.
Is it not strange that a conference of learned ministers should assemble to discuss the merits of books which had no existence? The very fact of the convening of this conference is a strong proof that these books existed, and were prized so highly that there were counterfeits on them. So it appears that the apostolic books were in existence and of sufficient notoriety to have so many spurious books in circulation upon their credit, that it was necessary for the emperor to call a council of learned men, to investigate the claims of all, and publish a list of the true apostolical books in order to secure the world against forgery, as early as the year 364.
The Nicene council, was a conference of ministers assembled to settle sundry questions concerning the divinity of Christ. But why meet to settle their points of difference on this question if a Bible must be made first? The fact is, they believed (whether true or false we will not now stop to inquire) that a teacher had been sent from God, and had appeared in Palestine some three hundred years before that, and had wrought miracles, such as opening the eyes of the blind, unstopping the ears of the deaf, cleansing the lepers, casting out devils, and raising the dead. That this wonderful Being had been put to death as a malefactor, that he was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven. Now the question is, Who is this? Is he just a good man? Is he an angel, the Son of God, or the eternal Father? This conference assembled to decide this question. In this council are learned ministers on all sides of this great question, and throughout the entire discussion, appeal is made to the apostolic writings as being well known, and of unquestioned authority. For historical facts upon this point, see Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. IV.
I apprehend that at this gathering were venerable sires, whose hair had been whitened with the frosts of four score winters; if these gospels or epistles were something "new under the sun," would they not have been as likely, at least, to know it as our modern infidels? Yet not one of them exposes the novelty of the books, to whose authority they are bowing, nor do they even suggest such a thing. Then these writings were of ancient date at the assembling of the council of Nice in A. D. 325.
Now let us step back another step. Prior to the assembling of this council, catalogues of the books of the New Testament were made, agreeing with ours. Archibald Alexander says, "Catalogues of these books which are still extant, were made out by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Philastrius, Jerome, Rufin, Augustin, and by the ancient author who goes under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. To these may be added the catalogues prepared by two councils: that of Laodicea, and that of Carthage. The catalogue found in the book entitled 'Apostolical Constitutions,' and ascribed to Clement of Rome, and the catalogue of the council of Nice, are not referred to as testimony, because we are of the opinion that neither of these are genuine. But we have no need of additional evidence. We have here thirteen catalogues of the books of the New Testament, all of which were prepared by men the most distinguished, and who had bestowed great attention on this subject. Out of these thirteen, seven (or a majority of the whole) agree perfectly with our canon; and several others differ only by the omission of the book of Revelation, because it was not read in the churches, and had fallen into some discredit on account of the use made of it by the Millenarians. Alexander's Evidences, pp. 272-3.
Not only were catalogues made, but these books were quoted in the first, second, and third centuries, insomuch that if the New Testament were lost, the whole of it, except twenty-six verses, could be gathered from the quotations.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (published about A. D. 315), mentions as belonging to our canon of Scripture, all our present books, while he speaks of the epistle of James, the second of Peter, the third of John, and the book of Revelation, as questioned by some, he states that they were generally received, and declares they are not to be doubted. Lardner, Vol. ii, p. 368.
Many testimonies might be added to the above, but these are amply sufficient to show the universal confidence of Christians of the fourth century in the authenticity of the New Testament.
We will now step back another step: this brings us into the third century. Here among other illustrious men, we find the celebrated Origen, who will ever be highly esteemed on account of his able defense of Christianity against the attacks of Celsus. Jerome says of Origen, "He had the Scriptures by heart, and labored day and night in studying and explaining them." Lardner, Vol. i, p. 527. He was born within less than one hundred years of the banishment of St. John to the island of Patmos. "He wrote a three-fold exposition of the books of Scripture, on which he bestowed all his learning. He lived within a hundred years of the death of St. John, and was therefore so near the time of the publication of the books of the New Testament that he could hardly avoid obtaining the most accurate knowledge of their origin and authors. His enumeration of these writings contains no other books than those of our sacred volume, and includes all that we receive, except the epistles of James and Jude, which could not have been omitted by design, as in other places he expressly acknowledges them as part of the sacred canon." M'Ilvaine, p. 69.
From this we proceed to the second century. Here we find Tertullian, of the city of Carthage. He lived within fifty years of the last of the apostles, and was a vigorous writer in defense of Christianity. His work abounds in quotations and long extracts from the books of the New Testament. It is said that "his quotations occupy nearly thirty folio pages." Lardner says: "There are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author, than of all the works of Cicero, in the writers of all characters for several ages." Vol. i, p. 435. Irenæus and Clement both lived in this century. They often quote from the apostolic writings; but my limits forbid my giving quotations from these, and others of this century. For an extended notice of this subject, see Alexander's Evidences, pp. 266-277.
Tertullian says in his Apology to the Roman Presidents: "Look into the words of God, our Scriptures, which we ourselves do not conceal, and many accidents bring into the way of those who are not of our religion." Does not this appeal to the heathen rulers to read "the words of God," show that it was in circulation at that time? In the time of Tertullian it is believed that the original manuscripts were still in existence. He says: "Well if you be willing to exercise your curiosity profitably in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their truly authentic letters are recited, sounding forth the voice and representing the countenance of each one of them. Is Achaia near you? you have Corinth. If you are not from Macedonia, you have Philippi; you have Thessalonica. If you can visit Asia, you have Ephesus; and if you are near Italy, you have Rome, from whence also you may be easily satisfied." De Præscriptione, cxxxvi, p. 245. Alexander says: "If Tertullian did not mean that the original manuscript, but only authentic copies of the epistle to the Corinthians, Philippians, etc., were to be seen by application, why send inquirers thither? Could an authentic copy of the epistle to the Philippians be seen nowhere but at Philippi? or of that to the Corinthians nowhere but at Corinth?" Alexander on the Canon, p. 143.
One step further back and we are in the generation immediately succeeding the apostles. Here we find Justin Martyr, born ten years before John was banished. "After becoming a Christian, he occupied a high stand in learned writing, and holy living. His remaining works contain numerous quotations from, as well as allusions to, the four gospels, which he uniformly represents as containing 'the genuine and authentic accounts of Jesus Christ and of his doctrine.' The same is true in relation to the Acts of the Apostles, and the greater part of the epistles. The book of Revelation is expressly said by Justin, to have been written by 'John, one of the apostles of Christ.' Having lived before the death of that apostle, he had the best opportunity of knowing." M'Ilvaine, p. 72. Lardner, Vol. i, p. 336. One of John's hearers, Papias, says: "If at any time I met with one who had conversed with the elders, I inquired after the sayings of the elders; what Andrew, or what Peter said; or what Philip, or Thomas, or James had said; what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord were wont to say." Lardner, Vol. i, p. 337.
We have now reached the apostolic age, but we may still ascend further. We have the testimony of five contemporaries of the apostles, who are called apostolic fathers. Three of these are named and often referred to in the New Testament. Acts xiii, 2, 3, 46, 47; 1 Cor. ix, 4–6; Phil. iv, 3. "There is scarcely a book in the New Testament, which one or another of these writers have not quoted or alluded to. Though what is extant of their works is very little, it contains more than two hundred and twenty quotations or allusions to the sacred volume, in which they are uniformly treated with the reverence belonging to inspired books, and entitled 'The Sacred Scriptures,' or the 'Oracles of the Lord.'"
Here by one line of evidence we have reached the apostles. Our evidence has been collected from only a few out of many witnesses. It is taken from writers of different ages and countries. The argument is now reduced to this:
1. The apostles are known to have left some writings.
2. No one pretends that these writings were lost.
3. No one pretends that any other volume besides the New Testament, contains them.
4. Therefore the books of the New Testament contain the authentic writings of the apostles.
Allow us to think that our evidence under this head is complete. Should one tenth of the28evidence be required to prove the authenticity of any other ancient book, it could not abide the trial.